Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PWMTC 2021/11/16 2020-2022 Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit 15th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii November 16, 2021 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit ORDER: was called to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers, Kona, by Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice Chair(via videoconference from Hilo) Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member(came in later) Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Heather Kimball, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to provide comment regarding Comm. 417.7, and came forward when called by the Chair: LaDonna Shively. Shannon Shively. CHR. LEE LOY: With that, I'll be closing public testimony. And for my colleagues, I just want to level-set. This was the meeting that we started and we had some technical difficulties last time around, so this a complete do-over. What I'd like to do is start with Communication 455, our nomination, and then dive right in to Communication 417.7. So, Mr. Clerk, if could please read in Communication 455. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 Change Order As directed by the Chair and with no objection from the Council Members, of Business: the following item was taken out of order: Comm. 455: NOMINATION OF NEVA SUPE-ROQUE TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION From Mayor Mitchell D. Roth, dated October 12, 2021, requesting the Council's review and confirmation. Vote on Comm. 455: Mr. Inaba moved to recommend confirmation of (Approved) the appointment of Ms. Neva Supe-Roque to the Transportation Commission. Seconded by Ms. Kimball and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy —9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. Executive Assistant to the Mayor Pomaika`i Bartolome came forward and provided a brief narrative of the nominee's background and experience. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. LEE LOY: Moving on, Mr. Clerk. Communication 417.7,please. Return to Order The Chair directed the Committee to return to the order of business. of Business: Comm. 417.7: REQUESTS AN UPDATE FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS REGARDING THE ELECTRONIC PROCESSING AND INFORMATION CENTER SYSTEM (EPIC) ONLINE PERMITTING SYSTEM From Council Member Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, dated November 2, 2021. ; and Comm. 417.6: From Public Works Director Ikaika Rodenhurst, dated November 1, 2021, transmitting PowerPoint presentation material. Motion to Close File: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to close file on Comm. 417.7 and all related communications. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. Page 2 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 CHR. LEE LOY: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, thank you; and thank you for expanding this communication to include the second part, which is the business decision of the Administration. Please lead our discussion. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Is the Director in Kona? CHR. LEE LOY: Yes, Sir. (Note: At this time, Public Works Director Ikaika Rodenhurst came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, I believe has a PowerPoint. I think the best thing to do would be to let him go ahead and run his PowerPoint, and then have the Council discuss afterwards. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Director, please introduce yourself. And for my colleagues we have a copy, under Communication 417.9. MR. RODENHURST: Hi. Mahalo. My name is Ikaika Rodenhurst, Director of Public Works. Mahalo, Council and Committee Chair, and Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, for having me here today to give the update. (Note: At this time, Director Rodenhurst provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing of the subject presentation, please see the DVD copy of the meeting proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office or by navigating to the Council's video archives online in the County's webpages at www.hawaiicounty.gov. A hard copy of the presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 417.9) MR. RODENHURST: That's our update for EPIC System. We are continually improving our processes. We are continually in training our staff on any updates to our procedures and any updates to the system, any hot-fixes we need to make. We are committed to improving our review times, and making sure these are reviewed efficiently. Not just quickly but also thoroughly, as much as possible. Now that being said, we did make a decision to go with an expedited review process for residential permits. That process is to review those were that submitted prior to October 1st, that have a licensed professional designer and a licensed contractor on them. And this was made because we want to make sure that we have the faith and trust in the community that they will build this to the standards that are required and limit the risk of any substandard work. Now, that's not saying that owner builders build substandard work, but there is a standard with licensed contractors that we can see as a safety level. Page 3 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 Now, going into the application process and the review process, we are not pulling these out and reviewing them first above all others. As these are encountered, as these requirements are met, we are expediting the technical review, making sure that life and safety is being adhered to, and having a full administrative review. So it is not just a quick push-it-on through process. We are trying to get through those that we can in an expedited manner, so we can focus on the other ones in the queue. These are not going to be taken out, and these are not going to be prioritized over others. It's as they're encountered in the process. Now, the further details of what is required over here, the property owner declaration forms,project declaration forms, need to be submitted and completed, still as it would be for any other permit. These are for those submitted prior to October 1st. If you decide to transfer it into a contractor after declaring owner builder, they are not eligible. If you have plans that had to be returned for corrections and if they are residential permits applied prior to October 1st, you are not eligible. And residential building permits issued through this process and then transferred over to owner builder will be suspended until completing the typical review. That's all I haveoh, one last thing, to touch on the amount we have. We don't have a confirmed number on the total amount in our system. We do have a confirmed number, a total amount we've encountered thus far, and its over 100 of these permits we have encountered, so it's about 100. I believe the last count was about 110. So it's not the entire one—and again, this isn't ones that we are pulling out and prioritizing over others. These are addressed as they are encountered. Other than that, that's the sum of my presentation, and I'm happy to take questions. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Director Rodenhurst. I also know Director Zendo Kern is in our Hilo Chambers. (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Zendo, for being here. If there's anything else you want to add to the presentation, because we know this process actually runs parallel with Planning. MR. KERN: Sure. Good morning, Madam Chair. Zendo Kern, Planning Director. Good morning, members of the committee. I'm happy to be here. Not too much more to add. It's been a journey. It's been a process, for sure. I think overall we're really doing our best to serve the community. As we've talked about before, DPW's (Department of Public Works) challenges and Planning's challenges are a bit different. Our focus is a bit more on the Page 4 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 backend. We are seeing the permits coming through for plan review, and we're reviewing those very expeditiously. No backlog on our end. Those are being reviewed as they come in, first-come first-serve basis. This is, honestly, it's a really good opportunity for Planning and Department Works to work together to improve our communication, improve our system, and I think this is bringing people together. So while it's very challenging right now and have no excuses for anything other than we're trying to do our very best, there are a lot of improvements that are coming out of this. One of the things that we also see for right now, our West Hawaii Division is low on land use plan checkers. And so what we're able to do through this system is we're able to change up our resource utilization. We have more plan checkers in Hilo right now, so depending on how the volume of permits are coming in, we can easily assign those and submit those to land use plan checkers as needed, to really balance that out. And through this, it actually feels like it's bringing the County and island further together as a whole, versus that separation before which was done on the paper. We'd had to have the paper in Kona; and if we needed to do what we're doing right now, with kind of moving things around, we would actually have to drive those over and then drive them back. So I really do believe that the system is a good system. I think we've got these challenges to work through; and I think if we continue to push through diligently, and resourceful, we will get through there. We will get through this, no doubt about it. I also want to point out, you know, the climate side of this or the global warming, carbon challenges that we're having, this system moves us in that direction big time. People can now upload their permits from home, save a drive. Ultimately when all of the data is fixed, so it's all complete, they'll be able to review their information for a parcel or a building permit from home, same thing with an application for a land use application. So if we have, say a rezoning or a special permit, a person that might be interested and understanding what's going on without reviewing the application or giving comments, can now also do that from home. They don't actually have to drive to the Planning Department. So that takes away vehicle-miles traveled, carbon emissions, and also quality of life for folks. So, I am very optimistic about this system. Again, working diligently together, collaboratively, and just doing our very best to get through all the challenges and continue to serve the community to the best of our ability. I'm very optimistic. And appreciate the patience and support. I also really appreciate the open dialogue with Ikaika and his staff. And real conversations, you know, they're not all pretty. They're real. And we're really trying to solve for things. And to have that ability to have that discourse and communicate through this has been really good. Page 5 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 So again you know, I'm not trying to say anything fluffy. I know there's challenges here, but I also see a tremendous amount of goodness coming from that. It's also made our department stronger and more cohesive together going through this. And we're also doing that with DPW. So, I'm happy to answer any questions; provide additional details. Again, happy to be here, and thanks for the opportunity. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Director. MR. RODENHURST: There's something, if I can add? CHR. LEE LOY: Oh, go ahead. MR. RODENHURST: Sorry, to one thing, and Zendo brought it up, was the "from home" option. One of the parts that has been brought up to our department is community's access. And communities such as those in Kohala, Ka`u, and in Puna, don't necessarily have the best access to internet and technology services. We do have kiosks available in Hilo and Kona for folks to come on down and use those to upload their documents and submit their permits. We do have an IT (Information Technology) issue with the one in Hilo right now, but my understanding is it's being addressed as we speak. I just wanted to add that in there. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Director Rodenhurst. And, Director Kern, thanks for being here today. I have a light here in Kona,with Council Member Chung. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Ms. Lee Loy, I still have the floor. CHR. LEE LOY: Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Rodenhurst and Director Kern for being here today. I appreciate your comments and the update. The purpose of the communication that we brought forward was really to discuss what challenges we have, and then also,just to echo the community concerns and really ensure that what we're doing is meeting the community needs. And I think in a lot of ways both the administration and the departments have really stepped up and met the demand. I mean, we implemented a brand new Building Code set, and we implemented an EPIC System in a period of a couple of months. And that really was brutal on the community, especially from professionals to contractors across the board, we impacted the community heavily. So as we started to see that, a failure in a way but a learning curve, the communication came forward to really just to really hone in on what the community was wanting. Page 6 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 One thing that has arisen since the expedited process, I want to touch on that a little bit, is we had a testifier this morning, two testifiers actually, and they're having issues. They're owner builders. And so I wanted to, Director, if you could, Mr. Rodenhurst, could you please kind of describe and help the owner builders out there understand, you know, where they sit and where they stand, and what this means for them as far as this expedited process. MR. RODENHURST: So this expedited process, it would not apply to the owner builders, but it doesn't mean they're not affected by it. The ability for us to expedite these particular applications will allow us to go through those quickly and get to the other ones. So for example, like I said earlier, say there was about 100 of these here, that's a 100 permits that are going expedited, that now those reviewers can spend time on the other—maybe another 100 permits. It takes away that time, and it gives that time and that dedication over to those permits. So, it's actually there to support them. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: For the owners builders, what are they looking at, you know, timeframe-wise? Just a normal review? And I'm saying normal like "normal"because that's kind of up in the air right now. But what does that mean for an owner builder? MR. RODENHURST: It means that they're going to be reviewed for applicability to the Code, and life and safety. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Can you help me understand what an expedited review is for our contractor projects, et cetera? MR. RODENHURST: Expedited review will be a review where our administrative staff—our clerks will still have the same review across the board. No matter what the permit is, they will go over and make sure the submittal is complete, make sure the Owner Declaration form is complete. Look to see if the Project Declaration form is complete. Where it will go over from there, it will go to Planning. Planning will do their review. Once it's through Planning, then it will come to the remaining reviewers. If it is a Legacy review, it will go through each stage, as necessary; So Building, it will go through Electrical—yeah, for Legacy, it will go through Building Building, and then it will go through DEM (Department of Environmental Management) and DOH (Department of Health) for their—if it's necessary for them, and then they will go through the out-processing stage after that; and at that point, if everything is up and up, it will be issued. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And you had mentioned earlier that there was no pulling of an owner builder from their queue and line, which is very important, is that correct? Page 7 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 MR. RODENHURST: Correct. We will not be taking these declaratory permits out. Like I mentioned, it's the system isn't equipped to fully to quickly hone in on where these permits are. So it's as we review them, if it's declared that it is a contractor one and it meets all the requirements as we put forth, it will be reviewed under the expedited review process; if it's not, it will be reviewed under the typical process. And that's how we are doing it, is as they're submitted. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, that's good to hear. I looked over the reports that you put forward, the PowerPoint(see Comm. 417.9), and I appreciate the information because it helps us get an idea of where you stand now and where you stood before. Some things have popped up. I mean, I'm looking at, Total Permits Applied and Total Permits Reviewed. In some cases, we have more reviewed permits than applied permits, and I'm trying to wrap my head around that. It looks majority of these stood for like 2019,possibly 2020. Can you explain that for me? MR. RODENHURST: Yeah. So if we're looking at the total permits applied, as separated by class, previously under the Legacy System, PV(photovoltaic) wasn't its own class. A PV permit can encompass a building or a building and electrical permit, so that PV number is actually inclusive of the electrical and building permits as well, but it's brought out there to provide that clarity. We have different data sets as we went into the EPIC system. We actually have PV separated by residential and nonresidential in the EPIC system. So this is kind of that happy-medium in the middle, where the total permits applied by work-class will not equal to the complete totals for the year, and that's because of the PV permits. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then what is your current—in the beginning we had about 3,500 permits outstanding, between Legacy and post-EPIC implementation. Where do you stand now? MR. RODENHURST: So by outstanding, could you clarify? What do you mean by outstanding? Because outstanding can mean they have not been touched. Outstanding could mean they've been reviewed and returned. Outstanding can mean they're in some process in the review. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: We'll go basic. You had 3,500 permits in the system that you were backlogged on, when you talked to us about two weeks ago. Sorry, maybe four weeks ago. And then how many of those permits well, what are you backlogged by now? MR. RODENHURST: So we have 1,425 permits that need to be touched, that need to processed. They're either in the submitted stage or pending plan fee. Now, we have I think approximately another 1,000 in other some other stage or Page 8 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 review, whether it be approved and waiting or our processing, of whether it be returned for submittal. I don't have the data specifically for that, but I do have the data for those that we haven't necessarily reviewed. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so about 1,000 processed;1,425 untouched. We had 3,500 when we spoke a month ago. So we're missing about a 1,000, where are those? MR. RODENHURST: As I said, there's about 1,000I know there's at least 1,000 in the process. As far as the specifics of that number, I don't have in front of me. I have the number of ones we haven't touched, which is the 1,425. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I know I'm on limited time as far as what I can talk about. The last question I have—and I'm looking over the data, so eight reviewers in 2019; six reviewers in 2020, but what happened—and I know you weren't the director at that point—but what happened in 2019 and 2020, that we actually lost two reviewers? And I understand you're having staffing concerns now in 2021, but why was there a loss of two positions there? Do you know? MR. RODENHURST: I'm not sure, but possible reasons could include retirement or other opportunities. I don't have a response here for that today. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And you said you had six reviewer positions open. MR. RODENHURST: There are currently six plan reviewer positions; three are filled, three are open. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But 2019 we had eight, so were there eight positions at one time for the department? MR. RODENHURST: I'm not sure if that was the case at the time; I would have go review that. I think that also includes our Deputy Building Chief as well as the Plans Examining Manager putting in their time, as well. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so it may have always been six, but you had other staff leaning in to help, when needed. MR. RODENHURST: Um-hum. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then six positions, does that include the positions that we increased the department by earlier this year? MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Page 9 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 MR. RODENHURST: And it's also possible we could have some of the supervising inspectors, previously, having a more hands-on approach for the residential reviews. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. You've clarified a lot of my questions. Before I'm done, I would like to say the owner builders out there, and I've heard from a few of them, are concerned. One, they're learning a new code. And this goes across the board for everybody, it's a new code and a new system. But their concern really is—look, if everyone else is being expedited, not that they're taken out of line but that they're expedited, by the time the owner builders get there, with the supply chain destruction that we're seeing across the board, they were very concerned that when it comes to building the homes that they build, which touched on every class of buildings that we have in the County but mostly being residential, and they're concern they are not going to be able to get the materials. So, I want you to know that. I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong. I just want you to understand that is the concern, is they're worried about getting their projects done and hoping that there's materials at the end, when everyone else is being expedited. It's a valid concern, and I feel like I needed to voice that for them. I hope you take that to heart as you look over, you know, how we can get these projects moving for everybody. And we're trying to balance contractor and the owner builder, and just across the board, help everyone understand what we've done. And I want to offer my apologies to the communities, as well,just from the County level. We're trying, and I know we're impacting people. And it's the end of the year, there's a lot going on. Just wanted to share that with you, Director. And hopefully, make some progress for the owner builders out there. So mahalo, Chair. I yield for now. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. RODENHURST: If I may comment on one thing, the last statement. CHR. LEE LOY: Go ahead, Director. MR. RODENHURST: As I expressed earlier, they are not being taken out of queue and not being prioritized any differently than when I was—so as far them getting to the table, that it is first come first serve on that. And I understand their concerns. I think that's a concern shared by everybody, about supply chains and source of materials. I think that's been a common theme, not just in our State but in our country right now. I see a lot of people are concerned about that, and I hear that and I understand that. I hear these concerns. I get these phone calls and Page 10 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 emails. I've spoken to some of the folks that testified today. And I hear that, it's important. And all of these permits are important, every single one of them, every thousand of them. They're important. So we're doing our best to get to each and every one of them as soon as possible, and make sure that we're maintaining health and safety in this community. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Director. Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. And again, I do have to thank you for really expanding this communication to cover not only the data so that what we could see what the departments are doing, but even decision-making. And I know Director Rodenhurst was not the director at that time, but for Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, the plan review numbers, oftentimes we had inspectors on light-duty that was pitching in to do plan review because they couldn't go out and do the inspection, so that's how some of those numbers adjusted over time. And then as they were able to return back to duty, they got put back into their inspection role, and so those numbers fluctuated over time. But with that, I see Ms. Kierkiewicz' light here. Go ahead, Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Mahalo nui, Director Rodenhurst, Kern, for your presence and your presentation. Director Rodenhurst, I wanted to follow up on a couple of things I mentioned when you were last at Council. One of those being how you helped to identify and prioritize getting certain projects over the finish line, especially if they're super close. And I know that you've come up with this expedited process. I kind of see this picking winners and losers, but I won't get into that. I just wanted to know, have you created that matrix? And the reason why I ask, is one of the examples I shared at the last meeting, contractor filed a reroof permit, all the work's been done, that hasn't been issued, and it's stalling the ability of PV to be, you know, put on to that commercial building. So just wondering, how are we resolving for these certain situations? MR. RODENHURST: So one of the ways we're resolving for this is our training, and training our staff in what are our standard operation procedures, as far what it looks like to review a permit, what kind of work,what they're going to have on a daily basis. So they're not focused on just in processing of permits, not just focused on residential permits, not just focused on nonresidential permits, that we're doing a holistic approach here. Part of that is being complicated by the fact that we do have these manual checks on the IT hot-fixes. Right now, that's kind of impacting our procedures and our response times. It is a work in progress. It's not complete. And we do fall short sometimes, as far as the permits that are left hanging for, like I mentioned previously, waiting for Page 11 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 permit fees to be paid, even if they've already been paid. And that's part of that notification process, you know, it got submitted, it got reviewed; now it's been approved, awaiting permit fee payment. Some pay it immediately, great it's online, our staff hasn't gotten to it. And they haven't gotten to that little process of going from permit fee paid, to issuance. And that's on us to make sure that our procedures match that, and we're able to determine where we're at on a daily basis. Because a lot has happening at once with the IT-fixes and our manual checks of those. So we're training our staff. Not just our clerks but also our plan reviewers on how to be efficient at this process, and it's a work in progress. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I get all that. And I think we all really appreciate the hard work and sacrifices of everybody involved in this process, and the cross-training, all of it. I just want to get back to the question, though. This permit was filed pre-EPIC, and they need it in order to install PV. I understand the training, the capacity building, all of that needs to happen, but I just feel as if process and procedures are getting in the way of some really meaningful progress and moving our economy forward. So just wondering, how are we going to solve for that? MR. RODENHURST: So it's hard to say on this one without the specific permit number, as far as what the situation is. But again, it would go back to our training. What do we look at? How do we schedule our work? How do look at what's in the queue for the day? For example, when we have someone that has submitted the plan, and it gets resubmitted, we have to go back and check that one, and make sure they've paid their fees, if they had additional fees for the plan review. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Hold on. Pause right there. So take a look at the daily workflow, what's in the queue. Is it one from EPIC, one pre-EPIC? How are you tracking both? MR. RODENHURST: So what we do is, for our clerks right now, and this was established so there's—make sure we had proficiency, was half our clerk staff is assigned to EPIC only, for two weeks, and the other staff is Legacy only, for two weeks. So they will go from earliest in to most recent in those specific queues. EPIC only, obviously it's going to be after July. From July `20 moving on. And so that's going to be their focus on that. And in two weeks they're going to flip. They're going to go the EPIC only ones are working on the Legacy, and then the Legacy ones will work on the EPIC, so it establish proficiency. But we're also working on the earlier ones from Legacy and moving forward on the EPIC. That's for the clerks. For our review staff, they're going off of what's the earliest in their queue, and that's primarily in Legacy. And so what we've done is we've established—Kona, we've gone through all the Legacy residential applications to date. Their Page 12 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 (inaudible) office, there may be some that are going to be returned for corrections and (inaudible) whatnot, that we're waiting for them to be returned. But as far as Legacy residentials, those are completed in Kona. In Hilo, we anticipate being done with Legacy residentials by the end of this month. And then by the end of this year, we are working toward being done with our Legacy permits, residential and nonresidential. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. I'm going to follow up with you directly on the permit—for the reroof permit. The other question I have, I've been in touch with an affordable housing developer. There was a technicality in their application. They had some retaining walls in their plans but it wasn't indexed, and so it's causing some grief within their projects because they're not able to secure permits and move forward. They've shared with me that they've reached out to Mayor's Office, your office, my office. I encouraged them to use the online inquiry form, and they had submitted something the first of November. MR. RODENHURST: Okay. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So I'm just curious about the turnaround time for folks that are submitting via that form, how soon can they expect a response back from the department? I thought it was a couple of days. I again recognize that there's a tremendous lift happening by folks. But just wondering if there's away we can at least acknowledge these inquiries that are coming in; and then triaging, right, figuring out who is best to solve for this particular situation. And this is an affordable housing development, right? Not just one house, it's like a 90-units. So wanting to make sure that we are doing everything we can to support the affordable housing environment. What can we do there? MR. RODENHURST: So we actually have a response time of two days, and so far we've been keeping it. There had been a couple circumstances where it hasn't been due to some folks being out for a couple of days in the beginning of the week, so it's submitted Friday and it's not addressed till Wednesday the next week. But we have been; if we haven't been, we have addressed that and we've made adjustments necessary. If we're falling short of that, please send it over to us, and happy to confirm and happy to follow up on. I've—we've made it very clear to our staff that it's not just the work we're doing here that's important, it's also the communication to the community. So, and I'm not sure which specific instance we're talking about, but if MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I'll report it to you. And again, recognizing that there are a lot of tech issues and glitches in all aspects of the system, so this could have been Page 13 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 one of those things that just kind of got caught in the sidelines. And so, I'll certainly send that over to you. We still have a lot of work to do. You have the ability as Director to greenlight a lot of stuff, and I think you could be, in my opinion, a little bit more liberal in doing that. We don't always need to play it on the safe side. So, thank you. Chair, I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And thanks, Director, for the catch-up. Actually, both directors. You too, Zendo, in other chambers. You know, I fully appreciate the fact that I think the terminology was we burned the ships on the shore, and jumped into this. And I think that is exactly what we needed to do to move this forward because it's really easy to delay. I'm also keenly aware that it's far easier to stay and do the same thing rather than move forward. And there's been a lot of issues. But some of the concerns that have come up. And I appreciate the PowerPoint giving the data. It looks—Director, coming back on your first—your annual permit totals, it looks like in 2021 we have reviewed about a little over 8,000 permits and have issued about 7,000, so does that mean 1,000 got kicked back for whatever reason? MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Now one of the things that we've talked about in any of the numerous meetings we've had, the funding for the department as far as actually paying the application fee gets done at the end not at the beginning, where are we? Because if I recall right, as Administrative Rule, where are we with changing that? MR. RODENHURST: So we do have the plan review fees at the the plan fees at the beginning, so those are assessed at the beginning. There's the permit fees at the end. The plan fees are based off of the valuation of the permit fees. So it's a little bit skewed at this time as where it went through the system. But we do have the plan review fees addressed at the beginning and then the permit fees at the end. And then we have multiple resubmittals, we also have those fees in place, so that those that have three or more resubmittals, they'll be charged increasing amounts because it takes additional time for us for one permit that could be spent on other permits. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. I think that's important. Because you know what, I know we toured this probably a year and a half ago. It was plans sitting, approved Page 14 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 plans, there for literally years, if not decades, that we did all the engineering side, and then it was never actually paid for. So, sounds like we're addressing that. You know, I have to weigh in, what Ms. Kierkiewicz as well as far as now we've got to move this thing forward. We've got to a fiscal recovery that we need to work on, that's construction. We have a tax base that will expand if we get some of this stuff built. And I know we're in a logger jam, I got that. But Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder raised the point about the number of reviewers, and that's the one that jumped out at me. You know, you can only get so much throughput if you are restricted there. Are we actively seeking new reviewers? Because if you have six positions and only three filled, we're running at half-strength at a time when we're trying to make shift. What are we doing to actually change that? MR. RODENHURST: So we have been actively recruiting. We've been actively recruiting for the past year, at least I know since I've been on board here. We're doing our best to get good folks in, and we're just not seeing enough qualified applicants for that. But that's not an excuse for stopping there. What we're doing right now is we're training our inspectors to have, as mentioned previously, inspectors on light duty were able to help, while inspectors that may be not have as many inspections right now would have the time, they're going to be asked to review some of these residential plans and help out there. And that's going to be helpful. We're looking at training them up on reviews and getting them involved, and that's going to give us some kind of supplemental support in the short-term. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. So the reason we're having trouble attracting candidates, is it a financial deal? What are we competing against? Is it lack expertise out there? Where's the problem? MR. RODENHURST: I would argue it's both. It would probably be a combination of the pay rate as well as the experience required for the position, and the knowledge of the Code. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. So that's going to be a longer-term fix. The shorter term, sounds like you're pulling in. When can the public expect we're going to be caught up? I think we went live with EPIC in July. When are you scripted to be all caught up? And this is for you too, Director Kern. MR. RODENHURST: So for us to be done with the Legacy, like I mentioned we're anticipating being done with Legacies end of this year, and being fully in EPIC. To be fully caught up, right now if things are to be stagnant and not see improvements, we're anticipating seeing us get caught up by second quarter of next year. If these improvements are made and we can get these supplemental staff on board and trained and proficient with the reviews, I anticipate we can see that by February of next year. Page 15 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 MR. RICHARDS: Okay, and so how do help push that? MR. RODENHURST: We're currently having our supervisory staff provide the—get the training together, and then we'll be providing that training to our staff and get them trained up on that. And then, we'll be using our time over the next month to get them trained up and good to go for this. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. Because again, we're a bit stagnant here right now. You know, I do appreciate the fact that we're more pushing from the Council standpoint. I appreciate the fact you have a funding side coming forth, and I appreciate the fact that we're changing; I got all that. But now we have to have kind of push for the final end. You're saying first quarter next year, so February 2022 is your expectation, and we should be up and running. And at that point, what is your expectation as far as the turnaround from filing on EPIC until you get an approval or denial? What's your expectation if we're all caught up? MR. RODENHURST: So we're still finalizing what our goals are, based off of the permit type. Some numbers have been turned around from the past that we feel may not be accurate, and so we're going to take into account our proficiencies. But overall, to us what it would look like, would be having a maximum queue of 500, because we see about 500 permits come in, in a month. And so depending on the complexity of these permits, it can make these review times go up. So, that is our initial goal. And we're constantly assessing where we're at as we go through the process and proficiencies, and making sure that is an accurate and achievable goal. And like I mentioned, we haven't finalized you know, for example, if we're saying one month is acceptable for a residential turnaround or something along those lines, we're confirming what is achievable and acceptable. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, I'm going to push back a little harder and say rather than assess it,just set it in the sand. Make a determination, and we can come back and then assess if it's reasonable. But if we leave it too nebulous, we're never going to get there. So, burn that ship. MR. RODENHURST: If I can clarify that? The real reason that we're talking about the assessment is because of the Legacy permits. The Legacy permits, when we reviewed the data, it throws it off. Because of the fact—regardless it's in the system, it still has that hand-to-hand physical paper process. So when we talk about review times, and how they go from Building, to DOH, or to wherever it needs to go to, that is part of the issue with the Legacy, which is resolved in EPIC. Once we get pass the Legacies, we'll have accurate data. But I agree, we will be setting those goals. Page 16 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 MR. RICHARDS: Okay. And I know you have data. The Legacy, whatever it is, cut it in a third and say that's where we're going to start at, work on the EPIC side. MR. RODENHURST: I'll set a goal now, if you want. MR. RICHARDS: Like I said, we'll push this. We want to get this thing done. And I want to support, but I also want to push. Chair, I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Go ahead, Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Aloha, Director. Thanks for that explanation. Very detailed, but I'm still somewhat confused on some of those issues. My question, basically I have two. On the staffing, so how often does your department interview the—I mean, do you have a list of staff—or applicants, potential applicants? And if you do, how often are these applicants interviewed? Because I know you said there's some qualification issues. Do you have a list to choose from? Or, is this Civil Service? I'm just trying to figure out why is it— aside taside from what Mr. Richards shared on the difficulties, I'm just trying to figure out what is really the problem with getting people to apply. Number one, money you said—qualifications. MR. RODENHURST: So the qualifications are set by the position. MS. DAVID: Right. MR. RODENHURST: So we have the qualifications there, they're posted. We open recruitment available. MS. DAVID: Okay. MR. RODENHURST: I do believe we've gone through at least two iterations of interview process, and folks did not pan out through that. That being said, we do have the pay rate being what it is. We are looking at other options. I'll be looking at maybe a tiered system, as far as Plan Reviewer I, II, III, et cetera. We're looking at the options further, and that kind of coincides with the training. But as of right now, as it stands with the current position requirements and the current pay rate, we're not seeing a whole lot of people apply for the position. MS. DAVID: And are these positions advertised outside of the County listing of potential applicants, or is this ? MR. RODENHURST: I don't know off the top of my head. I'd have to confirm that. Page 17 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 MS. DAVID: Okay. Because if this is a strictly internal Civil Service kind of position, I'm just curious whether you guys have gone outside to find qualified people, in the general population, right? When you open it up, you might get more people to apply. You mentioned one of the qualifications was knowledge of the Code, and what does that requirement entail? Like, do you folksI mean MR. RODENHURST: There's an open-book test on the Code, and there are questions that involveI don't want to get too deep into it because that's part of the review process, right? MS. DAVID: Right. Okay. So you need a specific type of applicant then, that's very well-versed in ? Okay, and that takes care of the question about outside. Unless they've done this before and are able to apply and are familiar with this process than, that might be some of the issues. Okay, my second question. The owner-builder process, you mentioned they do not qualify for the expedited process, and that is because on the expedited process there are certain things that is understood they have professionals; that they have an engineer or whatever, an architect that goes along with a full-on application, right, if they ? What's the difference? MR. RODENHURST: So both will have licensed designer on them. MS. DAVID: Right. MR. RODENHURST: So that's the same. What the difference is, is the standardization of the constructability of it. A licensed contractor is a lot more standard than an owner builder. Owner builder can be anyone, from someone who has 40 years experience in carpentry, has built three or four houses in four different municipalities, to your first-time DIY (Do It Yourself)that they wanted to have their shot at it. It's a broad range. And as we know, even with good plans, if the follow-through is not up to speed, they're still going to have some mistakes here and there, and to cut down on the risk of substandard work and to try and expedite reviews—and keep in mind we're doing our duty to ensure life and safety we want to make sure that process, that we can expedite as much as possible without compromising that. MS. DAVID: So an owner builder, don't they come in with approved plans that was you know, if they wanted to build their own house, done by an architect that shows you what they want to do, and then you can go from there, what kind of permit they need? MR. RODENHURST: No, when you submit the application, you declare if you have the owner's authorization, and you declare if you're owner builder or contractor. The plans and the contractor are required prior to issuance. So Page 18 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 permits are not issued unless the plans are approved and the contract or owner builder are declared. MS. DAVID: Okay, because that's the that's the only complaint I've been getting, is the owner builder, you know, that are having such difficulties in this transition part. So, I'm trying to understand that. Okay, for now I'll yield. Thank you, Chair. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. David. Go ahead, Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. Okay, I just have a couple—quick clarifying question, when did we functionally go to the single-permit system? MR. RODENHURST: When do we functionally? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. MR. RODENHURST: That was when EPIC went live. MS. KIMBALL: So that was concurrent with EPIC. Okay, great. Thanks. And then the other question I have, do you have any rough estimates? Thank you for all of this data, and these graphs are very helpful and useful. Do you have any sense as to the rate of like tickets that come in for IT issues, and email questions coming in to you folks? Are we seeing—is that remaining about steady, or are we starting to see a decline in that? MR. RODENHURST: We have seen a decline in that in the past couple of weeks, since we made it very public and we have addressed a bunch of these. I don't have the data numbers on hand, but we have seen a decline. There was some miscommunication, where folks were sending requests for information directly to staff rather than to the EPIC request for assistance. So there was a breakdown in the response times there, and that's because we have that request for assistance filtered program where we have folks going through that and confirming these responses are in. Whereas if it's to a particular staff member, I'm not aware of it. You know, if our staff is not all cc'd on that, we wouldn't be able to track it. But the ones that we have been able to track, like I said, they've gotten responses within two days; and there have been a couple of times that it didn't, and there were excusable reasons for why that was so. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. I think that's one of the metrics I'd like to see if you're back before us again, I appreciate that. Just kind of following up on what Council Member Kierkiewicz said and Council Member Richards mentioned a little bit, is thereobviously, first-come first-serve, first-in first-out is the most fair way to approach things. But is there any mechanism to kind of go through the low-hanging fruit and pick off the ones Page 19 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 that are easy to do, and just get them out the door so you're bringing down the overall total backlog? MR. RODENHURST: Yes, and we are working on those priorities. So for example, we have multiple staff, I mean, we're short-staffed but a multiple staff. And we do have folks that are more catered and more efficient at—for example, residential reviews than nonresidential reviews. And so at every level of the process, we're looking at how we can prioritize and address what the queue looks like, because it is a function of not just what we're reviewing but what's being applied and what the backlog looks like. So, we're looking at what we can do to prioritize, obviously, projects that would service the community, medical projects. Community government projects, we're seeing if we can have something for that. We have our emergency projects that are established in our Code, as well as our PV, our temporary structural permits, our electrical and plumbing only ones, those ones that will require lesser of a review. More quick turnaround time. We're looking at how we would equitably prioritize those. So we're in the process of working through that, and we're taking a look at different things. One of the things we did during the EPIC launch was we did prioritize electrical and plumbing due to the fact that those were some of the ones that were easier for our folks to train on for the new system. And so that's another level of something that we're looking at during the process because that's going to be where we can identify whether there's any IT issues. For example, if something goes down for the day or if there's a component of the IT, they weren't able to do, say plan reviews, well, we can do the administrative reviews for electrical and plumbing still, we're going to focus on those. We do take those into account. And we are working with our supervisory staff to assess where we're at as far as IT. But also, in our backlog and permits coming in, applicationsI mean, we've seen a lot of PV permits come in previously, for that tax credit at the end of September. So we do recognize that there is a kind of a seasonal thing, whereas some permits will come in at a certain time and we want to make sure that we get ahead of those. So I don't know how that was done past, but I know we're looking to make this make sense in the future. MS. KIMBALL: So you are looking at developing sort of a strategic policy that addresses things in a way that is equitable but maybe more efficient overall, which I appreciate. And I think that what would be helpful to this body is that as you start to generate that, you bring that before us so we can have a conversation, so we can answer questions to our constituents and just provide our two cents about the perception of fairness on it. How is it going with reviews that are with folks outside the department, like Fire. And how is that being integrated? Is that going smoothly? Page 20 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 MR. RODENHURST: So far it's been okay. But we do have an issue, the fact that we have been focused on Legacies primarily, and that's where the other agencies get involved. As we get more into the EPIC-only ones, those ones will see—rather the true interactions there, we have seen folks, especially DOH (State Department of Health), they've been quick on their reviews there. And one of the benefits of the system is that we go from that Legacy to the EPIC process, where instead of it changing hands, changing offices, once it gets past plan review, it will go to—kind of open it up to everybody, so Building will be able to review, Electrical will be able to review, Plumbing. You know, no matter if it's a Fire Department review, or if it's going to be a DOH review, they'll be able to get it all at once and concurrently, so they won't have to wait on anybody. So as of right now, they've kind of gotten up to speed on what to expect, but we haven't seen it, you know, really in the thick of it, and we're looking forward to seeing that by the end of this year. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. That was one of the benefits of transitioning to this system of course, it's that ability for concurrent review. But what you're saying right now is it doesn't sound like any integration issues with those non-departmental entities are contributing at all to the backlog. That seems to be running relatively smoothly. MR. RODENHURST: And we've been engaging with them in conversations, as far as what do these statutes mean, you know, because we don't want people to misinterpret the statute definitions as well as how do we input in our plan comments, and if there are any issues, how can we address it? Because primarily, the Plan Review Section, the IT portion, is housed with DPW, so we want to make sure we get ahead of any issues. And if there is something that's not working, we get on it immediately. MS. KIMBALL: Great. Thank you. There is always going to be a little bit of a backlog, and there should be, right? You don't want to have everything cleaned out and nobody have anything to do. Do you have a benchmark in terms of what is the acceptable backlog? And what is your target monthly rate for reviews through the department? MR. RODENHURST: So I mentioned earlier, 500 is our current goal because we see about 500 come in a month. And so dependent on our review process for nonresidential and residential, that's something I think is maybe a little bit over-zealous, but I think is achievable. Especially if it's a nonresidential, it takes a couple of months to review. But with this expedited process, we're hoping that the not the expedited process, but the EPIC process, the concurrent review process, hopefully those review times will reduce because we have those Page 21 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 communications with the other agencies. So 500 is our current goal on that, as far as how many we're anticipating for a backlog. As far as how many we want to get done in a month, I think yeah, if that's the case, if we see about 500 a month, that would—well, if we're seeing about 500 a month, I would say you know, our goal is to get everything submitted in the month review, so we would like to get to about 400 reviews in a month. I think that would be achievable. But I definitely would argue, you know, if we have 500 in the queue and 400 reviewed, where's the other 100? And I think that would address the fact that we have, you know, varying reviews with nonresidential and residential. So, it really depends, too, on how many of these permits we get. But 500 for a backlog, and I would say 400 to 500 per-month review is our goals. MS. KIMBALL: Great. So I want to follow that up with a question about staffing, and we've talked about that to some extent. And you said that as of this last week, you guys were basically up to the same productivity you were prior to the implementation of EPIC in terms of reviews. So my question is, do you actually need those six more people, or is the EPIC process improving efficiency, such that maybe you need one or two more in order to hit that target, you know, 500 a month-400 or 500 a month in productivity within utilizing this system. And I recognize that there might be some differences because of specialty areas. And then then also, of course, you've trained people to help with EPIC, that that's not their normal job. But really, if you could give us a solid evaluation of how many more people do you really need given that EPIC is intended to improve productivity on its own? MR. RODENHURST: Well, at least the current available positions we need, beyond that it's not clear at this time because we do have to assess based off of what we have. Like I mentioned, we have this backlog. It's been there for some time, and so we're addressing that, and we don't want to have that backlog continue. So obviously, at this point, we would need more folks. To the extent of how much EPIC is going help there is yet to be determined based off of the fact that we're still bordering Legacy and EPIC application reviews. How many more? I don't know. But we do need the additional three plan reviewers, and that would help us get to where we need to be. I don't think any less would be wise at this time because we have such a backlog. And again, the complexity of these plans differ. It could be a simple electrical upgrade. It could be something that's complicated. It could be a giant project that incorporates plumbing, electrical; and building and structural. So there are a lot of variety there. And the fact that we see a lot of construction booming, even right now when we have high-material costs and short material supply. We're seeing that trend, where people are just applying more and more as we go. So if we're going to have to handle that increase, I think where we are, as far as Page 22 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 our positions now, that's a good a start. And we'll know more once we get fully proficient with EPIC, and really just operating in that environment completely. MS. KIMBALL: Great. Thank you. I think this is another metric that I'd like to have us keep track of, and have you come back and share with us again. As the gears start to turn more smoothly, and we're kind of at the point of where we expect EPIC to be, operating at normal function, that's something that we should all evaluate together. And if you can break up this productivity in that sort of specialty area, that might be useful to us, too. You know,just a request for future meetings, to have that metric continue to be available to us. Thank you again for your presentation today. I yield, Chair. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Go ahead, Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, thank you. You know, I do apologize. I wasn't here for the last half-hour, so I may be asking questions that have been asked and answered. Just give me some leeway, because I need it for my own perspective. First of all, let me start up by saying, you know, Ikaika, and to Zendo, and to Mayor Roth, you guys promised that this thing would come on line by July, and it did. And, you know, really this is a system that—you know, the whole concept of it was inherited by all of you, so we all understand that. So you folks really should be given a lot of credit in, you know, putting your money where your mouth was. You did it, right? Having said that though, and you know, really no indictment on you or this present administration. You know, I really do view this is you know, I had this conversation with Mayor Roth, about two weeks ago at a groundbreaking, and we disagree. You know, we can agree to disagree. I view this system, after having really thought about it, looked at it, watched their webinar and all of that stuff, it still involves the human component, and in that regard I think this is a very expensive, glorified tracking system, okay. There may be some nuances that might enhance the permitting process, but it doesn't really by its nature speed up the process, in my opinion. I'm going to get to the expedited part later on. But let me talk about the staffing, well,just ask about the staffing. You know, one timeI rarely talk to my wife about Council business, but every so often I'll just kind of throw something out there because she's like my common-sense compass. One day I said, and this was long time ago, I said, "What do you think about having more police officers? Isn't that a good thing having more police officers?" And then her quick response to me was, "Well, all depends if they're good police officers, right?" So now I'm going to get to the staffing issue. What are the qualifications of your plan—or these plan reviewers? What are the minimum qualifications? Page 23 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 MR. RODENHURST: I don't have them on me, but if I recall correctly, I believe it is five-year's experience in plan review. MR. CHUNG: So pretty extensive then? So where are you going to find new people then? MR. RODENHURST: That's a good question. Folks that have experience in plan review, typically we would find within the department, within other municipalities, that have experience this type of job. MR. CHUNG: But wouldn't they already be plan reviewers? MR. RODENHURST: So you can have inspectors that review plans. MR. CHUNG: Oh, I see. MR. RODENHURST: And that's experience right there. MR. CHUNG: So that would suffice for MR. RODENHURST: Or it could be another—you know, from one of the other counties or another state that you have experience in plan review, you can qualify through that. MR. CHUNG: And then you talked about filling available positions, this is in response to Ms. Kimball's question, so how many more available positions do you have? MR. RODENHURST: We have three plan reviewer positions open. MR. CHUNG: Okay. But if you needed more, you would have to create the positions and come here for the approval, right? MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MR. CHUNG: Okay, so that settles that. You know, another thing that we talked about sometimes, and maybe this was asked and answered, is the use of statistics, right? Did you guys talk about this? You know, because I see here, you have total permits applied; then you have a graph, total permits reviewed and total permits issued, but what it doesn't tell me, and maybe you answered this at some point along the line of your discussion, but how long the permits that have been applied for have been in the queue. Because these permits that have been issued or reviewed could have been something that was waiting a long time. It doesn't necessarily mean that it coincides with those permits that have been applied for, you see. So it's like you have applied, and if they have all been reviewed and all Page 24 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 issued, hey fantastic, right? But I think—I've got to believe that this is really a backlog that we're dealing with. So, if we could get a better picture on how long building permits are waiting to be approved and issued. Yeah, that might be a good bit of information. MR. RODENHURST: Is there a particular type? MR. CHUNG: Huh? MR. RODENHURST: Is there a particular type? MR. CHUNG: I don't know. I don't know much about this thing. I'm just kind of using my own wife's common-sense on this stuff, right? MR. RODENHURST: And data is a fickle thing like that, where it depends on what data set you're using. The data we have available to us is so broad and ranging, and it's a variety, that it's hard to just to give that all out. It is confusing to just run and dump all the data. MR. CHUNG: Right. Yeah. MR. RODENHURST: So if there is a particular type you would like or some kind of average, happy to go and see if we can get something there for you. MR. CHUNG: Well, we can talk about that. Because if you look at this, the graphics, it looks like it all corresponds, right? The amount that's applied for, the amount reviewed, and the amount issued, they all look pretty much the same, so it looks good on paper. I think it might be a little bit misleading, in my opinion, yeah. So, we can talk about that. Now with regard to the expedited process, you know, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder was asking you about—you know, what exactly is the process? And you kind of—you went through it, but could you go through it one more time again for me? MR. RODENHURST: Yeah. So the expedited review process will have a MR. CHUNG: Right, and first of all, this is only for residential building permit applications, right, in which the proper certification of a licensed professional and construction to be performed by a license contractor will be done. That's where we're having expedited process, right? MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MR. CHUNG: Okay. So someone turns in an application, it is properly certified by a licensed professional. What does that mean,properly certified? Page 25 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 MR. RODENHURST: Well, that means that they have it stamped and approved by a licensed engineer or architect. MR. CHUNG: One more thing too, so for all residential buildings, do you have an architect or an engineer stamp it? MR. RODENHURST: Yes. MR. CHUNG: Okay. So everybody does that anyway, right? MR. RODENHURST: Right MR. CHUNG: Not everybody is going to have their MR. RODENHURST: There are times when people have submitted without the stamp on there, and they are rejected for it, for the license. MR. CHUNG: But now it's not going to be rejected? MR. RODENHURST: No, it will be rejected if they don't have the license stamp. I just want to point out, the reason why we clarify that quite often is because some folks will say, "Hey, how come my plan's not acceptable? I made it myself. I take full responsibility." It's required by our Code that a plan be submitted and approved by a licensed—and stamped by a licensed architect or engineer. MR. CHUNG: Right. Okay, but that's required right now, right? MR. RODENHURST: Across the board, yeah. MR. CHUNG: Okay, so you do that. So if it's stamped or certified by a licensed professional, which it has to be, and the work is to be performed by a contractor, now what happens? They submit their application, and then what? MR. RODENHURST: So when they submit the application, they have to have their Owner Declaration, their Project Declaration form. Those got to be in. MR. CHUNG: What is that? MR. RODENHURST: Owner Declaration form. It is the form that signifies that the owner of the property is agreeable to this work. MR. CHUNG: They have to do that anyway, right? MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, everyone has to do that. Page 26 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 MR. CHUNG: Okay. All right. MR. RODENHURST: As we talked about, Project Declaration, everyone has to do that. It identifies the licensed contractor. It also declares if you're the owner builder or if you're going to be using a general contractor for the project. MR. CHUNG: Right. MR. RODENHURST: Okay. Now, with those in place, our staff, our administrative staff, so our clerks will review to make sure it's a complete set of plans; that's across the board, any residential building application. MR. CHUNG: Yeah. Okay. MR. RODENHURST: Once it's there, it gets forwarded on to Planning. Planning does their review. And once it gets through Planning, it comes back to us; and in EPIC, it would be us as well as DOH, DEM, whoever else needs to be on that plan. At that point, our building viewers, so our Plan Reviewers, will do a life and safety review. Any obvious concerns, it will be a review for that—any obvious life and safety. They will not do a thorough Code check on that one. MR. CHUNG: So why don't we just do that for everything? MR. RODENHURST: Because what we see is that if we would do that for everything and things were missed or things weren't touched on that and they come out on the build side, it can cause significant cost to the owner. So when these projects are built, there will be some changes that were missed at the review process. MR. CHUNG: Does this require a Code change? MR. RODENHURST: No. MR. CHUNG: Well, why not? MR. RODENHURST: Because our staff are reviewing it, and we are making sure that it's reviewed. MR. CHUNG: Okay, I'll take a look at this too, to see if this expedited process needs a Code change. But right now you're saying it doesn't need it. Why don't you guys require anyone who comes in for an expedited process fill out an indemnification and hold harmless clause? How simple. Then you guys off the hook already. They say they go through expedited process—and you've got to also have errors and omissions on the part of that licensed professional. Make Page 27 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 sure that they have adequate errors and omissions coverage, and have the applicant sign out one of those forms. And, you know, it gets back—I've said this over and over again, and Mitch actually mentioned it at the groundbreaking, that landmark case Cootey versus Sun Investment, 1970 case or something, and Big Island case; flooding, yes, but same concept. When the County government gets involved in fooling around with plans that have been already certified by a professional, we now become liable. Why do we want to expose ourselves to that kind of stuff? We've created a bureaucracy over here, you know, over time. I think it's unnecessary, in my opinion. But, we can discuss it more. I just wanted to get a little bit more clarification on some items. And I really do appreciate. You know, Ikaika, as I've said, I want to reiterate, you guys inherited this and you guys really saw it through, as you promised. I give you guys a lot of credit. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Go ahead, Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Thank you. Let's see, you know, the more information we get, it seems the more questions we have here. But I do want to speak to the data that was presented today. And as you said, it can be a fickle thing. And I think moving forward, what would be helpful to us is not as it's presented by year. But we want to see these different types of data made out next to each other so we know what's been applied for, versus what's been touched, versus what's been approved in one snapshot; not trying to go through ten different pages, when each page is covering a year or the last three years. Because that really helps toI don't know what picture that might paint, is on what's happening in the department. But, it would definitely the public and us to really make sense of that. You know, and I'll just say I don't really hear a clear way of how we're going to address those three vacancies. I think it's been mentioned kind of across the table. It seems that's one of our potentially one of our big solutions. So hopefully when we come back, we might have some progress on that front. And then lastly, you did mention that the maintenance cost of this system. Is it $380,00 a year? Is that for as long as we use the system? MR. RODENHURST: It's derivative also of how many users we have, as well as the data size that we have in storage, and our reporting environment to work on custom reports to give some of this data that we're asking for. As of right now, yes, that's what it looks like for an annual cost. MR. INABA: And that's just based on the numbers that we see come across the desk right now, is that correct? Page 28 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 MR. RODENHURST: That's the numbers provided by Tyler and what our agreement has with them. Definitely have a future room to negotiate with them and see what it's going to be looking like in the future, what we can adjust. But they are also probably going to see adjustments, as well. I don't want to get to deep into what they may or may not bring forward because I don't want to affect any negotiation we may have. But we will have conversations with what this maintenance looks like moving forward. MR. INABA: Okay. Yeah, I think that's something we might want to keep an eye on, $380,000 a year for a system that, as was mentioned, maybe isn't helping us do any better or be any quicker. But we have all the data. MR. RODENHURST: I would argue, it does help us to work better. I mean, when you have a process before that encompassed going from a clerk's desk to Planning Department's desk, then back to Building Department, then over to Fire, then over to DOH, and then back to Building, whereas now it's in the electronic environment. When a clerk reviews it in theirs, it goes to Planning; from Planning it goes to everyone, concurrently. Whereas before, these paper-plans were reserved for the singular person. Once they're done, signed off, it moves to the next. So we are seeing time cut down where we have concurrent reviews. Say, for example, a residential took an hour for Building, an hour for Electrical, but you still have that transference time. Now concurrently, theoretically, you took two hours and put it into one. Now, that's saying a lot, and again we're talking about data. But it's possible. MR. INABA: Okay. So, Director Rodenhurst, you said that February is going to be the time that you can we'll kind of be MR. RODENHURST: If our initiatives to supplement our review, and if we can get some better recruitment for our Building Plan Reviewers, if everything lines up correctly, I think that by the end of February we can see some significant improvements, and get to that point where meet our goals of 500 in the queue. Maybe about 400 or 500 per month, I think that's achievable. MR. INABA: Thank you. Director Kern, do you concur with that date? (Note: At this time, Planning Director Zendo Kern came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KERN: I can't speak to that date because I don't control that date. What I can speak to though, is our process as they come through. We're able to review building permits quite quickly, generally happening in the same day. In other cases, it may take a couple days. Page 29 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 Just real quickly on the system. The system doesn't take away the human factor, that's for sure. But from what I've seen with it in our department, it does increase our processing time. It makes things faster. It makes things more efficient. It takes some weight off of our clerks, and it allows us to be a little more dynamic and have more optionality. As I was saying before, we can actually assign plans across the island with ease in the same day, and the same moment, the same minute, basically. And so we can really keep up with this. So like I said, at Planning, we don't have a backlog right now. As soon as plans come in, we're happy to, you know,just process those. It's awesome. I mean, the Bluebeam software, the intelligence it has with the measuring, being able to put the stamps on it and not have to deal with three sets of plans. I would say it has increased our processing time for building permits,probably we're doing it twice as fast, generally speaking. So, I feel like we need to give the system a chance. There's other issues we're dealing with. But overall, I feel good about the system, and as far as it improving the overall process. When I came in, our clerk in Kona was just so slammed, couldn't keep up at all. And since moving into EPIC, we're actually able to maintain. I'll also say too, for hiring, it's been a challenge across the board. We're running pretty much consistently, about 20 percent understaffed. Prior, there would be, say just for clerks, there would be a list of clerks basically you could pull from. The list would maybe be 40-deep, from my understanding. Right now, the list really doesn't exist. We don't have people wanting to do that work as much as we've seen in the past. And I think there's a myriad of different reasons, from stimulus to costs really increasing as far as living, and it doesn't pay a lot of money. So, it's very challenged. I know it's a little bit more than what you asked for Council Member Inaba, but that was my quick-take on it. MR. INABA: Great. Thank you. I think I'll probably be seeing you folks back here in a few months, and hopefully some of the solutions that you folks are proposing can be applied and we'll make some progress there. So, good luck. And I think I maybe want to say too for the public watching, please do reach out to your Council Member if you are having problems, because it helps us to know what otherwise might only go through the EPIC's messaging system, or to the inspectors, or whoever that you are working with. So it helps to keep this on our radar, as well. So, mahalo. Chair, I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. I'm going to go back to Ms. Kimball. But I want to wrap it up, we're getting close to our lunch hour. And so go ahead, Ms. Kimball. Page 30 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 MS. KIMBALL: I'll be quick. Thank you, Chair. Yeah,just—Council Member Chung's talk about statistic's heavy-thinking. One of the metric—or representation that I think would be useful is date of submission on one access and then date of issuance of another. And we should see a trend, you know, a migration towards a narrower window between these two time periods. So if that's something that you can provide to us next time you're in front of us, that would be great. And then I just want to say, you know, I've always been really supportive of the transition to this system. I do think it will make things more efficient. It's mostly around that concurrency issue. But the other thing that it does, and this is even more critical to me, and you mentioned this, people are no longer asking where is my permit, but why is it, where it is? And so what's huge here is the transparency, the tracking, and just the accountability that comes from a more open system. And so I'm glad to see this progress. It really wasn't a choice, but I'm glad to see that we've made this progress. Thanks. I yield. MR. RODENHURST: If I can comment on that real quick? So for the date submitted issue, definitely that's a good metric to have. And it was previously requested by Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder that we issue that. We do have those. We resumed the monthly permits issued on our website, so we do have that data up, when it was applied and when it was issued. But yeah, we'll look into that data. One thing I want to touch on, it's been brought up a couple times, we haven't been able to choose this system. You're right, we weren't able to choose, it's based off of previous decisions of previous administrations. But we're able to choose when and where. It was never a good time to go live with this, never will be. We've just had to do what would make sense as far as getting us to the right level, IT wise and there were a lot of challenges we faced. I mentioned so, but like earlier, if we had to elected to go later or earlier, there's a possibility that would have changed a lot of things and caused some severe consequences, system crashes and whatnot. Because the Silver Light coding versus the Bluebeam HTML coding that the system is currently under would not have been compatible. So there aspects we did consider, going live with this. And it wasn't the easiest choice, as we said previously. This is where we had to make the stand on this, where we burn the ships at the shore. So, it's rough. It's gotten better, but we're still in a rough patch, and we're working at it, the clear through that, and to get into an optimal area. So thank you for bringing that up. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Director; and thank you to the rest of my colleagues. I'm just going to take a minute to really bing in on you, Director Rodenhurst. I want you to take all of this feedback, because we're hungry for it. We're hungry for the information so that we can communicate that to our Page 31 PWMTC-15 November 16,2021 constituency. And it really boils down to how long will this permit take me. That's the bottom-line. If we can answer that question, people can begin to plan. When I saw the press release of 1,500 permits in the system, that's our economic recovery plan. If I were to value 1,500 permits at$100,000, it's a $150 million. And like Mr. Richards said, our real property tax rates collection will sky rocket. We need to mind this and treat it like the economy that it is. Thank you for explaining that nobody's cutting in line, but I have to agree with my colleagues that we should be paying attention to owner builder. Those are our local families. And the quicker we can provide that housing opportunities for them, we begin to see a thriving community. I'm just going to leave it there. But I will be inviting you back, maybe let's strive for the first week in February, if not, the first week in March. And take all of this feedback from my colleagues about the data that they want to see, the productivity. You know, as Mr. Inaba said, kind of lining it up alongside each other, because reviewed permits doesn't equate to issued permits, and thank you for making that part clear. With that, we have a motion to close file on this communication. All in those in favor,please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 417.7: The motion to close file on Comm. 417.7 and all related Filed communications was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy —8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung— 1. Excused: None. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. (There were none.) CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. That brings us to the end of the agenda. Page 32