Laserfiche WebLink
Hawai`i County Charter Commission -7 January 25, 2019 <br />and has done open space before this came along, I beg to differ. When we went <br />to try to do projects down in Ka`ii that were really in need, the County had not <br />one cent to put up for matching funds and so Trust for Public Lands went ahead <br />and raised the money and in the tail end the Mayor did kick in a little bit of money <br />because I think he had promised the people that if they were able to carry this out <br />that he would maybe come up with something since it was going to be County <br />land. So, there wasn't money and that's why we did the two percent. That is why <br />everybody really got behind this and fought hard, because the County didn't have <br />any money for matching funds. Anyway, thank you for your time and please you <br />know, what I heard so far today and what you are going to hear after this is really <br />ah, makes this a no brainer and for all of the people that voted on this to have a <br />board like yours to override, I don't understand the democratic process in that. <br />Thank you. <br />CHR. ADAMS: Thank you. Mr. Sensenig. <br />DOUG SENSENIG: Proposal No. CA -7, CA -9, and CA -13, commenting. <br />MR. SENSENIG: My name is Doug Sensenig. I live in Waimea. I have been <br />involved in land conservation for over 30 years as an attorney, Land Trust Board <br />President, and Executive Director of two land trusts, one of which was Hawai`i <br />Island Land Trust. I will be speaking today in reference to CA -7, 9, and 13. <br />I am here today to speak to you about these because they have many of the same <br />failings. I am sorry, CA -7 and 13 have many of the same failings. Unfortunately <br />they both seem to have been written without the assistance of anyone who knows <br />how land conservation works and they ignore the history of why the voters of <br />Hawai`i County decided by substantial margins to place the fund beyond the <br />grasp of the Administration. CA -7 has two fatal flaws that require it to be <br />dropped. First you have already heard that the provision to allow lands acquired <br />with the fund to be sold will drive matching funds away. So far we have had 10.7 <br />million dollars in matching funds as of October 31' which have saved the <br />taxpayers about $2,300 dollars an acre on the property acquired so far. The <br />additional leverage provided by the matching funds means the taxpayers have <br />gotten over a 30 percent bump on their money. Not bad. I don't think the second <br />fatal flaw has been discussed. As you may know conservation easements allow a <br />land owner to sell or donate various development rights on their property in a way <br />that benefits the public. Whether for watershed protection, scenic values, habitat, <br />etc. The conservation easement allows a farmer or rancher to protect their land <br />for the public good while being able to remain on the land, manage it, and maybe <br />pass it on to their heirs if they wish. When conservation organizations work with <br />a landowner to protect land, one of their tools is a charitable tax deduction for any <br />interest that the landowner donates rather than sells. This can work to lower the <br />overall cost of the deal to in our case, the County and other funders. For example, <br />a rancher decides to protect her land with a conservation easement. She needs <br />some cash up front because she is land rich and cash poor, but she also likes the <br />Page 14 <br />