Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN FC 2019/02/04 2018-2020Committee on Finance 3" Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii February 4, 2019 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Finance was called to order at ORDER: 10:15 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Chair Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member (came in later) Ms. Karen Eoff, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Tina Clothier: Sally Ancheta: (representing Hawaii Public Health Institute) Patrick L. Kahawaiolaa: (representing Keaukaha Community Association) Stephanie Donoho: (representing Kohala Coast Resort Association) Joy Dillon: (representing Hawaii Island Realtors) Bill 19 (Comm. 81), in support. Bill 19 (Comm. 81), in support. Res. 740-18 (Comm. 1147) (2016-2018), comment. Bill 19 (Comm. 81), comment. Bill 19 (Comm. 81), in opposition. FC -3 COMMUNI- CATIONS: Floyd D. Eaglin: Carol Ignacio: (representing Blue Zones) February 4, 2019 Res. 740-18 (Comm. 1147) (2016-2018), in opposition. Bill 19 (Comm. 81), in support. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, can you please move forward with Communications, please? The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order of Resolutions. Comm. 9.5: MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 2018, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated January 4, 2019, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Charter Section 6-6.3(h). Vote on Comm. 9.5: Ms. Eoff moved to close file on Comm. 9.5. Seconded Filed by Ms. Villegas 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. 11.2: REPORT OF FUND TRANSFERS AUTHORIZED: DECEMBER 1 — 15, 2018, AND DECEMBER 16 — 31, 2018 From Controller Kay Oshiro, dated January 7, 2019. Vote on Comm. 11.2: Filed Ms. Villegas moved to close file on Comm. 11.2. 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. Page 2 FC -3 February 4, 2019 Comm. 29: REQUESTS A PRESENTATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES TO PROVIDE STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR HIRING PRACTICES AS OUTLINED IN AUDIT REPORT 2017-03 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR From Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy, dated November 13, 2018. Postponed: January 22, 2019 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Lee Loy, seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz, to close file on Comm. 29.) ; and Comm. 29.1: From Human Resources Director William V. Brilhante, Jr., dated January 17, 2019, requesting Comm. 29 be postponed. CHR. DAVID: Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. At this time, I'm going to walk this one back. I've been in communication with Mr. Brilhante, and these next few months are a little busy for him with contract negotiations and arbitration. So with that, I'd like to amend my motion, to motion to withdraw Communication 29. Withdraw Comm. 29: Ms. Lee Loy announced withdrawal of Comm. 29 and all related communications. CHR. DAVID: We don't need a second, right? MR. HENRICKS: No, a motion's not necessary as long as there's no objections from anybody else on the committee that Ms. Lee Loy withdraw this communication from further consideration. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Communication 29 is withdrawn. Mahalo. Comm. 57: SECOND QUARTER CLAIMS REPORT: OCTOBER 1 — DECEMBER 31, 2018 From Claims Investigator/Adjustor Clifford D. Victorine III, dated January 4, 2019, transmitting the above report pursuant to Section 2-9 of the Hawaii County Code. Page 3 FC -3 Vote on Comm. 57 Filed Ms. Eoff moved to close file on Comm. 57. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder 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. February 4, 2019 Comm. 62: SECOND QUARTER REPORT OF PERSONS EMPLOYED UNDER A CONTRACT FOR LESS THAN 90 DAYS: OCTOBER 1 — DECEMBER 31, 2018 From Human Resources Director William V. Brilhante, Jr., dated January 4, 2019, transmitting the above report pursuant to Section 2-12.5 of the Hawaii County Code. Vote on Comm. 62: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 62. Seconded by Filed Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder 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. Change Order of As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, Business: the follow items were taken out of order: Comm. 77: NOMINATION OF LAWRENCE L. HEINTZ TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS From Mayor Harry Kim, dated January 16, 2019, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: March 1, 2019 (Section 13-4(l), Hawaii County Charter) Page 4 FC -3 Vote on Comm. 77 (Approved) February 4, 2019 Ms. Villegas moved to recommend confirmation of the appointment of Mr. Lawrence L. Heintz to the Board of Ethics. 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. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Chair David informed Mr. Heintz that he does not need to appear at the Council meeting for final confirmation of his appointment. Comm. 78: NOMINATION OF JUDY GREENBAUM TO THE SALARY COMMISSION From Mayor Harry Kim, dated January 16, 2019, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: March 1, 2019 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) Vote on Comm. 78: Mr. Richards moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Ms. Judy Greenbaum to the Salary Commission. 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. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Chair David informed Ms. Greenbaum that she does not need to appear at the Council meeting for final confirmation of her appointment. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Clerk, I guess we can just go back up to Comm. 67 and continue down the agenda. Page 55 FC -3 February 4, 2019 Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: Comm. 67: 2018 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION COMMISSION From Mayor Harry Kim, dated January 2, 2019, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 2-217. The Mayor provides a detailed summary of the purchasing history and status of the lands purchased with the fund, an accounting report, a statement on management and stewardship of the lands, and requests that the Council accept the updated prioritized list as provided by the Commission. Motion to Close File: Ms. Villegas moved to close file on Comm. 67. Seconded by Ms. Eoff. CHR. DAVID: I have a note that Hamana Ventura would be in our Kona office, but I see Maxine here. Would you like to come up, Maxine? (Note: At this time, Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Commission Secretary Maxine Cutler came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. CUTLER: Good morning, Chair David and Vice Chair Tim Richards and the Finance Committee. My name is Maxine Cutler, and I'll give you an introduction. I am the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission Secretary. Thank you for inviting me up to the microphone. I'm sorry, Hamana Ventura, he's in Kohala today. CHR. DAVID: Okay, alright. Council Members, any questions regarding the report that you folks might have for Ms. Cutler? Seeing none, thank you very much for coming up. MS. CUTLER: Thank you very much. CHR. DAVID: All those in favor of filing Communication 67 please say "aye." Page 6 FC -3 February 4, 2019 Vote on Comm. 67: The motion to close file on Comm. 67 was carried by the Filed 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. MS. CUTLER: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Mahalo. Comm. 73: 2018 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX BOARD OF REVIEW From Real Property Tax Board of Review Chairman Melvin Ventura, dated January 15, 2019, transmitting the above report pursuant to Hawaii County Code Section 19-97(e). Vote on Comm. 73: Ms. Villegas moved to close file on Comm. 73. Seconded Filed 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. Comm. 90: THIRD REPORT FROM THE REAL PROPERTY TAX REVIEW WORKING GROUP AND AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE From Finance Director Deanna Sako, dated January 3, 2019. The report provides three recommendations for consideration by the County Council and the Administration: Repeal Solar Water Heater Tax Credit, Repeal the Non - Speculative Residential Program, and Procedural change to Real Property Tax classification. Motion to Close File: Mr. Richards moved to close file on Comm. 90. Seconded by Ms. Eoff. CHR. DAVID: Council Members, discussion? I believe we have Ms. Miura here. If you have questions, I'll call her up. Okay Administrator, sorry, could you please come up? Page 7 FC -3 February 4, 2019 (Note: At this time, Real Property Tax Administrator Lisa Miura and Assistant Real Property Tax Administrator Keita Jo came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. DAVID: Good morning. Identify for yourselves for the record and then we can proceed with questions. MS. MIURA: Okay, good morning, everybody. I'm Lisa Miura, the Administrator at the Real Property Tax office. I'm here with Keita Jo, the Assistant Administrator, and there are also three members of this Real Property Tax Review Working Group and Agricultural Committee here today, as well. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Go ahead, Council Members? Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. CHR. DAVID: You're welcome. MR. RICHARDS: And thank you, Ms. Miura, for being up here. This is a procedure that we started talking story about probably a little over a year ago, maybe a year and a half. Can you give—we have a couple of Freshmen on the Council now. Can you just give us a thumbnail overview of what triggered it, the process you went through, and where we are with it? MS. MIURA: Sure. So the review group came to be—because in the past, it was known by other names, like the ad hoc committee, the Task Force. It was really headed by the Council side, when the County Council Members were taking part of it. They were lucky to meet for a year and a half. It really takes a good six-month minimum to get up to speed and to train those members that are on this group about all of our Real Property Tax programs or dedications and understanding how the tax rates are applied. By the time they get to the point where they can actually start making decisions, it gets to be very political when you have members on the County Council. So after a lot of discussion in 2017 by that group of Council Members, it was decided that the administration would take on the task of having a Real Property Tax Review Working Group, and the Council made recommendations for the members. Usually, for your boards and commissions, the recommendations only come from the Mayor's Office and then Council confirms them in here. So, we did that. Our group has a considerable number of members because there was (recommendations) from all the Council Members, and we've been lucky that all but one has stayed with us through the entire time. We're coming up to be two years in the late summer, that we've been meeting. Page 8 FC -3 February 4, 2019 On the front page of our Working Group report—and this report was actually prepared in October, but the Finance Director wanted to wait until the new County Council was in place before submitting it, to give you the chance to ask us the questions and to review the report. Their purpose is listed on the front. It isn't—and I just wanted to clarify this, their purpose was never tasked to actually increase revenue. The purpose of this group was to increase the fairness of the County's Real Property Tax program, identifying and incorporate best property tax administrative practices, propose additional tax programs as appropriate, and identify public policy goals and incorporating them into the County's Real Property Tax program. It sounds really nice. It's really long meetings for them because they're not an official board. They don't get lunches; they don't really get anything. But we're very grateful to them for coming out and volunteering their time because all of them have jobs. MR. RICHARDS: Just a follow-up on that. One of the big concerns we had previously, and other Council Members please join in, is this fairness. What Lisa is talking about, especially when it came to the agricultural side and trying to strike that balance. If you look at the list of people that were on this working group, and specifically the agriculture group, I've got to commend Real Property Tax for putting together an all-star team when it comes to looking at big land managers trying to figure out how to do what is fair and what is right. I appreciate the fact that you said it's not about raising revenue, it's trying to figure out what is fair. The revenue, that's us. That's what we're supposed to figure out, but you guys were tasked with coming up with what is fair. Because one of the problems that we ran into is we're always kind of stutter, stepping back and forth between what is fair versus revenue raising. This gives us an opportunity to know that a working group is established; and what they believe is fair. We adopt it and then we figure out the revenue side. So I fully appreciate what you guys have done. I really appreciate that. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: So I'm just wondering, Lisa, is the administration going to beI think there are two recommendations that would require changes to our Hawaii County Code, right? So will the administration be advancing those two bills to us? MS. MIURA: I hope so. MR. CHUNG: Okay, that's all. MS. MIURA: I believe they will, but I can't speak for the Mayor, the entire—for the Finance Director. Page 9 FC -3 February 4, 2019 MR. CHUNG: Okay, alright. We'll keep in touch. MS. MIURA: Okay, thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Anyone else? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I just had a question about the appeal hearings for a combined goal of $399 million. Can you just clarify that for me so that I understand that? Or better, give me some depth on that. MS. MIURA: Are you on the Board of Review communication? I don't remember that being on this one. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes. I may be on the wrong spot. MS. MIURA: I think so. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm on the wrong page, sorry. MS. MIURA: It's okay. I'm happy to stay after and talk to you about that. No sense—we can't talk about it now. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, I know. That's fine. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Anyone else? Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair David. Hi, Lisa. Hi, Keita. Great to see you. I got a lot of calls and emails over the weekend and this morning because there was an article in the newspaper about this report, specifically about number three, the procedural to change to Real Property Tax classification. It's highlighted here that the working group is suggesting that properties that are zoned ag, less than one acre, be reclassified as residential. Many constituents are writing and calling in because they feel that this is a move that you can make that doesn't require Council action. So I was just wondering what is the status of this particular recommendation? Is it something that your division is going to be pushing for, and if there is any public input that is going to be solicited before you make a decision on, whether or not to act on this? MS. MIURA: Yes, this is going to be the fun one for sure. I'm pretty sure it was more than your constituents. I think several of the Council Members got calls from the article that ran. There are a couple of things, and I just want to clarify it, because the calls that we received was that there were confusion with the article that this was automatically Page 10 FC -3 February 4, 2019 changing their zoning. Planning Department does their zoning, so they're zoned agricultural. These are properties that are less than one acre in size. When you go to these properties—and in many of these subdivisions, the actual evidence of any agriculture being done is very minimum. That came out in our review of all of the ag programs. So that's where they apply for the nondedicated ag or the actual commercial ag programs. In addition to that, when most people are looking at these subdivisions, they don't realize it's agriculture. It looks like a residential subdivision. Some may have County water and others may not. When we did the discussions with the review group in regards to these, they looked at everything up to five acres and everything that was under five acres. You know, where's the line that you cut it off? This looks—it smells, and it acts like a subdivision in a residential area. The issue is that our County in the whole State has more agricultural zoning. Whether it's right or wrong, it's something that we can't continue to just ignore, the fact that the Planning Department didn't have zoning for a long time. There's this whole procedure and dates, and if you want more, I can call on one of the Real Property Tax Review member Bill More, because he is very knowledgeable about specific dates, and he's probably cringing as I'm talking about it now. But for the Planning Department to actually change zoning, that is much more of a nightmare. I think for many years Council and our office has thought Planning should change the zoning, Planning should change the zoning. It's residential. I don't know how they made half this island agriculture. In the meantime, we have had legitimate farmers come in, both big and small that are in this agricultural program, stating why does my neighbor get this ag tax rate, which is lower, when they're not doing any ag? Like, shouldn't that rate be set aside and saved just for people that are actually doing agriculture? It really gets down to the point of, how fair is it that—and I'll use my subdivision. I live in, well, I'm not going to say the name of the subdivision, but I live in a subdivision in Waimea. That's about 15,000 square foot lots. You drive in, it's a residential subdivision. We don't have underground utilities, we don't even have swales, but it's a residential. There's not one single lot in this entire subdivision doing agriculture; yet, if you don't live there and you're renting it out, you pay the lower $9.35, like people that have agricultural property. There was frustration among the island, about how fair and equitable was the Real Property Tax office being. Full disclosure. We do have properties that is zoned ag being taxed as residential. It wasn't applied correctly for many years, so one of the things is trying to correct that. But honestly, having that line of where do you stop? Is it one acre? Because people brought up Hawaiian Paradise Park. You drive in there, you don't see a lot of actual agriculture going on in Paradise Park. You keep on going and they finally stopped it. And we said, okay, under one acre—and there's many reasons Page 11 FC -3 February 4, 2019 they stuck to the under one acre. But we wanted to provide some statistics. We're here today for a lot of the constituents that are concerned. There are a total of 24,995 parcels that are under one acre zoned agriculture. Of those, 18,330 parcels will not actually see an increase in taxes because they're already in the minimum tax; and even going up in the tax rate, they'll still be under the minimum tax, which is the current $200. They're going to be there they're either in the homeowner's class, which you're not going to see an increase because it's the three percent cap; or they're in some ag use program, which is either nondedicated or dedicated. So that leaves us with 6,665 parcels that will see an increase. Of those parcels, 75 percent is under 15,000 square feet. There's not a whole lot of agriculture you can do with less than a 15,000 square foot lot. So, there was discussion about do we cut it off lower than one acre, and the recommendation came back at the acre—less than one acre, excuse. Does that explain it a little bit? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: It does. I just want to clarify; I want to make sure I get this right. So until the Planning Department rezones, you cannot—or you will not be increasing property tax rates in reclassifying? MS. MIURA: No, we're doing that already. We are doing that. We are sending the letters out in February, and they will change because they're not being classified correctly. So it's already in the County Code. What we're saying is it hasn't been evenly applied across the island. There are already parcels that are being taxed as residential that is actually in agricultural zoning, mostly in West Hawaii. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you for the clarification. MS. MIURA: You're welcome. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Ms. Eoff, go ahead. MS. EOFF: Thank you. Hi. So what I think I'm understanding is that although the tax rate might change to a residential rate, under County zoning, the allowable uses wouldn't change. Because they could still be under ag, they could have chickens or whatever? MS. MIURA: Correct. The State Land Use and Planning zoning is not changing. MS. EOFF: Whereas, you can change the rate to reflect more accurately what the MS. MIURA: Correct. We're supposed to be going on highest and best use not on zoning. So the new subdivisions come in, we do it strictly on use; and the Page 12 FC -3 February 4, 2019 older ones, as most of these are, were just based on what the zoning used to be, and it's nothing bad on the prior administrations at all. It's a big thing to make the change. MS. EOFF: Right. Because like you said, there's a lot of lots involved. MS. MIURA: There are. MS. EOFF: All over the island. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. And, Lisa, thank you for being here. Maybe what would be helpful to some of my other colleagues, is this notification process that you guys put out, and then the opportunities that a property owner would have to appeal those decisions. It helps us explain to people who will be getting these letters saying "Hey, we're changing your real property tax category based on our observation of use and applying it fairly to the category that you're in," and then what the next steps are for them if they don't agree with that assessment. MS. MIURA: Thank you. That's a very good point and we should have made that earlier. We are sending the assessment notices out in March, and it will state on there what your classification is. We are also changing the there's been a lot of complaints that have come up that say, you know, when they get the assessment notice, it says in red letters "This is not a bill," so everybody tosses it. We changed the wording on there to say that it's time -sensitive material, please read it or please open. But in addition to that, which is the only requirement we do have, is that we are sending a letter in February, stating that "your assessment is coming, your classification is changing." We're hoping between the two, this will give them the opportunity to realize their property has a class change, and they can file an appeal, which is by April 91h. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy, anymore? MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Lisa. And help this body understand, because there's some time sensitivity to us also, right? Because if we go ahead and make these changes, it impacts the projected revenue that we get, which we as body have to decide when we're going through the budget. So could you help us understand that, just for some of my other colleagues who are going to be going through this budget cycle process? MS. MIURA: Sure. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Page 13 FC -3 February 4, 2019 MS. MIURA: So for the first recommendation, to repeal the Solar Water Heater Tax Credit, this one does require an ordinance change. The earliest we could see this going into effect probably is not until next year, 2020, but that would be dependent on what the Council approves during the Council hearing. So that would still have to come before you all, in Finance Committee and Council. The same goes for the repealing of the Non -speculative Residential Program. When we send out these assessment notices in March, this is based on what we already have currently in the system. So even if County Council and the administration decide today they want to go ahead and repeal the program, this wouldn't affect taxes, really, until 2020 to 2021 when you would see an actual increase. The increase is very nominal. In regards to the procedural change to real property tax classification, number three, this was provided to County Council to keep you abreast about what is happening internally with the Real Property Tax office. As it doesn't require a change in front of Council. It was more of a notification. That would go into an account, and this does affect the upcoming revenue for 2019-2020. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. My final question—because I remember walking through this process, it felt like just yesterday. But there was a report prepared, it was a Technical Assistant's report about the various tax policies, and within that there was a matrix of all the different recommendations. Is it possible—because there was some amazing suggestions in here, and identified, you know, Council action to initiate, or Finance Department, Real Property Tax? Is there any way Bill Moore could update this chart? Bill Moore, perhaps to identify some of theactually, accomplishments that are being met in this report. Maybe, Bill Moore? MS. MIURA: In our actual first communication from the Real Property Tax Review Working Group, they did recap every single recommendation and what the status was. But we can resend that over because it was probably in 2017 that it got submitted. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Thank you for that. Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I understand this. This only relates to properties under an acre, right? MS. MIURA: Yes. MR. CHUNG: Thank you. Page 14 FC -3 February 4, 2019 CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor— MR. RICHARDS: Real quick. CHR. DAVID: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Just to verify, Lisa, projected revenue from this change is $1.3 million added to real property. Is that correct? MS. MIURA: That is correct. It doesn't take into account how many people may appeal their rezoning. MR. RICHARDS: It's just the MS. MIURA: Correct. MR. RICHARDS: Just the guesstimate. Thank you. I yield. MS. MIURA: Yes. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. I'm going to go to Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder first and then Ms. Kierkiewicz. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I am on the right page now. As far as repealing the solar hot water tax credit, when you do a solar hot water tax credit, you do have the ability to apply for a variation to do a solar PV (photovoltaic) permit. So I am interested on how that will be effective, if at all. MS. MIURA: Well, if we repeal the solar water heater tax credit, which is $300 of credit a year, we don't actually assess for it. So whether they go to PV or not, this repeals the solar water. We don't have any credit for photovoltaic at this time. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: To follow-up to that, how come we don't assess for solar or photovoltaic for residential use? MS. MIURA: It's in the County Code as energy efficiency. It's one of the ways that the County, through the years, was trying to promote and encourage. But on top of it, in 2008 one of the former Council Members thought it would be good to add in the credit on top of that; that was in 2008. In 2012, the solar water heater became mandatory with new construction. He felt maybe that was a good time to have pulled it back, but nobody did. It's always easier to create and give away money than it is to cancel it later. So we have a lot of things where we gave and trying to pull it back isn't easy. It went in the newspaper, and a lot of media attention was given to this one part. Page 15 FC -3 February 4, 2019 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, I think what you're touching on, for the Non -speculative Residential Program—sorry no, that changed to the Real Property Tax classification, I think what you're touching on and what I'd like to see is that we're going back and looking at things that don't quite make sense anymore. In making changes and then go into the future, I like that. It seems efficient to me. Thank you. MS. MIURA: Thank you. I appreciate that. We've not felt very popular this week. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much. Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Just follow-up questions, because of the notification process. Thank you for explaining that. Is it possible I get a copy of what the envelope and letter will look like so we can share that with constituents, and they can be aware of what it's going to look like in the mail? I mean, like myself, I am a very visual creature. So I think if we prepare people on what to look for, they won't just toss it away. MS. MIURA: Yes, absolutely. We can provide that to your office. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. And then, I heard you say earlier that the procedural change is mostly going to affect West Hawaii. MS. MIURA: No, East Hawaii. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: East Hawaii. Okay, I misunderstood. Is it possible to get a breakdown by district as to what the impact will be? MS. MIURA: We can. You mean, the actual impact? So, not the 20,000 just the 6,665 that would be impacted? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Would you do it all? MS. MIURA: We can. It's justI want to make sure everybody realizes, even though it has all the list of numbers, over 18,000 of them won't have any change because they're in the minimum tax. They're in the ag program or homeowners. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I want to make sure that we're very clear to constituents about that. MS. MIURA: Yes, that's the important part that I think the newspaper missed. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, so let's help set the record straight by providing that information. Page 16 FC -3 Vote on Comm. 90 Filed ORDER OF RESOLUTIONS February 4, 2019 MS. MIURA: Thank you. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Lisa. MS. MIURA: So we can provide this to Council district, is the only one. This week we're a little busy setting those values so that we can hit the extraction for assessment data. But we will work on that and get that to you. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: No worries. And I just want to let constituents know that the questions are being asked and they can expect answers. MS. MIURA: Yeah. They're welcome to call our office, as well. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. MS. MIURA: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Anyone else? Seeing none—well, Ms. Miura, Mr. Jo, thank you very much for explaining all of that for this body and the public. All those in favor, Council Members, of filing Communication 90 please say "aye." The motion to close file on Comm. 90 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. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order of Resolutions. Page 17 FC -3 February 4, 2019 Res. 740-18: AUTHORIZES THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN (2016-2018) AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS (DHHL) FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII TO RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS FOR SPEED HUMP INSTALLATION ON PROPERTY HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME DHHL would provide a share of the costs of the County's installation of speed humps along the entire length of Pakele Lane in Keaukaha. Reference: Comm. 1147 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Postponed: November 1 and 19, 2018 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. O'Hara, seconded by Ms. Eoff, to recommend adoption of Res. 740-18.) CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Just a little bit more background for the rest of my colleagues. When this particular resolution came up, as our testifier mentioned, you know, Hawaiian Home Lands is unique. Their authorities give it to them under the Hawaiian Homes Commission (Act), which is embedded in our (Hawai`i) Revised Statutes, really does make this situation incredibly unique. Since that time, the community—I've met with the Public Works' Director along with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to try and figure out—you know, the primary question which is, how is this being paid for and being applied fair and equitably to everybody? Since that time and through the help of the community association, specifically Pat Kahawaiolaa, there is a process. When the Department of Home Lands expends funds from their trust for the benefit of their beneficiaries, it is a requirement that the Commission check with the beneficiaries first. This particular resolution went completely opposite. It was the administration initiating the reimbursement costs for the speed humps. Since that time—Hawaiian Homes Commission will be on island in May to specifically address the appropriate protocols and what responsibilities the trust has to the beneficiaries and its relationship to this municipal. I shared that just to clarify where we are today. What we have before us is a motiona resolution that was introduced by request. I will be asking the introducer to withdraw that motion because I suspect that this may no longer be the vehicle; and if it is the vehicle, I believe there will be some wordsmithing that comes forward after the Hawaiian Homes Commission meets in May, and how we move forward to address this issue. Page 18 FC -3 February 4, 2019 CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Before I entertain a motion to withdraw, I believe Mr. Richards and Mr. Chung would like to weigh in. Okay, Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, thank you, Chair. I'm echoing Council Woman Lee Loy's concerns on this. Listening very carefully to testimony, Hawaiian Homes, they're still our citizens. The roads are not closed roads; they're still used for other people. And so we use our tax funds for putting on speed humps, whatever, for the rest of the constituency, so why not them, too? I'm bothered by this. I appreciate the public testimony we had. Ready to listen. But I'm very supportive of Council Woman Lee Loy's position on this. I yield. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, I'm just wondering if there's anybody from the administration here to speak on behalf of this measure. Nobody? Well then, that being the caseI mean, my view of this, it's very simple. Just like Ms. Lee Loy and Mr. Richards said, if it's free to the other members of the public and these are roads that are open to the public, then there should be no difference. But I just wanted to hear from the administration to see if the situation leading up to this agreement, or proposed agreement, was any different. I suspect there is no difference. I'm certainly going to support Ms. Lee Loy's—it's not a motion but request, right? Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Mr. Kierkiewicz and then Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I guess I'd just like to say that I'm disappointed that no one from the administration is here to answer any of our questions about this. Specifically, I wanted to know how this resolution came about; if they talked to Hawaiian Home Lands from the get -go or if this is something that they just assumed Hawaiian Homes says it would be amenable to. If that was the case, I think we're sending ourselves down a very dangerous pathway. Setting some really bad precedent. I think that if we're going to do these kinds of public/private partnerships, we need to work it out with folks ahead of time. That way we're not sitting here just wondering what is going on. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. I know that we did have—when it first came out the departments were here, and we postponed this so that they could get together with DHHL (Department of Hawaiian Home Lands). So I'm not sure why they're not here today. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, I'll move to you for your questions and then I'll go back to Ms. Lee Loy. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I just wanted to say thank you for your testimony this morning. It was an eye-opening for me. I agree with Ms. Lee Loy and all the other members in pushing this back so we can hear from other members who are involved. I'd like to hear a little bit more on where this came Page 19 FC -3 February 4, 2019 from, how it came about, and why there's a difference between some members of the County of Hawaii, and some members of the County of Hawaii. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Oh, Mayor Kim? (Note: At this time, Mayor Harry Kim and Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. DAVID: Aloha. Good morning. Would you able to answer one of our questions on this matter, on the agenda? Maybe you're not the one to do it, but the administration, on the DHHL road humps and our relationship with DHHL in having our Hawaiian Home Lands members pay a portion or pay for the speed humps. And Ms. Sako is here also. Either you or Ms. Sako, whoever can explain the relationship and the understanding between what the County has with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Thank you, Ms. Sako. MS. SAKO: Good morning. Deanna Sako, Director of Finance. I apologize for—maybe I should have reminded Public Works to be here. However, my recollection is, and that's not always perfect, but that the agreement we have with Department of Home Lands is that they would pay for these types of improvements, like speed humps and whatnot. It dates back to an older agreement we have. There was information in there about how we were going to settle out some of the real property taxes. There were a lot of different things that happened at that time. So that's just my recollection of that. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Kierkiewicz, any more questions? Anyone else? Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Ms. Sako's correct, it was a very dated Memorandum of Understanding. Times have changed. There are protocols and processes within the Department of Home Lands in which the trust, whose duty it is to serve the beneficiaries, work it out with the beneficiaries first before further negotiation with any municipal. That's plain and simple for me and a number of people within the Hawaiian Homes community that I serve. I just want to remind my other fellow colleagues that this was initiated by residents within the homestead who followed a process afforded to them on establishing speed humps that is afforded to everyone else. So when they went through the process, got approvals of 100 percent of the homeowners or lessees on the particular road. When they took that petition back to the administration, somehow all of a sudden this idea that Hawaiian Home Lands will now pay for that improvements came up. So we're going to the Hawaiian Homes Commission, talk to the Commissioners, establish the appropriate processes for the establishment of improvements, and make sure that everyone has a bright line of communication after this Hawaiian Homes Commission meeting in May. Page 20 FC -3 February 4, 2019 So, I don't want to waste anybody else's time. Ms. David, you were the introducer of this resolution, so a withdrawal would have to come from you. CHR. DAVID: Yes, it was introduced by me by request and then Ms. O'Hara made the motion. So, I move to withdrawoh, I'm sorry. Mr. Chung and then Ms. Poindexter, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Deanna, can I ask you one question? You might have answered it already. Who approached whom on this arrangement? Did we approach Department of Hawaiian Home Lands or was it the other way around? MS. SAKO: Back with that agreement, it was part of a MR. CHUNG: This specific one, you know. MS. SAKO: Oh, on these speed humps? MR. CHUNG: Yes. MS. SAKO: No, I think Ms. Lee Loy is right. They came forward with their request for speed humps. Public Works just, you know, knowing that agreement exists, and that's how they voiced on it. Then, you know, went ahead to put in the amount to charge back Hawaiian Home Lands. MR. CHUNG: So you mean—so it was our mistake then, I mean, depending how you look at it. If we do all of these things free of charge to roads that are open to the public, then we made the mistake? MS. SAKO: We meaning the very general we. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, I was hoping that we could pin the fault on Department of Hawaiian Home Lands but MS. SAKO: Yeah, I mean it wasI think, yeah, Joe has something to say. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KAMELAMELA: Anyway, Joseph Kamelamela, Corporation Counsel. The way that it comes out, usually it starts with Hawaiian Homes coming to us. What we don't know is whether Hawaiian Homes had talked to the beneficiaries prior to them, you know, coming to us. So we're thinking they've got the okay. It's not uncommon that in the past, not on this type of agreement but I've seen it in a couple other situations, where Hawaiian Homes' guys are saying, "Okay, we're going to help pay and defray the cost on some types of improvements," and then later on we find out that they didn't talk to the beneficiaries. Page 21 FC -3 February 4, 2019 MR. CHUNG: Well, notwithstanding the whole matter of them talking with the beneficiaries, because that's something now, the protocol is now set in place. MR. KAMELAMELA: Right. MR. CHUNG: Okay, but—you know, because there's been a lot of talk, you know, whether it be in the media or even in public testimony, that the County is administering this thing unfairly. I kind of want to possibly dispel that notion; you know, if it was the Department of Home Lands, who actually came here without first talking to the beneficiaries. Then, you know, you can understand where the County would think "Okay, we're getting money," and that's fine, right? That's all I wanted to say. I'm not trying to blame the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. You know, I wanted to at least possibly dispel any notion that it was the County that was actively trying to do something unfairly. That's all. MR. KAMELAMELA: Okay. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. Poindexter, go ahead. MS. POINDEXTER: I just wanted to say that some of the communities throughout my coastline are private roads, too. Even if they're for public use, they've had to pay for their own speed bumps. I know like P5'auhau Community Association did speed bumps all over their community. But each of their house, the residents there had to pay for their own. That's correct, right; they cannot come through our County if it's private road, even if it's for public use, utilize those funds? MR. KAMELAMELA: That's correct. MS. POINDEXTER: So I just wanted to let the public know, too, that we do have people paying for their own speed bumps. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, and I promise this is the last part. When anybody petitions property owners for a speed hump, there's a process. That's where the checks and balances happen. So these individuals on Pakele Lane went through the County process, and at no time were they notified that "Hey, if you guys no going do this, the trust may have to pay for it," and that's something we can fix within the administration. But that's the check, to speak to Ms. Poindexter's point. If property owners on private roads came forward asking for this, there's a vetting process, there's a clearing house process. Page 22 FC -3 February 4, 2019 But these individuals, 100 percent of them on Pakele Lane is asking for the speed humps, which is adjacent to a DOE (Department of Education) school down in Keaukaha. It makes no sense that the County would not step in and provide the speed humps for the safety of our children in Keaukaha. So I just wanted to just put it all on the table. Mr. Kamelamela's right, this is something else that the beneficiaries have to address with the Commission. So really, the cleanest way to do this is to withdraw this resolution, and at some future time we may to have revisit this. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. No one else? Then on that note, I will withdraw Resolution 740-18, if there's no objections from Council Members. Withdraw Ms. David announced the withdrawal of Res. 740-18. Res. 740-18 (2016-2018) CHR. DAVID: Alright, Resolution 740 is withdrawn. Mr. Clerk, please move on to Resolution 20-19. 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) Postponed: January 8, 2019 (Note: There is a motion by Ms. Kierkiewicz, seconded by Ms. Villegas, to recommend adoption of Res. 20-19.) CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Joseph Kamelamela came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. DAVID: Council Members, I have Corporation Counsel here with a request. So, Mr. Kamelamela, would you please identify yourself? Go ahead. MR. KAMELAMELA: Good morning again, Chair and members of the Council. Joseph Kamelamela, Corporation Counsel. I was going to ask for ais it postponement or reschedule it, because the Deputy that's assigned to this had to go to something, a medical appointment. I'm asking for the next meeting. Page 23 FC -3 February 4, 2019 CHR. DAVID: The next meeting. You want someone to make a motion to postpone? MR. KAMELAMELA: YES. CHR. DAVID: Okay, thank you. To postpone Resolution 20-19 to our February 191h meeting in Kona, is that the right date, Mr. Clerk? Thank you. Vote on Motion to Mr. Richards moved to postpone Res. 20-19 to Postpone: February 19, 2019. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried (Approved) by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair David — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung — 1. Excused: None. MR. KAMELAMELA: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Kamelamela. I'm going to recess Finance for 10 minutes. Thank you. Recess: At 11:33 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 11:43 a.m. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Council Members. We're going to take Finance out of recess right now. Please take your seats. Welcome back. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 19: AMENDS CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 45 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO THE GENERAL EXCISE AND USE TAX SURCHARGE Increases the general excise and use surcharge from one-quarter percent to one-half percent beginning January 1, 2020, and amends the sunset date of December 31, 2020, to December 31, 2030. Reference: Comm. 81 Intr. by: Ms. David (B/R) Page 24 FC -3 February 4, 2019 (Note: Comm. 81.1, from Finance Director Deanna Sako dated February 4, 2019, transmitting a copy of the PowerPoint presentation, was circulated.) Motion to Approve: Ms. Villegas moved to recommend passage of Bill 19 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. (Note: At this time, Mayor Harry Kim and Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. DAVID: And I believe we now have Director Sako and Mayor Kim here for the presentation. MAYOR KIM: Thank you, members of the Council, for this opportunity. As far as our role with the budget, as you know is relatively simple, to present to you what the revenues are and to present to you our proposal in regard to the expenditures. Right now, the specifics will be introduced and presented to you by Ms. Sako. As it is, projected revenues and expenses, regardless of the amount we have been cutting for the past two budget years, is we are short. The GET (General Excise Tax) is an opportunity as stated before in regard to where we can help us balance our budget. What is before us now, I think, it can be credited to Mr. Aaron Chung. Mr. Chung, I said credited, not blame. No seriously, credited to Mr. Chung because it was Corporation Counsel Joe Kamelamela that said that Mr. Chung brought up the possibility that the authority on the increase of the .25 lies with the County Council. Upon hearing that, we made communication with the Attorney General's office to pursue it. And he followed up on it and notified us that Mr. Chung is correct, that the authority lies with the County Council, and basically that is why we are here today. We are here to present to you our budget, which is a shortfall. We're here to present to you an opportunity in resolving this through the GET, by increasing the to take advantage of the additional .25 percent. Selling point on that, I think, you're very familiar with it, that the GET has paid .25 percent and up by the tourist industry. That's a great help, relieving that burden from the one and only property tax that we rely on. So, that is what is going to be presented to you. We ask of you a very favorable consideration in regard to your approval of the .25; and we're asking for support on the legislative side of the State, giving us a flexibility on how spend that money. But we have notified the Governor, and the rest of the Mayors are in support of it, in allowing the counties to spend a portion of that money within our General Fund purposes. Page 25 FC -3 February 4, 2019 CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mayor. MS. SAKO: Good morning. CHR. DAVID: Good morning. MS. SAKO: We do have a presentation. I just would like to thank your staff, yet again. When I bring down my last-minute jump drive with the presentation, for always getting it set up for us. So, we really do appreciate them. CHR. DAVID: Awesome. MS. SAKO: We are here to talk about Bill 19. (Note: At this time, Ms. Sako provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing of the subject presentation, see the DVD copy of the meeting proceedings on file in the Clerk's office. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 81.1.) MS. SAKO: Thank you for listening, and we're here to answer any questions you might have. CHR. DAVID: Thank you very much, Director Sako. Ms. Poindexter, go ahead. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, I have a question. There were a lot of testimony about making the road safe, which I agree; however, I a lot of that I got was like State roads. So how much of this are we going to allow to be used on State roads? MS. SAKO: So right now, the State has like their own Fuel Tax. They have their own Weight Tax portion, so they are responsible for fixing their roads. You know, that's not to say we might not reach an agreement. You know, we have a lot of agreements with them. They pay us, for example, to maintain like their signal traffic lights and things like that. So we could reach an agreement where they may pay us to do some of their roadwork, as well. MS. POINDEXTER: Because the only reason I would vote for this, is if this would benefit us as a County. Our County roads, our County bus system, you know, all the safety issues—our County -owned roads. And of course, the transportation system. MS. SAKO: That definitely is the intent of it. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah. Page 26 FC -3 February 4, 2019 MS. SAKO: It's for our County roads and things, but MS. POINDEXTER: But my worry is that's the intent. And then when we start to say we might be reaching an agreement with the State on doing some stuff, that's where I'm worried. MS. SAKO: So when I said that, it's like how they do it now. They pay us to take care of their streetlights. So if they want to pay us to do their road repairs, you know, sometimes we can get things done quicker than they can; and so if they want to pay us to do those things, I would say, you know, we're not necessarily opposed to that. But we would have to talk to Public Works, also. MS. POINDEXTER: So I wouldn't want to see this GET go to doing State projects. MS. SAKO: No, the State's responsible for their projects. That's one of the reasons the STIP (State Transportation Improvement Plan) funding is actually getting so much harder, is the way they're prioritizing it for the State. MS. POINDEXTER: And so I want to watch how this moves at the State level. Because last year, when we talked about this before this new Council, it allowed for that money to be used on State roads, so we've got to be careful with that. I could bring up Joe Kamelamela, but I see him shaking his head; he remembers that yes, as well. I just want to be cautious of that; that this money, our priority is our County issues. MS. SAKO: Yes, definitely for us it is, yes. MS. POINDEXTER: Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Anyone else? Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Deanna. We're talking taxes; we're talking budget again. We seem to have this conversation every year. MS. SAKO: Every year. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, a couple of things. First of all, the projection of $50 million, that's based upon a GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of $10 billion, from my cowboy math? MS. SAKO: Probably, if I do the reverse math, yes. I continue to say that it is coming from information off the State's Department of Taxation website, which I cannot be held accountable for the accuracy thereof. Page 27 FC -3 February 4, 2019 MR. RICHARDS: Okay, and we can agree on that one. MS. SAKO: Yes. MR. RICHARDS: When I took office, our County budget was $461 million. We're at $518 million right now. It's about a 13 percent increase. We've had real property tax increases, and then last year it was a wild card. Everything was real hell over the board. You have heard me repeatedly and, Chair, I'm going to say this again, silo legislation. We're looking at taxes. We don't have any concept of what the budget might be. And I'm not supportive of supporting any tax increase if I don't know what the whole picture is. I'm going to be talking about an ad hoc committee again, concerning looking at putting everything in context. I do appreciate the fact that we need to diversify our revenue stream; but by the same token, I am bothered by the fact that increase, increase, increase, unless I know what we're talking about. MS. SAKO: Can I just insert a really fast one? MR. RICHARDS: Sure, go ahead. MS. SAKO: One thing I did forget to mention is, the reason we're here today is because there is a deadline of March 31" based on the HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statute). So even though—you know, the ideal situation would be to look at the budget and then look at the taxes. We're restricted by State law at this point. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, and I do appreciate that, but I don't think we should be ever considered held hostage to a timeline because of that. In and itself that's not necessarily a good reason to raise the tax. I, at this point—and I do appreciate the fact that we have—seeking latitude for the use of the funds for the GE Tax. Right now, currently, how much of the funding that we do for roads and Mass Transit comes out of the General Fund? If we have a summary on that. MS. SAKO: So when we came in to do that budget amendment, when we moved the Mass Transit cost over to the General Excise Tax Fund, there areI shouldn't say there's no other cost. There's a little bit in the General Fund, offset by the bus fare revenue. But that's it, pretty much all of the costs are out of the General Fund at this point. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, and we still have from last year's GE revenue. The projected was $10 million for this year because it was going to be half of the year. MS. SAKO: Half a year, right. Page 28 FC -3 February 4, 2019 MR. RICHARDS: And of that, we had $5 million that we hadI don't know if the term "sequestered" is right—held and reserved going forward. So I realize it's a little early for you to give a number. But a ballpark number, what are we looking at for our County budget expectation for the next fiscal year? MS. SAKO: We are very short. As we put the budget together, we're still finalizing Real Property Tax numbers. We already know that the ERS (Employee Retirement System) rates are going up five percentage points for Police and Fire employees. Not by five percent, but five percentage points; so from 31 percent that we're paying right now to 36 percent. Followed by the following year, in Fiscal Year 2021, another five percentage points. So in two years from now, we will be paying 41 cents of every Police and Fire dollar to ERS. We know that the police officer's health benefits, because they're merging them in with the rest of the plans, we'll be increasing by 35 percent. And we know that we have Collective Bargaining. We have completed that for SHOPO (State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers) and UPW (United Public Workers), but HGEA (Hawai`i Government Employees Association) and Firefighters are still continuing. So we are aware there's increases for those, as well. And then, we have a slight increase in our debt service. These increases are not going to stop, they're to continue, and that's just to hold services exactly the same as they are now. MR. RICHARDS: What's the number? MS. SAKO: It is still MR. RICHARDS: In process. MS. SAKO: In process. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. And this is the problem I have. I mean, I understand we have a timeline. I understand. But the constituency, every budget we're raising taxes, raising taxes, and I have an issue with that. I'm going to yield at this point. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Deanna. Thank you, Harry Kim. For the purpose of raising taxes, and just looking at Section (a), we are going to be using these funds for the "Operating or capital costs of public transportation with the County for public systems, including public roadways or highways, public buses, trains, ferries, pedestrian paths or sidewalks or bicycle Page 29 FC -3 February 4, 2019 paths;" or "Expenses in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990," and just strictly for those costs. Is that that is correct. Yes, this is what this is for? MS. SAKO: So, if it's for those things. And then we added Section 3, "As otherwise authorized by State statute." So if the State does change the authorization, we would have the same flexibility as is authorized by HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes). MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So I feel that it's imperative that the money coming in from this goes towards County purposes that are defined in Section (a), not so much that we start looking at things we haven't seen yet; that worries me. With the economy down, I feel like we're kind of jumping ahead of ourselves by agreeing to this bill, and looking down the line to say "Oh, there may be changes coming but let's just go ahead and adopt this now." I would want to know what changes are coming and what's being done before I say yes, let's do it. MS. SAKO: Okay, so I tried to go over some of these—so some of the bills we do know about are now it's being used for affordable housing and homeless as well as like public safety, and then just being able to open up the flexibility. But even if we didn't get that, there are many road projects that still need to be utilized, and it would help us probably speed up the completion of some of those projects. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I hear thatI can say that in my district, which is comprised mostly of private road subdivisions, I don't feel that I would benefit greatly from this, or my constituents for that point. So I'm just—when it comes to increase in taxes, which nobody ever likes to hear; I understand this is a small tax increase, but it is another tax increase. Again, back to the economy. Being what it is right now, I don't feel like this is a great time to throw taxes on people. If I were to strictly look at this and say this is going towards making our County a better place and it's going to balance the budget and we're only going to use it for what is being defined in under Section (a), then okay; but to know that we have more flexibility wanted and that it doesn't serve my district in a lot of aspects that it does other districts, I am having a hard time saying yes, it is. I yield the floor at this time. I needed to say that. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair David. Yeah, what happens if we don't get the flexibility that the County is asking the Legislature for? MS. SAKO: Then we would collect the half -percent surcharge, and all of it would go to transit and transportation. So all the projects, you know, would probably get done faster. Page 30 FC -3 February 4, 2019 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Which I think is a good thing. I know that with our new Mass Transit Administrator, she has been making incredible strides in the last few months to really get a functioning system in place; and the GET money would be used for improvement of the system, which would be a great benefit to the people of Puna, which rely often times on public transportation. So what I'm trying to say is if we don't get the flexibility, how are we supposed to balance the budget? Because you are saying that we need the flexibility in order to balance the budget. So what other increases in taxes are we looking at if we don't get the flexibility and if this Council doesn't approve an increase in the GET? MS. SAKO: Then the only other option is real property taxes because all of the other tax sources that we have are restricted to transportation. So motor vehicle weight tax goes to the Highway Fund for roads and transportations as does fuel tax. So real property tax is the only one right now that can be used for general purposes. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, say we do get flexibility in the GET, what assurances does this Council have that there will be an increase of services, say more police officers for Puna? You mentioned in your slideshow a number of different things that could be funded by the flexibility. MS. SAKO: Yesno, that's definitely been asked. I'm not sure like, say guarantee. I mean, we are still working on the budget. We're trying to make it all come together, but we know that's one of the highest needs. So that is one of the things that we are looking at, trying to make work. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I just get really worried about asking for the flexibility. I mean, I'm going through this Monthly Budget Status Report, and looking at the capital projects and seeing how very few things are listed for improvements in Puna. I feel like we're jumping the gun. There's a lot work that needs to be done for infrastructure on our island, so I feel like that needs to be your priority fist. I think we just need to be really cognizant of the fact that if we're going to continue to raise taxes, we've got the sewer fees that's before us, potentially real property tax, I mean, we are just pricing people out of paradise at this point. I yield the floor. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. Anyone else, Council Members? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Can I add? CHR. DAVID: You sure can. Go ahead Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Sorry, on another note, we're small business. We have been cutting hours. We actually closed down Kaumana just for a lack of income. I just think the economy needs to be at a better place, you Page 31 FC -3 February 4, 2019 know, before we start jumping increasing taxes. I do remember talking to you, and I made myself very clear then. I'm just going to keep repeating myself until us in a better place. CHR. DAVID: Thank you. MAYOR KIM: If I may comment on that? CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mayor. Go ahead. MAYOR KIM: Our responsibility, administratively -wise, is to make sure that whatever we present to this Council, which is ultimately the authority on what goes forward. I know that and we all know that. I think you should know that, I hope you do, that difficulty in approaching you every time we have to even remotely think about the property tax increase which accounts for roughly to 73 to 74 percent of our revenues, and as Deanna stated, nearly 75 percent of our costs are basically fixed costs and which we have no control over. The decision to just come before you, and we have to balance our budget by trying to see if we can get the GET to be flexibility, is not an easy one. First of all, look what we came to you before. I'm sure all of you had received complaints on the tremendously poor condition of our County roads. The reason for that was a really simple one. We had to come before you to say that we did not raise the fuel tax for 30 years. Even cowboy math will figure that one out, because 30 years we did not raise the tax, and you had the courage and, you know, the will to do that for the first time in 30 years. What we are here to present to you is an ugly picture that the shortage of projected revenues and the expenses, and all of you, and I mean this sincerely, all of you are more than welcome to question any department, or the Finance Department, in the cuts that have already been made. We know at this point further cuts would definitely hurt the services because you know, probably a fact, not only purchase of equipment but also of manpower, and that's what we're trying to prevent. But on the trust of that, willingly and openly, then this is why we're trying to meet with you as much as possible, which is difficult because of Sunshine Law. Inquire with the departments, the head directly themselves, or with the Finance Department to see what has been cut. This is the picture, if we do not get this flexibility in the GET, if we do not get the .25 increase in the GET, there's a probability we'll have to come back to you with a budget that is not very pleasant in a sense that we have to make decisions on further cuts. I would love to be in a position to respond to the Police Department or other departments. Especially Police and Parks. Roads people, forget the roads because of that increase, but the Parks and the Police, of the Page 32 FC -3 February 4, 2019 possibility of a budget that will give them increases to meet their needs, as established by the public, it is not there. It's not easy to sit down before you and say, "It is not there." What we're trying to present to you is an alternative to constantly go back to the property tax, which is our only alternative. When this first came out, I think some of you know my position on the progressive and regressive tax. But I really feel, and will answer any question you may have, outside of cuts and a lack of progressiveness in meeting the problems that we are faced with today, the alternative is tax raise. We feel that the best alternative with the least hardship to the average citizen or any citizen in regard to what they have to spend for basic needs will be the excise tax. The excise tax, as presented by the State, indicates that the minimum of .25 percent of that revenue will come from the tourist industry. The excise tax as presented to you with the projected expenditures and revenues, obviously is projectedI understand Mr. Richards' point of view, but we're stuck with it. We have to make projected revenues based oncoming June, July 1st, to the following June 30th. It's all projected. We have to make to present to you for your decision the projected expenditures from July 1st coming to June 30th. I cannot see anything that's going to change that. I think we have good people working on it to give us revenue projection and expenditure projection that is fairly accurate. It's not going to be absolute at any means, especially on the revenues. I think the present one, as Mr. Chung and old-timers know, every year you've been to the Legislature to try to get additional increase in the TMT (Thirty -Meter Telescope). Not the TMT, TAT (Transient Accommodation Tax) my goodness, you know where my mind is on the TAT. Even that, not until, I think the last couple of weeks did we know, in June, we were going to get $103 million divided by the four counties. And now at least the Governor's presentation, proposal anyway, is based on a percentage, so we can have at least a better that was just told to them last week. At least, if it's based on a principle of percentage, we can make a better planning projection in regard to what we will have. I'll close with this. I understand Mr. Richards' point of view, totally, in regard to how we should be making decisions, but that's what we're stuck with. I ask of you—you know, we're trying to work with you and we'll gladly go—give you information you want, we truly feel the least harm, and all of it is a harm to the citizens of this island in regard to projected to raise the revenues, will be through the GET. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Deanna, definition of transportation? Page 33 FC -3 February 4, 2019 MS. SAKO: I don't have the HRS in front of me, but my understanding is it is all roads or road systems operating our capital as well as mass transit and trail systems; and they did add in ADA (American with Disabilities Act) compliance, as well. MR. RICHARDS: So would—forms of transportation, sounds like that is covered under Mass Transit. Would things like police vehicles qualify? MS. SAKO: The opinion we received was no it would not, from our Corporation Counsel. MR. RICHARDS: I yield at this point. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. Eoff first then Ms. Poindexter. MS. EOFF: Thank you. Ms. Sako, I had a thought. I mean, there are a lot of moving targets. If Maui is requesting an extension to the deadline for adopting a GE surcharge, would that apply to us, as well, and then we would have more time to figure out if we need to do this or whatever? Is this what it's going to be like? MS. SAKO: They are asking. We are very early in the session, and that the Committee readings the Committee meetings are just starting. I don't know if that bill has even got referred to Committees or where we're at. And then, I didn't look at the bill to see how it's worded. But mostly if an extension has afforded them, it would apply to the other counties, as well. MS. EOFF: The other thing is the opportunity is to use the surcharge for other than transportation needs. Do you have any idea how likely that would be? MS. SAKO: They're about to put bills, and we are doing our best; I can tell you that. MS. EOFF: And then in that case, there would be minimum, like I think—was it 50 percent would still need to go to public transportation needs? MS. SAKO: It depends which bills end up passing, yeah. MS. EOFF: There's so many things to consider. MS. SAKO: There are, yes. MS. EOFF: So as Mr. Richards was feeling the pinch about the deadline, and then I know that's why we have the bill before us today, I'm just wondering if we need to operate under that deadline. Kind of—maybe we do, I don't know. Page 34 FC -3 February 4, 2019 MS. SAKO: So what I can tell you, is the way law is written right now, we have until March 31" to amend. I can't guarantee anything else. MS. EOFF: One more question. So the way our Bill 19 reads, if we did raise another quarter percent, it would still have all go to public transportation, according to the way this bill is written. MS. SAKO: And then, the section that says, "As otherwise authorized by State statute." MS. EOFF: So we wouldn't have to—if we were afforded the opportunity to diversify, we wouldn't have to go back in and change everything. MS. SAKO: Correct. Right. MS. EOFF: Okay, thank you for answering. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ Ms. Poindexter and then Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. POINDEXTER: Yeah, I'd actually like to see this go through Committee; and if we decide that—you know, because of the essence and we're so unsure of what's going on, I'd love to see this move forward. The reason why is—you know, I've been talking to a lot of people, my constituents in my district, and a lot of things that are needing from their pools, to the gyms, their roads. I mean, you know, Hurricane Lane took a toll on Hamakua. There's so many things that we need to start taking care of. Again, this GET, this .25, because we already did the .25 MS. SAKO: Correct. MS. POINDEXTER: Will help us get to a place where we can have our places maintained. We don't want to end up going back to them and go, hey, by the way we didn't raise the GET, we're going to raise your property tax, which I wouldn't want to do anyway, or don't pay the property tax but we're going to have to charge you for the use of all your facilities; the use of the pool, the use of this. You know, right now it's free to the public, which is great because a lot of the people in the rural communities are poor. They can't send their kids up to the pool to pay to get into the pool, right? So, we need to look at that. Council Member Richards asked about police vehicles. You know, our Corporation Counsel said no to even when that whole thing of the extension. So, we don't know. There's a possibility, right? If there's flexibility, and we are lucky to get some flexible spending there through that, we could start working on getting police vehicles so that they can stop and work on a program for that instead of using all their personal vehicles, right? So we need to look at how do Page 35 FC -3 February 4, 2019 we keep, you know, moving forward in the right direction because we'll benefit down the road, right? After, I think, it's 2030 this thing MS. SAKO: Yes, the bill also removes the Sunset date, and with that it would go to December 31, 2030. MS. POINDEXTER: 2030, that gives us a lot of time to start planning. That's where I'd like to see an ad hoc committee formed. If this goes through, how does this money get spent? You know, what does—what are the projections to 2030, and what are we looking at getting done? What are our goals? How do we achieve those? That's where an ad hoc committee would be very valuable. So at this point, I'm supporting this moving forward out of Committee, to Council. Thank you. I yield at this time. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Poindexter. Ms. Kierkiewicz and then Mr. Chung. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Mayor Kim, Director Sako, I'm sure you can appreciate the pickle that I am in. I'm having to go to the Legislature and hustle for lower Puna. We are asking the Legislature for $155 million. And it's very clear, I'm in touch with House and Senate leadership, and they are saying, "Ashley, you've got to exercise some courage and raise that GET if you want some money." They are watching our every move. But at the same time, I cannot stomach raising the GET when we have people that are in Puna begging to go home. What are we going do to assure people of lower Puna that are lava -locked out of their homes and farms, that "yes" we are going to get these folks back home? That this is a priority of the Council and the administration. I cannot ask them to support an increase in the taxes, if we haven't even made an effort to take care of them. I know a lot is happening in the background, and that we're lining up funding to make sure that we can get people home over an emergency road, but we've got to move fast enough. So if I feel I can get assurances from the administration today, that we can in fact see some progress sooner rather than later, then perhaps I'll entertain moving this forward. MAYOR KIM: You know, I truly understandI hope the community as well as Council fully understands the impatience, the anger, frustration. That the eruption stopped, why aren't we there with there with bulldozers? I sure wish it was that simple. First of all, if it was just money, we don't have the money. But, it's not the money element. Many, many years ago, and we've explained it, that the best in the world, the expert, trying to advise County government and the community in regard to safety element, it is best to wait for a while to see if this eruption is truly over. I think that this is the first time, since 1983, that there is no volcanic activity in the southeast rift zone. This is the same promise that we made to the residents, in Page 36 FC -3 February 4, 2019 numbers, maybe greater, in Kalpana that we'll wait six months. It is only now that we're approaching this six-month, since January Yd of `83 it started in Pu`u`6`6, Kupaianaha, and it never stopped until now. And everyone that is suffering and having a hard time wants us to go right back in. First of all, this agreement is made with us, Hawaii Volcano Observatory, the State, and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). There is no wayI think all of you know there is no way the taxes that you increased through the fuel tax—and even you give the GET but spent all of it, then going to remotely take care of the cost of what it's going to cost to go back. We are meeting. I think it will be publicized soon that we have identified Highway 132 to begin the planning, and only the planning because we can't do anything at this point. You know, to save the roadway is to clear that first. Secondly, would be 137 and Pohoiki. Those are the three roads inundated by this massive thing called Fissure 8. The deadline of 60 days elapses in April. By then, we hope to get ready to begin the planning process with the Federal, because Highway 132 is Federal highway; we're very lucky there. Because 132 is Federal, therefore they will take care of the cost. Unlike Pohoiki Road, which will require for 25 percent of that. Highway 137, we are required to pay the 25 percent there, also. I know they're impatient. I get their cards, and I get their phone calls and emails of the impatience. We will wait. In the meantime, we will plan what we can plan to start with Highway 132. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, thank you. You know, I'm going to be in support this of course, and I've supported it all the way through. I'm not going reiterate my reasons for support, you've heard all before. But, you know, I just wanted to share some thoughts in terms of its use. One thing that was largely ignored by me and perhaps others in terms of using these moniesactually, were brought to mind by a number of residents who have come to me, like lately, and I don't know, whatever reason. They've all asked if these monies could be used for sidewalks, and I said of course, that's all part of the transportation system. And I've never really thought about it that way, but sidewalks play such a vital road in, you know, the fabric of our communities. So when I told them that, then they're suggesting where we could put sidewalks, and it really made sense, you know. It could be something that could—you know, a sidewalk program throughout the island would be something that I'd ask for anyway, of some kind of assessment. But having said—you know, something that Deanna talked about, you know, a Corporation Counsel's opinion limiting the use of these funds. I haven't seen the Page 37 FC -3 February 4, 2019 opinions of—all fairness to that office, I don't really want to say much, although I am going to say something. I disagree totally with that opinion again without really knowing what the basis is. Because one of the most important words in that enabling legislation is "operating expenses" or "operating costs." To me, it's clear. You can use it for Police Department. You know, any patrol expense this can be used for because the fact of the matter is we don't have the big ticket items that Honolulu has. They're funding their rail project. We don't have something like—and that's why the administration and some of us have been trying to pitch the idea of flexibility. You know, if I were a bidding man, I would say that flexibility is not going to come. So, we have to get really creative on this thing; and nobody can tell me that we can't use these monies for police patrol, for our Public Works Department who have to design roads, or anything that has any kind of nexus with our transportation system. We can fund all of these things. Public Safety, Fire, all of these things. So I don't know, again as I said, I want to keep an open mind, but I just cannot be constrained by an opinion that says we cannot use it for Police vehicles. That vital to transportation, right? So that's where we have to put our heads together, you know, going forward. Thank you. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mr. Chung. MAYOR KIM: If I may comment on that? CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mayor. MAYOR KIM: Thank you, Council Chair. Mr. Chung, because what you said is an absolute; if we don't get the flexibility, we have got to put all of our heads together to see how. We are doing it now, as you know, to see what we can transfer to transportation, using General Funds money. But if it does not, it will be—we have to come up with very creative ideas. If the legal mind say okay, it's okay. But I guarantee you we will have to do that, and we will do that, and we're going to need your help. CHR. DAVID: Thank you, Mayor. Anyone else before we? No? Alright, I want to thank you, Mayor, for being here; and also, Director Sako. I really think thatDeanna, we've gone through this discussion through many times, and last year's budget was extremely painful when we had to raise property taxes, and we're still hearing about that from our constituents. So the amount that we are in deficit for this year's budget, if we do not take the opportunity to raise this half - percent on the GE, the choices are what, to raise real property taxes? MS. SAKO: To raise real property taxes, to reduce services. You know, I think most of the complaints we hear, people really want to increase services, especially police protection. So it's hard to have to look at reducing services; but at the same time, we know we've put off maintenance. We have to be aware that we Page 38 FC -3 February 4, 2019 want to provide safe equipment for our employees, as well. You know, there are several vehicles, that they can see the road when driving them, through the floorboard. So we're trying to be conscience of the fact, then balance that, that needs of everyone. You know, because we have put off maintenance and whatnot for a long time. CHR. DAVID: Another question that I've asked myself, since we had to go through that exercise of raising real property taxes, because it does affect a portion of our community, whereas the GE would be spread out a lot more, I don't know if you use the word "equitably," but what I thought or understood in the last budget session is that if we did this, we'd be fine, okay. And then, of course, I understand because of the negotiations, as far as union, we have no control over that, but it's something that you folks have to address, MS. SAKO: Right. CHR. DAVID: And you folks have to find the money somewhere. I'd like to get to the point where once we do all this, are we going to be okay for the rest of the—will the administration be okay? I'm just hoping that there is a point where you come with the budget and we don't have to increase anything. MS. SAKO: We'd be really happy to come to that point. But I just want to be really clear that everybody heard, on these ERS (Employee Retirement System) rates that were set two years ago by the Legislature, you know, they kind of backloaded it, meaning the last two years are the largest increases. Police and Fire are going up five percent each year. Going into fiscal year 2020, the general employees are going up three percentage points and then two percentage points. So overall, like Police and Fire rates, will be going up over 64 percent over a four- year period, and that's partly why we're in the situation we're in. So, we're not blaming anyone. We know it's the right thing to do, to be able to fully fund that pension plan; but at the same time, we have a find a way to pay for it. So, the next two years are still going to be challenging and I don't want to mislead anyone on that. CHR. DAVID: I see. This is a very difficult MS. SAKO: It is. I agree. CHR. DAVID: situation or difficult decision for all of us to be making. And I guess we have to see what the lesser of two evils are at this point and time, not to mention the deadline. I'm thinking that I'd love to take the position also that, you know what, don't threaten me with a deadline. But at the end, the deadline is coming and then we're going to have to deal with that. MS. SAKO: And I believe if this does move forward, I believe a public hearing is also required, so it would give the public a chance to weigh in. Page 39 FC -3 February 4, 2019 CHR. DAVID: Oh, thank you for reminding us about that. So given than, thank you, Council Members, for your input on this very sensitive and difficult decision. With that, I think I would agree to move this forward to Council. On that note, Council Members, all those in favor of approving Bill 19 and moving it forward to Council—alright, we're going to do a roll call. Let me finish my statement. All those in favor of approving Bill 19 and moving it to Council with a positive recommendation—I'm taking a roll call. Mr. Henricks, roll call. Vote on Bill 19: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 19 on (Approved): first reading was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Poindexter, Villegas, and Chair David – 8. Noes: Committee Member Richards – 1. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. DAVID: On that note, may I please have a motion to adjourn? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 12:36 p.m., Ms. Poindexter moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, 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. Mahalo, everybody. Approved: r Ms. Maile Medeiros­Dmvid,.air Finance Committee MD/na <3 1 w / 9 (Date) Page 40