HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0281.055 2020-2022 From: Joe Belisario
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2021 11:50 AM M,:;y
To: Council Testimony •
Subject: Bill 44 Written testimony 20th session Hawaii County County August 4, 202;T:
Attachments: S.B. NO.49.pdf; S.B. NO. 1407.pdf; H.B. NO. 556 HD2.pdf
Aloha
Our County has missed several State mandated deadlines for the adoptions of The family of codes in the
past several years by sheer negligence and mismanagement by the past administration and current SBCC
representative . Except for the new administration and new County Council members, the forming and
passage of Bill 179 now ordinance 20-61 underwent 14 known months of development with little input from
the public. Please note that these 14 months were PRE- Covid.
Myself and many others that are direct users of the code received notice of the pending hearing on a
Sunday prior to Bill 179's committee hearing. The official release by the County of the 5 day review
period was the following Monday, leaving 3 days to review a 200 page bill of highly technical information
with little to no financial or procedural impact to the end users of the code.
Let me be clear as to my definition of the end users of the code: "END USERS" are as follows:
1. Licenced Architects and Professional Engineers of each individual field of specialty discipline
2. Draftspersons who hold college degrees in the plan making process under the supervision of Architect
and licenced engineers of ALL disciplines. i.e
(a) Architectural
(b) Structural engineering
(c) Mechanical engineering (mechanical, i.e. Plumbing etc.)
(d) Mechanical engineering (HVAC, i.e. Air Conditioning, Ventilation, etc)
(e) Electrical engineering ( power and lighting)
(f) Civil Engineering ( Ground work, i.e. grading, drainage, , etc )
(g) Geotechnical engineering ( below ground investigation and mitigation)
3. In my individual career I have become proficient in all the disciplines listed above as to plan making,
code interpretations to both residential and commercial projects all 40 years working in this County of
Hawaii and all other counties in our State,
(a) I was here when we drew a plan by pencil, paper, with a parallel bar and an adjustable triangle .
(b) I started my career in a time when all of four Hawaii Counties used the different versions of the
Uniform Building Code ( UBC )
(c) I also want to mention that I have achieved the NCARB requirements and after a year of
undergoing the application process, I obtained a State of Hawaii Candidate number to test for a State of
Hawaii Architectural licence.
(d) By this time I had already been in business in Kona for 23 years working legally under Chapter 116
and hrs 264.
4. I was here when the creation of the SBCC and passing into law the family of codes were a way to
standardize the building code under ONE code.
1St .
Comm. No �v
Ref. To: 15 1 couhGil
1 Ref. nate AUG - 4 2021
(a) The creation of the SBCC and the The adoption of the 2006 IBC and family of code, The state
allowed the individual counties to amend the States versions.
(b) Allowing the individual counties to amend the states amended version to "better fit" the
individual county seemed like a practical idea and all other counties but Hawaii county has always had
issues of making the required state adoption deadlines.
(c) Our County SBCC DPW representative and committee chair and an "unknown" consultant to these
amendments have failed to make the Codes work in the best interest of the building public.
5 Our State and Our County were late in the adoption of the State amended and the County Amended
2006 IBC, It was our first exercise with this new system . And frankly we have never been ahead.
(a) About 6 years ago I attended a County seminar on the pending adoption of the 2012 IBC led by
Neal Ericson, current plan review supervisor. It seemed like we were in line to move to the 2012 IBC.
(b) Over time Mr. Ericson's plan reviewers started adding drawing requirements that were not of the
code and extended and made passing a plan review more complicated and some of those requests were
now being "made up" at will by some of the individual plan reviewers under his supervision .
6. Bill 179 now ordinance 20-61 was formed and passed into law in violation of Hawaii County Charter
(HCC) Law"
(a) HCC-3-10 (b) EVERY ORDINANCE SHALL EMBRACE BUT "ONE"SUBJECT, WHICH SHALL
BE EXPRESSED IN ITS TITLE. IF AN ORDINANCE EMBRACES A SUBJECT NOT EXPRESSED IN
THE TITLE, "ONLY" THAT SUBJECT THAT SUBJECT SHALL BE VOID.
(i) AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A COUNTY CONSTRUCTION CODE
RELATING TO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED SYSTEMS WITHIN
A BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY AMENDING THE HAWAII COUNTY
CODE 1983 ( 2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), AS FOLLOWS:
This part of the title does not indicate what related "SYSTEMS" will be affected. (carte
blanche) ? we are now seeing some of it in EPIC and Bill 44 amendments
1) ADOPTING NEW CHAPTERS 5 ( CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE), 5A (BUILDING CODE), 5D (ELECTRICAL CODE), 5E (ENERGY
CONSERVATION CODE), AND 5F (PLUMBING CODE);
Subject 1: adopting of a new chapter 5 consisting of sections of the code , No mentioned of
the year of 2012 as the supported codes and Immediately put under an administrative pause in violation of
h rs
107-28.
NOTE: a nexus has not been officially established by the corporation counsel to the
emergency proclamations of the state. At this point, the administrative pause relies on a newspaper
quote
by the Governor.
(2) AMENDING CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2- 39; CHAPTER 3, SECTIONS 3- 14 AND
3- 15; AND CHAPTER 25, SECTIONS 25- 1- 5, 25-4- 10, AND 25- 4- 60; AND
Subject 2: amending multiple chapters and multiple code within these chapters which
remained unidentified until 5 days before Bill 179's committee hearing. some of which were not clearly
interpreted by the
actual plan reviewers, resulting in rejections of permit applications. These permit
application rejections were subject to a new code amendment that requires a fee to resubmit. In
2
essence the permit application was rejected due to lack of interpretation by
plan reviewer and then subject permit application to a fee for the lack of the county to interpret their own
code amendments.
3) REPEALING CHAPTERS 5 ( BUILDING CODE), 9 ( ELECTRICAL CODE), AND
17 (PLUMBING CODE).
Subject 3: Repealing Chapter 5 Building code , Chapter 9 Electrical code, and Chapter 17
plumbing code, ("assuming" this refers to the older code being replaced by the new) Only to have the
adoption of the
2012 plumbing and electrical code to be immediately suspended
7. Motion for reconsideration of Bill 44 resurrecting Bill 44 during the County Council 19th sesion
violates Hawaii County Charter section 3-10 ordinances sub section (e)
(a) Bill 44 was put to a vote for passage upon first reading by Council Member Tim Richards, The
vote lacking the majority vote was deemed dead by the clerk.
(b) Corp. Counsel advised the council to motion for reconsideration , A motion to reconsider
was floored and passed violatitaing HCC 2-10. (e) as the required 24 hour period required by subsection
(e) had not transpired.
8. From my long years of experience with the several relative county and state regulatory bodies that
oversee building permits. We were better off with the 4 uniform building codes prior to the adoption of the
SBCC.
(a) With 4 amended versions with deadlines of the IBC and IRC at the county level, it is the same
and worse than when the four Counties were working with different versions of the UBC.
9. The failure of the SBCC's intent to bring the Counties into one consistent code, and upgrading the
experience of SBCC members and county representatives is reflected in several state legislative
Bills, Some will say these bills are dead, and that would be a misrepresentation.
(a) Bill 1407: In essence raising the level of experience of SBCC Council voting
members https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=1407&year=2021
(i) Status: Passed 1st lateral and awaiting 1st decking at the JDC Date pending the
release of the 2020 legislative calendar in January of 2022
(ii) IF bill 1407 does not make its first decking in the 2022 legislative session, Then bill
SB1407 is truly dead
(b) Bill 49: In essence is the repealing of the SBCC council
period https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=49&year=2021
(i) Status: Bill 49 is at the financial committee and pending lateral approval some time in the
2022 legislative session
(c) Bill 556: In essence as to experience of SBCC representatives this bill, is relative to Bill 1407
, However their appear to this layman that the the adoption of the 2015 IECC maybe allowed to Adopt OR
amend without a specific timeframe as required in HRS 197-28 and replaced with an
effective date of July 1, 2050.
(i) https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=556&year=2021
(d) See attached bills in pdf format
3
10. Disclosure Of contributor to Bill 179 and Bill 44: The contributors and or consultants to both of
these bill were never made public, When Deputy Building Chief Neal Tanaka was asked who contributed
to this
bill 44, his answer was insufficient and avoiding
(a) Until such a time as the contributor or consultant to this bills are known , Violations of HCC
14-2 ethics standards are and will remain unknown.
11. Hawaii County Charter section 14-4 (b) Should be fully investigated in reference to the following
(a) The very public affair between Council Member Susan Leeloy also DPW committee
chairperson and Acting Deputy director Neal Tanaka resulting in:
(b) The public assault upon Mr. Neal Tanaka by HPD officer Ian Leeloy at a Hawaii County
facility.
(c) As this a very pubic incident and and both Mr. Tanaka and Mrs. Leeloy are the voice and
main authors of both Bill 179 and Bil 44 representatives for the public to this County Council they should
be removed
(d) Both Mr. Tanaka and Ms Leeloy maybe subject to outside or internal self preservation
measure in regards to thier personal marriages and future political and County positions
In closing
Bill 179 should subject to investigation as to its formation and passage, Bill 44 should not be passed as
pending state legislation may directly impact Bills 179 and Bill 44, further the self imposed deadline to
pass the 2018 IRC is a false deadline as the actual deadline is December 2022
I appeal for the following
1. The Pending State legislation of Bills SB49, SB1407 and HB556HD2 should be allowed the time
needed to run thier courses .
2. The Issue of the legality of the "administrative pause " and any Nexus that may exist should be resolved
either way before passage of bill 44
3. All other Counties' have met thier SBCC deadlines and are working on thier 2018 county
amendment. with limited to no structural engineer and their code user will be under the county amended
IBC, IRC 2012
4. I think we have all been subject to covering up of many inept or compromised county employees
mistakes over the last 6 years minimum, To continue these band aid , face saving measure needs to
stop.
5. I believe that and Emergency Ordinance should be created putting the Hawaii county amended version
of the 2012 IBC and IRC by reference and adopted immediately to avoid the adoption of the IRC State
amended version .
Sincerely
Joe Belisario
Senior Planning Consultant
Senior Draftsman CAD operator
HAWAII DESIGN GROUP
Post Office Box 4112
4
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96745
Tel: (808) 326-7670
Cell: (808) 896-4706
hawaiidesigngroup.corn
joe@hawaiidesigngroup.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material pursuant to the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and/or illegal. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and destroy any and all copies of this email and
associated attachments. (HC1)
5