BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
CAPITAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE 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 29, 2001.

REPORTED BY:   LYNANN NICELY, RPR/RMR/CSR #354
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

A P P E A R A N C E S

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Howard Nakamura, Chairman
Peter Rice

BOARD MEMBERS:
Jonathan Starr
Kent Hiranaga  

STAFF PRESENT:
George Tengan, Deputy Director
Andy Pascua 
Larry Winters 
Walt Hager 
Miles Fujinaka 
Charlene Suzuki
Holly Perdido
Ellen Kraftsow

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  I would like to call the 
meeting of the Capital Programs Committee of the Board 
of Water Supply to order.  It's Monday, June 4, 2001.  
We're meeting in the HGEA conference room of the David 
K. Trask, Jr., Office Building in Wailuku. 
 In attendance are committee member Peter Rice, 
and myself, Chairman Howard Nakamura.  Also in 
attendance are board members Jonathan Starr, Kent 
Hiranaga, Deputy Director George Tengan. 
 Fran, will you introduce the rest of the staff?

MS. NAGO:  We have Andy Pascua, Larry Winters, 
Walt Hager, Miles Fujinaka, Charlene Suzuki, and Holly Perdido.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Thank you.  We have no 
minutes to approve.  I see no members of the public 
here.  So we'll move into V, Review of the Proposed FY 
2001-02 CIP budget. 
 What I wanted to do today was to review the 
material that was passed out at our Friday meeting 
which gave a summary of the status of projects from FY 
'98-99 and earlier, which I had asked the department 
to provide.  There are also a couple of issues that 
have been sent to us, new projects or -- that were not 
included in the submittal that was made to the board 
that the department would like consideration for 
inclusion.  And thirdly, we would open the floor for 
discussion on some of the issues that we talked about 
on Friday.  And lastly, I had wanted to have some 
discussion following up on the matter that was raised 
last Friday which was to better understand how the 
department is organized to implement capital projects.  
So those are the things I wanted to do today and 
hopefully be out of here by 11:30, which I think is 
realistic. 
 Okay.  Any comments from members?  Okay.  
Perhaps we can move into, as I said, initially the 
report on some of these old projects.  Does everyone 
have the list that was passed out previously?  There 
is a sheet that starts out by saying FY 2001-02 Status 
of Projects, FY '98-99 and earlier.  Do you have that, Kent?
 Okay.  Who's going to handle this?  Herb or George? 

MR. TENGAN:  We had a meeting on Friday and we 
discussed a lot of these projects and I believe Herb 
has a report.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Herb, do you want 
to proceed?  I assume we're going to be working off 
this list unless you have something else you want us 
to work off of. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  That list is a brief summary of 
those past projects, identified by the project 
numbers.  And that is primarily to bring the board up 
to date and we can try to answer whatever direction 
you want to go with it.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Proceed. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  Starting with the '92 projects, 
which was -- just to summarize it, is that how you 
want to do this?

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Please. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  The East Maui Source projects, 
identify the East Maui project was held up on the EIS, 
been challenged in court, and we are in the process of 
completing that supplemental EIS. 
 Also included is the monitor well.  
Outstanding on that, we need to close out the Schedule 
C of the East Maui development project which is the 
installation of the pumps.  Outstanding is the 
pipeline contract with Coluccio Construction that runs 
the pipe from the wells to the Paia/Baldwin Park area.  
And also to pursue electrical power for the wells.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Could we -- Herb, this -- 
there is three projects listed on the -- I'm looking 
at the table under 92-05.  And it shows a total 
encumbrance of somewhere in the range of $200,000 and 
no balance available.  So are you saying that all of 
this money is encumbered and projects are ongoing to 
be completed?  Can you clarify the status?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  The exploratory well, the 
$16,500 includes a portion of the Norman Saito 
engineering contract which we can terminate and I 
think we can get back about $9,000 or so of that. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  And so that money is going 
to be used for the ongoing project to develop a 
monitor well?

MR. KOGASAKA:  Well, it's encumbered under the 
contract.  By terminating that, that will get back 
into the -- I take that back.  That's an ongoing -- 
the $16,500 is an ongoing project.  That's the Mink & 
Yuen amendment to the EIS contract. 
 Let me recap from the top.  The $16,500 is an 
amendment to Mink & Yuen's contract for -- to look 
into -- looking at an area mauka of the area 
identified in the EIS.  That $141,000 amount is the 
encumbrance for the Mink & Yuen EIS.  And the $30,000 
amount includes $9,600 for Norman Saito, which is 
inactive over there at this point.  And the remaining 
$20,000 is Fletcher Pacific's contract -- now Dick 
Pacific.  That's in the process of being closed out.  
We may not have -- we try to close out that contract.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  So these are all 
ongoing and you're going to finish them up and there 
will be a small balance left over, is that what you're 
saying?

MR. KOGASAKA: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Of approximately $9,000.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Mr. Starr, you had a question? 

MR. STARR:  Yeah.  A couple of questions.  
What's the Norman Saito contract?  What was that for?

MR. KOGASAKA:  That's the initial contract for 
the original EIS.  That included the drilling of the 
Hamakua Poko wells.  The outstanding portion was some 
services during construction and some testing which --

MR. STARR:  In other words, Saito is 
overseeing the H-Poko wells, is that -- 

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

MR. STARR:  The pipeline contract, are we 
installing pipeline from the Hamakua Poko wells to 
Baldwin or is that a design --

MR. KOGASAKA:  It's a construction contract 
that's being held up by the challenge on the EIS.

MR. STARR:  So what's -- the status of it is 
that it's not -- there is money that's remaining 
encumbered that's been encumbered for eight years or 
something? 

MS. SUZUKI:  Monies encumbered under the 
state.  That money doesn't show on our books. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Oh, it's a state appropriation.

MS. SUZUKI:  Six million. 

MR. STARR:  So in other words, there's 
$6 million of state money that's sitting there to 
build the pipeline when we can free up the EIS?

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

MR. STARR:  Will that money last if it's not 
used in a certain amount of time, or is it safe?  

MS. SUZUKI:  The state has come to us or we 
have to do it every year in April to justify keeping 
that encumbrance alive.  So we've been doing it and 
they have been accepting our --

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Any other questions? 
Okay.  92-13, Peahi 100,000 gallon tank. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  That's an ongoing project in 
participation with Peahi Hui, private developers, and 
we've just approved the construction plan.  It's ongoing. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  So this is -- 
although it's seven, eight years old, you intend to go 
out to bid shortly?

MR. KOGASAKA:  The consultant is moving 
forward with it.  They have got the plans approved and 
I'm not too sure what their financial situation is, 
but we do have some funds encumbered on our portion 
for participation of the improvements.  I believe -- I 
may be wrong, but I believe they are ready to move forward.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So what has been holding 
it up for eight years, nine years?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  I can't say with much certainty.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So actually the project is 
being done by the developer and we're going to 
participate, so we're waiting for him?  

MR. KOGASAKA: Yes.

MR. RICE:  Mr. Chairman, is this the project 
where we took over the private water system?

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  I don't believe so. 

MR. RICE:  No, this is different.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Any questions? 

MR. STARR:  I have a question about 
processing.  Does it really make sense for us to keep 
items open like this for such long periods of time?

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  You're asking me? 

MR. STARR:  Yeah.  I mean, I'm wondering 
myself.  I don't know.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Your question is 
noted.  Any response from the deputy director or -- 
fiscal?  In terms of the process?  In terms of just 
keeping the projects on the books, so whether it's 
more appropriate to lapse after X number of years and 
then reappropriate it when necessary.  Does it matter? 

MR. TENGAN:  I believe this is part of an 
agreement that was developed with the developer some 
years ago.  And like Herb was saying, we've been 
waiting all this time for the developer to start 
moving on the project.  If we lapse the funds, then 
when the developer is ready to go, then we would have 
to come back to the board and the developer wouldn't 
have assurance that we would have the funds to 
participate in the project.  And if we didn't have the 
funds, then the developer would have to go to through 
some redesign and just prolong the project that much more.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Well, I think, George, in 
this particular instance there may be a little 
difference in that there is an agreement which commits 
us to participate.  But I think Mr. Starr's question 
is a more general one in terms of whether or not it is 
appropriate to just keep these on the books for eight, 
nine years, or whether we should lapse and 
reappropriate it when we're actually ready to 
implement. 

MR. RICE:  Or, Mr. Chairman, these contracts 
should have a time certain.  Developer signs a 
contract with us, then he should be moving along.  The 
developer is eight years down the road and he hasn't 
done anything. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  He has had difficulty getting 
the land for the tank sites.  And the particulars, I'm 
not sure, but he's been -- continues to make an 
effort, in his defense, to try to keep this project 
alive, keep it going, and contain his costs.

MR. RICE:  I'm sure he has.  But what I'm 
talking about also in general terms from the 
department's standpoint is we've allocated resources 
and they should -- there should be a time under which 
somebody produces or else they have got to come back.  
I think that is reasonable.  Can't -- this can't stand 
open forever.  He doesn't even have the land for the 
tank?  Or he has the land now?  Do you know?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  No, I guess I don't.  I think 
he does.  I'm not sure.  But we can -- I'm not very up 
on it.  I'm sorry. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Maybe you can get a 
little more information on this.  But I think the 
point is well taken that Mr. Starr raises and I share 
the thought that if there is an indication that the 
project is not moving ahead and it's just kind of in 
limbo, that we should just lapse the funds and 
reappropriate it when we're ready to actually move 
ahead.  
Okay.  92-21, Keokea Lateral Construction. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  That project is --

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Herb, can you identify 
each of these as to, you know, cross reference them to 
the other table that we have so we can find it?  Like 
92-21 is what kind of a project?  Is that under --

MR. KOGASAKA:  Pipe. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  -- pipeline replacement?  
Okay.  Pipeline replacement.  So we're talking -- 
there is a balance available of $447,000 and an 
encumbrance of roughly $6,000, right?  So the budget 
is roughly $460,000, $12,000, $13,000 is encumbered 
and $447,000 is available. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  The project is moving forward.  
We're essentially ready to go to bid I think at this 
point.  We need to get State Highways approval on 
construction plans and I think we can advertise.  And 
we were hoping to get this advertised this fiscal 
year.  We may start the process.  We've anticipated 
possible delays, so we included that in the 2002 
budget.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  How are we able to keep 
this $447,000 on the books without a contract?  Don't 
we need a contract to encumber funds and prevent them 
from lapsing?

MS. SUZUKI:  The $453,000, is that what you're 
talking about, the budget?

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Yeah.  Well, it says here 
"balance available, $447,000."  How are we keeping 
that encumbered?

MS. SUZUKI:  That is this year's budget.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Oh, that's this year's budget.

MS. SUZUKI:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Why is it under a '92 
project then, 92-21?  This is just the project reference?

MS. SUZUKI:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  But it's --

MS. SUZUKI:  We're trying to keep the project 
costs all together under one master project over the 
years.  So it might have been budgeted in several 
years.  But this year's current budget is this amount 
remaining. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So you're proposing to 
reappropriate this in the '02 budget?

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yeah.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Any questions? 
 Okay.  93-01, Honokohau Water.  This is a 
project we talked about on Friday.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So this also is you're 
going to lapse and reappropriate, Charlene, is that right?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

MS. SUZUKI:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Any questions? 
 Okay.  94-17, Alae Tank.  Encumbrance, 
$91,000, roughly. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  That's for the design of the 
tank.  To replace the existing tank, we need to move 
it to a higher elevation and we were negotiating a 
site for the new tank with a tunnel over Kaonoulu 
Ranch.  We made a proposal for a design based on a 
certain area along Waipoli Road and then after some 
discussion Kaonoulu Ranch preferred to have us move to 
a different location which was a little harder to 
access but that will be in the close proximity of the 
existing tank.  And I guess from previous discussions 
or agreements, I think that's the position that they 
wanted the tank in that area with respect to their 
total land.  And we've had to make some adjustments as 
far as providing extra effort for surveying and 
additional expenses we were concerned about making 
sure that that site is the appropriate one and it's 
still an ongoing thing.  I think we're ready to 
initiate some survey work and to proceed with the 
project.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So if there is an 
encumbrance, so that means you have a contract, you 
have a design contract out?

MR. KOGASAKA:  That's correct.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  You have a design contract 
out, but it hasn't been actually initiated yet.

MR. KOGASAKA:  They have done the preliminary 
study and efforts to locate the tank site at the 
appropriate elevations.  And this is the preliminary 
portion of the work.  Once that is determined, then 
the next step will be to do a topographic survey, go 
into construction plans.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Questions?  Mr. Starr. 

MR. STARR:  You sound dubious about whether 
that site is any good or not.  Will it work there and 
will it cost us a lot more money than the other place 
where you were going to try to put it?

MR. KOGASAKA:  It's an issue of clearing the 
land to do the initial survey work.  But once -- I 
think there is sufficient area for a suitable tank 
site, yes.

MR. STARR:  And the level and there is access 
to it and all that?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  We can -- the present access is 
through the pasture lands and I think we can continue 
to do that. 

MR. STARR:  I just want to be sure that 
ultimately it will be -- you'll get a workable tank 
out of it. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  Beg your pardon?  

MR. STARR:  I just wanted to be sure that 
ultimately you'll be very happy with the finished 
product because you sounded very dubious before.  You 
sounded like you were questioning whether the site 
would work.  And I wanted to be sure that the site is 
okay. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  As far as the site, yes, I 
think that will be okay.  As far as the area, just 
that we had to spend a lot of time trying to make the 
verification because of the overgrowth and the wind 
damage to the trees that are there, you can't hardly 
walk to it.  The issue of clearing that out and I 
think it's --

MR. STARR:  So it's just the vegetation that 
was causing difficulties.  Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Any other questions? 
 Okay, Herb.  95-09, Kaunakakai Well No. 2.  I 
see this on page 4 under Reliability.  $82,753 
encumbered. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  This is the back-up well for 
that well for Kualapuu.  Knowing that the yield in the 
area is questionable, the contract was to explore -- 
select a well site that would explore alternative 
sites and then ultimately to drill an exploratory well 
to see what kind of yield we could get.  In the 
meantime, Waiola  -- I believe it's Waiole, is that 
right, Ellen?  Is drilling the well in one of the 
sites that we were contemplating and we're holding off 
on this project merely to see what develops from their 
efforts so we can proceed with that knowledge.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Does this have anything to 
do with that agreement that the board agreed to cancel 
at the last meeting?

MR. KOGASAKA:  No, I don't think so.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  It's a different issue. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  No, I think -- as I understand 
it, that quote unquote agreement was for that Kualapuu 
village area.  I think this is separate from it. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So how are these funds encumbered?

MS. SUZUKI:  We have a contract with R.M. Powell.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:   We have a contract with 
R.M. Powell to --

MR. KOGASAKA:  Design.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Design.  But this project 
is in abeyance indefinitely. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.  Until we are able to get 
information from that other project, the private project.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So would there be any 
problem if we were to lapse this money and cancel the 
contract?  How long have we been waiting?  When was 
the contract entered into? 

MS. SUZUKI:  August of '96. 

MR. RICE:  Is there some liability in the 
contract if we cancel?  Does anybody know?  
Mr. Chairman?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I can't answer the direct 
question about liability, but in terms of concerns 
about cancelling the contract, I think the State Water 
Commission has been concerned that we find alternative 
sources to 080103, which is our Kualapuu well.  So I 
think it's been left on the books in part to show 
intention that we will go forward as soon as we have 
the information.  There is some pressure from the 
commission to get this [inaudible]. 

A VOICE:  Is this a fixed fee contract?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes, not to exceed that amount. 

A VOICE:  I wonder if there is intent to 
continue the work [inaudible] advantage to keep it on 
the books if we were to rebid the project.  Possibly 
the cost could be higher.  I guess it's a 
determination whether activity will actually proceed 
or not.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  That's a good point. Jonathan?  

MR. STARR:  Why did we wait so long?  Ellen, 
can you tell us why we didn't go ahead with this? 

MR. KOGASAKA:  The other activity with the 
other wells, we were simultaneously looking at the 
site.  They put in an application.  I think -- I'm not 
sure what the status of the other well is, but I think 
they're in some kind of litigation right now. 

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Contested case. 

MR. STARR:  We've got it set aside, but there 
was a contested case because they were having to drill 
closer to the Hawaiian Homes well and then I believe 
there was a contested case and Hawaiian Homes approved 
that if they drilled at their original site, it would 
affect the Hawaiian Homes existing well.  So then they 
moved over to the site where we were going to drill. 
 So it's doubtful we're going to be able to 
drill there.  We're going to have to go look for 
somewhere else now.  We should have gone when we had 
the opportunity.  I don't know if -- frankly, it 
probably makes sense to lapse it because it's going to 
be a whole new project when it comes up again. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  I think we'll need 
to take a closer look at this in the finalization of 
the project. 
Any other questions on this project? 
Okay.  Keanae Well No. 2, 97-00.  This is also 
under Reliability.  I see 200, roughly $250,000.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Project is -- the well is 
drilled and the plans -- the construction bid 
documents are ready to be advertised in the very near 
future, in the next month or so.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Do we have this in our 
book?   '02 budget, Charlie.  This sounds familiar.  
So this is in the '02 budget for construction.  So 
this one is moving ahead. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  They will be utilizing all 
of the funds, pretty much.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Any questions on this one? 
 Kanaha Valley Land agreement.  This is also an 
issue we talked about last Friday with Mr. Michael.  
So this is -- we're going to reappropriate this money 
and try to get it resolved this year. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  I wonder just again 
a general question.  Charlene, you mentioned that you 
keep it on the books under the old project, you know, 
reference.  Would it be better if there is a 
reappropriation to reflect that there is, you know, a 
current project rather than a project that's five, 
six, seven, eight years old?  I don't know, I guess 
it's an accounting issue.  It just kind of -- you just 
kind of look at it and it maybe is a little misleading. 

MS. SUZUKI:  There is new code created, our 
account code created each year with each budget.  So 
you can tell what year it came from.  But in capturing 
the total project costs over the, you know, so many 
years, you would want it under one same number because --

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Any questions on 
this one?  Kanaha Valley Land agreement?  
 Okay.  97-16, Kamole Reservoir Design.  That's 
-- where do we have that one, Herb, Storage?  97-16 is 
on page 2, Storage, roughly $253,000 encumbered. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  This is a contract for raw 
water reservoir, the Kamole treatment plant.  And it 
was contracted and they had started some preliminary 
site investigations.  And in working with the 
landowner, Maui Pine, it wasn't -- it was difficult to 
reach any kind of agreement.  And then at that point 
also the effort was made to develop a storage at the 
Piiholo reservoir.  So this project is on hold until 
-- this is one that suggested that we may want to 
close out.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  George?  

MR. TENGAN:  A little more background 
information.  Several years ago, I worked with a 
committee of upcountry groups, community associations, 
and there were some private interests like Realtors 
and others involved, the ranches, involved in this 
committee.  And through all the discussions as far as 
what the priorities were upcountry are for them, the 
upcountry people, we had like four or five meetings, I 
believe.  And at every meeting, the topic of 
additional storage came up.  So this was identified as 
a key or the priority item for the upcountry 
committee.  And that's why we're pursuing the 
upcountry or the Piiholo storage rather than the 
Kamole storage. 
 At the present time there is about $2 million 
sitting in state appropriations towards the project.  
We've sent a letter to the governor for release of the 
funds, but we haven't had any response yet.  We're 
currently proceeding with the Piiholo storage project.  
We're going to be meeting with the consultant today to 
negotiate the preliminary portion of the work that has 
to be done. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  And the Piiholo 
project is in the proposed 2002 budget, right?  Okay.  
So again, possibly we may want to look at this later.  
Any questions?  Jonathan?  

MR. STARR:  Yeah.  How big a unit are you 
talking about at Piiholo?

MR. TENGAN:  I think we're looking at between 
200 and 300 million gallons.  So at Piiholo we 
presently have 50 million gallons of storage.  So that 
would multiply the storage from four to six times.  
And our treatment capacity at Piiholo is 8 million 
gallons per day.

A VOICE:  Nine.  Expandable to twelve.

MR. TENGAN:  And we're processing like about 
maybe on the average of 4 million gallons per day, so 
with an additional 200 million gallons that would give 
us like 50 days additional storage which would take us 
well through a drought. 

MR. STARR:  I think we certainly need it at 
Piiholo.  I hate to take it off the books at Kamole 
because I feel we also need it down there, you know.  
If taking it off at Kamole and asking us concentrate 
at Piiholo will help us do that one faster, I could 
agree to hat.  But I do think that -- I mean, don't we 
need one down at Kamole also to make the plant down 
there a lot more effective? 

MR. HAGER:  The situation at Kamole is we can 
only operate based on what's in the forebay right now.  
And when the forebay drops down to a given point, then 
we use the head to supply the plant.  And the idea was 
to give us enough storage down there to carry us 
through the drought periods.  I believe that was a 500 
million reservoir that they were talking about.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Any other questions? 

MR. TENGAN:  Well, additional comment.  The 
committee felt that Piiholo would be a more suitable 
site in that if we needed water on the Lower Kula 
system and we didn't have the storage up at Piiholo, 
then we would be -- if we had that storage at Kamole, 
whatever water we processed at Kamole they would have 
to pump it up rather than just gravity feed as we 
would with additional storage at Piiholo. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Thank you, George. 
99-04, Piiholo Reservoir Design we just discussed. 
99-5, Kalae Tank Replacement.  Herb?  So that's under --

MR. KOGASAKA:  The design contract is awarded to Unemori Engineering.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So this is ongoing.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  And the design is actually 
underway for -- this negotiation for tank site, is 
that concurrent or that needs to be updated?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  The tank site negotiation has 
to be -- should be further along before we get to the 
design. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So this -- the design 
itself is being held in abeyance pending resolution of 
the land issues?

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So what is the status of the land issue?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  We have a site selected, but as 
far as the actual negotiations for the land, we're not 
too sure how the organization of that -- the Meyers 
estate is in -- I think the person that we were 
talking to initially is not there.  I may be wrong on 
this, or may be in a different capacity.  We need to 
follow up on that.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  How big is this tank? 

MR. KOGASAKA:  At least 100,000 gallons.  As 
to the size, I'm not certain at this point.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Any questions?  Comments? 
 Okay.  Ulumalu Waterline Improvements, 99-06.  
Is this the one that we're upgrading that existing 
substandard system?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Using federal funds. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  That's right. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Any other -- any further 
comments on this?  This project is moving along?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  It's moving along, yeah. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Well, what is the 
timetable in terms of actual improvements, the actual 
improvements?

MR. TENGAN:  Timetable? 

MR. KOGASAKA:  We would like to go to bid.  
It's been pushed back I think to July now, but I'm not 
certain at this point.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So we're going to put it out. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Any questions, comments?   
Okay.  Ainakula/Haleakala Highway Waterline Project.  
99-10.  I guess this must be Pipeline Replacement? 

MR. KOGASAKA:  The construction is ready to go 
to bid, intending to do -- I think we also need State 
Highways' approval on this prior to proceeding.  There 
is also a land issue which part of the road is private 
road and we wanted to include that as part of the bid 
process at this time, but it will be included as a 
[inaudible] alternative if things doesn't -- if it's 
not satisfactory to the department.  And we put in the 
Haleakala portion.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  This is also 
included in the '02 budget, right, reappropriated in 
the '02 budget. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Questions? Comments? 
Okay.  99-14, Wailuku Heights Waterline Replacement.

MR. KOGASAKA:  This is a contract -- we have a 
contract with the Otomo Engineering.  They have done 
some preliminary work.  The alternative -- the route 
feeding into the storage tank traverses through the 
area above the subdivision in kind of forested land 
and we're trying to determine if we should be putting 
the pipeline in Alu Road.  Also, on this project we 
are working in conjunction with the developer in the 
area would be putting in certain improvements and plan 
to move ahead once we've got these issues resolved.  
It's an ongoing project that we would like to move 
ahead on.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  What is this project going 
to do, Herb?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  It's going to replace the water 
system in the old Wailuku Heights area.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  The distribution system?

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.  Transmission to the 
storage and the distribution project, yes. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So on the '02 budget, we 
have a Wailuku Heights Water System Improvements Phase 
II construction, $750,000.  Is that the same project?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So this 99-14 is just the design funds.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  And the '02 money is for construction.

MR. KOGASAKA:  That's correct.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Any questions or 
comments? 
 Okay.  99-17, Hamoa Well 2 and Wakiu Backup 
Well.  This is under what, Reliability?  Yeah, 
Reliability.  $85,000, roughly. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  We have a consulting contract 
at Takumi Engineering for the development of backup 
well for Hamoa Well 2 and Wakiu Well C in this case. 
 In the preliminary indications -- the active 
weir in the Wakiu area is not very good and so the 
consultants were investigating other sites in that 
area as far as the airport to the east and then on to 
the Hana Ranch end of that -- at the same time I guess 
there were some kind of some negotiations with Hana 
Ranch as to what -- as to incorporation of their 
system or -- which would also serve as a backup if 
that was possible. 
 The other alternative we're looking at is the 
Hamoa well 2 site is, according to the hydrogeologist, 
acceptable.  Do a back-up well over there and then I 
think if we had a suitable pipeline we can tie the two 
wells together to look at operational consequences -- 
how to operate it if we do go that way.  And that's 
one of the reasons why the project has been delayed at 
this point.  But we plan to go ahead with this.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So it's pending the 
department making some decisions or is it ongoing with 
the consultant to evaluate these alternatives?

MR. KOGASAKA:  More immediately the department 
should be making some decisions as to the direction to 
accomplish this back-up source.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  And then the consultant will proceed.

MR. KOGASAKA:  We would need to negotiate with 
the consultant as to what the final outcome will be.  
It may not be a substantial change in terms of cost.  
Hopefully anticipating it does not encumber additional 
cost. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Actually, although you say 
this is 99-17, which is -- well, okay, Hamoa well, 
there is also 99-18, which is Wakiu back-up well C.  
Those projects are linked?

MR. KOGASAKA:  They were combined under --

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So the encumbrance is like 
$160,000, then, the total encumbrance for those two 
projects. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  And that's on hold pending 
the department making these decisions.  Both of them.  
It's one contract from two funding sources.

MR. KOGASAKA:  That's true.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Questions or comments? Jonathan?  

MR. STARR:  How is that going to be resolved?  
How is that going to be resolved?  Is there any 
negotiations taking place with the ranch owners or --

MR. KOGASAKA:  I'm not up on the negotiations 
with the ranch.

MR. STARR:  I think we do want the redundancy 
in the system.  I would like to see it resolved and 
put into progress. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  Essentially if what we're 
anticipating right now we have one Wakiu well and two 
Hamoa wells interconnected to give a combined back-up 
source.

MR. STARR:  Is that Wakiu well, is that our 
well or is that the ranch well?

MR. KOGASAKA:  That is our well.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Any other 
questions, comments? 
 Okay.  I guess that pretty much takes us 
through the list.  Can we then move to -- there is a 
couple of communications that are addressed to the 
committee, the first dated May 30th.  And I don't know 
if Mr. Starr and Mr. Hiranaga have copies.  This is a 
letter regarding the Lahaina Water Treatment Facility 
modifications, talking about $20,000 for a design 
contract amendment and $1,000,000 for construction of 
a cover in addition to a sludge lagoon.  Someone 
explain this project. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  The project involves -- we've 
contracted the consultant to plant modifications to 
control the algae growth and -- which caused the water 
to be discharged -- for the presedimentation basin and 
we wanted to get a more permanent solution in terms of 
controlling the algae and the disposal of that wastewater. 

MR. HAGER:  I'm Walt Hager, I'm the division supervisor. 
 The situation we're faced with is the fact 
that the .5 million gallon reservoir, presedimentation 
reservoir that we have is subject to the constant 
sunlight during the day and we're getting an algae 
buildup that we didn't anticipate.  This is creating a 
problem with disposing of the algae on the cleaning of 
the presedimentation basins as far as following the 
machine, reducing our production rates.  And that's 
what covers for us to reduce the amount of algae 
growth that we realize in that presedimentation basin.  
Because we're getting -- basically the algae spores 
are coming down from the intakes as the flows vary.  
As the flows drop off, the algae grows in the stream, 
flows come up, washes off, comes down.  So we get the 
spores inside the pre-sed basins.  The cover is to 
help alleviate that problem. 
 The sludge lagoon is needed because by design 
on cleaning the presedimentation basins, which we need 
to do on an ongoing basis, by design we were dumping 
it into the stream, returning it to the stream.  This 
is in violation of the clean water people's 
requirements.  So we needed some way to dispose of the 
sludge that's accumulated inside the presedimentation 
basins from not only the algae growth but also the 
solvents that come down and settle out in the pre-sed 
basin itself. 
 So the sledge lagoon is -- for that reason is 
to transfer the waste waters from the pre-sed basin 
over to the sludge lagoon where it can be dried.  But 
that's the basis of these two items. 
 Both of them are operational problems we're 
having that were not realized in the initial design of 
the facility.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So you have a design 
contract on this and you need additional -- you need 
supplemental funds to complete the design?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.  Based on the alternative, 
that we preferred we would need the electrical and 
electrical support.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So where is this on the 
prior year's budget?  This is under what?  The design.   
Lahaina presedimentation modification?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  And Lahaina water 
treatment plant?  Both. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  No.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  This is Lahaina, not Mahinahina.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Lahaina pre-sed modification.  
That's the design contract.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  And the design contract is 
for how much?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  $150,000.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Of which roughly $35,000 
has been spent to date?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  Well, currently it's about 
$53,000 has been expended.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  So I mean you need 
$20,000 to complete the design.  And you anticipate 
being able to put this out for construction this year?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

A VOICE:  [Inaudible] preparation of the budget.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Question, Mr. Rice?  

MR. RICE:  This is kind of a pretty large 
design oversight, don't you think, a million dollar 
mistake?  That's number one comment for question.  
Number two is it's not a problem in the other 
treatment facilities?

MR. WINTERS:  The original treatment plant 
design anticipated the intake water going to the 
pre-sed basin without any chemical addition.  After 
construction, the department modified the process to 
add coagulant in the -- ahead of the pre-sed basin.  
The original design was to clean the basin without any 
chemicals, that was felt it was all right to wash that 
back to the stream.  What come in from the stream go 
back out to the stream. 
 The deficient part of the design would have 
been in not anticipating as high a color concentration 
in the raw water as we have.  So that's the reason the 
department had to add coagulant.  But that modified 
what was in the pre-sed basin to wash out and thereby 
we could not any longer take that back to the stream 
without MPDS violation. 

MR. RICE:  But the situation doesn't occur in 
the other treatment plants? 

MR. HAGER:   No.  The reason why it doesn't at 
the other treatment plants is because the -- like at 
the Olinda facility, we have that eight and a half 
million gallon presedimentation basin we're working 
with and the cloud cover up there is such that we 
don't get the algae buildup as rapidly.  And we don't 
get the flushing effect like I spoke to earlier in the 
Waikamoi Haiku 1 area. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Jonathan?  

MR. STARR:  I walked through this whole thing 
one day and I just want to be supportive.  We really 
need to do this.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Are there any other plans 
where we're roofing the presedimentation basin or 
covering it to keep this algae problem from occurring?

MR. WINTERS:  Mahinahina already has a cover, 
it's a floating cover.  

MR. HAGER:  We're having some difficulty with 
our Piiholo property on our coagulation and filtration 
units with some development and we have put in for 
those covers, but I think they didn't make the cut 
this year.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  I guess one 
question I have is if the department is requesting a 
change in the amount of one million and change, do you 
have any recommendation as to where this million 
dollars is coming from?

MR. KOGASAKA:  Suggested from the capital reserve fund.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  From the capital reserve 
fund.  So what is the balance -- in the proposed 
budget, what is in the capital reserve fund? 

MS. SUZUKI:  The remaining balance after the 
current, $2,770,000.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  That's before the million? 

MS. SUZUKI:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  After the million?

MS. SUZUKI:  Before.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  You're going to 
have to show me that some place, I can't find that in 
all of this paper I have here.  But anyway, the 
proposal is to take it from capital reserve.  And that 
would leave what? 

MS. SUZUKI:  $1,777,000. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Any other 
questions, comments?  Let's see.  Why don't we take a 
break. 

(Brief recess.)

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  The meeting is back in 
session.  There was one other communication that I 
found at my desk here and it has to do with the 
Paukukalo Waterline Replacement project.  And I don't 
know if everybody has a copy of this.  Do you have a 
copy of this, Jonathan?  Okay.  Who is explaining 
this?  Mr. Rice is back, anxious to hear about 
Paukukalo Waterline. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  This is an update of what -- 
summarizing what we did on the Paukukalo project. 

MR. RICE:  Didn't we already appropriate the 
money?  Or did we not, we just said go ahead and do 
the mitigation and we were going to get the number 
later?  Or -- we already approved this.  You're just 
telling us what the final number is.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes, that's essentially it.

MR. RICE:  Mr. Chairman, I -- there is nothing 
new here.  Because we knew we had to stop the project, 
we knew we had to do the mitigation for the burials, 
we just didn't know what it was going to cost and we 
were trying to ballpark it by saying let's establish 
some kind of not-to-exceed number for each burial  
when we were bidding it.  That was our intention. 
 But this -- I guess the only -- the only 
unsettling part about the original request was that we 
failed to identify how many real meters were needed.  
That was the problem that -- probably the bigger 
problem with the design.

MR. KOGASAKA:  The amount that was 
appropriated for the burial was not to exceed $220,000 
-- $200,000.  We've expended $111,000 directly with 
the --

MR. RICE:  So actually you came in underneath 
that original estimate.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

MR. RICE:  We've mitigated all the burials now?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  No.  We've eliminated the 
section on Lilihua Street shown on your map, and 
Kanae, which is an approved cross-section.  And what 
we would like to do is encumber $50,000 of the 
remaining funds within the fiscal year and do the 
trenching and pipeline installation in-house with that 
$100,000 we have budgeted for next year. 

MR. RICE:  Do you think -- well, I understand.  
Are we changing the plan for that remaining section so 
we don't get into more burials or are we just planning 
to do it in-house?  If we do it in-house, we still 
have to have the monitor standing by, right?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  That's what we need to contact 
an archeological firm to do that.  The intent is to 
try to expose the areas where some anomalies were 
noted in the trench alignment and see what they are.  
If that is manageable, then we'll open up the trench 
and backfill with the archeological monitor there.  
And if that proves successful, then we can come in and 
lay the pipe in that -- re-dig the trench and lay the 
pipe there and finish up the project. 
 If the archeological burials are too excessive 
or it's going to be a problem with the burial council 
and historic preservation, one alternative is to 
direct the line to the existing pipeline and possibly 
following the existing pipeline and putting in a 
temporary line and then burying the pipeline along 
that existing line is which is -- it may -- we may 
encounter some burials over there as well.  But after 
we do the exploratory, we'll know what we have on the 
present alignment.  And again, this would be all time 
with our forces so that we don't have a contractor's 
schedule to contend with.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  So basically in the 
'02 budget, you're requesting $100,000 for Paukukalo 
water system improvements or replacement.  This is a 
progress report.  You're not asking for any additional 
funding.  Is that right?

MR. KOGASAKA:  We're not asking for any 
additional funding as such.  We are relying on the 
funding that was left over there.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  And the '02 appropriation.

MR. KOGASAKA:  That's right.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Any questions?  

MR. RICE:  No, let's get it done.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Mr. Rice is nodding his 
head.  He seems to be very happy and content.  Very 
good.  Any other questions on this project? 
 While we're talking about projects that have 
been delayed, George, what's the status of that 
Molokai project, that Iliahi/Nauwe project?  

MR. TENGAN:  I believe we're still waiting for 
the bonding company to execute the contract. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  The notice to proceed has been 
issued to the contractor to proceed with the work.  
That was Friday.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  As of Friday.  Okay.  And 
we're okay funding-wise, right?  Clearly we had money 
in order to authorize it to proceed. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  I believe so.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  That's good.  So 
what is the construction time you're anticipating?   

A VOICE:  A couple months.  

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Shouldn't be more.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Shouldn't be.  Unless they're 
trying to coordinate with the paving companies on 
Molokai because they shut down and start up with their 
projects.  So it may be a coordination thing.  We'll 
have to find out more about that, I think.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Either Mr. Starr or 
Mr. Hiranaga was at our last meeting when we went 
through the proposed '02 projects.  Quickly, do either 
of you have any questions you want to raise regarding 
any of these proposed projects for clarification, 
information?  

MR. STARR:  I have something on one of the two 
91 items.  And I apologize for not being able to be 
here Friday.  I want to understand about 01-15 and 
01-16, what they are and what the money that's been 
expended on 01-15 is.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Which are these, Jonathan?  

MR. STARR: This is Pulehu Well and Upcountry 
Source Improvements.  I believe upcountry source 
improvements are for a new well upcountry that we 
haven't delineated the location yet.  Pulehu well and 
transmission project, I really have no clue what that 
is and we've spent $42,000 on it.  So I'm trying to 
get an understanding of that. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Herb?  Or George?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  The upcountry source 
improvement project is being advertised right now for 
consultant service.

MR. STARR:  There's a consultant to plan a new 
well.  How about the 14, though, 15.  01-15.  It's a 
million five. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  That's the existing well off 
Omaopio Road.  That's the existing well that's about a 
quarter mile or so off --

MR. STARR:  That's the condemned well in the 
sugar cane plantation. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  That's right.

MR. STARR:  And what have we done for it and 
what were we -- what's the plan?  

MR. KOGASAKA: The plan was to -- 

MR. PASCUA:  Let me try and clarify this 
Pulehu well.  When we first went into this project, we 
tried -- we went out and purchased the Kanoa Well 2 
pump, hoping to use that pump in this Pulehu well.  
And that amounted to like $19,500 for a used pump.  
Then when we got it out and had it refurbished, we had 
some more expenses and we encumbered $1,000 more.  And 
when we had that casing exposed, we found that the 
pump wouldn't fit in there.  We're sorry about that.  
And right now we have an outstanding contract with 
supposedly an [inaudible] that was supposed to have 
put that pump into that well which is $7,500 which we 
haven't spent yet.  So that's part of the expenses 
that adds to that $41,000 that you're looking at.  And 
plus other smaller expenses. 
 I had a printout on that.  I'm sorry that I 
didn't bring it today.  But that's more or less where 
the expenses went on the $41,000 that you're questioning. 

MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair, I have a lot of concern 
over this thing and I don't know what the mechanism 
would be, but I would really like it to come before 
the board before any more money gets spent on it.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Well, the -- this money, 
this $1.5 million was an appropriation in the '01 
fiscal year.  It is not being carried over -- it's not 
proposed to carry over in the '02 fiscal year; is that 
correct?  So at this point the department is not 
proposing to do any -- is not proposing to move ahead 
on this project, would be my -- would be my conclusion 
from the proposed budget.  But I'm not sure if that's 
true or not.  Is that accurate? 

MR. TENGAN:  This is 99-04?  

MR. RICE:  No, no. 01-15, drought.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  01-15 is a $1.5 million 
appropriation of which half a million -- budget, which  
about $50,000 has been expended and there is no 
reference to it in the '02 budget.  So I'm concluding 
that he intends to drop the project. 

MR. STARR:  If that's the case, I have no problem. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  But that may not be accurate. 

MR. TENGAN:  I'm not sure what the director's 
intentions are on this one.  I'll check back with him 
and get back to the board.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  But Charlene, the money is 
-- under our present procedure, that money is going to 
disappear, right, if it's not reappropriated in the 
'02 budget?  

MS. SUZUKI:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  And so in the context of 
the '02 budget at this point, it's not recommended for 
inclusion. 

MR. STARR: I thought it was still in there, 
I'm sorry.  I'm satisfied.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Any other questions? 
 I wonder if we could spend a little bit of 
time, Herb, at the last meeting we talked about again 
the process for implementing CIP projects and how the 
department is organized to do that.  I know there is 
different, you know, engineering is involved, clearly 
fiscal is involved, planning is involved.  Perhaps, 
George, we might want to start with George.  You want 
to give us an overview as to how the department is 
organized to implement these projects?  Because there 
has been some concern expressed as to whether or not 
the staffing is adequate or the process needs to be 
looked at to be able to move the projects forward. 

MR. TENGAN:  Well, basically the planning is 
done through Ellen's division.  Ellen's division will 
work in coordination with engineering and also with 
fiscal, funding is significant.  As far as the budget 
process is concerned, all the division heads get 
together and come up with a list of projects that are 
needed and from there comes to the board for approval.  
Following board approval, then the staff will move on 
the projects.  That would be the general overview of 
how we would work within the department. 
 As to the details of the actual steps that are 
taken, maybe I can refer back to the division heads 
and how they coordinate their efforts with each other.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Well, for instance, let's 
take a project like a pump replacement project or a 
treatment plant replacement project.  The 
responsibility for moving ahead with each of those 
projects is with, for instance, Andy, you know, as 
soon as the budget is approved, now it's in Andy's 
court to implement pump replacement projects.

MR. TENGAN:  In the case of pump replacements, 
Andy will spearhead this project.  He would develop 
the specifications for the pumps.  He would work I 
believe with Ken Bissen, our purchaser, to advertise 
the work to be done.  Then when we -- after the bids 
are received, then he would review the bids and award 
the work to the contractor. 
 In the case of treatment plants, it would be 
initiated by the division head, working in 
coordination with engineering as to what kinds of 
modifications would be needed.  As an example, the 
covers, they will work in coordination in getting the 
ads out in the paper for bids.  And when the bids come 
in, I don't know if the treatment plant reviews -- 
engineering reviews the bids and from there the 
awarding of the contract is implemented. 
 So it kind of depends on what kinds of 
projects we're talking about.  Some division heads, 
especially in Andy's case where pumps are concerned, 
he would be spearheading the project.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So what projects -- or 
what category of projects does engineering have the 
lead on? 

MR. TENGAN:  New projects, I believe.  
Pipeline replacements.  As an example, listed under 
Drought, the Lower Kula reservoir would be under 
engineering.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Design and construction 
projects.  The process involves advertising for a 
consultant, contracting, and coordination throughout 
the design to the point we get the construction, and 
then put it out for construction bidding. 
 After the contract is awarded, then the 
divisions pick up and have their inspectors and their 
project engineers complete the construction.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So if you need a 
consultant, all of those go through engineering, all 
CIP projects go through -- if you need a consultant. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Because the county has a 
consultant selection process?  Is that correct?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes, the department has one, 
yes.  The department has one.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  The department has a 
consultant selection process.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So all of the consultant 
selection goes through engineering. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.  Oh, there may be some 
that planning does on a special case for some of 
Herb's projects.  Those are not related directly to 
the construction of pipelines or tanks.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So I guess the biggest 
question I have or maybe not the biggest question -- 
at this point a question that I have is the budget is 
passed, the CIP budget is passed.  Okay.  Now, who is 
responsible for the overall management of that CIP 
budget to see that the project's been implemented?  

MR. TENGAN:  As Herb was saying earlier, where 
it concerns design and construction, engineering would 
be responsible.  In the case of professional services, 
like if it's in Ellen's area, then she would be responsible. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So ultimately the only 
point of coordination in terms of overseeing all of 
the projects is in the director and the deputy 
director.  Or the director. 

MR. TENGAN:  Director.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  The deputy director is not 
responsible for CIP in any way?  

MR. TENGAN:  I participate in the consultant 
selection process. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Peter, go ahead. 

MR. RICE:  Mr. Chairman, I would think it 
would be a good exercise to take the CIP projects that 
are planned and for the staff to come back and say -- 
and it's not contingent on budget approval, but just 
how are you going to get these projects done this 
year.  Take each project and the steps that are 
required and establish a time line, kind of basic 
project management.  Maybe you do that already and 
it's easy, but I think it would answer the board's 
question as to are we capable of doing the projects 
that we've got listed here in the next fiscal year. 
 And if we're not, then do we need to bring on 
more staff to do them and we can address it from that 
perspective.  Or if we are, then at least we know 
who's responsible and what time frame to have what 
done.  Then if something comes up, you've got this 
list of projects here from, you know, the dark ages, 
then we ought to list what we need to do to get the 
project completed or get it out of there. 
 So if a decision needs to be made by the 
board, then let's put it on the list, let's get it 
done, or say no and put it to bed.  If there is land 
acquisition that has to be done, let's put it down so 
we know we've got five land acquisition problems, 
let's give it to somebody and get it done. 
 So let's just organize it a little bit more, I 
would say, Mr. Chairman.  The board will I think get 
more comfort out of that. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  I think that's a good 
point.  Mr. Starr?  

MR. STARR:  I just want to come at the same 
thing but from a different direction.  I think we -- I 
certainly feel that we're going to need to rachet 
things up, especially in terms of pipeline replacement 
and system replacement if we're going to be able to 
feel, you know, that we're turning over a good system 
to the next board several years from now.  And that it 
seems that our bottleneck is not really being able to 
do the projects, that's one bottleneck.  The other 
bottleneck is we as a board need to find ways to be 
able to fund it. 
 But my own feeling is that our replacement is 
not at the level that it needs to be to be able to 
maintain this size of a system so that that means each 
year the system is getting worse and not getting 
better.  And you know, I would like to have more of an 
understanding -- right now who decides which pipelines 
are to be replaced, you know, and what the basis is?  
I personally believe that we should create some kind 
of mechanism for that, whether it's, you know, a 
committee inside the department or something that 
actually looks at the plan and prioritizes what the 
order and what needs to be done each year on a longer 
term basis, not just where the squeaky wheel gets the 
grease or what's easy to do or whatever.  So can I get 
a better understanding --

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Ellen?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  I guess there is an existing 
long-term list of projects that need -- and pipelines 
that need replacement that were initially just 
prioritized based on how substandard they were, how 
old they were, and to some lesser extent amount of 
people that could be served or problems with breakage 
or that they were ready for design that the department 
had moved far enough along or that they had come up in 
district supervisors' meetings or something like that. 
 Now with this Brown & Caldwell model, we're 
trying to tie those two together.  The inventory, the 
numbers that they use to identify system elements 
don't match the numbers in the [inaudible] model 
entirely, so it's going to take about a year to just 
work out those glitches.  But once that's done, we can 
be even more systematic. 
 But even when something would be due by 
schedule for replacement, if another line is breaking 
or having more problems because of where it's located 
or how acid the soils are, it's never going to be 
exact with that. 
 But what we do is we have an ongoing list and 
we all meet, all the division heads, and particularly 
engineering and planning, several times and with each 
district to go over what are the most important 
projects in that district.  And we have a series of 
several meetings.  So that it's kind of a consensus.  
We know what the possible needs are and then we narrow 
it down based on consensus.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Do you have a pretty good 
database in terms of the existing system?  You know, 
do you know where all of our lines are, what size they 
are, how old they are, what condition they are?

MS. KRAFTSOW:  "Pretty good" is a funny word.  
We've been trying to build that database for maybe the 
last five years.  And we have -- all of the pipes are 
entered in a GIS system, but in terms of age of pipe, 
some of the as-builts just don't exist anymore.  In 
terms of pipe material, there were conflicts between 
maps.  So I would say it's maybe 80 percent or 85 
percent, but it's not perfect. 
 And then there is, again, the problem with -- 
Brown & Caldwell used data from Stoner that we had 
developed for the hydraulic model to build this asset 
replacement model.  But somehow there is also some way 
that they had to make up some numbers.  And I'm trying 
to work those glitches out.  When we had originally 
scoped it, the idea was that those elements would tie 
into a CIP and a GIS and the assets could all work 
together.  I mean, you can see the value in that if 
you can tie your data together.  But we don't have 
that worked out yet and that's -- those kinds of 
things take years to build.  It's not --
 So we have something, it's ongoing, it's 
getting better every year, but it's not perfect. 

MR. STARR:  At some point I would like to see 
the list, the future hit list.  I understand it's not 
a perfect clean document, but it's a working document.

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Yeah.  The last time we 
actually did a printout of the entire list with all 
the maps and everything was '96, I think, it was 600 
pages.  Now it would be about 1,100 pages.  So we 
don't print it very often.  But I can print just a 
list without the maps very easily.

MR. STARR:  Just the titles would be fine. 

MS. KRAFTSOW:  Yeah.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Herb, walk me through a 
process.  For instance, you talked about the, for 
example, the Kalae tank, you talked about a tank that 
needed to be designed, there were land issues.  When 
that item pops up as a CPI project, what do you do?  
You assign it to one engineer to take the project 
through from beginning to end?  And on what basis is 
that assignment?  

MR. KOGASAKA:  It's assigned to the design -- 
the CIP design and then go through procurement, up to 
a construction bid.  That takes care of the 
preliminary design layouts.  These are all worked by 
the consultants and that's evaluated.  Identify the 
land issues.  And then that engineer has to negotiate 
a land acquisition over there. 
 The consultant primarily designs the systems 
and gets all the approvals, identifies all the permits 
that's needed and prepares the permits for -- if we're 
the applicant, then they essentially prepare the 
application for our signature and then help process 
the permits.  Subdivisions which will also be the 
consultants -- within the consultants' scope of work.  
Only part that's out of is it the negotiations and 
then there is also the -- we do a check of the 
construction plans which is a major part of that, yes.  
We review the bid documents and then put it out to 
bid.  We do the advertising and printing. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  But when you say we, 
you're talking about --

MR. KOGASAKA:  The department.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  The department being -- I 
mean the department is -- I guess that's my point is 
is there one person that's taking it through from 
beginning to end, or is it -- can you define who's -- 
at any point what the responsibility is?

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yeah, that will be the engineer 
that's assigned to that project.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So he's responsible.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yeah.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  From beginning to end.  
Including land acquisition.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yeah.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Permits.  Whatever.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes, through the consultants.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So how is that assignment 
made?  Do you have a CIP section or is it by 
geographical area or --

MR. KOGASAKA:  We have a section that deals 
with the CIP.  And in this past fiscal year, some of 
the districts have taken on some design projects as well. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So you say you have a CIP section.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  How many engineers in your 
CIP section?

MR. KOGASAKA:  Right now, one.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  And all of the CIP 
projects are somehow coordinated by this one person?

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  So although it may end up 
with a different engineer based on geography or 
subject matter or whatever, at least there is one 
person who has a handle on all of the projects?  Or 
should have a handle on all of the projects?

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Is that a reasonable workload?

MR. KOGASAKA:  I think so.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  For one person?

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes, I think -- I think that it's manageable.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Actually we have -- we should 
have two engineers there, but right now it's just one.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Well, I guess, again, the 
concern is that the board will appropriate funds for 
CIP each year and, you know, our interest is in seeing 
that these projects move ahead, as I'm sure your 
interest is.  And if there is a need for us to review 
the process and to provide further assistance, you 
know, we want to be helpful and we don't want to wait 
until the end of the year and say how come you guys 
only did 20 percent of the projects or whatever it is, 
or 50 percent of the projects, and then have somebody 
come back and say oh, well, we were under staffed, or 
something like that. 
 So, you know, I guess that's the question, how 
can we move these projects along?  I think there is a 
sense -- there is a sense, and it may be unfair, but 
there is a sense that projects are not moving along as 
quickly as either the board or the department would be 
happy with.  And if that in fact is the case, what can 
we do, mutually do?  And I guess our sense is that, 
you know, in order for us to help you, you got to tell 
us if you have a problem.  For instance, land, do we 
know how much the magnitude of the problem of, you 
know, places where we don't own land underneath 
storage tanks or treatment plants or where we don't 
have easements for pipelines, and is this something 
that we need to move ahead with.  And if so, are we 
equipped to do it?  I don't think so.

MR. KOGASAKA:  I agree, at this point we do 
need a lot of help on identifying and procuring -- 
getting the easements along the pipeline and 
evaluating exactly what we have and don't have.  
That's an area that's been neglected at this point. 
 As far as needing help for CPI projects, we're 
short one person right now and if we can get that 
position filled might be -- it will improve.  The 
question was another person would be needed also --

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Or do we need a land agent 
or whatever you call it, but somebody who's 
responsible for procuring land.  I don't know.

MR. KOGASAKA:  I think that would be a good 
suggestion to have another person that's not 
necessarily an engineer, but someone say who's more 
versed in the real estate business might be more 
helpful because that would be more in their line of 
expertise.  Whereas we're using engineers right now.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Any other comments or 
thoughts or questions or --

MR. STARR:  I like your train of thought.  I 
think you're on the right track. 

MR. RICE:  I think if you just organize 
everything so that we know what it is that's 
outstanding, then we can -- we'll know how many land 
issues are there out there.  Forget -- we know there 
is easements that we don't have and there is property 
that we need to buy.  But to get projects going, 
you've got probably five or six land issues right now 
that need to be resolved. 

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Sounded like it when we 
were talking about [inaudible]. 

MR. STARR:  Seems like that's a constant thing 
that holds projects up is the right to use the land 
that we need or then the archeological kind of comes 
into it as well.  Maybe a good land person could 
circumvent a lot of that. 

A VOICE:  Question, Mr. Chair.  Tank sites, do 
you normally try to acquire easements or is it 
subdivided parcels?

MR. KOGASAKA:  Preference would be subdivided parcels. 

A VOICE:  But perpetual easements --

MR. KOGASAKA:  We try to get lots if we can, 
unless there are other extenuating reasons why we 
should settle for an easement or in case of Hawaiian 
Homes their own license. 

A VOICE:  So the easements would sufficient.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes, we have some tank sites on perpetual easements. 

A VOICE:  Because if you've put into a 
situation where there are only large tracts of land, 
does the department itself go through the subdivision 
process or does it expect the current owner to do the 
subdivision?

MR. KOGASAKA:  The department generally takes 
on that task. 

A VOICE:  They're not required to conform to 
the minimum lot sizes per the zoning for that 
particular area?

MR. KOGASAKA:  As an applicant, the department 
has provisions in the ordinance that would permit them 
to vary the lot size less than, for example, ag, 
minimum two acres, we can go less than that in ag areas. 

A VOICE:  Do you obtain a variance from the 
Board of Variances and Appeals or is it an 
administrative process for the nonconforming lot size?

MR. KOGASAKA:  I believe it's administrative, 
but -- yeah, I think it is permitted in the ordinance, 
but I'm not positive on that.  We need to take a good 
look at it to verify it. 

A VOICE:  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Any other 
questions, comments?  Maybe, Herb, we need to get 
together and try to think about this a little bit, 
make some recommendations to the board.

MR. KOGASAKA:  Okay.  That sounds good.

CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA:  Okay.  Anything else?  
Meeting is adjourned.

(WHEREUPON, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.)

IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.