Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PWPRC 2018/02/20 2016-2018Committee on Public Works and Parks and Recreation 16th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii February 20, 2018 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Public Works and Parks and Recreation ORDER: was called to order at 2:34 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Chair Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Vice Chair Ms. Karen Eoff, Member Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Absent & Excused: Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Nancy Burns: Bill 104 (Comm. 731), in support. Christopher Nori: Bill 104 (Comm. 731), in support. Mike Matsukawa: Bill 104 (Comm. 731), in support. CHR. RUGGLES: Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else wishing to testify at this time? Seeing or hearing none, I'm going to close testimony and move to Bill 104. Mr. Clerk. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. PWPRC-19 February 20, 2018 ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 104: AMENDS CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 9, SECTION 2-40, AND CHAPTER 27, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 27-16, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Updates the County Code by adding floodplain management to the duties and functions of the Public Works Department and requires that the Council be notified of proposed changes to special flood hazard areas. Reference: Comm. 731 Intr. by: Ms. David Motion to Approve: Ms. David moved to recommend passage of Bill 104 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Eof£ CHR. RUGGLES: Go ahead, Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you very much, and thank you, Ms. Burns, Mr. Nori, and Mr. Matsukawa, for giving us a detailed description of what brought this bill before the Council today, and it did not take a short amount of time. I must share with my Council Members that the discussions on how to address the issue of allowing people impacted by a proposed flood study, how to implement that in our existing floodplain, was not an easy task. It took me, working with the department and with our legislative branch, almost two years to come up with language that wasn't really over burdensome on the department because they have certain standards that they have to abide by. Mr. Nori, I know that this doesn't go far enough, but this bill, the fact that we have to be notified, it gets agendized on our Council agenda, people are afforded an opportunity. Each one of us in our districts can then go out and say we're affected by this proposed flood study and reach out to their constituents. The fact that it comes to the Council will basically allow the public input that was not given prior to this. And so, it also probably would allow us, if it was important, to have, a public hearing. So, what this bill does is basically gives the people affected by a proposed flood study the opportunity to provide input, and I think it's a huge step considering what happened. It's a very hard lesson for everybody to learn, and I'm glad that Page 2 PWPRC-19 February 20, 2018 Captain Cook was removed from that flood mapping process. So, this bill basically, if you guys take a look at it, it just provides that the department would have to notify us whenever it decides to undertake a flood study, or when FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) is asking to do one. And so, other than that, there has been some very minor references, changing reference to the Director of Public Works, to the Floodplain Administrator, and in the first part of the chapter, it just adds the duties to the responsibilities of the Director of Public Works as the Floodplain Administrator. Other than that, I think my work with you folks, and with the department, and mainly with Leslie Chow of our Legislative Research Branch (LRB), this was not an easy task, although it's a simple revision to our Code, to add notification. It was very complicated and although the bill is very simple, getting to this point was not, so I appreciate everybody's help in this. The Department of—Allan and Merrick, they really helped me finalize this to the point where we were all on the same page. The people have a right to know and what's coming forward that might affect them, so if anyone has any questions, I have Deputy Corporation Counsel Ron Kim in the Hilo Chambers. But, I really would just stress to my colleagues that this corrects a very unfortunate situation and allows the public their opportunity to give information because I think the public people that are affected by flooding are the ones that would know more or less whether their area floods or not. So, giving them that opportunity is all that this bill does. So, at this time, I yield and I ask for your support. Thank you very much. CHR. RUGGLES: Mr. Kanuha. MR. KANUHA: Thank you. Can I get Public Works? (Note: At this time, Acting Public Works Director Allan Simeon came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. KANUHA: And I know we've been hearing about the terrible situation that happened. I remember talking to Nancy several times about what was going on and really, trying to figure out what we as a Council, do. I'm sure that this is one way to alleviate some stress from the public, an opportunity for them to put their input into some of the changes that are happening. But really, you know, with that input to the Council, or that testimony to the Council on any of these changes, what's the process after that? We receive the testimony and what do we as the Council have the authorization to implement or change? Or, you know, just trying to figure out if this ensures that that situation doesn't happen again, is my question basically. But, that can be answered at a separate time, but with Public Works, what was the process or what was happening previously in terms of how you guys would go forward with these flood plain changes? What was the—or what is the current status or the process by which you guys do this? You know, Page 3 PWPRC-19 February 20, 2018 the notification, because really with this, it's just, "the floodplain administrator shall notify the Council ...... What does that mean? MR. SIMEON: Okay, anyway, I'm Allan Simeon, Acting Director of Public Works. I did invite Bryce Harada, he's in our Hilo Office, who is our Floodplain Manager. He has the knowledge on the exact, technical process that was being done. (Note: At this time, Public Works' Floodplain Manager Bryce Harada came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. KANUHA: Just trying to get a sense of what's the current practice now, what happened in the past, and how this is going to change that practice? MR. SIMEON: First of all, I want to thank Bryce for coming to Public Works, technically, after Mr. DeMarco left. Without Bryce, basically we don't have a Floodplain Manager, so a big thank you to Bryce for taking on the position. He's only been with us for about a year. MR. KANUHA: And I know this was a unique situation with what happened. The Floodplain Manager became the Director of Public Works, and I don't know all the intricacies about that, but going back to my previous question, what's currently happening, or previously happening? What's currently happening and what's going to happen that's going to change with this bill? MR. HARADA: My name is Bryce Harada, I'm the County Floodplain Manager, but I think the Director of Public Works is the Floodplain Administrator, so I just work under the Director. But basically, we get these letter of map revisions, usually done by an Engineering Consultant that comes to us for a review, and then we had to provide public notification by like newspaper or by individual notices then we submit it for FEMA for review. So, that's kind of how the whole process works. I think this proposed bill is basically saying that before we submit it to FEMA, that we give it to Council so that they can give it to their constituents to hold any public meetings or hearings or anything that the public can provide. Does that kind of answer the question? MR. KANUHA: Well, I'm just, you know—the question came up earlier is how does this ensure that the situation that happened previously doesn't happen again? Is more, you know—in the language it just says that, "floodplain administrator shall notify the council of," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Does that mean a public hearing, as was stated by Mr. Nori, a letter to each individual Council Member for us to do what we, you know, potentially hold a public hearing? I have no idea. I mean we want to hold a public meeting or public hearing on any of the changes to give the public more testimony or more opportunity to testify on any of these changes, but within the language, I'm just trying to figure out if, "shall notify the Page 4 PWPRC-19 February 20, 2018 council," means an actual public hearing through the Council. Maybe Ms. David could answer that. CHR. RUGGLES: Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Can I respond? CHR. RUGGLES: Yes, please. MS. DAVID: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kanuha, and thank you for that question because in thisI think the whole issue was the preliminary maps were submitted to FEMA and before the people had a chance to weigh-in, the opportunity to give input—once you send the preliminary map, you forward it to FEMA, then you have to be involved in that long process that Matthew Burns was talking about. But what this does is, via communication, they inform the Council, "We got a request from FEMA to do a flood study." We agendize it like we do any other communication, it comes before the Council, and at that point, we know basically what areas are going to be studied. If it affects either one of our districts, then we contact our constituents. They come before us to present public testimony or information where the department can actually be aware of these things. People can come in and just describe their experience as far as flooding in their area, something that was never done in that whole process. Once you submit it to FEMA, nobody can have a say. It's a done deal and then you'd have to go through that very expensive process of hiring your own Engineer. I don't believe this will happen, hopefully again, but just the fact that we're adding another layer of notification on the County level, you know, is basically—we might have to do something more than that if there's no, if this doesn't resolve the problem. But, I think the only issue here is to allow the public to weigh-in and this is what the bills says, "notification to the council shall occur before the study is submitted to FEMA." So, I don't know if that answers your question, but I represented to the department also, during our discussions, that this body is not in any position to tell them how to do their job because they're bound by FEMA on how they have to process these things. But, what we can control is notifying the people that are being impacted and CHR. RUGGLES: Are your finished? MS. DAVID: Yes. CHR. RUGGLES: Okay, Mr. Kanuha, you have the floor. MR. KANUHA: Thank you, and no, I agree that it's a great process and we should be notified and have the ability to hold public hearings about any of these changes. It's just I'm making sure that the "shall notify the council" Page 5 PWPRC-19 February 20, 2018 means that we're actually going to do it. You know what I mean? That it's actually going to happen and it's not just a letter sent to the Council indicating what's being changed. That it's not an actual—that has toyou know what I mean? I'm just—maybe it's just wording that I'm getting confused about, but I just want to make sure that it's going to happen, that the Council is going to hold a hearing for the public about any of these changes. You know what I mean? Am I the only one that's confused about that? MR. HARADA: I'm not sure how it's actually going to be implemented, but I'm thinking you can notify the Council via like a memo with the attached proposed flood study maps, and that way, they can come back to us and ask us any questions and you kind of set up meetings that want to be made, or hearings. MR. KANUHA: Okay. I'm just trying to mandate a public hearing for any changes kind of thing. But, I'll just leave it out there. CHR. RUGGLES: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, and I'm actually along that same lines with Mr. Kanuha, is that what is that process? So, the "shall notify the council," and then what is the Council's role in that? We publish or put on the agenda, we take public testimony, and then, after that, if it is the larger business decision of the community, that this area shouldn't be mapped or sent to FEMA, what then? Because I also heard Mr. Matsukawa say what happened in the past was they weren't even granted standing out a CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision), on a LOMR (Letter of Map Revision), on the decision that was made by FEMA. So, unringing all the bells that occurred is what we're trying to fix and it's providing a due process for that community. I think that's the bottom line. But what Mr. Kanuha is saying is, it's not mandating that we hear it for public testimony, or the department, or flood administration shall provide a communication to the council outlining the scope and duties or the findings. So, I get what our other testifier is saying, it's kind of not going far enough, and maybe Mr. Kim over at Corporation Counsel can weigh-in on that because we're back to legislative intent. So, when I go back to the notification in section one, what is the purpose, "The notification requirement will afford the public an opportunity to consider and comment upon proposed changes ..." but then, what? Mr. Kim? (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Ronald Kim came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. KIM: Hi, good afternoon, this is Deputy Corporation Counsel, Ronald Kim. You know, I understand the concerns and you know, as a policy matter, if Page 6 PWPRC-19 February 20, 2018 you the Council do choose to spell out in more detail the process for notifying the Council and what that entails, you know, by all means, that's within your rights as policymakers. I would actually probably encourage that because I'd say the more clarity you have to the process, the better, given the concerns that have been express. MS. LEE LOY: Follow-up question, Mr. Kim, because as we go through this process and provide steps to follow, my next question would be then at what point are those decisions appealable and then where are they appealable too? Then, you know, I'm looking at it from a land -use lens, when we go through a contested case and there's all these processes. MR. KIM: Okay, I think maybe you might be kind of getting things a bit overly complicated by some means. There already is the CLOMR process where people will have some rights to challenge. As far as appeals go, I don't think that was the intention when I spoke with Council Member David about what she wanted to have set up. It was more of an idea that she wanted to make sure that the public had more adequate notice of possible flood -mapping change and a chance to give input on that, but I didn't think that it was going to be a full blown contested case before the County Council. I don't think that was Council Member David's intent, but I'm not sure, but I don't think so. MS. LEE LOY: I'm going to yield. I think we need to clarify this a little bit more. I thinkI'm okay with moving it forward, but I also would encourage Ms. David and some of the stakeholders that we have here to kind of go back and see if we can wordsmith this to create a little bit more tighter language and tighter process, because I am about policies that set expectations. I don't want to set policies in which there's room for more interpretations because people like Mr. Matsukawa get paid very well to interpret policy. I yield at this time. CHR. RUGGLES: Ms. Eof£ MS. EOFF: Maybe the vague language is to do with what is a public hearing, too because it seems like that's what Mr. Kanuha was also kind of trying to figure out. I understand if the Council received a communication, we may put it on the agenda, and that would trigger our regular Council process, and that would be an opportunity for Council Members to invite members of the areas that may be affected by proposed changes to be here in front of us. In that way, warn or let the map preparers know that you might have an issue over here, could you please look at this again? And that would all happen before their final map revisions are submitted to FEMA. I think that's the intention. But then, there's other language being thrown around about a public hearing might mean something else. Like to me, that means where there's a public hearing and we don't say anything but people just come and talk to us, so I'm not Page 7 PWPRC-19 February 20, 2018 sure which was your intention, or one might lead to the other I guess. I mean you could have it on a Council agenda, which may in turn lead to a public hearing, but maybe that could be clarified at least, if that's giving a little bit of CHR. RUGGLES: Do you mind if I give Ms. David an opportunity to respond, Mr. Richards? Okay, go ahead, Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Yes, and that's—thank you. And that's what the intention was because once it comes before us, we have an option to call for a public hearing. What I really didn't want to do in here, and I'm going to call Mr. Matsukawa up to respond to one of your questions, yeah, the due process. And so, I didn't want to over step the boundaries of getting involved in the FEMA process by calling a public hearing and doing their job for them, basically. What I want to do is make sure if we find the need to call a public hearing, because all of my constituents are screaming, "It does not flood in this area," then I think they should know and they should tell the, what is it, the guy on Oahu? MR. SIMEON: The consultants. MS. DAVID: The consultants or whoever is doing this, that it doesn't flood and we, as this body, will hold you or believe that you will convey that message to them. And so, short of just putting down you have to send us this, this, and this, when you notify us of a mapping study that's going to be done, what if we miss listing something that will affect the end result? So, I'm not sure. I feel comfortable that once it comes before the Council, we have certain options before us if we needed more information. So, due process. Can I ask Mr. Matsukawa? CHR. RUGGLES: Sure. MS. DAVID: Thank you. Mr. Matsukawa, please. (Note: At this time, attorney Mike Matsukawa came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. MATSUKAWA: Mike Matsukawa, I testified earlier. I think the Council should appreciate the fact that up to now, this whole flood hazard mapping decision process has always been in house in Public Works, as an administrative matter. The Council Members took very little interest, and therefore, very little participation in the process. So, this is the beginning of it all because of what happened. But the Council, historically always had control over the budget for studies, but those things are lump -sum budget, right? So, this one here was $870,000 expenditure under the general appropriations, so you never saw it, it never showed up on the fund transfer. So, the Council had no idea this was going on. So, to Page 8 PWPRC-19 February 20, 2018 answer Mr. Kanuha's question, I think on the one hand, this bill would require an alert Council, so when they see the notification, they're going to see $800,000 behind that simple notification letter and perhaps more. So, maybe there is some prudence in explaining the content to some degree, including but not limited to, and the ability to give the property owner some participation. I know the public hearing discussion had come up earlier on this subject, and people got confused as to, was this going to become like a judicial contested case, or simply an opportunity for the public to participate and for the Council then exercise its authority over the agency process to say that is not where Manago Hotel is? I mean that's how stupid this thing was. But had this process been available, someone would have said, "You're spending that much money and you're in the wrong place?" And further, the County had already studied the area for the bypass road intersection project and said there were no drainage problems. But the floodplain administrator comes in and says, "I don't care if you're ready to construct that road, there is a flood hazard and you're building an unsafe highway, according to your theory." Of course, the judge didn't seem concerned because it was not his authority to judge. So, I think there's this need for the Council to be informed itself as to the significance of a notification letter. So, maybe with that notification, there could be some financial information, statement of the purpose or reason. If Army Corp. of Engineers has a million dollars to spend and that's the sole purpose for the request, then that's a red flag, like why are we doing this just to spend someone else's money? Of course, like Mr. Nori said, there might be something a little further to add. So, maybe there's some words missing that could be done to make sure a future Council who's not aware of the history could exercise its supervision over the budgetary process and the agency process itself because yes, once it's in FEMA's hands, that's it. So, the Council in a sense might want to be a trigger, unless the Council signs off, it doesn't go to FEMA. But then you get into this administrator versus legislative struggle, and to what degree can you tell them that? But, you can hold back their money. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Matsukawa. I think based on that, I think I'll yield at this time. Thank you. CHR. RUGGLES: Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I think I understand Councilwoman David's intent in going through this and I've had my own issues with flooding and flood designations, et cetera. Also, I think it's very important that we do articulate because I don't for a moment think that anything would come through with this Director and Deputy without the Council knowing, but when they're not Page 9 PWPRC-19 February 20, 2018 there anymore and we're not here anymore, that's the worry. So, I think an articulation is very good. Think about what Councilman Dru said okay, but what's the process, what are we talking about here? What's going to happen? Sue Lee Loy said, "And then what?" That's the big one. What is the process coming through? Am I understanding correctly that we make the designation and then it gets submitted to FEMA? Because I'm reminded last summer we had that flood designation that FEMA, when they were redoing their flood inundation zones across the United States. Do we comment on that and then they take it? Or are we trying to run a road block if they don't know where Manago Hotel is? What's the intent here? Because it seems like the fells, usurp up a lot of authority and if they don't know where it is, we're going to end up with some really bad policy. So, I'm not sure who to ask that question to, but I'll MR. SIMEON: Bryce, can you please allude to that one? CHR. RUGGLES: Bryce, are you in Hilo? MR. KIM: Hi, it's Deputy Corporation Counsel, Ronald Kim. I'm with Bryce and I'm not sure we were entirely clear on the question. Bryce, please correct me if I'm wrong, but sort of my understanding of the process is that it can go two different ways where I think FEMA itself initiates some studies and then as a County, we do our own studies too, separately. Is that right? MR. HARADA: Yes, that's correct. MR. KIM: Okay, so it's kind of difficult to say because there's two different sort of tracks with the studies where there's one that the federal government, FEMA would initiate and another one that we would, sort of, at the County level. And I think, Council Member Richards, if I'm hearing you right, you're concerned mostly about the federally initiated studies. Is that right? MR. RICHARDS: Actually, just making sure that the people that live in any of these areas are notified that it's coming, so concerned for both and less concerned that our County would do something that would affect us than the fells. But I want to be sure there's the checks and balances in place, so people who need the input would get the input. And so, I'm supporting what Councilwoman David has put forth. I think the concern was raised before, is this far enough to make sure that everything happens that needs to happen and if we need to have a public hearing, when will it occur? And that's why I'm a little confused on what the actual process is, and I don't know if we need an ordinance that mandates FEMA to notify us if they're going to be doing something along those lines. We don't want to overregulate, but anyway, I yield. Page 10 PWPRC-19 February 20, 2018 CHR. RUGGLES: Anyone else wishing to comment? Okay, go ahead, Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. And if no one else—here's my thought. Thank you for all the discussion today about this and maybe we can either do one of two things. I can sit down with the department and Mr. Kim and find out exactly what would be added to this to be a little bit more clear to address Mr. Kanuha's concern, but not be overly—strap ourselves overly in the process so that we don't allow them to go through their procedures, which they're required as the floodplain administrator. So, given that, I would either be willing to postpone this or move it forward and talk to the department before then and get some input on what we could elaborate on the notification process. CHR. RUGGLES: Mr. Kanuha, did you want to say something before we talk about the postponement? Okay, go ahead, and then Ms. Lee Loy. MR. KANUHA: Thank you. I know Mr. Nori wanted to clarify a few things. I don't have a direct question, but I know you're dying to say something. (Note: At this time, testifier Christopher Nori came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. NORL Thank you. I just thought I could add to my testimony from before. I think it's instructive for the Council to think about when the money was spent. What happened was, in 2008, there was a hundred -year storm. Nancy documented it, we know where the water came. The damage was just south of the Manago Hotel and it comes down across my land in, what I call, a medium flood area. It's not a FEMA. A FEMA is something like a Volkswagen bus of water per second, it'll kill people, right? This is just a stream, it flows every once in a while. Somehow or other, a point of study got moved to the top of Makahiki Lane, on Napo`opo`o Road. How that happened, we don't know. But once this thing started, money was given to the consultant and I think Council should be concerned about this. I think you guys want to get into it before the money is given to the consultant, not when the consultant comes back and says we're engineers, we have LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), we know what we're doing. That's pretty much fait accompli any way and in this case, Nancy and some other concerned people met with the consultant and Army Corp on site at the Mamalahoa, where you can see all this next to the L & L Drive Inn. You can see where the water goes. The consultant said, "We will get back to you." My lawyer, Mike Gibson, who's known as the former president of the Hawaii Bar, an ethical guy calls up the consultant and says, "You will come back to us, won't you?" The next thing we found out was the plan had been resubmitted to Public Works. We had never been notified. Page 11 PWPRC-19 February 20, 2018 So, what I'm saying is—and by the way, the Council paid again to restudy this non-existent flood plain. So, all of the money, twice this was done—and what has a tendency to happen like I said before, is whoever you represent, if you represent Public Works and Army Corp says this is the way it is, you go along with them. You don't listen to the public, what do they know? So, I suggest that there are a couple of solutions here. One has been suggested to make the language a little bit clearer. The other one is that some other place in the document to say the County shall comply with FEMA regulations for notice and consultation. FEMA's very clear about what supposed to be done. They have regulations. Nancy, I think has a copy of them right here, and if that had been followed, this wouldn't have happened. But again, I think the timing of when Council is informed, not after the—you spent $50,000 that's come back from the consultant, but when they're saying, "Hey, we're going to look at something over here, let's have public hearing before we even start." Thank you. MR. KANUHA: Thank you, and thank you for clarifying that. That's good things to implement and really, I mean it does say, "shall notify the council of all flood mapping studies," you know, "that may result," blah, blah, blah, that may result in changes to existing flood hazard areas or within the County. So, any changes that are initiated, we're going to be notified first, correct? Even with the money? I just want to, you know just trying to figure out if there's any money appropriated to any of these changes that this would—that the floodplain administrator would automatically have to send us that notification. CHR. RUGGLES: Go ahead, Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Yes, thank you. Good point. Thank you, Mr. Nori. I think what I heard you say is that the notification to the Council should come when the Council or the County is contemplating hiring a consultant to do a mapping study. Okay, so why don't—yeah, I have that written down and then what I will do, we're running really late, so I just want to thank everybody, but I will sit down with all of you, the departments and you folks, and try to figure out how we can implement this to address what Mr. Nori is saying, prior to the County hiring a contractor or a consultant, and then maybe it has to be a two-tier notification. When you hire and then before you submit your map. So, given that, I'll yield and whether we want to move this forward, I'll leave it up to the Council Members. If not, I'll make a motion to postpone to the next committee meeting. CHR. RUGGLES: Before we move on, I want to give Ms. Lee Loy a chance. Go ahead. MR. SIMEON: As part of the contract with the consultant, we can also put something in there, that notification, including consultation and meeting with the public will be required as part of the contract. Page 12 PWPRC-19 February 20, 2018 CHR. RUGGLES: Okay, go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair, and Ms. David. I support this and I actually support it moving forward. I know you're going to work with these stakeholders to clarify the language. I don't want to lose momentum on this one. They've waited long enough and so, I think I'm fine with moving this forward and trust that you will work with these stakeholders and bring back a second draft when we get to Council. I just don't want to stall this and then all of a sudden, the momentum stops. That's where I stand. I'm fine with moving it forward. We have a lot of information. I heard clarifying language, which shall include but not limited to or shall comply with a notice and construction. There was a lot of options, good stuff out here, and I think if we just keep pushing this forward with the understanding that there's going to be a second draft with some clarifying language. I support that. Thank you. CHR. RUGGLES: Thank you. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: No, thank you very much, I think that's a great suggestion and I really appreciate everybody's input. I appreciate all the testifiers and the departments, of course, you folks in Hilo, thank you so much, Bryce, and Ron. And also, before we finalize this, I really want to say thank you to Leslie Chow of our LRB branch. She's worked with me over a year on this thing, just going back and forth and learning the very complicated intricacies of FEMA. But anyway, I wanted to say thank you very much for our LRB branch and Leslie Chow. On that, I'm ready, I yield. CHR. RUGGLES: Okay, great. Is anyone else willing to, wishing to speak? Okay, seeing or hearing none, all those in favor of Bill 104 please say "aye." Vote on Bill 104: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 104 on (Approved) first reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David - 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung - 1. Excused: None. Page 13 ADJOURN- MENT: Approved: February 20, 2018 There being no further business, at 3:29 p.m., Ms. David 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, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David - 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung - 1. Excused: None. CHR. RUGGLES: We are adjourned. Thank you. 5-6- t4 ennifer Ruggles, Chair Pu lic Works and Parks and Recreation Committee JR/jm (Date) Page 14