Twelve years ago, work was initiated on what has become known as the Eastside multi-use path. According to testimony by Lenny Rapozo, director of County Parks and Recreation Department, at the Jan. 11 County Council meeting, 6.8 miles of the
Twelve years ago, work was initiated on what has become known as the Eastside multi-use path. According to testimony by Lenny Rapozo, director of County Parks and Recreation Department, at the Jan. 11 County Council meeting, 6.8 miles of the proposed 23.8 mile path has now been completed at a cost of $30.18 million. Mr. Rapozo also advised that the path project when completed from Nawilili to Anahola would cost $53.25 million.
The path is popular with many Eastside residents and visitors, who enjoy the splendid scenic views of the shoreline along its route. However, thoughtful Kauaians have some observations and concerns about the path, its history and its future. Let’s review some of them.
A basic reality of the path is that its existence occurs because of Federal Highway Administration funding. If the project qualified, the federal government would meet 80 percent of its costs. County officials were resourceful in exploiting the provisions of the law, offering the financing to projects that “enhanced” transportation, contending that the path would serve the ancillary purpose of serving Kaua‘i’s transportation needs.
While a more objective analysis might have difficulty in identifying the way, in any material sense, that the path would further our county’s transportation requirements, the federal officials were prepared to play ball and be generous in their funding.
In practice, the federal role has been even more munificent because while the federal funds are contributed in cash, the county’s cost share can be given by in-kind contributions, such as county-owned land. Of the total costs advised to date, the project has only required $569,000 in county cash funds. Thus, on a cash basis, the county government has met only about 2 percent of the total.
For a student of governmental practices, several anomalies are present. In a federal form of government as initially contemplated, each layer of government would fund its own functions. However, over the years a system of grants developed under which our federal government funded certain state and local functions ostensibly to achieve some national uniformity, and also as a means of asserting federal control and policies.
The grants worked as state and local government became dependent on federal aid. Today, though, it can be asked with our federal government indebtedness exceeding $15 trillion and an annual deficit of over $1 trillion, why the feds should be trying to fund such a truly local matter as the path. There is also the morality of whether county officials should seek to exploit federal funds for a project that would not have been built without such funds. As taxpayers, we should be interested in such matters.
The mathematics of the costs of the path to date and the projected costs appear to be wildly skewed. We are advised that the 6. 8 miles of completed path cost $30.18 million — or a cost of $4.4 million per mile. We are also told that the cost of the completed 32.8 mile path will be $53.25 million. If the costs to complete the remaining 17 miles of the path were at the same rate as the costs for the portion completed, the total cost would be $104 million. Stated differently, if it is expected that work on the remaining 17 miles would only cost $1.35 million per mile, then why did we waste $4.4 million per mile on the initial portion? We are entitled to an answer to this question.
The county has not provided detailed data as to the route to be taken to complete the path. On inquiry to the administration, I was advised that while the county has acquired ownership of or easement rights for about 90 percent of the amount of land required, information as to the costs that may be involved for the land not yet secured has not been released.
Another point that might be noted is that work on the path has now been going on for 12 years. During this time, 6.8 miles have been completed. At this impetuous pace if the same rate applies for the remaining mileage, the path will not be completed for 30 years.
It is noteworthy that the project is essentially for the benefit of residents of and visitors to the east side of our island. Why has not our county government found equal or similar projects for the benefit of those citizens who are found on the north, south and west sides of Kauai.
It can be observed that continuing to enjoy federal funds may require an ongoing relevance of the path to the county’s transportation needs. Why is that cognizance over the path has been delegated to the County Parks and Recreation Department rather than the Public Works Department that has cognizance over county transportation needs. Does this reflect the reality that the path is a recreational facility and not, as claimed, a significant enhancement of the county’s transportation system?
Similar questions could be asked, but the predominant concern is why has not the county been more forthcoming in providing public information about a very substantial project and the plans for its completion in a timely and cost-effective manner.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and pens a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
