REP PWMTC 023 2020/07/07 2018-2020

Home

PWMTC-23 - Page 5 - July 7, 2020 Ms. Lee Loy said that the changes to Chapter 5E as they relate 'to Energy Conservation Code updates would need to be addressed in a separate bill, as it-is not addressed within the scope of the title of - Bill-No. 179, and she was more than happy to_ work with him on that. She acknowledged the short time - - for initial public comment and that there remains time to gather input. In addition to what the department _ did, there was outreach to many stakeholders. - Committee Member Ashley Kierkiewicz spoke in support of the bill in the context of jump-starting the economy in a time of COVID-19. Once we get EnerGov up and running, that is key, because real properly taxes are our tax base, and getting permits out is the key to getting folks employed, she said. She asked what stakeholders were at the table other than the previously mentioned Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce because there was an insinuation that there were special interests coming to the table and getting involved. Mr. Tanaka said realtors, contractor associations, public and private industry engineers, architects, draftsman, and other county jurisdictions were contacted as well. There was never a thought in our mind it was a special interest, he said. One of the efforts that we found when we started this is that we had the three different codes saying kind of the same things but not exactly the same. Ms. Kierkiewicz asked about the plan review fee. Mr. Tanaka said initial data showed a percentage of applications go through the process and get abandoned at the end of that process. And all of that work that was done could have been applied to actual permits where actual projects could have been completed. The bill provides a 20 percent plan review fee at the start of the application to incent and push the public to move so we're not wasting time on unplanned projects. There is a new resubmittal fee to address comments that don't get addressed by the public. In conjunction with this, Building Division is working on improving consistency in reviews. That is communicated to the public in an efficient manner so that the public may understand the comments are. What we really want to do is present a clean package of submittal, he said. Clean packages ,get approved for permits. It is imperative that communication between our plan reviewers and the applicant is robust enough to get the work done, he said. Ms. Kierkiewicz asked about the importance of setting up the EnerGov digital infrastructure to allow communication on the progress of permits and any changes that have to be made. COVID-19 has definitely led the Building Division to reassess its meeting procedures, Mr. Tanaka said-. Lastly, on Chapter 5A, Appendix L, Ms. Kierkiewicz said this has been in the code for some time, and for a workable affordable housing plan we have to have all the options on the table. Factory -built homes may be an option for some families, but not all families. There's going to be a lot of work to go around, and she likes thatthere are now a lot of different options for people. Whether it is an owner - builder type or tiny houses, or prefabricated homes, let's put it all on the table and let the market decide, Ms. Kierkiewicz said. Committee Member Aaron Chung said Bill No. 179 is one of several legislative pieces to improve the permit process. The vetting time was very lengthy, from his understanding. Mr. Chung supported trying to minimize the human element in all of this. He had mentioned advocating for a separate position, called the permitting ombudsman, as a separate person to field all complaints from the public, and to make sure everything on the ground, the human part, is being applied fairly and equally. We still have PWMTC Report No. 23