MIN CHARTER 2019-01-25 (2018-2020)

Home

Hawaii County Charter Commission -7 January 25, 2019 things, so I am here for CA -7 and CA -9. So first regarding CA -7, I am strongly opposed to this proposed amendment. This is kind of a good follow-up to Senator Rudennan because I recently moved from Oahu and I have been working in conservation and energy, and environmental concerns there for the last ten years and just in case everyone doesn't know, this fund is greatly admired in the neighbor islands and it is seen as something that the other counties and other jurisdictions, and other states wish to emulate, so to reduce the fund and dial that back would be such a step backwards for the Big Island, but also a real disappointment and very disheartening to others that are really looking to what you have done already and the work that the Council has done to have this fund in place. So I just thought that kind of an interesting voice to hear from what is going on in the neighbor islands regarding this fund. Also there are a few aspects of the proposal under CA -7 that I find really disturbing that I wanted to speak to. It is the possibility to suspend the fund by a two-thirds vote of the Commission or by just a singular vote I assume by the Director of Finance should it be found needed, necessary to prevent a reduction in the provision of public services. It just seems that that would just create a situation where you could do it at any time because as we all know, all of us who balance budgets and then for you especially with your very difficult job of having to deal with the finances, there is always a reason. There would always be a reason to do that. You can always come up with some reason that something needs to be funded, so we need to just stay strong and know that this fund is here for the voters. That it is in place for a very necessary purpose. The other thing that struck me when I read through the text of the changes is that I felt like there was an assumption there that the preservation of open land and looking after our pristine natural resources is not in fact a public service, but I see it very strongly as part of the responsibilities and the kuleana of the County and of all of your difficult jobs to put that as part of what needs to be done that is a part of the public service that we are really counting on. So I really ask that you put this CA -7 aside and instead to support CA -9 which is really the right way to go because what it does is it puts someone in place that could really look after this fund and be efficient and proactive and really see to it that lands that need to be preserved—that it's done on time and quickly and fairly. That I think is the solution to any kind of concerns and questions, and of course the covenant that says that these lands must be kept in perpetuity needs to stay. If it could just get sold off, that would greatly weaken the intent behind the fund. I think there are other means that could be utilized that other counties are using that would still ensure that the lands are always kept in perpetuity once taxpayer dollars are used in order to (inaudible) the land. Well thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity to testify. CHR. ADAMS: Thank you. Next speaker from Hilo please. Page 8