BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
REGULAR MEETING
Taken at the Kahului Shopping Center, 65 West
Kaahumanu Avenue, Unit 29, Kahului, Maui, Hawaii,
commencing at 9:00 a.m. on June 12, 2002.
Reported By: Rachelle Primeaux, CSR #370
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
APPEARANCES:
Peter Rice, Chair
Clark Hashimoto
Mike Nobriga
Adolph Helm
Ginny Parsons
Kent Hiranaga
Howard Nakamura
Michael Victorino
Staff Present:
David Craddick, Director
Ed Kushi, Corporation Counsel
Jerry Wells, Secretary
Wendy Taomoto, Engineering
Holly Perdido, Finance
Herb Chang, Engineering
Herb Kogasaka, Engineering
George Tengan, Deputy Director
* * *
CHAIR RICE: Good morning, everyone. I will
call to order the Regular Board of Water Supply County
of Maui meeting. It's Wednesday June the 12th. We
are at the Kahului Shopping Center. The agenda has
been posted, circulated. In attendance, Board Members
Clark Hashimoto, Adolph Helm, Mike Nobriga, Howard
Nakamura, Ginny Parsons and myself, Peter Rice;
Director, David Craddick; Ed Kushi, Junior, Deputy
Corporation Counsel, staff, the those members of the
public who are here, who are here to give testimony.
We'll get to that in one second. There are no minutes
to approve.
There has been written testimony submitted. It
was on your desk. Everyone has got copies of that.
At this point, if there is testimony from the public
on any of the issues that are on the agenda, we would
be happy to take that testimony at this time. Or if
you choose, you can wait until the issue comes up on
the agenda, and I will provide for testimony at the
beginning of that particular issue. So if I seem to
forget, just raise your hand. We'll get moving
quickly.
Anybody want to give testimony at this time
before we move into the agenda? Seeing and hearing
none, I'm going to move on to Director's Report
02-19. Mr. Craddick.
MR. CRADDICK: What we're asking for here is
either board acceptance of the draft supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement or an alternative to
allow acceptance of the draft supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement by the Department.
Normally the staff does all the work related to the
preparation of the projects including the acceptance
of the environmental studies. This particular project
is unique in that this supplemental environmental
study has been required by the court and the
supplemental work is already completed. The Board
approved the original study in 1994, and this was
under -- with the authorization of the Governor. And
currently, it's only State funds that are encumbered
in this project. This was done at my request to the
Board as I felt the document would be challenged. And
I felt it would lend more credence to the document by
having the Board approve it. The document was
challenged regardless of Board acceptance.
An outline of the environmental review process
is attached. That's a page behind my letter there.
And we're at the point where that large black arrow
is, "Agency accepts draft EIS." Now, should the Board
decide to accept or delegate acceptance of this
document, there is still ample time for community
input. What you're doing here is allowing this to be
published in the OEQC Bulletin, and that starts a
45-day public comment period.
Now I see here corp counsel has reviewed the
legal requirements for acceptance and opine that the
Department can be the accepting authority, especially
since this is a draft document and there is still
ample time for Board participation and acceptance of
the final document should they desire. The
preliminary draft that was circulated to the Board in
executive session has been supplemented by the
comments collected during the comment period and that
scoping meeting that we held and answers to all those
comments are provided in this document; whereas, the
other one you had didn't have those comments.
An appendix has also been added to provide for
further monitoring and observation of the aquifer as
it is built out. And one other item here is after
deciding how to handle the draft supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, the Board may want to
schedule public meetings to explain the project or
accept further community input to the study or some
other form of participation with those that may be
affected by the project. We would recommend that if
you do it, it be done at this meeting because the
45-day comment period will be up on August 7th if this
is resolved here today.
And the August 7th date would start June 23rd,
which actually is a Sunday, so I think maybe that's
the 24th. And in order to meet that date, it must be
submitted to OEQC sometime today. Anytime after the
June 23rd publication date would be appropriate for a
meeting date keeping in mind we will need to get
minutes of the meeting and address the comments.
That's it.
MS. PARSONS: One question.
CHAIR RICE: Yeah, Ginny.
MS. PARSONS: If it's not accepted today, what
would be the results? What would be the prognosis?
MR. CRADDICK: They may I guess delay in getting
water into the system, and there could be some
financial repercussions on the State funds.
MS. PARSONS: How much?
MR. CRADDICK: On the order of not quite $4
million.
MR. NOBRIGA: In the absence of the Chairman
because he has something in his eye, monitoring the
meeting, is there any other questions from the
members? Mr. Helm.
MR. HELM: Yeah, this is in reference to
Mr. Hall's letter. He mentioned on his last sentence
here, "To accept the draft EIS or SEIS is to violate
the procedures set out in our EIS law." And maybe our
corp counsel can elaborate a little bit about
clarifying what he means.
MR. NOBRIGA: Are you prepared to give a comment
at this time, Mr. Kushi?
MR. KUSHI: Yes, Mr. Vice-chair, Board Member
Helm, yeah, I did review Isaac Hall's letter dated
June 10th, 2002, and he says basically, if I'm reading
correctly, his last sentence says "To accept a draft
EIS or SEIS will violate the procedures set out in our
EIS law."
I looked at the Chapter 343 Hawai`i Revised
Statutes, which is the EIS statute, as well as the EIS
rules promulgated by the Department of Health. In
terms of accepting a draft or accepting a supplemental
draft, this is just the preliminary stage to get into
the final draft, the final statement. I don't see
where, you know, what Mr. Hall is saying that we
violate the procedures.
You need some mechanism to move forward. If we
can't accept it, if the Department or the agency can't
accept it, who does? That's the question. By reading
these laws, the final accepting authority after a
draft is published and public comment is accepted and
responded to, final accepting authority is either the
Governor or the Mayor.
In this case, my understanding is the Governor
delegated that task to this Board; however, to even to
get to that final stage, you need to start the
publication process. What Mr. Hall says I don't
understand and I don't agree with. And I think if the
Board is going to move on with this plan, we should
move on accordingly. And there needs to have some
sort of approval to get this draft plan to OEQC, QECC,
whatever the agency is, to start the publication
process, and the Department has come to you to say let
us do it or you do it.
CHAIR RICE: Isn't the question, Mr. Kushi,
acceptance -- it's that I don't see acceptance in this
draft of the system. It's pointing here, isn't it?
MR. NOBRIGA: Yeah.
CHAIR RICE: Which way is it pointing? The
agency accepts draft EIS. The agency is not us.
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ
because it was basically under the charge of the Board
of Water Supply that these supplemental EIS process
was -- like it was rebegun.
CHAIR RICE: Okay. Except I'm just talking
about the words in this document that was circulated
to us, because agency in here -- make sure Mr. Kushi
has a copy of that. Agency in here, I guess that's my
question. Does that mean Board of Water Supply?
Because in the very beginning, it says, "Agency
determines project is exempt or not applicable."
That's not the determination that we make, and I think
agency that's being referred to in this document is
not the Board of Water Supply.
And are we accepting -- I don't know that we're
saying that we accept the EIS as much as we're saying,
okay, it's been done. We've gone through the
process. We've got comments. We've incorporated the
comments into the document. Move it on to the next
step. It's not approved. It's a document that is
done to disclose issues, environmental issues that
relate to a project. So it's not that it's approved
by anyone. I guess this body can say have we
adequately reviewed all the issues that would relate
to environmental impacts and are they included in this
document if we feel that's the case. Or obviously if
we didn't feel that was the case, comments would have
reflected that, and it would be included in this
second draft. But whether it -- but to say that
it's -- I mean I don't know that I could say that it
was complete or not complete. You know what I'm
saying?
So my question is when they say agency in this
document, who is agency?
MR. KUSHI: Okay. That technical answer to your
question I would just cite from the HRS 343. Under
definitions, "Agency means any Department, office,
board or commission of the State or County government
which is a part of the executive branch of the
government," so department or commission.
CHAIR RICE: Ginny.
MS. PARSONS: So as the board or the commission,
can we appoint the Director to make the
determination?
MR. VICTORINO: I think that's what he's
asking.
CHAIR RICE: That's what he's asking for us to
either accept it or ask the Department. But I don't
want to get into that. Remember I made that speech a
while back. We're not two groups here.
MS. PARSONS: Right, we're one. So as a group,
can we appoint the Director to make the
determination?
CHAIR RICE: Mike.
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you. Because of the nature
of the entire project, keeping in mind that
historically speaking, the Environmental Impact
Statement process was begun and was challenged, and
that challenge was heard in a court of law. The court
provided -- the court provided a scope of work for the
supplemental EIS if I am correct in that assumptions.
Using this -- using this expanded view document
that we have in our packets, on the original EIS
preparation on the project, at what point was that EIS
project along the line prior to the filing of Mr. Hall
on behalf of his clients? Was it already down on the
bottom, or was it like halfway through?
MR. KUSHI: Understand I wasn't here, but
according to Director Craddick, on your flow sheet, it
was at the very bottom, 60-day legal challenge
period. So it went through the whole 9 yards, and
they went to court.
MR. NOBRIGA: That brings up another question.
Being that that EIS process had come to a natural
conclusion, is our direction of a supplemental EIS a
new project in which case Mr. Hall on behalf of his
clients, the Coalition to Protect East Maui Resources
et al., he -- I feel his comments is directed to the
top of the process, which in his view was not followed
for whatever reason. And I'm very clear in my mind
that that wasn't -- that didn't take place because the
court already determined what the scope of work for
the top half was going to be.
MR. KUSHI: Well, let me respond this way.
Maybe David can try to make it clear. My
understanding is, like you said, the initial EIS went
through the 9 yards and it got challenged. And the
plaintiffs were successful in persuading the court to
say that the EIS was inadequate. So the court ordered
the Department and the Board, both defendants, to do a
supplemental EIS. And until you do a supplemental
EIS, no funds would be spent, no premise would be
issued except funds needed to prepare the supplemental
EIS, so we're at that stage.
So it's not like it's a new ball game. It's a
continuation of what they started back in the early
'90's. What Mr. Hall and his clients are arguing
apparently is we should go back to the top of your
flow chart, which I believe the Department and through
its consultants have done. They've had meetings with
agencies. They've had the scoping meetings. They
have published the EIS preparation notice. Mr. Hall
has been responding and commenting all throughout up
to two days ago. So we're, as Mr. Craddick says,
we're at the finger-pointing stage of what -- whether
to go on and start to publish this document.
CHAIR RICE: Okay. And I think that answers the
question you had, Mike.
MR. NOBRIGA: Uh-huh.
CHAIR RICE: But my question now, it appears
from reading these two letters that Mr. Hall disagrees
with you in terms of input he's had along the
process. And I'm looking at the longer of the two
letters where he's talking about addressing studies
and things that he thought should be included in the
EIS that apparently are not. And I'm only bringing
this up in terms of expecting a challenge, have we
covered our bases adequately enough to -- we're going
to be probably required to go back to court to present
the EIS in such a way that it's now an adequate EIS.
So the question should be have we done all of
our homework and are we comfortable we addressed all
the issues. And I think if we answered that question
yes, we can make a decision to accept it in its
current form and move it on to the rest of the
process. Does that make sense to the Board Members?
MR. VICTORINO: Yeah.
MR. NAKAMURA: Can I ask a question? David,
during this process of the preparation notice and the
comments submitted in response to the preparation
notice, were there a large number of comments or just
a comment from Mr. Hall, and were all those comments
responded to on a timely basis or, as Mr. Hall
suggests, he did not receive any response until June
5th?
MR. CRADDICK: Can I just go down and read you
all the people we responded to, or do you want
specific just to Isaac Hall?
MR. NAKAMURA: I want to get a general idea
whether or not there were a number of responses and a
number of comments that whether or not there were
responses made.
MR. CRADDICK: This section in the report here
titled 16.5 Testimony Letter and Responses to Comments
on the Draft Supplemental EIS Notice, it has most
state agencies. And the very last one Isaac Hall's
letter dated June 7th, 2001, is responded to.
MR. NAKAMURA: A year ago?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
MR. NAKAMURA: What is the reason for this,
David?
MR. CRADDICK: All of them are responded to
within the span of about a week including the ones
from the scoping meeting that we held.
MR. NAKAMURA: Is that the normal procedure that
the responses are in a significantly later period?
MR. CRADDICK: I don't know if that's normal,
but in this particular case, one of the things we had
to do is drill that monitor well, so we had to go
through the whole bidding process on that and actually
drill the well and that was the main I think issue
delaying this so that we could actually respond to
them, because the issues that they brought up were the
same issues brought up in the court case. And we --
the court felt we couldn't respond to them then
without doing a monitor well, some sort of
observational well, and that's what we did in order to
respond to these.
MR. NAKAMURA: When we started on this
supplemental EIS project, we had requested that Mink &
Yuen retain the services of a legal consultant to
basically assure that the process was clean and that
we would minimize the potential for action down the
road. Has that been done?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes, it has been done.
MR. NAKAMURA: It has been done?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
MR. NAKAMURA: Are you sure?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes. Well, they've been
consulting with them over these letters when we held a
scoping meeting. I know they talked about -- when I
say they, Mink & Yuen talked with him about whether
that was okay to have that meeting. And on our side,
we talked with corp counsel, and on their side, they
also talked to OEQC.
MR. NAKAMURA: Okay. And then one last
comment. If the Board, if there's no action taken in
response to Commissioner Parsons, Board Member
Parsons' question, the impact would be basically that
it would be published at the next -- at the next issue
of the OEQC newsletter; isn't that right?
MR. CRADDICK: That's correct. Well, as long as
something happens here today positively and not that
it goes to further study or to try and address these
two letters of Isaac's.
MR. NAKAMURA: And the newsletter is
published --
MR. CRADDICK: Twice a month.
MR. NAKAMURA: Twice a month?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
MR. NAKAMURA: So you're not talking about --
I'm not suggesting we defer it, but you're not talking
about a disastrous delay?
I think the Director is crying wolf or
something. I mean, you know, you raised $4 million.
I don't think that's a fair statement. Two weeks is
going to cost us $4 million. We've been at this thing
for years.
MR. CRADDICK: The State has been trying to
lapse that money for some number of years. In 1996
the Board Chairman went in and had a meeting with the
Governor and the budget person Earl Anzai at that
time, and we got it deferred I believe it was until
the year 2000. In the year 2000 we wrote a letter
asking it to be deferred until December of this year.
And we have always assumed it's early December.
If it's late December, then you might be right. I
didn't want to chance it, you know, and having that
being confused. But our letter to them just says
December 2002.
MR. NAKAMURA: Thank you.
CHAIR RICE: Any other comments from the Board?
What's your pleasure?
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Chair.
CHAIR RICE: Mr. Victorino.
MR. VICTORINO: So if I'm correct in what I
understood what has been said to this point, that if
we accept this report, that's basically what we're
doing so that we can move on in the process? We're
not saying that we accept any other further changes
that may come about or anything that may come about
once this report is published through the -- I'm
sorry, I missed that.
MR. CRADDICK: OEQC Bulletin.
MR. VICTORINO: Thank you. So what we're doing,
this supplemental report was required by the courts,
am I correct? And if we do not get this supplemental
report out, we wait another two weeks, a month, we're
getting closer and closer to these deadlines that
makes it almost virtually impossible and we may lose
the $4 million along with other things that may
occur. By us accepting this supplemental report, it's
my understanding we're just moving the process along.
We're not saying we accept the project. We're not
saying anything more than we want the process to be
moved along.
And I think Mr. Hall and those people out there,
we're not saying that, hey, we're not listening to
you. There may be other things that come up, but we
want the process to continue instead of just being
bogged down like it has in the past. Am I correct in
saying that?
MR. CRADDICK: I would say yes to that.
MR. VICTORINO: So my feeling is this
supplemental report moves the process, then I'm in
favor of accepting the report, even though I've spent
a number of hours reading it. And I'll be very
honest, you've got to have some engineering background
to understand a lot of this stuff. But, you know, I'm
in favor of moving it on so we can move the process
because the public needs to be engaged, and this is
another way of the public being engaged.
CHAIR RICE: Mr. Kushi, would you agree with
Mr. Craddick's comment?
MR. KUSHI: Yes.
CHAIR RICE: Thank you. And I guess if Mr. Hall
has legitimate concern, I don't know that we're going
to solve it in two weeks, so if we drop the ball
somewhere, we're going to be back to the drawing board
anyway, right?
MR. CRADDICK: That's correct. Can I -- one
other thing for the record, too.
CHAIR RICE: Mr. Craddick.
MR. CRADDICK: There is a court case going on
here right now, and there seems to be some debate
whether that court case is finished. And when he
submits something, it starts a new legal challenge and
it's not part of that other court case. I believe
corp counsel kind of takes the opinion that that court
case is still ongoing, and if he challenges it, he'll
be part of that. And if that's true, these letters
they keep sending to us I think are of some concern
because he should be corresponding with corp counsel,
not necessarily us individually because there is a
court case going on.
CHAIR RICE: Well, Mr. Craddick, you have -- I'm
sure you have a long enough memory to remember that I
directed you that all this correspondence should go to
corp counsel, so while he may mail it to you, it
should be sent directly to them, and the responses
should come from corp counsel.
MS. PARSONS: May I just say this? It's a
sanctionable issue in court, so it's a very important
issue. It's a sanctionable issue.
CHAIR RICE: I'm not an attorney, and neither is
Mr. Craddick. That's why I don't want Mr. Craddick
giving legal advice. That's why we have Mr. Kushi
sitting next to him over there.
MR. NOBRIGA: The matter before us this morning
is to -- for us to either accept the document as the
Board of Water Supply or delegate acceptance authority
to the Department. There's one question that I still
need to be answered in order for me to make that
decision if we want to accept or delegate. That
questioning is, unfortunately might sound weird, but
legally who is easier to defend?
MR. KUSHI: Clarification. Who, the Board or
the Department?
MR. NOBRIGA: Yeah. Because that's what's
before us we. Either got to decide if we're going to
take the rap or let Mr. Craddick take the rap. And I
think Mr. Craddick would be more easy to defend in a
court of law than we would be because we're all
individuals.
MR. KUSHI: Well, defending one is easier than
defending nine, put it that way. But in any event,
both of you, the Board as well as David in his
capacity are defendants in this ongoing case. And I
agree and confirm with David that our office's feeling
is that this civil case starting back in 1993 is still
pending, that the court made an order saying --
ordered us to do a supplemental EIS. And until we do
it, they still have jurisdiction over it. So in terms
of who is easier to defend, we have an obligation to
defend both anyway.
MR. NOBRIGA: If there is no objections, I would
like to move that we delegate the Department to accept
the draft.
MR. VICTORINO: I second the motion.
CHAIR RICE: Moved and seconded to delegate the
Director.
MR. NOBRIGA: The Director and the Department,
the Director and the Department.
CHAIR RICE: Okay. Comments, Mr. Kushi?
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, maybe for clarification
and I guess comfort level, maybe the motion should be
that you move to delegate to the Director the
responsibility of accepting the supplemental EIS, the
draft supplemental EIS for publication.
MR. NOBRIGA: I will reword my motion to include
all the comments made by our corp counsel in its
entirety.
MR. VICTORINO: And I second the amended changes
to the motion.
CHAIR RICE: Okay. Does everyone understand the
motion? Mr. Nakamura, you have a question?
MR. NAKAMURA: I was going to make a similar
comment to what the corp counsel said. My suggestion
was to add language to the effect that the Director be
authorized to accept and to process the supplemental
EIS, you know, in accordance with law or something
like that or in accordance with the appropriate legal
procedures, which is what he's basically going to have
to do. I think that corp counsel's suggestion pretty
much incorporates that.
CHAIR RICE: Okay. Any other questions,
comments on the motion? Okay. All in favor, say
aye.
VOICES: Aye.
CHAIR RICE: Opposed, say nay.
(No response).
CHAIR RICE: Motion is carried unanimous.
Okay. Next item, Director's Report 02-20.
MR. CRADDICK: It's stream monitoring project is
in our budget, and its program spans a number of
years, three years I believe, for monitoring of
streams in the northeast Maui. This first year is
$30,000 I believe it says in the contract. The next
year would be 50, but the funds get spent over three
years.
And the objectives of this study are to assess
the effects of existing surface water diversions on
flow characteristics for perennial streams in
northeast Maui, characterize the effects of diversions
on in-stream temperature variations; and three,
estimate the effects that stream flow restoration will
have on habitat availability for native stream fauna
in northeast Maui. And this is a cooperative
agreement with the Commission on Water Resource
Management and U.S. Geological Survey.
CHAIR RICE: Okay. Any questions from the Board
Members? Mr. Nobriga.
MR. NOBRIGA: Any reason why the Board of Water
Supply does not sign the second page of the contract?
MR. CRADDICK: I think this came from the State,
and I don't think we made an issue with it. But it
could be the Board decided it. There's no problem
with that if that's your desire.
MR. NOBRIGA: Move to support this project.
MR. VICTORINO: Second.
CHAIR RICE: Moved and seconded to support the
project.
MR. NOBRIGA: Yeah, by releasing the funds
necessary blah, blah, blah.
MR. VICTORINO: I second the rest of that
motion.
CHAIR RICE: It's been moved and seconded to
support the project and move funds along to perform
according to our agreement. Mr. Nakamura.
MR. NAKAMURA: One question. Mr. Attorney, is
it appropriate for us to basically agree to the
$50,000 for a subsequent fiscal year, or can we just
agree to the $30,000 for this year? Isn't there
supplementation?
MR. KUSHI: Board Member Nakamura, I'm sorry, I
had assumed this amount was budgeted. But if what
you're saying is correct, that it's not budgeted, then
we need to amend the budget.
MR. NAKAMURA: Well, the 30,000 is budgeted.
MR. KUSHI: Multi-year?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
MR. KUSHI: But your budget is year to year.
MR. NAKAMURA: Yeah.
CHAIR RICE: The request is for $30,000 matching
funds, so I think that's what the Board is approving
at this point. Well, Mr. Chair, the Director pointed
out on the memorandum of agreement Page 2, Item Number
3, it seems to have a release clause there regarding
termination before the end of the term, but I still
have other questions.
CHAIR RICE: Mr. Kushi, the request from the
Director is for matching funds which are in the budget
which we can approve. The request is not to sign a
multi-year agreement, right? So we can approve the
request for funds, matching funds, and then if we have
to amend the agreement to conform with our own rules,
then we have to do that. But if you think the
agreement adequately protects us, then --
MR. KUSHI: You know, at this time, Mr. Chair, I
need to look at this again. I can't give you a yes or
no on that.
CHAIR RICE: Mr. Nakamura.
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I would
suggest, as you seem to be agreeing to, is if we
approve the $30,000, which is the amount contained in
the budget and basically leave it up to the Director
and the attorneys to handle the appropriate
documentation.
CHAIR RICE: Okay. No objection to that?
(No response.)
CHAIR RICE: All in favor, say aye.
VOICES: Aye.
CHAIR RICE: Opposed say nay.
(No response.)
CHAIR RICE: Motion is carried. Okay.
Communication 02-14, request from Fred Sherman for
water service, Molokai. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Craddick. Members of the Board, I've asked
Mr. Craddick for the historical background on this.
Here it is. You're all welcome to have it if you
like. I believe that in terms of service, Mr. Sherman
can have service if he pays for the meter, is that
correct, Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: That's correct.
CHAIR RICE: The issue then is not with
Mr. Sherman, as I understand it, with regard to
getting a meter. It's that in the year 2000, the
meter was removed from that property because the prior
owner was delinquent. In the year 2001, Mr. Sherman
purchased the property I think through a foreclosure
and now wants that meter put back at no charge. And
that's the long and short of all this correspondence I
believe.
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
CHAIR RICE: So if Mr. Sherman was here, I would
ask for confirmation that he actually bought the
property in 2001. And I would ask Mr. Craddick if, in
fact, he did remove the meter in the year 2000 in
April as he's indicated in this?
MR. CRADDICK: We did.
CHAIR RICE: You did, okay. So I think
Mr. Sherman's issue is with the seller, if he believes
there's a meter that's due him. And I don't know if
corp counsel has had a chance to look at this or not.
MR. CRADDICK: It was a foreclosure I believe.
Those are as is where is.
MS. PARSONS: It could have been represented to
the seller that there was a water meter on the
property. It could have been represented. We don't
know, so you're right, it goes back I would think to
the seller.
CHAIR RICE: Mr. Victorino.
MR. VICTORINO: Basically that answered the
question. I mean when it's a foreclosure, you take it
as is. And whatever results, resulting situations,
you knew that going in. I see we're not obligated in
that sense, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR RICE: I could see nothing in there,
unless for some reason -- there is some reference,
Mr. Craddick, to reviewing the property when there was
a meter there. That's why I asked if it was removed
in 2000. And he didn't buy the property and closed
until 2001. Then it was without a meter for a year,
so I don't know.
MR. CRADDICK: I can't confirm the date when he
actually concluded his transaction. I do know that
meter was removed in 2000.
CHAIR RICE: This is an e-mail from Mr. Sherman
to Mike Quinn, and it's dated April 23rd, 2001. And
it said, "I closed on this property last Monday," so
I'm sure we can figure out what date that was. And
then in this documentation -- I just, I guess I want
to make sure we don't embarrass ourselves here and
find out we actually didn't remove the meter in 2000
and we removed it in 2001 when we found out he was
buying it. Then I think we have an issue.
MR. CRADDICK: We could research that a little
bit better and bring that back to the Board if you
want. Because we got all the information from
Cravalho plantation over there in Molokai and we would
be probably looking at that issue sometime in the next
month or so.
CHAIR RICE: I think the key thing is when we
removed the meter, if we can verify when we did that.
MR. CRADDICK: I can verify that it was removed
in 2000.
CHAIR RICE: Okay. Subject to verification that
the meter was removed in 2000, then Mr. Sherman can
have a meter and pay the current fee. Do we need a
motion to that effect? That's part of the rules I
guess, right?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes.
CHAIR RICE: Okay. Let's move on to the fun
stuff. Mr. Nobriga, you want to say something?
MR. NOBRIGA: I move Communication 14 be filed.
MR. VICTORINO: Second.
CHAIR RICE: Moved and seconded Communication
02-14 be filed. All in favor, say aye.
VOICES: Aye.
CHAIR RICE: Opposed, say nay. Motion is
carried unanimous. I was going to say let's move on
to the fun stuff. Okay. Other business, the three
items under other business, no one has interrupted me
for public testimony until now, so I guess you're all
here for this issue. Mr. Craddick.
MR. CRADDICK: Peter, on the last item, I don't
know whether Mr. Sherman has gone to court yet, but he
was supposedly consulting with some judge that
referred him to my original letter to him saying that
he could come to the Board to petition the Board for
relief. Now he sent the letter in.
He's not here, but I think the Board should take
some kind of affirmative action either his request is
approved or his request is denied, not just filing it,
because that leaves it open that no action has been
taken by the Board. And if he does go to court, court
is just going to refer him back to you for taking
action.
So if you're going to take action today, I'll
leave it up to the discretion of your legal advisor
here, but it would be my suggestion to take some kind
of affirmative action here, yes or no for his request
to have the meter reinstalled no charge.
CHAIR RICE: Well, and I guess at this point,
you have another fact-finding thing to do before we
can respond.
MR. CRADDICK: So then the best thing would be
maybe to defer this item until we get that information
to you.
CHAIR RICE: I don't have a problem with that.
MR. NOBRIGA: My motion to file was based on
proposed rule amendment allowing for public appeals to
the Board that a proposed rule has been transmitted to
the Mayor and has not yet been approved or denied by
the County Council.
MR. CRADDICK: This rule that the meter fee is
in has its own provision there where the Board can
waive the rule if we want, so you could deal with this
if you wanted to take some action.
CHAIR RICE: Ginny.
MS. PARSONS: May I make a motion that provided
that the meter was removed in 2000, that Mr. Craddick
is to respond to Mr. Sherman, and the purchase was in
2001, that Mr. Sherman may purchase the water meter at
the current rate.
CHAIR RICE: Is that it? That's it?
MR. VICTORINO: Second.
MS. PARSONS: Do we need anymore?
CHAIR RICE: All right. We've got a motion and
a second. We have a prior motion to file I believe
parliamentarily.
MR. NOBRIGA: I don't remember what the motion
is, but there's a motion to rescind. What was the
motion?
MR. KUSHI: The motion to reconsider your prior
action.
MR. NOBRIGA: Right, right, thanks. Move to
reconsider the prior action, Mr. Chairman.
MR. VICTORINO: Second.
CHAIR RICE: Moved and seconded to reconsider
the prior action. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIR RICE: All in favor, say aye.
VOICES: Opposed, say nay.
(No response.)
CHAIR RICE: Now we have a new motion subject to
confirmation of the facts of the removal of -- the
dates of the removal of the meter and the purchase of
the property that Mr. Sherman be told that he may
purchase a meter at the current rate.
MR. VICTORINO: Second.
CHAIR RICE: It's been seconded. Any discussion
on that motion?
(No response).
CHAIR RICE: All in favor, say aye.
VOICES: Aye.
CHAIR RICE: Opposed, say nay.
(No response).
CHAIR RICE: Motion is carried. If there is
testimony at this point, public testimony anyone?
Start in the front row. Come up and give us your
name.
MS. BEASOM: Good morning, I'm Susan Beasom, and
we've written a couple of letters. We have four-acre
lot off Kokomo Road, and we applied for a subdivision
in 1994. We've been on the water meter waiting list
since then. Our subdivision has lapsed. We wish to
remain on the list. We were notified that we may be
taken off the list or that we are off the list.
And I guess the point -- my point of contention
is that I understand there are people on the list who
have never even applied for a subdivision who remain
on the list. And because our subdivision has lapsed,
we're being taken off the list, and we don't want to
be taken off the list. We are still waiting for -- we
would like to still wait for a water meter.
CHAIR RICE: Okay.
MS. BEASOM: I think the reason -- Mr. Craddick
informed me the reason that our -- we were taken off
the list or that our subdivision lapsed, Newcomer Lee
was surveying our property, and we're -- we're Kokomo
Iki subdivision. I don't know if you see that.
CHAIR RICE: Yeah.
MS. BEASOM: We were off island from '96 to '99,
and it was during that period, so I don't know if it
was a miscommunication or if we were lost, they didn't
have our address or what or why. And my husband
unfortunately is not here. He would probably know
more about that.
CHAIR RICE: Okay. I can tell you that no final
decision has been made on this kind of issue. That's
one of the reasons we're having the meeting today is
to discuss this, so we appreciate your comment. We've
got the list of the subdivision.
MS. BEASOM: I would like to know if there is
something we need to do to remain on the list. We did
not know it was a requirement to have a current
subdivision to stay on that list. And if we had, I
guess we would not have let it lapse or we would have
been diligent about looking while we were off island.
CHAIR RICE: Well, there's a lot of issues that
are going to come up on the list that we're going to
discuss today. We are not necessarily going to make a
decision. We may or may not, but we are going to
discuss them. So any input you give us, we appreciate
it.
MS. BEASOM: So just keep coming to meetings and
sending you letters?
CHAIR RICE: No, we're not delaying it, but as
we go through the process, a lot of issues were
raised. Board Member Hashimoto went through the list
and raised a bunch more, so we're going to try and
discuss those today and come up with an equitable
resolution.
MR. NAKAMURA: Can I ask one question?
CHAIR RICE: Sure.
MR. NAKAMURA: Your property, you have no meter
at all?
MS. BEASOM: We have a meter. We have four
acres. We have one meter, and we want to subdivide
that into two two-acre lots.
MR. NAKAMURA: So this subdivision was for the
purpose of creating a second lot?
MS. BEASOM: Yes.
MR. NAKAMURA: And that was why there was an
application for the second meter?
MS. BEASOM: Yes. Thank you.
CHAIR RICE: Okay. I'm glad you asked that
question, so you said your subdivision name was?
MS. BEASOM: Kokomo Iki.
CHAIR RICE: Okay. Right, thank you.
MS. BEASOM: Thanks. Thank you.
MS. DICKSON: Mr. Rice, Chairman, and Members of
the Water Board.
CHAIR RICE: Your name, please.
MS. DICKSON: My testimony today is regarding
the upcountry water meter waiting list and the
issuance rule for the upcountry system on June 12th,
2002, the Board of Water Supply regular meeting. I'm
here this morning to respectfully request that my
husband Cecil Dickson and I be kept on the upcountry
water meter waiting list.
My husband and I own a two-acre parcel on
Omaopio Road in Kula. In 1993, we applied for a
three-lot family subdivision but were told that our
subdivision would not be approved because the Board of
Water Supply had deferred action on our request for
additional water meters due to the fact that water was
not available in our area.
At this time, we were placed on a priority list
for a water meter in the upcountry area and were told
we were number 300 on the list. In 2001, after
hearing through the news that the Board of Water
Supply would soon be able to provide water to those on
the upcountry priority list for water meters, we again
applied for subdivision of our property. I was told
that we were now 404 on the priority list.
I am not sure how more than 100 people got in
front of us on the list and this does concern me, but
we were at least satisfied that our position on the
priority list had been confirmed. On December 27th,
2001, we received primary subdivision approval. After
doing some research, I discovered that the audit on
the priority list conducted by the independent auditor
with the cooperation of the Department of Water Supply
recommended that numerous names be removed from the
priority list. I also discovered that our name might
be removed from the priority list because we did not
keep our 1993 subdivision application active.
I appeared before the Board of Water Supply on
May 21st, 2002, to offer testimony to the Board's
public hearing regarding the priority list and
proposed rule change. I asked the Board to please
reconsider removing our names from the priority list
and to honor the grandfather clause regarding
installation costs and charges of water meters.
At the public hearing, Board Member Nobriga
stated that the concerns such as those I expressed had
already been addressed by the proposed rule
amendment. Further research indicates that despite
the Board's assurances, our concerns are not being
addressed. The proposed rule amendment will only
apply to those who remain on the priority list. If we
are taken off the priority list, the proposed rule
amendment will not apply to us and we will have little
or no hope of receiving water meters we have waited
almost a decade for.
The only reason I stopped pursuing the
subdivision was because we were told that the water
was not available and no assurance could or would be
made when the water would become available. We were
never told that we could be excluded from the priority
list because we did not continue to keep our
subdivision application active. Had we known this was
possible, we would have requested a time extension for
our subdivision application. For the past nine years,
we have been on the priority list and have relied on
the assurance -- on that assurance that when water
became available, we would be granted the water meters
we were requesting in the order of the priority list.
Therefore, I urge you to please allow us to
remain on the priority list. To remove us from the
priority list would, in my opinion, be unfair and
unjust. I respectfully urge you to please address
this issue before you decide on the proposed rule
amendment. To allow the priority list to be amended
without consideration of those will cause hardship to
many families. Thank you very much.
CHAIR RICE: Ms. Dickson, one second.
MR. VICTORINO: Yeah, Ms. Dickson, I was looking
on this priority list. I cannot find you.
MS. DICKSON: I know, and I was -- I am 404 on
the water --
MR. CRADDICK: It's 95079.
MR. VICTORINO: 95079?
MR. CRADDICK: Texeira-Medeiros subdivision.
MR. VICTORINO: I was trying to find this using
your name, and I could not find it for the living
daylights.
MS. DICKSON: I don't know why it went as that,
but the that was the original when my dad did it years
ago.
MR. VICTORINO: That's the property we're
talking about?
MS. PARSONS: Since '95, not '93.
MR. VICTORINO: You said '93 also in the
letter.
MS. DICKSON: Sorry.
CHAIR RICE: I have a question, Ms. Dickson.
You made a comment about the auditor recommending
names to be removed from the list. Where did you get
that information?
MS. DICKSON: From the Board of Water Supply and
on the -- in the priority, I mean in the rules, they
said that they were removing.
CHAIR RICE: But the auditor doesn't recommend
anything. The auditor was engaged to check the list.
They didn't make recommendations as to anyone being
included or excluded. That wasn't their job just so
it's clear for the record.
MS. DICKSON: When they said the first 50 were,
you know, considered okay on the list, I just assumed
that there was, you know, this is where they were at.
CHAIR RICE: No, the auditor -- one of the
reasons we engaged the auditor was there was questions
about the list, okay. I was number five. I'm now
number 500, whatever, whatever. Without -- if it
would have taken much longer, we would not have this
report yet if they did the entire list. We told them
to take the first 50. What they found was the first
50 were in correct order, that the documentation
behind their listing is legitimate, so no exceptions
were found. They did not -- we didn't ask them to say
whether someone should be kept or not kept. That's
the Board's decision as you were testifying.
MS. DICKSON: Okay.
CHAIR RICE: Thank you. Any other questions,
Mr. Nakamura?
MR. NAKAMURA: So what is the source, David, of
this table on void subdivisions?
MR. CRADDICK: The source of it is names that
were not submitted to the auditor because they were
taken off the list because the subdivisions had
lapsed, and that's all I can say.
MR. NAKAMURA: So the source of the list is the
Department?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes. Yeah, these are all -- all
of these names here, I think if you'll look in Clark's
report there, I think we see a total of 17. And I'm
not quite sure how it went from 17 to the number you
have here, but you can see there's more than 17 here.
There's about 36 or somewhere in that order of
magnitude of subdivisions that were dropped off the
list because they had lapsed.
MR. NAKAMURA: What's the difference between a
subdivision being voided and a subdivision expiring?
MR. CRADDICK: No difference I don't think.
That's done by Land Use and Codes as far as I know,
and, Herb Chang, is there some difference between
those two?
MR. CHANG: I just used the same term. Land Use
and Codes said it's null and void. I just used the
same word.
MR. NAKAMURA: So these are basically
preliminary subdivision -- they had a preliminary
subdivision application and then their preliminary was
either because of time or whatever was considered to
be null and void?
MR. CHANG: Correct, or expired.
MR. NAKAMURA: Because of the expiration of
time?
MR. CHANG: I'm not sure. Sometimes they use
the word expired. Sometimes they use the words null
and void.
MR. NAKAMURA: But is it usual the reason one
has expired without any extension?
MR. CHANG: I don't know. I just received a
letter saying it's expired.
MS. PARSONS: Mr. Craddick, do you have to have
a subdivision in order to apply -- do you have to have
a subdivision in order to apply for a water meter?
MR. CRADDICK: No. Can I maybe go at the risk
of --
CHAIR RICE: No, don't take any risks this
morning. If you have a question for Ms. Dickson, I
think it's appropriate, otherwise we'll get into
plenty of this stuff. Thank you.
CHAIR RICE: Any other comments, last row? Dick
Mayer.
MR. MAYER: First I would like to thank the
Board for coming up to Kula and holding a meeting the
other night. That was very helpful for a lot of
people and I think hopefully for the Board to hear
from people. I just want to reiterate one or two
things that I said and that others may have said. We
would like very much in the rule an actual public
listing of the names. You can see the confusion
that's come up today, the need for auditors,
et cetera.
We believe it should be on the Internet, and
that as numbers go down the list, that they be made
public. And I think that should be put on the list
and people will see exactly how many more people are
ahead of them at all times. The problem with
subdivisions, and we feel that there are some large
subdivisions which will deny families the ability to
get meters, and consequently, we would urge, whether
it be one, two, three, a maximum of a low number of
meters being given to anybody on the list. And then
they can get back on the list, be put at the end of
the list for subsequent meters.
We would like to see oversight by the Board of
the whole thing, and so we would like to ask that
quarterly reports be given to the Board and that
relates to adequacy. If meters are being given out,
we would like to make sure that there's adequate water
for the people who already have meters. The problem
could be that you give a meter out for a very large
user; in other words, it may be only a three-quarter
inch or one inch or whatever the meter size might be,
but they might be using it up very intensively, be
using up a large draw of water, so the number of
meters does not relate directly to the amount of water
actually being consumed and it may impact people. And
lastly, I would like to remind you of the upcountry
community plan.
I would like to hand out something. There was
an article in the newspaper that was written. If I
could ask -- this is an article from 1993, and in
there, it makes the point where the arrows are
pointing there regarding what was done by the
upcountry plan and the statement that we were making
that rule a priority rule knowing that the Water Board
was required to carry it out, so this was a very
conscious decision that was made.
At that same time, Mr. Craddick came to the
Board, and I have here a second article that I would
like to pass out. I hope David is flattered. I only
have on this one here only a few copies. I hope he's
flattered by the photo that's included in the
article. And it says basically the same thing. I
asked him a question. I asked him a question down on
the lower left-hand corner of that article whether --
how the Water Department handled this question and
Mr. Craddick did not answer the question at the time.
And it seems to be still the point of the Department
that we're not really getting clearly how this list is
going to interact with the very strong recommendation
that's contained in the plan that's required that the
Board follow that plan of how Hawaiian Homes and
agriculture will be interfaced with this priority
list. And I still haven't heard any word on how that
will be handled. That's the end of my testimony.
CHAIR RICE: Thank you. Questions for
Mr. Mayer?
MS. PARSONS: Which Hawaiian homeland are you
referring to?
MR. MAYER: It's an area on the southern end of
the upcountry district below Keokea and between south
Keokea and the telephone exchange, largely in that
area. There's another Hawaiian homelands, Kahikinui,
which is outside the upcountry district. We do not
have a right to specify that land per se, but we -- I
think we're in sympathy with -- the problem is the
water from our district serves that area, and
therefore, it would impact them, but we could not make
that statement.
MS. PARSONS: Thank you.
CHAIR RICE: Any other questions for Mr. Mayer?
Yes, Mr. Nakamura.
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Mayer, you mentioned the
desire to perhaps limit the number of lots in new
subdivisions. What is your suggestion in terms of
what that number should be or what the criteria should
be in establishing that number?
MR. MAYER: I have always been frustrated by the
whole concept of family subdivisions, because I had a
next-door neighbor who came to me and said my two sons
are going to get those two lots beside me. He went
ahead and subdivided. I thought that was great. I
knew the two boys, his sons. They were students of
mine. He went ahead and subdivided, and within a
month I believe after he subdivided, he immediately
sold it off to a mainland developer.
That to me is frustrating, so I think a family
subdivision, if it is clearly a family subdivision and
if the family keeps it in the family for an extensive
period of time, 10, 15 years, would be a way of
getting around that. Not 30. I saw that in the first
list of 50, one subdivision of 37. I don't think
that's fair for one person to get 37 meters when
somebody who might be the next person on the list
doesn't get a meter at all, so I would like to say one
meter per family. And if they can generally show and
put in the rule that it is generally a family
subdivision, then perhaps, two, three, four.
CHAIR RICE: Ginny.
MS. PARSONS: Mr. Mayer, do you feel that -- I
mean when you're looking at the number of meters and
limiting it in times and essence on that, isn't that
more of a Planning Department issue rather than the
Water Board?
MR. MAYER: Well, the Water Board is supposed to
carry out the general plan and the community plan.
That's your role. And so the technical part of
someone who is carrying out the plan is your role. In
this case, if the priority is Hawaiian homelands and
agriculture, your obligation is to find or make a rule
that carries out that plan. This would be a mechanism
to help do that. So I see it not that you're making
the plan. The plan is there. Your job is to decide
how that is going to be implemented. That's my
viewpoint.
CHAIR RICE: Yeah, I think -- go ahead. Did you
want to say something?
MR. NAKAMURA: So your view of family
subdivisions is that it's either Hawaiian Homes or
agriculture?
MR. MAYER: My thing is it doesn't say
exclusively Hawaiian Homelands and agriculture. It
says that's the highest priority it's stated in
several places. That should be first. And then you
would go to individuals, and that may include in some
cases a small family subdivision of individuals, but
not the type of extensive subdivisions which some
people have on the list.
And there should be a reserve. I suggested a
possibility would be one-third/one-third/one-third.
One-third we're going to keep whatever source we have
reserved for Hawaiian Homelands, one-third for
agriculture, one-third for residential use and the
Director be given -- and you will not know what's
happening unless reports are given back to the Board
on some regular basis, quarterly or semiannually, as
to exactly how the meters are being given out.
That should just be a standard report that's
given back to the Board how this rule is being
implemented, otherwise you will never know what's
happening.
CHAIR RICE: Clark.
MR. HASHIMOTO: So you're not in favor -- well,
you're in favor of mostly family subdivisions and not
so-called commercial subdivisions where they'll have
1more than three lots, so there's some commercial
1subdivisions in here.
MR. MAYER: And I think that would be unfair to
many families, people who testified today and other
meetings, who have been waiting on the list ahead of
people who aren't on the list. They would buy a lot
in a commercial subdivision, but they themselves are
not on that list. So a developer going and saying I
am going to put up 37 or in some cases even more units
I think should not be given a higher priority than
someone who is further down on the list than a family
in Kula or Pukalani or Kokomo who is waiting.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Because there's a lot of lots,
some of these are 9, 4, you know, 15, 10, 19, those
are all considered commercial, not family
subdivisions.
MR. MAYER: And you may want to put a limit.
You may say no more than four.
MR. HASHIMOTO: That's what we're going to
discuss today.
MR. MAYER: I think that it would be very wise
for you to set a limit, and then show not only that
it's just a four-lot subdivision, but also for family
members.
CHAIR RICE: Any other questions for Mr. Mayer?
Thank you, Dick.
MR. MAYER: Thank you. Thank you for your
attention to this.
CHAIR RICE: Anyone else want to testify? We're
going to take a quick break.
(Recess taken.)
CHAIR RICE: Okay. Before we get into a lot of
deliberation here, we have the auditor's report. You
lady and gentlemen have had a chance to review it in
regards you heard me say the first 50 names on the
list. Is there any questions or comments? I think
the appropriate action would be just to accept it at
this point.
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Chair, first of all, I would
like to congratulate Clark on an outstanding job
because it took a lot of effort. And I apologize for
not being there, and secondly, I do and I move to
accept this proposal that Mr. Hashimoto has made so
that we can really start moving on on all these meters
and start getting this process moving.
CHAIR RICE: Mr. Victorino, if we could just
take up the Russell Yamane audit report first.
MR. VICTORINO: Oh, excuse me.
CHAIR RICE: He's done the work, and unless
there's questions, I don't think there's anything to
do other than just accept it.
MR. VICTORINO: Okay, I accept. Move to
accept.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIR RICE: Move and seconded to accept the
auditor's report. Any questions, comments?
(No response.)
CHAIR RICE: All in favor, say aye.
VOICES: Aye.
CHAIR RICE: Opposed, say nay.
(No response.)
CHAIR RICE: Accepted. Now, Mr. Hashimoto has
gone through the list and he has listed issues he
thinks we should address. Mr. Craddick.
MR. CRADDICK: I would just like to say it would
probably be in order for Herb Chang who has done a
real good job in keeping all this information
together. I was fairly well convinced when this
started there would be a number of things found other
than the subdivisions taken off the list which was
done at my direction, not his direction. I think he
did a very good job there.
CHAIR RICE: Thank you, Mr. Chang. Okay.
Clark, you want to say anything on this report?
MR. HASHIMOTO: Like David said, I think Herb
Chang was the one that really did all the work in
getting the list and putting it together. He had a
list of multiple listings, lots that had multiple
listings. Some of the lots had three applications, so
he had to screen all of that out, but other than that,
I think David and George and Herb Kogasaka and Herb
Chang, we all met and we kind of decided on -- we kind
of came up with a list of concerns, and I think that's
what we have, the issues to discuss today. I think
the sooner the better to resolve these issues.
CHAIR RICE: Mr. Nobriga.
MR. NOBRIGA: I would also like to express my
gratitude to Commissioner Hashimoto for his excellent
work. I would like to, if possible, pursue discussion
on Clark's report on a number of bases, whereby there
is seven concerns. I think we can knock this all off
if we go one through seven.
Prior to taking up Mr. Hashimoto's -- no, I take
that back. Erase. On issue one, lapsed subdivisions
have been removed from the list. We have before us a
document showing 36 of these have occurred. In
section -- Subchapter 2 of our proposed rule covering
issuing meters for the upcountry area, Section
16-106-04(b), we have in place a provision that says,
"Premises that are not on the priority list and have
expended funds in reliance upon official assurances
dated before November 2, 1994, or have any preexisting
rights associated with the premises entitling the
premises to water service shall be out 60 days from
the effective date of this rule to pay for or reserve
an allocation of service capacity pursuant to
subsection 16-8-9(b) of Chapter 8 of the Board's
rules. Thereafter such rights shall terminate."
I felt in speaking with Ms. Dickson that that
section kind of assured her ability to get back on the
list. Ms. Dickson now has an interpretation that's
telling me that that's not right.
CHAIR RICE: Well, you know what, I don't know
that -- that's why we're here today. If we decide
these 36 people go back on the list, they go back on
the list. I don't know we have to cite any rule for
it at this point. I think that particular rule dealt
with people who have been getting meters while these
people have not been getting meters so that we could
end that practice.
So I think you're right, we go one through seven
on the list. The first question is should lapsed
subdivisions be removed from the list or not, and
that's the question we should address right now. And
if we think they should be on the list, then they
should be put back on the list. I think it's that
easy. Mr. Craddick.
MR. CRADDICK: As long as you do that, it would
be that easy, but you can't say that these funds
expended are the funds for people that are not on the
list. These people were on the list. They have a
place in the priority list, so you can't use that
provision in the rule to put them in this group that
are not on the list. So if you decide they're going
to be put on the list, they go in the order where they
would have gone on the list following the procedures
that we have for getting on the list.
CHAIR RICE: I know. Don't go there with that
expended funds thing, okay.
MS. PARSONS: What about the dates that they,
the date -- what are we going to make the priority
here? Is it going to be to date that they file?
CHAIR RICE: Mr. Craddick.
MR. CRADDICK: All I can say is we would use the
same procedures that we followed for the first 50.
CHAIR RICE: Yeah, whatever date that everyone
else has used to be on the list, these people would go
back in their place.
MS. PARSONS: In their place, okay, that makes
sense to me.
CHAIR RICE: I guess my personal opinion is if
you're an individual on the list and you have no
requirements to do any subdivision kind of things,
you're on the list. But if you had a subdivision and
you didn't follow through with it, you're off the
list. I don't know how that's -- how we justify that
with the individuals.
MS. PARSONS: That was part of my question with
David before. When you file for a subdivision, you
also ask for water meters, but it doesn't have to be
simultaneous or separate. It doesn't have to be
separate actions, but sometimes it is, so if it's a
separate action that they went to the Board of Water
Supply in addition to filing a subdivision, that
should be a separate action all together.
CHAIR RICE: Yeah, all we're giving them, I
believe, correct me if I'm wrong, all we're giving
them is a chance to go back on the list in the order
that they were in, and then when their name comes up,
if they haven't done their subdivision stuff and they
can't comply with the time frame in the rule, then
they're off. They're off, but we have given them the
same opportunity we have given everybody else.
It's subject to any other rules that we come up
with and subject to all the other kinds of things like
availability of water and adequate transmission
lines. Somebody can be number one on the list and be
in the boonies and not get a meter if we don't have
any water there, right?
MS. PARSONS: I agree.
CHAIR RICE: So all we're doing is giving them
an opportunity to be on the list and when their name
comes up, if they have their act together and they can
get whatever is allowed under the rule. Clark.
MR. HASHIMOTO: David might have explained
this. Some of them have subdivision voided and others
application expired. Herb, did you say that was all
the same?
MR. CHANG: Yeah, the same.
CHAIR RICE: If there's some reason that they
can't do their subdivision that has nothing to do with
water and their name comes up on the list and they
can't get their subdivision and they can't get their
meter, then they're off. There won't be, you know,
you don't go to the back of the line. You're done.
We're going to get rid of this list. That's the whole
purpose of this.
MR. ZAJAC: How much time is there to get the
subdivision complete?
MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair, what was the answer to
Clark Hashimoto's question? I didn't hear the
answer.
CHAIR RICE: Herb.
MR. CHANG: My answer to that question was that
whatever reason why Land Use and Codes decided to use
expire or use the term null and void, the Water
Department didn't really look into that. As long as
we got the letter from Land Use and Codes saying it
was either voided order expired, we took that as
saying our action is to take them off the list and
leave them off the list, so we didn't get into the
nitty-gritty with LUCA why they did that action.
CHAIR RICE: That's not our concern is their
ability to get their subdivision. Does that answer
your question, Kent?
MR. HIRANAGA: Yes.
MS. PARSONS: It's right now where the confusion
I think stems from, and I know Planning is trying to
address this, too, it's where we come up in the
process. And maybe we need to come in first before
they go through their subdivision requests, because
what happens is they'll submit to Planning and then
come back to us and find out they can't get water, so
they've expended funds to get to that process. That's
something that's going to be handled internally, but
right now the issue is are these people allowed to
come back on the list, and if they can reup their
subdivision -- because they probably expired because
they couldn't get water period.
They just said, well, let it expire. I'm not
saying probably, possibly. So let them have an
opportunity to reup their subdivision with the County
on the -- on the probability that they're on this list
and they can't get water depending upon where they are
located.
CHAIR RICE: Mr. Craddick.
MR. CRADDICK: What we can do for administrative
purposes, we can use the old subdivision numbers so
that we can see that it is in order and just put the
new subdivision alongside of it, so that, you know,
people can see they are in the proper order on the
list.
CHAIR RICE: Mike.
MR. NOBRIGA: What about the applicants on this
list that have expended funds to keep their
subdivision active?
CHAIR RICE: They're on the list.
MR. NOBRIGA: Well, did you have those people
that have been expending funds?
CHAIR RICE: Versus the people who didn't expend
funds?
MR. NOBRIGA: Yeah.
MS. PARSONS: That's a personal choice. That's
a personal choice issue I think. If you want to roll
the dice that you're going to get a water meter that
it's going to come soon and you can keep your -- you
want to pay the money to keep your subdivision going,
that's your choice. It's a personal choice.
MR. NOBRIGA: But is the funds being expended to
the Department of Water Supply?
MS. PARSONS: We don't -- well --
MR. CRADDICK: Can I use your example?
MS. BEASOM: Sure.
MR. CRADDICK: Since she's here, we won't
violate any public names, but for whatever reason,
they didn't start their subdivision I guess in '94 and
they went off island. And the time came along where I
guess a letter was submitted to somebody, whether it
was their address or Newcomer Lee, it wasn't responded
to and eventually it dropped off the list.
The problem that Mike I think was talking about
are people when they got that letter probably told
their engineer, whoever was doing it, yeah, submit
another application.
MS. BEASOM: Or a letter of extension.
MR. CRADDICK: Yeah, requesting an extension,
something like that, and they had to pay that person
whatever, $5,800 or whatever, something like that, get
the letter in and keep their subdivision renewed. And
however many times they had to do that would be the
money that they probably expended in trying to keep
their subdivision alive, and I think that's the issue
where these people let it lapse, and that person did
expend money.
Let's say you come up and you're five short of
this person that expended money to remain active on
the list and then that person can't get a meter that
expended money. I think that's -- is that the issue
you're trying to bring up?
CHAIR RICE: I know what Mike's point is,
right. So does that put that person who spent money
here in a different position than those people who let
their subdivision lapse or dropped or whatever
happened? That's his question. The question -- the
other question he asked though you didn't answer was
did those people whose subdivisions are active placed
any money with us?
MR. CRADDICK: No.
CHAIR RICE: The answer is no. Ginny.
MS. PARSONS: I just look at it as we weren't
very clear to the people upcountry what was going on
with this water for the last ten years, and I think
that it's our fault. If we had have been clearer with
the issues on what was going on, maybe these people
would have opted to keep their subdivisions going. I
don't think it's an issue of whether somebody is
spending more money than somebody else.
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Chair.
CHAIR RICE: Yes, Mike.
MR. VICTORINO: I almost have to disagree with
Ms. Parsons on that. If somebody has done their due
diligence and kept up with their subdivision fees and
kept redoing it, if I was the person, I would be very
offended if all these people that had let it lapse,
whatever the reason. It's good, justified. If all of
the sudden their name goes above me, I would be kind
of offended, and I think if you were in that position,
you would be exactly the same way.
I don't mind putting them back on or whatever if
that's what the general feeling of the Board is;
however, I think they should fall into an area where
those who have done their due diligence and have been
maintaining and waiting and kept their subdivisions
and whatever else alive by paying whatever they needed
to do and taking care of their responsibilities, they
shouldn't be penalized in that nature. I think
something has to be worked out that way, but that's my
feeling on that issue.
CHAIR RICE: But the question though is the
maintenance of the subdivision. Maintaining it as an
active subdivision has nothing to do with water.
MR. VICTORINO: I'm not arguing that point.
CHAIR RICE: Well, I'm just saying. So someone
who has a subdivision application and who intends to
keep it active is doing so because they intend to go
through with the subdivision and they're just
waiting. It has nothing to do with whether water is
available or not. They choose to keep it active.
MR. VICTORINO: I'm not arguing that fact. But
to reward someone who has let is lapse, for those who
have done due diligence, I don't know if that's fair.
I'm not talking about, you know, just the water
issue.
CHAIR RICE: Well, they have to go back and do,
I mean who knows. They have to go back to the County
and reactivate it, so maybe that's easy. Maybe that's
not. I don't know. I think there's another bigger
issue, Mike, before Mr. Craddick speaks, and that is
when we publish the -- when we publish the information
about the list, we didn't, unless I'm wrong, it
doesn't say if you're on the list as a subdivision,
you must keep it active in order to be maintained on
the list.
It is just you want a water meter, you come in
and you put your name on the list, which is why I said
anybody who is Joe Blow who puts their name on the
list is not going to get knocked off. And the choice
of maintaining an active or an inactive subdivision, I
don't know why that would differentiate somebody.
Kent.
MR. HIRANAGA: I believe you brought up a good
point, because are there people on the list who are
asking for meters who have not applied for a
subdivision, and if they have not, are they still on
the list?
CHAIR RICE: Sure, an individual who wants one
meter.
MR. HIRANAGA: Right.
CHAIR RICE: Sure.
MR. HIRANAGA: I believe the Public Works
Department takes a very or is trying to not grant
these extensions on a rubber stamp basis anymore. You
have to show effort occurring during that six months
for a six-month extension; therefore, a lot of these
applicants probably, if water is their only obstacle,
would not be able to demonstrate to Public Works that
they're moving forward on their subdivision, and
Public Works would not grant the extension.
Personally, I feel that the applicants should be
placed back on the list, and they have the opportunity
at that point when their name comes up to reserve the
requested number of meters and pay the fees and to
have two six-month extensions, which basically allows
them two years to accomplish the subdivision. And
maybe we need clarification from Public Works as to
how they grant extensions. Are they willing to grant
extensions to people who for the only reason they're
not receiving final subdivision approval is lack of
water meters?
CHAIR RICE: Personally, I think they should be
put back on the list in whatever order they were
originally on, but whatever they can or can't do from
Public Works is what happens. If they can't go
through, then you don't --
MR. NAKAMURA: I just wanted to clarify
something that was asked earlier. So, David, when you
were maintaining this list, if someone came to you and
said we're thinking about doing a six-lot subdivision
and we want our name on the list for six meters, you
would have put them on the list without them having
gone through the process of getting preliminary
subdivision approval, or is everybody that has more
than one meter presumably have gone through
preliminary subdivision?
MR. CRADDICK: To the first part of your
question, the answer is yes, people are on the list
simply with letters saying they need to do this. The
next -- can you repeat the next part of your question
there again?
MR. NAKAMURA: Well, I guess I think that
answers it. So basically, we're -- I think that
reinforces what the Chairman is saying, we have the
matter of requesting the position on the list which is
separate from the initial subdivision.
CHAIR RICE: So it could be even worse. It
could be that some of these guys could say something
about a subdivision and never really applied for it.
They're just on the list. And the poor guys who
applied for it and let it lapse are off. So somebody
who is up here on the list for the first 25 may not
even have a subdivision application in, and they may
not even be able to comply when the list comes out, so
I think that's even more reason to do it.
MR. NAKAMURA: I think that's why it's important
to treat the list as purely a list. And as people
come up, they're given the opportunity to proceed to
either take it or not take it. If they don't take it,
then they go off the list for whatever reason. It
could be subdivision. It could be some other reason.
But if they're not in a position to take it, then I
think they should go off the list. If they're in a
position to proceed with the building permit or a
subdivision or whatever, then, you know, they have the
opportunity to proceed.
CHAIR RICE: Mike.
MR. NOBRIGA: The list is basically a
chronological listing of applicants which have been
denied service due to lack of source adequacy
primarily, yeah?
CHAIR RICE: Right.
MR. NOBRIGA: I think we're getting that
confused with this priority issue or who has
priority. It's basically a chronological listing. I
would support replacing these -- the -- I would
support putting the people that have been removed back
on the list in the same chronological order that they
were originally situated on the list. I believe that
those applicants that have continued paying to
reactivate their subdivision will only -- will have a
faster chance of actually installing meters once
meters can be released.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Is that a motion?
MR. NOBRIGA: I will make a motion at this
time.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIR RICE: It's been moved and seconded that
those people --
MR. NOBRIGA: Thirty-six names.
CHAIR RICE: You want to make it absolutely only
the 36 names, the subdivisions that have been removed
from the list because they're not active, void or
expired or whatever to be put placed back on the list
in their chronological order, is that your motion?
MR. NOBRIGA: My motion specifically -- yes,
Mr. Craddick.
MR. CRADDICK: I just talked with Herb who
prepared this list, and he would prefer it be more
general because he's not 100 percent. There might be
one or two more.
CHAIR RICE: So that the motion should be
subdivisions, not this only.
MR. NOBRIGA: All applicants, yeah, that were
removed from the list be replaced to the list in the
chronological order that they had originally
appeared.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIR RICE: Discussion?
MR. HELM: Yeah. Basically, I agree with what
Mike is saying there, and the bottom line, the way I
look at it, part of the list is going to be determined
by the water availability and water source, so, yeah,
I agree with what Mike has said.
CHAIR RICE: All right. Shall we call for the
question? All in favor, say aye.
VOICES: Aye.
CHAIR RICE: Opposed, say nay.
(No response).
CHAIR RICE: Motion is carried.
MS. PARSONS: Mr. Chair.
CHAIR RICE: Was there a nay?
MS. PARSONS: No. Mr. Chair, I ask you to make
another motion that the list be published on the
Internet pursuant to Mr. Mayer's request so people
will know where they stand and we have public notice
available to the community.
MR. CRADDICK: Peter, I think that would be an
OIP issue, putting people's personal names. We can
put the list on, but I don't know if we can put
individuals' names on.
CHAIR RICE: But their list is already on the
website by tax map key.
MS. PARSONS: But it is by tax map key.
CHAIR RICE: It is already.
MS. PARSONS: Subdivisions, too?
CHAIR RICE: Well, it will be amended. Okay,
Number 2. Mr. Nobriga.
MR. NOBRIGA: There was no second to
commissioner -- sorry, sometimes you move fast.
CHAIR RICE: That's why you're sitting next to
me. Number 2, multiple listings. Clark.
MR. HASHIMOTO: I guess Herb came out with
multiple listings in total 88 from 40 different
properties, so I guess one of the suggestions was that
properties listed multiple times on the list will be
evaluated according to the amount of source
requested. And then subsequent requests needing more
water than earlier requests will be offered water in
the order the requests -- order of the request on the
list. So, you know, it's the same TMK with sometimes
three different names requesting for the same lots.
CHAIR RICE: Are there two issues here? One is
that the same person -- I mean multiple requests for
the same TMK, and then you have persons who are
requesting for the same person or different TMK's, so
they may have three pieces of property.
MR. CRADDICK: Same property.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Same property.
CHAIR RICE: And your suggestion on the same
property is evaluated according to the Maui source?
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Chair.
CHAIR RICE: Yeah.
MR. VICTORINO: Am I correct, Clark, you're
saying if I applied, first of all, say I applied as an
individual, and then I came back six months later and
I applied for a subdivision or farming, which my
source now increased the amount of water I was
requesting. Is that how you're saying by when I came
in, or by the source amount?
CHAIR RICE: Go ahead, David.
MR. VICTORINO: Just so I get that clarified.
MR. CRADDICK: Maybe I should let Herb do this,
but my understanding, as Howard pointed out, people
could have gotten on the list simply by submitting a
letter. So let's say they got on the list once that
way, and let's say they actually applied for a
subdivision and their name got put on the list again.
And then let's say, for example, because I know some
are on there three times, let's say they applied for
further subdivision of that other subdivision and
asked for more meters. And I think those are some of
the issues that are out there, so in our discussion,
what we said was evaluate these things according to
the request.
If the first one, they wrote in and said, I need
two meters for a family subdivision, okay. That has a
date, let's say 1994. The next one, their subdivision
actually got submitted. Let's say it's 1996, but it's
still a two-lot subdivision. Then we would take the
earlier date. If it's for three meters or some other
number of meters, then those extra meters would be
handled at the time that name came up on the list, not
before, and I guess one issue could come up is if the
request wasn't clear what it was for in first place.
But I would have to defer to Herb if that may be
an issue. But I think most of them are relatively
clear what they want to do.
MR. VICTORINO: So you're going by when the
request was made, the date of the request, yeah?
MR. CRADDICK: That's I think the suggested
language here.
CHAIR RICE: So let me clarify this. If
somebody has been on the list three times and there
are people whose names are on three times, and let's
just assume it's not -- they did make a mistake.
Let's say they started with a three-lot family
subdivision. Then they decided they bought the
adjacent property and they wanted five meters and then
they later want ten meters just for an example. It's
not real that I know. When their name comes up, they
don't automatically get ten meters. Or it will depend
on what we decide in terms of limiting the meters.
What are we saying? It goes by the first request?
MR. VICTORINO: The first request.
CHAIR RICE: In some cases, they might be right
after each other.
MR. VICTORINO: Still the first request.
CHAIR RICE: So then their name is next, so they
get their first three, and then their name is actually
next on the list and they get the next.
MS. PARSONS: Right, but they should have the
opportunity reject or accept the first name, the first
position. If they accept the first position, they
take the first position. And when their name comes up
again, otherwise, their name goes off the list for the
first one. They can't say I'm going to wait until I
get all three names up and take it. Is that fair?
CHAIR RICE: I don't know that it's fair. In
some cases, multiple names follow each other. And in
the case where they come back and want more meters, if
we're thinking about trying to get meters to people,
that person becomes a large user all of the sudden.
Is it fair that they then before anyone else gets a
meter, they may get nine, because they're listed three
times in a row, for example?
MS. PARSONS: That's got to come in for our
decision though.
CHAIR RICE: I'm just raising the question.
MR. HELM: I guess, Chairman Rice, the question
I have if the applicant who has duplication of
applying based on duplication of TMK's, not
necessarily a name because he changes the name, but
the TMK's are the same. He applies for a five-eighths
meter and then applies for a three-quarter meter and
applies for a one-inch meter. And what we're saying
is actually we're going to recognize that he applied
first for the five-eighths meter, and that's what
we're intending on giving him and not the one-inch?
MR. CRADDICK: That's the way I read this
suggested language there.
CHAIR RICE: We need to be real clear on that
because there's a lot of variations because I see
people on the list in succession with different
TMK's. George.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, there's another
scenario. Let's say for one tax key, there might be
two meters and subsequently for five meters, or if
they say seven meters, and then on the third one would
be five meters. I believe the way we were discussing
it, the request for the seven meters would take
precedence over the five meters, so that let's say you
couldn't use it for -- couldn't take the seven meters
at the time it was offered to you, you could revert
back or go forward to the five meters.
CHAIR RICE: That's the question.
MR. TENGAN: That's another scenario.
CHAIR RICE: What about this to make it
simpler? What if we said if you're on there for
multiple requests, you have one request? You decide
whatever it is, and you get one, that's it. You don't
get three. You don't get two. You don't get three.
You get one. You decide, if it's for the same piece
of property now. If it's for the same piece of
property and you've got three requests in, you need to
make a decision. You can choose the earliest filing
so you don't lose that early filing space, but you
only get one request, whether it be for three, five or
seven, whatever it is. You say, okay, I'm going to
take my early request, and it's for nine. That's it.
And if you don't get it, you're off. And if we
decide to limit the number, that's all you get. And
that's it. I'm talking about for the same TMK,
multiple listings for the same TMK. David.
MR. CRADDICK: Let me try and get a scenario
here. If somebody has an early request for more
meters than they made in a subsequent request, I'm not
quite certain why they would come back on the earlier
request and ask for more. What they've probably done
is written in and said I want seven meters and
actually tried to subdivide it and probably found out
they can only have five lots. So I think other
portions of the rule, one meter, one lot covers that
they wouldn't be able to still get seven meters on
those five lots on the first request just by that one
lot, one meter portion of the rule.
But if, you know, let's say a subsequent request
was for less meters and you put in, let's say a
quarter million dollars of improvements, and I don't
know if you're saying that you take the request with
the lowest amount of water. I don't know if that's
what you're saying.
CHAIR RICE: All I'm saying in your scenario, if
the person, let's say they came in for seven meters,
but they found out later they could only get five lots
so they reduced it to five, when we asked them you
know, you've got to choose one. You go to the
earliest priority. Why are they going to choose seven
if they can only do five, right? So then they do
five.
MR. CRADDICK: That's what I'm saying. I think
the existing rules cover that. What I heard you
saying is that if they come in, let's say they're on
the list three times, first the written one, next the
family subdivision two lots, and then subsequently,
let's say they want to do another two lots and they
knew when they did the planning and stuff for that
two-lot family subdivision that they're going to have
to put in a quarter of a million dollars in
improvements. So they said, oh, well, geez, if we're
going to spend that much money, I'm going to get these
other two meters when my name comes up on the list.
And they may have purposefully got on the list for
that reason because they're shelling out a big chunk
of money.
CHAIR RICE: And my proposal is, yes, they would
be allowed to go from that four meters, for example,
earlier. But we have the other part of the rule yet
to go. Limiting meters we haven't talked about yet,
so, right?
MR. CRADDICK: I don't think you're
understanding what I'm saying there. What I'm saying
is let's say the person consciously had stepping up
requests for water.
CHAIR RICE: Right.
MR. CRADDICK: And they -- the reason why they
stepped up the request is because they found out how
much it's going to cost them to make improvements to
get their let's say two meters.
CHAIR RICE: I understand.
MR. CRADDICK: Then they will have spent that
money in reliance of being on the list where they are
for the subsequent requests for more meters, so to
arbitrarily make them pick one, I'll defer to corp
counsel, but I'm going to guess that's going to be a
substantial change in the rule on something that
people would want to comment on.
CHAIR RICE: What you're saying is someone,
let's say they've spent a quarter million dollars
already, and they haven't gotten any meters?
MR. CRADDICK: No, no, they're on the list for
some number of meters.
CHAIR RICE: And they realize in order to get
two meters, they have to spend, for example, a quarter
of a million dollars, so they might as well get four,
and they later come in for two more, is that what
you're saying?
MR. CRADDICK: So on the first request, they've
got to put in the quarter of a million dollars of
improvements. And they get the two meters, and they
sit and wait until their name comes up again. And
what I'm telling you is if you do that, I would expect
that's going to be a change that is going to probably
require this going back up to public hearing again.
CHAIR RICE: That's not what I'm saying. I'm
saying, just to make sure we understand each other, if
they've got a request in for two meters and go to six
because they know they've got to spend a quarter of a
million bucks, they decide that the request for six
goes into the first position is what I'm saying.
MS. PARSONS: Peter.
CHAIR RICE: Right here first.
MS. PARSONS: I think it might give an unfair
advantage to people with multiple listings because
there may be folks that are on this list ahead of them
that could do the same thing and really could use four
meters instead of two and they didn't -- I think it's
where your request falls, give them the right to say,
no, I don't want the two meters. I'll wait until my
four meters come up. But don't give them an earlier
advantage to getting something.
CHAIR RICE: Except we haven't made a decision
on limiting meters.
MS. PARSONS: I'm just saying I don't think
their request should be just because they have a
letter in for one meter in '93 and they come back in
'94 and they want four, that they should jump up to
the next position. It's an unfair advantage. You're
going to knock those guys out in the middle.
CHAIR RICE: If we give them four.
MS. PARSONS: If we did, yeah.
CHAIR RICE: Mike is next.
MR. NOBRIGA: The question is what is the
deciding factor in determining -- in determining what
is actually listed? Is it a tax map key that we are
focused on as the determining factor, or is it the
applicant, the actual person, the name which is the
deciding factor of the determination of the position
on the list? I feel that the list is people. It's
flesh and blood. It's not the tax map key.
CHAIR RICE: But the tax map key just represents
the property. The individual can be on there five
times, for example, for five different pieces of
property in whatever order.
MR. NOBRIGA: The tax map key could change
already, so that's one different body.
CHAIR RICE: The TMK can change?
MR. HASHIMOTO: It's all the same.
MR. CRADDICK: The list is on there according to
TMK. Because, you know, let's say a person didn't
even live upcountry and they submitted a letter saying
I want X number of meters and went out and tried to
buy a property as they saw the Board coming up to get
meters I mean. There's nobody on the list that didn't
have some sort of a land position.
CHAIR RICE: Yeah, that's exactly why --
MR. CRADDICK: So these requests definitely run
with the land, not with the person. I mean a person
couldn't be on the list for one property, sell it off
and go somewhere else and say, hey, I had a request
for two meters on this other property, but now I want
it over here and this other guy, you know, was cut
loose.
CHAIR RICE: Clark.
MR. HASHIMOTO: I don't know if it would be
legal. Can we issue if you have multiple requests on
the same TMK, issue the meters on the first request
only, and if they have a second and a third request,
will the same TMK be on it after the whole list has
been honored? In other words, you know, they've got
the same request or a different request for the same
TMK three times, but we'll honor the first request and
any subsequent requests will be honored after, in all
fairness, after everybody else has been issued their
meter.
MS. PARSONS: I think we've got to determine
whether we want to go by date. And what's the most
important thing here is the TMK. Secondly, how do
they get positioning? And it's by the date of their
request.
CHAIR RICE: That's already set.
MS. PARSONS: So we can't move their second
request down to the end of the list because it's
dated.
MR. HASHIMOTO: But it's the same TMK.
MS. PARSONS: It doesn't matter. They can
reject. If they reject the first one, they wait until
their second request comes up.
CHAIR RICE: If you take that argument, then you
wouldn't limit meters then.
MS. PARSONS: Why?
CHAIR RICE: All you're doing by -- all Clark is
saying is he's limiting meters to multiple
applications for the same TMK.
MS. PARSONS: Let's stay on the subject though.
CHAIR RICE: That's what the subject is.
MS. PARSONS: We're not there limiting meters
yet. That's their determination call, and we make our
determination if we're going to limit the number of
meters. So if they have a request in for two, four
and six and we're only going to give two out, then
they're going to have the right to take the first one,
and then they take the first one. Then the other ones
fall by the wayside or stay on the list until we up
the number or whatever.
But I think we've got to determine first what
the priority is or put these guys back on the list by
the dates they came in. After we finish determining
that, we determine how many meters we're going to
issue. And then that's their determination if they
want to stay on or get off.
CHAIR RICE: I don't disagree with that, but I
think that's what he said.
MS. PARSONS: He said go to the end of the list
I think. That's what I kind of understood. They go
to the end of the list, and I don't think you can
review the end of the list. You leave them where
they're in there by their dates.
CHAIR RICE: Howard.
MR. NAKAMURA: I think we can come up with all
kind of hypothetical situations. It could get
complicated. We could have undivided interest, two
people with the same tax keys applying for meters.
And I think the simple solution that was mentioned
when we started, which is that you basically go down
the list and when the person's name comes up, you give
them the opportunity to get his meters and he either
takes it or he doesn't.
If he chooses to wait until his name comes up a
second time because he wants more meters, so be it.
You just work your way down the list. The guy takes
it or he doesn't take it. I think that's the easiest
way to handle it.
MR. VICTORINO: I move to accept Mr. Nakamura's
conclusion.
MS. PARSONS: I second.
MR. VICTORINO: That's the best way I can figure
it. It's clear-cut. When your name comes up, Peter
Rice, you want it? Now. Done. Mike Nobriga next.
We move it right along, and we keep moving in that
chronological order instead of trying to move you up
and bring you -- how you got this. I think if we keep
it simple would probably be the safest way.
MS. PARSONS: Yeah.
CHAIR RICE: It's been moved and seconded. If I
understand the motion correctly, that you just stay on
the list where your name is no matter whether you have
multiple names, the same TMK or whatever, right?
MR. VICTORINO: Exactly.
CHAIR RICE: Okay. Any discussion? All in
favor, say aye.
VOICES: Aye.
CHAIR RICE: Opposed, say nay.
(No response.)
CHAIR RICE: Motion is carried.
MR. VICTORINO: Thank you, Mr. Nakamura.
CHAIR RICE: Inadequate distribution pipelines.
MR. HASHIMOTO: I guess what Mr. Craddick has
been saying is that should people on the list be
notified that they will not be able to get water
unless the distribution lines are upgraded. I guess
some of the staff thought that this is covered under
the current rules, but a lot of people, they're up on
the list, but if they don't spend the $250,000 to
upgrade, they're not going to get their water meter,
so maybe we should notify these people or I don't know
how it's going to be done.
CHAIR RICE: Yeah, Kent.
MR. HIRANAGA: I believe that situation is an
evolving situation because someone above them may put
improvements which may bring adequacy to their lot, so
I think that question shouldn't be answered until that
point in time when he's being offered the meters
because someone could be putting a subdivision in
now. I would hate to see him forfeit his position
until the question is asked to him do you want your
meters.
CHAIR RICE: And so in terms of people who are
on the end of the list, that would be good. But if
you were in the beginning of the list let's say and
you didn't have adequate distribution and couldn't get
a meter and you don't apply within 30 days, you're off
the list. Now you have no chance, and then let's say
two years later, somebody else puts your --
MR. HIRANAGA: They had ten years to bring the
system to adequacy if they wanted to.
CHAIR RICE: Ginny.
MS. PARSONS: Well, wasn't that more of a
Planning determination? I mean we're talking right
now about lines going in to make -- that on the list
now in the world that we're in in this scheme right
now, we're talking about or not there's sufficient
lines to provide for them. Now, they can stay on the
list if they can't use it. We're just going down the
list, right?
CHAIR RICE: No, when we're done with this list,
when we're done with this rule, there's no list. This
list thing should never have started in the first
place in my opinion. We're going to be done with the
list.
MS. PARSONS: It's still a Planning
determination not for us, not in our scheme. And if
they could show us something else is being developed
in the area in the near future, then we could give
them an extension of time.
CHAIR RICE: I don't think so.
MR. CRADDICK: Because this list is going to be
available to everybody, anybody high up in the list
can look. If there's other people further down that
may have to make the same improvements that they do,
nothing prevents them getting together with that
person and saying, hey, let's share in this.
I mean the information is out there to
everybody, so administratively we could tell people
without making a rule change that lines may be
inadequate. Do some early planning on your part, so
when your name does come up, if there are people in
the near vicinity that could work with you, start
working with them now. Don't wait until the 11th hour
and you've got 60 days to come up with an agreement
with somebody.
CHAIR RICE: Kent.
MR. HIRANAGA: If the system is inadequate to a
specific lot, they can still go ahead and reserve
meters in the anticipation that based on their
efforts, it will bring the system to adequacy in those
two years. It's a gamble, but they can say it's not
adequate, but I'm going to go ahead and pay the fees
because I believe in two years it will be adequate.
MR. CRADDICK: Well, I suppose they could,
yeah.
MR. HIRANAGA: You know, my belief is nothing is
certain in this world, so when your time comes up, you
make your decision am I going to pay the fees because
I feel I can bring adequacy there. Joint ventures or
whatever, joint property owners, but the two years
elapses and you lose your fee.
CHAIR RICE: So it just sounds like we want to
make a general notice that you need to be aware of the
adequacy of the distribution lines in your particular
area; is that right?
MR. VICTORINO: Yes.
MR. CRADDICK: Actually, Ed points out something
in the new rules, in the meter fees, I think that was
the three years now in the new rules, so it's more
than two years.
MR. KUSHI: Subject to the Board's approval.
MR. CRADDICK: The Board has already approved
that one.
MR. KUSHI: No, if they want to go more than two
years.
CHAIR RICE: It's an option if they want to come
and ask for an extra year. Mr. Nobriga.
MR. NOBRIGA: On the subject of notification of
adequacy of the lines, I think it is the Department's
purview to notify everybody whether they're upcountry
or some place else that the line is inadequate. And
being that we just went to CIP and we had a request
for the Planning Department to tell us where they're
proposing to put pipes, that should also be public
knowledge so that people that are waiting can see
three, five, six years down the road, if the
Department is going to have one CIP project to approve
the area. That's all.
CHAIR RICE: Kent.
MR. HIRANAGA: I feel the responsibility of
determining the likelihood of having adequacy for the
meters should be placed upon the applicant, not upon
the Department. They should meet with the Department
at that point to determine what is the likelihood. Is
it adequate? If not, what is the likelihood when it
will be adequate? You're putting too much of a burden
1on the Department.
CHAIR RICE: Mr. Craddick, probably a live
question here. Looking at this list, how many just
ballpark have adequacy problems?
MR. CRA