2019-02-27 BDHRA Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

have concerns. They don't support the creation of any revolving fund which doesn't meet the requirements of HRS Chapter 37-52.4. It seems that the Budget and Finance, they support this but they just want to make sure that revolving funds are, have oversight. That's pretty much the bases. The Mayor's Office supports, because they support any measure that helps the BDHRA and Banyan Drive in particular. The League of Women Voters actually wrote in to oppose this. They feel that the bill would encourage commercial lessees of public lands to, as they said, "play politics" to gain unfair special treatment. There was limited information in that statement so I don't know if they have an example or previous situation, but that's pretty much what they said. They support public planning, but when it's transparent and a competitive process for everybody to kind of follow. So they seem to not be wanting to—they want to make sure that it's just a transparent process especially when it regards the leases, development, redevelopment, so. OHA, they sent in testimony late and they had some concerns about the leases also. They feel that it may authorize leases that violate the State's obligations under the public land, which is to provide money to OHA. The language wasn't clear that OHA would still be able to get the money that they're required to get from the lease of public lands. That was their main focus that they had concerns about. Also, that extremely long leases could, essentially, overburden the County or could essentially negate the public lands and seeded land trust because the leases go on and on from family generation to generation. They wanted maybe a provision or something in that. They seemed to just not like that open-endedness of the lease. But again, the lease portion was taken out so I'm not sure if they got to review that first draft. They proposed a revolving fund, but it goes against what the Budget and Finance, so that the revolving fund deposits must account for native Hawaiians, the pro-rata share. Again, they're concerned and they're focusing to making sure that OHA was, got the money that they're were entitled to for the lease of State lands. Okay, so this is just based on a couple days ago as far as 1219, as I said, they removed the requisite for choosing committee members, this long kind of drawn out, they just took that out. But they changed the reporting requirements, now it's going to be, they would ask for a yearly annual reporting. And they removed, as I said, the entire section on leases so there's no discussion of lease or lease requirements or lease agreements in that bill now; its been completely removed. The rest of them, the change, really the only change was the effective date to 2050, which I guess is typical to encourage further discussion. H910. They changed the funding amount to undisclosed and then 914 actually added in a funding amount of$250 thousand dollars. Some minor changes. Twelve nineteen (1219) is the one, the largest one that relates to the creation of a new redevelopment district. DELIMA: Any questions? KT, go ahead. CANNON-EGER: The effective date, July 1, 2050? ROY: Yeah, each time they put that in, and I'd actually spoken to my supervisor about that and it was stated that that's a typical to, and those were their words, "encourage further discussion." Because if you look, they'll say the effective date is July 1, 2050, but then the date that the bill is supposed to would be something like 2024. So it really didn't make sense, but as I CANNON-EGER: Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. Page 5 of 15 Banyan Drive Hawaii Redevelopment Agency February 27,2019 Minutes