Latest news with #DepartmentofEnvironmentalServices'
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Honolulu Council advances bill to offset sewer fee hike
Honolulu City Council legislation to defray costs associated with the city's planned 10-year, 115 % sewer fee rate hike slated to start this summer has advanced on the first of three readings. The Council voted unanimously Wednesday to pass Bill 43, meant to redirect a portion of the 3 % visitor-generated Oahu transient accommodations tax, which in part is earmarked for Honolulu's rail project, to the city's sewer fund. The Council's passage of the bill—sponsored by Chair Tommy Waters—comes as the city plans for new fee increases to address rising operational costs and fund critical sewer-related projects within the city Department of Environmental Services' $10.1 billion capital improvement program, scheduled for 2025 to 2040. That includes work to upgrade the Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant to full secondary treatment at an estimated cost of $2.5 billion. Bill 43, as drafted, temporarily would amend the disposition of the city's OTAT revenues so that 50 % would be deposited into the transit fund, while 41.66 % would go into the sewer fund. The legislation also allocates 8.34 % to create a special fund, one to be named by the city Department of Budget and Fiscal Serv ices, to mitigate impacts of visitors on public facilities and natural resources and 'supplement any funds regularly appropriated for that purpose.' If approved, Bill 43 would take effect July 1, 2027, and be repealed June 30, 2037. But in a letter sent Monday to the Council, BFS Director Andy Kawano stated Bill 43 was not a feasible option for the city to pursue. 'This measure will negatively impact the city's general fund and deviate from the intended purpose of the TAT, which is to provide general fund capacity to fund city services ; mitigate the strain visitors place on public facilities, emergency services, and natural resources ; and provide additional funding for rail (i.e., 'Skyline') construction, ' Kawano wrote. He added 'enterprise funds, such as the sewer fund, are structured to be financially self-sustaining through user fees.' 'Redirecting public tax revenues to subsidize an enterprise fund introduces long-term financial risks, including potential violations of bond covenants, possible downgrades to the city's bond rating, and increased borrowing costs, ' the budget director asserted. 'Furthermore, such a diversion may lead to service reductions or tax increases to balance the budget in future years as more dollars will need to be allocated to fund collective bargaining increases, rail operation and maintenance and increased public safety and health needs, et cetera.' 'We respectfully oppose the bill as it compromises sound financial principles, risks long-term fiscal sustainability, and unfairly shifts the burden of enterprise operations onto taxpayers who may not benefit from those services, ' Kawano stated. At Wednesday's meeting, ENV Director Roger Babcock also spoke in opposition to Bill 43. 'It is, of course, your purview and kuleana to use revenues however you want from the tourists' transient accommodation tax, ' he told the Council. 'The problem though is this was previously slated to go into the general fund, to be used for various other purposes. If it's not used for those other purposes, then it either cannot happen, or funding from those would have to come from other places.' 'So it is no different than taking real property tax and putting it from the general fund into the sewer fund, which we have been very clear from testimony that that is very problematic, ' Babcock said. Waters generally disagreed with the city's perspective, questioning the ENV director on the efforts the city had taken to lower costs to ratepayers. 'Because I believe that a 100 % increase is going to be devastating to local families, ' he added. In response, Babcock replied, 'The program is very efficiently run.' 'We have operations and maintenance costs which we basically hold steady at current rates, except for inflation, ' he added. 'The other component is our capital program and our debt service … so we don't have any control over that, we have issued a lot of debt already over the past 20 or 30 years, and so we do have very large outstanding obligations, and that's about 50 % of the annual operating costs.' To that, Waters asserted the city's proposed executive operating budget for fiscal year 2026—Bill 22—includes a provision allowing the BFS director 'to transfer money from other departments, if there is excess, into the sewer fund, which, as far as I can tell, has never been done, but it's in the budget bill.' Others from the community also do not support Bill 43. In submitted written testimony, Honolulu resident Milton Kotsubo said he opposed 'this bill and all bills that move funds designated for specific purposes to other purposes.' 'This muddies the water so that it becomes difficult to observe what money is allocated for what purpose, ' he wrote, in part. 'All budget allocations should be clearly specified what the funds are for and the source of the funds.' Meanwhile, Waters' new measure likely will not stop the city's sewer fee hike as presented under city-initiated Bill 60. In October, ENV initially proposed to increase sewer fees annually for the next 10 years—by 9 % annually over the first six years, followed by four smaller annual increases of 8 %, 7 %, 6 % and 5 %. The city says, an average single-family residential sewer bill totals approximately $110.89 a month. By July 1 that bill could rise to $122.04 a month. But since that time other versions of Bill 60 materialized, including a revision by ENV itself that supposedly lessens the initial blow of higher fees to its customers. During an April 29 Council Budget Committee meeting, Babcock presented a so-called 6 % option that would see sewer rates rise by 6 % on July 1. Those rates would increase by 7.5 % in 2027, 8.5 % in 2028, 9 % in the following four years, then rise by 8 %, 7.5 % and 7 % in the final three years, ending in the year 2035. Under this 6 % option, the city said the same average single-family residential sewer bill in the first year would go to $119.18 a month instead of $122.04, a 2.3 % difference. At that meeting, Waters said the city's new 6 % option is 'putting the big rate increases at the end of the 10-year cycle, rather than at the beginning.' With regard to Bill 60, Waters' tentative proposal to increase sewer fees annually for the next decade includes a 6.75 % increase for the first five years, starting July 1. The initial increases would be followed by an 8.75 % increase for the next two years, then a decrease to 7.75 %, 6.75 % and 5.5 % over the remaining years, 'thereby creating savings, ' he said. Waters said instead of a 100 % increase over the decade, 'it would amount to approximately about a 70 % increase over 10 years.' The Council's Budget Committee is expected to review various versions of Bill 60 at its May 27 meeting.
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
New Hampshire GOP lawmakers join attacks on DEI, target state departments, governor's office
The bill targets the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Health Equity and the Department of Environmental Services' civil rights and environmental justice programs. (Photo by Dana Wormald/New Hampshire Bulletin) As President Donald Trump and Republicans in Washington, D.C., seek to eradicate diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts throughout the federal government, their state-level allies in New Hampshire are working to do the same in the Granite State. House Bill 392, sponsored by Wakefield Republican Rep. Mike Belcher, seeks to eliminate, and forbid New Hampshire from ever recreating, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Health Equity, the Department of Environmental Services' civil rights and environmental justice programs, and the Governor's Advisory Council on Diversity and Inclusion. Belcher, in introducing the bill to fellow lawmakers during a hearing Thursday in Concord, said DEI programs 'ought to be considered unlawful and unconstitutional.' He said they were created by 'Marxists' and are 'evil' because they discriminated against people based on 'immutable characteristics.' Belcher argued they were used to unfairly deny scarce medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic and have endangered the stability of electrical grids by shuttering energy facilities that might have a disproportionate environmental impact on lower-income people. While department officials don't take an official position on bills, Ann Landry, associate commissioner of DHHS who oversees the Office of Health Equity, said Wednesday the department has 'very serious concerns' about the bill. She spoke about the department's ability to assist people who do not, or struggle to, speak English; the services it provides to people with disabilities to help them access health care; and programs to help recently resettled refugees – who have legal status – integrate into the U.S. health care system. Landry explained that the office is responsible for ensuring people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or unable to speak English have access to the department's services. 'These are services they are legally eligible for and deserve,' she said. Landry said the office is also responsible for ensuring DHHS is compliant with the 1965 Civil Rights Act, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, and state law. She said not having personnel to ensure compliance with these laws 'would put the state at risk for countless lawsuits and financial penalties.' The office also oversees the federally funded and federally mandated refugee resettlement program, which helps newly arrived refugees, who have legal status, integrate into their new homes, she said. 'The leadership and staff at OHE receive outreach daily from constituents with complex health needs, both clients and their providers, from across the state who are struggling to navigate our health care system,' she said. 'The team helps with the immediate need of that individual, or the provider advocating on behalf of the individual, but then also addresses the larger barrier to care.' Rep. Jessica LaMontagne, a Dover Democrat, asked if she knew of any instances where people were denied services based on their skin color. Landry said she did not. Rep. Jess Edwards, an Auburn Republican, echoed Belcher's assessment on equity efforts, but said his interactions with the office alleviate his concerns. 'The word 'health equity' has jumped out at me as well,' Edwards said. 'I think we've got a situation where whoever came up with the name of that department really regrets it, because they couldn't forecast how the name would basically become synonymous with actual discrimination.' He said he's repeatedly questioned the department about this office, and has concluded 'they are not trying to have any individual demographic get superior care; it's just a search to remove barriers to make sure we all have an equal access to care.' 'Unless they've been lying to me in testimony for the last five years, I would say this is a program that, by and large, most of us can agree to,' he said. 'Each time I've gone into it with my cynicism fully activated, I've been comfortable that the DHHS Office of Health Equity is probably doing good work.' Adam Crepeau, assistant commissioner of DES, also spoke about his department's concerns. He said the bill would put 'some significant federal funds in jeopardy' and potentially lead to the department being referred to the national Department of Justice by shuttering projects that work to ensure it is in compliance with the 1965 Civil Rights Act and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. Those federal funds could total up to $80 million to $90 million, though he acknowledged losing the entirety is unlikely. While the Governor's Advisory Council on Diversity and Inclusion has already been disbanded, the bill seeks to forbid the governor from ever recreating it. Gov. Kelly Ayotte told the Bulletin she hasn't considered doing so. On the bill more broadly, she said she hasn't looked at it yet. At the hearing Wednesday Rep. Trinidad Tellez, a Hooksett Democrat, asked Belcher for evidence of DEI-driven discrimination in New Hampshire. Belcher said that during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in the middle of the pandemic, 10% of vaccine doses were withheld to be distributed 'specifically on the basis of skin color.' (The Bulletin reported in 2021 that New Hampshire did indeed set aside 10% of vaccines to be allocated to regions where large minority populations live.) Tellez countered by pointing out that courts threw out two lawsuits that alleged this was discriminatory, finding they were without merit. 'I would not look to judicial precedent to determine whether something is discriminatory or not,' Belcher responded. 'I would look to common sense.' He added that he believes the Legislature can 'adjust judicial precedent' by passing this bill. Regarding New Hampshire potentially losing federal funding by not abiding by federal DEI rules, Belcher argued Trump's recent executive orders and policies suggest the state would not lose funds. 'On the contrary, we are far more likely to lose funding if we do not,' he said. Rep. Jay Markell, an Atkinson Republican, contested Belcher's claim that these DEI programs are unconstitutional. He asked if his previous statements were based on a legal strict scrutiny analysis – to which Belcher said no – and argued that because it's a health care regulation, legally, it simply needs to be related to a legitimate government objective to be constitutional. 'I'm arguing it probably is constitutional,' Markell said. 'You may have different arguments.' The bill was opposed by Building Community in New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Council of Churches, New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities, and other community organizations Wednesday.
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
New Hampshire GOP lawmakers join attacks on DEI, target state departments, governor's office
The bill targets the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Health Equity and the Department of Environmental Services' civil rights and environmental justice programs. (Photo by Dana Wormald/New Hampshire Bulletin) As President Donald Trump and Republicans in Washington, D.C., seek to eradicate diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts throughout the federal government, their state-level allies in New Hampshire are working to do the same in the Granite State. House Bill 392, sponsored by Wakefield Republican Rep. Mike Belcher, seeks to eliminate, and forbid New Hampshire from ever recreating, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Health Equity, the Department of Environmental Services' civil rights and environmental justice programs, and the Governor's Advisory Council on Diversity and Inclusion. Belcher, in introducing the bill to fellow lawmakers during a hearing Thursday in Concord, said DEI programs 'ought to be considered unlawful and unconstitutional.' He said they were created by 'Marxists' and are 'evil' because they discriminated against people based on 'immutable characteristics.' Belcher argued they were used to unfairly deny scarce medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic and have endangered the stability of electrical grids by shuttering energy facilities that might have a disproportionate environmental impact on lower-income people. While department officials don't take an official position on bills, Ann Landry, associate commissioner of DHHS who oversees the Office of Health Equity, said Wednesday the department has 'very serious concerns' about the bill. She spoke about the department's ability to assist people who do not, or struggle to, speak English; the services it provides to people with disabilities to help them access health care; and programs to help recently resettled refugees – who have legal status – integrate into the U.S. health care system. Landry explained that the office is responsible for ensuring people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or unable to speak English have access to the department's services. 'These are services they are legally eligible for and deserve,' she said. Landry said the office is also responsible for ensuring DHHS is compliant with the 1965 Civil Rights Act, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, and state law. She said not having personnel to ensure compliance with these laws 'would put the state at risk for countless lawsuits and financial penalties.' The office also oversees the federally funded and federally mandated refugee resettlement program, which helps newly arrived refugees, who have legal status, integrate into their new homes, she said. 'The leadership and staff at OHE receive outreach daily from constituents with complex health needs, both clients and their providers, from across the state who are struggling to navigate our health care system,' she said. 'The team helps with the immediate need of that individual, or the provider advocating on behalf of the individual, but then also addresses the larger barrier to care.' Rep. Jessica LaMontagne, a Dover Democrat, asked if she knew of any instances where people were denied services based on their skin color. Landry said she did not. Rep. Jess Edwards, an Auburn Republican, echoed Belcher's assessment on equity efforts, but said his interactions with the office alleviate his concerns. 'The word 'health equity' has jumped out at me as well,' Edwards said. 'I think we've got a situation where whoever came up with the name of that department really regrets it, because they couldn't forecast how the name would basically become synonymous with actual discrimination.' He said he's repeatedly questioned the department about this office, and has concluded 'they are not trying to have any individual demographic get superior care; it's just a search to remove barriers to make sure we all have an equal access to care.' 'Unless they've been lying to me in testimony for the last five years, I would say this is a program that, by and large, most of us can agree to,' he said. 'Each time I've gone into it with my cynicism fully activated, I've been comfortable that the DHHS Office of Health Equity is probably doing good work.' Adam Crepeau, assistant commissioner of DES, also spoke about his department's concerns. He said the bill would put 'some significant federal funds in jeopardy' and potentially lead to the department being referred to the national Department of Justice by shuttering projects that work to ensure it is in compliance with the 1965 Civil Rights Act and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. Those federal funds could total up to $80 million to $90 million, though he acknowledged losing the entirety is unlikely. While the Governor's Advisory Council on Diversity and Inclusion has already been disbanded, the bill seeks to forbid the governor from ever recreating it. Gov. Kelly Ayotte told the Bulletin she hasn't considered doing so. On the bill more broadly, she said she hasn't looked at it yet. At the hearing Wednesday Rep. Trinidad Tellez, a Hooksett Democrat, asked Belcher for evidence of DEI-driven discrimination in New Hampshire. Belcher said that during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in the middle of the pandemic, 10% of vaccine doses were withheld to be distributed 'specifically on the basis of skin color.' (The Bulletin reported in 2021 that New Hampshire did indeed set aside 10% of vaccines to be allocated to regions where large minority populations live.) Tellez countered by pointing out that courts threw out two lawsuits that alleged this was discriminatory, finding they were without merit. 'I would not look to judicial precedent to determine whether something is discriminatory or not,' Belcher responded. 'I would look to common sense.' He added that he believes the Legislature can 'adjust judicial precedent' by passing this bill. Regarding New Hampshire potentially losing federal funding by not abiding by federal DEI rules, Belcher argued Trump's recent executive orders and policies suggest the state would not lose funds. 'On the contrary, we are far more likely to lose funding if we do not,' he said. Rep. Jay Markell, an Atkinson Republican, contested Belcher's claim that these DEI programs are unconstitutional. He asked if his previous statements were based on a legal strict scrutiny analysis – to which Belcher said no – and argued that because it's a health care regulation, legally, it simply needs to be related to a legitimate government objective to be constitutional. 'I'm arguing it probably is constitutional,' Markell said. 'You may have different arguments.' The bill was opposed by Building Community in New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Council of Churches, New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities, and other community organizations Wednesday.
