Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN GREDC 2017/10/17 (2016-2018)Committee on Governmental Relations and Economic Development 11th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii October 17, 2017 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Governmental Relations and Economic ORDER: Development was called to order at 12:50 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Chair Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member Mr. Aaron Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Ms. Karen Eoff, Vice Chair Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Absent & Excused: Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS (There were none.) Recess: At 12:52 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 2:39 p.m. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. (There were none.) CHR KANUHA: Okay, we are currently out of recess and continuing on with the committee on Governmental Relations and Economic Development. Mr. Clerk, if you could, please read in, since we closed public testimony, read in Resolution 361-17. GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 MR. HENRICKS: And then right after I read it in, I'm just going to make a very brief announcement, so please don't jump in to ask for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. CHR KANUHA: Sure. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. Res. 361-17: APPROVES LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS FOR INCLUSION IN THE 2018 HAWAII STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE Includes seven proposals submitted by the County of Kauai and two by the County of Maui, and 10 that are carried over from the previous year's legislative package. Reference: Comm. 534 Intr. by: Mr. Kanuha MR. HENRICKS: And at this time, I just like to say there is an error in the agenda. It should read that it includes five proposals submitted by the County of Kauai, two by the County of Maui and 10 that are carried over from the previous year's legislative package. So, just let the record reflect that there was an error on the agenda today. CHR KANUHA: Can you say that one more time? MR. HENRICKS: Sure. It should say includes five proposals submitted by the County of Kauai, two by the County of Maui and 10 that are carried over. So the seven proposals initially in the beginning is incorrect, it should read five. It's seventeen all together, not 19. CHR KANUHA: Got it. I was reading the resolution. Okay, got it. Everybody understands what's going on? I'm glad I was the last one to know. Okay Committee Members, this is the proposed legislative package that was submitted to the Hawaii oh sorry, may I have a motion to approve? Motion to Approve: Ms. Poindexter moved to recommend adoption of Res. 361-17. Seconded by Ms. Eof£ CHR KANUHA: Just briefly, I'm not going to point you guys in any direction or not, just explain a little bit about what's going on. These are the legislative proposals proposed to include in our Hawaii State Association of Counties (HSAC) legislative package for the 2017-2018 legislative session. These resolutions were submitted to the HSAC on September 11, 2017. The HSAC Committee approved it for the package and you can see all the different, many Page 2 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 items that were included. I happen to include the previous HSAC legislative package to be included on this one, and during the last several months, we've been asking each County to submit any other additions to the package. Maui and Kauai submitted a few items for discussion. So as you see, there is a bunch listed. These don't all need to be included on the package and just for clarification purposes, if any one doesn't pass a County, then it won't be included. Every County has to pass these resolutions for it to be included on the final HSAC package, if that's clear enough. So, in saying that, we can discuss any and all of these proposals and go from there to what we, as Hawaii County, think should be included on this legislative package. Okay, saying that is there any clarification? Ms. Eoff MS. EOFF: Just clarification, so we're going to be voting on each one of these separately and anything that this Council says no to would not make it? CHR KANUHA: We can make amendments to not include any of these things. MS. EOFF: So we vote on it as a whole package? CHR KANUHA: Yeah, it's a resolution with all these included on it. But saying that, we cannot—we don't have to include every single one of these items. MS. EOFF: So each County is looking at these same 17 items and then saying which ones they want to include, and then the ones they don't will probably get eliminated then? CHR KANUHA: Yeah. MS. EOFF: Okay, one more question, if you have a comment on this. At one time, I remember in a previous Council, we talked about having less total number of items in a legislative package so that we would be stronger in the say the select few that we did put forward as a HSAC. Is that still a consideration? CHR KANUHA: All for discussion purposes, we'veI think for HSAC, we've tried it all. So at this point, I don't know what works the best. MS. EOFF: Okay. CHR KANUHA: So saying that, we can do whatever we want as Hawaii County. MS. EOFF: Okay, I'll listen in to the discussion and see if we get any good ideas that this Council wants to advocate for. Page 3 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 CHR KANUHA: Thank you. Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Yes, thank you, Chair. I need clarification. CHR KANUHA: Sure. MS. O'HARA: You got two new proposed items coming, one from County of Kauai, number four, "A Bill For an Act Relating to Transient Accommodations Tax," (TAT) and then we have number seven, "A Bill For An Act Relating to Transient Accommodations Tax," which is to "Require Online Travel Companies," to basically pay the TAT upon booking. And then we did have, previously, "A Bill For An Act Relating to Transient Accommodations Tax," which was a carry over. So we got three different things on here for Transient Accommodation Tax. Is there some way we can consider how to consolidate that into a single action? CHR KANUHA: And this was discussed previously, and we asked that same exact question. The introducer of the Kauai bill for the Transient Accommodation Tax wanted it clearly stated on their resolution that the point of doing that was to completely get rid of the cap and that was their purpose. Because the other— the Bill For An Act Relating to TAT was a carryover from the previous one. MS. O'HARA: Number 17. CHR KANUHA: The Kauai Council Member also said it would be okay if we left it in there just so that the because there are a few minor differences, just so that the Legislature has more than just one option to—that the Councils are proposing or voting for. I don't know if that's my favorite thing to do, but that's what his reasoning was. And for the other one, obviously, different purpose for putting that TAT on. MS. O'HARA: Well, I could see an argument for combining four and seven. I don't know how different 17 is, so you know, without really reading through every one, to pick up the difference in language, it does seem like too many. The Legislature has many options. They introduce 10 to 20 similar bills all the time, but if we're really going to lobby and be effective, I would think the less is better because they're going to modify it anyway as they take it up. So, I'm not really sure that it benefits us to have 17 items. I would urge that we consolidate TAT into a single item. CHR KANUHA: Thank you for that. The reason for number four is to completely get rid of the cap. The reason for number seven is to add an additional revenue source from that TAT. And number 17 was an additional—we can get rid of that. Page 4 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 MS. O'HARA: I think we should get rid of 17, it failed CHR KANUHA: Miserably. MS. O'HARA: In the last session, so maybe we can get rid of that one. That would be my choice. CHR KANUHA: Okay. MS. POINDEXTER: Point of clarification. CHR KANUHA: Sure. MS. POINDEXTER: If we do make changes to this, that means we're not accepting it as it is, the other counties have to agree to what we're doing also, correct? We all have to agree. CHR KANUHA: Each County will have the opportunity to vote on these measures. You know, from the counties and how they vote, the measures will go out to HSAC as a finalized version of what was accepted by each County and what wasn't accepted by each County. So HSAC will take that and—because HSAC's bylaws basically say that each measure, for it to be included on the package, has to be voted on by every single Council. MS. POINDEXTER: So do we vote on each of the 17 items? Or are we voting on this entire package and amending the entire package? CHR KANUHA: Right now, how it's made, how the resolution is formed is the entire package. MS. POINDEXTER: Right. CHR KANUHA: But we can amend it to take out individual MS. POINDEXTER: And then my question is, then it has to go to the other counties too, because I thought we said the package that goes to Honolulu CHR KANUHA: Will include all these different measures. MS. POINDEXTER: So what we vote on will go to the Legislature or do you have to take this to the HSAC people again? CHR KANUHA: To HSAC. MS. POINDEXTER: So HSAC has to look Page 5 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 CHR KANUHA: It'll be finalized by HSAC. HSAC, at the HSAC meeting, could take out—HSAC could limit it down to three if they wanted to. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, but what if we vote to send it all and then we voted all of this so you can go to HSAC and take out what we voted on? CHR KANUHA: That's true too. Yeah, that'll be easier actually. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay. CHR KANUHA: And I can say from the Council that during our HSAC meeting, that this— MS. POINDEXTER: This is what was said. CHR KANUHA: Was said and this wasn't included. MS. POINDEXTER: Right, because I would love to see that all of it go and you guys decide but you take all of the comments from everybody and—because they may not agree and they may want it back on then it has to come back to us again? CHR KANUHA: No. MS. POINDEXTER: Okay, so I don't know. It's just my opinion, is to leave it on there so you guys can discuss it all at HSAC. But this is great discussion to take back to them. Thank you. CHR KANUHA: And we can do exactly that. I mean this is my first time doing this whole thing too, so—running the HSAC, so I'm just trying to figure out what the best method of reporting back to HSAC what we, as a County want to propose. Mr. Clerk, any clarifications? MR. HENRICKS: No, I think I understand and may be able to offer some help. CHR KANUHA: Please. MR. HENRICKS: What you're saying is it's not that—so the four counties would adopt four resolutions and then whatever would all be the same, like say they all changed it and one took off three, but whatever was concurred upon by all four would not automatically be proposed by HSAC, you're saying? CHR KANUHA: Yeah. MR. HENRICKS: They could still winnow it down. Say that the four counties agreed on 10 of them, they could still winnow that down and take out seven of Page 6 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 those 10. So you're saying it's not important perhaps for this Council to modify this resolution to say which ones they want. They could adopt it as it is and then you could take back the official position of the Council by perhaps taking unofficial votes and motions on certain ones that Council Members don't like. Or the other option is to winnow this down by essentially amending it by Council Members making motions to reject certain ones on here and if those were successful, we'd create a draft two with those removed, correct? CHR KANUHA: Correct. I'm trying to make it as easy as possible. MR. HENRICKS: Right, so if you want to do it the way we're—you adopt this resolution but take back information, then perhaps some unofficial motions where a Council Member could say move to reject item number x, and then you know, just kind of second and discussion and then you find out the vote from your Committee Members, who will provide you with that information. Then, we wouldn't create a draft two, but maybe your committee report would then reflect the consensus of this committee and then the Council. CHR KANUHA: Thank you for the advice, recommendation. Okay, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I think some of my thought process was actually in line with our Clerk. Like for example, number one, "A Bill For An Act Relating to Zoning," I don't see how this language is going to really help. I know that might sting a little bit. It might apply to Kauai because they have a specific classification and a real property tax classification for that and it would be a great placeholder for us for later, but until we cross that threshold, I'm not seeing how advantageous this would be or maybe even get in the way of some of the stuff that we're doing. Another one for example, number nine regarding important agricultural lands, I'm not seeing any new language. It's amending a section, but I'm not seeing any underscores so I'm not sure how this is impacting Hawaii County. And then I do like number 10, which provides a collective bargaining, and the way I'm reading that is one representative from each County Council shall be allowed to attend as a non-voting participant. I like that idea, that we have a seat at the table, as a possible x -official. And then just a general comment overall, is a number of these that are carried over have effective dates of July 2017, so I'm not sure if we actually have to go through these a little bit more to ensure that the dates are being accurately changed for the next Legislative—and those are just my general comments. CHR KANUHA: Got it. And I see the effective dates on a lot of these. Page 7 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I mean as you guys go through the process, I'm certain that as we submit this package, it's not, here is the same old package where we actually go in and make it effective for the next 2018 legislative cycle. That's just my general comments. I'm all in support of helping other counties. I am all in support of having legislative packages that could be possible placeholders for us for future use. Like it's just another tool in our tool belt to strive for and learning the lessons of other counties to help us work on real property tax reform or other issues that the State Legislature has an impact here on the counties. So I don't mind moving this forward in this shape or form. I would like an opportunity maybe, to just write you a short memo of some of the areas that I would have concern or maybe even suggestive language or edits, especially for that in number one. And maybe utilize some of the stakeholders in other areas of land use that might be able to help us put together language that would be beneficial for Hawaii County also. Again, just my general thoughts, and I yield at this time. CHR KANUHA: Thank you. Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you, Chair. I also have a couple of questions. I don't know if you'll be able to answer them for me, but Mr. Kamelamela, have you gone through this legislative package? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KAMELAMELA: Joseph Kamelamela, Corporation Counsel. Yes. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, great. I have a question specifically for number 14 relating to unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as drones. There are a couple of areas of concern for me within this piece of legislation. I just want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly. In Section 711 -blank, it doesn't have a specification, it's referring to"It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly use an unmanned aerial vehicle to record or photograph a person in a private place without the consent of the person for the purpose of spying on the person or invading the privacy ... under circumstances in which a reasonable person in the private place would not expect to be observed." What concerns me is, going through the bill is, it talks about specific observations of private persons, but it doesn't talk about private property. So if somebody is I'm concerned because of the way that it reads, it means as long as somebody flies a drone, not near the various unpermitted locations like schools or hospitals or police stations, lower than 400 feet within their line of sight, without intent to publish or distribute their personal information, that they might still be able to Page 8 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 legally fly a drone over someone's personal, private property if they're not home. It doesn't specify it not being permitted on private property. MR. KAMELAMELA: Okay, so can I? MS. RUGGLES: Without consent. MR. KAMELAMELA: Can you repeat what page it's on because this is a long bill actually. MS. RUGGLES: Sorry, it might take me a minute to pull it up. MR. KAMELAMELA: So you're looking at page four? MS. RUGGLES: No. Am I reading that correctly or am I understanding the bill correctly? MR. KAMELAMELA: And so that's subsection (4) "To intentionally collect personal information ...." Okay, so that section, I think it recognizes the State's constitutional rights that, you know, there's a huge privacy interest that this involves here. MS. RUGGLES: Yeah, and I don't think it's enough because it only specifies observation of a person but not property. So if a person isn't there, are they allowed to observe just the property? MR. KAMELAMELA: Well there seem to be other sections that talk about property, although it's not clear yet, like subsection (6). MS. RUGGLES: Well the prohibited areas specify open air assembly unit, school, school yard, hospital, place of worship, prison, police stations. It doesn't actually say—and then it goes on to electric generating facilities, transmission facilities, water facilities, it doesn't actually say private property. MR. KAMELAMELA: Oh, okay, so I see that you're reading page five, number nine. MS. RUGGLES: You have a comment, Ms. O'Hara? MS. O'HARA: It would be helpful to know where—which item we're discussing in the document. I think that's what Mr. Kamelamela is asking, what page and item number. MR. KAMELAMELA: No, I just found the section that she's actually—but I think you—although it doesn't specifically talk about property, some of these Page 9 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 things you have to cobble together like you would cobble together subsection four. You cannot collect personal information because these things are flying so I would assume that some of these things can be related to personal person. It's like subsection (6) too, it talks about "Outside the visual line of sight of the operator," using MS. RUGGLES: Right, so MR. KAMELAMELA: But I do agree with you, it's not clear. MS. RUGGLES: As long as it's within the line of sight and they're complying with those requirements, according to this bill, as I'm understanding in reading it, is that as long as somebody is complying with those, that they may still fly a drone over another person's property, as long as it's not with the intent to publish. MR. KAMELAMELA: Right, I mean you know, USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) can fly over. MS. RUGGLES: But they can still record as well, as long as they don't publish it or they don't have bad intentions. So that's concerning to me. MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, so it could be drafted better to make it clearer. MS. RUGGLES: The other section is Section four. Let me give you the page number, page seven, Prohibited uses by law enforcement agencies. It says, "No law enforcement agency shall use an unmanned aerial vehicle to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute, ordinance, or administrative rule without first obtaining a warrant." What concerns me about this is this could mean that now law enforcement can—but really what the question is, do they have to provide notice to the property owner or the resident before they conduct the drone surveillance on the property? MR. KAMELAMELA: No. So in reading subsection (a), in order to have a valid search of people's property, they have to go through a process, which is a warrant and so there's—without the warrant—because—so they would have to have information that would let a reasonable person know that criminal activity is MS. RUGGLES: Right, I understand that they would need probably cause, but would they notify the property owner or the resident that a warrant has been issued and that there will be drone surveillance on their property? MR. KAMELAMELA: I am going to answer that question no. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, so that's what concerns me, is that this might allow law enforcement to discreetly perform surveillance on people's properties as long as Page 10 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 they have probably cause. Now just for my own, I remember this from years ago, on a law case, Judge Hara, who I think is retired now, he ruled that presence of a medical marijuana plant, even with a license, just one plant, is grounds to obtain probable cause for a warrant. So, what concerns me is we have almost 18,000 medical marijuana patients in the State, and if the presence of one medical marijuana plant on their property is probable cause for a warrant, that this now allows police to come and perform discreet surveillance of their properties without the property owner knowing. MR. KAMELAMELA: They're probably going to know about it after they get the search warrant. MS. RUGGLES: How would they know about it if they're not required to notify the resident? MR. KAMELAMELA: No, in some fashion, the search warrant is going to be served. I don't know when that's going to happen, but you just can't do something without—because if they have to enter the property, they would need a warrant to enter the property itself to confiscate. MS. RUGGLES: Right. That's right, but the warrant doesn't require them to notify the resident. MR. KAMELAMELA: Not to do the surveillance, no. MS. RUGGLES: Right. MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah, so there are two different warrants. MS. RUGGLES: Right, so this concerns me. MR. KAMELAMELA: Yeah. MS. RUGGLES: What also concerns me is it doesn't specify the types of drone technology allowed and right now, there are all sorts of technology. I mean there's biometric and thermal scanners and all sorts of really advanced technologies and so really, I'm not trying to be an alarmist, but I just want to make sure what we're passing is accurate and that we're protecting civil rights. And it's a challenge for us policy makers to balance the benefits of police drones and privacy concerns. With that I'll yield. CHR KANUHA: Thank you and I can come back to you as well. Committee Members? Ms. O'Hara. Page 11 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 MS. O'HARA: No, I'm still struggling with how we're going to perform this action. I mean I have listed seven items that I would be willing to support, but not all 17. But then there are items that I'm not that versed on so they may be meaningful and useful, but I'm not really sure how we're going to share this with you so that you can take it to HSAC. CHR KANUHA: You can share it right now. We can go individually one by one if you guys wanted to. MS. O'HARA: Well CHR KANUHA: Mr. Clerk? MS. O'HARA: Do we want a ranking system or anything like that? I mean I'm not sure how we want to proceed. CHR KANUHA: Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Can I make a suggestion? If we vote on it as is and each Council Member just gives you their concerns or something, would that? Because if we're going to go through this now, we're going to be here until forever, so I don't know how to best deal with this. I don't know if anybody has suggestions onI know that Council Member Lee Loy said she was going to email you her concerns and stuff, so I don't know if it would be best just to pass it as is and then we make our points because we're never going to agree on anything and we got to vote. I mean I don't know, that is just my suggestion. I would like to hear what everybody else has to say. Thanks. CHR KANUHA: Mr. Clerk? MR HENRICKS: I think if I understand correctly though, you need to have consensus of this body and that might be a problem with individual comments about specific measures. So my suggestion would be if you don't want to actually amend this resolution by removing things, but instead would like to get consensus of the body, perhaps instead of going through each one of them, allow people to say, "Move to reject item so and so" because then the assumption is the rest of them are fine, or at least tolerable. CHR KANUHA: I agree. Ms. Eoff MS. EOFF: So do you know if other counties have acted on this resolution yet and how they did it? CHR KANUHA: Not yet. Page 12 GREDC-11 Motion to Include Items in the 2018 Legislative Package: (Unofficial) October 17, 2017 MS. EOFF: When is it coming back before HSAC? CHR KANUHA: In November. MS. EOFF: And so by then, all the counties will have accepted this or rejected it or accepted it with comments? Or there wasn't really a set directive on how each County needs to proceed? CHR KANUHA: Well, all the counties were given all these resolutions for discussion purposes and what basically they want to see on the package. So if there's anyone that each County doesn't want to see, then they can take it off MS. EOFF: So at your November meeting, you're expecting to get amended resolutions back or just this acceptance of this package, but with eachI don't understand what HSAC is going to do when you reconvene to look at this again. CHR KANUHA: I mean we're going to get these packages back from each individual County with recommendations for approval for individual resolutions or recommendations for non -approval for certain resolutions, over certain items. Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Well, I'd be happy to start out with a motion as to seven items that I would like to see if the rest of the Council supports and then if you have other items that I haven't included, you can individually add those in, if we all agree on those seven items. But I just want to see if that's a way to go. I would move to include items four, five, seven, eight, 10, 13, and 15 and is this a sub - motion or motion, what are we doing here? Ms. O'Hara moved to include items four, five, seven, eight, 10, 13, and 15 in the 2018 Legislative Package. (Note: Since it was an unofficial motion, a second was not needed.) MR. HENRICKS: I would just call them unofficial motions that then could be incorporated into the committee report, which Chair Kanuha could use to express the sentiment, at least the majority of the Hawaii County Council when he reports back to HSAC. Does that seem reasonable? MS. O'HARA: I'm fine with any way unofficial motion, that's my unofficial motion. Do unofficial motions have to be seconded? CHR KANUHA: Yeah. So it's been moved toI mean— four, five, seven, eight, 10, 13, and 15? Page 13 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 MS. O'HARA: 13 and 15, yeah. MR. HENRICKS: Accept them right? Not reject them. MS.O'HARA: Correct. CHR KANUHA: four, five, seven, eight, 10, 13, and 15. And this is just preliminary, we can just discuss them for now and then go on with the rest so that we can move on. So, just a preliminary motion, it's not going to set the stage for a main motion under our rules. Four, five, seven, eight, 10, on the back side, 13, and 15. This is just a preliminary motion to start with something that's okay and then we can move on from there. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I think I like where this is going. Let's go ahead and take the low -hanging fruit off the table and then if there's problems with others, then we can maybe drill down on them. I agree with all those, four, five, seven, eight, 10, 13, and 15, with the caveat that the ones that are carried over reflect the accurate date. CHR KANUHA: Yeah, I agree. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: I just got off the phone with former Council Member Fresh Onishi, just to ask him how they went about doing this because he was a long- time representative for HSAC. He said just do it like what you guys are proposing. If you guys don't want something, take it out. But what I would urge everyone here is let's not take too much time in doing it because I think the last time when Mr. Onishi talked about HSAC, he made a comment that only like about three percent of the HSAC proposals pass anyway, so if that's the case, let's just say our peace, get this thing done, and send it out already. If we don't like it, we vote against it, but I would hate to spend a lot of time because this is not something that's really initiated by us, right? Okay, thank you. CHR KANUHA: Okay, just real quickly, any issues on these seven items? Anybody needs more clarification on any of these items. Okay, just as a move to move forward, all in favor for these say "aye." Any oppose to them? Okay, anybody else want to include more? Ms. Ruggles. Page 14 GREDC-11 Vote on Motion to Include Items in the 2018 Legislative Package: (Unofficial) (Approved) October 17, 2017 The motion to include items four, five, seven, eight, 10, 13, and 15 in the 2018 Legislative Package was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles and Chair Kanuha – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Richards –1. Excused: None. MS. RUGGLES: I personally think that number two and 16 should be included. CHR KANUHA: Okay. Committee Members, any objections to that? Any more clarification needed for these two items? Okay, number—go right ahead. MS. RUGGLES: Sorry, I meant to say three as well. I was looking for it. It was right in front of me. CHR KANUHA: Two, three, and sixteen. Any additional clarification? Any more discussion on those? All in favor in including them say "aye." Vote on Motion Ms. Ruggles moved to include items two, three, and 16 to Include Items in the 2018 Legislative Package. The vote was as in the 2018 follows: Legislative Package: (Unofficial) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Lee Loy, (Approved) O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles and Chair Kanuha – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Richards –1. Excused: None. CHR KANUHA: Okay, we're moving. MS. O'HARA: Okay, that brings us up to 10. MS. RUGGLES: Perfect. MS. EOFF: Mr. Chair? CHR KANUHA: Ms. Eoff MS. EOFF: I personally think that if we're going to up the success rate of HSAC initiatives, there should be less not more in the HSAC package. Page 15 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 CHR KANUHA: Okay. I'll definitely convey that to the HSAC Board, and I agree as well. I really didn't like putting all these in, but I thought for discussion purposes with each County, each County can decide really how much they felt was best to include. MS. EOFF: During this process, you'll find if other counties agree with the same ones we've agreed to, then so be it. If some of them don't agree to some of the ones we agreed to, I guess they'll probably get eliminated and so the total success to go forward would probably be 10 or less, I guess. CHR KANUHA: Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Sure, thanks. I think that forI mean I would be happy with these 10 and the other ones that we might have a hesitation towards, we could send you a memo expressing our hesitation and our concerns, and you could take that to them. CHR KANUHA: Okay. And truly, we could say as a committee, as a Council, that we just want 10 items to be sent to HSAC, and these are the 10. So I'm okay with that too. Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Because we want to reflect the will of the Council more or less and Ms. Ruggles has drawn up an opposition to number 14, that's the one you spoke to, right? Do you want to just try an informal motion to see if that's supported by the rest of the Council to not support that? I'm just suggesting if she wants to consider that as an omission rather than an addition. CHR KANUHA: Okay, the motion will be a motion to support it though, with the rejection of the Council, right? As a positive motion. Can we make negative motions? MR. HENRICKS: You should make your motion to where what you're going for would be a yes vote. So whoever's making the motion should not make—yeah, shouldn't be—move to accept this then speak against it and vote no and hope everybody votes no. So your motion should be made in the way you want it to be received. CHR KANUHA: Okay, so we don't have to make— MR. HENRICKS: No, it should just be made where an affirmative answer supports your position, whoever's making the motion. MS. O'HARA: So that would mean move to reject? Page 16 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 MR. HENRICKS: Yes, but I'm getting—to be honest, not that it matters much, but I'm getting a little lost here because the first process was to say keep these 10, which I believe we have four, five, seven, eight, 10, 13, 15, 2, 3, and 16. So are you saying then to be clear, that the Council will say make sure you don't put 14 and we're ambivalent about the remainders. Is that where you're going? MS. O'HARA: Kind of MR. HENRICKS: Kind of? Okay. MS. O'HARA: I don't know if the Council feels that way. MR. HENRICKS: No, but just throwing that out there to make that determination. MS. O'HARA: Yeah, because it may help in terms of our representative championing the concerns of this Council. CHR KANUHA: Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Keep it simple. I think if we're solidified in a number of these, then you can confidently go forward to the rest of the HSAC body and say the Council stands firmly behind these and everyone will get up and say in strong support of all of these legislative bills. If we get down the road of ambiguity, where we support some but there's others that we're asking you to reject, I think we actually do say we're rejecting them because they weren't part of the 10 or 11 that we stood firmly behind. I think that is the cleanest, simplest way. And as the legislative process goes forward, any one of us can provide legislative testimony through the process that's afforded to us during the legislative session. I would like to just drill down on some—the bills that we firmly support and allow you to take that to the HSAC Committee. Thank you. CHR KANUHA: Thank you. I just want to add another one that might need to be included, it's number 11 relating to tort liability. This is the lifeguard liability one that the counties fought. I know the language within this is very vague, but the section that we fought was that this bill will be repealed on June 13, 2017. We're trying to get it extended another several years or basically not have a repeal date. So this was the tort liability for the lifeguards in having the lifeguards in MS. EOFF: But didn't it fail? CHR KANUHA: I forget exactly the liability. MS. EOFF: It failed so then Page 17 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 CHR KANUHA: No, the Legislature changed it. It was like a gut and replace and made it so that the Attorney General would represent the lifeguards in any of these cases, but the Governor ended up vetoing that bill. So it's kind of in limbo right now. It got all the way to the Governor's desk for him to sign. Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Thank you, Chair. If I understand that, then the bill that was previously introduced by HSAC last year is no longer relevant because the sunset date has come. So it's not an extension of the sunset date, it's got to be rewritten to put that back in. So we can encourage that to happen but I don't think that's the correct thing to do would be to support 14 because that's already aged out. Did I understand that correctly? I mean we want to come up with a situation that provides greater coverage for the County, but we don't have a representative piece of legislation to champion to make that happen, given the current situation. CHR KANUHA: Sure, the section, I mean the act should be repealed on June 13, 2017, but there's still the bill in place to extend the date, because it's a dual legislative session type of thing. So, the bill is still—there's several bills in there. I know it's real difficult toI just don't want to limit our ability MS. O'HARA: So you would like—and I'll make the sub -motion to include item number 14. 11 sorry, number 11 in the information that we send to HSAC. Motion to Include Ms. O'Hara moved to include item 11 in the 2018 Items in the 2018 Legislative Package. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. Legislative Package: (Unofficial) CHR KANUHA: Yeah, and this is something we can discuss at HSAC too, to see exactly what's really going on at the Legislature for this one. But it's something that we fought really hard for this past session and I know we're going to fight really hard for this upcoming one. MS. O'HARA: Okay, well then I'm going to go ahead and make that motion to include item number 11. CHR KANUHA: Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: I would second that and support that. I think as a placeholder, however that language gets massaged based on the current relevance and the time and some of the other extenuating circumstances. It really was about the protection of the liability of a lifeguard performing their duties. And everybody does their best but they're trying to save a life, and if they don't, they technically could be sued and be held liable for trying to do their job, and just not being successful at it. So yes, I would like to include that one and I'm sure the legislative HSAC Committee can come up with the appropriate language for that. Page 18 GREDC-11 Vote on Motion to Include Items in the 2018 Legislative Package (Unofficial) (Approved) October 17, 2017 CHR KANUHA: Okay, any other discussion on that one? Thank you for that motion. All in favor of approving that say "aye." Any oppose? Okay, any other ones? Okay, Mr. Clerk, just for procedural The motion to include item 11 in the 2018 Legislative Package was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles and Chair Kanuha – 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Richards –1. Excused: None. MR. HENRICKS: Just procedural because the resolution is quite specific that it says, `Be it resolved that the legislative proposals as presented in Exhibit A are hereby approved for inclusion" and also our previous whereas says copies of all these proposed bills are attached to Exhibit A. I believe that what would be appropriate at this point, with the understanding that your committee does not find with favor items one, six, nine, 12, 14, and 17, that in between committee and Council, we would draft an amendment that would then provide that the `Be it resolved" clause would read that the legislative proposals listed as items, you know, and then everything but the six that I said are hereby approved for inclusion. So then the enacting clause is essentially itemized those items today that this committee has said that they will accept that you can take back. Because if just we leave the resolution as the way it is, it essentially says that you guys have approved everything. So I think to rectify that, you just do a simple amendment between now and Council that would change the enacting clause to reflect only those items that this committee has agreed upon. CHR KANUHA: And I'm just trying to see how we did this in the past. MR. HENRICKS: I think this is kind of how we did this where we weren't quite sure, we went through this exercise, then we ended up amending part of the resolution so that it would reflect—the other way to do it would be to change more of the resolution and remove the Exhibits that the Council doesn't like to be more clear. But my point is, in between now and the Council, we can work with you and your staff to create an amendment that would reflect only the 11 items that your committee has agreed as a whole for you to take back to the HSAC meeting for this decision making process. CHR KANUHA: I think that's okay, if that's good with everybody. MR. HENRICKS: We have to make a draft two essentially. CHR KANUHA: Mr. Chung. Page 19 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 MR. CHUNG: You know, I'm okay with all of these things quite frankly, okay? I mean just in deference to our colleagues from the other counties, I'm just okay with it. I know Ms. Ruggles had some problems with unmanned aerial vehicles, but the fact of the matter is, right now, it's unregulated. So I think this is an attempt to at least get a handle on this thing because it is going to become a burgeoning problem as time goes on, unless we set some ground rules. But whether it passes or doesn't pass, three percent chance of this thing passing. You know, the better way would have been for this is each of the counties who proposed something should have taken the time to prepare a real thorough synopsis of what they were proposing so we can understand, without looking through all of this stuff, would understand what the need was, what the impetus for their proposed legislation was, and how it related state-wide, not just to their local County. But I don't really—you know, by just summarily dismissing some of these, we're really not doing any service to our colleagues, really on HSAC. I would just say pass them all because there's too many technical issues involved in this. CHR KANUHA: Thank you, and just as a comment, I tried to ask all of the counties that submitted these resolutions to give us that synopsis and I don't know what happened to it. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Just as I stated before, I don't mind supporting all this 17 and just sending it forward and then at HSAC's meeting, we could probably be present, whoever wants to be there and see what discussion happens. I don't mind supporting Kauai or Maui's things right now because I don't know what their arguments are. We don't know. They could have very good arguments on why they need it or whatever. So I don't mind going with all 17 and letting it go through and at HSAC, you guys—you know what the discussion has been here in open public meeting, that you could relay that. CHR KANUHA: Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. I kind of tend to agree with Ms. Poindexter and Mr. Chung, only because if we had, if Hawaii County had couple of proposals ourselves on this list, then I would find it really easy to support whole heartedly, our proposals. I don't see any of our proposals here, so I think the other counties found it important to include these things and eventually HSAC will be making the determination, is that correct, on what to include in the package that actually ends up going to the Legislature? The fact that we approve them all is not going to be—they're not going to put all of them in, right? They're still going to have to weed through this and make a determination what goes forward to the Legislature. CHR KANUHA: HSAC could do Page 20 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 MS. DAVID: They could do—right. Okay and so for that reason, I think I could support the whole thing going as a package. I yield. CHR KANUHA: Ms. Eoff MS. EOFF: So then in that scenario, if all the counties thought like we do and approve this, all of them just to be considerate of all the submittals, then HSAC would just include them all? Or would you still make some cuts? CHR KANUHA: I would highly recommend cutting it down. MS. EOFF: But at the HSAC Executive Board Meeting, you could recommend that and then the Executive Committee would work on whittling down to the important—oh, so if all four counties just send this back with our okay and approval, you can just relay the comments that if they're duplicative or if they're void or nulled now, then you would strike those and leave the important ones? CHR KANUHA: And it's a conversation that HSAC is going to have. I'm going to recommend that. It doesn't mean it's going to happen though. But I'm on the position that simpler is better so that's going to be my recommendation to the committee and we'll go from there. MS. EOFF: And if we do what is being talked about now, leave them all in for us, and if all the counties do that, it gives you the flexibility to CHR KANUHA: But I'm also going to take your recommendations too. If this Council wants to keep all 17 and you want me to advocate on that, I'm going to do that as well. But right now, I'll tell you that's not going to be my recommendation to HSAC. So, just as a clarification. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Well I think we just got to peek into what it'll be like at the HSAC Committee and having said that, maybe because it's getting late, I'm fine with sending it all. You have heard very clearly though of all 10 or 11 that has support and you can advocate the rest of the way. I think you're absolutely right, Mr. Kanuha, that at some point, the HSAC body has to speak with a unified voice and we leave it to your folks' expertise on whittling it down to provide a package that will be successful, and hopefully, maybe four percent this next time rather than three percent. That's where I stand. I'm going to say I appreciate the exercise, I wish it could have happened at 1:00 though, so thank you. CHR KANUHA: Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, just finally, it would be my hope that HSAC would be more success oriented. You take maybe five really important issues and put all of their efforts in getting these things passed and then judging their success by how many Page 21 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 are passed during the session. Because this kind of three percent nonsense is ridiculous, right? We're just going through the motions so that's why I hate to take a cavalier attitude about this thing, but under those circumstances, why not just pass it all and let the chips fall as they may. But unless there's a market shift in their approach, and that's what's going to happen, it's going to continue to happen. CHR KANUHA: And real quickly, over the years, that's been several HSAC's positions. They'll come out with just one proposal or they'll come out with five proposals or last year was, I don't know how many, 10 proposals. But last year's 10 proposals, HSAC actually made two high priorities, one was the tort liability, the limited liability for the lifeguards and the other one was the TAT. And I mean, we went pretty far on both of them but we—you saw what happened last— Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. I just want to say that I'm going to support it at this time, but I will send you my concerns and looking forward to seeing it before the Council. CHR KANUHA: Absolutely, and I have no hesitation on advocating everyone's concern at HSAC on any of these measures. So I appreciate all you guys' input and so knowing what I heard, I think the consensus is to just move forward with the proposed package and send it to Council with a positive recommendation is the motion on the floor. And just for clarification, I know I told you earlier that it was going to committee and then two readings of the Council, but because it is a resolution, it's just going to go to Council as one reading. So I just wanted to make sure I corrected that statement. Okay, all in favor of approving Resolution 361 and sending it to Council with a positive recommendation, say Ic aye. Vote on Res. 361-17: The motion to adopt Res. 361-17, was carried by the (Approved) following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Kanuha – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR KANUHA: Motion passes. Mahalo, Committee Members for grueling that out with me. Page 22 GREDC-11 October 17, 2017 BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. (There were none.) ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 3:41 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Ruggles, and Chair Kanuha — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Richards — 1. Excused: None. CHR. KANUHA: We are adjourned. Approved: Mr. D amo Ka ha, Chair Governmental Relations and Economic Development Committee DMK/jm (Date) Page 23