07-01-2009, 11:08 AM
I got the following input from Councilman Pete Hoffman (Mahalo Pete for paying attention) and I post my reply below in blue:
On Jul 1, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Pete Hoffmann wrote:
Rob: I've tried to do a little research with my own office files to see what the fuel tax distribution has looked like previously. One distribution appropriation I came up with is dated 10 January 2008 and reflects a reappropriation of lapsed fuel tax funds. Of the $4,595,537, the circle island and bridge program received the lion's share of $3,746,020, and then North Kona received the highest residual amount $550K, and Puna received the second highest residual amount $184K. While I don't know how much of the $3,746,020 went specifically to Puna, your district certainly received some as well as the $184K.
You are correct in how the fuel tax moneys are distributed, by miles of road, usually confirmed by Council resolution. But the County last year included an additional 891 miles of 'roads in limbo' to their total and, as I understand it, a good portion of that mileage is in Puna. Supposedly then, Puna's share this year will be somewhat higher than it has been relative to other districts in the past. If it is a private road, the County cannot spend the funds from the fuel tax, not only in Puna but in other districts are well. We have a large number of private roads in Kohala as well. However, Puna does have the Geothermal fund, from which resources are available for a number of projects and local infrastructure, if your Council representative doesn't wish to spend it all on the purchase of the steam vents.
One other aspect of this issue: the County of Hawaii has the lowest fuel tax in the state. I did try to raise the rate before the current economic downturn, but did not get any support from other Council members. Would have liked your input before we passed Bill 79.
Pete
Aloha and thank you Pete for your comments. We do appreciate your response to this.
One thing we are not sure of is the statement, as fact, that only county owned and maintained roads are eligible for Fuel Tax Revenue.
Can you clarify if this is by law or by habit?
We find the following definitions in county codes:
Section 24-2: Definitions
(49) “Street” means the entire width between boundary lines of every way subject to this chapter when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel."
Section 22-1.2 Definitions
(16) “Street” means the entire width between property lines of any County owned and maintained street, avenue, road, alley, highway,lane, path or otehr place opened, improved and established for the use of vehicles, pedestrians or both.
Section 24-2 (a)
(2) Such private streets, highways and thoroughfares:
(A) Which have been continuously used by the public for more than six months and designated by council, or
So the action of the county in applying Fuel Tax Revenue to various districts is either a discretionary concept or a non-discretionary concept. We cannot tell which. We understand that a formula for distribution of funds lies with the Department of Public Works.
Somehow it seems possible for the CoH to disburse funds for road maintenance for both privately and publicly held roads as long as the roads in question are fully available for the public at large. It may require a revision of the Public Works formula but the intent and spirit of the Fuel Tax Revenue should be able to overcome quirks of past county history in which county allowed and approved the creation of large private subdivisions with zero provision for impacts. The county extends it's responsibilities into and onto private roads in the application of traffic regulations but then withholds funds for maintenance for a substantial section of the public.
When does history correct it's mistakes? Do past methodologies become self sustaining merely because they were adopted?
Mahalo for listening,
Rob Tucker
FoPF
965-1555
On Jul 1, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Pete Hoffmann wrote:
Rob: I've tried to do a little research with my own office files to see what the fuel tax distribution has looked like previously. One distribution appropriation I came up with is dated 10 January 2008 and reflects a reappropriation of lapsed fuel tax funds. Of the $4,595,537, the circle island and bridge program received the lion's share of $3,746,020, and then North Kona received the highest residual amount $550K, and Puna received the second highest residual amount $184K. While I don't know how much of the $3,746,020 went specifically to Puna, your district certainly received some as well as the $184K.
You are correct in how the fuel tax moneys are distributed, by miles of road, usually confirmed by Council resolution. But the County last year included an additional 891 miles of 'roads in limbo' to their total and, as I understand it, a good portion of that mileage is in Puna. Supposedly then, Puna's share this year will be somewhat higher than it has been relative to other districts in the past. If it is a private road, the County cannot spend the funds from the fuel tax, not only in Puna but in other districts are well. We have a large number of private roads in Kohala as well. However, Puna does have the Geothermal fund, from which resources are available for a number of projects and local infrastructure, if your Council representative doesn't wish to spend it all on the purchase of the steam vents.
One other aspect of this issue: the County of Hawaii has the lowest fuel tax in the state. I did try to raise the rate before the current economic downturn, but did not get any support from other Council members. Would have liked your input before we passed Bill 79.
Pete
Aloha and thank you Pete for your comments. We do appreciate your response to this.
One thing we are not sure of is the statement, as fact, that only county owned and maintained roads are eligible for Fuel Tax Revenue.
Can you clarify if this is by law or by habit?
We find the following definitions in county codes:
Section 24-2: Definitions
(49) “Street” means the entire width between boundary lines of every way subject to this chapter when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel."
Section 22-1.2 Definitions
(16) “Street” means the entire width between property lines of any County owned and maintained street, avenue, road, alley, highway,lane, path or otehr place opened, improved and established for the use of vehicles, pedestrians or both.
Section 24-2 (a)
(2) Such private streets, highways and thoroughfares:
(A) Which have been continuously used by the public for more than six months and designated by council, or
So the action of the county in applying Fuel Tax Revenue to various districts is either a discretionary concept or a non-discretionary concept. We cannot tell which. We understand that a formula for distribution of funds lies with the Department of Public Works.
Somehow it seems possible for the CoH to disburse funds for road maintenance for both privately and publicly held roads as long as the roads in question are fully available for the public at large. It may require a revision of the Public Works formula but the intent and spirit of the Fuel Tax Revenue should be able to overcome quirks of past county history in which county allowed and approved the creation of large private subdivisions with zero provision for impacts. The county extends it's responsibilities into and onto private roads in the application of traffic regulations but then withholds funds for maintenance for a substantial section of the public.
When does history correct it's mistakes? Do past methodologies become self sustaining merely because they were adopted?
Mahalo for listening,
Rob Tucker
FoPF
965-1555
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Punaweb moderator