16 Budget and Finance Committee - Regular Meeting

you

you

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Budget, Finance, Economic Development Committee meeting. It is now 9.03 a.m. and I'm going to be calling out, make sure we have quorum, but just for the people in the audience, this is gonna be a short meeting for BFED and then I'm gonna recess and call back my meeting at 11 o'clock for the training that is gonna happen during this recess period. So thank you everybody who is here and who is taking the training because i think it's an important important thing so this time then my name is yuki lei sugimura i'm the chair of the budget finance economic development committee and i'd like to welcome members that i see here member gabe johnson good morning good morning chair council members community members there's no testifiers here at the lanai district office i'm alone on my side of the office and ready to work and take a recess thank you yeah take a recess a good morning member uh

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, everyone. I'm also at my private residence. I have my husband here and three children.

Oh, wonderful. Member Cook, good morning.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, all. I am in my council office and looking forward to today's training. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Member Sinensi, good morning.

Hello and good morning, Chair. Here at my home office, here by myself, and there's no testifiers in our recess.

Yes, for this recess meeting, fastest meeting. All right, so I am, we will take up the agenda that we had planned for on June 16th and we had to recess the meeting because we're having technical difficulties. So this is a recess meeting and we will call this meeting back again at 11 o'clock. Would that be enough time for the training? Okay, same channel, same location. Check your agenda for the logon, but at this time, this meeting is now in recess. Good morning, everybody. Welcome back to the Budget, Finance, Economic Development Committee. It is June 24th. The time is 1102 a.m. And so this is a recess meeting from this morning or from the 16th to this morning. And then we recessed again to accommodate a meeting that was happening with staff. So we're back. This meeting is being conducted in accordance with the Sunshine Law, and as a reminder, where your name is called, if you're not in the council chambers, please identify by name who, if anyone, is in the room, vehicle, or workspace with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. Good morning, Vice Chair Patongan. Morning, Chair. Morning, members. Good morning. Good morning, Member Cook. Aloha. Good morning. Aloha. And Member Johnson on Lanai, good morning.

Good morning, Chair. I'm alone on my side of the office and there aren't any test buyers here to ready work. Thank you.

Great. Okay. Chair Lee is excused. I don't see her, right? Okay. Member Paulton is excused. Member Rollins-Fernandez is excused. Member Sinensi, good morning.

Chair, good morning. You're at my home office and here by myself.

Okay, good morning. Member Ohaja, yeah, she's joining us, I see. Okay, so assisting us with today's meeting on the BFET agenda, our staff, and also we have invited resource persons from the administration, which include the budget director who's here with us today, the Director of Finance, Chief of Staff, and Deputy Corporation Counsel Wigglesworth. Please see the last page of the agenda for information on meeting connectivity. We have two items on the agenda, which is BFED 61, Resolutions 26-100, authorizing a tax exempt lease purchase agreement with TD Equipment Finance Inc. for the Johnson Controls Inc. Energy Performance Contract and BFED 58 Bill 73-2026 amending section 3.36.020 Maui County Code on reviewing the Maui County Grants Program. Do we have any testifiers? We do, okay. So members, people who are here to testify, you can sign up in the lobby or online to join the meeting via Teams link. or call in on the phone number noted on today's agenda. Written testimony is encouraged and can be submitted via e-comment link at MauiCounty.us backslash agendas as well. Under the Sunshine Law, the Chair will receive oral testimony for agenda items at the beginning of the meeting or when the item is called up. For individuals wishing to testify via Teams, please raise your hand by clicking on the raise your hand button. If calling in, please follow the prompts via phone star five, to raise or lower your hand and star six to mute and unmute. Staff will add names to the testifier list in the order testifiers sign up or raise their hands. For those on teams, staff will lower your hand once your name is added. Staff will then call the name you logged in under or the last four digits of your phone number when it's your time to testify. At that time, staff will also enable your microphone and video. Please ensure your name appears on the Microsoft Teams as a name you prefer to be referred to, or as anonymous if you wish to testify anonymously. If you're in person, please notify staff that you would like to testify anonymously. Otherwise, please state your name for the record at the beginning of the testimony. Oral testimony is limited to three minutes per item, and if you're still testifying, Beyond that time, I will kindly ask you to contemplate your testimony. Once you are done testifying or if you do not wish to testify, you can also view the meeting on Akaku Channel 53 and Facebook Live or MauiCounty.us backslash agendas. We will do our best to take each person up in an orderly fashion. Will you please call up the first testifier for the beginning of the meeting?

Thank you chair. Currently we have one person signed up to testify. That is kind Miley market cow. If you could please approach the testifier stand.

Okay. This market call first testifier.

All right.

Oops.

Aloha.

Aloha.

Is all the county council members here?

Yes. Who's the one that took the seat of Kama? Aloha. I'm Karmai Lee. You'll probably be seeing me here. This is my 452nd meeting. Okay. Are we starting yet? Yes, okay. Aloha, my name is Karmaili Mokekau. I'm the freeholder and last of the true Crown Monarch property title deeds. I want a civil supreme court judgment on a civil supreme judgment against Maui Land and Pine, Kapalua Land Company, and the property of and any entity or asset or fund of finance, I'll be speaking on all agendas. FYI, there are 3,500,000 shares of capital stock. Each share is $20 trillion each. Ms. Makikawa. Yes.

We are not talking about that. We have agenda items which are posted.

Agenda, yes. This is for the finance. For Johnson? Yes, this is okay. I'll just read what the paper says. There is a terms and condition contract, so I refuse and I oppose and I will not be allowing to be adopted. And is there anyone that can tell me, when you adopt the freeholder, what does that entail? Because you cannot entail, it says, that witness that said grantor in consideration of 3,500,000 shares of capital stock of the grantee paid by the grantee receipt whereof is so of knowledge does hereby give power to grant, bargain, sell, convey, and to sold grantees, his heirs or assignees, all of lot numbers of 1 to 100, that would involve the 26 to 100, also commonly known as the Mountain View Tract, situate of the Maukai side of the main road leading to Wailuku all the way to Honokahao. It's Lele 4. It says, And this is coming from international law that also coincides with our Hawaii Revised status. In parallel case communicating with the world global court banking system, Owen Stoltenberg planned to partition the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was concluded by means of threats and duress, compulsion and coercion. It was therefore invalid under international law and Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, Our Queen, Liliuokalani, a very powerful person preserving the rights of her people under duress, she committed an act now seen as under extreme duress. The law goes on with the Congress admitting that without the active support and intervention by the United States, the insurrection would have failed for lack of popular support and insufficient arms. This is exactly what's happening again 100 years later. The same family I come from, the family, my great-great-grandparents who gave the Pioneer Mill the lease, of which these assets of the Johnson that you guys are asking to adopt me so that you can be the sole heir to converge on these assets. So I will be holding for damage is what it says in the international courts and in a civil supreme court crown judgment that was made in 2007 if at any time there is an encroachment or anyone contests or goes against this hundred percent civil supreme crown court judgment the occupation only entitled to no legal valid validity at all at the time and is not now or ever that is basically what Congress is The Blount report states the military representatives have abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government. Again, this is a further admission that the United States acted illegally under international law and against Hawaii revised status. The implication thereof of you adopting me, what does that even entail? taking away my voice of the power and the voice of the freeholder, the person who won after 129 years this seat that has literally been seen through almost all of your eyes. I've done more environmental impact study statements that could have prevented even that fire. Or how about my fuel cell coagulation system where we could have had a beautiful waste management system that drops sewage sludge down to 80% moisture plank, takes all our garbage that's flying in our nose and ears and collecting methane underneath, putting it in a fuel cell coagulation system, dropping it, making the most profound carbon. pressing out that carbon and making us carbon air filters that makes us negative emissions, negative greenhouse gases. But you guys disregarded my report again. And what happened? You decided to flood the Hawaiians' crops adjacent to the sewage plant in Kaanapali. Now there are sprinkler systems of R1, R2 sewage sludge. all over the top of the valley of which I grow kalo, which is a federally protected law that you cannot have sewage flowing to kalo. But it did. Also, the federally protected bird sanctuary at Kanaha, instead of you guys doing a fuel cell coagulation that could have cleaned our island up, what happened? You decided to backtrack it into our federally protected bird sanctuary. mismanaged resources devastates all mankind for all Hawaii and all the world. Our coral reef give more oxygen to our atmosphere than the trees alone. The amount of disregard from you and your teams against me for many, many things, but the most devastating is the report through Aina Archaeology three weeks and two days before the fire. Now, I only humbly ask to do a silent arbitration between the mayor and any other third-party entity who would like to be a yin with my yan, or I can converge and sell these exchanges of stock. I would love to work with you. Ms. Yukile, when I called you, it's because I see when Manawahine Mr. Johnson, when I look at you, you're the protector of the shareholders of my surfers that take care of me. You represent HTA and all my super huis. I don't know the rest of you mostly, but I know a lot of you on TV. I fight for all of you, even whether you like me or not. I've never taken a dollar, and everything I've ever worked on is for everybody. Thank you.

Please complete your testimony.

Okay, I'll start it off with what it says. Oh wait, we gave you six minutes. Subscribe such shares to be paid for by leases, assignment and agreement for any supplemental affidavit of officers of the new Pioneer Mill code of the LTD of the certificate of merger between Amtrak, Northbrook Corporation or any entity connected to the Pioneer Mill lease. Any assets of 3,500,000 shares of capital stock shall be through me. And I'm not the person that wants to control these assets. But there's no eminent domain. There's just disregard. That's why I will have to share and sell my shares of capital stock. Or you guys can help me. Because my son and I still are kept from each other. I don't know if he's dead or alive. Recess, one minute, 11.17.

When are you... Welcome back to the Budget, Finance, Economic Development Committee. It is now 1119, and that testifier has completed testimony and is not in the chambers anymore. But do we have another testifier? Looks like we do, yeah. Please call up the next testifier.

Thank you, Chair. The next person signed up to testify is Jim Langford, followed by the representative of the Royal Patented Kingdom. Please be prepared. Mr. Langford, you can begin your testimony. Thank you.

Aloha. I was very interested in what the last person was saying, so if they could maintain their composure, I was going to yield time to them, but you've got to be able to show respect. I completely understand that, so I apologize. I'm really excited on what you folks are working on, and I'm going to defer my time to the next testifier. Thank you.

No, okay. You're not testifying. Next testifier.

Thank you, Chair. The next testifier is the representative of the Royal Patented Kingdom. You can be your testimony.

Aloha. I'm here to represent the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands. I believe our landholders and the descendants of our landholders should should be treated with respect not with that highly that was highly disrespectful of whoever had made the decision to remove the testifier without their consent because that is a violation on an international level because you should not be able to move and remove any kanaka maoli off of any kind of land and that was very disrespectful um she came and really very respectful and um and yeah that is a violation on international level again and um Yeah, return the lands and the monies back to the Ohana because they clearly have came up and you have forcibly removed them for trying to explain. And that is highly a violation on the international level that is so highly disrespectful. And as another landholder descended, I request that you guys give back the lands and the assets and everything like that back to the Ohana, as it should, because it's all fraud that you guys are doing. That's disrespectful. Doing fraud on somebody's royal, patented, Elodio-titled land, that is very disrespectful and unlawful, actually. And then to remove them for explaining their side that supersedes your side, oh, my God, that is so disrespectful. and um yeah and again return the lines mahalo okay any questions for the testifier see none next i have a question um well um can you return the royal patent a lot of titled lands and assets back to the ohana mahalo thank you um next testifier

Thank you, Chair. There is no one else currently assigned to testify. However, if you would like to testify in the chamber, please approach the testifier stand or raise your hand on teams and we will call you up. Final countdown here for testifiers. Three, two, one. Chair Seen, no one further wishes to testify.

Thank you very much. Could you do a last call for a public testimony?

Thank you, this is the last call for public testimony. If you'd like to testify, please raise your hand on teams or approach the testifiers standing here in the chamber. Last call countdown, three, two, one. Chair, seeing none, no one else would like to testify.

Thank you. Members, with your permission, I'm gonna close public testimony at the beginning of the meeting and receive written testimony, of course. So I'm gonna ask for opening comments again. We'll start from the beginning with Chief of Staff.

uh regarding the johnson control uh contract is is miss lalawan oh she is okay good thank you chair um we have no uh sorry we have no opening comments um but are available um as a resource thank you okay uh miss milner

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Members. Yes, I think the only thing I'd like to add, because I know we talked about some of this in our 7B presentation the other day, but I would like to request an amendment to the resolution, which I believe we have discussed. But I'd just like to ask that we add up to before the dollar amount, because as you're aware with Phase 1, there were some necessities we needed to adjust the scope a little bit, so the cost ended up coming in lower than anticipated. So I'd just like to request up to allow that flexibility, but we will not go over the amount in the resolution. Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, so we have an ASF to reflect your request. Members, I have been reminded that I didn't introduce this item But anyway, here we go. BFED 61 Resolutions 26-100, authorizing a tax exempt lease purchase agreement with TD Equipment Finance, Inc. for the Johnson Controls, Inc. energy performance contract. All right, so here we are continuing. Does Finance have any opening comments?

Finance does not have any opening comments, but we are here to answer questions if needed. Thank you.

Okay, great. Great. We have member Woo Ha Jin walking in. Thank you very much. So at this point then, on today's agenda, the proposed cost is $9,021,259 plus interest at a rate of 4.49%. And the committee previously discussed the Johnson Controls Inc. energy performance contract on June the 2nd. And today's item is a proposed resolution authorizing the lease purchase agreement for phase three. If you have any questions you can I'm sorry if you have a look on granite kiss Number three for the amendment summary form for this item that can be found There and to address what miss Milner talked about in terms of change of language So the proposed cd1 version was requested by the budget director and and she further explained. Does anybody have questions for the budget director, finance director, or chief of staff regarding this Johnson Control? Oh, we gotta take testimony again, okay. Sorry, testimony again. Do we have any testifiers?

Thank you, Chair. We currently have one member signed up, or one person signed up to testify on this item, the representative of the Royal Panhandle Kingdom. If you could please begin your testimony.

Okay, great, thank you.

Aloha, this is a representative of this Royal Patented Allodial Title Kingdom domain. And, um... I just heard an energy contract. No, none of us descendants of the royal patented lands, of all the lands of Hawaii, do not approve, do not allow this kind of contract because I'm just hoping it's not for geothermal, number one. Number two, again, even if it is for geothermal or if it's not, we do not approve, period, point blank, period. um because like but yeah no it's a no big no we do not approve all the descendants that represent all the descendants of koa wai pai aina and we do not approve and we do not allow and we do not consent to any of this energy kind stuff um and it's highly illegal to make a decision on our behalf because we do not we do not know we don't we don't allow this we yeah none of it and um even for other energy places now these days um it was illegal for them to even build any kind of energy place in the first place but did they ask any of us descendants of the royal patents all the royal patents and the specific areas of that area and place will, and how, where, like, yeah, we do not approve number one period again. That's all I gotta say. Mahalo.

Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? See none. Next testifier.

Thank you, Chair. Next testifier signed up is Jim Langford. If you could please begin your testimony, Mr. Langford.

Mr. Langford.

Mr. Langford, you should be able to begin your testimony now, thank you.

Thank you for that. On the Johnson controls stuff, I just want to say I've been running audits for decades and stuff. So there are some things that you guys may want to look at as council people, you know, just to protect yourself and the community. uh relationships um and uh potentially some of you may want to recuse some votes from the today and every day you guys are going to need to start looking at that uh that's my testimony i re uh reserve my time for uh the woman that was testimony testifying so that she didn't get escalated into anger if that ever comes around again thank you ma'am hello thank you any questions

Any questions? Any questions for the testifier?

Hey, one more thing. I have a thing that listens to you guys real time and can give you all the data and the information that you need. Kind of like your own auditing corporate counsel. It's awesome. So I would love to show that to you at coffee over at the place with the guitars. When you guys have a break, I'm going there. All right. I love you.

Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Oh, he's gone. Okay, next testifier.

Thank you, Chair. There is no one else currently signed up to testify. Would you like me to do a last call on this item? Yes, please. Thank you. If anyone else would like to testify on this item, please approach the testifier stand in the chamber or raise your hand on teams, and we will call you up. This is the last call. Three, two, one. Chair, seeing none, no one else would like to testify on this item.

Thank you very much. All right, so members, I'm going to receive public testimony and close public testimony on this item. So if members have questions on this, I will start off with Member Botongan and go down. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Maybe this is a question for the budget director. But why is it a tax exempt lease purchase when the proposed activities are not, they don't seem like lease,

Thank You chair Thank You councilmember but Tonkin and I will see if finance has anything to add but my understanding is this is a lease purchase because every year the payment is authorized in the budget and if for some reason the council chooses not to move forward with it we're leasing that equipment for the duration of the agreement and so the financer has the option to come in and remove it if the financing is not approved so what would the removal of say a well or a roof upgrade look like Thank you, Chair. Director Martin, do you have any information on that part of this, or should we defer to Corp Council?

We can defer to Corporation Council, thank you.

Ms. Wiggleworth.

Sorry. Thank you for that question. I think we need more time to look at that, and so if you could put that in writing, we can get back to you as soon as possible.

Thank you, so I guess staff, the question is why is it, so the funding proposal for phase three is to include irrigation controls, window film, roof upgrades, electrical service upgrades, and the wells. If we are entering into a lease agreement and the lease is, and that is set up so that if we don't move forward with, I don't know, the contract in its entirety, that the contractor can then remove them, what does removal of irrigation controls, window film, roof upgrades, electrical service upgrades and wells look like for our county facility? And who would then pay for that?

I can answer part of that, Chair. Thank you, and thank you, Council Member Patonga. Yes, if we chose not to proceed with the TELP over the course of the repayment and they did come in and take those things away, it would be the county's responsibility to then pay to replace those. I mean, window film, maybe we would choose not to replace window film, but a roof. Obviously, that's a different discussion. I know we did have a lot of discussion with JCI and with the bank about what qualified because it does need to be something that down the road would be removable if for some reason financing was not approved.

Okay. And so help me understand how this phase three works. Because I wasn't here when you guys gave your initial presentation to the body, but I was here when the initial Johnson Controls contract was pitched to the county. And my understanding was that all of the upgrades would be paid for through operational savings. So the the money that is being directed for phase three, it doesn't sound like that's coming from operational savings.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Patong. Yes, it would still come from operational savings. It would be the same as the terms of the first agreement. They are required to guarantee that they will save us as much as we are paying on those annual payments every year. If for some reason they do not provide the savings they've guaranteed, JCI has to cut the county a check to pay for the difference.

Okay, so it's not coming from the line items that would normally pay for, I don't know, water because it's a well or electricity because it's electrical improvements. These are being paid for through a lump sum to the contract rather than from the operational line items that the savings are gonna be recognized in.

Thank you, Chair. No, it would be recognized across those savings. So every year, JCI does a measurement and verification analysis to show that they have achieved the savings that were guaranteed. We are currently going through the third party audit for phase one of that first year measurement and verification to verify for the county that they have provided the savings they stated they would provide.

Okay, but the bill before us is just to authorize the county to enter into this agreement. So I'm not seeing the line item savings because this is not the budget amendment for it.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Yes, you won't see any payments or any savings until at least fiscal year 28 once the work has been completed.

I see. Okay. Thank you.

You're done. Thank you. I guess we will go to Member Johnson. Questions?

Thank you, Chair. Council Member Bichon clarified some of my questions that I was going to ask. Oh, but it just goes back to the idea of it's not signed off by Ms. Wigglesworth, Corporation Council, and it's not signed off by the introducer. Do you guys want to address that?

Ms. Wigglesworth.

Thank you, Chair. I thought this had been signed by Corporation Council, and I know they've also signed off on the proposed amendment.

The amendment, I should say?

Oh, okay. There's a second amendment in Granica's correspondence from Corporation Council that makes an additional revision to the proposed amendment, and that one is signed by Deputy Riggle-Woodsworth.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. Thank you, Chair. No further questions.

Thank you. Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. Budget director, could you refresh my memory? So this is the third phase. How much was the amount for the first phase?

Thank you, Chair. The amount for the first phase was approximately $20 million. And then the second phase is a little different because that's a photovoltaic, which is a lease. So that's a different financing structure than the TELP.

And this third phase is the same finance structure similar as to the first? Correct. And phase one audit, is it completed?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Cook. It is in process right now and we are going to provide a copy of that to the Council as soon as it is finalized.

Do you have any insights into the results of the audit? It seems pretty important because it's the whole fundamental, the foundation of this is based on savings. They're pretty much documenting what they're saving us. The audit, am I correct, is sort of like cross-checking that it's reasonable and accurate?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Cook. Yes, it's, you know, we enjoy our relationship with JCI and we like to work with them, but we also wanna have a third party counterbalance, I think, just to make sure that the data being provided agrees with the data that they're seeing. And so we have provided the documentation, I think, requested to the auditors and we're waiting to hear back. I think we anticipate that in the next couple of months, but I will check on the deadline that we gave them.

Has there been any payments from JCI for items that didn't meet threshold, or are we waiting until sort of a summation of them, all of it?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Cook. The measurement and verification report provided by JCI showed that they met the goal for that year, so no payment's been provided, but a payment will be requested depending on the results of the third-party audit.

This one strikes me as more challenging to measure because of the structural improvements like roofs and whatnot. I remember I had met and had a discussion about that whether, Did the county, do we have a comparison of what they're proposing to do these roofs and what somebody else is proposing to do the roofs? It just strikes me as a very challenging contract to manage, and so I'd like some perspective on the negotiations for it.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Cook. And I will ask Chief of Staff to chime in. But I think part of it also had to do with time. When the county would be able to get to these repairs is going to be much further down the road than when JCI can do this. And also by doing this work on these properties, it will enable us to put PV on those by... I don't know if stabilizing the roof is fine because the roofs are okay, but providing additional structure to support that PV. But I will defer to Chief of Staff to add anything else. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Budget Director. Thank you, Councilmember Cook, for the question. So lots of conversations with the project, the capital improvement project coordinators for each individual department, talking about what would this cost if we did it, what's the length of time, um so there were several variables that were included the departments really appreciate the fact that what happens when we work with jci for this is jci project manages it so it increases the the bandwidth basically for the for the department um and they also don't have to use their their their budgeted funding for it right their capital improvement funding so in relationship to timeline and costs um and bandwidth um it was seen that that this would be a positive for our departments thank you so the the capital cost to replace the roof wait tom i'm gonna second round for you sorry thank you going off um okay

I don't really have any questions, but my question was more along the lines of what Member Batongan asked as well, so he covered that for me. Member Cook, if that's okay with other people, is welcome to have my time.

Is it okay with you if Member Cook continues on with his questions? You're fine, everybody? Okay, go ahead, Member Cook.

So the capital cost of the roof plus the cost of the solar is going to be the sum that this net energy savings is gonna be measured by. I guess what I'm getting at, I can understand panels, infrastructure, amount of power generated, offsetting that capital cost. I don't really see how including the capital cost of replacing a roof Basically, we're replacing a roof that doesn't leak in order for it to be able to be structurally sound enough to allow it to add the solar, correct?

Thank you, Chair. If I could ask, sorry, we do have a representative from JCI in the audience. He may have something to add to this conversation if the body would allow him to be a resource. Thank you, Chair.

So we're talking about the financing, we're not talking about the project.

Well, for my clarification, I understand that, but the financing is very related because the capital cost of now we're doing roofs and wells and these other things that aren't, I don't understand the nexus.

Okay. Um, thank you. So would you like to come down? Johnson controls that. All right. Uh, to have a resource. Join us to answer the question. You can introduce yourself.

Hi, my name is Leif Shonigard. I'm with Johnson controls a council member. So, um, and I'm gonna try and be concise. Uh, hopefully I can answer your question. Please ask me to expand if you need me to. essentially what's going on is as you have this energy project, you're utilizing the energy savings that are originating out of the well, and out of the irrigation controls and out of the building envelope improvements. Those are providing measurable savings. The Hawaii revised statute of 3641, which all of this operates under, it allows those savings to be redirected to something like infrastructure improvements that do not generate savings like the roofs. So essentially what you're doing is is you're taking work through the, uh, well through the irrigation controls and through the building envelope improvements, you're taking those savings, those projects self fund, but they generate additional savings and then you're redirecting those additional savings to utilize to put the roofs on for these buildings. Does that make sense?

I' ll just use the roof for an example. The savings in energy generated from having the solar on the roof is offsetting energy but it' s also paying for the roof?

No, not necessarily. all part of the same project per se phase one, two and three. They're all operating under the same ESPC. But in reality, this third phase, it does have a reconciling between the whole contract phase one, two and three. It has to be reconciled properly. Um, but at the end of the day, the, the phase three is a standalone budget neutral project. And it's allowing these roofs to be replaced without utilizing capital funds from the different departments who own the roofs.

Thank you for the clarification. Sure.

Okay. I still don't thoroughly understand it, but I think if you want to talk at length afterwards, I was totally fine.

Thank you.

Okay. So remember, Ooh, Hodgins, you had no questions here. You said, um, members in NC, Do you have any questions?

My questions were answered, Chair. Thank you.

Very good. Any other questions, members? Member Batongan.

Thank you, Chair. Building off of your last statement, you said phase three is budget neutral. Isn't it required to be revenue generating?

I'll just stay up here. Um, the, uh, revised statute requires that the savings exceed the cost or at least break even at the worst part.

Okay.

Um, what you cannot have is is a project cost for any year within the guarantee period. you cannot have the project cost exceed the savings. That it's the Hawaii Revised Statute 3641.

So that part I understand, but I thought the cost of the contract, so the money that the county pays you comes from the cost savings. So by definition, wouldn't you need to have a net positive savings in order to earn money through this contract?

So the financial structure of this, the easiest way to think of Johnson controls is the design build contractor. So where we get paid and we make our money, our work is on the front end on the construction. the all the payments that proceed afterwards through the guarantee period are actually between the county to the finance here.

Okay.

We are not, we are not involved in the financing in any way.

Okay. And then I guess back to my question, um, regarding why this is a lease. So can I just confirm from budget director that since we are technically leasing capital, um, improvements that we will own them at the end of the contract we're not leasing a roof and then johnson control owns our roof at the end of the contract correct thank you chair thank you councilmember patanga no at the end of the lease period it is a county asset okay thank you okay any more questions uh for johnson control or about this okay i see that thank you good thing you're here

Thank you very much. All right, so as you know, this is a 4.49% interest rate fix for the full term of what happened. Okay. It is with TD Equipment Finance, Inc. And we went over financing. So at this time, members, if there are no other questions, then I would like to entertain a motion to recommend passage of Resolution 26-100, incorporating any non-substantive revisions. Thank you, so motion made by member Uhaj and second by member Betongen. I have an amendment summary form which you have. It's in Granicus number three and will now entertain a motion to replace resolutions 26-100 with the proposed CD1 version attached to the amendment summary form. Thank you. Member Uhajens made the motion, seconded by Member Botongan. So the ASF basically that was passed out in Granite Kiss number three, it basically adds into this what Director said, Budget Director Milner, talking about that it must not exceed the dollar amount. So this amendment clarifies that the principal amount financed must be less than but not exceed $9,021,259, and this change provides flexibility if the final amount financed is lower than the amount stated in the original resolution. So that is the proposed amendment summary form and the explanation. Anybody have questions on it? Member Patongan.

Thank you, Chair. So this one, I don't see Corp Council signing off on. I just want to check with Deputy Wigglesworth that she does not have any issues with the CD1 version.

Yes, thank you. We did receive these proposed changes and have approved them.

Thank you. So you will approve it?

Yeah. Thank you. Good question. Anything else, Member Botongan? Okay. If no objections, then all in favor for the ASF, raise your hand, say aye. Aye. So that would be, is that seven ayes? Who's excused? Chair Lee? Oh, that's, Member Paul, I guess there's four. So it'll be five, four. Is that correct? Or is it seven? Six, six. So Chair Lee, Member Palten and Member Rollins-Fernandez, okay. So motion carries. So now we'll take the main motion as amended.

For discussion?

Yes, please.

I'll support it in committee, but I need to get a better understanding of it, but I'm supportive of it. It's up to me to get a better understanding.

Okay, so you'll contact JCI?

Yes.

Or we can connect with them after this meeting and connect, okay, good. Any other discussion members? All in favor, raise your hand, say aye. Aye, so motion carries and we have, who is excused is Chair Lee, Member Paltin and Member Rollins-Fernandez. Thank you very much, we are done with the first item. Thank you Johnson Controls and we will see you. Okay, now. Okay, now we're gonna do the second item on the agenda, which is BFED 58, Bill 53, amending section 3.35.020 Maui County Code on reviewing the Maui County Grants Program. So members, this next item, which is Bill 73, 2026, BFED 58, is amending section 3.36.020 Maui County Code on reviewing the Maui County Grants Program. Bill 73's purpose is to require the county to adopt uniform countywide administrative rules under HRS 91 for the county grants program. Bill 73 would also allow agencies administering grant programs to adopt supplemental internal policies and procedures that do not conflict with these rules. Members, this item follows the committee's recent discussion on streamlining the grants process and work that was done by Member Johnson. He did that survey. I'd like to thank you for your work. At our May 19th meeting, the committee discussed the need for standard documentation, clear procedures, consistent countywide expectations, and administrative rules to implement grant process changes. The administration previously informed the committee that the countywide grant administrative rules are with Corporation Council with anticipated posting on July 1st and a public hearing on August 1st and possible adoption by August 15th if no minor revisions are needed. I also have a proposed CD1 version that you may find on Graticus number, what is a Graticus number? Number five, okay, five. So assisting us with today's discussion is Director Milner, Budget Director Martin, and Chief of Staff Lalo. So I'd like to ask for opening comments from Chief of Staff, then Ms. Milner, and then Ms. Martin. Good morning.

Good morning again. Thank you. Thank you chair. Um and nice to virtually see everybody. Um I just want to um uh share our gratitude in relationship to the coordination and collaboration that has not just been happening with all of the departments, grant managers, all of the people, but also with the council. Member Johnson, we appreciate your willingness to step in and to collaborate. Collaborate from a place of knowing. Showing up at the Grant Summit and being in there for all of the moments and all of the discussions was, I think, incredibly useful for both of us. And anyway, so much gratitude for the collaboration. And I know Chair Lee sent staff and super appreciate that as well. I think when we come from a place of knowing and we understand why, it's easier to move forward together. So as we know, the grants that the county gives out to the community provides for partnerships that are essential for our community members and the work that they do. is immeasurable. And so anyway, just wanna thank everybody for that. We wanna make this as user-friendly as possible while we continue to manage public funds and honor the need of finance and corporation council and budget and all of the folks. So anyway, thank you. And I'm so happy that we're here in this moment right now.

Okay, do you wanna say anything regarding the proposed legislation?

We are looking forward to having the standardization of countywide rules, and what that will do is provide a more user-friendly interface for us. So those administrative rules have been painstaking and I think are absolutely necessary for us to move forward effectively.

Okay. Ms. Milner?

Chair, if I could let Deputy Regalsworth add something really quickly, and then I will go.

Go ahead. Sorry.

Thank you so much. I just wanted to include on the record that the administrative rules are still in progress, and there has been a lot of work done on those, but there is no guarantee that they will be approved by August 15th date. But that's what Corporation Council hopes for.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Members. First, I've already texted Council Member Johnson, but my apologies. I got my ASFs backwards. This was the one that had the signed ASF, not JCI. So just for the record, I got that a little flipped around. My apologies. But yes, I would like to echo Chief of Staff. All the work that's been done across all of our departments, part of... As we've discussed, the need for this is because we've had such significant growth in our grants programs, it made sense for each agency to have its own admin roles when it was only OED and human concerns. But now we have 11 departments who are administering grants and having one unified set of rules that we all operate from is better for our grantor folks in the departments and it's better for our grantees. It provides that clarity. So this is one of the many things we're doing to try and standardize those processes across the county. They are with Corporation Council right now, the admin rules, and we are targeting that August 15th adoption date, barring any significant surprises. And we hope to get those out for public comment here in early July.

Looking forward to the conversation. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Doesn't sound like it'll get done. Ms. Martin?

Thank you, Chair. I would also like to echo Chief of Staff Lalo and Budget Director Milner's comments. As far as the Department of Finance, the admin rules will assist the department in facilitating the processing of grants, and we look forward to the rules being adopted I appreciate the work that's been done on this. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Those are opening comments. Do we have any testifiers?

Oh, thanks. Chair, there's no one signed up to testify. However, if anyone would like to testify, please approach the testifier stand in the chamber or raise your hand in teams. Chair, I can do a last call if you'd like.

Yes, please, sorry.

No problem, thank you. If anyone would like to testify, please raise your hand on teams or approach the testifier podium. Last call for testimony. Last call here is three, two, one. Chair, seeing none, no one would like to testify on this item.

Okay, thank you. I'm gonna close public testimony for this item and receive written testimony with your permission. Thank you. All right, so now we'll do deliberations. We'll start off with Member Sinensi. We'll go backwards.

So just to be clear, this Bill 73, it says to allow the administrations to write the administrative rules and they'll be coming around and having a public meeting prior to August. Is that correct?

Department.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Sinensi. Yes, they will be posted for 30 days prior to the public hearing for public comment. We will hold the public hearing and then the rules will be adopted barring any major changes that need to be made based on the receipt of input from the public. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you for that. I did want to... be a part of that. We did have a discussion at the What's Up June 16th meeting about the Housing First model that HUD puts out and HUD had decreased or is not following the Housing First model as staff had reported. Since I'm dealing with a lot of the houseless issues, a lot of my priorities during budget has been for people who do outreach for our homeless community. However, these funds are oftentimes maybe rejected by the department citing that they're following the Housing First model. And so my question maybe for Chief of Staff Lalo is, are we adopting the HUD Housing First model when it comes to grants to address, using county funds to address our houseless population.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Sinensi for that question. The administrative rules really have to do with the processing of applications and reimbursements. The priorities in relationship to what departments are funding are not governed in any way by the administrative rules. So in relationship to Housing First, that would be a question for either Human Concerns or Department of Housing in relationship to that. So I can't speak to that, I'm so sorry.

Yeah, thank you, and we've already sent correspondence to the department for that, so I appreciate that. Thank you, Chief of Staff. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. I'm going to ask Member Johnson to ask questions first, and then I'll go back to you, Member Wu-Hajian, since this was his kind of kuleana. Member Johnson.

Okay, thank you, Chair. and I appreciate you asking me to go away because a lot of us probably have the same questions. So first off, thank you, Cynthia Lalo, for collaborating and working together. That's exactly how I love that we're all doing this together. So you mentioned, Ms. Lalo, how you wanted this to be very user-friendly. And my follow-up question is how? Is there a website? Are we having classes? You mentioned there's going to be a public meeting, public hearing, whatever we want to call it. But how do we make it? What's your plan for making it more user-friendly?

Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Johnson for that question. So as you know, there's lots of things that we have that that we will need to leverage in order to roll out the admin rules. So I just I want to say this every so the admin rules are not coming out at the beginning of the fiscal year. And so as a result of that, admin rules will will be applicable to agreements moving forward as opposed to going backwards so any agreement that is in place will continue as is we will need to absolutely there will be public comment on the admin rules but there needs to be then understanding about that right so the the virtual and and in in-person workshops right the open office hours in relationship to technical questions All of those things will need to be in place. It would make sense, we did an annual grant summit, our first ever, right, annual grant summit this year, and we'll need to do a grant summit for our community as well. That was internal only. We will need to do one external to be able to meet the needs. So we are, yeah, go ahead.

So the big question is, where are they? When can we see them? We want to know. Inquiry minds want to know. And I know we've been waiting. We were supposed to have them, what was it, last November? So it's a heavy lift. But then we're hearing July 1st, but not really July 1st. So the big question right now, Ms. Lalo, is when will we be able to look at them?

sure that's a that's a great question and a fair question by the way um it has been a big lift um and there's lots of things you know from from a grant perspective versus a legal perspective from a finance perspective everybody has different different needs right in relationship to that so uh taking all of those needs and putting them into the legal ease that um administrative rules incorporate and we are in collaboration and I would say that as previously stated, I believe that we are trying to stick to that schedule, right? It's hard for me to speak for all of the folks that are involved in this effort. Yeah.

Chair. I heard the time. Yes. But as we go through this discussion, you know, this might come up again. first quarter, second, third quarter, whatever, the general ballpark is really what would help us. But I heard the time and I can wait for second round. Thank you, Chair.

So Member Johnson, budget director wanted to add to this answer. So if members will allow, I'm gonna ask her to answer that.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. And I'll try to be brief. But yes, we are working toward that August 15th date. We were anticipating August 1st, but we've decided to add some additional review there to make sure we're not going to inadvertently jam up any of... Our granting departments, as you know, we have grants that range from equipment to CIP to just funding. And so we want to make sure that we're not putting anything into place that is inadvertently going to hamstring things that are already working the way they need to. So, but we are working toward, I will say at the latest end of August adoption, barring any surprises. And Mimi's going to not be happy with me that I said it.

Thank you so much. Okay. Now we'll go back to member Uhuha-Jens, then member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. So for B, because I understand you guys are going to have like a comprehensive administrative rules. For B, it says that the internal policies, they can grant more, I guess, maybe you can correct me, administrative rules so long it doesn't conflict with it. How are we going to make sure that those are not conflicting or even consistent so that when we have multiple people or agencies, people who work with us kind of all over throughout grants, they're having consistent information they need to provide and yada yada.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Uhadjian. So in the grants working group with all of the departments, we're currently working on standardization of applications, review process, things like that. So the intent is to have really a county-wide policy and procedure as well. That's sort of the sub-rules under the admin rules with certain deviations for departments that operate. So agriculture is the only department allowed to have sole source providers. So they would have a slightly different language around that because no one else is allowed to do it. But the intent is to standardize things as much as possible and then allow for those small deviations where needed.

How come they can have sole source providers?

Because that's what's in the code. We can talk about it more if you want.

And water. Okay, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I didn't wanna lose my train of thought. You know what you're gonna say, I barely know what I'm gonna say. Okay, and then so August 15th, we're gonna have like the main umbrella set of rules or everybody's rules?

So it will be the admin rules that will apply to every department in the county.

Okay. And then like you just mentioned, like for ag or for other ones that might have some different language, those are also going to be available on the 15th for review or are those still subject to tweaking?

Those are still subject to tweaking. That will be in the policies and procedures and not in the admin rules. But we can provide those as that moves forward. Okay.

Thank you. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Member Cook? Thank you.

My only comment is it seems like for it to get to the finish line comprehensively, like when you're saying the 15th, and then Corp Council having the opportunity to tweak it, and then kind of bouncing back because inevitably this is relatively complex because it's blending all of the departments. So I'm just encouraging everybody to be a little patient and elastic and when this is gonna be done and focus more on the fact that it's diligently being worked on. That's my only comment, Chair.

Thank you. Member Butongan.

Thank you, Chair. Director Milner, you said that it was easier when there was just OED and DHC who were administering rules or grants, but now it's 11 departments. So those other nine departments, have they been issuing grants without administrative rules governing their grants?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Bittongan. The department doesn't have specific administrative rules, but they're still operating under the requirements within the county of fiscal oversight and procurement and all of those standard requirements.

Okay. And then under Section B for the proposed language, agencies accepting applications for a grant or loan may adopt internal policies and procedures, et cetera. So the departments don't have to adopt administrative rules of their own underneath the umbrella set of administrative rules. They're allowed to just do internal policies and procedures.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member McDonaghan. Yes, the administrative rules are going to govern all grants in the county. Correct.

But then the department-specific rules regarding their own grants don't need to go through the rulemaking process as well?

Thank you, Chair. No, because they wouldn't be administrative rules. They'll only be policies and procedures which don't have those HRS requirements.

And I guess that's where I'm confused. Shouldn't they? Or shouldn't they? Thank you, Chair. If they govern an administrative function of this nature, shouldn't they fall under Chapter 91 as well?

I think, and I'll let Deputy Regalsworth chime in, but I think what I would say to that is that their administrative rules are the countywide administrative rules. The policies and procedures are just supplemental to that. They still have to abide by all of the countywide administrative rules. So that is the more stringent governing mechanism.

No, I agree. I just think that each of the supplemental policies and procedures, I think that the policies and procedures each department adopts individually should be subject to the same level of public review as the umbrella group, no?

Thank you, Chair. No, I think there's a differentiation between the admin roles and the policies and procedures.

I agree. I guess my point is, shouldn't the individual departments have to go through the rulemaking process? And if Corporation Council is comfortable with the language as is, I'll drop it. But that seems like it should fall under that umbrella, no?

Thank you for that question. I don't think some of those policies and procedures would fall under the rulemaking under chapter 91, but I do understand that those are going to be provided to the council anyways, right? So they will be reviewed. So they will, there will be a chance to, to review this. Is that that's correct, right? We just.

They'll be publicly available, yes, and they'll be provided to the council and we're happy to take feedback. We just had a meeting earlier this week with Chair Lee's office and one of our fiscal sponsors to provide feedback on the current process and to make tweaks. So if there are any issues with the policies and procedures as we proceed and we get that feedback from the public or a council member, we're happy to have those conversations and make adjustments if it seems to be beneficial to the majority of our grantees.

Thank you, budget director. Thank you, council.

Thank you. So I have a question, then we'll go back to Member Johnson if he does, but I understand what Member Patongan is saying, because if these departments with their grant divisions, I guess, are administering grants under certain guidelines now, then will these administrative rules then change what they have to do?

Thank you, Chair. No, the administrative rules, I think, are pretty much in line with how we've been operating in light of the recent code amendment allowing for allotment payments and things like that. And as Chief of Staff said, the intent here is once the administrative rules are adopted, they're in effect from that day forward. We're not going to retroactively go back and put any sort of changes on our grantees who have already signed agreements and are moving forward. under the understanding within those agreements. Those agreements are binding and we will abide by the language in those agreements. I will add that most of the departments do have policies and procedures and they have grant handbooks that are publicly available that lay out the requirements that allow the grantees to see what they will need to operate under if they're going to apply for a grant with that department.

Okay, I guess I hear the concern because that's the complaints that we get out in the community about the inequities or the lack of understanding of requirements for the grantees and how they're not getting their payments on a timely basis because of more requirements, more requirements. And so are you saying then that these administrative rules then would clarify all of that for the grantees?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, the administrative rules are intended to provide clarity both for our grant managers and for our grantees. And we also intend within the documentation provided as sort of sub-documents to that, we're working with the Department of Finance on a set of FAQs The Department of Finance has already issued a memo to all of the departments regarding allowable invoices to provide information to them. And I believe those have also been shared with the grantees to say what is an allowable invoice and what is not and what level of detail is necessary. So we're trying to do that. And as Chief of Staff Lalo said, our intent also is as things move forward, As we continue to provide these countywide and department-specific trainings that we've been doing, we're going to cover the admin roles. As you're all aware, we are in the process of procuring a grant software. We intend to provide a training for grantees and fiscal sponsors on that grant software. We really want to get as much information out into the community as possible so that they don't feel like they don't have the information to be able to be successful in getting funding from the county. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, did I see Ms. Lalo's hand up?

Yes, thank you, Chair, so much. One thing I just wanted to add is that we have the administrative rules, right, but we also have county code, right, 3.36, and that's a huge piece of this, right? So I just... I just want to manage expectations that we have a few things that govern this process, right? It's not just the administrative rules. We are trying to decrease the barriers where we can and provide clarity for the things that are non-negotiable, right? And to try to train grantees What does it mean when it says that in county code? Because it's hard to decipher that for some of our grantees. I think that's the customer service and the interface that is so important. I think admin rules are difficult to change. Policies and procedures can tap into place a little bit easier, right? So we want to make sure that we continue the conversations. If something that we can actually do something about, if we can change it, we should change it, right? And if we can't change it, people should understand the why behind that because why matters. That's all.

Thank you, Chair. I'm not disputing anything that was just said. I agree that we need to adopt some of these policies. I think that there is a place for code. I think there's a place for administrative rules. I think there is a place for policies and procedures. I guess the point that I'm trying to make, I think, is being lost. And that's my understanding of the administrative rulemaking process and the role that it plays in policymaking. My understanding for administrative rulemaking is that those are necessary when an executive agency is going to be administering an administrative function, something external. Policies and procedures, I had always understood to be internal to a department rather than something that is used to... in this instance, grant out money. So the point I'm trying to make is that I think we need umbrella administrative rules that apply countywide and that the individual departments who are also issuing grants need to go through the rulemaking process as well rather than adopt policies and procedures because one is purely internal within the department and therefore should only apply to the functions of the department. And I think the other requires public input and is therefore the more appropriate tool when you are interfacing with the public on a matter. And in this case, because it's granting county money to a external partner, I think you need to go through the rulemaking process. So my question was, can the individual rules that are being, Section B talks about individual agencies being able to create internal policies and procedures. Do that function as a policy and procedure rather than through the administrative rulemaking process? This is a chapter 91 question that I don't think is being quite understood through the debate that we're having with the administration.

MS.

Thank you so much for bringing this up. So what will happen is the process is that it depends, right? There's a lot of different departments that administer grants, and the grants are different. So what will happen is the administrative rules are going to be completed, and all of the departments are providing their input. So they're going to be a way to standardize the program, which is what we all I think believe is needed and will solve a lot of concerns or risks for the county and then after that the policies and procedures for each department will come to the Corporation Council for review and then at that time the analysis will be done if if it falls under chapter 91 or not and

Okay, I think I have concerns with the way that Section B is written, but if Corporation Council's willing to sign off on it, I will vote for it to come out of committee. But I would like to ask staff to transmit the question to the administration. When is it appropriate to have, when is it appropriate for, administrative decision-making processes to be done via administrative rulemaking versus policies and procedures.

Okay, got that. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions?

Or I guess before we put it in writing, does OCS want to opine on this matter?

Oh, maybe we should ask... Mr. Hanano.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Member Batangan. Yeah, so, you know, I agree with what Council Member Batangan said in that policies and procedures deal with the department's internal, I guess, rules or policies regarding compliance with either administrative rules, Maui County Code, or, you know, HRS. I think maybe once the policies start stepping into the administrative rules or anything else, I think you cross the line and now you're getting into rulemaking. I don't think including this provision is 100% necessary. I think it's superfluous because I think a department could do that anyway as far as creating their own internal policies and procedures regarding grants and loan on grants. So one suggestion would be just to take that out. But that's our opinion as far as grants, I mean, policies and procedures.

Thank you, Chair. Can I still request that that question be transmitted to the administration then? I mean, I'll support this either way. My preference would be to accept Mr. Hanano's recommendation and take that out because I agree that it's probably not necessary. But I think my objection still stands in that There is a time and a place for administrative role making and there's a time and a place for policies and procedures and at least right now, I will wait for clarity from the administration.

Director Wiggles, not director, Corp Council, you have a question?

Sorry, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to briefly add, if I remember correctly, our previous discussions in this body, the reason that was included was part of a discussion with Council Member Paulton because she wanted to have language that stated that the departments could still have policies and procedures under the administrative rules if the body feels it's not necessary because they can still go ahead and make those policies and procedures. We don't have an objection to that. Thank you, Chair.

And I don't disagree. I think that departments should be able to create policies and procedures. My point is that I don't think they're being used appropriately here.

Yeah. Okay. Ms. Wigglesworth.

I do think it might be helpful to have clarity from this provision or the subsection that says that the policies and procedures will do not conflict with or replace administrative roles. So I do think that is helpful clarification to have.

Member Patangan, is that better?

See, I read this as policies and procedures. So in the CD1 version, let's go with that one. Policies and procedures on their particular grant program that supplement and do not conflict with the administrative rules adopted under subsection A. Yes, I agree that that does not conflict. I just worry that that can be interpreted to mean that the department's internal, like, The way that the department administers their individual grants will be done via policies and procedures. I still maintain that that should not be the case. Under HRS 91, it should be through the rulemaking process. I understand. Again, I'm willing to vote this out of committee and with the letter being transmitted, I think the additional deliberation that will be done before first reading, we can get more clarity.

Okay, yep. All right, so members, any more questions? Member Sinensi and then Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. That would be my request as well. As I mentioned earlier, you know, the departments are coming up with their own, I guess, policies, and it's not always, you know, jiving with ours or they're following a federal policy to dictate the rest, how the agency is being run. And for us you know that's that's causing a lot of issues with with some of these you know i get it chief of staff you know the the non-profits are are on the streets they're they're in our communities but when they um they're a lot of them are are small potatoes they need the funding you know to continue operating in my small community. You know the lag between fiscal annual fiscal budgets. You know, sometimes they run out and then they gotta start up again. Those are some of the issues. They also use federal fund. county funding to leverage larger state and federal funding. And both of them are all on different timelines. So these small grants are waiting for, while they're waiting for the state funds to kick in, the county is still, oh, well, you can't really do this, this, or this because you're still on our timeline, yet you've got several different timelines if you're receiving funding from all different government agencies. So, I mean, I'm just sharing that because in the last couple of years, these are... some of the challenges and and like you said this is i'm i'm i'm gonna vote for this it's an opportunity to fix stuff so that we can um address these these um issues that we have in our communities but um i appreciate the process thank you okay thank you um member johnson

Thank you, Jay. I just have a quick question for Ms. Lalo. It's a little bit now that these conversations led, so this is kind of a little bit different. I noticed the amendment said that the Department of Management will be overseeing everything that's put in. Who's working on the formation of the admin's rules right now as it stands? Is it Department of Management? Is it all department heads? Who's working on them specifically?

Sure, thank you for that question. So I can tell you specifically that It is a collaboration across all grant making departments and not just grant making departments, but those that are involved in grant management or execution. So that would be finance, that would be budget, that would be corporation council, all grant making departments through the grant networking group are involved in that. And certainly mayor's office is involved in that as well.

You know, when you go that route, which I totally am hearing your guys are going that route, how does it slow down the process by having so many people come in, work on it? How's that been? You know, I got to deal with other council members. I can only imagine dealing with all the different departments and all that. How's that working out for you?

Absolutely. And that's why the timeline issue, right, that we're having, because here's the thing is we don't want to change something and have it inadvertently impact not really the department, but the grantee, right, at the end of the day. So we don't want to move the cheese without making sure that it's not going to have adverse consequences.

And there are people who are applying for county grants in the Department of Ag, as well as the Department of Human Concerns, as well as another department. And having that in there, I could see the process, especially for Human Concerns having a two-year grant, and this department only offers one-year grants. so i i get i understand that part but i just was wondering if there was someone overseeing this you know trying to keep all the the bullfrogs in the barrel as they say because department of management doesn't be all all of the departments and would they be like taking the lead on the way you described me and miss lalo was that everybody were collaborative so okay uh that was my question and uh thanks for that clarification and chair i don't have any more okay

Thank you. Members, any more questions? Member Butongan.

Thank you, Chair. So prior to the CD1 being proposed that specifies that the admin rule making process should be done through the Department of Management, what was the administration's, which department was the administration planning to place these rules under?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Butongan. Yes, it was always going to be the Department of Management.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Anybody else? So it looks like Corp Council is not gonna be done with reviewing the admin rules, is that correct?

I did get an update from Mimi and she did mention that hopefully they'll be available around August 1st for review and then the public hearing will be closer to September 1st.

Okay.

Chair, I have a comment. Okay, so I just looked on chapter 91-1, which is the chapter four administrative rules. And under 91-1 sub four, the term rule means each agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of any agency. The term does not include regulations concerning only the internal management of an agency and not affecting private rights of or procedures available to the public, nor does the term include declaratory rulings issued pursuant to 91-8 nor intra-agency memoranda. So I think that's basically the... lying between what a rule is and what a policy is. Thank you, Chair.

So, based upon Member Patonga's questions, Mr. Hanano, do you see a problem that we're starting to address, or should we do something different?

No, I mean, I think the, A department can enact policies like I just stated, as long as it doesn't fall in the definition of a rule. Once it does, then you're gonna have to go through the rule making process. So whether or not we need to have this provision included in the bill, that's up to the members to decide whether they think that it should be in there, but the idea is basically it's for policies and procedures that are not rules under the rulemaking process.

Chair, so I mean, I still maintain that we could do without it, but if Member Paulton wanted this provision in there, the alternative would be to add rulemaking into subsection B as well.

Okay, yes, just so it's clearly defined, right? So when a department then comes up with their own procedures, do they then pass it by Corp Council and you have to make sure that it doesn't have a problem Do you review all?

That's correct. From my understanding, when I discussed this with Mimi earlier, I think that each corporation counselor is assigned to a department. So that department's policies and procedures will come to that assigned corporation council. And at that time, that analysis will be done to see what the proper procedure is for getting those approved. If it's rulemaking under Chapter 91, then it will be rulemaking. And that's a separate process in the internal procedures and policies.

So you make sure that it stays within its lane. I see Member Johnson's hand.

Chair, I'm sorry, I have a 12th area appointment and I don't want to rush anybody if you guys still want to discuss, but I'm ready to vote. Let's do that. Sorry, they're outside waiting.

Oh, sorry. Okay, so members, is it okay if we proceed? Okay, so entertain a motion to recommend passage on first reading of Bill 73-2026 and incorporating any non-substantive revisions. So moved. Okay, Member Johnson, seconded by Member Cook. I have the ASF form being what you have to entertain a motion to replace Bill 73-2026 with the proposed CD1 version attached to the amendment summary form.

Yes.

Oh, Granicus number five. It's Granicus number five and it's a signed document. So I recommend replacement. Thank you. Okay, I made the motion, I guess. Oh, Member Johnson did, okay. Member Johnson and seconded by Member Cook. The proposed CD1 version amends the bill's title, identifies the Department of Management as an agency responsible for adopting countywide administrative rules for the countywide grants program under Chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, incorporates any non-substantive revisions, and to clarify consistency and style. This is what it does. Okay, any more discussion on the ASF? See none, all in favor raise your hand, say aye. Aye, so we have seven ayes, six ayes and motion carries. So now we will entertain the main motion as amended. Okay, all in favor say aye. So that's six ayes, and who is excused is Chair Lee, Member Paltin, Member Rollins-Fernandez. Okay, we are done with this meeting. Thank you very much for letting us recess this earlier and we have taken up the two items. Member Butonkin, I hear you loud and clear. We'll get that clarified and by the next meeting then we'll have Member Poulton including the discussion. So we can get this clarified and what about the discussion about the rules are not gonna be, administrative rules are not gonna be ready when we were told and it's now gonna be for September 1. Do we need to do anything regarding? Okay, go. Oh, we'll just adjourn then. Okay, meeting adjourned.