2022-01-07 EMC special meeting draft minutes

Home

ADAMS: Do the commissioners have any additional questions for the Hendersons? Hearing and seeing none, now I will close the evidentiary portion of the hearing and we will move to closing arguments. Is that right Keyra? Okay. Appellant gets to go first in making your closing argument. Mr. Henderson. HENDERSON:Okay. Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to present our findings of fact and be able to address this problem that we discovered … Our case before the Commission today is a case that is based on the sewer code as provided in 21-31, also based on the federal regulation, and that was found in Ordinance 92-77, and our case rests on the code contained in the sewer billing and not in the Building Department code or any other code. It rests solely in the sewer department’s chapter for residential customers, non-commercial. So having said that, I want to reiterate that federal funding is based on the users of the system paying their proportionate share based on the user’s proportionate wastewater loading. And I believe we have shown that there is no difference between a single-family residence with a laundry inside of it compared to a laundry, be it in a detached garage or detached storage shed, given the same amount of water consumption. It is based on the proportionate wastewater loading and what that means is the amount of loading or the amount of water put into the sewer system. I also want to iterate that the code in 21-31 provides specific charging authority there. It does not provide charging authority in the definition. It does not provide charging authority anywhere else, but there in 21-31 for single family residential units, is what we're dealing with. And I think we really have to understand the definition of an unoccupied unit as it is used in the sewer code. And an unoccupied unit is specifically relating to those units enumerated above. And it makes sense that if a single-family resident was connected to the water, was nobody living in it, unoccupied, it would be an unoccupied unit. And I think we have to understand that Black's Legal Dictionary defines dwelling, a house, into real estate, the house, and all buildings attached to or connected with the house. And really clearly, the property at 75-5944 Ali‘i Drive, consists of a main residential building and an outbuilding that originally housed the freshwater catchment tank that are converted to a storage room. And that's where the architect put the hot water heater for the house from its inception, the laundry facility and bathroom, and it should be considered as one dwelling in accordance with the legal definition of a dwelling. Finally, I would say that this is a case that deals with fees charged from the get-go. And when you look at wastewater sewer card, I really don't understand, and it's not provided to the owner. It's an internal document of who the inspector was, what their qualifications were for determining, and whether or not they understood what the code is. And it's apparent from my questioning that the inspectors, the business manager, and the director, are not totally familiar with the code. And as a consequence, Kai Ala Partners has suffered an injury of $7,888 in being overcharged for two single family residential units on one lot for 23 years. Now there are two TMKs there that make up that property. But the laundry and the tank house and the main residential building are on one TMK parcel ending in 018. And it's been that way from the beginning, and even when there was a cesspool there, the laundry facility and the house tied into the cesspool, and it was only a matter of filling in the cesspool and extending that to the county's lateral and one connection. It was a single-family residence, and it even states that in the card there. So I would say that this really is a case of unjust enrichment and that the Commission needs to really address the interpretation of the code found in 21-31, and 33