HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0989.021 2018-2020 I
From: Bill M.
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2020 11:59 AM COUNTY CLERK
To: Council Testimony COUNTY OF HAWAII
RECEIVED
Time. ! 0-M By_V
Aloha Councilors Date JUL2020
i
My name is Bill McCowatt. I've been doing plans here on the big island for 30 plus years and have sat on
the Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce permitting task force for the last year-and-a-half. I completely
support their goals of more accountability, predictability and efficiency in the building permitting system.
The following comments are my own.
I'd like to start by saying that I really enjoy working with the individuals within the departments. They've
done an excellent job of improving user interface over the last few years. We don't always agree but we
always get along.
We're here today because the building permitting process has become exponentially more difficult than it
was in 1990.
Nationally mandated codes impose more and more burdens on applicants and reviewers alike.
The document we are reviewing today is supposed to improve the most complained about system in all of
County Government.
The main tool of a regulator is to restrict. And this document, written by DPW Regulators, sure contains a
lot more restrictions.
The question is will more restrictions improve the system?
First restriction is $1500 to $3,500 in direct permit fee increases and another $1,500 to $3,500 in indirect
fee increases.
Most owners, I believe, would gladly pay these higher fees if it meant that permits would be issued within
30 days for sure.
Nothing in this document proposes that.
Can you hear the sound of nails going into the coffin of affordable Workforce housing? I certainly can. A
nail is a small thing but dozens of nails add up... and they hurt.
There is not one word about affordable workforce housing in this document.
Unpredictability:
On my side of the building design table we are often blindsided by a new rule, or a new way of doing
things, or a new requirement, or a new reviewers new pet peeve so it would seem, that weren't made
public with any kind of future deadline. They are just popped on us. Comm. No g
Ref. o:
Ref. Date
1
We need predictability and often don't get it depending on who may have reviewed your plan this time or
that, or God forbid, if your Kona plan went to Hilo or your Hilo plan went to Kona for review.
This document contains fines up to $500 for a second, a third, or a fourth review, but no penalty to
government if the additional review is caused by the department.
I recently had a complicated plan in its fourth review raise the issue of an inadequate fire hydrant - this
should have come up in the first review - and now I'd have to pay $500?
This penalty uncertainty, while meant to speed things up, will also result in higher fees to homeowners., a
lot of arguments stressing out reviewers and probably be unworkable.
Another indirect fee is requiring a mechanical engineer if a home has more than 4 bathrooms.
The mechanical engineers I work with start at $1,500 and go up from there; only to confirm what a licensed
and bonded plumber already knows and that the inspector can easily see.
These homes can be singled out for higher fees (and taxes) but cannot pay an additional fee for expedited
permits.... because that would be undemocratic I've been told.
Another is requiring an electrical engineer for a small as-built added to a home under construction. Again
I've had to have a client pay $1,500 to add a little steamer shower gadget & mini hot water gizmo to a
kitchen circuit. The engineer only confirms what the licensed and bonded electrician already knew and the
inspector could easily confirm.
Overkill. Tap tap tap - more nails.
These unnecessary, but nevertheless very expensive, requirements induce people to build without
permits.
This decreases health and life safety which is the core purpose of building permits.
Housing is twice as hard to accomplish here as it is on the Mainland. Yet we must follow Mainland rules. I
I urge you to proactively remove these direct & indirect cost barriers to getting a building permit.
There are other ways to monetize the building department. Businesses would gladly pay much higher
permit fees for a much quicker response time. This is a missed opportunity. More than a million dollars per
year could easily be raised from very relieved businesses that would be happy to pay for consistency &
predictability and most importantly timeliness .
Please consider mandating this.
And now for the good news:
The one truly bright spot on the near horizon is the adoption of a modern digital plan review system. We're
close, We're very close.
Multiple departments reviewing the same plan at the same time could cut weeks, or months, off of
Permitting time.
Speaking plainly DPW is resisting this or in no great rush to do it.
This document, proposed by DPW, contains no firm dates for the implementation of the new digital
system.
Please mandate the training necessary and a 90-day go-live deadline. And be sure a position to fully run
this is properly funded.
2
r
I
I
In order to make this work even better please get rid of the wet signature requirement. We're passing a
resolution firmly requesting it.
Let's leave the eighteenth-century
just like the State Department of Health did 5 years ago under the same state and federal laws.
DofH reports saving $600,000 annually & dramatically improving permit turnaround times as well as
customer satisfaction indicators.
t
How many more reviewers would the department be able to have with an additional $600,000 per year?
How many fewer complaints.
For some reason the finance department will accept your digital signature just fine,
But you not DPW.
Since it's inevitable that we will go to All Digital someday in this Century - let's do it now.
Finally, please put much more firm language into this document about administrative rules for DPW.
DPW is the only part of government that does not have administrative rules. We need them for
accountability and predictability. We need them for improved timeliness.
We need proposed new rules reviewed in public forums and any new rules to be well-publicized before
implementation.
The making it up as you go along era has to come to an end.
All-in-all I hope these comments are seen in a positive light. Adoption of these suggestions would improve
the lives of both Regulators as well as the General Public.
Mahalo & A Hui Hou
Bill McCowatt
3