HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0272.000 2024-2026County of Hawaii
Office of the County Auditor
120 Pauahi St., 309
County Auditor
Hilo, HI 96720
County of Hawai'i
F 808,961.8905
Office of the County Auditor+;•.w*°4`'"
Ph 808.961.8386
www.hawaiicounty.gov
April 30, 2025
Honorable Dr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Council Chair
and Members of the Hawai'i County Council
Hawai'i County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawai'i 96720
Dear Council Chair Inaba and Council Members,
We have completed our audit of the permitting and inspection processes at the Department of
Public Works, Building Division. This audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards and the Hawai'i County Charter Section 3-18(d)(2).
The goal was to compare stated permit procedures with the actual user experience. This
evaluation assessed project elements, from permit application through final inspection, to ensure
a timely, accurate, and streamlined process compliant with applicable regulations and service
standards.
While the Building Division has been fully committed to enhancing its procedures and software
system, the audit found inconsistencies in documented processes, operating practices,
fragmented resource materials, and variability in its performance.
Several recommendations were made to strengthen operations, consolidate resource materials,
provide consistent performance, and establish internal controls. Addressing these issues enables
the Division to provide more equitable support to all users, ensure smoother and more efficient
permit processing, and enhance overall accountability, resulting in improved satisfaction and trust
from the community.
In response to a draft of this report, management expressed general agreement with our results.
Their complete response to this audit can be found on pages 93 —131 Management Response.
We appreciate the participation of management and staff in the Department of Public Works,
who shared their time and expertise during the audit. To improve government accountability and
ensure audit recommendations are implemented or resolved, we continuously monitor the status
of recommendations using our remediation tracker.
Comm. No.
Ref, To-
Howoi'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Ref. Bate " �U2
To view the department's status, visit us at
cDun1V/I eF-isjatve/offlce'Of-thE--CoUntV`aUditQc
If you have any questions Or concerns about the status of the recommendations discussed, feel
free to contact me at 961-8386. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Cogunty�A�ud itor
cc: C. KirnoAl3[Ded8, Ph.D., Mayor
VViUiorn V. Bhlhante]r, Managing Director
Merrick Ni5hirnOto, Deputy Managing Director
Neil Azev8d{,Acting Director
JU|8nnSonornura, RE, Building Division Chief
A3rOnJ. Spie|noan,A|A, Deputy Building Division Chief
Jon H8nri[k6,County Clerk
Diane Nakagawa, Finance Director
C
e
7+
County of Hawaii
Office of the County Auditor
Report No. 2025-02
April 30, 2025
o -.;.. o
, f _•..
;.;�. .
0 'a L
G
LI
k _ .
County of Hawaii,."
-•'r;� ,
Office of the County Auditor
120 Pauahi St., 309'�
County Auditor
Hilo, HI 96720
County of Hawaii
F 808.961.8905`-
Office of the County Auditor,"r;',.�..
Ph 808.961.8386
April 30, 2025
Honorable Dr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Council Chair
and Members of the Hawaii County Council
Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Council Chair Inaba and Council Members,
We have completed our audit of the permitting and inspection processes at the Department
of Public Works, Building Division. This audit was conducted in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards and the Hawaii County Charter Section 3-18(d)(2).
The goal was to compare stated permit procedures with the actual user experience. This
evaluation assessed project elements, from permit application through final inspection, to
ensure a timely, accurate, and streamlined process compliant with applicable regulations
and service standards.
While the Building Division has been fully committed to enhancing its procedures and
software system, the audit found inconsistencies in documented processes, operating
practices, fragmented resource materials, and variability in its performance.
Several recommendations were made to strengthen operations, consolidate resource
materials, provide consistent performance, and establish internal controls. Addressing
these issues enables the Division to provide more equitable support to all users, ensure
smoother and more efficient permit processing, and enhance overall accountability,
resulting in improved satisfaction and trust from the community.
In response to a draft of this report, management expressed general agreement with our
results. Their complete response to this audit can be found on pages 93 —131 Management
Response.
We appreciate the participation of management and staff in the Department of Public Works,
who shared theirtime and expertise duringthe audit. To improve government accountability
and ensure audit recommendations are implemented or resolved, we continuously monitor
the status of recommendations using our remediation tracker.
Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
To view the department's status, visit us at https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/our-
county/legislative/office-of-the-county-auditor.
If you have any questions or concerns about the status of the recommendations discussed,
feel free to contact me at 961-8386. Thank you.
Respectfully,
County Auditor
cc: C. Kimo Alameda, Ph.D., Mayor
William V. Brilhante Jr., Managing Director
Merrick Nishimoto, Deputy Managing Director
Neil Azevedo, Acting Director
Julann Sonomura, P.E., Building Division Chief
Aaron J. Spielman, AIA, Deputy Building Division Chief
Jon Henricks, County Clerk
Diane Nakagawa, Finance Director
Table of Contents
ReportHighlights.............................................................................................. 1-3
Chapter 1 Introduction & Background
AboutUs...........................................................................................................4
Objective, Scope, and Methodology............................................................... 5-6
Definitions.................................................................................................... 7-9
Noteworthy Achievements and Events.........................................................10 - 11
Background...............................................................................................12 - 22
Chapter 2 Audit Results
Dashboard: Status of Applications Submitted to Permits Issued Permit Dashboard
13
.
Without written documentation such as policies/procedure manuals, it becomes '' M '
extremely difficult to keep complex systems organized and predictable for permit staff
and applicants. The results is inefficiencies, personal preferences, and some level of IEEE]
-
chaos creeping into the system. These items lead to non -predictability for permit
applicants which in turn leads to unnecessary complaints to upper management and
elected officials.
lames Tinner, Code Support Group
ApplicationVolume......................................................................................... 23 - 33
Finding 1: The Volume of Applications Contributes to Delays
Recommendation 1: Exempt Qualified Low- Risk Applications ...........................33
Recommendation 2: Implement Self -Certification & Provide Public Duty Doctrine
Training...........................................................................................................33
Recommendation 3a: Pilot Third -Party Review Services During Peak Periods ........ 33
Recommendation 3b: Enhance Al Integration in Plan Review Processes ............... 33
ProcessingTime.............................................................................................. 34 - 59
Finding 2: The Permit System Launched Prematurely Before Full Configuration and
Optimization
Recommendation 4: Dedicate Pre -Screening Function ...................................... 38
Recommendation 5: Enforce Ascending Date -Driven Priority Protocol ................ 38
Finding 2: Permit System Launched Prematurely Before Full Configuration & Optimization
Recommendation 6: Strengthen Customer Education and Outreach ................... 41
Recommendation 7: Reduce Instances of Resubmissions..................................41
Recommendation 8: Monitor and Evaluate First -Pass Rates ................................ 41
Recommendation 9: Streamline Workflow Management ..................................... 54
Recommendation 10: Update Staff and Public Education Materials ..................... 54
Recommendation 11: Consolidate Reviews....................................................... 54
Recommendation 12: Enhance Interagency Cooperation .................................... 54
Recommendation 13: Automate Invoicing and Issue Provisional Permits for
ConstructionStart........................................................................................... 56
Recommendation 14a: Enforce Consistent Timeframes for Permit Evaluation
Process............................................................................................................ 59
Recommendation 14b: Review and Update Administrative Rules to Establish
Maximum Timelines for Reviews....................................................................... 59
Application Complexity................................................................................... 60 - 80
Finding 3: Redundant Data Collection
Recommendation 15: Reduce Redundant Data Collection .................................. 76
Finding 4: Manual Processes Drive the Workflow
Recommendation 16: Eliminate Manual Processes ............................................ 76
Finding 5: No Contact Validation and Categorization
Recommendation 17: Validate and Categorize Contact Information .................... 77
Finding 6: Insufficient Clarity to Guide Data Collection
Recommendation 18: Refine "More Info" Screen ................................................ 77
Finding 7: Building Division Uses Outdated Forms
Recommendation 19: Eliminate Legacy Forms ................................................... 78
Finding 8: Not Utilizing Digital Signature Feature
Recommendation 20: Enable Digital Signatures ................................................. 78
Finding 9: Improve Accountability and Transparency
Recommendation 21: Define Application Completeness by Ordinance ................ 79
Recommendation 22: Implement a Formal Complaint Handling Process ............. 79
Recommendation 23: Integrate Lean Six -Sigma into Staff Development ............... 80
Inspections Practices..........................................................................................81 - 89
Finding 10: No Policies and Procedures
Recommendation 24: Establish Policies and Procedures .................................... 85
Finding 11: Limited Management Oversight
Recommendation 25: Increase Management Oversight ...................................... 86
Finding 12: Lack of Training
Recommendation 26: Develop Training Program ................................................ 87
Finding 13: Lack of Critical Enhancements
Recommendation 27: Opportunities for Critical Enhancements .......................... 89
Chapter 3 Fraud, Waste, and Abuse...............................................................90 - 91
Conclusion................................................................................................ 92
Chapter 4 Management Response.............................................................. 93 -131
Attachments.............................................................................................. 132 -141
Attachment A: Report Regarding Operations Within the Building Code Division of
the Hawaii County Public Works Department ................................................... 132
This page intentionally left blank
Why The Office of the County Auditor (OCA) Conducted This Audit.
Hawai`i's housing crisis, driven by high home prices, limited affordable options, and an aging
housing stock, is exacerbated by a complex regulatory environment and systemic inefficiencies in
the building permitting process. The County of Hawai`i's Building Division is responsible for
safeguarding public safety through permitting and inspections. However, delays and enforcement
challenges, some of which are industry -wide and not unique to the County of Hawaii, have created
obstacles for residents, incentivized unpermitted construction, and undermined public trust.
In 2021, the County introduced the Electronic Permitting and Information Center (EPIC) system,
transitioning from a three -permit process (Building, Plumbing, and Electrical permits) to a
streamlined one -permit process. However, long wait times are still perceived, leading to ongoing
public frustration. A performance audit was initiated to evaluate whether internal controls and
processes function effectively to support fair and efficient permitting and inspection systems.
This audit aimed to align documented processes with user experiences, identify bottlenecks and
inefficiencies, and recommend improvements to enhance operational transparency,
accountability, and public trust in the permitting and inspection systems.
We found that the permitting system was launched prematurely while the Building Division was
still learningthe system's capabilities and refining its one -permit process to the 2018 County Code.
However, experience gained over time, improvements to the workflow, and performance
monitoring continue to be the division's top priority.
To strengthen internal controls and improve business processes, we make the following
recommendations:
1 1 R e p o r t H i €
Workflow We make the following recommendation
Step
1 Exempt Qualified Low -Risk Applications
All 2 Implement Self -Certification and Provide Public Duty Doctrine Training
3a Pilot Third -Party Review Services During Peak Periods
3b Enhance Al Integration in Plan Review Processes
To Improve
We make the the following recommendation
Workflow
Steps
Upload
4 Dedicate a Pre -Screening Function
Stage
Upload
5 Enforce Ascending Date -Driven Priority Protocol
Stage
Intake Stage
6 Strengthen Customer Education and Outreach
7 Reduce Instances of Resubmissions
Intake Stage
8 Monitor and Evaluate First -Pass Rates
Multi -
Agency
9 Streamline Workflow Management
10 Update Staff and Public Education Materials
Multi- 11 Consolidate Reviews
Agency
Out 12 Enhance Interagency Cooperation
Processing
13 Automate Invoicing and Issue Provisional Permits for Construction Start
14a Enforce Consistent Timeframes for the Permit Evaluation Process
Out 14b Review and Update Administrative Rules to Establish Maximum Timelines
Processing for Reviews
21Report Highlights
To Improve We make the following recommendation
Workflow
Steps
Location 15 Reduce Redundant Data Collection
nding 4: Manual Process Drives the Workflow
Contact 17 Validate and Categorize Contact Information
More 18 Refine "More Info" Screen
Information
11
Finding 7: Building Division Uses Outdated Forms
Attachments 19 Eliminate Legacy Forms
Finding 8: Not Utilizing Digital Signature Feature
Sign and 20 Enable
Submit
21 Define Application Completeness by Ordinance
All 22 Implement a Formal Complaint Handling Process
23 Integrate Lean Six -Sigma Training into Staff Development
To Improve We make the following recommendation
Workflow
Inspection 24 Establish Policies and Procedures
® Oversight
Inspection 25 Increase Management Oversight
Finding 12: Lack of Training
Inspection 26 Develop Training Program
Inspection 27 Opportunities for Critical Enhancements
31Report Highlights
This page intentionally left blank
County of Hawaii
Office of the County Auditor
About Us
Mission
It is our mission to independently serve the County Council and the citizens of Hawaii
County by promoting accountability, fiscal integrity, and transparency in local government.
We conduct performance and financial audits of County agencies and programs in
accordance with Government Auditing Standards.
The Office of the County Auditor examines the use of public funds, evaluates operations and
activities, and provides analyses, options, and recommendations to decision -makers in an
objective manner. Our work supports County government in managing public resources,
delivering public services, and upholding the public trust.
Audit Authority
Hawaii County Charter §3-18 establishes an independent audit function within the
Legislative Branch through the Office of the County Auditor (OCA).
Purpose
The audit evaluated the efficiency and effectiveness of the County of Hawai`i's building
permit process by aligning stated permit procedures with the actual user experience. We
assessed project elements, from permit application through final inspection, to ensure a
timely, accurate, and streamlined process compliant with applicable regulations and
service standards.
Performance Audit Definition
Performance audits provide objective analysis, findings, and conclusions to assist
management and those charged with governance and oversight with, among other things,
improving program performance and operations, reducing costs, facilitating decision -
making by parties responsible for overseeing or initiating corrective action, and contributing
to public accountability.
Our objective in performance auditing is to improve public services provided by the County
government. We do this by recommending specific actions to address the issues we raised
and by providing valuable information to the public, the administration, program leadership,
the county council, and the mayor.
4 1 A b o u t Us
Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Objective
Do the internal controls at the Department of Public Work's Building Division ensure the
timely issuance of building permits and compliance with Chapter 5 of the Hawaii County
Construction Administrative Code?
Scope
The audit was conducted from September 2023 to April 2025, we:
• Evaluated Electronic Processing and Information Center (EPIC) datasets from July26,
2021, to March 31, 2024
• Evaluated permit processes and practices from September 2023 to April 2025
While the Building Division (BD) tracks timelines based on specific review criteria, the audit
included all applications in the queue for the specified time. This results in differences in
how application timelines were calculated between BD and OCA.
We did not evaluate:
• "Legacy Permits" permits evaluated outside or before EPIC (July 26, 2021)
o Permits issued in Lotus Magnet, and hardcopy submissions
• Engineering Only
• Permit Metric Reports
• Cash handling processes
Methodology
To accomplish our objective, we:
• Developed an understanding of the County's building permit policies and
procedures, practices, and processes from intake to final inspection
• Analyzed internal control systems and control environment
• Assessed compliance with applicable laws, rules, and other relevant governance
• Conducted stakeholder interviews
• Corroborated information with appropriate staff
• Attended "How to Reduce Building Permit Delays in Hawaii" seminar
• Reviewed, as needed, information pertinent to the building permit process
• Conducted site visits to observe workflows and inspection practices
• Noted exceptions and made recommendations
• Was mindful of potential fraud, waste, and abuse as it relates to the audit objective
• Conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted
Government Auditing Standards
51Objective, Scope, and Methodology
These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient and
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based
on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis
for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
61Objective, Scope, and Methodology
Definitions
ADA: The Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal civil rights law that prohibits
discrimination against people with disabilities in everyday activities. The ADA prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disability, just as other civil rights laws prohibit discrimination
on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion. The ADA guarantees that
people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else to enjoy employment
opportunities, purchase goods and services, and participate in state and local government
programs.
BD: The Building Division oversees the administration, review, coordination, and
enforcement of building codes within the County of Hawaii. Responsible for the repair and
maintenance of County -owned buildings. Responsible for contracting building repair,
renovation, and new facilities construction.
BLUEBEAM STUDIO: Bluebeam is a software application used by professionals in
construction, architecture, and engineering. It is designed for creating, editing, marking up,
and collaborating on PDFs, with features tailored to streamline project documentation and
workflows.
DEM-WW: The Department of Environmental Management Wastewater Division is
responsible for the operation and maintenance of 120 miles of sewer mains, 16 pump
stations, 7 treatment facilities, and the closure of the large -capacity cesspools. The
wastewater division accepts 5 million gallons of wastewater for treatment daily and cleans
and inspects approximately 20 miles of sewer lines annually.
DOH: The State of Hawai`i's Department of Health functions under the leadership of the
State Director and Deputy Director and includes attached offices and agencies. Most DOH
programs are under one of three administrations: health resources, environmental health,
and behavioral health.
EPL: Electronic Permitting System or e-Permitting Portal is a software system that allows
state and local permitting authorities to submit permits electronically and supporting
documents to regulatory authorities.
71 Definitions
EPIC: The County of Hawai`i's Electronic Processing and Inspection Center powered by
EnerGov to better serve the public. EPIC helps:
• Tracks and manages plan applications and requests and Building and Engineering
permit applications received by both departments
• Allows community members to submit a number of plan applications, engineering
grading, grubbing, stockpiling permit applications, and building permit applications
online.
• Accepting electronic plans allows multiple approving agencies to review the plans
concurrently. Once a building permit is issued, contractors can request inspections
and view the results of the inspections online.
• To improve transparency, customers can track the application's progress as it is going
through the approval process online. Support of credit card and electronic check
payments online.
INSPECTIONS
FOUNDATION/SLAB INSPECTION: County Code, Chapter Five, Section 5-8-4 (2) and (3),
Inspections state the following conditions need to be met for foundation/slab inspections:
• (2) Footing and foundation inspections shall be made after excavations for footings
are complete and any required reinforcing steel is in place. Any required forms shall
be in place for concrete foundations before inspection. Materials for the foundation
shall be on the job, except where concrete is ready mixed in accordance with ASTM C
94; the concrete need not be on the job.
• (3) Concrete slab and under -floor inspections shall be made after in -slab or under-
floor reinforcing steel and building service equipment, conduit, termite spray, vapor
barriers, piping accessories, and other ancillary equipment items are in place, but
before any concrete is placed or floor sheathing installed, including the subfloor.
FRAMING INSPECTION: County Code, Chapter Five, Section 5-8-4 (4) Inspections state the
following conditions need to be met for framing inspections: Framing inspections shall be
made after the roof deck or sheathing, all framing, fireblocking, and bracing are in place and
pipes, chimneys and vents to be concealed are complete and the rough electrical, plumbing,
heating wires, pipes, and ducts are approved.
FINAL INSPECTION: County Code, Chapter Five, Section 5-8-5 (a) and (b) state the
following:
• The final inspection shall be made after all work the permit requires is completed.
• A certificate of inspection may be issued upon request by the contractor on record,
provided all fees required by the construction code have been satisfied.
(2020, ord 20-61, sec 2.)
81Definitions
IECC: The International Energy Conservation Code addresses energy efficiency on several
fronts, including cost, energy usage, use of natural resources, and the impact of energy
usage on the environment.
IRC: The International Residential Code is a comprehensive, stand-alone residential code
establishing minimum regulations for one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses using
prescriptive provisions. It is founded on broad -based principles that make the use of new
materials and new building designs possible.
IWS: An Individual Wastewater System - an on -site system for treating and disposing
wastewater. Approved IWS treatment equipment includes a septic tank, aerobic treatment
unit, passive aerobic systems that still require a septic tank, bioreactor garden, composting
toilets, and incinerator toilets. Composting toilets and incinerator toilets only treat toilet
waste. Shower and kitchen wastewater still require treatment and disposal.
Legacy System: Refers to a holdover from the past. It could be a system, process, or even a
mindset. In the workplace, it often describes older methods or technologies that were useful
in their time but might now be outdated or inefficient compared to newer options.
NEC: The National Electrical Code, also known as NFPA 70, is the U.S. standard for the safe
installation of electrical systems.
NESHAP: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants are the stationary
source standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). HAPs are those pollutants that are
known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive
effects birth defects, or adverse environmental effects.
NFPA: Established in 1896, the National Fire Protection Association is the authority on fire,
electrical, and building safety.
SHPD: The State of Hawaii Historic Preservation Division is comprised of three branches,
Architecture, Archaeology, and History and Culture, and together they collectively strive to
preserve and protect Hawai`i's historic identity.
UPC: Designated as an American National Standard, the Uniform Plumbing Code is a model
code developed by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials
(IAPMO) to govern the installation and inspection of plumbing systems.
9 1 D e f i n i t i o n s
Noteworthy Achievements and Events
We are pleased to report that the Department of Public Works Building Division (BD) has
taken proactive steps to enhance the permitting process, addressing certain control
weaknesses on its initiative and identified duringthe audit. We appreciate BD's cooperation
and commitment to aligning with industry best practices. Specifically, BD has reported the
following actions:
• Participated in the Mayor's Building Permit Task Force to improve the building
permit system. Members of the task force include contractors, drafters, realtors,
architects, engineers, and county staff (January 2025)
• Compiled a list of the top five rejection comments to release a FAQ or memo
aimed at assisting the public with common errors (January 2025)
• Hired a Permit System Coordinator (August 2024):
o Completed various training guides
o Created a training calendar, program syllabus, and instructional videos for staff
o Provided hands-on training to intake teams
• Configured automated emails to remind customers of pending permit applications
and statuses that require their action, including:
o Email reminder to pay Building Permit Plan Review Fees (December 2023)
o Email reminder to resolve permit conditions for applications (November
2023)
o A reminder that the application is about to expire:
■ 30-day notice
• 90-day notice
o A reminder that the permit placard is about to expire:
60-days notice
• Hired an Information Systems Analyst (October 2023):
o Completed various EPIC system enhancements
o Began developing an inspection workflow
• Provided Cloud + Delta memo to enhance the plan resubmittal process (October 2022)
101Noteworthy Accomplishments & Events
• Implemented lead time tracking for application uploads, including:
o Established date -driven queues in July 2023
o Introduced date ticklers to manage pending applications < 30 days (April 2024)
Facilitated weekly brainstorming meetings to promote process improvement (October
2022)
We conduct follow-ups at the appropriate time to assess whether all recommendations
have been implemented or resolved and to what extent.
111Noteworthy Accomplishments & Events
Background
What permit challenges exist in Hawaii?
Hawaii faces a growing housing crisis, marked by surging home prices, a lack of affordable
options, and an aging housing inventory-38 years on average as of 2024. The state's
highest -in -the -nation regulatory environment exacerbates these challenges, compounding
delays in new construction and repairs while driving some residents to seek more affordable
alternatives out-of-state. Environmental catastrophes have further strained housing
availability, wiping out entire communities and highlighting the urgent need for efficient and
effective building oversight.
BD plays an important role in coordinating efforts among multiple agencies to safeguard
public safety and welfare by regulating most structures' design, construction, and
maintenance. However, systemic inefficiencies and limited enforcement capacity hinder its
ability to fulfill this mission. These challenges burden residents navigating complex
permitting processes, encourage unpermitted construction that may pose safety risks, and
result in lost property tax revenues that could otherwise support essential public services.
In its current state, the system risks worsening Hawai`i's housing dilemma, underserving
residents, and undermining public trust. Addressing these issues is essential to ensure a
fair, efficient, and equitable process that balances safety, sustainability, and accessibility,
ultimately supporting the County's broader goal of fostering a thriving community.
Permits are required for most building, electrical, and plumbing work involving a building or
structure. This includes new construction, additions or alternations, repairs, renovations,
and demolitions. The BD's purpose is "to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or
Limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design,
construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all
buildings and structures within the County and certain equipment."'
What is the EPIC system?
The county launched its Electronic Permitting and Information Center (EPIC) system in July
2021. Developed over five years at a cost exceeding $2.5 million, EPIC is a paperless
permitting system designed to streamline the building permit application and review
process. It allows applicants, such as homeowners, contractors, and developers, to submit
1 Hawaii County Building Code Section 5A-1-2. Purpose.
https://www.hawaiicounty,gov/home/showpublisheddocument/302737/637853542567970000 Date accessed: 1/31/25
121Background
applications, upload documents, track permit status, and communicate with staff online.
EPIC also allows multiple agencies to review the permit application simultaneously. The
transition to EPIC marked the end of paper applications, with the county no longer accepting
them as of July 2021. Kiosks are set up at the Hilo and Kona Building offices to assist the
public with application submissions and system learning.
Trainingvideos and an informationalwebinar are offered to help users learn howto navigate
the system.
COUNTY OF HAWM I
t Electronic Processing and
Information Cen#er (EPIC)
Aloha and Welcome
O O O
O O O
Figure 1: Electronic Processing and Information Center (EPIC) homepage
How much revenue did the Department of Public Works generate from building
permits?
In fiscal year 2022-23, residential and non-residential building permits generated
$5,010,769.76 in revenue.
Why were building permit processes selected for review?
In Hawaii, permit delays present a significant challenge, with residents frequently facing
wait times of months or even years for approvals. The new electronic permitting system,
EPIC, was introduced to improve the process. However, long wait times (Figure 1.4, page 18)
and challenges within both the system and its processes have contributed to ongoing public
skepticism.
A performance audit of DPW building permits was included in the Office of the County
Auditor's (OCA) fiscal year 2024-25 annual audit plan. We determined that a thorough
evaluation of the County's building permit processes was warranted to determine if the
internal controls system worked as designed.
131Background
In 2022, the County contracted James Tinner of Code Support Group to analyze the
permitting processes. The objective was to assess BD's workflow to identify redundancies
and reduce application approval times.
Tinner identified key contributors to delays and made 12 recommendations in a Report
Regarding Operations within the Building Code Division of the Hawaii County Public Works
Department ("Tinner Report"). He concluded that "Permit processing systems are extremely
complex. Without written documentation such as policies/procedure manuals, it becomes
extremely difficult to keep complex systems organized and predictable for permit staff and
applicants. The results is inefficiencies, personal preferences, and some level of chaos
creeping into the system. These items lead to non -predictability for permit applicants which
in turn leads to unnecessary complaints to upper management and elected officials"
(Attachment A)
Separately, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a nonprofit policy research group dedicated to
promoting accountable government, researched and published a report identifying and
proposing seven low-cost solutions to expedite building permits. These include:
• Allowing preapproved building plans
• Exempting basic work that does not pose major safety risks
• Streamlining solar project approvals
• Grandfathering unpermitted dwellings
• Allowing third -party approvals and issuing certain building permits
• Adopting "shot clocks"
• Reducingfees
The Grassroots methodology involved analyzing permitting practices, consulting industry
stakeholders, and comparing regulatory frameworks in other regions to develop practical
recommendations.
141Background
ORD Define Complete App
Add Tech Fee
Increase Plan Review Fees
Public Duty Doctrine Training
Eliminate Bluebeam Sessions
sure BD Leadership Attends ICC Committee Meetings
Conduct Combo Inspections and Reviews
Enhance Map/GIS Features
Add 3rd Party Plan Revie,
Lean Processing
Digital Placard
Streamline PVs
Added 2 FTEs
Overtime to Clear Backlog
Weeklv Brainstorming Mt9 Allow Preapproved
Amended Code Simplies Building Plans
Cancellations, Expirations, and
Extentions (ORD 23-87)
Exempt Low
Risk Permits
Reduce Fee
Grandfather Unpermitted Dwelling
Adopt Time Bound "Shot Clocks"
Types of Permits.
Project applications are classified into five main categories and divided into 32 specific permit
types.
Building - Non -Residential (11) Building - Residential (12)
Addition Model Home Design Pre -Approval
Alteration Addition
Demolition Alternation
Electrical Only
Emergency Demo/Repair/Reconstruction
Move
New Construction
Plumbing Only
Demolition
Electrical Only
Emergency Repair/Reconstruction
Move
New Construction
Photovoltaic Plumbing Only
Swimming Pool/Hot Tub/Jacuzzi Photovoltaic
Temporary Structure Building Solar Water Heater
Swimming Pool/Hot Tub/Jacuzzi
Regulatory Inspections (5)
Adult Day Care Liquor
After School Program Preschool
Day Care
Grading, Grubbing, Stockpiling (3)
Grubbing Stockpiling
Grading
Sign (1)
Sign
Figure: 1.2: Types of Permits. Department of Public Works Building Division
161Background
Comparisons of Permit Applications vs. Approvals.
We analyzed 15,575* application uploads from the EPIC system spanning July 2021 through
March 2024to evaluate submission trends and performance measures. During this period,
the BD issued 11,134** permits. The blue line represents the number of permit applications
submitted, while the yellow line reflects the number of permits issued over the same
timeframe.
*No. Submittals *No. issued
z
c
E
15K
10K
5K
1
Figure 1.3: Permit Applications vs. Approvals Over Time*
O.SK 1.0K
0.0 OAK
OK
Jan 2022
15.6K
13.9
13.2
12.2
11.1 K
10.5 11.1
10.0
9.7
9.3 K
8.8 8.7K
7.9
7.OK
Jul 2022 Jan 202;
Date Range
Permit DashboFFard
y�
r�
�sa�
Jul 2021 Jan 2024
Figure 1.3: Permit Applications vs. Approvals Over Time. Compiled Office of the County Auditor
*Note: A total of 16,364 permits were reviewed less 786 Engineering Only permits were excluded from the
review. Additionally, 2Agricultural Exemption Permits, and 1 MSO Working Permit was removed, resulting in
a net total of 15,575 permits. Permits issued in Lotus, Magnet, Legacy, or hardcopy submissions were not
evaluated.
**Reports from DPW, EPIC System Report, and Auditor's Request for Permit Applications for the period July
2021 to March 2024.
Office of the County Auditor Permit Dashboard. https://www.hawaiicounty-gov/o,
county/legislative/office-of-the-county-auditor/audit-reports. Data provided by Building Division. Compiled
Office of the County Auditor.
17 1 B a c 1< g r o u n d
Permit Dashboard
Figure 1 A Online Permit Application Volume, Type, and Time *
Permit Work Class
Ccirt Permit Number %of Permit Number
0 -T� F ❑
L•
+: Residefntial Move Permit
3
0.02%
435.0
Nan -Residential New Construction
367
2.36%
327.9
+: Nan -Residential Addition
43
0.28%
294A
Residential Addition
339
2.18%
249.7
+, Nan -Residential Alteration
892
5.73%
246Z
* Residential
3
0.02%
23&0
+: Residential New C instruction
3695
23.72%
23-IL
Residential Alteration
340
2.18%
224.9
+: Residential Demolition Permit
144
0.92%
183.6
Liquor
62
0.40%
177.4
+: Day Care
4
0,03%
175.7
Sign Permit
133
0,85%
168.8
+: Nan -Residential Demolition Permit
61
0.39%
168.6
Residential Swimming Pool/HotTutr/Jacuzzi
245
1.57%
151.1
+: Nan -Residential PV Permit
113
0.73%
1M5
Preschool
7
0,04%
A
115.0
+: Adult Day Care
7
0,04%
A
112.0
Nan -Residential Sw+mming Pool/Hot Tub/Jacuzzi
10
0A6%
A
111.0
+: Residential Emergency
'13
0.08%
A
110A
Residential Solar Water Heater Permit
4423
2.72%
4D
9&9
+: Nan -Residential Plumbing Only Permit
245
1.57%
9D.2
Nan -Res Emergency Demo/Repair/Reconstruct-ion
15
0,10%
89.9
+: Nan -Residential Electrical Only Permit
799
5.13%
84.5
Residential Plumbing Only Permit
9b0
6.29%
65.3
+° Model Home Design Pre -Approval
73
0.47%
64.1
- ;errperary Structure Permit
122
0.78%
59.0
+: Residential PV Permit
3922
25.18%
47.1
Residential Electri€al Only Permit
2513
16.13%
45.1
4: Grading Permit
1
0.01 %
Residential Single Family
1
0.01%
Total
15575
180.00%
114.8
Legend: Avg days 114.8 0 +/- 5 days of mean. 0 < 5 days below mean ♦ >5 days above mean
Figure 1.4: Online Permit Application Volume, Type, and Time. Compiled Courtesy County Auditor
*Auditor Note: We did not evaluate permits issued in Lotus, Magnet, Legacy, or hardcopy submission. Source: Report
Provided by DPW EPIC, System Report. "Auditor Request for Permit applications between July 2021 to March 2024. OCA
Permit Dashboard. https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/our-county/legislative/office-of-the-county-auditor/audit-reports.
Data provided bythe Building Division. Compiled Office of the County Auditor.
181Background
Figure 1.4 represents the volume of applications received during the period. The average
processing time reflects the interval between the date applications are uploaded and
permits issued. This calculation includes time spent with both the department and the
customer.
This approach differs from the division's methodology, which calculates processing time
from task assignment to completion. During the audit period, the division did not track or
account for the time spent with the applicant, as this time is outside their direct control. Our
methodology, which considers the entire process from applicant submission to permit
issuance, better reflects user expectations for overall turnaround time2.
Building Permit Processes.
We examined the division's building permitting practices for both residential and non-
residential permits. To account for process variations based on permit type, we used the
new construction residential process as a baseline to establish a foundational
understanding.
BD has educational materials it provides to the public to outline aspects of its building
permit process. Figure 1.5 was designed to maintain legacy processes in which paper plans
were reviewed sequentially, and a three -permit system was used. For example, the
residential permit steps are visually outlined below, comprising seven simple steps.
Building Division's Residential Building Permit Process
D.I�A\`�.
I
PERMIT ISSDANCE
lame Dlv)
�
BIIT�'.iCODE/STRUCTORAL
(BLDG
❑IV)
SEWER SYSTEM REVIEW
OR
SEPTIC SYSTEM REVIEW (DOH-W W
ENGINEERING REVIEW
(ENGINEERING DIV)
IANO USE REVIEW
APPLICATION INTAKE
(PLANNING DEPT)
REVIEW
APPLICANT
(9LDG
DIV)
------------
PPLY
FOP PERMIT
Figure 1.5: Building Division's Residential Building Permit Process
2 DPW Building Division. Comparison of the Average Number of Days to Process Permits.
https://records.hawaiicount)t.gov/weblink/l/edoc/140091/BLG Permit Issuance Metrics.pd Accessed: 12/27/24
191Background
0
co
A
co
E
a)
Q
c
0
O
4-
co
O
w
CD
O
bA
I.L
VI
0
.E
L
^^0
CL
w
U c
Z Ofo
C 0 !�!¢¢ N
n.O
a
U C
fn C y Z
fA a CV
T
a c
O
C
_ O
H U N p
O
�2a7v�Q,aica
� c � &W E 95—w p U pUr_V)
UOa)m
c E
E
0
U �
•p
�
Z��ti' _O'CN
w
a uc
C �`p O O
z_C)Ev�cn0
Z> C
�Qr>
Qwga�v >(3)>
IL CL J W N C] a w. S
Wj o
cn
O a
n. C
N
Q O ¢
f9
C
[
N
�
`
C
C
<-
-----------------i C
cn =V
w N Oa
U 1
Z
1
Q� a5 ca > C
1
O N cc c�
1
N ,� —
ca c$ � O
i
cn c" s r- y Z
p
F-
(] w U N N N
----> Z
O------
$ o
w
�aC�Em-�U.N
L
co
c
Ln w m oa
Yw <------
---------------
i
1
------------
1
Y 1
-► w c
O
_
=
m
UL
W c
c
.2)17�
w
cv3�Q
w
a W
m N
w m
w
cfl CcJ
w� C C
Q.O O
J
'-' L
W,r
,O
C GL w E
-
2
W O
o ._O2
iJ c m 0 E
i w T O
a)ptt
1 a. Submit Application.
Property owners, contractors, or agents applying on their behalf prepare an application by
creating a profile in the EPIC system and submitting it through the online portal. The
application includes selecting and describing the project type, identifying professional
trades, detailing building specifications, completing external forms such as a property
owner declaration and site plans (blueprints), signing the submission, and submitting the
application.
1 b. Pay Plan Review Fee.
A plan review fee is charged at the time of application submission in addition to the permit
fee. This fee is 20% of the permit fee, with a minimum charge of $50. The fee must be
submitted along with the application, plans, and specifications required under HCC §5-4-1.
1c. Completeness Check.
The intake staff reviews the application. If complete, the application is routed for review. If
it is incomplete, additional information is requested through an email from the intake clerk.
2. Resubmit.
When it is ready to be reviewed, applications are received by a ten -member intake team.
Team members self -assign applications and check for completeness. Teams are expected
to prioritize the oldest applications first, advancing those with approvals or returning
incomplete applications to the applicant for corrections or resubmittals. If the application
is deficient, the applicant is notified by email of deficiencies that need corrections. After
corrections have been made, the application re-enters the queue for re-evaluation.
3. Land Use/Multi-Agency Review.
When approved at intake, the application progresses to the Planning Department for a land
use review. This review ensures that the property type suits the zoning and required
setbacks. Land use review is not required for all permit types, such as Electrical or
Plumbing -Only Permits.
The application then moves to a multi -agency review. During this stage, multiple agencies
work in parallel, and the agencies involved depend on the type of permit being sought. These
may include Plumbing, Department of Health (DOH) -Wastewater (if the plan calls for an
individual wastewater system), DOH -Food Safety reviews all non-residential projects,
Engineering, Fire (for non-residential projects only), Electrical, Mechanical, Structural,
Department of Environmental Management (if the plans call for a connection to a County
Sewer System).
21 1 B a c k g r o u n d
The workflow is designed to notify all agencies when an application is disapproved, and
subsequent resubmittal may be required to address any changes.
Once all agencies involved in the multi -agency review have approved the application, it
proceeds to the out -processing stage, where the plans are reviewed again for completeness.
4. Resubmit.
At any stage of the review process, an application may be returned due to incorrect or
incomplete information caused bythe applicant or staff errors. In either case, the applicant
is notified. Once corrections are received, the application re-enters the queue for re-
valuation. This "reset" can occur multiple times.
5. Approved for Issuance.
All steps have been completed, and pending some housecleaning the applicant is greenlit
for a permit.
6. Payment Pending.
The applicant is invoiced, payment is collected, and the applications again enter a queue
awaiting issuance.
7. Permit Issuance.
The application qualifies for issuance once payment and required project declarations are
received.
8. Permitted Inspections.
Permitted projects under construction require oversite by county inspectors at various
stages of construction. For example, once permits are approved, a residential new
construction project undergoes multiple inspections (in order of inspections):
• Foundation (Building, Electrical, Plumbing)
• Framing (Building, Electrical, Plumbing)
• Final Inspections (Building, Electrical, Plumbing)
In accordance with Hawaii County Code § 5-8-3, only the contractor/owner builder, electrical
contractor, and plumbing contractor can request an inspection. Once construction is completed and
the dwelling passes final inspections, the permit is closed, and occupancy can occur.
Certificate of Occupancy (CO).
COs only apply to nonresidential construction. These structures cannot be used or
occupied, nor can the occupancy classification be changed until the appropriate authority
has issued a certificate of occupancy.
22 1 B a c k g r o u n d
County of Hawaii
Office of the County Auditor
Audit Activity.
To identify bottlenecks in the permitting process, we:
• Analyzed EPIC -generated datasets from July 26, 2021, through March 31, 2024,
including 15,575 permits, with an estimated valuation of $3,367,225,8851
• Reviewed Hawaii County Code Chapter5 Construction Administrative Code, "Tinner
Report4," and the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii Policy Briefs (October 2024)
• Researched the Public Duty Doctrine
• Benchmarked other municipalities that use self -certification and/or third -party
review services
o City of Phoenix, AZ
o City of Denver, CO
o City of Fort Worth, TX
One obstacle affecting permits is volume. High permit application volume can overwhelm
the system, causing delays and backlogs. Efficiently managing large volumes ensures timely
processing and prevents bottlenecks.
Application Volume.
Figure 2 shows the volume of applications and the number of permits being issued.
Applications received (blue line) and permits processed (yellow line) over time do not
account for withdrawn, canceled, or expired permits. Lines remain parallel to one another
when a system is functioning optimally. When the lines intersect, it indicates that the
division's capacity exceeds demand, and when the lines diverge, demand is outpacing the
division's ability to process applications.
3 Office of the County Auditor Permit Dashboard. https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/our-county/legislative/office-of-the-county-
auditor/audit-reports. Data provided by Building Division. Compiled Office of the County Auditor.
4 James Tinner, "Consultant's Report: COM 36.1 (2022-24)" https://records hawaiicounty_goy/Weblink/0/doc/1049842/Pagel.asox.
Accessed 11-20-24
5 Grassroots Institute of Hawaii. Policy Brief, (October 2024), Seven low-cost ways to speedup permitting in Hawaii Expediting the
issuance of building permits is critical to making a dentin Hawaii's housing crisis. https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/wo-
content/uploads/2023/12/241007 pb oermits.pdf. Accessed 11/20/24
23jAudit Results
Figure 2: Application Volume Outpaces Permit Issuance
*No. Submittals *No. Issued
15K
E
Ln
0
Z 5K
OK
Jan 2022 Jul 202_
7.0K
^� 64K
Permit
Dashboard
Jan 2023 Jul2023 Jan 2024
Date Range
Figure 2: Application Volume Outpaces Permit Issuance, data extracted from EPIC,
Analyzed Office of the County Auditor, Figure 2 does not include resubmittal.
Office of the County Auditor Permit Dashboard.
https://www.hawa i icou nty.gov/our-cou my/legislative/office-of-the-county-a ud itor/aud it -reports
Data provided by the Building Division. Compiled Office of the County Auditor
As of March 31, 2024, the volume of applications (blue line) and the division's processing
capacity (yellow line) were on divergent paths. To address this issue, solutions should focus
on reducing the volume of applications requiring reviews, increasing the division's capacity
to process applications or a combination of both strategies.
241
Municipalities nationwide face unique housing challenges, prompting the development of a
wide range of proposed solutions to expedite permit processing at both state and local
Levels. Following the launch of the EPIC system, the Roth administration contracted the
"Tinner Report," which focused on an analysis of "current permitting processes". The
Grassroots Institute of Hawaii also published a Policy Brief in October 2024 proposing
solutions to expedite permit issuance. Similarities between solutions are outlined below to
reduce volume and increase capacity:
Figure 2.11: Solutions Designed to Reduce
Grassroot Institute of Hawai`is Tinner Report'
Exempt basic repairs and other
Reserve internal licensed engineering staff
nonstructural work that does not pose
for complex structures and allow licensed
major safety risks.
design professionals to self -certify
conventional single-family homes,
reducing inefficiencies and addressing risk
intolerance through Public Duty Doctrine
training.
Exempt qualifying rooftop photovoltaic
Exempt rooftop photovoltaic systems
systems from building permits.
meeting established criteria from requiring
a licensed design professional.
Only an electrical permit with fire access
verification is required bythe electrical
inspector.
Figure 2.1: Solutions Designed to Reduce Volume. Complied Office of the County Auditor
Photovoltaic (PV) applications accounted for a significant portion (25%) of the total
workload, representing 3,922 of the 15,575 applications. If PV systems were exempted, the
total applications would reduce to approximately 11,653, comparable to the 11,134 permits
issued during the review period. Since PV systems generally have faster turnaround times,
removing them from the workflow should free up resources to focus on more complex
projects requiring greater effort and processing time.
Increasing resource availability would shorten the average time for more labor-intensive
applications. However, the overall number of permits processed might decrease as the
system shifts from handling simpler tasks to prioritizing more complex applications.
6 Grassroots Institute of Hawaii. Policy Brief, (October 2024), Seven low-cost ways to speedup permitting in Hawaii Expediting the
issuance of building permits is critical to making a dentin Hawaii's housing crisis. https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/wo-
content/uploads/2023/12/241007_pb oermits.pdf. Accessed 12-27-24
'County of Hawaii. COM 36.1 Supporting material for Communication 36
https://records.hawaiicount) gov/WebLink/0/doc/1049842/Pagel .aspxx Accessed: 12-27-24
25 1 _
BD processes PV permits for systems under 10 kW, contributing to the volume of
applications. Exempting these systems from permitting could provide significant
reductions. Ordinance 24-93 Bill 212 (Draft 1) separately raised the dollar threshold for
certain non-structural permits from $7,500 to $25,000, further easing the workload. Both
reflect policy choices with the potential to substantially lower application volume.
Self -Certification.
Self -certification allows qualified professionals to confirm that their work meets building
codes, speeding up permit approval without full government review. The Tinner Report
discussed this concept, which noted BD's extreme risk intolerance and preference to review
nearlyall proposed work, exceptwhere exemptions are defined under HCC §§5-3-21 through
5-3-25. BD expressed concerns regarding high error rates and incorrect submissions by
Licensed design professionals. These conditions emphasize building a collaborative
relationship with design professionals, setting clear expectations, and gradually fostering
trust to ensure accurate and reliable permit submissions.
Self -Certification Program.
We benchmarked the City of Phoenix, Arizona, which uses a self -certification program.
To qualify for self -certification, licensed architects and engineers must meet the following
eligibility requirements:
1. Have at least three years of professional experience in building code compliance
2. Bea registered professional within the state
3. Successfully complete the city's self -certification training course. This training must
be renewed every three years and includes requirements to:
a. Obtain and maintain sufficient professional liability insurance
b. Complete the necessary training classes
Requirements for Self -Certifying Projects.
Licensed architects or engineers must maintain the following documentation:
Proof of adequate professional liability insurance
• A certification statement confirming eligibility for self -certification, a clean record
free of fraud or similar violations, and compliance with self -certification
requirements for the project
• A letter from the property owner or tenant stating they have authorized the work will
correct any errors or misrepresentations and will undertake necessary remedial
actions to ensure compliance with the law
26JAudit Results
• A "hold harmless" letter indemnifying the city against any costs or damages arising
from the design, construction, code compliance review, or permit issuance for the
project
A completed self -certification application
Audits and Inspections.
Self -certified projects are subject to the following review processes by the municipality to
ensure compliance:
• Random Audits: At least 10% of self -certification applications undergo a random
audit.
• Automatic Audits: Certain types of projects are automatically audited, including:
o Remodels of 25,000 square feet or more
o Shell buildings of 25,000 square feet or more
o New buildings of 10,000 square feet or more
o New electrical and instrumentation occupancies
o Public assembly occupancies with a capacity of 300 or more
o Medical marijuana facilities
o Ambulatory care facilities
o An initial review of standardized plans intended for repeated use
After plan approval and commencement of work, inspections are conducted to verify that
construction aligns with the approved plans. This combination of audits and inspections
helps identify and resolve compliance issues within the self -certification process.
Streamlined Permit Approval.
Once the design professional meets all eligibility
requirements and submits the necessary
documentation, the permit approval process can be
completed within one to five days.
In addition to the existing controls implemented in the
City of Phoenix's self -certification program, other internal
controls that could further enhance the robustness of
such a program might include the following:
• Program pilot and phased implementation
• Standardized checklists
• Publicly accessible code interpretations
• Post -audit improvement mechanisms
• Automated compliance validation tools
• Continuous feedback and revision
ForApproved Self -
Certified
Professionals, the
permit approval
process can be
completed within
one -to -five days.
• Robust accountability measures
• Escalating penalties for non-compliance, including decertification
271Audit Result
• Partnerships with professional organizations
• Public -private oversight mechanisms
• Annual program review
Public Duty Doctrine Training.
The Public Duty Doctrine limits liability for government agencies performing public
functions, such as approving application packets or conducting inspections. Under this
doctrine, liability for construction failures is generally a civil matter between the contractor
and citizen, as the government's duties and responsibilities are to the public, not individuals.
However, a government entity may assume additional liability when it makes independent
assessments of design professionals' work rather than simply verifying that required
documents are on file and accurate.
Training in the Public Duty Doctrine can help staff better understand the limits of their
responsibilities and reduce unnecessary liability exposure.
Currently, intake staff and plan reviewers are supervised by a licensed professional.
However, staff without professional licenses are making judgments on work submitted by
design professionals without continuous training to evaluate complex or technical details.
Figure 2.2: Sotutions Designed to Increase Capacity
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii and Tinner Report
Allow third parties to approve and issue certain building permits and/or allow third -party
plan review services.
Figure 2.2: Solution Designed to Increase Capacity. Compiled Office of the County Auditor
Third -Party Review Services.
Third -party services involve external organizations or professionals hired to perform specific
tasks or functions, such as plan reviews and inspections, on behalf of a municipality to
enhance efficiency and expertise in the permit process. Third -party reviews can take various
forms, depending on model adoption and organizational needs.
On one end of the spectrum, municipalities may pursue a strategy of Business Process
Outsourcing plan review functions to organizations, which manage permit submissions,
customer service, and administrative tasks. This model focuses on efficiency and
scalability, making it suitable for jurisdictions facing high application volumes or limited
resources. For example, the City of Denver, Colorado, uses this approach to scale permit
review processes.
Alternatively, some municipalities, such as Fort Worth, Texas, have adopted a third -party
certification model. The City of Fort Worth maintains a local roster of at least eight certified
firms authorized to perform plan reviews and inspections.
281Audit Results
These firms undergo a thorough approval process to ensure they meet the city's
qualifications and adhere to local codes and standards. This model allows applicants to
select an approved private agency to expedite their permit review and/or conduct
inspections while ensuring that the municipality retains oversight and control over
compliance and enforcement.
These two models demonstrate the different levels of delegation and oversight that can be
applied, providing municipalities with the flexibility to balance efficiency with control and
enforcement.
Without a scalable solution, backlogs become routine, eventually leading to the need for
more full-time staff as demand grows. By adjusting staffing to match baseline demand,
third -party review services can provide temporary support during peak periods, helping to
manage backlogs and ensure timely processing. This approach offers flexibility to handle
fluctuations in application volume without permanently increasing staff levels.
The "backlog" refers to accumulating permit applications that have not yet been reviewed or
approved due to high volume, staffing limitations, or other delays. It represents the number
of pending permits awaiting processing.
Diff Between Applications Submittted vs. Processed and Backlog - Over Time
80
30
I
-20
-70
ti c4pip, �
s.rcmd � 111—d 2.:
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
Figure 2.3: Difference Between Applications Submitted vs. Processed and Backlog -Over Time. Data extracted from EPIC
Analyzed Office of the County Auditor
291Audit R e s u I L I
Figure 2.3 shows the daily net difference between applications submitted by customers
(purple bars) and permits issued by staff (blue bars). Only a purple or blue bar is shown for
each date, reflectingthe net outcome of submitted applications and processed permits. The
left axis represents the number of applications submitted (positive values) or permits
processed (negative values).
The yellow line represents the cumulative backlog over the audit period, which generally
trends upward and is shown on the right secondary axis. From earliest to latest, the x-axis
represents the audit period from July 26, 2021, to March 31, 2024.
Our analysis indicates that, on average, 16 applications were submitted daily, while staff
processed 12 applications per day, resulting in a persistent backlog. This issue was further
exacerbated by 26 significant surges in application submissions, where daily uploads
exceeded the usual daily average by over sevenfold.
Technical outages and software downtimes prevented BD from conducting meaningful
reviews, hampering operations and contributing to the backlog. Surges and downtime
combined have a significant impact on processing delays for applicants.
Artificial Intelligence (Al).
Municipalities can use technology as a scalable solution to address the growing permitting
process demands without increasing human resources. AI refers to applying advanced
computational systems that utilize machine learning, natural language processing, and data
analytics to streamline and enhance the evaluation of construction plans and permit
applications. AI is one tool that should enhance efficiency and accuracy and provide
scalability while ensuring compliance with regulations to increase the capacity of permit
processing workflows.
BD currently uses Bluebeam Revu, a plan review software that assists in identifying errors
and inconsistencies in submitted building plans. While this software supports accurate
reviews, the rapid evolution of additional AI -powered tools offers opportunities to expand
and optimize the permitting process even further.
Emerging technologies can complement existing systems by automating a broader range of
tasks, such as advanced application error detection, predictive analysis of potential code
violations, and streamlined workflows for applicants and reviewers. Al can also simplify
complex zoning and code research, enablingfaster and more precise determinations, which
are not fully addressed by current solutions. These advancements allow reviewers to focus
on higher -value tasks, such as critical decision -making and policy alignment, rather than
repetitive administrative tasks.
30jAudit Results
BD can reduce processing times, alleviate backlogs, and optimize resource allocation by
integrating these tools alongside existing platforms. Given AI's dynamic and evolving nature,
agencies must remain proactive in monitoring advancements and identifying integrations
that address specific operational needs. Leveraging evolving solutions alongside current
tools can ensure compliance, improve service quality, and better meet the growing
demands of permitting processes.
Conclusions.
The persistent delays and backlogs in the permitting system are driven by several
conditions: high application volume, resource constraints, and the lack of scalable
solutions. Key factors contributing to these challenges include the disproportionate
allocation of resources to low -risk applications, limited automation in the review process,
and the absence of mechanisms like self -certification and third -party reviews to manage
demand surges effectively. These conditions emphasize the importance of reducing
application volume and increasing processing capacity to alleviate backlogs and improve
the user experience.
31 jAudit Results
To Reduce Application Volume
We make the following recommendations
FINDING 1: The Volume of Applications Contributes to Delays
1. The volume of applications submitted for permits consistently outpaces the
division's processing capacity.
2. A substantial portion of applications consists of rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems
(25%), which consume division resources despite being low -risk and fast to
process.
3. Intake and plan review team members without professional licenses evaluate
submissions prepared by licensed design professionals.
4. Sudden and unpredictable application surges and software downtime disrupt
normal operations and strain division resources.
5. The division does not have scalable solutions, such as third -party review services,
to effectively manage surges in permit applications.
6. Low -risk and low -complexity applications that could be exempted are being
reviewed.
7. BD is hesitant to adopt a self -certification program for licensed design
professionals.
8. The current permitting process relies on limited automation, with existing tools
providing only basic capabilities in plan reviews.
r 7
1. Persistent backlogs in permit processing result in extended applicant delays,
impacting project timelines and increasing user dissatisfaction.
2. Allocating resources to review low -risk applications, such as PV systems, limits
the division's ability to focus on complex projects requiring greater attention.
3. Division staff making independent assessments of licensed design professionals'
work without sufficient training exposes the Countyto potential liability and
inefficiencies.
4. The operational disruptions from surges in applications and software downtime
result in staff resources being stretched thin, leading to increased workloads and
difficulty maintaining efficient processing.
5. The lack of scalable solutions contributes to prolonged delays in application
processing, further escalating the backlog.
6. Reviewing low -risk and low -complexity applications that could be exempted
diverts resources from processing more complex projects, contributing to
backlogs and delays.
321Audit Result-
7. The absence of self -certification options for standard residential designs restricts
processing efficiency, leaving the entirety of application volume dependent on
departmental review.
8. Limited automation leads to slower workload management and contributes to
delays.
Recommendation 1
Exempt Qualified Low -Risk Applications.
Evaluate low -risk, low -impact applications (i.e., PV, solar water heater, water tanks,
fences, and walls) to identify opportunities to increase exemptions. The goal is to reduce
application volume, increase departmental capacity, and reallocate staff resources to
focus on more complex applications.
Implement Self -Certification and Provide Public Duty Doctrine Training.
Establish a self -certification program for licensed design professionals to certify standard
residential designs, reserving engineering staff for more complex reviews. This initiative
aims to expedite processing, improve efficiency, and reduce backlogs. Support the
program with regular Public Duty Doctrine training to clarify staff roles in verifying
submissions rather than independently reassessing certified work.
Pilot Third -Party Review Services During Peak Periods.
Pilot a program using third -party plan review services as needed, addressing
unpredictable surges that exceed baseline capacity. Scalable solutions seek to minimize
backlogs without needing long-term staffing increases while ensuring consistent
processing times.
mmen b
Enhance Al Integration in Plan Review Processes.
Explore opportunities to integrate advanced AI -powered tools into plan review processes
to augment existing capabilities.
Elements include, but are not limited to:
• Automating error detection, discrepancies, or irregularities
• Identifying code compliance issues
• Simplifying zoning research
33jAudit Results
County of Hawaii
Office of the County Auditor
Audit Activity.
To evaluate the efficiency of processing times in the permitting system, we:
• Analyzed EPIC -generated datasets from July 26, 2021, through March 31, 2024. This
included 15,575 permits, with an estimated valuation of $ 3,366,687,5581
• Interviewed staff and those charged with governance
• Reviewed applicable Administrative Rules, guides, and other written guidance
• Reviewed "Tinner Report" recommendations
• Attended the seminar, "Seven Low -Cost Ways to Speed Up Permitting in Hawai'i"
• Researched Lean Six Sigma for Service principles
Another obstacle affecting permits is processing time. The time it takes to process permits
impacts project timelines, business operations, and public services. Reducing processing
time improves efficiency and helps meet construction, development, or regulatory
compliance deadlines.
Application Processing Time.
We analyzed the time involved in the permit process to evaluate the system's overall
efficiency. By understanding time factors, the division can pinpoint delays, bottlenecks, or
inefficiencies that hinder progress. Metrics, including lead, cycle, and processing times,
provide distinct insights into process performance.
• Lead time measures the total duration from application submission to permit
issuance, offering a view of the applicant's overall experience and the predictability
of the process.
• Cycle time focuses on the time taken to complete major stages within the process,
highlighting the Division's internal efficiency at the stage level.
• Processing time drills deeper into individual activities within each stage, helping to
pinpoint specific tasks and activities that contribute to delays.
Lean Six Sigma, for the service industry, is a methodology that combines Lean's focus on
eliminating waste and improving process flow with Six Sigma's emphasis on reducing
variation and improving quality.
Lean Six Sigma for Service emphasizes the importance of concurrent monitoring metrics to
develop a comprehensive understanding of the permitting process. It accounts for the
complexities inherent in permitting, such as variations in application types, procedural
inconsistencies, or external factors impacting timelines. By addressing these complexities,
BD can implement targeted improvements that enhance internal productivity while
improving transparency, consistency, and the overall user experience.
8 Office of the County Auditor Permit Dashboard. https://www.hawaiicounty.govlour-county/legislative/office-of-the-county-
auditor/audit-reports. Data provided by Building Division. Compiled Office of the County Auditor.
34JAudit Results
Figure 3: Lean Six Sigma for Service Industry
APPLICATION LEAJTI M E REVIEW
ASSIGNED COMPLETED
APPLICATION
SUBMITTED
Stages
Intake Land Use Multi -Agency Out Processing Issuance
TASK PROCESSING TIMES
CYCLE TIME
PERMIT
ISSUED
Figure 3: Lean Six Sigma for Service Industry. Compiled Office of the County Auditor, visual not to drawn to scale
Three Types of Durations.
• Lead Time represents the total duration from application submission to permit issuance,
covering all stages and delays, including any time the application spends idle with the
division or with the applicant for resubmissions. Lead time is important for assessing the
overall user experience and the predictability of the permitting processing from start to
finish.
• Cycle Time represents the total duration a permit spends within each main stage of the
process, from when it enters a stage (such as intake, land use, multi -agency review, or
out -processing) to when it exits that stage and moves to the next. Cycle time captures
the entire span of a permit's progress within each major stage, offering an overview of the
efficiency of each stage.
While cycle time can provide valuable insights into internal productivity, it must be
measured correctly. BD pauses the clock when applications are returned to the
customer for corrections or resubmittal, which affects the measurement. However,
delays may be caused by unclear or missing instructional materials, inconsistent
guidance, or overly complex requirements from BD, as well as misunderstandings or
incomplete submissions from the customer.
While it's rational to discount time spent with the customer outside the department's
control, tracking and analyzing these interactions is still critical to understanding delays
and making informed improvements. By measuringthis time, BD can reduce the duration
and frequency of returned applications to the customer.
• Processing Time refers to the duration spent on individual activities within each stage of
the permitting process, such as completing forms, reviewing checklists, and conducting
specific compliance tasks. Analyzing processing time at this activity level makes it
possible to identify where time is being dedicated.
35JAudit Results
During the audit period, BD focused on cycle time, when -applications are assigned and
actively being worked on. However, limiting the focus may obscure factors that impact the
overall lead time. For instance, the time at the beginning, when applications are submitted
and awaiting initial assignment, and at the end, after reviews have been completed and the
permit is awaiting issuance, are not fully captured in the cycle time. These periods
contribute significantly to the total lead time and should be considered in any process
efficiency analysis. Subsequently, in April 2024, BD began monitoring lead time during the
audit.
Additionally, BD uses averages to assess its performance through stages. While averages
can be a helpful metric, they can mask significant variability. For example, if four permits
take 25, 35, 35, and 100 days to issue, BD may report an average issuance time of 48.7 days.
While this might reflect a positive outcome for the first three applicants, the final applicant's
experience is markedly different, conflicting with performance reports.
Variability among time intervals can reveal areas where improvements are necessary. We
examined the stages in the application process from a perspective of time and an analysis
of the first pass rate (the percentage of applications that are completed correctly and
approved without requiring corrections or resubmittal. It reflects the efficiency and
accuracy of the initial attempt), the minimum, maximum, and average number of reviews
and days at each review stage, along with common reasons for rejections.
Figure 3.1: 15,575 Applications Upload to Assignment.
All Permits Average Days in Initial Queue
500
4G'-
300
200
100
0
Off'411
Off'
'L
Off'
`1, '
00' Off'
Off' 'ti
-v
Off'
3-,
Off'
Off'
`3
Off'
O
Off'
O
Off'
^y D
Off'
Off'
O�
Off'
Application Upload M Assignqo
11/28/2023 3118P2024
Days T
[ 111
11/28/2023
1/26/2024
59
11/28/2023
1/25/2024
58
11/28/2023
1/8/2024
41
11/28/2023
12/21/20231
23
11/28/2023
12/13/2023
I 15
11/28/2023
12/12/2023
I 14
11 /28/2023
12/5/2023
7
11/28/2023
12/5/2023
7
11/28/2023
12/1/2023
3
11/28/2023
12/1/2023
3
11/28/2023
12/1/2023
3
11/28/2023
12/1/2023
3
11/28/2023
12/1/2023
3
11/28/2023
11/30/20231
2
11/28/2023
11/29/2023
1
11/28/2023
1112M023
0
Figure 3.1: Applications Upload to Assignment. Data extracted from EPIC, compiled Office of the County Auditor
36JAudit Results
Figure 3.1 shows the time between permit uploads to the EPIC portal and their selection for
review. The system allows for application submissions without payment, and staff may
begin reviews after payment is received.
Although queue times have generally decreased, Figure 3.1 highlights significant variability
in assignment times. For example, on November 28, 2023, 17 applications were uploaded,
with assignment times ranging from same -day processing (0 days) to 111 days (March 18,
2023). This inconsistency in assignment times reflects inefficiencies in the assignment
process that require resolution. On average, applications spend approximately 37 days in
the queue before assignment.
During the audit period, BD did not account for initial wait times in its performance
calculations, leading to a disconnect between reported performance and user experience.
Subsequently, this has been corrected, and initial wait times are now included in
performance assessments. Addressing missing or incomplete documentation earlier in the
process should reduce queue times and improve user experience. BD also reported that
wait times caused by pending customer action outside their control contribute to delays.
Management directed staff to prioritize older permit numbers during the audit period, but
the permitting software did not effectively enforce this directive. Additionally, periodic shifts
in priorities to focus on specific types of permits have introduced inconsistencies. When
the queue is not cleared before shifting priorities, incomplete permits may remain inactive
for extended periods. These delays compound when attention returns to the original
category, as older permits may become buried within the queue.
First -in, first -out is a processing approach where tasks or items are handled in the exact
order they are received, ensuring that the oldest submissions are addressed first. This
method promotes fairness, consistency, and efficiency by preventing newer tasks from
being prioritized over older ones unless exceptions are explicitly defined.
Conclusion.
The time analysis of the upload stage revealed significant variability in assignment,
prioritization, and queue management. Improvements have been and continue to be made.
However, until early intervention designed to cut the wait time is implemented and date -
driven assignments are enforced through permissions or are strictly monitored and enforced
by management, BD will continue to struggle to increase user satisfaction. Findings and
recommendations aim to address these challenges and provide actionable steps for
improvement.
37jAudit Results
To Improve Processing Efficiencies & Reduce Processing Time at Upload Stage
We make the following recommendations
FINDING 2: The Permit System Launched Prematurely Before Full Configuration and
Optimization
1. BD lacked a dedicated pre-screening function to verify application completeness
early in the process, resulting in lost time for the customer.
2. BD's focus on cycle time overlooks causes for delays, while manual self -
assignment of permits lacked automated prioritization or date -driven protocols.
1. Applications with missing or incomplete documents are inevitably returned after
being assigned, resulting in lost time that could have been avoided if applicants
had been notified immediately, unnecessarily prolonging application timelines.
2. Inconsistent processing workflows lead to inequitable delays among permits.
� Recommen i
Dedicate a Pre -Screening Function.
Establish a dedicated pre-screening process to verify application completeness before
assignment to an intake clerk. This function should identify and request missing or
incomplete documents, proactively address common errors to improve first -attempt
approvals, and reduce subsequent errors and delays.
Enforce Ascending Date -Driven Priority Protocol.
Assign permits in ascending order based on the oldest dates, ensuring that older
applications and submittals, including those requiring applicant action, are processed
first to prevent out -of -order selections. Exceptions should be made through direct
management assignments. Adopting this protocol could reduce variances and promote
consistent workflow.
38jAudit Results
Stage 2: — Intake Review*9
When applications are assigned, they begin with an Intake Review. During this stage, an
intake team member verifies the application for accuracy and completeness.
Intake reviews typically range from a few minutes to several hours, depending on the
complexity.
a. First Pass Rate: 79% Approval, 21 % Rejected
b. Number of Reviews: 9 Maximum, 1 Minimum,1 Average
c. Days at Review: 263 Maximum, 0 Minimum, 5 Average
In addition to the overall approval and rejection percentages, it's important to understand
how often customers must
resubmit during the process.
Applicants incur costs for returns
and resubmittals under Hawaii
County Code §5-7-1 (b). The code
specifies: "No additional plan
review fee is assessed for a second
submittal. Plan review fees for
subsequent submittals shall be:
$250 for a third submittal, $500 for a
fourth submittal, and $1,000 for
each additional submittal" Fees
are not assessed for intake errors.
Figure 3.2 The vertical axis represents
the number of times an application was
reviewed at intake. The horizontal axis
7 14
6 1 10
Ch
�5 133
0 4 144
z
3 ncI
2 111111111111111116 AIIIIIIIIIII 2329
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Figure 3.2: Number of Resubmittal at Intake, data extracted from EPIC
Analyzed Office of the County Auditor
shows how many applications from the population underwent a review. As an example,
2,329 applications were reviewed twice at the intake stage.
Reviewers noted common reasons for rejection:
Missing or Incomplete Information.
• Missing Tax Map Key (TMK) numbers
• Incomplete site plans (e.g., missingwater sources, septic/cesspool systems, or
solar panel locations)
9 *Auditor Note: At Intake stage, we identified at least 20 instances where the assigned date was a date after the completion date, these
discrepancies were treated as zero.
391Audit Result
• Missing professional stamps, signatures, or required statements from licensed
architects/engineers
• Omitted documentation, such as:
o American Plywood Association (APA) structural calculations
o Code analysis or IECC compliance details
Improper Labeling and Formatting.
• Improperly labeled dimensions or plans marked "Not for Construction"
• Incomplete or improperly formatted PDFs
• Plans with less than three minor deviations proceed, while plans that do not meet
the latest standards adopted (IRC, IBC, NEC, and IECC) are returned for corrections
Project -Specific Requirements.
• Missing stamped electrical plans for systems exceeding 200 amps
• Missing plumbing plans for properties with four or more bathrooms
• Omitted detailed demolition site plans, as required for certain projects
Documentation Errors.
• Incomplete, outdated, or unsigned property owner and project declaration forms.
• Mismatched information with real property tax records
• Missing verification documents for authorized signatories (e.g., LLC or trust
documentation)
Failure to Address Corrections.
• Prior review corrections not addressed
• Missing detailed response letters explaining how corrections were resolved
Special Approvals.
• Missing required approvals, such as:
o Solar water heater variances
o State Department of Health wastewater system approvals
o Hawaiian Homelands letters (where applicable)
• Variance requests lacking justification or completeness
Errors During Resubmission.
• Duplicate permit submissions
• Unreadable file uploads
• Failure to use the EPIC system's resubmittal features correctly
Conclusions.
Analysis of the intake review stage reveals rejections caused by incomplete applications,
outdated documentation requirements, and underutilized technology. Rejections delaythe
review process and impose additional costs on applicants. Addressing these conditions
obligates BD to provide information that gives applicants a strong understanding of
requirements, leverage EPIC system features, and employ validation tools to reduce errors
during initial submissions. Additionally, tracking how applications are progressing error -
free enables data -driven process improvements.
40JAudit Results
To Improve Processing Efficiencies and Reduce Days at Intake Stage
We make the following recommendations
FINDING 2: The Permit System Launched Prematurely Before Full Configuration and
Optimization
1. Applications are often incomplete or incorrect due to applicants' lack of
understanding, the complexity of the submission requirements, and the EPIC
system configuration.
2. The intake review process underutilizes real-time validation tools to identify
incomplete submissions immediately.
3. Documentation requirements are confusing and not updated when processes
change.
4. Performance metrics for monitoring the first -pass rate are not established
1. A significant portion of applications (21 %) is rejected at intake, on first pass,
requiring multiple resubmissions, prolonging the overall process.
2. Applicants are frequently required to resubmit, leading to delays and frustration.
3. Rejections due to common errors and persistent issues with submissions, along
with inconsistent application quality, increase the workload for both applicants
and staff
4. Without first -pass rate monitoring, the division cannot identify and address
systemic issues, leading to continued inefficiencies and high rates of follow-ups.
Strengthening Customer Education and Outreach.
Conduct periodic training workshops, either in person or virtual, for applicants and staff
to ensure expectations are communicated and understood by those who interact with the
system. Pre-recorded training videos should be periodically updated as operations
change.
Reduce Instances of Resubmissions.
Leverage EPIC system features to implement real-time validation prompts for incomplete
submissions, and assistance within the system's limitations may include but is not limited
to tooltips, pop -ups, help icons, chatbots, etc.
Monitor and Evaluate First -Pass Rates.
Use established metrics to increase the first -pass rate of applications and analyze trends
to identify and address recurring issues. Use this data to refine the intake process
continually.
41 JAudit Results
Stage 3— Land Use Review.
After intake approval, applications are forwarded to the Planning Department for land use
review. At this stage, the land use reviewer verifies the street address and checks the
application for applicable zoning or land use issues. If issues are discovered, applicants are
emailed a plan review comment letter, and the application is returned for correction. If
approved, it is marked as completed and awaits multi -agency assignment forfurther review.
Land use review is not required for electrical, plumbing, solar water heaters, or regulatory
inspections.
Review time generally ranges from one to three days.
a. First Pass Rate: 89% Approval, 11 % Rejected
b. Number of Reviews: 7 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 1 Average
c. Days at Review: 366 Maximum, 0 Minimum, 6 Average
Figure 3.3 shows the frequency of Instances
application re -reviews at the land
use review stage. The vertical axis 8 i 1
represents the number of times an 7 i 2
application was reviewed. The 6 1 s
horizontal axis shows how many � 5 0 28
applications from the population o
z 4 97
were required to undergo a review.
3 sss
Reviewers noted common 2
reasons for rejection: 0 100 200 Mo 400 500 600 700
Permits
Special Management Area Figure 3.3: Land Use Re -Evaluation, data extracted from EPIC
(SMA) Considerations. compiled Office of the County Auditor
• Applications failing to
account for Special Management Area requirements
Site Plan Revisions.
Blurred or missing dimensions on submitted site plans
Temporary Structures.
• Proposed temporary structures in zones where such structures are not permitted
Zoning and Setback Compliance.
• Non-compliance with zoning and setback requirements
Conclusions.
The land use review stage appeared to function efficiently duringthe audit period, with a high
first -pass approval rate and a relatively short average review time. While some applications
were returned for corrections, this stage is not a barrier and facilitates the timely progression
of applications to subsequent reviews.
42JAudit Results
Stage 4— Multi -Agency Review*'o
The multi -agency review stages represent the most extensive and time-consuming portion
of the active permit processing workflow. During this stage, applications are routed
simultaneously to relevant agencies based on a predetermined workflow tailored to the
specific permit type. Depending on the type, up to ten different agencies may be involved in
reviews.
PLAN REVIEW ROOM
(NO SET SFUUEN(E FOR AGENCY REVIEWS)
ELECTRICAL REVIEW MECHANICALIPLUMBING REVIEW SEWER 5Y5TEM REVIEW IDEM•WWW)
OR
�ELECTRICALSECTION) (PLUMBING SECTION) SEPTIC SYSTEM REVIEW (DOH-WWWu")
SANITATION REVIEW
ENGINEERING REVIEW (DOH -SANITATION BRANCH FaRE REVIEW
(ENGINEERING DIV) INDOOR A14D RADIOLOGICAL BRANCH IFIRE DEPT)
SAFE DRINKING WATER BRANCH)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BUILDING CODE / STRUCTURAL
(DOH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERWCE5 BRAN(H) (BLDG DIV)
Figure 3.4: Plan Review Room from EPIC system
Concurrent reviews ensure that each agency evaluates the application for compliance
within its area of jurisdiction while reducing overall processing time and minimizing delays
caused by sequential review workflows.
Electrical Review.
An electrical plan review ensures that the electrical systems in construction projects comply
with the applicable 2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) and the 2018 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) standards. The primary objective is identifying and addressing
potential hazards or noncompliance issues before construction begins.
The reviewer assesses submitted plans and specifications for completeness and
compliance. This includes:
• Plan Verification: Ensuring signed and sealed plans accurately detail the scope of
electrical work
")*Auditor Note: We omitted —Historic List Check, HLC(33, 100% not required), SHPD(2)
431Audit Result
• Equipment Identification: Confirming proper labeling of electrical equipment for
clear identification
• Lighting and Power Plans: Reviewing floor plans to verify the accuracy of circuit,
conduit, wiring sizes, and exterior lighting
• Emergency Systems: Checking placement and power supply for exit signs and
emergency lighting. The reviewer also evaluates panelboard and lighting fixture
schedules for system capacity and intended use, while symbol keys and diagrams
clarify technical aspects. Specifications are examined to confirm that materials and
installations, such as conduit, wiring, grounding, and transformers, meet code
requirements.
Work assignments are divided into residential and non-residential reviews. Reviewers also
handle phone, email, and in -person inquiries, adding to their daily workload. The time
required for a review depends on the project's size and complexity.
One significant challenge noted by staff is the high Residential Photovoltaic System Accepted
volume of photovoltaic (PV) system permits, Without Electrical Engineer PE for
particularly those under 10 kW. These projects require Installation 10 KW or less accumulative
Per Hawaii County Code 5-4-3 (f)
inspection permits but not an electrical plan
review. However, they appear in project Figure 3.5: Example of PV stamp used by BD from EPIC system
queues, artificially increasing the workload.
The time required for an electrical review varies depending on the project's scope and
complexity, with larger projects requiring more time and smaller or simpler ones being
reviewed more quickly.
a. First Pass Rate: 96% approval, 4% Rejected
b. Number of Reviews: 5 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 1 Average
c. Days at Review: 139 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 3.4Average
Reviewers noted common reasons for rejection:
• General electrical plan and compliance requirements
• Electrical systems and scope
• Code references and legal compliance
44JAudit Results
Mechanical/Plumbing Review.
The mechanical and plumbing reviewfocuses on verifying that designs adhere to safety and
health requirements, ensuring the systems function while remaining compliant with
applicable codes.
Residential Plumbing Review.
Residential plumbing review is limited to projects with four or more bathrooms per HCC
§5-4-3(i). These reviews focus on the complexities of larger plumbing systems,
including:
• Waste and venting systems
• Correct sizing and placement of cleanouts
• Water supply and pressure management
If air conditioning is included, the review ensures compliance with equipment
specifications, ducting, condensate disposal, and energy code requirements.
Non -Residential Applications.
Non-residential reviews vary widely in complexity, from simple tenant improvements to
large-scale projects like hospitals, restaurants, and hotels. Specific considerations
include:
• Plumbing Systems (e.g., restaurants):
o Grease waste isolation
o Grease interceptor sizing
o Trap protection, indirect waste, and cross -connection systems
• Mechanical Systems
o Cooking hoods, ventilation, and fire suppression systems
o HVAC components, ducting, and condensate management
o Required outside air, fire dampers, and system separation compliance
Streamlining Opportunities.
Staff noted opportunities to streamline the mechanical and plumbing review process by
filtering out projects that do not require review. For example, residential plans with fewer
than four bathrooms appear in the work queue, requiring extra time to mark as "not
required." This unnecessary step delays processing.
Challenges also arise from resubmissions. Management explained that the staff did not
understand the Cloud+Delta convention. Projects failing at any multi -agency review stage
are sent back to all reviewers, including those who previously approved them. This creates
redundant reviews, which are time-consuming and resource -intensive. Automation to
exclude unnecessary projects and resubmissions should significantly enhance efficiency.
45JAudit Results
Reviewer time varies based on project complexity and plan quality. Typically, residential
reviews take 10 to 20 minutes, smaller non-residential projects take 30 to 45 minutes, and
Larger, more complex plans may take an hour or longer.
a. First Pass Rate: 92%Approval, 8% Rejected
b. Number of Reviews: 6 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 1 Average
c. Days at Review: 135 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 5.7 Average
Reviewers noted common reasons for rejection:
• Missing HVAC plans, plumbing plans, and specifications
• Noncompliance with outdoor plumbing fixtures
• Propane gas system requirements
• Missing water and gas system drawings
• General ordinance compliance
• Plan corrections, missing details, and miscellaneous compliance issues
Structural Review.
The review ensures construction projects comply with applicable safety and design
standards to prevent structural failure. This includes verifying that designs provide sufficient
strength, stiffness, and proper assembly. The review focuses on code compliance and the
integrity of the structural system while identifying plans that may need more precise
documentation. Special attention is given to Hawaii County's unique seismic activity and
wind load requirements.
Projects in areas with wind speeds exceeding 140 mph require detailed analysis to ensure
they meet structural requirements. However, projects in areas with wind speeds below 140
mph or those with slab -on -grade designs generally do not require such reviews. These
applications are manually marked as "not required" for review, which artificially increases
the workload. When these applications are returned for resubmission at any stage of the
multi -agency review process, all reviewers— including those who previously approved
them— receive the applications again. While these applications are manually passed, the
process causes delays as team members must sift through them to determine which ones
require review and which can be approved without further scrutiny.
Reviewer time ranged from a few minutes to a few days.
a. First Pass Rate: 80%Approval, 20% Rejected
b. Number of Reviews: 5 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 1 Average
c. Days at Review: 242 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 9 Average
Reviewers noted common reasons for rejection:
• Missing or incomplete structural design
• Review requirements
46JAudit Results
Engineering Review. (DPW -Engineering Division) (*Auditor note includes"Eng West" in dataset)
The Engineering Division evaluates permit submissions for compliance with regulations
concerning grading, floodplain management, and drainage requirements. This includes
reviewing site plans for accurate property identification, ensuring grading and fill slopes
adhere to Hawaii County Code Chapter 10, and verifying compliance with floodplain
requirements, such as delineating flood zone boundaries and providing base flood elevation
documentation.
Submissions must address drainage structures, retaining walls, and compliance with
setback requirements. Plans are checked for consistency with approved reports and
calculations. Additionally, permits require confirmation of grading permits, floodplain
management certifications, and alignment with civil engineering standards for design and
safety.
Reviewer time generally ranges from 10 to 15 minutes to an hour to review.
a. First Pass Rate: 99% Approval, 1 % Rejected
b. Number of Reviews: 5 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 1 Average
c. Days at Review: 241 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 4.4Average
Reviewers noted common reasons for rejection:
Floodplain Management Requirements.
• Applications failed to comply with floodplain management standards
• Missing documentation, such as flood elevation certificates or floodproofing designs
• Failure to indicate or accurately map flood zone boundaries on site plans
Grading and Drainage.
• Non -adherence to slope, setback, and drainage structure standards
• Poor drainage design leading to potential water flow or erosion issues
• Inadequate plans for stormwater management and water runoff control
Site Plan Discrepancies.
• Inconsistencies between site plans and approved reports
• Mismatched or incomplete property details, such as incorrect lot dimensions or
boundaries
Driveway and Encroachment Issues.
• Violations in driveway design, such as improper widths, slopes, or material
specifications
• Structural encroachments into County rights -of -way or easements
Documentation Errors or Omissions.
• Missing or incomplete valuation breakdowns required for review
• Lack of supporting reports, such as geotechnical, drainage, or environmental impact
assessments
47JAudit Results
Building Code Review (Residential).
Building plan reviews encompass assessing life safety requirements, prescriptive structural
design, and compliance with various regulatory frameworks, including the Construction
Administrative Code (Chapter 5) and other applicable codes. These reviews ensure all
submitted plans adhere to structural, design, and safety standards.
For residential plan reviews, the focus is on verifying the completeness of submissions,
ensuring that resubmittals adequately address correction items, and confirming
compliance with relevant codes. Plans must be signed and stamped by licensed
professionals when required, and specific calculations, such as those for brace wall designs
or wind load compliance, must be included where applicable.
Specific guidance can lead to confusion, particularly regarding differences between the
County Code and state -adopted building codes. For instance, while the County Code
Chapter 5A refers to the 2006 International Building Code (IBC), the state has adopted the
2018 edition with amendments. In this example, the design professionals could mistakenly
assume they only need to complywith the older 2006 standards, which could lead to serious
noncompliance issues when the state's newer standards are enforced.
Subsequently, management reported they updated applicable references to the 2006 HCC
with the state -adopted code and are awaiting state adoption of 2021 and 2024.
Furthermore, any preapproved home designs become outdated when the county updates
the newer IBC versions. As a result, developers or homeowners may face costly delays or
redesigns to meet current standards. This introduces financial risks, legal exposure, and
significant rework, particularly for those unfamiliar with the code's evolution or the
implications of its amendments.
Separately, inconsistencies in terminology create confusion, particularly when similar
terms are used interchangeably. For example, the status designations "requires applicant
action" and "requires resubmittal" are often treated as synonymous by staff. This overlap
can lead to the mis-designation of applications, skewing statistical data and performance
reports. As a result, the tracking of application progress becomes inaccurate, making it
difficult to assess processing times and overall efficiency.
Review time varies depending on the complexity of the project and/or the completeness of
the plans, ranging from 2 hours to 2 days while also performing other related duties.
a. First Pass Rate: 77%Approval, 23% Rejected
b. Number of Reviews: 7 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 1 Average
c. Days at Review: 285 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 26 Average
48JAudit Results
Reviewers noted common reasons for rejection:
• Document submission and format requirements, correction items, and resubmission
instructions
• Structural and engineering requirements
• Building code compliance
• Plan corrections for specific trades
• Additional documentation requirements
• Other miscellaneous comments
Plan Reviews Non -Residential.
Non-residential reviews are very similar to residential reviews but focus on commercial
applications, which are generally more complex than residential projects.
Review time varies depending on the complexity of the project and/or the completeness of
the plans, ranging from 2 hours or up to 2 days while also performing other related duties.
a. First Pass Rate: 64%Approval, 36% Rejected
b. Number of Reviews: 6 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 2 Average
c. Days at Review: 277 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 31 Average
Reviewers noted common reasons for rejection:
• Revisions and resubmissions required
• Compliance with specific requirements
• Variances and special approvals
• Missing special inspection forms and certifications
• Unresolved corrections
• Other miscellaneous comments
County Sewer Access Review. (completed by the Department of Environmental
Management Wastewater Division (WWD))
Applications must include a request to perform work on the Public Sewer System Form and
a plot plan illustrating the intended connection. Plans must address conditions such as
proper sewer cleanouts, grease interceptor installations, or compliance with wastewater
pretreatment requirements. Submissions are reviewed for complete and accurate
documentation.
a. First Pass Rate: 84%Approval, 16% Rejected
b. Number of Reviews: 4 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 1 Average
c. Days at Review: 189 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 20 Average
Reviewers noted common reasons for rejection:
• Connection to public sewer system
• Incomplete forms
• Plot plan sketch requirements
49JAudit Results
• Sewer engineering plans and approvals
• Inspection coordination with WWD
• Sewer disconnection
• Demolition
• Miscellaneous sewer -related comments
Septic System Review. (completed by the Department of Health, Wastewater Branch)
Evaluate applications for an Individual Wastewater System (IWS) prepared by licensed
engineers to verify compliance with design, capacity, and setback requirements. Oversees
the proper abandonment of cesspools, upgrades to septic systems, and wastewater
variances, ensuring adherence to environmental regulations.
Currently, one licensed engineer based in Kona is assigned to review all applications from
Kona but could also review applications from other parts of Hawaii Island. Applications from
Hilo are routed to Honolulu, where they are combined with applications from other
municipalities within the state. Natural disasters like the Lahaina Fire can shift priorities and
impact the review process. The Department of Health (DOH) staff estimates receiving up to
40 applications statewide per day, contributing to an approximate two -month backlog.
Additionally, applications outside of DOH's purview, such as PV roof mount installations,
add to the delays by overwhelming the queue.
Reviews typically range from 15 to 20 minutes up to one day to complete.
a. First Pass Rate: 88%Approval, 12% Rejected
b. Number of Reviews: 5 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 1 Average
c. Days at Review: 208 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 12 Average
Reviewers noted common reasons for rejection:
• Wastewater capacity and bedroom count limitations
• DOH requirements for system design
• As -built drawings and site plan deficiencies
• Cesspool upgrade and replacement requirements
• Wastewater variances and compliance with environmental regulations
• Other miscellaneous comments
Department of Health Food Safety. (DOH-FS)
DOH-FS evaluates compliance with health and safety standards for food establishments,
mechanical ventilation systems, and demolition projects. Key documentation includes the
Food Establishment Plan Review Application for kitchen -related projects, Form 111 for
ventilation system designs, and the Notification of Demolition and Renovation for hazardous
materials projects.
"Department of Health. Form 1 https://health.hawaii.gov/wastewater/files/2017/06/Forml .pddf Accessed: 12/30/24
50JAudit Results
Reviews focus on ventilation and exhaust systems, proper sink placement, and compliance
with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) in demolition
projects. Additionally, specialized approvals may be required from the Indoor Air and
Radiological Health Branch or the Food Safety Branch.
Review time depends on the applicant's response to DOH-FS requirements.
a. First Pass Rate: 88%Approval, 12% Rejected
b. Number of Reviews: 4 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 1 Average
c. Days at Review: 155 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 8 Average
Reviewers noted common reasons for rejection:
• Food establishment plan review and permits
• Handwashing and utility sink requirements
• Notices of demolition and renovation
• Miscellaneous corrections and instructions
Fire Review. (completed by Hawaii Fire Department (HFD))
HFD reviews ensure compliance with the Hawaii State Fire Code, Chapter 17 of the Hawaii
County Code, and NFPA standards. Key areas evaluated include fire department access,
water supply, and fire protection systems. Access evaluations consider road width, surface,
slope, turning radius, building distance, vertical clearance, and obstructions. Water supply
checks include hydrant location, fire flow, and alternative sources.
Fire protection systems, such as alarms, sprinklers, standpipes, and suppression systems,
are assessed based on building size, occupancy type, construction type, and occupancy
load per the IBC. The required systems must adhere to NFPA standards and sprinkler plans.
Additional reviews cover specific occupancies like aircraft hangars, fuel farms, malls, and
hazardous materials, including fuel storage. Temporary structures require permits and fees.
The department collaborates with inspectors throughout the process for guidance and
compliance verification.
Review time generally ranges from two to three hours per plan to complete.
a. First Pass Rate: 83%Approval, 17% Rejected
b. Number of Reviews: 5 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 1 Average
c. Days at Review: 89 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 6.3 Average
Reviewers noted common reasons for rejection:
• Access and water supply requirements
• Contact details
• Inspector clarifications
51 JAudit Results
Conclusion.
During multi -agency reviews, applications take an
average of 49 days to navigate complex coordination,
with several systemic obstacles. Applications are often
rerouted back into review queues despite additional
filtering for DEM-WW and DOH, prior approvals,
creating redundant work and delaying final decisions.
The influx of unnecessary permits —classified as "not
required" —clogs review queues, diverting valuable
resources awayfrom critical applications.
RFs PFViFYVINI(, AGENCIES
PLANNING —;.A [ HANICAL
NOT REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED
r EN INEERING
SMUCTURAL
12:07 2024
OH WA6TEMUER
ELECTRICAL
` , l`4
rLUMBING
Confusion caused by inconsistent use of terms Figure 3.6: Example of "Not Required" workflow
disrupts the process, leading to used by BD from EPIC system
miscommunication between agencies and
applicants. Employees' limited understanding of their peers' responsibilities contributes to
fragmented coordination, duplicative efforts, and resource mismanagement. Some reviews
require significant human resources despite having a 99% approval rate, which raises
concern about their necessity and the overall benefit relative to the time invested.
52jAudit Results
To Improve Processing Efficiencies and Reduce Days at Multi -Agency Stage
We make the following recommendations
FINDING 2: The Permit System Launched Prematurely Before Full Configuration and
Optimization
1. Applications are redundantly routed back into review queues despite having
previously received approval.
2. Workflow management processes lack optimization.
3. Review queues are inundated with permits that are not required.
4. Similar terms are inconsistently applied.
5. Agencies lack awareness of other multi -agency tasks.
6. The necessity of some reviews raises concerns about the time vs. benefit due to
human resource requirements and high approval rates.
1. When applications are returned to review queues, it prolongs the permitting
process, creates redundant work, and delays final approvals.
2. Inefficient workflow management results in extended processing times, reduced
capacity to handle submissions, and increased frustration for applicants.
3. The influx of unnecessary permits overwhelms review queues, diverting resources
and attention from critical applications.
4. Delays arise from errors in classification or interpretation.
5. Lack of understanding of all multiagency review steps leads to fragmented
coordination, duplicative efforts, and inefficiencies in the review process.
6. The resource -intensive nature of some reviews and high approval rates divert
resources from potentially higher -priority activities without significantly impacting
outcomes.
53jAudit Results
Streamline Workflow Management.
Implement routing tools to ensure applications progress in a clear and sequential order,
appear only once when approved, and are routed only to the necessary parties based on
permit type.
Update Staff and Public Education Materials.
Review and update internal and external guidance to ensure definitions and their
associated usage are clearly communicated to both the workforce and to the public and
are applied consistently.
Recommendation 11
Consolidate Reviews.
Consolidate reviews and redeploy staff to value-added tasks.
Enhance Interagency Cooperation.
Ensure consistent processing by State agencies through a supplemental agreement.
Coordinate with state agencies to establish clear expectations for processing timelines,
priority allocation, and feedback.
The agreement should outline measurable production standards, such as defined
timeframes for reviews and prioritization criteria, to ensure consistency in processing
applications.
Additionally, the agreement should include mechanisms for regular collaboration and
periodic reviews to address balancing the workload across agencies and changing
priorities.
54JAudit Results
Stage 5: Application Out Processing.
Once all multi -agency reviews are completed and approved, the application moves to out -
processing, where documentation is re -checked for accuracy and completeness.
Out processing takes 15-20 minutes and up to one day.
a. First Pass Rate: 95%Approval, 5% Rejected
b. Number of Reviews: 6 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 1 Average
C. Days at Review: 124 Maximum, 1 Minimum, 5 Average
Intake teams may review the same documentation multiple times, up to five times, at
different process stages.
Reviewers noted common reasons for rejection:
• Missing, incomplete, or incorrect project declaration forms
• Missing owner signature, plan submission and corrections, stamps, and
miscellaneous errors.
Conclusions.
The permitting process involves two critical quality control steps: Intake (front-end
completeness checks) and out -processing (back -end completeness checks). While these
steps ensure quality and accuracy, their combined implementation contributes to time
delays, creating a bottleneck in the overall process.
Front -End Completeness Checks: These are performed during intake to validate that
applications are complete and accurate before entering the review process. They help
prevent downstream errors by catching issues early.
Back -End Completeness Checks:
During out -processing, checks ensure all required approvals and conditions are met before
issuing a permit. This includes verifying contractor licenses to ensure they are valid
professional licenses before work begins. While each step has merit, the combined process
leads to duplicated efforts and wasted time.
For example:
• Front-end checks already ensure that applications entering the process are
complete, reducing the likelihood of errors that back -end checks would catch.
• Back -end checks repeat this validation, with little additional value when thorough
intake checks are performed.
Impact on Timeliness: This dual -check approach increases processing times and diverts
resources better utilized elsewhere. By introducing unnecessary layers of verification, the
system ultimately slows permit issuance.
55JAudit Results
To Improve Processing Efficiencies and Reduce Days at Out Processing Stage
We make the following recommendations
FINDING 2: The Permit System Launched Prematurely Before Full Configuration and
Optimization
The processing stage is a final review that duplicates completeness checks already
performed at earlier stages of the process.
Effect of the Condition
While the out -processing is designed to ensure accuracy and quality, it causes delays,
increases costs, and leads to unnecessary duplication of effort.
Automate Invoicing and Issue Provisional Permits for Construction Start.
Upon successful completion of the last multi -agency review, automate invoicing the
applicant and issuing a provisional permit to begin construction, and automate and/or
integrate outstanding fee collection before final inspection into the system.
56jAudit Results
Stage 6- Permit Issuance.
Finally, the application enters a waiting period before the permit is issued. During this time,
final fees are collected, and the applicant uploads the required Project Declaration Form if
it hasn't already been submitted with the initial application. This step is largely outside BD's
control and depends on the applicant's action.
Figure 3.7 shows the number of days an application waits for a permit to be granted,
appearingfrom the earliest left -to -right. Average wait times were 30 days with persistent and
significant fluctuations. Permit issuance typically takes a few minutes to a few days. EPIC
system enables staff from the east and west offices to process applications from a shared
pool.
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
j
Figure 3.7: Issuance queue
Days in Out Queue by Permit (Earliest to Latest)
Figure 3.7: Issuance queue, data extracted from EPIC, compiled Office of the County Auditor
To establish overalltime limits and hold the reviewfunction accountable to maximum review
periods, the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii recommended that counties in Hawaii adopt
"shot clocks," a practice used by other municipalities across the country. "Shot clocks" refer
to the set time government agencies have to issue or deny a permit application, with
penalties for missing deadlines. This approach would impose time constraints and
maximum timelines on permit reviews to accelerate processing. The legal framework to
support this is already in place under HRS §91-13.5 (a), which states:
"Unless otherwise provided by law, an agency shall adopt rules that specify a
maximum time period to adopt or deny a business or development -related
permit license or approval, provided that the application is not subject to
state -administered permit programs delegated, authorized, or approved
under federal law."
57JAudit Results
BD has also formalized time limits for permit reviews in its Rules of the Building Division
Governing the Enforcement of Codes and Regulations Part II, §2.2 General. Which
states:
`...Complete applications and supplemental data (i.e. plans, specifications,
and computations) for permits shall be submitted to the building official for
review and approval as required by each effective code or regulation. Each
permit/plan reviewer for each Code within the Building division shall have
thirty (30) days to review completed submittals. Should a reviewer of the
building division fail to take action within the time limitation, approval would
be automatic pursuant to the requirements of Hawaii Revised Statutes."
However, despite the provisions in HRS §91-13.5 9(a) and the Building Division Code
Enforcement Rules §2.2, the EPIC system does not enforce this time limit.
Conclusion.
Average wait times often exceed 30 days, and permit issuance fluctuates greatly. While
some of these delays are outside the control of the Building Division, particularly during the
applicant's waiting period for final fees and documents, there are still opportunities to
improve efficiency. The lack of enforcement of time limits, despite established rules in HRS
§91-13.5 and the Building Division's regulations, contributes to unnecessary delays in permit
issuance. Implementing "shot clocks" or strict time constraints, along with more consistent
enforcement of existing deadlines, would help expedite the permit process, reduce costs for
applicants, and hold the review function accountable to its timelines. By enforcing these
rules and updating administrative guidelines, the Building Division can ensure timely permit
issuance and provide a smoother experience for applicants.
58jAudit Results
To Improve Processing Efficiencies and Reduce Days at Permit Issuance
We make the following recommendations
FINDING 2: The Permit System Launched Prematurely Before Full Configuration and
Optimization
The Building Division does not follow or enforce administrative rules regarding maximum
time limits.
.Effect of the Condition
Permit applications are held up unnecessarily, adding to costs and delays for the
applicants.
Enforce Consistent Timeframes for the Permit Evaluation Process.
BD enforces its rules to ensure it either meets its required deadlines or advances the
applications by default approval.
Recommendation 14b
Review and Update Administrative Rules to Establish Maximum Timelines for
Reviews.
Review and update its administrative rules to set maximum timelines for reviews that it
can reasonably adhere to.
59jAudit Results
This page intentionally left blank
County of Hawaii
Office of the County Auditor
Audit Activity.
To identify obstacles in the permitting system, we:
• Analyzed EPIC -generated datasets from July 26, 2021, through March 31, 2024,
including 15,575 permits, with an estimated valuation of $ 3,366,687,55812
• Reviewed Hawaii Revised Statutes §489E-7 Legal recognition of electronic records,
electronic signatures, and electronic contracts
• Reviewed applicable Administrative Rules, guides, and other written guidance
• Reviewed the Hawaii County Code Chapter 5 Construction Administrative Code,
"Tinner Report,"" and the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii Policy Brief14 (October 2024)
• Attended the seminar, "Seven Low -Cost Ways to Speed Up Permitting in Hawaii"
• Interviewed staff and those charged with governance
• Navigated the EPIC portal as an end -user
• Researched Lean Six Sigma for Service principles
• Benchmarked County of Phoenix, AZ, using the Energov portal
Another obstacle affecting permits is complexity. The more complex the permit
requirements are, the more resources are needed to review and approve them. Simplifying
complex procedures reduces errors, enhances consistency, and speeds up the overall
process.
Application Complexity Overview.
Lean Six Sigma for Service principles emphasize the importance of developing a holistic
understanding of processes to identify bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and variability at all levels
to reduce complexity, increase speed, and improve quality. Lean Six Sigma for Service is a
methodology that combines the principles of Lean (focuses on reducing waste and
improving efficiency) with Six Sigma (focuses on reducing variability and improving quality)
optimizing processes. It emphasizes a systematic, data -driven approach to understanding
and improving workflows, particularly in service -oriented environments.
The "Tinner Report" (Attachment A) recommended that BD hire an external consultant to
educate staff about lean process improvement. The consultant would document each step,
interaction, and workflow involved in the permit application process, from intake to
issuance. They would also evaluate whether each step is legally required or necessary and
eliminate unnecessary steps, potentially reducing workloads by 15 to 40 percent.
12 Office of the County Auditor Permit Dashboard. https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/our-county/legislative/office-of-the-county-
auditor/audit-reports. Data provided by Building Division. Compiled Office of the County Auditor.
13 James Tinner, "Consultant's Report: COM 36.1 (2022-24)" https://records.hawaiicounty-gov/Weblinl</0/doc/1049842/Page 1.asox.
Accessed 11-20-24
14 Grassroots Institute of Hawaii. Policy Brief, (October 2024), Seven low-cost ways to speed up permitting in Hawaii Expediting the
issuance of building permits is critical to making a dent in Hawaii's housing crisis. https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/12/241007 pb oermits.pdf. Accessed 11-20-24
60jAudit Results
Management reported that staff were still learning the system and refining the one -permit
process during the Electronic Permitting System (EPL) rollout. Although the Mayor's Office
selected a contractor with good intentions, their involvement became a distraction. At that
stage, the division's priority was to get the system operational, and the added coordination
required for the consultant pulled focus from that effort. While engaging a consultant might
have been more effective before going live, their involvement during an unstructured
implementation offered limited value.
Although the division's capacity to implement broader process improvements was
constrained during this period, the recommendations offered —such as those from Tinner—
are still applicable.
Tinner recommended defining byordinancewhat constitutes a complete permit application.
This would streamline the process by creating clear expectations and alignment between
the department and the applicant, reducing confusion and ensuring all required documents
are submitted upfront. BD's goal is to issue Residential Building Permits within 60 calendar
days of submittal when applications are complete, as long as no corrections are needed.
We found.
Navigating the various educational materials is cumbersome. Material consists of the
Permit Application Checklist,15 Tips for a Successful Permit Application Intake,16 and a
Library of forms.17 Despite BD's efforts to clarify application requirements, end -users often
struggle to find the necessary information.
15 County of Hawaii DPW Building Division. "Permit Applicant Checklist". Page 1 of 2.
https://records.hawaiicaunty.goy/weblink/1/edoc/140083/BLG_Permit Applicant _ChecklistpdfAccessed 1/2/25
16 County of Hawaii DPW Building Division. "Tips For a Successful Permit Application Intake".
https://records.hawaiicount)gov/weblink/1/edoc/140084/BLG Tips for Successful Permit App.odfAccessed 1/2/25
17 County of Hawaii DPW Building Division. "Building Forms". https://hawaii-countynublic-works-
hawaiicountygis.hub.arcgis.com/ a es/blg-building-forms Accessed 1/2/25
61 jAudit Results
C
g g E, r
❑y
Cc 0 pp T 3 is > W C C a'0
N g u 5 C
w d' V O
g w
g s vao o m y c '°2 via
W v S E: z
m g 3 `g ^o'o m O W L N N C m C
G Q N H N U C v 2 w
w Y L u
0- L C 2
0
V p O d o _C = O. mj N p E m v p¢
_ c _ o E DDw
CL w cc CWO
u
3 E o�x m'm z =L y0 0°o su
p - �# c a a m o° E
° cc o >
g E At x u Ol = a y Z: T u
c 0 2j g o tS ¢ o _
y� .pE
� y Q LL 0�! C n Lp `l p N lL ` Y` C u W
a c vc u 0 rw L a cE s o o c� A v
y W C O O x A O U L O > N T N ODD C 0 .-
O CC
E p Q v x O
L? _ m Cy O_ c = O C m v c
g�
N E ii i5 a E 4 y u c ¢
cc CL an d o c a C tip 0 ¢a
Si c c x �+ks c o y c E� c 3 c �?� ° � m u
0 0 S m c 3 4 v u 0z' 0 ,om �� a� in a c
o'wao
ai El c •�.• O o
OUCL
ano Z g 0 v c o E `
Ev w v ac mac� m p
� pp
o
ot
d 4
W
G m •M ... - E
q "m '� y
am w 5 m m
V
C r m
m m N x
H W
Lu
VY OW o �m J
T W cy
q Ea_22
Lu u
s
7 m o o Vr O _m j C. G7 S q y y� O O
m W m c a m o '� n
t a e' - • E;m p��- �� pE
a ae E o `- o `mr `P I
x m
oc $ a E E
E ` W k E W $
Q o a a mmy
m° t]o. O iS
4J m r
m? J oWc `w 1- 0 m a L a x 0 w 2
._ .rn. u G G
+� LO
� N
U
U �
c N
C V)
co V)
U N
U
Q U
Qa
Q
d Y
C (1)
o =
'�5 U
.5;
cc
a0 U
C '
Q
p
m Y
Q)
_ a
C', J
c m
S co
0 0
O
Y
C �
3
O U
U 0
r
7 C
'aD
LL Q
Y
N
p
Q
N
Overview of EPIC Seven -Step Permit Process.
After creating a user profile and selecting a permit type, the EPIC portal takes the user
through a seven -step process:
Step 1. Location
Figure 4.1: Step 1 "Location" from EPIC System
The application process begins with the selection of a project
Location. Once identified, the Location is added to the project, and
the system captures key details such as the project type, parcel
number, and address (if assigned). If there are no extenuating
conditions —such as the property being located in a Special
Management Area or flood zone, the applicant can continue to the
next step. However, additional compliance steps are required if such
conditions exist before the application can proceed.
Type: Project Site
Location
25AUDIJNIST.HI
Main Address p
We found. Parcel Number
Information captured at this step is not used to prefill other 220120040000
data points or satisfy other steps later in the application. We Main ParcelC2
benchmarked the functionality and effectiveness of the County
of Hawai`i's Energov portal by comparing workflows. 4=
Maricopa County, AZ, replaced its Accela
Figure 4.2: Example of "Type" based off TMK from EPIC system
Permitting System with Energov in June
2024. Maricopa has a robust mapping
service that uses the Environmental Systems Research Institute ("ESRI") satellite overlay to
distinguish properties by zoning use type and districts visually.
Hawaii County GIS Energov Map
Figure 4.3: Hawai`i County GIS Engergov
63JAudit Results
Maricopa County GIS Engergov Map
LITCHFIELD�
PARK Scottsdale
_KEG—-
YF
TOLLESON PHOENIX
AVONDALE � Mesa MESA
L ,
GUADF�!. it PF
GOODYEAR 5
Steve Gollsrdo F F'
Figure 4.4: Maricopa County GIS Mapping Applications
The difference in mapping service sophistication highlights the potential to use more
advanced mapping to identify common errors early in the process.
Step 2. Type
Figure 4.5: Step 2 "Type" from EPIC system
In the "Type" screen, the applicant is asked to provide a detailed description, including a
valuation, materials, and labor list.
We found.
The current process of requiring detailed project descriptions is a Legacy system practice
that no longer serves its original purpose. Historically, BD staff developed specific
preferences for how project descriptions should be formatted and written. Guides instruct
employees to "enter a thorough description of work as you would be walking through the
structure." However, this approach was developed when BD did not retain plans, and on -
site inspectors relied on detailed descriptions for guidance.
With the arrival of the electronic system, the ability to retain plans, and the requirement to
have site plans available, the value of continuing this practice no longer justifies time and
resources. Modernizing this process should lead to greater efficiency without compromising
the quality or accuracy of reviews. Contrary to the guidance provided to staff, applicant
instructions are vague. This results in applicant descriptions almost always being rewritten
by staff for new residential construction permits.
64JAudit Results
Figure 4.6: Comparision of Customer
- .-Permit
ctions for
Please provide a description of your project
Edit the description of work by clicking on
along with the valuation costs of all
the pencil icon.
materials, labor, etc...
a. Using the plans, enter a thorough
Portal example, "Pacific Condos 1 of 15:
description of work as you would be walking
New Single -Family Dwelling, etc..."
through the structure. Your first sentence
should always start with (1-Permit),
followed by a summary of the work. Next,
you will describe all uses as shown on the
floor plan, including the bathroom, kitchen,
and laundry room fixtures in an orderly
manner as though you are walking through
the structure.
Example of description for a new dwelling:
(1-Permit) New 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom
single family dwelling with on -demand gas
water heater (approved solar variance
#xxxxxx-xx-25-10), concrete slab
foundation, T2" high galvanized steel water
tank, and septic system.
Open covered entry lanai into living
room/dining room/kitchen (refrigerator,
double compartment sink, range/oven),
bedroom #2, bedroom #3, bathroom #2
(lavatory, water closet and tub/shower
combo), master bedroom with walk in
closet and master bathroom (two
Lavatories, water closet, shower stall and
separate jacuzzi tub). Attached two car
garage (overhead garage door) with open
utility area (washer, dryer, laundry tray) and
enclosed storage closet (OnDemand water
heaterwithin).
Figure 4.6: EPIC Portal Instructions for Customers vs. Written Instructions for Staff for New Residential Construction Permit
Compliled Office of the County Auditor
65JAudit Results
Step 3. Contacts
O
Locations Contacts
The "Contacts" screen is designed to
collect stakeholders associated with the
project, including owners, designers, and
professional trades. A "contact" refers to
an individual associated with a permit
authorized to access its details.
We Found.
The system does not sort contacts by
stakeholder type, making the step error -
prone because anyone with an EPIC
profile could be incorrectly categorized
as a contact or a trade professional.
Figure 4.7: Step 3 "Contacts" from EPIC system
Engineer
Architect
Max
JASMINE
County of H awai i
120 Pauahi St., 304. Hilo, HI ...
Figure 4.8: Two examples of contact(s) from EPIC system
Additionally, there is no validation to ensure that only qualified individuals appear under the
relevant trade categories. For example, when selecting 'plumbing' as a trade, the system
does not filter out unlicensed or inactive plumbers. This increases the risk of errors by
allowing contractors who may not be in good standing to be assigned to projects.
Without restrictions, applicants could designate themselves as a plumber and an
electrician, even if they only hold a license in one trade. Maintaining separate lists to ensure
accuracy and prevent misclassification is important.
66JAudit Results
Step 4. More Info
0 0
Locations Contacts More Info
Figure 4.9: Step 4 "More Info" from EPIC system
The "More Info" screen is designed to collect additional details and varies according to
project type. Applicants are instructed to provide comprehensive project details to avoid
delays in permit approval.
We found.
Evaluating the screen's structure and data points highlights potential clarity, data validation,
and redundancy issues.
Tooltips and Help Icons.
A tooltip is a brief, context -specific message box that provides information when hovering
over a field, while a help icon offers more detailed guidance upon clicking or hovering.
Numerous data points lack explanation and leave casual users unsure what specific
information is being requested of them. Some examples that lack appropriate context:
• Declaration Exemption Number
• + Add Row
• Fire resistance ratings table
Automation.
In the Residential New Construction permit type, applicants must provide the "Pre -approved
House Package Number." Despite BD already possessing the preapproved plan information,
the portal still requires applicants to input it instead of auto -populating it or exempting
applicants from re-entering it.
Data Collection.
There is redundancy between information collected in the "Type," "More info," and
"Attachments" screens, particularly regarding site plans and declaration forms. We found
that Hawaii County collects at least 122 data points (Figure 4.9a) compared to Maricopa
County, Arizona, which collects 27 data points for a Residential New Construction
application (Figure 4.9b).
67JAudit Results
Hawaii County -
New Residential Construction
• Buildinglnfo
• Project Declaration Type:
• Contractor
• Declaration Exemption Number
• Work begun without permit
• If work started, are walls open for
inspection?
• Violation Number (if applicable)
• Type of Use with Proposed Work:
• Single -Family Dwelling
• Examples of Accessory Structures:
Retaining Wall/Fence, Detached
Garage, WaterTank/PooL
• Project Type:
• Private
• Special Project Classification:
• County Government Project
• Habitat for Humanity
• Hawai'i Community College's
Model Home Project
• Major Disaster Recovery
• Number of Building Stories
• Number of Units
• Multiple Building Structure - BuildingID
• Square Footage:
• New Floor Area
• Major Floor Area
• Accessory Floor Area
• Utilities
• Desired Method of Permit Delivery
• Total Number of Water Tanks
• Water Tank Info Details
• Water Tank Details
• Valuation
• Sewer Connection Type:
• Public
• Private
• Septic
• Cesspool
• Other
• Meter Equipment Exceeding 200 Amps
• PV Installation Location:
• Roof Mount
• Ground Mount
• PV Info Details:
• PV Details
• Valuation
• Batteries Valuation Details:
• Battery Details
• Valuation
Hawaii Countv, HI (12
Hawaii County
• Batteries Valuation Details:
• Battery Details
• Valuation
• Retaining Wall Information Details:
• Location
• Valuation
• Max Height
• Project Includes
• Pre -Approved House Package
Number
• Principal Type of Frame
• Building Height
• Roofing Type
• Exterior Finish
• Interior Finish
• Number of Bedrooms
• Number of Full Bathrooms (4 or
more require plumbing
plans/diagrams)
• Number of Half Bathrooms
• Number of Garages
• Number of Carports
• Number of Detached
Bedrooms/Guestrooms
• Number of Washers
• Number of Dryers
• Number of Laundry Trays
• Water Heater Info Details:
• Type
• Water Heater Details
• Valuation
• Other Details:
• Skylights
• Basement
• Porches
• Patio Cover
• Decks
• Lanai
• Bar Sinks
• Fire Sprinklers
• BBQ
• Tiki Torches
• Electric Vehicle Charging Station
• Free Standing Sculpture
Hawaii County
• Miscellaneous Valuation Information
• Total Number of AC Units
• HVAC/AC Information Details:
• HVAC/AC Details
• Valuation
• Total Number of PooUSpa(s)
• Pool/Spa Information Details:
• Pool/Spa Details
• Valuation
• Quantity of Heaters
• Total Number of Fireplaces
• Fireplace Information Details:
• Type
• Location
• Valuation
• Total Numberof OtherValuation
Items
• Other Valuation Items Details:
• Description
• Valuation
• Plan Review Information
• Type of Construction:
• Various Classifications (e.g., I-FR
Sprinkled, VA, VB, VN Sprinkled,
etc.)
• Occupancy Code:
• R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, U
• Plans by Qualification
• Foundation Type
• Setbacks:
• Front
• Rear
• Left
• Right
• Distance to Nearest Building (FT)
-End-
122 DATA POINTS
COLLECTED
Figure 4.9a: Comparison of Data Points Collected Hawaii County, HI (122) Compared to Maricopa County, AZ (27)
Compiled Office of the County Auditor
68JAudit Results
Maricopa Countv, AZ
Maricopa County, AZ —
Building New Construction
• Number of Stories
• Building Height
• Number of Units
• Included in Plan:
• Accessory
• Pools and Spas
• Fence
• Minor Plumbing
• Minor Electrical
• Minor Mechanical
• Solar Water Heater
• Solar Roof Mounted
• Fire Sprinklers
• Pool Type
• Electrical Upgrade
• Miscellaneous Information
• Fence Length (in feet)
• Fence Type
• Propane Tank (Gallons)
• Pool Perimeter Length
• Solar System Size (I(W)
• Service Providers
• Electric Provider
• Gas Provider
• Water Provider
• Sewer Provider
• Fire District
-End-
27 DATA POINTS
COLLECTED
Figure 4.9b: Comparison of Data Points Collected Hawaii County, HI (122)
Compared to Maricopa County, AZ (27)
Compiled Office of the County Auditor
The EPIC-ENERGOV portal is an opportunity to collect unique essential data. During the
audit period, data was collected redundantlyfrom plans, the portal, and forms.
69jAudit Results
Step 5. Attachments
O O O
Locations Type Contacts
O 0
More Info Attachment;
Figure 4.10: Step 5 "Attachments" from EPIC System
The "Attachments" screen is designed to collect required external documents (Figure 4.11).
Building Permit Application Checklist.'$
The building permit application checklist includes additional documents required with the
application including:
Documents Required
for All Permit Types
Licensed Design Professional, Permit
Contact (Architect or Structural Engineer)
with an email address
Property Owner with an email address,
Permit Contact
Property Owner Declaration Form
Building Division Special Inspections Form
Project Declaration Form
Depends on Permit type
Geography of permit*, Age of building**
Proof of Ownership -Depending on if
recently purchased
Residential PV Worksheet
Building Division ADA Certification or
Documentation of ADA Exemption
Disability and Communication Access
Board (DCAB) Review/Approval Letter
Approved Solar Water Heater Variance
Approval
Acknowledgement Letter from the Kailua
Village Design Commission or the Pahoa
Village District
Habitat for Humanity Approval
Documentation
Flood Zone Packet
*Note Flood Zone maps and form links are
broken
Building Division Ag Structure Declaration
of Compliance for HRS §46-88 (Act 203)*
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
(DHHL) Approval*
Building Division Historic Property
Certification Form**
Figure 4.11 :Comparisons of Required vs. Contingent Document. Compiled Office of the County Auditor
18 County of Hawaii DPW Building Division. "Permit Application Checklist."
https://records.hawaiicount)gov/webLink/1/edoc/140083/BLG_Permit Applicant _Checklist.pdf.Accessed: 1/2/25
70JAudit Results
We found.
The Project Declaration form is a requirement, but BD's portal instructions mislead
applicants by indicating it is optional. BD website guidance states:
"if the contact you would like to add does not exist within our system, please
provide their information on either the property owner declaration form or the
project declaration form. "
These contradicting instructions create confusion about whether one or both declaration
forms are required or need to be included. Both are required. This is further complicated by
instructions stating:
"Both forms are form-fillable PDFs and may be completed electronically,
then attached to this case in the attachment area of the application. "
Additionally, BD requires a wet signature, meaning the form must be printed, signed,
scanned, and uploaded. This misleading instruction is one of the most common errors.
• Electronic Plan Review Guide.
The purpose of this guide is to consolidate instructions into a single source for
different users navigating the system. It includes an overview for the general public,
homeowners, real estate agents, and others, along with a review process flowchart.
There are two versions of the same document titled "Electronic Processing &
Information Center Application Guidelines - Electronic Drawing Format," one
version, dated April 18, 2023,19 is available on the County's DPW website, while a
more recent version, dated June 3, 2024,20 is accessible only on the EPIC portal.
When multiple versions exist, confusion and errors increase.
In the June 3, 2024 version, the "Revisions and Resubmittals" section requires design
professionals to annotate plans using the "Cloud+Delta" directive outlined in
Memorandum No. 23-003. This memo is not easily accessible in the Building Forms
library, Permit Applicant Checklist, or the EPIC portal. Users must search for it on the
County's DPW website on the Design Details & Guidelines page. Consolidating
guidelines into a single location would increase transparency while reducing errors.
19 County of Hawaii DPW Building Division. Electronic Processing& Information Center Application Guidelines Electronic Drawing
Format April 18,2023 Version 1.5. https7//records.hawaiicounty,gov/webtink/1/edoc/140085/BLGMan
Accessed:1/2/25
20 County of Hawaii DPW Building Division. Electronic Processing& Information Center Application Guidelines Electronic Drawing
Format./une 03, 2024 version 1.6. https7//www.hawaiicounty,gov/home/showdocument?id=306099&t=638531758415813169 Accessed:
1/2/25
71 lAudit Results
• Property Owner Declaration Form.Z'
This legacy form verifies property ownership, authorizes permit submission, and
ensures all listed contacts receive application -related communications. It requires a
parcel number and location address, which are already collected in the portal's
'Location' screen, making the form redundant.
This legacy form, a common cause of application rejections, is unnecessary as the
portal supports digital signatures. While HCC §5-4-1(a)(7) requires the owner's
consent via signature, digital signatures are legally equivalent to wet signatures,
making the form obsolete.
• Project Declaration Form.22
This legacy form requires applicants to specify their role in the project, identifying
whether they are licensed contractors or owner -builders. Licensed contractors must
provide licensing details. This form is a common reason for rejection due to missing,
unsigned, or incorrect submissions. This form was initially developed to create
compliance with Chapter 444 Hawaii Revised Statutes; however, the portal is
capable of collecting this information, making it obsolete.
Step 6. Signature
Locations Type Contacts More Info Attachments Signature
Figure 4.12: Step 6 "Signature" from EPIC system
The "Signature" screen is designed to collect the digital signature, where the applicant
certifies and confirms the accuracy of the information and authorization to apply for a permit
on the specified property. By typing their name as an electronic signature, the applicant
attests to their awareness of relevant regulations.
Hawaii Revised Statutes §489E-723 grants legal recognition to electronic records,
signatures, and contracts. It ensures that electronic forms cannot be denied legal effect or
enforceability solely due to their format. Additionally, electronic records fulfill writing
requirements, and electronic signatures satisfy signature requirements.
21 County of Hawaii DPW Building Division. Property Owner Declaration Form.
https7//www.hawaiicounty.gov/home/showdocument?id=306136Accessed 1/2/25
22 County of Hawaii DPW Building Division. Project Declaration Form.
https://www.dpw.hawaiicount�t.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/306224Accessed 1/2/25
23 Hawaii Revised Statutes 5489-E7(d) Legal recognition ofelectronic records, electronic signatures, and electronic contracts.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vo111_Ch0476-0490/HRSO489E/HRS_0489E-0007.htm Accessed 3/28/25
72JAudit Results
Not utilizing appropriate technology creates unnecessary barriers, even though HRS §489-
E7(d) recognizes electronic signatures as legally valid. HCC §5-4-1(a)(7) does not require a
wet signature. The EPIC system already includes a built-in digital signature function that
could be used to streamline the process.
SIGNATURE
By submitting this form I certify that the information provided is correct and that I am authorized to apply for a permit on the property specified.
I am also acknowledging that I have read Planning's Single Family Dwelling Notice and First Farm Dwelling Notice.
' Please type your name as consent to electronically sign this application
Enable Type Signature
March. 31 2025
Figure 4.13 Screen shot of digital signature from EPIC system
Step 7. Review and Submit
O
O
O
O
Contacts
More Info
Attachment:
Signature Reyiec: and Submit
Figure 4.14: Step 7 "Review and Submit' from EPIC system
At the "Review and Submit" stage, the applicant is charged the greater of 20 percent of the
original permit fee (Figure 4.14) or a minimum fee of $50, as specified in HCC § 5-7-19(a).
This charge represents an initial fee collection. The final collection may include additional
fees for resubmittals or a plan review adjustment fee due to permit valuation.
Figure 4.14: Fee Schedule
PERMIT FEES
General Construction
Valuation
Fees
30 to 3500
$10
$10 for the first $500 plus 31.50 for each
$501 to $2.000
additional $100 or fraction thereof. to and
including $2.000.
$32.50 for the first $2.000 plus $7.50 for
$2.001 to $25.000
each additional $1.000 or fraction thereof.
to and including $25.000.
3205 for the first $25.000 plus $6 for each
$26.001 to $50.000
additional $1.000 or fraction thereof. to
and including $60.000.
560.001 and up
$355 for the first $50.000 plus $3 for each
additional $1.000 or fraction thereof.
Other
Carport. garages. porches.
$10 per 100 sq. ft. or fraction thereof.
patios or lanais and
detached U structures.
Figure 4.14: Hawairi County Code 5-7-3 (b) Fee schedule. Permit Fees.
73JAudit Results
Accountability and Transparency.
In addition to previous explanations, additional opportunities exist to simplify processes and
improve service delivery. Lean Six Sigma eliminates inefficiencies and reduces complexity.
Certain administrative and procedural challenges continue to hinder the department's
ability to operate efficiently. Process improvements should enhance efficiency and fairness
in three key areas: application completeness criteria, complaint handling, and staff training.
We found.
• Application Completeness Criteria.
The Tinner Report recommended defining a complete permit application by
ordinance to create clear expectations and reduce inefficiencies. Although Chapter
5, Article 4 Permit Application provides an overview of what is required, the section
has not been updated to reflect electronic document handling since 2020. This lack
of clarity leads to frequent resubmissions, processing delays, and frustration for both
parties. Without a standardized definition, staff rely on discretionary judgment,
increasing inconsistencies.
In addition to defining application completeness, the division would benefit from a
uniform process for addressing complaints. When complaints are handled
inconsistently or bypass formal channels, it can disrupt workflows and create
perceptions of unequal treatment. A standardized approach would promote fairness,
maintain operational focus, and support consistent service delivery for all
applicants.
This lack of clarity leads to frequent resubmissions, processing delays, and
frustration for both parties. Without a standardized definition, staff rely on
discretionary judgment, increasing inconsistencies. A clear legal standard would
improve transparency, streamline processing, and reduce unnecessary back -and -
forth.
• Complaint Handling.
Complaints are addressed through a Request Assistance form or by emailing
cohbui,a(d)hawGiicounty.gov. Management reported that applicants sometimes
seek to expedite project reviews by raising concerns with the administration, which
impacts staff efficiency in managing the queue. In -person and phone inquiries are
also disruptive. Applicants who experience delays in the permitting process
frequently escalate their concerns directly to the administration. These complaints
are prioritized over others, often resulting in quicker resolutions. However, this
prioritization creates a perception of unequal treatment, as applicants without direct
access to administrative channels may experience delays.
74JAudit Results
No policies, procedures, or administrative rules outline uniform complaint handling
to prevent administrative pressure from prioritizing certain applications over others
in the queue. Complaints vary widely in how they are addressed based on who
receives them and the level of attention they receive. Staff are frequently pulled from
routine tasks to fast -track priority complaints, affecting the department's standard
workflow. Applicants who do not similarly escalate their concerns are
disadvantaged.
• Staff Training.
The Tinner Report recommended that staff receive expert training from an external
consultant specializing in lean process improvement. Specialized training would
reduce non -value-added steps, make data -driven decisions, and improve
application consistency. However, despite the recommendation, staff did not receive
the recommended training, and the process remained undocumented, with no
targeted date for a structured review to identify and eliminate unnecessary tasks.
Subsequently, during the audit, management also suggested consulting with a
specialist familiar with the EPUs features to provide guidance and recommendations
for improving workflows and processes.
Conclusions.
Unnecessary complexity, inconsistencies, and unclear guidance slow the submittal
process, while external forms and cumbersome data entry add redundant steps. Instead of
adaptingto align with applicant needs and software capabilities, the system has been forced
to conform to outdated processes, diminishing the intended benefits of modernization.
Challenges remain while the County has tried clarifying requirements and upgrading its
system.
75jAudit Results
To Reduce Complexity of the Applications
We make the following recommendations
To Simplify "Location" Step:
FINDING 3: Redundant Data Collection
The EPIC portal captures location data during the application process, but this data is not
utilized to prefill other forms or satisfy later steps.
Effect of the Condition
Applicants are required to repeatedly enter the same data, increasing the time and effort
needed to complete the application contributing to errors and frustration.
commedation
Reduce Redundant Data Collection.
Use information captured early in the process to auto -populate fields in later steps,
eliminating repetitive inputs.
To Simplify "Type" Step:
FINDING 4: Manual Processes Drives the Workflow.
Building Division staff preferences for reformatting project descriptions results in manual
rewriting of applicant -provided information.
Manual rewriting of project descriptions is unnecessary and leads to delays in application
processing.
Recommedation 16
Eliminate Manual Processes.
Eliminate unnecessary project description rewrites. Elements to consider include:
• Update employee guides
• Update applicant instructions in the EPIC portal.
761Audit Result
To Simplify "Contacts" Step.
FINDING 5: No Contact Validation and Categorization
The system does not sort or validate contact information, mixing trade professionals with
other users and failing to ensure licensing compliance.
Errors in contact categorization contribute to application rejections and delays.
Validate and Categorize Contact Information.
Implement data validation to ensure contacts are accurately categorized (e.g., licensed
professionals versus property owners). Create separate lists or filters for trade
professionals in good standing.
To Simplify "More Info" Step.
FINDING 6: Insufficient Clarity to Guide Data Collection
Many data fields lack tooltips or explanations, making it unclear what is required. The
system redundantly collects information already captured in prior steps or attached
documents. Automation opportunities, including auto -populating pre -approved plan
data, remain underutilized.
Effect of the Condit
Redundant data entry causes delays.
Refine the "More Info" Screen.
Streamline data collection by eliminating redundancies between the "Type" and "More
Info" screens. Focus on essential inputs and pre -populate or exempt input fields for
known values, such as pre -approved house package numbers.
77JAudit Results
To Simplify "Attachments" Step.
FINDING 7: Building Division Uses Outdated Forms
Despite software modernization, inconsistent instructions and outdated forms from prior
practices are still used.
Effect of the Condition
Misleading instructions and the requirement for wet signatures create unnecessary
burdens on applicants, contributing to high rejection rates.
Eliminate Outdated Forms.
Remove the Property Owner and Project Declaration Forms by integrating their essential
data directly into the portal. This reduces the need for applicants to provide the same
information in multiple places.
To Simplify "Signature and Review" Step.
FINDING 8: Not Utilizing Digital Signature Feature
The digital signature feature is limited in application and does not replace wet signatures
required for declaration forms.
Not replacingwet signatures with digital signatures prolongs processing times.
ecommedation 20 ml
Enable Digital Signature.
Allow digital signatures across all forms, replacing physical wet signatures to simplify
and accelerate the application process.
78JAudit Results
To Improve Accountability and Transparency.
FINDING 9: Improve Accountability and Transparency
1. Application Completeness Criteria: There is no ordinance or guidance in the
rules defining what constitutes a complete application.
2. Complaint Handling: There is no standardized policy or procedure for handling
applicant complaints uniformly.
3. Staff Training. The division has not implemented structured training programs in
Lean Six -Sigma principles or process improvement methodologies.
1. Application Completeness Criteria: The absence of an ordinance clearly
defining a complete application leads to frequent resubmissions, delays, and
inconsistent expectations between staff and applicants.
2. Complaint Handling: Without a formalized complaint -handling process,
applicants who escalate their concerns directly to the administration receive
preferential treatment, while others experience longer delays, creating a
perception of inequity in service delivery.
3. Staff Training: The absence of Lean Six Sigma training leads staff to add
redundant steps and workarounds instead of eliminating inefficiencies. Over
time, this compounds process complexity, increasing delays and making future
improvements harder to implement because BD is learning basic configuration
and capabilities.
Define Application Completeness by Ordinance.
Establish a legally binding definition of a "complete" permit application through
ordinance, or administrative rules.
Implement a Formal Complaint Handling Process.
Develop and implement a standardized complaint -handling system, preferably electronic,
that ensures uniform treatment of applicant concerns. Establish policies and procedures
that define complaint prioritization criteria, response timelines, and escalation protocols.
79jAudit Results
Integrate Lean Six -Sigma Training into Staff Development.
a. Engage a Lean Six -Sigma Expert Consultant- Conduct a comprehensive
evaluation of permitting workflows to identify and eliminate non -value-added
steps.
b. Train Staff in Lean Six -Sigma Principles- Establish a structured training
program through policies and procedures that embed process improvement
methodologies and require continuous re-evaluation and adaptation to
operational changes.
80jAudit Results
County of Hawaii
Office of the County Auditor
Audit Activity.
To identify gaps in the inspection process, we:
• Gained an understanding of the inspection process through:
o Site visits
o Ride-alongs with eight inspectors and one inspector aide
o Interviews with four supervisors and three staff members
o Observations of monthly Building, Electrical, and Plumbing meetings
o Review of Building Division Inspection Reports
o Review of complaint reports and meeting notes
• Reviewed relevant governance:
o Hawai'i County Code (HCC) § 5-8-1, Article 8 Inspections
0 2018 State Building Code
o Government Accountability Office (GAO) The Green Book2a
o Tinner Report
We participated in ride-alongs to observe the inspection process, comparing county codes,
job descriptions, and supervision. Eight ride-alongs were scheduled: six in Hilo with
Building, Electrical, and Plumbing Inspectors and two in Kona with Building Inspectors.
Electrical inspectors must hold supervising electrical journeyman licenses. Plumbing
Inspectors must hold a plumbing journeyman license. Despite their role in final
walkthroughs and permit sign -offs, the Kona Building Inspectors are not required to be
licensed.
One of the Building Inspection Supervisors was evasive to auditors' multiple requests for
ride-alongs. After repeated attempts, it was decided to discontinue pursuing their
participation to avoid further delays.
Site visits included interviews with inspection supervisors in Hilo and Kona and attendance
at monthly Building, Electrical, and Plumbing meetings. Interviews with building inspection
supervisors and select inspectors highlighted management concerns about the inspection
process.
24 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (The Green Book). September
2014, by the Comptroller General of the United States. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-704g.pdf (accessed February 12, 2025)
81 JAudit Results
Inspections Overview.
When construction begins, inspections are conducted atvarious stages to ensure thatwork
complies with applicable codes, adheres to local regulations, and aligns with the approved
plans. Hawaii County Code § 5-8-3 outlines the process for requesting these inspections.
According to HCC § 5-8-3, the contractor or appropriate trade professional must file a
request for inspection with the authority having jurisdiction, and requests maybe submitted
in writing, in person, online, by facsimile, or by telephone if allowed. It is the responsibility
of the person doing the work to ensure that the construction will pass all prescribed code
requirements under the construction code before requesting an inspection.
Requests for inspection must be submitted no less than two working days and no more than
three working days before the desired inspection date. Once a request is received, the
jurisdiction authoritywill inspect within two working days (excluding weekends or holidays)
or arrange with the contractor to reschedule for a later date if necessary.
Inspectors use the mobile version of EPIC on tablets during inspections. This tool
centralizes project elements and loads inspection data. However, it cannot load plans
when there is no wireless access. Plans can be downloaded to the application before
conducting the inspection. Additionally, an approved permit requires that plans be kept on
the job site at all times per Section 5-5-6 of the Construction Administrative Code. The
permit holder is responsible for keeping the work accessible and exposed for examination.
Additionally, supervising professionals, such as the contractor, electrician, or plumber, may
be required to be present on -site. The inspector's role is to assess compliance with the
construction code and either approve the work or issue a written notice detailing any
deficiencies. If non-compliance is identified, the work must be altered, corrected, or
removed to meet code requirements before proceeding.
For new residential construction, required inspections typically include:
• Foundation/Slab — The foundation/slab inspection is the first step in the permit
inspection process. Once construction work is finished in this phase, the
owner/contractors for the specific disciplines must request inspections for
electrical, plumbing, and building work performed. After the electrical and plumbing
inspections are approved, a building inspection is conducted, and upon passing,
construction is allowed to proceed with a concrete pour and framing.
82JAudit Results
• Framing - After construction work is finished, owners/contractors for the specific
disciplines request inspections for electrical, plumbing, and building work
performed. Once approved and the inspection passes, construction can proceed to
the final phase.
o Insulation
o Lathing (support, underlayment backing)
o Electrical
o Plumbing
• Final - After construction, a final inspection, including plumbing, electrical, and
building inspections, is requested. Once approved, the project receives sign -off and
is ready for occupancy.
Certificate of Occupancy (CO).
• COs only apply to nonresidential construction. These structures cannot be used or
occupied, nor can the occupancy classification be changed until the appropriate
authority has issued a certificate of occupancy.
• Exception for the Certificate of Occupancy is :
o Group R-3 (Residential, Division 3) typically includes single-family homes,
duplexes, and townhouses not more than three stories high.
o Group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) includes private garages, carports,
sheds, agricultural buildings, and other accessory structures.
While the building permit process coordinates and ensures compliance with permits issued
by other agencies, it does not manage inspections for those agencies. Therefore, agencies
such as the Engineering Division, Fire Department, Planning Department, Department of
Environmental Management Wastewater Division, Department of Health Food Safety
Division, and Department of Health Wastewater Division must approve the construction
before issuing a Certificate of Occupancy.
83JAudit Results
We Found.
Policies and Procedures.
The Building Division lacks written policies and procedures for management oversight and
permit inspections, leadingto inconsistencies across all inspection disciplines. Inspectors
operate autonomously and develop their inspection methods, resulting in variations in
documentation, inspection standards, and enforcement practices. This inconsistency
creates challenges when inspectors swap work areas and when permits must be reassigned
due to absences.
Additionally, there is no standardized requirement for documenting inspections, such as
photographing placards, plans, or critical failures or entering inspection reports onsite. As a
result, documentation practices vary, and reports are often completed after the fact,
increasing the overall timeline.
The GAO's Green Book requires management to document policies to ensure effective
oversight, risk mitigation, and operational consistency. Specifically:
• 12.03: Management must document responsibilities and control activities necessary
for operational effectiveness.
• 12.04: Policies should define procedures, including the timing and corrective actions
needed when deficiencies are identified.
• 12.05: Policies and procedures must be periodically reviewed to ensure continued
relevance and effectiveness.
Conclusion.
Without written policies and procedures aligned with these standards, the BD lacks a
structured framework for inspections, increasing the risk of inconsistent enforcement,
miscommunication, and oversight.
84JAudit Results
To Improve Inspections Practices
We make the following recommendations
FINDING 10: No Policies and Procedures
The lack of documented policies and procedures for management oversight and permit
inspections is caused by the absence of a consistent framework and clear guidelines.
Effect of the Condit`'
Without documented policies and procedures, management oversight and permit
inspections lead to potential inefficiencies and difficulty maintaining uniform standards
across disciplines.
commedation 24 .d
Establish Policies and Procedures.
We recommend the Building Inspections Group create written policies and procedures for
management oversight and inspections to ensure consistent field practices across
disciplines.
85jAudit Results
Management Oversight.
The Building Division lacks consistent management oversight across inspection teams,
resulting in variations in supervision, work review, and enforcement of inspection standards.
While supervising inspectors are responsible for verifying subordinate's work, resolving
complaints, and ensuring team safety, there is no standardized approach to how these
responsibilities are carried out. Inconsistency creates gaps in accountability and quality
control across disciplines.
Additionally, inspection supervisors are required to review plans for permitting. Therefore,
supervisors were not assigned vehicles; instead, they did "rid e-atongs" with staff to verifythe
accuracy of inspections. Without direct field oversight, management cannot ensure that
inspections are performed consistently or that deficiencies are addressed promptly.
The GAO's Green Book emphasizes management's responsibility for oversight, control, and
remediation of deficiencies, specifically:
• Principle 2 - Oversight of the Internal Control System: Management must establish
oversight mechanisms to monitor operations, assess risks, and ensure control
activities are effectively implemented.
• Principle 2 - Input for Remediation of Deficiencies: Management is responsible for
identifying and addressing control weaknesses to improve operational effectiveness.
Conclusion.
Without a structured oversight framework, the BD lacks controls to ensure uniform
inspection practices, timely issue resolution, and accountability in the field.
FINDING 11: Limited Management Oversight
Management allowed inspection supervisors autonomy, resulting in variations in oversight
processes and limited access to resources, such as vehicles, leading to inconsistencies
in inspection practices, including limited field spot-checks and lack of standardized
procedures for work review, issue resolution, and safety enforcement.
. .
Customers experience inconsistent service quality, and inspectors face inconsistent
guidance.
Increase Management Oversight.
We recommend that BD Inspection teams strengthen management oversight by
developing standardized procedures for reviewing work, resolving issues, and routine
spot-checks. Supervisors should have daily access to vehicles to support effective
oversight.
86jAudit Results
Training.
The Building Division lacks a formalized and comprehensive training program for inspection
supervisors and inspectors, resulting in inconsistent proficiency levels with critical tools and
evolving industry standards. Inspectors require additional training on the EPIC application,
tablets, and inspection tools to utilize available resources fully. Supervisors who must
analyze backend inspection data have varying proficiency levels with EPIC, limiting their
ability to oversee and evaluate inspections effectively.
Additionally, when industry codes change, there is no structured process to ensure all
inspectors receive necessary updates, creating a risk of outdated practices. Specific
inspection teams, such as Electrical Inspectors, have requested specialized training in key
areas like medical facilities and large PV farms, which would benefit other disciplines.
The GAO's Green Book emphasizes the need for management to recruit, develop, and retain
competent personnel, stating:
• 4.05: (Training) Management must enable personnel to develop role -specific
competencies, reinforce standards, and tailor training to meet operational needs.
Conclusion.
Without a structured training program aligned with these principles, the division risks errors
and non-compliance with industry standards, ultimately affecting the quality and
consistency of inspections.
FINDING 12: Lack of Training.
No ongoing training for supervisors and inspectors on the EPIC application, tablets, and
specialized inspection areas.
Effect of the Condition��
Staff are underutilizing the technology.
Develop Training Program.
Establish a formal, ongoing training program for the inspections group after EPL is
configured that includes:
• Training on the EPIC application and tablets, in collaboration with the EPIC
application project team
• Develop targeted training modules for specialized inspection areas
• Implement procedures to provide regular refresher trainingwhen applicable
industry code changes are adopted
• Develop a process to track employee participation (e.g., sign -in sheets, staff
records) and maintain a record of completed training sessions
871Audit Result-
EPIC Enhancements.
Certain critical controls for effective management oversight, data security, and operational
efficiency have not been operation alized. Currently, all supervisors, inspectors, and
inspector aides share the same access privileges, increasing the risk of unauthorized
changes and compromising data security. Additionally, the software allows personnel to
backdate inspection reports without time limitations. Auditors observed reports entered
weeks to months after the original inspection, raising concerns about the accuracy and
reliability of the documented findings. Without role -based access controls, sensitive
information remains vulnerable, and the principle of segregation of duties is not upheld.
Additionally, EPIC does not generate exception reports. Exception reports are summaries
that flag errors or anomalies. Without exception reporting, it is difficult for supervisors to
identify inspection inconsistencies, errors, ortrends requiring corrective action. Withoutthis
functionality, oversight is weakened, reducing accountability and limiting management's
ability to address performance issues.
Another significant issue is the inaccuracy of geo pin locations, which results in difficulty
locating inspection sites. This problem was observed in nearly every ride -along, causing
inefficiencies, wasted time, and potential errors in inspection records.
The GAO's Green Book emphasizes the importance of application controls and security
management in internal control systems:
• 11.08: Design of Appropriate Control Activities: Application controls should ensure
data validity, completeness, accuracy, and confidentiality.
• 11.14: Design of Security Management: User access should be restricted based on
job responsibilities, ensuring proper segregation of duties and timely updates when
roles change.
Conclusion.
Because BD did not apply critical enhancements, EPIC remains insufficient for ensuring
secure access, consistent oversight, and operational accuracy, undermining the efficiency
and reliability of the inspection process.
881Audit Results
FINDING 13: Lack of Critical Enhancements.
The EPIC system was only configured for inspection and supervisor and inspector) user
roles limiting role -specific functionality. Additionally, the absence of an exception report
for inspections hinders effective monitoring and oversight. Furthermore, the Geo Pin
software has limitations in accurately determining the location of some project sites on
the island.
The lack of role differentiation in the EPIC system limits functionality, reducing efficiency
and oversight. The absence of an exception report hinders the monitoring of inspections,
increasing the risk of non-compliance. Additionally, Geo Pin software inaccuracies can
misidentify project site locations, leading to wasted time, potential errors, and delays in
inspections.
Opportunities for Critical Enhancements.
We recommend that the Building Division implement the following:
• Implement role -based access controls in EPIC, assigning separate privileges based
on job functions such as Supervising Inspectors, Inspectors, and Inspector Aides.
• Develop exception reporting to monitor and address potential inspection
abnormalities.
• Enhance Geo pin functionality to improve job site location accuracy.
89JAudit Results
Chapter 3
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
As a practice, we remain mindful and document instances of fraud, waste, and abuse within
the scope of the audit objective and not departmentwide or countywide.
During the audit, management reported ongoing investigations and pending litigation.
What is the Definition of Abuse?
"Abuse" involves deficient or improper behavior compared to behavior that a prudent
person would consider reasonable and necessary given the facts and circumstances. This
includes the misuse of authority or position for personal gain or the benefit of another.
Abuse does not necessarily involve fraud or illegal acts.
Inspectors play a critical role in the building process by ensuring compliance with codes,
regulations, and safety standards. Their approval is required at key stages of construction,
influencing project timelines, costs, and overall feasibility. Their decisions can expedite or
delay progress, and any inconsistencies, errors, or misconduct in inspections can impact
structural integrity, safety, and regulatory compliance.
We identified disciplinary actions against employees within the inspection group during the
audit. The Office of the County Auditor also received multiple complaints through its Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse Hotline. While a complaint alone does not confirm wrongdoing, the
allegations raised included the following:
• A contractor claimed an inspector approved inspections by phone without going
onsite.
o The allegation was reported under the condition of anonymity, the
inspector was not named, and OCA was not able to substantiate
the allegation.
• An inspector takes money in exchange for favorable inspection outcomes.
o The allegation was reported anonymously, and the OCA was not
able to substantiate it.
901 aud, Waste, and Abuse
• Inspectors approve inspections without going onsite and backdating entries into the
system.
o This allegation was reported by DPW leadership, who
subsequently initiated disciplinary action against the
employee(s). We commend their transparency in reporting the
issue and taking corrective action.
These actions may be considered abusive behavior when the allegations are confirmed to
be accurate. Determining whether a specific act constitutes abuse often requires a legal or
adjudicative process beyond the auditor's role.
Recommendations made throughoutthis report, particularlywith regards to the Inspections
Group, if enacted in good faith, will:
Policies and Procedures.
• Require inspectors to take pictures of placards, sites, and critical failures to ensure
they are onsite for each inspection and dispel claims to the contrary.
EPIC Enhancement.
• Role -Based Access Controls: Setting up access by user role ensures that entries
cannot be backdated without prior approval from the building chief or their designee.
This protects inspectors from potential accusations of improper recordkeeping and
ensures accountability is shared at an appropriate level.
• Exception Reporting: Automated exception reports provide monitoring to detect,
prevent, and deter anomalous entries. This promotes good recordkeeping habits,
reinforces accountability, and helps ensure that employees' work is consistently
documented.
Public trust in the inspection process is vital, and all stakeholders —government officials,
contractors, and the community —play a role in upholding fairness and compliance. We
encourage vigilance and accountability to ensure the system serves its intended purpose
without undue influence or misconduct.
We encourage employees and members of the public to report instances of waste, fraud,
and abuse in county operations.
(808) 480-8213 fraud and waste
(808) 480-8279 abuse
concernCcbhawaiicounty.gov
91 1 C o n c I u s i o n
Conclusion
The Department of Public Works Building
Division audit highlighted persistent challenges
in the permitting and inspection processes,
affecting efficiency, transparency, and public
trust. While ongoing efforts have been made to
streamline operations, systemic inefficiencies
continue to impact applicants, staff, and the
broader community.
Key findings indicate that high application
volumes, inconsistent processing timelines, and
unnecessary complexity contribute to delays.
Although the Building Division has some guides,
workflows, and monitoring practices, some are
outdated, and certain areas lack them. These
Figure 5: Rubik Cube created, courtesy County Auditor
gaps highlight the need for process improvements, including providing clear expectations
through administrative rules, policies and procedures, standardized workflows, and robust
monitoring practices. Additionally, the lack of effective oversight in the inspection process
raises concerns about compliance and accountability.
To address these issues, we recommend a multi -faceted approach that tackles the problem
from different perspectives —reducing application volume, improving processing time, and
simplifying complexity. Addressing all three factors simultaneously creates a cumulative
effect that strengthens efficiency and accountability at every level of the permitting process.
Reducing volume through exemptions and self -certification frees up resources for more
complex projects. Improving processing time by enforcing date -driven prioritization and
automation minimizes delays. Simplifying complexity through better public guidance,
clearer requirements, and technology enhancements ensures that applications are
processed correctly the first time.
While management has acknowledged some challenges and taken steps to address
inefficiencies, further commitment is needed to resolve the underlying issues fully. A
comprehensive strategy that integrates these solutions alleviates backlogs and builds a
predictable, transparent permitting system that responds to the community's needs.
Movingforward, ongoing oversight and proactive managementwill be essentialto sustaining
these improvements, ensuring compliance with best practices, and fostering a culture of
accountability and service excellence.
92 1 C o n c I u s i o n
Chapter 4
Management Response
V of
VO .'
ti'.
C. Kimo Alameda, Ph.D.
William V. Brilhante, Jr. —
Al,-g-gDi- `°' County of Hawaii
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Aupuni (Center
101 Na hi Sr semi, 7 '1 1,,. 1 I —A i Q67''[).374
-
April 25, 2025
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
County of Hawaii
120 Pauahi St. #t309
Hilo, HI 96720
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
Dear Mr. Benner,
Neil A. Azevedo
Acting Direcror
The Building Division (BD) remains steadfast in its commitment to streamlining processes while
ensuring that its core responsibility to safeguard the health, safely. and welfare orthe community
is always upheld. BD continues to explore innovative solutions aimed at imhnn inu- operational
efficiency but recognizes that any adjustments to the permittin;_ hroce,e must be n,hhorted b\
data and in alignment with our duty to maintain public safety and re,ulauuc compliance. 111) is
dedicated to pursuing technology -driven solutions that enhance efficiency without conll'romisin,
these critical standards.
Below are BD's responses to each of the recommendations outlined in the audit:
FINDING 1: The Volume of Applications Contributes to Delays
Recommendation 1: Exempt Qualified Low -Risk Applications.
The BD awrece that come permit INpes_ etch its residential hhotmoltaic (PV7) systcros under
100N, ❑rc lo\\ Sincc March 2b? BD has is>ucd these hermits M1N ithoul 1,61Mal plan review,
requiring onlc plan Iryi0v current Nv ith a field inspection. Inspectors mac approve minor design
changes durtn-, inspection, which has improved efficiency and have been well received by
applicants and staff.
However, BD emphasizes that inspections remain essential, especially for owner -builders who
may not have the technical expertise to identify construction issues. Inspections are the final
Page t of 39
C'OUiln' or I la\4'el'I I\ At1 t',q u;il UrPOIi LLr1R}" Pi0\'1(ICr :ill(I ri11�lOYCr
931Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
safeguard to ensure compliance with safety codes. Before recommending exemptions for any
pen -nit type, BD will malce decisions based on data.
Action Plan
Exempt Qualified Low -Risk Applications
Action Item
Specifics
Measurable
putcome
Achievable Steps
Relevance to
Objective
Time -
Bound
Deadline
Create data points to
Record number
identify inspections
Track
of inspections
passing after
Provides
inspection
passing without
Monthly
corrections were
empirical
Start July
outcomes for
and after
inspection
made during
basis for
2025,
low -risk
corrections
data collected
inspections; use
exemption
ongoing
permits
during the
existing and new
decisions
inspection.
data to create
custom reports
Aggregate and
analyze
Ensures
Collect and
inspection data
12 months of
Assign data analysis
decisions arc
Complete
review data for
for all
data compiled
to BD staff
based on
by July
one year
qualifying low -
and reviewed
current, local
2026
risk permits
trends
Confirnis if
Assess
whether
Compare rates
Summary
inspection
Report by
inspections
of corrections
report with
Use collected data
phase is
August
consistently
and undetected
findings
and staff expertise
critical for
2026
identify issues
issues
low -risk
permits
I f data supports,
Recommend
draft and
Draft
Aligns with
de
Ordinance
Collaborate with
BD's mission
Proposal by
code
propose
legal and policy
to streamline
September
amendments if
Ordinance for
proposal
teams
and ensure
2026
justified
qualifying
submitted
safety
permits
BD remains committed to streamlining processes while upholding its core responsibility to
protect community health, safety, and welfare.
Page 2 of 39
County or lay ui,i is an I;gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
941Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Recommendation 2. Implement Self -Certification & Public Duty Doctrine Training.
The BD aims to improve plan quality, evaluate the feasibility of self -certification forlow-risk
permits, and strengthen staff understanding of the Public Duty Doctrine. Current data shows a
significant portion of permits require corrections, especially for complex projects, highlighting
the need for continued oversight and professional accountability.
The table below summarizes the percentage of permits not returned for corrections during the
audit period (July 26, 2021 — March 31, 2024):
Permit Type
Percent Not Returned
for Corrections
Residential
61 %
Non -Residential (Commercial)
25%
Electric Only
71 %
Plumbing Only
62%
PV Residential
82%
PV Non -Residential (Commercial)
40%
These percentages indicate that errors and deficiencies in submitted plans remain common,
particularly in non-residential and PV commercial permits. Implementing self -certification under
these conditions could increase public safety risks and reduce accountability.
Action Plan
Implement Self -Certification & Public Duty Doctrine Training
SMART Goal
Specifics
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable
Steps
Relevance
Time -
Bound
[Deadline
Reduce the
Improve plan
percentage of
Collaborate
submission
permits
Annual correction
with licensing
Reduces errors,
By June
quality by
returned for
rate reports
board and
supports code
2026
design
corrections by
provide
compliance
professionals
10% across all
feedback
permit types
Evaluate
Review permit
feasibility of
data to identify
Ensures any
Quarterly
self-
candidate
Quarterly data
Assign data
self -certification
review, first
certification for
permit types
analysis and
review to BD
is safe and
by
select low -risk
for pilot self -recommendation
management
effective
September
permits
certification
2025
Page 3 of 39
County or lay ui,i is an I;gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
951Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
SMART Coal
Specifics
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable
Steps
Relevance
Time -
Sound
Deadline
Provide Public
Conduct one
Duty Doctrine
training
o
100% staff
and code
session for all
attendance and
Schedule and
Reinforces legal
By March
ccnropg
staff on Public
completion
deliver
and safety
2026
fornce all
training for
Duty Doctrine
records
training
responsibilities
BD staff
and code
compliance
Recommendation 3a: Pilot Third -Party Review Services During Peak Periods.
The BD acknowledges the potential benefits of third -party review services during peak periods
but must comply with state legal constraints that limit outsourcing of core governmental
functions. Instead, BD is focusing on improving the quality of initial plan submittals to reduce
re -reviews and manage workload peaks internally.
Action Plan
Pilot Third -Party Review Services During Peak Periods
SMART
Goal
Specifics
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable
Steps
Relevance
Time -
Sound
Deadline
Increase
Raise the rate
Conduct
percentage of
of first-time
targeted
Reduces re -
permits
approvals for
Quarterly
outreach and
reviews and
By June
approved
all permit types
tracking of
training for
internal
2026
without
by 10% from
correction rates
design
workload
corrections
current
baselines
professionals
Reduce
Decrease
Streamline
average
average time
Review cycle
internal review
Improves
customer service
By June
permit review
tiom
time reports
p
processes and
and operational
2026
turnaround
application to
monitor
efficiency
time
approval by 5%
performance
Review permit
Monitor and
volume,
Analyze annual
reassess need
correction
Annual summary
data and
Ensures
Annually,
for third -party
rates, and
and
stakeholder
adaptability and
each
review
turnaround
recommendation
feedback
responsiveness
March
annually
times each year
Page 4 of 39
County or lay ui,i is an I;gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
961Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
3b: Enhance Al Integration in Plan Review Processes.
The BD recognizes the strategic value of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in streamlining and
modernizing the plan review process. BD's long-term vision is to leverage Al to increase
efficiency, consistency, and scalability in permit processing, while maintaining high standards
for public safety and regulatory compliance.
Action Plan
Enhance Al Integration in Plan Review Processes
SMART Goal Goal
Specifics
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable
Steps
Relevance
Sound
Deadline
Finalize
Complete
configuration of
Assign
EncrGov
EnerGov's
EncrGov modules
dedicated IT
Provides
By
platform
Inspection and
fully operational
resources to
foundation for
December
configuration
Code
project
Al integration
2025
Enforcement
modules
Obtain approval
Submit
Secure
and hire one
staffing
Ensures
additional IT
Information
ISA IV position
request;
sufficient
By March
staffing to
Systems Analyst
tilled and
complete
p
capacity for
2026
support A]
IV (ISA 1V)
onboarded
recruitment
technology
integration
position
I
process
initiatives
Launch a pilot
Collaborate
Pilot AI-
project using Al
Pilot project
with IT and
Demonstrates
B y
assisted plan
to automate
launched and
external
Al's
December
intake and
evaluation of at
results
partners;
effectiveness in
2026
review tools
least three intake
documented
select pilot
BD's workflow
chceklist items
I
scope
Assess pilot
results for
Collect and
Evaluate and
accuracy,
Written evaluation
analyze pilot
Informs future
report on Al
efficiency gains,
report with
data; prepare
scaling and
By March
pilot outcomes
and compliance
recommendations
summary
investment in
2027
with
Al technology
legal/industry
report
standards
Page 5 of 39
County orl lay ui,i is an I;q LW Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
971Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Finding 2: The Permit Svstem Launched Prematurely Before Full Configuration and
Optimization
The BD acknowledges that the EnerGov permit system was launched before it was fully
configured and agrees that this early implementation resulted in a range of operational
challenges. As of March 21, 2025, BD is addressing 154 system enhancements, each intended to
resolve specific inefficiencies and improve the functionality of core modules within EnerGov.
The premature rollout affected all major aspects of the system, including permit issuance,
inspections, and complaint management. These impacts have made it clear that a fully functional
permit system depends not just on the permit issuance workflow, but also on the successful
configuration of the Inspection and Complaint Modules. These modules are essential, as they
support critical functions such as verifying compliance in the field and managing code
enforcement cases —responsibilities that are central to BD's mission.
At this stage, BD is prioritizing the stabilization and refinement of these foundational modules
before moving on to optimize more advanced features of the permit process. This approach is
intended to ensure that the system can reliably support day-to-day operations and provide the
level of service expected by both staff and the public.
BD appreciates the auditor's recommendations and remains committed to fully optimizing the
EnerGov system. Achieving this goal will require additional IT resources, ongoing collaboration
with stakeholders, and a continued focus on resolving outstanding system enhancements.
Through these efforts, BD aims to deliver a permit system that is efficient, reliable, and capable
ol'meeting the operational needs of the Division as well as the expectations of the community it
serves.
Recommendation 4: Dedicated Pre -Screening Function.
The BD agrees that a dedicated pro -screening function will improve the quality of permit
applications, reduce resubmittals, and enhance efficiency for both applicants and staff. BD
supports integrating this feature into the existing permit system and is committed to a structured,
measurable, and time -bound approach to implementation.
Page b of 39
County or lay ui,i is an I;gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
981Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action Plan
Dedicated Pre -Screening Function
SMART
Secure
additional
IT capacity
Specifies
Obtain approval
and hire one
Information
Systems Analyst
1V (1SA 1V)
Measurable
Outcome
ISA 1V
position filled
and
onboarded
Achievable
Steps
Submit
staffing
request and
complete
recruitment
Relevance
Provides technical
resources for pre-
screening module
Time -
Bound
Deadline
By March
2027
Develop system
Design and
requirements,
Pre-screening
Collaborate
configure
configure, and
module
with IT,
Ensures module meets
By Junc
Pre-
test pre-
conti,>ured
vendors, and
applicant and staff
2027
screening
screening
and tested
end users
needs
module
workflow in
EnerGov
Deploy pre-
Launch
screening
Module live
Provide user
Reduces
By
pre-
module for all
in production
training and
incomplete/inaccurate
September
screening
function
new permit
system
support
submissions
2027
applications
Track reduction
Analyze
Monitor
in resubmittals
Quarterly
application
Measures effectiveness
First report
and
evaluate
and applicant
performance
data and
and guides further
by
December
impact
errors post-
reports
gather user
improvements
2027
launch
feedback
Recommendation 5: Enforce Ascending Date -Driven Priority Protocol.
The BD fully supports the principle of an ascending, date -driven priority protocol to ensure
fairness, transparency, and predictability in the permit review process. In September 2022, BD
established Priority Hubs that organize permit applications by type and ascending date order,
creating first -come, first -served worklists so permits are processed equitably. In April 2024, BD
refined this approach by launching a new workload report format, providing permit clerks, plan
reviewers, and multi -agency partners with clear information on each application's position and
status throughout all review phases.
While this structure has improved transparency and accountability, BD recognizes the need to
track instances when permits arc processed out of date order whether due to external agency
direction, emergency work, or other justifiable circumstances. To address this, BD will
Page 7 of 39
County orl lay ui,i is an Lq LW Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
991Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
immediately implement a manual log to record such occurrences and ensure accountability for
exceptions to the standard queue. In the long tern, BD intends to develop an automated tracking
system to capture these exceptions within the EnerGov platform, with a target implementation
timeline of two years.
BD remains committed to upholding fair and consistent permit processing practices and. will
continue to reline internal systems and reporting tools to support this objective.
Action Plan
Enforce Ascending Date -Driven Priority Protocol
Time -
Action Item
Specifics
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Organize all
permit
Maintain
applications by
] 00% of permits
Ensures
date -driven
type and
tracked and
Staff trained;
fairness,
Ongoing
Priority
ascending date
processed by
ongoing
transparency,
monitoring
Work Lists
order using
date order
monitoring
and
priority Work
predictability
Lists (completed
2022)
Issue
Provide weekly
updated
reports showing
Weekly
Automated
Increases
workload
permit status and
distribution of
report
transparency
Ongoing
and queue
queue position
(new format
queue
position/status
generation and
and
monitoring
position
completed April
reports
distribution
accountability
reports
2024)
Immediately
Implement
begin recording
Develop log
Maintains
manual log
all instances and
Monthly review
template; assign
accountability
Begin May
for out -of-
reasons when
of manual
staff
for protocol
2025
order
permits are
exception log
responsibility
exceptions
processing
processed out of
date order
Design and
Develop
automated
launch an
Automated
Collaborate
Ensures long -
automated system
exception
with IT; define
term, systematic
By May
exception
tracking in
to capture and
tracking system
requirements;
enforcement of
2027
EnerGov
report exceptions
operational
test and deploy
protocol
within EnerGov
Page 8 of 39
County orl lay ui,i is an I;q LW Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
1001Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Recommendation 6: Strengthening Customer Education and Outreach.
The BD agrees that robust customer education and outreach are essential for improving the
permitting experience, reducing application errors, and increasing efficiency. BD is actively
pursuing a multi -faceted strategy to strengthen customer support through clearer communication,
more accessible resources, and targeted training for all user groups.
Action Plan
Strengthening Customer Education and Outreach
Action item
Specifics
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable Steps
Relevance to
Objective
Time -
Bound
Deadline
Improve
navigation and
Collaborate with IT
Increases
provide easier
Launch of
and
accessibility
By
Redesign BD
access to forms,
redesigned
communications;
and empowers
December
website
guidelines,
website
update content;
applicants to
2025
checklists, FAQs,
monitor analytics
self=serve
and instructional
materials
Align all
100% of
Reduces
Update
customer -facing
materials
Assign staff to
confusion and
By
training
materials with
updated and
review, revise, and
ensures users
December
materials
current EPIC and
available
publish materials
have current
2025
EnerGov systems
online
infornation
Supports visual
Produce and
Create at least six
Three videos
Utilize new video
learners and
By
publish
new instructional
published and
software; script,
addresses
December
instructional
videos for staff
tracked for
record, and
videos
and public users
viewership
distribute videos
common
2025
questions
Host at least four
Conduct
in -person or
Four sessions
Schedule events;
Provides direct
targeted
virtual sessions
held;
develop agendas
support and
By May
training
for contractors,
participant
and materials;
clarifies
2026
repeat applicants,
attendance
promote to target
complex
sessions
and owner-
recorded
audiences
requirements
bu.i lders
Page 9 of 39
County or lay ui,i is an I;gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
1011Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action
item
Specifics
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable
Steps
Relevance to
Objective
Time -
Bouud
Deadline
Request
Staffing request
Enhance
additional
submitted andtracked;
Prepare
Addresses unique
support
c-lerical staffing
support
ustification;
needs of owner-
Request by
for
to provide over-
available for
submit hiring
builders and
December
owner-
the -counter and
request; train
improves their
2025
builders
personalized
one-time
applicants
new staff
experience
assistance
Track
Collect data;
Monitor
performance of
15% increase in
in
analyze trends;
Ensures
Monitoring
and report
pen-nit
the umber
continuous
begins
outreach
applications that
permitto
applications that
management and
improvement and
January
effort
are correct at first
are correct
adjust efforts as
accountability
2026
pass
needed
Recommendation 7: Reduce Instances of Resubmissions.
The BD agrees that reducing permit resubmissions is critical to streamlining the permitting
process, minimizing delays, and improving customer satisfaction. BD's primary strategy is to
implement real-time validation during the application process, which will guide applicants, flag
incomplete or inaccurate entries, and provide immediate feedback. This approach is supported by
industry best practices and proven technology solutions that have demonstrated significant
reductions in resubmittals and review cycles.
To achieve this, BD is pursuing the integration of a pre-screening validation function within the
existing permit platform. Successful implementation will require additional IT resources,
specifically the addition of an Information Systems Analyst IV (ISA IV). With this support, BD
anticipates the new functionality can be developed and operational within two years. This
enhancement will work alongside ongoing efforts to improve plan quality, customer education,
and review efficiency.
Page 10 of 39
County or lawui'i is an I?gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
1021Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action Plan
Reduce Instances of Resubmissions
Time -
Action
Specifies
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Request and hire an
Prepare
Information
justification,
Provides
Secure IT
Systems Analyst IV
ISA IV position
submit hiring
technical
By March
resources
(ISA N) to support
tilled and
onboarded
request,
capacity to
implement real-
2027
system
complete
time validation
enhancements
11
Irecruitment
Design and
Develop
configure real-time
Pre-screening
Collaborate with
Reduces errors
Pre-
validation for
validation tool
IT, define
and incomplete
By
screening
permit applications
developed and
requirements,
submissions at
September
validation
Within the existing
tested
configure and
the source
2027
function
platform
test system
Provide userMinimizes
Launch and
Deploy the pre-
Functionality
training and
By
integrate
screening validation
live in
support, update
resubmittals
December
validation
tool for all new
production
application
and expedites
2027
feature
permit applications
system
workflow
review process
Analyze permit
Monitor
Track and report on
Quarterly
data, collect
Ensures
and
resubmittal rates
performance
applicant
continuous
First report
evaluate
and user feedback
reports; 15 o /o
feedback, adjust
improvement
by March
after
reduction in
and measures
2628
impact
implementation
resubmittals
process as
success
needed
Recommendation 8: Monitor First Pass Approval Rates.
The BD agrees that monitoring first pass approval rates is essential for evaluating the
effectiveness of the permit review process and identifying opportunities for improvement. BD
has already implemented monthly sampling and internal Performance Reports to track key
metrics, including first pass approval rates, processing times, and resubmittals. These efforts
support a data -driven approach to continuous improvement and more efficient service delivery.
Page 11 of 39
County or lawui,i is an I?gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
1031Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action Plan
Monitor First Pass Approval Rates
Action Item
Specifics
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable
Steps
Relevance to
Objective
Time -
Bound
Deadline
Track processing
Automate data
Venerate and
duration, total
Performance
extraction;
Enables data-
Started
review
permits
Reports
distribute
driven workflow
June 2023,
Performance
reviewed, first
generated and
reports to
adjustments and
ongoing,
Reports
pass approvals,
distributed.
management
accountability
monthly
corrections, and
monthly
and review
resubm ittals
teams
Enhance data
Solicit feedback
RcCnc and
collection and
Updated
from staff;
Ensures
expand
p
reporting
methods as
re porting tools
p f
update
p
monitoring
f
Annually,
performance
needed to capture
and expanded
templates and
remains relevant
every June
monitoring
emerging needs
metrics
processes as
and effective
and best practices
necessary
Recommendation 9: Streamline Workflow Management.
The BD acknowledges that workflow management has been a challenge, especially during the
transition to the EnerGov system when permit clerks played a key role in routing pennit reviews.
Since implementation, BD has made several improvements such as creating custom fields in
EnerGov for better sorting and tracking, collaborating with partner agencies to align workflows,
and addressing technical limitations through the November 2024 system upgrade. These changes
have reduced complexity and improved efficiency.
BD is now preparing to implement a new "2-step submittal" process by July 2025, which is
expected to further streamline workflows, reduce administrative overhead, and improve
processing times.
Page 12 of 39
County or lawui,i is an I?gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
1041Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action Plan
Recommendation 9: Streamline Workflow Management
Action Item
Specifics
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable
Steps
Relevance to
Objective
Time -
Bound
Deadline
Use custom fields
Reduced
Collaborate
Rune
and agency
manual
with agencies;
Ensures
Ongoing,
workflow
feedback to
routing;
update fields;
permits are
permits
configuration
optimize permit
improved
monitor
routed
quarterly
in EnerGov
routing and
workflow
workflow
efficiently and
review
tracking within
performance
consistently
EnerGov
Implement
Reduces
EnerGov upgrade
Fewer
Complete
inefficiencies
Address
(completed Nov
workflow
ups rade; train
and
Completed
technical
2024) to eliminate
bottlenecks and
staff new
complexity in
June Nov
limitations
repeated
reduced staff
feature
features
the review
2024
opening/closing of
workload
review sessions
process
Streamlines
Transition to a 2-
Decreased
Develop
ntake and
Implement 2-
step permit
administrative
process map;
review,
By June
step submittal
application and
overhead;
update system;
Improving
2025
process
review process by
faster
train staff and
turnaround
July 2025
processing
applicants
times
Regularly review
Collect data;
Supports
Monitor and
workflow metrics
Quarterly
hold review
continuous
Quarterly,
optimize
and gather user
workflow
meetings;
improvement
workflow
feedback to
performance
implement
and high-
starting
performance
identify and
reports
targeted
quality service
•luly 2025
resolve bottlenecks
improvements
Idelivery
Recommendation 10: Update Staff and Public Education Materials.
Refer to response in Recommendation 6.
Recommendation 11: Consolidate Reviews.
The BD agrees that consolidating reviews is key to improving the efficiency and clarity of the
pennit review process. BD is actively implementing the Cloud+Delta concept to streamline plan
resubrnittals and revisions. This method allows updated plan sheets to be inserted over originals,
which arc then marked as "superseded," while the full original set is retained. Changes are
Page 13 of 39
County orl lawui,i is an I?q LW Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
1051Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
clearly highlighted with "clouded" markings, making it easier for reviewers to identify and
compare revisions.
To ensure consistency and clarity, BD is revising the Cloud+Delta guidelines and will distribute
them to staff and the public by May 2025. This will provide clear, step-by-step instructions for
implementing the process. BD is confident this will reduce confusion, accelerate review cycles,
and lead to faster, more efficient permit approvals.
Action Plan
Consolidate Reviews
Time -
Action item
Specifics
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Update and clarify
Ensures
instructions for
Revised
Draft updates;
consistent and
Revise
staff and
guidelines
review with
clear application
By June
Cloud+Delta
applicants on the
completed and
stakeholders;
of the
2025
guidelines
Cloud+Delta
approved
finalize
consolidation
resubmittal and.
documentation
method
revision process
Provide revised
Cloud+Delta
Guidelines
Email
Promotes
Distribute
guidelines to all
distributed to
distribution;
transparency and
ByJuly
revised
staff and make
100% of staff
update;
wening
user
20255
guidelines
them publicly
and posted
training sessions
understanding
available to
online
applicants
Conduct training
for staff and offer
Number of
Schedule and
Ensures
Train staff
informational
staff trained
deliver training;
effective
By
and educate
sessions or
and applicant
develop FAu
adoption and
August
applicants
materials for
sessions held
and quick guides
reduces
2025
applicants on the
confusion
updated process
Page 14 of 39
County or lawui,i is an I?gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
1061Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action Item
Specifics
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable
Steps
Relevance to
Objective
Time -
Bound
Deadline
Track use of the
Gather user
Supports
First
Cloud+Delta
Quarterly
feedback;
continuous
review by
Monitor
process, collect
review of
review permit
improvement
October
implementation
feedback, and
process
review
and efficient
2025,
and feedback
identify areas for
effectiveness
timelines and
permit
ongoing
further
issues
approvals
quarterly
improvement
Recommendation 12: Enhance Interagency Cooperation.
The BD acknowledges the importance of strong interagency cooperation to ensure a smooth and
efficient permit review process. BD recognizes that delays —such as those experienced in 2024
due to Department of Health Wastewater Division (DOH-WW) staff shortages can impact
overall progress. Through discussions with DOH-WW, BD identified that a lack of access to real-
time workload data hindered their ability to manage reviews efficiently. In response, BD IT
implemented weekly Review Listing Reports starting January 2024, providing all key reviewing
agencies with comprehensive, up-to-date information on permit applications awaiting their action.
These efforts have resulted in improved interagency review times and clearer communication
across all involved departments. BD remains committed to fostering collaboration, transparency,
and continuous improvement in the permit review process.
Action Plan
Enhance Interagency Cooperation
Action
Specifics
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Time -
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Issue
Distribute detailed
Automate
Enables
weekly
reports to all
100% of agencies
report
agencies to
Ongoing,
Review
reviewing
reviewing agencies,
receive weekly
generation and
track Nvorkloads
started Jan
Listing
all pending
reports; improved
email
and manage
2025
Reports
permit applications
review times
distribution
rcvicw
and status
timelines
Page 15 of 39
County or lawui,i is an I?gLWI Opporluni INProvider and lanpI over
1071Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Item Specifics Measurable Achievable Relevance to
Outcome Steps Objective
Hold regular
Number of
Schedule
Maintain
check -ins and.
meetings
monthly
Strengthens
agency
feedback sessions
with partner
held;
meetings;
cooperation and
Monthly,
communication
agencies to
documented
document and
problem-
ongoing
channels
address issues and
feedback and
follow, up on
solving
clarify processes
resolutions
action items
Collect and
Monitor
Track and analyze
Quarterly
compare
Ensures
interagency
review timelines
performance
review data;
accountability
Quarterly,
review
before and after
reports;
share findings
and measures
first report
performance
implementation of
reduction in
with all
impact
June 2025
weekly reports
review delays
stakeholders
Solicit agency
Updated
Distribute
feedback to
report format
feedback
Supports
Review
Refine report
improve the
based
continuous
biannually,
content and
format, frequency,
on
feedback;
surveys;
implement
improvement
next by
delivery
and content of
higher agency
changes as
and
December
Review Listing
satisfaction
needed
responsiveness
2025
Reports
Recommendation 13: Automate Invoicing and Issue Provisional Permits.
The BD agrees that automating invoicing could significantly improve efficiency and accuracy in
the permitting process. BD also acknowledges the operational complexities of managing fee
collection, particularly regarding the timing of payments and the potential risks of collecting fees
at Final Inspection. BD maintains that prompt fee payment is essential, and if this standard is
upheld, the need for provisional permits may be minimized. Nevertheless, BD is committed to
exploring both the automation of invoicing and the feasibility of a provisional permit process to
ensure best practices and operational effectiveness.
Page 16 of 39
County or lawui'i is an I?gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
1081Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action Plan
Automate Invoicing and Issue Provisional Permits
Time -
Action
Specifics
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Bound
Item
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Review current
Assess
invoicing
List of system
Map current
foundation
our f
invoicing
workflows and
requirements and
processes;
for efficient,
By June
automation
identify
consult with
2026
needs
requirements for
process gaps
staff and finance
accurate
automation
invoicing
Request and hire
Prepare
an Information
justification;
Provides
Secure IT
Systerns Analyst
TSA IV position
submit hiring
technical
By March
resources
IV (ISA IV) to
filled and
onboarded
request;
capacity for
2026
support system
complete
automation
enhancements
recruitment
Design,
Develop
configure, and
Automated
Collaborate with
Reduces
and test
pilot an
invoicing system
IT, define
manual errors
By .Tune
automated
automated
developed and
requirements,
and expedites
2026
invoicing
invoicing system
tested
configure and
fee collection
within the permit
test system
platform
11
Monitor system
Collect data,
Ensures
Evaluate
performance and
Performance
hold review
systern meets
First
and refine
gather feedback
reports; user
meetings,
operational
review by
invoicing
from users and
satisfaction
implement
and customer
Sept ember
Sept
process
finance staff
surveys
improvements
needs
2026
Research best
practices and
Benchmark
Ensures
Review
consult
Summary report
other
policy aligns
By
provisional
stakeholders on
and
jurisdictions;
with industry
December
permit
the need and
recommendations
hold stakeholder
standards and
2026
practices
design for
discussions
local needs
provisional
permits
Page 17 of 39
co�mty orl i,,. avi is tm t,qwl oppurwiiN Provider and Ilmployer
1091Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Recommendation 14a: Enforce Consistent Timeframes for Permit Evaluation.
The BD recognizes the importance of enforcing consistent thneframes for permit evaluations to
ensure efficiency, transparency, and predictability in the permitting process. Since January 2024,
BD has reduced the standard plan review timeframe from 90 days to 30 days for most permits,
with exceptions only for planning -related reviews that require additional time due to complexity.
BD is committed to upholding these 30-day review timelines, monitoring compliance, and
collaborating with partner agencies to ensure timely processing.
Action Plan
Enforce Consistent Timeframes for Permit Evaluation
Time -
Action
Specifies
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Configure
Maintain
Enforce a 30-day
95% of
EncrGov
Ensures
30-day
review timeframe for
reviews
alerts;
efficiency and
Ongoing,
all permit evaluations
completed
predictability
review
review
except complex
within 30
communicate
in permit
monthly
standard
planning reviews
days
standard to all
processing
reviewers
Monthly
Assign staff to
Identifies
First report
Track and
Monitor and document
deviation
track
bottlenecks and
by June
analyze
all instances where
reports and
deviations;
supports
2025,
deviations
reviews exceed the 30-
day timeframe
root cause
analyze causes
continuous
ongoing
analysis
and trends
improvement
monthly
Hold regular
Coordinate with other
Number of
coordination
Promotes
Collaborate
departments/agencies to
interagency
meetings;
accountability
Monthly,
with partner
uphold review
meetings;
and timely
agencies
timeframes and resolve
improved
share
performance
multi -agency
ongoing
delays
compliance
data
reviews
Review data,
Refine internal
Reduced
solicit
Adjust
processes and resource
deviations
feedback,
Ensures
adaptability
Quarterly,
workflows
allocation based on
and improved
implement
and sustained
starting
as needed
monitoring results and
processing
workflow
performance
June 2025
feedback
times
changes as
needed
Page 18 of 39
County or lawui,i is an I?gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
1101Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Recommendation 14b: Review and Update Administrative Rules to Establish Maximum
Timeframes for Review:
The BD acknowledges the need to review and update the 1998 Administrative Rules, which were
designed for sequential permit plan reviews but do not reflect current simultaneous multi -agency
workflows. BD is actively revising these rules to align with modern, concurrent review
processes resulting in significant time savings and clearer expectations for applicants and
agencies. A key focus of the revision is to ensure compliance with the State of Hawaii Historic
Preservation Division's (SHPD) requirements under HRS 6e-42, which mandates SHPD review
and comment on potential effects to historic properties. BD is working with Corporation Counsel
to finalize these updates and is targeting December 2025 for completion and adoption.
Action Plan
Review and Update Administrative Rules to
Establish Maximum Timeframes for Review
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Action Item Item
Specifics
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Analyze and
document actual
Convene
permit review
Completedmapping
process
Ensures rules
Review and
processes,
process maps
reflect real,
By June
map current
including all
and workflow
team; gather
current practices
2025
workflows
agency
documentation
input from all
and. interagency
touchpoints and
participating
dependencies
SHPD
agencies
coordination
Update rules to
Collaborate
establish
with
Aligns rules with
Draft revised
maximum review
Draft of revised
Corporation
efficient, modern
By
Administrative
timeframes and
Administrative
Counsel and
review practices
September
Rules
procedures for
Rules
agency
and statutory
2025
concurrent,
completed
partners; draft
requirements
multi -agency
new language
reviews
Integrate HRS
Consult with
6e-42 compliance
SHPD
SHPD and
Ensures legal
Address SHPD
and procedures
coordination
By
and statutory
for SHPD review
procedures
legal counsel;
compliance and.
September
requirements
and comment
included in
incorporate
effective historic
2025
into the updated
draft
required
property review
rules
procedures
Page 19 of 39
County or lawui'i is an I?gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
1111Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Time -
Action Item
Specifics
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Share draft rules
Fold review
Solicit
with agencies,
Documented
sessions,
promotes
transparency,
By
stakeholder and
stakeholders, and
feedback and
collect
buy -in, and
October
public input
the public for
summary of
comments,
practical
2025
feedback and
revisions
revise draft as
implementation
improvement
needed
Complete legal
Submit for
review, finalize
Adoption of
approval;
Establishes
Finalize and
language, and
new
complete
enforceable, up-
By
adopt updated
formally adopt
Administrative
formal
to -date review
December
rules
new
Rules
adoption
timeframes and
2025
Administrative
procedures
Rules
process
Finding 3: Redundant Data Collection
Recommendation 15: Reduce Redundant Data Collection.
The BD agrees that reducing redundant data collection by automating data entry —such as auto -
populating fields will improve efficiency and reduce manual errors in the permitting process.
BD recognizes that collaboration with the Department of Information Technology's Geographic
Information System (GIS) Section is essential for this enhancement. With the addition of an
Information Systems Analyst TV (ISA IV), BD estimates this improvement can be achieved
within three years. Automating data population will streamline the application process, reduce
administrative burden, and improve the customer experience.
Action Plan
Reduce Redundant Data Collection
Action
Specifies
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable Steps
Relevance
to Objective
Time -
Bound
Deadline
Identify all
Assess
fields in the
Review current forms
Establishes
redundant
permit process
Comprehensive
and workflows;
baseline for
By
data
where data is
list of redundant
consult stalTand
automation
March
collection
repeatedly
data fields
applicants
efforts
2026
points
entered or
manually copied
Page 20 of 39
County or lawui'i is an I?gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
1121Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action
Specifies
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable Steps
Relevance
to Objective
Time
Bound
Deadline
Work with
Schedule
Collaborate
Department of
Draft
planning
Ensures
with GiS
IT's GIS Section
integration plan
meetings;
technical
and IT
to design auto-
and technical
define data
feasibility and
By ,tune 2026
population
sources and
effective data
teams
solutions for
requirements
integration
integration
identified fields
points
Request and hire
an Information
Prepare
Provides
Secure IT
Systems Analyst
ISA IV
justification,
submit hiring
necessary
By December
staffing
IV (ISA IV) to
position filled
request,
teclnical
20 26
support
and onboarded
complete
expertise for
automation
recruitment
project
development
Configure and
Automated
Develop, test,
Reduces
Develop
deploy auto-
data population
and roll out
manual entry,
and
implement
population
live in
automation;
errors, and
By June 2027
features in the
production
provide staff
achninistrative
automation
permit system
system
training
burden
Track reduction
in manual data
Quarterly
Collect usage
Ensures
First report by
Monitor and
entry and user
reports on
data, survey
continuous
September
evaluate
feedback on
efficiency
users adjust
improvement
2027; ongoing
impact
gains and error
automation as
and customer
process
rates
needed
satisfaction
quarterly
Improvements
Finding 4: Manual Processes Drives the Workflow
Recommendation 16: Eliminate Manual Processes.
The BD recognizes the importance of eliminating manual processes to improve efficiency and
reduce human error in the permit application process. Previously, residential permit descriptions
required manual rewriting by clerks. In June 2024, BD implemented an automated system that
now auto -populates permit descriptions from custom fields, significantly streamlining the
process and minimizing manual data entry. BD remains committed to further automating
workflows and eliminating any remaining manual steps to enhance operational efficiency and
customer experience.
Page 21 of 39
County or lawui,i is an I?gLWI Opporluni IN Provider and lanpI over
1131Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action Plan
Eliminate Manual Processes
Time -
Action Item
Specifics
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Auto -populate
Implement
residential
Eliminates
automated
permit
u
100 /o of new
Configure
manual
Completed
pennit
descriptions
residential pernits
system fields;
rewriting,
March
description
from custom
use auto -generated
test automation;
reduces errors,
2025
population
fields
descriptions
train staff
and saves time
(completed
March 2025)
Track error
rates and staff
Collect data
Ensures
First report
Monitor
feedback on
Quarterly report on
from permit
automation is
June 2025;
automation
new
error rates and
system; survey
functioning as
ongoing
effectiveness
automated
process issues
clerks and
intended
quarterly
applicants
process
Review all
Map
Identify and
permit
workflows;
Drives
automate
workflows to
List of remaining
prioritize
continuous
By
remaining
find other
manual tasks and
automation
improvement
December
manual
manual steps
automation plan
opportunities;
and greater
2025
processes
suitable for
develop
efficiency
automation
solutions
Assess
potential for
Research best
Keeps BD at
Evaluate and
further
Recommendations
practices;
the forefront
expand
automation,
for next -phase
consult IT and
of permit
By March
automation
such as AI-
automation
vendors; pilot
process
2026
capabilities
driven data
new features
innovation
entry and
validation
Finding 5: No Contact Validation and Categorization
Recommendation 17: Validate and Categorize Contract Information.
The BD acknowledges that validating and categorizing contract information would significantly
improve the accuracy and efficiency of the permitting process. Implementing this enhancement
Pagc 22 of 39
COLLWN' orl lntiai'i N an 1'gml Oprorlunik Provider and Ilinplmer
1141Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
requires integration with the State Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA)
Professional Vocational Licensing (PVL) system, which manages professions and vocations,
including contractors. Prior use of the integration proved problematic and left BD verifying
information manually.
With the addition of an Information Systems Analyst IV (ISA IV), BD estimates that this
enhancement can be completed within two years, provided there is sufficient collaboration and
technical support for seamless system integration.
Action Plan
Validate and Categorize Contract Information
Time -
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Action Item
Specifics
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Collaborate
with DCCA
PVLTyler
Support,
Maui County,
and IT teams
Coordinate with
DCCA PVL to
enable secure data
exchange and
system integration
11
Signed
agreement and
technical
integration
plan
Initiate
discussions;
define data
access
protocols;
agree on
technical
requirements
Ensures access
to authoritative,
real-time
licensing data
By June
2026
Request and hire
Prepare
an Information
justification;
Provides
Secure IT
Systems Analyst
ISA IV
submit hiring
technical
By
staffing
IV (ISA IV) to
position filled
request;
capacity for
December
support
and onboarded
complete
project
2026
integration and
recruitment
implementation
automation
Build and test
system interface to
Automated
Configure
Reduces errors
Develop and
validate and
validation and
integration; test
and manual
By April
implement
categorize
categorization
with sample
effort; improves
2027
integration
contract/license
live in system
data, train staff'permit
accuracy
and applicants
ainformation
utomatically
Track system
Quarterly
Collect data;
Ensures
First report
Monitor and
performance, error
reports on
analyze trends;
continuous
by July
evaluate
rates, and user
validation
adjust process
improvement
2027;
impact
feedback after
accuracy and
and system as
and customer
ongoing
implementation
efficiency
needed
satisfaction
quarterly
Pagc 23 of 39
COLLWN' or Intiai'i N an 1'gml OProrlunik Provider and Ilinplmer
1151Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Finding 6: Insufficient Claritv to Guide Data Collection
Recommendation 18: Refine "More Information" Screen.
The BD recognizes the importance of refining the "More Information" screen to improve the
accessibility, clarity, and consistency of permit data for both staff and applicants. BD is actively
revising custom fields within the "Type" and "More Info" screens to ensure that displayed
information is user-friendly, accurate, and consistent across all permit types. This initiative will
streamline data presentation and enhance the overall user experience.
Action Plan
Refine "More Information" Screen
Time -
Action Item
Specifics
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Evaluate existing
"Type" and
Comprehensive
Gather user
Establishes
Review and
"More Info"
assessment and
feedback; audit
baseline for
By June
assess current
screens and
list of required
current fields
targeted
2025
screens
identify fields
changes
and data
improvements
needing revision 11
presentation
11
Update custom
fields and
Revised field
Collaborate
Ensures
Revise custom
reorganize layout
structure and
with IT; design
information is
By
fields and
for clarity,
improved screen
and test new
accurate, clear,
September
layout
consistency, and
layout
field
and user-
2025
ease of use
configurations
friendly
Launch updated
Finalize
Implement
"More
New screens
in
changes;
Improves user
By
and deploy
Information" and
"Type"
live
production
deploy updates;
experience and
data
December
enhancements
screens in
system
notify and train
accessibility
2025
the permit system
users
Gather feedback
First
from users post-
DISLYIbUte
Supports
review by
Monitor and
implementation
User satisfaction
surveys; review
continuous
March
collect
and make further
surveys and
feedback; plan
improvement
2026;
feedback
feedback reports
additional
and best
refinements as
needed
adjustments
practices
ongoing
quarterly
Action Plan
Finding 7: Building Division Uses Outdated Forms
Pagc 24 of 39
Cuunty or lnt ai'i N an 1'gml Opporlunik Provider and Ilinplmer
1161Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Recommendation 19: Eliminate Legacy Forms.
The BD acknowledges the importance of eliminating legacy forms to streamline and modernize
the permit application process. BD is actively revising key forms, including the Ownership
Declaration, Project Declaration (contractor), and Transfer forms (owner, contractor, design
professional). While integrating these forms into the EnerGov system is a desirable and strategic
objective, it is a complex undertaking that requires new workflow development, historic data
preservation, and c-signature integration to ensure compliance and full functionality.
BD anticipates that frill implementation of this enhancement will take approximately five years.
During this period, BD will collaborate closely with IT teams and stakeholders to ensure a
seamless transition to an automated, integrated system that improves efficiency and user
experience.
Action Plan
Eliminate Legacy Forms
Time -
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Action Item
Specifics
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Update Ownership
Declaration,
Revised forms
Review and
Ensures forms
Revise and
Project
approved and
update forms;
are accurate,
By June
standardize
Declaration, and
available for
consult with
compliant, and
2025
key forms
Transfer forms for
use
legal and process
user-friendly
clarity and
experts
completeness
Design new
Develop
EnerGov
Collaborate with
digital
workflows for
Digital
IT; define
Supports
By
workflows
revised forms and
workflows
requirements;
automation and
December
and
plan for e-signature
mapped and
create workflow
seamless data
2026
integration
and data
documented
desiens
management
Implement pilot for Pilot 11e Tests feasibility
Pilot digital
at least one Iorm in launched • system; train and gathers By
forms and c- users; collect and EnerGov with c- fccdback� user feedback December
signature signature capability collected analyze pilot for full rollout 2027
results
Pagc 25 of 39
COLLWN' or lnt ai'i N an 1'gml Opportunity Provider and Ilinplmei
1171Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Measurable Relevance to
Specifics ",. _.,_ Achievable Steps r.r..
Automate and
integrate all
Complete system
Achieves full
Fully
revised forms into
100% of
configuration;
elimination of
integrate
EnerGov,
targeted forms
migrate data;
legacy forms and
By March
all forms in
preserving
available
finalize
manual
2028
EnerGov
historic data and
digitally
enabling e-
integration
processes
signature
Track user
Monitor
adoption, error
Quarterly
Collect usage
Ensures
First report
and
rates and
performance
data; survey
continuous
by .Tune
optimize
efficiency gains;
and
users; implement
improvement
2028;
new
refine workflows
satisfaction
improvements
and long-term
ongoing
processes
as needed
reports
sustainability
quarterly
Finding 8: Not Utilizing Digital Signature Feature.
Recommendation 20: Enable Digital Signatures.
Tyler Technologies' Enterprise Perniitting & Licensing (EPL or Energov) system does not
currently offer a built-in electronic signature feature for applicants within the permit application
process. While the system provides a robust platform for online permit submission, document
uploads, workflow automation, and centralized data management, it does not natively support
electronic signatures as part of the applicant workflow.
Applicants are able to upload signed documents, and digital signatures may be utilized in related
processes such as inspections or internal approvals but the core EPL permit application
workflow does not include integrated e-signature capabilities at this time. BD will continue to
monitor Tyler's product updates and explore integration options with third -party e-signature
solutions to address this functionality gap and further streamline the permitting process.
Pagc 26 of 39
COLLWN' or Intiai'i N an 1'gml OProrlunik Provider and Ilinplmer
1181Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action Plan
Enable Digital Signatures
Action Item Item
Specifics
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable
Steps
Relevance to
Objective
Bound
Deadline
Review EPL
documentation
Confirmation
Meet with Tyler
fies
Assess current
and consult with
of current
support; review
m
EPL e-signature
Tyler
system
product
bility and
Lnd
June 2025
capabilities
Technologies on
limitations
documentation
pliance
native c-signature
options
Research
Identifyand
compatible e-
Survey available
Enables
evaluate third-
signature
List of viable
products; consult
secure,
December
party e-
platforms and
integration
IT and legal for
compliant e-
2025
signature
solutions
compatibility
signature
integrations
integration
methods with EPL
and compliance
workflow
Configure
Moves toward
Initiate pilot
Test integration of
Successful
sandbox
seamless
integration of
chosen e-
pilot;
environment;
digital
March
selected e-
signature platform
applicant and
conduct pilot
permitting
2026
signature too]
with EPL
staff feedback
with select users
process
Revise internal
Develop training
Update policies
policies and
laaio relevant
materials;
Ensures
and train
provide training
staff trained;
conduct
adoption and
September
staff/applicants
on new e-
positive
feedback
sessions; update
compliance
2026
signature process
documentation
Collect feedback
and track
Improved
Implement
Monitor user
processing times
efficiency;
feedback forms;
Supports
Ongoing
experience and.
and error rates
reduced
review metrics
continuous
(quarterly)
effectiveness
post-
processing
quarterly
improvement
implementation
errors
Findinll 9: Improve Accountability and Transparency
Recommendation 21- Define Application Completeness by Ordinance.
The BD recognizes that the current Hawaii County Code outlines permitting requirements, but
lacks a clear, codified definition of "application completeness," which can cause confusion for
applicants and inconsistent review practices. BD agrees that establishing a comprehensive
Pagc 27 of 39
Cuunty orl lnt ai'i N an 1'gml Opportunity Provider and I implmer
1191Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
definition of application completeness through a formal Ordinance will provide greater
transparency, consistency, and efficiency in the pennitting process. Codifying these requirements
will also support best practices by making completeness standards accessible and enforceable for
both staff and the public.
Action Plan
Define Application Completeness by Ordinance
Time -
Action Item
Specifics
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Analyze local,
Research other
Review best
state, and national
Summary of
uris
Ensures new
practices
examples for
best practices
lt bens;t
consult bes
ordinance aligns
By
and existing
defining
and model
practice guides
with proven,
September
codes
application
ordinance
and legal
eflective
2025
completeness and
language
counsel
approaches
intake checklists
Develop clear,
Collaborate
comprehensive
Draft
with
Provides a
Draft
ordinance language
ordinance
stakeholders;
transparent,
By
ordinance
defining
completed and
draft and
enforceable
December
language
application
internally
circulate
standard for all
2025
completeness for
reviewed
ordinance
applicants
all permit types
language
Share draft
Hold review
Solicit
ordinance with
Documented
sessions; collect
Promotes buy -in,
stakeholder
staff, agencies, and
feedback and
written
clarity, and
By March
and public
the public for
summary of
comments;
practical
2026
input
feedback and
revisions
revise draft as
implementation
refinement
ineeded
Prepare
Submit finalized
legislative
Establishes legal
Introduce
ordinance to
Ordinance
materials;
standard for
By
and adopt
County Council for
adopted and
present to
application
September
ordinance
consideration and
published
Council;
completeness
2026
adoption
support
adoption
Create and publish
Draft, review,
Supports
Develop and
clear checklists for
Checklists
and publish
consistent,
By
publish
each permit type,
available
checklists; train
efficient, and fair
September
intake
based on the new
online and at
staff on new
application
2026
checklists
ordinance
permit counter
procedures
screening
Pagc 28 of 39
Cuunty orl lnt ai'i N an 1'gml OPporlunik Provider and hnplmer
1201Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Recommendation 22- Implement a Formal Complaint Handling Process.
The BD agrees with the recommendation to implement a formal complaint handling process. BD
recognizes that the high volume of permit complaints has made it challenging to respond
effectively and in a timely manner. Establishing a structured process will enable BD to better
track, categorize, and resolve complaints, ensuring consistent, transparent, and fair responses.
Action Plan
Implement a Formal Complaint Handling Process
Action Item
Specifics
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable
Steps
Relevance to
Objective
Time -
Bound
Deadline
Draft formal
Develop
policy outlining
Research best
Establishes a
complaint
steps for receiving,
Policy approved
practices; draft
consistent,
ByJuly
handling
categorizing,
and distributed
policy; review
transparent
2025
policy
tracking, and
to staff
with leadership
complaint
resolving
process
complaints
Identify system
Implement
Configure or
needs;
Enables timely
complaint
acquire a system
Complaint
configure or
and accurate
By
cocking
to log, track, and
tracking system
procure
tracking and
September
system
monitor
operational
solution; train
reporting
2025
complaints
staff
Develop
Ensures
Train staff on
Conduct training
for all relevant
100% of staff
training
process is
By October
new
staff on the formal
trained and
materials;
followed
2025
procedures
complaint process
knowledgeable
schedule and
consistently
deliver sessions
and effectively
Provide an
Design and
Launch
public
accessible online
Portal live and
implement
Improves
By
complaint
portal for
accessible to the
portal; test
access and
November
submission
submitting and
public
usability;
transparency
2025
portal
checking status of
announce
for customers
complaints
availability
Pagc 29 of 39
COLLWN' or Intiai'i N an 1'gml Opportunity Provider and Ilinplmer
1211Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action Item
Specifics
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Time -
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Track complaint
Quarterly
Supports
First report
Monitor,
resolution times,
reports on
Collect data;
continuous
by January
review, and
outcomes, and.
complaint
� analyze trends;
improvement
2026;
report on
customer
trends and
fin
dings ndings
and
ongoing
complaints
satisfaction;
resolution
with leadership
accountability
quarterly
report quarterly
Recommendation 23: Integrate Lean Six Sigma in Staff Development.
The BD recognizes the value of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) as a proven methodology, for improving
operational efficiency, reducing waste, and enhancing service quality in government. By
adopting LSS principles, BD aims to streamline workflows, standardize processes, and foster a
culture of continuous improvement. BD will begin by training supervisors in Lean Six Sigma
before December 2025, with plans to expand training to additional staff as the program matures.
This approach will help BD identify inefficiencies, implement data -driven solutions, and
improve service delivery for both staff and the public.
Action Plan
Integrate Lean Six Sigma in Staff Development
Time -
Action
Specifics
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Bound
Item
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Enroll all BD
Launch
supervisors in
100% of
Identify training
Builds internal
supervisor
Lean Six Sigma
supervisors
provider;
schedule
leadership and
capacity for
By
December
LSS
Yellow Belt (or
complete initial
sessions; track
process
2025
training
equivalent)
LSS training
completion
improvement
training
Offer Lean Six
Sigma training to
At least 25% of
Assess training
Embeds
Expand
additional staff
staff trained in
needs; enroll
continuous
By June
staff LSS
based on pilot
LSS by end of
staff; monitor
improvement
2026
training
results and
2026
participation
culture across the
operational needs
organization
Pagc 30 of 39
Cuunty or lnt ai'i N an 1'gml Opporlunik Provider and Ilinplmer
1221Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Measurable Achievable hbiec
elevance to Time -
Item Specifics Outcome Steps tive Bound
Implement
First report
system for
Collect data
Ensures
h y
Establish LSS
tracking LSS
Quarterly reports
from projects;
accountability
December
performance
project
on LSS project
analyze results;
and sustains
2026;
tracking
outcomes and
impacts
report to
improvement
process
management
momentum
ongoing
ongoi
quarterly
improvements
Share I,SS
Number of
Prepare
Builds buy -in
Communicate
successes and
communications
newsletters,
and reinforces a
Ongoing,
and celebrate
lessons learned
and staff
presentations,
culture of
starting
December
results
with all staff
engagement
and recognition
continuous
2026
and stakeholders
metrics
events
improvement
Finding 10: No Policies and Procedures
Recommendation 24: Establish Policies and Procedures.
The BD acknowledges the critical importance of establishing comprehensive policies and
procedures to ensure consistency, transparency, and efficiency in operations. While initial
steps such as collecting checklists and holding monthly inspection section meetings are
underway, BD recognizes that a formal, cohesive set of policies and procedures is essential for
improving service quality and operational effectiveness.
Due to limited internal resources, BD plans to procure a consultant to assist in developing these
policies and procedures. This initiative is a top priority, as clear and standardized procedures are
fundamental to delivering high -quality, consistent services.
Pagc 31 of 39
Cuunty or Intiai'i N an 1'gml Oprorlunik Provider and Ilinplmer
1231Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action Plan
Establish Policies and Procedures
Time -
Action Item
Specifics
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Gather all
current
checklists,
Comprehensive
Assign staff to
Establishes
Collect and
informal
inventory of
collect
baseline for
By
review existing
policies, and.
existing
documents;
formalization
December
materials
procedures for
resources
provide to
and
2025
evaluation and
consultant
standardisation
integration
Define
objectives,
deliverables,
Scope of work
Consult
Ensures project
Develop scope
and
document
stakeholders;
is focused and
By March
of work for
expectations for
completed and
draft and
aligned with
2026
consultant
approved
review scope
Bnt-lcd
D's priorities
policy a
p cy and
with leadership
procedure
development
Select and
Issue
contract with a
evaluate
Procure and
qualified
Consultant hired
proposals;
Brings expertise
onboard
consultant to
and project
complete
and capacity to
By June
consultant
lead the policy
initiated
address resource
2026
and procedure
and
limitations
limitations
development
onboarding
process 11
Develop formal,
Consultant
Draft
written policies
drafts
Ensures
comprehensive
and procedures
Draft policies
documents;
consistency,
By
policies and
covering all key
and. procedures
review with
transparency,
December
procedures
BD operations
completed
BD staff and
and operational
2026
and functions
leadership
efficiency
Share drafts
Hold review
Solicit feedback
with staff and
Final policies
sessions;
Promotes buy -in
and finalize
stakeholders for
and procedures
collect
and ensures
By March
documents
input; revise
approved
feedback;
practicality and
2027
and finalize as
incorporate
clarity
needed
revisions
Pagc 32 of 39
COLLWN' orl lnt ai'i N an 1'gml Opporlunik Provider and Ilinplmer
1241Management Response
Mr. Tvler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action Item
Specifies
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable
Steps
Relevance to
Objective
Time -
Bound
Deadline
Roll out new
Schedule
policies and
training
Ensures
Implement and
procedures to
100% of staff
sessions;
isstetivc and
nt
consistent
BJune
train staff
all staff and
trained; policies
distribute
application
-
2027
provide training
in daily use
materials;
across the
on application
monitor
division
and compliance
adoption
Findin$t 11. Limited Management Oversight
Recommendation 25: Increase [Inspection] Management Oversight.
'I he BD acknowledges the importance of enhanced supervisory oversight for inspection staff.
Equipping Supervising Inspectors with essential tools —such as vehicles, iPads, and cell
phones —will improve their ability to monitor, support, and guide field inspectors effectively.
While full implementation will require time and resource allocation, BD is prioritizing this
effort. In the interim, BD will immediately require regular ride-alongs to strengthen supervision
and accountability. These actions, combined with the ongoing development of formal policies
and procedures, will ensure consistent, high -quality inspections and effective team oversight.
Action Plan
Increase Inspection Management Oversight
Time -
Action Item
Specifics
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Provide
vehicles, iPads.
Percentage of
Assess needs;
Enables effective
Equip
and cell phones
Supervising
procure
field oversight
100%
Supervising
to all
p.,
Inspectors
equipment,
and
equipped b y
y
Inspectors
Supervising
equipped with
distribute to
communication
June 2025
inspectors
all tools
staff
Require
Supervising
Number of
Develop
Fosters real-time
Implement
Inspectors to
ride-alongs
schedule,
feedback, quality
Immediate,
regular ride-
conduct
per month;
document
control, and
ongoing
alongs
scheduled ride-
feedback
observations
accountability
monthly
alongs with
reports
and afeedback
staff inspectors
Page 33 ot'39
County or I Iawxi i is an I[qual Opportunity Provider and I?mplo%er
1251Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action ltem
Specifics
Measurable
Outcome
Achievable
Steps
Relevance to
Objective
Time -
Bound
Deadline
Create formal
Develop
guidelines for
Oversight
Draft policies;
Standardizes
oversight
inspection
policy
review with
expectations and
By
policies and
oversight,
approved and
leadership; train
ensures
December
procedures
reporting, and
distributed
staff
consistent
2025
performance
supervision
review
Track
Monitor and
inspection
quality, staff
Quarterly
Collect data;
Supports
First report
evaluate
performance,
oversight and
review reports;
continuous
by June
oversight
and feedback
performance
Implement
improvement and
2026;
effectiveness
from
reports
improvements
high -quality
ongoing
Supervising
as needed
inspections
quarterly
Inspectors
Finding 12: Lack of Training
Recommendation 26: Develop a Training Program,
The BD is committed to ensuring that all relevant staff receive comprehensive and ongoing
training on the latest Building, Electrical, and Plumbing model codes. BD routinely schedules
training sessions to keep staff informed of code changes and maintain high proficiency in code
application. For electrical work, BD follows the National Electric Code (NEC) and provides
targeted NEC training for staff involved in electrical pennitting and inspections. While BD does
not permit PV generating plants per Ordinance 25-22, all permitted. electrical work complies with
the NEC.
Pagc 34 of 39
COLLWN' or Intiai'i N an 1'gml Opportunity Provider and Ilinplmer
1261Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Action Plan
Develop an Inspection Training Program
Time -
Action
Specifies
Measurable
Achievable
Relevance to
Bound
Outcome
Steps
Objective
Deadline
Organize training
Schedule
sessions on
Number of
Identify code
changes;
Ensures staff
regular
Building,
trainings held;
schedule
remain current
Quarterly,
code update
Electrical, and
% staff trained
sessions; track
and proficient in
ongoing
trainings
Plumbing model
attendance
code application
code updates
Deliver targeted
Provide
National Electric
100°/, of
Develop
Maintains
NEC
Code (NEC)
electrical staff
curriculum;
compliance and
Annually,
training for
training for
complete NEC
enroll staff;
safety in
ongoing
electrical
electrical
training
monitor
electrical
staff
permitting staff 11
completion
1 11
permitting
Up-to-date
Track and
Maintain records
training logsand
Implement
Demonstrates
document
of all training
tracking system;
compliance and
Ongoing
g g
staff
sessions and staff
compliance
update logs after
supports
training
participation
each session
accountability
reports
Revise and update
Update
training resources
Updated
Review code
changes; update
Ensures training
Within 3
training
to reflect code
materials
manuals,
is accurate and
months of
materials as
changes and
available for
presentations,
up to date
code
needed
regulatory
all staff
and handouts
update
developments
Findinlz 13: Lack of Critical Enhancements
Recommendation 27: Opportunities for Criteria Enhancements.
The Building Division (BD) appreciates the auditor's inspection recommendation regarding
opportunities for criteria enhancements within the Inspection Module. BD is committed to
leveraging this guidance to further strengthen operational efficiency, data integrity, and
inspection quality. As part of our ongoing configuration of the Inspection Module, BD will
implement tiered access privileges to prevent inspectors from backdating inspection reports,
ensuring the accuracy and reliability of inspection data. Additionally, BD IT has developed zone -
based inspection tracking and is prioritizing the creation of reports summarizing deficiencies and
trends to support equitable workload assignment and continuous improvement.
Pagc 35 of 39
COLLWN' or lnt ai'i N an 1'gml Opportunity Provider and Ilinplmer
1271Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
To expedite these enhancements and ensure robust implementation, BD is seeking to add an
Information Systems Analyst IV (ISA IV) to the team. The full configuration of the Inspection
Module is expected to be completed within one year, with progress monitored through
measurable outcomes and regular reviews.
Action Plan
Opportunities for Criterial Inspection Enhancements
Action Item
Implement
tiered access
privileges
Specifics
Configure user
roles to restrict
report editing
and prevent
backdating
Measurable
Outcome
No
unauthorized
backdating
incidents; audit
log reviews
Achievable
Steps
Define access
levels, update
system
permissions, test
safeguards
Relevance to
Objective
Ensures data
integrity and
compliance;
Time -
Bound
Deadline
July 2025
Create
Design report
automated
Reports
templates,
Supports
Develop and
reports
generated and
automate data
continuous
deploy
summarizing
reviewed in
extraction,
improvement
January
deficiency and
deficiencies,
management
schedule regular
and
2026
trend reports
trends, and
corrective
meetings
report
transparency
dissemination
actions
Recruit and
Expedite
onboard an
position filled;
Postjob, conduct
Increases
module
Information
project
interviews,
capacity for
March
enhancements
Systems Analyst
milestones met
onboard
timely and
2026
by hiring ISA
IV to accelerate
ahead of
candidate, assign
effective
TV
configuration
schedule
to project
enhancements
Review and
Standardize
update
Updated
Audit current
Improves
inspection
inspection
templates in
criteria, consult
inspection
criteria and
checklists and
use; positive
stakeholders,
Quality and
June 2026
templates
criteria for
staff feedback
revise templates,
consistency
consistency and
train staff
clarity
Pagc 36 of 39
COLLWN' or lnt ai'i N an 1'gml Opportunity Provider and Ilinplmer
1281Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
County Auditor
RE: Management Response to Building Permit Audit
April 25, 2025
Specifics Measurable Achievable Relevance to
Outcome Steus Obiective
Provide
Deliver targeted
Devetop training
training on
training sessions
100/o o staff
trained; training
materials,
Ensures effective
new
for staff on
assessments
schedule
adoption and
Junc 2026
criteria and
updated module
80 /o
sessions, conduct
sustained
system
features and
above pass
rate
assessments,
improvement
tools
Icriteria
gather feedback
Schedule review
Maintains
Monitor
Establish regular
i;
Quarterly
, meetingscollect
accountability
and review
progress reviews
progress reports;
feedback, adjust
and supports
Ongoing
progress
and feedback
documented
action plan as
ongoing
(quarterly)
mechanisms
improvements
needed
adaptation
Pagc 37 of 39
COLLWN' or Intiai'i N an 1'gml Oprorlunik Provider and Ilinplmer
1291Management Response
Mr. Tyler Benner
CounS- Auditor
RE: Management Rimpcme to Building Pem:LitAudit
April 25, 2025
Conclusion
in uninlai-,-. 3D Ic -_-"-nt4v_Lic-us a
.---tir --zati- ar-d n -,:1, - , =_ - -
BD -.r= aQ.,c-*.:,.*.: f.-r a'.[ t.-
ej1LZ:5._-c Jic..- tc. tie Pefr.1._..L:1LT s._,ter.a it IT
BD -eflne
c1car ar.cl
3 D r -:' t c tie --i J -_ t c: j - cl 1 -1. j I i c r - -_ _—, I - a c .-j: I tf --- i r - it 1 -,- e -: r- it c I ef 1, ---1 c.,. - e e i B : : : L it c i: : i
at --- ff r. 2 z_- 1-.. - J en) _ate, :--j a: -a h c. n a f c -a I ,: -a ff I e I r :r i b -.1 t e
r i an: d e I a,: _.- i r tie 1 1; ar c e. — h i L a'l e r- -.3 e,, --- c c -a:,- 1 1 1 al 2 a - r-
--id a-r t:itcifa--,_e -r- _'�, '4 tie i:cJe--.,.-
.;kh -.,'aced a-_-:diacnai strain on siaff and tithe
100
90
9 BO
70
:3 DO
60
u
C 50
0
E
30
20
10
vs�
Residential New Perti,
2024
1600
1400
E
12100
Boo E a 1:
E
OQ LU
0
Vol
TotaL Rours —irw ance Durai ton
.f aBD ha, ±zt ,- i f.1t lea v.
I -f -, ent pe,:r i-- pn- L, -��ir =:. hic-ea�,ir =-
a it I enc .3 1 are r c- L, ezzai7--, I.- n1a-_:ita-_ji c -_ ic -i C
er.s-_u-e tinie'l: -edu-ce -aid _M-=i**Y.,e
ar-d T`i_
P.- actic e L:11:i -'r e.-Ill I -Air. z;1in6uffiac1.- 15 a -%ve' I-L-c u-:nen-c
'a j i e - j r- i: -_-� e' a .3 1: t i I
Page 38 of 39
3minmofHa,nm'iismEquzdOppmtumr%-PruL3dff mdEmpkrpT
1301 Management Respons.
1.11 Tyl,cr Brower
wntyAtidiitor
Management Response to Building Permit Audit
pril 25, 2025
I I I C MSOL I I " I ud I I v-I dd k I -_d U .-I I :I I Id ;I! I 1 1"
1'I I 'I' I :I', I III It 'Iti ''k r
1:11 .1 1fr, BE) Nit"I! k' k... 11*1 111 I.L"' "%k-I �.JOJ.l illij 1.11,11 minimize
111141'1, 'IELL[deliver a inoru It L:.".PUL[CiLL;t,
111$ 1 1 1.. 1' 1 C 111.111k (' h;i. ltw:-iing staff deXOupinent, and O'11:11'(11,01M
1, 1. 111 ' Ili I'- It! A 1. 1110 111k., Io�,•:iU (owilikit, II.-
lov,,ard 111-1 1 lig 11112 t,LIHJAI CIS Ol SO-VA-Ut; Mid SkLkLy 10 OU A:'(I[TIIT1LI11I(Y.
Sincerely,
Neil A. Azovedo
Acting Director
Department of Pubtic Works
Page 39 ol'39
Cuunly offtawai'i is an Equal Opponuniry Prmkdef and Employer
1311 Management Response
Attachments
Report Regarding Operations within the Building Code Division of the Hawaii County Public
Works Department. An excerpt from Communication 36.1 (2022-24)21:
Nlcehell t1. Rohl
ax
t.al E. lard
,Ilan vg 6Nr,
,y-'
DEFAR] Irma O 1't i�IJC V,
141 peruhi Sc,r��i � i i
MEMORANDUM
Date: 12 December 2022
To: County Council
Cost of Government Commission
Other Stakeholders
From: Stephen Pause, PE, Dlrl-clor(
Subject: Transmittal of"Ra:,nr' Rcgardino -):%Pr_aoonswithin the Sullding Code
Division of the Fow2ii .^.a;anty Pu:l u'Y'Vt:rks Dept:rtr-ent"
,>71,a repo.. ffizct c,s"r1S F!$ the flndinqr..',
I i:.: r7:� vision of D' partlTent P.:hlir I�rIn-' y F.,:n'Y-�s'. t: r,r131 'd: ,:as rCl ainz rl L:',' Iti-
^• { il!>:`dr ', In A,alacf 20fs 'I! 4; :'slll3 t(: ;IIC r7� '{Ir.a:',:S. Ip..rl ':1 r'sjr� ite ,.;I t1 - o D. 7151e,:
in wa,, . of L.I ..Ildri
g
`rtr
n .art anc ,, cJ'-n A li, ' j rl
I- code. enrl
rrca Official, plans examiner, buildiJg I,spec,::, , arpd fire marshal in'the Par Fr.
The repor, p cvidQs e number of rpCCiilirnerd i ion8 v ilh scirr[: =im°lar!a what our
Bwlcir4 Ci5r y t,r7 al r:7r.y X� , , n•., ail n..rl ;r�'e ; tl7ar ar; r Ic;-e n, a17:ved and rewire a
longer -term or more s:Lrratcq,lr j n;slerren,aticr. A summary .s f iov,Jed below.
aE_ :y_re6s 'a', F31i'icri�n
�71NNER RECCitdENf}A7113N STATUS
---
Look Into ', r parry plan rrevh�%v servlur�s I Met wlth HCSEA to a scuss union iggUf`s; rYritidl
Foodback is :ve _
E'rr'Ina'a Ina I oud f.-• applicant to coma back I A plic�nts are now able to pint their permit
tc Pe ,I t I Dbtairl per rnii, placard I after issuance
Fin- natL u,ns LI,t :+ea,n Reuu Evaluatirq effect of eliminating "sessioW in
I Slu=_ ream Rewu
CC-4 a lliwi-y is an [qul OppolmxW Pro rider wd - m:!1..,.!-
25 Lee Loy, Susan L.K. Supporting material for Communication 36. Communication 36.1 (2022-24).
https://records.hawaiicounty,goy/WebLink/0/doc/l049842/Pagel.asox Accessed: 4/7/2025.
1321Attachmen ts
Future Attention
TINNER RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
Implement a technology fee to pay for
County does not presently charge a fee
enhancements to Energov
Investigate increasing plan review fees to
County presently charges 20% permit fee
industry standard (65% of permit fee)
upfront
Conduct Lean Process Improvement training
Reviewing County permitting process in a
https://www.lean.org/
structured manner could drive out inefficiency
The lean process is a method for creating a
and eliminate non -value-added steps
more effective business by eliminating
wasteful practices and improving efficiency.
Provide Public Duty Doctrine training for staff
Noted
Investigate allowing building plans reviewers
Will consider after assessing Plans Examiner
performing structural review for simple
workload once all vacancies are filled (only
projects
4/7 positions are presently filled); currently,
Structural Engineer's reviews reduces the
workload on Plans Examiners who are
primarily focused on life -safety compliance
Investigate allowing building inspectors to
Requires consultation with HGEA regarding
perform combination inspections
work jurisdiction; Inspector positions currently
require Supervisory Electrician Licenses for
Electrical Inspectors and Journeyman or
Master Plumber Licenses for Plumbing
Inspectors
Define by Ordinance what constitutes a
Will evaluate need for an Ordinance after the
complete permit application
effectiveness of the REVISED Application
Checklist is implemented.
Provide support to allow Building Chief and
Noted
Deputy to participate in the ICC Committee
Action Hearings and Annual Business
Meetings
Provide additional GIS integration within
Noted as a future enhancement that can be
EPIC to automatically let applicant know if
used to determine when Engineering Review
subject property has restrictions such as flood
will be required for Building Permits
plain or geological hazards
The Building Division is working on a number of approaches to improve permitting.
These are summarized below.
ACTION
DESCRIPTION
Communication
Improve public outreach with
stakeholders; hold "talk story" sessions
with design professionals, drafters,
contractors, others; share review
checklists: improve permit issue metric
and include average duration for
permits to be issued
County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
133 1 A t t a c h m e n t s
Re -design EPIC Website
Organize and make website user-friendly,
including a complete list of forms that are
needed in the permitting process; include
links to related agencies.
Dedicated IT Support for Energov (staff)
Improve staff efficiency by having a dedicated
IT specialist available to help troubleshoot
customized automation unique to the Building
Division
ICC Training and Certification for Inspectors
Create classification of work for ICC
and Plan Examiners
Certification that recognizes training and level
of skill of Inspectors and Plans Examiners
Staff Vacancies
Develop strategy for hiring and retaining staff;
5-step Plans Examiners for on-the-job
training (done); Certification Classification for
Inspectors (ongoing).
Reassess Duties for Permit Clerks
Assessed Permit Clerk duties; revising
processes for permit application, resubmittal
and revisions to ensure that documents are
complete and correctly formatted to enable
Permit Clerk to maximize their productivity
Staff Meetings
Weekly "Brainstorming" Meetings to identify
areas for improvement; action items identified
in table and progress tracked.
e-Filing
Organize documentation in shared drive
readily accessible to the Building Division;
this creates consistency through available
information resources and uniform
procedures
Utilize filters to identify permits that should be
Deployed Priority Tiles to identify projects
prioritized
that can be expedited based on the scope of
work that is essential to community life and
safety; provides for educational needs; and is
limited and simple for quick review; Priority
Tiles used at permit intake, plan review, and
permit out -processing
Revise Permit Application Checklist
Provide more clarity on permit application
requirements with weblinks to the appropriate
agencies and forms; require the Design
Professional to be listed as a Permit Contact;
require Design Professional to review and
certify the Application Checklist
Develop EPIC "Decision Engine" version of
User-friendly version of the checklist
the Application Checklist
Create "Self -Certify" Permit Application
Applicants will have the option bypass the
conventional Permit Intake to reduce
processing time; if Permit Clerks confirm the
permit is complete, then plans will go
immediately to Plan Review; if applications
are found to be incomplete, then they will be
County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
1341Attachments
rejected (cancelled); there is no fee
assessment if the application is rejected; the
conventional review by Permit Clerks will still
be available where the permit application is
"active" while awaiting corrections; once
corrections are submitted then applications
will await re -review in the queue before
progressing
Reject Incomplete Permit Applications
Prohibit applications submitted as "place
holders" that then requires Permit Clerks to
contact them for missing information
Update Residential Plans Designer Checklist
Update for 2018 International Residential Code
Already Posted on the Website
(I RC) that applicants can use to create a
complete set of plans
Finalize and Post Non-
Finalize checklist for current Codes that
Residential/Commercial Designer Checklist on
applicants can use to create a complete set of
the Website
plans
Plan Resubmittals and Revisions Format
Require Corrections Letter for Plan
Resubmittals; require Design Professional
Narrative for Plan Revisions; require all
changes be annotated with the "Cloud and
Delta" drafting method to highlight the extent
of changes; utilize Bluebeam "compare"
feature.
Three -strike Rule
Plan reviewer can mark up to three
corrections and then approve, "as noted"; if
more than three corrections needed,
resubmittal will be required
Encourage Communication between Design
Authorize Plans Examiners to have
Professional and Plans Reviewer during
discussions with Design Professionals when
Review
design intent is not clear; annotate plans to
document revision: "...per telecon with XX on
date" instead of requiring resubmittals.
Consider No Plan Review - "Plans Subject to
For Residential PV less than 10kW; Electric
Field Inspection"
ONLY less than 200A; Plumbing ONLY less
than 4-bathrooms.
County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
135 1 A t t a c h m e n t s
Director Lee Lord
Office of the Mayor
Hawai'i County, HI
Report regarding operations within the Building Code Division of the Hawai'i County Public
Works Department
Project scope: To identify inefficiencies within the building division of the Public Works Department that
may lead to delayed intake, processing, and issuance of building and/ or associated construction
permits.
Project limitation: operations within the fire code division, public works permitting division, planning
department and health department are outside of the scope of this report.
Methodology: Online research of permitting and legal information relative to building and associated
permits as well as face to face interviews with building division permitting staff and a limited number of
permit applicants. Interviews with staff were held between October 3, 2022-October 7, 2022. Staff
interviews were representatives of permit clerks (permit technicians), inspectors, plans examiners and
division managers. Below are general interview questions and generalized responses of each group that
was interviewed.
Permit Clerks:
Q. How do you receive most of you permit applications?
A. Most are received electronically through the EPIC permit system.
Q. I understand that you use Tyler Energov as your permit records system. What does EPIC do that
Energov does not do?
A. The permit clerks could not provide a clear answer to the question however it became clear to me
that EPIC provide enhanced initial permit application ability for the applicants.
Q. Does EPIC require specific information such as building occupancy, construction type, height, etc. to
be input by permit applicant before the application process can continue?
A. No
Q. Does EPIC provide automated geographic information such as whether a property is in a flood hazard
zone to the permit applicant?
A. No
Q. It appears the owner declaration form and contractor declaration forms must be submitted as
separate documents and are not part of the EPIC or Energov systems. Is that correct?
A. Yes, they are separate documents that must be provided by the permit applicant.
Q. Do you issue very many rooftop solar voltaic building permits and if so, can you tell me how many?
A. Yes, we issue a lot of them, but I can't tell you how many.
Do you require building permits for all rooftop solar installations?
A. Yes
Q. Are simple projects prioritized?
A. To some degree yes but there is no formal procedure for doing so.
Q. May I obtain a copy of your policy and procedure manuals?
A. We don't have policy or procedure manuals.
1361Attachments
Q. I understand that Hawai'i state law requires that the county verifies the licenses of each contractor
with each permit application. I also understand that the State will provide a list of licensed contractors
for use in required contractor verification. Does the County utilize that list or do you perform an online
search for contractor information with each permit application.
A. The information is within EPIC but it is not automatically validated. Permit Clerks validate the
information prior to permit issuance.
Q. When staff meetings take place is a written meeting agenda distributed to staff?
A. No
Q. Your online checklist shows that once all reviews are approved, the applicant must come to the
building division do have a permit placard printed to be posted on the jobsite. What is the purpose of
the placard?
A. So that the inspector driving by knows there is a permit for the work being done.
Plans examiners:
Q. Do you use Bluebeam Revu to conduct your reviews?
A. Yes
Q. Is Revu integrated with Energov?
A. I don't think so.
Q. How do you know when a new project is ready for review?
A. (A little ambiguous). We are notified by the permit clerks.
Q. Do you prioritize simple projects to get them "out the door" more quickly?
A. Somewhat, yes.
Q. When minor corrections are needed on the plans do you redline them and approve the plans?
A. Sometimes.
Q. When corrective items are noted on plans do you attempt to contact the designer by phone and/ or
email or do you always input the corrections into Energov without additional contact attempt methods?
A. Corrections are entered into Energov. We typically do not use additional contact methods.
Q. When are plans sent to the structural engineer for review?
A. When the other plans examiners determine structural review is needed.
Q. Are you familiar with the Public Duty Doctrine?
A. No.
Q. When workloads are overwhelming, do you utilize third party plan review?
A. We've done so on a vey short term basis in the past.
Q. Do you require the industry standard delta and revision cloud when changes are made on plans?
A. No
Q. Do you use the "compare" feature in Bluebeam Revu to identify what changes are made to different
iterations of plans?
A. No
Q. Does your division use the "Sessions" feature of Bluebeam Revu?
A. Yes
Q. Do you have an ordinance or policy that defines what a "complete" set of plans is?
A. No
Q. Do you require an engineer or architect to analyze the impact of rooftop solar systems on the
1371Attachments
building's roof structure?
A. Yes
Inspectors:
Q. Do you require licensed plumbers to perform plumbing inspections?
A. We have dedicated inspectors that perform plumbing inspections.
Q. Does state law require that plumbing inspectors be licensed plumbers?
A. Unsure
Q. Must final plumbing inspections be completed prior to calling for the building final inspection?
A. Yes
Q. Can the general contractor request plumbing inspections?
A. No. Only the plumbing contractor can request plumbing inspections.
Q. When electrical inspections are requested is the general contractor allowed to request the
inspection?
A. No. Only the electrical contractor is allowed to request electrical inspections.
Q. Is there a state requirement that electrical inspectors be licensed electricians?
A. We believe that the answer is "yes"
Q. Do you allow building inspectors to perform inspections for minor plumbing and/ or electrical
installations?
A. No
Q. When a rooftop solar installation is inspected, does the building inspector go on the roof to check the
structural connections?
A. No
Q. When the rooftop solar installation electrical inspection is called for, does the electrical inspector
look at the structural connections on the roof?
A. No
Q. Do you allow any level of self -certification for minor maintenance permits such as water heater
change -outs?
A. No
Conclusions:
Permit processing systems are extremely complex. Without written documentation such as
policy/procedure manuals it becomes extremely difficult to keep complex systems organized and
predictable for permit staff and permit applicants. The result is inefficiencies, personal preferences, and
some level of chaos creeping into the system. These items lead to non -predictability for permit
applicants which in turn leads to unnecessary complaints to upper management and elected officials.
The lack of written meeting agendas leads to ineffective use of staff time during staff meetings. If there
is no agenda, there should be no meeting.
As you know, there are a significant number of open plan review positions. This is not unique to Hawaii
County but rather is an industry -wide concern. It's somewhat worsened by the low rate of pay being
offered by Hawaii County. Third -party plan review is a possible solution and seems to be the trend in the
industry.
1381Attachments
The current plan review fees being charged might make it difficult to retain the services of third -party
review. Current building plan review fee is 20% of the building permit fee. Industry standard and the fee
called out in in the generic International Building Code (IBC) is 65% of the building permit fee. As you are
aware, raising fees brings political implications.
Compartmentalization of duties among inspection staff also leads to inefficiencies as does assignment of
virtually all structural plan review being performed by licensed engineering staff in the plan review
section. Using licensed engineers to perform structural review projects scoped up to conventionally built
single-family houses is extremely unusual in the industry. Finding a third -party plan review firm that
would utilize this practice would hover somewhere where the needle is close to "Impossible". There also
appears to be an extreme over reliance on internal engineering staff even though the project has been
designed by licensed design professions such as architects or engineers. The talents and expertise of
internal licensed staff is best reserved for extremely complex structures. This over reliance appears to
(at least in part) stem from extreme risk intolerance. Such intolerance can be partially muted with
training in the tenants of the Public Duty Doctrine.
Rooftop photovoltaic systems are typically extremely light weight (typically less than 4 PSF) Research
and experience in major southwest mainland jurisdictions has demonstrated that there is little benefit in
requiring the time and expense of requiring licensed design professionals to design these systems.
Washington State as example, specifically exempts systems meeting established criteria from requiring a
licensed design professional. It's estimated that well over 95% of rooftop systems fall within the
limitations established by Washington State. Several jurisdictions have decided that building permits for
these systems provide no benefit other than collection of permit fees so no longer require building
permits but rather simply issue an electrical permit and ask the electrical inspector to verify required fire
fighter access paths from the ground when they perform the electric inspection.
There are several other areas where staff can be better utilized such as allowing the building inspector
to perform plumbing inspections at the same time as the framing inspection for simple structures such
as single-family homes.
While there may be some benefit in not allowing the general contractor to call for plumbing or electrical
inspections, the benefit is extremely minor but is quite an inconvenience to the permit holder. It is also a
procedure I've not seen in my 34-year career.
There are some additional efficiencies that can be made but would require minor changes to the County
Code.
Staff members I interviewed were all unaware of what a Lean Process Improvement program is. Lean
process improvement program involves a Lean Consultant leading meetings, usually over several days
where staff identifies every touch, movement, contact, flow, etc. of the permit application intake
through issuance process and documents each (usually by writing each on a sticky note and attaching
them to a wall). Each item is then questioned as to the necessity of why the item is being performed. If
the item cannot be validated as either necessary or legally mandated, the item is deemed unnecessary
and eliminated. The process typically results in a 15%-40% reduction in workload.
It is obvious that a great deal of time and money has been used to implement the Energov and EPIC
systems. My limited observation of EPIC indicates to me that the implementation was intended to make
1391Attachments
applying for a permit as painless for the applicant as possible and to a great extent looks to have been
successful. This is particularly true given the challenges that Energov is well known for. While there are
no perfect permit systems in existence, Tyler's Energov is well known in the building permit industry as
being particularly problematic. With adequate revenues, the problems eventually always come to a
resolution.
I've worked with several jurisdictions that have implemented Energov and one commonality seems to
be that the sales team makes promises that the technical installation team can't keep or at least can't
keep while staying within the contract budget. Typically, this results in added and unanticipated
expenditures after the system goes live. Additionally, there are always things that permit and IT staff
find they wished they had done differently. In conversation with building division staff there appears to
be some of the same angst in this regard as I've heard from several other jurisdictions.
There is always some level of ongoing customization with any permit system therefore there is always a
need for a revenue stream (in addition to annual maintenance charges) to pay for such customization.
It appears EPIC was designed to make permit application as easy as possible for applicants without
predefined "you can't go to step B until you complete step A" types of requirements. While on the
surface this methodology seems like great customer service, it's counterproductive by putting additional
work on the permit clerks so actually results in a delay in permit processing. A better methodology is to
utilize drop down pick lists and require applicants to choose the appropriate information from each pick
list before they can move on to the next item. Doing so will reduce the workload of the permit clerks
and keep the "chess clock" on the applicant's side until the application is completed. If that change is
decided to be implemented, it with create a need for significant additional revue for the vendor.
Another item noted is that there does not appear to be a user-friendly method for applicants to access
GIS data via EPIC or Energov. I've heard this compliant from several developers.
The building chief (building official is the position title used in the International Building Code (IBC)) from
what I've learned has had no participation in national code development. The same holds true for the
assistant building chief. Each year, code change proposals are sent to the appropriate International Code
Council (ICC) committee for consideration. The committees meet in the spring where testimony both
pro and con are put under consideration and at the end of about a one -week session, the committees
will send their recommendations forward for ICC staff to compile.
In the fall of each year, ICC holds their annual business meeting (ABM) where the full membership will
listen to testimony both pro and con and then vote whether to accept the committee's
recommendations. The ABM's are rotated around major mainland cities each year. These 11-day
meetings not only give the building chief knowledge of what code changes will be in the next code cycle
but also provides the building chief the knowledge of the reason behind each change. That knowledge
gives them the ability to properly interpret the code changes as well as the ability to bring that
knowledge back to the jurisdiction and pass it along to building division staff.
While travel around the nation is expensive, it's typically far less expensive than sending multiple staff to
mainland training events. The current building chief has never been to one of these events.
Recommendations:
1401Attachments
• Implement a technology fee to pay for enhancements to Energov. These fees are not unusual
(typically around $25.00 per permit).
• Investigate increasing plan review fees to industry standard (65% of the permit fee).
• Conduct Lean Process Improvement training for all building division staff
(https://www.lean.org/https://www.lean.org/). This will necessitate hiring a consultant
proficient in the Lean process.
• Provide Public Duty Doctrine training for all building division staff. This can usually be facilitated
by the jurisdiction's legal staff.
• Investigate allowing building plan reviewers performing structural review for simple projects.
• Investigate allowing building inspectors to perform combination inspections.
• Look into third -party plan review services.
• Define by ordinance what constitutes a complete permit application.
• Assuming that data connectivity is generally available across the jurisdiction, eliminate the need
for the permit applicant to come back to the permit center to obtain a permit placard. Instead,
provide access to be able to print and post the permit and an inspector to access permit
information remotely when they feel necessary.
• Provide budgetary support to allow the building chief and assistant building chief to participate
in the ICC Committee Action Hearings (spring meeting) and the ICC Annual Business Meetings
(fall).
• Eliminate the use of "Sessions" in the Bluebeam Revu process. The same result can be achieved
provided both Hilo and Kona are on the same Local Area network (LAN) without the inordinate
amount of work setting up a "session" each review creates. Most jurisdictions where all review
staff are on the same LAN have stopped using sessions.
• Provide additional GIS integration within EPIC to automatically let the permit applicant know if
the subject property has restrictions such as flood plain or geologic hazards.
1411Attachments
County Auditor
County of Hawaii
Office of the County Auditor
120 Pauahi St., 309
Hilo, HI 96720
808.961.8386
www.hawaiicounty.aov
The Office of the County Auditor is tasked with promoting accountability, fiscal integrity, and openness in local
government. Our work is intended to assist County government in its management of public resources, delivery of
public services, and stewardship of public trust. Copies of this audit report can be obtained by contacting the Office
of the County Auditor or visiting our website: https://www.hawaiicountygov/our-county/legislative/office-of-the