Back To: Home Page | Table of Contents | Charter main page

HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER COMMISSION

Transcript of Meeting of September 29, 1999

Hawaii County Liquor Commission Conference Room,

Hilo Lagoon Center

Attendance: J. Ray, E. Alonzo (from 5:25 p.m.), K. Balog (from 3:07 p.m.) S. Bess (from 3:38 p.m.), M. Herkes, R. Higashi, S. Irvine, D. Kurozawa, G. Martin (from 3:10 p.m.), G. Yoshiyama, Counsel Chris Yuen

Absent: J. Santangelo

And 12 members of the public in attendance.

The meeting was called to order at 3:06 p.m.

RAY: I’d like to call the September 29th Special Meeting of the 1999-2000 Hawaii County Charter Commission to order. Present; myself John Ray, Roland Higashi, Marni Herkes, Sue Irvine, Daryl Kurozawa, and Gary Yoshiyama, and we’re expecting several more Commission Members momentarily.

Moving down the agenda, Minutes Approval. These are the minutes of the September 8th meeting. Do I have a motion?

HIGASHI: So moved.

RAY: Second?

YOSHIYAMA: Second.

RAY: Discussion?

I’d like to point out one correction, page 15, under GOLDSTEIN, "that’s not my kuleana" should be the corrected spelling. That’s the fourth line up, and I think that’s the only correction I’ve got. Any other comments? Okay, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

RAY: Okay, minutes approved.

Financial Status Report. Remaining in the balance from last fiscal year: $25,740.37; and in the funds for this year, a balance of $93,334.28. So that’s those, out of a total of $130,000.00 appropriated.

Communications.

Testimony on items on the agenda: Mr. Don Nitsche on permitting. Can you come forward and just introduce yourself and speak into the microphone, please.

NITSCHE: My name is Don Nitsche. I am a businessman and have a couple of small businesses in Oceanview, and I’m very concerned about permitting, as most of our neighbors in Oceanview are, and all I can speak about is the need for change in our permitting system. It’s not being followed very closely, from our experience, and I think some changes should be made. Maybe this isn’t the place to say about the changes. This is more changing the method of what department handles it? Maybe you can correct me. What should I be addressing?

RAY: Yes, the proposal we’re discussing is to create a Division of Permitting to consolidate all permitting functions under the Public Works Department and to remove some of those functions from the Planning Department, so more of a one-stop shopping which, hopefully, will be more efficient and better organized.

NITSCHE: Well, I think I personally would be, and I think I can speak for most people in Oceanview, that we would like to have it more efficient, and tighten up the laws. We have a lot of structures going in in Oceanview that don’t even have permits. And there’s another big area that is a real problem. It was, at one time, before you could get a temporary power pole put in by the electric company, you had to have a permit, and now you do not. You can get a temporary power put in and live in a tent, off of temporary power, without a building permit, and I think this is atrocious. We have a lot of very sub, substandard dwellings going in in our area and just recently, a group of people in Oceanview got together and got some stopped, and they did ‘red tag’ some very substandard buildings going in, and so I would think that this would be a good move to consolidate and make it more efficient, any way we can, and possibly this group that would be taking it over could look at modifying some of the laws to correct some of the deficiencies that we have. I’m not well versed, I’m sorry to say, I’m very busy running my businesses, and I can’t really speak on a lot of facts, but I know we need a lot of change in this area.

RAY: Okay, thank you. Any questions? All right, thank you, sir.

NITSCHE: Thank you.

RAY: Janet Fujioka, representing the Board of Appeals, speaking on holdover terms on Boards and Commissions. This is an area we discussed and actually have some proposed language that our attorney, Mr. Yuen, furnished us with. You folks should all have that. Okay, Janet.

FUJIOKA: Thank you. May I refer you to the letter that was sent on July 16, 1999. In this letter, and it was based on a consensus decision of all of the Board Members on the Board of Appeals. As all of you know, we’ve had great difficulty in conducting our meetings because we have had a vacancy since January of this year. We have been after the Administration to have that vacancy filled but it hasn’t happened, so the Members on the Board all feel that instead of allowing Members who are now serving to have an extended term of 30, 60 or 90 days, that for sake of continuity, that if a person is appointed to fill an unexpired term, say of one or two years, that either that person is given an additional five-year term or, in my case, I would like to see that person receive a five-year term from day one. That way we do not fall into this cycle of having vacancies, or in the case of Mr. William Green and Mr. Patrick Edie, each one filled only a one-year term, and after their terms expire, they’re out, and it really takes more than a year to learn all of the codes, and to learn what we are about, and so I would ask you to seriously consider our request.

May I ask a question, though, of your counsel? In the current Charter, ARTICLE XIII, Section 13-4(c), it reads "No member shall be eligible for a second appointment to the same board or commission prior to the expiration of two years, provided that members of any board or commission initially appointed for a term of one year and two years shall be eligible to succeed themselves for an additional term." So, Mr. Yuen, in the case of Mr. Green and Mr. Edie, each one would have been eligible to succeed himself?

YUEN: Yes.

FUJIOKA: But, what is the process for doing that?

FUJIOKA: So again, we fall into this cycle of maybe not having action taken immediately, and so rather than have the person succeed himself, I would like to think that it makes better sense to have the term be a full five-year term from the beginning, instead of having an unexpired term be filled.

RAY: Questions? Ms. Irvine.

IRVINE: Well, I guess I was just wondering, I mean, we’ve come up with a draft format and it’s like "let the member continue to serve for 90 days or until a successor is appointed and confirmed, whichever comes first." That wouldn’t really solve your problem?

FUJIOKA: Unless the Administration takes action immediately, and -

IRVINE: So somebody would need to, maybe, give the Mayor and the County Council - The County Council has a 45-day time frame; the Mayor does not, for appointing, as far as I can tell on 13.4(b).

FUJIOKA: If there is a time frame given, that would be helpful. That would be an alternative.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: Rather than changing the Charter to fit the Administration’s appointment schedule, one of our problems here is finding people to be on Boards and Commissions. We don’t find a huge volume of volunteers. Can you help us in any way that we could make it more amenable, to be on a Board or a Commission? Make it easier for people to volunteer? Is there anything that you see that would make it more fun to be a volunteer? Can we do teleconferencing? You know, there’s a whole bunch of different ways.

FUJIOKA: I don’t know about the fun but, you know, five years is a very long commitment.

HERKES: So you think shorter is better?

FUJIOKA: It may be helpful. I’m not sure, and yet, like I said earlier, it takes a long time to learn the process, and to really be comfortable.

HERKES: And one of the reasons you have staggered terms, is it so that you have people -

FUJIOKA: Yes.

HERKES: Who know the process that can bring the people along, and if you subvert that process by appointing for five years, you get out of that schedule?

FUJIOKA: That staggered term. Yes, that’s right.

HERKES: So I see a problem with that, in that you’re liable to have, within a year, or two years, you might have all new ones. You don’t have that -

FUJIOKA: See, on the Board right now, we already have a vacancy, and then two people are going off, and unless those slots are filled immediately, there is no way that the Board can be effective. I mean, there just won’t be a quorum.

HERKES: What does the Board do to provide incentives for people to volunteer to become part of the Board? It would sure seem to me that it would be in your best interest to get out there and find somebody to talk to the Mayor and say, we want these people to be on the Board. I think that’s one of the big problems, is that Boards and Commissions don’t do anything in the community to make people want to be on them, or to talk about what you do.

FUJIOKA: That’s only, I think, only a partial responsibility. I think that whoever is responsible in Administration should be actively seeking, as well.

HERKES: I think they are. I hear they are. I get things all the time. Why don’t you do this and why don’t you do that.

FUJIOKA: But then -

HERKES: Why don’t you find us somebody for this, or find us somebody for that.

FUJIOKA: I think, maybe, organizations should be receiving letters instead of just -

HERKES: We are.

FUJIOKA: Are you?

HERKES: Yes.

FUJIOKA: Instead of just announcements in the local paper.

HERKES: We are.

RAY: Kevin.

BALOG: Did your Board explore the option of recommending shorter terms with availability to serve a second term, which is done at the State level?

FUJIOKA: No, we didn’t, and I think the consensus of most of the Members is that it does take a long time to really be comfortable, like I said earlier.

BALOG: Are you aware of the State terms for most Boards and Commissions?

FUJIOKA: Pardon?

BALOG: Do you know what is the length of time for a State Board or Commission, in most -

FUJIOKA: No.

BALOG: Four years. So if you could go back to your Board and say, you know, we know that it’s hard for people to come up to speed, but there are people who are interested, and it might help us attract other people and be more, like you said, have continuity, would it be worthwhile to have a four-year term with an option?

FUJIOKA: It may work. It’s hard to know.

BALOG: You still have to get Council approval, but it’s done on the State level for all of the State’s Boards and Commissions.

FUJIOKA: Right.

IRVINE: I guess I didn’t understand how terms would become unstaggered. If they were staggered in the beginning, and you were reappointed for another five years when you were appointed for the remainder of a term, it wouldn’t become unstaggered. I guess if you were just -

FUJIOKA: Yes, you’re right.

IRVINE: The other thing. I know we received a whole stack of stuff from the Honolulu Charter Commission, August, 1998, and I have no idea if any of these things passed, or where these ideas went, but they had the proposal to empower the Council to fill vacancies on Boards and Commissions if the Mayor does not fulfill them within 90 days. That might provide a little pressure somewhere.

HERKES: Assuming that there were people out there who wanted to serve on them, and I don’t see a lot of people who want to serve on them.

RAY: Kevin.

BALOG: Out of curiosity, on your Board, do you feel that some of the reason could be once people are told about the homework they need to do -

FUJIOKA: I don’t think so.

BALOG: Possibly meetings, or anything, it’s a deterrent?

FUJIOKA: As far as the Members who are presently serving, each one is very committed.

BALOG: No, if you had to go out, forget the Members that are there.

FUJIOKA: You mean to solicit?

BALOG: If you were in a position such as Administration and you had to go out and say, you know what, there’s X amount of reading to do, there’s X amount of meetings. It’s an obligation that needs to be committed to. They frown on people who attend less than 3/4, or whatever it is, of the meetings, do you think it would be easy to find people?

FUJIOKA: No.

BALOG: Okay, that’s kind of what I thought you’d say. I just wanted to see what you would say.

RAY: Any more questions?

FUJIOKA: So I know that it’s a difficult problem to address but it really needs some serious consideration. Thank you.

RAY: Thank you.

BALOG: Thank you.

RAY: Wait a minute, before you go. I assume you are familiar with this issue of creating a Division of Permitting?

FUJIOKA: We have not had a chance to discuss that aspect of your proposal.

RAY: Because, as part of that proposal, it was also proposed that the Board of Appeals move from the Planning Department to under Public Works, so we’d be interested in your comments on that as well.

FUJIOKA: Yes, right. All right. Sure.

RAY: Thank you.

FUJIOKA: You’re welcome.

RAY: Leonard Tanaka, representing the Planning Commission, and there’s a letter that was just passed out, dated today, from the Planning Commission. Leonard.

TANAKA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, aloha. Mr. Chairman, I signed up to comment on two items on your agenda. One was the new proposed Division of Permitting. The other was on the holdover terms.

Allow me to speak on the holdover terms first, since Ms. Fujioka was finishing up on that. After further discussion with the Commission, we came up with another recommendation. That is the 30 day holdover period for the Planning Commission. We discussed several different scenarios, including the one that the Charter Commission has proposed, a 90 day holdover, and most of the Commissioners felt that it was maybe too long, and that a 30 day would be appropriate.

RAY: Can I ask you why? Why is that too long? I mean specifically.

TANAKA: We hope that the Administration will fill the vacancies on a timely basis so that you don’t have to go the extra three months. Now for the Planning Commission, as you know -

RAY: Why is that an issue, specifically?

TANAKA: Okay, let me finish up. We had just switched over our agenda schedules this year so that we meet twice a month now. Once in Hilo, once in Kona. We feel that it’s working out for both the community and the Commissioners in that agenda items are lighter, and that the community has a chance to bring their applications before us on a monthly basis, as opposed to every other month, the way it used to be. So if you think about a holdover period of 90 days, you’re talking about three months. You’re talking about six additional meetings after a person has already served for five years. You talk about finding people who are capable, who have the knowledge to serve, and the willingness to serve. Five years is a long time, so most of us felt that a 30 day holdover would be appropriate. Now, the other side of that is getting to fill those vacancies in that time period, and the last sentence of that paragraph referring to this item, or the latter part of the sentence, we don’t give you a time period, and we couldn’t agree on something, but one that was prevalent was, maybe, following the Maui County Charter. And I think they say that they give you something like 70 days prior to the vacancy, not more than 70 and not less than 60, that the nominations will go in before the Council. I think something similar to that would be appropriate for our County, and here’s the reason why. This will be my fifth year so I’ve gone through the five years almost, and as Ms. Fujioka has said, it’s a long period to serve, but then, especially on the Planning Commission, it takes you a couple of years to get up to speed with Land Use laws and all the regulations that we have, the Zoning Code, and so forth. So if Administration were able to make their nominations in the fourth quarter prior to the vacancy, from September to December, or October to December, that would give the Administration enough time to find the people that are willing to serve, to confirm the people, but also, just as important, a suggestion that came up very strongly was, it gives those perspective Commissioners, and the staff, a chance to orient and train them.

Now, the question by Ms. Herkes was, how can we make it so that it’s receptive with the community. I think there’s this feeling that it’s very burdensome; we don’t know enough about Land Use laws and planning to serve on the Commission, and this might be a way -- orientation and training for people in our community so that they are receptive. So, we would recommend that the Charter look at that in trying to impose these dates, or deadlines, in the fourth quarter of that year prior to the vacancy, so that we can accomplish those things.

RAY: So, we all have somewhere in your files and stacks, that language that Mr. Tanaka is alluding to. In fact, I just found mine here. Questions? Marni.

HERKES: Leonard, do you feel that there are people out there that want to serve on the Planning Commission but feel that maybe this is a little over their head, a little too burdensome for them, and training will help?

TANAKA: I think yes, there are people out there that have heard rumors and we’ve been trying to change and improve so that it is a little more easy for existing Commissioners and new Commissioners to serve because the agendas have been heavy, and part of it has been changing the schedule so we meet twice a month now. I think the orientation to let them know exactly what’s going on, and maybe invite them to some of the meetings, to come in and take a look at what happens. It’s not all that bad. You can survive. The question that was posed to Ms. Fujioka, if the Commissioners and Board Members are going out in the community and trying to recruit or recommend people, yes we have.

HERKES: Good, thank you.

TANAKA: So there are people out there.

RAY: George.

MARTIN: I believe I heard you say that the person would get some sort of training, and it sounds good to me. If this training were to be added into the scheme of things, the person would have to be appointed first, is the way I understood it, prior to, in the aspect that you’re talking about. Our concern, and the reason we play with some of the numbers in some of the other meetings that we’ve been holding here, was the lack of, as I keep hearing, participation. How would you deal with that? Let’s say you don’t have anybody. Let’s say you can’t find anybody. Let’s say nobody steps forward. What you’re proposing sounds good but let’s say there are nobody for that specific, or particular, Commission. What do you do? You still stay with the 30 day holdover? That was our concern and that’s why we brought it up.

TANAKA: Hopefully the Administration will be able to submit names to the County Council, so it depends on whether - there’s a couple of stages before you get to confirmation. Number one is Administration nominating the names to County Council, so that’s step number one. So the time period there, and then the confirmation time by the Council. So it depends on where the bottleneck is, I guess. But yes, assuming that nobody steps forward, that the Mayor has no one to recommend, yes, the 30 day would hold. We hope that that wouldn’t happen if we started the recruiting process early, and part of that, also, is because there’s so much to learn, we would like to see the new Commissioners come on in January, or February at the latest, so everybody starts off from the beginning part of the year, instead of somebody coming in in April and June, and they’re having to catch up, come up to speed. As far as the training, because nothing like this has been implemented yet, as soon as the person comes on, whether it’s January 1st or April 1st, or whatever, that person starts their training at that time, so you’re in the meeting and that’s your training. So having to catch up with all of that.

MARTIN: More or less I agree with the concept except for the fact that there’s going to be certain Commissions where you’re not going to find anybody to step forward. Administration may not be able to find anybody, and I don’t think the 30 days is going to be enough as a holdover. I think we’re going to need some leeway there.

RAY: Questions? Roland.

HIGASHI: I think the training concept is good but I don’t think the Charter’s the place to put something like that. I think it’s something administratively they could handle. Maybe as a Commission, you could talk to the Planning Commissioner that when we have new people, we should run through an indoctrination and training, but I don’t think it should be in the Charter.

RAY: Kevin.

BALOG: Two questions only. The first one, do you have knowledge if the current Administration has ever stopped looking for people to serve on the various Boards and Commissions?

RAY: Has ever stopped what?

BALOG: In other words, do you know - I mean we keep hearing that, oh the Administration has to look, and some of the stuff is saying if they can’t find somebody out of magical thin air, a Legislative body may find somebody. But, to my knowledge, and I’m not saying this specific Administration, I would say most Administrations, once they start, do you think they ever stop looking for people?

TANAKA: I don’t think so.

BALOG: I don’t think so either, so it leads me back to where do you get these people? And that kind of leads to my second question. You went through, I would say, a few turbulent years with heavy schedules, 2 a.m., 1, 12 midnight, and now you’re two meetings a month, right? Do you know of many other business people, or just people who are employed by other people, who could go to the employer, or say to their own business, that, you know what, in your specific Commission, I’m going to give up two half days or one day a month, plus reading, and possibly special meetings? Because, if I remember correctly, you were one of the people who always looked for people to come on, so you had the seats there so they could learn, right? So, I just don’t see the people out there, myself, and that’s kind of why we tried to stretch out the term a little so we could make sure that people were up to speed. I don’t think you could honestly say that there’s a hundred people waiting in line to serve on Commissions, unless I’m mistaken.

TANAKA: That’s true and I don’t know what the list looks like. I don’t know how many people are on the list but, yes, you’re correct in that some of us have made recommendations. We’ve gone into the community. For myself, I am a Director with the Hawaii Island Contractors Association. I have given my spiel to the Board. People have come forward and filed papers, but how extensive that list is, I don’t know.

BALOG: So, that’s what I’m saying. It’s ongoing and -

TANAKA: It’s ongoing.

BALOG: Myself, personally, when I was sitting on that Commission, I had personal knowledge of people who were told, we’re going to send your name, and when they found out what that entailed, they said, ooh, wait a minute. That’s just a little bit too much. And they came to meetings, like how you said, eh, we’ll come, check it out. So I was one of the people who went for that 90 days partly because Board of Appeals, knowing they’re short handed and going to be possibly crippled at the end of the year if they don’t get help. And in your own Commission, if you don’t get another appointee, and two of you go off, out of nine people, that leaves you with six. If someone doesn’t show up, and someone has to recuse themself, how can your Commission operate?

HERKES: Automatic approval. 164.

BALOG: No, I’m just saying -

TANAKA: I guess my comment to that would be, yes, you’re right. For us, the consensus was 90 days was kind of long, but if it was decided by the Charter and the people, that it be 90, we are public servants, and we would serve whatever time, but the resolution needs to come with getting those vacancies filled, and yes, there are going to be times where you can’t find anybody, but hopefully, the emphasis is not so much the 90 days but let’s go find the people. You know what I mean?

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: When your terms expire is not a surprise. You know the day you’re appointed, when your terms are going to expire so you know, outside of an emergency, enough to resign earlier, when they’re going to expire, so I don’t think the 30 days is unreasonable because you know when they’re going to expire.

Now, I want to ask Chris a question while both of you are here. I know that we had such a battle taking the minutes, or having the minutes transcribed. We have to have a hundred and so many pages of minutes for each of these meetings. On these Boards and Commissions, on the other side of the island, the view is that they’re Hilo-centric. Is video conferencing or teleconferencing possible for some of them? Like Hawaii Island United Way is doing a lot of teleconferencing. Big Island Business Council is doing teleconferencing. Not for every meeting, but for a lot of them. Is that something that government is up to speed with yet?

YUEN: There is a State Law that permits Boards and Commissions to have meetings by video conference under, and I can’t remember exactly when -

HERKES: That’s okay. There is a State Law, though, that does permit it?

YUEN: Yes, it permits it, and I’d have to check to tell you what are the conditions for that.

HERKES: Well, there are video conferencing facilities all over the island now, so I think that that’s something that I would certainly encourage the Boards and Commissions to look at.

RAY: Leonard. Any more on this subject? No?

TANAKA: Okay, if not, Mr. Chairman, on the other subject, regarding the forming of the Division of Permitting, the Commission voted in opposition of the proposal to transfer the responsibilities from the Planning Department to the Department of Public Works, with the exception of enforcement. And we felt that it would be appropriate for that portion of concern, or responsibility, to be passed on to the Building Department, or the Department of Public Works, in that they already have inspectors who are out in the field, and we felt that it would be efficient if those inspectors, with some training, were able to look at some of the land use issues and conditions that are mandated by the Planning Department. As an example, setbacks. While the Building Inspector is out there and checking on building requirements, again with some training, could easily ensure that the builder or the homeowner is in conformance with the proper setbacks. And that would alleviate a lot of these variances that are coming before the department. I know it probably surprises you with the stance the Commission is taking on this and I just, maybe, relate to you some of the reasons that have come up that formulated this recommendation.

We like the idea that, if you were to separate the Planning Department from the Department of Public Works, and pass on some of these responsibilities, in that the Planning Department would then have more time to focus on long range planning, and we certainly applaud that, so that this County does not become reactive, but becomes proactive in planning, however, we felt that for a long range planner to do their planning, they need to know the every day details about the permitting processes and all of this, so that they’d know what the problems are when the people come in and so forth. It kind of works hand in hand, so we felt that it might be detrimental if you separate the two.

Another area of concern that was brought up by the Commissioners were, you know we work hand in hand with the Department of Public Works when it comes to some of their policies and their regulations, as an example, when it comes to road standards, as part of a condition of a change of zone or a permit and so forth, and some of the Commissioners felt that the Department of Public Works already have their hands full in that they have not been able to adopt policies regarding things like road standards and so forth. It’s kind of an unwritten policy that is being used by them, so they come into the department and say, well, for this change of zone, we require curbs, gutters, sidewalks, 50 foot right-of-way on the roadways, and so forth, and again, there is no adopted policy on that. So those are the major areas of concern that they had. Another item that had come up was one Commissioner had felt that it puts too much authority with one department. That there’d be no check and balance means. That it would be attractive for political decisions, but as accumulative of these concerns, the Commission recommended against the transfer.

RAY: Kevin.

BALOG: Just out of curiosity, what is the Planning Department’s or Planning Commission’s role on the subdivision permit?

TANAKA: It’s with the Planning Department, the Director. Not really with the Commission.

BALOG: And what do they look at? I mean, when you’re recommending that you keep it with the Planning Department, are they looking at, does that piece of property fit what they’re trying to accomplish, because we had listened to testimony that was given that said that Public Works critiques the subdivision application, and that Planning Department can’t, and does not have Engineering staff to look at a subdivision permit and say that it meets, quote, a code, or doesn’t meet a code, so I’m just wondering, did they, at least, let you know what they look at before you guys made a recommendation, or was it just you guys just had a discussion? Just out of curiosity.

TANAKA: They, meaning Public Works?

BALOG: Planning Department.

TANAKA: Planning Department.

TANAKA: Yes. Only in the sense that the department pretty much made known their recommendation, and yes, this is not in accordance with the recommendations from the department. This only comes from the Planning Commission.

BALOG: Yes. So your Commission feels that it’s good that they look at the paper and, although they couldn’t say yes or no that it will meet engineering standards, just that they’re double checking Public Works?

TANAKA: Right, like a check and balance means.

RAY: Roland, did you have something?

HIGASHI: Leonard, what role does a Planning Commission have, if any, in the permitting process?

TANAKA: Which permitting are you speaking of?

HIGASHI: Any permits come in, whether permit for a house, a subdivision, a shopping center.

TANAKA: Permits like SMA, Use and Special -

HIGASHI: Not SMA.

TANAKA: You’re talking about building permits?

HIGASHI: Processing, as provided in the scenario that’s being proposed.

TANAKA: On the building permit process, none.

HIGASHI: None. So I think the Commission shouldn’t be too concerned what the permitting part because I don’t see, and I read the Charter, where you have any direct action to be taken in the permitting sense.

TANAKA: Yes, you’re right. It doesn’t effect the Planning Commission directly, per se, with these changes. And these are just the concerns of the Commissioners on the changes it would make to the department.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: Stop me if I’m wrong, but in my notes here, the reasons that you don’t recommend this is because the Department of Public Works doesn’t have policies; because there’d be too much authority in one department; and because the Planning Department needs to know. Are those the three main reasons that you’re recommending that?

TANAKA: Pretty much, yes.

HERKES: So, if we put in the Charter that permits were granted with the stamp of an architect or an engineer, and then they were transferred electronically to Public Works, and transferred electronically to Department of Water Supply, and then granted, the Planning Commission really doesn’t have a lot of - and I might suggest to the Planning Commission that they quit granting variances. People would spend more time looking at their lot lines. Anyway -

TANAKA: You’re probably right.

RAY: Kevin.

BALOG: I’ve got one more question for you. I forgot. You’re a licensed contractor. If you could, as a contractor, go to, quote, a department, have that department review your application for permit, and approve it, vs. the current system - this is not as Commission representative - would that be favorable or unfavorable, and how do you think that would go back to you servicing your customer?

TANAKA: As an applicant, I think it would be beneficial.

BALOG: And that would help speed up the process for you to do work for your customers, too, right?

TANAKA: It should, yes.

RAY: More questions? Sue, did you have a question?

IRVINE: I guess it was one of your very early comments about how Public Works had inspectors in the field. But they’re not responsible for looking at setbacks presently?

TANAKA: No.

IRVINE: That’s a Planning Department function?

TANAKA: Yes.

HERKES: And that makes sense to you?

TANAKA: No.

HIGASHI: Maybe it makes sense in the sense that it’s approved as far as the setback, but when construction is done, the inspector’s responsible to make sure it’s built within the setback. Is that correct?

TANAKA: Yes, I think he looks at his own criteria that he needs to look at, and not necessarily the criteria of the Planning Department. I mean, you would think that he would know, though.

HIGASHI: But if it’s a 10 foot side yard setback, it’s a 10 foot side yard setback.

TANAKA: That’s right.

HIGASHI: The inspector’s responsible to make sure that it’s built outside of that setback.

TANAKA: He should be, but the comments that we received as we were discussing this, was that it’s not happening.

HIGASHI: Well, I don’t know if it’s happening, but -

IRVINE: I know there are a lot, like you say, variances and whatnot, that come up with the Board of Appeals. I was on the first Board of Appeals and we were having those problems then, but I’m not sure it’s a Charter issue, but there’s something the matter.

RAY: Kevin.

BALOG: I was just going to ask if Mr. Tanaka thought that stuff like setbacks and even you brought up road standards, could be adopted outside of being reviewed by the general public in a Charter Amendment? I mean, they could handle themselves without being put on the Charter, yes?

TANAKA: True. I think this is something they could do administratively, so the only reason that it was brought was, are they too busy? Because they could have done it, like you said, in house. Could have been done a long time ago, so these are just some of the concerns that they have.

RAY: Gary.

YOSHIYAMA: Mr. Tanaka, I guess one of the reasons this Division of Permitting was brought up, I guess the primary reason was to be more efficient. I guess one theory was to get rid of redundancies in Public Works and Planning. Another reason was for one-stop processing where the public, people, wouldn’t go back and forth, and I assume the Planning Commission considered this. Can you comment on that?

TANAKA: Yes. I’m here to represent the Planning Commission, although I’m not necessarily in agreement with that. As the question was posed by Mr. Balog, as a contractor, wearing another hat, yes, I think it is beneficial. So if you’re asking me the question as a personal business person or individual, yes, I can see the benefits. If you’re asking me as a representative of the Planning Commission, just by the way the votes went, those are the concerns that they have.

YOSHIYAMA: But, the Commission was aware of these factors, or these theories, or assumptions?

TANAKA: They were very much aware, yes, but I cannot give you a reason. I’m sorry. I know.

YOSHIYAMA: Well, similar to us, we got to weigh the pros and cons so I understand.

TANAKA: I know that our department is a proponent of this and the Commissioners, the majority, decided to not support it so I’m in a strange predicament too.

RAY: George.

MARTIN: It’s difficult at times, I can see, and I’ve been in a position you’re in right now. On the position of the other cap, if it were to be implemented, do you think it would work?

BALOG: Personally.

MARTIN: I said, with the other cap on. Take it for what it’s worth.

TANAKA: I think so, except that the one point that was brought up about the long range planning, and how it really integrates with having to be in a day to day process so you know what’s going on. You get the feedback from the community and so forth. I guess if there were, and I know if this happens, the staff from Planning Department will be transferred, yes? So, yes, with the proper training, with the proper selection of personnel going over, I think it could work, and with the proper people staying back to watch both sides, the long term planning as well as the day to day responses, yes.

RAY: Just remember, this is our next agenda item and we’re going to have Planning Department and Public Works in and continue this discussion. Marni.

HERKES: I just wanted to say, was there discussion in the Planning Commission about, say, the next five years, or were they dealing with what’s happened in the last five years? Because what we see is not much has happened in the last five years. What’s going to happen in the next five years is probably going to be very different. The Counties in the State are working very diligently on solving the duplication of services. They are also working on reducing regulations, encouraging more comprehensive planning, and the State Land Use planning, and things happening with Act 164 and they are trying to move the Commissions into making decisions. Was there discussion in that venue? Because when we’re talking about Charter changes, we’re talking about the future. We’re not talking about the past. We’re not talking about the fact that they haven’t set policies. We’re talking about setting up a system where they have to set policies, where they have to do some planning, and how they make their program measurements fit. So, when you’re looking at the kinds of changes that are probably going to come in the next five years, this position doesn’t make much sense to me. I’m sorry, but I’m having a real problem with those reactive stance rather than a proactive stance, I suppose.

TANAKA: I can agree to that. Again, if I’m wearing an outsider’s hat, certainly agree with that. I guess my only comment to that is the question was posed to me, as a contractor, and being very familiar with the permitting process, I know what it’s like. You’re having to run around the Building Department or the County Building to the different agencies and then you’ve got to go over to Fire and you got to go over to Department of Health, so yes, this would reduce all of that. That time will become more efficient and perhaps, some of the Members are just not familiar with the process, and have these other concerns that brought it to that point.

HERKES: Yes, thank you.

RAY: All right, thank you, Mr. Tanaka.

TANAKA: Thank you.

RAY: That concludes our Statements from the Public.

NITSCHE: May I add one thing I forgot to add in mine at this point? Would that be out of line?

RAY: Come on up. This is additional testimony by Mr. Nitsche. Yes, come on up.

NITSCHE: I think the main thing that I forgot to bring to everybody’s attention was the policing of illegal dwellings being built. I know there’s a problem with permitting but there’s a lot of illegal dwellings being built in Oceanview, and I don’t think I brought that up, probably. Nobody seems to be addressing this problem. We have much of this going on in our area, and I think, I don’t know how it is in the other parts of the island, but in our area, we have a lot of it going on. And the only time anything gets done is when the citizens of the community bring it to the attention, over and over and over, then finally we get some action on it, but it takes a lot to get it done. I think it should be more efficiently handled when it is brought to the attention of the proper authorities that buildings are being built without permits, in a substandard way, with no cesspools, no septic tanks, and nothing of this order. I think it should be taken care of more promptly and then the thing that is always brought to my mind when I bring this up, or other people bring it up, well, we don’t have the funds to do this. Well, I think this could be a self funding operation. When the people are caught doing these things wrong, they’re fined, and then right away, bang, bang, bang, if they don’t comply in a certain length of time, then a lien is put against the property, and some teeth should be put into it. I think we’ve probably got a lot of laws this way, and I’m not really familiar with it, but they’re not being enforced, so the enforcement, I think, is the main concern of most of us citizens in Oceanview, where I’m from. I just wanted to add that to it. It’s the enforcement that’s the big problem. Thank you.

RAY: Thank you. We have representatives here from the Planning Department and hopefully, the Public Works Department, to continue our discussion. This is Item VII. A. Discussion on the Creation of a Division of Permitting. We, as you’ll recall, initially had this idea brought forth back in June, and members of the Public Works Department, Mr. Sumada, were present at that time, as well as the Mayor, and so as part of this discussion, we wanted to make sure that we had the Public Works Department here since they would be the agency receiving this new Division of Permitting should the public approve it, and should we put it forward, so do you folks have anything to lead off with, or do you want us to ask you questions, or, I know Ms. Goldstein made a presentation and furnished us with a working paper which had specific language in it at the last meeting? Mr. Sumada.

SUMADA: Why don’t I start off by saying that, on behalf of the Department of Public Works, we support this initiative to consolidate, or combine, the functions into a Permitting Division within the department. I think we’re still in the conceptual planning stages of this initiative. Much of the details, I think, still need to be worked out. We have not discussed it with our staff that extensively, and we need to do that, as well as coordinate with the Union, or the Unions that are effected. I think what has been passed out to you is a conceptual organizational chart for this new division, and I think, at that time, the concept was a Land Use and Code, but I think it’s been revised to a Division of Permitting, to be under the Department of Public Works. Basically, under that, each of the different branches would be pretty much as depicted there. And again, we still have to work out some details, the coordination between the different functions within each of those branches, as well as the possible reassigning of duties that could possibly make it more efficient, or to achieve the end of what we’re trying to propose, which is this one-stop permitting process, and also to possibly achieve some efficiencies and better communication by having all those functions relating to permitting within one office, and I think there’s a lot of benefit that could be gained if it’s approached in the proper manner, or attitude, by staff.

RAY: Specifically, does anybody have questions for Mr. Sumada?

HERKES: I have a question on the chart. Civil Engineer VII, up at the top. I know the Charter says we have to have a Civil Engineer in charge. I don’t necessarily agree with that. I would rather write an Administrator, as that position, to run this department. You have Civil Engineers all over the place down here.

SUMADA: Well, Commissioner Herkes, again, I guess we needed possibly to change the title. It wouldn’t actually be a separate department. It would be division underneath the Chief Engineer’s Office, so that part would remain unchanged unless it’s a Charter Amendment to that effect, but the Chief Engineer’s Office remains unchanged and then this new organization, called the Division of Permitting, would be like a subdivision under the Chief Engineer’s Office.

HERKES: Are there engineering things that that Administrator would do? The Civil Engineer VII?

SUMADA: That Administrator for the -

HERKES: For the whole branch?

SUMADA: I think that possibly there could be, but primarily, the individual would be a manager, and it’s more administrative in nature, and that more management skills, or people skills, are used, as opposed to pure engineering. However, the individual would need to have a fairly good knowledge of processes that go on in the different branches, relating to engineering or planning or the building functions. There might be some limitations, I suppose, if any one individual would work their way up through the ranks, say, in the Planning branch, and by he not having the qualifications to fill a Civil Engineer VII, which requires a license in Civil Engineering, that would restrict that individual, or that person working their way up, from fulfilling that role, so maybe that particular aspect we could reconsider, possibly.

HERKES: But you feel engineering background is really important in this Administrator?

RAY: This is a Division Head, so this is not something that we deal with in the Charter anyway, right?

SUMADA: I don’t think so. It’s a Civil Service position.

RAY: Right.

GOLDSTEIN: If I may just explain this chart. We had worked on this, maybe about a year ago, and at that time we worked on this chart, it was trying to take a look at existing positions that we would have to work with, and essentially also then go to the Union with, to either do retitling of positions and also, what this chart is is just taking existing positions, and essentially the highest ranking guy of both Planning as well as Public Works, got to be, essentially, that head. That’s the EM VII kind of thing, so you’ve got to take this also with a grain of salt.

HERKES: Okay, thank you.

RAY: Gary.

YOSHIYAMA: Thanks for that explanation, Virginia. So as far as this chart, these branches handle the permitting process?

GOLDSTEIN: Yes.

YOSHIYAMA: So it’s a wholesale move of bodies, right, from Planning into Public Works?

GOLDSTEIN: That’s correct.

YOSHIYAMA: I don’t want to get too far ahead over here but I’ll ask this question. You don’t see a merging?

SUMADA: I don’t know if I’m getting to what you’re asking, but as far as the organizational chart, it’s just a compilation or the re-diagraming of it. The actual duties, which would reflect the merging and/or the sharing of responsibilities, has not been worked out. One of the examples would be that some of the engineering functions that are now done upstairs in our Engineering Division, may be reassigned to some of the building inspectors, or the plan checkers that review plans in Building Division downstairs. But that would need to be worked out and we would need to consult with the Unions, but right now, it doesn’t show that in that detail.

YOSHIYAMA: Jiro, I didn’t want to get a head of myself, too far ahead, but what I did want to address, Virginia, last time you talked about redundancies, but the wholesale move doesn’t cover that. That’s what I was really getting at.

GOLDSTEIN: Right. I can see what you’re saying, and in that sense, for example, we show here Zoning Code Inspectors, two of them at two different levels, and likewise, on the other hand, there are all kinds of Building Inspectors, Electrical Inspectors, Plumbing Inspectors, all of these different kinds of inspectors on the Building Branch side, and if something like this were to happen, certainly some of these positions might just merge with these other inspectors.

RAY: What does merge mean?

GOLDSTEIN: Some of the duties would be put in and redescribed, say for some of these overall inspectors. That’s, to me, how we would have to do it.

YOSHIYAMA: Yes, okay.

RAY: Steve.

BESS: As proposed, even though there may be some reduplication of effort right now, there is no loss of positions. Is that right?

GOLDSTEIN: Under this, we reflect existing, all, yes.

BESS: And this is what you’re proposing?

GOLDSTEIN: Well, the branches would have to move.

BESS: I’m talking about bodies now, or positions. Is there any reduction?

SUMADA: No.

GOLDSTEIN: No.

BESS: So everything remains the same?

SUMADA: Yes.

BESS: I, somehow or other, don’t understand. If there is reduplication going on here, or duplication going on, why is it that in merging the two functions, if you do, in fact, have people in the Building Department doing the same kinds of things as in the Planning Department, why is it that we don’t wind up with any fewer bodies or positions?

GOLDSTEIN: Because this was our, kind of like, working kind of first crack at let’s see what we need to do, and at least, I understand that there may be a reduction in bodies, but even for us to get to that point, we’re going to have to deal also with the everyday realities of how we’re going to get there, and that’s why we’ve got to reflect everything as it exists.

BESS: I understand.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: I think we’re dealing with not just titles on a page, we’re dealing with real people, so I think that the sensitivity of the departments is admired, and I think that part of the way you do something like this, is you take all the existing, you move them around, and through attrition and through retraining and refocusing on different aspects, then you start to see the reduction.

BESS: And I can understand that sensitivity, and I appreciate that, and I’m not suggesting let’s get rid of people. That’s not it. I’m asking whether or not, by putting the permitting process in the Public Works Department, do you see, I’m talking about existing five years down the line, whatever the time table is, will there be a reduction in the number of positions handling these functions?

GOLDSTEIN: I think so. I do.

SUMADA: On the part of the Public Works side of things, I don’t know if I foresee a reduction, per se, but I think I see a redefining of positions, and I’ll give you an example. Right now, some of the feedback we receive from our Engineering Division is we have engineers that serve two roles, or dual roles. One is a regulatory function that makes sure they follow grading laws and other kinds of rules and code requirements that we’re responsible for, but they also manage projects, individual designs where they draw lines on paper and build things, or design things, or they oversee a private consultant that does the design. Each of these are assigned for a variety of reasons. One is for continuity purposes so that if one guy goes on vacation, everything doesn’t come to a grinding halt, and also, just for training purposes so that we can have a broad brush of people that can back each other up. Now, when we make this change, the regulatory people that are reflected on the left side of this Engineering Division, will move to this Division of Permitting because we see that as one of the core functions of Public Works. There still needs to be a means where we can get engineering work done, and that’s another side of Public Works that’s not even shown on here. So, I think, what we’re trying to achieve is some level of efficiency and better coordination between the permitting functions between Planning and Public Works, and there’s a price to pay, so to speak, for that, so that when you say the goal is to achieve efficiencies or eliminate redundancy so you are going to reduce positions, maybe, from the Planning side, that could be possible. From the Public Works side, I think it’s more that we want to achieve the efficiency of better communication, speeding of the process by which people do get their permits, and eliminating, maybe, errors or mistakes, that type of thing, through better communication, and in that, we achieve that through a redefining of the positions, so that it’s not purely a ‘let’s try to save money’ type of action. Let’s try to improve service and efficiency, and there’s a price to pay for that, and this is just part of that, or the steps that we’re going to go through to try and achieve that. I think we’re always looking for a way to make a better mouse trap, so to speak, or service the community better, and I think, it’s just one way of doing it, so maybe in the Planning side there might be some reductions but from Public Works, at this particular point in time, we don’t see any.

RAY: Sue.

IRVINE: Thank you. I do have a question. We’re talking about one-stop shopping. Where is the one-stop on here? I see so many permitting clerks and whatnot down at the bottom, so does someone go to this Civil Engineer up here, for this one -

SUMADA: Right now, Commissioner, say for example, like a building permit.

IRVINE: Right.

SUMADA: You would initially come to our Building Division and they would review the plans, do a cursory review, but then route you through different agencies such as Planning and Fire and Wastewater and Department of Health, those type of agencies, and also Engineering Division in case it’s in a flood zone or to check for flooding. By going through this process, we eliminate some of that routing people around to different buildings within the County, or to expedite that

process. So they’ll just go to one counter and be serviced by one specialist, and then the paperwork routes internally within us. Now, if there are special needs, granted, maybe the initial person that received the application would have to refer it to a specialist, but for the most part, that’s, I guess, the concept of one-stop, that they just go to one desk, and the only one we haven’t worked out is the Department of Health, so to speak.

IRVINE: I was going to ask, plus you spoke to us earlier about sending Wastewater over to the Water Department, and so then that would head out of your department as well, and I was thinking, with all this moving in, whether you wanted to include Solid Waste with that Wastewater removal you were talking about getting things combined with water?

RAY: Let’s don’t get off on that right now.

SUMADA: That could make an adjustment to how we process things.

IRVINE: Yes, if Wastewater goes, that’s what they were saying already, so even if they don’t do anything with Solid Waste -

SUMADA: Possibly.

RAY: Kevin.

BALOG: Well, just to set the record straight on that. I don’t think that was Public Works recommendation, right? To get rid of Wastewater?

IRVINE: Yes.

SUMADA: No, it was -

BALOG: Okay, well anyway, I want to move on so forget about that. I can’t comprehend that much right now.

KOKUBUN: Can I just mention something very quickly, Commissioner? In terms of what you just asked about how does this actually happen - a one-stop shop.

SUMADA: Yes.

KOKUBUN: I think a practical example that, maybe, many of you have had experiences with, is actually what’s happening in our Kona office now. The Kona office actually now is shared by these three branches, basically, Engineering, Planning and Building, with one counter. We just didn’t have enough money to spend for three separate offices, but basically now, a person will come into the Kona office and have all three departments, or responsibilities, taken care of at once, and there is dialogue going on between our Planning Department and Engineering and Building, so things do get done, I think, in a lot more efficient and expedient manner, so that’s just a practical example of what’s happening.

RAY: Kevin, finished?

BALOG: Okay. Anyway, my real comment was more that if something like this happened, even if you could cut a position, if you’re looking long range, I would think that it’s better to train people, and as work increases, instead of worrying about having to create a position in two, three years. It’s better to train your staff along the way, work out the bugs, and then, as your workload increases, ‘cause it probably will, ‘cause things keep growing, and people would retire then, if you are at the point of being efficient, then you may not need to fill a position, but not necessarily cutting positions, yes? I know you’ve talked about it, but if something like this was done, because one Department Head said, possibly positions could be eliminated, the other Department Deputy said, no they’re not looking, so there’s two differences of opinion from the Administrative arm of our government, so I’m just wondering, when you put your heads together, are you putting it together one thing, one thing, one thing, the other, or are you guys kind of putting it together and saying, we want to just look at it, that we want to be more efficient and we aren’t looking at it to cut positions? We’re just looking at it to be efficient, as a whole.

SUMADA: Maybe, Commissioner, I need to explain things. I look at our Department as a whole. We have seven divisions within the Department of Public Works, which includes Wastewater, Engineering, Building, Automotive. Just because we do this, doesn’t mean the others go away, and that was in my reference to the other regard that Engineering Division, this proposal basically splits them in half. That half of it, maybe not exactly half, but a portion, goes to this Permitting Division and we still need to provide that service whereby certain County functions, that we can build new roads, do major construction projects on roads, assist Parks and Rec in their projects, so that engineering function, the construction side, or the engineering design side, of Engineering still needs to be done, and that’s still under the purview of the Chief Engineer’s Office, so that’s the part I look at in totality, and for me, I don’t see that, when we do this, or undertake this, that it’s going to necessarily mean a reduction. It might be different for the Planning Department, but I think the essence of what you’re trying to say is that the Planning Department and Public Works need to coordinate our efforts together, and we will very definitely try to do that, as we move along through this process.

GOLDSTEIN: I think, if I read you right, also, Kevin, is that you’re saying that we’re doing this for the sake of efficiency, not necessarily to look only at the reduction in the bodies. I think that’s true. If it comes to that kind of reduction, that’s where things fall, but overall the goal is to get an efficient kind of operation.

BALOG: So like bodies is the last thought on your mind?

GOLDSTEIN: No, it’s not the last thought. It’s a thought that has to be taken into consideration. If you’re working in government, or in any business, you’ve got to think about that side too, but it’s only one factor in the overall.

BALOG: Okay.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: I notice in the layout you gave us, that in the Engineering Regulation Branch, you have a Kona operation, and in the Building Branch Administration, you have a Kona operation, but in the Planning section, there is no Kona operation, or people housed in Kona for processing. Is it because most applications would either come in through Regulatory or Building:?

GOLDSTEIN: Particularly, with respect to the subdivisions, we don’t have the staff and the files and the information in our Kona office so all subdivisions are processed under the Hilo office. The Kona office does do some plan approvals but mostly, they’re tied with either CZM and/or the Planning Commission work at this point, but there’s one zoning clerk position that is from the Kona office. We aren’t reflecting it that way, but there is one.

RAY: Daryl.

KUROZAWA: My understanding is this change is really for two reasons; (1) to make it more efficient for the public and (2) probably, to save money for us, eventually, in the department. The one question I have, though, is if in Kona right now, you can have everybody sort of one-stop shopping in the same area, and it was probably done because you had to save money because of space, why couldn’t we do that now without restructuring everything in Hilo, especially with the plan for Kaiko’o Mall and having everything in one place eventually?

GOLDSTEIN: We were thinking of doing that. We are still thinking of doing that if we ever move to Kaiko’o before any kind of formal changes can be made. The idea was that when we moved over, all of those agencies that are involved in the permitting, would be in a common area, and that common area wouldn’t include walls between the different divisions, be open, so that everybody can see everybody else working together, and that they would, therefore, not be separated. That still is the plan but it’s just which one is going to happen first.

KOKUBUN: Can I add a comment to that, too, in that you know the subdivisions are not handled in the Kona office, and that’s really kind of the bulk of the applications and bulk of work that we have to handle, so I think, that’s why we’re thinking that the way the Charter is set up now, subdivisions are under the purview of the Planning Director, but, if in fact, this merger happens, it would require, and that’s what I think the consideration by this Commission is, is to take out those responsibilities for subdivision approvals and subdivision code from the Planning Director’s responsibility now. The way the Charter is actually established for the Department of Public Works, is that any other additional responsibilities that Public Works takes on, would be handled through ordinances, so the Council would have to be the body to say, okay, now subdivisions then would be a part of the responsibilities of Public Works.

GOLDSTEIN: I think if you take a look at the chart, you can get the sense of where a lot of the work really is with respect to subdivisions. Under the branch and positions under Planning, there are really only two; one planner and one clerk for subdivisions, whereas in the Engineer and Regulatory Branch under Public Works, you have one, two, three engineers that have something to do with it, and then two inspectors that do the inspection on the construction for subdivisions, so we do a lot of the coordinating kind of work but a lot of the actual engineering review and inspection goes on by Public Works right now.

RAY: George.

MARTIN: Thank you, sir. Russell, you made mention about this Kona operation, and it being implemented because of necessity, lack of monies and what have you. I commend you folks for doing it and, if in fact, it is working in the manner in which you’re saying it is, I think this kind of information should be brought back to wherever it needs to be brought back, and disseminated, so that it can be used in the Hilo operations, if in fact, we do move forward, and that’s just a comment.

Second comment is I think what was being touched upon by Kevin, if in fact, you need to increase people to increase efficiency, the public would have no problem with that, as long as they see the efficient effect of it, so to reduce numbers doesn’t always necessarily mean it’s going to be the efficient way to do it. As been mentioned, though, as time goes on, people get better at their jobs. May not have to refill the positions, but let’s not cut to be cutting, okay? Thank you.

RAY: Other comments? Sue, did you have something?

IRVINE: Yes. You folks were talking about having combined these things in Kona, and you didn’t need a Charter revision, although we do need a Charter revision if we’re really going to do this County wide because our Planning Department Chapter is so spelled out about what the Planning Department is in charge of. The Public Works Department has very few things listed that it’s in charge of, and I think there’s an inconsistency in our Charter. If we could just simplify, I mean we’re going to have to take a bunch out of Planning anyway, if we do this. Is that correct? Is that your understanding of it? Section 5-4.2, probably (e), (f), (g), (h) would go.

GOLDSTEIN: There is a reason why the Planning functions are clearly listed, and I think, that also goes for Finance and Corporation Counsel. These are your agencies that are your line agencies, whereas things like Public Works and Parks and Recreation are really your staff. They don’t come under the purview of, or the direct supervision of the Mayor, and essentially, also serve County Council. They are staff and they are managed by the Managing Director. There is a difference in the overall function for these three, and that’s why, I think, there is a difference in the description of the functions of the agencies. So, I’d be real careful about what all we make changes.

IRVINE: I have here the Model County Charter, Revised Edition, from the National Civic League, which does talk - I mean there is a difference between those two kinds of departments, but it says the staff departments, Finance, Personnel, Planning and Law, likewise, should be covered by administrative code, generally. As a general statement, I think we have a lot of stuff in here you folks probably should have been able to do something like this without us having to redo the County Charter.

RAY: Gary.

YOSHIYAMA: Following up on what Sue is saying, and I guess, the more I hear, the more I’m leaning towards, and I’m going to ask you to comment on this, something like what the City and County of Honolulu has, Virginia, that you brought up the last time, was having the Charter enable the Mayor to reorganize, or organize. However, even under the City and County of Honolulu, the Mayor could not do that with the Planning Department. It wasn’t called the Planning Department, but they needed a Charter Amendment to do that, so I guess what I’m asking for comment on is a Charter Amendment which would allow even the Mayor to make changes within the Planning Department. Something broad rather than the creation of a division through a Charter Amendment.

GOLDSTEIN: You want me to comment on that? I think that might be possible but because, essentially, your Corporation Counsel, your Finance Director and the Planning Director serve not just the Mayor, but also County Council, if you did something like that, I would have to say that I think that it might be good to have confirmation of that kind of a change through the County Council because this is the body that serves both rather than just one, and that’s my comment.

RAY: Other comments?

SUMADA: Not really, other than I think that allowing greater flexibility for any administrator is a benefit in that they can be more responsive as the needs of the public change. And I say that because when I first got here, I started working with Public Works, I never had realized how the public’s demands do change, and they have changed from the time I started until now. For example, they are demanding greater accountability and more responsibility by the Department Heads for the programs we run. If you watch the Council on TV, there’s a greater scrutiny that is being gone into, and that’s a good thing. But we need to be able to respond to that and the only time we can do that, because there’s a Charter rule, or the Charter spells it out so specifically, that it limits that flexibility, then you leave it up to something that has to go on a two-year cycle to be considered, and for a Mayor to try and make change, or be flexible, to accommodate the needs of the changing public, then it kind of hampers that.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: As you, no doubt, heard, the Planning Commission is not in favor of this, and one of their problems is that the Public Works Department does not have policies. That was one of their stated reasons, and I know why we don’t have an impact fee. I don’t know why we don’t have policies, and program reviews, and measurements and outcomes, and those kinds of things as far as County Departments. That’s how business runs. You set a goal and you reach it, and I wondered why you don’t have policies, and if the Planning Department has policies.

SUMADA: Is that what we’re moving towards, road standards? I think in the broad perspective of things, I don’t know why the department has not undertaken overall administrative rules. We do have some, at least, for example, in the Solid Waste Division, we do have administrative rules. Possibly, how specific the County Code is, provides that level of guidance or direction that’s needed for us to operate under, and I can only guess that the creation of even more bureaucracy, by creating more rules to follow, was viewed as not a positive thing. But, again, like I mentioned just earlier, if that’s the will of the public, or the community, that these policies, or type of rules, be established, I think the department would be more than willing to consider them.

HERKES: It’s not really County Charter, but I was curious because we’ve heard testimony against this move because of that.

SUMADA: No, I’m sure the Planning Commission had their reasons why they voted that way, or took that position. I’m not too sure. I wasn’t at that discussion, and maybe the nature of the things that they do, require these policies to be in place. Again, the implementation of the subdivision code, as the Planning Director has mentioned, is pretty much done, or taken care of, by our department, and it is appropriate that that type of function be transferred, so I guess, if we need to establish new policy or admin rules to govern that, we would undertake that, but I can’t explain why there’s not any anyplace now.

HERKES: Or what their problem is. Okay.

IRVINE: I’m not sure that setting up performance measurements, or something like that, is really setting up more rules because if you look at performance measurements, it’s like one of those outcomes should be that the public is happy with what you’re doing, and for example, Solid waste, are people happy that they can only put a four foot board at a land waste unit? It’s not just making more rules. It’s trying to deal with things in an efficient manner that the public is served by the County agencies.

SUMADA: I can tell you that, at least in the Building Division, they’ve had that for quite some time, as far as measurable goals. They do track the number of permits that are processed annually. They do track how long it takes to process a permit and since the Mayor came on board, that was one of his rallying cries, and he has brought processing time down considerably. So, we do have measurable goals. It may be that we’re just not advertising it well enough, per se.

RAY: Other questions? Do we need Virginia and Jiro to stay here or is everybody comfortable that we’re okay in terms of their input?

IRVINE: Is our Counsel going to come up with the possible wording and tell us which parts of the Charter need to be changed if we were to do this, or is Planning? What’s next?

RAY: We have specific suggestions from the Planning Department. We had that submitted at the last meeting, so I guess our Counsel will have to look at that, and I guess, work with the Planning Department and Public Works to come up with some proposed language.

GOLDSTEIN: Actually, just one other thought, and that is, I think most of the changes might have to come from the section on the Planning Department because the Charter already allows the other things, and other functions with Public Works get established through ordinance, which is not your kuleana, so I don’t know, it might just have to be in the Planning Department sections.

YUEN: I just have one question for the Planning Director, if I could.

RAY: Sure.

YUEN: It’s to clarify what the proposal really is. Could you give us a master list of all types of permits that are currently issued by the Planning Department, and a check-off of which ones would go over to this new division under this proposal, and which ones would remain with the department?

GOLDSTEIN: Okay, we can do that.

MARTIN: Mr. Chair, before we proceed with Counsel looking into the prospect of anything, isn’t a motion needed on the floor to -

RAY: We’re not at that stage right now. I just want to know -

MARTIN: So you’re going to ask Counsel to fact find and we’re still not going to take a motion on the issue?

HIGASHI: Maybe later in the agenda.

MARTIN: Interesting.

RAY: No, we’re not at that decision yet.

MARTIN: Okay.

RAY: But, it is okay if we let Virginia and Jiro leave at this point?

IRVINE: I guess I maybe have one more question. We didn’t hear from Public Works, I think, on the idea of Board of Appeals under this.

SUMADA: The Planning Director and I have had some very lively discussions regarding that and I have to acquiesce to her, or the concept that the Board of Appeals would be under our department, and we would establish rules to implement that, also.

IRVINE: It sounds like you’re a little reluctant, but is this necessary?

SUMADA: Well, since I think the issues that usually are contested deal with subdivision related matters, and also building variances, that we can sign up for that challenge.

IRVINE: Thank you.

RAY: Okay.

KUROZAWA: I have a quick question. It concerns the Board of Appeals hearing subdivision matters. If this change goes through, won’t subdivisions move to Public Works?

GOLDSTEIN: Yes.

KUROZAWA: Won’t there be the same problem now? Am I mistaken? The problem now is that subdivisions are under Planning, and Board of Appeals is under Planning, so you want to move Board of Appeals to a different division, so there’s no problem of impropriety, but then if you move subdivisions over to Public Works, it’s the same problem.

GOLDSTEIN: They’re two issues. One that I raised last time was this appearance of conflict between having an agency that’s hearing the appeal also be housed in the same agency that you’re appealing from. That’s the one thing, and that would remain if it went to Public Works. The other would be just the administrative kinds of matters that go with carrying a Board of Appeals, and in that sense, most of the things would relate to Public Works and the permitting, so that’s why we made that suggestion.

RAY: Kevin.

BALOG: This, I guess, is two questions, but I’m a little confused why, if there’s a Charter Amendment to make this move, why you would only be dealing with Planning, and not Public Works, and why would be only the problem of the Council, because if you’re proposing a Charter Amendment to the general public, and the Charter is the document that governs the County, it governs the Council, so if the voters would approve an Amendment that maybe stated that subdivisions, blah, blah, would be transferred to Public Works, that’s it. Why would you need Council approval after that Charter Amendment, to say yes or no?

GOLDSTEIN: I’m not following you.

BALOG: Well, you made the statement that some things is the Council’s kuleana and you only need to look at -

RAY: You said established by ordinance, you have to establish by ordinance -

GOLDSTEIN: Yes, but if we transfer the Board of Appeals to Public Works, that requires a Charter Amendment because, I believe, it says that the Board of Appeals, although it hears both appeals from the Planning Director and the Chief Engineer, is administratively housed in the Planning Department, so if we suggest that further change, it does mean one more Charter Amendment. That’s the only -

BALOG: I know, but a question was asked about the subdivision, you said that -

GOLDSTEIN: That’s - yes.

BALOG: I just don’t understand that if an Amendment is made to the Charter, why does the Council have to approve that Amendment?

GOLDSTEIN: They don’t have to approve that particular Amendment. What would have to happen with a subdivision code, itself, is that the changes by ordinance have to be made so that it reads that the authority is with the Chief Engineer. Those are the ordinance kinds of changes that would have to take place.

RAY: So, in other words, what we do with the Charter is get it out of Planning. They would have to take that step.

GOLDSTEIN: That’s it. The further implementation of the Charter Amendment would be that they’d have to -

BALOG: Of course, the Council could agree. Five people could agree to do that.

GOLDSTEIN: You’re running the risk, if you’re asking me, yes. They might not agree and then what happens? I don’t know.

BALOG: Okay, the other question I had, is kind of following up to his comment, was would it more favorable, just as an administrator or someone who works in government, to have the Administration be flexible enough to make changes? Instead of going through all of this just for this one specific item, it could be much more broadened. We’re dealing right now with subdivisions. The next department comes in and says, well, let’s do this and this and this, and tinker with this. It seems to me, if the Administration had the flexibility to make changes, you might be better off. Yes or no?

GOLDSTEIN: As I said though, I think that might work for some agencies, but I think that when you look at those that essentially advise both Council and the Mayor, I think those, in principle, should have some sort of confirmation of those changes by the Council also. I think it does provide flexibility, yes, but I do think that you need to go -

BALOG: So, Administration would make a proposal and the Council would have to affirm that proposal.

GOLDSTEIN: Yes.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: Planning Department would have to advise both of them because the Planning Department advises the Administration and the Council on Planning.

GOLDSTEIN: Yes, that’s why all of the zoning matters and changes go through the department, through the Commission to the Council. They are the advising body to both.

HERKES: To both?

GOLDSTEIN: Yes.

HERKES: Okay, that’s what I read.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: As it relates to the Board of Appeals, have you considered having Board of Appeals under Corporation Counsel?

GOLDSTEIN: Yes we did. We tried to push that but didn’t get very far.

HIGASHI: With whom?

GOLDSTEIN: With Corporation Counsel.

HIGASHI: So, we may consider that as an alternative, right?

SUMADA: Yes, you would have our support on that, I’m sure.

RAY: Steve, did you have a question on that?

GOLDSTEIN: We even offered to share a position for the secretary.

IRVINE: And they aren’t pleased either, then?

RAY: Any more questions? If not, let’s take about a five or ten minute recess.

RECESSED The Chairman called a recess at 4:50 p.m.

RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 5:00 p.m.

RAY: Let’s try to knock this out to whatever degree we can this evening, this discussion on the creation of a Division of Permitting, so I guess, let’s just throw this idea out for discussion and kind of get a feel for where we are going on this. So, comments? George.

MARTIN: I think what Russell was saying about what transpired in Kona, and it was because of necessity, not so much because of something that they had actually planned, and it working there. And I turn to Gary and ask, in fact, is it working? Do you guys have any complaints from over that side? Okay, so it must be working. To try and implement something in the Charter to make a change such as this, and we don’t have a building for them to all be housed in one place, is it realistic at this point, and would it be serving the public in a whole, to do it? I mean, if they can do it internally in Kona, why can’t the guys here in Hilo, other than not having the building space to do it, it should be able to be done. Do we need to tinker with it? Is it a Charter issue?

RAY: I think there’s a little bit of misunderstanding on what’s going on in Kona. I think he was alluding to it’s more of a one-stop shopping in terms of the dynamics because all those different people are there working behind one desk, and so, in that sense, I think he was making a case for this. For that to happen in Hilo, you’d have to have the physical space where all Planning -

MARTIN: Right. That’s what I’m saying, and without the Penneys building, whoever likes or doesn’t like it, I think is irrelevant. Without something like that available to move them all in to one place, it ain’t going happen, even if we put it in the Charter. Where we’re not going to be able to -

RAY: That’s my understanding. My understanding is the Department of Public Works could be a one-stop shopping where you would approach one desk and they would route everything internally, and it wouldn’t be physically dependent on the move to the JC Penney building. But anyway, Kevin.

BALOG: I just got one comment about the Division. I think, as a person with knowledge of what it’s like to get permits done, it’s a good idea. On a broader view, and this is just my opinion, to put something out to the public. If we want to look at just this one problem in the Charter and say, yes, it exists, that’s good. I would say if we want to handle that separately, that’s fine, let’s do it, and I would be more than happy to support it, but I still would support something that will give the Administrative Branch, like Gary suggested, broader power to handle these problems on a daily, yearly, monthly basis, because we’re going to have other issues, such as this, come up and what we solve today, with what views we think that we know the future holds, in five years from now, may not be the same problem. So to me, the answer would be to allow the flexibility of the Administrative Branch, with the Council approval, if necessary, to make the changes that’s in the best interest of the general public, so we don’t come across this ten years down the road, the next Charter Commission, we’re still all taxpayers and we’re still saying, well, now we don’t like going to get a camping permit and it’s not at Parks and we have to pay this to this department or whatever. I just think we got to think a little more broader and make sure it’s really - To the test, to me, is to put it out to the voter to change the Charter.

RAY: Daryl.

KUROZAWA: Later.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: Chris, your turn. Planning Director, page 10, Section 5-4.2, has several, (a) through (I), duties by the Planning Director. How many of those are mandated by the State? How many could we eliminate in rewriting the Charter?

RAY: I would like to focus on this Division of Permitting.

HERKES: Well, I’m focusing on the Division of Permitting.

RAY: Okay.

HERKES: I’m wondering if we need to do anything. I’m wondering if we can’t simplify the Planning Director description, maybe change the Public Works description a little, and leave it alone. Do we need to put it in the Charter?

YUEN: The things that are being proposed, with what’s been put forth as the Administration proposal to create a Division of Permitting, does not contradict anything in State law, and so, to accomplish it, the primary changes that would need to be made in the Charter would be to take the subdivision code out of the Planning Department, and they also have zoning code enforcement. The zoning code administration is currently in the Planning Department. Their proposal would take the enforcement out of the Planning Department, putting it in Public Works, and so that would also require a Charter change. As to, like going through this point by point, and what needs to still be in there, some of it should still be in here, like the General Plan and some of the other functions. Zoning ordinances themselves, they process changes in zone through the Planning Commission. There are some functions and some permits that have to be with the Planning Commission, or with the Planning Department, like SMA permits would not be effected by their proposal because State law says that the SMA major permits go to the Planning. Their word is the authority, but in this county, it’s the Planning Commission and the SMA minors go to the Planning Director, basically.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: The one thing I like about a organized plan is that if it’s done in writing, whoever is Mayor, it’s a finite process that we go through. If we have loose language and you have a Mayor who is not for expediting permits, for whatever reasons, or want to incorporate new ordinances or rules, or whatever, I mean, it may be a problem. Nothing is perfect and there’s a lot of pros and cons both ways but I would support this restructuring and creating this new division, purely because it’s already defined, until we can establish a process.

RAY: From a time frame standpoint, if we were to put forth a Charter Amendment to empower the Administration, so that would be something that would have to be voted on. If it weren’t voted on, I’m just trying to think of the dynamics of that, that would be a much broader issue, so whether the public would be more accepting of giving the Mayor broader powers vs. a more limited - change the Charter. It seems to me there are a lot of people who are suspect of the powers the Mayor’s Office has already, so it’s just a dynamic to think about. Gary.

YOSHIYAMA: I guess what comes to mind is better watch out what you ask for, you might get it, and I think that’s what you’re talking about, John. What I didn’t want to do in this document was for us to get down to the division level in government. What I see is we have a chance here, maybe, to improve some efficiency within the County and we’ve come across an impediment here. And I think we all can agree with that. I think everybody who has come forward says, hey, we’ve got some inefficiencies in our permitting process, and everybody kind of points to this, and so I’m thinking, can we get rid of this. George may be right. If we can’t house everybody under one roof then it’s all for nothing, but even if we could, serving two masters is not good either. Having the Planning Director as your boss and somebody else in the process, having a Chief Engineer. That’s not a good thing. So what I’m trying to focus on is, is there a way we can move this function under one roof without going too far.

MARTIN: How far is too far?

YOSHIYAMA: We could just move this out to the Public Works and, as far as organizational structure, processing goes, leave it up to the Mayor.

HIGASHI: I don’t think this is going to be part of the document, though. Right?

IRVINE: No.

HIGASHI: How they work it out at the end, is exactly what you say, Gary. It’s going to be up to the Administrative -

YOSHIYAMA: Yes, but let me respond to that. If we put it in this document, we’re creating a Division of Permitting, and I don’t think we should go that far.

RAY: Steve.

BESS: If you look at 5-4.2(i), it talks about the Planning Director exercising all the powers, "perform all the duties of the planning director and the administrator of the commission as authorized by law or ordinance and exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as shall be required or delegated by the mayor, planning commission, or council."

HERKES: Says it all, doesn’t it?

BESS: That kind of language is not present in Department of Public Works. If you look at its powers, duties and functions under 6-2.3. If 6-2.3 was beefed up with the same kind of language that we had in (i), and this would require some legal help here in terms of trying to provide, through an (i) type provision, the flexibility that would allow that to happen administratively, so that they wouldn’t be stuck - let me ask you this, directly, Chris. The language of 5-4.2 talks about here, he’s the head of the department and shall do the following things. Then you have, for instance, the same kind of language that’s in (i) on 6-2.3 that provides for this flexibility and such other duties, public works, as the mayor may deem, for instance. Do you see that the Mayor could, with that language, require the Public Works Department to do something that the Planning Director, under the code, says, you shall do these following things? I know I haven’t made myself clear but -

YUEN: No, I think to accomplish what this particular proposal that’s come forward from the Administration, it does require a Charter change in the area of the subdivision approvals, and zoning code and subdivision enforcement. Because the Charter specifically says the Planning Director approves the subdivision plans, then the Council has gone ahead and enacted a subdivision ordinance that implements that. It has the specific standards, but in the end, although some of the plan review functions are done by Public Works engineers, things like is the drainage system adequate, are the roads adequate, those kinds of decisions are currently, actually, made in the Public Works Department. In the end, the subdivision plan gets signed and approved by somebody under the Planning Director. In order to move that under the Public Works so somebody in the Public Works Department decides it, that’s going to have to be changed in the Charter.

BESS: Okay.

IRVINE: Marni did mention this section 5-4.2 and the various provisions under there that would pretty much have to be changed if Public Works was going to do this. I think the question is can we just eliminate this and somehow add something simple under Public Works that would be acceptable to the public so that they wouldn’t feel like the Mayor was then getting all this power that used to be at the Planning Department, even though he’s in charge of the Planning anyway? I didn’t make myself clear.

YUEN: I know what you’re saying. Whether we say it in the Charter or not, as a practical matter, if the Commission adopts the suggestion that the Charter would simply say that the Mayor, with Council approval, can reorganize the function of granting of subdivision ordinances, and zoning and subdivision code enforcement, the Council is still going to have to go along with that because we have, floating out there, a subdivision ordinance that says the Planning Director signs the subdivision approvals. So if we did not specifically transfer the function to the Department of Public Works, but left it to future action by the Council and Administration, the Council would have to eventually sign off on whatever plan Administration came up with, in order to accomplish the transfer because if they just didn’t act, you would still have this subdivision ordinance that said the Planning Director issues the subdivision approvals. Similarly, in the zoning code, part of the proposal that we have here is that variances under the zoning code would also be done through the Public Works Department. The zoning code, not just the Charter, currently says that the Planning Director issues these variances, so that can only be changed by Council action.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: Could it also be done just by an ordinance because the duties and powers and functions of the Public Director, his duties is by ordinance? Under the Charter, they don’t have a list of all the different divisions he has.

YUEN: Except in this area of the subdivision code and variances. Because the Charter specifically says those come through the Planning Director, you can’t pass a proper ordinance that would say, no, forget that, and the Public Works Director should issue that.

HIGASHI: It wouldn’t be allowed to just transfer the duties by ordinance?

YUEN: No, because the Charter does say that those duties are with the Planning Director.

HIGASHI: So if you delete it out of the Planning Director’s purview, then an ordinance would suffice?

YUEN: Yes, if it were simply deleted from the Planning Department section, and I think we would also want to beef up the Public Works section a little bit to broaden their possible functions, then the Council could pass an ordinance that would accomplish any kind of reorganization of those functions, and put them wherever they wanted.

RAY: Kevin, then Steve, then Marni.

BALOG: Thank you. You kind of answered my question but I just got to be clear. Whether or not a Charter Amendment is passed to delete or transfer these powers, just plain delete it and leave it up to the Mayor and Council to make sure if they want to put it in Public Works, they would have to pass an ordinance, because of the zoning code, right? And even if you transfer it to Public Works, you still need to pass an ordinance because it’s still in the zoning code?

YUEN: Yes, but in that latter case, the Council really is not supposed to be making a decision on whether this is a good idea or not because the voters have already done that, and if the voters say it goes to Public Works, then the Council really is supposed to change the ordinance, and really, the only reason to change the ordinance is otherwise it’s very confusing to the people who pick up the ordinance and are going to read something different than what’s in the Charter.

BALOG: Because that makes a difference whether you just delete the word "subdivision" and I think it was (h) which says "charge of variances", or transfer it to the next agency. If you transfer it and it’s clear, and your advice is that the public has spoken and the Council should be following the public’s action, then that makes a difference, to me, on how we should act if we move forward. So that’s what I needed to hear. Thank you.

RAY: Steve.

BESS: I was just going to say that it seems to me, given what’s been said here, if there were to be a department or a division with that permitting function, if we were not to put it in Public Works and put it in Planning, just for administrative purposes, you wouldn’t have to delete all this other stuff, and it wouldn’t conflict with the Public Works provisions. I know this is totally - what, what are you saying?

RAY: I hope Virginia doesn’t read these minutes.

BESS: But I’m just saying, just for the sake of simplicity for the voter to understand what’s going on here, we don’t have to make many changes if we were to put everything under Planning. I mean, have a separate division, but you know.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: I can’t believe I’m hearing that. Does the Planning Department actively review Capital Improvements and recommend priorities, or is it the Administration, the Mayor, that does that, or is it the Finance Department that does that? I’m having a problem with that.

RAY: The Planning Department has assumed some role, and I think it makes sense in terms of trying to establish priorities, especially in some of the last CIP bills that came forward where the Council wanted to make them more project specific, so it was really important that there was some sort of a priority, so in that case, they did try to make some sort of sense out of it and offer that perspective. But, it’s not, sort of, a hard core part of the process function thing. It’s just weighing in as needed. That was my experience.

HERKES: Does that need to be in the Charter? Isn’t that something the Mayor would tell the Planning Department to do anyway, or the Council, because the Council instructs the Planning Department also?

BALOG: I just got to interject. Can we, just for the sake of discussion, I know we’re looking at Planning, can we just finish this?

HERKES: I had to get out of Steve Bess’s there for a minute.

BALOG: So we can kind of move on to the next deal. Otherwise, this will be all over the place. Let’s just handle it and move on. Go to the next level.

RAY: Okay, how about this? How about we just take a straw vote on who’s -

MARTIN: See what you started, Roland, with these straw votes. Take the whole kind.

HERKES: Take a vote. Tell us, what are we voting on?

RAY: Wait, let’s just take a straw vote. How many people are in favor of the creation of a Division of Permitting? Roland.

HIGASHI: Maybe it’s transferring the duties from Planning to Public Works. Is that more the accurate?

HERKES: Transferring some duties.

BESS: Is it more centrally, putting it all in one place?

RAY: Well, if somebody else would like to phrase it differently, my sense was do we like the idea of creating a Division of Permitting.

BESS: One-stop. Yes.

BALOG: A Division of Permitting?

RAY: That’s what they called it, yes.

HERKES: If you want to vote, let’s stay on the subject, now this is what we’re voting on, right?

BESS: Where I am is that I want a one-stop. I don’t know if I’m necessarily on board with the division.

BALOG: Before we answer that, I just got to ask our legal attorney this. You know he’s the guy who’s supposed to advise us, vs. another attorney’s opinion. What our esteemed fellow Board Member, Mr. Bess, said, if you followed his recommendation and you looked in the book, there’s no Charter Amendment necessary if, instead of doing what they proposed, you did the exact opposite. Is that correct? If you read this document?

YUEN: That’s a hard one because I would say, from a legal point of view, that there are some of the things that people have talked about as being one-stop, that can be implemented without any Charter changes at all. To give the example that was discussed up here on building permits, I think what happens, a building permit, a person brings it in to the Department of Public Works and then, it’s been a while since I’ve done this, and I think they are physically told to carry it over to the Planning Department, and then the Planning Department checks whether you can put that kind of building in the zone, and I think they also check the setbacks in the Planning Department. Am I correct on this? Now, there’s nothing in the Charter that requires the citizen to have that experience. The County, administratively, could set it up so that one person is trained to handle that, and the person who reviews it in the Department of Public Works could have a copy of the zoning map, so that can be done. Now let’s take the other example of what I said, you needed to make a change if you were going to move it. The subdivision approval. Some of the work is currently done in the Planning Department and some of it is done in the Department of Public Works. Just to give you an example, a brand new subdivision that somebody is putting in where they’ve recently had the zoning, like a developer type subdivision, there’s not a lot of discretion and there are not a lot of decisions made by the Planning Department. Most of that is going to be done by the Department of Public Works and is pretty mechanical. Where the Planning Department tends to get involved in making decisions are things where you have non-conforming lots, and pre-existing lots, that is, lots that were of record before the enactment of the subdivision code, and very often people will go to the Planning Department and inquire whether they have these lots, how many lots do they have, which ones are buildable, which ones are not buildable. If they are going to do a consolidation and re-subdivision, they’re going to reconfigure it. Those kinds of decisions currently are made by somebody in the Planning Department. Now, what is the experience of the citizen that goes in? The citizen gives the application to the Planning Department and, I think, the Planning Department, even with the roads and the drainage and the like, they route it over to the Public Works Department. So there are two different bodies working on it, but the person has gone into the Planning Department and dropped it off there, and I don’t think the person then walks it over to the Department of Public Works. Maybe I’m not answering your question.

BALOG: Now, you’re trying to confuse us all, but anyway, I heard. Don’t worry. I’m ready to make a motion. I don’t need no straw vote.

RAY: Gary.

YOSHIYAMA: John, I sense that you’re going to ask us a series of questions in this straw vote, so I’m ready. Ask away.

RAY: Just the first thing that logically came to mind is are we in favor of this concept of creating a Division of Permitting?

BALOG: If that’s your first question, someone can make a motion and you’ll find out as soon as you take a vote.

HERKES: Let’s vote. Let’s just vote. Yes.

RAY: It’s your pleasure.

BALOG: I want to make a motion then.

RAY: Have at it.

BALOG: I move that we accept the recommendation from the Planning Department/Public Works to switch the subdivision/variances from Planning to Public Works and Board of Appeals as proposed.

RAY: Do we have a second?

HIGASHI: Why don’t we take Board of Appeals separate?

BALOG: Okay, leave out Board of Appeals. Leave down subdivision and variances.

HIGASHI: I second the motion.

RAY: Okay, do we have a second?

HIGASHI: We’re not being specific, but as their proposal.

BALOG: As they proposed.

HIGASHI: Yes. We don’t want to limit only to that -

IRVINE: Subdivisions and variances, you mean?

HIGASHI: Yes. It’s too limiting.

BALOG: Yes, what was proposed in their document.

MARTIN: We need to amend the motion.

HERKES: What is the motion? What was it?

RAY: Can you restate the motion?

HERKES: I suppose we need a second before we -

HIGASHI: I seconded it.

MARTIN: It’s already been seconded.

HERKES: Oh, you seconded it? Okay.

MARTIN: So now I need changes to the motion (indiscernible).

HERKES: I don’t know what it says.

BALOG: I move to accept the proposal by Planning Department and Public Works to move subdivision and variances and others, as proposed, to Public Works.

RAY: Okay, and we have second on that.

BALOG: And that was exactly what Roland seconded.

RAY: Okay, discussion. All in favor?

IRVINE: Excuse me. Under their proposal, I don’t know if the last thing we got. It says May 4th. The creation of a new Division of Permitting within the Department of Public Works, it’s related changes would be as follows, and the Board of Appeals is in there, so if we’re going along with their -

BALOG: But I said without Board of Appeals.

IRVINE: Okay.

BALOG: That’s what I said, without the Board of Appeals.

RAY: Okay, understand, this is just a preliminary vote anyway. This is not a final vote. So, all in favor?

COMMISSIONERS: Aye.

RAY: Opposed?

HERKES: Do we have a series of straw votes?

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: On the issue of the Board of Appeals, is that something we want to discuss now?

RAY: If you’d like. One reason that maybe we should hold off is the Board of Appeals said that they would like to bring this up and discuss it.

HIGASHI: She was here today.

RAY: She said they hadn’t agendized that and discussed it at a meeting yet.

HIGASHI: Okay.

RAY: I’m just bringing that up as a concern. Marni.

HERKES: That may be a concern but they’ve had plenty of opportunity and I just as soon not wait for them on a straw vote.

RAY: Okay.

YOSHIYAMA: Straw vote?

BESS: So what would be the point in a straw vote?

BALOG: It’s subject to final vote once something’s drafted by our legal eagle over there.

HIGASHI: I move that we put the Board of Appeals under Corporation Counsel.

BALOG: Second.

HERKES: Under Corporation Counsel?

IRVINE: Oh, good grief.

HIGASHI: What?

RAY: Okay, we have a motion to move the Board of Appeals to Corporation Counsel. We have a second. Discussion.

KUROZAWA: I have a comment. Actually, I asked Virginia that question and it’s concerning to me because the reason they want to move it from Planning Department to Public Works is because of the subdivision appeals process, and I think this is a good motion because if it goes to Public Works, and we just voted to move the permitting process, including subdivisions, is that true, to Public Works?

BALOG: Yes.

KUROZAWA: Then they’re still going to have conflict for now another department head in the Board of Appeals. Is that -

HIGASHI: They also have appeals on decisions of the Public Works Director in terms of plumbing, carpentry and all of that. It’s not only zonings.

BESS: Electrical, right.

HIGASHI: It seems like a conflict of interest to me. I think maybe under Corp Counsel.

RAY: And Virginia brought that up. Kevin.

BALOG: Just one comment to try and help some of the other Board Members understand. About three or four years ago, there was a move to put Board of Appeals under Corp Counsel and a lot of people liked that idea, with the exception of Corp Counsel, because they did not want to be responsible for that Board, or those people, but all the other questions that came up, such as what was just stated, well, we need to have an independent agency, although their attorneys would advise both parties, they do that already. But, it would take away the impropriety of a department being specifically responsible for that Board, so only the attorneys internally from Corp Counsel, which advise a director, a board and whatever, now they’d be back in Corp Counsel and they thought that’s where they should be. But they thought it would be better serving so it would be more clear as to what their relationship was with a department they were housed under.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: From the appellant’s perspective, you get denied by the Director of Public Works and you go back and appeal in his department, you don’t feel justice is served. You feel somewhat uncomfortable, from what people have told me, they go to Planning, they feel kind of uncomfortable.

BALOG: That’s right.

HIGASHI: So maybe in this sense, the comfort level will be much greater.

RAY: Other comments?

KUROZAWA: Chris, you have any comments, any problems with that, if Corp Counsel did that?

YUEN: No, it’s not really a legal question. There’s conflicts all the way around and Corp Counsel, as it stands, supplies an attorney to the Board of Appeals and supplies an attorney to the director that’s being appealed from, so it really doesn’t change their position there. I think what you are doing, for them, is adding the administrative responsibility of scheduling meetings, paying per diems to the Board Members, arranging for meeting rooms, keeping minutes, those kinds of administrative matters.

RAY: Other comments? Steve.

BESS: No comment.

IRVINE: I think what Chris just said, Virginia Goldstein had said to me, that there’s conflict of interest no matter what we do, other than, apparently, they had also gone through the idea of having a Board of Appeals completely outside of the County government, which we both sort of laughed and said wouldn’t really be possible, so I’m not sure that it’s -

RAY: From the public’s perception, does anybody have any thoughts on how it appears from the public, because I kind of agree with Roland, that it does seem a little bit more acceptable in Corp Counsel than in Public Works, perception wise, but reality wise -

MARTIN: Ditto. I think that what Roland mentioned, if you get a ticket from a police officer and the Court houses in the Police Department, you’re going to be like, what’s the sense of even trying to fight this issue, and it’s a good point, Roland, bringing up that it may not answer the question. It may still be a conflict someplace, but at least it gives the preponderance of some justice being done, so I could live with something like that. Call for the question.

BESS: This is a straw vote. Is that it? I think in fairness to the Corp Counsels. They have not addressed this issue and haven’t had an opportunity to address the issue, and for whatever reason, they’ve resisted it, but I’d like to hear those reasons. But I’d be happy to participate in the - this is a straw vote, is that right?

RAY: No. Well, it’s a preliminary vote so we’ll certainly get their attention.

BESS: Yes, well, here we are. Yes, it will certainly get their attention but I would think this item has not been on the table. Here we are with Corp Counsel getting saddled with this responsibility and they’re the ones that are most directly effected by this and they don’t even have an opportunity.

HERKES: They will be.

MARTIN: Mr. Chair, call for the question.

BALOG: Just right before that, I just have one comment, please. Do you mind?

RAY: Is that all right, George? Kevin.

BALOG: Just to follow up with what our esteemed Member Bess has just said, I don’t want to call this a straw vote. I think if you take a vote, it’s a preliminary vote. We’ll have something that will come out from our staff attorney that can be forwarded to Corp Counsel for comments in time for our next meeting for us to take a vote, possibly with their comments, or without them, but the only way we’re going to start getting things done with this Charter is by making decisions and not keep taking straw votes. I just want it to be a vote to get something out of our staff attorney to forward to them, get their comments, and then they can participate, and if they choose not to, that’s their decision, too.

RAY: My sense is that the dynamics of all this is that the public, and an awful lot of people, really aren’t going to engage this process until we’re further along, and you know, it could very well be that we’ll get overwhelming input one way or the other, and that will lead to a change, right? Gary.

YOSHIYAMA: I’ll be happy to participate in this process. I will vote in favor of the motion but I do have some questions. I want to hear from the Board of Appeals, but then, my question is we’ve got conflict of interest all over the place. What are we going to do with the Police Commission then? Put them under the Corp Counsel too? That’s the kind of questions I have. Thank you.

MARTIN: Does the Police Commission handle the appeal? I thought the appeal was handled - Two separate issues, is it not?

YOSHIYAMA: I don’t have the answers, George. I only have questions.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: I think when we vote that maybe we should keep in mind what our goals are, rather than just the votes. Is our goal to make a more efficient County government, to make it work better? And does what we’re doing, in spite of the Board of Appeals or the Corp Counsel, does it make it work better? Will it really make a more efficient government? And if it does, then we ought to vote for it, no matter what they say.

RAY: Steve.

BESS: Well, the whole idea of having just a General Administrative Appeals body rather than it relating to any particular function. You’ve got a squawk about the way government’s being run, go to that one body.

HERKES: That’s what they’re afraid of.

RAY: So, does that speak in favor of Corp Counsel handling this?

BESS: I’m going to vote in favor of moving it to the Corp Counsel, but I do so on the understanding that we’re going to have an opportunity to hear from the agencies effected.

RAY: George.

MARTIN: We’re a Charter Commission, okay people? What we do in all of these meetings that we’re going to be going through and we’ve gone through, as is being mentioned here, is to make changes to this Charter, to hopefully better our County. Okay? Hopefully. Now, if every time we come up to a situation where somebody isn’t present because, for whatever reasons, they aren’t on the agenda, Corp Counsel being mentioned tonight, every time we touch upon this Charter, we may touch on somebody, so if they’re concerned about it, they should be here. Now, forwarding the information to them is great, but to worry about them, and not to take a vote because of it, is wrong. I think to add on to what Marni was saying, we’re going to make decisions here, hopefully to better our County, and no matter when we make these decisions, if somebody is here or not, we’ve got to make our decisions.

HIGASHI: One legal point. Chris, it’s not an agendized item, I realize that now. Is that a problem?

MARTIN: It is an agendized item. It’s an offspring of what originally started. It’s definitely agendized. Division of Permitting.

YUEN: I think it is because it was included in the proposal that came three weeks ago from the Planning Director, as part of the creation of this permitting. So, I think it’s on the table.

BESS: George, my point was, I would agree with you. We’re all trying to improve County government, but the only way that we’ll know that we’re going to improve County government, and I shouldn’t say it’s the only way, but it’s helpful, in that discussion, to talk to people that have facts that relate to the action that we’re going to be taking, and that’s why I want to hear from the Corp Counsel.

MARTIN: Point well taken, sir. I appreciate that, but again, we’re going to have times, and more times than not, these people will come back and say, no it’s not a good idea because they don’t want to undertake the responsibility. Implementation of the wheel probably wasn’t overwhelmingly passed when it first started, but look at what it’s brought us.

BESS: Got it.

RAY: Do we have a motion?

MARTIN: Yes.

HERKES: And a second.

RAY: Are we all ready to vote?

BALOG: You didn’t have a call for the question.

RAY: So, all in favor of moving the Board of Appeals to Corp Counsel?

RAY: Opposed?

HANDS RAISED: S. Irvine.

RAY: Looking at the agenda, everybody. If we could, can we go to Item VII. C., it’s smaller, so let’s see if we can deal with that one, the Discussion of Holdover Terms on Boards and Commissions, rather than the whole Finance section, which is kind of nebulous, that whole thing. We’ve got proposed language from our counsel that everybody was furnished with, so let’s use that as a point of discussion.

MARTIN: Everybody had an opportunity to read this proposed change, yes? Privy to what was discussed earlier by Leonard, and I understood what he was saying, but we’ve still got to have a fail safe situation where some of these Boards will disintegrate and not be able to function if we don’t have something like this in place in the future, so I make a motion that we accept the changes as passed and read.

BALOG: Second.

RAY: Okay, now discussion.

IRVINE: It was brought to our attention just today, by Leonard Tanaka of the Planning Commission, that a holdover time was a good idea, but they also suggested that the Mayor shall make an appointment within X period of time, and the Council shall confirm within X period of time, and I just see no reason why we don’t put some sort of time limits in there, and if the Council doesn’t get around to confirming, then it becomes an appointment. And if the Mayor doesn’t come up with one, then maybe the Council can. There’s more of them.

RAY: What if the Council disapproves within the time? In the Maui Charter, it’s got all these time limits and whatever, but I think the way I read this is that it can go on ad infinitum. In other words, if the Mayor does what he’s supposed to do within a time limit, the Council does what they do and they can’t agree, then the process just goes on and on and on. So, it still doesn’t automatically guarantee that somebody gets appointed and approved, right?

HERKES: Maybe we ought to have automatic approval, if they can’t get enough people to vote no.

HIGASHI: What page is the Charter -

IRVINE: 28 to 29.

BALOG: Mr. Chair.

RAY: Can I ask you a question. What’s the most critical problem that we’re trying to address here? It seems to me that we’re trying to address these vacancies on these Boards, and Boards operating without sufficient number of people to take care of business.

MARTIN: Having a quorum, I think, is exactly what you’re saying, John.

RAY: Gary.

YOSHIYAMA: I think that was it so I think the suggestion from Leonard Tanaka, something similar to Maui County, where the Mayor could initiate a search no earlier than 70 days, no later than 60 days, or something like that, for a replacement. That would be a great idea.

RAY: Chris brought something up to me. Why doesn’t the Mayor - he can certainly do that now, so why doesn’t he do -

HIGASHI: Right now, they advertise already.

RAY: Gary, are you finished?

YOSHIYAMA: Yes.

RAY: Okay. Kevin.

BALOG: I was just going to bring up a point and I think there’s two separate issues. One issue is making sure that, for some reasonable time, whether or not you create a process to give a Mayor a deadline and give a Council the authority to find someone, then what is the balance of the Council finding someone?

RAY: What do you mean ‘the Council finding someone’?

BALOG: Some of the proposals that have been proposed, or talked about, is if the Mayor can’t find someone to go on a Board or Commission, then the Council would find someone to go on that Board or Commission. So I think the problem is twofold; one is to make sure you give a reasonable amount of time because every Administration, from before the current one till after this current Administration, is going to have a hard time finding people because when they nominate people for these Boards or Commissions, I believe that they’re nominating people that have some type of views in common with themselves. And there’s nothing wrong with that because as an Administration changes, so will those views. But then the check is once the Executive Branch, or the Mayor, nominates this person, the Council needs to accept or deny this person, so I think you need to allow time. The problem is not the time limit. It’s ongoing. I’ve seen notices in the newspapers. I’ve heard it on the radio. We’re looking, people, for every Board and Commission in the County. So it’s not this time limit of you need 70 days before, 60 days after. That’s not going to solve it because it’s currently, from what I know of this Administration, ongoing. I just think that if I could do one thing, I would say, maybe go to four years and let people re-serve, or maybe you stay with five years and leave the system the way it is, but I know one thing, Janet Fujioka that came from Board of Appeals said it best, they’re short one person all year. At the end of the year, two people go off. They’re a seven member Commission, right? That leaves them with four people. One person doesn’t show up. I think it’s an injustice, so the only way that I can see alleviating some of that injustice, if there is an emergency like that, is by expanding how much longer people could be required to stay on that Board or Commission. And I know it’s hard for some people to say the Mayor needs to put the name up and if he don’t, we’ll give it to the Council. Who checks the Council? If the Council agrees with somebody, who checks them? That’s my question because I believe in a government of a check and balance, so I think one thing is like how long they can holdover and why they can holdover, and I don’t think it should be only because the Mayor is elected. I think they should be able to be held over. And the other problem is what are you going to do if you can’t get somebody new, and why are we penalizing people who serve on Boards and Commissions by saying you can’t serve again? If one Administration goes and another Administration comes on, why are we telling the next Administration you can’t put that person on that Board of Commission again? So to me, I’d like to address just the holdover terms on the Boards and Commissions because the other side of this whole beast is what do you do, like you’ve already touched on, if the Mayor doesn’t send up a name, and that has nothing to do, to me, with how long your holdover period is. I think you got to give a reasonable time of holdover, but there’s two issues and I don’t think you’re going to solve putting people on Commissions through a Charter Amendment.

RAY: Marni.

HERKES: I think we’ve agreed that our problem is not in the changes in the language so much as our problem is in the attraction of qualified individuals for Boards and Commissions. And if we look at each of these issues in that kind of light, I don’t know whether having the vacancy filled for the unexpired term would attract more people or whether it would be more attractive just for that term. But that would be something that I would think that we might want to change. The vacancy, when it occurs, will be for a full term, no matter whenever somebody resigns. I think that might be something to change, and I think, under Section 13, we should look at each item in light of how do we attract qualified individuals to serve on Boards and Commissions. Because I think that’s our goal,

rather than looking at different manners of how you set up 30 days, 60 days, 90 days. As I said to Leonard, you know when people are going to go off. You know you’ve got to get somebody in line to get on that Commission. So that’s how I’m looking at it is what kind of wording do we need, or how do we make it easier.

RAY: Sue.

IRVINE: I think it might be a good idea to look at four year terms instead of five. A five year commitment is long, when I look at this, and I also think, however though, that putting something in there to encourage the Mayor to just pick a name and send it to the Council would be a good idea, like a time limit on how long he has before he can do that. He’d get people on the phone, calling people personally, which is the only real way you get people to serve on a Board of Commission, as far as I know. Putting time limits would just encourage people to, at least, try.

RAY: Roland.

HIGASHI: May I speak on something other than the extension of time?

HERKES: Is it on Boards and Commissions?

HIGASHI: Yes. But the other alternative is to change the majority, because it seems that we don’t have enough members at the meeting and it calls for the majority of the entire membership, and not a majority of those present. So another consideration may be to have the majority of those present at the meeting, could pass any item.

RAY: I’m glad you brought that up. I was going through City and County, and Maui, and I noticed that I was kind of surprised but it brought that same thought to mind. In the Maui Charter, it reads "a majority of the entire membership of a board or commission shall constitute a quorum to do business and the affirmative vote of a majority of those members present shall be necessary to take any action", so that’s significantly different from the way our Charter reads. So it lowers the threshold considerably, and it certainly would have a huge impact on that dynamic. But it would also, I think, be of considerable concern to certain people in the general public so we need to think that one through too. But I mean, from a practical standpoint, i