2022-01-07 EMC special meeting draft minutes

Home

that the testimony you are about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? HENDERSON: I do, thank you. ADAMS: Since Richard Henderson is not intending to provide testimony, do I need to swear him in too, Keyra? WONG: I would share just in case commissioners or Ms. Kekai have questions and Mr. Richard Henderson wants to provide answers, I would ask that you swear him in. Thank you. ADAMS: All right, then. Mr. Richard Henderson, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? RICHARD HENDERSON I: I do. ADAMS: Thank you. Is there anything else in addition to the Exhibit 20 that either Ritchie or Richard Henderson would like to add? HENDERSON: Chair, I think that we have presented our case pretty succinctly in what we've provided the Commission already. I would like to reiterate the fact that a definition does not give you authority to make a charge. The authority is contained in the Code under Section 21- 31, which we provided you, and that stated sewer user charges for residential customers shall be billed as follows, and the sewer user charges for residential customers shall be assessed to all lots accessible to a public sewer or public gang cesspool, whether connected or not, under charges for sewer service to residential customers, which include service for single family dwellings, duplexes, housing projects, condominiums, townhouses, apartments, and dormitories shall be according to the schedule shown under 21-36.1. Unoccupied units will be assessed a monthly fee equal to the current monthly service fee. It is clearly stated that the unoccupied unit, as defined previously, is applying to those units listed above, namely single- family dwellings, duplexes, housing projects, condominiums, townhouses, apartments, and dormitories. It can't be any simpler than that. Again, you cannot use definitions to charge as authority. So I would say that in essence, our case rests on the proper interpretation of the code, and I would add in light of counsel'sopening statement, and the 143 billings that have been provided to Kai Ala Partners over the past year, that we were not provided the sewer user card that is contained in their files, which states that we were being charged from the outset two sewer user fees. And clearly, as our evidence is presented, there is no difference in wastewater loading between a single-family residence that contains within it a laundry facility, and a single family residence that has an out-structure that contains the laundry service there. Given the same amount of water consumption, there is no unproportionate wastewater loading. So we stand on the law that says that right now the Wastewater Division is in violation of federal regulations in charging two sewer user fees to Kai Ala Partners. And if the sewer department is looking for their funding from the EPA and being in violation of their mandated change in how they apply sewer charges, that this Commission should take a look at what's 6