Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PWMTC 2019/11/19 2018-2020Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit 15th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii November 19, 2019 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit ORDER: was called to order at 2:00 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 Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Ms. Karen Eoff, Member, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, 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: (There were none.) COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 580: REQUESTS A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MULTI-YEAR AGREEMENT TO OPERATE THE HELE-ON BUS FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE MASS TRANSIT AGENCY From Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy, dated October 28, 2019. Motion to Close File: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to close file on Comm. 580. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR. LEE LOY: With the rest of my colleagues' indulgence, I'm going to take a few minutes to kind of unpack the reason why I had put this particular communication on the agenda. We've had many segmented conversations PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 regarding Mass Transit, and this was an attempt to try and bring all of those segmented conversations together. Back in April, during our budget review process, Ms. Kierkiewicz had uncovered the Department of Mass Transit was subject to a test audit, and the possibility of future Federal funds could be at risk. That test audit would include reviewing required agreements; report maintenance programs, documents, safety programs, and other documents. And then back in September, this body reviewed Resolution 304. In that same meeting, Mr. Richards and Ms. Kierkiewicz had gone on record asking for more transparency and more financial details. And then later, we learned that particular contract was cancelled. And now within our packets, Members of the Council, we have a letter from Finance Department dated November 5', which provides an explanation as to why the contract was cancelled. And just summarizing, it is my understanding through that letter that it had to do with an Excel spreadsheet that was made as made as part of the RFP (Request for Proposal) that had some inaccurate numbers. I kind of want to use that as leaping -off point. And I know Mr. Richards tends to be our number guy. So with that, Mr. Richards, I'll let you go ahead and start the discussion. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you, Chair. Do we have—who's in chambers over in Hilo? CHR. LEE LOY: Yeah, thank you for that, Mr. Richards. In chambers in Hilo, we have Craig Masuda. Oh, Alan is for another communication, I think. Brenda Carreira is sick today. So if there's any questions you want to ask that Craig can answer, or Malia. Malia is also here in the Kona chambers. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair? CHR. LEE LOY: Oh, go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: We also have Deanna Sako here. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. And I think, actually in light of the contract, for right now those are the best individuals who help us navigate the questions that need to be asked as to what happened with the contract and where we go forward. So, Mr. Richards, I yield. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, thank you, Chair. I appreciate, Chair, the quick thumbnail summary of what we're discussing here. No secret that I have been probably the most critical of Mass Transit. Not that we don't need to do a really good job with it, but some of the accounting issues and some of the financing issues coming forward. That being said, I have every confidence in our Director, Page 2 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 Brenda Carreira, as far as being able to handle this. But, we've got a lot of problems that we've got to sort through. I'd like to ask Deanna to come up, probably it will be the best place to start. Can you walk us through a little bit more detail as far as how this was discovered, what's going on, and where we are right now in all this process? (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako and Corporation Counsel Deputy Craig Masuda came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SAKO: Sure. Deanna Sako, Director of Finance. So, you know, this was the first time they actually did an RFP versus an actual bid, so sometimes there's challenges with that. But we put out the RFP and we did have responders, and we had the selection committee go through and evaluate, and they selected someone. But as we were going through and reviewing it, we realized that maybe some things didn't agree to exactly what was said in the RFP in terms of how we would score the cost portion. And so we did discover to use a spreadsheet and kind of did some calculations that we hadn't discussed in the RFP, so in the interest of being fair to all bidders, we cancelled it so that we can go out for a new RFP. With that new RFP, we can also include the little things we forgot, like bike racks on the buses and things like that. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so this was cancelled. Where are we with putting out for the new RFP? MS. SAKO: So we are going through it with Mass Transit. Coincidentally, we also have a new Purchasing Agent, so she's going through it line -by-line with them to make sure we don't miss anything. They're probably about half -way through that process, so hopefully it will be out in the next week or two. MR. RICHARDS: And the turnaround, what are the terms? As far as the RFP, what's the turnaround time expected on that? MS. SAKO: We do give the vendors usually a month to respond because this is kind of a significant RFP; a lot of routes, a lot of information to digest. Even though we're trying not to make significant changes from the prior one, we still want to give them adequate time. So, we put it out there for a couple of weeks. Then we give them a chance to ask questions; we respond to those questions. They turn in the RFPs and then—or their responses, and then we'll have a committee review those and award as quickly as possible. We are fast -tracking it. MR. RICHARDS: Which I'm glad to hear that. There's no one else up at the table with you. Can I ask Craig Masuda to come up, please? MS. SAKO: Craig's here. Page 3 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 MR. RICHARDS: Oh, is he at the table? Okay, thank you. Craig, can just give perspective from—I've heard from Finance. Can you give perspective from Mass Transit? MR. MASUDA: Craig Masuda, Deputy Corporation Counsel. Sorry, Mr. Richards, what do you mean by perspective of Mass Transit? MR. RICHARDS: One of my concerns is, when I took office Mass Transit had a budget of about $14 million. Currently, it's at $22 million. Probably, I may be a little bit sensitive to this, as I was driving through Waimea, and I think it was Friday or maybe Saturday, one of our Hele-On buses had broken down and was there, but a lot of people. So my question to Mass Transit isI understand we're going with an RFP, and I understand that we have some detail that, I'm going to use the term "got missed," and we're coming back to fix that. Deanna, I do appreciate the fact that we are fast -tracking this. But that being said, we've got tc do something good for Mass Transit quickly. Currently, right now, Deanna, help me with what we're spending on our contracts for hiring buses? I know I really appreciate what Brenda has done, taking all the buses and putting all our own buses on the east side, where we have a service center. On the west side, we're contracting. But can you bring up what we're spending on our hired buses? Monthly or annually is fine. MS. SAKO: You know, I do have a figure in my head but I didn't actually look that up before I came down here, so I can let you know. But yeah, I would rather not say because I didn't double-check that before I came down. Sorry. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, if we could get that checked for this conversation, please? I'm going to go back to you, Craig. Going forward, are we confident that this is going to be the last time we're going to have to do this? Like I said, the problem is we are not instilling confidence in our ridership. We have seen the deterioration of our ridership over the last of couple of years. SSFM has put out, I thought, a really good project plan going forward. But we're stumbling, stumbling. We need to hear, and probably most importantly, our constituents need to hear the commitment that we are doing for Mass Transit going forward, so I'm asking for that. MR. MASUDA: Councilman Richards, I'm here to assist Department of Finance. I do not do Department of Mass Transit. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. MR. MASUDA: So as far as any assurance I can give you, all I can give you is a general assurance that from the Department of Finance side, they're working as fast as they can, as efficiently as they can, to get the new RFP out. But that's Page 4 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 about all we can do at this point, is to—as far as instilling confidence into the ridership, I think that will come with the new contract, and we'll see how the new contract plays out. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, hang on for a second there. Malia, come to the table, please. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Malia Hall came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. HALL: Hi, everyone. Malia Hall, Deputy Corporation Counsel. I represent Mass Transit. I echo pretty much what both Deanna and Craig had said. The goal is "yes" to get it completely right this time, to clean up all the mess that we've kind of created in the first place, and to really, really create a contract that not only is in the best interest of the County but in the best interest of the ridership, as well. You know, to make sure that we have all the bases covered that we missed not only in this last time but in the initial contract, as well. MR. RICHARDS: So I'm hearing that we're going to have this contract out, or RFP in the next two to three weeks. Are we going to have something inked by the first of the year? MS. HALL: I would be highly doubt that it would be inked by that time. I would think because we are asking for the companies to provide a lot more, it might—we might need to give them a little more lead time then. MR. RICHARDS: Give me a timeline. MS. HALL: I'm thinking more around April-ish would be more realistic. But again, that's just a guess because we still have to—it all leads up to when we can actually publish, and then from there we go forward. That's hopeful that we get it out that quickly. MS. SAKO: So just as a reminder, if I can jump in real quick, is that because we're also getting the buses with this as well and they have to be like ADA (American with Disabilities Act) compliant and all of that, the vendors do need more lead-time to make sure they have appropriate buses, you know, in hand before we start. So the contract might be signed prior to that, but I think Malia is referring to the start date of the new contract. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, and I appreciate that. Deanna, thanks for the clarification on that. What I'm looking for, and this is one of the conversations I had—and I'm sorry, I understand Brenda's ill right now, so she can't hear it. I'm not going to be put words in her mouth. But part of our conversation was we recognize that we don't have the equipment to fulfill the needs of our routes right now. We need, and I'm going to guesstimate, 34 or 35 buses a day to service our Page 5 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 needs. We have about half of that, right, at any given time. So we have to forward, well, we have to contract about half of that and maybe a little bit more. And when I talked to Brenda about, was requesting that rather than ordering day-by-day, we just lock in a number; because if we lock in a number and forward contract enough, we're going to save a bunch of money for the County going forward. And I would venture—well, I'm not going to put numbers out there, I can guess what a number might be. But that's the point that I want, Deanna, is I think we can make a fair amount of savings if we get this new contract going, and that's why I was really disappointed when I heard this was being cancelled. So, if we could get that number. I'm going to turn this over and let my other colleagues discuss this and ask questions. But if we could get that number and get that done before we get to the end of this conversation, I'd appreciate it. Chair, I yield at this point. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I'm wondering, Malia, maybe you can provide insight. Deanna mentioned that it's the first time we're going through the RFP process rather than bid, but I didn't really hear an explanation as to why we're going this alternative route, so I'm wondering if you could provide some insight, please? MS. HALL: Yeah, the decision was made actually back when Solei was the administrator, and it was made because we wanted to kind of open up more of the services that would be provided and stuff like that, and not just be a lowest bidder kind of thing but actually a full service, customer service. Everything we want to be able to look at. All the things that the vendor was going to provide and make sure that it was in the best interest of the County, not just the lowest cost. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. So when we issue bids, right, we don't articulate a very detailed, like scope of work, so they know what they have to provide as part of their proposal. MS. HALL: It's just not as detailed, I think. You know, there is you know, there's criteria and stuff, but this kind of gives us a little more flexibility in looking at the whole package and not just cost. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, that's helpful. Glad to hear we caught the bike rack thing. I remember emailing with the administrator about making sure that there were bike racks because a lot of folks ride bikes in Puna, and I wanted to make sure that they were able to put it on the bus so that they could get to town. And the ADA accessibility too. Can you expand a little bit about that? I get calls from constituents that live in Leilani Estates, and so there's no service through Page 6 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 Leilani Avenue. So what kinds of service is there going to be service for individuals that need help getting to the bus stop in addition to getting on to the bus? MS. HALL: I think for those individuals, probably paratransit would be the better choice because that's a door-to-door service. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MS. HALL: Basically, they come to your house. They pick you up, and they take you to where you have to go. I'm probably not the best person to speak to all the qualifications for it, but I know you do have to like go in and get an identification card that says you're qualified to do it and stuff like that. But yeah, for those situations I think that would be better because then they would actually get the one-on-one assistance instead of just someone to take you to the bus stop and then, you know, get on to the lift and all that kind of stuff. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Thank you. Does this new RFP take into the consideration the buses that Mass Transit has already ordered and that we were expecting to arrive this year or early next year? MS. HALL: I want to say it is only taking into account the active buses at this moment, right now. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. MS. HALL: Yeah. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: But there will be flexibility in the contract for more buses or less buses just based on what we need, but bottomline is ensuring consistent reliable service. MS. HALL: Yes, that's— MS. SAKO: Right, I believe that is written in so that as we acquire more buses, the need to rent or to use other vendor's, buses will go down. So I believe that's been incorporated into the RFP. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Awesome. Thanks, Deanna. And just going back to like budget time. Because I'm looking at this, there was I guess some errors in the spreadsheet. We dove into some issues during budget cycle. So I'm just wondering if those internal, sort of fiscal management issues, have been resolved. I mean, in State, Federal Government, Department of Transportation, requiring us to do any audit in terms of internal procedures to make sure that everything looks good going forward and we're not in jeopardy of losing grant funding. Page 7 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 MS. SAKO: So I believe they have made a lot of improvement on their controls. But in addition, it's a statewide audit that FTA (Federal Transportation Administration) does. I have not heard that they're specifically coming here or what area they're focusing on this time. I'm not 100 percent sure what the outcome will be. But once we find out, I am sure they will be prepared. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I'm hoping it's all good news. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Any other questions? Chair Chung. MR. CHUNG: Thank you. I don't know who to direct this to, you know, if it's Malia, or Deanna, or Craig. You know, the reason why we're here is we have a cancellation of a contract, right? On one hand, it could be viewed as a fortuitus event because it enables people to weigh in—Council Members to weigh in on what they'd like to see. But on the other hand, there were a lot of manhours expended on this. And from the contractors' standpoint or the bidders' standpoint, you know, they, I'm sure, exhausted a lot of resources in this exercise, as well. And I also understand that we had Solei, who was the head of Mass Transit. She left, and then Brenda's there now. But I do know that the constants were Corp. Counsel, and now I see Craig there, and you're here, and Deanna. So, who—and I'm not trying to cast blame here, but who do we ask for answers later on? Is it Craig, you, or Deanna? I mean, who's ultimately going to—where is the buck going to stop on this? I see a lot of players there, so I just want to know who's going to be the person that we talk to? Because ultimately what I see is, we had a process that we cannot even defend and that's why we had to cancel. That might be an over -simplification, but if we could defend it, it wouldn't be cancelled. So who ultimately will be responsible later? I don't think anybody wants to answer. It might be a rhetorical question, really, you know. But I think you guys all understand my frustration, and I don't know if this frustration is shared by others. You know, I just wanted to make that comment and I guess we can discuss it more as time goes on. The last question I would have now iswe did pass Resolution 304-19 just a month ago, a little over a month ago. What is the effect of that? I mean, because we had a protracted discussion about whether—you know, because it was after the fact, right? And sometimes we do it ahead of the process. What is the effect of this resolution now? Do we have to do it again or does it now give the administration carte blanche on what they want to do? I'm just puzzled now. When I read the resolution, it seems to give you guys the authority already. You could probably use it. An argument could be made that you could use it already. Page 8 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 I don't know what the sentiments are on this body, but perhaps there might be some who would actually want you guys to come back again or maybe not. I really don't know. I'm just throwing these thoughts out because these are just kind of flying my way right now, yeah. Actually, I don't really expect you to answer that. Maybe you guys can go and confer later on and then come and talk to me later, yeah? Thank you. MR. MASUDA: Did you want me to answer? CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. David. MR. MASUDA: Mr. Chair? CHR. LEE LOY: Oh, go ahead, Mr. Masuda. MR. MASUDA: Mr. Chair, yeah, Craig Masuda, Deputy Corporation Counsel. Mr. Chung, was that a rhetorical question or do you want me to answer? MR. CHUNG: Yeah, go ahead. There were several rhetorical questions, actually. MR. MASUDA: You know, I agree with you. When you read the verbiage of the resolution itself, I believe it does allow for a multi-year contract to go through even with this new RFP. Whether you're going to request a second one or the body is going to request a second resolution is another matter. But I believe you're correct in the actual verbiage of the current resolution, that does allow a go -forward of coming back to Council. MR. CHUNG: Alright. And, you know, Craig, I agree with that because I looked at the resolution over and over and it really does seem to allow you guys to move forward. But it certainly would run afoul of the spirit of what was going on that time because it was after -the -fact. We didn't have a chance to really weigh in on different components of that proposal. We were actually providing an accommodation to the administration for an oversight. So I'm, you know—again, this is something we can discuss because I really don't know what this body is thinking. I would prefer another one coming back, but you know, it's only my personal feeling. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. I'm not sure who I can direct this question to. But along the lines of Mr. Richards' question about timeline in this—now this new process, the RFP, you mentioned April. And now if that proposal will take the route it should have taken in comparison to what happened prior, yeah, how does that work in and how much time is that still going to add to this timeline before it comes to us? And then finalization, if April is your completion of the RFP is processe? Page 9 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 MS. HALL: Are you—do you mean in reference if we have to come back with another resolution, how long will that take? MS. DAVID: Yeah. MS. HALL: It will probably delay us for however long it takes us to get it on to the agenda and stuff like that. I mean, I guess it depends. Because we put it—we do the resolution. Technically, now we will be doing it in the correct order, right? MS. DAVID: Right. MS. HALL: Like, we would do the rest, and then we would put out the RFP, then we would contract, right? So we're actually in the right order now. So yeah, without having it to come through Council, we would be it would save us probably I would say at least two weeks to a month. I'm guessing at this point, but that's my educated guess on it. MS. DAVID: Okay. Alright. Thank you, Malia. That was my question. I yield. Mahalo. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. David. Any other Council Members. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, I'm checking on you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes, I do have a question. CHR. LEE LOY: Alright, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But not so much of a question. I saw this resolution come forward andI'm sorry, this communication come forward. I called Deanna, not Deanna, sorry. I called Brenda yesterday, and I discussed with Brenda. Three or four meetings ago, I told Brenda that I would help her however I could and not so much try and slam her and create what I want, but more help by driving from the backside and helping her from her end. So I asked her to sit down in a meeting with yourself, Sue Lee Loy; myself, and Jo Anna (Herkes), who is part of our Mass Transit Master Plan, SSFM; and Brenda next week. And I'm saying that because I want to make sure that we as a body, although we expect certain things from them, are as helpful as we can in knowing what they're trying to do and are helpful in helping them get that done. I'm putting that out there so we understand where we're at and also trying to break this lack of communication that happens within the departments and breaking out of our silos, like what we talked about. So, I'm not asking any questions. I'm just stating that. That is in the works, and I hope to see some movement on that by next week. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Mr. Richards, did you have a follow-up? Page 10 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And, Matt, you bring out a point that this is to try and expedite things to get things solved. And like I said in my first breath about Brenda, that I have for the first time confidence in our director that we can actually get this done. The point that I am very concerned about, is this delay? Yes. Pulling my notes from the budget process, going through last Spring, these are numbers I believe that came from Mass Transit and they're ball -parked. But we're spending approximately $22,000 a day for hiring buses. Long story short, about $130,000 a week, which translates into over $6.5 million a year. And my concern is the delay on this. I think we're going to save money by getting this put forward. But every delay, we're still running under the old contract, and that's no criticism of our suppliers, our—or the buses we're hiring. That's the operation, they're under it. My point is time is of the essence. And whatever we can do to facilitate this to go forward, because we're spending money that we could spend elsewhere if we could get this thing done. So, I want to push that again. When I look at that $6.5 million -plus a year, what we're spending on hiring buses. We can do better. I think that's something we said in this Council. So, thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Anyone else? Alright. Thank you to the rest of my colleagues. Malia, Craig, Deanna, thank you. My question really hovered around the resolution that we passed. Really, it felt like a blank check, right? So ironically, this kind of—cancelling on the contract like you mentioned, Malia, really kind of smoothed it out. All the knots, right? And so it's my hope now that we're on the right track, it actually does expedite what we need to achieve. And borrowing from Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, absolutely, as Chair and Vice Chair of this committee, I'll be more than happy to sit down with the leadership at Mass Transit so that we can keep everybody on track, where the administration can do their part, Corporation Counsel can really begin to facilitate and expedite the contract process. We will be aware what needs to get on the agenda to help further expedite all of that. Sometimes a shortcoming actually turns into an advantage. Unfortunately, I'm sure there's some disappointed people who bid on the contract. But we are where we are, and now we can actually hit the reset button. But, Malia, if you don't mind explaining one more time, because I was of the mindset that the resolution should have come after the awarding of the contract, because then this body would see the amounts. Because it went over three budget cycles. If it was just for one budget year, I could see it coming in the front-end, the resolution coming on front-end, so we could manage that fiscal year. But because this particular contract crossed over three fiscal cycles, I actuallyI kind of wanted to see what the numbers would look like, and because we would begin Page 11 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 to project what type of budget needed to end up in that particular department over the fiscal years. So again, I want to hover around that resolution. Because this one is a little different because it spans three fiscal years. And if it is the business decision of the administration and Corporation Counsel that this resolution is good enough for you guys to continue forward, you know, let's demonstrate that bright line of process for any future contract we put out so there's a level of expectation. So when a resolution comes to this body that spans three, four, five fiscal years, we know what we're voting on. And to some extent, it actually is a blank check because we don't know what the bids look like. So Malia, can you kind of like share what the rationale was behind that decision-making and why Corporation Counsel feels, and like Craig mentioned, that the wording in that resolution actually does fit into what we're trying to achieve? MS. HALL: Yeah, because I believeI don't have it in front of me but I believe the wording is more of, you know, like you authorize the Finance Director to negotiate a new contract, basically. With the caveat of this, if we go into that second year and you guys haven't approved the budget and this contract is now more expensive than the budget that you approved, the contract can then be cancelled because we don't have the appropriate money at that time, right? So that's kind of where the separation of powers happens, in the sense that you guys approve the budget and if the budget doesn't match the contract, then the contract is kind of no more, right? At the same time, it's also because of procurement. Basically what happens is, once the RFP goes out and once we know the know the numbers and award, by that point there's already going to be a contract. It's kind of too late to come in for a resolution at that point because people are getting ready, bringing vehicles, all that kind of stuff. What you're trying to do is front-end it. Get all that stuff cleared so that once we award that contract, we can start negotiating that—you know, award the RFP. We can start negotiating that contract and hit the ground running. Get those vehicles in and all that kind of stuff. But like I said, if the budget—you guys approve and it does not fit the contract, then the contract basically would be voided out at that point or, you know, whatever the terms were. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Malia, really. Because it helps us make that business decision even as we look at the future budgets. Mr. Masuda, did you want to share anything related to that business decision on contracts, kind of extending fiscal years beyond the one that the resolution is approved in? MR. MASUDA: Not really, because any other suggestion would delay the process. Page 12 PWMTC-15 Vote on Comm. 580 (Filed): Relinquish Chair Kleinfelder. November 19, 2019 CHR. LEE LOY: Straight and to the point. Thank you, Mr. Masuda. Well, with that, I am assuming that all of my colleagues got their questions answered. And now we have clean slate, Malia, Deanna, Craig, we can move forward. And then, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, yes, absolutely, let's go ahead and sit down with the department and figure out how we can help them because it's always been this body's goal, to help Mass Transit because it really does help the most vulnerable in our community. So with that, I think we have a motion to close file on Communication 580. All those in favor? The motion to close file on Comm. 580 was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Poindexter, Richards, and Chair Lee Loy — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Villegas — 2. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: Thanks, Deanna; thanks, Craig. Yes, if we could read in Communication 581. But as a heads -up, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, I'm going to ask after the Clerk reads this in, that you go ahead and chair the meeting because the next item is actually pretty focused to specifically my district or the district that I represent. MR. HENRICKS: Would you like to relinquish the chair at this point? CHR. LEE LOY: I will do that. A this time, Chair Lee Loy relinquished the chair to Vice Chair Kaneali`i- ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Let the record show that I have taken over as Chair for the meeting on Public Works and Mass Transit. Clerk, could you please read in Communication 581? Comm. 581: REQUESTS A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE KALANIANA`OLE AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT From Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy, dated October 28, 2019. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Sue, would you lead us off on discussion? Page 13 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 MS. LEE LOY: Sure. I'll go start with the motion to close file on Communication 581. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Motion to Close File: Ms. Lee Loy moved to close file on Comm. 581. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you very much. And then again, Sue, could you lead us? MS. LEE LOY: Awesome. Thank you. I think we have Alan (Simeon) in our Hilo Chambers? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: We do. He's coming up. MS. LEE LOY: Okay, great. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: We also have David, as well. (Note: At this time, Public Works Director David Yamamoto and Deputy Director Allan Simeon came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. LEE LOY: Mr. Yamamoto, thanks for coming. And again, just to kind of provide some foundation. This project has been going in Council District 3 for, oh, I want to say maybe 18, maybe 20 months. You know, it's the one road in and out to Keaukaha, and so I continually get a number of concerns regarding what's going on, what's the timeline, how long more? So with that, Mr. Yamamoto or Mr. Simeon, I just kind of wanted to start with just some fundamental questions. When this contractactually, what the scope of this contract was. When was it scheduled to start? If there was any changes to the contract? And then, what's the new projected timeline on this particular project? MR. SIMEON: Hello. Good afternoon. This is Allan Simeon, Deputy Director of Department of Public works, and thank you for this opportunity. Yeah, so the Kalanianaole Rehabilitation Project, first of all, it's a joint venture, efforts between the County and the Department of Transportation (DOT), being that the area that is being worked on consists of both County and DOT right-of-way. The project was enacted to provide or enhance with roadway capacity and operation, and also for the safety of the public motorists, bicycles, and pedestrians. The project consists of, again the area is from Banyan Drive pretty much all of the way to Kuhio Street by the harbor, and maybe another couple of streets beyond that, all the way to Kauhane Avenue. Page 14 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 So the new roadway will consist of two travel lanes, one in each direction, and between of that is a two-way left turn lane. Adjacent to the travel lane is a narrow strip of a safety buffer that is next to the bike lanes, so that's a good feature. On the makai side, next to the bike lane, is basically a concrete curb gutter and sidewalk, from Banyan Drive all the way to Kuhio Street. On the mauka side is a bike lane also, with some swale and also a shoulder in that so we're trying to fit it within the existing right-of-way. In addition to the scope of work, are utility relocation. So we have Water Supply facilities there, Department of Environmental Management; HELCO (Hawai`i Electric Light Company); Telephone; Oceanic, it's now Spectrum; also with SIC (Sandwich Islands Communication). So we have everything in there, pretty much. Both underground and also overhead. In addition to the scope work, also drainage improvements in the area, and of course, the signing and striping, property adjustments, and tie-ins, and all the other appurtenances and related items to complete the project. So the project was NTP (Notice to Proceed) was in March 5, 2018. It started pretty much about that time. Basically, the contractor had started with many preparatory work such as Best Management Practices, aeration control items, also notifying the public, and the big one is trying to probe the underground utilities to see where they are. I think at times they had do some potholing and whatnot. Also, by April 19, the excavation started, so technically the work started, or say, the shovel hit the ground. Prior to NTP, we actually had gotten a request from the DOT, and specifically DOT Harbors, to include in the project a 12 -inch waterline. And the reason for that is they are doing some projects within the harbor, and with the existing facilities and also the existing waterline on Kalanianaole Avenue, the fire flow requirement, and that be satisfied. So, they approached the County. And although it's kind of late, we looked at the proposal because they proposed also that they will be mostly be funding the project. Again, we seriously looked at the proposal and we decided to make it a part of the project for the following reasons. Again, to deliver the proper fire flow, we'll allow the DOT harbors to be able to complete their work for their projects and also to satisfy the requirement of fire flow. In addition the existing waterline in the area, which is an older waterline is my understanding, is only a six-inch line, and from nowadays standards, it wouldn't meet the fire flow. So providing this waterline, basically from about fronting Verna's to about the Kuhio Street, is about a mile. We're helping the DOT, and at the same time we're helping the people in the area having the fire flow. And if ever the six-inch waterline—again, I understand that it's old—at some point, we Page 15 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 don't know when exactly, they have to replace that waterline. And we know for sure that we don't want to cut up that new pavement again. So in away it kind of lengthened the duration of the project, but overall we are reducing traffic congestion and inconvenience in the area. And again, doing one project instead of two for that matter. To get to that is point, is basically have a long lengthened coordination cooperation between Water Supply, DOT, the County, and also with the contractor. As simply as it may be to just install waterline into the ground, it took some time to get to the point of where we are. Also, Water Supply had to—most of the money for the waterline is being funded by DOT, but Water Supply had to put in some portion in which the Board of Water Supply—their board has to approve. But it did change some as far as the scope of the work, being that money is limited. So the rotary work, especially on the DOT side, has to be reduced. DOT added more money for the waterline but had to reduce the scope of work on the roadway to be able to do the waterline. The justification and the back-up for that is, again, we don't want to cut up the new roadway. It's better, as slow and as soon as money is available from what I understood from the previous district, from DOT, that basically working on it on the surface is way better than trying to beat up the road again later. However though, the roadway will the waterline work will require some detouring for the area. So from Mazda to Verna's, about there, going downtown will be detoured one way; and the Kamehameha Avenue, behind the airport will be two ways, going to Silva Street. That will happen like about four to six months. At this point, the sidewalk on the makai side are being done segmentally because of some utility work in that area. There are some conflicts with the new improvements with the existing utility. So all this time, with the many utility companies or facilities that I mentioned, pretty much with all of them, we have to coordinate because of some conflicts or some resolution with what they have in the ground and overhead. So they are focusing on finishing the sidewalk on the makai side, so pending the resolution of the utility problems, some issues there, they plan to finish that area some time at the end of the year. In which case thereafter, they want to start the waterline on the middle of the road, and that would probably take about six months before paving comes in. But I would say early in the year to about six months after that, there will be a lot of going on, some more utility relocation and other property adjustments. Page 16 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 But the benchmark right now is to finish the sidewalk on the makai side at the end of the year, and also the waterline estimated and hopefully by mid -next year, and hopefully to wrap up the project some time in October, towards the end of the year. So, that's the timeline. Thank you. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Allan, for that comprehensive overview. So from what I can hear with the benchmarks being met, as far as the makai sidewalk and then paving, that takes us into June of 2020. Is that a good guess? MR. SIMEON: Yeah, so the 2020 is the target date to finish the waterline and possibly starting the paving of the road. MS. LEE LOY: And what is the target date for completion, where we're back to normal on that particular stretch of road? MR. SIMEON: Not counting weather delays and some other delays, we are now basically scheduled for October 2020. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thank you, Allan. I know this really specific to the district that I serve, so I really appreciate the indulgence of my other colleagues for allowing me to bring this forward. But I do have an ask for Mr. Yamamoto, and then Mr. Simeon. We have a you have a Public Information Officer, Denise Laitinen, who does a phenomenal job at reporting to Ms. Kierkiewicz all of the projects going on in Puna and the roadways, and I'm just hoping that we can continue to use her to push out information as it relates to this project because there's a number of businesses along that stretch of road on top of all of the harbor, the trucking that comes out of the harbor. I have just heard far too many concerns about traffic delays, especially when the ships are in and/or when the barges are in, and all of the trucking happens to get all of our goods and services off of the ships and out into the community. So if we could use Denise or some type of messaging to alert that community and others who head in and out of that community, that would be ideal. Is that something, Mr. Yamamoto, we can look forward to doing? MR. YAMAMOTO: Certainly, we can. We'll put something on our website and have it posted and updated on a weekly basis of what might be happening. Our Public Information Office will coordinate with the Project Engineer to update the status of the project and what might be scheduled for the week. MS. LEE LOY: Great. Thanks, Mr. Yamamoto. And as we push it out, if we could also create that messaging to be social media friendly, where myself and maybe even other colleagues can use it to push it out on their social media sites. It's just really helpful, and it just helps the community make good decisions about traffic and timing or what their day may or may not look like, especially heading into Keaukaha. Page 17 PWMTC-15 November 19, 2019 With that, Mr. Yamamoto, Mr. Simeon, thank you so much for providing that comprehensive update. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, I yield. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Council Member Lee Loy. Is there any other discussion in Kona? Okay, seeing none, is that right? MR. HENRICKS: Ready for the vote, Mr. Chair. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I don't have anything to add. I do appreciate your time today, gentlemen. So as there is a motion on the floor to close file on Communication 581, let's go to a vote. All in favor say Ic aye. Vote on Comm. 580: The motion to close file on Comm. 581 was carried by the (Filed): following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Lee Loy, Kierkiewicz, Poindexter, Villegas, and Acting Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. (There were none.) ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 2:56 p.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Lee Loy, Kierkiewicz, Poindexter, Villegas, and Acting Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards — 2. Excused: None. Page 18 PWMTC-15 Approved: November 19, 2019 ACTING CHR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER-: We are adjourned. M'sSlwsqan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair u is Works and Mass Transit Committee SL/na i2 - i3- /9 (Date) Page 19