Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Self asked that Mr. Inaba check on whether the County will be purchasing this property through <br />other funds since a bill was passed for this acquisition. <br />Ms. Chilson then mentioned that the PONC funds are held in different types of CD's of which the <br />interest rate varies. The highest interest rate for CD's is 0.80% and the interest rate for the money <br />market account is 0.20% with approximately 2.7 million in that account. <br />Ms. Springer asked why the interest payments deposited into the 2% fund are staggered. Ms. <br />Chilson replied that she would need to clarify with the Accounts division on that. <br />Ms. Chilson then spoke in regards to Civil Case No. 4590 which provided access to the residents to <br />reach Kawa bay and the adjacent shoreline area. She noted that TMK:9 -5- 17:07, which the County <br />already owns is subject to easements that run along the old government road which lays parallel to <br />the ocean. The only mauka /makai easements, pedestrian and vehicular, are located on Mr. Olson's <br />property identified as TMK:9 -5- 16:06. <br />Mr. Komata then asked if there is already access to the shoreline, then why does the Commission <br />need to purchase the property. Mr. Flores added that other purposes for acquisition was also to <br />protect natural and cultural resources along with the turtle nesting sites. <br />(Ms. Chilson circulated a map to the Commission which outlines the parcels along with the <br />easements). <br />OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL'S REPORT <br />Ms. Self had nothing to report. <br />CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT <br />Ms. Garcia had nothing to report. <br />UNFINISHED BUSINESS <br />• Commission to discuss creating new form for assessing public access suggestion forms <br />(the commissioners went into discussion) <br />Recess: 11:56 a.m. <br />Reconvened: 11:57 a.m. <br />(the commissioners continued their discussion) <br />Ms. Springer asked Ms. Self what is the difference between an access and an easement. <br />Ms. Self replied that the best way to explain it in general property law terms is "when you own a <br />piece of property you have a stick of rights, bundle of sticks which represent different rights that <br />you have. So when a landowner grants an easement he's not giving up his entire bundle of sticks, <br />he still owns the property underneath the easement, so he's not giving up his fee simple ownership; <br />