BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Held at the County Building, 6th Floor Conference
Room, Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii, commencing at 8:30 a.m.
on February 12, 2002.
REPORTED BY: LYNANN NICELY, RPR/RMR/CSR #354
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
A P P E A R A N C E S
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Howard Nakamura, Chairman
Mike Nobriga
Peter Rice
Kent Hiranaga
BOARD MEMBERS:
Jonathan Starr
STAFF PRESENT:
George Tengan, Deputy Director
Herb Kogasaka, Chief Engineer
Herb Chang, Engineer
Wendy Taomoto, Engineer
Mike Quinn, Chief Financial Officer
Ed Kushi, Corporation Counsel
Ellen Kraftsow
Fran Nago, Board Secretary
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: It's 8:30 in the morning
by my watch. This is a Finance Committee meeting of
the Board of Water Supply, County of Maui, Tuesday,
February 12, 2002. We're meeting in the 6th floor
conference room of the County Building.
We have in attendance committee members Mike
Nobriga, Peter Rice, and Kent Hiranaga and myself,
Chair Howard Nakamura. Also in attendance is board
member Jonathan Starr. Welcome back, Mr. Starr. And
Deputy Corporation Counsel Ed Kushi, Jr., Deputy
Director George Tengan, and others that would be duly
noted by the board secretary.
I would like to mention that our director's
father recently passed away and he's not here and I'm
sure we all extend our condolences and we would like
to put that on the record that the committee extends
its condolences to the director on the loss of his
father.
There have been some minutes circulated. We
have the minutes of the meeting of November 3, 2001
and December 19, 2001 and January 9, 2002. What is
your pleasure, gentlemen, on the minutes?
MR. NOBRIGA: Move to receive the minutes
after 30 days review. If there are no corrections,
additions, deletions, they should be filed.
MR. RICE: Second.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Seconded by Mr. Rice. Any
comments, questions? All those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Opposed?
[No response.]
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Motion is carried.
Minutes will be placed on file for a 30-day review
period.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: I have a point of order. This
meeting was agenda'd for another location, not just,
you know, in another room, but actually in another
town. And I just wanted to ask corp counsel whether
it's proper for it to be conducted or whether that
would invalidate the notification process under
Sunshine Law. I believe the change of venue was made
on a very last minute basis.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Mr. Corporation Counsel?
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, my understanding is a
request from the department came up to our office.
Two of the attorneys responded to the request from the
department. The question was whether or not -- where
should the board be meeting. And I think this was
initiated, as you all recall, pursuant to a member of
the public, Councilman Carroll's concern about the
accessibility of the Wells Street building.
In any event, the charter does say
specifically that boards and commissions -- and our
interpretation is that boards and commissions that are
created by the charter shall meet in the county
building or any other publicly owned facility.
That being the case, our understanding was
that the department was going to try and lease or rent
a private facility in the Kahului Shopping Center.
The attorneys in our office did respond to the
memo in saying that we should meet in this building.
That's where it is right now.
In terms of the Sunshine Law, I know the
agenda was posted, duly posted, I'm assuming. The
change of venue or change of location, to me as long
as the parties are notified, everybody on the agenda
is notified, but more so that efforts are made to
notify the public by media, and also I also advised
the staff to have somebody down at the Kahului
Shopping Center now in case members of the public show
up and expect to attend the meeting. So I think the
procedures that the staff took and are taking would
comply for this meeting.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Thank you, Mr. Corporation
Counsel. Any other questions or comments? If not,
we'll move to Item IV, testimony from the public. We
would receive testimony from any member of the public
who wishes to speak on a matter before the committee
or on any matter that they may so choose. If you are
desiring to testify on a matter which is on the
agenda, you can choose to testify at this time or you
can choose to testify when the matter comes up on the
agenda. Is there any testimony from the public? No?
Okay.
Let's move on with the agenda, V, Committee
Discussion/Possible Action. The first item on the
agenda is the request from the Department of Hawaiian
Home Lands to revise the Water Credit Agreement. I
think there has been a little bit of confusion on this
request. But before we get into the request
specifically, I believe that there are a lot of new
members, myself included, who really don't have a good
background regarding the relationship between the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands on its various
projects. So I wonder if, with your indulgence, I
would like to ask the Deputy Director if he could
maybe give us a little bit of background on some of
these projects.
MR. TENGAN: Our relationship with the
Department of Hawaiian Homes goes back as far as I
know back to the days of when Miss Billie Beamer was
director. We worked closely with the department in
getting cooperation from Hawaiian Homes as far as
getting water for the Molokai system. Currently we
serve as backup for each other. Hawaiian Homes has
their own water system and we have a water system
close by. So whenever we run into problems, all we
need to do is call Hawaiian Homes and they will
provide the backup as necessary out on Molokai.
More recently we've been working with and we
have worked with Hawaiian Homes regarding the
Kahakapau project which provides a hundred million
gallons of water storage on the Upper Kula line, the
Lower Kula water treatment plant, and the Lower Kula
reservoir. The department has been -- was
instrumental in getting the appropriations necessary
for this project.
The Kahakapau, we haven't heard much about it
recently, but about three or four years ago we were
having some problems with some of the lessees within
the subdivision there and we worked closely with
Daniel Wyatt, who is deceased now, but he helped us to
work with the lessees that were not paying their water
bills in that area. And as I stated, in Molokai we
worked closely with them and more recently or most
recently we've worked with the Department of Hawaiian
Homes in the use of the drilling rig to drill monitor
wells on Molokai and Keokea.
So as you can see, whenever it's necessary,
they have a close working relationship with the
Department of Hawaiian Homes and we cooperate as much
as we can. We cooperate as much as we can with each
other.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Any of the
committee members have any questions to George about
some of this background?
George, can you amplify a little bit more on
the involvement regarding the Kula lands? You
mentioned Kahakupau and Lower Kula. You're saying
that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands assisted us
in working with the legislature to get state funding
for these projects, is that what the --
MR. TENGAN: Yes. And these projects were put
in with the intent of providing water to the Keokea
development that is being opened now.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: So the specific projects
were what?
MR. TENGAN: Kahakupau, Lower Kula treatment
plant, and Lower Kula reservoir.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. So the storage --
the two reservoirs total how much storage?
MR. TENGAN: Kahakapau is a hundred million
gallons. Under the current construction plans, that
water will not be able to get to the subdivision, but
eventually for reasons maybe made within the water
system to get water out there. I'm not an engineer, I
don't know how we would do that. But it could be
done, I assume.
The Lower Kula treatment plant was -- as you
probably know, we're not -- it's not being used to
capacity or -- without the Hawaiian Homes development
in mind, the treatment plant could have been built I'm
sure with a lower capacity. I believe we can run up
to seven or eight million gallons per day from the
treatment plant. We're currently running on an
average of about four to five million gallons a day.
So to service the subdivision, I was taking into
consideration when the plant was designed.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Thank you, George.
Any other questions? Okay. Mr. Soon, I wonder if
from your perspective you could also let us know what
the projects you're planning up in the upcountry area
are and what your needs are and how you anticipate
working with us, if you don't mind, just as a general
background.
MR. SOON: In fact, if I can just add a bit to
what the deputy director said. I think the
relationship has been a supportive one over the years.
I've been at the department for 12 years now. And
overall I think it's been a good relationship. Like
any developer, we're always looking to build a system
as efficiently as possible and sometimes that perhaps
is in Department of Water Supply's minds cutting some
corners. So there is often some tension as to exactly
what improvements you put in and what works and what
doesn't work. In the end, they're the regulators and
we typically yield to them, but that doesn't mean we
don't go in and aggressively state our case. And so
on occasion I think we haven't always agreed. But I
think the relationship has been a good one.
As for the distant future, we are right now
designing, hopefully shortly breaking ground, on a
farm lot project in Keokea which is the second half of
the Kula home site project that comes under the Water
Credit Agreement that we previously discussed. That's
-- 68 leases are out and I think -- what's the total?
Total number of lots, 75 lots up there. But 68
already have leases.
We expect to -- we in fact have an RFP out
right now for another project in Waiehu. As you may
recall in Waiehu we had a small 48-unit project about
10 years ago. We added another 108 units in the last
couple of years and we're going to add hopefully
somewhere in the order of another 50 or so in the next
year. The RFP is out, we'll break ground easily by
June, and hopefully have people in homes a year
thereafter.
We're looking seriously at some of the lands
that Brewer is selling right now. They cut up a lot
of it and so the price was more expensive than I think
any of us was interested in. But there is some larger
pieces that are still available and if we get those,
then that will mean more development in the
Waiehu/Waihee area.
Other pieces of property that we have on this
island are in -- are really in very large pieces and
not likely that we'll proceed with development in the
near future. A thousand acres in Lahaina, 700 acres
in Puunene, 700 acres in Hana.
The rest of our holdings -- Kula is
problematic because Kula doesn't have enough water and
we did drill a well searching for some water up in --
up above Pookela and we went down pretty far, 6,900
feet, and we got very, very little fresh water.
That's not to say another couple of holes might find
some high level water, but we certainly didn't. It
was discouraging. And the cost of drilling a hole,
I'm not sure when we're going to do that, take that
chance.
Molokai, we probably have done the extent of
the residential development we're going to do for now.
There is quite a bit of vacant residential lots
available and we don't see pushing ahead with any
more. We do, however, see pushing ahead on some
agriculture. But that shouldn't affect you. That
water will come off of [inaudible] stream or will come
out of the MIS. And we provide our own residential
water on Molokai.
Lanai, we are breaking ground shortly on a
35-unit subdivision. It's our first subdivision on
Lanai. We got a 50-acre piece from Castle & Cooke in
fact through the good work of the county. And we are
going to break ground on 35 lots there shortly.
That's really what we know for sure. I think
if the picture with the sugar industry changes and
Puunene becomes more available, we may do something
there. That's not on the horizon. We have quite a
bit of demand on Maui and we would like to build to
it. But we don't have enough demand that we would
take a 700-acre tenant or Lahaina, a 1,000-acre tenant
and take them off to do 50 units here, 60 units there.
We did make an offer on the hundred lots at
Leialii to [inaudible], the ones that have already
been built. I don't think that's going to go
anywhere. They want to recover costs and the costs
are way above market and it's tied up in the ceded
land revenue questions with OHA. So I don't think
that's going to proceed.
That gives you a picture of where we're at.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Any questions to
Mr. Soon on this -- some of these general issues that
he's identified? So you also have that existing
project, the residential project in Kula that you
called Waiohuli, is that it?
MR. SOON: That's right.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: And that is how many lots?
MR. SOON: Three hundred and thirty or twenty.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: And those have all been
assigned?
MR. SOON: No , not all of them, but about
290, 298. Almost all. 298.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: So these are the -- these
are the beneficiaries that would be coming in for
meters in the foreseeable future.
MR. SOON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: They would be coming in
individually or --
MR. SOON: They will come in individually. We
have two ways of developing property. We act as
master developer in some cases as we did at Waiehu and
we build the homes and we sell the homes to
homesteaders. In other cases, we finish lots and we
distribute vacant lots and people have the
responsibility then to build their own homes.
Most of those in the second category really
are a product of an effort in the middle '80s when
Arioshi was leaving office and what he did was he
distributed paper lots. We call them accelerated
lots. They were accelerated distribution. We have
been trying now since then, so 15 or 16 years, to get
the money to build the infrastructure to finish the
lots. But people have leases. So in those cases,
they receive a finished lot and they have the
responsibility to build their own home. They do it on
their own timetable, but they really have a year,
maybe two years with some flexibility from the
commission, to build their home after the
infrastructure is completed. And the infrastructure
shortly will be fully permitted to proceed. So
essentially two years from now those 298 lessees have
a responsibility to build.
Our experience, however, is that people don't
proceed at that quick a pace and I would expect that
the demand will be more on the order of half to
three-quarters of that over the next two years. It
will take maybe closer to five years to build out that
subdivision.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: And the Keokea lots, that
subdivision has been approved or you're in the process
of --
MR. SOON: We're in the process of design.
But we're pretty far along. And that demand has been
strong. We have a lot of people who are ready right
now to get on and they're pushing us and we're pushing
our engineers to try and get that done as quickly as
possible.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Again, I think
that's been very helpful at least to me. Any
questions? Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: Yes. I know there is a lot of
people anxious to get on to the 290 lots. At the
current time, what is the status, what if anything
will prevent somebody from being able to go and begin
building their home?
MR. SOON: That's a good question. The last
time I visited with you in the full board, you gave
your approval to a final subdivision with the
condition really that we cooperate on the construction
of a 1,000-foot line. And we're proceeding on that.
That approval on your part was important. We
also had a historic preservation requirement that we
had to address. Both have been completed last week
Friday. Thursday, Friday we received final
subdivision from LUCA. And the mayor very generously
has said that in fact if people want to pull their
permits, then he will use the final subdivision map as
the base map to provide permits so people can proceed.
Typically what would happen is the final
subdivision would go to the Bureau of Conveyances and
be assigned TMKs, et cetera, before you got permits,
the County has been willing to push the envelope on
that so people can get --
MR. STARR: So people can get permits and they
can build?
MR. SOON: They can build.
MR. STARR: Congratulations.
MR. SOON: Thank you. It took the
cooperation.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Any other
questions? Okay. The issue before the committee at
this time, although we've taken a little while to get
to it -- thank you for your patience -- has to do with
the request to revise the Water Credit Agreement to
permit the credits for the county's share of the
1,000-foot line. Is that correct, Mr. Soon? That's
my understanding.
MR. SOON: Yeah, let me talk about that for a
bit. I think I would like you to step back and I
would like you to be clear on what we're looking for
so that you're not uncertain as to what we want. The
Water Credit Agreement that we all signed in '97
allowed us 500,000 gallons per day commitment from the
County as well as it said that both our transmission
and our storage components of the facilities charge
were satisfied. However, there was no credit at all
for the source and I can understand that, we weren't
building any source.
There is also a $1,561,000 approximately water
credit for future Maui projects or for other Maui
projects, not for this one. And that was fine. Now
we fast forward -- oh, I'm sorry, also within a very
short period thereafter, we had two other agreements,
one was to extend an offsite line an extra distance
and also to increase the capacity from 6 inches to 8
inches. Both of those were to in fact assist with the
Board of Water Supply's satisfaction of demand off of
Hawaiian Home Lands. And in exchange, Board of Water
Supply, Department of Water Supply agreed to pay for
the increase in costs, which is fine. And I think
that total credit is $98,000 between those two
credits.
We come up to last December when the
department felt it was necessary to add an extra
1,000-foot line. And in our negotiation, what we
agreed to and brought to your consideration was to
split the cost of that. And that cost will be
somewhere on the order of $200,000 -- $330,000 total,
so maybe $160,000. So if you add those three cash
credits, that is where you would end up paying us
money back, comes to about $250,000. So we have a
$1.5 million credit created by the improvements we put
into Kula, and about a $250,000 credit cash back to us
from the Board of Water Supply. What we were
searching for was again first to try and figure out a
way to create our source -- what we want to do is we
want to pay our source component and we want to do it
through credits. And the easiest way to do that is to
take that first $1.5 million credit that is available
for other projects, amend the water agreement to say
that it's available for this and other projects. That
way we can use that money for source. And David's
uncomfortable with that because that sets a precedent
that he's not comfortable with.
The other way to do it is to take those three
cash credits essentially, which would be money you
would be paying us, and just use that for source.
Either way would work for us.
What we asked for, and, you know, that would
help in a couple of ways. That would clearly set up a
-- I'm sorry, in the second instant, which is take the
cash credits, would allow us to document everything in
a more consistent manner and would allow one source of
money that the Department of Water Supply could go to.
It also means that you don't have to come out of
pocket with money. So we thought we were helping you
there and we thought we were creating this account
that we could go to.
Again, though, the easiest way to do it and
it's the way we first tried to do it and which is
really the question before you, is just to amend the
original water agreement that would allow the
$1.5 million credit to be used on this project.
A couple of weeks ago Howard called me and
asked me if we wanted to still amend the water
agreement and I apologize, however, I'm sure over the
phone I was less clear than I am today. And he
suggested I come in and we talk about it. At the time
the only thing I really wanted to do was amend the
water agreement. My staff has convinced me that the
other method of doing this could work, too. And it
really is however you would prefer to approach it.
I think that when your water fees go up, the
$250,000 is not going to be enough so then we're going
to have to find the money some place, whereas if we
use the $1.5 million, it's clearly enough money. If
everybody came in for their water meters tomorrow, we
can probably satisfy their need. But that's not going
to happen. And you are going to raise your rates in
the not too distant future. And as I understand it,
we cannot prepay that; the charge is the charge at the
time of the application. So those rates are going to
be higher. But to satisfy our initial need and our
need right now, I think either method works for us and
I'm suggesting to the board if you give us direction
one way or the other what you would prefer, we'll work
with the department to make it work.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: I thought I understood
this, but maybe I'm going backwards a little bit. Any
questions from any of the board members or committee
members? Mr. Rice.
MR. RICE: I think you do understand it. When
you explain it to me, it's the same way that Ray just
explained it. I think I understand it and I would be
a little hesitant to set a precedent in using the
$1.5 million for just opening it up to source credits.
I think the other alternative number two where it's
really cash that we would have to write you a check
and then you would write us another check back, we
might as well use that. I think that's a good
solution. I'm sure I would be in favor of that --
supporting that.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Any other questions? What
is the genesis of that $1.5 million rate? I'm sorry.
MR. SOON: That comes from the 1997 agreement.
What the credit is for are the improvements that we
did both on and offsite for the water system. It's
the water system that we're turning over to you.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: But that was not source
improvements.
MR. SOON: That's correct. That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: And so that's why that
agreement dealt with storage and transmission.
MR. SOON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: But as Peter points out,
the second portion of it which totals, what did you
say --
MR. SOON: $250,000. Roughly.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Roughly $250,000, that is
money that we basically owe you.
MR. SOON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: For --
MR. SOON: For your share of the upgrades.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: For our share of different
improvements that have been made by you.
MR. SOON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: On our behalf.
MR. SOON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. So I guess then
it's just a matter of the number. And again, I'm in
agreement with Peter and that was my position coming
in is that if we owe you cash, then we cut you a
check, you know, you have the ability to send that
check back to us for whatever assessments we are
imposing, whether it's transmission, storage, or
source. And so it doesn't seem as though that would
be an unreasonable position to take.
I don't know if the mechanism is to amend the
source agreement -- the previous agreement because
that may have been what started the confusion.
MR. SOON: I don't think it is. In fact, if
the direction is to look at the cash portion, I think
it's to write in the agreement. We have already two
agreements, one for the extension and one for the
increase from 6 to 8 inches. We don't yet have a
written agreement on the 1,000-foot line. I think
it's a matter of writing a new agreement that
consolidates the three. And we can work with the
department to do that.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Herb.
MR. CHANG: I have a little time issue I want
to figure out. Raymond just mentioned that we don't
have an agreement for the 1,000-foot or whatever.
Normally we pay after it's installed and usually done
on 5-year payments. But the board can always change
that. But I think the more important one is that the
1,000-foot line, which is the bulk of the money, is
not going to be put in the ground until a year maybe.
MR. SOON: Yeah. And you know, if we couldn't
tap that credit until that was done, that would be
fine. Because in the rest of it we have maybe 50
water meter credits. And, you know, if we surpass the
50, I'll be real happy and we'll find a way to pay
that.
As I said, I don't think the $250,000 is going
to satisfy all the need. I mean, at your new rates
that's $2,000 for each one. On source, that's, you
know, that's only 125 meters. So we're going to have
to find money anyway. And whether we find it at the
end of the 1,000-foot line or before it's finished,
we'll find it.
MR. RICE: I think, Mr. Chairman, what's
important is we can agree on the concept and move
forward so that if we're agreeing to use those
credits, cash credits for their source portion, then
they, as Ray says, at least some people can start
right now and as the other numbers come together, it's
going to take a while to get the agreement drafted
anyway.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Is that a motion,
Mr. Rice?
MR. RICE: I would so move that we proceed to
recommend to the full board the Option 2 where we
transfer cash credits to source credits and begin to
work out the agreements necessary for the 1,000-foot
line.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Do I hear a second?
MR. NOBRIGA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: It's been seconded.
Mr. Corporation Counsel?
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, may I ask Mr. Soon, my
understanding of these credits, the second credit
section, is it true that it resulted as a compromise
between the department and your department?
MR. SOON: That's correct.
MR. KUSHI: In terms of the line, the
capacity?
MR. SOON: On the 1,000-foot.
MR. KUSHI: Right.
MR. SOON: That's correct.
MR. KUSHI: So if we settle this, the board
settles this, it would settle this dispute?
MR. SOON: I mean, I think philosophically
it's settled in our mind. I think philosophically it
was settled when we came before the board and the
board --
MR. KUSHI: So there will be no remaining
outstanding issue.
MR. SOON: Not concerning those issues, no.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Any other
questions, comments before the question? All those in
favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Opposed?
[No response.]
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Motion is carried. So we
will work with perhaps Mr. Kushi and the staff and
yourself, Ray, to put this into a final document. And
thank you, we appreciate your patience, we appreciate
your assisting us in clearing up what I think has been
a somewhat confusing issue.
MR. SOON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Thanks. Okay. Let's move
on with the agenda. Item B, Director 02-02, request
approval for $200,000 contract with the Tri-Isle
Resource Conservation & Development Council, Inc., for
containment of miconia. Is there anyone here from the
Tri-Isle Resource Conservation & Development Council?
MR. VARNES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Could you perhaps come
forward?
MR. VARNS: I'm Nathan Varns. I'm the
coordinator with Tri-Isle Resource Conservation &
Development. And our request I guess has been heard
several times, I know it was brought up at the last
meeting, and we're requesting $200,000 to continue the
miconia eradication effort. And we've submitted --
there is a fairly detailed narrative of what has been
done in the request and what we're proposing to do in
the coming year with that.
We work with the Maui Invasive Species
Committee on the eradication of miconia and Jack
Peterson, who is the project director with Maui
Invasive Species Committee is also here. And so
between us, we would like to address any questions
about how the money has been used or will be used and
any other concerns you have about how the effort is
going against miconia.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay, thank you. Before I
open up for questions, Mike, this $200,000 is
appropriated in the budget, is that correct, in the
current year's project?
MR. QUINN: Yes, under the watershed portion
of professional services in the current budget,
$200,000 is appropriated.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Thank you. Any
questions by members of the committee regarding the
miconia project and the request for release of the
$200,000? Mr. Rice?
MR. RICE: I thought one of the issues with
this was in the -- it wasn't so much the request for
the $200,000 because it's budgeted for the concept of
containment of the miconia, but the way you had listed
your request it appeared that there was a purchase of
vehicles involved in it and that was I think of some
concern at the time.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Ellen?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Dave had me make a change to
page 2 which I guess would go out with your full board
agenda. But on page 2 where you see the $45,000 for
equipment including a car, the change has it be
$25,000 for a car and the other $20,000 for equipment
and all reference to the large format print are taken
out.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Any other
questions?
MR. RICE: I guess the concern was is that
typical of our funding that -- who is the vehicle for?
MS. KRAFTSOW: For the crews to go up into the
watershed.
MR. RICE: Who is going to own the vehicle?
MS. KRAFTSOW: It will revert back to us after
the project, but in the meantime it will be owned by
the [inaudible].
MR. RICE: So Tri-Isle Resource Conservation &
Development Council will be the owner of the vehicle?
MR. PETERSON: If I could help, actually the
monies are routed through the University of Hawaii, so
it will be registered by the state, owned by the
University of Hawaii.
MR. RICE: Then at the end of the project we
get the vehicle back?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yeah. Assuming there is an end
to the project.
MR. RICE: Assuming there is a vehicle to get
back. Is that typical of this kind of a --
MS. KRAFTSOW: No, but the situation is
miconia is such an emergency and they needed the
vehicle to do the work, so.
MR. RICE: I can understand that. Is that the
right way to do the vehicle?
MR. QUINN: This is a first. If we do go that
route, we have had a lot of success with these
government -- what do they call them -- surplus
vehicles. We've gotten some very good vehicles for
$10,000, $7,000.
MR. RICE: That's kind of what I'm thinking,
too. And maybe if we can get a vehicle for $10,000
that does the job, I would rather see the money spent
on the miconia eradication and containment.
MR. PETERSON: Might I briefly just provide
briefly some background and put this in context? My
name is Jack Peterson. I'm the coordinator for the
Maui Invasive Species Committee. And we want to thank
you guys -- I want to give these to you guys, too,
because I never want to pass up the opportunity for a
good chance at education. This is our -- came hot off
the press about three or four weeks ago, to help you
appreciate the scale of the problem and it's going to
be with you all. This watershed is definitely
impacted. I have maps here for anybody that would
like to see maps showing the area of helicopter work,
maps showing distribution of miconia in the watershed,
maps showing even groundwork that's been done. I do,
if anybody is interested later, I do have large-scale
maps which are essential in our work, too.
But we've got a real budget crunch and you
guys have come through and stepped up to the plate and
actually proportionately offered more money than both
the state and the federal government to this point and
it's really a big help. This money that you folks are
going to be giving us hopefully along with the money
that's going through the Office of Economic
Development is allowing us to about triple our
helicopter operations which is essential on this
thing. The growth curve on this thing, the dynamics
of the spread of this invasive pest in the watershed
is a very geometric kind of thing and the window of
opportunity is only about five years here. The
experts up at the park, Dr. Lloyd Luke,
Dr. [inaudible] and so forth have told us if we don't
contain and slow this thing down, it's basically
spreading at an explosive rate right now. If we don't
stop it within the next five years, we won't be able
to. It's going to drastically affect the quality of
the watershed. The understory will be basically
destroyed. It will just be dirt, it will look like a
thousand pigs are running around in every acre. And
there is all kinds of problems that will result from
that.
But in any event, your assistance is going to
be very helpful. We have in the last month had to
cancel I think five full days of helicopter control
operations because of a money crunch here. It's a
cash flow problem, the money is not coming through.
But more importantly than the vehicle is just that we
do get the monies moved through. It's kind of a
flowering season right now, a lot of trees out there
especially in the Hana area are flowering and going to
seed very quickly.
The vehicle thing, we would prefer to find a
used vehicle, late model vehicle in good shape. That
would be great. It makes more sense economically.
But the reason I think -- we only listed $25,000
initially because we have a problem, our money goes
through the university and to purchase a money through
the university purchase order process usually takes up
to two months. We have to get approval for the
vehicle and then we have to get purchase order
approval, et cetera, and when we've got a used vehicle
sitting there on a lot out here, by the time two
months rolls around and we've finally got our money,
he has already sold it to somebody else. That's why
we put that in. But the last vehicle we bought, we
bought a crew cab, a four-wheel-drive crew cab. We
sent out letters to 28 different vendors on both Maui
and Oahu to get the quotes and we found one vehicle, a
used vehicle, and the guy was able to hold it down
here at Truck City for the two months. It was an
ordeal for him and we did get it. But that's not so
important. We'll work out the vehicle problems with
whatever you decide you're willing to fund budget for
the vehicle. That's not the main thing. The main
thing is that we get these other funds to increase the
helicopter operations and get moving again on miconia.
MR. RICE: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to give
anyone the wrong impression about our desire to help
you because there isn't any hesitation. It was just a
question about the vehicle, quite honestly, I think.
So we're convinced that the money needs to be spent,
so that's not the issue. So maybe, Mike, if you've
got a pipeline to a vehicle, maybe we can --
MR. QUINN: Is the vehicle absolutely
essential to this deal?
MR. VARNS: We're kind of short right now. We
bought -- when we initially started the project, we
bought two used vehicles from the national park, one
for $8,000, a Ford Bronco, and one for $6,500, I think
a van, and we've already put about that much money
into the Bronco on various problems. It's served us
well, but the used vehicles are -- and so we're a
little bit limited right now.
MR. QUINN: So how many vehicles do you have
now?
MR. VARNS: We've got three. Those, and then
we purchased a new Chevy 4 X 4. We've got a crew --
we've got a crew of 12 right now and then with the
emergency environmental work force that we're
administering right now, we have an additional 12
people. So we actually have about 24 people working
right now. And we're limited right now, we've got
some -- we're doing some work out in the Hana area on
that infestation. We would rather get down to more
peripheral areas which are more important, but we've
got a vehicle problem, we don't have the proper --
unless we're going to fill the bed of the truck up
with a bunch of guys sitting there, which is a little
bit risky going down Hana Highway with a bed full of
guys --
MR. QUINN: I was just thinking it would be
better to allocate that money towards the helicopter.
You said you've been short on the helicopter side of
the eradication process and that's actually a key
element, isn't it, to the --
MR. VARNS: Yeah. We have the money coming
from the Office of Economic Development that will
hopefully -- almost ready to sign --
MR. RICE: Maybe we can move forward on this
subject to working out the vehicle thing because maybe
a lease is easier and Mike may have something that we
can get less expensively.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Because if time is a
constraint, you know, we could possibly acquire it
ourselves and lend it to you or lease it to you or
whatever. I'm sorry, Mr. Deputy Director.
MR. TENGAN: I just wanted to ask
Mr. Peterson, what's the process in dedicating a
vehicle to the university?
MR. PETERSON: The process?
MR. TENGAN: Of dedicating a vehicle to the
university for use.
MR. VARNS: I'm sorry, for our use?
MR. TENGAN: Yeah, giving a vehicle to the
university for your use. What's the process to do
that?
MR. VARNS: Well, it's pretty involved. They
have to get -- first you have to get approval for the
need for a vehicle and then the second step is you
have to get that particular vehicle approved and then
you have to submit -- this being a high ticket item,
you've got to get approval of all the quotes and like
I said, last time we had to send out 28 different
requests for quotes. And then the purchase order is
approved and then there is -- and then finally when
you get the vehicle and it has to be registered, you
know, to get the title and so forth --
MR. TENGAN: My question is more like if we
were to go out and acquire a vehicle and look at our
need for a vehicle that we could give to you, what's
the process in getting the vehicle over to you?
MR. VARNS: Nothing. We are sort of an
informal partnership of 15 different agencies, state,
county, federal and private, and we can do -- we
sometimes borrow a vehicle from the Nature
Conservancy. We would just use it.
MR. RICE: And insure it.
MR. TENGAN: Well, we'd like to -- what I'm
thinking is if we wanted to get a vehicle, we could
acquire that vehicle and turn it over to you and you
accept ownership to the vehicle and all liabilities
that are related to the vehicle
MR. VARNS: That would be probably a little
more involved because of the -- right now all of the
insurance on all of our vehicles is carried by the
state, the university. We're not set up yet as a
nonprofit organization, but that's in the works and
that will be happening soon. So actually, sir, I
would have to look into that to see how we could take
that vehicle and as you originally asked, you know,
dedicate it through the university if they were going
to carry the umbrella coverage on that.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, I would suggest that
we keep this alternative as an option and look into
the question of insurance on the vehicle if we were to
dedicate one to them.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: I think that's a good
approach. We should -- it may save you time and it
may make it more logical from our perspective.
MR. VARNS: We would be perfectly happy with
that if then we took that vehicle money and put it
toward the helicopter work as you folks had mentioned.
That could work.
MR. RICE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we
move forward with the recommendation of approval of
the $200,000 contract subject to us working out the
vehicle thing.
MR. NOBRIGA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: It's been moved and
seconded. I have one quick question before we take a
vote. On this $481,000 from other sources, is that
all cash or is that a combination of cash and in kind
services?
MR. VARNS: Jack, you know a little bit more
about that. We don't handle all the money through
Tri-Isle and so I know we have national park, Nature
Conservancy. There is some in kind in there because
there is a national park crew that has been of course
working in their areas. So I don't know exactly --
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: I guess my point in asking
that question was that from what I've been reading,
this is becoming a greater and greater concern and as
I think you mentioned, you're nearing a point of no
return, if you will, and it seems as though there
might be a need to try to tap some other cash sources
and I don't know what those might be, but you know,
the county council, legislature, you know, other
sources that might be able to come up with big chunks
of cash. Because it seems that that's what you're
going to need. Mr. Quinn?
MR. QUINN: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask, how
much has the county contributed to this project?
MR. VARNS: This current fiscal year?
MR. QUINN: Well in total. Each year, fiscal
year.
MR. VARNS: Okay. Up until year, the county
-- like last year we had a CDBG grant that was
$100,000. And the year before, the water department
had given $100,000.
MR. QUINN: Because I show that we -- this
water department has contributed $200,000 so far and
this will be another $200,000.
MR. VARNS: That's right.
MR. QUINN: Are we the largest contributor to
the project?
MR. VARNS: So far, yes.
MR. QUINN: I just wanted to put that on the
record. Because I think there is some -- there is not
a clear understanding out there as to how much this
board has actually contributed to this effort and I
think there is even some thought in the county that
they have done more and we haven't done as much and I
think that's absolutely --
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: That was my concern, too,
that if as you say we're one of the larger
contributors to this effort, it seems as though there
needs to be an concerted effort to go out and get some
other people involved. It is apparently a very
significant problem. Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: Being an East Maui resident, I
feel very strongly on this issue and I see it kind of
creeping more and more toward my own area of Kaupo and
that's scary. So I'm certainly very supportive of us
giving these funds. But I've gone on -- I've
testified through a number of different bodies that
the real funding for most of this project should be
coming from another source. And in a perfect world,
the water licenses which are awarded now on a
month-to-month basis for, you know, the water taken
from East Maui, they have been kept at a very, very
low amount, about $160,000 a year for over 165 million
gallons per day of water use. And if those licenses
were to be awarded not -- certainly not by us but by
the state, by the land board, at a closer to market
value, then that would give the state certainly the
funding necessary to maintain and protect the
watershed. So to my mind, that's the correct way that
the program should be funded. But it's not and so I
know I'll certainly be happy to support the board
again helping. I wish we were in a financial position
to help more because it's needed and I just want to
thank you for doing the hard work because I know how
important it is and I wish you luck in the battle.
MR. VARNS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Any other questions
or comments? Ready for the question? All those in
favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Opposed?
[No response.]
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. The committee will
recommend approval of the $200,000 to enter into a
contract with Tri-Isle Resource Conservation &
Development Council with the understanding that we'll
look at the car situation to see if the funds can't be
perhaps adjusted in such a way that you can have more
money for your direct field operations.
MR. VARNS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Thank you for coming.
Moving on, Item C, Director 02-03. This is to request
approval of $30,000 for matching funds for USGS
monitoring of streams in northeast Maui. Mr. Deputy
Director?
MR. TENGAN: The department is requesting
funds for $30,000 for [inaudible] program between the
Board of Water Supply and USGS to fund the first year
of a two-and-a-half-year program between the Board,
State Water Commission and USGS to monitor and report
on the status of selected streams in East Maui. If
there is any questions, Ellen is here to address
those.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay, Ellen, do you have
anything you want to add?
MS. KRAFTSOW: I guess it would be just if
there are any questions about the purpose or the
proposal itself.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Mr. Quinn, this is
also a budgeted item.
MR. QUINN: Yes, under the current fiscal year
2002 budget, it's under the watershed protection
portion of professional services. We appropriated
$30,000.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Any questions from
members of the committee? I have one question.
Ellen, is this in any way going to be helpful to us in
the context of the East Maui EIS? Is there any
relationship?
MS. KRAFTSOW: You know, I don't know the
answer to that. It's a two-and-a-half-year study,
though, and I'm going to try to probably get more
baseflow data. But whether or not -- I mean, the EIS
I'm hoping will be done in a shorter time frame than
that.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: So they identified the
specific areas that they are going to be monitoring
this first year?
MS. KRAFTSOW: They have identified areas that
are candidates. I don't know if they finalized the
decision. They're working with the State Water
Commission and EMI as well.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. So the lead agency
here is going to be USGS?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: So our funds would be
turned over to them.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. I'm sorry, you have
to -- my peripheral vision isn't very good. You're
going to have to pound the table.
MR. STARR: I think once again this frankly
should be a state-funded item, but, you know, I'm
happy to support it since the state is not being
proactive. What I believe this is is the beginning of
the process of creating in stream flow standards. And
that ultimately based on the Waiohole ditch decision,
every stream in East Maui where there is water taken,
which is just about all of them, by the ditch system,
is going to have to be examined and then a decision
made over how much water should be allowed to remain
inside the stream for the ecology and the rights of
Native Hawaiians to be protected. And then based on
that, the amount of water that can be taken by the
ditch system can be judged. And that does affect us
with the EIS. It's possible that the current version
of the EIS will go through, but it will probably be
contested over the years. And it's very much tied in
with the in stream flow standards of the streams. So
I do believe it's in our best interests to do it. But
once again, it should be coming out of the income from
the major water diversion of which we only get about 5
percent or so. But we're paying most of the
environmental costs.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Thank you. Ellen?
MS. KRAFTSOW: I don't know if somebody else
is more familiar with the agreement for the EIS, maybe
the active agreement to participate in this study may
have been a factor. But the state is also
contributing funds to this.
MR. RICE: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend
approval.
MR. NOBRIGA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: It's been moved and
seconded that we recommend approval, the use of
$30,000 in matching funds for USGS monitoring of
streams in northeast Maui. Any further discussion?
MR. NOBRIGA: Yeah, I think we're a couple
years too late. Now it's still raining, they got more
water than they had before. So your basal amount
going to be higher than what we just came out of in
drought, but we should go ahead with the study.
MR. RICE: It's going to be a multiyear study.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Any other comments
or questions? Thank you, Mr. Nobriga. Okay. If not,
all those in favor, say aye.
[A chorus of ayes.]
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Opposed?
[No response.]
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Motion is carried. Next
Item D, director 22-06. The Chair would like to
request that we defer this matter primarily because of
the fact that there are two new appraisals, one that
was requested by the department and the second that
was provided by the landowner and copies of the
appraisal were just received and I don't think it's
really fair to the members of the committee to proceed
without having an opportunity to review the
appraisals.
Just as a matter of background, you will
recall that this matter that had come before the board
I think approximately a year ago. And the situation
is that Mr. Yonahara's property has a major water line
running through it. I believe it's the Lower Kula
line, Upper Kula line, George, do you recall?
MR. TENGAN: Lower.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Lower Kula line running
through the property and there is no easement. He has
requested that he be compensated and that a formal
easement be granted. We did have an appraisal done.
Our appraisal was for approximately $6,000. Initially
Mr. Yonahara was not too pleased with that appraisal.
We suggested that he get his own. However, he wanted
to get it resolved quickly and so he agreed to $6,000
for the easement.
He apparently was under the impression that
the matter could be resolved quickly and that his
money could be obtained quickly. However, it took
from what I understand approximately a year to have
the necessary easement documents prepared and the
necessary title search conducted, at which time
Mr. Yonahara felt that the compensation was inadequate
given the delays.
And so the department initiated a new
appraisal because of the time that had elapsed.
Mr. Yonahara also went out and conducted his own
appraisal. Our appraisal is for approximately $7,000.
His appraisal is for considerably more. And so he is
now coming back to the board to request the matter be
resolved or the matter be reopened and hopefully
resolved. So that's the background.
As I said, the appraisals have not been
provided to the committee members yet, so I would like
to ask Fran if we could do that and that we defer this
matter until the next committee meeting. Any problems
with that, committee members? Mr. Nobriga?
MR. NOBRIGA: Don't we have a mechanism for
arbitration in such matters or would it really need to
come back to this body for reapproval since the intent
of the transaction was already voted upon by the body?
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: I think we could request
that we mediate the process. However, if the
recommendations are that the amount to be paid to
Mr. Yonahara in compensation for the easement is in
excess of $6,000, we would have to come back to the
board because the board specifically approved the
amount of $6,000, as I recall. Is that right, Mike?
MR. QUINN: That's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: There are other
mechanisms, the most extreme being condemnation of the
easement, which --
MR. NOBRIGA: I have no objection.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. So no objection,
we'll defer the matter. Okay.
Moving on, Item E, just very briefly, the
matter of Mr. Michel. At the last board meeting,
based on the report of the finance committee, the
staff was requested to prepare a work plan and cost
estimates to implement the necessary actions to comply
with our obligations under the agreement. Do we have
anything to report, Mr. Deputy Director?
MR. TENGAN: The only thing we have to report
is the question of Mr. Michel's legal ability to grant
the easement has come up and therefore it's been
referred to corp counsel for research.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. In addition to
that, though, there are probably certain work items as
I recall that we need to look at, I believe.
MR. RICE: Yeah, maybe we need to hear from
corp counsel as to the -- I know you just got into it,
but the magnitude of the potential problem.
MR. KUSHI: Well, Mr. Chair, Board Member Rice
is correct in saying I just got into it because I just
looked at the file yesterday.
Just a brief overview -- I mean just a brief
review of the documents that I saw, which are two, one
the deed for Pioneer Mill to Mr. Michel and this
agreement that this board entered into in 1994, I
believe. I think the question is did Pioneer Mill or
did the Pioneer Mill reserve or still owns that
easement area which our facilities are on, or does the
state own it. It definitely seems from the deed that
Mr. Michel doesn't own it.
However, the agreement that the board entered
into and everybody signed off back in '94 seems to
feel that he conveyed to us and in return we would
have to do all these things. So I'm not really sure
where we are at this point.
MR. RICE: Are we talking about the pump site
or the tank site or both?
MR. KUSHI: Both of them.
MR. CHANG: The pump site and the easement to
the pump number 2.
MR. RICE: But not the tank site.
MR. CHANG: The tank site is separate lot.
MR. RICE: That was his lot that --
MR. CHANG: With the state or with Lahainaluna
schools, I'm not sure which.
MR. RICE: Okay. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman,
we need to certainly have corp counsel dig into it.
But I think we still need to have an estimate of what
it costs -- it's going to cost us to do the things
that are in the agreement. If it was an honest error
-- and knowing Hans as well as I do now, I don't think
the man would have purposely misled us. He's not like
that. And the things that he's getting aren't -- you
know, it's not like he's get some huge monetary
settlement or he got some other land that might lend
you to think that he did this on purpose. So we still
I think need to know what the cost of our obligation
is. We may have some obligation even though he maybe
didn't understand he didn't own the land or whatever.
We certainly went through his property to get to
access these facilities, right? So let's -- we still
need to know what it's going to cost, I believe,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: I think that's a good
approach. If there are no other questions or
objections from members of the committee, recommend
that while these legal issues are being reviewed by
corporation counsel, that the staff should proceed to
identify the actual work items and develop a cost
estimate. So if we could do that, Mr. Deputy
Director.
MR. RICE: Mr. Chairman, also, the staff
probably knows but the committee needs to know that
that intake is -- when we have a heavy rain and the
rocks get washed down to the intake, we have to send
equipment up there, a big shovel, and we dig it out,
right, and because there is no road, we need the track
machine to go up there, right, which is difficult and
expensive in itself, but we haven't had to do it very
much in the last four years because of the drought
conditions. But now that it has been raining a lot,
we probably have to go up there more.
The problem that's occurring is all that fill
that washes down is getting piled up on the side and
now there is a lot of it and I think we need to, from
a planning standpoint, we need to think about going in
there and deciding where we're going to move that
stuff out. Because we've built this huge mound up
next to the stream. The machine goes down into the
base of the stream and it now has to climb this steep
hill. It actually has to pull itself up to get up to
where it's shoveling out the intake. We built this
ramp as we pushed the stuff away. I think it's a
project that we're going to need to address because if
we have consistently steady rain pattern, we're going
to be up there a lot and I don't know where all that
stuff is going to go. We may have to helicopter in
some equipment or something. I don't know.
Of course, Hans thinks he knows how we should
do it, but that's another story.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Let's move on to
Item F, status report from staff on the Pauakukalo
Water System Improvements, Lilihua Street. This is
the project that the department was going to implement
in-house because of the concern over burials.
Anything to report on this either Mr. Deputy Director
or Herb?
MR. KOGAHARA: I don't believe we have
anything to report yet. We recently completed -- we
got the archeologist and we just need to set up to
have our own forces proceed with the work.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Just so everyone can hear,
you said you had the agreement with the archeologist
finalized but you haven't actually started any work
on-site yet.
MR. KOGAHARA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Is that right?
MR. KOGAHARA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: So if you can continue to
keep the committee apprised as to your project.
Next, Item G, status report regarding the
informational meeting with residents along Haneoo
Street on the proposed waterline replacement project.
I understand a date for the meeting has been set and
that is?
MR. TENGAN: February 20th.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: February 20th at?
MR. TENGAN: The county office in Hana.
MS. TAOMOTO: At the Council Services office
in Hana at 8:30 a.m. February 20th at 8:30 a.m.
MR. NOBRIGA: Anybody going to be there?
MS. TAOMOTO: Me.
MR. NOBRIGA: From the residents I mean. They
no work, these guys?
MS. TAOMOTO: Apparently this meeting is being
put together through Councilman Carroll's office since
he was the person who brought up the, you know, the
problem that the residents felt that staff needed to
address some concerns they had in order for them to
take a position on whether they supported or didn't
support the project. So he has set it up and we've
gotten -- I've gotten like three or four phone calls
from residents and it seems like they are going to be
there.
MR. NOBRIGA: I'm sorry, I forgot it was Hana.
Excuse me. Certain places you can go, you can have a
meeting any time of the day, people going to show up.
MS. TAOMOTO: So the meeting is scheduled from
8:30 to 2:00, both at the office with the explanation
and any questions -- I would answer any questions, and
then we're going to follow up with a site visit so we
can address each individual property concerns that
they have and look at the situation that they're
personally concerned about.
I was -- I had a question about the video that
you guys kind of requested or was that a request? I
need clarification.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: I believe there was a
request for video.
MS. TAOMOTO: The department doesn't own a
video camera, so I don't.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: We'll take it from the
miconia funds.
MR. HIRANAGA: You could rent one on a test
case basis.
MS. TAOMOTO: For now the only staff that is
planning to attend is myself, field crew, and the
director.
MR. HIRANAGA: Practice up on that videotape.
You don't want to be panning too quickly.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Obviously if any
members of the committee or the board would like to
attend, I'm sure they're more than welcome, right?
MS. TAOMOTO: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Item H, progress
report on CIP projects. The spreadsheet has been
passed out at the last meek. I thought that we might
have a little bit of time and we could review some of
the more important projects. So Herb, perhaps you can
come up to the front so that we can hear you.
MR. STARR: Does Fran have an extra copy I can
borrow?
MS. TAOMOTO: Can I make a comment and go back
to Paneoo? If any board members are going to attend,
could they let Fran know because I believe Councilman
Carroll's office is providing lunch. So I think he
would want you guys to let him know who's coming so
that he isn't embarrassed when there is not enough
lunch.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Herb, perhaps, we're not
going to have time to go through everything and some
of these are relatively small projects, but perhaps
you could start from the first page and we could at
least talk about SDWA compliance project, source
project, and the drought project. So why don't you
just start from the top and go quickly through the
list and if the committee members have any questions,
I'm sure they'll be --
MR. KOGASAKA: The Honokohau water project is
the pipeline from Kapalua wells to the Honokohau
source intake area. And what we are doing is looking
for a pipeline alignment. We've recently found an
alignment that looks more favorable. We need to do a
CDUA amendment and that will be much more advantageous
to us. We're pursuing that new approach. The land
would be somewhat decreased, but not by very much.
That's pretty much a straight run. We gain advantage
of we don't have to go over a bigger hill. And that
would increase the flow capacity.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: So this is where we're
presently trucking water; is that right?
MR. KOGASAKA: Yes. Yes.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: So when this project is
completed, this would be a pipeline and a storage
tank?
MR. KOGASAKA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: That would then provide
adequate service to the residents.
MR. KOGASAKA: Yes. That would be purchasing
water from Kapalua and I think Dave is working on an
agreement on that agreement.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Any questions?
Okay.
MR. KOGASAKA: Kamole water treatment plant is
trying to -- it's on the list, just trying to do the
-- what kind of work is that -- the punch list items
to complete the project.
Lahainaluna treatment plant, the pre-sed
modification was bid. The bids were excessively high.
We are looking at ways to proceed with this project.
We need to reevaluate the bids and we'll be able to
report back probably on the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: What was the estimated
cost?
MR. KOGASAKA: $1 million.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: And the bids were?
MR. KOGASAKA: $1.6 million.
MR. RICE: So where are we going to put the
pre-sed in that, down below the tanks?
MR. KOGASAKA: The pre-sed basin would have
been below the --
MR. RICE: Because you come up the road like
this and you come around.
MR. KOGASAKA: The plan was to put a roof over
the pre-sed -- existing pre-sed basin to cut down the
algae growth potential over there and hopefully reduce
the amount of time that we need to clean out the
pre-sed basin.
The other thing is was to build a lagoon to
get rid of the -- or to assure a more positive way of
getting rid of the algae growth without getting into
the NPDES permitting -- industrial permitting
requirements. That's what we need to evaluate a
little bit more, possibly coming out with a movement
of the lagoon to a -- closer to the other basin that
we have down below for the finish water. Anyway,
there are other avenues we need to look at on that
one.
MR. NOBRIGA: So you're going to replan the
whole thing and rebid it or --
MR. KOGASAKA: We're going to reevaluate the
bids that we have and see if we can come up with some
kind of a comprehensive solution to this project.
Initially we would like to move ahead with the roof
over the pre-sed basin now and then look at possibly
rebidding the other portion. But we haven't
formulated an approach at this point yet. We're still
working on that.
A VOICE: Mercy is asking us for more funding.
MR. KOGASAKA: Possibly. We haven't concluded
yet.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: All right. Thanks.
MR. RICE: Is that because in that basin there
should have been rigs for that?
MR. KOGASAKA: No.
MR. RICE: No?
MR. STARR: How much is the roof?
MR. KOGASAKA: I believe it's on the order of
about $400,000, 300-something-thousand.
MR. STARR: Do you know how big that is? A
hundred by a hundred?
MR. KOGASAKA: I think it's probably bigger
than that, but I would need to check the plans to
verify the accuracy on the amount. I cannot recall.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Proceed.
MR. KOGASAKA: Mahinahina Water Treatment
Plant is also on there, which I think we need to do
some other punch list items on there as well. There
was an arbitration settlement that needs to -- Bodell.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: That is in process or has
been resolved?
MR. KOGASAKA: There was an arbitration
decision made, I think.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: So is that going to
require additional funding?
MR. QUINN: The settlement, is that your
question?
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Does it require additional
funding?
MR. QUINN: We would typically take --
probably take that out of our claims account. We
budgeted $100,000 for that this year. So we may have
to amend that portion of it because we have some other
claims that are going to exceed that $100,000 this
year.
MR. RICE: I think we have a few claims.
MR. QUINN: Several that came up I think at
the last board meeting, actually.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Well, it would be nice to
take away --
MR. RICE: Mr. Chairman, just a quick question
of Mike. Claims that are of an employee nature are
not paid out of that same fund, are they?
MR. QUINN: I believe they are.
MR. RICE: So all kinds of claims, that's --
MR. QUINN: Yeah, we have had to pay claims
out of -- one year we had a very bad accident out
towards Hana way and I believe that claim was well in
excess of $100,000. That came out of there.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Next, Mr. Kogasaka.
MR. KOGASAKA: Napili A GAC plant, the
construction is progressed 95 percent. We still need
to test the equipment and we need to install the pump
or get the pump tested and we're close to the end of
completion of the project.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. Questions? No?
MR. NOBRIGA: That was related to the GBCP --
MR. KOGASAKA: DBCP.
MR. NOBRIGA: What you call.
MR. KOGASAKA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Thanks.
MR. KOGASAKA: Hamakuapoko well development,
we are trying to close out that contract and finalize
that out to the portion that's been completed. This
has to -- for work related to getting the pump
installed and for that emergency pumping situation
that we had during the drought.
The transmission line from H-Poko to Baldwin
Avenue is pending the resolution of the EIS for the
entire project.
The supplemental EIS and exploratory well, the
construction has been completed. We are awaiting the
Mink & Yuen report on that.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. So can we spend a
little time on this, Herb? The exploratory well which
is a portion of the supplemental EIS, the well has
been completed. The well has been drilled.
MR. KOGASAKA: And tested, yes.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: And tested. And so now
it's a matter of obtaining a constant flow of
information from that well, is -- what is the status?
MR. KOGASAKA: The information obtained from
the well will be used to finalize the supplemental
EIS.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: So the information -- the
necessary information has already been collected?
MR. KOGASAKA: I believe so, yes.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: So there is no ongoing
data collection occurring at this point.
MR. KOGASAKA: I guess we need to take another
sample of the water quality for additional testing.
That is a one-time occurrence. That has nothing
completed yet, but as I understand it they took the
sample, I thought.
MS. TAOMOTO: We don't have the results. Once
the results are back, John Mink, our hydrogeologist
who is on the project doing the construction, should
be able to complete a draft EIS in a form that is I
would consider like 90 percent complete. So to date
we haven't received a draft supplemental EIS, but once
we have this data from the well, his company, Mink &
Yuen, should be able to produce a document which we
would call the draft EIS.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Which you would then
finalize and then submit to the state.
MS. TAOMOTO: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: So that process is nearing
completion. Is there a timetable for that draft to be
submitted?
MR. CHANG: We don't have a formal --
MS. TAOMOTO: The water quality test I believe
was only done last week or so -- only last two weeks
or so. So I haven't really discussed now the revised
schedule of the draft EIS preparation process and how
much work is actually involved in them completing a
draft EIS. Once we have all that data, I think I need
to go back and sit down or talk over the phone with
Mink & Yuen and get a revised time schedule to get to
the final EIS.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. I think this is an
important issue and so we probably need to get an
updated report to the board as to where we are and
what the timetable is and what our planned course of
action is. Perhaps at some point it might even be
appropriate for Mr. Mink and Yuen to come to the board
and make a report. Okay. Any other questions or
comments from -- I'm looking at Jonathan because I'm
assuming he's going to be waving his arms. Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: The part of the well that was of
concern to the EIS took place in the actual drilling
of it and that was to find out if water was in the
hole at different stages of drilling. And that was
what the courts were interested in. So I think we
should definitely push Mr. Mink because I know he's
gotten that and he had told me that virtually the
whole thing was complete except for, you know, what he
would need to get from this well, you know, that was
months ago. So we should definitely push him and
demand a status report because he could have it out
for us right now if he would sit down for an hour and
finish it up.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: We'll leave it to the
board chair to perhaps decide whether or not we want
to have Mr. Mink make a presentation to the full
board.
MR. RICE: I think that's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: I'm glad to hear that
that's moving along. Any further questions on that?
Okay. Maybe let's move ahead to Iao. Herb?
The intent of the Chair is to adjourn at 10:15 so that
the rules committee will have a chance to set up.
MR. KOGASAKA: The Waikapu exploratory well,
the intent was to put in a pump into the well to get
it into production, pump water into the Waikapu tank
and also include the Wailuku Heights system. We have
been in negotiation with the developer in the area,
but at this point we're planning to move ahead and put
in the pump, motor control and a booster pump to tie
back to make that system operational. We will proceed
with soliciting for a consultant to do this additional
line of work.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: So what is the scope of
work that needs to be accomplished? You need to put
in -- need to put in a pump as well as the necessary
controls and lines and storage, the whole works, or
the only thing there right now is a hole?
MR. KOGASAKA: Yes, it's next to the Waikapu
tank. The intent is to get the water from the Waikapu
well into the tank and then also to be able to boost
water from the Waikapu tank back into Wailuku Heights.
This would involve installation of a booster pump
station and the related control, electrical control
for the booster pump and the well at the site
location.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: So what are we trying to
negotiate with the developer?
MR. KOGASAKA: Initially I think the developer
will be putting in the booster pump and the controls.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: He will be or that was the
desire but now we're going to proceed on our own?
MR. KOGASAKA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: And we have the funding to
do that.
MR. KOGASAKA: Not at this point.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Well, I think, you know,
it's important that we move this project forward
because we've talked about spreading the pumping in
Iao aquifer and this is -- the well has been there for
a long time and we haven't really been able to put it
into operation. So it seems as though if we have, you
know, if for some reason this project is stalled, I
think it needs to be brought to the attention of the
board and if the board needs to make a decision as to
either sitting down with the parties and getting it
done if there is going to be participation or to
appropriate the necessary funds to do it ourselves.
Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: I've been kind of bugging David
about every two months to try to get a pump in that
well and he kept saying that he's waiting for the
developer, and now the developer is out of control of
the situation because the property has been foreclosed
on by Bank of Hawaii. So there is no issue of the --
of working out a deal with the developer, at least not
until that whole bankruptcy is resolved. So we should
definitely proceed and get the thing on line and also,
you know, the same thing goes with whatever we're
going to need to do with Shaft 33. And I just want to
put in a plug for my committee site inspection which
is set for next -- for the 19th where we're going to
be visiting sites and can actually see it and get a
better understanding of it. I hope that not just my
committee but a number of board members will take the
opportunity to see all the well, tank, pump, and other
water facilities that feed Central and South Maui on
the 19th.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay, make a note of that.
I think this whole matter of the sustainable yield of
the Iao aquifer is an important issue and this is
certainly a key element and I think we need to move
forward expeditiously. And if there are circumstances
which are holding it up, then we need to figure out a
way to get around it.
Okay. Why don't we finish up North Waihee and
then we'll adjourn for the day and maybe you can
briefly take care of North Waihee since that's
related.
MR. KOGASAKA: Wailuku shaft is also part of
that negotiation with the developer and that's also --
we're going to proceed with some decision on that, we
need to discuss that in-house to proceed.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay.
MR. KOGASAKA: As far as the North Waihee,
development of Kanoa 1 and 2, the project is
operational. We need to finalize that -- close out
the contract with some punch list items and other
clean up work that we need to do over there.
Kupaa well development, plans are being
reviewed and it's back to the consultant for
revisions. That's right, we need to do the
environmental assessment on that.
MS. TAOMOTO: It is going to be published
February 19th or so on that, end of February. It was
submitted to OEQC and should be publicly published the
end of February.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: This is Kupaa 1?
MS. TAOMOTO: Kupaa 1, including the
transmission line from Kupaa to Kanoa is in the EA.
MR. KOGASAKA: The design for the Kupaa 1 Well
Development is the one that's been reviewed. And the
transmission line from Kupaa 1 to Kanoa 1 is -- we
need to get approval from the landowner on that
agreement based on that North Waihee agreement with
the Wailuku Agribusiness, but we need to get
concurrence over there and that's holding up the
project.
Maluhia Exploratory Well is --
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Just backing up a little
bit, Herb, again, this is an important project. If
there is any kind of impediments to moving ahead
expeditiously, you need to bring it before the board.
MR. KOGASAKA: We are having some difficulty
getting the alignment accepted by Wailuku
Agribusiness.
MR. RICE: I suspect the difficulty will
continue for a short while.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Mr. Rice has that well in
hand. I'm sorry. Maluhia Exploratory Well.
MR. KOGASAKA: The Maluhia Exploratory Well,
we have preliminarily selected a site, but we're
getting some input from our hydrogeologist that they
wanted to look at another possible location and we are
pursuing that at this point.
CHAIRMAN RICE: Who is the hydrogeologist?
MR. KOGASAKA: John Mink.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay.
MR. NOBRIGA: What was the reason that he gave
for looking at another site?
MR. KOGASAKA: He would like to move the well
further to the north, more into the North Waihee
aquifer. He preliminarily selected a site area to
look at and we need to do that at the next chance we
get.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay.
MR. KOGASAKA: The other is there, but that
will be dependent on the exploratory well.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Okay. And the
transmission line, that will just be pending the
ultimate --
MR. KOGASAKA: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: -- resolution of the
location. Okay. I think that's been helpful. Any
questions of what we discussed up to date? If not, I
think the intent is to at the next meeting if we have
some time to continue to --
MR. RICE: I think it's good.
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you, Howard.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: No other matters to come
before the committee? Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. STARR: Can I just ask one more question
relating to this?
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: Sure.
MR. STARR: What's happening with Pookela
well? Are we going to get an update on that while
we're --
MR. KOGASAKA: We're preparing the bid
documents and it's back to the consultant for some
revisions at this time.
MR. STARR: Do you have a date when we'll be
able to put it out.
MS. TAOMOTO: I didn't submit the construction
plan revisions to the consultant, but I did submit the
specification revisions and that would be working on
submitting the construction plan revisions probably
today. The specification revisions involve some heavy
discussion with staff to clarify the drilling process,
so that's why it took longer than we expected. But we
thought that it was necessary in order to avoid change
orders during construction.
MR. STARR: I noticed we were getting behind
on it and I hope that we're tackling that one as well
on an urgent basis because we need the source.
CHAIRMAN NAKAMURA: My recollection is that
the schedule was to be out to bid at the end of
February. I think that was what we had talked about.
So that seems like that may still be reasonable.
Okay. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.
(WHEREUPON, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m.)
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
Department of Water Supply
County of Maui
P.O. Box 1109
Wailuku, HI 96793-6109
Telephone (808) 270-7816
Fax (808) 270-7833