Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN FC 2018/01/23 2016-2018Committee on Finance 25th Session West Hawaii Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii January 23, 2018 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Finance was called to order at ORDER: 2:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair Ms. Karen Eoff, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: Chair David directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Rene Siracusa: Virginia Aste: Wesley Takai: (representing Real Property Tax Board of Review) Comm. 608, in support. Comm. 608, in support. Comm. 667, comment. CHR. DAVID: Council Members, if it's okay with you folks, I'm going to take out of order Resolution 476, the Housing resolution, and then I will go and just take one more, Communication 14.24, so that Mr. Kucharski can leave. Mr. Clerk, please, Resolution 476. Change Order of As directed by the Chair and with objection from the Council Members, the Business: following items were taken out of order: FC -26 January 23, 2018 Res. 476-18: AUTHORIZES THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO NEGOTIATE A SEVENTY-FIVE YEAR LEASE WITH THE HAWAII ISLAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (HICDC) FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF HALE OLA O MOHOULI AFFORDABLE SENIOR RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT AT A SET LEASE RENTAL AMOUNT OF $100 PER YEAR HICDC would construct approximately 200 rental units on property identified as Tax Map Key: 2-4-001:168, containing an area of 9.091 acres, that was acquired from the State of Hawaii for the purpose of developing affordable housing. Reference: Comm. 695 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Vote on Res. 476-18: Ms. Eoff moved to recommend adoption of Res. 476-18. (Approved) Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, can you please go to Communication 14.24, please? At the top, Communication 14.24. COMMUNI- Chair David directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 14.24: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: OCTOBER 16 — 31, 2017 From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated November 15, 2017, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Postponed: January 3, 2018 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Poindexter, seconded by Ms. Lee Loy, to close file on Comm. 14.24.) (Note: At this time, Environmental Management Director William Kucharski came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. I just want to let everyone know that Mr. Kucharski is here, and one of the communications for the correction has been made. Mr. Kucharski. Page 2 FC -26 January 23, 2018 MR. HENRICKS: Madame Chair, are we going to be addressing the corrected communication? CHR. DAVID: Yes, did you read both of them? MR. HENRICKS: Then could we just take a vote on this one, close it out, and then we'll go to the next one and do a fresh motion? CHR. DAVID: Okay, perfect. MR. HENRICKS: Can I confirm, though, that Comm. 14.28 replaces Comm. 14.24, and you guys are done talking about Comm. 14.24? CHR. DAVID: Yes. MR. HENRICKS: Very good. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Alright, all those in favor of filing Communication 14.24 please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 14.24: The motion to close file on Comm. 14.24 was carried by Filed the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Comm. 14.28: AMENDED REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: OCTOBER 16 — 31, 2017 From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated January 5, 2018. Motion to Close File: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 14.28. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kucharski. MR. KANUHA: Madame Chair? CHR. DAVID: Yes, Mr. Kanuha? MR. KANUHA: Thank you. Thank you, Director, for being here. The question I had the last time was pertaining to Lono Kona Subdivision, and there might have been a mistake during that change order. Because Dora Beck was trying to Page 3 FC -26 January 23, 2018 answer the question that I had about it, and she couldn't quite answer it correctly. So that's why hence the new communication and hence Director Kucharski for being here present, to explain exactly what's going on. MR. KUCHARSKI: Thank you. Bill Kucharski, Director of DEM (Department of Environmental Management. The communication is for a change order for Belt Collins, our design engineer for Lono Kona. We had, as you might recall from earlier discussions, modified the route of the system and the connections. This change order, which amounted to about $28,000, was to cover the cost of redesigning that new section when we changed the route. I think in the last communication it was associated with some locks or something. I think that was just a misprint. So for clarification, I wanted to say that's what this change order was for. MR. KANUHA: And thank you for that. Because the original one was to deter vandalism, upgrade padlocks and keys to secondary gate to Primus Systems, and it didn't make sense at all. But this one definitely makes a lot of sense. MR. KUCHARSKI: I couldn't agree with you more, sir. MR. KANUHA: Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. Anyone else? No? Alright. Mr. Kucharski, thank you for your patience today, and have a safe drive back. MR. KUCHARSKI: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: All those in favor of filing Communication 14.28 please say Ic aye. Vote on Comm. 14.28: The motion to close file on Comm. 14.28 was carried by the Filed the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Council Members, we have either a choice to go right through our agenda. I see people waiting in Hilo, and I think Mr. Victorine is there. Yes, Ms. O'Hara? Page 4 FC -26 January 23, 2018 MS.O'HARA: (inaudible) CHR. DAVID: Alright then, should half -an -hour for a short lunch break be okay? Okay, let's say half -an -hour, okay, twenty. Okay, we'll be back here by 3:30. Everybody ready to go by 3:30, okay? Alright, Finance Committee is in recess. Mahalo. Recess: At 2:53 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 3:35 p.m. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Council Members, and welcome back to the Committee on Finance. We are out of recess right now. Mr. Clerk, if we can go to Bills for Ordinances and take Bill 93 out of order. Bill 93: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 17-39, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2018 Increases revenues in the Real Property Tax Sale Cost & Expenditure account ($525,000); and appropriates the same to the Real Property Tax Sale Cost & Expenditure account for a total appropriation of $1,070,000. Fund appropriation accommodates an increased amount of parcels anticipated for Real Property Tax Foreclosure Tax Sale in Fiscal Year 2017-2018. Reference: Comm. 696 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Eoff moved to recommend passage of Bill 93 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR. DAVID: We have Director Sako in Hilo. If Council Members have any questions regarding this matter, we can call her up. Any questions? Seeing none—you do? Ms. Sako, could you please just come forward in case there's questions? In fact, while we're getting our documents together, could you please explain what Bill 93 covers? (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SAKO: Yes. On Bill 93, that's our account that we pay all of our real property tax sale expenditures. So when we foreclose on real property tax parcels, then we charge the cost to this account. But then, the revenue account is the offset and that's actually—we collect it back from the sale proceeds, from the foreclosure sales. So, we get reimbursed for all of those costs. Page 5 FC -26 January 23, 2018 In this particular year, when we went to do our parcels, there ended up being more parcels on our list than we anticipated. So, we just need to increase the revenue and the related expenditure account to cover that. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Council Members, do you have any further questions for Ms. Sako? Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Ms. Sako. Deanna, on this, it looks like you have an anticipated revenue, $1 million and change and a cost of $500,000. Is that the actual cost of making a transaction? Are you writing off a bunch of uncollected taxes? MS. SAKO: No, the actual revenue—this amendment will bring the total revenue up to $1,070,000 and will bring the expenditure up to the $1,070,000. This is actually just the cost related to the sale, and then the first part of the sale proceeds goes to actually pay off the taxes, interest, and penalties. The costs are also part of the minimum upset price, so then the cost gets paid off as well. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, alright. Okay, thank you. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? Seeing none—thank you, Ms. Sako. All those in favor of approving Bill 93 please say "aye." Vote on Bill 93: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 93 on (Approved) first reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, can we go to the top of the agenda now and start with Communication 14.26? Return to Order of The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. Business: Comm. 14.26: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: NOVEMBER 16 – 30, 2017 From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated December 18, 2017, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Page 6 FC -26 Vote on Comm. 14.26 Filed January 23, 2018 Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 14.26. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Comm. 14.27: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: DECEMBER 1 — 15, 2017 From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated December 29, 2017, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Vote on Comm. 14.27: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 14.27. Filed Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Comm. 15.21: REPORT OF FUND TRANSFERS AUTHORIZED: NOVEMBER 16 — 30, 2017 From Controller Kay Oshiro, dated December 15, 2017. Vote on Comm. 15.21: Mr. Richards moved to close file on Comm. 15.21. Filed Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Comm. 15.22: REPORT OF FUND TRANSFERS AUTHORIZED: DECEMBER 1 — 15, 2017 From Controller Kay Oshiro, dated December 20, 2017. Page 7 FC -26 Vote on Comm. 15.22 Filed January 23, 2018 Mr. Richards moved to close file on Comm. 15.22. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Comm. 69.4: SECOND QUARTER CLAIMS REPORT: OCTOBER 1 — DECEMBER 31, 2017 From Claims Investigator/Adjustor Clifford D. Victorine III, dated January 4, 2018, transmitting the above report pursuant to Section 2-9 of the Hawaii County Code. Vote on Comm. 69.4: Ms. O'Hara moved to close file on Comm. 69.4. Filed Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Comm. 377.2: SECOND QUARTER REPORT OF PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER A CONTRACT FOR LESS THAN 90 DAYS: OCTOBER 1 — DECEMBER 31, 2017 From Human Resources Acting Director William V. Brilhante, Jr., dated January 2, 2018, transmitting the above report pursuant to Section 2-12.5 of the Hawaii County Code. Vote on Comm. 377.2: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 377.2. Filed Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 8 FC -26 January 23, 2018 Comm. 608: REQUESTS DISCUSSION WITH CORPORATION COUNSEL JOSEPH KAMELAMELA REGARDING PUBLIC PURPOSE AND PROCESS FOR THE USE OF CONTINGENCY RELIEF FUNDS From Council Member Jen Ruggles, dated November 15, 2017. Postponed: December 4, 2017 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Poindexter, seconded by Ms. Lee Loy, to close file on Comm. 608.) (Note: Comm. 608.2, from Council Member Jen Ruggles dated January 22, 2018; and Comm. 608.3, from Corporation Counsel Joseph K. Kamelamela dated November 3, 2017, were circulated.) (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. RUGGLES: I see Mr. Kamelamela is coming to the table. Thank you. I wanted to have this discussion with two goals in mind: first, who decides public purpose; and secondly, the process and policy for CRFs(Contingency Relief Funds). This all came about due to a couple of different contingency fund resolutions that I tried to assist my district in. First, it was a CRF for bus stops, for Fern Acres. At the end of the communication that was distributed, you could see an email chain between me and Kamelamela (see Comm. 608.2). The second to the last page, where he provides me with three criteria that must—in which the answer to his questions must be positive in order for him to "consider approving them," to consider approving the bus stop CRF, after the CRF was duly approved by a department, by the Mayor's office, and by the County Council in a public hearing in which people came and testified. So, this is all after that. He provides me with three criteria. First, are the bus stops going to be placed on properties where there is a County easement, and if the answer to this was yes, then he would consider approving it; if the design and location of the bus stop was approved by the Mass Transit department; and thirdly, if the bus stops would be owned by the County? And if the answers to these three questions were positive or yes, then he would consider approving it. This was concerning to me because it appears that he's implying that these are policies; that this is a condition that we must meet in order for a CRF to be authorized by Corporation Counsel. So first of all, the design and locations must be approved by an appropriate department. To set that as a policy, would mean that—for example, the ceiling. We funded a ceiling fan at Waiakea High School, and that would mean the Department of Liquor Control, which the CRF was going through, would have to approve of these specific design and location of the ceiling fan. Page 9 FC -26 January 23, 2018 We funded a therapeutic garden for BISAC (Big Island Substance Abuse Council). That would mean Liquor Control would have to approve the design of the garden, using his logic. The afterschool programs for Na Wai Ola and Keaukaha Elementary School, that would mean R&D (Research and Development) would have to approve of the design of these plans. This is concerning to me because this is stated nowhere in the Code. The second thing is, is the bus stops going to be owned by the County? That means that in order for us to fund an art project in Pahoa, does the County have to own the art after that, or the materials and supplies that we funded for Hawaii Island United Way, or solar water heater we purchased for a church in Kurtistown? I hope everyone sees where I'm going. He's making this a condition for approval, yet it exists nowhere in the Code that this is actually a condition for a CRF to go through. Mr. Kamelamela, would you like to comment on this? MR. KAMELAMELA: Good afternoon. Joseph Kamelamela, Corporation Counsel. Actually, there were two issues that came up with the resolutions. But what I did—I'll—for your answers, okay? So if you look at the time that I asked for a response, that was around June 29th, to me, for the resolution to pass on June 23rd, you know, time was of the essence. So, I had asked for information because I couldn't get the information that I wanted from the department. I outreached to you, Ms. Ruggles, but you were busy. So what I did—and it shows that—what I did afterwards, I actually talked to Rene Siracusa because all I wanted was facts because maybe having the facts would assist me. So if you look at the last part of the email (see Comm. 608.2), I stated "Aloha, Jenn, at 1:20 pm today, I called and talked to Rene Siracusa, who provided answers to my questions." Based on the answers that she had given, I said, "Okay, it's good." Now, that wasn't the only resolution that I had some concerns about. MS. RUGGLES: Yes, but can we stick this one? I don't mean to interrupt you, but let's just stick to this bus stop one, just for a second. MR. KAMELAMELA: Sorry, but I think it is related to, I think, how we should move forward. Because one of the things that I heard from Ms. Siracusa, I think it's important. If you give me time to present what I see as being relevant, I think we can move forward. But it's up to you. I mean, I can wait. But I do have certain things, other things, on how to move forward. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, but what we're lacking right now is an acknowledgment of the first email that you sent. Because when you look at the second email that you responded to, where you talked to Ms. Siracusa, it says that, first, the shelters are built on land owned by the subdivision association. Yes, that was in the Page 10 FC -26 January 23, 2018 resolution. And second, the shelters are being built only at current bus stops, where the County busses already pick up passengers. We all knew that when we passed the resolution. That has nothing to do with the actual question that you had asked. That you said needed to be a yes answer in order for you to approve it. The question was, was the design and location of the bus stop approved by the department? It had nothing to do with whether or not the Hele-On services the bus stops. MR. KAMELAMELA: Okay, I'm not going to try to argue with you. But the reason why I was looking for an answer is because there was a—when I read the resolution, for example, you know, I was thinking—okay, typically you would go to Mass Transit. Okay, this particular resolution went through the Housing department. You know, and certain things that were in the resolution was incorrect. The monies weren't to be used for bus stops, but that's what the resolution talked about, so that, to me, was kind of confusing. MS. RUGGLES: It was to be used for bus stops. MR. KAMELAMELA: The monies were used to build a shelter. So, I was trying to get answers. Not only that, when I started to look at the resolution, you know, some of the information that I saw MS. O'HARA: Excuse me? Mr. Kamelamela, I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time following this because it seems non sequitur. Aren't you talking about the bus stops? He seems to have shifted to the association community building. CHR. DAVID: Excuse me, Ms. O'Hara, Ms. Ruggles have the floor. Mr. Kamelamela, can you hang on one second? Yeah, Ms. Ruggles had the floor. I know Ms. O'Hara has a question, but I would like to continue with Ms. Ruggles first and then Ms. O'Hara. If you have a point of order, Ms. O'Hara, I'll recognize your point of order. Point of MS. O'HARA: Oh, point of clarification. I don't know what question Clarification: Mr. Kamelamela is responding to. I was following Ms. Ruggles discussion and then you jumped in, Mr. Kamelamela, and brought up a whole other resolution, as I understand it. MS. RUGGLES: He's referring to the same resolution, yeah. But as far as it being a bus shelter or a bus stop, I don't understand the difference. MR. KAMELAMELA: Well, I mean, bus stops are where the bus stops, you know, which is a known location. Bus shelters are things that are going to cover it. MS. RUGGLES: It was in the resolution that the materials would be used for the construction of a shelter, for a bus stop. Page 11 FC -26 January 23, 2018 MR. KAMELAMELA: That's not the way that I read it. It talked about bus stops. So, for me, you know, that was a miscommunication that I was trying to get information on. And, you know, whatever is written in the email, I am not going to sit here and say that wasn't written. But once I got the information from Ms. Siracusa, I said, "Hey, wait a minute." Okay, what she told me, you know, I had the facts that I needed, so that's what I proceeded to. MS. RUGGLES: Yes, and I appreciate that. But again, you're failing to acknowledge the first email in which you created conditions for this CRF to be approved, and those conditions were not addressed. And the second email, for the answers, that you needed to approve it. So my concern here is that you're creating conditions that are being arbitrarily enforced and don't actually exists anywhere as a condition for a CRF approval to be legal. MR. KAMELAMELA: Okay, Ms. Ruggles, when I saw your response I was thinking, you know, all I'm looking for is information. Those are just questions, you know, that I have. You know, and that's all they were, questions. But like I said, I asked these questions, and some of the questions may be, you know, may not be correct, but I'm asking the questions. But as I stated earlier, as soon as I got the information from Ms. Siracusa, I said, "Okay, now I have the information that I needed." MS. RUGGLES: But that information wasn't relevant to the questions that you were asking as a condition of the approval. And then, if the bus stops will be owned by the County? You said that the answer to the question would have to be yes in order for you to consider approving it. Ms. Siracusa did not tell you whether or not it was going to be owned by the County. MR. KAMELAMELA: Ms. Ruggles, what are you really asking me? You know, all I said—look, I asked for some information. I gave you my questions; you gave me a response. To me, time was of the essence. It was more important for me to get information, which is what I did. I did not respond to your questions the way that you wanted to. All I did is, I to me, time is of the essence. You were busy. I went straight to Ms. Siracusa to get the information that I needed. And based on what she gave me, that's when I made the decision. After thatI made it clearer too and said, "Wait a minute, you know, there are these questions, but to me it's okay because there is a Mass Transit system that we have. The bus service, the riders, it's okay to build these shelters to protect people from rain and sun. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, you're missing the point. Page 12 FC -26 January 23, 2018 MR. KAMELAMELA: I—what else can I say, I mean—because what are you asking for? MS. RUGGLES: I'm asking for an acknowledgement of the first email you sent, saying that the answer to the three questions had to be positive in order for you to approve it. But that's the last time that I'm going to say this. I think we're going to have to move on. I think my colleagues can see why I had to bring this to the Council. The second thing I wanted to bring up was about process. Is the appropriateness of Corporation Counsel retroactively denying transfers that have already been duly approved by the Department Head, by the Mayor, and by the Council in a full public hearing, where do you get that authority? MR. KAMELAMELA: Okay, so as one of my duties and responsibility of the Corporation Counsel, in looking at these issues and looking at what the end result is, is what we're doing legal? So that's one of the first questions that I deal with. So in looking at these questions, it wasn't an easy issue, only because I know that back in 2016, something like this was approved. So, it made me think, you know, generally I know what the law is. To me, the law, as simply stated is this, awards generally of this nature cannot provide funds for capital improvements on private real properties— MS. RUGGLES: Where does the law say that? MR. KAMELAMELA: Unless otherwise authorized by law, or allowed, or permitted, So what I did for this situation—because I knew the community members had gone through the process, I made sure that I researched the issue more. And then, what I did, I prepared a document. Because, to me, I know that the administration and the County Council actually worked on this. I think you have it in Exhibit C. Exhibit C is something that I gave to some of the community members (see Comm. 608.3). I've actually met with them both, at the Housing department, because I do believe that making a decision like that, you know, I should be able to talk to them and explain to them. And then later on we had another meeting, you know, with the Mayor, and the same issues were brought up. As a result of this meeting, I note that you had presented a letter to the Mayor (see Comm. 608.2). The letter to the Mayor that I had received was August 25, 2017. Now, I didn't get the letter on that date. But because this was an important issue, I thought that I should do it in writing because I noticed that there had been no legal opinions that were presented by our office in this area. So I sent you a letter dated November 3, 2017 (see Comm. 608.3), and cc'd (carbon copied) the Mayor and the Managing Director because the Mayor was Page 13 FC -26 January 23, 2018 part of that later meeting that I had with you present, Nelson, and I believe that there were some other members present too, because I felt for a decision like that we should have some guidance. Now, right during this point too, I knew too that I should provide training, which I did back in October and November. I had invited administration and County Council Members to attend. I've also invited you personally for the training. Just recently too, I had an opportunity to look at the County of Hawaii nonprofit grant application for fiscal year 2018-2019. There's a sentence there that states awards cannot provide funds for capital improvements. So I looked at this form and I think it should have some changes because I think that the law that is relevant to this matter should be that awards cannot provide funds for capital improvements, and then parentheses, cost of construction materials, insurance or MS. RUGGLES: Okay, excuse me, Mr. Kamelamela. I'm going to have to interrupt you at some point. MR. KAMELAMELA: Of the real property, unless otherwise allowed, permitted, or authorized by the law. MS. RUGGLES: Mr. Kamelamela, I understand you're referring to the Orchidland Neighbors, and I appreciate you regurgitating the entire story but that's not what I'm talking about right now. Right now we're talking about policy. With that, I just want to moveI mean, since you mentioned that CRFs cannot be used for construction because you interpret them as capital improvement projects, I just want to, for my colleagues, I just want to point to page three of the communication, where I have multiple resolutions demonstrating precedence, for in the past where we have funded constructed projects built on private land for the benefit of the public (see Comm. 608.2). But I would like to move to the Hawaii County Code regarding CRFs. If you look at Exhibit A, I have the Hawaii Code and it says, "A service or activity to be provided by the nonprofit and funded by the county, shall address... public health and welfare of the people and the environment as may be determined by the County." So I believe what it comes down to, when it comes to CRFs, is who is the County? Who determines this public purpose? Who determines what service activity is addressing public health and safety? When I consider that, first of all, I consider that Hawaii County Council is made up of nine representatives representing each district to make up the entire County. Second, I consider that Corporation Counsel is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the County Council, who's sole purpose is to protect us legally and Page 14 FC -26 January 23, 2018 counsel us, to protect us from liabilities. And furthermore, as a side note, you did fail to Council, us on this one and all of the other CRFs that you denied behind closed doors, after they were approved by the County Council. And our third consideration, is that—if you look at the document that you gave me, titled Contingency Relief Funds and Public Purpose Doctrine, it states that the Supreme Court said that public purpose is a question for the legislature to decide. So when we think about who's the County and who's the legislature, is it Corporation Counsel or is it the legislator, the legislative body of the County, being the County Council? So the way that I read the County Code is, the Council decides what is public purpose, not Corporation Counsel. And that it's Corporation Counsel's job is to advise us and counsel us in public, when the matter is being heard before us, as we decide on public purpose and the nexus; which is outlined in the doctrine that you gave us. Which all of the grants that we have considered did actually meet, which is why we approved them. So, I really appreciate my colleagues giving me time and hearing me out on this. I'm not sure how to proceed forward, but Mr. Kamelamela's interpretations have like, have really constrained me from being able to address the needs of my constituents. There's been multiple CRFs that I haven't even brought to the Council because I asked him first. And now I feel like I'm having to go through him before I can bring it to the legislative body. There was a grant for the medical center that he said he wouldn't approve. There was another one from Malama O Puna for solar panels that he said he wouldn't approve. There's the neighborhood association that we already approved. That Orchidland is waiting on, and Orchidland does not have a community association. They're one of the only subdivisions. Ainaloa has one, Hawaiian Acres, Fern Acres, but Orchidland does not. If we decide that a community center does meet public purpose, and a meeting place is a function of the County, then that should be what goes. We decided if it was public purpose. So I'm concerned because there seems to be some arbitrary policy that's being forced upon me, and that it's the appropriateness of denying transfers behind closed doors after they've been approved, I believe, needs to be addressed. Thank you. MR. KAMELAMELA: Ms. Ruggles, can I respond? Or, Chair, to that? MS. RUGGLES: You can, if you promise that it will be relevant to what I just said. MR. KAMELAMELA: You know, all I'm doing is reading what the Code says. I don't think we have a disagreement—like what the Code says, establishes public purpose. Now, what this County Code doesn't have, you know, are a couple of Page 15 FC -26 January 23, 2018 things. One, this present Code doesn't have a definition of capital improvement. What is it? Maybe that's something to look at. The second thing that this Code doesn't have, and that's why it's subject to legal research. Is that, are we going to allow awards on capital improvement projects? Because there's nothing in there that talks about granting such awards, it only talks about activities or services. So if you read the letter that I had the legal opinion, November 3, 2017, you know, that's what we're kind of left with. I welcome actually working with you or any other Council Member, you know, to make some amendments to the Code, to clarify that, so that I don't have to interpret it a certain way, because it's clear. Right now, it is not clear that I, as the Corporation Counsel, has the authority to sign off on a contract based on how the County Code is written. Another alternative, which I also see short of doing some legislative changes actually, going back to the County of Hawaii nonprofit grant applications, providing notice to applicants; you know, telling them, giving them the definitions that we're looking at, as capital improvements. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, Mr. Kamelamela, I understand your point, in being that the Code currently doesn't have a capital improvement project definition; which makes me wonder where you were getting your definition of this, when you say that these are capital improvement projects and using that to justify denying them. But secondly, you're not actually addressing what I said, about who the County is when the Code gives us this authority to give grants, and who decides what public purpose is. MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, so all I'm stating is that—you know, I don't think we have a disagreement as to public purpose. Because I've indicated the last time, you know, public purpose has been established by the Code. Maybe it's something that has to be done a lot clearer. So a lot of what I'm basing my opinion are things that we had looked at, our office had looked at before. So you're saying that I am—you know, what I'm looking at, I'm looking at what case law has on it. So everything I put down on paper, at least in the November 3, 2017, is supported by law as it exists today. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Ruggles? MS. RUGGLES: I'll yield at this time. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Okay, thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Thank you, Chair. I'm just trying to really get my head around this because I don't have every detail that Ms. Ruggles has been dealing with, and Page 16 FC -26 January 23, 2018 this communication was just placed before us. But it does appear that their precedent has already been set with regard to providing Contingency Relief Funds to projects that Mr. Kamelamela is considering capital improvement projects. Now, since we don't have a definition on capital improvement projects, this becomes very, very subjective. I will say this, there seems to be a disconnect sometimes with people who don't quite understand the structure of the District of Puna, with its very large substandard subdivisions. When we talk about missile defense, and we talk about sheltering in place or finding a place to shelter, most of Puna has no physical shelters. I am living in one of the few subdivisions out there that has an actual school; Keonepoko Elementary, where you can go in the case of a natural disaster emergency. Most of the subdivisions depend upon their community centers, their community association buildings, and Ms. Ruggles is absolutely right, Orchidland does not have one. Most of the larger subdivisions in Puna have managed to scrap together the funds, or the developer did it for them in my case, and create such a structure. And when the Corp. of Engineers and the Civil Battalion came recently to help us with emergency preparedness, I had asked them to go out and evaluate those buildings in my district because that is where the community, the public, is going to be protected. So considering community centers, have a public purpose. I'm really not understanding the limited thinking that is going on here to prevent this from happening. All that was requested was money for design and planning for said facility. It wasn't for the actual capital improvement. So with regard to that particular case, I am clueless as to why there was any reason to object or obstruct that request from moving forward. As far as bus stops and bus shelters, there has been bus shelters for the Hele-On bus, built on private land, on subdivision land, all over the Puna District. Up and down Kahakai Boulevard, where I live, there are shelters that were built by Mr. Blas, Council Member Blas. They are his legacy to our community. So they are built on lands that the private property owners have granted a little easement on. This is not new. This has been going in Puna forever, so I don't know why we suddenly have to come in and say, "No, this isn't allowed." It's the way we have faced development in our substandard subdivisions of Puna forever I really don't think— I think the bottom-line here is it is the legislative body of the County of Hawaii that decides whether this has public purpose and whether the project has merit. I would think that Corporation Counsel would be assisting us in ensuring everything is legal as it moves forward not obstructing, and I see this more as obstruction than assistance. So, I'm sorry, Mr. Kamelamela, I just have to say it that way. Page 17 FC -26 January 23, 2018 Because I have worked with you on some kind of gnarly CRF requests, and we've managed to find a way through, but it's getting harder and harder; and not just from your office, we're getting restrictions placed on us by departments who approved types of aid in the past and are now saying, "No, it doesn't meet our programmatic goals." And yet, they approved these same CRF requests last year. So, this is really making it difficult for us to act in our communities and provide the support that our communities need. So, I really appreciate that we're having this conversation because it shouldn't be that hard. It really is up to the County Council to decide whether a project meets public purpose and whether it has merit. So, that's what I have to say. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Anyone else? Council Members? Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Just briefly. I'll echo what Council Member O'Hara just said, is this is a legislative body and we do decide what is in the best interest of the constituency of the people, so I'm not going to belabor the point. But I agree completely with that statement, that's why we're here. And when it comes before us, if we have a question whether or not it's going to benefit the public, we question that. If we approved it, we decided it's in the constituency's best interest. I think the checks and balance is, what we're talking about, exist right here on the Council. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I don't like when things are arbitrarily decided behind close doors, and what we have is a public process in front of us. We put the CRF; they sign off It goes to the Mayor's office. Public hearing process, I raised this issue the last time. Let's stick to the process, and we determine what the public, our constituents, need. I think Ms. Ruggles is right on the head about adhering to a process. That being said, Ms. Ruggles, I just want point out one section of the County Code, in which I'm hoping to drop-in, and maybe in the future you might want to consider. It's under our County Code, Section 2-139, Section 3 (C)(b)(2), "For grant awards from the district contingency relief, the council may direct the return of the full appropriation or the balance of the unexpended funds." So if we start moving some of our contingency money into these difference agencies and our resolution is not clear enough in which all of the monies are not expended, we should be using this portion of our Code to get the monies back to us, in which we can then turn around and further serve community. Because it's been my concern that we pushed these monies into different agencies or departments; for whatever Page 18 FC -26 January 23, 2018 reason, the organization or the group the cost has gone down or they over estimated, and that balance remains in that department to arbitrarily use however they see fit. So, that was my point the last time. If we need to come up with a better process, I think we should. But I also am going to encouraging the rests of my colleagues to consider using this caveat that's already in our Code to get the monies back, or write a resolution that is comprehensive enough in which these organizations can utilize the money the best way they see fit. I'm going to yield at this time. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Council Members, any more discussion? Ms. Eoff, go ahead. MS. EOFF: Thank you. Mr. Kamelamela, I do understand the issue with Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) because we had to deny a grant to a Habitat for Humanity when their request was for construction materials to build a house. We all wanted to help provide housing, but Corporation Counsel had advised us that when the only expenditure was to be used for construction material for that house, that we couldn't be involved in that CIP construction project. I'm assuming it's because there's a liability issue with that. So I'm wondering if that's what your thinking is, why you're now hesitant on the construction of a bus shelter using County funds on private property when you wouldn't know if that construction is safe or meets Code or something like that. But if that's the issue, and in this kind of situation, why couldn't there be a way to get out of liability? you know, to state that in the contract or something like that to safeguard the County from any liability with the construction of a bus shelter, in order to make it happen? I mean, I think there's no disagreement that these are needed in the community, and there's maybe no other way to get them because those are private roads. So I just was looking for a work -around, actually. The other question I had wasI was reading, in the last page ofI think it was the page but in your email letter, back and forth with Jen, and I think you included Kaloa on one of them, and then you had mentioned that you spoke with Ms. Siracusa and got answers to some questions. But then I read at the end then, so you were going to approve—so after learning the answers to your questions, you were to approve the request. So is that where there was an initial approval and then there was a change? Because that was in June. MR. KAMELAMELA: At that point, that's when I had committed myself to sign off We have a contract because, you know, time was of the essence to me. MS. RUGGLES: Could I answer that, please? MS. EOFF: I did ask him, but if he's done MS. RUGGLES: Okay. Page 19 FC -26 January 23, 2018 MR. KAMELAMELA: And can I just add one more thing to that? Is that, I recognize in law you can find exceptions, you know, that's why I keep repeating myself on what I think the law is, and I think it might be helpful if there is a legislative amendment to the Code to make things clearer. Right at that offset so that at least the public wouldn't be faced with what just happened. For me, it wasn't easy. But I made the decision and I wrote the November 3rd. And then I was thinking of other ways, you know, to make things better so that—even the applicants this year, who are applying for the grants-in-aid, they had do provide some notice already. So I think for this situation, I think it's a good situation to have come across because then it's something that we had to look a little bit deeper. But it's going to be up to the County Council in the end toyou know, this body want to make the changes. And then make—to provide clearer guidance. Because right now the only guidance that we're having is whatever research we come up with. And then we make a decision. I understand Ms. Ruggles thinks it's arbitrary but no, you know, with cases—what the case law is—and let me just give you, you know, one of the examples is that take the example of the volunteer firefighters, you know we had approved a resolution allowing a certain kind of fund to be used to build facilities for the volunteer firefighters, but the only reason why that has been allowed is because it's a State statute, you know, that allows the County to build facilities for the firefighters in private subdivisions. Because there is an authority to do so, we have a County Code provision, where it establishes the locations of many of these volunteer fire stations in private subdivisions. So that's one example of where there is support, there is authority, you know, to use such funds in private subdivisions. But I haven't seen something like that, which is something that I was trying to look for with regards to this situation. I just couldn't find anything. I couldn't find anything on point. MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Thank you for pointing that one out. But it's still troubling that in a very specific email, question and answer, that it would've ended with your opinion being that you will approve the contract once it comes to your office. And then somewhere along the line to have to change your opinion. I think it does show that we need to understand this better, and maybe we need to continue to work on whatever it is to clear this up. But I'm sorry this has happened. I'll yield to Jen. I think she wanted to answer. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: I just wanted to say that the purpose of me bringing up that email was so that you could see the conditions that Joe was placing upon the bus shelters, that he is failing to acknowledge now. But, Mr. Kamelamela, it might be beneficial to you if you were to review the initial email that you sent me asking Page 20 FC -26 January 23, 2018 those questions because you might be able to understand our concern when it comes to consistency. Okay, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, I think the bottom-line is two words, public purpose, and if it has a public purpose but like I can understand in the grant-in-aid, when they come and it's to build a home and it's going to be occupied by only a family, the public is not going to be able to utilize that home, so that's not a public purpose. Bottom-line is, to me, public purpose is the public has access to whatever we're giving funds for. Real simple. I think it's just simple as those two words. Thanks. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Anyone else before—Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Let's see now. You know, there's a concept in law that some lawyers adhere to. Only some. I use that word some. That word is obfuscate; confused, and stupefy, and do that kind of stuff. You know, just to cloud the issue. Now I'm not saying that Joe is purposely trying to engage in that kind of practice. But I'll tell you right now, I do not understand. I'm more confused now than we were when we started. I guess the bottom-line to all of this, though, is I haveI can glean from what Joe has told us over this last maybe 45 minutes, what his position is, but he's never made it real clear. All I want to know, Joe, is from your perspective, you're going to continue your practice? This practice of holding things up if you believe they are not in compliance with your interpretation of the Code or some vague notion of law? Is that it? I mean, because if not, we're going to be banging our heads up against a wall because he's going to be the gate -keeper. So if that's the case, we've got to change the law. He's saying that we have to change the law. But, you know, I find it kind of offensive that we have to change the law to further clarify ourselves from an interpretation that I view as being wrong. So, Joe, is that going to be the position? For example, with Ms. Ruggles's resolution, I don't think I heard anybody from Corporation Counsel, when it was being entertained at the Council level, come up and say, "Hey wait, we've got some concerns here." And you've been at, I think, almost all of those meetings. You know, I hope you understand, I can't speak for anybody else here, but my consternation. A lot of things from my perspective are being held up. Not just for these contingency funds, but for other matters are being held up at the Corporation Counsel's office, and I don't want to view that office as being the black -hole for a lot of important issues or issues that we hold dear. There's no communication with us. I mean, obviously you were communicating with Ms. Ruggles, but in a very confusing way, I think And she didI mean for a non -lawyer I think she did a bang-up job today. Page 21 FC -26 January 23, 2018 But what's it going to be, Joe? Just make it very clear. In two sentences, you're going to maintain this position or are we going to have to haul you up to the desk every time a resolution comes up for your opinion? I don't want to do that. I really believe, JoeI mean, sorry to interrupt you but I really believe that you are way off base. I mean, with all due respect, we are the ones that determine public purpose here. You only serve a ministerial function in all of this. Of course, if it's clearly illegal, you have to step in. But as far as I can tell, nothing is clearly illegal here; in fact, I think it's absolutely legal. This is a nonprofit grant that's being doled out to a nonprofit. So anyway, what is your position, just so that we don't keep on going back and forth on this already? MR. KAMELAMELA: I think as far as—you know, this is the only area that I had a real concern on. As far as I'm concerned, bus shelters, I stated it's fine. There may be another situation, that's fine. I guess this is the only situation that I see, you know, that has gone through, that I did raise to Ms. Ruggles, that I had a concern right at that time. My belief is that we should be flexible. That's what made this really hard because my first thing is trying to find some kind of law to be supportive of it, and I couldn't. So the work around is two ways. One is to make it clear on the applications as to what is meant by capital improvements, you know, things that not going be allowed. People—giving them notice. Or the other work around, is to clarify through a proposed legislation. This is the only area that I see currently. In the past, that has always raised the issue. And, Mr. Chung, I agree with you. I'm not here to butt heads. So there are things that I think has been done so that we can try to move these these along faster. I think that it will. But part of it too is training people to kind of understand the requirements of the Code, at an earlier date rather than later. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Chung, are you done? MR. KAMELAMELA: So, Mr. Chung, I don't know if I completely answered your question, but if I haven't, sorry. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. You'll yield? Alright. Oh, Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: I just have a basic question here. I don't know, and I heard you know a lot. I don't know, and I'm more confused now. Can I just ask, did you every get a contract to pass over the money for the bus stops, Ms. Ruggles? MS. RUGGLES: Yes, I did. Page 22 FC -26 January 23, 2018 MS. O'HARA: Thank you. And how long did that take from the time it was introduced and passed by the Council? MS. RUGGLES: I don't know the time that we had passed it, but I know from the initialI don't know off the top of my head. MS. O'HARA: Okay. But you had to have additional meetings with Corporation Counsel and members of the public, to resolve this? MS. RUGGLES: Not for this grant. It was a lot of going back and forth. This is only about one-eighth of the email string that we had going. MS. O'HARA: Okay. And you had another issue with the proposed design and planning of the community building for Orchidland. Has that been resolved? MS. RUGGLES: So we had a meeting with the Mayor's office. This is what Mr. Kamelamela was explaining before, in response to the bus stops. So regarding the Orchidland Neighbors Community Center, Mr. Kamelamela had called us all into a meeting with them and the Mayor's office, and he presented this Orchidland Neighbor's document, in which he outlines how it violates the public purpose doctrine, and that's why he wasn't going to allow it. (see Comm. 608.3). And then, the Mayor said unless you're able to—he said this to me, "Unless you're able to present to me alternative ways of looking at the law to justify this grant, then we don't need to have this meeting, " and I'm like, "Well, I'm prepared to do that now," I told him that. And I had all those—the law in front of me. He said—as I started to go over it, he said, `Give it to me in writing." So, I prepared it all in writing. I gave it to him with all the appendixes and everything, with my legal basis for this grant. He didn't get back to me. Two or three or four months later, I kept writing follow-ups. I threatened to file this communication, and then I got a response from Mr. Kamelamela, which is the most recent one here, on November 3ra MS. O'HARA: So, it since been approved? MS. RUGGLES: Yeah, the Orchidland Neighbor's grant started in May. It's been almost a year. MS. O'HARA: I just wanted to know what the outcome was. MS. RUGGLES: No, it hasn't been approved yet. No, he won't let it—even though it's not for construction, it's for planning and design, he still is insisting that it's a CIP project and it violates public purpose. MS. O'HARA: So that has not been resolved? Page 23 FC -26 January 23, 2018 MS. RUGGLES: Correct. MS. O'HARA: Okay, that continues on. Okay, I just wanted to have it explained to me very clearly and I appreciate that you were able to do that. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Council Members, we are running out of tape, so we're going to have to take a short recess. We're in recess. Recess: At 4:37 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 4:45 p.m. CHR. DAVID: Alright, Council Members, we are out of recess. I believe we were with—Ms. Ruggles? MS. RUGGLES: Yes, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Alright, thank you. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. So moving forward, I guess, I'm at a loss. I don't know what to do whenI'm just confused on the process. I'm confused on how we can do our job. I guess, from now on I'm going to bring resolutions to the Council before asking Mr. Kamelamela. And, Mr. Kamelamela, if you do have an objection with the resolution, please do counsel us when it comes before us at the hearing. But even then, after it's approved by the Mayor's office, by the Department Head, by us in a public hearing, what options do we have when Corporation Counsel is interfering? MS. EOFF: Madame Chair? CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Eoff and then Ms. Lee Loy. MS. EOFF: It just seems that the appropriate sequence of events, is that when you fill out the CRF you've gone to that extent to find out what's going to be funded, you know, what nonprofit, if that's the case, and all the details. The CRF form is filled out and routed through the department. That's where the buck should start or stop. If they approve it, and they should do their checking and make sure that they don't have an issue, and once it's through there, by the time it comes to us we should feel confident that there are no legal issues. That would be my understanding of the process. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Ms. Ruggles is absolutely correct. And one thing a policymaking body should not have is any uncertainty. Unless we can get Page 24 FC -26 January 23, 2018 to some certain direction—it appears that even though we do have a process laid out, Corporation Counsel can still interject themselves at the eleventh hour behind closed doors. So I would consider deferring this communication for another length of time and give Corporation Counsel and maybe Ms. Ruggles an opportunity to provide us a clear bright line of what that process is so that there will be no uncertainty. And I really believe in this because that confidence, when we meet with our constituents, is what they need from a policymaking body not a leader who says, "I want to help you but I've got to check." So, I'm moving in that direction. I'd like to hear from the rest of my colleagues on what they think. I know we keep barking over this bone but, clearly, we keep doing it because we're not getting clear direction. So, I yield at this time. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Anyone else before I—okay, Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: I'm sorry, but I'm kind of known for calling a spade a spade. In this instance, since I've come on Council and I've been here just over a year, I have been given the impression that our administration is not that supportive of the Council having these discretionary funds, these contingency funds. The Mayor has been known to state publicly that he did not think it appropriate. He's been in the paper; I've read it. And then we come up against these hurdles which really don't make any sense to me. I can't find the law to support this. We have a process, and if we were to follow it, I think everything that Ms. Ruggles has put before us that we've approved should have been completed and in contract by now, if that process were being followed. It's as if, and I've said it before, instead of obstructing, we should be getting assistance, and I'm not feeling that way. So I don't know if this comes to some ideology held by our administration, but I really think it highly inappropriate. We know best where to spend these discretionary funds in our community. We are in touch with our communities. We try and help out in all kinds of ways, from medical to animal welfare, you name it, bus stops, and yet to have to fight over each little small grant, and these are small grants, is very time-consuming, and in my opinion unnecessary. There's a lot of things that have come up with the contingency fund request. Ms. Lee Loy pointed to the fact that if you don't properly word your resolution, your money could go sit in Parks and Recreation and not be spent for the intended purpose. I almost had that problem passing some money to KWXX; fortunately, the administrator knows the process well and said this needs to be revised, so I was able to catch that. We don't get the contracts back from the department. We had a contract for a research project, where Research and Development (R&D) had done the contract for a two-month period, it was research on trees. Obviously, it's not going to happen in a two-month process contract period, and Page 25 FC -26 January 23, 2018 yet—you know, we got called out because—it was really their fault. They should have done it over an extended period of time. The timeline needed to be at least a year. I didn't catch it because we don't get a copy of the contract back, unless we ask for it. We only do that when there's a question asked. So, there's some things going on here that are making it very difficult for us to do our job and I really don't think that should be the case. So I would like to get this worked out. It's broader than Mr. Kamelamela, it really has to do with this administration and the interactions with the Council. So, I just put that out there. Because this is my perception after a year, and having to do that over a number of funds in order to pass money for public purpose into my community for the support of my community, and it is becoming difficult. So, I just want to say that I really wish the administration would take a more helpful approach with the Council. We're not trying to do anything illegal. We're just trying to help our communities. So, that's my say. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. And on that note, I think I—okay, and then I'm going to say it. Thank you. Ms. Ruggles, go ahead. MS. RUGGLES: Okay. Well, I really appreciate the time that we've all spent on entertaining this discussion. In closing, I'm just going to request that—Mr. Kamelamela, if you are going to deny a CRF, that you do it when it's being heard before us and you do it providing the specific, code, law, or case law that you're justifying your denial on. That way we can avoid the feeling of being censored and it can at least be done in public not on private emails, where we all have eyes on it, and the public can see what's going on as well. With that, I hope that we don't have to have this conversation again. But I think Ms. Lee Loy brings up a valid point, and it also brings the question how much power does the County Council actually have if the departments don't implement the laws that we do pass. With that, I'll yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Okay, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you, Chair. The quick question is, and it's a long answer, but a quick question is, so now what? Because I hear what Council Woman Lee Loy has said. I appreciate what Council Woman Ruggles has put forth. I'm echoing a lot of sentiments of what Council Woman O'Hara said. Now what? Because we haven't had a resolution yet. So, I pose the question. That's a George Will question, now what? CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. I think that's a great question. I think Ms. Lee Loy sort of alluded to what she thinks, and I think this body should be Page 26 FC -26 January 23, 2018 doing right now. But before we entertain Ms. Lee Loy's comments, I'd like to say just a few words, if I may? Listening to everybody's input on this, and I agree with everybody. What my simple mindset on this whole issue, is I can't understand that this body, the important role that this body plays in making laws, approving things that come before us, important things. Confirmation of appointments, of positions, approving the budget. And something as simple as a contingency request that we are discussing today has no process, has no veto process. If we don't agree with what's being handed down to Ms. Ruggles regarding something that already passed this body with a unanimous vote, we made a decision, we're the decision makers, and now we're being taken aback. So that concerns me because it really upsets this whole idea of our authority of approving things that come before us, and now, we have to second-guess ourselves. We're being second-guessed because after the fact. Now, that concerns me because that raises a lot of questions on our ability to make firm decisions and approve things, either unanimously or barely approving things. And then, we have a do -over? That's my concern. I don't believe that once it passes the process that Ms. Eoff and everyone else is talking about. The CRF, at the very beginning stages, is when we should be put on notice that there's a problem and this might not be legal. Do not wait until this whole body exercises its authority to approve a resolution and grant the funding and then tell us we can't do it. So I see no out for us because it's a done deal, except now we're being asked to pull it back. So, that's my problem. I don't know whether we are able to do that. That's not a question for me to answer, but it certainly—it's very concerning to me because it affects our authority and our ability to do our work. With that—Ms. Lee Loy, you were going to suggest something. MS. LEE LOY: Yes. It's again, it's back to that uncertainty. How do we serve community when the process can be short-circuited? Having said that, I want to move, I don't know what communication we are on right now. I'd like to make a motion that we, I am sorry I am looking at the calendar, I motion that we table communication 6I'm sorry motion that we postpone Communication 608 to the March 13th Committee agenda. CHR. DAVID: That's the committee meeting in Hilo? MS. LEE LOY: Yes. CHR. DAVID: Alright. MS. LEE LOY: I specifically picked that one because, you know, we're in Kona today and Mr. Kamelamela is in Hilo. I say this all the time, I think people get a different sense of urgency, when they're sitting before us and we're having a Page 27 FC -26 January 23, 2018 conversation. So I'm picking that Hilo date in hopes that we'll all be in the same room and Mr. Kamelamela will be before us. Motion to Postpone: Ms. Lee Loy moved to postpone Comm. 608 to March 13, 2018. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? Seeing noneoh, go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, which will then give Ms. Ruggles and Mr. Kamelamela an opportunity to address the concern Mr. Richards has, which is "and now what?" CHR. DAVID: And now what, thank you. Thank you for that clarification. All those in favor of the postponement please say "aye." Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Comm. 608 to March 13, 2018, Postpone: was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Communication 608 is postponed to March 13. Thank you, Council Members. I guess we can continue on. Mr. Clerk, to Communication 667. And I do want to note, because we did run over 4:30 p.m., that I believe Deanna, Director Sako and some of the other people that had to leave because of the weather, they're not available for discussion purposes. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, go ahead, Communication 667. Comm. 667: 2017 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX BOARD OF REVIEW From Real Property Tax Board of Review Chairman Donald David, dated December 1, 2017, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 19-97(e). (Note: Comm. 667. 1, from Real Property Tax Board Member Wesley Takai, dated January 23, 2018, transmitting written testimony.) Motion to Close file: Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 667. Seconded by Ms. Eof£ Page 28 FC -26 January 23, 2018 (Note: At this time, Wesley Takai, representing the Real Property Tax Board of Review came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. DAVID: Discussion, Council Members. I'm not sure if Mr. Takai is stilloh, he is, okay. So in case, Council Members, if you have any questions regarding this, Mr. Takai is available. Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. As part of the recommendations, you recommended that we a fee for appeals. What is the current filing fee? CHR. DAVID: Thank you for waiting so long, Mr. Takai. State your name and go ahead with your answer. MR. TAKAL Yes, this is Wes Takai. The current filing fee is $50. MS. RUGGLES: Oh, okay. So you're recommending that it be changed to non-refundable? MR. TAKAL Yes. Right now, the way the ordinance reads, you know, there are situations when the taxpayer, if it rules in their favor, which is a very subjective definition, they received, the taxpayer receives a refund from their appeal fee otherwise the County keeps the appeal fee. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, so currently if their appeal is granted, they receive a refund. I'm assuming—go ahead. MR. TAKAL That's done by administration, so I don't know what the basis of when the fees are kept and when the fees are returned to the taxpayer. So the board made the recommendation to make it just one way, it's non-refundable. That was the board's recommendation. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, I see. This is a bit concerning to me because somebody would be appealing when the County—or when the tax office has made—when they think that the County tax office has made a mistake; and if the tax office did make a mistake, their filing fee should be returned to them. They shouldn't have to eat the cost of holding—of the County's mistake. Does that make sense? So that recommendation, I personally do not agree with. I'll yield. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Ruggles. Anyone else? Council Members, any discussion? MR. TAKAL Yeah, Ms. Maile, Ms. David. CHR. DAVID: Yes? Page 29 FC -26 January 23, 2018 MR. TAKAL I'll just make a statement. I did talk to the Finance Director today. It's my understanding that any recommendation, the three recommendations will be looked at by the administration, and if there's any recommended changes to the real property laws, they would work on it. Up to this point, many years, so many years it was assumed that this annual report, because it's been sent to the Mayor and the Chair of the County Council, the board concept was that the addressees, one of the addressees would be working on the administration on the recommendation made by the board. But now that—it was very recently explained that it has to come from the Finance Department's workings, that the recommendation would then be forwarded to the Council for further review. So I think it was really a lack of communication of who should take the recommendation and work on it. So I think now we understand where the situation should be initiated. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. MR. TAKAL And the Finance Director said she will be looking at that. CHR. DAVID: Exactly. Thank you for saying that, Mr. Takai, because in a conversation with the Director, any recommendations of the board, or your three recommendations are going to be considered by the Finance Department and the Real Property Task Force before any final decisions are going to be made on the recommendations. So you are correct in your understanding, that there is a continued process for this. So, thank you. Mr. Richards? MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, just a quick comment in concert with Council Woman Ruggles. I realize that it has to go through the process. But just for your consideration, a non-refundable $50 appeal filing fee, unless it's found with the people making the appeal, then that should be refunded, and all of that will come up later. But I offer that for your consideration. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? Alright, seeing none, all those in favor of filing Communication 667 please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 667: The motion to close file on Comm. 667 was carried by the Filed following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much, Mr. Takai.A Page 30 FC -26 MR. TAKAL You're welcome. January 23, 2018 ORDER OF Chair David directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. Res. 474-18: AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR AND OF MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR FOR A MULTI-YEAR LEASE FOR ONE COPY MACHINE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Authorizes the Mayor to enter into a five-year lease agreement at an estimated monthly cost of $155. The equipment would be used by the department's Administration Office. Vote on Res. 474-18 (Approved) Reference: Comm. 693 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Ms. Poindexter moved to recommend adoption of Res. 474-18. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Res. 475-18: AUTHORIZES THE ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF "KAIMU-KAPOHO ROAD" FOR CONSOLIDATION WITH ISAAC KEPO`OKALANI HALE BEACH PARK The County desires to abandon this flood -prone tract of road, determining it is no longer needed due to the completion of the Pohoiki Bypass Road. Reference: Comm. 694 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. O'Hara moved to recommend adoption of Res. 475-18. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Ronald Kim came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. DAVID: Any discussion? Ms. O'Hara, go ahead. Hilo? Your mic Ms. MS. O'HARA: I just have a question about this is a remnant, I understand that part. But it says its for consolidation with Isaac Hale, excuse me, Hale Beach Page 31 FC -26 January 23, 2018 Park. Is it being included in that TMK (Tax Map Key), the roadway, or is it going to be—how is this a separate TMK? I'm not clear. CHR. DAVID: I see Mr. Kim in our Hilo office. Welcome. Aloha, Mr. Kim, thanks for staying MS. O'HARA: Thank you. MR. KIM: Aloha, Chair. Hi, this is Deputy Corporation Counsel Ronald Kim. In response to the question from Council Member O'Hara, I believe that the Park's Department—the request to consolidate did come from the Park's department, so I think their intention is to consolidate the portion of the road that is adjacent to the park with the park. MS. O'HARA: Okay, but that hasn't been acted upon apparently, yet? MR. KIM: No, we would need the Council's authorization first to abandon the road before we go ahead with the consolidation. MS. O'HARA: Okay, I appreciate that. I was just a little unclear. The map is old. I wanted to make sure that we were up to speed because there's been some other separated TMKs that have been subdivided out of what is showing here, as remainder of Lot B. So, I just wanted to be sure what direction we were headed here. MR. KIM: Okay, I hope that I was able to clarify. MS. O'HARA: Yes, you were. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Thank you, Mr. Kim. Anyone else for questions? Alright, then all those in favor of approving Resolution 475-18 please say "aye." Vote on Res. 475-18: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 475-18 was (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. (Res. 476-18 in this category was taken up previously, out order.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Page 32 FC-26 January 23, 2018 (Bill 93 in this category was taken up previously, out of order.) CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, before I entertain a motion to adjourn, on Communication 667, who made the motion? I didn't—sorry, [just want to make sure that did have a motion. You did? MR. HENRICKS: Ms. Poindexter made the motion. CHR. DAVID: Okay. Alright, thank you very much. MR. HENRICKS: You're welcome. CHR. DAVID: Please, motion to adjourn, someone? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 5:11 p.m., Ms. Poindexter moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair David–9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: We are adjourned. Thank you, Council Members. Approved: 401111W 44.400 /31Nri. /7.-it Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair (Date) Finance Committee MD/na Page 33