My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Plastic Bag Reduction Bill Veto Mesage
PublicDocuments
>
Office of the Mayor
>
Office of the Mayor Documents
>
2008-2016
>
Plastic Bag Reduction Bill Veto Mesage
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/12/2011 4:16:41 PM
Creation date
8/12/2011 4:16:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
September 19, 2008 <br /> The Honorable Pete Hoffmann, Chairperson, and Council Members <br /> Page 3 <br /> legally use after September 2009. Compare this to the larger stores where most if not <br /> all of them will be able to use up their present stock within a year. Smaller stores,to <br /> take advantage of the economies of scale, are more likely to purchase and have on <br /> hand an excess of plastic bags extending beyond a year's supply. <br /> A review of the effective date of measures in other jurisdictions shows that with the <br /> exception of San Francisco, a longer transition time has been generally allowed. (For <br /> your information, San Francisco's ban became effective in six months for <br /> supermarkets and in 12 months for pharmacies. However,the SF ban only applies to <br /> supermarkets with gross annual sales in excess of$2 million, and retail pharmacies <br /> with at least five locations under the same ownership within the city of San Francisco. <br /> No small businesses are subject to the ban.) <br /> • Penalties—It is felt that the fine and community service penalty proposed in Bill 326 <br /> Draft 2 is too high. A more reasonable penalty provided in the pioneering San <br /> Francisco law, for example, is a fine not exceeding $100 for the first violation,up to a <br /> $500 fine for the third violation within a single year. <br /> In addition,as discussed at the August 27 Council meeting, the penalty section refers <br /> to"persons"being penalized, not"businesses." According to Corporation Counsel, <br /> this could result in any person employed by a business being cited under this section. <br /> For example, in the case of a supermarket, a clerk bagging the groceries in plastic bags <br /> could be cited and fined rather than the responsible management of the store. While <br /> this may seem an unlikely possibility, it could happen under the bill as written. <br /> A third issue with the penalty section is that it provides for fines collected under the <br /> section to be deposited in the County's Public Access, Open Space and Natural <br /> Resources Fund. Bill 326 Draft 2 provides that upon conviction, a person is sentenced <br /> to pay the fine and/or perform community service. Being"convicted" implies that this <br /> is a matter that will be taken up at District Court. Fines collected by the Court are kept <br /> by the State of Hawaii and are not available to the County. <br /> • Location in the Hawaii County Code—Bill 326 Draft 2 amends Chapter 20 of the <br /> Hawaii County Code, which deals with refuse and solid waste. Since the bill does not <br /> ban plastic from landfills or transfer stations, but rather bans the retail distribution of <br /> plastic bags, there is a question whether this is the appropriate section of the Code for <br /> such a provision. Instead, it might have been better placed in Chapter 14, General <br /> Welfare. <br /> OTHER CONCERNS <br /> The above concerns are specific to Bill 326 Draft 2 as passed by the Council. If a ban on <br /> plastic bags is desired as a statement of policy,these concerns could be addressed in a new <br /> bill. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.