2011-04-27 Cost of Government Commission Minutes

Home

MR. KUROHARA: There are two pieces that are going out. One right now we’re going to contract out for our base line study of what crops are we currently growing, how much and where. What are we bringing in? What are we buying in? What do we import in, in regards to food? And that way then we can determine if we have these lands, and you’re bringing in, you know, so if sustainability is the goal, we have abetter framework in which to look at the IAL piece. But what Bobby Jean brought up in one of her earlier meetings when we were meeting on this was we really need to know how to really frame it because there are some many different angles when you look at IAL. What is the motive behind it? Is the goal food security? Food and viral security? Food and energy security? You know,so depending on how you look at it, you could be targeting the wrong lands. So really, we need to understand that better before we go spend a few million dollars trying to do this piece. Not a few million, but it might cost MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: And there’s a disconnect between what the mandate I think was, which was basicallygeared more towards soil analysis. If you look at the state law, it’s mainly geared towards trying to protect those lands that are of a higher quality soil from being taken out of agricultural into urban. Because other lands where you don’t need the soil, you know, if it’s a greenhouse crop, if it’s something that you’re growing on raised beds or something like that, then it isn’t soil, and you can do that just about anywhere. But the real disconnect in terms of what some people are looking for, and the analysis has to be given. You can have land that you think is great for agriculture, but if it’s going to cost you $20 million to put the infrastructure in, in order to be able to grow anything on that land, then you’ve parsed it out of any economically viable return on investment. So, that’s maybe not the discussion that we should have here, but we’re moving on that, try to look at it in the absence of state funding. MR. KUROHARA: We are addressing that. So the question is,are the important ag land piece we are working to move forward on it as much as we can absent the state funds. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Cause it ain’t going to come down from the state. MS. O’HARA: On that piece, I like the way you’re thinking about that. Perhaps it may help to just distance yourself from the IAL concept entirely because what you’re talking about is what is much more needed. It is about food and energy security. And a lot of the lands that we call marginal ag lands at this point in time can be very useful in providing that security, especially when the biocrop inaudible. So maybe it needs to be framed different than what the state mandate is, which as Bobby pointed out is basically about soil fertility and what’s the highest classification of soils versus what is the best use of our ag lands. I like the way you’re thinking about that. MS. WONG: Any other comments? MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: I did have one comment just because the mayor mentioned it and it’s been in the papers. That parcel of land in Kona, it got rezoned to Open so it’s not commercial. And so the reporter when they called me, didn’t mention what parcel of land they were talking about. If they’d identified the parcel, I would have told them that that parcel is almost in it’s entirety an archeological preserve where we’re going to have an interpretive center. But it’s not going to be used at commercial purposes and it’s part 23