Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComm No 0044.05 - Testimony - CA-27 - PONC fund - Easements - Eminent DomainFrom: Debbie H <hecht.deb@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:19 PM To: Charter Commission Subject: CA -18 & CA -27 Two amendments to the Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Fund Attachments: Ca -18 FINAL 3.6.2019.pdf; Maintenance Fund with Critique 1.31.2019.pdf Please forward with 2 attachments to all Charter Commissioners Aloha Charter Commissioners: We respectfully request that you: Approve CA -18 with proposed amendments (see attached) and oppose CA -27. APPROVE CA -18, as amended, for Initial Approval; Proposal to amend Section 10-16, Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Maintenance Fund, as submitted by Commissioner Rice. We have been working with Commissioner Rice. Please review the attached, proposed changes to CA -18 that will be proposed on Friday During 2 campaigns for the Land Fund in 2006 and 2010 we heard from many people, "Why should the County buy more land? We can't even take care of what we have." I heard this over and over. Council member Brenda Ford and I wrote the Maintenance Fund Charter amendment to empower the stewardship groups that were already caring for the 2% Lands by setting aside 1/4% of property taxes each year in the Maintenance Fund, which is about $700,000 per year. These monies can be used only for stewardship of land purchased with 2% Land Fund monies. I have talked to almost every group who had received a stewardship grant. I have reviewed all the expenditures of the Maintenance Fund since the beginning in since 2013. I have worked with and talked to staff over the years. I was on the PONC commission. Our intent of helping the stewardship groups has not come to fruition. Only 9% of all the Maintenance Fund money has gotten to the non -profits. See the attached Critique of the Maintenance Fund. We have been working with Commissioner Rice to better achieve the goal of assisting the non -profits to care for these lands, by: 1. Streamlining the stewardship application process. 2. Requiring the application process be administered by the Department of Finance. They have experience. They already assist with a $1 million grant program for all of the different social program non -profits island -wide. 3. Requiring that the Public Access and Open Space Commission help with recommendations and oversight. 4. Allowing the building, installing renting and maintenance of toilet facilities, sheds and structures. 5. Allowing the creation of trails or paths. 6. Allowing officers, board members and employees to be paid by the non-profit for their work. OUR GOAL IS TO STRENGTHEN THE 2% LAND PROGRAM by having more land acquired, boost the purchasing power of the fund by obtaining more matching grants and awarding 1 Comm. No. 44.5 more stewardship funds to the non -profits. We have heard from staff and the non -profits over the years and we believe that the proposed changes to the Maintenance Fund coupled with the the addition of a full time staff person who works ONLY on the 2% Program with accomplish these goals. OPPOSE Comm. CA -27 This amendment adds language to place an emphasis on the acquisition of Easements and that the County may exercise eminent domain to acquire Properties and easements for the purposes of this fund; as submitted by Commissioner Roehrig. Here's what it says. sats section. Whenever practicable the County shall seek to aedfe€ure an easement as it preferred ha a ut -.e a',rnt,►lith the ohJecative5:insuhs tion (c)('1). tent to thMs 5ecti to (1'f 'ttt5 We object to (g) because this is already being done so it is unnecessary. Conservation easements are being used to acquire land at Waikapuna so this is unnecessary. If a full time person is hired to work only on the 2% Land Fund program who has real estate and conservation land experience they will know that. All of the staff do know this. Many of the PONC commissioners also know this. When I was on the commission we discussed the use of conservation easements when ranking properties. I object to (h) because: 1. I was a real estate broker selling land and I believe in private property rights. I believe that eminent domain might be necessary to protect the public health and welfare. This option is already open to the county through the courts, it is also unnecessary to include here. 2. The highest and best use to maximize taxpayer's money is to obtain dollar for dollar matching funds. I agree with the Trust of Public Lands (see their testimony) that grant funders would not grant matching funds for properties obtained through eminent domain. 3. I am concerned with the legal costs. If the county had this power, would they pay for the extensive legal fees to "take" someone land for open space or a park out of the 2% Land Fund? Who would decide if and when this was necessary? I don't want my tax money spent on that use. PLEASE SAY NO TO CA -27, it is UNNECESSARY. Mahalo for your consideration of these very important issues and mahalo for your service. Debbie Hecht, Campaign Coordinator for the Save our Lands Citizens Committee and the 2% Land Fund Program since 2006 ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Maintenance Fund Amendment Maintenance Fund Critique Debbie Hecht 2