BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2005
Held at the Kalana O Maui Building, 200 South High Street,
Seventh Floor, Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii, commencing at 9:00 a.m.
on April 28, 2005.
REPORTED BY: Rachelle Primeaux CSR No. 370
A P P E A R A N C E S
CHAIRPERSON: MICHAEL VICTORINO
VICE CHAIRMAN: KENNETH OKAMURA
BOARD MEMBERS: GINNY PARSONS
RALPH JOHANSEN
KENT M. HIRANAGA
MICHELE McLEAN
SALLY RAISBECK
GREGORY SMITH
CORP COUNSEL: ED KUSHI, ESQ.
DIRECTOR: GEORGE TENGAN
DEPUTY DIRECTOR: JEFFREY T. PEARSON
BOARD SECRETARY: CATHY HOWARD
BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
* * *
CHAIR VICTORINO: I'm going to call the meeting to
order. Today, April 28th, we have present Sally Raisbeck,
Kent Hiranaga, Kenneth Okamura, Ginny Parsons, our newest
member Greg Smith and myself Michael Victorino. Before we
get started and do the minutes, I would like to ask, if you
will indulge me, give a moment to our newest member Mr. Greg
Smith, if you would allow him to introduce himself, say a
few words about himself, his family because we all would
like to know a little bit more about him. So Mr. Smith,
would you kindly?
BOARD MEMBER SMITH: Sure, no problem. My name is
Greg Smith. I've lived here on Maui for just about 17 years
now. I've been blessed with three children born on this
island, and I'm a realtor on the West Side and would like to
do my best to serve the community that my children are
growing up in. I'm sure you all know, good intentions
without any actions are meaningless, so that's why I'm here.
That's it.
CHAIR VICTORINO: That's good. Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER SMITH: Thanks.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Let me say on a personal note,
I've known Mr. Smith since he first got to this island many,
many years ago, and I've watched him develop into a fine
young man with a family and proud to have you here.
BOARD MEMBER SMITH: Thank you, Mike.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Next I would like to have
approval of the minutes from the March 28th meeting -- March
24th, correction, the March 24th regular meeting.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: So move.
CHAIR VICTORINO: So moved. Do I have a second?
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Second.
CHAIR VICTORINO: If there are any corrections,
deletions in the minutes itself, Ms. Raisbeck, you're really
always terrific about that.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: I'm sorry, I have to
confess I have not yet read them, Mr. Chair. If we could
approve them with the usual 30 days for --
CHAIR VICTORINO: Yeah, we'll do that, approve
with the 30-day review. Okay. All those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
(A chorus of aye's.)
CHAIR VICTORINO: Opposed.
(None.)
CHAIR VICTORINO: We do have --
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair, excuse me,
you've skipped over announcements.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Oh, that's right, I apologize.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: And I wanted to take the
opportunity of the announcement to ask a question of the
director if I might.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Is this question prevalent to
something we're going to discuss a little later? I'm just
asking.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Well, it's about on the
21st, there was -- the USGS gave an informational meeting
about water availability on Maui. And I don't believe I was
informed about it. And I wondered if the Board had been
informed about that or who actually attended that meeting.
I believe they were presenting the second report about the
ongoing project, you know, on modeling Central Maui and I
would have liked to go to it, but I don't think I was told
about it. Could we ask the director who attended that
meeting?
CHAIR VICTORINO: Mr. Tengan.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, I don't think that's an
announcement.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Can we put that under Director's
Report and we can ask him at that point?
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Okay.
CHAIR VICTORINO: We'll keep that for under
Director's Report, and we can bring the question up at that
point.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Any announcements? Now that
we're under announcements, does anybody have an
announcement? Okay, moving right along. Approval of the
minutes for the 24th. That was done, okay. Now we go to
the public testimony. I'm sorry, we do have one public
testifier, Richard Mattson. He is from Kaunakakai, Molokai.
And he has on your agenda Item Number 7, request for a water
meter. Mr. Mattson, any one of these mics would be fine.
Maybe if you like right there. That way you can kind of
speak to everybody. Have a seat. Get yourself comfortable.
MR. MATTSON: Thank you. Good morning, Board
Members, my name is Richard Mattson. I'm here today to
request a water meter for our lot on Kamiloloa Place in
Molokai. In August we took our savings and purchased this
lot, August 2004, and we understand that we owned a legal
conforming lot in a legal County approved and engineered
subdivision. In December, we heard that water meters were
not being issued due to an eight-inch main upgrade. This
effectively condemned our lot. After many discussions with
Alva Nakamura, Ed Kushi and Danny Mateo, we understand this
requirement should not apply to our subdivision as it should
apply to new development rather than existing subdivisions.
I would like to thank Alva Nakamura for his
patience, help and diligence. I would like to thank Ed
Kushi for his legal advice in this matter and for Tina
Thompson and Danny Mateo for their help and representation.
I hope the Board will agree with their findings and grant us
a water meter. It's been kind of a long go with this. We
sure appreciate your help. Thank you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: My apologies. Will everyone
make sure they turn off their cell phones? I apologize.
Okay. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
MR. MATTSON: That's fine.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Do we have any questions for
Mr. Mattson?
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: I might later. I would
like to have some questions for the staff, but probably
later.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Yeah, maybe I'll wait until
later.
MR. MATTSON: Thank you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: When we take up your matter, we
may call you back for some additional information. But
thank you for your testimony. Okay. Moving right along to
Item Number 4, Unfinished Business.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Excuse me, there's no staff
report regarding this matter?
CHAIR VICTORINO: Well, it comes later on under
communications. I'm going to bring up the matter under
communications because that request comes up at that point,
Mr. Hiranaga.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: Okay. Sorry.
CHAIR VICTORINO: No, that's okay. Under
Unfinished Business, Corp Counsel, you have an opinion
regarding the Board of Water Supply members receiving
reports from the Department and Department of Corporation
Counsel via E-mail, whether it's a violation of the Sunshine
Law or not. Mr. Kushi.
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, I believe you have a copy
of a letter addressed to you dated April 27th. It's a
two-pager and basically the question was whether or not
written or electronic communications directed to the Board
of Water Supply Members or the Board in its entirety from
staff or other nonboard member third parties would be a
violation of the Sunshine Law. The answer is no. Our
response is no. I believe the Sunshine Law -- we believe
the Sunshine Law Chapter 92 is -- protects the integrity of
board meetings amongst board members, and it does not
address nor I don't think the intent was to address third
party communications, especially from staff to the Board
Members to assist your obligations. That being the case, we
don't think it's a violation.
Now, having said that, once you get the
communications from staff or third parties, then you in turn
communicate between amongst yourselves, that's another
issue.
CHAIR VICTORINO: You're referring to amongst
Board Members now?
MR. KUSHI: Correct, and I believe we addressed
that before.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Yes.
MR. KUSHI: But I narrowed the response to the
question asked.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Are there any questions in the
response that we got from Corp Counsel Kushi?
Ms. Raisbeck.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, I would just like to
notice it says there is no prohibition about nonboard
members of any stripe sending communications to all the
Board Members. That doesn't infringe the Sunshine Law in
any way, correct?
MR. KUSHI: It would include nonboard members, any
third party.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, anybody.
MR. KUSHI: Right.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: So anybody can send
communications to all the Board Members, but the Board
Members ought not to communicate within -- about that
particular communication with each other; is that correct?
MR. KUSHI: Except for at a duly scheduled board
meeting.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Except unless it's put on
the agenda and scheduled at a board meeting.
CHAIR VICTORINO: So am I correct in saying that
if staff was to send one to all Board Members, a
communication, whatever it may be, to all Board Members,
that's fine. But if they send it just to me and then I
forward it to all the Board Members, that would not be
appropriate?
MR. KUSHI: There are minute exceptions to that.
If it's agenda items, staff says agenda or draft of agenda,
Mr. Chair, please review for the agenda and you send to all
the other Board Members, these communications are deemed
administrative. I believe the OIP says that's okay. But if
it's substantive in content, staff sends you a report on
Pookela well amendment to the construction contract for your
information. You send it -- you in turn send it to all the
Board Members with a note, "Please review and what do you
think? Please E-mail me back." That is substantive.
CHAIR VICTORINO: That would be prohibited.
MR. KUSHI: That should be brought up at the next
meeting.
CHAIR VICTORINO: At the next board meeting.
Ms. Parsons.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Mr. Kushi, can you send it
to one other Board Member for discussion?
MR. KUSHI: Amongst the two of you?
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Uh-huh.
MR. KUSHI: Interactions between two or less Board
Members are permitted as long as you don't commit to votes.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: So two members can
discussion agenda items?
MR. KUSHI: As long as you don't make a pact or
commit yourselves to how you're going to vote at the next
board meeting.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: So Mike could send
something to Ginny. I'm sorry, Mike.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Go ahead, Ms. Raisbeck.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Mike could send something
to Ginny. Can Ginny send something to me?
MR. KUSHI: That would be deemed serial
communications. You cannot bump down the line. And then in
essence, you have a nonboard meeting discussion amongst all
of you via E-mail separately or serially.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Okay. But two is okay?
Two can talk about things so long as they don't solicit a
vote, discuss a vote?
MR. KUSHI: That's one of the permitted
exceptions, permitted interactions.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Mr. Okamura.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Sort of like following up
on Sally's question, if a third party -- there's an agenda
item and the third party calls me up regarding an agenda
item to provide more information, is that like a legal
discussion like, you know, maybe somebody is talking to me
about their request for a water meter maybe before the
meeting?
MR. KUSHI: By phone call?
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Yeah.
MR. KUSHI: Phone calls are not addressed in any
of the opinions I cited, but they are communications. I
don't see a violation of that with the proviso when this
Board had authority to issue decisions and discussions and
when this Board could be appealed to or taken to court in a
contested case setting, similar to what the Planning
Commission is in, those type of communications would be
deemed ex parte communications in that setting. And you
would have to reveal that when the matter came to the court.
And we usually caution all of these Planning
Commissioners not to discuss those matters because then, you
appeal it. The other side, the losing party will say, "Did
you ever talk to the party without -- not in the Board
meeting or the Planning Commission meeting?" And you would
have ex parte communications. You may be then disadvantaged
or advantaged compared to your other Board Members, and then
you would have to recuse yourself.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Any other questions? Okay. Mr.
Kushi, thank you very much. I appreciate that.
MR. KUSHI: Apologies for being late on the
opinion, but I did promise you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. And if any Board Member
has anything else they further -- any further question as
far as this matter and you want to go directly to Mr. Kushi,
fine. I have no qualms with that, but if you then want to
bring back to discuss here, then it has to become another
agenda item. And let the record show
Mr. Ralph Johansen has blessed us with his presence. Good
morning, Ralph.
BOARD MEMBER JOHANSEN: Good morning.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Moving along to communications.
Now, we'll take up the matter of Elaine Mattson requesting
the water meter. Now I would like to ask the staff their
opinion on this whole matter. I think they've given us the
report, but who would you like to report on this?
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, can we wait until Alva
gets back? I sent him on an errand, and let's do Director's
Report.
CHAIR VICTORINO: If this is okay with the Board,
may we defer that until Mr. Nakamura returns to the room,
and we'll go directly to the Director's Report. And we'll
start with A. 05, Director's Report 05-05, verbal report on
the Wailuku Shaft Agreement. Mr. Tengan.
MR. TENGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a
little handout here.
CHAIR VICTORINO: And one more thing before you
start. My apologies, I did not recognize that our Director
George Tengan is present, and Corp Counsel Ed Kushi is also
present in the room, so please note that on the record.
Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, based upon information
that we have in the office, I had a sketch drawing drawn up
for the Wailuku Shaft to give Board Members an idea of what
we're talking about and what it looks like in sketch form.
We can start from the control house. The control house sits
at an elevation of 406.2 feet above sea level. And if you
draw a perpendicular line from that point down to sea level,
where that line intersects sea level, from there, the
distance is about 647 feet to the pumps.
And so I did a little calculation to determine
that the shaft should be about 764 feet long going at a
diagonal of 30 degrees. The pump room sits at an elevation
of about 26.5 feet above sea level. From there, the pumps
go down about 150 feet deep into the aquifer. So this is
just to give the Board Members an idea pictorially of what
we're talking about. As you know, we're in discussions and
negotiations with Kehalani Mauka and doing an agreement for
the use of Shaft 33. The purpose of the agreement is to
allow the Department to use Shaft 33 until such time that
the developer constructs replacement wells. At the present
time, the Department uses the shaft at no charge.
While this agreement is still in negotiation, it
provides -- the agreement will provide for the following,
although some of these terms are still -- you know, we
haven't finalized the agreement, but these are the items
that I can mention to you that I included in the agreement.
It will provide for continued use of the shaft by the
Department free of charge, and the Department may pump water
as is necessary. As you know, we have filed for an existing
use of 5.771 million gallons per day with the State Water
Commission, and that's still to be determined by the State
Water Commission.
The Department will be solely responsible for all
operation and maintenance costs and a pro rata share of the
cost to abandon the use of the shaft.
Eventually we want to abandon the shaft because
it's somewhat of an OSHA liability. The construction of it
is somewhat questionable, and so, you know, we don't want to
use that as a permanent shaft, permanent source. Anyway, in
the meantime, Kehalani will need to develop additional
sources to provide for the development. Kehalani will need
to complete the replacement valves within two years after
the issuance of the water use permit by the State Water
Commission.
The Department will be sharing in the cost of
developing new wells on a pro rata basis. The shared costs
are to include design, permitting, environmental review,
construction and provision for any other equipment that may
be needed to run the wells. The new wells will eventually
be dedicated to the Department for operation and maintenance
and Kehalani will provide the appropriate easements.
Kehalani will be giving source credits based upon the
portion it develops.
At the present time, Kehalani estimates that they
will need a total of 1.45 million gallons per day for the
entire development area. One important item we have here is
that Kehalani will not be given reservations. Meters will
be made on a first-come/first-serve basis. The Department
will use its reasonable efforts to meet Kehalani's request
for meters. If the policy changes prior to complete
buildout, Kehalani may be granted water reservations in
accordance with the Department's rules and in accordance
with the Department's rules instead of source credits. The
policy that's being referred to here is the
firstcome/first-serve basis. So with that, that's my report
on the agreement.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. I open the floor up to
questions. Ms. Parsons.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Mr. Tengan, can you state
who the parties are, specifically who we're dealing with
with the shaft issue?
MR. TENGAN: Kehalani Mauka.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: And who is Kehalani Mauka?
MR. TENGAN: That would be Stanford Carr and his
organization.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Okay. I have a few
questions here. I hope you don't mind. You said the volume
that we've been getting out of this shaft has been how much
specifically?
MR. TENGAN: Well, at the time of designation, our
records show that we were pumping 5.771 million gallons per
day; however, later it was discovered that we had some
erroneous readings from or the method in which we calculated
the pumping was erroneous, and so corrections were made to
that and subsequently was determined that we were pumping
less than the 5.771 per day.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: And the well that Kehalani
is proposing to replace the shaft with is going to bring out
how much?
MR. TENGAN: Well, they need to develop 1.45
million gallons per day for their own use. And whatever
else it -- any capacity produced more than that, the
Department would be providing the financing to pay for our
share.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: That was one of my
questions. Number one, we don't have a set amount that the
size of this should be that you read. And why would we help
to develop the infrastructure for the developer for this?
MR. TENGAN: Because we need that source.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Well, I understand that,
but he also needs the source as well.
MR. TENGAN: He's going to be paying for his own,
for what he needs, and we're going to be paying for what we
need to service our existing customers.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: My understanding now the
way that the -- that the Administration and the County have
been looking at things, especially in the Planning
Department with the planning commissioners is that
development infrastructure is going to be put back toward
the developers to provide for us in order to get some of
these things accomplished. Why wouldn't we not do the same
thing with water?
MR. TENGAN: We are.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: No, we're not. You're
going to eliminate that shaft, and you're saying we're going
to help --
MR. TENGAN: The shaft isn't ours. It belongs to
Kehalani Mauka.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: It doesn't belong to
Kehalani Mauka.
MR. TENGAN: Yeah, it does.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: No, it doesn't. The water
belongs to the people of --
MR. TENGAN: The shaft belongs to Kehalani Mauka.
The water belongs to the people. I'll agree with you on
that.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Okay.
MR. TENGAN: But the shaft belongs to Kehalani
Mauka. Let's get that straight.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: All right. So the facility
itself belongs to the developer. But we have been using it?
MR. TENGAN: Yes, for the past --
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: And we could do
condemnation if we needed to.
MR. TENGAN: We don't want to condemn. It's a
liability.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Well, that's something we
need to discuss. I have a problem with this putting money
in for the developer to help develop these -- this
infrastructure.
MR. TENGAN: We'll be only paying for the portion
that we need. The developer will be paying for what he
needs.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: But we already have what we
need with the shaft.
MR. TENGAN: We don't. Eventually we need to
abandon the shaft because it's a liability.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Well, do we have a plan on
how much more we're going to be expanding? If he needs 1.45
and we have been pumping up to 5, that's about 4 and a half
million more gallons than we need, and we're going to pay
for that for the -- for the pump itself? I mean --
MR. TENGAN: Shouldn't we pay for what we need to
develop?
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Well, no, really I think
the developers need to start putting their money up.
MR. TENGAN: They are.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Not enough.
MR. TENGAN: That's your opinion.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: I know it is.
CHAIR VICTORINO: At this point, let me open the
floor for other questions. Thank you, Mr. Tengan. I think
most of us understand what you're saying, but go ahead,
Ms. Raisbeck.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, I wanted to ask
George, if I may.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: What the lesser amount
that it was found, not 5.771 MGD? What did you reduce that
figure to?
MR. TENGAN: I forget the exact amount. I don't
have it with me.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Was it less than 5?
MR. TENGAN: No, it was still about 5, I believe.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: It was 5 approximately.
MR. TENGAN: If you're leading to whether we would
have been designated had we had, you know, had done
reporting more accurately, no, it wouldn't have been
designated.
CHAIR VICTORINO: I think the question --
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: No, I wasn't going to ask
that.
CHAIR VICTORINO: I don't think she was leading
there, but that's okay. Thank you. I think we understand
had the recording been done properly or correctly, we may
not have had to go into designation, but I don't think that
was the issue.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: That's water under the
bridge.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Yeah, thank you.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: My other question was if,
you know, do the negotiations envision a certain amount,
total amount of water of which Kehalani Mauka would get 1.45
MGD, and how much would the County get out of the jointly
developed facility?
MR. TENGAN: That's something that we still need
to determine because, as you know, we have ongoing efforts
at the Iao tank site. We're drilling a well there. You
know, how much water we can get out of that well is unknown
at this time. We're developing the Waikapu well. I think
we're -- I believe the capacity at that site should be about
1.5 million gallons a day. So, you know, we need to take
these things into consideration in determining how much more
capacity we would need to develop, but we anticipate
eventually we would abandon the use of Shaft 33. And that's
why we're requiring that the Kehalani Mauka pays for its own
source, the wells that they need to provide 1.5 million
gallons per day to their project.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Another question I have,
Mr. Chair, is what happened at the most recent Water
Commission meeting regarding was any -- did they take any --
did they have any discussion? Did they take any action?
Are they waiting to see what the result of the negotiations
between the Department and Kehalani Mauka are?
MR. TENGAN: No, they're not awaiting the
negotiations. The State Water Commission did take action on
our request for the -- what do you call it?
MR. KUSHI: Declaratory Order.
MR. TENGAN: They denied our request, and they're
taking up the water use permits at the present time. They
haven't taken any action on the water use permits yet.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: But they refused our
request for them to say that the water was ours from usage
or what?
MR. TENGAN: No, no, they refused our request to
accept our -- our petition as timely filed.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: I see.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. Mr. Hiranaga, did you
have a question?
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: I have a statement.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. Can we hold off on the
statement and get all the questions and come back to your
statement if that's all right with you, sir.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: Sure.
CHAIR VICTORINO: You have a question,
Mr. Okamura?
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: I just wasn't real clear
about this project. So generally in the future, you plan to
develop another pumping facility well, or you plan to use in
the future, plan to use the same well and the developer
would develop another well or -- yeah, I don't quite
understand that part, how the logistics or whatever you call
it is going to work.
MR. TENGAN: As I stated earlier, we plan to
abandon the Shaft 33 as a source. And since we are planning
to do that, additional sources need to be developed.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Okay.
MR. TENGAN: Kehalani Mauka will be developing its
own sources basically, and we need to develop additional
sources to meet our current demand.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: So in this particular
area --
MR. TENGAN: But in this case here, you know, if
the developer is able to develop more than the 1.45 that
they need, then we will participate in the cost of that
development to pay for our share.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: So actually in the future,
you plan to close this particular well?
MR. TENGAN: We plan to abandon the shaft, right.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Okay. Sorry, I couldn't
quite understand how it would have worked.
MR. TENGAN: You see, if you look at the drawing
here, it was once determined that, you know, in order to
abandon the shaft, this whole tunnel here would need to be
filled with concrete. But that, you know, a final
determination hasn't been made, and because of the way the
shaft was constructed and the condition of the pump room
here, you know, we see it as a liability. That's something
that we don't want to get involved in.
Because let's say we condemn the source. That
would be fine for the immediate -- for our immediate uses.
However, at some point in time, you know, this is going to
become a big liability, and that's why we want to abandon
use of that shaft.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: So what kind of time line
are you talking about more or less, five years?
MR. TENGAN: Well, the developer has two years
from the time the State Water Commission grants the use
permit, whether it be the Water Department or Kehalani Mauka
or a combination thereof.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: So actually, it's still --
you plan to work together I guess?
MR. TENGAN: We are. That's the purpose of this
agreement.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: But if you need another --
I guess you haven't really thought about like in the future
whether you're going to put another well in this area, or if
you close this, you're going to depend on the other two
wells? Is that --
MR. TENGAN: Well, we are planning on depending on
those two wells, and the final amount additionally that
we've got to develop is going to be based upon the output we
could get from the Waikapu well and from the -- from the Iao
well.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Okay. And Kehalani is
thinking about putting a well in in this approximately same
area?
MR. TENGAN: That's my understanding.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: And possibly the Department
would go in with them on this one?
MR. TENGAN: Correct.
CHAIR VICTORINO: And let me ask one more
question. When this new well is being developed between
Kehalani Mauka, which is they're wanting 1.45 million, are
we trying to stay at the same level of pumpage, the 5
million that is presently being or supposedly being pumped
out of here? Is that what the total usage out of this new
pump in Kehalani Mauka and us? What are you looking at.
MR. TENGAN: Yeah, we needn't restrict ourselves
to that because, although we can pump on an average day of
5.771 gallons, million gallons per day, that doesn't mean
that that's our maximum. It's the maximum amount that we
can pump on any given day because we're working with a
12-month rolling average.
So, you know, we can pump 8 million gallons per
day as long as we're not damaging the aquifer, but provided
that over a year's time, that pumping remains at 5.771
million gallons per day or less.
CHAIR VICTORINO: And that's what the Water
Commission has stated as a threshold for the Iao aquifer?
MR. TENGAN: That's what we're working with right
now.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Yes, Ms. Parsons.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: What is the liability with
the shaft?
MR. TENGAN: The liability, well, our -- our
employees refuse to go down there. We need to hire a
contractor to do any kind of maintenance and repair work
that needs to be done down there.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Mr. Hiranaga.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: I had the opportunity to
slide down the Wailuku Shaft and climb back up, and I would
not blame the employees that do not want to do that on a
regular basis, because if that shaft, which is not Gunited,
were to collapse, there is a pipe about this big on the side
that you're supposed to climb up 764 feet, and that's your
escape route. And so I believe there is a liability and
danger to life and limb and that this shaft should be
eliminated.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Well, thank you for that
insight. I think some of us didn't understand that.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: And I think if you need
to, you can -- probably the director can arrange an
opportunity for you to slide down that shaft and climb back
up if you like.
CHAIR VICTORINO: The sliding down is not hard.
It's the coming back up.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, Jeff Pearson has been down
there, and maybe he can comment on that.
CHAIR VICTORINO: One more question before you say
your comment. How old is this shaft? When was this
originally -- I think that's my question. How old is this
shaft?
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: Eighteen-something I
think.
MR. TENGAN: According to information we have, it
was probably done in the 1940's.
CHAIR VICTORINO: 1940's.
MR. TENGAN: Right.
CHAIR VICTORINO: So approximately around 60-plus
years old?
MR. TENGAN: Right.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Mr. Pearson.
MR. PEARSON: I was just going to reiterate what
Mr. Hiranaga said. I've been down there a couple of times.
I think it's considered confined space because there's only
one outlet, and it's a steep shaft. There's ropes that are
available for you to use to guide yourself going down and
going up. There is good ventilation with the piping that's
there. There's two large pipes. One pumps air into the
shaft, and then the other one allows the flow of water out
of the shaft. Lighting isn't that great. There's standing
water down there from the lubrication of the pumps. It's
kind of a mess, and as George said, we hired an outside firm
to go down there and service the motors.
I went down there when that firm went down there.
That's the reason I went down, so it's a pretty -- it's a
pretty poor situation. We did bring the Hawai`i, the HIOSH
down there, and they cited a lot of instances. We've met
their immediate concerns, so they haven't come back to us
yet. But also there's a communication issue. We actually
are working on that still now. Because we're managing the
-- we're still operating the shaft, so we have to have it as
safe as possible. So we're trying to get it so there's
emergency communication that can be from the -- from the
bottom cavern to the top.
CHAIR VICTORINO: From the pump room?
MR. PEARSON: From the pump room, correct.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. Any other questions? I
think one of the things I will say is there's no question
what I've just heard this shaft should be abandoned in the
very near future and new sources developed. And before
someone is hurt or even worse, and I think that's something
I agree with. The only thing I would like to say is I hope
that once these new shafts are developed, like Ms. Parsons
mentioned, sharing costs is one thing, but being taken
advantage of is important in my mind. And secondly, that we
stay within the source limits that we've been dictated by
the State Water Commission, because that's something I don't
want to see new sources developed and start exceeding and
have other problems and get to the point where seawater or
brackish water gets in our system and we've totally hurt our
aquifer.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, I might just remind the
Board that the 18 million gallons per day is 90 percent of
the sustainable yield, so the State Water Commission still
has the authority to issue permits, use permits for an
additional 2 million gallons per day. So that doesn't mean
that we're restricted to the 18 million gallons per day. At
some point in the future, the State Water Commission will
need to make a determination on whether they're going to
issue more use permits and, you know, we should be right in
line for those use permits.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Is the Waikapu -- Waikapu site,
the shaft there or the well there, is that part of the Iao
Aquifer?
MR. TENGAN: Yes, it is. It's on this side of the
Waihee Stream -- I mean Waikapu Stream.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Yes, Ms. Raisbeck.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, I wanted to ask what
is the location of the top of the shaft? I don't really
have a good picture of where --
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: It's right over there to
the right right there.
MR. TENGAN: You see the Quonset hut right out
there? That's the --
CHAIR VICTORINO: To your left.
MR. TENGAN: Just to your left. The coconut trees
are right in the way. If you come on this side of the
window, you can see it.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: So that's very close to
us.
MR. TENGAN: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Okay. Now, is there any
reason that either you know of or Jeff knows of that that
site is a particularly good -- well, I guess if it's
slanted, you're actually taking water somewhere else, not
directly -- not straight down, but more toward the mountain
probably is where you're actually taking water. Is there --
MR. TENGAN: If you look at this diagram here, it
goes at an angle about 30 degrees.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: So it's about 647 feet
horizontally?
MR. TENGAN: Right.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Okay. Is there any need
or any point that the County would need to condemn some land
so that it can sink its own shafts?
MR. TENGAN: Shafts or wells?
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Wells, I'm sorry, wells.
Wells, its own wells.
MR. TENGAN: That's something that we're working
with the developer also. And that's why we're saying here
that we would be participating in any costs developed beyond
the developer's need.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: But there's actually two
options; one is they do their well, we do our wells, and the
other one is we do shared wells and, you know, pay part of
the costs and they take care of digging the wells. But if
they were to do their wells and we were to do our wells,
wouldn't we need some land to dig those wells on in this
area?
MR. TENGAN: Correct, and those lands would
probably -- are probably under the control of Kehalani Mauka
right now.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, but we do have the
power of condemnation.
MR. TENGAN: Correct.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: And I'm told -- I don't
know if it's --
MR. TENGAN: It seems to me it's a more expedient
way to work with the developer to achieve a common goal.
CHAIR VICTORINO: I think if I hear you correctly,
Mr. Tengan, you would prefer cooperation versus condemnation
wherever possible.
MR. TENGAN: Correct.
CHAIR VICTORINO: And whether I agree with that or
not, I think that's the Department's preview and that's why
they're moving in that direction. I understand what you're
saying, Ms. Raisbeck, and there may be a time in the near
future we may have to look at that. But I think if we can
achieve cooperation versus condemnation, I think that's --
and as long as we all get the results we need, it's a
win-win situation. But again, that's my point of view. I'm
not saying that's the Board's point of view. Okay.
Ms. Raisbeck -- I mean Ms. Parsons, sorry.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: I think I understand where
Ms. Raisbeck is coming from. And I agree with you. I think
we need to preplan things before we just solidify with
developers. And this is probably not the time for this
discussion, but I'm going to ask that maybe we put this on
the next agenda and specifically put it on when we meet with
the Planning Department. But if you all are in the same --
same vein as I am about how we handle developers and what
they ask for for projects, could we have a discussion where
we could all put in our thoughts and ideas of how a
developer and development should be handled from this point
forward?
And maybe until we get to that point, Mr. Tengan,
let's not sign anything -- sign, seal or deliver anything
until we can have something to suggest to the
administration, until we've had a chance for discussion.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. We'll take that up and
bring that under future agenda items for concerns later.
Okay. Oh, I'm sorry.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: I would be very much
interested to hear Kent's thoughts that he wanted to make a
statement about.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay, I thought that's --
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: I did about the well. But
I'll make a comment about condemnation. Condemnation is a
notorious process. Typically you want to negotiate and
mutually agree to whatever you're trying to obtain. And if
you're unable to, then the -- the governmental body has the
power or the right to condemn, but it is a civil process.
And it is a very time-consuming process. So I would think
that the Department would want to try and negotiate first,
and as a last resort, resort to condemnation. That's my
opinion.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Thank you. And I think all of
us have various opinions and maybe on the next agenda item
next month or in the next meeting, we can bring that up and
share that idea. Okay. I would like to go back, if I may,
under communication. Mr. Nakamura is now present, so we
would like to take up the matter of Elaine Mattson
requesting a water meter. Mr. Nakamura, we deferred this
until you came back, so if we may, we need your expertise.
Mr. Mattson, would you like to come up? And you can sit
right here, yes, please, in case there's any questions by
Board Members both for you or Mr. Nakamura. Go ahead.
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chair, I believe all of you
have a copy on the staff report on this Mattson water meter
request. At issue at the time this came to us was that all
these areas that new water meters were being requested, you
know, we were kind of -- had been requiring those applicants
to upgrade the water system to meet the necessary fire flow
requirements.
However, we -- after looking at this particular
situation, we enlisted the services of Corp Counsel to take
a look at the rules and see how the rules, in terms of how
we would interpret the rules. And what we got back from
Corp Counsel was the fact that in established subdivisions
where these subdivisions have been approved by both the
County and the Department of Water Supply in the past, that
we would allow a water meter to be issued and not hold the
applicant responsible for upgrading the system to today's
standards. Because obviously at the time that the
subdivision was approved, it was approved based upon our
standards as it existed at that time. And obviously since
that time, our standards have been upgraded. And we have
been running into a lot of situations where the cost to
upgrade has been just very high and has caused a lot of
problems.
So what we've done now is on these established
subdivisions including Mattson's request, we will be
allowing water meters to be issued assuming that there is
source availability. And in the case of Molokai here, the
source was not an issue. It was more the transmission
pipelines that was an issue. So in this one, we will be
processing the meter as requested.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. Any questions?
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: Yeah.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Mr. Hiranaga.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: This -- your position
also applies to -- does this position apply to the entire
County of Maui?
MR. NAKAMURA: This would apply to the County of
Maui, that's right.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: The entire County?
MR. NAKAMURA: Yeah. Provided -- keep in mind
provided source is not a problem.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: Well, what you're
basically saying is inadequate fire protection should not be
a burden placed upon the water meter applicant. As long as
there's adequate flow in the pipe for additional meters,
inadequate fire protection should not be a burden upon the
water meter applicant?
MR. NAKAMURA: I don't know if I would go as far
as saying shouldn't be a burden. We do have the
responsibility to be sure that the water system has the fire
protection capabilities. All we're saying here is that in
established subdivisions where the County and the Department
of Water Supply has approved the infrastructure that was put
in that at that -- again, emphasizing assuming no source
problems -- that we would then issue meters for these
subdivisions, only established subdivisions.
So for each applicant that comes in to us, we
would do an in-house study, take a look at and go through
the historical times as to when the subdivision was
approved, if, in fact, it was approved, and we would
establish all of those things before we would give the okay
to issue the meter.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: So this has some
ramifications to the people on the upcountry water list who
have been held back from obtaining water meters because of
inadequate fire protection, so you're going to inform these
people of the change?
MR. NAKAMURA: Well, the thing, too, is in the
upcountry area, we have source problems also, so that is
another, you know, condition that is holding back the
issuance of water meters. As you know, you're familiar with
the priority list and all of that.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: But you're going to inform
the people on the list that have fire requirement issues
that they no longer have to put in these up upgrades if they
qualify?
MR. NAKAMURA: If they qualify. But in the case
of the upcountry, because there are source problems, I'm not
sure how we're going to deal with that particular issue yet.
We were kind of focusing on the Mattson situation and trying
to get that clarified.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: Thank you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Kent.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Okay. I think it would be
better if he answered first.
CHAIR VICTORINO: You have a question for him
specifically? Okay, come, Mr. Kushi.
MR. KUSHI: Mr. Chair, just to clarify, Kent
Hiranaga's --
CHAIR VICTORINO: Try not to put your head down,
because she can't hear you at that point, sir. Go ahead.
MR. KUSHI: To clarify Mr. Hiranaga's discussion
with Alva, in the upcountry area, as you know, we have the
priority list. People on the priority list are either going
through some subdivision, going through subdivision, but
because of the source, they cannot get the meters. But the
fact that they're going through subdivision, they need to
comply with the fire requirements, okay. So that's a little
different.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Yeah, but they're --
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay, wait a minute. Wait a
minute.
MR. KUSHI: Let me finish.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Let him finish, please.
MR. KUSHI: So you're going through subdivision.
Not only you have source, but you need to go through the
subdivision requirements, which include fire protection.
The other scenario are these standalone lots, nonsubdivided
lots who want a meter, you know, but because of the source.
Now, the standalone lots which have not gone through
subdivision is not part of this situation which Alva is
talking about. In that case, if there's no fire protection
line fronting the property, we won't issue the meter.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. Yes, go ahead.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: I believe there was a
party that came before the Board who owned a lot in Pukalani
that was requesting a water meter and was told that the
current water line was inadequate for fire protection, and
they were told that they needed to install an eight-inch
line along -- it was that subdivision right below Pukalani
Terrace I believe. I think the Board may have recommended
that the Department issue the meter anyway, but I think
there's other people on that same street, if they don't have
a meter, you know, it was an established subdivision and
would probably qualify for a meter now, but they may not be
on the priority list.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. I think we're going into
different areas, but okay. Ms. Parsons, you had a question.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: I think you were hitting on
what I was thinking of, too, because there are people out
there with lots that have asked -- I was thinking of
Pukalani as well, that they had come in here before us.
CHAIR VICTORINO: I would ask Alva, based upon
what you have said today or the direction of the Department
is taking that -- and I think, you know, you guys have
nothing better to do and lots of time, right; however I
think any cases that have been brought up that may fit into
this scope as far as source availability, established
subdivision, I think that's what I've heard from you, that
those cases, if they have been denied for fire flow
protection purposes, be reviewed. Because I think we have
to be fair, if we say yes to Mr. Mattson, and you just
stated earlier for the entire County of Maui and based upon
Mr. Kushi's description, so long as it fits in those
parameters, let us not deny anybody. And of course, they're
on the priority list.
And there's so many factors, I don't want to spend
all day discussing the factors, but so long as we take a
review on that and no one is excluded, I think that's
important, but I don't want someone else coming in front of
us and have all this done and we should have done it and had
been done as issuing an meter. Ms. Parsons.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: And also increasing meter
sizes, would that fall into this, too? We would not -- in
my mind's eye, I wouldn't think that if we have a fire flow
issue, we wouldn't increase the meter size in order to
accommodate somebody that still has a problem flow-wise,
right?
MR. NAKAMURA: Yes, this will primarily be
required for people requesting a five/eighths-inch water
meter for the particular lot.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: And the other thing I was
going to suggest was have we looked at suggesting or making
it part it to have these folks put sprinklers into their
homes where it takes -- uses less water if there is a fire
if they are doing the build. It's a protection for
themselves, but it uses less water and it's also a safety
factor since there isn't a lot of pressure in that area.
MR. NAKAMURA: I believe the requirement for fire
sprinklers, that comes from the Fire Department. And we
don't really get involved in that. Our requirements are
different or separated from what the Fire Department
requires. Having said that, just for your input, too, since
you brought this issue up, I am in discussions with people
at the Fire Department taking a look at some of the rules
where they're doing one thing and we're doing one thing and
trying to bring it together. So we're in the process of
looking at that right now. I believe they're trying to
contact a couple of the other counties on the other islands
to see how they handle their particular situations where
there is this divergence in terms of policy and how you deal
with these kinds of issues.
And hopefully sometime down the stream, you know,
we'll be getting together and hopefully maybe come up with
some recommendations of how we can kind of bring these two
different divergent policies together so it will be more
consistent in terms of what we're trying to accomplish.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Are we going to put that on
the planning meeting?
CHAIR VICTORINO: We will do that. And also Alva
was going to give a report, but since he has not enough to
report on, thank you for bringing that up. Because until he
has something firm, I thought just bringing piecemeal was
not what we were looking for. They are in the modum right
now of discussion, so I think that's very good, and I
appreciate that, and we'll put that on our planning.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Oh, did you have
something?
CHAIR VICTORINO: I'm sorry.
BOARD MEMBER JOHANSEN: Just one thing.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER JOHANSEN: It seems to me to be a
matter that should not simply be coordinated between the two
departments. It should be a matter that the Mayor's office
takes primary responsibility for. And I don't know whether
that is the case. Since the coordination of the Departments
is the responsibility of someone in the Mayor's office.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. I'll take that under
advisement. Thank you, Ralph. Sally, you had a question or
a statement?
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: No, I -- this business of
the Department and the Fire Department, the Water Department
and the Fire Department having different standards for what
constitutes fire protection, that is something that should
be handled not just by agreement about changing practice.
There should be changes in the rules that make it clear what
the actual rule about fire protection is, and my feeling
would be that the Fire Department rules are probably
adequate, sufficient, and I know that they do allow
sprinklers in lieu over standpipes or hydrants or whatever.
And I believe it is known that sprinklers are a
far more effective way of preventing, you know, loss of life
and damage than -- than not having sprinklers. So I would
like very much to have the Board appoint perhaps one member
or two members to be involved also in the discussions
between the Department and the Fire Department and the
Mayor's office if they're involved in order to figure out
what changes in our rules will be needed to have a fair and
equitable arrangement about fire protection requirements. I
would suggest -- would this be a possibility, Mr. Chair?
CHAIR VICTORINO: That could be a possibility.
I'll take that under advisement.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: And maybe talk with the director
and as well as Alva and see if that can somehow be arranged
for further meetings. I don't think that's an unreasonable
request.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: But let me make one correction
to your statement earlier when you said that sprinklers
reduce loss of life and property damage. Unfortunately,
from the insurance industry, that is not correct.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Really.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Because the water damage can be
more extensive than fire damage, and believe me, that is my
business to understand that. When I say water damage,
especially home sprinkler systems -- I'm not talking
commercial now, they may vary -- but home sprinkler systems
in many cases is a central sprinkler system. So when one
sprinkler goes off, in many cases, the rest of the
sprinklers go off. And that could cause extensive water
damage, a lot more than a fire could. Now, fire can destroy
your whole house. Have you ever had your house flooded.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Well, no.
CHAIR VICTORINO: So just from a point of view
from insurance, and I'm -- you just said property damage.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Well, life is more
important.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Yeah, okay, well, no, you said
property, so I'm correcting the property part. I'm not
referring to life, just the property part. Water damage can
be much more extensive than fire damage if a sprinkler
system goes off in the entire house just from a property
point. That's the only correction I wanted to make. Go
ahead, Mr. Okamura.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: I had a question.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Sure.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: So generally what you're
saying is that the Mattson's property for water meter meets
the requirements when the subdivision was approved, but now
it doesn't meet the requirements?
MR. NAKAMURA: As far as fire flow?
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Yeah.
MR. NAKAMURA: Right, that's correct
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: So it's only fire flow?
MR. NAKAMURA: Fire flow.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: So it's just a matter of
pressure?
MR. NAKAMURA: Fire flow, the size of the pipe,
the pipeline.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Not the volume of the water
or anything?
MR. NAKAMURA: That involves the volume, too,
yeah, but the increase of piping size.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: So they could -- so with
that six-inch or whatever size water line they have, if you
have enough pressure and flow, you could meet the flow
requirements of today if, you know, theoretically, or you
cannot with the six-inch?
MR. NAKAMURA: Not with the six-inch, not with
what we require today.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: I see. So just the size of
the pipe?
MR. NAKAMURA: Yeah, the size of the pipe.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Thank you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Go ahead, Ms. Raisbeck.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, one more question
for Alva. What is the definition, what is the criterion
that supply is adequate? In other words, upcountry is there
say an area or is that it's known that if a lot met the same
definition as the lot on Molokai that we're talking about,
that there would be considered to be adequate supply to that
place? Or say Pukalani, is there adequate supply at
Pukalani, or what is the criterion for adequate supply?
MR. NAKAMURA: For adequate supply?
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Well, you said that if the
fire flow requirements are -- there's not enough for fire
flow, this lot on Molokai that Mr. -- I'm sorry, I've
forgotten your name.
MR. MATTSON: Mattson.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: That Mr. Mattson
represents. They do not have adequate infrastructure for
fire flow, adequate for fire flow. But they don't have a
supply problem you're saying, so what is the distinction
that this lot does not have a supply problem, and what
would -- what would define a supply problem for a lot say in
Pukalani? Is there a supply problem?
MR. NAKAMURA: Well, I know you know that we have
a problem with supply up in the upcountry area. That's the
reason why the priority list was established, because if we
issued meters to every single individual that wanted a water
meter, we would run out of water. We wouldn't be able to
supply everyone. So we do have statistics as to what the
amount of water we are able to get from, for instance, the
treatment plants and wells and all of that, and that's all
established as to what the supply amount is. And based upon
that, it's established about how many customers we would be
able to serve from those -- that particular area.
So the upcountry area, obviously there's a
shortage, and until additional sources become available,
we'll continue to have this shortage supply problem. On
Molokai in this particular location coming from this
particular source, the source is not a problem not at this
point in time.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: All I'm trying to pin down
is exactly what amount constitutes not a problem and what
amount constitutes a problem, a stronger definition.
MR. NAKAMURA: I think to answer that question,
we'll probably have to give you some matching numbers.
Maybe that might be a way to answer that question. We will
have to get back to you probably on that. I don't have that
formula right now, but what we would probably have to do is
take a look at the number of customers served in the
upcountry area versus what the amount of water is available
in the upcountry area and combine, you know, compare the two
and you can see what the availability is.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Okay.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Ralph.
BOARD MEMBER JOHANSEN: Just to follow up on what
you said about water meters, the fact that they may be
feasible or outbuilding the buildings with less property
damage entailed. I just wondered, you said that it's likely
that if one sprinkler goes off, the entire system will go
off, which is substantial damage. I would think that given
how sophisticated other things are that that could be
prevented. I just wondered what your answer would be.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Well, so long as the system is
designed that way, sometimes people for the area of cost
saving may go with a cheaper system that may cause that kind
of a problem. Also, like I just told Ms. Parsons because
she said their sprinkler heads are set up to melt down and
go off in just one area, but those areas also if stoves,
heaters, heat lamps could also trigger that off and not
necessarily a fire, because if you get enough intensive
heat, that could melt. But I mean we're going into more
semantics than that. I'm just saying that just the
correction about the property damage, that's the only thing
I was addressing.
BOARD MEMBER JOHANSEN: The reason I feel it's a
matter of concern is because it is -- otherwise, it seems to
me a feasible solution to the problem of inadequate flow of
water protection.
CHAIR VICTORINO: As long as the homeowner decides
that, you're right, Ralph.
MR. MATTSON: Can I say something?
CHAIR VICTORINO: Yes, Mr. Mattson.
MR. MATTSON: I've been involved with fire
sprinklers before in construction. It was adopted from
where I had come from, and in order to be able to put in an
effective sprinkler system in a house, you have to put an
inch and a half copper water line through your ceilings.
And in order to be able to supply that inch-and-a-half line,
a five-eighths water meter just isn't going to do it, so we
had to upgrade all the water meters to at least one inch and
some of them depending on the square footage had to be
larger than that. So in the effort to conserve water on one
hand, the requirement for upgrading the sprinkler system
just blew the water conservation out.
The second thing, the condition that we have in
Kaunakakai, we have two fire trucks. They can't possibly
pump that supply dry. There's no way they could pump the
capacity that comes out of that six-inch main. We have fire
hydrants, as many fire hydrants as possible. We're not a
lack of fire service. We've talked to the Fire Department.
The Fire Department says they have no problems fighting any
fire anytime in our area. The requirement to upgrade the
line from six inches to eight inches will pick up only ten
percent in water flow. It's not that much different.
Eventually maybe they will be able to put in an
eight-inch main, but it's very, very costly, about a hundred
to $200 a foot to bring that type of a line in because you
would have to rip up the streets, replace our six-inch line.
But our six-inch line is pretty standard for the industry.
I know that I can see the point that in the new subdivsion
where an eight-inch main would be required depending on how
many homes would be involved, but our six-inch main only
serves our one street and just the limited number of homes
that are on that street, and it comes directly out of the
water tank through an eight-inch main to that six-inch main.
Thank you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Thank you, Mr. Mattson, for your
expertise. We appreciate that. If not, Kent.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Mr. Chair, I move we
recommend approval for a water meter for the Mattsons.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Second.
CHAIR VICTORINO: It's been moved and seconded. I
think we've discussed the matter to its maximum already.
I'm going to call for the question. All those in favor.
(A chorus of aye's.)
CHAIR VICTORINO: Opposed.
(None.)
CHAIR VICTORINO: Thank you, Mr. Mattson.
Although that was just more of a formality, thank you very
much. Thank you, Alva, for the information. And like I
say, the only thing most of us would like to see is a review
on some of the past, if that was the case, a review on those
cases just to make sure that these people are not without
help for a meter.
MR. NAKAMURA: Okay.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Thank you for working with
the customers.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Could I at this point ask
the question about the meeting, the USGS meeting on
central --
CHAIR VICTORINO: Before you do that, I'm going to
call a five-minute recess.
(Recess taken.)
CHAIR VICTORINO: I would like to reconvene the
meeting. Let it show that Michele has joined us. Thank
you.
BOARD MEMBER McLEAN: Thank you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay, next agenda item. I lost
my agenda. Oh, here, next agenda item will be the update on
the Pookela well. Alva, or should I say
Mr. Nakamura.
MR. NAKAMURA: Mr. Chair, on Pookela, just to give
you a heads-up on what's going on, we've received the pump
and motor submittal from the drilling company, Bailey.
We've been reviewing it, and after reviewing what they
submitted, it was determined that two items that we are in
the process of trying to resolve right now, one is that the
power factor of the motor pump combination did not quite
meet our spec was one thing. The other one was the
efficiency of the pump/motor combination didn't quite meet
our spec also. We're in the process of trying to resolve
and trying to decide exactly what we want to do.
Power factor is important because for those of you
may not know what that is, Maui Electric on their rate
schedule has a penalty for installations that has a power
factor less than 85 percent and the lower that you go, they
charge -- make a surcharge on the amount of energy that you
use. So if you operate the pump a lot, you know, that could
become quite substantial depending on how much of a
surcharge that they put on. The reason why they do that is
if the power factor is low, they have to provide more
generation to afford a particular service. So that's the
reason why they have this penalty. If you go above the 85
percent, then they give you a credit. So it is to some
degree interest in the part of the Board of Water Supply to
have a power factor at least of 85 percent or higher. So
we're trying to resolve that issue right now.
The other one on the efficiency, of course, if the
efficiency is lower, we won't get as much water out of the
well as we would expect. And as a result to get the same
amount of water, we have to probably run the pump that much
longer to get the same amount of water out. So these are
two issues we're trying to work out with the consultant at
this time and with the drilling company. And, in fact, we
will be -- in fact, we had a meeting talking about this and
there are some issues we're still trying to resolve, but
that's kind of where it stands right now.
The thing that's putting a lot of pressure on us
right now is that the pump and motor installation is with
the manufacturer. It has been ordered, but it has been put
on hold temporarily pending the outcome of our discussions
with the driller. The problem is that in order for it to
keep this whole project on schedule, the order has to be in
or approved by tomorrow, so we have some things that are
going back and forth right now in trying to resolve this
particular thing. That's the major issues right now
regarding Pookela well. So that's kind of where it stands
right now.
CHAIR VICTORINO: If we don't by tomorrow get the
order confirmed, what kind of time line now are we looking
at.
MR. NAKAMURA: I'm not sure at that point.
Because they're going to have to go back and resubmit a new
set of specs and to see what it would take to meet the spec
that was laid out, and there's some cost issues involved and
all these kinds of things, so like I said, we're trying to
work with them in terms of what we can do to expedite the
whole matter as fast as we can.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Any questions?
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: What is the power factor,
the 85 percent power factor?
MR. NAKAMURA: That, to be technical, it's --
it's -- well, it's a mathematical --
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: It's the thing on the
refrigerator when you buy the refrigerator?
CHAIR VICTORINO: Energy saving.
MR. NAKAMURA: No, no, no, no, no. It's a means
of determining the amount of what they call reactive power
that you draw from the system. And why that is important is
the more reactive power that you draw, the more generation
that the power company has to generate in order to provide
the same amount of power to that particular customer. So
that's why they have the penalty where they limit you to
this 85 percent.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Power factor?
MR. NAKAMURA: That's right.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Thank you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Any other questions? Yes,
Mr. Hiranaga.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: Just a clarification. So
if a decision is not made today or tomorrow, then this April
1st, 2006, number would move back?
MR. NAKAMURA: That's right, it would probably
move back.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: Is the Department still
issuing meters based upon the assumption that this Pookela
well will come on line?
MR. NAKAMURA: We are still issuing meters, yes.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: And you're confident
you're not overextending yourself?
MR. NAKAMURA: No, we've been watching that very
carefully. So we're targeting, you know, I believe up to
about 300 -- 300 level, and then once we get to that point,
we'll have to relook at it again. We haven't reached that
yet. We're only in the 120 or 130 area, so we have still
have a ways to go.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: 130 meaning the number --
MR. NAKAMURA: Number on the list, yes.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Any other questions? Okay. I
guess, you know, that is not really good news, but I would
hope by -- and if you could make it a point next meeting,
I'll put this on the agenda, I would like a continuous
update if the Board Members don't mind. I think this is
important. And maybe at that point, you can give us better
estimations as far as that. And also maybe not a real
technical, but more of a schematic what this energy charge
is as far as credit and charges, so that the board members
may better understand, just a real quick schematic what that
means in this area.
MR. NAKAMURA: Okay.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Moving right along, the next
agenda item will be report and study of feasibility to
alternative sources of energy. Kent.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: I mean that's what you
asked for?
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: Yeah.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Go ahead, Alva.
MR. NAKAMURA: Okay. Subsequent to the one you
asked about, I got a call by a gentleman named Art Seki, who
is I believe Director of Technical Development at Hawaiian
Electric. They made an offer to us to conduct a feasibility
study to consider use of alternate energy on the County's
water supply system. When we talk about alternative forms
of energy, what we're talking about is putting in things
like inline generating systems, so in other words, as the
water flows in the pipeline, it will turn a little turbine
in the pipe and in turn, generate electricity, those kinds
of things.
And initially they told us they would basically,
Hawaiian Electric would fund this study for us. However,
just about a couple of days ago, another note came in from
him and he's now asking us for some seed money to help get
this thing started to the tune of about $25,000. And I got
back to him yesterday basically telling him that right now
we don't have any funds to do that. Right now, '06 fiscal
year budget is already -- it's cast in concrete already, so
maybe we could possibly consider this in '07. I got a note
back from him this morning. He was saying, well, he hoped
we could do it within the next year, so I'm going to propose
to him if maybe Hawaiian Electric can foot the bill for now,
maybe in '07 if we can get the approval to help with the
funding of this, but this has to be talked over with the
director and the budget people to see if this is a
possibility, but that's kind of where it stands right now.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Well, the word seed money, and
maybe you're using it in a loose manner, but I've always
understood seed money is money you put upfront but you get
back.
MR. NAKAMURA: Well, I'm not sure if they plan to
refund us anything. This was not talked about. But I kind
of thought about that in the same light that you were
talking about, but you see, to get the things started
though, I guess they needed some funds upfront. And right
now, we don't have those funds available. So I'm in
discussions with them right now. I'm not sure where it's
going to lead, but that's kind of where it stands right now.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Ralph.
BOARD MEMBER JOHANSEN: That brings up a question
of what the Public Utilities Commission requires of electric
companies when it is their responsibility to provide
generation of power for the community for the benefit of the
community at the most efficient, most cost effective and
most adequate supply, whether anyone in the County has to
come up with the funds in order to generate a study as to
whether present methods of generating power are adequate.
I would like to know what the applicable statutes
and the rules if the Commission provide in that regard.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. Ralph, if you would hold
that off for a future agenda item, I think that would be
appropriate. I think we may be putting Alva on the spot
asking him a question he may not be able to answer right
now. But I think that would be something I would like to
look into. Or if anything, something of that nature, any
board member including yourself, Ralph, if you would like to
look into that matter and bring it back as a report to the
body, I would be more than happy to accept your assistance
in that area.
BOARD MEMBER JOHANSEN: I'll look on line. If
it's not there --
CHAIR VICTORINO: That's fair enough. Okay.
That's fair enough. That's fair enough. Any other
questions? If not, I'll move along to Director's Report
05-08 Planned Improvement and Expansion Projects for the
Fiscal Year 2006 to 2012. That's right. That was a lot of
stuff, so I hope you guys all had a chance to go through all
of this. There is a lot of stuff here. Who would like to
-- Ellen.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Just if you have any questions. I
should tell you that this has changed again. We still don't
have the final.
CHAIR VICTORINO: I saw this little amendment over
here.
MS. KRAFTSOW: But the assignment to INE's would
be the same. And for now in the interim, anything that
wasn't '06, that wasn't moved out as in '07 until we break
that down and spread it out.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Any specific questions? I think
something like this you can take the whole day and go
through it, but I would limit it if I may. And, you know, I
let the Board make that decision, but, you know, kind of '06
is where we really need to and then anything that you think
may be something you would like to look at in the future, we
can discuss it further. But anybody have any questions? I
tried to go this the other night, and whoa, that was a lot,
excuse me, to be honest.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: I have a question,
Mr. Chair. Hello.
BOARD MEMBER McLEAN: It's recording. It's not
for amplification.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, the list of projects
cut, Ellen, we received a little two-page memo at the
meeting here. And it says list of projects cut totaling
$1.935. Was -- were the cuts made by the Department to -- I
mean what was the sequence of who cut this and how it was
decided what would be cut?
MS. KRAFTSOW: We had to cut that much in funding,
so it was decided -- I'm not -- I was actually absent that
week, so I would defer to Holly on that about why we had to
cut the funding. But we had to cut the funding, so we did.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Go ahead since the question has
been brought up, please. I forgot. Introduce yourself.
MS. KRAFTSOW: I'm Ellen Kraftsow.
MS. KAU: I'm Helene Kau, and I'm the assistant
fiscal officer. And in answer to your question, we were
required to cut 1.9 because there had been a change in the
way that carryover savings had been calculated historically.
Apparently, there had been an error. And so the end result
was that we were required to reduce funding, and therefore,
you know, we had 1.9 less to spend.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: And what was the basis on
which projects were chosen to be cut? Who decided that, or
was there any particular criteria for what to cut?
MS. KAU: I think I'll defer to Ellen.
MS. KRAFTSOW: It looks like several of these we
just cut a portion of the funding, which meant that we would
have to just this year tighten our belts and do a little bit
less of that category. I think they tried wherever
possible, it looks like, to just leave some funding in the
project but cut what didn't absolutely have to go and --
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Sort of proportionate?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yeah, and the hydraulic model they
wouldn't move into operating, but cutting it for fiscal '06
only leaves six months uncovered because it's in CIP '05, so
I could get by for six months without the funding. They may
have a better estimate for NASKA. I don't know. That
budget went down. But for the most part, it looks like they
left in the money just as lesser amounts.
CHAIR VICTORINO: So, in other words, if I hear
you correctly, what you try to do is not eliminate anything,
more or less defer it or just lessen the amount that you
were funding for this year for '06 hoping that in '07 to
recover and catch up in these areas?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yeah, I mean something will
obviously be eliminated, but not the whole category it looks
like from just looking at this page.
CHAIR VICTORINO: You said an error. And I love
when that word error comes up. Because it's -- it's
mind-boggling, but that's okay. How did we come to that
conclusion on this error, and what caused the error to have
developed? Just because I'm not smart enough to understand
that.
MS. KAU: Actually, I was not involved at that
time with determining where the definition of carryover
savings had been clarified. And for further clarification,
it was a County-wide problem per se. Ours is not the only
department that was affected by this clarification.
Unfortunately in our case, we didn't have lapses to cover,
and hence the reason we had to cut 1.9 for fiscal year '06.
But the question -- my understanding is that the question
was raised in Council as Council looked at carryover savings
for fiscal year '06. And some of the numbers appeared
extraordinarily high, and that's when the red flags went up
and further clarification was required by Department of
Finance and whatnot. And so I believe that there were
several departments that where changes were made.
CHAIR VICTORINO: So actually this clarification
came from the Department of Finance based upon the Council's
request?
MS. KAU: I believe so, yeah. I know there were
discussions with the budget director, Department of Finance,
and I was not involved in all of those discussions. But I
was involved at the tail end in one particular meeting.
CHAIR VICTORINO: So this will, this ruling or
this forthcoming carryover or the ruling on the carryover
will be consistent from this point forward?
MS. KAU: That is my understanding, yes, because
now we have a better understanding of how that is defined
and how we should be calculating it going forward.
CHAIR VICTORINO: And also this will be reflected
in next year's 2007 -- or it's reflected in 2006 obviously.
MS. KAU: Yes.
CHAIR VICTORINO: But in 2007. And the capital
end on the other side of the capital end or the amount, is
that reflecting the impending rate increase?
MS. KAU: I'm sorry.
CHAIR VICTORINO: The rates, the rate structures
are going to be changed as of July 1st?
MS. KAU: Our budget included, yeah.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Included that, that's what I was
asking. Was it inclusive in that already?
MS. KAU: Yes.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Any other questions? Yes,
Ralph.
BOARD MEMBER JOHANSEN: In the discussion here, I
would like to bootstrap this question in here. I had asked
this item be put on the agenda, and it wasn't. I'm still
concerned about the relationship between improvement and
expansion and whether expansion funds to the extent
necessary are coming from the generation of funds through
the water meter charges, new meter charges. And I noticed
that the last time we were given a small chart that said the
amount of expansion was 60 percent roughly and the amount of
existing plant improvement was 40 percent. And that to me
doesn't jibe even though there's a major product coming up
towards the end of this projected period. It doesn't jibe
with the amount being collected by water meter fees. And I
would like to have a breakdown or a clarification of that so
I understand.
MS. KRAFTSOW: You know, I'm sorry, Board Member
Johansen, I thought this was what you wanted. This is a
breakdown of every project, and for each project whether
it's improvement or expansion, on Page 176 of your budget,
of your agenda, from Pages 17 to 45. And it has every
project listed by district and then by year and then by
whether it's improvement or expansion. So you can look at
any district and any year and see which projects are
considered improvement or expansion. I thought that was
your question.
BOARD MEMBER JOHANSEN: To the extent that it is,
I have to look.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. If you would and if you
would like it to come up for further discussion at our next
meeting, we will bring it up. But if you would review that,
Ralph, and then let us know. Yes, Ms. Parsons.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Ellen, how does the cut of
a million nine affect us, and I'm not trying to beat a dead
horse, but we've got a well we're looking to develop with
Kehalani, for example, and we're going to expand funds to
share in this cost. How does that -- how does that fit into
your overall picture? I mean is the -- is the well
development something that should go on the back burner
until these funds are made up or these funds that were
missing, are these more important at this point to get the
funds back in for this?
MS. KRAFTSOW: I knew that what was cut were the
things that we could -- we didn't really want to cut
anything, but the things that we could most live without is
what was cut. I think the current financial picture, we
cannot keep up with the pace of growth at the current
financial state that we're in. I mean that's just a fact,
and we're behind in every, you know, major district.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: So before we start making
promises to developers that we're going to party with them
in development of infrastructure, maybe we need to look at
what we're cutting out here more closely and try to get this
back into the picture before we start expending money on
infrastructure expansion.
MS. KRAFTSOW: I think that we're so far behind
that infrastructure expansion at this point is not just
expansion. It's bringing us up to where we need to be, so I
think that what was cut was already what we could most
afford to cut out of the things we had to choose from.
Yeah, so I wouldn't necessarily be delaying added
infrastructure where it's sorely needed.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: I'm just saying but if a
developer is capable of bringing us -- bringing to the
picture the entire well without us having to expend more
money, that's probably more attractive, isn't it?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Of course.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Yes, Ms. Raisbeck. Sally, go
ahead.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Yeah, I just wanted to ask
does -- I'm sorry, I haven't completely read the pages,
which I appreciate very much. I think it's very useful to
have this presentation. But I haven't read it all. Does
this laying out of capital expense include anything for the
closing of the Wailuku Shaft within the next five years or
for new wells other than the Iao tank well or the Waikapu
well, was there anything in it for those?
MS. KRAFTSOW: There are several new wells, but
not within Iao aquifer per se. I mean the distribution of
withdrawal projects are the Iao tank site well, the Waikapu
well and there may be some kind of Wailuku Shaft location
revision, which to be honest off the top of my head, I don't
recall if the closure and reconstruction of that well is in
here.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: That would probably be a
major expense.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Page 19.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Is it on Page 19?
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Iao source development, Iao
tank site, Wailuku shaft development.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Right. Initially -- that's a
slightly different thing. Initially when we were doing Iao
tank site well, we were deciding whether to drill a well at
Wailuku tank shaft site or at Iao tank site. And it was
initially called Wailuku Shaft because we knew we wanted to
be distributing from that well. And then they put it at Iao
tank site. But now I understand that there's a
consideration of also putting a well at Wailuku Shaft, and I
don't think I've gotten that in here yet, and my apologies
for that.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: 1.2 million was that the
high reading; is that right?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yeah, 1.2 million for the
development phase.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Kent.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: How did you arrive at these
projects to be put on this seven-year list? How did you
arrive at that?
MS. KRAFTSOW: We have -- the way the CIP was put
together was first a great big list of projects for 20 or
however many years was added, and that was done by a review
of all the fire protection maps compared to community plan
designations. And this is actually before the days of GIS I
mean, and we actually drew it in by hand on the fire
protection maps to identify areas that were substandard for
designation and any line that was less than six inches. And
then to look at demand forecasts. And based upon demand
forecasts to schedule storage and source, in some cases not
even having a specific site or name to begin with.
Then when that entire list was compiled, then a
list of all our tanks and all of our pumps and just so that
we could do a replacement schedule and in an attempt to find
out which pumps were oldest so that we could schedule the
old ones first. And then once all that was together, each
year actually a few times a year, it's reviewed with members
of engineering and of baseyard as to which lines are most
urgently in need of repair, where are we getting the most
breaks, where is engineering sometimes in its design
process, if there are other issues coming up or
opportunities for partnership in storage upgrade.
So it's on an annual basis, it's sort of a mutual
effort of planning and engineering in the field. But on a
longer term basis, it's based on forecasts and just having a
list of substandard infrastructure or just infrastructure
that might need replacing.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: On an annual basis, do you
have a timetable for doing that with the Department, or you
just you have to -- how do you know that? You're doing it
once a year. How do you know?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Oh, we actually have several
meetings every year. I think last time the first draft of
the '06 budget was passed out in -- this is already '05 --
it's June of '04 about I passed out the first draft, which
is just the projects that were listed and then also the
five-year. And what we do is sit down and okay is there
anything out here that's more important that needs to come
in. That's like a first cut. And then we get a list of
where are the breaks and priorities from baseyard crew. And
at district supervisor's meeting every month, it's discussed
which systems are having problems and where those problems
are. And I'm not always at those meetings, but I make sure
and get information from people who do attend and from each
district. I speak to the supervisor of each district, the
field supervisor of each district as well as the engineering
supervisors of each district.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: So that long list that you
started with, were you the one that did that, the long list?
MS. KRAFTSOW: For the most part, yes. But I
didn't do it -- I mean I -- at the time that I did it, there
were, you know, other master plans within the Department
that I compiled. There were obviously the lists of lines
less than a certain size that I could just see from the map,
and I had one of the draftsmen also help with that, a list
of tanks that had been prepared before I got there that we
had just checked and added to, a list of pumps I got from
the head of -- so I did the organizing and compiling, but it
wasn't just all me thinking about it.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: So do you do that, do you
sort of figure out, okay, this is the projections you have
for growth, for example, are you the one that sits down
with, you know, the projections and this list and figure out
where we need to do work, or do you have a staff that does
that?
MS. KRAFTSOW: I sit down with forecasts and have
like breakdowns in my computer of each area. And what I
have about demand for each area, but I don't say this thing
should be cited here. I go to the engineers and get their
input. And I -- I -- I have to -- obviously we work on the
recognition that no matter what we plan, given the financial
and staffing resources that we have, it doesn't matter
sometimes what we want to plan. Even if we know that
ideally this should happen now, it's not necessarily going
to.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: So you're the one that
actually plans things for where you project would have the
greatest need?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Forecasting comes out of my
division. So either myself or the consultant or one of my
staff will do it depending on what else we all have going
on.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Any other questions? Yes,
Ms. Parsons.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: I noticed on Page 19 and 20
we were talking about wells. Are we -- when you're
projecting these for '05 and '06 and then you've got '06 and
'07 and it's taken us forever on the Pookela well, the one
we started in 2000, actually in 1999 trying to get Pookela
well on line. And it's 2005, so these expenditures, are we
being --
MS. KRAFTSOW: Optimistic?
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: -- optimistic?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yes, and yes. We're being
optimistic, and also in a well, we schedule three, four,
five years usually as a minimum from the study stage to the
development and on-line stage. We figure that it takes at
least about -- I think a fast track well would be three or
four years. I don't think there's much of anything that's
scheduled lately that's less than four, so mostly four and
five years at least.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: And you've got install deep
well pump for the Iao source. Do we already have that
designed? Because I notice on Page 20 you've got a North
Waihee Source Development for Maluhia. You've got a design
and development line. So on Page 19, do we have this motor
designed, this pump designed already?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Where are we?
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Middle of 19.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Iao source development, Iao tank
site well development?
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: It says Iao source
development, Iao tank site, and then it install deep well
under description. Deep well pump, motor controls, site
piping.
MS. KRAFTSOW: I think she's moving right along
with that project. Alva, do you know the exact status of
that, Iao tank site well? I think that project, it would be
in the remarks, which I don't think I included here. But I
think that project is moving right along. I think there is
a design.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Design is done?
MR. PEARSON: Design is done. Test well has been
drilled I'm pretty sure.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Development design is done, or is
it in progress?
MR. NAKAMURA: I'm not sure.
MS. KRAFTSOW: It's moving along. Anyway, that
project is moving, so I don't know exactly.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: So it's been on the books
for a long time.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Anything else? If not, we'll
move on to other business.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Mr. Chair, would this be
the appropriate place for me to ask a question about that
USGS meeting?
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. Mr. Tengan, I mentioned
under Director's Report, so I would have to ask you at this
point.
MR. TENGAN: Yes, Mr. Chair, as Sally stated, the
USGS did have a meeting last week, and attendees were
invited to attend that meeting. It was a USGS meeting. The
Department had nothing to do with the particular meeting
except that they had requested our attendance. And there
were several people from staff that attended the meeting and
maybe Ellen or Eva could go over what was covered in the
meeting. I wasn't able to attend the meeting.
MS. KRAFTSOW: Yes, Mr. Chair. I was only able to
attend late, so I actually assigned Eva, so Eva can give you
a presentation what happened at the meeting. We did not
send out the agendas or the invites to that meeting. If the
Board would like to be invited, we can make a request to
Gordon Tribble and see if that's appropriate, but they set
that committee.
CHAIR VICTORINO: If it's all right with you,
Ms. Raisbeck, I would like to put that on an agenda item as
a report on the next one that we can have a more concise
report that we can read over. Could you have it ready for
us for our next meeting that this report be submitted to all
the board members for review, and if they have appropriate
questions, we can bring it up at that time?
MS. KRAFTSOW: Just a summary of the meeting?
CHAIR VICTORINO: That's correct, yes. Just to be
fair, if that's all right with you, Ms. Raisbeck?
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: That's all right.
CHAIR VICTORINO: And just that we will all have a
chance to review and ask questions, because I didn't know
about it either to be perfectly honest.
BOARD MEMBER OKAMURA: Was there something
substantial that happened at that meeting?
MS. BLUMENSTEIN: It was basically an update from
what's going on with the USGS model. And I should mention
that the presentation from this meeting and the last meeting
in August of last year is on the USGS website. You can
download the whole presentation there.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: All right. Thank you very much,
but I still would like if you don't mind.
MS. BLUMENSTEIN: Sure.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Thank you. And I'll put that as
an agenda item for our next meeting.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: And perhaps we could
request the next time they give an update like that that the
Board Members be allowed to hear about it in advance. I
would like to attend such a meeting.
CHAIR VICTORINO: I'll take that under advisement
and ask the director to do that.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Thank you.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Moving right along under other
business, verbal update between the Department -- well, I
think Alva did that. So we can go on. That one is --
discussion regarding drilling another well in upcountry as
the Pookela well will not be sufficient to meet all the
current requests. How are we standing on that?
MR. TENGAN: I didn't ask for it on the agenda.
Maybe the board member that requested that item be placed on
the agenda, if that board could lead off the discussion, we
would be glad to participate in the discussion.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Let me ask you this question.
Is there any other well for upcountry planned at this time.
MR. TENGAN: Well, we're currently working with a
major land owner who wants to develop some property up
there, and they're proposing to do a well in close proximity
to the Pookela well. There's also another well that's being
proposed down in the Haliimaile area, in Kaluanui Road.
That's the road that connects Baldwin Avenue with the --
with Kokomo Road.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Can I ask who the land
owners are.
CHAIR VICTORINO: One is A&B, I know that. Who is
the other one.
MR. TENGAN: The other one would be Maui Land &
Pine.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Maui Land & Pine. A&B would be
the first one you mentioned. Maui Land & Pine was the
second.
MR. TENGAN: No.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Reverse, I apologize. Sorry.
BOARD MEMBER RAISBECK: Would the -- is the
proposal that again it would be -- like the Dowling well, it
would be a combination of the County and the land owner
developing a well on his land getting source credits for it
and eventually turning the well over to the County?
MR. TENGAN: No, we haven't really gone into deep
discussion on it except to discuss the concept, but I would
think that they would want to -- you know, they would need
to develop at least what they need for the property that's
being developed. And there are some other things that need
to be discussed like connection to the water system and
dedication of the facilities to the County, you know, so we
haven't really entered into any heavy discussions at this
time to lead to an agreement. It's pretty much conceptual
right now.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Ms. Parsons.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: I just think it's probably
a good idea to discuss an additional source. Also, probably
when we get another Boyle update on what's going on
upcountry with the lead issues and maybe looking at mixing
the sources together, how that might help us in the long
run, that will maybe eat up some of that Pookela source that
we had discussed about giving out for meters. So this other
source coming on line probably is a very good idea.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, there's one more thing
that the Department is doing.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Yes.
MR. TENGAN: Previously, well, even to today, we
can use the Hamakua Poko wells to pump into the upcountry
system only on an emergency basis right now. So what we're
doing now is we're sending -- we're preparing an EA that
would allow us to pump the Hamakua Poko wells at times when
even, you know, when there isn't an emergency; in other
words, whenever we need to supplement the upcountry or
surface source system, we would be able to use the Hamakua
Poko wells and pump it up without an emergency mode.
CHAIR VICTORINO: That's good news. And if we can
get that approval, that would be a big help. Yeah,
Mr. Hiranaga.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: I guess I'm the one that
requested this item to be placed on the agenda. My
understanding that there is approximately 800 people on the
upcountry waiting list, 800 applications or signups.
MR. NAKAMURA: I believe a thousand.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: A thousand, so it's gone
up in a couple of months. Pookela well is projected to be
able to issue how many meters with the 10 percent reduction
in capacity? You reported 400, 300 meters?
MR. NAKAMURA: 300-plus I would think.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: So we've got 700 people
that want meters. I think the A&B well has been under study
by A&B for several years now. Maui Pine's well has been
under study for several years now. I think I would prefer
if the Department took the initiative to explore the
possibility of drilling another well on its own because the
Maui Pine well and the A&B, if they decide to go forward and
it's based upon whether they're going to go forward on the
development, would just add additional capacity, but rather
than wait for them to make that decision, I think it might
be prudent for the Department to start exploring the
possibility of developing its own well considering a
decision to proceed with Pookela I think was made in 2001 by
the Board, authorization to proceed.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: No, earlier than that.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: It was my first year on
the board that we gave authorization.
CHAIR VICTORINO: When did you come on?
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: I think it was 2001.
CHAIR VICTORINO: No, cannot be. 2001, yeah,
could be, yeah, yeah.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: 2002 is when they -- when
it came out --
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: Maybe it was 2002.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: We started earlier than
that though.
BOARD MEMBER HIRANAGA: No, but the authorization
to proceed. The Board gave the authorization to proceed,
and, you know, we're here four years now and still not on
line. So and we're looking again five-plus years before the
second well may come on line, so in my opinion, I would like
the Department to start exploring the possibility of
developing its own well upcountry. And that's why I asked
this be placed upon the agenda.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay.
MR. TENGAN: Mr. Chair, just one more item I
should mention since Member Hiranaga mentioned -- no, it
was somebody else mentioned the Dowling well. And the
Kaupakalua well, which was drilled by Dowling, I -- I gave
instructions to our engineering staff that they should look
at the water systems between that -- from that well to the
Pookela tank and how we could utilize that well to
supplement the Lower Kula and Upper Kula water system.
However, staff hasn't had time to really take a look at that
yet.
But that's part of the tank -- part of what I'm
thinking about supplementing the upcountry water system with
surface water or ground water. So if board members will
recall the agreement with Dowling was that the Department
could expand the capacity of the well; however, you know, a
certain amount of compensation would have to be given to
Dowling. But that's an option that's available to the
Department where we could increase the capacity of the well
provided, you know, we can use the water. And the way we
would use the water would be to get it to go further west
into the upcountry water system. So that's part of the plan
also.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Okay. Thank you.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: George, on that one, the
well has been dedicated to the County?
MR. TENGAN: Right.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: So is there an agreement
that we still have to pay Dowling on top of that?
MR. TENGAN: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: There is,
MR. TENGAN: I think that's how the agreement
reads.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Can we have copies of that
for the next meeting and discuss this so we don't do this
again?
MR. TENGAN: Okay. One more thing.
CHAIR VICTORINO: Yes.
MR. TENGAN: We're in the final stages of the
preliminary engineering study for the Lowe