Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PWMTC 2022/11/15 2020-2022 Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit 29th Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii November 15, 2022 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit ORDER: was called to order at 2:06 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Acting Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice Chair Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Absent& Excused: Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak and came forward when called by the Chair: Daryl Oliveira: Bill 238 (Comm. 1082), in support. (representing Hawaii Housing Coalition) Floyd Eaglin: Bill 238 (Comm. 1082), in support; and Bill 244 (Comm. 1103), comment. John Hetherington: Bill 238 (Comm. 1082), in support. Kari Kimura: Bill 238 (Comm. 1082), in opposition. Eileen O'Hara: Bill 244 (Comm. 1103), in support. Dwight Vicente: Res. 607-22 (Comm. 1097), comment. PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 Bill 238 (Comm. 1082), comment. Dean Au: Bill 238 (Comm. 1082), comment. (representing Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters) Maziyar Rajaei: Bill 238 (Comm. 1082), in opposition. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Mr. Clerk, let's go to Communication 1089. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 1089: REQUESTS DISCUSSION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, IRONMAN RACE DIRECTOR DIANA BERTSCH, AND THE HAWAII POLICE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE IRONMAN WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP RACE EVENT HELD IN KAILUA-KONA ON OCTOBER 6 AND 8, 2022 From Council Member Rebecca Villegas, dated October 24, 2022. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So Ms. Villegas is not here today, and we do have—we had a note from her. Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. Motion to Close File: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to close file on Comm. 1089. Seconded by Ms. David. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Any discussion? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, I'd also like to make a motion to postpone this measure to January 17, 2023, committee meeting. Council Member Villegas, who requested this particular presentation is not here today, so she's requested that we postpone this particular discussion. Vote on Motion Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to postpone Comm. 1089 to Postpone: to January 17, 2023. Seconded by Ms. David and (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, and Acting Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder–5. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Inaba, Villegas, and Lee Loy –3. Excused: None. Page 2 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 ACTING CHR KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Let's just go to the next one, Resolution 607. Res. 607-22: ACCEPTS THE DEDICATION OF THOSE CERTAIN ROADWAY PARCELS IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP KEYS: 2-4-039:060 AND 2-4-039:027 (KIKAHA STREET, HO`OLALA STREET, PUAKEA PLACE,AND A ROAD LOT RESERVE), AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP KEYS: 2-4-039:025 (POR.) (EASEMENT D-1), 2-4-039-028 (POR.) (EASEMENT 1), 2-4-039:034 (POR.) (EASEMENT 2), 2-4-039:035 (POR.) (EASEMENT 3), 2-4-039:038 (POR.) (EASEMENT 6) AND 2-4-039:057 (POR.) (EASEMENT 17), SITUATED AT WAIAKEA, DISTRICT OF SOUTH HILO, ISLAND AND COUNTY OF HAWAII, STATE OF HAWAII, FROM HILO ONE INCORPORATED, A HAWAII CORPORATION The landholder seeks to dedicate the roadways and all improvements for public roadway purposes, and grant easements for drainage and maintenance purposes. Reference: Comm. 1097 Intr. by: Ms. Lee Loy (B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. David moved to recommend adoption of Res. 607-22. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. ACTING CHR KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Any discussion, Council Members? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, I'll just note for the record that all departments, Environmental Management, Planning, Water Supply, Public Works have no objections, and they did recommend that the Council accept this road dedication. I do want to just point out that Deputy Corporation Counsel Sinclair Salas-Fergusson is in Kona Chambers in case you folks have questions. I'll be supporting this dedication, thank you. ACTING CHR KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Seeing no discussion. Motion is on the floor, all in favor? Page 3 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 Vote on Res. 607-22: The motion to recommend adoption of Res. 607-22 (Approved) was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, and Acting Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—5. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Inaba, Villegas, and Lee Loy —3. Excused: None. Bill 221: AMENDS CHAPTERS 17 AND 26 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO FIRE Updates and revises the Hawaii County Fire Code to incorporate the 2018 National Fire Protection Association standards and adopt the 2018 Hawaii State Fire Code. Reference: Comm. 1029 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) (Note: Comm. 1029.1, from Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz dated October 17, 2022, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 221, was circulated.) (Note: Comm. 1029.2, from Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz dated October 17, 2022, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 221, was circulated.) (Note: Comm. 1029.3, from Council Member Ashley L. Kierkiewicz dated October 17, 2022, transmitting proposed amendments to Bill 221, was circulated.) ACTING CHR KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Following the last committee meeting, where we introduced the Fire Code and had a really robust discussion with Committee Members, and also invited the Department of Public Works (DPW), specifically the Building Division, to weigh in on this Code. Our office convened a conversation with numerous departments, so I'm going to name everybody just underscore how many folks are involved in reviewing, vetting, working through, and resolving some of the concerns that were raised by Public Works. So with Fire, we had Fire Chief Kazuo Todd, Chief Palani Kurashige, and Royd Henderson, who are joining us from Hilo. Gentlemen, why don't you just walk over to the koa table because I will be asking you to weigh in on the amendments that we are going to be deliberating upon today. Page 4 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 For Public Works, we had Director Pause. We also had Building Chief Julann Sonomura, and Deputy Kelly Wilson. Neal Tanaka, I believe you were there. No, you weren't there? Okay,just a figment of my imagination. But we also did have Corporation Counsel Members, Deputy Cody Frenz, with Fire; and Deputy Sinclair Salas-Fergusson, for Public Works; and then my staff. There were four issues that were raised. Two are going to be discussed today as amendments, but the first was related to AHJ(Authority Having Jurisdiction), that is the authority that has jurisdiction in reviewing things within the Code, and so we settled upon it being related to the Fire Chief as it relates to this particular Code, so that was resolved. There were also questions within by the Building Division, and not wanting to have to take on more kuleana, and so Chief Todd was able to relay that should this Code be adopted by the Council, they are going to work very hard, very diligently, to make sure that there's something separate set up, similar to Planning, with EPIC (Electronic Processing and Information Center), so that was very satisfactory to Public Works. I'm just noting that Director Pause is nodding his head, okay. There were also questions related to how we would define new construction, and so we have one amendment that we'll be reviewing today. Then also,just providing more clarity around the fee structure that's contained in the Code. So Chair, I have two amendments that I'm going to be floating today. There are four transmittals that were provided; they were earlier drafts. But I want to make sure that I'm calling out the correct communications so we can discuss them. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to amend Bill 221, Draft 2, with the contents of Communication 1029.7. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. This is related to crafting a very simple and specific definition related to new construction. I'm going to actually defer to our Fire Chief on this one because he so eloquently shared with the group the best definition moving forward, and then I also want to make sure that Building is weighing in because they helped to wordsmith this and then making sure that everything is legally sound, so I'll be calling up Cody. But Chief, let's start with you. (Note: At this time, Fire Chief Kazuo Todd came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHIEF TODD: Okay, so essentially the amendment for this one, for (Communication) 1029.7, amends a new definition for new construction, which Page 5 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 means the scope of a construction project currently permitted under Chapter 5. So what we're saying in that is that any construction that's happening, that's covered by Chapter 5 in the International Building Code, which is the current Building Code by the Hawaii County, is considered new construction. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Chief, Sonomura, anything to add on this particular amendment? You are going to have to come to the table. Make sure we're capturing your comments on the record, thank you. (Note: At this time, Public Works Building Chief Julann Sonomura came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SONOMURA: It's just clarification that Chapter 5 is in the Hawaii County Code. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. And then, Deputy Frenz, do you want to just weigh in, legal standpoint? I mean, we had multiple iterations of this particular amendment before we landed on this one, so just want to make sure that my colleagues feel confident that there has been a thorough legal review, and you folks are on board with this. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Dakota(Cody) Frenz came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. FRENZ: Deputy Corporation Counsel Cody Frenz. There's actually been an extensive review on multiple different occasions amongst several of us, as Council Member Kierkiewicz has already indicated. I don't have any concerns with the amendment. I hope that this gets adopted today. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, thank you. I yield to my colleagues for any questions or comments on this first amendment. Thank you, Chair. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Any questions? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah,just a quick comment in response to just what I heard there a moment ago. It's okay that this doesn't clarify that this is Chapter 5 in the Hawaii County Code, specifically. MS. FRENZ: We can add that additional if it becomes necessary, but I think that when you look and you read everything in its entirety together, collectively, it's very clear, I guess in my opinion, that we're referring to that to the County Code for that purpose. So I don't think it's necessary, but if everyone feels strongly about it. Page 6 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I know it's always opt for greater clarity even if it seems excessive, so I'd recommendI mean, I'm happy to support this wording today, but would suggest maybe that minor addition. Thanks. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. We made sure to work with our Legislative Review Branch on this, and if you do take a look at other sections of County Code, doesn't necessarily say Hawaii County Code. It also does sometimes just refer to specific sections, and the reader assumes that we're referring to our Code. So if you folks are amenable to this particular language, I'd like to move forward and adopt it today. MS. FRENZ: Just one additional thing for Council Member Kimball. I think if it appeases you or helps assist in the—how you want to review the information, if you want to refer to another Hawaii Revised Statute, for example, or something else that controls, that would definitely be spelled out to ensure that everyone knows what we're reading, we're now referring elsewhere, as opposed to within the Code itself. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I think we haveI'm sorry, Chair, can I be recognized? CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Ms. Kimball. Go ahead, Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you. What I was going to say, I think we have some different approaches from different LRB (Legislative Research Branch) folks. Like if it's referring to a different chapter within the Code, it will say the Code; and if it's referring to a section within the chapter, then it won't. I'm ambivalent, frankly. I just kind of—maybe I misheard the comment there from our Division Chief from Building, but it's not that big of a deal and I'm happy to move this forward, from my angle. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Okay, we have the motion on the floor for the amendment. My question for Corporation Counsel, this definition is being added to Chapter 17, correct, to define what new construction is? What is it referencing in Chapter 17? Or is it just clarifying, or just general purpose? MS. FRENZ: No, if you look at, I believe the original bill before this committee, that term is used, so we're ensuring that we're all on the same page for anyone who reads it, so we are actively defining it for the actual bill that's before you, Draft 2, I believe. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, it's a different chapter completely. So we're going to redefine what new construction means? Page 7 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 MS. FRENZ: It's not in this particular section. That's the problem. That's why we're doing it now. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That's why the addition? Okay, thank you. Seeing no further discussion from the Council. We have the motion on the floor to amend Bill 221, Draft 2, with the contents of Communication 1029.7, all in favor? Vote on Motion: The motion to amend Bill 221, Draft 2, with the to Amend: contents of Comm. 1029.7 was carried by the (Approved) following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, and Acting Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—5. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Inaba, Villegas, and Lee Loy —3. Excused: None. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Back to Bill 221, as amended. Ms. Kierkiewicz. Motion to Amend: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to amend Bill 221, Draft 2, as amended, with the contents of Comm. 1029.8. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. This one was really a no-brainer. I think with Fire being incredibly creative and wanting to assess more fees for their time, there's reference to plan reviews, and so one of the things that Public Works was raising was reassess permit review fees, as well. So just wanted to provide more a little bit more clarity around what is happening and what that formula looks like. So if you take a look at the particular amendment,we are talking about an additional fire plan review fee, and this fee would be in the amount of 15 percent of the building permit plan review fee assessed pursuant to Chapter 5, Section 7-1(a), which is related to permit plan reviews. It also talks about plan review fees being assessed in addition to building permit fees. So this is something on top of what is being charged by the Building Division. So, I hope that provides a bit more clarity to folks, and I invite Fire or anyone from Public Works or Corporation Counsel to add a bit more context to the conversation. Thank you, Chair. Page 8 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Discussion? Seeing none. Chief Todd, can you give us an explanation of this? CHIEF TODD: Yeah. So our original version under Bill 221 was a little vague, and DPW (Department of Public Works)raised the issue that it could be interpreted in ways, and so the amendment for this particular bill, for 1029.8, was to bring clarity to that explanation of how we would actually be charging, and that's why we're amending it at this point, if that answers your question. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, any increase in the fee? CHIEF TODD: No. Actually, the interpretation originally might have actually shown up as a lot more than it was. It was meant to be a percent of a percent, and in this case, it's 15 percent of the percentage that they charge for the permit plan review, and we didn't want it to be a percentage of the original number, so that's why, basically, this had to be wordsmithed to make sense. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, and not a new fee? CHIEF TODD: Well, this is a fee that is not currently charged, and it is an additional fee. What we're trying to do with this, as far as the Fire Department's concern and the Fire Code, is to bring in plans that are currently not being reviewed, that we think are important to keep a track of. These primarily are fire protection-related plans. So currently within our system, building permit plans are coming into the Building Department and they're checked, and conceptual drawings are put in for fire protection systems, but what happens is that the companies that will end up designing a fire sprinkler system, or a fire alarm system, or one of the other systems that are out there, don't actually submit their plan sets through that building permit process because they haven't been made yet. Once the plans are approved, the building permit is issued. The general contractor who's picked up will then subcontract out to different companies to do the work, and they'll create a job-set plan, which is the actual plan that's going to be used to design the system to run the water calcs and things like that, but one of the problems is that those plans come in after the fact and aren't going through a formal review process. So part of this is we're looking for an ability to eventually track those, bring them into the system, get a formal review process on them, and then make sure that there is something saying, "Hey, we have signed off. This is a credible design. It met all the hydraulic calculations, or it meets with NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) requirements and things like that. So that's the reason kind of behind this concept. It's going to take a while to launch, but that is the intent behind it. Page 9 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And this is for alterations and new construction, correct? CHIEF TODD: So this would primarily be anytime, at this point, for fire protection-related equipment that's going to get installed when the plan sets would be drawn up. So we're looking to eventually capture those into the system. That could be an alteration where they're putting in a sprinkler system. It could be renovation. It could be new construction. It all just kind of depends on if they're putting in a fire protection system when they're doing work. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So I'm just—I'm tracking these two sections, Section 1.7.12.1.2, but it refers back to 1.7.12.1.1, which is basically any kind of permit being pulled, is that correct? Am I reading this right? Maybe DPW can help me out. CHIEF TODD: Yeah, so 1.7.12.1.1 is a pull-out from the Hawaii Revised Statutes 132-9, where basically plans or specifications, or both, that are submitted to the Fire Chief, when required by Chapter 5, basically that is the enabling language that allows the Fire Chief to review plan sets. And then the 1.7.12.1.2 would be if we are reviewing for this particular thing, what we would charge. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Understood. What I'm getting at is this new fee or fees will be required for both new construction and any additional construction, rehabilitation, alterations, is that correct or incorrect? CHIEF TODD: It could be—anytime a fire protection plan comes through, we want to capture that, yes. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And then for your basic home, 1056, what would be the fees we're looking at? CHIEF TODD: We don't review for basic homes. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Give me some just give me an idea of a fee that this would CHIEF TODD: You're building a hotel and you're dropping a fire sprinkler system in there, when those fire sprinkler plans come in, we'd be charging a fee for that to go do the review for that. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. This would be new? CHIEF TODD: Additional fee, yes. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Would this apply to small commercial buildings? Page 10 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 CHIEF TODD: You know, it depends. On the small commercial building, many of them don't require very much in terms of—it depends on the size of the commercial building. If you're building like a Target, they're going to have a sprinkler system, at which time, yes we'll have plan sets that need to be reviewed. If you're talking like a strip mall,potentially there is no fire sprinkler system or anything else that goes in, in which case it's just going through the regular permit process and there's no additional fee. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Commercial kitchen? CHIEF TODD: Commercial kitchen, yeah, potentially we would charge for a commercial kitchen. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you, Chief. Appreciate it. Okay, any questions from the Council? Okay. Motion on the floor is to amend Bill 221, Draft 2, as amended, with the contents of Communication 1029.8, all in favor? Vote on Motion: The motion to amend Bill 221, Draft 2, to Amend: as amended, with the contents of Comm. 1029.8 (Approved) was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, and Acting Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—5. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Inaba, Villegas, and Lee Loy —3. Excused: None. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Back to the main motion. Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair, I have no other amendments, and look forward to everyone's support on this particular Code update. I just want to thank all the departments for their time and their effort in kind of helping make this happen, especially the amendments that really needed to be done, based on conversations with Public Works. So again,just looking for everyone's support. Thank you. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Council Members, any discussion? Okay, seeing none. Well, thank you everyone for your time. Thank you, members of the Fire Department, for joining us in Hilo, and for the time and energy that went into reorganizing and recreating this bill and bringing in the amendments. I appreciate your time, Ms. Frenz, thank you. With that, motion is on the floor to forward Bill No. 221, Draft 2, as Page 11 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 amended, with the contents of Communication 1029.7 and 1029.8 to the Council with a favorable recommendation, all in favor? Vote on Bill 221: The motion to amend Bill 221, Draft 2, as amended, Draft 3 on first reading was carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, and Acting Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder—5. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Inaba, Villegas, and Lee Loy —3. Excused: None. Bill 238: AMENDS CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 5-4-5 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTRUCTION CODE Adds provisions to allow for plans and specifications prepared, designed, and stamped by a licensed architect or professional engineer to be approved by the County without customary reviews by the Department of Public Works. This provision would be in effect for 180 days from its effective date and repealed thereafter unless extended by ordinance. Reference: Comm. 1082 Intr. by: Mr. Chung Motion to Approve: Mr. Chung moved to recommend passage of Bill 238 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. David. ACTING CHR KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, thank you. You know, many years ago I worked with a colleague, Margaret Wille from Waimea, and she had this propensity to just throwing things up in the air and let them fall, and then we'd have to try to figure things out, and that really was to the chagrin of certain Council Members. But over time, I really started to appreciate the beauty of that because it allowed people to work things through and for the public to see that the Council is a fluid organization, and we all try to work together in doing things. So anyway, she came up with this ethics bill one time. I know I'm digressing, but give me some latitude. Few of us were lodging objections to that ethics bill. Ethics is always a good thing, right? You want more ethics in government. Three or four of us were criticized by members of the public for not cooperating with this ethics bill, but all of the things that we had offered up were eventually Page 12 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 integrated into that bill, and on the record, Margaret Wille, the maker, stated that this was actually a better bill. Now, the reason why I bring all of that up is basically what I've done here, I've thrown something up in the air, not unlike what Margaret Wille did many years ago, and it's my hope that this body, moving forward in the next term, can at least take a serious look at what is being offered up. Now, first of all, this is not unlike something that was actually brought up by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder during the course of our discussion with the Building Code, correct? Yeah. At that time, I voted against that amendment, but the reason I voted against the amendment, and I kept on going back and forth looking at the County Code, I felt that the Building Code was not the right place to put that in. Actually, the right place to put a provision like this would be the Construction Code which dealt with the issuance of permits and the application process relating thereto. I've listened to people talk today, and I knew there was going to be push-back, no question, I'm just kind of surprised that there's so little pushback. I know you guys are more represented by a bigger population, for sure. This really is a matter of perspective, and I hope everyone can understand my perspective. I've been serving this thing for 16 years, over the course of maybe close to 30, right, and you know what? I just haven't seen the building permit process improving over that time. When Fresh Onishi was on his last term, this was about six years ago, he really made a big push, you know, having presentations relating to the building permit process, and I know he got really frustrated as well. This has nothing to do with the personnel we have with the County. They're all good people. They're trying to do a good job, but I think what's happening is, for better or for worse, they're really trying to dot their is and cross their t's, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but when I go to places out in the rural communities, and I see houses just thrown together with pieces of lumber and people living in there, and I'm thinking why the hell do we have to take such a really, really critical review of these houses on people who are trying to do—go through the process legally? It's been very frustrating for me. I hear a lot of stuff from the County people saying, "No, it's getting better, it's getting better." You know, maybe I'm bad in this sense because I also characterized the EPIC system as just being a glorified tracking system. Maybe that's not fair, but that's how I feel. But when I talk to people in the construction industry, they tell me, "No, the building permit process is not getting any better," So I don't know, I mean, maybe the County people have a different perspective than the people who are trying to get their building permits passed. But, I've got to side with the people on the outside, who are saying it's just not happening. So all I want to do, and please give me a little bit more latitude on this, Mr. Chairman, I just want to see some improvement. I've stated this on many Page 13 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 occasions. Look, if this administration, and no offense to this present administration because this has been going on for many, many years, but if the administration cannot do it internally, then it's up to the legislative body to do something about it. This is one way. I'm just throwing it up there, and if you guys think there's merit to it, then tweak it, dump it, or come up with something else. But something needs to be done, no question in my mind. There were some comments that came up. I think Ms. Kimura stated, about the provision in here, requiring a statement—I'm just kind of off the top of my head because I don't know exactly where it is, that all of the plans and specifications that are stamped are going to be in conformity with the applicable laws, you know, good point that you made. Nobody can really, I guess, certify all of that, but there's really no penalty to it. I mean, it's just somebody saying that they understand what the laws are relating to construction standards, and they're stamping it. But if the Council sees fit to take that provision out, then do it,just take it out. Mr. Hetherington, I think it was, right? You stated something about the training, right? How come—why put that in there? I'll tell you exactly why I put that in there, because during the course of one of our conversations with our former director, Ikaika Rodenhurst, he basically said, based on my question, "What kind of training are you guys having for the staff?" He said, "Well, presently nothing," so if that's the case, we just make the professionals take the same amount of training as the review people, which is presently nothing, and I wanted to put that in there in case the department, no offense to the department, tried to hold up the implementation of this law by requiring additional training of our professionals. That's the only reason why I put that in there, but if you guys want to take it out, take it out too, I got really no problem. The main point is this, if a professional is willing to put their name and stamp on a piece of—on a document, specification plans, and that's what they do, we should give some kind of deference to them. Now, I think one thing that's really causing a lot of angst on people, and professionals as well, is that there are some people, you know, all professions, that aren't really professional about carrying out their professional duties, and then they'll just kind of stamped anything, you know, kind of worried about that, right? But that's why I made this just a 180-day pilot project. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out. But, it's not going to be all that bad; at the worse, we're going to get rid of a lot of backlog at the County building department, so we can start fresh because I know there is a backlog, and so we can move ahead in that regard. You know what's really, really disappointing about all of this is that if we had been able to move faster, a lot of people who had their building permit applications in the queue, could have taken advantage of low-interest rates, and now we're looking at a period of inflation, high-interest rates, people lost their chances, you know, it's very, very sad. It's not only confined to Hawaii, of Page 14 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 course, I'm not picking on our own department, but something needs to be done, and we've got to think outside of the box already. If this is not the mechanism, then fine. But maybe you guys can work within the context of this; refine, tweak it, and do whatever you guys can. But, let's get people moving. Construction industry, very surprised that carpenters would come out in opposition to this, but I understand how certain things are. I don't know what the state of construction is right now, maybe there are a lot of jobs out there for you guys. But I'm thinking if we can punch these building permits out, then it's only going to help our construction trade's people. I really do believe that. But I could be wrong, maybe there are ample jobs right now out there, you know, because I'm not really privy to that kind of stuff. Maybe it's better to put the brakes on getting these building permits out so that the price of construction doesn't go up, the labor part, because you have, for example, if you have a lot of building permits coming out and not enough workers, then of course the labor price is going to go UP- I cannot answer that. But I would think just—my common sense tells me right now, it would be a real good time if we can get guys off the bench, like getting these building permits moving. That's just my thought, yeah. Think about that thing. So really, yeah, that's all I got to say about this thing. It's really up to you guys how you want to handle it. I'm thinking it's going to still stay in committee, of course. Let the new Council deal with it. But I really wanted to throw something out there because I've been very frustrated, very, very frustrated, and no offense to any of you guys, really, yeah. Because now, you know, I talked about professionalism and the lack of professionalism, and how some of the real professionals might be kind of worried about the ones who aren't real professionals, but even within the Building Department, you got the good guys and the not too good guys, you know, guys doing forum shopping. That's not a good situation either, you know. So I would seriously ask this Council and the Council who is coming in to take a look at this. That's all I ask. I have no control over it from here. Thank you. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Council Members? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you, Chair. I'm going to start just making a disclosure. I think I've mentioned before that my husband is an architect and owns an architecture firm, and so I did get confirmation from our Corporation Council that because this bill does not provide a specific benefit and would benefit—you know,provide benefits that are provided to any licensed professional, there's no conflict of interest ethically on my part to participate in this discussion. But I did just want to make that disclosure and give my colleagues an opportunity—have any concerns about my participation in this discussion to make that known now before I—may I go on? Page 15 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: All right, thank you. Like our other bill earlier today, Mr. Chung, I appreciate you bringing this forward for the creation of a conversation here, certainly giving us a lot of homework for the next term. Anyway, I do appreciate the intention of the discussion. The time that it takes for building permits to go through is something that has come up again and again in this Council. I hear it from constituents. Obviously, in my husband's profession, I hear it sometimes around the dinner table, as well. However, I feel like this is a particular nuance thing, and this bill is kind of a sledgehammer, so I think that there is a necessity to spend a lot of time, thought, and conversation around this for a variety of reasons. Let's just step back to the function of the Building Code in general, which is it's not just an administrative hurdle, it's not regulatory paperwork, it's fundamentally there to protect public health and safety, and to make sure that the buildings that are designed and constructed are not going to fall down on people, are not going to be hazardous, are not going to catch on fire, you know, all of the things that could happen. When licensed professionals like architects and engineers are asked to interpret the Building Code, they're acting in the best interest of their clients, and they are trying to ensure that their clients and the public have safe buildings to live in and work in. Like any law or code, we can all appreciate being in this position. There are grey areas, and there is stuff that is potentially subject to interpretation, and that's where there's this intersection between the designed professionals—and thank you, folks, for being here—and the County, which is that regulatory oversight in the current model that we use. Because there are cases, although the design professionals might perceive or interpret the Code in one way, there's another interpretation by the regulatory body, in this case, the County, and then there has to be a conversation between those entities about what is in the best interest of the public in any given scenario. No two buildings are the same, we all know that. So, there is this intention and there is this purpose about having these conversations about how the law is to be interpreted. Looking at the function of the Building Code roles of the designed professionals, being there to protect public health and safety in terms of these designs, and then the role of the County, we don't want to give up any of those pieces because ultimately what we're looking at is making sure that our built-space is built appropriately and correctly. I think that there are other unintended consequences that generate from this piece of legislation. First and foremost, the increase in the cost of errors and omissions Page 16 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 insurance for design professionals. I mean there is a presumption already that they have to carry this for projects they've built. For the lifetime of those projects, they already bear that liability. If there is no secondary check or no secondary review, that cause—and I have actually put an inquiry out to find out from the folks that provide this professional liability what their interpretation is of this potential increase in cost to the design professionals of carrying this additional level of insurance. Because we haven't specified specific types, whether it's commercial instruction, public institutions, public facilities, homes, I think any pathway that we look at may have a little—may I have a little maybe an additional 30 seconds, Chair? Thank you. Any pathway that we take, we probably want to look at different mechanisms,just because when you invite the public into a space, there's a presumption on their side that place is going to be safely constructed and it's going to have to be reviewed. Another big concern that I had is, we're trying to actually you know, the intention here, and I appreciate the intention, I think the intention is right. If you open this 100-day, 80-day window, you know what I'm going to do if I got a building permit in the system already? I'm going to pull it and resubmit it in the six-month window. We have however many permits sitting in the process that are probably going to just be cycled back in. I hope I didn't give anybody ideas out there, but I think anybody with half a brain would say, "Yeah, that's what I'm going to do. That leaves me to my final comment, which is just the opportunity that this creates for correction. It's been brought up multiple times about folks in the design profession. Most of themI'm sure you folks have really good intentions. You're doing the right thing by the community. You're doing the right things by your clients. You conduct yourself in an ethical manner, but there's a long, long history in Hawaii, in the State and in the County, of design professionals that do not have that ethical backbone and just fly in for the day, stamp a few plans, collect their $5,000, and go home. This does not protect the public at all from that. So my recommendation today is to actually not forward this or not keep this in committee. I would like the new Council to start with a fresh bill if we are to pursue this topic at all. That it's much more a nuanced and deals with the variety of concerns that I have about the bill. Thank you for the leeway, Chair, and the rest of the body. I appreciate the time. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. First of all, I can certainly understand and see Vice Chair Chung's point, and also, Ms. Kimball,your concerns, because both Page 17 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 sides are valid. What I would like to see, because this is an important issue, I'd like to see the new body address your concerns and even ways, I believe, concerns they might have. Whether they agree that this is something that the new body should or shouldn't take up, I'd like to give that opportunity to the new body to decide. So today,just listening to Mr. Chung and listening to you, I think Imy position is that I would like to see and give the opportunity to the new Council to weigh in on this matter, and should they decide to kill it or not move forward with it, so be it. But for me, I think it was brought up by Mr. Chung for reasons that he believes strongly in. We're not going to be here anymore, but I have faith in the new Council that they will discuss this thoroughly and make a decision at that time. So I will be supporting a postponement in order to allow that to happen. Thank you, Chair. I yield. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. David. Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Council Member Chung for introducing this measure and catalyzing this conversation. I think you're right, this has been one of the most important issues that face every Council Member for decades. I think it would have been really helpful, and I know we kind of talked about this earlier, but I remember Managing Director Lee Lord came to the Council when we were having discussions about the Charter amendment and wanting to create a building department, and he said, "You know what, pump the brakes a little bit because we have engaged a consultant, paying him $10 grand, and $6,000 for travel." We were promised, I think in September, a copy of this plan, waiting with bated. When October rolls around, we get a memo from Lee Lord saying, "We need a little bit more time." Where are we at now? Mid-November and we have heard nothing. Nothing from the administration about the status of this plan. Would have been really helpful to see those recommendations and see where something like Bill 238 kind of fit in. Director Pause, I don't know if you're at liberty to like to discuss or like involved, but are you able to share where we are, status of the plan? Even if you want to say no comment,just would love to know, for the record, where we stand with this. (Note: At this time, Public Works Director Steve Pause came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. PAUSE: Certainly, I'll take a shot. Steve Pause, Director, DPW, and I did hear some of the conversations earlier when you were talking to the Cost of Government. Page 18 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 So you're absolutely right, Mr. Termer did come out and interviewed lots of people. We sat down, and I even have notes that I've taken from the conclusions and a lot of his suggestions. He was supposed to provide a report, originally it was September, I believe it was going to be mid-October, but to this point, we have not received a report. I know Lee Lord and Mayor are both trying to track down Mr. Termer to find the status of that report, but I will tell you that a great number of the items that he discussed while he was here, I'm not prepared because I don't have all my notes today. But certainly, if you want to schedule some time, and we can talk about some of the things that he talked to us about before he left, which have not been memorialized into a formal report yet, I'm more than happy to do that. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Just, was he paid in full? MR. PAUSE: It's unfortunate, and I understand the frustration. I heard it earlier, as well. Again, the suggestions, the comments, the insights, the thoughts, he did share with us. A number of them are in line with some of the things that we've been talking about, relative to third-party reviews, relative to looking at ways to streamline our process, bettering our intake process. Those are all things that are unfortunately, if I were to look at you and say, "I need more time;"you know, this has been going on for a long time, I understand that. But we are working hard and diligently with the resources that we have to try to take those recommendations and those thoughts and get them implemented. Again, you've heard us talk in the past, we need to improve the intake process. We have a backlog, but I would tell you that a great amount of our backlog is just getting the permits through that first step of making sure they're right and all the information is there so that we can move it on to the review process. So, it's difficult. I was listening to you, Mr. Chung, in taking a great amount of insights that we are offering. First of all, I'm not offended, and neither is anyone on my team. We have all gotten pretty hard and thick skinned here. We know what we signed up for. But at the end of the day, we have to get better. I think that the public can get better as well,just helping us get applications done right the first time; and I think the design and the architects and the engineers out there can get better as well, giving us plans that maybe don't go through that cycle of revisions. So, there is room for improvement across the board. I'm not trying to pass the blame, I just think at the end of the day we all need to work—we're all in this together, and we all need to work better at what our roles are as far as getting permits processed. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Director. I will be following up with you because I'm curious to know what the consultant had recommended. I'm so really disappointed that we had to call on an outside expert to tell us what was Page 19 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 wrong with our system when there are a lot of local professionals that I think we have already articulated that to the administration. I just don't like the fact that we were hustled, that's all. It's not on you, certainly not on you. Don't need a response, but I just wanted to note that. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Ms. Kierkiewicz? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah? Yeah, I'm getting back there. Thank you. But I think that's really important context. Because we were promised a plan with all kinds of recommendations, and I just wanted to know where this particular bill fit into that. Anyway, I've heard from friends on both sides of this, folks that I really, really respect. Appreciate what you have shared, Council Member Kimball. Do want to make sure that we are keeping this particular bill in committee so that the new Council can weigh in. I do want to echo the sentiments shared by Chair David, and give that Council an opportunity to have a robust discussion and design the direction in which we go. At the end of the day, I think we just want this process to really work, right? A lot of the testimony, very interestingly pointed out, on average 546 permits are issued for new residential, single-family dwellings, and when you take a look at the need for this island, 13,000 units by 2025, which is not that far off, at the pace in which we are issuing permits, what is that? Twenty years for us to meet our goal, right? So, we have a tall order. There's a huge task ahead of us. Time is money. The longer it takes to get these permits through the process, it only adds to the cost of construction, and so I really empathize with folks in the building community really trying to get their permit, so they can build and contribute to our housing inventory. Anyway again, thank you, Council Member Chung, for putting this forward. I will be voting in support to keep this particular measure in committee so we can have a discussion when the new Council is seated. Thank you, Chair. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, thank you. You know, I've never married myself to the pieces of legislation that I bring up. If they pass, they pass. Don't pass, whatever. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, really. But, I wanted to make a few points. Something needs to be done, okay? And Steve, we just appointed you know, confirmed you the other day, and I made some really nice statements about you. I feel that way, I mean I really do. But what you have said today is basically what I've heard from many, many, many other former people who have sat in your seat, so I'm hoping the point that I've made by introducing this piece of legislation is that let's kickstart some stuff on the legislative side, in conjunction Page 20 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 with your department. Maybe you can work with members of the Council, and say what can and cannot work. You brought up something very interesting and not unlike what I've heard in the past, one of the reasons for the backlog is that you guys have to go and double- check poor work, right? If that's the case, you can either by rule and regulation or by legislation, start to qualify people who can stamp. I mean, make a qualify yeah, a process by which people can be qualified to start stamping these things, and it will make things better. You might have the training, requirements, and other things like that. But, I just wanted to kickstart the discussion in doing things from the legislative end. You also talked about third-parry reviews. You know, that's something that might—you know, this Council might want to look at, but it carries with it some, you know, if we've looked at what's happened on Oahu, it carries with it some perils, as well. It's not a bad idea. They have it, I think it's by rule and regulation in Honolulu, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think it's by legislation. I have all of that, too. But I took a look at it, and I was thinking I don't know if this can really work. But, it's something that should be considered. But really, the point is I'm very frustrated, many, many years, no real improvement, and just wanted to kickstart the discussion, you know, having it at the legislative side. As Maile said, I trust that the new Council will take a close look at, if not this piece of legislation, at least something that will improve the building permit process because if we don't anything, then we're kind of stupid. I mean really, yeah, because there hasn't been that real appreciable improvement that we've been waiting for. It's like waiting for Godot, right? So, that's all I got to say, but thank you. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Ms. Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. I actually wanted to make sure that we invited all the folks here that showed up from DPW to say a few words on this since you made the time to be here. I don't know what your thoughts are on this piece of legislation. MR. PAUSE: Oh yeah, I did want to introduce folks. Julann Sonomura is the Building Chief, she's a licensed engineer. Kelly Wilson is a licensed architect, he is the Deputy Building Chief. Daniel Lee is here, he's a licensed engineer and he's the Plans Examining Manager; and then I think everyone knows Neal Tanaka, he's the Mechanical Engineer in our group. I guess just to qualify a few things, I think this is a really good point of discussion. I think bringing this forward and providing some out-of-the-box thinking, some opportunities to maybe look at the same old problem a couple of Page 21 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 different ways, I think is a really good start. I don't think that specifically what is here now is necessarily going to work in its current form, but I think again, it provides us an opportunity to have more discussions. It's something that we've heard throughout the community. I mentioned earlier, there's room for improvement, and certainly, none of my comments earlier were meant to be, you know, "Hey, it's not our fault." It is. The Building Department needs to get better, and we need to work with the community to help them get better so that what we're getting—and we need to look at our processes. You've heard me say this, "We need to improve intake." We need to do a few things. The third-party review, there are a couple of forms. I agree with you, I don't think Honolulu's the way they went about doing it wasn't necessarily the best way, but we are engaging the union. I mean, everyone knows that we've got a severe staffing crisis, so we've got to come up with ways that are a bit more innovative, and as you say "out-of-the-box"to do a little better. The one comment I would want to make, though, is we also have to be sensitive—if we bypass that review process, and it should be noted that the County is providing a baseline process,just looking at the plans and providing input, and it's something that we've heard back from a number of professionals that they like that. They appreciate the fact that they have the ability to have their plans checked. But one of the things that is a rather large concern of ours is the impact that something like this will do on our inspectors. I think you brought up the point, Council Member Chung, that the inspector's job is to go out there and inspect the plans, or one of the other testifiers brought that up, and they will do that. But if the plans are not being checked for Code compliance and various things, it may create a situation where the inspectors don't feel—if you see something that's not right, and then he's got to have that conversation with the builder, and the builder goes, "Well geez, we're just building it according to the plans," and the plans may be not quite right, may not meet Code. It creates a situation where all of a sudden the inspector has to be the Code person because we bypassed that original step of having someone else look at the plans. We're not in any better place with respect to having an adequate staff of inspectors, as well. I mean, I think we're down less than 50 percent of our inspector positions are full. So again, I appreciate the discussion. I think that there's a lot of good that can come out of continuing to have these conversations. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Director. So just through the course of evaluating this piece of legislation, I spoke to several other folks in the industry, and there's interest in doing something, and I think we're all acknowledging that. The system, as it is, is not working. It does cost people money, for sure, you know, in Page 22 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 cases where there are Public Works related projects that are either state or federally-funded, those monies often have a time limit on them, and when they're available; and if the permits are not ready in that timeframe, well then the project doesn't happen. I certainly appreciate the need that we've all identified for housing, and we all support wanting to move that forward. I think that this conversation is something that definitely needs to happen, although I think the solution is much, much, much more nuanced than this bill. While I appreciate Chair David's sentiment to move this forward to the next Council, what I'm going to say is this, sometimes there's a bill that's fertile ground for seed, that something can grow off that's going to be purposeful and functional, and accomplish what we need. I think this gets us started off on the wrong foot, and I would rather start with a clean bill that addresses some of these really obvious concerns with the new Council, rather than trying to improve this from this point. I think this is the incorrect starting point for the tangent that we want to see ourselves on. That said, Council Member Chung, Council Member David, I will make a commitment to you and the public right now that I will continue to pursue this matter and introduce something that will allow us to continue this discussion, but personally, I don't want to start from this foundation. I don't think it's quite the right—if the inspector were to check this, they'd say this foundation is faulty, and we need to start from a new place. Thank you. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Anybody else? Okay, that leaves me. Mr. Chung, I find this very interesting. You did mention that I talked about something similar, and what I spoke about would be very similar to this, and what it was born from was for sitting down with our professionals in the field. Coming from a background of doing construction and dealing with inspectors,permits, and plans, and watching a process that I think we can all can agree is sometimes labor, and admittedly so, and we know that. Those design professionals actually came up with the language that I introduced as an amendment when we had our Building Code discussions. I actually support this. It made me work. I think we could clarify a little, but something is resonating in the effect of when it's not working, and in Mr. Chung's experience, 16 years not working, then legislatively we start to climb in to help the situation. That's not always a good thing, but it's what our job is to do. Mr. Pause, I would like some clarity from you on why this wouldn't stand. MR. PAUSE: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: What would be the major drawbacks of this bill in this present form, for your department? Page 23 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 MR. PAUSE: Well again, I mentioned the concern about placing an undue amount of burden on the inspectors to essentially be code-compliance officers in the field because we've essentially skipped that step, by not having Plans Examiners check plans for codes, and the general checks and balances that would be afforded by the Plans Examiner. So, that would be a concern. Another concern, and this has been brought up by others, is that in the architect and engineering community, there are folks out there that stamp plans. They stamp, and they have to certify that the work has been preferred by me or under my supervision, and generally there are times that we identify that is not the case. That's a concern, yeah, and as a result, some of the packages that we review don't necessarily show that the authors of the plans and specifications, designers, and drafts people, necessarily have the command of the codes that they should, so that would be a cause for concern. In some cases, we've actually had design folks send us plans, knowing full well that we would catch the errors and mistakes during the plan review process. So, that's another concern. Our resubmittal stats are pretty high. I have numbers in front of me of the 5,728 permits that were issued last fiscal year, there was an applicant who was required to do at least one submittal on 86 percent of those. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Eighty-six percent of 5,728 permits? MR. PAUSE: Eighty-six percent of first-time submittals required a revision. For residential, 70 to 80 percent of those resubmittals were related to code compliance issues, County and State codes. We've also run into situations, where the architects submit plans with structural issues, structural calculations,just not being right with recommendations to, "Hey, you should perhaps engage a structural engineer to help you do your job." So those concerns around the quality of the submittals, and what that would mean—in a case like, you know,just going straight ahead with this bill, those were all being our concerns. Another piece of that would be the impact on homeowners. A good number of the homeowners, I would say, don't even know who their licensed professional are, or they might be working with the designer or draftsperson and never actually interface or interact with that design professional. As a result, they're missing out a portion of that whole process, where they're not actually seeing the final end products that are getting stamped. You know, having the construction background, the time to fix problems is when you've had a set of plans, it's not to be out in the field. You don't want your contractor building the plans that have been stamped and approved with no review, and then have an inspector come out and say, "Oh, that doesn't meet Code." You created added cost right there, I think. Page 24 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 Those are some of the thoughts that we have. I think Councilwoman Kimball brought up the unintended consequences of what does it mean to people that go out and find misses as an avenue to get their permits turned around quicker, and they've already got applications in the queue, I don't think we've necessarily addressed that with this bill. Another thing is I'm not quite clear, and I've had conversations with my colleagues, when we say "no review," does that mean no review by Planning to check for the sorts of land use issues that a Planning Department? We've got Wastewater. We've got our Engineering Department. You know, Fire Department, in case of nonresidential. Does this bill—it seems to be silent, but I'm not quite sure if that was the intent. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. MR. PAUSE: I think that captures a lot of it, Councilman. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Director. Okay, I find the AHJ and inspectors to be that body. If I screw up in the field, they're supposed to catch me. If I read the plans and install one-inch conduit, it is supposed to be one-and-a-half conduit, their job is to catch me and gig me, and make me go and pull it back out and replace it. That's their job, that's why they do what they do. So as far as inspectors are concerned, I have never had a bad experience with inspectors, unless they're gigging my work and tell me it's wrong. But again, it's a good thing for the person who's having something built. They've always been on time. I'd say within a week of when we called them they've inspected, and the job is done and completed. So I don't find quality inspectors or a time delay because of them. They are, I think,pretty wonderful at their job. I do understand what you're saying about architectural engineering, compliance, bad work, and people who just put out the rubbish and push it through because they can stamp the job. It's good money. I do think we should be checking the work. But I definitely know there is a delay that's happening, we can agree on that. What Ms. Kimball brought up was interesting, about people turning in their projects, pulling and putting them back in under this new system, if it was the past. Then as far as the review language, that's an interesting point as well, for planning, building, the whole process, which parts are being reviewed, and which parts aren't. Page 25 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 I'm interested to hear from Mr. Chung on what is this, in his eyes, speaks to that. In your eyes, does this apply to everything? Commercial, industrial, or is this specific to residential? MR. PAUSE: Our read on it is that it applies to residential and non-residential. I don't believe there's any language in there specifically, that says one or the other, so we just interpret it as being both. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Well, my first attempt at something like this was to do residential only, under 30 feet. There is a really specific category we're shooting for, which is the same thing that our affordable housing guys are asking for and a lot of our contractors are asking for, which is help us get homes built for the average person, not a high-rise, not apartment buildings, nothing big, no industrial buildings, your residential homes. That's the ones we want to focus on. That's what we want to build. We all sat up here and say we want more affordable housing, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So that was where I was shooting with this. Does this have merit if it came down to just residential buildings? MR. PAUSE: Again, it seems like it would be more applicable or a better use if it were to apply to residential, but we still have the inherent issues. I'll call it the checks and balances, right, the comfort level that a design professional is going to have by at least having somebody get eyes on, I think that's an issue that's problematic. Councilman Chung did bring up earlier, and this—we do have a list of things that we're looking at that we need to study further, but at the same time hurry up, and one of them is a pre-approval program for registered design professionals. It's been done in other locales, where it's an opt-in program where professionals can opt-in, and there are specific requirements around liability as well as training. Somebody brought up training. You know, we're stepping up our efforts to train. We had a session I think about two months ago, where we invited all these design professionals specifically to talk around some of the new Code issues. We can get better at that, but a program like that, where you bring people in who want to be part of the program to opt in and, you know, you set criteria, that would be an enhancement, I think, over just strictly opening it up to the entire community. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I agree. I think that has merit, too. What is your guys turnaround time right now for permit? MR. PAUSE: I'm not going to turn around and look at Julann, okay? If somebody submits a residential permit application and it's correct and it doesn't need to go through the revision cycle, they ought to be able to get their permit within 90 days. Page 26 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You said, "opt to,"what is your guys turnaround time, or is that it? MR. PAUSE: I would say our statistic shows that, but again, the turnaround is really dependent on actually getting the application in, the plans, the specifications, everything correct, and turned around by the parties reviewing. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Your guys are shooting for three months? MR. PAUSE: That's what we're shooting for, yes. I'd like to come back here next year and tell you I'm shooting for 60 days. I have to set the bar pretty high here. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Yeah, okay. MR. PAUSE: Of course, that's not for PV (Photovoltaic)permits. We're doing much better with those. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so the average residential time, 90 days. I think you've been pretty clear about what makes you uncomfortable with this bill. I do think it has merit in some senses. Today, I think I'll be supporting this as far as keeping it in committees, looking for some changes to it, and starting to address different people's concerns that have been voiced so far, including the departments, but I think it has merit. I've got to give Mr. Chung credit for sitting on something like this for 16 years, thinking about it, and putting this out. Thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. MR. PAUSE: Thank you. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, Council Members, any further discussion on the bill? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: I just want to make one super quick comment about inspectors. I appreciate that you had really great experiences with the inspectors. One of the things about their role is that they're not actually code-compliant experts. They're actually supposed to be evaluating the building, besides to assure that it actually met the Codes that were permitted and approved. So if we shift the burden of Code compliance to the inspectors, which is the potential outcome of this, we may actually be in violation in some regard with their Collective Bargaining Agreement. That's an additional concern that I have about this piece of legislation. So again, I think we are all in agreement that something needs to be done. I think some great ideas were shared by the commission earlier today, as well as Director Pause now, and other members of this body. I'd like for us to start it Page 27 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 from a clean slate on this, but I'm committed to continuing to work on it. Thank you. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Mr. Chung. MR. CHUNG: You know, I just wanted to make one comment. Yeah, it's been 16 years, but I was kind of patient just for the eight years. I don't want people "You were waiting 16 years for this?" But you know, it was just where everybody kept on saying, "We're going to get it done. We're going it done." But it really hit home about six years ago, when Fresh (Dennis Onishi) was really pushing. We still kept on hearing, you know, it's going to get done, it's going to get done. Maybe there are other ways of doing it. Steve, you're real helpful in explaining different things. This might not be the path, but something's got to be done. If you're able to turn things around within 90 days for those that are good, then maybe we should be looking at how we can eliminate the ones that are causing the backlog, right? So that's another way of looking at this thing, as well. But as I said, I just wanted to make a point that something's got to be done. Can't be done administratively, maybe work with the Council in framing something legislatively. I hear what Ms. Kimball is saying, and I certainly want to give her the opportunity of trying to start fresh, but at the same I think it's best to keep this waiting in the wings until such time as something else emerges; and at that time, this can die, you know, some kind of dignified death or something. So, I'll just make a motion to postpone this, maybe at the call of the Committee Chair. Would that be okay? Yeah, all right. Motion to Postpone: Mr. Chung moved to postpone Bill 238 to the call of the Chair. Seconded by Ms. David. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Discussion, Council Members? MS. KIMBALL: Chair, if I may? ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yep. MS. KIMBALL: That is an acceptable compromise for me. Thank you. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Kimball. Any other discussion? Okay, seeing none. All in favor? Page 28 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 Vote on Motion The motion to postpone Bill 238 to the call of the Postpone: Chair was carried by the following by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, and Acting Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder–5. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Inaba, Villegas, and Lee Loy –3. Excused: None. ACTING CHR KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: We now come to our last bill, please. Bill 244: INITIATES AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 6-2.2 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CHARTER (2020 EDITION), RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Replaces the requirement that the Director of Public Works must be a registered professional engineer with the requirement that the Director have a bachelor's degree in engineering, architecture,public administration or a related discipline, or a degree in law. Adds the requirement that at least two of the five years of required administrative or managerial experience must be in public works or construction, or a related field. Reference: Comm. 1103 Intr. by: Mr. Chung Motion to Approve: Mr. Chung moved to recommend passage of Bill 244 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. David. ACTING CHR KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Mr. Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, thank you. This is a little different from the Department of Environmental Management measure that came up earlier. The newspaper article—well, the headline was that we're trying to reduce the qualifications. This one actually increases it somewhat, because not only do you have to a minimum of five years' experience in an administrative or managerial capacity, but two years have to have been in Public Works, construction, or a related field, so it makes it a little bit more restrictive in that regard, but also broadens the list of applicants or the pool of people who can be considered for appointment, similar to the Director of Environmental Management. Now, this one, this is really what started it all—because this idea has been bandied about for I would say at least 20 years, about the possibility of the director. At that time, many years ago it was called the Chief Engineer, so you Page 29 PWMTC-29 November 15,2022 would think by its name already, you've got to be an engineer. But even during that time,people were saying they think it might be worthwhile to at least consider having a person—well, it not be restricted to an engineer. You know, a lot of people were saying, "Managerial skills, people skills," and as Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder stated earlier, like the ability to work with people. I'm not saying that engineers don't have that skill, okay? But really, I think when you brought in the pool of people who might or are able to be appointed, it only helps the public. That's my feeling, anyway. That's all I have to say about it. Thank you. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Council Members? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate again, Council Member Chung, the introduction of this, for the purpose of the conversation. Again, this is another one I'd like to see actually go forward to the next Council, postpone to January 4h. A little bit of wordsmithing is needed. I have concerns about a law degree in the expansion beyond just an engineer. I would like to suggest, there may be some contradiction conflict with HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) and what is required of the person that has oversight with regard to the Building Code and some other things. I didn't have a chance to review that prior to today's meeting, in anticipation of postponing this to the next term, but I think there's actually maybe some conflict about that widening of the language that would need to be cross-checked before we finalize on something like this. Thank you, Chair. I yield. I'll be supporting a postponement on this. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. You want to talk? MR. CHUNG: Yeah, I move to postpone to the first meeting in January. Vote on Motion Mr. Chung moved to postpone Bill 244 to January 4, 2023. to Postpone: Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, and Acting Chair Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder–5. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Inaba, Villegas, and Lee Loy –3. Excused: None. ACTING CHR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: That does bring us to end of our agenda today. May I have a motion, Council Members? Page 30