BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
Thursday, January 23, 2003
9:00 a.m.
Kahului Shopping Center
Kaahumanu Avenue
Kahului, Maui, Hawaii
Reported by: Katherine Eismann, RDR, CRR, CSR #439
APPEARANCES
Chairperson: MICHAEL NOBRIGA
Vice Chairperson: CLARK HASHIMOTO
Board Members: KENT HIRANAGA
JONATHAN STARR
GINNY PARSONS
MICHAEL VICTORINO
Corp Counsel: EDWARD KUSHI
Acting Director: GEORGE TENGAN
Deputy Director: JEFFREY T. PEARSON
Board Secretary: CATHY HOWARD
Engineering: HERBERT KOGASAKA
Staff: ELLEN KRAFTSOW
HOLLY PERDIDO
HERB CHANG
PAUL SEITZ
(Thursday, January 23, 2003, 9:00 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Good morning. Call the Water
Supply Meeting to order this morning, Thursday, January 23rd.
It is 9:00 a.m. We are at Kahului Shopping Center, 65 West
Kaahumanu Avenue Unit 29.
In attendance today is board members Jonathan
Starr, Kent Hiranaga, Clark Hashimoto, Mike Victorino, and
Virginia Parsons, myself, Michael Nobriga. Also in attendance
is Acting Director George Tengan, Deputy Director Jeffrey
Pearson, Board Secretary, Cathy Howard, Corporation Counsel,
Ed Kushi, Junior, other members of the department and members
of the public. Aloha.
(Chorus of Alohas.)
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: Before we proceed, I have a point of
order regarding our agenda today, and I'd like --
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Please speak your point,
Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: I'd like to have an understanding
whether the items that we are to be discussing are all within
our purview under the new charter change. And I specifically
would like to have a clarification, by corporation counsel,
because it seems to me that many of these items, especially
operational and small -- small type items, regarding people
getting meters or having to make system improvement and that
sort of thing, are really outside the purview of this board,
which is now advisory. And, as I understand it, our job is to
set policy.
So, I think we should have a clarification to make
sure that our agenda items are, in fact -- are, in fact, legal
items for us to deal with, and if we do deal with them, if
even our dealing with them would have any impact on really
whether they fall under the director or possibly even the
council or administration rather than this body.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: So noted Mr. Starr. Items on
the agenda are items that was under the board, as you know,
and due to the nature of our new assignments, I have listed on
the agenda, because I thought it was our purview to refer them
to the appropriate bodies.
MR. STARR: Okay. I appreciate that. At some
point though, could we still get a clarification from Corp
Counsel, so we can know how to act?
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: We will notice that at a
subsequent meeting.
Approval of the agenda, I have testimony to be
given by Sally Reisbeck on the minutes. Sally.
MS. REISBECK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning. Chairman Nobriga and members of the board. My name
is Sally Reisbeck. I live in Wailuku. I asked to testify
about the minutes of December 4th, 2002, because I have
questions about some of the actions that were taken on
December 4th.
I tried to -- intended to provide you with written
testimony, but the electric company came to the house and
turned off the electricity while I was in the middle. So, I
will be more informal, but I would like the opportunity to
present written testimony later.
I have concerns about December 4th, which is the
last day you had authority over Board of Water Supply money,
and I also have some questions.
On that date, you asked for an informal reading on
how much uncommitted cash the Water Department had and were
told about 26 million, less about nine million already planned
for, leaving in the vicinity of $16 million.
Then in two executive session, without any public
input, you transferred money to three projects, first buying
the Kaanapali Water System for about $8 million, buying land,
but as far as I could tell from the minutes, apparently, not
water, from Wailuku Business or Wailuku Agribusiness, the
watershed lands above Wailuku and Waiehu, and buying the old
Crest building in Wailuku in one other for $3 million.
This, I presume, provided justification for
outgoing Mayor James Kimo Apana placing $330,000 of county
money, formerly Board of Water Supply money, into escrow, on
December 20th, as a deposit on the purchase of the two
buildings from a hui consisting of Warren Unemori Engineering,
Arisumi Brothers, Fong Construction, Robert Ohata, and C. Earl
Stoner, Junior.
The contract called, as usual, for forfeit of the
deposit if the buyer did not complete the transition within 30
days of opening escrow. Thirty days from December 20th would
be January 19th.
On January 10th, it became apparent that the new
mayor and new council had not been told about this transaction
by the outgoing mayor, by the sellers, or by this board.
I have to depart from written testimony here
because of the electric company. My concern about this, and I
called it fishy -- a fishy transaction, in a letter to the
editor, is that if the sellers truly intended this to go
forward, as to buying those two buildings in Wailuku, I think
they would have checked -- being experienced people, they
would have checked it out with the new mayor and with the new
council, since those were the bodies that would have to
complete the transaction.
Since they did not do so and since the contract
calls for forfeiting the deposit, possibly several days ago, I
have very severe questions about this. When I looked into
your minutes from December 4th, I saw that these were
approved -- this purchase, particularly, was approved in
executive session with never a mention of what particular
property it was intended for.
And my question is this. First of all, did you
intend the mayor to purchase the Crest building? Did you
understand that there was a possibility the deposit could be
forfeited if the new mayor and the council did not go forward
with it? Was there a reason that nothing from this board
informed the new mayor and the council about the transaction?
And, basically, what was your role in providing this money
which may ultimately go to this hui of local businessmen?
I would ask you, since it takes only five people
to vote to go into executive session, I believe it only takes
five people to make executive session minutes public. And you
can ask Mr. Kushi about that. Also, I would appreciate it
very much, from the point of view of the public, if you did
make those minutes public, at least the part of them relating
to the negotiations for office space, which is the way it was
described in your minutes.
I believe, and this is a fine point. I can't say.
But I did look up the Sunshine Law again to see if there was
anything new in the Sunshine Law. And I did see some case law
that dealt with when executive session minutes -- the matter
can be made public by any member of the board if certain
requirements are met. So, I would urge all of you or any one
of you to discover whether that situation applies here and
make those minutes public.
And finally, I would like to say that when the
board become advisory, I really thought, well, now they are
taking so much power away from the board, what will its role
be? And this was long before I knew anything about these
transactions. And I thought to myself, this board has a
wealth of knowledge of the past history of water in Maui
County.
Unfortunately, you lost Mr. Nakamura who had a
great deal of knowledge. However, Mr. Nobriga still has a
great knowledge of the history, and I am sure others of you
do, too.
The other thing is that you advise the department,
you advise the council, and you advise the major on matters
involving water. The only way advisory boards can have
influence is if they are trusted. If their advice is trusted
and if their integrity as operating for the public welfare is
trusted by the people they advise.
So, I have lost my trust in former Mayor Apana
because of this transaction. I would like to know that your
role in it was more trustworthy than it would have seemed to
be.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Miss Reisbeck.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: A motion is in order to receive
the minutes of regular meeting November 27 --
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: -- December 4, December 17 with
corrections.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair.
MR. VICTORINO: Move.
MS. PARSONS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: There has been a move. Is
there a second?
MS. PARSONS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: I had a question for the testifier.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: There was nothing to question
the testifier on.
MR. STARR: So you won't allow me to question the
testifier?
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: No, I will not.
MR. STARR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Oppose nay.
MR. STARR: Nay.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: One nay. Thank you.
Testimony has been requested by Mr. Naiditch.
MR. DAVIDGE: Davidge.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: What?
MR. DAVIDGE: Davidge.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Oh, Davidge. I am sorry. That
his item be moved up on the agenda to accommodate a flight to
Honolulu. Is there any objections?
MR. VICTORINO: None.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Hearing none, we will take up
Mr. Davidge's matter at this time.
Mr. Davidge, I am sorry. What item are you on?
MR. DAVIDGE: C.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: 02-35. Okay. Mr. Davidge.
MR. DAVIDGE: Yeah, my request is fairly simple.
I asked for a building permit for a wood storage at my
residence where I process wood. The wood that I have that's
in the yard is getting damaged. It's a small structure onto
the side of my shop.
The Building Department approved the plans, but
the Water Board didn't sign off, because they had issues of
fire protection. Since we have built the original structures,
we have a new fire department four minutes from my shop, who
is adequately set up to handle any fire with their pump
trucks.
We also have probably one of the only fire lines
in the area that's coming out of Henry Rice half million tank.
We have got a four-inch line with a three-inch stand pipe, and
we could replace that with a four-inch stand pipe. I really
need the space to store my wood so it doesn't get damaged.
The tents and the tarps aren't working.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Any questions for
Mr. Davidge? None. Thank you.
This item, because we have no powers on this item,
this matter should be referred to the director.
MR. STARR: Point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: How come you asked the board members
if they had any questions for this testifier, however, when I
wanted to question the previous testifier, you would not allow
me the floor?
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Because this matter is on the
agenda. This communication 02-35.
MR. STARR: Oh.
MR. DAVIDGE: So, this will go to the Water Board,
David Craddick, or --
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: There is no -- there is no --
we are the board. We have no jurisdiction on your matter
anymore.
MR. DAVIDGE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: So, the matter is referred to
Acting Director George Tengan. Is there are any objections?
MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: I guess I am not clear, and I guess
similar to Mr. Starr's question of what the role of the new
Board of Water Supply is. Because when I look at the
amendment to the Charter, it says that Board of Water Supply
shall act as adviser to the director, the Department of Water
Supply, the mayor and council in all matters concerning the
county's water system.
So, this is a matter that concerns the county's
water system. So, my question is, although we may not have
the final decision ability, should we not make recommendations
regarding these matters to the director, and whether he
follows that recommendation is his decision.
But, I think, you know, if there's still a public
hearing, public testimony, questioning by the board, I still
think that's an integral part of the process. I, too, am a
little confused as to where -- what the role of the Board of
Water Supply is. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Mr. Kushi, could
you kindly summarize the current powers and duties and
functions of the Board of Water Supply as provided for in the
new charter amendment that is passed?
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Yes, Mr. Chair. I
will try my best. I thought I did it before. However, to
summarize, the new charter amendment converts this board to an
advisory capacity entity. The board is still delegated the
duty to advise the department, the mayor, and the council on
all water issues.
Specific -- as to specific items, your previous
authority to overrule department decisions has been deleted.
However, you still have an important budgetary function, which
I think we'll go into today.
As board members have previously stated, there may
be questions as far as the agenda items for today's meeting.
However, because this is the first really meaty meeting of the
new year, I believe staff wanted to put all the existing items
on your agenda. We can go one by one and go over it
whether -- what can you do about it.
I tend to agree with Mr. Hiranaga, in that even
though your decision in a recommendation may have no weight on
the director, you still have the authority to hear it. Now, I
want to make this also clear, that there is still -- the rule
still exists. And remember, we passed that rule about appeals
of director decisions.
If someone feels affected by a decision by the
director, they still have the right to appeal. They have got
to pay a fee now. Remember, we talked about that fee. Okay.
They can appeal it to you. Your decision will be a
recommendation. And if the director -- whatever the director
does, that applicant or person has all the rights to pursue
further judicial appeals. But you still have that authority
unless the rules change.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Kushi.
Staff recommendation, the staff recommends that
this request to approve the addition to the existing farm shed
should be denied. There is a standing agreement authorizing
waiver for subdivision water systems which runs with the land
between the Board of Water Supply and the original subdivider
also the applicant.
This water is not available to the mill and
subdivision at this time. The provisions of this agreement
prohibits the approval of the subject applicant for building
permit. The subdivision is on the priority list. Water
meters will be available in accordance with the provisions of
the water meter rule for Upcountry water systems. Water
system improvements for the subdivision have not yet been
installed.
Does this body wish to make a different
recommendation?
MR. DAVIDGE: Can I say something?
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Naiditch.
MR. DAVIDGE: Davidge. The only usage would be
for fire. There is no water to this wood storage at all. And
I think that we have got more than adequate fire protection.
You know, I have been down and talked to the fire chief, and,
you know, I mean, that's new since this agreement was written,
the new fire station. And like he says, we handle everything
up here with pumpers, because nobody has stand pipes. But we
do. We have a three-inch line -- a four-inch line to a
three-inch stand pipe. We can screw that out and put in a
four-inch stand pipe. And that's coming out of Henry Rice's
half million tank, because it was required when the
subdivision was put in. So, that's the only water use this
building has is fire protection.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Hashimoto.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Can you get a written statement by
the chief?
MR. DAVIDGE: Sure. I will go back and talk to
him and see if he will put that in writing. But like I say,
that fire department didn't even exist when this agreement was
written, but I get a lot of damage to my wood. I really have
got to get it under cover.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Do you want to defer this to
the next meeting?
MR. HASHIMOTO: I think if he can get a letter
from the chief saying that fire protection is adequate, then
there is no reason why we should deny it.
MR. DAVIDGE: Because this little bit of
structure, I mean, if it's adequate for everything else I have
there, then this little bit is not going to make or break
putting a fire out there.
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Victorino.
MR. VICTORINO: I move we defer this matter until
the necessary documentation is produced by Mr. Davidge here
from the chief of the fire department regarding the water, the
flood -- I mean, the adequate fire protection. Excuse me.
Thank you.
MR. DAVIDGE: Cool.
MR. VICTORINO: Yeah, we need that, and then with
that in our hand, we could probably make a decision on that
point.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
MR. DAVIDGE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: It's been moved and seconded to
defer this to our meeting in February where documentation from
Mr. Davidge will be provided and a recommendation can be
obtained.
Any further discussion? All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Opposed nay.
(Silence.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Motion is carried.
MR. DAVIDGE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Davidge.
Going back to the Director's Report, Director's
Report 03-01, development of Kupaa Well number 1. Mr. Tengan.
MR. TENGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will refer
this matter to Herb Kogasaka.
MR. KOGASAKA: The staff recommends transferring
funds for the -- back up a little bit.
The bid -- the low bid came in at $1,614,520.
Budgeted was $925,000. We also have, within the pipeline
project, budgeted $700,000. We would like to suggest that we
be able to transfer the funds for the well development
project. The pipeline project is not at a stage where we can
go to bid at this time. I have got excess for the year. But
the staff underestimated the project, and we missed one of the
components of the project. So, it's an oversight on our part,
and --
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Victorino.
MR. VICTORINO: Herb, am I correct in saying your
statements basically are saying that we originally put aside
700,000, or we thought this project was cost us 700,000?
MR. KOGASAKA: No.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: 925.
MR. KOGASAKA: We have set aside 925.
MR. VICTORINO: 925,000, and we are short 700,000.
MR. KOGASAKA: We never covered the cost
difference. The 700,000 was originally earmarked for a
pipeline connecting the well to the system. We are not at a
stage to go to a bid right now, but we would like to amend the
budget to utilize that funds to complete the project because
of an oversight on our part.
MR. VICTORINO: What was that oversight? What
component did you miss that made that differential?
MR. KOGASAKA: Well, actually, there's a pump in
the tank section, and one of the sections got left out.
MR. VICTORINO: That wasn't put in originally?
MR. KOGASAKA: It wasn't included in our estimate,
and it got caught when the consultant's estimate came in,
which was during the time of the bidding.
MR. VICTORINO: I see.
MR. KOGASAKA: So, we decided to proceed with the
bidding and try to see what kind of bids we get.
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Chairman, may I make a
recommendation beyond just this? When something of this
nature occurs, and there's an oversight or a mistake, that
some kind of clarification is made to us and -- you know,
because I was trying to look for some sort of -- other than
the original 925,000, some sort of informational means for me
to understand and even the general public to understand what
the difference, why the difference, and what was the
oversight. I think that's important that we know and that can
be presented to us or, you know, in the future, please.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: And is there a -- there is a
recommended transfer from, to, yeah?
MR. KOGASAKA: George.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, staff is recommending that
we take the $700,000 for, I believe, the transmission line
portion and apply that $700,000 to the 925 we already have in
the budget to fund this project.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Tengan.
Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: Yeah, I'd like to comment on this. I
have a little bit of concern over whether in fact this project
is really the wisest expenditure of funds. And I think I want
to be sure that the board members and also that the public are
aware that this is a pumping capacity in the North Waihee area
below Makamakaole in an area where we have heard from our
hydrological consultant, John Mink, numerous times, including,
in very strong wording, in the EMPLAN EIS that was accepted a
few months ago by the board, that the section of North Waihee,
between Iao and Makamakaole, has a maximum allowable yield of
four million gallons a day. That we should not pump more than
that.
Now, we have our pumping report here which we get
regularly. And for the 12 month moving average and also the
past yearly monthly average, both of those numbers are right
at five million gallons a day, which means that we are already
extracting a million gallons a day too much, more than we can
sustainably do it or more than we are suppose to be taking
from that segment of North Waihee aquifer.
And I question the real necessity of putting
another well in there, since we are already exceeding the
yield by a million gallons a day, and we are ending up with a,
you know, a very large cluster of wells in one area. And
those wells already could pump -- what we have got now could
pump six or more, but we only can take four.
It seems that it would make a lot more sense to
spend our money adding pumping capacity outside of this
segment of North Waihee where we are already a million gallons
over what we are able to take out of there.
In fact, I believe we are going to have to reduce
what we are pumping out of there. And, so, my belief is we
are looking at spending a million six plus more for
electricity on something that's not going to increase the
amount of water going into Central Maui at all.
So, I do have some questions about this, and I
think that some thought should be given over where we are
going to be putting our wells at this juncture before we spend
a lot of money here.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Starr.
Mr. Kogasaka.
MR. KOGASAKA: The program, the next section we
have already contracted for to do the consideration for
exploratory well at the Camp Maluhia site and beyond, and this
is a section beyond Makamakaole Stream.
This system, if it develops -- do the exploratory
well, and then if it develops that to a point where we can do
a production well in that area, that would have to tie into
the Kupaa well station, which would consist of a tank, and
then the next section, which in the design portion would be
the transmission line to the system.
And it -- it's -- that section beyond would be
contingent upon having all this system. The Kupaa well is
presently -- the well -- the production well is there. It's
not outfitted, and that's part of the bid that was received.
But it's all tied into one system.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Tengan.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, if you recall discussions
on the Iao aquifer, the State Water Commission was suggesting
that we spread the pumping. By having a well in this location
here, we would be able to pretty much accomplish the same task
there.
And to put in pumping capacity to the exact amount
of the so-called sustainable yield, in my view, by adding
another well would help us to manage the system better, in
that, you know, we are providing for capacity greater than
what the aquifer can produce. So that in case one well goes
down, we have another well available and in addition to the
spreading the pumping.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: Yeah, I would just like to say that I
think that's the right answer. And with that, I am happy to
support it. But I just wanted to be clear that this is not
going to really be adding new water. It's just going to be
able to give us redundancy and spread out the pumping and able
to access the four million gallons that we can take out of
there in a better fashion. I don't want anyone to believe
that this is going to add water into the system.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thanks, Mr. Starr. Any other
questions?
MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Just wanted to echo what Member
Victorino mentioned about explaining underestimation and
providing us some type of itemization as to why it was
underestimated.
And also, because of the change of the role of the
board, I'd like to suggest that once these recommendations are
passed by the board, that we receive some type of feedback,
maybe the following meeting, as to what the final decision by
the director was, rather than recommendations just
disappearing into, you know, a black hole, and find out
whether he agrees or disagrees. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Also, I am not especially fond
about finding money elsewhere in the budget to fund things.
I -- again, this is a new process, but to -- a justification
that you are finding money elsewhere in the budget for this
purpose to fund it is not exactly what I believe to be the
correct process.
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Victorino.
MR. VICTORINO: I feel I will echo his sentiment,
especially when you defer a project that's been on the waiting
list for a long time, the pipeline. Once you start taking
money from Peter to pay Paul, one day there is no more money
to get Peter back on the list.
So, I would be really skeptical on doing things
like this in the future. I will support it, because, like
Mr. Starr said, this will, you know, spread the usage and is
something that's necessary.
But I think we better -- better to understand what
we are trying to do, and maybe, in the future, avoid such big
differentiations in our proposals versus the actual bids that
come in if that's possible, George.
Okay. And if nothing else, Mr. Chair, I'd like to
move that we recommend this project, I guess, to the
appropriate party. Would that be to the director, or to the
mayor, or to the council?
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: A motion is in order to approve
the recommendations to shift $700,000 out of transmission
budgets to this project, Kupaa well number one.
MR. VICTORINO: So moved.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, I believe the motion should
be to approve the recommendation to recommend that they shift
it.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: So noted, Mr. Starr. Is there
a second?
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Okay. It's been moved by
Mr. Victorino. Seconded by Mr. Hashimoto. Any further
discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Opposed nay.
(Silence.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: The motion is carried.
MR. VICTORINO: Now, do we recommend this project
itself or --
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: No, no, no.
MR. VICTORINO: Okay. I am confused yet, so
excuse me.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Going into old business.
Trying to get some kind of an -- old business was listed, so
that we have some point of -- from where we transferred from
items we had over to a more appropriate body.
Taking up communication 02-30 is an old request
from Mr. and Mrs. Hanks for water meter in their home in
Muolea, which is Hana District, yeah. Is anybody here
representing those?
MR. HALL: I am not representing them. I had
something to say.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Isaac Hall.
MR. HALL: I am really here on another matter.
But my name is Isaac Hall, and I believe I submitted a letter
on behalf of the Danas, and there's been a letter on behalf of
the Buhls.
To cut to the quick, they actually asked for
meters on the same line, and the board determined that the
line was inadequate for their meters. And basically, their
position is, if you are going to grant the Hanks a meter, you
got to give them a meter. And if you are not going to give
the Hanks a meter, that's fair play. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Hall. Because
of an existing agreement already with the Hanks, the
communication is to be referred to the director for
conclusion.
MR. VICTORINO: So moved.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Is there a second?
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
MS. PARSONS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Moved and seconded. Any
discussion? Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Just clarification. Is the
director going to come back to us with a recommendation or is
he going to make a determination without input from the board?
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: It's my position, if the
director wants us involved, he will ask us for our efforts and
also come up with his own recommendation that we can mull
over.
During our discussions and tribulations in this
matter, there has been a lot of information that we didn't
have. That's why we kept referring and deferring it.
MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Personally, I don't agree with that
premise that he will agenda items to us that he feels he would
like our input. I think this board provides public -- the
opportunity for public input and public scrutiny, especially
if the process is being televised by Akaku.
So, in my opinion, all matters affecting the water
system should come before us for input and a recommendation.
Whether the director agrees with that recommendation is his
responsibility, but I don't believe that, in my opinion, the
director should determine what he wants us to review or not to
review.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Do you have a different --
Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair, I support -- I support you
in this. My belief is that, at this point, this is an
administrative matter, and that this board is out of the loop
in terms of administrative matters. That that is up to the
director.
You know, my own feeling is that our role should
be in looking at -- looking at policy and in advising on the
broader issues. And in a specific case where the director
wants public input or if there's a situation where a
broader -- a broader segment of the public wants to have an
ability to have input into an issue, that's where -- that's
where we should act, but not when something is basically
administrative.
So, I support this being put or left under the
director's purview where I actually think that it legally now
lays.
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Victorino.
MR. VICTORINO: Both Mr. Hiranaga and Mr. Starr
bring up good points. And I think as time evolves, we will
have a better sense in where we belong in this whole equation.
At this point, I think we can sit here all day and go back and
forth what should and shouldn't be.
And I don't want to spend my whole day trying to
determine what Mr. Tengan, the administration, or the council
will be doing and what our role will be. I guess time will
tell us that. Time will give us that effort and the ability
to figure out what we need to know.
At this point, I agree with Mr. Nobriga, the
Chair, that most of these things should be referred to the
adequate bodies. And I will support that motion, and I
think -- didn't we make a motion? No, we haven't made a
motion.
I make a motion that this be referred to the --
okay. So, I make a motion that this matter be referred to the
director.
MS. PARSONS: I will second.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Moved and seconded. Any
further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Opposed nay.
(Silence.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Motion is carried.
Communication 02-32, the letter from Hugh Starr
requesting to amend the department rules by amending the
definition of subdivision.
I was going to recommend that we refer it to the
County Council. But Mr. Starr, since you are is here, please.
MR. HUGH STARR: Thank you, Chairman Nobriga,
Members of the Board. My name is Hugh Starr. I am as much in
the dark as you all are about what's going on here. If --
maybe just for the benefit of the other board members, just a
quick review.
There are some -- and I think this is especially
relevant now with the changes in the Water Board's powers,
that there are inconsistencies in the county codes with
respect to -- well, let me put it this way.
In the Subdivision Chapter, Chapter 18, they do
allow waivers for subdivisions of three lots or less from
certain improvements. In addition, you can build three houses
on a lot before any subdivision requirements come into play.
In other words, the fourth residence on a single lot has to
comply -- requires you to comply with subdivision, whereas up
to three houses it does not.
However, in the water rules, there is, under the
definition of subdivision, the inclusion of condominiums. And
the purpose of my proposal is to bring that definition more in
line with the other provisions of the county code which allow
for waivers of certain requirements.
In this case, as you all know, most lots have
ohanas on them. In the ag areas, the code does allow two farm
dwellings. However, if you go to condominiumize those, under
the water rules, you have to comply with the -- with their
subdivision requirements.
And what I am requesting is that the first two
dwellings be waived from that requirement if you are doing a
condominium, because a condominium does not determine density.
It's strictly a form of ownership, just like a marriage,
tenants by the entirety, or a partnership.
So, what I would hope is that this board might
consider passing this to the council with a recommendation to
amend the definition of subdivision to exempt two-unit
condominiums from the definition of subdivision. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Starr. Any
questions for Mr. Starr?
Now, the chair recommends that we refer this to
the County Council as they take up the issue of rules and rule
making.
MR. VICTORINO: So move.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Moved. Is there a second?
MS. PARSONS: Second.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Moved and seconded. Any
discussion? Mr. Hiranaga. Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: Yeah, just a question again from Corp
Counsel. At this point, do all of the Water Department rules
get made by the council or is it still -- I guess they do, but
I -- I am asking for confirmation.
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Mr. Chairman, Member
Starr, in my opinion, in my review of the differences in the
charter amendment, the answer is no. Your rules, as
established now, still control the department.
If changes are to be made, it won't be made by
you. It will be made by the department. Under Chapter 91, I
believe 92, the rule making changes that the department may
follow, the council would change the rules, in essence, change
the rules if it affects rates, charges, fees. That would have
to go to the council.
But something like subdivisions, which are not
specifically in the charter, as far as the council oversight,
would have go through the department.
MR. STARR: With that in mind, I would be voting
nay on sending it to the council, but I would prefer to send
it to the director with this. And if he wants, I guess we
could have a hearing on it for his assistance.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Starr.
Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: I guess I am a little confused
because of this memo from Brian Moto to Dain Kane dated
December 4. It says that status of board's rules by expressly
providing that such rules shall continue to have -- have the
force and effect of law in that they may be amended or
repealed by ordinance. It would appear to me that by
ordinance, is that not by County Council versus the director?
Clarification.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Kushi, I think is one for
you.
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Mr. Chairman, Member
Hiranaga. If you refer to Mr. Moto's memo, I believe the
intent behind that was -- I don't have it before me. But I
believe he wanted to say that unless amended by ordinance,
your rules still apply.
And I believe the intent was that they were
proposing an ordinance, to be reviewed by the council, to
carry over your rules. And I believe that was read by the
council, and I believe that ordinance is still pending or it
may been denied. But I don't think that conflicts from what
my statements were five minutes ago.
MR. HIRANAGA: So, what you are saying --
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: So, what you are saying is there is
an amendment before the council to give the rule making
authority to the director of the Department of Water Supply?
CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: I believe that's the
intent of that proposed ordinance or to carry forward until
something else is done.
MR. HIRANAGA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Miss Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: Thank you, Council Member Nobriga.
As I am looking at this, it would be my suggestion that we
refer this matter to the director. And if he so feels that it
needs to be taken further to council, because it is discussing
condominiums and subdivisions, which is probably a land use
issue as well, and they could maybe coordinate the rules. I
think that that's what we should do.
I would think that you -- your input, as a
director, sir, should probably be whether or not, at any time,
now or in the future, when you condominiumize, what type of
density limits should it create, whether it's numbers of
fixtures, whether it's numbers of households, whether it's
numbers of septic tanks, whatever it might be.
But, I think this is an issue where you take it
back to council, if you feel that -- you put your rules
together, take it to council, and see if they can't coordinate
with land use.
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Victorino.
MR. VICTORINO: In light of what Corp Counsel
Kushi has brought up, I would like to withdraw my motion.
Will you withdraw your second?
MS. PARSONS: I will withdraw my second.
MR. VICTORINO: And change that to refer this
matter to the director for his consideration.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I will allow it, but also
submit an amendment. But that's okay. You can do it that
way. Is there a second to the new motion?
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: It's been moved by Victorino,
seconded by Hashimoto, that we refer this to the director's
office. Any further discussion?
Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: I guess I have a really difficult
philosophical difference with the Board of Water Supply not
providing a recommendation, regarding such matter, or if the
director determines what his recommendation would be for such
a request, that there is no discussion by the board.
Because, you know, Hugh has been working on this
for a long time. And I agree that in an ag subdivision, I see
no basis for this requirement, because an ag subdivision
limits dwellings to one house of any size and one
thousand-square-foot ohana. So, because you condominiumize a
two-acre lot or a 10-acre lot, it does not change the density
for that particular property. So, all they are doing is
providing a different form of ownership. It doesn't provide
additional dwellings to be built.
But, I think that, you know, it just seems like
all of this is just going to disappear without -- we are going
to lose touch of what's happening with the Department of Water
Supply very quickly. And, I don't know. I have been on this
board for two years, and I feel, at this point, I have a
feeling of where the department is. And when these matters
get deferred, we are just not going to be aware of what's
happening with the department anymore. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Victorino.
MR. VICTORINO: To echo Member Hiranaga's
concerns, I would like to turn to Acting Director Tengan and
make this request.
On these matters that we are referring to you,
could we ask that if not the next meeting, the meeting
thereafter, some resolution and some response to these
requests be made to us, so that we are not lost in the loop.
I agree. I don't want to be a part of your
administrative process. But yet on the other side, this is
the area where people come in and give public testimony. If
they come in and do so, then we should know that if we refer
it to you, that some resolution is made to these people on
this situation, and that the public can feel they can come to
us if something needs to be taken in a public forum. So, can
I ask Mr. Tengan for that commitment?
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, I won't promise that I
will come back with a resolution. However, I will be glad to
report back to the board the status of the request.
With regard to Mr. Hiranaga's concern about rule
making here, I would be glad to come to the board with a
suggested rule change for the board's input and to put it up
to public hearing before it's sent out to the council.
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Chair, that's a satisfactory
answer, and I accept that, and I thank Acting Director Tengan
for his response.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: Yes, Mr. Chair and Board Members and
the Director, I think that, you know, here we are getting a
little bit to the crux of the issue about what the board is
supposed to do. And the people certainly have spoken. The
public has spoken, in that what was happening before was not
satisfactory, where the board and the administration of the
department were separate entities and very often in conflict.
And I really don't think that, you know, a lot
of -- although we did a lot of good things, and I think that
all of the works that needed to be done were getting done.
And I think where we are getting to is a good place, where we
can function, really, as a team. And that is, I think, what
has been asked or demanded of us by the voters to do, is to
work with the director, and work with the council, and work
with the mayor in a team function, so that we can do what a
board or a commission does best, which is interact with the
public on issues of policy or when the public feels aggrieved.
And I -- I believe that, you know, that's
something that the director would want us to do and will want
us to do, and we will be doing as an extension of his
administration and functioning in that way.
But, when it's an administrative thing, we should
be out of the way and let the director do what he needs to do.
And, you know, this is a case where if it's a policy issue,
perhaps he would come to us and say please hold public
hearings on this, so that the public can interact through the
board, and then he can make his call based on what happens at
that kind of hearing. So, I think we are moving in the right
direction with this.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Starr.
Appreciate that. Any further comment?
MR. VICTORINO: Call for the question.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: The question has been called
for. All those in favor of closing discussion, please signify
by sigh aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Opposed nay.
(Silence.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: The motion on the floor is to
refer the matter to the director. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Opposed nay.
(Silence.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Motion is carried. Now take a
five-minute recess. Bathroom break.
(Recess, 9:56 a.m. Resumed, 10:04 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: We convene the meeting of the
Board of Water Supply. Our next item for discussion and
deliberation is Communication 02-31 and Communication 03-02,
which are letters from the esteemed Isaac Davis Hall.
MR. HALL: Oh, boy. Esteemed Mr. DePonte.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: You are all concerned now, CIP
projects. Have the CIP projects, there wouldn't be any
questions, yeah?
MR. HALL: There wouldn't be any what?
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: If we went ahead with our
capital improvement projects in those areas, there wouldn't be
any problems.
MR. HALL: Oh, correct.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Hall, please.
MR. HALL: I guess this is a matter that we first
brought before the board in February of 2001 or '2 -- '1. And
came before the board after that, and there was supposed to
have been a staff report presented to you on the status of a
capital improvement project to provide adequate fire flow to
the Upper Kula system.
And that was not forthcoming, so, we continued to
write letters to try to get that staff report done, and we
made inquiries and nothing ever happened. And, so, I guess it
got put back on your agenda. That's the first part of this.
What happened to that capital improvement project, and why
hasn't it gone forward? Because when we were before you
before, we thought that there was going to be some action and
movement on that.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes.
MR. HALL: And the second part of the letter has
to do with the letter that Mr. DePonte, my client, received,
which he's on the Upcountry priority list, and he's been
informed --
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Excuse me. The TV would
request that you speak into that big microphone.
MR. HALL: I am sorry. Yes.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: The big top. Thank you.
MR. HALL: Yeah. Good morning, Mr. Nobriga and
Members of the Board of Water Supply. My name is Isaac Hall.
I am representing the DePontes this mornings, and I have
spoken about -- already about the first aspect of our request
which is the status of improvements to the Upper Kula
waterline and how we have made numerous inquiries already.
And we were promised, we thought, a staff report on the status
of that and have tried to do everything we can to get the
staff to come forward with a staff report on that and have
been unable to do that.
And we are glad that you placed this matter back
on the agenda, so perhaps you can help us get the staff report
to tell you why nothing has happened on the capital
improvements for the Upcountry or the -- not the Upcountry,
but for the Upper Kula system.
And the second aspect of our request has to do
with a letter that got sent to the DePontes. They are on the
priority list. They were told to hook up. And the last time
we were here, I think some of you were on the board and
remember that when Mr. Craddick was the director, that if the
DePontes were forced to hook up, they were told that they
could cut across and not go around the curve in the road. And
we wanted to make sure that that was confirmed that that was
true.
Because we thought it was unfair that in the past,
they were told that they were going to have to take a very
circuitous route to hook up, which would have benefited lots
and lots of other people who would not have had to pay, and
they would have to pay to benefit other people, which we felt
was unfair.
Mr. DePonte is here himself, and he is much more
esteemed than I am and can explain the situation even better.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Very good. Mr. DePonte, you
have the floor, the seat, and the microphone.
MR. DePONTE: Mr. Chair and fellow members. I
have brought this before you way back now, but this
subdivision goes back to the 1940s when the subdivision was
put in place.
A lot of times we get turned to the position that
it was never zoned that or it was in an interim zone. They
use that as a good excuse to duck out on doing what's suppose
to be done, what is fair. What I feel, several things that
happened on this thing here is that it's been rural zoned
since back then.
A system -- a water system was put in. If it was
inadequate when the department accepted the water system, it
accepted the responsibilities of that system, responsibilities
of providing us with adequate fire protection.
The house that was on my property previous to the
house that we have on it burned to the ground. Now the people
that owned that property did not go to the Water Department
and sue them, because this is good old folks, and that's the
way it was.
You have been presented with the fact now that
there is inadequate fire protection there. I found out this
after I purchased my house in 1992, and I went up to the
engineering department to find out what it would be to -- you
know, if I had to subdivide. If I decided, in the future, to
subdivide this property for my children, would what would I
have to do? What would -- to make my subdivision -- get my
subdivision to go through.
What was stated is I would have to cut across this
one property, you know, improve the line to make it an
adequate fire protection for the community in that area. I
didn't have the funds at the time. It was something like
50,000. We put all our money into our land to purchase the
property.
So, we were not -- you know, we didn't have the
funds, so we couldn't do it at that time. But still when I
looked -- when I looked at the project, when I looked at that
area that they were talking about, there was a full fire
hydrant at the bottom of this on that road, which is not
fire -- it's not adequate fire protection. It's a deception.
Sheep eye.
The county has been noted. We told them already
that this is wrong. People are using that as a -- for their
insurance policy, fire protection insurance policy all up and
down that road. We have demanded that the county at least
look at it. We have waited for staff reports here. We have
not gotten it.
I am frustrated. I really don't want to see a
fire and somebody get killed or something, because there would
be a lawsuit there, because we have brought it to the
attention of the county. We want steps taken towards getting
this resolved and finished, not only for me, so I can get my
subdivision, because I still have to provide something in
front of my lot, which I feel is fair.
But not, what is it, 700 feet away from my
property, then it goes 500 feet across another property, and
to have another wrench thrown in, oh, let's change it. Let's
give you another 1400 feet around a corner that is going to be
cutting back and forth across a federal road, you know, state
government, federal road.
What one of the engineers told me was it was like
an engineering suicide, you know, going back and forth across
that road and trying to stop traffic. This is traffic going
to the crater. So, what they demanded from us later on was to
service everybody down the line, and yet they still have not
taken care of their fire protection period. So, we need that.
I have copies here of another incident that our
money, in this department, is getting wasted on some other
objects. They designed something that was in 1970 -- designed
in 1970, finally put it in, in 2002, the line, and that line
is not adequate. And the reasoning is because it's interim
not business. Ching store and Fong store, what was that?
That was there forever as far as I remember as a kid, and it's
not business? Are we designing the line for what, two houses
in that area?
I think the matter should be brought up to the
department that, look, I mean, if you are going to waste the
money, at least waste it on something else, you know, not to
just throw in an eight-inch line or whatever line just to
supply yesterday's thing, 1970's stuff. Take that money and
put it someplace else if you cannot put it up to standards for
today.
Because when we build, we got to build it to the
standards of today. If I put in any line, you guys are going
to ask me to put it in today's standards. How come this went
through, and it was not? This is on record, and it's there.
This is a letter that came to the department stating to
another client that I have -- because I do land surveying, and
I do get clients that have this. And I watch people's dreams
go down the tubes because of this. Wasteful.
I am asking you guys to look at this seriously. I
have asked you before to look at it seriously. I understand
there is a new change in the administration, and I hope it's
to the best. I am very much hoping, and I think it will. You
are in an advisory committee, and this is where the public
input can come in and give it to -- you know, provide it to
the director. And I hope the director will look at it and use
the public as, you know, getting things done, getting things
done in the right direction.
Because we have spoken, because the next election
comes around, maybe something going to change again. And I
cannot stress that it's -- we the public, we want something
more. And I have seen too many of these dreams down the
tubes. That's my spiel. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Before I open it up to the
body, I want to clarify. What I am hearing is that you are
requesting reports from the department; one, concerning the
status of our capital improvement projects to upgrade the line
in your area to insure adequate fire flow; and, two, you are
requesting a verification of subdivision improvement
requirements -- subdivision improvement requirements including
the alignment?
MR. HALL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Is there a third issue that I
missed? Two basically, huh?
MR. DePONTE: Yeah, the two basically. The
subdivision is not in yet. It's in case I do a subdivision in
the future, but I have requested water meters.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Okay. Members, who was first?
Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: I believe that in the last budget,
we approved about $8 million for upgrading fire flow in that
budget. And I have one of the books here that has a lot of
the lists of -- it's been around since like 1992 of the
improvements that need to be done.
Could we get a copy of what you feel you have used
that expenditure for in the -- over the next year and which --
and which projects you feel are in priority? Because that --
this may be one of those --
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Excuse me, Miss Parsons. Can
we ask questions of the testifier first, and then we will go
into deliberations and actions with the department.
MS. PARSONS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Please.
MS. PARSONS: Then Mr. DePonte, maybe what we need
to do is see what the next -- the next projects are that are
coming up, because it's hard for us to -- to judge. I am in
agreement with you that I think we need to -- this is a
concern. This is a very big concern of mine, especially
Upcountry.
MR. HALL: If I may respond, the last time we were
here, which was six months, eight months ago, Howard Nakamura
was on the board. He asked David Craddick. It was confirmed
at the time that there was capital improvement money generally
for a project such as this one. And they were -- the director
then, Mr. Craddick, was supposed to have looked into why money
could not have been spent on this particular project.
The money -- he confirmed already. We have gotten
to the point where it's confirmed that there is money
generally there for a project of this nature. And the staff
is supposed to come back and say why they couldn't spend it on
it. And, so, the questions you are asking now were asked at
the last time we were here and nothing happened. That's why
we are frustrated.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: Yeah, I have some discussion of a more
general nature, not questions for the testifier. Can I move
on to that or --
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: No, let's ask questions first.
Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Mr. DePonte, is it your belief that
the County of Maui has a legal duty to provide fire protection
to all dwellings on this island?
MR. HALL: Wait. I know you are asking that to
Mr. DePonte, but that's a legal question. Maybe I better
answer it. I think I set it out in the letter that once the
county endeavors to put in a system or, in this case, it
accepted the system, and provide fire flow, it has to do so in
an adequate fashion.
And I believe that's black letter law. In other
words, you don't have a duty -- and I think your rules reflect
this. You don't have a duty to supply people beyond your
system. But the people that you have already elected to
serve, you have to serve them adequately.
You have already elected to serve Mr. DePonte, so
you do have a legal duty to serve him adequately, yes. So,
and to the extent that the department has admitted for 10 --
over 10 years that there's inadequate fire flow in this
system, as I said in the letter, I think the department -- the
board could be liable if there's a fire up there, and you
can't put it out, because of the -- and it can't be put out
because of the inadequate fire flow that you have known about
for the last 10 years.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Can I direct a question to the
director regarding this subject?
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I would prefer not to.
MR. HIRANAGA: So, Mr. Hall, is it your belief
then that this responsibility for an existing system, pipe
replacement or whatever, to bring the fire system up to county
code, county standard, should be tempered based upon the
physical constraints -- fiscal constraints of the county in
determining which systems of this county would be best served
by the funds available?
MR. HALL: I don't think it has anything to do
with liability. I think to the extent that you have got
systems out there that are your systems that are incapable of
providing adequate fire flow, you are faced with liability.
How you deal with that liability is what you are
talking about. You are saying, well, we are liable here, we
are liable there, we are liable here. We have only got X
amount of money, so we are going to prioritize. It's like a
triage system. Which one are we going to deal with first.
But it doesn't mean that you are not liable in
four or five different areas. You are going to have to decide
which one you are going to try and eliminate the liability in
first. We are just asking you to deal with this situation.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Hall.
MR. HIRANAGA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Any other questions?
Miss Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: Mr. DePonte, did you say that the
subdivision was built in the 1940s?
MR. DePONTE: It was done in the 1940's. Yes,
that's correct.
MS. PARSONS: Would it be your contention that
maybe in prioritizing what needs to be serviced first, might
be the older areas before the newer areas?
MR. DePONTE: After looking at the past board and
the decisions that have been made, the priority has been where
the money was at, basically, where we shipped the water to.
That is kind of what I saw. I am coming from the public, the
frustrated public.
I think the Planning Department, you know, when
they do planning, if you are going to zone this at whatever
zoning they plan on zoning it, it should be meant that the
funds are going to be available to bring it up to par, which,
you know, this section might be one section. Keokea might be
another section.
I see a lot of wasted money on this, and I have
said on that, I will give you an example. Right on this
system, it goes from a eight-inch to a two,
two-and-a-half-inch pipe. That pipe is corroded. It's
galvanized. It's wasting county money today. As we speak,
it's wasting -- I am going to say tonight. When they start
pumping uphill, when they start pumping water uphill to the
tank, it's restricted, and already they have been advised --
the engineering department has been advised to upgrade that
line to something better, because it's holding back the pump,
and it's wear and tear on our county pump.
So, how they deal with that now, with the new
administration, the new director, I am really looking forward
to that.
MR. HALL: If I could just add something, too. I
think they said yes. But if I could add, it's not a matter of
supply, because there's a tank up at the top. It's a matter
of coming down to the tank, you go into an eight-inch line,
and you go into a two-and-a-half-inch line, and back to an
eight-inch line. So, it's the two-and-a-half-inch line that
renders it inadequate, the fact that there is a
two-and-a-half-inch line that hasn't been replaced with a
bigger line. So, it really has to do with a proper sized
line.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Okay. Any other questions?
Okay. The board will be discussing capital
improvement projects for 2003-2004 before we adjourn, so, is
there any other questions you guys want to ask of anybody in
the room? Mr. Starr. Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Just one comment. Being on the
board for two years, I, too, don't understand how pipe
replacement or capital improvement funding is prioritized.
And I am hoping that the money is spent to benefit the most
number of people possible. So, for every dollar you spend,
it's spent to help 10 people versus two people.
But it should be prioritized so that at some
point, you know when your system will be improved to adequacy
versus not ever knowing. But I, too, I think we have asked
for that in the past and not really gotten a very concise
answer.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: There are a lot of issues at stake
here. I'd like to start out by saying I'd like to see that
line get improved, but we should face the fact that I believe
it's about 25 -- about a quarter to a third of our lines are
inadequate for fire flow right now.
And as I understand it, every year we are actually
moving -- we are actually ending up with more lines
inadequate, because we are not replacing old lines as fast as
areas get developed, and the requirements for water increase.
So, you know, that's a problem, number one.
You know, I don't think we should be prioritizing
it on a squeaky-wheel-gets-the-grease basis though. You know,
if someone goes and buys a piece of land where it's
inadequate, and then, you know, comes in, that shouldn't be --
to us so they can subdivide, that shouldn't be the criteria.
You know, it has to be a fair, you know, a fair basis.
Now, at the last water convention, National Water
Convention, I attended a seminar specifically on this issue,
which was, you know, the responsibility of a water system to
provide fire flow and to, you know, upgrade CIP. And in
talking to a number of people with -- in different water
systems around the country, we were one of the few places
where there was not anywhere near the funding needed to bring
all the lines up to fire flow standards.
The rates should be at a point and the ability to
replace pipe should be at a point where most of the lines
should be up to fire flow standards. And that's pretty much
the standard throughout the United States.
Now, we can't come anywhere close to being able to
afford to do that right now, nor do we have the personnel in
the department to run -- plan, and run, and engineer the jobs
and oversee them to get the work out.
So, this takes us to a much larger issue, which I
know we are going to get to later, is that we are -- you know,
we don't have the money to do what we need to do, and that's
the basis for this problem and problems throughout the system.
So, you know, I look forward to having that
discussion later, but that has -- you know, the CIP discussion
has to lead to a larger discussion which is about rates. And
I hope that that goes into an agenda in the very near future,
where we can help to advise the director and, in turn the
council, on what a necessary rate structure is that will allow
us to, over a finite period of time, bring our lines up to
fire flow standards where they should be.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Starr. For this
matter, I would like to urge that the director and the
department respond to Mr. Hall's letter for Mr. DePonte,
answering the two critical questions of; one, the status of
the capital improvement projects to his area, in the current
and foreseeable future of capital improvements; and, two, that
we have a verification of the subdivision improvement
requirements verified which include alignment. Is there any
objection? So ordered. Thank you.
MR. HALL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Communication 02-40, letter
from Dorothy Uwekoolani, an appeal for water. This is not the
first time we have had a request from Mrs. Uwekoolani.
MRS. UWEKOOLANI: Yes. Good morning. I have
just -- I am Mrs. Uwekoolani.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Good morning.
MS. UWEKOOLANI: Good morning. Thanks for hanging
in there. I am just maybe going to ask that the board would
honor your previous director's permission in granting of us to
have our water meter in 1974. And from that point on, it's
been moratorium, and inadequacy, and this and that. But
everybody else has received water meters.
And here is a copy from Mr. Kaiama again stating
that we can have a water meter on that parcel that we have
never received a meter on. And I have signed anything for any
kind of inadequacy or -- anyway, I would just ask that you
would honor that request or, you know, that we were told that
we could have a water meter, and we have been hauling water,
and we have horses, and I think we should have water.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. UWEKOOLANI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Any questions for
Mrs. Uwekoolani? Is there any questions from the director or
other persons from the department?
MS. UWEKOOLANI: Does anybody want to see this
letter?
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: We have it.
MR. HASHIMOTO: We have it.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: We have it in our file. Thank
you.
I think, George, you are working on this project,
Mr. Tengan.
MR. TENGAN: Yes, Mrs. Uwekoolani has been placed
on a priority list, and I guess we are going to take it from
there. I need to look into the matter a little more, because
I am somewhat familiar with the -- with this situation, but I
am not entirely clear on the situation.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Is there anything
else for us, the board? Can we defer this to the next
meeting, so we get a report from George and make a
recommendation at that time?
MR. VICTORINO: So moved.
MS. UWEKOOLANI: And I also would like to mention
that every reason that we have been told to wait, or it's
going to be a moratorium, and during that time somebody else
gets a water meter. And every reason that we have been denied
the water meter, someone else has gotten one for the very same
reason within six months to a year.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Motion to defer to
our next meeting in February on the floor. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Opposed nay.
(Silence.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Motion carries. The next --
MS. UWEKOOLANI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Next item 502-41, a letter from
Mr. William F. Crockett concerning a petition to the Maui
County Board of Water Supply to waive additional water meter
and waterline construction requirements for R & H Subdivision.
Good morning.
MS. BLAIR: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Will you please identify
yourself and speak into that nice black microphone.
MS. BLAIR: I am Leslie Blair, and I am
representing the Hughes Family Trust. And we have -- we have
a property that has been in my family for I am going to say
probably 12 years. Since that time, my parents passed away.
My mom passed away in '97.
And my sister and I cannot sell the house that my
parents lived in. It's on 13 acres. During their lives, they
sold off two acres to a lady who was on the water meter list.
But when she -- she was able to sell her two acres, on a cash
basis, to Mr. Rossberg, and we can't -- we can't sell, because
we have the cloudy title, because right now the title says
Hughes Family Trust slash Rossberg slash Sears.
And the only way we can sell my parents' house and
the 11 acres would be to put John's house and his two acres
in. So, we are kind of betwixt and between. We do have a
temporary approval from Maui County. However, we need a water
meter. But because of the water meter situation, we are
stuck.
And I have had this house empty now since '97, and
I have been putting money into it, you know, my sister and I
every month, and it's going down the hill. We need to try to
sell it. So, what we need from you is some kind of a letter.
We don't want to build anymore. We are not trying to
subdivide to build.
Basically, Mr. Rossberg ended up buying my
parents' ohana, for lack of a better word, and our --
everything says unspecified two acres. However, it is a
specified. It is a fenced-off, two-acre home, and two acres.
And we need you to -- to let us try to sell this other house
and 11 acres.
But my understanding is we have to do the water
meter. And again, with the water meter problems the way they
are, and Mrs. Bohannon, who originally bought the two acres
from my parents, was on the water meter list. But I guess
every so many years, they change. And when Mrs. Bohannon
moved to Mexico and sold the house to Dr. Rossberg, never
mentioned to Dr. Rossberg about the water meter list. So, we
are now like 285 on the list, and we are not on the first
hundred. This will be another three, four years. And
meanwhile, I have an empty house that is going down and down
and down.
MR. CROCKETT: Gordon Crockett. I would like to
clarify one point that Miss Blair made. The request to you is
not for an additional water meter. There is one water meter.
All they are asking for is the ability to subdivide the
property. And the property, for practical purposes, was
subdivided many years ago when the undivided interest in the
property was sold by the Hugheses to Mrs. Bohannon, the person
who has been mentioned, who in turn sold that undivided
interest to the Rossbergs.
Now, Mrs. Bohannon built a house there. The
Hugheses built a house on the property. And again, the point
I want to make is they are not asking for an additional meter.
The way this got started, we went to the planning director and
asked for a subdivision. And he gave us a preliminary
subdivision approval.
But one of the conditions was that we had to
satisfy Water Board requirements that the Water Department
had.
So, then the surveyor referenced this matter back
to the director, and the director said, yes, we will give you
the subdivision approval. The Planning Department -- I am
sorry -- that the Public Works Department wants, but you have
to put in these very substantial improvements. And, so, the
request really is to get a waiver from you for those
improvements.
Now, the improvements were recently put in along
that road, the water improvements.
MS. BLAIR: Well, it wasn't -- Herb Chang, he
would know.
MR. CROCKETT: Well, anyway, the fact is that --
MS. BLAIR: I don't know what was done, but they
did do a line, a fix.
MR. CROCKETT: So, I want to make it clear. They
are not asking for another water meter. And finally, whatever
arrangement can be worked out, they are willing to sign an
agreement that would bar them from --
MS. BLAIR: Whatever.
MR. CROCKETT: -- whatever horrible thing you
think they might do up there. But they would be willing to
sign an agreement along that line. The terms would have to
come from the Water Board.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you for the
clarification, Mr. Crockett. Are you done? So far? Okay.
Thank you. Question from the board. Mrs. Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: I just want to clarify this. As far
as you know, the Department of Water Supply has recently
provided some improvements in that area, is that correct?
MS. BLAIR: My understanding it was a temporary
fix.
MR. CROCKETT: Yeah, but it's a permanent line. I
mean, it's not a temporary line. It's a permanent line, isn't
it?
MS. PARSONS: So, it's been recently.
MR. CROCKETT: Yes.
MS. BLAIR: Within the last few years.
MS. PARSONS: And it runs in this same area where
your lot is, is that correct?
MR. CROCKETT: It runs right next to the road.
Runs right down the road.
MS. PARSONS: So, we have been in there. We have
put in an inadequate line, whatever it was. It is not up to
what you were requested for. I want to make that clear.
That's one of the issues that we have here.
We have been in there. We have repaired, we have
upgraded that area, but we didn't upgrade it to standard, that
we knew we needed to do in '92, because we are on the list for
that road in '92. Okay.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: Yeah, I am still a little bit confused
about what the request is. I would like to be clear. The
last thing I heard -- I heard several different things. The
last I heard was that what you are asking for is a waiver of
requirements to allow a subdivision without an additional
meter to be put in. Is that right, Mr. Counsel?
MR. CROCKETT: Yeah, the petition reads this way.
Without the installation of an additional water meter and
without --
MR. STARR: Can you use the microphone?
MR. CROCKETT: It says the petition request to you
is that they want the partition approved, subdivision
approved, but without the installation of an additional water
meter and without the construction of the new water lines and
the other improvements shown in the Craddick September 5,
2002, letter to Mr. Lee.
MR. STARR: My second question to you then is if
this were -- if this were approved by the director, then what
would happen would be that there would be two or more parcels
with separate dwellings on each, all sharing one water meter,
is that correct?
MR. CROCKETT: Yeah, that's correct. But if you
are referring to the rule that deals with that subject matter,
the rule is not absolute.
MR. STARR: My understanding is it's very absolute
that separate TMKs, you know, especially when they have houses
on them, must each have their own meter. So, I -- you know, I
would not be recommending for this simply for that reason. I
hope, though, that, you know, the number comes down on the
list quickly.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Any other questions?
MS. PARSONS: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Are you done, Mr. Starr?
MR. STARR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. Miss Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: You said that earlier that someone
had put their name on the list years ago. For your lot?
MS. BLAIR: No, for his lot. Noni Bohannon owned
his little house. She's the one that bought it from my
parents, the little ohana and two acres.
MS. PARSONS: So, who has the actual meter right
now?
MS. BLAIR: I have the actual meter, but I can't
sell. We cannot sell this 11 acres, remaining 11 acres and
house, that's 12 years old at this point, because it's an
unclear title. And we can't -- and the bank won't finance it.
It's not a clear title.
MS. PARSONS: So, there was a name on the list,
because I have looked over the TMKs quite closely on the list.
And if the name was on there, it stays in the position it was
on, from what I can see, without being knocked down to 288.
Wherever it was originally should be where it's back onto,
because we put that into effect last year or earlier this
year. So, if the original person --
MS. BLAIR: I understand that that list was
removed.
MS. PARSONS: No.
MS. BLAIR: That's what we were told.
MS. PARSONS: We put it back together. Original
list, from the day one, went back into the order that it
started out in. So, whatever that was, and we can look the
TMK up on your -- on your parcel to see where it falls on the
list.
But would you be willing, at that point -- if you
could do the subdivision, and we could put together this
waiver issue, would you be willing to purchase the water
meter?
MS. BLAIR: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Any other questions for the
petitioners?
MR. HIRANAGA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Because you own an undivided fee
interest, why do you say there's a cloud on the title?
MS. BLAIR: Well, because right now the bank won't
finance, because it's not just Hughes Family Trust. It's also
John Rossberg and his wife.
MR. HIRANAGA: That's not a cloud on title.
That's just the position of the bank on not funding an
undivided fee interest.
MS. BLAIR: Right. And so for lack -- I don't
know anybody with that kind of cash that wants to pay for the
11 acres and my parents' house. It's -- I am not talking a
little cottage here. It's been sitting empty, and we are
trying to get it so that a bank will finance, so I can
actually put this thing on the market and sell it now.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Hiranaga.
MR. HIRANAGA: Personally, I agree with Mr. Starr.
I am uncomfortable with granting a waiver of the subdivision
requirements. But, on a related matter, something like this
could have been resolved if the property was condominiumized
and the property was not required to get a second meter. And
that goes back to what Hugh Starr has been trying to
accomplish for several years.
So, I understand that the waiver was granted once
for a condominiumized property, and now they are being
required to pay a second meter, and they may want to explore
that avenue.
MR. CROCKETT: Well, there are problems with that.
And again, whether you say if it's not a technical cloud on
the title, the fact of the matter is, it's not marketable.
And there's a very serious reduction in the marketability of
the property. And the fact that Mrs. Blair has told you that
the banks won't finance it is an indication that right now
that title is just not marketable. And they have tried to
market it in that fashion, and they just can't.
MR. HIRANAGA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I would recommend that we allow
staff to put together something for us, because there is no
staff report in this book. Please, the floor is open.
Yes, Miss Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: I think since we have done some
infrastructure improvements in that area, and we didn't bring
it up to standard, one of the things that I would like to
request from the department in the future -- and I know that
everything is by a case-by-case basis, but you know I don't
like three lane Haleakala highways. And it's a situation
where if we are going to go in and improve an area, and it's a
known area, for instance, fire flow issue, we should have
improved it to at least the six inches that we needed to do
rather than four. And that's just my request, my personal
request.
I can understand that I think this is a cleaner
split if they subdivide rather than to go through a
condominium issue. They have got -- they have already done a
grant, and I guess they have deeded a grant. If they are
willing to purchase a water meter, and they are on the list, I
see no reason why we can't recommend that if all of that is in
line, that the department -- the director review it, and if
he's in agreement, that they be allowed to have their
subdivision, and they purchase their water meter or agree to
purchase the water meter to get their subdivision approval. I
can't see holding them up.
Because these -- you know, not everybody is
independently wealthy here, and you can't hang on from month
to month to month. And this is an issue that as far as I am
concerned, we are at fault. You don't go in and put a four
inch when you should have put six inch. So, why hold them up
on account of the department. I'd like to see us move ahead.
MR. CROCKETT: I don't want to get in a long
discussion about titles to property, but the so-called
condominium solution is really not a solution for these two
people, groups of people. There are a lot of problems in
trying to take that route. But at the end of the day, what
you are talking about is whether you create something that
somebody over here wants to buy.
And it's really kind of a fiction that you are
dealing with when you are talking about putting a condominium
up out in Kula on a 14-acre piece of land. The house that
Mrs. Blair is talking about is a very large house, and it's a
relatively small market to begin with for people that might be
interested in the market.
And then to have to explain to the interested
purchasers, you are not really buying a house. You are not
buying a piece of land. You are buying an apartment. And
people kind of look at you and say what are you doing? You
are selling me an apartment out in Kula in the middle of a
pasture.
It really doesn't make any sense, and it's really
a fiction that has been used really to get around these
subdivision rules. And it seems to me that by suggesting that
approach, you really are not helping people really solve their
problems.
Finally, one of the key elements here in this
situation is that both those houses, when they were built,
they were not built under the covers. Building permits were
applied for, and building permits were given by the County of
Maui for both houses. Moreover, at that time, there was some
question about the position of the department. So, in order
to get the building permits, they signed fire flow agreements
with the department.
So, you have to take those facts into account that
the building permits were given by the county to build the
houses. And in that process, they signed the agreement with
the department to enable them to get the building permits.
All we are talking about is just permitting them
to legally subdivide the property, so that the titles can be
cleaned up, so that they can have a marketable title that they
can offer to somebody to buy Ms. Blair-Hughes' house.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: The motion is in order to
assign this to staff for research, recommendation, or take up
the matter of the waiver.
MR. VICTORINO: Which one?
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I would prefer to go back to
staff.
MR. VICTORINO: I so move that part of the motion.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Any discussion? All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Opposed nay.
(Silence.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Motion carries.
MR. CROCKETT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Communication 02-42, letter
from Jack Naiditch I understand has been withdrawn, as
Mr. Naiditch no longer represents the Smith Development
system.
Communication 02-44, letter of resignation from
Howard Nakamura. Although Mr. Nakamura did add tremendous,
unbelievable wealth of knowledge and background to this body,
it is with a heavy heart that we receive this letter of
resignation. And I would like to ask this body to accept the
letter and ask that a resolution commending him for his
service be forwarded to us and to the County Council.
MR. VICTORINO: So move.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Opposed nay.
(Silence.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Motion is carried.
Communication 03-01, letter from Wayne Nastri, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, commending David Craddick.
It has been received and a motion is in order to file.
MR. VICTORINO: So move.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Moved and seconded. All those
in favors signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Opposed nay.
(Silence.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Motion is carried. Other
business, review, discussion, possible recommendation
regarding fiscal year 2003-2004 operating and CIP budgets. We
will stand in recess for five minutes.
MR. VICTORINO: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
(Recess, 10:53 a.m. Resumed 11:02 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Back in session. Call the
meeting back to order. Budget for fiscal year 2003-2004
operating and CIP budgets.
It's my understanding that the budgets already
have to go up yet to the mayor. But, Ellie? Somebody want to
make a presentation? Holly? Nothing?
MS. PERDIDO: I will just answer questions,
basically. We had to get it up in a few weeks, so --
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: So, we review it, and I guess
we can make amendments.
MR. HIRANAGA: At the next meeting.
MS. PERDIDO: Actually, you didn't get it today.
You just got five changes today.
MS. PARSONS: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Miss Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: John had put in the budget for
eight million. Was that specifically for fire flow or was
that for all capital improvements?
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: I cannot answer you that,
Miss Parsons.
MS. PARSONS: John, do you remember?
MR. STARR: That was basically whatever was needed
to upgrade the system, so that it maintains the level -- the
level of quality that it is today.
MS. PARSONS: It wasn't specific.
MR. STARR: So, certainly, a lot of it is for
that. You know, that's why it's so much more than we had been
putting in in the past, is the intention was to bring it up
and maintain it at a reasonable level. That was the -- that's
the Brown & Caldwell model which we should review when we have
a chance.
I want to add something to that, which is that,
you know, I really thought that that's a wonderful tool. I
always felt that it didn't quite go far enough though, because
there was another module that we could have obtained which
would take the recommended input of money into the system, you
know, over the years, and it changes each year, and turn that
into a rate structure.
And if we had done that or if we do that in the
future, that would give us an -- or, you know, give the
department a tool to justify a rate structure that would fund
these improvements.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you. You have a
follow-up question.
MS. PARSONS: One more. When we are doing this --
for instance, this is dated '93. And we are coming -- we are
into the tenth year on this. Do we get an update? An updated
version of what has been taken care of in this model? This is
the -- specifically, the fire flow. But remember, we have
gotten this one, $65 million worth of fire flow issue. Do we
get an updated version?
MS. PERDIDO: That one actually when we put
together the CIP, I only found out about that one after, when
Dave told me he thought I had used that, but it has almost all
the same stuff in it. So, what I could do is print out -- the
database has from '94 through the future unscheduled. And the
whole printout is about 50 pages.
MS. PARSONS: That would be good.
MS. PERDIDO: Yeah, okay.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Okay. So, Holly, would you
please walk us through this process? Appreciate it very much.
MR. STARR: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Starr.
MR. STARR: I have a real quick question before we
start, just so we understand where we are at. This is a CIP
budget, but is there another operating budget which we haven't
received yet?
MS. PERDIDO: It's in your packet.
MR. STARR: Where is it?
MS. PARSONS: I didn't get one.
MR. VICTORINO: Yes, you did.
MR. TENGAN: It's on page 101 in your packet.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: What?
MR. TENGAN: Page 101 in your packet.
MS. PERDIDO: This year's budget is a totally
different format. I haven't had a chance to put it into the
format that the board has had in the past. We had to get this
budget done by last Wednesday, and we usually don't do a
budget until March or get you a preliminary.
So, what we have done is if you look in here, on
page 99 on, this is what we have submitted up to the mayor's
office to the budget director. Basically, I kind of threw
this front page together just so you guys will be more
familiar with the format. I did not give this upstairs yet.
It's kind of a cash flow projection and our proposed budget.
If you notice, we didn't -- I did not put on that
we are going to -- we are only going to be transferring
four million. I know Jonathan wanted eight million
transferred this year plus a bond issue. But, in speaking
with the director and the division head for engineering, we
feel like the bond issue -- we are not going to issue the bond
this year.
Next year, there's another proposed bond issue for
land purchase. But this year, the funds we have and what they
are able to spend would not justify issuing a bond this year.
MR. VICTORINO: Holly, just for clarification, you
are saying this year, 2003-2004. When you say the word this
year, that's what you are referring to, right?
MS. PERDIDO: Yes, 2003, this current fiscal year,
2002 to 2003.
MR. VICTORINO: Is that what we are talking about
this year, and anything you talk about next year would be
2003-2004?
MS. PERDIDO: Right. Looking over just my cash
flow, this is strictly a quickly put together cash flow for
you guys to kind of see where we are at. Next year, with the
revenues and expenses of what we have, we are only showing
transferring about $2 million. And I know that's far below
the eight million that we want to be transferring.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr, yes.
MR. STARR: I think we should be very clear, and I
think that, you know, we should make it very clear, both to
the public and to the administration, that this means that
this year, our system is going to deteriorate to the extent of
$4 million. And next year, it's going to deteriorate to the
extent of $6 million.
That means that that much more of the system will
have inadequate fire protection. That means that the aging of
the pipes and the loss of water and the loss of time for
having to repair and replace pipes after breakages will
increase, and our system is basically going to become
$10 million more decrepit over the next year, which is the
wrong direction.
And if the fact that our engineering personnel
cannot do the projects fast enough, to me, that's
incompetence. And I understand that there's been a change,
and I hope that we are going to be seeing a new can-do
attitude and a new type of competence in the department. And
with that should be the willingness and the ability to do
what's necessary to fix up the system and not to say, well,
you know, we don't -- we aren't able to get the job done, so
we are going to let it deteriorate.
That's not the way this should start out by going
backwards to the tune of $10 million worth of -- worth of
system deterioration. I definitely will make it clear that I
am going to be very vocal on this point, and I really hope
that the department changes their tune and steps up to the
plate here.
MS. PARSONS: It's not 10. It's 12.
MR. STARR: It's six and -- well, they cut the
eight million from this current year, from eight to four, and
then next year, they cut it to two.
MS. PARSONS: So, another six.
MR. STARR: So, six and four. I see a $10 million
step backwards here, and that's not the way to go.
MS. PARSONS: I thought we were going to increase
a certain amount, too.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Victorino.
MR. VICTORINO: Clarification, Holly. You are
stating now for budgetary reasons or the inability to get
these projects done because of lack of staff or engineering
abilities? What is the specific reason that we are talking
from eight to four, and then next year going down to
two million?
And if, George, you are the one to answer the
question, I just want to know, because Mr. Starr brought up a
number of points. I want to know specifically what is the
reason the department is cutting back these upgrades or these
capital improvements when we want eight million to be put in
there. Now you are going to four and two. Grant you all the
negative things that will occur is all apparent, but what is
the reasoning for that?
MR. TENGAN: Partly it's because of a lack of
revenues. Another part would be the ability of our
engineering division to get the work out, get the projects
done. Not to make any excuses for them, but they are
shorthanded. One of the engineers has been on maternity leave
for about, gee, four or five months now. We haven't been
able -- you know, we cannot replace her. It's not a vacant
position.
And as you know, Herb Kogasaka has been serving in
two roles, one to head the CIP program and also to service the
engineering division. Much of his time has been spent in
preparing staff reports, meeting with staff and discussing
issues. So, you know, that has tied him up a lot. There was
a third reason now. I kind of forget. As soon as I think
about it, I will mention it again.
MR. VICTORINO: The reason I am bringing this up
to you, as the acting director and, hopefully, in the near
future, as the director, is the fact that once we start taking
the money away from these capital improvements, if it's only
money or financial reasons, then we need to look at rate
increases and stuff.
I think we need the bond issuance, whatever.
However, if you are talking in the area of personnel, then
maybe the need there is -- and maybe you have got to take the
lead in that one -- is to get the necessary personnel in there
and barring, you know, no replacement of people that are on
maternity or whatever reason. But we need to get the people
in there to get these projects done.
Because, again, like Mr. Starr has stated,
Miss Parsons and all of us agree, the more we wait, the worse
the problem gets. And are we going to be like what you saw on
Oahu? Replacing 30-inch water mains and closing down
highways. We don't want to become that far behind in our
systems.
So, it's important that the monies be there. I
mean, that is key. And once you start taking the monies out,
if it's personnel reasons, then I really question that. But
if it's budgetary reasons, then let's make it known to the new
administration and the council that, hey, we have got to make
sure, whether it's bond issuance or whatever, we need to take
care of it now. We cannot wait any longer.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Victorino, I just remembered the
third reason, and it concerns bond issues.
MR. VICTORINO: Yes.
MR. TENGAN: The inability to get projects out
right now, if you go ahead with a bond issue, then those funds
become subject to charge, which is a penalty for not using the
money that you get from issuing these bonds. So, that would
be another reason, although it's a minor reason, but that's
another reason.
And on personnel, on February 4th, we will be
having a permanent engineering program manager. Just to give
you some background on this person, he worked several years on
the Big Island in the engineering department, and he later
transferred to HECO, the parent company for the -- for ALCO.
And he served as manager for a major department there managing
120 people.
So, I am confident that he's an accomplished
manager and, hopefully, well, this will free Herb Kogasaka to
work on the CIP. And, so, I anticipate that we will be
getting more out in terms of CIP.
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Tengan, on that last -- the
third reason, would you state it that there's a penalty if you
bond issuance and not use it or monies put aside? What kind
of percentage, just so that the public understands what that
means?
MR. TENGAN: I guess Holly is more familiar with
that, so I will let her answer that.
MR. VICTORINO: Okay. Holly.
MS. PERDIDO: I don't have the quite percentage,
but it was my understanding, and this is what I was told by
the treasurer, that an arbitrage -- it's basically, if you
don't spend the money down in the allotted time, then you will
have to pay back the interest above the amount that you get on
the bond.
So, in essence, it's a -- it's not really a
penalty. It's a penalty, because you have to pay back some of
the interest you earned on the money that was above the bond
issue. And I think that's, in simpler terms, how I understand
it.
This year, we will have to -- we will be having an
arbitrage penalty, and I have it listed in the director -- or
in the budget here. And that's based on the '98 bond fund.
MR. VICTORINO: So, but that is when we go out for
a bond issuance. If we are setting monies aside in our
budget, like the eight million for capital improvement, we are
not paying any penalty or arbitrage on that, right?
MS. PERDIDO: Only --
MR. VICTORINO: When you go for bonding?
MS. PERDIDO: Correct. If you go for bond issue,
and you don't spend it in the allotted amount of time.
MR. VICTORINO: I just wanted that clear, because
again, we are talking budgetary issues at this point, and the
bonding is part of it but not the part we are really
discussing at this juncture.
MS. PERDIDO: And at the same point, you have to
think also on our debt coverage also. We are getting down
lower. If we issue a $5 million bond, our debt coverage ratio
is pretty much to the point where we can't go any further.
MR. VICTORINO: In other words, maximize our debt
level.
MS. PERDIDO: That's right.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Miss Parsons, do you have a
question?
MS. PARSONS: So, if I am understanding you right,
Mr. Tengan, we have a personnel issue that we need maybe to
have addressed by the administration and by council, and we
have a rate issues that needs to be addressed. Is that
correct?
MR. TENGAN: Yes. And I have already gone public
with my preference or desire to go through with the rate
increase this year.
MS. PARSONS: My concern, and maybe Mr. Nobriga,
you can answer this for me, having Mr. Hall earlier with the
issue up in Kula and having this known that we have this
problem, and they mentioned the insurance, how much liability
do we have if the insurance companies start cancelling people
because of the two-inch fire hydrants from a fire standpoint?
MR. VICTORINO: Mr. Nobriga, would you kind of
like me to clarify that as far as the insurance standpoint is
concerned?
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Not really, because I am going
through the budget. But it's a good question though. If you
can do it like real fast, then please do it real fast.
MR. VICTORINO: Okay. On the insurance aspect, on
the insurance aspect, the companies will not cancel policy
because there's a two-inch pipe. They will not cancel a
policy instead of six-inch, you know, inadequate fire flow.
What will happen is they will charge an exorbitant rate to
that customer.
So, there is a penalty that is paid by the
customer, but to -- just to arbitrarily decide to cancel, they
won't do that, but they will rate-wise increase it
tremendously because of the inadequate fire flow.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Thank you, Mr. Victorino. Back
to the budget now.
MS. PARSONS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NOBRIGA: Mr. Starr.
MS. PARSONS: That's for the budget.
MR. STARR: I don't quite know how to do this, but
I really think that it's time for us to make a very clear
statement that we will -- we do not want -- and, you know, I,
for one, just as a citizen, will not tolerate a substandard
system.
And what we are being told is that, you know,
there is not the ability in the department to do the projects
to bring them up to standard. Now, we do have a new start
here, so