Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-06 Cost of Government Commission MinutesCOST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION County of Hawaii MINUTES April 6, 2006 —10:00 a.m. Department of Liquor Control — Conference Room 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Commission Myles Y. Miyasato, Chair members present: Wayne T. Joseph, Vice Chair Pamela F. Cushnie, Commissioner Marilyn L. Nicholson, Commissioner Barbara R. Stremski, Commissioner Others present: Katherine A. Garson, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary Crosson, Secretary Barbara Bell, Department of Environmental Management Nelson Ho, Department of Environmental Management Robin Bauman, Department of Environmental Management 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 16, 2006, MEETING Motion and Vote: Ms. Cushnie moved to have the minutes approved; Ms. Stremski seconded; and all members voted aye to approve the minutes of March 16, 2006. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No members of the public were present. 4. APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM AND /OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA There was no addendum or supplemental agenda. 5. PRESENTATION AND QUESTION /ANSWER SESSION W ITH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Present on behalf of the Department of Envirommental Management ( "DEM ") were Director Barbara Bell, Deputy Director Nelson Ho, and Accountant Robin Bauman. Ms. Bell stated that she was unclear on what the COGC's "process" was and asked how big a picture it was going to look at, i.e., state -wide or county -wide, and whether the COGC makes recommendations for the Council to adopt. Ms. Garson explained that the COGC looks at the various County departments and boards and generates a report for the Mayor and Council. Ms. Nicholson told Ms. Bell that the COGC was there to help her. Ms. Bell stated that the DEM is the newest County department and that she sometimes sees it as "the little birds begging for worms." She passed out a handout which she explained was originally for a power -point demonstration, but that it gave a good overview of the department. She said the DEM is a spin -off of the Department of Public Works and that it includes a Solid Waste Division and Wastewater Division. She is the first director of the DEM and started in August, 2002, and it took about one and a half years to get to the point where they were functioning as intended. The DEM consists of the Solid Waste Division/Fund, the Wastewater Division/Sewer Fund, the Abandoned Vehicle Program /Disposal Fund, as well as a Technical Services Section and Business Services Section. Ms. Bell introduced Robin Bauman as the "top fiscal person" and Nelson Ho, the deputy director. She said that Mr. Ho handles the Wastewater Division and personnel issues, and she handles the Solid Waste Division and the budget. She stated that in the Solid Waste Division, there are two landfills that are open, 365 days a year, and three that are closed. There are 12 recycling centers, 10 bottle bill places, 80 employees, and 36 Department of Health permits. She said that the work on steepening the landfill slope involves one big permit with the Department of Health and that the permit application is in a four -inch binder. She said a lot of lead time is needed for planning and that 55 contractors are involved for operational services or as consultants. She said that the DEM probably privatizes more than any other department. All the recycling is privately done, as the County does not directly provide those services. There are numerous contracts for engineering consultants and environmental assessments, etc. She stated that a major policy assumption is that residential trash is not charged directly at the transfer station, that instead it is paid indirectly via peoples' property taxes every year. There are budget requests to keep the DEM in compliance with all of its permits. They never receive all that they ask for, but they need it to be on the record each year. The DEM knows what it takes to be totally legal. Regarding recycling, a very small amount of County funds is put into it. It is funded mainly through federal and state grants, and the DEM is always on the lookout for grants. The next page of Ms. Bell's handout was a summary of numbers to show the Council, to explain where the DEM's revenue comes from. She explained that when the federal EPA, in 1993, changed the laws regarding lining landfills, the DEM needed to ask for a lot more money to comply with this unfunded mandate and that they are living on borrowed time. She said that solid waste programs are expensive and controversial and have no dedicated funding sources. She said people are not likely to make decisions because of the complexity, expense, and controversy and she would welcome recommendations in this area. The next page of Ms. Bell's handout showed how the General Fund transfer has been used in the Solid Waste Division. She said it is basically used to fund transfer stations and that it is a policy decision. The Wastewater Division has 5 treatment plants and 18 pump stations, which operate 365 days a year, 24 hours per day. It has 45 employees and 3 NPDES permits, which are very large permits. The assumption at the Wastewater Division is that users pay for all operations, maintenance, and repairs, which is a grant condition for building of the plants. They also use State revolving loan funds at a very low interest rate. They do not go against the County's bond indebtedness. Ms. Bell went on to explain that the Vehicle Disposal Program is an island -wide program and has only one employee. This program has problems, some of which are rooted in the law and others in its operations. She said the COGC could spend almost a year on this program alone, trying to make it better. She has spent three years dealing with the Police Department, the Prosecutor's Office, and the County Council, as well as the public on this program. She said there are now two scrap metal recovery yards, one in Kona and one in Hilo, as well as towing and scrap metal recycling. These help make it better, but there is a long way to go. The Vehicle Disposal Program is funded through vehicle registration every year. It is to cover the ultimate disposal of a vehicle. It also pays for picking up abandoned cars. The bulk of the money is for recycling. It is unfortunate that taxpayer dollars have to pay for the abandoned cars of irresponsible people, but the bulk of the money is actually for recyling metal, which is an expensive process. The metal cannot go into the landfill by law and is a health hazard. Getting people to change their disposal habits meets with a lot of resistance. The Technical Services Section was created one and a half years ago, and it handles CIP projects in the DEM. The CIP list is mainly a wish list which has 30 projects on it. It is doubtful that the DEM will get to any of them. For the next two years the DEM is looking at $50 million in wastewater projects and $15 million in solid waste projects. The Technical Services Section is managing 15 contracts with two very good employees. These employees handle a lot more projects than an engineering firm would handle, which makes it no wonder that things move slowly. An example is now they have an operations engineer at the Solid Waste Division. They only engineer they had before was the chief. The engineer has finally assessed all the transfer stations, done drawings and aerial flyovers and now can move on upgrading and repairing. They would have had to hire a consultant to do this before, which means going out to bid. The construction phase would then start, which is easily a two- to three -year process. They have lost out on HUD funding, because they were given a $250,000 grant, but it took so long to go 3 through the bidding process and finalizing exactly what needed to be done that they looked bad for the following year's funding. The Technical Services Division is also working on large capacity cesspool conversions, which is an unfunded mandate as a result of a lawsuit at the federal level. When the federal government made that mandate, they had no idea of what it would mean to Hawaii. This will take maybe ten years to comply with. Mr. Ho stated that the County has to fulfill the cesspool conversions and that there is a memorandum of agreement with the EPA that states the County will do so many millions of dollars worth of projects over a period of nine to ten years. This has disrupted things awhile and has delayed the DEM's compliance with its original sewage treatment plant. The Technical Services Division has allocated dedicated time just to comply with this unfunded mandate. He mentioned that the Big Island is way ahead of Maui and Kauai counties on this mandate. Mr. Ho also mentioned that there have been improvements in coordinating projects with the Public Works Department, e.g., if they are fixing a roadway, they'll arrange to put in sewer lines right behind them. Ms. Bell said that a lot of the time, there are problems not because of lacking to think about things or to recognize problems, but because of implementation, which is why they now have the Business Services Section, which Robin Bauman heads. This section does all the payroll, billing, and accounts receivables and payables. It has 13 employees and 600 landfill customers. They are still a few months behind on the sewer billing, though Ms. Bauman works until late at night. Ms. Bell said her department is moving in the right direction, but not quickly, and that collecting revenues and paying vendors and employees is important. They have numerous small businesses involved in recycling and several small consulting firms. They try hard to pay people on time and even go out of their way to hand -walk documents so people can get paid. It is important that their department's word be good. Ms. Bell stated that her department is generally on its own. They have gone to the Council to raise tipping fees, and they also asked for sewer fee increases. Also, property owners are now ultimately responsible for paying their sewer bill, as the sewer accounts receivable used to be out of control due to tenants not paying the bills. Ms. Bauman said that the tipping fee ordinance was proposed to the Council, as well as other requirements to help ensure that customers pay their bills more timely. Their residential credits are tied to keeping their accounts current and providing more incentives to keep their accounts current. Ms. Bell said her presentation was concluded. The Chair asked her to go through the questions on the agenda, to give her first thoughts to the COGC. Ms. Bell said a problem has been the Sunshine Law. Though she is a major proponent of open government, the Law has been a hindrance. She has tried to have informational 4 meetings with Council members, but they refuse because it could result in serial communications. She explained that she started her job in mid -term and that her department is new. Things were difficult, as soon after she started, the Solid Waste chief retired, and then the next in line also retired. Ms. Bauman is also new to the County. Ms. Bell commented that people do not covet County jobs like they used to and that there is a lot more turnover. She also sees training as a big issue. Ms. Bell said 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 is cumbersome and there is no easy purchases guidebook. Ms. Bauman stated that there are manuals, but they are not real comprehensive or straightforward and are not easy to understand. Mr. Ho stated that things take a lot longer to do and cost more than they should, which is counter - productive to having a level playing field. Ms. Bell said that the procurement laws discourage doing new programs. They would like to be able to do a request or referral for proposal showing the existing situation and explaining their goal, but that is not allowed under the law. The law's solution is to do a bid where you have to be super - specific on your needs. They usually don't have all the information they need. Also, there may not be a vendor. She is working with Purchasing to see if there can be a grant program for new programs so they can get enough parameters to write bids. Ms. Bell also mentioned problems with Civil Service issues, recruitments, and discipline— issues with union contracts. Though most, about 95 %, of their employees are good to excellent, there are those that are not. The union contracts make it impossible to give incentives to the good employees and also make it very difficult to fire someone. She explained that some employees take advantage of the 21 days of paid sick leave they are allowed. A doctor's note is not required until an employee is out for five days, so it is very simple, if someone has no conscience, to be out for four days at a time. Because their department runs operations 365 days a year, it is a problem when employees call in sick and other employees who are supposed to be off have to come in to work. She stated that she knows she is treading on thin ice here. Ms. Bauman said they need to be able to provide incentives to dedicated employees. All they have right now are sick leave and vacation time available. There is no incentive for employees to not use that sick leave, and with operations, that means calling someone else back in to work on their day off for overtime rates. Ms. Bell said she went to a workshop on incentives, and the best thing she got out of it was letting employees know individually that they are appreciated. She does so by sending birthday cards or calling them, to let them know she is aware of them and that they are working as a team. She cannot reward someone with a day off, due to seniority issues at the baseyards. She spoke about contract seniority for transfer station attendants, 5 that if an employee has years of seniority but transfers to work at another station, he starts at zero in seniority. This means the senior employees get first dibs on getting weekends and other days off. The employees are not in it together. Mr. Ho said that when an employee has worked 15 years, a lot of sick leave is accumulated, which makes it easy to call in sick. He stated that they are prohibited from singling out employees to look at their sick leave patterns —they would have to do all employees in the division. So it may not be worth the time it would take to catch the two to three employees who abuse their sick leave, because they would have to document the pattern for 80 employees. This allows the bad ones to slip through —they are allowed to abuse their sick leave without any systemic ability to counteract that. Ms. Bell said that her department is in the loop in the planning process, as well. When people apply for building pen-nits, it needs to be determined whether they need to hook up to a sewer system. If the project is big, they may need a solid waste plan. There are also rezoning and subdivision issues. The Chair asked if there were any questions. Ms. Nicholson asked about the vacant positions in the department, whether they were vacant because of Civil Service issues or lack of funding, or because they have recruited but cannot fill them. Mr. Ho said a lot of the difficulty is in finding the right person to fill the vacancy. He said the biggest gap is in finding civil engineers. They have a lot of job opportunity and working for the County is not the first place they would choose. Ms. Bauman said some of the vacancies are in the recruitment process, which takes time. Ms. Nicholson asked if filling those vacant positions would help the department. She said she was trying to prioritize the department's issues. What are their priorities, given that they have an incredible number of challenges? Mr. Ho stated that even if they filled all the positions, they would still be very overworked. It is hard to address the full problem, as it is out of their control. They don't control their budget. They get what they get and work with that. They can only address part of the problem. Ms. Bell said it makes sense to put their Wastewater billing with the Water billing, as they are not separate, though there may be problems with the semi- autonomous nature of the Water Supply Department. They would like to have the ability to have water turned off for non - payment of bills, which happens on Maui and Oahu, because the property owner was ultimately responsible for the bills. On Kauai the property owners are responsible, but they have no way to turn off the water. Ms. Bell said they went to the Water Board to see if they could work with them on turning off the water when a sewer bill is not paid, but the Board was not receptive. However, the issue of making property owners responsible has gone through the Council, so the owners are now ultimately responsible. Implementation of this started in October, 2005. C, Ms. Bauman said this will have long -term, helpful effects. The first bills under the new law are going out now. Property owners are more likely to keep their accounts current. If they do not, a lien can be put in place, although the County may not be able to enforce the lien until the property sells. In duplication and overlapping of services, the sewer billing and water billing is what came up. It theoretically could go on one bill. Ms. Cushnie asked how much money the DEM would save by joining the two bills. Ms. Bauman said if they could shut off water for delinquent customers, it would help with collections. They would save on postage and staff time for printing. They have two full -time employees dedicated to the Wastewater billing, and one for Solid Waste. Ms. Cushnie said it seemed their only leverage would be to factualize the amount of money the DEM would save and point out that cooperation is important. It would behoove the COGC before making a recommendation if they could put down in factual terms what the DEM believes it would be saving. No one has leverage to force anyone to do anything unless it comes down to actual monetary gain. She challenged the DEM to present this to the COGC —to present some facts and see money gains to be made. Ms. Bauman said it is a bigger issue than just putting the two on one bill. There are staff issues, such as which number to call if customers have questions. Ms. Cushnie questioned whether it then would create more problems. She said the issue of turning off the water is a separate issue, which should be addressed separately. It is important that the DEM should ultimately be able to turn off the water. In order to create responsible feelings between the Mayor, the Water Supply Department, and any other entities, they need to clearly show what the issues are, rather than make a vague request. The two departments are not working together, and does that cost, for example, a quarter of a million a year? The COGC is powerless to create any change without some efficiency denoted in monetary terms. Ms. Bauman agreed that the issue of turning off the water is a separate issue from that of consolidating the billing. Consolidating the billing would have some far - reaching implications that would go beyond just her and the billing aspect. Ms. Cushnie asked if there was a health hazard, and whether it was creating such a debt that the County is losing money. She wanted to know what the bigger picture is that would create a response from the COGC. The Chair asked Ms. Bauman what the estimated delinquent account amount was, just to get an idea. Ms. Bauman said she believed it was over a million dollars, just for Wastewater. Ms. Cushnie asked the Chair if the COGC was asking for a two -page response from departments that they were interviewing and stated that she would like to see a two -page response from the DEM of the priorities they were asking the COGC to make recommendations on. She wants hard facts and discrete activities separated. 7 Ms. Bell said she did not mean to be defensive, but part of the problem is that they have too much work. She was hoping they would have a general discussion with the COGC and then zero in on things. She asked how deep they needed to go to see some synergy with another department. She said the COGC is looking at the whole County, and the DEM is trying to find a little something that might fit in the bigger puzzle. Ms. Cushnie stated that the COGC is only convened for ten months, and they need to come up with a report. She asked, if the DEM's assumption is that commercial agencies pay 50% of all expenses, how close are they to that goal? Ms. Bauman said the 50% goal is their estimate of their true expenditures, that it is for handling the commercial trash. Ms. Bell said that for tipping fees, they are at about 39 %. It is a five -year plan that started three years ago. She said the next policy decision is hard: Do they charge people at transfer stations? Is the COGC issue to make them an enterprise agency? Should they charge residents for their trash in order to get to zero on a general fund subsidy? Ms. Nicholson said that is what the COGC needs to know from the DEM. Would it make sense to increase personnel to be at those transfer stations 24 hours a day? Would it generate enough money to more than pay for itself? The COGC cannot answer those questions, but the DEM could say to the COGC that it would help them to be able to charge individuals. She said the COGC does not have the expertise to analyze that, so they look to the department to bring up something that would help them, and then the COGC could include it as a recommendation. Ms. Bell said the short answer is that it would be more fair to charge residents. It would give them the incentive to change habits. But whether it would be cheaper, probably not. Ms. Cusluiie explained that the COGC's mandate is to look at the efficiency of the government. She said that when she visits the mainland, she looks at different approaches. Some of them may cost more, but they are fair and educate the public. She asked what is being done to create a fair and equitable government situation for everybody? The COGC comes around once every four years to present a department's side of a dilemma, but the COGC can only do so with facts and references to other agencies and government entities. Mr. Joseph asked how current the sewer fees are, and Ms. Bauman said that customers just received their November - December bills. There are several reasons why it is far behind, including waiting for information from the Water Supply Department and processing with the ordinance that took effect in October, 2005. They also don't want to send out bills covering four to five months at a time in order to get caught up. It is hoped that by next January or February, they will reach their goal of residential bills going out within a week of the end of the billing period. However, they will still need to wait for the meter readings on the commercial bills. 0 Upon questioning by Mr. Joseph, Ms. Bauman explained that the sewer was tied to water by law, before the ordinance changed things. Whoever applied was who got billed, and they had to wait for information from the Water Supply Department. Mr. Joseph said it would make good sense, then, to tie the water bill and sewer bill together. He asked if there is a delinquent fee assessed if the sewer bill is not paid, and Ms. Bauman said that as of October, 2005, they went from a one -time 10% penalty to a monthly interest charge of 1.5% per month. Mr. Joseph asked for a rough estimate of the amount of delinquent customers and businesses, and Ms. Bauman estimated that it was in the hundreds. She said certain people generally ignore bills, and what do you do? You cannot shut off their water or sewer. The only hammer the DEM had was to send the delinquent customers to a collection agency so it would show up on their credit report. The Chair asked when the UPW contract was to expire, and Mr. Ho said they are on a two -year cycle. Ms. Bell said there are different bargaining units, so she is not certain. (Ms. Bell had to leave the meeting at 11:00 a.m. to attend another commitment.) Ms. Cushnie asked what the DEM's leverage is now with the new billing. Ms. Bauman explained that owners are now responsible for the bill. If they want a tenant to pay, the owner needs to sign a form and submit a request to the DEM in writing. If the tenant becomes delinquent, the owner will get a copy of the notice. If it gets to a point where the County puts a lien, they will do so and at some point may be able to recoup, when the property sells. That is the only hammer the DEM has right now. Ms. Cushnie asked what the rate is like in other counties, which do have the ability to turn off the water. Ms. Bauman said she would have to research that. Ms. Nicholson asked what the DEM's philosophy is about people being on catchment versus getting County water and sewer, etc. Is it the DEM's goal to ultimately have catchment and septic tank customers on County water and sewer systems? Mr. Ho said he could speak to the wasterwater /sewer side of it. The functions of getting water to residents are handled purely by the Water Supply Department. He explained that the DEM has two sewer systems, one in Kona and one in Hilo. Because of the large capacity cesspool ban, they are now starting to expand into Honokaa, Naalehu, and Pahala. They will be adding two more small systems to Kona that are outside the present service area. He said it is a mandate to get everybody hooked up to the existing service area, but it is very expensive and highly intensive because of the widespread population. They may have to use several hundred feet of sewer pipe to reach just one customer, and this is what has kept them from sewering everything. If someone is in their service area, they would like them to hook up, as it would keep the groundwater and coastal waters cleaner. That was the mandate when they got the grants to build the treatment plans. The issue of whether they can extend to rural areas is difficult. It would not be financially prudent for the County to go there until the population can sustain the capital- intensive 9 service. It could bankrupt the County if its goal were that every resident and commercial facility would have access to County sewer facilities. The Chair asked that, when the DEM says there is no general fund money actually dedicated, whether the DEM was in a sense floating. Mr. Ho said there is no guaranteed budget. They have certain funds coming in, for new planning and new sewer systems that would go for state revolving funds, which essentially is bond money the state would guarantee, but they would have to stand in line for that. The DEM can only handle so much with its staffing and borrowing ability. He said that regarding the vehicle disposal funds and recycling, they go for grant money and try to add on new programs. Funding is iffy. The bottle redemption container bill brought in new revenues and added two new employees. This bill has helped divert tons of glass away from the landfill. What the DEM is authorized to do about the transfer stations and landfills, however, is dependent on what the Mayor and Council approve and grant. The Chair asked if Business and Technical Services were funded through the administration, and Ms. Bauman said they are funded Linder the general fund. The Chair asked if both divisions are understaffed, and both Ms. Bauman and Mr. Ho said yes. Mr. Ho said they are recruiting for the vacant positions. Ms. Bauman said the Mayor has approved additional positions for the 2006 -07 budget, but it is difficult to get all the positions you need right away. The Chair asked if there is a fee or penalty imposed for illegal dumping, and Mr. Ho said there was not, but that he wished there were. He said that would be a state issue, that uniformity would be needed across the counties. The Chair asked why that could not be a County issue, involving the Police Department; and Mr. Ho explained that Ms. Bell was heavily involved in discussions with the Prosecutor's Office and Police, and it did not result in police garbage enforcement. The hope in raising tipping and residential fees is that it would bring in enough revenues to beef up the enforcement side. The Chair asked if they would have to impose a penalty, and Mr. Ho said yes, that it would accompany the effort. He explained that the DEM relies heavily on volunteer efforts for clean -ups, which does not adequately address the problem. The Chair asked, with regarding to the mandate on hooking up within a service area, whether the DEM was in conjunction with engineers in the building permit process. That is, will a cesspool system be denied if the area has a sewer system? Mr. Ho said yes, that when a new building is planned, the Planning Department and Public Works Department check with the DEM on the status of the area. The DEM informs them whether they are accessible and need to hook up if they build. In systems put in in the 1960's, there may be no lateral to the sewer main, though the main goes past the property. In those situations, people are technically not required to hook up. They have other options, such 10 as paying a contractor to build the line or going to the Department of Health for a septic system permit. (Recess was called from 11:12 a.m. to 11:18 a.m.) The Chair called the meeting back to order at 11:18 a.m. Ms. Cushnie asked whether the DEM wanted to change the system so that people are responsible to set up a lateral to connect to the existing lines, and Mr. Ho said they would like to do so. However, the soil is often hard rock, which is expensive to dig and trench to put in a sewer line, creating a financial burden on people. So the DEM would like to be flexible as the service area spreads out. More and more people coming on line will bring the cost down to where the County can contract out to put in laterals, so it is hoped they could pick up customers that way. Ms. Cushnie said that not connecting to a sewer because of bedrock sounded like defeating the purpose of sewering. Mr. Ho said that if the cost is really prohibitive and the densities are not that great, then the impact on the environment is minimal. They like the philosophy that the carrot is better than the stick. Ms. Cushme asked if the vehicle disposal fund paid for itself, and Mr. Ho said yes, that they had a one -year trial program where they would assist people in gong onto private property and towing out abandoned vehicles, which could be leaking oils and fluids on the ground. Ms. Cushnie asked if in that period enough funds were saved, and Mr. Ho said they bad enough funds but the program is not effective because they only had one staff person, who was also responsible for abandoned vehicles on roadways. The need for those vehicles to be disposed of was much greater. There was so much illegal dumping of vehicles all over roadsides that the DEM couldn't devote enough time. The trial was promising, as well as the public response and desire to participate, but they just don't have the staff. Ms. Cushnie said she would urge Mr. Ho to put that into quantitative amounts, to build up a general fund for vehicle disposal, especially as when people switch to hybrid cars, there will be tons of vehicles to dispose of Ms. Bauman said that having only the one employee is being addressed in the next fiscal year budget. They are requesting two new positions for that program, a vehicle coordinator and a clerk to assist. Ms. Cushnie asked if a new position could be contracted out to private enterprise, rather than being made a civil service position. The Chair said he believed it was at one time contracted out, but the contractor was selling parts, and Mr. Ho said that is always the temptation. The Chair mentioned that the same individual went to Maui and got in trouble there, as well. Mr. Ho said that someone would need to oversee the contract and make sure the vendor is complying. So contracting may save a little but also create a different responsibility. 11 Mr. Ho said that in the Solid Waste Division, they used to privatize by hiring security guards to watch what the public is dumping into the transfer stations. They were needed under state law, to make sure of what was going into the landfill. However, they are now going away from privatizing the guards and looking at hiring employees that would have more functions than just interacting with the public. Rural transfer stations are a problem, because they don't have a steady stream of customers. So they are looking at have one person cleaning a facility and maybe checking on the next transfer station and rotating between the two. They are looking into giving the position more responsibility. They used to receive complaints about security guards allowing things to be thrown in that shouldn't have been. Ms. Bauman said that regarding the vehicle disposal fund, the majority of the program is privatized. The processing of the grant is the biggest cost, which is contracted out, as well as towing services. The coordination and administration is handled by the County. The Chair asked if they could address the other questions on the agenda, such as "f," how could the DEM's operations be made for efficient? He asked if there were suggestions other than combining the water and sewer bills. Ms. Bauman said having additional positions would help them in reducing the overtime. The Chair asked if the new positions were presented in the budget to the Council, and Ms. Bauman said yes. She believed the Finance Committee reviewed it but it was not yet voted on. The Chair asked question "b" on the agenda, if there were any way to eliminate duplication of activities and functions, and Ms. Bauman said that aside from the billing, she did not see a lot of overlap. The Chair asked question "c" on the agenda, if there were any way to consolidate services, activities, and functions of a similar nature. Ms. Bauman said they already did, by creating the Technical Services and Business Services Sections, which allows the accounting staff to get more technical insight into the accounting aspects and pull the resources together more. The Chair asked question "d" on the agenda, whether there are any services, activities, and functions not necessary to the efficient conduct of government that could be eliminated. Ms. Bauman said that there are lots of meetings, which may not always be efficient but are necessary. The Chair asked question "e" on the agenda, whether privatization could help. Mr. Ho said Ms. Bell had responded that the DEM already utilizes private consultants in its planning and will continue to do so. The Chair asked about Solid Waste, and Mr. Ho said they rely extensively on businesses to help with the recycling services. The Chair asked about the new sort station, whether the DEM was going to go down the avenue of waste to energy. Mr. Ho said they are headed there and that privatization is an 12 option they have kept open. They found out from consultants that with the better solutions, the companies invariably want public funding, because the DEM as a government agency has access to cheaper money than the private sector. This ties up the private sector's funds. The DEM had a hard time convincing the Council that it works for private companies to use the government's borrowing ability, but they may finally understand that. The Chair asked whether the DEM has any other ideas on how its operations can be made more efficient. He said that might be with the discipline issue regarding sick leave, and Mr. Ho said yes, the union contracts need to be realigned. He knows the Civil Service Department has that as an ongoing mission, with contracts as they come up for renewal. They always check with the departments as to what sections need changing. The problem is that contracts are valid state -wide, so the other counties have to be taken into account. Ms. Nicholson suggested that after the COGC agreed on a draft letter, it also be sent to those departments that appeared before the COGC, for a two -page response. She wanted to have a record of a response. Ms. Stremski agreed. Motion and Vote: Ms. Nicholson moved that once they have agreed on the form for the letter to departments, the COGC send one to the DEM for their response, too. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Joseph said he had two questions, out of curiosity. Does the County ever attempt to find the registered owners of abandoned vehicles? Mr. Ho stated that is standard procedure. The Police Department does that part. They have to make an attempt, and only after that can a vehicle be labeled abandoned. Mr. Joseph asked if there was a wholehearted attempt, and what the percentage was of registered owners of abandoned vehicles they found. Mr. Ho said he did not know the answer and would try to get the information. Mr. Joseph asked who writes grants for the DEM, and Mr. Ho said they have several people doing that. Their recycling coordinator has written several grants. Mr. Joseph asked if there were people in the DEM who were specifically to write grants, and Mr. Ho said no, that it was ancillary to all their other duties. He stated that the chief of the Technical Services Section has applied for grants, and that it is in addition to his other duties. He said Research and Development is heavily invested in grant writing and that on one of the DEM's grants, Research and Development signaled them about it and helped work with them to get the grant. But no, the DEM does not have a full -time, dedicated grant writer. Mr. Joseph asked if that would help the DEM be more efficient, and Mr. Ho said he thought it would help. It would help to secure funding for more programs than they can do now. However, he was not sure if the director would want to go that route. The Chair thanked Mr. Ho and Ms. Bauman for coming, and they left at 11:40 a.m. 13 The Chair said he wanted clarification of something in the minutes. Though there were no corrections or deletions, there was a reference to another recommendation that they would accept later. He said he wants to make their recommendations proposed recommendations and see where they are at in six months. If they have a stack of recommendations, they can bring it up on the agenda and go through the proposed recommendations and clear the table. He said it would be easier for staff, that whenever there is a recommendation, it be placed on a list of proposed recommendations. Ms. Garson said it could involve a motion to place such and such on a draft of proposed recommendations, to be reviewed at an appropriate time, and they could be kept together. That way, they would have a draft of recommendations to go back to, a running tab of things to look at later. The Chair said the minutes stated they would review it in the tenth month. The Chair asked if there were any discussion or recommendations on the DEM presentation. Ms. Cushnie stated that Ms. Bell did not identify herself. She liked her printed powerpoint handout for background information. However, she would still like a written response. She said that should be a caveat for other departments, that a written response would still be needed. The response could become a draft of proposed recommendations in an easily readable form. Motion: The Chair said he would like to propose that the COGC recommend that the water and sewer bills become one. He explained that he experienced being a landlord on Maui, and when his tenants would not pay the water bill, it would come to him and he would make sure it got paid. Mr. Joseph said he would second that recommendation. Discussion: Ms. Cushme said that her request to Ms. Bauman about getting specific figures might create more problems than solve them. Another discrete recommendation is that overdue bills be given the water turn-off approval. These are completely separate functions, though one may be legal and the other administrative. She said she believes she read in articles that you cannot turn off peoples' water, because it would become a health hazard. She said she wants a report on how often the water bill would go with the sewage bill, as people on water catchment do not receive water bills. Ms. Garson said there are about 3,900 Wastewater customers and that the Water Supply Department has far more customers. The Chair said he wanted to see this go on the list and if in the meantime something is submitted that makes it look like it will not work, they can take it off the list. But he does not want to forget to put it on now, to review for a recommendation later. Ms. Cushnie asked whether, as they come up with the proposed recommendations, they could at the same time be asking the questions they feel are pertinent rather than waiting 14 until the end of ten months for clarification. The Chair said if something is found it can be agendized. Ms. Nicholson said a specific question could be added to the draft letter to be sent to departments. Ms. Cushme said they will not know the questions to ask. Ms. Garson said it would be easier, if you know the question, to put it in the letter. For example, in the letter to go to the Water Supply Department, they could ask what impediments or problems there would be if the water and sewer bills were combined. Or, during the course of discussions, the COGC may want to send a letter, get a response, and then decide if they want to call a department in or not. Or, they could agendize discussion of all the responses and decide then what they want to do. Ms. Cushnie said a combination would be good. Mr. Joseph asked, as a point of order since he is learning, whether it is appropriate for the Chair to make a motion. Ms. Garson said the Chair could, although generally a motion would not be by the Chair. The Chair would have to give up the Chair to snake a motion, and then another person sit as Chair. The Chair said that because they were only making recommendations and not decisions of law, he did not think they needed to be as formal, and Ms. Garson agreed. Mr. Joseph, however, said that would set a precedent. The Chair asked if they could be this informal, since they are only putting forth recommendations, and Ms. Garson said yes, and at other times it could be turned over to the Vice Chair, who could call the vote and then switch it back to the Chair. The chairmanship was turned over to Mr. Joseph. Vote: Mr. Joseph said that if there were no further discussion, he was calling for a vote. All members voted aye, including the Mr. Joseph. He turned the chairmanship back to Mr. Miyasato. Ms. Nicholson said that she had questions about two things that were recommended, which would not necessarily apply to the DEM. One was regarding training on legal issues for all departments' management, and the other issue was about creating an incentive program for employees. Those two things would apply to all departments. Should they be listed as a recommendation for every department, or should they keep a running tab of ideas that come up? She said they will see other issues come up that will affect all departments. The Chair said that if all departments would be affected, that could be directed to the Mayor, even if they do not give a presentation to the COGC. Ms. Nicholson said that they should, then, keep a running tab of these general recommendations. Ms. Garson said they could and when they write the report, they could specify some generic recommendations. They could make broad recommendations on a recurrent them, such as that more training is needed for upper management. 15 Ms. Stremski asked whether there was a management orientation system already in place, and Ms. Garson said that the Corporation Counsel does provide training on contracts and the Sunshine Law and that each department has an attorney from Corporation Counsel assigned to it. So whenever a department has a question, they call the Corporation Counsel. She said that Ms. Bell came into the County from outside and was in a different position from the majority of employees that are already working for the County and are familiar with procurement policies. She said all attorneys also carry cell phones and are available for any questions from departments. Ms. Nicholson said they may want to ask other department heads those questions, then, to see if training is an issue for them, too. Ms. Garson explained that there are times when a person becomes a department director and it is new. Who trains that director? Corporation Counsel can train as to the law and procurement, but there is no one to train a person on how to run the department. So what would be useful and what to train on needs to be narrowed down. Ms. Stremski stated that she came from the State's health care system and that at the hospital they would have regular trainers, seminars, and orientations for all incoming supervisors on a quarterly basis. All new supervisors would have a two- to three -day seminar with brochures, presentations, etc. She said she assumed the County had a system to do that, too. Ms. Garson explained that the Civil Service Department does generalized training on supervision, sexual harassment, and workplace violence. An immediate supervisor is tasked with the job of training new hires. There is not a comprehensive program, and each department is handled differently. At Ms. Bell's level, they are appointed by the Mayor, and the opportunity for training does not necessarily exist, unless the former director kindly stays on to train. Ms. Nicholson said that if Ms. Bell prepares the DEM's response, she would assume the training will be one of her recommendations. The Chair asked if there were any further discussion. 6. DISCUSSION /ACTION REGARDING PRIORITIZING DEPARTMENTS/ BOARDS /COMMISSIONS OR ISSUES TO ACCOMPLISH THE MANDATE OF THE COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION Ms. Stremski asked if the Police Department had been reviewed by the prior COGC, as she had seen a draft in the materials provided. Ms. Garson said that they were not in the final report. Ms. Stremski stated that Parks and Recreation is one of her main peeves, but that she was also interested in Police and public safety, not only for visitors but for residents. She suggested the Police Department be prioritized somewhere. 16 Ms. Nicholson asked if it made sense to review a department along with its associated commission. She wanted a discussion on the role of departments versus their attached commissions and whether they should be paired together. Ms. Garson made the suggestion that it may be good to review them together, as a commission might have a different idea from its related department about the efficient running of that department. Their suggestions could be considered in conjunction with a department's suggestions. Ms. Nicholson stated that she hoped the COGC's recommendations would go both to departments and commissions. The Chair said he felt if they looked at a department first and then the related commission, they would know better what to ask the commission. Ms. Garson pointed out that commissions will have to agendize the COGC's letter and work on a response at their meetings, so would need more time. She said the Planning Department is listed at No. 3, and Ms. Cushnie said Public Works is No. 2. Ms. Garson said the Board of Appeals hears appeals of decisions by the Planning Director and Public Works Director. The Civil Service Commission hires the head of the Department of Civil Service. Ms. Nicholson asked whether they wanted to query the associated commissions or not. If they decide to, they need to be consistent and try to get their responses back at the same time, so they could be paired together. Ms. Garson said because of the time involved, she would like them to decide today what they want to do, so she can send out the letters and have them respond. She guaranteed that some would not be able to comply with the due date on the letters. The Chair said the COGC needed to get back to prioritizing. Are they going to try and evaluate a department along with the related commission? Further discussion was held on how it may not be possible to get feedback from a commission at the same time as a department and that commissions do not have paid staff to appear and do not always meet often. The Chair asked Ms. Stremski if she wanted the Police Department to be prioritized. Motion: Ms. Stremski moved to prioritize the Police Department after the Planning Department. Mr. Joseph seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Cushnie asked whether it would be useful to identify the first five to six departments and see how the letters come back and pair them. Mr. Joseph suggested giving boards and commissions an additional month to respond to the COGC's letter. 17 Vote: The Chair asked if there were any further discussion on the Police Department being No. 4 on the list. He called for a vote of all in favor, and all members voted aye, making the Police Department No. 4. The Chair asked whether they wanted to wait for responses before continuing with the list, or suggest another department to prioritize. Ms. Nicholson said she felt they should prioritize five or six departments. The Chair asked if there were suggestions for another department, and Ms. Stremski suggested Data Systems, as they did not appear to have been audited before. She said she was interested in seeing how Data is doing since the change in computer systems. Ms. Garson confirmed that Data Systems was not done before. Ms. Nicholson said Data would be a nice change of pace after the Police Department. The Chair asked if there were any motion. Motion: Ms. Stremski moved to place Data Systems as No. 5 on the list. Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion. Vote: There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. All voted in favor of placing Data Systems as No. 5 on the list. Mr. Joseph suggested they stop at five. Ms. Cushme asked if any commission was associated with Data Systems, and Ms. Garson answered no. Mr. Joseph said he was not finished with the DEM, as they only heard a general overview. He said he wanted to know more about abandoned vehicles, and Ms. Stremski agreed. Ms. Nicholson said it would take forever to talk to the individual department heads, as this was the third meeting and they had only interviewed one. Mr. Joseph said the COGC's intention was, as Mayor Kim said, to spend a lot of time on two or three departments and do a thorough job, and not do an overwhelming partial job. Ms. Stremski wanted to know if people pay fines for abandoning their vehicle, and Mr. Joseph said he wanted to know that, too. Ms. Cushnie said they were assured by the DEM representatives that the program pays for itself. Mr. Joseph said that in the sense that everyone pays a $12 fee in their registration specifically for abandoned vehicles, it doesn't really pay for itself. Registered drivers are subsidizing them. In Ms. Cushnie said she was concerned that it was not high on the DEM's list of priorities and that at some point they needed to trust in them. Ms. Bell brought up Civil Service training, the Sunshine Law, and procurement. Mr. Joseph said she also brought up consolidating the water and sewer bills. Ms. Cushme stated she would like to move on to another department or stick with the Solid Waste and Wastewater Divisions within the DEM. The Chair reminded the commissioners that they were on agenda item 6, prioritizing the departments for discussion. He asked if they agreed on prioritizing five departments for now and waiting for responses before continuing. He asked if there were any further discussion on item 6, and both Mr. Joseph and Ms. Nicholson said yes. Mr. Joseph was concerned with the draft letter presented. He said it was good but he wanted to somehow make the letters available to the employees within the departments, not necessarily by giving it to them but having it posted on the bulletin board. He wants employees to be aware of what the Commission is doing and have the opportunity to send the COGC a letter from their viewpoint. Otherwise, the COGC would only be receiving input from management. Ms. Nicholson agreed it would be helpful to receive information from employees but was concerned it could be disruptive and questioned whether it was appropriate for employees to provide feedback on their department to others, without going through their supervisors. Ms. Garson said that was not a union issue and that it would not be a problem for employees to make suggestions to an independent commission. Ms. Nicholson said she was worried about potential retaliation, as the COGC minutes are public. She suggested a broad recommendation might be that the County look toward instituting a feedback system within each department for responses and suggestions. She felt uncomfortable taking it directly to employees. Motion: Mr. Joseph said that today the COGC heard from management that a small percentage of employees is a problem, but he believed there were employees that could point to a percentage of management as a problem. He moved for the COGC letter to be posted on department bulletin boards so as to allow employees to give feedback. Discussion: Ms. Garson said they might consider a separate posting for employees, stating that responses could be made anonymously to her office for the Commission. She could send the letter to all the directors, instructing them to post it for employees. Mr. Joseph said he would amend his motion, if he could get a second; and Ms. Stremski seconded his motion. Vote: The Chair asked if there were any further discussion and upon none, asked for a vote of all in favor. All commissioners voted in favor of the motion. 19 Ms. Garson said she would draft a notice to go with the letter to departments and add a sentence at the end, saying that enclosed is a notice to be posted for employees. The notice will have the same contents as the letter plus would need a response date. Mr. Joseph preferred to leave the response date open for three to five months, or until October, to give the employees sufficient leeway. He said the COGC could go into executive session to read the letters so there would not be repercussions. Ms. Cushnie asked if the letters could be sent to the Corporation Counsel, who could redact the names and other identities so as not to libel anyone. She did not want to get into problems with disgruntled employees or whistleblowers. She asked if the others agreed with this, to protect everyone. Mr. Joseph said if an employee had a complaint, he could lodge it with the Board of Ethics. Ms. Garson said if a response comes in as a communication, it is a public record. She said redactions could be made based on privacy interests, but questioned where the redactions would stop. She said she could read the responses that come to her office and, based on the Sunshine Law, redact whatever invades someone else's privacy. However, some people may be willing to go on record. She wanted the commissioners to understand that she would not redact all names. Ms. Cushnie reiterated that she feels it is a necessity to carefully scrutinize references to others. Ms. Garson said she would only scrutinize them for violations that are outlined in the law as requiring that protection. She said it would not be discretionary on her part. The Chair asked if a response date could be agreed upon. He felt October was too late, as he wanted enough time to discuss responses before doing the report. Ms. Garson suggested the wording that responses could be submitted "up to" a date the Commission set. September was agreed upon as the deadline to receive responses from employees Ms. Nicholson had a suggestion on the draft letter. In the beginning where it says "as you are aware," she wanted it worded to show that it is required by law. She felt that would make it stronger. She felt answering the six questions in two pages would be difficult and questioned whether it couldn't be rephrased to ask, "Do you have any ideas about what your department can do to save money while not compromising essential services ?" She suggested that be question No. 1. Ms. Nicholson said that Act 253 also authorizes the use of experimental modernization projects, in lieu of privatizing the functions of the public agencies. She would like to add a question about experimental modernization projects, to stimulate creative thinking. 20 The Chair noted that questions 2 and 3 are very similar and that one could be eliminated and a new one added in. After further discussion, the commissioners decided on eliminating question No. 2 and keeping No. 3. Ms. Nicholson asked whether, since Act 90 would be sunsetting shortly, it would be counter - productive to ask about experimental modernization projects. Ms. Garson said Act 90 is a totally separate thing and reminded the commissioners they could ask whatever they wanted. Ms. Nicholson pointed out page 157 of the Act 90 handout, where it says "Act 253 also authorized the use of experimental modernization projects by public agencies as a means to modernize and streamline their operations in lieu of privatizing the functions of the public agency." Ms. Garson asked if that was to replace the revised question No. 1 or No. 2, and the Chair said to delete No. 2. Ms. Nicholson suggested placing it between the current Nos. 5 and 6, and that it was to be in lieu of privatizing. She restated the question: "Can you suggest any modernization projects that might streamline your operations in lieu of privatizing functions ?" Ms. Cushnie asked if Act 253 should be referenced, and Ms. Garson said no. The Chair asked if there were any more suggestions or revisions to the draft letter, and Ms. Cushnie asked if the due date for responses was to remain May 5. Ms. Garson said she could have the letters ready for the Chair's signature by April 10, 2006, so it was decided the due date for responses would remain as May 5, 2006. To clarify, Ms. Nicholson said that the letter to the boards and commissions would give them an extra month, until June, to respond, as they would need to agendize and discuss the letter from the COGC at a meeting. Ms. Nicholson asked about the letter to the Department of Environmental Management, since they had already had its director, Barbara Bell, speak to them. It was decided that the DEM's letter should also ask about the consolidation of the waste water and water bills, and that the same question should be asked of the Department of Water Supply. Ms. Garson said that the letter would thank the DEM for coming to the meeting, and state something like, "As you recall, you made this suggestion and we would like more details on where cost savings can be made." The letter to the Department of Water Supply would be more generic. The Chair summarized the changes to the draft letter: The introduction was to be changed to "as the law requires." Question No. 1 was shortened to state, "Do you have any ideas about what your department can do to save money while not compromising essential services ?" Question No. 2 was to be deleted. Nos. 3 and 4 remained in place. Question No. 5 would be new, about modernization. The old No. 5 would become No. 6. The date would be kept at May 5, 2006. The letters would enclose a notice to be posted 21 for employees. The due date would be changed to June 5 for the boards and commissions. After asking if there were any further discussion regarding the draft letter, the Chair moved to agenda item no. 7. 7. DISCUSSION /ACTION ON GATHERING OF OTHER MATERIALS TO BE USED BY THE COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION Ms. Garson said that at the previous meeting, the Reinventing Government book came up. She found a description on Amazon.com, and the cost was about $17. Several books had the same or a similar title, and she was not sure this was the one the letter writer had been suggesting they read. Ms. Cushnie suggested that since the reference was so vague, the commissioners could go to Borders on their own and educate themselves, if they wanted to. Mr. Joseph said they could also look in the library. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENDA The Chair said that the DEM would be revisited. Ms. Nicholson asked if the Environmental Management Commission would be addressed then, too, but the Chair explained that we had to await their response to the letter. Ms. Garson mentioned that not all the boards and commissions are convened, so responses may not be received from all of them. The Chair asked Mr. Joseph if he wanted the vehicle disposal issue on the next agenda, and Mr. Joseph said he felt the Solid Waste and Wastewater Divisions were more important. The Chair asked if they could return to Solid Waste if they wanted to hear from a division chief. Ms. Garson explained that they could ask for a division chief but because the meeting dates are set and inflexible, they may not be able to appear. Ms. Bell had originally wanted today's date moved to accommodate scheduling conflicts. Ms. Nicholson suggested that if the two division chiefs cannot make it to the next meeting, they should plan on having the Public Works Department appear as a back -up. The Chair said that would affect the agenda, but Ms. Garson said she hoped to get a clear answer before sending out the agenda. Ms. Garson asked the COGC to clearly tell her what they want on the agenda. Why do they want the division heads to appear and what do they want them to answer to? Ms. Nicholson said they wanted a brief overview of their department and then to ask the same questions that were asked of Ms. Bell. 22 The Chair said they may receive different responses from the division heads than from the director, as the division heads should have the in -depth knowledge of the day -to -day operations. Ms. Cushnie asked whether the COGC's letter should go to department heads or division heads, and Ms. Garson said that some department heads will automatically bring their division heads and ask for their input. The Chair said that Ms. Bell did not get a chance to say all she wanted to say, and she did not get to go into the divisions. Ms. Nicholson said they need to look at each department in its own way. She said it would be good to talk to the DEM's two division heads if they're available, although Ms. Bell can come if she wants to. Ms. Cushnie said that Ms. Bell was here for two hours and asked what she did not address, so they could prepare for the next departments. She did not want to waste anyone's time. Ms. Nicholson said that Ms. Bell thought what the COGC was asking was vague and said she did not seem prepared to answer the questions, though she had seen them in advance. The Chair said he would have known a lot of the answers in his head, if he were a division head. Ms. Cushnie said they would want it in writing, though. Ms. Garson said she could ask for the division head or the head's designee. She believed the head of Wastewater has been out sick and asked the COGC if they wanted someone else to appear. Ms. Nicholson asked if the head or designee would feel free to talk candidly, and Ms. Garson said she thought so. The Chair asked if everyone was all right with listening to someone appointed by the division head. Ms. Garson said she would e -mail the questions to the division heads and tell them to either appear on April 20th or to send someone else. The Chair said the Department of Public Works could be set up for early May, and Ms. Nicholson said that if the Wastewater and Solid Waste division heads cannot come on April 20, then Public Works would be next. She said if a department head is gone, they could switch and do another department first. She said they are aiming for departments rather than deputies. Ms. Garson asked whether the discussion on prioritizing departments should be taken off the agenda, and the Chair said to leave it on. 23 9. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No members of the public were present. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chair announced the next meeting as being set for April 20, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., in the conference room at the Hilo Department of Liquor Control. 11. ADJOURNMENT Motion and Vote: Ms. Stremski moved to adjourn, Mr. Joseph seconded, and all members voted aye in favor of adjournment. (The meeting adjourned at about I :00p.m) Respectfully submitted: Mary E. C 'sson, Secretary 24