Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-07 Cost of Government Commission Minutes1. 2. COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION County of Hawaii MINUTES September 7, 2006 — 10:00 a.m. Office of the Corporation Counsel — Conference Room 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Commission members present: Also present: CALL TO ORDER Myles Y. Miyasato, Chair Wayne T. Joseph, Vice Chair Marilyn L. Nicholson, Commissioner Melvyn K. Sakaguchi, Commissioner Barbara R. Stremski, Commissioner Katherine A. Garson, Deputy Corporation Counsel Joseph K. Kamelamela, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary E. Crosson, Secretary The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM AUGUST 17, 2006 MEETING Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to accept and file the minutes, Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC There were no members of the public present, but the Chair introduced Joseph K. Kamelamela, Deputy Corporation Counsel, who wished to make a statement. Mr. Kamelamela explained that he is the Litigation Division supervisor for the Office of the Corporation Counsel. He read the article in the September 6, 2006, Hawai `i Tribune Herald about the potential recommendations of the Cost of Government Commission and was concerned about one regarding State highways being turned over to the County. Mr. Kamelamela felt that the COGC should not use the term "pursuing" the incorporation or consolidation of the State highways into the County system in its recommendation, but should use the term "exploring" instead. He said the issue is complicated and there would be legal ramifications if the County were to take over the roads, particularly in the area of maintenance and liability. If there were any defects in the maintenance of a road, the County would be responsible for damages that arise from those defects. In addition, some of the State roads are older and narrow, such as Mamalahoa Highway, and need a lot of maintenance. Another potential issue is with the federal funding for roads. When the federal government turns road monies over, it wants a state agency to handle the funding. One of the intentions of the State Highways Division is to make sure there is a contiguous roadway system encompassing the different islands, and it therefore needs control of the federal funding. Another issue is that the County does not have the personnel or facilities to handle maintaining such an increase in its roads. If its personnel were to increase, it would mean an increase in taxes to pay for it. There is currently a study under way with the State Department of Transportation regarding whether its highways could be transferred to the counties. The County of Hawaii has already submitted written testimony on the issues Mr. Kamelamela mentioned, as well as that if the State were to turn over jurisdiction of its roads to the County, the County should get the same kind of immunity that is given to the State. The State has "discretionary immunity," which provides some relief. As long as its personnel acted in good faith and did what they were supposed to do when looking at potential designs or defects, there is a possibility of being relieved of liability. The County of Hawaii, through the Office of the Corporation Counsel, will continue providing input on potential problems in transferring the responsibility of the control, jurisdiction, and maintenance of State highways to the County. Mr. Joseph asked Mr. Kamelamela who asked him to appear at this meeting, and Mr. Kamelamela said that when he read the newspaper article, he felt he should provide input. Mr. Joseph asked Mr. Kamelamela whether he realized that the recommendation on this matter came from his own division head, Stanley Nakasone. Mr. Kamelamela said that Mr. Nakasone may have been giving his own opinion on the issue, which is not representative of the Corporation Counsel, which looks at the potential litigation issues. Mr. Sakaguchi said he was disturbed that Mr. Kamelamela seemed to be saying he would rather the State be sued over a defective road than the County, because the County is not protected, and that the County should not take over the State highways because it does not want to get sued. Mr. Kamelamela said he wanted to make clear that in taking over the State highways, there would be an increase in litigation. The burden may be larger than most people are aware. However, exploring the issue would be fine. The Chair stated that when he introduced Mr. Kamelamela, he neglected to indicate that he was speaking on behalf of the Office of the Corporation Counsel. Mr. Joseph asked whether Mr. Kamelamela just wanted the word "pursue" removed and replaced with "explore." Mr. Kamelamela said yes, or replaced with another word to that effect. Mr. Sakaguchi asked when the State's study on the possible transfer started, and Mr. Kamelamela said he believed it started within the last two to three years, but the Corporation Counsel's involvement in submitting input happened last year. Mr. Sakaguchi said it is inefficient to have two departments and sets of equipment doing the same thing. Mr. Kamelamela said that the statute itself provides for two separate highway 2 systems, state and local. The State has the manpower right now to handle its roads, which are wider and thicker than County roads due to federal funding. Ms. Nicholson asked why the County cannot get federal funding, and Mr. Kamelamela said he was told that the federal government wants to go through a state agency, which is why there is a State Transportation Division. The County is able to partnership with the State to get some of the federal monies, however. Mr. Kamelamela said there is a concern with the State Department of Transportation doing the study on the road transfer. It needs to be ensured that the money will trickle down to the counties. Mr. Sakaguchi said it is not to the State's advantage to transfer the roads, as they would rather keep the money and power. Mr. Joseph said it should have been the COGC's agenda that brought Mr. Kamelamela to the meeting rather than the newspaper's article, as the paper has the tendency to exploit the most controversial issues and forget about the other items. Mr. Sakaguchi thanked Mr. Kamelamela for his clarification, and Mr. Kamelamela left the meeting at 10:25 a.m. [The following section of the minutes, in italics, is verbatim.] STREMSKI: That article. I apologize if I spoke out of turn. CHAIR: Why? STREMSKI: Because I probably should not have said anything. CHAIR: I didn't even see the article, so -- STREMSKI: - -I know. CHAIR: I think I don't know SAKAGUCHI: --No, it's not your fault. Don't worry about that. STREMSKI: No, I didn't want to CHAIR: I think any commissioner is subject to the public, and that's STREMSKI: I wanted to tell him I didn't want to talk to him, but I didn't know if I'd get in trouble for that. CHAIR: No, no, you wouldn't get in trouble for that. But would say whatever comment you give to the public any commissioner is free to speak to the public. As long as you don't make a comment, I guess, that would be more GARSON: Right. What normally we tell commissioners not to do is to speak on behalf of the entire commission, because without the authorization. And it generally would come up not only in newspaper articles, but if you're going again, say to the legislature to testify, and you don't have you were not appointed to do so for the commission, you cannot represent yourself as a commissioner. It would be in your individual capacity. So, you know, County Council I mean, whatever, wherever you go, you were representing in your individual unless you have the specific authority. You know, when I read the article, there it didn't seem like that was the case. But that's usually our warning. Just you're free to speak certainly as an individual, you know, I am a member of this, just to let you know, and that STREMSKI: - -I tried to tell him that. You know, I said I can't speak for anybody else. In fact, I told him I feel overwhelmed with this commission, because everybody has a college education and I do not. You know, I'm just an ordinary citizen. SAKAGUCHI: You're part of us, so don't worry about the education and all that. STREMSKI: I know, but I don't want it to reflect badly. CHAIR: No, no. Jason told me he wanted to do an article Armstrong. He told me he wanted to do an article. I'd seen him up at the County Council building. I told him, you know, we have we're going to be reviewing a whole bunch of recommendations, so if he wanted to come and sit in. So STREMSKI: - -So I can choke him. CHAIR: I thought he was going to come and sit in, but I guess he ran into —ran into people, so he did it that way. And that's fine. I mean, the press is free to do that. STREMSKI: Well, he said when I spoke to him, I said you should be talking to Myles or to Wayne, I said, because there's a chairperson and a co- chairperson. He said well, you never got back to me. He left you numerous telephone messages. I said, well, could you talk with someone else, but CHAIR: - -No, he never called. But that's no problem. STREMSKI: He didn't call you at all? CHAIR: No. We just spoke at the County Building. He sees me there all the time, at the County Building STREMSKI: --He should come to this meeting so I can speak to him privately outside. CHAIR: Okay SAKAG UCHI: Are we going to discuss this now? CHAIR: Yes, sure. 0 SAKAGUCHI: I think that this reporter, then, should be reprimanded, because, you know, he has no business writing that article. I was really pissed off when I saw it. I thought who the hell are you to represent our council? I thought ifMyles said Myles was interviewed andMyles was quoted, no problem. Myles is the chairman. Okay. But I thought that we didn't extend that right to speak on behalf of us to you. My understanding is the vice chairman takes over the meetings when the chairman is unable to do that. And so I felt that I thought that, you know, these recommendations I thought were really tentative. And the way it came out, I thought you know, I don't know if it's the reporter's fault, how he interpreted your statements or what, but you were quoted, and it seems like it was final. STREMSKI: Well, I mentioned it was going to be discussed. SAKAGUCHI: No, no, no. But the way the article turned out JOSEPH: --It said we were meeting today to finalize it SAKAGUCHI: - -What? JOSEPH: It says we're meeting today to finalize some of the things on the agenda. SAKAGUCHI: No, no, but we haven't decided. You look at the quote JOSEPH: -- That's what this meeting was set up for. It was to look at this and set up and decide which ones to finalize. SAKAGUCHI: Can I see GARSON: Sure. SAKAGUCHI: Well, you spoke about the land. You spoke about placing all random drug testing. Those things we said, that we made the preliminary list, and my understanding was we were going to come back to it, we're going to add JOSEPH: -- That's right, and look in there, it says SAKAGUCHI: --But you're making the statement as though this is JOSEPH: --He asked me specific questions STREMSKI: - -Yeah, he did. JOSEPH: And he only wanted to know three specific areas. SAKAG UCHI: Okay. STREMSKI: We didn't I didn't volunteer any of that information. He asked me if I would answer. And I told him if I do, it's only my opinion, my personal opinion. No one else 's. I'm not speaking for anyone else on the commission. SAKAGUCHI: Yeah, I know, I know. I'm not yeah. STREMSKI: But he evidently had a whole list of all of it SAKAGUCHI: Yeah, he has the list of the recommendations STREMSKI: - -He said it was faxed to his office SAKAGUCHI: - -The tentative recommendations. So, just so that there's no more misunderstanding, can we have an understanding that the chairman speaks for the commission, and that's all? JOSEPH: Well, let me have an understanding. You don't censor me SAKAG UCHI: -­Fm not censoring you JOSEPH: - -You don't tell me what I can or can't do. SAKAG UCHI: I 'm not censoring you JOSEPH: -­I have the free right SAKAGUCHI: -­Fm just saying the damage is done. JOSEPH: What damage, Melvyn? SAKAGUCHI: This is premature. It is premature, Wayne. You've been on these government commissions before. JOSEPH: Premature is right. SAKAGUCHI: After we that's why I say, should we ask JOSEPH: -- That's why we're here today. And it says that right in the beginning. SAKAGUCHI: Should we ask that the reporter be reprimanded, because he's stating things that have not been decided yet, finally? JOSEPH: Reprimand the reporter for doing his job SAKAG UCHI: - He 's not doing his job JOSEPH: - -Which is trying to find out about these things, and he's trying to stimulate community interest? SAKAGUCHI: That action has been taking place on these things. I think it's premature reporting. Yeah, I know you're pointing out that the reference is the recommendations. It's I toward the end part, where it's kind of hard to discern which is a recommendation and which is already preliminarily decided. STREMSKI: I told him directly. I could speak to what I said. Nothing has been decided, definitely. SAKAGUCHI: Yeah, yeah. STREMSKI: And I told him I don't know even if I'm supposed to be talking to you. I really don't want to. SAKAGUCHI: I appreciate that. I know it's hard to get a reporter off your back. STREMSKI: Oh, yeah, especially when I'm waiting for a call from my daughter, who was in an accident just before that, you know. I would never have answered the phone if it wasn't for that. But if I spoke out of turn I apologize SAKAGUCHI: - -I don't think anyone's blaming you. CHAIR: I don't think anything is out of line or anything is out of place as far as any comments to a reporter, to the public. And a reporter is most certainly free to write that article. I don't think you have any basis for reprimanding a reporter for doing his job. And if it says in there that it's to be decided today, that's what we're doing. And I don't see any violation in there, from what was spoken. I didn't read it. I personally didn't read it. But do you see anything in there that's in violation, or GARSON: Well, I don't think there's any sort of violation. You are all free to decide whether or not you're going to speak, whether or not you want to designate Myles to speak, or, you know, that's happened before. I represent the Water Board. I've cautioned them before, too, you know, but to make sure that they they've represented as themselves. But that also doesn't mean the reporter's gong to print that CHAIR: - -Going to print, yeah GARSON: --Because, you know, like you said, I'm only representing this is my personal opinion. They're going to take whatever they want, right, from what you say, so they're not going to print that, you know, whether or not you say it. So, you know. CHAIR: I think sometimes something like that is kind of healthy, to get input. I mean, we got input from Corporation Counsel, from Mr. Kamelamela, on an issue that was brought up. But sometimes criticism is healthy, so I really don't see a problem with the article for myself. SAKAGUCHI: Yeah. I'm not above your right that criticism is good, but at the appropriate time. After we have finally decided on these things, I think no problem if any member of the public says I think you're really wrong and can I give you my input. I think CHAIR: - -I think this is the appropriate time, personally. I think this is the appropriate time for criticism, when the agenda goes out and we are going to discuss this, and someone has 7 an issue or recommendation or input on it. I think that's the perfect time to come in, right now, today, which he did. Okay? Yeah. SAKAGUCHI: Yeah, okay. Well, if everybody feels that way, my concern is my personal concern. CHAIR: Yeah, you're entitled to that, that's fine. SAKAGUCHI: So anyone can speakfor you? CHAIR: Not for me SAKAGUCHI: - -Or anyone can speak for the commission? CHAIR: No SAKAGUCHI: - -So if go GARSON: -- That's not, that's not the case. CHAIR: No SAKAGUCHI: If a reporter comes, if a member of the community like a political candidate, comes to see me and says what are you guys recommending, I can give him the list? CHAIR: Yes. GARSON: Of course. SAKAGUCHI: I mean, through Mary. CHAIR: It's public. The list is public. GARSON: It's public information, yeah. What I would say would be inappropriate is to make and I can't think of an example is to say, to represent something as something that the entire commission has, feels that isn't the case, right. So you can say, you know, I think that the parks should all be I think all state highways should be consolidated with the county highways. Well, that's you, but not the commission feels that this, that we should that this is the case, right. There's a distinction. Whether your reporter is going to pick that up, we can't we don't know. And then again, if you're uncomfortable speaking, you are completely free to say, you know, I don't feel comfortable speaking, so STREMSKI: - -I didn't know GARSON: - -Yeah, they are pretty persistent. SAKAGUCHI: Yeah, they're very persistent. They're a real pain in the ass. They're doing their job and they think that they're that is what STREMSKI: - -Well, he should have been courteous enough to say that those were my own opinions. SAKAGUCHI: Well, if you feel STREMSKI: - -I'd feel better SAKAGUCHI: - -that sensitive about it, then you can sue him. But you know, I'm not telling you to go sue him. But in that extreme kind of case, that if you feel they misrepresented you, then that's the legal recourse. GARSON: Or also, there's letters to the editor. There's no guarantee that they're going to print it. But this happens to us a lot, you know. Reporters call about cases, and we'll give them this long explanation and they'll take one little comment that we made completely out of context. But it's just, you know it's somewhat infuriating. But we you know, it's something that you said. Now you can't make them print your entire statement, and it's a direct quote, so there is no violation. There 's no cause for a lawsuit or anything like that, because it's something that you said. So, we deal with it every day. STREMSKI: (Inaudible) CHAIR: Okay. Anything else on the STREMSKI: - Nope. CHAIR: If not, we can move on to approval, or addendum, or supplemental agendas. 4. APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM AND /OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA There was no addendum or supplemental agenda. 5. DISCUSSION ON FINAL DRAFT OF REPORT AND THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS a. Finance Department: Recommend discontinuing having water bills come with return envelopes enclosed for automatic payment customers. Ms. Nicholson asked whether the decisions they made today would be final or could be revisited when drafting their report, and the Chair said they could be revisited. Motion: Ms. Nicholson moved to adopt this recommendation for the final report. Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Garson clarified that the recommendation should actually be for the Water Supply Department, rather than Finance. Mr. Sakaguchi said this recommendation M should pertain to any department that sends out bills. Ms. Garson said the Wastewater Division of the Environmental Management Department and the Real Property Tax Division of the Finance Department may be the only other departments that send out bills. Ms. Nicholson suggested eliminating the term "water" and replacing it with "all department" bills. Ms. Garson suggested the term "any department billing statements," and Ms. Nicholson approved that suggestion. Ms. Garson showed the commissioners a draft format she had prepared for their report, which included space for background information to explain why the COGC was making each recommendation. The Chair and Ms. Nicholson indicated they liked the draft format. Mr. Sakaguchi said if a recommendation came from the public, it would give them a sense their voice was heard. Motion Withdrawn and Amended: Ms. Nicholson withdrew her motion and Mr. Sakaguchi his second, and amended the motion to recommend discontinuing having all department bills come with return envelopes enclosed for automatic payment customers. Mr. Sakaguchi again seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Sakaguchi said the explanation would be that the County would save money by doing this, and Ms. Nicholson said it should be noted that their recommendation was the result of public input, as it was brought to their attention by members of the public. Vote: All commissioners present voted to adopt the recommendation as amended. b. Finance Department: Recommend expediting the sale of County -owned lands and not having them sit on the table so long. Motion: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to adopt the recommendation, and Ms. Nicholson seconded for discussion purposes. Discussion: Mr. Sakaguchi said that the County does not have as much land as he had thought. Ms. Nicholson said she is concerned because the County is currently in the process of purchasing additional land, which makes the recommendation unclear. Mr. Sakaguchi said they could just vote against the motion. Vote: All commissioners present voted against the motion. Environmental Mana eg ment: Recommend further investigation into combining the water and sewer bills into one bill. Motion: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to adopt this recommendation. Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion. Discussion: The Chair mentioned that as he recalled, the DEM wanted to combine the sewer and water bills because of their delinquent customers. If they were combined, then customers who do not pay their sewer bills could have their water turned off. 10 Ms. Garson said this issue came up before the Water Board before, and although the DEM wants the bills combined, the Department of Water Supply does not. Mr. Sakaguchi said that the COGC could still recommend it, with the terminology that they would recommend further investigation or exploring of this issue. Ms. Nicholson said she felt "further investigation" was appropriate for this recommendation. Vote: All commissioners present voted in favor of the recommendation. d. Environmental Mana eg ment: Recommend pursuing water turn -off approval for overdue sewer bills. Motion: Ms. Nicholson moved to adopt this recommendation and noted that the Water Board or Water Supply Department would need to be on this recommendation, as well as the DEM. Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Sakaguchi said the purpose of this recommendation is to ensure prompt payment of sewer bills and to collect what is owed to the County. Vote: All commissioners present voted in favor of the motion, with the amendment of adding the DWS to the recommendation. All departments: Recommend that all management receive training on legal issues. Ms. Garson suggested they review prior minutes, as this recommendation came from Barbara Bell of the DEM, who felt she had not received adequate training. She referenced page 5 of the April 6, 2006, minutes, wherein Ms. Bell stated that "whenever there is a new administration, there should be a week of classroom instruction on legal issues, proper contracts, general terms and conditions, how to select consultants, who is best to have on committees, the procurement issues, and everything that is based on the law." The law became cumbersome and there was no easy guidebook. Motion: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to adopt the recommendation. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Sakaguchi said the recommendation needed clarification regarding the legal issues, and Ms. Nicholson pointed out that Ms. Bell wanted training on County procedures as well. Mr. Sakaguchi said the recommendation should include procedural and legal issues relating to procurement, etc., as well as liability exposure in order to avoid litigation. Ms. Garson explained for purposes of background that her office has 13 attorneys. Some are assigned to the Counseling and Drafting unit, and the rest to the Litigation unit. Each attorney is assigned to different County departments and gives advice to those departments. If an attorney perceives a need with a department, he /she will conduct training. The Office of the Corporation Counsel also sponsors County -wide training on the Sunshine Law and Office of Information Practices, as well as training for police recruits, fire supervisors, and wherever a need is perceived. She said her office would not meet with all management to talk about general 11 liability, because it would vary from department to department. The liability issues for the Public Works Department would be in the area of road maintenance, and for the Police Department, constitutional violations would come into play. Training is important, but it needs to be specific. Procurement, for example, applies to all departments and may be conducive to County -wide training. Ms. Nicholson offered wording, to "recommend that all new managers receive department - specific training on legal, contractual, and procurement issues." Motion Amended: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to adopt the recommendation with the amended wording by Ms. Nicholson. Motion Amended Again: Ms. Nicholson then moved to change the wording to read that they "recommend that all new managers receive training on legal, contractual, and procurement issues specific to their departments." Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion. Vote: All commissioners present voted aye on Ms. Nicholson's last amended motion. (A recess was called from 11:04 a.m. to 11:12 a.m., at which time the Chair called the meeting back to order.) f All departments: Recommend creating incentive programs for employees. Ms. Garson explained that there is an employee award system in place and that the Civil Service Department has a policy in effect. It is restrictive but does exist. The award appears to apply to any employee, and there are different sorts of awards. She saw one DPW employee receive an award for a new and inventive idea. There is an application process to receive an award. Mr. Sakaguchi said the COGC had been interested in a broader system to recognize and reward top employees, and Mr. Joseph mentioned that there is a Police Officer of the Month Award, as well as awards for Fire Department personnel. Ms. Garson suggested they defer the issue of incentives or awards to when they have a representative from the Civil Service Department appear. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to defer the recommendation until it can be discussed with the Civil Service Department. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye on the motion. g. Finance (Real Property Tax) and Department of Environmental Management (Wastewater): Recommend having a system worked out between Wastewater and Real Property Tax so that when title is transferred on a property, the new property owner is required to connect to the sewer, if it is feasible for that property. Motion: Ms. Stremski moved to adopt the recommendation. Mr. Joseph seconded the motion. 12 Discussion: Ms. Garson explained that the Real Property Tax Division merely notes the transfer of title on a property. It does not have to approve the transfer. She did not understand how requiring a new property owner to connect to the sewer is related to the transferring of title. The RPT Division cannot hold back a transfer of title. When there is a title transfer and it is recorded, the RPT Division will get the deed and note the new title holder for the purpose of forwarding the tax bills to the new owner. Ms. Nicholson said this issue would have to be in the real estate contract, and Mr. Sakaguchi said there should be a law that requires a purchaser to connect to the sewer when the property is bought. Ms. Nicholson said the issue is who to make the recommendation to. Someone needs to be given the directive. They should eliminate the "between Wastewater and Real Property Tax" wording. The Chair said that as he recalled, the DEM does not have the "teeth" to effect the connection, which is why they are frustrated. There is no legal means to force people to connect. Mr. Sakaguchi said he agreed that the transfer of title is just a notification process, but there should be a law stating that a purchaser of property in the County of Hawaii must connect to the sewer line. Ms. Nicholson said that someone may buy property but have no intention of building on it. Therefore, connecting should come up when someone is applying for a building permit. If someone is just raising horses on a property, they should not have to connect. If they want to secure a building permit, however, the connection to the sewer could come into play. The Chair said he believed that if people are on the grid, they are required to connect, so the issue of connecting would be for existing homes which are on the grid but not connected. Ms. Nicholson said it would need to be in the real estate contract, and Mr. Sakaguchi said it would need to be a law. Ms. Nicholson pointed out that when a home is sold, it needs to have a termite inspection. Connecting to the sewer could possibly fall into that category of things that need to happen when selling, though whether it is the seller or buyer who is responsible is negotiable. She said this recommendation may not be within the COGC's purview. Ms. Garson said she believed it is statutory at the State level, rather than at the County ordinance level. The County does not come into play at any stage on the transfer of title. Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether it was within the County's purview to pursue this recommendation. Ms. Garson said the recommendation would need to be worded in such a way that it would be applicable to the County. The Chair suggested that the recommendation have nothing to do with purchasing, but with existing homes on a grid. Ms. Garson said there is currently an ordinance which requires people to hook up, and it has nothing to do with title transfer. It says that when 13 there is a wastewater system in place, and assuming there is no exemption, a home is required to hook up. Ms. Nicholson and the Chair stated that it appeared to be an enforcement issue, at this point. The only leverage the DEM would have would be through control of the water with the DWS. The Chair noted that this issue came up before the Council and they could not solve it, either. The DEM is only running at an inefficient 35 to 40% capacity, which is where the COGC comes in. The commissioners discussed the appropriate wording of their recommendation. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to recommend that the Department of Environmental Management develop proposals for stricter enforcement of sewer connections for all homeowners where such connections are available. Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion. All commissioners present voted aye. h. Department of Environmental Management (Wastewater): Recommend exploring ways to financially assist homeowners who cannot afford to connect to the sewer do so, possibly through a grant effort or financing. Ms. Garson stated that she brought with her Article 5 of the Code, which is about a sewer connection loan program which is available to help with financing the connection. If a new subdivision were being done, there would be the option for the property owner to receive a loan if he /she met the criteria. There are also improvement districts which can be formed, where the homeowner can elect to have improvements done and pay for it over a number of years. Motion: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to delete the recommendation. Ms. Nicholson said she wanted to work on the wording. There was no second to the motion. Motion: Ms. Nicholson moved to reword the recommendation to "recommend expanding programs to assist homeowners to connect to the sewer system where it is available." Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Nicholson said the recommendation is not totally focused on the financing part, as it might be expanding or creating improvement districts. She wanted homeowners to be aware of the existing loan program or of other ways they could hook up, and the whole point is to encourage people to hook up. Vote: All commissioners present voted aye on the motion. All departments: Recommend implementing a payroll lag. Ms. Stremski asked if this agenda item could be combined with item "u" into one recommendation, and the Chair agreed. 14 The commissioners discussed whether the payroll lag should be five days, two weeks, or left open as to how long. Motion: Ms. Nicholson moved to reword the recommendation to read: "Recommend that all departments implement a payroll lag to minimize adjustments." Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Joseph said that if the five -day lag were followed, it would be in line with the State's lag, and he felt the County should be aligned with the State. Motion Amended: Ms. Nicholson said she would accept the five -day lag period as a friendly amendment to her motion. Vote: All commissioners present voted aye on the amended motion. Finance (or all departments): Recommend reviewing payroll /leave forms for consolidation into one form. Ms. Nicholson noted that there were two different issues. One was standardizing personnel forms for all County departments, and the other is to possibly consolidate some of the forms into one form. Mr. Sakaguchi suggested recommending that forms be consolidated where appropriate, to take care of all of them. The Chair stated that he believed the consolidating was to be for vacation and sick leave. Ms. Nicholson said that payroll forms are different from leave forms. The Chair said that if they put "where appropriate," no one would look at it. Ms. Garson read from the Environmental Management Department's response to the COGC, which recommended "reviewing payroll forms for possible consolidation" and stated that there are currently Leave of Absence forms, Temporary Assignment forms, and Overtime forms, which are in addition to the timesheet form itself, and this involves duplication of information. Ms. Nicholson said she sees payroll and leave forms as totally different things. Ms. Garson said she could go and ask her personnel person to provide the forms. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to defer "j" and "v" until after "z" on the agenda, to give time to receive additional information to clarify the issue. All members voted aye on the motion to defer. k. Environmental Management: Recommend pursuing grants, rather than having a grants manager position. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to defer this item and item "t" on the agenda until they receive clarification from the Department of Research & Development on their grant program. Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion. All commissioners present voted aye. 15 All departments: Recommend that staff be provided with professional development opportunities so that they can improve government efficiency or operations and explore new approaches and new strategies to solve existing problems. Motion: Ms. Nicholson moved to adopt this recommendation. Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Sakaguchi stated that as a friendly amendment, he would recommend that 1 or 2% of the annual operating budget be set aside for the purpose of professional development. Otherwise, the recommendation is "fluffy" and will not be followed. Ms. Nicholson agreed that the recommendation is broad, but different departments would have different professional development needs. She did not know enough about it to put a fixed percentage on it. Mr. Sakaguchi said they could look at the budget and figure out a percentage, but Ms. Nicholson said she still would not want a percentage placed on it due to the varied professional development needs different departments have. Motion Amended and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to strengthen the recommendation by saying that "all departments budget for and expend monies for professional development opportunities." Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. All commissioners present voted aye. M. Department of Environmental Management (Wastewater): Recommend looking into developing more opportunities in wastewater recycling, primarily for environmental reasons but also to generate revenue. (A recess was called at 11:55 a.m., as Mr. Sakaguchi received a call on his cell phone. The Chair called the meeting back to order at 12: 00 p.m.) Mr. Sakaguchi stated that he needed to leave the meeting, which would leave them without a quorum. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to defer agenda items "m" through "kk" to the next meeting. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to defer agenda items 6 and 7 to the next meeting. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. AGENDA ITEMS 6 AND 7 WERE DEFERRED TO THE NEXT MEETING. 8. DISCUSSION /ACTION REGARDING PRIORITIZING DEPARTMENTS/ BOARDS /COMMISSIONS OR ISSUES TO ACCOMPLISH THE MANDATE OF THE COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION Ms. Garson stated that the Civil Service Department was next on their list. Ms. Nicholson asked that the personnel forms they were discussing earlier be sent out with their packets for the next meeting. 16 o There were no further departments added to the list at this time. 9. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENDA Ms. Garson asked whether the commissioners minded whether the Civil Service Department's head or a deputy appeared, and they agreed that either one could appear. Ms. Garson said that if any commissioner wanted something put on the agenda, he /she needed to send it in to the secretary and she would place it on the agenda. 10. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No members of the public were present. 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chair announced the next meeting as being scheduled for September 21, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. at the conference room at the Hilo Department of Liquor Control, 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230, Hilo, Hawaii. 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion and Vote: Ms. Stremski moved to adjourn, Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion, and all commissioners present voted aye. (The meeting was adjourned at 12:04 p.m.) Respectfully submitted: Mary E. rosson, Secretary 17