BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2004
Kahului Shopping Center
Kaahumanu Avenue
Kahului, Maui, Hawaii
Reported by: Katherine Eismann, RDR, CRR, CSR #439
APPEARANCES
Chairperson: KENT HIRANAGA
Board Members: CLARK S. HASHIMOTO
MICHAEL NOBRIGA
STACY HELM CRIVELLO
KENNETH M. OKAMURA
SALLY RAISBECK
Deputy Corporation Counsel: EDWARD KUSHI, JR.
Director: GEORGE TENGAN
Deputy Director: JEFFREY T. PEARSON
Board Secretary: CATHY HOWARD
Staff: HOLLY PERDIDO
HERB CHANG
WENDY TAOMOTO
ALVA NAKAMURA
ALAN MURATA
(Thursday, March 18, 2004, 9:03 a.m.)
--oOo--
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I would like to call the Board
of Water Supply meeting to order.
Present Stacy Helm, Mike Nobriga, Clark Hashimoto,
Sally Raisbeck, Kenneth Okamura.
Are there any announcements?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yes, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I wanted to announce that
the Council has started their budget committee hearings,
and --
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Sally, could you use the mike,
please?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Oh, I am sorry. Yeah, the
Council has started its budget committee hearings. Can you
hear me? And it's a good time for Boardmembers to lobby their
Council people in support of our budget or to testify, even,
if they want.
I think -- I think they need to hear from us about
some of the issues. And they will be having them practically
daily for a couple of months now.
Then the other thing I wanted to announce was I
heard Ernie Lau, who is the Deputy Chair of the State
Commission, at the Makena Resort Rezoning Hearing. He was
called as an expert witness. And he said that they had -- the
State Commission had a proposal before the State Legislature
to take -- to produce a monitoring well in the Waiakea
aquifer, and he requested the Council and also all the public
to lobby our state legislators to get that, the money passed
for that monitor well, which is very much needed and won't
cost the County anything, if the State pays for it. So, I
wanted to announce those two things, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you. Are there any
other announcements?
Next agenda item the approval of minutes. Are
there any comments or corrections to the February 19th, 2004,
Budget Workshop minutes?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I don't -- I haven't yet
read the minutes of the workshop meeting, but I do have
minutes -- corrections to the minutes of the February 26th,
and I passed them out in written form.
I believe it should be vacant positions not vacant
provisions on page 31. I definitely said that our rules and
regulations are not understandable and didn't say our rules
and regulations are so understandable on page -- that's on
page 41.
On page 71, I believe Member Parsons said Council
meaning County Council not Counsel meaning an attorney. And
that's two places. And on page 71, line 24, I just question
whether Jerry -- Jerry Well's name was spelled J-E-R-R-Y
instead of G-E-R-I. So, I would like to make those
corrections.
And I would also, at this time, suggest,
Mr. Chair, that we -- that we go back to the previous
practice. Before I was on the board, I know they always
accepted the minutes but provisionally would put these left
for corrections that could still be made before they became
official. And I think this was a good practice.
I wouldn't want it to hold up putting the minutes
on the web site, but I think there would be good -- if we had
a little more time to actually -- for those who want to review
the minutes, to review them before they become final. So, I
would put that forth as a motion, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So, moved. Is there a second?
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Discussion?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I would just say that it
goes to the previous practice, for many years, I believe, and
I don't think it hurt anything. And the only thing against it
would be if somehow people felt it would delay putting them on
web site.
MS. HOWARD: They are unofficial on the web site,
so that's no problem.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you for that comment.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any further discussion? If
not, all if favor say aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Opposed.
(Silence.)
Motion carried.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any other comments regarding
the minutes of February 19th or February 26th? If not, I open
the floor to a motion to grant preliminary approval.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I would think that -- let
me move that we accept the minutes of February 26th and of --
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: 19th.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: -- the 19th, to be accepted
subject to corrections made within the next 30 days, and to be
put on the web site as unofficial minutes.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So moved. Is there a second?
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any discussion? All in favor
say aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Opposed?
(Silence.)
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Motion is carried.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is anyone here from the public
who wishes to provide testimony regarding the agenda items?
MR. SHEPHERD: What do you do? Just raise your
hand and step up?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Well, there is a form you
could have signed up on.
MR. SHEPHERD: Yeah, I filled it out.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: He said he filled one out.
MS. HOWARD: Oh, he did? I didn't get it.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Did you give it to someone?
MR. SHEPHERD: Is there any way you can turn off
that machinery noise? The acoustics in here are absolutely
lousy.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: The air-conditioning. Yeah,
it's the only air-conditioning we have. Sorry. The other one
is broken.
MR. SHEPHERD: Why don't we just turn the damn
thing off?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Because it will get warm.
MR. SHEPHERD: That's okay. It's liable to get
warm anyway.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: It will get warmer faster if
we don't have it on.
MR. SHEPHERD: Yeah, get the meeting over in a
hurry.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Why don't you attempt to give
your testimony. Which agenda item do you wish to speak on,
wells drilled?
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Pookela well?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Which agenda item do you wish
to provide testimony on?
MR. SHEPHERD: You want me to do what?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Which agenda item do you wish
to provide testimony on?
MR. SHEPHERD: Where is the agenda items?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: It's there on the glass door,
right behind you.
MR. SHEPHERD: I want to talk about wells.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: You can only address agenda
items.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Pookela well.
MR. SHEPHERD: Oh, okay. Yeah, with regard to the
Pookela well, I would like to relate something that happened
about four years ago when the previous water director,
Craddick, asked me and one other fella, a petroleum engineer,
to comment on contracts for drilling the wells.
My friend, the petroleum engineer, backed out,
because he didn't want to get involved. Being afraid of
nothing, I came forward, and I analyzed three contracts that
he said that he had to make a decision on to drill a well in
Waikapu.
That Waikapu well was drilled, Pookela was
drilled, and the rigs left. And that's what bugs me. Why did
they take a rig off of the site, demobilize, and now they want
to come back and test the well? That's simply a waste of
taxpayer money to proceed in that manner.
When you put a well on the site and drill it, you
test it. You put in the production equipment, and then you
move off. You don't move on, and then wait three or four
years, and decide that you want to go back in and put in the
pumps and so forth. That's simply a big waste of our money.
And such things are incomprehensible.
Now, I say this, having had some 30 years
experience playing around with the petroleum wells. Once in a
while, we would find some water, much to the appreciation of
the landowner and the ranchers. But, I think I understand the
procedures in which wells are drilled and completed. And
what's being currently done is completely out of phase with
good engineering practices. Very wasteful.
Get on the well, complete it, test it, whatever
you are going to do, but don't move that rig off of there
until you do those two particular things, and think that you
are going to come back two or three years later, and
remobilize, and test, and go through the same procedure that
you should have done in the very beginning.
Now, maybe I don't understand, and there might be
maybe extenuating circumstances in the procedures used by the
Board of Water Supply. Maybe they can explain those. But
nevertheless, these are very wasteful procedures, and it's
your money, my money, and it's money that could be well spent
with other things that run the department in a much more
efficient manner. So, get in there and don't let these things
happen again.
Now, maybe you guys are going to be off the Board
by the time they drill another well, but you better take a
hard look at these contracts. I have nothing more to say.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you.
THE REPORTER: State your name, please.
MR. SHEPHERD: Glenn Shepherd.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you, Mr. Shepherd.
Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to provide
testimony? Robert Fevella.
MR. FEVELLA: Oh, yes. I am better looking. I
got in a knife fight with a doctor yesterday. He won. I
lost. Skin cancer. It's my parents' fault.
My name is Robert Fevella. I'm number 188 on the
hostage list as of February. On Pookela well, I don't know
what really is going on, because this Department has not made
it known to the people that are waiting years for that well to
come on line. We were told by the Mayor that that well would
be on line by the end of this year.
Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Tengan told the County
Committee on that Makena Resort zoning that the well would not
be on line until 2005, probably May or June.
My question is, why? We got to ask questions.
These officials, they tell you something, and they don't tell
you why. I want to know why. It's not printed. Nobody tells
us anything.
You would think that people that are waiting for
years should be notified via the newspaper or something to let
us know what is going on. What we know is what they got
planned for West Maui. Yesterday, Mr. Tengan went right down
the line, all these wells they going to drill, and water --
tapping surface water and all that. What about Upcountry?
Are we in Iraq or Mars?
Even the people in Iraq are getting better
infrastructure than us, and we just sit there and wait. Now,
if a temporary well -- I mean, a temporary pump is the answer
to get that well moving, I suggest that you put it in. We
have waited long enough.
H'poko wells, I understand now they plan to send
that down country, because there might be an emergency down
here. We got almost a thousand people waiting for water
meters Upcountry. That's not an emergency? What is an
emergency? People needing water in Kihei and Makena and
Central Maui? What about Upcountry?
And this goes on and on. And what I have said I
have said before. I got to keep saying it again, and again,
and again, and nothing happens. I called the Mayor this
morning on his radio program, that what he had said and what I
had heard from Mr. Tengan were two different things.
Is it fair, to a segment of the population, living
in Upcountry, to go through this for the last 50 years? And
what is planned? Pookela well. What else? They going to
divert water from Dowling well. They count how many thousand
gallons they can hold, million gallons. They can divert and
pump uphill.
What else is planned? There is no plan like West
Maui. Is reservoirs the answer? If it is the answer, get it
going. What, we going to wait another 20 years for another
Pookela? You know, to a citizen, families have lived there
all their lives, this is very, very frustrating.
Our government is not for us. The Water
Department is taxed with the mandate to provide water for its
citizens, and they have not been able to do that. Why? And
you got to ask the questions why. And when somebody like
Mr. Tengan says, oh, that is something. Why? Why? And you
ask the question why until you find the answer.
Get down to the people that are responsible for
the delays. Give credit where credit is due. But when
something is wrong, you got to go after it. You know, I just
got my assessments yesterday or day before yesterday. And I'd
like to send it back to the County that I would really like to
pay this assessment when my tax bills come, but I don't have a
source. Can you wait eight years, ten years, 15 years? I
might have a source then.
What you think the County would tell me? But it's
all right for the County to tell me that, oh, you can wait.
How long? Oh, I don't know. You got any plans? No, we don't
have any plans. Is that right? I ask you people, is that
right?
And if you were in our place, how would you feel,
huh? To sit back, and wait, and wait, and you look around,
you look down the hill, all these houses and condos and what
have you coming up. There is no water for us. We not asking
for more, but why should we expect less? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any questions for Mr. Fevella?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah. Mr. Fevella, I think
there are many people on this Board who really sympathize with
the fight of everyone who was been waiting for water meters.
Could you tell me what part of Upcountry you live on?
MR. FEVELLA: I live on Polipoli Road.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Polipoli Road. And do you
happen to know which year it was you applied for?
MR. FEVELLA: 1996, April.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: 1996. Okay. Yeah, I think
the Board will make every effort to deal with this question of
whether Upcountry is getting a fair share of the water
development that is being done. So, I hope you will continue
to watch the proceedings, continue to see what the Council
does about water, and I commend you for coming here and
testifying. Thank you.
MR. FEVELLA: Can I say one more thing? My
feeling is that the majority of the people on -- in Maui
County don't have the slightest idea of what we have gone
through. You know, it's so frustrating. Eight years, my wife
even died waiting, and we still waiting. Is that fair?
It's not like there is no water. The water is
there, but where is the Department and the people responsible,
the engineers and what have you, to go and find this water and
put it on line?
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Kenneth.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: I wanted to thank
Mr. Fevella for coming and bringing up his concerns. I think
somebody needs to bring up this issue. Some of us are new on
the Board, and it has to start someplace. Somebody needs to
bring up the issue for us to at least have it in the back of
our minds, and we always trying to find sources Upcountry.
Thank you.
MR. FEVELLA: Could I say one more thing?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Mr. Fevella.
MR. FEVELLA: You talk about affordable housing
every day, in the paper, you know, paper, all the meetings.
Everything is affordable housing. What is more affordable
than trying to give your children the property you have?
And you know, you cannot do it. And there's
another problem with my situation is I got three lots. I live
on one, my daughter lives on one, and my son wants to build a
house on lot three. My daughter takes water from lot one,
from my lot. She's been taking water from me since 1987.
She's not a new person on the system.
The same three people living in that cottage since
1987, yet the Board will not give me a water meter, so I can
get my final approval and give the kids their property, put it
in their names. That's what bugs me. What kind of a rule is
that? What is the -- I don't understand it. That's stupid.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you. Is there anyone
else that wishes to provide testimony regarding today's
agenda?
Seeing none, next agenda item, unfinished
business. Corp Counsel's answer to the question regarding the
Board's ability to hear an appeal on the Director's decision
regarding communication 04-01, letter from Jimmy Muschietti
for Anthony and Roxanne Marterie by the staff regarding
application for water meter upgrade.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Yes, Mr. Chair.
As I reviewed the minutes of the last meeting, I read that
inquiry was that I provide you with some definite response to
a question as to what appeal Mr. Muschietti, on behalf of the
Marteries, could take.
As I read the minutes, I believe the discussion
was whether his appeal to this body is pursuant to Section
16-102-76, which is the generic type of appeal found in your
Rules of Practice and Procedure, or whether it's -- his appeal
is under Section 16-106-08, which is an appeal or a -- it's
not stated as an appeal, but it's under the Upcountry Rules
for Water Meter Issuances and is entitled waiver or
modifications.
Having reviewed this again, we would still -- our
office would still confirm that Mr. Muschietti's request, to
this Board, is based on Section 16-106-08, under the Waiver or
Modification Section, under the Board's Upcountry Water Meter
Issuance Rule.
That section provides that the Board, by
two-thirds vote of its entire voting membership, or six, may
waive or modify the requirements of the Upcountry Rule when
not contrary to the public's health, safety, or welfare, and
when the Board finds three factors: One, strict application
of the rule would cause an absurd, unfavorable, unreasonably
harsh result. Two, the Board finds the circumstances or
conditions unique or exceptional, and the Board will grant the
same request if made by every similarly situated applicant.
And three, the resulting action -- excuse me -- of the Board
will be without detriment to existing users.
I believe the rule in question is the applicant's
response timely or otherwise to his -- to the Department's
certified letter to the applicant that he has -- the
Department has reached his number or numbers on the priority
list.
The record shows that he did not respond within
the 30-day time period as provided in the rules. The record
shows that his first written response was close to 11 months
after the Department sent him the notice. However, it is
within the rules that this body may consider a waiver or
modification.
Now, having said all of that, as you know, this
rule was passed before the Charter change. This rule as
passed, as I recall, would have enabled this Board to
basically overturn any decision by the Department, to waive or
modify any decision.
Since the Charter change, as you all know, this
body become advisory in nature. Accordingly, our Department
has always -- has assisted -- or the position is that the
rules still exist unless repealed, but it cannot be in
conflict with the Charter.
So, we have taken the position that applicant may
appeal to this Board, but any decision from this Board would
be advisory in nature to the Department.
The other hanging item was, as I recall, the
applicant was advised to pay $300. This appeal of the waiver
or modification provision in your Upcountry Water Rule does
not have a fee amount. The other generic appeal in your Rules
of Procedure does.
The applicant, on advice by the Department, did
pay a 300-dollar appeal fee. As I said the last time, I would
recommend or advise the Department to return that money,
because it's our position that the applicant's appeal is not
pursuant to the generic appeal procedures. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Kushi, first of all,
what is the -- all right. Subchapter 8, appeals to the Board,
the first paragraph says, any person aggrieved by a decision
or order of the Director may file a petition for appeal with
the Board.
It doesn't say except people who live Upcountry.
It says any person. So, I fail to see why you don't feel this
section applies to Mr. Muschietti. And obviously, the person
who accepted this 300-dollar fee felt that this section would
apply to Mr. Muschietti.
So, I think that I would prefer to have
received -- any decisions or advice from you I would prefer to
receive in written form, since legal -- legal language is
highly technical and refers to many, many paragraphs and so
on. And I really don't appreciate -- and I have asked this
before. That we receive in advance written summaries of
these, of what you are going to testify to, because I find it
highly confusing when we have to listen to it verbally.
So, I disagree with your interpretation. I think
the Board could be sued by Mr. Muschietti's employer if we
say, because he lives Upcountry, Subchapter 8 does not apply
to him. I highly -- I think this is probably an issue that
will continue in the courts if not here.
My other -- I did have another question, if you
would hold on just a minute. Equal application of the law
would, I think, be a good principle when it says any citizen
may appeal, and you say except people who live Upcountry. I
don't think that's right, but I will -- with those comments, I
will close. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any other questions for
Mr. Kushi? Yes, Kenneth.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Thank you. I was wondering,
if we were to follow the original appeals process that was
just previously mentioned, we would have to follow like a
contested case hearing procedure. And I was wondering whether
this body, as an advisory group, would have the legal standing
to do it on a contested case hearing. I don't need an answer
right now, but that's my question.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Mr. Chair, I
will try to respond to that also.
Boardmember Okamura, you are exactly right. This
is why it's the opinion of my office that the appeal should be
under the Upcountry Waiver or Modification Rule. Because of
the Charter change, our position is this Board cannot have
contested case hearings, because any decision from this Board
is recommended -- is a recommendation and advice only, which
cannot be then appealed to the Circuit Court.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Can I have a question,
Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, also, I would
question your statement that if the Board considered an
appeal, our decision would be a recommendation to the
Director. Why are you excluding the fact that we are able to
advise the Mayor and advise the Council?
We have the right to advise them, and a decision
of ours could be issued as advice to the Mayor or the Council
as well as the Director. Correct?
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Mr. Chair.
Member Raisbeck, what does that have to do with an
appeal? Council or the Mayor, they are not appealing anything
before them.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I believe the Mayor can
overrule the Director.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Correct, but
this is totally off the subject of Mr. Muschietti's issue
right now.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I am sorry. It refers
directly to something you said in your statement, that we
would -- if we held an appeal, we would advise the Director.
We could also advise the Mayor.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: You have the
Charter blessed authority to advise the Mayor and the Council
and the Department.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Correct.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: If asked.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: No, nowhere does it say if
asked. Never. It says we have the duty to advise them. It
does not say if asked. I beg to differ.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: If the Mayor
does not ask you, what do you do?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I go advise members of the
Council all the time as an individual. Mr. Fevella just came
here to advise us as an individual.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: I am not -- I
am --
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: This Board has the power.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: It's not
infringing upon your individual rights to advise whoever you
want. I am talking about the Board.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: This Board has the right to
advise the Mayor and the Council.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: I agree. I
agree.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: And we do not have to wait
to be asked. I am sorry. There is nothing in that Charter
amendment that says we have to wait to be asked.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any other questions for
Corporation Counsel?
George, are you planning to provide Mr. Muschietti
with some type of a correspondence indicating Corporation
Counsel's decision, so he can determine what his next step is?
How are you going to close this issue?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yes, we could prepare a letter
to them, yeah. But I believe he's also filing an appeal with
the -- what Board or party?
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Mr. Chair, I
understand that Mr. Muschietti, on behalf of Mr. Marterie --
which, by the way, I would suggest strongly that
Mr. Muschietti get a power of attorney or at least an
affidavit from the owners to confirm his representation
status. I am advised that he has filed an appeal to the Board
of Variances & Appeals.
Our office is aware of that appeal. I believe
it's coming up within the next month or so. Informally, at
this time, our internal office discussions would be to oppose
that appeal based on lack of jurisdiction, but that's best
before the Board of Variances & Appeals.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So, the Department will appear
and provide testimony at this BVA appeal process?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. One
question.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yes. Do I understand you
to say that the Department will be testifying that the Board
of Variances has no jurisdiction in this matter? Will that
have them refund Mr. Muschietti's $600?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: It is my preference to go on
advice of counsel.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: So, your position is the
Board of Variances has nothing to say on this issue?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I am just going to go on advice
of counsel.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Okay. That's what you say,
Mr. Kushi, right?
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: That is our
internal office discussion at this point. It's not finalized.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you. Moving on to the
next agenda item, Director's Report, costs and procedures
required to install a temporary pump in the Pookela well until
the permanent pump is ready and the advantages and
disadvantages of such action.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Excuse me,
Mr. Chair. So, what is the disposition of this Board review
matter?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I am not sure. I guess my
thought would be if the Director just sent a correspondence to
him, indicating the Director's position, it would be up to him
to determine what his next action would be.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Well,
Mr. Chair, on behalf of the Department, we believe that the
matter is ripe for you to decide, based on that section we
cited. So, I believe whether it's today or at the next
meeting --
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Decide whether it is under the
Upcountry Rule or what do we decide?
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: No, we are
saying it is under the Upcountry Rule, and that being the
case, we have heard the presentation. You can hear more if
you wanted to, but the Department would like a recommendation
either way.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. I guess I will open the
floor to a motion regarding Mr. Muschietti's request.
Kenneth.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: I move that we stay with the
Director's position denying the request for an extension.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is there a second?
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Can you repeat the motion?
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: I move that we support or
concur with the Director's decision that the extension was
denied. You denied the extension that was requested.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is there any discussion?
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: You know, a good part of the
Upcountry Rule states, in the waiver or modification, which
Corporation Counsel talked about, under Section 116-106-A, and
the second one -- the second item under there it says that the
Board finds the circumstance or condition is unique or
exceptional, and the Board would grant the same request if
made by every similarly situated applicant.
Now, so I think that's a good criteria, because if
you were to grant an extension of time for Mr. Marterie to get
the meter, additional service, we would have to be willing to
give that same or grant that same request to anybody else that
comes in and asks for an extension, even if they were like
six, you know, eight months late. And I don't think the
Department can operate with something like that hanging over
them. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any other discussion?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, I will be voting
against the motion on the grounds that I think that in denying
Mr. Muschietti's right to the appeal process, we are
infringing very much on the constitutional rights of a citizen
of Maui County. So, I will vote against the motion.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any further discussion? Yes,
Kenneth.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: I think the motion was not
to deny Mr. Muschietti's appeal to us, but to deny -- to
support the Director's recommendation that the extension be
denied. I think if there's avenues for Mr. Muschietti to
appeal, he can still follow them if he wants to.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any further discussion? If
not, I will call for the vote --
All in favor of the motion to support the
Director's decision to deny the request for an extension of
time, please so indicate by raising your right hand.
(Boardmembers Hashimoto, Nobriga, Okamura, and
Crivello raised their hands.)
The Chair votes in favor. Those opposed?
(Boardmember Raisbeck raised her hand.)
Sally in opposition. The motion does carry.
Thank you.
Moving on to the next agenda item, Director's
Reports, costs and procedures required to install a temporary
pump in Pookela well until the permanent pump is ready, and
the advantages and disadvantages of such action.
Director Tengan.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: This request was made by
Ginny Parsons, and I am not sure -- this request was made by
Boardmember Parsons to have this information presented, and
she's not here today. And I just feel very badly that she
wouldn't be here to ask questions and so on. Would it be
possible to defer this to another meeting?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I prefer not to do it. She
knew the agenda item was scheduled, and I don't know what her
personal reasons are for not attending, but to defer agenda
matters because individual Boardmembers are not present I
don't think is appropriate. Thank you.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, within the packet we
have included a report. The report includes -- I have
attached two exhibits or three exhibits.
Exhibit A is a cost estimate for the installation
and operation of the test pump that was used during
construction and testing of the Pookela exploratory well by
Water Resources International.
Exhibit B is a report indicating the cost of
installing the smaller 700 gpm pump that might be available at
the present time.
With regard to Exhibit A, I really felt that that
particular test pump was not available for use.
And Exhibit C, we have some discussion on the
advantages and disadvantages of putting in a temporary pump.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Questions for the Director?
Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
George, first of all, there have been, in the
past, a number of times either multiple letters -- I don't
know if they are all from the same person -- saying that the
permanent pump for this well has not yet been ordered. Is
that no longer true?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: That's correct. We finally
decided this week the specifications for the pump. There was
much discussion as to what size pump we should go ahead with
because of the size of the column going down the well.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I am sorry. Oh, could you
repeat that?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: The size of the column that's
going down the well.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: And that --
DIRECTOR TENGAN: That created a problem in the
decision making process.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: What? The well isn't wide
enough to accommodate what you want to put in or what?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: There was much discussion.
Because of the size of the pump, as I am told, the pump is
going to be at least 32 feet length in that. So, if there's a
problem with the alignment of the column going down, the pump
could get stuck when they try to get the pump down there.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: So, has the alignment of
the column been documented?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yes, it has, but that was done
by the well driller of the project. But to reduce our risk,
we are going to make it whereby the -- whereby the contractor
would be responsible to confirm the alignment of the shaft or
the column going down and be responsible if something happens,
such as there's a problem getting the pump down to the bottom
of the well.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Well, is that one of the
reasons why maybe you are suggesting a smaller -- smaller
pump?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: At one time, we were -- we were
thinking about doing that, but following discussions with the
consultant and with staff, we finally decided that we would go
with the largest pump we feel we can get down there, down to
the bottom.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: And that would be 1400 gpm?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: No, I think it's about 900 gpm.
It should produce about a million and a half gallons per day.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: But, excuse me. But didn't
they test this well with a 1400 gpm pump?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yes, they did.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: And what's the reason that
pump can't go down again?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: It's a different kind of pump.
The pump that was used for the testing, what we they call a
line shaft pump, where the motor sits above the ground, and
the shaft goes down, and the pump is at the bottom. In this
case, we are putting in a submersible pump, which includes the
motor and the pump down in the bottom of the well.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Is there -- was there
anything, in the original contract with the Water Resources
International, that -- that would make them liable for the
fact that the shaft isn't straight?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I guess there's -- you know,
there would be -- I would rather refer the question to the
engineers. If you will hang on.
Yeah, we probably would have to check the
contract, and the well driller was supposed to provide a
report as to the straightness of the hole, but I think maybe
Alan can discuss that more intelligently than me.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I am sorry. You didn't
tell us your name.
MR. MURATA: My name is Alan Murata. And as far
as the pump and its alignment, I was overseeing the
construction phase of the exploratory well. The contractor
had certain specs he had to meet as far as plumbness and
alignment. While he was drilling the pilot hole, he did
what's call a TOTCO alignment, and on the pilot hole, these
TOTCO measurements all passed specs.
When he dropped the casing in the well, he was
again required to take plumbness and alignment measurements
for every length of casing that he dropped. And the readings
we got, it all passed specs.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: But then where does the
problem arise, if it is straight and they are not liable?
MR. MURATA: Well, there is no way it's going to
be perfectly straight. There is no way they can drill it
perfectly straight. They drill. If the measurement shows
they are drifting, they do adjustments to get it back
straight. But the incremental differences in alignment are
all within specs. So, you can say it's a pretty straight
hole, but it's not a straight -- it's not exactly straight.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: What is the spec for the
departure from a true plumb line? What is -- I mean, plus or
minus what?
MR. MURATA: I can't say for sure, but it's -- you
know, it's detectable. I think for the TOTCO measurements,
when I --
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I am sorry. That word I am
not familiar with.
MR. MURATA: It's a specific instrument they use
to check the angle of the hole as they are going down.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: How do you spell that?
MR. MURATA: T-O-T-C-O.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: T-O-T-T-O?
MR. MURATA: T-O-T-C-O. TOTCO.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Oh, TOTCO. Okay.
MR. MURATA: And, you know, from the measurements
I got or the readings I got, if you took the worst case
scenario, and you plotted those incremental differences in one
direction going down, then at the bottom of the hole, you are
probably 15 to 20 feet.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Ouch.
MR. MURATA: But that's good. For that depth,
that is extremely good.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: This is an 1800-foot well?
MR. MURATA: Yes. And again, that's the worst
case.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Okay.
MR. MURATA: Because normally, when they see it's
going off, it's drifting off, they make adjustments. They go
back the other way. So, actually, the measurement is going
back the other way, so there's some averaging out there.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I see. Wow. So, that's
part of the delay here, is the pump you would like to put into
Pookela can't be for sure put in safely with this departure
from true vertical.
MR. MURATA: No, I don't think the alignment --
plumbness and alignment was an issue. I think, you know, at
that time, when they were doing the exploratory phase, the
question was, well, what size and what types of pump are we
planning to put in the hole? And the decision was made to go
with an 18-inch casing. That's the problem. Once you put in
the 18-inch casing, that dictates what size pump you can get
down the hole.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Okay. Well, it seems to
me, just a perfect lay person, not a water engineer at all,
that we want to get the maximum amount of water possible out
of that well, because Upcountry needs water so badly. And,
so, we should make every effort to put in a 1400 gpm pump.
And maybe there's some other alternatives that haven't been
explored.
Are we -- are we tied to what -- this is a
question for George. Are we tied to Water Resources
International to put the pump in?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: No, that part of the contract
has already been completed. We are currently preparing the
bidding documents for the outfitting of the well.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: For the --
DIRECTOR TENGAN: So that would be possibly -- it
could possibly be a different contractor that would be
installing the well or the pump and motor.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: But it hasn't been signed
yet?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: No, the contract hasn't been
given out for bid yet.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Clark.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: I just have a question
here. In your letter, on page three, I guess you said the
rigs would not be available until December 2004 to install the
temporary pump. And --
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Alan has been having discussions
with the contractor, and so he would have more details on
that, and maybe he can address those questions.
MR. MURATA: Specifically regarding the test pump
that was used during the construction phase, the pump that
they used was a line shaft pump. And because of its weight
and size, they need one of their largest rigs that they have.
So, that rig is presently committed to another project, and
they don't expect it being available until December of 2004.
So, that rig is only specific to that, the test pump, the
original test pump option.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: So then, page six, item
three, the schedule for the permanent project says estimate
construction start on August 2004, which will conflict with
any temporary project. So, it's slated to begin on August of
2004 for the permanent pump?
MR. MURATA: That I need to check with our CIP
people. I am not knowledgeable about the permanent
installation project.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: I just want to clarify.
If you are going to start it in August 2004, there's no use
putting in a temporary pump.
MR. MURATA: That's correct. That's correct.
MR. NAKAMURA: Right now, we are currently working
on the contract, and we probably won't go out to bid probably
until about May, I believe, at this time. So, at this point
in time, you know, it would probably conflict.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: What was the last?
MR. NAKAMURA: Yeah, it would probably conflict.
If we put in a temporary and have to put in the permanent, it
would probably conflict.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: So, the schedule of
August 2004 for the permanent pump is historic? Page six,
item three.
MR. NAKAMURA: Yeah, it would start about August.
That's right.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Another question,
Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: George, I know that the
Maui Land & Pine is putting a well in about half a mile away
from the Pookela well. Can you tell us what stage that well
is at?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: We just had a meeting with Maui
Land & Pine yesterday to discuss the concept of a well, which
they had discussions to go on. But, however, they have filed
it, and I believe they have got an approval for drilling from
the State Water Commission.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Have they got pump approval
yet?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: The drilling permit, I believe.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: But not the pump permit?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I don't know that they would
want to submit for the pump installation permit until they
know what they can get out of the well.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: And have we submitted paper
to the State Commission for our pump permit?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Which pump?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Pookela well.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Oh, yes. That's all taken care
of, yes.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: I was wondering about the
current time line for the permanent pump at Pookela. As of
now, what would be the step -- the major steps and the time
when the well would be on line?
MR. MURATA: First off, we would probably have to
work on the contract. We would have to go out to bid. Once
the bid results are in, we would have the evaluation, select
the contractor responsible for the installation. And once he
gets that, then he will go out and get bids from the
manufacturer as to the cost and all of that.
There would probably be some evaluations coming
back, and then probably issuance of the purchase order for the
pump. Once the pump arrives, and when the pump arrives there
will have to be an installation. And right now, we are
looking at probably around July of 2005 for the permanent pump
to be installed and in service.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: July.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: And how soon after that
would it be possible to actually provide water for the
community?
MR. MURATA: I guess once it's installed, you
know, we would be also working with some of the
infrastructure, the pipelines and things for that. So, at
this point in time, we have some unknowns in our report.
In Exhibit C, we have some things such as the
Department of Health certification, disinfection facilities,
piping schemes, and et cetera. So, these are some of the
things that may possibly impact our ability to not be able to
deliver it in a timeframe that we are talking about, but we
are making every effort to try to expedite this whole process
and trying to get the system on line.
BOARDMEMBER CRIVELLO: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Stacy.
BOARDMEMBER CRIVELLO: You mentioned -- you listed
you have contract, bids, and all these different procedures
that you need to go through. Where are you at now?
MR. MURATA: We are finalizing our construction
plans with the consultant.
BOARDMEMBER CRIVELLO: So, you are still at the
planning stage?
MR. MURATA: That's correct.
BOARDMEMBER CRIVELLO: Not even ready to go out
for the contracts?
MR. MURATA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I guess, could you expand a
little bit about the potential to use water from H'poko wells
for Upcountry use, and you have this last page under other
discussion. Is that something that's in the near future?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yes, Mr. Chair. As you know, as
I have stated in the past, we expect to use about
500,000 gallons per day as soon as we make a connection to the
Paia system. Following that, it would take some time before
we can do the connection to the Central Maui system in the
vicinity of the Wailuku side of the booster pump station
that's located along the highway at the Maui Country Club.
So, while we are doing that, it's possible that we
could make the additional water that we could be pumping from
Hamakuapoko for use Upcountry. The only caveat to that is if
we issue meters based upon that capacity, until such time that
we can get Pookela on line, if a drought occurs, then we won't
have, you know, a supplemental source by which we can
supplement the surface water sources.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So, the infrastructure is in
place to transfer water from H'poko wells Upcountry at this
time?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yes, via the water treatment
plant at Kamole.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. Would it be prudent for
the Department to come up with some type of an allocation plan
with the existing capacity of these wells whereby some water
may be allocated for Upcountry use, permit Upcountry use?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: We would have to do some
analysis and certainly have some heavy discussion among the
staff, and we can meet with the Mayor if we decide to go in
that direction.
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: Kent. So, based on the
information provided that the project is being fast tracked to
pump Pookela well, although the actual production water date
would be 2005, would it be -- not would it be, but I would
like to move forward and have this body advise the Department
to issue meters in order to retire the list at this time based
on the reliability of the project.
Because it can be done. The project is going. I
know we had pulled off our retiring of the list project,
because the administration chose not to follow-up on the
Pookela project. But now that everything is back running, the
previous decision of the Board was to fast track the people
waiting on the list.
And knowing all the requirements have been
satisfied, we should go back and pick that back up again.
That is what this is all about. That is what this whole thing
is about. Getting the people that's been waiting on the list
going, because it will take them three years to get anything
done anyway.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Is that a motion?
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: Yeah, it's a motion.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Could you restate your motion,
please?
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: My motion, I move that this
body advise the Department of Water Supply, and the
administration, and the County Council, and the Mayor, and the
Corporation Counsel, and the Governor, and the dog catcher and
everybody, that it's our position that the Department issue
meters in order to retire the list for Upcountry based on
reliability of water from Pookela now.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is there a second?
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Second by Kenneth.
Discussion?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I feel it's premature since
we have been told they may not be -- I think it would be
premature to start doing this when the contracts for the pump
haven't even been placed, and water may be ready by July of
2005, and possibly not then, based on the considerations
mentioned of other pipelines, the this, the that, and the
other things.
I think it's premature to give out any meters
until they have the water much closer to -- we know they were
going to put in a 900 gpm meter or a 1400 gpm pump. Not
meter, pump. We don't even know what size pump we will be
able to get in though that well. So, I think it's premature
to start issuing meters.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Mike.
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: Mr. Chairman, we have water
in reserve for Hawaiian Homes that is not going to be fully
built out for five years. We have people waiting on the list.
They are trying to finalize the subdivision. They don't even
want to build anything. They are not going to use water.
They are just trying to supply the documentation to finalize
the subdivision, so they can pass the land on to their
children before they die, because we have got people on the
list already that passed away. The kids are over there
holding -- holding air in their hands.
The time to act is now already. We been dicking
around with this thing too long. D-i-c-k-i-n-g.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Question for the Director or
for the staff. When the Pookela well came on line, and not
came on line, but when the test well came, and there was water
coming in from Pookela well, and the Department more or less
said that, okay, we can provide more water service, what was
the prediction on how much extra water service you would be
able to provide?
There must have been some number that was given.
Like I don't know if you can say that, but like how many
people can you send letters out to saying that, you know, if
they are going to have water when the well comes on line?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: As to how much water was
expected out of the well, I believe was testing at
two million gallons per day. As to how much water would be
made available for additional meters, I am not aware of the
number that the previous director was thinking about. What
was the other part of your question?
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: But somehow -- I guess that
answered that two parts of my question. But somehow, there
must have been -- you know, letters were sent out saying that,
you know, the well is on line, so apply for water service.
Something like that.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: No, the letter didn't say that
the well is on line.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Oh, yeah. The well will be
on line, so you can start to apply for water service.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: That was the position of the
previous director who felt that during the -- following
testing of the Pookela well, that we would be able to issue
meters at that time. And my position was somewhat different.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: So, is there a plan to say
like, okay, let's say projected yield of the well would be
like two million gallons a day. Is there a plan to say, okay,
we are allotting so much for new meters and so much more
reserve supply?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I guess before we can determine
how many more meters we can service with the Pookela well, we
would have to do some in-house analysis as to weather
conditions, you know, that kind of projections, consumption
patterns, and whether or not -- whatever else we can think of
that may affect getting water into the system. But I don't
suspect that we will be issuing meters up to the 1.5 million
gallons per day.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: In connection with the
Central Maui Joint Venture, it was made very clear to most
everybody that the maximum pumpage from a well can't be
considered as usable, in the sense that you have to apply what
amounts to a 46 percent factor to the maximum you can pump
because of many factors. But usually, the standard figure,
all over the country, I guess, is if it, at maximum, pumps
two million gallons a day, you would really only get
effectively 46 percent of that to distribute.
Now, is that two million gallons a day after you
apply that 46 percent or is that the maximum pumpage?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: The two million, I believe, is
the maximum over a 24-hour period.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: So, that really we would
only get less than a million gallons a day in actual
year-round usage, correct?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Well, the pump that we are
putting in is going to be providing about 1.4 million gallons.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: But if that's its maximum
pumpage, you got to take 46 percent of that.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Not necessarily. The 46 percent
is based upon, I believe, our ability to reliably service
water sources, and then we allow for, I believe, some downtime
for maintenance and also for peak usage.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, but it is -- it is
standard practice to use that two-thirds of two-thirds figure
for what you can expect to --
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yeah, that's the design
standards for the water system. Operationally, it's possible
that we could use it for longer periods of time.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: And also, I would think
there would be uncertainty, if Maui Land & Pine's well gets
into production before ours, as to whether there might be --
there might be some influence between them that would restrict
the amount either well could pump without causing upconing.
So, it seems to me we still have so many uncertainties that
issuing meters is -- is not the thing to do at this moment.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Clark.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Yes, to get back to the
motion by Mr. Nobriga, I think in the five years I have been
on the Board, I have heard Mr. Fevella and people like him
testify for their meters and plead for their meters. And
here, five years later, both Mike and I are getting off the
Board, and they still don't have their meters.
And I would like to support Mr. Nobriga's motion.
And, you know, I think we are going to -- since the Pookela
well -- you know, we have been relying on the Pookela well to
get more meters out. I think the process is in motion. And I
support Mr. Nobriga's motion to -- let's get those meters to
the people, especially to the families who have been waiting
for years, and to Mr. Fevella.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Mr. Chair, was
there a second to the motion?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: Third.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Question. Right now, the
Department is issuing meters based upon the hundred thousand
additional gallons we received from the Dowling well.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: We have maxed out on that
already, so we are not sending out any more letters.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So, you have allotted that
capacity to people on the list already. You processed the
hundred thousand gallons.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: As an interim measure, could a
portion of the H'poko wells also be distributed before Pookela
comes on the line?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: You know, we discussed over
here, that's something that might be possible action for us to
take to issue additional meters Upcountry.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yeah, I guess I would be more
inclined to be in favor of the Department analyzing the
existing capacity of H'poko wells, determining if there is --
if there is capacity that can be allocated for Upcountry use.
I don't know what that number is, but I think an attempt
should be made to try and identify if some capacity can be
allocated to the Upcountry area, so that the Department can
continue to process the list until such time Pookela well
comes on line.
But I tend to agree with Sally's concern to start
allocating meters based on something that may occur. Although
they appear confident that it will occur, it hasn't yet.
BOARDMEMBER CRIVELLO: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Stacy.
BOARDMEMBER CRIVELLO: I support what Clark and
Mike are proposing. If it's taken five years to do any kind
of analysis, how much longer will we take to come up with some
plan to provide for -- I would like to say the keiki o ka
aina, the people who live here, whose footprints are deep into
the soil.
And we cannot forget that, but we are mandated to
provide the flow of the water for our people. So, I would
like to support that, because how much studies are we going to
do if we are only at the planning stage? So does that mean
that Mr. Fevella and the many families up there would have to
wait another five years for consideration?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you. Any other
discussion? If not, I will call for the vote. All in favor
of the motion --
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Oh, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Could you restate the
motion?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: The motion, as I believe
stated, is that the Board shall recommend to the Department
that they start issuing or processing the waiting list based
upon the projected capacity of the Pookela well.
All in favor of the motion, please so indicate by
raising your right hand.
(Boardmembers Crivello, Hashimoto, and Nobriga
raised their hands.)
Let the record show Stacy, Mike, and Clark in
favor. Those opposed.
(Boardmembers Raisbeck and Okamura raised their
hands.)
Sally and Kenneth in opposition. The motion does
not carry.
Are there any other motions regarding this?
I guess the next agenda item is regarding the
costs and procedures of installing the temporary pump at
Pookela. We sort of wandered off a bit. Is there any motion
regarding the --
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Can we have a recess?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Sure. Have a 10-minute
recess.
(Recess, 10:25 a.m. Resumes, 10:37 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I would like to call the
meeting back to order. Is there any continuing discussion
regarding the Pookela well?
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Mike.
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: In reviewing the Director's
report and the two options available, I would like to make a
motion that this body recommend pursuing Exhibit B, on page
five, which talks about a smaller pump on a temporary basis.
That way, it wouldn't interfere with the installation of the
regular pump that's been engineered. It's on month-to-month
basis. You know, we put it in. We use it. When we are done,
we take it out. Comes off only 75 cents per thousand gallon.
A motion. You going to second?
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Second.
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: All right. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Discussion.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, Mr. Chair.
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I notice on page six, which
is evaluation of proposal for temporary pump installation,
under disadvantages, risks, and this is for either temporary
option, it says delays to the permanent well pump project will
occur. Contractor for temporary pump would have to demobilize
before new project can begin. Schedule for permanent pump
project estimates construction start around August of 2004,
which will conflict with any temporary project.
So, if that is true, then I think putting in a
temporary well would conflict with progress on the permanent
project, which I don't think is a good idea. But perhaps what
was written here, which is quite recently, that's changed
since? I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Does the Director wish to
comment?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Murata.
MR. MURATA: I prepared the cost estimate for
Exhibit B. You know, when this report was given to me to
prepare, one of the prime considerations, I guess, was timing.
How fast can we get this pumping water?
Any kind of temporary pump you put in, if it's
temporary, is going to affect the permanent installation. I
mean, you are going to have to pull the temporary pump in
order for the contractor, for the permanent pump, to come in,
check the plumbness and alignment, order the pump, and get
back in the hole. So, any kind of temporary pump will affect
the permanent project.
When I prepared this estimate, I kind of figured,
well, what if we put in a temporary pump, so-called temporary
pump but on a permanent basis. That way, you know, you put
this temporary pump in the hole. You can run it, if you have
to. You don't if you don't need it. But it's sitting in the
hole.
The permanent pump contractor wouldn't have to
be -- it wouldn't be included as part of his project, because
the pump is already sitting in the hole. You wouldn't have to
pull it. You wouldn't have to put in the permanent pump. You
wouldn't have to test it again. You wouldn't have to take
samples again. So, it's just elimination of a lot of, you
know, many duplicate processes. So that the temporary pump --
you know, the 700 gpm pump is a smaller pump. That's the
drawback, because the 900 gpm pump is a special order.
Even the 700 gpm pump is a special order, but the
contractor for the exploratory phase says that he has one.
His manufacturer has one that may still be available. I am
not sure if it's still available now, but, you know, he -- he
probably needs to check on that now. But, you know, it's just
a matter of how do we get the water out of the hole as soon as
possible and not delay the permanent project. So, this was
one option I came up with.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I am sorry. I don't -- I
still don't quite follow you, because first you say any
temporary pump will delay the permanent project, and just now
you said it will just -- it wouldn't delay.
MR. MURATA: This would be a temporary pump when
you put it in the hole, but it's going to stay in the hole
until you need to take it out. The permanent pump project,
you would -- if you need a larger pump, you would wait until
you needed to remove this pump for maintenance or it breaks,
so you talking two, three years down the road.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Alan, what is the gallons per
day of a 700 gpm? What is the pumping capacity you estimate?
MR. MURATA: I don't have a calculator. One
million.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: One million.
MR. MURATA: So, I guess, you know, one other
thought was that you get a smaller pump in the hole, it's
going to take us time to go down the list to max out that
capacity anyway. So, by the time you reach -- you need to get
a extra capacity, maybe it's time for this pump to come out,
be repaired, replaced, and you can put in a bigger pump.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is it the practice of the
Department to have a replacement pump on hand versus waiting
for it to break and then ordering a new pump?
MR. MURATA: Normally, we wait until it breaks,
because you don't know if it can be repaired or if you need a
totally new pump.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So, what you are saying is to
leave the 700 gpm pump in the hole until it needs to be pulled
because of operational requirements, not just because the
other permanent pump is ready to be installed.
MR. MURATA: Right.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, I might add that
taking this approach, upon which time that the temporary pump
malfunctions, from that point in time it would take, based on
the information that I have, at least eight months for the
manufacturer to build another pump. Then you have to add on
the bidding document preparation time and the bidding time.
So, you possibly could be looking at a year following the
breakdown of the pump to get the permanent pump in place. And
it wouldn't be advisable to have the permanent pump standing
by because of the warranties involved.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Kenneth.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: What would be the cost of
each of these types of pumps, the 700 and the 900 or whatever,
and what would be the warranty problems specifically?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Well, the submitted costs for
the 900 gpm pump is about $400,000. So, as you can see here,
the smaller pump is estimated at $276,000.
With regard to the warranty, my understanding is
that the warranty period is for one year. So, if you standing
by for one year, all warranties are lost.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: So, the warranty is one
year?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Correct.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Is it -- a lot of things
that you buy now, where you get a warranty, you seldom use the
warranty. Is it an important thing to have a live warranty
when you put in a pump?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Well, you are talking about
$400,000. And I guess you could throw in some risk factor in
making the decision as to when you order the pump.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: But --
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Clark.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: If you get a permanent
pump in there and that breaks down, how long would it take to
replace it? Same, same amount of time?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: As Alan mentioned, that would
depend on what went wrong with the pump, whether it could be
repaired or whether it would have to be replaced by another
pump.
But taking the worst case scenario, whereby you
would need to put in the same kind of pump, and it has to be
completely built by the manufacturer, as I mentioned earlier,
it might take up to a year to replace the pump.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair, if we -- I am
just trying to think through the alternatives we are being
offered by Mr. Nobriga's motion. If we put in the temporary
pump, the max capacity, say, is a million gallons a day, that
means the effective production would be about 460,000 gallons
a day.
If we wait for the permanent pump, which might
take a lot longer, ideally, we could get twice that from the
pump, but maybe they might have great difficulty putting it
down the 18-inch hole that was drilled not completely
vertically. So, and if either one of them breaks down, it may
take a year to put the well back in production. I really feel
somewhat confused about this. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is there a reliability
difference between the smaller pump and the larger pump, or do
they basically have the same reliability?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: That issue entered into our
decision making. We are not familiar with the experience of
the smaller pump manufacturer, but we have some experience
with the large pump manufacturer. And as I understand, you
know, the large pump manufacturer has, I guess, a better
documented history of performing.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any other discussion?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I have one more thing,
Mr. Chair. In our decision whether to go with the large pump
or the small pump, it was -- we were made to understand that
the time savings between the building of the smaller pump
wasn't great.
It would be just -- I don't know exactly how many
months difference, but from what we were made to understand,
it wouldn't be -- timewise, it wouldn't be much difference
between the building of a small pump and the larger pump,
because they both have to be specially made.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Clark.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: So, what is the
recommendation, may I ask, of the Department on what option we
should take?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: You mean between A and B?
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Or permanent?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Well, we have just decided in
going with the larger pump, and that's what we have instructed
the consultant to do in preparation of the bidding documents.
BOARDMEMBER CRIVELLO: Can I have a question,
please? So, it is the intent of the Department to go with a
temporary setup?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: No, it's not. We are going
ahead with the permanent installation.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Mike.
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: The exercise was basically
to find out what we can do faster. And, yes, it's true that
both pumps will take time. Alan is pretty confident that the
recommendation in Exhibit B would be kind of like a faster way
to go than Exhibit A, which is basically what was presented.
My motion was to recommend the pursuit of
Exhibit B. My motion had no intent to force the stopping of
the project that's currently going. I am not saying to take
away the placement of a permanent pump, but to go with
Exhibit B, in a temporary slash permanent pump, so that we can
utilize the well and utilize the water that we have found.
Most frustrating for me, as a Board Member these
five years, is how this body takes so much time trying to find
ways of not to supply water to the public. I don't know why
we keep finding out -- finding excuses why we cannot give
water to the public, instead of looking at ways to get water
to the public, which is the name of the Department.
Otherwise, we should just change the name of the
Department to the Department of We No Have Water Supply and
sell sand. Thank you. Yes, we have no bananas.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. The first thing I
would -- personally, I would defer to the Director's
recommendation, so I have difficulty voting in favor of that
motion.
Any other discussion? If not, I will call for the
motion, the vote. All in favor of the motion to pursue the
temporary pump, please so indicate by raising your right hand.
(Boardmembers Crivello, Nobriga, and Hashimoto
raised their hands.)
Let the record show Stacy, Mike, and Clark in
favor. Those opposed.
(Boardmember Raisbeck raised her hand.)
Sally. And Kenneth, are you abstaining?
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Which counts as a vote in
favor of the motion. Okay. And the Chairman votes against
the motion, so the motion fails.
Since we are still on the subject, and I don't
have before us any other motions. Also, could you expand on
this monitoring well on Hog Back Road, and if that could
possibly provide additional capacity, source?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: It's not an agenda item.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: It's on the report.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Oh.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Page seven, number three.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: And your question again, please?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: If you could just expand on
the possibility of utilizing that monitoring well for
additional source. Is the Department looking at that?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Apparently, we haven't done it
yet, but as is stated there, we can explore whether this well
can be developed to provide additional source water for
Upcountry, because this -- as is stated here, that well was
part of the East Maui litigation. And, so, there was a
restriction on the use with regard to the East Maui plan.
But, if we use it for a source for Upcountry, you
know, it might be that we could use -- develop a well and put
it into the system. So, we can explore that.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you. Yes, Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, George. What's the
size of the casing of that well?
MR. MURATA: 12.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: 12 inches.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: So, it couldn't be used as
a production well now and produce a very great amount of
water?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I would think that, you know, we
could develop it into a production well, but the amount that
we would be able to get out of it would be somewhat limited
because of that size.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: And has it been pumped to
determine capacity at all, or because it was a monitor well,
it wasn't pumped, you know, within the kind of testing they do
to determine the capacity?
MR. MURATA: They did pump test the well, and I am
not sure what the maximum draw expected. But, you know, I
guess it's kind of like in the middle of the Hog Back area, so
it would be sufficient to supply the service area immediately
below.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I used to live on Hog Back
Road, so I am real interested in this. So, it would be used
to supply a small area around the well, if it were used for
production.
MR. MURATA: Well, you know, once it gets down to
Haiku Road, then, you know, pretty much the bottom area of
Haiku could be served, and that would allow water from the
Dowling well to be diverted elsewhere.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: My I have a question for the
Director? In discussion of number two starting with
operationally, what do you mean by that paragraph? I don't
understand.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: What this discussion is stating
is that if the temporary pump were to be installed, it would
only be utilized when we couldn't produce water from the
Kamole treatment plant for reasons which could include those
that Wailoa Ditch or some malfunction in the Kamole treatment
plant. In other words, it could serve as a standby source.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: If we put in a temporary
pump.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: And what does that second
sentence mean, if the source is available?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yes. It's saying that provided
it's available at Kamole, at the Kamole plant, it would be
more efficient to pump that water up the Kula system rather
than pumping water from the wells. And the estimated cost is
$2 utilizing the water from the Kamole water treatment plant
versus $5 per thousand gallons using the well.
Mr. Chair, if I may, and to satisfy Member Nobriga
and Member Hashimoto's concern about releasing the meters
right away to the Upcountry area, I will explore the
possibility of using the Hamakuapoko wells, taking that into
consideration for -- as far as reliability is concerned. I
will also explore the possibility of doing system
improvements, so that we may be able to use the Hamakuapoko
well as soon as it's repaired.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you. Anyone else wish
to make a motion regarding this agenda item?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I would move that we --
that the Board supports the Director's recommendation to
continue pursuing the permanent pump for Pookela well without
installing a temporary pump.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Is there a second?
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: A second by Kenneth. Any
discussion?
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: I know you guys probably
putting it on fast track now from what you are saying, and --
but I guess, you know, really, I would like to request that it
be put on fast track, and it's been a while since the monies
were available to get the pump and the specifications for the
pump.
But, I guess, you know, the Board is beginning to
see the urgency or the community's need at this time. So, I
think we should really try to put it on the front burner.
Thank you.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair, I would accept
that as a friendly amendment to my motion. That the Board
request the Department to pursue a fast track on proceeding
with the permanent pump for Pookela without using the
temporary pump.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So, will you second that
amended motion?
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any discussion? I will call
for the vote. All in favor of the motion, please so indicate
by raising your right hand.
(Boardmembers Crivello, Hashimoto, Raisbeck and
Okamura raised their hands.)
Let the record show Stacy, Clark, Sally and
Kenneth in favor. I will vote in favor. Opposed?
(Boardmember Nobriga raised his hand.)
Mike in opposition. The motion carries.
Next agenda item is a presentation, and it will
take approximately a half hour. Would you like a break?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chairman, I would
suggest that the other items under other business be taken up
before A -- oh, no. I am sorry -- before Director's report
under B for the following reason. That the ones under other
business, I would really like to see that not happen today.
And also, the two new board members will be coming on board
next month, and I think this presentation would be very
valuable to them, because most of them will be totally
unfamiliar with the Water Use & Development Plan.
And I think it would be very valuable for them to
have it, perhaps, not at the first meeting that period, but
certainly at the second meeting, when the new members are on
board. So, if that was agreeable to the other Board Members,
that might work out better.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any objection to the request
to defer the next agenda item? Would we need a motion to do
that? Do we need a motion to defer?
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Mr. Chair, no.
I would suggest you just defer unless there's objections.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: No objection?
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: If there are
objections, you need a motion.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Seeing no objection, we will
defer the Director's Report 04-05, update on the Water Use &
Development Plan, to the next scheduled meeting.
Moving on to other business, discussion and
possible recommendation regarding Corporation Counsel's answer
to the questions brought up at the January 29th, 2004,
meeting: "What are the roles of the Board of Water Supply,
the Maui County Council, and the Mayor's Office with respect
to the rate increase review?" and, "What is the proper process
for the Board of Water Supply review of the Department of
Water Supply's annual operating and capital improvement
project budget?" Corporation Counsel.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Yes, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. In your papers, you have my copy of the
February 25th, '04, memo to you concerning questions that were
raised from the January 29th, '04, Board of Water Supply
meeting, which, unfortunately, I could not attend.
As taken from the review of the minutes, I
stated -- I identified two specific issues, one being the
roles of the Board of Water Supply, the Maui County Council,
and the Mayor's Office.
The second question was what is the process and
procedure for review and submittal of the Department's Annual
Operating and CIP Budgets.
Unless the Chair wants me to restate what I
have -- what you have in front of you, I submit that the
document speaks for itself. I would be happy to answer or
clarify any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I have had an opportunity to
read this correspondence, so I would just want to open it up
to discussion at this time.
I guess my concern, the intent for the question
was what happens, like in this past budgeting process, you
know, the budget was submitted to the Mayor prior to any
comment by the Board. What's to prevent that from happening?
It seems a little like an exercise in futility if the budget
has already been submitted.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, as I stated when we
gave the Board the copies of the budget that went up to the
Mayor's Office, you know, at that time, we -- you know, this
is -- the process is somewhat new to us. We have never had to
work through the Mayor's Office in preparation of our annual
budget.
So, the process was somewhat new to us. The
timing of preparing the document, the budget document, was
somewhat late. We had a January deadline to submit the
preliminary budget to the Mayor's Office. And, so, we hadn't
allowed sufficient time to get started earlier and then
present the budget before the Board prior to sending it up to
the Mayor's Office.
This year, we will be making adjustments in the
budget preparation process, so that we can get the budgets to
the Board before we send it up to the Mayor's Office.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair, as I mentioned
in the announcements, the budget process has started with the
Council. And the other day at the Council, I picked up the
thick little booklet that gives all of our budget requests.
And there is still time. There is April, and there is May.
They have to have a final budget by May 31st.
There is still time for this Board to send them advice about
pressing problems they might want to be thinking about and/or
compare what the Mayor sent them with what, you know, we saw.
I think we still have April and May to
influence -- if we wish to do so, to influence the Council's
budget process when it comes to the Department of Water. I
don't know if there's been a tentative schedule set for when
they will consider the Water Department's budget.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Yes, they will be advising us as
to when we will be bringing it before the County Council. We
will get copies of the schedule to the Board Members.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you. And I should
mention that I did testify at the Council the other day,
testifying as an individual, that this problem of engineers
not being able to be paid enough by the County to compete for
engineers with the private sector was something that they
might want to look at while they consider Water Department
requests.
And I didn't -- I told the Council that I thought
Ellen and her planning section could use a lot more help.
They have some very hard work to do, the Water Use &
Development Plan and other things, too, that require lots of
time and lots of detail. So that although I think there's --
in the budget, there is a request for four additional staff
members in the Planning and Resources Section, that may not
even be enough.
And another thing I noticed was that I was reading
the Planning Department Budget. They have 46 -- or they are
asking for a slight increase in 46 people. They do
essentially the same job Ellen has been doing with eight
people in her department. I think eight equivalent positions.
And, you know, I think it's no wonder that
planning for water hasn't been coordinated with planning for
land use when there's such a disparity in resources for the
Water Resources and Planning Section.
So, those are thoughts I had, and I am sure
other -- other Board members might have things they would like
to see the Board communicate to the Council or communicate to
its individuals, either one.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you. Moving on to your
second correspondence regarding the review of water rates, in
your correspondence -- I guess this is dated March 2003. But
you keep saying review and approval, review and approval.
And I guess my question is, when the Board submits
its water rate increase recommendation to the Mayor, is it a
review and approval or deny only type of a decision making, or
can he then propose his own water rate schedule?
That's sort of the gist I wanted to clarify. And
also, can the Council amend the Board's recommended rates, or
is it just an approval or deny situation?
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Mr. Chair, I
lost what you said. You are referring to my March 4th, '03,
memo to Mr. Mateo?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Right.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: At what
section?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Looking through it, it
continually says -- repeatedly says review and approval. So,
I am wondering, with regards to water rate changes, is the
Mayor's position or authority and the Council's authority to
review and approve or deny, or do they have the right to amend
the recommended rates?
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Mr. Chair, the
March 4th memo, '03 memo to Mr. Mateo covered our position as
to the Council's jurisdiction. And that's -- you say review
and approval. The Charter is set up such that water rates,
fees, go to the Board, and the Board recommends to the
administration. And then if approved -- it says, if approved
by the Mayor, the proposed rate shall be submitted to the
Council for enactment by ordinance.
So, that being the case, the Council would have
the final say, and the rates and fees are then embodied in an
ordinance. Previously, the rates and fees are embodied in
your rules. And again, previously, the Council had the final
call to approve any of the rules. So, in essence, they have
the same last decision making.
That being the case, I think in the whole scheme
of this, the Council would have the final say of any monetary
issues, rates, fees, budgets. So, they can amend our rate
schedule.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: So, they can amend our rate
schedule.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: They could. I
don't see anywhere where they can't. Where they couldn't.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: The Mayor could also do the
same thing?
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: The way this is
set up, it says if approved by the Mayor. If the Mayor
doesn't send it down, then, of course, nothing happens. As
some of you may know, previously, when the Board was
semi-autonomous, some rule changes were sent up to the
administration.
The administration, at that time, refused to send
it out to the Council, so the Council didn't even hear it.
You took care of that by rule change that said if they didn't
send it down within 60 or 30 days, it shall go down anyway.
But, this one leaves one to think about what happens.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I guess my concern is, you
know, we are going through this process with the Board and the
steering committee, and we come up with a schedule, recommend
it to the Mayor, and he says, well, that's fine and dandy, but
I don't agree with this. I am going to change it to what I
feel it should be. And, so, it's why. That's my concern.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: Mr. Chair, I
can tell you what I read.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Right. Thank you.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, I think what I am
hearing, if I can restate it, is that this Stakeholders
Committee will make a recommendation to us based on all of
their interaction with the consultants. We will make a
recommendation to the Mayor.
We can revise those, and we can make a
recommendation to the Mayor about it. The Mayor, I would say
my feeling is he has power to change whatever he wants to
change before he sends it to the Council, and they have the
power, just as they have with, you know, recommendations of
the Planning Commission, which has more authority than we do,
that they can make any changes they want at that stage.
But, the question would be along the way, we have
the power to represent interests of the public, who represent
what we think are important aspects of the rates. And, so, I
don't think this is a useless exercise, even though the Mayor
could change it and the Council could change it. That's my --
would you agree with that, Mr. Kushi?
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL KUSHI: I agree with
you, Member Raisbeck.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: That's a first.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any further discussion? Thank
you.
Moving on to the next agenda item, Update of the
Water Rate Study.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chairman, we have within
our -- within the packet, the agenda for the meeting that was
conducted on Tuesday, here in this very same room, with the
Stakeholders group.
The agenda items were covered. Following that, we
have the draft agenda or draft schedule, timetable for the
functioning of the Stakeholders group. And I might summarize
that the Stakeholders Committee meeting went fairly well, and
that the group should be deciding on selecting the Chair and
Vice-Chair for the committee at the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Any questions regarding the
rate setting?
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: I had -- just had one
question. The timetable was -- how long will the rate study
group be meeting? How many? Do they meet weekly?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: It's intended for them to meet
once a month for a period of two hours each session. We have
the schedule attached.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Okay.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, I won't go into the
questions I had, but are the Board of Water Supply Members
that volunteered to be on the committee -- are they voting
members of the committee or are they nonvoting members of the
committee?
DIRECTOR TENGAN: I think -- well, that would be
up to the committee to decide, I would think. But, I don't
see them as being nonvoting members to the committee.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: No further questions? I will
call for a 10-minute recess.
(Recess, 11:22 a.m. Resumed, 11:30 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: I would like to call the
meeting back to order.
Sally, do you wish to provide additional comments
regarding the water rate study?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah. Mr. Chair, I did
read this draft schedule, although --
MS. HOWARD: Sally, the mike isn't on.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yes, Mr. Chair. I read the
draft schedule, and, obviously, they have a lot to cover. I
did hear that they might have to move the schedule up in order
to provide -- approve new rates before the next -- the 2005
Council budget hearings start, and perhaps Clark could confirm
that.
And the other thing is I notice they meet with the
Stakeholders Committee eight times, with the Council five
times, and with the Board of Water Supply three times. That
make me feel like a step-child. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. Moving on to the next
agenda item.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Could we hear from Clark
about the committee?
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Well, our representative
from the Mayor's office did indicate that we needed to get the
budget in a little earlier than was on the schedule, so I
think the committee is going to -- we would have to take that
into consideration to get the -- I guess it was June, on
June -- July 2005. If the water rates are going to go up,
they needed the input earlier. I am not sure what the date
was.
But as far as the meetings, I think meeting with
the Council and the Water Department, or the Board of Water
Supply, the Board, the members themselves will not be meeting.
Is that understood? And the consultant would be the one
meeting with the Council. I think that's what she said on
her -- on the conference call.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Possibly either the Chair or
Vice-Chair of the committee.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Yeah, I think she said the
Chair or the Vice-Chair would attend, but they wouldn't be
testifying. It would be the consultant.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: No further comments, we will
move on to the next agenda item. Presentation of certificate,
plaque, and letter of appreciation to outgoing Boardmember
Clark Hashimoto.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, on behalf of the
Mayor, I would like to present Mr. Clark Hashimoto with a
certificate of appreciation for his serving on the Board for
the past five years and for providing valuable input and
decision making.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: As Chairman of the Board of
Water Supply, I would like to present Clark with, I guess, a
letter of appreciation and this plaque that he can proudly
place upon his wall in his office.
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: Right on.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: And I want to thank you for
your five years of dedication to serve the County and the
people of Maui. Good job.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: Do I need to say
something?
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: If you want to.
BOARDMEMBER HASHIMOTO: I guess five years, you
know, have passed. It doesn't seem like five years, but I
guess it's been five years. You know, I have seen -- must be
a good place to work, because I see the same faces after five
years.
So, but again, you know, I think the staff, Water
Supply staff is a great staff. They are -- contrary to what
you hear from some of the testifiers, I think they have done a
good job.
It's been a learning experience as far as water is
concerned. We have gone, in the five years, I guess, from,
you know, the Joint Venture, East Maui Water Development
Plans, and all the problems Upcountry, and now the Central
Maui and Iao aquifer problems. And I have learned a lot, and
I know that -- I know that we are advisory now. I guess it's
not as fun now. We don't have any TV cameras. Almost every
meeting, we used to have the television cameras.
But it's been a pleasure serving the five years.
And I haven't been as vocal as most of the Board Members have
been, but it's been a great experience, and I will miss these
meetings.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. I would like to -- yes,
Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I would just like to say
that I really appreciate the five years that Clark has been on
the Board and his steady, unrelenting concern for the farmers
Upcountry, which I think we are all concerned about, but I
think he has a special concern for that. Thank you, Clark.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Thank you. Moving on to the
next presentation, a certificate, plaque, and letter of
appreciate for outgoing Board of Water Supply Member Michael
Nobriga.
DIRECTOR TENGAN: Mr. Chair, again, on behalf of
the Mayor, I would like to extend our appreciation and
congratulations to Mr. Michael A. Nobriga for his outstanding
service on the Board of Water Supply.
As you know, Mike has never been one to withhold
his opinion. And numerous times, he has made meetings of the
Board somewhat -- somewhat lightened at times. So, on behalf
of the Mayor, Mike, I would like to present you with this
certificate of appreciation.
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: Thank you, George.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Also --
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: You guys don't even sign
this.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: On behalf of the Board of
Water Supply and the County of Maui, it's my pleasure to
present this plaque of appreciation for Mike's five years of
service.
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: Yes, Kent. Thanks, Cathy.
I was expecting my golden faucet. Thank you, Kent.
I have thoroughly enjoyed my tenure of serving my
community on this Board. And I have met many really great
people, all doing their best to provide the best possible
water service to our customers.
This Department is just so sorely unsung heroes.
You have a lot of employees that work for the County, too,
that just give their all each and every day. And I am just
awed and honored to have been able to come into your lives for
this short period of time.
I have really learned to appreciate what
government was supposed to stand for, but I find that no
longer to be the case. I have witnessed a change of attitude
of the powers that be. It's moving to something that I no
longer recognize.
This body's entrusted to protect the rights of the
little guy, to listen to all options and positions, and act in
accordance with the majority's decision. This is written in
the rules of the body.
How can we continue to allow these rules to be
broken? The Board of Water is provided by Charter and Hawaii
State Statutes. The ability to harness, harvest, protect, and
defend the most essential of resources, water.
We have no jurisdiction on how many people are
allowed access to this resource, but we do have the fiduciary
responsibility to provide it, not just to the high and mighty,
but to the average guy that wants to make a place for his
family.
I find that we are constantly prevented from
carrying out this charge. Kind of sad that after Jonathan
Starr left, Akaku don't come no more. I don't know why. We
have written rules, and the rules have been written. The
rules never disappeared. There are still rules, and the rules
are provided as a map for proper, nondiscriminatory
proceeding.
What applies to the largest developer must also
apply to a single-family dwelling and vice-versa. We do not
have two separate set of rules. We have only the one, and
Mr. Fevella, from Kula, deserves his requested meters along
with Makena Resort Partners. It's the same thing. Both have
invested heavily into their properties. Both have followed
the letter of the law, the rules. Now those in charge are
trying to change these very rules without proper public
participation.
The rules are being broken. The rules call for
commission to review our County Charter every decade. After
this commission has provided a year of work in the prescribed
manner provided by rules, with public hearings, questions
presented, answers being obtained, open deliberation and a
final report and recommendation provided, there are those that
cannot accept those findings.
What happened to the will of the majority?
Somewhere, somehow, we no longer follow that rule anymore.
And that is going to haunt me, and I hope it haunts you, too.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: I wanted to say to you,
Mike, that although you are going off the Board, and we will
very much miss your humor and good temper, I hope you will
continue to give us input out of your vast knowledge and your
family's vast knowledge of the history of water on Maui. And
give us -- come to us to make suggestions.
I would value them, because I know you have the
concern of the people at heart, and you have a lot of
knowledge that shouldn't go to waste. So, thank you very much
for your service.
BOARDMEMBER NOBRIGA: Thank you, Sally. I shall.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. Moving on to the next
agenda item, receipt of Board Member request for agenda items
to be placed on future agendas. Yes, Kenneth.
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: I would like to request that
maybe at the next meeting we be brought up to date as to what
progress could be made as far as the discussion about the
Hamakuapoko well and other sources for Upcountry. Would that
be too soon at this meet thing? Not clear.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: You want an update on the --
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Progress.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: -- possibility of finding
additional source for the Upcountry use in the near future?
BOARDMEMBER OKAMURA: Yes, that was mentioned on
the discussion session of this agenda.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Yes, Sally.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, I would like to
request that Jacky give us a short presentation -- not
presentation, necessarily, but either a one-page or a
five-minute kind of thing about what the results were at the
community meeting to be held March 23rd, in Paia, about the
H'poko wells. I would like to have the Board get an update
about what people said at that meeting.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: Okay. Any other requests?
Seeing none, moving on to the division reports. Are there any
questions or comments regarding the division reports?
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Brief recess, or just I
need to look at the stuff that was handed out that I didn't
have a chance to look at. So, just a second. Or maybe Ellen,
if she's still here, to just tell us what the pumpage was for
Iao and for Waihee.
MS. KRAFTSOW: The Iao subtotal was 17.8937, and
Waihee was 4.022.
BOARDMEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HIRANAGA: No other questions for the
division reports, this meeting is adjourned.
(Adjourned, 11:47 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