Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0710.037 2010-2012 --J�tyfOi h 1.:•* +,,. William T.Takaba " ��(. • Managing Director � William P.Kenoi �� •.••)% Mayor - ▪•• _ —_� Walter K.M.Lau •;.•-• ; . 4`- Deputy Managing Director County of Hawai`i 25 Aupuni Street • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720 • (808)961-8211 • Fax(808)961-6553 KONA: 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy.,Bldg.C • Kailua-Kona,Hawai`i 96740 (808)324-4444 • Fax(808)323-4440 PJ G7 July 12, 2012 Members of the County Council N ==' County of Hawaii o 25 Aupuni Street Hilo,HI 96720 Re: Bill 256,Draft 2,Amending Chapter 2,Article 36,Hawaii 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 Pursuant to Section 3-12 of the Hawai'i County Charter, I am disapproving Bill 256, Draft 2, and returning it to you. This bill as written proposes to change the fund,whose revenue source is geothermal royalty payments,by: • Eliminating community benefits; • Changing the name of the fund; • Providing for"mitigation of public health and safety concerns raised as a result of living in close proximity to geothermal power generation;"and • Prohibits the resale of owner-occupied homes acquired through the relocation program by requiring that the homes be held uninhabited to "create a public health and safety buffer between residential properties and the geothermal power production facility." The bill is flawed and unnecessary. Public Health and Safety There is no need to change the use of the current Geothermal Relocation and Community Benefits Fund to fund public health and safety projects. Public health and safety mitigation can already be funded through the existing Geothermal Asset Fund. The fund Comm. No. ' 0.3 7 County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. (-C11�V1� Ref.To: Ref. Date -1111 1 3 ?t11T- Members of the Hawaii County Council Page 2 July 12,2012 currently has $2.1 million and receives annual payments of$50,000 from Puna Geothermal Venture. Under Rule 12 of the Windward Planning Commission,the Asset Fund may be used to pay money to claimants who have been adversely impacted by activities conducted under Geothermal Resource Permit No. 2. The Asset fund also can be used for community approved mitigation projects to address the alleviation or attenuation of direct detrimental effects of geothermal operations,temporary relocation,adverse impacts such as physical injury,medical and health conditions, business or economic loss,nuisance, or any other claim of adverse impact which is substantiated by evidence. The Asset Fund may also be used for relocation. The type of expenditures envisioned by the bill such as health studies, air monitors,a monitoring service and a public information system can already be paid for through the Asset Fund. The Asset Fund was created pursuant to condition 51 of the Geothermal Resource Permit No. 2. Condition 51,provides that a priority list of impact mitigation projects may be established in conjunction with Puna residents or designated representatives. There exists a specific prohibition on use of the Asset fund in that it cannot be used for upgrading existing subdivisions in the Puna District to current subdivision standards. Community Benefits A significant number of residents in Lower Puna expressed their interest that the types of community benefits that have been previously funded by the Geothermal Relocation and Community Benefits Fund continue. Since the Asset Fund is limited to hazard mitigation or impact expenditures,the only fund available for community benefits is the existing Geothermal Relocation and Community Benefits Fund. The Geothermal Relocation and Community Benefits Program is funded through the money the County receives as its portion of the royalty payments made by PGV to the State of Hawaii 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. It makes sense to leave community benefits as a use of this fund, especially as this fund receives significantly more revenues than the Asset Fund on an annual basis. Bill 256 results in increased costs and decreased revenues for the County. 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. It will County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Members of the Hawaii County Council Page 3 July 12, 2012 also 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 effectively between the time the homes are purchased and disposed as they could be an attractive nuisance. It might result in our needing to hire security,put up fencing etc. to protect the county from liability. Additionally, security might be needed to prevent the empty homes from turning into drug houses. While it might be possible to use the procurement code to try and see if people would bid on salvaging the properties or purchasing the homes to move them,if no such offers are received then the county would have to pay for such demolition. One additional 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 land-filled could result in payment of landfill fees and further reduce the life of the landfill. Bill 256 has legal and technical flaws The bill has no definition of habitable structure. Does this include unpermitted buildings? It fails to establish where the one mile radius is to be measured. Is it from the plant itself,the edge of the property or some other measure? There exists no studies or scientific evidence that a one mile buffer is necessary,thus creation of such a buffer is arbitrary. The bill is ambiguous as it retains the provision that the fund can be funded by proceeds from the sale of properties purchased under the program in Section 2-180,but deletes sale of the properties in Section 2-178. Conclusion It would be irresponsible for me to sign Bill 256,Draft 2,into law due to its legal and technical flaws and because it is unnecessary. I am,therefore, disapproving Bill 256, Draft 2. Aloha, William P. Kenoi MAYOR Enclosure County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.