Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 2 <br /> Murashige, Laura <br /> _ <br /> From: J. C. Tyler III [jct3kona@hawaii.rr.com] <br /> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:40 AM <br /> To: County Council Tx <br /> Subject: FC: Bill 231 <br /> Aloha, Chair Isbell and Finance Committee Members: <br /> This testimony is submitted in very strong opposition to the subject bill. My reasons are: <br /> 1. This proposal is in direct contradiction of the Council decision of the 2002-2004 term, which requires <br /> <br /> private financing of any waste reduction technology. <br /> 2. The type of technology to be used is unknown. <br /> 3. The costs of and amount of funding needed for this unknown technology are unknown. <br /> 4. The need for any public financing is unsubstantiated, except that a hired consultant recommended <br /> and put it in the RFP, which, conveniently, he will have to redraft, which will further delay a solution. <br /> 5. The need for and the amount of public funding necessary for planning, design and construction of an <br /> unknown technology, the costs for which are unknown, are unknown. One thing is for sure, though: if <br /> you approve a check for $40 million, those costs will most certainly be inflated commensurately. <br /> 6. There are at least three or four companies who have told the Council in open session that they would <br /> fund the planning, design and construction of a waste reduction facility, including a "sort station," in <br /> return for the tipping fees. Although some may have doubted it could be done, these companies were <br /> never given a fair chance to show they could perform, despite successfully having done so in other <br /> locations. <br /> 7. If the County uses public funds to plan, design and construct this facility, all of us can be certain that <br /> it will take longer, cost a lot more and, probably, be less able to do what needs to be done (since costs <br /> exceeded the budget, etc). Is this what is really needed or desired at this point`? <br /> 8. Although the County Charter specifically gives the Council "public policy formulation, as distinct <br /> and separate from the executive administration," it appears as if some in the Executive Branch already <br /> believe "we have determined the method of financing" to be used, despite prior Council action to the <br /> contrary. This is clearly "the cart before the horse" or "the tail wagging the dog." If you aren't sure of <br /> what to do, at least keep your options open and your authority intact. <br /> 9. The County Administration has no experience in planning, design, construction and operation of a <br /> modern-day waste reduction plant, and it should not be given the opportunity to begin now, especially, <br /> with another $40 million of the people's money. Why do we need to own something we don't know <br /> anything about? Stick to the policy developed by your predecessors and require that any prospective <br /> vendor use their own capital. The cream will rise to the top, if given a fair opportunity to do so, <br /> 10. The balanced County Budget does not anticipate this additional public funding. Please do not saddle <br /> the taxpayers with any more unnecessary and unwanted long-term debt for which there is no budget and <br /> Comm. IYo.~Q <br /> Ref. Tw ~ L-- <br /> 2/28/2006 Ref. Uate I' t t} L 0 <br /> <br />