Laserfiche WebLink
March 13, 2018 <br />Page 2 <br />direction of identifying IAL, but it did not include the level of research required for <br />true IAL based on Act 183 and was not i tended to substantiate going public with <br />a petition to the LUC. <br />In consideration of the above, we request amendments to SB 2168, SD 1: <br />1. The preamble of SB 2168, SD 1 talks about identifying IAL "within sixty <br />months of receipt of state funds." The sixty month timeframe was called <br />for in Act 183 but we would ask that it be deleted. If it must remain, the <br />dock should be triggered by petition of a county to the state to accept the <br />funds, which must be approved by the appropriate County Council. <br />2. While any state contribution to the IAL effort is always welcomed, the <br />amount of money proposed in the original SB 2168, and companion bill <br />HB 1785, would be only a fraction of what is needed statewide. In <br />consideration of what the other counties have spent on their IAL efforts, <br />we respectfully request that the total sum in this bill be at least $2 million. <br />3. The cost of a study is tied most closely to the amount of land studied <br />and the number of parcels/landowners that will require review, <br />consultation and coordination. We therefore request that you consider <br />dividing whatever funds are appropriated based on a percentage of state <br />land use agricultural lands in each county, rather than dividing the money <br />equally. <br />We would add that we support the Senate's decision to expand the use of <br />appropriated funds to reimburse the other counties for IAL efforts they have concluded <br />or currently have in process. <br />Res.ectfully sub <br />1-1'arry Kim <br />Mayor, County of Hawaii <br />1 <br />ed, <br />County of Fiawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer <br />