Laserfiche WebLink
initial areas of concern. DPW responded(Appendix B),noting a separate consultant contract <br /> seeking a similar assessment of the permitting process. With the current assessment in place, <br /> the PIG's ability to provide a complete assessment was limited as we did not want to interfere <br /> with, or overlap,the consultant's tasks. Accordingly, we significantly pared down the extent of <br /> our work as reflected in the following information,'which may conflict with the eventual <br /> consultant review or already being pursued by DPW. The Commissioners appreciated the <br /> consideration of the depar Intents to participate in the gathering of information while <br /> determining areas for improvement. <br /> EVALUATIONS & CONCLUSIONS <br /> The Commissioners conducted an evaluation of the building permitting process to determine <br /> how to incorporate efficiency and alterations in the process. The focus was on several areas: the <br /> permitting process, the effectiveness of the EPIC system,public education, and oversight of the <br /> entirety of the program. <br /> Permitting Process <br /> 1. Evaluation: The permitting process was reviewed to determinefaster permitting response <br /> times for smaller scope projects and the consideration for potential provisional permits to <br /> further reduce construction delays and permitting backlogs. <br /> The only current code reference to temporary permits is for temporary structures in <br /> Section 5-1-5 of the Hawai`i County Code (2016 Edition, as amended). "Permit"means a <br /> formal authorization issued by the authority having jurisdiction that authorizes <br /> performance of specified work,pursuant to the construction code[.]"Must"formal <br /> authorization"only mean a final permit? Why can't formal authorization also allow for <br /> interim permitting under carefully stipulated rules?There are numerous architects, <br /> engineers, designers, contractors with professional credentials or licenses whose <br /> submittals are, with few exceptions, absent significant non-compliance with codes. Many <br /> are already on the County's pre-qualified consultant list.Yet they are subject to the same. <br /> over-restrictive, detailed reviews as all other applicants. A responsible system where, <br /> upon arrival of pre-qualified applicant submittals,the applications are reviewed for <br /> completeness and cleared by Planning, then issued a provisional permit. <br /> Conclusion: Having a conditional permitting process for qualified persons•would greatly <br /> expedite construction starts, save applicants money with faster completions, minimize <br /> 'labor and materials cost increases, and provide many related benefits.Applicants would <br /> assume all risks and penalties. They would still have to make adjustments/changes based <br /> on County reviews throughout and until reviews are completed, with <br /> construction/installation halted for significant health and safety issues. Such permits <br /> would still be subject to code compliance and completion of plans review. Additionally, <br /> consider time limitations and fee refunds when the permitting process is delayed. <br /> The scope of the permit should be taken into consideration during review. Smaller scope <br /> permits seem to be taking just as long, if not longer, than full new building permits. <br /> Consider separating out permits into the different scopes to expedite approvals. For <br /> example,have a foundation only permit so the contractor can start on the excavation and <br /> footings, etc. Or separate out wall permits since those are typically done first. The risk <br /> 6 <br /> 2022 Cost of Government Commission—County of Hawai'i -Final Report <br />