Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/2011 Public Hearing Transcript re: BILL#2397PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 23, 2011 A public hearing of the Council of the County of Kauai was called to order by Dickie Chang, Vice Chair, Public Safety & Environmental Services Committee, on Wednesday, February 23, 2011, at 1:36 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 3371-A Wilcox Road, Lihu`e, Kauai, and the presence of the following was noted: Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Dickie Chang Honorable Derek S. K. Kawakami Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura Honorable Jay Furfaro, Council Chair Excused: Honorable Mel Rapozo The Clerk read the notice of the public hearing on the following: BILL NO. 2397 - A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. B-2010-705, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE OPERATING BUDGET OF THE COUNTY OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011, BY REVISING THE SURPLUS AND APPROPRIATIONS ESTIMATED IN THE GENERAL FUND ($417,238 -Solid Waste Fund), which was passed on first reading and ordered to print by the Council of the County of Kauai on January 26, 2011, and published. in The Garden Island newspaper on February 9, 2011. The hearing proceeded as follows: KEN TAYLOR: Chair and members of the council, my name is Ken Taylor. In references, 417,238, in reading through the administration's justification for all of this, the one thing that is troubling to me is in reference to the $20,000 for the fence. Now in their document it says the approximate cost of the ,litter fence is approximate 20,000; the potential cost of the environmental cleanup cannot be easily measured; however, the following are some of the considerations. The shrimp farm extracted approximately 250,000 to provide assurance that the white spotted syndrome would be mitigated, flying trash within their property and laying in their ponds that could potentially lead to spread of (inaudible) disease. The cost of mitigation beyond the settlement is questionable as well, as the negative publicity that could have a direct impact on future landfill siting efforts. Now there are 1 several issues that pop straight into my mind. First of all, I don't recall seeing anything on the agenda in recent months that approved $250,000 expenditure to the shrimp farm, and I guess I would like that clarified as to how that happened. I see from time to time expenditures before you, as recent there was somebody wanting to give a park bench or table to the park department, and it had a estimated value of $900 and it had to be approved by you folks. But here's $250,000 expenditure that... and if I'm wrong please correct me, but I don't recall seeing it on the agenda at all in recent times. The other thing that's really troubling me about this shrimp farm thing is that I don't know how long the shrimp farm's been out there, but it seems to me that the dump was there long before the shrimp farm. So why did we approve the development of a facility that could be affected by the landfill without having any kind of clarification or document in the approval that we would be held harmless. I mean I just don't understand how in the world at this point in time... Mr. Chang: Mr. Taylor, I apologize. Excuse me. That was your first three minutes, but please continue. Mr. Taylor: Thank you. I just don't understand how we could approve a project of this type in an area that has the potential of being contaminated, without having a disclaimer in there if this is where they insist on being. I mean we have an island that has many other areas that possibly could take this facility on, but here we allow them to build it, and then we turn around and pay dearly, because we didn't dot our I's and cross our T's in the process of approval. And so I really, really am troubled by this, and I hope we can get some good explanation about this $250(sic) expenditure, and hopefully in the future when there's potential projects that could be affected by existing activities that they be properly addressed in the process of approval. Thank you. Mr. Chang: Thank you Mr. Taylor. Your concerns will be noted. Council Chair Furfaro: That $250,000 you raised was an agenda item from the previous council as a claim. It was a claim against the county of Kauai. So really, at this point, I just want to make sure you...I answered your question about where did it appear on the agenda. It appeared as a claim against the county. So your other pieces on the disclaimers and so forth will be so noted, and I'll raise those with the legal department. But the 250 came .from a claim. Mr. Taylor: Can I ask that the claim be... When was that claim on the agenda and I'd like to read it. Council Chair Furfaro: I'll get the date for you for the executive session. I just want to make sure we understand that it was a legal claim brought to our 2 attention by the county attorney's office, but I'll get that date and that posting for you, Ken. And your other questions have been so noted. Mr. Taylor: Thank you. Mr. Chang: Thank you Chair for the clarification. Anybody else? Thank you Mr. Taylor. Mr. Mickens? GLENN MICKENS: For the record, Glenn Mickens. I just want to echo what Ken's asking. If in fact that $250,000 went in as a claim, I presume from what this thing is saying that it was paid. If it was paid, why wasn't the public advised about the payment of this? Was it done in executive session, which is illegal; you couldn't have done it in executive session without coming out, I understand...if I understand executive session properly. You can't make a decision; it has to be made in public. So I'm just wondering where was this claim validated. Where was it done? Council Chair Furfaro: Again, Glenn, I tried to answer Ken's question where the 250 came from. There was an executive session. I will get you the exact dates that it was posted, but it was brought to our attention by the county attorney's office as a claim. I'll get you that information first. I'm not about to speak on it as a claim, but I'll revisit it myself. Your questions have been so noted, and I will attempt to get those dates for you, and how it was posted... Mr. Mickens: How it was paid. Council Chair Furfaro: Well, obviously the actual settlement. But ,that claim may still be open. But I will get you that information. I don't want to give the information I'm not positive on, but I do want to say it handled in executive session at the request of the county attorney. And I'll get the dates and the posting for you within the week. Mr. Mickens: Sure. The agenda item, I believe it says something about possibly another $50,000 or something that showed how many man-hours would have to be going into this thing to clean the. thing up, and I presume that the fence, the 10-foot fence, is supposed to mitigate the possibility of that happening. Is that right? Council Chair Furfaro: I've answered as much as I can to you right now without reviewing it myself. I do hope you would give me that week to try and get that posting and so forth back to you, and get a better understanding of where that claim against us is right now. Mr. Mickens: Okay. Thank you very much, Jay. 3 Mr. Chang: Thank you, Chair. Any more members of the audience would like to speak on this item? If not the public safety and solid waste committee is adjourned. No further business. Thank you. There being no further testimony on this matter, the public hearing adjourned at 1:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, "-----, PETER A. NAKAMURA County Clerk /ao 4