BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
Held at the Kahului Shopping Center, Kaahumanu Avenue,
Kahului, Maui, Hawaii, commencing at 9:00 a.m. on
December 17th, 2002.
REPORTED BY: LYNANN NICELY, RPR/RMR/CSR #354
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
A P P E A R A N C E S
BOARD MEMBERS:
Mike Nobriga, Acting Chairman
Kent Hiranaga
Ginnie Parsons
Howard Nakamura
Clark Hashimoto
STAFF PRESENT:
David Craddick, Director
Ed Kushi, Corporation Counsel
Herb Kogasaka
Cathy Howard, Board Secretary
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.
_
MR. NOBRIGA: Call the regular meeting of the
Board of Water Supply to order. It's Tuesday,
December 17, 2002. It is a little after 9 a.m. at the
Kahului Shopping Center.
In attendance for today's meeting we have
board member Virginia Parsons, board member Howard
Nakamura, board member Kent Hiranaga, board member
Clark Hashimoto, and board member Mike Nobriga. Also
in attendance is our current still serving as our
board -- as the water director, David E. Ray Craddick,
honorable corporation counsel Mr. Kushi, the board
secretary, the vivacious Cathy Howard. Members of the
public.
Moving to our agenda, I would like to ask the
members to give approval and receive minutes of our
regular board meeting of November 7, 2002. The motion
is in order for its receipt, including the two pages
of corrections addendum attached to it.
MR. HASHIMOTO: So moved.
MR. NAKAMURA: Second.
MR. NOBRIGA: It has been moved by Clark
Hashimoto and seconded by Howard Nakamura to receive
the minutes. Any discussion? All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NOBRIGA: Opposed, nay.
(None.)
MR. NOBRIGA: Motion carries.
I would like to open up the floor for
testimony from the public, be it oral, verbal or
written.
Moving to our very light agenda, take up Item
V, Director's Report 02-56, recommended method of
pro-rating water distribution costs. Mr. Craddick.
MR. CRADDICK: Okay. We met with Mr. Kealoha
and six areas were identified that could be used to
spread distribution costs over a wider user group than
requiring the first user to pay everything and later
persons are added on at no charge.
Those methods are basing it on the flow
requirement which includes fire flow; basing it on
average day usage; area of subdivided lots; off-road
frontage action; per subdivided unit; and the ability
to pay. And listed there are some pros and cons and I
won't go into those, but our recommendation is to use
a combination of 1, which is basing it on the flow
requirements, and 5, which is per subdivided lot and
alter that 5 per subdivided unit to the maximum number
of lots, meaning that if somebody can divide into 6
lots but for whatever reason they only subdivide into
4 lots, they still have to pay the 6 lot pro rata
share.
The costs would be paid up front or interest
plus administrative costs would be added when the lots
are subdivided at the owner's leisure later on. That
means that they won't have to pay -- people who are
not subdividing that benefit don't have to pay up
front if they don't want to, but later on when they
finally do decide to subdivide they would have to pay
interest plus administrative costs, keeping track of
all of this.
And then we're recommending that the number of
lots allowed to participate at a minimum is one lot
and at a maximum 10 lots, and the costs should be
based on actual costs of the actual project rather
than using something like the Water System Development
fee where we're using an average equity in the
distribution system because distribution are very
related to the area that you're working in.
So if the board would like these
recommendations, then I guess the next step we would
do is actually taking these criteria or whatever
criteria you choose and actually preparing a rule to
come back to the board for review.
MR. NOBRIGA: I think we should -- I would
like to see this worked on going forward and at this
point in time I think it needs to be referred back to
the department for formal proposal on rule making that
shall be sent on to create an ordinance with the
County of Maui and the process that should be adopted,
that will be in effect come January. Any other
comments from the board? So ordered.
MR. CRADDICK: Are you agreeing with the
recommendations that we have there?
MR. NOBRIGA: Yeah.
MR. CRADDICK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. HIRANAGA: Question.
MR. NOBRIGA: Yes, Kent.
MR. HIRANAGA: Who is Mr. Kealoha?
MR. CRADDICK: Where is he?
MR. HIRANAGA: Who.
MR. CRADDICK: He came from the board to --
Joe Kealoha. He came to the board a while back to get
final approval, like Dominic Moreno, for a subdivision
where there wasn't adequate water lines. And I think
somebody on the board asked if he was willing to pay a
pro rata share of a project that we were doing in the
area and he said yes. And because we didn't have any
way of determining the pro rata share, he said he
would sit down with the staff and come up with some
criteria and he did that and this is the result of
that.
MR. HIRANAGA: I guess my one concern is it
would appear to me that the board would be advancing
funds for the construction of facilities and then be
in a position of having to collect in the future from
additional users. I don't know the viability of being
able to collect, first of all, and the time it would
take to collect those funds. And also, is it prudent
for the board to be advancing funds for the creation
of infrastructure for the advantage or of the
developer.
MR. NOBRIGA: For me, Board Member Hiranaga,
that will be part of a discussion going forward in
trying to search out a fair and equitable solution for
the many applicants that we have heard in the past,
looking for some type of situation that they can move
forward with projects that are being held -- a project
has been held up because of inadequacy in lines. I
don't know. Just something to look at.
MS. PARSONS: I believe we went through this
once before when Mr. Kealoha was here and I think you
asked about the same questions, Kent. This was a
project I believe was already underway. We had
already allotted funds, for example, for Mr. Kealoha's
construction in the neighborhood. What he was asking
for was to be able to go through a subdivision and he
needed us to be able to sign off on it from the water
department. And in order to do that, we asked if he
would be willing to pay a prorated share for the
infrastructure, and he said he would. He was looking
-- we were already under construction, but we hadn't
completed it, right?
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Craddick.
MR. CRADDICK: That's right, but I'm taking
Mr. Hiranaga's comments as more generic than just
Mr. Kealoha's. The philosophy instead of the first
guy coming along and paying everything, now if you've
got under 10 lots, it's the Board of Water Supply
that's going to be paying. And the only thing that I
can say about that, Kent, is the Board of Water Supply
probably has to fix these lines up anyways, so if you
have another revenue source coming in, that just helps
you fix the lines up quicker. And if somebody is
willing to pay a lot of the line, it may help in
prioritizing. It doesn't mean that the water
department is going to go ahead and do this just
because the person wants to do this. The Board of
Water Supply may not have the money to do it. So they
may have to be willing to take on more of a front end
cost of it if they want their project to move faster
than the board can move. This just allows or requires
other people that benefit from that improvement to pay
for it, not just the first person.
So I think that's where you have to weigh and
balance the Board of Water Supply getting in and
fixing up lines for a specific project, versus
somebody coming in and fixing up the line and doing
the Board of Water Supply's job for everybody and then
everybody else jumps on for free. So which one is
better is something you'll have to wrestle with as you
go forward.
MR. NOBRIGA: Carl, please come forward, sit
in the official chair, grab the microphone from
Mr. Craddick.
MR. FREEDMAN: My name is Carl Freedman. The
electric companies have several types of tariffs that
are used for similar situations and they have parts of
their tariffs identified under which circumstances the
hookup charge is sufficient to pay for a hookup and
when that threshold is greater, the customer has to
pay some portion of the distribution charges. And
MECO has one tariff. HELCO has a similar tariff --
they actually have two. And then the one that both of
them have, the first customer would pay the entire
amount. But if any additional customers then hook up
to the line, the fees that they would be charged their
pro rata share and the original customer would then be
reimbursed. So that's one method that both MECO and
HELCO have.
HELCO also has an additional method where a
number of people can get together in like a hui type
of an arrangement and they all pay it together. And I
forwarded to the water department those tariffs and
perhaps in -- those are details that need to be worked
out. It's not just a matter of who pays. There are a
number of procedural things that will have to be
addressed in the rule and perhaps some suggestions
could be made then.
MR. NOBRIGA: Move on to Communication 02-43,
resignation of Peter Rice as Chair and member of the
Board of Water Supply. The letter has been sent to
the current mayor, James "Kimo" Apana. Action
required is to receive the letter and graciously
accept his resignation.
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, I move to receive
and accept the resignation of Mr. Rice, with regrets.
MR. NOBRIGA: Second?
MS. PARSONS: Second.
MR. NOBRIGA: Seconded by Ginnie Parsons. Any
discussion? Peter Rice has been an incredible asset
to this board, serving as Chair for almost two years
and it is with deep regret that we're going to see him
leave. We do have a resolution that will be taken up
later on in the meeting.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NOBRIGA: Opposed, nay.
(None.)
MR. NOBRIGA: Motion carries. Moving on to
Other Business, discussion/possible action regarding
election of Chair and Vice Chair.
At this time a motion would be in order to
have a Chair succeed -- the Vice Chair succeed the
Chairman, and at this time I would like to recommend
appointing Clark Hashimoto as the vice chair.
Yes, Howard.
MR. NAKAMURA: So I move.
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you. Second.
MS. PARSONS: Second.
MR. NOBRIGA: Moved and seconded. Any
discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
MR. NOBRIGA: Opposed, nay.
(None.)
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you, guys, and lady.
Possible action regarding review of Upcountry
drought situation. I asked the water director
Craddick to bring back to the table Resolution 98-18
which was a resolution that not all of the members of
this body had in their possession during our
discussions during the special meeting on declaring a
drought emergency Upcountry.
MR. CRADDICK: Do you want me to go over it.
MR. NOBRIGA: Yes, please.
MR. CRADDICK: How this resolution came about
was the rules of the Board of Water Supply just say
that the board can declare a drought and we didn't
have a clear understanding between the staff and the
board as to what a drought was, how severe the drought
was. We established these guidelines. There were
previous resolutions that predated this one. This was
the most recent iteration up to the time that we went
into an agreement with A&B basically where we said we
would keep reservoirs up to 80 percent as much of the
time as we could and we would use all available
groundwater sources when there was a drought. But
we're kind of left in a void as to what's a drought,
as was apparent at the last board meeting.
This resolution is still in force and effect
until the board rescinds it and I guess -- well,
anyways, it's got three levels of drought in there, a
drought watch, a drought warning, and a drought
emergency and then it's got the steps that we take
reversing out of that. And the way it had worked was
these triggers and actions that we took when those
triggers were met were fairly well understood by staff
and the community and I would certainly recommend that
you continue doing something like to even if you want
to change them to some other levels. Because right
now the main function of a drought is so that we can
use ground water sources and actually avoid going into
a drought situation. So the landscape has changed
significantly from the time we passed this and it
would just be my recommendation to continue something
like this in writing so that there is a very clear
understanding between the staff and the board.
Because as far as I know, it's still the board's
prerogative to declare a drought.
Do you want me to go over the current
situation?
MR. NOBRIGA: Yes, please.
MR. CRADDICK: Okay. The current situation,
Wailoa Ditch is about 54.7 million gallons per day, or
27.4 percent of capacity. The Kamole Water Treatment
Facility is producing about 2.1 million gallons. The
Piiholo Treatment Facility, the reservoir is 99
percent full. Production is about 2.3 million
gallons. Waikamoi reservoir, the reservoirs are
empty. Kahakapao, the reservoirs are at about 65
percent. The Olinda Treatment Facility is producing
about 1.2 million gallons. The total demand for the
Upcountry system is 6.4 million gallons. This
includes surface water which is at 5.6 and water from
the Haiku and Kaupakalua well, 0.8 million. And the
average demand for the past week is about 6.1 million
gallons a day. And this is as of this morning, the
report this morning.
We still do not have the Hamakuapoko wells
operating where they can put water into the system.
They have taken this entire time from the last meeting
to get the wells disinfected and now that they're
disinfected they're trying to disinfect the GAC plant
and that may take -- probably it will take an
equivalent amount of time, two or three weeks to do
that, to get the GAC plant disinfected. And keep in
mind that other well is still not functioning, so.
MR. NOBRIGA: Questions?
MR. HIRANAGA: Question.
MR. NOBRIGA: Yes, Kent.
MR. HIRANAGA: So based upon your letter given
to us this morning on the current status of the
Upcountry water system, where should we be, in a
drought watch or in a drought warning or in a drought
emergency?
MR. CRADDICK: According to this resolution, I
don't believe we meet any of the -- well, we meet some
of the individual triggers, but for a drought watch
it's at least three of the above triggers and we do
not even meet -- I take that back. We meet three --
we meet three -- I guess we meet that one there and
then maybe the rainfall prediction for the future,
might be that we meet two there. So at the most, it's
a drought watch situation. But I'm not even certain
we meet three of those six triggers there.
MR. NOBRIGA: The six would be, Mr. Craddick?
MR. CRADDICK: The average daily inflow is
less than system demand and it appears the inflow is
greater than system demand because the reservoirs are
filling up. The raw water reservoir is less than 110
million gallons -- or 101 million gallons total and we
exceed that. We exceed 27 million at Lower Kula, we
just don't exceed 74 million at upper Kula. So
because it says or then argumentatively we could meet
that one. The total EMI Maliko Ditch flow is at less
than 200 mgd; we obviously meet that one. And then we
also meet the -- we're less than 107 million gallons a
day at Wailoa. The rainfall prediction in the
foreseeable future is insufficient to provide average
daily flows on the 2 million gallon Upper Kula or 3.75
million gallon Lower Kula system. And again, I would
-- the rainfall prediction I'm looking at is the El
Nino report which basically is saying this winter is
going to be dryer than normal. I have no way to
confirm or deny whether it will be that way, but
that's what the prediction is.
The Kamole demand is greater than 4 million;
that's not met because the demand is around 2, 2.1.
And Lower Kula demand is greater than 4 million; and
we don't meet that one because it's about 2.3 million
gallons. So basically we meet two of these six here
on the drought watch.
MS. PARSONS: Do you have the media going
right now? Do we have conservation on the radio?
MR. CRADDICK: Yes, I believe so, yes.
MS. PARSONS: You might want to have jack this
stuff up -- step up press releases if we're going to
maintain this so that every few days they're getting a
press release to remind people. Because otherwise
they won't announce it during the news unless you keep
constantly reminding them on the radio stations.
MR. NOBRIGA: Any further action?
Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: So what is our current status?
Are we in a drought watch? Are we in a drought
warning, a drought emergency, or are we normal?
MR. CRADDICK: Right now the board has just
declared a drought. And like I said, we don't
actually meet any of these criteria except that we
don't have the reservoirs up at 80 percent which is
another criteria to look at. I think what really
needs to be done is this resolution needs to be
revised and in line with current agreements that the
board has if you want to continue trying to keep
reservoirs at 80 percent. And I do not recommend that
because we wasted quite a bit of money in the year
2000-2001 trying to keep reservoirs at that level.
And the only thing I can say is I think this
needs to be relooked at in light of the current
events, where we can basically avoid a drought
situation by running groundwater sources that are
available to the board.
MR. NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: So should we continue to be in
a drought emergency situation?
MR. CRADDICK: Because the long lead time is
for less rain rather than normal rain, my
recommendation would be to continue because hopefully
we will get those wells functional at some point and
they would be available to use if the situation
worsens. But right now nothing is even going into the
system. And I'll leave it up to corp counsel whether
we need to continue the drought to continue trying to
get these things operational. If we don't, then maybe
there is no need for it.
MS. PARSONS: I thought you said drought
watch.
MR. NOBRIGA: Before you go ahead,
Ms. Parsons, is Mr. Hiranaga done with his questions?
Thank you, Ms. Parsons, you have the floor.
MS. PARSONS: Kent said emergency; I thought
you said drought watch.
MR. CRADDICK: Yeah, that's right.
MS. PARSONS: We don't need emergency, just a
drought watch.
MR. CRADDICK: That's correct.
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Nakamura.
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
just ask corporation counsel a question as to what is
the board's authority under the recent charter
amendment as it relates to declaration of drought or
is that now an administrative function?
MR. NOBRIGA: It's actually next on the
agenda, Mr. Nakamura.
MR. KUSHI: Yes, Mr. Chairman and Member
Nakamura, can you hold off until the next item? I can
cover it then.
MR. NAKAMURA: Thank you.
MR. HIRANAGA: Clarification: Are we in a
drought watch or are we in a drought emergency?
MR. CRADDICK: As far as I know, you've just
declared a drought and not making any more reference
to it than that.
MR. NOBRIGA: Any further discussion on
droughts and what not? Okay. No action is required.
Just an informational -- we'll revisit the drought
declaration in our January -- regular meeting in
January. Okay.
Moving on to item C, discussion and possible
action regarding report from Corporation Counsel on
the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Water
Supply under the County of Maui's Charter amendments.
Mr. Kushi, please.
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, may I ask that you call
a short recess so I can pass out some handouts?
MR. NOBRIGA: Very good.
(Brief recess.)
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Kushi, for
preparing this document. If you would.
MR. KUSHI: Yes, Mr. Chair, what I passed out
to you is -- first of all, it's a memo from our office
dated December 4, 2002, from Brian Moto, our First
Deputy Corporation Counsel to Dain Kane, Acting
Council Chair. It's quite a long memo. It was copied
to the department, Mr. Craddick and Mr. Tengan, and I
believe Mr. Rice also had a copy but I'm not sure if
the remaining board members did. But anyway, that's
the first document.
The second one again is the -- I took it out
directly from the text of the proposed Charter
amendments starting at page 27, alternate proposal 9
which is 9A, which was adopted by the electorate. And
that's the full text of the Charter changes with the
deletions as well as the additions.
So if I may, Mr. Chair, first of all, going
over the -- my intent this morning is just to kind of
briefly summarize the changes as a result of the
Charter amendment and how it affects the board and
maybe touch on some of the departmental
responsibilities.
Going on to the memo dated December 4th, most
of the items -- some of the items do not apply, but
the main items are basically that there was a question
of when the amendments became effective. It's clearly
stated that they had became effective December 5th,
which is 30 days after the election. Some Charter
amendments are not effective until early January. But
for purposes of this discussion, Charter Amendment 9A
became effective December 5th.
It goes on in terms of starting on page three
about the status of the director, but we don't need to
get into that. My understanding was that the current
mayor did appoint Mr. Craddick and Mr. Tengan in their
respective positions for the interim. Come January
2nd, that will change.
And lastly, in terms of starting on page six
of that memo, they do discuss rule making and the
authority of the board. And basically our office's
position would be or is that your current rules,
departmental rules, which up to December 4th the board
passed, the mayor signed, and then Council approved,
those rules validly adopt still remain in force and
effect until repealed. However, it's our position
that in the event the current rules conflict with the
charter amendments, the specific authority of the
board as revised by this Charter Amendment 9A, to that
extent the Charter Amendment, if they're inconsistent,
to that extent the rules must take second place. And
I'll get into instances where that would happen. But
again, the board still exists, your rules still exist,
unless inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter
Amendment.
So any questions on that? I know it's quite
lengthy, but yet those are the three points I think
this memo brings out from the standpoint affecting the
department as well as the board.
And lastly, Mr. Moto did comment, I believe,
on the top of page seven of this memo that he cannot
-- he was not presented a case by case situation
whereby we could make a decision, you know, if the
rule is in effect or not. And until presented, it's
really not a shotgun approach. And I will try to
touch on that in a second.
Moving on to the second handout which is the
text of the charter amendment package, which I took it
out from here, the Revised Final Report of the Maui
County Charter Commission. The emphasis here is that
on page 27, the first sentence underlining Alternate
Proposal Nine was that the intent, I believe, of the
Charter Commission -- not Charter Commission, this was
proposed by the Council. But as stated in the Charter
Commission's report, the intent of the Council in
putting forth this alternate proposal 9A was that if
passed, the effect would be -- the effect of the--
passage will have the effect of making the department
a regular county agency like the Parks Department or
the Public Works Department, et cetera, under the
Mayor's executive management and the Council's
legislative oversight. So the intent is clear there.
And instead of going on and on section by
section, in essence as it affects the board, I believe
if you look at page 28, Section 8-11.3, Board of Water
Supply, in essence the underlining portions of that
amendment, the last sentence basically states that the
Board of Water Supply shall act as an advisor to the
director and the mayor and the council in all matters
concerning our county's water system.
Under Section 8-11.4, Powers, Duties and
Functions of the board, a lot of those functions
basically were deleted. Namely, now you have no power
to appoint, evaluate or remove the director. You have
no authority to adopt rules, no authority to create or
abolish positions, no authority to adopt an annual
operating or capital budget, no authority to acquire,
purchase, lease, sell, or otherwise convey and accept
real property.
So your remaining -- the question is what is
your remaining authority. Again, reflecting back to
the previous section, you have to give your -- you're
an advisor to the department, to the executive and to
the Council. However, remaining provisions are that
you're specifically empowered to review before
submittal to the department's budget. You still have
that function; again, in an advisory capacity.
And then in terms of rates and fees, you have
that authority to recommend before submittal to the
mayor for review. There is some nuances in the
situation about rates and fees, the bottom of page 28,
subsection 2. As I read it, it says that the board
can recommend the establishment and adjustment of
rates and fees and then submit it to the mayor for
review and approval. Then it goes on, "If approved by
the mayor, then it will be submitted to the council."
So I believe the mayor has authority to basically
withhold rates and fees. In essence a pre-veto
function. However, that doesn't involve the rules.
Moving on, in terms of -- bottom of page 29,
again, the previous section 8-11.8, Approval of
Rules, that entire section was deleted. So the
question is what happens now. In the case of a
previous discussion about the resolution, my
understanding it was not a rule. However, if you want
to make a rule, the question is what happens. The
charter says you don't have the authority to propose
rules. However, the department as a county agency
still falls under HRS Chapter 91. Any department or
agency of the state or county can undertake
rule-making procedures. So I would imagine you as the
advisor to the department can discuss rule making.
The department can go out to the public for rule
making. And there is a procedure in Charter 91 for
that. Then the mayor signs off on rules.
MR. CRADDICK: Where does it say that? That
the mayor signs off on the rules.
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, Section 91-3(c), HRS.
If I may continue, Mr. Chair, so those are the
sections that I believe affects the board's situation
to these new charter amendments. As I stated, you
know, I didn't have the time to go point by point over
all of your rules, but there will be situations where
your rules are in existence and if you recall we just
recently passed appeal procedures -- specifically
appeal of the director's decisions, if a customer
doesn't like it, they can appeal to you. The question
becomes -- and I believe a two-thirds majority. If
you decided it was arbitration -- arbitrary,
capricious, et cetera, you could overturn his
decision. That now becomes strictly advisory. I
believe a member of the public could go through that
because your rules still are in existence. However,
any decision rendered by the board will be advising
the director, hey, why don't you think about it again.
In essence it becomes a recommendation. The member of
the public could just say well, why waste my time
with that, I'll just take you to court. That's his
choice. Even after, you know, even before December
4th, they could still take you to court. But again,
your rules still are in place.
Board Member Nakamura wanted to discuss the
4.1 about the drought. Section 4.1 of your rules
under Declaration of Drought, there are about three
areas where it says the director, with approval of the
board, with approval of the board, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera. Again, because of the Charter
changes, your rules are still in effect, but it
becomes a recommendation.
Technically, and I believe maybe it hasn't
been brought up to our office for decision, possibly
the director could just do it. Okay. Because you
again not overturn based on these Charter amendments
the director's decision. And we're not talking about
the mayor or the council; it's the director.
I could go item by item over the rules if you
want to -- maybe for the next meeting -- and do a
chart scenario where the board is stated as being
supervisory to the mayor and this would change. But
I'm not prepared to do it now.
MR. NOBRIGA: Questions, members?
Mr. Hashimoto.
MR. HASHIMOTO: So the board could recommend
calling a drought or calling off a drought, but if the
director doesn't agree then it's his prerogative.
MR. KUSHI: That would be our office's
position.
MR. NOBRIGA: Any other questions, members?
Do you have a question, Herb?
MR. KOGASAKA: My question is processing fees
for the appeal of the director's decision is $300. Do
we continue to collect that or what is corporation
counsel's take on that?
MR. KUSHI: Yes. If I recall, to get a
hearing before you on an appeal, it does cost some
funds. That has not changed. The outcome -- the
effect of your decision does change. But if someone
wants to go through it, the rule still stands, they
have to pay this fee.
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Craddick.
MR. CRADDICK: One thing that you may want to
get additional advice on is 91C or 3C, the adoption
amendment or repeal of any rule by any state agency
shall be subject to approval of the mayor. The
adoption, amendment or repeal of any rule by any
county agency shall be subject to approval of the
mayor of the county. This subsection shall not apply
to the adoption amendment and repeal of the rule to
the county boards of water supply. And the rules that
we have are not the rules of the Board of Water
Supply, they're the rules of the department. And the
Big Island does not even have a Board of Water Supply.
So that wording in there I believe you need to go into
what the legislative intent was and I believe it may
be that HRS Chapter 54 prevails where the charter does
not say anything about rule making for the Department
of Water Supply.
MR. NOBRIGA: Virginia.
MS. PARSONS: So just for clarification
purposes, David, are you saying that HRS may supersede
the county charter issue?
MR. CRADDICK: It wouldn't supersede the
county charter, but where the county charter is silent
then you would go to HRS. And HRS is -- or the county
charter is silent for Department of Water Supply rule
making.
MS. PARSONS: Mr. Kushi, can you give us some
information on that for the next meeting?
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, Members Parsons, I can
answer you this now. This is not the time to argue
about the situation, but it's our position that, like
I stated before, the intent of this charter amendment
was to make the department a regular executive
department. There are some conflicts with Chapter 54
and director mentioned there are some conflicts with
the wording of 91-1, et cetera. However, again, it's
our position and we're just citing this one case that
happened back in 1978, HGEA versus County of Maui, and
in that case back in '78, the Charter changed and it's
a similar situation like we have here, our Supreme
Court basically said that if the Charter puts -- based
on the Charter change, if it puts the department back
into under the executive branch, then it overrules any
inconsistent state statute. And it specifically
mentioned Chapter 54.
So again, you know, it will be our position at
this point in time, unless we want to challenge this
case law, which is still good law, that any
inconsistencies in HRS versus our new Charter, the
Charter would control because it's an executive
function.
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Kushi. Yes, Mr. Williams.
MR. WILLIAMS: My question is a fundamental
question, Corp Counsel. We have what we call an
active Board of Water Supply and now we have to have
an advisory board. First of all, what will happen
when one of the members of the board becomes eligible
for reelection or resigns, retires, does the
fundamental board as it is right now change, become an
advisory board that is something quite different?
We're mentioning HRS 54. I'm not quite sure whether
that says anything about that. But it seems to me
we're dealing with a different animal when we're
dealing with an advisory board as compared to what is
really an active board that directs the operations of
the water supply department in Maui County. Is there
-- will there be a difference in the way the election
goes and the role of the members of the new advisory
board?
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you for your comments.
I'm not prepared at this time to have questions from
the public answered by Corp Counsel directly. I do
realize that we will have a different set of rules
come January. Not being officially elected chairman
prior to this meeting, I have not made any comments or
haven't made any visit with Mayor-Elect Arakawa. I
plan to have discussions with Mayor Arakawa. The
entire complexion of this board will change come
January 1st and new elections for chairman and vice
chairman will be in order come January 1st. Because
in addition to the six I guess volunteer members of
this board, we also have coming on to the board the
Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning
which we have not had before, only as an ex officio.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. CRADDICK: They have always been ex
officio members.
MR. NOBRIGA: They're still going to be ex
officio?
MR. CRADDICK: That's what it says.
MR. NOBRIGA: I thought they weren't going to
be.
MR. CRADDICK: Under 9 they were going to
become voting members. Under 9A, they are just ex
officio.
MR. NOBRIGA: Okay. Thanks. Thanks,
Mr. Kushi. Job well done.
I would like to have the Annual Progress
Report for Maui Nui Botanical Gardens which is in our
agenda, it's a report being that we do have financial
contribution to this project. Is there any action
required? I don't think so.
MR. CRADDICK: No.
MR. NOBRIGA: Just the receipt of the progress
report. If no objection, so ordered.
Let's go to Other Business, Item E, Resolution
number 3 (2002), a resolution for Peter Rice. Do I
have a motion to accept this resolution?
MR. HASHIMOTO: So moved.
MS. PARSONS: Second.
MR. NOBRIGA: Moved and second. Can I ask
Cathy Howard to please read the resolution for us?
MS. HOWARD: Board of Water Supply, County of
Maui, Resolution No. 3 (2002).
Whereas, Peter Rice of Lahaina, Maui was
appointed to serve out the unexpired term of another
Board Member of the Board of Water Supply of the
County of Maui on July 16, 1999, and served until
March 31, 2001.
Whereas, Peter Rice was appointed to the Board
of Water Supply of the County of Maui on April 1st,
2001 and his term will expire March 31, 2006.
Whereas, the said Peter Rice served as
Chairperson of the Board of Water Supply from April
1st, 2001 to November 2002.
Whereas, the said Peter Rice has unselfishly
and with dedication devoted, without compensation, his
time and energy into matters dealing with the Board of
Water Supply, all in the interest of the people of the
County of Maui.
Whereas, during the time of his service as a
Board Member, he contributed generously of his
knowledge and skills to make business and policy
decisions for the Board that will influence its
direction and operation for the years ahead.
Whereas, his interest in this Board and the
Department has been greatly appreciated by his fellow
board members; now, therefore, be it resolved by the
Board of Water Supply of the County of Maui that it
does hereby congratulate, commend, and thank the said
Peter Rice for the three years and five months of
faithful and outstanding service he has rendered as a
member of the Board of Water Supply.
And be it further resolved that the members of
this board extend to Peter Rice our sincere aloha and
best wishes for his continued success and much
happiness in his future endeavors.
And be it further resolved that a certified
copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the said
Peter Rice and to the Maui County Mayor and Council.
Approved as to form and legality: By Edward S.
Kushi, Jr., Deputy Corporation Counsel.
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you, Cathy. Roll call
vote, certification of adoption. All those in favor.
Virginia Parsons?
MS. PARSONS: Yes.
MR. NOBRIGA: Howard Nakamura.
MR. NAKAMURA: Yes.
MR. NOBRIGA: Kent Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Aye.
MR. NOBRIGA: Clark Hashimoto.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Aye.
MR. NOBRIGA: Mike Nobriga. Aye. Motion
passed. The rest of the members are excused because
they have [inaudible].
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chairman, may I just echo
your previous statements. I think Peter Rice was an
excellent chairman. He did many good things. He was
a very clear thinker and I appreciate his guidance and
I'm sure you will follow in his footsteps.
MR. NOBRIGA: Try to follow, but big shoes.
Wish I could golf as good as he can.
Members, last order of business today is a
Resolution No. 4 (2002) for Mr. David Craddick. May I
have a motion for its acceptance?
MR. HASHIMOTO: So moved.
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you. Is there a second?
MR. NAKAMURA: Second.
MR. NOBRIGA: Moved and seconded. The Board
of Water Supply, County of Maui, Resolution No. 4
(2002).
Whereas, David E. Ray Craddick of Wailuku,
Maui was appointed Deputy Director of the Department
of Water Supply for the County of Maui November of
1990.
Whereas, the said David E. Ray Craddick was
appointed Director of the Department of Water Supply
of the County of Maui January of 1992.
Whereas, the said David E. Ray Craddick has
with dedication devoted his time and energy into
matters dealing with the Department of Water Supply,
all in the interest of the people of the County of
Maui.
Whereas, the same said David E. Ray Craddick
has been director for over ten years, making him the
longest serving Director for the County of Maui
Department of Water Supply.
Whereas, under the direction of David E. Ray
Craddick, the Department of Water Supply has moved
forward, utilizing state-of-the-art technology, with
such endeavors as being the first public water utility
in the state to install radio-read meters; install,
integrate, and maintain the Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition System, known as SCADA; and improve
accounting and billing section technology, integrating
with the County's system.
Whereas, under the consider direction of David
E. Ray Craddick, the Department of Water Supply has
invited and undergone the American Water Works
Association QualServe peer review training to improve
service and efficiency.
Whereas, the said David E. Ray Craddick has
shown his continued dedication to the development and
care of water resources.
Whereas, under the direction of David E. Ray
Craddick, the Department of Water Supply has
successfully add twelve new wells to the system.
Whereas, under the direction of David E. Ray
Craddick, the Department of Water Supply has
successfully added over one hundred twenty-five
million gallons of surface water storage to the
system.
Whereas, under the direction of David E. Ray
Craddick, the Department of Water Supply has
successfully added over fourteen million gallon of
drinking water storage to the entire system.
Whereas, under the direction of David E. Ray
Craddick, the Department of Water Supply, after water
rates were approved in 1997, has undergone continuous
construction and replacement of pipeline where most
urgently needed.
Whereas, under the direction of David E. Ray
Craddick, the Department of Water Supply for the first
public utility in the state to establish large-scale
water treatment facilities in compliance with the US
Environmental Protection Agency Surface Water Treatment
Rule.
Whereas, under the direction of David E. Ray
Craddick, the Department of Water Supply has worked to
continue watershed protection by the purchase of 2000
acres of watershed lands, the receipt of a perpetual
conservation easement for 3000 acres, and the
formation of The West Maui Water Mountains Watershed
Partnership, the East Maui Watershed Partnership, and
the East Molokai Watershed Partnership.
Whereas, under the direction of David E. Ray
Craddick, the Department of Water Supply has
diligently strived to keep the public informed through
public meetings, notices, and the Department website.
Whereas, under the direction of David E. Ray
Craddick, the Department of Water Supply has shown
dedication to our customers by providing service which
continues to decrease in the number of consumer
complaints, is provided with the lowest public water rates
in the state, supplies water that is in full
compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Safe Drinking Water Act, service and supplies
continuous even, under drought conditions.
Whereas, under the direction of David E. Ray
Craddick, the Department of Water Supply was the first
public water facility in the state to utilize loan
provisions under the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Safe Drinking Water Act.
Whereas, under the direction of David E. Ray
Craddick, the Department of Water Supply has
successfully utilized grant monies in excess of
nineteen million dollars to aid in funding capital
improvement projects.
Whereas, under the direction of David E. Ray
Craddick, the Department of Water Supply has recovered
three million dollars for capital cost to treat DBCP
and operating costs for the next forty years to
operate those facilities.
Whereas, during the time of his service as
Deputy Director and Director, he has contributed
generously of his knowledge and skills to make
business and policy decisions for the Department that
will influence its direction and operation for many
years to come.
Whereas, his interest in the Department of
Water Supply has been greatly appreciated by the Board
of Water Supply, now, therefore, be it resolved by the
Board of Water Supply of the County of Maui that it
does hereby congratulate, commend, and thank the said
David E. Ray Craddick for over twelve years of perfect
attendance and faithful and outstanding service which
he has rendered as the Deputy Director and Director of
the Department of Water Supply.
And be it further resolved that the Members of
this Board extend to David E. Ray Craddick our sincere
aloha and best wishes for his continued success and
much happiness in his future endeavors.
And be it further resolved that a certified
copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the said
David E. Ray Craddick and to the Maui County Mayor and
Council.
Approved as to form and legality by the right
honorable Edward S. Kushi, Jr., Deputy Corporation
Counsel.
That's a mouthful. Also like to add that
whereas Mr. David Craddick and his wife, Flo, have
taught us a lot about attending the AWWA conference.
All those in favor by roll call vote. Ginnie
Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: I would like to thank
Mr. Craddick personally for teaching me an awful lot
about the water system in the County of Maui. I think
you've been an outstanding director and I know you've
gone through a lot over the last 10 or 12 years and I
hope we see you again in the future. Hopefully maybe
you'll come back with us. I personally accept this.
Aye.
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you. Howard Nakamura.
MR. NAKAMURA: I would also like to wish David
the best of luck in the future, David.
MR. NOBRIGA: Kent Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Aye.
MR. NOBRIGA: Clark Hashimoto.
MR. HASHIMOTO: I think David is one of the
most knowledgeable if not the most knowledgeable of
all the water systems here on Maui and Molokai and I
would like to thank him for his many years of service.
And also to his wife for keeping us entertained at
some of these conferences. And I wish you the best in
your future endeavors. Aye.
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you, Clark. I render an
aye. Gives a slim but majority to this resolution.
There being no further business, the Board of
Water Supply meeting is adjourned.
(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15
a.m.)
Department of Water Supply
County of Maui
P.O. Box 1109
Wailuku, HI 96793-6109
Telephone (808) 270-7816
Fax (808) 270-7951