Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04 NKID Draft Implementation ReportPREPARED FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MAF COUNTY OF HAWAII DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT FOR NORTH KONA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROJECT KONA, HAWAI`I April 2008 PREPARED FOR: County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management Technical Services Section PREPARED BY: WIN,� I N T E R N A T I U N A l SSFM International, Inc. 501 Sumner Street, Suite 620 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 North Kona Improvement District Project Implementation Report Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION I 1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2. STUDY AREA 2 1.3 COUNTY RESOLUTION 129-03 2 1.4 HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE — CHAPTER 12 5 CHAPTER 2 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 6 2.1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMPONENTS 6 2.1.1 Gravity Collection Lines and Sewer Manholes 6 2.1.2 Sewage Pump Stations (Lift Stations) and Force Mains 8 2.1.3 Reclaimed Water Distribution 8 2.1.4 Wastewater Treatment Plan 9 2.2 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS 10 2.2.1 Land Acquisition 10 2.2.2 Collection System Materials and Construction 10 2.2.3 Treatment Systems 11 2.2.4 Reuse Systems 11 2.3 IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 14 2.4 PROPOSED METHOD OF ASSESSMENT 16 2.4.1 Assessment by Equivalent Dwelling Unit (Recommended) 16 2.4.2 Other Assessment Methods Not Recommended 17 2.5 PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING 20 2.5.1 Council — Initiated Improvement District 20 2.5.2 Tax Increment District 20 2.5.3 Community Facilities District 21 2.5.4 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program 21 CHAPTER 3 CONCLUSION 22 3.1 SUMMARY RESULTS 22 3.2 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 22 3.3 PREFERRED METHOD OF FINANCING 22 -i- North Kona Improvement District Project Implementation Report Table of Contents LISTING OF FIGURES EXHIBIT PAGE Figure 1 Project Location and Existing Uses 3 Figure 2 North Kona Improvement District Boundary Map 15 LISTING OF APPENDICES APPENDIX Appendix A County Resolution 129-03 Appendix B Preferred Alternative — Kamanu Gravity Appendix C Average Daily Flow Schedule Appendix D Assessment Roll EDU Method Appendix E Method 1 — Assessment by Owner Area Appendix F Method 2 — Assessment by Zone Appendix G Implementation Schedule — Flowchart -H- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 1 North Kona Implementation Report Introduction CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A North Kona Implementation Report was developed for the County of Hawaii (County), Department of Environmental Management (DEM) to address and program the implementation of future sewer improvements necessary to serve projected development in the North Kona region of the island of Hawai` i. Information from this implementation report would be used as one component in the later development of a preliminary engineering report to support the establishment of an "Improvement District" for North Kona by the County Council. This project is collectively referred to as the North Kona Improvement District (NKID) Project. The first phase of this project involved the preparation of a North Kona Sewer Master Plan Summary Report to project future estimated flows and identify improvements needed for collection and transmission of sewage to the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant (KWWTP), and disposal of treated effluent. Thus, this North Kona Implementation Report is based upon the results of the sewer master plan summary report. 1.1 BACKGROUND A rapid confluence of both private and public developments on several large tracts of land extending from Kealakehe and Honokohau Harbor northbound to Kohanaiki is occurring or being planned. This coastline north of Kona contains valuable unique marine resources and pristine shoreline park properties that the County wishes to maintain in their natural state. As a result, an updated regional sewerage master plan for this North Kona region was warranted because existing sewer studies for this region were over 20 years old and did not reflect current development plans. In light of this pending growth, the County anticipated the need to implement improvements to their municipal sewer system and recycled water system serving this region. Such improvements would include assessing their gravity sewers, force mains, manholes, and pump stations situated north of the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. Therefore, the mix of private and public development planned in the region necessitated the preparation of a more comprehensive regional plan of wastewater treatment needs and sewer improvements for this region. In addition, a number of options were considered for selection in determining the allocation of sewer system improvement costs. This implementation report addresses the necessity, feasibility, boundaries, estimated construction costs, and recommended assessment method to finance the necessary sewer system improvements serving this North Kona district. -1- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 1 North Kona Implementation Report Introduction 1.2 STUDY AREA This section provides a profile overview of the region included in the sewer master plan study area which was utilized in this implementation report. The master plan summary report provided further discussion on the existing land use and settlement pattern of the region along with existing infrastructure facilities pertinent to the County's municipal sewer system. General Characteristics The study area in this North Kona district encompasses a large area from the shoreline inland up to Mamalahoa Highway and totaling approximately 5,600 acres. This region is for the most part still undeveloped. There are pockets of commercial and industrial developments concentrated along Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. Areas inland along Mamalahoa Highway generally consist of a few older residential subdivisions. Figure 1 includes an aerial photograph showing the study area boundary and existing land uses as of 2004, as well as major roadway facilities within the study area. As shown on this figure, the boundary along the shoreline starts from Kaiwi Point and extends northbound about 3.75 miles past the Honokohau Small Boat Harbor and Kaloko Point up to Puhili Point. The boundary from this coastline generally extends mauka (inland) about 3 to 4 miles up to Palani Road and along Mamalahoa Highway. 1.3 COUNTY RESOLUTION 129-03 In December 2003, the Council of the County of Hawaii adopted Resolution No. 129-03 directing the County DEM to develop an implementation plan for the Council's action and establishment of an improvement district. It guides the Director of the Department of Environmental Management to prepare a report containing the following for submission to the Council: 1. A broad regional sewerage master plan for the region north of Kealakehe; and 2. A specific and detailed implementation plan for an improvement district to include the necessity, feasibility, proposed boundaries, proposed real properties subject to assessment, estimated total cost, and method financing desirable for the aforementioned sewer system improvements at Kealakehe, Honokohau, Kaloko and Kohanaiki, District of North Kona, County and State of Hawai` i. This North Kona Implementation Report would be used by the County DEM to provide the Council with various technical assessments and information needed for their action pursuant to Resolution 129-03. However, assessments of financing analysis and methods of financing for the Improvement District are being undertaken by County DEM separate from this report. A copy of Resolution 129-03 is included as Appendix A. -2- n a 5 a a 7�I `L 7 ..i J W J W O a, North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 1 North Kona Implementation Report Introduction Benefits of Establishing an Improvement District There are numerous pubic benefits associated with the establishment of an Improvement District. The significant benefits are listed below. • Reduces the contamination of groundwater by directing all sewage effluent to the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant for proper treatment and disposal. • Decreases costs to landowners and developers to complete independent planning, designing and construction of sewer collection, treatment, and reuse and disposal systems. • Possesses the likelihood to increase the values of properly sewered properties. • Connection to a County wastewater treatment facility would be a preferred and superior alternative to septic systems which have limited life spans. Although individual property owners and residents are currently using septic systems or cesspools, the establishment of an Improvement District provides the opportunity for an advanced sewer collection and treatment system. It is plausible that landowners and developers may be required to connect to KWWTP in the future, so these improvements could ultimately serve the interests over a very broad community. The focus of this implementation report will be identifying sewer improvements and determining how the distribution of costs should be established among the landowners and developers. The major tasks associated with this report consisted of: 1. Assessing and evaluating the program components necessary for the implementation plan. 2. Consulting with major landowners and developers in the study area regarding program components and requirements. 3. Identifying the preferred implementation plan. -4- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 1 North Kona Implementation Report Introduction 1.4 1 HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE — CHAPTER 12 This North Kona Implementation Report provides supporting information needed for the County DEM to prepare an engineering report to submit to the County Council under Resolution 129-03 (appendix A). The details associated with this report have been organized to address most of the applicable portions of the informational requirements specified under Hawaii County Code — Chapter 12 — Improvements by Assessments, Article 2, Section 12-10. Other remaining components are being developed separately by the County DEM. The components of the County Council report are to include: 1. Preliminary data concerning the sewer improvements proposed to be constructed; 2. The general character and extent of improvements proposed; 3. Proposed method of assessment whether on a frontage, area or other basis; 4. Whether any new land will be necessary for acquisition, the estimated cost for acquisition, and the proportion of the cost that should be borne by the County 5. Materials recommended to meet the conditions of the improvements implemented; 6. Boundaries of the proposed improvement district and any subdistricts or zones therein as to which different portions of the cost of improvements should be charged; 7. Estimated cost of the improvement, and the portions of the cost to be assessed against the lands benefited with the maximum unit of assessment to be made against each lot to be assessed; and 8. Other plans and data, details, and specifications for the improvements. North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan CHAPTER 2 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2.1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMPONENTS Based upon the assessment provided by the master plan summary report, establishment of the North Kona Improvement District would tentatively result in the implementation of the following proposed sewer system improvements. • Gravity sewer collection lines and sewer manholes; • Sewage lift stations and associated force mains; and • Reclaimed water distribution lines and reclaimed water storage. Other improvements recommended for the Improvement District would consist of an upgrade of the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant (KWWTP) to handle anticipated increases in treatment capacity and the increased treatment of recycled water effluent. These plant improvements and associated costs will be determined by outside resources and included in the final version of this report. These treatment costs should be borne by the Improvement District and assessed to participants in accordance with the recommendations contained herein. 2.1.1 Gravity Collection Lines and Sewer Manholes The sewer collection system improvements identified and considered for inclusion in the Improvement District are discussed in greater detail in the North Kona Sewer Master Plan Summary Report (October 2006) which is available for review on the County of Hawaii, Department of Environmental Management's website. It identified and evaluated in detail the study area's existing land uses, current entitlements, future development plans, and projected sewage flows to a study year of 2025, and beyond to full build -out. Based upon this analysis, three alternative alignments were developed and presented to the public for review and comments at a public informational meeting held on June 6, 2006. After incorporating comments received from the public, Alternative 2 was identified as being most feasible and practical, and improvements associated with that plan were further refined. Consequently, a Preferred Alternative - Kamanu Gravity was developed and is recommended for implementation. Appendix B includes a plan graphically depicting this preferred conceptual design which serves as a basis to approximate budgetary costs for the Improvement District. Information on the construction components estimated for the Preferred Alternative along with the conceptual construction cost estimates are also included in Appendix B. -6- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan This Preferred Alternative - Kamanu Gravity sewer collection system alignment was chosen because it maximized the use of gravity sewers, had the least amount of County -owned lift stations, and required an easement through State-owned lands rather than an easement through Federal government owned lands. Alternative 1 was not selected because that option would require the most proposed County -owned lift stations. Alternative 3 was not selected because of the proposed easement crossing lands owned by the federal government. Preferred Alternative — Kamanu Gravity The Preferred Alternative utilizes the existing and future Kamanu Street, the future Ane Keohokalole Highway, and the future Kealakaa Street for new collection sewer mains which gravity flow in a southerly direction to KWWTP. As shown in Appendix B, the proposed mauka-to-makai (inland to seaward, respectively) sewer mains connect into one of these north - to -south sewer mains and are conveyed to the southern study area limit. The sewer is conveyed in new collection sewer mains under Kealakahe Parkway which will gravity flow in a westerly direction and then follow a 90-degree turn toward the south into a new sewer collection sewer main. This new sewer collection main will then convey wastewater via gravity flow across the makai end of the Villages of Laiopua Development. The sewer alignment then follows a 90-degree turn toward the west and crosses Queen Kaahumanu Highway and continues along the existing KWWTP road. The existing sewer mains in Kealakahe Parkway will remain in use to collect and convey the sewer generated from the Villages of Laiopua Development. The wastewater from the areas between the ocean and Kamanu Street and north of the Honokohau Harbor will be conveyed via gravity flow into the sewer system along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. This proposed system is being privately developed by the Kohanaiki/Rutter Development. The gravity sewer in Queen Kaahumanu Highway then travels along this roadway and terminates approximately where the Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Honokohau Boat Harbor Road intersect. From there, the wastewater will be pumped to the KWWTP along a proposed road through the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) property and proposed Kona Kai Ola development. A gravity main will also be provided along the Honokohau Boat Harbor Road. At the makai end of that road, a pump station will transmit the wastewater collected from the surrounding parcels into the treatment facility via force main. Sewer manholes are anticipated to be installed in the collection system at an interval of approximately every 300 feet in accordance with City and County of Honolulu Wastewater Design Standards, the applicable standards for this project. -7- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report implementation Platt 2.1.2 Sewage Pump Stations (Lift Stations) and Force Mains Sewage collection by gravity flow is the preferred method as it afforded the best advantages for economy of operation and ease of maintenance. Due to the topography of the Study Area, however, the collection system must utilize two (2) Sewage Pump Stations (SPS) or Lift Stations to raise wastewater from lower to higher elevations to accommodate this gravity collection to KWWTP. The first is referred to as the Kohanaiki Business Park sewage pump station (Kohanaiki SPS) located at Queen Kaahumanu Highway near the southern end of this existing industrial park. Effluent collected there will be pumped through a proposed force main to the start of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway gravity sewer line which begins north of where Hina Lani Street and Queen Kaahumanu Highway intersect. From there, the effluent flows by gravity towards the second proposed pump station referred to as the Kaloko SPS. This pump station would be situated south of the existing Kaloko Industrial Park located near the Kealakehe Parkway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway intersection. This station would lift the effluent through a force main across the proposed Kona Kai Ola development, and convey effluent the remainder of the distance to the KWWTP. 2.1.3 Reclaimed Water Distribution Currently, treated wastewater effluent is pumped into a seepage pit on the mauka side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway for disposal within the study area since there currently isn't a large demand for this reclaimed water. This is not considered an acceptable long-term solution for effluent disposal by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The options of injection or ocean outfall as methods of disposal within the coastal waters in the vicinity of this study area are also not desired, and would be difficult to implement due to the State Department of Health's classification of these waters. The Master Plan thus included a system of distributing reclaimed wastewater back into the Improvement District for landscape irrigation use. This provides significant additional benefit as a means of easing this demand from an already strained potable water system in the area. The NKID Sewer Master plan identifies at least three property owners which have expressed interest in receiving the reclaimed water. It is anticipated that additional property owners will request reclaimed water as the region becomes developed. One (1) reclaimed water reservoir has been included in this implementation report to address this. It is proposed to be located on 1.22 acres of vacant land along Hina Lani Street within property identified as Tax Map Key 7-3-009: 025. The parcel will need to be acquired from the current landowner, MID Corporation. North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan This re -use reservoir will function to provide flow equalization, water storage, and pressurization for the re -use system (reclaimed water). The reservoir site should be located at a minimum elevation of 400-feet above sea level. It is assumed that the reservoir's spillway elevation will then be approximately 418-feet above sea level. Therefore, adequate pressure can be supplied to parcels situated at the 318-foot elevation or lower. This would cover a majority of the MID Corporation's property (TMK 7-3-009: 025), and they have expressed interest in reclaimed water for irrigation of a proposed golf course. For parcels situated at elevations of 318-feet and higher, the recycled water will need to be pumped. Thus, a booster pump and backup generator will be necessary at the reservoir site. R-1 water is defined by the State as recycled water that has been oxidized, filtered, and disinfected to meet the corresponding standards set in Chapter 11-62, Hawaii Administrative Rules. Additional disposal beyond the current R-1 demand is recommended to be addressed by the separate Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade study. An alternative method of R- I disposal could be landscape irrigation along County or State rights -of -way. 2.1.4 Wastewater Treatment Plant The KWWTP currently processes approximately 1.2 MGD with an aerated lagoon treatment system before disposal as described above. While this treatment method is not the best or most efficient use of the wastewater treatment plant's property, it's extremely cost-efficient operation will continue to serve the community and DEM's needs into the future. The 5 MGD design maximum treatment capacity of the plant will be exceeded by projected growth of the area at a point in the future. However, a facility plan shall be initiated when the actual wastewater flow reaches 75 percent of the design capacity of the wastewater treatment works. Implementation of the recommendation of the facility plan shall be initiated when the actual wastewater flow reaches 90 percent of the design capacity of the wastewater treatment works. The treatment of effluent to its current level will be upgraded R-I prior to distribution in the new reclaimed water system for irrigation use by participating Improvement District land owners and developers. The design and costing for the upgrades to the KWWTP including the R-1 effluent treatment systems will be prepared under a future contract. Estimated costs provided by County have also been included in the report's Assessment Methods section. W North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan 2.2 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS 2.2.1 Land Acquisition All lands for the sewer collection system and reclaimed water distribution lines are planned to be routed within existing or future public roadway rights -of -way. Therefore, no new land acquisition is anticipated for the future sewer collection system or reclaimed water distribution lines. There are two (2) Sewage Pump Stations required under the preferred plan that will require an area estimated to be about 1.14 acres for each station site. Their proposed locations would be along Queen Kaahumanu Highway on vacant land identified as Tax Map Key (TMK) 7-3-009: 013 for the Kohanaiki SPS and TMK 7-4-008: 003 for the Kaloko SPS. The area requirements for these pump stations were based on area requirements for several pump stations previously constructed within the Kona region. As previously mentioned, one (1) reclaimed water reservoir has been identified, and will be located on 1.22 acres of vacant land along Hina Lani Street within TMK 7-3-009: 028 and located at a minimum elevation of 400' above sea level. The County's current assessed values of these lots are provided. However, the actual costs for the acquisition of these properties would likely be higher and based upon market appraisals. The acquisition costs for these parcels would be subject to County negotiation for acquisition with the owners. • Konanaiki Business Park SPS - TMK 7-3-009: 013; Dean Lee, et. al.: $14,592 • Kaloko Business Park SPS - TMK 7-4-008: 003, State of Hawaii: $14,250 • Hina Lani Reuse Reservoir - TMK 7-3-009: 025, portion of, Mid Corp Owners: $23,424 2.2.2 Collection System Materials and Construction The construction materials recommended and their associated cost estimates have been presented in this section as Tables 2.1 and 2.2. The estimated cost for the recommended improvements is $127,100,000 and includes a 25% contingency. Table 2.2 also includes an estimate of $42,000,000 for upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant and was provided to SSFM by the County as it was not within this scope of work. The wastewater system improvements required for the Improvement District will be in conformance with, but not limited to the following standards and any subsequent revisions, new County of Hawai'i design standards, and updates to these standards: -10- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan 1. City and County of Honolulu, Design Standards of the Department of Wastewater Management, Volume 1, July 1993. 2. City and County of Honolulu, Design Standards of the Department of Wastewater Management, Volume 2, July 1993. 3. Department of Public Works Standard Details, September 1984. 4. Department of Public Works Standard Specifications, September 1986. 5. Pavement restoration shall be performed in accordance with the standards of the either the County of Hawai` i — Department of Public Works or the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation Highways Division, dependent upon the respective road owner. 2.2.3 Treatment Systems Treatment Systems are outside the scope of this report. The County has estimated the cost for treatment for purposes of this report to be $42 million. 2.2.4 Reuse System As part of this project a treated effluent re -use system was proposed. The system would not be utilized until the waste water treatment plant has been upgraded to produce "R-1" water. The components of the system would include; a new reservoir at 400' ASL, land acquisition, booster pump and gen set, a lift station at the WWTP, a pipeline to the reservoir and a pipeline to the users. It is expected that NKID would be able to recover a portion of cost for this program through user rates. The re -use system improvements required for the Improvement District will be in conformance with, but not limited to the following references and any subsequent revisions, new County of Hawai' i design standards, and updates to these standards: 1. USEPA "Guidelines for Water Reuse" (EPA/625/R-92/004). 1992 2. Hawaii Department of Health "Guidelines for the Treatment and Use of Reclaimed Water". 2002. 3. Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 62 (in regards to subsurface disposal and effluent irrigation using treated wastewater) -11- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan TABLE 2.1 - CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION COMPONENTS !f-$ • r ALTERNATIVE KAMANU GRAVITY PREFERRED SffE 1 'Land Anquisibm. 2 SPS a 1. 14 ar- Ea-. I 'LO MG reuse tank Q 1:2 ac 2 :Sewer L SEWER 4 �'W PVC sewer pipe Cind excav, backfill. pavement repair-) 3Z30D y' PVC sewer pipe s excav, ..r K repair)D 9 '30" C9W sewer pipe (hd exwv, badA, pavement repair) 3= FORM 11 Er DI furnafnain 9 PARK LFT STATION 12 iKoharmk BP Sewer Uft N _f ! Cind sftework,pump stabon, tip Y, •. - QUEEN KAAHUMAHU SEWER TRUNK LINE & SEWER UFT lWsewer-(irbdextuw,badcU, pavemerA-D 14 12"y .. w_. t A REUSE a D-1 Forcernainis reservoir! i=1 17 0PressurmedE. i®• 1.l: pipe - ... t1,1kning .depW r.ai"i new paradid sewer fine can be cortsbuded- -12- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan m 1 LaMADVivibm 1 LWWGW rjw io 40W REPLACE EyjSTING SEWER ON KEALAKEHE PARKWAY 2 24- CS00 serer p 010W ea f- baCMlIL pavernerrt repair) 11250 LF $44 55A15k, 3 SEWER T PVC sewer pipe @nci excav, b53rXMl, pavement repair) 32MG LF 57'K325a3 4 1tr PVC sewer p1pe QW eXMV, bare, pavement repair) 11500 LF 5 12- PVC sewer pipe QM OMM, aaMIL pavement repair) 1SQE10 LF 514M 6 1Ir C sewer p (Ind ems, bacM pavement repair) 21{t O LF S9.208, 7 24' C9GD seer pipe (IM excr, pavement repair) 2EI50 LF 021, S 3W C900 sewer pie (Ind excav, baom pavement repair) 3206 LF $.. 5t,748, 9 SewerManhOM, 500 Ep, #2Sk;40 MtIEtlt. SEWER FCtRCE WAIN 325G LF $947, to a' Eft foreemaffn Kohanalkil 5P - Se4iff Lfft St3 t PIUMP " 11 caf*DWN etc) t EA in 2ou? dmrs. Escalated trrm 200f doMrs CUEEM KAAHIIIAfr,NU SEWER TRUNK LEE & SEWER LIFE STATION! 12 24- C90 seWer Pipe Orld M—W. bacM, pavement repair) 75M LF 13 12'DI 2MMMaM 71M LF Sewer LIIt Station slte'rvocrt, pump statmM ccrr crts, etc) ire 14 2OG7 t EA 15 I 12' D.L Fa ernam r 19500 LF 1 F 12. D.L PTeSsurtFed DWT=tbr► pipe v eprM 1IM9 f 16 d 220EiD LF e 17 Reservair (Ind sitework, , ek) 1 EA $2.72t, - � 18 BoosWFrump and Emergee Generator 1 EA $432, $£8, 19f CONTINGENCY 2 a oonting $17, T '�aa#al wpi"reatrnenk $'k 1W10t Mr9tl ans: Rammed mart no temporay bypass swivertines WflI be regairedto upsIze a sewerlines along Keatarrehe Parkway. we t Existing sewertines a1©rg Keiffakmeft Parkway wM remain In use and I"llace uts a new pWamei suer Inn, can be Constructed - No* 2 Eger GCG, tare estivated runt cost for cWt&uabon are 1021007 WIlars_ Note 3 unit cost tarSP5 M snewat, pumV sue, Mu systeM emerglemygeneraLrr, cautrOU, and controt Irrr Itng, etc. —13— North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan 2.3 IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES This section addresses the proposed boundaries for the Improvement District. This defines the participants that are to be assessed for the improvements. The study area for the Sewer Master Plan was used as a starting point for the improvement district and was modified in accordance with conditions and considerations encountered through the investigations and landowner interviews conducted. Some landowners are required to participate in the improvement district due to existing entitlement conditions for their developments. Among these are Mid Corp/TSA and the Kaloko Industrial Park. In other cases where approvals were grand -fathered with existing entitlements or where other exemptions exist, landowners may opt to decline participation in the improvement district. For these cases, the improvement district boundary has been modified to reflect those exclusions known at this time, and this boundary is shown on Figure 2. Those presently identified for exclusion include: • The smaller lots along the eastern part of the project along Palani Road were excluded from consideration because their existing cesspools or septic systems currently preclude the immediate necessity or economic feasibility for connection to a new collection system. • The 327 Kona LCC development has approximately 30 one -acre lots that have been excluded due to opportunities for cesspool or septic system use. • A portion of the Stanford Carr Kaloko Heights development (the area north of Hina Lani Street) was excluded in consideration of their development schedule that would precede construction of the improvement district collection system. • The Shores at Kohanaiki was excluded from consideration for reasons similar to the Kaloko Heights development, and because of their plans to build an independent waste water treatment and reuse system. • The federal government's National Park Service property is exempt from participation in improvement districts. These National Park Service parcels are situated makai (seaward) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway are not within the improvement district's boundaries. -14- - 15 - North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan 2.4 PROPOSED METHOD OF ASSESSMENT There are numerous methods of assessing and apportioning the costs of improvements that have been established throughout the country. Shared cost allocation for shared use and shared benefit is an equitable and logical solution to the common problem of infrastructure funding. The favored and recommended method of assessment, Assessment by Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), follows directly with subsequent discussion on three (3) other assessment methods which were investigated. The North Kona Improvement District area encompasses many unique features that require special consideration to develop an assessment method which is fair to both the participants and the County while maintaining the flexibility required for adapting to future development plans and schedules. As mentioned earlier, the area is mostly undeveloped, with infrastructural challenges exacerbated by volatile development opportunities. In light of these conditions, four assessment alternatives were developed with the following considerations and assumptions in common: • Landowners will be responsible for the interior collections systems at their own expense and effort. • All participants will be assessed the cost of treatment in proportion to the amount of effluent they produce. For example, if a development increases the demand on the KWWTP by 5 percent, they are assessed 5 percent of the cost of expansion or improvement. • All participants will be assessed a portion the cost of wastewater disposal in the same fashion and for the same reason. This would be inclusive of the R-1 treatment facility, reclaimed water distribution, and reclaimed water reservoir as they are all integral portions of the water disposal system. • All users of reclaimed water will be assessed a portion of the cost of R-1 treatment and transmission improvements in proportion to the volume of their demand. • Participants will be assessed a proportional cost of the collection system calculated by one of the assessment methods investigated. 2.4.1 Assessment by Equivalent Dwelling Unit Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) is a calculation wherein one unit is equivalent to the average wastewater effluent from one average household per day. Based on the 1993 City and County of Honolulu Design Standards of the Department of Wastewater Management, new sewer systems shall be designed on the basis of an average per capita flow of wastewater of 80 gallons per day. Residential occupancy shall be assumed to be 4 persons per home. Therefore, one (1) EDU should be 320 gallons per day per average home. Wastewater flows from other than residential are based on land use and shown in EDU units. Each of the lots within the -16- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan proposed North Kona Improvement District was allocated an EDU value based on projected land uses (where available) in the 2025 study year. In some cases, the future land uses were undetermined. For purposes of this implementation report, however, values needed to be assigned as calculations based upon "no future demand" would result in unacceptably skewed projections. In such cases, assumptions were made based upon likely land uses given surrounding land entitlements and EDU values. Assessments were then based upon the proportional number of EDU each landowner applies to the system. A generalized schedule of the EDU values and Average Daily Flows (ADF) that were used in the calculations is attached as Appendix C. An Assessment Roll is included as Appendix D which shows assessment amounts that each Tax Map Key (TMK) parcel owner in the district would be expected to pay as their share of the improvements funded through the improvement district. This is a straightforward calculation wherein landowners are assessed in accordance to their contribution to demand. In addition to offering simplicity of application, it provides some incentive for broader participation. Unlike the alternative Owner Area and Zonal methods considered and discussed later, this approach does not penalize properties for their distance from the KWWTP. With evenly spread collection costs, it offers incentive to those who might otherwise protest improvement district participation. In this respect, the assessment is more like a water system assessment wherein it does not matter where a user connects to the system with respect to the well or reservoir or pump station. Everyone is assessed purely on usage and development costs. The EDU calculation is a well -established and accepted method of projecting flow. It is already an integral part of this Implementation Plan as it serves as the basis for calculating the future demand on the KWWTP and the Reclaimed Water Distribution System. This approach, which is the preferred and recommended alternative, adds EDU apportionment of the collection system so that the entire NKID is calculated with a single, straightforward and logical methodology offering best advantage to the overall Implementation Plan. 2.4.2 Other Assessment Methods Not Recommended Assessment by Owner Area One of the greatest impacts on a wastewater collection system is distance. Distance from the KWWTP dictates the length of trenching, sewer pipe, number of sewer manholes, and other associated costs. The amount of sewage effluent generated by the owners determines the sizing of the components of the collection system as well as the Plant improvements required. -17- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan With distance as the major parameter relating to cost of the development of the collection system, landowners further away will have greater expenses due to length of their connection and a cost advantage is given to those landowner areas in closer proximity to the KWWTP. The Owner Area approach as investigated, builds a theoretical collection system for a single landowner area from the boundary of the subject parcel to the KWWTP. A conceptual alignment is selected, from which a conceptual construction cost is determined that each Owner Area would need to fund if it were to independently connect to the plant. The 11 major "Owner Areas" were analyzed within the implementation plan proposed boundary area. A figure showing these areas is included in this report as Appendix E. A theoretical 12-inch PVC pipe collection alignment with sewer manholes every 300 lineal feet was located along the various public rights -of -way terminating at the KWWTP. Where sewer lift stations and force mains were required, they were added to the theoretical collection system. After computing the total for all landowners, a percentage share was calculated for each serving as the basis for apportionment of the estimated costs for construction for each landowner. The investigation showed the Owner Area method to be burdensome with the following pitfalls: • This method favored proximity to the wastewater treatment plant and penalized landowners further away. • It was not realistic to build an independent collection line for each major landowner. • Grouping of large areas was done by land ownership. Combining large TMK parcels may not be appropriate. • Routing and alignment of the collection line was subjective with many possible alternatives. • Lift stations were problematic because of the variation in landowner flows, sizing and pricing of sewer pumping stations. • The assessment roll was extensive utilizing collection system and force main pipe lengths, sewer manhole counts, unit prices, lift stations, design year effluent flows etc. Changes to the district boundaries or participants in the improvement district will require alteration to the assessment roll spreadsheet. • This method was not a standard method of assessment. Assessment by Zone The Assessment by Zone, or referred to as the Zonal Method, also assesses in large part by distance from the KWWTP. It also hypothesizes a theoretical sewerage system. But rather than a 12-inch collector, it uses system components progressively increasing in size as it shares capacity with other landowners down stream along the system's length. This method creates five Zones and estimates the costs for collection, treatment and reuse for each Zone's effluent -18- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan contribution. A figure showing the five zones used in this assessment method was included in this report as Appendix F. West or lower elevation boundaries of Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4 were located on existing or planned major roadway locations where future backbone collection infrastructure was planned. As Zones would not utilize any collector pipelines uphill of their locations, such costs associated with such development were not attributed within the respective assessments. Landowners' intef-zonal shares of assessment were then computed in proportion to their zonal effluent contribution. Landowner's costs were summed for all Zones and this total landowner cost was divided by the total project costs to determine a -percentage for apportionment. Evaluation of this method determined that this Owner Area method would be troublesome due to the following factors: • This method favors proximity to the wastewater treatment plant and penalizes zones further away. • It is not realistic to build an independent collection line for each major zone. • Zones are determined by major north -south connector roads and do not follow Tax Map Key or landowner areas. This creates complexity in the assessment roll. • Many other potential zone boundaries are possible. • Routing and alignment of the collection line is subjective with many possible alternatives. • The assessment roll is extensive utilizing collection system and force main pipe lengths, sewer manhole counts, unit prices, lift stations, design year effluent flows, etc. Changes to the district boundaries or participants in the improvement district will require alteration to the assessment roll spreadsheet. • This method is not a standard method of assessment. Assessment by Square Footage The Assessment by Square Footage, or referred to as the "Square Footage", method was utilized by the County of Hawaii in the Hina Lani Improvement District. This method utilized the square footage of the Tax Map Key parcels in computing assessments. The City and County of Honolulu also utilized a square foot method for sewer improvement districts but included various rates depending on land use. For the North Kona Improvement District, this method was investigated and the square footage of each TMK lot was utilized to compute a percentage share of the district's total acreage. This allowed for the determination of an assessment roll showing each participant's share of the improvement district's expenses. -19- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan This method was simple and straightforward, and easily altered to accommodate final district boundaries and improvement district participants. There was one major drawback with utilizing this method for funding sewer improvements: • Fails to account for wastewater generation differences in land uses.. This method would utilize the same costs per square foot for different land uses. Thus, penalizing landowners of open spaces and other less intensive land uses. 2.5 METHOD OF FINANCING Through the establishment of an Improvement District the County can provide funding for planning, designing and construction of improvements related to the sanitary sewer and reuse systems. The funding generally comes in the form of "floating bonds" which are paid off over twenty years. Revenue is generated through assessments of each parcel owner. Privately owned improvements are also possible if the County determines a benefit to the public. Sewer related improvements and the assessment of costs to each property owner can be achieved a number of ways and include: • Council -initiated improvement districts; • Tax increment district; • Community facilities district financing (CFD); and • The Clean Water State Revolving Fund program. 2.5.1 Council — Initiated Improvement District The council may issue improvement bonds, general obligation bonds or use the general fund to pay for the improvements. Replenishment of the general fund and bond payments would come from the special assessment revolving fund. This fund receives from the homeowners their special assessments. The council must reconsider the improvement district if a there is a protest of at least 50% of the residents within the improvement district. 2.5.2 Tax Increment District Financing can also be completed through tax increment financing. This alternative collects the assessed amount when real property taxes are collected and these tax payments would be used to fund the tax increment bonds that would pay project costs. The council may terminate the tax increment financing process if it finds that the owners of property in the proposed district do not support the proposed improvements or are not willing to pay for the improvements. -20- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 2 North Kona Implementation Report Implementation Plan 2.5.3 Community Facilities District (CFD) Funding for a Community Facilities District (CFD) could be done by community facilities district bonds, general obligation bonds or by using the County's capital projects fund. The special taxes levied under this model would repay the capital projects fund or finance the bond payments. A protest of at least 55% of the residents within the improvement district would delay the formation of the CFD. 2.5.4 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program is a low interest loan program administered by the State of Hawaii Department of Health, Environmental Management Division, Wastewater Branch, for the construction, modification or rehabilitation of point source and non -point source water pollution control projects. The minimum loan amount is $1,000,000. Depending on availability due to fund levels, this funding source could be used to augment the bond proceeds to finance the improvements. The State or the County is required to provide a 20% funding match to the loan amount. -21- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 3 North Kona Implementation Report Conclusion CHAPTER 3 CONCLUSION 3.1 RECOMMENDED METHOD OF ASSESSMENT The recommendations included in this Implementation Plan consist of a compilation of many different assessment considerations. The largely undeveloped nature of the Study Area and the volatility of the development market make changes to some of the data included herein a virtual certainty, but the approach and conclusions will have applicability regardless of the eventual development transformation of North Kona. The preferred Equivalent Dwelling Unit Assessment method would provide the most flexibility and could easily be adjusted to accommodate future changes in land uses through the following processes: • By adding or revising County shares in consideration of universal public benefit • By revising improvement district boundaries reflecting changes in landowner participation • By including grants or alternate sources of funding 3.2 PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE An example of an implementation schedule utilizing Hawaii County Code Chapter 12 — Improvements by Assessments is provided in Appendix G. It consists of a flowchart showing the various steps toward the implementation of the North Kona Improvement District from the County Council Resolution for the construction of the improvements. The actions of the County Council, landowners and lessees, and County staff are denoted by different geometric shapes within the schedule. Two columns to the left of the flowchart are "Estimated Timeline/Discussion" and "Target Dates" and are used to explain the various steps in the schedule and give estimated dates for the various actions. It should be noted that this is a simplified schedule, subject to change due to the many possible influences an improvement district process experiences, and should be used as a rough guide if Chapter 12 is selected as the framework for implementation. As the project proceeds and the preferred financing method determined, the schedule can be modified to accommodate the enabling legislation and situation at that time. 3.3 PREFERRED METHOD OF FINANCING County staff underwrote the February 8, 2008 North Kona Wastewater Facilities Financing Analysis Administrative Draft by Goodwin Consulting Group. This Draft Report available -22- North Kona Improvement District Project Chapter 3 North Kona Implementation Report Conclusion separately provides an in-depth analysis of various methods of financing infrastructural development. The Implementation Plan defers to their recommendation for the use of a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund the planned wastewater improvements in the North Kona area. -23- APPENDIX A COUNCIL RESOLUTION 129-03 COUNTY OF HAWAI`I STATE OF HAWAI{I RESOLUTION NO. 129 03 Draft 2 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF (1) A NORTH KONA REGIONAL SEWERAGE MASTER PLAN; AND (2) A COUNCIL INITIATED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STUDY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR KEALAKEHE, HONOKOHAU, KALOKO AND KOHANAIKI, DISTRICT OF NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I WHEREAS, the Council of the County of Hawaii wishes to initiate proposed improvements on certain real property located at Kealakehe, Honokohau, Kaloko and Kohanaiki, District of North Kona, County and State of Hawaii for improvements consisting of extension to the municipal sewer system and recycled water system, pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-10, Hawaii County Code, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Council of the County of Hawaii acknowledges that the Kona Coast north of Kailua contains valuable, unique marine resources and pristine shoreline park properties including Honokohau Harbor, Kaloko Honokahau National Historic Park, a new Kohanaiki shoreline park, and the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority at Keahole Point; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the rapid confluence of private and public developments within the North Kona region extending from Kealakehe and Kaloko to Honokokau Harbor and north to the Lands of Kau calls for an updated regional sewerage master plan for this area; and WHEREAS, the operative "sewer policies" referenced in Ordinance 89-142, An Ordinance Adopting the County of Hawaii General Plan and Repealing Ordinance No. 439, As Amended ("the General Plan") for the general planning of sewerage disposal systems are decades old, to wit: the "Sewerage Study for All Urban and Urbanizing Areas of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawai`i," December 1970, the "Water Quality Management Plan for the County of Hawai`i," December 1980, and the "Facility Plan for the Kailua-Kona Sewerage System, Phase W (Northern Zone)," April, 1981; and WHEREAS, in its assessment of the projected sewage flow capacity of the Kealakehe Sewage Treatment Plant, the "Keahole to Kailua Development Plan" adopted by the County Council in Resolution 296-91 on April 3, 1991 called for "further planning and design"; and WHEREAS, the General Plan states that industrial development in North Kona's "redeveloping or newly developing areas shall be developed in concert with programmed public and privately funded infrastructure to meet the expected needs"; and WHEREAS, expanded visitor use of the Kaloko Honokahau National Historic Park administered by the National Park Service, coupled with shoreline park development of Kohanaiki and its planned, low density intentional community, merit thoughtful wastewater treatment and sewerage planning to assure environmental protection of these pristine shoreline areas; and WHEREAS, the "Sewer Policies" outlined in the General Plan states, in part: "Private systems shall be installed by land developers for major resort and other developments along shorelines and sensitive higher inland areas, except where connection to nearby treatment facilities is feasible and compatible with the County's long-range plans, and in conformance with state and county requirements. The County shall take immediate steps to designate treatment plant sites, sewerage pump station sites, and sewer easements according to the facility plans to facilitate their acquisition. The County shall seek State and Federal funds to assist in financing the construction of proposed sewer systems"; and WHEREAS, the Council of the County of Hawaii acknowledges the need to implement improvements consisting of extension to the municipal sewer system and recycled water system on certain real property located at Kealakehe, Honokohau, Kaloko and Kohanaiki, District of North Kona, County and State of Hawaii; and WHEREAS, extension of said improvements from the existing Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant north along the alignment of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Kohanaiki will include, but not be limited to, necessary recycled water mains, gravity sewers, manholes, pump station(s) and force mains, and sewer laterals with cleanouts to be installed to each property serviced by the proposed improvements; and WHEREAS, the Council acknowledges that there are a number of public and private developments planned or completed in this region including, but not limited to, Lanihau Properties, McClean Honokohau Properties, Gentry Properties, Taylor Family Ltd. Partnership, Mid Corporation, Rutter/KW Kohanaiki LLC, TSA Corporation, Y-O Properties, and various public landowners including the State of Hawaii, the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Homelands, the United States of America (General Services Administration and National Park Service), as well as a newly proposed West Hawaii campus of the University of Hawaii; and WHEREAS, the Council acknowledges that the mix of private and public development of properties within the region requires the preparation of a more comprehensive regional plan of wastewater treatment needs and sewer improvements than that contemplated in Resolution No. 70-01 (deferred), which proposed a Council -initiated improvement district from the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Kaloko Industrial Area; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that a number of options may be chosen for the allocation of costs of sewer system improvements, including, but not limited to: distribution of sewer improvement district costs by parcel, allocation by zoning or permissible number of units assigned to each parcel, potential usage, required sewer capacity, square footage of buildings, benefits conferred upon the land, or a combination thereof; and WHEREAS, the allocation of costs associated with said improvements and the preferred financing thereof may best be determined after the scope and timetable(s) of intended development, including incremental development, of all affected landowners are surveyed, and all landowners are consulted within a regional planning process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAIII that: (1) in consultation with the landowners referenced above, the Director of the Environmental Management is directed to prepare for submission to the Council (a) a broad regional sewerage master plan for the region north of Kealakehe, and (b) a specific and detailed implementation plan for an improvement district to include the necessity, feasibility, proposed boundaries, proposed real properties subject to assessment, estimated total cost, and method of financing desirable for the aforementioned sewer system improvements at Kealakehe, Honokohau, Kaloko and Kohanaiki, District of North Kona, County and State of Hawaii; and (2) include in the specific and detailed implementation plan all such data, survey, maps, plans, drawings, details and specifications for the improvements and any other matters or details intended to apply thereto in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-10, Hawaii County Code, as amended; and (3) advise the Council as to the preferred method of financing said improvements, whether by Council -initiated improvement district, owner -initiated improvement district, tax increment district, community facilities district, or private financing. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the County of Hawaii transmit copies of this resolution to the directors of the Departments of Finance and Environmental Management, and the Environmental Management Commission. Dated at Hilo, Hawaii, this 17th day of Deoen'ber , 2003. ROLL CALL VOTE County of Hawaii Hilo, Hawaii I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by The vote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the County of Hawaii on December_12 .03 ATTEST: AYES NOES ABS EX ARAKAKI CHUNG X ELARIONOFF X HOLSCHUH X JACOBSON X REYNOLDS X SAFARIK X TULANG X TYLER 9 0 0 0 Reference: C 41 RESOLUTION NO. :129 03 (Draft 2) APPENDIX B PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE KAMANU GRAVITY _J m h � Y y c as a v'. i^ a a R � Q W a a Z Ly Z, I i P 5 APPENDIX C AVERAGE DAILY FL O W S CHED UL E EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNITS - AVG DAILY FLOW- DEVELOPER AREA OWNER/DEVELOPER EDUs AVG. DAILYFLOW -GALS 1 S.CARR DEV/KOLOKO HGTS 710 227,200 2 327 KONA, LLC 1,050 336,000 3 LANIHAU PROP./PALANI RNCH 6,371 2,038,720 4 MID CORP 1,450,098 5 McCLEAN SUBDIV AREA g17 166,685 6 WEST HAWAII BP 1,253,532 7 TSA- KALOKO BUSINESS PARK 981,31A 8 KOHANAIKI BUS. PARK 466 149,166 9 DEAN ETAL 389 124,332 10 JACOBY/DLNR/STATE 20,000 6,400,000 11 HONOKOHAU HARBOR/STATE 193 61,878 TOTAL 41,215 13,188,929 APPENDixD ASSESSMENT ROLL EDU METHOD ASSESSMENT ROLL - EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT 373051021 PACIFIC RIM INTEGRATED UEV CiKVUr u�� ne12n2 u n iiiuu� a 5,015 15.7 48,330 373051022 DUESENBERG INVESTMENT COMPANY Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2 586 8.1 24,923 373051023 KALOKO AINA LLC Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,580 8.1 24.863 373051024 KALOKO AINA LLC Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,585 8.1 24.913 373051025 COSCO PROPERTIES LLC Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,564 8.0 24.704 373051026 BLAKE,RICHARD C /etal Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,549 8.0 24,563 373051027 WAREHOUSE DIRECT LLC Kaloko Light Industrial 2,636 8.2 25,401 373051028 ANHEUSER-BUSCH SALES OF HI Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,638 8.2 25,420 373051029 FELIX,FRANK AR TR /etal Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,567 8.0 24,736 373051030 L & L BLDG PARTNERS Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,606 8.1 25,114 373051031 CAL -CAM II /etal Kaloko Light Industrial 5,072 1 48874 373051032 HONSADOR LUMBER CORPORATION Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,586 ., 1 8.1 24,918 373051033 CAL -CAM BUILDERS /etal Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,563 8.0 24,700 373051034 MUSSELLS,JAMES /etal Kaloko Li ht Industrial 21598 8.1 25,038 373051035 WAREHOUSE DIRECT,LLC Kaloko Light Industrial 2,610 8.2 25,149 373051036 NIU PIA LAND COMPANY,LTD Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,632 8.2 25,362 373051037 KALOKO 36 LLC Kaloko Light Industrial 2,591 8.1 24,7 68 373051038 GRANGER,SANFORD S TR Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,593 8. 2424991 373051039 GRANER,SANFORD S TR G Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,563 8.11 ,991 373051040 NAGAMINE,TAKEO TR Kaloko Light Industrial 2,5 8.0 24,699 373051041 ROSS,MARGARET D TR /eta[ Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,568 8.0 24,745 373051042 KALOKO BUSINESS PARTNERS Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,683 8.4 24,851 373051043 KALEPA KONA PARTNERS /etal Kaloko Light Industrial 2,585 8.1 2,914 373051044 CAL -CAM CENTRE III /etal Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,657 8.3 25,601 373051045 PERRY,NORMAN B TR Kaloko Light Industrial 2,608 8.1 25,130 373051046 BEHPOUR,ARMAND INC Kaloko Light Industrial 2,597 8.1 25,029 373051047 KALOKOHANA BUSINESS CENTER /etal Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,692 8.4 25,938 373051048 LEIS,FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,591 8.1 24,968 373051049 C.R. FENNER BUILDING /etal Kaloko Li ht Industrial 2,2 8.1 ,883 373051050 FAGET,G G/C Z TRUST Kaloko Light Industrial 0.1 6,8 373051051 SUISAN PROPERTIES LTD Kaloko Light Industrial ,44442 3 10.4 32 2,184 373051053 BIG ISLE MOVING & DRAYING INC Kaloko Li ht Industrial ,340 3,411 10.7 32,869 373051054 S Y YAMANAKA LTD Kaloko Light Industrial 6,866 21.5 66,171 373051055 KONA STORAGE PARTNERS LLC /etal Kaloko Light Industrial 2.7 8,365 373051057 HAWAII ELECTRIC Kaloko Li ht Industrial 868 0.0 0 373051058 KALOKO COMMUNITY ASSN Kaloko Light Industrial 0 673,126 2,103.5 6,486,826 373051060 TSA CORPORATION Kaloko Li ht Industrial 11 373051061 BATA LLC Kaloko Li ht Industrial 3,518 33,892 3 907 373051065 MINSON,WILLIAM L /etal Kaloko Li ht Industrial 1 5,09 4 145,455 5,45 373051067 HAWAII COMMUNITY FCU Kaloko Li ht Industrial 6,631 20.2 20.7 63,905 373051068 LEJAND ENTERPRISES LLC Kaloko Li ht Industrial ,631 2,759 8.6 26,587 373051069 LEJAND ENTERPRISES LLC Kaloko Light Industrial 31,318 97.9 301,804 373051071 HOME DEPOT USA INC Kaloko Light Industrial 2,435 7.6 23,462 373051082 PEDOS CONDO /etal Kaloko Light Industrial ASSESSMENT ROLL - EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT TMK Owner DEVELOPMENT AREA 2025 Or B.O. AVG. DAILY FLOW (GPD) EDU Value Assessment 373051084 LARWYN,TR Kaloko Light Industrial 3,290 10.3 31,703 373051085 BERZANSKI,JOHN F Kaloko Light Industrial 2,993 9.4 28,842 373051086 KAUHOLA INDUSTRIAL BUILDING fetal Kaloko Light Industrial 3,088 9.6 29,757 373051087 KAMANU PLAZA fetal Kaloko Light Industrial 2,600 8.1 25,052 373051088 HUTCHISON-MILLER,STACY N Kaloko Light Industrial 2,718 8.5 1 26,197 373051089 TAYLOR FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Kaloko Light Industrial 5,470 17.1 52,715 373051091 NIU PIA LAND COMPANY LTD Kaloko Light Industrial 2,974 9.3 28,661 373051092 CAPRI,GARY L fetal Kaloko Light Industrial 2,725 8.5 26,257 373051093 CAPRI,GARY L fetal Kaloko Light Industrial 2,741 8.6 26,411 373051094 KALOKO BUSINESS CENTER IV fetal Kaloko Light Industrial 2,705 8.5 26,064 373051095 KALOKO BUSINESS CENTER V /eta[ Kaloko Light Industrial 2,708 8.5 26,099 373051096 RINKENBACH,WILLIAM H fetal Kaloko Light Industrial 2,644 8.3 25,484 373051097 IKRIS KISER/KIMBERLY KISER LLC Kaloko Light Industrial 2,662 8.3 25,658 373058001 KALANIKU LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 3,237 10.1 31,196 373058002 MATSUYAMA DEVELOPMENT CO Kohanaiki Business Park 13,095 40.9 126,196 373058007 TRI-J HOLDINGS LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,577 8.1 24,836 373058008 TRI-J HOLDINGS LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,577 8.1 24,836 373058009 TILE WAREHOUSE INC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,586 8.1 24,919 373058010 EXCHANGE ACCOMMODATORS INC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,586 8.1 24,920 373058011 HAWAII MODULAR SPACE INC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,586 8.1 24,920 373058012 IPIHALIMA PROPERTIES LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,586 8.1 24,919 373058013 ALLIED MACHINERY CORP Kohanaiki Business Park 2,586 8.1 24,919 373058014 WASA ELECTRICAL SERVICES Kohanaiki Business Park 2,586 8.1 24,919 373058015 NAGAMINE,TAKEO TR Kohanaiki Business Park 2,596 8.1 25,016 373058016 NAGAMINE,TAKEO CREDIT TR Kohanaiki Business Park 2,586 8.1 24,919 373058017 MATSUYAMA BROTHERS TRUCKING INC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,586 8.1 24,919 373058018 MATSUYAMA BROTHERS TRUCKING INC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,586 8.1 24,919 373058019 GEO INVESTMENT CO INC Kohanaiki Business Park 4,163 13.0 40,122 373058020 TOSHITAKA FAM LTD PRTNRSHP Kohanaiki Business Park 2,713 8.5 26,141 373058021 TOSHITAKA FAM LTD PRTNRSHP Kohanaiki Business Park 2,713 8.5 26,141 373058022 KURASAKI,KAZUKO /eta] Kohanaiki Business Park 2,723 8.5 26,243 373058023 KURASAKI,KAZUKO fetal Kohanaiki Business Park 2,713 8.5 26,141 373058024 EMBERNATE,LEILANI P fetal Kohanaiki Business Park 2,713 8.5 26,141 373058025 DOWNING,JAMES CHRISTOPHER III /eta[ Kohanaiki Business Park 2,583 8.1 24,889 373058026 MIZUKAMI,SIDNEY T TR Kohanaiki Business Park 2,581 8.1 24,877 373058027 MIZUKAMI,SIDNEY T TR Kohanaiki Business Park 2,572 8.0 24,784 373058023 KRIEG,ALEX TR Kohanaiki Business Park 2,565 8.0 24,717 373058029 NAKATA,MASASHI Kohanaiki Business Park 2,574 8.0 24,808 373058030 PARADISE SAFARIS,INC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,535 7.9 24,431 373058031 PIERSON,JACK Kohanaiki Business Park 2,535 7.9 24,426 373058032 OKA & OKA HAWAII LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,534 7.9 24,421 373058033 OKA & OKA HAWAII LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,458 7.7 23,690 373058034 OKA & OKA HAWAII LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,468 7.7 23,781 373058035 INDUSTRIAL GROUP Kohanaiki Business Park 2,468 7.7 23,788 373058036 TKO LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,445 7.6 23,561 373058037 M&A HOLDINGS LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,452 7.7 23,628 373058038 MALIA OHANA II PARTNERSHIP Kohanaiki Business Park 2,621 8.2 25,254 373058039 MALIA OHANA II PARTNERSHIP Kohanaiki Business Park 2,515 7.9 24,237 373058040 SANTOSHA ESTATE LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 3,541 11.1 34,119 373058041 JT KONA LAND HOLDINGS LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,205 6.9 21,247 373058042 R R S INC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,227 7.0 21,460 373058043 L A ANUENUE LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,199 6.9 21,194 373058044 PACIFIC SOURCE PROPERTIES HAWAII,LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,213 6.9 21,329 373058045 PEDEFERRI,JOSEPH H TR Kohanaiki Business Park 2,210 6.9 21,297 373058046 DAXYN,TR Kohanaiki Business Park 2,251 7.0 21,688 373058047 NAKAMURA,BOBBY S fetal Kohanaiki Business Park 2,263 7.1 21,806 373058048 KONA BUSINESS PARK PHASE II LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 2,296 7.2 22,128 373058049 KONA BUSINESS PARK PHASE II LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 1,738 5A 16,751 373058050 KONA BUSINESS PARK PHASE 11 LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 1,248 3.9 12,026 373058052 KONA BUSINESS PARK PHASE II LLC Kohanaiki Business Park 21,778 68.1 209,870 374008003 STATE OF HAWAII Honokohau Harbor 26,747 83.6 257,760 374008005 LANIHAU PROPERTIES Lanihau Properties Development 2,036,800 6,365.0 19,628,377 374008010 U.S.A. National Park - OUT 0 0.0 0 374008013 WEST HAWAII BUSINESS PARK LLC West Hawaii Business Park 1,152,260 3,600.8 11,104,185 374008025 U.S.A. National Park 0 0.0 0 374008030 WEST HAWAII BUSINESS PARK LLC West Hawaii Business Park 25,509 79.7 245,829 374008033 ISEMOTO CONTRACTING CO McClean Subdivision 8,949 28.0 86,239 374008040 STATE OF HAWAII Honokohau Harbor 465 1.5 4,481 374008041 STATE OF HAWAII Honokohau Harbor 23,956 74.9 230,857 374008042 STATE OF HAWAII Honokohau Harbor 10,601 33.1 102,163 374008046 STATE OF HAWAII I Jacoby Development 0 0.0 0 374008047 327 KONA,LLC 327 Kona, LLC 336,000 1,050.0 3,237,988 374008048 JRAPOZA,JOHN TRUST fetal 327 Kona, LLC OUT 0 374008050 ISTATE OF HAWAII IHonokohau Harbor 109 0.3 1,047 ASSESSMENT ROLL - EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT APPENDixE METHOD 1 ASSESSMENT BY OWNER AREA f F r' w, I I � 1 Q � W � i :- co W Q � �7 w Q< i c �o 'zo cz Y t} O A t a� k IS Z � o a U � x W U Z U Z w _ W m F Z 2 O Q g Od Yo Y w Q U d In W 2 Z Z = W O m Or d m a. Z Q _ -' a a� x OY ZO Q 0O Z x O Y x U U= Z K fPJ — r Z O V W N O W z 1¢— - Z Y cNi J Q II ff ILilJLl U W W O �L l^ W rVr^< Vl rWr^ rVr^I V1 i A O W APPENDIX F METHOD 2 ASSESSMENT BY ZONE APPENDIX G IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FLOWCHART IMNLtIVILN I A I Ivry 01. nmuuL Improvements by Assessments - HCC Chapter 12 Estimated Target Timeline/Discussion Dates Start Completed Underway Financial Consultant Complete- 15-Jul-08 1SJul-08 1 Week Minimum between filing report and resolutlon 1-Aug-08 2 Months for Res. After adapt. of rezo, notice 15-Aug-08 for 2 successive weeks to owners Public Hearing- minimum 15 15-Sep-08 days after publication of notice Extra Cdu; lResolutioninr study V S 12-10 DEM Report ��1 /DEM Report\�N\ /DEM Report- Cost / (� Prelim Data (1) / / Materials, plans, ) Assessment unit & / — --_—_-- details , Improvement / method (3) (7) Info f2l(51181 _-----�� /DEM Report -Land �\ i�oFrn cor,s�xwi oep EM Report-��� ..qulsti- Costs, / Finance or Counril Boundary, f COH share (4) / t` co�s�x�nr ill) s_bdistriats .DEM Report- Filed l w/ C uroll / Gormo#Appra�satofi -- ' Rssassotent Units 8 if2' 1 time fraproveirent value' coup.d Res, stion Pdipose Mak+Tg of _ tmprovenlent S #2�F{1c County Clerk �N,, f Notice to public & / 15-Oct-08 One Month after Hearing 2 Weeks 15-Oct-08 23 months for design 15-Oct-08 Start Design Land Acquistion process starts earlier 15-Sep-10 Finish Design 2 Weeks 1-Oct-10 1 month 1-Nov-10 Notice Given 1-Jan-11 No more than 3 weeks after published 2 Weeks 15-Jan-11 After Ord Adoption 15-Jan-11 15-Jan-11 Can start Imme. After reso 1 Month after NTP 15-Feb-11 15-Aug-12 18 months after start Terminatenr IF es renEw,n 6 ;, iitoilil}fi DEM procure ( details, plans & / v� specs-s12-19 / Daundlland.Aaguisf6an s i2-21 /I DEM Bidding of — —�� t construction contract- S 1 12-24 / —DEM: Updated mal, / prelim assessment 1\ method & roll, at of instruction S 12-27 Counci}-Notice at - improvement and Healing Public Hearing S 12-27 1 Counal Adoption of ID Ordinance S }2- 29 (a)' Award Construction Contract S 12-24 / -- DOF collect �\ I assessments 1 S 12-31 Construction �1 Begins / Assumptions Assumes initiated by Council No combination of hearings r� construction �I Ends t of DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT << TECHNICAL SERVICES SECTION + COUNTY OF HAWAII — 25 AUPUNI ST., ROOM 210 — HILO, HI 96720-4252 -- HILO (808) 961-8083 FAX (808) 961-8086 �M OF N MEMORANDUM July 17, 2006 Memo C.000304-071706 To: Barbara Bell, Director Via: Dora Beck, P.E., Technical Services Chief From: Lyle Hirota, P.E., Project Engineer Subject: NORTH KONA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, Contract No. C.000304 Request for Contract Re -Negotiation References: (a) SSFM Letter 2004_115.000 dated June 30, 2006; Justification for Contract Re - Negotiation (b) Wastewater Division Memorandum 05LH-017 dated February 16, 2005; Consultant Contracts for Wastewater Division The Technical Services Section (TSS) has reviewed the June 30, 2006 letter from SSFM International, Inc. (SSFM) regarding a request for a re -negotiation of the existing contract and mediation as a means of resolving the issue. Subsequent to issuance of their letter, SSFM has indicated that they do not desire use of mediation as a first step of resolving the issue and requests further discussions to resolve the matter. Despite this, TSS feels that a response to the letter should still be provided to the Department in order to provide background information. A. Statement of Problem: 1. SSFM indicates that the contract was executed by their firm in good faith. It should be noted that the County also executed the contract in good faith since the issues brought up in their letter were never raised prior to execution of the Contract by the County. 2. Prior to finalization of the contract, several changes were made to the contract at the request of the consultant, including the addition of contract working days to the project in order to ensure that a good product was delivered. Refer reference (b). 3. At no time during the negotiation of the original contract did SSFM indicate that they were unable to perform the work as specified in the existing contract and at no time did SSFM indicate that informal clarifications had been obtained from Mr. Boucher prior to execution of the contract. 4. SSFM indicates that it was their intent to "deliver a product to exceed expectations", however Item B.4 of their letter also indicates that their public meetings were intended to be "minimal' and to "basically meet the intent" which conflicts with their statement. In the professional arena, "minimal' work is usually not interpreted as work that exceeds expectations. F T F� _MP M Hawai' i County is an equal opportunity provider and employer. e r'�rt Memo C.000304-071706, SSFM Re -Negotiation Request, Contract C.000304 Page 2 of 5 B. Factors Bearing on the Problem: 1. Work to date is approximately 40%-50% complete and costs have exceeded contract amount. a. It appears that SSFM lost focus on the project management aspect in terms of cost -accounting since Attachment (1) indicates that their current expenditure is 287% over the contract amount with only 40-50% of the work completed. Assuming 50% completion, total expected cost for the project is $574,831.34 which is 574% above the original contract amount. b. SSFM never advised us until recently of the extent of their cost overrun on the project. c. SSFM has indicated that 2465 man-hours have been currently expended at 50% of project completion which seems excessive. Of particular concern are the man- hours expended by the Senior Project Engineer, Project Manager, Engineer 11, and Planner. 2. Original contract was negotiated with Mr. Peter Boucher and he was firm in his position that work would be limited to preliminary work to address County Council Resolution for Improvement District. a. County Council Resolution 129 03 clearly directs the Director of Environmental Management to prepare a "specific and detailed implementation plan" including "data, survey, maps, plans, drawings, details and specification for the improvements and any other matters or details intended to apply thereto in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-10, Hawai'i County Code, as amended;". As such, the requirements are set by County Council and the "preliminary work" as described by SSFM in reference (a) does not meet the County Council directive. b. The Scope of Work included in Contract C.000304 clearly states that a "specific and detailed implementation plan" was to be provided. County Council Resolution 129-03 and Hawai'i County Code, Section 12-10 states specific requirements. c. There were no instances between the time of SSFM's discussions with Mr. Boucher and the time of execution of the contract during which the issue of "preliminary work" was raised. d. SSFM had ample opportunity to raise any issues regarding the "agreed upon" scope of work with Mr. Boucher with TSS staff prior to execution of the contract in its present form. However, they did not. The only modifications TSS made prior to contract execution were in regards to time periods for completing the work and wording in the contract, all in response to concerns raised by SSFM. 3. The $100,000 ceiling for the fee was set by Mr. Boucher and the proposed scope was established in consideration of that limitation. a. TSS has no knowledge of the basis for the $100,000 ceiling fee. Hawaii County is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Memo C.000304-071706, SSFM Re -Negotiation Request, Contract C.000304 Page 3 of 5 b. The actual scope of work is established by Exhibit A — Scope of Work under executed Contract C.000304. Therefore, the proposed initial scope of work does not have any relevance. Had SSFM believed that they could not provide the work as established within the contract, they had the options of not executing the contract, or request that revisions to the contract be made prior to its execution. 4. During contract negotiations, SSFM questioned the number and details of public meeting and extent of financial analysis in the County's agreement. Meetings were intended to be minimal and to basically meet the intent of having a required public meeting. a. TSS considers the "intent" of public meetings to offer an opportunity to share information with the public which is expected to take some degree of preparation. Considering the level of sophistication of the major landowners, the expectation that "minimal" preparation for public meetings would be required would not have been appropriate. Mr. Roy Takemoto of the Mayor's Office and Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd of the Corporation Counsel's Office also attended the meetings on the County's behalf in order to assist SSFM with responding to questions at the public meetings. b. During a meeting between SSFM and TSS on June 15, 2006 with Mr. Roy Takemoto and Mr. Mike Okumoto in attendance, TSS stated that a Supplemental Agreement could be issued to secure the services of an outside financial consultant who had expertise in special tax assessments. 5. SSFM also questioned the detail of financial analysis and strategies. The Wastewater Division's conclusions as to method of financing indicated no requirement for extensive research. a. Mr. Boucher's previous discussion with SSFM that there was "no requirement for extensive research" regarding financial analysis and strategies was never discussed with TSS prior to execution of the contract. b. These requirements are governed by County Council Resolution 129-03 and Hawai'i County Code, Chapter 12. 6. The County Project Manager changed and continuity of contract language interpretation was lost. As a consequence the expectation of deliverables has changed significantly. a. While it is true that the project manager has changed, TSS considers the language as it reads in the executed contract to be clear regarding expectation of deliverables. b. Evidently, SSFM initially had concerns with the contract language resulting in a meeting for more clarification on scope of work with Mr. Boucher on November 22, 2004. It does not appear that the results of that meeting were incorporated into the contract language. Hawaii County is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Memo C.000304-071706, SSFM Re -Negotiation Request, Contract C.000304 Page 5 of 5 F. Financial Analysis for Improvement District: This is a repeat of 13.4, 13.5, and C.3.c and was already addressed. G. Significant Coordination with Land Developers (mislabeled as paragraph "D" in reference (a)): This is a repeat of Item C.3.d and was already addressed. H. Conclusion (mislabeled as paragraph "E" in reference (a)): 1. TSS disagrees with SSFM's contention that the original intent for this project's scope of work has significantly changed. SSFM repeatedly uses their initial proposal to the Wastewater Division as the reference point which is incorrect. Their initial proposal has no bearing since the Contract establishes the scope of work, not their proposal. 2. As indicated under Item 13.1, SSFM apparently lost control of this project sometime ago from a cost -accounting standpoint and it is unrealistic for SSFM to expect the County to bear the consequences at this stage of the project. 3. It is extremely unrealistic for SSFM to expect an increase in the contract amount to $574,831.34 which is 574% above the initial contact amount since the scope of work remains essentially the same. TSS Recommendation: 1. Since SSFM has indicated that they desire to further discuss the problems with this project in lieu of using mediation to resolve the problem as originally indicated in their letter, it is recommended that TSS discuss the issue further with SSFM to determine if the issue can be resolved without involvement of a mediator. 2. In the event that the issue cannot be resolved, it is recommended that the Department consider termination of the contract in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.1, Right of the county to Terminate, of the General Terms & Conditions, January, 2002 of the Contract due to the extreme nature of the cost overruns. cc: Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd, Deputy Corporation Counsel Robin Bauman, Accountant IV Hawaii County is an eWual opportunity provider and employer. I N T E R N A T I O N A L June 30, 2006 County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management Technical Services Section 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 214 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Attn: Ms. Dora Beck, P.E., Chief Subject: Justification for Contract Re -Negotiation St. M INTERNATIONAL, INC. 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 315 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 933-2727 Fax: (866) 887-8885 Project Managers, Planners, & Engineers American Council of Engineering Companies, Member Reference: North Kona Improvement District SSFM Proposal, August 8, 2004 CoH DEM Wastewater Division Agreement, March 16, 2005 NKID Meeting Memo, January 6, 2005 Meeting Memo, November 22, 2004 SSFM 2004 115.000 As your Consultant for the North Kona Improvement Project, we acknowledge the differences between our office and the DEM over interpretation of our agreed scope of work for this project and, therefore, respectfully submit herewith our recommendations for a fair and prompt resolution of the differences. The following is an outline of the issues that we propose to be considered in resolving our differences in the scope of work and resulting fees for this project: A. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: 1. The contract was executed in good faith with intent to deliver a product to exceed expectations, but the level and detail of work deliverables have evolved beyond that which was intended during contract negotiations and at the beginning of the project. B. FACTORS BEARING ON THE PROBLEM: l . Work to date is approximately 40% — 50 % complete and SSFM costs have already exceeded the contract amount of $100,000 (See Attachment 1). 2. Original Contract was negotiated with Mr. Peter Boucher. He was firm in his position that this work would be limited to preliminary work necessary to address the County of Hawaii Council Resolution for Improvement District. 3. The $100,000 ceiling for the fee was set by Peter, and the proposed scope (Attachment 2) was established with consideration of that limitation. 4. During contract negotiations, SSFM questioned the number and details of public meetings and the extent of financial analysis contained in the County's agreement revisions. Meetings were intended to be minimal and to basically meet the intent of having a required public meeting. I:1200412004_115.000 COHNorth Kona Improvement DistrichD Correspondence lLetters1 06063 0 sqy DEM contract renegotiation - sy rev.doc Nspid I N T E R N A T I O N A L Noi to Kona Improvement District Page 2 June 27, 2006 SSFM 2004 115.000 5. SSFM also questioned the detail of financial analysis and strategies. The Wastewater Division's conclusions as to method of financing indicated no requirement for extensive research. 6. Since the outset of contract negotiations, the County Project Manager changed and the continuity of contract language interpretation was lost. As a consequence, the expectation for the deliverables has increased significantly. C. JUSTIFICATION FOR CLAIM: 1. Significant changes appeared in the translation of the SSFM proposal (Attachment 2) into the County agreement (Attachment 3). The November 22 clarification meeting was held to address concerns (Attachment 4). 2. A number of requested changes were accepted by SSFM: a. The inclusion of Kohanaiki into the Study Area b. The change to include distribution of reclaimed water from the WWTP c. The change from two Sewer Alternatives to three Alternatives d. The comparison of the WWTP existing capacity against future demands These other changes are at the center of this issue: a. A change from no public meetings to as many as 4 meetings. b. The impact these meetings would have on a very tight time schedule and fee. c. The change to include addressing financing and the degree of specificity and detail required of the Implementation Plan. d. The challenge of coordination with the many developers in the study area with their very diverse and personal interests in the Improvement District Sewer System Design Details. D. CHANGE IN NUMBER OF MEETINGS 1. The SSFM proposal specifically excluded time consuming and costly public meetings. This change was reluctantly accepted based upon Wastewater's indication that Environmental Management Committee meetings could be considered Public Meetings and that the requirement could be as few as two meetings. At the January 6 meeting (See Attachment 5), SSFM offers 3 meetings including an EMC presentation, but DEM extends it to 4 meetings including the EMC meeting. Subsequently, DEM has asked for as many as 4 full-blown public meetings. E. IMPACT OF MEETINGS ON SCHEDULE: 1. Each meeting requires tremendous effort for preparation including public notifications, presentation materials, handouts, PowerPoint presentations, County coordination, review, multiple iterations and rehearsal. The lack of specificity for the meeting agendas and the County's discretionary expectations can lead to very significant impact to the delivery schedule and related costs. F. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FOR IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT: I: 1200412004_115.000 COH North Kona Improvement DistrictO Correspondence lLetters1060630 sqy DEM contract renegotiation - sy rev.doc I N T E R N A T I O N A L Noi,n Kona Improvement District Page 3 June 27, 2006 SSFM 2004 115.000 1. The issue of how to address financing options has also changed from its original intent and is being interpreted with significantly greater detail required. 2. Methods of assessment and preferred methods of financing can be addressed in limitless levels of detail. The challenge is to find a common ground that will be acceptable to us both; one that provides the level of specificity and detail that will be useful to the County and that can be achieved in a manner that is fair to the consulting team. D. SIGNIFICANT COORDINATION WITH LAND DEVELOPERS: 1. SSFM has exceeded reasonable expectations in dealing with landowners and their consultants, even as the study area and list of landowners has proven to be somewhat of a moving target. There has been a subsequent adjustment to the contract duration to accommodate some of this, but it will continue to be a challenge to coordinate among players with very uneven motivations for participation in this effort. E. CONCLUSION: 1. Based on all the discussion, factors and assumptions above, we conclude that the original intent for this project's scope of work has significantly changed and that a fee adjustment is justified. Our recommendation is for re -negotiation of the fee to a lump sum that compensates SSFM accordingly and we request an opportunity to discuss this further at your earliest convenience. Our preference is to address the issues without referring this matter to attorneys in order to circumvent what could be costly, exhaustive and time-consuming. If DEM is amenable to it, we would propose facilitated mediation by an experienced professional entity such as Dispute Prevention and Resolution, Inc. SSFM is willing to share these expenses with the County of Hawaii and to abide by the recommendations stemming from the mediation since we feel it will be fair and in the best interests of everyone involved. Please contact me with any questions or comment. Mahalo. Sincerely, I TE ATIONAL, INC. e Senior Project Manager email: s yee ci;:ssfm.coln Attachments: 1- Cost -To -Date Financial Statement 2- SSFM Proposal, August 18, 2004 3- CoH Contract, March 16, 2005 4- Meeting Memo, November 22, 2004 5- Meeting Memo, January 6, 2005 P: 2004UO04_115.000 COH North Kona Improvement Distric6l) Correspondence letters W0630 sqy DEM contract renegotiation - sy rev.doc CURRENT PERSONNEL COST Consultant - Regional Master Plan & North Kona Improvement District Plan Hours Billed Rate Total Director Senior Project Manager 142.00 $164.00 $23,288.00 Senior Project Engineer 274.50 $132.00 $36,234.00 Project Manager 342.25 $144.00 $49,284.00 Engineer 111 58.75 $101.00 $5,933.75 Engineer 11 411.00 $91.00 $37,401.00 Technical Manager 18.25 $118.00 $2,153.50 GIS Specialist 23,25 $75.00 $1,743.75 GIS Technician 89.50 $71.00 $6,354.50 Senior Project Planner 78.50 $139.00 $10,911.50 Planning Technician 12100 $69.00 $8,487.00 Planner 800.00 $105.00 $84,000.00 Construction Manager 100 $129.00 $258.00 CAD IV 10.50 $75.00 $787.50 Project Coordinator 50.50 $67.00 $3,383.50 Clerical 41.00 $40.00 $1,640.00 Subtotal 2465.00 $271,860.00 Current Personnel Cost $271,860.00 HI G.E.T. 4.166% $11,325.69 Total billing $283,185.69 ATTACHMENT "1„ Project: Consultant - Regional Master Plan & North Kona Improvement District Plan CURRENT REIMBURSABLE EXPENSE RECAP Date Description Amount 1/31/2006 Merrick Company $ 422.50 5/31/2006 Hawaii Tribune Herald/Public notice/5/17 $ 221.30 5/31/2006 West Hawaii Today/Public notice/5/17 $ 150.37 1/31/2005 Mileage/PH/70miles/1/19 $ 28.35 3/31/2006 Mileage[WRD/Mar06/190 miles $ 84.55 5/31/2006 Mileage/WRD/May06/50 miles $ 22.25 1/31/2006 County Clerk/Copies/Ordinances/1/20/06 $ 12.60 1/31/2006 Planning Dept Hilo/Copies/1/31/06 $ 226.95 2/28/2006 COH Pub Wks/Drawing copies/NH/2/9 $ 8.00 4/30/2006 Office Max/Binder/Paper/4/10 $ 141.62 4/30/2006 Copies/Kona Sewer Plan/3/2/06 $ 129.37 5/31/2006 Office max/3 copies/f/draft mstr plan $ 173.49 6/30/2006 Honblue/Color Copies/Hand Staple/SO0026027/6/E $ 387.63 7/31/2005 Placeways/Community Viz Sftwr $ 195.85 7/31/2005 Fish Dock/NKID Public Mtg/6/6 $ 37.48 1/31/2006 Alamo Rent A Car, inc./Pat 0/1/26 $ 43.33 1/31/2006 Alamo Rent A Car, inc./Pat 0/1/23 $ 39.33 2/28/2006 Aloha Air/Pat 0/1/23 $ 186.20 2/28/2006 Aloha Air/Pat 0/1/26 $ 186.20 6/30/2006 Hawaiian Air/J Chang/6/6 $ 183.20 6/30/2006 Hawaiian Air/R Sato/6/6 $ 183.20 6/30/2006 King Kam's Kona Beach Hotel/Ron S/6/6-7 $ 89.13 6/30/2006 King Kam's Kona Beach Hotel/J Chang/6/6-7 $ 89.13 6/30/2006 Per Diem/J Chang/Kona/6/6-7 $ 45.00 3/31/2006 Cingular Wireless/Cell svc/Mar 061WD $ 64.55 3/31/2006 Cingular Wireless/Cell Svc1WD $ 14.06 4/30/2006 Cingular Wireless/Cell Svc/Apr 06 $ 21.48 6/30/2006 Cingular Wireless/Cell Svc/May 06 $ (16.05) 6/30/2006 Cingular Wireless/Cell Svc/May 06 $ 57.19 12/31/2005 Copies from COH Planning Dept/12/12, 15 $ 26.00 12/31/2005 Naniloa Hotel/PH/12/8/05 $76 88 Total Reimbursable Expense $ 3,531.14 Administrative Overhead (15%) $529.67 Sub Total $4,060.81 HI State G.E.Tax (4.166%) $169.17 Reimbursable Expense This Invoice $4,229.98 N T E R N A T I O N A L August 18, 2004 ATAhiMENT "2"; S,FM INTERNATIONAL, INC. 99 Aupuni Street, Suite 120 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 933-2727 Fax: (866) 887-8885 Project Managers, Planners, & Engineers American Council of Engineering Companies, Member 2004_ 115.000 CLIENT: County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management Wastewater Division 108 Railroad Avenue Hilo, HI 96720 Attention. Mr. Peter Boucher, PE — Division Chief SUBJECT: North Kona Improvement District Implementation Plan REFERENCE: Wastewater Division Letter of Selection — July 12, 2004 County of Hawaii Resolution No. 129 03 — December 17, 2003 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES We are pleased to submit the following agreement between County of Hawaii, Department of Environmental Management, Wastewater Division (hereinafter referred to as CLIENT) and SSFM INTERNATIONAL, INC. (hereinafter referred to as SSFM) to provide CIVIL ENGINEERING, PLANNING, GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES for this project. ATTACHMENTS This AGREEMENT together with the following attachments constitute the entire agreement between the parties herein: 1. EXHIBIT "A": Description of Work a. Physical Limits of Owner's Improvements b. Basic Scope of Work c. Work Not Included. 2. EXHIBIT "B": Terms and Conditions (Version 9 January 2004). 3. EXHIBIT "C": North Kona Study Area SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED 1. Project Management a. Overall coordination and management of project from inception through completion, serving as the single point -of -contact for the Client. b. Coordination of all conceptual, design and technical reviews. c. Coordination, preparation and printing of Implementation Plan document. 2. Civil Engineering a. Preparation of Sewer Master Plan and Implementation Study for the North Kona Improvement District. b. Provide conceptual master plan and general implementation plan for wastewater collection within the Study Area to the Kealakehe Sewage Treatment Plant. 3. Planning a. Landowner consultation to determine future development plans within study area. b. Document research to determine existing land use entitlements Ik- 1 N T E R N A T I O N A L CHARGES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES T AV T rt H, Department of Environmental Management Wastewater Division North Kona Improvement District Implementation Plan SSFM 2004.115.000 Page 2 August 18, 2004 For the basic scope of work shown hereinbefore, compensation for our services shall be lump sum including 4.166% State General Excise Tax as follows: LUMP SUM FEE _ $99,500.00 (NOTE: Reimbursable expenses are not included in the lump sum fee. Additional Services are covered in the Terms and Conditions.) SSFM will submit an invoice for services provided under this Agreement on a monthly basis. If our services covered by this Agreement have not been completed within 6 months of the date hereof, through no fault of SSFM, the remaining fees shall be escalated at the rate of 5% per year. SCHEDULE OF SERVICES: Excluding CLIENT and OWNER review periods, significant scope changes and/or redesigns by CLIENT, or other delays beyond the control of SSFM, the time schedule for the proposed scope of services should proceed according to the following time estimates: Phase Deliverable Estimated Time Field Study and Outline Outline Report 4 weeks after Notice To Report Phase Proceed (NTP) Agency Review Period None 1 week Pre -Final Study Phase Pre -Final Report, Conceptual Drawings and 7 weeks after approval of Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Field Study and Outline Agency Review Period None 1 week Final Study Phase Final Implementation Plan Report, 3 weeks after approval of Pre - Conceptual Drawings and Opinion of Final Report and ECC Probably Construction Cost Should this AGREEMENT meet with your approval, please sign and return one; if not, please call for further discussions and/or clarifications. We will begin services upon receipt of a signed copy of this AGREEMENT. Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CIVIL ENGINEERING, PLANNING AND GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM SERVICES for this PROJECT. SSFM INTERNATIONAL, INC. 1--i Stephen Yee Project Manager Email: syee(a;;sstin.com Reviewed and Approved By: OLZ"&;Wi� Michael P. Matsumoto, P.E., FACEC President and CEO Email: mmatsumoto(aIssfm.com r INTER N A T I ONAL Department of Environmental Management Wastewater Division North Kona Improvement District Implementation Plan SSFM 2004.115.000 Enclosures: Extra Copy Exhibit "A" — Description of Work Exhibit `B" - Terms & Conditions (Version 9 January 2004) Exhibit "C" — Limits of Study Map Accepted for Wastewater Division by: Signature print name/title Date Page 3 August 18, 2004 ................................................................g.......,....,......,...,,.....,,...,,,..,.....,,..,............... .,,,.,,.«,........ ................... , FACSIMILE (FAX) SIGNATURES• Fax executed copies of this Agreement shall be fully binding and effective for all purposes whether or not i originally executed documents are transmitted to SSFM International, Inc. Fax signatures on this document will be treated the same as original e signatures, however, CLIENT agrees to promptly forward original executed documents to SSFM International, Inc. A- ATTACI�MEI�iT rrryrr Department of Environmental Management GG Wastewater Division North Kona Improvement District Implementation Plan INTERNATIONAL SSFM2004.115.000 Page 4 August 18, 2004 EXHIBIT "A" - DESCRIPTION OF WORK PHYSICAL LIMITS OF OWNER'S IMPROVEMENTS Our project management, civil engineering, planning and GIS services as outlined under `Basic Scope of Work" below will be limited to the following physical limits: That area in North Kona roughly bounded by the Kealakehe STP, north to Kohanaiki, east to the Mamalahoa Highway and south back to Kealakehe just north of the Villages of Laiopua subdivision. See Exhibit "C', — Limits of Study. BASIC SCOPE OF WORK 1. Project Management a. Overall coordination and management of project from inception through completion, serving as the single point -of -contact for the Client. b. Clarification and accurate documentation of the scope of work, schedule and budget for the Project Team. c. Monitor the progress of the project to determine actual work accomplished versus cost to date versus budget: take appropriate actions to maintain project schedule and budget; reviewing/submitting recommendations on requests for payment, claims for additional time or additional cost. d. Recording meeting minutes and memoranda of significant events and decisions. e. Coordination of all conceptual, design and technical reviews; assisting the Client in assuring delivery of a quality product. f. Coordination, preparation and printing of Implementation Plan document. 2. Civil Engineering Work: a. Visually observe existing conditions, conduct research of existing utilities and establish civil design criteria. b. Prepare layout of existing collection system and conceptual layout of a maximum of two alternatives. c. Prepare sewer flow calculations for future population based upon the proposed land uses at the study year. d. Prepare sewer hydraulic calculations for recommended alternative based upon sewer flow calculations described above. e. Identify potential land acquisition requirements (i.e. TMKs and costs based upon current assessed land values) f. Prepare Conceptual Drawings and analysis documentation with opinion of probable construction cost for selected collection alternative. 3. Planning Work: a. Consulting with Major Landowners 1. Identify major landowners within study area and develop consultation listing for Client review and approval. 2. Implement Landowner Consultation Program to determine their future development plans and financing options for improvements. b. Establish Future Land Uses 1. Conduct literature review of existing studies, references, maps, and data associated land uses within study area. 2. Conduct field inspection of study area. 3. Determine existing land uses for parcels within study area. AT•1flMElY1T„" "I Department of Environmental Management Wastewater Division North Kona Improvement District Implementation Plan INTERNATIONAL SSFM2004.115.000 Page 5 August 18, 2004 4. Determine future land uses based upon available development plans and consultation with major landowners. c. Prepare report documenting results of work efforts by project team. 1. Prepare draft report following documentation items identified under Chapter 12, Article 2, Section 12-10(a) of the County Code (Project Improvement Districts). 2. Prepare Final Implementation Plan Report incorporating Client review comments. 4. Geographical Information Systems Work: a. Provide the necessary GIS map layers available including: 1. Hawaii Island Tax Map Key Base Map 2. GIS Theme Layers — 50 ft. contour data 3. GIS Theme Layers — Streets 4. GIS Theme Layers — State Land Use Districts 5. GIS Theme Layers — Census Data 6. GIS Theme Layers — Existing Utility Information provided by County b. Produce necessary Figures for the Draft and Final Implementation Plan Reports for submission to the Client. WORK NOT INCLUDED a. Detailed Financial analysis for the Improvement District or detailed financial evaluation of improvement costs. b. Reclaimed Water Distribution Study, design and Construction Cost Estimates c. Attendance at public hearings or informational meetings. d. Electrical service, telephone service, CATV service. e. Treatment plant upgrade requirements, if any. f. Hazardous material location , identification or removal. Environmental assessment. Market Value Land Acquisition Costs ASSUMPTIONS a. All work will address the criteria described in the Hawaii County Code, Chapter 12, Article 2, Section 12- 10, Paragraph (a) regarding pro6ject improvement district procedures. The Implementation Plan report will be a document to commence the process with the Council to create this improvement district. b. Under separate contract, SSFM will address issues such as financial analyses and further study and design of reclaimed water distribution and other collection system details once the preferred alternative has been identified from the Implementation Plan document. INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM CLIENT a. GIS data or AutoCAD drawings of the existing sewer collection system for the Study Area and surrounding areas. b. Identify the Study Year for which the Report will be targeted. c. Existing and projected Kealakehe Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) capacity data. d. Confirmation that Konakaiki will be included into the sewer flow calculations and that flow is to be conveyed to the Kealakehe STP. --000-- h , ATTA6HM�NT,3 CONTRACT THIS IS AN AGREEMENT effective as of )k&Z1 i� A� 20ACEffective Date") between the COUNTY OF HAWAII, a municipal corporation duly organize and existing under the laws of the State of Hawaii, by I��R £ I, its �, hereinafter called the "COUNTY", and SSFM INTERNATIONAL INC., a corporation licensed to do business under the laws of the State of Hawaii, whose business address is 501 Sumner Street, Suite 620, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817, hereinafter called the "CONSULTANT" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the COUNTY wishes to obtain the services of the CONSULTANT to render civil engineering services in connection with the North Kona Improvement District Implementation Plan, hereinafter called the "PROJECT"; and WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT is qualified, ready, willing and able to provide such services; and WHEREAS, The COUNTY and the CONSULTANT have detailed the scope of work to be performed by the CONSULTANT on the PROJECT in, separate attachments entitled "EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK", a copy of which is attached hereto; and NOW, THEREFORE, the COUNTY and the CONSULTANT, in consideration of the mutual promises hereinafter set forth, hereby agree as follows: l . That the CONSULTANT shall perform all of the services required for the PROJECT in accordance with the General Terms and Conditions for Consultant Services Contracts dated January 2002, hereinafter called the GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS; and ATT CHMENT," T`I 2. That the compensation for the work covered under the CONTRACT, subject to the General Terms and Conditions, shall consist of a fee not to exceed ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($100,000.00) except in the case of a contract amendment increasing or decreasing the scope of work; and 3. That the work on this CONTRACT shall be completed within 98 calendar days after the COUNTY has given the official written notice to proceed, exclusive of review time as may be required by the COUNTY and other agencies; and 4. That liquidated damages for failure to perform the work within the time fixed or any extension thereof shall be ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) per calendar day. 5. That if a disagreement concerning this agreement or CONSULTANT's work on the PROJECT arises which the parties cannot resolve through negotiation or mediation with a mutually acceptable mediator with experience in construction litigation, then the parties agree that no action or proceeding involving this contract shall be commenced by either party except in the Circuit or District Courts of the Third Circuit, County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii; nor shall any action commenced in such court be removed or transferred to any other state or federal court. 2 ATTALlqq+j� IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement, the Effective Date of which being the day and year first above written. RECOMMEND APPROVAL: BAR13ARA BELL Director of Environmental Management COUNTY: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Deputy Corporation Counsel County of Hawaii CONSULTANT: qq& - da XIE KAETSU WMichael P. Matsumoto , CountyofHawaii v It's President/CEO Date Signed: MAR 16 2m DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: PETER J. BOUCHER P.E. Wastewater Division Chief Phone Number: (808) 961-8338 Facsimile Number: (808) 961-8644 Email Address: pboucher@ co . hawa i i . hi . us 3 Date Signed: February 9, 2005 DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE: Michael P. Matsumoto Title: President7CE0 Phone Number: (808) 531-1308 Facsimile Number: (808) 521-7348 Email Address: mmatsumoto@ssfm.com ATE OF HAWAII ) SS: OF HAWAII) On thr day of 2004, before me personally appeared HARRY KIM, to e personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Mayor of the Coun f Hawaii, a municipal corporation of the State of Hawaii; that the seal affixed to the foregoing' strument is the corporate seal of the said County of Hawaii; that the foregoing instrument was si ed and sealed. in behalf of the County of Hawaii by authority given to said Mayor of the County o awaii by Section 5-1.3(g) of the County Charter, County of Hawaii (1991), as amended; and s ' HARRY KIM acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said County. Notary Public, State of Hawaii My commission expires: STATE OF HAWAII ) ) SS: COUNTY OF HAWAII) 7wlz/- On this 1 C-`' day of ��-yw•�- �o� ��#, before me personally appeared r'v�i614tA IF, ►-'��s.�,"r�,�b to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument in behalf of SSFM INTERNATIONAL, INC., and acknowledged that he/she executed the same as its authorized representative and that the said [CEca acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public, State of Hawaii -L. C.(zkC.4�ti, My commission expires: 064 toe ATTAgHMENT "3 STATE OF HAWAI'I ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HAWAI'I ) On this /0/'A/ day of , 2005, before me personally appeared DIXIE KAETSU, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that she is the Managing Director of the County of Hawai'i, a municipal corporation of the State of Hawai'i; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said County of Hawai'i; that the foregoing instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of the County of Hawai'i by authority given to said Mayor of the County of Hawai'i by Section 5-1.3(g) of the County Charter, County of Hawai'i (2000), as amended, and assigned by the Mayor to the Managing Director pursuant to Section 6-1.3(h) of the County Charter; and said DIXIE KAETSU acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said County of Hawai'i. 7tarvy IA M. TOLENTINO Public,State of Hawai'i My commission exn 4/22/2005 . EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK I. BROAD REGONAL SEWERAGE MASTER PLAN: A. The CONSULTANT shall provide civil engineering services for preparation of a regional sewerage master plan (the "Plan") for the region north of the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant service area as identified in the Facility Plan for the Kailua-Kona Sewerage System, Phase IV (Northern Zone) dated April 1981, and the Keahole to Kailua Development PIan dated April 1991. This shall consist of a detailed Master Plan Letter Report consisting of the following: l . Identification of landowners within the study area. 2. Investigation and interviews to determine entitlements and future land use. 3. Projections of demand based upon this investigation including a breakdown of major areas of significant usage. 4. Three (3) alternatives for routing of collection and opinion of probable construction costs. 5. Proposed routing of reuse water and opinion of probable construction costs. 6. Plan will compare the existing Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant excess capacity with un-sewered Tributary Areas and will comment on the stage at which upgrade of the Wastewater Treatment Plant will be required. 7. Plan will determine the necessary collection system facilities required to service the un-sewered areas including Sewage Pump Stations that maybe required. B. Furnish trqe-LD review copies of the Plan to COUNTY within 75 days of authorization to begin services and review it with COUNTY. C. Revise the Plan in response to COUNTY's, and other parties' comments, as appropriate, and furnish three M final copies of the revised Report to the COUNTY within 15 days of completion of reviewing it with COUNTY. II. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR NORTH KONA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT: A. Consult with COUNTY to define and clarify COUNTY's requirements for the Project and available data. B. Identify property owners and other parties which would potentially be affected by the proposed improvement district. Conduct an initial public meeting to advise the potentially affected parties and the general public of the proposed project and its potential implications. Conduct follow-up meetings (estimated three (3) total) throughout the course of the contract as necessary. C. Identify, consult with, and analyze requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction to approve the portions of the Project designed or specified by CONSULTANT, including but not limited to the Department of Health, Wastewater Branch. D. Identify and evaluate alternate solutions available to COUNTY and, after consultation with COUNTY, recommend to COUNTY those solutions that in CONSULTANT's best judgment meet COUNTY's requirements for the Project. E. Prepare a specific and detailed implementation plan (the "Report") which will, as appropriate, contain the following: 1. Necessity and feasibility of the project; 2. Schematic layouts, sketches and conceptual design criteria with appropriate exhibits to indicate the preferred alternative available to COUNTY that CONSULTANT recommends; 3. Proposed boundaries and listing of affected real properties which would potentially be subject to assessment; 4. Estimated costs for the preferred alternative and proposed distribution of costs; 5. Preferred method of financing said improvements, whether by Council - initiated improvement district, owner -initiated improvement district, tax increment district, community facilities district, or private financing; and 6. Preliminary implementation schedule. F. Furnish three 3 review copies of the Report to COUNTY within 75 days after completion of Sewerage Master Plan letter report phase and review it with COUNTY. G. Revise the Report in response to COUNTY's, and other parties' comments, as appropriate, and furnish three 3 final copies of the revised Report to the COUNTY within 15 days of completion of reviewing it with COUNTY. SSFM INTERNATIONAL, INC. A (7 HMENT I'4 Meeting Notes Project: North Kona Improvement District Project No.: 2004.115 Date: November 22, 2004 Time: 1130 Location: Peter Boucher's Office @ WWD Present: Peter Boucher - WWD Steve Yee, Hugh Ono - SSFM Purpose of Meeting: Review differences in SSFM's and WWD's Scopes of Work MEETING NOTES: 1. Three differences in Scopes of Work to discuss: a. Public Meetings and impact on delivery schedule b. Definition of Study Area c. Financial analysis and recommendations SSFM concern is whether the work can be accomplished within the $100K fee limitation. 2. Meetings: PB envisions need for an informational kick off meeting with public notification to put forward the County's plan to develop the Improvement District. A mailing list of interested parties would be generated from this for future contact. The Environmental Management Committee would need to convene to discuss the report delivered; PB suggests this could be the 2nd (and perhaps final?) public meeting. This still needs to be firmly established. 3. Study Area: Federal EPA grant money was used to develop the Facilities Plan which did NOT include Kohanaiki. This area was slated to be served by a 2nd treatment facility north of the Keahole Airport. Inclusion of Kohanaiki in the ID would therefore violate the intent of the Facilities Plan. PB indicates he would need to examine the implications of this (he may need to notify the EPA and amend the Facilities Plan), but he expects that part of the purpose of our Plan is to determine the best recommendation for sewering of the Kohanaiki area 4. Financing: PB indicates this is included in the Scope of Work only because it is mentioned in the Resolution. In fact, he already knows the funding will come from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) and our findings and recommendations should likely be confined to cursory address of the different options. 5. PB expects only one report as a deliverable. The Master Plan would "meld" into the Implementation Plan for Improvement District in a single deliverable. The timetable for the report in his Scope of Work was taken from our Proposal; it is actually flexible and can be stretched out as need may dictate. Page 1 IN T E R NAT I ON At ATTACFNtC7, airK indicated that BM has a general (maybe specific) idea of what the property owners' interests are. 4. RF: SSFM should not be limited to financing options listed in the resolution. The intent of the resolution language was to leave the options for financing wide-open. The State Revolving Fund (SRF) and USDA RUS grants could also be an option. 5. RF suggested SSFM contact the following persons who have helped the County with floating bonds and IDs: a. Brian Hirai, private consultant to County in bonds (RF to email contact info) b. Kathy Garson, County Corporation Counsel (has experience in ID process). 6. RF suggested report should include property owners adjacent to the study area boundaries, such as Ooma. However, SY responded that this would not be feasible because the report needs to start with a defined study area because of SSFM's limited resources. However, SSFM can entertain the inclusion of adjacent property owners if the County requests it during the report process. Therefore, SY established the study area as shown on the map provided at this meeting. 7. RF: County Tax Assessors office could help in compiling TMK/Owner information. 8. SY presented SSFM's project approach with three meetings including the requested Jan. 19th presentation to the EMC and major landowners plus two full-blown public meetings. BB was concerned that this Jan. 19th presentation may not be the best utilization of a meeting and expressed the desire to preserve the "three bullets" (public meetings) to be sure they are well spent. 9. SY recognized the list of landowners in the resolution as those who would be invited to the EMC meeting but expressed concern for the possible resentment of excluded owners. BB alluded that SSFM did not necessarily have to present to the public at the January 19th EMC meeting but it might be a good forum to brief the EMC on what is happening/going to happen since the EMC only meets once every two months. 10. RF: From a political standpoint, it is important to keep the councilman (Angel Pilago) and constituents updated and content with the ID process so other districts will see that the ID process is beneficial and works. 1 I. SY: During the interview process, SSFM will investigate which landowners have a future demand for recycled water. The report will reflect recycled water lines to only those landowners who indicate a future demand for recycled water. Due to limited resources, SSFM can not indicate recycled water to all properties in the subject area. 12. NH wants to see acreage of each study area property at the January 19th EMC meeting. 13. RF suggested that the Report be reader friendly and use layman terms because the report will eventually be attached to a County resolution and will be made available to the public. 14. RF provided a copy of the Dept. of Water Supply ID report and cost estimate for the Coastview and Wonderview subdivisions. ATTENTION: If you disagree with any portion of the contents of this document, please contact SSFM within five (5) working days of the date of this document for discussion(s) and/or revision(s). In the absence of any revision, the contents of this document will serve as the official record for the subject. Page 2 L, M, I N T E R N A T I O N A L WASTEWATER DIVISION .�.� i�ivi yr civ v"I UIV1V1L1V IAL MANAGEMENT 108 RAILROAD AVENUE - HILO, HAWAII 96720 (808) 961-8338 - FAX (808) 961-8644 MEMORANDUM: DATE: February 16, 2005 TO: Barbara Bell, Director _ FROM: Lyle Hirota, P.E., Superintendent MEMO 05LH-017 SUBJECT: CONSULTANT CONTRACTS FOR WASTEWATER DIVISION Attached please find the following: 1. A Consultant Contract for the North Kona Improvement District Implementation Plan 2. A proposal from the Consultant for preparation of a NPDES Construction Permit for the Kealakehe Effluent Reuse —Phase 1 project. Also attached are copies of the cover letters with comments apparently made by Peter on Monday prior to providing the documents to Dora Monday afternoon. Due to the fact that the contracts are for critical projects that need to be expedited and since Dora is in Honolulu attending the HWEA Conference and seminars, I was asked to review the contracts and to try to expedite execution of the contracts. My comments and recommendations are as provided below. North Kona Improvement District Implementation Plan: The North Kona Improvement District Implementation Plan is broken into two (2) phases of work with Phase I consisting of preparation of a "Regional Sewerage Master Plan" and Phase II consisting of preparation of a "Specific and Detailed Implementation Plan". Preparation of the "Specific and Detailed Implementation Plan" is based on the issues identified during preparation of the "Regional Master Plan". As such, it is unrealistic to expect the consultant to work on the two phases concurrently. SSFM International was asked to add Items No. 6 and 7 to Exhibit A — Scope of Work, Section I.A to clarify the scope of the Master Plan under Part I. • Changes to the section were made to clarify the scope of work since the consultant had concerns that the previous wording of the section may be interpreted that they would be required to provide conceptual designs and preliminary cost estimates for upgrading of the Wastewater Treatment Plant, which was not the intention of the contract. Memo 05LH-017, Consultant Contracts Page 2 of 5 2. It is understood that the Implementation Plan is not a part of the Improvement District and is used for planning purposes. As such, I do not understand the purpose of Peter's comment regarding that issue. 3. Comments on the time allotted for the Consultant to complete Part II of the Scope of Work are as follows: • It is unrealistic to expect the consultant to complete Phase II in a shorter time frame than the allotted 75 calendar days of completion of Phase I of the Scope of Work and to expect high quality work. As indicated above, Phase II is the preparation of the "Specific and Detailed Implementation Plan" and a significant work effort is expected to be required. The Implementation Plan (Phases I and II) essentially provides the "road -map" for implementation of the project and as such, is considered to be a key element in ensuring that the implementation proceeds in a logical method. Although it may be "possible" to get some sort of "Specific and Detailed Implementation Plan" done within a shorter time period, I seriously doubt that it will be a thorough plan, and as such, I would have serious questions on its value in really charting a course of action for implementing the project. • With regard to Peter's concern that the project be completed "1-2 weeks prior to deadline by EPA", I am assuming that he is referring to the April 5, 2005 deadline concerning Large Capacity Cesspools. o Although it is understood that the LCC issue is an important issue, it is pointed out that actual construction for the North Kona ID project is currently budgeted for FY 08-09 since it is unrealistic that all projects involving LCC's could be completed in a shorter time frame considering budget constraints as well as current staffing. o To risk receiving a poorly planned Implementation Plan for the simple sake of the April 5, 2005 deadline when construction is not slated until FY 08-09 is in reality, foolish. It is too important of a document. Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Permit for 12" Force Main l . The NPDES Permit is required to allow construction to continue for the Kealakehe Effluent Reuse Phase I Project, which was awarded to JAS W. Glover, Ltd. on October 1, 2003. The project has been delayed due to the requirement for the NPDES Construction Permit. 2. Installation of the Kealakehe Effluent Reuse line is part of the Consent Order issued by the DOH for effluent reuse at the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. The County has obtained an extension for completion of the work by August 2005. That being said, it is expected that we would require another extension since it is unrealistic that we would be able to comply with the current extended deadline. Memo 05LH-017, Consultant Contracts Page 3 of 5 3. The "Other Contract" that Peter alludes to regarding the NPDES Construction Permit is currently with a proposal received from SSFM International, Inc. regarding the preparation of bid documents for the Kealakehe Wetlands Pilot Cell project. That proposal also includes installation of an Effluent Reuse Line to the Honokohau Harbor in compliance with the DOH Consent Order for the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Kealakehe Wetlands Pilot Cell project contract has been reviewed. However, the proposal indicates that the consultant will not be providing drawings stamped by a Licensed Engineer for the project since they are not designing the project and are instead using drawings previously provided to the County from the Bureau of Reclamation. The Honokohau Effluent Reuse Piping to be installed as a part of the Wetlands Pilot Cell Project was a temporary line intended to meet the extended deadline of the Consent Order. I discussed this issue with Marshall Lum of the Department of Health and he indicated that they were not aware of the fact that the line to be installed was a temporary line. I also discussed the possibility of changing the terms of the Consent Order in the event of funding issues since it may be more feasible and beneficial to install effluent reuse piping in the South direction since there were more potential users in that direction. Marshall indicated that he did not see a problem with changing the terms of the Consent Order if it could be shown that it was more beneficial. • We are currently in the process of executing a contract with Brown and Caldwell to have them provide assistance with installation of the Honokohau Effluent Reuse Piping as apart of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Widening Project. The Effluent Reuse Master Plan (February 1999) reflected installation of the piping as a part of the project and the Brown and Caldwell had initially coordinated that effort with the State Department of Transportation, however, the Bid Documents issued by the State DOT did not include provisions for installation of effluent reuse piping as a part of their project. I also have some major concerns as to whether installation of wetlands will truly be effective in obtaining R-I reuse water, especially in terms of the quantities envisioned under the current Effluent Reuse Master Plan (February 1999) since literature seems to indicate wide variability with effluent parameters from Constructed Wetlands. Of additional concern is that some of the literature indicates that although Louisiana had 60 Constructed Wetlands for Municipal Treatment Facilities, only 4 of them were successful and the remainder had been abandoned. Brown and Caldwell will be providing a Technical Memorandum as part of their contract for the Honokohau Effluent Reuse Piping outlining the pro's and con's of using Constructed Wetlands as part of the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Facility's efforts to obtain R-1 Water in order that an informed decision can be made regarding the feasibility of utilizing Constructed Wetlands at the facility. Memo 05LH-017, Consultant Contracts Page 4 of 5 Recommendations: L It is recommended that we proceed with execution of the North Kona Improvement District contract in its present form. In reality, this project has been delayed by more than the additional allotted time in its present form due to Peter's concern that the project be expedited and that the consultant be allowed less time to complete the project. 2. It is recommended that we proceed with execution of a contract for the NPDES Permit preparation in order that we can expedite start of the previously awarded construction contract and in order to meet terms of the extended Consent Order. • We are currently in the process of drafting up a Consultant Contract for the work as indicated in the proposal from the Consultant. Commentary: Much thought was given by both Dora and myself in trying to establish a realistic Capital Improvement Budget plan from both the funding and personnel resource aspects since we wanted to ensure that we provided a realistic program. With regard to the allotted time for the North Kona Improvement District Implementation Plan, much thought was also given to that issue especially since Peter had previously expressed his desires to the consultant that they provide the completed Implementation Plan in a shorter time frame. However, as indicated above, it was determined that allowance of additional time to prepare the plan would result in a better end product for the County. With regard to the NPDES Construction Permit for the Kealakehe Effluent Reuse Phase I project, it was originally my recommendation that a separate contract be provided. My recommendation was based on the following: L The project has been stalled for some time and including the work in the Wetlands Pilot Cell project would lead to further delays due to concerns expressed above. 2. Completion of the Kealakehe Effluent Reuse Phase 1 project is tied to the Consent Order for the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant and compliance with the extended Consent Order is coming due. 3. Installation of a temporary effluent reuse line to the Honokohau Harbor for the simple reason of complying with the Consent Order did not seem to be justified, especially in light of my discussions with the DOH and the fact that the State DOT is proceeding with the Queen Kaahumanu Widening Project. In summary, all of the decisions made on how to proceed with some of the projects were made only after careful thought and much discussion between Dora and myself. We also realized that some of the decisions would not be especially popular with Peter upon his return and as such, no decisions were made frivolously. However, since we were charged with the responsibility of making these types of decisions in his absence, it was decided that we would base the decisions on our own evaluation and understanding of the issues at hand and would make what we felt was the best decision in the interest of the County. Memo 05LH-017, Consultant Contracts Page 5 of 5 Dora is the Acting Division Chief and as such she bears the ultimate responsibility for the final decisions which were made. She will be undoubtedly be held accountable for those decisions by Peter upon his return since some of the decisions may not have been to his liking. That being said, I personally disagree with the basis for some of his decisions. I therefore want to make it clear that all of those decisions were in fact, joint decisions by both Dora and myself after much discussion and although the final decision was not mine to make, I share in the responsibility. Indeed, some of the recommendations, especially regarding concerns on the Wetlands Pilot Cell Project, were mine, and I take full responsibility for those recommendations and the decisions made based on my recommendations. I would also like to make it clear that in the event that Peter objects to some of the decisions that were made at the Departmental (or higher) level upon his return, you are welcome to provide him a copy of this memorandum. I have nothing to hide. cc: Dora Beck, P.E., Acting Division Chief Nelson Ho, Deputy Director �M INTERNATIONAL, INC. I N T E R N A T I O N A L February 9, 2005 TO: Wastewater Division Department of Environmental Management County of Hawaii 108 Railroad Avenue Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Attention: Mr. Peter J. Boucher, P.E. 501 Sumner Street, Suite 620 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 Phone: (808) 531-1308 Fax: (808) 521-7348 Project Managers, Planners, & Engineers American Council of Engineering Companies, Member SUBJECT: North Kona Improvement District Implementation Plan we transmit herewith the following: (1)certified copy (1) original (1) copy (1) original ............................................................ remarks: Tax Clearance Corporate Resolution Certificate of Insurance Consultant Services Contract SSFM 2004 115.000 'tG V-(V(-U-J Scopk ( 5 C 5- !�'-P c/ vf� Fo-� 9,5;� tIt-(eH AJ ,s4 ---Per your instructions the consultant agreement has been reviewed, signed, notarized, and returned to you for processing. The original certificate of insurance should have been mailed to you in December. SSFM INTERNATIONAL, INC. Elizabeth I. Chikamori Office Manager email: echikamori(a�ssfin.com 1-1200412004_II5.000 COHNorth Kona Improvement District Implementation PlanID Correspor7de7icelTia7tsnaitials1050209 eic COHconsultant services contract - ssfin signature only.doc .=M INTERNATIONAL, INC I N T E R N A T 777I O N A L February 9, 2005 501 Sumner Street, Suite 620 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 Phone: (808) 531-1308 Fax: (808) 521-7348 Project Managers, Planners, & Engineers American Council of Engineering Companies, Member Contract 200400020.001 CLIENT: County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management, Wastewater Division 108 Railroad Avenue Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Attention: Mr. Peter Boucher, P.E., Division Chief SUBJECT: Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Permit for 12" Force Main District of North Kona AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES We are pleased to submit the following agreement between County of Hawaii, Department of Environmental Management, Wastewater Division (hereinafter referred to as CLIENT) and SSFM INTERNATIONAL, INC. (hereinafter referred to as SSFM) to provide ENGINEERING, PLANNING & PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES for this project. ATTACHMENTS This AGREEMENT together with the following attachments constitute the entire agreement between the parties herein: EXHIBIT "A": Description of Work a. Physical Limits of Owner's Improvements b. Basic Scope of Work c. Work Not Included --- 2.- -EXHIBIT "B": Terns and Conditions (Version 17 November 2004). GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT It is SSFM's understanding that the Client has retained SSFM to provide professional services to obtain an individual NPDES permit for the construction of a 12" Force Main delivering treated effluent from the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant to a holding pond adjacent to the Kealakehe Transfer Station located mauka of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED Description of Project Management Services a. Overall coordination and management of project from inception through completion, serving as the single point -of -contact for the Client. 2. Description of Planning Services a. Perform research and field inspection work as required in preparation of NPDES Permit application. b. Prepare and submit NPDES Permit application incorporating Client review comments as necessary. C. Coordinate with State Deparment of health in processing/revising Permit as required for approval. I N T E N A T I Q N A L CHARGES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES County of Hawaii artment of Environmental Management Wastewater Division Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES Permit for 12" Force Main Page 2 February 3, 2005 Contract 200400020.001 For the basic scope of work shown hereinbefore, compensation for our services shall be lump sum including 4.166% State General Excise Tax as follows: LUMP SUM FEE _ $13,700.00 (NOTE: Reimbursable expenses are not included in the lump sum fee. Additional Services are covered in the Terms and Conditions) SSFM will submit an invoice for services provided under this Agreement on a monthly basis. If our services covered by this Agreement have not been completed within 12 months of the date hereof, through no fault of SSFM, the remaining fees shall be escalated at the rate of 30/. per year. SCHEDULE OF SERVICES: Excluding CLIENT and OWNER review periods, significant scope changes and/or redesigns by CLIENT, or other delays beyond the control of SSFM, the time schedule for the proposed scope of services should proceed according to the following time estimates: Phase I Estimated Time Draft NPDES Application 45� after notice to proceed (NTP) Final NPDES Application for filing with State DOH 21 days exclusive of Client review Should this AGREEMENT meet with your approval, please sign and return one copy if not, please call for further discussions and/or clarifications. We will begin services upon receipt of a signed copy of this AGREEMENT. Thank you very much for this opportunity to serve as ENGINEERING, PLANNING & PROJECT MANAGEMENT for this PROJECT. SSFM INTERNATIONAL, INC. Stephen ee, P.E. Project Manager Email: syee(Z,ssfin.coin sy/mpm: gav bRevi ed and Approved By: Michael P. Matsumoto, P.E. President/CEO Email: mmatsumotogssfin.com Enclosures: Extra Copy Exhibit "A" — Description of Work Exhibit `13" - Terms & Conditions (Version 17 November 2004) A— Harry Kim Mayor June 24, 2004 OF Barbara Barbara Bell - - Director Nelson Ho Deputy Director &UUfVr of'Fa£aaii DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni Street, Room 208 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8083 a Fax (808) 961-8086 Lisa Munger Goodsill, Anderson, Quinn & Stifel P.O. Box 3196 Honolulu, HI 96801 SUBJECT: STATUS OF PROPOSED NORTH KONA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The following is offered in response to your email inquiry of June 17, 2004. On December 17, 2003 the Hawaii County Council approved a resolution which authorizes the Department of Environmental Management to prepare a regional sewerage master plan for the region north of Kealakehe including an implementation plan for an improvement district to service the area. A copy of the resolution is included for your reference. The Department is currently in the process of negotiating a contract with a consultant to perform the required study. Once the study is completed and consensus is reached with the affected property owners, the issue will again be put before Council to consider whether to proceed with the improvement district. Assuming the project is authorized, environmental planning, engineering design, land acquisition and project financing would proceed with construction to follow. If everything proceeds smoothly, we would expect that individual properties could connect to the sewer in approximately three years. If you have any further questions, you can reach me at 961-8965. �&J5�/-/a; I Nelson Ho Deputy Director cc: Peter Boucher attachment Hawai' i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer COUNTY OF HAW TE OF HAWAII 3W►L RESOLUTION NO. 129 03 Draft 2 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF (1) A NORTH KONA REGIONAL SEWERAGE MASTER PLAN; AND (2) A COUNCIL INITIATED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STUDY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR KEALAKEHE, HONOKOHAU, KALOKO AND KOHANAIKI, DISTRICT OF NORTH KONA, HAWAI`I WHEREAS, the Council of the County of Hawaii wishes to initiate proposed improvements on certain real property located at Kealakehe, Honokohau, Kaloko and Kohanaiki, District of North Kona, County and State of Hawaii for improvements consisting of extension to the municipal sewer system and recycled water system, pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-10, Hawaii County Code, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Council of the County of Hawaii acknowledges that the Kona Coast north of Kailua contains valuable, unique marine resources and pristine shoreline park properties including Honokohau Harbor, Kaloko Honokahau National Historic Park, a new Kohanaiki shoreline park, and the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority at Keahole Point; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the rapid confluence of private and public developments within the North Kona region extending from Kealakehe and Kaloko to Honokokau Harbor and north to the Lands of Kau calls for an updated regional sewerage master plan for this area; and WHEREAS, the operative "sewer policies" referenced in Ordinance 89-142, An Ordinance Adopting the County of Hawaii General Plan and Repealing Ordinance No. 439, As Amended ("the General Plan") for the general planning of sewerage disposal systems are decades old, to wit: the "Sewerage Study for All Urban and Urbanizing Areas of the County of Hawaii, State of Hawai`i," December, 1970, the "Water Quality Management Plan for the County of Hawai`i," December 1980, and the "Facility Plan for the Kailua-Kona Sewerage System, Phase IV (Northern Zone)," April, 1981;and WHEREAS, in its assessment of the projected sewage flow capacity of the Kealakehe Sewage Treatment Plant, the "Keahole to Kailua Development Plan" adopted by the County Council in Resolution 296-91 on April 3, 1991 called for "further planning and design"; and WHEREAS, the General Plan states that industrial development in North Kona's "redeveloping or newly developing areas shall be developed in concert with programmed public and privately funded infrastructure to meet the expected needs"; and WHEREAS, expanded visitor use of the Kaloko Honokahau National Historic Park administered by the National Park Service, coupled with shoreline park development of Kohanaiki and its planned, low density intentional community, merit thoughtful wastewater treatment and sewerage planning to assure environmental protection of these pristine shoreline areas; and WHEREAS, the "Sewer Policies" outlined in the General Plan states, in part: "Private systems shall be installed by land developers for major resort and other developments along shorelines and sensitive higher inland areas, except where connection to nearby treatment facilities is feasible and compatible with the County's long-range plans, and in conformance with state and county requirements. The County shall take immediate steps to designate treatment plant sites, sewerage pump station sites, and sewer easements according to the facility plans to facilitate their acquisition. The County shall seek State and Federal funds to assist in financing the construction of proposed sewer systems"; and WHEREAS, the Council of the County of Hawaii acknowledges the need to implement improvements consisting of extension to the municipal sewer system and recycled water system on certain real property located at Kealakehe; Honokohau, Kaloko and Kohanaiki, District. of North Kona, County and State of Hawaii; and WHEREAS, extension of said improvements from the existing Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant north along the alignment of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Kohanaiki will include, but not be limited to, necessary recycled water mains, gravity sewers, manholes, pump station(s) and force mains, and sewer laterals with cleanouts to be installed to each property serviced by the proposed improvements; and WHEREAS, the Council acknowledges that there are a number of public and private developments planned or completed in this region including, but not limited to, Lanihau Properties, McClean Honokohau Properties, Gentry Properties, Taylor Family Ltd. Partnership, Mid Corporation, Rutter/KW Kohanaiki LLC, TSA Corporation, Y-O Properties, and various public landowners. including the State of Hawaii, the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Homelands, the United States of America (General Services Administration and National Park Service), as well as a newly proposed West Hawaii campus of the University of Hawaii; and WHEREAS, the Council acknowledges that the mix of private and public development of properties within the region requires the preparation of a more comprehensive regional plan of wastewater treatment needs and sewer improvements than that contemplated in Resolution No. 70-01 (deferred), which proposed a Council -initiated improvement district from the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant to the Kaloko Industrial Area; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that a number of options may be chosen for the allocation of costs of sewer system improvements, including, but not limited to: distribution of sewer improvement district costs by parcel, allocation by zoning or permissible number of units assigned to each parcel, potential usage, required sewer capacity, square footage of buildings, benefits conferred upon the land, or a combination thereof; and WHEREAS, the allocation of costs associated with said improvements and the preferred financing thereof may best be determined after the scope and timetable(s) of intended development, including incremental development, of all affected landowners are surveyed, and all landowners are consulted within a regional planning process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI`I that: (1) in consultation with the landowners referenced above, the Director of the Environmental Management is directed to prepare for submission to the Council (a) a broad regional sewerage master plan for the region north of Kealakehe, and (b) a specific and detailed implementation plan for an improvement district to include the necessity, feasibility,, proposed boundaries, proposed real properties subject to assessment, estimated total cost, and method of financing desirable for the aforementioned sewer system improvements at Kealakehe, Honokohau, Kaloko and Kohanaiki, District of North Kona, County and State of Hawaii; and (2) include in the specific and detailed implementation plan all such data, survey, maps, plans, drawings, details and specifications for the improvements and any other matters or details intended to apply thereto in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-10, Hawaii County Code, as amended; and (3) advise the Council as to the preferred method of financing said improvements, whether: by Council -initiated improvement district, owner -initiated improvement district, tax increment district, community facilities district, or private financing. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the County of Hawaii transmit copies of this resolution to the directors of the Departments of Finance and Environmental Management, and the Environmental Management Commission. Dated at Hilo, Hawaii, this 17th day of December , 2003. COUNTY COUNCIL ROLL CALL VOTE County of Hawaii Hilo, Hawaii I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by The vote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the County of Hawaii on December 17, 2003 ATTEST: m0k COUNTY & PRESIDING OFFICER AYES NOES ABS EX ARAKAKI X CHUNG X ELARIONOFF X HOLSCHUH X JACOBSON X REYNOLDS X SAFARIK X TULANG X TYLER X 9 0 0 0 Reference: C — 41 % _ 4 RESOLUTION NO. :129 03 (Draft 2) 1 March 23, 2004 To: Re: OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERIC HAWAI`I COUNTY BUILDING COUNTY OF HAWAI,1 HILO, HAWAI,I 96720 Refer: Res.158-04 C-503 Finance Director COPY A Resolution Relating to a Council Initiated Im rov Implementation Study for the Construction of Certain and Sewer Systern Improvements for Construction p District Kona, Hawai `i ualoa, District ofNorth Wastewater The following is the action of the Hawai `i Count meeting held March 5 2004: y Council adopted at its FC-221 was approved and adopted. (Res. 158-04 was adopted) COUNTY CLERK Att. xc: Mayor impartment of Environmental Mail aQeme,t DATE: February 18, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 10:10 a.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE Re: Comm. No. 503/Res. No. 158-04 Your Committee on Finance, to which was referred Resolution No. 158-04, reports as follows: Resolution No. 158-04, transmitted by Director of Finance William Takaba, via Communication No. 503, dated February 5, 2004, authorizes a Council initiated improvement district implementation study for the wastewater and sewer system improvements for Holualoa, District of North Kona, Hawaii. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated Underground Injection Control regulations on December 7, 1999 which require that large capacity cesspools existing prior to that date must be upgraded or closed by April 5, 2005. The Kilohana Homeowners Association has requested the assistance of the County in its efforts to comply with the EPA regulation and connect to the County sewer system. The subdivision was constructed with eight large capacity cesspools. Pursuant to Section 12-10, Hawaii County Code, titled "Initiation by council; study of proposed improvement; adoption of improvement; hearing." it states that "The council shall, by resolution requiring not more than one reading for its adoption, direct the chief engineer, or the manager in the case of a water system improvement district, to prepare and submit to the council a report." Your Committee heard testimony in favor of the measure from Stanley Suderow of the Kilohana Homeowners Association. During its discussion, Your Committee learned the preparation of a report is the first step for an Improvement District. The Department of Environmental Management -Wastewater Division is working on a funding source to hire a consultant for an implementation study. Your Committee also learned that Kilohana large capacity cesspools are not part of the County system like the Liliuokalani Subdivision, but will be eventually. Your Committee on Finance is in accord with the purpose and � recommends its adoption. intent of Resolution No. 158-04 and - smc Respectfully submitted COMMIT ON FINANCE 1 P AARON S.Y. CHITN CHAIR FC REPORT NO. 2� ADOPTED: MAO 0 Harry Kith Mayor Lincoln S.T. Ashida Corporation Counsel Gerald Takase Assistant Corporation Counsel (gaunfli of �.r�funit OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 • Hilo, Hawaii 967204262 • (808) 961-8251 • FAX (808) 961-8622 March 20, 2002 The Honorable J. Curtis Tyler, III, Councilmember County Council 25 Aupuni Street, Room 209 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Councilmember Tyler: RE: Resolution 70-01 Proposed Sewer Improvement District, North Kona Our EnLry,No. 1626 Thank you for your request of January 30, 2002, regarding the above -referenced matter. The following are our responses to your inquiries: 1. Do the property owners in the existing Phases I and II of the Kaloko Light Industrial Subdivision have any legal obligations, as a condition of their underlying land use or otherwise, to tie in to the proposed sewer extension? Section 21-5 of the Hawaii County Code ("HCC") provides: (a) Every lot which is accessible to a sewer and which has plumbing fixtures located on it shall be connected to the sewer within one hundred twenty calendar days after the lot owner has been notified to do so by the director of public works or State department of health. If such plumbing fixtures have not been so connected, the premises shall not be used or occupied as a habitation or for any purpose for which plumbing fixtures are necessary. (b) Exceptions are as hereafter provided: (1) This section shall not apply to lots accessible to a sewer which have plumbing fixtures located on them and which were in existence prior to the date of July 1, 1989, providing that the lot's existing waste disposal system does The Honorable J. Curtis Tyler, III, Councilmember March 20, 2002 Page 2 not violate any existing health, sanitation, or nuisance provision. (2) This section shall not apply to a lot which is below the level of the sewer and would require the installation of a pump to _lift the sewage to proper elevation for discharge into the sewer. In this case, Peter Boucher, Division Head of the Wastewater Division of the Department of Environmental Management, indicated to me that a few of the lots in Phases I and II of the Kaloko Light Industrial Subdivision would be accessible to the proposed sewer extension, and thus would be required under § 21-5, HCC, to "tie in" to the proposed extension if they did not fall into one of the exceptions. Additionally, it appears that some of the properties listed in the preliminary identification are in Phase I and Phase II of the Kaloko Light Industrial Subdivision. 2. Does Chapter 12 of the Hawaii County Code require all property owners within the ID boundaries to participate and share in the costs of the ID? If yes, must Attachment A be amended to include all TMKs and their owners? First of all, certain lands are exempt from assessments as provided in § 12-5, HCC. It is thus possible that if exempt land is included in the ID boundaries, they will not share in the costs. Aside from those owners who are specifically exempt from assessments, § 12-2, HCC, provides that "[t]he cost of the special improvement ... shall be assessed against the land specially benefitted...." Based upon this section, all owners not specifically exempted should participate and share in the cost of the Improvement District. See, also, 14 McQuillin Mun Corp § 38.58 (3rd Ed) ("The rule is that the assessment must be made on all the land in the district as designated by the ordinance or order creating the same.") To the extent that Attachment A does not include all TMKs and their owners, it should be amended. Additionally, for your information, while the assessment district should include all lands specially benefitted by the proposed improvement, this is not required. 14 McQuillin Mun Corp § 38.52 (3rd Ed). The council is granted considerable discretion in fixing the boundaries and areas of an improvment district, but your determination must not be palpably arbitrary or grossly The Honorable J. Curtis Tyler, III, Councilmember March 20, 2002 Page 3 unfair. Schnack v. The City and County of Honolulu, 41 Haw. 219 (1955); Brock v. Lemke, 51 Haw. 175 (1969). 3. Given the requirements of Chapter 12, is it legal to base the cost sharing on the size of the property, without considering the actual/proposed impacts of developments on the system itself? By the same token, may the resolution be amended to reallocate the costs on the basis of the amount of wastewater generated, as recounted by the EMC? Section 12-2, HCC, provides in pertinent part: (a) ... The cost of the special improvement including the cost of acquiring (whether prior to or after the commencement of the proceedings for such improvements) any new land therefor, shall be assessed against the land specially benefitted on the basis of the following: (1) On a frontage basis; (2) According to area of the land within an improvement district; (3) The permissible number of units assigned to each parcel in the improvement district under applicable zoning provisions; (5) Required sewer capacity; (7) Square footage of building; or (8) Any method which the council finds assesses said land according to the special benefits conferred on said land, or any combination thereof. The Honorable J. Curtis Tyler, III, Councilmember March 20, 2002 Page 4 From a plain reading of § 12-2, it is legal to base the cost sharing on the size of the property, without considering the actual/proposed impacts of developments on the system itself, as § 12-2(a)(2) allows such costs sharing. As for whether the resolution can be "amended to reallocate the costs on the basis of the amount of wastewater generated, as recounted by the EMC," from a legal standpoint, § 12-2(a)(8) appears to cover such a reallocation, as cost sharing may be by "[a]ny method which the council finds assesses said land according to the special benefits conferred on said land, ...." Whether the cost of an improvement is assessed against the land benefitted on a frontage basis or an area basis, etc. are questions that are, in this case within the jurisdiction of the council, and its decision on such matters, except in cases of fraud or mistake are conclusive. See, De Mello v. Wilson, 28 Haw. 298, 304 (1925). Additionally, the establishment of an improvement district is a legislative function which is not reviewable by the courts unless fraud, illegality, abuse of discretion or mistake is alleged and shown. The determination of the existence of special benefits is a question of fact for legislative determination and the courts will disturb such determination only where it is palpably arbitrary, grossly unjust and confiscatory. Schnack v. The City and County of Honolulu, 42 Haw. 76, 77 (1957). Despite this standard, the court in Schnack determined that the Board of Supervisors abused its discretion when it assessed one lot to its entire depth where it assessed other property adjacent to or within the immediate vicinity of plaintiff's lot, and similar in usage in all other respects, to a depth of only 100 feet. The council must decide if there is a sufficient nexus between the amount of the wastewater generated and "the special benefit conferred" as well as whether there is a practical, and not arbitrary or discriminatory way of estimating the amount of wastewater that will be generated from the affected properties. If you can do this, it will be legal to reallocate the costs on the basis of the amount of wastewater generated. 4. Does Chapter 12 permit the County of Hawaii to pay for a portion of the ID and not apportion these costs among the ID property owners? Section 12-5 actually mandates that the County pay for the costs for exempted public land and land exempted by law from assessments. However, in said situation § 12-5(b) gives the council the same right of approval or protest as though the County were the private owner of the public or exempted land so involved. The remainder of § 12-5(b) identifies the circumstances under which the County may be reimbursed for those expenditures. The Honorable J. Curtis Tyler, III, Councilmember March 20, 2002 Page 5 As to whether the County may pay for a portion of the improvement district when public land and land exempted by law from assessments is not involved, § 12-7, HCC, provides that the County may advance funds "before or after the commencement of proceedings for creation of improvement districts and, to the extent that said costs are included in the cost of improvements for said improvement districts, the council may direct partial or full reimbursement to the County.... [Emphasis Added.] The inclusion of the permissive word "may" indicates that the council could not direct the reimbursement and thus the County could pay for a portion of the improvement. 5. As depicted in Attachment B, is it legal for the County to utilize portions of the historic Ala Loa Trail aka King's Highway for the sewer extension? Mr. Boucher was unaware that the proposed sewer extension utilized portions of a historic trail. Obviously, any sewer extension would have to comply with all regulations concerning historic preservation. More specific information regarding whether the proposed extension would affect historic property would be contained in the report by the director of public works that would be prepared in response to this resolution. I hope this letter adequately responds to the questions in your thoughtful memorandum of January 30, 2002. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding the content of this letter. Sincerely, KATHERINE A. GARSON Deputy Corporation Counsel KAG:fc cc: Peter Boucher, Division Head, Wastewater ,,,.Galen Kuba, Director of Environmental Management Dennis K.W. Lee, P.E., Director, Department of Public Works Environmental Management Commission sAdeptkouncilUtr to ctyler re reso\3-02\KAGfc.wpd uw 6-1`1 114Iz*5 4aoo ac,ras +- (,0 Do ? CxCl YPS I�/ry v,-- rw-.j Nw os Hw 61�"' J. CURTIS 'IYLER Ill � I3tt�� 0608) .i26-568.1 Vice Owir ' Fax: (808) 326-5697 District 8 (North Kona) ctvder ei jnterpac.net IIAWAIA COUNTY COUNCIL K"oiia ('ouricil (J/%ic e • 77-6399 Nulu»i .Street •,Suite 104 • Kailuu-ko)ut • Ilmiui'i • 96740-8981) January 30, 2002 MEMORANDUM: TO: Lincoln Ashida Corporation Counsel FROM: J. Curtis Tyler III , ti Vice Chair SUBJECT: Resolution 70-01, Proposed Sewer hnprovement District, North Kona This memo is a follow-up to my 1/18 conversation with Joe Kamelamela of your office and my 1 /22 testimony in Kona to the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) regarding the referenced resolution. Since I have a number of ongoing legal concerns about specific parts of this resolution, I am requesting that your office address these concerns and provide me with a written opinion as to the legality of the resolution and proposed improvement district (ID). In this regard, I provide the following background information and apologize for its length. In September 2000, Peter Boucher, Chief of the Wastewater Division, called to tell me that Mayor Yamashiro asked him to draw up a resolution for a sewer ID from the Kealakehe Treatment Plant to the Kaloko Industrial area. He also said that, due to the proposed development of Phases III and IV of that subdivision and the resulting petition before the Land Use Commission (LUC), time was of the essence and asked if I would be willing to introduce such a resolution. Since I have always believed in the protection of the class AA waters makai of the proposed ID and do support the principles and purpose of the County's ID ordinance, I thanked him for the courtesy and asked for more details on the proposal itself. Nvp zo. toot - 833 03AI33M n4m. -A,,AA )qi 4 OW I - 833 ZO. t I teAoiddV I I �nOA 290=1 ujnv@�-,, 'L I al!j I I ajnqjjls!Cl u011ewiOlul p1genbal S-V GUJ ileo / as PLIeWWooaj Gw 0$,_,o /U01102 uor4o,e GAei ,k13JVS MdO dS iNovi TT\INOS'8:3d d3SVNVVI SS3N1Sr13 31SVM MOS 2MVM 3 -ISVM 0HJV'di 20NVN31NIVVq,kVMHSiH ONI'd]3NIIDN3 rf Lincoln iAshida Corporation Counsel January 30, 2002 Page 2 In mid -October, the Nvlayor forwarded his proposal (see Exhibit 1) to the Council. Shortly thereafter, Aaron Chung, Finance Committee chair, provided me with a copy and asked if I would like to introduce the resolution before the 10/20 deadline. When I reviewed the specifics of that initial proposal, I noticed that the boundaries of the proposed ID shown in Attachment B exclude the existing portions of the Kaloko Light Industrial Subdivision and a large section of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Park, while the proposed expansion of that subdivision, the very subject of the pending Land Use Commission (LUC) petition, was specifically included. I also noted the proposal had the County itself paying for 35% of the overall ID costs. For these reasons, I asked Mr. Chung to hold off agendizing the matter until I could obtain more information from Mr. Boucher about my concerns. Subsequently, as I recall, a number of telephone calls were exchanged, but no face to face meetings occurred before Mayor Kim assumed office in early December. Shortly thereafter, I shared my concerns with Mr. Kim and the new DPW Director, Dennis Lee, who said they would look into the matter. In early April 2001, I received a draft copy of a proposed resolution with attachments. I was very pleased to see that the size of the ID boundaries had been expanded to include the properties previously excluded, but I remained concerned that the County was still expected to pay for 22% of the ID costs. After further inquiry, I again was told that time was of the essence, due to the fact that the LUC petition was now the subject of a contested case. Nevertheless, since I agreed, in principle, with creation of an ID for the extension of the sewer system to this expanded area, I instructed staff to make some minor revisions to the draft and use my signature stamp, with the note that introduction was "by request," indicating I still had some reservations about certain aspects of the proposal. I expressed those reservations during the 4/17 Finance Committee hearing but did not want to hold the matter in committee. Upon more careful review of Attachment A prior to the first reading, I noticed that although the ID area had been expanded to include certain properties, the property listings and cost allocations did not. Therefore, on 5/2/01, at my request, the resolution (see Exhibit 2) was unanimously deferred for the purpose of "looking into" ongoing "questions," including mine and those of one member of the EMC. On July 2, 2001, I spoke directly with Mr. Boucher about some of these questions and concerns and told him I felt portions of the resolution, in their present form, might be violative of the ID ordinance. His asserted that the ID wouldn't "fly" if the lots in the existing Kaloko Light Industrial Subdivision were included, since a majority of the lot owners wouldn't support the proposal, and, therefore, the percentage of objecting owners would exceed the requirements of the ordinance. He has repeated these assertions to both the LUC and EMC. Nevertheless, a 1.111Ci)111 A."111da Corporation COLHI5e1 January 30, 2002 Page 3 1/16/02 article in WI IT (copy enclosed) seems to indicate; that these same owners are "already obligated to tie into the sewer system" once it is extended to that area, as proposed by lZesolution 70-01. To my way of thinking, the Council -initiated 11) process was created to bring specific public benefit to all landowners within a designated "district" by apportioning the costs among each of them, while ensuring that, if a certain number object, the ID shall not proceed. fay the same token, it seems ludicrous that some would be purposely and specifically excluded just because they may object. This exclusion becomes even more ludicrous ifthe very owners who may object to being included are the very ones who may be required to hook up to the sewer extension by a condition of their own underlying zoning! On July 3, 2001, the co-chairs of the EMC submitted a letter to Council (copy enclosed), supporting the resolution sjj ' Ct to two exceptions, both of which related directly to some of my ongoing concerns. In August 2001, with the intent of moving this proposal along, 1 asked my legislative assistant, Rory Flynn, to request some clarification and, if necessary, an opinion regarding my specific questions and concerns. He indicated that a related request concerning the Coastview-Wonderview Water ID might address these and suggested we wait for that response. As you know, your office responded to that request earlier this month. On December 3, I spoke by telephone with Carolyn Witcher, EMC member for District 8. She related concerns expressed by Mr. Boucher at the November EMC meeting, and she asked for an update on the deferral of the resolution. I related the chain of events chronicled above and my specific concerns, of which she was unaware. She then requested that I put these in writing so she could present them to all members of the EMC. 1 did so by memo on the same date (copy enclosed). On January 22, 1 appeared before the EMC to speak on an unrelated agenda item, and since my 12/3 memo was part of the agenda, I provided an update to the commissioners and answered their questions about same. I also indicated that 1 would be sending this letter to you. Inasmuch as 1/11/02 response from yotlr office, unfortunately, did not address the specifics of this case, I am now seeking written clarification and, if necessary, your legal opinion(s) concerning Resolution 70-01 and attachments A & B thereto. My questions are: 1. Do the property owners in the existing Phases I and 11 of the Kaloko Light Industrial Subdivision have any legal obligations, as a condition of their underlying land use or otherwise, to tie in to the proposed sewer extension? t'incolil ZlShlda Corporation COULIseI January 30, 2002 Page 4 2. Does Chapter 12 ofthe 1-lawai'i Code require all property owners within the ID boundaries to participate and share in the costs of the ID? If yes, must Attachment A be amended to include all TMKs and their owners? 3. Given the requirements of Chapter 12. is it legal to base the cost sharing on the size ofthe property, withotit considering the actual/proposed impacts of developments on the system itself? By the same token, may the resolution be amended to reallocate the costs on the hasis of the amount of wastewater generated, as recounted by the LMC? 4. Does Chapter 12 permit the County Off Iawai'i to pay lur a portion of the ID and not apportion these costs among the ID property owners? 5. As depicted in Attachment B, is it legal tier the County to utilize portions of the historic Ala Loa Trail aka King's Highway for the sewer extension? Thank you for your consideration and for expediting my requests. If you have any questions about this letter, please call me. JCT/mm Attachments (5) cc: James Arakaki Dennis Lee ✓ Peter Boucher District 8 North Kwi a stephcu 1G. Yai�� rahiru Mayor t1111111f1I of `% nflI'I11 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 • t lilo, Hawaii 967204252 (808) 961-8321 • F:ix (808) 961-8630 October 12, 2000 1IONORABL.E C11AIRtVLVN AND tVil:lVil3ll�S HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL 25 AUPUNI STREET HILO HI 96720 Jilt) A- Sup ada Deputy Chief Engineer SUBJECT: RESOL'J'1'101v1 RELATINt_; TO I IIE CONS'fRti('*I'ION OF IMPROVEMENTS BY ASSESSMENTS AT KEALAKEI IE, I IONOI�01 IAU, AND KALOKO, DISTRICT OF NORTH KONA, HAWAII Attached is a proposed resolution relating to the construction of improvements by assessments pursuant to Section 12-10 of the Hawaii County ("Ode liar the purpose of extending the municipal sewer system. Please forward a copy of this proposed resolution to the appropriate committee Chair. Yoor favorable consideration of this request would be greatly appreciated. Should you have any concerns, please contact us. TAOI RT ANA B U Chief Ei sneer Cc: W W D PPRUV I,1): i! ' � C STEPIIEN R. 1ASHIRO MAYOR 1?blt AwR. LEA -IT 14� Lv a 0 7-6 17t177Zi o OC./GL-:. Q��jOL2NE 0o (EXHIBIT 1) A; J. CUR l'l5 TY'LER III I'ice ('hair Disu•ia 8 (Alor ih Komi) �',r�•oi•N►a+, I IAWAIA COUNTY COUNCIL tinrtn ('uurtctt (')/ficr ' 7176'?q�) ahmi .>'trcel 'S1111c HN •kadnii-Kano 'Hawui'i •96740-8"0 December 3, 2001 MEMORANDUM: tau,: t 8O8) 3 2b-5t,84 Fax: (808) 326-5697 ct�i er�ui i n terpac.net -3_�, D Via 1,'acsimile: 334-0831 � 30- %��`" Pages: 8 TO: Carolyn Witcher, Member Environmental Management Commission FROM: J. Curtis Tyler III, Vice CI►air Ilawai`i County Council SUBJECT: Sewer Improvement-District/North Kona (Kealakehe to Kohanaiki) Per our telephone conversation and your request this date, I am faxing you a copy of Communication 179 and Resolution 70-01 regarding the referenced subject. As we discussed, I have three concerns regarding this resolution and have asked that the matter be deferred by the Council until these concerns have been addressed. My concerns are as follows: I) Attachment A of the resolution does not appear to iuclude all of the properties located within the boundaries of the Improvement District shown on Attachment B. My understanding of the Improvement District ordinance is that all properties located within such a district must be included. 2) Attachment B indicates that approximately 22% ($2.2 ►nillion) of estimated costs of the improvements will be borne by the County. This also may be inconsistent with the ordinance. 3) The estimated cost shares shown o❑ Attachment A iur the properties listed appear to be based on land area, with no consideration given to actual usage and, therefore, impact on the environment. District 8 Alor/h Kona L Y --N u Cto ka,loko pfoposal By BOBBY COMMAND 1 a West Hawaii Today l4 i��cT A plan to double the size of tlae Kaloko Indusurial Park being chal- lenged by a nearby national park will come before the state Land Use Commission this week to decide what, if any, conditions should be attached to an approval Corporation; which proposes the 102-acre industrial area expan- sion about two miles north of Kailua-Kama, is being challenged on envi- ronmental grounds by the Kaloko-IitlnOkOhaU National Historic Park. The Land Use Commission (LUC) meets Thursday and Friday in llonolulu to formul.ate- an order based on tr stinaony during a recently completed contested -case hearing. Anthony Ching, Li JC executive dil'eCkal, said thr urtitm is the first of two to be conducted by the connnksion. "The commission has already received proposed a decisions and orders from the parties and will meet to adopt the forma of the. ordcl." Ching said the LUC will then serve TSA Corporation and Kaloko- Honokohau National historic Park and allo\i responses before meeting again in early February uareaklh al final order. TSA Corporation seeks a district boundary anacndntent to transfer the parcel just mauka of the existing 130-acre Kaloko Industrial Park from conservation to the urban district. The proposed development actually called "Lhnss- Ifl ui 1V' would create more than 80 improved one -acre lots for mixed commercial and tight industrial uses. Utilities, such as water, electricity and sewers, wound be included on each lot. Unlike the existing Kaloko Industrial Park, which uses cesspools for sewage disposal, current plans call for sewage to be discharged into sep- tic tanks, aerobic units or individual wastewater systems. Runoff from rain would be directed into fihcred dry wells. The proposed methods to dispose of wastewater have alanned a nurn- ber of environmental and cultural groups, including the Kaloko Honokohau National Historic Park. Sierra Club Hawaii Chapter and Hawaiian rights group Na Kokua Kaloko-Honokohau. Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park Superintendent Geraldine Bell coutld not be reached for comment. However, she has said in the past the National Park Service is not opposed to this project, but has major concerns about individual septic tanks being proposed for temporary wastewater disposal. Park officials believe wasteWilter could filter through to contaminate Aimakapa Pond, a wetland area in the national park that supports the endangered Hawaiian coot, stilt and the threatened green sea turtle. TSA Corporation plans also call for the installation of a "dry" sewer system that would be hooked up once the line from the county's Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant is expanded northward. Tenants in the first two phases are already obligated to tie into the sewer system when the county develops a line to the treatment plant. The LUC will also be given an update about development plans for Maniniowali. WB Maniniowali LLC recently acquired the property from North Kona Development Group, and must meet all conditions imposed on the former owner before it can develop the property. !n ui�air�n�i�k�ir<sdnnraiira�i�;•� not COUNTY 011' IIAWAII ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Milo, 11awai'i 96720 2 July 3, 2001 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS HAWAI'I COUNTY COUNCIL HAWAI'I COUNTY BUILDING 25 AUPUNI STREET HILO HI 96720 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 70-01, RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS BY ASSESSMENTS AT KEALAKEHE, HONOKOHAU, KALOKO AND KOHANAIKI, DISTRICT OF NORTH KONA, HAWAII C, c M m oy z rn vp cta -..7 n r rn On Thursday, June 21, 2001, the members of the Environmental Management Commission approved a motion that supports the above resolution subject to two exceptions. The exceptions are that Attachment "A" is to be changed in two ways. 1. That the County of Hawaii will not be subsidizing the cost of these projects. The Commission didn't feel it was appropriate for the County to subsidize the cost of commercial development in this area. 2. That equitable cost allocations based on usage shall be determined for the remaining users. In other words, the cost sharing for various users shall be reallocated based on projected wastewater generation rather than on land area. Please forward a copy of these recommendations to the appropriate committee chair. Your review and consideration of this request would be greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions, please contact Barbara Bell at 961-6556 and Riley Smith at 885-2306. !'Maymm— BARBARA BELL Co -Chair Environmental Management Commission cc: Harry Kim, Mayor Lincoln Ashida, Corporation Counsel Peter Boucher, Wastewater Division RILEY W. SMITH Co -Chair Environmental Management Commission Comm. No. 17 • He No. I)W b P�f. To: C OUNC-1 t~ 7 7 74:# COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE; OF HAWAVI RESOLUTION No. • V 01 RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS BY ASSESSMENTS AT KEALAKEHE, HONOKOHAU, KALOKO AND KOHANAIKI, DISTRICT OF NORTH KONA, HAWAI"I WHEREAS, the Council of the County of Hawai'i wishes to initiate proposed improvements on certain real property located at Kealakehe, Honokohau, Kaloko and Kohanaiki, District of North Kona, County and State of Hawaii, for improvements consisting of extension to the municipal sewer system, the cost of which is to be borne by the County and the property owners pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-10, Hawaii County Code, as amended; and WHEREAS, Attachment'"A" describes the necessary preliminary scope of work, together with an estimate of the probable cost thereof, and an estimate of the share of the cost of the improvements against each parcel of the real property subject to assessment; and WHEREAS, Attachment "B" shows a map identifying the proposed limits of the Improvement District; and WHEREAS, the Improvement Project has now been further and fully considered by the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAI'I that (1) the Public Works Director of the County of Hawai'i be and is directed to investigate the information and data provided by the Council and such other information as the Public Works Director deems advisable and to report to the Council on the necessity, feasibility, and method of assessment desirable for the aforementioned sewer system at To ®t 'ON NOIICI IOSJU f •• -d D3/6LI-0 :aouala3a JNODVA NaliA.I. meads OIHOOISId QQOI-QdaH.LIa'I NOs9oDvf ddON011dv Ia DNf1Ho rxvx uv Xa sa' SaON SaAv azOA TIVO 'I IO'd T , TPMPH 90 Aq J 'TOOZ ' UaDIddO DM(IISJdd V NVMI`siHO )RIa'IO A.LMnOC :ISMUN uO [,[EMEH]O f4uno,- agl3o 'IlONno0 aql Xq paldopu joanq lg2u aqi of p31E31Puc aloe ag1 Xq sung Nolln losa d 8u[oSo iol aqi iegl ,C3►l[a3 Xgaiaq I O ' aagw4w `T,T ouno0 paonpoaqul T umt'H `OITH t,il3m:;H30 f4unOD 'IIDNflOD Al. I.OD -4o Hipp STgq ' T , TPMPH 'OTTH qP PagPQ •quawa6ausW TaquawuoaTnug PUP sxaoM oTTgnd 'aoupuTd ;o squawgapdac auq oq uoTgnTosaa sTuq ;o saTdoo gTwsupaq T , TLMLH ;o Aquno0 aqq jo NaaTO aqq gPgq CHAgOSHU USHIUnd II dg •suosaad Lions ;o suoTgppuawwooaa ao squawwoo aqq gaodaa quanbasgns Aup oquT agpaodaoouT pup IoT.XISTP quaLua 0adwT pasodoad auq oq goadsaa u4TM iOTdma aaq;PaaGq �Pw TTounoo a)qq sP Tasunoo puoq pup quvgTnsuoo TL'TouUuT3 Lions LI:lTM gTnsuoo 'TTounoo aqq Aq uoT4aaT;Tgou uodn 'TTPus aogoaaTQ sNaOM oTTgna aqq (Z) !papuawp sa 'apo0 ,�qunOD T,TPMPH 'OT-ZT uoTgoaS Jo suoTSTAoad auq ggTM aouPpa0002 uT ogaaagq ATdde oq papuaquT sTTPgap 10 saag4Pw aGg4O AUP PUP squawaAoadwt au4 aoj suoTIPoTJToads pup 'SITegap 'SSuTMPap 'supTd 'sdi?w 'Aanans 'pgpp eons TTP gaodaa AauuTwTTaad sTu uT apnTouT oq pua :T,TPM�eH ;o agPgS PUP Aquno0 'PuOH ugaON 90 ;3Ta4sTQ '0:{OTPH Pus 'nPgQNOuOH 'aq@NeTPax ATTACHMENT A IMPROVEMENTS BY ASSESSMENTS AT KEALAKEHE, HONOKOHAU, KALOKO AND KOHANAIKI, DISTRICT OF NORTH KONA, HAWAPI SCOPE: Extend the sewer system from the existing Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant north along the alignment of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Kohanaiki. The sewer system will include necessary gravity sewers, manholes, pump station(s) and force mains. Sewer laterals with cleanouts to be installed to each property serviced by the proposed improvements. ESTIMATE OF PROB! i-BLE COST: 14,000 if gravity sewer @ $300/lf = 4,200,000 Honokohau Sewage Pump Station = 2,200,000 4,000 if force main @ $250/lf — 1,000,000 Allowance for design & inspection @ 20% = Allowance for contingencies @ 10% 1,480,000 = 888,000 TOTAL SAY: ESTIMATE OF SHARE OF COST: = 9,768,000 $10,000,000 TMK OWNER AREA COST Acres N/A County of Hawai'i N/A 2,200,000 7-4-8-010 Nat Park Service 234.73 967,948 7-4-8-013 Lanihau Partners 549.46 2,265,788 7-4-8-025 General Services Admin 59.20 244,121 7-4-8-026 McClean Honokohau Prop 54.73 225,688 7-4-8-030 Lanihau Partners 9.90 40,824 7-4-8-042 Gentry PropL.,ties 4.08 16,825 7-4-8-055 Taylor Fain Ltd. Partnership 3.45 14,227 7-4-020-001 State of Hawaii 1.24 5,130 7-4-020-002 State of Hawai'i 26.53 109,393 7-4-008-003 State of Hawai'i (DHHL) 200.00 824,733 7-3-9-002 United States of America 249.50 1,028,854 7-3-9-021 United States of America 72.08 297,234 7-3-9-017 Mid Corporation 224.43 925,474 7-3-9-018 Nansay International 92.86 382,923 7-3-51-060 TSA International 102.58 423,005 7-3-51-065 TSA International 1.37 5,649 7-3-51-066 TSA International 1.22 5,031 7-3-51-067 TSA International 1.09 4,495 7-3-51-068 TSA International 1.00 4,124 7-3-51-069 TSA International 1.07 4,412 7-3-51-070 TSA International 1.00 4,124 TOTAL 1,891.52 $10,000,000 -':v oo,vr. 7 Coo-Cr, VSYHd 4Y7 JO C7)Yll/w 71'I. 1 �.._ !1 ������i�.s;:.���,�p'y,`-�r-=_..��.,J rM1 Jq� 7...y �,er `• /N.�✓n/s»r 7F: o/2N ��.\ Cam- tcc a.oc,) •' • •MY • J •J•, 61 FL •tf? r7 • � •\ i ,'a, 4nC iYNt cAoxl � � i !- • I f!S l �/="!7 Y t • ! 1Na17 vao7YY. • ': V LZ .i r GI LI 9, 91 •.e.. i 2 r C i �Yo4y're• sJrtrtac • Ile ! ti / N .�'. ^. �Yo�'YY/ :. Ip. lye +`^ Z '. ��.' ' • • �'�. qJ ; / .rt .4 ems' J •. LIVMVH `VNOM H.L2ION AO .LDrdJ-SIQ `lXlVKVHOX III V OXO'TVX `fIVHO-IOKOH `aHaIVrI` aX IV SIN2[WSSaSSV Aff SIN:l 21A02 JWl II ,LI�I�LIIH��,L.L Harry Kim Mayor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORDS 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 • Hilo, Hawaii 967204252 (808) 961-8321 + Fax (808) 961-8630 April 3, 2001 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL 25 AUPUNI STREET HILO HI 96720 Dennis K. W. Lee Director Jiro A. Sumada Deputy Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS BY ASSESSMENTS AT KEALAKEHE, HONOKOHAU, AND KALOKO, DISTRICT OF NORTH KONA, HAS �AII Attached is a proposed resolution relating to the construction of improvements by assessments pursuant to Section 12-10 of the Hawaii County Code for the purpose of extending the municipal sewer system. Please forward a copy of this proposed resolution to the appropriate committee Chair. Your favorable consideration of this request would be greatly appreciated. Should you have any concerns, please contact us. Dennis K.W. Lee Director cc: WWD R45 70-0/ APPROVED: HARRY , MAYOR Comm, No. /:Z j- ` (EXHIBIT 2) File No. ( fMV APR 5 2001 ATTACHMENT IMPROVEMENTS BY ASSESSMENTS AT KEALAKEHEI HONOKOHAU, AND KALOKO, DISTRICT OF NORTH KONA, HAWAII SCOPE: Extend the sewer :system ljorLI, from the existing Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant Access Road to service the areas commonly referred to as the proposed Dept. of Hawaiian Homelands f-ic-,nokc)j-jAj-j Industrial Park, Honokohau Harbor, Kaloko-Honokohau tj&jt:jojjal Historical Park, McClean Honokohau Properties, Laliihau Partners' Properties, and the Kaloko Light Industrial Subdivision, Phases 3&4. The sewer system will include necessary gravity sewers, manholes, pump station(s) and force mains. Sewer laterals with cleanouts to be installed to each property serviced by the proposed improvements. ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST: 34,100 if gravity sewer L-) $300/lf = $ 10,230,000 Honokohau Sewage Pump SLcitiol-I = $ 2,000,000 3,600 if force main (,-D $250/lf = $ 900,000 Allowance for design & inspection �) 2o% = $ 2,626,000 Allowance for contingencies -$ 1,57,,000 Total: $ 17,331,600 ESTIMATE OF SHARE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENTS: TMK OWNER SEWER ACCESS (ft) COST ($) N/A County of Hawaii. 35% 6,066,060 74008003 State of liawai.i 24,000 4,067,839 74008010 National Park Serv.icc 5,000 847,466 74008013 Lanihau Partners 11,800 2,000,021 74008025 General Services A,tmir, i st ra 1, 700 288, 139 74008026 McClean Honokohau PrOpel—tie 5, 000 847, 466 74008030 Lanihau Partners 2,500 423,733 74008033 Isemoto Contracting 322 54,577 74008042 Gentry Properties 500 84,747 74008054 SJA Partnership 321 54,407 74008055 Taylor Family Ltd Partnersh 359 60,848 73051001 Costco 600 101,696 73051060 T.S.A. International Ltd 10,500 1,779,679 73051065 T.S.A. International Ltd 356 60,340 73051075 T.S.A.. International Ltd 222 37,628 73051-076 T.S.A. International Ltd 234 39,661 73051077 T.S.A. International Ltd 248 42,034 73051087 T.S.A. International Ltd 245 41,526 13051088 T.S.A. International. L,td 231 39,153 73051089 T.S.A. International_ L,td 224 37,966 73051092 T.S.A. Internati_ona.1 Ltd 350 59,323 73051093 T.S.A. International. Ltd 354 60,001 73051094 T.S.A. International Ltd 350 59,323 73051095 T.S.A. Internati()iij1 1,t.cl 350 59,323 73051096 T.S.A. Internati_on.il Ltd 350 59,323 73051097 T.S.A. Internatiorial Ltd 350 59,323 TOTAL: 66,466 17,331,600 1 /, 331, 600 17, 331, 600 I I'VIPROVELIE-NI-6 A T A L A KE I I E, i-IONO 1 1,24 AND KI.ALC) I 3, 7 S -r 17' 1 1- OF NORTH KOI",I,-^%, t7 7-27 ILZ 7"z V,' LLA G 0S 1"2 kJ COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII RESOLUTION NO. RELATING TO THE k)F 1fd1'16)V1,J,1E1JTS 13Y ASSESSMENTS AT KEALAKEHE, HONOKOHAU, AND KAI,()I�o, DISTRICT OF NORTH KONA, HAWAII WHEREAS, the Cotiricil ()L Lhe ('(-,LIIIUI' -t liawaii wishes to initiate proposed improvements on ue-'I:L�lJn real pi-oj--),z.rLy located at Kealakehe, Honokohau, and Kaloko, District of North Kona, County and State of Hawaii, for improvements consistilly of extension to the municipal sewer system, the cost of which is to be borne by the County and the property owners pursuant to the of Section 12-10, Hawaii County Code, as amended; and WHEREAS, Attachment " A" desui--ibes Lhc! necessary preliminary scope of work, together with an estimate of Lhe probable cost thereof, and an estimate of the share of Lh(-- cost of the improvements against- each parcel of the real property subject to assessment; and WHEREAS, Attachment " 13" shows a mc-Q) j,1(--,nLifyinq the proposed limits of the Improvement DisL-L--j.ct:/- --Iiij WHEREAS, the Tmprovelllel-IL further and fully considered by the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVETi i3Y i'j j j-,1 OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII that (1) the Chief L-Ile of Hawaii be and is directed to invesLigatc--, the ' I -11i,i �L,t-t provided by the Council and such ot,_er i.nforrnation as the Chief Engineer deems advisable and to report to the Council on the necessity, feasibility, and method of assessment desirable for the aforementioned sewer system at KEalakehe, Honokohau, and Kaloko, District of North Kona, Couiity and State of Hawaii; and to include in his preliminary report al-1 si_i,,h data, slicvey, maps, plans, drawings, details, and spec i fi,-:lti o ns fo,_ improvements and any other matters or details i.nt i'd,_d to t lv--reto in accordance with the provisions of Sect i oii 12 - 10 , IIawai_i. County Code, as amended; (2) the Chief Engineer shall, upon notification by the Council, consult with such financial consultant and bond counsel as the Council may hereafter employ with respect to the proposed improvement district and incorpo.i_ate into any subsequent report the comments or recommendations of such persons. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that th(2 Clerk t the County of Hawaii transmit copies of this resoluti,�n to the Departments of Finance and Public Works. Dated at Hilo, Hawaii, LLIs I,"_ ,_)t InC z�o�iliced D�.� 2000. Colinc�il M�rnber, County of Hawaii