HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0598.014 2006-2008 Page 1 of 1
Murashige, Laura
From: Vivian Landrum [vivian@kona-kohala.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:34 AM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us (';!jig IC E?rl ~
Subject: Testimony regarding Bill 51/151
Attachments: Bill 51 testimony -August 22 hearing.doc
Aloha,
If possible, we would like to submit the attached testimony to the Council today.
Mahalo,
Vivian Landrum
KONA-KOHALA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Vivian Landrum
Executive Director
75-5737 Kuakini Hwy., Ste. 208
Kai/ua-Kona, HI 96740
Ph: 808.329.1758
Fax: 508.329.8564
Vivian ~kona-koha/a.com
www.kona-koha/a.com
E®RtRI• Na 5 q ~ T
RetiE. fi@? ~lM~~ to
8/22!2007 Sgt
~~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°
Hawaii County Council
July 20, 2007
Page Two
which has taken place and which is a most ineffective and time consuming way of arriving
at a result that is quite unlikely to solve any problems or to be best for the community.
Thus we would propose that the original administration Bill be passed and that the Council
direct (and manage to the extent needed) the administration to complete a review and
redraft of the Flood Control Management Legislation within a defined timeframe aad
enlisting the help of the MRCS, Hydrologists and Engineers, Architects etc.
Sincerely,
Vivian Landrum
Executive Director