HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN COUNCIL 2016/06/15 2014-2016
Hawaiʻi County Council
th
44Session
West Hawaiʻi Civic Center
74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Building A
Kailua-Kona, Hawaiʻi
June 15, 2016
INVOCATION: Pastor Bruce Campbell of Grace Community Church gave the morning’s
invocation.
CALL TO The regular meeting of the Hawaiʻi County Council was called to order at
ORDER: 9:03 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Mr. Dru Kanuha, Chair.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Chair
Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Vice Chair
Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member (came in later)
Ms. Maile “Medeiros” David, Member
Ms. Karen Eoff, Member
Mr. Greggor Ilagan, Member (via videoconference from Hilo)
Mr. Dennis “Fresh” Onishi, Member (via videoconference from Hilo)
Mr. Danny Paleka, Member (via videoconference from Hilo)
Ms. Margaret Wille, Member
PLEDGE OF The Chair directed the Council to the next order of business, Pledge of
ALLEGIANCE: Allegiance.
(At this time, Ms. David led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.)
PETITIONS, The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Petitions,
MEMORIALS, Memorials, Certificates of Merit, and Expressions of Condolence.
CERTIFICATES
OF MERIT, AND (There were none.)
EXPRESSIONS OF
CONDOLENCE:
Moment of Silence: The Chair called for a moment of silence in recognition of 49 individuals who
lost their lives during a mass shooting in Orlando, Florida.
STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Council to the next order of business, Statements from the
FROM THE Public on Agenda Items.
PUBLIC ON
AGENDA ITEMS: The Chair called Nancy Crawford, who registered to speak in opposition to
Bill 211 (Comm. 890), and came forward when called.
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
APPROVAL The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Approval
OF MINUTES: of Minutes.
Vote on Minutes Ms. David moved to approve the minutes of
(Approved) December 1, 2014 and June 16, 2015. Seconded by
Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille,
and Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business,
CATIONS: Communications.
(There were none.)
CHR. KANUHA: Council Members, Bill 211? Mr. Clerk.
Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objections from Council Members, the
of Business: following item was taken out of order:
Bill 211: AMENDS ARTICLE VI, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 6-2.2, CHAPTER 3,
SECTION 6-3.2, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 6-4.2, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6-5.2,
CHAPTER 6, SECTION 6-6.2, CHAPTER 7, SECTION 6-7.2, CHAPTER 8,
SECTION 6-8.2, AND CHAPTER 10, SECTION 6-10.3, AND ARTICLE XIII,
SECTION 13-8 OF THE HAWAI‘I COUNTY CHARTER (2014), RELATING
TO TERMS OF OFFICE FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS IN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH FOR THOSE AGENCIES UNDER THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
Establishes a term of two years for department heads, would be eligible for
reappointment at end of term by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the Council.
Reference: Comm. 890
Intr. by: Mr. Chung
Approve: GREDC-6
2/3 Vote: First of three required readings,
Section 15-1(a), Hawai‘i County Charter
(Note: Comm. 890.1, from Council Member Aaron S. Y. Chung dated June 14,
2016; and Comm. 890.2, from Council Member Danny K. Paleka, Jr.,
transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 211, were circulated.)
Page 2
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
Motion to Approve: Mr. Chung moved to pass Bill 211 on first reading and
adopt Governmental Relations and Economic Development
Committee Report No. 6. Seconded by Ms. David.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Chung, you can have the floor. Go right ahead.
MR. CHUNG: Move to amend Bill 211 with the contents of
Communication 890.1 I also understand, however, that there is a competing
communication, but just for discussion, so if I could get a second on that.
Motion to Amend: Mr. Chung moved to amend Bill 211 with the contents of
Comm. 890.1. Seconded by Ms. Wille.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Chung, go right ahead.
MR. CHUNG: You know, after looking at what was drafted the last time, and I
really do apologize, you know, there were some situations which caused me some
concern. It could be interpreted that a person who was appointed let’s say at the
tail end of the Administration could still have two years of vitality. So we wanted
to kind of clean that up. So it says—in each of these appointments, it says that
“the director shall not serve beyond the term of the mayor.” And that’s all. I
worked with our Deputy County Clerk trying to tighten up the language in that
regard. That’s all it is. That’s the only change.
You know, I really haven’t digested Mr. Paleka’s amendment yet, so I don’t know
how we’re going to handle this. Maybe if Danny can explain his—
CHR. KANUHA: Yeah, because once we amend with this one, we can’t—
Danny’s amendment kind of doesn’t fit in with the contents of the original bill.
So it wouldn’t be appropriate to discuss. I mean, we could discuss it, but it
wouldn’t be appropriate to amend it with that. But I mean we can continue with
this amendment and then move with the Council and see what we want to do.
MR. CHUNG: Well, is Danny out there somewhere? Can they hear us?
MR. PALEKA: I’m here.
MR. CHUNG: Because it seems like what he’s asking for is just a performance
review, right, in between terms?
MR. PALEKA: Correct.
MR. CHUNG: Then my question, because I don’t think that’s a bad idea,
actually, I’m just wondering if someone can answer, is there any mechanism for
the Council to sua sponte, on its own, remove a department head?
Page 3
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
CHR. KANUHA: I think that’s a question we can ask Molly. I don’t currently
know. Point of order?
Point of Procedure: MS. WILLE: Just procedure-wise, I mean if this is coming up, I want to have the
opportunity to discuss a little bit 890.1. We’re sort of like just skipping over and
jumping to that. But I’m not trying to interfere.
CHR. KANUHA: Well, thank you for your point. I understand where Mr. Chung
is trying to go, and there is a different communication for that second topic, but he
just wants to ask clearly if there’s a—and that relates to this one, as well.
MR. CHUNG: Right, because if we approve 890.1, then that sort of screws up
our system over here and we’d have a hard time considering Danny’s proposed
amendment, which is contained 890.2. That’s why I wanted him to at least
maybe—
MS. WILLE: But maybe ask Jon. I think he can clarify how they compete.
CHR. KANUHA: Well, I can allow the discussion on both of these
communications with only having one motion on the table for 890.1, knowing that
understanding that the Council knows what’s going on, that we’re currently
amending with 890.1. We can, I’ll allow discussion on both communications.
But after Mr. Chung’s pau, I do want to give the floor to Ms. Wille, and then back
to Danny.
MS. WILLE: Okay, and just a point of clarification.
CHR. KANUHA: Wait, wait.
MS. WILLE: So that when we’re discussing 890 and 890.1, we’re not limited to
just the words in the amendment. That we expand it so that we can discuss 890,
which is basically versus—
CHR. KANUHA: I want to keep it on just these amendments, because we can
always go back to the main motion. Because if not, then I want to take away this
amendment and we can discuss it in totality.
MS. WILLE: Yeah, because otherwise, my point is that 890.1 is really just like
clarification of 890. 890.2 is like, you know, a watered down totally different
version. I mean, it’s—
CHR. KANUHA: Okay, well—okay, maybe we’ll just—this might be getting a
little bit more out of hand or confusing than I want to. Currently we’re on the
amendment, 890.1. I’ll just keep it on the amendment 890.1, and we can discuss
that. Mr. Chung, you’re the—your floor.
Page 4
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
MR. CHUNG: Unless, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion to amend, and we
can just discuss, as you suggested, the bill in its totality. Then we can just have a
free flow of ideas. Is that okay?
CHR. KANUHA: That’s absolutely okay.
Withdraw Motion At this time, Mr. Chung withdrew his motion to amend
To Amend: Bill 211 with the contents of Comm. 890.1.
CHR. KANUHA: Okay, so now we are currently on the main motion, which is
Bill 211. Mr. Chung, you have the floor.
MR. CHUNG: You know, it’s interesting that Nancy Crawford, a person whom I
really respect, would come and speak in opposition to this bill, because she has a
great deal of experience working in the Administration and I really do welcome
her insight to this matter. Just for her information, you know, she may not have
heard my spiel the last time. But basically, I echoed what she said. First of all, I
said that I wasn’t completely wedded to this idea. I wanted to throw it out for the
purpose of discussing or at least thinking about this matter. And also, I said that
the only possible downside to all of this, the only possible reason for maybe
voting against it in my opinion—although Mr. Onishi had a slight variation of it—
was that it may again have a chilling effect on a person wanting to take that
position. So I stated that for the record.
But I still believe that accountability on the part of our department heads is the
most important thing that we should be striving for. Realistically thinking, and
others may disagree, I don’t think there will be many situations, if any, where a
department head may not be reappointed. Even if we look at it on longer terms,
how many department heads got denied confirmation or reappointment after a
mayoral election? I haven’t seen that really. I think most of the changes are done
within the administration where someone is replaced, but I haven’t seen it done by
the Council in many, many years. There might have been one long time ago with
the Planning Department, and that was back in the ‘60’s I think. So just from a
practical standpoint, I don’t think it’s going to have that much of a chilling effect
as long as the department head that was appointed has the resolve to do a good
job. And we’ve been talking about that ad nauseum over the last several months
in different context. With regard to term limits it comes down to accountability,
and if you do a good job, then you should have no problems.
But I certainly understand where Nancy is coming from. It makes a lot of sense.
And that’s why I’m willing to even look at, consider what Danny is proposing. I
think it’s—you know, has a lot of merit to it, but I have to understand though, if
the Council has the authority to on its own come in and remove a department head
if there is cause, and I don’t know the answer to that. That’s all I have to say.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. Wille.
Page 5
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
MS. WILLE: With all due respect, I disagree largely with what Nancy Crawford
stated and that concern. And it is all about accountability, but right now the
person in the directorship has accountability to the Mayor, because serve at
pleasure. They can be—you know, look at the Director of R&D, gone the next
day. It’s really whether there’s also accountability to the Council. So with
respect to the Administration, they’re accountable every day. We’re just saying
let the Council weigh in every two years and for me, it’s really not us. It’s that
the public gets to hear and weigh in and get participate in and there’s more
accountability to the public by being more accountable to us. So what I see it is,
it does—so everything’s a balance of power. Right? Balance the power. You
know, we’re shifting it a little bit more towards the Council and towards the
public, and it’s that simple.
So in terms of recruiting someone, there’s still always at-will for the Mayor, and
here it would be just the public or the Council gets to weigh in. And I do think,
you know, it’s not like this body or even the public are deferential. You know,
it’s not like there’s, okay, that we should be so concerned and someone who’s
considering a job should be so afraid of this and feel that they’re so at risk that
they will turn down that opportunity and just to not want to be—basically not
come before the Council, come before the public.
So I just want to speak on that point, and I see that anything, you know, doing
otherwise is really just again, watering it down. And you know, I think this is
clear cut. The public gets to have a little more say-so, people are a little more
accountable. Not just to always like—you know, you’re always like, there’s the
Mayor, he can let you go every day, count down there. But it’s also just keeping
it always accountable not just to the Mayor, but to the public and the Council. So
I yield.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Wille. Let me check with Hilo. Mr. Paleka.
MR. PALEKA: Oh, good morning.
CHR. KANUHA: Morning.
MR. PALEKA: Okay, to the main bill, I like the idea of having some type of
review process. All of our employees are subject to a review, a performance
appraisal in our performance appraisal system that we’ve established. In the
amendment that I intend to propose, it makes it somewhat consistent where we
would be making recommendations or reviewing the director, and we would be
making a recommendation on what ways they could improve, having heard from
the public or complaints, or just suggestions on improving their department.
My logic is to still have kind of the discretion of the Mayor there, but in giving
the public and the Council Members giving the opportunity to make suggestion
similar to what all our employees are subject to, I think, makes it a fair balance.
Page 6
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
And we’re just letting them know where they could improve. In terms of
disciplinary action or expulsion, I don’t think we can make recommendations, but
I would leave it up to the Mayor or the Chief Executive.
You know, for our employees of the County, they would hard. They have a
performance evaluation that’s supposed to be conducted every year. So to hold us
to the same standard, I don’t think is—I think no one is above that. Everyone
should be reviewed. But it’s the power shifting, and I think many are concerned.
And as Ms. Crawford has brought up. In the recruiting sense, I don’t think
anyone would be opposed to a review, because everybody can—there’s always
room for improvement. And I would always welcome suggestions on how I could
improve my own duties or functions in what I’m doing.
So that’s why I kind of suggested it this way, having had experience with the
performance appraisal system, and they work. If done correctly, it works. So I’ll
kind of just leave it at that. I know it’s similar, but I think it’s fair. That’s what I
believe is the most important thing, that we be fair and we’re doing it for the right
reason, to make suggestions on how we all can improve government. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Paleka. Ms. Poindexter.
MS. POINDEXTER: Thank you, Council Chair. I think Nancy Crawford had
some valid points. I mean, I’ve been in HR for awhile too, previously, and I
know how difficult it is to recruit. Now ask for a doctor to come for just two
years and we’ll re-evaluate you to leave or whatever, or another body will do that,
but not the body of the board or whatever was hiring you, but it would be another
entity coming in. It just was kind of getting a little messy for me as I kept going
back and forth and thinking how do we really do performance review. Is it right
for us to be the disciplinary board on that, when we don’t even type of the level of
performance review?
I totally respect Council Member Paleka. You know, I know every job has
performance reviews, and I’m going to bring up Molly in a little bit to ask her
about that. But my concern now is what is the level of performance review.
because we’re not going to be entitled to see what administration sees with the
types of things that the director does. We’ll have complaints from the public,
more than any good things from the public. I don’t think the public calls me to
tell me, “Hey, by the way, Planning Director Kanuha is a great guy. He’s been
doing this and he did this, and it went through fast,” and all that. The things that
we hear as Council Members are complaints of things that are not good, which is
okay, and we need to follow through with administration and check on that. I
know that’s what I do, so I’m not going to speak for the rest of the Council
Members. But I go to speak to the Planning Director myself or any director
myself getting those complaints. Then the public has a way to—at this time, let
me bring up Molly Stebbins, and ask some questions.
Page 7
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
(Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel came forward to address the
members of the Council.)
MS. STEBBINS: Good morning, Chair Kanuha, County Council Members.
Molly Stebbins, Corporation Counsel.
MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. So at the administrative level, when people are not
happy with certain departments, I know that complaints are made through
administration. I make some referrals to make sure they get in writing to
administration their complaints as well, besides me trying to birddog that. So is
there something in place like that, or what is the protocol, or do you know?
MS. STEBBINS: Are you asking about the protocol for processing complaints, or
were you wondering if department heads have performance reviews?
MS. POINDEXTER: Well, both questions.
MS. STEBBINS: Okay, both.
MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, so if people are unhappy with a department, does a
complaint go to the administration, how to they deal with that; and the second
question is does the Mayor have some type of formality or something to do with
performance appraisals.
MS. STEBBINS: There is a process for filing a complaint against a department
head. There’s an internal complaint procedure, and that would go to the Mayor’s
Office. Or, I mean a complaint could be made with the department directly. But
if it’s something—an issue with the director, then I would think that would
generally go straight to the Mayor’s Office.
As far as like a performance evaluation, in the same way that civil servants have
regular job performance evaluations, there’s not—it may vary from department to
department. I don’t think there’s anything formal in place. Some departments
may solicit feedback from their staff and do sort of an internal evaluation. But
there’s not a formal evaluation process that I’m aware of.
MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, so if there isn’t any formal, does the administration
and the Mayor meet with department heads on a regular basis?
MS. STEBBINS: Yes, regularly.
MS. POINDEXTER: So that’s not a formal requirement, but that is done—you
know that it’s done on a regular basis?
MS. STEBBINS: Yeah, that’s a more informal process by which feedback is
shared on—
Page 8
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
MS. POINDEXTER: Right, and if the Mayor’s Office gets a complaint, that is
brought up in that manner and it’s discussed and all that?
MS. STEBBINS: Yes.
MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. So even if there is not a formal, I think there is a
process that is happening there. And it’s like us coming on and saying, well, you
know, Mayor, who the public voted for, the entire island voted for, saying, “We
don’t trust you, we’re going to take over.” It’s like us making some policy here
and the State, we don’t like when the State goes, “Well you guys’ not doing it
good enough so let me trump you.” You know, we get upset about that. But yet
we’re now going to do the same. But yet to me, there are some safeguards in
place, and at some level can the Council bring up something to have the
administration act on the director?
MS. STEBBINS: The Council doesn’t have the authority to take disciplinary
action against a department head or to remove a department head. But I mean the
Council could, I suppose, pass a resolution urging some type of action or
expressing the opinion or desire of the Council as a body. But as far as power to
discipline or remove, you know, that lies with the appointing authority, which is
the Mayor.
MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. And so in the many discussions, maybe not this one,
this topic, we talk about relationship with the administration and how we should
be working with the administration to deal with a lot of issues and things. I
know—I’m not going to speak for the rest of them. I know I do that all the time
and work with them in that way. So again too, I’m considering what Nancy
Crawford has stated also, because if I was offered a position for two years,
leaving a full-time position to come work for the Council for two years as an aide
or something, you know, I would have some concerns of it just being two years.
Now if it was four years, I think it would be better. I really understand what
Nancy Crawford is saying also, and with the transition comes money and time and
whatever. But I’ll yield at this time. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you. Hilo, anybody else?
MR. PALEKA: I can go again.
CHR. KANUHA: I’ll come back to you Danny.
MR. PALEKA: Yeah.
CHR. KANUHA: Unless somebody else wants to real quickly. Also Ms. Eoff
wanted to say something real quick.
MR. PALEKA: Certainly.
Page 9
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
MS. EOFF: I just wanted to say that looking at what Council Member Paleka
brought forward, I don’t look at it as a watered down approach to the original
intent although it softens it, but I look at it as an enhancement of what we
currently do, because it does then bring the director or the department head up for
a type of review that would involve the public and the Council Members and
gives us that chance to go over what has been either a positive experience, or
maybe there’s a chance then to ask what other things can be done to make it more
positive. So I think Mr. Paleka is kind of on to a good thing here. I’d like us—I
know we’re not talking about that amendment, but I’d like to hear again from him
and everybody else on that idea. And maybe Ms. Stebbins as well.
Because to me, it doesn’t change the appointing authority, it doesn’t take away
from what I see as the functioning of a department and the ambiance, because
they have their department head. And there was something a little bit awkward
for me about thinking that even though like Mr. Chung said, it wouldn’t happen
probably very often if at all. But it still seems to me a little bit awkward that we
could, or a Council could actually change or—it’d be like firing, you know,
removing a department head. But I like the idea of the review, and I’d like to
think more about that.
CHR. KANUHA: Ms. David.
MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. And I know also, we’re not talking about this,
and when this first came up I did have some reservations about whether we as a
Council are qualified to determine whether a director who is a professional, has
some professional experience and background, whether we have the ability to
evaluate his performance or her performance. That was my difficulty. I
supported the idea because the idea I supported was the accountability and the
review. But I still agree that—I’m uncomfortable that we would be the ones to
evaluate someone’s performance unless there was something that came up, was
brought to our attention, that we needed to address and therefore we could act on
it.
I have a question for Molly, Ms. Stebbins. Will this bill, the original form, I
know we’re not talking about any—this bill will allow the Council to not confirm
or not reconfirm a director, then therefore remove someone. Is that—if we don’t
confirm someone every two years, say the Council votes not to, then we
effectually remove that director. Is that my—?
MS. STEBBINS: The bill in its original form, I would distinguish if somebody
serves a two-year term and is reappointed but the Council does not confirm, I do
not think that’s the same thing as removing somebody. They served their
two-year term, they may or may not be reappointed, and at that point it’s in the
Council’s hands to confirm or not.
Page 10
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
MS. DAVID: It’s in the Council’s hands. Okay, thanks for clarifying that. And I
do think that the version—I think I like Mr. Paleka’s version as far as the
performance evaluation and review, and it changes the two year to four year
review. I mean the term of service from two to four. So I think for discussion
purposes, I’m leaning towards that, because it gives us the ability to accomplish
what I think Mr. Chung is doing and yet kind of satisfies some of my reservations
as far as this is an appointed—it’s the duty of the appointing authority to appoint
his or her directors. And this will affect the Mayor in the next term so I kind of
like the idea of keeping it to four years but to have an evaluation period. I’ll yield
at this time.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you. Still on first round, Council Members. Anybody
in Hilo?
MR. ONISHI: Yes, Mr. Chair.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Onishi, go right ahead.
MR. ONISHI: Thank you. Just a comment right now. With these two
amendments that we have in front of us, I do support both of them. To me it’s
reasonable. Like I said in the past and as Ms. Crawford had mentioned like, you
know, for having the Council to determine the appointees every two years, you
won’t be able to maybe find people out there. If you look back like what the State
Legislature did when they made the law about, I guess—well to have commission
and board members to report their income. Ms. Crawford, can you please come
up?
(Note: At this time, former Finance Director Nancy Crawford came
forward to address the members of the Council.)
MR. ONISHI: I know this is not on the real subject, but do you remember when
the State Legislature passed that law that people disclosed their income was it?
MS. CRAWFORD: Right, there are financial disclosure forms both for
department heads, I imagine Council as well, and then for board members.
MR. ONISHI: Yeah, and that was done by the State.
MS. CRAWFORD: Yeah, but long time ago I think. I don’t know when.
MR. ONISHI: Yeah, yeah. And then so I think like two years ago, it took effect
or something, or three years ago. Then a lot of the commissioners and board
members on the State level started to, I guess, drop out because of that law. So if
we require them to, on the County side, for the directors to be evaluated every two
years and not guaranteed you’re going to have that job, the pool of applicants is
going to get less.
Page 11
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
So I wouldn’t support the bill how it is now, but if we do the two amendments I
would be totally in support of that, I would be totally in support of that. Thank
you.
Relinquish Chair: At this time, Chair Kanuha relinquished the Chair to Vice
Chair Poindexter.
ACTING CHR. POINDEXTER: Okay, let the record show that I’ve assumed the
Chair. Council Chair just stepped out for a moment. Anyone else on the first
round? Council Member Ilagan or—? No? Okay. I know that Council Member
Paleka was going to go for the second round first. Then I’ll get to you, Council
Member Wille. Council Member Paleka.
MR. PALEKA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, so to address certain concerns.
If we say there is an appointment and it another doctor that to me doesn’t bring
them above reproach. If there are concerns, hey, we have doctors that get sued,
malpractice and they lose because they haven’t performed their duties, or
performed correctly. What we are doing—and that’s why I kind of wanted to—
well it was said “soften” it. My intention of this is to maintain our system. I have
our disciplinary—I have some contract sections here in front of me regarding
disciplinary action against civil service employees. And the performance
appraisal system is supposed to be required every year, per contract. Just to be
clear on that.
Now, there were notions that we should be more transparent. So what is more
transparent than having an opportunity to review someone’s performance?
Nothing wrong with that. We should welcome that as employees serving the
public. Now in terms of a—oh yeah, we can have a good relationship, and you
know, working with the Mayor some of us don’t possess that. The system is
supposed to ensure that. Now it also depends on the circumstances. If there’s
minor improvements we can suggest, it’s a good opportunity to bring it up. Every
two years, and the concern I know was that some Council Members do not have
an opportunity to reign in on the confirmation. Well, every January after the
election, we can reign in and give our suggestions. I don’t see anything wrong
with that. The think is, I want to be consistent, fair, and create an environment
where everybody is treated the same.
In regards to the recruitment. Nancy brings some valid points, but I still believe
there should be an opportunity for review. Everybody should be subject to
review, because we are serving the public. We get reviewed every two years, and
the public reigns in. They vote us in or not, exactly.
So I’m just offering out there, but I have the County of Hawaiʻi Performance
Appraisal Report in front of me that is supposed to be, I hope, our supervisors are
doing it, because it’s a great tool that is supposed to be administered so
disciplinary action may be avoided. We’re supposed to be doing this. This is
Page 12
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
what creates a better system and better workers. You let them know how to
improve, you give them a certain period of time to make that improvement, if not,
you make a recommendation depending on what the address part, or if they
improve, right on. Go ahead, move forward. Create a better working
environment. Why can’t we have that in the upper level? It’s giving the
employees an opportunity to come to us or to the public and say, “Hey, you know
what? We no agree with the director.” There’s nothing wrong with that. They’re
not above anybody else. We’re not above anybody else. Thank you.
Relinquish Chair: At this time, Acting Chair Poindexter relinquished the chair to Chair Kanuha.
CHR. KANUHA: Ms. Wille.
MS. WILLE: Yeah, Council Member Paleka and others have been talking about
how it is good to do performance review, and we can do that. We really—
Danny’s amendment could be rewritten to merge with 890.1. If you go only with
what Mr. Paleka is proposing, then you eliminate that reconfirmation, which is—
and if I’m clear on what Corporation Counsel said, what is the big diff here? The
big difference is basically we can weigh in a little bit and put in our opinions, but
there’s no reconfirmation. There’s no, actually, power. We will have no power to
say no.
I know this Council tends to be very, if not in my opinion sometimes overly
deferential to the Mayor or the Executive Branch, and does contrary to what I see
our role as the policy makers.
It’s not just a watered down version, it’s basically still what I think Ms. David and
Mr. Paleka said, we are still leaving all of the power with the Mayor. Again, I
just want to say I think that this argument that, okay, we would be eliminating the
guaranteed position where an applicant wanting to be there because they wouldn’t
have a guaranteed two-year term, they don’t have. They don’t even have a
two-day term. So I want the public to understand that that is just not so. But what
it is, it’s every day they’re at the beck and call or at the pleasure of the Mayor, it’s
really do they have any accountability to the Council as the policy board.
Now, everyone, all of us, Council Member Chung may decide, okay we really
don’t want to have that power, we want to just defer to the Mayor and go with it.
So you know, so be it. That’s where as a group or where the majority is, but I just
wanted to be clear that we are not eliminating from an applicant to be able to have
a two-year term. They have not. They don’t even have one day. Directors, and
our experience this year, are calls, you know, your term ends the end of this
month. So it’s just do you want 100 percent power on terms of the
administration, or do you want the Council?
You know what? I think if we want to go with the light version and not have any
power, this is somewhat of a shift of power to this board, and if it’s a majority we
Page 13
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
don’t want it, so be it. You know, I think it’s good. I think that we limit
ourselves. We’re a very weak—we have a potential of being a strong body, and
we choose to not be. Anyway, you know, I still support the original. You know, I
do want to hear what Council Member Chung has to say, but at the moment I’m
standing by the 890.1.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you. Ms. Poindexter and then Mr. Chung.
MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, just to make it real clear, when I was speaking
earlier, I was speaking on the main bill. I wasn’t speaking on any of the
communications because they’re not introduced yet so I wasn’t talking about that.
So when I talked about that performance appraisal, I didn’t like that piece because
it would give us authority in this original bill, the bill itself, Bill 211, to say
whether or not the person can be reappointed or not. And I don’t think we should
have that authority. So that is what I was speaking on.
What would I be okay with? I would be okay with, yeah, having some type of
review that we don’t have the authority to say, “You’re not doing a good enough
job so we’re not going to approve you so you’re gone.” That I don’t. I believe
that we have separation of powers. I believe the Executive Branch has their set of
powers and rules and I don’t think we should be overpowering them, as I would
expect the Executive Branch not to say, “Hey, I’m going to make these new rules
and I’m going to start putting some power onto the Council because I don’t like
how things are going there, and I think this Council Member is making a lot of
trouble so let’s get a way where we can get removal,” you know, “I want the
Executive . . .”
I mean it just gets to messy, because we need to respect each other’s branch. And
I think we have a lot of power already as it is. I mean, we’ve got to go back and
look at all the policies, I mean hundreds of policies that are there that our job is to
go look. Are some of them even applicable? Are we still enforcing that? We’re
not. We’re just creating more policy and more policy and building and building.
So we’ve got to look, take seriously what our responsibilities are at the Council
level and start working on that instead of trying to get into another branch’s, you
know, their role.
But as far as the review, yeah, I would love to, you know, bring maybe Director
Ford and let him know that, you know, these situations had happened that were
great things, I want to appreciate that; and then if there are some outstanding
complaints and all, and how maybe that person is dealing with it. But not to say
that we have the power to say well, “Since some people don’t believe you’re
doing it, I’m voting you out.” I don’t agree with that.
So what I would support is a review, and until somebody starts to introduce their
communication, then I’ll speak on that. Thank you.
Page 14
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Chung.
MR. CHUNG: All good points brought up today. Again, I’m going state for
probably the sixth time that this is not something I’m fully invested in. I’m just
glad that we had the discussion. I think it’s very productive. You know, I stated
earlier that at first blush, I thought that Mr. Paleka’s proposal was, you know, had
merit. But the more that I think about it, I think on two fronts I’d probably vote
against it. No offense to my esteemed colleague.
First of all, I think this could be incorporated in an ordinance. It doesn’t have to
be a Charter amendment. We could require by legislation that department heads
come up for periodic reviews. I strongly believe that. But also, let’s say that it
was a requirement. I’m going to draw upon a conversation, or several
conversations that I’ve had over the years, and I’m sure this is a common
narrative that you guys have heard many times before where either a supervisor
with the County or Department of Education or somebody, has to make a
performance evaluation of a subordinate. When that person is critical of that
subordinate, hard feelings come up, and they never, ever die.
So you mean to tell me now, without any authority to relieve a person of their
duties or not confirm them, we’re going to have a performance evaluation of a
department head, whom we depend on to further our visions. I’ll tell you what,
everybody only going to good stuff, like we normally do. Nobody’s going to be
real critical. I cannot see a headline saying so and so, director of something gets a
vote of no confidence from the Council. Not going to happen.
So I just think that it’s going to create more problems than anything else.
Ms. Poindexter makes some good points. She says she feels uncomfortable with
us having the power to say yay or nay on appointments, but that’s what we do.
All we’re doing is making it from four years to two years. It’s really no different.
But I really leave it up to you guys, and Ms. Wille brings up some good points. I
just think accountability, you know, we should be striving for accountability.
This is my one way of trying to achieve that. But if you guys feel uncomfortable
with it, I have no problem with even withdrawing the bill. I’ll do whatever is in
the best interest of the people and the convenience for this Council. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you. Council Members, still on second round. Who
hasn’t had a chance yet? Mr. Onishi.
MR. ONISHI: Listening to earlier discussion, and basically what I’m hearing is
about power; having the Council to have this power to decide if directors should
move on to their next two years. This is only focusing on just the directors. To
me, if we’re going to evaluate the directors, then I think we should evaluate the
Page 15
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
deputy directors. Because then why should the deputy directors get that free ride.
So to me if this is going to be put in, we should include the directors and the
deputy directors in this evaluation. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Onishi. Still on second round.
MR. PALEKA: I can go. Oh, somebody else needs to talk?
CHR. KANUHA: Yeah. Mr. Paleka, I think you spoke twice already. I’ll come
back to you if you want to move onto the amendments. But right now we’re still
on second round on the main motion. Ms. David.
MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. I just needed to say one thing before we move
on, is Mr. Chung spoke of this possibly being an ordinance, coming forward
through an ordinance, legislation. I probably would like to support that. I think
that’s a good alternative. So I just wanted to state that. I think was a great
suggestion by Mr. Chung given the discussion we’re having today. So I yield.
MS. WILLE: Can you—I couldn’t hear you right at the beginning. Would you
mind allowing her to restate what she said? I apologize.
MS. DAVID: Sorry. It wasn’t that important, Margaret. I was just saying that I
kind of agreed with Mr. Chung’s statement that this would be a possible
ordinance amendment, legislation, given the discussion we’re having. I just
agreed with that. I thought it was a good suggestion. That’s it. Thank you, I
yield.
CHR. KANUHA: Okay, thank you. Still on the main motion. Maybe I’d like to
speak on the main motion. I personally agree with the main motion. I think it’s
simple, I think it’s to the point. We had ample discussion the last Committee
meeting about it, and you know, eight members thought it was fine. Now it’s
changed a little bit, which is understandable. But I personally believe in this, that
it just gives—like Mr. Chung said, it goes from a four-year confirmation process
to a two-year confirmation process. Simple. I don’t see any problem with it.
And you know, I also agree with the amendment, it could be a code section for a
later, not really in the Charter, having to be in the Charter for review, you know,
the performance evaluation.
In terms of Mr. Chung’s amendment, that was another simple on, just a
clarification type of situation where just need to keep the language situated within
the context of the Mayor’s terms.
Okay. Council. Mr. Chung, did you want to do an amendment?
MR. CHUNG: I wanted to make one more comment.
Page 16
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
CHR. KANUHA: Okay.
MR. CHUNG: Just so that everyone understands what is being proposed by
Bill 211, because even I was kind of confused, I have to admit. You know, I had
envisioned something really clean, like where at the beginning of Mayor’s term,
everyone would come up for appointment and confirmation, then two years
hence, then we get that same thing happening again. But realistically, what this
provides for is that in case the Mayor brings up people at different times, you’re
going to have staggered appointments and confirmations. So the Director of
Planning comes up in January, well, then reappointment in January. But if
someone gets appointed in February, then that person comes up in February. If
there’s a changeover, somebody gets appointed in July, that person comes up two
years later in July. If it’s too messy, just let me know. It’s not a real cut and dried
system like right now, every four years. Right? Of course. It’s going to be a
little messy. I just wanted to throw that out to you.
If you guys want to think about it, no problem too. Because we could probably
have a Charter amendment like this come before the voters not during this
election, but the next election. And to make it effective immediately so that
people who are appointed will be on notice that there’s a possibility that
something like this is coming down the pipe. That might be a better way to go.
So we can really think about it.
But I just wanted throw out the idea. It’s not real necessary that this advance right
now. I don’t know how you feel, but that’s my feeling. And if somebody wants
to make a motion to postpone to think about it, that person will have my support.
CHR. KANUHA: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chung. I’m going to cut off—one last
for Ms. Eoff. I said the last thing on this first motion. We’ve got to move
forward with the agenda if we’re not going to be discussing any of these
amendments. So Ms. Eoff, if you’d like to say something.
MS. EOFF: I just wanted to thank Mr. Chung for putting forth that idea that
maybe we could take this a little slower, because you know, we’re going back and
forth. I think a lot of us have mixed feelings, because I for one totally believe that
government should be as transparent to the people as we can be. I had a question
for Ms. Stebbins though, before we decide what to do here.
Mr. Chung also said that with Mr. Paleka’s proposal it might create some issues
that we would be afraid to say anything negative towards a department head every
two years if that person was coming up for review. But I’m wondering, that same
thing could happen in the event that we were able to reconfirm or not reconfirm a
department head every two years. Because you know, we’d have that discussion
and then the majority may decide to confirm, but those in the minority may have
spoken, you know, negatively too. So I think the situation that he described can
happen either way.
Page 17
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
But what I’m not clear on is, you know, my thought is we were then able to
remove a director. So if the Mayor appoints a director knowing that it’s a two-
year appointment, and then in two years they would have to be reappointed by the
Mayor and reconfirmed by the Council. But you said that we didn’t have the
power to remove that director. But what would happen in the event that the
Council didn’t confirm the Mayor’s reappointment.
MS. STEBBINS: What I was trying to say in, I think, response to Ms. David’s
question, would it be considered a removal if you didn’t confirm somebody the
second time around, and I wouldn’t consider that a removal. If somebody serves
their two-year term, then it’s up to the Mayor whether or not he wants to
reappoint them, and the question of confirmation is again handed to you. But that
I would distinguish from saying you have the power to, if someone’s in the midst
of their four-year term and you give them a performance evaluation, actually
having the authority to remove them from office.
MS. EOFF: Okay. I understand now. Because we’re not really removing
someone, we are deciding whether to confirm their appointment again.
MS. STEBBINS: Right.
MS. EOFF: Okay. Well you know, like I said, if Mr. Chung doesn’t feel that we
need to put this on the ballot at this election and we can discuss it further, I would
be supportive of that. It’s kind of up to him. Like I said, I have mixed feelings
because I do like the original intent that things become more accountable and
more transparent.
CHR. KANUHA: Okay. I’m going to give everybody just one last time before I
ask for a postponement on this. Ms. Poindexter.
MS. POINDEXTER: Well, I was going to—I’m going to make a motion to
postpone to the call of the Chair.
Motion to Postpone: Ms. Poindexter moved to postpone Bill 211 to the call of
the Chair. Seconded by Ms. David.
CHR. KANUHA: On the postponement, Ms. Wille.
MS. WILLE: Yeah, I oppose that. I think that this is just another—again, we’re
just wimping out. We can’t make a decision. You know, what are we doing here.
You know, it’s very clear what’s going on. We don’t have time to be putting it
off. If we put it off, it’s again basically just saying, “Okay, procedurally we’re
going to postpone.” We don’t make a decision. We’re not accountable. We’re
just voting for a postponement. You know, I just—I think we just make a
decision. You know, make a decision here. If you don’t like it, vote against it. If
Page 18
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
you want it, okay. You know, I just—again, I think again it’s just instead of it
being four-year confirmation, it’s two year, and I think we’ve talked about how
different—
CHR. KANUHA: Ms. Wille, on the postponement.
MS. WILLE: Different members don’t have—because the postponement is—I’ll
tell you, it’s getting it where it won’t happen. Okay, so it’s on its face, just
procedure, postponement; but the Charter amendments have to be done by a
certain time, so it’s really, you know, going below the—the procedure, it’s
eliminating it. Or I’d say 90 percent chance of eliminating it. You’re just
postponing and not doing something.
But members here come in every two years. There are people that don’t get to
weigh in on directors—anyway, I just support let’s have a little more
accountability to the Council and to the public and not just leave it all to the
Executive Branch. I yield. I oppose the postponement and I just see it’s a way to
circumvent making a decision on something we’ve discussed before and is pretty
clear-cut. And I do agree with adding the one amendment that he’s got there.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you. Mr. Chung.
MR. ONISHI: Mr. Chair?
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Onishi, I’ll come to you after Mr. Chung.
MR. ONISHI: Okay.
CHR. KANUHA: Thanks.
MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the postponement, as I
suggested earlier. You know what really troubled me is the timeframe that we
had for passing this. You know, we’re trying to rush this through to make the
deadline for it to be on the ballot. Well, a lot of times when you rush through
things, you don’t really think things out. So the timing of the bill was being
driven by the ballot timing. Given all of the concerns that came up today, you
know, I think there’s a lot of questions yet. You know, reluctance on the part of
some, and you know, we’re not coming in with a real clean bill in my estimation.
It might be after people get the time to think about it, but you know, I’d like us to
come in with a real unified voice on this matter.
Practically speaking, maybe Ms. Wille is correct. Maybe this may never see the
light of day again. Maybe it will. But for all intents and purposes, it’s no
different if we were to pass it next year than if we did it right now, because it
Page 19
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
would still make it take effect two years hence. But I think we should really think
about this. But I’m glad we had the discussion. I think all of us are in support of
accountability in one form or another. So thank you very much.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Mr. Onishi.
MR. ONISHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won’t be supporting a postponement,
because I support what Ms. Wille said. We should be voting on it. We shouldn’t
be pushing it back. Make a decision like she said. Make a choice. Either vote it
up or vote it down. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Onishi.
MR. ILAGAN: Mr. Chairman?
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Ilagan.
MR. ILAGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, as much as the issue
goes, I just want to state that Ms. Wille is constantly withdrawing bills. So why is
it now that she’s advocating that we should move this forward? So I just want to
point that out. I don’t care if we postpone this or not. I just want to make sure
that we do the right thing.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Ilagan.
MR. PALEKA: Mr. Chair?
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Paleka.
MR. PALEKA: On the postponement, I wouldn’t want to postpone it. I think we
should move ahead. We should pass and if it needs to be amended or we want to
make a—because I think we’re moving in a direction where we can agree, but I
agree that, you know, let’s continue to work on it. I think we need to get off of
the negative side, because an appraisal or review also allows opportunity to give
good comment on outstanding work. So I’ll leave it at that. Thanks.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you. Okay Council Members, on the postponement.
Okay, let’s just vote on it.
Page 20
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 211 to the call of the Chair
to Postpone: was carried by the following roll call vote:
(Approved)
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Poindexter, and Chair Kanuha – 6.
Noes: Council Members Onishi, Paleka and Wille – 3.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
(Note: Chair Kanuha voted “kānalua,” then “aye.”)
Recess: At 10:16 a.m., the Chair called for a recess.
Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 10:29 a.m.
Return to Order The Chair directed the Council to return to the order of business.
of Business:
ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Order of
RESOLUTIONS: Resolutions.
Res. 530-16: AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR
AND OF MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR FOR A MULTI-YEAR
EXTENSION OF LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR REAL PROPERTY TO
OPERATE THE KEA‘AU TRANSFER STATION
Authorizes a five-year extension to the agreement with W. H. Shipman to utilize
land for the Kea‘au Transfer Station. The annual license fee from July 1, 2016,
to June 30, 2018, would be $5,000; and from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2021,
would be $7,500. The agreement includes a 5-year option for renewal.
Reference: Comm. 893
Intr. by: Ms. Eoff
Approve: FC-67
Motion to Approve: Ms. Eoff moved to adopt Res. 530-16 and Finance
Committee Report No. 67. Seconded by Ms. David.
CHR. KANUHA: Is there any discussion on Resolution 530?
MR. PALEKA: Yes, Mr. Chair.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Pakeka, go right ahead.
MR. PALEKA: Yeah, I’d like to just thank the Mayor and Mr. Walters, our DEM
(Department of Environmental Management) and Finance and Corp. Counsel on
this reissuance of contract. Thank you.
Page 21
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Paleka. Ms. Wille.
MS. WILLE: I’m supportive of this, but I don’t know if somebody from Finance
is there, I would just like, you know, how do we figure out this is license fees of
$5,000, $7,500? Is there a certain formula that we’re using to do that, or how are
those figures derived? Is it this is sort of the customary, reasonable fee there?
Anyway, is there someone from Finance, I just would like to understand a little
better how we go about these contracts.
(Note: At this time, Property Manager Hamana Ventura came forward to
address the members of the Council.)
MR. VENTURA: Good morning, Hamana Ventura, Property Manager. This is
what I believe was negotiated between the landowner and County for this
extension. It’s an annual license fee and we felt that the rate was reasonable.
MS. WILLE: It’s a what?
MR. VENTURA: We felt that it was reasonable when we negotiated with them.
MS. WILLE: You did. And I just wonder on what basis when you do, okay, this
is reasonable? You know, how do you go and figure that out? You know,
someone comes in, you know, in my district it might be something with Parker
Ranch, this one, that one, and they say a certain amount. How do you figure out
what is—what do you look at. Do you go look at comps, or do you—you know,
what is the process, the internal process?
MR. VENTURA: Each landowner, it comes down to individual negotiations.
But we have to look at what are the options if we don’t stay in this particular
venue. What have we put in as far as improvement, long-term growth, what
impact it has in the community. Of course you look at other options and
feasibility-wise, this was the best option, to stay within the Shipman district.
MS. WILLE: Okay, and that this was a reasonable fee?
MR. VENTURA: I believe so.
MS. WILLE: Okay, thank you very much.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Wille. Council Members, any other
discussion? Hearing or seeing none, all in favor of the motion to approve, say
“aye.”
Page 22
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
Vote on Res. 530-16: The motion to adopt Res. 530-16 and adopt Finance
(Adopted): Committee Report No. 67 was carried by the following
voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille,
and Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Resolution 533.
Res. 533-16: AUTHORIZES THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO NEGOTIATE A LEASE
OF REAL PROPERTY, KAPULENA AGRICULTURE PARK, SITUATED
AT HĀMĀKUA, COUNTY AND STATE OF HAWAI‘I, IDENTIFIED AS
TAX MAP KEYS: 4-7-006:001 AND 4-7-006:018, TO THE HĀMĀKUA
COUNTY FARM BUREAU
The approximately 441 acres of property would be used to increase the
production of locally raised beef by improving former cane lands and developing
a joint cattle grazing entity benefitting multiple cattle owners.
Reference: Comm. 896
Intr. by: Ms. Eoff
Approve: FC-68
Motion to Approve: Ms. Eoff moved to adopt Res. 533-16 and adopt Finance
Committee Report No. 68. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter.
CHR. KANUHA: Ms. Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Yes, we spoke on this quite a bit at Committee, and it’s in my
estimation a very, very good project that Research and Development has put
together to benefit multiple cattle producers, and provide lands for grazing. Right
now, it’s just former cane lands. So it will help increase the production of our
locally raised and grass fed beef. So I don’t know if there’s anybody in the Hilo
Chambers that wanted to elaborate, but I believe Mr. Mendez gave us some
background at the Committee meeting last time.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Mr. Onishi.
MR. ONISHI: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I was just—and I forgot to
ask them at the last meeting. Is there going to be a fee that they’re going to be
charging these ranchers who use this facility? Would anybody know?
CHR. KANUHA: Is there anybody—? Oh, we have Mr. Ventura here.
Page 23
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
(Note: At this time, Property Manager Hamana Ventura came forward to
address the members of the Council.)
MR. VENTURA: Good morning, Hamana Ventura, Property Manager. I believe
that the fee was $4 a head, per cattle.
MR. ONISHI: And for how long? Like that’s per month, or—?
MR. VENTURA: That, I’m not sure. I think it was $4 per head, but it’s part of
the community grazing program that they’re trying to make sure that we can get
towards sustainability. This is like a model project.
MR. ONISHI: So, where do the funds go to?
MR. VENTURA: The funds will go, I believe, back to Hāmākua Farm Bureau.
MR. ONISHI: Oh, okay. Then they would be the ones using the funds to
maintain that parcel?
MR. VENTURA: Correct.
MR. ONISHI: Okay, thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Onishi.
MR. PALEKA: Mr. Chair?
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Paleka.
MR. PALEKA: Also Hamana, just a question on any improvements that may be
needed during the lease. The lessee is going to be responsible for all those
improvements and not the County?
MR. VENTURA: As far as start-up, they’ve already provided—the reservoir’s in
place, the troughs, the fencing; so they have a good head start. They’re able to
start moving forward, and we’ll see what the future holds.
MR. PALEKA: Sounds good. And that $4 a year—is it a year or a month? I
think we should—
MR. VENTURA: We’ll check and get some clarification. We’ll get the answer
back to you.
MR. PALEKA: Māhalo.
Page 24
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
CHR. KANUHA: Thanks, Mr. Paleka. Council Members, any other discussion?
Okay, hearing or seeing none, all in favor of the motion to approve, say “aye.”
Vote on Res. 533-16: The motion to adopt Res. 533-16 and Finance Committee
(Adopted) Report No. 68 was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille,
and Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Mr. Clerk, Resolution 535.
Res. 535-16: AUTHORIZES THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF TAX MAP
KEYS: 2-9-002:079 AND 2-9-002:081, ALSO KNOWN AS HĀKĀLAU
POINT, SITUATED IN THE DISTRICT OF HĀMĀKUA, UTILIZING THE
PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PRESERVATION FUND
The 8.7-acre property is listed as priority No. 3 for purchase in the 2015 Annual
Report of the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation
Commission.
Reference: Comm. 898
Intr. by: Ms. Poindexter
Approve: FC-69
Motion to Approve: Ms. Poindexter moved to adopt Res. 535-16 and Finance
Committee Report No. 69. Seconded by Mr. Paleka.
CHR. KANUHA: Ms. Poindexter.
MS. POINDEXTER: I think we had a lot of discussion on this at the last
Committee meeting. So I just ask for your support. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Council Members, any other
discussion?
MR. PALEKA: Yes.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Paleka, go right ahead.
MR. PALEKA: Okay, if we are going to negotiate for this property—and it’s also
contingent on the present owner, if he wants to sell or not. But anyway, what
Page 25
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
does concern me, and I believe it should concern all of us, is if there are
environmental concerns, that is something I think we should really investigate. If
we are acquiring an environmental disaster in terms of that—that arsenic really
concerns me, you know, where the old mill was. So I would like to have a better
understanding of what is really at stake. Because if we’re going to buy
something, which is—the area is beautiful and it has the historic value to our
County, but I think we really need to look a little bit deeper in terms of what we
are attempting to acquire. We owe that to the public, because we certainly don’t
want to acquire something then we end up paying another big sum of money like
how we had to clean up the metal place. So that is a concern.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Paleka. I think Ms. Poindexter can respond to
your—
MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, and that is a valid concern. That will come up during
the times of negotiation, and Hamana is here and maybe he could say a few
things, but I’d like us to always—good point, Council Member Paleka, that you’re
saying that all the Council Members should definitely be concerned about that.
Because should this not go through, then when he does come, because he stated
clearly he was coming in for rezoning to put houses and people on that property,
to live and get water, and drill a well or whatever. Then we need to be mindful of
that statement that he made as well during that time, if he should definitely come
before us during his rezoning. But Mr. Ventura is here. Can you respond to that,
please? Thank you.
(Note: At this time, Property Manager Hamana Ventura came forward to
address the members of the Council.)
MR. VENTURA: Good morning. Once again, Hamana Ventura, Property
Manager. In the event that we enter into negotiations and we are successful, part
of the sale contract requires that the property pass an environmental study. If
contaminants are found to be on the property, then the owner must come up with a
remediation program and the property has to be environmentally sound in order
for us to transfer from the owner to the County. So that’s imbedded in sales
contract, is that usually survey in place, and the property has to be
environmentally sound. That would go through Corp. and it would have to be
part of the sales process.
MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, thank you. I just want to say that I did receive from
the people who are doing the environmental study and plan, an email that they
were working on that already. So that was Graham Knopp or Kopp, I forget his
name, along with another person from Oahu that I know I’ve worked with before
when we’re talking about lead abatement and all of that stuff. So I know that is
being put into place. But thank you, Hamana, for all your work. So I just ask for
your support. Aloha.
Page 26
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Hopefully that answered your
questions, Mr. Paleka.
MR. PALEKA: It does give me a little bit of confidence.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you. Council Members, any other discussion?
MR. ONISHI: Yes, Mr. Chair.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Onishi, go right ahead.
MR. ONISHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted make sure the public knows
that with this resolution, I mean it’s not guaranteed that the County will be able to
purchase to purchase the property. The owner needs to be willing to sell. So if he
decides not to negotiate with the County or doesn’t get what he wants, then we’re
not going to be able to get this property. Thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Onishi. Any other discussion? Hearing or
seeing none, all in favor of the motion to approve, say “aye.”
Vote on Res. 535-16: The motion to adopt Res. 535-16 and adopt Finance
(Adopted) Committee Report No. 69 was carried by the following
voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille,
and Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Mr. Clerk, Resolution 540.
Res. 540-16: AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR
AND OF MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR FOR A MULTI-YEAR LEASE
FOR THREE MULTIFUNCTION, COLOR COPIERS FOR THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
Authorizes the Mayor to enter into a five-year lease agreement for three copiers
for the department’s Hilo and Kona offices at a monthly cost of approximately
$425 each.
Reference: Comm. 904
Intr. by: Ms. Eoff
Waived: FC
Page 27
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
Vote on Res. 540-16: Ms. Eoff moved to adopt Res. 540-16. Seconded by
(Adopted) Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille,
and Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Bills for
ORDINANCES Ordinances (First Reading).
(FIRST READING):
(Note: Bill 211 was taken up previously, out of order.)
Bill 208: AMENDS SECTION 25-8-2 (NORTH AND SOUTH KONA ZONE MAP)
ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAI‘I COUNTY
CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL – FIVE ACRES (A-5a) TO
ND
FAMILY AGRICULTURAL – TWO ACRES (FA-2a) AT KŪKI‘O 2 &
MANINI‘ŌWALI, NORTH KONA, HAWAI‘I, COVERED BY TAX MAP
KEY: 7-2-004:027 (Applicants: Carl and Christine Carlson) (Area: 5 acres)
The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for
this change of zone, which would allow the applicants to subdivide the property
into two parcels. The applicants state they would retain a three-acre lot and
convey the remaining two-acre lot to their daughter.
Reference: Comm. 887
Intr. by: Mr. Ilagan (B/R)
Approve: PC-65
Vote on Bill 208: Mr. Ilagan moved to pass Bill 208 on first reading and
(Approved) adopt Planning Committee Report No. 65. Seconded by
Mr. Paleka and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille,
and Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Mr. Clerk, Bill 209.
Page 28
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
Bill 209: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 03-115, WHICH RECLASSFIED LANDS FROM
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – 1,000 SQUARE FEET (RM-1) TO
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL – 7,500 SQUARE FEET (CV-7.5) AT
HONUAULA, NORTH KONA, HAWAI‘I, COVERED BY TAX MAP
KEY: 7-5-022:040 (Applicant: Tante Urban) (Area: 7,500 square feet)
The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for
this five-year time extension to Condition C, time to complete construction. The
new applicant states he intends to construct a six-unit, multiple-family apartment
building with a commercial kitchen on the ground floor.
Reference: Comm. 888
Intr. by: Mr. Ilagan (B/R)
Approve: PC-66
Vote on Bill 209: Mr. Ilagan moved to pass Bill 209 on first reading and
(Approved) adopt Planning Committee Report 66. Seconded by
Mr. Paleka and carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille,
and Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Mr. Clerk, Bill 210.
Bill 210: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 889 (FORMERLY KAMUELA ZONE MAP,
CURRENTLY LALAMILO PUʻUKAPU ZONE MAP), WHICH RECLASSIFIED
LANDS FROM AGRICULTURAL – FORTY ACRES (A-40a) TO
ND
AGRICULTURAL – FIVE ACRES (A-5a) AT PU‘UKAPU HOMESTEADS, 2
SERIES, SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAI‘I, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEYS:
6-4-017:023, 064-067, AND 078 (FORMERLY 6-4-017:023)
(Planning Director Initiated)
The Leeward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this
amendment to the Zoning Code, which would delete Conditions C and H removing
limiting agricultural use restrictions, and add a new condition to allow the full range
of agricultural land uses.
Reference: Comm. 889
Intr. by: Mr. Ilagan (B/R)
Approve: PC-67
Motion to Approve: Mr. Ilagan moved to pass Bill 210 on first reading and
adopt Planning Committee Report No. 67. Seconded by
Mr. Paleka.
Page 29
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
CHR. KANUHA: Is there any discussion? Ms. Wille.
MS. WILLE: Yes, can I bring Director Kanuha forward?
(Note: At this time, Planning Director Duane Kanuha came forward to
address the members of the Council.)
MS. WILLE: At the last meeting, I brought up some questions just in terms of
how this is drafted with regard to the CDP (Community Development Plan) and
in particular as well, the Important Agricultural Lands policy in the state.
Basically, this is trying to rezone so that to decrease and make it so it would be
smaller units, and from—what is it? From Ag-40 to Ag-5 acres. This is in an
area where it’s very high classified soil, generally speaking. I don’t know exactly
where this is. But I just wanted—had asked I think it was Mr. Arai that was here,
in terms of what we would be doing is eliminating certain requirements and
changing the definition.
So right now, it would be the land in this area, which is very high yield, it’s
restricted to like vegetable crops. I don’t remember the exact wording, but it’s
sort of focused to preserve that level of agriculture, and this would remove it and
make it so that you have to require with State Land Use agriculture districts, and
State Land Use agriculture districts have everything up to geothermal
development. The CDP in that area doesn’t limit agriculture to just crop
vegetables, but is more really agriculture and not a wide open door like as I see
the State Agricultural District classifications, which as I look at it, looking at
who’s got really good lobbyists also gets whatever they want in there. They don’t
even allow composting there.
So anyway, I wanted some more feedback on that and your thoughts in terms of—
let’s start with the CDP, and it seems to say here in the report that it is compliant
with the CDP, although as I read it, you know, I somewhat question that directive.
DIR. KANUHA: Good morning, Council Chair and members of the Council. So
what was your question again, Margaret?
CHR. KANUHA: Can you say your name again for the record?
DIR. KANUHA: Oh, Duane Kanuha, Planning Director.
MS. WILLE: You know, opening this up to any use that’s allowed by the State
Land Use Ag Commission, we’re somewhat setting a precedent here. We’re
changing land that was really very restrictive, and were not even going to say, the
CDP level. We’re just opening it up to whatever the State statute may allow. I’m
not saying I’m opposed to this in particular. I listen to you all and where your
Page 30
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
judgements, but I am concerned the direction we’re taking, and our Council hasn’t
done important ag lands, and at least part of this is in important ag lands. And
just sort of how we justify it, not just in terms of this case, but going forward.
DIR. KANUHA: Okay, let me put it this way. I don’t know what you all were
doing 30 years ago, but 30 years ago I worked on this application. This
application, the analysis for it was pretty restrictive because just this nature of
going from Ag-40 down to Ag-5. The department along with the Council at that
time was kind of looking for boundaries, the same way we’re still looking for
these—for some kind of boundaries with regard to getting smaller lots out of the
ag district. So what we did at that time and what the Council approved at that
time was a fairly restrictive condition rezoning, because it was one of the first
ones that was getting outside of Waimea itself.
There wasn’t a whole lot of direction from the State. Actually, the State wanted
the County to—The State Department of Ag wanted the County to take a more
aggressive role. One of the models we used in the analysis for how to condition
this particular project, was Lalamilo Farms. Okay, Lalamilo Farms, State Ag
project, very restrictive, every dwelling had to be a farm dwelling, bonafide farm
dwelling. That area and the areas closer into the center of Waimea were actually
the sweet spot for the kind of ag products and production that was represented,
could possibly be done on this piece of property if the owner had smaller lots
where he could manage those crops.
At the end of the day, he wasn’t able to actually perform. He ended up getting
compliance to move into these increments, basically through grazing, right,
through cattle grazing. In hindsight, when you look back, that’s kind of what’s
happening in that end of the world. In the meantime, the State, through the State
Land Use law, you know, HRS 205 (Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes), began to split up,
began to focus a lot more attention on these important agricultural lands. So
instead of keeping those lands or the notion of protecting those lands under the
guise of just the State Land Use Agriculture District, they created a separate
section of the statute, okay, which described the characteristic, et cetera, of what
these important ag lands would be.
So basically, over time we’ve just seen that the restrictions that were placed on
this property 30 years ago are actually being more restrictive than what the State
law and what our County laws are starting to apply. So in a sense it’s almost like
agricultural contractual zoning. You have to deal with these particular kinds of
efforts.
The record will show that the users of the property today, they have farm
dwellings, not real intensive kind of production like was envisioned for the area.
If anything it’s more grazing, pasture land, that kind of an opportunity. Then
there’s also been requests over the years to use some of these properties for uses
that are really not agriculture related. Those uses are permitted through special
Page 31
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
permits. That’s how some of these activities got into those lands that were the
subject of the rezoning back then. But the conditions of the ag performance were
such that the use activities would be constrained because of what they were there.
It’s a real Catch 22, because anyone can apply for a special permit to allow these
uses. We can’t prohibit people from applying. Whether or not they can meet the
criteria to grant those uses is something else.
So what it is, we looked at this whole rezoning application and determined that
because the conditions were so restrictive, again, almost like agricultural
contractual zoning, we decided to make an amendment and actually allow those
uses which are currently permitted, currently allowed under the State Land Use
law in our ag zoning. I think right now, I forget what the number is, I have the
file back here but I think there’s more uses that are permitted on the property. I
think like 15 more uses than what this property is related to.
So that was basically the rationale we used. I mentioned Lalamilo Farms. Over
time, what has happened with Lalamilo Farms is that they’re restricted to truck
crops and certain kinds of crop activities. Those restrictions have been lifted, so
they’re allowed to do a range of other uses, even though that is the real sweet spot
in that area.
So I think you can see over time there’s this transition away from a restriction of
ag use through the State Land Use law, mainly because of the focus, a specific
focus into these important agricultural lands. That’s pretty much the basis for the
recommendation.
MS. WILLE: Consistent with the State Land Use Plan, so long as it is consistent
with any applicable Development Plan, and I just—I’m not opposed to this in
itself, but when I read the plan, and even here in your report, it’s saying these
lands are considered important for agriculture and are to be used for extensive and
intensive farming and ranching. I, just reading, common sense, find that is not as
expansive as that laundry list, you know, State deal. So my concern is really what
precedent we set, and especially where I think that area in Waimea and the
Lalamilo area, is the highest grade soils and just our emphasis on agriculture.
Listening to some of the farmers who have come to the CDP meetings, just how
that’s important.
So did this go through, was this discussed with the South Kohala CDP
Committee?
DIR. KANUHA: I—
MS. WILLE: Just the ones that I’ve been to, I don’t recall it, so I just, you know,
I feel that—you know, part of what I’m getting at is the importance of the CDP
Action Committees, and making sure that, you know, we’re going along with it.
Page 32
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
DIR. KANUHA: I just had a note that the soils on this property are Class C,
which is not the super high quality soil. Lalamilo and that area are your—we
don’t—the soil categories go from A to E. Big Island doesn’t have any A. The
best we’ve got is B. Most of the B and the most productive B-class soils are right
in the Lalamilo area, which is why they’re able to generate the kind of—
MS. WILLE: So just the CDP Action Committee, was there any feedback there?
And it just concludes, therefore, that this plan is consistent with the CDP.
Anyway, I’m just telling you I don’t, in terms of—I’m not going to oppose this,
I’m concerned about the precedent, I’m concerned about the CDP just sort of
being, you know, doing things and sort of a categorical statement, it’s consistent,
whereas it seems questionable.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Wille. Council Members, discussion?
Ms. Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Well just that it does say it’s consistent with the Kohala CDP and
that the lands are still encouraged to be used for agriculture, which is I guess
consistent with the Kohala CDP. So I’m not sure where the discrepancy that you
raised with the—
MS. WILLE: Can I point that out quickly? Because what they’re doing is they’re
saying they only have to be compliant with the State Land Use Code and the State
Land Use Zoning is far broader than what the CDP.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Wille. Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Any other
discussion? Hearing or seeing, I think we can take the vote, Ms. Wille. All in
favor of the motion to approve, say “aye.”
Vote on Bill 210: The motion to pass Bill 210 on first reading and adopt
(Approved) Planning Committee Report No. 67 was carried by the
following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille,
and Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes.
ORDER OF The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Order of
THE DAY: the Day (Second or Final Reading).
SECOND OR
FINAL READING:
Page 33
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
Bill 150 AMENDS CHAPTER 16, ARTICLE 3, SECTION 16-5 OF THE HAWAI‘I
(Draft 2): COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE
MEMBERSHIP AND TENURE
Vacancies would be filled before filling expired positions occupied by members
willing to continue serving.
Reference: Comm. 694.4
Intr. by: Ms. Wille
First Reading: June 3, 2016
Motion to Approve: Ms. Wille moved to pass Bill 150, Draft 2, on second and
final reading. Seconded by Ms. Eoff.
CHR. KANUHA: Ms. Wille, go right ahead.
MS. WILLE: Okay, we talked about this for quite a bit, and basically we’re
trying to address the problem of vacancies and extended vacancies and meeting
quorum on the boards. Just in terms of the history, I also originally had a
provision in there that would have allowed Council Members to nominate
members by default if the Mayor hadn’t done so within 90 days. Again there
wasn’t support for that, but at least allowing people to stay on at their discretion if
there were still other vacancies that need to be filled. We may find that we need
to limit that to some extent in the future but I would like to go ahead and move
forward on this. It basically is asking that the open seats be filled.
As you know, we’ve had a lot of problems on the CDP’s, say North Kohala,
South Kohala. I understand Puna hasn’t had as much, but where people are
submitting their applications, but members are not—they haven’t been filled.
Right now we’re doing much better, and I think we actually may have nine in
South Kohala, and I’m not sure, but close.
Anyway, I ask—we discussed it quite a bit at length, and I ask for your support.
If there are other questions, then I’ll respond.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you. Ms. Eoff.
MS. EOFF: Yes, I do support this. I’ve been supportive of this. I think it’s really
important that we can keep the members on the commission full so that they can
meet. I had one question that was brought to me by a friend actually. I don’t
know if you considered this. But should there be a limit placed on the length of
time that the member can continue to serve?
MS. WILLE: Yeah, I did discuss this, and I think what I said that if that
somehow becomes a problem, I would be happy to introduce something. But just
sort of the key, keep going what-ifs and what-ifs, and what-if’s. If there’s a
Page 34
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
problem, look for a solution, but speculative problems, I’d rather not. I’d rather
get this—at least we’re dealing with right now, the current problem, at least in the
CDP, North Kohala CDP, and I’m not sure which others.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Any other discussion? Hearing or
seeing none, all in favor of the motion to approve, say “aye.”
Vote on Bill 150: The motion to pass Bill 150, Draft 2, on second and final
(Draft 2) reading was carried by the following voice vote:
(Adopted)
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille,
and Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Council Members, we do have several more
items and I want to get through them. But just for the public’s information, we
have an 11:00 o’clock Committee meeting. But that shouldn’t be too long more
until we get to those items. So just māhalo for your patience.
Bill 205: AMENDS CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE 10, DIVISION 5, OF THE HAWAI‘I
COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO
PARKING
Amends Section 24-280 (No parking any time), by revising existing provisions and
adding new provisions for portions of Ali‘i Drive, Subsection (f), Kona.
Reference: Comm. 874
Intr. by: Ms. Poindexter
First Reading: June 3, 2016
Vote on Bill 205: Ms. Poindexter moved to pass Bill 205 on second and final
(Adopted) reading. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the
following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille,
and Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Motion passes. Mr. Clerk, Reports.
REPORTS: The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Reports.
Page 35
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
PC-63 NOMINATION OF MARK VAN PERNIS TO THE KAILUA VILLAGE
(Comm. 885): DESIGN COMMISSION
Motion to Approve: Ms. Eoff moved to adopt Planning Committee Report
No. 63. Seconded by Ms. David.
CHR. KANUHA: Any discussion? Just briefly, Council Members, for your
information. I did get emails on this nomination, and it was kind of troubling for
those emails. I will support Mr. Van Pernis’ nomination going forward on this
Design Commission, but I just wanted to state that there were some concerns
about this potential nomination on that commission. But I think he can work
well with the other commissioners in making sure that it moves pretty smoothly.
But I just wanted to state that I did have concerns from some members of the
public and certain commission members. So just for your information.
Mr. Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Put you on the spot, Mr. Chair. But could you maybe tell us
what some of those concerns were?
CHR. KANUHA: I was trying to look for the email this morning. I saw it last
week. He did show up to a commission meeting. I don’t know if it was last
week or the week before, or after he went through the first nomination process
on the Committee, and it’s hard to—without that email. I don’t know if Ms. Eoff
could elaborate more.
MS. EOFF: Yeah, we did receive that, and I spoke to the Director, and I’m
going to have a talk with Mr. Van Pernis just to make sure that he understands
the role and the workings of that commission.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Mr. Chung.
MR. CHUNG: Maybe if Ms. Eoff can tell us what those—
MS. EOFF: I think Mr. Van Pernis is outspoken and he wasn’t yet confirmed or
totally serving on the commission, but he spoke to an applicant who was before
the Design Commission that day he was there. I haven’t heard the conversation,
but I just know he was critical and outspoken. Not that that’s bad, but I think the
commissioners just had concerns whether he would be able to work well on this
body. So I’m going to have a talk with him.
MR. CHUNG: Alright, but both of the Kona Council Members are supporting?
Okay, thank you.
CHR. KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Thank you, Ms. Eoff. Any other
discussion? Okay, hearing or seeing none, all those in favor of the motion to
approve, say “aye.”
Page 36
Hawaiʻi County Council-44 June 15, 2016
Vote on PC-63: The motion to adopt Planning Committee Report No. 63
(Adopted) was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille,
and Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: Mr. Clerk, next item.
PC-64 NOMINATION OF EDDIE K. AKAU TO THE SOUTH KOHALA
(Comm. 886): COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE
Vote on PC-64: Ms. Wille moved to adopt Planning Committee Report
(Adopted) No. 64. Seconded by Mr. Paleka and carried by the
following voice vote:
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille,
and Chair Kanuha – 9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
REFERRALS FOR The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Referrals
EXECUTIVE for Executive Session.
SESSION:
(There were none.)
OTHER The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business, Other
BUSINESS: Business.
(There was none.)
ANNOUNCE- The Chair directed the Council to proceed to the next order of business,
MENTS: Announcements.
(There were none.)
CHR. KANUHA: Okay, can I have a motion to adjourn?
ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 11:08 a.m., Ms. Poindexter moved that the
MENT: meeting be adjourned. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following
voice vote:
Page 37
Hawaii County Council-44 June 15, 2016
Ayes: Council Members Chung, David, Eoff,
Ilagan, Onishi, Paleka, Poindexter, Wille,
and Chair Kanuha—9.
Noes: None.
Absent: None.
Excused: None.
CHR. KANUHA: We are adjourned.
Council Approval: MAR 1 4 2018
CO " CLERK
SM/ja
Page 38