HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0695.001 2004-2006 Page 1 of 2
Murashige, Laura
_
From: J. C. Tyler III [jct3kona@hawaii.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:40 AM
To: County Council Tx
Subject: FC: Bill 231
Aloha, Chair Isbell and Finance Committee Members:
This testimony is submitted in very strong opposition to the subject bill. My reasons are:
1. This proposal is in direct contradiction of the Council decision of the 2002-2004 term, which requires
private financing of any waste reduction technology.
2. The type of technology to be used is unknown.
3. The costs of and amount of funding needed for this unknown technology are unknown.
4. The need for any public financing is unsubstantiated, except that a hired consultant recommended
and put it in the RFP, which, conveniently, he will have to redraft, which will further delay a solution.
5. The need for and the amount of public funding necessary for planning, design and construction of an
unknown technology, the costs for which are unknown, are unknown. One thing is for sure, though: if
you approve a check for $40 million, those costs will most certainly be inflated commensurately.
6. There are at least three or four companies who have told the Council in open session that they would
fund the planning, design and construction of a waste reduction facility, including a "sort station," in
return for the tipping fees. Although some may have doubted it could be done, these companies were
never given a fair chance to show they could perform, despite successfully having done so in other
locations.
7. If the County uses public funds to plan, design and construct this facility, all of us can be certain that
it will take longer, cost a lot more and, probably, be less able to do what needs to be done (since costs
exceeded the budget, etc). Is this what is really needed or desired at this point`?
8. Although the County Charter specifically gives the Council "public policy formulation, as distinct
and separate from the executive administration," it appears as if some in the Executive Branch already
believe "we have determined the method of financing" to be used, despite prior Council action to the
contrary. This is clearly "the cart before the horse" or "the tail wagging the dog." If you aren't sure of
what to do, at least keep your options open and your authority intact.
9. The County Administration has no experience in planning, design, construction and operation of a
modern-day waste reduction plant, and it should not be given the opportunity to begin now, especially,
with another $40 million of the people's money. Why do we need to own something we don't know
anything about? Stick to the policy developed by your predecessors and require that any prospective
vendor use their own capital. The cream will rise to the top, if given a fair opportunity to do so,
10. The balanced County Budget does not anticipate this additional public funding. Please do not saddle
the taxpayers with any more unnecessary and unwanted long-term debt for which there is no budget and
Comm. IYo.~Q
Ref. Tw ~ L--
2/28/2006 Ref. Uate I' t t} L 0