Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-11 - Minutes DRAFT PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 2026 Public Meeting Hilo County Building Council Chambers 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 1401 Hilo, Hawaiʻi 96720 I. CALL TO ORDER: On May 11, 2026, the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission (PONC) meeting was called to order at 10:00 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 Lokelani Brandt, Commissioner CD-3 Amedeo Markoff, Commissioner CD-4 (arrived at 10:06 a.m.) Jodie Rosam, Commissioner CD-6 Janet Britt, Vice Chair (V. Chr.) CD-7 Jennifer Lawson, Commissioner CD-9 Absent: N/A Vacant: District 2 District 5 District 8 Support Staff: Jean Campbell, Deputy Corporation Counsel Representative (DCC) Shannon Arquitola, Property Manager, Department of Finance Benjamin Schapiro, Program Manager, Department of Finance Eva Braman, Commission Secretary Athena Kahaiali‘i, Program Support Technician 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. Weston Willard – Director of Laupahoehoe Community Public Charter School, testified in support of Kaʻawaliʻi Gulch (Sugg. 26-02). DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 1 III. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REPORT: 1. Department of Finance to Share with the commission information and updates. No testifiers. a. Report of balances in the preservation and maintenance funds Mr. Schapiro reviewed the fund balances reflected in the board packet. He stated that at the end of April, the preservation fund has a balance of $26.9 million and that the maintenance fund has a balance of $3.2 million. b. Timing and process for submitting the 2026 Priority List and Annual Report to the Mayor Mr. Schapiro stated that the Department has been discussing internally how to expedite the process of submitting the Annual Report. Traditionally the report is due to the Mayor at the end of December, however, once the scores are received in July, and the Commission deems the information in their reports appropriate, the Department will discuss what our new timeline will be and how to move that forward. c. Availability of the Status of Properties on Prioritized List on the County Website Mr. Schapiro shared that information on the PONC program can be found on our website, and the list of prioritized properties is continually updated. He further states that a new version had just been uploaded to the website that morning and continued to explain how the list is broken down, summarizing that there are 26 properties protected by PONC, 36 that have resolutions, 27 without resolutions, and nine that were nominated but are protected through other means. He then announced that Honolulu Landing had recently been acquired as of last Friday and congratulated those who were involved in its protection. d. Status of Zoom or other remote meeting capabilities for future PONC meetings Regarding the status of remote meeting capabilities, Mr. Schapiro says that the Department put together a list of equipment needs and a budget and presented that information to Micah Alameda, the Executive Assistant in the Mayor’s office. He stated that Micah was very interested in leading the video conferencing initiatives for the entire County and will plan to acquire the necessary equipment as part of his budget for the following fiscal year. e. Management planning responsibilities for PONC-preserved properties Mr. Schapiro related that management planning responsibilities will now lie with the Department of Finance. He then shared that not all 26 properties currently have management plans, and we are not able to do all the management plans quickly or simultaneously, so to please bear with us as we work through the details. DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 2 f. Procurement for professional services to assess PONC-preserved properties and identify maintenance needs, safety concerns, access issues, and other property- specific recommendations Mr. Schapiro shared that the Department is developing a scope of work to source professional services to assess each PONC property to understand the condition of the properties, what the basic needs are that need to be met immediately, mid-term, and long-term. g. Status of grant application website Ms. Laura Dierenfield, CIP Program Manager, shared that the County has embarked on creating an online Grant Management System using the OpenGov platform. The initial phase of work covers a variety of grants including the PONC stewardship grant. This platform shall improve the applicant/awardee experience, making it intuitive and instructive, also ensuring compliance with County policy which can sometimes be unclear or difficult for those not familiar with those policies. Another benefit is an organization-first approach, organizations can maintain a profile with their required documentation located in a repository, with the ability to use that repository when applying for more than one grant with the County. The application process will be divided up into manageable logical chunks that can be filled out over time with work progression saved and the ability to sign electronically. Ms. Dierenfield further relates that the Grant Management System will improve the County’s ability to analyze and track grants over time, offering a full lifecycle of engagement with the County, and a single portal to handle all stages of the process including commissioner’s reviews and annotations, progress reports, and payment requests. The goal is to launch the system in time for the next round of stewardship applications as well as incorporating the current awardees into the system to begin their progress reports and payment requests. Ms. Dierenfield then welcomed any questions or feedback. Cmr. Rosam asked if it was possible to have back-end access to experience the system and then provide feedback. Ms. Dierenfield stated that it may be possible as they are working on various roles and responsibilities and there may be a way to provide reviewer access. Cmr. Rosam then asked about how payment requests are handled, whether it is a mailed check or direct deposit to the organization’s account? Ms. Dierenfield responded that there would not be much difference in the way payments are issued, however, the system would record when the request was made and what it was for. Payments will still be processed through the County’s CoHnect DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 3 system. Cmr. Markoff asked about the temporal component of the grants – when they are announced, when they are due, what is available, and who is getting them? He further relates that having a page that is dedicated to the temporal component of this huge and is excited that the County is doing this as it is very much needed. Ms. Dierenfield related that the system will have what is called tiles that would represent open grants with focus on grants that the County administers itself and future phases may incorporate federal grants. Chr. Chang asked if there will be training available for our applicants as this is a very big change? Ms. Dierenfield shared that training will be in a variety of forms including online based webinar recordings, written instructions, tabbed progression instruction while in the system with examples, office hours to provide in-person support, FAQs, and another online delivery method called Scribe which is a little more interactive online tour of the system. The goal would be to make it very user friendly. Chr. Chang then followed up by asking what happens to people who are not adept with computers or may have poor connectivity where they are located? Ms. Dierenfield stated that there are fiscal support networks that sponsor or support groups that perhaps may also be able to offer help digitally as well. She further states that we would not want to create barriers and we are doing our best to make sure that there are resources for someone to interact online with the system. V. Chr. Britt asked if this is going to take place of everything we have done previously? Ms. Dierenfield responded that certain elements will remain the same, such as communications with the Director of Finance would not be in the online system, but the process to review grants will be in the online forum, so in that respect it will be a blended experience. V. Chr. Britt continued to echo that there are those that are just not computer literate, and there’s no way they would be able to apply via a computer. She asks if we could get people to help them apply for the grant so they do not fall through the cracks? Ms. Dierenfield agreed and related that how we can foster digital sponsorship is something we have to think through a bit more. Cmr. Markoff stated that there is a connectivity issue in his district so he suggests to have a paper version of the application available for equity and socioeconomic status. Ms. Dierenfield appreciated the feedback and will certainly take it into consideration. Chr. Chang then opened the floor for questions for Mr. Ben Schapiro. DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 4 Cmr. Markoff asked what is the anticipated cost of the Zoom system, annual acquisition, and anticipated technical support? Mr. Schapiro advised that it was a one-time cost of a few thousand dollars for the equipment and a recurring cost of subscription services of a few hundred dollars. As far as technical support, the details of who will manage the equipment is something we are still working through. Chr. Chang asked for a brief explanation of the funds that were returned from Hawaiʻi Environmental Restoration, and Ala Kahakai Trail Association. Mr. Schapiro explained that upon review of the final reports submitted by these stewards, Ala Kahakai Trail Association did not expend all funds issued and were asked to return unused funds. Hawaii Environmental Restoration was asked to return funds that were used for refreshments which is an ineligible expenditure. IV. NEW BUSINESS: (Motion(s) required) 1. Presentation by Permitted Interaction Groups of site visit reports. Chr. Chang reminded the commissioners that they are not to discuss the site visit reports, and it is not needed to restate what is already written because the reports have been read, however, if you would like to highlight or emphasize something then that would be okay. She further states that questions will be compiled and sent to suggesters so that important questions may be answered. a. Sugg. 26-01, Kaumana Caves State Park Extension, South Hilo, Hawaiʻi TMK (3) 2-2-006:003 Deborah Ward, shared her thoughts, should the County acquire this property. Cmr. Brandt gave a brief recap of those present and reported that they did not get a chance to walk the actual property proposed in the nomination but were able to access the border of it and get a good sense of the property. Cmr. Brandt mentions that there is really no consideration for protecting other segments of the cave beyond the Park area and acquiring the property would allow the County to better manage it as there are people who are accessing that property. Cmr. Brandt goes on to say that there is Rapid Ohiʻa death occurring on the property and management of that is relevant to a healthy cave ecosystem. V. Chr. Britt added that there is hope of finding a steward for this property and that perhaps the Lions Club would step forward to help. Chr. Chang stated it would be good to know what County Parks and Recreation thinks of this nomination as we may need to rely on their assistance. DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 5 b. Sugg. 26-02, Kaʻawaliʻi Gulch Beach & Estuary, North Hilo, Hawaiʻi TMK (3) 3-6-005:0014-0002, 015, 3-9-001:017 Phaethon Keeney – Nominator, testified in support of Kaʻawaliʻi Gulch Anna Marie Mackey – Development Director with Laupahoephoe Community Public Charter School, testified in support of Kaʻawaliʻi Gulch Cmr. Lawson reported there was a good showing of community support when they arrived and it’s not surprising that there would be an offer on this property already as it is stunning. Cmr. Lawson continues to say that there are three separate parcels, the main Gulch and house are the bulk of the property where the community is most interested in working on. Cmr. Lawson further states that there are layers of history that has left its mark on the property and, as mentioned in the report, there is a lot to clean up, but the property has a lot of potential for restoration and agriculture. Cmr Lawson also informed the commission that the adjacent side of the Gulch is owned by the state so there would be an opportunity to connect both sides and preserve the entire Gulch in perpetuity. V. Chr. Britt asked if this is a fee simple purchase. Chr. Chang replied in the affirmative and also wanted to note that the site visit report incorrectly states that there is public ocean access through the aqueduct. Chr. Chang further stated that per the Real Property Tax site, it looks as though there is an unpermitted structure. Cmr. Lawson responded that there is a permit for a structure but not for the structure that is there which is potentially problematic. Chr. Chang also wanted to ask the suggesters if there were any maps available from 1892 or prior that show the presence of an Ala Loa trail as the information they’ve received is saying there is an Ala Loa there. Lastly, Chr. Chang mentioned that in our last meeting, one of the suggesters wanted to find out what had happened to the past nomination for Kaʻawaliʻi. Chr. Chang sugguests it would be helpful to find out what happened in that past attempt. c. Sugg. 26-03, Haina Makai, Hāmākua, Hawaiʻi TMK (3) 4-5-002:081 Randy Rickard – Decendant of previous Landowner, William H. Rickard, testified in support of Haina Makai Tawn Keeney – Nomitor, testified in support of Haina Makai Phaethon Keeney – Testified in support of Haina Makai Chr. Chang gave a brief recap of those present and wanted to emphasize that this property is a rare opportunity to secure Mauka-Makai public access and further explains DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 6 that although the community is able to access this shoreline right now, it is through a combination of public and private roads and any of those private sections of road could be closed. Chr. Chang further relates that this property is close enough for schools to bring youth to the property to participate in educational programs. Chr. Chang also mentions that the property has potential for sewage connection, water availability, and electricity connection. d. Sugg. 26-04 Hīlea, Kaū, Hawaiʻʻi TMK (3) 9-5-018:001 No testifiers Cmr. Rosam gave a brief recap of those present at the site visit and begins by describing the location of the property and the native forests within that are habitat for rare plant species and the endangered honeycreeper. Cmr. Rosam goes on to say that there are also three cattle leases on the property which benefit conservation by keeping weeds and fire risk down, keeping roads maintained, and providing open space. Cmr. Rosam mentions that it is a rare chance to purchase this property as it can easily be developed. She further relates that this is an opportunity to have complete mauka- makai protections as this property borders other protected properties. Cmr. Rosom continues with relating the importance of Kohaikalani heiau that is currently being stewarded by Earl Lewis. A fence was recently erected to keep cattle from accessing the heiau but it has already been damaged by cows and a lot of the rocks have been removed and repurposed for other things. In closing, Cmr. Rosam states that TNC did secure a letter of interest from the landowner and are in negotiations for a fee simple acquisition along with two million dollars in legacy land funding. Cmr. Markoff added that this might be one of the most significant properties in the state of Hawaii that is available for purchase right now. V. Chr. Britt adds that she has a request for suggestions - that they include whether the suggestion is an easement or fee simple purchase. Chr. Chang stated it was not clear if the County would be making a fee simple purchase of the property or purchasing a conservasion easement and what would the County’s role be in the management planning. Cmr. Rosam asked that Chr. Chang add that to her questions for the suggestors. e. Sugg. 26-05 Kaʻalāiki Kula, Kaū, Hawaiʻʻi TMK (3) 9-5-016:008, 010, 011, 024, 026, 031, 033, 034, 035 No testifiers DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 7 Cmr. Rosam gave a brief recap of those present at the site visit and begins by describing the location of the property. Cmr. Rosam states that the driving force behind EKF’s (Edith KanakaĪmakakāloa heiau, ʻole Founda?on) nomina?on is the preserva?on of ʻone of two known hula heiau in the state. The heiau is fenced within 2.5 acres, with plans to expand to 40 acres. The area is currently maintained and cared for by EKF, including native plant restoration with focus on hula protocols. The way this heiau is situated, it has a clear line of sight to several other heiau in the area. Cmr. Rosam goes on to say that this property has two cattle leases which helps with mitigating fire risk and access to the property. There is also an old railroad grade that goes across the property that could potentially be a walking trail. Cmr. Rosam mentions that although there are invasive weeds, there are still several native plant species scattered throughout, and keeping the cattle leases while restoring the native forest and contributing the the watershed is what is envisioned. EKF also intends to hire Kaū ʻ based employees to help manage the site. Cmr. Rosam emphasizes that this purchase would be a once in a lifetime opportunity to preserve this property as well as the Hīlea nomination. Chr. Chang clarified that the fee holder would be EKF and the easement holder would be the County. f. Sugg. 26-06, Shoreline Hakalau Iki, South Hilo, Hawaiʻi TMK (3) 2-9-002:001 Kanani Aton – Vice President on the Board of Kāmaulihou, nominators, testified in support of Hakalau Iki Kealohanui Browning – Realtor representing Kāmaulihou, testified in support of Hakalau Iki Beth Robinson – Director of Conservation and Legacy Lands at Hawaii Life, testified in support of Hakalau Iki Cmr. Rosam gave a brief recap of those present at the site visit and begins by describing the property as shovel ready for the collective vision of learning and caring for the ʻāina. The area had been dozed for sugar cane and there are very small albizia trees that can easily be removed providing open space. Further down the pali, along the shoreline, there are fingerlets of water with little sections of native plants. Cmr. Rosam also mentions the shoreline fishing access in this area is restricted, and keeping spaces like this open is really important. Cmr. Rosam closes by relating the potential to bring in and plant disease resistant ʻohia varieties that do not succumb to rapid ʻohia death, making this space a seed source for that variety. DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 8 g. Sugg. 26-07, Lyman Point Property, North Kona, Hawaiʻi TMK (3) 7-7-004:025 No Testifiers V. Chr. Britt advised that upon making an appointment to visit the site, she was told the property has been sold and is currently being developed. Mr. Schapiro confirmed that the nomination for this property had been rescinded. h. Sugg. 26-08, Hōkūliʻa, South Kona, Hawaiʻi TMK (3) 8-1-027:021 No Testifiers Cmr. Lawson gave a brief recap of those present at the site visit. She began by saying the statement from the community that was there was beautiful, and gave a history, vision, and importance for the future of this cave. Cmr. Lawson goes on to state that she was a little worried if the County would be the right owner for this property but the connectivity and strength of collaboration from the community to caretake this place is really apparent. Cmr. Lawson mentions that it was a strange thing to witness an excavator on top of this cave and knowing a large luxury house was to be built there. She stated that it was really remarkable that the developer stopped the excavation work because he recognized that the cave was important and can be learned from. Cmr. Lawson further relates that there is an established association that caretakes for many of the cultural and archaeological sites within the same gated community. Cmr. Rosam added that she inadvertently omitted from the report that Chris Belzodi with TNC was also in attendance. Cmr. Rosam also echos what Cmr. Lawson has previously said, adds that the sediment in this cave rewrites history as it predates human contact, and how it is another opportunity to have the community and schools learn from it. Chr. Chang wondered if there’s any letter from the Hōkūliʻa Parks Association that indicates and acknowledges their kuleana and if anyone was representing them at the site visit. Cmr. Rosam answered no. Chr. Chang goes on to question a claim in the report that states this cave is the most important paleoecological discovery ever found across the state, and calls attention to the Makakauwahi cave located on Kauai that should also be acknowledged. DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 9 MEETING RECESSED: 11:55 a.m. MEETING RECONVENED: 12:20 p.m. 2. Discussion of site visit reporting process to identify best practices and possible areas for improvement for next year. No Testifiers Chr. Chang thanked everyone for their volunteer work on the site reports and states that the site reports are relied upon when reporting to the Mayor and wants to make sure that we are producing a quality product. Chr. Chang then asks what everyone thinks of the optional format that everyone has been following. V. Chr. Britt states that this was her first round of site visits and does not know what has been done previously, but this format seems to work fine. She adds that it would be helpful to indicate what the PONC program’s intended role is, whether fee simple or easement, at the top. She then goes on to say that she really likes some of the maps that show the properties in relation to other lands and hopes that this can be done for each report. Chr. Chang asked if she meant maps in relation to other PONC parcels. V. Chr. Britt clarified that it would be helpful to see where the potential PONC parcel is in relation to other protected lands. Cmr. Rosam suggested to add “description in proximity to other protected lands if applicable” to the template but further added that the creation of that type of map is time consuming and not everyone has that skill so she also suggests a worded description would also suffice. Chr. Chang noticed in the format under “special opportunities” it is mentioned that the writer should reference any special opportunities for acquisition including geographic proximity to other PONC acquired lands. Chr. Chang further suggests that perhaps other protected lands or state owned lands should be referenced. Chr. Chang continues that while writing a site report, she began giving detailed directions on how to get to that site and realized that she should not include that in her report as people may try to access these private properties. She suggests describing the property so that it cannot be pinpointed. Cmr. Rosam suggested that DCC Campbell adds a section about location sensitivity in her Commissioner training and continues to say that information on TMK’s are public knowledge. DCC Campell asked Commissioners to rein in the conversation as the agenda item is to discuss the process for drafting site visit reports, not whether we should have access to properties. Cmr. Rosam understands what Chr. Chang is saying, and commissioners should have a general understanding of sensitivity. Chr. Chang agreed with Cmr. Rosam’s previous point that anyone who is familiar with TMK DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 10 numbers would be able to figure out where properties are for themselves. It’s important to remember that these are private properties and there is a potential to alienate property owners if the public starts trespassing on these properties because of the commission’s site reports. Chr. Chang then states that there is an inconsistency in writing styles. Cmr. Rosam replies that she does not see that as a problem but thinks the content needs to be standardized. She suggests using previous reports as examples and keep the formatting the same. V. Chr. Britt stated that covering all the key points in the format would be sufficient. Cmr. Markoff asked how the temporal component for sites that have been withdrawn addressed in the site report and should properties that are under threat of development be highlighted. Chr. Chang replied that is something that they usually do. Cmr. Rosam added that it is always done. Chr. Chang followed up by mentioning that the property that was withdrawn had been sold immediately so the site visit was not conducted. Cmr. Markoff clarified that he is looking for some sort of codification such as “threat level – orange”. Chr. Chang responded that there are guidelines within the format to make sure to note the urgency. Chr. Chang then shared that pagination is very helpful as it makes it easier to find things. Mr. Schapiro notes that part of the conversation is expediting the overall process, so instead of condensing the site visit reports to be included in the annual report, the idea would be to use the already prepared reports as is, and maybe discuss if the commission is okay with that or if changes needed to be made first such as removing detailed directions to the site. Cmr. Rosam corroborates with Mr. Schapiro’s statement and mentions that a lot of time is put into these site visit reports and re-working the report for the annual report to the Mayor is redundant. The reports should be reviewed for errors and the property score and ranking added in July. Chr. Chang agrees and asks what the commission thinks about the length of the reports being that most of them are seven or eight pages and a lot of pictures which she thinks is wonderful. Cmr. Brandt asked if there are components in the annual report to the Mayor that is not already in the site visit reports. Chr. Chang confirms just the ranking is not already included. Mr. Schapiro gives a brief history of how reports were summarized in years past, condensing seven or eight pages down to two or three. However, as we are trying to do things quicker, if the DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 11 commission is comfortable with us using the reports after the properties are ranked in July, then it would just be a process of compiling them and adding a letter from the Chair. Cmr. Brandt relates that the documents themselves are probably about two or three pages, the photos and maps are what bumps up the page numbers. However, the photos and maps help with context. V. Chr. Britt insisted that maps are a critical part of the report as well as photos. Cmr. Rosam suggests keeping everything in the reports. Mr. Schapiro advised that if the commission wished to, they could look at older annual reports from years past to see how they’ve evolved from just one page with a table of information and little narrative, to nicely bound books. He says that the commission can add whatever information they think is important for the Mayor to have. Chr. Chang reiterates it would be good to revisit the site report write-up and add in a few things for next year. Cmr. Rosam asks if new information comes up regarding the site, requiring a revision of the report, would the commission then have to go through the Sunshine process. DCC Campbell advises that the Sunshine law applies to the work of the permitted interaction group (PInG). The annual report that is sent to the Mayor is separate and apart from the work of the PInG and is a new document. Chr. Chang thanks DCC Campbell Cmr. Rosam adds that DCC Campbell’s explanation helps and that getting the reports in early would free them up to focus on the stewardship grants. Cmr. Brandt asks if it would be wise to include some notes regarding photographing burial sites. She goes on to say that asking the nominating group if it is okay to take photos is the best practice. Chr. Chang does not see the need to form a PInG to work on the improvements that have been mentioned and volunteers to take on that task to provide to the commission for next year. Cmr. Rosam adds a final suggestion to run the report through the nominators thereby giving them a chance to ask that any photos be removed and also making sure all of the information is correct. 3. Review and discussion of the County Council Ad Hoc Committee report regarding the PONC property acquisition process. Possible formation of Permitted Interaction Group(s) for recommendations or action on matters contained in the Ad Hoc Committee report. No Testifiers Chr. Chang suggests the commissioners take a look at the recommended actions to see if there are any that the commission would like to be proactive about. She goes on to say that one of the DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 12 statements in the report says that there is no means to evaluate or remove properties on the acquisition list should the status of properties materially change. This was a problem that was discussed with Councilwoman Galimba as some of the properties are lava inundated and they are still on the list. Chr. Chang’s idea is to form a PInG to discuss updating the list to make it more informative for the public, the Mayor, and the Commission. V. Chr. Britt asks if this is something the commission should be doing already. Cmr. Rosam reminds everyone that Mr. Schapiro already has a similar report Mr. Schapiro explained that the numbers in that report are compiled since the PONC program began and nothing has been removed since nominations were received, including properties that are now inundated with lava or have since been developed. Cmr. Rosam felt the commission does not need to be responsible for updating the list Cmr. Markoff stated that properties like Honolulu Landing were nominated many years ago and had not been revisited until the community reintroduced it. Cmr. Markoff then asks how do we address a property that was previously nominated and wasn’t selected? Chr. Chang shared that in the case of Honolulu Landing, there was a resolution that was passed years ago and once a resolution is passed on a property that’s been prioritized by the commission, it does not come back to the PONC commission. Mr. Schapiro confirms that if there’s intent to pass a new resolution it does not need to go back to the commission, it has already gone to Council. Mr. Schapiro goes on to say that he interprets the commission’s role as creating a prioritized list and making recommendations annually. The Ad Hoc committee’s recommendation is should there be a process to possibly remove properties and if so, how would that process be done. Cmr. Brandt shares that she is not a fan of full removal but more a deaccession and updating the data on these properties. She further states it is still valuable to have information on properties the community has expressed interest in over past years. Chr. Chang suggests relying on the staff to update the list and to create new categories instead of full removal. Mr. Schapiro notes that if it is the will of the commission then we will take that into consideration. Right now, it is a recommendation from the Ad Hoc committee, it is unclear if they are working on legislation to pass. However, if the commission decides this is not something they want to do or even agrees should be done, then it should be documented in the minutes. Chr. Chang expresses that it would be nice to be more proactive and not wait for Council to feel they need to impose legislation for updating the list. Cmr. Markoff understood that in the past a PInG was formed to look at older suggestions. Chr. Chang confirms that request came from Mayor Roth. DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 13 DCC Campbell confirms, the last administration did ask the commission to look at the list. As Mr. Schapiro mentioned, some of the properties are no longer in the same state they were in when they were suggested, such as the property adjacent to Hilo Municipal Golf Course, which was vacant, and is now a subdivision with homes. DCC Campbell goes on to say that Mayor Roth was not specific, he was asking what would you like him to prioritize and, in the larger picture, an evaluation of the whole list. Since the commission evaluates the properties, they may be the best group to start that process. V. Chr. Britt reminded the commission that Lyman was on the list for a long time, even though the commission knew it would not be selected. She wonders if there are other properties that are in the same alignment. Chr. Chang reiterates that the commission has an opportunity to form a PInG to work on these ideas and come up with suggestions to present. Cmr. Markoff asks to clarify if the function of the PInG is to reprioritize the list and to remove properties. Chr. Chang responds that her thought would be that the PInG would talk about a process on how to reorganize the list, not just to remove properties, but create a new category where we can separate out properties that have significantly changed. Cmr. Lawson asks if the only process for removal is for the nominator to rescind the nomination. Mr. Schapiro answers that there is no process for removal. Cmr. Lawson then asks if there is a resolution, then it is on the list forever. Mr. Schapiro confirms. Cmr. Lawson states that seems problematic and suggests there should be some basic criteria for removal and perhaps that’s where the commission should focus their efforts instead of re- evaluating or re-sorting the list. Cmr. Markoff reminded the commission that Mayor Roth wanted to know if there are properties on the list that should be re-evaluated and Cmr. Markoff sees value in doing that as it is almost more important to do that than discuss the idea of removal. Cmr. Markoff then suggests perhaps two PInGs are needed. Mr. Schapiro states that the Lyman property was suggested again this year and rescinded, however, it was nominated previously under a different name and is currently still on the list. Mr. Schapiro continues to say that under the current process, it would not be removed because there is no process to do so. Cmr. Markoff asks if the commission has the ability to change that rule and can the commission implement a policy where properties are removed due to change. DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 14 DCC Campbell responds that no, the commission does not have the authority to remove a property from the list and certainly not once it has a resolution. However, the commission can make a suggestion to Council. DCC Campbell agrees that the commission is describing two processes, one to contemplate the removal process and one to evaluate the list and see what is actually there. She then offers the commission some historical reference that in 2023 the commission contemplated disallowing resubmissions for properties that were already on the list and it was decided against. DCC Campbell continues to say that the commission can reconsider their rules again and suggests that it might also be time to contemplate a lot of the processes within the rules and that she would be happy to give more training on what the process is. DCC Campbell then mentions that along with the past administration, the Council has also discussed their desire to see the list reprioritized. Chr. Chang states that looking at the entire list and evaluating it is a large undertaking especially with being on the verge of thinking about the stewardship grant process. However, she does not like the idea of doing nothing and allowing a decision from Council be imposed upon the commission. MOTION: Cmr. Markoff moved to establish a PInG to re-prioritize or re-evaluate the Prioritized List and form a second PInG for the other portion that someone else can put forward a motion for. Seconded by Cmr. Rosam. Chr. Chang opened the floor for discussion. Secretary Braman asked Cmr. Markoff to clarify the motion. Cmr. Markoff restated his motion and a discussion ensued amongst the commissioners. Cmr. Markoff then withdrew his motion. V. Chr. Britt moved to establish a PInG to look at the properties with a resolution and evaluate what their current status is. Seconded by Cmr. Lawson. After asking if there were any further discussion and hearing none, Chr. Chang called for the roll call vote. VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners Brandt, Markoff, Rosam, Lawson, V. Chr. Britt, Chr. Chang Noes: None. Established PInG: V. Chr. Britt, Cmr. Markoff, Cmr. Lawson, Chr. Chang V. COMMISSIONER REPORT – PONC IN PRACTICE – A POLICY SUMMIT: 1. Pursuant to HRS § 92-2.5(e), Commissioners who have attended the PONC in Practice – A Policy Summit, follow-up meeting on March 20, 2026, are to report their attendance and the matters presented and discussed that relate to official commission business. Deborah Ward - Testifies in regards to the PONC summit and also testifies regarding the previous agenda item and offers that it is possible for a non-commissioner to be a member of a PInG. DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 15 THE DISCUSSION REVERTS BACK TO AGENDA ITEM IV. 3.: Cmr. Markoff asks DCC Campbell if it is possible for a member of the public to join a PInG. DCC Campbell advises that the commission can vote to do that or they can keep the PInG as is and consult with members of the public without making them a member of the PInG. MOTION: V. Chr. Britt moves to allow members of the public to join the PInG. Seconded by Cmr. Markoff. Chr. Chang opens the floor for discussion. The discussion ensues followed by Chr. Chang calling for the roll call for a vote. VOTE: Ayes: Commissioner Markoff, V. Chr. Britt, Chr. Chang Noes: Commissioners Brandt, Rosam, Lawson Motion does not pass. THE DISCUSSION RETURNS TO THE ORIGINAL AGENDA ITEM: Chr. Chang asks the commissioners that attended the meeting to please provide a report. Cmr. Lawson provided a brief recap of the Zoom meeting that was held on March 20th. She states that the draft proposals were sent out an hour ahead of the meeting and it was clear that most people in attendance did not have enough time to digest it, and because the new material was not underscored and the old material was not struck out, it was difficult to have a discussion about the changes proposed. She goes on to say that Councilmember Kierkiewicz suggested that doing a repeal and replace would be easer than making amendments. There was also some mention of expanding the stewardship fund but most of the conversation was about the repeal and replace process. Mr. Schapiro mentioned the the changes proposed were taking the narrative and language out of the charter and putting into the code which would also change how the PONC program could operate in the future depending upon the administration. Chr. Chang states that it sounded like moving things from the charter to the code would then expose the PONC program to changes being made politically by the administration. Cmr. Markoff responds that there is no way to make any effective changes to the charter without this process and that moving from the charter to the code makes it a living, breathing kind of document. VI. MINUTES: (Motion(s) required) 1. Minutes (draft) of the March 9, 2026, regular meeting. DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 16 MOTION: V. Chr. Britt moved to approve the March 9, 2026 meeting minutes. Seconded by Cmr. Markoff. Chr. Chang provides a correction in the spelling of Frank Trusdell’s last name on page 16. The correct spelling is TRUSDELL. Mr. Schapiro confirms we will make that correction. VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners Brandt, Markoff, Rosam, Lawson, V. Chr. Britt, Chr. Chang Noes: None. VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 1. The next public meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 13, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. at the West Hawai’i Civic Center, Building G (The Hale), 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Hwy, Kailua-Kona, Hawaiʻi 96740. 2. Requests and suggestions for agenda items for the next regular meeting on Monday, July 13, 2026 Cmr. Markoff asks if the PInG report needs to be completed by the next meeting. DCC Campell advised that it can be presented at a later meeting, it just needs to be agendized. She also notes that there are no periodic reports back, it is reported and then it is done. Cmr. Rosam suggests to consider starting the next meeting at 9:00 a.m. Chr. Chang asks if begining at 9:00 a.m. would be okay as long as the room is available. Chr. Brandt expressed that begining at 9:00 a.m. would be a hardship. Chr. Chang asked if 9:30 a.m. would be better, the commission members were in agreement. Mr. Schapiro added that there will likely be a follow-up discussion about the online grant application process since by that point it will have launched. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: V. Chr. Britt. moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Cmr. Markoff VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners Brandt, Markoff, Rosam, Lawson, V. Chr. Britt, Chr. Chang Noes: None. Meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 17 PUBLIC ACCESS, OPEN SPACE, AND NATURAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER DEBORAH CHANG, Chairperson Draft posted: June 19, 2026 Approved: Approved posted: DRAFT v.1 - Minutes of May 11, 2026 Page 18