BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY 
COUNTY OF MAUI 
RULES COMMITTEE 


Taken at the HGEA Conference Room, David K. Trask, Jr. Office
Building, 2145 Kaohu Street, Room 207, Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii,
commencing at 8:00 a.m., on December 18, 2001.

REPORTED BY: JEANNETTE W. IWADO, RPR/CSR #135
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

A T T E N D A N C E

RULES COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
CHAIRPERSON: MICHAEL NOBRIGA
BOARD MEMBERS: CLARK HASHIMOTO
KENT HIRANAGA
JONATHAN STARR
ORLANDO TAGORDA

DIRECTOR DAVID CRADDICK
DEPUTY DIRECTOR GEORGE TENGAN
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL: ED KUSHI
BOARD SECRETARY: FRAN NAGO
FISCAL OFFICER: MICHAEL QUINN
ENGINEERING: HERBERT KOGASAKA
HERB CHANG


IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
RULES COMMITTEE MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 2001, 8:00 A.M.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Good morning. I'd like to call
the meeting of the Rules Committee of the Board of Water Supply
to order. It's a little after 8:00 at the David Trask office
building, Room 207 up here in Wailuku town. In attendance we
have committee member/board member Clark Hashimoto, board
member/committee member Kent Hiranaga, board member/committee
member Orlando Tagorda, board member Jonathan Starr, and
myself, Chair, Michael Nobriga.
 First order of business is approval of the minutes
of September 20th, October 9th, and October 25th. A motion is
in order to receive the minutes subject to 30 day review. If
there's no corrections, the minutes shall be filed. Can I have
a motion?

MR. HIRANAGA: Motion.

MR. STARR: Second.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Seconded by Mr. Starr. Any
discussion? All those in favor signify by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes)
Opposed "nay."
(None).
Motion does carry. We are now open to our testimony
by the public on items that are not on the agenda. We will
allow public testimony during agenda items as we proceed.
First order of business, item five, committee report
communication 01-31, a communication from Mr. Starr, Hugh
Starr, regarding definition of subdivision as stated in the
department's rules and regulations.
 It is my recommendation that we receive the
communication and file for later discussion when we have
properly noticed that part of the rules. But because we have
people here, we are going to open it up to public testimony.
We will begin with Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR: Good morning, Chairman Nobriga, members
of the Rules Committee, thank you. My name is Hugh Starr and I
will just, if I may, read my letter into the record. I am
writing to respectfully request that your Rules Committee
consider a proposed amendment to the definition of subdivision
as currently written in the department's rules and regulations
relating to condominium property regimes.
 As you may recall, this issue was discussed at some
length last year by the Oversight Committee in conjunction with
the Charles Freitas request for approval of a building permit
application on a condominium, which request was approved by
that committee and ultimately approved unanimously by the
Board.
 Current Department of Water Supply rules and
regulations number three, Section 3-1 mandates that the normal
fire protection requirements imposed on subdivisions must be
met upon the construction of the third structure on a lot, even
if the land is not subdivided. Construction of the first and
second dwelling units are exempt.
 Also, Maui County Code Chapter 18.04.470,
Subdivisions, defines a subdivision in part as follows: The
construction of four or more dwelling units on a lot, parcel,
or site shall be subject to the provisions of this title.
These two provisions together protect and ensure
that at the time a fourth dwelling unit is constructed on any
lot, full subdivision review and requirements are triggered.
To amend the subdivision definition in the Department of Water
Supply rules accordingly would provide consistency.
 May I respectfully propose that the definition of
subdivision under Section 1-2 of the department's rules and
regulations be amended as follows: And then rather than
reading the whole definition, I might just skip down to the end
of the definition where it says, "The term includes a building
or group of buildings, other than a hotel, containing or
divided into three or more dwelling units, planned unit
developments and condominiums," and I would insert "of three or
more units for purposes of this rule" shall be included in this
definition. Thank you for your important consideration of this
request.
 And then I wanted to just make a couple of just
brief comments, if I may. The condominium is a confusing
issue. We covered it in the Oversight Committee previously. It
is one way of holding ownership of a single lot and its
permitted improvements. There are other ways of holding
ownership, joint tenancy, partnerships, corporations, limited
liability companies. There's a common misperception that the
condo form of ownership will increase the number of houses
permitted on the property. It does not and it cannot. Maui's
zoning laws alone determine building density.
 The condo form of tenancy can help our local
families who struggle with high housing cost. In my own
personal case my wife and I have four children, three of whom
have now returned to Maui after completing college. We own two
adjoining lots and need to ultimately pass those two lots to
all four of them. Condo type of ownership will afford each of
them the security of owning their own home. This thing does
touch me personally and I'm interested in it professionally as
well. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Starr. Next, Mr. Bodden.

MR. BODDEN: Good morning Mr. Chairman and Board
members. Thank you for allowing me to share with you a few
thoughts. My name is Tom Bodden, I am an attorney, but I am
not wearing a tie today. I am not representing anybody. I am
also a real estate educator, having taught courses on estate
planning and real estate law at the University of Hawaii, Maui
Community College, and elsewhere in the community for over 20
years.
 It's really wearing that hat as well as speaking
from a personal point of view that I'd like to share with you
some of my observations and concerns about this existing rule
that does in my opinion discriminate against and penalize
people who choose to own their property under our state's
condominium method of ownership.
 What I'd like to do is share with you some examples,
first of all. Let's assume that you and I inherited from our
parents a piece of property that has a house and a cottage on
it. The house and the cottage were both fully permitted
structures and built in full compliance with County
requirements. You and I inherited as joint tenants. Well,
what is the consequence of that? If you die I end up owning
the whole thing. If I die, you own the whole thing. So we say
well, that's nuts because my kids want my share and your kids
want your share. So why don't we instead be tenants in
common.
 Well, what happens with tenants in common? I go down
to the bank to try to get a mortgage to remodel my house. No
can do unless you sign the mortgage with me because we each own
undivided interest in the property. And by the way, if I get
into problems and somebody puts a lien against the property,
we're all in trouble because we are tenants in common, we own
undivided interest in the same property.
 Well then, we say well, gee, why don't we put it in
an entity. We don't need anybody's permission to put it into a
corporation or an LLC, or something like that. Nobody minds if
we do that, so we do. But we still have a problem because if
the corporation wants to go ahead and get a mortgage we all
have to sign. It affects the entire property.
 And that's the problem which Hawaii property owners
encountered 50 years ago with what was called cooperative
corporations. Hawaii was the first state in the nation to
enact the condominium law. It was strictly and still is
strictly a method of ownership. It's a solution to the problem
that you and I have with this property we inherited.
 When most people hear the word "condominium" they
think of a huge concrete structure in Waikiki or here on Maui
or whatever. Most of those are condominiums. But in fact, a
condominium could be the method of ownership that you and I
select for that property that we inherited from our family or
we bought together, or whatever.
 So what do we do? Well, first of all, what we do is
take the property and submit it to the Condominium Property
Regime, which is strictly a method of ownership. That means if
I don't pay my bills and they put a lien on my cottage, because
you have got the house, okay, and they put it on my undivided
interest in the land but they don't affect you at all because
the Condominium Property Regime method of ownership protects
each separate owner as to his or her interest. And by the way,
we each get a separate tax bill from the property tax
department as well, because the tax department sees them as a
separate ownership arrangement.
 Now, the dilemma that is presented by your rule is
even though this property that we have was totally permitted,
fully approved, in full compliance with the zoning for the
County of Maui, if we submit it to that method of ownership,
the condominium property regime, then we jeopardize risking
your rule, which as I understand it says simply changing the
method of ownership even for existing structures then requires
additional compliance. All we've done is change the method of
ownership in my situation.
 Ironically, maybe we said, well, gee, we don't want
to take that chance, we will subdivide the property. Well, if
the purpose of this rule was to minimize or limit the
consumption of water. In fact, if we subdivide then I get to
build a house along with my cottage and you get to build a
cottage along with your house, and now we have got four
structures instead of two on the same piece of land.
Now, one other thing I want to mention. This area
of condominiumization has been a concern with counties
statewide. One of the things that the state legislature did,
because this is a state law that creates a method of ownership,
is they changed the law a few years ago to state specifically,
"You cannot submit your property to the Condominium Property
Regime, you cannot go to the Real Estate Commission for their
issuance of an effective date for a public report unless your
property is in full compliance with County building codes,
zoning codes and other requirements."
 So submitting the property to condominiumization as
a method of ownership does not prevent or figure out some way
to get around all of your other requirements, it's strictly a
method of ownership. And I respectfully suggest that you
change your rules in a manner that relies upon what I do on the
property, not how I and you or I and somebody else choose to
own the property. We have to comply with the zoning
requirements. We have to comply with all of the other things
in order to submit the property to the Condominium Property
Regime.
 But your rule as presently written really punishes
us or prevents us from owning a property in a manner that is
not only efficient, it's beneficial to the people here in
Hawaii. And I have in my estate planning practice seen many
clients who -- and Hugh gave the example already that I have
two kids and I want them each to own a piece of property but we
can't afford to buy two properties, but I have two dwellings on
the property already.
 Condominiumization is a way by which I can
accomplish that estate planning objective, or whatever. And I
therefore urge you whenever it is appropriate to review that
rule and rely on your other very effective rules that comply to
still required rules, but do not discriminate against a method
of ownership, because otherwise we're stuck being joint tenants
or tenants in common, and one of us gets in trouble because of
the other's problems. I thank you for your patience. If you
have any questions of me, I'd be happy to answer.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Bodden.

MR. STARR: I have a question. Tom, have you
reviewed the proposed language in relation to our, the current
wording in our rules?

MR. BODDEN: I just heard Mr. Starr read something.

MR. CRADDICK: He's talking about Hugh Starr's letter.

MR. BODDEN: I just heard that for the first time
just a minute ago, and I don't have a specific recommendation
to you because I know that's an important process. What I
wanted to do was just express my concern. What I did hear
there was to raise kind of the bar from two to three. Quite
frankly, I would rather have it be something that simply says I
have to comply with County building and zoning requirements. I
have to comply with your other rules. And I would rather view
condominiumization as a method of ownership, whether it's two
or three or whatever.
 Quite candidly, I own a piece of property where
there are three dwellings, and when I bought it there were
three. I and my wife own one, my daughter and her family own
another, and actually my neighbor and his kids own the one next
to us. So there were three permitted dwellings on it and it
was in full compliance with County requirements, and therefore
it was condominiumized. I'd prefer to have us rely on other
rules than a specific number. That's my personal opinion. But
I presume that's a process that you will go through later.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Bodden. Anyone
else wishing to testify on the letter? Mr. Tom Welch.

MR. WELCH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
members of the Board. I would like to testify on the subject
in great detail, but I don't think I can improve on Hugh
Starr's technical presentation of the issue. I would like to
add a couple of things to what they said.
 First of all, there's a lot of people in Maui who
are interested in this. I must get three or four calls a week
from people who are asking me about this rule, about what they
can do and what they can't do with their property. Whether the
rule might be changed, how they can avoid the rule. Any advice
I can give them about how they can meet their needs with
respect to a particular property.
 The kinds of people that call are all kinds. There
are a lot of people like Tom Bodden's clients who have estate
planning issues. There are a lot of people who own properties
Upcountry. This is only really in the Haiku-Upcountry area and
also Kula where additional water meters aren't available. And
there's a lot of properties up there where there are multiple
owners that have had multiple owners since 25 years ago when
there was a surge in population where people wanted upcountry
property and they were combining their resources and so forth.
 Those kinds of people are interested in doing
separate financing, separating their ownership and ordering
their ownership in a way that is better than the partnership or
co-tenancy or other arrangement they had to date which didn't
allow them to get their financing.
 Also, there are people who want to build another
house and sell it and pay down their mortgage. Also, there are
people who want to speculate. People who want to buy a piece
of property, build in an ag zone, build a house and ohana
cottage, sell off the ohana or big house and make a profit and
live in the other house. But there are a lot of people
interested in this.
 I feel that this rule has a big impact, a big
negative impact on people. Again, only Upcountry. If you have
a house in Kuau or property in Kuau where there are additional
meters available, I always tell people to go get the extra
meter. This is not an issue of whether people can afford or
want to pay the water system development fee for another meter,
that's not part of this. It's only whether or not they can do
what they want to do with their property with respect to the
form of ownership.
 I've always felt that if the Board is concerned
about development and if the Board looks at this rule as it
presently stands as a means of curtailing or controlling
development, I've always felt that the rule kind of misses the
mark for several reasons. One is that people can build on
their property that which the zoning lets them build. And if
they're going to do a co-ownership arrangement they can do so
within the Water Board's current rules by using one of these
other forms of ownership. They can do it. It's not as
convenient, but they can do it.
 The Board is protected by other rules that you have
against development. You have the limitation on fixture units
for how many dwellings or fixture units a meter can serve, you
have the rule that says if you have more than two structures
you have to have -- more than two dwellings you have to have a
subdivision. That is, you have to deal with the infrastructure
requirements related to subdivision, and those are good, clear
rules that are directly related to water use and restriction on
water use. Whereas, the rule on the condominium is more a
regulation of a form of ownership, which I always felt misses
the mark somehow.
 Now, the rule that Hugh Starr proposed said that he
suggests that we exclude from the operation of the rule a
condominium with three or more units. I would like for you to
consider or request that you consider having more than three as
that exemption. And the reason I say that is there are a lot
of people that have three houses in these Upcountry properties
under co-ownership that exist, that are served by a meter, that
are grandfathered, that have been in existence for many years.
I have several of those clients.
 And under the circumstances, they would like to be
able to divide their ownership. And by upping it to three, it
would meet the needs of a lot of people who are also concerned
about this, without doing too much injustice or doing too much
upsetting of the basic regulatory scheme. Thank you very
much. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Welch. Anyone
else wishing to testify on this subject? Motion is in order to
file communication -- yes, Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair, I was wondering if I could
ask what the Director's opinion is of this.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I'll let you ask the Director,
it's just that the meeting was never on notice for us to take
up the matter of the definition within our rules. This is
merely a transmittal from the Board to the committee of Hugh
Starr's recommendations for us to take up at a later date. But
please, continue.

MR. HIRANAGA: Do you have any comments regarding this?

MR. CRADDICK: That would be my same suggestion. We
could probably answer all of these things, but basically we
view them as separate owners and you have fights between
owners. And I know they try and settle those fights in their
condo rules, but they still come to us when there's a problem,
when one of them has low pressure because of something the
other one is doing. So that's an issue that needs to be
resolved that isn't resolved with any of these suggestions
here. But other than that, it's probably better to wait until
the rule actually comes up for review and then we can respond
to all of them.

MR. HIRANAGA: Move to receive the communication
from Mr. Hugh Starr and file for later discussion.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Is there a second?

MR. STARR: I'll second.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Moved and seconded. Any further
discussion?

MR. STARR: Yes, I have a question for Corp Counsel.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Starr, continue.

MR. STARR: According to the automatic approval
language that I believe passed through the Council last week,
if we receive a petition for a rule change like this and we
don't act on it in a certain amount of time I assume that
doesn't automatically approve it by the Board, is that correct?

MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Kushi.

MR. KUSHI: Mr. Starr, I am not aware of whatever
happened with the Council, and I am not too sure that this
communication is a petition for a rule change. If it is, I
have to look at it in terms of your rules, in terms of rule
making procedures, and I am not too sure that this is a
petition. It is a mere communication at this point. That
doesn't stop the Applicant or Mr. Starr from actually
petitioning or the Board on its own, at least from testimony,
to initiate a rule change.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you.

MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to comment.
I want to urge the Chair that we -- I think I'd like to urge
the Chair to bring this up to the agenda as soon as possible,
because I think there are some inequities.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Hiranaga. Any
further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying
"aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed "nay."
(None).
Motion carries. Item B, Mr. Mamiya was here
earlier. I have a letter from Mr. Arakaki requesting the
matter be withdrawn from this meeting and taken up at another
time. Is there any objection?
(No response).
No objection, so ruled, ordered, whatever. Okay,
thanks.
 Item C is a request from Wayne Arakaki for
subdivision approval in the shortage area and a modification of
the subdivision requirements, Von Tempsky Subdivision.
Yes, Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: I don't know if anybody is here, but
we wrote a letter to them asking for more information before we
can answer anything. But I think they're here.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Is there anyone here wishing to
talk to us about this?

MS. NAGO: This is Debbie Von Tempsky.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Miss Debbie Von Tempsky.

MS. VON TEMPSKY: I'm Debbie Von Tempsky and I think
Wayne isn't here, and he has all the information. But I think
he did send a letter off to the department. But maybe we
should defer it until Wayne comes so they can have their
information.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Sure.

MS. VON TEMPSKY: He's not here today so -- is that okay?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yeah, that's okay.

MS. VON TEMPSKY: Thanks.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Members, any objection?
(None).
So ordered.
 Item D is a request for utilization -- let me read
this. Request from James R. Judge for permission to utilize an
existing easement to obtain water service and for a waiver from
the requirement of the installation of a fire hydrant, Judge
Family Limited Partnership Property, Omaopio, Maui. Is there
anyone here wishing to give testimony?

MR. JUDGE: Yes, please. Jim Judge appearing for
the Judge family, and with me is my wife Lisa. And my mother
would be here today --

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Congratulations.

MR. JUDGE: I came out ahead in that deal. My
mother would be here too, but it's her 81st birthday, and as
part of my gift to her I am not making her come here today.
 What I'd like to do is just give a short summary of
how we got to where we are. By and large the predecessor in
interest to us acquired 49 acres in Omaopio in 1963. In 1965
it was subdivided into four lots, three additionals together
with the one original that existed. Of those three
additionals, one of them has been further subdivided down into
two more.
 The parcel that we are talking about today by number
is parcel number 88. And basically, between 1965 and 1973, my
family slowly acquired 46 of the 49 original acres. And parcel
88 is the only one without a water meter on it, all the rest of
them have. It seems clear that we are entitled to a meter, and
if one had been requested in 1965 or 1975 or 1985 or 1995 I
think it would have been located in the same place as two of
the current meters, which service parcels 3 and 87.
After my father's death, my mother and I placed the
property into a family partnership. And I have two adult
children ages 25 and 22, and you have kind of heard the Hugh
Starr situation. I have that same situation, I have adult kids
that I'd like to get back to Maui. Obviously a way to get kids
back is to say, "Hey, we have got a place for you to stay."
And that's why I'm here today, is to try to clean up this
inherited mess that I have got. Simply put, I want to have the
same treatment for parcel 88 as the other parcels received,
based upon traditional notions of justice and fair play.
 Now, background, I grew up here on Maui, I went to
St. Anthony, I went to UH Manoa. I live on the property, as
does my mother. My parents first bought Omaopio in 1965. And
I guess I am upset about the fact that in the almost 37 years
now the Water Department has done really little to bring water
service to us. I think Omaopio, Kula in general, has kind of
been the poor sister of the deal. We acquired parcel 88 in
1973, as I said, and that's 29 years.
 And going back to how it happened, in 1961 our
predecessors in interest negotiated a water line easement from
the neighbors, James and Nancy Shishido. That easement was
used for two meters that serviced the property, parcels 87 and
3. In 1999, I negotiated a bigger easement, same place, and
I'd like to show you on the map where that is.
 In your report, if everybody would take a look here,
this is the property and this is where the water line easement
is. Page number 10. I'm sorry, page 10. So as you are
looking at it, I have highlighted it here in yellow. It's this
area up here (indicating). This was a one foot wide water line
easement originally in 1961. In 1999 I made it a five foot
wide one. I had to negotiate with the new owners because I
believed that in asking for a new meter for 88 it would be
located in the same spot.
 Now the water department's staff is recommending
that I extend a new six inch water line approximately 2200
linear feet, which I believe will cost about $125,000. I think
this is really inappropriate for the following three common
sense reasons: There's no economic reality to it. $125,000 is
way too expensive for the benefit of a two acre parcel. More
importantly, why hasn't the Department of Water Supply extended
that very same line in 37 years? Well, the same reason, it's
too expensive. It might be different if I was doing a
multi-lot Fancy Dan subdivision, but I am not, I'm only asking
for a meter that's been due us for the parcel since 1965.
 Secondly, as I mentioned, I have already got a five
foot wide easement that takes me to the water line where two
meters already are located, and that doesn't cost me anything.
And lastly, a new line along the front of the property is
approximately 100 feet lower than the parcel itself, and from
just a common sense point of view, I'd much rather gravity flow
the water down than pump the water back up.
 So in conclusion, I respectfully request that the
issuance of the water meter, that the water meter be issued at
the end of the existing water line water meter easement that I
indicated, that we not be required to extend a six inch line
2200 feet, nor install a fire hydrant which would also have to
be pumped uphill.
 Thank you for your time and consideration. If you
have any questions, I'd be more than pleased to respond.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Any questions,
members? Mr. Judge, do you currently have water service on
your property?

MR. JUDGE: Yes, we have water service to the
property. There's a meter that was granted in 1961 that
services my Mom's house. I get water through another line.
It's all very confusing, but there are meters that are on the
property. There are basically three meters, I think. One,
two, three, yes, there are three existing, well, four meters
actually. But I'm entitled to another for that parcel 88.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: This particular thing then isn't a
subdivision, is it?

MR. JUDGE: No, it was subdivided in 1965. And
another thing that fries me too, David, is in the report here
it says oh, well, maybe you didn't fulfill the requirements.
Maybe you didn't do that. This is point of discussion, page
8. Point of discussion number one. The reason that it fries
me is that I got from your office a copy of something labeled
Subdivision Data. First of all, you dispute whether it was
three or four lots. I have got something called subdivision
data that says number of lots four. It says that the
assessment was paid in 1965, and that final approval was
obtained on June 15, 1965. And besides that, tax map key
numbers were issued.
 So obviously I got final subdivision approval. All
of the conditions, payment of the storage assessment fee and
exemptions of improvement from the Board of Supervisors must
have been granted. But I don't know, I wasn't there then, and
this is my predecessor and these are your files.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: My point is it's not a subdivision,
and the Board has no authority to grant any waiver from the
water service requirements.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Hashimoto?

MR. HASHIMOTO: If he has an easement, why would he
want to extend the line instead of bringing it down from where
he has the easement from Shishido?

MR. CRADDICK: Because of the Board's requirement
for strict application of the rules. Strict application of the
rules says that the meter is to be adjacent to the property and
the road. And I realize that we let meters go all over kingdom
come before, and created a large problem, as we recall with the
Stolle issue. And this is an effort, well, this is an
outgrowth of the Board saying we want strict application of the
rule. This is a strict application of the rule.

MR. HASHIMOTO: So you already have, you said, three meters?

MR. JUDGE: The meters go to different property. On
the property there's Omaopio green houses. Years ago Bill
Monahan built things on the property, and there's an inch and a
half meter that goes to that, and that stake is down on the
road.

MR. CRADDICK: What happened is the Board's rule to
allow people to appeal decisions of the Director didn't pass
the Council because of the $300 thing that was added in after
the Board saw it. And quite frankly, I didn't see it either
before it went to the Mayor and the Council, but a $300 fee was
added in. And I guess previous Corp Counsel thought it wasn't
a substantial change, but current Corp Counsel thought it was a
substantial enough change that hadn't gone to public hearing
that, I guess, the recommendation to the Council was to deny
it. So it was denied by a two-thirds majority to override the
Mayor's approval of it. And I guess we would just have to go
back out to public hearing again and get it redone, but it will
take awhile to do that.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA: Who made the change in the fee amount?

MR. CRADDICK: I guess Howard did, I'm not really
sure. But when it came down from Corp Counsel it was in
there. And myself, I can't recall whether we questioned it or
not, but I remember Howard saying that a fee amount was
appropriate and it didn't need to go to public hearing.
 But I mean $300 is one-tenth of the development fee,
and one quarter of the cost of putting in a service line, so
it's a fairly hefty fee. And I will leave it up to Ed to
explain. He was the one who had to deal with this with the
Council and make the resolution up.

MR. HIRANAGA: Did we not recommend a specific
amount for that application fee? It was $150 or something.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes.

MR. HIRANAGA: So what empowered the Corporation
Counsel to change that?

MR. CRADDICK: I don't know.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Our specific request was not that
it has any bearing on the Judges' problem, but it was $150 or
whatever the Board of Variances charges for an appeal. And
apparently the Board of Variances charges $300-something for
the appeal, is that correct?

MR. HIRANAGA: I think they recently revised their
fee schedule. It used to be that.

MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, if you want me to comment on
that, I agree with you, it's not applicable to the Judges. But
the reason why we recommended that the Council not even look at
that and get back to you is that the fee is up to the Board to
decide. The problem was that at the public hearing that you
had about a year ago, it wasn't noticed. There was no notice,
so the public did not have an opportunity to comment on the
fee. That was the crucial issue. So you will have to do it
again.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I agree with you. Yes, Mr. Tagorda.

MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let's go
back to Mr. Judge's case. I want to go to page nine. And let
me emphasize some paragraphs, wordings there that it says the
department did not strictly adhere to the provisions of the
rules. The procedural change was implemented during 1999 to
bring department practices in line with section 3-1 and 3-5 of
the department's rules. This is for the Director to comment.
 If the Department of Water Supply did not strictly
adhere to the provisions of the rules, what past procedures,
practices and standards were applied to this case?

MR. CRADDICK: They basically went to the point of
adequacy which, as you recall, is what we told Stolle, which
was 12 miles from his house.

MR. TAGORDA: Go back to exhibit D, page 14, that
letter dated May 5, 1965. It looks like the final approval. I
presume it was granted and the payment of $300 towards the
assessment was made, and acception of improvements by the Board
of Supervisors. The Board of Water Supply regulations was
complied with by the developer at that time, Mr. Craddick, do
you recall?

MR. CRADDICK: I don't recall anything back in 1965.

MR. TAGORDA: If these were all complied with by the
developer, I believe Mr. Judge is entitled to that water
service without imposing him new requirements to extend the
water line.

MR. CRADDICK: This only covers storage, Orlando,
and it's only for three lots, not four lots.

MR. TAGORDA: It's way back in 1965, Mr. Craddick.
To impose the new requirements by you and the department with
this old request, I think it's wrong.

MR. CRADDICK: The only thing, Orlando, we are not
denying him a meter, and he appears to have paid the storage
assessment. That doesn't make the system adequate, because he
paid the storage assessment, you have to have the distribution
system there. All I can say is this is an outgrowth of the
Board's own ruling for a strict application of the rules, and
the Board has no authority to waive the rules right now. So
there's nothing the Board can do right now.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Excuse me, excuse me, but --

MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Craddick, we told him before or
the Board of Water Supply or the supervisors before told him to
get an easement, and he complied with those requirements. And
then now you come in as a new Director of the department and
tell him new requirements are needed to extend the water line.

MR. CRADDICK: No, Orlando.

MR. TAGORDA: That's what you are requiring him to do.

MR. CRADDICK: No, as an outgrowth of the Board's
own decision for a strict application of the rules. You have
to keep in mind this putting meters all over kingdom come
occurred way back in the 1960's sometime, not under my watch at
all. I brought this up to the Board many, many times, that
allowing meters to go all over kingdom come was not an
application of the rules. And when Stolle came out finally the
Board was aware of what was going on with the staff, that they
were allowing meters all over kingdom come.
 The Board said, "We want a strict application of the
rule." That's why it happened in 1999. If you recall, that's
when the six new members came in and said, "We want a strict
application of the rules" and that's what the staff did. So
this is an outgrowth of the Board's own ruling for a strict
application of the rules.

MR. TAGORDA: I was a member of that board too, Mr.
Craddick, in 1999.

MR. CRADDICK: I know, so you know what happened.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Hang on. Any further discussion,
Mr. Tagorda?

MR. TAGORDA: That's all. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: I believe our Director is fantasizing
again. I have a question for him, however. Is there adequacy
at this point marked 478?

MR. CRADDICK: The hydrant there? There's an 8-inch
line there, so I would presume so. Herb?

MR. CHANG: There is an 8-inch line.

MR. STARR: So, in other words, it is adequate,
where the meter location is being requested, is that correct?

MR. CHANG: Yes.

MR. STARR: I know I for one would feel that that
would be a fair thing to allow them to get a meter at that
point, since they have an easement there, you know. To say
it's maybe five feet closer to the road at the other point or
whatever, they have an easement to the public road at that
point and there is adequacy there. I think you're really
stretching things to say that it has to be on the other side
and not there.
 As far as, you know, what our powers are, it seems
to disagree with the Director. That's something that Corp
Counsel has not helped us clarify. So I'd like to know from
Corp Counsel whether the Board can take action if the Board
were to feel that that would be -- that that were a suitable
location for a meter to be issued at.

MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, I don't know.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you.

MR. KUSHI: But if you want to say this, I think
it's worthy of the Board's discussion and recommendation either
way to the full Board.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Judge?

MR. JUDGE: Yes, sir. I guess from a legal
standpoint I'd like to suggest that as of 1965, as of the
assessment being paid, and as of the exemption apparently
obtained from the Board of Supervisors because we did get a
subdivision, and all of the lots were deeded out, I believe
that we have fulfilled all of the requirements. And as a
matter of law, I think I have got a vested right to that
meter. I just haven't asked for it because all of these years
we have had a damn moratorium on it, and I didn't have a need
for it for my kids then. I do now, and I want to take up where
my rights ended in 1965. And I don't know about the rules and
regulations and procedures and strict adherence now, but I
think I'm getting screwed if I don't get a meter right at that
spot, simply put.

MR. TAGORDA: I agree with you, Mr. Judge.

MR. JUDGE: Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: At this point the Chair would
like to recommend that we recommend basically to the Board to
waive the rules to allow a specific request for a meter -- a
request for a meter at the point of adequacy based on reliance
from 1965.

MR. HIRANAGA: So moved.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Second?

MR. STARR: I'll second it.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Moved and seconded. Is there any
further discussion?

MS. NAGO: Mike, I'm sorry, who seconded?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr.

MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Hiranaga.

MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair, I don't feel that I am
prepared to make a decision in favor of the request because I
feel there's -- I need more information and background
so-called Stolle case, rules 3.1 and 3.5. There's past
precedence, but then the Director is saying we're starting over
and we should not be considering past precedence. There's
always difficulty when you start drawing the line.
The information presented here is just too brief for
me to make a decision at this time. My suggestion would be to
defer this matter.

MR. STARR: Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Hiranaga. Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: I stand behind the motion that has been
seconded. However, I would like when it comes before the Board
to have Corp Counsel ready to tell us whether it's in his
opinion that we're acting within our rights, which I believe we
are.

MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, I'd like to request that that
request be submitted to my office in advance.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Kushi.
Orlando, anything?

MR. TAGORDA: That's it.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: All those in favor signify by
saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed "nay."

MR. HIRANAGA: Nay.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: The motion is carried four to one. .

MR. JUDGE: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: We will call a five minute recess
at this time.
(Whereupon a brief recess was taken).

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Call the meeting back to order,
please. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
 The next item is item communnication 01-37, request
for a waiver of the Department's requirements for a transient
vacation rental unit. Applicant is Gregg Blue. Mr. Blue,
that's you?

MR. BLUE: Yes. Board members, I just want to
briefly tell you why I'm in front of you today. Basically,
it's through frustration. I was called by the County quite a
few months ago by Mr. Ron Sandante, he said, "You need to come
in and apply for a B&B license because you are renting out your
ohana short-term." I said fine, so I came in and complied. It
must have been seven or eight months ago, and I have been
dealing with the process of these 29 different departments that
I have to comply with.
 Instead of spending $5,000 and paying a lawyer to do
it, I have been doing it myself. And it's going along, it's
okay. And when it came to the Water Department I started
complying, and I just got really frustrated with what I had to
do. And I got a call from Mr. Arnold Abe, and after talking
with him and voicing my frustrations, he suggested I write a
letter to the Board, which is you folks, which I did, and if
you turn to page 19 you will see my letter.
 I don't know if any of you have read this letter,
but no where in this letter am I asking for a waiver, okay.
Somehow it got interpreted that I am asking for a waiver. I'm
not. So I decided to take the time out of my day to come down
here and testify as to why I suggest that you folks need to
take another look at your protocol, because I understand
there's going to be a lot of people applying for these permits
because the County has been shutting people down and calling
them up and so on and so forth.
 So I am going to try to make a long story short.
There's something that I don't know that you folks are aware
of. We have to apply for a B&B. In no way, shape or form do I
want a bed and breakfast. Bed and breakfast, to my
understanding, is when you have rooms in your home that you
convert to bedrooms for tourists and serve them breakfast. I
don't want to do that. I have family from Australia and the
mainland who come over quite a few times a year and they stay
in my cottage. I can't rent my cottage out long-term, okay, I
can only rent it out short-term.
 So I applied to do transient accommodations, which
is what short-term rental is called, out of my cottage. Well,
when you folks get the application you see a B&B application,
all right, so this is where the trouble started. So I just
want to let you know that there is a difference between the B&B
and someone wanting to do short-term rental out of their
ohana.
 So my point is, the ohana has been there since 1976,
it's legal, it complies, it meets all specifications. The only
change in use is if I had rented it long-term there would be
more water use, there would be more infrastructure use. If I
rent it short-term it's not full all the time and there's
actually less impact on infrastructure. So why is the Water
Department taking their time? I mean it takes them a lot of
time just dealing with me. I can't imagine the time it took
them, why are they making me go over all this stuff and to
comply with the same regulations as if I was a hotel with
backflow preventers, recalculating water flow for the fire.
It's just all these compliances. I'm doing them, I am not
asking for a waiver.
 One thing I do have a problem with. To this date,
if one has got a permit to rent short-term out of an ohana,
okay, some people within the last month applied for both, they
got granted the B&B permit for the home and got refused for the
ohana. What I don't want to do at this point, a friend of mine
did the water flow calculation with the numbers provided by
your department. I turned it in. The Water Department told me
I had to get it stamped by an engineer, which is going to cost
me $500. I don't want to do that right now. I will do it if
they give me a permit, but at this point in time the
calculation is fine, and I believe the Water Department can
calculate it themselves.
 So I am going to suggest that in these applications
that the engineering stamp of the fire flow calculations be
required if you get the permit. In other words, maybe you
folks can take a look at it and do a basic calculation, and
then if you want us to go to an engineer at the end and spend
the hundreds of dollars plus put in the back flow preventor,
I'm fine with that. But at this point I am not willing to
spend that money.
 Basically, I think that's all I want to say. This
is just in the hopes of saving all the people in the County and
the applicants time, energy and money.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: Yes. I am a little bit confused as to
what the issue really is here. What were you asked to provide
that you are having difficult providing?

MR. BLUE: This issue is providing a water flow
calculation for the property done by a civil engineer. That's
one of the requirements.

MR. STARR: Is that internal to the property or
external to the property?

MR. BLUE: That's a calculation on how much water
flows into the property permitted, I believe, in conjunction
with the fire department to make sure you have adequate fire
protection. Which of course I have, because I wouldn't have
had the cottage approved if I didn't already have it. So
that's one of the points I'm making, that I have got to go
through this fire flow thing, and I'm already protected, and
I'm already up to code and specs.
 If I was turning my house into a B&B and I was going
to have a whole bunch more people in my house, maybe that would
be justified, along with my septic system. So that's what
they're requiring me to do. They required lots of things, but
this has been -- the $500 fee I feel is premature that I do
that at this point, because I don't even know if I am going to
get this.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: First of all, he doesn't need to have
a registered engineer do it. If he's done it and he's
satisfied with it and the calculations show that the fire flow
required is available, that's good enough for us.

MR. BLUE: Okay.

MR. CRADDICK: As far as the back flow preventor,
that's required in any case by federal law as well as our own
rules.

MR. BLUE: I am not contesting that.

MR. CRADDICK: So if that's all right, then is there
anything for the Board to take any action on?

MR. BLUE: No.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Okay, there being no requirement
for action, the matter will be disposed of.
Yes, Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA: Why did the Applicant feel that he
needed to come to the Board? Why was this not resolved within
the department? Was the staff giving you a different answer
than the Director?

MR. BLUE: They told me I needed to get it stamped,
and they misinterpreted my letter. And they read this letter,
which is merely a suggestion, okay, on how to be more efficient
or maybe not waste your time, and called me up and told me I
had to come testify before you because I was asking for a
waiver, which I wasn't. Up to this point the Board hasn't
contacted me and told me that I didn't need to get it stamped
by an engineer when it specifically states that it does. Now
they're saying I don't, that's fine. I think I'm down here
because they misinterpreted my letter to the Board.

MR. HIRANAGA: Do you agree with that, Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: Well, it's written to Mr. Rice, not
to me, so I don't know what the reason was to write to the
Board, but he did write to the Board.

MR. BLUE: I wrote to the Board on the advice of Mr.
Abe because of the stamp, the engineering stamp.

MR. CRADDICK: There's nothing in the rules that
says that a registered engineer is supposed to stamp it. We
ask for that because normally people don't understand how to do
it and they want us to do it for them. And there's a liability
issue there with us doing it for them, so we don't do that.
But if they feel that they're capable of doing it themselves,
we give them the book and let them do the calculations.

MR. HIRANAGA: How do you confirm that their
calculation is appropriate?

MR. CRADDICK: Well, we do rely on the information
that they give, that's for certain. And the only thing I can
say is perhaps the rule should be changed so that it does
require a registered engineer to provide the calculations.
It's just something that we have been doing, but usually if
people come to me, especially individuals -- commercial
developments usually we won't allow it -- but if one single
individual comes we just give them the book and say, "If you
can figure it out we will accept that."
 Then usually what they will do is go to an engineer,
architect or something and get it done, but then the architect
isn't libel for any mistakes in it.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Hashimoto?

MR. HASHIMOTO: So the thing is because you are
renting short-term you applied for the application, that's the
only reason?

MR. BLUE: I am not allowed by law to rent
short-term from an ohana on a piece of agrucultural zone
property, so the County called me up and told me to please come
in and comply.

MR. HASHIMOTO: So you wanted to do it legally, but
you got stonewalled?

MR. BLUE: No, I haven't been stonewalled, but it's
a long and frustrating process. I don't know if I will get it.

MR. HASHIMOTO: Okay.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: There being no further
discussion, the matter will be filed. Any objections? So
ordered. Thank you, Mr. Blue.
 We will move on to item F, request from J.P. Schmidt
for an appeal of the Director's decision or in the alternative,
request for modification of subdivision requirements regarding
Donald O'Connor. Mr. Schmidt and Mr. O'Connor. The Chair
would like to recommend that we take up the two matters
separately, the first matter being the request for appeal of
the Director's decision. The second matter being a
modification of subdivision. Are there any objections to
that? Very good.
 So we will start with the appeal of Director's
decision first.

MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm J.P.
Schmidt, and I represent Donald O'Connor and Valerie O'Connor
in this matter. I did send some written testimony that I trust
the Board got that basically summarizes the situation. The
O'Connors had an approximately eight acre parcel out in Haiku,
and it has had an existing five-eighths inch water meter. The
O'Connors decided to subdivide off five acres from that and put
that five acres on a private water system, leaving the three
acres still on the existing five-eighths.
 So there's no request for any additional water
meters or any additional demand on the system. Arguably, you
could say a three acre parcel would use less than an eight acre
parcel. Not necessarily, but it certainly could.
 The Director has stated that he's going to oppose
any building permits for the five acre parcel or for an ohana
on the three acre parcel, which would normally be allowed,
until or unless the O'Connors improve the water system putting
in about 6500 feet of pipe and some other improvements.
Our basic position on the appeal is that it's really
a misinterpretation of the rules, that the rules do not apply
in this particular instance. In reading the rules, I think
it's clear that the Water Department and Water Board have the
right to require improvements when there is an impact on the
system, when there's additional demand on the system. Then the
Water Board can require an individual to improve the system to
take care of that impact. And normally when there is a
subdivision it's anticipated that additional water meters will
be requested, and therefore there's going to be additional
demand and impact on the system so improvements can be
required.
 In this particular instance, though, that is not the
case. Because the five acres is on a private water system
there is no impact on the public system. The five-eighths inch
meter was already there and there is no request for additional
meters. Therefore, the requirement of improvements doesn't
apply.
 As I stated in my testimony, I believe that that
interpretation is appropriate given the wording of the rule, if
you read the rules, and also I think it needs to be interpreted
in that way based on United States Supreme Court rulings
regarding constitutionality, that's basically when a
governmental agency makes requirements of people in order to
give them permits.
 And the United States Supreme Court has said that
you have to have a rough proportionality between the
requirements and the impact that they're designed to alleviate,
and that you have to have what's known as a substantial nexus.
In other words, if the impact is going to be an increased
demand on a water system, then the nexus is to have
improvements in the water system. But where there is no
impact, well then there's no connection between the two.
 So based on that, our position is, as we have
stated, that the rules do not apply in this instance and they
should be read in that manner.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. Any
questions? Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR: I'd like to know the nature of the
private water system that's going to be employed on the
separated out parcel.

MR. SCHMIDT: There's a well.

MR. STARR: Does the well exist?

MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.

MR. STARR: Is it on that parcel?

MR. SCHMIDT: I am not sure. No, it is not.

MR. STARR: Where is it?

MS. NAGO: This is Donald O'Connor.

MR. SCHMIDT: Do you want to come up here, Donald?

MR. O'CONNOR: The well is located up a private road
two lots above our lot, and there have been easements signed
for the water lines going from the well, traversing a two acre
parcel into the five acre parcel.

MR. STARR: So in other words, you will be buying
water from another person who drilled a well somewhere else?

MR. O'CONNOR: There's an association with three
members that own this well, and I'm one of the three members.

MR. STARR: So the well and tank and all of that
stuff require equipment to disinfect water is in place?

MR. O'CONNOR: The well is in place and we just
installed our 15,000 gallon holding tank and filled it. We
don't have any structure on this five acre parcel, nothing else
has been installed.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Okay, ladies and gentlemen,
concerning the appeal of the Director's decision, I would like
to recommend that we pass to the Board granting the appeal of
the Director's decision.

MR. TAGORDA: Overturn the decision of the Director,
Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: No, that we accept the appeal of
the Director's decision. We want to accept this appeal of the
Director's decision or not, basically.

MR. HIRANAGA: Appeal application for consideration?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yeah. Thanks, huh.

MR. HIRANAGA: Before the Board?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes.

MR. STARR: Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Starr.

MR. STARR: Do we have any rule in place that allows
us to appeal the decision of a Director?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: No. Well, I should actually ask
Corporation Counsel to answer that, I am not really qualified.

MR. KUSHI: Okay, Mr. Chair. Mr. Schmidt, please
tell me if you think I am way off base. I'm sure you know the
rules better than I do. My understanding is that there is no
existing appeal rule from a Director's decision until you do
your rule making on it. However, as in any administrative
agency, if the Applicant is not satisfied with the agency
decision, that applicant can always appeal whatever decision
directly to the Circuit Court, as in any agency.
 On the other hand, I believe the Applicant is asking
this Board to interpret the Director's -- to review the
Director's interpretation of an existing rule. If that's the
case, I feel that the Board has been doing that before. And
it's not so much an appeal from the Director's decision, it's
an interpretation of the Director's -- review of the Director's
interpretation of the existing rule.

MR. STARR: I know it had always been my belief that
that's what we were here for, was to do just that. However, I
found myself in conflict with our previous Corporation Counsel,
who insisted that we were not empowered to appeal anything or
basically do anything without specific rule making. And I
didn't agree with that, but that was what we were hearing
meeting after meeting. Frankly, I feel it's a little bit of
fresh air that we are starting to learn that we can actually
function without specific rule making. Maybe we can start
doing our job again. However, I am still, well, let me leave
it back to the Chair so we can understand his recommendation.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: The item was noticed, basically
it says here it is noticed, it's a request for an appeal of the
Director's decision, or in the alternative, request for
modification of requirements. That's the way it's noticed.
So I'm asking this body if you would like to allow
the appeal of the Director's decision, or if the body feels
it's not really worth our effort to even ask if we are going to
accept it or not but move onto the next matter, which is the
request for modification of subdivision requirements, which in
this case I don't think it has any bearing on the request. I'm
hearing something totally different, that's why.

MR. SCHMIDT: If I may, Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Schmidt?

MR. SCHMIDT: Under HRS 91 Administrative Procedure
Act the Director's decision may be appealed by the Board for
the Board to decide if what action he's taking is correct or
not. And that is what we have done with the appeal because we
think that the Director's action is not correct, his
interpretation is not correct. These rules are rules that were
promulgated by this Board, and you are the ultimate authority
as to what they say. We are requesting you to offer a ruling
that in fact what they say is they wouldn't apply in this
situation.
I formed it as an alternative because if you agree
with that and you approve that and say yes, the rules do not
apply in this case, well then there's no need for
modification. However, if you decide well, we interpret the
rules and we think they do apply, then we would need a
modification in order to not require all of the improvements
that the department is requiring because, as I stated, there is
no impact on the system, no other users are impacted by it, and
therefore there should be a modification.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: As far as modifying the subdivision
requirements, 212 allows you to do that. You have the opinion
from the Corp Counsel there on page 45 that says what the
requirements are. My suggestion was that you just do what you 
did with that guy up on Kokomo Road, tell him if he can get a
waiver from the fire department then you will consider it.

MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Tagorda.

MR. TAGORDA: What was the decision of the Director
that you want to appeal, Mr. Schmidt?

MR. SCHMIDT: The decision by the Director is that
the rules apply to Mr. O'Connor's situation and therefore the
department can impose all of these improvements to the water
system.

MR. TAGORDA: Because of Mr. O'Connor's subdividing
his property, that's the reason why the Director is imposing
all these water improvements?

MR. SCHMIDT: Right. And on close reading of the
rule that states that the Department can impose these
improvements for a subdivision, on close reading of that, it is
clear from that rule, as well as the other rules of the
Department, that what is anticipated is that when you have a
subdivision you are going to have additional meters requested,
so you are going to have an impact on the system. That then
justifies requiring all of these improvements.
 But when you have a subdivision such as this which
does not require any additional water meters, there is no
impact on the system and therefore there is no basis to require
improvements. Therefore, the rules don't apply in this
particular instance. For most subdivisions they do.

MR. TAGORDA: I do get your statement very clearly,
Mr. Schmidt. I think, Mr. Chairman, this case there's a
similarity with someone we approved in the past. That the
subdivision that this person is requesting is that the system
out there in Haiku is not being impacted. So at least, like
Mr. Schmidt said, Section 2-12 we can use that. It's the power
of the Board members, of the Board to use that and make the
necessary action to the request.
 But three things we need to review and take
seriously on that modification, waiver of modification of
Section 2-12 that the public may be properly served with water
and with fire protection. That's where I am coming in, Mr.
O'Connor. The area where you live, where the property is, do
you have adequate fire protection?

MR. O'CONNOR: I have better fire protection now
with the well and holding tank than I did prior to.

MR. TAGORDA: In this case there's no impact to
present users or to people out there in that area. So Mr.
Chairman, since we already have taken in the past a position
very similar to this case, I am really strongly wanting your
indulgence to side along with me to give a waiver to Mr.
O'Connor based on those facts.
 But again, I am in a position to have the rules and
regulations of the Department in strict compliance, that's why
I asked you about the fire protection. And you said there is
adequate fire protection. So would you as a condition be
willing to sign with the Board of Water Supply a hold
harmless?

MR. O'CONNOR: Yes.

MR. TAGORDA: In case. And another point I'd like
to bring to you is can you get some letters from the fire
department stating that to your area there is adequate
protection?

MR. O'CONNOR: When I did the original subdivision
two years ago the fire department gave me the requirement which
we did satisfy.

MR. TAGORDA: That's all the conditions I want to
put in that, Mr. Chairman. Then I will strongly support such a
request.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I will take that to be a motion.
Is there a second?

MR. TAGORDA: It's just a matter of discussion.

MR. STARR: I'll second.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: It has been moved and seconded.
Back to discussion. Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: I'd also like to see that we get a
letter from the fire department saying that they're satisfied
with the fire protection along with the indemnification. I
would also like to see a letter stating that water use on that
parcel will be provided from a private water system with some
description of the system. And I'd like to just have something
that would run with the property that promises not to be
looking to the County system for water, if they bring it over
from another TMK or whatever. Just a statement that all water
will be provided by the private system.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Okay, any further discussion?
Yes, Mr. Hiranaga.

MR. HIRANAGA: I'm a little confused. So the
request was for an appeal of the Director's decision for a
request to modify the Rule 2-12. So the motion is for the
committee to recommend to the Board that we modify the
requirements of Rule 2-12, is that what's happening?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: The motion is to modify the
subdivision requirements.

MR. TAGORDA: To waive.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: To waive the subdivision
requirements for this application, which is in conjunction with
our authorities under Rule 2-12 to allow for the subdivision to
proceed, the five acres under private water system and the
three acres.

MR. HIRANAGA: Subject to the fire department's approval.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Subject to all that other stuff.

MR. HIRANAGA: I guess I'd like some type of
indemnification from the subdivider that there will be no
request or reliance for water service from the County in the
future if the well should go bad.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: That was included in Mr. Starr's
statements.

MR. HIRANAGA: I feel that there is some potential
exposure in the future after homes have been built and the well
goes bad, that people will start approaching the Department to
provide them water. So I think it should be something like
within their deed to hold the Department harmless.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I think the Applicant is okay
with that. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify
by saying "aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed "nay."
(None).
The motion does carry. We will recommend it to the
full Board. Thank you. We will take another five minute
recess and we will go into discussion and into the rules.
(Whereupon a brief recess was had).

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Call the meeting back to order.
If there is no objection we want to take up item H prior to
item G. We will be taking up discussion regarding proposed
water meter issuance rule for the Upcountry water system. Is
there any public response that would like to be entered at this
time? Mr. Mayer?

MR. MAYER: Hello, my name is Dick Mayer. I have a
very brief statement regarding the Upcountry water meter rule.
That is that there is no reference in the rule to the
Upcountry, the Kula/Makawao/Pukalani Community Plan provision
which says that the highest priority for water is to Hawaiians
and Hawaiian Homelands and agriculture, and I think that has to
be part of the rule.
 And I would like to mention also, your rule is
stating Upcountry water system. For the Water Board there is
one upcountry water system, but it covers two development
areas. As far as the County goes we have the various
development districts and there's one district, Paia-Haiku and
the second one is Kula/Makawao/Pukalani. The development plans
differ in a number of ways, but one significant way is that the
Kula/Makawao/Pukalani Upcountry plan makes a specific provision
for Hawaiian Homelands and agriculture. I do not believe Haiku
and Paia have anything parallel to that.
 So the rule probably will have to differentiate, if
you wish, between those two areas as to how water meters would
be given out. Even though you have one water system in those
areas, there would have to be some differentiation. How you
might do that I have some ideas, maybe the staff and the
Director can come up with some verbiage on how to implement the
community plan, which I think has to be implemented.
 One thing I am going to start and give you some
suggestions. One that doesn't deal with agriculture and
Hawaiian Homelands, but the issuance of meters, and that is the
need to protect existing users. We all know of difficulties in
the past if new meters are issued what will be the impact on
existing users. I know we can't be assured that they will
always have adequate water, and if a number of meters are given
out this can place some real stress at some future date on
existing users.
 Perhaps there should be a statement made that in the
future if moratoriums or restrictions have to be applied during
drought conditions, that new meter users, those after the date
that you set here, whatever date that will be for the
implementation of this, recognize that they perhaps may have
more severe restrictions than existing users. I am not saying
this is the only way to do it, but this might be a way of doing
it, because existing users should have the ability to use
water, be issued new meters, and you're placing perhaps their
vested rights in some kind of jeopardy.
 I also would urge you to, in the development of new
water sources, that there be some reservation made for
agriculture and Hawaiian Homelands, perhaps 20 percent, 40
percent, some adequate percentage to indicate compliance with
the community plan provisions in the rule. And I say this
particularly let's say now first with regard to Hawaiian
Homelands and then with regard to agriculture.
 With regard to Hawaiian Homelands, they have a plan
to put six thousand units on their land. The first phase is
300, and over the years and decades to come there will be six
thousand units that will be using the Upcountry water system.

MR. CRADDICK: Not necessarily. They might be
connected to the --

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Craddick, please, I would
like to hear Mr. Mayer's full testimony.

MR. MAYER: They may have their own system at some
future date, in which case they wouldn't need the requirement.
It's the ability for the Water Department to provide water for
that usage. So I would hope that there will be a provision
there that would recognize that that need will be existing and
ongoing for decades to come. That will be providing for the
long term, I hope.
 With regard to agriculture, I would urge you to take
a look in the packet here. There is a statement from the Water
Board. They have asked for the insertion of a phrase in the
water rule, and I will just read the underlined sentence there
where they would like the words, "in accordance with the
Makawao/Pukalani/Kula Community Plan," they would like those
words inserted into the rule that you are proposing where it
talks about priority lists. Their argument, of course, would
be that farmers be allowed to continue getting the necessary
water that they have been getting. And I will let them speak
for themselves. They are not here today, but they have some
communication. I will just call that to your attention.
That's all I have to say.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Mayer. Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: The HHL is already getting 170
percent of the available water, so to say they're not being
given priority right now is a misnomer. And for the long haul
I know they plan to get water from the central Maui system, so
again, you would not be planning for them in the Upcountry
system that is marginal at best, when they can get it out of
the central Maui system much simpler and cheaper.

MR. MAYER: Can you clarify, you said they are
getting 170 percent of what?

MR. CRADDICK: They're currently allotted 500,000
gallons a day, and they only have 300,000 to give out in
addition to their 500,000.

MR. MAYER: That's only for the 300 lots?

MR. CRADDICK: Well, 400 lots.

MR. MAYER: 350 I thought, okay. And what about the
future? This is only the very first phase. They've built six
miles of highways, they have the whole thing scaled out. The
central Maui system, as you say, would be supplying them is way
below. Will the Water Department be paying the electricity
cost to pump all that water up to 2000 feet?

MR. CRADDICK: They do anyway.

MR. MAYER: It is not being done now. The Water
Department is willing?

MR. CRADDICK: If Hawaiian Homes gets water from the
Upcountry system, that's how the water will get to them
anyways. But in Central Maui you have got an adequate
transmission system, Upcountry you don't. So it's much easier
to pump it up that route than it is to pump it up through the
existing system. In either case it has to be pumped up there.

MR. MAYER: You're saying that the 500,000 gallons
that is now allocated to them is coming from down below?

MR. CRADDICK: No, it's coming from the Upcountry
system. You were talking about future demand.

MR. MAYER: Right, but that 500,000 is coming from
Upcountry. We are not talking about Central.

MR. CRADDICK: You were talking about future demands.

MR. MAYER: When you say Central --

MR. CRADDICK: It could depending upon where they
are. I know they were planning on doing that.

MR. MAYER: What I'm saying is that water being
developed for the Upcountry system they should, and I would
think you would want to be able to supply them from downward
with gravity, rather than pumping it up from Central Maui.

MR. CRADDICK: If you don't have water up there, you
don't have water up there.

MR. MAYER: If you don't have water up there, how
are you going to be issuing new meters? What I'm saying is that
the new meters which you are considering for Upcountry --

MR. CRADDICK: You are talking about future demand,
we are talking about existing demand. This is to take care of
existing people on the list, of which Hawaiian Homes is on
there for these 400 lots. We have allotted water for them.

MR. MAYER: That's not what a community plan does.
A community plan does not look at today, people on a list. A
community plan is looking at the long term. And what I'm
saying is that your provision would not follow the community
plan by not looking at the long term. You are required to look
at the community plan, that's what the general plans are for.
And if you are only looking at the people on a list today then
you have made no provision for that long term, as you have
said.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Okay, very good. Thank you,
gentlemen. Very good discussion. Anybody else? Yes, Miss
Black.

MS. ANTONE BLACK: I'll just add something to what
has been said in the last five minutes.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: This is Audrey Antone Black.

MS. ANTONE BLACK: I went to school with Michael.
Just along the same lines, I guess what I'm thinking is, and I
have brought this up before, but now it probably seems very
appropriate. Mr. Craddick has said over and over that the only
time there is a lack of water Upcountry is during a window
period where we have an extreme drought. That the rest of the
year there's more than enough water, especially now, to supply
anybody and everybody who would need water.
 So my thinking keeps going back to that period where
we go into extreme drought, and that's the reason why all these
people are on a waiting list, because the Water Board and the
Water Department cannot provide water for that particular
period, which is sometimes only two or three weeks out of the
year. Am I not correct, Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: It varies.

MS. ANTONE BLACK: It can maybe go up to a month,
but not much longer than that. And I have said time and time
again, if the Water Department or the County of Maui would
support water catchment systems, private catchment systems, and
this is done in many states, it's subsidized. People actually
get tax credits.

MR. CRADDICK: Actually, you are suggested to have
storage in the rules right now. Everybody Upcountry is
suggested to have a minimum thousand gallon storage.

MS. ANTONE BLACK: Wonderful. I'd like to go one
step further and make it subsidized. The Mayor has been stating
publically over and over how he wants to help the situation, he
wants to ease the situation. A water catchment system could be
a backup so that, as Mr. Mayer is saying, that you know we have
got to take care of the people who are already on the water
supply system. We don't want them to have to lose their plants
or have problems.
 I'm saying again the idea of getting a subsidized
catchment system in the Upcountry area that can be used as a
backup and thereby maybe eliminate some of the worries for
people who are concerned about their water shortages. So I'd
like to just throw that in. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Question, Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA: Do you mean a storage system, not a
catchment system?

MS. ANTONE BLACK: Isn't that what it's called,
catchment tank, catchment system?

MR. HIRANAGA: It's to catch water. What you want
is storage.

MS. ANTONE BLACK: Very often you can store that
water for a period of time when it rains and you are not going
to use it until you go into a drought, so you can have a
backup.

MR. HIRANAGA: Or you can store water off of your
meter when there is no shortage of water.

MS. ANTONE BLACK: Same story, yes.

MR. HIRANAGA: So it's a storage system.

MS. ANTONE BLACK: Okay, it's a private storage
system, sure.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Any other questions? Anybody
else want to give testimony? Okay, let's go back to Water
System Development Fee rule.

MR. MAYER: Will you be discussing the Upcountry
rule today?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, later on. I was just
sensitive to your schedules, and I wanted you all to have an
opportunity to give us our due.

MR. CRADDICK: Mr. Chairman, on this one here if you
recall at the last meeting --

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: What is this?

MR. CRADDICK: This is the fee schedule that we went
to public hearing with. This portion right here was the thing
that was added in by Corp Counsel kind of between the time of
the public hearing and the full board meeting. And there is
some language in there about the Department of Finance and we
have changed that to the Department of Water Supply. But when
we looked at this more and more, we realized this whole
section, return of fees, is not really applicable because we do
a recoupment of existing system when they pay the fee. And I
will leave that up to Corp Counsel to explain the recoupment of
existing fees. The law actually says when you are recouping
fees this whole portion doesn't even apply.
 Another way to handle this, if you did want to put
something in from HRS Chapter 46 about impact fees, you can
probably do it much simpler with just a reference to the HRS,
rather than putting in this whole paragraph. I'll leave that
up to Corp Counsel if anybody has any questions. I don't think
this whole section needs to even be in there.

MR. TAGORDA: So we will delete it then.

MR. CRADDICK: You might want to talk with Corp Counsel.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: In the first place, what I
received in my packet is just not anywhere near what we
requested two months ago from the staff to give us a better
written document that we can follow along with. I am really
very disappointed. We did not meet last month because there
was no quorum, and here we are two months later and we receive
this hodge-podge of junk that I have a very difficult time even
following. I didn't even want to take this up today because of
what I got in my packet. I was really perturbed, to say the
least.
 We do have the ability to see the rule on the
screen. I don't know if the members wish to proceed with
discussion. I know Mr. Tagorda was prepared to enter some
ideas, and right now I would like to follow up with the
suggestion of the Director to have Corp Counsel provide us with
a better way of saying the same thing. But I would like to see
the Corporation Counsel's suggestion in writing.

MR. KUSHI: Well, Mr. Chair, if I may, let me
summarize. And I can issue a statement, if that's your
request. I did speak to the Director and his staff before this
meeting about this particular rule, and please excuse me, I
wasn't around when you went through your hearings. But my
understanding of Section 16-8-14, return of fees, which is up
on the screen, is redundant in terms of what it states here in
that section.
 What it states in that section is already covered by
HRS 46-141, I believe, which is the state impact fees. The
state impact fees, to my understanding, is that if the fees are
deemed to be collected for recoupment purposes, then they're
not refundable. But my main concern with this whole thing,
again, like in the case of the Director's appeal, is my
understanding is that this was not brought up at the public
hearing. So we might get another situation where the public
was not notified of the intended rule.
 So I concur with the Director that maybe if you want
to proceed on with the balance of your proposed rules, omit
this. For one reason, it's already covered by the state impact
fee statute. Or two, if you want to do your own rule and
repeat what the state says, do another rule making procedure.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: I'm a little confused over what we have
here. It says the one signed by Larry Jefts. This has nothing
to do with what we are trying to deal with.

MR. CRADDICK: It starts at page 71. Actually, I
guess page 70. Because we added in -- what Jonathan is looking
at right now is just the title page of the development fee.
Because we added in this Section 14, we had to change the title
page to add in 14. But if that's deleted, this whole front
section would be deleted along with that, because there
wouldn't be any need to revise the general layout of the table
of contents.

MR. STARR: This page 70 to 73, how does this differ
from what went to public hearing?

MR. CRADDICK: Only this section here was added in.

MR. STARR: 14?

MR. CRADDICK: Yes.

MR. STARR: And why was that added in?

MR. CRADDICK: Ed?

MR. KUSHI: As I understand it, the previous Deputy
Corporation Counsel wanted it in. He's not here to respond and
defend himself, so I'd rather not respond.

MR. STARR: Does anyone in this room have any desire
to see this here?

MR. TAGORDA: I'd really like to omit that, Mr.
Starr. That would be my suggestion.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: All in favor signify by saying
"aye."
(A chorus of ayes).
Opposed "nay."
(None).
We are omitting that. That's out. Okay, next.

MR. STARR: What we have here, is this consistent
with what went to public hearing?

MR. CRADDICK: Yes, it is. It's exactly the same,
everything else.

MR. STARR: Well, wait a second. I know that one
thing that was raised at the public hearing, which I felt that
there was a consensus that we would try to do, was to deal with
the list people. Didn't I see something in here that deals
with the list people?

MR. CRADDICK: No.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: The list people is being dealt
with in the other rule for discussion today.

MR. STARR: So we don't need to deal with it in
here, that will be taken care of in there?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes. Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: As you recall, when we first had the
meeting about this, it was held by Kent, and Kent said he
wanted to deal with the schedule as one item and all the rest
of the rules as another item. Now, can I just bring that up,
what Jonathan is talking about here?
 This is now the Upcountry water fee rule, which
hasn't gone to public hearing. This was an item that was
brought up in the scheduled public hearing. So I would expect
this paragraph could be put into the development fee, but the
issue becomes when the list is no longer needed you have got
something in there waiving the fee for something that is not
needed. This would lapse with the rule when the priority list
is no longer needed.
 So basically I will leave it up to you guys whether
you want to put it in here or put it in the other, because as
Jonathan said, it was brought up at public hearing and I
believe it's okay, it was just a matter of the Board, whether
they wanted to continue dealing with the rate portion of it
separate from the rest of the rules.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: There are two rules that are up
for discussion today. They're interconnected because of this.
Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: I think we are in one of those kind of
Catch 22 deals. To my understanding, the Council will probably
be reluctant to pass this unless there's something about the
list people. The only problem is we're several months ahead on
this compared to the other rule. So that means that either we
have got to hold this back until the other one goes through
public hearing, or add wording consistent with the testimony at
the public hearing to the list, in which case we could put this
through right away.
 For expediency, it's not as clean, but we might be
better off to put something in here regarding the list people
and then we can send it off on its merry way after our next
board meeting. Meanwhile let the other one work its way
through the public hearing process. I leave that to the
Chair's preference. But I would love to see this rate increase
go into effect, and the earlier the better.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA: Just for my clarification of
understanding, the so-called Council's reluctance to pass this
rule without the other rule is because they want the people on
the so-called list to be grandfathered in through the current
fee schedule?

MR. STARR: That's what we heard from Councilmember
Tavares and quite a few testifiers at the public hearing. So
my guess is that we would get knocked down if we went to the
Council with this without anything giving the list people the
old rates, since they have been waiting.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Tagorda??

MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Chair, let's separate these two
rules. I think Miss Tavares' concern has been met in the
issuance meter rule that we are going to take up next, after
the water development fee rule. So if we go on and try to
concentrate on changing, modifying and adding some of the
provisions that we needed on this water system development fee
rule, I think we're better off.
I think we should just go on and try to smooth out
these rules and resubmit it for approval to the Council and the
Mayor. And the issuance meter rule is, like what you said, the
rates are being taken care of in the issuance meter rule,
especially the current rate. I think we are not touching that
rate. They knew that they had to pay the old rate. But in the
new rate on this water system development fee rule they have
the new rate. On that list that you're concerned with, Mr.
Starr, I think they are going to pay the old rate. It's in
that rule, there's a provision for it.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: That's it right there.

MR. TAGORDA: That's it right there. That's for the
issuance meter rule.

MR. STARR: I understand, it's just a matter of
timing. How long will it take us to put this to a public
hearing?

MR. CRADDICK: If you can decide on this today, I
would say you could probably have the public hearing sometime
the first or second week of February.

MR. STARR: It just means that we are going to have
to hold, we would have to hold up the water system development
fee waiting for the other rule. They won't pass it, Orlando.
I have heard that from three Councilmembers, they will not pass
it unless there's specific language regarding the list people.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: The Council themselves, let's say the
Board passed the fee schedule in its December meeting. The
Mayor would get it sometime around the first of January or a
little later. The Council probably wouldn't even have it in a
meeting by the time we came to public hearing on this. So only
if they have thought that the Board was going to do a bait and
switch would they have some concern.
 I think if the Board gave a good, safe concurrence
that they were going to do this and it was in this rule for
public hearing, the Upcountry meter issuances, what it does is
it at least let's you start issuing the meters. And if people
want to go on the list they can make a reservation, they
wouldn't have to pay the fee right away. And when this came
out they could pay the fee.
 Because most of them are going to have to fix up
lines anyway first, which is going to go far, far beyond the
fee schedule. There may be a few that are up front, and those
can just take the reservation, they don't have to pay the fee
right away.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Okay, I think we can work with
our legislative committee to prepare the County Council
appropriately, we just need I guess to maybe better -- you need
a better synergy between the Mayor the department and the
County Council so the committee can do its work.

MR. CRADDICK: Let's put it this way. I am not
worried about having to explain that the Board is doing this in
another rule, you know, and myself feeling that at the last
minute the Board is going to yank this out after the other gets
passed. I don't think anybody on this Board is going to do
that.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Let's move on to Mr. Tagorda's
amendment discussion on Section 6 --

MR. CRADDICK: If you could, that is for the rest of
the water development fee rules. And if you want to put this
one to bed and say this is what we are going to recommend to
the Board to send to the Mayor, this is ready to do that now.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Tagorda had an amendment to
the water system development fees 16-8-10, payment plan.

MR. CRADDICK: That is in here. This is the full
water development fee, and I suspect there's many, many changes
in here. I am hoping there's many changes in here. This is a
different item on the agenda here. The agenda has the rate
schedule.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: So we stay on that development
fee right now. We went switch off of the other one after the
testimony back to this one, then we go back. That's where we
stay. Sorry, huh? Okay, Mr. Tagorda.

MR. TAGORDA: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I
made up some amendment to really omit the old provision on the
payment plan, which is 16-8-10, and let me read to you very
carefully the wordings I want to propose.
 "The payment may be made over a period of five
years. Anyone who elects to pay over a period of five years
will make an initial payment of not less than 20 percent prior
to installation of the meter, and the remaining 80 percent will
be in five equal annual installments, plus a current charge per
annum computed on the unpaid balance. The consumer shall have
the option of paying the balance owing plus accrued interest at
any time or any part thereof with no prepayment penalties.
Water service may be disconnected for non-payment of any annual
installment."
 The reason why I tried to make this kind of wording
is because when I read the plea of the Molokai resident and for
people Upcountry, I think this is in comparison to the old
provision of the payment plan. Mine I believe is very layman,
not complicated, and it's affordable and reasonable. We give
people a chance to at least have an option to pay installments
or one time.
 And I changed a lot of these wordings because I
myself, the old provision under 16-8-10 only recently I
understood. And by having this new amendment that I propose, I
think everybody would really understand how they are going to
meet their responsibilities with the department. But I am open
for discussion.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: So you are proposing to totally
replace the current section as it appears with amendments on
the screen that we don't have at our desk, with your proposal,
or do you --

MR. TAGORDA: Yes, Mr. Chair. So I need to just
take off the full provision of that old 16-8-10 and --

MR. CRADDICK: No, no, you can't do that, because
then everybody would get it, commercial properties, everybody.
This is restricted to owner-occupant residential premises only.

MR. TAGORDA: I'm open for discussion. You insert
anything that will make your department -- that this rule will
be applicable.

MR. CRADDICK: This particular section in the
original rule, I'll call it the Goro amendment, we had in the
original rule the payment plan for everybody. And he said,
"Why should everybody get it, because it would make an
administrative nightmare for us to have all these payment plans
for every single meter, because everybody is going to say, hey,
I want the payment plan."
 And this specifically limits it to owner-occupied
residential premises, which exceeds one-half of one percent of
the premises tax assessed value. Since we're doubling the fee,
that would jump to $600,000, so we're saying one-half. We are
still allowing it for people who have a $300,000 home and lot
to be able to get the payment plan.

MR. TAGORDA: So my proposed amendment is 20 percent
of that total $6,000 you have to pay up front, and then the 80
percent balance you can have the option of paying it all in
full or in five equal annual installments.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: The proposed amendment on the
screen is one sixth.

MR. CRADDICK: It would be $1,000.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: And then instead of over two
years, you would like to go to five years?

MR. TAGORDA: Annual installments or they can pay in
full.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I understand. Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: Is the intent to charge interest on
this, Orlando?

MR. TAGORDA: Yes, charge per annum.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: That's why we limited it to two
years. We didn't think that the-- see, what's going to happen
is if you go over a longer period the actual rate is going to
change, because every year we are adding the cost of living
increase to the meter charge. So the longer you go, you have
that factor, and you have the fact that if we have borrowed
money on the development fee, that we are going to be paying
interest on that borrowing.
 So I think it would be proper to charge some kind of
interest, and you may want to add in there also if they select
this that they have got to pay those increases in the fee too.
But that's why -- this was a staff recommendation, these things
that you see in bold. We felt doing this gets it down to
payments that are -- let's see, you would have $5,000 over two
years, so that would be $2,500, $200 about a month, right,
Mike?

MR. QUINN: $208.

MR. CRADDICK: $208 a month. We felt that that was
something that people could handle. But there could be, you
know, I mean in addition to this you could give people the
ability to select, have a choice of payment plans, one without
interest and one with interest for a longer time.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: My feeling is five years is a long
time. Maybe if we left it like this on a monthly and gave it
to them without interest and then extended it to three years.
I mean we are giving them a pretty good break because they are
not paying interest, so they have the use of the money, and
three years is reasonable. It's costing us a few percent.
Would that be workable?

MR. TAGORDA: But again, one person on the premises,
tax assessed value, your property tax goes up too.

MR. CRADDICK: Once you're on the payment plan if
the property value goes up we are not going to go back and pull
you off the payment plan because your property value went up.
Once you are on the plan, you are on the plan.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Quinn?

MR. QUINN: The reason we have, Mr. Chair, the
monthly payment plan in there is we have gotten requests from
many customers for the plan. There seems to be a level of
comfort, and they're typically used to paying off their bills
in a monthly fashion and that's why that's in there, rather
than the annual installments.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA: So the highlighted language, is that
proposed language or existing language?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Proposed.

MR. CRADDICK: The highlighted portion is proposed
language, like you are talking about right here.

MR. HIRANAGA: So the current language --

MR. CRADDICK: The underlined bold is stuff that the
staff, in discussion with the staff this is what we are
recommending to the Board, basically.

MR. HIRANAGA: Isn't the calculation one-half of one
percent of the assessed value over the fee, isn't that 1.2
million dollars of assessed value if the fee is $6,030?

MR. CRADDICK: One percent would be --

MR. HIRANAGA: $600,000.

MR. CRADDICK: That's a million 2. Two percent is
what it should be.

MR. STARR: Two percent is what you meant to put
there, David.

MR. CRADDICK: Well, one-half of two percent is one percent.

MR. STARR: It should be two percent. That would be $300,000.

MR. CRADDICK: One percent is $6,000 of the new fee.

MR. HIRANAGA: A $600,000 house, one percent is $6,000.

MR. STARR: You want two percent, just say two percent.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Somebody get one calculator.

MR. HIRANAGA: 1.2 million. Half a percent is --

MR. CRADDICK: It says when the fee -- okay, I see
what you mean.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: What is one percent of $600,000?

MR. QUINN: $6,000.

MR. STARR: Two percent is what it should be. That
would be a $300,000 house.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Right on, Kent. All those in
favor of that move signify by saying "aye."

MR. HIRANAGA: What move?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: From one-half of one percent to
two percent?

MR. CRADDICK: There doesn't need to be any motion
on this because there's no Board action on anything yet.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: It's just discussion then. Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: I also suggest we pull it out to three years.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Kushi?

MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, if I may, has this been out
to public hearing?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: No.

MR. CRADDICK: No, it has not.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: It's got to go to public hearing anyway.

MR. KUSHI: So this is just discussion.

MR. CRADDICK: The existing rule is already a rule.
The stuff that's in bold are suggested changes.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: If it's three years, what would
be the monthly payment plan, Mr. Quinn?

MR. QUINN: $167.

MR. TAGORDA: How much?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: $167. Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA: Why do you say pay one sixth of the fee?

MR. CRADDICK: Just trying get it down to $1,000.

MR. HIRANAGA: If you are going to do it in two
years I would make it one third. If you are going to make it
three years I would make it one quarter.

MR. CRADDICK: It's that initial crush for like
$2,000. Right now it's $1,500, and even that is kind of
onorous on people. Basically the people that get stuck with
this are the ones that haven't planned ahead to include this in
their mortgage, or something like that. When they get a
borrowing from the bank they go to the bank and borrow money to
build the whole house, and when everything is all built, "Oh,
geez, I need a meter for my house." They can get temporary
meters, there's all kinds of ways to build without a meter.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: What we're doing I really believe is
consistent with public testimony. We had several people on
Molokai and they all spoke with one voice, that they wanted a
payment plan that would keep the initial amount low and spread
it out. They were suggesting three years or more. So I don't
think we need to take it out to hearing again for this because
I think this is based on what we heard on Molokai.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Okay. Would that satisfy your
concerns, Mr. Tagorda?

MR. TAGORDA: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: But I do want to thank Board
Member Tagorda for his insight in providing us with some very
valuable discussion today. Thank you very much.

MR. HIRANAGA: So what's the final decision, three years?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Three years.

MR. CRADDICK: You want to change this to three
years, is that it?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes.

MR. TAGORDA: May I continue, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Tagorda.

MR. TAGORDA: On page 82 I kind of have some
different wordings again, page 82.

MR. CRADDICK: There's actually a lot of things. We
need to go through this orderly because there are a lot of
staff suggested changes in here.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Go ahead, Mr. Tagorda, page 82.

MR. TAGORDA: Page 82, the second paragraph, I
believe, "Applicant not ready for water service," and in the
middle of that paragraph there is a sentence that says that,
"The duration of any such reservation shall not exceed one
year plus two six-month extensions."
 I want to propose or recommend that we make that two
years plus a one-time, one year extension. Since in the past
you know what's been happening is that they come in for a six
month extension and they come in for another six month
extension, and the Board is reluctantly giving those requests.
I think if we just do a two year and a one-time, one year
extension and if they fail to -- what you call that now?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Fulfill obligations.

MR. TAGORDA: Fulfill their obligations, I think
there's money coming to the Board by doing that.

MR. CRADDICK: I think, Orlando, hopefully the
purpose of this is not to enrich the Board. And that two
six-month thing, the Board has already turned that over to me
to approve those, and I think it jogs them to make them aware
that, "Hey, geez, my time has run out." And it lets them know
six months ahead of time they're actually going to run out.
So I think just having the two year extension there
is good enough. Hopefully that will cover 90 percent of them,
and hopefully the other five percent catch this. And the only
one that has exceeded all of this is the one that the Board
approved last month because of SMA and some staff delays and
approval of the drawings. So to me, I think this is good to
help jog them to let them know that hey, time is running out.
We will send them a letter when that six months or,
actually, at the end of the two years we send them a letter and
then they get another letter. So they have no excuse of not
knowing when the time finally comes up. And that's what jogged
the other people to write a letter. So it wasn't after the
fact that they're coming to the Board for action, they can come
to the Board before the final time is up. So to me, I think
even though it's a little bit more work for us, the staff, it's
better.

MR. TAGORDA: That's fine, Mr. Craddick. At the
bottom of that then you need to change the words or phrase, "if
within one year," to make it "if within two years."

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Good shot, Mr. Tagorda. You're
just on it, huh, today.

MR. TAGORDA: And I had another suggestion to the
Board members here. You see that sentence right there that
says, "the application and the reservation of the allocation
shall expire and the fee paid shall be deemed a penalty, and
forfeited, to be applied to the Board's operating fund." I'd
think I'd like to change the forfeited back to the account for
the proposed -- what do you call that?

MR. CRADDICK: Development fee?

MR. TAGORDA: Yes. Instead of the Board's operating
fund, I'd like to have that back to the fund where the source
came from.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Development fees.

MR. CRADDICK: The only reason we did that, Orlando,
it's like the County charging for parking tickets and then
putting the money in their fund. All the parking tickets, even
though they're on the County, the money goes to the State.
What we're trying to say here is if we put that in
the development fee fund, is the Board purposely going to be
denying them to build up that fund, and that is not the purpose
of it. It's just a penalty, you know, should it go there. But
again, that was the reasoning behind it in the first place. If
you want to put it there, I know the staff has suggested that.

MR. TAGORDA: That's what I'd like to suggest, is
that wherever this fund came from, it should go back to that
account, to the fund, the purpose of which it was collected.
So if you got it from source, you put it back to the source,
something like that.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: But if we say the Board is
operating the fund, in general, then we can designate wherever
we want, transmission, distribution, source.

MR. TAGORDA: But there is no way of collecting
these fees, Mr. Chairman, for those three, source, transmission
or storage.

MR. CRADDICK: But Orlando, this is a penalty for
people trying to get a reservation and camp on the water.

MR. TAGORDA: The accounts collected from these fees
or forfeitures should go back to this special account, not to
the Board's operating fund.

MR. CRADDICK: I am not going to argue, because I
know staff has suggested the change, and I will leave it up to
the Board members.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Anybody else?

MR. CRADDICK: Orlando, all I can tell you is the
original logic behind putting it into the operating fund. It
was to make it look like we weren't unjustly enriching
ourselves, that's all.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: What was this before when it went to
public -- my concern is after public hearing all of a sudden
the Director takes this to staff and makes all kinds of
changes.

MR. CRADDICK: No, no.

MR. STARR: And now we are going to end up having to
go with something that's changed in many ways from the way it
was at public hearing.

MR. CRADDICK: This is not going to go to public
hearing until the Board agrees with all the changes that are in
here. That's why I said we have to go through it orderly from
the top down.

MR. STARR: Has this been to public hearing?

MR. CRADDICK: No public hearing, nothing on this.
This is back in June or July, if you recall, a conscious
decision was made by the committee to separate the schedule
from the rest of the rule. We did that, we came to the Board
with the rest of the rule, everybody said oh, there's nothing
that needs changing in here, so it kind of died there. Then I
guess it came up again that actually we really do need to deal
with some issues in here, so here it is again for the Board to
deal with. It hasn't going to public hearing.

MR. STARR: Let me get it clear then. The rate
fees, are we sending those to Council without the verbiage or
are we going to keep it all together and take the rate fees
back to public hearing along with the verbiage?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I don't know what was transmitted
to the Council.

MR. CRADDICK: Nothing has been transmitted yet. All
we did was we went to public hearing with the fee schedule,
that's all, because of Kent and his committee saying that to
try and deal with the whole rule was going to take a long
time. And as you can see, it is taking a long time.

MR. STARR: My feeling is I really don't think we
ought to bring it back to the Council until we have the whole
thing and it's all been through public hearing. And also if we
do go through public hearing, then again, the list guys' stuff
and the other rule has a chance to catch up with it.
I'd much rather have a sure thing than have it get
turned down by the Council and have to go through it again. So
I have no problem if we are going to take it back through
public hearing again.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Very good. Going back to Mr.
Tagorda's suggestion, is anybody else in favor of or want to
support the substitutions of instead of the Board's operating
fund that the money be applied to source development funds of
the Board? Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA: Is there any limit on the frequencies
that we can submit rule changes to the Council?

MR. CRADDICK: What's that?

MR. HIRANAGA: Is there a limit as to the frequency
that we can submit rule changes to the Council?

MR. CRADDICK: There's no limit. It's just
historically they can't deal with money issues during an
election year, that's all. That was the reason whey we were
separating this, because we knew this was going to take a long
time.

MR. HIRANAGA: What would preclude us from
submitting the fee schedule as one recommended change, and
whenever this rule is finally approved, that it be submitted at
that time? It seems like you are holding the fee schedule back
as we start plodding through this. If we have no limit as to
how often we can submit rules --

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I think the point being that
Councilmember Tavares had expressed at one of our meetings that
she would be dead set against helping us get any of this
through if we don't have a provision to handle the applicants
on the waiting list in the Upcountry area.

MR. CRADDICK: But are you concerned about that? Is
everybody here concerned about that? Because it was at the
public hearing, so like I said, you can chop it out of that
one, the meter rule, and put it in the fee schedule. It's just
that then you start talking about other things other than the
fee schedule.
 And I think the Board is credible enough to go to
the Council. I don't feel the least bit uncomfortable going to
the Council and saying, "Hey, we have separated these out. We
have gone to public hearing or we are going to public hearing.
Here is the rule we are going to public hearing with for the
meter issuances. It's got your concern covered in there."
I don't think they're going to worry about the Board
getting the fee schedule passed and then suddenly deleting the
other out of the rule. All of you say you are not going to do
it, and I believe you.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: The Director may think that he has
credibility with the Council; I am not so sure. I really think
that we should get it together, all the verbiage and the list
stuff and take it there and make sure it gets through. We did
have a rule get kicked back to us just last week after I
understand the Director lobbied against it.

MR. CRADDICK: Jonathan, why do you say that kind of
stuff? I did not say one single thing about it. Corp Counsel
found it out and brought it up, that's all.

MR. STARR: Anyway, I don't feel that we want to
have divisiveness I'd just like to get it done clearly at this
time.

MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Hiranaga.

MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair, I guess when we first
started looking at this fee schedule we were told how this was
way overdue and we needed to address this, which we did in a
timely fashion, and now it has been brought back into this
whole process of reviewing Chapter 8. I would prefer to submit
the fee proposal to the Council, have them voice any concerns
they may have upon review, at which time we can address and
hopefully alleviate any of those concerns.
 But to guess as to what their concerns may be or
what one Councilmember's concerns may have been at that point
in time, I feel we should work with that. If they have
concerns, let them officially voice it to us and we will try to
address them. But to hold back this fee schedule because we
think there may be concerns, it seems like this fee schedule is
going to get bogged down.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Okay, thank you. I will make a
recommendation from the Rules Committee to the Board at the
next board meeting that that proceed.
 Do the members wish to start at the beginning of
this water system development fee slide show or would you
prefer to have this slide show provided in writing to us so we
can actually see what's going on?

MR. HIRANAGA: Well, personally I think if we are
going to address each section we should have some prior notice
to what the proposed or suggested changes are going to be made
by the department so we can understand them, versus looking at
something like this.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: I think this presentation is kind of
designed to give us headaches. I would not like to see
something slip through under that.

MR. HIRANAGA: I thought we were only going to
address the fee schedule, 16-8-9, 11 and 15, and now we are
addressing these things.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: What I was hoping is that the Board
members would do exactly like what Orlando did. They would
have specific sections they have a problem with, we throw them
down on here, we print the whole thing out for the Board to
look at everything. Board member suggested changes as well as
staff suggested changes. If you want to change or delete
something, yes, it's a proper process.
I know it's a little flashy up there, so I have to
agree with Board Member Starr there on that. But, you know,
it's an efficient process where everybody can see it, and if
the Board members have any suggested changes we can do them in
this meeting or individual Board members can send them in and
we can put this in and print it out. But nobody is talking
about this, so we need to do something.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA: I would prefer the staff provide us
suggested changes that we review, and upon that review if we
determine other areas need to be addressed the Board members
can do that. To ask me to review this rule and try to revamp
it, personally put my time into this, each member to do the
same, and then see what the staff says, I think is not an
efficient use of my time.
 Staff is working with this on a daily basis. If
they run into problems they should make suggestions for our
review. If we want to expand on that, then the members will
have that opportunity to do so. To ask us to make the
suggested changes first --

MR. CRADDICK: That's all right, that's valid.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Hashimoto?

MR. HASHIMOTO: I agree with Board Member Hiranaga.
I think it's easier for me to see it down on paper first and
then see what kind of suggestions they have and then review
it. Because to see it up on the screen is okay, but I'd rather
see the whole document before, instead of piecemeal.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: This document is not ready to be
referred back to the Board for conclusion, so the matter is
deferred to our next meeting.
 Let's go look at the Upcountry Meter Issuance Rule.
I believe with the exception of inserting something, some kind
of language giving light to that Makawao/Kula community plan
language of priority for ag and Hawaiian Homelands, possibly
within the purpose section of the rule, this rule looks ready
to be submitted to the Board for first reading.

MR. HIRANAGA: Just a question, Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes.

MR. HIRANAGA: So as far as the staff is concerned,
they have no additional proposed changes to Rule 16-106-01?
They are not going to review this and then at the next meeting
have more changes, which is what seemed to be happening in the
previous rule.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK: There are some definitions that were
deleted out of there that Orlando had asked for before, the
source development, because it had things in there for
retrofitting. And fixture units was deleted out of there
because that was referenced in the source portion of the rule,
and that was deleted out. But that was talked about at the
last meeting when we reviewed this thing. So there may be some
differences between what you have in front of you and what is
up here on the screen.

MR. STARR: Which is the one we're looking to pass?

MR. CRADDICK: It's up to you.

MR. STARR: Thanks, Dave. I mean I am ready to make
a motion on the one I have in front of me on paper, but I am
not ready to make a motion on something else.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Let us look at the one that we
have on paper, gentlemen, because that's what we have before
us.

MR. CRADDICK: Then do you want that thing in there
about the fixture units when it is not referenced anywhere in
the rule?

MR. STARR: What thing?

MR. CRADDICK: You have a definition there for
fixture units that's not referenced anywhere in the rule. Do
you want it in this rule?

MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Hiranaga.

MR. HIRANAGA: Again, what I would like is a draft
of the rule with changes as suggested by the department for our
review. So if they wanted certain things deleted they should
have put delete, suggest delete or suggest to add or amend so
we know we're looking at the whole rule that the department is
happy with, and then we can review it and comment from our
part. It's like we are going back and forth.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, I concur. Mr. Tagorda?

MR. TAGORDA: I kind of sometimes do not concur with
the members on how to approach the rule making process. What
we have here, especially this issuance meter rule, is a new
rule that's been submitted to us by the staff and it's really
up to us to delete, make some suggestions, recommendations as
to the provisions and the contents of this rule. And if we are
just going to pass this again, isn't this you guys
recommendation, David, the issuance meter rule? None of this
came from any of the Board members?

MR. CRADDICK: It did not come from the Board
members, nor did it come from the staff. It basically came
from the Corp Counsel, because the Board said they wanted a
rule on meter issuance for Upcountry.

MR. TAGORDA: So we are really ready to take on this
issuance meter rule.

MR. CRADDICK: What I'm getting at is the staff
really has not reviewed that either. So Kent is right, this,
what you see up here in front of you, is our recommended
changes, but you don't have them sitting in front of you.

MR. TAGORDA: Okay.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, is there any way we can get
another meeting before the Board meeting so we can get them --
would you be willing to recess and come back and then we can
have final staff suggested copies? Because I feel like we're
close on both of these now. I would love to get them out and
to the Board at this meeting. I assume it won't take staff
long to print them out.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: We could, the committee could
move both rules out to the Board meeting on the 27th without
any recommendations. That's one possibility. The second
possibility would be for us to recess and reconvene say
tomorrow afternoon, because we are already scheduled to have a
Committee of the Whole and Finance meetings tomorrow.

MR. STARR: That would be my desire, and I think in
a half hour or 40 minutes we could do it. This one, I was
ready to make a motion on this one until I heard that there
were going to be staff suggestions.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I don't know if we are going to
allow staff sufficient time by just recessing for a day.

MR. STARR: Well, he's got them.

MR. CRADDICK: All we have to do is print this out
then. You see this one here, people with many lots. Let's say
you have a 30 lot subdivision. Are you going to give all 30
lots the break on the development fee or are you going to let
maybe two lots get the break on the development fee and the
rest of them have to pay the fee?
 This came up with staff yesterday, and I said, well,
let's just throw it down here for the Board because it is a
legitimate issue. Because we have a number of subdivisions
with many, many lots. And here may be the place where you may
want to give this in quotes preference to Hawaiian Homes, if
you will. And farmers it probably doesn't matter anyway,
because if they're real farmers they get exemptions from the
state on the fee anyway. So it may not matter for the
farmers. But it was a concern to staff if you are going to
give this waiver to people with 30, you know, an umpteen number
of lots because they are on the list there.

MR. HASHIMOTO: So 30 on the list or just one person?

MR. CRADDICK: It's just one item on the list.

MR. HASHIMOTO: But 30 meters?

MR. CRADDICK: Right. And I don't know if I should
be bringing the name out here, but I can bring out a few of
them.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I would prefer you not to
disclose that information.

MR. CRADDICK: Okay.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: It is the Chairman's position
that this rule is not necessary. I feel and I still feel that
the ability for the department to issue meters to the people
waiting on the list is already addressed in our current rules
as they stand. It was the Director's suggestion that the Board
bring up a rule for him to issue meters to the people on the
waiting list. I don't know who the hell it was, but I still
embrace that the current rule we have on meter issuance still
applies. Mr. Hiranaga?

MR. HIRANAGA: Going back to this question, I don't
feel comfortable when questions like these are posed to us
without prior notice. What I would suggest, if you wish to
make this part of the agenda for the next Board meeting is
maybe you recess to Friday and give staff time to make copies
and deliver, and for us to have time to read it. She's got to
find a meeting room. Fran, if we met on Friday would you --

MS. NAGO: First of all, I have got to find a room.
It's got to be announced, room and time. So if you guys are
recessing, we have to recess and announce the time and the
place. I don't know if this is available on Friday.

MR. HIRANAGA: If we did it on Friday would you have
sufficient time, because Tuesday is Christmas, to deliver
whatever is decided to the full Board?

MS. NAGO: Are you folks talking about this Friday?
You folks are talking about this Friday?

MR. HIRANAGA: The meeting is Thursday, right, we've
got to have the documents.

MS. NAGO: What I was hoping is, I don't think it's
going to get to some of you folks in the mail by Friday.

MR. CRADDICK: I will hand deliver it, if we have to.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: I think we should come back tomorrow
with the suggested wording from the staff and see if we can
knock it out.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I don't think it's possible.

MR. HASHIMOTO: I don't think it's enough time for
us to review it because we will probably get it tomorrow or at
the meeting.

MR. CRADDICK: You will get it about 2:00 today.

MS. NAGO: No, David, they won't get it at 2:00 today.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Tagorda -- sorry, Mr. Hiranaga.

MR. HIRANAGA: If Friday works for Fran, I don't
know if you are taking Monday off --

MS. NAGO: Yes, Monday and Wednesday I'm not going
to be here, but Friday if he's going to deliver it to
everybody, that's fine. Or if you folks want to pick it up.
But that gives them time to go over it, get everything down,
make the copies, and be a little more organized.

MR. HIRANAGA: So if we met Friday, whatever
revisions or changes to be made will be delivered to the other
Board members for the Thursday meeting?

MS. NAGO: Right. Everything you guys get in your
committee, it goes to everybody. I don't just give it to
committee members, it goes to everybody. It would go to all
eight of the Board members and the staff.

MR. HIRANAGA: Suggested changes that occur on
Friday need to be transferred to the Board members.

MS. NAGO: You folks are going to have a meeting on Friday.

MR. HASHIMOTO: He's talking about the changes that
are made on Friday to be faxed out to the Board members.

MR. CRADDICK: We can fax them out to everybody on
the same day.

MR. HIRANAGA: The changes that are made on Friday
will be transmitted to the Board members.

MR. CRADDICK: The same day.

MS. NAGO: Well, it depends, David. You have got a
Committee of the Whole meeting and you have got a Finance
meeting.

MR. CRADDICK: That's on Wednesday.

MS. NAGO: Friday I can get the stuff to you if he's
going to deliver it. Are you going to deliver it to all the
Board members?

MR. CRADDICK: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: It is the Chairman's
recommendation that this meeting be recessed until Friday,
December 21st at 9:00 am in the Director's office. Is that
good?

MR. HASHIMOTO: I won't be here.

MS. NAGO: You are not going to be here on Friday?

MR. HASHIMOTO: No.

MS. ANTONE BLACK: Is that open to the public?

MS. NAGO: It's a public meeting, Audrey.

MR. HASHIMOTO: If you want to meet in my conference
room you are welcome. I won't be there, but it can hold about
comfortably.

MR. CRADDICK: Down at the college there, the ag room.

MR. HASHIMOTO: I will reserve it if you folks want
that. There's a screen.

MS. NAGO: Do you want to hold it in the Director's
office? It's up to you, it doesn't matter to me. We need to
name a place.

MR. HASHIMOTO: I don't think the public will fit in
his office.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: It will be okay in the Director's
office. I really don't want to go too far from there because
you need to fax everything. Mr. Starr?

MR. STARR: Just before we do that, could we take
just two or three minutes and ask the Director if he's got any
other big surprises for us in there?

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, lets.

MR. CRADDICK: The word "applicants" was changed to
"premises" because on the list the people were not accepted by
names and tax map keys were accepted. So we have made some
changes in there to recognize that. That if people died or if
somebody sold the property, the request for the water service
remain with the property, not the person who passed away or
something like that.

MR. HASHIMOTO: Is there a revised list?

MR. CRADDICK: I believe so, yes.

MR. HASHIMOTO: Can we see the revised list?

MR. STARR: That should go to hearing with this.
Not to hearing, but it should be available to the public.

MR. HASHIMOTO: Well, not by name.

MS. NAGO: It's listed by TMK.

MR. CRADDICK: I think that is basic.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Get it off the website.

MR. CRADDICK: But without the names on it.

CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Okay. This meeting is recessed
to Friday, 12/21/01 at 9:00 am in the Director's office next
door. Thank you.

(The proceedings were concluded at 11:00 a.m.)

IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.