2013-01-10 Windward Transcript PD Rule 12

Home

Thus, the Planning Department precedent, if Rule 12 is being applied to Article 36 claims, the Article 35 Geothermal Asset Fund is left without rules. With Rule 12 applying to Article 36 relocation claims, amending Rule 12 cannot address issues in regards to the Article 35 Geothermal Asset Fund. In sum, we object to the proposal of the Planning Director for new rules purporting to regulate both the fund and the conduct of health studies, we object to ignoring how rules for the Geothermal Asset Fund appear to have been applied to Article 36 relocation claims, and we object to duplicating the existing Adler proceeding that is working toward ends similar to those proposed by the Planning Director. It would be, for lack of a better word, abusive of the Planning Commission’s legitimate role for it to usurp the field of science by arrogating to itself decisions on the expertise, methods, criteria and final content of a health study. We believe this could result in an attempt to control the health study by censorship so as to obtain politically desired results. As an appropriate initial remedial step, the Planning Commission should request an audit of the two special funds existing under Articles 35 and 36. An audit can determine the nature of disbursements under both funds, especially in terms of how claims were processed. The audit may give the Commission a basis for setting its house in order after the apparent confusion. You know, we have a widespread history of conflict between the community and the County. And what’s interesting is what Mr. Ishibashi brought up in the last thing about community input into projects. And from the community’s standpoint geothermal projects in our community, we haven’t had, we don’t feel that we’ve had a voice. We don’t feel that we’ve had that kind of input. And after 31 years, I’ve been doing this for 31 years, we don’t feel we’ve gotten a health study that’s acceptable to the community. And that’s all we’re really trying to do here, is get a health study that everybody can agree to; and then I hope we can get the rules to do that. You know, the County gave Peter Adler $50,000 to study the study. After 31 years we think that’s, you know, they actually had long enough to look at this issues; and we should have gotten to this. We asked for $200,000 to do the study and we’ve already spent 25 percent of that now to study the study. And so I hope we can just get the health study, a real health study. There’s obviously people on both sides of this issue. Some people think there are impacts, some people say there are no impacts. We need to settle it one way or the other. Thank you. AU: Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: I just wanted to clarify a couple of things, which may not be apparent from Mr. Petricci’s testimony. The rules under which the Article 36 relocations and community benefits have been done are the Planning Department’s rules. Rule 12 that we are discussing is the Planning Commission’s rule which applies to the Asset Fund. There are two separate sets of rules. One is the Planning Department’s rules which apply to the Royalty Fund -. PETRICCI: Is it Planning Department Rule 6? 5 EXHIBIT D