BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
REGULAR MEETING



Held at the HGEA Conference Room, David K. Trask, Jr.,  
Office Building, 2145 Kaohu Street, Room 207, Wailuku,  
Maui, Hawaii, commencing at 9:00 a.m. on January 31st, 2002. 

REPORTED BY: LYNANN NICELY, RPR/RMR/CSR #354 
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC. 
 
A P P E A R A N C E S 

BOARD MEMBERS: 
Peter Rice, Chairman 
Clark Hashimoto 
Kent Hiranaga  
Orlando Tagorda 
Adolph Helm 
Howard Nakamura 
Mike Nobriga 

STAFF PRESENT: 
David Craddick, Director  
George Tengan, Deputy Director 
Ed Kushi, Corporation Counsel
Fran Nago, Board Secretary


CHAIRMAN RICE:  I would like to call to order 
the Board of Water Supply meeting, regular meeting, 
Thursday, January 24th, 9 a.m.  We're in the HGEA 
conference room, Number 207. 
 Present are Board members Clark Hashimoto, 
Mike Nobriga, Kent Hiranaga, Orlando Tagorda, Adolph 
Helm, and Howard Nakamura, Director David Craddick, 
secretary Fran Nago, staff, Corp Counsel Judy 
Williams. 
 Let the record note the public members who are 
present, if they signed to testify, and proceed.  
First item on the agenda is the approval of minutes.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chair, I would like to move 
that the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 6, 
2001, both Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and Iao 
Aquifer, be received subject to 30day review, at 
which time if there are no corrections, minutes to be 
filed.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion and second that the 
minutes be received subject to review and they be 
filed.  Is there any discussion?  Comments?  All in 
favor, significant by saying aye. 

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay. 

 [No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion is carried. 
At this point on the agenda we have testimony 
from the public.  Is there any testimony that the 
public would like to give at this time?  I should note 
that we will allow you to speak on the issue as it 
comes up on the agenda if you want to stay around, but 
if not -- I see Ron.  Go ahead.  We'll start from the 
right this time and move left.

MR. STURTZ:  Mr. Carroll is waiting 
downstairs.  Did you want to meet with him first 
before we start the public testimony?

MR. CRADDICK:  I think he's coming upstairs. 

MR. STURTZ:  Good morning.  My name is Ron 
Sturtz and I'm here today as president of Maui 
Tomorrow to speak to you about Item VII(E) which is 
request for Board approval of a rule regarding Board 
action on matters concerning the distribution of water 
resources and the acquisition of land to develop water 
resources.  I trust that you have within your Board 
packets the proposed language of the proposed rule 
change and my purpose for being here today is just to 
briefly educate you as to the context of this rule 
change and significance so when you vote, you'll have 
a full understanding of what's happening. 
 This particular matter arises out of a 
situation last year where the water board found itself 
in a bit of difficulty concerning the request for the 
Central Maui Joint Venture settlement agreement and it 
became necessary for Maui Tomorrow to bring a legal 
action to deal with that particular situation.  Later 
on your agenda -- I guess it's later on your agenda in 
Executive Session, you'll be discussing a settlement 
which has been reached between Maui Tomorrow's board 
and this board and I will not talk about that now.  
But this particular rule change arose out of 
settlement discussions between your Board chairman, 
myself, our respective legal counsel, and I believe 
it's also been discussed individually with other Board 
members prior to this point in time. 
 Basically what we're trying to do here is 
bring into alignment the policies of this Board with 
the policies adopted by the county council.  Where 
matters of significance come up for review when you 
come before the county council, they have two public 
readings, not just one, before something can be made 
into law.  And the reason for that particular rule is 
when the agendas come out, oftentimes 10 days before, 
it doesn't arrive until three or four or five days 
before, there is not enough time necessarily for the 
public to be aware and to understand the nature of 
what's being involved.  And so the county, in its 
wisdom, decided to give a second shot at it, a second 
reading, at the next scheduled meeting so that people 
had a chance to in due course in a reasoned manner 
evaluate the issues and decide if they want to 
participate in the public forum. 
 In matters such as what happened with last 
year's Joint Venture agreement, things happened very, 
very quickly and had there been more time to weigh and 
balance the various issues involved, perhaps it would 
not have been necessary to have to get into the legal 
arena to deal with the issues.  So the goal here is 
to, in matters of significance -- and a number was 
picked of 500,000 gallons, a half million gallons a 
day -- in allocations, acquisitions of large 
quantities of water, this particular rule, Section 
16.02-25(d), which has been added now, which is 
proposed to be added, would deal with the 
circumstance. 
 And the context in which this came up, again, 
we were trying not to have the public micromanage what 
you do or tie your hands in your evaluations and 
negotiation process, but simply in a situation where 
there is a significant amount of water involved, there 
be an opportunity to have two hearings on it. 
 So the language -- I'll read it briefly, 
Section (d) as proposed by -- it was written by your 
counsel and approved by the Maui Tomorrow board, 
concerning decisions and orders, it says, 
"Notwithstanding the above or any provisions in this 
chapter to the contrary, no decision, order, or action 
of the board concerning the acquisition of land or 
resources, allocation and/or distribution of water 
resources in the amount of 500,000 gallons per day or 
more, shall occur or be rendered by the board unless 
and until the subject matter has been noticed on two 
regularly scheduled board meeting agendas." 
 It's relatively straightforward language.  I 
believe that -- I see your chairman nodding his head 
-- there is agreement among the various parties that 
this language reflects the intention of the parties 
and is something that you feel the Board can live with 
and is appropriate within the context of resolving a 
lawsuit and also appropriate in the context of the 
public interest. 
 So I wanted just to share these details with 
you so when this matter comes up on your agenda -- I 
can't be here for the discussion of this item later on 
this morning, it's near the back end of your agenda 
and I have to leave, so I wanted to share with you now 
so when it comes up, you'll be aware of its context.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you, Ron.  Any questions? 
 Any other public testimony to be given at this 
time?  I have Council Member Bob Carroll downstairs.  
Is there going to be any other testimony after this 
gentleman?  Okay.  Let's do Mr. Carroll.  Recess to 
downstairs, reconvene in one minute. 

(Brief recess.)

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Call the meeting back to 
order.  We're here to take public testimony and 
Mr. Carroll is here joining us from council.  Thank 
you for attending our meeting, Bob, and we'll go ahead 
and hear you.

MR. CARROLL:  Thank you.  I would like to 
thank everybody for coming down.  I realize that the 
lift is working now.  However, I rode that lift one 
time and I like many other people are scared to death 
of that thing.  It's a real experience.  You don't 
believe me, if you're not in a wheelchair try step up 
in that and use it sometime, for the people that can't 
walk down. 
 And I just want to say a few words about this 
before I get into my regular testimony, that the 
liquor supply used to meet up here and I had 
complaints about that and we went over there and made 
it known that it was not acceptable.  I had people, 
older people come and see me that, I'm sorry, it's 
just detrimental to your board because you're not 
getting people over here that should be here because 
they don't want to -- they can't walk up the stairs 
because they're older and that lift over there is just 
too frightening.  And it's also dangerous if you can 
only stand, because not everybody is in a wheelchair.  
It has to be for people that have other infirmities, 
too, they can't use steps. 
 I did write a letter to you.  I would hope 
that you would take into serious consideration having 
your meetings in a place that is accessible. 
 I think the county and the boards need to take 
the lead.  We demand that private industry and private 
companies make their places acceptable and accessible, 
but we should be the one, especially something as 
important as you, should do everything possible to 
make sure that anybody can come at any time.  And I 
would hope that you would take that under 
consideration and find a place that would be 
acceptable.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Actually, Bob, you should know 
that before this series of meetings started this 
calendar year, 2002, I asked Fran to look at other 
places for us to meet for the very reason.  And our 
alternative was council chambers and apparently the 
problem with that is that if someone decides at the 
last minute that they want us out, they can kick us 
out.  So you might bring that back is if it's 
scheduled and if it's currently open and we can 
schedule it, as long as we don't have the threat of 
being kicked out at the last minute, we would love to 
do it in a different place.  And also the same thing 
goes with the other meeting room that's there, and it 
has happened, I know it's happened to planning before, 
so.  Besides that, we are looking, so.

MR. CARROLL:  And if I find anything, I 
promise I'll let you know.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay, thanks, Bob.

MR. CARROLL:  Now, as to what I would like to 
give testimony to your agenda item, it's what I gave 
testimony before.  At the last meeting, I brought 
forward about the waterline, number one, and the 
concerns about fire protection.  Since then, you've 
had several letters, one from Harry Hasegawa that 
should be in your binders, Neal and I think you have 
several more that have expressed concerns. 
 I took this back to the community and I told 
them that I am not going to say yea or nay.  What you 
wish, I'll support.  And they gave me their concerns.  
Most of their concerns was some didn't think it was a 
good idea.  Some wanted it.  All were concerned about 
fire protection.  But they had -- when I gave them 
everything, they noted it called for removal of stone 
walls, some other things, and even the ones that are 
really wanted inside, want to know what the project 
would really entail.  They were hoping that they could 
at least, if the Board didn't move over, that you 
could make a workshop over there, have somebody go and 
explain to them exactly what the project entails, the 
construction, how it would affect the traffic over 
there, if it would encroach on properties, if walls 
would have to be moved, so they can make a decision if 
they really want it or not.  Otherwise it's just -- 
how are these people supposed to decide what is good?  
And they're all concerned about fire protection. 
 Last time I told you one house burned down and 
that is a matter of record.  And also there was 
another large fire over there that they had real 
problems with and lucky a house didn't burn down in 
that one, where it caught in haula over there, which 
is highly flammable, and they didn't have water to 
fight that one either.  And it was just luck that the 
wind was blowing in the right direction.  So fire 
concerns are utmost in everybody's mind. 
 And the other thing I found disturbing from 
the minutes in the last meeting, you had one of your 
Board members who I tried to contact and I asked him 
to meet me on it, but he is not here, Jonathan Starr, 
told this Board that the people in Hamoa did not want 
the land.  Not only is this not true, it is very 
disturbing.  He contacted not one person in Homua.  No 
one.  This is unacceptable for a board member.  And I 
would strongly urge that the Board take some action.  
It is your reputation, it is your responsibility to 
the community to represent them and honestly.  And 
that reflects on everyone even though it was only one 
man.  And I would hope that you would take some 
action. 
 We also have someone else from Hana is Ahia 
has come over today and he will give testimony later 
upstairs.  So we can let you all go.  Is there any 
questions anyone has for me before I return to my 
building across the street? 

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Is there a subdivision, a plan 
at the end of the --

MR. CARROLL:  There is one lot to be divided 
in half.  That's all.  It's a family subdivision, from 
one to make two.  That is the only thing and I've 
checked the records, there is no plans, there is 
nothing in the pipe anywhere, any other development or 
even homes to be built down there.  That is the only 
subdivision and it is one lot to be made into two. 

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Because during our committee 
meeting, I thought there was -- where is Mike?  Was it 
you that you said there was going to be a big 
subdivision plan at the end of that -- no.

MR. CARROLL:  There is not.  I really 
appreciate your bringing that up, that's what I heard, 
too, and I'm remiss, I forgot to bring that up.  There 
are no plans, I checked, there are absolutely no 
plans, not even for a house down there, except for 
that one subdivision.  And like I say, that is one lot 
divided into half.  So although we use the term 
subdivision, that can be very misleading.  Any other 
questions?

MR. TAGORDA:  I heard that you was saying that 
you met with the people in that area and they are 
divided in this issue whether they like or not that 
waterline.

MR. CARROLL:  Yes.

MR. TAGORDA:  So what you asking this Board or 
this department is for staff to give them more 
information about the project?

MR. CARROLL:  Yes, because the ones that are 
concerned about putting it in -- some want it in no 
matter what.  But some are concerned.  I mean, they 
don't want -- in the report that I gave them, it talks 
about removing walls and things.  So they're 
concerned, I mean, is it going to encroach on their 
property, is it going to -- are they going to make the 
road two lanes.  They have some real concerns about 
how the project is going in.  But most of them would 
like the water because they're concerned about fire 
protection, too, their insurance rates and everything 
else, besides the lifesaving.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Any other questions?  Okay.  
Thank you, Bob.  Let's recess and start again in a 
minute.

(Brief recess.)

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Public testimony, we're still 
in public testimony.  Those giving public testimony, 
if they would come up the mike next to Fran and give 
us your name and the issue you're testifying on.

MR. HAGER:  My name is Walter Hager, I'm with 
the Department of Water Supply, Water Treatment 
Division, and I would like to speak to Item F under 
Section VII, the discussion regarding the board's 
recommendations to the Charter Commission for charter 
amendments.  I would encourage the Board to recommend 
to the Charter Commission that the semiautonomy of the 
Board be the route to follow.  And the reason being it 
will give the Board the power it needs to make those 
necessary rules and decisions relative to their 
operation and it will also give the Board the ability 
to serve the community on a better leg that it can 
right now because it's kind of, in my words, ham 
strung by having to have the approval of the council 
and such.  I recommend that that's the avenue that the 
Board would follow.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you, Walter.  Any 
questions of Walter?  Board members?  Thank you, 
Walter.  I know there is other testimony.  Jacky. 

MS. TAKAKURA:  My name is Jacky Takakura and 
I'm here to make a few comments on Section VII, Item 
F, regarding the County Charter amendments.  In 
looking at whether the department should go back under 
the mayor and council or be further semi-autonomous, 
please consider that in the 10 years prior to 
semi-autonomy, 1980 to 1989, the dollar value of 
projects per year on average was $4.6 million.  In the 
decade following semi-autonomy, 1990 to 1999, the 
average value of projects per year jumped to $14.5 
million.  That's an increase of 217 percent. 
 Some of the things those dollars contributed 
to include a 50 percent increase in storage for 
Central Maui, a 100 million gallon increase in raw 
water storage Upcountry, and 4.5 million gallons per 
day treatment facilities in West Maui. 
 In the year 1989, the Department of Water 
Supply provided 8.8 billion gallons of water.  In 
1999, that number was 13.5 billion gallons.  This is a 
53 percent increase in water provided to customers.  
With that increase, the number of customer complaints 
has decreased.  Since 1993, there has been a 40 
percent drop in customer complaints.  These numbers 
are taken from the audited annual reports. 
 The Department of Water Supply should be fully 
semi-autonomous so that it can continue the work of 
protecting Maui's resources and providing water to 
customers.  More work needs to be done, and it can be 
better accomplished if the department is run as a 
utility, just as the phone company, electric company 
and cable company are. 
 That's all I have to say.  Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you, Jacky.  Any 
questions of Jacky, members of the Board?  Thank you.

MR. HILL:  My name is Kenneth Hill.  I am 
employed with the Department of Water Supply in a 
technical position.  I'm also a Kula homeowner.  I'm 
here to comment on the provision for Section VII -- on 
discussion of the Charter Commission for charter 
amendments, the autonomy of the Board of Water Supply. 
 My agenda is that I support the highest ethics 
and standards that our commission members can give us.  
And as the proposals stand, one of the key facets for 
high ethics is high transparency and availability of 
information to the public.  Also on that same vein is 
direct election of members.  Neither of these 
proposals provide for direct election of members.  
However, I do acknowledge that our current member 
board has term limits. 
 So that my belief is that neither of these 
proposals could -- it supports the highest level of 
ethics and openness to the public at this point.  So 
that my belief is that we need to come up with further 
proposals to put on as a charter amendment because 
neither proposal actually satisfies all the 
requirements to be more open and to be of highest 
ethical standards.  Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Any questions?  Thank you. 

MR. SEITZ:  Good morning, my name is Paul 
Seitz.  I believe most of you probably know me.  I'm 
here to speak to again Item VII, Section F, and I 
would like to share with you my perspective.  I 
support the fully autonomous or the semi-autonomous 
position.  I've been in the water industry for well 
over 20 years.  I've seen it both ways; I've seen it 
go back and forth.  And water issues, as most of you 
probably know, are the planning and the implementation 
can take a career.  It can take a lifetime get some of 
these things through. 
 We've been back and forth under the 
administration several times now.  If you look at the 
number of times that the director has changed prior to 
this last bout of the semi-autonomy, it's changed 
roughly 12 or 13 times.  The average life of a 
director at that time was about three to three and a 
half years.  And every three to three and a half 
years, our direction changed.  And with a lifetime of 
the water issues and that sort of thing, it's not 
enough time -- there's no continuity.  And I believe 
that that was one of the reasons why we were in 
trouble. 
 I've been a member of the American Waterworks 
Association for 20 years -- well over 20 years, 
actually.  And in the early days, I can honestly tell 
you the Maui Board of Water Supply was a bad joke.  I 
always told everyone, yes, I was in the water 
industry, yes, I was from Maui, but I wasn't part of 
that group.  Things have changed.  Now we're a leader.  
We're respected.  We participate. 
 Regulation and the legislation don't always 
follow politics, unfortunately.  If you take a look 
back when we built the Piiholo plant, the 
administration at that time at the ground breaking 
ceremonies said that they weren't in support, that it 
was a waste of money.  The dedication at the 
Kahakapau, the administration at that time came out 
and said that it was a waste of money.  In hindsight, 
I look back, if we didn't have that facility, if we 
didn't build a Kahakapau, these last couple droughts 
that we've been through, since I was the one that was 
operating those systems, I can honestly tell you I 
don't know what I would have done. 
 So it's very, very important that we have 
water people making water decisions.  And we have to 
have the continuity in order to do that.  And having 
the Board make these decisions I think is paramount 
for the community and for the good of everyone on the 
island. 
 So if anyone has any questions, I would be 
happy to entertain them.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Board members.  Thank you, 
Paul.  Larry Winters.

MR. WINTERS:  Good morning.  I'm Larry 
Winters, staff engineer with the department of water.  
I want to also speak on Item VII F on the Charter 
Commission recommendation.  I would also reiterate the 
prior speakers' recommendations and their reasons.  I 
just want to add one additional comment. 
 Having worked under the prior situation where 
the department was under the administration, I object 
to the use or the ability to use the department's 
money for general fund projects.  I know that in the 
past under the administration, there was money 
allocated to general fund projects such as housing and 
things like that.  I would definitely prefer the 
department's money used for water projects. 
 Just one other comment.  In discussing with 
other staff members at the department engineering 
office, they likewise support staying VII 
semi-autonomous or fully autonomous.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Any questions?  Thank you.  
Any other public testimony?

MR. KAHALEHOE:  Good morning, Board, I'm John 
Kahalehoe.  I'm an employee of the water department, 
County of Maui.  I would like to speak on behalf of 
Item F, Section VII, Charter Commission 
recommendation.  I'd like to say throughout my 
30-somewhat years as an employee of the department, I 
feel that we should have our department continue 
semi-autonomously.  We have accomplished a lot from 
what they were in the past and where they're at now 
today meeting the infrastructure demand of Maui 
County.  That's all I have.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Any questions of John?  Thank 
you, John.
 Any other public testimony at this time?  
Okay.  Hearing and seeing none, we're going to move 
into the section of the agenda Director's Reports.  
Mr. Craddick, request to allow Kauai Water Department 
to keep the drill rig for one year.  I believe that 
Mr. Craddick has informed me that this issue is one of 
quid pro quo.  They allowed us to keep the drill rig 
for a longer period of time and they're asking for the 
same consideration.  Is that true?

MR. CRADDICK:  That's correct.  It's not a 
money issue for us; it's just they extended a favor to 
us and are asking the same in return.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Board members, how do you feel 
about this?  Something you want to take action on now 
or --

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chair, I'll move that we 
accept director's recommendation. 

MR. NAKAMURA: Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It's been moved and seconded.  
Any discussion?

MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chair, I just have a few 
comments about this drilling rig program.  Was this 
drilling rig already used by Maui County, Board of 
Water Supply, to your knowledge, Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  We joined in the program in 
2/01 and I think our fiscal year '01 budget, we 
purchased Honolulu's share.  The program was a 10-year 
program with Honolulu, Kauai, and the Big Island, and 
Honolulu wanted to drop out of the program because the 
federal government stopped putting in their share 
towards the program. 
 One of our senators, congressional senators, 
suggested to us that if we participated in the 
program, they would fund a project over on Molokai 
which was needed for the Kualapuu aquifer.  That 
project was fully funded with federal dollars, with us 
buying I believe it was a 60-some-thousand-dollars 
share in the drilling rig.  So, with that amount of 
money, we got well over I believe it was about eight 
or nine hundred thousands worth of work done and a 
monitor well over there.  Then Hawaiian Homes -- then 
our turn was over and what happened was Hawaiian Homes 
asked the other counties if they could basically use 
Kauai's turn.  And it was allowed them to do that.  
And they subsequently drilled a well up in Waiohuli 
which was not a production hole, it's just a well to 
determine the water level.  And that also was good 
information for us here on Maui which didn't cost us 
anything.  So although we own a share of the rig, we 
have not put any money into any drilling program yet 
except I believe we had some share of the Kualapuu 
well over in Molokai.  I think we kicked in I believe 
about a hundred thousand dollars or so. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Excuse me, the $67,000 that we 
pay for this rig, did we benefit in some kind?

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, just depends what you 
think the value is of having --

MR. TAGORDA:  The latest drilling rig that was 
conducted by DHHL and GS, was that part of a county 
project?

MR. CRADDICK:  No, DHHL.

MR. TAGORDA:   Department of Housing --

MR. CRADDICK:  No, Hawaiian Home Lands.

MR. TAGORDA:   Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.

MR. CRADDICK:  What about it now?

MR. TAGORDA:  Was there a project conducted by 
this agency, separate and distinct from Maui County 
project?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.  Well, the Molokai one, we 
did participate.  I think it was we allowed up to a 
hundred thousand dollars.  And I think I'd have to ask 
Mike whether that was ever used.  I don't know whether 
all of that was ever used.  The one up in Waiohuli, we 
did not put in money.

MR. TAGORDA:   So if we left Kauai get another 
six months for that drilling rig, when is it going to 
come back to Maui County?

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, I put in my report here 
that I thought possibly the Big Island would also ask 
for it, to be able to use it for one year.  I talked 
to the manager there Monday.  He indicated they did 
not have the money and they would only be looking six 
months.  So we would probably be looking at mid next 
year when we would be getting it back.

MR. TAGORDA:  Could you use that drilling rig 
to accomplish your project up at Pookela?

MR. CRADDICK:  No.  You cannot do any 
production wells with it.  It can only be used for 
exploratory information.

MR. TAGORDA:   Thank you.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Any other questions?  Okay.  
Call for the question.  All in favor, say aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay.

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion is carried. 
Next, Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  Actually, all the rest of the 
director's reports we would ask that they be referred 
to committee.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay.  One thing.  Director's 
02-04, request approval to appropriate funds, that's 
actually going to be deferred to the next meeting.  
It's something that I've been working on with Maui 
Tomorrow and they couldn't get the presentation 
prepared, so I'm going to put that on the next agenda.  
 If there is no objection to the director's 
recommendation, I'll refer these to committee.  
Miconia to finance, and matching funds to finance.  We 
don't want to act on the procure services of a 
legislative liaison?

MR. CRADDICK:  Sorry, I would like to --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  One second.  So if there is no 
objection, I'm going to recommend Director's 02-02 and 
Director's Report 02-03 to be referred to finance 
committee.  Hearing and seeing none, so ordered.  
Director's Report 02-04 is deferred for the next 
meeting. 
 Director's Report 02-05 is to procure the 
services of a legislative liaison, the amount being 
$3,000, the same as we had expended last year and the 
same that's in the budget for this year.  Do you want 
to add anything to that?

MR. CRADDICK:  No, that's what it is.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Members of the Board, what is your pleasure?

MR. NOBRIGA:  If Mr. Nakamura has no problem 
with it, I would have no problem voting in favor of 
that motion. 

MR. NAKAMURA:  No.

MR. NOBRIGA:  I move that we appropriate the 
$3,000 for the legislative aide for this current 
legislative session.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It's been moved and seconded.  
Is there any discussion?  Okay.  All in favor, signify 
by saying aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay. 

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Director's Report 02-06.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, in the absence of 
your Operation Review Committee chairman, I would like 
to take action on Director's Report 01-58 -- sorry.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Do you want that to revert to 
committee, Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.  And just for 
clarification of the record, we can put it on here 
when it goes to committee, but this is Bob Yonahara.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay.  And that was formerly 
in finance committee anyway, wasn't it?  I believe so.  
And they're valuing the land, I believe.  So I'm going 
to refer that back to finance, then, if there is no 
objection.

MR. CRADDICK:  What happened was he changed 
his mind on what he wanted to do and we did another --
well, anyways, bring it up in committee there.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  No objection?  Refer to finance.  Okay. 
 Before we get into committee reports, I would 
like to jump ahead.  Corp counsel has some other 
commitments, so I would like to jump ahead to the 
Other Business section and I think we need to go into 
Executive Session to consult with our counsel. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  Where are you, Mr. Chair?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Under Old Business.  Right here.  VII A. 

MS. WILLIAMS:  I can announce the case in open 
session if you like.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Go ahead.  Thank you, Judy.

MS. WILLIAMS:  Briefly, I'm requesting 
authorization to settle the matter of Elizabeth Garcia 
vs. Cary Constantino and the Board of Water Supply and 
this relates to an incident that occurred on November 
26th, 1996. 
 I've been in discussion with opposing counsel.  
I believe we may have reached a settlement.  I would 
like to discuss the issues in Executive Session and 
that's all. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, pursuant to HRS 
92-4 and 82-5(a)(4) in order to consult with our 
board's attorney on questions and issues pertaining to 
the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities and 
liabilities, I move we go into Executive Session to 
discuss -- corporation counsel, can I group all of 
these matters as one motion or we need to take 
separate action for each?

MR. KUSHI:  Board Member Nobriga, I would 
suggest one at a time.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Thank you.  To discuss the 
matter of Elizabeth Garcia and Gary Constantino.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion has been made. 

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  There is a second.  
Discussion?  All in favor, say aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay.

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  We're in Executive Session. 

[Executive Session held.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Out of Executive Session.  And 
then we're going to go right to -- we're going to stay 
in that area.  We'll go to Thomas Craig. 
Board members, on the issue of the Elizabeth 
Garcia and Terry Constantino.  Mr. Nakamura?

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, I move to accept 
the attorney's recommendation for settlement in the 
case of Elizabeth Garcia vs. Terry Constantino, Board 
of Water Supply. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It's been moved and seconded.  
Any discussion?  All in favor, say aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay.

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion is carried.  We're 
going to move on to Craig vs. Craddick and County of 
Maui. 

MR. KOBAYASHI:  Mr. Chair, Blaine Kobayashi, 
deputy corporation counsel.  On the matter of Thomas 
Craig vs. David Craddick and the County of Maui, I 
request that we go into Executive Session to discuss 
the settlement proposal which has been provided to us 
by Mr. Craig's attorney.  And because this is a matter 
pertaining to the board's powers, duties, immunities 
and liabilities, the discussion should be held in 
Executive Session.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you, Blaine.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chair, could we also hear 
from the attorney handling the next item on the 
agenda?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Certainly. 

MR. MINATOYA:  Good morning, Mr. Chair and 
Members, Richard Minatoya, deputy corporation counsel. 
 I'm here to discuss with you the matter of Maui 
Tomorrow vs. The Board of Water Supply and the 
individual board members.  We would also like to 
request that this matter be discussed in Executive 
Session regarding the board's powers, duties, 
privileges, immunities and liabilities with regard to 
a settlement offer reached with Maui Tomorrow.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, the next item on 
the agenda is noticed Personnel Matters and going into 
Executive Session.  Is this matter still before this 
body?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Mr. Craddick?  Section D, Personnel Matters.

MR. CRADDICK:  Why are you asking me?

MS. NAGO:  Peter, this is something that you 
asked me to put on every agenda.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Nothing for this meeting. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, if I may, for the 
matter of discussion of settlement proposal for Thomas 
Craig vs. David Craddick, pursuant to HRS 92-4 and HRS 
92-5(a)(4), in order to consult with the board's 
attorney on questions and issues pertaining to the 
board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities and 
liabilities, I move we go into Executive Session.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Is there a second?

MR. TAGORDA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It's been moved and seconded.  
Any discussion?  All in favor, say aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay.

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion is carried.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, for the discussion 
regarding the settlement proposal for Maui Tomorrow, I 
move that we go into Executive Session pursuant to HRS 
92-4 and 92-5(a)(4) in order to consult with the 
board's attorney on questions and issues pertaining to 
the board's powers, duties, privileges, immunities and 
liabilities.

MR. TAGORDA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It's been moved and seconded.  
Any discussion on the motion?  All in favor, say aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay.

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion is carried.  We'll go 
into Executive Session.

[Executive Session held.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  I'll call the Board of Water 
Supply meeting back to order and we're in Other 
Business, discussion of the settlement proposal of 
Thomas Craig vs. David Craddick and the County of 
Maui.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Move that we approve the 
recommendations of counsel.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Moved and seconded to approve 
the recommendations of counsel on the settlement 
proposal.  Any discussion?  All in favor, say aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay.

MR. TAGORDA:  Nay.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  One nay; let the record show 
Mr. Tagorda voted nay. 
 Item C, discussion regarding a settlement 
proposal of the Maui Tomorrow lawsuit.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Move to accept the 
recommendation of counsel on the settlement 
financials.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Any second?

MR. NAKAMURA: Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Any discussion?  All in favor, 
signify by saying aye.  Opposed, say nay.

MR. TAGORDA:  Aye with reservation.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  I note your reservation, sir. 
Because it's related, let's go to section E of 
Other Business and I'm going to go back to Committee 
Reports.  Section E is a request for Board approval of 
a rule regarding Board action on matters concerning 
distribution of water resources and acquisition of 
land.  That rule has been distributed for your review.  
This rule relates to our settlement proposal with Maui 
Tomorrow and essentially commits the Board to noticing 
an item twice before taking action on it if the item 
being taken up deals with the acquisition of land or 
resources or allocation of water in the amount of 
500,000 gallons per day or more.  And a draft of a 
rule has been circulated.  That rule would then, based 
on the board's approval, need a public hearing and 
following that it would come back to the Board and 
then go to the mayor and council.  Is there any 
discussion or comments on the rule that's been 
proposed?

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, upon reviewing the 
rule, I concede as the rules chairman, although the 
language may not be perfect, the intent is very well 
stated and I would be in favor of passing this 
through.  I move that we accept the amendment on 
Section D to Chapter 2.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  And it be sent to public hearing.

MR. NOBRIGA:  And it be sent to public hearing.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Discussion?  Okay.  All in 
favor, signify by saying aye. 

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay. 

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay.  Let's schedule public 
hearing for that.  Okay.  Let's go back to Committee 
Reports.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, concerning the 
request for cooperation in watershed protection 
project entitled Cyanea/Ochrosia Excosure, Makawao, 
Maui, the committee recommends approval.  I so move.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Is there a second?

MR. CRADDICK:  Oh, excuse me.  Could I ask if 
this item be deferred for a meeting?  The group was 
supposed to --

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion.

MR. CRADDICK:  Thank you.  The group wanted to 
talk with EMI and get an exact location of where they 
were going to do this enclosure and this group asked 
us if we could defer action on it until that time.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Even knowing that the 
committee was recommending approval?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, just in cooperation.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Then it goes back to committee.

MR. CRADDICK:  Okay.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay.  Mike?  Next item on the 
Operations Review committee.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Next item was a communication 
from Kawela Plantation Homeowners Association.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  No action was taken.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Waiting for Mr. Craddick.  The 
committee does recommend that staff proceed and get 
specific details so that the full board and the 
committee -- full board can act on a case by case 
basis upon the recommendation.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  And the Board should note that 
the director has already sent a letter to them.  So 
it's -- Rules then.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Rules.  Mr. Chairman, request 
from Hoekstras to allow one meter to serve two lots, 
the committee recommended denial of this request.  I 
move that we deny the request. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It's been moved that the 
request be denied.  Any other discussion?  All in 
favor, say aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay.

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  The motion is carried.  
Request is denied.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, on Communication 
01-32, a request for waterline along Kekoanui Place 
for Peahi Hui Subdivision, the request was withdrawn 
and the communication should be filed.  I so move for 
filing of that communication.

MR. TAGORDA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Discussion?  All in favor, say aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay.

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion is carried.  
Communication is filed.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Communication 01-33 is a request 
on behalf of Von Tempsky.  This one, the request has 
been withdrawn and the committee recommends that the 
communication be filed.  I so move. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Moved and seconded that the 
request be filed.  Any discussion?  All in favor, 
signify by saying aye. 

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay. 

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion is carried.  Item will 
be filed.  Finance?

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, on Item C-1, 
progress report on Communication 01-21 regarding the 
request from Mr. Hans Michel, the committee recommends 
that the staff prepare a work plan together with cost 
estimates in order to fulfill the board's obligations 
to Mr. Michel under the 1994 agreement and I so move 
that it be referred to staff and prepare a work plan.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Discussion.  All in favor, say aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay.

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion is carried.  Still in committee.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, under Director's 
01-55, committee recommends funding in the amount of 
an additional $47,000 from pipeline replacement 
account to award construction contract and I would so 
move.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It's been moved and seconded 
to approve the request.  All in favor, say aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay.

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion is carried.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, under Director's 
01-56 to request funding for the Paukukao Water System 
Improvements, requesting authorization from the 
pipeline replacement appropriation.  Committee 
recommends approval of the request for $100,000 with 
the condition that the staff report back to the Board 
as the excavation proceeds. 
 This is kind of an unusual situation in that 
as the Board will recall, it involves the number of 
burials in the area and that is the reason why the 
condition that the staff report back so that the 
project can be assessed as it proceeds.  And I would 
move for approval. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Moved and seconded to approve 
the request for appropriation subject to the staff 
reporting back to the Board as the excavation 
proceeds.  Any comments?  All in favor, say aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay.

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion is carried. 

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, on Director's 
01-57 requesting revision of the Water Credit 
Agreement with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, 
there were some questions raised in committee 
regarding previously approved agreements and the 
committee members asked to better understand the 
history and prior agreements and the committee 
recommended that the matter be deferred and remain 
within the committee.  I don't know if a formal action 
is required, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Still in committee.

MR. NAKAMURA:  So it's understood that the 
matter shall remain in the finance committee and be 
taken up at the next meeting. 
 Under Director's 01-53, requesting approval 
for funding for design of Makena waterline 
improvements, this project is at the end of the 
present waterline service.  The committee felt that 
the cost/benefit ratio was somewhat questionable.  It 
also felt that having the Board fund the entire 
project was inconsistent with the prior action whereby 
the Board participated with the owner to improve the 
line and the committee recommends that the project --
that the request be denied and I would so move.

MR. TAGORDA:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  It's been moved and seconded 
to deny the request.  Any questions?  All in favor, 
say aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay.

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Motion is carried.  Request denied.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, Director's 01-53.  
This is the Haneoo Street waterline replacement in 
Hana.  Again, there was some question on the 
cost/benefit ratio.  We have received a request from 
Mr. Carroll that a workshop be conducted by staff to 
resolve with the affected residents the benefits.  The 
committee had recommended denial of this project.  
However, I would have no objection to referring it to 
staff for the workshop as requested by Councilman 
Carroll.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Second.

MR. TAGORDA:  No action necessary, right?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  I don't think we need any 
action.  Kent?

MR. HIRANAGA:  Mr. Chair, I believe because of 
the remote location of the project, I mentioned  
previously that maybe a presentation would be 
informative to the Board.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Very good.  I think referral 
to staff is in order and ask the staff to provide that 
for the committee when they come back.  So ordered.

MR. NOBRIGA:  I would also like to enter into 
the record the receipt of some written testimony that 
we have received from residents of Haneoo.

MS. NAGO:  Mike, there is an additional --
there is a letter from the Cashmans that was just 
delivered.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Let the record show the 
receipt of all the written communication from the 
residents in that area. 

MR. NAKAMURA:  Okay, Mr. Chairman, final 
report is a status report on Upcountry source 
development projects.  The director reported that the 
design of the new well at Pookela tank is proceeding 
expeditiously.  It was further reported that the 
project would be ready to bid by the end of February.  
Although other parties have expressed interest in 
drilling in the same area, including the State and 
Maui Land & Pineapple, the committee believes that the 
county's project should proceed expeditiously and 
development of additional sources by others can be 
encouraged in other areas. 
 I don't believe any action is required on this 
unless the director has an update regarding status. 

MR. CRADDICK:  Wendy is the project engineer 
working on that one.

MS. TAOMOTO:  All I have to say is that since 
the committee meeting, their consultant did submit 
their plans and specifications at the beginning of 
this week.  I should be done reviewing it with Herb 
Kogasaka by Friday, which is tomorrow.  But there are 
comments and things to be worked out, so.

MR. NAKAMURA:  So is the end of February still a viable date?

MS. TAOMOTO:  It might be, yeah. 

MR. KOGASAKA:  Yes.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay.  Thank you to all the 
committees, committee members and chairmen for the 
reports.  Let's move back to Other Business, Item F, 
discussion regarding board's recommendation to the 
Charter Commission for charter amendments. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  I thought we took action.  We did that already.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  We took public testimony.  Is there any --

MR. NOBRIGA:  No, we made a motion on this.  
You went to this right after --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Charter Commission.  Charter 
Commission.  On the Charter Commission issue, is there 
a submission that the Board wants to take with regard 
to the charter amendment?  I believe there is two 
proposals, one being that the Board of Water Supply be 
placed under the County Council as an advisory 
committee, and the other is for more and more  
autonomous operation of the Board of Water Supply.

MR. CRADDICK:  And reducing the number of 
board members to seven and putting public works and 
the planning director on as voting members of the 
board.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  That's part of the second one.

MR. CRADDICK:  That's part of the proposal for more autonomy.

MR. NOBRIGA:  I favor the second proposal.  I 
think our appointment by the mayor and confirmation by 
the County Council already supplies us with checks and 
balances as far as our integrity and our willingness 
to serve voluntarily on behalf of the public.  As 
residents of the community, we hear firsthand from our 
neighbors about the condition of the water resources.  
It's not like we're totally isolated.  And I tend to 
favor -- because I think we can get a lot more things 
rolling if we're more autonomous than the current 
position that we have where major changes must go 
through the County Council and the mayor on a yea or 
nay vote.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay.  Any other comments?

MR. NAKAMURA:  One question.  I'm not that 
familiar with that provision about the public works 
and planning director.  Would they be voting members?

MR. CRADDICK:  That's my understanding.  
That's my understanding.  The other counties are 
similar.  I believe Kauai has public works and 
planning.  Honolulu has the transportation -- state 
transportation director and public works director.  
And Big Island also has the public works and planning 
-- or I mean state transportation.  But I'm not 
positive if they vote over there on the Big Island.  
They're nonvoting there.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Adolph?

MR. HELM:  My concern on that nine-member 
board with the Department of Public Works and Waste 
Management Director as part of that board in inclusion 
with seven other members, my concern would be, you 
know, if all the districts are truly represented, you 
know, we can assure ourselves that Molokai has a 
representative on the board, whether West Maui has 
one, Central.  I think you get better true 
representation by having somebody that's close to the 
community that they're represented.  That was my 
concern.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  So your position would be that 
you would support a more autonomous nature, given that 
the Board was still comprised of members from the 
different areas of Maui County.

MR. HELM:  Yeah.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  I think that's a good point.  
Yes, Orlando. 

MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chairman, if I may, I didn't 
have a chance really to go over those Charter 
Commission meetings.  However, from day one, I already 
made up my mind to recommend that this department 
should not be treated no other than other county 
departments like public works and corporation counsel.  
The main reason I want this department to go under the 
administration is -- and I wanted a different 
structure, actually.  What I want to see in this 
department is to go under the mayor, let's call him a 
CEO, and then to those nine council members, and they 
will serve as a board of directors.  Thereby doing 
that, you have an oversight.  Although I won't take 
away numbers or members of the public like board 
members, but I will cut that probably into five.  But 
they are going to have an advisory capacity to the 
mayor and the council members.  The way I want this 
department really is the sole -- the primary functions 
of this department I would like to see is to deal with 
economic issues, public health regulation, and 
environmental regulation.  And if you want to go more, 
I would be very strong to probably they can go into a 
business like utility, like one of those employees 
said, we can run as a utility, like MECO and telephone 
companies.  However, this is going to have some kind 
of a business-oriented concept.  And the way I see 
this structure I have in mind is that the mayor and 
the nine council members who are elected by the 
community will have the same footing.  They need to 
say they are on the same level. The council members 
will sit on different committees in the department 
that will oversee issues, be flexible with it.  And 
I'm very strong to those kind of structure.  The 
reason why is you get more accountability.  We can 
always take those people out in their position because 
they're elected, especially there are ways now that 
the Charter Commission is trying to petition those 
elected members to step down whenever they make 
boo-boos.  But the person set up now, I have a major 
problem with it, whether it's become full autonomy or 
semiautonomous.  Because board members like us have no 
accountability.  We have probably accountability by 
being compassion.  But what happened to people who 
have been aggrieved for many years, Mr. Chair?  And 
the department didn't do anything yet up until now. 
That's why I want accountability and oversight by 
those elected officials that we elect in those 
positions.  And I have so many things that I want to 
share with you how to strengthen this kind of concept 
that I have.  That you develop a long-term plan, that 
you have to develop business and community support for 
plan.  And then you create -- I think I also like to 
see a term limit to the managing director.  If you -- 
if the voters by November will vote for full autonomy, 
it's to put a term limit on the managing director so 
he won't be here for life.

MR. CRADDICK:  Orlando, you won't have to worry about that. 

MR. TAGORDA:  No, this is just my feeling  and 
based on my attendance to all this conferences while I 
was here five years ago.  And I see that very 
compelling reason. 
 The problem we have right now, I see once in a 
while, I turn on to Charter Commission meetings, that 
two department in the county that's been criticized by 
the people of this community is the Department of 
Water Supply and the Planning Department.  Something 
got to change, something we need to do to better 
service this.

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, I find 
Mr. Tagorda's comments refreshing and I really would 
like an opportunity to explore his option at greater 
length.  Unfortunately, the Charter Commission has two 
recommended points of view that will be discussed at 
public hearing very soon.  I believe it is in our best 
interests to act as one board in giving our best 
opinion of these two options. 
 I would like to recommend that the Chair write 
an official letter from the Board, taking into account 
the board's point of view and the matter of the two 
positions available to us. 

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Which position would you 
prefer?  Do you guys want to take a position on one or 
the other?

MR. TAGORDA:  No, I don't think --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Adolph?

MR. HELM:  Well, first of all, what's our time 
limit on there?  I mean, what's the time line on this?

MR. CRADDICK:  The first public hearing was 
supposed to have been I think a couple days ago, 
Tuesday, but it got rained out.  So it will start next 
week.  And I guess it goes basically every Wednesday 
until about March or so, for public hearing input.  
And then they would I guess sit and have their final 
deliberations and then I guess make their 
recommendation. 
 And I'm not sure with corp counsel, there was 
some discussion on whether it had to go to the council 
for their review.  I don't know whether that decision 
has been made yet.  But --

MR. HELM:  I guess my concern would be as 
individuals, if we take a position here where we agree 
in one of these amendments, does an individual have 
the right from this Board to take another position, say?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Yeah, I think we've already 
set that precedent.  As an individual, you want to go 
out and say as a member of the public not as a member 
of the Board of Water Supply, this is what I think.  
You're certainly entitled to that, I think, at any time. 
Yes, Mr. Craddick.

MR. CRADDICK:  There is two things that this 
Board does that I think are basically unrecognized in 
the charter and no matter whether it goes under the 
mayor or becomes fully semiautonomous, I think those 
things need to be addressed and the one is the fact 
that we deliver ag water, nonpotable water.  And I 
think there should be some recognition in here that we 
do that and we supply the water for firefighting for 
the county and I believe there should be some 
recognition in here about that because it is a major 
function we do and I don't think the fire department 
could function without it.  And I don't know what 
board members feel, but --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  That's just what I was going 
to ask.  That's what I asked Dave.  We already heard 
from Orlando.  Howard?  Do you want to say anything?

MR. NAKAMURA:  I think that it's pretty clear 
that the present situation is not a desirable 
situation where we're kind of neither fish nor fowl, 
if you will.  I have -- philosophically, I have some 
mixed emotions because I do feel that ultimately the 
elected officials need other people who have the 
authority to set policy and make final decisions.  
However, as we've gone about our business the last 
couple of years, I think that the Board has been very 
forthright in dealing with some of the issues that 
have to do with raising funds and increasing the 
development fees and I think that they are the board's 
ability to move quickly in that area is important.  
And so although I do, as I said, have some 
philosophical reservations, I think I would be 
prepared to support the more semi-autonomous status. 
 I do have some concerns about the ex-officio 
voting members.  I think it's important for planning 
to be involved.  I do share Adolph's concern that in 
that process you're diluting the public membership on 
the Board and I don't really know if the public works 
director is a necessary component.  I think as time 
goes on, perhaps reuse of effluent may be an issue, 
but other than that, you know, I'm not sure that it's 
worth giving up a public position if it's going to 
continue to be nine voting members. 

MR. HELM:  And I agree with that.  But on the 
basis of establishing a little bit more autonomy with 
the existing semiautonomy system that we have, I would 
want to assure ourselves that, first of all, we're not 
setting precedent here.  Apparently the Honolulu Board 
of Water Supply has to some degree a little bit more 
latitude.

MR. CRADDICK:  All the counties are able to 
establish their own rules by following the public 
hearing process that's outlined in HRS.

MR. HELM:  Yeah.  So, you know, we're not 
setting precedent here.  So I'm looking at it from the 
perspective that you've got an organization, a board 
that is totally focused on water as an issue here.  I 
think when you -- and again, you need check and 
balance.  But again, when you get our elected 
officials too much involved in our resources, 
especially water, it can create problems.  So I'm more 
or less in favor of the idea of a little bit more autonomy. 

MR. HASHIMOTO:  I kind of agree with Adolph.  
I think being semi-autonomous or autonomous would be 
the better way to go and not putting in the hands of 
the -- totally in the hands of the mayor and the 
council.  And also, I agree with Howard on getting the 
-- I don't know if the Director of Planning or Waste 
Management or Public Works and the director should be 
voting members on the water board.  I think 
representation in the community is important because 
agriculture -- I represent agriculture from the 
encouragement of the Maui County Farm Bureau and I 
think that is important also.  I mean, community 
representation and representing agriculture I think is 
important.  So I would go with the proposal A or 
autonomous or semi-autonomous.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Well, I would -- actually, the 
Chair would agree with that position also.  I'm not 
sure that -- what I try and do is look at this in 
terms of what's in the best interests for Maui and I 
don't know honestly, and it's not a slight on anybody 
or anything, but I don't know that having this Board 
be advisory to the council is what would be best for 
Maui.  I think we have a group of people here who are 
unbiased and who in every deliberation that I've seen 
in the short while I've been on this Board, tried to 
make a decision that's in the best interest of Maui. 
 Why things have gone on the way they have in 
the past, I don't know.  And I don't know that it's 
productive for us to try and figure out who did what 
or said what in the past.  I think our goal is to fix 
the things that we find that are wrong and move 
forward in that vein.  And I feel that this group that 
we have right now is of that same mind.  So while it 
may -- the end result may be more work, I think the 
right direction is for more autonomy and I would 
support that also.  And I know that Orlando has 
actually spoken on the opposite side, but I would like 
to see the Board come out for that position.  Yes, 
Orlando. 

MR. TAGORDA:  My last remark, Mr. Chair, is 
that you know how I am going to vote when it comes 
November on this issue.  I would strongly vote for 
that this department should go under the 
administration with a concept that it becomes a part 
of the county family, you know.  The mayor can hold 
meetings with all these -- the other departments.  The 
reason why I think we're kind of -- we are out there 
by ourselves without communication from the other 
department.  That's what's happening to us.  So once 
it goes under the mayor and the council members, then 
they become just like a family.  They will be in touch 
with the community and the values of the community and 
their mission will be broader than just provide 
efficient water.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay.  Your position is understood.

MR. CRADDICK:  Just so there is no 
misunderstandings, I meet weekly and we also have a 
monthly meeting with the mayor.  George sits on a CIP 
meeting with the rest of the county.  They meet 
weekly.  And so we work very, very closely together 
with the other departments and I don't expect that is 
going to change one iota no matter which way the 
autonomy issue goes.  We recognize that we are part of 
the county and have to work together with the county 
and I don't believe that's going to change at all.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay. 

MR. QUINN:  Mr. Chair, I might add to 
Mr. Craddick's comments, we're in constant daily 
contact with the finance department.  We utilize the 
same systems and we utilize the same consultants and 
it's a pretty good situation, a pretty good team work. 

MR. NOBRIGA:  Mr. Chairman, recognizing there 
are so much other aspects that we would like to 
explore, like to move that we take a recommendation in 
favor of the proposed amendments of the county charter 
that would set the Board in a more autonomous position. 

MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Moved and seconded.  
Discussion?  All in favor, say aye.

VOICES:  Aye.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Opposed, say nay.

MR. TAGORDA:  Nay.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Let the record show 
Mr. Tagorda voted nay.

MR. NOBRIGA:  And I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, in 
his eloquentness and his fabulous writing ability, 
also address the fact in his letter to the commission 
that there is a lot more that we can add to make this 
Board more productive and also Maui County more 
productive.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay.  Mr. Nobriga is leaving.  
We still have a quorum.  We're going on to 
discussion/possible action regarding Rules for 
Protection, Development and Conservation of Water.  
Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  I would just ask that these be 
referred to the Rules Committee.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  So ordered.  Okay.  
Distributed is Iao Aquifer data for the quarter ending 
September 30th.  Mr. Craddick, do you want to point 
anything out there?

MR. CRADDICK:  I believe the Board is somewhat 
familiar with this.  I don't know if Alan wants to add 
anything.  Do you have anything, Alan?  This is just 
the quarterly report that we get from Iao.  We should 
get another one here in another month or so.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Okay.  Before we adjourn, is 
there anything else that needs to come before this 
board?

MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.  A couple things.  One, 
the Public Works Committee of the council yesterday 
voted to reject the Water System Development Fee.  At 
the next council meeting, they will need a super 
majority to defeat that.  So if -- I will be meeting 
with some of the council members again on this matter 
so it's not quite over with yet.  But the consensus 
was that a couple of them didn't like the CIP thing 
that was in there, indexing, where it automatically 
went up and we didn't have to go back to them for 
review.  And quite frankly, that was put in because of 
the request of one of them, although they're not 
currently on the council anymore. 
 The other one was the concern that the 
upcountry meter rule was not part and parcel of it.  
So if the Board wants to get that passed quickly, I 
think they all expressed sentiment that the Board 
needed the money, were willing to work on it, and I 
don't know how strongly the Board feels about having 
the CIP indexing.  It would be about two percent, so 
we expect that would be about $50,000 a year or the 
average from 1993 to now was two percent per year.  
And two percent of what we would expect to collect 
would be about $50,000, so we don't see it as a make 
or break.  It was something there solely for the -- to 
avoid a rate shock the next time we look at this.  So 
it's not critical.  But if the Board wants to do this, 
I guess they would have to leave it up to Ed Kushi 
whether we would have to renotice it to go to public 
hearing.  I guess if we were going to amend it and 
drop out the CPI, we probably would have to go to 
public hearing I guess again.  So.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Well, the important thing that 
you need to follow up on quickly and if you would 
report back to me as the Chair, we can make some 
discussions about how to go forward.  Okay?  Anything 
else, Mr. Craddick?

MR. CRADDICK:  No.

MR. TAGORDA:  Can I ask David? 

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Orlando. 

MR. TAGORDA:  What else did they turn down on 
that Water System Development Fee aside from that CIP 
price index?

CHAIRMAN RICE:  And the fact that the 
Upcountry wasn't part of --

MR. TAGORDA:   Did they mention any other things?

MR. QUINN:  The other portion of the Water 
System Development Fee hasn't gone to public hearing yet.

MR. CRADDICK:  Mike, they were confused.  They 
wanted to see -- they thought that had in it the 
waiver for the Upcountry meters.  I don't think they 
understand that it's not in there, that it's in the 
Upcountry rules.  And the reason why it's in the 
Upcountry rules is because it lapses when there is no 
list and --

MR. QUINN:  I believe Councilwoman Tavares 
brought that issue up.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.  But it was her 
impression and maybe, Sherry, do you know whether 
Charmaine was just talking about the administrative 
portions of the rule or the portion about the 
Upcountry meters which isn't in any other part of the 
water system development fees. 

MS. MORRISON:  For the record, my name is 
Sherry Morrison and I'm an executive assistant for 
Council Member Charmaine Tavares.  I missed part of 
what you were discussing.  Most of the council members 
-- all the council members that were present at the 
meeting were all supportive of the fee increase.  The 
concern was that they didn't have anything in front of 
them that indicated how that fee would be applied.  
And in Charmaine's case, I can speak for her 
specifically, the other rules that are going out for 
public hearing in fact and everybody is pleased that 
you're moving as quickly as you are on those rules.  
She would like to see them in place.  Whether or not 
they're specifically attached to the fee was not the 
issue; it was a matter of would those rules be in 
place, the upcountry rule and in her case she had 
requested I guess in October in her testimony that the 
people on the list, famous list Upcountry would be 
allowed to use the lower -- the old fee instead of the 
new fee.  And there was nothing in writing that the 
committee had to assure them that that would be the 
case.  One other council member had a concern about 
that as well.  I'm not sure if I answered your 
question.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Yeah, you did exactly.  So 
David, you're going to make sure they get a copy of 
that proposed rule.

MR. CRADDICK:  No.  A copy was passed out 
there at the meeting and they did have all of the 
rules about the Water System Development Fee in their 
packet.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Upcountry rule.  I'm talking 
about the Upcountry rule.

MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, that wasn't in their packet, but --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  That's what they need to get then.

MR. CRADDICK:  No, no, but you have to 
understand, I think there is some confusion here.  
This started in 1995.  I went to the council and asked 
for their input on the development fee.  So in their 
packet was the entire Water System Development Fee 
unchanged as it currently exists. 
 Now, in addition to that, they had the new fee 
schedule proposal.  So lacking any other rules, it 
would be applied according to the way the existing 
rule is right now today.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  But that's not what they're 
asking for.  You're missing the point.  What they want 
to see is the rule that deals with the Upcountry list.

MR. CRADDICK:  No, no, that's not what my impression was.  But --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  That's what she just said. 

MR. CRADDICK:  No, no, she said --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Didn't you just say that?  Yes. 

MS. MORRISON:  What I said was that the -- in 
order for the council to -- or the committee to 
support the fee increase, they wanted to be assured 
that those other rules were already -- not just 
proposed, but already either they were before them at 
the same time or they could pass them at the same time 
or subsequently they could know that those rules were 
in place. 
 Mr. Craddick assured them that he was 
convinced that the Board was going to support those 
rules, but the council actually wanted to --

CHAIRMAN RICE:  But we already have and they 
should have a copy -- what I'm saying is they should 
have a copy of the rule that's going to public 
hearing.  Past the public hearing, it's in their hands 
whether it gets passed or not.  So it shouldn't be an 
issue, as long as they have a copy of it and know 
what's being proposed.  That's what I said, 
Mr. Craddick, was please make sure that they have a 
copy if they don't already have a copy of the rules 
that are going to public hearing. 

MS. MORRISON:  If I can make one other 
comment.  Mr. Craddick did plead your case very 
aggressively.  The concern was that after public 
hearing, obviously the whole point of public hearing 
is to get input on those rules.  And certainly not 
wanting to assume that you would make no changes after 
those public hearings, that was the other case is that 
certainly public hearing might impact the proposed 
rules. 
 So it wasn't just that they wanted to see what 
was proposed, but they wanted to have them either 
before them at the same time or, you know, at almost 
the same time.  But the fee itself was not an issue.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Thank you.

MR. CRADDICK:  One other thing.  One council 
member also wanted each change item, item by item, 
separately noticed for public hearing so they could 
pick and choose which ones they wanted to approve and 
not approve.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Referring to what?

MR. CRADDICK:  I think it was mainly referring 
to the CPI indexing mainly.  But --

MR. TAGORDA:  I don't know if you remember 
this, David, I think also one council member asked you 
something about graduated fee increases.

MR. QUINN:  That's correct.

MR. TAGORDA:  Councilman Fukama, I believe.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  They served the whole thing at once.

MR. CRADDICK:  That's correct, too, yeah.  
Thank you, Orlando.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Well, you know, that's the 
crazy thing about the process.  We can't go rewrite 
the whole rule.  We've got to go with what the 
majority thinks.  I think the feedback we heard was 
that the fee wasn't so much the fee but it was the 
tying in of the Upcountry rule that was important in 
the CIP.  And I think we need to address that.  So you 
need to talk to them and then you talk to me and work 
out the strategy.  Okay?

MR. CRADDICK:  Okay.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Anything else?

MR. CRADDICK:  No.

CHAIRMAN RICE:  Anything else to be brought 
before this Board?  Meeting is adjourned. 

(WHEREUPON, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m.)


IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.