Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PWMTC 2019/03/27 2018-2020Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit 4th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii March 27, 2019 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Public Safety was called to ORDER: order at 4:15 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice Chair Ms. Karen Eoff, Member, Member Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent & Excused: Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: ORDER OF RESOLUTIONS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. (There were none.) CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. At this time, I want to close public testimony. And just as a matter of function, I just want to make sure staff, Peter Sur is in our Hilo chambers, and I understand that Public Works—looks like David Yamamoto, Allan, and then it looks like DOT (Department of Transportation) Don. If you guys don't mind coming forward to the table. With that we just have one resolution on the agenda. Mr. Clerk, kindly read Resolution 93-19 into the record. The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order of Resolutions. PWMTC-4 March 27, 2019 Res. 93-19: AUTHORIZES THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF HAWAII, BY ITS DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR THE COOPERATION AND PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE FOR VARIOUS ROAD AND/OR ROAD RELATED PROJECTS ON OR FOR STATE OR COUNTY HIGHWAYS, PURSUANT TO HAWAII REVISED STATUTES SECTION 46-7 The agreement would provide for sharing of services, equipment, and materials, and the potential for the sharing of certain costs, reimbursements, and other forms of remuneration, subject to a limitation of $2 million in total value of assistance provided by either party for a particular project. Reference: Comm. 160 Intr. by: Ms. Lee Loy Motion to Approve: Mr. Richards moved to recommend adoption of Res. 93-19. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. LEE LOY: With that, discussion? Mr. Yamamoto, if you guys don't mind taking the lead and introducing what this resolution entails, and the benefits of this resolution. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Public Works Director David Yamamoto and Deputy Director Allan Simeon; and State Highways Division District Engineer Donald Smith came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. YAMAMOTO: Good Afternoon Council Members, I'm David Yamamoto, Director of Public Works. This resolution is to establish an agreement with DOT regarding the various roads and highways that are interconnected between the State DOT and the County roads. And in a lot of cases, we have projects that have work that is actually within the scope of DOT that is involved in the same contract. And this way, there is a mechanism for the County to be able toand vice versa. The County is able to facilitate the contract, pay for the DOT's portion of the work, and then work out the reimbursement there. Rather than the current process where we have to come up with these exact same similar agreements that go through Council and the Attorney General's Office to establish the mechanism for the reimbursement as well as the payouts. MR. SMITH: Concur. MR. YAMAMOTO: Just for a small example, right now, DOT has a flashing red light that is inoperable, and it requires spare parts that the County has on hand possibly. So, we're trying to work with them to get the spare parts to them, and where that flashing red light can be reestablished in the timely manner. Page 2 PWMTC-4 March 27, 2019 MR. SMITH: And then, very important I think, and a reminder to all of us was during the emergency advance. So that, you know, whether lava or Hurricane Lane, it gives us the ability to quickly adapt and adjust to the situation and utilize each other's forces. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Yamamoto. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Right now, I'll yield to my colleagues for any discussion. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. Just a quick question. So, is it fair then, I'm understanding this to be that the maximum amount of work that the County would then do for a State road or transportation kind of related, or I guess maybe it's for any project would be in the amount of $2 million. MR. YAMAMOTO: Correct. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay, thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Do you yield? MS. VILLEGAS: I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Hey Don, David, how you guys doing? MR. SMITH: Good, thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Hi Allan, I see you back there. Nice to see you guys. Thanks for coming in. Do you have any more examples of what projects you're thinking about, or where this is stemming from? MR. SMITH: So, one of the current things we do now is that we currently have an agreement with the County of Hawaii to maintain our signals. Now, that is an agreement which we are now—the State is going take back their signals. But, that's an example of something that we currently do. So then, another example that we might utilize and which we are currently doing, is that we have a lot of excess coplane material that comes from our roadways that, you know, can be utilized on County roadways. That's one area where we can swap materials, and then act to the signals—where I meant to go with that is, once we take the signals back, it will also still be critical that if we move forward that we can still utilize County forces to help us with our signals. Or, if it's some point in the future, I have resources for signals, but the County then doesn't. Then it could work the other way around. Page 3 PWMTC-4 March 27, 2019 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That seems efficient. Kind of a smart agreement that is mutually good for both sides. Is that correct? MR. YAMAMOTO: Correct. Another example is we're trying to clean up the old airport of that vegetation to eliminate the illegal activity that is occurring in the bushes there. And so, we're asking DOT to borrow their excavator, or two excavators actually to, you know, help us do the work. That would be just a day- to-day example of sharing equipment; sharing manpower, and being able to use this reimbursement process—this agreement here, in that sense. MR. SMITH: And so what it also does is, we have actually—we somewhat do it now. This actually gives us a mechanism to be able to do this going forward and to be able to effectively and efficiently do those operations without having to go through the legal process every time. It would only be engineering and estimates that we would agree to. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And then all County funds that are expended will be reimbursed by the state? Or is there a percentage of—or how does that work? MR. YAMAMOTO: Yeah, it'll be on a reimbursementa fair reimbursement for the materials and labor that might have gone into the work. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Hundred percent reimbursement? MR.YAMAMOTO: Yeah. MR. SMITH: Yes. Or the other way around. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Could we use this say, for the Mountain View school light that's not working? MR. YAMAMOTO: That's what—that would be something that we would use it for. MR. SMITH: So, if—well, if I had a price -term contract, or the County has a price -term contract, that allows us to use each other's contracts and then to be reimbursed for that amount. MR. YAMAMOTO: Yeah, for example guardrails, we have a price -term agreement with a vendor for installation of guardrails. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Interesting. How does this relate to the eruption and the money that we're going to be expending? Maybe you can junction with State Highways? Or does it? Page 4 PWMTC-4 March 27, 2019 MR. SMITH: In this case, all of the money that was expended during the eruption or lava event would be separate. And so, if we did work for the County, which we did or vice versa, that money was just expended under our budgets and there wouldn't be any—we wouldn't have had a mechanism to do that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Does this help us move forward as far like roundabouts too, or is that a larger project; or can we piecemeal State projects together, and then use County funds to finish? MR. SMITH: No Matt, that would still be a separate process. Or if I do a State project, that would still be completely within the State confines. There might be a way to where—if one of the side streets that connects to my project, such as, let's say Ainaloa, which would be next roundabout we do. If the County wanted to do some work at Ainaloa, since I have a contract already there, then that would give us the ability to do that up to $2 million, and then likely going to give a better bid price to either the County or the State because we already have a project in the area. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Well, I'm glad to hear about the Mountain View light. I know we talked about that a couple weeks ago. That was brought up to me with the principal of the school as well. So, that's wonderful news and thank you Don. And then, I like where this is headed, thank you. Good job Sue. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. David and Donald, good to see you guys. You know, every once in a while it's great when the two branches of, or different governments, get together and start seeking that synergy and that efficiency that we keep talking about looking forward. But, we're actually, I think we're starting to find it. And it makes so much sense that we do move forward with this. You know, and Donald I can't see you from here, but I know you're smiling right now, because we talk about the jurisdictions that cross between County to State. And then, you know, down at the harbors we have DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources), when we're talking about one road, and it changes jurisdictions quickly in just a few feet. The fact that we're actually trying to work together to save our constituency money is great. And this is what we were discussing earlier when it comes to our budgetary process. So with this, I'm fully supportive of this and I commend you guys this is the right way to go. Thanks, I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Any other members? Okay, hearing none, I just had a couple of follow-up questions for either Don or David. You mentioned the number of projects. I was just wondering how those projects are Page 5 PWMTC-4 March 27, 2019 prioritized and if the County is comparing, you know, the various projects out to bid with those already in play with the Department of Transportation. MR. SMITH: Sue, I think that based on what you said, most of our projects would still remain under the current programs. So, whether it's bridge or payment preservation, those would still follow under our normal payment preservation program or bridge preservation program. And then, as the needs arise based on how those priorities come up within our system, which we do coordinate especially on the County Fed Aid, then the needs would be based on that. Now, if the County had a higher need than the State and I needed to move my priority up to meet that, that is the kind of discussions that we are having overall to make sure that we're looking, not only as a State or as a County, but we're looking at what's best for the community. So, I guess that is a possibility and we do continue to work together and coordinate on our priorities. CHR. LEE LOY: A follow-up question. You mentioned and Ms. Villegas brought this up, it was to a maximum or a limitation of $2 million. Is it $2 million per project or just $2 million over a fiscal? MR. SMITH: It would be up to, as written, $2 million per event, or per circumstance, or project. CHR. LEE LOY: So, in theory, if we had five projects this could be an influx of $10 million? MR. SMITH: Yes. CHR. LEE LOY: And I had a follow-up question to that? Why the $2 million? And I think you might have explained it. Is it a statutory requirement? Or I think what I heard you say was regarding to a bid process. MR. SMITH: We actually just came up with the $2 million. That I'm aware of. We did not use a process or procedure to decide on the $2 million. We thought that was just a fair amount to cover most of what we would deal with under this agreement. And we thought that outside of that, that would either need be a separate project or a separate agreement. CHR. LEE LOY: My final question, Don. You mentioned bridge work. We know a lot of bridges kind of reside with the State and then they have their maintenance and upkeep. So if we were to dovetail something like Four -Mile Creek Bridge with improvements of Haihai Street and Kilauea, we could actually use this as another tool to help leverage some of the monies that we already have and bring other matching funds. Is that a fair assessment on how this could be utilized? Page 6 PWMTC-4 March 27,2019 MR. SMITH: No, I think that's probably outside of the scope of what we're talking about just monetarily. Now, if we were just talking about bridge maintenance or some other function that one of us could provide each other, then this would be acceptable. But a bridge replacement or a major project would be more money than is within this agreement. CHR. LEE LOY: Alright, well I don't have any other questions. But, I have to agree this is another opportunity and a tool for us to look at synergies as we move our budget forward pretty soon here, and then working with our other partner agencies. With that, I don't have any other comments. What we have is a motion on the floor to send Resolution 93-19 with a positive recommendation. If we could take a vote. All those in favor? Vote on Res. 93-19: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 93-19 was (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Acting Chair Kanealii-Kleinfelder— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Poindexter— 1. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: With that, we're at the end of the agenda. Can I please get a motion to adjourn? ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 4:33 p.m., Mr. Richards moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kierkiewicz, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Acting Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Poindexter— 1. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: Meeting adjourned. App (dr" \� . K. !, , Chair (Date) Pu 9 s ane -s .nsit C mmittee SL/dt Page 7