HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMM. 178 FoPF - CA-15 Land Fund Friends of Puna’s Future
P.O. Box 1959, Pahoa, HI 96778 808-965-1555
Date: Jan. 29. 2010
To: CoH Charter Commissioners
Subject: In favor of CA-15 / CA-25
Regarding CoH budget, “flexibility” and public testimony
Aloha Commissioners,
Our Board of Directors has authorized me to submit the following
testimony.
We have taken note of statements from commission members
regarding the effect of a number of proposed charter amendments on
the county budget in the context of a need for the county to have
“flexibility“ in its spending and the net effect of passage of CA-15.
Please consider the following three points.
1. CoH Budget(s):
The CoH budget has more than doubled over the last decade. While
the population of our county has grown approx. 20% during this
period the county budgets have increased 120%. This fact is of real
concern to taxpayers who frankly have not benefited from a 120%
increase in delivery of services in the same time period.
A primary beneficiary in the spending of these increased budgets are
vendors and contractors who have consistently contributed to the
campaigns of elected officials. In these hard economic times this
favored group has not been asked, except by direct public action
(see below -item a) , to tighten their belts or reduce the profit margins
in their work and supply to our county government. Let us give some
examples:
a. CoH contract for pumping of dry wells: Until a complaint was
filed with the Ethics Commission this contract RFQ was written in a
manner to restrict competition. The whole affair was fairly well
published. When the RFQ language was relaxed the result was an
immediate lowering of the contact amount by $1,000,000. Using a
procurement process which favored certain suppliers appears to
have cost the taxpayers millions of dollars over the past several
years. One might think that this experience would result in a general
re-examination of procurement policies. It has not yet happened.
The public is aware of this and the county administration seems intent
to continue procurement policies which are a general disadvantage to
the taxpayers. There are dozens of similar situations yet
unaddressed. Vendors over charging seem to be the last budget
items subject to any scrutiny. We are still waiting. Passage of CA-15
by the voters would help force reexamination of procurement
policies.
b. A number of renovations of county facilities have taken
place including the Aupuni Center. The Aupuni Center was performed
at a cost of over $550 per square foot... an exorbitant amount which
totaled over $25,000,000 for a 45,000 square foot remodel.
Construction and remodels in this price range are usually found in
Beverly Hills. We watched a rather mudane remodel of the Pahoa
Community Center expand from a projected cost of $600,000 to $1.1
million. When asked about this at the Park & Recreation Department
the staff could olny shrug their shoulders and say: “We can’t do
anything. It’s the procurement process.” Our CIP budgets are being
regularly gouged and the process seems to be immune from the
budget ax or sensible revision. Reduce this problem by 50% and the
budget shortfall will disappear completely.
c. You may all have noticed that a number of ADA handicap
ramps have been installed in Hilo. Each corner involved cutting and
removing concrete and repouring for a wheel chair accessible ramp.
On Oahu each curb site cost approx. $9,000 ea.. On Maui the cost
was approx. $7,000 ea. In Hawaii County the cost was approx.
$35,000 ea. We acquired the $35k figure by simply dividing the curb
cut budget by the number of curb cuts. It seems as though no one
does this very often. There is no practical or logical reason for the
costs of such simple projects to be so over priced. Someone is
being rewarded - it is not the taxpayers. Bad habits are hard to break.
These are examples of what we view as a general lack of fiscal
responsibility on the part of our county procurement. In this
environment our county officials have consistently testified that they
need “flexibility” in finance and insinuate that a dedicated fund such as
the 2% Land Preservation Fund would inhibit them in the good works
they perform. They protest what they call “micro managing”. Your
approval of CA-15 would allow the voters to decide a simple budget
matter. Is it micromanaging? We think not. It is simply managing.
2. Flexibility:
“Flexibility” is a term used to describe limiting the community’s and
taxpayers’ instructions for specific goals and performances. CA-15, if
passed by the electorate, would indeed specifically instruct the
county as to an elevated priority. Lacking such instruction the county
is able to continue inefficient procurement practices to the tune of
tens of millions of dollars a year. Only some degree of less “flexibility”
will force examination of the offending procurement history and force
more competition and more cost control into our budgets.
Within the Planning Director’s lengthy testimony on CA-25 (CDPs)
you were told that budgets were tight, flexibility was needed. An
example was given of over $600,000 being needed for a west side
CDP consultant. Puna’s CDP had a consultant’s budget of approx.
$360,000 and that was probably too much. The Puna CDP is
currently subject to over 80 proposed amendments which would
largely erase the expensive expertise and input of that off island
consultant. Why does the west side need twice as much money as
Puna? Why do the CDPs need highly paid consultants at all? Why
are these budgets to consultants so rarely scrutinized? There is a
nationwide history of public funds being misspent on overpriced and
under productive outside vendors. On and on it goes. The Finance
Director made similar extended statements about just how
hamstrung the county is in spending. Have any of you noticed any
mention by the county administration of improving and tightening the
procurement process? They don’t seem to want to go there.
Our Legislative Auditor's reports are valuable reading material. All
commissioners should consider reviewing the LAO report on Capital
Improvement Projects and cost overruns. While the national
average for CIP cost overruns is approx. 15% the figure for our
county is 90%. And the 2% Land Preservation Fund is attacked for
micromanaging? A little practical 2% managing seems to be in order.
3. Public Testimony:
As a nonprofit community group and as individuals we have been
quite frustrated by the favoritism and imbalance in the taking of
testimony at Charter Commission meetings. An example of this was
the testimony on CA-25 (CDPs) as well as testimony on CA-15. In
both cases county officials were allowed unlimited access to the
Charter Commission.
While our public testimony was limited to three minutes and we kept
our testimony within that limit in respect of the process and your time
we had to sit and listen to the Planning Director ramble on at length
against CA-25 for 45 minutes without pause. A number of statements
made at that time were not clear, directly pertinent or factual. We
were provided no opportunity to rebut. The process did not provide
for rebuttal. But the process did and does apparently provide for
administration officials to enjoy a level of favoritism and access which
the public is and was denied. It is during these extensive and lengthy
testimonies that you commissioners are hammered with demand for
“flexibility” and horror stories of what would result if the citizens
actually had their say in the spending of their dollars or the
investment of their time. A lot of misinformation was delivered without
rebuttal. We protest.
It should be remembered that the money involved is actually
taxpayer’s money... not county money. We would put forth the
simple proposal that the original passage of the 2% Land
Preservation Fund was a direct and unambiguous vote on “flexibility”
and a direct and unambiguous vote on spending priorities. It
previously passed by a 63% vote in favor. If the county budgets can
rise 120% in ten years and if the wasteful spending is to continue the
voters expect and deserve an opportunity to make reasonable
minimal demand on the priority of 2% Land Preservation.
The fact that the 2% Land Preservation Fund is before you now as a
proposed charter amendment is determined and forceful evidence
that the taxpayers want to have the final say. The Charter
Commission was established to provide citizens with voting
opportunities to amend the basic principles or structure by which
county government operates. Your work as Charter Commissioners
becomes valid in providing that voting opportunity for CA-15.
Friends of Puna’s Future (FoPF) asks you each to support CA-15
without reduction in the amount of the land fund amount. We
also ask those commissioners who voted against CA-25
(CDPs) to reconsider their vote and call for a revote. CA-25
deserved a vote by all commissioners and a rebuttal of the unlimited
testimony by the county administrators. It would only take one of
you to call for a revote on CA-25. Please consider our testimony and
move CA-15 and CA-25 forward.
Sincerely, Rob Tucker, president