Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0747.001 2010-2012William P. Kenoi Alayor West Hawai'i Office 74 -5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy Kailua -Kona, Hawai`i 96740 Phone (808) 323 -4770 Fax (808) 327 -3563 County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT To: Dominic Yagong, Council Chair and Members of the Hawaii County Council From: Bobby Jean Leithead Todd, Planning Director Date: June 19, 2012 Subject: Testimony of Planning Director, Bobby Jean Leithead Todd, in Opposition to: BJ Leithead Todd Director Margaret K. Masunaga Deputy East Flawai'i Office 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 Phone (80'Z:4-'61-8M Fax (808$61-8/41C) Bill 256, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2, Article 36, Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as Amended), by Renaming and Redefining the Geothermal Relocation and Community Benefits Program to the Geothermal Relocation and Public Safety Program; and /BilI 267, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2, Article 35, Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as Amended), Relating to the Geothermal Asset Fund. I have so many concerns about the two bills, that I am not sure where to start. In the interest of brevity, I will limit my commentary to a few items. The Royalty revenues referenced in Bill 256 are similar to real property revenues that can be used for any purpose, any where on the island if the Council elects to do so. The Geothermal Relocation and Community Benefits Program is funded through the money the County receives as its portion of the royalty payments made by Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) to the State of Hawai`i for its use of the State's mineral rights. As this is a revenue source similar to property taxes, the Council has the authority to use the money as it so chooses, provided such use is budgeted through either the operating budget or the CIP budget. It could be put into the General Fund if the Council chose to do so and used anywhere on the island. While the Council has such authority, it does not make sense to turn the fund into a public safety fund when the Asset Fund already exists and serves that purpose if the council, or other agency designated by the council and community agree to a list of projects. /, �. Comm. No. 7" Ref. To P /Cok.yt ( Ref. Date.a1Z ww'w.coht, anninedept.com flau'ai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer planning llco.hav aii.hi.us Dominic Yagong, Council Chair and Members of the Hawai'i County Council June 19, 2012 Page 2 Bill 256 results in increased costs and decreased revenues for the County and may have unintended consequences. Bill 256 results in lower tax revenues for the County as it proposes to retain the properties purchased through relocation. It will increase costs by requiring the demolition or other disposal of the property and requires the properties to be uninhabited. It will increase costs by the amount of community association dues that the County will have to pay. Since the properties cannot be resold, it will significantly diminish the fund. Bill 256 exposes the County to potential liability if the properties are not managed. One cost would be the filling of the existing cesspools on the properties once the homes have been removed or demolished as the County would be liable if anyone were to fall into such an unfilled cesspool. If demolished, disposal of the materials if landfilled would result in payment of landfill fees and further reduce the life of the landfill. The bill may have unintended consequences of further depressing property values of surrounding properties and could impact the availability of homeowners insurance. If the Council in its wisdom decides that such a plant requires a one mile buffer and the properties should be purchased and left uninhabitable, will the next step be to purchase properties impacted by vog; by electrical plants; by the noise of a hydroelectric plant; by the operation of any biofuel facilities; by cell towers if residents fear microwaves emissions; by the storage of fuel and chemicals by the docks; by any other use of property that purportedly harms residents due to emissions or noise? The Asset Fund revenues are similar to impact fees and are limited under Condition 51 of the Geothermal Permit to hazard mitigation projects and cannot be used for other purposes making Bill 267 an illegal attempt to convert the purpose of the fund in violation of the specific purpose of the fee collected from PGV. Under condition 51 of the geothermal permit issued by the Hawai`i County Planning Commission the Asset Fund may pay for "[a] priority list of impact mitigation projects may be established by the County Council or agency designated by the Council in conjunction with Puna residents or designated representatives thereof, with the exception of upgrading existing subdivision standards and specifications of the County of Hawai`i." Thus under the current condition, the Council and the community already has the ability to designate mitigation projects, which could include health studies. Dominic Yagong, Council Chair and Members of the Hawai'i County Council June 19, 2012 Page 3 What you cannot do is take the Asset Fund which is similar to impact fees and alter the use of the monies to other purposes. Since the permit specifically limits the use of the fund to hazard mitigation projects and the fee is paid for that specific purpose use of the funds for other purposes is illegal. Just as you cannot take a "fair share" payment for roads and use it for park purposes, you cannot take a fee that is collected for hazard mitigation and use it for other purposes such as scholarships or non - hazard community benefits. Any proposed changes to the Asset Fund that would turn it into a community benefits fund would not be permissible as it would be contrary to the purposes for which the payment of $50,000 is being made. Since this is not a tax but more in the nature of a fee, it can only be expended for the purposes for which it is collected.