HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0710.028 2010-2012 Page 1 of 1
Murashige, Laura COM 14. 7g) p/Awasc
From: Robin Stetson [rstetson@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:33 PM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: TESTIMONY AGAINST BILL 256
Attachments: Against Bill 256.pdf
Please accept my written testimony for the County Council hearing
pertaining to Bill 256 on Wednesday, May 16th• Please contact me if you
have any questions.
Mahalo,
Robin Stetson
Leilani Estates 1.a.1
{=;■
Puna
°
VI -
COMM. •. I° •2-g
Ref. To:• ,
Ref. Date
5/15/2012
TESTIMONY for the Hawaii County Council
AGAINST BILL 256
May 14, 2012
I can not support Bill 256. It is not well thought out and I do not believe it
represents the majority view of Puna's community. I am not in agreement with
doing away with the Community Benefits portion of the geothermal royalty fund,
pending further investigation.
I ask our Council to support making funds available for both purposes: a) to
carry out Puna getting a health study and monitors related to geothermal activity,
relocation monies for those adversely affected by proximity to geothermal, and
an emergency relief fund . . . AND b) for the Puna community's benefit!
There is a definite dearth of facts and figures pertaining to what funding is
needed now for public safety and relocation and also how much is advisable to
have on hand for future public safety and relocation. I have heard that PGV
carries a $25 million insurance policy in the event of disaster; this amount surely
needs to be increased.
Apparently Council Member Yagong believes (or was led to believe by a vocal
few) that the hundreds of citizens that attended the recent Council hearing in
Pahoa are against the community benefits fund. I don't believe that is the case.
They were there because they opposed geothermal. The community needs more
time - and another hearing -- to weigh in on this decision concerning the
geothermal funds.
I am against eliminating the Community Benefit portion of the Relocation fund
due to the Relocation fund being underfunded. Instead, look to increasing the
funding to the Relocation fund by re-evaluating the percentages going to the
different entities drawing from the royalty fund. In addition, the expense of
Public Safety should be funded directly by PGV through a separate fund (not the
royalty fund). And, as mentioned, PGV's emergency insurance coverage is
inadequate.
Leave the Community Benefits fund alone. Get mana'o from more people in Puna
... not just a few.
Robin Stetson
Leilani Estates
rstetson @hawaiiantel.net