Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN GREDC 2018/09/04 (2016-2018)Committee on Governmental Relations and Economic Development 20th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii September 4, 2018 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Governmental Relations and Economic ORDER: Development was called to order at 1:07 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Dru Mamo Kanuha, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Ms. Karen Eoff, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Member Ms. Valerie Poindexter, Member Absent & Excused: STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS COMMUNI- CATIONS: Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Vice Chair Mr. Herbert M. Richards, III, Member The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. The following individual registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Rene Siracusa: Bill 182 (Comm. 1034) in support. (representing Malama O Puna) The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Communications. GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 Comm. 16.2: REPORT OF SISTER CITY ACTIVITIES: JULY 1, 2017, TO JUNE 30, 2018 From Executive Assistant and Sister City Protocol Officer, Rose Bautista, dated July 31, 2018, submitting the above report pursuant to Section 2-166 of the Hawaii County Code. Postponed: August 21, 2018 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Poindexter, seconded by Ms. David, to close file on Comm. 16.2.) CHR KANUHA: There's a motion on the floor already, so, we'll give it up to Rose. Aloha, Rose. (Note: At this time, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Rose Bautista came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. BAUTISTA: Good afternoon. Thank you very much, Chair Kanuha. For the record, my name is Rose Bautista, the Executive Assistant to the Mayor and also, the Sister City Protocol Officer. It gives me great pleasure, actually, to present to you the sister city report, and I know you have copies of them. I also thank you for postponing last week to be here on this agenda. There have been a lot of activities for the sister city. It is one of the best part of my job as I would like to share, because of all the people that you get to meet, the things that you get to do with the sister cities, and all of you have actually experienced and have attended most of the activities. Some of you have also been fortunate to travel abroad to meet some of our sister cities there. At this point, before I ask for your input or if you have any comments, I'd like to provide an overview of the program, just because I think the last time when it was presented, that wasn't done. So, because of the new administration, I wanted to give the committee who the active ones are, inactive ones, what do we need to do with those who are not active, and so forth. Right now, we actually have a total of 11 sister cities, that includes the newest one being Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, Philippines. Then we have, of the eleven, we have seven active cities, which is Oshima, Nago, Yurihama, Shibukawa, Sumoto, and Kumejima. We have four sister cities who are not so active and they are La Serena, Chile, Ormoc, Philippines, Gokseong, Korea and La Reunion, France. I said not so active because we've had communications with them, but no activities. We also have, as I went through my files, there were also other inactive sister cities where we haven't closed or terminated the relationship. We have four of those, the first one being Hualien, Taiwan, San Miguel, Portugal, Tasmania, Australia and Gwacheon, Korea. We also have a few requests. We have two Page 2 GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 right now being—and a few, but the ones that already have submitted documents is Hadong, Korea and Chongming, China. So, we're evaluating their proposals at this time. As you know, it's undisputable as to the benefits of the sister cities and how it benefits not only us, but also the affiliate cities throughout the cultural exchanges, the educational program, and also, with respect to information relative to economic development of mutual interests and other matters of common interests. As I mentioned earlier, some of us have had the opportunity of going abroad. For myself, I was fortunate to have traveled along with Council Chair Poindexter and Council Member O'Hara to Cabugao, when we did the reenactment of the signing of a newer sister city. Just to experience the whole travel was something that I will never forget, but also those who joined us. There were 22 members of the delegation and really, it was really life changing for some of us. So, that was something that I know is invaluable and for those who attended with us, memories that they can never forget. We share that amongst us. What I don't have, and I wish I had more time to do it, is to share with you the budget or expenses that comes with having a sister city. As you know, it does come with a price. But, the fact that we have only a few active ones, the seven active ones, we've been able to manage the budget, and for many of our sister cities, we actually have really good host community organizations that contributed to hosting the sister cities. At this time, I actually would like to mention some of those active host communities, and they are the Japanese Chamber of Commerce, Hui Okinawa, Japanese Community Association of Hawaii, Kiwanis, and also NELHA (Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawai`i), with Kumejima. That's about all the comments I have for now, but, I hope you had the opportunity to go over the report and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to take them at this time. Thank you. CHR KANUHA: Mahalo, Ms. Bautista. Members, any discussion or questions for Rose? Or additions to the presentation? Okay. Ms. Lee Loy, go right ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I'm actually hoping that you can bring back some of that information as it relates to the costs for these sister cities. I absolutely agree, there is a lot of valuable information and cultural exchange that goes with these programs, but like you mentioned, it does come at a cost. As we move forward into our next budget cycle, we are going to be looking at some real tough challenges. I'd like to see where the administration stands with some of these sister city relationships. Page 3 GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 You also mentioned that there are others requesting relationships. I'd actually be interested to understand the evaluation process on how these things are formulated. So, maybe at a later time, you could forward another communication to our Chair and provide that relevant budget information along with the evaluation process. That would be ideal for this body. MS. BAUTISTA: Sure, I'd be happy to do that. CHR KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Any other discussion? Okay. Mahalo for your—Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Maybe I'd just better state for the record with regard to Gokseong in Korea, I know it's not reflected in the record, and of course, this administration might not have known it, but before you guys pull the plug on that relationship, just be aware that our former Councilperson, Fresh Onishi, has been going there for the past three years. One, as a Councilperson and two years subsequent to it, and I've been just kind of looking over the County Code provisions, and it doesn't have to be something that's sponsored specifically by the County. What Fresh has been doing is he's been going over there extending goodwill and working with the students there, and he's also been housing the students when they come here. So, I think it's as goodwill as we can expect. I just wanted to make sure thatI know you guys weren't aware of it and you guys are not responsible for that, but I just want to make sure that it doesn't count as a blemish on the activity portion of that city's relationship with us. Because I think except for this year, they've been doing it for the past three years and it's quite extensive. The only reason why they didn't come this year is I heard they were afraid about the lava situation. MS. BAUTISTA: Actually, yeah, thank you for that. I was not aware of them coming until someone actually brought it to my attention. It's unfortunate because I wish we had the ability to meet some of those students. But, it turns out that Mr. Onishi took it upon himself to assist that sister city. Thank you. CHR KANUHA: Thank you, Mr. Chung for the additional information about our sister city. Anything else? Again, mahalo Rose, for the update. We always feel it's important to keep our relationships solid and build upon them for Hawai'i County. It's really important. I know I've been in touch with another sister city, that they want to be able to help out our community with the eruptions going on and the hurricane that passed us by. That's why these relationships are important; we're able to help each other out. MS. BAUTISTA: I just wanted to mention along those lines, thank you for saying that, it reminds me that we also have had a call from one of our sister cities offering help and actually wiring some funds to help with the lava flow. So, it's Page 4 GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 invaluable all throughout. It's just not about the exchanges, but also, really caring for each other and I think we did that earlier when they had natural disasters abroad, that we were able to help them financially. CHR KANUHA: Absolutely. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. But, just following up on something that Ms. Lee Loy brought up about the cost because these things do carry with it quite a substantial cost. As all of you know, or don't know, I've been a real staunch supporter of this program. I've been urging all of you guys to take advantage of it and go over there and as Rose was saying, in some regards, it's life changing. So, in that regard, I'm very much in support of it, but we also have to be cognizant of the cost too. So, when do you think you might be able to send us something as far as what the total cost have been, both in hosting and in going? It doesn't have to be soon. MS. BAUTISTA: No, give me a few months. I asked Kaycie, who does the financial stuff, the budget, and she gave it to me, I just cannot read it out to you right now. I'm curious myself so that's why I asked for it and hopefully, within the next few months, I'll be able to come back and share that information with you. MR. CHUNG: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we're going to get something, because that's going to play a role in how we view either the, I don't know what you call it when you get rid of a sister city, or getting more, taking on more responsibilities, we have to have that information. MS. BAUTISTA: But, just for your information, when I took this from Kaycie, she did mention that we've been very good with our spending. We haven't spent a lot of money on it. And again, that brought to mind how we have to be grateful for our host communities because they have been putting money into this with very few requests for reimbursement. So, thank you to all the host communities and organizations. CHR KANUHA: Okay, any other discussion, Committee Members? Okay, hearing or seeing none, all in favor of filing Communication 16.2 say "aye." Vote on Comm. 16.2: The motion to file Comm. 16.2 was carried by the following Filed voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, and Chair Kanuha — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Richards and Ruggles — 2. Excused: None. Page 5 GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 CHR KANUHA: Thank you, Rose. Mr. Clerk, on to the next item, Bill 182. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of ORDINANCES: business, Bills for Ordinances. Bill 182: AMENDS CHAPTER 36, ARTICLE 1, ARTICLE 4, AND ARTICLE 5, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO MAXIMUM COUNCIL DISTRICT DEVIATION IN ANY REDISTRICTING PLAN Amends Section 36-6 and Section 36-8 by increasing the maximum council district deviation from 4.99 percent to 5.99 percent for any proposed Council District, and repeals Section 36-9, Alternate Plan Requirements. Reference: Comm. 1034 Intr. by: Ms. O'Hara (Note: Comm. 1034. 1, from Council Member Eileen O'Hara dated August 29, 2018, transmitting supporting documents for Bill 182, was circulated.) Motion to Approve: Ms. O'Hara moved to recommend passage of Bill 182 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. CHR KANUHA: Ms. O'Hara, go right ahead. MS. O'HARA: You all may recall our first meeting as a Council, I believe it was December 5, 2016. Ms. Siracusa, who is still with us at the Pahoa office, and can elaborate if need be, came before us and expressed some changes that she felt were necessary to code and procedure, with regard to the next Redistricting Commission, which will be appointed, I believe, 2020. This reflects some of the problems they encountered when attempting to redistrict in 2010. The gist of it is we have nine council districts and they can exceed plus or minus, at this point, 4.99 percent of the ideal population. And the ideal population would be, of course, taking the island's population, dividing it by nine, and that would be your ideal population per district. But, this gives more allowance to districts that, if you look at Section 36.6 (b) of this bill, you'll see that "If practicable, documented, high-growth areas shall be drawn to receive the most negative council district deviation percentage in the final plan so that as a high growth area or district continues to increase in population between census years," we only do this every ten years, "the council Page 6 GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 district's deviations maybe equalized." So, in total, those nine deviations cannot exceed 10 percent. So, some are negative applied to the high-growth areas, and some are positive. It's always challenging anytime you do this, but this was a noted deviation change that would make it work a lot better. So, that was one of the requests that she submitted and I have another resolution reflecting some of the other issues that she addressed in our meeting in December 2016. So, I wanted you to consider that. If you have questions for Ms. Siracusa, she is still in Pahoa and would probably be happy to explain further if anyone has any questions. CHR KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Committee Members? Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for explaining because my initial question was what was the analysis from going from 4.99 to 5.99? But, I also understand that there is no maximum deviation of up to 10 percent. So, when I start doing the math, 5.99 up and 5.99 down, we're beyond the 10 percent. So, I-5.99 up because when I looked at the report, the deviation was at 9.47 after you guys adjusted. So, that was taking into consideration the existing 4.99. So, I feel like if we go to the 5.99, we're actually exceeding the deviation amount, or am I misunderstanding that? And I saw Mr. Kanuha was on it, Ms. Poindexter was on it. You know, the maximum deviation was 10 or is 10, right? Maybe as members of the previous Redistricting CHR KANUHA: Ms. Lee Loy, I know Ms. Eoff also was the secretary for the commission and Ms. Siracusa was the Chair of the commission. Maybe Ms. Eoff, did you want to comment? MS. EOFF: We may need some advice on this because I put together the final report after going through it and I know Rene had wanted me to introduce this change and a couple others earlier. I started to do it and even drafted a bill, but then I ran into some questions because I think where it's hard to figure out what you're saying, it's correct, because if you exceed to 5.99 and then you don't reduce somewhere else enough, it's going to be difficult to keep the overall 10 percent. I can't remember the answer now. I'm trying to—so, maybe if Corporation Counsel could help us. I had an old opinion here from 2017. MS. TIDWELL: I'm so sorry, Rene Siracusa is here and she says that she can help with that. CHR KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Eoff Rene, you heard the question in the beginning, did you want to respond to Ms. Lee Loy's question? MS. SIRACUSA: Yes, I did. What was happening was that we had a number of different criteria that we had to look at in making our determination. And all of Page 7 GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 them gave us some flexibility so that we could balance out pros and cons, where priorities were a little more important here or there. So, for example, we had stuff like you don't divide up a community, and yet, there were natural boundaries that we were supposed to keep in mind and determine where these communities are. And then you had some situations that were totally at variance with those two, they sort of contradicted to the fact that Hawaiian Paradise Park continued on the other side of Highway 130. So, there you have a natural landmark, being Highway 130, and yet, you had a community that felt it would be divided if we didn't keep it all together as one district. Then we were running into things like census blocks, which were in themselves, very problematic. Some of you who were on the commission will remember in your own district even, where there were those problematic census blocks. Dru, you had one in your district and there was one that ran along the coast, both to the north and the south of the Wailuku River. Valerie, you'll remember that one that was very strange. Then there was one, right in the middle of practically, that looked like a salamander it was in all different directions. So, we had to balance out all of these things. If we had just a little more leeway, we could have done a better job of redistricting. The point was that if you have 5.99 here, then you have to have something like 2.99 somewhere else, and that's understandable. That was doable because some districts are very large and under populated like Ka`u, others have a much denser population and so, those things have to be balanced out also. We tried to do that, and we found that it wasn't just me asking for that. I want to clarify that. It was the entire commission had issued a set of recommendations for future action by the Council. Also, we were asking the County Board of Elections to contact the census bureau and to ask them to revisit those particular census blocks that were very problematic. We gave them the numbers of the blocks and we gave them what the problems were—specific one of them. I do not believe that has been attended to, but that's something that we might want to look at. But these, yes, you can do the math and it can work out, but remember, no matter where we ever deviated, we were required by the rules to always justify our position. So, it's not like this is going to come up like some very unthought of, not well considered decision when the commission makes it. It has to be justified and that justifiability goes into the record. CHR KANUHA: Thank you, Rene, and I know Ms. Lee Loy had the floor in the beginning. So, you asked the question, did you want to follow up with that question or get additional feedback? MS. LEE LOY: I guess I'm just trying to learn the parameters real quick here on what goals and objectives and what rules you folks had to work within. From Page 8 GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 what I can hear from Ms. Siracusa, just having a little bit more wiggle would provide the commission or the redistricting commission a little bit more flexibility and a little bit more opportunities. I hope I'm framing this right, and maybe if this is the true intent to keep the community together because I know of just between my district and Council Member Chung's district, we're split right down one road and the kids going to the same school, play in the same parks, play on the same soccer team, but when they have a problem on one side of the street, it's me, and on the other side of that same street, it's Mr. Chung. I saw a little bit of conversation here about the analysis. I guess I was hoping maybe Ms. Eoff as the secretary or as members of the commission, you guys can share that rationale. CHR KANUHA: Ms. Eoff, go right ahead. MS. EOFF: It's true, we came into that problem in many districts having to put the line not where we're really thought it, or the commissioners would think it belonged, but because we couldn't move census blocks in small enough segments, you'd bring too many people every time. It's like a puzzle and then you'd rearrange everything around the whole island once you move too large of a census block, or maybe there wasn't enough. But, along with this change, which would probably give a little more flexibility, if the numbers can work out and keep within the law, I remember that there was also an urge for Elections to look into better software or asking the U.S. (United States) Census Bureau to be able to break the census blocks into smaller segments, because that would make it a lot easier so, that when you decided to move what was appropriate, you wouldn't take too many people or too few people. I don't know whether that has happened or that request was made, we'd have to find out. But, there definitely needs to be some kind of adjustments because there were a lot of communities that were split, not ideally. CHR KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. Eoff Council Members, Ms. O'Hara also provided Communication 1034.1 for additional information and justifications in the back. Did you have a follow-up, Ms. Lee Loy? MS. LEE LOY: Yes, just a follow up. Is there is something else now, that we have to change because we have that 10 as a placeholder for the deviation. Is that somewhere else that we have to allow the deviation up to 12 percent? No? Alright, I yield. CHR KANUHA: Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. I just was going to ask either Pat Nakamoto to explain the process about the County Clerk requesting that the census, Office of Elections work with the U.S. Census. From what I understand from Page 9 GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 Ms. Nakamoto, and if she's here and available, we could ask her, but, that request, I believe, was made and then there's a process once that request is made, then the U.S. Census either goes ahead and does it reducing the blocks as Ms. Eoff has stated. So, I think that will come about prior to the next session that the redistricting commission meets, but I'll just yield for now until Pat comes over to explain that reduction of the census blocks because I think that will give the commission a lot easier time in pulling census blocks to make up and it might balance off It might work better that way. So, I'll yield for now. CHR KANUHA: Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Yeah, speaking to the other issues, there are other issues that Ms. Siracusa brought to our attention that we are working on, but this is more in the context of a resolution, urging the administration to take action on some of the follow ups that were discussed. This particular action is a change in County Code, so, we broke it apart to make this bill. But, there is another action that we're working on with Ms. Siracusa to bring to Council to urge the administration to make some of the changes that were recommended by the previous Redistricting Commission. Just so that's understood. CHR KANUHA: Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. Ms. Eof£ MS. EOFF: Do you know if Ms. Nakamoto can come over here? She is? Okay. MS. SIRACUSA: May I add something, Chair? CHR KANUHA: Go right ahead, Rene. MS. SIRACUSA: There was one other item that our commission asked for, and that we had received the software so late because of the State provided the software and they were really behind the ball on that and so, we didn't have the full year to work on it, which puts some pressure on the commission because of the time constraint. And we were not very happy with some of the software, so, one of things we had recommended, as a commission, was that the County should consider getting its own software contract so that we could start as soon as the clock started running. We could get moving on it and have a full year to do our work. As far as I know, there has been no move by the County at this point, to look into software companies or to establish a contract with one to provide the software for the next commission. CHR KANUHA: Thank you, Rene. That can be a discussion in the future when Ms. O'Hara brings up the additional things that the commission worked on. But, let's just stick to the additional deviation percentage. I know Ms. David had a question for Ms. Nakamoto. Ms. David. Page 10 GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 (Note: At this time, Elections Program Administrator Pat Nakamoto came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Mahalo, Ms. Nakamoto, for coming. I just wanted—if you could indulge us and explain the recommendation from the commission about the census—requesting the U.S. Census to either modify the census blocks and what that entailed. What did we do and what's that process? CHR KANUHA: Pat, if you could just state your name for the record. MS. NAKAMOTO: Pat Nakamoto, Elections Program Administrator. We did submit the suggestions that the Redistricting Commission had made after the 2012 plan was submitted, well the 2011. There is a cycle from January 2016 to the end of May 2016, so, there's approximately five months that the U.S. Census will accept suggestions, and we did. And because the state is the lead, for redistricting, all of the counties, what we do is we submit the recommendations to the state and they forward it on to the census bureau, and that's what we did. MS. DAVID: So, as far as that request for the recommendation, we did what the County was asked to do? MS. NAKAMOTO: Yes. MS. DAVID: Okay, great. Do you know about when would we find out? Or we'd have to wait until the redistricting? MS. NAKAMOTO: Yes, we're going to have to wait until theI went online to look at the dates that—well, the Census Bureau has a time line. By March 31, 2021, that's when they will complete the delivery of the redistricting files to all of the states. MS. DAVID: Thank you so much for coming and for answering that question. I yield. CHR KANUHA: Ms. Eoff MS. EOFF: My question is if we are to keep the total island county deviation under 10 percent, so, if we were to adopt and change each council district plus or minus to 5.99 instead of 4.99, would that, to get to that 10 percent do you have to compare the largest plus deviation to the minus deviation? Right, to get the 10 percent? MS. NAKAMOTO: Yes. Page 11 GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 MS. EOFF: So, would that mean if somebody did exceed to the limit of 5.99, then some other council district would have to be as low as something like 2.99 or three? MS. NAKAMOTO: Right. MS. EOFF: Something pretty much low to counter it, right? MS. NAKAMOTO: That's correct. MS. EOFF: Okay, so, I think that's where I got to before, when I was going to do this because and I understand their need and the reason, but it does present another problem, right? Because there's more extreme in the deviation somewhere that you have to be able to achieve, right? MS. NAKAMOTO: That's correct. MS. EOFF: Is there anything else you could add, whether this is a good idea or more problematic or maybe allow for the flexibility that we wish we can get? MS. NAKAMOTO: Well, I really don't have any opinion about the deviation either way. The only concern I would have would be the legality of raising the deviation because the courts will look favorably on a lower deviation. I think Corporation Counsel is here, but they could probably talk about that because after the 2012, there was case notes but that was for the military and the non-residents, excluding that. But yeah, there could be some legal ramifications with raising the deviation because the courts look favorably on a lower deviation. CHR KANUHA: I wasn't sure who to consult to get an opinion on the proper course of action MS. NAKAMOTO: Probably our Corporation Counsel. CHR KANUHA: Ms. Eoff? MS. EOFF: Yes. Ms. Schoen. (Note: At this time, Assistant Corporation Counsel Renee Schoen came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SCHOEN: Good afternoon, Renee Schoen, Assistant Corporation Counsel. The courts really have focused on the total deviation, the 10 percent. There's a Supreme Court case involving this county in which the courts looked at our commission and they actually went over a little bit to 10.89. Basically, they said that was permissible as long as there's a rational basis for that governmental Page 12 GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 policy to exceed. So, I really can't speak to what raising it to 5.99 will do. Obviously, the commission will have to, if you have 5.99 on the high end, then on the low end, you're going to have to make it all come out to 10 percent. MS. EOFF: So, it just forces an extreme on whichever one was all the way to 5.99 if that was plus or minus, then it just forces an extreme opposite in some district. MS. SCHOEN: I don't know if it's extreme or not, you guys did all the work. MS. EOFF: Lowered than it is now, I guess, which might work because like Eileen said, there's growing populations in certain districts so you could make those low. MS. SCHOEN: And, you know, there's certainly other factors that the commission looks at. There's the Charter and then there's the criteria articulated in the County Code and all of that would, as long as articulated and was the basis, would be helpful in reaching that 10 percent and then, if you go slightly over it could be justified. MS. EOFF: Thanks so much. CHR KANUHA: Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: I'll support this because I think it just gives the commission the flexibility to look at the possibilities. We were kind of handcuffed at one point with that 4.99. I think that's some of the struggles, but if you raise it, you have that opportunity. You don't have to use it, but it's not to exceed that. So, I think it's a good thing to have this raise and just have more flexibility to look at things. It may not work out and they may not even us that, go up to that amount, but again, the flexibility is good to have. Thanks. CHR KANUHA: Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to point out that the 10 percent total is an additive, not a collection of all the different percentages. So, if you've got minuses and then you've got pluses, you're going to zero out. So, just keeping that in mind. What is going to be the hardest in the upcoming census, given that we previously knew that Puna was the fastest growing district in the state, is predicting those high-growth areas. We have high-growth areas in some of the other parts of the county, like in Waikoloa and what not, but, it's going to be a challenge two years from now for the commission to determine those high- growth areas to apply the negative percentage points so that we stay somewhat equitable in terms of populations served in each district over that 10 -year period. So, it's going to be fun for whatever commission. Page 13 GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 We were pointing out some of the variances this past redistricting. The town of Pahoa is split right down the middle. I mean, it just did not preserve community, and the tail of lower Puna got stuck with upper Puna. So, there were many things that just didn't really fit community, or those criteria. So, if this gives that little extra wiggle room to be able to do that, I think it's important to present that to the commission. So, I ask for your support. Thank you. CHR KANUHA: Thank you. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you. Along the lines as Ms. O'Hara was stating, also, Volcano Village in Puna became part of Ka`u, and that was a really difficult decision for the commissioners to make, or for the people of Volcano Village to concede, and not feel neglected or like the community step child. So, I really am supportive of this if we can prevent what Ms. O'Hara is speaking of and keep our communities as intact as we possibly can. Thank you very much. I yield. CHR KANUHA: Thank you, and we can continue this conversation, I just wanted to jump in. You know, every district, every commissioner had to give up something. Every district had to give something up. You go right around each district, Lakeland got included in Honoka`a district. Hilo split, Puna had to do the mauka/makai, and we worked on that for weeks and months. Volcano got included with Ka`u, there were subdivisions within Kailua that got split up and put into District 8 instead of being in District 7, and splitting it uptown. So, every district had to give up something, and I know it's going to happen again. It's going to be difficult. The additional percentage will, to me, it gives that additional flexibility, but you're going to have to work out where to give and where to take away. It's difficult, but there are nine members on the board, they're going to be smart members. The entire community is involved in this entire process. Puna came out and said they wantedI forget what was in the notes, that instead of a negative deviation or percentage, they wanted the higher percentage because they wanted to keep more of their community in the Puna district and not have other districts be representing their Puna people. And our rules say you try to account for future growth too. So, that was something that we had to give and take and really, the commissioners are going to have to justify every single line that they draw. So, in that case, that's really the transparency of the commission to the public of what's going on and why and how come and why things turnout the way it turns out, but it's going to be difficult. I just think, you know, I can't go against the recommendation that we made 10 years ago. I absolutely agree with this. So, I'm going to vote in favor of this, and I really do think it's a good thing and you don't have to go. They are not going up to the 5.99 total. It'll be figured out Page 14 GREDC-20 Vote on Bill 182 (Approved) September 4, 2018 by the commission and the community. So, I'm in favor of this, and I just wanted to state some of the things that we had to go through. The leadership by Ms. Siracusa, as our Chair, really helped out and I really want to thank her for being that guiding leader to all of us on the commission. So, I just wanted to state that. Committee members? Rene, do you want to add anything else on this additional percent deviation increase? MS. SIRACUSA: No, I just wanted to say that I agree with what you said and what the other commissioners have pointed out, the commissioners who are now, and the people who are also staffed for the commission, which is Karen and Maile. We remember how we struggled with it. We tried to be the most transparent and open commission that ever was, and we listened to months and months and hours and hours of testimony from the community and we tried to make it all fit it as best as we could. But, the ultimate thing that we heard from just about everyone, no matter where else they were on any issue, was the importance of keeping community together, of not dividing communities. In the end, because we were handcuffed by that 4.99 percent deviation, there were too many places, where we had to concede that and not keep communities together. You've all mentioned that and Sue, yeah, you're on opposite sides of the streets there and in Pahoa, it's the opposite side of the street, and Dru, the subdivisions divided in half. That's what resulted and there was no way we could possibly avoid it, and that's what we're trying to do with this. Give us—if you trust us to draw the lines, if you trust us to be honest and transparent, then you have to also trust us to know that when we're, as a commission, you know, making these decisions and justifying them, we're doing it for the right reasons. Thank you. CHR KANUHA: Thank you, Rene, I really appreciate your feedback. It brings that historical knowledge to the table. I know there are several of us who have historical knowledge too. So, we can ditto what you said. Committee Members, any additional information? Any other discussion? Okay, let's go for the vote. All in favor of approving Bill 182 and sending it to Council with a positive recommendation say "aye." The motion to recommend passage of Bill 182 on first reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, and Chair Kanuha — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Richards and Ruggles — 2. Excused: None. Page 15 GREDC-20 September 4, 2018 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 2:01 p.m., Ms. Poindexter moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, and Chair Kanuha — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Richards and Ruggles — 2. Excused: None. CHR. KANUHA: We are adjourned. Thank you, Rene. Approved: Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Chair Governmental Relations and Economic Development Committee DMK/j m (Date) Page 16