Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0855.003 2018-2020 Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 10:44 AM To: Council Testimony Cc: Poindexter,Valerie;Valerie Poindexter; Chung, Aaron;Lee Loy, Sue; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; David, Maile; rebecca.vellegas@hawaiicounty.gov; Eoff, Karen; Eoff, Karen; Richards, Tim Subject: Please see my attached testimony for Res 568-20 Attachments: VERY FINAL.docx H W .11 Thank You. o Bimo Akiona pz, •s' 8 H ° 1-4 - H %SS•CO mm. Nortuu '� 1 Ref. To: . Dat. APP - ,8 2020, I . Response to County Council meeting scheduled for April 8, 2020 Re: Communication 0855.000 Re: Resolution 568-20 Re: Memorandum of Agreement between County of Hawaii and State of Hawaii Ea Introduction: I am opposed to the acceptance of the Memorandum of jAgneement between the County of Hawaii and State of Hawaii scheduled for April 8, 2020. ti t i .{ > I alp opposed for the following reasons: RE: Communication from Deanna Sato dated 1/31/20, Relative to Resolution 568-20 As available on the County of Hawaii website Sections I and H, as well as subsections a and b of Section III are misplaced within the document. It creates a challenge to review information relevant to this resolution and discussion regarding the Memorandum of Agreement. This presence within the initial viewing of this information brings into question the professionalism and qualifications of whom ever was tasked with providing this public information. Combined with the Governor's Declaration of March 16, 2020, rightfully prohibiting public assembly, as well as the challenges of the pandemic makes it a difficult time to be sufficiently informed. Given the present conditions within our community, I suggest RAMIFICATIONS FOR HAWAI'! COUNTY RESIDENTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED, OR IMPACTS ASSESSED IN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS regarding the actions and intentions of Communication 0855.000 as placed on the Agenda of the County Council for April 8, 2020. RE: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF HAWAII AND STATE OF HAWAII First observation of this document as provided for public access through the County of Hawaii Internet website, under Office of the County Clerk- Council Records-Communications-COM 0855.000 2018-2020, dated January 31, 2020, Ref. Date 4/1/2020, reveals this representation of the Memorandum of Agreement is invalid. It requires the County and State to enter into agreement in 2019. The Council Meeting to review this Communication, and possibly vote on the Agreement is April 8, 2020 Section ! BACKGROUND States an agreement between the State and the County to reimburse for expenses incurred by Hawaii County Police Department relating to the TMT protest. It does not, however, state the date of operations eligible for reimbursement. Does not assure reimbursement for expenses which occurred prior to when this agreement is signed. SECTION II PURPOSE Within this section is stated and I quote, "this MOA is not intended and should not be construed to create any right or benefit by any third party". A large part of the expenses incurred by the Hawaii County Police Department prior to this date was the presence 24 hours a day seven days a week of police officers setting up roadblocks to that portion of the old saddle Road on which the equipment belonging to the TMT.Corporation was being stored. I suggest it would be arguable as to whether a third- party, in this case the TMT Corporation did benefit from the cost incurred by the Hawaii County Police Department. As such, any citizen and representative of the citizens of this state should oppose the payment of those amounts, as it may be in violation of this section. This again puts in jeopardy the County's position in recovery of costs already incurred. The County may be in jeopardy of returning what it may have already received. SECTION III PROCEDURES TO REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT This section places specific demands upon the County to submit requests for reimbursement which may be beyond the ability of the county to do this satisfactorily. The primary department named in this agreement is the Hawaii County Police Department. Does the Hawaii County Police Department have the ability to meet the Accounting demands of the State regarding appropriate documentation, invoices evidencing the nature of the expenditure including the description, quantity and value of expenditure as relevant to whom the expenditure is made? Those are the requirements of this section for the County to receive reimbursement. If that ability does not presently exist or if the County is unable to satisfactorily satisfy these requirements. What happens? Will new hires be necessary, acknowledging this obligation will extend beyond seven years. Should this not be discussed prior to agreeing to this memorandum? Section IV TERM OF MEMORANDUM AGEEMENT Affirms what I've said above. That expenses incurred by the County prior to the signing of this agreement are not guaranteed for payment. Furthermore, and possibly most alarming is there is no termination date of this agreement. Given that the construction of the TMT telescope has been estimated to take at least seven years. This agreement obligates the County of Hawaii and its citizen taxpayers to unknown consequences. In the past months that the County of Hawaii has positioned itself to enforce laws in relationship to the TMT protectors, it created approximately $10 million in expenses over the few months of its activity. Does the County, or State have the ability to meet the possible expenses that may occur going forward? Given the present economic state I suggest this is not the time to commit ourselves to such a probable and unconsidered costly effect. Section V NOTICE States: "All notices, requests, demands and other communications under this MOA must be in writing and will be deemed to have been given on the date of service if served personally on or emailed to the party to whom notice is to be given". How would expenses already accrued by Hawaii County prior to the MOA be confidently, legally recovered? SECTION VI . DISPUTE RESOLUTION no comments for this section. • SECTION VII AMENDMENTS Provides for changes to this agreement, after it has been reviewed and voted on by the Council and signed by the mayor. My question is why can't an agreement be put together with the confidence that it meets the requirements for the purpose of this agreement. The ability to change this agreement, after the review by this council is unacceptable. Effectively, the Agreement as voted upon by this Council could be greatly altered after it goes into effect. SECTION VIII NO PRIVATE RIGHT CREATED Can be invalidated by Section VII SECTION IX NO WAIVER Upon entering into this agreement the County cannot remove itself from it without the State's permission. SECTION X SEVERABILLITY No comment SECTION XI COUNTERPARTS No comment Summary The only access the Public has to the Documents and Communications regarding Resolution 568-20 as positioned on the County Council Meeting scheduled for 4/8/20 fails to provide orderly and complete information. The description of Res. 568-20 on the Agenda of 4/8/20 is at best inaccurate. Res. 568-20 is described as purposed to allow reimbursement of expenses incurred by HCPD and the Office of the Mayor through 12/31/2019. The Memorandum of Agreement referenced in the description of Resolution 568-20 does not mention the date of December 31, 2019 and effectively eliminates the Office of the Mayor from that agreement. The actual purpose of this subject being on the agenda for April 8, 2020 is to enter into an agreement which binds the Hawaii County Police Department to an indefinite period of obligation to the State of Hawaii to utilize its manpower and resources in the specific interest and under the direction of the State's intentions. Effectively, our Hawaii County Police Department will be serving under the direction and demands of an authority outside of our County. Should the state be unsuccessful in achieving its obligations to the TMT, would the agreement between the State and County place the County in a position of liability? What effect would this agreement and its obligations have on the service by the Hawaii County Police Department to the citizens and visitors of this island? Reports by police personnel during the extended presence on the mountain indicated a strain on manpower. Going forward, under an agreement such as this with its undefined requirements and effect, where will the County be in regards to its primary purpose of serving the citizens of this County? The cost of additional Officers hired to sufficiently address an increased demand because of this agreement will greatly exceed the amount and duration of State reimbursement. Presently, HCPD struggles to fill its existing vacancies. Will a need to build manpower result in hiring candidates who don't meet present standards? Before entering into an obligation of this depth should this Council not see proof of the financial ability to complete this project? Earlier this year Ed Stone the project director stated that the cost of the project had increased by $1 billion. During this time at least two of the partners of this project have withdrawn their financing of this project. The TMT Corporation has never confirmed their ability to financially complete this project even before the additional $1 billion increase. Lastly, I believe the greatest interest of our community is to have honest and ethical political representation. I'm not comfortable that we have it with effort. My first paragraph in my testimony states: RAMIFICATIONS FOR HAWAII!COUNTY RESIDENTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED, OR IMPACTS ASSESSED IN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS, within the conditions under which this attempt to enter this agreement is being maneuvered. We are in a state of emergency, extreme restrictions and challenges. What's the rush? Why as stated in Council member Maile David's request is "timely approval crucial"? Why is it "advantageous the approval is granted"? Crucial and advantageous for whom? We have "the best location in the world", what's the rush? The "rush" should stop. The residents of our island should be accommodated beyond email testimony. When that can't be done, the rush should stop. My statement: RAMIFICATIONS FOR HAWAII!COUNTY RESIDENTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED, OR IMPACTS ASSESSED is not mine. I copied it from Resolution 565-20, introduced by Ms. Poindexter and Ms. David as on the agenda for 4/8/20, urging Gov. Ige delay an action until OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS can occur. Council Members, I respectfully ask to recall the words of Mayor Billy Kenoi : "do what you say...say what you do". Mahalo Bimo Akiona i