HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0613.001 2002-2004 MYY.or h~
p
~~w~. Troy M. Kindred
Harty Klm Adminix(ramr
Mayor ,
Lanny T. Nakano
r~~'w~+r~ Asvistanr Admini.etraVir
~nuzT#~r a~ ~ttfixttTi
CIVIL DEFENSE AGENCY
920 UlWani Stree[ • Hilq Hawaii 96720-9958
(8U8) 935-W31 • Fax (808) 935-6460 ~ ~
vr-~
TO: Rodney Oshiro, Legislative Analyst -r
FROM: Troy M. Kindred, Civil Defense Administrator ~
DATE: May 13, 2004 ~ r n
SUBJECT: Unexploded Military Ordnance Bill 267
Rodney,
As I stated in my previous letter, I feel, overall, the idea behind this bill 267 is good for our
community. However, after a more detailed analysis of the actual bill I feel I must restate
more firmly my reservations on a number of key issues:
L My agency's ability to accomplish the task as outlined in the current Bill 267 is not
assured. As I mentioned, and Councilman Jacobson acknowledged, my
concurrence is contingent upon additional resources. To establish the program as
described would require additional funds for equipment, space for the housing of
the "repository", information systems and automation to store information, training
for the specialty field of Unexploded Ordinance, and GIS systems to map it. In
addition, a considerable commitment to additional man-hours, or more
appropriately additional personnel, to research, collect, organize, store, and respond
to the demand for information that will surely follow the implementation of this
program.
2. Realtors, insurance companies, and others may begin constantly making requests
for information on Civil Defense's limited staff. These inquires will cause a major
disruption to the duties of Civil Defense staff. This also raises the responsibility to
conform to the Office of Information Practices (OIP), and the OIP response
timelines, and possible failure to meet them resulting in penalties.
3. I am concerned that the Bill 267 does not clearly describe the program's actual
operation and by merely outlining a concept it does not convey the true
enormousness of scope of this program. As such, the Bill may not communicate
the corresponding cost of initiating this program. This cost has not been
Comm. No. 3 ~
1-~
Ref. To: , ~NN~I~. ~y
Ref. Uate M/
Hawaii County is an equal opportunity provldcr and employer
Rodney Oshiro
Page 2
May 13, 2004
previously identified, or budgeted for by my office and I do not have sufficient
funds on-hand to cover the anticipated costs. Becoming a repository increases the
burdens placed on Civil Defense without additional budget.
4. I am concerned on the issue of off-shore munitions. As noted, the County has no
jurisdiction over offshore areas. In addition, the State's water pollution statutes on
coastal water pollution may preempt any contrary county ordinance since
munitions are included in the definition of water pollution.
5. The "Purpose Section" speaks to mitigation of hazard which may raise issues of
increased liability, if the County should inadvertently provide inaccurate
information, or does not act to remove the hazard. The County is not responsible or
able to remove the hazard as they are not trained to do so, nor budgeted to do so.
6. The definition of "incident" in the "Reporting Section" is unclear. Examples are:
When is a report to be generated? Does it require confirmation that an object is a
live munitions versus just a magnetic anomaly? Who makes the determination
whether the object is live and what kind of munitions it is