Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN COUNCIL 2017-06-23 2016-2018 Hawaiʻi County Council th 16 Session West Hawaiʻi Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaiʻi June 23, 2017 INVOCATION: Seminarian Vincent Vu of St. Michael’s Catholic Church, gave the morning’s invocation. CALL TO The regular meeting of the Hawaiʻi County Council was called to order at ORDER: 9:05 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Karen Eoff, Acting Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Chair Ms. Karen Eoff, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros 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 The Acting Chair directed the Council to the next order of business, Pledge ALLEGIANCE: of Allegiance. (At this time, Mr. Richards led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.) PETITIONS, The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, MEMORIALS Petitions, Memorials, Certificates of Merit, and Expressions of Condolence. CERTIFICATES OF MERITS, AND (Note: At this time, Mr. Kanuha and Ms. David, presented Certificate of EXPRESSIONS Merit to the Konawaena Wahine Wildcat Basketball Team.) OFCONDOLENCE: Recess: At 9:29 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 9:33 a.m. Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 (Note: At this time, Mr. Chung, Mr. Kanuha, and Ms. David presented Certificate of Merit to the Konaweana High School Boys Track Team to acknowledge the achievement of becoming the BIIF Track and Field Champions.) Recess: At 9:53 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 10:05 a.m. STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Jon Olson: Bill 42 (Comm. 309); Comm. 107.35; and Res. 212-17, Dr. 2 (Comm. 290); comment. Dave Kisor: Comm. 107.35; and Res. 212-17, Dr. 2 (Comm. 290); comment. Cory Harden: Comm. 107.35, in support. Gary Harrold: Comm. 107.35, in support. Joyce Alberta Folena: Bill 42 (Comm. 309); Comm. 107.35; and Res. 212-17, Dr. 2 (Comm. 290); in support. Gregory T. Smith: Bill 42 (Comm. 309); Comm. 107.35; and Res. 212-17, Dr. 2 (Comm. 290); in support. Abolghassem Abraham Sadegh: Res. 229-17 (Comm. 327), in opposition. APPROVAL The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, OF MINUTES: Approval of Minutes. Page 2 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 Vote on Motion to Ms. O’Hara moved to approve the Minutes of March 8, 2017. Approve Minutes: Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Acting Chair Eoff – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Ruggles – 1. Excused: None. Vote on Motion to Ms. David moved to approve the Minutes of March 22, 2017. Approve Minutes: Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice (Approved) vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Poindexter, Richards, and Acting Chair Eoff – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Ruggles – 1. Excused: None. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 107.35: REPORT OF THE BILL 13, STYROFOAM REDUCTION, AD HOC COMMITTEE From Council Member Eileen O’Hara, dated June 15, 2017. Motion to Close File: Ms. O’Hara moved to close file on Comm. 107.35. Seconded by Mr. Richards. ACTING CHR. EOFF: At this time we are not going to discuss this report, but we can discuss the process briefly if Ms. O’Hara has a comment. MS. O’HARA: Yes. Discussion on this report and the most recent draft of Bill 13 would hopefully be on the agenda of our next Council meeting July 7. You are all welcome to read the report, it’s not that long. The committee met a couple times in person, and exchanged some information by email, which included the recent limited polystyrene bans that have been passed by a number of Cities and Counties across the U.S., as well as the background information that led to Maui’s recent passage of a limited polystyrene ban. With that we added a definition that seemed to be missing from the bill, and other things. Page 3 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 ACTING CHR. EOFF: Ms. O’Hara. Yeah, don’t want to do too much discussion on the report. MS. O’HARA: It’s coming back to the Council. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Right, our rules require that we just put it on this agenda, and then we will entertain a motion to postpone it until the next Council meeting. MS. O’HARA: Exactly, and all that information is in the report, so we can’t further discuss it at this time. But we will when it is agendized in the future. Thank you. ACTING CHR. EOFF: So unless someone has a question about this process, I’ll go ahead and ask for a motion to postpone. Vote on Motion to Ms. O’Hara moved to postpone Comm. 107.35 to July 7, Postpone: 2017. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the (Approved) 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. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Order of RESOLUTIONS: Resolutions. Res. 212-17 AUTHORIZES AN INCREASE OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I FUEL TAX (Draft 2): Increases the fuel tax, currently at 8.8 cents per gallon, as follows: a) Fiscal Year 2017-2018, 6.2 cents per gallon, bringing it to 15 cents per gallon; b) Fiscal Year 2018-2019, 4 cents per gallon, bringing it to 19 cents per gallon; and c) Fiscal Year 2019-2020, 4 cents per gallon, bringing it to 23 cents per gallon. Fuel taxes may be used to support the safe and efficient operation of County roads, mass transit, and highway infrastructure. Reference: Comm. 290.5 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Waived: FC Public Hearing: May 31 and June 22, 2017 Held Over Pursuant June 7, 2017 to Council Rule 24(e) Page 4 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. David, seconded by Mr. Kanuha, to approve Resolution 212-17, as amended.) ACTING CHR. EOFF: We have the Deputy Finance Director Ms. Sako, and I will open it up for discussion. Well I’ll just make an announcement for the public, we did have a public hearing last night and we had about half a dozen testifiers. Ms. O’Hara. MS. O’HARA: Just to recap on this, we have the Draft 2 in front of us, which is an amendment that I submitted. In addition to a more gradual increase in the fuel tax than what was proposed by the Mayor, it also adds to what I would refer to as something of a transparency, accountability clause, where the Administration is being requested to come forward with specific information to the Council, before we consider future increases. So that kind of describes Draft 2 that we’re currently considering. Thank you. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Any other comments Council Members? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Concerning the fuel tax, and we went through all the budget hearings, we’re not going to rehash those. My concern was we went through all of those efforts to balance the budget knowing that this was coming forth, and we discussed this previously. It was backwards. The constituency in my district spoke very loudly about being cautious, and being very fiscally responsible. So I have a problem about with raising this tax, now that we already have a balanced budget that’s substantially higher. And I’m not going to go through all the iterations, but we have a year ahead of us that we’re going to be dealing with our tax structure. And I think we can take a break on this, so I won’t be supporting this. Thank you. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Any other comments? Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Yes, actually I do have a question for Deputy Director Sako. (Note: At this time, Deputy Director of Finance Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Council.) MS. SAKO: Good morning. MS. DAVID: In light of what Council Member Richards just said, we can bring forth a resolution to raise fuel taxes at any point in time? It isn’t tied to the budget, right? MS. SAKO: Deanna Sako, Deputy Director of Finance. This one is not specifically tied to the budget, but the purpose of the fuel tax is for the highway fund. And that’s what does the roads and the transportation, and that fund has been suffering from revenue declines for quite a while now. So we’re trying to Page 5 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 restore the funds so that we continue to do the paving and different things that we need to do in that fund. So one of the problems is that we haven’t really got a commitment from the State yet as to we know it won’t be for the whole fiscal stst year, but we’re not sure if it would be like October 1 or January 1. So as soon as they commit to when they’ll be able to put it into place, then we’ll come back in with the budget amendment. MS. DAVID: I see. But your opinion with regards to this potential increase is that it is necessary for those things you’ve mentioned? MS SAKO: Yeah. I mean, you know, the transit system needs definitely some help. We had to move some of those cost to the general fund. In addition you know, we’ve had to cut like the roads formally known as roads in limbo. Our new county roads, or whatever the right title is right now. And so we do want to restore some of that funding, as well as, you know, this fund also has to do with pay raises and fringe benefit increases that the entire county is having to deal with. MS. DAVID: Right, because I understand that salary and wages comes out of that fund. MS. SAKO: Right, this one pays for all of the highways, traffic. MS. DAVID: Okay, great. Thank you very much. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Any other comments? Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I have to thank you for the explanation Ms. Sako, and I also agree with Council Member Richards. I feel like we’ve worked out a lot, and I also just want to start the discussion on this idea, that increasing the cost of gas is good for the environment. And we’ve had a lot of testifiers point this out till the end. I don’t know if this is a justification for what you all are thinking as well, but there’s some very big assumptions that this logic is based on, and I just wanted to point out. So the first one is that increasing the cost of gas will cause people to drive less, which is good for the environment. This is based on the assumption that people drive unnecessarily because gas is cheap, and that driving is somehow a luxury. And there are a lot of reasons people drive out there when it’s absolutely necessary for survival, for example going to community events, or to visit a family member. Gas cost may not be the only driving factor, and this is based on the public policy that we want people to drive only when it’s absolutely necessary. And if this is the policy then we would be directly discouraging participation in activities that are needed other than for survival. Things like family gatherings, community events, entertainment, patronizing local service Page 6 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 providers. This is also based on public policy that we want people to use alternatives to gas, and that this is sort of an incentive that we’re doing. But we don’t have those alternatives yet, and those alternatives are not available. And this is also based on the assumption that people are driving unnecessarily somehow, like there’s this joyriding going on, which I think that maybe that happened in the 60’s, but people don’t do that anymore. It’s not a trend. And the second assumption is that increasing the cost of gas will cause people to purchase electric cars, which is good for the environment. And that people can actually afford to purchase electric cars, and there’s no evidence for this. And this is also based on the assumption that people actually don’t care about the environment, and increasing the cost of gas will make them purchase the electric cars. Because they somehow have an equal opportunity to purchase electric, and they’re just choosing gas over electric. The market does not provide this equal opportunity. And the second thing is that people can actually afford an electric car, it’s not comparable to a gas car, especially in Puna. The third assumption is that we should increase the cost on things that are bad for the environment, therefore increasing cost on gas is good for the environment. Increasing the cost will cause less use and impact on the environment; however, if we use this logic then we are establishing public policy that we should increase the cost for anything that’s actually bad for the environment. That would include plastic, paint, anything that cannot be recycled, like styrofoam, cleaning agents, anything that’s generally bad for the environment should cost more to discourage use and environmental impact. As a governing body we should look out for the best interest, the long term interest of our island, and guide this policy. So how far do we go in drawing the line between what is necessary and unnecessary, for quality of life without providing alternatives? In this case alternatives, they’re using gas transportation, which currently is not available for the public. So it’s a very big assumption that increasing cost of gas is good for the environment, and many of these assumptions are just simply not logical. It’s my personal belief that increasing cost of gas hurts residents, because taking people’s money hurts people, because they’ll have less money to spend on goods other than gas. This affects retired fixed income rural living residents. It’s unfair for those who cannot afford to drive an electric car and it’s punishing to those who have to drive more for work. And this is the working class, the working people of this island. A lot of people drive because there is no alternative, we don’t have bike lanes, we don’t have a good public transportation system. And it’s deficient to be weaning people off of gas at this time. And increasing tax on gas increases tax on everything requiring transportation food, shelter, clothes, quadruple time. Off the barge to the store, from the consumer’s home to the store, from the store to the consumers home, and then from the consumers home to transfer station at least, we’re taxing it four times. Everything that requires transportation, and this doesn’t include goods that need Page 7 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 to be processed on the island further. Which means we’ll be impacting local goods more than imported. Quadrupling this taxation will hurt business, and it also contributes to inflation, which is a very serious impact. And what about those who use gas for generators, or weed wackers anything that uses gas? Why make them contribute to a fund meant to offset the impact on something that has nothing to do with the actual use. There’s a lot of industries that are reliant on gas. We have a whole arborist industry here that is booming. Lastly we are already paying the highest cost of gas in the country, and our gas tax is also at the upper end. We’re the third highest in the U.S., so we’re already paying a very high cost of gas. So I understand the need to increase funding for mass transit and county road— ACTING CHR. EOFF: Ms. Ruggles, can you summarize your five minutes are up. MS. RUGGLES: Putting the burden on those who drive is not an appropriate way to accomplish this. I think we can look at other tax scenarios that are more responsible and not put the burden on our already struggling population. Thank you. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you, I can come back to you on the second round. Any other comments on this first round? Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, the last time we spoke on this issue, I mentioned how I was actually in favor of the Mayor’s proposal. And of course different amendments came up, which lessened the burden on the consumers, the people who drive in the short term. You know, I had a discussion with a constituent who brought up some interesting points, and it gave me pause. I’m not saying I’m going to be voting against this thing today, but I just wanted to share my thoughts on this. The framework for our bill was advanced by Mayor Kim, and as we all know it provided for incremental increases over three years. And we all worked within the context of that framework, so the amendment of course lessening the blow on the short term still had incremental increases. But this person in his own common sense way said, “Well, why do you have to have these increases?” We’re starting from the lowest rate in the State, which really was irresponsible on our part. And now we’re working our way to the highest rate in the State. We shouldn’t be proud of that. And no one has really explained to me why, even if we are a large island, we should be entitled to the highest rate in the State. I think what he tried to impress on me was that perhaps what we should do is get an increased rate, I’m all in favor of that, but after maybe six months or so have the Administration come back and explain what they’ve done with the money and what they can do now with the additional Page 8 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 money, instead of just giving it to them automatically over the next three years. And that’s what it is right? We’re looking at increments, am I misunderstanding the bill? This is incremental increases over three years, right? Right. So in other words why should the Administration be entitled to, and I’m not putting down the Administration, why should the county be entitled to these automatic increases even if we’re behind? So I was just kind of thinking about it, and it really made sense. I still don’t know what I’m going to do in terms of voting for this, I have three options. One is to vote no, one is to continue voting yes, and the other one is, heaven forbid, try to amend this thing, which would necessitate. “What’s this?” Right? But it’s still a condition on some things, but it provides for this incremental automatic increase. Well we may have differences of opinion here, okay, because if they do submit these things then it increases, right. But we’ll let Ms. O’Hara explain her position, but that’s just, you know, my thoughts. I haven’t decided what I’m going to do. My personal feeling is we need the fuel tax increase, because it’s going to help us with mass transit and other matters. The concept, I’m okay, with it. I’m just kind of grappling with different issues, thank you. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Anybody else on the first round? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. You know, like Mr. Richards, I didn’t like the way we did our real property tax in front of this fuel tax. But now that we’re here, my optics on this is, this begins to set up framework for us going forward as far as what type of revenues can be generated from this fuel tax increase. And then really begin to put a lot of urgency behind real property tax reform, because we have the corner stone of the projected revenues from fuel tax that we didn’t have this last budget cycle. Understanding that those projections will be in place, it is my goal to then take stress off of the general fund that is currently supplementing the mass transit fund. And my last glance at that was $7,000,000 that the general fund is supplementing, that could be replaced with this fuel tax. Knowing that, this next budget cycle we have a huge opportunity to reduce our real property tax rates, because we’re not going be supplementing that agency as much. I’ve been often told that you cannot un-ring the bell, so I have to look ahead. I am reluctant to support this, because I just don’t like the way it unfolded. But knowing that this sets a pattern and a trend for us going forward, there will be no excuse. No excuse from the administration to take a serious look at real property tax reform, because we’re going know how much money we’re getting. And it helps the working class with mass transit, it helps the working class with hopefully reducing our residential classifications. I believe this is a way that we turn the needle back the other way. Page 9 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 I’d like to see an opportunity for this Council to continue to hold the administration accountable, that maybe they have to come back and ask again a year from now to ensure that we want this increase to happen. Those are the measurables. Again, you know, we cannot un-ring the bell. We need to figure out a way through, and this is where I stand on that. Going forward I am extremely serious, and I hope Ms. O’Hara really puts forward the action committee on real property tax reform. I cannot wait for something like that to happen, and really get real smart people at the table talking about how we, you know, take care of this entire island from every perspective. I yield at this time, thank you. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, I’ll try not to say everything I said last time, but I know highway fund is suffering. Suffering means less roads being paved, less mass transit being utilized. To me, you know, by having less roads being paved it’s a public safety issue. You know, again I’ll bring this up, public health and safety is our number one priority. You know, to myself by not having this gas tax it absolutely goes against what every resident on this island it would hurt every resident on this island. I’ll just say that because it absolutely would. You know, what would happen if we didn’t have a gas tax, where would we get the funds to provide these services that every single resident on this island needs? So I’m definitely in favor of it, you know, my constituents want better roads paved here in Kona. It was one of the things that when I first came into office everybody was going crazy over, we need more roads, we need safer routes to school for our kids to safely access, you know, the sidewalks to get to school. We need, you know, safe routes for our residents to get to work. This is what everybody wanted, and you know, by having this highway fund suffering all of that suffers. So you know, this might not be the best method here, but as Ms. O’Hara says it shows more transparency within what the Administration showed us earlier. I’m going to stick with this and say that this is all for public safety. You know, this is my mindset about why this is needed. You know, I’m not going to sway away from that, so I’m going to be supporting this. And you know, with this tax you can actually see where the money goes to. We know the roads that are being paved, we know the things that are going to be done. Not only me but the public will see it, so that’s where I’m headed on this, and we’ll see what happens. I’m going to be supporting this as it stands. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Anybody else on the first round? Ms. O’Hara then. MS. O’HARA: Thank you, Chair. I’ve heard a lot of things today, but we’re kind of rehashing some things that we discussed previously, and I just want to say with regard to the amendment that I made, the whereas, all fuel increases proposed in this resolution are conditional to the timely submission of a Page 10 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 comprehensive plan by Public Works in collaboration with the Mayor’s Office. And we state the minimum information needed. If we are at the point next year of establishing the fiscal year budget for 2018-2019, and we don’t have a clear plan, and that’s a financial plan for the development of a mass transit system that truly serves this island. And especially serves my district and all the rural districts, because it’s the rural districts that are most impacted by fuel tax because they travel farther. I won’t be supporting the additional increases, I will put forth legislation to prevent those increases going into play. Because the administration has to show us and be accountable for the additional monies, and provide mass improvements in mass transit. Because right now we don’t have a truly functional system, and our roads do need improvements, we do have County highways that are suffering. And as our Deputy Director of Finance pointed out, as we absorb more of what we have been referring to as roads in limbo, which don’t get a piece of the big pie that we’re creating with this new money, as they are inventoried as county roads, we have more to spread this money over. And some of those roads in limbo, I know many of them exist in the rural districts. I believe Hāmākua has half of the roads in limbo so the more we can inventory these roads and bring them into our highway fund the better off all of our residents will be. So I see a lot of value in moving forward, and working directly with the administration to ensure that the monies are used in a way that’s transparent to the public and with accountability. So that’s what I attempted to do with that amendment. As far as some of the assumptions that I was told that we had made, many of those assumptions are not my assumptions. I did not do this based on the fact that it’s going to force people, or cause people to drive less. It is not a good use of public policy if that were the intention. The intention is to bring the money into the highway fund so we could use it to improve public transport, improve our public roadways, and free up money in our general fund that we might be able to consider for use on maintenance of private roads. This has been done now in two other counties, we can begin to consider that. Now the other thing is, it might encourage people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, not necessarily electric vehicles, I wouldn’t even advise an electric vehicle with the price of electricity on this island. It doesn’t add up. We considered it, there were rebates. You could get Leaf for $13,000. But then when we looked at the monthly cost of operating it. Our utility rates are simply too high to make cost effective. So we’re going to have a hard time pushing electric vehicles here, but more fuel efficient vehicles definitely. And that’s better for the environment all around, so I never predicated on the assumption that I would force people to drive less. I’m trying to get people a mass transit system that they can use more, and we do have some newcomers to the island; we now have Uber and Lyft. Now they’re not that Page 11 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 useable in the rural districts because it requires good cell service. So you can’t necessarily use them out in the middle of Puna, but hopefully those things will improve as well. And I’m all for better cell coverage on this island. So anyhow, we’re working towards a goal and just because we don’t have it in place now, because we don’t have the funds to put it into place doesn’t mean we shouldn’t generate the funds to put it into place. I mean it’s a Catch 22, so I really feel we need to move forward on increasing our fuel tax which it has been static for 30 years. Thank you. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Ms. O’Hara. Anybody else, comments? Okay, I think I had Mr. Richards first. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I think I do need to clarify something here. My intent in speaking in objection to the fuel tax, is not that I don’t support fuel tax. And yes we haven’t raised it for 29 years, and so that is problematic. My concern is how we manage fiscally everything, our fuel tax combined with our real property tax, combined with our TAT (Transient Accommodations Tax). We’ll bring that one back up again. Like I said earlier, I didn’t want to rehash everything but I think we are rehashing everything, so we’re going to have to be a little bit on that. I don’t disagree with what’s been said as far as safety, Mr. Kanuha’s comments on that. I don’t disagree with Ms. O’Hara’s comments concerning building for the infrastructure. I got all that, I agree with that. My concern is, it’s too much too fast. And though I like the intention where you’re going with this amendment as far as putting the transparency there, there’s actually no break on it. As long as it produces information, it goes up. Unless we do more legislation, and that’s the problem with that. And so my concern is it’s too much too fast, given what we’ve already done to real property tax. And the fact that we’re looking at, I guess I can use the term “windfall,” for the county, because we already have the balanced budget. Agreeing with Councilwoman Lee Loy’s comments about building to the future, I think it’s extremely important that we have an overhaul of the real property tax. And talking to them there’s already efforts ongoing in real property tax to get that done, so I think that’s all commendable. Again it comes back to, too much too fast. This is the Big Island and we end up driving a lot because of that. We do have to take care of the roads, and I hear the need and the intent to have better maintained roads. I got all that. The problem is we’re doing that in face of some of our real property tax jumps, and I think we need to be mindful of that. If we were to have a minimal increase every year for 10 years, I’d be very supportive of that. My problem is this is too much too quick, and I’m very mindful of the constituents who have said, you know, enough taxes; enough. So I think we have Page 12 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 a year ahead of us that we need to go to work on this. And again, I commend Council Woman O’Hara’s intent in trying to get her arms around this, and had we throttled back a cent or two on this I could support it. There was another proposed amendment that didn’t go through that I was going to support. But that’s where I’m coming from. It has nothing to do with not supporting the fuel tax, I do. But a moderate increase over a longer period of time is what I was hoping for. With that I yield. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Thank you. Well as she normally does, Ms. O’Hara makes a lot of sense and I understand where she’s coming from. You know, really maybe I was stuck in a certain kind of mode in terms of the arrangement that was advanced by the Mayor. And it just came with an unconditional increase, but with her amendment and the conditions that she places in there, you know, there really is a subtle difference between her perspective and mine. Ultimately it comes down to this, if we want to change it or if we don’t. If we want to change it we’re still going to have to come back anyway, and her conditions address my concerns. And then I wanted to incorporate the statements made by Mr. Kanuha. They were very strong. And I had made equally strong statements about how it would be irresponsible for us not to get or give the necessary resources to the administration to get these roads fixed. I mean it’s been a chronic problem in my district, all you’ve got to do is look at Waiānuenue, the downtown roads. And these are—all the conditions of disrepair that those roads are in are really functions of us not having the resources to fix them. So having said that, I’m going to be supporting this. There’s another thing, too. The last thing I would like to do, I’ve always felt that I don’t mind standing the jerk on voting for tax increases. I’ve done it at least several times during my career. And not taking anything away from any colleagues who might be voting for this, because I know and respect all of their reasons for doing it, but if I’m going to benefit from something I’m going to put my name on it. And I’m hoping that my district will get the benefits of that, so I’m going to be supporting this today. Thank you. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. I do agree with a lot of the discussions going on. My district is huge. I have been having about an equal amount of opinions, most of them do not support an increase at all. Because of the sheer distance that people have to travel from South Kona and Kaʻū into Waikoloa to work, they’re going to take a huge hit. I have some problems with the automatic increases in the subsequent years, because that I think is huge when we actually say we’re not only looking at a .19 or .15 cent increase, we’re looking at a .23 cents increase Page 13 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 today, because you’re solidifying the subsequent increases. So some people when they’re reading this, sees it as a .23 cents increase only because of the inclusion. And I wasn’t sure what the idea was between the difference of two cents in the Mayor’s proposal, and the subsequent increases and four cents now. I was preferring to hold it at the original amount or even less. I never put forth my proposed amendment, which was a more minimal one, because I liked what you had proposed. I do agree that my district is very deficient in roads, I have a lot of roads in limbo also. I’m very torn on this because I would support something for this year. And then because of your transparency provision, I would of loved to see, after we increased this term, see how that works. Because like I said, I just see this as a .23 cent piece of legislation increase. I’m really supportive of some kind of increase for this term, because I really feel we did, our constituents took a huge hit. I agree that we’ve got to increase it, I really don’t think—for me, the subsequent increases is what I’m having difficulty with right now. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Ms. David, if you’d like to ask Ms. O’Hara? I’m understanding it a little bit different if that’s locked in stone or not? MS. DAVID: Yeah, and I think that’s what I was going to ask her, is that she had mentioned that if we pass this, and you see what the numbers are and how we’re using the increases, that you would be willing to bring legislation to deal with the subsequent increases. Is that what I was hearing? ACTING CHR. EOFF: Ms. O’Hara, go ahead. MS. O’HARA: Thank you, Chair. Yes, basically it says that the increases proposed in this resolution are conditional upon submission of a comprehensive plan. In that comprehensive plan if I don’t see the impacts, the advantages for the island’s roads, the island’s mass transit, and particularly a positive impact in my district, I will be in advancing legislation to stifle that future increase. So they are not set in stone, if we pass this today we can come back because of that clause, and say “The information you provided us shows us that you didn’t complete the work that you said you were going to complete this year. You’ve given us no clear plan for next year, we’re not giving you any more money until we see that it’s being used accountably.” MS. DAVID: That’s what I wanted to confirm, because that’s what I thought I heard you say. And I just wanted to get that on the record, because that would make a whole lot of sense. MS. O’HARA: And I don’t need to be the only one to bring that forward, any of you can. Page 14 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 MS. DAVID: Yeah, anyone can. Okay, I’ll yield at this time, thank you. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. So I was trying to figure out, because my husband travels from Ōʻōkala to Kohanaiki every day for work. So I’m figuring out how many miles does he travel? It says it’s about 66 miles one way, so you’re looking at 132 miles round trip. Then I look at well what car do we have him driving, he drives my Ford Edge, and according to Ford I get 29 miles a gallon on highway. So then I divided 132 by the 29, so my husband is using about 4.55 gallons of gas per day. So with the increase, if we look at 6.2 cents increase times the amount of gallons of gas he uses is .28 cents per day. I’m willing to invest that for better roads because I too, like Council Member Kanuha and many of us on the Council, have gotten a lot of calls about the roads, and you know, the condition that it’s in. So when we talk about health and safety, we always talk about that as a priority. I don’t mind investing or having my husband invest, it’s coming out of his, .28 cents more per day. Then when I look if it goes up to 15 cents then he’s going to be investing .68 cents more per day. I’d love to have that, because when you travel through Waimea, you know, a lot of calls come from Waimea. Council Member Tim Richards and I share Waimea I have about half of Waimea. And I get a lot of calls about the traffic coming through Waimea, and the conditions on our roads. So I will be supporting this as it is, and you know, letting my husband know he’s investing .28 cents more each day. Thank you. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Any other comments? Ms. Lee Loy. MS LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, to the rest of my colleagues for all of your comments. I think the last piece that’s really missing from this conversation is, what we do going forward. And I just want to remind everybody we have a number of statewide initiatives, as far as energy efficiency and meeting some energy efficiency goals. We’re are looking at more energy efficient cars, and one thing Mr. Brown brought up at our last meeting is how do we plan, knowing that some of these cars will not be using as much fuel at the pump. And I’m putting it out there for the rest of my colleagues that in addition to any edits that we might need to take on for fuel tax, we need to look at weight tax. We maybe need to look at miles driven, in addition to fuel tax. And that’s where I am looking out for us in the future. That’s why I say setting this piece gives us a little bit of more flexibility in our general fund, so we can begin to relive the pressure there. But we’ve got to start looking out for our future goals as an island and as a state, I don’t want this Council to lose sight of that. And Mr. Richards often says we get stuck down in the weeds, we’ve got to lift ourselves up a little bit. And I feel strongly if we have this understanding of what Page 15 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 type of revenues we’ll be generating, we can get more creative with future legislation on other things. And I listen carefully to a lot of our public testimonies. I know of a place I can put up a toll road, and it’s probably going to collect lots of money, I’m just saying. But my point being we can then get very creative with other opportunities out there. Because we’re not stressing out about how we just take care of our basic core services. Like Mr. Kanuha said, public safety, just taking care of our roads. That being said, you know, I’m going to support this. I understand going forward we have opportunities to revisit this at any given time, but maybe as a collective body we should start looking more at a multi-pronged approach not only with our fuel tax, but our weight tax, and meeting some of our energy goals later on. So please, that’s where I want to leave it, I will be supporting this. Thank you so much. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I just want to say, I do appreciate the provisions that Ms. O’Hara put in. The transparency and the conditional provisions I think will really move us in the direction of insuring that we’re being as responsible as we can with these funds. I also wanted to say that regardless of relativity to other place’s taxes, or how long it’s been since the last increase, that this still hurts people. And we are taxing goods quadruple with this tax, and to put the burden on people without giving an alternative, before we have the alternative, it’s still irresponsible. And my district is poor so I cannot support us taxing people in this way. While I understand we need the resources, it is a public safety issue. It’s simply irresponsible to do it on the backs of people who can at least afford it. With the example of .60 cents a day that’s $216 a year, which is a lot for somebody on a fixed income. So I just wanted to say that, thank you. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you. Deanna, can I call you up to the table please? (Note: At this time, Deputy Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Council.) MS. SAKO: Deanna Sako, Deputy Director of Finance. MR. RICHARDS: Thanks, Deanna. Rough numbers, when I looked at—trying to figure out the whole fuel tax, and looking at the revenues which is somewhere around $8 million and some change. MS. SAKO: That was when it was going to .19 cents, so at .15 cents oh, I’m sorry. MR. RICHARDS: I’m not talking increase, I’m talking current level. Page 16 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 MS. SAKO: Oh, current level, yes. MR. RICHARDS: So it’s about little over $8 million. MS. SAKO: About there, yes. MR. RICHARDS: And that translates back to approximately to 95,000,000 gallons of fuel that we collected the last year. What has been our revenue at the 8.8 cents for the last 20-30 years? Has it been pretty consistent or have you seen a change? MS. SAKO: It fluctuates. I mean, during the recession it fluctuated a little bit. But it’s relatively consistent, I mean it hasn’t taken any major increases or decreases at least in the last 10-15 years. You know, now that I’ve spent a little more time looking at it but it definitely fluctuates. It’s not, you know, flat all the time. MR. RICHARDS: Where I’m going with the question line is as Council Woman Lee Loy talked about, miles and weight taxes, which appears to be a—I’ll call it a national trend. We haven’t seen the impact of that as of yet, because we’re consuming the same number of gallons plus/minus? MS. SAKO: Right. We haven’t seen a significant drop off, you know, but at the same time like the miles driven, we talked a little bit about it last time. Where right now we’re only authorized to do fuel tax, we don’t have that authority from the State to do miles driven. But the State is definitely looking at that project, and they’re doing a pilot project on Oahu so that they can kind of get that program in place, because after a big, you know, talk story session, I think they do realize that’s the way of the future. Then it’s fair. Whether you have electric, hybrid, or whatever, it’s the miles you’re driving on the roads that’s having the impact on the roads. And so I think that is the way of the future, we just have to wait for the State to kind of give us that authorization to do it. But weight tax we can change now, you know, and we look at both, it’s just that lots of times with weight tax it’s a onetime hit for people. And some people have a harder time handling that one time hit, then paying a few dollars a week or month, or you know, however often you fill up. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you. And again, I don’t disagree with the fuel taxes needed, it’s just how we’ve gone about doing this. I think as we look to the future, I am mindful of the day to day expense for our constituents. So thank you. I yield. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Any other comments? Deanna, I have a clarification, and I thank Ms. Poindexter for doing the math. Page 17 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 Because I remember when we met, you did tell me at the Mayor’s proposed rate increase people might on average experience about a $4 a month increase. MS. SAKO: Right. It was four to five dollars a month based on 10,000 miles driven per year. And you know, for some of us that works out fine. I mean some people drive way less than that, some people we know drive way more than that. And it all depends where you live in relation to your job, you know, and that’s true for many on the island. ACTING CHR. EOFF: And if Ms. Poindexter’s math was correct, then I think we can use that. Her husband drives father than most. MS. SAKO: Right. ACTING CHR. EOFF: And I’m looking at Ms. O’Hara’s proposal reduces this current increase not quite half, but then $4 or probably $3 could be a good estimate on average that people will see as an increase to their cost of gas. Is that pretty correct? MS. SAKO: I think so for the average person, you know, I don’t know. I probably drive 7,000 or 8,000 miles a year, our other car gets 10,000 miles a year. But you know, we don’t live way out in Puna either, or down in the southern part of the island. So it’s hard to say, but if you were to double that, and people knew they drove 20,000 miles a year then it would be like in the six or seven dollars a month range. ACTING CHR. EOFF: So even at that, and I know nobody likes to raise taxes, and there is some philosophy behind that. But to me the benefits here really do outweigh this cost, and I think people won’t hurt from an additional $40 a year if we look at the four cents or less a month. And even a little more than that, probably can be absorbed, that’s .28 cents a day for someone who drives from Honokaʻa to Kona if this is the reality. Then I think I can definitely justify supporting this increase, I think that the benefits for having more safe efficient road maintenance far outweigh that cost. I do believe that quality of life matters here a lot to people, and sitting in traffic or not allowing our maintenance of highways to progress is really going to be detrimental as we grow in future. Unfortunately we are growing, this whole island is increasing its population rate. So I would like to encourage us to support this at this time, I feel comforted that even we can have a chance to look at it between now and next year, and even decide whether the increase is going to be necessary or tolerable. So I’m glad that we have this Draft 2 to look at. And I wanted to thank some of the testifiers not only today, but last night who actually supported this tax hike on the fuel tax. I think the people see the benefit and hopefully DPW (Department of Public Page 18 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 Works) will report to us maybe more than you know, once or twice in the new future on how the monies will be used and to what benefits we can— MS. SAKO: Yeah, they already have a good plan put together, so as soon as we get commitment from the State then they can bring forth that, and you know, follow what’s in the resolution. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Okay, well thank you so much. Unless you folks have anything else to add. MS. SAKO: No. You know, I think the Mayor is committed to also restoring. I think they used to have like community meetings in each district, took over some of the roads projects. I think he wants to start that up again as well. So I mean I think the Mayor’s committed to that. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you very much. Council Members if we’re ready, then I’ll go ahead, I guess we’ll do a roll call vote to approve Resolution 212-17, Draft 2, Mr. Clerk. Vote on Res. 212-17: The motion to adopt Res. 212-17, Draft 2, was carried by (Draft 2) the following roll call vote: (Adopted) Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Poindexter, and Acting Chair Eoff – 7. Noes: Council Members Richards, and Ruggles – 2. Absent: None. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, Resolution 214-17 please. Res. 214-17: AWARDS A PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION MAINTENANCE STEWARDSHIP GRANT TO NA MAMO O KĀWĀ Approves a grant of $48,850 to Na Mamo O Kāwā to protect, preserve, and restore the Kāwā properties (Tax Map Keys: 9-5-016:006 and 025; and 9-5-017:005 and 007), pursuant to Section 10-16 of the Hawai‘i County Charter. Reference: Comm. 294 Intr. by: Ms. David Approve: FC-20 Motion to Approve: Ms. David moved to adopt Res. 214-17 and Finance Committee Report No. 20. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. Page 19 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 ACTING CHR. EOFF: Ms. David, go ahead. MS. DAVID: Yes, thank you. I believe we had a whole lengthy discussion about this program, I just ask for your support. Mahalo. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, all in favor please say “aye.” Vote on Res. 214-17: The motion to adopt Res. 214-17 and Finance Committee (Adopted) Report No. 20 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Eoff – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Richards – 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: May I go to Resolution 218-17? Res. 218-17: REQUESTS THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR TO PERFORM A FINANCIAL AND/OR PERFORMANCE AUDIT ON THE CASH HANDLING PROCEDURES OF THE MASS TRANSIT AGENCY IN FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018 Requests the Office of the Legislative Auditor to include in its audit plan for fiscal year 2017-2018 an audit of the Mass Transit Agency’s cash handling system, and that such an audit shall not be initiated until after a permanent administrator for the agency has been employed. Reference: Comm. 300 Intr. by: Ms. Lee Loy Approve: FC-21 Motion to Approve: Ms. Lee Loy moved to adopt Res. 218-17 and Finance Committee Report No. 21. Seconded by Ms. O’Hara. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thank you to the rest of my colleagues for supporting this during our committee meeting, and I continue to ask for your support. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Comments, questions? Seeing none, all in favor say “aye.” Page 20 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 Vote on Res. 218-17: The motion to adopt Res, 218-17 and Finance Committee (Adopted) Report No. 21 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Eoff – 7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Poindexter, and Richards – 2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Resolution 229-17. Res. 229-17: AUTHORIZES THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A MULTI-YEAR HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENT CONTRACT WITH 2020 KINO‘OLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, OWNERS OF THE KINO‘OLE SENIOR RESIDENCES, SELECTED FOR THE SECTION 8 PROJECT-BASED VOUCHER PROGRAM, AS OFFERED THROUGH A PUBLIC NOTICE DATED JULY 10, 17, 24, 2005 Authorizes the Mayor to enter into a new ten-year agreement to continue providing rental assistance for up to 29 eligible participants. Reference: Comm. 327 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Waived: FC Move to Approve: Ms. David moved to adopt Res. 229-17. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Question or comments? MS. DAVID: Yes, I believe this is pretty much self-explanatory. If anyone has questions, I believe Sharon Hirota from Housing might be in our Hilo office. Other than that I ask for your support. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, all in favor please say “aye.” Page 21 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 Vote on Res. 229-17: The motion to adopt Res. 229-17 was carried by the following (Adopted) voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Eoff – 7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Poindexter, and Richards – 2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Ms. Poindexter is excused for the rest of the day, she had to attend another event, and I believe Mr. Richards will be back. Moving to Resolution 230-17. Res. 230-17: AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR AND OF MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR FOR A MULTI-YEAR MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR ONE MULTI-FUNCTION HIGH CAPACITY COPY MACHINE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Authorizes the Mayor to enter into a five-year maintenance agreement for one color copier referenced in Resolution 207-17, which was adopted by Council on May 17, 2017. Reference: Comm. 328 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Waived: FC Motion to Approve: Ms. David moved to adopt Res. 230-17. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Any questions or comments? MS. DAVID: I just ask for your support. ACTING CHR. EOFF: All in favor say “aye.” Page 22 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 Vote on Res. 230-17: The motion to adopt Res. 230-17 was carried by the (Adopted) following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Eoff – 7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Poindexter, and Richards – 2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Resolution 231-17. Res. 231-17: TRANSFERS/APPROPRIATES AN APPROPRIATION OUT AND FROM A DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT AND CREDITS SAME TO A DESIGNATED FUND ACCOUNT TO ASSIST WITH THE INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTS AND SPEED HUMPS IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 5 Transfers $17,200 from the Clerk-Council Services – Contingency Relief account (Council District 5); and credits to the Department of Public Works, Transfer to Capital Project Fund - General account. Reference: Comm. 329 Intr. by: Ms. Ruggles Motion to Approve: Ms. Ruggles moved to adopt Res. 231-17. Seconded by Ms. David. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Any questions? Ms. Ruggles, go ahead. I’m sorry, it was your motion. MS. RUGGLES: This is pretty self-explanatory, I ‘m using the rest of my contingency funds to install some well needed street lights on Kalapana/Kapoho road, and with the leftover I’ll be using that for speed humps on a county road in Kurtistown. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you. Ms. O’Hara. MS. O’HARA: Thank you, Chair. So the speed humps are being installed on a county road? MS. RUGGLES: Correct. MS. O’HARA: And you are providing contingency funds to do so? MS. RUGGLES: Yes, to Public Works. Page 23 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 MS. O’HARA: And you’re aware the county has a speed hump policy? MS. RUGGLES: I am. MS. O’HARA: Okay. I have some concerns about this, because we have lots of requests from districts, in particular mine, about installation of speed humps. Do you have a price per hump? Excuse me, I don’t know how else to say it. How much is it costing per hump? Because if this sets precedence for use of contingency funds. The way the county policy works, and I believe somebody back there might be able to back me up on this. Because we took the county policy at our homeowner’s association, and incorporated it into our bylaws and methods of doing things. And the way the policy works is 75 percent of the people who live along a particular given roadway have to agree to install the speed humps. They then pay for it, they do it per the county guidelines, and then it becomes the county’s improvement. In meaning all future maintenance of said speed hump is undertaken by Public Works, this is my understanding of that policy. And so when we did it, and it was a number of years ago; it was like 2005. I seem to recall that it cost somewhere between $3,000 to $4,000 per hump, but of course it depends on width of your street and other factors. So I’m just curious why and how many speed humps you were going to be putting in, because I have had lots of request from residents for similar assistance. Which this is a public road that’s kind of different, because it does fall under the county policy and not a private road. So I’m just kind of curious what your thinking was in terms of funding this. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Ms. Ruggles, did you want to respond? MS. RUGGLES: Yeah. I mean the policy behind this is, we can use our contingency funds as we believe is best for serving our constituents. Right now we’re looking at two speed humps, and the rest will be for street lights. And I am quite aware of the speed bump requirements to install them by DPW, and the requirements of the residents on that road. Yeah, so this is a well needed piece of infrastructure needed in the district, so that’s why I’m using it. MS. O’HARA: Thank you. And so were those requirements met already? MS. RUGGLES: We’re working on them, but as far as I know the adjacent property owners have said that they are realistic and they can meet the requirements. MS. O’HARA: I’m going to warn you about something, because this is what happened in our subdivision, is people made a commitment but they didn’t pull out there check book. So I just want you to make sure that if they make a Page 24 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 commitment they sign on to the paperwork, and you got that whatever it is the county requires 65-75 percent approval. Because otherwise your project will stall. MS. RUGGLES: Do we have somebody, because I don’t believe you need 75 percent of the land owners to sign on to it. Can we get that as a fact? Deanna, do you know what the requirements are for installing speed humps? MS. SAKO: Deanna Sako, Deputy Director of Finance. Aaron was trying to find out, and was texting the traffic guys. But yes, a certain percentage of the community has to agree, are the people who live on that road and different things. MS. RUGGLES: The people adjacent to the speed hump, the properties. MS. SAKO: Yeah, so we’re trying to find out the exact rules, because I didn’t look that up before we came. MS. RUGGLES: If we need to, I can look it up on my email, I have it. But I don’t believe 75 percent of the owners on the street need to sign it. MS. LEE LOY: Chair? ACTING CHR. EOFF: Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: I just went through this exercise on another road, and the way we did is we sent a notice to 100 percent of the property owners on that road. Sixty-seven percent have to respond, and then the department will then lay out where the speed humps will be located, because ideally it’s done to calm traffic speeds. And so you don’t want them too close together, and then you don’t want them too far apart, because you’re not achieving the goal of the speed humps. And when those areas are identified, the property owners adjacent to the speed hump will then have to agree to where those speed humps are located. So I’m not sure where you are in the process. And you know, Public Works, they’re smart. They’ve got lots of Engineers. Like I said, you don’t want them too close because then the fire truck can’t get over it, and they’ve still got to stop anyway. MS. RUGGLES: Right. And honestly, my Legislative Aid has been working on this, so he would know more. If it’s that big of a concern I could call him. MS. O’HARA: It’s more of a concern for the money not being expended down the road, because you know, the process wasn’t followed properly or something. It’s more like a heads up kind of thing, and I don’t know what we can do with the money once it’s in Public Work’s hands if the process isn’t completed. I don’t really know what your options are, because we’re passing it for specific action, Page 25 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 and if that action fails to take place, I don’t know what happens from that point on. I don’t have the answers to those questions, sorry. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, well I’m sure if that happens we can figure it out. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none, all in favor say “aye.” Vote on Res. 231-17: The motion to adopt Res. 231-17 was carried by the following (Adopted) voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Eoff – 7. Noes: None. Absent: Council Members Poindexter, and Richards – 2. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Going to Bills for Ordinances, First Reading. Mr. Clerk. Bill 38. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Bills for ORDINANCES Ordinances (First Reading). (FIRST READING): Bill 38: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-11 (LĀLĀMILO-PUʻUKAPU ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING) OF THE HAWAIʻI COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL – FIVE ACRES (A-5a) TO FAMILY AGRICULTURAL – TWO ACRES (FA-2a) AT PUʻUKAPU, WAIMEA, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAIʻI, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 6-4-001:152 (Applicant: Peter A. In, M.D.) (Area: approx. 5.001 acres) The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this change of zone, which would allow the applicant to subdivide the property into two parcels to allow each unit owner to have a separate title and tax map key. Reference: Comm. 291 Intr. by: Ms. Eoff Approve: PC-17 Motion to Approve: Mr. Richards moved to pass Bill 38 and on first reading and adopt Planning Committee Report No. 17. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. Page 26 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 ACTING CHR. EOFF: Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, I can speak to this, because this is my district. We spoke on this when it came through committee, it really fits right into the character and the fabric of the community. This is one of the old properties that was CPR (Condominium Property Regime), and this is now just actually subdividing, but it fits right in with the neighbors. And the neighbors have signed off on it, it makes all the sense in the world. So I ask for your support. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you for that. Any other comments? Seeing none, all in favor please say “aye.” Vote on Bill 38: The motion to pass Bill 38 on first reading and adopt Planning (Approved) Committee Report No. 17 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Eoff – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Poindexter – 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Order of the Day Second and Final Reading Bill 32. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Order of THE DAY the Day (Second and Final Reading). (SECOND OR FINAL READING): Bill 32: AUTHORIZES THE MAYOR OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I TO ENTER INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR A STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUND LOAN FOR SOLID WASTE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; AND AUTHORIZES THE ISSUANCE OF $20,000,000 OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE SOUTH HILO SANITARY LANDFILL FINAL CLOSURE PROJECT Funds would be used to satisfy closure requirements of the south Hilo Sanitary Landfill, to be repaid by the County over a 20-year term through the General Obligation Bond issuance. Final design for the closure is anticipated to be complete by the end of 2017. Reference: Comm. 274 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) First Reading: June 7, 2017 Page 27 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 Vote on Bill 32: Ms. David moved to pass Bill 32 on second and final reading. (Adopted) Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Eoff – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Poindexter – 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Bill 39. Bill 39: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 16-72, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2017 Appropriates revenues in the Federal Grants – Department of Public Works (DPW)-Department of Health (DOH) Complete Streets account ($24,500); and appropriates the same to the DPW-DOH Complete Streets - Federal account. Funds would be used to provide training and capacity building for County staff. Reference: Comm. 306 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) First Reading: June 7, 2017 Vote on Bill 39: Ms. David moved to pass Bill 39 on second and final reading. (Adopted) Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Eoff – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Poindexter – 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Bill 40. Page 28 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 Bill 40: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 16-72, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2017 Increases revenues in the State Grants – State Emergency Medical Services (EMS) account ($1,309,036); and appropriates the same to the Fire EMS-Salaries and Wages account. These additional funds are due to collective bargaining increases in Fiscal Year 2016-17. Reference: Comm. 307 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) First Reading: June 7, 2017 Motion to Approve: Ms. David moved to pass Bill 40 on second and final reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. ACTING CHR. EOFF: I see Ms. Sako coming forward. (Note: At this time, Deputy Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Council.) MS. SAKO: Hi, Deanna Sako, Deputy Director of Finance. Actually, we’re very appreciative of the additional money the State is giving us to pay for the salary and wage increases. And my only request is if we could waive the 5-day hold? I wasn’t sure if Fire has contacted you or not. MS. DAVID: Yes, they did. MS. SAKO: Just because it does impact the current fiscal year, which is ending next week. Thank you. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Ms. Sako. All in favor of Bill 40 please say “aye.” Vote on Bill 40: The motion to pass Bill 40 on second and final reading (Adopted) was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Eoff – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Poindexter – 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Yes, I move to waive the 5-day hold over on that. Page 29 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 Vote on Motion to Ms. David moved to suspend Council Rule 15 to waive Suspend Council the 5-day hold for reconsideration. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha Rules: and carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Eoff – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Poindexter – 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Bill 41. Bill 41: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 16-72, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2017 Increases revenues in the Federal Grants – High Intensity (HI) Impact Grant account ($49,418); and appropriates the same to the HI Impact Grant account for a total appropriation of $234,843. Funds would be used to combat the methamphetamine drug problem by conducting sting operations and training officers in the enforcement of these drug related cases. Reference: Comm. 308 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) First Reading: June 7, 2017 Motion to Approve: Ms. David moved to pass Bill 41 on seconded and final reading. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Any comments? Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you for this coming through, because I don’t know if I’ve been seeing, but there is a pretty deep problem with the methamphetamine happening in this county, so hopefully this helps in that issue. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Seeing no further comments all in favor please say “aye.” Page 30 Hawaiʻi County Council-16 June 23, 2017 Vote on Bill 41: The motion to pass Bill 41 on second and final reading (Adopted) was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Eoff – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Poindexter – 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: Bill 42. Bill 42: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 16-72, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2017 Increases revenues in the Transfer from General Fund account ($3,000); and appropriates the same to the Malama O Puna (Bus stops – District 5) account. Funds would be used to build bus stops for the Fern Acres Subdivision. Reference: Comm. 309 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) First Reading: June 7, 2017 Vote on Bill 42: Ms. David moved to pass Bill 42 on second and final reading. (Adopted) Seconded by Ms. Ruggles and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O’Hara, Richards, Ruggles, and Acting Chair Eoff – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Poindexter – 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: I believe that takes us to the end of the agenda. Before we do take a motion to adjourn, I just wanted to thank Ms. Sako for being here today and happy birthday. Now I’d like a motion to adjourn. REPORTS: The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Reports. (There were none.) REFERRALS The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, FOR EXECUTIVE Referrals for Executive Session. SESSION: Page 31 Hawai`i County Council-16 June 23, 2017 (There were none.) OTHER The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Other BUSINESS: Business. (There was none.) ANNOUNCE- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, MENTS: Announcements. (There were none.) ADJOURN- There being no other business, at 11:52 a.m., Mr. Richards moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kanuha and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Council Members Chung, David Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Richards, Ruggles and Acting Chair Eoff— 8 Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Poindexter— 1. Excused: None. ACTING CHR. EOFF: We are adjourned. Thank you, Council Members. Council Approval: AUG 1 6 2017 at COUNT ir LERK SM/rk Page 32