Mr. Chairman,
AS I so stated on December 10, 2008 at the second Public Hearing on the proposed public land lease for Flame Sako Resort and Spa, we welcome our new investor to our homeland and I commend Flame Sako for having the courage to propose such an investment of a new Resort and Spa in our homeland especially in this economic uncertainties. I apologize for not being able to attend the first round of the Public Hearing for I had prior critical commitments. I had not the opportunity to review the proposed plan and Draft lease agreements to said Investor until the night I attended second hearing conducted at the Multi Purpose building. As so stated we would review and submit our written statements concerning proposed Resort and Spa. Again, we are in an economic crisis and we welcome any new investments into our homeland and we hope that we can establish some common ground and transparency in the negotiations on such a proposed lease of our Public lands. One of the issues we had brought forth, was the issue on our Public Beach called “Pau Pau Beach” which was identified as the property being sought for lease immediately north of Palm Resorts. Please review part one of our written testimonies on concerns we had identified that need special considerations and attention.
Concerns:
1. Letter submitted to the 16th Legislature dated Oct. 15, 2008 third paragraph states clearly that the proposed project is located immediately north of Palms Resort in As Matuis, Saipan. * Immediately north of Palms Resort is “Pau Pau Beach” a Public Beach. I would like further clarification in writing from DPL ensuring that our beach is not part of these Developers proposed lease. We want to ensure that we are not being misled by DPL on the matter of Pau Pau Beach for his letter contradicts their statements that our Public Beach is not part of the proposed lease. We must protect our Public Beaches.
2. Proposed Yatch Basin: Flame Sako is proposing such a port or dock attachment to the Resort itself over passing our beach and into our shoreline. Being that the Federal control of our borders will in effect next year by the Federal Government we believe the Basin or Port to be constructed is a border control security issue. Is Flame Sako ready to accept the responsibility of paying additional amount of money 24/7 hiring Immigration, Customs and Quarantine inspectors for such a port of entry? Is DPL offering to amend our current laws written in our constitution of allowing unauthorized permanent structure to be built 150 ft. from our shorelines without our consent? If so we believe that DPL will be in violation of our constitution. Reference, Articles XI sections 5e Fundamental Policies should they pursue with such a dock to be constructed? Sections 5e states clearly that the Corporation (DPL) may not transfer an interest, and may not prohibit the erection of any permanent structure in Public Lands located within 150ft. of the high water mark of a sandy beach, except that the Corporation (DPL) may authorize construction of facilities for Public Purposes. Meaning is this dock going to be open to the General Public or will it be restricted to hotel guest only? Will there be toll fee charge for such usage. * These are serious concerns, especially involving border control security issues of who will be entering and exiting such a proposed dock or YATCH basin. * We like a written respond clarifying this matter from DPL and Flame Sako Investor.
3. Articles of Incorporation page 1 of 8: Noticed that the primary office will be located in Gualo Rai. * Is this Public land lease? If so DPL needs to provide our legislative branch with that information.
4. Article 6 page 3 of 32 RENTAL: First 3 yrs. is rated at $ 4.80 cents per square meter at $52,320.00 (2%) annually. Questions: How did DPL come to this figure? Is there an appraisal value of the property? If so, we would like a copy of such appraisal.
5. Initial Deposit: Nowhere in the draft lease agreement is there a security deposit other than the first annual of $52,320.00 Again, this is not appropriate and it supports our findings that this investor does not have the sound financial capability. We believe a 10% initial security deposit should be set forth to establish a good faith effort and the seriousness to invest in our homeland.
6. Articles 9 sections B Financing of the Project page 6 of 32: This investor is proposing to invest in our homeland but currently they do not have the financial capability? Rather our government has to wait 6 months for the Corporation to submit to DPL evidence of its sources of financing for the proposed construction and development of the Hotel with villas and associated resort facilities. Something is not right here. First they want to fast track and secure this leasehold then they want to go shop around for other investors willing to invest on the project? Something is definitely not right here. The panel needs to scrutinize this issue, for we assumed this Corporation has the Funds readily available on hand but this section tells differently.
7. Proposed Swimming Pool in each Villas and Water Park? Being that we have major problems with 24 hour water services is this investor going to utilize, tapping into our Water system? We believe that the investor should not be allowed to tap into our Water system and they should provide their own water supply since this is a huge resort and spa. Recommend they provide their own Reverse Osmosis water purifying system or drilling for their own water supply. We like a written response on this matter.
8. Power Supply? We believe that our Public Utilities can no longer handle any additional Power Loads, given the present critical conditions of our Power engines. We strongly recommend they purchase their own Power Supply including back-up Supply and if they have excess Power Supply suggest helping our Community by donating excess Power to our Public Utilities.
GREGORIO CRUZ JR.
Taotao Tano, President
