HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-26 Water Board MinutesMINUTES
DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF HAWAII
WATER BOARD MEETING
April 26, 2005
DWS HILO OPERATIONS CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Ivan Mochida, Chairman
Mr. Loren Heck, Vice - Chairman
Mr. Thomas Goya
Ms. Paula Helfrich
Ms. Millie Kim
Mr. Bernard Konanui
Ms. Sandra Scarr
Mr. Riley Smith
Mr. George Wilkins
Mr. Milton D. Pavao, Manager (ex- officio member)
ABSENT: Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director, Planning Department
(ex- officio member)
Mr. Bruce McClure, Director, Department of Public Works
(ex- officio member)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Amy Self, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Ms. Katherine Garson, Deputy Corporation Counsel (11:10 a.m.)
Ms. Diane Robertson, R. W. Beck, Inc.
Mr. Dave Jochim, R. W. Beck, Inc.
Mr. Eric Hirano, Department of Land and Natural Resources
Department of Water Supply Staff:
Mr. Quirino Antonio, Jr., Deputy Manager
Mr. Glenn Ahuna, Engineering Division Head
Mr. Daryl Ikeda, Acting Chief of Operations
Mr. Richard Tsunoda, Waterworks Controller
Mr. Richard Sumada, Assistant Waterworks Controller
Mr. Lawrence Beck, Water Resources & Planning Branch
Mr. Keith Okamoto, Water Quality Assurance & Control Branch
Mr. Clyde Young, Mechanical Engineer, Operations Div. (10:40 a.m.)
CALL TO ORDER - Chairman Mochida called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. He welcomed the
three new Board Members, Mss. Paula Helfrich, Millie Kim, and Mr. Riley Smith.
Page 1 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
ACTION: Mr. Goya moved for approval of the Minutes of the March 22, 2005, Water Board
Meeting; seconded by Ms. Scarr and carried unanimously by voice vote.
APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM AND /OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA:
ACTION: Ms. Scarr moved to add to the Agenda, Addendum Items 8(D), PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT, No. 4, Grant of Easement, Honokohau Properties — Water Meter
Revisions, and 8(J), VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT BID NO. 2004 -08, contract time extension
request; seconded by Mr. Goya and carried unanimously by roll call vote (Ayes: 9 - Mss. Scarr,
Kim, and Helfrich, and Messrs. Goya, Heck, Konanui, Mochida, Smith, and Wilkins).
There being no objections, the Board took the following item out of order:
HAMAKUA:
A. JOB NO. 48 -HW -E, HONOKAA WELL DEVELOPMENT:
Reference was made to a letter dated April 6, 2005, from Mr. Eric T. Hirano, Chief Engineer,
Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), State of Hawaii. (Mr. Hirano was present at
the meeting.)
This Honokaa Well Development project has had an unfortunate sequence of delays that has
spanned over ten years. Completion of the well, although not comparable in capacity to the Haina
well, will increase our reliability of service to the Department's consumers in the area. It will
provide some degree of back -up supply for the area.
Financial assistance in the amount of $185,000.00 will ensure that the project finally gets
completed and that the current State allocation will not lapse. If financial assistance is approved,
funds in the amount of $185,000.00 will be available from our Water Commitment Deposit Fund.
The Manager recommended that the Water Board approve providing financial assistance to the
State in the amount of $185,000.00, to be used to provide needed funds for the completion of Job
No. 48 -HW -E, Honokaa Well Development.
MOTION: Mr. Goya moved for approval of the Manager's recommendation; seconded by
Mr. Wilkins.
Mr. Wilkins asked what the State has paid out to date for this well and if this does not get
approved, would it be putting the well in jeopardy.
Page 2 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
Mr. Hirano explained that after joining the DLNR as Chief Engineer a couple of years ago, he
found this well to be the "skeleton in the closet." It is so close to completion, but with the State's
lack of funds, it would not get done. He, therefore, asked for the Board's consideration in this
request.
In response to Ms. Scarr's question if there would be a possibility of repayment from the State,
Mr. Hirano stated that this year's Legislative Session did not approve any capital improvement
projects. He will bring that up with the chairperson (of their Board) for the next session.
In response to Mr. Wilkins' request for some background on the State's development of wells on
this island, the Manager stated that prior to 12 years ago, the State was actively involved in
exploratory wells on this island. After development of the source by the State, the Department of
Water Supply would take it from there and turn it into a production well. Honokaa Well is a
remnant of that era. He explained about the geology of the area and how it may be the reason why
this well was not as successful as expected. He added that $185,000.00 is a very small price to
pay to get a new well.
Mr. Wilkins stated, for the record, that in all fairness, he hopes this means cooperation between the
County and the DLNR on the subject of water for this island.
Mr. Heck felt that decisions made way back should enable the transfer of funds from the State. He
asked about the plan review and if it was because of the geology. He also asked if 300 gpm is
worthwhile putting money up front for.
The Manager explained that years ago, back when he was in the Engineering Division, he
reviewed the original set of plans for this well. Over the years, the Standards have changed —for
example, a SCADA system (data acquisition) is now required. The geology also has a lot to do
with it. It is thought that this is an "intersection" of two different lava flows. He also felt that 300
gpm is worthwhile.
Chairman Mochida asked if there would be a time limit on completion of the well, if the Board
approves these funds.
Mr. Hirano replied that the contractor (Keauhou Kona Construction Corporation) is ready to go.
Assuming funds are approved, they will go ahead and should complete within 9 to 10 months.
The contract total cost is $1.4 million.
ACTION: A vote was taken on the Motion. Motion was carried unanimously by voice vote.
(Mr. Hirano thanked the Board and left the meeting at 10:18 a.m.)
SOUTH HILO:
A. JOB NO. 2002 -804, CONSTRUCTION OF THE KAIEIE MAUKA PRODUCTION WELL
AND SUPPORTING FACILITIES:
Bids for this project were received and opened on April 7, 2005, at 2:00 p.m.; and following are
the bid results:
Page 3 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
Bidder
Amount
Isemoto Contracting Co., Ltd.
$1,571,270.00*
Jas. W. Glover, Ltd.
$2,197,000.00
Primatech Construction, Inc.
$2,221,685.00
Project Scope: This project consists of the construction of a production well, 0.10 -MG reservoir
and supporting facilities.
Project Cost:
1) Low Bidder (Isemoto Contracting Co., Ltd.)
2) Construction Contingency (10 %)
Total Construction Cost:
$1,571,261.94*
157,126.06
L 728 - 388.00
* Isemoto Contracting Co., Ltd., made an error in their extensions for unit price items and has
agreed to the lower amount.
Funding for this project will be from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). The
contractor will have 360 calendar days from the date of Notice to Proceed to complete this project.
The Manager recommended that the Board award the contract for JOB NO. 2002 -804,
CONSTRUCTION OF THE KAIEIE MAUKA PRODUCTION WELL AND SUPPORTING
FACILITIES, to the lowest responsible bidder, Isemoto Contracting Co., Ltd., for their bid amount
of $1,571,261.94 plus $157,126.06 in construction contingency for a total contract amount of
$1,728,388.00, subject to review as to form and legality of the contract by Corporation Counsel.
MOTION: Mr. Goya moved for approval of the Manager's recommendation; seconded by
Ms. Scarr.
Ms. Scarr questioned why the Department is spending $1.5 million to serve such a small amount
of people (approximately 50 residences).
The Manager stressed that this is necessary because of EPA regulations, which force the
Department to either treat a surface source or develop a new well. It is less expensive to develop a
well than to treat the water. He understood Ms. Scarr's concerns, but these are customers of the
Department, and it has an obligation to them. In response to Ms. Scarr's question of whether they
could be connected to another system instead, he explained that they are too far away.
Ms. Scarr stated that every time the Board approves one of these, it means other things are not
being done such as areas of unserved people. Spending $1.7 million on this means some other
things that could be on the C.I.P. budget are not getting on there. There are plenty other projects
that need attention.
The Manager stressed that there is no alternative in this situation because if not done, it would
result in no service.
Page 4 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
Mr. Smith mentioned the Mission Statement, which contains something to the effect of
maintaining potable water to customers (and assisting others in developing water). He would tend
to agree with the Department's proposal in this case, which is to maintain the water to these
existing customers. As mentioned, there is no alternative because of EPA regulations.
Mr. Wilkins asked for more information on these types of agenda items to enable him to make an
informed decision. He asked about EPA regulations, with respect to drilling back into a spring
source - -if it would satisfy their rule about surface water. He also asked what the elevation is, how
deep the well is, etc.
The Manager gave some information on the spring source and stated that he would include more
information on the agenda in the future.
Mr. Heck added that knowing the population, geology, and history of a source would help the
Board and avoid repetitive questions.
Mr. Goya reminded the Board that this item has been part of the 2002 -2003 budget and, therefore,
has been on the project list, or agenda, since that time but was only now put out for bids.
ACTION: A vote was taken on the Motion. Motion was carried unanimously by voice vote.
B. JOB NO. 2005 -861, JANITORIAL SERVICES AT THE WAIAKEA OFFICE PLAZA
(2005- 2006):
Bids for this project were received and opened on April 14, 2005, at 2:00 p.m.; and following are
the bid results:
Bidder
Amount
The ARC of Hilo
$5,283.76/mo.
Michael P. Cale, dba Mike's Maintenance
$5,450.00/mo.
Carl Caria a dba Hui Ke Omega
$6,800.00 /mo.
Funds are available from the DWS Operating Budget. The contract period is from July 1, 2005, to
June 30, 2006, for a total of 12 months.
The Manager recommended that the Board award the contract for JOB NO. 2005 -861,
JANITORIAL SERVICES AT THE WAIAKEA OFFICE PLAZA (2005- 2006), to the lowest
responsible bidder, The ARC of Hilo, for the contract bid amount of $5,283.76/mo., or a total
annual contract amount of $63,405.12, and that either the Chairman or the Vice - Chairman be
authorized to sign the contract, subject to review as to form and legality by Corporation Counsel.
ACTION: Ms. Scarr moved for approval of the Manager's recommendation; seconded by
Mr. Goya and carried unanimously by voice vote.
Page 5 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
C. MATERIAL BID NO. 2005 -03, FURNISHING AND DELIVERING WATER METERS,
BRASS GOODS, FIRE HYDRANTS, VALVES, CHLORINATORS, PUMPS, PIPES,
FITTINGS, SCADA, MOTORS, AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY STOCK:
Bids were opened on April 14, 2005 (summary sheet was attached to the Agenda). The contract
period for all parts is one year, from July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006. All parts are to establish price
agreements for materials on an "As- Needed Basis."
The apparent low bidders, as shown on the bid summary sheet, did not necessarily receive the
staff's recommendation because it did not meet the specifications as required in the bid
documents.
The Manager recommended that the Board award the contracts to the following bidders for
MATERIAL BID NO. 2005 -03, FURNISHING AND DELIVERING WATER METERS,
BRASS GOODS, FIRE HYDRANTS, VALVES, CHLORINATORS, PUMPS, PIPES,
FITTINGS, SCADA, MOTORS, AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF WATER SUPPLY STOCK, on an as- needed basis, as listed below, and that either the
Chairman or the Vice - Chairman be authorized to sign the documents, subject to review as to form
and legality of the contracts by Corporation Counsel. The contract period shall be from July 1,
2005, to June 30, 2006.
PART NO.
DESCRIPTION
BIDDER
AMOUNT
I
DUCTILE IRON PIPES
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$170,511.00
II
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$350,806.70
III
COPPER TUBINGS
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$69,110.32
IV
COPPER FITTINGS
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$32,121.58
V
GALVANIZED PIPES T & C
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$48,528.09
VI
GALVANIZED FITTINGS
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$64,836.88
VII
BRASS FITTINGS
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$28,623.56
VIII
5/8" WATER METERS
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$43,308.00
X
METER BOXES AND COVERS
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$44,967.00
XI
COMPOUND WATER METERS
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$8,535.01
XIII
DETECTOR CHECK METERS
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$5,436.57
XIV
FIRE SERVICE METERS
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$26,463.03
XV
FIRE HYDRANTS AND EXTENSION KITS
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$39,795.86
XVI
AMERICAN DARLING FIRE HYDRANT
EXTENSION KIT
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$3,627.70
XVIII
M & H FIRE HYDRANT EXTENSION KIT
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$11,945.95
XX
BALL VALVES
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$60,352.50
XXI
BALL VALVE, PACK JOINT X METER
COUPLING
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$14,568.29
XXII
CORPORATION AND CURB STOPS - Ball Type
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$37,077.57
XXIII
STRAIGHT METER COUPLING & METER
FLANGES
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$10,002.87
XXIV
LOK -PAK METER COUPLING
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$2,980.51
XXV
PACK JOINT COUPLING
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$11,975.26
XXVI
TRANSITION COUPLINGS
Ferguson Enter rises, Inc.
$4,810.50
XXVII
FULL CIRCLE CLAMPS
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$12,614.22
XXVIII
HOSE BIBBS
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$320.21
XXIX
INVERTED MARKING PAINT
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$5,401.00
XXXI
GATE VALVES 3" & LARGER 250 #class
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$58,094.59
XXXII
GATE VALVES —2'/z" AND SMALLER
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$5,777.47
XXXV
CHECKERED STEEL PLATES
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$30,307.00
Page 6 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
PART NO.
DESCRIPTION
BIDDER
AMOUNT
XLVI
BOOSTER AND DEEPWELL PUMP CONTROL
BALL VALVES
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$377,114.63
XLVII
AUTOMATIC CONTROL VALVES
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
$450,515.41
IX
1" —2" WATER METERS
Badger Meter, Inc.
$9,368.75
XII
TURBINE METERS AND STRAINERS
Badger Meter, Inc.
$8,380.00
XLI
MAG METERS
Badger Meter, Inc.
$32,475.00
XIX
NUTS, BOLTS, AND THREADED RODS
A. P. Water Supply dba HIW- Hawaii
$16,928.44
XXX
GATE VALVES — 3" AND LARGER 125# class
A. P. Water Supply dba HIW- Hawaii
$24,080.00
XXXIII
BUTTERFLY VALVES 125# class
A. P. Water Supply dba HIW- Hawaii
$44,340.00
XXXIV
BUTTERFLY VALVES 250# class
A. P. Water Supply dba HIW- Hawaii
$86,710.00
XXXVIII
TABLET CHLORINATORS
Phoenix V LLC dba BEI Hawaii
$4,156.08
XL
CHLORINATORS
Phoenix V LLC dba BEI Hawaii
$15,027.78
XXXVII
PUMP SEALS
D & M Industrial Repair Services
$80,773.00
XXXIX
CHLORINE RESIDUAL ANALYZER
TK Process Hawaii, LLC
$2,705.19
XLIV
SURGE ARRESTORS
TK Process Hawaii, LLC
$21,306.40
LIV
COMMUNICATIONS HARDWARE
TK Process Hawaii, LLC
$22,751.74
LV
VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES
TK Process Hawaii, LLC
$4,225,190.50
LVI
LOW HORSEPOWER VFD (U4 HP -15 HP)
TK Process Hawaii, LLC
$12,442.00
LVII
SOLID STATE REDUCED VOLTAGE SOFT
STARTER - LOW VOLTAGE
TK Process Hawaii, LLC
$328,209.10
LVIII
SOLID STATE REDUCED VOLTAGE SOFT
STARTER - MEDIUM VOLTAGE
TK Process Hawaii, LLC
$103,790.00
XLIX
POWER MONITORING EQUIPMENT
Total Control Solutions, Inc.
$33,099.00
L
SCADA SYSTEM
Total Control Solutions, Inc.
$31,951.00
XLV
MOTORS
Water Resources International, Inc.
$691,186.00
LI
SUBMERSIBLE MOTORS (new only)
Water Resources International, Inc.
$1,237,268.00
LII
SUBMERSIBLE MOTORS (refurbished and
rewind only)
Water Resources International, Inc.
$998,859.00
XVII
KENNEDY SAFETOP FIRE HYDRANT
EXTENSION KIT
No bid
XXXVI
MECHANICAL SEALS
No bid
XLII
TRANSIT -TIME FLOW METERS
No bid
XLIII
HORIZONTAL END SUCTION PUMPS
No bid
LIII
CENTRILIFT VARIABLE SPEED DRIVE
PARTS
No bid
XLVIII
ANTI - CAVITATION VALVE
No bid
For the Parts where no bids were received, staff shall obtain quotations in the best interest of the
Department and in accordance with procurement procedures.
ACTION: Mr. Goya moved for approval of the Manager's recommendation; seconded by
Mr. Wilkins and carried unanimously by voice vote.
Page 7 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
HAMAKUA:
A. JOB NO. 48 -HW -E, HONOKAA WELL DEVELOPMENT:
Taken up earlier.
NORTH KONA:
A. JOB NO. 2003 -821, CONSTRUCTION OF KUAKINI HIGHWAY 16 -INCH
WATERLINE IMPROVEMENTS:
The Manager reported that bids for this project were opened on April 21, 2005; however, the
prices exceeded estimates a great deal. The reason may be that the Department was trying to
compress the construction time because of the Ironman Triathlon. It is hoped that putting the
project out to bid once again with a realistic timeframe may realize better prices. The bid will
include a timeframe in which construction must halt while the Ironman Triathlon is going on.
Mr. Smith recommended that staff check with Ironman Triathlon coordinators because there is a
window of time prior to the event where some highways cannot be used because of training for the
event.
MISCELLANEOUS:
A. DEDICATION OF WATER SYSTEMS:
The Department received the following documents for action by the Water Board. The water
systems have been constructed in accordance with the Department's standards and are in
acceptable condition for dedication.
1. GRANT OF EASEMENT
WATER METER PURPOSES (Papaikou)
Grantor: Shropshire Group, LLC
TMK: (3) 2 -7- 004:025
2. GRANT OF EASEMENT AND /OR BILL OF SALE * added by amendment
KUKUINUI SUBDIVISION, INCREMENT I
Subdivision Application No. 98 -070
Grantor: RS 10 KALAOA, LLC
E.W.O.: 2004 -070
TMK: 7 -3- 010:037
Lots: 21 — (4 Road Lots) = 25 Total
Facilities Charge: $25,04 $110,000.00 (corrected by G. Ahuna) Paid: June 8, 2004
Capital Assessment Fee: $1,000.00 Paid: June 8, 2004
Final Inspection Date: April 1, 2005
Water System Cost: $129,529.00
Page 8 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
3. GRANT OF EASEMENT
OOKALA WATER SYSTEM ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
Grantor: William F. and Elisa G. Hewetson
TMK: 3 -9- 001:037
4. GRANT OF EASEMENT
HONOKOHAU PROPERTIES — WATER METER REVISIONS
Subdivision Application No. 2000 -172
Grantor: McClean Honokohau Properties
E.W.O.: 2002 -091
TMK: 7 -4- 008:026 & 049
Water System Cost: $10,599.00
Final Acceptance Date: July 23, 2003
The Manager recommended that the Water Board accept these documents subject to the approval
of the Corporation Counsel and that either the Chairman or the Vice - Chairman be authorized to
sign the documents.
(Mr. Ahuna noted in Item No. 2, the Facilities Charge should be $110,000.00.)
Ms. Self noted that on Item No. 2, Grant of Easement and Bill of Sale for Kukuinui Subdivision,
her understanding was that the road has already been conveyed to the County, but the deed has not
been recorded yet. It is ready for recordation. If the Deed is recorded prior to this coming to
Corporation Counsel's Office, there will be no need for the Grant of Easement because it would be
County property.
ACTION: Ms. Scarr moved to approve the recommendation, with the change to the title in Item
No. 2 to Grant of Easement and /or Bill of Sale and correction of the facilities charge in No. 2 to
$110,000.00; seconded by Mr. Goya and carried unanimously by voice vote.
B. MATERIAL BID NO. 2005 -04, FURNISH BASE COURSE, SAND, COLD MIX,
PORTLAND CEMENT, QUIKRETE, AND NO. 3F ROCK TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY:
Bids were opened on April 13, 2005; and following are the bid results:
Page 9 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
Yamada &
Sons, Inc.
Jas. W.
Glover, Ltd.
Grace Pacific
Corp.
DISTRICT I:
A.
3/4 -Inch Base Course (Cost per ton)
$10.94
$13.00
No Bid
B.
I'' /z -Inch Base Course (Cost per ton)
$9.90
$10.00
rr
C.
No. 3F Rock (Cost per ton)
$11.98
$13.50
rr
D.
44 Sand (Cost per ton)
$16.14
$14.75
rr
E.
Mortar Sand - ASTM C144 (Cost per ton)
No Bid
$33.50
rr
F.
Portland Cement 94 lb. bags (Cost per bag)
No Bid
$11.00
rr
G.
Quikrete - 60 -1b. bags (Cost per bag)
No Bid
No Bid
rr
Page 9 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
The Manager recommended that the Board award the contract for MATERIAL BID NO. 2005 -04,
FURNISH BASE COURSE, SAND, COLD MIX, PORTLAND CEMENT, QUIKRETE, AND
NO. 3F ROCK TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY, by Parts to the following for the
amounts shown above, and that either the Chairman or the Vice - Chairman be authorized to sign
the documents, subject to approval of our Corporation Counsel.
District I - Parts A, B, C, H, I, and J to Yamada and Sons, Inc.
Parts D, E, and F to Jas. W. Glover, Ltd.
District II - Part H to Grace Pacific Corporation
District III - Parts H and I to Grace Pacific Corporation
For the Parts where no bids were received, staff shall obtain quotations in the best interest of the
Department and in accordance with procurement procedures. The contract period shall be from
July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006.
MOTION: Mr. Heck moved for approval of the Manager's recommendation; seconded by
Ms. Scarr.
Page 10 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
Yamada &
Sons, Inc.
Jas. W.
Glover, Ltd.
Grace Pacific
Corp.
H.
Cold Mix- ASTM D4215 -87 (Cost per ton)
$62.50
$67.30
rr
L
Blended Material (Cost per ton)
$17.19
$17.50
rr
J.
Hot Mix — County Mix IV
$66.25
$183.80
rr
DISTRICT II:
A.
3/4 -Inch Base Course (Cost per ton)
No Bid
No Bid
No Bid
B.
I'' /z -Inch Base Course (Cost per ton)
rr
rr
rr
C.
No. 3F Rock (Cost per ton)
rr
rr
rr
D.
44 Sand (Cost per ton)
rr
rr
rr
E.
Mortar Sand - ASTM C144 (Cost per ton)
rr
rr
rr
F.
Portland Cement 94 lb. bags (Cost per bag)
rr
rr
rr
G.
Quikrete - 60 -1b. bags (Cost per bag)
rr
rr
rr
H.
Cold Mix- ASTM D4215 -87 (Cost per ton)
rr
rr
$97.50
DISTRICT III:
A.
3/4 -Inch Base Course (Cost per ton)
rr
rr
rr
B.
I'' /z -Inch Base Course (Cost per ton)
rr
rr
rr
C.
No. 3F Rock (Cost per ton)
rr
rr
rr
D.
44 Sand (Cost per ton)
rr
rr
rr
E.
Mortar Sand - ASTM C144 (Cost per ton)
rr
rr
rr
F.
Portland Cement 94 lb. bags (Cost per bag)
rr
rr
rr
G.
Quikrete - 60 -1b. bags (Cost per bag)
rr
rr
rr
H.
Cold Mix —ASTM D4215 -87 (Cost per ton)
rr
rr
$92.00
L
Hot Mix — County Mix IV
rr
rr
$77.00
The Manager recommended that the Board award the contract for MATERIAL BID NO. 2005 -04,
FURNISH BASE COURSE, SAND, COLD MIX, PORTLAND CEMENT, QUIKRETE, AND
NO. 3F ROCK TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY, by Parts to the following for the
amounts shown above, and that either the Chairman or the Vice - Chairman be authorized to sign
the documents, subject to approval of our Corporation Counsel.
District I - Parts A, B, C, H, I, and J to Yamada and Sons, Inc.
Parts D, E, and F to Jas. W. Glover, Ltd.
District II - Part H to Grace Pacific Corporation
District III - Parts H and I to Grace Pacific Corporation
For the Parts where no bids were received, staff shall obtain quotations in the best interest of the
Department and in accordance with procurement procedures. The contract period shall be from
July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006.
MOTION: Mr. Heck moved for approval of the Manager's recommendation; seconded by
Ms. Scarr.
Page 10 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
Some questions followed regarding the procurement process. Chairman Mochida suggested a
summary of the process be prepared to help the new Board Members.
ACTION: A vote was taken on the Motion. Motion was carried unanimously by voice vote.
C. MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT:
Ms. Scarr mentioned that last month, the size of the Waiaha storage was going to be updated in
the report; but she did not see a change on this report. The Manager stated that Mr. Ahuna was
working on it as part of the C.I.P. to be presented.
D. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT:
Professional Services Agreement contracts for the following Department of Water Supply projects
are currently being processed. However, the projects are not listed on the Department's current
5 -year Capital Improvement Projects list.
1) Waiakea Office Plaza Air Conditioning System (consists of air quality study, A/E design
services for new air conditioning, and fire alarm system). The project is needed to replace a
nearly 35- year -old air conditioning system that is unreliable and prone to major breakdowns.
Useful life is typically 20 years. A significant portion of the costs will be going into replacing
the air handling system (ducting and air handling units), a new mechanical room and equipment
(chilled water compressor and pumps), cooling tower, and building a more reliable A/C system
with backup. Expected energy cost savings will be significant and is projected to be at about
40 %, or $4,400.00, on an average month billing of $11,000.00.
Fee: $340,000.00 (estimate, subject to negotiation)
Construction cost estimate: $3,000,000.00
Funding would be from CIP reserves.
2) Structural Assessment of Existing DWS Tanks. This project will involve an assessment by a
licensed structural engineer of twenty -five (25) existing tanks that have been identified by the
Operations Division as severely compromised.
Assessment report will recommend either replacement or repair of the tanks, estimate of
remaining functional life, prioritization of remedial action, and the cost.
Fee: $30,000.00 (for the study, estimate, subject to negotiation).
3) Laupahoehoe (Manowaiopae) 0.5 -MG Reservoir. This project is to replace the existing
severely deteriorated 0.1 -MG concrete reservoir which is structurally compromised. Tank
walls exhibit horizontal cracks and leaking from the slab flooring. Project will require an
Environmental Assessment and design for the demolition of the existing and construction of a
new tank.
Fee: $180,000.00 (estimate, subject to negotiation)
Construction cost estimate: $1,800,000.00
Page 11 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
4) Halaula Well Development - Phase I (by addendum)
Job No. 2005 -867
Project Scope: The scope of services for this contract includes:
1) The preparation of the Environmental Assessment (in accordance with the Office of
Environmental Quality Control).
2) Preparation and filing of the Well Drilling Report with the Commission on Water Resource
Management (Department of Land and Natural Resources).
3) Preparation and filing of the Source Engineering Report (Department of Health).
4) Preparation of the Preliminary Engineering Report.
5) Preparation of plans, specifications, cost estimate, and bidding documents:
a. Plans shall include site master plan layout and grading.
6) Conduct well aquifer test.
Consultant: To be procured
Consultant Fee: Approximately $100,000.00
Construction Cost Estimate: $600,000.00
The Manager recommended that the Board approve the new projects, the professional services
contracts, subject to results of the procurement process and that either the Chairman or the
Vice - Chairman be authorized to sign the documents, subject to approval of our Corporation
Counsel.
Mr. Wilkins asked about Item No. 1, Waiakea Office Plaza Air Conditioning System, and the
impact it will have on employees -- whether work will be going on during work hours.
The Manager explained that work on the ducts will be carried out on weekends. Work on the
cooling tower and areas not close to employees may be done on weekdays.
In response to Ms. Scarr's questions about cost and if the condition of the system was known
when the building was purchased, it was explained that the system was known to be the original
one from when the building was constructed (approximately 30 years ago). It was noted that the
building's purchase price of $3.6 million for approximately 30,000 square feet would be hard to
find in today's market. The Manager commented that the $3 million cost may come in higher or
lower once the Department sees the plans.
Mr. Goya mentioned the possibility of adjusting rent to cover some of the costs.
ACTION: There being no further questions, a vote was taken on the Motion. Motion was carried
unanimously by voice vote.
There being no objections, the following was taken up early:
VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT BID NO. 2004 -08 FURNISHING AND DELIVERING
VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY:
The Board considered a request from the contractor, Clark Automotive Group, Inc., dba Island
Chevrolet, for an extension of contract time of 31 calendar days for Part "C," and 62 calendar days
for Parts "E" and "G."
Page 12 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
Staff has reviewed their request and finds that the contract time extensions are justified.
The Manager recommended that the Board approve a contract time extension to Clark Automotive
Group, Inc., dba Island Chevrolet, of 31 calendar days for Part C from April 24, 2005, to May 25,
2005, and 62 calendar days for Parts E and G, from April 24, 2005, to June 25, 2005, for
VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT BID NO. 2004 -08 FURNISHING AND DELIVERING
VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY.
ACTION: Ms. Scarr moved for approval of the Manager's recommendation; seconded by
Mr. Goya and carried unanimously by voice vote.
RECESS: The Board took a short recess from 11:00 a.m. to 11:10 a.m.
E. DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY PROPOSED OPERATING AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 -2006:
Ms. Scarr's comments on the Capital Budget revolved around what the Department and the Board
should be doing, with regard to the Mission Statement, to satisfy the needs of Hawaii County."
She saw most of this budget as "catch -up" and wondered if something could be put toward
moving forward.
The Manager stated that this initially came out to over $30 million, but staff had to prioritize
because of various concerns within the system. These are things that absolutely have to get done.
He mentioned the Mission Statement's clause, "to assist others in water systems," and clarified
that the Department is always available to help if someone comes forward. He realized there is
nothing in the budget that expands the system, except Waiohinu or possibly the Ahualoa well
development. The remaining projects take care of current deficiencies. He added that he had
directed staff to take a good look at Honokaa, Kona, and Kohala because they are areas where
development is being stifled by the Department's limited source.
Mr. Heck asked about staff's process in setting priorities; for example, what makes a project a
higher priority than another.
The Manager suggested dedicating another meeting to this subject and perhaps have staff explain
why things are prioritized the way they are. A short example is Ahualoa Well Development. In
Honokaa, the Department will not allow any subdivisions because of lack of capacity. There is a
tremendous shortage of housing, and the Mayor has approached the Department on these
concerns. The same goes with North Kohala, where the Mayor had mentioned Police recruits
having a hard time finding housing when they are stationed there. That kind of drives the
priorities.
Discussion followed on the limitations not only being funds but also the Department's ability to
put projects out with its current staffing. The Manager reiterated prior discussions about the large
percentage of staff s time spent on regulatory work such as reviewing plans from the Planning
Department.
Page 13 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
In response to Mr. Smith's suggestion of possibly hiring a consultant manager to oversee projects,
the Manager replied that it was considered but found to be outrageously expensive.
Ms. Scarr asked if this budget includes a possible rate increase.
The Manager replied that it includes only a power cost increase.
Ms. Scarr stated that one of the ways, previously discussed, as a way to add capital to the budget
was to increase the rates. At some point in this calendar year, the Board will be discussing water
rates. That is another possible input to this budget. What the Board is looking at today does not
take any of that into consideration, so these figures may be revised based on the Board's
discussion on rate increases.
Mr. Goya noticed that a major increase in the budget is salary and benefits. The Department is
also looking at adding a substantial amount of new personnel. He hoped the consultants can
address this as the Board explores what the best way is to have rates detract the increasing cost of
salaries and benefits, and also setting aside some money for projects. He noticed that the
additional personnel are included for the full 12 months of the fiscal year, so there is already some
flexibility in the budget.
F. REVIEW OF MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS:
Mr. Wilkins asked for some clarification on the water commitment deposit fund. He understood
that it increases as more commitments are given out; however, he was not sure how it decreases.
The Manager explained that when the projects are implemented, a transfer is made from that fund
into the facility charge fund to credit the facilities charge owed.
Ms. Scarr asked about balance sheet versus C.I.P. budget and how to find out what pockets of
money are projected to be used and for what purposes. There are a number of sources on the
balance sheet (such as customer deposits payable from restricted assets -- 11,503,000.00). She
asked if some of that is included in the $15 million talked about in the budget.
Mr. Tsunoda replied that funds available for construction are classified as restricted assets (he
referred to Page 5). To tie in that $41 million of restricted cash, investments on the balance sheet,
it is under Restricted Assets.
Ms. Scarr noted that the FC is $6 million, water commitment deposit (WCD) is $8 million.
Mr. Tsunoda stated that they are included in the $41 million on the balance sheet.
Ms. Scarr asked if it meant that of the $41 million, if about $14 million was uncommitted, or put
in a reserve of some sort.
The Manager clarified that facility charges are what ultimately get transferred to C.I.P., plus a
portion of the revenues.
Page 14 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
Mr. Sumada added that the C.I.P. reserve fund, the facility charge, and the water commitment
deposit funds all potentially go to funding future projects.
Ms. Scarr asked if that meant that the Department already has $22.6 million committed and this is
an additional $15 million out of the $41 million. She also asked if the $22.6 million would be
reflected in the projects that are already on the list (ongoing).
Mr. Tsunoda replied in the affirmative.
G. PRESENTATION BY R. W. BECK INC.:
R. W. Beck, Inc., provided the Board with an update of the Water Master Plan status. Mr. Dave
Jochim and Ms. Diane Robertson were present.
Mr. Jochim, project manager for the master plan project, briefed the Board on work started about
one year ago and what more is needed. They will need to determine what the usage characteristics
demands are and project future water demands, working with the Planning Department and other
sources. They want to look at where the water will come from (existing and future sources of
supply). Need to look at existing infrastructure and future requirements to deliver this water. That
gets into some operating issues as well. Finally, they need to look at how all this is paid for
(financial plan will be prepared). He introduced Ms. Diane Robertson, who would be updating the
Board on progress in terms of demands, infrastructure, and delivery of water.
Ms. Robertson reported on:
• Demand Projections - now complete, demands will be fed into the system analysis (models);
they will look at each water system and if they can supply demands and fire -flow
requirements. Results from that will be compared to DWS' level of service criteria. The
summary of demand projections, by district, shows the existing estimates for 2005 and
projected demands for 2025, and an average percent yearly increase. She noted that these
projection numbers include unaccounted for water (water loss). For North and South Hilo,
they show a negative percent; and the reason is the high water loss in these systems (40% to
50% estimated). Even though population is expected to grow, they are expecting the water
loss to decrease because of personnel now dedicated to leak detection. In response to Mr.
Smith's question if demand is done in relation to the Planning Department, Ms. Robertson
stated that they made an effort to be consistent with the Planning Department and the
General Plan. They included zoning and land use and also looked at water commitments,
both on the DWS' side as well as planned developments that the Planning Department
already knows about. They have also provided information and coordinated with Fukunaga
& Associates, Inc., who are working on the source of supply analysis for DWS.
• Growth Projections - largest amounts of growth expected in Puna, Kona, and North and
South Kohala (average 1.8% per year).
• Demand Projections relationship to the Strategic Plan - ties in with Issue No. 5 of the Plan
where it talks about water system facilities must be improved to meet standards and
regulations and provide for future needs. It also ties in with the Board's strategic directions
that were developed about a year ago to implement a proactive C.I.P. that achieves strategic
direction, accelerates development of source water and distribution facilities, stays ahead of
Page 15 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
EPA/DOH regulations to reduce impacts on staff, and explores strategies to supply existing
agricultural customers currently using potable water.
Level of Service Criteria — they are considering things like system pressures, velocity in the
pipes, sizing of storage facilities, sizing and redundancy of pump stations, fire -flow
requirements, and peak factors for demand. In some cases, they are just getting started with
analysis, but in some instances, they are finding some systems do not quite meet standards
already in place. They will feed that into the C.I.P. and how it is prioritized. To give a
picture of how the level of service criteria fits into the plan, they compared DWS' criteria
with other industry standards and are moving forward with the system analysis by looking at
each water system. Based on these results, they will recommend necessary improvements,
which will feed into the C.I.P.
Capital Improvement Program Prioritization -this is just an introduction and will be
providing greater detail in a couple of months when they meet with the Board again. Initial
considerations look at level of service criteria, standards, condition of existing facilities,
public health and safety, development and growth needs, coordination with other utilities
(roads, sewer), and cost of service and rate impacts. As part of the water plan, they will take
all of these and have somewhat of a ranking based criteria and feed into the C.I.P.
Next Steps - meet with Engineering staff to coordinate for the C.I.P. update that will be done
as part of the water plan. Also get input on physical and safety considerations from
Operations staff, as well as the tank assessment to be done soon. Also include consideration
of the results from the analysis based on the level of service criteria and how existing
facilities can meet or where they do not meet existing level of service.
Mr. Smith asked if, in the scope of work, it includes a game plan schedule to get off surface water
sources.
Ms. Robertson replied there is no specific item to look at that. They are looking at some of the
cost impacts for energy in terms of development of new sources and water quality.
Ms. Scarr understood the strategy used to evaluate what is existing and what needs to be done to
improve the existing systems, which seems to be the focus of the water master plan. She felt that
the water master plan should also be doing something to assess areas not served by the County,
who have no level of service.
Ms. Robertson responded that they are including planned future developments, even if they are in
a new service area. Particularly in the Kona area, there are a number of developments going on
and are being considered in their analysis. When they do their analysis, they are looking 20 years
out when there will be all these new developments. In response to Ms. Scarr's question about
non - served areas, she stated that there is a separate piece of work they are doing to look at
unserved areas. That has not gone away. It is included in the master plan. This is just one piece
of the work they are doing.
In response to Ms. Helfrich's question about water usage in dry versus wet areas and if that is
factored in, Ms. Robertson replied that their baseline for demands are based on consumption.
They obtained the last few years' water usage from the Department's Finance Division by district
Page 16 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
and then each district is broken up by zones. Their future demand projections account for the
differences between the east and west sides of the island.
Mr. Wilkins commented that the changing nature of home ownership, example, in Kona, may
have impact on the average home consumption. Example, in the past, people lived on lots of three
acres of more and did their own irrigation /agriculture; and now you have many going into
condominiums or townhouses where the property manager is the one taking care of the irrigation.
Ms. Robertson stated that they did not quite have enough details to break it up into those different
categories, but those demands are accounted for as best as the Planning Department could account
for in its zoning. If a certain zone is known for potential heavy redevelopment, that zone would
have been weighted more heavily with demands.
In response to Mr. Goya's question if they have a high and a low scenario, Ms. Robertson replied
that for planning purposes, looking at facilities and how to meet customer needs, they took the
more conservative approach of assuming higher demands.
Ms. Helfrich asked if they would be portraying different scenarios or if it would be one.
Ms. Robertson replied that the results from the system analysis will be just from the higher range,
but their demand projections show that potential range of difference. When you look one or two
years out, they are just estimates so there is not a lot of certainty; and these are projections or a
range of what is likely or probable. That information is presented, and the actual analysis is
looking at the high side of that.
Ms. Helfrich asked if limited population per available water resources is factored in only at the
Planning Department level or at the State level, or if there is any discussion in this master plan
study.
Ms. Robertson replied that some of that will come out in the analysis they are doing because their
projections are based on information obtained from the Planning Department. They have
indicated how much growth they plan for in a given area; and when they go looking for available
water sources, what they may find is that they are actually not able to meet the amount of growth
that the Planning Department has planned for.
Ms. Scarr asked if their raw data would be available to the Board because she felt that some of the
Board Members would really like to take a look at what the Planning Department is saying about
zoning and development.
Ms. Robertson replied that they have a couple of draft memos in process, and they could make
them available to the Board in the next few weeks. (Ms. Scarr indicated that would be very
useful.) R. W. Beck, Inc., will be making some more interim presentations to the Board, and will
be providing a draft of the plan before final.
Page 17 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
H. MANAGER'S REPORT:
1) Employee of the Quarter - Ms. Doreen Shirota, Secretary, was presented with the Employee
of the Quarter award for first quarter of 2005.
2) Hawi Well No. 2 Repair Emergency Contract - the Manager reported that he evoked his
emergency authority; and the Department procured an emergency consultant, Beylik Drilling,
Inc. ( Beylik), due to the well breakdown. The contract will need execution by Chairman
Mochida; however, Beylik is already working on the well.
3) Kona Coastview/Wonderview status -no historical issues with the project; work to proceed.
Mr. Smith suggested that the Department check with the Department of Public Works
regarding the permit to fill some lava tubes. In the past, lava tubes have served as drainage;
and he would like to see if they approve of the filling. The Manager stated he would check.
4) USGS Drilling Program - Mr. Heck noted that they are down to about 500 feet. It was noted
that they will complete the Ocean View Well to a depth of 2,000 feet, which is what they
used to drill to. After that, the rig will not be used for wells deeper than 1,000 feet.
However, the Department will not be involved in the program after Ocean View. Discussion
followed on the Department's experience with USGS. Mr. Heck's concern was with how the
lack of production by USGS seems to reflect negatively because people start to associate
USGS with the County. He wondered if the Department should have some responsibility to
report on what the problems really are. The Manager indicated that his feeling is that the
Department will no longer be involved in the program after this, and he would hesitate to
create any friction in the working relationship with that agency. Also, it was Senator
Inouye's work that got matching funds for the program. In response to questions about
pulling out and letting a private contractor finish Ocean View, the Manager did not feel it was
in the best interests of the Department to throw more money into it. There is no budget
money for anything further. With respect to discussion on whether or not calls to the USGS
from the Board Members would help, the Manager indicated he could give them
Mr. Tribble's number. However, Chairman Mochida did not feel it would help. He
commented that this is how they have worked since being on this island. Perhaps the
community could do something with an editorial in the newspaper. He reminded the Board
that Ocean View was very happy when the rig went there, so the Board should just let them
finish up.
5) Kona Water Quality - the Department received the initial draft on treating water from the
Kahaluu Shaft from the consultant, Brown & Caldwell. However, it does not include what
would be done with the brine.
6) Personnel Needs - at the next meeting, staff will be providing a reorganization of a technical
section. The County's Data Processing has helped in the creation of positions. They will be
very similar to the County's positions. This section may be taken out of the Administration
Division.
Page 18 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT:
1) Chairman Mochida asked for Corporation Counsel's guidance in regard to next month's
meeting. Both he and the Vice - Chairman will be absent, along with Ms. Scarr; and he asked
what the procedure is for determining who shall run the meeting. Upon Ms. Garson's advice
that Chairman Mochida could appoint someone from the Board, he appointed Mr. Goya as
Chairman Pro -Tem for the May 24, 2005, Water Board Meeting.
2) Follow -up to Ms. Scarr's survey
Ms. Scarr explained what has transpired so far on this survey. It should help determine what
areas the Board should be turning its attention to.
Ms. Helfrich thought that because this survey has the Water Board's name on it, it is like
inviting "fire." If you do not include costs associated with getting a satisfactory water supply,
people are going to jump at the chance. She suggested an outside source for conducting the
survey, rather than having the Department or the Board involved.
Mr. Smith suggested including some information on cost to find out what people would be
willing to pay. He agreed with Ms. Helfrich's earlier comment that people would go for it if
only asked what they would like, but cost is another issue.
Ms. Scarr indicated that the Department's Mission Statement now means that the Board is
mandated to satisfy the water needs of the County. She did not agree that this would raise
expectations because nothing is being promised. It means assisting, or trying to look after the
people of Hawaii County. She clarified that this is not a Water Board project.
Discussion followed on the potential costs for a postage permit (ballpark figure of $28,000.00
given by Mr. Tsunoda). Ms. Scarr did not think this was too high a price to find out the water
needs of the County.
Also discussed was the matter of who would count the results. Ms. Scarr had earlier indicated
she had volunteers in her district; however, this survey is eventually meant to include everyone
on the island. Ms. Scarr suggested hiring a firm to sort the return cards.
Chairman Mochida stressed that the Board needs to know the costs for all of this. What
started out as a survey only in one district is now starting to grow and will cost money and
added work to staff.
Mr. Heck indicated he showed interest last month to include his district because this definitely
needs to get started.
Mr. Wilkins felt it is important to find out how people would react.
Ms. Scarr was asked to start with District 7 and get costs for postage, who would compile the
information (if a firm is hired, how much it would cost), and bring this information to the June
meeting (she will not be present in May).
Page 19 of 20 4- 26 -05Min
Ms. Helfrich asked why that district is being chosen when there is no question of the lack of
water delivery in the area. She suggested a smaller area like Kaieie. She added that this is a
good idea but was not sure everyone knew where they were going with it. A small sample
would be a better way to start out.
Mr. Konanui mentioned utilizing subdivision associations, where they put out their own
mailings; and perhaps this could be included in their publications. That would eliminate costs
for the Department. He suggested getting together with the various associations.
Mr. Heck stated that the Ocean View Road Corporation will not allow anything to do with the
Department of Water Supply to be included in their newsletter because they do not want to be
seen as political.
Ms. Kim asked if staff could comment on this. Normally, this type of thing would come from
the staff level because they see the day -to -day things. She found it unusual for this initiation
to come from the Board level and would not feel comfortable acting on something that is not
written up by staff and nothing showing costs and criteria.
Chairman Mochida emphasized that the Board needs to know more about cost.
VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT BID NO. 2004 -08 FURNISHING AND DELIVERING
VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY:
Taken up earlier.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Next Meeting:
The next meeting of the Water Board will be held on May 24, 2005, 10:00 a.m., in the Royal Kona
Resort, 75 -5852 Ali`i Drive, Kailua -Kona, Hawaii.
STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
None.
ADJOURNMENT
ACTION: Ms. Scarr moved for adjournment of the Meeting; seconded by Mr. Goya and carried
unanimously by voice vote. (Meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m.)
Secretary
The Department of Water Supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination,
write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326 -W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington DC 20250 -9410. Or call (202) 720 -5964 (voice and TDD)
Page 20 of 20 4- 26 -05Min