HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0516.007 2022-2024/ Council
Bill $4
comet . n16
To: The Hawaii County Council 7,71- - - - ' -
From: Jennifer Wilkinson, District 7
RE: First Reading of Bill 84, Hawaii County Council meeting November 1, 2023
Dear Chair and Council Members:
I would like to offer comments on the proposed Bill 84, which amends Chapter 5 of the Hawaii County
Code and relates to the cancellation of construction code permit applications, permit expirations and
extensions.
Thank you for working to formalize and standardize the Construction Code permit timeframes in our
County, long notorious for its burdensome and time-consuming permit process. I recognize that the
existing issues are many and stem from problems on both sides of the counter, many of which are
outside the control of both the County and the Applicants. And, that often, it is the Applicant who lets a
deficient permit application languish, clogging the pipeline and taking valuable resources to work
around.
With that understanding, I am most concerned about the rigidity of the deadlines in the bill and the
repercussions of those deadlines for the public, and the potential for abuse. I also propose minor
amendments that would address these concerns without significantly altering the intent of the bill.
1. 180-day deadline that begins at submission.
While the DPW acknowledges they will use this deadline as a'goal' within which to work
with applicants to achieve permit issuance inside the time frame, they also noted staffing
shortages and the necessity to work overtime to meet their internal goals. While this is
laudable, it is not sustainable or fiscally responsible.
It also creates a very non-standard timeframe from one applicant to the next based on how
long the department takes to process each application. In fact, the time to respond to each
application deficiency could vary wildly between applications. One applicant could have 160
days while the next one has 30 days because of unforeseen issues that arose in the DPW or
other county offices requiring review input. This is unfair to the public, particularly when
requests for extensions are required to be within 30 days of the expiration of the 180 days.
RECOMMENDATION: 180-day deadline begins on the date of first Plan Review Comment
Letter. This allows some Flexibility within the department to work through staffing and
resource fluctuations (in each step of the review) while not burdening the applicant with a
pending deadline that if missed represents a monetary penalty or creates an unreasonable
period to clear the deficiency and/or request an extension. It also acknowledges that much
of the timeline will be outside the control of the applicant and puts the timeline in motion
only when the action required is passed bock to the applicant to move forward, which is the
intent of the bill.
Comm. N T
Rd. To:
Ref. Date - 1 202
One-sided deadline and extensions
Even if the 180-day deadline was initiated at the mailing of the Plan Review Comment Letter,
review of subsequently submitted information for processing again requires the County's
timelines to be reasonable lest the applicant is again waiting at that 145-day mark hoping
they do not need to submit a request for extension at day 150. And, if the delay is on the
County side in one of the various review steps, how does the applicant provide proof of
unforeseen circumstances to justify the extension? It does not alter the intent of the bill, nor
the aspirational intent of the DPW to outline a'reasonable' response time by the County.
Further, plans and reviews can be very complex and require significant investment of time
and energy. The County should have the authority to authorize more than one extension if
the unforeseen circumstances are a force majeure event. Something so evident as a
hurricane, massive flooding, worldwide pandemic and the like should not require an Appeals
Board action. The County should retain more flexibility to help get permits issued when
reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION: Indicate that the County has some reasonable period of time [10
business days?] to respond to each submission from the applicant, whether an initial
application or subsequent submittal to address deficiencies in a particular review step. If the
10-day review period is not met by the County, it provides prima facie grounds for a single
extension, if requested within 10 days of expiration. Add a Force Majeure exception to the
authority of the Department to grant a second extension.
Finally, any bill that dictates deadlines and requires reapplication with monetary fees and which delays
could mean substantial financial burdens for applicants, while not also placing any deadlines or even
reasonable response times on the processing body creates an environment where applicants are
incentivized to figure out how to get through the process — by all means necessary.
With the history of fraud and bribery in this County's building processes, any changes to the codes
should include as much transparency and accountability as reasonably possible. That includes standard
processing time frames as well as deadlines that only begin when the person held to them has control of
the next steps. This would promote fair dealing, place applicants on an even playing field, and
acknowledge that the process requires consistent progress through many departments and by many
people and 3'tl parties.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Wilkinson