BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING

 
Held at the HGEA Conference Room, David K. Trask, Jr. Office
Building, 2145 Kaohu Street, Room 207, Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii,
commencing at 11:00 a.m., on August 13, 2001.
 
REPORTED BY:  JEANNETTE W. IWADO, RPR/CSR #135
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
 
A T T E N D A N C E
 
CHAIRPERSON:                   
JONATHAN STARR
 
BOARD MEMBERS:                 
MICHAEL NOBRIGA
KENT HIRANAGA
ORLANDO TAGORDA
 
DIRECTOR                       
DAVID CRADDICK
 
DEPUTY DIRECTOR                
GEORGE TENGAN
 
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL:    
HOWARD FUKUSHIMA
 
FISCAL OFFICER:                
MICHAEL QUINN
 
ENGINEERING:                   
HERBERT KOGASAKA
 
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
AUGUST 13, 2001, 11:00 A.M.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Call to order the meeting of the
operations committee of the Maui County Board of Water Supply.
We have with us today committee members Honorable Kent
Hiranaga, Orlando Tagorda, Mike Nobriga, and I'm Jonathan
Starr.  We have Director David Craddick, Finance Officer Mike
Quinn, George Tengan, Deputy Director, and Corporation Counsel
Howard Fukushima.  And also our court reporter doing a great
job for us, and also Herb and Herb handling the engineering and
operational side of the department.
 I believe that we do not have any minutes to approve
at this time, so we will move along to testimony from the
public.  And I'd like to ask if anyone in the public would like
to give any testimony before we start.
 Come up here and sit down, sir.  Tell us who you
are, and you are welcome to expound.
 
MR. CHAPMAN:  Thanks.  My name is Bob Chapman and I
have the property up on Middle Road that I wrote a letter about
trying to get the water meter for.  The water meter now, we
have a property up there, I think it's number 73, it adjoins
this piece of property, and the water service comes up to the
top of a driveway that splits the property.  It goes right down
the property.  And then we have the house on the bottom, lot
number 73, I believe, and there's a standpipe halfway up the
driveway.
 There's a standpipe up at the top of the road.  The
standpipe at the top of the road sits on the corner of lot
number 11, where 11 meets the driveway going down to lot 73.
This lot that we are asking for the water meter for adjoins lot
number 11, so there is water service up to lot number 11 next
door.  The standpipe number is 277.  And what I'd like to do is
to extend that pipe down the road at my expense to the lot next
door, which is our lot, and obtain a meter.
 Now, there is an agreement here that states that
these properties in the Harold Shim Subdivision would have to
comply with the subdivision requirements before building
permits or additional water service could be granted.  And two
out of the three lots in that Harold Shim Subdivision, they do
have residences and they do have water service.
 And my first request from the Board of Water Supply
was that I'd have to meet these subdivision requirements and
put in the pipe system all the way down the road past the three
lots, put in the laterals and the hydrants.  And my position is
I am willing to extend the line from the lot next door to my
property, but I can see no reason to extend it all the way down
around past the other two lots which already have meters and
have water service.
 So my request is to extend the line from where it
presently deadends down the one lot, to my lot, and stop it
there.  It's my understanding, we have had surveyers up there
on that street, and they say they're doing it for a water line
in the future.  So if there's going to be a new water line in
the future, why do we have to extend the line down the road
right now and cover existing properties that already have
water?  So I think my request is reasonable.  I just want to
pay for the extension to bring the water to the corner of my
lot and stop it there, since the other two lots already have
water.  That's my proposal.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Members, any questions for
Mr. Chapman?  I understand that we don't really have a staff
report on this, is that correct?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That's it.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  This is it?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Hot off the presses.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  It was still warm.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  It wasn't in the package, though.
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  Hot off the presses.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like
to get some point of clarification here.  This lot is a three
lot subdivision by the Harold Shim family, and you bought a
parcel out of this three lot subdivision, Mr. Chapman?
 
MR. CHAPMAN:  That's correct.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  And you didn't know then or before you
bought this property or this parcel from Shim, did you know
that there was an agreement entered into by this subdivision
with the Department of Water Supply or the Board of Water
Supply that was dated October 11, 1978?

MR. CHAPMAN:  Right.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  In that agreement, if you were able to
read it, it says on this report that the purpose of that
transfer is not to ask for a building permit or other uses.
But it so happened that there was some kind of actions done in
the past by the department and some of these landowners of the
two parcels that is questionable now, if I understand very
well.
 
MR. CHAPMAN:  That's correct.

MR. TAGORDA:  What you're asking this committee is
just a fair treatment given to the two landowners.
 
MR. CHAPMAN:  Right.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I see that point.  However, I still
have kind of -- am not able to understand, and I don't want to
point fingers here, why is it that when this county or this
department entered into an agreement -- and I would like to ask
the Corporation Counsel -- that how can we enforce an agreement
entered into by this department knowing that there is very
clear violations of that agreement?

MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chairman.  At the time
the agreement was entered into, Member Tagorda, I don't believe
there were any violations.  What happened subsequent to the
entering of that agreement, through inadvertence, excusable
neglect, or however you want to characterize it, it appears
that two building permits were in fact granted where they
should not have been.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  That's correct.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Why they were granted I can't say.
These agreements were recorded, they run with the land, and
both the owners as well as the department should have known.
Again, I cannot answer why the department did not enforce the
terms of the agreement that was entered into in 19 -- what was
that, 1974, 1978?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  1978.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I have no comment as to that.  But
the agreement is clear that no building permits or additional
water service should have been granted until all subdivision
improvements had been put in place.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  I want to understand, the request
is for a water meter though, it's not to sign off on a building
permit, is that correct?
 
MR. CHAPMAN:  This is just for a water meter.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  And that the two water meters that
are existing, those were in place from 1962.  So meters have
not been installed?
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Meters were not installed, but
building permits were granted.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Now, to follow up my question, Mr.
Chairman, if I may, to our Corp Counsel.  Can your office
review the agreement and the department records and find out
what legal recourse can we do or the Board can do so these
things that's been happening in the past and probably we can
prevent this in the future, can be remedied.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chairman.  Is the
member requesting as to what recourse the department has as to
the building permits that were approved in the past?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  The building permits that were
approved in the past wherein if you look at the agreement there
should not be a building permit granted by the department.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  That's correct.  And you want to
know if we can pull those building permits?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Exactly.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  This many years after the
construction, after the department approved?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  What I'm trying to say here is let's
just not in the future do these things.  We need to get really
-- we need to look at the agreement really carefully and
thoroughly and interpret it the way it was written.  What
Mr. Chapman is trying to say to us here is, "let me be equally
treated with those two owners."
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Well, they're not entirely --
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Because if we are going to let him
only shoulder the expenses to comply with the requirements
asked by the department, what happened to the two landowners
that were into that agreement?
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Again, the situations between the
other two lot owners and Mr. Chapman can be distinguished.  The
other two lots had existing meters; this particular lot does
not have an existing meter.  However, I think that the question
that you are posing as to what the department did and what the
department can do in the future to prevent this type of
occurrence is a question that would properly -- should properly
be directed to the Director rather than to Corporation
Counsel.
 As far as the issue of the already issued building
permits, I believe there's very little that we can do.  The
owners did act upon reliance of two apparently valid building
permits that were issued by the Department of Public Works, and
if I am not mistaken, signed off by the Department of Water
Supply.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I suspect so.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  So at this point I would believe
that there's very little to do.  They were acting upon official
assurances that it was okay to go on, even though there were
agreements that said that perhaps other things should be done
before any permits were issued.  And I wouldn't want to go into
the issues of liability at this time, although they could be
potentially -- there are potential issues of liability to the
department, if that's the course of action this committee is
going to recommend.
 But what we have before you is a request from
Mr. Chapman to waive certain subdivision requirements.  The
standard that this committee and the Board applies in these
types of requests is if the request will not jeopardize other
users in the area, then waivers from the strict application of
the subdivision rules can be waived.  So that's the issue
before you right now.  And I believe that Mr. Craddick perhaps
has a proposal or some insight into this issue that can help
the committee.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  I believe there's another issue
here, which is something that is a question that I've asked and
other Board members have asked a number of times.  I remember
that one time where we met in Lahaina, over in Lahaina.  The
concern is, how does our process currently and in the future
prevent us from making this error tomorrow or next year.  And
I'd like to ask the Director, and I also hope that Herb can
give us some wisdom too, as to how our process deals with it so
that hopefully we learn a lesson from when the process breaks
down.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I'm going to guess that because those
other two lots had meters that nobody went to look for one of
these family subdivision agreements.  I'm just guessing.
Herb, would you know?
 
MR. CHANG:  I think in this particular case I
believe the problem was if you look at the agreement it refers
to the tax map key parcel 12.  And then normally when we have
these building permits, one of our processes is to look for old
agreements.  Unfortunately, parcel number 12, if you look at
exhibit B, that number was totally eliminated and was replaced
with 78, 79 and 80.  That might have caused reasonable human
error as far as tracking down the agreement.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  So you mean once they got that waiver
and they did the subdivision, then the tax map key numbers
changed?
 
MR. CHANG:  Parcel number 12 was totally eliminated,
and the three lots that were created was like 78, 79 and 80.
That's the problem, because three people handled these permits
and all three missed it.  So that's the only thing I can think
of.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  So that certainly is
understandable.  If the property description changes, nothing
would come up when you look for or are looking for the new
property number.  How can we, you know, before we deal with
this one case, how do we prevent or improve our system so that
we don't do this again?  That's my question.
 
MR. CHANG:  I think about a year and a half ago we
went manually through all of the agreements and looked at each
parcel and we updated our data base.  So I believe we got most
of them out in our data base.  It will flash out a red light
saying the number has changed.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If I may, Mr. Chairman.  Herb, when
parcels are assigned new tax map key numbers after subdivision,
is your department generally informed of those changes?
 
MR. CHANG:  We have to look at it two years later
on, then we look at a tax map itself.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Do you have a standing request with
the Real Property Tax Division to be informed of tax map key
numbers when they are assigned?
 
MR. CHANG:  I have never seen anything.  Maybe Dave
or Herb has from the tax office.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Because I believe they have
something worked out with Public Works where Public Works is
informed.  Now, it may be a little late, because it depends
upon when these agreements are recorded, and the state or
whoever assigns the TMK numbers gets around to it.  But I
believe there is some process to be informed of TMK numbers
when they are assigned.  So perhaps you can touch bases with
the Real Property Tax Division to inquire about obtaining that
information.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Herb?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  I believe what Howard is referring to
is the currently adopted process of addressing each parcel, and
I am not too sure what the status of this is, but it's pretty
well along in its way.  It's a new identification process for
each parcel and the parcels created thereafter.  Yes, we'd like
to get on with that concept as well.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  In other words, will there be a new
way of referring to each parcel?  That sounds like a recipe for
another whole layer of problems, if they're going to create a
new identity.  Anyway, I'd just like to ask that staff work to,
you know, I don't think it requires any action by the Board,
but I would just like to ask that staff use whatever abilities
and whatever we can get from other departments to try to find
ways to make us bulletproof in these kinds of things, because
it's very complicated.
 I certainly can't lay blame for this, you know.  The
tax map key number changed and there was no record of it.  But
hopefully we can learn from it and get better.
Dave, do you have any comment?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I'd like to offer maybe a solution to
the problem.  The Chapmans say they're willing to fix the water
line up to their portion of the property, and that certainly
would be acceptable to the staff, if we at least got the line
fixed up to their property along the road.  I believe that's
within the Board's power, to modify subdivision requirements.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Can I get a clarification?  I am
looking at the map, but I'm so confused about which parcel.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Your property is Lot 1, right?
 
MR. CHAPMAN:  No, we're 78.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  This one right here (indicating)?
 
MR. CHAPMAN:  Yes, that's the one.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That's Lot 1.  Anyway, this lot at
this point, exhibit D, it's the page right before the one that
I gave you, exhibit D as in David.  His lot is Lot 1.  Now, if
you go back to the other map, that's on the far left-hand side
at the top.  So he's saying he will bring it down from wherever
the line is inadequate down to his portion of the lot there,
and that would be acceptable to us.  Especially in light of the
fact that the other -- if there is a pipeline project being
designed up there.
 Are we doing one, Herb, or is somebody else doing
something?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  Not in this area.  We are coming down
from --
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It may be somebody else who is doing
something then, if he's saying somebody is surveying a line or
doing some surveying up there.
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  We're doing the work down on the cross road.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  They may have just been coming from
up there down.
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  It's not going to extend all the way
up the cross road, but the portion where the tank is, down the
makai side of that towards the hospital.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  So, trying to understand, these are
the properties in question?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  The crosshatched line on exhibit E.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Even though it says E.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That's the lot that's subdivided into
three lots, and they have the one on the most left-hand side.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Which is that?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  These three here (indicating).
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  So this is this lot here, okay.
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.  We are
indeed confused as to what fits where on what map.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Right.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Okay, on exhibit E, the crosshatched
rectangle with the road on the top of it is the property that
is on exhibit D, which is listed as Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3.
Chapman's is Lot 1, which is the farthest left portion of that
square on exhibit E.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  So we are looking at Lot 1, which
is a 4.891 lot.
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  So where is 78, 79 and 80 then?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chapman, where do you propose to
build?  Where do you propose to build a line?
 
MR. CHAPMAN:  Lot number 1 that you see there is now
lot 78, they changed the number.  So 78, lot 78.  Then there's
80, which is a small one in between, and then there's lot 79.
So lot number 78 is what you show as number 1, okay.  Lot
number 3 is the little parcel which is now parcel 80 in between
the two.  And lot number 2 is a 4.602 acres.  That's changed to
79.  It goes 78, 79, and then in between that's 80.
 If you look at your lot number 1 I guess there,
which is 78, on the Makawao side up the road, adjoining it is
lot number 11, and there's where the water goes to right now.
So it's adjoining parcel 78.  The numbers jump because there's
number 11 and then 78 next door.  I don't know how they worked
that out.  So it's an adjoining parcel.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Question, Mr. Chair.  So that the
subdivision is currently being serviced by the two-inch
Driscoll pipe that also serves the Jacinto lot, the two
existing meters?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I'm going to guess that's how it's
served, but I don't really know.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Do you know who currently owns lots
79 and 80, parcels 79 and 80?
 
MR. CHAPMAN:  79 is Mike Shim, and 80 is Rowland Shim.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  By this staff report it appears to me
that only lot 79  has not complied with the agreement to date,
because lot 80 had existing dwellings.  It says "no additional
building permits."  So those are existing buildings, according
to the staff report.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It says, "no new building permits," I
think is what the agreement says.  So it doesn't matter whether
there are existing buildings or not.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  It does matter.  If the building was
there and he is not building new buildings, then he's not in
default of the agreement.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I think the agreement says, "no
building permits."  It doesn't say whether it's on existing
buildings or anything like that, it just says, "no building
permits."
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If there is an existing building you
are correct, the thing can continue.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  The building was in existence prior
to the agreement.  And from this report, parcel 80 has not
requested any building permits subsequent to the agreement.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes, it has.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  It is not in this report.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes, it is.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Item 7 relates to parcel 79 .
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Oh, okay, sorry.  You're right, correct.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  So the only parcel that has not
complied with this agreement is parcel 79, and it is still the
original owner who agreed to the agreement.  So I think we
should first pursue or inform the Shims that they are in
default of the agreement and see if they will in fact
participate in bringing, in fulfilling their obligations to the
agreement.  Have they been approached or notified that they
have failed to comply with this agreement?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I don't believe so, no.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  I would suggest that we contact them
to see what their position is, since they're the original
owners and they signed the agreement.  We are assuming that
they are not going to comply, but they may agree to comply,
then you could have the entire system upgraded.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  They didn't sign off on the
agreement.  They weren't a subdivider, they were a transferee
from the agreement.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  We should see if the Shims are
willing to uphold what their father agreed to.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  As a transferee, were they also
subject to it?
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  As transferee, because the agreement
runs with the land, they are bound by it.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  What's the legal picture though
after the fact?
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  But the problem is they built, and
it's a valid permit approved by the department.  And now the
department -- now what is being suggested is the department
comes back and says, "Well, ten years ago we were wrong, so you
have got to put in an improvement at a substantial cost to
yourself," where they perhaps would not have requested a
building permit if they knew they had to come up with this
expense.  So it's very difficult.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  It wouldn't hurt to ask them if
they're willing to fulfill their obligation.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  If they say no, what are you going
to do?
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  We will have to go to the next step.
Since they are the direct heirs from the subdivider, we'll see
if they will uphold the obligations that their parents had
agreed to.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Again, you can approach them, but I
can guess what their response is going to be.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  "If somebody had told us, we would
have done it."
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  I know that in law there are two,
you know, there are two classes of, you know, there are some
things that you can do and not get caught and still get in
trouble for later, and there are other things that once a
certain time rolls by, you can't.  I don't really know how this
sort of thing falls.  I have a feeling that it would be very
hard to force them to contribute at this point.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Yes, I believe that under estoppel
theories that the department would be estopped from trying to
say that, "You owe us money now," especially when the
department itself signed off and approved the building permit,
I presume.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  It's only for lot 79.  Lot 80 is not
released from their obligation.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  But they haven't asked for a
building permit.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  The way this is termed, if one of the
lots request, then all three are liable.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  He's not necessarily responsible.
If there are different owners and one person wants to come in,
he can't say, "Okay, you have got to pay half."  Nevertheless,
because one person wants to build, that doesn't mean the other
person is automatically obligated to pay half of the costs.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Because the parties involved were of
a single family, that stipulation should have been placed in
there, versus independent parties who are not related.
 I would like to request, Mr. Chair, that at least a
formal letter informing the current owners of 79 and 80 be
informed of this obligation, and have them try to solicit a
response.  We are not demanding compliance, but we are
requesting compliance.
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  I would support that.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Well, my question would be, would
it be fair to send that to the owners of lot 80 or just to 79,
because 80, as far as I'm concerned, has not done --
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  He still has an obligation, Mr. Chair.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  They never applied for any kind of permit.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  We could send a copy of the letter to
lot 80, addressed to lot 79 .
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  80 had constructed homes up to the
October 11, 1978 agreement.  You can look at the approved
building permit.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  David, do you have a comment to make?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  It was 1978 when they had those
buildings.  It's only 80 that doesn't have any dwelling on his
lot.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  David, go ahead, please.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  78, I'm sorry.

MR. CRADDICK:  I believe that the agreement says
that whoever does it first is required to make the
improvements.  So I would expect whether the Chapmans were
there or the Shims were there, whoever does it first would
contact those other two and say, "Hey, I am going to do this,
do you want to participate or will you participate with me?"
It wouldn't be our obligation to go chase down those other
people for the first one who wants to build.
 Now, he could rightly come in and say, "Hey, why did
you let them build?  And we want you to kick in for the Chair
that let these building permits go."  He's not asking us to do
that.
 I think as far as the other two lots, the line is
not being carried on past down the road to their lot, so they
still won't have any adequate fire protection down there unless
that's done.  He's offering to fix the line up from the point
of adequacy to where his lot is.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  I agree, I believe that's a step
further down the road.  The first step is to contact lot 79  to
see what his position is regarding his obligation, and put that
in writing with a copy to lot 80, just to keep lot 80 informed
of what is occurring regarding that subdivision.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We could do that.  I don't think you
need any motion of the Board or anything, we can do that.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  I think sending them a letter and
saying what happened, I don't see any harm with that.  But I do
think that we should deal with the matter at hand either one
way or another, as far as Mr. Chapman and his family is
concerned, which is really whether we would want to accept the
improvements being done from his side as a fair -- not
compensation, but a fair price to pay for being allowed to get
the subdivision.
 What kind of distance are we talking about, David,
that they would be running a six-inch line?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Do you know, Herb?
 
MR. CHANG:  My guess is around 800 feet of six-inch.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Question, Mr. Chair.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Go ahead.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Was there any fire protection
requirements to be included in that?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  So does the County have any liability
to lot 79 for allowing building permits to be issued without
adequate fire protection?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That I don't know, I would have to
leave that up to Howard to venture.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Usually with a family subdivision
isn't there also a waiver of liability with the family
subdivision document?  I know we have demanded it recently.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  It's a tough question to answer, it
would depend upon the facts.  I can't guess at all the facts.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  We would have to see the document.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It's here, exhibit C.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Let's see what exhibit C says.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  There's a hold harmless there on page
three of the agreement.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Typically for fire protection, since
the County -- I mean the County generally has no duty to
provide fire protection.  Additionally, this jurisdiction is
something known as the -- it slipped my mind.  Anyway, in this
jurisdiction the law is and it's basically that we don't owe a
duty to any one member of the public, but we hold a duty to the
public in general.  It's the Notice of Public Duty Doctrine.
 Essentially, unless we have some sort of
contractural or other obligation to an individual, we generally
don't have an obligation or are liable to individuals.  We have
the obligation to the public as a whole, but not to any one
individual.  That's a general law.  But there are facts and
circumstances that may go to change considerations under that
general statement.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  I know my concern would be not for
lot 79 so much as for lot 80, to be sure that adequate fire
protection is being given for lot 80.  As Captain Ball, the
fire captain mentioned at a meeting just on Friday, the idea
for demanding fire protection on a subdivision is more to
protect the existing houses and the existing lots around the
new subdivision.  So my question is, the proposed project, how
is that going to provide fire protection for lot 80 and for the
other lots around it?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It's not.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  It's not?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  That's what I would want to see, is
that lot 80, there would be fire protection for lot 80, since
they're the ones who would be impacted by the subdivision of
lot 78.  And they haven't built on lot 80 since this whole
thing happened, but they had pre-existing dwellings.  Is there
a way of developing fire protection for lot 80 out of this?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Not unless they participate in it or
we tell the Chapmans no and they have to do it all.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  I'm a little bit confused, because
I see this drawing and it shows a new six-inch line.  This is
what we requested?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Right.  And his lot ends here, so his
responsibility would end in here somewhere, not continuing on
down here (indicating).
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Would he be willing to provide some
degree of fire protection for lot 80 as part of the new line?
 
MR. CHAPMAN:  No.  The reason being is that right
now lots 79 and 80, what do they have right now?  Why do I have
to give them something they don't have?  Let them pay their own
way.  If they want to bring the line up the other direction,
they can come that way, too.  If they want to extend it on from
my lot down, let them do that.  But why should I foot the bill
for providing them with something?  They've already got water
service.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Where would he be putting the fire
hydrant, would he be putting it at the end of the line, Dave?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes, so it would be 800 feet closer
to those lots.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Where would it be, the hydrant?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I don't know, we would have to get
the plans.  I'm sure at the end of the line is where the
hydrant would be.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  In other words, it would be over
here (indicating).
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Well, the requirements say along the
road, and I don't know how long the distance is along the
road.  If the distance along the road were less than 250 feet,
then it could end there, otherwise it would have to go along
the road.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  To within 250 feet.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Right, of whatever the previous
hydrant is, until there is no more along the road that you
could put a line in.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Mr. Chapman, if lots 79 and 80 were
contacted regarding this agreement, and they both agree to
participate, fulfill their obligations, would you also agree to
participate in fulfilling the entire obligation?
 
MR. CHAPMAN:  Sure, because they're going to have to
carry their share of it.  I can tell you right now what they'll
say.  Would you do it if you had somebody come back after the
fact to you?
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  That's irrelevant if I would do it.
 
MR. CHAPMAN:  I'll tell you what they will do.  To
me, it's just a waste of time.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  I just wanted an answer to my
question, Mr. Chapman.
 
MR. CHAPMAN:  Well, you got it, as far as I am
concerned.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  In your letter, Director, can you
also state that Mr. Chapman would be agreeable to participating
so lot 79 doesn't feel that he has to cover 100 percent of the
construction cost, and also inform me?  They might want the
improved water line.  So rather than guess that they don't want
it, I think to at least have that presented to them and let
them say they're not interested or they're not willing to do
it.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Okay, we already agreed that the
Director would send out a letter.  I know for me my feeling is
that there should be -- if we are going to issue the new water
meter, then there should be fire protection for at least lot
80.  I would want to see that, because that's the idea behind
causing the improvements before a subdivision is put in place,
is to provide fire protection for the adjacent lots that are
unprotected, so that a fire that starts out in one of the new
lots in the subdivision doesn't adversely threaten the existing
houses on another lot that doesn't get served.  So anyway,
Members, what would you like to do here?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Like Mr. Hiranaga, let the department
contact the two owners of parcel 79 and 80 and see what if they
want to contribute to the expenses to get that line adequate,
then so be it.  And if not, then we go up to the second stage
of trying to --
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Would you like to defer the matter
in the meantime?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  We cannot do action now until we get
that letter responded to, to the owners.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Actually, you could do action now
because they're either going to participate or not
participate.  If they participate, the whole line is going to
be done.  There's no action for the Board to take on the
matter.  If they don't participate, all you have to do is
decide whether you are going to let them go ahead or not.  So
you can decide right now and put the thing to bed.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Mr. Chair, actually there would be
two issues.  One is to just extend the line as Mr. Chapman
requested, or to require him to extend the line to require fire
protection to lot 80.  I am not sure if I am prepared at this
time to take that position until we find out the position from
lot 79 .
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  How about a motion to defer until
we get a response?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Move to defer, Mr. Chair.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Second.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Conversation?  All in favor of
deferral?
(A chorus of ayes).
All opposed?
(None).
Okay, the matter is deferred until we get some
response, then we can put it back on.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Mr. Chair, is Mr. Nobriga not part of
the operation?  Did you vote?
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  No, I stay fast asleep.  The whole
process was just boring to me, because the guy just wanted to
know if he could do what the other guys did.  And we could have
just said, "Yeah, he can."  And I don't know where the
discussion went to, but it's completely outside of the realm of
what was the agenda here.  And the Chairman chose to continue
with that line of questioning, so hey, you go for it.  There is
no meters to be issued anyway, so it's kind of a moot point,
yeah?
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  I do want to clarify, by the way,
that what we have done is recommend --
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  I need a break.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Hold on one second.  We are
recommending deferral to the full board.  We are not --
 
MR. CRADDICK:  If you defer it, it sits in committee
until you take action.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  We are not directly acting.
Anyway, short recess.

(Whereupon a brief recess was had).
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  We have another important item on
our agenda today, gentlemen.  We have a request to participate
in the Best Practice Study for Energy Management.  I understand
this came out of a meeting at the water convention in
Washington D.C., where the AWWA was going to be doing a
nationwide study on how to save money and how to save energy.
We were asked to participate in it, and I will turn things over
to the Director for a bit of more information about this.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Basically what I would like to do is,
Jonathan pointed out to me that the scope of work is kind of
openended on this, and what we are doing is in our agreement it
says the scope of work is under an agreement, an AWWA research
agreement.
 And when you look at EMA's agreement under Scope of
Work on page 17 it says, "This document shall be prepared by
the participant and may be a derivative work of the project
proposal. It shall be submitted to the foundation within 30
days of the execution of this agreement."  And I'd like to get
that scope of work so we can get that to the Board before I ask
them to take any action on this.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Well, the Chair feels this is a
very admirable program.  I would like to participate.  We'd be
better off acting on it when we have some kind of scope or
something so we know what it really is about.  So my
recommendation is that we defer this item, if anyone would like
to make a motion to that effect or any other motion that would
be in order.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  So moved, to defer this item.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Second.
 
CHAIRMAN STARR:  Okay, comments?  All in favor?
(A chorus of ayes).
Any opposed?
(None).
It carries.  Unless anyone has anything further,
this meeting shall be adjourned at 11:56.  Thank you all.
 
(The proceedings were concluded at 11:56 a.m.)
 
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.