|
from permit holders or applicants for approvals from the planning commission; or (2) has a
<br />fiduciary duty to an entity which has business before the planning commission or board of
<br />appeals."
<br />In reviewing this proposed amendment, there are several concerns that we have identified.
<br />First, what is, "substantial income ?" Two, what is the definition of "permit holders ?" Aside
<br />from development permits issued by the Planning Commission, this term could also include
<br />building, grading, grubbing permits, variances, etcetera, either from the building or
<br />subdivision codes. The Board of Appeals also handles appeals in addition to those from the
<br />Planning Director, those of the Director of Public Works. Third, is the proposed amendment
<br />intended to also exclude individuals such as realtors, contractors, subcontractors, mortgage
<br />providers, vendors? Fourth, does the exclusion to individuals who have "a fiduciary duty to
<br />an entity which as business before the planning commission or board of appeals" apply to
<br />individuals for example such as the Executive Directors of the Hawaii Island Economic
<br />Development Board, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Public Land Trust, etcetera, whose
<br />business before the planning commission or board of appeals may be indirect such as our
<br />members having such business and or being related to advocacy for and /or opposition to
<br />proposals and concerns coming before these bodies? And finally, if as stated, it's to ensure
<br />the planning process, should not such exclusions also apply to any one who receives or has
<br />during the past two years received, a significant portion of said persons income directly or
<br />indirectly from individuals or entities who have opposed applications for approval from the
<br />planning commission, or likewise has a fiduciary duty to such an entity. I have submitted
<br />these comments in writing, thank you.
<br />CHR. HAITSUKA: Any questions for Ms. Hoover? Thank you, Ms. Hoover. Next, we
<br />have Nancy Crawford, Director of Finance. Good afternoon.
<br />NANCY CRAWFORD
<br />(At this time Nancy Crawford, Finance Director, came forward to address members of the Charter
<br />Commission.)
<br />MS.CRAWFORD: Good afternoon, thank you. I'm Nancy Crawford, Director of Finance,
<br />and I would like to speak on two of the proposed Charter Amendments that are before you. I
<br />also passed out written documentation, I'm not going to read this to you, I just thought that I
<br />would go through and mention the highlights to you. The first is regarding the 2% real
<br />property tax set -aside for land acquisition, and making that a part of our Charter. I have
<br />submitted a letter in opposition to this for a couple of reasons. One of which is that in
<br />general, we are opposed to having set - asides of revenue for any purpose. It is not opposition,
<br />in any way, to having funds available for open space land acquisition or easements or other
<br />ways to preserve open space and make it available for recreational uses and so forth. But,
<br />from a fiscal, budgetary standpoint, every time you earmark some percentage of your
<br />revenue, you pull it totally out of the budgetary process. That means that it has higher
<br />priority than any other thing that the County does. It gets its money first, and then everyone
<br />else will then compete through the budgetary process for funds; whether it be public safety,
<br />or even the funding to manage any of these lands that may be acquired with this funding. In
<br />addition, putting this into the Charter - -I mean there are obvious reasons why people would
<br />like to put this into the Charter, and my reasons for not wanting it there are similar. It is very
<br />5
<br />
|