PGV funds may become available for improvements

[Guest]

Interesting indeed. As I read it. The funds have only helped 1 one resident and has only helped fund some monitoring equipment for a group.

These funds are intended to benefit the community adjacent to geothermal development and mitigate its impacts. PGV pays $50,000 annually to the Asset Fund, and a portion of PGV’s annual revenues goes to the Royalty Fund. The Asset Fund holds $1,863,620 as of January 2007. The Royalty Fund to date is about $2.2 million. To date, $14,202 has been granted for a resident’s claim and the maintenance of a community group’s emissions monitoring equipment.

$50,000 + each year could put at least 2 kids through college each year.

-----------------
Coming home soon!

Edited by - damon on 12/12/2007 03:44:45

[james weatherford]

OK, we have two separate funds:
the "Asset Fund" and the "Royalty Fund".
Look at Hawaii County Code, Chapter 2, Articles 35 and 36.
http://co.hawaii.hi.us/countycode/chapter02.pdf
From my reading from the PGV site and the County Code, there is more not said than is.
The purpose of the Asset Fund is not clear.
No alarms or rants here, but a good bit of clarification would be in order.
First place to check: Audit of the funds.

The ideas of scholarships should be forwarded to Yagong and Naeole, sooner rather than later. (Not to say it is a good idea or bad, just that those two can pick it up if it is to be so.)

James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park

[Bob Orts]

I guess what my concern about all this is these funds were set up for a specific purpose. It appears that little of it was spent on the designated purpose. This appears to be based on funds coming in at a rate greater than the need. The funds are growing way beyond any conceivable need as originally earmarked. Rational thinking would be to use the funds in a manner consistent with the original objective but not so tightly defined so as to create a fund with no chance of disbursement.

But, in reading the article, a request was made by impacted residents for funds to purchase hot water heaters. The Councilmember quoted, said she would rather see the money used elsewhere. Even if water heater were not an originally approved expenditure, isn't it more reasonable to spend some of the money on those who had to relocate before spending it on anything else? It's not like they are asking for new televisions and cars, they asked for hot water heaters! That is so much closer to the original intent and to have read that a Councilmember dismissed the notion and would rather see the money spent elsewhere, well I'm starting to get a whiff of the beginnings of the “C” word.

[james weatherford]

"C" word?

Bob,
Are you a well-known fiction writer?
It's just that your statments don't match the PGV site or the HTH article.
For example, the information on the PGV site is in not clear about which fund the $15k came from -- "Asset Fund" or "Relocation Fund". Yet, you assume the $15k was spent on relocatin.
Nor does the HTH article say that people who were relocated were the ones asking for water heaters.
What happens to the funds now is not my major point, except that the $ stay in Puna and the expenditure$ are audited properly.
My main concern here is when i see statements that misrepresent what is public information.


James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park

[Bob Orts]

Any confusion is coming from the Council. They are the ones co-mingling the funds by using the $2.2 million figures in its entirety. They started throwing out that numbers as if it's once huge pot of money to make it seem like so much is just sitting around. They knew it was different funds. They should have broken it out into the two individual funds and for what purpose, but instead they wanted the populace to see that huge dollars just sitting around. It wouldn’t have had the same awe effect if they said it was different funds and the value was individually smaller. They wanted people to see one pot of gold. They have to accept what they placed in motion. They can't have it both ways.

Now as for the request, that’s what's in the article. The Councilperson said the request was on behalf of those forced to relocate because of the plant. If that's not an accurate statement, that’s the fault of the Councilperson and/or the reporter. But if it was from those impacted, what does it matter which fund paid what, isn’t the request reasonable use of the funds and more inline with its intention?

Regardless, the funds were set up to deal with issues surrounding the plant, the residents who had to be relocated, and any community impact. Before any money is reallocated for roads, parks, or trips to look at incinerators, first spend the money on those who were originally impacted and for community needs specifically impacted by the plant. If after all those impacted have been satisfied with their needs, change the law to remove any further funding since there's no further need as they got their fair share. But to hear that there is a need for basic items from the targeted group for the funds, and the Councilperson would rather spend it elsewhere?????

Oh, and I don't disagree using the funds for other purposes. If it has no further strategic use as originally designed, get it into community circulation. If the entire purpose of all the various funds is no longer applicable, change the law to address larger community needs. I'm often accused (I accept it as a compliment) of using politicians for target practice. That true because they often walk around with their own handmade bull eyes they hung on their own backs.


Edited by - bob orts on 12/12/2007 08:11:02

[james weatherford]

"...confusion is coming from the
Bob,
Maybe you need reading glasses (seriously, nothing personal intended!)

For exmaple, you say "Council...co-mingling the funds by using the $2.2 million figures in its entirety..."

The $2.2 million figure is correct for the Relocation fund -- nobody said anything different. Can you cite the direct quote?

" request... Councilperson said the request was on behalf of those forced to relocate because of the plant."

No, this is not what the Council person said. Can you cite the direct quote?

Now, here we might be getting down to real-world discussion, "...funds were set up to deal with issues surrounding the plant, the residents who had to be relocated, and any community impact."
In general, this is a good statement. However, you still make your own assessment of what the fund was established for. Can you cite the direct quote?
Or, do you prefer to make it up as you go?

Sorry, man, but I've got this super hangup with distortion of information; and you simply have not been accurate in your statements above. You see, I am naive enough to believe that truth matters.


James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park

[Rob Tucker]

This is beginning to look like a pissing match to me.

It's not necessary to demand or expect 100% accuracy or veracity from a public forum.

[james weatherford]

Thanks, Rob.
I'll try to lower my expectations.

James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park

[Kapohocat]

Could some of the money be allocated to our newly intentioned Puna Medical Center?

-Cat

[Guest]

quote:

---

Could some of the money be allocated to our newly intentioned Puna Medical Center?

-Cat

---

That's a good one! However, I believe that new clinic is filing for Non-Profit status, so using money that was generated from profit might be a problem there. (I don't know much about this though)

If it was renamed the Geothermal Health Clinic I bet it might generate some interest though.

-----------------
Coming home soon!