HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0604.042 1996-1998 O.
OJ~ZV OF. M,k'i
JOHN RAY Vhb, Hilo Phone: (808) %1-8265
Councilman ti C• Fax: (808)%9-3291
' Waimea Phone: (808) 885-5875
~rB OR N'i~ Fax: (808) 885-7184
COUNTY COUNCIL
County ofHawaii
Hawaii County Building
25 Aupuni Street -
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
September 75, 1998
TO: Aaron Chung, Chair, Finance Committee and Councilmembers
FROM: John Ray )
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment of Resolution 267-98
Attached please find a proposed amendment of Resolution 267-98 presenting a plan of
disposition for the former Hamakua Sugar Company, Inc. lands now under county ownership.
Having heard considerable public comment on the preferred disposition of these lands, as well
as talking to fellow council members and the mayor, it is my sense that neither of the present
resolutions regarding this issue enjoy the broad support of the Council. Rather, elements from
each of the. resolutions, submitted by Mayor Yamashiro and Councilman Yagong respectively,
appear to reFlect worthwhile principles and desired outcomes.
Accordingly, I believe Resolution 267-98, as amended, offers a path of compromise and
pragmatic direction to enable us to define a path to begin to move fonvard with a sound
disposition plan.
An opinion from Corporation Counsel was requested to determine whether the proposed
revisions represented substantive changes requiring the drafting of a new resolution. Mr.
Wurdenlan's opinion, received yesterday, assures us that we may responsibly proceed to act on
Resolution 267-98, Draft 2.
Attachments
~v~~z
;vim PL.v
iie~f. 7bi resented F~-
e.Kr. Dwa .St2 1 5 19~'..,,;,,,,
nu^I ,d~ ,
~~~.r.... l11~11
(1~f'J.'
4 M
IIUNAI it IICh I~1A ~~~_4 \~~a~%i ,\La~•I ti. hl l'•; I',ill
l ,nurhn IrrA
~ u~p., I'~prJur nurr;v' l~'~r
p~4 ni •wio'~o
l uNtil'A NCI R. b.l l(I!~
Ol~l'7('!i OP'T'!!Li C'OUN"1'1' 17..I:kl'.
irlllit iJ Irt t t;l d'd!I
l lrrrrrru t .,:rnh~ lsurl,)ui,.~
_S';IulwniShrrf
lllhr. I Lu, viii 9p?,'!1
September 9, 1998
I•O: Richard Wurdcman
Corporation Counsel
I'KOM: Conslancc R. Kiriu~-u~
Legislative Auditor
Rli: Resolution No. 267-9R
Itclating to a Plan lilt Disposition lilt the Former I Innutkna Sugar
Company, Inc. Lands
Mayor Slcphen K. 1'amashiro transmiUal Resolution No. 267-118 I~Ir Council
consideration. "I'he Finance Committcc held two public hearings on this Resolution and
Resolution No. 3U9 ~)8 submiUed by Council Member l'agong. The Finance Committcc
will he discussing the hvo Resolutions at its meeting on "fucsday, September I S, 191)8.
A council member has requested me to draft a resolution that seeks (I) to address several
suggestions raised during the public hearings. and (2) In bring about a reasoniblc
settlement to the I lanrlkua lands issue. A conlidential drill is attached.
Since Iherc appears to he no guiding Iegislalinn, may the proposed revisions he adopted
as an amendment to Resolution No. ?67-118 or do the revisions rclkct such e substantial
change as to warrant the drilling of a new resolution?
four expeditious and ronlidential reply is apprecialal.
nn.
`OJ~1Y
Oi 471
Stephen K. Yatnashiro i Richard Wunleman
tilgynr ) Cogmratiun Cou nscl
.pF Oi~NiYt
C~nixixtu of ~nfixttii
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
IUI Aupvni Srra4 Suim 325 • Ilila, Ilawai'i 96720-4162 • (808) 961-4251 • I'ax (BOd) 961-8622
14 September 1998
TO: CONSTANCE R. KIRIU
Legislative Auditor
PROM: RICHARD D. WURDEMAN ~l;'
Corporation Counse
SUBJECT: RISOhUTION 2G7=98
On September 9, 1998, you asked whether the proposed
amendments to Resolution 267-98 necessitate the introduction
of a new resolution or whether Resolution 267-98 can be
considered, as amended.
Although the proposed amendments make substantial changes in
the original proposal, it is not so "fundamentally different
from that originally proposed as to amount to a new
proposal". Carlsmith, Carlsmith, Wichman and Case v. C__FB
properties
69 Haw 589 (1982). Further, I am assured that the changes
are a response to that which was presented at the public
hearing, and not new matters not previously discussed,
another consideration in the Carlsmith case.
While the question of "fundamental difference" is a factual
one and is therefore a matter for debate, it should be
pointed out that the Carlsmith case allowed Eor a building
height increase from 150 to 310 feet., and that changes was
not deemed a "fundamental difference."
RDW:1938Lbre