September 1984 Home   Newsletters

October 1984

November 1984

Pros and Cons of the Date-Laau Initiative (Helen Griffin)
President's Message (Dorothy Lum)
Two Major Issues Facing Honolulu City Council (Welcome Fawcett)
Alternatives in a Cocked Hat? (Opal Sloane)
Voter Service Does it Again!
League Membership Update
Calendar
Vote Count Flash
Announcement - BOE Candidates' Meeting
People 'n Pix

Two Major Issues Facing Honolulu City Council

The Aloha Voter thanks Hawaii State Senator Mary George for "??Predicting The Future??" in September, opening our current series of articles written by League members who are also elected officials. The views expressed are of the writer and not necessarily those of the editorial staff or the League.

This is the second article in the series:

City Council now is at a point where the major Budget and Development Plan issues for the present year are behind us, and those for the coming fiscal year are not yet immediate. Nor do those of us on the Council face the demands of campaigning; our four-year terms do not end until 1986.

What issues and concerns, then, do face us over the next few months?

First, we will soon be asked to make a major decision about whether to approve contracts for the financing, construction and operation of a Resource Recovery Plant to be located in Campbell Industrial Park. As most of you are aware, this Plant when complete is designed to reduce the volume of our solid waste by as much as 90%; the Plant will burn most of the City's solid waste, converting it into steam to be sold to Hawaiian Electric. The resulting ash, as well as waste which cannot be burned, will obviously require much less space for disposal than the untreated solid waste which is today filling our landfills so rapidly.

The land which is usable for sanitary landfills is limited both by geography and by environmental concerns, so the less we need to "dump" the better. The project, however, will be immensely expensive; we will be asked to approve financing by Special Revenue Bonds totaling $250 Million. The City would be obligated to pay total costs of refuse collection and disposal services amounting to $29.71 Million in 1988. These costs would rise to $54.51 Million in the year 2000. We are told that without Resource Recovery we could expect collection and disposal costs to be $27.24 Million in 1988 rising to $56.87 Million in the year 2000. The Council has now decided to retain a team from the Governmental Finance Officers Association to provide an analysis of the financial and technical feasibility of the Resource Recovery Project; I for one will feel much more comfortable making this decision after we have the benefit of this analysis.

The Council will face another decision involving potentially large amounts of funds when we decide how to proceed with the Transportation Analysis known as HALI 2000. I know many of you are participating in some way in this study, and have been asked to choose between six alternatives (or combined pieces of the alternatives) for the transportation in the year 2000. Although there are no immediate financial implications in this study, the decisions we begin to make today could lead to massive commitments of public funds and individual fares in the years to come.

These two major decisions do not involve simply financial considerations. Both also involve a decision on how we wish to treat our land -- this very precious asset of our very precious island state:

Welcome Fawcett
Honolulu City Councilmember

September 1984 Home   Newsletters November 1984