COM 0598.014 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~~r~y-. - +~NA YiW 755737 Kuakini Hwy-, Suite 208 ' C~MB~ Kalkla-Kwia. H1967g0 ~M~RQ Phone: 80A-329-V58 Faso: SOft-329.8564 www.kona-kohala com konakcC4~gte.m:t August 20, 2007 Hawaii County Council Pete Hoffmann, Chair 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 46720 Re Bill 151; Proposed Amendment to Chapter 27 of the HCC Deaz Chairman Hoffmann and Members of the County Council, This testimony is on behalf of the Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce. The Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce (KKCC) represents neazly 750 business and individual members and is the leading business advocacy organization on the west side of the Hawaz i Island. KKCC has testified on Bill 51, which is the precursor to Bill 151 and is still remarkably similar to it, on four previous occasions and thus our position is well known. While the most recent system for changing this Bill has modified the document, the intent has not changed and thus our previous testimony remains valid. Today we wish to make just two points: 1. At the Council hearing on July 10~ it was proposed the Council go back to the original Administration Bill drafted and move forward with approval so the County is brought up to date and in compliance with NFIP requirements. We believe this proposal makes sense and should be enacted as quickly as possible. We do not accept the counter point to this direction, i.e. that this may allow the impetus to improve Flood Control and Flood Plain management to be lost since it is quite appazent that this Council is made up of a group of very concerned citizens who will simply not allow this to happen. This Chamber certainly supports their concerns and will support their future efforts. In fact the `new' Bill 151 is drafted in a fashion i.e. the "blue" modifications, that would allow the NFIP minimum requirements to be met and this is what we propose as the ordinance that the Council should consider. 2. Our real concern with the excellent efforts made by individuals on the Council and their staff, and from the public input seen at the hearings on this Bill, is that the direction is obviously right and has public support but the svstem used to arrive at the present position has not been effective and does not have public support. We go back to our previously stated position that such a Bill and change in legislation may well be ~oposed by the Council but the proposed legislative changes should then be made by qualified people within the Administration, supported as necessary by outside professionals and other experienced and qualified resources, (NRCS, professional Hydrologists and Engineers as well as Architects et al) which should then go to the Council for approval and modification if necessary. This way there will be a reasoned debate regarding changes, as opposed to what has amounted to "ambit bargaining°