Laserfiche WebLink
PCHSW-9 Page 3 June 2, 2026 <br />Currently, recovery is under the Planning Department because of County officers and their <br />connection to the Puna Community. It currently follows that this officer should be retained by <br />Civil Defense. <br />Mr. Hustace expressed some concern in the language of establishing the framework but also <br />expressed gratitude in the forward -thinking of the bill. Ms. Kierkiewicz stated that the recovery <br />framework may not need to be activated with every disaster, which is why the mayor has <br />oversight. Mr. Hustace continued to discuss the community's potential response and if it would <br />differ from the mayor's action in activating the recovery framework. Ms. Kierkiewicz responded, <br />saying that the public will be able to apply pressure to the mayor if needed. Mr. Hustace invited <br />Mr. Magno to comment. <br />Mr. Magno confirmed Civil Defense's support. He stated that he wanted to clarify updated <br />language in the bill. Mr. Magno cited previous discussion with Ms. Kierkiewicz concerning how <br />the Recovery Officer should be a civil service position under Civil Defense. A given disaster <br />event would immediately trigger the Recovery Officer, with the activation threshold varying. <br />Federal and state aid is dependent on the continuity of county officer experience and leadership. <br />Mr. Hustace thanked Mr. Magno and asked about the Recovery Officer position as it transitions <br />from recovery to mitigation when needed. Mr. Magno stated that the Recovery Officer would be <br />a part of all Civil Defense activities, especially in meeting recovery project deadlines. <br />Mr. Hustace highlighted the importance of keeping track of recovery funding provided by the <br />state or federal government and ensuring the funding is used appropriately. Mr. Hustace <br />expressed a possible difference of opinion in function of the Recovery Officer functions. <br />Ms. Kierkiewicz responded and discussed previous discussions about making the Recovery <br />Officer permanent, advocated by Mr. Magno, but the consensus among the hui, including Deputy <br />Managing Director Merrick Nishimoto, was in favor of keeping the position temporary. She <br />expressed frustration in the lack of progress in current recovery projects and hoped that this <br />Recovery Officer would offer accountability for those projects. <br />Committee Member Jennifer Kagiwada asked what would happen if multiple disasters were to <br />occur at the same time. Would there be multiple Recovery Officers or would one officer <br />administer to all disasters? Ms. Kierkiewicz discussed a single Recovery Officer with separate <br />divisions to address individual disaster events. <br />Ms. Kimball inquired about the decision to make the Recovery Officer a temporary position <br />versus a permanent position. Ms. Kimball also stated that she worries that if the Recovery <br />Officer position weren't more permanent, would it be feasible to find the appropriate person after <br />the framework is activated? Ms. Kierkiewicz stated the position would be permanent, but the <br />individual, not necessarily. Ms. Kimball further discussed how the Recovery Officer could have <br />dual function and be activated when needed. Ms. Kierkiewicz discussed having an individual <br />singularly focused on disaster recovery without being held back by bureaucracy. <br />Chair Dennis "Fresh" Onishi gave closing thoughts on recovery efforts with constituents during <br />the 2018 eruption and stated that had this Recovery Officer been established, recovery may have <br />been quicker. He also discussed government aid and helping business owners and farmers <br />access that aid. He also supports the position being temporary. <br />PCHSW Report No. 9 <br />