Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN FC 2019/01/08 2018-2020CALL TO C Rn -FR ROLL CALL: Present STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Committee on Finance I't Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii January 8, 2019 The regular meeting of the Committee on Finance was called to order at 10:30 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair. Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Karen Eoff, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member The Chair 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: George Campbell: (representing the Salary Commission) Abelghassem Abraham Sadegh: Jerry Warren: Comm. 35, in support. Comm. 35, comment. Bill 210 (Comm. 1165) (2016-2018), in opposition. CHR. DAVID: I believe that concludes our public testimony segment. Right now, I'm closing public testimony. Mr. Clerk, can we please move to Communication 35 and 36? Change Order of As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the Business: following items were taken out of order: Page 1 FC -1 January 8, 2019 Comm. 35: REAPPOINTMENT OF DR. HAROLD DWIGHT DOW, JR., TO THE SALARY COMMISSION From Mayor Harry Kim, dated December 19, 2018, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: February 1, 2019 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) Vote on Comm. 35: Mr. Richards moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) reappointment of Dr. Harold Dwight Dow, Jr., to the Salary Commission. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Comm. 36: REAPPOINTMENT OF SHELLIE BEE MANULANI NAUNGAYAN TO THE PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION COMMISSION From Mayor Harry Kim, dated December 19, 2018, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: February 1, 2019 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) Page 2 FC -1 January 8, 2019 Vote on Comm. 36: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) reappointment of Shellie Bee Manulani Naungayan to the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. DAVID: I'm going to take a two minute recess to congratulate our appointees. We're in recess. Recess: At 11:01 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 11:06 a.m. CHR. DAVID: Alright, Council Members, I'm calling the Finance Committee meeting out of recess. Just for the record, I wanted to make a note that Dr. Dow and Ms. Naungayan do not need to return for Council. I forgot to say that, so I'm saying it now. Okay, Mr. Clerk, can we go to the top of the agenda? Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 9: MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 30, 2018, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated November 1, 2018, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Charter Section 6-6.3(h). Page 3 FC -1 Vote on Comm. 9 Filed Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to close file on Comm. 9. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: January 8, 2019 Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Poindexter —1. Excused: None. Comm. 9.1: MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED JULY 31, 2018, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated December 4, 2018, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Charter Section 6-6.3(h). Vote on Comm. 9.1: Filed Ms. Villegas moved to close file on Comm. 9.1. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Poindexter —1. Excused: None. Comm. 9.2: MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED AUGUST 31, 2018, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated December 4, 2018, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Charter Section 6-6.3(h). Vote on Comm. 9.2: Filed Mr. Richards moved to close file on Comm. 9.2. Seconded Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Poindexter —1. Excused: None. Page 4 FC -1 January 8, 2019 Comm. 9.3: MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2018, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated December 7, 2018, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Charter Section 6-6.3(h). Vote on Comm. 9.3: Ms. Eoff moved to close file on Comm. 9.3. Seconded Filed Ms. Kierkiewicz and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Poindexter —1. Excused: None. Comm. 10: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: OCTOBER 1 — 15, 2018 From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated October 30, 2018, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Motion to Close File: Mr. Richards moved close file on Comm. 10. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. DAVID: Any discussion, Council Members? Mr. Richards, go ahead. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee. MS. SAKO: Good morning. CHR. DAVID: Good morning. MS. SAKO: Deanna Sako, Director of Finance. CHR. DAVID: Go ahead, Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Director Sako. We're going to start off the new year with questions, right? On the fifth one down, we have an increase from 520 percent. Can you explain that? It's concerning the Alii Drive culvert replacement. MS. SAKO: I can tell you what's here, which is just, you know, they had to amend the scope of work and they had some unforeseen environmental permitting requirements. Beyond that, I would have to check with Public Works, you know, specifically what those requirements were. But sometimes when they start doing the work they do, they uncover things we weren't expecting. Page 5 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, I can understand that. When we've—over five times the original budget, I'd like a report back on that. MS. SAKO: Sure, I can ask Public Works about that. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, can we get that in a timely fashion, say within two weeks? MS. SAKO: Yes. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. So I guess in the meeting, the information came forward. Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Can I ask if Public Works is available? CHR. DAVID: I don't see anybody in the MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I yield. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Deanna, if we hold this over until the next meeting, is that a problem for business? MS. SAKO: It's not a problem. MR. RICHARDS: Chair, a little latitude. And ask, if we defer this until we get an answer on that, is that possible? CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, do we need a motion to defer this communication? I'm going to Ms. Kierkiewicz first before we make that, okay? MR. RICHARDS: That's good. CHR. DAVID: While we think about it. So, Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Director Sako, I have a question. I wonder if you could enlighten me on the Animal Control Services contracts for police. The original contract amount was for $1.3 million, and I noticed that the accumulative total is now $9.1 million. MS. SAKO: I think—yes, and so the original contract—I think the $1.3 represented, you know, a partial year, and then each year we added on. We did aI want to say like a three-year term. But it was like for one year at a time, so Page 6 FC -1 January 8, 2019 we keep adding on the next year services. We are now that period has ended, and we're actually extending it, while the Police and our Purchasing office work on the specs for the new contract. That should be coming out soon. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So I just wanted to clarify, it was a three-year contract and we spent $9.1 million for Animal Control Services? MS. SAKO: It is roughly $2 million per year, so the $1.3 is not a full year. And then it may be longer now because we keep extending it, so we're passed the three-year term already. This represents a little over four years' worth of the contract. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MS. SAKO: It's just over $2 million a year. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Like my colleague Mr. Richards, who is requesting just a little more information on the culvert project, could I also get just a summary of the contract and the work that's provided by Humane Society? Thank you, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Mr. Richards, your light's on. MR. RICHARDS: Oh, yeah. I was just—how are we going to do this, procedural? CHR. DAVID: Alright, Mr. Clerk, where there's a request to defer this, do we need a motion, and do we defer it to out next Finance Committee meeting? MR. HENRICKS: Postpone. CHR. DAVID: Postpone, okay. So, Mr. Richards, are you moving? MR. RICHARDS: Do I move to postpone? CHR. DAVID: Yes. MR. RICHARDS: I do move to postpone. MS. VILLEGAS: May I? CHR. DAVID: To the nextOh, before the postponementI'm sorry. MR. RICHARDS: That's fine with me. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Villegas, you have a question? Page 7 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MS. VILLEGAS: Aloha, Ms. Sako. Sorry, yes. If I could so humbly request also a report on the Hawaii Humane Society contract and how that's navigated and decided upon, in addition to what Ms. Kierkiewicz is asking. If I could have access to the same reports, that would be fantastic. Thank you. MS. SAKO: Yes, we can do that. CHR. DAVID: And that will be presented at our next committee meeting? MS. SAKO: Yes. CHR. DAVID: Which is when, Mr. Clerk? The 22nd in Kona. MR. HENRICKS: That's correct. MS. SAKO: Yes, I will be available by video. CHR. DAVID: Okay, that's fine. Alright, Mr. Richards, go ahead with your motion, please. Vote on Motion Mr. Richards moved to postpone Comm. 10 to to Postpone: January 22, 2019. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Comm. 10.1: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: OCTOBER 16 — 31, 2018 From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated November 19, 2018, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Page 8 FC -1 Vote on Comm. 10.1: Filed Ms. Poindexter moved to close file on Comm. 10.1. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. January 8, 2019 Comm. 10.2: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: NOVEMBER 1 — 15, 2018 From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated December 4, 2018, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Motion to Close File: Vote on Comm. 10.2: (Filed): Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to close file on Comm. 10.2. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I just wanted to mention there's a negative on there. I like that. That's good. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Alright, all those in favor please say Ic aye. The motion to close file on Comm. 10.2 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Comm. 10.3: REPORT OF CHANGE ORDERS AUTHORIZED: NOVEMBER 16 — 30, 2018 From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated December 18, 2018, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-12.3. Page 9 FC -1 January 8, 2019 Vote on Comm. 10.3: Mr. Richards moved to close file on Comm. 10.3. (Filed): Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Comm. 11: REPORT OF FUND TRANSFERS AUTHORIZED: NOVEMBER 1 — 15, 2018 From Controller Kay Oshiro, dated November 30, 2018. Vote on Comm. 11: Mr. Richards moved to close file on Comm. 11. Seconded Filed by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Communication 11.1. Comm. 11.1: REPORT OF FUND TRANSFERS AUTHORIZED: NOVEMBER 16 — 30, 2018 From Controller Kay Oshiro, dated December 6, 2018. Vote on Comm. 11.1: Mr. Richards moved to close file on Comm. 11.1. Seconded Filed by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Page 10 FC -1 January 8, 2019 Comm. 19: REQUESTS DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FORMATION OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII From Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy, dated December 5, 2018. Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 92-2.5(b)(1), the Ad Hoc Committee would be comprised of between two and four council members, to be determined during discussion. Motion to Close File: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 19. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. This communication was developed as I was going through the Rules of Procedure, as we began to establish the standing committees that we have right now during this Council cycle. There were a number of rules that we have within our Rules of Procedure that we either don't use or have some conflict with other rules. We've also experienced Council Members pushing forward legislation that has unfavorable recommendations at Committee levels or even putting forward legislation and then vote against, which has been frankly, just too time-consuming. As a policymaker, I really found that particular instance just a waste of time. If you're going to take the time to write a policy and put it on the agenda and then vote against it—and to learn that our Council rules really doesn't afford us any type of recourse; that we're actually doing hard work rather than putting policy for, you know, just conversation. With that, I thought this would be a huge opportunity with the start of this new Council cycle to kind of really comb through our rules. We've held the administration accountable during our budget cycle process to be more effective and more efficient. I think this really is modeling the behavior that we're asking of our departmental agencies, that we too become efficient and run efficient. We can approach this in many different ways. My approach, if this body's willing, is I'd like to take a swing at preparing some amendments for the Council Rules of Procedure and bring it back to this body and then kind of evaluate that with this body. The other option is for us to create a permitted action group, where a few of us can sit down. I'm not leaning towards that right now, just because I took so much time reviewing the rules to establish our standing committees and have had some experiences with what's working and what's not. So, I'm open to any suggestions that this body has. Page 11 FC -1 January 8, 2019 But for right now, if this body is so inclined, I'd just like to take a swing at it and hear from you what types of edits or amendments that we can go through, through our Rules of Procedure, and then propose this a month from now. So, I yield at this time. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Mr. Chung and then Mr. Richards. MR. CHUNG: Thank you. You know, it's always been my hope that we could try to revise some of our rules to make our processes more efficient, and certainly this is a step in the right direction. Although. you know, it also speaks of an ad hoc committee, and that kind of flies in the face of efficiency in my opinion. What I would suggest is that—and I think Ms. Lee Loy was kind of moving in that direction. If anyone has any suggestions, let her be their receptacle. Go to her, talk about it. You guys can vet it at that point, and then if need be, you know, surface it at the Council and then we can further vet it. You know, we have some veterans here, some new commers, and we can all work together, short of having an ad hoc committee. That's my thought; if that's okay with you, if you're willing to assume that responsibility, and if everybody is okay. As long as we don't violate any Sunshine Laws, right? Just one and one, you know, that should be okay. Because there's a lot of good things that can come out of this. And then we can really streamline the way we operate here. Okay, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I commend Council Woman on this. This is something we've talked about rather extensively, as far as efficiency. It is paradoxical, Council Chair, that we talked about an ad hoc committee, which is not as efficient by just going forward. I think keeping that in our back pocket and having the ability to do that, if we can't get things sorted out. But I do like the approach. I agree, we've got to work on our rules to make ourselves more efficient and streamline some of the actions that we're doing. Council Woman Lee Loy pointed out bringing forth legislation and voting against it. We're doing some things that are little bit archaic, and they're there for the reasons that they were put there. But I think it's time to look that in context with a group so that we can figure out what the best way to move forward is. So. I'm all for that. I have ideas and suggestions and will be very much contributing those. So at this point, I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? Ms. Eoff, go ahead. Page 12 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MS. EOFF: I guess I just have a question for the Clerk so that we don't violate any Sunshine Laws. But would that be okay, knowing that Ms. Lee Loy would bring forward a bill, I guess, that would amend the rules? Or is a resolution— MR. HENRICKS: Well, it would be a resolution to amend our rules. But I'm not qualified to answer that question. That would be—your Corporation Counsel would be better to. MS. EOFF: Oh, okay. I guess the question then is, we can each make suggestions to Ms. Lee Loy without violating the Sunshine Law? Okay, he's giving an affirmative nod. Right? MR. CHUNG: Let me take a stab at that, too. I think as long as Ms. Lee Loy submits individual proposals, that should be okay. But if it's all package into one, where you have many different proposals packaged into one submission, that might become problematic. That would be my suggestion to you, and I think that compart with what the Corporation Counsel is agreeing to. MS. EOFF: Thank you. Just going back to that problem where a Council Member may introduce something and then vote against it. I know we don't have anything that's articulate, like standing the rules, but I think that is a parliamentary procedural or Robert's Rule or something that you have to MR. HENRICKS: That, I'm qualified to speak on. You can vote against your own motion, but you can't speak against them. MS. EOFF: Oh, no kidding? CHR. DAVID: Really? MR. HENRICKS: That is correct. MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you. I think it's a good idea that we take a good look at the rules. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eoff, and thank you, Mr. Chung. Anyone else? So, I just have a clarification on what Mr. Chung is suggesting then. If we each contact or talk to Ms. Lee Loy, she will be bringing forward—say there's five amendments to our rules, will she be bringing forward one resolution but five separate ones? What isI just need clarification. What you were— MR. CHUNG: This is what I think. CHR. DAVID: Please, Mr. Chung. Page 13 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. CHUNG: If you have three proposals, and those three proposals can come up together because that's just— CHR. DAVID: That's coming from one person. MR. CHUNG: From one person. But if it's a result of—if the submission is a result of—maybe Karen, you, Matt, and Rebecca talking to Sue, then that probably would violate Sunshine Law. CHR. DAVID: Right, okay. Just wanted to be really clear on that. Makes sense. MR. CHUNG: And again, I don't think anything would preclude an individual Council Member from submitting on their own, as well. CHR. DAVID: On their own, right. MR. CHUNG: But basically what we're doing is, just creating an ad hoc of one right now. That will be the central clearing house. If doesn't work, then we can try something else, but I think it's workable. CHR. DAVID: Okay, great. Because once that happens, then we get to discuss it as a body. That works for me. Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: What I'd like to do is actually take a swing at it, and then provide maybe just the pros and cons of each rule, because sometimes we adopt rules that have conflicts with other rules and that's what I'm seeing in our Rules of Procedure. I also think it's rather timely because we have a Charter Commission that is currently seated, and we had another Council Member, who in my opinion, stepped away from their duties and wasn't able to sit with us and legislate. I don't know if that's part of our rules, but that might be something that the Charter Commission can help us address. So to create the framework, kind of concurrently with the Charter Commission, I think. It's rather ideal right now. So having said that, I'll be more than happy to be a permitted interaction group of one. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much, Ms. Lee Loy. Alright, I think everybody's agreeing with that. So if there's no more discussions, all those in favor of filing Communication 19 please say "aye." Page 14 FC -1 Vote on Comm. 19 Filed ORDER OF RESOLUTIONS: January 8, 2019 The motion to close file on Comm. 19 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, can we jump—we did Communication 35 and 36. Can we jump to the Order of Resolutions, please? The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order of Resolutions. Res. 20-19: AUTHORIZES THE EMPLOYMENT OF A PRIVATE ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THE COUNTY OF HAWAII IN LITIGATION AGAINST OPIOID MANUFACTURERS WHO MAY BE LIABLE TO THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC The Office of the Corporation Counsel requests the Council's approval to hire Napoli Shkolnik PLLC and its local counsel, the HI Accident Law Center, with any and all compensation to be provided from potential settlement or award amounts. Reference: Comm. 12 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved recommend adoption of Res. 20-19. Seconded by Ms. Villegas. CHR. DAVID: Council Members, discussion? Or Corp. Counsel, please? (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Devin "Kaena" Horowitz came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Could you please identify yourself for the record and give us MR. HOROWITZ: Good morning. I think it's still morning anyway. Happy New Year. Deputy Corporation Counsel Kaena Horowitz. I think a lot of it was set out in what was written. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer it. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Richards, go ahead. Page 15 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I've read this and its confidential communication. First, procedurally, are we okay just to talk openly about this? MR. HENRICKS: Perhaps until you're otherwise, by your Council. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. The focus seems to be on the manufacturer, and that bothers me, so I need to have more information on why that's the case. MR. HOROWITZ: I think, as far as the materials that were disseminated, a lot of those was focused on the manufacturing because honestly the PowerPoint that we gave you was submitted for a national perspective. But the manufacturing isn't the sole point of the litigation, it would attach at every point of the distribution chain. So for the County of Hawaii, it would be probably more important to look—lower on the distribution chain, not so much the manufacturer. But the idea being that this would be sort of all encompassing from start to finish, if you will. I'm not sure if that answers your question, though. MR. RICHARDS: Sort of. I don't disagree that we have a problem nationally and statewide. That's not what I'm arguing against. I'm bothered by the fact that it seemed to be, in my reading through this, there's a heavy focus on manufacturing and not on the distribution. To me, in my mind, it's the other way around. I actually carry a license to prescribe this stuff, and so I'm held accountable for that. So I need more information to support something like this because I think it's backwards, in my mind. MR. HOROWITZ: Yeah, I think another part of that, also, is that the numbers are easier to just the sheer fact, some figures are easier to acquire from the manufacturing standpoint than a distribution. So those numbers haven't been fully flushed out yet. That will be coming, I guess, later on in the litigation, when we get those numbers a little more settled, if you will. MR. RICHARDS: Felt like I'm being asked to make a decision without enough information. I yield at this point. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Again, this could be posed to you or Mr. Kamelamela. You know, we often get these confidential letters. Quite frankly, just glancing over this thing, I don't see any reason why it should be confidential. Is there a reason, or is it just a matter of course? MR. HOROWITZ: I wrote it, so I could take responsibility. You know, it is a matter of course, and seeing as you are the one who holds the confidentiality. MR. CHUNG: Right. Page 16 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. HOROWITZ: If you were to see anything in there that MR. CHUNG: As a practical matter really, there's nothing in here that— MR. HOROWITZ: No, I mean, it's pretty benign, I thought. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, okay. You know, I did have a conversation with Joe when this came up. He gave me a lot of answers, but we may as well put them on the record right now. How many other counties are MR. HOROWITZ: Involved in this? MR. CHUNG: Yeah. MR. HOROWITZ: Sure. So Kauai has already moved forward. We would be number two, if it were to go ahead. Maui, because they just had the change of administration, they didn't have they had other issues that were pressing. But we did speak with Maui in the last week or so, and they said this is going to be put forward in the next month or two. I don't put a timeframe on them. And we haven't heard anything from City and County yet. MR. CHUNG: What about the State of Hawaii? MR. HOROWITZ: I saw that in the news. I saw some of them were taking a task on it, about that. State of Hawaii hasn't indicated that they were inclined to join, although they were invited, if you were to join. That's on them, I don't know. MR. CHUNG: And how did this come about? I mean, who approached the County? MR. HENRICKS: Before you respond, I'm so sorry, if you could just be a little closer? We're having trouble capturing your voice for the record. Thank you. MR. HOROWITZ: I think it's the first time I've been told I'm not loud enough. Sure. I actually don't recall who approached whom, so I actually don't know that off hand. Just kind of came across my desk at a later stage, when this came across my desk, actually after Kauai had already spoken to their counsel about it. So I think there was some communication between us and Kauai County at that point. They kind of gave us a heads -up about what they were doing. MR. CHUNG: So they were kind of leading the charge? MR. HOROWITZ: Yeah, Kauai definitely seem to be the ones taking the initiative. Page 17 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. CHUNG: That's the Kauai Corporation Counsel or Kauai County Council, or Kauai administration? MR. HOROWITZ: Sorry, so the Kauai Corporation Counsel in conjunction with their County Council, as well. So I guess they're officially County attorneys not Corporation Counsel. But I think there was communication between the two of them and they've sort of reached an agreement. As far as I can recall, their policies and procedures are a little different from ours. MR. CHUNG: And so this measure, in a nut shell explain to us what is contemplated like this? MR. HOROWITZ: Sure. So, right now, there are many lawsuits across the nation that are being sort of collected, as best as they can. They're from different cities, different counties, different states, all across the—and so the idea would be that we the County of Hawai` i would join in to one of these of these lawsuits. It would be our own lawsuit. But it would be very similar to ones that are being brought in, you know, New York, Ohio, et cetera, et cetera. Since this is the Finance Committee, I suppose the finances are in order. The agreement that we would be able to reach, we believe, would be that the County of Hawaii wouldn't front any money. This wouldn't incur any costs. If a settlement or a judgement were to result in our favor, at that point the attorneys who represent the "x" outside attorneys who represented, they would take their percentage on a contingency basis and the County would take the remainder. If on the flip -side there was a judgement against us or the settlement, I guess settlement wouldn't work in that case. But anyway, if there was a judgement against us, the County wouldn't bear any costs either on that end. So it's a sort of a win-win, if you will. MR. CHUNG: No, but who's the defendant or defendants? MR. HOROWITZ: So the plan of the course is MR. CHUNG: The parties, I guess. MR. HOROWITZ: Right. So the plan of the course would be the County. The defendants are going to be members of the distribution chain. So for the County of Hawaii, as Mr. Richards has mentioned, it's going to be more on the distribution side. It would be the manufacture side, because as far as I know there's not too many manufacturers of opioid. It's in the County of Hawaii. So it would be more along manufacturers. Sorry, it will be more along the lines those in the distribution chain. Page 18 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. CHUNG: I mean, because there are a lot of manufacturers that are listed. I'm sorry, I just was given this by Ms. David. MR. HOROWITZ: I understand. MR. CHUNG: There are six manufacturers and three distributors listed as potential defendants, so I'm actually this seems to be more top -loaded with manufacturers. MR. HOROWITZ: I think because the manufacturers are easier to name, they're easier to identify. But they wouldn't be the only ones. It wouldn't' necessarily be just those five and three. MR. CHUNG: Oh, it's just included. MR. HOROWITZ: It's just including but not limited to. MR. CHUNG: Are these manufacturers, Purdue Pharma, Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Endo Health Solutions, Therapeutics and Allergen? How were those guys selected to be included? MR. HOROWITZ: Oh, those are the major manufacturers. MR. CHUNG: But those are the main guys. MR. HOROWITZ: Those are the big guns, yeah. MR. CHUNG: Okay. And then these other distributors, McKesson, Cardinal, and Amerisource drug corporations are the major? MR. HOROWITZ: The major ones. Although, they're major but not the only. MR. CHUNG: Okay. And tell us about this company or this law firm. MR. HOROWITZ: Napoli Shkolnik? So Napoli Shkolnik is a national law firm. They have office across the country. Right now, they represent several other jurisdictions, cities and counties across the nation. I don't recall if we gave you the full list of who they represent, but they represent several other jurisdictions as well. Their is Hawaii Accident Law Center East. His name is John Choi; he works in Honolulu. Based on nationwide perspective, they have a lot of experience, specifically in opioid litigation. I wouldn't want to put words on the table and say that's their specialty, but that is something that they have a lot of experience we just don't have. MR. CHUNG: And do you know if they were the ones who approached Kauai? Page 19 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. HOROWITZ: I'm not sure. MR. CHUNG: So no one knows? MR. HOROWITZ: I'm not sure. MR. CHUNG: Have you been in communication with this law firm? MR. HOROWITZ: With Napoli Shkolnik? A lot of my communications have been with their local, John Choi, from the Hawaii Accident Law Center. I was given the opportunity to speak to the principals over at Napoli Shkolnik, briefly, but John was able to answer most of my questions. MR. CHUNG: And what's going to be our theories of liability? MR. HOROWITZ: Well, I think that gets into something thatI think we have to go into Executive Session for that. MR. CHUNG: Well, it's going to be part of the complaint, right? That's going to be public, right? MR. HOROWITZ: Yeah, but the complaint hasn't been finalized yet, so I didn't want to—I don't' think we can discuss all the possible theories before we can isolate all those specific ones. MR. CHUNG: I'm wondering why a theory of liability on something—okay, how about this then? What are some of the theories of liability that have been offered in other lawsuits throughout the country? How's that? MR. HOROWITZ: That's a much safer question. So basically, it all boils down to the opioid epidemic that we have as a nation, as a State, and basically that the manufacturers, distributors, and those along the distribution chain, they on some level negligently and possibly knowingly prescribed and doled out these medications, which resulted in addiction, which resulted in deaths, which resulted in all sorts of named nasty bad things. So the theories of liability will basically be along the lines of that; their negligence, their knowing involvement in the prescription and distribution of prescription opioids. Again to clarify, this is dealing with your prescription opioids not your illicit ones. That's a whole separate issue. MR. CHUNG: And another question that I asked of Joe, and I was satisfied with his answer—I'll just tell you guys what it was. I said, "Joe, sometimes we see some law firms," I guess, yeah, law firms, "who will come and try to make a name for themselves by using the counties" okay. He assured me that that's not the case, and that this is a very reputable firm. They probably, you know, they Page 20 FC -1 January 8, 2019 want to make some money. Whether they want to make a name for themselves, that's another thing too. I'll tell you this, I'm kind of hesitant to vote in favor of this today, yeah. I'll certainly defer to the wisdom of this body. You know, there's a difference between this situation and the tobacco lawsuit, yeah. I think the tobacco lawsuit, you could see that there was a systematic program of trying to influence the minds of the consumer. I know pharmaceuticals, the recitals are all correct. I have no problems with those. But the fact of the matter is pharmaceuticals are by and large beneficial to the, you know, to our population; whereas, cigarettes, you know, I don't see too many benefits to that. If we want to go against big pharma now, we're going to be really careful, right? Is it going to increase the cost, if something like thisa concerted program like this is going to increase the cost to those in need? I don't know. There's a lot of public policy considerations that have to go into something like this. If the State of Hawaii opts in, if Maui opts in, maybe. Why don't we just wait a little while. There's no harm, right, in waiting? MR. HOROWITZ: Not necessarily, no. Right now, to give you kind of an update on the nationwide perspective—because like I mentioned this is a nationwide. It's been consolidated into—I don't recall which court, specifically. One court is handling a basically trying to do a mass settlement. Sort of like tobacco, where they do one big mass settlement and then they sort of distribute it based on who are the parties. I mean, that's the only timing issue. If they get that settled before we join, we get nothing. MR. CHUNG: Yeah. And, you know, certainly we want to get money, but at what price and how do we use that money? I mean, still doesn't really address the fundamental problems that are associated with this problem. Right now, I'm not inclined to vote in favor of it. I'd rather just see it deferred. Thanks. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. Poindexter, then Ms. Villegas, and then Mr. Richards. MS. POINDEXTER: I appreciate the discussion. And very good discussion with Chair Chung. Because I believe that Hawaii County should take a different approach. I don't think this approach is going to work. Plus we're using a law firm, and I feel maybe they're looking at ways to make a name for themselves and make money and all of that, when we should be looking at the root cause of opioid problem. The root cause is not the manufacturers. The root cause is the processes that are not in place here in our County. Like physician education and how the physicians make sure that when they put people on pain meds, that they get monitored, maybe through the partnership with a substance facility that does pain management medication. We look at—when Dr. Kunz was in Kona, and the Page 21 FC -1 January 8, 2019 wonderful things that he did with opioid use and alcohol and with addiction medicine, we need to start looking at that. We cannot think that—and Mr. Chung was right. Council Chair was right, you know, it's going to drive up the cost of prescription medications. And when we look at here, we are already struggling with our seniors having to pay out what they need to pay out for their medications. They're using the most of the medications. When you get older, you get a lot more illnesses. I think this is the wrong approach, and I think Hawaii County can come up with something better. We have the resources all in place. We need to put the puzzle pieces together so that we can make it work. But attacking the manufacturers is not where there root cause is, so we need to look where the root cause is. So at this time, I'm not supporting this. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you for coming and being here. Chair Chung touched on a lot of things that were passed, what I was thinking on a common-sense level for me. Although the County doesn't pay for any piece of this until there's a settlement of some kind, it does attack different pieces of the problem. I feel on a society level, it feels to me like someone suing McDonald's because their coffee was really, really hot, and the cup didn't say really, really hot. That's how it feels to me. So I'm just going to leave it at that. But I do appreciate you being here to answer questions. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Ms. Villegas, go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Aloha. At the risk of disagreeing with the prior perceptions, my belief is that it's time to hold major pharma accountable. They're owned by major corporate enterprises. If you track where the money comes from, how the medications are being developed, and the education coming from pharma to the doctors and being sold. I just want to highlight here, in the information you gave us, the claims associated with the cause of action are violations of consumer protection action, the fair business practices. Violations of State Controlled Substances Act, public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence fraud, unjust enrichment. Claims to the manufacturers, falsely and fraudulently marketing opioid pain medications as safe and nonaddictive. Failing to perform proper long-term studies regarding the effects of their drugs, generally creating a false perception of the safety and efficacy of opioids in the medical community. It's my experience that when you watch television, depending on the channel you're watching in a period of time, chances are you will see a commercial for some form of pharmaceutical medication. That now there are lawsuits regarding it because people are having life-threatening repercussions or side-effects. In Page 22 FC -1 January 8, 2019 general, in my own—whether or not this is the proper or most effective way, I feel that joining with other communities across the country to make a stand and make a statement that we as the people of this country are not okay with being told that these different medicines, "Medicines" are safe and healthy, and not being educated completely. And those that are making billions, billions of dollars on the medications need to be called and checked. There's a kind of a time of reckoning because it's gone so far in the other direction. Having had family members, who have needed to get opioids—you know, my hanai brother, you know, fell off a building. Broke both his legs and his pelvis, and he's had to have opioids for the last couple of years and is slowly but surely transitioning. So extremely grateful that they're available for proper timing. However, the opioid epidemic, you don't have to go far in the news to see how it's affecting just about every one of our families in some capacity. I firmly believe that it's time that the manufacturers and those making billions off the industry. That something needs to happen. That we need to stand up in some capacity and say it's not okay because we're losing loved ones, we're losing family members. It's lethal. They're lethal drugs—having lost other friends and family member from my community. So whether or not this is the right route or path, in principle I feel that it's important that we as communities set a standard and join ranks with other communities and stating that it's not okay. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Mr. Richards and then Ms. Lee Loy. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I've been listening closely to my colleagues. Once again, I do not disagree we have a problem in our nation and in our County. The point is—and in our first full Council committee meeting, I'm going to respectfully disagree with Council Woman Villegas. If what has been stated by two slides on the PowerPoint is accurate, I can see the concern of the claims as to the manufacturer. I've been licensed to prescribe opioids for over 30 years. In those 30 years, it's never been marketed, to me, as being safe and nonaddictive. Going through school, back in the early 80s, it's the first thing we discussed, with opioids. Every medical trained person is keenly aware of that. Though I don't disagree—and if there's some—and we're speaking specifically on opioids now, I'm not going to talk about the rest of the pharmaceutical industry. But if there's some inappropriate marketing, I'm all for it, going after that. But this is part of my professional life, and I have yet to see it. I'm bothered by it. I have to equate to holding a car manufacturer liable for an accident, sure, you wouldn't have an accident if you didn't have a car. But I think it's a jump. Like I said, I don't have information to convince me. I appreciate what Chairman Chung has said, what Council Member Poindexter has Page 23 FC -1 January 8, 2019 stated, and even what Councilman KK (Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder) had said. The point is I want to go after the problem, but the problem is in the end-user and the prescribing. Because the only way you can get the opioids is by a prescription. We are regulated by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). I agree, the problem is there. I don't think that this modality is the right venue to go after it. think we need to do something different. So, I cannot support this at this time. Now, if there are other information, I'm wide open for it. Like I said, I'm aI read papers. I'm a geek when it comes to all that stuff, as far looking at data. I'm not convinced, based upon these two slides, that this is the right venue. I think we need to look at the prescribing side first. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I kind of want to walk back to something Mr. Chong broached, which is the State. You know, I guess the State had an opportunity to join. I'm more curious on how it works, when the municipals of a State join but the State doesn't. How does that work? Because if Hawai` i County joins in this lawsuit but the State of Hawaii doesn't, how does that work? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela came forward to address the membes of the Committee.) MR. KAMELAMELA: Joseph Kamelamela, Corporation Counsel. In this situation, the State didn't join. So whatever judgement that would be in our favor, would go completely to the County. In the tobacco case, that's what happened. Is that when the State got the judgement, nothing came to the County. So that's the only difference. MS. LEE LOY: My other question is, as we—as the law firm develops, you know, the theories, are we as a body able to review that complaint to ensure that all the theories have been met? Do we get one more check on this or are we just really putting all of our eggs in that basket for them to advocate for us how they see fit? MR. HOROWITZ: So actually, no it wouldn't be a complete rubber-stamp. They don't get to do whatever they want. They would flow through our office. So I don'tI think the Council directly would be able to review the complaint line by line. But the Office of Corporation Counsel, you know, we could—and if we saw something and one of the causes of action were like, you know, this is no good, or if Mr. Richards come sends us some data, and he's like this is nonsense, then we can always go back and tell Napoli Shkolnik and the accident firm, "Look, this is no good," toss it. At that point we'd be the client, so they would generally have to listen to us. Page 24 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I'm kind of on the fence on this. I feel like we'reI need something to sink my teeth into. I've read this privilege communication. I guess, you know, having worked in a law office myself, I guess I want to dig my hands into it a little bit more. But I understand the timing element, why we don't want to foreclose on a decision if something else is happening. I think for right now, maybe slow and steady might be my approach. I'm willing to maybe put a pin on this for a little while and see what else develops. But for right now, I feel like I don't have enough information. Everybody knows I'm a firm believer of good information helps us make good decisions. MR. KAMELAMELA: Can I somewhat give you some background on that? It wasn't easy bringing this forward. We made sure that we checked with those departments that actually worked on this problem. So we made sure that we talked to the police, the EMTs (Emergency Medical Technician), the Prosecutor's Office because the Prosecutor's Office and the police had meetings with AGs (Attorney General) on the serious problem with opioids. When we found out that the State wasn't involved, you know, we had questioned that too. Because there were like 40 other states who had asked the State to join in, back in September of 2017. Then AG Chin had said that they're going to join in. They haven't joined in. But at the same time—in many communities, it's a serious problem. So the information we get from Police and Prosecutor, you know, tells us this, that there's a problem. What is the scope and nature of it? In terms of details, I don't know right now because this is the beginning. There is always going to be work to be done in any type of a lawsuit. So once we file it, you know, we're going to get better information. But the information that we have right now is persuading us to try to do something now for our community. And right, there are policy issues that are involved. There's concern of how things might impact the senior citizens in pain. I know in studying this area that many of the issue has arisen was because of how these things were marketed, you know, because it wasn't made clear to the consumers as to exactly what happened. I can tell you one situation that happened prior to my retirement when I was CAP (Hawai`i Client Assistance Program) arbitrator. This issue came up, where in a car accident somebody got hurt. That person uses opioid. Doesn't realize that she now gets addicted because nobody tells her. So part of her claim with damages is, well, because of the accident, I took opioids. This had created damage that she's trying to overcome. It's a big problem. How we deal with it is for something for this body to kind of wrestle with. But for someone like me, I don't mind jumping in, even if we don't have the information. Page 25 FC -1 January 8, 2019 In a conversation that I had with the Chair, whatever he stated was true. I didn't think that this particular firm was trying to make a name. But they wouldn't make a name for themselves. They're refiling lawsuits. So I looked at that, how did this name come about? It was because of Kauai. Kauai' was saying, you know, get this company, this law firm that had approached them. Now, Kauai didn't really just say that they're going to hire them. Because they actually looked at other firms, but this was the firm with the best deal. What better deal to have when somebody else doing the work for you? MS. LEE LOY: If I might, Chair? Yeah, there's a few things I do like, right? No harm, no foul. It doesn't cost us anything win or lose. You know, we're in. I think where I continue to be on the fence—and maybe just more conversations I could have? Because I actually talked to the Prosecutor myself. And everyone knows, my husband is a police officer, so I understand the impacts that—you know, our Prosecutor's Office and our Police Department are facing because of the social ills that come with this. There's other drugs too that causes a lot of social ills, and a lot of them are illegal. I'm trying to balance all of that. So for right now, I want to yield at this time. And maybe, like I said, "Put a pin in it." Where, I can actually just sit down with our Corporation Counsel and just maybe get to a point where I feel a little bit more comfortable. We all know that our wonderful news reporter in the corner there will report this, and I'm sure we're going to get some community feedback on this one. So, I yield at this time. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Now I'm going to go to Ms. Kierkiewicz, Mr. Chung, and then back to Mr. Richards. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Deputy Horowitz for your groundwork, your legwork in doing a lot of this research. Many compelling arguments made by my colleagues. I think at the end of the day, one life lost to opioid overdose is one too many, and at some point we need to exercise both leadership and hold people accountable for what they're doing to our community. Having said that, I would be interested in some kind of white -paper information sheet that outlines for us the impacts, the cases the municipalities are bringing against manufacturers and distributors would have in tackling the problem overall. I'm hearing that they might be working down on the State and Federal level policy -wise. So I just want to get the lay -of -the -land and all of the efforts that are being done to pursue holding folks accountable for this epidemic, and how our involvement by signing on with this law firm would help to tackle the problem. So having said that, can I put a motion on the floor to postpone making a decision on this resolution? CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kierkiewicz, we have other Council Members that want to discuss this matter. But yes, you can do this after discussion conclude. And if Page 26 FC -1 January 8, 2019 it's the will, we'll do that. Right now, I think I want to go to Mr. Chung. Are you pau? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Oh no, I just want to make sure, Deputy Horowitz, if what I'm asking for is something that is possible for you to develop for us? MR. HOROWITZ: Yeah, I can look into it. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Alright, Mr. Chung and then Mr. Richards. MR. CHUNG: Joe or Mr. Horowitz, you know, I asked about causes of actions and theories of liability. It was kind of touched upon but not specifically asked and answered. What remedies are we looking at? We talked about monetary damages. What else? Injunctive? MR. HOROWITZ: I think right now the litigation is geared more toward the monetary damages and settlement, and then at that point, you know, once money comes down to the municipalities, to you guys, at that point then it's your choice what to do with the money. MR. CHUNG: Okay, and that's what I thought, and therein lies the problem for me. If we're going against big pharma and if there are some reasons why they're responsible, shouldn't we be addressing those issues at that top level? Because if we get money, it still doesn't make things right. We're only going to be doing corrective action, so that's a big problem for me. But at the same time, I would still like to get more information. I'd like to still see how the other counties and the State reacts to all of this. I'm going to be supporting that motion to defer. I don't think it's damaging to our case. As Ms. Lee Loy said, it's so enticing to get something for nothing, right? But there are considerations here too, I think. Are we just putting a band-aid onto something more fundamental? I don't know. So, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Richards, if you don't mind, can I go to Ms. Eoff? She hasn't spoken yet, and then I'll go to you and then I'll go to Ms. Villegas. Ms. Eoff, go ahead. MS. EOFF: Thank you. Aloha. And thank you, Council Members, for a good discussion on this topic. The other municipalities or states in the nation that have joined or filed similar lawsuits, is this—have they basically been winning their settlements? MR. HOROWITZ: So right now the settlements, as I mentioned, there's one court of big settlement of all of them, so right now the settlement negotiations are Page 27 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MS. EOFF: Just pending. MR. HOROWITZ: Not pending, they're in discussion. Yeah, so they haven't been finalized yet. The settlement negotiations have been ongoing forI don't want to say a year, but it's possible it's been a year. MS. EOFF: And does that indicate that there's some admission on the part of the pharmaceutical companies that they've misled? MR. HOROWITZ: I can't speak to that, you know, because there's more that goes into settlement than mere admission of guilt. I mean, there's also admission of liability. You know, there's theI'm sure they also have the PR (public relations) to think about, the legal cost and all that. I can't speak to where the settlement discussions are at, at this point and time. MS. EOFF: So do you know whether other counties or states have—if they do receive pretty large sums of money, they're going to put that into programs to help with the problems in their communities? MR. HOROWITZ: I mean, that's their kuleana what they want to do with the money. But I presume that would be a good use for money from the settlement, right? I'm not sure if they're—because the settlement hasn't been finalized yet, there's no MS. EOFF: You have no way of knowing? MR. HOROWITZ: There's no scriptures on how the money can be spent. That may very well be part of it. You know, there's like an education outreach or health programs, et cetera, that may, may not be a part of it. But since a settlement hasn't been finalized as of this date, I can'tI don't have a crystal ball. MS. EOFF: Well, I think a little more information would probably help. So if that's alright, I'll go ahead and—well, finish the discussion. But I would be inclined to support postponing a decision-making until we can just receive a little bit more information to help us with our comfort level in order to move forward. MR. HOROWITZ: Sure. MS. EOFF: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Good conversation. I agree with Council Woman Kierkiewicz, that a needless death is needless, and we need to focus in on that. Page 28 FC -1 January 8, 2019 But you can't obtain any of this medication without a valid prescription, unless it's illegal. An illegal chain is an illegal chain, so it's already illegal. And holding a manufacturer accountable for something that's illegal, unless you're participating, I'm struggling with that one. So, I got your point here. But again, as Mr. Chung pointed out, okay, we get a settlement and then what? And listening to Sue, yeah, no harm, no foul. But there is harm because we have impacted an industry. I have seen the costs of my medications rise over the last 30 years substantially. These things are all generic now, and they've still gone up. It's not because of manufacturing costs have gone up, it's the rest of the business that impacts it. So listening to Council Woman Poindexter, I'm very mindful of what we as a legislative body will do to impact an industry that will have a trickle-down effect, not next year, maybe five years from now. So I don't think that we need to blindly accept the problem and say, "Well, that's just how it is." From the information I have, this is the wrong direction. We need to focus, have a different focus. So, I can't support this going forward. I'll support a postponement. But this as written, this coming forward, I can't support it because I don't think we're looking at the problem. We're looking at a deep pocket, and we're not looking at the problem. I think focusing on the people is more important than focusing on who could pay a lot. I don't like the direction on this one. So, I yield at this point. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. We'll go to Ms. Villegas and then Ms. Poindexter. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. I guess as a question and an overall, it was my perception that the purpose of a lawsuit like this would be to hold those that are creating a product which is doing harm financially responsible. For me, the opportunity, especially with our County budget being so minimized this year—and we're working off some extreme circumstances. When looking at the issues—in District 7, are some of the of most prominent issues. It's those with the homeless that relates to drug addiction and mental health issues, some induced and often inflamed and made worse by addiction to drugs, such opioids. Would it be correct to define the purpose of a lawsuit like this, to be related to requiring manufacturers to pay, in essence, restitution to the communities who've been negatively affected by members of their communities, having issues being addicted to opioids, which then creates greater costs on counties and states and nationally? And then, providing resources which allows the County—because I know there is there are statistics relevant to how much it costs each community to take care of what ends up happening when people become addicted to opioid. So would that be a kind of a fair way? Page 29 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. HOROWITZ: I imagine that's the philosophical thrust behind the litigation. I think that's why the other municipalities, the other counties and states, why they've joined in on this. You know, it's because at the end of the day the change they're looking for is going to be, as Mr. Richards pointed out, it is going to be driven from the top down. So if the manufacturers are the ones who are starting this proverbial ball rolling, you know, trying to hold them accountable. You know, whether or not the County of Hawai` i specifically joins in, I think that's the idea that the other counties, other states, other cities, that they're going to join in. They're going to try to hold them accountable and see the chips where the fall and where they may after that. Because like you mentioned, there is a cost to the community, and as you've pointed out, that's both a personal cost and there is the financial cost. While companies need it, we go back to take a look at the tobacco litigation. You know, the big tobacco companies they can't bring someone back from the dead, but they got the money, they can help us so that, you know, another needless death, as you phrased it, another needless death need not happen or can be minimized. MS. VILLEGAS: Could I also ask another question? As you bring some more information—and I definitely agree to defer and would recommend that. But when you're gathering information and statistics, if you might bring some information about the trends and increased costs for medications and opioids, and how that potentially might relate or not relate to litigation; and in other industries potentially as well. Because I just have concerns about us feeling like, well, you can't hold somebody accountable because then they're going to raise your rates. When it seems historically, depending on who owns the patent on whichever drug, they can raise the rates however they want. There's been some national litigation based on that. But that would be incredibly helpful, just to see how those parts and pieces actually correlate. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Ms. Poindexter, I'll go to you, and then—given the fact that we have a desire to postpone this and the time we're going through— MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, and I just want to address—and you gave a good example; somebody got into an accident, get on to pain meds, get addicted and that's it, right? You know, I'd look at, again, suing the manufacturers, to me, is not addressing the root cause. Because you can get all of the money in the world and that's not going to fix our process or the lack thereof, right? So in health care, you talk about a continuum of care. You know, a long-term plan for someone's healthcare, right? So that's what we've got to start addressing. Like I said, we have all the resources in Hawaii County. We have great resources of substance abuse facilities and mental health organizations. We have federally qualified health centers. We have the prescriptions being given for that. Page 30 FC -1 January 8, 2019 But we don't have the navigation for a patient. You know, when you talk about patient navigators, having an RN (Registered Nurse) that's in charge of all navigating a patient's well-being. That's a continuum of care that we talk about. There is no process. That's the root cause. Think about that before we start trying to grab at anything. Because we think that may help and we're looking for money, money is not going to solve the situation. It may help, but it's not going to solve it. It's the processes that we need to put in place, and that we need to hold people accountable. Going to the legislature and making sure that policies are put in place. If a prescription is given out, then you've got to make sure that person is connected to a navigator. A patient navigator that will sign in and make sure that continuum of care is happening. So again, think about it. Talk to physicians. Talk to healthcare organizations, substance abuse facilities and organizations, mental health, even the homeless population, and gather all that information before you decide what you think or get on board with what you think is the root cause of all this addiction. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Bear with me, I think everyone has discussed this, and I thank everybody for the very informative discussions and concerns about this request. I just have a couple of questions. Maybe because we're going to go down that route of postponing this, you may think about this. I don't need an answer right now. But I just want to mention that the question that's answered in your documentation says the gold of this lawsuit is so that we would leave the power of accepting the settlement and distribution to the County, as opposed to giving the State control, okay. Now, I think that flies along with whatever everybody is saying. It's not about the money. If this is our mindset of why we're pursuing this, my questions is, if it's not going to cost the County any money, this is a huge lawsuit that involves Federal huge companies, is this attorney going to be fronting all the filing fees and costs? Is he going to do that? MR. KAMELAMELA: Yes. CHR. DAVID: Everything? MR. KAMELAMELA: Yes. CHR. DAVID: And so at the end of the day, when we get our settlement, there's a bunch of proceedings right now you're saying in settlement. How does that affect what we're doing? We're like Johnny come lately, right? Or, is it an ongoing thing? If they're talking settlement with a huge group of municipalities, how does that affect us if we're just now thinking about filing our lawsuit with the same issues? You're saying that there's ongoing settlement discussions for other municipalities. We are just talking about hiring an attorney to do the same thing. My question is, if they start talking settlement with that group, how does that affect what we are going to do? Page 31 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MR. HOROWITZ: Well, we would join the settlement pool. So it would be like we would get another cut of the pie, right? CHR. DAVID: Okay, that's my question. The other thing is you can come back when we discuss this at our next meeting. I think there's a lot of information that's being requested of you. Maybe I can contact you after this to explain more of my concerns about this and then we can engage in another discussion.. MR. HOROWITZ: Sure. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kierkiewicz, thank you so much for your explanation, and I'll entertain that motion to postpone. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Deputy Horowitz, is one month enough time to put together answers to the questions that we've put forth today? The motion I have on the floor is to postpone until our February Committee meeting in Hilo. MR. HOROWITZ: I think I can do one month. I can give one month a shot. And I think—also, since Ms. David mentioned that she might be coming and speaking to me, you're all welcome too. It's not just her. You're all welcome to come and kind of sort this out, so maybe that will help guide some of the issues that need to be looked into. If the postponement is for one month but it turns out to be a bigger project, we could always defer it later; to postpone it later than that to, of course, based on if there are plenty of concerns. But right now we can pencil it in for a month. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. That's February 4h. Vote on Motion to Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to postpone Res. 20-19 to (Postpone): February 4, 2019. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried (Approved) by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Council Members, we are very over-extended on our Committee meeting. What I'd like to do is recess Finance and take a real quick half-hour break for lunch and come back to do Planning at one o'clock. Let's finish Planning and whatever else have and then go back to Finance at the end of the day, if that's okay? Page 32 FC -1 January 8, 2019 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, if I may, may we hear the next resolution? I know that Dr. Ung has been here for quite some time. CHR. DAVID: Okay. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And I feel like this is a pretty straight forward resolution. CHR. DAVID: Okay. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: She's very patient, so I'd like to recognize that. And if we could call her forward before we reach for lunch, that would be awesome. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Perfect. Yes, we'll do Ms. Ung's. Mr. Clerk, Resolution 21-19. Res. 21-19: AUTHORIZES THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS Provides $100,000 from Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to the Department of Information Technology to fund its Hi-WiFi project to increase access to affordable internet and broadband services in unserved and underserved areas in Hawaii County. Reference: Comm. 14 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved recommend adoption of Res. 21-19. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. (Note: At this time, Information Technology Director Jules Ung came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. DAVID: Ms. Ung, please come forward, and thank you for your patience. If you could just briefly tell us about the $100,000 for WiFi. MS. UNG: Sure, thanks so much for your time. So last year about this time we approached each of the Council people and requested some suggested locations for County facilities in each of your districts. So we got some feedback and we compiled that into a spreadsheet, which has been reviewed for feasibility and practicality. We're going to leverage existing infrastructure and using funds from the DCCA (Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) in partnership with Spectrum to put up some pilot test pipes. The first ones will go up in Hamakua, mainly in Honoka`a and Pa`auilo. If these are being successful based on statistics showing a lot of public access and if we Page 33 FC -1 January 8, 2019 can demonstrate value, then they will consider putting up more locations. We actually reached out and asked, "Hey, what's the scope of this project," so I sent her the spreadsheet that we've compiled from last year's feedback. You know, we can keep updating that based on your preferences for future test sites, as well. And that's the gist of it, to bring high-speed broadband to underserved and unserved rural areas in Hawaii County. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Questions, Council Members? Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I just want to say that I feel really fortunate our County is able to take advantage of this pilot program. I would encourage my colleagues to support this resolution because we're able to provide internet underserved communities. I just want to understand how the internet would be made available at these public facilities? Say, would it be a park or at a gym, and the public would then be able to plug into a WiFi hotspot? MS. UNG: That's correct. So based on the feasibility of existing infrastructure, we would put up WiFi hotspots. Whether it's on a nearby pole or—and then we'll have a splash page too, and then our liability of course because it is public access. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Sounds good. I yield. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Anyone else on this one? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor please say "aye." Vote on Res. 21-19: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 21-19 was (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you so much for patience, Ms. Ung. MS. UNG: Thank you so much. Mahalo. CHR. DAVID: Mahalo. Alright, Council Members, I'm going to put Finance Committee in recess. I'm sorry, Finance Department will be reconvening after our last meeting this afternoon, which will be following Planning, Governmental Relations, and Public Works and Mass Transit. Just keep in tune of when we're Page 34 FC -1 January 8, 2019 going to come back to Finance, okay? Alright, thank you. Finance Committee is in recess. Mahalo. Res. 27-19: AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR AND OF MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR FOR A MULTI-YEAR SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, TRAFFIC DIVISION Authorizes the Mayor to enter into a five-year lease agreement for continued software support and annual upgrades, with an approximate cost of $80,899, effective April 1, 2019 through March 31, 2024. Reference: Comm. 43 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Vote on Res. 27-19: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved recommend adoption of Res. 27-19 (Approved) Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David – 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Recess: At 12:29 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 6:10 p.m. CHR. DAVID: Alright, Council Members, I'm going to take the Finance Committee out of recess, and then I'm going to—if it's okay with my Council Members, I'm going to actually recess Finance again, until after Public Works is completed tomorrow afternoon. With that said, thank you so much for your tenacious patience here today. We'll see you tomorrow. We are in recess. Thank you. Recess: At 6:11 p.m., the Chair declared the meeting in recess until January 9, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. Reconvene: The regular meeting of the Committee on Finance was reconvened at 2:14 p.m., on January 9, 2019, with all members present. CHR. DAVID: Aloha and welcome back to the Committee on Finance. I'm calling the Finance Committee out of recess from yesterday, and we will proceed where we left off. Except that, Director Kucharski has to be in Waimea at Page 35 FC -I January 8, 2019 three o'clock, which he will be definitely late. I would like to take Bill 210 out of order, if it's okay with everyone? Alright, cool. Change Order of As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, the Business: following item was taken out of order: CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, can you please read in Bill 210? Page 36 FC -1 January 9, 2019 Bill 210: AMENDS CHAPTER 21, ARTICLE 4, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE (2016-2018) 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO SEWER SERVICE CHARGES Increases sewer fees incrementally on March 1 for three years beginning in 2019, as follows: Single Unit Residential: $12, $7, and $6; Multi -Unit Residential: $12, $7, and $6; Nonresidential: $17, $9, and $6; Private Haulers: $15, $10, and $5; and Gang Cesspools: $0, $6, and $3. The Department of Environmental Management requests these increases to eliminate the need for the General Fund subsidy and increase funding for facility repairs. Reference: Comm. 1165 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Referred to Environmental Management Director and Commission: November 19, 2018 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Eoff, seconded by Ms. O'Hara, to recommend passage of Bill 210 on first reading.) ; and Comm. 23: From Department of Environmental Management Director William A. Kucharski, dated December 11, 2018, forwarding the department's favorable recommendation. ; and Comm. 23.1: From Environmental Management Commission Chair Richard Bennett, Ph.D dated December 4, 2018, forwarding the Commission's favorable recommendation. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. We already have a motion on the floor. Director Kucharski, would you please come forward? (Note: At this time, Environmental Management Director William Kucharski came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. DAVID: Thank you. You may go ahead whenever you're ready and give us a review. MR. KUCHARSKI: Bill Kucharski, Director of DEM (Department of Environmental Management). This bill and the proposed bill is to increase our sewer rates for the first time, since 2002. Currently, we are about 25 percent of the next closest sewer rate in the State. If we doubled, we're still the lowest rate in the State—or County. Page 37 FC -1 January 9, 2019 There is a significant need to upgrade our facilities; but in addition to that, understanding the financial situation that the County is in, this sewer rate increase would allow us to reduce our dependency on the General Fund. The Sewer Fund in this department division, Wastewater Division, is not supposed to be taking General Fund. This year we'll have about $2.9 million; and if this rate increase is passed and effective in March, then that subsidy would drop in this next year's budget to $1.5 million. The following year, the subsidy would be $750,000, and the third year would be zero. That is the primary intent of the bill. Understand that there's never a good time to ask for an increase, but given the other demands on the General Fund, this is., I think, a reasonable request and I ask the Council to push this bill forward favorably. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Director. Council Members, questions? No? Go ahead, Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: Do you know how much that would save us, out of the General Fund? MR. KUCHARSKI: Out of the General Fund, it would be approximately $1.4 million in this next fiscal year. It would go from $2.9 to $1.5 as a General Fund draw. Actually, it's more than that. As I recall, our draw from the General Fund this next year would be closer to the $5 million, so there would be a significant reduction in requirements from the General Fund. But it's at least $1.4 million from the numbers that have been presented in the rate study. MS. EOFF: I see. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Council Members? Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, thank you, Chair. Okay, Bill, big numbers. Just approximate numbers, total budget for the Wastewater off the top of your head? MR. KUCHARSKI: We're in right around $18 million. I believe it's right in here, yeah, $13 million. MS. RUGGLES: $13 million, alright. The General Fund, what was that number again you said? MR. KUCHARSKI: $2.9 from this—in this current existing budget. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. And with this increased, we've talked about the poor state of repair for our Wastewater Treatment facilities. This change, does that have any money—any wiggle room there for maintenance and repair on those facilities, or is this strictly for operations? Page 38 FC -1 January 9, 2019 MR. KUCHARSKI: Well, the maintenance and repairs are part of our operations, so the answer is yes. Apparently, we have an Equipment Replacement Fund, which is the $500,000. We are proposing to increase that fund by $3 million to $3.5 million so that we will have active funds that we can come in get more—repair projects and O&M (Operating and Maintenance) projects completed. MR. RICHARDS: Where I'm going with that, and I appreciate the fact that there is maintenance and repair in the general budget, but we're talking probably a capitalization type of deal. I know we've discussed that the Hilo site wastewater treatment needs, I don't know if upgrade is the right word, but it needs a rebuild. Do you have an estimate for what we might be facing with that? MR. KUCHARSKI: The last number, I had just to repair the facility. This is not a full engineering estimate, but in general numbers it was about $75 million. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. MR. KUCHARSKI: A point, this that construction or replacement cost would be considered a capital expense not an operating expense, so that would be outside of this proposed increase. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, where I'm going with my questioning is to put things in perspective and scale as we go forward. Little bit of latitude, Chair? CHR. DAVID: Sure. MR. RICHARDS: The Director and I have been talking about this, and we've been working on Puako, the wastewater concern there. Realistically, it's all on our coastlines. We're growing up. We've got some pretty big decisions to make, coming down the pipeline, never pun intended there I guess. We're going to have to start paying attention to this. When we had a relatively small population, it didn't matter near as much; but as that population is growing, we're going to have to do some things. As the Director says, there's never a good time for increasing fees. But the alternative for our systems, if we don't do something a little bit now, it's probably going to be a lot later. I want to yield the floor right now because I want to hear the perspective from the other Council Members. I hear what Bill is saying, and no one likes to raise a fee; but if we don't do something about the fiscal solvency, and really the fiscal health of Wastewater Management, I think we're setting ourselves up for a big problem. I yield at this point. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. Villegas, go ahead. Page 39 FC -1 January 9, 2019 MS. VILLEGAS: Aloha, Bill. Thank you for coming and seeing me a couple of weeks ago and kind of walking me through the different responsibilities of the Division of Environmental Management department. I really appreciate your foresight and your intelligence and your fiscal responsibility in the way that you look at things. You know, I've a number of constituents reach out to me and ask please, please, please don't approve an increase. However, in sitting and looking at the numbers—you know, I've lived and been in times of my life when every dollar really matters, so this increase of $11, you know, I believe it is in the first year for some residential homes, does have the potential of really affecting people. However, I also want to recognize, you know, we're living in the first world, and that's two Starbucks coffees. For most of us, it's a matter of reallocating our resources and identifying our priorities. And I agree with Mr. Richards. There is no way—and our waste human and water, we need to be more responsible. We have—it's our kuleana for our future generations. It hasn't been a priority, and we've gotten away with it for a long time because we've had very small communities and kind of—it seems like we've had a smaller impact, however it's becoming very evident in Hawaii and statewide and nationally and globally, that where our waste goes really affects the eco systems around us and it affects the health of our people. So I just want to thank you for presenting this in a capacity, not only fiscally responsible but also for the goal of Environmental Management here to reduce the impact of the funds being drawn from the General Plan, I'm sorry, from the General Fund in order to execute the projects that you're working on. You know, growing up on the west side and surfing Kohanaiki, in that area, our wastewater treatment plants have been a serious concern, and the quality of the ocean water and the quality of our aquifers. Especially taking into consideration the comparison of our fees compared to the other counties, I think, it's relevant and it's necessary, and it's not fun. But if this is a way that we can make a difference and support you and your team, and make sure that we are protecting our environmental resources and the future of our island, then I think it's incredibly important because there is no way. Thank you, Bill. MR. KUCHARSKI: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Council Member Villegas. Council Member Chung. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, thank. And, Bill, thank you very much. I know you have to go. You heard this before, but I'm going to say it actually for the benefit of the new members. Page 40 FC -1 January 9, 2019 This is my position. I'm not necessarily against raising the sewer fees. I understand the necessity for it. The problem I have is, okay, who has sewers in their districts? I have, you have, Val, Karen, maybe even Rebecca, right? MS. VILLEGAS: My district, yes, I'm sorry. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, okay. And I think we all agree that having sewers is very important for the environment. My preference would be to have every home sewered. I'm not on the sewer system. I have cesspool yet. But I just cannot really resolve in my mind how it is that the people who are on sewer systems and are protecting the environment have to pay for protecting the environment, when the people who aren't on sewer systems don't have to pay. That's where I have a real hard time with this arrangement, right? Maybe there are other ways of creating a sustainable source of income for your department. For example, it could be with the building permit process. I don't know You know, assessing something there; or just going to the legislature, asking them to allow us to assess a surcharge, you know, unto all properties with buildings on them. That might be something, so it's spread out evenly. Let's bear in mind that those who have to pay these fees, and remember now, it's going from a certain amount last year to double in three years. That's a lot of money for protecting the environment. That's your buy -in to protect the environment. They also had to pay for the tie-in from their home to the laterals out there on the public right-of-way. I've heard some real horror stories, where they've got to bust through the blue rock, and that thing comes out to like over $30,000 for some people. That's really, really tough for a lot of people. I just want to proceed a little bit more cautiously on this. I'm not saying I'm against it, but I would prefer just waiting. I mean, I know we're looking at possible Federal fines. Hopefully, that doesn't come—doesn't happen. No matter what, even if we approve this plan, we're still subsidizing out of the General Fund. If that create some kind of liability on our part, then we'll still be liable. I don't see any harm in waiting. I understand where you're coming from; it's from a fiscal responsibility standpoint. But I'd say if we could just wait a little while. Thanks. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. You know, I've got a community and Mr. Kucharski knows. It's very intrinsic, the sewer and our shorelines, so this one is really tough for me. It really does boil down to equity and fairness, because I truly believe protecting our shorelines is everybody's responsibility. But this fee is going to be on the backs of just a few. Page 41 FC -1 January 9, 2019 I touched upon it yesterday a little bit, these are big ticket items, which is why along with what Mr. Chung is saying, where we could maybe assess it on a property. Each individual property, if we could get a little flexibility with our GE (General Excise). This is one of those big ticket items that couldn't infuse a lot of money to really move the needle. And you know I say this all the time; your job is not a sexy job. It's the hardest job. Nobody sees it, nobody—all they know is they throw their trash and it's gone. They flush their toilets and it's gone, so people really don't understand the value of that. That's why for me—and maybe if my colleagues would entertain this, if we could just put a pin it, just for a month or two, and see what kind of opportunities that are out there with our legislature. Maybe other options with certain taxing authority on all of our properties. I feel like we went down the path on just one option. I am trying to encourage innovative thought, including private -public partnerships. I would kind of want to maybe explore a few other options. But that's where I stand. I heard loud and clear that we're still going to be the lowest. But I want to point out to the rest of my colleagues is the other municipals have a lot more capacity. They have a lot more people paying into their sewer system, they have a lot more people paying into their water systems, so they're actually taking money from more people than we are here in Hawaii County. City and County in Honolulu especially, they have closed water system. We don't have that here. We have individual water systems. Our island is too big. When we turn on the pipe in Hilo, it comes out of the aquifer in Hilo, just like Kona. Whereas, people on Oahu, when they turn on the pipe in Mililani, the water could be coming from anywhere because the water is a closed system. So, I just kind of wanted to put that on the table for right now. Because this one's challenging, especially Keaukaha. They're very, very critical of the sewer and the sewer system, and what it's doing to our coastline in Keaukaha. In an area that carries I I beach parks. And after the loss of what happened in Puna and our recreational facilities, those began to go out over the summer. You know, Mr. Chung says we could put our heads a little bit more and maybe be more fair and equitable about sharing this cost. But that's where I stand right now. I'm going to yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Eoff, go ahead. MS. EOFF: Okay, another question then. When this was in Committee last term, we had the same discussion, then we referred the bill to Environmental Commission. I was hoping that the Commission would have addressed any other options. Such as what Mr. Chung is talking about, where there would be a charge to every household or something, so everybody contributed to the solution. But I Page 42 FC -1 January 9, 2019 didn't see anything in the letter coming back to us thatI didn't see the minutes. I don't know, was there any discussion about an alternative way? MR. KUCHARSKI: There was not a discussion of alternatives. There was just an unanimity of vote that increase was necessary for the division to continue to function as it supposed to function to protect. MS. EOFF: And that's true. MR. KUCHARSKI: There was no other there wasn't a discussion on alternatives. MS. EOFF: Because none of us disagree with that. We want you to meet them — I guess it's a Charter mandate that you can self -sustain the department or these projects without taking too much from the General Fund. MR. KUCHARSKI: We're not supposed to. Well, it sort of settled from the EPA side (Environmental Protection Agency) side. They say if you have an SRF—if you are going to be able to get an SRF loan, the State Revolving Fund loan, you're supposed to be able to show financial stability and sustainability. That can be done, honestly, just through coming in and getting money from the General Fund. After we finish this, I would like to request some time to discuss how in fact there is an expression and distribution of funding for even those that are not on sewer. Of course, they'd have to pay twice, but that's a different issue. But the whole capital investment that we have for sewers, that the cost of putting in a sewer is not covered by this rate increase. It's just to operate the existing systems. If we add another 10,000 residents, the sewer to connect them is not part of the rates that they pay. Everyone pays that. Just numbers on the Sewer Fund, right now we're paying about almost $2 million a year to service our existing SRF Funds for the sewer system. By 2021-2022, it's going to be—estimated to be almost $9 million, so that is money that will come out of—the General Fund will be paid in our debt service that will be funded by everyone, whether they're on the sewer or not on the sewer, well, both. As I said, that double -dip comes from people on the sewer pay the fee, but they also pay on the property tax to service the infrastructure debt that we have to cover. So, there is a sharing. MS. EOFF: I see. MR. KUCHARSKI: Might not be equitable, but it's still sharing. MS. EOFF: So technically, then the sharing will help to develop the improvements to the Wastewater treatment plants. Page 43 FC -1 January 9, 2019 MR. KUCHARSKI: Yeah. Or even the R -I system, which is between $50 and $70 million that has to be paid for. MS. EOFF: And everybody pays. MR. KUCHARSKI: And that's paid for out of the General Fund not by the users, just people that are on the sewer system. That's an additional cost. MS. EOFF: And the sewer fee, that would be charged only to the people on sewers? MR. KUCHARSKI: Yes. MS. EOFF: To keep the status quo, maintaining their level of service? MR. KUCHARSKI: Yes. And in addition with the cesspool closures, we have areas in Hilo that don't have 10,000 foot lots. They're held in cesspools. They're going to have to close. The cost for closing that cesspool and for connecting to a sewer is going to be almost the same amount of money. It could be more to put in an individual system. But for those who can't—once we sewer, we're going to have more customers, we're going to have more infrastructure cost, and the individual homeowner is going to have a one-time cost to come in and connect, and then a monthly cost. It's notI can't look here and say everything is going to be smelling roses, particularly on this subject. This is what we have to do. MS. EOFF: Nothing is ever completely fair, too, I mean, that's the other thing sometimes. Okay, thank you for clearing that up. MR. KUCHARSKI: Thank you for the question, allowing me to respond not to your question. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Ms. Poindexter and then we'll go to Mr. Richards. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, and if this was already discussed, I apologize. But environmental subsidies, are we going after or looking at some type of program? Because like what Chair Chung had talked about—anyway, because the people that are on the systems are the ones that are helping all of us protect the environment, right? Most of us are still on the cesspools. I don't know some people are still on gang cesspools. I think there is one community. MR. KUCHARSKI: At least two. MS. POINDEXTER: Two, yeah. So the people who are on the sewer system, I mean, again they're putting their money into what we all need to do. But is there a way that they could qualify for some type of environmental subsidy that may be Page 44 FC -1 January 9, 2019 out there with the Federal Government? Are we looking for those subsidies yet, or we haven't even talked about that? MR. KUCHARSKI: Again, Bill Kucharski to respond. We are looking at Federal funding and methods and tools that we can use to help people connect to a sewer, particularly N5'51ehu and Pahala. Those are the two poster children for where this is really necessary. It is a very large financial burden on everybody there, people that cost to connect. Maybe cost more than the value of their home. We're looking at different rural development. We're looking at EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), on ways that we can mitigate and sort of soften the burden of the connection once they're connected. There's no program—but we can check on programs where there might be some subsidies. But I dare say the rates that we have are probably there's a good chance they're the lowest in the nation. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, and it's good to say that the rates are lower and the lowest in the nation, also. But other places, you know, you talk about their living. Their wages are a lot higher than what we have to offer, too. So there's a balance there. We may be—you know, when you look at balancing all of that out, we may be paying almost the same cost as other places. It just looks lower. You know, our cost of living is a lot higher too, and our wages is a lot lower, so it's hard to use that as an argument, as well, But I'd love to look for possibilities of any kind of subsidies that may be out there. And maybe when we're up in D.C. lobbying, that maybe we could talk to our Senators and our Congressional leaders. MR. KUCHARSKI: And I think that's a great idea. I don't mean to minimize the impact on people. When you take a look at the data on the poverty levels in our County, it's astounding and it's something that's very difficult to get people outside of here to understand. It's something that needs to be considered on in everything that we do. MS. POINDEXTER: Well, thank you for all the work you do. I'll just keep listening and see where this lead. I yield at this time. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Ms. Villegas and then Mr. Richards. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you again, Bill. I had the opportunity to attend the Lono Kona Sewer Improvement District presentation. These guys were awesome and provided to that community. It was my first exposure to that project, which had been many, many years in the making. I'm hoping that this information—so please correct me if I'm wrong, or perhaps you could share the original cost of the project was projected to be? MR. KUCHARSKI: The construction cost was about $5 million. Page 45 FC -1 January 9, 2019 MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, and the Federal government was subsidizing it with? MR. KUCHARSKI: A $2 million grant. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, and the residential fees were going to cover? MR. KUCHARSKI: The residents in the Improvement District, I think, had about a $2 million cost that they would have to cover. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, so that comes to $4 million out of the $5 million was covered by the residents and covered— MR. KUCHARSKI: Was four and two, it's about $6 million. MS. VILLEGAS: About $6 million, okay. MR. KUCHARSKI: $2 million for the residents and the rest was covered either by the County or the Federal grant. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, so then my point being, there was some delays in getting Federal funding, so there were delays in the project. In that time, the price of the project went to $11 million. Now the Federal subsidies remain the same; now the residents portion that they're going to pay remains the same. But the County went from picking up $2 million to picking up $6 million. So in that, I just want to point to—like I get equity, but the County and those that are putting in the tax money are still paying. The County is picking up that difference in the portion. So there is kind of a transference of that cost to more of the population. And with the County picking up three times the cost that was anticipated. Am I correct in that? MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, the numbers are essentially correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah, okay. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And this gets back to what Chair Chung was talking about and Council Woman Lee Loy. Sort of a bigger picture, Bill, what percentage of our households in our County are sewered? You have any guesstimate on that one? MR. KUCHARSKI: We have about 14,000 households. I think that when you get about four, each works out 20 to 30 percent. Page 46 FC -1 January 9, 2019 MR. RICHARDS: Okay, that will be my guess. Just thinking geographically where we have that thing. Let's use the number 20 or 25 percent. If we are going to look, we as collectively as a County look at the greater health of our County or our coastlines. This really isn't a sewer participant, currently, problem. This is actually a countywide problem that we have to embrace. Spring -boarding off of what Chair had talked about. I get where he's coming from. What we're doing is looking to the shortstop gap, is to get the funding corrected for the sewer right now. I got that. But in the greater sense, what we're talking about is actually taking care of the County as a whole, which means the residents of the County as a whole. Is this important enough for the County as a whole, so thereby all members, regardless whether they're on the sewer or not? Because we have to start doing waste management, and it's important for the County as whole. Just because you live in Waimea, you still go to the coastline. So, I'm getting where we're talking about it now. And I agree with that thought process, because that's the long-term fix, not the short-term fix. This, I agree, we need to have funding. You need more funding. We're all in agreement of that. But how we structure that going forward—and it is, truly a County issue. It's not a sewer issue. It's a County issue. I think we have to be more broad in our thought process, and how we're going to source that funding. I think what Council Woman Lee Loy pointed out is if we can slow down a little bit, looking at the process going forward. The Chair also highlighted that. I like that because there may be a way to actually look at a greater picture, and if we can get some latitude in how we do this. Again, if we distribute the cost over more people, it will be a less cost per person, looking to the future. Because that is what we have to do, we've got to figure out what it's going to look 20 years from now, not five years from now. So, I'm very supportive of you getting more funding. I have to think on this a little bit. So, I yield at this point. Thanks, Chair. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Hi, Bill. Sorry to keep you. Nice to see you again. MR. KUCHARSKI: My job. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm looking at this in a couple of different ways. We haven't raised rates in 16 years. No, sorry. How many? MR. KUCHARSKI: Since 2002. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Since 2002, okay, 16,17 years. So I understand the need to raise rates. I just realized right now that business rates are Page 47 FC -1 January 9, 2019 going to go up about three times versus two times for residential, by the end of three years, if we did do this, which is a big that's a big number. But I do understand. I'm kind of going back and forth understanding and the reality of what I would pay as a business owner. I think, for me personally, if someone were to charge me for having a system that's not hooked up to the sewer system, it would be hard to swallow. Like everyone is saying, it's going to be interesting but necessary to word this in a way where we're taking the money as an island as a whole to pay for what we're wanting to do. But in a way that's not saying, "Hey, you've got to pay for your side of the sewer even though you don't use it." That, for me, is hard to swallow as just your average neighborhood guy. That's hard. So I think we do need to be creative about how we word this for the public so they can be a little bit more forgiving when it comes to understanding we need to increase our cost versus where we're going to get our money from. MR. KUCHARSKI: There is a—all in—you did not mention the increase in the septic haulers, which for those that are not in a sewer but do have a septic tank, those rates are also going to go up because that material is brought directly to the wastewater treatment facility for treatment before disposal. There will be some small sharing in that regard. I understand the sympathy, and I just don't know what the right answer is. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: You know, I usually have a lot to say, but I'm kind of in a lost right now. I've been listening with great attention and intent. And very intriguing. I mean, I've got a cesspool that I'm going to have to deal with and phase out over time, and that's going to cost a significant amount of money. Luckily, there are tax credits available for individuals that are willing to go through the process. Like Council Member Villegas pointed out, we have to invest in these systems in order to protect our ecosystems and the future, so I'm inclined to support this. But at the same time, and listening to Chair Chung and my colleague, Council Member Lee Loy, we need to be taking a holistic look and finding creative ways to fund, I think, wastewater systems in the future. I can't see Puna having to pay for something that it doesn't benefit from. So in planning for the future, if we think about where additional wastewater treatments could go and how these communities could connect to that, that I'm inclined to support paying for that. But I'm still really grappling with this. I agree with Council Member Lee Loy, maybe we can put a put a pin in this for just a little bit. Maybe at the next meeting, maybe we can get a little more information on just other creative ways, partnerships that we can consider to help fund this. Page 48 FC -1 January 9, 2019 CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you. I want to maybe request of the Environmental Management Department, because I know you folks evaluated the bill. But is there a way to send a recommend—or request back down to the Environmental Management Committee to look at other options or other alternatives and evaluate that for us? You know, maybe other grant-in-aid opportunities or improvement districts, as Ms. Villegas has shared. Maybe a shared cost, is that something that we could request? I think you folks did an excellent job at evaluating what was presented to you. I'm just maybe hopeful that if we expanded that ask, as far as being more innovative or creative—creative financing, I think, I want to call it, is that something you think you could help us with, Mr., Kucharski? Because then as you evaluate that, we could put a pin in it and maybe bring this back at the end of February or March. But it'll also give some of my colleagues who are looking to attend our NACo (National Association of Counties) conferences—we will have started the legislature at that point. We could start to begin to test the waters if there is other financing, or creative financing opportunities out there for us. What's your thoughts? MR. KUCHARSKI: Bill Kucharski again. I think there are two issues here that are being jumbled together as to one. The operating costs for existing facilities is not something that can be—well, there may be some innovative ways to pay for that. And we're also doling out. Our job is technical. Whether you flush, it flushes. When it's treated and discharged, it's appropriately treated and discharged. The fiscal requirements and policies, what the County is allowed to tax, not tax fee or not fee outside of specific use, is outside of my area of expertise. We can bring that to the Environmental Management Commission. I'm not aware of that expertise there either. But I'd be happy to bring it to them as a question and a discussion item. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah thank you, Mr. Kucharski. There's no doubt it's going to be really tough. This budget cycle is going to be really tough. I'll yield at this time. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Eoff and then Ms. Villegas. MS. EOFF: I was just going to say that Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder kind of picked up on the difference that you were describing earlier, about this particular sewer fee going to just maintain those people's—who are already on the sewer system. Whereas, the future of expanding improvements and the capacity building treatment plants are shared costs from all of the populous through the General Fund. Correct? Page 49 FC -1 January 9, 2019 MR. KUCHARSKI: Yes, Ma'am. MS. EOFF: It took me awhile to catch on. Because before I wasI mean, I completely agree with what everybody's saying, and yet it was sort of an intriguing thought that there might be another way to approach this. When we talked earlier today, Council Chair Chung's suggestion that somehow we find a way to make it seem more fair. But actually, I see that you need this increase. I don't know whether postponing it would be a good idea to help the message get out better, or maybe even to consider. Yeah, it's easy to see that first year jump. Maybe it's not that bad. But then when you look at the three-year compounded amount, it starts to seem like a lot, not for the city but even for the businesses even more. So I don't know whether we could take a little pause to look at how many years ahead we want to include in this bill or is that already—when we have to do it. Because maybe there are some other ways in the next year or two we find, and then we wouldn't have to show this three-year increase. MR. KUCHARSKI: If the Council in its wisdom wants this to be a five-year layout, that's fine. Just note that the longer it takes, more money is coming out of the General Fund. The shorter this takes; the less money is coming out of the General Fund. My job is just to get monies so we can operate appropriately. MS. EOFF: Right, and we want to support you. MR. KUCHARSKI: I hope so. MS. EOFF: So anyway, I'll yield. I'm not really sure what to do at this point. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Ms. Villegas and then Mr. Richards. Did you have youroh, okay. Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Okay and thank you. Council Woman Eoff touched on it and we've all said it, Bill needs the money to run the Wastewater. We have to acknowledge that. How we fund it is where we're questioning. The more I listen, the more I think about it. I think we can argue aggressively and passionately from both perspectives, and both sides are justifiable. I hear what Council Woman Lee Loy is saying, about kind of pump the brakes a little bit, slow down, and have a look. But if you look at the way this bill is written, it's for an effective date of 3/19, so it's a very short timeline. I would be supportive of deferring for a very short time, if we can answer a few questions. But I don't want to put the funding just on the back -burner because what we're doing is we're kicking the can down the road. We don't want to do that. We've got to make a decision on that. Page 50 FC -1 January 9, 2019 I do want to wrestle in my mind a little bit with this. And maybe we can—if we can get a quick blush -response from Environmental Management Commission, a perspective from them, I think that would be helpful for us. But we're going to have to make a decision very, very timely, otherwise we're going to put Environmental Management in a bad position. So I would entertainrealistically, how quickly could we get it to the Commission and answer back? MR. KUCHARSKI: Our next meeting, sir, is the 28' of this month, I believe. So I can get that on the agenda for discussion. I'm not certain what kind of response we can get back. But then, the next meeting is in the end of February. I can have something back probably by March. MR. RICHARDS: That's going to put you in a bind, and I know that. We do need more information, I think, to make a good decision. We may have to delay this passing by a month and get it effective April. But if we can get it on the agenda, pose the question. And do we need help articulating what the question is, Bill? I can work with you on that? MR. KUCHARSKI: From the financial alternative, yes, sir. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Alright. So you can do that. I'd be supportive of deferring this for a little while, just to see if we can get one more blush from Environmental Management. But I think we've got to make a decision right away. We can't defer it again. We've got to make a decision. Chair, how do you want to handle this? Do other people weigh in first? CHR. DAVID: I think I'd like to go to Ms. Lee Loy, and then I have a question before we actually make a motion. MR. RICHARDS: You bet. So, okay. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, and I'm trying to walk in the middle of the road here. Maybe this might be a question for Corporation Counsel. Because we have a three-year option here, what if we just stretch that out over five years? Is there a way that you can do that in-house, and does that require us to go back to the Environmental Management? I kind of want to walk this out because I absolutely agree, the environment is worth every penny. But I'm being very mindful of who's going to bear the cost on this one. So let me ask that question of our Corporation Counsel. If we have the Director prepare maybe a Draft 2 of this bill with a five-year plan rather than the three-year Page 51 FC -1 January 9, 2019 that we have in front of us, does that require us to go back to Environmental Management? MR. KAMELAMELA: Joseph Kamelamela, Corporation Counsel. Yes. MR. KUCHARSKI: If I might, just don't say. I hate to shoot myself in the foot, but the reason the March or April date was put in is that it takes three months for a billing to be received. So if the department was going to be funded for the entire year, it has to be effective because that doesn't start until three months later. But again, we're here and we'll do whatever we can do with the funds that we have available. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, I guess—you know, I think waiting until our next Committee meeting on the 22nd, and maybe if you could provide us just with some back of the envelope kind of numbers to help maybe just for maybe my comfort level. I understand the billing process. And so if we really want to take advantage of the whole fiscal amount that's being projected in this bill, we doI get the hard deadline. I'll just listen to the rest of my colleagues how—maybe you folks have done creative legislation, moving things forward and see where we go with this. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, if time is of the essence, I would say if we move it up to—we're going to have two more readings at Council. I don't know if it's okay to put the discussion on the Environmental Management Commission and bring feedback to us on what transpires thereat our Council meeting. MR. KUCHARSKI: Bill Kucharski again. I can check and see whether I can agendize a discussion and do a five-year payout and have the Commission take a look at that and vote on that so that I can come back with their approval, even prior to it, the bill coming to Council. If that's an acceptable methodology. MS. POINDEXTER: So if you come back and we're already at Council and we make an amendment there, then that goes back to the Commission. But at least we're moving it forward. We're out of Committee, so that kind of helps us along the timeline. You know what I mean? So I would like to see this move forward, and then a possible amendment at Council. Then go back instead of waiting. I'll yield to listen to everybody else. Thanks. CHR. DAVID: Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: If I might? I've got to reflect on a process that we use with the Planning Department. You know, we sent this down to them, and we made further edits, but we never sent it back down to the Planning Department. I've heard what Joe said, so I'm just kind of struggling with that. Like, how Page 52 FC -1 January 9, 2019 come we have to go back and forth? I don't think so, but that was the advice of Corporation Counsel. But I'm back to you know, I think it is within the authority and duties of the Council to further amend this bill. And if Mr. Kucharski is more than happy to try and provide us some of the back of the envelope numbers with a five-year kind of reach, I think we could. But we did hear Mr. Kamelamela give a very straight answer, which is "yes." It just doesn't follow the same track on other policies and legislation that we do when we refer to other bodies, other commissions. You know, listening to my more experience colleagues, yeah, we could move forward and, you know, have Mr. Kucharski maybe provide us with an option to maybe deal with it then. MR. KUCHARSKI: If I might comment? If you recall on the polystyrene bill, we went back, and the Committee approved that. Four Council had approved it. We had to bring in the minutes of the meeting to show that they had looked at that bill and approved it. So, we've done this before. The EMC (Environmental Management Commission) is a little bit different than, I think, any other Commission around. But that is the process that we did follow on the polystyrene bill, as I recall. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. I yield. Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, question for the Clerk. We have public hearings on this? MR. HENRICKS: No. We actually checked with Corporation Counsel to verify that there's no need for a requirement. I should say legal requirements for public hearings. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Alright, thanks. Yeah, I can be supportive of moving it out of Committee to Council if we can get the information back because that will keep options open. It will be mindful of the concern. Or are we still trying to explore some other avenues? CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else before I just make a statement, before we vote on this? Okay, great. Along the lines of moving this out, like Ms. Lee Loy suggested, five years instead of three years. To save us time, instead of moving it out five years, do we need a three-year or a five-year attempt or can we just try a one-year attempt? Would that help or no? Would that defeat the entire purpose? And could we come back, once we find out if there's other options then go into the whole thing? That's just a question to you. MR. KUCHARSKI: Again a response. If I understand, the proposal is to go from $27 to $39 in the first year. If the bill just said that, it could be amended. It could Page 53 FC -1 January 9, 2019 come back in six months and come in with the extension. I will tell you that this was just a first step. This is not the last step. One of the things that we will be doing is attaching water usage to the fees, as most of the other counties do to where you get a base fee that is a little bit lower. Water charge is added on. You pay a certain dollars per thousand gallons. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) encourages that because that is the way a consumer can reduce their sewer bill, by reducing their water consumption. With a fixed -fee, you can't do that. But I did not want to come in and have an increase plus a change in process. CHR. DAVID: Okay. Alright. MR. KUCHARSKI: So if that was were truncated to a one-year, that would alleviate some and would still result in a reduction in this year's General Fund use, and then we could come back and extend it further. I'd just hate to have everybody vote on fee increase time and time again. CHR. DAVID: Right, that's painful. MR. KUCHARSKI: Take it once instead of three times. CHR. DAVID: That's very painful. Okay, just wanted to ask that question. Okay, Council Members, I think we're ready to move. So all those in favor of approving Bill 210 and filing all related communications please say "aye." Vote on Bill 210: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 210 on (2016-2018) first reading was carried by the following voice vote: (Approved) Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Director Kucharski, you're very late for your Waimea meeting, and we apologize. We're sorry. Drive carefully. Thank you. Alright, Mr. Clerk, I think we can go right back to Resolution 27-19 on the agenda. Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: Page 54 FC -1 January 9, 2019 Res. 27-19: AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OF A LATER FISCAL YEAR AND OF MORE THAN ONE FISCAL YEAR FOR A MULTI-YEAR SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, TRAFFIC DIVISION Authorizes the Mayor to enter into a five-year lease agreement for continued software support and annual upgrades, with an approximate cost of $80,899, effective April 1, 2019 through March 31, 2024. Reference: Comm. 43 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Vote on Res. 27-19: Ms. Poindexter moved to recommend adoption of (Approved) Res. 27-19. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. (Note: Bill 210 in this category was taken up previously, out of order.) CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, Bill 2. Bill 2: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 18-68, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2019 Appropriates revenues in the State Grants-DCCA — HI-WiFi Pilot account ($100,000); and appropriates the same to the DCCA — HI-WiFi Pilot account. Funds would be used to increase access to affordable internet and broadband services in unserved and underserved areas in Hawaii County. Reference: Comm. 14 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Poindexter moved to recommend passage of Bill 2 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. DAVID: The companion resolution to this was Resolution 21-19. Page 55 FC -1 January 9, 2019 MR. HENRICKS: Madam Chair, I'm so sorry, just can I be a little bit of stickler Because there was an article yesterday and it talked about a bill failing in Committee, if we could just be clear the motion is to forward to Council with a positive recommendation as opposed to approve. I'm sorry, just to make that a clear distinction. CHR. DAVID: Okay. No, that's fine. Alright. So that motion was to forward Bill 2 to Council with a positive recommendation. Thank you. Alright, any discussion on this? Seeing none, all those in favor please say "aye." Vote on Bill 2: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 2 on first reading was (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Bill 3: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 18-68, AS AMENDED, THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30. 2019 Increases revenues in the State Grants — Commercial Driver's License Program account ($1,759); and appropriates the same to the Commercial Driver's License Program Other Current Expenses account. Funds would be used by the Finance Department's Vehicle Registration and Licensing Division for travel costs to send a County Commercial Driver's License instructor to Honolulu to instruct a Commercial Driver's License Examiner class and gain experience with testing protocols. Reference: Comm. 15 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Page 56 FC -1 January 9, 2019 Vote on Bill 3: Ms. Poindexter moved to recommend passage of Bill 3 on (Approved) first reading. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Bill 4: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 18-69, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCING THEREOF FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2018 TO JUNE 30, 2019 Adds the Public Works Dispatch Center project for $500,000 to the Capital Budget. Funds for this project shall be provided from the General Obligation Bonds, Capital Projects Fund - Fund Balance and/or Other Sources. The new Fire and Police Dispatch Center would be located at Mohouli Street in Hilo. Reference: Comm. 16 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Poindexter moved to recommend passage of Bill 4 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say that the current Dispatch Center is located in the tsunami zone, so moving it to Mohouli Street would be of extreme benefit. I was able to speak with Fire One and some Battalion Chiefs, so they are very excited about they're hoping for support for this. It would improve their operations and their ability to respond to community in times of disasters. So, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor please say "aye." Page 57 FC -1 January 9, 2019 Vote on Bill 4: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 4 on first reading (Approved) was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Bill 7: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 18-69, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCING THEREOF FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2018 TO JUNE 30, 2019 Adds the Public Works Alii Drive Culvert Replacement — Fair Share project for $2.2 million to the Capital Budget. Funds for this project shall be provided from Fair Share Contributions. Funds would account for the County's 20 percent portion of costs, with remaining funding provided by Federal Highway Administration. Reference: Comm. 44 Intr. by: Ms. Villegas (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. Villegas moved to recommend passage of Bill 7 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MS. VILLEGAS: I had the opportunity to speak with Public Works just a couple of days ago and was notified that currently the culvert that leads to the ocean, at this area on Alii Drive, is being held up with boards. It's on a main thoroughfare. Alii Drive is one of our main arteries in Kona. This is kind of a tunnel leading directly into the ocean. Should this collapse with anyone upon it, it would be devasting, not only to those people but it will already be an intensive position on the community to eliminate this as a means of travel to and from town. However, in finding out the current circumstances of this culvert and the state that it's in, it behooves us in our roles of leadership to approve the renovation and the fixing of it before we have another disaster on our hands. Thanks for considering it. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor please say "aye." Page 58 FC -1 January 9, 2019 Vote on Bill 7: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 7 on first reading (Approved) was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, did we complete the entire agenda? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 3:18 p.m., Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: We are adjourned. Approved: Ms. i e eiros avid, Chair Finance Committee MD/na 011y1119 01 � (Date) Page 59