HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0121.001 1996-1998 tv a
•
Stephen K. Yamashiro ,i~ ~ ~g[~~]~~~
Wurdeman
Mayor R E v 1-' V~INo~ cwruel
hiR•ei•w~y~'
'97 FEB 10 PIS 2 04
~IILtTIfk1 II~ ~2Tf11I[tt COUNTI' CLERK
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL OF HAWAU
301 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 • Hilo, Hawi'i 96720-4262 • (808) %1.8251 . Faz (808) %1.8622
February 10, 1997
Councilman Dominic Yagong
Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Councilman Yagong:
Re: Papaikou Collector Sewer, Phase II
This is a response to your oral request for an opinion on
whether Council approval is required to authorize the extension of
a sewer system in Papaikou to Kaapoko Homestead Road.
The Papaikou project was initiated in 1975, when by
resolution of the Council, the Mayor was authorized to apply for
construction grant benefits from the federal government for the
Papaikou Sewer System (Resolution 442 adopted August 20, 1975).
Plans were prepared and Phase I was completed in 1980,
encompassing primarily the portion of Papaikou along or makai of
the State highway.
The project encountered difficulties when it was found that
it could not meet the connection and design capacity provisions of
the grant conditions. A "final determination letter" was received
from the EPA in November 1993, lo:aering the design capacity but
requiring a construction schedule for Papaikou Phase II and Paukaa
Phase IZ, which did not include Kaapoko Homestead Road.
As Phase II progressed, it became known that the planned
connections for Paukaa had been overestimated. For this reason,
and because there was an unencumbered balance in the project
budget, it was decided to extend the project to Kaapoko Homestead
Road. This decision was made in January 1997.
Ordinance 96-51 requires that all extensions of public sewer
systems shall be approved by resolution of the Council. The
stated purpose for this requirement is to "provide for public
input on decisions to extend the public sewer system."
_ _1~1,.Q-_l .
r~rc.~!
FEB 1 u IJyI
Councilman Dominic Yagong
Page 2
February 10, 1997
An argument could be made that the Kaapoko Homestead Road
extension is outside of the requirements of this ordinance,
because it was delineated on plans dating back to the 1970's.
However, since the decision to proceed with this portion of the
project was not made until this year, we believe that it falls
under the ordinance, and that Council approval is required by
Ordinance 96-51.
We are also aware that Ordinance 96-51 was a legislative
response to a controversial project which was developed under
unusual conditions. The ordinance, however, is clear and general
in its application, and the reason for its enactment is not
relevant.
Sincerely,
7
D. WURDEMAN
Corporation Counsel
RDW:de
37911