Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PWMTC 2022/03/22 2020-2022 Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit 19th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii March 22, 2022 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit ORDER: was called to order at 2:37 p.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 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: (There were none.) CHR. LEE LOY: Straight into Communications, Mr. Clerk. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 640: REQUESTS AN UPDATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ON THE ELECTRONIC PROCESSING AND INFORMATION CENTER (EPIC)PERMITTING SYSTEM From Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, dated February 17, 2022. Motion to Close File: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to close file on Comm. 640. Seconded by Mr. Inaba. CHR. LEE LOY: Ms. Kierkiewicz, it's your communication. Please lead our discussion. PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair Lee Loy. If I could call forward leadership from Public Works. Last year I believe, Halloween actually, the Mayor had issued a press release talking about an expedited permitting process within EPIC because there 1,500 applications, residential applications, that were just stuck in the cue. I don't think we've had a report back from Public Works since then, so really curious to just get a high-level overview of how things have been advancing within your department, as it relates to the EPIC System. I think we're excited to kind of dive in to really see the numbers. And so with that, Director, I'm going to turn it over to you for a presentation. Thank you. (Note: At this time, Public Works Director Ikaika Rodenhurst came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Go ahead, Mr. Rodenhurst. For my colleagues, we have Communication 640.1, which is the slide-deck that Mr. Rodenhurst has for us. MR. RODENHURST: Ikaika Rodenhurst, Director of Public Works. Mahalo for this time to update on the EPIC System. I have this presentation here today. So back in July we started with the implementation of EPIC, actually that's from paper to electronic. A lot of folks are wondering if the new system, you know, could be loved in its current format. Many felt they were waiting in vain for their permits, and that the system should have been easy. I know that a lot of people felt frustration, and we did hear from multiple folks in the community about them kind of getting up and standing up that the system was broken. As we progressed into the new year, I can say with confidence our team is jamming, and we are hopeful that this is the start of our redemption song to show that we are working with this system, and also recognize that we have a way to go to satisfy the community. We're not there yet. So, I'll start off with our current process. (Note: At this time, Mr. 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 the video archives online from the County's homepage at www.hawaiicounty.gov. A hard copy of the presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 640.1.) MR. RODENHURST: (Referring to Comm. 640.1). This is our updated application flowchart(Slide 2). This is for applications that are on the system, typically they'll go through our intake process, then it will go to Planning for land use review, and then once it passes there it goes through a multi-agency plan review, which is everybody that's appropriate for that type of work class. From Page 2 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 there it gets to out-processing and invoicing, and once that's paid and confirmed it gets to issuance. So where are we at and what happened these past few months? If we look at where we started back in August, our intake was dismal. We had issues with the new system going online and having transfer of the data from the legacy system not fully making it over, Clerk's going to go back and check what's happening, manually updating. We had issues with the IT (Information Technology), communications not being there completely, and we were inconsistent. That affected our issues because our Clerk's were bogged down with that ability to go back and get that data. The important part about this slide (Slide 3) I want to point out is that we were able to maintain reviews. We were all still reviewing, whether it be through Planning, through DPW (Department of Public Works), we did our jobs to review and weren't held up and just sitting around twiddling our thumbs. We still worked through it. When we get to how we progressed from August to this past January, this graph shows how we increased our intakes. This is our reviews, our unique reviews (Slide 3). This isn't permits review, this is how many touches we've gone through, whether it be resulting in acceptance, rejection, whatnot. And this is broken up by intake,planning and my multi-agency. So you can see Planning was very strong in the beginning. They got most of their work, passed it on to us, and we started to get caught up. We talked about that backlog. If you look here, we went through the initial process and we started improving to the point where in January we were giving out nearly 900 reviews in the intake alone. This next slide shows how we issued our permits. This is building permits, compared to what we issued in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. As you can see, August our issue numbers were down. As I explained, we had a lot of issues with our system. September, we increased; October we started flattening out; November is when we started picking up steam; December, we lost a little of that, and historically because it's the end of the year we have drops in services due to staffing. Once we hit January, we started issuing numbers we hadn't seen before and doubling up nearly on what we did in the past. February was even greater than that. I think in January we had 176 issued and in February we had 583 issued. Some of the big numbers in that are in January we had 35 new residential building permits issued and 22 residential PV(Photovoltaic)permits. For new residential, that's in the one permit system. That's not in the previous electrical, plumbing, and building system. So that number could be extrapolated to triple that, because of the fact that it is review all of the electrical and the plumbing and the building aspects of that new residential. Page 3 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Director, say that one more time, sorry. So the building permits issued here on this slide (Slide 5), this does or does not include electrical and plumbing? MR. RODENHURST: It does, but when we talk about the new residential MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Do you have those numbers? MR. RODENHURST: Yes. So that includes 159 residential electrical permits only, 79 residential plumbing permits only, 35 new residential construction. Those 35 include a review of the electrical and plumbing within those permits. Historically on these other bars for 2019 and 2020, those only include building permits. It doesn't include the electrical and plumbing that is coinciding with that one permit. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Thank you for that. I think going forward it would be helpful to sort of make that distinction in the line charts, what exactly is making up this total amount. Because I think just looking at it might be slightly misleading. Thank you. MR. RODENHURST: Okay. Then I said in February we had 583 issued, so that included 167 PV and 49 new residential permits. This shows how many were applied and when we started off, we nearly got 1,000 new permits applied in August(Slide 6). As we went thought the system it dwindled down to anywhere between 300 and 500, and that's normal. As I said, rather than having those electrical and plumbing ones that historically were part of this system, now they're incorporated into those new building permits. This is our valuation (Slide 7), the valuation of the work that was being issued. This is here to show that we were not being preferential to any valuation ones coming forward. It was in-took on a first come-first serve basis and whatever passed through the process is what passed through the process. MR. CHUNG: Can I make one comment too, if you don't mind? MR. RODENHURST: Yes. MR. CHUNG: Next time, if there is a next time,with these first four graphs, if you can use the same numbers, because at the top for building permits applied you have 1,200; for building issued the top number is 700; for reviews you have 1,000 at the top; and for the intake reviews issued 1,600. The reason why I say you should use the same numbers is it's kind of misleading when you're looking at the size of each of these things as you're going. You want to be able to Page 4 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 compare yeah, similar numbers. But that's just my thought. You know, visually yeah, it might be misleading somewhat. MR. RODENHURST: And visually the intention wasn't to compare it, intakes reviewed issues, to reviews, to building permits issued, to building permits applied. But the intention was each graph was to show that type of progress. Because there's various types of progress. MR. CHUNG: Right. Right, but at the same time, you know, we want to cross reference. I mean for me, I'd like to be able to cross reference, yeah. That's all. Sorry to interrupt. MR. RODENHURST: No problem. This shows our number of building permits issued for residential (Slide 8). The light green represents our legacy permits, and the dark green represents our EPIC submitted permits. So as you can see, we have progressed in our review of these EPIC permits, which shows how we're able to progress in getting more issued. And as we go through the legacy permits, we're slowly seeing those get phased out and they get completed which allows us to focus more on these EPIC ones, which are faster due to the new process with multi-agency review. And this shows some of our non-residentials, as well (Slide 9). And as you can see, we're able to process the non-residentials through the EPIC process much faster now. And we'll get to that in a little bit about how that's compared to before apples-to-apples on legacy, versus multi-agency review for EPIC only. And then finally I have a graph showing our permits issued, over the calendar year, showing 2020, 2021, and 2022 thus far (Slide 10), showing that comparison of how we're doing in the permits issued. And as you can see here, we're doing exceedingly better in the EPIC system for January and February. Finally, we get to Building Permits Issued and showing what our annual totals were for building permits (Slide 11). Historically in 2020, we issued a little over 3,000 building permits. In 2021, a little bit better than that. In 2022, based off of our current averages, with these averages I believe we haveI'm sorry it's not coming up right now, but we went from about 226 on average in the past, in 2020, to getting about 526 on average in 2022, based off of the first two months. We're still seeing those numbers go up. In fact like I said, we did 476 issued in January, 583 issued in February, and finally 265, what we're currently doing for the half the month of March for building permits. And so we continue to see that progress. We can see us issuing more than we have in the past. One of the other things that we are doing is issuing monthly metrics to our County website, showing where we are for our overall residential and non-residential (Slide 12). The number of applications that have gone through intake in the past 30 days, the average turnaround time for applications through intake based off of Page 5 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 the past six months, the number of applications that have gone through multi-agency review in the past 30 days, the average turnaround time for those in that multi-agency review over the past six months, and the number of permits issued in the past 30 days, and the average issuance time of permits issued in the past six months. Obviously, this initial data is not what we're happy about, 133 days for residential and 226 for non-residential is not ideal, but it shows where we are. And we will be issuing new monthly metrics on a monthly basis. The next one is due out next week Monday, and it will give us our February metrics to show how we've improved, how we've progressed to here. This will be issued consistently, and we'll be including more detail as we go. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Director, do you have—go back to that last slide. Thank you. So again, the Mayor talked about an expedited process in October. Do you have data to track how you sort of made the implementation, November, December? Because I'm just seeing January data,but just wondering when the expedited process was supposed to take place, what exactly did that look like? How many of the 1,500 were cleared out of the backlog? MR. RODENHURST: So we had a hard time getting that data. We still are currently confirming that data. We had about 115 that qualified for the process, and which ones actually made it through the entire process. Because once they got to rejection, they went back to the standard process. So if it was part of that expedited review qualification and there was some type of rejection, it would go back to that standard process, which therefore wouldn't expedite it. It would have still go through the life and safety. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Can you give me an example of a rejection? And when they have to go through the process? Does that entail having to resubmit everything? Maybe going back and submitting, and going through the whole intake process again? MR. RODENHURST: No, they have to correct the corrections as listed through the review, whether it be electrical,plumbing, structural, or building. Whatever their comments are, based off of the current codes, they would have to address that, go back in and resubmit that, and then it would be in-took through the process, and those comments would be addressed. If confirmed, if they were addressed, if they can move forward; or if they weren't addressed, then still need work to address the previous comments. Does that make sense? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: It does, but it's not really jiving with what I am hearing in community. You know, I'm making sure that I check in with some of our local contractors on this with the rejections and the multiple comments, and not really getting any direction from Public Works. "It's rejected. We can't tell you why. We also cannot tell you how to fix it." Page 6 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MR. RODENHURST: We do tell you why. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And so there's a lot of back and forth that's happening. MR. RODENHURST: We do tell you why. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And in my opinion, and I'm glad the Mayor is here, we are in one of the biggest real estate booms we have ever experienced. We need to be doing everything we can to deregulate and cut the bureaucracy. Why? Because real property taxes is what pays for this County to run. To run Police and Fire. To build and maintain parks. And so I just I need a little bit more clarity because things are really not clear to me, and they don't seem to be clear and easily resolved as you say by members that are—we have other community going through this process. MR. RODENHURST: So when there are comments to a rejection, our reviewers are required to list the Code and section of where that design fell short, so that the designers can correct those. We don't tell them this is exactly how you correct it, because there are multiple methods on how to correct some of these. And so we do give them guidance on some possible alternatives and possible methods that are available, that are part of the Code. But the designer is still required to address those comments and resubmit it. And when it's submitted, our folks review it, and if those comments have been addressed, it moves forward. If those comments have not been addressed, then still have to go through that process and try again and resubmit that. So this next slide is about our non-residential multi-agency plan review, average review time over the course of this EPIC process (Slide 13) . And this is only for the EPIC data. This isn't historical data beyond the implementation of EPIC. This shows in our system the legacies are the light green. Those are reviewed about—it took about 80 days to review on average, compared to the average for our EPI-only permits which were drastically reduced, due to the multi-agency review. Even with the EPIC system, our legacy permits still have to go reviewer to reviewer. They don't have the option to the review it in the space as we do with Bluebeam currently with EPIC. And so this shows that multi-agency review process, where we're able to have Fire, we're able to have DPW, we able to have other agencies, DOH (Department of Health), DEM (Department of Environmental Management)review this concurrently really cut down our time to review and help us to efficiently process these. And it's also shown on our residential as well, for additions, alterations, and new (Slide 14). So we're really happy that we're able to do this. It's been working very well and reducing our time in review. Now, are these optimal times? No. We're getting Page 7 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 better with it. A lot of this had to do with the fact that we had IT (Information Technology) issues. As I mentioned before, communication issues with emails going back and forth. We resolved those since then. That's why in January and February you see a boost in there because a lot of the communication issues were resolved. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I think on the communication piece, one sort of outstanding issue that remains is a contractor gets an email, your permits ready, pay for it; staff is notified. Somebody goes up to pick up the permit; nobody knows that it's been paid for. How are we resolving that? MR. RODENHURST: So that was part of the process where the system wasn't updating the status on some of the earlier permits effectively. We resolved that since then, but that was an issue from permits that were submitted early on, our legacy permits. Where the statuses weren't updated, or neither the actions were being done. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. (Inaudible)talk to some folks, it still remains an issue. MR. RODENHURST: And one of the things we have implemented is that we're able to issue it from home now. We have a process where if you want to issue it from home now, where it's an EPIC-only permit. Once it's been invoiced and paid, and all the documentation is confirmed as in,you can issue it from home. And so they can be printed from the office or from home. You don't have to come into the office, either in Kona or Hilo. If you still want to come in to Kona or Hilo our staff is still willing and able to print those out, but it's not required that they have to come in and get it. Unless it's a legacy, yeah. And some of this data, we have it available online (Slide 15). For any of the permit issuance data, some of the numbers that we show on this, this can be reviewed online for our permit listing reports. This page is under construction, and we are working to make this a lot more ease of use accessibility, for everyone to understand where this is at. Currently this is where it's housed. And also, the monthly metrics is posted to our Electronic Processing and Information Center section of our DPW website (Slide 16). And you can see under the Building Permit Issuance Statistics where this monthly metrics are. And as we update them, they'll be up there, as well. And finally, I guess I have to end with this, that Einstein said that failure is and success in progress." We did fail in the beginning with a lot of things; with the issuance, with the intake, and we acknowledge that. We weren't perfect. But weI say our success in progress, we have done tremendous improvement since then, and we're not done yet. There are a lot more things that we have to do, and we're working on. We are streamlining our process in making it more clear to our Page 8 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 staff as well as the community, and we're going to be continuing our communications to the public as we improve that process. (Note: At this time, Mayor Mitchell D. Roth came forward to address the members of the community.) MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Aloha, Mayor. You are most welcome. MAYOR ROTH: Is it okay for a few moments? I was listening online, and I was listening in here to some of the things. I don't think anybody is going to argue that there have been problems, but as you can see they're getting a lot better. If you can go back to that slide where—one of comments was it's misleading. Go all the back to where we are now with the numbers of issue. Yeah, this one here (Slide 5). Mr. Rodenhurst kind of explained this, but I think it really needs to be understood what he said, when he talked about these numbers. I think it's 583 permits that were issued to February, compared to 296 at the end of last year, 269 in 2020 per month, and 275 permits issued per month in 2019. It almost doubled, and it can be argued that they have doubled the monthly average of permits that are going out. But when you look at these permits and you say, okay well which ones are residential? So some of these permits, as Mr. Rodenhurst said, represent what would have been three. So you would have counted three in the past to the one you're counting. So it is a little bit misleading, but it's misleading on the side of undercounting what we would have counted versus overcounting. So we're not propping the numbers up, they're actually taking some of those numbers down. So some of them are three, some of them are two. If you were to add those extra numbers of permits that you would have to get three times, or two times, you would be up into easily the 600, and maybe even into the 700, for February. January, I think it was 483 permits. You know, if you look month-by-month—and if you could go to the last slide again (Slide 15). You know, one of the things, where you get the information, what I'd really like the public to know is how to get to this information. So if you go to the County website, look at departments. You look at Public Works, Building Division. You get this thing up here. You go to Permit Information. In that Permit Listing Reports, if you go to that website, you'll see all the years, 2022 back, I think, to like 2005, 2004. If you click on those years—so you go to February 2022 and you look at the permit listing details. You go to last page of those reports, and it will tell you how many permits were put out. But if you want to go through every single one of those permits, it will tell you every permit that's there. If you go to the end of 2021, you'll see the yearly reports, so you can find out how much by year, you can see how much by month; and when you do that, you can Page 9 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 see all of those reports and you count them up. So you know, we're trying to be as transparent as possible. The next slide that he has, showing you the statistics, when you go to that Building Permit issuance statistics (Slide 16). And I think we have to do something so it's a different color because right now it's black and you have to hit the black, and nobody is used to hitting the black. You can find out what those numbers are. You know, we took it from August to the end of January. And that's how you get that 133 days per permit. That time is getting shorter and shorter. You know, we hope to be within six weeks of any permit by the end of this year. There are—we continue to make changes on the permitting process. And what he didn't say was, or maybe he did say it, in 2019 I think you had seven or eight reviewers at any one time. 2020, how many did you have? MR. RODENHURST: 2020 we had about six to seven. MAYOR ROTH: 2021? MR. RODENHURST: 2021 we had four to five. MAYOR ROTH: And right now? These are reviewers. MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, so that would be our plans reviewers and supervisors to them. MAYOR ROTH: They are doing a lot more than we done in the past with a lot fewer people, so they are making progress. We are nowhere near where we want to be yet, but they're getting a lot better. You know, I talk to Ikaika probably at least once or twice a day, people complaining. And you know, they're going over these things and continually making changes. Again, we're not where we want to be, but there are changes coming out pretty much every week. I think the latest of which was our PV, solar. You know, we really want to move solar energy in people's home as quickly as possible. You are now able to use the factory-built engineer stamps, and I think it's architect stamps for those. MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, they have the premanufactured railing systems have a Hawaii State licensed stamp, so you can use that in conjunction with the worksheet; and your electrical stamp plans to get your PV permits approved. MAYOR ROTH: So there have been substantial progress. Planning also has been moving very quickly. They were onboard pretty quickly. Fire, I think they're reviewing their permits now within ten days. And so I really have to stand Page 10 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 behind this team because they continue to put a lot of work, and I continue to give them a lot of headaches on a regular basis. So, thank you. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Does that conclude your presentation? MR. RODENHURST: I think the only thing I'll say to have to conclude is that as far as intake, we have in-took every permit that has had the plan review fee paid in 2021 to date, and it's gone through that first review process. We understand there was a lag before, as explained. And we are working to improve the system. We just had a meeting this morning going over some of the data migration, that was an issue previously. So, we're making improvements. We're constantly engaging with the vendor, Tyler, to get this system optimal and to get our staff ready for more improvements to the system. I think overall our staff understands that it's been a hard time, and they also have bought in more to it. They also had some pushbacks with it because of all the issues we had in the IT side of it. But one other thing is that we do understand that the community is frustrated, and we hear those frustrations. And we can probably stay with these numbers out there as far as how many were reviewed, how many were issued, and some people might think we're taking these as just numbers. They're not. As many as we see a day, as many as we see a monthI mean, I think in January we reviewed 1,400 different reviews. We made it clear to our staff that these aren't just numbers. These are people's lives, their hopes, their dreams, their retirements, their legacies. They're their future, and we've got to be mindful of how we address that. We have to be clear and consistent in our approach, and so we're making those improvements to make sure that we give them the level of service they deserve. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. But it's still not clear to me, and I've gone through the data on website you have listed here. And looking at your presentation, I just don't get the distinction of the permit types, right? The residential, the new, the remodels, the residential, the electrical, the PV, the plumbing. And I think it's important to really understand where we are on all of those fronts, because that then informs the personnel process changes that need to be made within our department. I'm a little bit concern that you still have, what did you say, four to five people doing the plan review, because I think the last time you were before us it was at that number. And I'm curious around what has been done to get more folks on board. Eighty-nine-day contracts? Are there are volunteer groups that we can be looking to engage? Some cross-training of existing employees? What exactly has been done to just get more folks reviewing? Page 11 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MR. RODENHURST: So we have gone through the process of recruiting for more plan reviewers. Those have been unsuccessful to date. So we have been working with HR (Human Resources) to see what we can do to get positions that are reallocated downward, and get them training on the job, to get them to that level if there is an issue with none of the folks with the minimum qualifications. Also, to encourage staff within our department, if they want to move up or move across lateral over, that they can. And so we are working with HR right now to get that process refined and moving forward so we can recruit as soon as possible. We're also getting training. Like I mentioned, we have gone back to the fundamentals of our processes, and make sure that we are following what is required of us by the Code and by law; and when we review these permits, whether it be in clerical section or the plan review section. And we also are working the schedule, ICC (International Code Council) training for our staff as well, for inspectors as well as plan reviewers. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. I have a question about some of the streamlining and prioritization. I think these are questions that I asked when the system was first launching. And so what sort of work has been done to sort of prioritize things like solar, but also streamline in the event of somebody needing to make a change to an existing permit? Say they want to add a deck on to existing permit plans. My understanding right now is that the work could be done so long as there was a stamp from an architect and the inspector okayed it. Now what I'm hearing is that folks have to go through the whole permitting process from the very beginning in order to get approval for that addition. And that really concerns me. It just seems like unnecessary bureaucracy. MR. RODENHURST: I'm not clear on which part of the process you're talking about now. I think we need to maybe have a conversation on that. I'm not clear, but I'm happy to go over that process. I don't have that in front of me. I have what we have, for the EPIC system in front of me, and what we did for that. But I'm happy to follow up with you on that, as far as the revision process, or a resubmittal process, or a new addition process. Because those are three different process that could have encompassed what you've provided to me. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah. MR. RODENHURST: So happy to have that conversation. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: It's about the resubmission. Can you talk about that? Because there is concern about having to go through the entire process all over again to make small changes for permitted plans? MR. RODENHURST: So a resubmission is a plan that has been rejected prior to issuance, so I don't think that's the same process. If it's a revision and if it's Page 12 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 small changes, that's something we can do. If it's an addition, that's a different process. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Correct, the revision, thank you. A revision to plan. MR. RODENHURST: Okay. Typically they contact our clerk and identify that they need to submit a revision and it identifies our staff, and we prioritize that work to get that addressed as soon as possible. It wouldn't have to go through the entire review process. It would have to go through a review process and would have to have these changes covered by a stamp. It depends on the size of the changes, though. When you're saying small changes, what is the extent of these small changes? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Add a bathroom, a deck. MR. RODENHURST: So that would require a stamp-work, and that would require to have a review of that work. Adding a bathroom, depending on what it is. It might require a plumbing review. It might require ait will require a building review. Adding a deck, I think wouldn't require a plumber review, but it will require a building review. So it depends on the level of revision. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. And Chair, thank you for the latitude. I have one more question. I have many more questions, and some of them are technical in nature, but I wanted to ask a question about the project declaration form. And really, what is the need for that? How has it been helpful having this additional form for folks to submit? MR. RODENHURST: Well, it's required, and it was required before the system that the declaration be identified that there is a licensed contractor for the work requiring a licensed contractor. So if you're a general contractor for a contractor built, you need to make sure that you identify your license number. If it's for plumbing, you identify your plumbing contractor number. If it's for electricians, the same for that. And that's been a requirement prior to this going live. Not in the same format. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: And has that inhibited the process? Because if you're a contractor, this really then requires you to identify your subs. And what if you don't want to make a decision on who you want to engage for plumbing and electrical at that moment and time? MR. RODENHURST: Well, it's not required, so the permit issuance process. So when that permit has been up and to the point where the permit has been invoiced, it's not required. It's required prior to issuance, by law. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. I guess I'm just curious around why that information is even necessary. And if it's cumbersome, maybe this is something Page 13 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 that the Legislative Branch can address through some kind of Code change. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the latitude. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. With that, Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Thank you. You know, I'm going to have to leave. Actually I had to leave 20 minutes ago, but I'm going to be really, really fast. First of all, I want to thank you and your team. You know, seems like you guys are making progress based on the information that you have provided. You know, I don't want to be just a naysayer or anything like that. But as both Ms. Kimball and I and others have said on more than one occasion, you know, there's thing about statistics, right? All depends on how you put them together, how you read them, how you interpret them. And I just have a few questions. You know, Mitch, the Mayor characterized the improvements in this building permit process as being one which is being achieved by doing more with less. If that is true, how do you attribute, what do you attribute that too? Better management, harder workers, sloppier work, what? I mean, how have you been able to achieve more with less? MR. RODENHURST: So one of things is that we talked about the EPIC system first. Like I said, the tool that allows us to do multi-agency review. Where we have multi-agencies whether it be Fire, DOH (Department of Health), DEM (Department of Environmental Management), building, electrical,plumbing. To have their review concurrently, that helps cut back on that review time. Because previously before EPIC, it was a handoff system. MR. CHUNG: There was Fire in that too? MR. RODENHURST: For non-residential, yes. MR. CHUNG: Okay, go on. So it's just the EPIC system has now MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, it allows everyone to come to the table at their leisure, it's not I'm waiting on someone to hand it over to me. Once it gets through that intake, and once it gets through land use, it's available for everyone that's required for that review. So that cuts back on that time. We've also worked with our staff to kind of zero in on what we're supposed to be doing and cutting back on any redundancies. If there's an item that's outside of their repertoire, that's outside of their specialty, they shouldn't be reviewing it. So if there's things our clerks are reviewing that should be really handled by Planning, we've removed that and made sure it's very clear to everybody that this is Planning's kuleana. Same with our plan reviewers and our clerical, if there's anything the clerks are doing that is above and beyond of what they should be Page 14 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 doing, if they took it upon themselves in the past we made it clear that's no longer the case, that's really like for the plan reviewers to do. MR. CHUNG: So manager-real? MR. RODENHURST: Yes. MR. CHUNG: And you know the training that your plan reviewers go through, or the people who are reviewing this what kind of formal training do they have? Or do they have any formal training? MR. RODENHURST: Since I've been on the job, they haven't had any formal ICC training, International Code Council. Those are the folks that maybe IBC (International Building Code), IEBC (International Existing Building Code) basically the Building Code MR. CHUNG: You said there hasn't been any? MR. RODENHURST: There hasn't been an official ICC training. MR. CHUNG: But aren't they required to have training? MR. RODENHURST: While I'm here, yes. Wait, I would have to go and confirm if it's required by code and by position. I don't know off the top of my head. But I think it should be required. MR. CHUNG: So the people who are reviewing all of these plans, which have been stamped by architects, engineers, we don't know if they're required to be trained? We don't know what kind of formal training they have in reviewing these plans. I'm just kind of curious. MR. RODENHURST: They've had training in so much is that our staff has gone over the new codes with them, they've been trained in-house. As far as official ICC training, they have not had official ICC training since the new codes. MR. CHUNG: In-house, who does the training? MR. RODENHURST: In-house would be their supervisor. It would be the plans examining manager. MR. CHUNG: What kind of training do they have? They're licensed professionals? MR. RODENHURST: Yes. There are some professionals. Page 15 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MR. CHUNG: Okay. What's the purpose of the building permit? I mean I'm talking philosophically; I mean we know what it's there for, right? But is it for the safety of the public, is it for generating real property taxes, is it for creating an inventory, what is the purpose of the building permit and its process? I mean the reason why I say that, and I'm saying this half facetiously, you go drive down Hawaiian Acres we see all those houses over there, not one of them are being permitted. And they're living in them, right? So just philosophically, what is the purpose of the building permit? MR. RODENHURST: To ensure life and safety. MR. CHUNG: Okay, so it's a safety issue, right? Okay. I just needed to know that. And one thing that's not included in these metrics, from my perspective but, you know, we have to look them really quickly. I find some of it helpful, I'm going to walk out with this and kind of digest it later. But how long it takes for a building permit to be issued. I mean I see somethings over here for the month of January 2020, but there's a range of dates. And then you got 133 days, 226 days non-residential, and different things. And I'm going to have to take a look at this, yeah. But we don't know if that's improving. I think that is what has been the bane of what's generated a lot of complaints. You know, when people from the public look, "Okay, yeah, there's a lot of building permits being issued. Wow, this Administration is doing fantastic." But still taking the same amount of time. That has been the age-old problem, why is it taking so long? So if we could get some statistics, metrics, on that and see if it's improving, and in what areas. But I still wanted to thank you, I know you guys are trying really hard. But thank you and goodbye. MR. RODENHURST: If I can comment on that. I don't think we're doing a tremendous job in that we're meeting all the goals of our Department for that. I think we've improved the process MR. CHUNG: I didn't say you guys are doing a tremendous job, I said you guys trying hard. MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, and we have made improvements for sure. And like the Mayor said and I said, we're not done yet, we need to continue to make improvements. There are a lot of factors that go into that, and happy to give you the data. There's just so much data there, as far to which factor you want to look at there. Happy to have that conversation, happy to lock in which data you're looking at. It could be anywhere from the sheer quantity of applications being submitted, the quality applications being submitted, the quality the reviews being done, the available reviewers for that. There's multiple factors in there, so happy to discuss which aspects we can compare. Page 16 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. Kimball, I saw Mr. Kaneali`i's light on so I'm going to go over to Hilo first. And then Ms. Kimball, and then followed up by Ms. Villegas. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Mr. Rodenhurst, thank you for the presentation today. We had our kind of brief budget discussion last week, and I appreciated that. And then we kind of gently touched on this presentation that you're doing today. Numbers look better, you know, you guys had made some strides as far as getting permits out to the public. I mean there's no question about it, you know, the public is stillfrustrated would be a nice verb, but they're frustrated about the length of time it takes to get a permit. I think we knew what was going to happen when we implemented both, an EPIC system and 2018 Code amendment change. On top of the IECC (International Energy Conservation Code) in one fell swoop, and I know we made the comment "We're burning the bridges at the shore." But you know, in hindsight, maybe not the best approach; but hey, we did it and here we are. You know, to me there's no real question about was it going to be difficult, it's difficult. Are you getting better? I think you're making some strides. I'm hearing from the community in general that it's getting better, it's not perfect but it's better. And that's good. Some of things we've touched upon in out meeting that, I wanted to circle back with you on. And Mr. Chung, he brought up a good point, and something I brought up before as well. When we look at our process to do a building permit, incorporated into that process is a structural review. And when you guys except the plans, the plans have been stamped by a design professional, an architect and engineer. And that stamp carries a lot of weight, they've taken the liability on, they created and drafted and built. Whatever system it may be, a residential dwelling, a PV system, but they are taking complete liability for anything that happens to that structure. And it really just begs a question, if the engineers are going to put their stamp on something, then why and who are we to go back and say, "We don't agree, we're redrawing this, this needs to be redone." And it really does beg the question, at least for me and maybe for others, is a structural review an actual requirement under State Code during the processing of a building permit? Maybe it's specific, if you want to get specific, you know, we can talk specifics. But I mean for a residential project under 30 feet. Is a full structural review of already stamped and designed engineer drawings a requirement? MR. RODENHURST: It depends. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's a good answer. MR RODENHURST: It really does depend on does it meet the prescriptive methods of the Code. If it doesn't then the Code does dictate that needs to have Page 17 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 the structural calculations and meet structural requirements of the Code. So that's where it depends. I cannot give a blanket statement that all require structural, because all of them do not require structural. Some do, and when it's applicable it requires structural review. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I don't want to throw anybody under the bus, but I reached to some other counties and some municipalities. And what I got was, they don't do a full-blown structural review on permits being processed. I think that's a very important piece, we look at length of time, we look at how long it takes to process permits, what's involved, a limit on staffing here in the County, feeling overwhelmed. And if we're incorporating a review process that is not required by law, that has no real bearing on liability for the County or not, then why are we doing it? And if we don't have to, skip the step. That's incredible. To me it's an incredible opportunity for the department to maybe step outside to what's been done forever. Not getting away from public safety, but use that stamp from the design professionals, that's a requirement by law as the governor for what's happening, and then we also have on the backend a series of inspections to make sure things are being built correctly. And somewhere in that process too, I'd love to see the ability for the clerks to take on a little bit more of a role, as long as it's allowable via their PDs (Position Description) their job descriptions. And utilize them to do more work, and even bump up the amount of clerks you guys have. If we're having a hard time finding reviewers. These are things we've touched on and discussion. But the more I thought about them, these are ways you can make the system smoother and faster, and process permits quicker for the public and get things out the door and get things moving again. So thoughts MR. RODENHURST: There's streamlining and cutting corners. I will not suggest my staff to cut corners, I suggest that we streamline. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Streamlining is good. So could a clerk under their current PD's—and then we've touched on this, I don't know if you got an answer yet—could they do at least a very in-depth look at the full document that had been brought in, or the permit being brought in to the job, and really just do a quick, you know, pre-cursory check. Does it meet all the requirements and push it out the door at a faster pace than going through a full plan review, or structure review. MR. RODENHURST: Not all permits require full structure review, not all permits require a full review by every agency. It depends on the work class, and complexity of the system. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, well there's neither a yes nor a no. Page 18 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MR. RODENHURST: It depends on the work class; it depends on the type of permit and the complexity of the system. So I can't give you a blanket, yes or no on that. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, well the PDs at least, for your positions that you have right now. You're having a hard time finding plan reviewers. Could you utilize your clerks? MR. RODENHURST: For what role and what purpose? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: To take on more of asimple as what used to be done, a very detailed checklist. Do they meet all of the—are they checking off all the boxes when the permit is applied for. MR. RODENHURST: As we discussed we have a checklist in hand with our staff that goes over the requirements for a clerical review. For their assistance in making sure that we have consistent and clear process for our clerks both in Hilo and Kona for the applicable type of building permits. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, alright, I think we're getting a little bit off track. I mean the point is, there are some ways that you could expedite the process if so chosen by the department and the Administration, and without going into any current HRS statute or laws. And given those opportunities exist, I would hope that we would take them where we can. And not add anymore bureaucracy into the permitting department than we already have, given especially where we stand today and our decades-old issue of trying to get permits out the door, in a timely matter. This is not only directed at you Director Rodenhurst. This is really a problem that's persisted for 10, 20, years if not more. But our job is really to just hash out some details and find some solutions. To me these are very good solutions, that we have in front of us. So I'd love to see you take these on, and really push through them. Ultimately this comes back to you and your department, and your call. But I'm just trying to be helpful in giving some opportunity and things, and other municipalities are doing currently to address the workload. MR. RODENHURST: I appreciate the help. And if you can send me over those specifics of which municipalities and which processes, happy to work with that and see how we can adapt those here. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. You know what, one last thing I want to touch on too. I know you made some strides as far as using that solar design tool online. And a few other areas, you know, we really reached out to try and take into account what the community is saying. But with that said, the community is also really wanting a very clear communication line between the Page 19 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 department and the design professionals and the community, and even our constituency. They just want to know what's going on, so those changes are implemented they need to know. So if we could really, really, really, bump up our community kind of informative process. So that we're getting out to the people and letting these guys know, "Hey this changed, we're doing this." I think we implemented that solar design tool, at three days before we actually had a press release out from the Mayor's Office that we made the change. And it's hard for the guys trying catch up with 2018, the different Code, and the EPIC system, and trying to keep up with, "We made a change, but we never let you know." MR. RODENHURST: We communicate directly via email, we issue to our social media, we issue to our DPW (Department of Public Works) website, we issue through the Mayor's Office. If there's another avenue that you think that we should do, I'm happy to add that. If I could I'd go on every corner with a town crier and let them know what's happening. I would like to know, what's the best way to reach people. Because it is a difficult thing, especially in this time, how to reach some people, there is barriers to that. Whether it be through connectivity, or through a preferred avenue. I have had this conversation with some of the chambers (Chambers of Commerce), some of the other groups out there, that we do communicate with regarding permitting. And I've tasked them with the same thing, please let me know if there's any avenue that we're missing here. If you need folks to be added to our email list, happy to give those directly. We are doing our best, and happy to take any additional criticism there. What else we can do to improve those communications, and what other avenues we can reach out to. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's good to hear. CHR. LEE LOY: Mr. Kaneali'i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm going to wrap it up, Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. LEE LOY: Mr. Kleinfelder, Mr. Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Oh, my goodness. Yes, Ma'am. MS. LEE LOY: I've been incredibly generous, and your time went up minutes ago. And if you don't mind winding down, I still have two other Council Members, if not four other Council Members who want an opportunity. I can circle back around, but please one more question and we're going to move on. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I didn't have any more questions; I was just going to mahalo the Director for his time today and for Page 20 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 listening. And just look forward to making some progress as a County towards making our permanent system better. Thank you, Mr. Rodenhurst, appreciate your time. And really appreciate the Administration kind of taking this on as a priority. Thank you, Chair. I yield. MR. RODENHURST: Mahalo, Council Member. CHR. LEE LOY: Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Kleinfelder. This is a topic that we all want to talk about. So with that, Ms. Kimball, and then I saw Ms. Villegas, followed by Ms. David. Ms. Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. I think Mr. Richards was in there too, but I'll be brief. Thank you, Director, for being here today. Backlog, where are we? Are we starting to eat away at that or are we still trying to MR. RODENHURST: So as I mentioned everything that was submitted prior to 2022 before January 1st that had their plan review fee paid, has been down to the intake process. From there it becomes a matter of did the design meet the Code, were there any issues, did the permit fee get paid on the backend, it's a broad range. So for our clerical side we have caught up with our backlog. We are actually current for the previous 60 days. And we'd like to continue improving on that, making sure that we have it current within 30 days as soon as possible. That goal deadline, I'll be able to get out there, but I don't have it set just yet. Right now it's as soon as possible. MS. KIMBALL: So to be clear you have a goal of a 30-day turnaround for intake for new permits? MR. RODENHURST: Yes. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. That actually leads me to my next question, which has to do with your targets. I'm curious how long it took you to put the report together for today, was it something fairly easy to assemble? MR. RODENHURST: Not all of it. We are working with our consulting group, to help us with some of the reporting. Because of the IT (Information Technology) issues we experienced going live, it did bog us down heavier than expected with our on-staff. Mitchell (Okuma) does a tremendous job, and then our Information Technology Specialist he does a tremendous job as well getting up to speed and helping out. But these require additional help, and we're getting those reports. A lot of this data, the monthly metrics and some of these nitty-gritties, how each department agency is doing, which we don't have yet but we're working on getting those reports out. They're working on those, and they're helping us get to that level of communication. Page 21 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MS. KIMBALL: Okay, so at some point these are going to be automatically generated in some way, shape, or form. Are these all the metrics that you're going to consider, or you know, there's the saying that you MR. RODENHURST: There's more. MS. KIMBALL: You improve what you measure, right? So what are some of your benchmarks? What are some of your targets? Without specific dates on them now or perhaps even amounts, but what are some of things that are important for you as far as decision making and your success or failure? MR. RODENHURST: So for us is our communication and communicating. I think I talked to a couple groups earlier predictable is one word we'd like to be for building. When you submit a permit, you know, when it's coming out. And so that's our goal and that requires a lot of work in prioritizing the different types. Because a PV shouldn't take as long as a new residential, which shouldn't take as long as maybe some heavier new residential or whatnot. And so really putting realistic goals for our staff and the weeks or days that are required for that. With the technologies available to us that we'd like to implement, I would like to see these PV permits drastically reduced to weeks if not days, similar to our plumbing and electrical when those are necessary. Because there are some legacy permits that do require only electrical, only plumbing. Making sure that those have a very short turnaround time, because those are typically a lot more simple. So providing metrics and goals per work class type, and those will be included in our monthly metrics as we improve on those reports. And so we'll have a per work class goal. MS. KIMBALL: Okay. But then are you able to track personnel's productivity? How many person hours it takes to deal with x-type permit, y-type permit? MR. RODENHURST: Yes. And we are able to track how folks are doing, how many they get assigned, and the people that have to review those. And track really how they're doing on that process, so we can provide them support. If they're taking a long time on certain types, maybe we need to improve our education, our training on that side. So it does give us that feedback of where we're needing to make improvements, and maybe somethings that we're struggling with. MS. KIMBALL: Great. And that kind of leads to my next question. How are things going with Tyler, and Tyler's support? Are we going to have to extend contract services with them? MR. RODENHURST: Well we are working with them and trying to get some improvements from the services that we saw in the past. There are parts of the Page 22 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 implementation that we weren't happy with, we weren't satisfied with, and we had those conversations with them. And they're working with us to improve that and help us kind of get to where we should have been. And part of that is that data transfer I talked about that was lacking, when we turn the system on initially. We are currently in the process with Tyler to get that data transferred over, and not have to wait for a manual process with which we were engaged in previously. So we put a pause to the manual process, while we have this automatic transfer in the works. So they are working to make things right. And we're constantly engaging in them and holding them accountable for the services provided to us. I don't see any need to increase the contract with them at this time, other than what's already provided in their service contract. But always something to consider, and I'm working with Zendo on that. If there's anything else that we want to see, and anything else that we can see as improvements. I don't know if Zendo has anything to say about that, if he's still around. MS. KIMBALL: How we doing on storage? MR. RODENHURST: Storage, I haven't had any issues with storage just yet. But there's always a constant concern of ours, because as we use this system to house our data, we want to make sure we're being responsible with that. And we have some contingencies in place, in case drop of service or anything like that. MS. KIMBALL: Do we have enough capacity, or are we going to have to add on soon? MR. RODENHURST: I have to get back to you on that one. I don't know off of the top of my head if there any issue of capacity. As of now we didn't hear any recently, so I would assume there isn't, but I would have to double check on that one. MS. KIMBALL: But you'll cover this in your budget review too. I mean totally in my office we have seen a number of complaints coming through, go down. That's positive. I do find these types of reporting very useful; I hope the public does as well. And I hope it's an impetus to shed light on some of our other departments and their processes in similar ways. It is (inaudible). I will disagree with my colleague Mr. Chung about putting all of the data on the same scale. I think you lose some of the granularity in the differences if you were to do that. MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, you know, if there's any specific data you'd like to see, happy to provide that. There really is a lot of data in there. It's really hard to focus on what's there without overloading. That's the last thing you want to do is overload information on everybody. That makes things just a complete confusion mess. There is a lot of data there, so anything specific you'd like to see happy to work with you on that and provide that metric. Page 23 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I do remember my other question that I didn't write down, which is how well is your database that's resulting out of this connecting with the other databases? Like you're talking to Real Property Tax now and Planning data base and what not. MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, we're engaged with Real Property on that, and there have been some drop-in service from our side to them that they've addressed with us and we've improved on. MS. KIMBALL: So they're being alerted when a permit has been issued and they can start taxing it at the higher rate. MR. RODENHURST: I have to confirm that, I don't know that much of the detail. But I do know they've been involved, and they have access to the system. MS. KIMBALL: Great, okay. Thank you, appreciate your time. I yield, Chair. CHR. LEE LOY: Thanks, Ms. Kimball. Ms. Villegas, and then Ms. David, and then Mr. Richards. Ms. Villegas. MS. VILLEGAS: Great, thank you. Just real quickly, Mr. Rodenhurst did you create the PowerPoint for today? MR. RODENHURST: With help of my staff, yes. MS. VILLEGAS: With the help of your staff, okay. Just my own personal humble suggestion, we've gotten a lot of feedback on it. It was just confusing for me going through with everything being the same colors. That there might just be some opportunity for a little more clarification when it comes to what's being measured per say in the starting point. Just because then by bouncing through okay, is this Planning, these are permits, this is residential, nonresidential. Maybe there's just an opportunity for a little more clarity in that way, in case somebody doesn't have the opportunity to have you here to walk them through as specifically as you have done. It's great to see the little orange bars, and to see those going up, and your level of productivity improving. Einstein's comment caught me off guard, "Failure is success in progress." And as I looked it up, you know, and his challenges and the different things he went through. You guys are farther along now then you've ever been, and so there will continue to be room for improvement. It's seems a dance in this job that you have, because we don't want to sacrifice safety or wellbeing. And we don't want to add to bureaucracy and slowing down of the processes. Page 24 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 But I myself, as we are inundated with development and those who see this place as an opportunity to make their next million, that we ensure that everything that goes through the County is ensured to be as safe, and structurally sound as possible. It's just really imperative. So it's a dance, and it's a balance. And thank you for your patience with these questions, and with my humble suggestions on the PowerPoint presentation. Thank you. MR. RODENHURST: I appreciate that, and I'll make improvements in the future. And just one more thing to touch on that"Failure is success in progress." I made the decision and included that because I want to make it clear, we're not acknowledging that everything been smooth sailing and trying sweep it under the rug. We did not deliver out the gates, that's clear. But we did make the necessary improvements to get better, and we still are getting better. And like we said, were not there yet. So I felt it was very relatable to this current situation. And I had some staff that were concerned about saying out right that it's failure, on the first word. But we failed at the gate on some things, and we need to make sure we acknowledge that so we can make the improvements. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Villegas. Ms. David, then Mr. Richards. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair Lee Loy. Aloha Director, and thank you so much for your hard work. I for one, was kind of confused with these graphs myself. But your explanation basically is all I needed to get me somewhat on the same page of what your achievements have been. And you have. You brought this new system which is I think something I never thought I'd see, on this Council. But understand that I'm not a techy person, so I just really respect all your department's work in trying to computerize and do everything that you do. I understand that much. My only question basically is, on resubmittals what is the turnaround time? Because on resubmittals do, they actually have to go back into the system, to find out where they are? That's my first question. MR. RODENHURST: Before I answer the question, I just want to make it clear, it's not me it's my staff that really made this happen. I'm just helping to get them on the right path, they're doing all the hard work. Yeah, they work very hard. MS. DAVID: Oh, yeah. We're nothing without our staff, right? MR. RODENHURST: But as far as the resubmittal process, one of the issues behind the communications was, there was not clear status notification when someone resubmitted a plan previously. And because of that we had drops in service where clerks weren't notified those were in the system. And so we actually issued a notification to the public, let us know when you're resubmitting while we address this IT error. And we addressed the IT error. So now we know there's a resubmittal, we get notified. I get notified when our Building Division Page 25 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 submits plans for anything that falls under our building CIP (Capital Improvement Project), because I'm listed as the signature for the owner, so I get those notifications. So I know personally our email notifications are working. But for our staff, that was a big change, and that was allowing them to move forward through that resubmittal process. And we made a status that said, "Application resubmitted"to make it very clear this is where it's at, and address what should have been identified at the start of the system, made the improvements necessary. So now once it gets in, it does go through the process, but it's limited to whatever the comments were. MS. DAVID: Just those specific things that needed to be addressed? MR. RODENHURST: Correct. MS. DAVID: Okay. So then if they still go through that process of—okay. That brings me to myI'm just really very not computer techy, so I'm looking at your resubmittal website instructions. It does say what you just conveyed, but is thereon resubmittals, do you have someone specifically assigned to resubmittals both in Hilo and in Kona? And the reason I'm asking is because I tried to call DPW for another matter, and the phone number that's listed I can never get a live body. So I'm just wondering if on resubmittals because they're not as complicated an initial application and the staff that—you do have staff that was brought on or will be brought on for this new system, right? I'm thinking that for resubmittals if you could have some person specifically assigned to resubmittals and it organizes that way so that if somebody comes in and wants to find out where their resubmittal is, they would have a live body to talk to. I think a lot of the calls that I've been getting is because they couldn't get anything. You know, they couldn't get to talk to someone. So I think if we could put something like that, or a number on your website that they could get their questions answered instead of navigating through the website trying to find whether their answer is included in the website. That's my suggestion. Because I think a lot of the things we're talking about in trying to get this off the ground, we cannot forget the fact that human interaction is pretty much important to people on the street. And that's the kind of calls I've been getting. So just a suggestion that in organizing this, that the human personal contact element be considered, and a number that they can call and get a live body or someone to answer and direct them. So that's all. I just wanted to mention that because all these other things, I mean yeah, you need time to implement this. MR. RODENHURST: So far clerks, they actually have a wide range of duties. First and foremost is responding to folks that come to the counter on a daily basis. So I have personally seen a lot of our folks respond to people at the counter. They balance that as well with phone calls, with the intake, with resubmittals, with Page 26 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 revisions, with out-processing, with some baseline reviews of the clerical side of maybe some of these electrical and plumbing ones as well, and then fielding questions that come in through EPIC requesting assistance or fielding questions that come in about inspections and directing folks who to go to as well as working in our kiosk that's provided in Kona and Hilo for folks that don't have access to technology or they don't have connectivity where they live or work and give them the opportunity to come in so that we kind of reduce that barrier at entry. So we're accommodating folks. They have a wide range. So we're working our best to kind of improve and streamline that process as well. As you mentioned, specializing in certain areas. Providing them time that's uninterrupted so that they can focus on certain things. Part of this implementation process and these changes that we saw and these errors that we had to fix and do some hot fixes, it required us to have our staff to get cross training across a broad variety of all these tasks, so that if someone is out or anything happens, they can fill in as needed. MS. DAVID: Right. MR. RODENHURST: So as we're getting through that process and we kind of refine that with all the changes we've seen, now we're able to switch gears and focus now on can we specialize, can we make this smoother. MS. DAVID: Great. MR. RODENHURST: So we are working towards that. And that is a really good idea. I do appreciate that. MS. DAVID: Thank you. And I think because, you know, people go to websites and if they can get somebody to just say call this person or I will leave a message for the parry that needs to or would be able to answer the question. You know, sometimes simple fixes help a lot. So thank you very much. I yield. MR. RODENHURST: Mahalo. MS. DAVID: Mahalo, Chair. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. David. Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Director. Pretty comprehensive. I did laugh to hear a comment about failure is progress. (Inaudible) about WD-40. WD-40 is Water Dispersant Formula number 40. One through 39 didn't work, and that's a true story. So that's why I laughed. I appreciate your sense of humor on that. I also appreciate the fact that you guys burned the ships on the beach, I think it was last July, and jumped into this thing. Page 27 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 A couple of questions on this. Going through this, intake is at a certain level, the reviews are higher, and then the permits going down. That's your first slide. The question I have for you, and just summary, what's the backlog? We have x-number already in the line, we take some in, is that number going down over time? Are we whittling away, or is it static? Because that's the measure of if you're improving. MR. RODENHURST: So the intake has gone down significantly. As we talked about, we had 1,500 in review. I think now—oh sorry, we had 1,500 in that backlog process. Now for our intake, I'll have to get you the exact number. I don't have it in front of me, but like I we're current within the past 60 days. So anything that's been paid for, for the plan review fee payment, ready to be in-took, has been done before the past 60 days. And in the past 60 days we haven't got all of them, but we have got a lot of them. We are creating goals for our staff as to how many we would like to achieve on a weekly basis, monthly basis, daily basis. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so back to the question then, the intake from August to January intake went, like in January looks like about 900, the review was 1,400, permits maybe 500. Now February. What's the backlog? Is the backlog growing or is it shrinking? MR. RODENHURST: It's shrinking on the intake side. On the plan review side it's shrinking as well, but it's not shrinking as fast as we'd like so we'll have to streamline that. Part of that also is the recruitment process, getting more plan reviewers on staff, training folks that maybe qualify and want to move up into those positions. If we can achieve that, we will. So right now I don't have the exact numbers on the plan review side. I'll get those to you. MR. RICHARDS: Again, I think it was Ms. Kimball that made the point, having the staffing to get this done. But if we're processing more but not getting the permits through, then we're actually growing the backlog. We're getting more efficient at creating a backlog, which is not exactly what we're trying to get done here. So I mean I totally appreciate what you're working on, and you are wrapping up what's getting out. My concern is we are now accepting more because it's easier to submit, because you can submit 24/7. And I'm just worried that we won't have the capacity to get it done. So that's the metric I'd like to see. Are we getting the backlog number—is that shrinking over time so eventually get to a very quick turnaround. And if that's the case, what's the projected—when do we hit optimum number? What's the projected time we hit that quick turnaround? MR. RODENHURST: Yeah, so the intake ones we're focusing on from that 1,500 historically, and that's why we're, as I said today, we're kind of caught up on that. It's around 600. I don't have the exact number as far as within the last Page 28 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 60 days. It's going to be through that intake process. For the plan review side, those that are in review, those ones I have to go back and get that data for. That wasn't the focus of today's presentation. So I don't have that readily available right now. I'll have to go back and get those numbers. MR. RICHARDS: Again, I'd appreciate that. Because I like what you're doing. This is good. And the reporting is great. It takes time, there's a learning curve, we all appreciate that. To the question on the backlog, I know when we toured it maybe eight months ago, you had a whole bunch of plans sitting on the shelf. Some had been sitting there for literally years. What's the story with that? Are we going to clean house and get rid of them? Or what's the story on it? Because I know all of those were put in without paying fees until their picked up. That's a different story today, but what's the story on all of that? MR. RODENHURST: So as we streamline our communications, one of the biggest problems we had were that we weren't communicating effectively and consistently. Whether it be through our system, which we're using for a lot of primary communications on permanent statuses, to what our folks are saying, so that if you ask a clerk in Kona, you ask a clerk in Hilo, you ask an inspector in Hilo, you ask in inspector in Kona what we're doing, they should have the same answer. And I can tell you right now, that's not been achieved yet. We're working to make that clear. As far as where we wanted for those permits that haven't been paid, now that we have better communications, we will be issuing what's going to happen with those coming up. We have had some that historically just sitting there have been left for a long time and no one came to pay for them. There are parts of our Code that kind of give us guidance on how to handle this, so we're going to have to communicate that whole process, explain to everybody, because we know that historically some of these processes have not met the requirements of the Code. So we need to get those together with our folks and communicate those effectively to the community. So we will be issuing a clarification coming up. I don't have that today, but I will get that. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, I just—again, cleaning house. We got into a new system. We don't need this stuff sitting around whatever it is, 60-day, 90-day, they've had years, so to me we should just clean house and if they want to reapply, they can go through the new process. But having them sitting around seems a waste of time. MR. RODENHURST: We're not going to the details, correct. Yes, we should be cleaning house on those that have been sitting around and nothing's been done with them, and we will be doing that. We just want to make the process clear to the community, so it doesn't feel targeted or that we're being bullies. That is the last thing I want from this department. I think that it's important that we collaborate with the community and not bully the community. Page 29 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, and I completely agree with that. Communication, yeah. "Hey, you've got three, six months,"whatever it is, "get in and get this done before that or we're going to be moving on." So appreciate that. You probably don't have this number. Any idea of what the outstanding value of all those permitting is? MR. RODENHURST: I don't but let me see if I can get you an estimated number on that. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, I'd be kind curious for what we have sitting there. That's why I appreciate why we've changed thing. Again Director, I like the direction, I like the reporting. Stutter-step sure, but definitely in the right direction and the quicker we turn this around, Council Woman Lee Loy has talked about this, what we have sitting here is potential, taxable asset that we as we try to go forward and do the things for the County, if we get those things built, that's more revenue for us to take care of the community. So I appreciate that, and appreciate, you know, pedal to the metal. Let's get it done. Chair, I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: I don't have any questions. But I do want to say I think the Council has brought up a variety of perspectives on the matter, and I'm sure and I hope that, you know, one of us brings you back in a few months and see maybe we've made even more of a curve in that data. So to me it comes down to yes, we want the revenue for the County, but we serve the people who live on this island, and they shouldn't be waiting. It shouldn't be how long, how come so long, let's just go forward. So anything that we can do to support you, let us know. Thank you, Director. MR. RODENHURST: Mahalo. CHR. LEE LOY: Thanks, Mr. Inaba. Thank you, Director, for being here. I'm going to give it to Ms. Kierkiewicz to send us home so we can take the vote and on. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Mahalo nui, Director, for just being here and for coming with so much humor and grace, and just having a lot of strength of character. I don't think any of us envy the position that you are in. It's clear that you and your team are working really hard to address a lot of the issues that we brought forward in October. And you recognize things are not perfect. They probably won't ever be, but there is still a lot of room for Page 30 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 improvement and you guys are not going to stop trying to work hard to really make the system work. I just had a few things I'm hoping that you can incorporate into like the next iteration of data. If we could add the number of submissions that are coming in, that would be really helpful. Because I know that some are just stuck between that and the intake process. So want to know where you folks are on that. And also the rejections and the returns in every step of the process. So the intake, the land use review, the plan check. Even the other multi-agencies that have to review, DEM, Fire, Department of Health,just would like to know where things are in various points of the process. I will send information to you about the conversation we had about the revisions and additions. If what you're saying here today publicly to all of us is folks don't really have to go through the whole process and resubmit, your folks are telling the community something completely different, and I just want to make sure that there's clarity in the process. Finally, Chair David brought up the communication about resubmission. When folks are resubmitting, they don't know how long they have to wait. If it's a day, if it's week, if it's a month. So their calling three weeks later grumbling, "Where is it?" So if we could just get a bit more acknowledgement, communication and some timeframe for when they can expect communication back, I think that's all folks want to know. They are clearly very eager, chomping at the bit, to get the permit so they can start building. And I think that's what we want, because that's the foundation of our economy. So thank you again, Director, for being here. We appreciate it. Chair, I yield. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. With that, we have a motion on the floor. But Director it's the Department of Public MR. RODENHURST: Works. CHR. LEE LOY: Not the department of public feelings. So with that, we have a motion to close file on Communication 640. All those in favor, please say "aye." Page 31 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 Vote on Comm. 640: The motion to close file on Comm. 640 was carried Filed 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. Recess: At 4:07 p.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 4:13 p.m. Comm. 665: REQUESTS AN UPDATE FROM THE MASS TRANSIT AGENCY ON THE TRANSIT MASTER PLAN, BUS REPLACEMENT PLAN, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PERFORMANCE MEASURES, AND THE POTENTIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION/METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION From Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy, dated March 3, 2022. Motion to Close File: Mr. Inaba moved to close file on Comm. 665. Seconded by Mr. Richards. CHR. LEE LOY: Today we have Administrator John Andoh, and actually for my colleagues was a request by our Administrator to bring everybody back up to speed. So Mr. Andoh, go ahead, please. (Note: At this time, Mass Transit Administrator John Andoh came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. ANDOH: Top of the afternoon, Council Members and Madam Chair. John Andoh, Mass Transit Administrator, Mass Transit Agency, here today to just update you from our last presentation in December of the Mass Transit Agency activities. So I'll jump right to it. (Note: At this time, Mr. Andoh, along with Cheryl Soon and JoAnna Herkes from SSFM, provided a PowerPoint presentation to Members of the Committee. For viewing of the presentation, please see the DVD recording of the meeting on file in the Clerk's Office, or by navigating to the Council meeting video archives from the County's homepage at www.hawaiicounty.gov. A copy of the PowerPoint is made a part of the record. See Comm. 665.1.) Page 32 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MR. ANDOH: I want to thank you for allowing me to see you again, and happy to answer any questions. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Administrator Andoh and Ms. Soon, for being here. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. For as much data as has been put before us, I'm sure Ms. Kimball is also very excited about this. A couple of questions looking forward to this, again concern for the dollars and cents. This year I was on the Council, and we approved the master plan. Fully supported the implementation of the master plan. We went from basically $10 million a year to $20 million a year, and now what I'm looking for is 10 years, which is a $200 million commitment for mass transit. But what I'm seeing is 2022-2023 request is $30 million. Now I appreciate—and not sure if I'm supposed to refer to you as Captain Mass Transit or Super Mass Transit—but when it comes to the funding and finding grants to pay for all this stuff—and I appreciate the fact, and I really appreciate the statement about getting some old buses as a just as modality from here to there for two years. We recognize we're getting some old equipment, but the idea is not to keep the old equipment rolling, it's just to replace older equipment so we can keep the wheels turning for a few more years until the new stuff comes in. And I'm supportive of that. But we've got—well, maybe I just haven't looked at these numbers. It's hard enough. They go up to $30 million, but I don't see the equipment going up all that much. We double our operations, but why are we doubling our operations if we're cutting back on Roberts. So I need a clarification on that. MR. ANDOH: So basically the way the Roberts contract is structured is depending if we use an employee or if we use an employee plus a vehicle. So when we added the additional routes, we shifted all of our buses, the County- owned buses to the east side of the island and then they also provide services to the west as long as they can make it back to the east. Then we are using Roberts- owned vehicles on the west side of the island due to lack of facilities. So the west side of the island costs are $138 per hour generally, whereas the east side of the island, the costs are $80 per hour. So every hour that the bus operates we have to just times that by those rates. And then that gets you to where the $15.6 million on their cost. But as we start shifting the west side of the island to County-owned buses, that$15.6 million will start to come down because we will no longer have to utilize their buses. Am I answering your question right? MR. RICHARDS: But I'm still not understanding the jump of 100 percent over the year, because is it we're putting on that many more routes? Page 33 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MR. ANDOH: We are, yes. The Puna District particularly with seven day a week service. Also in the Hilo area, Kailua-Kona area adding the blue line and the green line routes also has attributed to that. Before we were primarily were a Monday through Saturday operation. Now we're basically seven days a week plus holidays. So that increased the hours operated to the transit system. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so I'm going to have to dig in this a little bit further, because I'm still—going up $12 million a year is a big jump, and it's taking up our overall budget 50 percent a year, which again I appreciate the fact, the capital investment, I'm all about that. And I appreciate the fact that we put forth the free bus service for the interim to build ridership, and I get that. But the funding for this extra $10 million, how are you funding that? Because that's not all coming out of the GE(General Excise Tax). MR. ANDOH: Yes, that is coming from the GE. MR. RICHARDS: That will all be coming from the GE MR. ANDOH: Yes, GE—with a combination of the extra federal funding that we've received such as the American Rescue Plan. And the CRRSAA funding (Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act), that is also helping towards that. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so I'm sure I'm going to have further questions on that. We'll come back to that later. You made the comment about it's a $97 million commitment. That was total capital cost. Was that for the 2022 to 2032 number? MS. SOON: Yes. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so $100 million for 10 years, so $10 million a year, rough numbers? MS. SOON: Yes. I think he smoothed it out. It's not totally smooth. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, I realize there's going to be a spike, and then—okay. And that's towards all capital, including what you were saying, the hubs and maintenance facilities, etcetera? MS. SOON: Exactly. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, we'll have to verify that. Then for the next 10 years, rough numbers, what are we looking at as far as percentage from GE funding, from grants, and then from General Fund. Rough number. MS. SOON: General Fund zero, except for the last two years when the GET runs out. Page 34 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MR. RICHARDS: Okay. MS. SOON: The split between GET and federal grants is roughly speaking I'd say one-third/two-thirds; however, as John mentioned, the GET, you're projected to collect about$50 million a year. Far more than we and anybody had estimated previously. The mass transit system is using about$30 million of it. The balance is going to DPW primarily. In discussions with eth Finance Director, she basically said in any one year you get the first call. So if you needed $28 or $32 (million) of that$50, it would come here first. So, John can build a budget by determining this is what I actually am getting in federal funds, because the 5311 (Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 Formula Funding) money you're told in January of each year how much you're going to get. So he's going to use that first and the delta is going to take from GET. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. So I'm getting that in my understanding, and we do have a way to pay for this going forward. We collectively as a Council have discussed that our mass transit is in fact an economy accelerator because we can get things to happen. I am supportive of that. But we still have to pay for it. MS. SOON: Correct. MR. ANDOH: I also want to add that with the new infrastructure law, for the next five years the formula funds for operations on the federal side is going up 33 percent over previous years. So now that a budget has been approved by the Federal Government, we're likely to see more 5311 funds. I mean, (inaudible) we've gotten about$1 million. It got back to basically significantly higher than we can use towards paying like our cost towards Roberts and any of our operational expenses. Which will also slightly allow us to reduce our GET spent. MS. SOON: And the same will happen on capital since the infrastructure bill in particular has incentives for buying electric buses. So that the match shares are lower. So there's a lot of money specifically earmarked for things that John does. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. And yes, for some of your, I use the term "brilliance," as far as being able to identify those buckets and then actually being able to capitalize and obtain them. This is a specific question, and if you don't have the answer now, I'm fine with that, but you talked about the circulator in Waimea. Kohala has also been interested in the circulator, and I don't know what the cost of that is, but with the potential, with the incentive to build ridership, I think you might be able to do that in Kohala. At the very least, I'd like to entertain the conversation of what it would cost to put that in Kohala. And looking at it, it looks like you can go Page 35 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 through Waimea once an hour,just(inaudible) an hour, and I'm thinking Kohala would probably be very similar. I'd like to explore that and see if that's something that we may be able to get federally funded, whatever the case may be. So Chair, I could keep asking numbers, but I do hope that there's a way that people can submit recommendations for the bus shelters, so we have bus stops. I know Waimea, Kohala, actually this whole island, we need shelter whether for rain or sun depending east side or west side, or north or south. But if there's a way that we could submit a suggestion for someplace somewhere, I think that would be helpful for the community so they can get that done. Then it could go on a list someplace and we can advocate for that,whatever the case may be. I could keep asking questions, but Chair I'm going to yield, because I find this fascinating. Thank you, Chair, I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Richards. I'm going to check in, in Hilo. Mr. Kleinfelder, any questions? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, no. No questions here. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thanks. Here in Hilo, seeing noneoh, Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I just wanted to make a comment. We so appreciate the good work that you are doing, Administrator Andoh, JoAnna, Cheryl. Thank you. You delivered an award-winning plan in 2018. It's being implemented, and I just appreciate the surgical approach that's been taken to come up with the supplemental document. And based on the work that is happening now to take action on the recommendations, you're able to identify how we best proceed for the next 10 years. So taking a hard look at what do we need staffing-wise in order to make this agency run really smoothly, what kind of fleet do we want to have for ourselves that takes us into zero emissions kind of fleet right into the future, all of the maintenance and infrastructure that's needed for that; this is huge. So I just wanted to take a moment to reflect that while this was a lot of information, it was a lot of great information. And we don't have any questions because you've answered, really, all of them. So we look forward to supporting you this budget cycle, and I also just wanted to say thank you, Administrator Andoh, for being so active this legislative session. I've seen you and Council Member Lee Loy on a number of Zooms related to the Mass Transit organization legislation and resolution that have been put forward by Senator Dru Kanuha, so thank you for your advocacy and your input on that. Just, we really appreciate all the work that you're doing to champion our Mass Page 36 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 Transit Agency and just make a far more reliable transportation system. So thank you. I appreciate it, Chair. I yield. MS. VILLEGAS: Real quick? CHR. LEE LOY: Yeah. MS. VILLEGAS: Just one last thing. Thank you for recognizing this man and the level that he's at. I'm assuming there's a pay rate associated with that, and I want to thank you, Mr. Andoh, for your patience with our County and with the system. You have proven yourself a priceless asset to our County transportation department, and I don't know how, we would go about doing that, but I am completely and fully onboard, and it does fall right in line with the way that you speak and lead, that you would not for this for yourself, but someone that works with you would recognize that and bring that forward. So just want to tell you thank you for your patience with us as we continue to try and navigate getting you to whatever the label is, but also that the compensation is appropriate for the skillset and how far you've brought us in such a short period of time. With that, I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Yes, thank you, to my colleagues. You know, I have to acknowledge Ms. Soon. Like, this has been five years in the making, and it started really messy with an audit. And then to have that backfilled with a wonderful master plan and then using the plan, getting the right people in the seats right on the bus. I mean there was a lot of philosophy behind that, and then now this supplemental report. And what I want to acknowledge, and Mr. Andoh,you have been just fantastic at putting that plan into action, Ms. Soon, one thing that was incredibly helpful in the first master plan was the GE and how we marched through the funding and then provided those steps. So in this next iteration, under the Section 4, you mentionedI think it was three the plan with and/or without the GE. If there was other options that you could dovetail into that that we could actually start maybe working towards now, that would be incredibly helpful for us. In addition toI know we're going to be moving in a lot of assets as far as a new bus facility in West Hawaii, but what the cost would look like for maintenance down the road. Because standing it up is going to cost money, but then what does it take to maintain that facilities along the way, and showing us that comparison with or without the GE and then other fundings that could or could not be used, that way we can take, as you said, the supplemental report to the Legislature and say, you know, this is what it's going to take for us. And then to realize that true economic recovery. That would be so helpful if I could suggest that. I don't know if Page 37 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 MS. SOON: Yeah, I know what you're saying, and I thank you for mentioning that. The plan tries to put as many expenditures into those years when you have the GET, to use it well. Hopefully a Kailua-Kona facility is also an operational savings. Instead of deadheading them back, you know, to Hilo all the time, you know, you might as well, you know, gas them up and do as many repairs and things. You'll probably still do the heavy maintenance back in Hilo, but you can do a lot of other things on your preventive maintenance program in a small facility over in Kailua-Kona, and that will be a savings over time in your operations budget. So sometimes a capital expenditure brings an operational savings. Yeah, but I'll try to work inI really want you to be able to use this at the Leg., to hammer into them that you know what you're doing, you know where you're going, and GET has made all the difference in making it possible. CHR. LEE LOY: Yeah, what's incredibly helpful for me is that subsidy amount. Just talking about how much we're subsidizing a rider, because five years ago, we were subsidizing at$15 a rider, and today's figures, I heard you say range between $23 up to $27 depending on that need, right, because our paratransit rider needs a whole lot more. But that really sinks in for people as far as how valuable this system is and why we need to continue the subsidy piece, because it offsets. And it truly helps our most vulnerable population and the costs of living, it's all the economics that go with it. And if you could help us with that, that would be incredibly helpful. MS. SOON: I'll try to work that in. CHR. LEE LOY: Yeah, I don't have any questions other than those suggestions, but I do look forward to that draft and providing comment and input. So with that, thank you, both of you, for being here. I think we have Communication 665 to close file. All those in favor, please say "aye." Vote on Comm. 665: The motion to close file on Comm. 665 was carried Filed by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy —6. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung, David, and Kimball —3. Excused: None. Page 38 PWMTC-19 March 22,2022 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 5:14 p.m., Mr. Inaba moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy—6. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung, David and, Kimball—3. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: Meeting adjourned at 5:14 p.m. Thank you. ppm ed: a5/1t=A,D,_ Ms. an L. K. Lee .y. Cha (Date) Public ,,orks and M. s Transit mitte . SL/ja Page 39