2026-09-01 - Policy Committee on Health Safety and Well-being

00:06I know I he's you got me started.

00:08>> We're a ways from that still. Sorry to

00:10say.

00:11We're a ways behind.

00:12>> How long do you think it'll be now?

00:14>> I'd probably say 3 hours.

00:15>> 3 hours?

00:16>> [laughter]

00:16>> We've been taking too long.

00:18Too long. Everybody zip it up.

00:25>> Okay.

00:26Ready?

00:27Okay, we're going to start.

00:30Okay, good afternoon.

00:33This is the Policy Committee on Health,

00:35Safety, and Wellbeing. It's the 11th

00:37Session. We're at the Hoy County

00:38Building.

00:40Today is September 1st, 2026.

00:42Time is

00:4412:21 p.m.

00:47In attendance, we have to my far left,

00:49Ms. Kimball, Ms. Kalimba, Ms. Vegas,

00:52Ms. Kanning Lee Kleinfeilder, Chair

00:54Novoa. To my right is Ms. Kagiwada, Ms.

00:58Houston,

00:59and Ms. Kirkowitz is

01:02talking to someone right now, but she's

01:03in the chamber. And [snorts] I'm

01:06Councilman

01:07this committee.

01:09So, Clerk, any testimony?

01:11>> Thank you, Committee Chair Onishi. Let

01:12me check with Mr. Ursellis to see if you

01:14have any testimony for your committee.

01:18Confirming that we do not have any

01:20testifiers, Chair.

01:21>> Thank you so much. May I start with Bill

01:22184?

01:23>> Go ahead.

01:25>> Bill 184 amends Chapter 14 of the Hoy

01:27County Code 1983-2016 Edition as amended

01:30relating to use of native plants in

01:32county landscaping. Requires use of

01:33native plants in county landscaping.

01:35Introduced by Councilmember Kirkowitz.

01:38>> Is Kirk Mr. Houston?

01:40>> Chair, I motion to forward Bill 184 to

01:42Council with a positive recommendation.

01:43>> So moved.

01:44>> Okay, motion by Mr. Houston, second by

01:46Ms. Kirkowitz. Go ahead, Ms. Kirkowitz.

01:49>> Thank you. I apologize in that delay. Um

01:51this is a very simple concept when the

01:53county is landscaping county property,

01:56prioritizing the kinds of plants that

01:58belong here. So, this through code would

02:00establish a county policy to incorporate

02:03native Hawaiian plants into our parks,

02:05into our public facilities, open spaces,

02:07streetscapes, and rights-of-way whenever

02:09practical

02:11um and appropriate for the site. This is

02:13not an absolute mandate. We recognize

02:16that every location is different and

02:18departments need flexibility in

02:19considering things like public safety

02:22and engineering requirements and climate

02:24and irrigation needs and maintenance and

02:25cost. And so, again, this is just to put

02:28out there for our county departments to

02:30take into consideration planting native

02:32species um on county sites so that um

02:37we're leading by example. We're telling

02:39community members to plant native and to

02:42um

02:43you know,

02:44strengthen, bolster that native

02:46ecosystem. That's something that we

02:47should be doing and leading as a county.

02:50Um I also see this as an opportunity to

02:52educate when Ohana and Kiki go to

02:55different county facilities and they see

02:57and recognize these native plants. Um

03:00that is an opportunity, I think, for

03:02them to understand the ecological and

03:05cultural importance. So, there is an

03:07element of the bill that does encourage

03:09some interpretive signage and

03:10educational materials where appropriate.

03:13And then finally, with the

03:14accountability piece as part of the

03:16annual budgeting process, departments

03:19would report out um some of the strides

03:21that they've made to incorporate more

03:23native plants into their departments um

03:26operations. So, happy to take any

03:28questions. Um

03:30this bill was reviewed and vetted by

03:33both Department of Parks and Recreation

03:35and Department of Public Works.

03:38They may or may not be here today to

03:39answer any questions, but I do want to

03:41make sure that folks know that there was

03:43coordination with the administration on

03:44this legislation. Thank you.

03:46>> Okay.

03:47Okay. Any other members?

03:51Okay. Hearing or seeing none. Oh, this

03:53here this.

03:54>> Sure,

03:54>> I just want to thank our customer

03:55Kirkwood for bringing this forward. I

03:56know it's been in some conversations in

03:57the past with like the Youth Commission

03:59just trying to look at opportunities to

04:01you know, really improve our county

04:03properties with our native native plants

04:05um and really bring that awareness

04:07of these kind of these species that um

04:10you know, are are struggling in some

04:11conditions in some spaces. So, it's

04:13really important to kind of really

04:14incorporate this into our landscaping

04:16aspects and our parks and our county

04:18facilities. So, thank you for bringing

04:19this forward and I do look forward to

04:21the the conversation at budget about how

04:24what what has been delivered upon in

04:25those spaces. So, that'll be that'll be

04:27interesting to see. So, thank you so

04:28much.

04:29Thank you.

04:29>> [laughter]

04:31>> Any other info, Mr.

04:33Chair Inouye.

04:33>> Uh thank you

04:35Council member Honishi. I think uh I I

04:38love this Council member Kirkwood and um

04:42I'm just thinking out loud here of ways

04:43that we might be able to include

04:45non-invasive

04:47uh lei plants as well that might not

04:50fall under the category of native plants

04:53as it's currently defined um but

04:57as we know around the island lei making

04:59lei is a tradition that we carry on and

05:03some of those plants may not fit within

05:05the native plants but would provide uh

05:07great value to community. Uh thank you.

05:10I yield.

05:12Any other member Miss Kirkwood?

05:13>> Chair, I just want to acknowledge that

05:15Manoa from Council Chair. So, I'll be

05:17putting forward a friendly amendment at

05:18Council to include those non-invasive

05:21lei material. Thank you.

05:22>> Thank you. Okay, any other members? If

05:25not, the only comment I have is

05:28ha- having these

05:31native plants and

05:32having where it doesn't dig up

05:35our sidewalks or roadways

05:38because they have some of these other

05:40trees that get so big, the roots you

05:44know, just damage the sidewalks and so

05:46forth and people trip and fall, but

05:48yeah. So, all those in favor of

05:49approving Bill 184 and we to the full

05:53council with positive recommendations,

05:55say I.

05:56>> I.

05:56>> Those opposed?

05:58Clerk, we have nine eyes.

06:00Zero nos. Okay, Bill 180 Before I intro-

06:05introduce Bill 189, I'm going to turn

06:07over the committee to my vice

06:10uh chair, Ms. Kimball.

06:13>> Please let the record reflect that I

06:15have assumed the chair at 12:27. Mr.

06:17Clerk, do we have any testimony on Bill

06:20189?

06:21>> Do we have any testimony for Bill 189?

06:26Hearing none, Bill 189 amends Chapter

06:2714, Article 25, Section 14-151

06:31of the Hawaii County Code 1983-2016

06:33edition as amended relating to clearing

06:35unsafe flora. Specifies a department

06:38designated by the mayor may investigate

06:39and certify complaints of unsafe flora

06:41and

06:42and specifies an appropriate expert may

06:44be consulted in such cases. Introduced

06:46by Councilmember Onishi.

06:49>> Motion to approve Bill 189.

06:52>> Second.

06:52Motion by Councilmember Onishi, seconded

06:54by Councilmember Kirkwood to approve

06:56Bill 189 and forward to Council with a

06:58favorable recommendation. Councilmember

06:59Onishi.

07:00>> Thank you. Can I get Mr. Sinclair

07:03from Corporation Counsel and Deputy

07:05Director Segawa?

07:10You know, members, so

07:12it in every district, we do have

07:15these issues where the neighbor or

07:18vacant property has these overgrown

07:20trees

07:22and it's close to the border of the

07:24property lines and it's, you know,

07:27dangerous to

07:28an existing home or building or even

07:31like roadways.

07:33And so,

07:35we looked at this

07:38our county code and there were things in

07:40here, well, this one thing in here where

07:42we wanted to kind of make it more clear.

07:45And so

07:46I'll have either director, you want to

07:49go first? Because I did meet with them.

07:51We had a lot of major discussions with

07:54the with Department of Public Works

07:56engineering

07:58um division. And also we had Corporation

08:00Counsel working with with all this and

08:03so

08:04you want to go first and then we can

08:06have Corporation Counsel, Mr. Sinclair

08:08after that. Go ahead.

08:11>> Wes Sigal, uh director of Public Works.

08:14Uh

08:14good morning, Council.

08:18Um I guess Councilman O'Nishia asking

08:22the DPW's position on this particular

08:25bill. Is that your question?

08:26>> Yeah.

08:27>> Uh it's a tough bill to swallow, but we

08:30can live with it.

08:31>> Okay.

08:31>> Okay.

08:34>> Okay.

08:35Mr. Sinclair?

08:36>> Um I don't really have anything to add

08:38aside from the fact that um

08:40you know, the the amendment is legally

08:43sufficient and it does clarify the

08:45process that is in place and um

08:48it was really fun working with you guys

08:50to help you guys with this amendment.

08:51Yeah. Thank you.

08:52>> Yeah. And basically like it's saying

08:54like Mr. Sinclair mentioned,

08:56clarify because

08:58when you looked at it

09:00the

09:01if someone's going to make a complaint

09:03the by rights supposed to go to the

09:05mayor's office.

09:07And you guys can correct me if I'm

09:08wrong, right? And then from there the

09:10mayor would appoint whatever department

09:13to go and investigate. But then when the

09:16investigate and or and give a little

09:17more history. So back when we were when

09:20I was on the Council

09:22we did have this problem. And so we did

09:26pass

09:28legislation and also for the budget I

09:30think to for Public Works to hire an

09:33ombuds.

09:35But I don't think now in that budget

09:37there is right that position. Is that

09:39correct director?

09:44You said Arborist position.

09:46>> Yes.

09:47>> It's still in the

09:47>> We are we are working on that job

09:50description.

09:51>> Okay.

09:51>> For the Arborist position.

09:53>> Yeah. So there's no there's not a

09:55position now.

09:56>> My understanding we don't have a

09:58>> Yeah.

09:58>> position right now.

09:59>> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So back then I

10:01remember we did pass

10:02>> Yeah.

10:03>> some legislation to include Yeah. Yeah.

10:05And so now it's gone. So now

10:09what would happen is when a complaint

10:11would come into the mayor's office,

10:12hopefully through mayor's office and not

10:14to public works which sometimes it goes

10:16directly to public works, right?

10:18Engineering division would get that.

10:20Then they would send their inspectors

10:24and correct me again if I'm wrong to go

10:27investigate

10:29these unsafe trees.

10:31Then they would make a decision make a

10:32report and then it would come back to

10:35the department. Right? And then they

10:37would have to decide if

10:39what would what would be the next step.

10:41So with this legislation

10:44now you'll have the mayor

10:46or

10:48a designated

10:50department. Correct? Mr. Sinclair.

10:53>> Correct.

10:53>> Yeah. And then in consultation

10:57with

10:58an appropriate expert because we didn't

11:01just want to put Arborist

11:04at because then it would kind of make it

11:06more restrictive.

11:07So we did that. And with the

11:09consultation then they could decide on

11:11the what they could do with that unsafe

11:15flow of tree I guess. So

11:19I'm hoping for getting you guys support

11:21and I think this will help every

11:23district out on any complaints that will

11:26be coming in. All right? So you're up at

11:27this time.

11:29>> Thank you council member. I'm not sure

11:30of the three of you who was first. So,

11:32Councilmember Kirkwood, go ahead.

11:37>> Thank you so much for being here,

11:38Director, Deputy, Corporation Counsel.

11:42Um I'm confused as to what this bill

11:45actually does.

11:47So, are you telling me and over the 10

11:50years we've had this in our code,

11:52anytime that someone has followed the

11:54process and I have documentation in my

11:56office where they have filed the

11:58required three letters, are you telling

12:01me that the mayor's office of the time

12:03never did anything with it?

12:05Like I I'm struggling to understand why

12:08this is necessary, why the mayor cannot

12:11just forward it to whoever in the county

12:14will be handling these requests. I don't

12:16know how this will actually solve the

12:18issue, which is can we actually pay to

12:21cut all these trees down because there

12:23are thousands of requests that are

12:25coming in island-wide every year for

12:28over a decade. So, please help me to

12:30understand what this actually does.

12:35>> I can speak

12:36>> Okay.

12:36>> for my brief

12:38um exposure to this.

12:41Um

12:42but the big concern has been entering

12:45private property

12:47to remove trees, whether it's pruning or

12:50removing trees,

12:52because an adjacent owner feels it's a

12:54threat

12:56to their own safety and health.

13:00So, my understanding is

13:02um because it's entering private

13:04property, the county will not

13:07enter private property for that reason.

13:10So, we want we're trying to find another

13:12means to to a

13:14to correct that. However, when the trees

13:17are

13:18um encroaching over the county's

13:20right-of-ways or properties,

13:24that's when we have authority to remove

13:26trees and that's my understanding it's

13:28common law across the country.

13:31If you're It's like if you're a private

13:33owner, if you're a you know, your

13:35neighbor's tree is encroaching into your

13:38property,

13:39you including fruits or whatever that

13:41you have a right to go and remove that

13:45portion of the limb or tree that is

13:47encroaching over your property.

13:50Okay, so what this does I think is

13:53trying to give us

13:55um authority to intervene

13:58and perform that responsibility in

14:00behalf of

14:02of the owner.

14:03>> Director, that authority is already in

14:05our code. I am And perhaps, you know,

14:07Deputy Corporation Counsel, I'm

14:09wondering if you could help me clarify

14:11what exactly is standing in the way of

14:14implementing the code now?

14:19Because saying it can be a department

14:21handling it instead of the mayor, in my

14:23mind, doesn't really solve anything cuz

14:25the the mayor is the CEO. He or she

14:27directs departments. So, I'm just I'm

14:30struggling to see how this is going to

14:32fix the long-standing issue of absentee

14:36owners

14:37are not taking care of properties,

14:39albizia is growing wild.

14:41They don't There's no There's really no

14:43um

14:44accountability mechanism, no incentive

14:47for them. There shouldn't be an

14:48incentive, really. There shouldn't maybe

14:50be some sticks in this situation. But

14:53they have a responsibility

14:55to take care of their property. So, how

14:57are we going to force them to do that?

15:00>> Well,

15:01I'll just answer the question

15:04you posed earlier, like what does this

15:06amendment actually do? So, as the code

15:08is written right now, somebody files a

15:10complaint, it goes to the mayor's

15:11office.

15:12Um the mayor The code says the mayor

15:14will investigate. If the mayor certifies

15:17um certain things, then the mayor will

15:18send a notice to that person to to that

15:20hazard. Uh but the practice is is that

15:23these complaints are mainly about trees

15:25is my understanding.

15:27Um,

15:28they go to the mayor's office, they're

15:29forwarded to public works, public works

15:31engineering division,

15:33um, who aren't they're not tree experts,

15:35they're mainly civil engineers. Is that

15:37correct?

15:37>> That's correct.

15:38>> They would go out there and they would

15:40just measure the height of the tree and

15:41if the tree,

15:43um,

15:44if the tree were to fall, if it was

15:46taller than

15:47if the tree were to fall, they were

15:48like, "Okay, based on the height of this

15:50tree, if it were to fall, it could cause

15:52damage to property." And then they would

15:53issue a notice to remove it.

15:55>> So, all of that's happening right now

15:56with the current process.

15:58>> that was the practice and then, um,

16:00after

16:01um, Council Member Onishi, Vice Chair

16:03Onishi, sorry, and DPW and everybody,

16:06they met multiple multiple times, um,

16:09it came to light that

16:11public works, they're not tree experts,

16:13they can't really determine whether a

16:14tree is healthy or or not or it's going

16:17to fall or it's an imminent threat. So,

16:20um,

16:21they came to a compromise. I think

16:24public works decided that,

16:26um, when they get a complaint, they

16:29would, um,

16:31uh,

16:33hire, um,

16:34they'd get a price term agreement, um,

16:36to hire uh, arborists to determine

16:38whether or not that tree is a hazard and

16:41then based off of that, then they would

16:43send the notice. So, they would have an

16:44expert to determine that.

16:46Um, and so that's where this amendment

16:48came up. It The amendment says that the

16:51mayor or the designated department, cuz

16:53it could be somebody else besides public

16:55works because there's, um,

16:58um,

16:59they could be investigating whether it's

17:01a

17:02a broad health issue, maybe it's, uh, I

17:04don't know, um, something that they need

17:06to talk to the Department of Health.

17:07There's, uh, crime hazard, maybe they

17:09need to talk to HPD about that.

17:11So, the concern was

17:14what this amendment does is it gives the

17:16mayor to The mayor still has the

17:18authority to declare something an

17:19imminent threat. Say for example, a tree

17:21is about to fall. You don't need an

17:22expert to determine that that tree is

17:24going to fall.

17:25Um but when it's assigned to a

17:27department, they don't have the

17:28expertise. So,

17:30what this does is it gives the

17:33it requires the department to consult

17:34with the relevant expert to make that

17:36determination, whether it's with

17:38in consultation with HPD or the

17:40arborist.

17:41Um but it's still, as it's written,

17:45even after all that's done and a notice

17:46is sent out, um it's still the county

17:49has discretion to remove it or not. Um

17:53and public works in the meeting said

17:55that

17:56they plan to get an arborist on a price

17:58term. So, if they need their expertise,

18:00they can have the arborist certify that

18:02that tree is a safety hazard, an

18:04imminent safety hazard. And if so,

18:07they also um plan to have a price term

18:09agreement for tree contractors to remove

18:12trees if it is a hazard. Is that

18:15correct, Director?

18:17>> That's correct.

18:19>> Your Your mic is off, Director.

18:20>> it off.

18:21>> Yeah.

18:21>> That's correct.

18:22>> So, you're telling me that in all these

18:25years, we never thought to just get an

18:27arborist on a price term agreement? Like

18:30we were legally not allowed as the

18:32county to do that because it wasn't

18:34explicitly stated here.

18:37>> No, that they would the county's

18:40>> Because you guys have utilized this code

18:42before. I know that public works maybe

18:44like three times has used this to remove

18:47a tree. So again, I'm just I'm

18:49struggling to understand what this is

18:51actually fixing and maybe it's more of a

18:54internal operations within the county

18:57problem that we need to solve for.

19:02That might be rhetorical, but Director,

19:03feel free to

19:05take a stab at that.

19:10I think this is a very sensitive issue

19:12at this time where we've just seen the

19:14impact again of Hurricane Lala that

19:17wasn't just sustained to the Kau area

19:20but many communities around Hawaii

19:23Island were without power

19:27because

19:28these trees

19:30which had not been managed by a variety

19:32of partners county state utility private

19:35property owners right we didn't stay on

19:38top of the issue

19:40and so folks were without power some are

19:42still without power because of a lack of

19:45coordination to manage our vegetation

19:48that is the real issue

19:51>> Yeah councilwoman Kirkwood you bring up

19:53a good point um

19:55I think

19:57I would there's a lot to learn from this

19:58last Kona's Kona low and this uh

20:02tropical storm Lala that came through

20:05if you saw the photos a lot of the trees

20:09and vegetation that came down

20:11and

20:13you know just collect debris collected

20:15down in our towns in Kau

20:18all came from private properties

20:21a lot of it or properties that the

20:24county does not own

20:27our roads were clear

20:29but a lot of this timber that came down

20:31some timber was so huge that our

20:34equipment could not pick it up to remove

20:36it so now it

20:39I I start to wonder how does this

20:41particular bill apply to those private

20:44owners also

20:46um

20:47you know county of Hawaii our public

20:49works department does not have enough

20:51capacity at this time to just respond to

20:54a lot of these calls that we get

20:57um

20:58if we do proceed we we're going to need

21:00funding and we're going to need human

21:02resources to do this

21:04but you know this is a wide awakening

21:06for us from these two storms we just

21:09experienced and we can see the damage.

21:12>> Doctor, I'm just going to say we woke up

21:14in 2014 when Tropical Storm Iselle hit.

21:16>> Yeah.

21:17>> And folks were without power for weeks

21:19in the Puna and Ka'u region.

21:21That is when we should have learned our

21:23lessons. That is the genesis of this

21:25legislation. The problem is we haven't

21:28figured out internally how we move on

21:30that. We haven't figured out properly

21:32resourcing. Now is the time I think to

21:35be pulling money from the state and

21:37federal partners to take care of this.

21:39If there is a pot of money available

21:41that private property private property

21:43owners can lean into

21:46to take care of this. I mean

21:48It's so important because we've got two

21:50more storms on the way. The intensity of

21:52these storms are increasing. We're going

21:54to see them more frequently. And the

21:56county I think has a tremendous

21:58responsibility to extend some leadership

22:01over this issue.

22:03>> Councilwoman Kirkwood, I totally agree

22:05with you

22:06and we should be working with our

22:08partners in the utilities.

22:11You know, Hawaii Electric Industries has

22:13similar issues and other utilities with

22:17their distribution system as well as

22:20you know, our cable television and other

22:24utilities that we deal with. Whether

22:26it's above ground or below ground and

22:29you're right. We should have been

22:31pulling together because you know, HELCO

22:34has already

22:36where they cut trees that are

22:38encroaching on their lines and I don't

22:41know how this interfaces

22:43with what they're doing.

22:45But you bring up a good point. We should

22:47have been working on this years ago.

22:51>> Lot of work ahead. Thanks for your

22:53willingness to do the hard work and you

22:54know, to your point about DPW, Neil and

22:57his team are incredible. They catch all

23:00all kinds of different balls that might

23:02drop and um

23:03>> You're right.

23:03>> We cannot ask them to do more, so it'd

23:05be great to figure out what we can do

23:08not just as the county, but with some

23:09external partners to get a handle on the

23:11issue. Thank you.

23:12>> Yes, thank you.

23:14>> Thank you, Council member Krekorian.

23:15Council member um Hustus.

23:17>> Thank thanks, Chair. Um is there someone

23:20here today that could speak for the

23:21mayor's office specifically?

23:27So the the question I have, Council

23:29member uh O'Neal on this one is I'm I'm

23:31curious on the number, you know, prior

23:33to LALA, curious on the number of like

23:36complaint driven

23:38re- you know, receipt of in you know

23:41Nobody was going to the mayor's office

23:42though, right?

23:43>> Before LALA, it was to public works.

23:44>> Yeah, so I'm curious I'm curious

23:47what what mayor's office has been

23:48receiving up until this point.

23:50I don't know if Director, if you can

23:51answer that, if you've been receiving

23:54that being transmitted from the mayor's

23:55office.

24:04>> Good afternoon, Melanie D. Melo, Deputy

24:05Chief Engineering Division.

24:07Um as they spoke to, so the the code is

24:10currently written that the mayor's

24:11office receives the complaints. Um

24:14historically though, they have come to

24:15Department of Public Works, so we do

24:18intake the complaints. Occasionally, we

24:20will get them from the mayor's office

24:22forwarded to us to our division.

24:25>> And what do those what does that number

24:26kind of look like on an annual basis?

24:28>> Um on an annual basis, I

24:31>> [sighs]

24:32>> I would estimate we get maybe 100 or so

24:36unsafe floor complaints on just a very

24:39rough average.

24:40>> Okay, so do you think that's the

24:43all or majority of the complaints that

24:45the mayor's office is sending your way?

24:49>> I would assume that anything currently

24:51that comes to the mayor's office would

24:53be forwarded to our division.

24:55>> Okay, so we can assume that maybe you

24:57got 100% of the complaints then.

24:59Um, and it on an annual basis about 100

25:02complaints you've received in the

25:03office.

25:05And action taken on those 100, what does

25:07that look like?

25:09>> Um, right now as Sinclair briefly spoke

25:11to, um, you know, we try to do we try to

25:13do the best we can without an arborist

25:15on staff. So, we do have our inspectors

25:16go out. We do, um,

25:19if if right now we were going off of

25:21height of trees. So, if it's deemed per

25:23internal procedures that it it possibly

25:26could be a hazard, we have cited those

25:28property owners with a notice of

25:30violation.

25:32>> Have we seen any So, they've been only

25:33been cited then basically that private

25:35property owners been cited by public

25:37works

25:38saying that this needs to be action

25:40needs to be taken on this uh this tree

25:42vegetation that's going to possibly

25:44cause harm.

25:44>> Right, letting them know that it is on

25:46their it is their liability as a

25:47property owner to

25:49to cut down the trees.

25:50>> And has there any been Have you seen any

25:53post action like go and look in

25:55afterwards and see and okay, now

25:57they've received this notice.

25:58Do we send engineers back out there to

26:00take a look again and see that work has

26:01been done?

26:02>> Sometimes they do take action and a lot

26:03of times they will let us know when they

26:05have cut the trees so that we can go

26:07back out and close the violation.

26:09>> Okay. And then what would you say

26:11on those average about 100 a year, how

26:13many

26:14have followed through with that citation

26:15and done the work that was needed to be

26:17done?

26:19>> That I will have to go and confirm what

26:21the percentage is. Um, that is something

26:24I can get back to you on.

26:25>> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I

26:27guess I'm I'm kind of asking some of

26:29these questions in in case

26:31you know, maybe it just needs to be

26:32public works.

26:33Because the mayor's typically going to

26:35designate

26:36Yeah. And so it if it's going through

26:38the mayor's office, that's one thing,

26:39but it it's really going through public

26:41works um, to do the work and do the

26:43investigation. And if you are going to

26:45be bringing on an arborist to actually

26:47do that the proper investigation of

26:48these potentially dangerous and harmful

26:50trees,

26:51you know, that may be the appropriate

26:53wheelhouse of public works, but

26:55just for the sake sake of conversation,

26:56that's what I'm thinking at the moment.

26:58Thanks, Chair.

27:01>> Thank you, Council member Eusef. Council

27:02member Kirkwood.

27:03>> Thank you, Chair. Um so, yeah, following

27:06up, obviously, this is a

27:08kind of a sore point for some of us. I I

27:10know just last year, at least two

27:12complaints that came to my office that

27:14I, you know, um tried to work with by

27:17following the code and going to the

27:19mayor and the mayor redirecting us to

27:20DPW. So, it's fine to have this um

27:23clarity, I think, but I think this is

27:26basically what you've written here is

27:27already happening. I think going back to

27:30Council member Kirkwood's point is

27:33what is stopping us because

27:36from actually doing this? Like,

27:40what is stopping DPW from doing this?

27:43And I want to

27:45point out section 14-152

27:49of our code, which allows us to collect

27:53the cost of doing the work from the

27:55property owners if we feel the work is

27:58necessary and we need to do it. So, have

28:01we done that? Have we gone in, done the

28:03work on private property, collected the

28:06cost back to us? Have we utilized this

28:09section of code before?

28:15>> To to my knowledge, no. Um I know that

28:18there are concerns that I can I can

28:20understand the question. Um

28:22like you said, this this amendment is

28:24more clarification on the existing

28:25procedure as far as how we move forward

28:28on that. You know, I think one of the

28:29big concerns has been,

28:32you know,

28:32obviously, the cost, right? Like, as you

28:35as I just said, we get a

28:36if we see about 100 or so complaints a

28:38year,

28:40if no one was to take action on that,

28:42then

28:43the cost now comes to the county. Um how

28:47we address that might be a different

28:48conversation, but um, there was some

28:51conversation about that process, right?

28:53That's in the code, the liens. Um, I

28:55believe one of the concerns was that,

28:57you know, the county would of course

28:58still have to front that

29:00bill, so to speak, that that effort,

29:02those resources, um, with the hope of

29:06reclaiming it through the lien process,

29:08which, um, I don't know if

29:10Corporation Counsel wants to speak more

29:12to that.

29:12>> haven't even tried to use this yet. To

29:14your knowledge.

29:16>> I haven't been involved in one where we

29:18tried to use that process because of

29:20those concerns, yeah.

29:21>> This is why we put this in the code,

29:23right? Was so that we could deal with

29:25some of the cost issues. Um, I don't

29:28DCC, I don't know if you want to jump in

29:30here and give some information. Is there

29:32something legally holding us up from

29:35doing this process that we've put in our

29:37code that allows us to go in,

29:41take care of the issue, and then recoup

29:43our costs from the property owner. Can

29:44you speak to that, please? Uh,

29:46specifically section 14-152

29:49of our code.

29:55>> I don't know of a time, or situation,

29:59um, that the county's actually used that

30:01provision. So, it it would be a test

30:03case. Um,

30:05we haven't I don't think we've tried it

30:07yet.

30:09>> Okay, that's kind of frustrating. Um,

30:11here is a method for recouping the costs

30:13that you say the cost is the reason

30:15we're not doing it, and here's a way to

30:17do it, and we've never even tried it.

30:19So,

30:21I guess I'm still trying to figure out

30:22why haven't we tried it? Is it because

30:24of this private property issue, or what

30:27is stopping us from doing this? Do we

30:30know? Is is it a legal issue? As that's

30:32my question. Do we have legal issues

30:34with this part of our code?

30:40>> There's always going to be legal issues

30:41when the county um

30:43maybe

30:44Renee, do you want to

30:47>> [laughter]

30:49>> Um you know, I don't want to go too much

30:51into executive session topics, but

30:54generally speaking, whenever the county

30:57is going on to somebody's property and

30:59the

31:00cutting down their trees, trees are

31:02property, and doing something to their

31:03property, legal issues can always arise.

31:06Every

31:07Every situation [snorts] is going to

31:08have its own facts, its own arguments,

31:10its own situation. But um

31:13my understanding is that past

31:15administrations just

31:17number one, didn't have the resources to

31:18do this. Um they didn't have an

31:20arborist, they didn't have the

31:22time, money, resources just weren't

31:24dedicated to this.

31:26And then on top of that, there was the

31:29legal issue of like the county going on

31:31to private property and removing

31:32something from somebody's property

31:34without their consent. Um and then

31:37there's a bunch of other laws, too, that

31:40allow private landowners to resolve this

31:42amongst themselves. I think the position

31:44has always been that

31:46this is um

31:48a private matter, and unless there's

31:51something really extenuating

31:53circumstances, the county um just didn't

31:57do it. I think there

31:58may have been a few situations in the

32:00past, and I don't know exactly what they

32:02were, where um the county might have um

32:07cut some trees, but it was involving, I

32:09think, like a public road. Um which we'd

32:12have the right to do that anyway, if

32:14it's coming over a public road.

32:16Um so yeah, I don't

32:18There's legal issues there, um

32:21but the code, as it's written, it gives

32:22the department authority to

32:25remove a tree on an occupied occupied

32:27lot would have much more issues. Um

32:30unoccupied lot, less so.

32:33Um

32:34but yeah, as far as I know, we haven't

32:36done it and we haven't

32:38gone and tried to collect. So, it just

32:41hasn't happened.

32:42>> Okay. Thank you.

32:44I'll just say yeah, that so in in June

32:47of 2025 and then September of 2025, we

32:50had two issues come through our office.

32:51We tried to

32:53work with the, you know, departments. We

32:55tried to get these done. I

32:58I don't know if anything ever happened

32:59to them. Maybe something did. Maybe

33:01something didn't. We also did try to

33:04point them towards, you know, working

33:06with, you know, Kuakahi mediation or

33:08other things if they couldn't get

33:09resolved, but

33:11it it does kind of bother me that we've

33:14put we bothered to put this into code

33:15and then we've just never even tried to

33:17utilize it.

33:18>> Sorry, one more thing I forgot to

33:20mention. Um, there was, you know, you

33:22asked if there's legal issues. There was

33:24always the legal issue of imminency. Um,

33:27there are a bunch of legal issues. I

33:28don't want to go into all of them, but

33:30that one is pretty obvious. Imminency

33:32like um,

33:35we didn't the county really didn't have

33:37experts to determine, "Hey, this tree is

33:39about to fall any second right now." So,

33:40I think that's why they did it in the

33:42past. They just kind of

33:44did more of a broad stroke to get people

33:46to comply to remove these trees. Um, I

33:50think that's a real difficult thing to

33:53for non-experts, even for experts, I

33:54think, to say, "Hey, this tree's going

33:56to fall any second right now."

33:57>> Sure.

33:58>> Um, I think those would be the obvious

33:59ones that

34:01But, there are a lot of cases like we

34:03just had one recently where

34:06we sent out that not me, sorry. I'm so

34:09used to saying me.

34:10I just I advised the county. Um,

34:13where public works sent out a notice and

34:15um,

34:17eventually they ended up clearing the

34:19lot right before the storm. So, it

34:23Anyway, um,

34:25>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that.

34:27Yeah. I mean, but to

34:30>> Councilmember Kagiwada, just before you

34:31go on, um, because we are already behind

34:33schedule, I want to kind of rein this

34:35back into a discussion of the bill

34:37that's in front of us and specifically

34:39the change in language there with rather

34:41than the broader

34:42>> Okay.

34:43>> implementation of the

34:43>> I guess my last comment is just once

34:45again, I don't think this language, it's

34:47fine, whatever, but it doesn't really do

34:49anything to the issues that are at hand

34:51here, which is I think uh more

34:54interdepartmental and and getting the

34:56work done that's already on the books,

34:58so um

34:59I don't have problems with the language,

35:01but um I do have problems with the fact

35:03that we're not uh doing our best effort,

35:06especially around hurricane season and

35:07stuff, so thank you, I yield.

35:09>> Thank you, Council member Kagiwada.

35:10Council member Kaniele Clainfielder.

35:14Again, kindly asking that you keep your

35:16focus on the

35:17>> Yeah, I heard that part.

35:19It is It is a very It's a very complex

35:21issue. I've been thinking about this a

35:22lot.

35:24Uh

35:26and and you have to give

35:28you have to go back to 2014 even before

35:31that

35:32to grasp why this is important. If you

35:34just look at the last storm, that's

35:35fine, but if you don't understand

35:38the implications of 2014 and what

35:39happened across the entire island and

35:42then now

35:43and why this bill has so much weight

35:47that should be discussed at length. Um

35:50not even just this bill, but this idea.

35:53That's that's where we are. My My

35:55question for you folks, I mean, I'm

35:57thinking about this in a lot of

35:58different angles and I'm not sure who

36:00who wants to answer this.

36:02We had a previous resolution come in

36:03front of the county that allowed the

36:07county to work on a state right of way

36:11and do the work and then charge them

36:13afterwards. That's only cleared the land

36:15by the airport.

36:17I'm asking that because when we have

36:20state highways

36:22where you have trees that pose an

36:23imminent danger to

36:26our infrastructure, which is what this

36:28bill is kind of dancing around.

36:31Can we address the state

36:34or do work on behalf of them and then

36:36charge them afterwards?

36:37If you were to look at that previous

36:39resolution and this bill together.

36:45>> Yeah, I'm sorry, Council member

36:47Kounelias Kleinpeter. I'm not familiar

36:49with that resolution, but um I'm

36:51assuming that was a resolution that

36:52allowed um

36:55the county to enter into

36:56intergovernmental agreement with the

36:58state um

36:59sharing resources and money so that that

37:02would probably be a specific situ- I'm

37:04assuming it was a specific area or time

37:07frame.

37:07>> My memory was a broad brush resolution

37:11that allows us to do work when the state

37:13isn't.

37:14That's how I took that resolution.

37:18We see a problem, we address it, we

37:20charge the state back.

37:21>> So yeah, I remember

37:22that

37:23resolution that allowed that and that

37:25was specific to um roadway improvements.

37:30To the roadway itself, not with trees.

37:32Was this

37:33like many years ago? So but yeah, I

37:36Yeah, so I I've seen that um memorandum

37:39of understanding between the state and

37:40the county.

37:41>> Okay.

37:42>> But yeah, I mean I think it would be a

37:44good if that is the case regarding

37:46trees, the county could enter into an

37:48intergovernmental agreement with the

37:49state to

37:51um cover trees.

37:54>> I

37:55The other part of this that strikes me

37:58is I think we get the complaints.

38:02So the mayor may get some. Some folks in

38:04the community still think state land is

38:06county land, but

38:08they also think the state highways are

38:09the county's concern and they reach out

38:10to us to fix the state highways cuz they

38:12don't know their appropriate

38:14jurisdiction and their appropriate

38:15appropriate representative is the state.

38:18DOT

38:20H I DOT or even just a council, sorry,

38:23their state rep or their state senator,

38:25they call us.

38:26So, we're passing those. Do you guys see

38:29that track of information?

38:33>> Um as far as receiving

38:35complaints from county council members,

38:37yes, sometimes.

38:39Fire and Sea Flora. And um state state,

38:42I'm not sure if we receive quite as

38:44much, but um yes, county council, we do

38:46get those forwarded.

38:49>> Okay.

38:50All right. My other question is the the

38:53utilities.

38:55This has been playing in my mind.

38:57Utilities have their own easement.

39:00But trees grow on private property.

39:04I can go into the easement or onto

39:06county.

39:09Does this Does this bill help with

39:10utility easements?

39:12>> Um my understanding is that the

39:14utilities

39:16um if they have an easement, they would

39:18be

39:19um

39:20they can go in and cut the trees within

39:21their easement. They can maintain their

39:23easements. The I think it would just be

39:25built into the easement. They don't need

39:27um

39:28permission from anyone to clear trees

39:30within their easements.

39:34>> To the To the maker

39:38I I I'm sorry, I thought about this for

39:40so long.

39:41>> [laughter]

39:41>> Like like 12 years long.

39:43Um

39:45maybe we'll touch bases off off after.

39:48There's I think to me what I'm What I'm

39:50hearing now is you get complaints, yeah,

39:51but you probably getting complaints

39:52about little trees, little things,

39:54somebody's roots going into their

39:56neighbor's yard.

39:57But then you get these big complaints

39:59like how busy is across the entire

40:01island. State Highway 11 with eucalyptus

40:04growing on both sides that's over a

40:06state highway. Private property and

40:09utility easements that threatens all of

40:11our infrastructure.

40:13But nobody wants to address it.

40:15Complaints go to the state, nothing gets

40:16done.

40:18And I I know that cuz I've watched them

40:19go through my office and seen nothing

40:21and seen no response and even the

40:22response was limited.

40:24So, this this is supposed to be the

40:27the savior

40:28and a help for people and yet what I'm

40:30hearing is it's not. We had a

40:33arborist position

40:35created by a past representative for the

40:37council

40:39I don't know how many years ago. Do you

40:40have an arborist currently in DPW?

40:45>> No, we don't.

40:47>> And so, can I can I just make a comment

40:49on that? So,

40:50um

40:51you know, all of Council member

40:54Kajiwara, Vice Chair Onishi, um Council

40:57member Kirkwood,

40:59you know, they've all expressed their

41:01frustration to public works that, you

41:03know, there's a statute. I think that's

41:06uh

41:06why Vice Chair Onishi initially

41:09contacted public works is, "Hey, there's

41:10a statute, but you guys aren't cutting

41:12any trees. What's going on?" That was

41:13the initial start of the conversations.

41:16And DPW,

41:19my understanding is that the position

41:20has their position was, "We you know,

41:22we're not experts. We don't know what

41:24trees to are going to fall, but

41:26what they want to do now going forward

41:28is have that price term agreement to

41:31consult that expert when needed and then

41:33have a contractor on call to cut those

41:35trees if needed. So, my understanding is

41:38that they're actually moving towards

41:40doing something if warranted and

41:42necessary and determined by an expert to

41:45be required.

41:47>> versus having an employee who's an

41:49arborist actually do the 90-day contract

41:51or

41:52or bid out for a contractor who can be

41:54an arborist and certify trees are

41:56danger.

41:57>> I think the reality is is that they had

41:59haven't had an arborist in years. I

42:01think there was funding in a position.

42:02They could never get one. So, the better

42:04approach is just to have them on call.

42:06They can mean if public works needs an

42:08arborist decision, they can have them

42:09come out, give the decision and then if

42:12the arborist says, "Ah, this tree is not

42:14an imminent threat," then nothing. If it

42:16is an imminent threat,

42:17then um

42:18they would send that notice, and then

42:20they would have uh cuz also public

42:22works, my understanding is they don't

42:23have the resources. They're not tree

42:25trimming.

42:26Um they do tree trimming on their roads

42:28for small things, but

42:30I don't think they have the capacity and

42:32expertise to take down these bigger

42:33trees. And so um the res- the solution

42:37was to have

42:38um

42:39tree contractors on call for price term

42:42agreement if needed. That way they could

42:44go in and do it. And then

42:46if they do go and do that, then um you

42:48know, recouping the costs from the

42:50landowner, that would just be something

42:52that our office would do.

42:54Um and it would be a test case cuz I

42:56don't think we've done it.

42:58>> I I think the biggest biggest issue

42:59you're going to run into, Mr. Onishi, is

43:01just economy. If If someone asks if we

43:04If someone issues a complaint, this is

43:05my guess.

43:07Is Is the mayor guys are getting

43:08complaints, but when the bill comes back

43:10at $26,000 to clear the trees in your

43:13lot that overhang your neighbor or

43:15utilities, your average homeowner can't

43:17afford that.

43:18So, if the mayor's office goes to the

43:19public and says, "Hey, by the way,

43:21we got 90,000 lots across the island

43:24that all are going to be ranging between

43:265 to 30,000 dollars in fees to cut down

43:29trees,

43:30and you're going to slap everybody with

43:31penalties unless they do it immediately

43:32and they can't afford it."

43:35That's a problem. Well, the other side

43:36is when the trees get blown over and it

43:39knocks down infrastructure, and clogs

43:40our roads,

43:41then it becomes a hazard we got to deal

43:43with.

43:43I love the simplicity of the bill, but I

43:46think you ain't you ain't jumping into

43:48something as as deep.

43:50I love it, though.

43:51Okay. Thank you.

43:52>> I yield.

43:54>> Any further conversation, Councilmember

43:56Onishi?

43:58>> Great questions to public works and to

44:00corporation counsel. I had all that same

44:03questions to them when I first started

44:05this.

44:06Okay.

44:07And so, this is just the start

44:10of how we're going to correct this code,

44:14okay?

44:15And this right now going to give public

44:18works or whichever department, police,

44:20fire, parks and rec, whatever,

44:23this

44:24um I guess the power to hire someone

44:28to that's qualified to determine what is

44:31dangerous to

44:33the health and and public safety.

44:35Right now,

44:37they don't have that at all.

44:39It's not even written in here.

44:41So, you're using un-

44:44experienced or experts

44:47making decisions which could

44:49make the county more liable.

44:52Right, Corporation Counsel?

44:54>> Could you say that one more time? What

44:55was that?

44:55>> So, with this, cuz right now

45:00county doesn't have the resources,

45:02right, of any experts

45:04of can determine what's in danger,

45:07right, to the public health and safety.

45:09So, with this going to help each

45:12department in hiring someone because

45:14they don't have employees that has the

45:17expertise.

45:19Correct?

45:20>> Yeah, so

45:21public works doesn't have an arborist,

45:23so this clarifies that when they make

45:25that determination, they have to consult

45:27an expert.

45:28>> so, this is what's helping them. So,

45:29this is just the start of how this code

45:32going to be amended, and there's a lot

45:34that has to be amended because even in

45:37the code it mentions about may.

45:40So, the county may

45:42do this work.

45:44Right?

45:45It's not shall.

45:47So, that's another thing that we got to

45:49discuss within the administration and

45:52the departments of okay, do what do we

45:54want? But, like I said, this is just the

45:56start, so I'm hoping for your support in

45:58passing this. Thank you. Thank you.

46:01>> Thank you, Councilwoman Anchia. Anyone

46:03else?

46:05Um with that, I'll just I'll just

46:06quickly weigh in um on the content of

46:09the bill itself. And And thank you for

46:10introducing it so that we could have

46:12this robust discussion about a

46:13particular problem that is um something,

46:17as you say, that affects uh everyone's

46:19districts. I will come back to

46:21Councilmember Kirkwood's statement and I

46:24agree, I'm not exactly sure what this is

46:26solving. And I also think there's

46:28actually an unintended consequence here.

46:31My first question would be to

46:33Corporation Counsel,

46:35does the mayor not already have the

46:37authority to

46:38delegate a particular consultation to a

46:42department as CEO?

46:46>> I think he does.

46:47>> Okay. So, the the mayor already has the

46:50ability under this process to designate

46:54the department, whether it's DPW or any

46:56other,

46:58to undertake this work. It still has to

47:00be the mayor per the rest of this

47:01section and the following section 15 or

47:05um what is it? 1

47:0752, where it's the the mayor that

47:09provides notice. So, going back to

47:12Councilmember Houston's point, if we

47:14wanted it to just be all within DPW, we

47:16need to change that section as well. In

47:19which case, this bill, since it

47:21specifically calls out

47:24section 151, is not going to be an

47:27appropriate vehicle to change both of

47:29those.

47:30The thing that I think is an unintended

47:31consequence is here. The language reads,

47:34"If the mayor or the designated

47:36department in consultation with an

47:39appropriate expert." Because that isn't

47:43There's no may in there. It means that

47:46anytime that it is delegated to a

47:48department, they are required to consult

47:51with an expert.

47:52Now, keep in mind that the section isn't

47:54just about trees. It's anything on a

47:57vacant property that could affect health

47:58and safety. Could be a It could be the

48:01fact that it's full of guinea grass.

48:02It's all dried out, right? You don't

48:04need an arborist for that. You don't

48:06need an expert for that. And so, what I

48:07actually worry about with this

48:09legislation as it's worded right now is

48:11it creates a requirement for a

48:13consultation with an appropriate expert

48:16when there currently isn't one, and I

48:18can certainly think of numerous

48:20scenarios where we wouldn't need one.

48:22So, I won't be supporting this as it is.

48:24It is I think you're on the right track

48:26to solve something. And I'd I'd love to

48:28see it in a different bill taken taking

48:30into account the conversation today.

48:34All right. Anyone else?

48:36Okay. All those in favor, please say I.

48:40I'm sorry.

48:42Okay. All those in favor, please say I.

48:45Actually, I'll ask for a roll call on

48:46this, please.

48:47>> On the motion to forward bill 189 to the

48:50council with a favorable recommendation,

48:51Councilmember Galimba.

48:53>> I.

48:54>> Councilmember Eustace.

48:56>> I.

48:57>> Councilmember Ninaba.

48:58>> I.

48:59>> Councilmember Kagiwada.

49:00>> No.

49:01>> Councilmember Brekhus, Councilmember

49:02Kleinfelder.

49:02>> I.

49:04>> Councilmember Kirkwood.

49:05>> No.

49:07>> Councilmember Yegge.

49:14>> I.

49:15>> Councilmember Manischan.

49:18Committee Vice Chair Campbell.

49:20>> No.

49:22>> Vice Chair Campbell, you have six votes

49:24in favor, three opposals being yourself,

49:26Councilmember Kagiwada, and

49:27Councilmember Kirkwood. The motion

49:29carries. Bill 189 will go to council

49:31with a favorable recommendation.

49:33>> All right. Seeing no further business on

49:35our agenda, the time is 1:10, and we are

49:38adjourned. Thank you. We'll start the

49:39next committee in about 5 minutes.

50:24>> I

```*