Tuesday (3)…Council member questions transit funding plan

Honolulu City Councilmember Romy Cachola has questioned Mayor Hannemann’s transit funding plan in a June 5 letter to the mayor.

Based on the current financial plan, and not counting possible (and perhaps almost certain) cost overruns, Cachola estimates the city is short over $2 billion needed to complete the minimum operating segment of the proposed rail system.

Cachola asks Hannemann to submit a revised and updated financial plan to the council and, more importantly, the public. Recent attempts to obtain current financial information about the project have been unsuccessful.

Cachola also urges the mayor to apply for a Full Funding Grant Agreement with the federal government.

Most, if not all, municipalities and/or cities with big transit projects such as Honolulu, have applied for an FFGA prior to construction. Currently there are at least 20 municipalities and/or cities ahead of us that have applied for an FFGA. Also, the $1.4 billion that has been reported as the FTA’s share for our projecdt is just an estimate until we have applied for and secured an FFGA.

It’s a good summary of the financial situation, although it perhaps still underestimates the budget squeeze that rail is going to cause. The lack of a current and updated financial plan from the rail planners is definitely a reason to worry.


Discover more from i L i n d

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

One thought on “Tuesday (3)…Council member questions transit funding plan

  1. Lopaka943

    Monday’s story about “governmental insanity” in which your acquaintances claimed that they had to get a permit to demolish a non-existent home omitted one critical fact about the permit.

    The permit was what is called an after-the-fact permit. Their beef is with the former owner who demolished the house on the lot without getting the required permit. He should have disclosed that when he sold them the lot. He should have also disclosed that if they wanted to build on the lot, they would have to obtain an after the fact demolition permit, and pay a double fee as a penalty for the unpermitted demolition.

    The fee for the permit is based on the estimated cost of the demolition job. The reported value of $5000 is a reasonable estimate for a single family residential demolition, especially if you consider the cost legal disposal of the construction material. The current fee for a $5000 demolition is $111, which, with the doubling penalty, would be $222.

    If the clerk told them they had to go to DOH and get the permits that are required for a regular before the fact demolition, that was a mistake.

    It is unfortunate that your friends apparently did not trust the system enough to raise the question with a supervisor or write a letter to the Director protesting what they thought was “insanity.” They definitely would have been told that the initial clerk’s advice that a DOH permit was required was a mistake. Apparently that is what they were told when they returned the second time.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Lopaka943 Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.