BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
CAPITAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING

 
Taken at the David K. Trask, Jr., Building, 2145 Kaohu
Street, Room 205, Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii, commencing at
10:30 a.m. on May 16, 2001.
 
Reported By:  Rachelle Primeaux, CSR #370
 
ATTENDANCE:
Members Present:
Howard Nakamura, Chair
Peter Rice

Others Present:
Mike Nobriga
Jonathan Starr
Kent Hiranaga
 
Staff Present:
David Craddick, Director
Fran Nago, Secretary
Howard Fukushima, Corporation Counsel
Ellen Kraftsow, Planning
Mike Quinn, Fiscal Officer
George Tengan, Engineering
Herb Kogasaka, Engineering
         
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

CHAIR NAKAMURA:  It's exactly 10:30.  I would
like to call the meeting of the Capital Programs
Committee of the Board of Water Supply to order.  It's
Wednesday, May 16th, 2001, 10:30 a.m. in the HGEA
conference room, Room 205, David Trask Building in
Wailuku.
 In attendance we have Committee Member Peter
Rice and myself.  And Board Members Jonathan Starr,
Mike Nobriga, Kent Hiranaga, Counsel Howard Fukushima,
Director David Craddick, members of the staff and
Sally Raisbeck.  Okay.  First item of business is
approval of the minutes of January 11, February 8th
and April 9th.  Since we have only two members of the
committee, I would ask Mr. Rice if he had any
comments.
 
MR. RICE:  No.  I move for approval of the minutes.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Can we do this by
consensus, Mr. Attorney.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Yeah, because you guys have a
small group.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  By consensus, the minutes have
been approved.  Next item, is there any testimony from
the public on either matter on the agenda or a matter
that is not an the agenda?  Sally, I guess I keep
having to look at you for public testimony.
 
MS. RAISBECK:  Sorry.  No, Mr. Chairman.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Thank you.  First item under
Roman Numeral 5 is Director's 01-14, approval of the
funds for construction of Kapaakea water line
replacement.  This is a project on Molokai.  The
information has been circulated.  David or Herb, can
you review this project?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.  This is the project that
wasn't on the current year's budget for construction,
and I guess Adolph Helm was concerned about it moving
ahead a little more quickly.  And I believe we're to
the point where we can bid it out, Herb.
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes, if it's approved, we can
advertise.  We are going to try and advertise next
week.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  So we will be able to move
forward we believe this year if you want to do it,
otherwise, it will just be put on the budget for next
year.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Any questions, Peter?
 
MR. RICE:  Mr. Chairman, Adolph expressed some
concern about this being done quickly or us moving
quickly on it, but it wasn't included in our projects
for the current fiscal year.  Is there a reason for
that, do we know why, we just missed it?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, it was in design.
 
MR. RICE:  Okay.  So it was in design.  So it's
not like brand-new?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No.
 
MR. RICE:  I don't know any reason to wait
unless somebody -- I haven't heard any objections to
the project.  I don't know of any reason to wait.  If
we start it now, we will carry it over into the budget
for next year anyway, right?
 
MR. QUINN:  Well, it is -- it's the issue of
whether we can encumber the money this fiscal year.
Because we do have it in the proposed CIP budget for
next fiscal year, so it's a timing issue right now.
We're getting close to the end of the fiscal year.
I'm not sure.  Are we going to be able to encumber the
money this year, Herb?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  There was intent that we could,
but that will be like just at the last minute.
 
MR. RICE:  I thought we had to enter a contract
to encumber money; is that right?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes, that's correct.
 
MR. RICE:  Are we that close?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  If we advertise.  And we can rush
it to the contract provided nothing goes wrong.
 
MR. RICE:  But I mean if we move for approval of
the project, and we recommend approval of the project,
it goes to the Board next week and the Board approves
it and we don't encumber it, but we've included it in
the budget for next year, what's the difference; no
difference, right?
 
MR. QUINN:  I just want you to be aware that it
is in next year's fiscal budget.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I'll tell you what the difference
is.  We can't go to bid because there's no money
appropriated for the job, so we wouldn't be able to go
to bid with no money appropriated.
 
MR. RICE:  Until the budget was approved?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Right.
 
MR. RICE:  So let's approve it.  Then that way
we can go to bid.  Herb, I don't mean rush it to the
point that we're not ready, but we've got the approval
to proceed and go ahead at a normal pace.
 
MR. QUINN:  I bring that up because we will be
discussing the upcoming CIP budget shortly, and I just
want the Board to be aware that it is in next year's
numbers, so if, in fact, it gets encumbered this year,
that money will not be --
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  I suppose one alternative, and
I would think it's okay, would be for us to recommend
to the Board that they authorize calling for bids on
the project with the understanding that the funding
will be in next fiscal year's budget given the fact
that timing-wise, you know, I really have a question
as to whether or not you can encumber these funds by
the end of the year.
 If you authorize it at the next meeting, which
is the 22nd, you know, it goes out to bid.  The
standard bid period is what, 30 days, at least 30
days?  This is a half-a-million-dollar project.
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  I think we're looking at about two to three weeks.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Then you've got to review the
bids, prepare the contracts.
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  It's a very tight schedule, yes.
 
MR. RICE:  But I guess I think your suggestion
is a good one, Mr. Chairman, because if we don't act
on it, then there is nothing they can do until the
budget is approved.  And that does delay the project,
so we don't want to delay the project.  So if we
recommend now the Board going to contract and if it's
complete before the year, you can encumber it.  And if
it's not, it's in the next year's budget.  Are you
comfortable with that, Mike?
 
MR. QUINN:  Yes.
 
MR. RICE:  Herb, are you comfortable with that?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  Yeah.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Is that process acceptable, Mr. Counsel?
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I don't see a problem.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Can I ask a question.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Sure.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  David said we could not go out to
to bid unless the money is encumbered.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, not encumbered.
Appropriated.  I believe there's a State law to that
effect, and I'll leave it up to Howard if we can do it
through this mechanism of just authorizing us to go to
bid.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  There should be an appropriation.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  What?
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  There should be an appropriation.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I know.  There has to be an
appropriation.  That's why this is here before the Board.
 
MR. RICE:  That's what I'm saying is we
appropriate the money, and if it's not encumbered,
it's in the budget already for next year.  And I think
that Howard's procedure last year was to lump sum
those capital improvements and then that you would,
the Department would come and we would allocate it and
manage it that way.  Is that not correct, Mr. Chairman?
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Correct.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  What you're saying is as long as
the money is dispersed this year, it's okay; it's
appropriated to go to bid, but the money would be
disbursed --
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  No, if it's appropriated this
year, it would be encumbered this year.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Maybe, Kent, I don't know how
familiar you are with the process, but you have
appropriation and encumbering and then you actually
spend the money.  There are three different things.
There's no way the money is going to get spent this
year.  The most we can hope for is that we get it
encumbered this year.  But we can't even get the
encumbrance if it's not appropriated because we can't
go to bid if it's not appropriated.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  When does it impact the budget?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I guess tomorrow.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  When it's disbursed or appropriated?
 
MR. RICE:  When it's appropriated, it affects
the budget because Mike has to set aside those funds.
For example, correct me if I'm wrong, but if we had a
lump sum of $4 million and we appropriated 500 for
this project, even though we didn't write any checks,
we would only have four or five.  So it impacts the
budget at the time it's appropriated.  We've agreed
that this project takes precedent over others that may
or may not be encumbered; is that correct?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That's correct.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Is this right of entry issue
going to impact the granting, awarding of a contract?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I believe we've got it all worked
out with Hawaiian Homes.  We had a meeting with them
on that project, Waiehu Kou and upcountry, and we
believe we've got it worked out with them.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Because they own the roadways?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Right.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Would they be granting us a
license for an easement?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes, just a license, not for an
easement, just a license.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Generally, they term them
licenses for easements.  That's written in the
statute.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Okay.
 
MR. RICE:  You don't want to get into easement problems.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  They can't grant us an easement.
 
MR. RICE:  Right.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  So this project, the design
funds were in which year's budget, the prior year?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  It wasn't in this year's budget?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  That's right, that's correct, it
wasn't in this year's budget.  It was encumbered.  It
was the end of last year's budget.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  So again, the idea was that you
weren't going to be able to fund it this year because
the design was still in the process?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  That's correct.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  But you've completed the
design, and now you're ready to go?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  Yeah, we pushed it ahead a
little.  We pushed it along a little.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  So Mr. Rice, we would then
proceed to recommend appropriation of the funds for
this year with the understanding that they would be
rolled over into next year's budget if they're not
able to encumber the funds.
 
MR. RICE:  I support that.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Any other comments?
Okay.  So ordered.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  In that matter, Mr. Chairman,
the recommendation to the Board would be to approve
this request for appropriation?
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Right.  With the understanding
or with the caveat that it's possible that it would
not be encumbered this year in which case we would
roll it over into next year's budget.  Okay.
Director's 01-18, request for decision on service
options for Ulupalakua line.  Mr. Craddick.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, this one here, we have it
in our budget to do something up there.  And we've had
Board Members say they want this size a line and that
size a line.  What we've done is give some options
basically providing peak domestic flow, low fire flow,
providing 250 gallons of fire flow along with peak
domestic flows and then providing a thousand gallons
of fire flow with peak domestic flows and the various
costs.
 Now, if there's some other criteria that you
want to use in there, we're amenable to that.  But
this, you know, these are the things that we look at
when we're doing the water line.  And I suppose this
is just doing a transmission line.  If we were going
to actually have storage along the line, I would
suspect these line sizes would go down, so that's also
an option that's not on here including storage, but
then the price would go way up.  The line size would
go down, but the price would go up because of the
storage tank and that's it.  This area has been noted
before as not on the community plan.  There's those
issues.
 
MR. RICE:  Mr. Chairman.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Yes.
 
MR. RICE:  I'm supportive of the project.  I
just want to be sure we have the project integrated
into our whole plan, and I'm not saying it's not.
That's a question, and if need be, then we need to do
any other design work to make sure that it's
integrated and fits with our entire plan.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  When you say our entire plan?
 
MR. RICE:  For Ulupalakua, Ulupalakua area.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Well, if I can say something here.
 
MR. RICE:  Don't put your head in any nooses now.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Well, I would expect the bare
minimum of our plan is to provide people with their
peak demands when they want it.  That's like a bare
minimum service, you know, 40 pounds pressure.  In the
Kanaio area, I think we've gone up to four weeks
without water so far this year at times.  The line
that is in there is parts of it are plastic.  Parts of
it are above ground.  Parts of it are below ground.
It's a problem area for our guys.  It's a problem area
for the community out there.  So if it's in our plan
to provide basic service, then just what basic service
do you want to provide?  You know, it's an ag area.
Do you want 250 gallons of fire flow?  The cost is
$10,000 more to provide real fire flow.  And again,
this is only materials.  You know, this is not the
cost to dig it and put it in.  This is only
materials.
 We had been working with Ulupalakua Ranch.  They
were more than happy to help dig the line on their
property and our guys put it in, which is quite a bit
of the area.  There are other people that may be
willing to participate in this on some of the laterals
coming down.  This includes I believe the main
transmission line and the laterals.  So again, this
amount here is only the material for the whole job.
You know, you're talking in the multi-millions of
dollars.
 
MR. RICE:  Okay.  Then I'm confused.  Then why
aren't we requesting appropriation for all the money
then?  Or is this kind of -- is this a request for a
decision on the scope of work, and then you're going
to come back to us with a number for the scope we
choose rather than option 1, 2 or 3?
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Okay.
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  Sorry.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  I guess that is going to
require lunch being purchased by Mr. Nobriga.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  All I can say is that what I
would try and do is use employees as much as possible
if we can do this if we can get assistance from the
ranch in putting the thing in.
 
MR. RICE:  See, my comment was going to be for
what I consider a small difference in material costs
between option 1 and 3, we would want to do option 3.
But if the labor side is unknown here, then we don't know.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  The labor side is not going to be
a whole lot different on either.
 
MR. RICE:  Then it would seem to me that we
would put in option 3.  It wouldn't be a discussion
for, you know, the incremental.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  One other option that you may
want, you may want to see what sizing that you can
get.  If you can provide the fire flows out of storage
rather than out of a pipeline, that's the better way
to do it.  But again, that's going to be like a second
phase because those tanks are going to be expensive.
Our guys can't put them in.  The total cost of the
project may be a little bit more, but you don't have
to do it right now.
 You can put those lines in, and it will solve at
least the problem of line breakage and things like
that and put it in based on using tanks to provide the
fire flow rather than the line itself.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  What size tanks are we talking
about here?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  For 250 gallons a minute,
probably about a 50,000-gallon tank and using a
thousand gallons a minute, something on the order of
probably 100-some-thousand gallons of storage.
 
MR. RICE:  I think, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Go ahead.
 
MR. RICE:  I think we need to know what you
recommend is the best plan for this project.  I mean,
I'm a little concerned for us to say here is options
1, 2 and 3, be considering these, and then for you to
say, "But I think the best way to go is to do X."
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Here is the problem.  The best
way to do this is to look at this water system with
the water going both ways.  And if you do that, then
these size of lines are what you want.  But if you do
that, then you get into a whole bunch of EIS issues.
You know, so it's probably better not to look at what
the best situation is because the best situation
involves just what our previous Board Chair's concerns
are, extensive environmental work.
 If we're just providing basic minimum service, a
thousand gallons a minute, peak domestic flows, we can
do that with an environmental assessment without
getting into the overall big plan for an area which
has been left out of the community plan.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  Question.  Out of these numbers, how
much of it is a 200,000-gallon tank?  It's got to be
three, $400,000.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, the tanks would be expensive.
 
MR. STARR:  So most of that money is going to
that one big tank.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, no, there is no tank involved
in this.  That's only pipeline.
 
MR. STARR:  No, your listing says 200,000-gallon
storage tank for Ulupalakua lateral.
 
MR. RICE:  On your option 3.
 
MR. STARR:  On all your options, 1, 2 and 3 you
include the 200,000-gallon tank.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  So it does.  I don't think the
tank cost is in there.  This is material cost for the
pipeline.
 
MR. STARR:  Okay.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  I think --
 
MR. RICE:  That's why I was saying, I think we
need to know the whole cost and I'm not opposed to the
project.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  I think that the Board has
supported the improvement of service to the Ulupalakua
area by virtue of the fact that they made an
appropriation in the present year's budget.  There
seems to be a certain amount of confusion in terms of
a difference of opinion actually in terms of scope.  I
guess I would have two suggestions, one would be that
perhaps that the staff come up with a specific
recommendation as Mr. Rice has suggested, including
the possible consideration of the fourth alternative
that David just mentioned, which may perhaps be more
acceptable, although perhaps more expensive in the
context of storage.
 But the other possibility would be for us to
hire a consultant to do kind of a preliminary plan for
the area and identify the scope of work, and so that
we could proceed on incremental improvements.  And
that was my thought initially, and I guess that
somewhat continues to be my thought.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  And I would still recommend that
would be a good way to go.  If we can do that, that
would be a better way to go.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  What would be your
off-the-top-of-your-head estimate of what might be
involved?  Because you folks have most of the
information or a lot of the information, you know, to
do kind of a preliminary engineering study, Herb, to
come up with a plan and cost estimates, 25, 30,000?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  I had estimated about 30,000.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  To do a preliminary plan?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  Yeah.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Preliminary engineering plan?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  Yeah, that would be my estimate.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I think another thing, the key
thing in this is going to be what the Board's position
is.  You know, what is it that you want to do?  Do you
want to provide basic service and say what you've
considered to be basic service, and then I think
everything else will fall through from that very
quickly.  But if there's a concern that because you
provide basic service that 8 or 10 more meters might
get approved or a couple of people might be able to do
a family subdivision or even a bigger subdivision, I
don't know.  You know, we have the problem that this
area is not part of the community plan.  So if you
start doing a major plan, you get into a problem with
the community plan issue.  If you stick to some
criteria of what you call basic service, then it makes
it very simple for us.  It's going to make it simple
for the person who has to do the study.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  The Upcountry Community Plan
makes no reference to this area at all?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, because it's bifurcated.
Part of it is in Kihei, part of it upcountry.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Jonathan.
 
MR. STARR:  Yeah, my own belief is if we're
going to do it, I think we have to do it because the
system does not function there.  We have people, you
know, who have service, but it doesn't work.  If we do
it, we should do it right.  You know, it's crazy to
open the ground and put pipes that are insufficient
in, and then whenever someone comes to us, you know,
we have to say, well, you upsize the pipe now, you
know, or else we have to give them a, you know, an
exclusion from the rules that we would kind of meet
ourselves from doing it right the first time.
 My own feeling is that it should be looked at
from engineering-wise, it would be fairly large
pipes.  The planning issue isn't really our issue.
We're not the ones who can stop growth.  We're just
trying to deliver water.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Except in the context that
we're mandated by the Charter to comply with the
general plan or the community plan.  David.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I think that's why I'm asking,
you know, if you want to go something beyond providing
basic service, I think providing basic service, you
still have to go through the environmental process,
but it's much simpler for us because there's no
grandiose scheme there other than providing basic
minimal service.  And it's what your criteria for
basic minimal service is.  We know most of the areas
up there are 250-gallons-a-minute flow.  There's ag.
We know there's commercial areas up there, the store,
the office.  There are some commercial areas out
there.
 We can leave the tank if somebody does that
subdivision, they have to put in the tank if the basic
line is there providing that basic service, so if you
want a recommendation from me, the recommendation is
option 3, don't do the tanks.  Wait for these
theoretical subdividers if they come.  I'm not so
certain -- all that certain they're going to come, but
if they do, let them put the tanks in.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  When we talked about doing a
preliminary engineering study earlier, Herb, did you
have a scope of work, did you ever develop a scope of work?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  I don't recall specifically, but I --
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Would it be possible to develop
a quick scope of work before the Board Meeting on
Thursday, next Thursday, do you think that's possible?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Again, you know, without knowing
what kind of service we're trying to provide, what is
the scope of work, I don't think we could even tell
somebody what the scope of work is.
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  Is this to review or come up with
the various options and recommendations basically from
the consultant, right?
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Right, as to what the
improvements should be.
 
MR. RICE:  I think your suggestion is the right
one, Mr. Chairman.
 
CHAIR NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Any other comments?
 
MR. RICE:  Okay.  By consensus, the Committee
will recommend to the Board we request the Department
to undertake a preliminary engineering study to
identify the most desirable alternative or
improvements to the system, incremental improvements
to the system I would say, and if possible, if we
could present a scope of work together with that
recommendation, it would be appreciated.  And if
necessary, Herb, give me a call, and I would be happy
to sit down with you and look at that.  Okay.
 Any other business to come before the
Committee?  If not, the meeting is adjourned.
 
(The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.)
 
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.