Lure of spending ADVERTISING Lure of spending It’s not every day that one’s admission of a poor decision becomes headline-worthy. But there it was in our local papers. A statement I made the day before in a council meeting became
Lure of spending
It’s not every day that one’s admission of a poor decision becomes headline-worthy. But there it was in our local papers. A statement I made the day before in a council meeting became “Chung regrets bond float.”
Still, I expressed it, and I stand by those feelings. In so doing, I criticize no one — administration or fellow council members — but myself.
Being an experienced councilman, I should have known better than to vote in favor of a nearly $100 million bond float under the circumstances which existed at that time. Don’t get me wrong, all of the projects earmarked under that bond issuance that was passed by the council in mid-June 2015 represented solid capital improvement ideas which, if and when completed, would enhance the quality of life on our island for years to come.
Still, there were strong signals which should have made me take pause, and they all related to timing.
First, the measure was waived from the Finance Committee, where important bills are supposed to be thoroughly discussed, and sent directly to the full council for the purpose, I presume, of fast-tracking its passage. I recall asking questions about our future bond rating, debt service and operational costs, and even cautioned my colleagues about the ramifications of passing the bill.
But still I voted for it, even against my better judgment. The glaring problem, which we failed to take into account, was that construction activity on the island was on the uptick. Large bonds for nonessential projects should not be issued during such times because project costs will greatly exceed estimates. That has happened.
Secondly, the aggressive funding of government construction projects should more properly be done when the economy is down, as it can provide a needed infusion of money into the community and stability to our construction industry and its workers, among others.
But there was one thing that I did not anticipate, and it has to do with the speed by which the administration intended to complete these projects, which in and of itself is not a bad idea. In that regard I am reminded of two old, but competing, sayings: “Better sooner than later” and “Haste makes waste.”
It is my sincere hope that when all is said and done, the positives outweigh the negatives. Right now, the projects that are about to come on line are going to look fabulous, as all new things should look. But there also are immediate signs for concern.
First, the last-minute variance request for a golf course maintenance building that was constructed 10 feet closer to Haihai Street than is permissible appears to be an example of rushed planning. Haihai Street services a growing area, and one has to wonder what effects that variance will have on future plans to widen that road.
Second, the county’s payment of overtime to contractors for the purpose of assisting in the timely completion of at least two projects is an unprecedented move on the part of the county, one normally reserved only for emergency situations, such as when the lava flow was approaching parts of lower Puna. It sends a bad message to our taxpayers, and it sends a bad message (or perhaps a good one, depending on one’s perspective) to other contractors. And it certainly sends a poor message to our own county employees, whose overtime was cut in our current budget.
I’m hoping that my present regret one day turns into contentment. But right now, I cannot help but look at this situation as being a cautionary tale to anyone, not just government, of the dangerously seductive lure of spending.
Aaron Chung
Hawaii County councilman, Hilo
