16 Water Resources Committee - Regular Meeting

Will the Water and Infrastructure Committee of 05/18/2026 please come to order? The time is now 01:33PM. May I ask that all participants please silence all noise making devices. My name is Tom Cook. I'm the chair. Members per the Sunshine Law, please identify by name who, if anyone is in the room, vehicle or workplace with you today, exclusive of minors. I would also like to ask the department representatives who have joined online to please also turn on your cameras when it's your time to speak. Now I'd like to introduce the committee members. Committee Vice Chair Yukile Sugimura.

Good afternoon Chair.

Council Member Kalinoy Badunga.

Aloha Chair.

Councilmember Gabe Johnson. He will log in soon. Councilmember Alice Lee.

Aloha Chair.

Councilmember Tamara Palton.

Hello, hello, hello. Streaming live and direct from Halena Nue Nue, Skilled Life Care Center. I have with me Mildred E. Poutine and our nurse, Cheryl.

And councilmember Keani Rollins Fernandez? Is excused for now. Council member Shane Seninsi.

Was there.

Chair here at my home office. I'm here by myself, and there are no testifiers at the district office.

And council member Nohulane O'Hodgins. I believe she's gonna log in in a bit. From the administration, we are joined today by representatives from the following departments: Department of Water Supply, Police, Public Works and Corporation Counsel. From OCS, we are also assisted by our committee staff. Please see the last page of the agenda for information on connectivity.

Good afternoon, everyone. We have two items on today's agenda. Why one print nine relates to the discussion on bill 70 six-twenty 26 relating to the water system development fee. Y 23 relates to amending section ten forty eight forty Maui County code on parking prohibitions for certain streets and highways. Members, if there are objections, no I would like to take testimony after receiving opening comments on one on Y19 and Y23.

Thank you, members. Let's begin. Members, Y1 Print nine relates to a discussion on Bill 70 six-twenty 26 relating to the water system development fee. Under Rule seven, the committee intends to receive presentation from the Department of Water Supply on Bill 76 and to discuss the bill. Bill 76 proposes to restructure the water system development fee by shifting the calculation methodology from meter size to average daily demand.

This ensures the fee more accurately reflects the project's actual impact on the county's water source, storage and transmission infrastructure. The bill introduces the equivalent single dwelling, others ESD, as a standardized unit of measurement and modernizes the terminology by defining the fee as extraction. These updates align county code with the industry standards and current budget ordinances, while ensuring applicants are not charged multiple times for the same impact. Additionally, the proposal provides flexibility by allowing for deferred payments in specific instances to help ease near term cash flow for developers. Bill 76 passed first reading at the 05/15/2026 council meeting and is scheduled for second and final reading on 06/05/2026.

At this time, would the department like to introduce themselves and provide any opening comments or presentations? Department?

Good morning Chair, this is John Stuppelbean.

I'm just going

to turn it over to James who's in the chamber. Jensen. Thank you.

Let's pause for a minute. I want to introduce and welcome councilmember Gabe Johnson from Lanai.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, everybody. Happy to be here online, alone in my side or in my office. Sorry, a little jet lagged here today. No test fires at the Lanai District Office, and I'm here and ready to work.

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks. I'd also like to welcome Councilmember Nohilani'u Hodgins.

Good afternoon, chair. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm in my personal vehicle right now waiting to pick my son up from school. I will be listening, but my surface be a little spotty, but I will be listening at the I will be at my personal residence about 02:30, 02:45 with better connection then.

Thank you.

So I interrupted water director. I didn't hear what he said.

Good afternoon, chair. This is John Stuffel being director of water. I'm just gonna turn it over to James to James Jensen, who's in the chamber, and he'll also be making a presentation when you're ready for that. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. So Mr. Jensen Jenkins.

Mahalo, Chair, for having us here today. Aloha, members of the committee. For getting this presentation teed up for us here. So just before we get started, yeah, this is a kind of a cleanup bill. It's a companion bill to go along with the to support the fee structure that's proposed in the FY 2027 budget.

It's also we're going to there's some terminology we're going introduce that's going to kind of modernize code and align with what the industry is doing elsewhere. And of course, that realignment of our fee structure that were that you've seen in the budget ordinance. So here's our presentation and without further ado, we'll dive right in. So this is just kind of a bill 76 for dummies presentation where we've got some snippets of the key provisions that we want to make sure everyone sees and understands, so we'll just dive right in. So the purpose of the amendment is to align our code with the fee structure changes in the current budget ordinance.

It's primarily driven by the instructions we received from council a little over a year ago to shift to a development impact fee methodology that's based on average daily demand. So we'll be this amendment is going to introduce equivalent single dwelling terminology to our code. We're going to use, adopt some industry standard terminology and also we use the term rate in our current code for things that are more like fees. So we're just correcting some of those things. And we are adding some consumer protection that was mentioned by Chair in his introduction around making sure folks don't pay a fee multiple times to address the same impact.

So definitions in the definition of water source water system development fee, the current code calls it a rate, which it's a one time fee, it's an exaction. So we're just changing that terminology. It's always been pretty clear that we charge it once, but it's better to avoid the term rate. You know, rates are as far as our enterprise is concerned, rates are things that can be charged multiple times. They're typically associated with monthly usage and what we call unrestricted funds, whereas development impact fees are restricted funds, we can only spend those funds on certain things.

So exaction is a stronger term for a one time cost. The current code uses the term recover and this is just kind of cleaning it up. The term recover suggests that we're always collecting these fees in arrears where in reality sometimes those fees are collected that once sufficient funds are collected, a project could be implemented. So we're replacing the term recover with the term defray and of course defray is simply to spread out the cost. And the this term will or this definition just creates a clear connection between the fee itself and the fact that it's for impact caused by development.

So the purpose of the code chapter is just to provide clarity that the fee is directly related to mitigation of development impact. That's that's that's that it's that same connection of the fee to the mitigation of an impact that will lead on a later slide to the additional language we're adding to the code to make sure folks don't pay that fee again by accident, especially for properties that have been legally connected to the system, maybe years and years and years ago when the fee structure was completely different or maybe nonexistent. And then we're introducing terms that represent the three components of the fee, which is additional source, storage and transmission facilities. Some new definitions, we're bringing in average daily demand and equivalent single dwelling. So we all know about the equivalent single dwelling, we've been talking about it a lot.

And the equivalent single dwelling is simply a standard unit of measurement that represents a daily use of 300 gallons. So average daily demand is simply at face value, it's the amount of water used on average per day and then the equivalent single dwelling is just a unit of measurement of based on how many gallons a day you're expected to use. So these are just to you know, help complete that shift to the new methodology and fee structure. One key result of this bill is to trivialize the meter size. So with this shift to a focus on daily demand, the purpose of the meter becomes much more simplified.

It's just to make sure that we are measuring accurately and sending out bills that reflect the water used and make sure that folks are paying the correct amount. So we going amount the we're

to to

right the replaced with average daily demand. So we're really just driving home that focus.

So

we have folks, you know, services that have been connected to the system for a long, long time. We want to just add an exemption that makes it clear that as long as that service was legally issued and they're legally connected to the system, we assume that whether they connected in the 40s, the 50s, the 70s, doesn't matter, they're connected. So we don't know the circumstances under which prior developments would connect to the system. So it's in a lot of cases before municipalities and utilities started adopting clear development impact fees, those impacts of development were mitigated in other ways through the construction of the actual source storage and transmission components and then dedicated or through other means, it's possible to that in the past rates, the actual monthly bills collected funds for that. So we don't know the circumstances under which any existing customer was connected if they go back really far in time.

So we're adding this exemption number three here that if the applicant or the applicant's predecessor in interest has already been granted the right to receive water service that is sufficient for the proposed use, so whether or not we can find evidence that they paid an impact fee, if they're legally connected we consider them legally connected and that their impact was mitigated one way or another. The fee deferral that was referenced in the introduction, this is for projects that are exempted under Chapter 14.12 subsections O30E and F and those are for affordable and workforce projects. So this will allow the collection of the fee to be deferred to the time that the impact occurs and that's consistent with industry practice, so fee deferral is pretty commonplace and it just helps those projects navigate their cash flows during construction. And it's okay for us because those impacts don't happen until units occupy, so deferral of that fee is reasonable. And that's the presentation, fairly short, We're here to answer questions and support the discussion.

Corp counsel have any comments?

I have no comments at this time, but I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Before we begin discussion, let's see if anyone would like to provide testimony on why one print to nine staff are there testifiers?

Yes, sure. We do have two individuals signed up to testify.

Okay. Well, I'm going to read the anyone wanting to testify, company's leadership and

team. On

star five to raise and lower your hand and star six to mute and unmute. Please ensure your name on Microsoft Teams appears as the name you prefer to be referred to or as anonymous if you wish to remain testify anonymously. If you are in person, please notify the staff you would like to testify anonymously. Otherwise, please state your name for the record at the beginning of your testimony. Written testimony will continue accepted and can be submitted via e comment at mauicounty.us agendas.

Staff will enable your microphone and video when it is your turn to testify. Oral testimony is limited to three minutes per item. If you are still testifying beyond that time, I will kindly ask you to complete your testimony. You can view the meeting on Akaku Channel fifty three, Facebook Live, or mauicounty.us/agendas. Decorum will be maintained throughout this meeting. Breaching decorum includes anything that disrupts the orderly management of the meeting. Violation of decorum may result in being removed from the meeting. Staff, first testifier.

Thank you, chair. The first individual signed up to testify is My

mom's room came in the room, but it's like a public place because there's no limit on visiting hours. So I don't know their names.

That's fine. Thank you, council member.

This is Faith Chase. I rose my hand a little jumpy. I'm here to talk about Bill 49. Thank you.

Thank you, Faith. We'll put you on the testimony log for Y23. That case, Chair, the next testifier signed up is Tom Crowley. And if you could give me one moment to unlock your microphone.

Aloha, Council. Tom Crowley. I like what the, department has proposed or what you've already passed with respect to the water development fees. It's not clear to me yet exactly how that's going to translate into what the fee that's actually charged at the time someone is, making some sense of to compares to what the original capital capital fees were is. Whether you're collecting get more a money or less money than in the past.

But I also would like to see this philosophy applied to water rates. Right now we're we're applying to water rates these

kind of

two different schedules. One schedule for if you have one dwelling, one residential dwelling or two residential dwellings, and then a different schedule for three or more. And and I just as there were problems with the original water development fees and how it wasn't fair to everyone, new rate structure isn't fair to everyone who has more than than one dwelling on their property has two but doesn't have three it seems to give a. So I bring this up right now because the department is here and I'd like them thinking about this in the future to come up with a different way of setting rates kind of based on this same philosophy that we've brought forward here. So again, I hope there's a little more clarity in exactly the fee will be.

Then question. Question. To me in the presentation exactly how that would be. But thank then we'll you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you, Tom. Any clarifying questions for the testifier? Member Palton?

Thank you, Mr. Coley. I just was checking if you've seen the Ramseyer version of the fees in the meeting details. It looks like 5,000 or something. Is that what you're referring to? Are you

referring That's

to what I'm something

referring to. And it's just not clear to me, like, okay. So what's that 5,000 multiplied by to come up with the actual fee? Like if someone's adding a cottage, okay, is it $5,000 If they're starting with a house and a cottage, is it $10,000 It's just not 100% clear to me how that fee is applied. Again, know in the past for a three quarter inch water meter, which basically was what you needed for a house in a cottage, we were at $18,000 So it looked like it was too low to me. I don't want you missing out on money that, I think they're gonna need for development fees. But

Okay. I'll I'll try

that's all.

I'll try to clarify it. I think it's not a fee. They said it's, for the usage of 300 average gallons a day, but I'll try to clarify what the exact is.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Members, clarifying questions? Thank you,

of

of of

Directors

ready take

take the call Mr. Will Thank you, members. Let's now begin turn the discussion. We'll start with Vice Chair Sugimura.

Thank you very much. You presented at the Kula Community Association meeting. I appreciate you coming out the community. And so this that you're proposing is going to make it easier for the public in terms of understanding what's happening with their rates and fees?

Thank you for the question. I don't know that it will make it easier for the public to understand. It's a restructuring of the fee that will be charged per 300 gallons a day of estimated usage, right, and the combination if it's a residential then the combination of beds and baths computes into ESDs and then that decimal, that number gets multiplied by the fee. And if it's a non residential project, it's just their estimated demand divided by 300 to compute ESDs and then multiply by the fee. But yeah, don't know that it will make it any easier or harder for folks to understand.

It will make the processing of development review easier.

And fair?

Yes.

And not by fixture count that was pretty So I was glad that when well, made that change last year, I guess. Thank you very much for doing that. Will this help with what our water bills?

This is unrelated to monthly bills. Okay.

Okay, And I have a question about Kula Water. So I'll wait because it's not quite not on the agenda, but I'm to ask him later.

That it?

Got it.

Okay. Member of the Botangan?

Can you actually go that way because I'm interested in the answers to Mr. Crowley's questions that Member Polton is better prepared to articulate.

Council Member Johnson clarifying questions for

Okay. Sure. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Department, for joining us. I appreciate you guys and all the hard work you In your presentation, I wanted to clarify that predecessor of interest, what is that? Can you say I want to know if that's defined is my question.

This might be a question for legal counsel, but the intent of that term is simply to refer to prior owner.

Okay. Is it defined in the code or do you think we need to have it defined in the code?

That's a fairly regularly used term in the law, is predecessor in interest. It means a person who basically owned the property before you. So that's at least pretty well understood in our office. So I don't think there's a need to define it.

Okay, great. I figured I'd ask this, 300 gallon seems to be standard across municipalities, is that correct?

Yes. It's a fairly common value used in the industry for this type of methodology.

So and then I know you guys are subject matter experts. When we talk about like a low flow, does that I would assume that would reduce the 300 gallons a day. Is that right? It would where does that go on the before at the beginning of your house? Or is that in every sink and every shower?

Yes, thanks for the question. So low flow fixtures are pretty standard across the country these days. When we were developing the methodology, we were reviewing modern fixtures and EPA national averages for per capita usage, which is all kind of bakes in the low flow fixtures. So those are incorporated into the standard.

That was where I was headed with that question. I really appreciate it. Those were my two major questions. I just wanted to really thank you guys for the work we did on the fixed accounts. Big game changer in working with that and changing of the code. And I just appreciate you guys' collaboration. Thank you, Chair. No further questions.

Member Palton, clarifying I mean, Member Palton, questions for our resource people.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Jensen. To follow-up on Mr. Crowley's question, I just was wondering, I'm looking at the Ramseyer version of the bill, and it seems like, to me, what was happening was everything that was in a single family dwelling was subsidizing single family dwellings because on the bottom portion on a fiveeight inches, the source was 31 the transmission, $3.89, and the storage was $11 for a fiveeight inches.

But for non single family dwellings, single family and accessory dwellings, it was 5,789 for source, 3,859 for transmission and $2,412 for storage. So is it that we're taking and just applying a standard fee for anyone we expect to use 300 gallons of water per day? Is that how it works?

Yes. So if it's Okay.

Thank you. Okay. And then my follow-up question is, so I just looked at my water bill, I'm at about 250 gallons per day. What happens if, like, all the grandkids come? My my we now are gonna have 10 grandkids pretty soon Wow. Like, stay at our house, and we're, like, gonna have, like, 500 gallons a day. That won't be affected by this because it's a single development fee time. Right? Is that what you're saying?

That's correct. There won't be anybody lurking behind the bushes, watching to see what you're doing, how much water you're using.

What if all the 10 grandkids move in with us permanently and we're using 500 gallons a day average every week until they graduate high school. And they're just being born right now. Then what happens?

Yeah, we understand that that will happen. You'll receive a water bill for the water you use, and we hope you pay it on time. But yeah, we know that this is a simplification and it's based on general targets and patterns and averages and there will be some that are above and some that are below. Happen.

Will there be a time when you ground truth the numbers? Like, I mean, for me right now, there's about five or so people showering daily at our house. And so it's it's true. Three less a little less than 300 gallons a day. Will there be a time when you check back in that 300 gallons is the average EST?

Most likely not. There will be outliers or hot spots where a usage is just out of this world, out of control, could be a leak, something we have to investigate or, maybe work with the owner to rein in that usage, but we're not going to be looking at all these services and making sure that they're right at that 300 per ESD.

Okay. I hope that that answers Mr. Coley's questions. I'll be checking my email just in case it wasn't clear. Thank you.

Council Member Patonga, you want now? Continue? Yes. Okay. Chair Lee?

No questions. Thanks.

Okay.

Council Member Saninsi?

I just had a clarifying question. When you mentioned defray the costs, is that from the base of $5,000

Yes, term defray is just to substitute for recovery. It's just means that we are collecting that fee for the purpose of distributing the cost.

Okay. So but it's it could the cost could range from the uses, correct, not from the base of base costs?

I'm not sure I understand the question, council member. I

might know the answer. It's not a usage fee, it's a development fee, like when they get their water meter. I was asking other questions about usage, but it's a development fee and not a usage fee. So if you never had a water meter, the bay the cost is gonna be 5,000 for assuming that you're gonna use 300 gallons a day average.

So but that's just the base fee. We're not changing that fee depending on if you're using more water or less.

Yes. It's a onetime fee to get a water meter kind of.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you, Chair.

Is Councilmember Oh Jin on?

Chair, she's online, but her camera is off and I see you're unmuting though.

Does she have any questions?

I

can't see.

Councilmember Hodgins, we can see you're online but it's very difficult to hear, the volume is very low.

My question, sort of to clarify this, if someone is going to build a 100 unit apartment building, their meter fee is going to be based on how many ESDs is expected?

That is correct, plus their estimated outdoor usage.

So the 5,000 is that a baseline for a regular residential type meter? I mean that's somewhat the confusion. So

then

of of we're

sense in And And

opportunities

to get a certain amount of demand on the system doesn't look to know how that water is being used. So if it's a four bed, two bath home that computes to be one ESD, they'll pay the one the $5,500 or whatever it is, it'll be 55 times the one point zero ESDs if they're an auto zone or a parts house or something and they're going to use 300 gallons a day, then that is also one ESD, they would pay the same fee.

Okay, thank you. Member Betonga, are you ready?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, and I appreciate your patience. I was also I think I was same way Member Senensi was after the line of questioning went from the single impact fee to usage fees. But I think I am more clear now on that. But I still don't think I quite get how okay.

So I understand that there's a formula that's being used, but I don't think I understand what the outputs are in comparison to what we currently have with the with it being tied to the size of a meter. So say it's a single family dwelling, say it's a single dwelling with additional ADU, like how does this new model compare to the previous model for those two scenarios, like a single family dwelling versus one with an ADU versus what we currently have?

Yes, it's a good question. The answer is kind of what drove a lot of this shift. So for a smaller meter, and again the the we want to see meters as small as can to accurately measure the use for that single family home or even like a four bed, two bath with a one one Ohana, the fees are actually very similar to what they were before. It's those large meters where the cost of the source storage and transmission for that demand kind of gets de tethered. So a prime example is an irrigation meter, and it doesn't happen very often, but say an irrigation meter that uses 9,000 gallons a day under and it's a five eighth meter, right, you can run that irrigation at a low rate all day and you can use 9,000 gallons a day under the old system, you're going to pay $12,000 for that meter, which is not commensurate with the daily usage.

So under the new methodology that 9,000 provided the applicant is honest with their projected usage, we would say take the 9,000 divided by 300 that's 30 ESDs times 5,500, their fee would be a $165,000.

And does the department have any mechanism to check the trustworth I mean, are you completely reliant on trustworthiness of the applicant or is there some kind of independent verification mechanism in the review process?

Yes, so in the case of the irrigation example, right, we have we would be looking at their landscape architects drawings, the way they've zoned their system, the water demands that they're assigning to each different kind of zone of their landscaping. So yeah, there's pretty standard methodology for reviewing and kind of confirming the adequacy of those irrigation usage calculations. When it comes to non residential uses like restaurants, retail, office, we'll be using our standards which is a certain amount of a certain gallon per day usage per thousand square feet and that's just for the different use types and then that's really what we have to go with and then we'll convert that to the daily usage and a fee.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Second round, Member Sugimura?

So I appreciate Director Stuffelbead sending me a text answering my He says no one is being overcharged if their bill is temporarily higher than their usage during an estimated period. It is adjusted when we get an actual meter read. And we adjust to make sure they get the full benefit of the tiers if needed. Thank you, Director. James, you have something else to add?

No, I think that covers it. Thank you.

Thank you, Director. Appreciate you. That's pretty cool.

Do you have any further questions?

No.

Okay. Council Member Palton. I see your hand up.

Thank you, Chair. I guess, you know, knowing that we're in a housing crisis, I understand treating everybody that requests a moderator fairly. I just was wondering how this would, how it would work about 2.97 or, like, the deferral of fees for low income housing or affordable or workforce housing. Is that what you had already worked with mister Mitchell on as you defer it until they start to use it, and then the affordable housing fund can come in and pay the the fee waivers to the water department? Is that what had happened?

Because, I mean, it's going I I don't feel like luxury homes, second homes, STRs, BNB should pay 400 for their water meter. But, 400 to 5,400 is a big jump. And I understand, you know, everybody has to pay their fair share. But in taxes, we shift the burden to those that aren't necessary. Like, people that live here need water to live.

If you're vacationing here, that's a choice. I mean, I guess economic development, you need commercial. But is there a mechanism where we can waive the fees for affordable workforce housing and have a different source, like people that whose job it is to create more housing, pay the fee exact chain, free the exact chain or whatever for the housing that we desperately need. Did you guys already work that out or is that a housing question?

Mr. Jensen,

when it comes to typically speaking, regardless of the use, the developer will pay the fee. In the case of the affordable and workforce projects, we have seen instances where the housing fund came in and paid the fee on behalf of the project. So we would expect that dynamic to remain, but still leveraging deferral mechanism to kick that can down the road a little bit. If that means it makes it a little easier cash flow wise for the housing fund than developer, then we want to see that made easier for those

So not

going able down the

to We're

they're going to pass on that fee because 5 the thousand dollars is not that much to them?

Yes, I would expect it to be passed on.

Okay. For what you were saying to Mr. Batongaan, you're still going to not just take their word for it, you're going to review the plans and everything. If it doesn't make sense, like you have 20 acre landscaping and they are like, oh, we assume we are going to use 300 gallons a day, you are going to be like, you did your math wrong and kick it back and then it's going take longer and be more expensive to them because they lied and you caught it?

Absolutely. So the plans that we see, the landscape drawings are pretty detailed and the landscape architects are already pretty good at doing those calculations. What we've seen so far, yeah, it's pretty reasonable if we see something completely out of left field, we do reserve our right to ask them to try again, yes.

Thank you.

Member Johnson, I see your hand up.

Thank you, Chair. This question might be for Corporation Counsel, but Mr. Jensen, I'm going to direct it to you. I'm not sure how to proceed. But do you in a new system like this, do you expect challenges? Do you think some folks are going to be pushing against this? And then is there a way for them to disagree? And how does that work? Is there a system for that?

That is a good question. I'll start by saying that we haven't had we've never had pushback when applying our standards for the nonresidential uses. We haven't had pushback against the standard assumptions of 600 gallons a day for a single family home or five sixty gallons a day for a multifamily dwelling. This new methodology, especially for multifamily, opens the door to actually

20.

Half And then we'll with we're able the

be that.

To And kind of comment that they were wondering when we were going to make this kind of a correction to our impact fees. So I expect it to be accepted by the development community.

Okay.

Good. I guess if I could, if you just asked generally about a mechanism that would the calculation of what the development fee would be considered a decision of the Director and decisions of the Director are appealable to the Board of Water Supply pursuant to Chapter 14.11.

So it would go to

the Board of Water Supply then. Okay. Well, there's a mechanism there that's I think that's fair. Okay. Thanks for your response. Thank you, Chair. No further question.

Member Patongran?

Thank you, Chair. Can I ask when the department started working to develop this new methodology? You said it was in response to directions given by the council last year. Can I ask when you guys started working on this proposal?

If I recall correctly, about December 2024, January?

I guess so I can't speak on behalf of the body. We have not spoken on that. But I can just speak for myself in that this proposal coming in with the budget packet makes it really hard to understand the nuts and bolts of what's being asked. And we are just learning the details of those proposals after first reading which is a little hard. So if in the future we can have this type of briefing on the proposal prior to the budget being transmitted or it being transmitted with the budget, I just would like to make that request.

I want to mahalo you guys for coming too so that we can at least have this understanding before it gets taken up for second and final reading. I want to thank the chair. Just and I want to recognize the politics at play. You know, it was part of the budget package and normally we can't speak about what's coming down the pipeline prior to being transmitted by the Mayor. But this isn't part of what's being proposed in terms of funding or level of funding.

This is a rate or fee that I think probably could have been discussed before that late March transmittal date. And so if there's anything of this nature in the future, I just would like to ask for consideration that it'd be brought to the members' attention when it's not being buried in the avalanche of other budget bills that, we also need to take up.

Remember Watonga and I think they did a little bit prior to your time because they they had been talking about the EST previously, but not to this extent.

Thank you, member Palton. That's that's helpful context. Department for that. But I guess I would like to let the request stand that something of this nature be brought up when there's time and attention for it prior to the second and final reading.

So we understand. Thank you.

Council Member Sanninsi, do you have a second question?

No questions.

Did

I miss anybody before I take my questions? I think so Mr. Jensen, I'll look up and forward. We did have previous meetings about this in my committee and discussed it. Could you put in perspective I'll preface it, I believe, and you can correct me if I'm mistaken, that previously for the last few years, the department hasn't raised the development fees to extent that it's necessary to actually develop new sources, new storage tanks and new transmission? Have we been behind for a period of time doing that?

Thank you for the question. I would say yes, the fee was last increased, it's been quite some time, but in general, yes, the fees are in my opinion well overdue for this restructuring and in the out years of future budgets, we plan to little of get to results the then, think,

committee meeting previously in your office discussing this, there is going to be a substantial jump, correct, in some of the larger meters as far as the ESDs that are taking hundreds and hundreds of units. If somebody needs a four inches meter or six inches meter, they are going to have a substantial increase in that cost in the future?

Typically, I would expect that to be the case. There will be some exceptions, but I would say typically that's correct.

And I just want to relate like to the committee, to everybody that we discuss a lot about our water issues, shortages, some of the challenges of whether we're going to use surface water, groundwater, etcetera. We understand that the cost of housing is very expensive. Develop a well to put in a 2,000,000 gallon concrete tank to put in new 12 inches water lines, that stuff has gone up really a lot. So this is, in my opinion, in discussion with the Department of Water Supply and actually discussing with other developers and stuff, not necessarily a surprise. And the department is working on the new methodology instead of the fixture count and evolving and progressing to equivalent unit.

It's been a lot of work and I think people are going to really like it a lot more. How is the well, I'll go through my third question in a minute. Thank you. Mr. Jensen, could you kind of give a brief synopsis of the review process previous with a fixture count and current as far as the first of 19, We very we count a fixtures quarter and

we haggle a over a couple fixtures here or there to avoid a change in meter size. Now it's quickly count bedrooms and bathrooms. For commercial, we haven't really seen commercial yet, but it's just gonna be application of our standard. What look at the use type, what's the square footage of those different uses, apply the standard for average day consumption to each of those spaces and convert, you know, divide by 300 to get to ESDs and then multiply by the fee. We do have a multi family project that had a couple 100 units, some non residential use at the ground level and some irrigation use.

The engineers did a really good job breaking that down and applying the new methodology. It was a mixture, it was, you know, using the beds and baths for the multifamily units, and then it was reviewing the irrigation calculations, which turned out to be good. And then also some of the other shared spaces where there could be outside folks coming in and kind of uses that would occur on the property not related to the habitation. So that was a fairly all encompassing review that went pretty well. So a lot easier than pouring over pages of plumbing drawings, especially when pouring over pages of plumbing drawings didn't capture the right fee.

So to this point, it's been going pretty well and we do just expect our staff to get better at it and for it to get easier.

Thank you. I haven't heard anybody complain about it. Everybody has been pretty stoked on the evolution, I would call it. Are there any more questions? Member Palton, I see your hand up.

Thank you, chair. I'm not sure if this is a question for court counsel or Mr. Jensen. I did hear we haven't significantly increased the fees, and this is the baseline of $5,000 and expect 2% or 3%. And just clarifying that wasn't fees you're talking about this exact same, this one time development fee may increase 2% to 3% over the next few years. Is that what you're seeing? So,

the department actually wanted this fee to be more this year. So what we did, because it just to avoid sticker shock, we are phasing this fee in over the next three years. But once the fee is subsequent years, we will add that 2% to 3% for inflation and that's just yes, just to this development fee, just to this one time exaction.

So I guess the question that maybe corp counsel or maybe you is it possible that when we raise it two to 3%, next year or the following years that we, keep it where it is for residential and instead raise it 6% in nonresidential instead. Would that be legal, or would that be not what you wanna do? Because that's a little bit what we do with property taxes already, and it seems that was the previous methodology to transfer the water development fee or exaction to nonresidential. Increase to offset for residential, is that a possibility?

So that's a good question. I'll take my first stab at it and then I'll let legal counsel have their stab. So yeah, think we feel like this conversation will come. Step one was restructure the fee and just for this initial rollout, we did not try to differentiate between the different uses, which would have led to a much longer table of different fees. So we wanted to roll out something simple to get us started.

I believe the way the code is written, we would have space for that fee to vary by use. But I hand over to Caleb for his thoughts on that.

Necessarily. I don't know how feasible it actually is though because if you recall, this is going to be a one time fee right at the beginning, right? So it's done when the development is first done and use can change over time. And there wouldn't really be a mechanism for us to go back based on the new change in use, unlike taxes, right, where they update us on what their use is going to be unlike their actual rate fee for the water that they're getting. Was

talking more towards zoning. The Ramseyer version looks like residential single family or accessory dwellings were charged a nominal fee of like 400 or something, whereas all others based on meter size were charged like up to 1,000,000 or something So like if we went by zoning, I guess residential, being given, say, the sweetheart deal and other any other zoning, it's business, like So, that. Think, business, but we're they have to so much more flexibility to have other uses that would bring in more revenue. And so could it be done by zoning? Like anything residential r one, r two, r three, a one, a two, maybe get the sweetheart deal, but then go b one, b two, b three, commercial, light industrial, heavy 6% increase in sales?

I would have to look at that a little bit more. Just one thing off the top of my head that I'm a little concerned about is we are this new system is supposed to be kind of more directly reflect what the actual impact on the water system is going to be. And so applying that uniformly make sure that there's a direct nexus between what the exact action is and what the impact on the system is going to be. The impact on the system really is based on the amount of water that is used rather than how it's used. So I would be a little concerned that if we did make that distinction, we would be subject to it's called the Nolan Dolan analysis of whether or not an exaction is directly tied to the effect that it has on this case on the water system development fee.

I haven't done any research on this. This is right off the top of my dome at the moment. But that's just a thought that I have. So

does the previous way that we were doing it with the residential single family meter size getting the sweetheart deal past the Nolan Building, or it wasn't necessary because we weren't having the nexus at that time. We were doing fixtures and water presides. Because it seems as though that was previously the methodology of sweetheart deal for a single family residence.

So what you are referring to the deal, I believe, is more on the rate structure. The water system development fee was tied to the meter size and not necessarily to the use, I believe. So I think we're confusing the There's a water system development fee and there's the water rates per gallon. And so that distinction existed for the rates per gallon. It did not exist for the water system development fee. That was solely based on meter size.

Are you sure when I was looking at the rounds here below it said source transmission storage on the bottom portion that's ex style, not east. So you're saying those are that bottom where it's a $3.89 is in reference to rates and not the development

Sorry, I see what you're saying. So that was based on purchasing additional fixtures. The fixture count was kind of the specific thing that the legislation that was proposed by Member Johnson specifically told us to get rid of. So that's why that was taken out. But yes, that was the only place that that distinction was made. It wasn't in the general water system development fee.

Thank you. Sorry, I misunderstood.

Yes. And I can add just one quick clarification. So that $389,000,000 is the cost per additional fixture for someone served by a fiveeight meter. So they would have paid the $12,000 to get their initial connection. So the $12,000 for the fiveeight was their impact fee, the $389 per additional fixture is the impact fee for each additional fixture. So those are both impact fees, but one of them is for the original meter and then the other is for each additional fixture under the old system.

Okay, I totally misunderstood. So then I see what they're saying. This is it will have to increase because it's cheaper than the smallest meter size. Got it. Thank you.

Thank you, members. Are there any other questions? If not, I'm going to no objections. The chair would like to defer this item. Okay.

Thank you, members. So I'd like to move on to Bill 49, amending Section 10.4804 Maui County Code on Parking Prohibitions for Certain Streets and Highways. I'd like to invite Member Patongaan to make a state opening remarks. Is this your item?

Well, thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to speak and for scheduling this bill. So this bill, bill forty nine twenty twenty six, started with council member Kama back in January 2025. Two business areas in Kahului were experiencing issues with overnight parking, that was unrelated to the adjoining businesses. The approach council member Kama to address the overnight parking on county roads that was resulting in negative impacts on adjacent private properties. The roads in question are the three roads that are situated between Derry Road and Mayor Elmer Carvalho Way, which is kind of that triangle by the McDonald's off of Derry Road.

That's what most people know it as with Ballard Family Mortuary in the in the far end of the triangle. You know, they had tried for a while. You can see in the in the testimony submitted that they had reached out to different entities asking for help, with this. And the feedback that they had gotten was that, the existing overnight parking ban that the county had was insufficient because MPD couldn't enforce it. It was too difficult to determine whether a a car was there for two consecutive hours throughout the, you know, the evening.

And so what the discussions with council member common, the business community resulted in was a request for a parking ban from 6PM to 6AM. That would be easier for MPD to be able to enforce and be able to help keep our streets cleaner and safer for the businesses and the patrons of those businesses. I'd also like to note that there's a letter from the police department in GranaKiss item number three indicating that if this parking prohibition prohibition is enacted that it would be enforced. So the request is from both the businesses, MPD who are having trouble enforcing board. With progress

made

Members, Y23 relates to Bill 40 nine-twenty 26, which establishes overnight parking prohibitions on Lehihuacona, Alamakani And Oheikani Streets in Kahului to ensure these thoroughfares remain clear and safe for the community. Bill 49 promotes public safety and orderly management of county roadways to maintain unobstructed streets during nighttime hours. Ensuring these roadways remain clear is essential for maintaining adequate visibility within the neighborhood and protecting the transit and safety of surrounding community. At this time, we'd like the Department of Police and Department of Public Works like to introduce themselves and provide any opening comments or presentation.

Chair, I don't believe we have anyone online from the departments, but Council Member as Betonga noted, the police did send their response and it's available on Granicus.

Thanks. Company. And

very progress of

the the Board

of of of

Directors

Thank you, Chair, and My good name is Lisa Darcy, and I am the founder of Share Your Manna. I am here today to testify on bill 49, and I am asking for this to be paused. I think it makes sense, not to have any forward motion until first of I haven't heard the presentation, and I wasn't really able to understand why this has gotten to come to this committee. I can tell you that, as you know, over the years decades that I have, done a lot of testimony on preventative and root causes of individuals living in conditions that are not meant for habitation. And I know quite a few people live in their vehicles, and there has never been any established safe parking or anything like this.

So I was highly concerned when I saw this bill, and I'm not quite sure how the person who presented this defines public safety. So I think Maui County has been criminalizing vehicle residency, especially because there's no other option. So I'm always looking at the root causes. If this bill moves forward, what I would ask is that it actually identifies the root causes. Why are you suggesting this?

And for people that are going to be affected by this, then what the things that can support them? Or why? What's going on with that? So if public safety is anything other than an emergency vehicle needing to get by or cannot pass, then again, I I really ask that this bill address root causes. It's really important for this not to just move something that's perceived as a problem to to another location.

So I I really wanna make sure that gets brought across. And I'm hoping that this committee will really dive into this a little more. I'm always here to give suggestions and recommendations and certainly share the experience of Share Your Mana. And yeah. So I'm just looking for solutions or a greater understanding as to what this is about, why it moved forward. If I'm totally off base, I'm sorry, but the actual bill didn't give very much background information or what's happening. That's where I'm at. Mahalo. Glad to be here. Mahalo.

Members, any clarifying questions? I guess my clarifying question, thank you for coming. This is addressing basically side street parking in the commercial areas on public highways. So do you feel that that's inappropriate not the road,

towed away or something like that, or if people are living in them, if they're blocking things, again, we have to address the root causes of why those cars are there. And if people are using them as a safe habitation location, it's really important that this county recognizes that without shelter beds, and over the last five, seven years that we've lost so many beds that we don't have places for people do.

Think

think

what

But the wheel keep turning.

You very much.

Chair, I I there were members online asking Okay. For clarifying

And I will ask everybody's patience with me because my video is really funky and I'm going to work quarter nineteen, strong had and we

And

that's good put this up, then question. There will be another street and another business that says we don't want this. It's just going to move people. So have you heard any updates on safe parking, safe zones or managed cameras, anything on the lines where if those folks couldn't park there, where can they go?

No. And yes, it's a slippery slope. Very, very All

right. You yes. Me neither. Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Member Johnson. Member Bolton?

Thank you, Chair. So, my clarifying question, is in reading the testimony, it does seem that the issue is people habitating and using the restroom in front of their businesses. My clarifying, is it your request that we hold off until the safe parking place is open up?

Absolutely. That's been our position through all the ordinances that have moved forward unless the county is willing to make mobile bathrooms or anything like that too. It's just always another idea. I

got a logo on your shirt, Walmart. Yeah. Okay. Got it.

Any other further questions? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair. The next individual signed up to testify is Faith Chase. And if you could give me one moment to unmute her mic. Okay. Faith is now unmuted. So if she's able to unmute on her end, then she can begin her testimony.

Aloha. I recorded I timed myself. If I run out of time, I would ask any of my fellow I'd ask my, council members to ask me a question about DOT specifically. I'm in strong opposition to bill 49, which seeks to prohibit overnight parking on Lihua Kona, Alomakani, Ohe Kani Streets in Kahului between the hours of 6PM and 6AM. First, the bill summary does not clearly describe the 104 multi island streets and highways numbered in the bill language.

Perhaps because council member Batenggan is new, he is unaware of the history of the safe sleeping parking lot and the lawsuits in the state of Hawaii and Maui County. The mere introduction of this bill, deeply disappointing and morally indefensible given the current reality facing Maui's Maui's houseless and vehicle dwelling residents. Maui County has failed to establish adequate safe sleeping parking programs, sanctioned overnight vehicle areas, or meaningful emergency alternatives for residents who have nowhere else to go. Yet instead of create instead of creating solutions first, the county is attempting to further criminalize survival. This proposal is particularly alarming because Maui County and the mayor are already involved in active litigation regarding unlawful sweeps in the treatment of houseless individuals.

Introducing additional enforcement based measures while those legal challenges remain unresolved demonstrates a disturbing disregard for constitutional rights, due process, and human dignity. The county should be exercising caution and restraint, not expanding punitive policies that will also almost certainly expose taxpayers to further legal liability. You cannot ethically or legally eliminate places where people are surviving in their vehicles without first creating realistic accessible safe alternatives. The county has not done that. This bill will not serve houselessness.

It will simply push vulnerable residents from one street to the other to another increasing instability trauma conflict with law enforcement while making life even more dangerous for working families, Kupuna disaster survivors, and individuals already struggling to survive Maui's severe housing crisis. If public safety is truly a concern, then the county should immediately prioritize establishing safe overnight parking programs with sanitation and security, creating designated safe sleeping areas for vehicle dwellers, we've talked about that, expanding emergency shelter and transitional housing capacity, investing in outreach mental health support and housing first strategies and developing lawful humane policies. Listen carefully in consultation with impacted communities. Only after these systems exist should the council even contemplate additional parking restrictions that directly impact Hausa's residents. The county should be ashamed to advance punitive enforcement measures before creating compassionate and lawful alternatives.

Maui residents deserve leadership rooted in humanity, legality, and practical solutions, not ordinances that continue to criminalize poverty while the county remains under scrutiny for its treatment of the house's community. I've mentioned this before. The DOT has new roles that have not been fully distributed and learned by security officers. In short, anytime you wanna make a change to a highway that is in the purview of the DOT, you must have a public hearing for native Hawaiian individuals and organizations sixty days before any decision making. I saw Maui County staff at the Maui meetings, and I saw DOT personnel at the Oahu meetings.

The dissemination of this information needs to be accelerated, and you, the council, should advise your administrative staff to find more information so you don't get put in this position again. I urge you to reject bill 49.

You. Members, clarifying questions? Thank you very much. Staff, further testimony?

Thank you, chair. That's all the individuals signed up to testify. If anyone in the audience or on teams would like to testify, please come up to the mic and begin your testimony or use the raise your hand function on teams and staff will unmute you. Here's a brief countdown. Three, two, one. Seeing none, chair no one has indicated that they wish to testify.

Members, seeing there are no more individuals wishing to testify without objections, I will now close oral testimony. As a reminder, written testimony will continue to be accepted into the record. Members, I'm proposing two rounds of three minute questions per member. Are there any objections? Objections. It's unfortunate that we don't have representatives from public works and MPD here today to weigh in on this. How about for corp counsel kind of response on some of the testimony we heard?

I'd be happy to answer any questions that members may have.

Members? Member Sugimura?

Yeah. So guess if did we ask somebody from human concerns to also comment on

this

homeless situation or the questions that came up?

I did not ask.

Okay. I am curious then, Corp Counsel, if you have any comments based upon if we have an obligation to homeless gatherings, I guess, on our public streets that we should know about, DOT or public works. I think these are probably is it state or is it public works? Roads? It public looks works.

Yes. So these would fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works because they are county roads.

Yeah.

You know, this list is not exhaustive of all roads on the county of Maui. I think that that's just one thing that I I would mention. It it adds three three roads. It doesn't criminalize it uniformly.

Okay. So nothing wrong is happening, and it's just a measure or, I guess, a response. I think that member, comma, must have had complaints from the community. And so this is a bill that is addressing those complaints, it sounds like, from member Patangan in her behalf. No other questions. Chair.

Thank you. I have other members set their hands up. Member Patonga, do you have questions?

Okay. I don't have a question, but I'm happy to speak. I'm also happy to defer since I was given the first opportunity to speak and then let the other members have their round first.

Okay. Member Johnson?

Okay. Members, we don't have any of the departments here to have a real discussion. I think we just would be arguing amongst ourselves. So members, would just prefer we defer this until we get some folks in here from the department to talk about this. I don't think it's very healthy for us to kind of rehash this type of topic when there's no department and no real discussion is going to happen. So I'm just going to end it there because you know me, I can go off on this topic. So thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Member Johnson. Member Palton?

Thank you. I have request also to defer, and I would request that when it brings up again that we do have someone from the human concerns from someone from management, someone from police to be here. My issue, I don't know who wrote this for member Bhatan Gan, but generally speaking, when we introduce a bill, we go through the entirety of the bill, to make sure that everything is up to date. And even if I agreed with, no parking on these three streets in advance of another solution, it's a flawed legislation. Who knows where Old Pioneer Mill Company's clubhouse is in our police department.

Who knows where Old Collins Park is? Who knows where the Old Wong store is? Who knows where Old Lahaina Broiler is? You know, usually when we go in and we amend the bill, we go through the entirety of the bill and we make sure it's all up to date. In the Lahaina District, many of the places don't exist anymore.

And it's not consistent. Like sometimes you say East Side, sometimes you say West Side, sometimes you say Ka'anapali Side. And I think all of that needs to be picked up before or cleaned up before we pass anything. I did put in a PAF today or, you know, I I spoke to mister Ratz over the weekend about it, but my mom was getting discharged from the hospital to come to this skilled nursing facility, and I didn't have time to do an intake even if I had time to do an intake. How's the analyst supposed to find out the address of the Old Lahaina Broiler or where old Pioneer Mill Company's clubhouse is?

I don't I don't know where Old Collins Park is. You know? So there's a lot of outdated things in this bill, and for us to pass this bill right now without asking even the police if they know where Old Pioneer Mill Company's clubhouse is. I don't expect a police officer today that maybe moved here from somewhere else, maybe grew up in Waiuku to know where those things are. So we're gonna be passing a bill that we don't even know if they know how to enforce, first of all.

And then, you know, this council has been advocating for safe places to park since Kelly King was in office, and it still hasn't become fruition, which whatever on that. But, like, you could make a solution if you really wanted to. We have, county beach parks that have outdoor showers and bathrooms if somebody were to manage it. Last year, I floated the idea of a swimming pool during off hours as a safe parking place because they have bathrooms that, in my experience, aren't regularly cleaned anyway. And maybe they could do a win win where the program cleans the bathroom and they get a safe place to park and use the bathroom and, shower.

But this is criminalizing people when the solution that we suggested years ago has never come into fruition. And to be clear, that's not just on this mayor because the solution was suggested during the previous mayor's term, and it still hasn't come to fruition. So I'm not opposed to it. I do wanna see our business owners not have to walk over shit to get to their workplace. I don't think that's right, but, we also have a responsibility.

I don't think we could say we're not doing anything wrong. We're certainly doing something wrong if we haven't implemented safe places to park by now when half of Lahaina burned down. I mean, the whole town of Lahaina burned down, but the majority part of the West Side. So that's how I feel. I'll be also asking for a deferral because, things need to be cleaned up, things need to be implemented, and then this can move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Sanninsky.

Thank you, Chair. I did want add to the discussion that our committee will be receiving an update on safe parking from the Department of Human Concerns on June 29. It doesn't mean that there's going to be parking available on June 29. They're just issuing an update for us on June 29. So I would be supportive of holding up until we can get the safe parking up and running.

I I do know that, chair, that remember, comma, received a lot of the the complaints when the Pu'u, Honua, or Nene was up and running, and there was a lot of people, in the area because the the state, shelter was there. So I'm not sure if things has changed since Pu'u'onua has ended. But I remember having that discussion during that time, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Member. Member, any other comments before I do? Member Patonga?

I was trying to let you know that member O'Ha Jin is trying to seek your attention.

Thank you for that help because I can't see. Member O'Ha Jin.

Thank you, chair. Before I, launch into some discussion, I just wanted to let you folks know that I'm at my private residence, and I have, three minors talking about. I can differ if that's, what the body would prefer to discuss with, the departments, which I'm happy to discuss with the apartment, departments too. I don't know if everybody saw, but over the weekend, there was a civil beat report or maybe even on Friday, discussing how our unsheltered population rose by about 40%. Meanwhile, we're investing about $4,000,000 every single year.

So I'm not too sure how this is really benefiting, all of us. I'm not too sure where our return on investment is if our population is raising that significantly. Meanwhile, the population of the shelters hasn't changed. And so I'm not too sure, how our unsheltered advocates are being success successful if we have a population rise of 40%. I would like to also comment when we talk about the, people who are being impacted, it is not only the people that are living in the cars, which I do want for them to be safe and have a safe place for them to use the restroom because that's not what we want in a civilized society in 2026.

People should have access to restrooms. People should also want to go and seek shelter and get help as well. And we also need to be concerned about the safety of the people that work in those areas. I know member Sanancy said that maybe the population has changed in the last few months as the whatever we're calling it, is no longer in operation, but the testimony we got was from the fifteenth, and then the e comment was from just the other day where they're talking about walking over feces, and sending it to DOH, and it it is it is a safety concern. That is also a safety concern.

My last comment is that the roads are for driving, and that's the primary use of roads. We do all kinds. We're about to do the South Maui, community, you know, all the things we gotta do. We talk about zoning all the time, and roads are for driving. And roads should be for driving.

And we can find a safe parking area. I'm I'm super supportive of that, but the roads are for driving. And it is so unsafe when I have to drive and you see the sides of the roads become, a defunct, unsheltered facility, and people are walking all over the streets, and it's not safe for them, and it's not safe for drivers. Considering we do zoning all the time, if somebody was to have a residential zoned property and they wanted to do something outside of residential use, they would need a special permit. That is what we make other people do when we're asking people to follow the law.

And so when you're having an encampment on the side of the streets everywhere, that's not what we ask everybody else to do. We were just talking about housing and how this is going to work and how this works with housing in our previous discussion. So let's keep it consistent. I want them to be safe. I want the businesses to be safe.

I wanted our drivers to be safe, and I want the roads to be used for what the roads are supposed to be used for. But I'm happy to defer. I just wanted to get my point across, and I'm I'm hopeful that we will have departments come and, help our discussion along. And I do think it also should be cleaned up a little bit because I saw all the things that I was like, oh, I wonder where that is too. But, anyways, thank you, chair, and nice to see all you folks now that I can be sat and listen to you folks talk. Thank you.

Thank you, member. Okay. Chair's comment. I'm really glad okay. We hear this in committee for a reason, and I'm really glad that we're doing it.

I echo what member Hodges was saying. I personally have been advocating in my community for a place for people to go. I've talked with the administration about a wraparound on house center, a place to actually so that when security at Kalama Park saying you can't be here and they say where can I go, it's not only but it's necessary to be able to tell them where they can go and that it's okay and it's safe? I acknowledge as a community representative and as a member of the community, the community has an obligation. And I also, when I drive behind Safeway and I go in the different areas, the encampments, I think that there's a certain responsibility for people in general to meet halfway.

I don't have the solution to unhoused, but when I see the unhoused encampments, I'd like to see the people who are advocating for them to assist in managing some. Pledge that I will work with my members to address this issue and work with the administration, safe parking, sanitation, a ladder for people to be able to get their IDs and everything to put their lives back together. I completely embrace that. I also have a really hard time answering all the members in my community who are saying why is this allowed? Why is this happening in front of my place?

Why is my business being impacted by this? Why do my kids have to look at this? We're afraid to walk down the street. So that's the balance that we need to do, too. And I just thank you for the opportunity to weigh on this. Thank you, member Padancon, for bringing this forward. I'm going to ask the members, my recommendation as we defer this item. Any objections? Actually, may I Okay.

Member the company continue to speak I for this first just want to again thank you for bringing this forward for conversation. I wish that the depart more departments were here to join us for the conversation. So I guess I'll start there. You know, I hear the members and I'm supportive of the motion to defer. I guess I just would like to say a couple things before then.

First is that it's already illegal to park overnight. The behavior that we're that that's occurring is already illegal. What we're trying to do is move create a change the law from a policy that the Department of Police is saying they cannot enforce to one that they're saying that they can. The second thing I'd like to note is that member comma first drafted this last year and it was meant to be implemented in coordination with the safe parking program. That's why it was not introduced prior to her passing.

I chose to introduce it before budget sometime for a few different reasons. One is that we are seeing worsening conditions in front of these businesses. Two, I saw the vacancies at the shelters. We get the update list on a daily basis and we see that there are places people could go if they chose to. And then the third was that the safe parking program.

I have not gotten a clean response as to when that will be implemented. So rather than let things continue to deteriorate in front of the businesses, I ask for this to come forth. And so I guess I would mahalo you for allowing for that conversation. Staff, can I ask that a copy of this bill be transmitted to the Department of Human Concern so that they are able to have eyes on it prior to it being brought back before the committee? And then in case any of the business owners are listening online, I will be reaching out to the director to see if they can work with with you and my office to try to come up with solutions in the meantime.

And then I guess lastly, I would just note that I didn't realize I was supposed to also clean up the rest of the the section. Section. I was only looking at the newly introduced text when I was signing off on this and so thank you for your grace members as as I get situated. You know, I'm not completely new, but there are still things that I'm learning and I'm a hallow you for your patience in that as well. So I guess I have some work to do prior to chair bringing this back before the body.

Thank you. I think when we we will reschedule this, but with public works, the police department, Department of Human Concerns, Corp Counsel ask that you kind of get up to speed on the newest current. And we will also let the advocates in the community that work hard on this know in advance and have the information. It is a huge issue that needs to be addressed, and it's an opportunity for us forward to a positive resolution. It's going to take money and it takes a lot of things, but I look forward to us having improved people's lives and satisfied a bunch of our And then

to

that.

And propose we'll we're going to defer the item. Chair.

Chair, Member Johnson, Sean O'Neill. First

off, I want to thank you for moving this or deferring this, and I appreciate Councilmember Bhutan Gan's introducing this. You guys I've been asking for a bill in this committee for over two years, the bearing of the power lines. And I haven't gotten this in this committee. And then when councilmember of Bhutan Gan brought this in, it's not ready, guys. It's not ready.

This bill's not ready. So I'm not I know we prioritize certain bills that we agree with, and it just doesn't sit right with me when I'm trying to get power new power lines built, buried, and then we're coming up with this one that needs so much work, and we don't have no place for these folks to go. So it's a little frustrating for me, guys. So I just wanted to I just wanted to let you know that this is I just wanted to let you know how I feel about it. But I appreciate you guys deferring this. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any other comments about deferral or anything? Member Palton?

I also appreciate the deferral. I will try to work on the ASF to update the Lahaina section so that it makes sense and is consistent. And so I wasn't putting that on YouTube too. And there's also, I think, other sections, like, for Makawao or whatever, and and I would encourage members to look at the sections of their districts if they make sense or not. But my section definitely needs updating, and I will, I'll allow that to Liana.

Thank you very much, Robert. I don't know if you looked through the rest of the Kahului areas, if it makes sense or not as well. Because I mean, like, you figure we're voting on this bill as though we agree with everything written in it. And so I think it does make sense that it's up to date because the date that we vote on it is going be shown. So that's all I'm saying.

It's an opportunity to dig deep and work on it. I get a lot of complaints from business owners in the industrial areas where people don't but people park and that they have a hard time parking their equipment, etcetera. So the impact, we really need to work on this in our community to benefit everybody, but to acknowledge the businesses do have a need and a right as well as as the people. So with no objection, members, this concludes today's water and infrastructure meeting. Thank you everyone for being here and for a very dynamic.

Yes, I think you are actually taking Okay. Motion to

I have a motion to defer? So moved by Member of Senator Sugimura, seconded by Okay. Member of The The time first is now three the eighteen and this meeting question is now adjourned.