2026-09-15 - Communications Reports and Council Oversight Committee

00:0015,

00:012026. It is 5:15

00:05p.m.

00:07Present in council chambers are council

00:10members Kimell, Jagis, Connie Lee,

00:14Klein, Felder, Inaba,

00:18Onishi, Kirkwitz, and Kagiada

00:22as well as council member Hustus in the

00:26Kona chambers. So, we have all of our

00:29council members here today

00:33and

00:37>> let's go to statements from the public

00:38on agenda items if any.

00:41>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just confirming.

00:44Yep. I just got confirmation. No

00:46testifiers for your meeting, ma'am.

00:48>> Okay. Thank you very much. So, we will

00:52proceed with our agenda.

00:54Communication 35.9 Quarterly affordable

00:57housing report April 1, 2026 through

01:00June 30, 2026 from housing administrator

01:02Kolani M Costa dated August 27, 2026

01:06transmitting the report pursuant to

01:08section 11-9 of the Hawaii County code.

01:12>> Chair motion to close file on

01:15communication

01:17sorry 35.9.

01:20It's been moved by council member

01:22Kimble, seconded by council member

01:23Connie Le Kleinfelder to close file on

01:27communication 35.9.

01:30Administrator Costa, would you like to

01:33say a few words about the report?

01:40It is getting late so everyone feel free

01:42to be succinct.

01:45Khal Costa housing administrator. No

01:48changes since the last report.

01:50>> Thank you.

01:54See one wanting discussion. All in favor

01:58of closing file on communication 35.9

02:01please say I. Any opposed?

02:05Motion passes with nine eyes.

02:09>> Is there any comm is there any testimony

02:11or communication? 999

02:16hearing nation 999 request presentation

02:19by Pacific Islands climate adaptation

02:21science c center's climate adaptation

02:22planner koa plunkin regarding project

02:25vow land use systems change for societal

02:27watershed stewardship and resilience

02:28from council member Heather El Kimble

02:30dated July 3026

02:33>> chair motion to close file and

02:34communication 999

02:37>> it's been moved by council member Kimble

02:40seconded by council member Kagi wanted

02:42to close file on communication 999.

02:46Council member Kimble.

02:47>> Thank you. Um it is my honor to

02:49introduce Camala Plunkett from the

02:51Pacific Island Climate Adaptation

02:53Science Center to provide an overview of

02:57Project Vow. I thought this was

02:59particularly timely um especially as we

03:03start to discuss amendments to the

03:06general plan and incorporating

03:08potentially more um indigenous land use

03:13frameworks into our general planning. um

03:17is this presentation was um intended to

03:20happen before LA and then that happened

03:23and um we had to postpone it which I

03:26think actually since we're talking about

03:28watershed stewardship and management and

03:30resilience makes this all the more

03:32pertinent at this time. Um I do know

03:35it's late in the day but I do encourage

03:37you to pay full attention to this

03:39presentation because I think it provides

03:42some valuable insight for us as a body

03:44going forward. Thank you,

03:48Camwell. Take it away.

03:50>> Yes.

03:52>> Aloha council. Um, thanks for your time

03:55and for your service to our county. Um,

04:00uh, thank you for letting me present uh

04:02an overview of project vow. Um,

04:06I'm going to read.

04:08So, sorry if it sounds impersonable, but

04:11going to try and uh make sure I get all

04:13the points in.

04:15Um

04:18so thank you for this opportunity to

04:20present project V to you today. Um

04:24there's a lot of information in these

04:25slides. So I'll be reading a scripted

04:28narrative um in hopes of hitting the

04:30main points.

04:33um to outline this presentation. Um the

04:39the context of project vow is to

04:42reinduce reintroduce the ancestral

04:44watershed district districting strategy

04:48of these islands um and the tenants of

04:51land administration to help our society

04:53today plan for the future. Um, also to

04:57help the council and the public consider

05:00the premise that current land use maps

05:05um, project

05:07uh, future patterns of development that

05:10assume water withdrawal rates. However,

05:14they may not factor in land cover change

05:19over time, which has

05:22over a century or more affected the the

05:25capacity

05:27to uh refill our aquifers.

05:30Um, also to convey the future scenarios

05:33of decreased rainfall

05:35um and subsequent groundwater recharge

05:39uh projections.

05:42Um, also lastly,

05:45the intent of this presentation is also

05:48to to ask for your support in future

05:50engagements with county offices that um

05:53are engaged with land. So, this is

05:56planning, punk, oscar, and maybe office

05:59of housing.

06:04Um, I'd like to quickly introduce PIAS,

06:07uh, which stands for the Pacific Climate

06:09Adaptation Science Center. It's a branch

06:11of the USGS. Uh we serve to help uh

06:14resource manage resource managers have

06:18access to climate um information. My

06:21mentor is Mary von Johnson and um

06:26podcast does not just serve Hawaii. It

06:28serves um the South Pacific uh nations

06:31that have agreements with the US.

06:36I'm going to skip this for now. Um but

06:39basically the the products that project

06:42VA aims to use uh aims to produce well

06:47kind of is trying to address some of

06:49these uh land use issues pertinent to

06:53government but also for communities to

06:56implement as uh we plan for um the

07:01future challenges of climate change.

07:04I'm also going to pass through this

07:08So um project vow is a pilot project

07:12focused on uh west Hawaii island. Um so

07:18north kohala, south kohala and north and

07:20south kona.

07:22And from this slide, the first thing you

07:25see about Hawaiian watershed

07:27districtricting as a land administration

07:29practice is that um the kuna

07:35had these specific type of aua that kept

07:38all the lower aua. In other words,

07:42watershed districtricting was embedded

07:44in the society.

07:49All of us here heard the the terms Moku

07:51and AO before, but maybe we never saw it

07:54as a land administration uh strategy to

07:58ensure long-term um sustainability on

08:03islands.

08:06Oh, really quick. So, Lorenzo Lions, who

08:09was a cahoo in the 1800s, comments on

08:12this type of land division. And he says

08:15this was a comment that was um his

08:18comments were summarized in um 1995 work

08:24by Muffet and Fitzpatrick. He says, "The

08:26common land to which Lion referred was

08:28situated above most of the Au Pua and

08:31encompass forest and barren mountain

08:34land. Although the land may have

08:36technically belonged within a given aua,

08:39it was apparently available to all the

08:41people living within that district. In

08:44that sense, Moku may have come to refer

08:46to the portion of an island shared in

08:49common.

08:54Um so when we think about Moku and Aua,

08:59people may find it interesting that

09:03um in the more ancient days, the islands

09:06was not divided. That actually the

09:08creation of Moku and Aua uh divisions

09:11was an actual adaptation

09:14strategy to cope with the challenges of

09:16their time. And according to Kamako,

09:20that challenge was population growth. So

09:23he writes in the old days the lands were

09:25were divided up according to what was

09:27proper to the chiefs, the lesser chiefs,

09:30the prominent people

09:32um

09:34in general to have each family clearly

09:36understood what was their land, their

09:38birthplace, their anopa and their onl

09:41and the chiefs knew what land they had

09:44given to this and that person and the

09:46obligations that went with each portion

09:48of the land. So imagine a whole society

09:51saying we're going to make a change to

09:52face the challenges of our times.

09:55And it wasn't just to be administrative.

09:57It was to build relationship so that no

10:00matter what your social uh social class

10:03was, you understood

10:06the name of your place, the features on

10:10your place and your obligation. I'm not

10:14expect expecting for the future society

10:16of Hawaii to all become

10:18environmentalists, but it would be

10:20important for every every person to know

10:23what their relationality whether where

10:25you live, where you work, even over your

10:28commute.

10:30Um, it makes a difference how you use

10:32resources.

10:34Okay, I'll move on.

10:37Um so what I read from Malo David Malo

10:42um in his descriptions he describes

10:44three general zones of the watershed and

10:48then there's depending on interpretation

10:50there's 13 more specific zones

10:52distributed through these three major

10:55zones. Um something that is really

10:58interesting is

11:00the zone between your thick forest

11:03called the vow and

11:07um your and the zone below the vow

11:10kanaka/va mu. Uh mu is

11:16short for amu and it's talking about the

11:19amu fern. And if you can imagine that

11:22there was actually a vegetative zone

11:25that helped delineate

11:27where man should do their things and

11:30above that zone um is where you let

11:34nature do its thing. And imagine if we

11:38could reconstruct that today

11:41and that would help give us targets for

11:43restoration or preservation.

11:49Um now this Hawaiian

11:54um indigenous knowledge goes further

11:57back. This is I did a linguistic search.

12:00There's an online uh linguistic

12:04database

12:06and actually vow is found all the way

12:08back up to uh the Malo Polynesian

12:12islands um following the first initial

12:17migration out of um Taiwan.

12:20Um the common theme in in this word vong

12:24across the Pacific is wilderness

12:27um uninhabited and uncultivated.

12:31So you get this trend of nature is here

12:35man does its thing somewhere else.

12:40I have these pictures of these atals and

12:42smaller islands in the South Pacific

12:44because their amount of forest is so

12:47small.

12:49Um so when when I talk about islander

12:52I'm talking about the wisdom

12:55of living sustainably sustainably on

12:58islands

13:00and how do we bring that back into the

13:03minds of our society today. Just a quick

13:08uh reminder of a wershed. So according

13:09to the USGS a wershed is an area of land

13:12that drains all the streams and rainfall

13:14into a common outlet. Um, according to

13:17the Hawaii Watershed Alliance

13:20Partnership,

13:21it says for for Hawaii, this exit point

13:25is the ocean. Another interesting thing

13:27is to remember that fog may increase

13:30rainfall collection and absorption by as

13:33much as 30%.

13:39Okay. So how is project v um trying to

13:43reconstruct uh that body of knowledge

13:47in land administration through GIS maps.

13:51So again we're looking at this on this

13:53map um on the left we're looking at

13:57these capping aua and you can notice

13:59that they actually follow the ridges of

14:02the summits. When you overlay the

14:05district boundaries, you see that most

14:07of these um share a common boundary with

14:11the MOKU districts

14:13and interoku. So there's

14:17that's your level one of uh strategy or

14:22or tenant. [snorts]

14:24Lorenzo Lions's son um Curtis J. lines

14:28became a Hawaiian government surveyor.

14:31And he he noted about these um auang

14:37and he says the common auang

14:41um goes up

14:44into the beginning of the woods, not to

14:46the very top and on the inlands there's

14:49these capping.

14:55So when we when we overlay this with the

14:59aquafer map, it's super interesting to

15:02see that there there may be multiple

15:06aquifers in one district. And this is

15:08traditional districts,

15:10but you can see that the flow of the

15:12aquifers

15:15um

15:17are kind of situated within the

15:20traditional districts. Topographically,

15:23the surface water is draining in a

15:25common direction. Um, these extension

15:29lines that you see coming off of the MOU

15:31boundaries

15:32um is kind of to help you visualize

15:36water's common trajectory towards the

15:39ocean

15:40um for each district. So basically all

15:44the anu pua are in a similar water

15:47trajectory because the the mo boundaries

15:50are set that way. This is again islander

15:53watershed districtricting knowledge.

15:55Okay. Given that substrate

15:59the kuna also gave um delineations of

16:03vegetation. So the map on the right is a

16:07reconstruction from historic maps of the

16:10most densely forested part. And some of

16:12these maps go back

16:15um

16:17some go back to 100 years. The furthest

16:20I can go back is

16:22150 years and they depict um historic

16:27vegetation. There are gaps but the

16:30boundary commission testimonies

16:32in a relative sense will we'll talk

16:34about the different vegetation pattern

16:37going up the up in elevation. So this

16:41example at for South Kona at Kapoua is

16:45um

16:46this

16:48historic map overlaid

16:51conveniently had polygon shapes of with

16:56labels of what the vegetation pattern

16:58is. So that's easy. You can put it up.

17:01You can reconstruct where the vegetation

17:03pattern was um over a hundred years ago.

17:10Um, here's an example from South Kohala.

17:13And I want um I want I remind you guys

17:17to keep in mind about um cloud and fog

17:21intercept

17:22um being in the water budget, the

17:26potential w water budget. So this is for

17:29the Aupa of Uli and Pawah. Um

17:35on the map on the left there's a trail

17:39at the base of

17:42uh Pawahi. Pawahi is outland with the

17:45star. Um it's also in an agricultural

17:49field system.

17:53Now on the right side, I've kind of

17:56outlined the outline the the portions of

17:59those aua above the trail

18:03that are no longer forested.

18:08And I wanted to reference Pu Camoa and

18:10Pu Lani Kapu.

18:13Okay, so keep those in in mind when we

18:16put uh when we analyze LAR combined with

18:19the overlay. So the overlay on the left

18:22actually shows where the vegetation was

18:25in 1860.

18:27It's coming all the way down to the pu.

18:30If you look below the pu,

18:33and I know it's hard to see on this, but

18:34through LAR, you can actually see

18:37structures underneath the the current

18:39pasture.

18:41Now I wasn't able to talk uh lay this

18:44out clearly earlier but there's other

18:47ethnoistoric accounts of

18:50the trail the mala trail running

18:54in the fern belt and below the fern belt

18:59is traditional agriculture. So you see

19:01that intersection through these layering

19:03of information.

19:08So basically in this example, Pu Kamo

19:11and Lani Keo, Lani Keu are

19:15um references to the delineation between

19:18man does their their thing and where

19:22nature does its thing and basically and

19:25essentially for this topic watershed

19:26districtricting.

19:31So later on we're going to see that the

19:32projections for future rainfall um by

19:36the end of the century looks pretty um

19:39is drastically less. I don't want to be

19:42alarmist so it's less. I'll just say

19:45it's less. Um

19:50so what I'm saying is for to face the

19:52future

19:54it will be important for us to

19:55understand where our our most effective

19:59water collection areas are as targets of

20:02restoration.

20:06Why these images are important? Because

20:08remember cloud fog intercept can

20:11increase your water budget up to 30%.

20:16Um this was maybe two months ago these

20:18pictures were taken and you can see blue

20:21skies but if there was forest there

20:23above those pu it would be doing its

20:26work.

20:30Same thing on the slopes of Monaka in

20:33this image where you see the cloud

20:35touching down that would have been where

20:37the mamman forest would have been. Um

20:41it's not that it's not collecting, it's

20:43that the force would increase our

20:45collection.

20:49This image is to show where

20:54um the cloud intercept elevations are.

20:57Um in Hanani uh Heidi Kanye's work she

21:02said on the leeward side you want to

21:04estimate to about 2600 ft in elevation

21:07as that lower cloud intercept on the

21:10east side is 2,000. So if you look at

21:15where the vegetation map is beneath the

21:18cloud, you you start to get a future uh

21:22planning strategy or a planning strategy

21:26for one increasing forest, but also

21:29where to put water catchments

21:31that can already start collecting to

21:33help

21:35um source water for the restoration

21:37efforts. Also, I believe

21:41well I'll just keep going. running out

21:43of time. As far as

21:46um impact of land use over time to land

21:50cover, um I would see project vow being

21:53used in cooperation with landfire maps.

21:57Landfire maps is a model of

22:02previous vegetation before uh western

22:04contact with modern-day land use.

22:07Project Vow can actually bring ground

22:09truthing to these projections.

22:13How's my time over?

22:16>> Get in there.

22:16>> Okay.

22:18Water water uh rainfall projections um

22:22is looking to decrease by 50 to 30% at

22:28the end of the century.

22:30Same same numbers for groundwater

22:32recharge estimates. The thing is some of

22:35our aquafers are already impaired on the

22:37west side. So even in the most least

22:41impactful scenario,

22:44these aquifers with pre-existing

22:46conditions

22:47um um could could start to fail.

22:52So we're drawing down from the aquifers

22:55now

22:57with projected land use.

23:00They haven't been working to their full

23:02capacity for over a century.

23:05If our children and grandchildren are

23:07going to have a chance in some of these

23:08areas, we have to start supporting the

23:11recharge. Now,

23:16land cover matters because it m it it

23:19increases the water budget. Um

23:24and uh

23:27I think Also,

23:32thanks for letting me go over.

23:35>> Thank you.

23:37>> Thank you very much. Um, Council Member

23:39Kimble, you want to lead us off?

23:40>> Yeah, I just I just want to mahalo you

23:42for coming in and providing us um with

23:45this really great resource. Hopefully,

23:47you guys have a chance to go through all

23:48of the slides in more detail. Um I think

23:51the most profound thing that you said

23:54today was that there was a point in time

23:57when the decision was made to structure

24:00the society around stewardship of the

24:04and um if there were something that I

24:07want want to put up front of this body,

24:10there is an opportunity for us through

24:13the general plan amendments and through

24:15our work on this board to make that

24:17decision to restructure around these

24:21sort of stewardship practices that are

24:23based in this historic understanding of

24:25how land use provided resources and that

24:29relation relationshipbased

24:33um method of you know deciding where

24:37things happened. Um, you know, we are

24:40under a western model of governance with

24:42all the protections that exist under the

24:45constitution and state uh constitution

24:48for land rights and property rights. Um,

24:50and one might consider that there's like

24:53a fundamental conflict between that and

24:56um the traditional ways of land

24:59management. I don't think there is. I

25:01think there's actually an opportunity

25:02for synthesis towards something that is

25:05better. And I think our body is the

25:08entity that can provide that with the

25:10input of folks like Camala. So, thank

25:13you again for being here and um I hope

25:15you guys find this as interesting and

25:18informative as I do. Thank you.

25:25Yes,

25:25>> just really quick, I just have to thank

25:26you for being here and the synchronicity

25:28of the message, even some of the images

25:31and the reports uh that were presented

25:33to us earlier today and you are once

25:35again presenting

25:38hammer in the message and um but you're

25:42bringing an option and u just so enjoyed

25:46working with you and learning about your

25:48work and I'm so wildly grateful that

25:51you're bringing together these solutions

25:53and options for returning to the wisdom

25:55of our host culture. Appreciate it.

26:01>> Council member Ki Kleinfelder.

26:03>> I've never I've heard aua, but I've

26:06never heard it broken up into a layered

26:09approach just it's always been malakai.

26:12It's classic, you know, model you always

26:13see. So seeing it broken into different

26:18ecosystems which actually benefit each

26:20other which

26:22engrossed the idea of

26:25better land management not just this

26:29strip was chief so and so's this strip

26:31was chief so and so and this was this

26:33their area but broken in carefully to

26:37align with how to make the land better

26:40and work for the population over time.

26:44which it seems so common sense, but we

26:46moved so far away from that.

26:48I love this. This is amazing. And like

26:50Mr. V said, we had a land use decision

26:52that's in front of us today. Some of

26:55these same maps showed up. The aquifer

26:57discussion in areas where classically

27:00it's dry and yet we're told the aquifers

27:04are fine and we can continue pulling

27:06three million gallons a day and it's

27:08fine, right?

27:09>> But that but the reality and the common

27:11sense doesn't equal that. as we continue

27:13to clear and climate change and

27:16everything else that's going on. So, I

27:18love this presentation. Thank you very

27:19much.

27:26>> Thank you very much for coming in.

27:27Beautiful maps. Um, and we'll def I at

27:30least will definitely be looking at them

27:32again. Um, so seeing no other lights on,

27:37all in favor of closing file and

27:39communication 999, please say I.

27:43Thank you.

27:43>> Any opposed?

27:46I see none.

27:49That is nine in favor of closing file

27:52and communication 999.

27:57Testimony for communication 1061.

28:02Hearing n. Communication 1061 is a

28:04follow-up audit of the Department of

28:06Environmental Managers of Ben vehicle

28:07program report number 2024-02

28:11from County Auditor Clare McAdam dated

28:13August 2,626 transmitting the above

28:15audit report pursuant to section 318 D3

28:19of the Hawaii County Charter and

28:20communication 1061.1 from county auditor

28:23Clare McAdam dated August 26 2026

28:26transmitting a PowerPoint presentation

28:31>> chair motion to close file on

28:34communication 1061.

28:38>> A second.

28:40[gasps]

28:41It's been moved to close file on

28:44communication 1061

28:46by council member and seconded by

28:49council member Viegas. Uh

28:53please go ahead.

28:56>> Maxine Pekco, office of the county

28:58auditor. And I've asked Tiffany Wallace.

29:01She is the derelic and abandoned vehicle

29:04specialist to help me in navigating our

29:07PowerPoint presentation.

29:09Aloha chair Galima and members of the

29:12communications reports and council

29:14oversight committee. Good evening.

29:17Maxine Pekco, lead auditor for this

29:19review. Claire McAdams is unable to

29:22attend today. We're here to brief the

29:24committee on the first follow-up review

29:27of the Department of Environmental

29:29Management's Derelch and abandoned

29:31vehicle program, also known as the DAV

29:34program, report number 2026-02,

29:40published on August 26, 2026.

29:44Thank you to the audit team, Melissa

29:46Dort, audit analyst, and Claire McAdams,

29:49review supervisor.

29:51We also thank DEM's leadership, Director

29:55Gervin, Deputy Director Kawaguchi, Solid

29:58Waste Division Chief Rivera, and DAV

30:01Program Specialist Tiffany Wallace and

30:04her team for their exceptional

30:06cooperation.

30:07In its management response, DEM was in

30:11general agreement with our findings. Of

30:14the five recommendations from the

30:16original audit report, three have been

30:19completed and two remain in progress.

30:23Our objective for this review was to

30:25determine whether the DAV program

30:27implemented the recommendations from our

30:302024 audit. The review period covered

30:33August 2024 to August 2026.

30:38to verify the status of recommendation.

30:41Our work included site visits,

30:43writealongs to observe field inspections

30:46and program practices firsthands,

30:48interviews, reviewing draft safety and

30:51standard operating procedures, reviewing

30:55flyers and otherformational materials,

30:58reviewing photographs, documenting

31:00community outreach and meetings, as well

31:03as examining other evidence supporting

31:05the reported status of recommendations.

31:09Recommendation one focuses on

31:11prioritizing personal protective

31:13measures. During our July 8th ride

31:16along, we observe the DAV team using

31:19their required PPE, including county

31:22logo, reflective vests, and safety

31:24shoes. We also observed the use of the

31:27Zonar device, two-way radios, and the

31:30buddy system during inspections. We were

31:33able to see safe safety practices being

31:36implemented in the field status is

31:39completed. Recommendation 2 focuses on

31:43increasing reporting options for

31:45abandoned vehicles. DAV addressed this

31:48through community awareness in

31:50partnership with HPD community policing.

31:53The program participated in islandwide

31:56outreach and develop anformational flyer

31:59with a QR code providing access to free

32:02towing and disposal assistance. The

32:05application is available online and the

32:07flyer has been distributed throughout

32:10the community. The status has been

32:12completed.

32:14Recommendation three focuses on

32:16formalizing the program's policies and

32:19procedures. We re we review draft safety

32:23and standard operating procedures. While

32:26good progress has been made, final

32:28approval, including an effective aid and

32:30imple implementation, are still needed.

32:34Status is in progress.

32:42Recommendation four focuses on vehicle

32:45auctions. As of December 2024, no

32:49auctions took place. DAV is modernizing

32:52and standardizing their process,

32:54including developing inventorybased

32:57triggers and public vehicle viewing. The

33:01status is in progress.

33:03Recommendation five focuses on cross

33:06trainining and continuity of service.

33:09DAB addressed this recommendation by

33:11expanding staff responsibilities,

33:13providing islandwide coverage during

33:16absences, and training coordinators to

33:19conduct outreach events, helping to

33:22ensure uninterrupted service. The status

33:24is completed. In closing, one of the

33:28most rewarding parts of auditing is

33:30seeing audites take ownership of

33:32recommendations, turning them into

33:35meaningful, lasting improvements and

33:37bringing them across the finish line. We

33:40commend the DEV program for its progress

33:42since the original audit. Three of the

33:44five recommendations have been completed

33:47while the remaining two are in progress

33:49with focus on formalizing policies and

33:53improving vehicle auction procedures.

33:56Thank you to Tiffany Wallace, DAV

33:58program specialist for being available

34:00to address questions on DAV operations.

34:04Thank you, Chair Gimba and council

34:05members. This concludes our

34:07presentation. We are happy to answer

34:08questions.

34:10>> Thank you, Miss Pashco.

34:13Anyone have any questions, comments?

34:17>> Uh, Council Member Hust, go ahead.

34:20>> Thank you, Chair. Just a question on the

34:22the auction process.

34:25Um, no auction has been held since 2024,

34:28December 2024.

34:31What does that mean in terms of a a

34:32stockpile or a backlog of vehicles that

34:35are

34:36stored, kept, those sort of things?

34:41Tiffany Wallace, um, abandoned vehicle

34:43specialist. So, it means that we do have

34:46some good inventory, not enough to

34:48create an auction at this point. Um, I

34:51just came on board in February. So, now

34:53that I have myself and I have two other

34:55staff members, we are looking to

34:57increase um our inventory so that it

34:59would be worth our while to do an

35:01auction so that it would be fiscally

35:03responsible for us to do so.

35:05>> Is is there a certain number that would

35:07be that good threshold for you? So, in

35:08my mind, if I had to come up with one

35:10right now, it'd be 55 to 60 vehicles.

35:13>> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that.

35:15>> Thanks.

35:15>> Thank you, Chair.

35:17>> Council member Kagi, thanks. Just a

35:20really quick thing. Actually, you have a

35:21nice little um flyer on here, free junk

35:25vehicle removal. Um can you send that

35:28out to everybody so I can include it in

35:30my um newsletter? All right. Thank you.

35:32That's all I have.

35:34>> Thank you.

35:38Um,

35:40seeing no one else, I just wanted a

35:42quick question myself. When do you think

35:43the um the formalizing policies and

35:47procedures

35:48uh recommendation will be fulfilled?

35:51>> Tiffany Wallace, abandoned vehicle

35:53specialist. So, we are looking to get

35:55that finalized before the end of the

35:57year.

35:58>> Awesome. Thank you so much and thank you

36:00for your work on this. It's very

36:01important to get those abandoned

36:04vehicles off the side of the road.

36:06Um, all right. Seeing anything else, um,

36:10all in favor of closing file and

36:12communication 1061, please say I. Any

36:16opposed? That'll be six in favor, I

36:21believe. And council members Kirkwitz

36:24and

36:26Connie Lee Kleinfelter and Inappa are

36:31excused.

36:34Motion carries.

36:37Is there any testimony for communication

36:391062?

36:41Hearing none. Communication 1062, a

36:43presentation on the wastewater facility

36:45plan and suspical conversion evaluation

36:47from our environmental management

36:48director Daniel Gervin dated August 27,

36:522026.

36:56Motion, please.

36:57>> Chair motion to close file in

36:59communication 1062.

37:02It's been moved by Council Member

37:03Kimell, seconded by Council Member

37:05Kagiada to close file on communication

37:071062.

37:10Go ahead.

37:14>> Hi everyone. Um, this is Kelly Hartman,

37:16the regulatory administrator with DEM.

37:18I'm just going to quickly open up the

37:20meeting. Uh, pursuant to the AOC, the

37:24department has been working on these two

37:26reports. the wastewater facilities plan

37:30which evaluates the condition of our

37:33existing facilities, ranks them, put

37:36costs to them um for our eventual

37:39long-term financial plan that will be

37:41coming due in 2027 2028. Um

37:45additionally, we have um Carla here to

37:47speak to the cesspool conversion

37:50evaluation report. Um, I will invite

37:54Gary De and Jason Hikaido up here to

37:58present. Before we start, I wanted to

38:01double check on the time uh requirement

38:05and and is it per presentation.

38:08>> 15 minutes total.

38:10>> Say

38:10>> 15 minutes total. Preferably

38:12>> 15 minutes total for the two reports.

38:15>> Yes.

38:15>> We'll do our best. Thank you.

38:17>> Thanks.

38:31Good afternoon, chair, members of the

38:33council. My name is Gary Dice. I'm with

38:34Corollo Engineers. I'll be joined by my

38:36colleague, Jason Nikkaido. We've Jason

38:39[clears throat] and I have been working

38:40with your county staff, the DEM, as well

38:42as finance over the last three years on

38:44these two particular reports. This is an

38:47overview and a briefing of the work

38:49that's been completed to date.

38:53So, our objectives today is to provide

38:55an overview of the wastewater facilities

38:57plan. We'll talk about the

38:58infrastructure condition and needs to

39:00we've developed a near and long-term

39:03capital improvement program working with

39:04the department of finance. We'll be

39:06talking about that. We also want to

39:08provide an overview of the successful

39:09conversion evaluation. talk about the

39:12basis of analysis and the range of

39:14conversion options that that are

39:16available and discuss next steps.

39:20The facilities plan and assessable

39:21conversion plan are key elements of the

39:24integrated wastewater master plan that's

39:26required by the administrative order on

39:28consent with EPA that Kelly had

39:30mentioned. You see the cessful

39:32conversion plan and the wastewater

39:33facilities plan being inputs on the

39:35left. On the right, there are other

39:37elements that go into the wastewater

39:40master plan, including operation and

39:42maintenance manuals, which we're

39:43assisting DEM with as well.

39:46This work has been ongoing for three

39:48years. Our original contract was

39:50approved and we received notice to

39:52proceed in in July of 2023. So, it's an

39:55effort that's been going on for some

39:57time.

39:58And as we talk about the analysis and

40:00the findings, I think there's several

40:02key factors that you know council needs

40:04to keep in mind as as we go through the

40:06discussion. One is the condition of

40:08existing facilities which we'll be

40:09talking about. The second one is the

40:12legally mandated projects. These are not

40:14only the projects that are required by

40:15the administrative orders on consent.

40:18They're also the the settlement at Kala

40:19Ka that requires uh compliance.

40:23Also, we need to recognize the county's

40:25limited role on cessible conversions.

40:27We'll emphasize how that role is really

40:29limited to the extension of existing

40:31county owned infrastructure, although

40:33there's other methods for cessible

40:35conversions. And then most importantly,

40:38the total cost of this program is just

40:40staggering. And it's beyond the

40:41financial capability of of the county.

40:44We've been working with finance to

40:45establish what available funding is and

40:47develop priorities for financing the

40:49program based on based on funding

40:52constraints.

40:54So first we'll talk about the wastewater

40:56facilities plan and then we'll get into

40:57the assessful conversion evaluation.

41:00So our agenda for this segment is just

41:02to talk about background basis of the

41:04plan. Review the overall condition of

41:06the existing above ground

41:07infrastructure. We'll talk about needs

41:10and we've broken those down into

41:11maintenance actions which are typically

41:13smaller projects that can be implemented

41:15by county staff versus capital projects

41:17which are usually large projects that

41:20are bond financed and then we'll go over

41:22the proposed wastewater capital

41:24improvement plan for 10 and 20 years.

41:29>> I asked Corolla to provide one slide on

41:32context. There's going to be a lot of de

41:34deliverables coming out of the

41:36department. And I wanted to take a

41:38minute just to talk about how they all

41:39fit together and what's required in the

41:42AOC. So first we have the integrated

41:44plan. Um Gary touched on that. It's part

41:49of the integrated plan is the facilities

41:51plan and the cesspool conversion. And

41:54what those plans do um is tell us what

41:57needs fixing and building islandwide for

42:00wastewater. Um and then we look at the

42:05priority ranking which is due to the EPA

42:08come December or January and we decide

42:12what what comes first in what order.

42:15[snorts] Um and then we provide cost

42:19estimates. We look at the sewer excuse

42:21me we look at the costs that's included

42:24in a long-term financial plan that we've

42:26been working on with finance for the

42:28next 20 years. And then finally, how do

42:31we pay for it? And so, um, we have the

42:34first 10 years programmed in. That's,

42:37you know, your AOC projects. The next 40

42:40years will depend on the pri how the

42:41priorities shifts with the remaining

42:43projects and ultimately the decisions

42:46that the county makes. Um, this also

42:48incorporates the sewer rate study that

42:50we met with you about a few hours ago.

42:53Um, that's one component for how we pay

42:56for our operations costs, not to be

42:58confused with how we pay for our capital

43:01costs, which um, we'll we'll discuss

43:04further. So, I hope that helps give some

43:07context to all the work we're doing in

43:10order.

43:12Thanks, Kelly. So, just go over the

43:15steps in developing the wastewater

43:17facilities plan. The first step was to

43:19establish the requirements, the legal

43:21mandates that we briefly talked about.

43:23Then we went out and we looked at all

43:25the all the above ground assets in the

43:28wastewater system and identified the

43:30condition of each and identified

43:32additional needs together. The legal

43:34mandates and the condition assessment

43:37led us to identify potential wastewater

43:39needs which were significant. costed all

43:42those all those needs and then we

43:44prioritized them based on the funding

43:46limitations and developed an overall

43:48proposed capital improvement program

43:50which we've been working with the

43:51finance department on. I want to state

43:53that we're going to talk about some

43:54costs. All the costs that we present in

43:57this discussion are 20 $25

44:00in the in the cash flow projections that

44:02we provided to finance. We've escalated

44:04those costs to uh center point of

44:07construction. So there may be some

44:08disconnect between some of the numbers

44:10we're presenting and what what's in the

44:11budget, but you know that's the that's

44:14the reasoning. It's just simpler to

44:16present it all in one 2025 cost for this

44:18discussion.

44:20So a key element of the the whole plan

44:23was the condition assessment of the

44:24existing wastewater infrastructure and

44:27this was done in in July of 2023. We

44:30visited all six wastewater treatments

44:32treatment plants and 17 sewage pump

44:34stations. This was done by a

44:36multi-disiplined team of engineers and

44:38operations specialists. And then we

44:40followed up in the spring of this year

44:42with visits again to the treatment

44:44plants and select pump stations just to

44:46see what has changed since 2023, some

44:49pro and some con, and to update the

44:51conditions that we obs we previously

44:53observed.

44:55We we provided a rating scale for every

44:58single above ground asset that the

44:59county has on the wastewater system and

45:01it was rated on a scale of 1 to five.

45:04one being excellent, two being good. We

45:06see fair, poor, to fail. And so we were

45:09able to come up with a I'll say a report

45:12card, if you will, as to the general

45:15condition of the of the above ground

45:17wastewater infrastructure in the county.

45:19And that's what we see on this graphic

45:21is that we found that in general 20% of

45:24the assets were in good to to m with

45:27minor defects. Half was fair with some

45:31significant defects. 25% is poor and

45:34unreliable and 5% has failed. And now

45:39when I say that this the 5% has failed,

45:41it doesn't necessarily mean the whole

45:42systems failed. So one example is in one

45:45plant there's two secondary clarifier

45:47units. One has failed, one is in

45:49service, but that it significantly

45:51reduces the reliability of that system.

45:54Overall, I'd say that the system is

45:56functional but with some but with issues

45:59and we'll talk about what those issues

46:01are. So that's kind of kind of a

46:03background. Now Jason's going to get

46:04into some of the details and the costs.

46:08>> Okay. Uh thank you Gary.

46:11So based on the condition assessment

46:14um we developed um

46:17>> sorry could you just introduce yourself

46:18for the record?

46:19>> Jason Ekitle with Coral Engineers. Uh so

46:22based on the condition assessment uh we

46:24identified maintenance actions um that

46:26would be uh required and these are uh

46:29smaller in scale and they tend to be

46:32operations funded and we identified 48

46:35um maintenance items and then we

46:37categorized them by priority and also

46:39gave a dollar value uh to them and uh

46:41you'll see they range anywhere from

46:43urgent um which should be done in the

46:45near term or longer term greater than

46:48two years and anywhere from under 500

46:52a,00 $100,000 for small up to over

46:55500,000 for a large uh maintenance.

47:00And these are just pictures of examples

47:03uh that we that maintenance uh actions

47:06would be required. Um things like

47:08replacing gate actu actuators, u

47:11removing vegetation,

47:13uh replacing hatches and ladders. So

47:15those are, you know, smaller items that

47:17maintenance uh staff could could do.

47:22Uh so this is a summary of the

47:24maintenance actions um both for priority

47:27and cost. So um on the priority side,

47:31they're kind of relatively uh equally

47:34distributed uh between uh near-term and

47:37long-term

47:38um ranges. And for the cost side, the

47:42majority of the uh maintenance actions

47:46are on the on the smaller uh dollar

47:48value.

47:52Moving on to capital, these tend to be

47:53the larger projects and these are debt

47:56financed. Uh we identified 70 total

47:59projects and we categorized them into um

48:04different categories being legally

48:06mandated, health and safety,

48:08rehabilitation and replacement.

48:10reliability and redundancy

48:12and then we prioritize them further

48:14based on what kind of funding uh was

48:17available.

48:19So here are some examples of the capital

48:21projects. Um we're all aware of the Hilo

48:23wastewater treatment plant. Uh then we

48:26have um CapeU wastewater treatment plant

48:29where we have code and safety violations

48:31and Kimono u treatment plant where there

48:34are some failed equipment that would

48:36larger equipment that would need to be

48:38replaced.

48:41Okay. So, moving on to the total program

48:44costs. Um, in the near term, the

48:49priority would be $1.1 billion and that

48:52is predominantly legally mandated uh

48:56projects and health and safety projects

48:58identified through the AOC and also um

49:00the kayak settlement.

49:03So, those are the first 10 years. Moving

49:06on to the 20-year horizon.

49:09um we add another uh half a billion

49:12dollars and that incorporates some

49:14rehabilitation and replacement and

49:16reliability and redundancy projects. Um

49:20so further prioritizing the CIP

49:24and then when we look at the entire

49:26wastewater needs throughout the county

49:28uh we identify that as $2.3 billion

49:31total and those would include uh

49:34unscheduled projects and unfunded

49:37projects um that are that would be

49:39included in the uh county CIP.

49:45Okay. So here you can see that the

49:48majority of the identified program is

49:51the AOC and the legally mandated

49:53projects

49:56and this is kind of your cash flow that

49:58we worked out with finance Dian Nakagaw

50:01and her team. Um the majority of the

50:03spend or expenditures are in the first

50:0610 years and then they um go down after

50:08that as u the priorities uh lesson.

50:14Okay, I'm going to hand it back to uh my

50:16colleague Gary to uh touch on the

50:18cessible conversion.

50:21>> Okay, so that was the work that we

50:23completed for the facilities plan. The

50:24cessible conversion plan is a complex

50:28complex issue as you all know. It's an

50:29issue that's the other counties are

50:31dealing with as well. Uh the other three

50:34counties have developed a cesspool

50:36conversion evaluation very similar to

50:38what we're going to describe for your

50:40county using the same general criteria

50:42and they're at about the same point too

50:44where it's just now being presented to

50:46administration and leadership.

50:49The agenda for this discussion is to

50:51talk about the background and basis of

50:53analysis review the full range of

50:55cessible conversion options and

50:57projects. Many of these projects are

50:59very expensive when compared to

51:02conversion of assessible to an

51:03individual wastewater system such as a

51:05septic tank and probably will not could

51:08not be implemented because of of the

51:10financial feasibility. We'll talk talk

51:12about that and we have some suggested

51:14approaches to extension of county sewers

51:16to priority sewer areas.

51:19So the purpose of this whole evaluation

51:22was to address the methodology and cost

51:25for converting all 48,6600

51:27cesspools in the county shown on the

51:31graphic on the right as to where they're

51:32located. The University of Hawaii has

51:34developed a prioritization tool

51:36prioritizing cess pools in the state as

51:38either one, two, or three. One having

51:40the greatest potential impact to the

51:43environment of public health. See most

51:45of the cess pools in the county are

51:47priority three but there are ones and

51:50twos.

51:52So the evaluation considers three

51:55methods of conversion. One is the

51:58connection to an existing county or

51:59non-county system. The extension of the

52:02existing county sewer system is really

52:04the is the primary means of which the

52:07county may affect cespool conversions.

52:09We also looked at connection to

52:11non-county systems and we'll talk more

52:13about that. The other option is new

52:15decentralized or cluster wastewater

52:18systems. So small treatment plants, new

52:20collection systems very much like what

52:22the county has implemented at Pahala. Um

52:26these are typically communitydriven with

52:29l with with minimal county input. And

52:32then the far right that's conversion to

52:34an individual wastewater treatment

52:36system we call IWS that's approved by

52:39the department of health and this is the

52:42parcel owner's responsibility working

52:44directly with do

52:47the cost these systems vary

52:48significantly what we found was the cost

52:51in general the cost to convert to

52:54on-site system IWS is the least cost the

52:57next tier in cost is extension of

53:00existing sewer infrastructure and the

53:03most costly is building new

53:04decentralized systems.

53:08So you all know this was driven by state

53:10legislation act two act 125 in 2017

53:14established that all cesspools must be

53:17converted by January 1, 2050 although

53:20their exemptions may be considered by do

53:23those exemptions include lot size, lot

53:25slope etc. uh act 132 formed the

53:28cesspool conversion working group which

53:30their work is now complete. There were

53:32two really valuable studies that that

53:35they commissioned and were completed.

53:36One was evaluation of the all the the

53:39technical u types of conversions that

53:42can be taken place and the other one is

53:44is a finance and the impact on

53:46affordability in the state. Both those

53:48documents on the are on DOH website and

53:51then act 217 provided additional funding

53:54to the University of Hawaii to do some

53:56additional prioritization studies.

54:00So the approach to identifying areas

54:03these cesspool areas that can be served

54:04by existing sewers or new sewers. This

54:08is the same approach that the other

54:09counties use was generally to identify

54:11where there are clusters of cesspools

54:13that are close together where it might

54:15be cost-effective to build new sewers or

54:17extend sewers and the criteria was 50

54:20cess pools within an eighth of a mile.

54:22We identified 77 77 density groups on

54:26the on in the county. Uh we then

54:29identified how much waste water would

54:31come from those groups based on the city

54:32and county of Honolulu standards. And

54:35then depending on the proximity to

54:37county and non-county sewers, we

54:39identified where those projects would be

54:40feasible. If they weren't proximity to

54:43sewers, then they're likely candidates

54:45for new decentralized facilities.

54:48If I can um have a point of personal

54:50privilege when we have maps that are

54:52presented without a legend, would you

54:54mind just briefly indicating what um the

54:56color coding represents?

54:58>> So in this case uh the with the image on

55:02the right, there's a bunch of numbers

55:03there. Those are those are those

55:05identification of the 77 density groups

55:08that were identified that are presented

55:11in the report. So that's what that's

55:12what those numbers represent.

55:18Okay. So we ident then took that

55:21information and say okay based on this

55:23criteria of 50 cesspools within an

55:25eighth of a mile what are the total

55:27potential projects that could be

55:29considered and we'll find that a lot of

55:31these projects are very expensive uh and

55:34Jason will talk more about that but we

55:36identified 39 potential projects where

55:38the county sewer system could be

55:40extended. The graphics that we see here

55:43is a map of the projects in the Hilo

55:45area and the graph in the table of the

55:47projects in in the particular Hilo area.

55:50You know obviously you know the number

55:52of sewer extension projects is more

55:54opportunities in Hilo in Kak because the

55:56service areas are larger.

56:00We then we also identified four areas

56:03where non where extension of non-county

56:06wastewater systems may be feasible. see

56:08what they're they're listed on on this

56:10particular slide. Puco is one of them,

56:13which I think you're all familiar with.

56:18And then there's a there's there's third

56:2126 projects that were identified for

56:23potentially new decentralized wastewater

56:25facilities. And you know, these these,

56:27as I mentioned, these are the most

56:29costly means of conversion, but we

56:31wanted to identify where there was

56:32potential areas. We're going to find

56:34that these are quite costly to

56:36implement.

56:38And then the remaining the remaining

56:40success pools would be converted to

56:42approved individual wastewater systems

56:44or IWS. So over approximately 30,000

56:49and so that that's and they're shown

56:51here by priority areas.

56:54Summary of just county all potential

56:57projects again

57:00county sewer system extensions about

57:018,000 non-county systems less new

57:05decentralized systems about 9,000 by and

57:08large mostly to individual wastewater

57:10systems and this is shown just just

57:12graphically the same information. Now

57:15what what we'll see is that the county

57:18sewer system extension projects and

57:19decentralized are so costly that they're

57:22not practical and so that the p percent

57:25that's going to be conversion converted

57:26to IWS is going to be much larger than

57:29the 60% shown here probably on the or on

57:32the range of 80 to 90% the conversions

57:35would be two individual wastewater

57:37systems.

57:43Thank you Gary. Uh Jason Niko with Coral

57:45Engineers again. Um so we develop cost

57:47estimates um for these projects based on

57:50local projects uh national projects and

57:54also um do database when uh assessible

57:58conversions occurred maybe like five

57:59years ago. And we also contacted uh

58:02multiple contractors to get IWS uh

58:06conversion estimates and we input that

58:08into our uh our cost models to develop

58:12overall uh project costs.

58:16Um so this is a summary of the potential

58:20conversion cost estimates. Um

58:24county sewer system extension projects

58:26would total about uh 784 million. On

58:30average, these would cost 93,000 per

58:32cesspool. Um, extensions to non-county

58:36systems, 122 million at roughly 140,000

58:42um per cessible. New decentralized

58:45systems. Uh, the total cost for all of

58:48those projects would be almost $3

58:51billion

58:52um at a peressible cost of $300,000.

58:57and IWS conversions uh 1.2 billion at uh

59:0240,000 um per cessible. So kind of

59:06matches what my colleague uh Gary was

59:08talking about earlier. Uh where is

59:11feasible

59:12IWS conversions are the most cost

59:15effective and new decentralized systems

59:19um cost are almost cost prohibitive. Um

59:23so the total potential costs for all the

59:25cesspools

59:27um in the county would be approximately5

59:29billion dollars

59:32according to uh the technical

59:34feasibility of it. Um

59:38they're just showing the different um

59:42the different costs for each category

59:44and the county's portion circled in red.

59:48Okay. So given the technical feasibility

59:51now we bring in the financial part to

59:54kind of prioritize the pro the potential

59:58conversions that way. Um county sewer

1:00:01extension projects we assume those would

1:00:03be led by the county and we would limit

1:00:06those to priority one cesspools and

1:00:09previously um identified areas within

1:00:12the Hilo service area. Uh and then the

1:00:15other projects would be remain un

1:00:18unfunded and unscheduled. Um

1:00:20non-counties would be led by the the

1:00:22private utilities themselves. Whether

1:00:24they decide to uh implement those

1:00:26projects or not would be up to them. Uh

1:00:28new decentralized wastewater systems

1:00:31would be uh up to the community um

1:00:35similar to what Puco is going to

1:00:37through. They would initiate the project

1:00:38themselves. Um and we would expect the

1:00:42county's assistance would be limited to

1:00:44you know facilitating uh those projects.

1:00:48And lastly um conversion to do approved

1:00:51individual wastewater systems would be

1:00:53the responsibleility of that property

1:00:56owner working with uh the department of

1:00:58health. So given these assumptions

1:01:02um the

1:01:04the proposed priority pro projects for

1:01:07sewer system extensions are listed here.

1:01:1010 projects. Um note that the kale kaha

1:01:15although we put a cost in there um it is

1:01:18DHHL uh own. So we assume DHHL would be

1:01:22responsible for that um project. Um and

1:01:25so in total about 3,3100

1:01:28cooles uh at um $266 million.

1:01:35Okay. So graphically here's where uh

1:01:38those projects will be located. uh in

1:01:40Hilo um more on the eastern and uh the

1:01:44western edges of the uh of the city and

1:01:48then Kala kind of throughout the uh

1:01:52service area.

1:01:56Um so this is comparing uh kind of the

1:01:59potential to a proposed um syso

1:02:03conversions. uh the county's uh portion

1:02:06would decrease from 784 to 266 million.

1:02:11Um

1:02:13connections to non-county would decrease

1:02:16as well. Uh we as part of this plan we

1:02:19don't have any decentralized

1:02:22um projects proposed but that is

1:02:25dependent on whether those communities

1:02:27would want to implement it or not. Uh

1:02:29financially

1:02:30uh there's not much of a driver there.

1:02:32So there would be other drivers um that

1:02:35would be required for th that county to

1:02:38I that community to implement those

1:02:40projects and as we decrease the number

1:02:43of projects in the other categories

1:02:45likewise the number of IWS conversions

1:02:48would go up. So that um number goes up

1:02:51as well but the overall uh conversion

1:02:54costs would drop from five billion down

1:02:56to$2 billion dollars.

1:02:59Okay, so here's a pie chart comparing um

1:03:03the two approaches. The on the left is a

1:03:06potential and on the right is a

1:03:08suggested or proposed um conversion

1:03:11plan. Um

1:03:14like you see on the right now the vast

1:03:16majority of the the conversions would be

1:03:18through IWS with limited uh sewer system

1:03:23extensions by the county and uh private

1:03:26utilities.

1:03:31Okay. So, next steps. Um, on August

1:03:3326th, uh, we briefed the Environmental

1:03:37Management Commission uh on the findings

1:03:40of both the facilities plan and the

1:03:42cessible conversion evaluation. Um,

1:03:45we're briefing the uh the county council

1:03:48today and um the compliance date for the

1:03:53AOC is January 31st. Um, our reports are

1:03:57in draft right now. Um, assuming uh no

1:04:01other comments u will be ready to

1:04:03finalize and meet the AOC deadline uh on

1:04:08January 31st.

1:04:10And then lastly, we'd like to thank all

1:04:13the um county staff, Director Gervin,

1:04:16deputy director Kawaguchi,

1:04:19uh our project manager, Kelly Hartman,

1:04:22and also Diane Nakagawa at her and her

1:04:25staff at the finance department who

1:04:27helped guide us um through these three

1:04:29years of finally seeing the end of the

1:04:32the light at the end of the tunnel. Um

1:04:35that concludes our presentation and open

1:04:37up to any questions or comments.

1:04:40Thank you so much, Council Member Con.

1:04:45>> Thanks, sir.

1:04:46>> So, I just want to point out those two

1:04:48guys at the end of the photo shoot. Some

1:04:50hats guys you got. I don't know who

1:04:52those guys are, but ugly

1:04:55shirt.

1:04:59>> Uh what what did you guys what was your

1:05:01cost per mile to run the main county

1:05:04line

1:05:07that you used? Do you know?

1:05:12>> Not off the top of uh our head, but we

1:05:15can we can get you that that number.

1:05:17>> And then did you consider

1:05:20did you consider where you have pockets

1:05:22of heavy density recess pools

1:05:27versus in rural areas that are possible

1:05:31connections versus urban areas where you

1:05:34have instant customers. But your cost to

1:05:37county streets and existing

1:05:40infrastructure around buried helpful

1:05:43lines and things like that becomes more

1:05:44expensive.

1:05:45>> Yes, the the rural um communities were

1:05:50typically more expensive because we

1:05:51would need to install more pipe to reach

1:05:54um the treatment plant areas.

1:05:57Um and then the unit costs do take into

1:06:00account construction around other

1:06:03utilities as well.

1:06:05>> But cheaper to go through rural areas

1:06:06because there's nothing there. You just

1:06:08go through rock. I mean we have a lot of

1:06:09rock. I'll give you that.

1:06:11>> Yes. Uh but with other areas too um

1:06:17there are other considerations also in

1:06:19the rural areas um such as uh easements

1:06:24that may be necessary. um the most

1:06:27direct path may not be on public

1:06:29rightway.

1:06:31Um so but we assume that and sometimes

1:06:33that's why the costs are longer are

1:06:35higher because of the need to go to

1:06:38public right away.

1:06:40>> So just looking I did some quick math on

1:06:43Calhe you had about 2,300 customers in

1:06:45two areas that could be connected.

1:06:48>> That was in your your math. Yeah. 1,700

1:06:50and 600 respectively. So about 2,300

1:06:54customers could be connected to the

1:06:55system at a cost of $219 million

1:07:00pencils out to about

1:07:03no 79 years worth of payments at our $52

1:07:07per unit rate. So it's pretty doable.

1:07:10I'm feeling this.

1:07:13My goodness. You know, the first time I

1:07:15met Kelly was on a phone call when we

1:07:17discussed the cost to improve sewer into

1:07:20the Puna district.

1:07:23both up and out to Paja and up towards

1:07:26Volcano. And I I looked at her, I was

1:07:28like, "This is crazy. You might as well

1:07:29just give everybody a $50,000 voucher

1:07:32and say, "Build your own septic system."

1:07:34And the numbers he gave me, I mean,

1:07:36yeah, you're kind of back to that as

1:07:38being the most cost effective. Even if

1:07:41the county gave everybody the funds to

1:07:44do it, it would still be the most cost

1:07:46effective in my opinion versus running

1:07:48the pipe, running back to a plant.

1:07:52Yeah. Is that is that in line with what

1:07:54you're saying? Even though your numbers

1:07:56didn't show that. I was interesting.

1:07:59>> I think they do. They did.

1:08:00>> Well, no. The cost for septic

1:08:02conversions

1:08:04to IWS, SEASPO conversions to IWS was

1:08:08higher than your cost for unless it was

1:08:11a joint combination thing.

1:08:13>> So, it was about half.

1:08:14>> So, the so the cost the cost we're using

1:08:16the average cost for conversion to an

1:08:18IWS is $40,000. per unit. That that

1:08:22number varies widely depending on site

1:08:24conditions. You know, we saw numbers is,

1:08:27you know, ranging from 10 to $100,000 or

1:08:29more. The median was about 40,000. And

1:08:32that that that cost per cessful

1:08:34conversion is the least cost of the

1:08:37other compared to the other options. So

1:08:40I'm looking at the summary of priority

1:08:41county sewer extension projects

1:08:45where you have your cesspool priorities

1:08:47or number of cesspools

1:08:49estimated capital costs for existing

1:08:51county service extensions and then your

1:08:53cost per conversion.

1:08:56>> So that cost per conversion is not an

1:08:58IWS conversion.

1:08:59>> No, that's for the extension of the

1:09:01sewer. So that's per customer

1:09:04a sewer connection conversion from

1:09:08cesspool to connecting to our county

1:09:10sewer system per unit.

1:09:12>> Correct.

1:09:12>> Correct.

1:09:13>> That's the 93,000 number that you're

1:09:14looking at.

1:09:15>> Okay. 630. I misread that. I was

1:09:17thinking sewer conversion

1:09:19>> accessible to IWS conversion. Okay. So

1:09:21you you came across the random sorry the

1:09:24the average price about $40,000 for an

1:09:26IWS conversion.

1:09:28>> Yeah. say it varies widely but that's

1:09:30that's what we use as the basis for the

1:09:31analysis

1:09:33>> much cheaper

1:09:34>> so I don't know if you were you here

1:09:36earlier when we had the discussion with

1:09:38the EM

1:09:39>> on the rates or

1:09:40>> yeah about the rates per unit

1:09:42>> we were outside

1:09:44>> and my thing has been we need to connect

1:09:45more people but then as I started doing

1:09:47the math I realized the math does not

1:09:48work in our favor

1:09:50>> at all

1:09:52>> okay

1:09:53>> you can kind of see that with um the

1:09:56cost estimates for pahala uh and not

1:10:00where you know it's like 30 plus million

1:10:03dollars for a new collection system and

1:10:05only like a hundred or so

1:10:08>> customers

1:10:08>> customers.

1:10:09>> Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that

1:10:10one. I still think we should do

1:10:11individual wastewater systems and call

1:10:13it a day.

1:10:15That's just my opinion.

1:10:17But can that can you bring that can you

1:10:20take those findings back to

1:10:23EPA and have the discussion with them on

1:10:25the cost conversion for an a treatment

1:10:28plant versus individual wastewater

1:10:30systems

1:10:31versus converting all the cesspools to a

1:10:34private or public funded

1:10:37facility that's going to cost us 30

1:10:39to$50 million for 100 customers.

1:10:44Maybe that's a that's that's a question

1:10:46for DEM perhaps. But um but that that's

1:10:49I mean those numbers are real. I mean

1:10:51that $300,000 per per year per cessible

1:10:55conversion for decentralized system

1:10:56that's based on Bahala based on the bid

1:10:58costs.

1:10:59>> I've been I've been watching these. I'm

1:11:00very interested. It's psychotic actually

1:11:02how much we're going to spend for 100

1:11:04people.

1:11:05But uh DM do you have a comment on that?

1:11:09Kelly, [laughter]

1:11:14it's been bugging me. Michelle and I

1:11:15have talked about it. I've talked about

1:11:16it with finance and I've just This is

1:11:19floating question I have of why we're

1:11:20spending that much money for so amount

1:11:23of customer base.

1:11:24>> The $300,000

1:11:26per property is a real number. That is

1:11:29really what it is costing us at Bahala.

1:11:33>> Understood.

1:11:35Um, as far as the EPA is concerned, they

1:11:39don't care how we do this. All they care

1:11:42about is that we close the gang susp.

1:11:44>> Okay.

1:11:46>> So, so IWS conversions is a possibility

1:11:49or off the [snorts] table.

1:11:50>> Very, very definitely a possibility.

1:11:52>> Well, my goodness.

1:11:54>> Well, I I have to put a restriction on

1:11:56that.

1:11:56>> Okay.

1:11:59do will have a hand in that because it's

1:12:03the same old problem with a dense

1:12:06community.

1:12:08Independent

1:12:10septic tanks work fine until the

1:12:13community gets dense enough that they're

1:12:17too close together and you don't have

1:12:18adequate drainage.

1:12:20So the DO would be the next

1:12:24potential control on what technology is

1:12:28acceptable in a in a condensed

1:12:31community.

1:12:33So they could come back and say there's

1:12:35not enough

1:12:37square feet per property to do IWS

1:12:43and then that leaves us with

1:12:45>> okay

1:12:45>> maybe a low pressure system.

1:12:47>> We're a little wandering away. So let's

1:12:50we can always have this conversation

1:12:51when we have and we've had it for years

1:12:53in Pahala. So let's not redo it tonight

1:12:55because I'm getting very grouchy.

1:12:59>> May continue, but let's not let's not

1:13:02talk about Pahala. And

1:13:03>> have we asked the O?

1:13:07>> Well, first off, please understand that

1:13:09PA was started a long time ago. So I I

1:13:13can't I can't answer for who was asked

1:13:15what then.

1:13:16>> Completely understand. And I don't want

1:13:17to make Michelle Margarouchi, but has do

1:13:19been asked the question.

1:13:20>> Um, let me just say that before we

1:13:23start, NAOU, we will ask those

1:13:26questions.

1:13:27>> God. Okay, good. Beautiful. Thank you.

1:13:29>> Okay.

1:13:30>> Awesome.

1:13:32Council member Kimble,

1:13:33>> let's try to be brief. Um the um at at

1:13:38the HSA conference um last week, we did

1:13:40have a working group. Dan was a

1:13:43participant. Thank you, Dan. Um and you

1:13:46know the the conversation I think really

1:13:49indicated that cost is the driving

1:13:52factor on a lot of the decision making

1:13:56um as

1:13:59and and that's not surprising. I mean

1:14:00I've seen that whether we're talking

1:14:02about wastewater or water or any kind of

1:14:05infrastructure. Um

1:14:08my question so one question um and you

1:14:11mentioned the uh um cesspool

1:14:14prioritization tool. Were you using the

1:14:17most recent version, the one that Chris

1:14:20presented at the HAC conference that had

1:14:23the 14 criteria for presentation or was

1:14:26this the initial version that came out

1:14:29of the CESPO working group?

1:14:30>> Their study, you just used the three

1:14:32levels. Is that correct?

1:14:34>> Yes. I his um his study with 14 levels

1:14:38was new news to me. Frankly, good news.

1:14:42>> Yeah. But it was certainly new news to

1:14:44me.

1:14:45>> Yeah. So just for my colleagues, you

1:14:47know, I think um clearly from a

1:14:51standpoint of cost alone, conversion to

1:14:55individual wastewater systems is, you

1:14:58know, it saves us

1:15:01a lot of money. Um at least what about

1:15:03$2 billion, $3 billion.

1:15:07However, um what I don't think is taken

1:15:09into account and correct me if I'm wrong

1:15:11in this analysis is we do know that

1:15:14there are locations where in IWS in

1:15:17terms of water quality is not an

1:15:19improvement, right? And that's also a

1:15:22goal here. Um and that is one of the

1:15:24factors that is taken into account. So

1:15:27um I can I assume that with respect to

1:15:30the proposal here that that particular

1:15:32element was not taken into account the

1:15:36the effectiveness of an IWS at that

1:15:39given location in terms of this

1:15:42proposal.

1:15:44>> Uh that is correct. So our evaluation

1:15:47was at a high level. uh we didn't do

1:15:49sight specific um evaluations which DOH

1:15:52would require an engineer to do um

1:15:54things like uh soil percolation and all

1:15:57that we did not do and that would change

1:15:59um what type of individual wastewater

1:16:02system DOH would approve so it could be

1:16:04higher than

1:16:06>> um 40,000 is a typical we assume is a

1:16:08typical septic tank installation.

1:16:11>> Yeah. So I, you know, I think as we move

1:16:13forward, um, potentially the ability to

1:16:16incorporate this more advanced tool from

1:16:21uh into some of these decision- making.

1:16:23I mean, as ideal as it seems to allow

1:16:26for most of the conversion to happen

1:16:28through a conversion to individual

1:16:29wastewater systems. You you mentioned

1:16:31workforce at our working group, that's

1:16:33another factor that's just outside of

1:16:35the cost factor. I mean, we're just not

1:16:37going to have the workforce, let alone

1:16:39the materials to convert to individual

1:16:42wastewater systems that fast um and and

1:16:46meet these these numbers. Um just for my

1:16:49colleagues, there was some discussion

1:16:50about refining even further the

1:16:53prioritization in terms of the timeline

1:16:55and the 2050 deadline to incorporate

1:16:59some of these other factors into that.

1:17:01And I think that's an interesting

1:17:03discussion to be had. the the last

1:17:05question I want to I mean we we brought

1:17:08up some other wastewater facilities

1:17:10development which I think yes we we we

1:17:13should think about cost per household in

1:17:17terms of these solutions. Um based on

1:17:21this assessment

1:17:22um does it make sense to fund phase two

1:17:25of Hilo wastewater?

1:17:30>> Sorry. [laughter]

1:17:33Uh I'm assuming you mean [clears throat]

1:17:35phase two of the Hilo project. Is that

1:17:37correct?

1:17:39>> Um phase two of Hilo project is a change

1:17:42in technology.

1:17:44Uh we would be going from the towers

1:17:47with the pack towers with I think

1:17:50they're called bioreactors

1:17:52>> to more of a of a traditional

1:17:57um activated sludge technology. Uh I I I

1:18:02think it's viewed as being a more stable

1:18:05uh more capable technology, but it also

1:18:08offers us uh new opportunities

1:18:12for nutrient removal that is not

1:18:15available to us with the biotowers. Um

1:18:19you know all of us should be aware that

1:18:21the next level of regulation on our

1:18:24wastewater discharge is coming and part

1:18:28one of it is going to look like nutrient

1:18:31control and then part two of it is going

1:18:33to be PAS and a lot of other things. So

1:18:37we're not done with having to perform

1:18:39better than we have done in the past.

1:18:43So you your perception is that it is

1:18:46likely that we would be required through

1:18:51potential mandate to move forward with

1:18:55the planned improvements that are in

1:18:58phase two.

1:18:58>> I'm going to have uh Jason either agree

1:19:01or disagreement with me here, but I

1:19:03don't think we're going to be required

1:19:05to utilize a specific technology. Let's

1:19:09call that phase two. we're going to be

1:19:11required to perform to a certain

1:19:14discharge standard

1:19:16and and in order to achieve that

1:19:18standard I think we have to upgrade our

1:19:20technology. Am I reading that correctly?

1:19:36>> Kelly Hartman, regulatory administrator.

1:19:38So the phase two of the Hilo project is

1:19:41in our AOC mandates

1:19:44um to replace those bio towers. The

1:19:47exact technology is not dictated to us

1:19:50but that's um the design that we've been

1:19:53working on in house.

1:19:54>> Okay.

1:19:56So basically yes it's regulatory

1:19:59required that we expend the funds to do

1:20:03phase two

1:20:04>> and it needs to be completed by 2035.

1:20:07Okay,

1:20:09remember how I used the over the barrel

1:20:11expression? Um, I'm going to use that

1:20:12again tonight. Um, I I'll leave it

1:20:14there. Thank you,

1:20:16>> Council Member.

1:20:18>> I just wanted to say I guess there's

1:20:20staff from DM that wanted to say

1:20:23something.

1:20:25>> You have your hand raised, so we

1:20:27wondered if you had something you wanted

1:20:29to add.

1:20:31>> Yeah, Chris Laud, the temporary

1:20:33assignment chief of the wastewater

1:20:35division. Just real quick, the the

1:20:39requirement from DOH is that all cess

1:20:43pools be closed, but they don't they

1:20:45don't say the county has to close all

1:20:48the SAS pools. Right? So, this is a

1:20:50mandate that's not really well defined

1:20:54and they don't identify a funding

1:20:56source. And as you can see from the

1:20:58report, the numbers that we're talking

1:21:00about are just astronomical.

1:21:04and and yes the the cheapest way seems

1:21:08to be

1:21:10u the most attractive. However, it was

1:21:13also pointed out that with these

1:21:15individual wastewater systems you may

1:21:17not get any treatment of the liquid

1:21:20train. So that the net um impact on the

1:21:24nearshore waters is is not going to be

1:21:27as uh dramatic. It's not going to be as

1:21:30dramatic of of an improvement as you

1:21:32might hope. And every year when we renew

1:21:36the permit, the NPDES permit for Hilo,

1:21:40they always put in a nutrient limits and

1:21:43every year we've been argue been able to

1:21:45argue against it. And you know, one of

1:21:49these years they're going to say, "No,

1:21:51the permit limit stands." And a risk

1:21:55that we run into is we allow everybody

1:21:58to just do IWS.

1:22:01Now, the nearshore waters are going to

1:22:03be impaired and our plant, even if we

1:22:06discharge nothing, is going to be

1:22:07non-compliant. So it's it's a

1:22:10complicated nuanced

1:22:12um analysis here but we definitely my

1:22:16recommendation is we need to upgrade uh

1:22:19the plant to get a more modern secondary

1:22:23treatment system which is the activated

1:22:25sledge system and then we also need to

1:22:28talk to DOH and figure out well who who

1:22:31is expected to convert these cesspools

1:22:33and who's going to pay for it is the

1:22:36huge thing and then if DO allows IWS's,

1:22:41they need to factor that into the future

1:22:44water quality standard studies that they

1:22:46do that would shape the discharge limits

1:22:50of our NPDS permits.

1:22:53Sorry to get too complicated, but th

1:22:56this is surprisingly complicated.

1:23:00>> Thank you. My only comment is is that

1:23:03too bad we didn't have this presentation

1:23:05before we talked about those rate

1:23:07increases.

1:23:09Thanks,

1:23:11>> Council Member Viegas.

1:23:12>> Yeah, just real f. I mean, back when I

1:23:15was in college in the 1900s,

1:23:17conversations were already being had

1:23:19about kind of the waste in our

1:23:23practices, especially in first world

1:23:25countries by um dealing with our

1:23:28personal solid and liquid waste with

1:23:31water. So I am hopeful that somewhere

1:23:34out there we've got the next generation

1:23:37of incredible thinkers and enlightened

1:23:40minds. Um and through traveling the

1:23:42world where not everybody has the luxury

1:23:45or the resources to use gallons of water

1:23:48to flush their waste um which then

1:23:51leaves us with dealing with more. I just

1:23:54I'm hopeful that somewhere out there um

1:23:57there will be the technology

1:23:58[clears throat] for us to um recalibrate

1:24:01the way we manage our waste flow,

1:24:04streams, cycles,

1:24:06uh whatnot. So that's just kind of my

1:24:09grand finale. I yield.

1:24:12>> Thank you, Council Member Viegas.

1:24:16Kona,

1:24:18Council Member Hustes, is he's gone.

1:24:21Okay. I just see someone over there.

1:24:23Okay.

1:24:24>> Yeah. Well, oh, it's Scott. Okay. Okay.

1:24:27Okay. So, thank you so much for all the

1:24:30work you folks have done for three years

1:24:34and DEM for getting this ready and, you

1:24:38know, having this financial plan ready

1:24:41for EPA on time, I I believe. So, that's

1:24:45wonderful work. I thank you so much.

1:24:48Thank you for s finding us. What is it?

1:24:50$3 million. three billion dollars less.

1:24:53So, yes, great work. Only two billion

1:24:56dollars. [laughter]

1:24:58Um, all in favor of closing file and

1:25:01communication 1062, please say I.

1:25:05>> Um, that is six in favor with council

1:25:09members,

1:25:11uh, Inaba and Kirkowitz

1:25:15excused. And that bring Oh, motion

1:25:18motion carries. And that brings us to

1:25:20the end of our agenda for the night.

1:25:23Thank you so much.

```*