Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0176.043 2006-2008 r,: l.ti' I . t. ~~,'i"~ ' tlflElllKtilflll _ ~ _ . May 14, 2007 "l"hc Honorable Pete EfofYman, Chairperson Members of the Hawaii County Council Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 facsimile: (808) 9f>I-8912 Subject: Bill 51, amendments to Chapter 27 i Dear Chairperson lloffman and Members opthe Hawaii County Council, "phis letter is to provide our thoughts and concerns regarding recent. amendments to Bill ~ 51 relating to Chapter 27 of the 1~Iawaii County Code 1983 (2005 edition). i, "Che National Flood Insurance Program (NIFP) is requiring local governments bring local ~ codes and regulations into conformance with recent changes to NIFP regulations by ~ September. 2007 in order Cor homeowners and businesses in these local areas to remain eligible for funds in the event of a hood disaster. [n response the Department of Public ~ Works (DPW) proposed revisions to Chapter 27 in the original drafting of Bill 51. Subsequently, Bill 51 has undergone amendments that go beyond intent of Chapter 27 and complying with NIFP regulations. ~ I We strongly support amendments to Chapter 27 to bring the chapter into compliance with NIFP regulations. N[FP regulations provide a consistent and nationally recognized set of standards by which flooding hazards are evaluated. 1?rovided [hat local codes and regulations comply with the NIFP regulations, homeowners, business owners and other ~ have access to favorable; flood insurance rates that would otherwise be unavailable. ~ However, we oppose changing the intent and scope of C'lrnpter 27 beyond compliance with NIFP regulations as it could jeopardize Hawaii Cormty residents and businesses access to favorable Rood insurance rates and eligible lwrds in the event of a Flood ~ disaster. ~ I Coner~. R1o. b . 3 r:::i. L°~ P 1 cr j ' " _ t?app rr;'~y~r, a", , a, I have 22 years of experience in the design of highways, water systems, drainage systems, affordable and market housing subdivisions, commercial subdivisions, agricultural subdivisions, utility infrastructure and the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. I have worked in the public sector for the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works and in the private sector for various firms so t am aware of issues and concerns regarding both public and private interests. T did not have time to review all of the additional amendments that were introduced to Bill 51 at the May ] ~ meeting. However, one amendment struck me as having extraordinary consequences for the agricultural industry. The amendment I am referring to is 27-20 (g). lt? Hawai`i Couutv agricultural subdivisions may exist in areas uphill from urban areas and may have severe flooding consequences: therefore, new :~¢riculturxl subdivisions shall comply with all requirements of Article 4, Section 27- 17-26 in that redirected flood channels shall meet base flood elevation levels and appropriate design and structures shall be provided to retain all rainfall up to a 100-vear storm event on the agricultural land on which the rainfall fell, In this regard I was just recently asked to consider storing all storm water generated from a 100-year, 24 hour storm on-site fora 9 acre community park project being constructed by anon-profit organization. The ]00-year, 24 hour rainfall in this location is approximately 7 inches. The results indicated that I would need a retention pond that was capable of storing 4.7 acre feet. In order to achieve this storage, one could build a one acre pond approximately 4.7 feet deep. The volume in cubic yazds of such a facility would be approximately 7,582 cubic yards. A rough estimate of the cost to construct the pond is $90,000. In addition, construction of a drainage system to pipe the water to the pond would be required. A really rough estimate of the cost of the piping and catch basin system is $200,000. The retention pond would require a drywell system to dispose of the water from the retention pond. My estimated cost for the drywells system is $60,000. The total rough cost for the system is $350,000. This does not include the loss of usable acreage I'or the park facility which in today's market could be $250,000 or more. I estimate that a conventional system using a 10 year storm with drywells would cost $40,000 to $80,000. If this park was located in Hilo where the 100-year, 24 hour storm rainfall is approximately 22 inches, the retention storage required would be 15.9 acre feet, over three times that of Kona. The number of catch basins and drywell and the pipe sizes would have to be much larger. This would entail substantially more costs and could make the project cost prohibitive, especially for anon-profit organization. My point is that I strongly advise the county council to seek the opinions of other engineering professional to confirm or dispute my estimates and then to analyze the economic impact to the entire island. I believe that adequate drainage is essential to this island. I am however concerned that we do not place an insurmountable economic burden on the use of land for agricultural purposes as I believe that agriculture is an extremely important land use. I also question whether it is really fair to ask fanners to dispose of all runoff whether or not their farming operations contributed to the nmoff. In many cases the majority of the runoff from fauns would have existed whether or not the land was farmed. Is it fair to force farmers to mitigate regional runoff issues or should that be done using government funding? The Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 states " It is hereby recognized that destructive floods upon the rivers of the United States, upsetting orderly processes and causing loss of life and property, including erosion of lands, and impairing and obstn~eting navigation, highways, railroads, and other channels of commerce between the States, constitutes a menace to national welfare; that it is the sense of Congress that flood control on navigable waters or their tributaries is a proper activity of the Federal Government in cooperation with the States, their political subdivisions, and localities thereof; for flood control purposes are in the interest of the general welfare; that the Federal Government should improve or participate in the improvement of navigable waters or their tributaries including watersheds thereof, for flood-control purposes if the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs, and if the lives and social security of the people are otherwise adversely affected." Subsequently it was recognized that despite spending billions of dollars, flooding continued to occur and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended was passed along with the Disaster Protection Act of 1973 as amended. Perhaps the County government could continue to seek federal funding to mitigate areas of severe and frequent flooding as it did after the severe flood of November 2000. For the citizens of this County this may be a more and equitable and responsible government approach to the flooding issue. i,astly, I would like to know if the Council has evaluated the cost to the taxpayers of the construction and maintenance of drainage facilities to contain the 100-year storm for County dedicable roadways, parks and other County facilities. It seems to me that the Department of Public Works and perhaps the Department of Parks and Recreation will need additional monies allocated as they seem to be stretched pretty thin trying to maintain the infrastructure that they currently have. Perhaps the Department of Public Works could advise you in this matter. With so many unanswered questions as to the impact of the extensive amendments proposed by members of the County Council, I ask that you defer approval of the council amendments. Perhaps an ad hoc committee could be formed to provide review and recommendations. I recommend approval of the amendments proposed by the Department of Public Works at the earliest possible date so that the County remains in compliance with FF.MA requirements. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the subject of Chapter 27. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Ci. Bums, P.[;. cc Bruce McClure, Director, Department of Public Works Galen Kuba, Division Head, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division /1 anuoKllllo ~a~~07 1111Y 1~ E'(~ ".2 H O M E 5 Z~ Ilve the tlifference ' i '~:~JL~~„ ~ May 14, 2007 The Honorable Pete Hoffman, Chairperson Members of the Hawaii County Council Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Facsimile: (808) 961-8912 Subject: Bi1151, amendments to Chapter 27 Deaz Chairperson Hoffinan and Members of the Hawaii County Council, This letter is to provide our thoughts and concerns regarding recent amendments to Bill 51 relating to Chapter 27 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 edition). The National Flood Insurance Program (NIFP) is requiring local governments bring local codes and regulations into conformance with recent changes to NIFP regulations by September, 2007 in order for homeowners and businesses in these local areas to remain eligible for funds in the event of a flood disaster. In response the Department of Public Works (DPW) proposed revisions to Chapter 27 in the original drafting of Bi1151. Subsequently, Bill 51 has undergone amendments that go beyond intent of Chapter 27 Qiid complying with NIFP regulations. We strongly support amendments to Chapter 27 to bring the chapter into compliance with NIFP regulations. NIFP regulations provide a consistent and nationally recognized set of standards by which flooding hazards aze evaluated. Provided that local codes and regulations comply with the NIFP regulations, homeowners, business owners and other have access to favorable flood insurance rates that would otherwise be unavailable. However, we oppose changing the intent and scope of Chapter 27 beyond compliance with NIFP regulations as it could jeopazdize Hawaii County residents and businesses access to favorable flood insurance rates and eligible funds in the event of a flood disaster. May 14, 2007 Mr. Peter Hoffman Page 2 Qill 51 includes building standards above those required to meet NIFP regulations such as constructing homes and other buildings one foot above base flood elevations. We feel that the NIFP regulations have been generated based on significant research effort and vetted with considerable resources when compared to the effort and resources available to the our County. Changing or upgrading the NIFP regulations, unless warranted by a local condition as certified by an engineer, will increase costs to homeowners and businesses with no apparent reduction in flood insuranec or other benefit. We ena;uragr, the County Council to expedite changes to Chapter 27 needed to comply with NIFP regulations. Other changes should be carefully considered with the proper time and resources, to vet all pertinent issues affected by the proposed changes. We respectfully submit our thoughts and concerns to the Hawaii County Council for consideration when enacting legislation regarding the health and safety of the residents and businesses of the County of Hawaii. Please feel free to contact me at (808) 676-3300 or Mr. Frederic l3erg at (808) 284-4221 if you would like to discuss our thoughts and concerns further. Aloha, Jeffrey J."Anfstor President