Kohala Councilman Pete Hoffmann issued the following statement:

The Forest City exemption legislation (Res. 405-10) is approaching second and final reading. There are too many ‘red flags’ associated with this effort at the moment and, although I believe all current Council members would agree with the project, the deficiencies associated with the exemption list and with the entire process are proving to be significant stumbling blocks for approval.

At the last Council meeting on Nov. 4, we were treated to additional amendments in a seemingly never-ending cycle of study and review. There’s nothing wrong with making these modifications.

They reflect continued concern by administration officials. However, it also reflects the very premature and inappropriate resolution the Council’s Housing Agency passed forward for Council consideration in early October.

I termed that the worst example of legislative irresponsibility I had witnessed in six years. The continuing discussions and amendments agreed to between Forest City representatives and the administration only re-emphasize my initial assessment.

The situation, however, has only become somewhat more complex as a result of a Nov. 3 meeting in Honolulu at the state Senate Ways and Means Committee. We learned the Senate Committee members are dissatisfied with Forest City’s refusal to address in detail the needs of families below the 140 percent median income level.

Forest City promises to comply with recommendations for housing units that are ‘affordable’ for families in the 80 percent and 100 percent median income levels, but to date has not accepted a mandate for those units.

In addition, Forest City representatives admit that residential units priced for 140 percent of median income are comparable to prices for market housing. If so, why would the County agree to any exemptions under these circumstances?

Further testimony by the County’s Planning Director indicates that the wastewater treatment facility for this area would require a two or three times expansion in capacity order to adequately deal with the increase in housing units involved with Forest City and other smaller developers in this area.

Who will pay for that infrastructure shortfall? Certainly not Forest City under current requirements.

Further, we learn the state has not accepted the Traffic Impact Analysis Report for this development and considerable debate has arisen regarding the developer’s valuation of the cost of an acre of land in the project.

Finally, while administration officials have given a ‘lukewarm’ approval of the exemption list at the moment, a less enthusiastic response could hardly be imagined.

I suggest that before the vote at the Nov. 17 Council meeting, the Mayor and the administration exercise some leadership. I suggest that in light of the less than exemplary process that this resolution has undergone, the many questions and concerns that have surfaced, and the fact that there is no reason to rush approval of the list (the land has not yet even been conferred to the developer by the State), the Mayor could state publicly that he favors a rejection of the amended resolution as it now stands.

By doing so, the Mayor would re-establish public credibility in the development (and I do believe it is a worthwhile project). The public’s concerns would be addressed and a better piece of legislation that would benefit County residents and future administrations would result.

It could be a win-win situation and would demand only a small bit of pro-active leadership to correct the flawed process that Resolution 405 has endured so far. In other words, we’d get it right.

Pete Hoffmann
Councilman, District 9 — North and South Kohala (Waikoloa, Waimea, Hawi, Halaula)