HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-23 Cost of Government Commission Minutes
COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION
c/o Office of the Corporation Counsel, 101 Aupuni Street,
Suite 325, Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720
MINUTES –As Amended
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 – 10:00 a.m.
Department of Liquor Control Conference Room
101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230
Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720
CALL TO ORDER:
MS. NICHOLSON:
I’d like to call the meeting to order at 10:02 by my watch.
Present:
Marilyn Nicholson, Chair
Gloria Wong, Vice-Chair
Kenneth Armour
Glen Matsuda
Eileen O’Hara
Patricia Provalenko
Bill Takaba, ex-officio
Katherine A. Garson, Assistant Corporation Counsel
Shanell Sarsuelo, Clerk III, Corporation Counsel
Emarie Carvalho, Legal Clerk III, Corporation Counsel
STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC:
MS. NICHOLSON:
We have no public present so I assume we have no statements from the
public.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (February 25, 2011):
MS. NICHOLSON:
I would like to entertain a motion for approval of the minutes from our
th
February 25meeting.
MOTION: MS. PROVALENKO:
Iwill make the motion to approve.
MR. ARMOUR:
I’ll second.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Any discussion? Okay, I would like to move on the motion. Who’s in
favor?
ACTION ON MOTION: All except Ms. Nicholson:
Aye.
1
MS. NICHOLSON:
I’m going to abstain because I wasn’t here. So, one abstention and all
the rest are approvals.
MS. GARSON:
Actually, you probably need to vote otherwise you won’t have the requisite
votes to pass the minutes. As long as you reviewed them then it’s fine to vote even if you
weren’t here.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay,well then I will change my vote to anapprove. So all in favor say
aye.
ACTION ON MOTION: All:
Aye.
MS. NICHOLSON:
The minutes pass as presented.
DISCUSSION, AND QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH ERIC TANOUYE,
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMISSION REGARDING HIS RESPONSE DATED
DECEMBER 9, 2010 TO QUESTIONS IN THE COST OF GOVERNMENT’S AUGUST
5, 2010 LETTER:
MS. NICHOLSON:
I understand that Eric Tanouye is not here. So we are just going to carry
him forward for our next meeting and ever onward.
CORRESPONDENCE:
MS. NICHOLSON:
Would you like to take these one by one or should we go through them as
a group? Gloria, I would defer to you on this since these were responses about the
consolidation of committees. How would you like to handle it?
MS. WONG:
One at a time.
MS. NICHOLSON:
All right. First one communication 2011-002: letter from Lincoln Ashida
re: consolidation of Police and Fire Commission. First we need to move to accept and file or do
we discuss this?
MS. GARSON:
You can move to accept and file.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay, do I hear a motion to accept and file communication 002?
MOTION: MR.MATSUDA:
So moved.
MR. ARMOUR:
Second.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Discussion?
MR. MATSUDA:
I think the recommendation from Mr. Ashida is well taken.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Any other comments on 002? If not we have a motion on the floor to
accept and file. All in favor?
ACTION ON MOTION: All:
Aye.
2
MS. NICHOLSON:
We’ll move on to 2011-003. This is memo from Alan Parker about
consolidation of Committee on Aging and Mayor’s Committee on People with Disabilities.
Can I hear a motion to accept and file?
MOTION:MS. WONG:
So moved.
MS. PROVALENKO:
Second.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Discussion? Hearing no discussion on this communication I will go
ahead and move to accept and file as we have a motion on the floor for. All in favor say aye.
ACTION ON MOTION: All:
Aye.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay on to communication 2011-004: letter from Cost of Government to
Fire re: consolidation of Police Commission and Fire Board of Appeals; and Fire Board of
Appeals and Fire Commission. Can I hear a motion to accept and file?
MOTION: MS. PROVALENKO:
So moved.
MR. MATSUDA
:Second.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Discussion? There being no discussion let’s vote on that. All in favor?
ACTION ON MOTION: All:
Aye.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay and the last one communication 2011-005: letter from Cost of
Government Commission to Planning re: termination of all Community Development Plan
Steering Committees. Can I hear a motion to accept and file this one?
MOTION:MS. PROVALENKO:
So moved.
MR. MATSUDA
:Second.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Discussion?
MS. WONG:
I have a question. On these last two 004 and 005 if we don’t accept it in to file
then what happens?
MS. GARSON:
You know the reason why we’re doing this is just to have a complete record
of what formally went out from the commission and what didn’t. So it would just be, I don’t
know, you would just have it as an aside but you wouldn’t have a record as to what you did.
This way it’s giving some sort of formal recognition of the work that you’ve done. If you didn’t
do it this way then I suppose in your report you could say we requested input from the
departments or something like that.
MS. WONG:
Okay I’m just curious as to what happens.
MS. GARSON:
It’s mostly just to keep track.
3
MS. WONG:
Okay thank you.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Any other discussion? Let’s move to vote to accept and file. All in
favor?
ACTION ON MOTION: All:
Aye.
REPORTS FROM SUBCOMMITTEES:
MS. NICHOLSON:
Anything from Gloria or Glen on operations, budget, and consolidation?
Mr. MATSUDA:
On the operations, budget, and consolidation committee I have no report
other than what will be discussed by Gloria later in her report regarding staff consolidations and
other recommendations.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay. Anything on revenue enhancement and collections?
MR. ARMOUR:
No.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Now you two are working on putting together some recommendations,
what is the status because I know you were waiting to hear from something?
MS. PROVALENKO:
Actually I think what it ended up, it was in the minutes from the last
time, is that everything that we would have recommended in our recommendations had already
been put in the draft letter or the draft recommendations, so we are pretty much just done with
it.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay. Is the timing perfect or not (Ms. O’Hara entered the meeting late).
Technology recommendations and adoption, do we have anything from this subcommittee? Not
that I’m aware of.
MS. O’HARA:
No.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay, moving on. Eileen, we are already on agenda item 7.
MS. O’HARA:
Did I miss the meeting?
MS. NICHOLSON:
Which is discussion regarding items previously recommended to be
placed in the draft report. I’m wondering if we first want to jump to agenda item 8 first because
those are new recommendations to go in the report. So would it be all right with everyone if we
jumped to item 8 first and then come back to 7?
All:
In agreement.
DISCUSSION REGARDING ITEMS TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF
RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE PLACED IN DRAFT REPORT:
MS. NICHOLSON:
Please give me some background on where these came from. Maybe the
staff can give us some background on where we are with these. Did they come from the last
meeting and where are they from? In other words why are they not already included in item 7?
4
If we don’t know we can go ahead and talk about them and then we’ll include them in item 7. I
just wondered why they were pulled out separately here I wasn’t real sure.
MS. GARSON:
We’re looking.
MS. WONG:
If I recall from the last meeting regarding items B and C videotaping and
discussion of our committee’s list were that we had discussed it but we were not sure what to do
about it yet and we were not sure about the wording so we said let’s put that into a separate
item.
MS. O’HARA:
To reconsider.
MS. WONG:
Yeah.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay. All right so let’s move ahead and start with contracting, strategic
plan. What I would like to do, which is sort of moving into how we’re going to carry forward
here is really start working on the wording so that when it goes into the draft plan we are clear
on the wording. So under contracting, strategic plan, point a: review internal processes that are
currently in use to reduce change orders, renewals and processing in a timely manner. What do
we feel about that? Is this an item we would like to move into our draft format as it is currently
presented? Does it make sense?
MS. O’HARA:
I wish it was more directive. We’re basically telling the County to review
their own processes and improve upon them without specifying what those improvements need
to be.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I totally agree with you. Let’s make it clearer. How can we make it
clearer?
MS. O’HARA:
One would be to consider the use of electronic signatures, I believe it is.
Kathy, is that correct in terms of moving the contracting process faster?
MS. GARSON:
Yes.
MS. NICHOLSON:
We had talked about this partially in technology and also when we had
the contracting folks here. So is there a whole element of technology you want to add into this?
MS. O’HARA:
Yes.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Which would include electronic signatures. It may include online
approvals because I remember you talking about pink slips of paper which I assume is part of
this issue. So how can we re-word this to include taking advantage of software technology so
that it’s more paperless? Is that what we’re trying to get at?
MS. O’HARA:
Well not only just paperless, more efficient.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay do we have some specific things we want to say here? It can be a
whole nother sentence.
5
MS. O’HARA:
Review internal processes and determine ways to include... I don’t want to say
technology because it’s too broad. I’m sorry I started a sentence and didn’t finish it.
MS. NICOLSON:
Are we trying to get at saying something about doing as much of this
.
process online as possible rather than through paperwork
MS. O’HARA:
That’s what we’re trying to get to yes.
MS. PROVALENKO:
Maybe streamlining the process through current technology. You
didn’t want to use technology but I think technology is still going to have to come in.
MS. O’HARA:
I just think it’s going to be too general for people to really understand what
we’re asking for.
MS. NICHOLSON:
We could give examples such as electronic signatures or whatever you
call it, reducing paperwork through online…
MS. O’HARA:
Distribution.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Distribution.
MS. O’HARA:
A lot of things are still mailed and hard copy or carried by the mail clerk
department to department. Whereas if you distribute electronically it’s faster.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Do we have enough now that we can craft this into something readable?
MS. CARVALHO:
We should probably try and form a sentence on it.
MS. GARSON:
Isn’t she diplomatic.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Eileen, do you have anything?
MS. O’HARA:
Incorporate technology including electronic signature, electronic distribution,
and what else did we say?
MS. NICHOLSON:
This is a separate sentence. So it follows this one, so it’s such as the use
of electronic signatures, online approvals, electronic distribution. So we can use it as an
example.
MS. O’HARA:
Yes that should work.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay any other discussion on A1a.
MS. GARSON:
Okay so with that change you’re moving A1a up into your draft. What would
you like it under?
MS. NICHOLSON:
Well this is not, Eileen, necessarily just targeted to the contracting
division is it? Is it to all departments?
MS. O’HARA:
No, it’s to all departments.This is an all department thing.
6
MS. GARSON:
So miscellaneous?
MS. O’HARA:
Do we not have a multi department?
MS. NICHOLSON:
We have miscellaneous at this point. We can put it there until we re-
order our report. I think we should call it something other than miscellaneous. But when we
get to that we can do that.
MR. MATSUDA:
Do we have what needs to be written?
MS. NICHOLSON:
I think we pretty much retained the current first sentence and then we
added another sentence that said... It’s examples.
MS. GARSON:
Such as incorporating technology including electronic signatures and
electronic distributions.
Ms. PROVALENKO:
And online approvals.
MS. OHARA:
I think to make most sense of this section under a I would flip a and b because I
think b is the starting point for efficient contracting and then a is more about the process that the
procurement section interacts with all of the departments to make all of the contracts happen.
So, I think the lettering should be reversed A1a should actually be what is currently A1b.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I have a problem with the heading strategic plan. Because I didn’t quite
get how they were related. So we really want to take off the 1) Strategic plan.
MS. GARSON:
Actually now that I see the A being Contracting, when you get through what
is now marked as b, move the whole section up under contracting to 7 instead of miscellaneous.
So you will have a new heading called Contracting.
MS. NICHOLSON:
That sounds good.
MR. MATSUDA:
Can I just… Well I just started jotting down some stuff. Can I re-word it
and we can go with what we got or what I say.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Sure.
MR. MATSUDA:
I just wrote down over here: review the internal processes to include
electronic (online signatures in all departments) methods streamlining the methodology of
renewals, change orders in a timely manner. Is that what we want to say?
MS. OHARA:
No, it seems good. I think what we ended up with though… We can’t really
read it back though because it’s in bits and pieces I guess at this point.
MS. NICHOLSON:
No, what we ended up with is the first sentence as it is now and the
second sentence which Kathy has.
MS. GARSON:
Such as incorporating technology including electronic signatures, electronic
distributions, and online approvals.
7
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay I don’t think the sentence starts with such as.
MS. GARSON:
Oh,I’m sorry. Review internal processes including… No, no, no. I had the
such as because it was an example.
MS. NICHOLSON:
It would be such processes might include blah, blah, blah, we went from
there.
MS.O’HARA:
So I think the second sentence is basically toincorporate technology such as
online signatures.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Glen, what you said did we miss anything in that version. Did you have
another…
MR. MATSUDA:
I only used the terminology, methodology of renewal, change orders in a
timely manner. The beginning part of the sentence I did mention says to review internal
processes to include the use of electronic methods (online signatures in all departments)
streamlining the methodology of renewals, change orders in a timely manner.
MS. NICHOLSON:
You took out…
MR. MATSUDA:
I took out technology.
MS. NICHOLSON:
You also took out that are currently in use, which I think is fine to take
out that part of the sentence too. It’s kind of redundant. Okay, we’ve got two versions. Any
feelings on which one we want? I think they basically say the same thing. I’m fine with either
one of them.
MR. MATSUDA:
Whichever the commission decides is fine with me.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Other opinions on this?
MS. PROVALENKO:
Glen, could you read it one more time.
MR. MATSUDA:
Okay, review internal processes to include the use of electronic methods
(online signatures in all departments) streamlining the methodology of renewals, change orders
in a timely manner.
MS. PROVALENKO:
That’s fine. I would just like to incorporate instead of… I would just
like to make sure that it’s understood that distribution as well as online signaturesand permit
approvals are understood. I just didn’t want it to sound like only that portion in the parenthesis,
the online signatures.
MR. MATSUDA:
Maybe we should include that.
MS. O’HARA:
How about this, if we go with the first sentence: review internal processes that
are currently in use to reduce change orders, renewals and processing in a timely manner.
Utilize technology such as electronic signatures in each department, electronic distribution, and
online approvals to increase efficiency. Does that incorporate everything?
8
MS. NICHOLSON:
No, you said something about permits.
MS. O’HARA:
That would be online approvals.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay are we fine with that? Does that work?
MS. PROVALENKO:
I’m fine.
MR. MATSUDA:
I’m fine with that.
MS. SARSUELO:
Can you repeat it again.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay, let’s now look at…
MS. O’HARA:
She wants me to read that second sentence one more time. Utilize technology
such as electronic signatures in each department, electronic distribution, and online approvals to
increase efficiency.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay? All right, now let’s go to b which will nowbe the new a. Require
that each department have an annual strategic planning session to identify their needs for
outside contracting services over the next two to five years such that they can commence with
drafting the bid documents.
MR. MATSUDA:
How about just changing one word? Just saying: over the next two to five
years allowing them to commence with drafting the bid documents.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Sowe’re taking out such that they can to allowing them to?
MR. MATSUDA:
Yes.
MR. ARMOUR:
Can you draft bid documents before it’s approved in the budget?
MS. GARSON:
Can you draft bid documents?
MR. ARMOUR:
Well the way I read it is that they have this planning session to identify their
needs for two to five years out and then they’re going to start drafting the bid documents. But
can you do that if it hasn’t been approved in the budget?
MS. GARSON:
Sure. I mean you might not because you don’t know if the project is going to
go forward unless you have money for it. But that doesn’t prevent anyone from working on it.
MR. ARMOUR:
Let me rephrase my question. Does it make sense to do it?
MS. O’HARA:
It makes sense to do it. It drives the budget more than anything to get some
handle on what those costs are going to be.
MS. NICHOLSON:
It seems to me what we’re trying to get at is what’s the important thing
here? The important thing is knowing in advance or anticipating in advance what your needs
9
for outside contracting services may be. Which facilitates not just the bid process but also
planning and budgeting. Is that we’re trying to say? To me that’s probably what we’re trying
to say. It’s not really just to draft bid documents but it’s to facilitate long term planning and
budgeting.
MS. O’HARA:
I’m fine with Glen’s changes.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay, so we’re going to add in to facilitate long term planning and
budgeting.
MS. GARSON:
So are we taking out though such that they can commence with drafting the
bid documents? And then after the next two to five years add to facilitate long term planning
and budgeting?
MS. NICHOLSON:
No, I think it’s over the next two to five years to facilitate long term
planning and budgeting and allowing departments to commence with drafting bid documents.
MS. O’HARA:
Let’s flip the words. To facilitate long term planning and what’s the rest of
that?
MS. NICHOLSON:
Budgeting.
MS. O’HARA:
To facilitate long term planning and budgeting require that each department
have an annual strategic planning session to identify their needs for outside contracting services
over the next two to five years to allow them to commence drafting bid documents.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Yeah I would make it into two sentences and then put after two to five
years period. This will allow departments to commence with drafting bid documents.
MS. O’HARA:
That’s better.
MS. WONG:
Is it really a strategic plan or is it just a planning session, operational planning
session?
MS. O’HARA:
It’s a planning session.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So we want to take out the word strategic? I don’t really know the
terminology so maybe we should just say planning session.
MS. O’HARA:
It is part of the strategic planning but it doesn’t incorporate all of your strategic
planning.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So we’re taking out the word strategic.
MS. GARSON:
Okay, so it’s going to start off to facilitate long term planning and budgeting.
Then?
MS. NICHOLSON:
Require each department have an annual planning session to identify their
needs for outside contracting services over the next two to five years. This will allow each
department to commence with drafting bid documents. Okay we’ve got that one?
10
MR. MATSUDA:
Very good.
MS. NICHOLSON:
All right we’re on to B, Videotaping of County Council meetings. It
seems to me that part of our discussion in addition to what we have here was what portion of
meetings get videotaped. Having never looked at a single one of these broadcasts and probably
never will. I remember somebody saying it’s like boy scouts come in for a commendation and
then it goes on too. So to me that sort of got left out of this. Is that implied in we’re looking at
the whole process of this?
MS. O’HARA:
I think it has gotten left out. What the original concern that was expressed was
about taping everything that occurs while the council is in session that doesn’t always relate to
their jurisdictional actions and in that event it tends to get overly long and we’re paying by the
minute, by the hour, whatever we are paying on a time basis and I think that was the original
concern that was expressed. I’m not sure that this fully captures that.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I think also what we had discussed at the last meeting was whether or
not we should contract that out or have in-house videotaping. I think that’s what this is saying,
assess the value of doing it in-house or contracting it out.
MS. O’HARA:
Right, so basically there are two different issues on the table.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So if we put assess the value of videotaping, the cost of videotaping, the
topics videotaped, and the value given to the residents of the county, and the availability of it to
the county. And then add another sentence; this would include the cost of doing this in-house
versus contracting it out. Or in-house versus contracting services.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I think another question was who was going to do the assessing and
Bill had left by that time and so the question was who would do it?
MR. TAKABA:
Videotaping is something that the council decides not so much the
administration. They’re videotaping council meetings and they put it in their budget and
normally it gets approved. So it seems like the council would probably have to do a self
evaluation and decide how to cut back on the expense. If the council decides they would
probably leave it as is. What gets expensive is the what do they call it…
MS. GARSON:
Closed captioning for ADA compliance.
MR. TAKABA:
Closed captioning. That made it very expensive. Then when people testify
because they are on t.v. a lot of times they just drag it out. That gets very expensive. They run
through the night sometimes the meetings. So, I think it’s something that the legislative branch
would probably have to evaluate and decide.
MS. O’HARA:
I think another point that needs to be taken into consideration is how many of
the constituents have access. Because it’s only available over cable so that does not include all
the island’s residents. So it’s kind of a preferential treatment for certain constituencies.
MS. NICHOLSON:
But we sort of captured that in the wording that is here don’t you think;
availability of it to the county. Or maybe it’s to county residents?
11
MS. O’HARA:
County residents or constituents.
MR. TAKABA:
So you have some options. One is do we need to tape both the committee
meetings and the full council meetings or do you just do the council meetings. The other one
was does the public really need to have…. They have access to the transcription, the minutes
but the question is do they need to actually have access to the video? I mean there are a lot of
people who watch it there’s no question about it. There is a following.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Is this the kind of thing we can direct the legislative auditor to look into
so there’s an unbiased…. Because I heard you say well the county council if they look at it they
are going to want it. So can we put the onus on somebody who could look at it objectively?
MR. TAKABA:
I don’t know if that’s their role though. Maybe the commission should just
come up with a recommendation then it’s out of the hands of the council and administration.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I just don’t know that we are qualified because we don’t have all the
costs. I’ve never seen the thing. I’m not interested in seeing it. So I’m not part of the audience,
I don’t even own a television set. So, I don’t know that we are capable of coming up with a
really good…. It would be ideal if we could but I just don’t know if we’re capable of doing it
because we don’t have all the facts and figures before us.
MS. O’HARA:
I think it’s a great idea to record both committee and council meetings because
to be honest most of the work of the council occurs in committee. Being part of other
organizations that do tape proceedings and tapes are made available to the public to borrow as
in a library situation. So if somebody wants to come in and take out a DVD for a meeting on
March 12 or whatever they can. I think that would be great to have that available. That could
be done on a way lower cost than this. Of course that would not include closed captioning.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Yeah, it would still have to include closed captioning though and if that’s
part of the expense.
MS. O’HARA:
Well closed captioning can be handled by the written transcript too. Because
that has always been available to the public so you can get the written transcript of each of the
meetings. I think that the public has to pay for those do they not?
MR. TAKABA:
The transcripts? Do they charge? If they charge it’s like $1.00 for the first
page, ten cents a copy thereafter.
MS. O’HARA:
But transcripts can get very long.
MR. TAKABA:
So I’m not sure if they charge.
MS. O’HARA:
So there is a charge to the public if they want the written transcript.
MS. GARSON:
Actually, I think it’s available online.
MS. O’HARA:
The transcript?
MS. GARSON:
The minutes. I believe the transcribed minutes are available online through a
web accessed Laserfiche repository.
12
MS. O’HARA:
The minutes are online. The minutes don’t always capture all the discussion
and all the communications and everything. The online versions are much better now in terms
of tacking on all the actual documents that are referred to in the item. So you can usually get
most of that information online now.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So let’s look at this fresh. Another option other than this would be rather
than making this available through cable is to make video tapes available for borrowing through
the county along with the full transcripts.
MS. O’HARA:
The public already has the option of the transcripts. An additional option
would be to set up a digital recorder, this is cheap to do, record the meetings, make DVDs
available for whatever the cost of providing the DVD, $5.00 whatever it is and people can just
purchase the DVD. There would of course be a proprietary information confidentiality
attachment to that DVD so that people can’t edit it and use it in the public domain in some
adverse way. I would imagine that legal counsel would like to have some sort of disclaimer on
that DVD. Other than that you could either borrow it or buy it.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Well what’s the feeling is this a better recommendation that we should
just make a firm recommendation about this?
MS. OHARA:
Well let me ask this question; do we know Bill what the cost of that contract is
annually?
MR. TAKABA:
We can find out. Offhand I wouldn’t know.
MS. O’HARA:
I mean if we’re going to save half a million dollars yeah this might be worth
considering. If we’re just saving a few dollars maybe not, I don’t know.
MR. TAKABA:
It’s a lot. They do it by the hour yeah, oh by the minute.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Is it six figures?
MS. PROVALENKO:
Do we know what kind of following that they do have? I hear a lot of
people talk about it.
MR. TAKABA:
People talk yeah. People tell me what they saw on t.v. So I know they have a
following. I don’t know if it’s just entertainment valueor they want to actually follow a
particular issue that’s being discussed.
MR. PROVALENKO:
I’ve heard that too. That’s what I’m thinking too, how are we
impacting…
MS. NICHOLSON:
I hate to restrict public access. If this is of interest to them would they
take the extra step to get the DVD? I kind of doubt it so I think it sort of chills public
involvement.
MS. O’HARA:
If that DVD were as easy to get as Netflix it would not be a problem. You just
fill out a form online, you order the DVD, you pay online your $5.00 and it’s mailed to you. If
it was something like that it would not be that impractical.
13
MS. PROVALENKO:
Orif you could stream it at the time.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Well what’s the feeling folks?
MS. O’HARA:
I think there’s a lot of technology that could be employed here that would save
money. So maybe that’s our message to the council; is to investigate other technological ways
of getting this same information to the same public that is interested in seeing these things.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I think rather than just directing them to investigate other ways it’s much
stronger if we can give them some direction.
MS. PROVALENKO:
Yeah but we don’t know the direction.
MS. O’HARA:
Well we can make suggestions.
MS. NICHOLSON:
She has come up with a suggestion that might be viable it’s just rather
than leaving it open ended investigate other ways to get this to the public. I think it’s better if
we have an example such as making these readily available via DVD that can be ordered or
streamed online.
MS. O’HARA:
And having the county do the taping because it doesn’t take a lot of skill to run
a digital video recorder these days.
MR. MATSUDA:
Click on that’s it.
MS. PROVALENKO:
Out of curiosity how would you then if they did do the taping, how
would you stream it online?
MS. O’HARA:
Through the county website. The council would have to make it available in
some format and they could employ a third party to do that online, you have all these different
internet options that you can tap into.
MS. PROVALENKO:
The thing is you’re asking them to pay for it and currently they’re not
paying for it.
MS. O’HARA:
Who?
MS. PROVALENKO:
The public is not paying for it at this time.
MS. O’HARA:
Well they’re paying for the cable.
MS. NICHOLSON:
It could be that the county council would want to subsidize that because
they are saving money from not videotaping it but I think the core is what we need to get.
MS. PROVALENKO:
Yeah I think the idea is good but I’m just saying that right now they
got cable so they are able to get it through the cable so now we’re saying we’re taking it off of
cable but if you want it now you have to pay.
MS. NICHOLSON:
But you have to pay for cable right.
14
MS. O’HARA:
That’s what I said. But it’s a nominal fee.
MS. PROVALENKO:
But they already had the cable.
MS. O’HARA:
The council could choose to charge for it or not charge for it. I think it would
depend on how many DVD requests they get or how much it cost them to stream it. There is
going to be some cost to them to do all that.
MR. MATSUDA:
It is still going to be cheaper I think.
MS. O’HARA:
But it’s probably still going to be a whole heck of a lot cheaper.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So let me try to summarize. I’ve got something like: investigate county
employee videotaping of council and committee meetings that would be available online
through streaming or via ordering a DVD. Is that right?
MS. O’HARA:
That’s about right.
MR. ARMOUR:
I think to continue, in lieu of the current videotaping program.
MS. NICHOLSON:
That’s good.
MS. O’HARA:
Just to clarify because they will probably have the same reaction,well it’s not
closed captioned,I think we need to include that transcripts are already available to the public.
And that’s verbatim transmission of all the meetings you can go into the county council and
order those for any meeting at any time.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So we need to add that in here somehow.
MS. O’HARA:
So that way we’re not really taking anything away in terms of the disabled or
anything.
MS. NICHOLSON:
How about this would require timely posting of transcripts from
meetings.
MR. TAKABA:
It’s one hundred and five thousand and sometimes they get a grant from Na
Leo but they didn’t get any yet this year.
MS. O’HARA:
That’s all they pay one hundred and five thousand?
MR. TAKABA:
Yeah.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I think we have come up with something here. Can you tell us what we
came up with?
MS. CARVALHO:
I have your beginning to investigate county employee videotaping of
council and committee meetings that would be available online through streaming or via
ordering a DVD and then you were starting to say about the transcript before he came in.
15
MS. NICHOLSON:
This would require timely posting of transcripts online. And then Ken
wanted to add something about in lieu of the…. What did you have Ken?
MR. ARMOUR:
Something like the current videotaping system or process.
MS. NICHOLSON:
In lieu of the current contracted videotaping services.
MR. ARMOUR:
As a side note, if we think this is a good idea then we should also put in that
it would increase the availability to all county residences.
MS. NICHOLSON:
That’s a good thing to add in because I think it would increase the
availability. Anything else?
MS. GARSON:
Ifound these items that you discussed in the last meeting and actually they
were passed forward they just didn’t make it there. The things you just revised they were
supposed to be in the recommendations for this agenda.
MS. NICHOLSON:
All these?
MS. GARSON:
Yeah but now you’ve revised it. So sorry.
MS. NICHOLSON:
That’s all right we would have revised them anyway. Okay onto
discussions from the operations, budget, consolidation committee. So we need to decide where
these things will go as we discuss them we need to figure out…. Or did we do that last meeting,
figure out where they go?
MS. WONG:
No, we did not. We read off the list and discussed what we had said and left it at
that and said we would discuss it at the next meeting.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay so item 1 Executive Assistant/Volunteer Coordinator. Having read
this I was totally at a loss of really what this is about. I needed a lot more explanation of what
this was and what it was for. I wasn’t at the last meeting so that’s why. But having read it cold
I went hmm.
MS. WONG:
The volunteer program was something that I think we had discussed and didn’t
pass it through as going forward but just to be clear it would be someone employed by the
county to be a volunteer coordinator. Volunteer coordinator outside financed by corporate
sponsors. So someone in the county that could be a liaison for services in the county because
someone from the outside would not know where the resources were and someone paid… It’s
sort of like public private partnership. From the outside finance wise there would be a corporate
sponsor for projects. For example, the tsunami, getting people involved as the county would
need and as different community areas would need. Whatever programs would need to have
training for the people that would be involved and part of the thought was that a lot of senior
citizens or people that are on furlough or unemployed would have some platform for still using
their services, being active in the community.I just saw on t.v. this morning President Obama
talking about serve.gov, get the community involved and so I was the one that sort of put that
concept together.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So the recommendation is to hire or create two new positions, one would
be funded by county and one would be funded by outside groups.
16
MS. WONG:
Yes.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I think we should turn these into sentences.
MS. WONG:
Well before we turn these into sentences I specifically asked for discussion from
the committee. Is this something that we want to move forward? I mean I like it but I didn’t
think that the rest of the commission members…. We hadn’t gotten that far to discuss whether
we wanted to keep this in or not. We just said let’s discuss this at the next meeting.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I would need to know what the need is here and if this is a really pressing
county need at this time to create a new position.
MS. WONG:
I don’t know that you would say a need but something that would be helpful as
an ongoing… It would have been helpful last year and during the last…. When times are rough
is when you want the volunteer program active not when times are easy. So you have available
like Red Cross, you don’t need them when times are easy you need them when there’s
problems. I saw in today’s paper I think… I watched t.v. and read the paper. Maui is looking
towards a volunteer program. Part of this came from in my reading what counties are doing
nationally isthey are developing volunteer programs. And sponsored in the counties.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I guess what I’m trying to get at… The discussion is we are
recommending creating a new position of a volunteer coordinator. What would that person do?
I’m not getting a handle on what their job description would be that we could justify the need
for the county to hire this new position.
MS. WONG:
They would set up the program for volunteers. Set up for training programs.
Also, I don’t know if the Sate still has one but Mary Matayoshi was the state coordinator for
volunteer programs. Is she still doing that? I think she’s retired.
MR. TAKABA:
Retired. There was a program.
MS. NICHOLSON:
What would the volunteers do? I’m not getting at it still.
MS. WONG:
When there were needs that the State wanted to provide assistance she would
come up with a program and bring in corporate sponsors.
MS. NICHOLSON:
But for the county the volunteer coordinator would recruit other
volunteers to do what?
MS. WONG:
Depending on what the need is.
MS. O’HARA:
Can you give us some examples of need?
MS. WONG:
Clean up after a tsunami or I know there are organizations but to get those
organizations corralled, exercise programs, some of the things that perhaps Office of Aging is
doing for the senior citizens, exercise programs, health programs, demonstration programs,
Office of Aging does it for senior citizens. There could be programs for children that don’t
have classes because the schools are furloughed. There could be homeless programs, yes
Department of Health has programs for that but you might be able to utilize some volunteers.
17
Let me give you an example, last year I was trying to volunteer for some things. I volunteered
at several places and they never called me back sosomeone that will pursue and put into action.
MR. MATSUDA:
Bill, what kind of volunteer projects or programs do we have right now?
MR. TAKABA:
You have the RSVP program. It’s a retired senior volunteer program. They
do community services throughout the community. I assume that because this is the Cost of
Government commission you’re talking about placing volunteers within the county
departments.
MS. WONG:
No, not necessarily in the county departments, it could be. It’s more in whatever
needs there were situation, bigger needs. And it may be something like because I live next to
the golf course and the golf course needs cleaning, for some group to go in and help clean the
golf course. That might be a volunteer from in county that would be Parks and Recreation.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So why would not Parks and Recreation head that up.
MS. WONG:
Because that’s not their job to be incorporating volunteers.
MR. TAKABA:
Well like friends of the zoo is a volunteer program that helps with the zoo and
I think there is coordination with the zoo personnel, they get volunteers that come in.
MS. O’HARA:
Parks and Recs actually has a friends of template. Friends of the park, friends
of this. It’s a contract that they get into with volunteers for not just the zoo, for parks and all
kinds of other entities. I remember using that template that they had developed and I think it’s
actually somewhere incorporated into the Code so it has a legal basis when trying to develop
similar programs around our transfer stations.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I don’t feel comfortable creating a new position at this point.
MS. O’HARA:
I don’t either. This work could be done by any number of people. I don’t
know why the executive assistant/volunteer coordinator got in there but the Mayor does have
four executive assistants, is that correct Bill?
MR. TAKABA:
Yes.
MS. O’HARA:
I don’t know why one of them couldn’t take on whatever task is involved here
and I also think if you’re talking about putting them in lieu of or in departments that are short
staffed you are going to buck up against union issues there so that’s something to consider. But
we also have a very underutilized student internship program which could be better utilized here
at the county. I made use of it when I was here because I had connections with the university
having taught there but I couldn’t have run my section without my students, one of whom is
now a council member as a result of that experience. So I think it’s a really good program to
promote.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So maybe we can somehow incorporate this suggestion for the county to
make better use of volunteers and include the student internship program.
MS. O’HARA:
Because we do have a very good university here in town and a lot of students
need to make money and earnprofessional experience. It’s a really good opportunity.
18
MS. NICHOLSON:
There are some existing volunteer programs already. So what are we
trying to say? I didn’t know that there was a student internship program. If it’s underutilized
we want to encourage the county to take advantage of that.
MS. O’HARA:
Does Corporation Counsel utilize student interns?
MS. GARSON:
Yes, not on a constant basis but depending on what semester it is. Sometimes
they get credit. Sometimes they just volunteer.
MS. NICHOLSON:
How would we phrase this if in fact we want to encourage the county to
take advantage of these?
MS. WONG:
The essence though is we don’t want to move this forward correct? We just
want to encourage more volunteers?
MR. MATSUDA:
I think so.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Although we haven’t gotten to the community workshop for volunteer
action projects which we still might want to discuss.
MS. O’HARA:
How does the RSVP program coordinate with the county?
MR. TAKABA:
They’re part of the county. What they do is they set up volunteer stations like
American Heart Association or Hawai‘i County Economic Opportunity Council. All these
private non-profit organizations can be a volunteer station and they have responsibilities when
they’re assigned a volunteer. They’re responsible for supervising… There is an agreement that
they sign saying that they would supervise and in some cases they would give them a lunch or
something. So it’s an agreement that the RSVP program sets up with the volunteer station.
Once they set up the agreement then they send volunteers to that station.
MS. O’HARA:
But who runs the RSVP program for the county?
MR. TAKABA:
It’s under Glen… It used to be Marc Eskaya.
MS. NICHOLSON:
What department are we talking about?
MR. TAKABA:
Parks and Recreation. It’s under the elderly activities division and it’s grant
funded.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I wonder if we could say using the RSVP program as a model and expand
that program to include other larger age groups, additional age groups. I don’t know if this
would stay under Parks and Rec and so we would list this under Parks and Rec as a
departmental recommendation or if we’re looking at expanding it whether we would not want to
have it under Parks and Rec.
MS. O’HARA:
Iwould think it would be best under the Mayor’s office personally because it
could goany number of directions. I mean if you’re looking for volunteers for disaster response
it’s very different and it’s not a real departmental thing. But coordinating with the RSVP
program using that as the model, have the Mayor’s office investigate expanding the volunteer
19
core of the county. But I would also like to get in this piece about encourage the use of
internship programs.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So can you phrase what you just said in some sort of…
MS. O’HARA:
Gloria, since you were out of the room wewere talking about the RSVP
program is under Parks and Rec so how to build upon that program and expand to other age
groups and other activities besides senior activities.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So we started out using the RSVP program as a template expand
opportunities for volunteers to work within the county and in response to county needs.
MS. O’HARA:
That sounds really good.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Help me get the internship part in there or maybe it’s a different sentence.
MS. O’HARA:
It’s a different sentence.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay, you do the other sentence.
MS. O’HARA:
Encourage use of a student intern program.
MS. NICHOLSON:
How about expansion and use of?
MS. O’HARA:
Encourage expansion and use of student interns in all departments.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Where do we want to place this in our draft? Do we want to just put it
under our current miscellaneous category? Do we want to move it under the Mayor’s office as
being the more appropriate place for an expanded volunteer program?
MS. O’HARA:
I would think so.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I agree with her I think it should be under the Mayor.
MS. WONG:
How would the general public get to know about this opportunity to get
involved?
MS. O’HARA:
I would think if they want to expand the volunteer programs they would have
to advertise it.
MS. WONG:
So we would want to tell them that they need to do that.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I think that’s part of the implementation if in fact the suggestion gets
acted on they figure out how to implement it. So you see your suggestion survived. Do we
want to do anything with part b of this Community Workshop for Volunteer Action Projects or
is that really part of the implementation of what we have already?
MS.WONG:
Maybe there could be one workshop just to kick it off.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I think that should go under the coordinator portion implementing it.
20
MS. NICHOLSON:
So is it in? It’s out then.
MS. O’HARA:
It’s out because we’re going to let them implement it but we’ve given the
directive to expand the volunteer program.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay 2, Combination/consolidate/modification of Commissioners into
less Boards and/or less meetings.
MS. O’HARA:
This kind of carries over into item 9 doesn’t it.
MR. MATSUDA:
Yes it does.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Should we defer that item to 9 and just move to C3. C3 County Council
return to four year term.
MS. O’HARA:
That’s a charter change isn’t it?
MS. GARSON:
Yes.
MS. PROVALENKO:
Yes and it was by election right.
MS. NICHOLSON:
But we’re recommending other Charter changes. We shouldn’t be shy
about that.
MS. O’HARA:
No I just wanted to clarify.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I think if we put this in here we should say why. We should try to justify
why this came up rather than just that we recommend that the council return to four year cycle
rather than two.
MS. O’HARA:
Didn’t we get comments from people suggesting this?
MS. NICHOLSON:
We got Pete Hoffman who said no but other people who said yes. I think
they were from employees. But if we think it’s a good idea I think we need to be ready to say
why we think this is a good idea. So first of all is this something that we’re interested in
carrying forward or is this something we want to discuss a little bit more before we carry it
forward?
MS. PROVALENKO:
I have a question, why are we interested?
MS. NICHOLSON:
How does this relate to Cost of Government? That’s a good question.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I just think it’s really none of our kuleana there.
MR. ARMOUR:
How it relates, I’m not saying I support it but it relates because you’re
having an election every four years instead of two years and the inefficiency of the city council
coming back in and relearning when you get a new member to learn the working of it before
they get up to speed.
21
MS. NICHOLSON:
And there’s new staff.
MR. ARMOUR:
That was one of the arguments for it.
MS. O’HARA:
We’re going to hold an election every two years regardless. It would reduce
overall costs for our Elections office by some marginal amount to not have county council
election coming through every two years but it’s not going to be a huge savings there.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I think the main savings is what Ken said it’s sort of efficiency of, in
theory, knowledgeable people who continue on. But if you want to get rid of them... I guess, I
personally think it’s a good idea but I don’t feel real strongly about it. But I think if we do want
to support it we should say why.
MR. ARMOUR:
How many of us support it and how many don’t?
MS. NICHOLSON:
Do we want to carry this one forward or drop it?
MS. O’HARA:
I would prefer to drop it.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I would too.
MR. ARMOUR:
I would drop it.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Want to drop it okay. So we were going to go back and do item 7 but do
we want to do continue on and do item 9 and pick up item 8c2 as part of item 9 and then we’ll
go back to item 7. Does this work for everyone? Do you want to take a break before we go into
this or should we just move ahead with item 9 and then we’ll take a break?
MS. O’HARA:
That sounds good.
DISCUSSION REGARDING CONSOLIDATION OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
MS. NICHOLSON:
Would you like to start with the one we deferred since that’s sort of more
like an introduction to the consolidation?
MS. O’HARA:
Meaning work towards terminating the Cost of Government?
MS. NICHOLSON:
Well the overall arching point that I think your committee is trying to
make is combine, consolidate or modify the commission so that there are fewer boards and
fewer meetings. So rather than say less it should say fewer. So that’s kind of the main point
right and everything else would fall under it? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth.
MS. WONG:
That’s correct.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Cost of Government is also repeated under 9A2 so we can take that one
off there. We got the responses to the communications which we discussed earlier.
MS. WONG:
Some responses.
22
MS. NICHOLSON:
So now we want to talk about these specific consolidations of boards and
commissions and decide whether we want to go ahead and recommend these or not. Some we
may be waiting for responses on so we are still going to hold off on those. So Gloria or Glen,
would you like to address these and maybe address them in light of the responses we got so we
can go through them one by one and decide whether we want to keep them on the list.
MS. WONG:
I’ll start.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Maybe we should identify which communications go with which.
nd
MS. O’HARA:
We got a communication from the Fire Chief on March 2. Which is about
consolidating Police Commission and Fire Board of Appeals, and Fire Board of Appeals and
Fire Commission. So it’s about B and D.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So that’s 004 and we have 002 which goes with c. We didn’t get
anything from Agricultural and Energy?
MS. WONG:
Not yet. We were hoping they would come in and speak.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay so Glen you’re going to take it from here?
MR. MATSUDA:
Given the similarities and somewhat differences between the two
commissions, the Police Commission and Fire Board of Appeals, I tend to agree with the
communications which were previously accepted from Lincoln Ashida…. Darryl Oliveira. So I
think it would be reasonable to not consolidate those commissions in light of the tasks, well I
was on the Fire Commission also so that being the situation I have an idea of what is involved
but I think it was well stated from both parties.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So this pertains to b and d. You’re recommending that we strike those
recommendations at this time.
MR. MATSUDA:
Yes.
MS. GARSON:
Just for the record I don’t think Darryl Oliveira has responded yet that’s our
letter to him.
MR. MATSUDA:
That’s right. That’s right.
MS. O’HARA:
You’re right. I’m sorry.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So you still have that recommendation Glen?
MR. MATSUDA:
Yes, definitely.
MS. O’HARA:
The recommendation as I understand it from Mr. Ashida is the Police and Fire
Commission which would be c. He is recommending against c.
MR. MATSUDA:
Police and Fire Commission you’re right.
MS. O’HARA:
So he is recommending against c.
23
MS. NICHOLSON:
Do we agree that we want to remove the recommendation for
consolidation of the Police Commission and Fire Commission?
MS. O’HARA:
Absolutely.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Yes we have general consensus on that. Do we need to vote? We don’t
really need to vote because this is a discussion on it. How about b and d?
MS. O’HARA:
I think we need a response from Chief Oliveira which we haven’t received
nd
yet. We sent the letter on March 2.
MS. WONG:
Can we move the rest of that forward until we get responses?
MS. NICHOLSON:
Yes we can keep a, b and d as discussion items on our next agenda until
we get a response.
MS. O’HARA:
Have we sent a letter about the Agricultural and Energy Commission to
someone?
MS. CARVALHO:
No, because he was going to appear the day there was the tsunami. We’re
trying to get him to come to the next meeting.
MS. O’HARA:
So we haven’t heard on a, b and d.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So we will carry those forward as discussion items.
MS. GARSON:
May I just ask, I did request Lincoln write something about the Police and
Fire Commission because he represented both, do you mind if I ask the attorneys in our office
who represent those commissions to respond to you? Because they will have a decent
perspective on the duties of both. Would that be okay? Just so that we’re not getting held up.
You might have an issue with each of the commissions knowing what the other one does and
being able to respond with enough knowledge whether or not they should be consolidated.
Therefore if I have their attorney write a letter just about their respective duties and what they
know that might be helpful.
MR. MATSUDA:
I think that’s a good recommendation.
MS. O’HARA:
Is there an attorney assigned to the Agricultural and Energy Commission?
MS. GARSON:
I’m sure that there is. I just can’t tell you who it is off the top of my head.
MS. O’HARA:
Okay.
MR. TAKABA:
What was the question I didn’t hear?
MS. O’HARA:
I said who in Corporation Counsel is assigned to the Agricultural and Energy
Commission at this point?
MR. TAKABA:
Is there an attorney assigned to that?
24
MS. GARSON:
We have an attorney assigned to every board. Honestly, I just can’t remember
who has those commissions.
MR. TAKABA:
Both of them are under R&D.
MS. GARSON:
Right, so it might be Bill Brilhante.
MS. WONG:
We would still like to ask R&D to come in and speak if possible.
MS. GARSON:
Are you talking about the director?
MS. WONG:
Yes, for the Ag and Energy Commission because joining those two together
would be a big thing.
MS. GARSON:
So at the next meeting you want to invite…
MS. NICHOLSON:
Actually I think we should talk about that when we go to items placed on
next agenda. I think if we have R&D come in I would like to get more out of them than just
addressing that if in fact there are other items we want to talk about, I don’t know. So can you
hold that thought and we’ll talk about it when we get to 12.
MS. WONG:
Okay. We started talking about that awhile ago but we can continue it.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So for Agricultural and Energy we are waiting on Eric Tanouye right who
we are expecting in hopefully at the next meeting.
MS. O’HARA:
He is the chair of the Agricultural Commission is that right?
MS. SARSUELO:
Yes.
MS. O’HARA:
But he is not going to have direct knowledge on the Energy Commission. I’m
not sure who is the chair of the Energy Commission at this point.
MR. MATSUDA:
Kathy, did you say you were going to follow up on Eric Tanouye?
MS. SARSUELO:
Yes for the next meeting.
MS. GARSON:
Staff has been in communication with him.
MR. MATSUDA:
Thank you.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So Gloria is saying that we should invite Randy Kurohara to address the
Energy Commission?
MS. WONG:
Yes, the combination of Energy and Ag. He was on the agenda for the March
th
11 meeting but then the tsunami hit so I would like to continue that invitation. If he can’t
certainly we would like to get the attorney.
MS. O’HARA:
Or the chair of the commission which is similar to Eric Tanouye.
25
MS. PROVALENKO:
I would still like to have the attorney write something as well.
MS. NICHOLSON:
That kind of got dropped off is the agenda item from March 11 our
missed meeting because Randy Kurohara was on that one.
MS. GARSON:
Well he couldn’t make it is that correct?
MS. CARVALHO:
To this one yes that’s why it was removed.
MS. GARSON:
He couldn’t make it to this one that’s why we took him off the agenda but we
can…
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay but he’s still on the list.
MS. CARVALHO:
Yeah, we’re still in communication with him to come but he couldn’t
come to this meeting or the next one. We are trying to work with his secretary.
MR. MATSUDA:
As we get closer towards the deadline so to speak then…
MS. CARVALHO:
I did ask him to write a letter if he can’t appear.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay good.
MS. O’HARA:
If he’s not available how about the chair of the Energy Commission? I don’t
know who that individual is but we’re asking the chair of the other commission. Is that a
possibility?
MS. PROVALENKO:
It’s a possibility.
MS. NICHOLSON:
It’s a volunteer who may or may not be available to do it or the attorney.
We want to hear from somebody who can give us some guidance.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I actually suggested attorney because they can weigh both sides of it.
They know what each commission does and how they interact or don’t interact because I don’t
think one commission versus the other commission necessarily knows what the other is doing
so having someone that can give us both sides of the picture…
MR. ARMOUR:
Isit the same attorney for both commissions?
MS. NICHOLSON:
She doesn’t know.
MS. GARSON:
I’m sorry.
MS. WONG:
Bill you weren’t here at the last meeting when this came up, this was in addition
to what was on our list. Doyou have thoughts on that?
MR. TAKABA:
Yeah. You know when people agree to serve on one commission or another
like in this case Ag or Energy, most of the time they have a real high interest in that topic or
subject matter like Energy, people like Richard Ha maybe, although he can go both ways. Very
seldom do you find someone who is interested in both topics. So when people are appointed
26
they are selected based on their knowledge or expertise in that particular area. Some may not
want to serve on an energy portion of the commission all they want is Ag and that’s why they’re
there. Not that it won’t work if you combine them but I think a lot of them rather be more
focused when they agree to serve on a commission.
MS. O’HARA:
Personally I see a lot of overlap between Ag & Energy, Richard Ha being a
good example. These two commissions are relatively new correct?
MR. TAKABA:
Yes, within the last year and a half or so.
MS. O’HARA:
And the appointments are for how long?
MR. TAKABA:
I think co-terminus with the Mayor. I’m not sure.
MS. O’HARA:
So this is something that probably could be implemented on that rotation if it’s
decided to move forward. I wouldn’t see disrupting activities as they are currently but maybe
when the next appointment cycle comes it could be considered.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Well I think we are just going to continue this on until we get some more
information and have something we can constructively react to. We are on A2. The first one
was consolidation and now we’re on terminations; Cost of Government Commission, Family
Violence Advisory Commission and all community development plan steering committees.
Cost of Government Commission what do we think? Why did you put us on here?
MS. WONG
:I think at the last meeting we discussed that it depends what happens in this
term’s commission. Whether we are being effective, whether this commission can be effective
is whether we keep it or not. If our recommendations go nowhere and makes no impact then to
recommend termination. So I think we said let’s keep this on here and see what happens. I
think we’re seeing that things are happening. So that will probably be eliminated but let’s not
eliminate it yet.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Any thoughts other people? Should we just sort of keep it on for now?
Okay Family Violence Advisory Commission, I know nothing about this but it says inactive.
MS. GARSON:
When you said just keep this on for now…
MS. NICHOLSON:
Still part of our discussion along with the other ones in A1.
MS. GARSON:
Okay so it’s going to stay its same agenda item and not moving anywhere yet.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I have a question, if this is going to stay on the agenda we’re not really
going to know the impact on what we do until after this commission is over with so…
MS. WONG:
I think we can make a decision one way or the other before.
MS. PROVALENKO:
Well I think it was based on how much of an impact are we actually
going to do because we went back to the other couple years and the other couple years being
new commissions we really didn’t approach it like we are now getting really into the nitty gritty
of everything and being more forceful with it. So we won’t know. So if we say our
27
recommendation is to eliminate the Cost of Government Commission at the end of June but this
doesn’t go in to see the Council or Mayor until July…
MR. MATSUDA:
Ithink the recommendation is within the next three years right?
MS. NICHOLSON:
It’s got to go before the voters again because of the Charter. So it would
be something that would need to go before the voters and this commission only meets every
four years. I agree with Gloria we should just keep it on for now and still think about it.
MS. WONG:
Are there thoughts on whether you prefer to make a judgment on this at this
point?
MS. PROVALENKO:
My feeling was for the rationale that you gave we can’t make a
judgment because we don’t know what effects... That’s what I was trying to say.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay let’s just keep it on and we’ll continue to mull over it. Family
Violence Advisory Commission...
MS. GARSON:
It’s inactive.
MS. WONG:
Do we want to keep it or terminate it?
MR. MATSUDA:
When was it last active Bill?
MR. TAKABA:
Ican’t even remember when it was active. I haven’t seen it operational.
MS. O’HARA:
Having an inactive commission doesn’t cost anything. Getting rid of it isn’t
going to save anything. That’s all.
MR. MATSUDA:
It was formed for some reason before.
MR. TAKABA:
Is it Prosecutors or Police? Sometimes it comes along with a grant. If
somebody gives you a grant they say you have to establish a certain type of committee or
commission. But I’m not sure what the history of this is.
MS. NICHOLSON:
But it’s not in the Charter so it would need to go up for vote?
MR. TAKABA:
Isit Charter or Code?
MS. GARSON:
I thought it was the Code.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I don’t know about making this recommendation even though it doesn’t
cost anything I just can’t get rid of something that’s not functioning anyway.
MS. O’HARA:
I’m not opposed to leaving it on. I think the next one is a possible savings
though.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Well okay so for Family Violence Advisory Commission do we want to
leave this in? Which means we are moving it then to the draft report. It’s not going to be on
this continued discussion it’s moving into the draft report in some unknown place.
28
MS. WONG:
We want to eliminate that aren’t we?
MS. NICHOLSON:
Yes, eliminate it. We’re going to eliminate it from discussion and move
it into the draft report because we agree with it.
MR. MATSUDA:
To eliminate it or to keep it?
MS. WONG:
I thought we were leaving it alone.
MS. NICHOLSON:
No we’re leaving Cost of Government alone.
MS. WONG:
But if we leave it in here then we’re saying to recommend termination so we
want to take that out.
MS. NICHOLSON:
We are going to take it off discussion and move it into the draft report as
a recommendation that it be terminated.
MS. WONG:
Oh we are recommending termination.
MS. NICHOLSON:
That’s what we’re discussing. If we agree on it then we are going to
move it to some unknown portion. I guess that goes into miscellaneous.
MR. MATSUDA:
Well maybe there’s no family violence now but looking at the economic
situation you might end up having some family violence in the near future. Maybe there might
be a need for the committee in retrospect. I think although it’s inactive I feel that maybe it
should be kept on and maybe we might be able to get some more grants.
MS. O’HARA:
Because if it requires a code change to remove it, if it’s by code or whatever
it’s an action that nobody is going to bother to take.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So it’s like a throw away thing.
MS. O’HARA:
Yeah, it’s just a remnant that no one’s going to deal with and as Glen said if
down the road somewhere we get a grant to the County and they need to bring it active they’ve
got it on the books.
MS. NICHOLSON:
But maybe if it’s in a section that is recommending termination of more
than one thing, which I don’t know if it will be, then it would get a little bit more attention.
MS. O’HARA:
Maybe, but I would say we are spending a good deal of time on something that
is not a cost savings.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So do we want to continue to discuss this? Do we want to just take it off
and say we are taking it off the termination list or do we want to move it into the draft
document?
MS. O’HARA:
I would personally vote to remove it.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Other feelings.
29
MS. PROVALENKO:
I’d remove it too because it’s not doing anything.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Well then is it worth talking about terminating boards and commissions if
in fact nothing is going to happen with it?
MS. O’HARA:
With this one I don’t really see its relevance because it’s inactive. The next
one c is active and it is costing the county and could be a cost savings for the county.
MR. MATSUDA:
Ican agree with terminating the Family Violence Advisory Commission it’s
just a matter of if something comes up in the future can we take it up again in the future.
MS. O’HARA:
If we make the recommendation to terminate it, it’s not going to happen.
MR. MATSUDA:
I just don’t know how long a process it is to form a commission like this is
what if it needs immediate attention.
MS. O’HARA:
If it’s in the Code it’s an ordinance and it would take an ordinance to get rid
of it and I don’t see that recommendation being acted upon and I don’t want to make idle
recommendations. That’s my feeling as a commissioner.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay sowhat I’m hearing is we are going to scratch this oneoff without
taking action one way or another?
MS. PROVALENKO:
Correct.
MS. WONG:
That’s what I thought you folks were saying earlier.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay so now we’re on to c all community development plan steering
committees. We didn’t get a response from Bobby Jean?
MS. O’HARA:
We did not.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay so I think we can’t really talk about this until she responds. So that
one we will continue for the next agenda. Now we are going to take a break and when we get
back we will start on agenda item 7. So five minutes is that long enough for everyone?
DISCUSSION REGARDING ITEMS PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED TO BE
PLACED IN DRAFT REPORT:
MS. NICHOLSON:
We are now on Item 7 discussion regarding items previously
recommended to be placed in draft report. I don’t know that I’m up for going through every
single one of these again. But let me make a suggestion about how we might want to handle
this. I think some of these need some more wordsmithing and explanations. We can go through
each one of them and try to look at it from the eyes of someone who is not us who is responsible
for writing it in the first place and add some explanations or add some clarity or we could pick
parts of it and someone could go through x number of items and somebody else could go
through x number of items and come back and as a group we could look at it that way. That
would be my preference. People sort of take it and make some suggestive modifications but if
you want to go through it as a group that’s fine with me too or would you rather not even
address it at this time until we get a little bit closer to our draft? We’re into really discussion of
30
process which is another agenda item. But I think we need to talk about process and how we
want to handle these. Just because as I read through them I think if I were not sitting in this
room, I would just want something more. In many cases I would want to know why we came to
this conclusion because we are not the ultimate consumers of this report. For it to have an
impact people need to have some background on why that statement was made in the first place.
So what is your preference on how you want to handle the items that we are carrying forward?
MS. MATSUDA:
I would prefer to go through them one at a time.
MS. NICHOLSON:
One at a time. Okay any other comments?
MS. WONG:
Today?
MS. NICHOLSON:
Well we can always start. The problem is we are continuously adding
things so they get added and we might have already gone through that section. That’s why I
think as we put things on from here forward we ought to try to make sure they are really clear
and we put our exclamations in there. But we can go as long as we can say okay we are going
to spend the next half an hour or whatever it is or we are going to go through a, b and c or
however far we get, if you want to do it that way. I think though the important thing is to put on
your outside reader hat. Not what our discussion was but I know nothing about this, I’m
reading it cold, does this make any sense to me, and does this give me enough information that I
can go oh yeah this is something to really consider or they’re right you could save some money
that way. Be more efficient.
MS.WONG:
I suggest either one or two people volunteer as a subcommittee, people that are
good at wording things, looking at the way things are worded. If I’m going to really focus in on
the wording of these things and try to move things around or make things fold out better, I just
do it better in quiet and by myself rather than at a meeting.
MR. ARMOUR:
I agree, if we can get these electronically and then divide them up and allow
you to work on a computer to reword them versus us doing a verbal and trying to read it back
and seeing if it makes sense.
MS. O’HARA:
Yeah, I find it very difficult to do a group project without a computer. Yeah I
don’t wordsmith well thinking out loud.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So would you like the whole list to come to each one of us and we each
go through one and I’m excluding Bill from this unless he particularly wants to be involved,
probably not, so that we end up with six versions or do we want…
MS. WONG:
Are there any volunteers that would like to tackle this maybe one or two people
instead of six?
MS. O’HARA:
I think number one what I would like to see happen is that we decide for a
better organizational format than what we got now. We got A, B, C, D, E and F sections. If we
could shape this into an outline for the report.
MS. MATSUDA:
Isn’t this already in outline?
31
MS. O’HARA:
Is this our outline for the report A, B, C, D, E and F? Because A is review of
the complete compensation package for employees is that really what A is about?
MS. PROVALENKO:
If you read through it, it is.
MS. O’HARA:
But who’s reviewing? When you use a verb like review…
MS. PROVALENKO:
I see what you’re saying.
MS. O’HARA:
What is this really about? This is about modifying compensation packages for
employees. Is that a better description for this section?
MS. NICHOLSON:
It has to be really usable so people can look at it and go ah that section
applies to me, I want to look at that section. Would you be willing to take on the task of just
looking at overall structure? Which means that you wouldn’t have to look at all the wording but
just how to organize it for presentation and come back to us with a proposed format that would
accommodate all the stuff but don’t spend your time looking at all the stuff except to figure out
what it would look like so its accessible for a reader to look at.
MR. MATSUDA:
Can it be on a CD format to make things easier for her?
MS. GARSON:
Oh yeah we’ll email you the word version no problem.
MS. WONG:
If she starts off with that and then what happens it comes to all of us to work on?
MS. GARSON:
You’reworking on an outline for the report basically. An outline of the
format of the report. If she works on that on her own then for example on the next agenda we’ll
have a discussion regarding the outline of the report and then Eileen will get us her version
ahead of time and that will part of the agenda what you will discuss. We won’t put it in the
agenda but it’s a document that we’ll just attach to it.
MS. O’HARA:
Can we discuss it at the next meeting if I get it to you?
MS. GARSON:
Yes, you’re doing it on your own so.
MS. NICHOLSON:
If you get it to her soon enough.
MR. MATSUDA:
But that doesn’t have to be for public review or whatever because it’s just
coming from her right?
MS. GARSON:
Well the public can certainly get it because you’re going to be discussing it as
a proposal at the next meeting.
MR. MATSUDA:
So it’s going to have to be on the agenda then?
MS. GARSON:
I won’t put it on the agenda we’ll have whatever version we can just attach it.
MS. NICHOLSON:
It’s not going to be very interesting it’s basically headings and
organizational stuff but not content.
32
MS. WONG:
If there can be for example a subcommittee, Eileen drafting the outline design
and someone else looking at all the words to refine the words and come back and present that at
the same time. It’s not a finished product but getting two of it to the next meeting, too much?
MS. GARSON:
At this point I wish you wouldn’t form any more subcommittees because I
think it’s just causing us delay especially if you’re going to work independently. I mean if
you’re working on the outline then you’re only working with the headings and somebody else
can work with the actual wording of the recommendations.
MR. MATSUDA:
Because we already know what that is.
MS. GARSON:
Right. If you individual work on it it’s a lot easier and like I said I can just
attach it then to the agenda.
MS. O’HARA:
Let me get some clarification here if I’m going to do this.Because we are
very heavily weighted in terms of our recommendation in terms of staff issues and these are
overarching all departments this isn’t just one department. The first section being compensation
packages for employees. B is again review of reimbursements and per diem policy so that
relates to compensation. Policies on travel and vehicle use and benefits, and then opportunities
for staff consolidation or staff reduction.
MS. WONG:
At one of the earlier meetings we talked about the County’s essential functions
as a basis for our recommendations and then subheadings of the subcommittees as a further
break down of that and then go into specifics.
MS. O’HARA:
I agree. I see our report having a big front end to it in terms of the general
overarching concepts that we’ve discussed the essential business of the County and then
launching into the specifics. I just want to be sure that we’re all seeing it the same way so that
if I try and shape it up it will meet with your approval. The difficult one is miscellaneous.
You’re going to have a new draft of this subsequent to this meeting right which we’ve included
a section called contracts and what not.
MS. GARSON:
Yeah, they’ll just pick it up and put it together.
MS. O’HARA:
I think I can do that. I will try and get something done maybe over the
weekend.
MS. NICHOLSON:
It’s soon but I don’t think it’s terribly onerous.
MS. O’HARA:
No it’s not.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So she’s going to give us some sort of format that we can discuss at the
next meeting. I thought that I will start working on some sort of an introduction which will be
those overarching things which everyone will look at and make sure I put everything in there.
But I will start working on some sort of introduction. I will not have it by the next meeting
because as I told Gloria I’m leaving for Turkey on the same day as the next meeting and then
I’m gone for a month. So if I’m a little distracted… But I will start working on it I’ve thought
about it for a little bit. But some people will never read the introduction they will go right to the
content so I want to make sure that we have some sort of format where people can easily access
what the information is they want to look at. In terms of review and content I agree it’s easier
33
for me to do it on my own than try to do it by committee. I don’t have a lot of time to do that in
the next six weeks. Anyone want to take on some of this? Because then whatever it is it’s
going to fit into the new format that Eileen is going to come up with that we’ll discuss. But
someone could take A, and someone could take what is currently B and C, and maybe someone
takes C, and maybe someone could take D, and someone could take E, something like that.
MR. MATSUDA:
I think if everyone would just take a look at it and review it and make
changes if necessary, there might not be any changes necessary, but I think if everyone has an
opinion of their own by coming back together we can say okay this is a consensus, line number
four is okay so proceed to the next one.
MS. NICHOLSON:
That’s a good way to do it.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I like his idea.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Especially if we have it electronically then we can print out our own little
copies.
MS. PROVALENKO:
And put our own verbiage in there and then bring it back and look at it.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So we’re not going to go through this individually now. What about the
format wise. What about the citing of the meeting dates that this came up in?
MS. GARSON:
We put that in for agenda purposes and for your discussion in case someone
says where did that come from.
MS. NICHOLSON:
But I’m wondering in our final report do we want to include the where
did that come from. What is your feeling about it?
MS. PROVLENKO:
Ithought we had discussed it and said we would just so that the general
public, or Council, or Mayor did read it they would know specifically where this came from so
they could use this as their backup. I thought we discussed this.
MS. NICHOLSON:
We talked about it a little bit.
MS.GARSON:
The other thing is you did add in the last Cost of Government report
background/explanation about why the recommendation came up so that you concisely have it,
the background.
MS. NICHOLSON:
See I would rather incorporate that right into the recommendation. So
when you read the recommendation you’re reading why we’re making the recommendation.
MS. GARSON:
Just because your minutes don’t read easily.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Yeah I know. So how do we want to say cite the sources of this? Are
we going to have an appendix that has a lot of documents in it? Again this is going back to
format though.
MS. O’HARA:
We can have an appendix that contains all the documents that we sent out
requesting information so that they can see the manner in which we obtained information. I
34
think that would be useful. But I don’t think we want all of the comments and stuff as an
appendix, that’s not necessary.
MS. GARSON:
But that can also be part of the recommendation. I’m just trying to save
paper. I mean not recommendation, introduction or an appendix that these correspondence were
sent out but not necessarily have to attach them as pieces of paper.
MS. O’HARA:
Yeah exactly, just an explanation.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Is everyone comfortable with that? So what we have committed to do is
we each one of us will get an electronic copy of what’s in item 7 which will then include
whatever we added today. Although we don’t necessarily need to wait until we add that in
otherwise we’ll never get it done.
MS. GARSON:
We might send it to you without that it just depends on staff.
MS. NICHOLSON:
If we got two speakers at our next meeting we’re not going to get to far
through that so maybe we should just agree now that we’re going to try to cover say A through
C at the next meeting. So we’ll focus on A through C and we’ll go through item by item.
MR. MATSUDA:
But not limited to C right.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So that would cover everything that starts on the first page of the agenda
and goes through the top of page 3 of the agenda, A through C.
MS. PROVALENKO:
Yeah but I think Glen was saying not limiting it to C because we don’t
know if the speakers are gonna show up.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay if you want to go through the whole thing and we’ll just see as far
as we can get at the next meeting.
MS. PROVALENKO:
Yeah.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay let’s do that. So what we are looking for is for a reader that is not
associated with this committee, what are we trying to say. Is it clear what we’re trying to say
and can we add some reasons as to why we came up with this. So there might be another
sentence or two that says this would save duh duh duh or whatever it is. We’ll just see what we
come up with it might be widely different with each one of us. Okay so any other discussion on
agenda item 7?
MS. O’HARA:
Yeah I’m not sure how to bring this in we had a presentation from Mr.
th
Hoffman the January 14 meeting and something that has not been brought out of his
th
discussion with us in this list is on page 20 of those minutes, January 14 minutes, he mentions
the impact fees which has been an ongoing effort at the County to adopt impact fees for a
couple decades. It goes back to an original study in I believe 1990 by I believe Ann Kobayashi?
MR. TAKABA:
Ann Usogawa.
35
MS. O’HARA:
Usogawa, sorry Usogawa.And we’re still not there and we still have a fair
share system which is questionably legal per court rulings. This is a big cost issue that the
county needs to look at and I don’t see it anywhere on our list of recommendations.
MS. NICHOLSON:
It seems to me that if we want to discuss it someone, probably you will
need to draft something that then goes on for discussion on our next agenda so we can have a
discussion on that item.
MS. O’HARA:
Do we need to hear from anyone or do we have enough expertise here in the
room to have a good discussion on that.
MS. GARSON:
If you’re looking at me no.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Yeah, I probably not.
MS. O’HARA:
Bill, you pretty up to speed on the impact fees?
MR. TAKABA:
No, I know generally what it’s about but not enough to make a
recommendation.
MS. O’HARA:
So w could ask two different points of view people to come in and talk to us.
MS. GARSON:
He has a pending ordinance in front of council on impact fees right now.
MR. MATSUDA:
Maybe we should just let that run its course.
MS. O’HARA:
So you’re thinking that this will be acted on by the time we have the report
done?
MS. GARSON:
I can’t predict that. I’m just saying for those who might not be following it
there’s a pending ordinance right now before council.
MS. O’HARA:
This is not the first time there’s been an impact fee ordinance before council
though.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So it might be a little premature although we’re getting towards the end
of our thing here for us to weigh in with an opinion since it’s already being discussed in council.
I mean I don’t know enough about impact fees and I think probably that’s why it hasn’t shown
up is we haven’t felt informed enough nor has it come up as a specific item to be discussed on
the agenda so we either have to hear from people or we need to have something to react to.
MS. O’HARA:
Well on the revenue enhancement side the impact fee ordinance would bring a
lot more money into the county for its capital improvement projects and infrastructure than our
current system of fair share.So if we’re going to make recommendations of that level I would
say recommend adopting an impact fee ordinance. Whether it is as worded by the one that is
being presented to council by Mr. Hoffman or not, I’m not up to speed on the specifics.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Can you draft something that you can send to them so it can be a
discussion item for our next agenda item so we all have something we’re physically reading and
looking at.
36
MS. O’HARA:
Yes and I think someone from Corporation Counsel, I don’t know who, who
would be the best person to speak to?
MS. GARSON:
Probably Amy Self who’s our Planning. But what would you like to know?
Just what is an impact fee, what is fair share?
MS. O’HARA:
No, what would be valuable to us in Cost of Government is how that would
modify the collections that we currently collect under the fair share contribution system versus
what we could be collecting under the impact fees. I’m sure that that analysis has been done.
In fact we hired a consultant to do that analysis back in 2005, Planning Department.
MS. GARSON:
So there is that report as I recall.
MS. O’HARA:
If that could that be summarized. Of course no one here has got the time to
read that report I’m sure it’s very large. As to the benefit of adopting an impact fee ordinance
over continuing to use our fair share contribution system… You’re making lots of faces…
MS. GARSON:
That’s a huge, that’s what the whole debate is about. I know you don’t have
time but you can also go back and review the minutes of the past discussions from the council
from when they tried to institute it. We can get you CDs of the meetings on this ordinance
although I wasn’t present during the discussion so I’m not sure what kind of background was
provided by Hoffman or by Bobby Jean.
MS. NICHOLSON:
There must be pros and cons and I guess I’m feeling a little
uncomfortable getting involved in an issue that we’re not hearing both sides of and not really
totally understanding and not seeing any analysis of. I’m not sure I want to get behind it. I
wouldn’t want to put my name to it.What else do you feel about it? I know it’s a huge thing.
It’s a huge issue with a giant impact in terms of county finances. Do we want to try and get
some speakers in here to talk to inform us about it? I would want to make sure we’re getting
more than one side of it.
MS. GARSON:
Have you seen any of the debates at council on this present ordinance?
MR. TAKABA:
Yeah.
MS. GARSON:
I guess what I’m thinking is you are going to be duplicating a lot of what is
presently before the council because that’s the debate right now on this ordinance, whether or
not to pass. So that discussion is happening is my point in front of the council right now.
MR. TAKABA:
Essentially what it is is charging developers and people who construct homes
a fee to pay for infrastructure for that neighborhood or that area. So in the case of impact fees
because some developers already did the development the person who wants to build a house on
a lot that is already developed will now have to be paying $7,000 or whatever the impact fee is
going to be for road construction, fire houses, police stations. So each development would pay
for the impact of that development for that area. The difference between that and fair share is
that fair share was deemed to be illegal because there’s no rational nexus.
MS. GARSON:
Actually it wasn’t.
37
MR. TAKABA:
It wasn’t? Well that’s what Hoffman claims.
MS. GARSON:
Right, the decision that Ibarra wrote was limited.
MR. TAKABA:
Pete Hoffman doesn’t vote for fair share assessments because he feels it’s
illegal so he wants to pass the impact fee bill instead. So it’s a philosophical thing who pays for
infrastructure, schools, roads, parks and so forth.
MS. O’HARA:
Fair share does not apply directly to an individual build. Fair share is tacked
on at the time of rezoning. So if you take a big a tract of land and as a developer you plan to
subdivide it or what not it is at that point the fair share is tacked on and it’s for the same
categories; the solid waste, police and fire. We don’t have a basis in Code or Charter for
assigning that fair share contribution and it doesn’t always get paid because it’s negotiable
between the developer and the county so sometimes requirements are waived or accepted in lieu
of something else. It hasn’t functioned to bring the money needed to put in a traffic light which
costs a million dollars to do an intersection these days. Things like that, it hasn’t been brining
in the money that’s needed to keep up with the infrastructure with a safe accessible community.
MS. NICHOLSON:
We’re talking about putting in place a system that’s more equitable for
sharing costs. We could certainly say that. I don’t know if I want to get involved in the impact
versus fair share debate if the council is locked into this debate right now.
MS. O’HARA:
They’ve been locked in for 20 years.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Yeah, but we could put something forward about a more equitable way to
share costs for infrastructure development.
MS. O’HARA:
Its one of the reasons we are falling behind as a county in providing those
items; Police, Fire, Parks, Solid Waste, is because we do not have a way to collect on
development.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So how do other people feel about this? So she’s suggesting that we put
something on a future agenda to talk about this issue, whatever this issue is.
MS. O’HARA:
Well the issue would be do we want to recommend they adopt an impact fee
and if they adopt it before the report is finalized then fine, if they turn it down….
MS. NICHOLSON:
I personally don’t want to get involved in making a recommendation
using those charged terms right now because I don’t know enough about it but if we want to
make a recommendation that sort of talks about equality of fees and an equitable way to get
them, that’s fine.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I think it’s more collection is really what Eileen is talking about.
We’ve had something out there for years but it’s a matter of collecting on that but we haven’t. I
mean we’ve collected in other ways but not really to make an impact for our county government
because it takes money to build a Fire Department.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Well we’re talking about what we want to put on the agenda. So what do
we want to put on the agenda to address this concern, if anything?
38
MR. MATSUDA:
I suggest that we do as we had already mentioned on the other topics and on
the agenda to indicate an agenda item in regards to the discussion of impact fees or application
of the impact fees and should we have enough time to discuss it at the next meeting I would be
more than happy to entertain the situation, but if we do not I think we can just suspend it and
discuss it on the next meeting after that. But having it on the agenda at least we can discuss it
should we have time at the next meeting.
MS. WONG:
The topic would come under the subcommittee of collections?
MS. NICHOLSON:
I don’t think it has to be under a subcommittee. I think it’s just an
agenda item to discuss impact fees.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I’m not even sure if it’s really our position as Cost of Government
especially if it’s at council.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I think it falls within our purview.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I agree with what you said, more equitable way.
MR. MATSUDA:
Let’s just have it down so we can discuss it, that’s all.
MS. GARSON:
So specifically the agenda item is discussion regarding impact fees. Okay.
MS. PROVALENKO:
At that point in time if it’s on impact fees we could still discuss fair
share right?
MS. GARSON:
Do you want me to put impact fees and fair share?
MS. PROVALENKO:
Just so we can have the opportunity to discuss.
MS. GARSON:
Are you going to invite Mr. Hoffman and then maybe Bobby Jean?
MR. TAKABA:
Maybe Bobby Jean.
MS. O’HARA:
I think we’ve heard from Mr. Hoffman and we know he heavily supports his
bill.
MS. GARSON:
Do you want to invite the planning director then?
MS. NICHOLSON:
Yeah. We might get pretty stacked up with speakers at our next meeting
if we can get Mr. Tanouye and Mr. Kurohara.
th
MS. GARSON:
He can’t come on the 8anyway.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Maybe we can check with her when she could come.
MS. GARSON:
To discuss impact fees and fair share?
MS. NICHOLSON:
Yeah and maybe then there will be an update on what’s happening with
the council on it.
39
MS. O’HARA:
If we do invite Bobby Jean do we have anything else?
MS. WONG:
We still asked her for a response.
MS. O’HARA:
For the commission. That would be good kill two birds with one stone.
DISCUSSION REGARDING APPROACH TO TAKE TO TIMELY ACCOMPLISH
MANDATE OF THE COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION:
MS. NICHOLSON:
I’ve sort of lost track we’re on agenda item 10 or 12. We sort of waffled
between the approach to take which started from agenda item 7. I think we’ve worked through
that but do we have any subcommittees that may have reports coming forward? Do we have
any issues with how the subcommittees are working or not working? So item B community
workshop for Cost of Government recommendations and action projects or article in Hawaii
Tribune-Herald…
MS. WONG:
Before we move from A do we want a final report from all the committees or not
necessary?
MS. NICHOLSON:
I don’t think we need a final report. I think their job was just to bring
forward suggestions. Do we need a final report? I think as long as their input is received I
think we’re fine.
MS. WONG:
I just wanted to make sure we weren’t not doing something.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay B, Community Workshop for Cost of Government
recommendations and action projects or article in Hawaii Tribune-Herald inviting mail or e-
mail. Can we just keep this on the agenda? I don’t know that we can do anything with it now.
We already talked about C. Have we covered item 12 already?
MS. WONG:
Can we still stay with 10. I have a question when are we done? June. We
seem… Our meetings are cancelled… Will we have enough time to finish our product and if not
should we either try and schedule more or differently or schedule longer or do we not have
those options.
MS. GARSON:
You have those options.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Both of the past Cost of Government Commissions in their report said
they didn’t have enough time to finish. I don’t think there will ever be enough time to finish so
I guess if it’s up to us we could decide do we want to extend beyond June.
MS. GARSON:
You can’t, it’s the Charter.
MS. NICHOLSON:
We can’t do that we can just add more meetings?
MS. GARSON:
Yes.
MS. O’HARA:
We can add more meetings in the time we have left that’s it.
40
MS. NICHOLSON:
Which is in the next two months.
MS. PROVALENKO:
Do you have enough time to do that because you have to do seven days
right posting?
MS. GARSON:
Well as long as you don’t schedule anything within six days from now you
have the time.
MS. O’HARA:
So we have two meetings in April…
MS. NICHOLSON:
You know what maybe we should talk about discussion regarding future
meeting dates and see if we’re going to have a quorum.
MS. WONG:
While everyone’s pulling out their calendars on 10 because it took us awhileto
sort of catch up to speed with our term and to get things moving, I would like to propose
someone from this commission would volunteer to go to the next commission’s first meeting
and get them up to speed on what we did.
MS. NICHOLSON:
But there were already two of us from the last one on this one already.
But we decided to tackle it in a different way.
MS. PROVALENKO:
Different circumstances.
MS. WONG:
But you folks didn’t really tell us what you guys…
MS. PROVALENKO:
Because it was totally different. Two different economies.
DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE MEETING DATES:
th
MS. NICHOLSON:
Let’s start about April. Our next meeting is scheduled for April 8. I
will try to make it. I do fly to Turkey that afternoon but I think I can come to the meeting in the
morning.
MR. MATSUDA:
We’ll make it short.
th
MS. WONG:
But you won’t be here on the 20.
th
MS. NICHOLSON:
How about the 8.
th
MS. PROVALENKO:
I’m not going to be here on the 8 I’ll be on the mainland.
MR. MATSUDA:
I’ll be here.
th
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay so the rest of us will be here on the 8 so we can hold the meeting
thth
on the 8.The next meeting is on Wednesday the 20 which I will not be here for.
MR. ARMOUR:
I won’t be here.
MS. GARSON:
That’s it then.
41
MS. NICHOLSON:
Okay what is your schedule so maybe we can find another date that I
won’t be here but maybe you can?
thth
MR. ARMOUR:
Ileave for Bangkok on the 19 and I return on the 25.
th
MS. WONG:
How about 27.
thth
MS. NICHOLSON:
Wednesday, the 27. Let’s aim for Wednesday the 27of April.
MS. WONG:
You’ll be back?
MS. NICHOLSON:
No.
th
MS. NICHOLSON:
May. We’ve got May 13. Does that still work for people? And Friday
thth
the 27. We’re not talking about adding any meetings at the moment. Then we have June 8
th
which is a Wednesday and the last meeting is June 24and Patricia you’re gone.
th
MS. PROVALENKO:
I’m gone. I’m on the mainland. I leave on the 17 and don’t come
th
back until the 28.
MS. NICHOLSON:
But everybody else seems like they can probably make those dates? Do
we want to try to add in more meetings or do we want to try and stick with this schedule and be
pretty diligent in doing our homework?
MR. MATSUDA:
Let’s stick with this schedule.
th
MS. O’HARA:
I would like to recommend that we have a draft of the final report by the 27
of May.
MR. MATSUDA:
Good suggestion.
MS. NICHOLSON:
We are still carrying forward this idea of sending something to the
department heads a draft for them to look at give us feedback on. We were talking about doing
a community meeting. We were talking about the Tribune-Herald article. So we’re back to sort
th
of process here. If we have a draft by May 27we still have two meetings but we wouldn’t
have a whole lot of time to get it out to department heads for them to react to or county council
people for them to react to or get community input to revise and finalize it by the end of June.
MR. MATSUDA:
Do we need a response or reaction from the county council?
MS. NICHOLSON:
We don’t. We were trying to do it as more a courtesy. It was mostly I
think the department heads that we wanted to try get something to. But it hasn’t been done that
way in the past, we don’t have to do it, but early on when we started discussing this process we
thought that would be a good thing is to get a courtesy draft to the Mayor and department heads,
and we talked about getting some community input.
MR. MATSUDA:
But if we cannot make those time than…
MS. NICHOLSON:
Then we do the report as has been before and we do the report and send it
out there.
42
thth
MS. O’HARA:
Well if we have a draft by the 27 we could advertise our June 8meeting
open to the public and get something in the Tribune-Herald. We could invite all the department
th
heads who want to come to speak to us on the 8 and get that input there.
th
MS. NICHOLSON:
But if we’re just approving the draft on the 27then if we make any
changes to the draft then they have to make it available to everybody in time for everybody to
read it to give input to us. I don’t know it’s an awfully tight turn around.
th
MS. O’HARA:
Draft by the 13? Do you want another meeting in May?
MR. MATSUDA:
Let’s cross that bridge when we get there after the next meeting.
MS. WONG:
Why leave today what we can leave for tomorrow.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Which is sort of what we have been really good at. We will continue to
talk about this. But in the meantime we have imposed a deadline on ourselves for having a draft
th
report, which means really the draft report we want to have most elements together by the 13
th
of May so that we’re really looking at a final draft on the 27right?
MR. MATSUDA:
Yes.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Anything else before I make the announcement of when we’re meeting
next?
ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENDA:
MR. MATSUDA:
You need to put items to be placed on next agenda which would be 9A1a, b
& d.
MS. NICHOLSON:
I think we did that and we are carrying forward Eric Tanouye, Randy
Kurohara…
MS. GARSON:
Well no because he can’t make it next meeting.We will invite the Planning
Director and see if she can attend.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Do we know which meeting in May the Mayor might be attending?
MS. CARVALHO:
Not yet.
MS. WONG:
The outline that Eileen is coming up with….
MS. NICHOLSON:
Will be on the agenda for the next meeting.
MS. WONG:
Since Pat will not be here can she be emailed that or is that Sunshine?
MS. GARSON:
It will go out with the packet.
MS. NICHOLSON:
So if she has any comments about it would she make them to you or how
would she?
43
MS. GARSON:
There really isn’t any proper way to participate.
MS. PROVALENKO:
I didn’t think so.
MS. NICHOLSON:
Well we could still though if you come up with a brilliant idea that we
agree on then the following meeting…
MS. PROVALENKO:
I will.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
MS. NICHOLSON:
The next meeting of the Cost of Government Commission will be held
on Friday, April 8, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., at the Liquor Control Conference Room, Hilo Lagoon
Centre, 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230, Hilo, HI 96720. Just know I can’t spend all day here that
day so we will hopefully be through by 12:30 at the latest on that day.
ADJOURNMENT:
MS. NICHOLSON:
Thank you everyone.
Respectfully submitted,
Emarie Carvalho
44