Board of Water Supply Public Hearing - Water System Development Fee

�October24, 2001

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Board of Water Supply (BWS) proposed fee increase for water meters. The Kula Community Association (KCA) supports the proposal. It is consistent with the previous and current KCAs policy and position statements.

Based on our review of information provided by the Department of Water Supply, this fee increase is based on the current cost of all elements of the system that provide water to a customer.� The DWS's data indicates that since the meter fee was last set, the value of the system has more than doubled but the cost of a meter has stayed the same. Under BWS rules, while rates charged for water used pay operating costs, it is the meter fees that pay for system infrastructure.� Meter holders are considered to have equity in the system and, therefore, to receive a meter they must pay their share of the cost of the system, based on the size of their meter.��

The fee increase will enable the Board of Water Supply to afford much needed improvements to the water system. These improvements would include wells, transmission lines, and storage tanks. These projects are essential to begin serving hundreds of Upcountry residents on the waiting list and to provide an uninterrupted flow of high quality water to all - both new and existing users.

Although the KCA supports the proposed increases we would like to share with you several concerns� we have heard from Upcountry residents so they can be aired and, to the extent possible, addressed by you.� Some have complained about the sudden and steep fee increase of approximately 80 percent.� Others, especially some of those on the meter waiting list, may have the perception that this increase unfairly disadvantages them because they would not� have had to pay so much if they had been able to� receive a meter when they first requested.�

It is our understanding that consideration is being given to establishing a payment schedule for those who would like to pay for their meter over an extended period of time rather than all at once.� This could be helpful for those who had not budgeted the proposed higher amount for their meter and for those who may suffering from the current economic conditions.� A response for those who perceive an unfair disadvantage by having been on the meter waiting list is more more difficult. An explanation can be based on the facts - the history of Upcountry source and supply problems and the information already compiled on current needs and costs of the Upcountry system and each meter applicant's share of that cost.� Unfortunately, even� an understanding of the facts may not entirely dispel the perception of unfairness.�

In conclusion, it seems that the best answer for those on the waiting list, is to move as quickly as possible to provide the water that will make it possible to serve all who have been waiting so long. Of course, this solution is based on having the necessary funding; therefore, we support this fee increase.�