Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-12 Minutes APPROVED PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES January 12, 2026 Public Meeting Hawai'i County Building 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo Council Chambers Hilo, HI 96720 I. CALL TO ORDER: On January 12, 2026, the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission (PONC) meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m. by Chair Chang,who welcomed all in attendance and introduced the Commissioners and PONC Staff.Those who were present constituted a quorum. Present: Deborah Chang, Chair(Chr.) CD-1 Amedeo Markoff, Commissioner CD-4 Deborah J. Ward, Commissioner CD-5 (Hold-Over) Jodie Rosam, Commissioner CD-6 Janet Britt,Vice Chair (V. Chr.) CD-7 La Crivello, Commissioner CD-8(Hold-Over) Absent: N/A Vacant: District 2 District 3 District 9 Support Staff: Jean Campbell, Deputy Corporation Counsel Representative (DCC) Malia Kekai, Deputy Director, Department of Finance Benjamin Schapiro, Program Manager, Department of Finance Eva Braman, Commission Secretary Shannon Arquitola, Property Manager II. STATEMENT(S) FROM THE PUBLIC: Chr. Chang opened the floor for public testimony and explained that testimony may be made at the beginning of the meeting or immediately preceding the agenda item being opened for deliberation by the Commission. No testifiers. Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 1 III. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Discussion and potential recommendation regarding Kupa Aina O Keauhou application STU.26-04. No testifiers. Applicant representatives, Kalei Pascuita and Tanya Souza, came forward to answer questions from the commission. Chr. Chang asked the applicants to clarify what "data collection" means for year one and year two and what data would be collected. Ms. Pascuita explained that their current data collection is on site observation recorded in a Google Form and that the protocol focuses on documenting what is happening during site visits. Ms. Pascuita said the group would like to expand data collection to include items such as water temperature and air temperature, but they do not have the resources to do that yet. Chr. Chang invited additional comment, and Ms.Tanya Souza, advisor for Kupa 'Aina o Keauhou, stated she has volunteered with the group and said the observation work helps build baseline information about the property to support stewardship decisions and identify future studies. V. Chr. Britt asked for clarification on the term "kilo." Ms. Souza explained kilo means observation and described monthly visits where volunteers and ohana sit, observe, and document environmental conditions such as birds, marine life, and moon cycles, which helps build pilina and reconnection with place. Ms. Pascuita shared an example from a kilo event where participants observed a monk seal in the bay and described such observations as learning opportunities and, at times, as ho'ailona. V. Chr. Britt asked what Symbrosia Foundation does and where it is located. Ms. Pascuita stated Symbrosia is a Kona company that grows limu kohu as cattle feed to reduce methane emissions and that Symbrosia Foundation is the nonprofit arm that supports limu kohu restoration with native communities, including work with Sea Grant and the University of Hawai'i at Manoa to provide seedlings for community outplanting. Chr. Chang asked if there were any other questions and then stated the commission would need to decide whether to recommend the application as submitted, recommend changes including partial approval or denial, or deny it outright, and requested a motion to open commission discussion for action on application 26-04. MOTION: Cmr. Crivello moved that application 26-04 be recommended for approval as submitted. Seconded by V. Chr. Britt. Cmr. Crivello stated the applicants provided a thorough budget and budget narrative and said she had no questions or concerns about how the funds are allocated. She said the budget shows the applicants are focused on understanding the site before doing additional work and on building their understanding and relationship with the place, while also supporting the community's ability to do the same, including through the AIS item reflected in the budget Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 2 narrative. VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners Markoff, Ward, Rosam, Crivello,V. Chair Britt, Chr. Chang. Noes: None. 2. Permitted Interaction Group report regarding grant application scoring and potential action. No testifiers. Chr. Chang opened Old Business to discuss the Permitted Interaction Group report regarding grant application scoring and potential action. Chr. Chang asked whether any members of the public wished to provide testimony on the item.There were none. Chr. Chang explained the commission could not discuss the report at the prior meeting due to Sunshine Law requirements and stated the commission could now discuss the PInG recommendations and decide whether to adopt them in whole, in part, or defer action. Cmr. Ward thanked the PInG for organizing the worksheet and said it was helpful when reviewing the stewardship grant requests. Cmr. Ward asked whether the worksheet is intended to be turned in or used as an internal assist for commissioners. Cmr. Rosam said it was intended as an assist for commissioners, as commissioners submit recommendations rather than scores, and described it as a pre-screening tool to help commissioners review the application thoroughly, identify questions in advance, and potentially speed up the approval process. Cmr. Ward suggested adding a space for the project name and reported a formatting issue where the font in one fillable answer field was too small to read. V. Chr. Britt asked how to complete the "applicant overall score" section. Chr. Chang clarified it was intended as an overall impression and reiterated the worksheet is for commissioners' benefit. Cmr. Rosam suggested changing the word "score"to "assessment"to reduce the appearance of a numeric rating. Cmr. Crivello asked for clearer language addressing an applicant's relationship to the community and ongoing community support, particularly for recurrent grant recipients. Chr. Chang noted the topic is addressed in one existing section and suggested adding similar language to the "Recurrent Grant Recipients Only" section to better track continued inclusion of community, lineal, and cultural descendants over time. Cmr. Crivello emphasized the importance of maintaining long term community relationships as part of pono stewardship and said thorough review reduces the risk of approving funding and later needing to reverse course due to missed issues. Cmr. Ward suggested adding an early checklist to confirm required documents are included and current. Chr. Chang noted an existing question touches on clarity of the submission, but Cmr. Ward said a more specific checklist could help identify missing or outdated items. Secretary Braman commented that the County is working to implement a new grant system and the intent is for applicants to upload required documents in the system before proceeding with the application,which should reduce issues with missing attachments in future rounds. Chr. Chang raised the question of whether completed worksheets would be public. Deputy Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 3 Corporation Counsel Campbell stated that under public records law, the scoring sheet would generally be a public record if the County possesses it, and if it is not submitted and remains only on a commissioner's personal computer,the County would not have it to produce in response to a records request. Chr. Chang asked whether the worksheet could be optional, and Ms. Campbell recommended against optional use, stating consistency and transparency are important so applicants understand the standard being applied and evaluations remain fair across all applicants. Cmr. Crivello asked whether the commission could adopt the worksheet with suggested changes at this meeting. Ms. Campbell advised the safest approach is to ensure the public has clear notice of the substance of any action, and stated the current agenda item, as written, may not provide sufficient notice to adopt an amended scoring sheet. Ms. Campbell outlined options, including discussing proposed amendments at this meeting and agendizing adoption of a revised worksheet for a future meeting, or forming a new PInG to develop amendments outside the meeting process. Cmr. Crivello stated she preferred a transparent process consistent with counsel's guidance, including identifying and drafting the amendment language and providing the public an opportunity to review and comment before a vote at the next meeting. MOTION: V. Chr. Britt moved to amend the 2026 Stewardship Grant Review Worksheet as discussed and vote on its approval at the next meeting. Seconded by Cmr. Markoff. The commission discussed the amendments they would like to make to the worksheet. VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners Markoff, Ward, Rosam, Crivello, V. Chair Britt, Chr. Chang. Noes: None. IV. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REPORT: 1. Information regarding the National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration (NOAA)grant applied for and awarded to the Office of Sustainability Climate, Equity and Resilience (OSCER)for Puapua'a Iki. No Testifiers. Kendra Obemaier, Program Manager from OSCER, came forward to provide information regarding the awarded grant. Ms. Kendra Obermaier, Program Manager with the Office of Sustainability, Climate, Equity, and Resilience (OSCER), introduced herself and provided background on the NOAA grant effort for Puapua'a Iki. She stated the partnership began about two and a half years ago when she was with Research and Development,following publication of the County's Integrated Climate Action Plan. She said former PONC program managers identified several PONC sites that might benefit from federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or Inflation Reduction Act funding, and Puapua'a Iki was identified in 2023 as a site needing additional funding. She stated a letter of intent was submitted for the NOAA Coastal Zone Management Habitat Protection and Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 4 Restoration Competition (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law)grant. She said the letter of intent was approved by the State but was not approved by NOAA for a full submittal at that time. Ms. Obermaier stated that during the following year's grant round,the project shifted to OSCER, and OSCER and PONC submitted another letter of interest that was accepted, which resulted in an invitation to submit a full application. She stated the full application was submitted and approximately ten months later, in October, the County was awarded the grant. She noted the project has been in development for about two and a half years on the grant side alone. Ms. Obermaier provided an overview of the grant project scope, stating the funding will support restoration of the native ecosystem at the 11.5 acre Puapua'a Iki site and preservation of historic sites on the parcel in response to recurrent high tide flooding, erosion, and impacts from surrounding development. She outlined six main phases: (1) accepting funds and initiating environmental compliance, which she stated has been completed, (2) community engagement including establishment of a core hui to advise during the first three years of the grant period and to help ensure restoration reflects the site's history and culture, (3) landscape planning and environmental assessment to ensure regulatory compliance, (4) site restoration including vegetation and cultural site restoration, (5) shoreline stability to address erosion associated with wave refraction from an existing seawall and to improve the site's ability to withstand future high tide events, and (6) post project monitoring to assess success. Ms. Obermaier stated OSCER is grateful and excited to work with PONC and hopes the grant can serve as a pilot for other sites. Cmr. Crivello asked whether the commission received a copy of the final Coastal Zone Management(CZM) grant application submitted for the Puapua'a Iki project. Chr. Chang stated the commission had not received the grant document and noted it would be helpful for commissioners to be able to review it. DCC Campbell stated it would not be inappropriate for the commission to receive the information for informational purposes. Campbell emphasized, however, that oversight of County properties after acquisition is not within the commission's authority. Ms. Campbell stated commissioners may review the document, have opinions, and be informed, but the commission's formal role is limited to matters such as recommending maintenance funding and stewardship spending, and the commission is not tasked with overseeing the ongoing management of the property. Cmr. Crivello stated her concern stems from issues that arose during a prior stewardship grant application involving Puapua'a Iki. She recalled that an applicant proposed multiple activities but provided only a large lump sum budget without a budget narrative or details. Cmr. Crivello stated that while the process included valuable community interaction, it led her to request additional information such as burial treatment plans, preservation plans, and other supporting documentation, including an archaeological inventory survey(AIS)for the property. She stated that through that stewardship review, it became clear certain work needed to occur before the type of stewardship proposed could proceed, including considerations for ground disturbance and work within burial areas. Cmr. Crivello also noted concerns raised at the time regarding whether the practitioner involved was established within the community and whether there was sufficient community and descendant Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 5 participation and knowledge of the project. Cmr. Crivello stated her broader concern is that these issues surfaced because the matter came through a stewardship application, which is within the commission's role, and she questioned what mechanisms exist to ensure County staff managing a PONC property are supported when decisions involve other funding sources outside the commission's jurisdiction. She stated that Puapua'a Iki is in her district and that she will not always be in her role, and she asked whether a commissioner representing the district can still take any action to support proper process and decision making for work on the property when it is funded through other sources. DCC Campbell reiterated that oversight of County property is not a commission responsibility regardless of the funding source used to acquire or improve the property. Ms. Campbell stated the commissioners can still care and be involved, but that involvement should occur by communicating with the departments leading the work and offering assistance based on individual expertise. She stated that in Cmr. Crivello's case, her participation would be appropriate as an individual with relevant knowledge and professional background related to the property and proposed activities, rather than through formal commission authority. Cmr. Crivello stated the response was helpful and thanked Ms. Campbell. Cmr. Ward stated she had questions for Deputy Corporation Counsel Campbell and cited Section 2-217 regarding duties and responsibilities of the commission. Cmr. Ward said the code provisions include reviewing grant applications and also allow the commission to conduct interviews, perform site visits, and take other actions necessary to formulate recommendations, and to perform site visits and other activities necessary to verify grant objectives are being met,with findings forwarded to the Director of Finance. Cmr. Ward stated this mechanism has not been clarified during her five years on the commission. She stated she has performed site visits and offered to provide a review or analysis of her observations but has been told there was not time on the agenda, and she asked how the commission is supposed to develop and forward findings to the Director of Finance if those findings are not discussed. Cmr. Ward stated her understanding is that the wording indicates commissioners have oversight regarding stewardship grant funds and how a nonprofit maintains the property tied to those grant objectives. Campbell responded that Cmr. Ward's description of the stewardship grant oversight provisions is correct, but stated the matter currently before the commission is not a stewardship grant. Campbell stated the agenda item is a report from OSCER regarding activity funded by a NOAA grant, and NOAA grant oversight is not within the commission's authority. Campbell asked the commission to stay within the agenda item and noted the need to avoid straying beyond the noticed agenda. Campbell stated she would be willing to discuss the broader stewardship oversight question outside the meeting, as has been offered previously. Cmr. Crivello asked a clarifying question and stated the agenda item is informational and not an action item, and asked whether questions are still allowed. Campbell confirmed that questions are allowed. Cmr. Markoff asked for clarification that Puapua'a Iki is a PONC parcel and stated his view that because it is a PONC parcel it falls under the commission's purview even if the funding source Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 6 is outside the commission. Cmr. Crivello responded that the commission's roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and are tied to the stewardship fund, and that County actions related to PONC properties may occur outside the commission's role. Cmr. Crivello stated commissioners can still be involved by reaching out and sharing input, but that is separate from the commission's formal authority. Cmr. Markoff acknowledged the clarification. Chr. Chang asked OSCER Program Manager Ms. Obermaier to clarify the term of the NOAA grant. Ms. Obermaier stated the grant term is four years, and explained the final year may only be used for post project monitoring. Chr. Chang then asked about archaeological studies for the property, including whether an update is anticipated and the date of the most recent archaeological survey. Ms. Obermaier stated that when the grant was written, an update to the long-term preservation plan was underway, but she understood the update is not yet complete and she was unsure of the status of that contract. Ms. Obermaier stated she would defer the question to PONC staff. Mr. Schapiro stated he would look into it and report back. Chr. Chang stated the status of archaeological knowledge is within the commission's purview and is important for ensuring any work on the property conforms with applicable requirements. Chr. Chang then recognized Cmr. Crivello. Cmr. Crivello stated she had two requests for County property management. First, she stated it would be helpful to provide commissioners with more background and an outline of the proposed work on the property when the item is agendized, to reduce confusion. She stated it would be helpful to receive an update on the long-term preservation plan, any burial treatment plans, and any additional archaeological inventory work, including any work in process with the State Historic Preservation Division. Cmr. Crivello stated commissioners would also benefit from a clear identification of the specific area of the property that would be affected by the proposed work, including an area of potential effect, noting her understanding that the work may be along the coastline. She stated commissioners would be better able to evaluate concerns if they can see whether the work area is within or outside known preservation areas. Cmr. Crivello requested information on general objectives, goals, and deliverables to allow for informed discussion, and noted that written communication may be a way to provide the information. Mr. Schapiro stated the commission could refer to the County press release for information and suggested that moving forward, a public fact sheet for OSCER could be useful to answer questions and be posted on the website. Chr. Chang stated a map would be helpful as a visual depiction of where work is planned. Chr. Chang stated she heard a desire for the commission to be kept informed and expressed appreciation that the property is receiving needed attention. Chr. Chang stated the commission cares about the property and requested the commission be kept informed. 2. Update from Finance regarding fund balances and acquisitions. Deputy Director Kekai introduced the new Property Manager, Shannon Arquitola, and provided a brief summary of Ms. Arquitola's work experience and knowledge. Deputy Director Kekai reported that the Program Support Technician position has been Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 7 offered and accepted and will be filled in February. Deputy Director Kekai stated that the PONC dedicated positions in Property Management will be filled as of February 1, and expressed that this was positive news for the program. Deputy Director Kekai stated the fund balance information was transmitted to the commission that morning and reported approximately$26 million in the preservation or acquisition fund. Deputy Director Kekai noted that with three planned property closings anticipated within the next one to two months, the fund balance would likely be closer to approximately$14 million by the next meeting. Deputy Director Kekai reported the next three acquisitions total approximately$12 million and identified the anticipated purchase amounts as follows: Kawainui Makai at$6.2 million, Honolulu Landing at$3.7 million, and Keakealani Wahine at $2,090,000. Deputy Director Kekai stated that Kawainui Makai and Keakealani Wahine are expected to close in January and Honolulu Landing is expected to close in February, and stated the process has been going smoothly. Cmr. Markoff asked for confirmation of the Honolulu Landing purchase amount, and Deputy Director Kekai confirmed it is$3.7 million. Cmr. Ward stated Honolulu Landing had been a goal during her time on the commission and expressed congratulations and appreciation. Cmr. Ward asked for the name of the third property, and Deputy Director Kekai clarified it is Keakealaniwahine, located on AIN Drive, and noted it was an older item, possibly from a 2020 list. Cmr. Crivello asked whether the Keakealaniwahine amount was$2.9 million, and Deputy Director Kekai clarified it is $2,090,000. Cmr. Ward asked for confirmation of the Kawainui amount, and Deputy Director Kekai confirmed it is$6.2 million and noted credit is due to community members who advocated for the acquisitions. 3. Status update on past stewardship grants Deputy Director Kekai provided an update on stewardship grants and noted the commission received a table. She reported staff are wrapping up the 2024 grants and said the goal going forward is to review one grant year at a time so final reports can be completed and provided more efficiently. She said the new grant system is expected to improve timeliness and access to reports and make it easier to provide grant data to the commission. She said staff are currently reviewing most reports and processing and paying those not already completed. For the 2025 grants, she reported all recipients have received first payments except Kupa 'Aina and said staff will work to complete Kupa 'Aina's first payment shortly. She added that with the commission's approvals at the meeting, staff will work to get the next round of applications out on time and noted this is the Department's number one goal. Cmr. Markoff asked about the Malama O Puna Wai'ele parcel in his district and raised concerns he had heard regarding contract issues. He said the initial fencing application included survey work and keeping archaeological studies in house, that the County decided it would complete that work, that it was not completed, and that he heard the contract might be voided. Deputy Director Kekai said that is not what is happening and said the County is in discussions with Malama O Puna. She explained the contracted archaeological reconnaissance Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 8 has taken longer than expected and the report was expected about a year ago but has not been received. She said the County needs the report before moving forward to avoid placing fencing in the wrong location. She said staff are actively working on the survey effort and described the property as difficult, requiring a surveyor familiar with that type of area. She invited commissioners to share surveyor suggestions by emailing Ben, noting any selection would still need a competitive process. Cmr. Markoff asked about the status of Malama O Puna's contract. She said the contract remains open and staff are waiting for the AIS related information to confirm whether fencing can proceed as planned. When asked whether the contract was extended, she said discussions are occurring but she did not want to provide definitive details without full information. Mr. Schapiro said staff are working with Malama O Puna and that he will communicate with the organization during the week regarding next steps so the work can proceed collaboratively. Chr. Chang asked if there were any other questions. Deputy Director Kekai commented she hoped to see commissioners less often as the team is now staffed and thanked the commission for its work. Chr. Chang and Cmr. Ward thanked Deputy Director Kekai for her help during the transition period. Cmr. Markoff said he was confused because the status update document lists a final report and receipts due for the Malama O Puna preservation planning for Wai'ele, and he thought that portion of the contract was the part needing an extension. Deputy Director Kekai responded that as of the time the report was printed, an extension had not been formalized, and once it is formalized, the report will be updated. Cmr. Ward noted it was difficult to ask questions that are not on the agenda, but said she was trying to understand which parcels are subject to both Parks and Recreation and PONC and how stewardship is handled for those properties, as that differs from other stewardship grants. Deputy Director Kekai said that topic is outside the current agenda item but offered that,from memory,the parcels include Kawa, Kipapa, and Waipi'o, and said staff are still working through everyone's role and the impacts on those parcels. Cmr. Ward said she wants clarity on the respective roles of Parks, PONC, and the stewards when Parks is involved. Deputy Director Kekai agreed and said it is an issue staff recently identified and are still working through. She noted that there may be union-related considerations regarding whether maintenance work should be performed by County civil service workers when a property is treated as a park, and referenced existing "Friends of the Park" style agreements as a possible model. MEETING RECESSED: 11:27 a.m. MEETING RECONVENED: 11:41 a.m. Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 9 V. DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL REPORT: 1. Deputy Corporation Counsel to provide guidance on legal requirements of the rule-making process. Chr. Chang resumed the meeting with the Deputy Corporation Counsel report and invited Deputy Corporation Counsel Campbell to provide information on the rulemaking process. No public testimony was offered. Deputy Corporation Counsel Campbell explained that rulemaking is a formal legal process used when the commission adopts or amends its rules of practice and procedure. She noted the rules were last changed during the 2022 to 2023 process, prompted by charter changes that shifted stewardship grant oversight from Parks and Recreation to the Department of Finance, which required updates to references in the rules. She described the prior effort as a nearly year long process that began with repeated agenda discussions to review the rules section by section and develop a draft, followed by the formal rulemaking steps required by law. Ms. Campbell said the formal rulemaking requirements are set out in Chapter 91, including publication and notice requirements, and the key purpose is to provide the public an opportunity to comment on proposed rule changes. She explained that in practice the commission often uses meeting discussions to develop the draft language before starting the formal publication and notice process. Ms. Campbell noted the commission is considering a potential change related to scoring threshold, which appears later on the agenda, and said if the commission chooses to reopen the rules it has two options.The commission may limit the work to revising one or two specific sections, or it may reopen the entire rules document to consider broader changes. She emphasized that discussion does not require that changes be made. Ms. Campbell described tradeoffs. Reopening all rules could lead to a long process similar to the prior year long effort, although it may be shorter because the rules were reviewed recently. Focusing on a limited change would be more efficient, with discussion and drafting occurring during a meeting, followed by staff handling the notice and publication requirements, and then holding a formal rulemaking meeting after the required 30-day notice period. She said that approach could be as short as two meetings, depending on meeting cadence. Ms. Campbell then asked whether commissioners had any questions. Cmr. Markoff raised a question about a proposed summit or broader discussion on procedures and processes being organized by Ashley Kierkiewicz and asked whether there is a clear distinction between County Code provisions governing PONC and the rules Ms. Campbell was describing, and where that distinction is delineated. Deputy Corporation Counsel Campbell explained the hierarchy of authority for PONC, beginning with the County Charter as the highest governing document, followed by the County Code, and then the commission's rules of practice and procedure. She explained that each lower level must be consistent with and cannot conflict with the level above. She added that the County Council has authority to amend the County Code and described the Council's current effort, through an ad hoc committee, focusing on potential changes to the acquisition process. Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 10 Cmr. Ward asked whether current commissioners would be precluded from speaking at a proposed summit due to Sunshine Law concerns. Ms. Campbell responded that she was aware of the Council ad hoc committee and described that group as soliciting input from stakeholders, including County staff and potentially commissioners, nonprofits, and community members involved in acquisitions. She explained that Council members can address the full commission during a noticed meeting without a Sunshine issue, and said she would expect any meetings with commissioners outside a noticed meeting to respect Sunshine requirements. Chr. Chang commented that the Council's focus appears to be acquisitions rather than stewardship and noted that the Council's ad hoc committee functions similarly to a permitted interaction group. Cmr. Markoff clarified that he understood the summit he referenced to be broader and potentially inclusive of stewardship nonprofits past and present, and asked whether commissioners would be precluded from attending if it is convened. Ms. Campbell interjected and directed the discussion back to the posted agenda item, emphasizing the importance of staying within the noticed agenda to avoid Sunshine Law concerns and complaints to the Office of Information Practices. Chr. Chang apologized and thanked Ms. Campbell for the reminder. Ms. Campbell said procedural questions about agendas may be addressed outside the meeting. Cmr. Crivello noted the rulemaking guidance related to the next agenda item on the minimum scoring threshold and asked about the appropriate process to address a possible rule change. Ms. Campbell explained that creating a permitted interaction group is not required to begin rulemaking discussions. She described the approach used in the prior rulemaking effort as an ongoing series of agenda discussions focused on the specific rule change under consideration, during which the commission develops and refines draft language over one or more meetings. Once the commission has a draft it is ready to move forward with, staff initiates the formal rulemaking process. Cmr. Crivello discussed the option of focusing only on the specific scoring threshold section rather than reopening all rules, with the possibility of considering broader rule changes at a later time. Ms. Campbell agreed that if the commission reaches consensus on the change and intends to revise only a limited section,the commission can proceed on that narrow change and begin the formal rulemaking process without reopening the full rules document. Chr. Chang noted the discussion was moving into the next agenda item and thanked Ms. Campbell,then moved the meeting to the next item. VI. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Discuss the minimum scoring threshold for property recommendations made to the Mayor, and if necessary,create a Permitted Interaction Group to determine if a Rule change is warranted. Chr. Chang introduced the agenda item to discuss the minimum scoring threshold for property recommendations and, if necessary,to create a permitted interaction group to determine whether a rule change is warranted. Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 11 Before beginning discussion, Chr. Chang asked whether any members of the public wished to provide testimony on the item. A member of the public then came forward to provide testimony. DEBBIE HECHT, provided comments With no further testifiers, Chr. Chang closed public testimony and proceeded with commission discussion on the item. Chr. Chang stated the current rules require a minimum score of 50 percent for a property to be recommended for acquisition and noted the threshold has varied in past years. Chr. Chang asked Deputy Corporation Counsel Campbell to summarize prior thresholds. Ms. Campbell said she reviewed annual reports for each year of the program while gathering information for the County Council's ad hoc committee. She commented that the commission's annual reports contain extensive useful information. Ms. Campbell reported that the 50 percent threshold first appears in the annual report in 2015 and has remained at 50 percent for roughly the past ten years. She said there was an earlier period when the threshold was not recorded in the annual reports, so she could not confirm what it was during that time. She reported the original threshold was 80 percent,then changed to 70 percent the following year, and then became unclear due to the lack of documentation. She said she did not research why the threshold changed but noted it may be possible to determine from older minutes or additional review of annual reports. Cmr. Crivello asked whether a motion was needed to continue discussion. Ms. Campbell advised that the commission was still in the fact-finding portion and that once commissioners move into discussion, a motion would be needed. Chr. Chang asked whether the original 80 percent threshold was set in the Charter or County Code. Ms. Campbell said it does not appear in either document. She said she did not have information on how the 80 percent figure was selected because that was outside the scope of her review, and said the reason may be in older annual reports or meeting minutes. She noted she could research further but it would take time, and she added that the annual reports are available on the commission's website for anyone who wishes to review them. MOTION: Cmr. Rosam moved to change the rules regarding the scoring criteria percentage threshold. Seconded by Cmr. Crivello. Chr. Chang opened discussion on the minimum scoring threshold for recommending properties for acquisition and noted the current rules set the threshold at 50 percent. Cmr. Crivello said she initially supported revisiting the threshold but said her concern arose after a council member advanced a blanket resolution that pushed through lower scored properties. She questioned whether the threshold itself would have prevented that issue and suggested the larger problem may be higher level decision making and a lack of individual property review during the council resolution process. She asked whether there is any way to discourage blanket resolutions and whether the commission has tools beyond adjusting the Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 12 threshold, noting the commission's role is to score and provide reports, while the council decides what to act on. She noted the commission's reports already distinguish low scoring nominations from high scoring properties and questioned whether the prioritization created by scoring is being used effectively. Cmr. Rosam said she believes 50 percent is too low for a recommended list, especially with increased nominations and a long backlog. She advocated raising the threshold and suggested 70 percent as a reasonable standard that would still allow significant properties that do not score highly on every criterion to be recommended, while preventing marginal nominations from being forwarded. Cmr. Ward said a 50 percent score equates to a failing grade and said commissioners should be more rigorous in scoring. She said the council ultimately chose to act on those properties and suggested the issue may be commissioner scoring practices rather than the rule itself, and she expressed that she did not believe changing the rule is necessary. Ms. Campbell noted that the effect of the threshold is that any property meeting or exceeding the threshold is sent forward with the commission's endorsement as worthy of acquisition. She said the commission cannot control council decisions, but it can control what it forwards, and urged commissioners to consider the effect of recommending properties they view as failing. V. Chr. Britt asked whether the commission must send all properties scoring 50 percent or more forward. Ms. Campbell said that is what the current rules require, and that changing the number is the mechanism to exclude lower scored properties. Chr. Chang raised whether the commission should form a PInG or continue discussion as a full commission in noticed meetings. Ms. Campbell said a PInG is not required and explained that the commission can continue discussing the issue over multiple meetings to refine a proposal, then initiate the formal rulemaking process once a draft change is ready. She said if the commission identifies a number during this discussion, staff can publish notice and bring the formal rulemaking action to a subsequent meeting, and that a simple change, such as changing 50 to 70, could proceed through notice and adoption on a relatively short timeline. Cmr. Markoff asked about Zoom capability and technical support in relation to rules. Chr. Chang said it was not on the agenda and the commission could not discuss it at that time. Cmr. Rosam proposed discussing a target number during the meeting and reiterated her support for 70 percent. Cmr. Crivello asked whether changing the threshold would remove existing properties below the new number from the current list. Ms. Campbell said the rules do not provide a mechanism for removing properties from the list and said the effect would apply going forward. Chr. Chang asked whether a PInG formed now could later add new commissioners. Ms. Campbell said no, membership is set when the PInG is formed. V. Chr. Britt asked whether a PInG must have three people. Ms. Campbell said a PInG may have up to four members. Cmr. Ward asked whether members of the public may serve on a PInG. Ms. Campbell confirmed they may. Cmr. Rosam noted upcoming commissioner turnover and emphasized moving quickly so any change is in place before the next scoring cycle. V. Chr. Britt expressed support for moving forward with 70 percent. Cmr. Crivello supported agreeing on a number and proceeding efficiently through the public notice process. Chr. Chang noted the motion on the floor and Cmr. Rosam amended her motion to specify Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 13 changing the scoring threshold from 50 percent to 70 percent. Chr. Chang stated the amended motion was moved and seconded and asked for further discussion. Cmr. Ward reiterated her view that grading practices were the issue and said she did not believe a rule change was necessary. AMENDED MOTION: Cmr. Rosam moved to amend the motion on the floor to change the rules regarding the scoring criteria percentage from 50%to 70%threshold. Seconded by Cmr. Crivello. VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners Markoff, Rosam, Crivello, V. Chr. Britt, Chr. Chang—5. Noes:Commissioner Ward - 1 VII. MINUTES: 1. Approval of the draft minutes from the November 10, 2025, regular meeting. Chr. Chang moved the meeting to approval of the minutes and asked for a motion to approve the November 10, 2025 minutes. Secretary Braman advised that the minutes included in the board packet did not reflect certain edits previously requested by commissioners and said she still needed to incorporate those changes. She noted that if commissioners wanted the requested edits reflected,they may not want to vote on approval at that time. MOTION: Cmr. Rosam moved to defer approval of the November 10, 2025 meeting minutes to the March 9,. 2026 regular meeting. VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners Markoff, Ward, Rosam, Crivello, V. Chr. Britt, Chr. Chang—6. Noes:None Vill. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 1. The next public meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 9,2026 at the West Hawaii Civic Center,74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy, Kailua-Kona HI 96740. 2. Suggest agenda items for the March 9, 2026 regular meeting. Suggested items for the next PONC meeting agenda: 1. Rule change item, dependent on completing notice and publication requirements. 2. 2026 property suggestions,first round, suggestions due January 31. 3. Approval of minutes, with revisions incorporated. 4. Adoption of the amended scoring criteria worksheet. Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 14 Requested for a future agenda, possibly next meeting if time allows: 1. Roles and responsibilities for parcels under both Parks and Recreation and PONC, and how stewardship grants work for those parcels. 2. Zoom capability for public participation and possibly commissioner participation, including staff analysis of feasibility and support needs. 3. Site visit reporting process, how commissioners document stewardship site visit findings and how findings are brought to the commission and forwarded to the Director of Finance. 4. Map and status update, map of current PONC properties and status of pending or proposed acquisitions. 5. Communications and recognition, press releases or other outreach to recognize acquisitions and celebrate community and staff contributions. IX. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: V. Chr. Britt moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Cmr. Rosam. VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners Markoff, Ward, Rosam, Crivello, V. Chr. Britt, Chr. Chang—6. Noes: None. Meeting adjourned at 12:53 p.m. PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER DEBORAH CHANG, Chairperson Draft posted: February 20, 2026 Approved: March 9, 2026 Approved posted: April 9, 2026 Minutes of January 12, 2026 Page 15