Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-24 Meeting Minutes (EMC) ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIʻI MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, October 24, 2018 9:04 a.m. to 11:05 a.m. Hawaiʻi County Building 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 1501 Hilo, Hawaiʻi Commissioners present: Richard Bennett, Ph.D., Chair Jon Olson, Vice Chair James Fritz Rick Gaffney Luana Neff Justin Pequeño Staff present: William Kucharski, Director Diana Mellon-Lacey, Deputy Corporation Counsel Mary Fujio, Secretary Also present: Roy Takemoto (for agenda item 5a), Rose Bautista, Jerome Warren, Terri Napeahi, Sophia Hanoa, Cory Harden, Nancy Cook-Lauer, and several other members of the public 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bennett called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 Motion, second, and vote: Commissioner Pequeño moved to add a statement to the minutes on page 4, near the bottom, to say that “the Commission recognized the efforts of former Commissioner Susie Osborne to advance education and outreach at the Department of Environmental Management.” Vice Chair Olson seconded the motion and all commissioners voted aye. Motion, second, and vote: Commissioner Gaffney moved to approve the minutes with the additional statement, Commissioner Pequeño seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. 3. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Jerome Warren: Mr. Warren testified first regarding items 4A and 4B in the Wastewater Division portion of the Director’s Informational Report. Regarding Kaū sewer ʻ upgrades, an attorney for the county was quoted in Tuesday’s newspaper as saying there will be future county meetings and that a Nāālehu resident can attend to “vent her spleen.” ʻ The county attorney made a typical cavalier, bureaucratic statement by saying that, and the statement marginalized all public participants. Last Monday he attended a gathering of concerned citizens in Pāhala. About 20 people who were concerned about the sewer upgrades showed up at the county park clubhouse. There were three people with legal expertise and courtroom experience, and he heard some legitimate complaints and legal remedies. He is glad that people with backgrounds in law have become involved with the Kaū sʻewer upgrades, as his efforts with the EMC have been futile. His only hope is that the newer commissioners will be concerned about the homeowners. The project needs an audit and investigation. The county’s public meetings, such as the ones he attended in Pāhala, are structured in a top-down format. There are no statements from the public at the beginning. Instead they get a sales pitch that drones on and on, and then they can ask questions and get condescending answers. Anybody who doesn’t like the answer and talks back is labeled and put into the spleen-venting category. He is forced to be bombastic in order to get his points across. They are being forced to demonize themselves. He has been paying property tax here for over 40 years, has been a permanent resident and registered voter for 28 years, and has owned his plantation house for 21 years. However, he is still a newcomer compared to most homeowners in Pāhala and Nāālehu. Although he was a sugar worker ʻ and ILWU officer, he is still a malihini. The county does not grasp the fact that he is footing the bill. There will be one commissioner and one judge, hopefully, who will see this problem from a citizen’s perspective. It is axiomatic that local government pays more attention to new developers than to life-long residents. His hope is that this will change someday. Mr. Warren stated that for the record, he was sitting here and listened to commissioners talk business before the meeting started. He knows they have been chided for that before, but they still do it. Terri Napeahi: Ms. Napeahi said she wanted to make the EMC aware of a few things that the Pāhala community is concerned about, and she informed them there was a request for an extension to the comment period for the draft environmental assessment for the proposed Pāhala Wastewater Treatment Plant. She got the request in yesterday with a list of items of concern to be looked into. One item was disclosure to the community. The community and families that live there do not approve of the proposed site, and they have a recommendation on what they believe would be a better site. With the extension, the community would like to comment and give their manaʻo. They have met a couple of times and the kupuna know the place better, live there, and realize the impacts the facility would have. She is hopeful the EMC will support the request for extension. The community is not against having something that will help the island’s environment, but they would like the chance to be at the table to suggest where it should be. Sophia Hanoa: Ms. Hanoa said she was born and raised in Pāhala, is a resident there, and wanted to share some of the community’s concerns. First and foremost, there was no disclosure of what was going on. The county came out in December with a plan, and the community was told that different sites were being looked at, and it was up in the air. The county was to return in April to talk to the community, but never did. All of a sudden, in September, they got notification that an EA was done. The community had no idea. A copy of the EA was dropped off at the library, but no one could check it out because it was a reference item. The elderly had no idea what was going on. The community has been stressed since 2007 with the sewage system. Some residents have been paying sewage fees, and they are not even hooked up. They wonder why they are paying these fees. Psychological stress is placed on the community now regarding the new system. They are worried about the cost. They were told it was possibly going to be $20,000. Some of the residents also have to pay for the cost to cover up their cesspools. The whole project is being fast-tracked without the community’s input. The site in the EA was deemed not a primary location back in 2008. Their former councilman, Guy Enriques, had provided a handout on this. So why was an EA being done on the same site that the county knew was not appropriate? The site has burials and caves. The community knows they need a sewage plant. However, there is a better location just below the highway. If the county had consulted Edward Andrade, who was the C. Brewer manager of the sewage system, he would have told them the site below the highway is better. There is already access under the highway, and the plantation used to use this access as well. Kamehameha Schools owns the proposed site area, and they also own the site below the highway. The chosen location is right at the entrance of Pāhala’s old historical road. Everyone knows they have flooding problems. All of the community’s water comes to the corner of the proposed site. It’s a hazard. Emergency access is also a problem. There are two ways in and out of Pāhala, one by the hospital entrance and the other at the proposed site. If flooding occurs, they would have to block off Maile Street and Māmalahoa Highway. If a flood overflows toward the hospital, the community will be locked in. The lower part of Māmalahoa Highway would be a better site. The community agrees, but they were never asked. She hopes the extension is granted. The community wants to work with the county. They know it has to be done, but it needs to be done properly. Wise decisions need to be made for the generations to come. The cost is an issue. She just wanted to let the EMC know the concerns of the Pāhala community and that they want to work with the county to get this project done appropriately. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Chair’s update on the Environmental Management Commission’s report to the Charter Commission. Chair Bennett said he should probably apologize for his naivety. When he was asked to provide the Charter Commission with the EMC’s report, he made the assumption they would allow him to give a presentation to provide more detail. While the chair told him thank you, the meeting is October 12 in Hilo, he was never invited. The EMC’s recommendation got truncated or bifurcated, and the Charter Commission focused entirely on the Department of Water Supply and did not look at the big picture at all. He was angry and frustrated with the process. He realizes now that if the EMC’s recommendation were to have more power, it needed political legs. He did not feel it was in his purview to become a political advocate in front of the Charter Commission on behalf of the EMC. He has done nothing subsequent to submitting the report, other than speaking to a reporter who put a camera in his face on Saturday, and he made some comments to the effect that unfortunately, the Charter Commission did not look at the whole picture. Chair Bennett proposed, in order to try and make this right, to take what the EMC approved and put it into a white paper. The white paper would be sent to the Charter Commission with a copy to the executive branch and the County Council, to see if it stimulates a conversation. Also in his naivety, he thought the Charter Commission would be putting things on the ballot in November, but he learned that what was going to be on the ballot was already decided by the time he communicated the EMC’s report. So that made him wonder what the purpose was. Are their recommendations for 10 years down the road? He felt a bit bulldozed. Vice Chair Olson said this body was created because it got onto the ballot. Unlike some other commissions that come and go, any suggestion to remove or reduce the function of this body would be met with substantial resistance. Chair Bennett said he did not think that was on the table, as usually when you come into being by a vote of the entire electorate of the county, you have some staying power. Vice Chair Olson said the point of the EMC, in their thinking when it was created, was to give people a voice, some place to come and interact directly. By virtue of this body, people are being heard. Commissioner Gaffney said he understands that the EMC’s responsibility is to the executive and legislative branches of the county. Regardless of whether or not they were successful in getting the Charter Commission to hear them, they still have means. If they missed the Charter Commission window, then they move on and go back to the means that were created when the EMC was created. Chair Bennett said that Hurricane Lane cost them a month, but the Charter Commission wanted to move forward quickly. For their October 12 meeting, he was simply advised they were having a meeting. He didn’t know the EMC’s report was on the agenda, and he was never invited to do a presentation on the rationale behind the extensive set of recommendations the EMC had put forward. It seems to him that somewhere in the process, a decision was made that the EMC’s proposal was going to go nowhere. As he mentioned at the previous meeting, he never had any expectation it would get on the ballot, but he wanted to start the conversation. Therefore, he was now proposing to draft a white paper, get it to the members of the EMC subcommittee for input, bring it back to the EMC for review and approval, and then forward it to the executive and legislative branches. There are other ways to get things on the ballot, so all is not lost. Commissioner Gaffney said the mayor had reacted pretty negatively to the EMC’s report to the Charter Commission, and he wondered if anyone knew why. Director Kucharski said that in his opinion, the issue was more the form of the new responsibility than the substance. The substance has support. Water resource and water sustainability is okay, but taking a semi-independent organization and folding it in with the primary wastewater treatment groups would take two different amendments, and it would essentially do away with the EMC. The EMC exists to support DEM. The mayor is not against taking a look at a sustainable water group, but the manner in which it was suggested via a charter amendment did not seem to be the appropriate mechanism to address those issues. Chair Bennett said the EMC’s transmittal to the Charter Commission was not in the form of an amendment. It was basically ideas and concepts to be molded. If they were given more time to provide their submittal it could have been made clearer, but the chair of the Charter Commission was giving him a “hurry up.” He should have asked what the rush was, had he realized that it would not be going on the November ballot. However, the lesson has been learned. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Presentation by Roy Takemoto, Executive Assistant to the Mayor, on the process of sewering an improvement district. Commissioner Gaffney said he had asked for this presentation because there are a number of community groups on the island that are anxious to move forward into sewering their communities but did not know the process to do so. It appears from the past that the process was started from the top, the county, and worked its way down. However, now there are communities that would like to become sewered, and they need to understand what steps to take. Mr. Takemoto explained that an improvement district is a financing tool that is usually used to retrofit an existing community with public improvements. If a sewer system is intended to be private, an improvement district would not work. It needs to be for public improvements that would benefit the residents who have to shoulder the cost. The cost of the improvements gets repaid over time, and the means of repayment is through an assessment. An assessment is similar to property tax—people will get an assessment bill from the Finance Department, usually quarterly. If they don’t pay, a lien will be placed on the property. Mr. Takemoto said there is a lot of benefit with the county serving as the collector and having lien power. In some types of financing, the community association shoulders the burden and becomes the collector. When the county can step in through an improvement district and serve as the collector, it makes it much easier for the community. There are three major steps to set up an improvement district. Step 1 is feasibility. This is where the residents approach their councilmember and ask about initiating a resolution to start the process of looking into the feasibility. To determine if it’s feasible, the council will ask the Director of Environmental Management to do a report on it. The report is basically a preliminary engineering report that estimates the cost and what the possible assessment would be for each of the owners. Step 2 is the community’s opportunity to say yea or nay. If the council accepts the feasibility report, a public hearing is to be set up so the people have an opportunity to say yea or nay on whether to proceed with the improvement district. Those who do not agree need to provide written disapproval. If 51% of the people within the proposed improvement district boundary provide written disapproval, then it fails. If there is a silent majority that do not say no, it would go through. The 51% binds 100% of the residents. As long as there isn’t 51% disapproving, then everybody benefiting within that improvement district is subject to the assessment. Step 3 involves the council passing another resolution to authorize the design. With the detailed engineering design, the project goes out to bid, and then there is a firm cost to lock in what the assessment would be. With the Lono Kona Sewer Improvement District, the county had a great partner with USDA Rural Development, which has a water and wastewater loan and grant program. Once you have the final bid cost, the final assessment and who will be subject to it can be locked in. If it turns out to be more than 10% of the estimate of what it would be when it went to the public hearing where people said yea or nay, it will have to go back for another public hearing to see if the people are still in favor of proceeding. If everything is a go, it gets locked in by an ordinance, and there is also a bond ordinance that secures the loan portion. Discussion was held on what types of systems could seek to become improvement districts and whether public-private partnerships have been explored. Mr. Takemoto said they are exploring public-private partnerships where the collection systems would be public but would feed into a private treatment plant. It is still being looked into. He explained that the assessment cost is only one portion of the total cost burden. People will also have monthly sewer fees and the cost to connect from the house to the lateral. If they have an existing cesspool or septic system, there is also a cost to close it down. These are costs the improvement district cannot cover. Chair Bennett said the clock is ticking, and the state has a mandate for closure of private cesspools. It is his opinion that the county should move forward aggressively to find ways of using public-private partnerships to utilize the capacity of the Heʻeia Treatment Plant. In today’s newspaper, Kamehameha Investment Group announced a very large high-end subdivision that will be mauka of the bypass road. It will most likely be sewered, which means a sewer line needs to be run from there to the treatment plant, passing many private non-sewered residences along the way. It will take a public-private partnership to get those residences on board with sewering. He would like to recommend the county and DEM move forward aggressively in trying to find a way to make public- private partnerships a priority. Motion and second: Commissioner Gaffney moved that the EMC recommend to the county that it move forward aggressively to create public-private partnerships to take people off cesspools and get them into sewered situations, to existing and proposed private sewage treatment plants. Commissioner Fritz seconded the motion. Vice Chair Olson said another factor is the commercial availability. Nāālehu and ʻ Pāhala, for example, have no business communities and it is difficult to build anything new. The idea that we are on an island and all in this together is a concept that some people have difficulty perceiving. We are all in this together, and it will cost all of us one way or another. Director Kucharski pointed out that an issue they are facing in Nāālehu and Pāhala ʻ is that the cost for a regular person to connect to the sewer is significant, and there is no mechanism for the county to provide direct financial support for this. There is a ban on spending county funds on private property. It can cost as much as $10,000 to $20,000 or higher just to get a pipe from a house to the sewerline. The County is looking at ways to get money, but even the USDA does not allow for private property expenditures. The closure of cesspools will come to about a half a billion dollars for our island. If the county were to sewer the entire island and make everyone accessible, the cost to the residents would be about the same. He is in full support of following through on ensuring our island and its sensitive eco-system gets the best kind of system it can, but it needs to be recognized there will be a major cost impact to everyone and not everyone can afford it. Most people cannot come up with $20,000. This is a long-term issue that will impact almost everybody on the island. The short-term impact will not be positive because of the money that will need to come out of people’s pockets, but the long-term impact will be positive in that near shore waters will be cleaner and drinking water sources will stop getting polluted. For the record, he wants to make the point that this is not something that will be without a significant amount of pain to a lot of people. Vice Chair Olson commented that our communities survive by the visitor industry. Tourists have money to spend and are happy to spend it. However, we need to provide restrooms and other facilities so that they’ll get out of their cars to do so. Chair Bennett called for a vote. Vote: All commissioners voted aye. Regarding improvement districts, Commissioner Gaffney described a situation in Kona where 1.8 million gallons per day of treated sewage goes into a lava tube. If that water could be treated to an appropriate level and moved from where it is being dumped to the state ag park and adjacent power plant off Kaiminani, both of which need a lot of water, it would be a win-win situation. It would be like a specialized reclaimed water district. If a pipe were run, the water would become accessible to everyone between where it is currently being dumped and Kaiminani. New developers could be asked or required to run two kinds of plumbing in any development that happens in the area. He asked Mr. Takemoto if an improvement district could be used to do that. Mr. Takemoto said the short answer is that if it is for public improvements and 51% of the people in its defined boundaries don’t disapprove of it, it can work. It may be a tough process to go through because of the feasibility, the magnitude of the cost, what the assessments would be, and what other potential funding sources exist. For something like reclaimed water, there may be USDA or EPA water sources that could be tapped into, because the benefits may go beyond local and be regional. If there are regional benefits, the people paying the assessment should not bear 100% of the cost. An improvement district is just one tool. Commissioner Gaffney said it is a big concept, but he is trying to stop waiting for a regional park and golf course and get the water to where it could be used rather than dumped into a hole. Chair Bennett said the promise of reuse has been on the table for years and is again on the table with a 20/20 horizon. He agrees with Commissioner Gaffney, and the state and EPA should be interested in making sure the reuse promise is fulfilled. There are grant funds and revolving loan funds that could be sought, and if congress would pass a public works bill for this country, some real money might become available. Commissioner Gaffney said there are private funders as well, such as conservation organizations with literally billions of dollars in their pockets that are very interested in seeing the ocean protected. Commissioner Gaffney thanked Mr. Takemoto, as it had been very enlightening. Chair Bennett said he recommends they continue this discussion at the next meeting under old business and that they do homework to see if they can identify funds and consortiums of funds to make it happen. Vice Chair Olson asked how they can bring pressure on the people who have all these development plans, as it is all at some level planned out. Chair Bennett said it is somewhat addressed in the CDPs, and they could invite someone from the Planning Department to talk about how CDPs address funding for wastewater. Vice Chair Olson said that although CDPs do not address funding for infrastructure, nothing says they can’t, but it has consistently been punted. The General Plan is coming up and all these things are supposed to be integrated. If there is any hope of doing any of this in the near term, it needs to be in the general plan. b. Discussion regarding the Environmental Assessment for the proposed Pāhala Wastewater Treatment Plant. Ms. Mellon-Lacey said that due to the fact there is pending litigation on this item and the EA is at issue, she would advise the EMC this is not a topic to consider at this time, as it could be harmful to the litigation. Chair Bennett said he finds that hard to swallow. He wanted to address the 30-day limit for comments. They wanted to discuss it at the last meeting but the commissioners had not had a chance to review it, and the deadline was yesterday. Commissioner Fritz said they have been discussing the proposed plant for over a year and questioned why they could not discuss it now. Ms. Mellon-Lacey explained that a lawsuit has been filed and the issue is now in litigation. Director Kucharski said the 30-day comment period is set by state statute. Requests for extension need to be received during the comment period. There has been at least one request that has been received and is under review by the county and the EPA, as it is a joint EA. That is all he can say about it. Chair Bennett asked the commissioners if they wanted to go on record in supporting the request for extension of the comment period, and Commissioner Pequeño said yes. Motion, second, and vote: Vice Chair Olson moved that the EMC support the request to extend the comment period an additional 30 days, and Commissioner Pequeño seconded the motion. All commissioners voted aye. Chair Bennett asked Ms. Mellon-Lacey to provide more substance at the next meeting as to why it is inappropriate for them to comment on the EA or any other EA that is in litigation, as it puts a gag on them. Ms. Mellon-Lacey said she understands his concern and will provide more information at the next meeting. Commissioner Pequeño asked if they could discuss the matter in executive session, and Ms. Mellon-Lacey said no, as they would have to come back and clarify what was discussed. Chair Bennett said going into executive session might be a way they could address the issues he was concerned with on the EA, and Ms. Mellon-Lacey said she would prefer to be able to come back at the next meeting and provide more information, as she does not have all the answers now about the litigation. c. Discussion on how the County of Hawaiʻi could assume the authority from the State Department of Health for recycled water systems. Chair Bennett explained this had stemmed from a conversation at the previous meeting, where it was recognized that Kauaʻi has gotten authority from the state to do their own graywater approval process. The question is what it would take for Hawaiʻi County to assume that responsibility from the Department of Health, Wastewater Branch. Commissioner Fritz asked if it would benefit the county to do so, and Commissioner Gaffney said it would need to be researched. Chair Bennett said there are multiple beneficial dimensions, but looking at it from the county’s perspective, it would have to be administered, permitted, and charges and costs figured out. Commissioner Gaffney said it would also be complicated because of the connections between the EPA, the state DOH, and the county. They will need to look at what Kauaʻi has done and talk to their council people and others who pushed for this, see why they wanted it, how they did it, and how it is working. This research should be done before making any recommendation about our own county. Director Kucharski said there is a water reuse working group that was set up by the last legislative session, and he is a member. They had a meeting yesterday on this subject. Many questions were raised, and a report is going to go to the legislature in November on graywater use. He learned several things, including that R-1 water cannot be used to wash down boats at the harbor because it would be an illegal discharge of R-1 water into the ocean. There are many nuances on this issue. The report should be out in early to mid- November, and he will provide it to the commissioners once it has been finalized. Chair Bennett said this is an issue the EMC should stay on top of, as the potential is so huge. d. Brief introduction and recommendation for a policy and motions tracking process for the Commission. Chair Bennett explained that the thought occurred to him recently that they have no method to keep track of what motions the EMC has passed and whether any action was taken. He went through all the on-line minutes, pulled out all the motions, and listed them on a spreadsheet (he passed around the spreadsheet). He has asked Commissioner Gaffney to keep the list updated and to bring any matter back to the EMC’s attention if it required a response and there was none, and Commissioner Gaffney seemed to think it was a good idea for creating continuity and accountability. Commissioner Neff said this would make a huge difference, as when she came on board she didn’t know what she was coming into. She had requested a visit to her transfer station long ago, and it never happened. Chair Bennett said when he stepped into a leadership position on the EMC it was his goal, and still is, that what they do will be significant. It may be controversial or not popular, but they are here to represent the public’s interest and to have oversight and make recommendations. Having a continuity of history is important, and it was in that spirit he did this. Discussion was held on how to track motions, requests, and recommendations. With Director Kucharski’s approval, it was requested that the secretary continue the tracking, as she does the minutes. She will update the list upon the completion of minutes and send it to Commissioner Gaffney, who can bring up outstanding items at meetings. 6. REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE Director’s Informational Report. • Bill 192 is from Councilmember O’Hara. It is being reworked. The attempt was to give DEM the responsibility for neutering cats and other animals and also to prepare environmental reviews for all county properties. It was determined to be in excess of Charter functions and provisions, so the bill is being reworked to be doing those tasks on property DEM operates/manages. After it is heard by the Council’s Environmental Management Committee, it will be brought to the EMC for review and comment. • DEM will be bringing up a bill for a sewer rate increase, and it will need to be reviewed and commented on by the EMC. He is hoping it will be on the EMC’s November agenda for review and support or non-support. • He did a brown water advisory presentation to the Council at the request of Councilmember Chung. He has provided copies of a PowerPoint to the commissioners to further explain. These advisories are essentially a state DOH issue. If there is a county-wide brown water advisory and the DOH wants signs posted, he would need clarification on where the signs should go. A copy of the DOH sign was provided to the commissioners. • The only thing he discussed with the Charter Commission was regarding clarification of DEM’s regulatory and enforcement powers. He did not comment on the EMC’s input, because the EMC was created to advise him, so he did not think it was appropriate to comment on the EMC’s function. • He is dealing with a number of EAs of which they have been informed. • There is an open house tomorrow at the Puuanahulu Landfill to celebrate its 25th anniversary. If the commissioners ever want to take a tour there, let him know. • The Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan is being worked on. • He told the commissioners if they want to tour the transfer station in Commissioner Neff’s district, he would be happy to set that up. Just let him know. Questions and brief discussions were held on: ᵒ The upcoming composting facility. Director Kucharski clarified that if the EA and FONSI are passed, the composting facility will be on the east side, and mulch will be brought over from the west side. The plans are to have mulch and food waste mixed in and transported over for composting. The only thing that will remain on the west side will be enhanced mulch. The west side of the island has a problem with brackish water and as a result, the mulch doesn’t compost as well as on the east side. ᵒ R-1 water and whether it could be used for composting. Director Kucharski said it could be used in composting and for food crops, though he is not certain what it would do to the organic label on food raised using such compost. An issue that concerns him is salinity, as R-1 generally has a higher salinity than potable water. The east side of the island does not have issue with having to use brackish groundwater. ᵒ Whether there was any improvement in the salinity and conductivity in the sewer lines along Aliʻi Drive. Director Kucharski said they are sleeving all the old cast iron pipes and reducing the inflow into the system. It is not a simple issue, but they are trying to get it reduced. ᵒ Salt water intrusion with privately owned laterals. Director Kucharski said the last legislature passed a bill that will allow the county to inspect private laterals for leaks and demand they be repaired. 7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Vice Chair Olson said that when the County Council reorganizes with its new members and the chair of the Environmental Management Committee is selected, he would like that person to be invited to meet them. Chair Bennett said he can extend an invitation in January when it is known who it will be. Commissioner Fritz said he was partly responsible for not arranging a site visit of the Pāpaʽikou Transfer Station back when he was chair, and he asked if they could visit it at the January meeting. Chair Bennett instructed Ms. Mellon-Lacey to request permission from the Office of Information Practices to have the site visit. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Bennett announced the next meeting: November 28, 2018, at the West Hawaiʻi Civic Center. 9. ADJOURNMENT Motion, second, and vote: Vice Chair Olson moved to adjourn, Commissioner Gaffney seconded the motion, and all commissioners voted aye. The meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Mary E. Fujio, Secretary (with her signature)