Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-16 Cost of Government Commission MinutesCOST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION County of Hawaii MINUTES March 16, 2006 — 10:00 a.m. Department of Liquor Control — Conference Room 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 230 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Commission members Myles Y. Miyasato, Chair present: Wayne T. Joseph, Vice Chair Pamela F. Cushnie, Commissioner Marilyn L. Nicholson, Commissioner Melvyn K. Sakaguchi, Commissioner Barbara R. Stremski, Commissioner Dix] e Kaetsu, Ex Officio Commissioner Others present: Katherine A. Garson, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary Crosson, Secretary Nancy Crawford, Deputy Director, Finance Department 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 2, 2006, MEETING The Chair asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. Ms. Stremski moved to approve the minutes, Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion, and all members voted aye to approve the minutes of March 2, 2006. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC No members of the public were present. However, two written communications from the public were reviewed: a. Comm. No. 2006 -04: Letter to Francis Akamine from Mayor Kim, with Francis Akamine's February 16, 2006, letter attached regarding the Department of Water Supply's unnecessary enclosure of return envelopes for payment with customers who have automatic bill payment. The commissioners discussed the reasonableness of Mr. Akamine's suggestion and whether it would be difficult to change the computer program that handles this. The Chair told the commissioners they could move to accept this communication and later include it as part of the summary in their report. Motion: Ms. Stremski so moved, and Ms. Nicholson seconded the motion. In discussion, Ms. Cushnie said she did not want the Commission to consider every communication on a separate basis. She does want an acknowledgment letter sent to Mr. Akamine, thanking him for his concerns and informing him that the Commission would be considering his suggestion and collecting information, as there was not enough information at this time to make a decision. Mr. Sakaguchi spoke against deferring the matter further and said that because it was a simple matter, he was for the motion and wanted to just get the communication off the table and included in their recommendations. Ms. Cushme said she wants further research into this, as the Water Department may have already done its own survey and may be working on a better way to do its billing. She does not want to make a blanket decision, as she was concerned that if the Commission makes a decision, it may not be able to reverse it easily. Ms. Nicholson said that it was just a recommendation that was made and that it seemed reasonable to make a recommendation on something like this. The Chair agreed that it was just a recommendation and that if the Water Department had already looked into this issue, it could so inform the Commission in its report in response to the Commission's report. He said he would be in favor of including it as a suggestion in the report. He said that the Commission cannot investigate every issue down to the wire, as it would take too much time. Ms. Cushnie stated she was concerned that the Commission was piece- mealing it. The Chair indicated that the issue could be reviewed again at the tenth month, when the Commission would be preparing its summary. He said it could be put on the record that it will come back at the time the summary is being prepared; and if they found out the Department already tried to correct the situation, it could be deleted. Mr. Sakaguchi agreed that was a good way to handle it and that the agency can always respond that it is not feasible. Vote: The Chair called for a vote. All members voted aye. The motion was carried. Mr. Akamine's communication is to be included as part of the Commission's summary. b. Comm. No. 2006 -05: Transmittal from Andrew Levin of a 10/12/05 letter from Jerry Merrill offering suggestions for the COGC. 2 Ms. Cushnie noted Mr. Merrill's word of caution at the end of his letter, that it may be difficult to get information from people if they believe their job or position of authority may be threatened. She stated she hoped that it would come out at today's meeting how their task would be approached, with reassurance that they would not be micromanaging. Ms. Stremski and Mr. Sakaguchi both stated that the issue is complicated and that they don't have expertise. The Chair informed the commissioners that the letter could be filed and revisited later. Ms. Cushme stated she would like a copy of the "Reinventing Government" book and "Decisions `88" that were referenced in the communication. Ms. Garson indicated she would look for those publications and if she could get a copy, she would bring it for everyone to look at, depending on the cost. The Chair said he had a comment on the communication - -that it was asking the Commission to reinvent the wheel. He said he hopes that the commissioners look for their own way of proceeding instead of looking back at what everyone else did. Together they are a group and their ideas can be just as valuable as anyone else's. He asked if there were a motion to file the communication. Motion: Mr. Joseph so moved. Mr. Sakaguchi asked if they were going to reconsider the communication later, and the Chair indicated that the motion was just to file it. Ms. Garson said she would follow up on the book and could agendize the matter. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion to file the communication. In discussion, Ms. Nicholson stated the motion was to table the communication and questioned whether they could potentially look at the referenced material, and the Chair responded that it could be agendized later. Ms. Cushnie asked whether it was proper procedure when filing a communication to send a letter of acknowledgement, and Mr. Sakaguchi stated that would be a good idea. Ms. Garson mentioned that these are older communications that went to the Mayor, not specifically to the Commission. She said if the Commission receives something, it can be acknowledged with a courtesy letter. Vote: The Chair asked for a vote on all who were in favor of filing the communication. All members voted aye. 3 4. APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM AND /OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA There were no addendums to the agenda. 5. PRESENTATION BY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REGARDING LAND OWNED BY COUNTY OF HAWAII Ms. Garson introduced Nancy Crawford and Dixie Kaetsu. Ms. Kaetsu stated that though she was an ex officio member, she would not always be able to attend the meetings, and she hoped the Commission's vacant positions could be filled soon. Ms. Crawford stated that she is the deputy director of the Finance Department, and she handed out to the commissioners a list of County -owned lands. She also had one copy of a land inventory which listed all County property, including easements, parks, cemeteries, gyms, drainage improvements, and roadways. She could make this document available if requested. Ms. Crawford stated that most of the County's lands were acquired in 1994 in lieu of taxes owed when Hamakua Sugar went under. The County received the lands as settlement in lieu of property tax. Because the County received the land this way, it did not have a specific use for it, and it is not particularly well suited for other uses. Thus, the County felt it appropriate to sell the land and bring the proceeds back into the General Fund. She stated that the first property on the list has highway frontage, and the County is currently surveying about 140 acres for County use. It is anticipated that the County will eventually have a highway baseyard, a volunteer fire station, and other uses for that land. Other properties in Paauilo and Hamakua are to be sold. There is a large, over 2,000 -acre parcel in Kaupulena, between Honokaa and Waipio, which may be of interest to people, though it is overgrown with trees. The process of selling the land moves slowly, as no employee is dedicated just to that job. The County is in the process of creating a property management section to help with this, and also to deal with the requirements of the Public Access /Open Space Commission. Total sales between December, 2000, and last October netted a little over $3,000,000. The total included land sold in Hamakua, as well as the Civil Service office building and a small geothermal property. They were getting ready to auction off all the Paauilo Mauka properties when they became aware of a requirement to have environmental assessments done, and these don't happen quickly. They are contracting with a company to do the assessments. They are not yet trying to sell the top property on the list, as they are trying to carve out a portion for the County. However, the remaining Paauilo Mauka lands are to be auctioned off some time after July 1, pending the assessments. n Ms. Kaetsu asked if the assessed value was based on property tax records, and Ms. Crawford answered yes, that the values are low because they're not based on the appraised value. The values probably do not represent current market values. Ms. Kaetsu asked Ms. Crawford to talk about the two Kona properties, as those were a different situation. Ms. Crawford explained that the County acquired two properties in Kona that are small, less than one acre of usable area. However, these properties have unique requirements, and the Council wants whoever buys them to provide amenities to people, as access is unusual. Bill Takaba of the Finance Department is working on doing a negotiated sale to meet everyone's requirements. One of the parcels is a small triangular piece on Henry Street, with a stone wall and drainage issues. Both properties are prime commercial properties. They are also thinking about swapping them for properties that would be more useful to the County, such as property suitable for a police substation. Ms. Cushnie asked whether the sale of land of people delinquent in paying their property tax balances out the amount those people generally owe. Ms. Crawford said that type of land sale is handled through a separate mechanism, via auctions held at least twice a year. The upset price of the lands at an auction is the unpaid taxes, unpaid penalties and interest, and the County's portion of the cost to sell (title reports, advertising, etc). Sometimes the County is not able to sell the land for the upset price or higher, and these have gone unsold at auction. A lot of the property the County has gotten this way is vacant land in Puna or Hawaiian Ocean View Estates, where property values used to be very low and people weren't interested enough to keep up with the taxes. Since the market turned, the County has been able to sell all of those lands at auction. However, the County does not make money on this. If a parcel is sold for more than the cost to the County, the extra goes back to the owner. Ms. Cushnie questioned whether this was an efficient use of government property and employees, especially when the market is bad. Ms. Kaetsu said she wanted to respond to this. She has been with the County 28 years, 22 of which have been with the Finance Department. The list of land Ms. Crawford brought shows the only time the County accepted property in lieu of the taxes. The list is the result of a huge bankruptcy case and lawsuit and was the only way the County could realize anything on the delinquent taxes. The County does not take title to the delinquent parcels. It has a lien, a default, and holds a public auction to recover its costs. The other costs go to the people who were in default. This process is established by law and is the County's legal recourse to collect on delinquent property taxes. The lands the County owns in Hamakua are not typical — they are separate from other property tax delinquencies. Ms. Cushnie commented that this is a new adventure for the County then, and asked whether it was to continue or has a beginning and an end. Ms. Kaetsu said she hopes it has a beginning and an end. Ms. Cushnie asked whether it was efficient, and Ms. Kaetsu answered that the County felt it was more efficient than other things they might do with the property, such as leasing it. Doing so would create property management issues, which should not be a 5 function of the County. It was felt that trying to sell the lands was the best thing to do, and she said the County is moving towards a more efficient way of handling this by creating a Property Management Division within the Department of Finance. She said this Division has been needed for years and will be able to follow up on these lands and get the inventory down more quickly. Ms. Cushnie said she is concerned that the County is generating jobs here, and questioned what happens to the jobs if the tax relief ends. She asked Ms. Crawford about her list, how much land moved through sales to generate income, and Ms. Crawford answered none. Ms. Kaetsu said there is an exception with little remnants that come up to sell, but those would not be on the short list of properties, but should be on the complete list. Mr. Sakaguchi questioned, to clarify, whether the County owns any land other than what is on the short list and the full list and whether the County is like the State, which owns a lot of land. Ms. Kaetsu answered that the County is not like the State at all in that respect. Mr. Sakaguchi said he was confused that the County did not want to get into property management, yet was looking for a property manager. Ms. Kaetsu said a property manager has been needed for years, and even more so now because of the newly created Public Access, Open Space, Natural Resources Preservation Commission. That Commission is supposed to identify and prioritize important lands that should be preserved for public access to shorelines and mountains and other resources, such as open spaces and beaches. The County is concerned that as time goes on and development occurs, there will be less open space and land available to the public. The County's administration will be keeping track of the properties on the Public Access Commission's list and watching to see whether the lands come up on the market or get noticed for condemnation, etc. The County has been putting money in the budget for this, and it is a brand new program which will take a lot of resources to be done right. She said they are not creating a huge bureaucracy —there will be one manager and one support staff, and they will be following up on what the County is supposed to do for the Public Access Commission. She said the County always has issues where it needs to acquire lands for roads, or has to do a condemnation, and that there are always land issues coming up. Mr. Sakaguchi asked that, since in the future the County might acquire land for future use, whether that is a function of the State government. Ms. Kaetsu said the functions overlap and that the County acquires property for County purposes and the State for State purposes. Mr. Sakaguchi asked why the County can't just go out and buy, why it needs to fund two positions. Ms. Kaetsu replied that the County cannot buy as easily as a private company, due to possible environmental issues, hazardous materials, etc. Mr. Sakaguchi said that if he were to buy a piece of property, he would expect it to come clear of those problems. He wouldn't need to hire someone to do those things, as the seller should guarantee the property. Ms. Crawford said that Mr. Sakaguchi would be representing himself, but the County needs someone to take the responsibility of buying that property. So far, the Director of Finance and sometimes other employees take that 101 responsibility on as part of their jobs, including sometimes leasing properties for offices; She said that right now the County is fortunate in having a Director of Finance who is good at land issues and has a background that allows him to negotiate leases and purchase land. However, the County might not always have such a director. Also, it is felt that there is enough activity, especially with the Public Access Commission, to justify having a land property manager. That position will also be over the staff that takes care of personal property inventory, vehicles, equipment, etc. Mr. Sakaguchi stated that it is not the Commission's intention to micromanage and said they are just trying to understand. He was under the impression the County owned a lot of land. Ms. Crawford said the County owns the County parks land. Mr. Sakaguchi asked how long the land on the list has been for sale, and Ms. Crawford answered that they started working on this around late 2001 and that the land hasn't been on the market the whole time. They had to figure out what action to take and go to the Council for authorization to take action. She agreed that ideally, however, the land would already have been sold. She said survey work is another issue, as the parcels are large and need surveys. Mr. Joseph asked if the land was acquired in 1994, and Ms. Crawford answered yes, through court settlement. The Chair stated that when this issue was brought up at the last meeting, the topic was on vacant lands and whether they have been a burden to the County because of the work involved in keeping them clear of being a hazard such as a fire hazard. He asked if the County has any vacant lands that are a burden. Ms. Kaetsu said she could think of one such parcel, up in Kaumana. Homes close to that parcel receive rubbish from it. The County was getting ready to sell it when the environmental assessment issue came up. What also turned up was a master plan that showed this land to be a wilderness park. So they ran into legal roadblocks, and she doesn't know the current status of this parcel. She is not aware of other burdensome parcels, but they may be out there. Ms. Stremski asked about areas which get developed and have portions set aside for parks. Ms. Kaetsu said if it is dedicated to the County, the County owns the park, but some subdivisions have private parks. Ms. Garson said another possibility is ownership by a homeowner's association, which might set a parcel aside for park purposes that would not necessarily be dedicated to the County. Mr. Sakaguchi said he is concerned about liability, as he can see vacant lands as being a problem in the future. He said he wants to look at the long list of the County's lands. Ms. Nicholson asked what the County's stance is on private subdivisions when land is set aside for parks, whether the County wants the land dedicated or encourages private development of the parks. Ms. Kaetsu said that is a good question as far as policy. If the land is developed it becomes the County's responsibility, although the Parks and Recreation Department already has many parks to maintain and its employees are stretched thin. However, the County does recognize the responsibility to provide parks for a community. 7 Mr. Sakaguchi said that the Commission could recommend that the County look at the zoning requirements for parks. Ms. Kaetsu said the Commission should talk to the Planning Department about how it works with a developer when a new subdivision is being planned. The Chair said he has noticed that the Planning Department is having community associations and residents pay a fee that is used to maintain private parks. The money is used to provide efficient lighting and chains or gates to lock up at a decent time. Mr. Sakaguchi said that is a good idea, as the beneficiaries are the people and the County can take care of the infrastructure. If a community feels it owns a park, it will get tougher on the vandals. The Chair asked if there were any more discussion. Motion: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to include in the Commission's recommendations asking the County to get moving on this land stuff, as it has been four to five years and the property is still not sold. The Chair clarified that the motion is to recommend that the Finance Department expedite these matters and not have sales sit on the table. Ms. Cushnie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Vote: All commissioners voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Cushnie said she wanted to move for, or begin discussion on, a clear accounting of the costs involved in hiring people, housing people, and providing staff to support them, as these costs should be passed on to the people owing delinquent taxes. She is concerned that the County is paying more than its fair share. Ms. Crawford explained that when property is sold because of delinquent taxes, included in the upset price are the costs for the process of doing the paperwork and administrative costs, in addition to the direct costs. Ms. Cushnie asked if it was generous enough to compensate the County, and Ms. Crawford responded that the County is recouping the cost of selling the land. They can document how much time is spent processing the sale. She said it would be more difficult to keep track of things like the letters and envelopes sent out which don't receive responses. Ms. Cushnie said the County court prorate some of the major costs and pass them on to the delinquent tax payers, and Mr. Sakaguchi said the County should have a profit on this. Ms. Garson said it is all dictated by statute. I Ms. Sakaguchi again said that he wanted a copy of the full report, and Ms. Crawford said she would leave it with us. 6. DISCUSSION ON RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM DEPARTMENTS REGARDING PREVIOUS COGC RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN REPORT The Chair noted that the Commission had received these responses at the last meeting, and he wanted to make a comment. - He said when people hear about the Commission, they think it is about cutting back on things to save money. However, he said that in order to save money, sometimes you have to spend money, such as on a computer. He asked the commissioners to keep an open mind through the months, as the Commission is not all about cutting back. Sometimes you have to spend money to save money. Mr. Sakaguchi said that many departments, however, are asking for things that have nothing to do with saving money. He questioned whether the Commission was to consider only things that save money, or also consider things a department may want. The Chair replied that a consideration was whether the job would be done more efficiently. Mr. Sakaguchi said that would open the door to a lot of things and asked whether it was the Commission's responsibility to cost things out, to see if there would be a savings. The Chair clarified that the Commission was just to make recommendations. Ms. Kaetsu stated that some of the commissioners' questions could be answered by reading what the Commission is supposed to do in the Charter. She read from the Charter: The County is to promote economy, efficiency, and improved service by limiting inefficient expenditures, eliminating duplication and overlapping of services, consolidating services, and abolishing services not necessary to the efficient conduct of government. The Commission is to study and investigate the organizations and methods of operations of all departments, commissions, boards, offices and other instrumentalities of all branches of the County government and determine what changes, if any, may be desirable to accomplish the policies set forth herein. Mr. Sakagucbi stated that the Commission has the prerogative to concentrate on certain things and it would be good to think about those things on which it should concentrate. The Chair noted that the next item on the agenda was for that purpose. Mr. Sakaguchi questioned the purpose of the reports, and Ms. Kaetsu said her intent when she requested the information was to show the Commission that the departments did take the former COGC's recommendations seriously, implemented what they could, and explained why some couldn't be implemented. She said the departments do follow up and that since this is not an ongoing commission, there is not a lot of opportunity for feedback. She stated it would be wise for the commissioners to focus their energies. A Ms. Cushnie asked if any of the prior recommendations were filtered by the Mayor before going to the departments, and Ms. Kaetsu said no, that there was nothing political about it. Recommendations were submitted directly to the departments, and it was up to them to do what they could. Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to accept and file the responses received from the departments. Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted in favor of accepting and filing the responses. 7. DISCUSSION /ACTION REGARDING APPROACH TO TAKE TO TIMELY ACCOMPLISH MANDATE OF THE COST OF GOVERNMENT COMMISSION The Chair suggested the commissioners have an informal discussion and that a motion could be entertained as they went along. Mr. Sakaguchi said there were two kinds of recommendations they could make: a broad - brush recommendation going across the departments, and then specific recommendations looking at particular departments. He said he spoke to some friends for broad -brush ideas. Suggestions they made included leasing or selling all vacant County lands; another was giving computerization for all departments a high priority; and another was leasing all County vehicles instead of purchasing them. He said that leasing vehicles would benefit the County by providing the subject employees with new cars every three years or so; and depreciation costs, per a car dealer, could be passed on as savings. The Chair said the discussion is to make recommendations on how they are to approach their task, and whether certain departments were to be targeted. Mr. Sakaguchi explained that his suggestion is to do a broad -brush recommendation and then look at a few departments. Mr. Joseph stated that he wanted to focus on what the Mayor had told them, which was to look at two to three high - profile departments and do a thorough job on those departments. The Chair said that he wanted to actually target a department and get moving and that Solid Waste was his pick to start with. Ms. Garson explained that Solid Waste is part of the Department of Environmental Management. The Chair reiterated that he wants to target that department, as there is a real concern if the island has to truck all its waste. However the waste issue is decided, it is going to be a major cost. He said that since the issue will not be resolved before the end of their term, their input will be taken into consideration in how the waste issue is decided. Ms. Cushme asked whether the commissioners were allowed to specify departments, and Ms. Garson said that though the Charter says "all" departments, the Mayor had said that would be a daunting task. She said that in order to comply in good faith with the mandate of the Charter, she would prefer that the commissioners prioritize so at the end 10 they can say they prioritized because of the eleven -month deadline. The broad -brush approach could also be considered. Mr. Sakaguchi asked which departments the Mayor had wanted reviewed, and the Chair replied that the Mayor had suggested Environmental Management, the Police Department, and the Public Works Department. He clarified that he, too, wanted to get started somewhere. Ms. Cushnie stated she liked the idea of prioritizing as well, and that now she understood the rationalization. Ms. Garson told the commissioners that if they get lost, to go back and read the Charter mandate, which is in their binders along with a list of all County departments. Mr. Sakaguchi asked the necessity of reviewing the waste issue, since the Council was currently evaluating it, but the Chair answered that there was no definite time when this issue would be decided upon. Ms. Kaetsu explained that the Council sets policy, and the administration implements it as set by the Council. She said if the COGC looked at Solid Waste, they would not just be looking at the high profile issues, but the operations of the Department as well. As an example, an issue is whether there is enough staffing at the transfer stations. She said it is not clear that the COGC would have input into the Referral for Proposal process for waste reduction technology, as there is specific State law on how to handle procurements. Motion: Mr. Joseph moved to have the Department of Environmental Management set as a priority and to have a representative at the next meeting. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. In discussion, Ms. Nicholson noted that there are three divisions within the Environmental Management Department, each with its own division head, and asked if the COGC would be asking for one or all of those heads for a presentation. The Chair said it may be good to have Barbara Bell do an overall presentation. Ms. Kaetsu said that whoever is to speak needs a clear idea of what to talk about so she /he can focus and bring materials. Ms. Garson said examples of materials would be organizational charts or work flow charts to explain what they do and how it is done. Ms. Kaetsu said division chiefs could be brought in to talk in more detail about their operations. Ms. Nicholson said there should be a back -up person to attend in case Ms. Bell is at a conference or unavailable and that they should possibly list several departmental presentations on one agenda sous to make the most of their time. Mr. Joseph stated that a motion was still on the table and that the Commission does not need to rely only on Ms. Bell for a presentation, that someone else could do it. 11 Vote: The Chair called for a vote on the motion to review the Department of Environmental Management first. All members voted aye on the motion. The Chair clarified that the Commission was still on item 7 of the agenda and asked if there were any more discussion on approach. Motion and Vote: Ms. Stremski moved to have the Department of Public Works the Commission's second priority. Ms. Cushnie seconded the motion. All members voted aye on making the Department of Public Works the second priority. Ms. Kaetsu said those two departments are good to start with, as some of the issues overlap between them. Up until 2000, it was all one department. Motion: Mr. Sakaguchi moved that at some point in the future, the Commission spend time considering broad -brush recommendations. The Chair said there is not a problein with agendizing something like that, that it could be placed on the agenda at any time and did not need a motion. Ms. Garson said that since the Commission only has eleven months, it would be good if they could set a tentative roadmap down. Ms. Cushnie said she wanted to have at least seven departments prioritized to make the best use of time if a department representative wasn't available. Ms. Garson stated it might be good to set two or three on an agenda, because the commissioners might have lots of questions and want a representative to come back. She is also concerned about the time if there is only one department per agenda. Ms. Cushnie said she wanted to discuss Parks and Recreation, as she agreed with Ms Stremski that it should be their second priority department. Ms. Kaetsu said that Parks and Recreation is a big department and the commissioners may want to hit areas the last Commission did not get to. If there are specific concerns in an area, there is nothing to prevent them from looking at that area. Ms. Garson said they could also look at something that came out of the prior COGC report, to follow up on. Ms. Kaetsu also said that the Planning Department is another important department, though not as large as Parks and Recreation. The Planning Department has long -range responsibilities and is trying to do abetter job at integrating. She also said that since the Commission was interested in liability, it may want to look at the new Risk Manager position under the Department of Finance. Ms. Cushnie asked how that position got created, and Ms. Garson explained that the Council started discussing it, because every time there is a lawsuit and a settlement offer is on the table, the Corporation Counsel has to present the case to the Council and request its approval to settle. The Council always wants to know what is going to be done to address the problem of future liability, so there was a collective idea to hire someone to be on the lookout for potential areas of liability. 12 Ms. Nicholson suggested prioritizing by departments and then once in a while taking a broad brush approach to cover several departments. Mr. Sakaguchi expressed concern that if too many things were placed on the agenda, members of the public may show up on an issue which will not be addressed. Ms. Garson said that the agenda could be written in such a way that times could be given for the various agenda items (e.g., 10:00 a.m. for one issue and 11:30 a.m. for another issue) so people wouldn't have to sit around waiting. Mr. Sakaguchi asked if people from Waste Management and the Public Works Department were to be at the next meeting, and the Chair said yes. Ms. Nicholson said that was not her understanding —she just thought they were prioritizing departments. Ms. Garson reminded them that item 7 of the agenda, which was still to come, was discussion of items to be placed on the next agenda. The Chair said that because the Environmental Management Department is so large, with three divisions, it may not be a problem to have their representatives come to a meeting and have a full discussion on it. Mr. Sakaguchi said he would be comfortable with that. The Chair asked if the commissioners wanted to list a third priority department, or a board or commission. Motion: Ms. Nicholson moved to set the Planning Department as the third priority. Ms. Stremski seconded the motion. In discussion, Ms. Cushnie said there is nothing to prevent them from asking Parks and Recreation to provide the Commission with something in written form. Ms. Garson said she brought a sample letter the last COGC did, which requested that the departments provide various documents and answer the listed questions. Ms. Cushnie asked how independently the Commission could look at these and ask for info, and Ms. Garson replied that the Commission has full authority to ask anything it wants. Ms. Cushme asked if she could go on her own to a department to ask for information, and Ms. Garson said she could, but the information would need to be shared with everyone. She said it may be more efficient to send out communications and when responses are received forward them so that everyone is dealing with the same information. A problem in going independently is it may create an issue that would be better addressed with the Commission as a whole. Ms. Cushme said she liked the idea of the letter, as they would have time to read responses and material and get brought up to speed. 13 The Chair reminded the commissioners that there was a motion on the floor for the Planning Department to be the third priority and asked if there were any further discussion. Vote: Upon no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote, and all members voted aye and made the Planning Department the third priority. Motion: Ms. Cushnie then moved to generate a letter asking for general information from all departments. She asked whether commissions should be included. Ms. Garson suggested a separate letter for boards and commissions, as most of them have one staff person and no finances except for meals provided by Charter mandate. The Chair stated that the motion was just to send a letter to departments. Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion, but said that he wanted to focus on the remaining departments rather than revisit the departments that were reviewed by the prior Commission and asking for the same materials and same questions those departments had to respond to before. Ms. Garson said a third letter could be done to those departments that were reviewed by the prior Commission. Ms. Cusbme suggested a letter assuring them that their prior report was received, enclosing a copy, and asking if there were any changes or updates. Ms. Nicholson suggested sending out letters to the three prioritized departments and sending other letters later as the Commission moved ahead. Ms. Garson explained that she was only able to find two draft reports from the prior Commission, which had been sent to the commissioners. She said more could be found out by reading the prior Commission's minutes, which would be time - consuming. She said that whatever letter the Commission sends needs to come from the Commission, not from her. The commissioners continued discussing what to include in the letter to departments, whether they should focus on certain things, or have departments list their priorities, and agreed they did not want to generate documents which they could not adequately address. Mr. Sakaguchi said that if he were to receive a letter such as the one being discussed, he would be upset at the work it would entail. Ms. Cushnie did not agree and stated that a report is due only every four years, and it gives departments a chance to express changes and needs they see in long -term goals. She does not feel requesting a one -page report is asking too much. Mr. Sakaguchi asked whether there was a mechanism for the Commission to invite comments from the public, and the Chair stated that the meetings are open to the public. Ms. Stremski stated that the notices of meetings are published in the paper and are on the 14 County's bulletin board. Mr. Sakaguchi said that those are only legal requirements and asked how the others felt. Ms. Garson stated that the County publishes a newsletter and there are certain people on a list who receive the newsletter, as it is a public document. Anyone can submit items via e -mail to include in that newsletter. The Chair noted that there was a motion on the table about whether the Commission should send a letter out to departments and a separate letter to boards and commissions and requested that the commissioners stick to the motion. The purpose of the letters would be to get information from departments on what things they would like the Commission to consider. Ms. Nicholson stated that it was not clear what letters were to be sent and that she heard discussion on three letters. One focused on those departments they prioritized; a second letter was to commissions; and a third letter was to all departments, asking for a one -page report wherein they could provide updates or ideas or priorities so the Commission could get a broad overview to help on those issues. The Chair noted that the third letter was a suggestion. Motion Clarified: Ms. Cushnie moved to send a letter requesting updated information to all department heads, limiting their response to one to two pages of new priorities, ideas, or changes they would like to recommend to the Commission. Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion. Ms. Cushnie said that she was restating, or clarifying, her motion, as she had kept changing it. The Chair said he felt it would be good to send a letter to all departments, even if they were analyzed by the prior Commission, as some departments may have a concern that came up. Though they had prioritized only three departments, he would hate to miss concerns from other departments. A department may have a suggestion that was not followed up on, or may have a suggestion they feel would work and want to bring it up. He stated that his opinion was that they could review all the responses, and if there was nothing there, they could go to the bottom of the list. Vote: The Chair asked for a vote from all who were in favor of the motion. All commissioners voted aye on sending a letter to all departments and boards and commissions. (Ms. Stremski left the meeting, as she was not feeling well) The commissioners and Ms. Garson continued discussing what to put in the letter. Ms. Garson stated that she could draft the letter but needed direction from the commissioners. She stated she could put the draft on the next agenda for the commissioners to review and make any changes prior to it being sent out. 15 Ms. Cushnie stated that she wanted the letter to basically include what was written in the Charter and wanted the responses limited to one to two pages. After further discussion, the commissioners decided that a one -month deadline for departments to respond was sufficient. Ms. Nicholson asked if the Commission would be sending a letter out to the Environmental Management Department, requesting specific information to be included at the next meeting. The Chair noted that it would be difficult for the Department to have a response before the next meeting. Ms. Garson stated that the County website is an excellent source for information about organizational charts, although she is not certain that the Environmental Management Department's chart is on the site. Ms. Garson stated that she needs to be able to give the Department direction on what to expect and what to bring to the meeting. As well, the agenda needs to be particular enough to notify the public on what is going to be discussed. Mr. Sakaguchi stated that the letter the Commission sends should convey that the Commission wants to help the departments and is looking for their suggestions and input. They should not just be doing a presentation but should feel free to express their thoughts on issues they feel are important. He wants to have a dialog with them. He wanted to be friendly with the departments and not adversarial. The Chair asked if there were any further discussion on item 7, and there was none. 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING EACH COMMISSIONER'S VIEW ON THE CONCEPT OF PRIVATIZATION Mr. Sakaguchi stated that the privatization issue could be taken up with a broad -brush stroke and added to an agenda. Ms. Nicholson suggested asking the department speakers whether there was a place in their department for privatization during their presentations. Ms. Cushnie asked for an operating definition of privatization and precedents that were set here and in other places. Ms. Garson said it has more of a legal definition involving taking a service that was typically provided by, for example, civil servants and farming it out to a private entity. There was a landmark case around 1996 which resulted in Act 90, which is a statute that sets out under what circumstances a government agency can hire outside people to do functions that are customarily performed by civil servants. She stated she could get a copy of Act 90 for the commissioners. Ms. Garson also explained that when the County is going to contract out, there is a whole checklist to go through involving the reasons for 16 the contract and how it will save costs. She can provide the questionnaire the departments go through to justify hiring a private entity. Mr. Sakaguchi commented that he felt the County should outsource its disaster relief and that it would be good to bring the issue up with the departments. Ms. Garson said she could collect the information and provide it to the commissioners, but it would need to be an agenda item if they wanted to discuss it at the next meeting. The Chair stated that if the Commission wanted to discuss privatization as a major issue, it would need to be agendized. However, if it were to be discussed as a topic under a department, it would not need to be agendized. Ms. Garson asked if they wanted the privatization issue to be included in the letter to the Environmental Management Department. It will be included. (The Chair called a 5-minute break at 12: 08 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 12:17 p.m.) 9. DISCUSSION /DECISION ON FUTURE MEETING TIMES, DATES, AND PLACES Ms. Garson reported that she had spoken to Commissioner Ombac regarding meeting on Monday, April 3, 2006, and he stated he would be there. He stated he would attend this meeting and then decide what he wanted to do. Ms. Garson reported that Ms. Ferrantino did withdraw from the Commission and that other commissioners are being sought from districts 7 and S. Ms. Garson said that she needed to know if the commissioners wanted videoconferencing available. Although the two seats on that side are empty, there is still the public on the Kona side. She was told that videoconferencing places were available across the island, so the commissioners needed to let her know if they wanted it looked into. Ms. Cushnie asked if they could still meet with the two vacancies, as long as they had five commissioners attending; and Ms. Garson said yes. Ms. Nicholson stated that she has a problem with meeting on April 3, as well as other Mondays due to Mondays being very busy work days for her. She could possibly make the April 3 meeting if it were held later in the day. The Chair apologized and explained that the decision to meet on April 3 was made at the prior meeting when she was not present, in order to accommodate Mr. Ombac's schedule. Mr. Sakaguchi said he also could not be present on April 3, as he would be in Asia. Motion: Mr. Joseph moved to keep the meetings on the Thursday schedule. Mr. Sakaguchi seconded the motion. 17 In discussion, Mr. Joseph said things will be difficult if they start making allowances for people's schedules. If they cannot fit into a set schedule, they should think about not serving on the Commission. He did not want to set a precedent by having a fluctuating schedule and said that for the community and their own purposes, they should lock into the every other Thursday schedule and stay there. Mr. Sakaguchi said he is flexible but feels they should be accommodating. He stated that no one from the Mayor's Office had told him that the meetings were set by regulations and that it would behoove the Mayor's Office to let commission people know about mandated schedules. Ms. Garson said she was partly responsible, as she could have contacted them ahead of time on this, and she learned a lesson because of Ms. Ferrantino withdrawing. She said the rules on when the Commission meets could be changed. Mr. Sakaguchi said it would confuse everyone if they started deviating, and Ms. Cushme said they would need to know the schedule if there were two new commissioners to come on board. Mr. Joseph stated that having a firm schedule was in their best interests. Ms. Garson asked if they still wanted to keep the April 3 meeting, and Mr. Joseph said he wanted April 6 to be the next meeting. The Chair mentioned that Mr. Ombac had already been asked to attend on April 3, and Mr. Joseph said he felt Mr. Ombac would understand the problems involved in changing the regular schedule. Mr. Joseph also stated that he made the motion for purposes of discussion. Ms. Cushnie said the problem with meeting on April 3 is that there may not be a quorum, and Ms. Stremski would need to be polled. Mr. Joseph said he would prefer to accommodate a member that will be attending for the next eleven months than one that probably would not. Ms. Cushnie suggested that Ms. Garson just called Mr. Ombac and inform him of the Commission's decision, with their regrets. Ms. Garson said that the next meeting date would need to be announced at this meeting, and the cancellation of the April 3 meeting published and the notice pulled back from the newspapers. Vote: The Chair called for a vote on the motion to keep the meetings scheduled for every other Thursday. Mr. Joseph, Ms. Cushnie, Ms. Nicholson, and the Chair voted aye. Mr. Sakaguchi was opposed. IN Ms. Garson stated that pending further instruction, she would not proceed with videoconferencing arrangements. 10. DISCUSSION ON SETTING A CAPON LENGTH OF MEETINGS Motion: Mr. Sakaguchi moved to set a cap of two and a half hours for the length of meetings. Ms. Cushnie seconded the motion. In discussion, the Chair expressed that when they have an agenda and a quorum, he would like to finish the items on the agenda. His personal feeling is that he does not want to restrict the time. However, if someone has to go someplace, such as to a doctor appointment, that person can be excused while everyone else stays. Mr. Sakaguchi stated that he made this motion because he has sat in many meetings, and after a certain amount of time has passed, he has problems paying attention and does not function well. He feels a lot could be accomplished in two and a half hours, as it would keep them focused. Ms. Cushnie stated that she needs to eat and asked if they could take lunch breaks and then return to meetings, and Mr. Joseph said he would be opposed to that. Ms. Nicholson said she would need to get back to work. She said that in meetings she has attended, if the agenda is not completed, the incomplete items are just deferred to the next meeting. Mr. Sakaguchi apologized that the morning of the last meeting he had not eaten breakfast and is diabetic, so he was having problems. Mr. Joseph said that he agrees it would be good if meetings were limited to two and a half hours, but it should not be set as a formal time limit, and it should be at the Chair's discretion. Ms. Garson said she could bring bento lunches and they could work through lunch. Ms. Cushnie suggested aiming to end meetings at 12:30 p.m., but not having it carved in stone. Ms. Garson said the motion and the second could be withdrawn, and the time deadline could be informally out there, if they desired. The Chair asked if the motion would allow them to continue beyond two and a half hours, if needed; and Ms. Garson said that a friendly amendment to the motion could be proposed, to limit the meetings to two and a half hours with the option of extending it at the Chair's discretion. The Chair said it could be amended so that after two and a half 19 hours, if they are on a hot discussion, then a poll could be taken to see if they wanted to continue past that time. Motion Amended: Mr. Sakaguchi stated that he would accept the friendly amendment. Mr. Joseph said he is concerned that this is being formalized and he would rather not formalize it and just have it as an understanding. Vote: The Chair asked for a vote on the motion, by a raising of hands. Mr. Sakaguchi and Ms. Nicholson raised their hands. All who opposed, by raising their hands: Mr. Joseph, Ms. Cushnie, and the Chair. The motion to limit the meetings to two and a half hours failed. The Chair stated that he would try to get the meetings done in two and a half hours and that the motion could always be revisited. 11. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON NEXT AGENDA Ms. Garson stated that she had the Department of Environmental Management on the next agenda, as well as a variation of item 7 on discussion or action about prioritizing to accomplish the mandate of the Commission. She said she will have that as a running agenda item. Ms. Nicholson said to include the letter they were to send to the departments. Ms. Cushnie reminded Ms. Garson that she needed to bring various documents to the next meeting, and Ms. Garson said that would not be an agenda item, and she doubted she would be able to get the book by the next meeting. (Ms. Garson requested a short break to check on whether the Liquor Department's conference room would be available on April 6, 2006 The meeting broke at 12:45 p.m. and reconvened as 12:47p.m.) Ms. Garson reported that the conference room is available for April 6 and she cancelled their reservation for its use on April 3, 2006. 12. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC The Chair stated that there were no statements from the public. 13. ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chair announced that the next meeting is scheduled for April 6, 2006, at the conference room at the Department of Liquor Control. 20 14. ADJOURNMENT Motion and Vote: Mr. Joseph moved to adjourn the meeting, Ms. Cushnie seconded the motion, and all members voted aye to adjourn. (The meeting adjourned at 12: 50 p.m.) Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Cr son, Secretary 21