The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOMM. 42.21 from FOPF-TestimonyPRESIDENT YEN CHIN VICE PRESIDENT PAUL CAMPBELL Public Testimony DIRECTORS: ROB TUCKER DELIA MONTGOP,^ERY PATT I PINTO ROBIN STETSON SCOTT STODDARD Public Hearing of the Hawaii County Redistricting Commission, October 11, 2011 Pahoa Neighborhood Center, Pahoa, HI As you may already be aware, Friends of Puna's Future has previously endorsed the idea expressed by this commission that, due to the rapid rate of growth during the last ten years, Puna should be divided in such a way as to create two county districts. We applaud all efforts aimed at helping realize this goal, and yet we are now dismayed by the plans that have been advanced by this commission for continued consideration. In recent history, the issue of representation in Puna has not been one of having too few representatives, rather it is one of having had too many. For the last ten years, Kea'au and Orchidland have been forced to share a representative from South Hilo, residents from Volcano to Kurtistown have been forced to petition the representative from Ka'u, and the balance of Puna enjoyed a representative of its own. Three council persons, two serving a majority of their constituencies based outside of Puna and having distinctly different concerns from Puna, do not make up a viable Puna delegation. Puna deserves two council representatives who will be giving us their full attention. This means no more than two council districts encompassing all of the towns and communities of Puna. These two districts must include the town of Kea'au, the town of Volcano, the town of Pahoa and the communities between these towns and south of them. None of the advancing plans have managed this basic requirement. All of these plans either send Volcano back to Ka'u or put Kea'au in the South Hilo district. It has been expressed among the members of this commission that Puna should be divided mauka makai rather than east west. This approach makes it very difficult to maintain the internal roads critera [Hawaii County Code: 36- 4(11)] while avoiding any division of incorporated subdivisions. In fact, all of the plans that seem to be attempting this mauka makai approach have settled upon a division of Hawaiian Paradise Park. We feel that the basic guideline of not dividing communities [Hawaii County Code: 36 -4(8)] is of the utmost importance here. In fact, we feel that it has a greater urgency here in Puna, where so much of the district has been subdivided and where spending for road maintenance, as enjoined by the courts, falls to the collective residents of each subdivision rather than to the county. Many of these communities are actually non - profit corporations with a mandate from the courts to require residents to pay a mandatory road maintenance fee. We are currently working with Council Chairperson Dominic Yagong, State Representative Faye Hanohano, State Senator Gil Kahele, and Mayor Billy Kenoi to alleviate this burden by developing a grant in aid program which would allow these non - profits to submit proposals to their council member and receive county fuel tax revenue allocated to that district for certain specified projects. Dividing Hawaiian Paradise Park, or any incorporated Puna subdivision, into two county districts would create problems for the grant in aid effort: either the divided non - profit would have to submit two grant proposals to two different council members in order to fund any single project that happens to cross district boundaries; or worse, if they were to choose one or the other council member and then spend money received in the other district, the fuel tax allocation system itself would be compromised. This kind of legal confusion could make redress of the current private roads funding issue in Puna more difficult for all parties involved. Hawaiian Paradise Park, as well as all the other Puna subdivisions, deserve better. COMM. 42.21 We understand that a plan submitted as public testimony by Margaret Wille was accepted at the last meeting and worked on during that meeting by the full commission, the result of which was Plan 40, advanced by this commission. Plan 40, however, excludes much of Volcano, and it divides Hawaiian Paradise Park, making it unacceptable to us. Friends of Puna's Future was also invited by Ms. Wille to use her plan as a template for District 9, and the result of that effort was the timely submission of Plan 27, which was rejected by this commission despite the fact that it presented the only map thus far submitted that created two Puna districts divided mauka makai that included Kea'au, Volcano, Pahoa, and all the other communities of Puna without dividing Hawaiian Paradise Park. In preparation for this public hearing, we began working on a revision of Plan 27, on behalf of our members, that consolidates the best aspects of Plan 40 and our original Plan 27 (submitted as fopf5.plan). Ms. Wille has also recently revised her own submitted testimony, throwing her support behind our revision of Plan 27, with minor adjustments to District 2 (submitted as 40 adj 10 -9 w /FoPF & Dist2adjs.plan. See Margaret Wille's testimony to the commission, attached). As this submission so closely resembles our own submission, we endorse this plan completely and urge you to consider and adopt this plan. 40 adj 10 - -9 w /FofPF & Dist2adjs. plan Margaret Wille Attorney at Law 65-1316 Lihipali Road Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 margaretwille # mac .com �v October 11 , 2011 To: County of Hawaii Redistricting Commission for 10 -11 Public Hearing. In consultation with representatives from Friends of Puna's Future, I am supporting "Alternative 2 of Plan 40 (as adjusted 10 -9) . I have asked Scott Stoddard to voice my support at the 10 -11 Commission hearing for this Plan, which is now called "Alternative #2 to Plan 40 as adjusted 10 -9 ". (It could use a new number or name.) This "Alternative 2" Plan is based on a revision of Plan 40 to accommodate all of FofPF's "Plan 27" proposals for Districts 2, 3, 4, and 5 except for an accommodation for District 2 so that Kaumana Drive /Saddle Road area is in District 2 and also relocates the Hilo airport entirely in District 2. I strongly support this revision of Plan 40. I have worked on this revision in collaboration with folks from Hamakua, North Kohala, Kona, and with representatives of Friends of Puna's Future. This "Alternative 2" adoption of Commission Plan 40 may of course be improved upon — but it is a solid plan taking into account many shared communities of interest — from neighborhood subdivisions interests to broader watershed communities of interest, and is in compliance with the population deviation requirements. I have submitted the Plan in the format that can be viewed from the Reapportionment Commission website and here attach some screenshots . Respectfully submitted, /s/ Margaret Wille Attachments: S creenshots