BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2003
Held at the Kahului Shopping Center Conference Room, 65 West
Kaahumanu Avenue, Unit 29, Kahului, Maui, Hawaii, commencing
at 9:05 a.m. on December 23, 2003.
REPORTED BY: Rachelle Primeaux CSR No. 370
A P P E A R A N C E S
CHAIR:
KENT HIRANAGA
MEMBERS:
STACY HELM CRIVELLO
CLARK S. HASHIMOTO
SALLY RAISBECK
KENNETH M. OKAMURA
MICHAEL NOBRIGA
STAFF:
GEORGE TENGAN, DIRECTOR
JEFFREY T. PEARSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
CATHY HOWARD, SECRETARY
ED KUSHI, CORP COUNSEL
HERB CHANG, ENGINEERING
HOLLY PERDIDO
ALVA NAKAMURA
DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
* * *
CHAIR HIRANAGA: I would like to call the Board of
Water Supply meeting to order. In attendance, Mike Nobriga,
Kenneth Okamura, Clark Hashimoto, Sally Raisbeck and myself.
Are there any announcements? Okay. I would just like to
recognize that I understand that Herb Kogasaka is retiring
at the end of the year, and I want to congratulate him on
his years of service. Any comments or corrections regarding
the approval of minutes for October 23rd, 2003?
Seeing none, is there anyone here that wishes to
provide public testimony regarding the agenda items? Do you
have --
MR. ROTHMAN: I don't know the procedure.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: You can testify during the agenda
item, or you can provide testimony now. It's your
preference.
MR. ROTHMAN: Whatever is normal. I haven't done
this before.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: It's your preference. Sometimes
people want to provide testimony now because they have to
leave.
MR. ROTHMAN: No, we're fine.
MS. RAISBECK: Mr. Chairman, could we vote on
approval of the minutes?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Sure, sorry. Can I have a motion
to approve the minutes from October 23?
MS. RAISBECK: So move.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Sally moved to approve. Seconded
by Clark. All in favor, say aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Minutes are approved. Moving on
to communications. The letter from Kenneth Rothman. Ken
Rothman, would you like to come forward and provide your
testimony.
MR. ROTHMAN: Good morning. Ken Rothman. I
haven't done this before, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed
to talk about. Hopefully you've had a chance to review what
we're trying to do. My partner Mark Peterson is here. Also
Mark Peterson's -- my partner is here this morning as well,
Mark Peterson. We're trying to do a very small subdivision.
We've got 18 acres, a very pretty area of the island up in
Kula where there's a lot of water that's I guess substandard
as far as the water lines. We -- we're trying to find a way
to complete the subdivision. We want to do our part. We're
not trying to get off for free, but if you look at Exhibit F
on your, I'm not sure, maybe it's about 15, 20 pages in, it
shows what we're being asked to do. And I know it's all
very code and it's all very logical what we're being asked
to do. But for a little three-lot subdivision trying to get
our two more water meters in there, you know, it's just a
lot of money. And it's also -- I've tried to contact the
people above us who are also up for a subdivision, but
they're number 680-something, and they're, you know, it's
hard to get someone else to do -- to supply land and build
on their land, build a water tank.
Mr. Chang was very helpful when I went to him and
explained, you sure you want to put your money up? You
know, this is not going to be easy, but it's just too hard
to pass up on the opportunity to do the subdivision, so it's
always been my feeling that if we're willing to do our part
and our part is hundreds of thousands of dollars, somehow we
can find a way to work with the Water Department.
A couple of months ago, Mr. Pearson and my
engineer and I had a meeting and sort of came up with the
idea if we could not build above a certain level of a
certain elevation, put it on the deed of the subdivision, at
least they could get us through the first part. We would
still be constructing well over 2,000 feet of water line for
the County. It would benefit a lot of homes. Right now
there's at least a dozen homes between where the water tanks
are at the corner of Middle and Polipoli and our property
that don't have fire protection.
In case you missed the article on Page 3 on the
15th, there was a home that burnt down on Middle Road, so,
you know, there's not a fire hydrant near there. I
certainly realize that there's, you know, there's probably a
way that we can help the community along with us getting
this -- you know, it's just there's a lot of Middle Road
that can now have fire protection.
And, you know, there was also a letter to the
editor not too long ago, about six weeks ago there was a
family up in the area that their number came up and they had
to pass on it because they were too far -- it was going to
cost too much. They couldn't afford to do it. Somehow I
think that the Board or the Water Department should be able
to help us to help you -- there's one area that we can fix
right now. We're not going to fix all of the, you know,
shortages or whatever, but we're willing to do our part. It
seems that even helping us to work together with the other
owners -- there's other people on the list that are much
further down that I believe would participate if they knew
what we were trying to do, so a little bit of a unified
effort and I know the Water Department is just, you know,
you guys are swamped. There's so much to do.
But I don't know if someone can give us an idea.
What we are -- what our first proposal is from what I
understand from my engineer, it is providing a solution for
our subdivision all up to code. All of the areas that we
will be able to build on within our land will have I guess
it's the 40 pounds of water pressure. When other people can
kick in on Polipoli Road, we'll be able to kick in there and
help them. But for now, what we would like to do is put in
2,000 or almost 3,000 feet of six-inch water line. I mean
we're willing to do that, so anyway, anybody have any
questions? I'm not sure how the procedure goes.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Actually, Mr. Rothman, we sort of
started this off sort of backwards. Typically what happens
is the Department will give their staff report. Then you
provide your presentation and the Board will then ask either
party questions. So at this point, what I'll do is I will
have the Department provide their staff report and I'll give
you an opportunity after the staff report to comment again
and then we can pose questions to you. Okay, thank you.
MR. CHANG: I'll try to go over the points of the
staff report. The request by Mr. Rothman is essentially
based on the Department's requirements to provide fire
protection at and domestic irrigation service at a
subdivision. If you look on Exhibit Exhibit F, it shows the
water system improvements that's required to provide for
this adequacy for fire protection and domestic irrigation
service. The proposal by the subdivider is just to do the
lower portion, which is the lower half of the page where you
see the dotted lines. That will provide service to the
lower I guess two-thirds of the property. So it's the
proposal of the subdividers to do just enough to provide
service for the lower two-thirds, but the Department's rules
and regs requires that the entire subdivision be provided
entire adequate fire protection and domestic irrigation
service, which requires the upper portion of the
improvements shown on this Exhibit F to be also installed.
And the Department's -- engineering's and the Department's
recommendation is that we have these rules and regs that
needs to be complied with; therefore, we would recommend
denial or we recommend that the Board recommend to the
Department to deny the request. Basically that's it. If
you have anymore specific questions.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes, Mike.
MR. NOBRIGA: Reviewing the data submitted, the
applicant was on our waiting list for meters?
MR. CHANG: Yes.
MR. NOBRIGA: And so he was on the first ones to
get his certified letter?
MR. CHANG: Yes, I'm not sure the first ones, but
he was within the range of projects that were offered meters
and he did accept and reserve two meters, put down the money
for two meters.
MR. NOBRIGA: What were the circumstances that
existed at the time that he was denied service to be placed
on the list?
MR. CHANG: It goes back to the subdivision
application that was made in 1994 by the prior owners.
Based on that application, the project was put on the
priority list, the 1994 date.
MR. NOBRIGA: Has the project changed from 1994 to
current?
MR. CHANG: I don't believe so. I believe it's
still three lots. Originally, it was requested three lots.
And the current owners, I think option one with three lots;
option two, two lots, so they're not asking for more meters
than the original request.
MR. NOBRIGA: Has the Department's requirements
changed?
MR. CHANG: I don't believe so. 1994 the
requirements were -- the same rules and regs were in effect
in 1994 as they are today.
MR. NOBRIGA: May I proceed, Mr. Chair?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes.
MR. NOBRIGA: What compelled the Department to
request a $30,000 storage tank on somebody else's property?
MR. CHANG: That is required because the design
standards of the Department requires that storage for fire
protection, domestic irrigation is all designed by gravity
flow and not by on demand pumps, so the purpose of the tank
is just to comply with those gravity type of systems.
MR. NOBRIGA: And would the location being shown
in the Department's proposal be the optimum placement of a
storage tank to feed the rest of the community within this
area?
MR. CHANG: No, that is just a conceptual map.
There was no -- it's not something set in stone. It's just
a concept.
MR. NOBRIGA: I find this an unusual request
because the property borders two roadways, Polipoli and
Middle Road. I'm semi-familiar with the area in question.
Is the lot on Polipoli Road accessible, in other words,
there's a cliff where dakine, or is it like you can access
from both sides?
MR. CHANG: I'm not sure. I haven't -- I've gone
through that road to the next property over. I don't have a
specific recollection of what it is for this particular
property.
MR. NOBRIGA: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Okay. Other questions?
MR. OKAMURA: Question.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Okay. So according to the
document you prepared, you originally asked for a
subdivision in 1994, and am I correct, but their request
expired after two years in 1996? Yeah, can you explain that
part to me what you wrote in your report.
MR. CHANG: The original owners when they applied
for the subdivision in 1994 with the Land Use and Codes, now
it's called the Development Service Administration, that was
part of the Public Works Department, one of the requirements
for any subdivision application is that they need to keep
the application alive by extending I think every six months
or every year, and I think the previous owner decided not to
extend the application after 1996, so they just let it die
or lapse.
MR. OKAMURA: So right now they're asking for a
new subdivision making a new subdivision request; is that
correct?
MR. CHANG: That's correct.
MR. OKAMURA: And in order to get that to meet the
Water Department's needs, they're asking for some more
meters and more pipelines; is that correct?
MR. CHANG: That's correct, the subdivision
requires, depending on what they want to do, the three or
two lots, one or two meters, and the requirements for
pipelines -- I don't think we ever got as far as requiring
anything specific for pipeline improvements, tank
improvements for the original application. We never got
that far with the original application.
MR. OKAMURA: So they're asking for more meters,
more than the two that they were allowed? This past July,
their name came up and they were allowed -- they were
allotted two meters, five-eighths inch meters, but I guess
that's inadequate for their subdivision, so now they're
asking for more meters and some more lines?
MR. CHANG: That's not quite correct. The
original application required two new meters, and so they
were denied based on the fact that the Department didn't
have two meters to offer. And when they're -- this project
came up as far as availability of meters on the priority
list, they were still asking for the same amount of meters
or maybe possibly one less depending on how many subdivision
lots they're doing. The original application was for three
lots, so they're not asking for any more than the original
application.
MR. OKAMURA: But right now, they don't have any
standing as far as the list, the priority list for water?
MR. CHANG: Standing?
MR. OKAMURA: Yeah, so they already had the two
meters?
MR. CHANG: Yes, they were offered two meters and
they accepted and reserved and they put the money down and
paid, so they have two years under the reservation process
to do whatever they need as far as the Water Department
requires for water system improvements. And if they don't
finish it within the two years -- plus they have two
six-month extensions, to two years or three years -- if they
don't finish what they need to do with the Water Department
as far as water system improvements, they're going to lose
their money.
MR. OKAMURA: So right now, what are they asking
for exactly?
MR. CHANG: They're asking that they be allowed to
construct a portion, the lower portion of improvements that
is required by the Department, the one that's shown on
Exhibit F. And for their own reasons, they don't feel the
upper portion is -- I don't know what to use -- required or
necessary?
MR. ROTHMAN: I'm sorry, he was asking me
something. What was the question?
MR. CHANG: I'm just trying to paraphrase your
reason for not wanting to do the upper portion.
MR. ROTHMAN: Well, I guess because it's going to
cost about $600,000, and we've got to get someone else to
dedicate land to do something. And what I remember hearing
a little while ago is it's not even the optimum place to put
a tank. It should probably go on the property above them,
so that when their subdivision -- because they're number
680-something -- when the subdivision on the property above
us comes in, it won't be adequate for them, but they'll have
a tank on their property. So a long range solution may be
better, but we're -- I mean it's just we're being asked to
improve so much for a small subdivision. It's not a
feasible solution.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Let me stop you. We're not in a
discussion mode here. Let's just focus your questions to
Herb.
MR. OKAMURA: So what you're asking for is just to
be waived the -- they don't want to build the other portion
of the pipeline, so they're asking that it be, you know,
they don't be required to do that, is that what they're
asking?
MR. CHANG: Yes.
MR. OKAMURA: Thanks.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Sally.
MS. RAISBECK: So as I understand it, they have
one water meter. They've already paid and been on the list
for the next two water meters, and that's all they need is
the three water meters; is that correct?
MR. CHANG: Yes.
MS. RAISBECK: And what the problem is that the
Department is requiring them to put in lines both along
Polipoli and along Middle Road and a storage tank on
somebody else's property, which they don't have any
easements for. But now their first proposal, I would like
to ask you the details on their first proposal, which is on
Page 4, so that in this one, they would put in the six-inch
water line on Middle Road and put in two standpipes, one on
Middle Road and the other at a location in our subdivision
necessary to provide fire protection to our mauka lots. And
we will complete all standard subdivision requirements on
Middle Road.
Does this proposal include the deed restriction on
developing the upper part of the lot, of the subdivision?
Was that part of that first proposal that you would put in a
deed restriction that would say you would not develop the
upper place where the pressure might not be sufficient for
fire protection for the upper part of the lot; is that
correct?
MR. ROTHMAN: Yes, yes.
MS. RAISBECK: Does the Department have a problem
with that proposal?
MR. CHANG: I'm going to have to pass it over to
the Director.
MS. RAISBECK: I'm sorry?
MR. CHANG: I need to pass this question over to
the Director.
MR. TENGAN: What was the question?
MS. RAISBECK: Is their first proposal, which is
on Page 4, where they would put in a six-inch water line
along Middle Road and connect up to the Kula pipeline on the
property and install two standpipes, one on Middle Road and
the other somewhere within the subdivision, and there would
be I guess that one also, although it's not stated on Page
4, it includes a deed restriction that they would not try to
develop the upper elevations -- they would not develop those
where fire protection would be inadequate, does the
Department have problems with that solution?
MR. TENGAN: Well, I haven't taken a look at it in
that light, but I am aware that we have had some elevation
agreements in the past. I'm not ready to state my position
on that with regard to this particular application, but I am
aware that the Department has entered into elevation
agreements in the past whereby the subdivider or the
developer has agreed or even the property owner has agreed
that because of the elevation that the property is located
in, there may be portions of the property that may not be
protected by or may not have adequate fire protection or
even adequate water pressure. But I would have to look into
it if that's being proposed, but I'm not ready to take a
position on that.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes, Ken.
MR. OKAMURA: So the way it stands now is that if
they build it as they proposed it, inadequate water
pressure, inadequate water, there's insufficient water, and
that's the main objection to their proposal?
MR. CHANG: Yes, insufficient for fire protection
and domestic irrigation services.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Correction, not lack of water.
It's lack of water pressure.
MR. CHANG: Kind of both because the tank that
serves this property might not even get water to the top of
the property at certain times because this property
elevation relative to the feeding tank, existing tank are
relatively slow, so you may have inadequate pressure and no
water at times.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: At that particular time, the
pipeline might not be full.
MR. CHANG: Something like that. High demand, you
may experience low pressure, no water.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Just a comment. I'm not sure --
my packet ends on Page 10, the Director's staff report. It
seems like it's not complete. All right. Sorry, I stand
corrected.
Yes, Clark.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Herb, is that an eight-inch water
line running right through the subdivision, or what is it?
MR. CHANG: That's the upper Kula transmission
line.
MR. HASHIMOTO: You wouldn't be able to tap into
that?
MR. CHANG: The reason why we require improvements
along the streets is the rules and regs requires fire
protection be provided along public roads, which would be
Polipoli Road and Middle Road, so the requirements were
based on that requirement that fire protection meaning
standpipes be installed along the public road, so some kind
of pipeline needs to be on that road.
And if you're asking why not cut the pipelines
direct instead of along Polipoli and Middle Road, it's the
Department's implementation of the rules and regs that the
pipelines not be allowed in somebody's back yard, just put
along the streets.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Can they run the line from that
eight-inch line up and down from that eight-inch line
instead of -- and go to the road instead of going around?
MR. CHANG: It's the same about not allowing
pipelines in back yards. It needs to be -- I guess the
policy needs to be revisited if we allow that.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes, Mike.
MR. NOBRIGA: I would like to ask, Herb, what is
the elevation of the Middle Road tank?
MR. CHANG: Middle Road tank, that's a tank
from -- there's the Waiohuli tank and Middle Road tank.
MR. NOBRIGA: 47,000 gallon corrugated steel tank.
MR. CHANG: I think that's below the elevation of
the property if you're looking at Exhibit F on the right
side.
MR. NOBRIGA: Yeah, Exhibit F. Because I get the
Waiohuli 500,000 gallon stainless steel tank, bottom
elevation 3,574 feet; is that correct?
MR. CHANG: Correct.
MR. NOBRIGA: So the elevation of the Middle Road
tank is below?
MR. CHANG: Yeah, it's below that tank.
MR. NOBRIGA: What is the elevation on the left
side of Exhibit F versus the elevation on the right side of
Exhibit F?
MR. CHANG: It kind of goes from --
MR. NOBRIGA: Which side is higher, right or left?
MR. CHANG: The left side is higher. It flows
left to right.
MR. NOBRIGA: Because the high side is on the top,
and the low side is on the bottom, right?
MR. CHANG: Correct.
MR. NOBRIGA: Okay, thanks. I'm ready with a
recommendation, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: I would like to let the applicant
speak.
MR. NOBRIGA: Just letting you know.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: George, is it correct that you
said you allowed elevation agreements in the past?
MR. TENGAN: I haven't personally allowed any, but
I believe there are some. Is that right, Herb?
MR. CHANG: I've had very few elevation agreements
for subdivisions. I'm not quite positive, but I believe the
fire protection was usually okay in the 20,000 gallon
pressure, but there was a domestic site that was kind of an
area that the Department couldn't grant service. I'm not
sure though. I thought it was just strictly for domestic
water, not fire protection, that the elevations were given.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Any other further questions from
the staff? If not, I'll allow to applicant to come forward
again to provide additional comments. Mr. Rothman and
Mr. Peterson, both of you are applicants, so you both can
actually come forward together if you wish.
MR. PETERSON: Hi, Mark Peterson. I've owned the
property since 1989, so we've been trying to get it
subdivided since that time. And the two other water meters
were my two other partners, which after 20 years, they could
not stay on the property. And I've known Ken since 1977,
and he's been instrumental in a lot of the stuff in the
property and he loved the property so much that he has
joined in as my partner. And we just -- I can't afford 600,
$800,000 to do all this stuff.
And all your questions, I kind of wanted to jump
up to the mic because I've been here that long. I didn't
just get the property. We did have an engineer in '94 do
all the work and all this other stuff. We couldn't get any
water meters, and it's always been my dream to be on that
property. And it's just it's been like one thing after
another, you know, cost-wise.
And when you mentioned, well, just tap right into
the water line. You know, we would love to do that, and we
would love to put fire protection down. I mean we'll, you
know, I've got a little money left. I don't have a lot of
money left, but we've got some where we're willing to do our
share. We will put in a fire, you know, hydrant, and we'll
do what we can do on that. But, you know, I hope you kind
of take our -- what we have here. And we're not, you know,
it's not a 100-lot subdivision where we're making a lot of
money or anything like that. We would just like to have the
property.
And Ken knows more about it than I do, but I have
been on the property since '89 and have tried to figure out
every way possible to get the two water meters. And we've
been here, you know, from the beginning. So if we can do
something, you know, that's what we want to do. That's
about all I can say.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Do you have any additional
comments, Mr. Rothman?
MR. ROTHMAN: Well, just a few. I'm not an
engineer, and I'm learning a lot about what we can do. Any
way we can work with the Water Department to find a
solution, we're willing to do. I questioned whether we
could tap into the -- into Kula pipeline, put a water pump
and build a tank at the top of our property. We go up,
there's one little sliver of land that would be great right
underneath or right where the upper right fire hydrant is
our highest elevation at 3,610. If there was a way that we
could just run the pipeline up through the property up and
down and do the improvements on Polipoli and on Middle and
have a tank that will supply enough pressure for the upper
area, although we couldn't build at the upper area, and then
we could put the money in that direction.
I figured the best for the community and for us
would be to have the I guess it's called elevation
agreement. I guess there has been some. No one is quite
sure. It's a logical solution. It makes sense, and there's
going to be about a dozen homes that can get fire protection
and better water pressure than they get now. If you look at
the F, you can see that a lot of the water lines don't exist
on this map because they're substandard. They're probably,
I don't know, one-inch lines or something. We don't need to
use the very top of the property. We came up with that
number and the line I drew through on the two maps that I
did, which are Exhibits B and C, that's 100 feet below that
water tank, and there's sufficient water pressure there.
We've got plenty of land in the bottom two-thirds of the
property to be able to build there. So I mean we can grow
some trees up there at the top or just leave it natural.
At some point, we're willing to kick in when other
people can help us with Polipoli Road, so I'm probably being
redundant now, so if you have any questions for me.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Any further questions for
Mr. Rothman and Mr. Peterson?
MS. RAISBECK: Yeah, I have a question. Exhibit B
in our packet has two pages to it, Pages 16 and 17. And I'm
not quite -- oh, and so your first proposal, that's the one
that's preferable to you; is that correct?
MR. ROTHMAN: Yes.
MS. RAISBECK: That's the first page labeled
Exhibit B on Page 16 and that would have the water line
along Middle Road and going up through your property. And
what is the dash line again, that's the line --
MR. ROTHMAN: That's 3,470 feet above sea level.
The water tank in the corner of Polipoli and Middle Road is
at 3,574. What I understand is if you're 100 feet below
that water tank, you have sufficient fire protection because
you've got 40 pounds per square inch, if I got that, yeah,
and so I drew that line to show where that elevation is.
I've got the topographic map, and obviously everything has
to go back to the surveyor and the engineer. I'm trying not
to bother everybody to go back and forth. Anyway, I think
I've answered your question.
And, B, we're okay with Page 17. We're okay to
split the property in half. We wouldn't want to put the
whole water line in on Middle Road. We're trying to find
within the proposal, the second proposal, as I called it,
that would be sufficient to put a fire hydrant in, and seven
homes would have fire protection that don't now. So that
was a more simple -- and we'll pass on one water meter, and
that's what proposal two is.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Anymore questions for the
applicants? Personally unfortunately, I don't believe
financial hardship is a justification for a request to waive
requirements of the Department because there are numerous
property owners in the area that also would probably want to
subdivide their property if they were able to get waivers
from the requirements, and there's a lot of people waiting
for other people to put in infrastructure so that they could
piggyback on.
My suggestion would be that you meet with the
Department and see if there is precedence regarding an
elevation agreement. I personally don't want or I don't
personally -- I'm not in favor of setting new precedence by
waiving Department requirements based on financial hardship,
so that's just my personal comment. Are we ready to
entertain a motion?
MS. RAISBECK: Yes, I will make a motion that we
approve waiving the regulations in order to accommodate
proposal one, which would include 2,800 linear feet of
six-inch water line along Middle Road and a deed restriction
eliminating the upper part of the property from development,
any part of the property above 3,474 feet from development.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Your motion would also include
the construction of a water line over private property?
MS. RAISBECK: Yes.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Is there a second?
Hearing none, the motion fails.
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a motion
to put to the table. My thoughts were, because I'm not an
engineer, I cannot confirm, but I see a third proposal in
the discussion that we had today. I do know that water does
flow downhill, so the best place to put the water line would
be someplace that's going to flow downhill. And that to me
would be making improvements on Polipoli Road. Perhaps the
Department would like to look at having a tank placed on the
property dedicated to fire flow as well as having the
applicants pay in a portion to set the improvements to
Middle Road once that project is forthcoming. I would tend
to side with the Chair in this case.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: The question for the Department,
so the requirement for improvements on both Polipoli Road
and Middle Road is based on the fact that the property
fronts both properties?
MR. CHANG: There's public streets on both sides,
therefore improvements need to be made on the public roads,
which is the top and bottom of the subdivision.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: So if the portion, the bottom
portion of the subject property did not front a public road,
then your requirements would probably be only for Polipoli
Road; is that correct?
MR. CHANG: Correct, with improvements, yeah,
pipeline plus tank and plus the pumps.
MR. NOBRIGA: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, because my
reasoning is that Middle Road is below Polipoli Road, so the
proposal to extend development on Middle Road would do no
good for anybody because it's below the property.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yeah, I understand the
applicant's predicament based on the fact that the property
does front both roads, and that's why the Department is
requiring improvements on both roads. From a functional
operational standpoint, if improvements were limited to
Polipoli Road, the three lots would still be probably
adequate service. You would still need to get the water
tank. Maybe you might have your engineers work with the
Department to see if you can provide adequate fire
protection along Polipoli Road to service the proposed
three-lot subdivision. I don't know if the Department gets
involved in condemnation processes if the lot owners are
unable to obtain a tank site.
Have you made offers to land owners where the
proposed tank site might be located?
MR. ROTHMAN: I sent a letter to the property
owners above us that are up from our subdivision, and it
came back. The tax records and the TMK and Maui County have
the wrong address. Either somebody passed away and --
there's about a dozen family members that are on that
property now. They've deeded it down. I've tried to get a
hold of them. I would think that what they would say is you
can run a line through our property to the property above,
so when their subdivision comes through, they'll have
adequate as opposed to having a tank and not having adequate
pressure running it through.
I guess part of this what they've talked about is
if the existing water meter and house that's on Middle Road,
if we left that alone, we didn't improve Middle Road, but we
found a way to provide the fire protection water line on
Polipoli, we would be very open to that. We have a place to
put the tank that's -- that would be 35 feet higher than the
existing tank on the 500,000 tank. We can deed some of our
land. That's our highest point, and maybe we can provide on
Polipoli Road. It wouldn't help very many homes. It would
help us, but it wouldn't help the other homes. But we're
very open to doing that.
We're trying to do our share. We want to -- you
know, we're not trying to get off without spending money. I
don't think that that does as much for the community as the
Middle Road improvements would do.
MR. OKAMURA: I have a last question.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes, Ken.
MR. OKAMURA: I had a question regarding the
rules. What would be the rationale for requiring the lines
be on both main roads adjacent to the property? What would
be some of the reasoning for this kind of thing? Not that
I'm trying to apply it to this case, just for my
understanding.
MR. TENGAN: Well, I think -- I would think that
one of the main reasons is that to have the pipeline in the
public road right-of-way to service the property, and the
rule also makes reference to that the water line has to
front the property I believe.
MR. OKAMURA: So the way the rules are written
now, you have to have the water line both in Polipoli Road
and Middle Road?
MR. TENGAN: Yes.
MR. OKAMURA: But that's the rule?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes.
MR. PETERSON: I'm just curious, if we just give
one of the water meters back and we did the line down and
now you're going to have a fire hydrant where you're going
to be able to have nine homes in the area use that fire
hydrant, what's wrong with that proposal?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: What road would the fire hydrant
be on?
MR. PETERSON: It would be on Middle Road. That
was our second proposal.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: You're saying delete the
improvements on Polipoli?
MR. PETERSON: Yeah, and just give back one of the
meters and divide it into two pieces?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Would both lots front Middle
Road?
MR. PETERSON: Would they both front Middle Road?
He knows more about that.
MR. ROTHMAN: It can be done any way that works.
At this point, what I understand is the way it's supposed to
be is, yes, they would both access Middle Road. Then we've
got fire protection, and we bring the water line up. I mean
the approximately 650 feet of bringing the water line up
through our property was supposed to be a benefit because it
wouldn't be a dead end to the water line that requires
flushing. That was the whole reason for it. We're not
trying to get it on our land. I mean there's a nice gulch
along the right side of the property, so there's plenty of
room of land that we can't use anyway. We're willing to do
it.
But, yes, in answer to your question, if it's
best, we will both front Middle Road. If it's not best, in
order -- one of the earlier questions, part of Polipoli Road
is gulch and not accessible but we can enter through -- we
can enter the property through Polipoli Road. I know that
was an earlier question, so, yes, we can enter through
there, but we don't have to. Any way that we can subdivide
two lots, three lots, we're all yours.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes.
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move
to defer this item, the request back to the Department and
the applicant to see if they can come up with a solution.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Motion to defer. Is there a
second?
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Motion to defer by Mike Nobriga.
Second by Clark Hashimoto. Is there any discussion?
If your preferred route is to provide
infrastructure improvements along Middle Road and you will
redesign the subdivision so that both lots front Middle Road
and you put an access deed restriction on Polipoli Road,
which means you cannot have access off Polipoli Road, then I
would suggest you propose that to the Department working
with your engineers to see if there is adequate pressure and
fire protection to see if that's acceptable to the
Department. I'm not qualified to require this to the
Department, but I think it provides an avenue of discussion.
MS. RAISBECK: Question.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Sally.
MS. RAISBECK: Why would you include no access
from Polipoli Road; even if there's no development in terms
of building houses above a certain elevation, why should you
include no access from Polipoli Road?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Well, my feeling is because the
rules of the Board of Water Supply require that if a
property fronts a public road that the improvements be
provided along the public roads, and that's why the
Department is requiring improvements along Polipoli Road and
Middle Road, so this would possibly be more acceptable to
the Department if they were able to accept the fact that no
access would be provided off of Polipoli Road. I'm just
fishing.
MS. RAISBECK: It seems irrelevant to me.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: It's just a comment. It doesn't
mean the Department is going to accept that. I'm fishing
for a way to help these people, because I'm not in favor of
waiving rules based on financial hardship. Any further
discussion on the motion to defer? Seeing none, I call for
the vote. All in favor of deferring this application,
please so indicate by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Opposed?
(None.)
CHAIR HIRANAGA: The motion to defer is carried.
Next agenda item is Mark and Denyse Collins. Does the
Department have additional comments regarding this
communication?
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, at the last meeting, the
Board requested additional information regarding
Mr. Collins' request for approval of the remote meter. I
guess we have estimated that the Department in the past has
denied approximately 100 requests for remote meters in the
Upcountry area. And we have attached minutes on this topic
concerning James Judge TMK 2-3-3 Parcel 88 and Nick Wagner
TMK 2-7-12 Parcel 115. Previously the Board had approved
these two requests for remote meters, and we have also
attached a staff report dated October 14, 2003, with regards
to this request.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: I'm sorry, there's someone here
who wishes to provide testimony. Theresa Shurilla?
MS. SHURILLA: Shurilla, yes, that's me.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Please come forward.
MS. SHURILLA: Actually, my husband was supposed
to be here today, so he wrote it out for me. He has to
work, and I apologize if I'm a little unclear on it. We
just bought the property from Denyse and Mark Collins and we
were able to get all the information and we've done our
reading, so hopefully I'm able to represent this correctly.
So should I just go ahead and read the information?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Uh-huh.
MS. SHURILLA: After reviewing all the
documentation provided, we find that the request to put a
remote meter where there are already three existing would be
reasonably feasible as per Section 3-5(g). What we find
unreasonable is the request to have us, husband and wife,
absorb the total cost of improving the 800 foot of
substandard two-inch PVC line that would benefit the whole
neighborhood. I -- my husband has spoken to several
neighbors who say that the existing line already lacks in
providing proper pressure at times.
I believe that we were expected as home owners to
absorb the $50,000 in upgrading the infrastructure that
should be improved in the upcoming years by the County and
is very cost prohibitive to us. What we would like to take
advantage of is the water meters -- the water meter that is
already reserved for our property paid by the Collins,
$6,030, in compliance with the October 4, 2002, water meter
issuance rule for Upcountry water systems.
If you would add up what it would cost to hook up
a five-eighths water meter close to $60,000, we are sure
that you can sympathize with the fact that it's just not
feasible. We are not contractors or developing a
subdivision. We are just property owners. As an option, we
would like you to consider allowing the water meter to be
installed remotely temporarily until the infrastructure on
Alaluana Road is improved at which time we would take full
responsibility of moving the water meter so that it would be
adjacent to the front of our property. While in the
interim, we would be willing to install a fire standpipe to
the Department's specs in our existing cistern to the
benefit of our neighbors in case of fire.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Questions for Ms. Shurilla? Yes,
Ken.
MR. OKAMURA: Just one question to the Department,
please. They want to tap into the six-inch line, the remote
meter. At the location at which they want, is there
adequate pressure and water volume at the location that they
want to tap, put their meter at the remote location where
they want to put their meter?
MR. TENGAN: Probably not.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes, Clark.
MR. HASHIMOTO: I see there's three lots on this
current line that they want to hook up to. What about the
other lots that are 24, 23, 22, 21, do they have water
meters and where are they located on Page 37? There's an
existing water line easement for lots 26, 37 and 45 in which
I guess that's the same line they want to tap into. Where
are the other lots getting their water meters from, or do
they have water meters?
MR. TENGAN: We would have to go and confirm that,
but I would suspect that they're being serviced with remote
meters. That's been allowed in the past.
MR. HASHIMOTO: I'm just wondering if the other
lots don't have meters, they're all going to come in and
request to have remote water meters. So I mean if lots 24,
23, 22, 21, 46, you don't know if they have water meters
other than the three lots, 26, 27 and 45?
MR. TENGAN: Like I said earlier, we probably, we
would need to research that to give you a definite answer.
I don't want to guess on it.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Any other questions?
MS. RAISBECK: So this -- yes. The sole issue
here is whether they'll be allowed to place a meter remotely
instead of on the property?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Point of adequacy.
MS. RAISBECK: Yeah, at the point of adequacy.
And I noticed in the notes provided to us by the Director,
the minutes from October 8th, 2002, I believe the Board
voted to allow a remote meter to be placed for Mr. Wagner.
I believe several of you were on the board at that point,
correct?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes.
MS. RAISBECK: And the decision was made to allow
the remote meter. So would there be any reasons why we
would not allow the remote meter at this time?
MR. NOBRIGA: May I, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes.
MR. NOBRIGA: The request for that specific
requester, the decision was based on a 1961 proof of
reliance and liability by the applicant for the remote meter
to be granted. It was historical background to that
specific case if I remember, and that's why we granted that
specific request.
MR. KUSHI: That's the Jim Judge case.
MR. NOBRIGA: Yeah.
MS. RAISBECK: Well, I think this one was for a
Mr. Wagner.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: That was a private road issue.
MR. OKAMURA: Mr. Chair.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes, Ken.
MR. OKAMURA: My question would be like wouldn't
it be overriding, like where there's adequate water and they
want to tap into the meter, at least the Department says
there's a lot of people that want meters, but there's not
enough water in the lines that they want to tap into.
MS. RAISBECK: Is that what they said?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Are you asking a question or
making a statement?
MR. OKAMURA: I'm just asking the question to the
Board.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: To the Director?
MR. OKAMURA: Yes.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: To the Director, he's asking you
a question.
MR. OKAMURA: I was just asking a general question
not directed to anyone in particular as whether the issue
would be the adequacy, and that's what they said the
Department states in the report.
MS. RAISBECK: Well, can we ask the Director then
is the point on, which road is it, Olinda Road, where the
other three remote meters are located, is service adequate
at that point for those three meters, and if another meter
is added, will service be adequate?
MR. TENGAN: I would assume that, you know, that
that's the point of adequacy for those three remote meters.
I can only guess whether there would be adequacy at that
point for another meter. I would suspect yes, however, our
rules do say that the meter should be fronting the property
also.
MS. RAISBECK: Or where feasible.
MR. TENGAN: Yes, where reasonably feasible.
MS. RAISBECK: Where reasonably feasible. So I
believe what I heard to answer Mr. Okamura's question, I
believe there is adequacy at the point where they wish to
install the remote meter.
MR. OKAMURA: Yeah, I thought I asked the question
earlier to the Director. You know, and he said that there
was inadequate water there at the point. Can anybody answer
that question?
MR. CHANG: The water system is inadequate. It's
fed by an inch-and-a-half -- two-and-a-half-inch PVC, which
is inadequate in the sense of the water service request
needs to be -- the system needs to be adequate also for fire
protection, so based on the fire protection aspect, it
wouldn't be adequate. As far as domestic adequacy, it's
very marginal for four meters if assuming there's only three
meters on that line now. There's probably more than three.
MS. RAISBECK: So you're saying it's not adequate,
Mr. Chang?
MR. CHANG: Excuse me?
MS. RAISBECK: Are you saying that at the point on
Olinda Road where the other three remote meters are located,
that is not a point of adequacy?
MR. CHANG: In terms of fire protection, it is not
a point of adequacy.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes, Junior.
MR. KUSHI: I think I need to clarify what we're
talking about here is a meter location and a meter request.
This is not a subdivision. And if I remember correctly,
this property was one of the 60-day rule properties. It was
already an existing lot. They just didn't have a meter. So
her predecessor came in and applied for a meter, so you're
dealing only with the meter issuance. Because it's not a
subdivision, fire protection doesn't come in, although it's
understood.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yeah, that was what I was trying
to comprehend. Why would there be a fire protection
requirement for a preexisting lot? Herb, you want to come
up and use the mic?
MR. CHANG: The Department I believe around
1999-2000, decided to have a stricter interpretation of the
rules and regs whereby previously requests for water service
to an existing lot which did not have a meter before, we
would just, the Department would just check for adequacy of
domestic service. We would not look at the fire protection
aspect.
But since 1999, roughly 2000, the Department
switched gears and looked at the fire protection
requirements to approve any water service requests. So
that's what's going on right now, continuing. So there is a
fire protection aspect that needs to be complied with.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: That's contrary to what
corporation counsel just said. I'm going to call for a
short recess. Let's reconvene in about ten minutes.
(Recess taken.)
CHAIR HIRANAGA: I'll call the meeting back to
order. So we were having this discussion regarding the
requirement for fire protection existing, so the Department
still maintains that position?
MR. TENGAN: We would still be holding to that
position where fire protection would be necessary.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Thank you. Anymore questions
from the Board? Yes, Mike.
MR. NOBRIGA: In the Department's summation, Item
5, the reservation was approved during initial 60-day period
of the Water Meter Issuance Rule for the Upcountry water
system. The 60-day period allowed water service to be
approved for properties which were not on the priority list
and had expended funds in reliance upon official assurances
dated before November 2nd, 1994, or have any preexisting
rights associated with the property entitling the property
to water service. Which of the two things did this property
fall in?
MR. TENGAN: It would be having any preexisting
rights associated with the property entitling the property
to water service.
MR. NOBRIGA: But if the property had preexisting
rights, the water system we have in the area is substandard,
always has been substandard, how could the property have had
the preexisting rights?
MR. TENGAN: I guess the property was created -- I
guess that would be the rights that were associated with the
property when it became, you know, a separate parcel upon
subdivision whenever that occurred.
MR. NOBRIGA: Also, further in the report, if the
property does exist under private water system under water
catchment, is that still in effect?
MS. SHURILLA: Uh-huh.
MR. NOBRIGA: Is the water catchment system
sufficient to deliver fire protection?
MS. SHURILLA: I can't tell you exactly how many
gallons, to be honest. My husband would be able to tell you
that.
MR. NOBRIGA: May I ask another question,
Mr. Chairman?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Please continue.
MR. NOBRIGA: What detriment would it be to
customers' service on the same line on Alaluana Road should
the meter be installed on the applicant's property?
MR. TENGAN: As was stated by Mr. Chang earlier
that that line is already inadequate.
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Chang had stated it was
inadequate for prior protection, domestic and irrigation
services. Since the applicant has already satisfied fire
protection and irrigation, if there is no detriment to other
domestic service on the line, my recommendation would be for
the Department to supply the meter because of the
preexisting rights associated with the property.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: I would like to comment on
Mr. Nobriga's comments. I believe the preexisting rights
relates to a subdivided lot existing before a certain date,
which would entitle them to a water meter subject to the
distribution line or transmission lines being adequate
fronting the property. If this property has adequate fire
protection and that is the primary reason for the denial of
the request for a meter on the existing line fronting the
property, I believe in the past, the Board has approved the
waiver of fire protection if the property has a private fire
protection system and it has been approved by the Department
of Fire.
So you may want to further investigate that, a
meeting with the Department of Fire, to see if your fire
protection meets their requirements. And at that point, the
Department may consider waiving the fire protection
requirement. And if the existing line fronting the subject
property is adequate for domestic purposes, you may be
entitled to a water meter on the property. It's something
to look into. Any further questions or comments?
MS. RAISBECK: I'm confused because I thought the
issue was not should they get a water meter, but may they
place it remotely.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Well, they may not need to place
it remotely if they have adequate fire protection on site,
and that is the reason the Department is not granting them a
meter fronting the property. If the existing line has
sufficient capacity to provide domestic service to their
house or their property, they have the private fire
protection system in place by the Department of Fire, they
may be able to get the meter on site versus off site.
MR. NOBRIGA: Mr. Chair.
MR. TENGAN: We would refer to Page 33, second
paragraph, under Item 4. The report states that in this
case, the Department's existing water system in the area is
inadequate. The existing two-inch line is inadequate for
fire protection, domestic and irrigation water service and
must be improved to provide adequacy by the applicants.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yeah, but if she's not going to
put a burden on fire protection, the existing line may be
adequate for domestic services.
MR. TENGAN: The report does state the existing
two-inch line is inadequate for fire protection, domestic
and irrigation. It doesn't say "or".
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Right, so if you eliminate fire
protection, maybe.
MR. NOBRIGA: And irrigation.
MR. TENGAN: If the Board wants to go ahead with
the motion, I won't object to it provided that we can make
the determination as far as the adequacy only for domestic
purposes.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: I would think the motion would be
to defer to allow the applicant to meet with the Department.
MR. TENGAN: That wasn't the motion.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Sorry.
MR. TENGAN: I don't believe that was the motion.
I believe the motion was stated to approve or recommend
approval.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: I don't think that was the
motion. That wasn't the motion. That was a personal
statement.
MR. NOBRIGA: No motion was made.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: There's no motion on the table.
MR. TENGAN: That's what I heard.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Is there any other further
questions?
MS. RAISBECK: Yes, I'm still not clear I'm
afraid. The Department wants them to put in 800 feet of
six-inch water line and one standpipe in order to place the
meter on the property. And I -- as I understood it, one
reason for asking for the remote placement was to avoid that
requirement. So if you're saying it may be placed on the
property, you're including the assumption they will provide
800 feet of six-inch water line, no?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: I'm not sure, but the reason why
the line may be inadequate is because of the fire protection
requirement because of fire flow, so if they have a private
fire protection system so they're not going to place an
additional burden on this system for fire flow, the line may
be adequate for domestic purposes only; thereby, eliminating
the need for improvements and thereby allowing them to place
the meter on the property.
MS. RAISBECK: I see, okay.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: I mean it's just a question.
It's something that the applicant may want to pursue with
the Department. Because of what corporation counsel's
statement is saying, preexisting lots are not required to
provide fire protection. So we're kind of splitting hairs
here.
Any other questions or comments for the Department
or the applicant? If not, I'll entertain a motion.
MR. NOBRIGA: So move to defer.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Is there a second?
MR. HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Motion to defer by Mike.
Seconded by Clark. Any discussion? No discussion. Call
for the vote. All in favor for the motion to defer, so
indicate by saying aye.
(A chorus of ayes.)
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Two ayes.
MS. RAISBECK: Aye.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Three ayes. Four votes to defer.
Those against?
MR. OKAMURA: You need four votes?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: No, we need five votes.
MR. OKAMURA: Five votes?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: You can vote deny if you want to.
MR. OKAMURA: No, I'll vote for the deferral.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: So we have five ayes, and the
motion carries. Thank you.
MR. TENGAN: So the Board will be looking for the
Department to make a determination as to whether the line,
the two-inch line is adequate only for domestic purposes?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: No, you do what you need to do
with the applicant. I'm not telling you what to do.
MR. TENGAN: That's all you're deferring?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: She can make an argument to you.
If you're not going to agree with the argument, you're going
to just stand in the current position. We're giving you an
opportunity to meet with her providing argument, because
there seems to be some cloud between what corporation
counsel's interpretation of the requirements are and the
Department's interpretations.
MR. TENGAN: By deferring this item, it infers to
me this item should come back to the Board. So if it's to
come back to the Board, what kind of information is the
Board looking for from the Department?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Well, I think it's up to the
applicant if she wants the matter to come back to the Board
after she's met with you.
MR. TENGAN: Okay.
MR. HASHIMOTO: Didn't we want to see if there's
adequate fire protection from your water catchment, from the
Fire Department?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: She needs to meet with them.
We're not telling them what to do. Yes.
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, to help the Department and
help my office, if the applicant could I guess a request on
the applicant to -- if you go back to the Department, first
of all, is your statement saying that you just bought the
property from Mr. Collins?
MS. SHURILLA: Yes, we did.
MR. KUSHI: Did you know about this issue before
you bought it?
MS. SHURILLA: Yes, not as involved though, yes.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Could you please use the mic?
MS. SHURILLA: Oh, sorry.
MR. KUSHI: That's one. Secondly, if you have any
documents, previous documents or Mr. Collins had documents
of any type of fire protection agreements on this property,
would you provide that to the Department?
MS. SHURILLA: Sure, not a problem.
MR. KUSHI: And the other one is you mentioned a
catchment system.
MS. SHURILLA: Yes.
MR. KUSHI: So I'm assuming you have a structure
on there?
MS. SHURILLA: Yes.
MR. KUSHI: So can you provide any kind of
documentation that the Department, either the Water
Department or Public Works, granted your building permit
based on the catchment system?
MS. SHURILLA: Sure.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Thank you. Next agenda item is
the update on water increase review and Elliot Krash wishes
to provide testimony.
MS. KRASH: Good morning, Chair Hiranaga and
members, my name is Elliot Krash and I'm speaking this
morning for the Kula Community Association. When I noticed
that this item was on the agenda last month, I was pleased
because I think we're in the six years of our last five-year
rate increase, and so we're overdue for a study of rate
increase. And we're overdue in terms of the needs of the
system and increases.
I also wanted to point out that in the past, that
Kula Community Association has supported rate increases with
an if. The if, if their specific needs are met. And I
don't want to address those today. Those will emerge from
the citizens Upcountry as the study proceeds. But I did
want to take this opportunity to point out some of the
long-term continuing priorities Upcountry that I hope will
be addressed as we go through this process of studying what
the rates need to be. And you have from me the -- my
talking points, my notes that were prepared for the last
meeting. Those three priorities Upcountry, agriculture and
open space, conservation and incentives for conservation and
the importance of public participation, public hearings,
those items are -- are reflected in the Upcountry plan. And
they're also reflected in our Kula Community Association
position statements on water, which I attached to my notes.
Now, when I first prepared these notes, I had just
glanced at the consultant's outlines for their study, and
I've had a few minutes to look through it since then, so
what I would like to do is just look at the last three
bullets on the paper that I've given you, my talking points,
on whether the rate study is going to incorporate these
priorities, it's going to look at these issues; for example,
on the -- the policy issues of our community's commitment to
agriculture, not only our community, actually the State and
County commitment to open space and agriculture. And some
of the questions that we need to look at as we go through
the rate analysis study; for example, the incentives for
agriculture, the differentiated rate study, differentiated
rate structure.
And in looking through the consultant's proposal,
I see that -- I think that's addressed on Page 76, well,
it's, I think you -- it's in your agenda packet Page 76 and
they talk about addressing policy issues that are important
to the County and the citizens. And they also talk about
various customer classes and nonpotable water on Page 77, so
it looks as though those items will be addressed.
The second bullet of the three important things,
water conservation incentives. One that pops up in my mind
is a seasonal rate. During periods of heavy use when it's
drier, do we have different rates so that people will be
more careful about conserving in seasonal times? And I
think that those are addressed by the consultant on Page 77,
maybe not in the detail that I have in my notes here, but I
believe that's something they intend to do.
And then the last point that you probably have
heard repeatedly from the Upcountry citizens on all kinds of
issues, not just water, but others, and that is the public's
involvement, having public hearings at times and places
where the citizens can attend. And also what I think is
maybe lacking here is are they going to hold these hearings,
meetings, workshops, discussions early enough in the process
so that we can hear from the folks out there what's
important, what do we need to do. If you're going to
increase my rates, then what's the payoff for me? What do
we need to do and when do we need to do it?
The consultants do mention meetings, a series I
think of nine of them on Page 79 and hearings Page 80. And
they do mention they will be at various phases of the study.
It's not clear to me in what way the public will be
involved. I have understood that there may be a citizen's
committee to work on this throughout the process, and that
would be helpful if we had some sort of a task force that's
working parallel to this rate study.
So those were the three things that I wanted to
mention to you that I know that our association and
Upcountry citizens hope will be improved.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Questions for Ms. Krash? Thank
you.
George, you have the floor.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, as you can see by the
consultant's proposal, we don't have enough money budgeted
for the entire study. I believe the study is going to cost
in the area of just the base study would cost about
$165,000. We have included in the budget $60,000, and so
what we intend to do, and I already talked to a couple of
Council Members about going back to the Council to do a
budget amendment for about $110,000 for possibly to fund the
entire project.
We have talked to the consultants, and we feel
that the $60,000 will fund the earlier phases of the study
and provide us time to go to the Council for the budget
amendment. With regard to Elliot's comment about the task
force, we do intend to establish one. Back six years ago,
we did the latest one. We had a committee of about I would
say about 15 people from the public sitting in on the
meeting to help establish the rate adjustments, and we
intend to do the same thing with this rate study.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Questions for the Director? Yes,
Kenneth.
MR. OKAMURA: George, more or less if you look at
it, what kind of timetable are we looking at, and when would
this start and how long would it take?
MR. TENGAN: Page 83 is the rough timetable the
consultants have come up with. And sometime next month, you
know, we intend on having the initial meeting with the
Board, and hopefully we would have an orientation with the
Council also and as to the committee being established by
then, and I expect it to be established with the committee
members also.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Any other questions for the
Director?
MS. RAISBECK: Yeah. The page -- our Page 76,
which is Page 2 of the draft memo, says revenues under
existing rate schedules based on the projected number of
customers, meter sizes and water use for each customer
class. The -- I know the different areas of the County have
different costs, even like within the same customer class it
might be one cost in one area and a different cost in
another area. Will those area distinctions be made when
they do a cost of service analysis?
MR. TENGAN: I don't think we can do, you know, a
good analysis by district. Our County is not set up to make
the separation, but if that's the direction that the
committee wants to take and the Board wants to take, then we
can do some estimation of the costs involved. But it won't
be as accurate as keeping separate accounting records by
district.
MS. RAISBECK: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, my thought is
that as these project for five years, if there's an increase
of a certain number of customers in Area A, the cost will be
more than if it happened in Area B. So that unless you
differentiate about the cost of service for different areas,
I don't think you'll come up with adequate projections.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: I know that the costs to deliver
water in different areas of Maui are different.
MS. RAISBECK: Is what?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Different. I know it can become
a very emotional and political issue when you start trying
to identify costs by region. And probably we'll have a lot
of protests from the people who feel they're paying more
than they should. But the Director wants to maybe provide
some type of an overview of other municipalities that have
attempted to identify cost by district and what they
encountered, or the consultant could.
MR. TENGAN: That's an option that the consultant
could address provided that that's the direction that the
Board and the committee wants to take to look at that, but
like I said earlier, information won't be as accurate as if
we had separate accounting records for the different
districts. As far as my experience with rates by districts,
I joined the Water Department back on the Big Island in
1976. And at that time, we had three different rate
structures based upon cost of service by districts.
And the Water Commission, in the following rate
study that was done, decided that there should be a single
item rate. And that's the direction that they took, and
they've been on that every since I believe. This was back
in the late '70s or the early '80s that it occurred. And as
you mentioned, it could be a very emotional or political
item should we try to establish different rates for the
different districts.
Because some districts just won't be able to
afford what it costs to service them. As an example,
Honokahau Valley, we have about 15 services. It may be a
little over 25 people being served on the system. We spend
approximately $20,000 a month just to deliver water there.
If we were to split that cost among the service holders in
Honokahau Valley, they would be paying six to $700 per meter
for water service.
MS. RAISBECK: Mr. Chair.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes, Sally.
MS. RAISBECK: Yeah, my comment would be that
there is a different cost of service; for example, probably
the highest cost of service is the Honokahau Valley. That
is real data that exists. It's a policy decision how you
distribute the costs county-wide, and the policy has been
and quite possibly will continue to be that you charge
uniform rates county-wide. But that has -- that has nothing
to do with the fact that there actually is a different cost
of service depending on many things.
And to make intelligent assumptions about future
total costs, you have to know where growth is going to
occur, whether it's in a low cost area or a high cost area,
so I feel that the data should be presented about cost of
service for different areas. And then it's a policy
decision which probably will remain that all areas bear
equally -- equal rates. The rate structure is independent
of what the actual cost of service is.
MR. TENGAN: If I may respond, Mr. Chair. When
you're looking at the cost of service, you're looking at
what it costs to service a particular area or a particular
class of usage. That's based on historical data. It's not
a policy question. It's based upon historical data. Now,
the policy question comes in whether you want to charge
separate rates to the class or to the district, or do you
want to have a single item, a county-wide rate, which is
different from the cost of service.
MS. RAISBECK: Exactly.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Okay. Yes, Mike.
MR. NOBRIGA: I noticed on Page 82, Draft Page 8
of 10, Optional Task 13 and Optional Task 14 seem to include
the areas Sally is referring to.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yeah, but that says Optional
Task. I mean but I think the initial process, these types
of discussions will be useful.
MR. NOBRIGA: Okay.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Any other comments or questions
regarding the update?
MR. NOBRIGA: Looks good.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Thank you. Moving on to the next
agenda item.
MR. NOBRIGA: Thanks, Holly.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: I'm sorry, did anyone else wish
to provide public testimony regarding water rate increases?
Thank you. The next agenda item is status report
for Iao Tank Site Exploratory Well. Director.
MR. TENGAN: As the Board knows, we're using the
Wailuku Shaft that isn't the property of the Department or
of the County. Wailuku Shaft is presently owned by Hawai`i
Land and Farm Company, and we're using the well or the shaft
at the good graces of the company. We need to -- we need to
establish alternative sources to make up for what we're
drawing out of the tank. This Iao tank is -- this Iao tank
site well will provide some of that. We've already engaged
the service of Carl Takumi Engineering to do the engineering
for this project. We hope to advertise for construction in
early 2004 with completion in 2006.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Questions? Seeing none, moving
on to capital improvement projects progress report.
MR. MISKAE: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes.
MR. MISKAE: Could I ask a quick question on that.
What would happen to Shaft 33 if we stopped using it?
CHAIR HIRANAGA: You're talking about the Iao tank
site?
MR. MISKAE: Yes.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Identify yourself.
MR. MISKAE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brian
Miskae, Department of Planning. Maybe I missed the point
here. It says Shaft 33 is being used as a temporary water
source and we want to put in another well. What happens to
Shaft 33 if we stop using it?
MR. TENGAN: We wouldn't have any say on what
happens to it. We're not the owners of the shaft and the
property it exists on. That would be the decision of the
land owner or the property owner.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: So he's currently selling water
to the County?
MR. TENGAN: No, he's letting us use the shaft
free of charge.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: It's a privately owned watershed.
MR. MISKAE: So the owner of Shaft 33 then would
be required to apply to the Water Commission then because
this area is designated, it would be one of those
applications I presume?
MR. TENGAN: We will be filing a joint
application. We will sign off as the user and Hawai`i Land
and Farming will sign off as the owner of the property.
Because the application that we would be filing would be
based on existing uses and were the existing user providing
water for existing uses. Hawai`i Land and Farming as of
this point in time in my mind is not or does not have any
existing use for that water.
MR. MISKAE: I'm just concerned this may end up
being problematic because if this well is one of the
problems that we have in terms of spreading pumping out,
maybe this well has to be discontinued period in one way,
shape or form.
MR. TENGAN: Which well are you talking about?
MR. MISKAE: Shaft 33.
MR. TENGAN: Yeah, but we wouldn't have any
control over that. That would be under the control of the
State Water Commission.
MR. MISKAE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Thank you. Moving on to the
capital improvement project progress report. Maybe the
Director could give us a brief overview of that of what it's
telling us.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, we have attached the CIP
status report as requested by the Board. The first schedule
you see is a schedule of what we hope to have encumbered
throughout the year. And on the side of the table of data
is a graph showing what we have budgeted for the year, which
is $22.25 million. And I guess at this point in time,
engineering is saying that we hope to encumber by December
2004 $18.6 million.
And on the following pages is a list of items on
the CIP budget and the amount budgeted, the projected
completion date, the percent completed. Assigned to are the
initials of the engineers or the engineer or staff personnel
that the project has assigned. The initial date I presume
would be when the project is expected to start, and we also
have the projected encumbrance date. And on the side, we
have a space for notations such as the consultant and who
would be doing the job. You'll notice there are some items
that we plan to do in-house.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Questions from the Board?
MS. RAISBECK: Yeah, I noticed when I looked at
the draft that there was really almost no activity from July
through December. I assume that means you encumbered about
a million, whereas you had projected hopefully encumbering 7
and a half million. Is there some reason why you weren't
keeping up with the intention?
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, the fact that the chart
seems to be showing activity beginning September 2003 is
because from July through September, we've been working on
getting the budgeted amounts encumbered. This doesn't mean
that we've been sitting on our tails and not doing anything.
This just represents encumbered funds which denotes that
contracts have been executed.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Any further questions? Do you
plan to make this a monthly report, quarterly or --
MR. TENGAN: If the Board wants it monthly, we can
do it monthly.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Any preferences, monthly?
MS. RAISBECK: Monthly.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: We would like to make it a
monthly report. Thank you.
Next agenda item, oral report from director
regarding A&B's water treatment plant project.
MR. TENGAN: We have nothing to report on this
project. It's a proposal that was made by A&B to the County
and to the Water Department about building a treatment plant
in the Waiale reservoir area. I believe A&B has engaged the
services of a consult, and they're proceeding with the
project. But I don't know at what stage they are exactly.
We haven't entered into any kind of detailed discussions as
to what an agreement would look like, so it's in the hands
of A&B right now, and we don't have anything else to report.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Questions?
MS. RAISBECK: Yeah, what's the proposed amount
for the water treatment plant, I mean the size of the
gallonage?
MR. TENGAN: Well, they're proposing to build a
plant that will provide 2 million gallons per day. But this
doesn't mean the plant will have a capacity of 2 million
gallons. Because to provide 2 million gallons on an average
day basis, they may have to build a plant somewhere from 3
to 4 million gallons.
MS. RAISBECK: And will the County reimburse them
for the plant?
MR. TENGAN: Discussions on that kind of details
haven't taken place yet.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Yes, Ken.
MR. OKAMURA: So this water treatment plant would
be for Central Maui water, right, water for Central Maui,
no?
MR. TENGAN: Yes, it's intended to supplement our
existing sources.
MR. OKAMURA: But even if this treatment plant
comes on line, it would still mean you would still not be
taking any water reservations for central Maui yet. And the
question would be how much source do we need so we would
start to take reservations for Central Maui water?
MR. TENGAN: It would quite possibly provide
sufficient capacity for the Department to accept
reservations again, but I cannot give you a definite answer
on that unless we know exactly that's going to be dedicated
to the County or purchased by the County.
MR. OKAMURA: So this one, too, like so it would
take like maybe another year before anymore source comes on
line?
MR. TENGAN: Are you talking about this particular
project or other sources?
MR. OKAMURA: Both. Would this be the first
source to come on line, or is there some other sources that
are being developed?
MR. TENGAN: Well, we have two other projects
going on right now. Which one comes in first is the horse's
race. We're trying to get both the Hamakua Poko wells
connected to the system. And we're also working on
increasing the capacity of the Iao treatment plant.
MR. OKAMURA: Thank you.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Any further questions? Thank
you. Next agenda item is the oral report regarding
acceptance of Maui Land & Pine located near Pookela Well.
MR. TENGAN: On this item here, we met with
representatives from Maui Land & Pine and a consultant about
two, three months ago. We just had some conceptual
discussions, and other than that, I don't know what is going
on with this project.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Questions for the Director?
MS. RAISBECK: Yes. What's the proposed -- I mean
has the well been drilled?
MR. TENGAN: No, it hasn't. Even the site hasn't
been determined as far as I know.
MS. RAISBECK: And is there -- well, you say the
discussions are ongoing. Is it expected that Maui Land &
Pine will be using most of the water, some of the water for
their own projects ahead of people on the waiting list, or
will any excess water be available for the County to provide
to people on the waiting list Upcountry?
MR. TENGAN: I don't know. I don't know what
they're proposing there. We just discussed preliminarily at
what elevation the well should be located and what general
location. Other than that, as far as the capacity of the
well and all that, we have no idea what they have.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Any further questions? Thank
you. The next agenda item is the comments from the
Department regarding Maui Land & Pine's petition for the
reclassification of Kapalua Mauka from ag to rural.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, for the Board's
information, I guess at the request of the Board, we
included the response letter as part of the agenda.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Any questions or comments
regarding the Director's letter? Seeing none, other
business. Any requests from board members regarding the
proposed agenda items?
MR. OKAMURA: One would be the Upcountry lead.
One item I think would be good to have is the update on the
Upcountry lead issue, water lead issue.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Any other requests?
MR. OKAMURA: It doesn't really have to be a fancy
report. Just an oral report would be great, what's
happening up until that point in time like you did today
with some of these other issues, which I found to be very
helpful.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Any other requests? Next agenda
item is division reports. Any comments or questions
regarding the division reports?
MS. RAISBECK: Yeah, I note that our 12-month
average for Iao has again exceeded 18. And the four-month
average for Waihee is 4.6. So are there any -- presumably
for the winter season, we will be using less, but will the
12-month average decline from those unacceptable levels?
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, Board Member Raisbeck is
referring to table number 5 in the staff report. 18.03
million gallons per day is just the year-to-date monthly
average. It doesn't include December or the 12-month moving
average. I believe the 12-month moving average for at the
end of November was something like 17.6 or 17.7 million
gallons per day.
MS. RAISBECK: I'm looking at the table on page --
our number Page 5.
MR. TENGAN: That's what I'm referring to.
MS. RAISBECK: 18.03?
MR. TENGAN: Yes, that's based on 11 months and
not 12 months. It's a year-to-date figure.
MS. RAISBECK: Well, where is the 12-month average
figure?
MR. TENGAN: For some reason, we don't have that
report in there, but I believe we sent out the report to all
board members. We'll make sure that you get a copy.
MS. RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Any other questions or comments
regarding division reports? If not --
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, if you go to Page 22, that
shows the 12-month moving average. The second to the last
column has the November 30th, Iao was pumping at 18.9
million gallons per day, I mean 17.9, and Waihee was at 4.7.
And I might report that for October and November, we pumped
somewhat less than 4 million gallons per day at Waihee.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: I'm disappointed that Herb came
late and left early because I wanted to congratulate him
again. He's already looking forward to retirement.
MR. HASHIMOTO: He retired already.
CHAIR HIRANAGA: Off the record. We want to wish
everyone happy holidays, and we'll see you all next year.
Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.
(The meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.)
Department of Water Supply
County of Maui
200 South High Street
Wailuku, HI 96793-2155
Telephone (808) 270-7816
Fax (808) 270-7951