Laserfiche WebLink
GIFFIN: Thank you very much. And I think at this point in time, I would like to take the <br />prerogative to close the discussion amongst the public and also confine it to members of this <br />Commission. (After some discussion with Mr. Torigoe), there was some discussion between Ivan <br />and myself regarding executive session, but probably that isn’t necessary at this time unless <br />Members of this Commission felt that that was important. Okay, I, like many of you feel, that the <br />burden of responsibility on the applicant doesn’t board well with me; nonetheless, I think that there <br />are some merits to what the Director has recommended, and Daryn’s comments in terms of the <br />Department are well taken in terms of their responsibility to the future and to what could happen in <br />the future with so many other landowners that are part of this area. Frankly, the applicant’s <br />suggestion to me, doing away with all of the Director’s recommendation E, doesn’t board well with <br />me, either. I do appreciate No. 4, the one-way suggestion. But I’d like to hear more from you <br />people and try to see how you feel. Tom. <br /> <br />WHITTEMORE: I tend to lean towards No. 4 solution. But just as a point of curiosity, you know, <br />public utility is, like electric company, they put in poles to one user on that block, that user pays for <br />the entire thing, and then they are rebated as others hook up in the future. I’m wondering if there is <br />not also a solution there. If we get further applicants, then – we are only talking about six lots off <br />this road on the mauka side – if they were to hook up that, the applicant here would be reimbursed a <br />one-sixth percent of the cost that they incurred, because it’s unknown now as to what that cost is <br />going to be in the proposal. I’m just wondering if that isn’t a potential solution. Certainly, the <br />property, when it’s subdivided, it’s going to have more value in aggregate, so there is that value that <br />they are going to have. But they are going to hold on to that. And I think if they can recoup their <br />upfront cost proportionally down the line, that might be an alternative to look at to. I just, I don’t <br />know whether that’s done or it more complicates things or what, but it seems like maybe some <br />solution. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Daryn? <br /> <br />ARAI: I think it would complicate things. Part of the concern I have, and I’m not sure if I’m on the <br />right track or not, but normally when there is a reimbursement mechanism, it’s to reimburse a cost <br />that is imposed or that is placed upon the County. You know, a utility like HELCO is not a County <br />agency or a County entity, so I don’t think we should get in a situation where we are obligated or <br />contracted to provide reimbursements to a non-governmental entity. And that’s just my opinion. <br /> <br />WHITTEMORE: I was just thinking that what it would be would be a condition of any new <br />applicants. So if nobody else made any application -. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Director. <br /> <br />LEITHEAD TODD: I was just going to say that’s how we ended up in court on Hōkūli‘a. <br /> <br />WHITTEMORE: Oh, okay. <br /> <br />GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other comments about the four options that are in front of us? Or is <br />anyone ready -. I hate to call for a motion when the wording is not firm. <br /> <br />ARAI: Right. And I have been working on additional revised wording. And Public Works also <br />came to me just now to explain that if it does convert to a one-way traffic flow, that Public Works <br />will actually do the transition improvements, the pavement transition improvements. So all they <br />28 <br />EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />