Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN FC 2018/01/03 2016-2018Committee on Finance 25th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii January 3, 2018 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Finance was called to order at ORDER: 11:29 a.m. in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair Ms. Karen Eoff, Vice Chair Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member Absent & Excused: STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Chair David directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. (There were none.) COMMUNI- Chair David directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 7.14: MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED JULY 31, 2017, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated November 20, 2017, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Charter Section 6-6.3(h). Vote on Comm. 7.14: Ms. O'Hara moved to close file on Comm. 7.14. Seconded Filed by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. FC -25 January 3, 2018 Comm. 7.15: MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED AUGUST 31, 2017, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated November 29, 2017, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Charter Section 6-6.3(h). Vote on Comm. 7.15 Filed Ms. O'Hara moved to close file on Comm. 7.15. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David – 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards – 2. Excused: None. Comm. 14.24: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: OCTOBER 16 – 31, 2017 From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated November 15, 2017, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Motion to Close File: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 14.24. Seconded by Ms. Eoff. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? MR. KANUHA: Yes. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe, Dora? It's about the Lono Kona Subdivision Change Order. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Beck, could you please come forward? (Note: At this time, Wastewater Division Chief Dora Beck came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KANUHA: I don't know if it's you or Deanna wants— MS. BECK: Good morning. MR. KANUHA: Good morning. MS. BECK: Dora Beck, Wastewater Division Chief. Page 2 FC -25 January 3, 2018 MR. KANUHA: Hi, Dora. Thank you for being here. Can you explain this change order? I know the purpose is to deter vandalism, upgrade padlocks and keys to secondary gate to Primus Systems. What does that mean? What is a Primus System? MS. BECK: You know what, I can't recall what that change order is. MR. KANUHA: Okay, the project title is the Engineering Design & Project Management for the Proposed Sewer Improvements to the Lono Kona Subdivision; original contract to Belt Collins was for $486,000. This change order is for $29,000, and the purpose is to deter vandalism, upgrade padlocks and keys to secondary gate to Primus Systems. I'm just trying to understand what that is and why the change order was needed because there hasn't been any construction or anything going on yet. MS. BECK: Yeah, no construction has not begun yet. MR. KANUHA: I'm just trying to figure out what the secondary gate to Primus System is. If you want to have some time? MS. BECK: Yeah, I'm going to have tosorry, I'm just like MR. KANUHA: No, I know you're here for something else. MS. BECK: I was here for something else. MR. KANUHA: Yeah, but since you're the Project Manager MS. BECK: Yeah, I know. MR. KANUHA: I just wanted to but that can be for later on in the discussion, Madam Chair? I just want to get more information about what's going on and how come, just background. MS. BECK: Yeah, I'm very sorry. MR. KANUHA: No worry. So, at this point I'll yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Anyone else? Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: I think I understand what's happening here. But just to validate, maybe Deanna could come forward. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 3 FC -25 January 3, 2018 MS. O'HARA: This is the about the design, manufacture, personalize & distribute Notice of Property Assessments. We obviously have a contractor, the Master's Touch, LLC, that does the mailout for us. Is that what I'm reading here? This is the fourth option year out of four. MS. SAKO: Yes. MS. O'HARA: So we had a multi-year contract that was initially set up as a one-year contract. That's what we're seeing as your original contract amount in each additional year. MS. SAKO: Yes, we just add on. This is the fourth one now, which is why it's roughly 400 percent. MS. O'HARA: And why wasn't this done as a multi-year contract, initially? MS. SAKO: We've had issues with different vendors in the past, so we went that option to have to not have to renew it, you know, if they're not doing a good job. Historically that's just the way we've done it, and it seems to work out well for us. MS. O'HARA: Okay, thank you for the explanation. I just wanted to make sure I was reading it right. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Deanna, Happy New Year. MS. SAKO: Happy New Year. MS. LEE LOY: So, I can appreciate that. It actually keeps the flexibility. So if they're not doing a good job, we can get out. MS. SAKO: We can get out and get a vendor who can. Historically it doesn't happen all the time, but sometimes the vendors really can't meet our requirements even though they think they can. MS. LEE LOY: And normally, is it a year-to-year contract or the contract—out? MS. SAKO: We bid it out. We still try to take advantage of multiple years savings, so we bid it out one year with four option years, and normally that also gets us the best price over a long-term agreement. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. Page 4 FC -25 January 3, 2018 MS. SAKO: Because if they do well, they do get it. Then most of the time, we will give them the option year. MS. LEE LOY: Alright, I yield. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. O'HARA: If I could? CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. O'Hara, go ahead. MS. O'HARA: A clarifying question. That was a great explanation as to why to use that type of one-year with four option years. But it's still being exercised in certain contracts, where we have a long-standing relationship with the said vendor, and it doesn't necessarily seem appropriate in those circumstances. So, I'm going to be investigating that further in terms of certain contracts. MS. SAKO: Okay. MS. O'HARA: I can see how it works for something like this. Most service contracts like this makes sense but not for more elaborate contracts. MS. SAKO: Okay. MS. O'HARA: Okay, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Dora, were you going to get the information today? Would it be okay if I made a motion to table? CHR. DAVID: Sure. Vote on Motion to Table: Mr. Kanuha moved to table Comm. 14.24 to the end of the (Approved) agenda. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, please, Communication 14.25. Page 5 FC -25 January 3, 2018 Comm. 14.25: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: NOVEMBER 1 – 15, 2017 From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated November 30, 2017, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Motion to Close File: Ms. O'Hara moved to close file on Comm. 14.25. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako and Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela came forward to address the members of the Council.) CHR. DAVID: Discussion, anyone? Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Well, I do have questions about the second item, Furnishing and Implementing Operations for an Organics Diversion Program. Deanna, are you going to be able to answer those? I don't see Bill Kucharski around. Yeah, we have awfully enough, something we never see. MS. SAKO: I know. MS. O'HARA: I just wondered if you could explain it, if you're able to. Or, is this something we have to wait for Bill? MS. SAKO: Bill can probably explain it better. But they are continuing in negotiations. This is the reduction, as we kind of change the way we're going to build the facility. I think we're going to be building it now. The total cost, why we would see a reduction, we're still going to have the cost to build a facility. It's just that we're kind of hoping to save money in this process. Bill can probably explain all of that better. But I think this is the first of several change orders that will be coming through as they finalize the agreement of the new contract. MS. O'HARA: Okay. Now, you said we will be building the facility? You mean, the County? I thought the contractor was building the facility. MS. SAKO: Yeah, that's the part that got removed here, is that we're taking that part out. But we're overseeing it, the design. I have—so far right yeah, Joe? Joe's been working on this negotiation. MS. O'HARA: Okay. MR. KAMELAMELA: Good morning again. Joseph Kamelamela, Corporation Counsel. I do agree with Deanna that Bill can probably explain it better. Page 6 FC -25 January 3, 2018 This particular change order involves at least two things. Because there's been a reduction in what they're getting paid now, I think it's $78 a ton, so we have experienced some of the changes there. Because of the way that the contract was written, we believed that we could build it less than what was stated in the contract. So we're going through a process of modifying the contract, to put in all of the things they need to in order to build. We're still getting the design from the company. We're also having them help with the project management. They have to test the facility out. This contract, too, there's actually two facilities. One is in East Hawaii. As you know, the East Hawaii facility is going to be moved. But there's the West Hawaii facility, which is more of a receiving facility for certain kind of materials. The cost for that, I don't think it's going to change much. It's more of what's being done here that's being substantially reduced. MS. O'HARA: Okay, my understanding, from that explanation, is we are goingwe, the County, assumes that it can build the composting facility more inexpensively than the contractor? MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, but then it's going out for bidding. MS. O'HARA: And what if a get a surprise on that and it comes out greater? MR. KAMELAMELA: Well, we're going to MS. O'HARA: Which happens quite frequently. MR. KAMELAMELA: Not always but MS. O'HARA: Not always. MR. KAMELAMELA: Because I've been involved with some other construction projects, where we actually had the savings. And I know that DEM (Department of Environmental Management) did something similar for all the smaller projects. But I think Bill is a great engineer and has a good Division Head. MS. O'HARA: I agree with you on the engineering, but having worked with engineers all my life, they always underestimate; that's where I'm concerned. Because while we might perceive that we can do this more inexpensively, once we go down that road and it turns out to be more expensive, we can't go back. MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, I've experienced those kinds of engineers too, I believe so. Anyway, that's kind of like what we're looking at. Are there any other questions? Page 7 FC -25 January 3, 2018 MS. O'HARA: No, but I just want to make sure that this is all in compliance with the contractual terms that we have. MR. KAMELAMELA: Yes. MS. O'HARA: Okay, thank you. MR. KAMELAMELA: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Good morning. MR. KAMELAMELA: Good morning. MS. LEE LOY: So the County is going to build it? MR. KAMELAMELA: Because we're going to bid it out based on the design. We already saw the design, so once we get a location then your thing should get firmed up a lot more. MS. LEE LOY: That'd be great. So we're going to be—and then for building wages would apply? MR. KAMELAMELA: Right. MS. LEE LOY: Perfect. Thank you. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor of filing Communication 14.25 please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 14.25: The motion to close file on Comm. 14.25 was carried by Filed the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David – 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards – 2. Excused: None. Comm. 15.20: REPORT OF FUND TRANSFERS AUTHORIZED: NOVEMBER 1 – 15, 2017 From Controller Kay Oshiro, dated November 21, 2017. Page 8 FC -25 Vote on Comm. 15.20 Filed Comm. 114.3: January 3, 2018 Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 15.20. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. FIRST QUARTER REALLOCATION REPORT: JULY — SEPTEMBER, 2017 From Human Resources Acting Director William V. Brilhante, Jr., dated November 28, 2017. Vote on Comm. 114.3: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 114.3. Filed Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. Comm. 645: REAL PROPERTY TAX REVIEW WORKING GROUP AND AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE REPORT From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated December 1, 2017. This initial report provides the compositions of the Real Property Tax Review Working Group and Agricultural Committee, the collectively agreed upon goals for both groups, and an updated status on the recommendations of the International Association of Assessing Officers March 5, 2012, audit of the County's real property tax policies. Motion to Close File: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 645. Seconded by Ms. Eoff. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. And maybe this more of a point of privilege. Looking at the other two items, and I believe we have Ron Thiel here, is it possible that we kind of maybe put this on the table, take the others out of order? I know I, personally, will have a number of questions related to the Real Property Tax Review. So maybe just in the essence of efficiency, we could Page 9 FC -25 January 3, 2018 CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Yeah, if there's no objection, we can certainly do that. Would you entertain the motion to table? Vote on Motion to Table: Ms. Lee Loy moved to table Comm. 645 to the end of the (Approved) agenda. Seconded by Ms. O'Hara and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: This matter is tabled until after we take the final two items on the agenda. Thank you, Council Members. Mr. Clerk, please, Resolution 452-18. ORDER OF Chair David directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. Res. 452-18: AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR AND OF MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR FOR A MULTI-YEAR LEASE OF ONE BUCKET TRUCK FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Authorizes the Mayor to enter into a five-year lease agreement at an estimated monthly cost of $2,617. The equipment would be used by the department's Traffic Division for streetlight installation and maintenance. The County will own the equipment at the end of the lease. Reference: Comm. 659 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Vote on Res. 452-18: Ms. O'Hara moved to recommend adoption of Res. 452-18. (Approved) Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. Page 10 FC -25 January 3, 2018 Res. 453-18: AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR AND OF MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR FOR A MULTI-YEAR LEASE FOR ONE FULL-SIZE COLOR SCANNER/PLOTTER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Authorizes the Mayor to enter into a five-year lease agreement at an estimated monthly cost of $390 to be used by the department's Wastewater Division to produce construction drawings. Reference: Comm. 660 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Vote on Res. 453-18: Ms. Poindexter moved to recommend adoption of (Approved) Res. 453-18. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Vote on Motion to Remove from Table (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Beck, I'm sorry, do you have the information on that security gate? If you do, we'll take that item off the table. Mr. Kanuha moved to remove Comm. 14.24 from the table. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. (Note: At this time, Ms. Dora Beck and Ms. Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kanuha, go ahead. MR. KANUHA: Ms. Beck, any additional information? MS. BECK: No, not as of yet. I'm still trying to track this one down. I know it sounds funny, but I'm thinking maybe it might be an error. I don't know. I need Page 11 FC -25 January 3, 2018 to find out more about it because nothing came across my desk on this issue because construction hasn't started. MR. KANUHA: Yeah, that was why I was kind of wondering how come. MS. BECK: Yeah, so if you noticed the look on my face, I'm just like totally—not evenI don't know what to say about it. MR. KANUHA: Deanna, did you have anything? MS. SAKO: They're going to send me the change order; they just haven't done it yet. They're tracking it down, and they'll send it shortly. This might have been of anticipation of construction, you know, things that change. But as soon as we get it tracked down—sorry. So if you wanted to talk about it again, next meeting, that's fine too. Whatever you guys want to do. MR. KANUHA: I'd love to. If that's okay? MS. SAKO: Yeah, it's just a report to be filed. I'm fine, if you guys defer to the next meeting. That's fine. MR. KANUHA: And for sure, I'll follow-up with your office. I'm sure my constituents would want to know exactly how much, why, and how come. MS. SAKO: Okay. MR. KANUHA: So if that's okay with you guys, I'd like to postpone it just for additional conversation. MS. SAKO: Yeah. Just as a reminder if you guys do have questions, if you could let us know ahead of time, we can follow-up. MR. KANUHA: For sure. MS. SAKO: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kanuha, was that a motion to postpone? MR. KANUHA: I don't know. Well, I don't want to keep Dora here all day too. Page 12 FC -25 January 3, 2018 Vote on Motion Mr. Kanuha moved to postpone Comm. 14.24 to to Postpone: January 23, 2018. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. MR. MAEDA: Madam Chair, just to clarify the date, the date of the next meeting is going to be on the 23rd. We'll be in Kona January 23rd CHR. DAVID: Oh, I didn't say Kona. I said 23rd MR. MAEDA: Oh, I wrote 24 that's why. I'm sorry, 23rd CHR. DAVID: Twenty-third, in Kona. I didn't say Kona. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And now, I believe we can Vote on Motion to Ms. Lee Loy moved to remove Comm. 645 from the table. Remove from Table: Seconded by Mr. Kanuha and carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Alright, ladies. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako and Assistant Real Property Tax Administrator Lisa Miura came to the table to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. DAVID: Council Members, any discussion? Ms. Lee Loy, you want to start it off? MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, sure. Thank you, Chair. Actually, I'm going to let Deanna and Lisa start. We do have Communication 645. If you could just briefly summarize it? I read through it. I have a number of questions. But if you would just go ahead and lay that foundation for us. Thank you. Page 13 FC -25 January 3, 2018 MS. SAKO: Deanna Sako, Director of Finance. Lisa Miura, our Acting Real Property Tax Administrator is here. We're going to let her take the lead this morning. They've been working really hard with the Working Group and getting everybody up to speed. So, she kind of let you know what we've done so far. MS. MIURA: Thank you. Lisa Miura, Assistant Real Property Tax Acting Administrator. So, this is the First Quarter Report from the Real Property Tax Review Working Group. In the first meeting that the Review Working Group had in August, they decided right away to have an Ag Committee portion of it because that is such a large component of the discussion that was going to happen. Because this group has decided to meet for approximately two years, they wanted to make sure they could get the most done, and have people that were focused on agriculture that understood it rather than mixing it all together. The Review Group has had one extra meeting over the Ag Committee, basically. There are some people that are in both groups, and they chose to do that. Originally, we thought it would be two, totally separate, but there is a lot that cross over. When you make a change to one area of Chapter 19 of the Hawaii County Code, it affects other areas. Mostly, for this past several months, they have focused on some areas, like the affordable rental and the veterans disability. They're also learning about all the programs. They have asked for a lot of data, and a lot of questions has come from them so that they can get a really good understanding. As you see, there's a lot of people on the group, so it carries a very broad base of representation. It is very similar to questions that we get from the public, and has come forward from Council, as well. What was also included in this report, as a request from Council in prior meetings, was an update of what the County has done in response to the IAAO's (International Association of Assessing Officers) audit that was conducted in 2012, and that was by County Council and the Legislative Auditor. All those recommendations were summarized, and we provided an update to each of those so you could see where we are. We're here for any questions you might have. MS. LEE LOY: Chair? CHR. DAVID: Go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Okay, thank you. So I'm just going to focus on the Short Term - High Priority as it applies to the Council. From what I can see, that would be Recommendation 22, 25, 26, 30, 31, and 32. Oh wait, where's the long-termoh, 33, 34, 35, and 37. Of those, Ms. Sako or Ms. Miura, if we have to prioritize, are we prioritizing by the number or are there some that Page 14 FC -25 January 3, 2018 sequentially should be taken out of order, so as the Council systematically makes code changes, it doesn't impact the other recommendations covered under the Short Term - High Priority list? MS. SAKO: I'll let Lisa answer that part. But just to clarify, too, this is like a the priority was set by the initial, like, ad hoc committee or working group or something. I mean, I forget the actual title at this moment. So some priorities may have changed since then, as well. MS. MIURA: I think I'll just look at—I'll go through each one individually because they are pretty different. Recommendation 22 has to deal with the Conveyance Tax Certificates (CTC) and rewording, and there was change already done with that. I'm not sure if your question isbecause it's not—in this case, I know they are pointing out towards County Council, but it did also include eight other agencies. So it's not always that a code change is needed. That one had to deal with the State more. We did meet with the State. The DOTAX (Department of Taxation) administration has just changed, yet again, so we are working with them to have some changes implemented. I believe the Prosecuting Attorney is also trying to have his own changes done with those CTC forms. So I don't think there's anything Council can do at this moment to really change our code to do that. MS. LEE LOY: Perfect. Is that something we should be lobbying legislators at the State level, with the DOTAX, and implementing this? Is this something we could make part of a conversation for this legislative cycle? MS. MIURA: It can. I think the changes that Mitch Roth with Prosecutors is suggesting are probably pretty important right now. I don't know where he is on that process, if he's already proposed it to you or not. But they are wanting to have an on -island contact for every property somebody owns. So that would be something that you'd have to lobby; but if it's not even gone to that point yet, I don't know where they're at. We've been going to DOTAX ourselves to get the help we need from them. The first one is electronic filings, which they did start allowing. Recommendation 25, requiring the regular property inspection cycle. The Council can go ahead and change that at any time. It's going to require more staff, which would affect the budget. So, that one is a lot more in-depth process. But we did provide that we are trying to use Pictometry and other resolution imaging to try and achieve that. That is allowed by IAAO. So that would be something, if Council wants to look at, you can. It is something that our Review Group is looking at, as well. MS. LEE LOY: And just to clarify, six years. How did that magical number, six years, come from? Page 15 FC -25 January 3, 2018 MS. MIURA: That's the IAAO recommendation, which is the International Association of Assessing Officers. So in the mainland, for example, reassessing every six years is actually not really that hard of a deal because the homes are very similar to each other. It's a lot easier than getting around our terrain. But we have been going back and looking at new agriculture dedications. Even the new Agriculture Use applications, we go and look at. So, it's not like we're not hitting it. We're on a ten-year plan, and their recommendation was six years. MS. LEE LOY: So if we were to propose something like that, is that something that we could vet through you folks and then you guys—although this is—maybe some base language, where you guys would make your recommendations? MS. MIURA: Yeah, in the past we had come up with some figures for the prior groups, about what the staff change would need to be. Each of our staff right now appraise approximately 10,000 parcels each, which is an extremely high-volume. There was a number that was associated with that, but it's the cost. As for Recommendation 26, on whether the Council should consider code changes to the permit the use of the income approach; that was done already. I think on the next page it tells you that update was completed in 2014. We are getting the data together, and we also utilize a company that compiles income data for us. This island isn't quite City and County of Honolulu or the Island of Oahu, where there's a lot more commercial data available. It is hard to get commercial data. Recommendation 30, where the Council should consider code changes to institute a review cycle or requiring re-application for exempt property. We have been, again, using the Pictometry, that was an update from November 15. There were some unintended consequences, where we had valid agriculture use parcels being disallowed. But the Real Property Tax Office is going out and doing the physical inspections; and an example is, when you look at Pictometry, it may appear that people are mowing the yard. We looked at that, and thought if you have pasture, obviously you have animals, you shouldn't have straight lines. Well, when they go out and they actually inspect, there are enough animals to support it, but maybe it was in an area that wasn't saved for somebody who had sprayed poison and they weren't allowing. While the imagery seems a perfect way to catch everything, we've had to really go back and look at all of the procedures to make sure we're not unintentionally disallowing people that should be in the program, which is what happened. MS. LEE LOY: And we have a process for that though, right? So if we notify them and say, "Hey, we're noticing based on this information; you folks are outside of that designation and that allowable exemption," they have an appeals process. Page 16 FC -25 January 3, 2018 MS. MIURA: Actually, we send a disallowance letter first. So they have that even before they get to the point, where they receive the assessment to do the appeal, and they can come back to us. The zone appraiser will go out and relook at that property, and we have done that. We've admitted that, okay, this doesn't—you pass and we should have awarded it in the beginning, or we explain to them why their property doesn't make it, and so they have that discussion. And then, when they get their assessment, they can still appeal. Alright, I think the next recommendation you had questioned, was 31: The Council should require the Division to conduct more frequent inspections and inclusion of proof of eligibility and income information as part of the application process, and that is as it pertains to agricultural use value assessment. That one again, we are doing an inspection of every single ag use application and commercial dedicated that we get in. MS. LEE LOY: And then when I read the notes, as far as the update, it looks like for this one to work, we need 30 and 27 to work concurrently together to see Recommendations 27 and 30. Is that accurate? MS. MIURA: Yeah, Recommendation 27, we are actually going through the values right now with the Ag Committee and looking at how the County—so there is an ag value sheet, a rate sheet that we have, that's been in place for years. And what the group is looking at, is the procedures that we do, to maybe put your property into poor agriculture, for pasture, if that's still really relevant to today's standards. Because a lot of things have changed and we are learning that—you know, whereas before you could get away with the caring capacity of one cow and one calf on three acres is, maybe, no longer valid. So what we were using, when we get like a 300 -acre application, isn't really being reflective of what the Cattlemen's Association, and other groups, not just them, I don't want to point out any one single group, it doesn't really follow anymore, and there's a lot of reasons for that. And, rainfall changes. How do you accommodate one year, where you might be for past year and another year you're average? So we're working with them for us to get a better understanding of the challenges that a lot of the cattlemen are having these days. So, they are helping by looking at that. If we went straight off the production value tables, the values would have gone considerably higher, and it didn't seem applicable, especially right now. MS. LEE LOY: So this would be one of those examples, where although it's Council action, we want to make sure that 27 and 30 is ready. MS. MIURA: Correct. MS. LEE LOY: Okay, great. That's good. Page 17 FC -25 January 3, 2018 MS. SAKO: I think this is one of those, too, that there may be changes that come out or brought forward to Council from the Working Group, just in terms if the program changes. Because we're kind of aware of what's been working and what hasn't, so I think some of this may be addressed on some of those changes, as well. MS. MIURA: Okay, for Recommendation 32. This actually did get approved before, where the Council is requiring that the homeowners currently receiving exemptions file State of Hawaii Tax Returns. There was a change DOTAX. We had to send out the 40,000 letters the other year because we weren't collecting social security information. That was one of the requirements from DOTAX. We couldn't just submit names and birthdates, so they could hit a file back to us. Because names change, you could get an error in the birthdate, we didn't want to have the mistake of excluding people or denying them when they are filing it for the State tax return. So, we worked through that. We got all the data back. We have the last four of the social, not the full social. DOTAX prefers the full. I think through discussions with our Corporation Counsel and administration, they felt that, you know—everybody was trying to get away from collecting nine digits, so we went with the four. It caused a little bit more work in the office to go through and make sure. But they're also being renotified, you know, you're not filing your tax return, you're going to be disallowed, and that's it until you file. There was a waiver period granted, and that came out of the discussions with Council from before. Especially for new people that buy here, they don't necessarily file that first year, so they get that one year to file their tax returns here. There were other people that were stating they don't make enough income. The retirees, plantation workers that don't collect enough money, and they're not required to file. So, we do have to assess all of that. But that actually has worked out really well. We are still getting the Department of Health vital statistics, death list as well. Okay, Recommendation 33. This is dealing with the non -spec and the three percent cap. So the Board of Review, and that will come up, I believe, in your next Finance Committee meeting. Finance submitted the Board of Review report, and that's where everybody goes through and does the appeals. They made the recommendations, and as usual they've recommended that this non -spec program be completely removed because of several reasons. So, the Review Group took a look at that. But no decisions have been made yet, we want to wait for the report to come to you guys. Recommendation 34, Sunset provisions for exemptions to force periodic review of underlying policies. I believe most of our programs now are getting periodic Page 18 FC -25 January 3, 2018 review, but that is something that we have to reconsider by the Real Property Tax Review Working Group. Like, what should that periodic review be? You know, home exemptions do have people file annually; 40,000, we're not going to recommend that because it would be very taxing on the staff, and it's really taxing on the homeowners, as well. We have a lot of elderly homeowners, and they're not necessarily real used to having to file these out every year, and if they don't file it, they could get disallowed. I just think that's not really the intent of what the IAAO was suggesting. What they were suggesting, though, is that you shouldn't just file one time and you're in for the rest of your life or until the property sells. So, that is going to be looked at by the group. MS. LEE LOY: For something like this, I know on another recommendation it was six years. Is there somehow we could maybe keep like a consistent date? I've just worked with so many things, where you don't know if you have 72 hours or 7 days or 90 days. If there's a way to keep those reviews? MS. SAKO: Yeah, I think as we move forward I'll make changes. Like right now, how Lisa was saying, we try to review each parcel every 10 years. That whatever we do, trying to be consistent throughout. I think I hear what you're saying, that it gets complicated. And then some of it is going to depend on the program, as well. You know, something that's meant to be life-long. Like, we would get notified if the property changes hands. So we have other ways to catch that. We'll try to take that into account, as well. MS. MIURA: Alright, your Recommendation 35, the Council should consider establishing a Stakeholder Committee to identify problems to tax relief and review options. The Stakeholder Committee, in our mind right now, is the Real Property Tax Review Working Group, and they are definitely looking at all sorts of options. So, I don't know if there's anything Council needs to act upon that right now. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, so this would be an example, although it's Short Term – High Priority, in the priority list of all of these, this one would fall a little further to the bottom? Okay, thank you. MS. MIURA: Recommendation 37. There's a lot of recommendations in here. The Council should revise Section 19-93 of the County Code, specifically it should reduce the 20 percent value -difference threshold to no more than 10 percent, at least for residential property. This pertains to appeals. So right now, in the County Code, in order for you to appeal, it states that your preferred value should have a 20 percent difference; however, their suggestion was to go to 10 percent. Right now, the Board of Review—and it's not the County that reviews all of those and denies which ones aren't going to be heard, they'll hear anything. They will hear it. They don't look at the 20 percent or 10 percent. They will hear exemptions. They'll hear prior years. So, this could be changed. But I did want to just let you know that right now the Tax Board of Review has Page 19 FC -25 January 3, 2018 been hearing everything that comes to them. The only thing I think they haven't heard or they've kicked back is untimely filing, and that would be about it that I've seen. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Both of you, thank you very much. I really just focused on the work that was kind of passed to this body, and I kept it focused to the Short Term - High Priority. I'm sure my other colleagues have some other questions. But then to encapsulate all of this, this is only as it applies to ag categories? No, this was also—okay. But this came out of the ag. MS. MIURA: No, we have two committees. There's the Review Working Group, and then they just created an Ag Committee to focus on ag. MS. LEE LOY: Ag. MS. MIURA: But this report was created by both of them. MS. LEE LOY: Okay. Maybe a follow-up question? I believe we have seven different categories: ag, resort MS. MIURA: Nine. MS. LEE LOY: We have nine. Are we going to be looking at bifurcating some of those categories? Go ahead, answer. MS. MIURA: IAAO recommended that you actually try and go to one tax rate for the whole County to keep it simple. I really don't, having worked at the Real Property Tax Office, see how this County could accomplish that and still yet try and remain fair to those that are in the homeowner program. You know, if you want to support the homeowner by making a one rate shop, that's not going to work. So there's some things that IAAO says, and it's true, it would make it very simple to understand if you have one rate. But I think the Council and administration also have to look at why we've come to this point, and it's through many, many years of Council and administration listening to the constituents. And so going to that, would be really difficult. As far as condensing the tax rates, we have not even come to that type of discussion in there. I think we've been more concerned about, is another tax rate going to be added on to that to make it ten because of the discussion about the short-term rental? So yeah, we didn't get to that. MS. LEE LOY: Go ahead, Deanna. Page 20 FC -25 January 3, 2018 MS. SAKO: No, I'm just going to remind everyone, you know, we appreciate all the work IAAO did, but they also work in very different environments than us. I mean, we're on an island. They're not used to dealing with our type of real property tax system. So while we appreciate their comments, we're evaluating each one individually as it applies to our unique situation. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I think I appreciate it as a framework and not the golden rule. The other question I have is, from my historical perspective, a lot of these tax categories was based on zoning. So we had ag and we have ag zoning, right? We have resort and resort zoning. Are we looking to even further drill down by uses within those categories? For example, ag and multiple uses within ag. MS. MIURA: Yes, so actually the group had already asked for data, more specifically as it pertains to agriculture for properties that were less than half an acre that are actually getting the ag rate, you know, the ag tax rate, just because of their zoning, and having the department and the division focus more on the use of the property. So we have been providing them with a lot of information on that. There is quite a bit. For some people, maybe that means their taxes will go down a little bit. But the residential rate is higher than the ag rate. So for all the vacant parcels that are currently getting an ag zone rate, those are going to go up. The predominant area for that is really Puna. MS. LEE LOY: I'm going to yield at this time; I'm out of time. But thank you so much for that. I'll let everybody talk and then see if I have more questions. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Eoff and then Ms. O'Hara. MS. EOFF: Thank you. Thank you so much for the work you're doing on this committee. Do you think that if it's a two-year committee, that most of the participants will stick it through for that duration? MS. MIURA: I hope so. I'm actually shocked that most of them are still on. Because they went through a couple of meetings and they've asked for a lot of data; and when we bring it back, we're always a little bit nervous because it's overwhelming. MS. EOFF: Right. MS. MIURA: But they're very interested. A lot of them have provided testimony here. A lot of the names came from different Council Members. They all want to make the program better. They're realizing, as well, that it's difficult. Because no matter what you touch, everybody's not going to be happy. But they are spending a lot of time. Even though our meetings are just once a month, they have a lot of homework they do in between. So we send them data, we send them Page 21 FC -25 January 3, 2018 information and they're actually working through the information. So when we meet, we're just discussing the questions and the what ifs, and we try and answer as much as we can when they're with us. But they have, for the most part, I would say all but one, has been extremely interested on staying on the full two years. MS. EOFF: I was thinking, too, it's a lot of information, probably a learning curve, but once you kind of get it, it's probably a pretty intriguing kind of an exercise to see through. I really appreciate this update. You said it's a quarterly update. That's four times a year we'll see this? MS. MIURA: We're more than happy to provide it to you, unless if you don't want to see it quarterly. But I think that was what the Council had asked for in the beginning, was quarterly. MS. EOFF: No, I think it's good because it keeps up in the loop and may raise some actions that you can point to us, "Okay now it's time for Council to do something." MS. SAKO: I think, also, you'll get additional updates because right now the group's studying and learning, and then soon there will be recommendations coming out and proposed legislation brought forward, as well. MS. EOFF: Well, thanks again. I appreciate that both of you were there to assist. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Lisa and Deanna, for being here to answer questions and for providing this report. I'm really pleased that you started in the manner that you did, assessing where we had left off, so to speak, in 2012; addressing those recommendations, and where we're at; and what we need to continue to look at. In the beginning, in the forward of this report, you explained that the Working Group is expected to continue for at least two years, which is wonderful, if we can keep all those people engaged because it's a huge education learning curve, as you've discussed. But I also wonder, as the Council moves forward, to take action. There's word on the street that there's something coming forward in the short-term vacation rentals. Having not been involved in that, I can't say what that will be, but I'm sure it will take the form of considerable discussion here at the Council. It might lead to the addition of a tenth class. Could possibly, I don't know. Having them there to evaluate the impacts would be very helpful, so it's really great. Page 22 FC -25 January 3, 2018 In reading through all of this, I see that something that's holding us back is a lack of—or currently vacant positions. We have them on the books. We have the money allocated in the budget. But it appears we have at least, what, three positions that are vacant that are relevant to this work? You had two valuation specialists and one ag analyst. I would think that the person that's familiar with ag locally is really critical to that revision work that you're undertaking right now. Because yeah, just using mapping and aerial photography types of identification can be misleading if you're not familiar with what's going on, on the ground. We do have various types of ag, and it's something we're dealing with other legislation. I mean, livestock is clumped together, from big cow all the way down to a bee is considered livestock. Very different forms of agriculture, okay? So yeah, I can see where this can be challenging. Are we working towards filling those positions, and is that likely to happen sometime soon? MS. MIURA: Yes, we have two current valuation analyst positions open. One does primarily focus on ag; but the other one was the one that was created for the vacation rental, the short-term rental. Because there's nothing really that's come forth on that yet, personally I think for our office, we felt like filling that before having anything for them to really substantially do, would be not maybe the best use of the County taxpayer's dollar right now. As far as the ag position, we have had two people in it previously. It's a very hard position to fill. The main reason is, and what we've been told, is if this guy is actually doing ag, they want to be on the ground doing ag. They want to be helping the farmer; get them different programs or helping them in another way, and not doing taxes. I mean, I think we're pretty much viewed as the enemy. And sitting in an office, typing up things, it's a job that they don't really enjoy. So we do have people now working with our current valuation analyst, through the Ag Committee, that is trying to help us get up to speed. But I can even understand and appreciate, from their discussions, why none of them actually would want to work in our office either. So, we're looking for a really specific person; and then on top of it, to get someone qualified through our system, that is ag and has the valuation analyst capability. It really hasn't been easy. So we are still trying to actively fill the valuation analyst. It's not easy position. Ideally, you'd love to get an appraiser already within the County or on island, that understands the whole island, that had a strong desire to learn more or appraise more about agriculture. But the private industry makes way too much to come and work for us at this moment. Maybe when the market goes down a little bit, they're more interested, but not right now. Page 23 FC -25 January 3, 2018 MS. O'HARA: I understand. I understand that problem. You brought up the fact that most of the small ag properties are in Puna. Darren Arai came up with a term a month or so ago that I thought was very appropriate, the legacy ag lands of Puna. I've been using that a lot because we have so many non -conforming ag lots. Ag is not supposed to be under five acres anymore, except for the family ag and the residential ag, yet we have 8,000 square foot lots that are zoned as A-1, minimum size, one acre. So yeah, that's a good term that sticks in my mind for describing some of the issues that we have down in Puna. Another issue that Puna has a lot of and it's all over the island, I think the highest incidents is in the Puna district, this problem that we have unpermitted buildings but receiving homeowner exemption. Is the Working Group going to address this? I didn't see this in any of the recommendations, and I don't know if you've had that discussion. But creative solutions to that problem would be very welcomed. MS. MIURA: The homeowners, we've honestly put towards the side a little bit, only to try get through some things to make them feel like it's easier to get through anything. Because once they hit homeowners, they'll be stuck on that for two years. There's so many things and so many angles to look at; the three percent cap, the amounts of the exact actual exemption, the age exemption, the fact that we require the income tax return. We're going to look at the values of the property to what they do. They felt like it was going on and on, so they wanted to tackle areas where they felt they could make a difference, and come up with suggestions for County Council sooner. So, the affordable rental, the veteran's disability with the minimum tax in those areas, it is on our list. But as far as not providing homeowner exemption to those that are unpermitted, it would be a major change in the system. So, they haven't looked at that yet. I don't want them to all quit yet either. But it is on the list, because I know it came up at County Council. MS. O'HARA: Thank you. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I had a similar question about the homeowner exemption. I was wondering if there was any discussion about sort of an educational program or educational outreach, especially for those in the Puna district. Puna is the most economically disadvantaged in the State and in our County because they do not have the homeowner exemption. They're paying at the ag rate, which is higher. Moreso, that means that we're having the poorest people pay a higher tax rate; because they're afraid that if that if they apply for the homeowner exemption, that the County is going to tell them that they can't keep their house because it's not permitted. So we need to let them know that they Page 24 FC -25 January 3, 2018 have that option and that they could still keep their house, even if it's not permitted. MS. MIURA: I know public relations has come up quite a bit in here because the group themselves have realized we've done a lot of research that the public isn't aware of, or that we have done certain things that the public doesn't know that we do necessarily. So there have been questions coming up, on how's the best way to get that information to the public? Because obviously in every assessment to every owner there is a blue paper, and I don't know if you remember getting the blue paper in your assessment, and that's because most people probably throw it straight into their recycle bin. But, it talks about who qualifies for the homeowner exemption. You know, if it's not working, do we still really want to pay to include that piece of paper in every single assessment we send out? There's deadlines on there. It's a back and front, one page. The font's a little bigger; it's not nine -point font. But we can change that up and that is something that has been discussed, not as it pertains to homeowner but as it pertains to our information period. Like, how do people know about the disabled veterans? Maybe there's a lot of disabled veterans that don't realize it, even if it's on this paper. It's been discussed, about how we can do better PR (public relations). Our office doesn't have a PR person, you know, on the payroll. There's so many other areas I would rather see money spent, having worked at Finance and having now to make sure the monies still comes in. Then, a PR person in our office. I feel like there's a lot of announcements the County does send out. Some of it—you know, people are just deleting it now because it's overkill, right? I don't know the line, where it's too much and not enough. We have it on our website. But we are definitely open to suggestions or attending community meetings to help educate. We used to do that before a lot with Department Hawaiian Home Lands and other communities. MS. RUGGLES: Okay. Thank you. Yeah, it could be as simple as having a designer, like a graphic designer to design something that's a little more visually friendly. MS. MIURA: And that could be. Our blue paper is pretty vanilla. You know, it's pretty government looking, so I can see why it probably ends up in the recycle bin. MS. RUGGLES: Is there any efforts for discussion on sort of consolidating the different categories of a taxation: the residential, the affordable housing, because that seems to sort of mix. We don't know where the rental goes. It's hard to come up with a good tax scenario that is fair and makes sense to us and the public, Page 25 FC -25 January 3, 2018 if everything is so mixed. You know what I mean? For example, rentals, like they can fit in affordable housing and they also fit in residential. MS. SAKO: We follow the underlying zoning. So for the rentals, many of them are in the residential category. But we've also chosen to support the affordable rentals, so that's a separate category that you'll have to qualify for. We're looking at everything with the Working Group, but not that specifically at this time, anyway. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Anyone else? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I heard Ms. Miura mention earlier about having that open position for that ag. Just maybe food for thought, I know it's challenging because the private sector does pay more, I think, if we massage that a little differently. I know a number of people who will take lower -paying jobs because they have other extenuating circumstances, like caring for elderly parents or wanting more time with their family. So I don't think we should sell ourselves short that just because they get paid more in the private sector, we do offer a number of great benefits to do a job. So maybe if we could rebrand that a little bit and maybe encourage, yeah, work from home, to incentivize someone who might consider it. They're not considering it because of the pay, but weekends off, holidays off. MS. MIURA: Well, when we try to and get people to come in, I definitely go from that aspect. It's a steady paycheck. You get sick leave, vacation having worked in private. We never had that. We worked holidays. We worked no matter how sick we are. But as much as I want to say I can rebrand it, that's the reality and that's what we've been told. I can't increase the pay, I mean, the pay is what is because that's what other islands are getting paid. But I wanted to clarify, everybody calls it the ag analyst position. It's really a valuation analyst, with an ag component to it. So we do have valuation analyst who has been working on the ag portion of it. Even though his strong background was in ag, it was on statistics. He is doing a job. Most of it is getting information. We have Glen Sako at Research and Development, so we are trying to reach out to the different agencies that is already here to get the information, as well. It was just having a person to coordinate that and make sure it keeps going. But, I agreeI mean, I try and sell it, you know, not necessarily off our retirement anymore. But off everything else, I do try and sell the program. But for ag, it's going to—for valuation analysts as a whole, it's a hard position. MS. LEE LOY: And then that a valuation analyst with an ag is very unique. Page 26 FC -25 January 3, 2018 I think the other point, when Ms. Ruggles was mentioning about the affordable rentals, I believe it was last Legislative Session there was a huge push for development of affordable rentals. I hear what my colleague is saying, but I'm almost a little cautious because we actually at the State level created an incentive piece to develop affordable rentals, which would then be given kind of fast-track permitting theI believe it would become exempt from the EA/EIS (Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement) process. We had this huge push at the State to incentivize people to build affordable rentals. And then if we create or hand -cuff them here, we're actually kind of disadvantaging ourselves here in this County. So, I just kind of want to put it out there that there are a lot of moving pieces and sometimes times it doesn't make sense to what's occurring down on the ground. But in a bigger lens, it actually—it was a huge concerted effort to incentivize more affordable rentals, which would then drive down the affordability of a rental. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else? Council Members? No? Okay, then I thinkladies, I really want to thank you folks for that presentation. It really makes me happy that the discussions that brought this on happened in our last budget meetings, and that you folks took the initiative to start something—and we're here, we're getting it done. I'm so happy for all the hard work of the group and your direction. So, I look forward to the next report and hopefully we can get some input into that one also. But preliminarily, this is great, well done. Excellent set-up, as far as easy to understand what you considered and what you're recommending. Awesome. I really thank you folks for making it turn out the way it is so far. I look forward to the next round. Council Members, all those in favor of filing Communication 645 please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 645: The motion to close file on Comm. 645 was carried by the Filed following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David – 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards – 2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, ladies. Motion to adjourn? Page 27 FC -25 ADJOURN- MENT: Approved: January 3, 2018 There being no further business, at 12:39 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair David — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: We are adjourned. Mahalo. Ms. Maile Medeiros avid, hair Finance Committee MD/na (Date) Page 28