minutes hart board of directors meeting alii place,...

Draft

MINUTES

HART Board of Directors Meeting

Alii Place, 1099 Alakea Street, Suite 150

Monday, June 21, 2018, 8:30 p.m.

PRESENT: Damien Kim

Terrence Lee

Terri Fujii

Tobias Martyn

Wesley Machida

Ember Shinn

Jade Butay

Glenn Nohara

Hoyt Zia

Kamani Kuala’au

Kathy Sokugawa

Kalbert Young

Wes Frysztacki

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:

(Sign-In Sheet and Staff)

Andrew S. Robbins

Randall Ishikawa

Cindy Matsushita

William Brennan

Russell Yamanoha

Joyce Oliveira

Michelle Carter

Natalie Iwasa

Jeff Masatsugu

Joan Sato

April Coloretti

Mark Garrity

Peter Wong

Barbra Armentrout

Rose Pou

Frank Kosich

Mel Kahele

Joseph O’Donnell

Larry Cunha

Randall Roth

Roy Yee

Brian Norris

Rick Keene

Nicole Velasco

Peter Lee

Steve Kyauk

EXCUSED: John Henry Felix

I. Call to Order by Chair

HART Board Chair Damien Kim called the meeting to order at 8:08 a.m.

II. Public Testimony on all Agenda Items

Mr. Kim called for public testimony on agenda items, reminding the public that the time limit to

do so was two minutes.

Draft


June 21, 2018

2

Barbra Armentrout thanked the Board for the presentation at its last meeting on fare systems.

She stated that she would reserve her comments until later in the meeting.

Brian Norris, Construction Manager and Vice President of Stantec, provided testimony in

support of the public private partnership (P3) delivery method. He said that Stantec had seen

great benefit from P3 on other projects, even if it meant a reduction in its scope of work.

Randall Roth provided testimony in support of P3, and said that it should have been implemented

in the past.

Mel Kahele of the Ironworkers Stabilization Fund stated that he would reserve his testimony for

item X.

Natalie Iwasa requested that the Board not enter into executive session as indicated in the

agenda, citing the need for public discussion. She said that HART had indicated in the past that

it would not require more bonds. She also said that HART employees should be recording

interviews as part of the state audit.

Mr. Kim said that he would be taking agenda items out of order, as the Board did not have

quorum to take action.

Board member Jade Butay arrived at 8:17 a.m.

IV. Establishment of a Permitted Interaction Group to Appoint the Board of Directors’ Ninth

Voting Member

Mr. Kim said that he was soliciting volunteers for the permitted interaction group (Group) to

investigate and recommend the selection of the ninth voting Board member. The Group could

contain up to seven members.

The members of the Group were: Board members Terrence Lee, Hoyt Zia, Tobias Martyn,

Wesley Machida, Kathy Sokugawa, Kamani Kuala’au, and Wes Frysztacki.

IX. Strategic Plan Update (Draft)

HART Executive Director and CEO Andrew Robbins said that HART Executive Management

Project-wide Support Specialist Elizabeth Crenshaw gave a PowerPoint presentation on HART’s

Strategic Plan (Plan). The presentation is attached hereto as Attachment A. Ms. Crenshaw said

that the Plan would guide the agency’s activities and focus on the three year period from January

2019 to December 2021. The Plan would validate HART’s mission and vision and, identify and

clarify ways of fulfilling HART’s mandate as an agency, prioritize key areas of focus for HART,

and define HART’s guiding principles. Ms. Crenshaw detailed the elements of the Plan, which

were HART’s vision, mission, key focus areas, goals, objectives, strategies, and intended

outcomes.

Draft


June 21, 2018

3

Board member Kalbert Young arrived at 8:23 a.m.

Board member Wes Frysztacki arrived at 8:24 a.m.

Ms. Crenshaw outlined HART’s vision of “HART plans, designs, constructs, tests, activates, and

prepares for operations and maintenance an expanded county-wide rail system that provides a

safe, dependable, and modern transportation alternative for Honolulu, demonstrating HART’s

commitment to service excellence in supporting the economic needs and greater mobility for the

Honolulu region. HART’s mission is to plan, design, construct, test, activate, and prepare for

operations and maintenance of Honolulu’s high-capacity, fixed guideway rapid transit system.

Key focus areas are proactive funds management, leadership, capacity and capability, outreach,

project delivery, continual environmental improvement, partnerships, safety and security, and

extensions to the system.

Mr. Robbins said HART differed from other transit agencies, as it was a special purpose agency

that was focused on delivering the project. The remainder of the presentation would focus on the

topic of delivery: the main goal is to deliver the project for $8.165 billion with the existing

available funding, with the focus of providing interim service by 2020 and full service by 2025.

Mr. Robbins detailed the various delivery methods utilized on the project to date, which include

design-bid-build, design-build, and design-build-operate-maintain.

He said that on the west side, the ten miles of the West Oahu/Farrington Highway Guideway and

Kamehameha Highway Guideway projects had been completed by Kiewit. The contracts were

being negotiated for close-out, after which funds would be returned to contingency, and overall

project risks would be reduced. The Rail Operations Center (ROC), which was 100% complete,

was also due to be closed out. The nine west side stations, under two separate contracts, were

approximately 30% complete, and were scheduled to be complete by mid-2019. The Core

Systems contract, under which Ansaldo develops vehicles and installs communications,

signaling, and power supply, and will test the entire system. The ROC yard, from which the

trains would be dispatched onto the system, has also been energized.

On the east side, the Shimmick/Traylor/Granite (STG) contract for the Airport Guideway and

Stations contract is 22% complete – the contract is on time and under budget.

In the City Center section, the Utility Relocation and Roadways contract was awarded to Nan,

Inc. in May. Under the indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract, there will be no change

orders; rather, task orders were utilized for fixed prices. Mr. Robbins said that HART was

continuing to consider construction and traffic impacts on the community, as work progressed

through the Dillingham corridor through Kakaako.

Mr. Robbins said that in an effort to ensure that all delivery methods and global best practices

were considered to complete the project on budget and under schedule, HART had undergone a

public-private partnership evaluation.

Draft


June 21, 2018

4

Mr. Robbins said that the Plan would go through another draft following members’ comments; it

was expected to be finalized in August.

Board member Wes Machida suggested including words such as “effectively and efficiently” in

the vision and mission areas, to describe HART’s cost containment and sustainability efforts.

Mr. Robbins agreed to take that comment into consideration.

Board member Ember Shinn expressed her appreciation for the efforts made regarding the Plan.

She expressed her belief that the Plan should be broader, responsive to the public and have a

public purpose in addition to ensuring public trust in rail. She also suggested including rail’s

role in an integrated, multimodal transportation system in the Plan.

Mr. Robbins said that the draft Plan touches on the comments from Board members.

Ms. Shinn asked whether the Plan would be subject to change, depending on whether HART

embarked on P3. Mr. Robbins said it would.

Board member Kathy Sokugawa praised the Plan. She asked for clarification on the Board’s role

for adopting or implementing the Plan.

Board member Tobias Martyn said that the Plan felt more tactical then strategic, and urged staff

to think in a more strategic manner. Mr. Robbins acknowledged Mr. Martyn’s point, and said

that project delivery is in many ways tactical by nature.

Board member Hoyt Zia asked about next steps. Mr. Robbins said that another draft would be

available in the July/August timeframe, with the goal of finalizing the Plan by the end of August.

X. Discussion Regarding Public Private Partnership Commercial Viability Analysis

Mr. Robbins reminded the Board that HART had engaged Ernst & Young Infrastructure (EY) to

analyze the viability of employing a public-private partnership (P3) to complete the City Center

Guideway and Stations (CCGS) and the Pearl Highlands Transit Center (PHTC), and to

introduce long-term operations and maintenance with the City and County of Honolulu.

Following EY’s presentation of its report, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment B,

the Board’s feedback was that a white paper was needed to focus on the specific P3 strategy.

Mr. Robbins said that EY had done a financial model to study the affordability of the design

build finance operate and maintain (DBFOM) model, based on what potential bidders would

likely do, and concluded that P3 was affordable. HART was currently developing the white

paper with a specific strategy on what it would include in the request for production in

coordination with City departments, as DBFOM would involve a joint procurement. HART was

also conducting a risk workshop that week to analyze DBFOM as compared to design build

(DB), then leaving the operations and maintenance (O&M) of the system to the Department of

Transportation Services (DTS). The results of the risk workshop would be included in the white

paper and presented to the Board. Mr. Robbins said that the white paper would be provided to

Draft


June 21, 2018

5

the Board the following month, with ample time for review. Mr. Robbins said that HART was in

the process of fielding and answering questions from the various City departments involved.

Mr. Robbins said that he would address two topics at a later time: the Ansaldo core systems

contract, and the DB “off ramp,” as they were still under discussion. Those two topics would be

addressed the following month with the white paper. He urged members to read an article from

Public Works Financing’s October 2017 issue on P3, as well as a PowerPoint presentation from

the LA Airport DBFOM project, which was recently awarded, both of which he provided to

members.

Mr. Robbins said that P3 would encompass the remaining work on CCGS and the PHTC. The

purposes and objectives of P3 would be to provide a life cycle approach to a long term

community asset. HART was looking at DBFOM partnership that would assure budgetary

discipline and cost and schedule certainty, and eliminate change orders. The private sector

partner would ensure that the project is on time and under budget via private finance. DBFOM

would also encourage robust competition internationally amongst premiere organizations,

particularly as the segmental bridge construction field is limited. Mr. Robbins said that HART

had received positive interest following its Industry Day earlier that year.

Mr. Robbins said that transferring risk to the private sector would be key to DBFOM.

Previously, the public sector had been exposed to many risks, which would be reallocated to the

private sector, which was the entity that could best manage the risk. Technical innovation and

best practices would also be encouraged under DBFOM; Mr. Robbins opined that schedule could

be reduced.

Combining the construction and long term O&M would result in a benefit to life cycle

management, through asset replacement that would be the responsibility of the private sector.

Synergies in building PHTC would be enhanced by packaging it with CCGS and the O&M

component.

Mr. Robbins said that the recommended DBFOM strategy would include the $1.4 billion in

construction for CCGS and PHTC, long term O&M of the system and the completion of core

systems, and integrated testing.

DBFOM would not include the entire west side, to include guideway and stations, and the

Airport Guideway and Stations, as well as the Rail Operations Center.

The CCGS and PHTC projects would be funded mainly through general excise tax (GET) and

transient accommodations tax (TAT) surcharges, which both sunset in 2030, and the Full

Funding Grant Agreement; that arrangement would remain unchanged.

Private finance would be required due to the sunset of the GET and TAT; the private sector

would be asked to provide short term private financing to pay off the capital debt by 2030. This

would reduce the cost of financing, as well as the cost of risk transfer. The private partner would

finance two thirds of the construction cost through the construction period; HART would make

Draft


June 21, 2018

6

milestone payments through 2025, which comprise one third of the capital costs. Beyond that,

HART would make availability payments with a five-year “tail” based on the contractor’s

performance.

Mr. Robbins said that would be the recommended structure for DBFOM that HART would be

presenting to the Board the following month.

Mr. Machida requested that HART ensure that unallowable costs under Act 1 be excluded from

DBFOM. Mr. Robbins said that under DB, HART would be making milestone payments

through construction; prior to revenue service, it would have paid the contractor 95% of its costs,

with payments at 100% at revenue service. At that time, DTS would be leading O&M, which

would be pay as you go to Ansaldo. Under DBFOM, HART would only pay approximately 33%

of the construction costs, with the contractor paying the remainder; the contractor would be

responsible for operating the system per DTS’ specifications, upon which availability payments

would be then made, should those specifications be met.

Mr. Martyn asked who would make the availability payments to the contractor over the 20 years

following the sunset of the GET and TAT surcharges. Mr. Robbins responded that by 2030, all

debt would be paid for when the GET and TAT surcharges expired. DTS would then pay the

O&M costs. Mr. Martyn said that bidders would be factoring that into their bids. Mr. Robbins

said that HART would want to enforce the risk transfer to incentivize the contractor, and that

there would only be a five-year tail beyond the opening of the system between 2025 and 2030.

O&M payments would be the same as without P3. Mr. Martyn asked whether the City would be

paying for 20 years of O&M; Mr. Robbins responded that the City would continue to operate and

maintain the system without P3.

Mr. Martyn expressed his concern that staff time was focused on P3 to the exclusion of DB. Mr.

Robbins said that as the underpinning of DBFOM is DB, DB specifications were being prepared

at the same time as DBFOM specifications.

Ms. Shinn requested confirmation that two thirds of the construction costs would be paid by

HART during the five-year tail from 2025 to 2030. She also asked for clarification that under

DB, the contractor would be paid 95% of the cost relatively soon after completion of

construction; the gap between 2025 and 2030 had to do with the fact that HART and the City

would have to pay back the frontloading of capital costs during the five-year tail. Mr. Robbins

said she was correct, but that there would be additional risk transfer under DBFOM. Ms. Shinn

requested that the white paper reflect the financial difference between the two models, such as

the higher financing costs for DBFOM for private financing, and the financial impact of risk

transfer.

Mr. Robbins explained that DBFOM was more than a financing solution; it was a total project

delivery solution that would include technical innovation and higher performance standards. An

evaluation of DBFOM must involve all the components to get to the total outcome. Equity

companies Mr. Robbins had spoken with had indicated their short term finance ability on their

own balance sheet, thereby reducing the difference between public and private finance. Ms.

Draft


June 21, 2018

7

Shinn said that the cost savings would likely be on the capital side, and not the entire package.

Mr. Robbins said that there would be major O&M and schedule benefits to DBFOM.

Mr. Lee reiterated his concern that Act 1 may not allow the use of GET and TAT surcharge

proceeds for the availability payments. He stated his belief that the private sector could perform

functions that government had historically done, but in a more efficient way. He said that HART

should have considered P3 from the beginning, and that he had strongly advocated for it. He

encouraged HART to vet P3 firms carefully, and disagreed that private finance would be more

expensive than public finance because of the large size of interested firms.

Mr. Robbins said that staff would come to the Board the following month for legal and financial

advisor costs in the amount of approximately $6 to 7 million. The procurement process would

occur in two steps: the qualification process, and the development of full proposals. HART had

indications of four teams that were already forming.

Mr. Nohara asked about the effect of delays from utility relocations and right of way issues on

DBFOM. He asked how it would affect the FTA’s approval of the Recovery Plan. Mr. Robbins

said that delays from utility relocation and right of way issues would be addressed by HART and

that the concessionaire would be entitled to relief for any such delay. The FTA regarded the

project delivery method as a local issue that would not have much impact on the Recovery Plan.

Mr. Robbins indicated that the U.S. Department of Transportation has put out guidance

documents on P3.

Ms. Shinn expressed her concern that HART was driving the P3 effort as the City had not

allocated adequate resources to evaluate the O&M component. Mr. Robbins said that the

deadline for the CCGS procurement was approaching, and that HART’s mission was to prepare

for O&M. HART was very engaged in working with DTS on benchmarking O&M costs, which

would be a valuable endeavor even if P3 was not pursued.

Ms. Shinn said that the City needed to know the O&M model it would utilize, as well as the

costs.

Mr. Frysztacki said that DTS was getting its resources together, and was very familiar with the

O&M aspects of P3, as the City was engaging in P3 in various projects. Additional DTS

positions were in the current budget for rail, and other efforts were underway to prepare for DB

or DBFOM. He expressed his concern that the City, who will be responsible for the contract,

must anticipate as many changes as it could and bear the costs. He was doing his due diligence

with other transit authorities regarding the owner’s perspective and concerns. Mr. Frysztacki

expressed his concern that the EY report did not contain enough fact checking, as in the cost of

the Denver Eagle Line, which did not save money due to P3, but rather reported savings were

due to de-scoping.

Mr. Kim called for public testimony.

Draft


June 21, 2018

8

Jeff Masatsugu requested that HART consider utilizing a project labor agreement should it

embark on P3 for new construction, repairs and maintenance in order to create a level playing

field for unionized labor.

Mr. Kim responded that regardless of the delivery method, labor would fall under the existing

project labor agreement.

Randall Roth provided testimony that P3 was receiving renewed attention because of the rising

costs of the project. He expressed his opinion that the project would not have enough money to

go past Middle Street.

Joseph O’Donnell of the Ironworkers Union testified in the union’s strong support for P3.

Mr. Kahele registered his strong support of Mr. O’Donnell’s statement, and said that the project

should be completed all the way to Ala Moana.

Natalie Iwasa provided testimony requesting the Board to stop the project at Middle Street. She

said that Mayor Caldwell had testified at a prior City Council meeting that P3 would need to

save $200 million in order to make sense.

Peter Lee of the Laborers-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust testified in support of P3

and the existing project labor agreement.

Mr. Kim acknowledged two pieces of written testimony from Mayor Mufi Hannemann and the

Operators Stabilization Fund in support of P3. Testimony is attached hereto as Attachment C.

III. Approval of Minutes of the May 14, 2018 Meeting of the Board of Directors

Mr. Kim called for the approval of the May 14, 2018 minutes of the meeting of the Board of

Directors.

Mr. Machida noted an incomplete sentence on page 6.

Mr. Martyn noted a typographical error in the word “financier” on page 5.

Mr. Kim called for the approval of the minutes with amendments. Mr. Lee so moved, and Mr.

Frysztacki seconded the motion. All being in favor, the minutes were approved as amended.

V. Resolution 2018-4 Adopting Operating and Capital Budgets for Fiscal Year 2019

Fiscal Officer Michael McGrane outlined the HART budgeting process, which began in the fall

of 2018 with the Board’s approval of an operating and capital budget. The budgets were

forwarded to the City Council for review. The budgets were now before the Board for adoption

via Resolution 2018-4, attached hereto as Attachment D.

Draft


June 21, 2018

9

Mr. McGrane detailed the changes in HART’s proposed operating budget from the version

originally presented to the Board in the fall. The original operating budget was $24.7 million.

The operating budget was decreased by $700,000 due to a recent agency reorganization, as well

as a shift of monies to the capital budget due to a change in HART’s capitalization policy, which

brought HART’s practices in line with accounting standards. The operating budget being

proposed for adoption includes $7.6 million in salaries, benefits, and rent, and $30.8 million in

debt service, totaling $38.426 million.

Mr. McGrane detailed changes to the capital budget. The original capital budget as approved by

the Board contained the costs for CCGS, PHTC, and contingency, which comprised

approximately 85% of the capital budget. Changes to the original capital budget included a shift

of $17 million from the operating to the capital budget as a result of the capitalization policy

change, and the inclusion of $44 million by the City to address the FTA’s concern regarding

funding. The capital budget thereby increased from $1.743 billion to $1.773 billion.

Mr. Machida questioned the separation of fringe benefits from other post-employment benefits

(OPEB). Mr. McGrane said that the fringe benefits and OPEB constituted 100% of what HART

was required to pay, based on figures received from the actuaries. Mr. Machida said he wanted

to ensure that items were not being accounted for twice.

Mr. Kim called for the adoption of Resolution 2018-4, the fiscal year 2019 operating and capital

budgets. Mr. Lee so moved, and Mr. Frysztacki seconded the motion. All being in favor,

Resolution 2018-4 was adopted.

Ms. Iwasa provided testimony that the net increase given to rail was $13 million. She expressed

her concern that no plans were in place to conduct the FTA-recommended peer review. She

requested more detail about the $17 million addition of personnel costs to the capital budget.

VI. Resolution 2018-5 Relating to the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation’s

Request to the Honolulu City Council for Approval of the Issuance and Sale of General

Obligation Bonds ($44,000,000)

VII. Resolution 2018-6 Relating to the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation’s

Request to the Honolulu City Council for Approval of the Issuance and Sale of General

Obligation Bonds ($450,000,000)

Mr. McGrane said that HART was required to petition the City for the authorization of bonds.

The $44 million being requested in Resolution 2018-5 represented the City’s inclusion of funds

to address the FTA’s funding concerns. Resolution 2018-6 was a request for authority up to

$450 million for HART’s cash flow requirements; should the $44 million request to the City

Council pass, this request would be reduced. The resolutions are attached hereto as Attachments

E and F, respectively.

Mr. Kim called for questions. There were none.

Draft


June 21, 2018

10

Mr. Kim called for public testimony. There was none.

Mr. Kim called for a motion to adopt Resolution 2018-5. Mr. Lee so moved, and Mr. Frysztacki

seconded the motion. All being in favor, Resolution 2018-5 was adopted.

Mr. Kim called for a motion to adopt Resolution 2018-6. Mr. Lee so moved, and Mr. Frysztacki

seconded the motion. All being in favor, Resolution 2018-6 was adopted.

VIII. Change Order – West Section Construction Engineering and Inspection Consultant

Request for Amendment #3

Director of Design and Construction Frank Kosich gave a PowerPoint presentation on the change

order for the west section Construction Engineering and Inspection (CE&I) Consultant request

for amendment, attached hereto as Attachment G. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure

continuity of construction management services to the west side during the remainder of the

construction period. The amendment would increase the contract by $20 million; funds were

included in the contract budget line item, and were not in contingency. Mr. Kosich said that staff

had examined options to re-procure the contract, utilizing one CE&I consultant for the west side,

and had concluded this was the best course of action.

Mr. Kosich detailed the background of the PGH Wong CE&I West contract and previous

amendment. He said that the CE&I contractor was overseeing nine contracts, versus the five that

were originally budgeted for. He summarized the amendment and its cost impacts. Mr. Kosich

recommended a contract amendment in the amount of $20 million to provide project staffing for

CE&I services on the west side construction contracts for the remainder of the contract period.

Board member Jade Butay asked whether HART was satisfied with the work of the current

CE&I contractor. Mr. Kosich responded that although there was room for improvement, CE&I

senior management had been responsive to HART’s concerns.

Mr. Machida asked when the change from the oversight of five contracts to nine contracts

occurred. Mr. Kim said it occurred approximately three to four years ago. Mr. Machida asked if

the first CE&I west contract had been in place at that time, and Mr. Kosich said it had been.

Mr. Martyn asked about how the delays that resulted in the need for the amendment. Mr. Kosich

said that there were challenges with interface between the different contracts and delivery

models, to include the fixed facility contractors, core systems contractor, fare gates, and escalator

and elevator contractors. These interface challenges were identified in the risk evaluation, as

well as the costs associated with it. There were also access delays. Mr. Martyn asked how

access delays increased costs. Mr. Kosich said it extended the contract period, thereby

increasing costs. He said that HART had discussions with the contractor regarding staffing

levels to address the situation.

Mr. Machida asked whether HART had been able to quantify the benefit of the increased CE&I

work in overseeing the nine contracts. Mr. Kosich said that as part of the reorganization, HART

Draft


June 21, 2018

11

increased the scope of responsibility for the CE&I contractor. He said that he believed the

contractor was performing to oversee the delivery of the project.

Mr. Nohara said that there were 21 months left on the contract at a current burn rate of $1.6

million per month; he said that the burn rate would need to be reduced to $1 million per month,

or the contract would run out of money by 2021. He emphasized the need for HART to be

responsive to the CE&I contractor’s recommendations. Mr. Kosich said the actual burn rate was

not consistent, that HART was examining staffing down as contracts closed out, and was

focusing on managing to the contract.

Mr. Robbins said that HART had reorganized to empower its construction managers and CE&I

contractors to be responsive in the field, and improve efficiency. He said that the contractor had

spent much time optimizing staff, and had been very responsive to needed changes.

Mr. Lee asked for clarification that HART covered the CE&I contractor’s payroll even if it was

idle due to delays. Mr. Kosich responded that HART expect the CE&I contractor to staff

appropriately to the workload.

Mr. Machida asked whether it was a fixed price contract. Mr. Kosich said it was, for a not to

exceed amount. Mr. Robbins said that it was based on time and materials, not a lump sum fixed

price contract. Mr. Kim said that the $90.2 million total contract value was a not to exceed price.

Mr. Kim called for a motion to approve the change order. Mr. Nohara so moved, and Mr. Lee

seconded the motion. All being in favor, the change order was approved.

Ms. Sokugawa and Mr. Butay left the meeting at 10:56 a.m.

XI. May Monthly Progress Report

Mr. Nohara said that page 42 of the Monthly Progress Report showed that payments had not

been made on the STG contract for four months. He asked Mr. Kosich to check on that. Mr.

Kosich agreed, and said that work with STG was progressing smoothly.

XII. April Project Management Oversight Consultant Report

Mr. Robbins said that the April Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC) Report was

in the Board members’ materials for their review and questions.

He said that the final Risk Refresh report was expected from the PMOC at the end of the month.

XIII. Executive Director’s Report

Mr. Robbins reported that he had participated in the VERGE conference, and had been on a

panel that discussed sustainability, and focused on renewable energy and electric vehicles. He

Draft


June 21, 2018

12

said that he had spoken to the transportation capacity of rail, and that attendees were receptive to

the information.

Mr. Robbins had met that week with University of Hawaii (UH) President David Lassner on

construction access on UH property, HART’s collaboration with Leeward Community College in

its associate’s degree program for training relevant to rail, and the future extension to UH

Manoa.

Mr. Frysztacki said that he would volunteer as a member of the Ninth Voting Member Permitted

Interaction Group.

XIV. Adjournment

Mr. Kim adjourned the meeting at 11:05 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Cindy Matsushita

Board Executive Officer

Approved:

Damien T.K. Kim

Date

minutes hart board of directors meeting alii place,...

Documents