Tag Archives: Pete Hoffmann

October 4, 2011

Kona Town Meeting: Protecting Tropical Fish In West Hawaii

By Aaron Stene

(Submitted by Fred Housel)

How can Hawaii’s delicate coastal ecosystem with its irreplaceable varieties of tropical fish be protected and preserved?

Come listen and ask questions about this critical natural resource.

Guest Speakers are Dr. Bill Walsh, Division of Aquatic Resources Biologist, Tina Owens, founder of The Lost Fish Coalition, David Dart, West Hawaii Fisheries Council, Marnie Herkes, West Hawaii Fisheries Council, and Pete Hoffmann, Hawaii County Councilmember, District 9. Councilmember Angel Pilago will provide a Council update.

The Kona Town Meeting Tuesday, October 11, will start at 6 PM and conclude at 8 PM at Makaeo Events Pavilion which is located at the old Kona Airport Park.

Kona Town Meetings are presented by Community Enterprises, a non-partisan, non-profit organization, to provide vital information on community concerns to Kona citizens. Light refreshments will be served. For more information, please go to www.konatownmeeting.org or call Fred Housel at 331-8602.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Hawaii Development, Hawaii Economy, Hawaii Planning, Hawaii Politics

September 30, 2011

The Demise of Impact Fees

By Aaron Stene

(Councilman Pete Hoffmann submitted this commentary)

On 21 September, in a surprising reversal of its Planning Committee recommendation two weeks previous, the County Council voted five to four to defeat the long-anticipated Impact Fee legislation.

Despite the obvious need (expressed by almost everyone even remotely involved on this issue) to revamp the current ineffective ‘fair-share’ system, despite the benefit of continuous support (free of charge by the way) from the experts originally contracted by the County to study an Impact Fee, despite a further three page listing of suggested recommendations from the County’s Planning Director received only on 19 September, despite growing public approval for an Impact Fee proposal, and despite repeated explanations countering the numerous misunderstandings of some opponents, the Council terminated Bill 304 at First Reading.

Disappointment is the prevailing sentiment that characterizes this vote. I’m disappointed that as a Council we are unable to address adequately the difficult issues that have plagued us repeatedly over the years. I’m not necessarily convinced that my proposal is the best, but I do know that impact fees work, they have been adopted by literally thousands of communities that faced the same infrastructure shortfalls as Hawaii County does now, and development has not stopped in any of those communities. If Council members don’t like my idea, then what other alternatives do they suggest? State law has allowed us to adopt impact fees for the past 18 years. How long must residents wait? If not now, when will we be courageous enough to create an effective system to address these shortfalls??

Another irony of the situation is that the Council on many occasions has called for administration recommendations regarding impact fees, urging a partnership to resolve this issue. I recognize that the detailed listing of recommendations received on two occasions recently from the Planning Department did not necessarily represent administration approval of this impact fee proposal, but it would seem to reflect a willingness to work with Council and to discuss a controversial topic. I would have anticipated that the Council would be willing to advance that discussion rather than cut it short.

Impact Fees, if adopted, would not suddenly make the County healthy. It would, however, permit the County to employ a funding mechanism which has proven successful in communities nationwide. Failure to pass this legislation either dooms County residents to continued shortfalls in essential facilities or insures that higher taxes will be the only remedy available to correct those deficiencies. Those taxes affect all residents; rich, poor, and everyone in-between, not just those that cause the increased impact. Simply put, the defeat of the Impact Fee legislation translates into higher taxes for all or inadequate infrastructure. Disappointing to say the least. Our residents deserve better.

A final comment: In the aftermath of this vote, I fear the perception will linger that the Council remains more concerned about potential election results than resolving key issues. Ask yourselves: when will the Council take the lead and make the tough decisions?? I believe we missed a great opportunity on 21 September.

1 comment   |  tags: , , | posted in Hawaii Development, Hawaii Economy, Hawaii Planning, Hawaii Politics

February 14, 2011

La’aloa Avenue Extension Project Update

By Aaron Stene

Richard Ha recently blogged about Puna Geothermal Venture‘s operational safeguards.  Big Island Weekly recently published an  article which raised questions about geothermal safety.

The new HELCO/PGV eight megawatt power purchase agreement may lower electricity costs for island consumers.

The cost of producing this additional eight megawatts won’t be tied to the price of oil. In addition, HELCO and PGV were able to hammer out a new five megawatt purchase  agreement. This replaces the old accord.

Oceanic Time Warner Cable has ceased offering Road Runner Turbo Plus (15Mbps/1Mbps) service for now.

A Oceanic customer service representative replied to my e-mail inquiry:

“The Turbo Plus listing has been removed for now. Customers who already have the service are able to continue to use the service, however we are not able to add new customers with this service at this time. Unfortunately we do not have details about why this change was made.”

Councilman Pete Hoffmann responded to my e-mail inquiring why the council hasn’t approved funding for the La’aloa Avenue extension project.

“Aaron,

We may see another bond float proposed by the Mayor which includes both projects. They have been properly added to the CIP, but don’t forget there’s no money in the CIP, it is only a ‘wish list’. The money to actually do the projects comes from bond floats, property taxes, state/federal grants, etc. I believe the Mayor will introduce another bond float that will handle at least these two projects and it will be done ‘properly’ this time.”

Lastly, the proposed Waimea Bypass (between mud lane and Waimea Airport) remains a paper road. The biggest issue is with the DHHL homesteaders. They remain vehemently opposed to the construction of this roadway.

I wish these homesteaders would see the bigger picture. This bypass road will benefit them and the entire community.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Hawaii Development, Hawaii Economy, Hawaii Planning, Hawaii Politics, Hawaii Technology, Hawaii Transportation

February 11, 2011

Councilman Hoffmann’s Musings About The Upcoming Hawaii County Budget

By Aaron Stene

Submitted by Hawaii County Councilman Pete Hoffmann:

We are currently in that ‘never-never-land’ that prevails immediately prior to the publication of the first draft of the County budget. When good years reigned, few people bothered with the specifics. A sense of optimism surrounded the process, and while budget discipline might not have been completely ignored, neither was it a subject of importance. After all why worry excessively over any number of vacant funded positions?

Now in our third year of significant economic difficulty, budget preparations take on a whole different meaning, particularly when
further wage reductions and even layoffs are real possibilities. Let’s be certain we don’t misstate this situation: the Mayor and the administration did not cause this recession. It isn’t their fault. At the same time, it’s hard not to overlook the obvious. A few Council members have continuously argued for pro-active measures to address the County’s economy over the past two years. While these proposals would not have solved the economic downturn completely, implementation of some of these suggestions would have greatly improved our current situation. Instead, the decisions that will be made for the next fiscal year may prove more onerous for us all.

Regardless of the short-term ‘fixes’ the administration and Council will debate in connection with the 2011-2012 budget, there are a couple of longer-range proposals that should be adopted immediately. I’ve mentioned these previously, on several occasions, and they have been met with ‘thunderous silence’. In my opinion, there should be a top-to-bottom review of our property tax system. The disparities of the current tax structure need fundamental reform. I recognize this may not be an overly popular topic, but to continue the maze of tax rates, exemptions, and other aspects that inflict our current tax structure is to continue to promote a system that does not adequately address present day or future budgetary requirements.

Second, this County must institute a complete reassessment of property values, particularly for industrial, commercial and resort properties. This review should be made by professional consultants outside the County administration. We aren’t receiving anywhere near the tax revenues we should from these properties. I can hear the cries already, “you will hurt business!!” Nonsense. It’s time we understood that County taxpayers cannot continue this form of ‘corporate subsidy’. The least we should do is to assess other property categories at approximately the same rate as residential properties. When some resort and commercial interests are assessed at 50% of market value and residential homes are assessed at 80/90%, something needs adjustment.

Once again, it is a matter of fairness, but more importantly, these are potential revenue sources into which the County should expand. If these recommendations were adopted two years ago, we would be in less economic ‘doo-doo’ then we are today. Don’t misinterpret. To enact measures like these demand the ability and commitment to make tough decisions. Not everyone will be pleased. However, I assure you not all will be pleased with the measures needed to handle next fiscal year’s budget either. The question is when do we start to make the changes needed to correct this situation? The longer we wait, the harder the decisions will be in the coming years. I strongly suggest that as part of any budget ordinance for 2011-2012, property tax reform and a property assessment review be part and parcel of that document. If the Council and administration are committed to correcting years of neglect in these areas, the time to do so is now.

3 comments   |  tags: | posted in Hawaii Economy, Hawaii Politics

October 21, 2010

Parker Ranch Connector Road Update

By Aaron Stene

Bolton Inc. is slated to start work November 1st, 2010 on the Holu Street Connector project. They anticipate completing this roadway extension by the end of the year.

Margaret Wille posted an update regarding the soon-to-be opened Parker Ranch Connector Road. The interim grant of easement resolution was submitted to the county council on October 20,2010. The council likely will agendize this ordinance for the next meeting on November 4th, 2010.

Parker Ranch has promised to open the roadway after the council has approved this easement legislation.

The Hawaii County Council deferred action on Councilman Hoffmann’s impact fee legislation. Mr. Hoffmann should’ve introduced this legislation after the new council convenes next year. The current council is very developer friendly. So, this legislation currently has a snowballs chance in hell to be approved.

I hope the council addresses this issue soon. The current fair share system is illegal, and unfairly forces the taxpayers to shoulder most of the cost of infrastructure improvements.

For example, Hawaii County wouldn’t have to float a bond to construct the La’aloa Avenue extension if we had an impact fee ordinance in place.

The Queen Kaahumanu Highway extension construction speed limit signs have been taken down. This means the resurfacing between Henry and Lako Street is nearly complete. The HDOT has scheduled a pre-final inspection for October 28th, 2010.

This is the latest update regarding Hawaii County’s lawsuit against 1250 Oceanside Partners and American Motorist Insurance Company.

Lastly, I decided to vote early yesterday. I voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates.

3 comments   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Hawaii Development, Hawaii Economy, Hawaii Planning, Hawaii Politics, Hawaii Transportation

October 15, 2010

**Commentary** The Great Exemption Fiasco

By Aaron Stene

Just when it seemed the current dysfunctional County Council had reached new lows in legislative responsibility, the Kamaka Village at Keahuolu exemption list hit the Housing Agency agenda on 6 October. The developer is Forest City, a reputable corporation which has designed and built several large complexes on the mainland. Working with the State, they propose 1,169 affordable units of a total of 2,330 homes (50%) in the vicinity of Kealakehe High School in Kona. Everyone I’ve spoken with is supportive of this effort and, in general, it meets with the objectives of the Kona Community Development Plan.

So what’s the problem? The developer has determined that in order to enhance the bottom line projections for this project, a number of zoning and sub-division code exemptions are required. Other projects have received such exemptions, so why not Forest City? After all, 50% of the project is billed as affordable and any ‘break’ the developer could achieve would enhance the ‘bottom line’. The problem, however, rests with the number and scope of the exemptions requested; more than 90 separate exemptions were on the table. To make matters worse, the administration had not agreed with many of the exemptions, and despite several months of on-again, off-again discussions, Forest City representatives met with the County Office of Housing and some administrative individuals only on Monday, 5 Oct. to iron out details.

Nevertheless, the County Housing Agency was asked to approve all 90+ exemptions at its scheduled Tuesday meeting. Some of the Council members had not even received the list of exemptions until Monday, had no opportunity to study them in any detail, nor had any chance to ask Department heads for their responses. Further, the Council was told some 20 of the exemptions (not further identified) had been scratched from the list and that at least 8-10 others were still under discussion. Apparently the uncertainty of the situation was no obstacle to a majority of Council members, who despite pleas from the administration to postpone consideration on this issue until the next Housing Agency meeting two weeks hence, felt compelled to move this
measure (all 90+ exemptions) on to full Council with a favorable recommendation.

Council-members Yagong, Ford and Hoffmann tried to bring a modicum of common sense to this absurd situation by requesting a postponement to insure that we knew exactly what we were voting for, but that was pushed aside by the Hilo majority, claiming they were certain that agreement would be found, even if specifics were uncertain and somewhat cloudy.

Why the rush, you might ask? After all Forest City wasn’t going away and ground breaking is months in the future. It seems likely that the threat of a different composition on the County Council in December has generated a fear that perhaps a less developer friendly Council may not view all the exemptions in the same manner as the current body. Whether true or not, the Council has initially passed on a significant list of zoning and sub-division exemptions, against the stated disapproval of the administration, without knowing what was contained on the adjusted list, without awareness of the on-going discussions regarding other proposed exemptions, and without detailed study of the potential impacts to public health and safety.

It’s hard to imagine a more flagrant lapse of legislative responsibility. How can we rationalize this conduct to our constituents? How can we believe we are serving the best interests of the residents of this County? What advantage do we feel is gained by short-changing the process and not permit a two-week delay to insure we know what we are voting for? Traditionally, Council members have stressed the need to work on proposed legislation in Committee before bringing that measure forward to full Council. Why did we abandon our practice on this occasion? I have not experienced a worse example of Council conduct in six years. The people of this County deserve better from their elected representatives.

Finally, where is our Mayor on this issue? I recognize he is reluctant to become involved in Council business and rightly so. But on occasion, there is a need for leadership and direction, particularly when administration officials have yet to agree on the impact various exemptions might have on public health and safety and the precedent it could set for future developments. I’m sorry this opportunity to comment in a positive manner was missed, to the detriment of all involved and County residents.

Commentary submitted by Councilman Pete Hoffmann

4 comments   |  tags: , | posted in Hawaii Development, Hawaii Economy, Hawaii Politics

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 465 other followers