BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
RULES COMMITTEE MEETING
MARCH 12, 2002

 
Taken at the Kahului Shopping Center Conference Room,
Kaahumanu Avenue, Kahului, Maui, Hawaii, commencing
at  1:30 p.m. on March 12th, 2002.
 
Reported By:  Rachelle Primeaux, CSR #370

IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

ATTENDANCE:
 Members Present:
 Mike Nobriga, Chair
 Orlando Tagorda
 Jonathan Starr
 Kent Hiranaga
  
 Staff Present:
 Herb Kogasaka, Engineering
 David Craddick, Director
 Ed Kushi, Corporation Counsel
 Fran Nago, Secretary
 Mike Quinn, Fiscal
 George Tengan, Deputy Director

                    *    *    *
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Call the Rules Committee of the
Board of Water Supply to order.  In attendance, we
have Kent Hiranaga, Orlando Tagorda, esteemed
Corporation Counsel Ed Kushi, Fran Nago, David
Craddick, Deputy Director George Tengan, a bunch of
other folks, Jonathan Starr.  There's no minutes.
 Is there any testimony from the public?  Okay.
Any written testimony?  Okay.  First item of business
Committee Discussion/Possible Action Communication
02-02 request from David Goode, Director of Public
Works to amend the rules and regulations of the
Department of Water Supply to include special
considerations for indigenous grass huts.
 I would like to call on Ralph Nagamine to give
us an overview of all these handouts.

MR. NAGAMINE:  I think that all of you have the
handouts that were passed out prior to the meeting.
I'll go through them from the top down, so I hope you
still have them in order.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  A lot of paperwork.

MR. NAGAMINE:  You're not going to get quizzed
on it today, but you could probably read it sometime
during the basketball games.  But anyway, the very
first packet is the actual bill that Kalani English
had submitted about two years ago and this was when
Kalani was still a Councilperson from Hana and he
attached this bill to our building code.  And what
this bill basically does is it mandates the Department
of Public Works and Waste Management to develop rules
or a method in which indigenous Hawaiian architecture
structures could be permitted under the building
code.
 Since that time we have developed a task force,
and I've got two members of the task force here with
me, Mr. Hans Reicke, who is an architect, and Doug
Gomes, who is a mechanical engineer.  So you have
before you the bill.  And toward the end of that first
packet, you will find the Public Works and Water
Committee Report, okay.  It's toward the latter part
of the packet.  It's in that same packet.  You've just
got to keep flipping until you find it.  In there it
kind of tells you the genesis of the bill, how it got
started, talks about some of the things that were
considered and the steps that were taken until it was
finally adopted.  This is all kind of like history.
 And then the next packet I have a collection of
newspaper articles I have been collecting over the
past several years having to do with this initiative,
and if you could read this, it gives you more
information on what we're trying to do, okay.  The
very third packet has to do with our correspondence
with the Department of Water Supply relative to this
initiative, okay, so you can read that.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Which one?
 
MR. NAGAMINE:  At your leisure.  The fourth item
is a one-page, just one page, and at the top, you'll
see some sketches of the type of structures that were
anticipated.  And down at the bottom, you'll see some
of the uses that we anticipate these structures to be
used for, okay.  The next packet has to do with the
fire protection for these structures, okay.  And I
guess it's important to note at this point that the
structures are going to be limited in size to 1,800
square feet, okay, and the structures will also be
categorized into two classes.
 One class will be those that won't require any
fire protection at all in terms of fire sprinklers,
okay, and the other class will require fire
sprinklers, so there's two classes of structures.  For
those that require a fire sprinkler system, we have
this type of design guidelines for the sprinkler
system, okay, so that's attached.  And by the way,
Hans and Doug were very instrumental in developing
this, and that's why they're here today in case you
have questions regarding that.
 And the very last packet, I'm sure you're very
familiar with, but these are your rules.  And I got
this off the Internet this morning, okay.  What I'm
hoping that we'll do today is kind of talk about the
Department's initiative, and we're going to ask that
this item be deferred to your next Rules Committee
meeting at which time we'll come back with specific
rule amendments that we'll be asking you to consider,
but this would be our first -- give you a first
impression of what we're trying to do.
 
MR. STARR:  Question.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  What triggers a need for sprinklers,
and was there a consideration given to just allowing
them to be to all kinds, be built-out sprinklers?
 
MR. NAGAMINE:  My understanding is that the Fire
Department has concern regarding these structures and
they pretty much have taken a position that these
structures wouldn't be allowed unless they have a fire
sprinkler system, so that's kind of like what --
that's why we're going in that direction.
 
MR. STARR:  Could I ask counsel what
differentiates the two classes?
 
MR. RIECKE:  The two classes, columns A and B,
one is when the building is a hundred feet away from
another building or the property line and under or up
to 1,800 square feet, then you don't need fire
sprinklers.  If it is near, closer, then you do.
 
MR. STARR:  So this is basically designed to
protect other structures?
 
MR. REICKE:  Exactly.
 
MR. STARR:  That makes sense then.  But if
you're just out in the countryside somewhere and
there's nothing else there, you can build and it's
small, you don't need sprinklers?
 
MR. REICKE:  Right.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Any other questions, Members?

MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chair, let me just --
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Tagorda.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I'm pretty sure my questions would
be answered with all these things in this packet,
however, I just got this packet now.  So in case they
are not here, my question would be I'm concerned about
the zoning where these hales is going to be built.
 
MR. NAGAMINE:  Yeah, there's no restriction.
The waiver proceeding on this thing is that there is
no restrictions on the zoning, however, these
structures would have to comply with the zoning
standards of the lot that they're built on.  For
example, if they're built in the ag district, they
would have to comply with the ag district standards.
If they're built in the residential districts, they
would have to comply with the residential district
standards.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  And I'm pretty sure this came out,
what was that, 90-something?  Do you have any numbers
as to the demand of this kind of structure in the
County, what kind of demand we have?
 
MR. NAGAMINE:  Well, our previous experience
with these things has been the most popular request
would be the canoe hales and a lot of the canoe clubs
like to build this type of structure to protect their
canoes, to store the canoes and protect them.  And
they have gotten I would say within the past five
years maybe five, six applications.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I think this must be silly, but
you don't want to see this kind of structure in a
residential area, so you are talking about close to
the beaches and farming areas?
 
MR. NAGAMINE:  No, we're not restricting these.
They could be built in the residential districts.  And
a good example of that might be poolside, you might
have a pool cabana that's built with these type of
structures.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Not at my house.  Yes, Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  There's quite a few of them have
been cropping up, especially in Hana, Molokai.  It's
become kind of a cultural thing.  I think it's good.
And on my property there's an old house site there
where the rock part is still there.  If it becomes
legal, I would love to be able to, you know, put the
hale back.  It's nice to see them driving around.  I
encourage it.  I think it's good.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  I appreciate your work that you
guys have been doing.  I think it's a great project,
and if there's no objections from the committee, we
shall defer this to the next meeting.  Yes,
Mr. Ralph.
 
MR. NAGAMINE:  Before you defer it, do you want
to briefly know what we're going to be requesting of
the Board?  We're going to come back with specific
language for your rules, but would you like an oral
explanation of what we're going to be proposing?
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  No.  You like one?

MR. TAGORDA:  Might as well, Mr. Chairman.
 
MR. STARR:  Why don't we wait until they come
back with the actual stuff.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Mr. Chair, if I can kind of advise
Public Works, if you're changing water rules, that's
one thing.  If you're changing the standards based on
this new design, subdivision standards, could you also
check if you need to go before the subdivision
engineering committee, subdivision engineering
committee that's supposed to review all changes to
subdivisions, specifications of your department as
well as Water Supply, just to check, Ralph?
 
MR. NAGAMINE:  Okay.

MR. CRADDICK:  You're not talking about
subdivisions of these things, you're just talking
about accessory structure to the main dwelling or
maybe the only structure on the property?
 
MR. NAGAMINE:  This will apply more to the
building process as opposed to the subdivision
process.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Okay, thanks.  So ordered.
Committee 02-06, request from Terry McBarnet to be
grandfathered in at the old water use development fee
rate, TMK 2-3-14:72.  Mr. McBarnet, how are you?
 
MR. McBARNET:  Nice to see you, Mr. Nobriga.

CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Talk to us.  Let us know what's
going on.  It's kind of confusing reading all this
material.
 
MR. McBARNET:  Maybe I'm a little bit before my
time on this one.  I heard from Charmaigne Tavares
that there was a movement where the folks on the
waiting list were going to be possibly grandfathered
in at the old meter rate, and I've got to admit I'm
100 percent Scottish, so I started thinking
immediately about money.  And I am not on the waiting
list.  My situation in a nutshell is I have two lots
on Kimo Drive, and I've been trying to get a water
meter since January of 1998.  And rightly so, I
haven't been able to get one because there's no
adequate supply.
 We have an old 4-inch line, and I think if I was
permitted onto that line, it would adversely affect
the neighbors, so rightly so, I haven't been able to
get onto the line.  But technically, my position is I
have permission or I have tentative approval to get a
water meter, but I can't get one because of inadequate
supply, therefore, I don't need to be on the waiting
list.  Does that make sense to everybody?
 A lot of people don't understand that, and I've
come to understand that, so I tried a lot of different
angles.  I tried to test the lines and do all sorts of
things, but everything I tried to do represents a lot
more money than I was willing to put out and with no
guarantee if the numbers came up in a certain way that
I would be approved of a water meter.  Because, and
again, understandably, everything takes a bit of
time.  And if at the time I'm completed with the task
that was given me, only at that time could I be given
permission for a water meter, right?
 Like, for example, not to make this too
complicated, but the closest adequate supply is just
over 900 feet away.  If I was to bring down a 6 or an
8-inch pipe to where I am, it would cost somewhere
around $100,000.  And I can do that, but before I do
that, I cannot be assured that I would have a water
meter.  I can only be assured at the time the job is
complete that I could or could not have a water
meter.  And so it did not seem like -- one, I didn't
have the money; and, two, it seemed like far too much
of a risk to put my family at because we already have
a family home, and we're comfortable.  And to put out
$100,000 without knowing that I can have a water meter
is a problem.  To be honest with you, even if I did
know I could have a water meter, that would probably
still be way too much money.  I just couldn't afford
it.
 And so what I'm trying to say is that I was not
put on the waiting list because I could have a water
meter, but I couldn't have the water meter because it
was inadequate supply, but I could change that if I
had $100,000, I could make the supply adequate, okay,
so, therefore, I'm not on the list.
 But what I guess I'm proposing is that if those
folks on the list are grandfathered in at a rate, the
present rate, it seems to me that it's at least worth
considering that folks in my position who have been
trying, but they have a dollar amount in their way,
that for most of us it's just impossible, that my
problem is just as great as the guys on the waiting
list really.
 And so I'm just saying maybe it might be worth
considering folks like me, if the others on the
waiting list get grandfathered in, maybe people like
myself, you know, maybe could be grandfathered in
also.  That's simply all I'm asking is just to
consider that.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Thank you.  Any questions,
Members, for Mr. McBarnet?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Can I ask --
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Tagorda.

MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. McBarnet.
 
MR. McBARNET:  Yes, sir.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Did you find out from the
Department staff why is it that they said you'll get a
meter and you don't have to go to the waiting list?
 
MR. McBARNET:  Yes.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  And what was the answer you got?

MR. McBARNET:  Okay, the answer, as I understand
it, and I believe this is correct, David, please
correct me if I'm wrong, but is that I have the right
to have a meter if there was adequate supply available
adjacent to my lot, but the supply is not adequate.
It's an old 4-inch pipe.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Okay.  The next question I have is
it seems to me --
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Orlando.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Let me finish my question.  Now
you mentioned about kind of willing to make the
improvement and spend $100,000.  When you go back to
staff, they said maybe you'll get your meter?
 
MR. McBARNET:  Yeah.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Did you find out why?
 
MR. McBARNET:  Yeah, it's because the rules
could change.  Like, for example, if I put the
investment in and then there was say a drought, for
example, and the Water Board did a blanket no meter
clause, say no meters because we have a drought, at
that point when I complete the project, you know,
obviously, I couldn't get a meter because nobody is
getting a meter, so I think that's it.  In my mind, I
feel like I would eventually get a meter if I put it
in.  And to be honest with you, if I had the money, I
would probably take the -- because the risk I think is
small.  Because everybody has treated me very fairly,
but I can understand they cannot commit themselves
beforehand.  But it is an uncertainty.  You know, it's
a gamble.  It's a small gamble.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Thank you, Mr. McBarnet.
Mr. Chairman, can I follow-up with one question?
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yeah, I want to hear from
Mr. Craddick and staff also.  You may start it off.
Because things have changed in Kula as we've gone on
with pipe replacement projects.  I don't know if
Mr. McBarnet's situation still remains as costly.  Go
ahead, Mr. Tagorda.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Craddick, because of
Mr. McBarnet's circumstance, you said that he doesn't
have to be on a waiting list, he could have a meter.
What are those circumstances you're trying to explain
to him?

MR. CRADDICK:  It's just an existing lot, that's all.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  What was that?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It's an existing lot.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Because it was subdivided in 1956,
they're supposed to have a meter; is that right?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, if there's an adequate
distribution line adjacent to the property.  That's
why I raised my hand when he was saying supply, but
Orlando wouldn't let me cut in there.  It's not a
supply.  It's a distribution line.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  How far is the distribution line
point of adequacy from Mr. McBarnet's lot?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  He said 900, but the best we can
get is maybe 700 to the hydrant 220, which has an
8-inch line down to it there.  Duponte has brought it
down from up above to the intersection of --
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  220?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Okay, 220.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  So from there down to that little
crosshatch place right where the "D R I" is on Kimo
Drive, that's McBarnet's property.
 
MR. STARR:  It's not in our capital improvement
project for the next few years, is it?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No.  There's many people trying
to subdivide in there, so that's basically why we
haven't done anything because there's too many people
wanting to subdivide there.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  What do you mean by that?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Well, if there's a lot of people
wanting to subdivide, they have to fix the line up.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  You mean the Department is going
to wait on potential developers?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Basically, yeah.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chair.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Tagorda.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Some more questions.  David,
what's that new policy that we have now on easement?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Just the Board themselves was
saying, and I don't know whether the Board ever agreed
with the previous Board member that was on the Board
that said we were a stickler for the rules.  That's
all I can say.  It's up to you guys, if you say you're
not a stickler for the rule, and you want to go back
to the past practice.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  That's why I'm asking what is the
new policy on getting an easement now?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  The new policy is following the
rules, if you will.  This, you know, however, this
thing came from issuing meters, you know, all over
Timbuktu, I don't know, but that's been going on for
many, many, many years even though the rules don't
really allow it.
 I don't know if it was somebody's creative
scheme to keep things going or what it was, but it's
created a mess for us out in the water system, you
know, where you've got meters on one place, and, you
know, the property it serves may be two gulches away.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Any other questions?  Basically,
we're looking at -- you're talking to us about two
proposed rules that are still within the works.  Both
of these rules are going to be going back out for
public hearing, I don't know when, but in the Kula
area.  The rules that you're referring to, Water
System Development Fee Rules Title 16, which talks
about the new fees they want to charge, so we can
hopefully fix up more places.  The second being the
proposed upcountry meter issuance rule, which talks
about grandfathering people on the waiting list.
 With both of these rules, even those people that
are waiting on the list, if they need to make
improvements to the distribution system, they're still
required to get that done before they get their
meters.  In the upcountry meter issuance rule, there's
a sunset provision of January 1st, 2005, if it
passes.
 At this time, until these two rules actually
pass for everybody, I don't think it would be prudent
for us to make any decision because you're asking us
to do something that is not legal here.  I would like
to keep your request alive and see if the Department
and us can maybe and you maybe can find a way to make
it more feasible.
 
MR. McBARNET:  Okay.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Okay.
 
MR. McBARNET:  Yeah, thank you.
 
MR. STARR:  I agree with what the Chair has
said.  I would like to say it probably would be hard
for us to find a way to loophole a single property out
of the new rates, and my advice is that you want to
get a meter at the old rates, one sure way to do it is
to just go ahead and reserve the meter and go and
build the line and do it.  And my guess is you won't
regret it.
 
MR. McBARNET:  But I don't think it's possible
for me to do that.  I tried to do that just recently,
and I simply cannot.  I think what Jonathan, if I
understand you correctly, what you're saying is I
should go ahead and reserve the meter and start
working towards getting a line adequate, and there is
a period of time that I have to do that I believe of
two years or something?
 
MR. STARR:  Well, right now, we're still under
the old rates, and we probably will be for a little
while.  And if you went and did it, that would be a
moot point.  You would have the meter at the old
rates.
 
MR. McBARNET:  But is it possible in my
circumstance to go and apply for a water meter right
now with the assumption that I'll only get it when I
finish the construction?
 
MR. STARR:  No, I believe that it's going to be
the rates that are in effect when you get the meter.
Am I correct?
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  I defer to David to answer that.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We don't take any reservations
upcountry because of the water situation, so we
haven't taken any reservations at all since the water
development fee passed.  I know one group Kulamanu,
not to be confused with Kulamalu, tried to force the
Board to take reservations.  Corp Counsel advised me I
had to take a reservation or had to give them a
reservation.  I wouldn't do it.  It went to the Board
and the Board also decided not to give any
reservations simply because of the shortage of water
upcountry.  And until that is listed, you know, my
feeling is it's not proper to take reservations.  It
says in the water development fee the system must be
adequate before you take reservations.
 
MR. STARR:  I'm confused because I thought that
he wasn't affected by that because he's under the --
 
MR. KUSHI:  It should have been a priority.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Jonathan, all I can say is I know
probably every legal thing that people could bring up,
they can probably -- if they've wanted to force us,
they can probably force us to take the reservation for
the meter.  I'm just saying, and if you want us to do
that, have at it, you know, we'll do it.  But I don't
feel it's appropriate for me to be taking a
reservation when the water development fee says only
if the system is adequate.  And until we decide that
it's adequate for everybody, why are we taking
reservations from anyone?
 
MR. STARR:  I think I've heard all I want to
hear on this.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yeah.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  So you can if you want.  You want
to start taking reservations on an inadequate system,
it's up to you.  You have the ability to waive the rule.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  If there's no objection, we'll
defer this matter until which time either the new
rules are either acted upon or thrown out, and the
Rules Committee will rehear the same application.  If
the rule passes, there is a provision for people like
you that can show reliance to get on the list.
 
MR. McBARNET:  What is reliance?
 
MR. NOBRIGA:  I don't know.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  You have the empty lot there
now.  So if you put the line in, I don't think anybody
would be able --
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  No objections, so ordered.
Anything else?  That's it.  We're adjourned.
 
(The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.)
 

  
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.