2026-10-06 - Policy Committee on Environmental and Natural Resource Management

02:09really.

02:10>> Aloha, ladies and gentlemen.

02:14Welcome back. Um, thank you for those

02:17who have waited. We're running a little

02:18behind today. Today is

02:22Tuesday, October 6. The time is 2:56

02:26p.m. This is the 10th session for the

02:28policy committee on environmental and

02:31natural resource management. Joining me

02:34here in Hilo Chambers today we have

02:37Council Member Heather Kimell, Council

02:40Member Michelle Galima, Council Member

02:42Jennifer Kagiwada,

02:44Council Member Fresh Onishi, Council

02:47Members James Hustus, Council Chair Ha

02:50Inaba, and myself, Rebecca Viegas, chair

02:54of this committee, and council member

02:56Kirkowitz is excused at the moment.

03:01Uh that will

03:03calling this meeting to order and I'll

03:07turn it over to you, Mr. Brown, for

03:10statements from the public.

03:14>> Uh sorry, Madam Chair. Just wanted to

03:16note that we do have one testifier via

03:18Zoom, Miss Dell Otsuka. Dell, at this

03:21time, if you'd like to provide your

03:23testimony on Bill 183, you can unmute,

03:25introduce yourself, and you'll have

03:26three minutes.

03:28>> Okay. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

03:30>> Okay. My name is Delatsuka, former

03:33environmental management commissioner

03:35and a lifelong Hawaiian homesteader. The

03:38Department of Environmental Management

03:40frames this massive utility hike as an

03:42immediate necessity for compliance.

03:45Who's compliance? Truth is, Bill 183 is

03:48a desperate attempt by DEM and this

03:50council to force local rateayers and

03:53ego-conscious businesses to bill out a

03:55department that has willfully violated

03:57decades of legislative agreements and

04:00ignored its own infrastructure. In

04:02allowing this to continue happening,

04:05this council, like others before you,

04:07are giving permission to do so. Shame on

04:09you. In 2019, the county council passed

04:12a multi-year sewer rate hike explicitly

04:15designed to make the wastewater division

04:17self- sustaining so it wouldn't drain

04:19the general fund. Yet, we are here 7

04:21years later. DEM completely ignored that

04:24fiscal pathway, returning every year for

04:27general fund handouts, including a $6.9

04:30million emergency transfer in 2025. For

04:33what emergency? DM's 2026 rate study

04:36admits that only capture enough feed

04:39revenue to cover 52% of basic

04:41operations. Did you verify that DM has

04:45not been accountable for any of their

04:47failures broken agreements March 2024

04:50EPA administrative order of consent? You

04:52know exactly why it was done. Then there

04:55was Kahi breach of contract. 2025 past

04:59administrations legally agreed to settle

05:01with Native Hawaiian practitioners. DEM

05:04completely blew past their legal binding

05:06deadline at $1,000 a day. Do you know

05:09where any of those emergency funds went?

05:13Then there was a Lee Drive. Severe line

05:16ruptures right on the shoreline along a

05:18Lee Drive dumped raw untreated sewage

05:20directly into Kyua Bay, forcing

05:24beach closures and putting public safety

05:26at risk. Then there's Papayo, Kulai

05:28Manuo, and Capeu plants. These rural

05:30East Hawaii facilities were explicitly

05:32named the federal EPA crackdown due to

05:35persistent chronic discharge violation.

05:37And this council through resolution 441

05:40legally committed the county to

05:42multi-deade remediation timelines

05:45extending all the way till 2035. DEM's

05:49neglect is massive. Resolutions 592 and

05:52593 were pushed through by this council

05:55to formally authorize amended iterations

05:58of the EPA consent order. Resolations

06:01resolution 16.

06:02>> 30 seconds, please.

06:04>> Okay. Thank you so much. But with all of

06:06that, you dangle hypothetical future

06:10sewer lines over Hawaiian homesteaders

06:12in Kiloka and Pana Eva while remaining

06:14silent on the physical reality that the

06:16county cannot afford the immense capital

06:18cost of trenching mains through miles of

06:21solid volcanic rock. Stop treating us as

06:23a political bank. Reject Bill 183.

06:26Freeze rate hikes. Demand a full

06:28independent operational audit of the

06:31Department of Environmental Management.

06:33Thank you.

06:35Thank you for your testimony and madam

06:36chair with that those are all the

06:37testifiers you have.

06:39>> Thank you.

06:41[clears throat]

06:42>> With that Mr. Brown you last chance if

06:44anyone like to testify in bill 183

06:47please speak up now.

06:50Hearing and seeing none, Bill 183 amends

06:52chapter 21, articles 1 and four of the

06:54Hawaii County Code 1983, 2016 edition as

06:57amended relating to sewer service

06:59charges, increases wastewater service

07:01rates, and establishes a new service

07:03class with new service rates for hotels

07:05introduced by council member Viegas by

07:07request. This was postponed on September

07:091 and 15, 2026. Please note, there's

07:12already a motion on the floor by council

07:13member Hustus, seconded by council

07:15member Galima to recommend passage of

07:17bill 183 on first reading.

07:20Thank you, Mr. Brown. With that, I'll

07:22open up to uh council. Council members

07:25for comment or uh director, would you

07:29prefer to

07:31present anything before we get into our

07:33deliberation?

07:36>> Uh there is a change. We have introduced

07:39an amendment to the original bill.

07:43>> Hey, one moment. We'll have to

07:45>> if I can make the motion so we can

07:46discuss it.

07:47>> Yeah. Move to amend bill 183 with the

07:50contents of communication 1022.4.

07:55>> It's been moved by council member Inaba

07:57and seconded by council member Onishi.

08:00Council member Inaba.

08:01>> Uh thank you. This is an amendment that

08:04my office prepared alongside council

08:06member Hustus' office and I want to

08:10point out that there is an additional

08:12communication 1022.5.

08:16Uh these This proposed amendment that

08:19we're on 1022.4

08:22is the recommendation of the

08:24administration. So I'll pass it over to

08:27Director Gervin now to walk us through

08:30section one of communication 1022.5

08:34which covers the amendment that's on the

08:37floor.

08:41When we originally introduced the bill,

08:44uh we introduced the bill with a new

08:47class of hotels and uh we thought that

08:50there were some sound reasons for doing

08:52that. Certainly, one of them would be

08:54better business recordkeeping as we went

08:57forward into the future. Uh we have

09:00since decided to change that and we are

09:04now recommending that the uh group what

09:08we were calling hotel be rolled back

09:11into the non-residential group and that

09:14they would be charged as a

09:15non-residential

09:17both the um the fixed charges and the u

09:21and the use charges.

09:25>> Okay. Thank you. With that, um,

09:30any questions, concerns, comments from

09:33council members?

09:36>> If I, if I may, council members,

09:38>> I I would just like a little more on the

09:41ex of an explanation as to the reasoning

09:44behind I I support the amendment, but

09:46I'd like just a little more information

09:48about the department's decision to put

09:51this forward.

09:53Um

09:57the

10:03it's a large enough group that we

10:05thought like keeping use records for the

10:07hotels was a good idea as to how many

10:11hotels we had, how much water they were

10:14using, how much waste water we were

10:16treating for them, uh and and of course

10:18what the revenue was. Um our

10:23consultant uh that did the work for us

10:27uh suggested that we create a new

10:29category hotel and of course that's

10:32their business. So we thought that their

10:35advice was also good advice. And if you

10:38check some of the other counties like

10:40the city and county of Honolulu, they

10:43not only have a hotel category, but then

10:46that category has been subdivided into

10:49hotels with restaurants, hotels without

10:51restaurants, and a number of other

10:53categories.

10:55[clears throat] So it just seemed like

10:57good business

10:59practice for recordkeeping, and it

11:01seemed like a reasonable thing to do.

11:04Um, you know, as we went through with

11:07forward with the process, we had a lot

11:08of hotels that objected to that and, you

11:12know, I understand some of their

11:13concerns also. So, we withded or decided

11:17to withdraw that and roll that back into

11:20being a non-residential.

11:30So the argument in particular that I

11:32recall from the first hearing was that

11:36the

11:39composition of the wastewater coming

11:41from the resorts and hotels is different

11:44and requires more treatment on our part

11:47as part of the justification for having

11:50the separate category. So um because

11:54volume is volume, right? and and I see

11:56no reason to charge hotels more for just

12:00volume. Um but part of the argument was

12:03that it was a different composition. Um

12:06has what has changed with regard to

12:09that?

12:11>> No, it it certainly doesn't change those

12:13numbers, but I think uh at least for the

12:16moment uh it's what we can do. the

12:21increased u concentrations of whatever

12:25in the wastewater uh you we'll have to

12:28deal with that going forward. Keep in

12:30mind that the nonresidential category is

12:35also assumed to have somewhat higher

12:37concentrations. It's not regulated at a

12:40residential level.

12:44>> I I I would there's so many things that

12:46would fall under that category. I think

12:48the the variety of inputs is in

12:51concentration of the inputs is there. I

12:53like I said, I'm going to support this

12:54this amendment. I also kind of

12:56understand what I'm sounds like I'm

12:58hearing is like we're thinking a little

13:00bit about incremental steps here and

13:01this is the one that you feel like you

13:03the department feels like it can make at

13:05this time. It is a step that hasn't been

13:07made in a while.

13:10>> That's okay. Sorry. I'll I'll leave it

13:12there and um I will be in support of the

13:15amendment. Thank you. Council

13:19member Kaggi Water.

13:20>> Thank you, Chair. Um, I just have a

13:22question about the private haulers

13:24discharge fees. Um, up until now,

13:29the three categories,

13:33um, septage and cesspool, portable

13:36toilets, and treatment plant have all

13:38been the same rate.

13:41Um, now you're proposing pretty

13:43different rates for them. So, I'm just

13:45wondering, can you explain a little bit

13:46why you're going from uh rates that were

13:50the same to uh v variant rates on those?

13:55>> Well, pretty much for the same reasons.

13:57Um uh the

14:01it it's an attempt

14:03>> one second, director. Actually, that

14:05information is part of the main bill,

14:07not necessarily part of the amendment.

14:09Yeah.

14:10>> Which which one are we on? Which

14:15All right. This one also has um

14:19variable rates

14:21for those three. So, can I ask it?

14:24>> Go ahead.

14:25>> Okay.

14:27uh actually for for very similar

14:29reasons. The again it's a chance to do

14:33better recordkeeping but also from our

14:37operating experience we've realized that

14:40those different sources have very

14:41different concentrations of waste

14:44material in them u very different

14:47concentrations of solids in them and we

14:50need to learn more about what they are

14:53and what our true processing costs are

14:55for those waste.

14:57>> Okay. Okay. Thank you. I

15:00>> [snorts]

15:00>> Thank you. Let the record show that

15:02council member Cona E. Kleinfelder has

15:04joined us. Council member Onishi.

15:06>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for the

15:08record, with this amendment, you're

15:10eliminating hotels, right?

15:15>> Right. Category and Mike. Yeah.

15:18Basically, but then just for like I said

15:20for the record, but in non-residential,

15:22you're increasing it, right? So, from

15:25like proposed $79 to 81.

15:28>> Yes. a slight

15:30>> so forth and yeah okay so I just wanted

15:32to let people know because we're talking

15:34about taking out the category of hotels

15:36but not saying that there's an increase

15:38in other area

15:40>> okay and I thank you

15:43>> thank you council member onishi council

15:45member Kimble

15:46>> I'm sorry

15:50>> council member onishi

15:52>> are you

15:52>> okay any more questions

15:56none at this point um okay so I'll just

15:58wrap it up on the amendment. Uh

16:02yeah, I have my concerns about

16:05removing hotels and putting them back,

16:08but I also understand the dance you're

16:10having to do. And um I know we have

16:13received a lot of testimony from hotel

16:15years and uh people I know that work in

16:18the hotel industry. So I can appreciate

16:20the dance they have to do. Um being told

16:24to represent their employers. Um,

16:28I myself think there should be uh there

16:31should remain a hotel class. I

16:34appreciate your pointing out this

16:37opportunity for us to move into the 21st

16:39century by

16:43garnering the data for how much

16:45discharge there is related to this had

16:48it been assigned its own specific class.

16:51I think there is precedence in other

16:53counties and so there's wisdom in that

16:55and processes and procedures that

16:56relate. Um but I honor your decision and

17:01thank you council member Inava uh for

17:04taking the initiative. Oh, Onishi.

17:07Oh, Hustus and Yava. Um, for working

17:10with the department and kind of

17:12navigating so much of this job is

17:15dancing on a razor blade over a pool of

17:19we'll call it alcohol right now.

17:21[laughter]

17:22Um, but yeah, I I'm I'm willing to

17:26support this amendment at this time. All

17:28those in favor of amending bill 183 with

17:33the contents of communication 1022.4,

17:37please say I. We have eight eyes and one

17:41absent. Council member Kirkowitz. With

17:44that, we'll bring us back to the main

17:47bill and open it up for

17:50conversation. Council member Hustus.

17:53>> Thanks, Chair. I just want to point back

17:55to uh communication 1022.5

17:59uh in the in the conversation uh that

18:02council member and I had with DEM and

18:04trying to bring you know this forward on

18:06their behalf. Um we had and I mahal to

18:10uh director of finance as well on

18:12presenting some of these figures here

18:14and identifying what would that look

18:16like if we did like a one-year

18:18operational cost recovery from the

18:19get-go. So it it demonstrates instead of

18:22like um kind of a slow staggered scale

18:25up of cost, what would it be from the

18:27from the from year one that change and

18:29kind of shows that that extreme sort of

18:32change there. And then also the other

18:33part of that is uh item three within

18:35that about and this was considering our

18:38capital investment in wastewater as

18:40well. I think that conversation was

18:41carried on previously about what some of

18:43that, you know, assessment would look

18:46like if we insert additional capital

18:48costs to improve the system. Yeah.

18:52>> Thank you, Chair.

18:53>> Thank you, Council Member Hustus.

18:57Anyone else?

18:59Nope. Um, oh, C. Yeah, I turned my head

19:04and you both wait till I turn my head.

19:07No,

19:08>> Council Member Connie E. Kleinfelder,

19:12>> uh, just looking at 1022.5

19:15and I apologize, I was in the bathroom.

19:19Um, 1022.5 is taking into account.

19:26Sorry. A

19:31operation one year operational cost

19:33recovery.

19:35Sorry. Will you break this down? What is

19:36What is this? What am I What am I

19:37looking at here? 1022.5 The

19:39communication from

19:41uh Mr. Director Gervon.

19:47>> I'm sorry. Your question is

19:49>> Yeah. What What What is your

19:51communication? What is What is the point

19:53of this?

19:58>> Kelly Hartman, regulatory administrator.

20:01So, the purpose of this memo was to

20:04provide both the numbers for the

20:07proposed amendment as well as answering

20:09some of the questions that were in the

20:11September 15th meeting. Um,

20:13specifically, uh, council was

20:17wondering what it would cost residents

20:20if we were not to phase in sewer rate

20:24increases over a five-year period and go

20:27straight to one year 100% operational

20:29costs. So that is the Roman numeral two

20:34of this communication. Um Roman numeral

20:37three is what would it look like if the

20:40county invested excuse me if the

20:42residents were to invest in capital

20:46costs. So right now the the rates don't

20:49cover any debt service. And so we

20:52started by looking at okay if we were to

20:54build a a10 $10 million bank gradually

20:58over five years. So, we had a $10

21:00million capital um fund to help with

21:05debt service. What would that look like?

21:07And so, that is what Roman numeral 3 is.

21:10We would have also liked to provide um

21:13another

21:14um example that shows full debt service

21:18coverage and we weren't able to pull

21:20that off before the meeting um today.

21:22That was a significant uh change to our

21:25model. So, that is not provided here.

21:27that you can see what a gradual increase

21:30to a $10 million

21:32um investment would look like. And of

21:35course, the 100% debt service coverage

21:38would be significantly more than that.

21:41>> Why Why is for number three, why is it

21:44$10 million?

21:46>> $10 million was a number that we chose.

21:50We typically request a $10 million

21:54capital line item just for maintenance

21:57repairs um in our CIP budget. So it was

22:00a starting place

22:02but we could run it for you know

22:06anything with with enough time to do

22:08that.

22:09>> So the 10 million would potentially

22:11cover you for your CIP needs as well. Is

22:14that

22:14>> No, it would not cover 100% of the debt

22:18service. um that wastewater requests and

22:22that number is

22:24significantly higher annually and varies

22:27as well.

22:40I don't know if you know this, but your

22:42first the the budget numbers you're

22:44basing off of. I actually made this

22:46chart a long time ago.

22:49I think they gave it to me cuz I'm from

22:50Puna and I don't have anybody on county

22:52water in my district. So I got to do it

22:54with Doacharski

22:56or whatever is that worth

22:59[laughter]

23:01you for now. Thank you.

23:04>> Thank you council member Kleinfelter.

23:07Council member Onishi.

23:08>> Thank you madam chair. [clears throat]

23:10Okay so

23:13I guess two questions. The first one is

23:17are you folks required by

23:21EPA to come up with this scale of

23:25increases of rates right

23:28for the future of being self-

23:30sustainable.

23:34Uh the answer is yes to the second part

23:36of your question. We are required to be

23:39self- sustaining

23:41how we do it. We have some freedom

23:44there.

23:44>> Okay.

23:45>> But we are required to be self-

23:46sustaining.

23:47>> And what's the deadline?

23:54>> Kelly Hartman, regulatory administrator.

23:56So it is um federal and state law that

23:58the department operate self fund our

24:03operations and be self- sustaining. We

24:06do have some

24:09help from the administrative order on

24:12consent which is stepping us through

24:15this process. And so we are required to

24:18submit a finan a draft financial plan by

24:23summer 2027 explaining how the county

24:26intends to get to that point. So we we

24:29have a bit of coverage um that protects

24:32us through the AOC.

24:33>> But then my question is so when is

24:36when when is it required for you guys to

24:37be 100%

24:40self sustainable?

24:43>> Um I think the answer to your question

24:45would be when that financial plan that

24:48final financial plan is due to the EPA

24:52um in 2028. I think that's the best

24:54answer to your question.

24:55>> Okay. And will that also include where

24:58CIP projects also going to have to be

25:00included in that or that's separate? So

25:02under state and federal law only

25:05operations is required to be self-

25:09sustaining. It does and replacements.

25:13It doesn't specifically spell out

25:15capital um budgeting as as well. So we

25:20do have some um leeway there for how

25:24that is done. But we do need to be able

25:26to operate and maintain our

25:28infrastructure. We are required to do

25:29that.

25:30>> [clears throat]

25:30>> And my last question is, and I've asked

25:32this before, with this rate increases

25:35for the next five years, right? Have you

25:38folks included in future growth

25:43into this plan?

25:47>> Uh, future growth to operating costs.

25:50>> Yes. Well, future growth into getting

25:53more users online.

25:57If those increase in users require a

26:00large capital investment then no.

26:05>> So there's no like future

26:09go ahead

26:11>> Kelly Hartman regulatory administrator.

26:13So the the model assumes

26:17what our typical growth which is 1%.

26:20>> Right.

26:20>> So we assume that the county is going to

26:22extend its service 1%.

26:24>> Okay. Yeah. And so because remember at

26:26the last meeting I mentioned about if

26:29it's status quo for the five years right

26:33on what you folks basing this increases

26:35on and say two years from now we get

26:39some we find some money you folks

26:41increase sewer lines in certain areas

26:45now that's added users right which added

26:47income so so for what I was concerned is

26:51that having that calculated

26:55within this use because then it's like

26:58whatever like I said 14,000 plus maybe

27:01users right and you going base

27:03everything off of them for five years

27:06right and say you added another 5,000

27:09right what you projected here is not

27:12going to include that 5,000 so that's

27:14like extra revenue I mean it's going to

27:17get expenses going to come higher but

27:19it's not calculated in this Right.

27:24>> Keep in mind that if we have cor

27:27calculated the rate structure correctly

27:30that our mandate is to cover our

27:33operating costs,

27:35>> not make money.

27:36>> Correct.

27:37>> So if we were to pick up another 1,000

27:41users, we would have the monthly revenue

27:45from those 10,000 users.

27:46>> Correct.

27:47>> But we would also have the monthly

27:49wastewater.

27:51>> Correct. those 10,000 users, which would

27:53add to our operating cost. And if we

27:57done our if we done our RA structure

27:59correctly, they should be close to

28:02balance.

28:02>> Yeah. But then your employees, your

28:04staffing going kind of stay the same.

28:07>> Not necessarily.

28:09>> If that's if you guys can hire, right?

28:11But then if it stays the same,

28:14then that extra

28:16of that savings, right? Would you reduce

28:19the rates for future use? Well,

28:25keep in mind that as we

28:28finish the restoration of the Hilo plant

28:33that that whole plan includes additional

28:37employees, right?

28:38>> More than we have there today.

28:40>> Correct.

28:41>> There will be more equipment, more

28:43systems to operate. So we will for sure

28:48be adding to the number of wastewater

28:51treatment plant operators that we have.

28:53>> Right. But as Utsuka had mentioned being

28:56a former commissioner for DEM

29:00and

29:02I've seen where you folks are

29:03short-handed anyway. So you folks have

29:06this extra wages and salaries that you

29:09guys are not spending right now. Right.

29:11And so once you get up to par then you

29:15go you might have to add more positions.

29:17Right.

29:19>> Well that's true. And the other

29:21advantage to getting up to par is our

29:24overtime budget diminishes dramatically.

29:26>> Yeah. And that's true. That's true.

29:28>> And I'm seeing that in our in our

29:30monthly budgets already.

29:32>> Okay.

29:33>> Because we're able to bring more people

29:34in. But [clears throat] ultimately

29:39uh bringing in let's say 1,000

29:41additional users will bring in 1,000

29:45users more water,

29:46>> right?

29:47>> Which will definitely increase our

29:49operating costs, electricity, chemicals,

29:53maintenance,

29:53>> right? But then also with this

29:56increases,

29:57wages and salaries is also included,

29:59right? But then like I say, but if you

30:01if your staff stays like you know at

30:05that certain level

30:07that extra that you don't have to pay

30:09for salaries and wages can go back right

30:13>> if if there's extra yes it could go back

30:15>> and that's why I'm saying so with with

30:18that being said would then you come back

30:20to reduce the rates say on the

30:22residential area

30:26>> we would I I guess we'd have to wait a

30:30few years and redo this whole analysis

30:34all over again and see where we are.

30:36>> Okay.

30:37>> Okay.

30:38>> Agreed. That was the point of clarity I

30:40was going to jump in and say is it's

30:41best practice to revisit these rate

30:44studies every you know three to five

30:46years. So if we were to come back to

30:48this and redo the analysis and

30:51conditions change you know it would be

30:54possible to shift rates. I don't know if

30:57they would go up or down depending on

30:58those conditions. Um the other point I

31:01wanted to make in regards to staffing is

31:05this um sewer rate analysis also assumes

31:09that we have a hard time with full

31:11staffing. So we are there is a 15% under

31:15staffing factor already provided in this

31:17analysis because of those known

31:19challenges.

31:20>> Okay. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. I

31:22yield right now.

31:24Thank you, Council Member Onishi. Coming

31:27back to Council Member Connie E.

31:28Kleinfelder.

31:29>> Thank you. Did you guys look into Last

31:31time I asked about your actuals because

31:34the actuals you presented in your budget

31:37versus what you are projecting to match

31:39with the rate increase was really off.

31:42Did you figure out what happened there?

31:44Robin was on vacation.

31:47>> Oh, Robin is off vacation. Um,

31:50>> she's still on vacation.

31:52Say again.

31:53>> She's still on vacation.

31:54>> No, she is back from vacation.

31:55>> Oh, she's back from vacation.

31:57>> I think at the time I was assuming

32:01that um the earlier number was from an

32:04earlier way we kept the budget and the

32:06later number was from a different time

32:08on how we kept the budget. Oh, I'm

32:10sorry. I didn't research that, but I can

32:15>> I can provide just a little bit more

32:17clarity. not full clarity but um I did

32:20confirm um that that was at the time

32:24where the rate study was being drafted

32:26that was the budget for that year. So

32:29the

32:31you know you had a question about

32:33whether or not our um revenue was it you

32:36know slightly inflated that but it was

32:39what was provided in the budget that

32:41year.

32:42>> It it wasn't I don't think it was at

32:43your revenue because I don't have that

32:44whatever I had before I don't have it

32:46right now but I

32:48Yeah, it was that thick thing right

32:50there.

32:51>> Um, it was the it was your expenses

32:56that looked under

32:59which was worrying me because the

33:01projected rate increases were to meet

33:04your expected expenditures,

33:07but your expenditures look like they

33:08were less than they should be. No. Is

33:11that right?

33:20Your expenditures look like they were

33:21coming in

33:26on the low end

33:29and then your revenues you're hoping to

33:31make up were meeting that low expense

33:38threshold and because of that you're

33:41looking to increase your rates and

33:43thinking about this document that you

33:45give us 1022.5.

33:48My concern then is

33:51even with these rates here meeting your

33:54$10 million

33:55capital fund, the projected rates,

34:00if your expenses are off that gave us

34:02the numbers that you're basing your rate

34:04study on, and then you we pass it and

34:07you come back in in a year and go,

34:08"Shoot, we're way off the mark. We got

34:10to increase it again." and you haven't

34:12thought that through and you're assuming

34:14that that's the right budget, then

34:16that's a big concern that the body

34:18should think about before we pass a bill

34:20that isn't going to do what you guys

34:22need it to do.

34:24>> Does that make sense?

34:25>> It does. Thank you for the

34:27clarification. Um so just like there's

34:30an underhiring assumption in the

34:33analysis there's also an under spend

34:36assumption in the analysis and that is

34:393%.

34:41>> Under spend on from the department

34:43>> correct

34:45>> and that's assuming no no moves towards

34:49capital investments or one-year

34:52operational cost recovery.

34:55>> That's just that's status quo, right?

34:56>> Correct. Yeah.

35:02So, I had this beautiful moment last

35:03week where I realized council wasn't

35:05last week, it was this week.

35:08But that also means you had two extra

35:10weeks or another extra week to come back

35:12with all this information for us. So,

35:15we'd have it for discussion. So, I

35:17appreciate this. This is nice to see

35:19because this actually gives me a clear

35:21picture on

35:23what we should be charging.

35:26Um, but I'm still concerned about under

35:29reportporting expenses and then giving

35:31us information

35:35that says

35:37we'll meet the expectations of our under

35:39reportported expenses. Um, but you

35:42should keep in mind that we actually

35:43need to be way over that to meet our

35:46actual operational costs which includes

35:48your capital investments,

35:51not just status quo of what it is right

35:54now.

35:56director

36:02and Robin's back from vacation.

36:06Do you know? Never mind. Never mind. I

36:08chair.

36:10>> Okay. Council member Connie Lee

36:12Kleinfelder.

36:14>> Oh, council member.

36:19>> Enabo.

36:19>> Thank you.

36:21You know, I just want to say that these

36:23things,

36:25sewer rate changes, we don't do them a

36:27lot, but it shouldn't have been this

36:29hard.

36:30This is our third committee meeting, and

36:33we're getting communications

36:36on the day of the meeting. And council

36:38member Conclifer pointed out, we've had

36:42three weeks. That's an extra week than

36:44we normally have between our meetings.

36:46So, as we move forward, it

36:50This can't happen like this.

37:03Are we going to try what what are we

37:05going to do differently? We're just

37:07staring at me right now. So, I'm going

37:08to ask you.

37:11>> I think we answered questions as they

37:15were raised. Um the

37:19concern about the

37:21creation of the hotel category certainly

37:25confused everything for a couple of

37:28weeks. Uh there were a lot of questions

37:30asked about how to handle the hotel

37:32category.

37:34you know, that slowed some things down.

37:43When we're dealing with things that are

37:45complicated, I would recommend that the

37:47department moving forward reach out to

37:49council members individually so that we

37:51can try and address things in between

37:54our meetings because this has been a

37:57waste of county resources, time, energy,

38:00and money having three committee

38:02hearings and we still need to get

38:03through council two more hearings.

38:05That's all I'm going to say.

38:11Council member Hustus.

38:13>> Thank you, Chair. Just a question on uh

38:15procedure. Does this measure need to go

38:18down to the Environmental Management

38:20Commission before being approved by this

38:23body?

38:25So, the motion should be then to go to

38:28the EMC. Correct.

38:30>> Okay. From committee. Okay.

38:34>> Thank you, Council Member Eustace. Um

38:36Mr. Brown. Can that be corrected on the

38:39record?

38:42>> I'm looking at our corporation council,

38:43but I concur with that that it needs to

38:46be referred to the commission.

38:48>> Right.

38:50>> Mr. Clerk, I I believe we can have a

38:51motion on the floor to forward, but then

38:54a second motion to then forward it to

38:56commission that it comes back to us

38:57still under that motion.

38:58>> Yes. So, the main motion is on the floor

39:00as a you can make a motion now to refer.

39:03Yes.

39:05Chair, I'll make a motion to refer to

39:07bill 183 to the Environmental Management

39:10Commission.

39:12>> It's been moved by Council Member Kimell

39:14and seconded by Council Member Galima.

39:17All those in favor,

39:23you're done. [laughter]

39:28>> She's already made the motion

39:30of this discussion.

39:33>> Okay.

39:36So [laughter]

39:38what I what I just heard Mr. Knob ask

39:40you some questions and what I heard was

39:41your response was I answered all your

39:43questions. So I think I need to make a

39:45statement that forms as a question

39:48before you come back to council next

39:50time. Can you bring us information that

39:52we've requested at this time

39:55and can you please bring us your actual

39:58expenses with an estimate of what your

40:01wastewater rates will cover and in the

40:04same form that you just did. I want to

40:05be really clear because I feel like it's

40:07almost like a game. We ask questions but

40:11then we kind of get the information back

40:14and we keep pegging along here. So let's

40:16I'm being direct. I think that's that's

40:18important here.

40:20um actual expenses, actual revenue,

40:25revenue that's projected, and then that

40:28information along with the EMC

40:31discussion will give us good grounds and

40:33you're going to get a whole new council

40:34with four new council members giving you

40:36all brand new votes by then. So, I look

40:38forward to seeing what they do with it.

40:40But for now, I think that information

40:42will be really helpful before we forward

40:44it to the Environmental Management

40:45Commission. Thank you for making that

40:47motion.

40:48Is that is that is that clear director?

40:51>> That is clear.

40:52>> Okay. Beautiful. Thank you, Kelly. Thank

40:53you, director.

40:55>> Thank you, Mr. Connelly Kleinfelder. Mr.

41:00Enaba.

41:01>> Yeah. I just want to make it clear your

41:04office as chair of this committee is

41:06responsible for drafting the letter and

41:08transmitting this to the Environmental

41:10Management Commission for their review.

41:12Thank you.

41:12>> Okay. Thank you.

41:16So now that it's clear as wastewater

41:18where we are in the process of

41:22R2. Yeah. Barely. It's just Yeah. Mr.

41:26Clerk, could you help me understand

41:28where I am in the process of the motion

41:30that was made to

41:33>> Okay, now we're Okay.

41:37Okay. All those in favor?

41:41>> Awesome. We have eight eyes and no nos

41:45with one council member absent. Council

41:48member Kirkowitz.

41:51And for the record, this was to refer

41:53bill 183 to the Environmental Management

41:55Commission and the director.

41:58>> Perfect.

42:00Don't tell me to say motion carries. Oh,

42:02motion carries.

42:08the look of this day. With that, I see

42:10no other business on

42:16>> motion to postpone.

42:18>> Okay. Sorry. Thank you.

42:34>> Okay. Mr. Anaba.

42:37I'm not sure if we want to postpone if

42:39we just want to move it along to second

42:41and final

42:47yield to see what the body is like

42:49doing.

42:50>> Okay, Council Member Kagi.

42:52>> Thank you. I would I would like to move

42:54it along um just because I don't want us

42:57to get in the place where we do um like

43:00in the middle of this whole process have

43:02to start all over with the new council.

43:05So, I'd like I prefer to move it along

43:07and then just hold it till we're ready

43:08to to go, I guess. Um, that's my

43:11preference. I yield.

43:12>> Okay. Council member

43:16>> Hust. Thanks, Chair. But the um the

43:19delay in terms of submitting to the EMC

43:21their feedback and turnaround to back to

43:24us,

43:25it could be a little while. So, it it's

43:28undetermined on when that that uh

43:31message report feedback comes from the

43:33EMC to us. So it it's hard to say when

43:35that will be.

43:38>> If if I may, I suggest a motion to

43:40postpone to the call of the chair.

43:44>> It's been

43:46moved by council member Kimble and

43:48seconded by council member Enaba. All

43:50those in favor in postponing bill 183 to

43:54the call of the chair, please say I. We

43:57have eight eyes.

44:01>> Do we need to do a roll call?

44:05Okay. Anyone opposed?

44:10>> Okay. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Clerk,

44:13on the motion to postpone bill 183 to

44:16the call of the chair, Miss Kimba.

44:19>> No.

44:20>> Mr. Eustace.

44:21>> Hi.

44:22>> Mr. Inaba.

44:23>> Hi.

44:24>> Miss Kagi.

44:25>> No.

44:26>> Mr. Kindly Kleinfelder.

44:27>> Hi.

44:28>> Miss Kirkowitz. Hi. Miss Kimble.

44:31>> Hi.

44:32>> Mr. Onishi. Hi.

44:33Chair Viegas.

44:34>> Hi.

44:35>> Chair, you have you have six votes in

44:38favor, two nos. Miss Kima, Miss

44:40Kagiwada, with Miss Kirkitz being

44:42absent. The motion carries.

44:45>> Thank you. And that wraps us up.

44:48Correct. Fantastic. Thank you,

44:51professional clerks. Robert's rules

44:54experts.

44:55Uh seeing that we have no other business

44:57today in this committee, our committee

44:59is now adjourned at 3:39 p.m.

```*