Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-06 Cost of Government Commission MinutesCOST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION County of Hawaii MTNTTTFC July 6, 2006 — 10:00 a.m. Office of the Corporation Counsel — Conference Room 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Commission members Myles Y. Miyasato, Chair present: Marilyn L. Nicholson, Commissioner Patricia Provalenko, Commissioner Melvyn K. Sakaguchi, Commissioner Barbara R. Stremski, Commissioner Also present: Katherine A. Garson, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary E. Crosson, Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MAY 18, 2006 MEETING Ms. Nicholson pointed out that a correction was needed on page 13, the second line from the top, "... with the Mayor planning [should be "playing "] a minimal role." Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to approve the minutes of May 18, 2006, with the correction as noted on page 13, Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No one from the public was present. Motion and Vote (Communication No. 2006 -58): Ms. Stremski moved to accept and file this communication, Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. Motion and Vote (Communication No. 2006 -62): Ms. Nicholson moved to file this communication away, to be brought up later when the COGC is writing its report. Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 4. APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM AND /OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA There was no addendum or supplemental agenda. 5. DISCUSS RECOMMENDATIONS TO PLACE ON DRAFT LIST BASED ON THE SOLID WASTE DIVISION'S PRESENTATION OF MAY 18, 2006 Motion: Ms. Stremski moved to put on the COGC's draft list of recommendations that Mr. Dworsky, the division head of the Solid Waste Division, receive clerical assistance, as he is currently a one -man office. Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Sakaguchi noted that many of the people who talked about their operations mentioned needing additional staff. He said that since the COGC's purpose was to try to save the County money rather than add to its cost, he was not sure how to handle this. The Chair said that in reading departmental suggestions, getting additional staff could be viewed as saving costs in the long term, since more work would get done. COGC's goal is to make the County more efficient, not reduce costs. Mr. Sakaguchi said if additional staff would improve efficiency, then perhaps it should be recommended. The Chair said that as he was unable to attend the presentation on the Solid Waste Division, he wondered whether it was funded by the General Fund and why Mr. Dworsky did not have clerical assistance. Ms. Nicholson said that 50% of Solid Waste's funding came from tipping fees. Mr. Sakaguchi remarked that there was a mandate to establish the office but no follow -up mandate for adequate funding. Ms. Stremski reminded the commissioners that Mr. Dworsky was frustrated that the contracts he worked with were short-term contracts and took up a lot of his time. He wanted contracts to be multi -year. Vote: The Chair reminded the commissioners that there was a motion regarding clerical assistance on the table and called for a vote. All members voted aye. Motion: Ms. Nicholson moved to recommend that CDL truck drivers be separate from the heavy equipment operators, since they worked only at the landfills and had no need of CDL licenses. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Sakaguchi agreed that not requiring the heavy equipment operators to obtain CDL's would be more efficient and would not cause the operators to be over - qualified. As it is, the operators need to have CDL's, even if they don't drive on the road. Theoretically, the operators currently could drive large trucks on the highways, which is scary because they don't drive them regularly. Ms. Provalenko agreed. Vote: After no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote and all commissioners voted aye. Motion: Ms. Nicholson moved to lengthen the term of the contracts that the Solid Waste Division deals with to multi -year terms. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Stremski said longer -term contracts would give Mr. Dworsky breathing space and be easier for him, and Mr. Sakaguchi said it would also be more efficient. Vote: All members voted aye. 2 Ms. Stremski brought up that there is only one trainer to train all of the transfer station attendants. Ms. Nicholson said that Mr. Dworsky had also spoken about the need for cross - training due to only one trainer being available. She said she was not clear on what the trainer actually does and whether it was specific to Solid Waste. The Chair asked if a training program needed to be established, and Ms. Nicholson said yes, as training was definitely an issue, as well as cross - training and the lack of training. Mr. Sakaguchi stated that there may be a union problem involving what duties the workers can and cannot do and that everyone's responsibilities may need to be broadened. Ms. Provalenko noted that in the previous minutes, Mr. Dworsky said that they were trying to set up a training system to train transfer station attendants to move up to being equipment operators, so it may be that the trainer cross - trains employees so they are multi- functional. The Chair questioned whether the problem was the quantity of trainers or not having a program, and Ms. Nicholson said that quantity seemed to be the issue and that possibly additional trainers were needed so that the Solid Waste staff could be cross - trained. Motion: Ms. Nicholson moved that they recommend additional trainers for the Solid Waste Division, and Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Stremski said they should include this in their recommendations so that the issue will be looked at and a decision made on how many trainers are needed. Vote: All members except Mr. Sakaguchi voted aye on the motion. Mr. Sakaguchi abstained. He said he is not opposed to the motion, but his wife is working with a business group to develop a training program for potentially in- service training, and he did not want any appearance of conflict. The Chair said that the motion passed, as the majority voted aye. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson noted that Mr. Dworsky wanted employees to be subject to random drug testing, and she so moved. The Chair said she could make that motion, but the issue would involve the union. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, clarifying that the drug testing should be random and include current employees, not just potential new hires. All members voted aye on the motion. The commissioners discussed how some Solid Waste employees have to travel to Kona to work, incurring mileage reimbursement costs, as Kona is not being fully staffed and there is no housing provision. They queried whether it would be cheaper to provide housing for these employees or to pay for their mileage and overtime compensation. Ms. Nicholson mentioned that it is cheap to fly from Hilo to Kona, which a lot of people are now doing rather than driving. The Chair said part of the problem is that when an employee is assigned to a transfer station, he establishes seniority there and it becomes his home base. As he moves up in seniority, he can pick his days off. So there is a dilemma if an employee is offered a position closer to home, but he would lose his seniority and move to the bottom if he accepted. So some employees may prefer to keep their seniority and drive back and forth. Ms. Provalenko asked whether Solid Waste was looking to fill a position in Kona, because if an employee is traveling there, he is actually covering a vacancy until it is filled and thus not moving his home base. Mr. Sakaguchi asked why an employee would want to travel to Kona to cover a vacancy. The commissioners discussed the difficulty of hiring employees in Kona. Reasons appeared to be the County pay scale, the lack of incentives, and the cost of living and housing expenses in Kona. The Chair said that there could be a motion to accommodate people that have to travel to Kona if there is an opening there that can't be filled. Ms. Garson suggested that when the COGC meets with the Civil Service Department, they ask questions on the issues of incentives and recruitment, as well as on ideas for how to fill the positions in Kona. This may help the COGC form a recommendation on the issue. Ms. Nicholson pointed out that they were accumulating many issues to discuss with the Civil Service Department and should possibly keep a separate list on them. One of the issues is that of incentives, which more than one department had brought up. Mr. Sakaguchi said another Civil Service issue would be how supervisors do not have the flexibility or authority to hire quickly. He said the problem may rest with our own bureaucracy and that recruitment could possibly be out - sourced. The Chair asked if there were any other suggestions or recommendations. Ms. Nicholson said that Mr. Dworsky had spoken about having to do everything through the procurement system. She said division heads possibly should be given the authority to decide whether it is appropriate to go through a procurement versus a bid process. Ms. Garson explained that procurement and the bid process are actually the same thing, and that "procurement" refers to the whole umbrella of government purchasing. Within the umbrella of purchasing, there is a provision for small purchases, for bidding, requests for proposals, as well as emergency procurement and professional service procurement. So when a division head determines what is needed, he /she also determines which method of procurement to use. Ms. Nicholson said that Mr. Dworsky indicated he was stuck with the procurement process and felt it would be easier to bid on things, so perhaps he was unfamiliar with the process. Ms. Garson said both are options. If you know exactly what you want, it is appropriate to go with a bid. If it is a conceptual idea, then you go with a request for proposal. She did not know what Mr. Dworsky meant about being bound to do the request for proposal, and he may have had the opportunity to go with a straight bid. Ms. Nicholson said that Mr. Dworsky was frustrated because the procurement process was lengthy. Mr. Sakaguchi said that it is a bigger issue, as no one sat down with Mr. Dworsky and told him how to operate, nor was he provided with any staff, so he has to run around and do everything himself. in The Chair said that could be the reason Mr. Dworsky went with the request for proposal, as he did not have the staff to investigate or do the legwork for him. Ms. Stremski noted that this is not the first time the issue of orientation came up, and Ms. Nicholson said that this is another issue for the Civil Service Department list. The Chair asked if there were any other recommendations for the Solid Waste Division. Mr. Stremski said that the issue of grant writers came up, and Ms. Nicholson said they needed at some point to talk to the Department of Research & Development about this. The Chair said a recommendation for a grant writing position was already on their list. Mr. Sakaguchi said that grant writing brought up the issue of resources being centralized in one department and questioned whether that department could know enough about all the other departments to serve them adequately. He said Mr. Sumada had also made a comment about needing to look around for grant money. He wondered whether every department should have that capability or whether it should be centralized under Research & Development. Ms. Provalenko suggested that there be "x" amount of grant writers with knowledge in different areas. Mr. Sakaguchi said they could also have funds to contract out grant writers and that employees should have the opportunity to talk to other county governments, not in Hawaii, about this. Ms. Provalenko stated that there is a lot to be said for networking and developing relationships with mainland people. Mr. Sakaguchi said the County should also look at the software similar mainland counties use. The Chair asked whether there were any more recommendations regarding the Solid Waste Division, and there were none. 6. PRESENTATION AND QUESTION /ANSWER SESSION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE DIVISION Ms. Garson stated that Stanley Nakasone, the head of the Highway Maintenance Division of the Department of Public Works, would not be able to give the presentation today, as he was on vacation until July 11, 2006. He was prepared twice earlier to give his presentation, but the meetings were cancelled. The Department of Public Works did not want to send another representative to this meeting, so this matter will need to be deferred to the next meeting. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to defer the question and answer session with the Department of Public Works, Highway Maintenance Division, until Stanley Nakasone is available. Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. The Chair said if there were no objection, he wanted to take some agenda items out of order, to go along with what they had been discussing. He wanted to discuss next item 12, then 24, 19, 14, and then go back to item 7. 12. DISCUSSION /ACTION ON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S LETTER DATED APRIL 10, 2006 Ms. Garson brought up that at the COGC's May 4, 2006, meeting, when she was not present, there was discussion on the wastewater and sewer connection costs, and it was suggested they explore financial assistance for people who had difficulty affording the hook -up. She said there already is a sewer connection loan program that was created for this purpose, so they may not want to put this on their list of recommendations. She will make copies or e -mail them the section of the Hawaii County Code (Article V, Section 21 -37) that discusses the sewer connection loan program. She knew the program existed because she once filed an enforcement action against a woman who refused to hook up. The woman's home was the first in line in this area, and no one else could hook up until she did. The woman eventually got an attorney to help her, and the case was resolved. The Commission took a break from 10:45 a.m. to 10:50 a.m., at which time the Chair called the meeting back to order. Motion: The Chair asked if there was any motion to accept and file the Department of Environmental Management's response, Communication No. 2006 -38. Ms. Stremski so moved, and Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion. Discussion: There was discussion on the proper procedure to follow in motions to accept and file communications, and whether motions for recommendations could be made while the motion to accept and file the communication was on the table. Ms. Garson said that if someone has an idea while discussing a communication, it could be voted on, and then they could eventually vote on filing the communication at the end of the discussion. The Chair suggested they accept and file the communication first, and then discuss motions for recommendations afterwards. Ms. Garson said it would be a little backwards, but they could look at the communication, make recommendations, and then move to file the communication. Or, the current motion could be withdrawn, everyone can look at the communication, and someone can make a motion based on the communication. Motion Withdrawn: Ms. Stremski moved to withdraw her motion, and Ms. Provalenko withdrew her second of the motion. Ms. Garson said that for departments which the COGC has already spoken to, they might want to j of their recommendations down. However, if they have not spoken to a department yet, they may not be at the stage where they want to make recommendations. They could, however, narrow the scope of topics down so they are prepared with questions to ask departments based upon their letters. She could e -mail the departments about specifically what the COGC wants to talk to them about. The Chair told the commissioners to quickly review the communication for discussion or recommendations. 31 Ms. Stremski noted on page 2 the recommendation to establish a two -week lag in payroll. She believed they had earlier discussed that a five -day lag would be efficient. Ms. Nicholson said that would be one of their Civil Service items. Ms. Garson said that the Finance Department was who initially brought up the payroll lag and that the COGC would need to discuss it with Civil Service. There are federal laws that require payment of wages to be done in a certain time frame and other issues that Civil Service would be more equipped to address. The Chair said that the COGC did have the pay lag as a recommendation previously, and he believed it was a one -week lag. However, the degree of the lag could be reviewed later. Mr. Sakaguchi stated that the State has a two -week lag. The Chair said they had recommended one week, because otherwise everybody would have to go two weeks without a pay check to establish the lag. Ms. Garson said the lag could be almost four weeks for a brand new employee. Motion: Ms. Nicholson moved to accept and include in the COGC's recommendations the recommendation in the DEM's letter that payroll forms be reviewed for possible consolidation. The Chair said he thought they already had that as a recommendation. Ms. Garson requested that the secretary from now on keep a running list of recommendations that can be passed out at each meeting. The Chair said that for today they would go ahead with the motion. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. Vote: The Chair called for a vote, and all members voted aye. Ms. Nicholson questioned whether at an earlier meeting they had made a recommendation regarding an additional engineer. The Chair said their motion was to explore the position and at the same time have a long -term plan to fund it, because the problem was they did not have an established budget and did not know if they could fund an engineer in the long term. The COGC wanted the DEM to have a long -term plan so they could justify and establish that position. Ms. Garson stated she had a list of their recommendations as of April 6, 2006: Stop having automatic payment water bills come with return envelopes; the Finance Department is to expedite sale of County -owned lands; combine the water and sewer bills into one bill; have water turn -off for overdue sewer bill customers; training on legal issues for all departmental management; and creating an incentive program for employees. Ms. Nicholson said she thought they had included the Computerized Maintenance Management System in their recommendations. The Chair said he believed Mr. Sakaguchi had made a motion on that, but they could do it now, just in case. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to include in their report a recommendation that the DEM acquire the Computerized Maintenance Management System, Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to file the communication, Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 7 24. DISCUSSION /ACTION ON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S LETTER DATED APRIL 10, 2006 Ms. Nicholson said she did not understand the second bullet under 1, about recruiting employees by way of outsourcing projects. Mr. Sakaguchi said he believed the issue was to explore the feasibility, if they can't recruit, of outsourcing a whole project, such as hiring a company in California to design a sewage system for us. The commissioners discussed that the communication was not clear about what it meant in terms of recruiting employees. Ms. Nicholson said they should not take action because the issue is not clear. They could, however, discuss the issue of outsourcing projects rather than hiring employees and that would possibly be another item for their Civil Service list. Ms. Garson stated that the DEM already has the authority for privatization, and Mr. Dworsky and Ms. Bell had stated that the DEM already does quite a bit of that. Ms. Nicholson asked whether there is a difference between using an outside consultant and outsourcing an entire project. Ms. Garson said that commonly a consultant would be hired to do a design, and then would stay on through the construction project, as project manager. The Chair said projects do get outsourced, but they have to go through the whole Council process, which takes a long time but is thorough. Mr. Sakaguchi said it takes time to gather all the reviews, but if that was not done the County could be exposed to liability. The Chair said they don't want to go with something that is obsolete or not suitable for Hawaii. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to file the communication, Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 19. DISCUSSION /ACTION ON PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S LETTER DATED APRIL 10, 2006 Ms. Garson said that the Planning Department is next on the priority list, and so they might want to decide what they would like to ask the director about. Mr. Sakaguchi said that they received a report from another department on how much land the County owns, but when he looked at Mr. Yuen's response, he said the Planning Department's main job is to manage land use. He wanted to know if that meant managing County land, or land that is in Hawaii County. Ms. Garson said it means land within Hawaii County. Mr. Sakaguchi asked what the State Land Use Commission deals with. Ms. Garson explained that there is a two - tiered system. The State Land Use Commission has categorized all the land in the State. Each County also has its own land use regulations, which are superimposed upon the State's regulations. They might be conflicting, so in order to go forward with something, both the State and County need to have the correct land use designation. Mr. Sakaguchi questioned why both systems were needed and said the law should be changed because it causes so much confusion, and the public interest may not be upheld by having all of this. The Chair said that the Land Use Commission is for zoning —that if you wanted to remove the agricultural zoning on a parcel, you would go to the Land Use Commission. Ms. Nicholson said there is a purpose in having a broader State overview of some of those actions. Ms. Provalenko said she agreed with Mr. Sakaguchi, that it should not be a two - tiered system and each County should have jurisdiction over its own lands. Mr. Sakaguchi said there is a duplication of services, which is not necessary, and that he knows people who do not trust the County and want to have the State to appeal to. The Chair said it is mainly a safeguard for the opposition, another arena where development can be opposed. Ms. Nicholson said this is an issue they should bring up when they have the Planning Director come, that it should be specifically addressed then. It would be worth discussing to find out Planning's view on this issue, and we should add this to our questions for Planning. The Chair mentioned that at the last legislature, Bunda said they were going to do away with the Land Use Commission, and the whole senate stood up and cheered. However, the issue did not even hit the floor. There has always been talk about doing away with the Land Use Commission or restricting it, but it never seems to happen. Ms. Nicholson said they could not make that recommendation because it is not a County function. Ms. Garson said what they could do is make a recommendation on whether or not the County should oppose legislation to get rid of the LUC. Ms. Nicholson said she would assume when Planning appears before them they'll talk about these issues, since they've put them down on paper. The Chair mentioned that an issue in the news recently was Angel Pilago wanting to establish separate Planning units in East and West Hawaii and how that would be interesting to ask Planning about. Ms. Provalenko said the bigger projects cannot be approved in Kona, they need to come to Hilo, and that people in West Hawaii get upset because of the time lag involved in this. Not everybody in East Hawaii knows what the problems are in West Hawaii. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to file this communication, stating that they may want to revisit it when they have someone from Planning speak. Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 14. DISCUSSION /ACTION ON DATA SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S LETTER DATED APRIL 10, 2006 The commissioners had questions on what the police microwave system is. Ms. Garson explained that it is the towers used for communication. Mr. Sakaguchi said he believed the County is using DSL lines, when instead the microwave system should be used. Mr. Sakaguchi said it comes back to the point of whether operations should be centralized or decentralized. He said it looked like Data Systems would like control over M everything and to have their employees in every office. On one hand it sounds good, but on the other hand, there may be problems regarding who to report to. Ms. Nicholson said she wanted to be able to listen to Mr. Yugawa. Ms. Garson said to note the agenda had a typo, that the Communication is 2006 -40, not 2005 -40. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to file away the communication, Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 7. DISCUSSION /ACTION ON FINANCE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S LETTER DATED APRIL 10, 2006 The Chair said he would like to ask Mr. Takaba how the splitting of the County would affect his department, as West Hawaii is adamant about bringing this topic up. He said it would seem to go against everything they are trying to establish, and he would like a general statement from him on that. The commissioners discussed the different divisions within the Department of Finance and whether they need to speak with each division. Finance currently has five divisions: Accounts, Budget, Purchasing, Real Property Tax, and Treasury. Ms. Garson explained that the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resource Preservation Commission (PONC) is not a division, but is a commission attached to the Finance Department. It was attached to Finance because it was to be intricately tied into funds and negotiating purchases, and Finance is the department familiar with the acquisition of property. Mr. Sakaguchi questioned the response on the issue of consolidating services, regarding removing the Motor Vehicle Registration section and placing it within the Police Department. He felt the police were needed to enforce the law more than keep records. Ms. Garson explained that the issue of combining Motor Vehicle Registration with the Police Department has come up a lot and may be worth exploring. The Police Department currently handles drivers' licenses, and it may be more convenient for the community to be able to handle weight tax and registration at the same place as license renewal. Mr. Sakaguchi wondered whether the Police Department would want to take on the registration of vehicles, and the Chair felt it would, as it already keeps records on people, including their photographs and fingerprints. He noted that the Police Department is also on their list of priorities. Ms. Nicholson asked who they wanted to talk to from the Finance Department, and whether they should have the Director give an overview and then decide what division heads they should talk to. The Director could give them an idea on how the divisions interrelate to each other, which would be helpful in deciding which division heads to focus on. Ms. Provalenko said she liked that idea. 10 Motion: Ms. Nicholson moved to file the Finance Department's communication, for further discussion when they speak to the department head. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Sakaguchi said the Director should be prepared to talk about item 2 in his communication, and Ms. Nicholson said she wanted to hear him on all the issues he wrote about. Vote: All members voted aye on the motion. 8. DISCUSSION /ACTION ON OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S LETTER DATED APRIL 10, 2006 Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether executive assistance positions are exempt, appointed, or civil service, and the Chair said they are appointed. He asked whether the aide positions are appointed, and the answer was yes. Ms. Garson asked, now that they have looked at this communication, whether they wanted to review the Office of Management. Ms. Nicholson said it would be a low priority. Ms. Stremski said she would leave it alone and just file away the communication. Motion and Vote: Ms. Stremski moved to file away the communication, Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 9. DISCUSSION /ACTION ON FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S LETTER DATED APRIL 10, 2006 Ms. Stremski stated that she would like to see the strategic plan and questioned whether they could add the Fire Department eventually to their list. Ms. Nicholson said they already want to add on Civil Service, and she would like to add on Research & Development as well. The Chair stated that they could move to add on departments when they reached item 29 on the agenda. Motion and Vote: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to file away the communication, stating that there are many other departments that warrant closer attention. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. Ms. Nicholson suggested moving to Item 20 on the agenda, regarding the Fire Commission's response. The Chair agreed. A break was also called, from 11:50 a.m. to 11:55 a.m., at which time the Chair called the meeting back to order. 11 20. DISCUSSION /ACTION ON FIRE COMMISSION RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S LETTER DATED APRIL 10, 2006 Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to file the response, Ms. Provalenko seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 10. DISCUSSION /ACTION ON OFFICE OF AGING RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S LETTER DATED APRIL 10, 2006 Ms. Garson told the commissioners that as they review the responses, they need to be conscious about how much time is left in terms of revisiting. It would be good if they could finish talking to everyone by the end of the year and then work intensively on compiling their report. They need to determine if it is clear what the responses are telling them, and if so, they can make a recommendations without having to call a representative in to talk to, as long as they felt comfortable. Ms. Nicholson said that there was nothing in Aging's response from which to cull a recommendation. Ms. Garson stated that she is not very familiar with them but knows they receive quite a few grants, and the services they provide the community are great. Ms. Nicholson remarked that Aging seemed almost entrepreneurial compared to other departments. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to file the Office of Aging report, Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. Ms. Provalenko mentioned that she just learned Aging got the Sun Sun Lau grant. Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether Aging would have gotten the grant to do this if there were not a Commission on Aging. Ms. Stremski said it depends on who heads the department and that Alan Parker really hustles. Also, there are many services which are done on a volunteer basis. Ms. Nicholson said that Aging has a vision, and they pursue fulfilling it. Some other departments might not have a vision, or they purely provide services in a way that is totally different from Aging. Ms. Provalenko said that Aging is different from other departments, as its work force is comprised of volunteers. This could not be done with other departments, such as Planning, where education and other qualifications are needed. The Chair said issues that Aging deals with are repetitive, in the sense that they are not changing. Everybody is going to go through the same process, so there are not as many variables to deal with. Mr. Sakaguchi asked what makes Aging more entrepreneurial or successful than other departments, and Ms. Stremski said it has many seniors who volunteer their time and talents. 12 I 1. DISCUSSION /ACTION ON DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S LETTER DATED APRIL 10, 2006 Ms. Nicholson said it seemed like Parks & Rec could become more entrepreneurial. Mr. Sakaguchi asked what the Elderly Activities Division is, and Ms. Stremski said it is Kamana, the Elderly Services Division. The Chair said this is where the seniors gather to go on field trips and shopping trips. Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether this Division would be more appropriately placed under the Office of Aging, or within the Transportation Agency, and the Chair said he believed it was under Parks & Rec because it uses County facilities for planning, events, and volunteer services. Ms. Nicholson asked what the relationship is between Parks & Rec and the Office of Aging, and Ms. Garson said there is an explanation on page 91 of the Annual Report. Shifting things to another division, however, may not save money. Mr. Sakaguchi said, however, that shifting may make for more efficient management of services and that Parks & Rec always seemed stretched out and spread too thin. The Chair stated he feels it makes more efficient use of a community center manager's time to have the elderly use the facilities. Otherwise, the manager sits in his office for most of the day, or until kids come in after school. Ms. Garson asked whether the they wanted her to e -mail Alan Parker and Pat Engelhard, that the COGC wanted to know why the Elderly Activities Division could not be under Aging. They agreed, and she is to make their responses communications. Mr. Sakaguchi said that Parks & Rec recommended their Aquatics Division not host activities which do not interest Big Islanders. He questioned whether the focus is to serve the local population or be part of a tourism plan. If Parks & Rec is saying their hands are full, this needs to be tagged. Ms. Nicholson said that Research & Development manages the Hawaii tourism funds, which funds events like this to bring visitors to the island. Ms. Nicholson said they will want to look at Parks & Rec in some detail, and it would be good to get a response about the senior activities. The Chair mentioned that they tried to add the open space issue recently to the ballot. However, Parks & Rec seems to have a hard time taking care of what open space it does have, even with the Friends of the Park helping. Does Parks & Rec really want more open space to manage? There is a question on who would accept the responsibility of managing more land, and the County cannot just acquire land and let it get overgrown. Ms. Nicholson said there are two issues: the one they just looked at under Finance, the commission which is identifying prioritizing land for the County to purchase. One would assume those properties would fall under the purview of Parks & Rec. The other issue is the new initiative they are trying to put on the ballot. It is not clear if this would fall under Parks & Rec, 13 because it is not necessarily recreational land. So if they are going to ask about this, they should also ask about the commission under Finance, where it would fall, and what it means to them in terms of increasing their budget and staff. Mr. Sakaguchi said a letter of inquiry may do it, inquiring who is to manage the land that is acquired. Ms. Provalenko asked if any other department could do it, and the Chair said no. Motion and Vote: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to file the communication, Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. (Mr. Sakaguchi indicated that he would need to leave the meeting, which would cause the quorum to be lost.) Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to defer items 13, 15 through 18, 21 through 23, and 25 through 28 and carry them over to the next agenda. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion, and all members voted aye. 29. DISCUSSION /ACTION REGARDING PRIORITIZING DEPARTMENTS/ BOARDS /COMMISSIONS OR ISSUES TO ACCOMPLISH THE MANDATE OF THE COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION The Chair stated that on their list of departments they had Environmental Management, Public Works, Planning, Police, and Data Systems, in that order, and asked if any department should be added. Ms. Provalenko said they should add Civil Service. Ms. Nicholson said they should add Civil Service and Research and Development. Motion and Vote: Ms. Provalenko moved to add the Civil Service Department to their list; Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion; and all members voted aye. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved to add Research & Development to their list; Ms. Stremski seconded the motion; and all members voted aye. Ms. Garson asked that she be given another option in case Mr. Nakasone was not available for the next meeting, and the Chair said that Planning would be next. Ms. Garson asked them whether they would be finished with Public Works after talking to Mr. Nakasone. Ms. Nicholson said that Public Works had other divisions: Automotive, Building, Engineering, and Traffic. If they were to talk to one more, it should be the Building Division. Ms. Garson said that the Building Division handles the building permit process. The Engineering Division handles building County items such as bridges and culverts. 14 Mr. Sakaguchi said they should look at the Building Division, due to community attention about why it takes so long to get a permit. The Chair asked if both Mr. Nakasone and a Building Division representative could speak at the same meeting, and Ms. Garson said she could schedule one at 10:00 a.m. and the other at 11:00 or 11:30 a.m. She said she could schedule one more representative, if they wanted. Ms. Nicholson said she would move off of Public Works and move ahead, making the Planning Department next. The Chair agreed and wanted Director Yuen or his designee to give them an overview. Ms. Garson noted that they had actually already discussed, then, item 30, the items to be placed on the next agenda. 31. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC There were no members of the public present. 32. ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chair announced the next meeting: July 20, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., at the conference room at the Department of Liquor Control, 101 Aupuni Street, Room 230. Ms. Garson asked if everyone there could make it to the July 20 meeting, and no one indicated that they could not. 33. ADJOURNMENT Motion and Vote: Ms. Stremski moved to adjourn; Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion; and all members voted aye. (The meeting adjourned at 12:26 p.m.) Respectfully submitted: Mary E. C sson, Secretary 15