Posts: 348
Threads: 23
Joined: May 2012
Questions 2 and 5 relate to the authorizing of special purpose revenue bonds for #2 Agricultural enterprises and #5 for dam and reservoir improvements.
Question: If the state can issue special purpose revenue bonds for these purposes why not for improvements in Puna subdivisions?
Question: In fact wouldn't road improvements in "agricultural" subdivisions qualify under the wording of amendment #2 ?
Comments anyone.
Posts: 348
Threads: 23
Joined: May 2012
FYI: For those unfamiliar with "Special Purpose Revenue Bonds"
Special purpose revenue bonds do not spend tax dollars!
The entity borrowing is solely responsible for the payment of interest, and principle. The State is not liable for interest payments or principle.
The advantage is that the interest paid to the lender is tax exempt under certain conditions in the tax code, providing a higher after tax return to the lender.
If the entity backing the bond defaults, then the lender is out of luck.
The taxpayer is not liable.
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
road improvements in "agricultural" subdivisions qualify
Any improvements would be "illegal".
Section 23-10. Acceptance of highways; compliance with chapter.
The council shall not take over, receive by dedication, do any repair or construction work upon streets or pavements, water lines, street lighting systems, sewer lines, or in any way accept as public highways any street in any subdivision opened or platted in the County after December 21, 1966, except upon full compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
It would be "illegal" for County to take a bond for "private" roads, but if the homeowner's association can qualify for a bond, and no County resources are involved... yes.
Posts: 348
Threads: 23
Joined: May 2012
The County would not be doing the improvements the subdivision would. The same way the County would not be developing a private aquaponics / oyster farm, etc with the bond money. Nor will the County be doing the Dam improvements if that passes.
Helco has special revenue bonds out among others the County has no hand in any of that either. Besides these would be State of Hawaii bonds, although the County could also do them.
This is not Tax money!
Finally: if you amend the Constitution to permit it then it is no longer illegal.
Posts: 3,035
Threads: 201
Joined: Aug 2006
No matter how well intended I don't think that constitutional amendments should be used for anything but the most vital and long term of concerns. A constitution is what defines the structure and function of your government, it shouldn't be cluttered up with things that could and should be handled by statute if the legislators are doing their jobs. Things like a method of funding dam repairs or oyster farms should be handled through adoption of statutes, not constitutional amendments.
Carol
Every time you feel yourself getting pulled into other people's nonsense, repeat these words: Not my circus, not my monkeys.
Polish Proverb
Carol
Every time you feel yourself getting pulled into other people's nonsense, repeat these words: Not my circus, not my monkeys.
Polish Proverb
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Finally: if you amend the Constitution to permit it then it is no longer illegal.
Rest assured the County would find a way to argue that one too, eventually settling for a cut of the money despite not being signatory to the debt.
