2022-01-07 EMC special meeting draft minutes

Home

understanding the circumstances of not following the federal guidelines and looking for federal funding, and not providing a proportionate wastewater loading for our property at 75-5944. And we've already explained that there is no water bill designated for that property. The water bill goes to the adjoining property. Why that is, I don't know. Maybe it was a mistake, an error, just like the original error, and the County not really understanding what they're doing, and using a definition as the means of justifying a billing. Oh, it's unoccupied. Well, the doghouse is unoccupied, and I have a water tap to the doghouse. Does that mean that that doghouse gets a separate user fee charged? It doesn't make sense. The law is specifically clear as it relates to charging sewer fees. And we've paid $7,888 more than we should have, and we just want it back and we want our changed sewer user fee set at one. That's as simple as this is the purpose of the code there is to allow for the billing of sewer user charges, and it's found in 21-31. The authority is not in the definitions. And with that, I would beg that the Commission consider our evidence, consider our cross examination of the witnesses and their unfamiliarity with the code and what is supposed to happen, and find in favor of Kai Ala Partners, and return the monies and change the sewer fee. Thank you very much Chair and Commissioners. ADAMS: Thank you very much for your closing statement. Appellee, make your closing argument. KEKAI: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioners, for your time today. This is not a case – this is not a garage or carport. In fact, there's a garage on the other property, but this is a building that has a shower, a toilet, a laundry facility, and could be used for a studio. It could be inhabited. And that's basically how this was interpreted by the director, by the Inspector. This case is also about accountability. We all have a responsibility to review our bill thoroughly. We all have a responsibility to know. And I would also say that these are not your lay people that have one property. They have multiple properties. You just heard him testify that he is a property manager of multiple properties that have one unit and multiple units. And therefore he had noticed of how much one unit costs, right? They created an LLC. They even got this property registered as historical property. And if anybody has worked with SHPD, they know that's not an easy task. They've reviewed bills for not just themselves but other people. If they believe that there was a mistake made, they should have brought this up in 1998, or 2000, or any of the last 24 years that have passed. This case is also about discretion. The director has the authority and the discretion to decide and interpret the code, and that's what he did. He looked at the evidence available to him and he decided that this unit meets the definition of an unoccupied unit. It's connected to the sewer. It receives a water bill, even if it's the adjacent property, and it has plumbing fixtures. So in the end, there's been a lot of talk of definitions and technicalities of storage. Building isn't contained, and this and that and all the other thing. But the real issue that the Commission is deciding today is, did the director violate the law? And I would say no. He looked at the code and went with the strict destination of the code. Two, was his decision clearly erroneous? Again, no, it was not clearly erroneous. It has substantial evidence to support it. And three, was it an abuse of discretion? And again, the answer is no. It wasn't an abuse of discretion. He acted within his authority. He looked at all the facts available to him, and he made his decision. So I don't think that the Appellant has met their burden today. I don't think that they've proved that there was a violation of law, that it was clearly 34