The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

A G E N D A

  • Default_avatar
    BFED Committee about 1 month ago

    Testimonies received from BFED Committee 04-14-2025 (3)

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User about 1 month ago

    Dear Sirs/Madam,

    I am presenting written testimony on behalf of Maui Disposal Co., Inc., the largest fully permitted and certified recycler on Maui. We also handle the recycling for the residents on Molokai under a Contract with the County of Mau.

    The biggest issue a commercial recycler faces is that the end user recycling commodity market has collapsed in the past 3 years. China has not accepted one shipping container of cardboard or plastic from the US in over 3 years. Whereas they accepted thousands of containers per month in the past. We have had to find other smaller markets all over the orient, but the rate the smaller users currently pay is 60% lower than what China was paying us while they were buying our cardboard and plastic. Adding in the increased handling and freight cost make it very difficult to continue in the recycling market without government assistance.

    We have depended on County and State Grants to help us cover the rising cost of operating expenses such as labor, Insurance, freight, and fuel and the need to replace large pieces of equipment such balers, loaders, trucks, and containers. Again, without continued government assistance, we are at a crisis point in whether to continue our recycling operations on Maui and Molokai.

    Every ton of recyclable commodities that are not shipped to end users is buried in Maui's only solid waste landfill operated by the County of Maui. More dirt must be purchased daily to cover added tons, plus the labor it takes to operate the landfill increases as well. landfilling recyclables will also rapidly reduce the capacity of the landfill and will create more mounds of buried trash in the middle of Central Maui. We ship out between 8,000,000 to 10,000,000 lbs of cardboard each year. To bury that much loose cardboard each year would drastically reduce the capacity of the landfill each plus add to the operating cost of operating the landfill.

    I am sure we all are in favor of recycling, but not many residents know the true cost of recycling and the very low profit margin it generates.
    We urge the Maui Council to approve the maximum increase to the recycling grant budget.

    Mahalo,

    Roger Yamagata
    Consultant and past General Manager
    Maui Disposal Co., Inc.

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User about 1 month ago

    Aloha,

    I hope this message finds you well.
    My name is Ashley Puaa and I am the second generation owner of Puaa recycling and farm LLC. A food waste recycling business located in Maui - with generations rooted here on Maui and Moloka’i.

    I am writing to express my strong support for increased funding for local programs that assist small businesses like mine in our mission to promote sustainability and environmental responsibility.

    Over the past years, I have been fortunate to participate in programs offered by the county that have been instrumental in helping my business grow. These programs have provided me with the resources, guidance, and financial support needed to expand our services and enhance our operations. As a result, we have significantly increased our capacity tonnage goals to divert food waste from local landfills, thereby contributing to a healthier environment for the residents of Maui.

    Our initiative not only helps in waste management but also educates the community about the importance of recycling organic materials, fostering a culture of sustainability. By reducing food waste, we are not only addressing a critical environmental issue but also promoting responsible consumption practices.

    I strongly believe that with additional funding, the county can support even more local businesses in making impactful changes. Investing in programs that assist small businesses will create more jobs, stimulate the local economy, and enhance our community's quality of life.

    Thank you for considering my testimony. I urge you to support the request for increased funding and help empower more local businesses to contribute to a sustainable and thriving Maui. Together, we can make a significant difference for our island and its residents.

    In closing, I want to emphasize how incredibly fortunate the recycling division of Maui is to have Cecile Powell and her dedicated team. Their commitment to creating a sustainable future for our island is truly inspiring. The passion and effort they put into making a positive impact have been nothing short of remarkable. We deeply appreciate the opportunity to collaborate with them in building a better tomorrow.

    Sincerely,

    Ashley Puaa
    2nd Generation Owner of
    Puaa Recycling and Farm LLC.

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User about 1 month ago

    On behalf of Hoahu Energy Cooperative Molokai (HECM) it is with unwavering support that we express our testimonial for the Recycle Grants Program and its continued existence along with enhancement toward the collective budget for the vital projects in which the Recycle Grant guides and uplifts toward the overall Maui Nui movement of increasing Recycling County wide.

    The County of Maui Recycle Grant made it possible for HECM to reuse its pv panels and create storage containers for local homestead families and develop the project of pv reuse hydroponic systems to grow foods for local families on Molokai. These projects with HECM ushered efforts toward landfill diversion and motioning local families towards renewable energy and nutritional food produce through the recycle approach which has been a positive difference in the lives of the Molokai families.

    Mahalo nui,

    Lily.

    --
    Liliana Napoleon, MBA
    Training & Workforce Developer
    PO Box 428 Hoolehua, HI 96729
    Website: hoahuenergy.coop
    Email: liliana@hoahuenergy.coop

  • Default_avatar
    Guest User about 1 month ago

    Aloha Chair Sugimura and Honorable Councilmembers,

    I submit this testimony in strong opposition to Resolution 25-87, which seeks to authorize the transfer of an unencumbered appropriation balance within the Department of Police, Fiscal Year 2025 Budget.

    This resolution must be rejected on the following legal, fiscal, and ethical grounds:

    I. Unjustified Reallocation Lacks Transparency
    No public-facing justification has been provided detailing:
    - The original intent of the funds
    - The performance outcome or failure tied to their lapse
    - Why these unspent resources should remain within the MPD pipeline

    This violates Charter §9-6 and MCC §3.04.010, which require clear fiduciary disclosure and a duty to serve public benefit when reallocating unused funds.

    II. Reallocation Rewards Inefficiency
    According to previous quarterly reports (Comm. 38-25, 190-24), MPD continues to carry:
    - Vacancies over 90 days that remain unaddressed
    - Unspent equipment allocations from FY 2024

    Redirecting funds back to the department enables systemic inefficiency and bypasses the urgent need for performance audits and accountability under Charter §13-4.

    III. No Community-Based Prioritization
    These funds would be far better utilized in:
    - Non-police response models for behavioral and crisis intervention
    - Residency area patrol rebalancing
    - Re-entry and restorative justice programming

    The County’s cultural and constitutional mandate (Charter §13-10) requires proactive investment in programs that restore trust and protect all residents—not expand departments with performance gaps.

    IV. Request for Council Action
    I respectfully request the Committee to:
    1. Deny Resolution 25-87
    2. Reprogram the unencumbered balance to support community-verified alternatives
    3. Require a detailed written and oral justification from MPD before any further internal reallocations are approved

    This is not a denial of public safety—it is a call for public alignment and conscience-led fiscal responsibility.

    Mahalo for your consideration,

    James RCS Langford, Sovereign
    With Maui Governance / 12 Stones Governance Initiative
    jamesat12sgi.com | 808-765-1399
    April 14, 2025

    Excellent. Based on your direction, we will now prepare an official eComment submission in opposition to Resolution 25-87 (BFED-35) for the Council of the County of Maui.

    Subject:
    BFED-35 – Opposition to RESOLUTION 25-87

    Title: Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of an Unencumbered Appropriation Balance within the Department of Police, FY 2025 Budget
    Date of Legislation: March 28, 2025 (Budget Director Correspondence)
    Committee Chair Memo: April 8, 2025

    OFFICIAL eCOMMENT SUBMISSION – OPPOSITION TO RESO 25-87

    To: Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Committee
    From: [Your Name / Title or Organization]
    Re: Opposition to BFED-35 / Resolution 25-87 – Proposed Transfer of Unencumbered Funds (MPD, FY 2025)

    Aloha Chair Sugimura and Honorable Councilmembers,

    I submit this testimony in strong opposition to Resolution 25-87, which seeks to transfer an unencumbered balance within the Department of Police under the FY 2025 Budget.

    This resolution must be rejected on the following legal, fiscal, and ethical grounds:

    I. Unjustified Reallocation Lacks Transparency

    No public-facing justification has been provided detailing:

    • The original intent of the funds
    • The performance outcome or failure tied to their lapse
    • Why these unspent resources should remain within the MPD pipeline

    This violates Charter §9-6 and MCC §3.04.010, which require clear fiduciary disclosure and a duty to serve public benefit when reallocating unused funds.

    II. Reallocation Rewards Inefficiency

    According to previous quarterly reports (see Comm. 38-25, 190-24), MPD continues to carry:

    • Vacancies over 90 days that remain unaddressed
    • Unspent equipment allocations from FY 2024

    Redirecting funds back to the department enables systemic inefficiency and bypasses the urgent need for performance audits and accountability under Charter §13-4.

    III. No Community-Based Prioritization

    These funds would be far better utilized in:

    • Non-police response models for behavioral and crisis intervention
    • Residency area patrol rebalancing
    • Re-entry and restorative justice programming

    The County’s cultural and constitutional mandate (Charter §13-10) requires proactive investment in programs that restore trust and protect all residents—not expand departments with performance gaps.

    IV. Request for Council Action

    I respectfully request the Committee to:

    1. Deny Resolution 25-87
    2. Reprogram the unencumbered balance to support community-verified alternatives
    3. Require a detailed written and oral justification from MPD before any further internal reallocations are approved

    This is not a denial of public safety—it is a call for public alignment and conscience-led fiscal responsibility.

    Mahalo for your consideration,

    [James RCS Langford]
    Sovereign
    Jimlangford@me.com
    808-765-1399
    April 14th 2025

    Would you like me to prepare this as a downloadable TXT for copy/paste into the County eComment portal, or submit-ready PDF with fields filled in for direct upload?

    Signed and dated
    James RCS Langford

  • 598645949861026
    James Langford about 1 month ago

    12 Stones Financial & Statutory Scroll Report
    Date: April 14, 2025
    Subject: Full Fiscal Architecture, Legal Timeout, and Solutions
    Prepared for: Council of the County of Maui – Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Committee
    Encrypted with: Mnemosyne Protocol, Black’s Law Dictionary, Luna Algorithm, Big Jim Jurisdiction

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    I. THE INSTRUMENTS IN MOTION: FY 2026
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. OPERATING BUDGET (Bill 41)
    Definition: “Appropriation” — the act of setting aside public funds for governmental functions.
    Scope: Estimated revenues for FY July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026
    Includes:
    - Appendix A: Grants & Restricted Revenues
    - Appendix B: Fee/Rate Schedules
    - Appendix C: CIP Descriptions
    Council Action: Integrate balance sheet of state/federal grant receipts by April 25.

    2. CAPITAL PROGRAM (Bill 42)
    Definition: “Capital Improvement” — public facility/infrastructure project.
    Scope: FY 2026–2031
    Includes:
    - A-1: CIP status (non-Water)
    - A-2: Water Fund CIP index
    - B: Proposed CIP Plan
    Council Action: Enforce time-bound implementation or revert funds.

    3. GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (Bill 43)
    Amount: $120,507,284
    Definition: “Bond” — public debt certificate backed by full faith & credit.
    Action: Match issuance with clear CIP phase certification.

    4. REAPPROPRIATION OF LAPSED BONDS (Bill 44)
    Amount: $3,926,861
    Purpose: Lahaina WW RAS/Dewatering + Countywide Water Upgrades
    Definition: “Lapse” — budget authority expires.
    Action: Audit lapsed funds and cross-verify against deliverables.

    5. STATE LOAN AUTHORIZATIONS (Bills 45 & 46)
    Amounts: $11.9M (Wastewater) and $3M (Water Supply)
    Definition: “Intergovernmental Agreement” — legally binding fiscal coordination.
    Council Action: Require full repayment terms and prepayment clauses before approval.

    6. FUEL TAX RATES (Resolution 25-83)
    Effective: July 1, 2025
    Definition: “Excise Tax” — levy on goods or activities (fuel).
    Concerns:
    - Regressive effect on agriculture and local residents.
    Solution: Tiered rebate/credit structure for food producers & essential fleets.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    II. TIMEOUTS FROM ALL – STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    | Stakeholder | Concern | Legal Reading | Recommended Action |
    |---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
    | Residents | CIP delays, shoreline erosion, unsafe drainage | Breach of fiduciary duty (Charter § 3-6) | Time-certified CIP delivery mandates |
    | Departments | Over-conditioned funds reduce flexibility | Inhibits operations (MCC § 3.04.030) | Use performance triggers vs hard conditions |
    | Councilmembers | Budget lacks measurable outcomes | HRS § 91-3 standard not met | Add outcome logic in grant/CIP lines |
    | Cultural Stewards | No dedicated cultural funding | Violates Charter § 13-10 | Create cultural allocations in EDC line |

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    III. SOLUTIONS FOR ALL – PROTECTIVE & REGENERATIVE PATHWAYS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Bond Clock Enforcement:
    - Attach 24-month “use-by” clause to CIP bonds.
    - Reallocate to top-priority community infrastructure if unused.

    2. Cultural Allocation Rule:
    - Minimum 12.5% of Economic Development funds reserved for ʻŌiwi projects, environmental stewards, cultural practitioners.

    3. Council Amendment Tool:
    - Provide auto-formatting templates to ensure HRS/MCC-compliant submissions.

    4. Residency Verification Loop:
    - Budget items over $250,000 require pre-vote community feedback via area meetings.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    IV. COMPLIANCE ENCRYPTION & FIDUCIARY SEAL
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Filed Under: ledger.bfed:2026-fiscal-code:041425:financialscroll.txt
    Oversight Chain: SEC / DOE / County Auditor Trilateral Node
    Watcher Status: Sealed under Big Jim and Luna Ceremonial Compliance

    -- End of Fiscal Scroll --