Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes for Wednesday, September 5, 2001Page 4 of 5 <br />operations and maintenance overview of what your facility looks like. One way for us to understand the <br />difference and the importance between the two, is if we could have someone from DOH come to one of our <br />meetings to explain what they feel is the more critical criteria. DOH does not issue a response letter and it <br />puts you in a bind because you don’t have official documentation that everything is okay. As a commission, <br />that is what we want to see. <br />Peter stated that if DOH disagrees with his explanation, then they will respond. The real issue that there is <br />an unacceptable rating is because of the pretreatment program. This is not the first year. It has been going <br />on for years. <br />Riley Smith requested a copy of Operation & Maintenance/Compliance Evaluation Inspection dated <br />September 20, 2000 to be distributed to Commission members before the next meeting. Kristen to prepare <br />invitation to Dennis Tulang of the State Department of Health to answer the following questions: <br />1.What is your role, procedures, NPDES permit process, and annual inspections? <br />2.What is the difference between an advisory thing and a violation? <br />3.What is the impact of these ratings and bearing it might have on future federal grants or existing <br />facilities that were provided by federal grants? <br />UPDATE FROM WASTEWATER DIVISION <br />DISCUSSION ON HAWAI‘I COUNTY COUNCIL BILL NO. 57 REGARDING CAPACITY <br />ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES <br /> <br />In discussions with the Consultant, they are in the process of revising that Bill. <br />DISCUSSION ON HAWAI‘I COUNTY COUNCIL BILL NO. 58 REGARDING BUILDING <br />SEWER CONNECTION LOAN PROGRAM <br /> <br />Peter Boucher indicated that once revisions to the Bill on capacity assessments are completed, then he <br />intends to hold public hearings on both bills at the same time. He will hold off on any more action on the <br />loan programs, until the public hearings. <br />DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE KEALAKEHE <br />DEMONSTRATION WETLANDS PLANNING AND RESEARCH AGREEMENT WITH THE <br />BUREAU OF RECLAMATION <br /> <br />Peter Boucher stated that in order for the Mayor to enter into the Agreement with the Bureau of <br />Reclamation, according to Corporation Counsel, it requires Council Resolution 20 days before authorizing <br />Mayor Kim to sign. Basically, that is what this resolution is. It authorizes the Mayor and the Bureau of <br />Reclamation. The Agreement is a formal document. The Bureau of Reclamation is preparing a preliminary <br />engineering report for construction of Lagoon No. 4, subsurface wetlands in existing Lagoon 6, and a series <br />of free water surface wetlands that surround the treatment plant. They have been doing the design. As part <br />of the agreement, the County is responsible for the construction. However, there is a clause in the <br />agreement that states that we can cancel the agreement at any time. We are not really bound by the <br />construction clause. The Bureau of Reclamation can even fund the construction later under a separate <br />contract. Riley Smith stated his concern that major issues should be discussed on both sides of the island so <br />people from both sides are given the opportunity to provide input. Requested that a discussion take place in <br />Waimea and also in East Hawai‘i. Carolyn Witcher mentioned that this was discussed at the previous <br />meeting in Kona. Hugh Ono stated that he does not feel that this is a controversial issue. Carolyn Witcher <br />moves that the Commission recommend that Council approve and go forward with this resolution for the <br />wetlands. Peter Martin seconds. Motion was unanimously carried. <br />file://C:\Test1\minutes090501.htm6/22/2011 <br /> <br />