Laserfiche WebLink
only that part shall have water then you could go to the . <br /> improvement district, or water board for that little, small <br /> little district. For_ that it ' s a different kind of a bond. <br /> That, I think that is fine. Then I think to be able to <br /> coordinate that, the department should be directly__answerable . <br /> again to the Mayor, the administrator. Then you can use <br /> the general obligation bond credit to bring your costs down. <br /> Also, I think, any time you move into a service <br /> area like this you cannot insulate that with a commission so <br /> that they become insensitive to the people who are really <br /> paying their bill .- In this case I am saying the customers <br /> o-n the water line are taxpayers. The administrators of that <br /> department should be sensitive to his customers. You cannot <br /> make him once removed. To be insensitive and say talk to the <br /> commission about this, don ' t tell me, tell the commission <br /> about this and back off. He can ' t pass the buck. He has got <br /> to be right up front and if he . is not there, then I think the <br /> Mayor should be right up front, accountable. <br /> Basically, then this is what I feel. Because <br /> if you are going to be accountable, then it has got ,to come <br /> right on up the line or go right down the line. And I feel <br /> very, very strongly that the water system can move faster in <br /> its direction if it is coordinated with a capital improvement <br /> program of the County of Hawaii . We can really push it through. <br /> I qualify all of this. . .in the past I was for <br /> semi-autonomy. You can check the minutes. I argued for semi- <br /> autonomy three times around and I am reversing my position. . . . <br /> but I was thinking all the time that they would float the <br /> individual bonds and go according to. . .float the water bonds <br /> and everything else and just keep moving along in their areas <br /> to give better service. Then what happened was the moneys <br /> generated would be used to retire these bonds, not looking for <br /> general obligation bonds. At that time and Harlan can probably <br /> verify this , the water bonds were going at something like 6-61/2%, <br /> 7% <br /> 7% at that particular time, in the ' 69 ' s and so on. Whereas, <br /> you know, obligation bonds were going at 42-5%. Now, general <br /> obligation bonds are going 6-7%. Water bonds are going at <br /> about 9% and even then they are not very popular. Isn ' t that <br /> right, water bonds are not very popular? <br /> MR. CADINHA; The revenues are much higher. <br /> MAYOR MATAYOSHI : '® . .much higher. So now to <br /> be able to _give- the service you have to go general obligation <br /> bonds. If that be the case, then the water board should be <br /> right under the water department. Water service should be <br /> a water department under the direct control of the mayor' s office. <br /> This is why I really feel strongly about it. <br /> Let me also state the commission has its place. The commission <br /> can certainly be a buffer as far as policy, as far as program, <br /> or rules and regs and so on. . .and it can be like the planning <br /> commission. The way the planning commission operates , I think <br /> it has a rightful place by being in that kind of a role. So <br /> you can leave the water commission, leave it as is. Have the <br /> director reporting directly to the Mayor but leave the commission <br /> -19- <br />