I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I like Mia and Pohua, available to the public for testimony and other such related items. Thank you for joining us today. As a reminder, please have us your cell phones or any other electronic devices you may have. Mr. Clerk, let's all do introductions myself today. To my left, I have Jennifer Kogiwada, James Hustis, Ashley Kirkowitz, Holeca Inabud, Dennis Onishi. To my right, I have Heather Kimbo, Michelle Glimba, and Rebecca Villegas will be joining us shortly. Mr. Kirk, you have eight members in attendance at this time. Should we go to public testimony if there is any Mr. Arac Sally or Mr. Henry. Thank you, Chair. Just noting that you do not have any testifiers at any of your remote sites zoom or here in ELo. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, let's just start at the top of the agenda today. Communication 23.10 Port of Fun Transfers Authorize March 1 through 15 2025 from Acting Controller Wilson Criter dated March 24, 2025. Motion to close file on communication 23.10. I have a motion by Council Member Nava and a second by Council Member Hustis, two close file on communication 23.10. Council Member is any discussion. And just for the public, we have our director of finance, director of real property tax or administrator, excuse me. Deputy director of research and development and our administrator and deputy administrator for the office of housing and development with us in the west of ways to extend it today. Okay. Seeing no discussion on communication 23-.10 on the favor any opposed. Mr. Clark you have eight members in favor. Miss Vigis excused. Next item, please. There's any testimony for a communication 24.7. Hearing none, communication 24.7, report of change orders authorized February 1, 2015, 2025 from finance director Diane Nakagawa. dated March 25, 2025, transmitting the report pursuing to Section 2-12.3 of the Hawaii County Code. Motion took close file on communication 24.7. Motion by Council Member Aidava, and the second by Council Member Hustis took close file on communication 24.7. Council Member Kimbo. Yeah, just wanted to note for for the record for 24.7 and 24.8 there's a change order directed to floating in associates which is my husband's architecture firm however I feel comfortable in making a decision on this matter since we are just receiving the report. Thank you. Thank you for this closure Council Member Kimball. Any other comments? Hearing and seeing none, motion is on the floor. All in favor? Any opposed? Mr. Clerk, you have eight members in favor. Ms. Viegis being excused. Mr. Nittesman, for communication 24.8. Hearing none, communication 24. report of Change Order's Authorized February 16 through 28, 2025. From Finance Director Diane Nakagawa, dated March 26, 2025, transmitting the above report, pursued section 2-12.3 of the Hauai County Code. Motion to close file on communication 24.8. Motion by Council Member Ainova. and the second, the Council member, use this to close file on Communication 24.8. Any discussion? Just noting here, looking at the special Council services for Huimalama, Honokoha versus County of Hawaii, that we have changed order up to a total of 300,000. I believe that was the budgeted total25,000. And the budget is $25,000. And the budget is $25,000. And the budget is $25,000. And the budget is $25,000. And the budget is $25,000. And the budget is $25,000. And the budget is $25,000. And the budget is $25,000. And the budget is $25,000. And the budget is $25,000. lights on, motion is on the floor to close file on. Communication 24.8, Colin Favour? Any opposed? Mr. Clerk, you have eight members in favor. Mr. Villegas being excused. There's a new testimony for Communication 24.9. Hearing none, Communication 24.9, report of change orders authorized, March 1 through 15, 2025, from Finance Director Dianakogawa, dated March 27, 2025, transmitting the above report pursuant to Section 2-12.3 of the White County Code. Motion to close file on communication 24.9. Motion by Council Member A. Navas, second by Council Member Hustis, to's to close file on communication 24.9 any discussion Mr. Clark please that the record of that council member Viego said join us Okay, here you're seeing none motion is on the floor all in favor any opposed Mr. Clerk you have nine members in favor. Mr. Mayor Testman, if your communication is 73.3. Hearing none, communication is 73.3 monthly budget status report for the month in did September 32, 2024. Farm Finance Director Diana Cagawa dated March 17, 2025, transmittingitted the above report, pursuant to section 6-6.3H of the Huali County Charter. Motion to close file on communication 73.3. Second. Move the bill. Council Member Inaga. Inaba. Seconded by Council Member Hustis. Closing file on communication number 7-3.3. Any discussion? Hearing none. Director Nafiwawa, thank you for getting us a little bit closer to being up to date. Thank you. Okay, signal discussion. Mr. Clerk, motion is on the floor. Close file on communication 73.3. All in favor? Any opposed? Mr. Clerk, you have nine members in favor. Motion carries. Next item. Is there any testimony for communications? 73.4. Hearing none, communications, 73.4 monthly budget status report for the month ended up October 31, 2024, and to November 32, 2024, Fund Finance Director, Dianna Cogawa, dated March 18, 2025, transmitting the overports, pursuant to section 6.3 H of the White County Charter. Motion to close file on communication 783.4. Motion by Council Member, not a second in my council member, use this in the discussion, council members. Okay, is on the floor. Too close file on communication 73.4, all in favor? Any opposed? Mr. Clerk, you have nine members in favor. Motion carries. Those are any testimony for resolution 1-22-25. Hearing none, resolution 1, 2, 2, dash 2, 5, authorize the payment of funds of a later fiscal year and of more than 1 fiscal year for multi-year agreement for fixed route transit operations for the mass transit agency. Authorize the merit into a three-year agreement with two renewal option years. For a selected contractor by the vehicles, drivers, management, personnel, dispatching, maintenance, and other Anselaer services to operate an island-wide public transportation system introduced by Councilmember Conley, Kleinvother, by request. Motion to forward resolution 1-22-25 to Council with a favorable recommendation. I have a motion by Council Member Aynava and a second by Council Member Hussis to forward resolution 1, 2, 2-4 resolution 1-2-2-5 to Council with a favourable recommendation. Council Member's discussion on the resolution. Okay. You can see none. Motion is on the floor. All in favour? Any opposed? Mr. Clerk, you have nine members in favour. Motion carries. Mr. Clerk, the obni members of the favor, motion carries. Is there any testimony for Bill 38. During none Bill 38, it demands Chapter 19, Article 13 of the White County Code to 1983, 2016, as amended, we're doing to real property tax credits. Estab tax credits. The stoppers are private and the amount of $500 to be applied towards the property tax bill. When the homeowner expends $100 to maintain repair or improve a private roadway vice chair. Council Member Heustis, if you're so willing, so I can leave the discussion on Bill 38. Thank you, Mr. Carnegie. I will now act as president officer for the duration of this piece. Council Member Carnegie, I'm Felder of the floor of the yours. If you'd like to speak to the bill here. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Acting chair. We need a motion for sorry. If you want to give a motion on the bill to, so we have discussion. Oh, sorry. I was thinking motion to do chair. Okay. Acting chair, motion to approve bill 38 and 4 to council the favourable recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. We have a motion to forward Bill 38 to Council of the favorable recommendation for Mr. Connolly Kleinfelder and a second by Ms. Calimba. Mr. Connolly Kleinfelder, the floor is yours. Thank you, Chair. To the Council of this bill was modeled after the idea of what the solar hot water tax credit does and a number of credits do for the residents of our county in providing a credit towards their property taxes for doing something. In this case, that something is helping the upkeep of private old ways to that and this bill is very specific in what sector of our community we're guiding the credit to be applied towards. So I'm looking under section 19, section A. This is for homeowner exemption category properties, which really limits down the pool in our private subdivisions. You cannot have a gate on the private subdivisions. This is the communities that are open to public use. Many of us have these in our district, Island Wine. And we have a minimum credit being no greater than $500. And then a number of other things we've included in the bill as well. If at the top you're looking at section 19104, this was a housekeeping measure asked for by LRB. For the solar, water, heater, tax credit, that was established. Sometime ago, just doing some housekeeping there. And then the last part, section 19-105 is more the administrative end. I did ask and work with the departments on this. I'm sure this will come up, let's get it out of the way. Miss Nakabella is not in love with this bill. And I did ask Miss Miora to help me walk through the bill and make sure this lined up with what would be good for the department as well. So maybe if you want to come up, we're just do a quick back and forth and then we'll open up to the body task questions. And I do appreciate everyone's input into this at this point. And for the council, this really is a step, you know, I'm kind of, I don't want to say a one trick pony, but I've really taken on how we provide more equity in our communities that weren't created equitably in the beginning. And that really does touch on all the subdivisions that were created pre subdivision code. Many of you have them from Ocean View to HPP to Black Sands to my district. I mean they're everywhere. So, let's start with Ms. Miura. So, basics, there will be a revenue reduction from this bill, obviously, if we provide a credit. In your estimations, what kind of a revenue reduction will we be looking at? Real property tax administrator, Lisa Mira. Just for the record, Keta Joe is in Heelal as the assistant administrator. Sorry, I'm trying to put this in the right spot so it's not loud for everybody in Heelal. I just wanted to clarify one thing before going on to that. The way we read the code was that the maximum amount given to any would it would be $500 not the minimum. Thank you for it. Thank you for clarifying yes. Or the amount paid and so if it's less than 500 they're going to get the amount paid versus the up to 500. There is a total of all the subdivisions we looked at with private roads that were not gated That had homeowners and that came out to a total of 9,271 parcels So again, that's properties paying private road maintenance that are getting a homeowner exemption The total loss if all of them claimed it and you gotta remember, some of these are already at the 200 min tax, so we can't go below the 200 min tax even with the credit. And that's how the solar water heater credit works as well. The maximum loss based on 2024 values was 2.1 million. We estimate that not everybody is paying their homeowner road, excuse me, their private road maintenance association dues. And we know this because at tax sales, we see a lot of leans come out from non-payment of those monthly association or yearly association dues for private roads. So if 40% of those apply, then that would be approximately 3,700 parcels or $842,000 per year. Beautiful, so that's that's the potential we're looking at is a window. I mean, really from zero, if no one utilized the program, if it was created to 2.1 maximum, if everyone took advantage of the program. Correct. Thank you. I appreciate that. And thank you for doing the homework with me. I mean, we have a range of fees collected in the community anywhere from $0 per month for private loan maintenance to you know $20 to $50 a month for different communities depending on where they live. Okay and then for impact on your staff what kind of an impact on your staff would there be if this bill were to go into effect and beyond the impact could your department take this on? Honestly at this moment, we couldn't take it on. I, we're drowning a little bit from all the other changes made and we did put in for additional staff. I just want to share that it's not just a matter of getting bodies. I think we are having an issue with infrastructure and where to sit all the bodies that certain departments get. And this is a problem in both sides, but East Hawaii in particular, there's not even enough parking for the county employees. So they're parking on roads, they're parking down the hill at the park. And I know some other departments not to pick on them, don't think about where their staff are going to sit or where they're going to park. But it bothers me because we have staff that have been here since May that don't have parking yet. And the road's getting more cluttered. So it's It tug and pull. Everybody wants more space. And they're trying to get real property tax because we look open. But the reality is we tried to stay within the limits of what we were given. Okay, okay. Well, I appreciate the overview and what you're facing as a department, infrastructure-wise for your staff. have a place to park and get into work just like we all want to do in a nice way. What kind of staffing level would you say would be helpful? And I'm thinking about the budget discussions that we had. I think I even brought up your staffing levels in that discussion and you have some supplemental that are floating around in the budget preview event as well. There are supplemental but we understand especially with my director sitting right next to me that it's really hard. No pressure. No pressure. Thank you council member for this. Love that for me right now. Is that every department I'm sure is asking for positions. And my comeback is always like, but our positions make money. So if we get it, we'll make you more money. At the same time, fire and police save lives. Not many people think we save lives. We'd probably give more heartburn than anything else. So we are cognizant of that when asking. As far as this goes, I can share we have nine clerical positions now including the head clerk, the supervisor, and they process approximately 5,000 applications each year, plus the phone calls and the counter and other things that they do for the office the disallowance letters and so forth If we got approximately 3,700 new applications every year just for that that would be four clerks alone to process Because it's not just looking at the application. It's walking people through the, they have to vet and make sure that they actually paid their private road maintenance. And that would be every single year. How do you folks handle the solar how water credits right now? So the clerks are handling those and we don't get a whole lot because that's for very limited. Any new house going up doesn't qualify for solar water heater credit because it's part of the building code now. So it has to be prior homes that were built that are either never were part of the code that they had to get it and they're putting a new one in or they've already gotten the credit but the clerks are doing that as well. Okay so this would be more comfortable if you had more staffing understood, and then they could have put you on a spot because you're sitting next to your boss in a sense. And I do appreciate that comment though. Your positions that you bring in are actually the backbone of our revenue for our county. There's a real property taxes is more than half of our budget for the county employee. So, understood, make you okay. Ms. Nakagawa, we discussed the bill. I mean, just besides your overall view, and what's been talked about today, what are your thoughts? Good afternoon. Oh, Council Member, say I'm Nakagawa Finance Department. You know, I, I, Mira, did a great job of explaining all of the concerns of finance, you know, in addition to the loss of revenue, we have serious concerns over our resources and our ability to get a good handle on the changes that were already made. As Ms. Administrator, Miraera mentioned, we are still working through that and struggling a bit. Yes, we are looking at additional resources for this particular division, but to add this on would be a lot to ask for this division. Okay. Is any part of this able to be incorporated into your digital platform as we move in that matter of the vehicle licensing, taxes, payments, credit card processing, are we able to incorporate something like this into a digital platform? Are you speaking about our new ERP system or just another system? No, the ERP system. I don't believe so, but we can, you. I think that's the key to making sure that we have the key to making sure that we have the key to making sure that we have the key to making sure that we have the key to making sure that we have the key to making sure that we have the key to making sure that we have the key to making sure that we have the key to making sure that we have the key to making sure that we have the key to making sure that we have specific requests are being made, but this is not one of them at the time. Okay. Okay. Well, I knew that walking in, you didn't love it, but I'd put it to the body. I mean, we have a billion dollar budget, we're right on the edge of being a billion. Okay. Okay. Well, I knew that walking in, you didn't love it. But I put it to the body. I mean, we have a billion dollar budget. We're right on the edge of being a billion dollars. I would estimate this impact. Let's just say it's a little bit higher than what administrator mirrors estimate is, which is $850,000. Let's just say it's a million dollar revenue. What I look at is our communities who maintain their own roadways pay a lot of money each year to do so. We as a county, we don't touch it, so private. We may have some funding, we may not, we have a bill in place that could help. It's all been done, but ultimately, the folks who live in these communities in our rural underserved areas pay for it already, and this is a chance for us to provide a little bit of a break to them towards their property taxes in my eyes without breaking the bank. At a million dollars, that's not even as a drop in the book for a billion dollar budget. So that's my thoughts. So just to the body, looking for some input today, looking for the council members the way in as I make my way through this before really putting it into the community and working with the administration to see if there's a way forward. Thank you. Thank you, council member. Council member Kimbo, please. The floor is yours. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for putting this forward for consideration. Just one editorial comment. I think that you can read this one of two ways with respect to item B without indicating making it clear that that is a yearly $500 versus a total $500 as the limit. I know you talk about the annual tax, the calendar tax here, but I think that that could be interpreted other either way without that language. But on the larger portion of the, the large question of the matter, I'm hesitant right now, just because of what administrator Miara said about the number of rewrites we have done over the last couple of years. You're welcome. That's one thing is to get that all settled out. But then the other thing is some real concerns about our income, our revenue streams, whether it's in our governmental funds, another housing crisis, recession, cost inflations. So I think we're in a tenuous time to reduce our revenue by even a million dollars. I think you do that here, you do that there. We're going to be in a hotspot later on. I would like to ask you, Administrator Mira, with respect to the private roadways, properties on private roadways, is there any component of that that gets calculated in terms of the market value of the property, but whether or not they're on a private roadway and the quality of that private roadway. It's really more tied to what the market is willing to pay. So if the market is paying less for properties on unpaved roads or maybe even derelict roads, then it'll show up in the market value when we do our annual assessment, which is every year on January 1st. For the homeowners, then there's the 3% cap, but that's a little bit separate from it. So in that regards, it's tied to the market values based on the sales in that neighborhood. And we don't compare paved roads to non-paved usually, especially with the subdivisions we looked at that have required road maintenance. And these are the larger ones, which are mostly in the Puna through Kaua areas. There's more than enough sales within those subdivisions to compare within. Okay. So I think that when we talk about private roads that are substandards, roads in limbo, we also have to think about the flip side of that, which is that there is an impact on the market values on these properties because they have this substandard infrastructure. Now, I'm not saying that's good, nobody should have substandard infrastructure, but I think an unintended consequence of any efforts that we have to improve these infrastructures is that those values now increase. And so when we look at areas that are still affordable for local families, we have to be sensitive to how any of these levers could impact that lever. So I'm supportive of having discussions about this. I mean, I get the concept, I'd like the concept, but I'm not quite ready to support it right now. Any further discussion? Councilmember Gillen-Law,bo, please. I had a question. So yes, I think this is really creative and I like the idea. I am very sensitive to the resource constraints of tax office because we have put a lot onto them recently. But then just some that be the amount of credit should be equal to the greater of 500 or the amount paid under subsection a4. So and then subsection a4's, they have to pay no less than $100. So, if they pay $100, then they automatically get $500 tax credit, which is how I'm reading it. Or is that not what you mean by this? Council member, if you want to respond to that. Thank you. So most of the communities that we looked at pay in the range of $100 to $200. So this is saying that you have to pay. Basically, we have to qualify, they paid their road dues and that they paid more than X amount. But I'm looking at this language in B that was pointed out and this is not supposed to be It's not supposed to be more than five hundred dollars supposed to be basically between a hundred and five hundred Depending on the road dues that are being collected each year by the HOA and so the intentionality is These are the this is the amount of road dues we're seeing that are being imposed on our community This is what and how much we as a county are choosing to help subsidize through this property tax credit. This is a great area to look at as well. I mean, if we said this is too much money, we could ask. We could provide a amendment to this and decrease the amount we're willing to provide back as a tax credit which would help I think both both of our director and administrator in front of us. So there may be a needed language clarification here to really guide that discussion in the right area but that's exactly why it's in front of us today so good point. Thank you. Okay so probably should be lesser $500 or the amount paid under subsection. I would I think that term greater would be unless I'm reading this but should be lesser than $500 or less than 500. But if we brought that down less than 300 less than 200, we could then decrease the revenue reduction that is worrying our director of finance. Thanks. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you. Councilmember Brinava. Thank you. On the same section. Maybe on the intention verse. I support the intention because I think there's communities like this around the island like you pointed out I just in hearing from the administration at how to make it feasible and make it work I think is a different animal that we're talking about here but regarding section section B, I don't know if we just say the amount equal to the amount are, the amount paid not to exceed $500. That way we have the cap and I think that's just a clearer way of seeing it, but look to administrator and a patient council on that one. Thank you. Councilmember, how do you want to please? Thank you. Yeah, I get it. These folks are struggling to get their roads paved and strut a lot of folks that are in the situation are struggling with paying an extra one or $200 a year for this purpose. So I understand the intent completely. I am very much hearing what our finance department and our real tax administrator are saying though and you know so we're not talking about 800 to a million here we're talking about that plus potentially for clerks or not getting business done that needs to get done so it seems like right now is not the best time for this. So that's how I'm feeling about it, but at a maybe a later date when we're a little more solid, it would be a good time to bring this up again. That's my thoughts. Thank you. I yield, Chair. Any further discussion going back to, yes, Miss Vietnamese, please? Yeah. And I apologize if it's something that you already explained. But so there are subdivisions in my district that are private subdivisions with private roads and they maintain the road. Do they also qualify for this? Mind you, these are not, let's call them, workforce housing subdivisions or subdivisions. These are more affluent subdivisions, right? And they have to pay to maintain their roads. So my concern would be, are they, do they have the option for a tax credit? Yes, if they're not gated. So if they're gated, they're excluded from this, but they do need to have either a road maintenance organization, he has in here means a homeless association road maintenance corporation or other not for profit entity that is organized and responsible for the maintenance repair or improvement of a private roadway but they would be eligible. Okay unless it's gated so it removes that but other high end subdivisions that have their own road. Yes. Okay. Oh. The differences in our districts are so profound. Okay. Thank you. I, you know, I see this and I see the intention and I see them moving forward and the creativity. Wow, to find a way to support your constituents and the communities that were honestly neighborhoods built in places that it's been questioned whether or not they ever should have been based on lava and inundation potential. But I am, you know, from a principle and value standpoint, in full support of this creative way to provide support to these communities from a logistical execution standpoint and the precariousness of the rest of the world in this dystopian episode. I find myself a little more cautious about this. So, but I also want to honor that the maker is, as am I in our final terms. So, you know, there's a time constraint for what can be done while we're here in these seats. So I'm kind of on the fence on this, but for a principal standpoint, in full support, Council Member. Yeah, I yield. Thank you, Council Member. Back to Councillor McKimble then. Yeah, thank you. I had a question for the maker. Have any of your state legislative partners looked at some sort of tax credit that would occur at the income tax level, at the state level, with the respect to the HOA fees or the Romain and S fees. To my knowledge, no. Okay. And I may not have tracked them in this one, but the my knowledge, no, not of this time. Yeah, okay. And, and um, director Nakagawa, with respect to the fuel tax, that's collected by the state and then our portion is distributed to us from the state. How does that mechanically work? Yeah, I believe so. What's that? Yes. Yes, okay. I want to maybe take a little time to think about where this come from comes from and whether or not it makes sense as a real property tax credit and shouldn't either be an income tax credit or somehow tied in with the fuel tax because the county paving would happen with the fuel tax revenue. And so I could see where you would say these people are paying their fair share towards road maintenance through fuel tax, but they are not getting the benefit of the maintenance on their roads. So then I think there's some things to think about there with the reduction that we will potentially see in fuel tax over time due to the increase in electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles. Like we were already starting to see the fuel tax decline. So I don't have an easy answer right now, but thinking about perhaps RPT not being the right-place offer this credit from I think is worthy of conversation. Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Any further discussion? Mr. Connolly-Clanfellar, please. Thank you. Thank you for the discussion today and that I appreciate the director and administrators input. I think from my point of view, I just gonna keep it simple. It's an equity issue, and I think you touched on it, Miss Campbell, it's everyone in Hawaii County pays fuel tax, where all pay property tax is, but people who live in the subdivisions, and I don't, you know, I'm just going to say that I don't live in any of the subdivisions, this would actually help. Like we touched on in Bill 82, they don't have access to police and fire in some cases because they can't get to them. They just can't access those properties with the private roads in place. And the HomeWare associations can't keep up with the road work. And what I've heard a lot from the community is, but the community associations actually is they don't get a lot of the dues and they have no ability to force collect except for a lien and that process becomes incredibly difficult. And so this does a few things at once. It provides the equity. It doesn't really or decrease the revenues in a hard way for the county. In my opinion, that's my opinion. But it also does something else which is interesting. If we provide a property tax credit, That's my opinion. But it also does something else, which is interesting. If we provide a property tax credit, that's where we get the most complaints. The county raises property taxes. They're charging us a fortune and for what? If we offer the credit for the property taxes, and we provide individuals with a homeowner exemption for their payment to their HOA. We actually will begin to force the HOA to book keep better because they have to provide records back to real property. And because there's now a benefit to the individual, I think we'll start to see more people pay their road dues because they get a property tax credit for paying it. A lot of them just don't pay their road dues right now. Some communities are mandatory, some are voluntary. If you lived in a voluntary home or association that your road dues were voluntary, there's no recourse if you don't pay your road dues, you're not going to pay them. There's at least three major subdivisions in our area that don't have mandatory road dues. This bill would actually enable people to get a credit back for what they've paid towards fixing their own roads that are not the counties per view. And get a little bit of equity back without breaking the counties back. That's's all I see. Are you all checked? Thank you. To Mr. O'oney, please. Thank you, Chairman. Question to the author of the bill. Absolutely. So what is the average fee these private owners are paying to the association? I've seen anywhere from voluntary, which means zero. I mean, zero. I think Paradise Park for a year is about $485. And what is the lowest? So the lowest for a mandatory that I've seen is I want to say about $185 to $215 per year. And so, does that help? Average, this is called average to $250 to $200. Okay. Thank you. Great discussion in the past on the council. This was mentioned before about the county helping to offset those unpaid roadways. And they mentioned always about fuel tax that everybody's paying their share of the fuel tax, right? And they're not benefiting. But the argument was also that they do travel on the paved roads as they exit their properties, right? On to the main highways and so forth. One other thing was also discussed back then was the cost of the properties, right. Back when they, you know, some people when they bought their properties down in Paradise Park could have costed like $5,000 for an acre, okay. Knowing that there was no infrastructure, okay. infrastructure. Others like in Hilo with the new subdivisions, like on Hilo Hill side, you're going to be paying maybe about 200 to 300,000 for getting all that infrastructure. So that's the difference in balance of purchasing your properties. And I understand about affordability. And that's where for us, President, Council, it's hard for us because back, way back, the Council back then looked at that as affordable for local people. But without having the proper infrastructure for them. And now we're the ones that got to look at how we can make it better for them. Ventionable budget team people. Out of our entire like over $900 million of our budget that we're looking at. Finance director, what is the percentage of that budget goals towards our employees like with salaries and also with other benefits? What would be a percentage of that? When we recently looked at that, it was over 50%. Over 50%. 80%? 80% 50% 50% 50% 50% Okay. And so, you know, like as this is going to be targeting island wide, right, we can specify. So I don't know if property tax administrator, Lisa has like crunched in all the numbers. Like estimating the whole cost for all the different private land owners, right? In this kind of situation, but also adding the cost of having the more manpower, having all, I mean like with their salaries salaries, their benefits, right? And also, whatever any other expenses that going cost to get, I guess, I guess what it is to operate, to have this refunds. Have you done that? So I'm seeing two questions. One, if we reviewed all the private roads with mandatory road dues. Right. That we didn't. I will say councilmember Kanali Eclinephilder did provide us with all those that his staff and he located on the island. So we based it on that which was about 24,000 parcels. It doesn't take into account all the smaller subdivisions that don't have public notices or information we don't know about. When it comes to the staff, I know what our county clerical staff make and we do have the estimates for what that would cost in addition for their benefits. If we get to that next level then we could prepare spread sheets. So right now for me it's a little bit hard because it's like, like I mentioned before about how, I guess the way the subdivision was set up and how now we're trying to see how we can compensate. I could see if like it was mentioned before about certain private roads were public or other I guess households are using certain roads to bypass the traffic on the main road and that's affecting those people on those certain roads right so to me I think we should look at maybe trying to help them first and improving their roadways to make sure that it's safe and that for their community and for their families and also for the people who are using that certain roads. And I think that's where I would support something like that. Like, mentioned before the emergency road from I guess volcano road coming down to highway 19 is the lower road, the Pune Road or something like that but they had that emergency road right there connector. So something like I don't know if that is an existence or was that ever funded to to the road? Please Mr. Carly Clinton I'm going to reply. Thank you. Now there's been a number of projects brought forward over the years. I can't think of specifically a highway in 19. There's highway 11, which is a state highway for volcano. Between, is that what you're talking about? Yeah, I had that main emergency road that we wanted to connect right from the two highways. There have been some projects brought forward, I think that's part of the Pooner Road's alternate route discussion, a little bit different, but yeah, same idea. I think just to your comment, I would say Bill 82, which the council passed last year, which we're still waiting for an application from our corporation council, as well as funding, would enable the DPW and the administration to really focus in on certain roads they want to help provide maintenance for. This goes the other way, this is more providing a credit back to the public to help them with the cost of maintaining their own ways that we don't. Yeah, and I understand that, but then like I say also, You know, it comes down to purchasing of the property and deciding where you want it to live. And so if like I say, if it's for other uses, like emergency and so forth, I'll support this. But thank you. Are you? Thank you Mr. Ronski. Council member Kirkowitz, floor is yours. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, administrative yara, director Nakagawa, for be willing to have the conversation, but also being honest about what the impact will be on county personnel and just the volumous amount of work that you are currently trying to get through. You know, I'm curious to should something like this pass. How would you go about knowing where to make the cut? So if there's a $2.1 million payout, will the communities that are receiving the payout see a reduction in county services to make up for that gap. I'm just curious how we would go about filling that revenue gap that we know. We will find ourselves in, should something like this pass in. I appreciate the creativity, and it would be interesting to pursue the idea that Councilmember Kimball brought up regarding the fuel tax because that is something we all pay into when we fuel up at the pump. But I don't know, where would the reduction in services be felt? Director. Yes, thanks. Thank you, Council Member Kirkowitz. So, you know, exactly where I don't have that answer, but as you know, we have to budget for the revenues we receive. So cuts, if we don't have this revenue, then we'll have to make a reduction in the budget. And so we would do that depending on the timing, if it was through the budget process today, then we'd have to go through and look at all of the general fund programs and services and see where reductions could be made, just as if we were in any revenue shortfall. Okay, thank you. Just hard conversations that we'll need to have at some point. And then, you know, Councilmember Cannelli, the E. Crinfeld, I know you have a great relationship with our state legislators. I really think that we need to continue to work with them to ensure accountability of the private associations who are in charge of you know maintaining roads in private subdivisions. So I'm going to continue to urge you to work in that space because they're writing the statute that governs these private subdivisions and the answer is not for the county to provide more relief. But I think there's a lot more wiggle room for the state to provide relief as councilmember Kimball suggested maybe through income tax. But I definitely think there can be more accountability that the state is requiring of these private associations. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Miss Kirkwoods. Any further discussion? Back to you, Mr. Kennedy-Clinfeller. Thank you. Now, interesting discussion. I'll say that. So in reviewing our budget this year, I mean, I saw millions going into different areas of the budget and some of those things that question some I don't. Also, in passing ability to and hoping for funding year over year and seeing none, even having it be promoted is not accessible because we should be doing more, which is an interesting and logical conundrum of not being enough. So let's do more, but let's not do anything at all. To being here now and looking at, again, $942 million budget addressing an age-old equity problem. Regardless of property values, what happened, we allowed for these things to be built subdivisions, substandard, and have basically held our hands up as everyone touched it. Not spare. So, ability to was our first step towards rectifying that age-old problem. This would be a good step, I believe. And I guess let me put it this way, director. If we were to decrease the reduction and we looked at staffing, RPT, more which Ms. Björn has said she needs anyway. Would there be wiggle room in there to find a middle ground? So just to clarify though, there's an existing need for staff regardless of this. So we're looking into that. So there's already a need for additional resources. This would just be adding to that as well. I think what I remember administrator said four more positions would allow her to do this. That's what I heard. Four more positions, but there is already a request in that we're evaluating and looking into with existing conditions as they are today. So just to increase RPD staffing. Correct. So we've talked about that need that we're looking into for this division and that their staffing levels is being evaluated. Just due to changes and just increase administrative workload that they're looking at on top of this. Okay, so if I put those two together then, RPT is saying I could do it if I had four more people and you're saying we are actually in process of reviewing adding more staff to the department. That's at a status core right now. Not in the group. So as we're going through the budget process with every department, we evaluate their staffing levels. And some have identified the need for additional resources. Our real property division is one of those that as we've talked about has some additional needs and as we move forward with the next reiteration of the budget, I've mentioned that this is an area that we are looking into and this is prior to kind of evaluation of what resources would be needed to do this. Okay, administrator, sorry. Right now you have nine positions, clerical positions that are doing the work. Correct, to our vacant. To our vacant. And then when I asked how many more positions the answer was four. For this bill. Just for this bill, so the- Correct, so we've had supplemental requests year after year that have been not funded for positions. Okay, so 13 positions, clerical would allow you to do this bill and what you're doing now. Correct. Correct, okay, thank you. And then, Director Nakagawa, we are saying we're actually in process of reviewing adding more positions to the budget in this next iteration of the budget coming up in May. So we just finished our budget review. We'll be heading into our next semiddle in May. And this is a time when we revisit our revenue projections and then take a look at any other supplemental or additions to the budget. Okay, so what I deserve is there's possibly more positions being added and funded for RPT. And so this discussion, sorry, for what I'm catching from all that is it's in the works. Correct me, I'm wrong. So you're making it very specific to RPT, but this is a budget process as a whole. Understood. Everything will be evaluated based on the revenue, revised revenue projections that we have, the entire county budget, not just one division or one department, but everything will be evaluated. And of course, as we've discussed, these are critical positions. So yes, they will be evaluated as a whole, like all the other department requests. Okay, so I'm hearing different things. I'm hearing yes, I'm just going to say yes. So yes, there's possibly more positions coming to RPT, regardless of reviewing it as a whole. That's what we're discussing. And we're discussing the impact on a department, and I'm hearing I need four more positions to handle this, which might be a little bit over, because you're handling a lot with your nine and your two short-handed, then this is a possible. So I'm just trying to help alleviate the conversation as to being so heavy as if this comes in, it's gonna kill the department. What I was... is impossible. So I'm just I'm just trying to help alleviate the conversation as to being so heavy as if this comes in it's going to kill the department. I will say I will lose more staff. Clerks have looked at this and said they will quit if I don't get more people. So I just want to be on record for that. We don't we're drowning our overtime budget you guys is blown way out of the water. And staff don't want to do overtime. They're sick, they're tired. The do more with less, we've been hearing it since Mayor Kenoy. They're done, they're burnt out, and I'm burnt out. So I can't pretend four might be over overkill but you also said I underestimated how much revenue lost I'd get and so I don't know. I'd love for people to have it. I'll be honest I think it's a great idea. I can't go back to my office and say I didn't try and explain how hard this would be. So that's all. Okay, that's fair. My point is not to kill any county workers in the process of passing a bill. But it is to protect the communities and provide the equity. You know that really is my role and all of our roles. Tempted to put this towards a vote today just to see what people said because regardless it moves forward to council in respect to the organizations in front of me finance and RPT I'm going to postpone this and I'll put it to a vote of the council to do so Two of later dates so we can sit down and go through some of the things that are brought up today I'm not in love with the state side because I think the state will just kick it back so since they take care of it yourself. It's your problem, which they've been doing for years, regarding private roads. But I like that idea whether it has merit, we'll see. So for today, Mr. Clerk, what is the next meaning in a month? And I do wanna give you time, Mr. Husses, to speak to the bill if you think. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. I'll help the clerk answer your question first if that's okay. If you mean roughly a month from now, May 20th. May 20th? That's a committee meeting? Yes sir. Thank you. Any further discussion on the bill as it currently stands Miss Beaguse, please sure I just want to thank Mrs. Miara for your honesty You always do an amazing job here By not trying to share opinions that might sway something but I hear you in your plea and I respect your leadership and management skills for speaking up for your staff. So thank you for your honesty today, which allows us to make decisions and to continue conversations without negatively impacting employees or reducing the number you have. So I just wanted to say that personally and professionally. I appreciate your candor today. I yield. Thank you, Councillor Verne. Okay, so just my final thoughts on this, if you don't mind. I just want mohalo assist in administrative, cater Joe and Hilo for sitting with us here. And then of course administrator and director Galau for your, your insight, your feedback and the details on some of these figures and number and then working with the maker on kind of understanding the impacts and so forth. So and of course, thank you, Councillor McKinnelly, you kind of felt for for the discussion. It's been very good conversation across the board on different thoughts and different ideas. I might question to you in kind of looking forward and moving this forward and think thoughts about it is really identifying the geographic distribution of the communities that could benefit from this. And then those that would definitely probably take action on it, knowing that they may find a break and may take that break. So I'm just curious when you dive into the numbers and the figures and see where the distribution is across the entire county. Because yes, in the district that you represent, there could be more benefit for the community members there for sure, and that they'll take heart to that and realize that benefit and impact. I'm thinking of other communities that already have the means and that will take advantage of, they'll necessarily not, maybe advantage is not the right term, but we'll utilize this for their purpose beyond the means that they already have. So I do see kind of especially in the areas where we have more wealth and more fluency that they're going to kind of take advantage of this process and procedure. So I do have some concerns on that side of for sure, but I do want to find that mechanism that impacts and can benefit our community members that have those substantive roads that you so experience and share with us. So thank you for that. So with that, if you will have a motion for postponement, we'll take that now. Beautiful, thank you Chair. So to the council then, then when is the next budget hearing for the next iteration? When is the next iteration of the budget due? So May 5th is, the second opportunity, the draft comes in from the mayor's office, the second draft. Is that correct, Director? May 5th is our next middle. That's correct. And we're here to counsel May 5th. I don't have this schedule in front of me. No. So the first reading of the budget for our special council finance committee is May 22nd. Okay. Mr. Clerk, when is the first meeting in June for committees? June 3. Okay. Councilmember, is motion to postpone bill 38 to the June 3rd committee hearings. Mr. Clerk, we have a motion to postpone bill 38 to the June 3rd meeting from Mr. Carnegie Klintelder and a second from Mr. Onishi. Any discussion on the postponement? Mr. Carnegie Klintelder. All right, thank you. Just appreciate it once time. And then it's not gonna go. Thank you very much for your put and helping get to where we are today. I know it is not comfortable, but I mean, we oppose ideas, but that's fine. At least we had a good conversation about it. I appreciate that. And Ms. Muir, I think you make so honest. And let's see what happens with your staffing levels between here and the next iteration of the budget. Thank you. Any further discussion on the postponement? Okay, seen then. All those in favor the postponement Okay, seeing none all those in favor postponement bill 38 to the June third meeting please say aye Any opposed Mr. Clerk you have nine eyes on the postponement bill 38 to the June third meeting It is two or three and I will pass back the chair duties to Mr. Connid clan felt through Feltler this time. Thank you. Thank you, Acting Chair, Houston. Thank you for taking over. You did well. Appreciate it. Mr. Clerk, please, other record reflect that I have taken over the chair at 2.03 pm. Our next item is Bill 39, please. Prior to proceeding to Bill 39, I would note that the wording on the agenda for Bill 38 is incorrect. It lists $500 as the minimal amount as opposed to the maximum that will be corrected for the June 3rd agenda. Thank you for that clarification, sir. Is there any testimony for Bill 39? Hearing none, Bill 39 and men's chapter 19 article 1 section 19-2 and article 7 section 19-53, otherwise county code 1983, 2016 edition as amended relating to their affordable rental housing growth poverty tax classification. Repeals the definition of affordable rental housing, amends the definition of affordable rental rate, and amends subsectionsection H, eligibility for affordable rental housing class introduced by Councilmember Inaba. Motion to for bill 39 to counsel with a favorable recommendation. I have a motion by Councilmember Inaba and a second by Councilmember Inaba to approve bill 39 and for the Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilmember Inaba, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. For our new members, this is a bill that we kind of dabbled in in the previous term in a slightly different version. I'd introduced a bill to replace the current payment standard with 100% of the area median income as the qualifier for the real property affordable rental class, currently the affordable rental class and the homeowner class have the same rate. And the attempt here is to try and broaden the scope of those who can be in this program. And it provides also the 3% assessment cap that the homeowner class provides. There was some feedback in the previous bill. It's some concern that the 100% AMI was too big a jump in that current renters in the program might experience hardship if their landlords chose to jump up to 100%. There was also discussion about setting the affordable rental rate by resolution. And I think that's what I was supposed to bring back. But in the meantime, there was discussion with real property tax and OHCD with concern about having a set of year resolution. First of all, that all of us here has a good idea, but as we do, turn out and other members, other folks come and serve on the council, we might get into some trouble with setting rates and making sure that we're keeping up to date. So what's being proposed here instead is rolling over from the payment standard to 80% of the area median income and I've provided to all of you today communication 1109.1 from the previous council term. So on the first page of that document you can see a comparison between the current payment standards for studios up to four bedrooms against 6080 and 100% of the area median income, again the bill before us today is proposing to go to the 80% AMI level. So ultimately asking for your folk support, you can see where the rental prices are changing on the last page of the document. Sorry, no, that's not the last page. On the fourth page of the document is the current payment standard versus the 80% AMI. So ask for your support and I do have an amendment today that I also wanna take up. So understanding the point of the bill as a whole, I'd like to make a motion to amend bill 39 with the contents of communication, 206.1. I it's really to try and expand the scope of who are trying to serve and ultimately that's those in the community. So, the main difference here and credit for this one to administrator costs that it's really to try and expand the scope of who are trying to serve. And ultimately that's those in the affordable rental AMI categories. So what this amendment does is it expands the scope of Bill 39, which is specifically just to the 80% AMI to also include properties who are certified by OACD as Section 8 rental units. And essentially it's trying to reward folks either for renting at the 80% or engaging in a program that ensures folks are in an affordable I site, like to call on Administrator Costa, if she'd like to chime in on this specific amendment and then Administrator Niro after that. Good afternoon council members. Please introduce yourself. Administrator Gaeha Kosta, housing administrator. Thank you, and I'm sugar. If you can just give your feedback on this specific amendment here. So the current bill, exempting landlords, or giving the exemption to landlords who are renting at 80% AMI is a good bill. I appreciate it. It incentivizes setting the rent rates at 80% or below AM Am I? However, real property tax doesn't have the capacity and nor is it the intention of that aspect of the program to actually certify the tenants in those units. So that aspect of the bill keeps the rents low for who, home ever is living in the unit. The amendment is to encourage participation in the Section 8 program because we certify that the tenants in the programs are 80% or below AMI and that their rent burden or the amount that they're paying in rent is not more initially not more than about 40% of their income. So they are paying rent, 40% of their adjusted income and we subsidize the rest. So through the Section 8 Program, we're ensuring that we are also capturing the renters who need the affordable rent. So two parts. Thank you, Administrator. And Administrator, we're not any comment at this time on the amendment. Good afternoon, Lisa Mier, real property tax administrator. We actually do appreciate the fact that some of the heat might get taken off of us by including in there or are certified by the Office of Housing and Community Development as Section 8 rental units. Because as she said, as Administrator Costa said, it puts it more on housing and we have had concerns from the public that felt like our affordable housing program should be tied to what the tenant income is making. So at least there's a difference or a differential for that. And I believe at the end of the day, moving away from the payment standard also helps housing so they can use that for what it's intended for without having to worry about what real property tax office needs. public health and the public health and the public health and the public health and the public health and the public health and the public health and the public health and the public health and the public health and the public health and the public health and a question for administrator Costa. Or I guess for either of you, will you be certifying all clients in the affordable housing are only those getting section 8 vouchers. Do you need clarification? I do. Okay, so one thing that was just brought up is that this could help relieve R.P.T. with some of their burden because you'll be certifying the AMI levels of those receiving section eight vouchers. Only for section eight. Okay, but you will not be doing that. So it'll be together, but you'll still just be doing your folks not. Okay. Just wanted that clarified. Sorry, I'm just trying to make sure I'm staying on the amendment. The amendment doesn't deal with the AMI change, right? That's the main body. Correct. Okay. I think that was my main question on the amendment itself. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. On the Council Member Gilebo. Thanks. I just wanted to ask, sorry, for my ignorance, but are there affordable rental limitations for the properties that you certify as section eight. What type of limitations are you? So, yeah, I'm sorry, I don't know. No, section eight too well. So, someone qualifies for section eight, right? And then they get a voucher. So, they are qualified based on their income. Income, yeah. Yeah, and so then they get a voucher. So they are qualified based on their income. And so then they go out to look for a place that has to be previously certified. Okay, so. Yeah, landlords can participate at any time. They can participate in advance of having a tenant. They can participate at the time they have a tenant. They can participate at the time that their existing tenant receives a voucher coming off the wait list. We do, when landlords participate in section 8, we do a couple of things. We do a home inspection. Make sure that it passes, HUDs housing quality standards. We check to make sure that the property is for the most part permitted. I do allow some unpermitted, but it's on a case by case, and that's usually for non-living space like a covered lani and they put a cover on the lani, you know, so living space needs to be permitted. We do a rent comparison so landlord can say I want to charge $4,000 a month and we will go in and do comps and say sorry in your area for a unit this size, this type of construction, this age, the going rent is $1,200 a month. So you need to bring the rent down to what is comparable to the area if you want to participate. So there's a number of things that the landlords have to participate in, along with just a lot of compliance with program rules and guidelines. So as long as the landlord's willing to do all of those things, then yep, we bring them on to our program. Thank you. That's helpful. I mean, interesting because there would be potentially two different rates. There would be this affordable rental cap and then there would be this section 8 comparable rental and de-folks would be kind of, yeah. Well, it could be two completely different things, that it's in the same program. I guess, let's see. What was my question around that? I think I'm okay, okay, okay. Then the other part of it is the permitting part, which I've heard some landlord saying that that's like the major reason that they don't. There's the rental amount limits but then there's also the permitting part of it. And you know, usually it's an older place that you're potentially going to be doing affordable rentals. So the current code says it has to be all, I have the exact words, but like, all permits or something, that's be completely up to date. And you're you have like a little more wiggle room to our mostly but then accessory space maybe very very little yeah okay all right and I'm not sure if this is for you or for corporation council, but I guess for you, would you have any heartburn or see any problems with removing that language around like all permitting, completely up to date perm all for me for now. Thank you. Any other input on the amendment? Councillor Mellita? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank now. Thank you. Any other input on the amendment? Councillor McKinnell. Yes, thank you. Just to the maker, the last clause there are number one with an initial lease term of one year. Is that meant to apply only to the section eight rental units or both to the affordable rental rate, the other units, so you have two possible units, the certified ones or the ones that are rented at the affordable rate. And I think without a comma, it looks like the year lease applies to both. In this amendment, it applies to the second, but the rules of the affordable rental program require anyway. So it does require for bold but specifically this section eight language was brought by housing and she can provide an administrative and provide detailed response for the reason for that. Jacob I don't mean that the explanation I would just this is just a clerical thing I would think there might be an Oxford come on needed after the rate before the war to distinguish those as two separate clauses. Thanks. Good. Anyone else? Okay. My only question is certification. Who does a certification? Office of housing. Yeah, office of housing. We would just do annual consent by landlord and then provide the TMK's over to real property tax. So less burden on them in that respect. Thank you. Okay, Council members, on the amendment, anything further? To the maker? Good to go. Okay. All motion on the floor right now is to amend bill number 39 with the contents of Communication 206.1. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Mr. Clerk, you have eight members in favor. Mr. O'Neill, being excused. Back to the main motion. Council members, Council member Inama. Yeah, thank you. And just pointing out there is one significant difference between what we had discussed last term and bill 39 and that is on page two, the removal of number two saying that all rental units must be sorry. No. I'm going to yield for now. OK. Thank you. On the main motion, council members. Council member Kouyawata. Thank you, Chair. So, to either or both administrators, when I'm looking at the proposed changes, especially for rentals in East Hawaii, I'm seeing up to an additional almost $400 a month, $387 a month with the proposed 75% payment standard for a one-bedroom. To me that seems a little scary for somebody renting an affordable property, and east to IE to jump up that much. Any feedback on that? On those numbers there. Administrator Costa, administrator, you're either, are both, take your, you're either are both figured over wants to go first. So I'm not sure what your question is, but I know what your statement is. You know, what we're really trying to do is decouple the real property tax rate from our payment standard. Our payment standard is, so this section 8 payment standard is set by Fair Market Rents which HUD does a fair market rent study and we by federal code can set our payment standards between 90 and 110% of the fair market rent. So our payment standard right now is 110% of the fair market rent. We can do exception payments in areas that have a higher rent. We back that amount down to 75% for the affordable rental rate program. Our payment standard is affected by our budget. So when we have inflationary spending given to us by Congress and we have more money, we go up to the top. And so this program will go up higher when we have to manage our budget. There could potentially be a time where we reduce our payment standard. So then this program is affected as well. Right. So it does fluctuate and can fluctuate based on the sectioning budget. So it's not set. So we have to, if we're really going to do this and separate it out from the payment standard and we're going to follow a program that real property tax can easily access and not have to do complicated calculations with, not have to wait for our office to create the schedule. We're looking at HFTC HUD rents. Original bill is for 100% way too high. 60% is a little too low. We will lose participation in the program. So 80% although there are some, there are increased, it is an increase. I think it's a safe place to land. And you know, I'd like to hope that our landlords that are out there providing affordable rentals to our families in the community are not going to look at this and say I can raise rent by $300 on a wind bedroom. I think that they're, and really truly even the ones that we work with within our Section 8 program, they're looking at the families and they may raise some rent over time, but I don't think that they will initially jump that high, change that much because it's not a huge, it's a big increase, but I think I'd be hopeful. So for Section 8, it shouldn't matter that much. It will matter in our budget because we make up the, I mean, using the vouchers, you make up the difference between the 40% of what people can pay. Yes, and the difference. But for our affordable housing program of our county, we don't make up that difference, right? Now, so the renter will be expected to pay that difference. Correct? If the landlord raises the rent. OK, so I guess my question maybe is to the maker. Or is there a way to do a differential like there is with the 75% payment standard for the higher income zip codes and the lower incomes it codes? That would be up to this body to choose a different AMI for certain zip codes. It can get tricky being that HUD and HFDC publish 60, 80, 100, 120 and. So there would be, and what we're trying to get away from is all these calculations. So what 80% represents is also an opportunity to encourage some folks who are not willing to rent a current 75% standard and to get them into the program as well. Yeah, understood and really see the need on the West Side to do this and to raise those maximum levels, but I also have a real fear for the East side of people getting priced out. So because we are, if we go to one standard, I mean, that was the thing I kept hearing while we discussing is it was very important to have this differential between the east and west sides generally, but between the higher income areas and the lower income areas. So I guess that's what we're losing here if we go this way. And that's, that would be a big concern I would have. So that's just a statement on that. And then my other question has to do with having HSHFDC set the standard or set the payment rates. That is a state organization and we are asking them to do this. Can we assign this to them? How, as a county, can we just say you're gonna do this for us? Yes. So the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation that was created in 2006 under the Department of Business and Economic Economic and Tourism. So it's something they do every year in July anyway. So I don't think we're asking them to do anything. We're just going to it. Housing is using their numbers now and then they do all their formulations to come up with what they do, which is why we usually get it in late September. This would allow real property tax to actually put those applications out sooner in the year. Okay, so we're just adopting what they put out. Correct. We're not having them set our rates. Correct. We're just adopting their standard. Yes. Okay. Well, theyI. Right. Right. Which goes to county. Right. OK. That's different than the way I read it, I guess. All right. I yield for now. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. How's my friend? Thank you. I found what I was trying to find earlier. The other main difference here in section three of the bill, subsection H, the language being striped. Currently the affordable rental program requires that all units that are part of the program be legally permitted by all codes and that's really been a struggle for our landlords trying to get in and limits who can participate in the program. So working with this on a credit to administrator, Mira, I'm really trying to expand that pool to include pretty much all units. And again, especially on the section eight side, certain health standards are verified via the section eight program, but in general, opening the pool a little bit more for folks to get into the program. So just wanted to point out that difference here in Bill 39, as opposed to the current rules of the program. Thank you. Councillor Rikimba. Yeah, thank you. Turn up. I'm going to ask you to remind me again why we were even considering the way from the payment standards to the AMI. We've got a little bit of explanation from administrator cost to that. But the two things about the payment standard, well, one thing that I like is the difference, that there's different rates for East Side West Side. And we lose that by switching to the AMI. But I remember you had a really good reason for wanting to switch. And so I'd like to be refreshed about what that is. The second thing is this, this, um, looking at the, the difference between what would be paid through the payment standard versus the AMI or how the rent would be set in those last two columns and all these pages. It's really interesting from the standpoint of I can't quite figure out what the calculations are, but it's a very different, you know, in one case you're paying a lot more for the smaller units and the change is less significant for the big ones. That's not the case across the board. So I don't know how they're calculated differently, but they're clearly calculated very differently based on the size of the unit. Do you know anything about how that difference can be explained? Sure. So the first question, why away from AMI, really to be simple, again, AMI is published earlier. Payment Standard is an internal formula that Office of Housing and Community Development works through that real property access to wait on. So we're trying to simplify it because HFTC and Housing HUD always published, so we're going to that standard and on the landlord side, it also makes it easier for them because no-rows do we typically use payment standards. It's kind of an internal related to section 8 kind of deal where AMI is published everywhere. So the intent is to go with a system that is used pretty much universally whether it's through a rental program like this or if we're talking about affordable housing agreements, it always as it relates to AMI, not payment standard. So that was the reason to get away from the payment standard. And then in terms of the difference depending on the number of units that goes to how payment standard works with market rent market rental rates and what the housing office ultimately chooses in terms of whether it's 110% or 90%. So it depends on the market rate of those different units and what housing selects as the payment standard. And that's why you'll see, you know you know in some cases a big difference of up to 387 at the greatest or for a three-bed drum the greatest change would be 171 those are the differences and if you on administrator cost it to explain a little bit further on how they work the payment standards and and how that calculates out. I'm going to defer to her. I guess the best thing is for me to give you an example of that and I hope I'm saying this correctly. My staff will correct me later. But a few years ago, a couple years ago during COVID, we got a big boost from HUD, $5 million inflationary spending, and they said spend it. Pull every lever that you can to spend this money down. And one of the waivers that we got from HUD was to go to 120%. Okay, that's the part they're gonna correct me on, but I believe we were able to go to 120% so we went higher than fair market because we had a one-year waiver to do that that affected the real property tax program. A year later no more waiver we were out of COVID we didn't have that inflationary money anymore back down to 110%. Real property tax now have to drop their rents. And landlords are like in the middle of what is happening at HUD and what is happening with our section 8 program is affecting this program. So I think it is a really good idea to take it away from the payment standard and just follow in my, I think it's just cleaner and it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, it, the rental rates for our county based on housing studies, we can participate in a housing study. We can actually conduct our own housing study as long as we follow HUD's methodology and we can petition HUD to update their fair market rent based on our ability to provide that consultation. So, you know, we have some ways to really look at the rental rates for our payment standards. So I just think it's a good idea to separate it. It gets a little muddled. I think this program was initially intended to support Section 8 and to encourage Section 8 participation. But over the years we've seen it really not be a Section 8 program. There's not a lot of section eight landlords that are able to participate in this program because we the rates are set low. If I could just have a moment too, I would like to say that the part of the amendment that I really think for me is encouraging is to encourage section 8 participation in our high rent areas. And I believe that Cheri Naba was, this was why he was going to 100% initially because he's really trying to address our west side, Waimea, where rents are really high. So, for example, my son, my oldest son just rented in Weimea with two of his friends, a three bedroom. I believe their rent is like 3,200 or 3,400 a month for three young men, displayed. Our payment standard for YMIA 3 bedroom, the highest that a landlord could charge in the Section 8 program is 2973. That landlord will not participate in Section 8 because they can charge more on the market. However, if we're coupling Section 8 with the exemption, that landlord may decide to reduce their rent from 3,200 to 2,900, not a big difference in rent for that landlord, but over time could be a significant difference in their real property tax bill. So that's why I put the amendment forward is because I'd like to try to address not only appropriate mess of the tenants living in those units, but to start to address how we can create exception rents within our payment standard program, within our payment standard, to address small areas of our island where rents are higher and to encourage adoption and to section 8 through this program. So just trying to bring these two aspects together to have more landlords on our island be incentivized to provide affordable rentals to tenants who need it. So that's the point of the amendment. So, do I still hold the floor? Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you to the maker for the explanation. I think I would like to consider this with an East Side and a West Side rate or maybe even perhaps by Census Block, which might be the easiest way to pull it out rather than districts or things like that because we have some districts that have two different sets of blocks right next to each other that have very different AMIs. So I'm willing to spend a little time digging into that with the Census Bureau data. But I think it's important to have that difference between Eastside and Westside with this, given what you just said. And if we're going to go to the 80%, I think we might want to put a little staggering in there. As much as you are hopeful that landlords wouldn't immediately go up to the higher rate, perhaps we would limit the increment that they could go up in the legislation per year until they get to that highest MI, AI. So it's not an immediate $350 hit, but maybe it's limited to $100 a month for the first year. And then it can go up after that. That's just some thoughts I have right now. Thank you. Councillor Glamour. Thank you. So, yes, that's my whole thing about the permitting. I see it's across the outsell. I don't have to talk about that. But I guess, you know, the East Side West Side is a really important distinction. Even I know it's going to make it more complicated. There's still, if I just look at Zillow, even at the 80%, there aren't even any properties really. It's a couple of studios that would fit under the 80%. And I know Zillow might not be the entire market but just to look at quickly whereas on the east side like plenty you know and so there is that worry about allowing for higher rental rates. I do see the complication, maybe the necessary complication around wanting to take cares of as many people on this island and landlords, as we get as many landlords to do affordable until this possible. But in general, I like this approach. So that's just my thoughts for right now. Thank you. Council member Kulgyua. Thank you, Chair. All right. You said that with Section 8, I believe our county conservers about 2300 households per month. With these changes and needing to put more money per household because the numbers go up, but the people's incomes don't necessarily. So they're still playing their 40% and now the top rate is greater. We have a bigger portion to pay per household, is that correct? So I think you're implying that the increase on the rate of the real property tax, as it's being presented, 80% would affect the subsidy amount in section 8. Is that what you're asking? It would remain the same for the renter, but the amount the landlord is getting paid would be greater. Correct? It would be greater up to this amount. And therefore, the section 8 voucher money has to pay that difference, no? It won't. Changing the real property tax rent amount increasing that won't affect section 8 rents. Only the affordable housing rents. one effect section 8 and it won't affect section 8 rents. Only the affordable housing rents. It won't affect section 8, and it won't affect the subsidize amount that we pay. It's just two different schedules. OK. And then the other question I had is, do we not use our section 8? We do not find enough landlords. We give back or we don't utilize our sectionate money area. We're fully utilized, both in voucher and budget. But we are not. We don't have enough landlords in our, you know, we may have through our West Hawaii. We don't have enough landlords participating simply because the payment standard, the section eight payment standard, is just too far away from what can be market friends. So we need to find ways to incentivize participation in section 8 on the west side. Okay, understood. So just to be clear though, that will mean taking away section 8 vouchers from the east side in order to be more equitable around the island. I wouldn't say taking away when vouchers are, when there's a attrition and vouchers open up and then they put, we pull somebody from the wait list, they can choose wherever on the island that they live, that they want to live. So they could be currently living in West Hawaii, but may not be able to find suitable rental in their geographic areas. So we wouldn't take away vouchers. It just, there is natural attrition, and then we pull from the wait list, and that participant gets their voucher, and they go house hunting. And it's just often that the most affordable, or where they can apply their voucher is on the east side, but that does not mean that's where they want to reside. And that's also why so many of our project-based vouchers are being assigned to West Toei, to subsidizeize rent in west to west so that families can live participants households can live on west side. Okay, that makes a lot of sense. So it just gives, gonna give more options to renters of where they can live. Yes. Okay, great. That's wonderful. Okay, I would just love to figure out this differential between the, you know, less affluent communities and the higher affluent communities. If we can do that, it sounds like you guys are supportive of this. And so I'd be very supportive. However, we can figure that out. Okay. Further discussion? Okay, I have a question. I have a few actually. Okay, so, let's take the conversation today. This really is addressing the affordable rental rate. So your hope then is that more people utilize the affordable rental rate.. Not necessarily. I believe the hope is more people on the west side are willing to go in that are in the section 8 housing that they'll get more people into the program. So they will apply for it. The affordable housing program or the affordable rental class? Okay, so the affordable rental class would be utilized as a way for them to get into the Section 8 program or as an incentive. Got it. Okay. Do we have an idea of what we're hoping to achieve by doing this? What kind of percentage or increase will get? My program, are you asking about the affordable rental class? Class. Section 8. Section 8? Just to identify, do Section 8 vouchers for the question from Council Member Calguio-uata? I think I'll maybe clarify real quick. So in our old program or the way it's currently written at 75% of the payment standard, nothing to do with section 8. It's not tied to section 8 at all. In this amendment that was passed plus what is here, it would go to 80% of AMI, which is the whole affordable rental housing program. You can qualify by being 80% AMI monthly rental, which I believe is on what Councilmember Inaba provided, or your Insection 8. And Section 8 can be 100% of what they pay. So it's not tied to 80% AMI anymore. So that's why I think I wanted to clarify which one it is. So then we don't even look at, we'll still get the applications, but they look at the certifying it to us. We're not even collecting contracts anymore. We're not reviewing at all per this new one, whether it's permitted or not, which I would just like to share, Mahalo for that, because I know that was a big step, but legally permitted by all codes also includes building, planning, land nice, every little single thing in there. And I won't say what I think about how different departments look at that but it's been difficult for the public and us so we anticipate the section 8 or we hope the section 8 housing pull of West Hawaii properties to increase by having this or in there that allows them to go to higher than what even AMI has for West Hawaii. Have you done any estimations on how much this will increase? You said about your program section 8 program or participation in the affordable rental property tax class. We have not done any studies to determine whether this bill will directly increase participation. In 8. It is my assumption that it will based on my experience and my knowledge of why landlords choose not to participate in Section 8. I don't think this is a short term. Like we're going to see landlords jumping on this immediately. This is a long-term plan to address housing affordability, rental affordability, over time, and over time as we adjust the payment standard to include the exception rents of geographic areas and increase the payment standard slowly we have to do it slowly over time because of our budget but as we slowly increase the payment standards in in our geographic areas that have high rent, exception rent, then we will start to see better adoption because it will be combined with an exact real property tax exemption and it will encourage participation in section 8. Okay. Yeah. But have we gone out and done done surveys and studies around this? We have not I was getting that by it's why ask the question and a lot of what we do is data driven So what's gonna back up why we do a decision? Similarly what we just talked about on the last bill And I you that be into my next question, which is if we're increasing the rent, looks like in every zip code. And you have a set dollar amount. Does that decrease the amount of vouchers you can then provide because things cost more, so the voucher doesn't go as far? Yes, so it's complex. It's a complex housing policy that we need to look at over time so we can't make broad changes in one year, but you can make small incremental adjustments year over year in a long range strategy to address appropriate rents. Similar to how we provide free fairs for mass transit to build ridership to get more federal money in to provide more mass transit. Not my department. Same idea. Long term, a long term look at how to get from point A to point B utilizing both property tax class and a section A voucher is other vouchers. Okay. Okay. Interesting. I really do agree with what I've heard two times now from my council members, which is I remember a housing agency meeting last week Monday and discussing the west side rents being higher. But you can, they can ask for more money on the west side and you're competing with the vacation about industry and tourism. But your want was to be able to offer better rents or more vouchers in the west side. East side was pretty well taken care of and I think most of your vouchers came from east, or being utilized in east way correct. What I'm looking at this rent comparison sheet, which is the current 75% of payment standards versus the 80% AMI, the rent is being increased more substantially in all other zip codes besides west way, which I find concerning if you already know your vouchers are heavily utilize and that's your goal. and then we'll start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to start to I think it's a bigger discussion. It's really complex for me to explain what the payment standard does to existing rents in an area. So if majority of your vouchers are in East Hawaii and the payment standard is high, you start to see that the payment standard is driving the market because of the concentration of vouchers in a particular area. So it's just something that I've been observing in section 8. It would be better if the distribution of vouchers was more geographically distributed. I think it is why we are seeing rents so high in East Hawaii is because the majority there's there's a lot of vouchers in the payment standard is based on one data point which is the entire island. So finding a way to start to do a better distribution of the voucher program across the entire island will help to stabilize rents and I'm not an economist. This is just my observation and This is what this bill does. I think this bill is a step in the right direction. I really understand that you'd like us to go into small area rents for the real property tax program. It's pretty complex. I don't think that's something that real property tax should take on right now, but I think it's something that we can get to over time. As we start, as Section 8 starts to look at small area rents a little bit deeper, but I do think this is a step in the right direction to get us a little further along in that way of thinking about our rents. I think there's some merit to looking at the way we utilize vouchers and looking at how to do that geographically, which I believe I heard as a possibility through Office of Housing and our Housing Agency discussion. Is that right? Okay. Yes. Yeah, I think having a visa, look at doing a four-wheel rental rates, sort of a four-wheel rental class per zip code would get psychotic for the department. I'm not gonna do that. And then try to do other bills at the same time. You just told you that in the previous bill. Okay. Okay. We're not trying to kill any county employees in doing these bills. The last question, I mean, this permitting one, this is to the maker. If you remove all permitting requirements, your intention is to just let anyone rent any things or anybody as long as they have a sink and a toilet? I think everyone has their own standards where they're living conditions. Right now, the problem we're facing is that people can't join this program. And if we also talk about land ownership and retention here, when we're providing a benefit via affordable rentals, the point of this program is that we're going to provide a benefit with a reduced property tax bill. So by limiting us to having to follow all codes in the county, in the county, we're restricting a lot of properties from a to have to follow all codes in the county where we're restricting a lot of properties from and during the program and ultimately being rented for affordable housing purposes. This tries to address that. So do we, I don't wanna say I'll agree with the statement that you provided, I'll simply say that everyone has a standard of living that, you know, they're ultimately comfortable with and this provides them the opportunity to go out and look at different properties that are currently not in the program who may be joining the program. Okay. Lastly is Renee. Renee, are you here? Where'd she go? Oh. I have one last question. I'm thinking on the housing agency meeting in a form I had to sign. Pro-Properties Court Council is here. Oh, I might be out. Maybe you can help me. Thank you. Sorry. Good afternoon, Cure Wong, Deputy Corporation Council. Thank you, Ms. Wong. Housing agency, we have to sign a form disclosing whether or not we have a rental. I'm looking at this bill and what it chooses to do that we need to be disclosing whether we have an affordable rental property as council members deciding on this bill No, I don't I don't believe that it would trigger you to disclose that I would think that This program is available to everybody in general And so don't, are you asking if there's a conflict of interest if you don't disclose it? I'm asking if there's a conflict of interest if any of the council members have a housing, a house in the affordable rent thing class that would choose, that would be able to benefit from this decision that's about to be made if we pass the bill. I don't believe so. I... No, I don't believe it would trigger that. Good, we had a sign of form in the Housing Agency meeting, but I'm just making sure it's all right. The Housing Agency meeting for to disclose. But they have a rental or not. Oh, everyone miss miss want to go ahead. Hi, Deputy Corporation Council, Sylvia one. I'm here as you know, I'm assigned to Oricity. I was at that meeting for the housing agency. My understanding is you're signing that there's no conflicts of interest related to the public housing authority purpose of the housing agency. So in this instance, you are not operating as the public housing authority. This is a tax incentive. So this would be available to everyone. So no, you would not be, how do I say this? I think the question is, if a county employee owns a home that's going to get a tax incentive, by utilizing this program, if they would to disclose that. Is that correct? Well, I think for me in our position, if we as elected officials and act legislation that benefits any one of us that have a rental that's going to be utilizing this class, does that potentially be a conflict of interest? That seems rather attenuated. And also it, how do I say this? That sounds to be more questions specifically for the Board of Ethics rather than for these members here, but because I also provide counsel to the Board of Ethics. does not seem like it would be something you would otherwise have to disclose. If you're literally getting a benefit that is provided to everyone that is similarly situated. Beautiful. That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. One. Okay. Well, it's cost a could, come back with a little bit more substance on the next area as far as the geographic distribution or equity that was being discussed. And then maybe, just maybe, some idea of how we look to improve the situation with this bill and what it'll do. Just some estimations will be nice. Jeff. Sure, and too. Thank you. Thank you. That's all from the original request. If we could get the market rate for these, for these, for the East and West sides for these studio, one, two, three, four bedrooms, so that we could look at those when we're looking at this, because I want to see how close to the market rate some of these numbers are getting. Yep, and can do. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no further discussion, we do have the motion on the floor which is to approve bill 39 as amended and provide it to council with a favourable recommendation. All in favour, Council Members? Any opposed? No. Mr. Clerk, you have eight members in favour and one member opposed. Ms. Calguiwada. Thank you very much. Administrator and administrator. Thank you. Does there any testimony for Bill 41? Okay. Hearing none, Bill 41 amends ordinance number 2432 as amended operating budget for the county of OE. For the fiscal year in June 30, 2025, decreased the appropriation of transfer housing fund account for in $51,000 to $121. And appropriated the same to the home program income repayment account introduced by Council Member Connelly. I have other by request. Chair motion to for bill 41 to counsel with a favorable recommendation. Motion by Council Member Inava. Seconded by Council Member Houston. Discussion on the bill. Council Member Connelly, what? Sorry. Oh, no. Yeah. Hearing and seeing Councilmember Courthlets. Thank you, Chair. I see Mr. Sheroma and Hilo. Chair, I recall us reviewing a similar measure. This is regarding the Habitat for Humanity Project that received federal funding was completed after the deadline. What we do do a similar transfer of funding in the past? Hello, Royce, Sherong from the Office of Housing. Yes, we did. And what this bill will be doing is actually putting it in a proper account. I think we just had set aside X amount from general funding, calling it that we're going to use the money, funding it from affordable housing production. And then what this bill is is actually putting it into an actual proper account. Okay, so this is purely a housekeeping measure, but it's not additional funding for- Nothing, really. Yeah, nothing. Yeah, nothing. Great, thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. Chair I yield. Thank you. Anything further? Seeing no further discussion. Motion is on the floor. To approve bill 41 and forward it to Council of the favor. We're recommendation. All in favor? Any opposed? Mr. Clerk, you have eight members in favor. Mr. Viegis being excused. Bill number 42, please. It's right to ask the money for Bill 42. Hearing none, Bill 42 amends orders number 2432 as amended to operating budget for the Conte Roy. For the fiscal age of 30 to 2025, increases to the interest other federal accounts, $600, $60,000.000. In the appropriate same number, you rent assistance to COVID-19 accounts, $600,000.000. Why, I let Island landlord tenant mediation account, $10,000. In 2020, why, I let homeowner assistance program administration account, $50,000. Introduce by Council Member Conn of the Clip other by request. Move to floor bill 42 to council with the favorable recommendation. and by Council Member Reinaba, Seconded by Council Rehears this to 4 Bill 42 to Council with the favorable recommendation. Any discussion? Council Member Crickwitz. Thank you, Chair. Administrator Costa, 660,000 is quite a bit of interest generated. Is this something that the office typically sees on an annual basis? No, this was ERA, federal COVID money. We got a lot of money. So the interest from the COVID money were now able to use to reinvest back into programs, emergency rental assistance, landlord tenant mediation program, and Hawaii Island homeowner assistance program administration. Okay, that's fantastic. Yes. Wonderful. Thank you. Do you know about how many folks you're gonna be able to serve with this additional funding and what the time period will be? If you don't know today, maybe it's council. I'll bring it to council. Fantastic. Thank you. I yield. Thank you councilor Galiba just a quick question about that first emergency rent assist to COVID-19 is so is that always going to be around or is that temporary that you're just going to you're kind of closing down yeah there the emergency rental assistance program. I think we got $15 million for that program. At least OHCD did. We're winding it down. We're spending it by end of September this year. OK, thanks. And do you have another emergency rent assistance? So that's the only one that you have and that's going to go away. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So you know for the discussion, thank you, administrative costa. Motion is on the floor to approve bill 42 and send it to council the favor for recommendation all in favor Any opposed Mr. Clerk you have nine members in favor that brings us to the end of our agenda seeing no further business We are adjourned at this 308 pm our next committee will be held shortly. Thank you. Bye