BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
REGULAR MEETING

 
Taken at the Kahului Shopping Center, Kaahumanu
Avenue, Kahului, Maui, Hawaii, commencing at 9:00 a.m.
on April 25th, 2002.
 
Reported By:  Rachelle Primeaux, CSR #370
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

ATTENDANCE:
Members Present:
Peter Rice, Chair
Howard Nakamura
Michael Victorino
Clark Hashimoto
Ginny Parsons
Adolph Helm
Jonathan Starr
Kent Hiranaga

Staff Present:
Ed Kushi, Corp Counsel
David Craddick, Director
Fran Nago, Secretary
Herb Kogasaka, Engineering
Mike Quinn, Fiscal
Wendy Taomoto, Engineering
Herb Chang, Engineering

                    *     *    *
 
CHAIR RICE:  I'm going to call to order the
Regular meeting of the Board of Water Supply County of
Maui.  It is Thursday, not Tuesday, April the 25th.
We're here at the Kahului Shopping Center.  It's
9 a.m.  Before I go through the Board Members present,
I want to officially welcome Mike Victorino and Ginny
Parsons to the Board.  This is not their first
meeting.  They've already jumped in with both feet at
committee meetings attending and getting up to speed
as quickly as they can, so welcome.  Thank you for
your enthusiasm.
 Present Mike Victorino, Clark Hashimoto.
Excused, Mike Nobriga.  Jonathan Starr, Adolph Helm,
Kent Hiranaga, Ginny Parsons, Howard Nakamura, Counsel
Ed Kushi and Director David Craddick.  Staff and the
members of the public present will be represented on
the record.
 There are no minutes submitted for approval.  Do
we have testimony from the public at this time?
Tony?  Where do we want him to sit?  Right next to David.
 
MR. DURSO:  Good morning.  Thank you for the
opportunity to testify.  I apologize for missing the
Finance Committee meeting last week, which this topic
was gone over before, but I understand there were some
questions that the Board had for the ranch in terms of
participation on the proposed line that's going in.
And I was just hoping to come down and clarify that
for you folks as well as provide the opportunity to
answer any questions.
 Just very briefly, the ranch has always been
willing to participate on the installation of a line.
It feels most comfortable doing that on its own
property largely because if we start trying to move
tractors on and off and we start trying to provide
labor off property, that opens up a number of
liability issues that we're not very comfortable
with.  But as always, we would be more than happy to
assist in installation on our property.  One thing
that is important for us, we feel it's important to
get out there is that if the issue, and I understand
that there's still some size issues being discussed as
far as six, eight or twelve.  Basically, the ranch
really feels that putting in a six-inch line would be
pretty much useless and doesn't want to go so far as
to say we absolutely will not participate if it's a
six-inch line, but feels very strongly that a six-inch
line is not worthwhile putting in and you really need
to consider an eight or a twelve.
 And if you are considering an eight or
twelve-inch line, then we would be very enthusiastic
participants.  Does that delicately state it?
 
CHAIR RICE:  Does that delicately state it? Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  I know that from some of the
comments that came up during the committee discussion,
there was a feeling that a line that was six, eight
and then a small portion of twelve at the end would
probably provide for existing users and, you know,
maybe a small amount of buildup.  But if we were to go
to a larger size than that, then we're talking about
providing for some very major development out there in
an area where there's really not a community plan that
says that that should happen.  So I know I for one
would feel if we were to go to a larger line, then we
should really go out with studies and we should go and
talk to the Planning Department and get citizens
participation, and that would probably delay the
project a couple of years, whereas, if we were to go
with what we feel would be pretty much unassailable,
which is six, eight, twelve, which would give adequate
fire protection and some amount of service.  And
that's something that we would feel that we wouldn't
have any problem from the community.
 And I would certainly be willing to go right
ahead with it if you guys would do the site work, dig
the ditch and so on.  So would you rather see us go
ahead expediently with, you know, with that, or would
you rather see us go through a process of studies and
community involvement and all that for a larger line?
It may take several years.  It may or may not happen.
 
MR. DURSO:  Certainly avoid the latter.  A delay
of multiple years is something we would hope to
avoid.  The ranch, because again, I apologize for
missing that meeting in which this sort of variable
line was discussed, we haven't really taken a look at
the significance of what that would mean.  The main
thing that we're looking at is that it's our
understanding that just to do a six-inch would only
raise sort of the current system to adequacy barely
for the current users, so that something larger has to
be on the table in which case certainly a twelve-inch
line probably would provide greater services that are
needed.  I'm not so sure about the implication there
about massive amounts of development.  I don't think
that's on the table anywhere, certainly not as far as
the ranch is concerned.
 And I do understand that putting in a larger
line does require some other types of studies, whether
that's in the EIS or not.  The main thing I just want
to stress is that larger than six seems imperative
because it wouldn't account for any future use as far
as areas that were served that are no longer being
served that could be served, and that's really where
we're coming from.  I don't know if that specifically
answers your question.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Clark.

MR. HASHIMOTO:  So, Tony, how much of that --
there's five miles of pipeline.  How many miles of
that is ranch land?
 
MR. DURSO:  I do not know.  I would defer to
David on that because I think he would probably be the
best one to answer the question.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Do you know where the property is?
 
MR. DURSO:  Vaguely speaking.  Actually, I
looked at this before.  I've got to orient this
correctly first.  We would take up from about here, right.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Right about here.  This is Kamole
tank.  This is Kanaio.  These are the three laterals.
 
MR. DURSO:  I'm pretty sure we pick up right to
the right of the Paeahu lateral.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  So that is about 5,000 feet that
it's not covered, I guess the majority, vast majority,
so about 45,000 feet that's not covered.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  Is the other -- the other 5,000
feet, is that one property owner?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Pretty much.  Haleakala Ranch.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Howard.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  Just to clarify again, so your
participation, specifically you're talking about the
trenching and backfilling, is that basically it?
 
MR. DURSO:  Correct.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  Would you also be looking at any
financial participation, or are you looking at
basically in kind?
 
MR. DURSO:  In kind services pretty much
exclusively.  That's really all we can afford.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  Yeah, I believe the spec usually
calls -- there's entrenchment excavation.  Then
usually you have to put in a base of crushed rock, and
I don't know what else we're using now.  And then the
backfill has to be specific material.  I would ask
David to help me with this, but I'm wondering if you
would provide that rock and material or just the
actual digging.
 
MR. DURSO:  I need to be careful to not speak
out of turn.  Certainly my authorization is a bit
lower than the Erdman family, but it would be my guess
that if we had the materials on the ranch such as
various types of cinder, whether small or larger
grade, that we could provide it, we would do so.  We
would, of course, need assistance with the actual
excavation of the cinder and the trucking though.
That would be something we couldn't do because we
don't have that type of equipment.
 
CHAIR RICE:  I think the bottom line is they're
willing to work with us.  Any other questions for
Tony, Board Members?  Thank you, Tony.
 
MR. DURSO:  Thank you, Peter.  Thank you, Board.
 
CHAIR RICE:  We will be talking about that I
think under the Finance Committee.  Is there any other
public testimony?  Carl?
 
MR. FRIEDMAN:  Hello, my name is Carl Friedman.
I'm one of your consultants.  Actually, I'm one of
several consultants who is working on the long-range
water use development plans for the Department.  And I
have a couple of comments about the central source
availability issues that were brought up several days
ago here, and I suppose I could have made the comments
then.  But I have two comments.  One was just to bring
to your attention, if you're not already aware, that
the County Council is now considering working on an
allocation plan for water for the central Maui area.
 And my understanding is that this has to do with
ordinance 2.90, which has the title Water Use and
Regulation.  And the Council has an existing ordinance
which allows or requires them to allocate water when
resources reach 70 percent of sustainable yield in an
area.  And I read the ordinance.  There's some
ambiguities with it, but I guess the news I want to
bring, if it's really news to you, is the Council does
intend to bring this up after they finish their budget
matters, and that I've been told means June.
 So I know at the meeting, the committee meeting,
the issue was brought up do we want to decide anything
about this.  I think it was decided to look into it
further.  And the concern was, well, you know, we're
not ready yet to say anything, but I do think it
behooves the Department and the Board to be diligent
about pursuing this, so when the questions start
coming from the Council, you have your act together so
to speak and you can give some clearances about
availability.
 I think that as the public perception of any
water shortage in the central area that might result
in limitations on development, you know, just the mere
public perception of that is going to focus an awful
lot of pressure on you folks.  And so I commend you on
your efforts there and would encourage you to be
diligent about it.  I know Kent was saying, you know,
it's good to really know a lot and look at this
carefully before you say anything, but I think the
luxury of that may be short-lived.
 The second thing I wanted to say was that I know
most of the discussion at the last meeting was about
the capacity of the Iao aquifer, and I think in a --
if you're really going to talk about availability,
especially if you have a lot of time to talk about
availability, and certainly in the context of the
water use development plan, that's not the only
issue.  There are many other alternatives.  You need
to have good ideas about what the needs are going to
be for various consumer/customer classes.  There are
other types of alternatives.  There are tertiary
treatment supplies that could be done with
acceleration of the Department of Public Works
treatment of nonpotable water.  There are conservation
options and there's a realm of other options that can
be part of a long-term availability discussion, and I
don't know if there's time for that.
 But you need to be aware that the Department and
in the context of the water use development plan are
working on that kind of thing, but so far, we've been
working in the luxury of doing things carefully and
haven't had to come up with any answers before their
time.  And I certainly am willing to help with any
answers like that that might want to be generated
before their time to the extent that they can.
 So I think a good objective for the Board and
the Department would be able to have some clear
answers well thought out and easy to understand that
don't sound mushy when the Council starts asking
questions in a month or two.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Thank you, Carl.  Any questions of
Carl?  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  I'm glad to hear those comments, and
I haven't really seen the ordinance that the Council
is following.  I've heard about it, but I haven't
really studied it.  And I would be curious if you have
a little more information on that.  And the other
comment was we may be at kind of a log jam situation
now, but I think one of our -- one of our problems is
not ever having, as long as I've been on the Board, a
target that we were looking to meet in terms of how
much water we were going to need to develop next year
and how much we are going to develop in the next five
years and ten years and so on out of which may be
conservation and treatment to take a part of it, but
we've never had that target.  And that would be
something that I know as a Board Member I would love
to have as a tool is a piece of paper that shows us
what we're going to need year by year, and then we can
try to make our water development plans match our
needs rather than just trying to move forward with
water development as fast as we can without spending
too much money but not really knowing, you know, when
or how much.
 So, you know, I'm hoping you can help us with
that as part of our water planning to actually set a
target to aim for and then we can try to get the
sources to meet it.

MR. FRIEDMAN:  Well, regarding 290, the
ordinance 290, what I understand is that there, first
of all, is -- they're considering changing the wording
of 290, so there's a draft being put together to amend
290 that would require notification by the Department
whenever there's 60 percent or 70 percent thresholds
and would also address the issues of the
non-Department of Water Supply source pumping, the
issue that you brought up several times and
authorizing or requiring the County and the Department
to go out and find out about those.
 So I think first they're talking about amending
290, but I know that the impetus behind this comes
from the fact that the Council now is faced with some
issues.  They have some large projects before them.
Wailea 670, Makena, Maui Lani, all of these have large
water consumptions associated with them, and they're
hearing testimony from the public that water is
constrained.
 And this generates some questions, and I think
that the ordinance 290, it's already on the books.  I
downloaded it from the website, so it's pretty
accessible.  It exists, but I don't think it's ever
been -- there's no attention been paid to it, and so I
don't know any more than that really.
 
MS. PARSONS:  I have a question.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Thank you, Carl.  Ginny.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Carl, are you saying the Council
is trying to control development through the Water
Board by using this statute?
 
MR. FRIEDMAN:  Well, not quite so.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Because is that legal?
 
MR. FRIEDMAN:  Not quite in that many words.  I
think that -- well, we'll see.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Well, I mean that's a possibility?
 
MR. FRIEDMAN:  My understanding is the Council
will be taking up 290 and the implementation of 290.
What 290 says is that if more than 70 percent of the
water capacity of an area.  It doesn't say aquifer,
but it does use the words sustainable yield.  So the
wording is a little iffy, but it seems that trigger
may open that.  Then the Council will allocate water
by the land uses identified in the community plans,
and it doesn't say too much about how they will do
that, but it does say that they will do that.
 And the intent seems to be that if there's a
constraint on water, the Council will take it into
their hands to decide allocations until the supply of
water goes above the trigger.  Now, I don't really
have any direct line to the Council's intent except to
know that these things are under consideration.  I do
think -- I understand it will be in Mike Molina's
committee, so you could inquire with his office.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Mike Molina's committee?
 
MR. FRIEDMAN:  Yeah, the Public Works.

MS. PARSONS:  And is it special interest that's
pushing this to the Council?
 
MR. FRIEDMAN:  I doubt it, but I don't know.  I
have no knowledge of that.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Is it legal to control development
through the Water Board, Mr. Kushi, the Water
Department?
 
MR. KUSHI:  Just a general comment.  The Council
as well as the Planning Commission do not issue water
meters.  This Department does.  However, this
Department and this Board is bound by the general plan
and community plans and any ordinance that would cover
community.
 So in that case, if the other bodies want to
control water, they can do it through different
manners.  But they're not the ones issuing meters.
They're not the ones digging the wells.  They're not
the ones searching for water resources.  It's an
age-old discussion.  I'm not going to get into it with
you or anybody else at this time.  But that's where
the cookie lies right now, and if these Charter
provisions go through, it will really hit the fan.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Thank you, Carl.  Any other
questions from Carl?  Okay.  Any other public
testimony at this time?  Okay.  Seeing and hearing
none, we're going to move on to the agenda.
Director's Report, Director's Report 02-12.
Mr. Craddick.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  The necessity for this I think
has been resolved.  We're getting a construction right
of entry because of the delay in getting the easement,
and when the easement documents are prepared, they're
willing to get the easement done, so there's no
necessity to take action.
 
CHAIR RICE:  So it's basically withdrawn?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Director's Report 02-13, request
for authorization for write-off of uncollected
accounts.  There's a report on Page 11 I believe.  Mr.
Craddick.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Okay.  This happens yearly.
There's some funds that we're not able to collect.
This particular request is for $9,891.  It represents
.035 percent of the billings of $27,800,000.  And
even though these accounts are written off, we still
turn them over to a collection agency that will try
and collect.
 Out of this amount here, I guess $1,700
represents people who declared bankruptcy, so we may
never be able to collect that.  It just goes into some
things there that, you know, we're doing it to get the
amount down.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Nakamura.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  I think, Mr. Chairman, this is a
fairly standard process that we go through each year
and the Department, as the Director has indicated,
continues to try to collect whatever is possible, and
so I would move for approval of the request.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.
 
CHAIR RICE:  It's been moved and seconded to
approve the request for the writeoff of uncollected
accounts at $9,891.14.  Is there any discussion?
Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  I would just like to commended
Mr. Quinn and his staff for the record in keeping
those numbers so low as it is.
 
CHAIR RICE:  I would agree with that.  As long
as I've been on the Board, the numbers seem to get
smaller every year.  Any other comments?  All in favor
of the motion, say "aye."
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Opposed, say "no."
(No response).
 
CHAIR RICE:  Motion is carried.  Director's
Report 02-14.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  This item here, I don't know if
you want to wait until you get the report from the
Finance Committee, but basically, we've bid the job
out.  And the funding for this project was a million
dollars of which we have used about I believe $67,000
for the design of the project.  And then the bid came
in at $1.114 million.  We have negotiated with the
contractor to get the price down to $1,002,000 -- or
no, $1,016,000 -- okay, actually, it's slightly less
than a million dollars, $966,000.
 Anyways, what we're asking for, if the Board
could see their way clear to appropriate another
$100,000, which would cover the design work and any
additional work that we felt we would have to do on
this project to get it finished.  So basically that
would be a request today as to appropriate another
$100,000 for this job, do a budget amendment to do
that.
 
CHAIR RICE:  So you're amending the written request, no?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.
 
CHAIR RICE:  It says $181,000.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  The recommendation on Page 16 is
we are requesting approval of $100,000.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  Under the request it says, "The
Department would like to request additional funding
for construction in the amount $181,785."
 What does that number mean, Page 15 under request?

MR. CRADDICK:  Well, that was if we were able to
talk the contractor down, but in light of us being
able to negotiate, we didn't know whether the
contractor would come down.
 
MR. STARR:  So is this an error?
 
MS. TAOMOTO:  Yeah, that's an error.
 
MR. STARR:  That's an error?
 
MS. TAOMOTO:  That's an error.
 
MR. STARR:  Okay, thank you.  My second question
is why are you adding a contingency of $50,000 to a
construction contract?  I thought a contingency is
when there's a problem that's unforeseen and the
contractor would come to you, but here you're giving
him an extra $50,000.  I don't quite understand this
process.  It's unusual.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We're not giving them an extra
$50,000.  That is something that I believe the last
time, as you recall, we were drilling the well down
and they had to make the hole deeper.  And that's what
that type of contingency is for because we cannot come
to the Board and run the risk of paying a $3,000 daily
delay of job charges while the Board decides to
appropriate a few thousand dollars of money.
 
MR. STARR:  I wouldn't have a problem voting for
appropriation, holding it back, but what I do have a
problem with is when you say $50,000, which will be
added to the construction project, construction
contract.  Is that also an error?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, that's the way it is, and
it's encumbered like that, but it doesn't mean it's
necessarily spent at the end of the job.  It's just if
there's a change order in there, then that's how we
cover it.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Maybe we need to clarify this.
You're requesting the appropriation of this amount
that includes the $50,000.  The $50,000 is not part of
the construction contract?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It would be, yes.  It would be,
but it's not necessarily paid out to the contractor
unless they do whatever extra work is necessary to get
it.
 
CHAIR RICE:  I think Mr. Starr is raising a
pretty good point.  I mean I don't have a problem with
the appropriation of the money to provide for a
contingency as you explain, but I don't know that the
contractor has to necessarily have the money in the
contract if we've appropriated it, unless you're --
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Here is what will happen is we'll
sign the contract, and then June 30th, all the money
will lapse if it's not encumbered under the contract.
So, in other words, your action today will mean.
 
CHAIR RICE:  So this has nothing to do with the
contractor.  It has to do with the money being lapsed
on June 30th.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  If it's not encumbered under the
contract, it will lapse, that's right.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Could we write the contract in such
a way that the money is subject to some different
approval?  That I think might satisfy the Board.  So
the contractor doesn't think it's an additional
$50,000 he's got to spend.  I think that's the point.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  There's no problem.  That's the
way the contract will be written.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  Let me make a suggestion.  I really
don't like to have $50,000 as a contingency written
into the contract.  That's like having a ripe fruit
hanging out there.  And the contractor is going to be
wracking his brain on how to find a way to pluck that
fruit.  So perhaps what we can do is let's take it
out.  Let's approve a $50,000 increase and we're going
to have a new budget coming in July 1st, and the money
contingency is not going to be needed until then.
Let's just put it in next year's, and after July 1st,
it will be available if needed, and then it can be
spent.  But I don't like to have -- I don't like
change orders.  I don't like contingencies unless
there is a real contingency.
 
MS. TAOMOTO:  The only reason we're requesting
the $50,000 is part of the negotiations was a reduced
scope of work, and what we did was we reduced the
grouting of the annular space from 1,176 to 500, and
that was a reduction of $31,900 plus another $6,000
because of the method they're going to use.  If you
don't approve the $50,000, then I will revise this
recommendation to add that back into his contract.
 Because we don't have time during construction
to come back to the Board when they're grouting the
annular space.  If they are at 500 and the
hydrogeologist says, "We need to go down to 1,776,"
we don't have time, like David said, because we're
going to be paying the contractor.  We're going to be
paying the contractor for delay of time, so I would
want to add that back in.  The only reason the
contractor agreed to delete that was to help us bring
the cost down below $1 million, but that is a very
important thing we might need during construction,
which we don't have time to wait for, maybe not even a
day or two.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Ginny.
 
MS. PARSONS:  I think we need some contingency
in there only because when you've got a contractor
that you've employed, you're paying for him, if you're
not using him, and if they've got to come back to an
emergency meeting with the Board to get approval,
you're paying that time for him and maybe he's not
doing any work because he doesn't have it there, so
funds that we weren't expecting additionally.  Just I
mean do you need $50,000?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  This is 5 percent of the job.
That's very, very minimal.
 
MS. PARSONS:  That's very normal.  Usually it's 10.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  This can be used up in a blink of
an eye on drilling.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Usually it's 10 in construction.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That 500 feet of grout, the
reason we picked that, that's the minimum the State
will allow.  If they encounter water as they're
drilling down and that has to be sealed off, that
depth is going to have to go down.
 
MS. PARSONS:  I agree with Mr. Starr and
Chairman Rice that we really need a clause that
clarifies exactly.  Because, you know, you can run
into problems.  You know you're going to run into
problems.  There's going to be something.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That is the way the contract is
written.  It's not a gratis thing by any stretch of
the imagination.
 
MR. STARR:  Can I suggest we approve it but the
contract before it gets awarded, Mr. Rice and
Mr. Nakamura examine it and make sure it's written in
such a way to their satisfaction?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That's fine.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Fine.  Kent.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  I guess the Board contingency
normally is applied in a budgeting process because
you're unsure what the proposals will come in, and I
think it's improperly labeled as contingency.  It
should be, in my opinion, written back into the
contract, and if you need to do a time and material
type of control over that discretionary expenditure, I
think the $50,000 is mislabeled as a contingency.  If
you know you might have to do it, it should be written
into the contract.  It shouldn't be a contingency.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We don't know at this point
whether they have to do it.  We're hoping they don't
have to do it, but if they do -- the last time, the
equipment they had is smaller than the equipment this
time.  I believe last time they wanted, what was it,
$3,000 a day standby charges while the Board decided
whether to approve I think it was a $35,000 change
order last time.  That even though the Board approved
35, I think we only ended up spending 20 of that, but,
you know, whatever you want to call it there.  It's
not a gratis giveaway to the contractor.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Hiranaga.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  I'm not -- what I'm saying is I
believe the money should be put back into the original
bid if you feel there is a probability that the money
is needed.  But it can be classified and controlled
differently than being called a contingency because
what you're trying to do is saying the proposal is
coming in below budget, but it's not -- it could come
in below budget, but currently the proposal as
received is above budget.  I feel that classifying it
as a contingency is not the proper word.
 
MS. TAOMOTO:  So what you're saying is add back
in the $31,900 and the $6,000 into the construction
contract rather than request a contingency?
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Is this a fixed fee?
 
MS. TAOMOTO:  It's a fixed fee based on linear
foot.  It's a fixed fee on the proposal that he
submitted, but we pay it based on the linear foot of
actual installation.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  So if he doesn't -- so the cost
is dependent upon the depth of the drilling?
 
MR. STARR:  I think the labeling as a
contingency is a problem.  I think it should be
labeled as an option, as an optional extra, and then
it would be a lot clearer.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  If you incorporate it back into
the contract, as part of the contract, it will be
essentially be based upon the actual depth of the
drilling, so rather than call it a contingency, put it
back in the contract.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Victorino.
 
MR. VICTORINO:  I think we're going into
semantics right now.  Let me ask you two quick
questions.  Number one, we don't know if we have to do
it and it will be determined by whom if we have to do
this or not?
 
MS. TAOMOTO:  The hydrogeologist.
 
MR. VICTORINO:  The hydrogeologist.  Is the
determination based on State statutes or based --
 
MS. TAOMOTO:  His experience.
 
MR. VICTORINO:  His experience.  So if that's
the case, why don't we just say this is something that
will not be determined until he reaches that point, so
instead of contingency, why don't we use the word a
regulatory or statutory determination as far as the
wording is concerned.  But to continue going back and
forth, it's not only if we need to do it or not.
That's the bottom line.
 Jonathan, I agree that you don't want to have it
there sitting there like a ripe apple.  Somebody grabs
it and has a meal out of it.  On the other side, we
don't want to have to wait and have to come back and
spend $3,000 a day.  But the bottom line is we change
the word and the $50,000 stays there for the
necessitation if we get to that point that he can
continue without delaying the job.  Is that what we're
trying to do right now?  So change the word, but the
$50,000 got to stay there someplace.
 
MR. STARR:  I have a motion to make.  I would
like to move that the sum of $99,385 be approved
subject to a determination of where the funds should
come from and that the $50,000 be labeled as an
optional extra.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  I second the motion.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Okay.  Motion on the table to
approve the $99,385 subject to an appropriate
allocation of the funds and the wording of the now
called contingency monies.
 
MS. TAOMOTO:  I'm going to send the contract up
to corporation counsel, and I'm going to leave it up
to them with an explanation of what your intent is for
them to write the language.  But I know that normally
we call it contingency, but I will let them leave it
up to --
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, they've already said how they want it.
 
MS. TAOMOTO:  I don't get the language that you guys want.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We'll get it straight.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Nakamura.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  I think it's a fairly simple and
standard procedure what we're -- you know, a true
contingency is for unanticipated occurrences, and this
is a specific occurrence for dealing with a specific
issue.  And it's going to be paid for if it's
determined, as Mr. Victorino has stated, by the
hydrogeologist.  There's a maximum on it.  The
contract can state there's a maximum.  You know, that
I think would certify the amount of the contract plus
the $50,000, and the contract would say that the
$50,000 is to be expended as called for by the
hydrogeologist and the Department on a per square foot
or whatever it is basis.  You know, I don't think it's
that difficult to put into the contract.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, it's not.
 
CHAIR RICE:  You agree with that, Mr. Craddick? Kent.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  I think Mr. Nakamura brought up a
very good point.  The word contingency gives that a
blanket application versus something that is for a
specific purpose, and this cannot be used for any
other purpose should they determine there is a delay.
 
CHAIR RICE:  I think that's the message. Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  And I would just like to be clear I
know it's the intent, my intent, and I'm sure it's the
intent of most of the other Board Members, if not all,
is we want to proceed with this as expeditiously as
possible, so we don't want to get into any delay
caused by -- that gets blamed on the Board here.  We
want to go as fast as we can, and if there's any snag
as it goes along, you know, we'll find a way to
appropriate funds if needed for any real
contingencies.
 You know, we don't need to wait for the monthly
Board cycle.  I'm sure the Chair will find a way to
deal with it if there is a real contingency, so please
get the thing done as fast as possible.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mike.
 
MR. QUINN:  Mr. Chairman, I need to clarify the
source of funding should come from the water system
development fund since this is source.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Any other comments, questions?  All
in favor of the motion, say "aye."
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Opposed, say "nay."

(No response).
 
CHAIR RICE:  Motion is carried.  Director's
Report 02-15.  Mr. Craddick.  Lahaina water treatment
facility.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  This item has been bid out.  The
bid, low bid came in more than a half million dollars
over the amount budgeted.  And what we did was we
talked with the contractor and looked at, you know,
what we really needed, and there's two parts of this.
A roof to prevent algae growth and in addition to our
sludge lagoon.  And it's the portion of the sludge
lagoons, and it's about 80 percent over the estimate.
The building over the sedimentation basin to prevent
the algae growth was also over bid, over estimate by
about 25 percent, but the bidder is a well-known
qualified metal building contractor.
 And if that is the price, that is the thing that
we need critically right now.  We do have a NPDS
permit to do what we're doing.  It's just that it
requires our guys to do something with the drainage
line.  And if we don't do that, water can get into the
stream and subject us to fairly substantial fines.
But we do have a permit right now, so that portion of
the project we can defer until maybe we do other
things to the treatment plant.  And maybe the problem,
the algae growth, we can solve by just negotiating the
contract down to 355 is it, Herb?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  Yeah.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  So the Board said they wanted to
be informed a little bit more about what we're doing
and basically held up the contract until the Board was
informed of this, what we were doing.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  How many square feet is this?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It covers the three sedimentation
basins up above the treatment plant.  I don't know the
exact square footage.
 
MR. STARR:  Approximately how large is that area?

MR. CRADDICK:  I would guess a little over a
quarter of an acre.
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  The area under the roof?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, 8,500.
 
MR. STARR:  So that's about 40 bucks, 45 bucks a
square foot.  That's reasonable.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Ginny.
 
MS. PARSONS:  What's the warranty on it?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Larry, the warranty on it?

MR. WINTER:  The warranty.
 
MS. NAGO:  Larry, you want to go up there, please.
 
MR. WINTER:  The warranty on the metal building?
 
MS. PARSONS:  Uh-huh.
 
MR. WINTER:  There's a one-year contractor's
warranty on the structure.  The surface of the
aluminum panels has a 20-year warranty.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Product warranty?
 
MS. PARSONS:  Can we get him to up his
workmanship to maybe three to five years, at least
three years warranty on his workmanship as a
negotiation point?
 
MR. WINTER:  I can't answer that.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Anytime you can get that, I mean
that's a plus.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  One year is pretty standard for
all of our contracts.  It's a standard.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Standard, but to get contracts, a
lot of times, they'll warranty their labor.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We can do that.  They may charge
more for it, but I'm sure they would do that.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Okay.  What's your pleasure? Kent.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  I have a concern about the second
to the last paragraph in the Director's letter.  It
says, "Although the roof structure exceeded the
engineers's cost by 25 percent, it was considered
acceptable since the price was within the available
funding."  The available funding was for the sludge
lagoons and the roof, right?
 
CHAIR RICE:  What was that?
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  The available funding was for the
sludge lagoons and the roof?  Their justification is
we have the money, we're just doing half of the work.

MR. STARR:  I didn't like that either.  I do
think we should get it done though.
 
CHAIR RICE:  So in terms of, Mr. Craddick,
that's a pretty good point actually Kent is raising.
There was only one bidder on the roof portion?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, there were two bidders.
 
CHAIR RICE:  There were two bidders?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.  The next bidder was about
$100,000 more than Arisumi, but what it was you had no
people with experience on structural concrete, which
is what the sludge lagoons are, mainly structural
concrete, where both of these contractors were going
to sub that out.
 That is the major portion of the work, so that
means he didn't have the expertise to do it himself.
And we believe if we got contractors in there that had
that expertise, the price would come way down.
 
CHAIR RICE:  I guess more of our comments, I
believe we have to do it, but more of our comments
have to do with the actual cost that's coming in
through the bids is so much higher than the
estimates.  Does that mean our estimate was not good?
I mean if we hire architects to do the work and
provide us with estimates, I know my experience, they
usually estimate high because they don't want to get
in this position.
 But, you know, our estimates were way under and
then you use that for your request for funding.  Is
that -- it's just is that the situation, the estimate
was just bogus or what?

MR. CRADDICK:  The only thing I can say is for
most of the '90s, the estimates were anywhere from 20
to 30 percent over.  I think it's just a reflection of
everybody is busy, nothing more.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Larry.
 
MR. WINTER:  I think there's also another factor
in there, that the conditions of the work, the roof
has to be constructed while the existing reservoir is
in service throughout the construction, so the
conditions are somewhat more difficult than normal
building projects.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  You're not building over a slab,
in other words.  You're building over a pool of
water.
 
CHAIR RICE:  You can't get let a bunch of
rubbish fall into it.  Mr. Nakamura.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  I also would -- I feel that this
project should be supported in terms of building the
roof, but my concern is that the scope is so different
from the original bid.  And I'm wondering if you were
to put out a request for bids for just a roof to
construct the roof whether or not the bidding would be
much different, whether you would have other
contractors bidding on the project or if it were just
the roof.
 And, you know, I don't know, you know, because
the scope is -- you know, we're awarding for 20
percent of the, you know, the scope, it seems like,
you know, roughly the low bid, and again, you know,
I'm just not sure whether or not somebody else would
bid if it just were the roof.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, I don't know either.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Kent.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  A question on the bids.  So the
bid broke out the cost of the new roof versus the
sludge lagoons?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  And there was comment about the
overrun being the result of using subcontractors, so
Arisumi Brothers --
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That's just an estimate of what
it is.  We don't really know.  We can't really say
that's it.  That's just our estimate of what it was.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  So in the Arisumi bid, did they
identify the actual if they would be doing the work or
if they have a subcontractor?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, they do have to list their
subs, so that's why we know all that work is subbed out.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  So is the roofing subbed out also?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, that's their business.  I
would say they're knowledgeable in that business.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  I guess I just wanted to echo
Mr. Nakamura's concern, since the scope has been
reduced, could we get more bids?
 
CHAIR RICE:  Ginny.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Yeah, and usually when you have a
general and he hires a sub, he usually makes a
percentage on a sub.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Jonathan.
 
MR. STARR:  Well, you know, I do second that
that's what Arisumi does well is, you know, is metal
buildings.  And 40 bucks or 42 bucks that it comes out
to is not a crazy number.  I know that, you know, kind
of a low ball number on that sort of thing would be
probably 30 bucks.  And this is, you know, it's a
project over these lagoons and they have to work in
that place and it's big rains and so on and so forth.
Maybe if someone is really hungry, we might get a
lower price, but I don't really think that's out of line.
 
CHAIR RICE:  I think the other question we have
to consider is what risk do we run by delaying the
project, and I'm not saying there is or isn't one.
I'm just asking the question.
 
MR. STARR:  I know there's possible EPA exposure from the algae.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  What it is it just makes it hard
in the treatment process because the algae keeps
gumming up the filters.  It doesn't go through and,
you know, it's something we can deal with, but it
makes it difficult to deal with.  And if we can
prevent it from growing in the first place, then we
don't have to deal with it.
 
CHAIR RICE:  What's your pleasure?
 
MR. STARR:  I'm willing to move to proceed with
this, you know, if it's the pleasure of the other
Board Members.
 
MR. VICTORINO:  Move to approve.
 
MS. PARSONS:  I second that.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Moved to approve by Mr. Victorino,
seconded by Ginny.  Discussion?  All in favor, say "aye."
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Opposed, say "nay."
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Nay.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Let the record Mr. Hiranaga voted
nay.  Motion carries.
 Director's Report 02-16, Request for additional
funds and change in scope of work for the Hamoa well
project.  Mr. Craddick.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, this project, the Board
back when we wanted to start doing the wells, there
was some option of talking with Hana Ranch integrating
with two systems.  And after the Board brought that
up, we started looking a little bit closer about what
we could do to integrate our own system.  And so what
Herb did was renegotiate with the engineer that was
doing this and came up with an additional amount that
would be necessary to convert the project over to this
and doing a pipeline between the two to join the two
of them.  And that's what we're asking for is to allow
us to do that.
 
CHAIR RICE:  But your request is for design
funding; is that correct?
 

MR. CRADDICK:  That and combining with what
already hasn't been spent on the original well project
to design the pipeline.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Yes, Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  Yeah, Mr. Chair, the Operations
Committee took a site inspection, a rather thorough
site inspection out there about a month ago, and I
would like to clarify to the fellow Board Members what
we're talking about.  I know it's confusing.
 Excuse me, Terry.  We have two wells, and I hope
staff will correct me if I'm wrong, but we have one up
here above the Hana Airport.  There are actually two
wells there.  One of them is salted up, and the other
one has a tank and that feeds this area except for
where the ranch has their system, and then we have
another well at Hamoa.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Page 70 is the picture, the drawing.
 
MR. STARR:  Which is over here.  That's a little
hard to -- and then this meets the Hamoa area, and
there's no connection between the two.  And there's
only the two wells, but either of those two wells, to
my understanding, could actually feed the whole
system, and so we don't -- I don't believe we need a
new well as much as we need to connect the two, so
that if one goes down, then the other one can take up
the slack and then maybe eventually add another well
at Hamoa, which seems to be a better well site than
the one by the airport, Wakiu, where the first well
already soaked it up.  Is that a pretty good
explanation of where we're at?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yes.  And on Page 70, you can see
more detail.  In the far left-hand side of the page,
you're missing a little portion of that where it
connects to the existing line, but basically, that's
the line that we would be looking at doing additional
wells to back up each one of those sites.
 
MR. STARR:  Just one other comment.  I know on
the site inspection, the Hamoa well, when we went up
there and looked at how much water was actually
pumping per hour, it -- the well had not been -- the
pump had not been out of the well for many years.  And
it looks like that well is not moving all that much
water, which means that it, you know, there's a good
chance that there may be a failure.
 We may be approaching a failure point with that,
and if we do that, then half of Hana will be out of
water with no real options, so it might be good for us
to --
 
CHAIR RICE:  This is a fairly important project
for us to undertake.  Mr. Nakamura.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  I just also wanted to mention
that on a related matter when the Board considered the
request for funding of the Haneoo water line
improvements, which was nearly a million dollars or in
excess of a million dollars, this project was
discussed and, you know, the feeling of the Board was
this was a priority project especially as compared to
the water line improvement project, so I think that
the direction is a desirable direction.
 
CHAIR RICE:  You want to say something, Herb?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  I just wanted to clarify that we
previously have a contract with a consultant to do a
second well at Hamoa and a second well at Wakiu.
Under these preliminary studies, we concluded that the
Hamoa well, the second Hamoa well would provide backup
for both sites if the sites can be connected.
 The Wakiu site is not a very good site according
to the hydrogeologist study, so they were
investigating three or four other areas in the
vicinity, made a preliminary estimation for the cost.
And it appears that the pipeline connecting this would
provide the backup as needed for both sides here
integrating the two wells together with an additional
well for backup, and that was the intent of the
project to provide backup for the Hana system.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Okay.  It sounds like we're in
favor of this.  Do we have a motion?  Kent.

MR. HIRANAGA:  I just have a question.  Where is
the contract for Takumi Engineering, that was put out
to bid for the consulting?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  Yeah.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Looking at the original fee
proposal does not total -- his total fee was about
$100,000, the original work contract?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  $169,000.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  $169,000?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  $169,652.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  So basically because of the
change in scope of work, he's asking for 20 percent,
20 percent increase over the original bid?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  I'm sorry?
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Because of the change in scope of
work, he's requesting 20 percent increase in his
original bid?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That's correct.  But keep in mind
this involves a lot of surveying and stuff that wasn't
involved in the original doing the wells.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  No concern specifically to this
particular project, but at what point do you consider
this to be a major change to go back out to bid?  I
don't know the answer to that question.
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  I don't have a problem doing it
that way if the Board so desires.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Just a question that I pose.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  It seems to me the change in scope
of work for which we're being charged $33,000 is the
elimination of one well.  To my mind that means the
fee should go down.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, there's a lot of surveying
work that you don't have on the well.
 
MR. STARR:  Wouldn't that surveying work have
been in the original scope?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, because there's no pipeline.
 
MR. STARR:  You mean the original scope didn't
have the connection between the two, it just had the
two wells and they were kept separate?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That's correct.
 
MR. STARR:  I can buy that.
 
CHAIR RICE:  If you're not happy with the
proposal, we can go out for RFP, or we can accept it.
Your choice.
 
MR. VICTORINO:  My question is how long would
this all take.  With the urgency Jonathan pointed out,
possibilities of failure and half of Hana not having
water, do we have a lot of time to keep going out?
 
CHAIR RICE:  This is design fees.
MR. STARR:  You know at that site inspection, it
was mentioned that it might be a good idea to bring in
a spare pump for the Hamoa well.  Because right now
the lease time is I believe several months, whereas,
if we had the pump on site, it would take from several
months to days and weeks, so that might be something
that we could do.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Are you talking about adding it in?
 
MR. STARR:  Yeah, but my question is are we
looking at approving a project, or are we looking at
approving a plan and should it be in next year's
capital improvement or, you know, what would be the
right way of -- what are we doing?
 
CHAIR RICE:  I think we've identified a need, as
Mr. Nakamura pointed out, in our other meeting about
the other pipeline, and I think this is certainly an
appropriate response.  I guess the option would be to
go out to RFP on it separately.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Yeah, I think this is a necessary
project.  I think the approach is a good one, and I
think we can deal with the issue of a backup pump and
construction funds in the next budget, so I would
approve to -- I would move to approve the request for
additional design funds.
 
MR. VICTORINO:  Second.
 
CHAIR RICE:  It's been moved and seconded to
approve the request.  Mr. Hiranaga is absent.  Any
discussion?
 
MR. STARR:  Let's go ahead.
 
CHAIR RICE:  All in favor, say "aye."
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Opposed, say "nay."
 
(No response).
 
CHAIR RICE:  Motion is carried.  Note for the
record Mr. Hiranaga has walked out, not left the
meeting, but excused himself.  Okay.
 Communication 02-12 Francesco Moretti.  You're
here.  Mr. Moretti has prepared a letter, and I
believe it's in our packet Page 76.  Mr. Moretti.
 
MR. MORETTI:  My letter was in regard of this
lot A subdivision in Maliko, above Maliko Gulch.  And
its based on the parcel that was presently divided
into two lots from A&B during Haiku Makai
subdivision.  There was a deferral agreement for the
lot that I purchased and is being subdivided now.  And
the deferral agreement doesn't apply to the situation,
and I am going with a private water system to provide
water for the lot.  And the deferral agreement was
considering all the improvement and designs to provide
County water to the lots.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Craddick.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  My recommendation would be to
refer this to committee because I believe the Board
would be interested in knowing what the Health
Department has to say about this project.
 
MR. STARR:  Committee.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Committee, okay.  That sounds like
a rules item to me.  So I'm going to refer that to
Rules Committee if there's no objection.  Mr. Moretti,
what we will do is put this on the agenda for the next
rules meeting.  You will be notified, and you can
attend that meeting.
 
MR. MORETTI:  Okay, thank you.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Communication 02-13.  Mr. Beasom,
Paul Beasom.  This has to do with I think this
gentleman or this gentleman's wife was at our public
hearing in Haiku.  And there was a question about
their name continuing on the upcountry meter list
because of his request for subdivision lapsing I
guess.
 While we need to take up this request by
Mr. Beasom, it brings up I think an important issue.
There are a number of issues that relate to the list
that I think Mr. Craddick wisely should not be making
a decision on.  The Board should discuss the various
situations that are occurring, and we ought to be
making some decision about those different
situations.  I know, for example, having looked at one
situation where a person is on the list three times,
because they probably jumped on when they heard about
it to start with, and then they got a subdivision
request in.  And then they thought about changing the
request for the meter, number of meters or size of
meter, so the list of 500 may not be 500 different
individuals.
 So I think we need to have -- my recommendation
would be that we have a workshop or Committee of the
Whole meeting where we sit down with just the list and
look at the various situations and discuss them and
try to come up with some consensus before we go to the
public and say you're off the list or you're on the
list.  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  Yeah, I think a workshop is a good
idea, but I would like to suggest perhaps preliminary
to that maybe you could appoint either one Board
Member or maybe two Board Members could work -- could
take -- could look at the list and at least get an
understanding so that when we have the workshop we
have some Board Members who are more intimately
familiar and can make recommendations on it.  Perhaps
two people would be good.  I wouldn't want to be one
of them.
 
CHAIR RICE:  What does everyone else think?
 
MS. PARSONS:  I think that's a good idea.
 
CHAIR RICE:  That's a hot potato.
 
MS. PARSONS:  I don't want it either.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Well, we're going to have to touch
it because we're going to get through this upcountry
meter list sometime.  Mr. Craddick.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It may be -- I don't know where
the auditor is in doing the review of the first 50,
but I suspect shortly they would have a report on that
first 50.
 
CHAIR RICE:  And I suspect that I'm going to
invite them to the meeting so they can be party to our
discussion.  So is that an idea you guys want to
pursue, or you want to do it all together?  Ginny.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Could we ask the Department to
supply us with the information to review ahead of time
so we could take a look at it?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Well, we don't have the auditor's
report.  We might not be able to supply you with that.
 
CHAIR RICE:  I think we can supply you with the
list, but I think someone needs to sit down with you
and go over it.  I thought the workshop was going to
be a good idea.
 
MS. PARSONS:  I think you're right.  Somebody
needs to take a look at it.
 
MR. STARR:  Any volunteers?
 
CHAIR RICE:  Kent.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Is there enough detail on this
list to have discussions, or would you be requesting
each individual on the list to appear to present their
positions?
 
CHAIR RICE:  I don't want to do that.  That
could be a multiple day workshop.  I think that there
needs to be an identification of some issues that we
need to decide.  Yes, Ms. Parsons.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Am I correct that the County is
the one that knows when these applications have
lapsed, it's not necessarily the Department?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  You're talking about like this particular case?
 
MS. PARSONS:  The subdivision issue.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  How do we get notified of those, Herb?
 
MR. CHANG:  The Department of Public Works sends
us the letter, sends the Department of Water Supply a
letter notifying them the subdivision has been
notified prior.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Do they send the letter also to
the applicant.
 
MR. CHANG:  Usually the surveyor or engineer.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Assuming that the -- assuming that
the applicant gets a letter that the subdivision has
lapsed, maybe, and then it's the County's Department
to do this, maybe we should be included in that letter
that their application has lapsed.  And those are
things we need to pursue and maybe you can point
people to look into that.
 
CHAIR RICE:  I would like Mr. Victorino and
Mr. Hashimoto to kind of head up this for us.
Mr. Victorino, welcome.
 
MR. VICTORINO:  I know I don't say much, but
that doesn't mean you can call my name anytime now.
Let the record show that part, too.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  How soon?
 
MR. VICTORINO:  Yeah, that's the question.  How soon?
 
CHAIR RICE:  Here is what I think we should do.
Believe me, I understand it's complicated, and I think
the suggestion is that if you spend some time maybe
with David to start with to understand the different
designations of the people on the list because they're
like -- they're all over and there are people with
multiple names on there.  Why are they on for multiple
names and what's the different codes mean, so you can
help the rest of us when we have that workshop.  So
you guys work out your time frame with David.  Thank
you, gentlemen.  So appointed.  So ordered.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  That's what happens when you sit together.
 
MR. VICTORINO:  Don't worry, Howard, I'll get
even yet, you and Ginny.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Craddick, could we write a
letter to Mr. Beasom and saying we discussed it and
we'll be dealing with it as a Committee of the Whole
and not to get upset at this point.
 Okay, we're moving on to old business.  Ron,
thank you for patiently waiting.  We had discussed
this in committee at another meeting, a request to
appropriate funds for the study of water resources on
Maui.  We asked for additional information.  I believe
that was distributed to everyone.  And at this time,
Ron, do you want make a comment or anything?  Do you
want to field questions after people have reviewed the
information?

MR. STURTZ:  This is our fourth time before
you.  Hopefully by now, except for the new members,
who may not be aware of the context of this, maybe I
can give you a quick overview of the project.  Maui
Tomorrow recognized last year that getting accurate
information to the Board and to the community about
our water resources availability and what it was using
was of crucial importance.  And so we sought funding
and put together a project which started November of
last year to try and identify -- not to try -- to
identify the resources and to make this information
available in a clear and simple presentable form.
 At one of our earlier meetings, we passed out
our efforts -- its efforts, Ka Waiola project's
efforts as of January, and I don't believe you
received these.  The other Board Members have received
this in the past.  It's just to show what we had done
as of January.  And it's an evolving project that
continues every few days as information becomes
available.  And just as an example of that, on Tuesday
before the Committee of the Whole, we passed out the
Xerox handout to you.  I want to pass out an updated
version to the entire Board, which has added onto it,
in addition to colors, has added on a scale.  This is
just another example of what this project is doing
right now.
 This is a two-year project, and we submitted a
budget to you.  Actually, Lucienne de Naie, who I
apologize for not being here, she is on the mainland
on a project.  After discussions, Mr. Kushi drafted a
contract we think would be acceptable to the Board and
provides the kind of protection Mr. Craddick was
looking for in terms of security and oversight, and so
I think this is just probably a culmination -- this
meeting is a culmination of the prior meetings and
discussions we've had.
 And the request is for a grant for $30,000.  And
it's designated specifically in the project where it
would go.  And it's part of other grants, which have
been presented.  Other grants have been applied for.
And this project is very timely in view of
Mr. Friedman's comments in the need for diligence of
getting clear answers, so as these things develop,
everybody has the same information to them, and so
that's the context of the request today.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Any questions, comments from the Board Members?

MS. PARSONS:  Are we talking about the USGS
study that we want to implement and that's coming up
this next month, is that right, Jonathan?
 
MR. STARR:  Yeah, I assume we're going to call --
 
CHAIR RICE:  Yeah, we're going to have a
presentation by them of modeling, and then based on
what we see, the Board can then make a decision as to
how it wants to proceed.  I think the timeliness of
that is in the budget, preparing the budget.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Maybe this is something we would
like to defer until we have that presentation, and
maybe there's some way Maui Tomorrow can work with the
USGS over a period of years even to help with that study.
 
MR. STURTZ:  You would be happy to know we have
been working with the USGS and they have been
providing information to us, and our project has been
providing information to them, so all the different
players are coming up together.  Their mathematical
model depends upon accurate information.  So the more
information we can provide to them to make an accurate
mathematical model is provided to them, so it's a
constant interchange going on now, which didn't exist
before.
 Each department had its own resource base and
weren't communicating, so we've been bringing them
together talking together through us, gathering
information from all sources and upscaling the overall
bar, so to speak, so I think they're complementary.
 
MS. PARSONS:  I think it could be very
complementary.  My biggest concern is whatever we're
here to present in the public's best interest has to
have a decent credibility level, and working together
with the USGS I think would have a better appearance
than one by itself and another one on top of that.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  I feel that they're generating
information which we really need and which USGS will
really need, and this is mainly in relation to users
beyond the Board of Water Supply.  You know, this is
actually, you know, our Board usage.  But I know that,
for example, they've identified almost a million
gallons of pumping inside of Iao Aquifer that's not
related to the Board, and this is information that was
there to -- never coordinated.  They've been working
with the Water Commission to generate that data, and I
think what the work that they would be doing now will
speed up and make what the USGS does a lot easier,
plus it will allow us to be able to manage water, you
know, on our own in our own purview.
 But I know, from what I understand, they're
being careful about what information they present.  I
know they've not presented the other pumping sources
in Iao until they can get it in a form that is
absolutely, you know, that's proof of every well and
pumping and so that it's verifiable.  So I think it's
a good project.  Probably the way that they're doing
it is pretty cost efficient I think of the government,
and whether it's us or USGS or the Water Commission
does it, you take the kind of numbers and multiply
them times five and ten.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Victorino.
 
MR. VICTORINO:  I think I have to echo
Mr. Starr's sentiment, that I agree that we need a
form or method of obtaining water usage not only from
within, but the outside sources.  I think for a long
time there have been a lot of speculation, innuendos
about how outside sources use their water and how much
is being used.  And until we get accurate information,
we sit here and a lot of times doing the job by
speculation more than facts.  And I think it's time we
get facts on the table so everybody understands what
needs to be done.  We can continue flip-flopping every
year and going this direction or that direction, but
like Jonathan said, until we get one clear picture of
what we have and what we need and what we want to be,
we can continue on.  So if you can assist us in that
area along with the other entities, I think we all
win.  It's a win-win.  The biggest winner is the
public and that's what we're here for.  And I think if
we continue focusing on the public and leave all the
rest of the stuff aside, whether it's Maui Tomorrow or
Maui today or Maui yesterday, it don't make a
difference to me.  Information is important,
especially if it's accurate.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Since we're going to have that
meeting coming up, let's put this on the table.  Let's
see what the USGS has to say, and let's also make sure
they're comfortable working with another entity.
Let's get that out, and as long as they are, I have no
problem with it.  I think if we're going to invest as
much money as we're talking about with the USGS and we
are going to go in that direction, that we need to
have their input as well in this project.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  And we do have a committee
recommendation, and, you know, that's what's on the
table.
 
MS. PARSONS:  But that was before the USGS
issue, too.  And I think when you brought that up,
that kind of shifted our whole program.  I have no
problem with them working with the USGS.  I just think
that before we allot dollars, let's find out how
they're going to work with them and how the USGS would
like to see them work with them.
 And, you know, we're going to have -- we all
know we're going to have questions from A&B, for
example, on what they're pumping, and I don't know
who is going to get those answers.  That's one of the
things we've got to discuss at the next meeting.
 
MR. STURTZ:  Would Terry Reim perhaps help us in
the context of the work we've been doing with the USGS
in terms of research back and forth information?
 
MR. REIM:  We have visited USGS offices two or
three times in Honolulu and had meetings with them,
and some of our information does come from the USGS.
I tend to have say weekly e-mail communication with
Gordon Tribble at the hydrology office in Honolulu, so
we have a good working with relationship with them
already.
 
MS. PARSONS:  If they have a good relationship
with them, let's just table it for one month and look
at it and have USGS talk to us because we're talking
$600,000, maybe a million dollars with USGS.  And this
is only 30,000.  Let's see what they want to do.
 
MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair, a motion to make, which
is I would like to move that we approve this subject
to receipt of a letter from USGS stating that this
information will be useful and will tie in with what
modeling they may be doing for us in the future.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Jonathan, I think that leaves it wide open.
 
CHAIR RICE:  There's a motion on the floor.
 
MR. VICTORINO:  There's no second.
 
CHAIR RICE:  There's no second.
 
MR. VICTORINO:  Mr. Chair, something has been
pointed out to me, and we need some clarification I
guess maybe from the attorney there.  It says here,
"Whereas, the County Board of Water Supply,
hereinafter called BWS, has reviewed and approved the
grantee's application for a grant of County funds in
furtherance of this goal."
 First of all, they're not County funds, so that
would make this contract null and void in that sense,
if I'm correct.
 
CHAIR RICE:  The final review, there are some
points Mr. Kushi has on the contract.  Any approval
would be subject to his final review.
 
MR. VICTORINO:  Yeah, that's what I'm trying to
say, if we're going to approve something, make sure
whatever.
 
MR. STARR:  It goes to corp counsel.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Kent.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  I guess my concern is what
assurance do we have that this entity will provide
complete and accurate information?
 
MR. STURTZ:  Let me briefly explain the way in
which this project is functioning within Maui Tomorrow
Board.  It's a project of the Maui Tomorrow Board.
It's separately budgeted and through one of our Board
Members, our treasurer, who served as public
accountant is accounting for all the funding and
proper allocation.
 We have on our board the ex-chair of the Ethics
Committee.  We have on our board ex-corporation
counsel.  We have on our board members of
Na Kapuna O Maui, developers, conservationists.
There's a broad spectrum of quality human beings whose
sole unifying influence, if I may say that, is the
benefit of the public, the benefit of Maui and the
preservation of its resources and appropriation of
resources, land use plan and design.  So the
recognition is that the common good between this
process and everyone's intention is to work toward the
common good.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Mr. Sturtz, with all due respect,
we know you are a special interest group.  You've
already positioned yourselves as that with our County
and on our planning committees and with the Water
Board.  So you have a skewed view of things and that
doesn't mean it's bad or it doesn't mean it's good,
but it is skewed.
 And my biggest fear in this is the way that this
is written and what we've talked about doing with the
USGS, I want to -- you're going to give us a report.
Now, if the USGS comes up with a different report
after we spend $600,000 and your report is on the
table, what's the consequences of that in the future?
And we bring a lot of credibility to you.  So if we're
going to work with you, then I think we work with you
in the context of what we've been proposing on a
county-wide basis.  And I don't have any problem with
you working for years with them.  I mean if it's
$30,000 that you're looking for, maybe it's $10,000 a
year for the next three years, but and you help to
provide them the money.
 But if they're going to be the lead in this, I
think we have to hear from them first before we put
you on a contract basis.  We have to see what they
want and how they're going to -- and if we're even
going to go with them, and if we're not, maybe this is
the alternative.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Okay.  Board Members, I'm hearing
that there seems to be a consensus to defer this until
our next meeting.
 
MR. VICTORINO:  So move.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Adolph.
 
MR. HELM:  Just a comment.  USGS is a government
entity, and I guess we assume that all or most
government entities have their facts correct.  Not
necessarily.  My experience in the private sector,
sometimes the private sector are the leading people in
technology.  I for one would like to see two
perspectives, two ways of looking at how our water
resources are, you know, in regards to Maui.  So I
agree that maybe at this point the Board needs to look
at what the USGS and how Maui Tomorrow can work
together as a team.  But I, for one, would like to see
someone outside of a government entity to be able to
get those kinds of information out to the public.
That's just my opinion.
 
MR. STURTZ:  I think we're getting a bit
confused between resource information and policy of
use of those resources and where there may be
differences about policy, which are the political
decisions and economic decisions.  The raw data is not
a political issue.  It's raw data that should be used
by everyone to interpret the way they wish.
 So this project is dedicated toward raw data,
not an interpretation of what should be done with it.
Maui Tomorrow may take a position, which way or may
not be contrary to the Board on what to do with it,
but right now we're just trying to get the raw data.
And that's hopefully the objective, basic information
that everyone agrees on.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  I'll be moving to defer the issue,
but before I do, I just want to make one comment
which, you know, the people working on this project
have gone repeatedly to the Water Commission and the
Water Commission has virtually no data on water
pumping outside of the Board.
 And they've never requested it, and due to the
efforts of the Ka Waiola project people repeatedly
going over there and asking for the data for the very
first time ever, the Water Commission actually put out
a request to all the water users to at least
voluntarily submit that data, so that was a first.
And that in itself is a major accomplishment to get
the Water Commission which has up until now refrained
from asking the question to send out letters asking
for pumping data, so to me, that's a positive step.
But with that -- having said that, I would like to
move to defer to the next meeting.
 
MS. PARSONS:  I'll second.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Moved and seconded.  Discussion?
 
MR. HELM:  One more point.  The commission on
resource management, you know, as far as resource
availability, you know, are limited.  You know, they,
for one, has admitted that part of the problem to them
having the data available for the public is because
they're limited to resources, and that's just to echo
what Jonathan was saying.
 
CHAIR RICE:  All in favor, say "aye."
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Opposed, say "nay."
 
(No response).
 
CHAIR RICE:  Motion is carried.  Deferred.  The
chair recognizes Mr. Victorino is excused.
 
Let's take a quick break.
 
(Recess taken.)
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Nakamura, Finance Committee.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  The
first item is Director's 02-11 requesting
authorization to reimburse the Department of Finance
for the services of Herbert Chock for the Mahinahina
arbitration settlement.
 The deputy corporation counsel explained to the
members of the Finance Committee that the request is
in conjunction with services provided by Mr. Chock.
There was an arbitration to resolve a dispute with the
contractor on the Mahinahina water treatment project.
The arbitration proceedings partially as a result of
Mr. Chock's assistance did result in a favorable
outcome to the Board.
 However, there was a breakdown in communication
and coordination between various departments, and
Mr. Chock was originally -- the services of Mr. Chock
were originally authorized for $10,000 I believe.  The
additional -- the services that Mr. Chock did actually
provide required the expenditure of additional funds,
which were already paid by the Department of Finance
in accordance with procedures that they had previously
worked out with corporation counsel.
 And so the request is basically for the Board to
authorize reimbursement of $70,171.19 to the
Department of Finance for Mr. Chock's services.  The
director had recommended approval as did the deputy
corporation counsel.  Funds are available in the
Department's professional services account, and
although the committee would request that a system be
put in place to better communicate between the
involved departments to avoid similar situations,
nevertheless, the committee does recommend approval of
the request for funding, and I would so move.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.
 
CHAIR RICE:  It's been moved and seconded to
approve the request for funding.  Any discussion?
 
MS. PARSONS:  Next time we'll get a breakdown.
 
CHAIR RICE:  In advance.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Yes.
 
CHAIR RICE:  All in favor, say "aye."
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Opposed, say "nay."
 
(No response.)
 
CHAIR RICE:  Motion is carried.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  Okay, Mr. Chairman, the next item
has to do with a settlement offer on a claim that was
filed against the Department in conjunction with the
Department's paving of Kahakapao Road, which provides
access to the Piiholo Reservoir.  So it's a
complicated situation in that the Kahakapao Road does
not follow the legal right-of-way.
 And when the Department paved Kahakapao Road, it
paved the roadway in its actual location on the
ground, which was again outside of the right-of-way in
certain areas and does, in fact, encroach on private
property.  However, the committee did not feel that
the settlement offer was appropriate and requests and
recommends that corporation counsel's office continue
discussions with appropriate property owners to
resolve this particular issue.
 And I'm not sure that a motion is necessary, but
I guess, for the record, I would move that the Board
request that corporation counsel's office continue
discussion with property owners to resolve this
particular issue.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Okay.  It's been moved and seconded
that corp counsel continue with the negotiations.
This issue will though remain in the Finance Committee
for future reporting.  Any comments?  All in favor,
say "aye."
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Opposed, say "nay."
 
(No response.)
 
CHAIR RICE:  Motion is carried.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  Next item, Mr. Chairman, is
discussion/possible action regarding proposal for
additional office space for the Department.  This is
again a fairly complex issue.  For some reason, we had
a number of complex issues at the last Finance
Committee meeting.
 The Board will recall that there has been
discussions in the past about the need to relocate
from the existing fifth floor of the County building
for a variety of reasons.  Number one is -- number one
being the lack of space, number two being that the
County administration would like to take that space
over for their own purposes.  A space study was
previously done by an architectural consultant to try
to establish the long-range needs of the Department
for office space.
 And based upon that study, a request for
proposal was submitted asking for potential landlords,
if you will, or I suppose even sale to meet the
Department's need for office space.  The request for
proposal did include a provision that the request
would be kept confidential if requested by the
proposer.  There was one proposal received on a timely
basis, and that proposal did, in fact, have a request
that it be kept confidential.
 There were a number of questions raised in the
committee regarding the procedures that had been
followed for soliciting the proposals and the
appropriateness of keeping the proposals confidential
since ultimately we would be dealing with public
funds.  So the committee requested that the staff
inquire, and let me also say this, that those -- the
proposal was not open because the condition was that
the proposal could not be open unless the
confidentiality agreement was executed.
 We -- I personally, as chairman of the
committee, had a reluctance to sign a confidentiality
agreement on the part of the Board without
authorization of the Board to begin with.  But, in any
event, there were a number of other questions.  So the
committee requested, first of all, that the staff
inquire as to whether the parties submitting the
proposal would be willing to waive confidentiality,
and my understanding is that the answer to that is in
the negative.  The committee further asked that
corporation counsel review the request for proposals
and offer his thoughts on the whole issue of
confidentiality.
 And I guess we would have to ask Mr. Kushi to
respond.  The committee basically feels that the Board
needs to make a determination as to whether or not it
wishes to proceed to review the one proposal which
would require the execution of the confidentiality
agreement.  And, as I said, I think that's really an
issue that needs to be determined by the full Board
rather than the committee.  So perhaps Mr. Kushi can
give his thoughts on it, and then Mr. Chairman can
decide whether we wants to proceed.
 
CHAIR RICE:  He looks like he's getting prepared
to give us a colloquy, renderings.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board,
if I may respond, I am not totally prepared for this.
There was a request from the Department, a formal
request to look at their procedures.  And
unfortunately, I just got a copy of the bid proposal
itself.  My concerns and one of my office's concerns
are the following:  that the request for
confidentiality is so broad that you can't -- well,
put it this way.  The bid procedures and the
procurement law, which is a State law according to all
agencies, have provisions that bidders can request
confidentiality for proprietary information purposes.
 However, in this case, my understanding of the
procedure is that the Department in its request for
proposals made -- in essence, conditioned the
proposals saying that all bids would be confidential.
And our office's concern is that pursuant to Chapter
92, which is the Information, Freedom of Information
Hawai`i State Law, without a case-by-case
determination as to what is indeed proprietary, we
can't really say yes or no on a blanket cite.
 And what had happened in the Finance Committee
was that the request was that before you even open the
package to see to make a determination, you had to
sign off on this proposal.  And in that instance, I
advised the members not to sign.  I'm still not
completely sure as to what policies and procedures the
Department on behalf of the Board used, whether that
indeed is correct, and it may be determined later on
that I will advise you to sign it.  At this point in
time, I'm not ready to do it.  My understanding is
that the proposal that was submitted -- David, correct
me if I'm wrong -- is that we have a time extension.
We have a date certain to respond.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I believe in the request for
proposals, we said that their proposals had to be
valid for 150 days from the time of the bid posting,
which was a couple of weeks ago now.
 
MR. KUSHI:  So I think we're still within that
time frame.  I wouldn't want the Board just to
disregard the proposal, but at this point in time, I'm
not prepared to tell you to sign off on any
confidentiality request, because I don't know what it
is.  To even look at it, I've got to sign off on this
confidentiality document.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Nakamura.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Mr. Chairman, I guess we're in a
catch 22 in that corp counsel has identified, which is
that he would like to be able to determine what
specifically needs to be, you know, confidential and
what perhaps needs to be made public, and he can't do
that without looking at the proposal and he can't look
at the proposal without signing the confidentiality
clause.
 I wonder if it would be possible for the chair
and corp counsel to be given authorization by the
proposer to look at it on a -- I guess on a
confidential basis so at least they can get us off
square one and move this forward.  Would that be an
appropriate process?
 
CHAIR RICE:  It would seem to me that in that
we're going down to one proposal, and this is a rather
important project --
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Two.
 
CHAIR RICE:  We have two?
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  Apparently one was submitted
after the deadline, and again, we would have to --
 
CHAIR RICE:  So you didn't have that for your
committee meeting?
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  No.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, we did.  We had it there.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  But it was not presented.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I gave both of them.
 
MR. STARR:  I believe it was submitted five
minutes after the deadline or something, and we did
have it in front of us.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Kent.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  I was never given an opportunity
to review the second proposal.  It may have been at
the meeting, but it was never distributed.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We didn't distribute either one of them.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  So basically we didn't see them.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, you didn't see them, that's correct.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  I think Mr. Nakamura's proposal is
good.  Perhaps, you know, there's a way that counsel
and the Chair or the counsel and someone appointed who
could work with a representative to, you know, give
their confidentiality and then look at it and try to
see if there's a way to, you know, if it's relevant to
the Board to satisfy the proposer so that we could
look at it.
 What I would want to be real clear about though
before the Board as a whole, or at least myself as far
as confidentiality, is at what point it becomes open
to the public because, you know, we can't -- to a
certain extent, we can't exclude the public from the
process.  You know, that's neither legal nor fair, so
it becomes a sticky point of how, you know, at what
point it goes public and so the public can comment on
it or have some input because I think they have to.
 
MR. KUSHI:  From my understanding of public
review is the procurement procedures provide or allow
if it's deemed confidential/proprietary, the bid can
be considered.  And after an award is made, then all
these documents become public records subject to
deletion or extraction of confidentially determined
material.  But in this case, the whole bid is -- they
want the whole bid to be confidential, so it's such a
blanket request I have hesitations.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Ginny.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Could we ask the agent, the
representative waive the confidentiality for counsel
only, and is it possible that the representative would
recognize -- could he be recognized as an agent
indirectly or directly since we have asked for a bid,
and that if he waives confidentiality for counsel,
he's still -- with a legal confidentiality clause,
like client.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Kushi.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Well, you know, even that, I'm kind
of concerned about because let's say you tell me to go
and look at something and I agree, and then there's a
fight between the -- this business and another
business and I get subpoenaed in court.  You know,
then where is my allegiance.
 
CHAIR RICE:  They were asked to waive
confidentiality, and I believe the response was no
because the client they represent is requesting it.
That's I believe the problem.
 
MR. STARR:  Is the agent representing the
client, is there any confidentiality about them?  Can
they participate in the discussion?
 
MR. KUSHI:  I'm not sure what their authority is.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Yes, Kent.
 
MR. KUSHI:  He's a very honorable man, but I'm
not sure how far he can go.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  A clarification on what Mr. Kushi
said.  Upon the awarding of the contract, do all the
proposals become public, or just the one that's
selected?
 
MR. KUSHI:  All.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  So the public can compare how the
decision was made?
 
MR. KUSHI:  Subject to conditions or taken out
of proprietary information, and, of course, if the
request is the one that would be awarded, it's a
public document.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Maybe we should consider building
our own facility.  I mean seriously, with the money
we're allotting for the move, maybe we ought to just
take that into consideration and there are properties
out there that might even get donated to us.
 
CHAIR RICE:  The list of donors on the front door.  Mike.
 
MR. QUINN:  Aside from the legal issue, which is
corp counsel's prerogative here, I think one of the
issues is this may or may not be a very good proposal
for the Board.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Right, we don't know.
 
MR. QUINN:  If it's legally okay and we accept
the confidentiality agreement, somebody ought to be
able to look at it in that perspective, too, I think.
We don't know, but it may be the greatest thing you've
ever seen.  I don't know.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Why don't we try -- let me see if
at this point I can work with the submitter to find
out if we can get at least enough information, and
we'll let Mr. Kushi finish his legal research and then
I'll bring them back.  Kent.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Could we also ask corp counsel to
make a determination of the other proposal I guess
that was submitted a few minutes late to also be
considered?
 
CHAIR RICE:  Great.
 
MR. STARR:  I move to defer the issue.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Is there a second?

MR. NAKAMURA:  Second.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Moved and seconded to defer the
issue subject to the feeling from counsel and the
Chair's review with the submitter.  All in favor, say
"aye."
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Opposed, "nay."
 
(No response.)
 
CHAIR RICE:  Motion is carried.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  The last time, Mr. Chairman, we
discussed the status of the Ulupalakua water line
project.  There has been quite a bit of interest and
concern over the problems with the system.  The Board
had in the past appropriated money for the project and
had requested that the Department proceed with an
engineering study to identify the long-term
alternatives for approval by the Board.
 Because of the nature of the current situation,
the committee did express a desire that the project be
expedited.  The committee was advised that the process
of negotiating the project's scope and the actual
implementation would be several months, I believe it
was four to six months, and the committee was
concerned that, you know, there was a need for a --
for moving ahead a little quicker.  And so the staff
was asked to look at possible alternatives to present
to the Board, which might provide at least interim
relief or perhaps an alternative that could be
implemented in a shorter period of time.  So I guess
we would have to see if the staff is prepared to
present any potential alternatives to expediting the
project.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Something was handed out today.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Two things, that and this report.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Okay.  So I guess given that we've
gotten that, we should -- again, that's information we
need to discuss in committee, huh?  I think members
need to take the time to read this to understand it.
There's nothing they can do at this point, is there?

MR. NAKAMURA:  We can keep it in committee,
Mr. Chairman.  I think one issue that needs to be
discussed perhaps at the committee is, you know, is
this improvement going to serve basically the existing
users, is it going to serve existing users plus users
on the list, or is it redesigned to serve some
reasonable expansion of the system?  And that seems to
be where we have perhaps some differences, and that's
going to impact what the scope is.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Right, but I think we need to --
that's a very important policy decision we need to
make before we begin to decide.  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  Just to state my own feelings on
this, I really believe that we should be looking to
provide adequate fire flow for existing users and for
people who have been waiting for meters.  You know,
maybe a little bit of new, you know, new buildout but
we should be cautious if we're going to do a program
that's going to provide for a massive, a massive
buildout because having been, you know, we're kind of
exposed and we're not following anything in a
community plan.  And I know that was what was
discussed in committee, and I think we're on the right
track.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Okay.  Ginny.
 
MS. PARSONS:  I second what Jonathan is saying,
and also maybe we need to clarify what our goals are.
Are we looking 30 years out, 50 years out, 100 years
out, and maybe that's where we make our decision.
 
CHAIR RICE:  So it's in committee, and that's
where it will remain.  Thank you, Mr. Nakamura.
Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  Yeah, I just have one other
suggestion for the committee meeting is we seem to
have a mixed, kind of a mixed read from the Ulupalakua
Ranch people earlier today in the meeting.  And it
might be good to get a comment from them whether they
would be willing to proceed on the basis that we've
been talking about or whether they -- because they
said if it's six-inch, they don't want to -- they
don't want to do it.
 Well, I think we should get some clarification
from them because that seems to be the way we're
heading, you know, 12-8-6 scenario.  And if they don't
want to do it and would rather go through a process,
we should know, and if they would prefer to go with
that, we should know.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Yeah, the one thing in their
defense, I thought I detected the fact that they
hadn't seen the 12-8-6 plan.  Didn't Tony say that?
That he was reacting to all 6 or all 12 or all 8.  I
kind of got that feeling, so maybe we need to share
this with him.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  He has a copy of it.
 
CHAIR RICE:  He does.  I think that's a good point.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Do you have any input on what you
think his feelings are?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I don't believe there would be
any problem with going with the flows that are shown
on Page 38 of the handout.  Those flows, their maximum
flow is 1,000 gallons a minute up to the Ulupalakua
lateral, and then going on out to Kanaio, it's 600
gallons a minute and then going down to the church,
there's only 55 gallons a minute.
 But with the number of services there, that's
still more than adequate for the people that we know
are there and certainly would take care of any lots
that are there.  It wouldn't take care of many
subdivisions.  And those people, if they were doing
that, would have to put in the storage requirements
that I believe Herb has identified to really make a
good system.  He's got a number of storage suggestions
on Page 33 that probably would also need to be done at
some point that aren't part of this proposal right
now.  This proposal is just the water line.

CHAIR RICE:  Okay, still in committee.  Moving
off Finance Committee CIP.
 
MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair.

CHAIR RICE:  Yeah.
 
MR. STARR:  Just in the other projects area,
what's happening with the EIS, the SEIS?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We've got a draft of it.  We're
trying to get the responses to the individual people
that responded to the preparation notice.  We're going
to be holding a scoping meeting sometime in the next
30 days, and then once that scoping meeting is
completed, then if there are anymore comments, those
would be addressed and that would be finalized.
 
MR. STARR:  If we have a draft, how come the
Board Members haven't received that?  I would like to
receive one right away, and I think the other Board
Members each have the courtesy to distribute that.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Okay.  Moving on, Committee of the
Whole.  We met this week and on the issue of Central
Maui source availability and the conclusion of the
Committee of the Whole that meeting was to hold
another informational meeting, which is to be
scheduled along with the consultant Mr. Mink and the
USGS people, so no decisions or conclusions have been
made subject to another meeting.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Peter, could I ask a question
here of corp counsel?  If a draft that is not
available to the public is passed out to all the Board
Members, does it then make it a public document?
Because the draft is not in a form that would be ready
to go to the general public, I don't believe so
anyways.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Mr. Chair, I'm not too certain what
he said.  Is the draft part of the litigation?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We have a draft from the
consultant, and draft documents are not considered
public documents until they're finalized.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Is it part of the lawsuit, part of the lawsuit?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, the whole process we're
doing is part of the lawsuit.  But we've been
submitted a draft supplement EIS by the consultant.
If we pass that out to all the Board Members, does
that then make it a public document that anybody
coming in from the public could ask for, and would
Board Members if given this document, would they have
to hold it confidential until it's finalized?  It
would be good.  I would like comments from various
Board Members, but on the same token, I don't want it
to be a public document because we ourself have some
concerns over what has been presented to us.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Mr. Chair, anything that's passed
out that's not in executive session is a public
document.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  So then I think we would have some reservations.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Unless you call for executive session.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  As I understand it, any -- a
document of this kind can be obtained under Freedom of
Information by the public.  I certainly have a problem
if, you know, if the Department has received a draft
document and is being asked to apply and the Board
Members are not allowed to see it, I will definitely
raise the roof on this issue where the Department is
going to comment, but we're not allowed to see it.  I
think that is completely against the intent of all of
the Charter and everything else.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Kushi, if the documentation
that we're preparing relating to lawsuits these boards
review, would it not be incumbent on the Board Members
to keep that information confidential?
 
MR. KUSHI:  Mr. Chair, if it's part of the
litigation and if it's part of the ongoing litigation
that would eventually end up in court, but it's an
attorney/client privileged document, work product.
 
MR. STARR:  It's an EIS.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Is it part of the lawsuit?
 
MR. STARR:  It's an EIS.  An EIS is a public document.
 
MR. KUSHI:  If it's ordered by the Circuit Court
to do an EIS and that would satisfy the litigation,
it's work product.  And again, I'm not sure who are
the -- who is the client regarding this consultant, is
it the Board, or is it the Director?  Who is the
client?
 
MS. PARSONS:  The Department.
 
MR. STARR:  No, the Board.
 
MS. PARSONS:  That's all the same, isn't it?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I believe --
 
MR. KUSHI:  We're the defendants in the lawsuit.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I believe it is signed by me on
behalf of the Board.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Well, that's -- let's make
something clear.  There is no Department separate from
the Board.  There is only one Board of Water Supply
County of Maui.  It has a board and a department,
that's it.  There's no two different entities.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Mr. Chairman, just as a final
comment, not to belabor this point.  I'm not going to
argue with you, but if the Board feels sensitive about
information, request an executive session and vote on
it.  I would then advise you whether it's proper or
not.  Otherwise, anything produced in a regular board
meeting, committee meeting is public information.
 You're right, anybody can request by Freedom of
Information Act documents.  We can respond and tell
them no.  They can appeal it to the Office of
Information Practices.
 
CHAIR RICE:  But here is what we're trying to
do.  We want Board Members to comment.
 
MS. PARSONS:  But what he's saying is call an
executive session.  You can review it in executive
session, and it doesn't go public.
 
MR. KUSHI:  If it's within your authority.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Right.
 
MR. STARR:  I have another question.  This draft
EIS, is this being sent out to those who made comments
before for their -- who was getting comments of the
draft or copies of the draft for comments?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  The staff, and I gave one copy to
Peter, which he looked at, and I don't know if he made
any comments on it or not.  Jonathan, let's put it
this way.  I don't feel -- it would be very good to
get comments from all the Board Members, but it is a
draft document.  And under the OIC, draft documents
can be refused to be given out.  And when we ourself
have concerns over the document, I -- it's just not
good to put it out there when that's not going to be
the final work product.
 
MR. STARR:  I have a real problem with this, and
I'm glad to see the Maui News is here because I hope
they're taking note that there's an EIS being prepared
by the Board, but the Board Members are not being
allowed to see it.
 
MS. PARSONS:  We can see it in executive session, Jonathan.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That's not the case.
 
MR. STARR:  I'm requesting a copy of it, and I'm
being told I can't get it.
 
MS. PARSONS:  No, you're not.  Mr. Kushi just
said if we call an executive session, you can review it.
 
MR. STARR:  We can't call an executive session.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Not today, but we can put it on
the agenda for next time.
 
MR. STARR:  My comments stand.  I would like to
see it today.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Well, they don't have it today
anyway.  Would somebody like to make a motion to
entertain reviewing it in executive session in the
next Committee of the Whole?
 
MR. KUSHI:  It's not on the agenda.  Put it on the agenda.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Put it on the agenda.  To be put on the agenda.
 
MR. STARR:  I object to this.  I think that
we're on the wrong track here.  We're preparing a
public document, and yet it's being done in a such a
way to keep not only the public but the Board Members
in the dark.  We're off on the wrong foot again on
this East Maui proposal, which is the most important
place for us to try to work together and to get the
community behind us.  But yet we're operating in the
old back room in-the-dark fashion about it, and it's
going to put us way behind the eightball when we try
to get public support.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Ginny.
 
MS. PARSONS:  When you're in the middle of a
lawsuit though, Jonathan, that does change things
around, so you have to take that into consideration,
and it's not like it's just a regular issue.  This is
an issue, which, one, it has to protect not only the
Board, the Department, the employees and everyone with
it, so it's not just an issue.
 And it's -- there's nothing wrong with going
into executive session on the next agenda and
discussing it.
 
MR. STARR:  Yes, there is.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Why?
 
MR. STARR:  And that's not the thing.  We're not
trying to protect our asses.  We're not trying to
protect the Board and protect the Department.  We're
trying to get a consensus in the community to this EIS
so we can develop east Maui water, and you don't get a
consensus in an executive session.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Hold on here.  Let's break this
down.  Number one, we want -- let's figure out what we
want to do.  We want to get Board Members' input on
the draft.  It's not an EIS here.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That's correct.
 
CHAIR RICE:  That's number one.  I'm not sure,
and I wouldn't speak to whether this EIS is a function
or required by the lawsuit, because I don't know that
for a fact at this point.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It is.  It is.
 
MR. STARR:  It's required by the basic law.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Yeah, I know that, but the
supplemental EIS was driven by the lawsuit.
 
MR. STARR:  No, it was driven by the fact that
the EIS was terrible and failed.
 
CHAIR RICE:  In a normal situation when we're
preparing an EIS for the public, what would we do?  We
would distribute the EIS to the Board Members for
comments?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No.
 
CHAIR RICE:  We wouldn't?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  I think perhaps we're getting
caught up in semantics and creating an impression
that's not there.  If you look at the EIS process, at
a certain point, the draft, and somebody can correct
me if I'm wrong, but the draft EIS is submitted to the
public for comments.  Comments are received.  It goes
back to the originator, and they take those comments
into consideration, and, you know, produce a final
EIS, if you will.
 What we're talking about now is the product
prior to the preparation of the draft EIS, which under
the law is submitted to the public and agencies for
comments.  And I don't think it's unusual for a
consultant to submit their first or their preliminary
draft, if you will, to whoever is commissioning that
product for their comments to look for obvious errors
or what have you, and that's the stage that I think
we're in now.  I agree with, you know, with Jonathan
that it may be helpful for the Board Members to look
at this work product or whatever you want to call it
to, you know, provide some input if they see things
that are obviously incorrect or obviously seem not to
be appropriate, and I think that's -- we just need to
figure a mechanism to, you know, to do that.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Thank you, Howard.  So in that this
document is public, but I guess I don't understand the
problem.  If it ultimately is designed to be a public
document, I don't see why we shouldn't distribute it
to the Board Members, get their comments and send it
back.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Peter, what Ed is saying is just
the act of passing it out to the Board Members makes
it a public document.  It's not in a form where we
even agree with what the consultant is saying yet, so
it's not a final work product.
 
CHAIR RICE:  So then it's not a final work product.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  And I would like -- you know, the
process from here, once we can address, once they can
address even the staff's comments, actually, we're
going to have a scoping meeting, which they have to
give a presentation to the community on their findings
and what have you.  After that scoping meeting, if
there are any additional comments on what they are
doing, what their findings are, those get incorporated
into a final document.  That final document is posted,
and at that point, everybody in the public sees it.
They have their chance to make their comments on it.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Well, if I understand what you just
said, if the process is you gather the staff comments
and give it back to them, and now you're going to
schedule a public meeting, then give it to the Board
Members.  If someone wants to come and get an
incomplete that makes no sense, knowing that the
process is scoping is coming up and that's not even a
final document -- if you have a scoping meeting,
someone is going to hand out a document at that
meeting, are they not?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, no, they're not.  It wouldn't
be passed out.
 
CHAIR RICE:  I guess I'm not seeing what the --
this whole thing is geared toward a public meeting as
Howard pointed out.  And even before it's done, you're
going to have a public meeting.  Why not get the Board
Members' input before we get to that?  And if somebody
from the public want an incomplete document, so what.
It's not the final document.  It makes no sense.
 I mean I don't know what we're -- I guess now
that I'm hearing all the facts, I don't know what
we're protecting here.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  You know, Peter, you've read it.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Let anybody read it.  There's
nothing in there.  There's geological this and that.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It's your choice I would say.
 
CHAIR RICE:  I guess if there was -- you want
the Board Members' input, then give it to the Board
Members.  It's going to go in the short period to
public forum and then it's going to be finalized
whatever changes are made, and then it's going to be
public again, so I don't see any harm.  I fail to see
any harm.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Okay.
 
CHAIR RICE:  And if somebody comes in and says,
"I want a copy of an incomplete document" and they
know it's incomplete, so what.
 
MS. PARSONS:  One comment.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Ginny.
 
MS. PARSONS:  I would like to defer to counsel
and take counsel's advice.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Kushi.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Can I just discuss this with David
later and see what's, how this involves the litigation
and what is final work product, and at the next
meeting, maybe put it on the calendar and we'll decide
at that point?
 
CHAIR RICE:  When is the scoping meeting?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We would like to do it sometime
within the next 30 days.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Scoping with the Department staff?
 
CHAIR RICE:  No, it's public he said.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  With the general public, but the
document itself at that point is not passed out to
anybody.  It's just an overview of what -- see, what
maybe 90 percent of the document has already been
given out when we did the draft EIS, supplemental EIS
preparation notice, so the public has got most of the
document already.
 The findings from the pump test are in there,
and whatever comments we have made to the comments
that we got after the prep notice, we -- actually,
they're not in the report yet.  We're working on
those.
 
MR. KUSHI:  So Mr. Chair, David, is this meeting
being held and called by the consultants?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It's required as part of the
contract that we have with them.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Is the Department -- is the Board or
the Department calling this public meeting?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It's required under the contract,
so if you want to say the Board is calling for it,
yes, I believe the Board is calling for it.
 
MR. KUSHI:  That presents another problem.  I
would like to get back to you.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  I'm being told this meeting is going
to be held within the next 30 days.  Is this meeting,
once again, the Department is going to be calling a
public meeting without informing the Board about it?
That's what I seem to be hearing.  And I just have a
really big problem with the fact that the Board won't
see the thing until the general public.
 This seems to be another attempt by the Director
to take the Board Members and the public out of the
loop, and this seems to be contrary to the way the
Board wants to perceive the way we do business, which
is for the Board Members to have the ability to have
input and understanding and to bring the public and
the community that would oppose us as much as possible
into the process so that we can create a consensus in
the community and move forward together rather than
keep everything public until the last minute --
private until the last minute and then have all
different community organizations and individuals
screaming bloody murder because something is being
passed over as a fait accompli without their ability
to see it or have input.
 This is the most important thing that we've done
as a board or will do in the next 20 or 30 years, and
yet, we haven't learned the lessons of the past in
that only through consensus are we going to be able to
develop these water sources.  I would like a way for
the Board Members to see this before it goes out, and
I think the public should be in the loop, too.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Well, I absolutely think the Board
Members should get a copy to review.  I think that's
part of the process, and the process also calls for a
scoping meeting for the public and for it to be public
access, and so I think that that process, which is
already defined, is not in any way preventing the
public from reviewing it.  But I do think the Board
Members should have a chance to have -- to look at it
and give their comments, and I don't know that there's
any harm in that, in that the goal of the document is
for it to be a public document.
 
MS. PARSONS:  I can't understand why counsel
can't give us what the harm might be.  I want to
know.  That's what you're here for.  What is the harm
then, Mr. Kushi?  What is the possible harm
potentially?
 
MR. KUSHI:  Mr. Chair, Member Parsons, I don't
know.  I don't even know what the status of this
lawsuit is.  Obviously, I'm not involved in the
lawsuit.  I have somebody else from my office is
handling it.  I'm just concerned about releasing
documents intending to be confidential intending to be
part of the litigation and if you do release it
prematurely, it's going to come back and bite you if
you don't do it in executive session, and I'm assuming
all of you are defendants in this lawsuit, so I can
scope it out.  I'm not going to say yes or no.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Could we recess?  Let him call his office.
 
MR. KUSHI:  I'm not going to go look at the file now.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Call your office and talk to the corp counsel.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Mr. Chair, I request you put it on
the next agenda.  I'm not prepared to give a response
at this time.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We don't have the scoping
meeting.  We can delay the scoping meeting.
 
MR. STARR:  I don't want it to delay.  I want to
get through it.  The way we're heading, we're just
going to create another year or two years.  It's been
ten years.  It's been ten years before the -- through
the EIS process, and we still don't have one.  It's
just making it worse.
 
MS. PARSONS:  I move that we put it on the next
agenda with an executive session.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Kent.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Is my understanding that the
issues where corporation counsel recommends a certain
action and Board Members decide not to follow that
recommendation, that they expose themselves personally
and lose the County indemnification; is that correct?
 
MR. KUSHI:  I don't even want to even touch that
one.  It may come down to a fact where if you are sued
because you don't follow our advice, we would have to
go to Council to get you indemnified.  You are
entitled to a defense based on your position.  Whether
the Council would then based on your actions indemnify
you and hire an attorney, that's up to them.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Just a second here.  Mr. Starr, the
purpose of this discussion is for the Board Members to
review the EIS.  This is not to distribute it to the
public in its form.  It's simply to distribute a piece
of work that the Board has commissioned to the Board
Members for their comments, period, that's it, okay.
It's not to go to public.
 It is a public document, and following the
correct process in very short order, there will be a
public meeting.  The document will then be completed,
and it will be distributed to the public because its
intention is to be a public document.  But there's
nothing wrong with Board Members giving their
comment.  It's not for Board Members to go publish.
And if someone says, oh, because you distributed it to
the Board, it's public information, that goes in
there.  It's not a completed document.  Why would you
want it?  There may be a glaring error in it, so I
don't see why this shouldn't be given to the Board
Members.
 It can be marked confidential, ask for their
comments, given back.  If we're going to have it at a
public meeting in 30 days, fine.  That's the
procedure.  Whether you do it in this case or another
case, that's still the procedure for the EIS I
believe.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  So the next meeting, can't we
call a special meeting?
 
CHAIR RICE:  We can do whatever we want.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  And go into executive session
instead of waiting until the next meeting.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Craddick.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I think it's a good idea.  What
we can do, if the copy already has been given to corp
counsel, we'll give it to corp counsel.  They say
attorney/client work product until they're done
reviewing it, and they'll pass it out with that
attorney/client work.  You don't have to have a
meeting to see it.  And then you'll get it and get the
comments back into corp counsel.  I mean what each
individual does with it I mean at that point is up to
that individual.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Nakamura.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  I agree with you, Mr. Chairman,
that, you know, to me, I'm looking at this in a really
simple-minded way, which is that, you know, ultimately
this process is going to be public.  It's intended to
be public.  You know, there's a procedure that has to
be followed, and that procedure is going to be
followed.  And I don't want to give the impression
that anybody is talking about ways to circumvent that
process, because that process is clear.
 But we have here a preliminary submittal that,
you know, the preparer wants comments from, and he
would like to get comments from staff.  The Board
would like to make comments I think appropriately,
and, you know, I don't know -- I don't know what the
legalities are, but my simple-minded brain says what
you said.  You pass it out to the Board Members.  This
is confidential because it's not ready to be released
yet.  We're all providing input.  We give input, and
that's it.  And then it goes back to the preparer and
they finalize their draft and that draft then goes to
the public in accordance with the appropriate
statute.
 I just -- you know, you can argue at that point
is it public or not, but, you know, hey, you know, if
somebody wants to do what they want with it, but if
you're asked to make comments as a Board Member.
 
CHAIR RICE:  My feeling.
 
MS. PARSONS:  I make my motion that we have a
special meeting and pass out the -- it in executive
session as Clark suggested.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Discussion?
 
MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Yes, Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  I think the main issue here is that
this should be and it should also be perceived as this
EIS is coming from the Board, and in its function as
representing the water users and the public.  And if
the Board, you know, is kept out of the loop and if
the public is kept out of the loop, then we're
definitely proceeding against, you know, against the
grain, and I'll be voting against because I don't
think it should be happening in executive session.  I
think that we're trying to serve the public and we're
not -- we shouldn't be trying to hide from them.
 
MS. PARSONS:  And I would agree with you if we
weren't in a lawsuit.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Any other comments?  All in favor, say "aye."
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Opposed, say "nay."
 
MR. STARR:  Nay.
 
CHAIR RICE:  I understand the motion was for a
special meeting.  Okay.  The special meeting to be six
days' notice.  What's tomorrow?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  The first would be next week Wednesday.
 
MS. PARSONS:  Good, it's my birthday.  We can bring cake.
 
CHAIR RICE:  We want to have it as quickly as possible, Fran.
 
MS. NAGO:  Six days.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Okay, we're moving on.  Nominating
committee.  Mr. Hiranaga, Mr. Hashimoto.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Just a verbal report.  Clark
Hashimoto and myself after conference would like to
submit to the Board a recommendation that the Chairman
Peter Rice continue for the next term and we also
nominate Mike Nobriga as the Vice Chair.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Okay.  Is there a discussion?  Is there action?
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  Is that a motion?
 
CHAIR RICE:  That was a report.  I don't know
why we would wait.  You want to wait until the end?
Okay.
 
MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair, I move that the honorable
Peter Rice be elected as Chair.  You've been doing a
great job, and that Mike Nobriga would be the Vice
Chair for the next one-year period.
 
MR. NAKAMURA:  Second.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Moved and seconded.  Any discussion?
 
(No response).
 
CHAIR RICE:  All in favor?
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Opposed, say "nay."
 
(No response).
 
CHAIR RICE:  Thank you.  Thank you very much for
your support.  I plan to work even harder next year.
We've got actually personnel matters, Mr. Craddick's
response to our evaluation of the last meeting.
Mr. Craddick, it is your option to have our discussion
in executive session.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I think I would like to do that.
 
MR. KUSHI:  What?
 
CHAIR RICE:  He said I would like to do that.
 
MR. STARR:  Mr. Chair.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Yes.
 
MR. STARR:  Would it, just for punctuality, can
we move that to the end of the agenda?
 
CHAIR RICE:  Fine, if no one else has an
objection to that.  Information regarding contested
case with EMI.  Whose item is that?  Mr. Kushi.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Mr. Chair, Board Members, just for
your information, you don't need an executive session
for this.  This is a case out of the licenses for
water from the State DLNR properties, the east Maui
area.
 As you know, the Board has entered into
agreements with the EMI, East Maui Irrigation as well
as A&B and HC&S for long-term agreements to take out
water from what they receive from the State.  Back in
I believe last summer, sometime before -- last summer
sometime when the long-term disposition of the Board
of Licenses and Permits were being solicitated, there
was some opposition to intervene and to hold a
contested case hearing on the issuance of licenses
filed by various parties.  And at that time, the Board
of Land and Natural Resources appointed ex-Judge
McConnell to be hearings officer.
 About a couple of weeks ago, April 15th, I
believe Judge McConnell held a hearing on just the
issue of who should be allowed in this contested case
hearing.  He has requested that parties file findings
and proposed findings and decisions as to who is to be
allowed.  There is approximately seven parties to be
admitted, HC&S, A&B and East Maui as the potential
licensees, Maui Tomorrow as an intervenor, A&B -- I
mean Warren Watanabe and the Maui Farm Bureau is
requesting to be intervenors.  On behalf of this
Board, Howard Fukushima did write a letter to -- and
the County Board of Water Supply to the intervenor.
 Maui Land & Pine has already requested to be an
intervenor.  Various Native Hawaiians represented by
the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp have requested to be
intervenors.  Judge McConnell is requesting proposed
findings, and he will just deliberate and issue his
decision hopefully sometime in the middle of May.
 At that point in time, they will proceed on with
the formal contested case hearings.  For us to be --
for the Board to be a party, I believe it's important
in that we have some say in what the State would be
doing with these licenses.  In any event, if our
heretofore parties to the various agreements that
remain do not get their renewed licenses, that leaves
the status of our draw from the system up in the air.
 Several issues -- several issues to be decided,
whether it should be annual versus long-term.
Historically, it has been long-term.  The other issues
are diversion of waters to the various streams out in
the East Maui area.  And the more overall issue, it
may get into a Waiahole type situation, what right
does the State have or any private party to divert
water in the first place, so this case is just
beginning.  In any event, we are trying to be a party
to the contested case hearings.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  Yeah, I would like to correct what I
believe are a couple of inaccuracies.  One is that
historically it's been short-term.  Since the Water
Code has been implemented, the licenses have been
one-year duration alternating between A&B and EMI, so
the long-term licenses ceased when the Water Code went
into force 20 years ago.
 
MR. KUSHI:  I stand corrected.
 
MR. STARR:  The second item is unless something
was agreed to by the Board that I never saw, we -- our
agreement with A&B does not necessarily call for us to
get an allocation of water from the State lands.  It
calls for us to get an allocation of water from A&B.
Now, only a part -- a portion of the watershed lands
that the ditch system draws upon are State lands.
There's quite a bit of watershed that's owned by A&B
and EMI from which water flows into the ditch, so our
contract is with A&B for a certain amount of water.
 It never specified in the memorandum of
understanding, which I believe is what you're
referring to, that these come from State land.  So in
the event that the State licenses lapse completely, we
would still get our water from A&B and EMI land, so I
think we should be clear on that.  I do feel we should
be a party to that.  I have no problem with that.  But
I want to be very sure and very clear that what are
filings and that our position is driven by the Board
and not driven by either the Director and staff or by
corp counsel.  I would like to see some mechanism for
our filings to come to the Board, and I feel that
Board Members should also be notified when future
hearings are going to be, or any other activity in the
case, if they want to participate, they'll have that
ability and that is our duty.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Thank you.  Okay.  Mr. Craddick.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I'm going to guess the seventh
party was DLNR.  You only listed six parties.  You
said there was seven.  DLNR, did they consider them as
a party?
 
MR. KUSHI:  Well, DLNR is the -- represents the
State, who is conducting these licenses.  As a matter
of course, they are a party.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  So that's the seventh then
including them, okay.
 
MR. KUSHI:  Whatever, David.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Okay.  Moving on, that leaves us
with, okay, the Director evaluation.  There's
reporting.  Let me -- I don't know if everyone got a
chance to look their through reporting in March.  The
legislative update was included, and just for future
reference next year, I think we want to take a little
bit of time in advance, not at the time we contract,
but in advance of that to talk about this.
 Because I don't -- my perception of reporting is
not a couple of pages stuck in the back of the
reporting.  I think there ought to be a little bit
more to it than this.  You didn't see it.  It was in
the March -- it was attached to the March monthly
division report.  I missed it and found it there.
There's nothing wrong with the information that's on
here.  It's just I think there should have been a
little bit more discussion with regard to the
different issues and what might affect us and if
there's a position we want to take.  It's a little
late for this year.
 
MR. HIRANAGA:  Well, Mr. Chair, I don't believe
my packet included that.
 
CHAIR RICE:  This was a prior month.  This
wasn't in this month's.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  March.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Yeah, it was March's stuff.  We got
that last meeting.  I'm just saying if you didn't know
it was there, it was there.  And I think it's
something we need to talk about before we contract
with next year.  Mr. Nakamura.

MR. NAKAMURA:  Just one quick comment on the
monthly reports.  I noted that there has been, you
know, some improvements in the report and that they've
tried to analyze the data and try to summarize some of
the more pertinent information, and I think that's
noteworthy.  We appreciate your forward progress in
that regard.

MR. CRADDICK:  Thank you.
 
CHAIR RICE:  And I think there was some
information handed out by Mr. Craddick at the meeting
for your review.  Budget workshop.  You should have
received from Mike both the CIP and the operating
budget and Mike is going to hand out an analysis now.
We will be scheduling a budget workshop.  We've done
that in the past, and that will be an opportunity for
the Finance Department to present the line by line
budget to the members to get comments before we move
onto the next stage.  So I'll be contacting everyone
through Fran as to the date that we will reserve for
the budget workshop, and the other date that we're
going to need to reserve is our next meeting on the
Committee of the Whole for Central Maui source
availability.  And that will be subject to attendance
by USGS and Mr. Mink.  So those meetings will be
coming in the next month in addition to our regular
meetings.  Mike.
 
MR. QUINN:  Just one quick comment, Mr. Chairman
and Board Members.  What was just handed out are four
pages and what we've done is we've tried to present
the variances in a percentage fashion.  You see the
columns on that summary sheet, and the purpose is to
highlight those variances to the major categories, and
we've also provided on the second and third pages a
narrative to explain those variances.
 And finally, since I know this is of particular
interest to the Board and particular interest to the
chairman, vacancies.  We've supplied a schedule that
tries to highlight the vacancies by division.  The
reason that's been in issue in the past with Board
Members is very often we have trouble filling those,
so we budget for them.  And many times, we don't fill
them, so we have a big variance in what we budgeted
versus what we actually have spent.
 So at the workshop, whatever that date is
decided, each division manager will be able to explain
in detail the reasons for the vacancies and the kinds
of problems they have with filling those vacancies.
In my particular case, we have a lot of -- we have
some entry level positions, and in those kind of
positions, there's a lot of turnover.  People get into
the system, and they immediately after six months
start looking for higher level positions elsewhere in
the County.
 So we tend to have a high level of turnover for
positions, but at any rate, hopefully these four
pieces of paper will facilitate the review process and
make your job easier.  That's the intent.
 
CHAIR RICE:  Mr. Starr.
 
MR. STARR:  Yeah, just glancing at this, I can
see that I'm going to have a problem here because we
discussed last year and the year before the fact that
we're not adequately funding the capital replacement
fund.  We put 4 million in there last year even though
we didn't -- and we know that we needed to be in the
seven to $8 million range.  Otherwise, there's going
to come a time when our entire