BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
REGULAR MEETING
Held at the HGEA Conference Room, David K. Trask, Jr. Office
Building, 2145 Kaohu Street, Room 207, Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii,
commencing at 9:00 a.m., on May 24, 2001 2000.
REPORTED BY: JEANNETTE W. IWADO, RPR/CSR #135
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
A T T E N D A N C E
CHAIRPERSON:
PETER RICE
VICE-CHAIR:
HOWARD NAKAMURA
BOARD MEMBERS:
CLARK HASHIMOTO
KENT HIRANAGA
MICHAEL NOBRIGA
JONATHAN STARR
ORLANDO TAGORDA
ROBERT TAKITANI
EXCUSED:
ELMER CRAVALHO
DIRECTOR
DAVID CRADDICK
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL:
HOWARD FUKUSHIMA
BOARD SECRETARY:
FRAN NAGO
ENGINEERING:
HERB KOGASAKA
WENDY TAOMOTO
HERB CHANG
FISCAL OFFICER:
HOLLY PERDIDO
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT:
JACKY TAKAKURA
PLANNING:
ELLEN KRAFTSOW
PERSONNEL:
CINDY GRASSA
WATER TREATMENT PLANTS:
PAUL SEITZ
CHARLENE SUZUKI
ALSO PRESENT:
ADAM PATEL
JOHN RUSSELL
WARREN SUZUKI
GARY ZAKIAN, ESQ.
PAUL HORIKAWA, ESQ.
RAY MATASCI
DAVID HOEKSTRA
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
MAY 24, 2001
CHAIRMAN RICE: I will call to order the Board of
Water Supply meeting, Thursday, May 24, HGEA Conference Room,
Number 207. Board members in attendance Clark Hashimoto,
Jonathan Starr, Mike Nobriga, myself, Peter Rice, Orlando
Tagorda, Howard Nakamura, Kent Hiranaga. Staff, Director David
Craddick, secretary Fran Nago, and staff. Members of the
public signed in.
Okay, let the record reflect those members of the
public that are present, and esteemed Corporation Counsel to my
left.
Are there any minutes, minutes from the prior meeting?
MR. NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to move
that we receive the minutes of the regular meeting on 3/22/01,
and the special meeting on 4/18/01, and let stand for 30 days
subject to review. If there is no review, corrections,
additions or deletions, the minutes will be filed.
MR. TAGORDA: Second.
CHAIRMAN RICE: There's a motion and a second on the
table to accept the minutes for 30 days subject to review or
changes to be accepted. Is there any discussion? All in favor
signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay.".
(None).
The motion is carried. Before we get into
testimony, members of the Board, a procedural issue that I want
to raise -- and I will take all the blame on this issue, as I'm
the one that created the agenda -- in my haste to try and start
to clean up some items on the old agenda, I have listed all the
committee reports on the agenda, and in fact we don't have but
one committee report ready at the time of the filing of the agenda.
So it is my feeling that in the future and at this
meeting, that unless we have committee reports in hand at the
time of filing of the agenda, that we will not be taking up
those issues. I don't think it's fair to the members of the
Board to have something presented to them at the meeting and to
be asked to make a decision. So unless there's some objection,
that will be the case as we move forward. I apologize to the
Board members and any members of the public for that oversight
on my part.
Now, is there testimony from the public? Sir, would
you sit here and state your name for the record?
MR. VARES: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name
is Nathan Vares, and I'm with the Tri-Isle Research
Conservation and Development Council, I'm the coordinator with
them. And I'm here today to -- I'm going to pass this letter
along to you, it's from our chairman, Buddy Nobriga, and I have
copies of it and an attachment for each member of the Board.
This is concerning funding for Miconia control. We
had an item in your budget requesting $100,000 continued
funding for fiscal year 2002, and it became apparent a few
weeks ago that the state legislature was not going to come
through with the funding that they normally had in the past few
years. And in light of that, we had asked the County Council
to increase their allocation this year, and they have
graciously approved $200,000 of new monies from them. So this
has helped make up the shortfall to fund the Miconia effort,
but we're still not quite there yet, and that's why we were
hoping that the Board of Water Supply could come through with
an additional $100,000 to make a total of $400,000 from County
sources.
We have other sources from the Nature Conservancy,
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. This year we're
finishing out a grant from the Community Block Grant. But
Miconia is becoming -- it's becoming increasingly apparent how
serious a threat it is, and this is what the attached paper to
this letter has indicated. The devastation in Tahiti is a
common example that is cited as to how bad it actually could
become, and we're just barely holding our own right now.
That's why we want to request this increase in funding to help
sustain the effort and really get a handle on it.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Nathan. Any questions
from the Board? Go ahead, Jonathan.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, I appreciate you coming
before us, and I really support the program. I'm one that
really believes that we have to deal with the Miconia problem.
My question to you is whether you are going to be at the Board
of Land and Natural Resources meeting tomorrow morning, because
I understand that they are recommending a reduction in the
lease payments for the entire East Maui Watershed that's leased
to A&B and EMI. They're reducing the amount from $160,000 a
year to $144,000 a year, which makes it probably the cheapest
water anywhere in the world.
But what that does is because they have such
artificially low lease rates, DLNR, which should be able to
afford to fund this program, is not able to fund it. So my
question to you is, are you going to go and appeal to the Land
Board to make the lease rates more reasonable so DLNR can fund
this program, which my belief is that it should be coming out
of the water lease money.
MR. VARES: I see. Actually, that matter was not
taken up by the Maui Species Committee. We have sought various
sources and various senarios to keep the funding adequate, but
it's something that wasn't discussed at the last meeting, so I
can't say that we had planned to go to this one. I can make an
appearance, but that's last minute.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Nobriga?
MR. NOBRIGA: I have to disclose to the body that
the chairman of the Tri-Isle Council, Buddy Nobriga, is my
daddy.
CHAIRMAN RICE: So noted. Any other questions from
the Board? Nathan, we have the request for the Miconia in the
budget, and it will be taken up by Finance and CIP and the
whole Board at some future date. And we understand your
request, so thank you.
MR. VARES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Next. Any other public testimony?
Thank you. We will move on. Communication 01-19, request from
Paul Horikawa on behalf of Mr and Mrs. Robert Fevella. Paul, I
see you here.
MR. HORIKAWA: Hi. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I
represent Mr and Mrs. Fevella. It's my understanding that this
matter will be referred to committee, and if that is the case,
I will reserve my comments until the committee meets.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Paul. I am referring
that to the Oversight Committee.
MR. NOBRIGA: I have to disclose to the Board that
Mr. Fevella's son works for me as a management position.
CHAIRMAN RICE: So noted. And then in the
discussions for the Oversight Committee, you will take that
into consideration?
MR. NOBRIGA: Oh, definitely.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you. Communication 01-20,
request from David Myers for a water bill adjustment. David,
anybody here? That's referred to Finance.
Okay, now we're into committee reports, for which
there are very few. We have one committee report from --
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Chairman, if I may.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, sir.
MR. NOBRIGA: I would like to beg your indulgence in
handling -- which one now? Sorry, yeah. You know, the one
about Kamaole. Which report is that, David? Help me out.
MR. CRADDICK: It's 8.
MR. NOBRIGA: Yes, handle number 8. The information
is disclosed within the agenda and has been passed out to all
members of the Board regarding the action of finalizing our
disputes with the Construction Development, Inc., and the Board
of Water Supply, resulting in the completion of a project of
Kamaole Weir.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Procedural issue. Members of the
Board, that issue was assigned to the Finance Committee, and if
there's no objection I will accept it back to the Committee of
the Whole, full Board for action today. If there's no
objection to that. Go ahead, Mike.
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you. It is the recommendation
of the Oversight Committee and the Finance Committee that the
Board approve the action of line within the report. Would you
identify the page, David?
CHAIRMAN RICE: If I recall correctly, members of
the Board, this issue was taken to mediation and it was
referred to Mike's committee, and has to do with the dispute
over a project with this contractor. And the mediator
recommended a settlement, and Mike's committee was recommending
that the Board approve that settlement recommendation. And
there is a combination -- the reason it went to Finance was
because the settlement was $325,000. There was 90-some
thousand dollars left in the account for that project, and the
difference of I believe it's $248,000 was going to be
appropriated from CIP projects.
MR. NOBRIGA: I saw it in here.
MS. NAGO: You had it in a previous agenda. It's
not in this agenda packet.
MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Chairman, in light of the absence
of that information in front of us, I think if my colleagues
agree, we should really review this. I never had a chance to
read that settlement agreement, Mr. Chairman.
MR. NOBRIGA: Fair enough.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay.
MR. CRADDICK: I would ask that you maybe defer on
this item for a little while. I'll talk to you when we get a
break.
CHAIRMAN RICE: We just did defer it.
MR. CRADDICK: Well, I mean defer it to later on in
the meeting, because you may find out that the expense rises if
you wait longer.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, well, we've deferred it, so we
can move on.
MR. NOBRIGA: I believe, sir, the Chair does have
the authority to call special meetings, so it wouldn't mean
that we'd have to wait a full 30 days before coming back to our
meeting.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Jonathan?
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, I would have no problem,
certainly the committee chair is very well familiar with --
MS. NAGO: Jonathan, I'm sorry, you're going to have
to speak up.
MR. STARR: I'm sorry. I was saying I would have no
problem if we find a way to deal with it, because I know it is
a timely matter and the committee Chair is certainly familiar
enough to brief us on it.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Tagorda, we talked about it.
Kent is familiar with the issue, I think, you attended our
committee meeting. Howard, you are familiar with the issue.
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Board
accept the recommendation of mediation on the matter of
Construction Development, Inc, versus Board of Water Supply.
MR. STARR: I second that.
CHAIRMAN RICE: There's a motion on the table to
accept the recommendation of the mediator on the issue of the
Construction Development, Inc, versus the Board of Water
Supply. Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Chairman --
MR. STARR: I'm sorry. I was just going to request,
Mike, you give us as much of an overview as you can.
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Chairman, we have in the audience
some key people that may be able to give us a brief outline.
Mr. Blake is not here, but David, would you assist me in this
matter?
MR. CRADDICK: I'll do the best I can. This matter
arose out of the Kamole treatment plant contract. What had
happened was during the course of the contract some changes
were made. I believe the changes were made for the benefit of
the water department. We lowered the filter unit down. I
don't know if you have all seen Lahaina, but it's about
three-and-a-half feet above the ground. This is about 18
inches or a foot off the ground. We did that for the safety of
our employees, because they have got to get into the equipment
from time to time. If any one single person fell and hurt
themselves we'd probably be looking at an expense greater than
the entire change order on the job. That was why we did it.
How the change orders came in, they did not come in
on one item. There was one to put the piping underground, and
then there was a tank off on the side that was designed for the
filters being up high. That tank did not get changed. Because
that tank didn't get changed there was piping that was left
high up in the air, and the pipe supports had to be changed.
That was one change order that we're talking about.
The other change order is on the generator
building. The generator building had louvers in it that it was
felt should be put in a different place. That change order was
a fairly substantial change order. There are arguments on how
fast it all proceeded, those two items. In the end they were
both things that needed to be done, and we feel they're valid
change orders. Now, that's on the change order side.
There's an additional problem in that during the
course of the work, CDI did something that we felt compromised
the integrity of the filter units themselves. The Board of
Water Supply went in and changed the modules on the four worst
ones. Now, the claim from CDI was above double what we had
settled for, and during the course of this mediation they
presented their best evidence of why they were not responsible
for the filter damage; we gave our best evidence why they
were. In the end they finally accepted responsibility for
that, and we were able to settle at this reduced amount, rather
than the higher amount. And their higher amount was for
interest in non-payment of these monies that we actually owe
them for the change orders, and the retainage that we held on
the job. Peter said that we're still holding about 90-some
thousand dollars. That's retainage on the job because it has
not been completed, and the job was completed about three years
ago and they're asking for interest on those funds. That is
basically it.
But I'll leave it up to Mike whether he felt in all
the discussion that the settlement was fair. From my part, I
believe it is a fair settlement. There are some other things
that we are getting from the filter manufacturer. I don't have
a letter to give you here right now, and it's not really
related to this settlement, that I think will make this
settlement even better for the Board. But that's basically
what has gone on. We have two things, change orders and filter
damage -- I take that back, there's one more thing. There's
still a few items on the job that are not completed, and those,
what we're going to do is just complete them ourselves, rather
than go into a long song and dance with them over trying to get
these things worked out.
There are a few things that relate to safety and
structural things with the electrical side, but we feel we can
do those in a cost that is under $50,000. So those we will do
in-house. But that's another small aspect of this settlement.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, any questions? Mr. Tagorda?
MR. TAGORDA: With regard to those filters that the
CDI accepted responsibility, David, how much are you going to
minus from that money that they're trying to settle with the
department?
MR. CRADDICK: Orlando, I don't think you can look
at it as any one particular item, because they had a claim in
for over $600,000. We know we owe them retainage on the job
$100,000. We know we owed them a certain amount for the change
orders that they did, the two things that I told you about on
the generator building and the pipe supports. We know we owe
them something for that. The amount that we reasonably feel we
owe them is what we are giving them, okay.
Now, in settlement of keeping out of a court case
that would probably cost us as much as the filters cost, plus
they're reducing their claims down by more than what the
filters cost, we feel I think, and I hope Mike agrees, that we
feel this is a reasonable settlement. Without going into
details, if the Board doesn't settle this that it's best not
discussed in open session. But Mike has sat through the whole
thing, and I would just ask that if you don't want to go into
executive session and get into those things, that you rely on
his presence at that meeting and his feeling, whether he feels
the Board was properly served by this settlement. I'd rather
not get into the details of that, because how you lay the
numbers out is really up to the settlement.
MR. TAGORDA: So in light of all those things that
you just mentioned, David, CDI and you know that they have
deficiency work done in treatment plant. Were all those things
taken into consideration when you folks did make the settlement
agreement with them?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
MR. TAGORDA: So who is going to finish that work?
MR. CRADDICK: We will finish up with our own staff.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Nakamura?
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, correct me if I am
wrong, but I believe that where we are on this right now is
that the matter was initially referred to the Oversight
Committee chaired by Mr. Nobriga. Mr. Nobriga participated in
the mediation process, and the committee had recommended
approval of the settlement agreement as suggested by the
mediator, and the matter was accepted by the Board and referred
to the Finance Committee for the funding. My recollection is
that the substance of the agreement as recommended by
Mr. Nobriga had been conceptually agreed to by the Board, I
believe.
CHAIRMAN RICE: That's correct.
MR. TAGORDA: Call for the question, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN RICE: We are going to call for the
question. All in favor say "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay."
(None).
Motion carries.
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN RICE: All right, thank you. So there was
no report from Capital, no report from Oversight. Operations
Review. I think Molokai. Howard, do you want to take the
Molokai one out?
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence,
perhaps you may wish to consider withdrawing Director's 01-14
from the Capital Programs Committee, and I would have no
objection to that if you wish to do so.
CHAIRMAN RICE: If there's no objection from the
members of the Board, I will withdraw that Director's Report
01-14. Howard, do you want to explain that?
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, this request is for
appropriation of $440,000 from the Pipeline Replacement Fund,
which has an earned balance of $961,000, roughly. The project
was designed through a prior year's appropriation. The design
has been completed. We have been advised by the department
that all of the land issues have been resolved with the
Department of Hawaiian Homelands, and the project is ready to
go out to bid.
The project would replace existing substandard lines
in the Kapaakea area on Molokai. Construction of the project
was proposed in the next year's CIP budget. The Board's
approval at this time would permit the department to proceed
with the authorization of bids at this time, which would
expedite this project. As I said, it's ready to be put out to
bid, and we would meet a need on Molokai in that area.
CHAIRMAN RICE: So our action on this issue would be
to simply move the bid process forward expeditiously.
MR. NAKAMURA: Probably to approve appropriation of
$440,000 from the Pipeline Replacement Fund, and that would
permit the department to proceed with bids on the project, and
I would so move.
MR. NOBRIGA: Second.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Discussion?
MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Chair, is Mike Quinn here?
CHAIRMAN RICE: No.
MR. TAGORDA: Is there any problem with the budget amendment?
CHAIRMAN RICE: We have $900-something.
MR. TAGORDA: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other questions? All in favor
signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay."
(None).
Motion is carried. Oversight, pass. Operations
Review. Jonathan, you wanted to give a verbal report?
MR. STARR: I'd like to give a verbal report on a
few items. There was a meeting last night of the committee.
We had an overview of the process that's being followed in
creating the Water Use and Development Plan. It's a modified
IRP process, which means they will be allowed public
participation and a lot of opportunity for the community to be
involved. My feeling and the feeling of the members present,
there was a motion that it's long overdue and that we'd like to
see the process proceed, and I hope that the Board will find an
opportunity that all the members can be familiar with the way
it's being done.
A full IRP, if it were to be done the way Honolulu
is going, would probably cost us somewhere between a half and a
million dollars. And cutting corners but still trying to keep
the integrity of the process going, I think it will end up
being much, much less expensive than that, though it will take
years. And we're using several consultants on the project, and
one of them is operating on a contract that goes back about
four years. And then there is another contract for
facilitation, which was put out to bid and has been awarded to
Peter Adler to facilitate all the public meetings and to help
make sure that the public proceeds through the process as an
open process, and that contract is just about ready for signature.
The committee did vote that we felt supportive of
having that contract signed, and I know that there is a desire
to get it signed in this fiscal year. So I want to leave it to
you on how you would like to handle that contract, because Corp
Counsel has -- what?
MR. CRADDICK: It is not awarded until you
appropriate the funds. You have to encumber the funds.
MR. STARR: Excuse me, I'm talking about the facilitating.
MR. CRADDICK: I am too.
MR. STARR: You have a contract ready for signature.
MR. CRADDICK: But we don't award it, we encumber the funds.
MR. STARR: Technically I was misspoken. But there
is a desire to get the contract signed and the funds encumbered
in this year. So Mr. Chair, can I leave it to you on this
matter on how you would like to handle that?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes. I think if we get a report
from your committee we can deal with it at the next meeting.
MR. STARR: I will write up a report. There is one
other matter, and this is a bit more confusing, and the
committee didn't take action on it. But I do feel that we're
going to -- I guess we were asked to act on it, but it's in a
-- there was a request for bids for additional consulting work
on creating financial models and the various types of
information that needs to be gathered to work on the plan.
There already was one, there is one contract that had been
awarded sometime back to Haiku Consulting, I believe. Do I
have that right?
MR. CRADDICK: I think so.
MR. STARR: Haiku Consulting, and they're doing part
of the work, and then there's another bid out, and we have not
yet received the bids, and the date for the closing is June 7
-- June 8th. However, even though we haven't received the
bids back, we were requested by staff to try to find a way to
either get the thing encumbered in this year's budget or else
create some budget funding in next year. The committee didn't
quite know how to deal with it, it wasn't really an operational
matter. So again, I kind of pass you that hot potato, sir,
knowing that in your wisdom you can find a way to make it
work.
And the last bit of committee report is that we did
have a meeting on the criteria for evaluation of the Director,
and one of the members said -- there was some feeling that the
criteria needed some fine tuning, and one of the members
offered generously to help improve the criteria. So we're
waiting for that, and that will come back in a future report.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Ellen, you wanted to say something?
MS. KRAFTSOW: It was to follow the screening
process that's defined in the statewide framework, and also to
do the economic analysis.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Is it something that you did not put
in the budget that we received recently.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yes, the $150,000 that you put in
2001 I was hoping to have encumbered before the year end. This
particular contract I was planning not to bid. I had spoken
with the procurement officer, and it was allowable, but they
felt that because it was a large increase that we should bid
it. So what I was going to ask is if you could take the money
and move it to next year, so we don't lose it.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I suggest that you talk to the
chairman of the CIP committee. I know there's a meeting coming up.
MR. CRADDICK: It's in the Professional Services, not CIP.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Who is in charge of that committee?
MR. CRADDICK: You.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, I've got the potato, thank
you. All right, Rules Committee, there is a report in your
packet. It was submitted by the chairman of the Rules
Committee, Mr. Cravalho, and I believe the committee, the
report does not require any action. Mr. Nakamura?
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to
note that three out of the four items are recommending
deferral. One item is an item which is to be withdrawn. So I
would move that the committee report be accepted and filed, and
that three out of the three matters that are recommending
deferral remain the proper of the committee, and that the
fourth item, 01-15, be withdrawn, as requested by the Applicant.
MR. NOBRIGA: Second.
CHAIRMAN RICE: There's a motion on the floor to
accept the committee report, whereas the three items will
remain the matters of the committee, one will be withdrawn.
There's a second. Is there any discussion on that motion?
MR. STARR: I'm having trouble finding the committee report.
CHAIRMAN RICE: It's early in the packet. Okay, any
other discussion, comments? All in favor of the motion say
"aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay."
(None).
Motion carried.
Okay, I'm moving into Old Business. Request from
Adam Patel of Upcountry Flowers for agricultural water rates.
Is someone here? Do you want to say anything, Adam?
MR. PATEL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I realize
that the zoning has changed due to the previous grandfathering
of this property.
MS. NOBRIGA: Could you speak up a little bit more,
I'm having difficulty hearing you.
MR. PATEL: Up in Kula I believe there's a large
number of people operating on rural property with ag rates
because of the situation of supplying foods and flowers on the
island. I myself, I bought this property last year September,
and my ag rate was taken away. And I over 12,000 rose bushes
there, and it's coming to the point where we have to decide to
keep the rose bushes or sell them off and shut it down, because
roses are just not a viable product as Ecuador is coming in
with just large numbers of roses, as well as Columbia, at such
low rates.
However, we have a lot of ladies throughout the
island who make leis, and we're the only ones who grow the mini
leiheads. And also throughout the island you see the scented
flowers, the Sterlings, those are our roses. So they're very
much liked, and we'd like to keep them if at all possible. And
I'm asking for an adjustment from September 21st, and also to
get my ag rate back.
MR. HASHIMOTO: So what is the reason for your ag
rate being dropped, what was the reason given? Because I'm
familiar with the operation, Mr. Patel.
MR. PATEL: The reason why my ag rate was dropped is
I believe the property was agriculturally zoned and then the
whole area went through rezoning at some point years ago, and
they grandfathered the agricultural rate, is what I'm
gathering, from the previous owner. Correct me, because I only
have so much knowledge myself.
MR. CRADDICK: I don't know if you want to go over
all of this or refer it to committee.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I will be referring it to committee.
MR. NOBRIGA: Why is this in Old Business?
CHAIRMAN RICE: It was never referred.
MR. PATEL: I thought it was being referred to committee.
CHAIRMAN RICE: It was in the March agenda but it
was never referred to any committee, I guess, so Fran was
trying to clean up all the old stuff. I'm going to refer this
to Finance. Thank you, Mr. Patel.
MR. PATEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: You're welcome. The next item is a
request from Andrew and Sheila Fujikawa for a water meter, and
this was brought up previously. I thought there was no
report. I'm going to refer this to Oversight.
MR. NOBRIGA: I'm pretty sure we acted on this.
MR. CRADDICK: No. What happened there was it was
referred to the staff to try and work something out, and what
happened was I had thought our pump station was a lot closer to
the property than what it is, and when we finally found out
where the pump station is and the property is, whether they go
that route or the route that the staff had previously told them
to go, it's probably no difference in the cost to them. So
there was no way to reduce the cost of it. So probably you
will want to refer it to committee, that would be the proper
way to go at this point, and we will just make the staff report
on it. But we weren't able to resolve it.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Are the Fujikawa's here? No
Fujikawa's here? Oversight -- I'm sorry, Howard.
MR. NAKAMURA: I was just going to make the same
observation, that it was in committee and there was an
indication from the staff that there were some alternatives
that might permit them to proceed without the need for a
waiver. But as David said, that did not turn out to be
viable. I believe it was in the Rules Committee, but I think
Oversight is appropriate.
MR. NOBRIGA: I need to ask a question, because not
that I don't want to handle the topic, it's just that there was
a motion put forth by Jonathan a few meetings back to assist in
issuing meters to an alleged list, at which point the
Corporation Counsel came up with a rule and we are reviewing
that rule right now. So would this applicant come within the
purview of that list?
MR. CRADDICK: No, because they can currently get a
meter if they make fire improvements. They're trying to really
get a waiver from the fire improvements, is what they're trying
to do. They can get a meter if they put the improvements in.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Gentlemen of the Board, this issue,
this brings up something that I wanted to raise with the Board
to think about. We have a lot of special requests at every
meeting, and I believe that a lot of the requests relate to
rule issues that need to be looked at, and possibly changed.
Not necessarily all changed, but possibly changed. And I would
like the Board to think about -- for the next meeting I'm going
to talk about committee assignments, and I'd like the Board to
think about the fact that we would have a committee, maybe the
combination of the Oversight, that would look at the entire
packet of rules.
We would start the process for amendment of those
rules, if necessary. And taking into consideration all these
requests and in effect defer them until we get -- some of the
rule changes may satisfy some of the Petitioner's requests as
opposed to us making exceptions to rules every month at the
meeting. It would seem to me it would make more sense to
address the rule. If it's the wrong rule, change it, and that
way we can possibly reduce this list of requests every month.
So that's where I'm leaning, and you guys can think about it
and certainly give me your comments over the next month for the
next meeting.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, I think that's a great idea,
and one thing we might think about is creating, you know, under
that committee a working group that might include some people
outside of the Board who might be willing to help spend some of
the time. It's going to take a lot of time, you know, it will
certainly take some Corp Counsel time, but also just take some
time of people just wading through it and thinking it through
it, and we might be able to find some people in the community
who could help draft some stuff that the committee could look at.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I think that's a good suggestion.
This in my mind right now it's a combination of Rules and
Oversight committees. Okay, we will move along in that regard.
Request from Michael Conway for a waiver of fire
flow requirements. Mr. Conway? Refer to Rules. Okay, the
next item Board of Water Supply Rules and Regulations for
Review and Comment. That's just what I talked about, so that's
something that we will deal with at the next meeting. No
objection there?
Request from Deborah Von Tempsky for a waiver of
subdivision requirements. Mr. Horikawa again.
MR. HORIKAWA: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding
that the matter is going to be deferred to committee. I'll
address this issue in committee.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Paul. I'd like to refer
that to Oversight. Request from Katie Romanchuk for approval
of condominiumization. Oversight.
Ron and Dawna Richmond. Ron? I know you want to
read something. Please.
MR. RICHMOND: Can we wait for the member to come
back? Oh, here he comes. My name is Ron Richmond, and first,
I'd just really like to thank the Board members in the
subcommittee for listening to me through all this.
Mr. Chairman and Board members, Although the
subcommittee has twice voted unanimously to grant a waiver of
subdivision requirements on this matter, I would like to take
the time to clarify some issues. In January of 1999, I began
my preliminary subdivision process with LUCA. They suggested
that I speak with DWS, as they were unsure as to how DWS would
handle this subdivision. I went to engineer Chang, who advised
me to write directly to Mr. Craddick.
In my letter dated February 9, 1999 to Mr. Craddick,
I stated I had a 12-acre parcel that I wanted to subdivide
which was presently served by DWS with a five-eighths inch
meter. Two acres were to remain on the meter and 10 acres were
to be serviced by a private water system. I asked for no
additional meters or service. Mr. Craddick's response was that
there were no additional meters available. He also listed some
criteria that were under consideration regarding private water
systems, but had not been adopted as policy.
I contacted engineer Chang for clarification, as Mr.
Craddick's letter addressed none of the questions raised in my
letter. At this time Mr. Chang told me it was the official
policy of DWS that I must give up my meter. I then proceeded
with the subdivision of my property on the basis of Mr. Chang's
response. It soon became apparent that giving up an existing
meter was not the official policy of DWS. DWS Rules and
Regulations do not mention giving up a meter. I asked
Mr. Chang to put this official policy in writing and he failed
to do so. I spoke with Mr. Fukushima at this point and he
counseled me against voluntarily giving up my meter.
In Mr. Craddick's letter to me dated April 28, 2000,
he states, "We do not have the authority to tell you to
disconnect." He also goes on to say, "We do not review private
water systems," and he also indicates that private water
systems and DWS systems could not co-exist within the same
subdivision. As DWS does not review private water systems as
stated in Mr. Craddick's letter of April 28, this 10-acre lot
is not under DWS jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, there was some concern by the
subcommittee about fire protection for the 10-acre lot. I
would like to assure you, there will be fire protection. All
building permits on private water systems are routed through
Maui Fire Department, and the guidelines from the Uniform Fire
Code or the National Fire Prevention Administration are used to
set their requirements. Corporate Counsel's ruling dated
3/7/01 states that private water systems and DWS systems can in
fact coexist as long as they are not connected.
Thus we see the following. 1) Official policy to
give up my meter was, in fact, not official policy, nor would
it be put in writing. 2) Private water systems and DWS
systems can co-exist and, 3) Private water systems are not
reviewed by DWS. What is left now to consider is a two acre
parcel with its pre-existing water meter and the subdivision
improvements including main extensions that Mr. Craddick would
like to impose.
The rules and regulations are consistent throughout
in their addressing subdivision improvements, water system
improvements, and water system development fees. They are
based on additional service and additional demand. Over and
over we see the same terminology in the rules and regulations.
"To take on new or additional service." "To serve new water
consumers or additional demand," and "To increase service
capacity." This is simply not the case here. This property
that is served by an existing DWS meter has been reduced in
size from 12 acres to two acres. This is a reduction of 83
percent in service area. There is no additional service or
demand, but rather reduced demand.
The last issue I would like to discuss is section
2-1 in the rules and regulations, in which the "point of
adequacy" and extension of water mains is discussed. The point
of adequacy as stated from the rules and regulations is one
where sufficient water supply has been developed for fire
protection, domestic, and irrigation purposes. DWS indicates
by its actions that this point of adequacy has been met in two
ways: 1) By the issuance of a water meter and 2) The signing
of building permits. In my case, DWS has already made a
determination of "point of adequacy" by signing a building
permit and the issuance of a water meter. What was adequate
for 12 acres must be adequate for the same parcel after a
reduction in size by 83 percent to two acres. Under section
2-1, once the point of adequacy has been established, the only
reason for a water main extension would be to take on new or
additional service. This is not the case.
Gentlemen of the Board, soon you will be asked to
make a decision either to waive subdivision requirements or
not. If you vote not to waive subdivision requirements, three
things will happen: 1) Mr. Craddick will have imposed
$400,000 of improvements not sanctioned under any DWS rule or
regulation, and will destroy our family financially. 2) These
improvements will greatly increase demand on DWS as new
customers could now easily access the DWS system, and 3) The
rules and regulations of DWS will have not been followed.
If you vote to waive subdivision requirements two
things will happen: 1) You will give my family declaratory
relief so we can develop our property as permitted by the
existing rules and regulations. 2) There will be a long term
and significant reduction of water usage to this pre-existing
meter. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Members of the Board, questions? Howard?
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Richmond, at this point so you
are not suggesting that you are giving up your existing
five-eighths meter, you are just going to have a private water
system that serves the remainder of the lots in the
subdivision, is that right?
MR. RICHMOND: Yes, sir.
MR. NAKAMURA: What is the nature of that private
water system?
MR. RICHMOND: A well.
MR. NAKAMURA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: Some things that he left out here is
one, the review by Corp Counsel said that they could have the
hybrid system, if you will. They didn't necessarily have to
give up their meter, but they had to meet the subdivision
requirements. Now, for the first building on the lot the
requirements are not that they're not required, they are waived
by rule. So the fact that he got a house there under waived
rules and he's now subdividing, those rules are no longer
waived when you subdivide, is what he's caught by.
I sympathize with the money issue, and there may be
something in the Dolan versus Dolan case where they ration the
access the improvements required, but that's our rules right
now. Now, if our rules are found to be in violation of
established law or something like that, that's possibly the way
you can look at this, I don't know. But all we're doing -- he
keeps using the words Craddick. All we do is apply the rules,
it's got nothing to do with Craddick.
And the reason why the meter issue comes up is if
there's no meter there then right, there's no subdivision
requirements. Whether that's good too, I don't know. But very
clearly if there's no meter there, there's no subdivision
requirements. But whether he connects or doesn't connect to
the system and he subdivides, the requirements are not waived.
And Corp Counsel has given that opinion to the Board.
MR. RICHMOND: Can I address what he has said?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, Mr. Richmond.
MR. RICHMOND: I believe Mr. Craddick was talking
under Section 3-1, General Conditions. It talks about fire
hydrants. What it says is, in the agricultural districts as
required by the department for adequate fire protection,
they're talking about putting hydrants in, provided however
that the foregoing shall not be applicable to the construction
of the first and second dwelling unit on premises in any
district. And what I'm asking to be treated is as my neighbors
have been treated, simply as they have been treated. There's
been seven building permits signed off by DWS in this area. My
neighbor directly below me has two 3,000 square foot houses
that the Department of Water Supply has signed the building
permits, and also there's a 2,000 square foot horse barn that
this Board has granted a fire protection waiver to. What I'm
saying is, please treat me as my neighbors are treated, that's all.
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Chairman, I know this matter came
out of the Oversight Committee. I'm not sure what action was
taken, but we did recommend approval of the waiver of
subdivision requirements. I believe that we did take a vote,
but I don't remember what happened.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Fukushima?
MR. FUKUSHIMA: If I may, Mr. Chairman. Member
Nobriga's recollection is correct. Approval was recommended by
the Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee also
requested our office to submit their opinion with respect to
this so-called hybrid system. The characterization of that
opinion is correct, that our office could find nothing in the
rules which prohibited this type of system, which consisted of
private and public systems within the same subdivision. Again,
the committee did recommend approval of this request and a
waiver of subdivision requirements subject to our office's
opinion, which was subsequently submitted.
MR. NOBRIGA: Are we required to revote then, or was
the vote already taken?
MR. FUKUSHIMA: There was a vote several times for
the Board, however because five votes could not be gotten, no
action was taken.
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Chairman, since we have more
members today, I'd like to again place a motion and move that
we grant the waiver of subdivision requirements for this application.
MR. NAKAMURA: I second the motion, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN RICE: It's been moved to grant a waiver of
subdivision requirements and duly seconded. Any discussion?
Jonathan?
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, I have to just comment on the
process where this had been voted on by the Board and it lost a
vote, and at that time the Chair at that time said, "We will
just keep bringing it back until it passes." I'm not sure if
that's something I really like as a precedent, but I have no
objection to the vote taking place. I just wanted to comment
on that process.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, whatever the prior Chair did I
am not always aware of. But it is on the agenda, and it could
be referred to Oversight just to come back for the same
recommendation. David?
MR. CRADDICK: Could I ask under what rule the
waiver is being given?
MR. FUKUSHIMA: The waiver of subdivision
requirements, I believe it's 214.
MR. CRADDICK: 216 allows a modification of requirements.
MR. FUKUSHIMA: 216, yes. Excuse me, 212, Rule 212.
CHAIRMAN RICE: We've got some discussion here. I
am going to ask, there seems to be some disagreement between
Counsel and the Director here.
MR. CRADDICK: No, I'm just trying to find out what
rule, because if you use 212 then you're setting a precedent
here. If you use 216 it's pretty clear by the rule that you
can waive, but then further subdivision of the property
requires that the requirements be put in. If you use 212 it
just says that you're finding that nobody is harmed by this, so
then other people can come in in a similar situation and I
guess do the same thing. And if that's your position, then
that's your position.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Craddick, I'm concerned. I'll
tell you my personal feeling. I'm concerned with Ron's
comments about the department having approved similar
situations already. So if we're not talking about --
MR. CRADDICK: The Board has approved them.
CHAIRMAN RICE: The Board has approved similar
situations, so the precedent has been set.
MR. CRADDICK: Well, I am not certain that it was
clear why they did it, and that's what I'm trying to get here.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Well, let me pontificate here, as
the former Chair would have. That's exactly why we need to go
back and review all the rules, have a thorough review and make
changes, if necessary. Because if we're sitting here every
month and making exceptions and amending the rules and
providing for exceptions, then we are going to get ourselves in
trouble. And we're already deep, as I can see it, in some kind
of trouble. I don't know everybody's personal situation
everywhere on Maui, but to me, Ron's request seems to be
reasonable. What would be required of him otherwise, and what
where you're referring to under Rule 16 is that we would waive
subdivision requirements, but he would still be required to put
in the $400,000 worth of improvements. Is that what you're saying?
MR. CRADDICK: No, no.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I want it on the table now, I don't
want something to come back later.
MR. CRADDICK: If the subdivision requirements are
waived, they're waived, there's no requirement.
MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes.
MR. TAGORDA: I recollect some of this discussion in
the past from the Oversight Committee, and the vote taken by
the full Board on this matter. I think us questioning the
process right now is whether it's right to reconsider this same
matter without new developments. Because I believe it's only
the members that voted no can bring up this matter again for
reconsideration. Is that right, Mr. Corp Counsel?
MR. FUKUSHIMA: That is not correct. You are not
reconsidering this matter. This Board took no action in its
previous votes. There was not a sufficient number of voters or
members voting aye or nay. I believe the vote was four to
three or four to two, and because of that, no action was taken
by this body, and the matter remained before this body.
MR. STARR: Let me clarify. There was a vote and
the vote failed.
MR. FUKUSHIMA: There was no action, Member Starr.
Action requires a vote of five members. And the fact that a
sufficient number of votes was not available does not mean the
action or the request is denied. No action was taken.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I'm not so much worried about the
vote as I'm worried about the decision itself. It appears that
I haven't heard anything, any other information. Are we ready
to have the vote, ready for the question, gentlemen? Kent?
MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair, I am not familiar with the
specifics of this particular request. If a vote is brought to
the Board I will probably be voting nay, because I believe an
abstention is considered an aye, is that correct?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Abstention is considered an aye?
MR. NOBRIGA: It goes with the majority.
MR. FUKUSHIMA: No, if there is a refusal to vote,
that vote is counted as affirmative.
CHAIRMAN RICE: But if you vote nay, it's a nay.
MR. FUKUSHIMA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Howard?
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say
that although generally my preference is not to grant waivers,
I think this particular request, looking at it from several
different points of view, is a reasonable one. The practical
impact of this action is going to be that you have an existing
five-eighths inch water meter that is going to serve a smaller
area, and the remainder of the parcel is to be served by a
private water system. I think it is a ridiculous argument to
say that you can have a hybrid system if you put in all of the
requirements that are required by the rule, because if you were
going to do that, why would you want a hybrid system to begin
with? I think that argument is ridiculous, and I think this is
a practical solution to Mr. Richmond's request.
MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, Mr. Tagorda.
MR. TAGORDA: I voted nay before in the past on this
item, but hearing Mr. Richmond and David argue on things that
are not really going to resolve this, the reason why I had
voted in the past nay is because I don't want to set a bad
precedent. But in light of the new legal opinion by the
Corporation Counsel, I think I'm going to reconsider my vote
and I will give my vote to the gentleman.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other comments? Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: I voted nay in the past, and I will
continue to do so because I just feel that this is, you know, a
way around the subdivision requirements, and that by taking a
larger parcel that has a meter and cutting off a certain amount
of it and saying that that will have a private water system,
that kind of opens the door for possible successors. I don't
think Mr. Richmond would do anything wrong, you know, because
he's a man of character, but possible successors might say
well, you know, we will just move a pipe across from one lot to
another and end up with one meter serving two lots, or else
finding ways to come back for other meters. So I really don't
like to circumvent our rules in this way, so I continue to be
opposed to it.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Clark?
MR. HASHIMOTO: Wasn't that lot going to be sold off
and the rest of the lots are going to be for the family?
MR. RICHMOND: Yes, sir.
MR. HASHIMOTO: I voted for the proposal, and I
think I will vote, in light of the legal opinion also, I will
be voting in favor of it.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Jonathan, I don't know what we're
circumventing. It appears that Corporation Counsel has given
us a ruling that there is no circumvention of the rule. We
still have a dispute with Mr. Craddick.
MR. CRADDICK: Well, you have to understand,
Howard's view and the attorney for the staff, I don't know if
it's different, but the staff attorney said they could have the
hybrid system but they still had to meet the subdivision
requirements. And you're saying it's reasonable and practical
to waive this, but under 212 there's no provision there to
waive the rules because it's reasonable and practical.
So there are certain requirements that you have to
meet under 212, if you are going to use 212 to waive the
requirements. And I agree with what Howard says, I have to
agree with you, it does seem pretty dumb to make somebody put
the fire improvements in when they're providing something else
for these other lots, but I think you need to look at what this
causes. I mean we have no guidance whatsoever for the next
person that comes in similar to him, what reasonable and
practical is, none whatsoever. So that means they're going to
continue coming to you for this guidance on what reasonable and
practical is.
MR. FUKUSHIMA: If I may, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, Howard?
MR. FUKUSHIMA: That may be -- I don't want to put
words in the mouth of any member here, but I would like to
state that the standard that this Board must comply with, if
they are waving requirements from the subdivision rules is to
determine that the modification, or in this case the waiver
will in no way jeopardize those already served in the area. I
think there are statements and evidence that there could have
been a residence built here with no further water permits, and
that could very well be taken one step further. Because that
could happen, we don't believe that there's any cause to
believe that any persons or that it would jeopardize anybody
already served in the area. So I think there is evidence on
the record that the Board is making a finding, David, that this
modification will not jeopardize those already served in the area.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, sir?
MR. KOGASAKA: In the report, I mean on the
committee agenda there's a March 9, 2001 opinion from
Corporation Counsel in the packet.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I think Howard referred to that already.
MR. KOGASAKA: I believe he mentioned March 7th. Is
there a difference in that?
MR. CRADDICK: There were two.
MR. FUKUSHIMA: The meeting was on March 7th, if I'm
not mistaken.
MR. CRADDICK: Well, there were two opinions, too.
MR. FUKUSHIMA: Yes, and I believe we made it clear
before the Board that in the first opinion that the questions
that were asked in the first opinion would not serve to
enlighten this Board in any way with respect to the issues
before this Board. So we asked that the department submit
another request which would answer the question that the Board
had posed. And the March 9th communication from our office
answered that question.
MR. CRADDICK: Anyway, I agree with what Howard is
saying there. If the standard is to modify the requirements
and the modification in no way jeopardizes those already
served, but I don't hear that being said. I hear some standard
of reasonable, practical and maybe I'm just not hearing what
Howard is hearing.
MR. NOBRIGA: I find the discussion of the Director
extremely suspicious. It's as if he's trying to find a way
from this Board to deny the request that the Board is acting
upon. And had the Director acted in his ten years of tenure on
improving source capacity, then we wouldn't have to be hiding
behind source inadequacies, we wouldn't have this problem.
CHAIRMAN RICE: All right, that's enough.
MR. NOBRIGA: Call for a vote and a recess, please.
CHAIRMAN RICE: All in favor say "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay.".
CHAIRMAN RICE: All in favor raise your hand.
(A show of hands).
Opposed raise your hand.
(None).
Motion carries. Recess.
(Whereupon a brief recess was taken).
CHAIRMAN RICE: I'm going to call the meeting back
to order again. Item H, communication 99-31 request from
attorney John Rapacz on behalf of the Hoekstra family. And
John Rapacz does not practice law anymore? Did he go in the
seminary?
Mr. Zakian, are there some regulations regarding
your absence from representing anybody after being CorpCounsel?
MR. ZAKIAN: Yes, I did get an advisory opinion from
the Board of Ethics before I left, and from a period of one
year since my departure I could not appear before this Board.
It's been about a year and a half now. I did check into that.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, sir. Proceed.
MR. ZAKIAN: Thank you. And unlike John, I went
from the seminary to the practice of law.
CHAIRMAN RICE: No comment.
MR. ZAKIAN: Thank you Chairman and Board members.
As Mr. Hoekstra said, I'm coming in for John at a very late
date. I've taken a look at the Oversight Committee minutes of
March 6, 2001. At this point I'll keep it very short and
simple. We urge this Board to adopt the Oversight Committee's
recommendation, which is to approve the private water system
modification of subdivision requirements that was provided by
the Hoekstras, and for the use of the one and a half inch meter
for all lots in the subdivision. We would ask your favorable
vote on that recommendation from the Oversight Committee, and
that if you vote for approval you instruct that the appropriate
documentation be prepared to implement your decision.
One final plea. It's been over a year and a half
since the process was begun with the Hoekstras on this
request. They need a decision one way or the other, and we
again ask your favorable approval based on the Oversight
Committee's recommendation. At this point I don't have
anything further to add.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Questions members of the Board?
What's the pleasure of this body?
MR. NOBRIGA: The Oversight Committee, Mr. Chairman,
I know we took action to waive fire protection and the motion
was made for the waiver of fire protection. We also have a
letter from Mr. Craddick stating that the Board did not approve
the request to allow the additional one-and-a-half inch water
meter to serve the three lots. I need to ask the Hoekstras to
again brief the Board on the proposal of a private system for
fire protection.
MR. HOEKSTRA: Mr. Rapacz had written a letter --
MS. NAGO: Mr. Hoekstra, I'm sorry, if you could
maybe come up here.
MR. HOEKSTRA: Sure. There was a request for
clarification that the previous Chairman had asked for, and
Mr. Rapacz had written a letter to that effect, which should be
in your files. It was in the files the last time this came
up. There was a motion made by the Chairman of the Oversight
Committee, Mr. Nobriga, and he just addressed the fire
protection. But everybody's packet had in there the letter
from Mr. Rapacz stating that there were two things at issue,
the waiver of fire protection and the service of the three
lots.
At the time the motion was made, I personally got
up, because Mr. Rapacz was not available at that date, and I
said, "I want to remind the Board that what we're asking for
here is waiver of fire protection, which was already granted,
and the service of the three lots by the one meter." And we
went around and around with staff, and Mr. Rapacz had made it
very clear to the Board that we would not be an exception to
this. That there are many lots where one big meter serves
three lots. So that's really the essence of what we're talking
about now.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: I'm a little bit confused, because I
thought that they were looking to exchange an inch and half
meter for three smaller meters.
MR. HOEKSTRA: That was not the request, Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: It was to use one meter to serve --
MR. HOEKSTRA: Use the existing meter to serve three
lots, rather than one lot. The three lots are already
protected with a private water system for fire protection, and
we want to expand that to serve three lots with the domestic
water service.
MR. STARR: Is there a provision in our rules to
allow one meter to serve more than one lot?
MR. HOEKSTRA: Mr. Rapacz says --
MR. STARR: I'm asking the Director.
MR. CRADDICK: Not to my knowledge. As a matter of
fact, the rules specifically prohibit it.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Tagorda?
MR. TAGORDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe
that when the Oversight Committee took your item, Mr. Hoekstra,
it was very clear that the intent was just to waive the fire
protection. And I think the request of you to use that inch
and a half meter to serve three lots was also taken up, but it
didn't pass, it was denied, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. HOEKSTRA: Well, you know, the Oversight
Committee minutes are not taken verbatim, and there was some
confusion because we were lumped together with two other
issues. But there was a lot of discussion at that Oversight
Committee meeting, and the final conclusion was to approve both
requests. But like I say, I tried to go back. And if I may
make a suggestion, maybe it would be good to have verbatim
minutes of the committee meetings, because there's a lot of
confusion if you say, "Let's approve A, B and C all in one
item."
And Mr. Pearce, who was the attorney for one of the
other requests, also asked that he be separated out because
some things were lumped together in the meeting in the minutes
that were not clear.
MR. TAGORDA: I was there at that meeting,
Mr. Hoekstra, and I would really strongly deny the request for
you to use the inch and a half meter to serve three lots,
because I knew in my heart that that is not called for by our
rules, that one meter only serve one lot, and I knew that by heart.
MR. HOEKSTRA: I'll let my attorney handle that.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Zakian, did you want to say something?
MR. ZAKIAN: Yes, Mr. Chair. With regard to the one
meter, one lot rule, I'm looking at the minutes from the March
6, 2001 Oversight Committee meeting. I'm quoting the esteemed
Mr. Fukushima. Mr. Fukushima said, "If there is an approval by
the Board there will be no violation of the rule, the one
meter, one lot rule. That's with Board approval. If the Board
doesn't approve, then there is a problem and a violation. But
if the Board approves in the context of a request for
modification of the subdivision requirements, then it's
approved, and Mr. Hoekstra can proceed."
Also, with regard to the Oversight Committee, this
particular committee meeting did have verbatim minutes kept by
Iwado Court Reporters. The motion that was stated by Committee
Chair Nobriga, I'll just read it as it is written here. "The
motion is to recommend to the Board approval of the private
water system modification of subdivision requirements provided
by the Hoekstras for the use of a one-and-a-half inch meter for
all lots in the subdivision." Close quote.
So that was the motion. The motion was approved,
two in favor, which was Mr. Hashimoto and Mr. Nobriga. There
was one no vote, which was Mr. Tagorda. So that was the
Oversight Committee meeting of March 6, 2001. It's part of
your official records. That's what we'd like to have you vote on.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: I move to deny.
MR. TAGORDA: Second.
CHAIRMAN RICE: There is a move to deny approval for
a one-and-a-half meter to serve three lots, and it's duly
seconded. Any discussion?
MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Again,
not being familiar with this issue, looking at the map, it's
apparent that the one-and-a-half inch meter is located just
below the Ault lot, is that correct?
MR. HOEKSTRA: Yes, it's about 1700 feet below the
lot that we're talking about.
MR. HIRANAGA: And I guess why did the Hoekstras not
consider exchanging the inch and a half meter for three
five-eighths inch meters, because there are some off-site
improvement requirements to do that?
MR. HOEKSTRA: It just seemed like a lot less work,
because we have the private water system and we're satisfying
the fire protection with the line, to put in five more lines.
See, the water department is not able to give me a meter on my
lot. I have signed an elevation agreement. So to have three
meters means that you would have three lines running for 2700
feet. So it doesn't make much sense from an engineering or a
practical or an economic standpoint to have three meters.
MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Craddick, do you wish to comment on that?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: This is kind of a touchy issue here.
We have allowed larger meters to be reduced into smaller meters
when the usage on the meter was sufficient to allow those
smaller meters and not exceed what the consumption was on the
other meter. Because this particular meter is serving a high
place, it costs a lot of money to pump the water up there,
which they have to do, there was not much use on it and there
are no rules for this. I have been using a rule of thumb that
we take five years of consumption, and if that five years of
consumption translates to what meters they want, we give them
the meters.
And we would ask actually that you consider putting
something like that in the meter issuance rule or generally for
the county as a whole. I know it only applies to Upcountry,
but one or the other probably should be resolved and get some
rules for it, because we are operating in an area that is a
grey area. Is it any harm to the Upcountry system if they're
not increasing the demand? We have taken the position no, it's
not. And Corp Counsel has said that they don't think it's an
issue, and that particular opinion was written by John Rapacz
some time ago. But that I think is why they're not here,
because there's no consumption on the meter.
CHAIRMAN RICE: And the one-and-a-half inch meter
serves a private water system?
MR. HOEKSTRA: Correct. That's how we feed our fire
protection tank way on top of the lot. So we have a line
already going up there.
MR. CRADDICK: But when you say a private water
system, it currently serves that fire system, which you can
call it a private -- we call it a private fire system, but it
uses our water. And if you allow numerous lots to be served, I
am not saying we don't have similar cases to that, we do have
similar cases, Maui Ranch Estates, Kula Nani, there are many
cases out there. But the Board, when they passed the water
system development fee, it said one premises, one meter, and
granted.
As Howard informed the Board, there is a provision
in there for the Board to waive that rule, if they do the same
for every similar situated person and it doesn't harm anybody
and things like that, there's some criteria you can use to
waive the requirement. But, you know, really this matter is a
new matter and there seems to be a lot of discussion going on.
If the Board can see their way to defer it to the committee, we
will make a report on that matter.
CHAIRMAN RICE: There is a motion and a second on
the floor. I was thinking of referring it to committee,
because it did seem to be -- there didn't seem to be unanimity
here on the Board. But there is a motion.
MR. TAGORDA: Call for the question.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Call the question. Okay, there's a
motion to deny on the floor. All in favor say "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay.".
(None).
Motion carried.
MR. ZAKIAN: We're to understand that's unanimous?
CHAIRMAN RICE: I didn't hear any nays. Okay, next
item communication 01-05, request from Anthony Amaral, Senior
for a water meter on ag land. Mr. Amaral?
MR. NOBRIGA: I think we took this up once already.
MR. CRADDICK: Actually, that was another issue that
was referred to staff to try to do something. We talked with
them. I believe the subdivision or group has a similar
situation to this one here that just was before the Board. I
think Mr. Amaral had characterized it that they wouldn't let
him into that system, and I believe that would be correct. I
mean I don't expect that people, once they get the situations
approved where one meter serves multiple lots, they can then go
out and tell people, "Oh, you can come into our system" without
our knowledge. So I think that's probably the correct decision
on the part of Elliot Krash's group, so I'm not quite sure.
MR. NOBRIGA: This should be Oversight, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN RICE: That's Oversight. Okay, J, request
for Board authorization for the Director of the Board of Water
Supply to cancel the Kualapuu Village Subdivision Agreement.
Mr. Craddick, this has been deferred from previous
meetings, is that right?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes. Basically what the Board had
asked for is some kind of a report, and Mr. Edwards is here
from Molokai Ranch. He may be better equipped to give you some
background. Myself, I am really not familiar with it.
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Edwards
starts, can I ask a quick question?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, Mr. Nakamura.
MR. NAKAMURA: The agenda says that the request is
to authorize cancellation of the Kualapuu Village Subdivision
Agreement. The letter from Molokai Ranch seems to be a request
to immediately accept the Kualapuu water system. So I'm not
sure what issue is before the Board.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Fukushima?
MR. FUKUSHIMA: If I may. The letter that you have
reviewed that's included in the packet is a 1993 letter. The
Kualapuu agreement encompassed both or it encompassed a number
of items, including the water system, including certain
roadways and certain obligations that Molokai Ranch had. The
water component is just one of the components of this
agreement. With respect to the other components, I believe
there have been discussions with Public Works, I believe
Planning may be involved with the cancellation of the agreement.
As far as the other terms of the agreement relating
to Public Works and roadways and waste water and so on and so
forth, there has been an agreement between the County and
Molokai Ranch to cancel that agreement. Because there is a
water component to the agreement, it was believed that the
Board of Water Supply should also give its consent to the
cancellation of the agreement since it was part and parcel of
the entire agreement. So taking the Board's approval,
hopefully, the Board approves the cancellation of this
agreement, the County is in the position to cancel the entire
agreement.
CHAIRMAN RICE: They've already taken that position.
MR. FUKUSHIMA: They've already taken that
position. And Mr. Edwards can correct me or make any
corrections, if I misstated it.
MR. CRADDICK: I'll just say something too for the
record. As far as the staff goes, we have no objection to
cancelling the agreement also. We feel that for mutual
beneficial reasons the source that supplies Kualapuu we will
still be working together to get some background from that for
our system, and our system can back up that in the future if
the line that it talks about in that agreement is ever put in.
But we have no objection to cancelling the agreement.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Edwards, you are not here to
provide testimony in any other way than that, or are you?
MR. EDWARDS: I'm basically here to lend
clarification. I think Mr. Fukushima stated the situation
accurately. So to the extent there's additional confusion or
concern, I'll be happy to address it further.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Then we might entertain a motion to
authorize the cancellation.
MR. NOBRIGA: So moved.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, any discussion? All in favor
say "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay."
(None).
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Mr. Edwards.
MR. EDWARDS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Request approval of Agreement
Concerning Withdrawal from the Iao/Waikapu Ditch with Alexander
& Baldwin. I believe this issue is covered in our MOU, and I
believe in our MOU we say that we will execute some agreement
that relates to that. David?
MR. CRADDICK: Well, I think the last time this was
before the Board, some Board members said they wanted EMI or
some representative from A&B here. I talked with them about
it, and their feeling is that this is in keeping with the MOU,
and if there is some need to renegotiate the MOU, they're open
to that. But they didn't want to come and try and do that
renegotiation of the MOU in a meeting here. So they said Avery
Chumbley might come this morning, but he's not here either. So
I think they're willing to let this go up or down, based on
what the Board decides. I think we feel that the liability
issues, which are the main reason for having this agreement,
are covered in here.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, I remember looking at this
briefly before, and I haven't looked at the changes that were
made, but I didn't feel that this is a great agreement, you
know. I was really hoping that in the spirit of cooperation we
might be able to get more water out of the ditch since we have
the ability to process it. But I do feel we should probably
act on it, and at the same time see if there's a way to perhaps
over time increase the amount of practical utilization. But
there is 300,000 gallons of water a day that is usable to the
central system and that we do need, so I would like to
proceed. But I don't know if you or any other members have
actually read this through with the changes.
CHAIRMAN RICE: This is different from the original agreement?
MR. CRADDICK: There are no changes.
CHAIRMAN RICE: The lining.
MR. CRADDICK: I mean yes, obviously the dates are
changing and things like that.
CHAIRMAN RICE: But in the proposed agreement here
there's a lining which I assume means a red lining, right?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes. Those were things that when we
were discussing with A&B and Wailuku Agribusiness, things that
we changed when we presented this to the Board. But there's
been no changes from the time this was presented.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Orlando?
MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Chairman, before I comment, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to disclose that I have a conflict of
interest from my personal information about this contract. We
said before with those people to answer our questions, that the
300,000 that was allotted for that Iao Waikapu ditch. My
question, I don't know if you know the answer, David, is the
300,000 that is allotted, is that a net 300,000 passing through
that microfiltration or before it goes into your filter system?
MR. CRADDICK: That's my understanding. The way
this agreement reads is that the backwash water and stuff is
not counted.
MR. TAGORDA: So you have a clean 300,000 that goes
into your tank?
MR. CRADDICK: Correct.
MR. TAGORDA: The 300,000 gallons is a net. It
didn't say it's a net 300,000.
MR. CRADDICK: The MOU says that, and I believe Corp
Counsel has reviewed this agreement to make sure they're
comfortable that that is the case. Because I know when we got
the first draft it was questionable, and we made some changes,
and we feel comfortable now that that's clarified in there that
it's net.
MR. TAGORDA: And I believe maybe in the near future
that if this department is going to utilize that Iao/Waikapu
Ditch Agreement permanently, and in the near future that you
guys might think of trying to put up a reservoir before it goes
through the microfiltration system, will this affect this agreement?
MR. CRADDICK: If you are going to do this
permanently, there are many things that have to be done. You
have to get a place to put it, there's a whole lot of things
that need doing, because this is currently taking up the site
of a future reservoir.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Paul?
MR. SEITZ: Mr. Chair, I'd like to comment. You
have to be aware that that facility is a temporary facility,
and I stress the word temporary. There are no feed pumps,
there's inefficiencies up there that would have to be corrected
if that's going to be made into a permanent treatment plant.
The filtration system up there has the capability of two
million gallons a day, not 300,000, so you're using a
semi-trailer to deliver a pickup truckload here, so you have to
be aware of that also.
If we are going to operate it at a capacity of
300,000 gallons, I will be recommending that we move one of
those filters out and we place it at the Lahaina treatment
facility where we have some water that we can use. But I think
what the Board is going to have to do at this point in time is
determine if they want to make that a permanent plant, then
there's going to be -- the CIP projects that will go along with
that and that sort of thing. But right now I want to stress to
you that it is a temporary facility, it's not a permanent facility.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Tagorda?
MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Chairman, the transmission fee of
$2,000 per month once this contract is signed, whether you pick
up 300,000 from the ditch once a month or you don't pick up in
six months, you still have to pay $2,000, right?
MR. CRADDICK: That's right. But the way the
agreement is structured, we can take that all the time. So I
mean if our equipment breaks down that's our fault, not their fault.
MR. STARR: Are we prepared to process this water
starting immediately?
MR. CRADDICK: There's going to have to be some
Health Department notification, there are some things we have
to put back in place, there's pieces of pipe missing out so we
can't bring water into the system right now. But within I
would estimate a week or two weeks it would be operational.
MR. STARR: I notice that the starting dates are
October of 2000 to October of 2002.
MR. CRADDICK: No, we would change it to the correct dates.
MR. STARR: But it is only a two year term so, you
know, I would assume we can't actually issue meters against it,
but it is a good buffer.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, I agree.
MR. STARR: I think we realize that this is a
temporary measure, but it's a starting point. I'd like to move
that we approve it subject to the Chair and Corp Counsel's
checking it over and final review.
MR. NOBRIGA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, it has been moved --
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, I am recusing myself.
MR. TAGORDA: Me too.
CHAIRMAN RICE: May the record show the two
recusals, Mr. Tagorda and Mr. Nakamura.
MR. STARR: And Mr. Chair, I would also for
discussion like to put forward that we look ahead to a longer
term of utilization of the Iao stream water and see if we can
find some way to get a larger allocation of it that we can use
for a longer period of time, and then in that design a
permanent plant that would do the job of treating it and
putting it into the system.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Is there any other discussion? All
in favor say "aye."
A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay."
Two recusals. Next, Director's Report 01-12,
request permission to accept Central Maui Source Joint
Venture's offer to well site/easement to Board of Water Supply.
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I'm
recusing myself from this issue also.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I think we are going to refer this
-- I think I'm going to refer this to --
MR. CRADDICK: The Property Acquisition Committee.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I think I'm going to refer this to
the Chair, how about that, how does that sound? I think there
are some issues coming up.
MR. NOBRIGA: No objection.
CHAIRMAN RICE: If there's no objection, so
ordered. Okay, Other Business, scheduling of a public hearing
for fiscal year 2002 operating and CIP budgets. We did have a
workshop and we did receive from Finance a revised budget. CIP
has committee meetings next week and there appear to be some
significant changes in the budget. And I guess, I don't know,
I'm not looking for any action on the budget other than if the
Board can see their way to authorize us to set a date for the
public hearing subsequent to the CIP meetings, because it will
come back, it will be public hearing, and it will come back to
the Board again. Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: I would have no problem with that,
except that I still think there were a few things discussed at
the budget meeting that were not dealt with and possibly should
be really dealt with by the full Board before it goes, and that
particularly relates to the Capital Replacement Fund. And I
know of the desire of certain members to put it in line with
the Brown and Caldwell model, and our future needs. So perhaps
we could get a special meeting on that where we would have the
Brown and Caldwell model brought back up and discuss that in
relation to that item?
CHAIRMAN RICE: A lot of the Board members were at
the workshop, and I think you all understand that the comment
made by Board Member Starr is that the budget under
transferring Capital Replacement Fund should reflect the full
amount of the funding per the Brown and Caldwell report, and
that would obviously make this a deficit budget. The point
being that we know that we have the requirement coming up that
we have to provide for that, is that not correct, Howard? So I
don't know why we wouldn't include it, personally, because it
is a requirement, a funding requirement, unless we didn't think
the Brown and Caldwell report was accurate in some way and
needed to be adjusted. That would then adjust that number. We
shouldn't just pick a number and put it in here.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, then I believe the number
that was -- you know, at the end of the Brown and Caldwell
report, which gave the best, seemed to give the best
performance, was 8.1 million dollars, and that that would, you
know, that way we would never actually tank at the four
million, we would tank after three years. So with the approval
of the Chair, would you favor a motion to plug that number in
there?
CHAIRMAN RICE: One second. David?
MR. CRADDICK: I think there's a law that requires
the budget to be balanced, so putting in a number that makes it
negative, I'll leave that up to Howard on how you would do that
right now with the current law. I'm not certain you can.
CHAIRMAN RICE: That was a question I was going to ask.
MR. FUKUSHIMA: It says the County budget, it
doesn't really say the water budget. What we attempted to do
in the past was to -- that you follow as close as you can the
budget process set forth in the charter for the county. And we
would further believe that a balanced budget is appropriate. I
would like to remind the Board that because of the public
hearing, we're running out of time if you want a budget in
place by July 1st. The 30 day notice for the public hearing --
MS. NAGO: Two-week notice.
MR. FUKUSHIMA: Excuse me, two-week notice according
to the provisions in the charter. So we are cutting it a
little close.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Yes, I understand that, but I
intended to move along on that process. And I wonder if as a
compromise here, Mr. Starr, we can footnote the budget to say
that we are aware, we have a report in hand and we are aware
and understand the requirement that the capital replacement
fund be 8.1 million dollars.
MR. STARR: My feeling is that if that's what we
need to be able to maintain the plant that we have, it should
really be there. You know, I know it's strong medicine and
it's a strong statement, but I really feel that's the only way
that we can really make a case for getting the funding that we
need to be able to properly maintain the system.
CHAIRMAN RICE: And I don't disagree with you. I'm
reacting to the comment that we may have to provide a balanced
budget, and that the footnote be a compromise.
MR. STARR: I wish Michael were here, because I
believe that there may be a way to do that, you know, by
creating another category on the other side.
MR. NOBRIGA: A bond, huh?
MR. STARR: What it is is basically a non-funded
liability, but I believe there are ways to end up with the
bottom line still coming out at zero, but put it in there.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, David, you were going to say something?
MR. CRADDICK: I think your suggestion maybe of
footnoting the budget is definitely one that would be good,
because somehow the auditor has to deal with this at the end of
the year, because they are going to be required to follow the
requirements. So putting this note in the budget that we
recognize that we are not fully setting aside what the system
is depreciating, or putting back into the system what it's
depreciating and handling that as a footnote in the budget may
be the way to start. And as the requirements solidify on the
other end, on our audit, we will know how to progress in the
future. But right now just the recognition by this Board that
they're not doing that is probably a good step in the right
direction.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Ellen?
MS. KRAFTSOW: I just wanted to mention I happen to
have the report with me, and the consultants had mentioned
three options, a baseline option, a level option, and a stepped
option. At the baseline option it was 4 point some million that
we should transfer. At the level option where you put the same
amount every year it was about I think at this point about 8
point something, 8.2, and at the stepped option it was 5.3,
okay. So putting 4 point X million this year would mean we
were actually in conformance with one of the options. Now, it
may be that the Board wishes to choose a different option, but
we are not substantially outrageously below.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Simply revealing the three options
is not adequate, you have to reveal the results of picking the
option, and I believe that we all thought that the other
options were not going to provide us with enough money in the
future. Just saying we picked one of the three I don't think
is necessarily the responsible decision of the Board. We are
to pick the one that provides the results that we think are
desired. The other options then don't mean anything. So I
appreciate you trying to rationalize some number in there, but
we shouldn't be rationalizing a number, we should be picking
the correct number.
MR. NOBRIGA: It would appear that the Board and the
department is in the same pew in the same church and reading
from the same hymnal, so I would urge that we make the
appropriate motion to go to public hearing with this current
budget.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Let's see if we can figure out a way
to show that 8.1 million is the -- the crowning question, I
believe, Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: What I would like -- is there going to
be a Finance Committee meeting before the --
CHAIRMAN RICE: Before the public hearing?
MR. STARR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I hope so.
MR. NOBRIGA: Wouldn't the discussion of our plan
options, shouldn't that be more realistically added into the
public hearing testimony?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Sure. I mean we are not approving a
budget here now, remember that. This is just another step in
the process. So I think that we need to -- I'm not sure that
its absence in that, as long as we note it, the public hearing
process is bad, because when Mike will be back we can figure
out a way to insert it in the actual budget, we have
accomplished our goal.
MR. STARR: So in other words, perhaps it could come
-- there can be an alternate that could come to the public
hearing with it, with this possible solution to that.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I think minimumally we should make a
motion to bring the budget to public hearing and so note that
this is under funding according to schedule X of the Brown and
Caldwell report.
MR. STARR: I move that we --
CHAIRMAN RICE: One more comment, Howard?
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, I would support the
motion of footnoting the transfer for the money at this time,
with the note that it is our intent to fund an amount to
establish an adequate reserve. But as Ellen has mentioned, the
amount is not necessarily 8 million dollars, 8 million dollars
is one option. All of the options do result in fully funding
the replacement account, it's just different ways of getting
there.
And I believe the 8 million dollars resulted in at
some point a huge surplus, and there was one problem that arose
out of that level of funding. I think, I could be wrong.
Whereas the 4 million created that so-called -- 4 point
whatever created that so-called Nessy curve, which tried to
balance out the expenditure requirements versus the funding
provided. But, you know, I think this is all something that
the Board needs to decide, and because of that I think it's
appropriate to just footnote that amount and indicate our
intention to fully fund the replacement.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, perhaps we could have Brown
and Caldwell, you know, or at least a model available at that
public hearing so we can bring that out to the public, and also
I for one would like a refresher. My own recollection is that
the 4 million dollar option had us bankrupt in two or three
years, and that the 8 million dollars was a Nessy curve, and
that there was a climbing -- there was another one that did
create a bigger reserve. But I would like to have an
opportunity to refresh my memory.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I think we will probably need to
have another meeting with Brown and Caldwell, and have the
Board agree on some level of funding, so that we move to
provide the public hearing a note that says that we intend to
establish a number based on our report. We can then have a
meeting where the Board can review the Brown and Caldwell
report and choose an option, then we can then go forward with
the final budget approval.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, I so move.
MR. NAKAMURA: Second.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Any discussion? With the Chair to
pick the date. All in favor say "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed say "nay."
(None).
Thank you. Update and status report by the Director
on Upcountry well. Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: What staff report are we on here?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Update and status report by the
Director on the Upcountry well.
MR. CRADDICK: We've asked a number of consultants
to submit proposals on it, that's it.
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Nakamura.
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chair, could we request that the
Director provide the members with a proposed scope of work?
Not immediately, but if you could perhaps circulate it.
MR. CRADDICK: Do you have that there? Do you have
enough copies for everybody?
MR. KOGASAKA: No.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: I would like to ask the Director about
whether he's aware of information that I have that Maui Land
and Pine is planning, as I heard it, with the consent of either
the Department or Board members to put a well until at Pookela
tank.
MR. CRADDICK: I think I told the Board here before,
they have talked with us that they want to put a well up
there. We haven't talked about participating with them.
They've indicated they would like to participate with us, and I
learned that this morning from Warren. But there's been no
discussion of any kind from the staff side on that matter.
MR. STARR: You know, I'm concerned about this. You
know, at first I heard it as a rumor, then I heard that they'd
hired a consultant to begin the process of putting a well in on
board at Pookela tank. And then I understand that at one of
our -- after one of our meetings last week that -- I wish
Mr. Cravalho was here -- but that he had told some members of
the public that he had made some kind of agreement regarding a
well at Pookela tank, and that Maui Land and Pine would pay for
it in exchange for the fact that they're using water from
Awalau. I just would like to know if, you know, if it's in the
Board Chair's knowledge is there any kind of agreement to this
effect?
CHAIRMAN RICE: The Chair has no knowledge of
anything that you're talking about. I haven't heard anything
about it from anybody.
MR. STARR: My own desire is that the Board drill a
well Upcountry and provide the water to our customer base,
rather than getting into another deal like the Dowling well
where a well gets drilled but all of the water gets allocated
in this case to a Maui Land and Pine subdivision. I'd like to
have the people who have been waiting have first crack at it.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I'm sure, Mr. Craddick, if there's
anything going on with regard to development or well drilling
that you will bring it to our attention.
MR. CRADDICK: Well, again, we can go to the Water
Commission and get a permit for that with no action by this
Board, and there's very little we can do about it. And my
understanding is that's exactly what they're going to do. I
don't believe they're going to go in and ask for a well permit
on our property, but you know they can go 10 feet outside the
fence and get the permit for it. The power is there, the tank
is there, everything is there.
MR. STARR: What would preclude us from being able
to drill a well there?
CHAIRMAN RICE: I think there's probably sufficient
conversation going on with regard to partnering for well
development that it may be an issue the Board wants to look at
as an overall policy issue, I don't know. I'll just throw that
out for consideration, not for any particular action.
MR. STARR: I mean I think we need to, you know, get
that considered quite quickly.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I'm not talking about any specific
issue, but if they're going to -- if what David says is correct
and they're going to say fine, we want to go drill a well on
our own, and they can go do it, I guess that's the right of any
private entity, right?
MR. STARR: You know, I know I've been pushing for
us to drill a well at Pookela for the last two years, bringing
it up at almost every board meeting. I've been given all kinds
of reasons why the previous chair -- why, you know, there
wasn't water there or stream flow or this or that. And, you
know, now I see someone else is going to do it. And I feel
that perhaps what we're doing is we're protecting Maui Land and
Pine in their efforts to get a well for their own new
subdivision in Pukalani. And while I have no problem with
their subdivision or with them getting water, I do feel that
it's our duty to provide water and make our system adequate.
And, you know, if the best place to put the next well is at
Pookela, which I believe it is because the power is there, it's
hydrologically good, and there's roads and we own the site,
then we should be moving faster.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay. Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: I'll keep quiet.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Any other comments? Update from the
Director on the East Maui EIS and monitoring well.
MR. CRADDICK: That one there we have filed the prep
notice and we have bid out, gone to bid. And the bids will be
in on what date, Herb?
MR. KOGASAKA: We are in the process of bidding
this, and we will be receiving that drill plan.
MR. CRADDICK: What date is it bid?
MR. KOGASAKA: The price bid will be mid-June, June
15th, I think, but I'm not sure of that date exactly.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: When would we expect to be able to drill?
MR. CRADDICK: I think we have 60 days to award. I
would expect to get going, it's got a 120 day completion time.
MR. KOGASAKA: I'm not certain.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Are you saying by the end of this
year is reasonable?
MR. CRADDICK: It's possible.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I'm putting words in your mouth.
MR. STARR: I'm hoping it's a lot sooner than that.
MR. CRADDICK: That's what we're shooting for.
MR. STARR: I hope it's in the summertime.
MR. CRADDICK: Unless you want to pay a premium for
the well, you could put in there 90 days completion, but you
would pay a premium for it.
CHAIRMAN RICE: How about by early fall then.
MR. CRADDICK: You know, I mean I don't expect that
they're going to be sitting around, you know, waiting to do it
towards the tail end of the contract. I'm quite certain they
will get on it right away.
MR. STARR: I would be happy to pay a reasonable
premium to get it done sooner. I think that this is our main
business at hand, to resolve the question of the viability of
East Maui water sources, and this is what this well will do.
So if there is, you know, if we can get it done faster I think
we will be able to plan for our future a lot better.
MR. CRADDICK: To speed it up they would have to go
24 hours a day, and where the well is located on Hog Back Road,
in that particular area I know sound at night will travel, and
if you want to get the community irate, that's the way to do it.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Well, we can ask the question.
We're in the bid process, Herb, right now?
MR. KOGASAKA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN RICE: So once we've gotten the contractor
selected, we can have discussions with him about expediting it.
MR. CRADDICK: No, if you are going to do that, you
want that before they bid, because you don't want to be
negotiating with him after the bid, then you will get taken to
the cleaners.
MR. STARR: How is the date set on the bid documents?
MR. KOGASAKA: It will be based on the notice to
proceed, the exact number of days from the notice to proceed.
It would be, I would be estimating, 120 to 150 days. I don't
remember what that exact number is, but to that order of magnitude.
MR. STARR: 120 days from award is not bad, I don't
have any problem with that. But let's try to go expeditiously.
CHAIRMAN RICE: We are going the hear more on that
as it proceeds.
MR. STARR: I just have one more request. Before we
actually award I want to be sure that, you know, both -- that
our counsel and also the counsel that had represented the other
side, I guess that's Isaac Hall, just make sure that the
location and the type of well and the way it will be drilled is
acceptable.
I know that I had met Bill Myer and I had asked him
a question about this, and he gave me a long, long lecture
about this well being drilled in a very specific way to monitor
the continuity of water down to the layers. And that that was
what he wanted to see and that's what the court was demanding.
And also in relation to that was not to use certain kinds of
drilling mud in it. So, you know, I would like to be very
certain that the proposal we accept is satisfactory so that we
don't have to go and do it again.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: I am not going to say anything, I
figure that's left up to the attorneys.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Jonathan's point is that we go
through the process and we don't end up with data that we can't
use to go forward to make our case. That's the layman's
version of what he said.
MR. CRADDICK: I think that exact reason would be
the reason why you don't go to the other side and get them to
agree to something. You take our consultants, what they're
recommending, and you rely on those consultants to do the job
correctly and do it correctly. If you go to them, they're
going to try and tell you to do whatever it takes to give them
some challenge, and I don't think that's the way to go. If you
hire the consultants, I think you need to rely on their
expertise. And I can assure you the well is being constructed
in a manner to not affect the stream flow.
CHAIRMAN RICE: I think there's a legal issue there,
and we will have to explore that. I agree with that.
Okay, do you have anything else? Sorry to -- we are
going to have a few long meetings once in awhile. Good
morning, hi, Sally. Update on Upcountry water situation.
MR. CRADDICK: We're currently I think around 174
million in storage. And do you still have that ditch shut down
or are you back using Kamole Weir again?
MR. SEITZ: Kamole is back on line. That was just
for only one day.
MR. CRADDICK: Everything is back in operation.
CHAIRMAN RICE: It's still pretty dry, isn't it?
MR. CRADDICK: It is very dry. And as I said
before, still the projection for the rest of the year is that
it will be dry.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Sir?
MR. STARR: I'm beginning to have a problem with
characterizing our situation as being in a drought emergency.
We are still in a drought emergency, and I would rather we stop
being in a drought emergency, so that if we have a drought
emergency we can go there instead of, you know, being there
year round. So while I do understand it is dry, you know, our
systems are full and getting replenished. I think we should go
down from an undeclared drought emergency, and I would like to
so move once again.
MR. TAGORDA: Summer is coming.
MR. STARR: We can declare an emergency if we need it.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Is there a second? Okay, motion dies.
Update on water issues discussed at public
meetings. We heard from Jonathan. Any other public meetings?
Mr. Nakamura.
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, just an announcement.
The notices will be going out, or the agendas will be going
out, they're probably in the mail already. We have two capital
program meetings scheduled to begin review of the 2002 budget,
and those dates are Wednesday, January 30th at 3:00 pm.
MS. NAGO: May 30th.
MR. NAKAMURA: I mean May 30th at 3:00 pm, and
Monday, June 4th, at 9:00 am. So you might make a note.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Okay, anything else? Jonathan.
MR. STARR: Just to let other board members and
interested people know, there was a meeting I believe this
morning, and another meeting tomorrow morning, and that's by
the Board of Land and Natural Resources. They're holding
meetings on Maui. And this is an annual meeting where they
deal with the award of the licenses for East Maui ditch water
to EMI and A&B. So if anyone is interested in attending the
award meeting tomorrow, that's at 9:00 am at the ILWU union
hall at Lower Main. The meeting today was I believe the
Commission on Water Resource Management briefed the Land Board
on the Waihole decision and legal ramifications of stream flow.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Nobriga?
MR. NOBRIGA: I have a question for engineers on the staff reports.
MR. NAKAMURA: They all left.
MR. NOBRIGA: There were 19 building permit
applications and two subdivision applications approved. The
subdivision resulted in the commission of 207 lots. Where the
heck is this?
MR. CRADDICK: Sorry, I can't tell you. We can add that.
MR. NOBRIGA: I mean Upcountry is claimed to be no
more water. Central Maui no more water. Either got to be in
Hana or where they get water. No place get water.
MR. CRADDICK: We can add that to the staff.
MR. NOBRIGA: The Board of no water works.
CHAIRMAN RICE: We can add that. Thank you,
Mr. Nobriga.
Miss Raisbeck, we have long past -- we are about to
adjourn. A millisecond, because you're such a dedicated
follower off our activities.
MS. RAISBECK: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to
draw the attention to the Board to the staff report.
MS. NAGO: Sally, she's not going to be able to get
you unless you come over here.
CHAIRMAN RICE: You want to be on camera, Sally.
MS. RAISBECK: I wanted to draw the attention of the
Board to the staff reports for this month, where the water
usage in Iao was 19.6, I believe, and the water usage in North
Waihee had been brought down to 4.1 where it should be 4
maximum. This is April, and the value for April or the figure
for April is 2.7 million gallons a day higher than a year ago
at this time. I strongly suspect that during the summer the
usage will go up a lot higher, will go up higher than last
summer.
And I would also draw your attention to the fact
that under the Waiahole decision the Supreme Court questioned
the use of a 12 month moving average and sent it back to the
Water Commission for re-evaluation about the value of a 12
month moving average as a criterion on water usage.
So I merely draw your attention, we're very close to
the legally established top, and we know that the water, the
salt is still rising in the Iao aquifer. I think the Board
needs to do something about preparing for water shortages in
Central and South Maui. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Thank you, Sally.
MR. STARR: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: We're again nowhere near the limit of
the Iao aquifer average pumping. We are at 17.4, not anywhere
near 20. It may be interesting to note that it went up from
17.1 to 17.4 this month. There is a reason for that. There
are some wells in North Waihee that were shut down because of a
motor burning out. We do have the two facilities that should
be on line by June, Kanoa I and II well permanently where we
won't have these problems. And part of that 4 that Sally is
talking about is the Iao tunnel, it's not part of the North
Waihee aquifer. So North Waihee aquifer is not producing 4
million gallons a day.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: Well, Sally is right, we're using 3
million gallons a day more than we were using in April of last
year, so we definitely are getting close to the line. And we
did use, you know, 19.6 million gallons a day in April, and
we're not supposed to be using more than 90 percent of the
sustainable yield, which is 18. So as David points out, on a
12 month moving average we are not exceeding it. On a monthly
average we're a million and a half over it, so we should keep
an eye on it.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Good point. Okay, is there any
other business?
MR. CRADDICK: I guess one thing. Next month we
will have -- we got the USGS report. That's not in this
particular package here this month, but we will have it next
month. And one other item that you have is this conservation
program update, so if you can take a look at that. If you want
to do some workshop on that in the future, we would be more
than happy to do it.
MR. STARR: Can I get a copy of the USGS report?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
MR. STARR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Committees, reminder. Have your
meetings early so we can get those reports in the next
meeting. And is there a motion to adjourn?
MR. STARR: So moved.
MR. TAGORDA: Second.
CHAIRMAN RICE: All in favor?
(A chorus of ayes).
So moved. Thank you
(The proceedings were concluded at 11:25 a.m.)
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Department of Water Supply
County of Maui
P.O. Box 1109
Wailuku, HI 96793-6109
Telephone (808) 270-7816
Fax (808) 270-7833