HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0728.017 2022-2024 P / counol
I,e.s. 1 $-21-1
G01414.728
L A k, • MALAMA 0 PUNA
"� ►i :•,r P.O Box 1467
Pahoa, Hawaii 96778
(808) 965-2000
www.malamaopuna.org * malamaopuna@yahoo.com
61114
•t A
Protecting Hawai`i's precious natural heritage
COUNTY CLERK
DATE: March 1, 2024 COUNTY OF HAWAI'I
xcEIVED
Time 19:1 p.m. By
TO: Hawaii County Council DatJy1AR 0 6 2O2rr
RE: Support for Resolution 438-24 with Reservations
Aloha Council Members,
We're submitting this packet as testimony for the Wed. March 6th Council meeting and hope to be
present. The testimony submitted to the previous hearing at the committee level expressed support
for Resolution 438, also identifying serious problems in the County's lava recovery response. It is
nearly six years out from the event, and very little recovery has taken place. We again come to you
supporting Resolution 438 WITH RESERVATIONS. Primarily, we ask that the resolution be
amended to require that the lava recovery team,who are the ones making nearly 100% of the
decisions with regard to recovery, award the additional $200,000 to eligible applicants that was
withheld from this 2nd Round of the Kilauea Recovery Grant program.
The reasons for this request stem from an analysis of over 1/3 of the evaluation reports for the 38
grant applications that were submitted. From that analysis, it is clear that decision making has not
been done fairly and equitably. We've attached two evaluation reports to explain what is apparent
in the analysis of 1/3 of the applications. Applicants were allowed to request the evaluation reports
for the projects they applied for and in Malama 0 Puna's case, we fiscally hosted seven (7)
applications for people and organizations directly and negatively impacted by the 2018 lava event.
While we were sent the evaluation reports, we were not given important information by the Lava
Recovery Officer which he subsequently provided to Council at the Feb. 20t'' meeting. Upon
watching the recording,we learned that the cut-off score to consider funding a project was 78. Two
of the applications that Malama 0 Puna submitted were scored higher, 81 and 90 respectively, yet
only one, the lower scoring application, was offered an award. We immediately sent an email to the
Lava Recovery Officer, Mr. Douglas Nam Le, on Thursday Feb 22nd requesting an explanation as to
why the high scoring application requesting less than $37,000 was denied. We have not received a
response and it's now been nearly two weeks.
How is it that decisions on how to allocated over$300M in recovery funds rest with a small
team of individuals, none of whom came to the position with recovery experience and who
have been unable to produce a simple one-page ACCURATE accounting of how those funds,
offered by the federal and state governments, along with some private donations, have been
expended, have lapsed, or are still yet to be allocated? Why is it that this same team has
made three significant changes in the HUD Buy Out program making it increasingly more
inequitable with each decision, yet the Council has not been involved in any of this decision-
making. The Council is, after all, the keeper of the purse.
Comm. ' ..
rr1i. ■
1 Ref. To: (UL1I1V
Ref. Date NiAR m 6 2024
As noted in our previous testimony,the money directed to this program comes from the State
Legislature's allocation of$60M for recovery activities in the 2019 session. Of that original amount,
$20M was a grant, and $40M a forgivable loan intended to serve as a match for County-FEMA road
and water projects. With this 2nd Round of Kilauea Recovery grants and a 3rd round of Puna Strong
grants, only about one-half of that grant has been spent down—five years after it was awarded by
the legislature. Further, these are the ONLY recovery funds that can be expended on recovery of
private infrastructure such as water systems and roads yet those are the types of applications being
denied.
Evaluations include qualitative comments and scoring. In the instance of one community whose
entire road system and water system was lost to lava - road and water systems paid for by the
property owners-the application was dinged points because they could not provide an accurate
timeline for the project. Given their projects to redo roads and water could not possibly commence
until the County completes recovery of Highway 132 and the County has changed its timeline on
that project six times in the last three years, all they could do was tie their timeline to the County's
ever changing one. These applicants were being scored low for circumstances beyond their control.
Pointing out the statistical analysis of these 13 evaluation reports, it is clear that the criteria were
poorly designed to accomplish an objective evaluation.Applicants were not asked to provide
quantitative measures of economic impacts which we did anyway. In the awarded application that
scored 81, one very broad criterium shows similar positive qualitative comments, yet there is a 40%
variance in the three scores provided by the three members of the evaluation team 12, 9, and 15:
#3 The extent to which the proposed project will assist in restoring property, infrastructure,
access, economic development, and/or community resiliency.
Another example of this wide variance in scores within this same evaluation report is criterium #8:
#8 Is this a good return on investment?Is this an appropriate allocation of funds based on
project goals and outcomes.
Again, the same three scores were given (12, 9, and 15) and the comment"A good investment
service a small number of individuals" (unedited)was associated with the lowest score. The
application clearly states that over 400 acres of productive agricultural land will be made accessible
by the project. Historically, it has been leased to various papaya farmers.A single ohana can be
supported growing 10-20 acres of papayas so the return on investment could provide household
income for 20-30 farmers. At least one of the evaluators doesn't understand "return on investment"
as it relates to productive agricultural activities in Puna. With regard to road work, surveying, and
bull dozing costs, none of the evaluators has technical experience leading to subjective scoring.
This large variation in scores, relative to the qualitative evaluation comments, is present throughout
most of the 13 evaluation reports that were analyzed and points to a lack of understanding by the
team of three evaluators as to the meaning of each criterium. This invites subjective, not objective,
decision making. In addition, after we requested the seven evaluation reports for the seven
applications we submitted, all seven evaluation reports were emailed not to Malama 0 Puna alone,
but were also cc'd to the one applicant who had received an award providing information to a
member of the public that they did not request. This was highly unprofessional!!
For the application that received a score of 90 in the evaluation report, we are still questioning why,
with$200,000 left on the table,that this application was not awarded at least partial funding. Other
critical private road recovery projects were not funded or only partially funded. The recovery of a
2
section of Railroad Ave connecting to Hwy 130 would service dozens of agricultural properties was
unfunded. Another project to recover of access from remaining portions of Noni Farms Road, was
given 1/3 of the project cost. These private roadways serve a large and aging population of farmers
who do not have the savings to affect recovery.
While some on the Council don't wish to engage in oversight for County activities outside their own
districts, we assure you that what happens in Puna doesn't just stay in Puna. Puna population is
of the island's total population and a large percentage of the island's workforce resides in Puna.
Without recovery in Puna, the whole island's economy cannot be robust allowing people to thrive.
In closing, we support Resolution 438 with reservations and ask the Council to please consider
amending the resolution to require the lava recovery team to allocate the$200,000+that was
withheld from the 15 awards that have been announced. We feel that the trickle of funding for
recovery is harming our community who cannot wait another 3-4 years for a third round of this grant
program should that even happen.
Mahalo,
(240)).
/
Eileen O'Hara, Ph.D.
Executive Director
3
KEALOHA ESTATES AG ROAD RESTORATION
App# 201
Nonprofit Organization
Name Malama 0 Puna
Project Name and Brief Kealoha Estate Ag Road
Description Restoration Project
140020110000
Geographical Area to Be 140020710000
Served 140020670000
140020680000
Resilience Capacity Area Built
RCA Subcategory Infrastructure
Does the Project Meet
Eligibility Criteria Yes
Yes they have demonstrated 8
Does the Nonprofit capacity here.
Organization have the Yes 10
capacity to carry out the The organization has the
1 project, provide appropriate capacity, expertise and budget
management oversite to
project oversight, and assist conduct reporting and 10
with budget management? management of the budget
1 -10
28
The level of project detail and
the cost estimates satisfied this 10
effectively.
The extent to which the The project is reasonable.
proposal reflects a coherent Project may encounter difficult
and feasible approach and permitting. Applicant has
2 includes a reasonable demonstrated competence
timeline for completion of The application provides details
work. acquiring permitting for the
1 -10 project.The preliminary
research and bids are attached. 9
A timeline is not clearly listed in
the explanation. 26
1
The extent to which the The nexus here is clear. 12
proposed project will assist The project will bring access to 9
in restoring property, valuable agricultural land
infrastructure, access, The explanation is clear on the
3 economic development, restoration of a specified area
inundated by the 2018 Kilauea and/or community 15
flow.The restoration, access
resiliency. and economic development
1 -15 provide an explanation. 36
Yes the fiscal sponsor and 10
applicant possess this.
Does the project applicant yes, definitely 10
have the skills, competency, The project applicant Malama 0
4 and capacity to complete Puna has the operational
this project? capacity,the execution of the
1 -10 Ag road management has the 10
capacity to oversee the location
of the work being done. 30
Project is very specific to access
to certain parcels. Less 3
involvement of others.
The extent to which the Not so much, although longterm
project will engage access to this agricultural 7
community networks, property will improve the general
5 volunteers, other funding economic situation in Puna
The project engages community
sources and support. members that have been
1 -10 economically and culturally
impacted by the 2018 flow.The 10
areas will open or restore
potential AG business 20
Yes, specific detail. 15
Yes 14
Is the project budget The budget is realistic with
6 realistic,thorough, and provided explanation of the
accurate? dedicated funds solely for the
1 -15 project execution in the area of 15
applicants concern. Quotes
provided in Sup. Docs. 44
2
Timeline information is lacking. 5
A small discretely contained
project that can be completed in
Is the project timeline a matter of days providing 6
7 realistic? permitting does not become an
1 -10 issue.
The plan is clear.A timeline is
unavailable for review(ex: 1 6
month, 3 mos., 9 mos. project
goals) 17
Yes in terms of getting access 12
to uninundated agricultural land.
Is this project a good return A good investment service a 9
on investment? Is this an small number of individuals
appropriate allocation of The appropriation of funds are
8 funds based on project good. It provides a clear
outcome plan once complete.
goals and outcomes? 1 The return on investment will 15
15 restore the area to its prior
business operation as
mentioned. 36
Capital costs are pretty fixed. 2
Scaling was not addressed in
0
The extent to which this the application.
9 project can be scaled There is minimal scaling on the
1 -5 project but will reduce salary
compensations seeking 4
volunteer hours. 6
243
*AVERAGE SCORE 81
*Average score is the total score divided by 3 (243_3 = 81) rounded to nearest whole number
•
PUAMANA ROAD COMPLETION
App# 203
Nonprofit Organization Malama 0 Puna
Name
Project Name and Brief Puamana Road Completion
Description
Geographical Area to Be Connecting 22 TMKs to access
Served to Highway 132
Resilience Capacity Area Built
RCA Subcategory Infrastructure
Does the Project Meet Yes
Eligibility Criteria
Yes they have demonstrated 8
Does the Nonprofit capacity here.
Organization have the Yes 10
capacity to carry out the The organization has the
1 project, provide appropriate capacity,expertise and budget
management oversite to
project oversight,and assist conduct reporting and 10
with budget management? management of the budget
1 -10
28
The project application provides 10
adequate detail here.
The project is reasonable and
The extent to which the feasible. It is not dependent
proposal reflects a coherent upon any outside entity or
and feasible approach and process. Applicant has already 10
2 includes a reasonable researched permitting needs
timeline for completion of and these are not onerous.
work. The application provides details
1 -10 for the extension project.The
preliminary research and bids 8
are attached.A timeline is not
clearly listed in the explanation. 28
1
Access to 22 properties 10
The extent to which the This project will complete the
proposed project will assist work done in KRG1 with a more 14
in restoring property, sustainable gravel road surface.
infrastructure, access, The explanation is clear on
3 economic development, restoring a specified area
inundated by the 2018 Kilauea
and/or community flow. The access and 15
resiliency. development are a continuation
1 - 15 of previously completed work for
their community. 39
Yes they have demonstrated a
high level of ability for this 10
Does the project applicant projYes 10
10
have the skills, competency, The project applicant Malama 0
4 and capacity to complete
this project? Puna has the operational
capacity,the extension of
1 -10 Puamana road management is 10
capable to oversee the work
being done. 30
Community hui is leading this 10
project. _
Will serve a community of
The extent to which the property owners who will
project will engage contribute volunteer hours 8
community networks, towards ongoing road
5 maintenance.
volunteers,other funding
The project engages community
sources and support. members that have been
1 -10 economically and culturally
impacted by the 2018 flow.The 10
areas will open or restore
potential AG business 28
Is the project budget Yes, specific detail. 15
6 realistic,thorough, and yes 15
accurate? The budget is realistic with the
1 -15 provided quotes provided. 15 45
2
Timeline information is lacking. 5
Is the project timeline Yes 10
7 realistic? A timeline is unavailable in the
1 -10 application.The project list 6
steps in acquiring permits. 21
Moderate return based on total 10
costs and benefit.
They could get by without the
road improvement, but it is a
Is this project a good return good investment in making the
on investment? Is this an improvements we have already 12
8 appropriate allocation of funded last longer and work
funds based on project better for the users.
goals and outcomes? 1 .The project will continue to
15 serve a community of low
income residents with the
potential to increase property 15
value, access and feasibility for
community growth. 37
Yes,can be scaled. 5
The applicant addresses scaling
and would accommodate, but 4
The extent to which this the project would suffer.
9 project can be scaled
1 -5 The applicant mentions the
possibility of scaling back based
on grant award.A realistic time 4
would help to determine this
more clearly. 13
269
*AVERAGE SCORE 90
*Average score is the total score divided by 3 (269 _3 = 89.6) rounded to nearest whole number
3
MALAMA 0 PUNA
,r, f P.O Box 1467
f; - Pahoa, Hawaii 96778
(808) 965-2000
www.malamaopuna.org * malamaopuna@yahoo.com
Protecting Hawai'i's precious natural heritage
DATE: Feb. 19, 2024
TO: Hawaii County Council
RE: Support for Resolution 438-24
Aloha Council Members,
We are testifying in support of Resolution 438-24. The few individuals and projects that
were funded under this second round of Kilauea Lava Recovery (KLR) grants need these
funds disseminated as quickly as possible given it is over 5.5 years since the three-month
2018 natural disaster ended.
Speaking on behalf of Malama 0 Puna, one of the eligible 501 c3 nonprofits that could
fiscally host grants for those individuals, hui's, and organizations that are not 501 c3, we
remain very concerned about the lack of a Needs Assessment to assist Puna in its
recovery. When dispensing over$300M in disaster recovery aid from federal, state and
private sources, it seems that many needs are not being addressed. In the case of this
latest found of KLR grants, only three (3) county employees decided on the awards for this
grant cycle which was supposed to allocate $3.5M, but only allocated $3.3M. Looking over
the scoring sheets it becomes abundantly clear that the three individuals scoring the
applications had a different understanding of each of the criteria used to evaluate as
evidenced by wide variations in assigned scores relative to similar qualitative comments.
None possessed technical knowledge regarding road and water restoration.
Given the funds are from the $60M award by the State Legislature in 2019 in Bill 1180
wherein the language specifically states: "...to provide relief and repairs for homes,
communities, businesses, farms, schools, cultural sites, water systems, electrical
grids, and roadways damaged or destroyed by unprecedented volcanic eruptions...",
that directive has not been fully honored in the implementation of both the first and second
rounds of the KLR grants. As this is the only source of recovery funds that could be spent
on private road and water system recovery, it seems that those doing the evaluation lacked
not only the technical expertise to allocate awards, but are unfamiliar with standard
methods of project management and did not demonstrate an understanding of economic
benefits. Further, after two years of requesting, the Lava Recovery Coordinator has been
unable to produce a one-page spreadsheet tracking all funding, uses, lapsed funds etc.
1
It takes good information to make informed decisions and this has not been the case with
regard to the use of recovery funds for the 2018 disaster. Five and one-half years from the
event and the region has definitely NOT recovered. It saddens us to see the County
administration provide NONE of its own funding, or even direct any additional energy or
resources to our needs. The State even covered the costs of disaster response incurred by
the County in 2018!
While our district Councilmember has been actively engaged in recovery efforts, the rest of
the Council has taken a hands-off approach. Our district is drowning in homelessness,
meth and other substance addition, along with joblessness. Those issues were made
significantly worse by the 2018 natural disaster. We've lost private residential insurance
and have no commercial insurance in lava zones 1 & 2, making it next to impossible to
invite economic recovery. We are VERY concerned that the Council, the keeper of the
purse, has not taken sufficient interest in Puna's recovery from the 2018 disaster while
meantime, the district population continues to grow explosively.
Many in Puna feel that the County has not had our backs. Our roadways won't be
recovered until 2026 at the earliest due to delays caused by incompetence at the County
and it's inexplicable denial for three years that an EA was needed. The HUD funded Buy-
Out program continues to arbitrarily change the rules of engagement such as changing the
value extended to its three phased program without any input from the County Council. The
latest changes just aggravate the inequities in that program as designed by the County
administration. Sharing a comment make by Mr. Lono Lyman whose company
experienced the most inundated acreage of any private landowner, "the recovery efforts
have been a worse disaster than the original natural disaster".
Mahalo,
‘10,1P9 ag)Iet-'
Eileen O'Hara, Ph.D.
Executive Director
2