HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN CRCOC 2025/05/20 (2024-2026) DRAFT Committee on Communications,
Reports, and Council Oversight
7th Session
Hawaii County Building
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii
May 20, 2025
CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Communications, Reports, and
ORDER: Council Oversight was called to order at 1:M p.m., in the Council Chambers,
Hilo, by Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Chair,
ROLL CALL:
Present: Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Chair
Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Vice Chair (videoconference from Kona; came in later)
Mr. James E. Hustace, Member
Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba,Member
Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Member
Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder,Member
Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member hgh
Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member(came iit"laler)'
Mr. Dennis"Fresh" Onishi, Member
STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items.
PUBLIC ON
AGENDA ITEMS: (There were none.)
COMMUNI- The Acting Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business,
CATIONS; Communications.
Comm. 178.2: REQUESTS AN UPDATE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR CONTROL
REGARDING CURRENT STATUS OF THE CREATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF A DEPARTMENT-SPECIFIC TRAVEL POLICY
From Council Member Holeka Goro Inaba, dated April 1, 2025.
; and
Comm. 178.3: From Liquor Control Director Gerald Takase, dated May 8, 2025, transmitting a
progress report to Audit Report 2025-01.
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
Motion to Close File: Mr. Inaba moved to close file on Comm. 178.2. Seconded
by Ms. Kierkiewicz.
CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: Thank you. We did have the auditor come forward a couple
months back and I requested that the Department of Liquor Control come back to
update us on their travel policies specific to their department. So calling on the
Liquor Department at this time to provide us an update as to where we are with
the recommendations specific to the travel policy.
(Note: At this time, Liquor Control Administrative Officer Brandon
Gonzalez came forward to address the members of the Committee.)
MR. GONZALEZ: Good afternoon, Chair Inaba and Council Members. Brandon
Gonzalez, Administrative Officer b6partment of Liquor Control County of
Hawaii. The audit provided three recommendations to the department and the
department has implemented all three recommendations.
As to Recommendation 4,Establish a Department Level Travel Policy. With the
help of the auditor, who provided us a template, we prepared a travel policy that
will go into effect July 1, 2025.
As to Recommendation 2, Prioritize Travel on a need base and role specific
framework; we have included those factors within our written departmental travel
policy.
And as to the third,recommendation about providing Sunshine Law and Ethics
training to all members. The department coordinated with the Office of the
Corporation Counsel and the Office of the Auditor in 2024. We reimplemented
the training for Sunshine Law and Ethics at the fourth quarter of 2024. And
whenever we have a new board member or commissioner join us, we coordinate
with the Office of the Corporation Counsel to get that training to them regardless
of whether they may have received it if they served on another board or
commission in the County. Thank you.
MR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. So with the attachment in
Communication 178.3, it says it was reviewed on May 1st, and it was going to go
into effect July 1st. Is that voted on by the commission or is that part of the rules
of the department; how does it actually take effect?
MR. GONZALEZ: Yeah. So we had a public meeting on May 1st at the
commission meeting they had no objections to the policy.
MR. INABA: Okay. So they didn't take a vote to make it a policy?
Page 2
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MR. GONZALEZ: They took a vote to file it, I guess, on their side. I can't
remember procedurally what they did. But they were fine with the policy that
was circulated to them.
MR. INABA: And where will this policy live; is it in your department rules?
MR. GONZALEZ: It's going to be within our department.
MR. INABA: Yeah. So my wondering here is that at anytime you folks can go
in and amend this policy, how does it have an effect'of a rule of the department to
make sure that you folks are in fact following'it and`that the commission has
oversight of what is being proposed, and I guess what they,'re not opposed to?
MR. GONZALEZ: Well, I suppose the commission could ask for a status on how
we've been complying with the policy. It could come up during,the annual
review of the department that we have every year with the commission usually in
December of the year when they do a review of the department. So there's a
couple of ways where it can come up. As for where it will actually sit, really the
fiscal brains of our department is our Services Assistant that does our fiscal and
our HR (Human Resources) stuff. So that's where a physical copy will be if that
was your question.
MR. INABA: Okay. Thank you. Can call on the County Auditor? Reference
was made to you with regards to the creation,of providing with some assistance
with this policy., Any comment?
(Note: At this time, County auditor Tyler Benner came forward to
address the members of the Committee.)
MR. BENNER: Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. Tyler Benner,
Office of the County Auditor. At this time, we appreciate that the department has
tailored a template that we provided them to their needs. Maybe a point of
clarification to the last question you've asked, when the Board of Ethics issued
their opinion as to whether or not there was a structural conflict, part of that
recommendation included if there was changes to the department level travel
policy that they reapproach the board and the commission. And so you'd see in
the attachment that was provided to you, that there is signatures for those
individuals and those should be updated if the policy should be changed.
MR. INABA: Thank you. So for clarification you're saying that this policy was
supposed to go or should be going back to the Board of Ethics?
MR. BENNER: When the Board of Ethics ruled their opinion on it they said that
you should take this in front of the commission and the board, they should sign
Page 3
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
off on it and if there's any changes being made to it that they should again take it
before those bodies and get a new signature.
MR. INABA: Okay. So, Mr. Gonzalez, did the members of the commission and
the board officially sign off on this policy?
MR. GONZALEZ: So the commission has. The board,does not meet monthly, so
they have not been able to meet yet. But when it comes to the rulemaking for the
department level stuff, I understand where the auditor is coming from with the
Board of Ethics recommendation. The commission,actually approves and adopts
our commission rules and our departmental rules, and they have oversight over
the director. So actually one of the feedback from the department's attorney was
that the Adjudication Board didn't hav to sign off for the travel policy for it to go
into effect. So I don't want it holding up us adopting it too that's why because the
Adjudication Board only meets when we have violation cases.
MR. INABA: Okay. So I guess what we would like to see, hopefully after this.
You're saying they've already discussed'ths so is there a signed version because
right now the document in front of us is essentially the template with no effective
date listed here. So do you folks have the signed copy already?
MR. GONZALEZ: Not yet. But ilea we do we can share that with you folks.
MR. INABA: Okay. We'll wait for that then: Thank you so much for your folks
quick action eori getting this policy done. And thank you to the auditor for your
support. Chair,I yield.
CHR. ALIMBA: Anyone else? Seeing no other lights for discussion, all in
favor of closing file on"Communication 178.2, please say "aye."
Vote on Comm. 178.2: The motion to close file on Comm. 178.2 was carried by
Filed the following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Hustace, Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Onishi,
Villegas, and Chair Galimba—8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Kimball — 1.
Excused: None.
CHR. GALIMBA: Next item please.
Page 4
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
Comm. 270: WAIWAI NONPROFIT GRANTS COMPLIANCE REVIEW FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024
From County Auditor Tyler J. Benner, dated March 31, 2025, transmitting the
above report pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 25, of the Hawai`i County Code.
Motion to Close File: Mr. Inaba moved to close file on Comm. 270. Seconded by
Ms. Kagiwada.
CHR. GALIMBA: Auditor Benner.
(Note: At this time, County Auditor'Tyler J. Benner and Audit Analyst
Jasmine Santos came forward to address the members of the Committee.)
MR. BENNER: Aloha, Committee Chair Galimba and Members of the Hawaii
County Council. My name is Tyler Benner with the Office of the County
Auditor. I'm joined in chambers today by Jasmine Santos, our Lead Auditor for
this review, and Maxine Pacheco, Staff Auditor.
Today we're presenting the results of the Grant-in-Aid (GIA)review for the
Fiscal Year 2023-2024. The Fiscal Year 202 -2024 Grant-in-Aid review report
evaluates how nonprofit organizations that receive County funding perform in
delivering services and fulfilling their contractual obligations. Unlike our first
review, which emphasized administration,of the program, this review focused on
nonprofit compliance of the reporting requirements. At this time, I'll turn it over
to Jasmine Santos who led the review.
MS:'SANTOS: Aloha and good'afternoon. My name is Jasmine Santos, Audit
Analyst and Lead Auditor of this years grants-in-aid review. The scope of the
review included 31 of the 69 participating nonprofit organizations representing
approximately 44.9 percent of the total. These organizations operated 33 of the
75 funded programs; 44 percent accounting for $1,187,500 of the total $2,497,500
awarded in funds this year, which is approximately 47.6 percent of the
appropriation.
This sample was selected rather than reviewing the entire population as was done
in our first year review to balance effectiveness with efficiency. Many of the
organizations this year was repeat participants and given the timing of this review,
which was during the busy tax season, we aim to avoid being overly invasive or
burdensome. This review is not intended to be a full comprehensive audit but
rather to serve as a reminder that any organization receiving funding may be
subject to review.
The intent is to promote accountability and encourage ongoing compliance. It's
important to note that two organizations included in the original population were
later found to be ineligible and were never awarded funding. This has been
Page 5
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
reflected in the scope calculation. To evaluate performance, we examined grant
use submitted documentation, including narrative reports and financial records.
The evaluation focused on whether organizations met their standard objections,
used funds appropriately, and submitted timely and complete reports. A
standardized rating system was used to categorize each of the organizations
performance as exceeds expectations, meets expectations, or needs improvement.
These ratings provided a consistent framework for assessing the overall
effectiveness and accountability of each grantee.
Key findings in this year's review indicated that most grantees met or exceeded
their contractual goals and delivered meaningful services to the community.
Many programs demonstrated strong outcomes and efficient use of funds,
however, the review also identified several areas for improvement.
A few of the organizations had late or incomplete reporting and a few lacked
sufficient documentation to verify the service and/or deliverables outlined in their
contracts. Financial accountability wa generally strong although minor issues
were noted in cases where supporting documentation was lacking or where
expenditures needed clarification. The report notes several observations aimed at
improving program oversight and support. These include enhancing monitoring
during the performance periods providing training,and technical assistance to
grantees, and refining performance metrics to improve the consistency in
expectations and reporting.
We would like to express our gratitude for the ongoing efforts to strengthen the
operational framework of Article 25. Collaborative efforts of various
organizations have enhanced the program over time and show a commitment to
continuous improvement. We look forward to the continue evolution of the GIA
program:
CHR. GALIMBA;, Thank you very much. Anyone? Council Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: Thank you. Thank you to your office for your continued work to
help us improve. It's been a work in progress from applications to review, to
compliance. And I believe our special assistant assigned to this is coming down
should any members of the Council have questions. But we just want to make
sure that we are being as transparent as possible being that this is a grant program
from the Council itself. So we will continue to take any recommendations and try
to,implement them and together with Special Assistant(Jessica) Valdez, address
any concerns from the public, from you folks, and from any member of this body.
Thank you.
CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder.
Page 6
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the non-
audit, audit. I like that. I'm looking at your rating system; one, two, and three,
and the criteria that you gave, but in the actuals that you presented to us for the
different nonprofits I didn't find that rating system within the final report for each
one. Is that purposeful or not purposeful, or did I miss it?
MR. BENNER: Excuse me. Page 38 actually shows the crosswalk between the
one, two, and three, minor exceptions, major exceptions, and noncompliance, no
exceptions versus the percentage.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, So then what was our total? Sorry,
this was the one given to each organization or this was the rating card for each
organization?
MR. BENNER: Yeah. That was the standard rating system. Yeah.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: And then is there a rating for'each
organization in the different orgs that you provided to us?
MR. BENNER: Yes. So for example, on Page,35, you'll see Vibrant Hawaii
scored 100 percent.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER:' One of theirs; they have two programs,
correct?
MR. BENNER: One of theirs scored 100 percent. Correct, right. So that's going
to be 100 percent listed there and then you can crosswalk that to the matrix on
Page 38, which shows the one through nine score.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I got you; I got you; I'm feeling you. I was
looking for a ones two, and three for each one of them. Okay. So the percentage
was how they rated_ Some didn't do very well; some did 100 percent, which is
what you'd expect. You know what I really liked is that you really dug down to
determining what they said they would do and what they actually did. And in
some cases you were unable to figure out what they said they were going to do
because itwasn't clear and then there was no perimeters or really objectives to
show that they met what they said they were going to do.
MIk. BENNER: That's correct. Some of this was difficult. Some of this really
falls on the shoulders of the County. And if you recall, last year we did a review
as well; that we focused on the administration of this. So here's an example. You
have three nonprofit organizations and each one of them delivers food, and one of
them their deliverable because we allow them to select what their deliverable is to
us, they select that they are feeding 30 homes a year. And then the next
organization says that they are feeding 120 individuals for a year. And then the
Page 7
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
final organization says that they're delivering 131,400 meals in a year; and what
you actually have there is the same metric three different ways, right. We're
talking about a household with an average family size of four being fed every day
and then the meals actually being broken out into three meals a day for those four
individuals in those 30 homes. And so this is what we find is it is difficult to
make a bench line comparison between a lot of these organizations because of
that.
And we had other organizations that are doing very'good work, for example; a
classroom type learning. But the way that they describe the program delivery was
things like we want an improvement over the baseline. And there wasn't a
baseline measurement to compare that to. And so as we started to have some
teaching moments with these nonprofits where�we said, you know,perhaps it's
going to be more valuable for you to provide headcount of the individuals who are
going through these classes. Or if you are going to provide a state that you're
going to provide improved learning or retention,of learning, then you need to
provide a pre and a post survey that shows that they've internalized the messaging
that you're trying to give them. If that's what you're stating you going to do,
you're going to have to empirically show that.
And so we believe, and there was also some great comments from the nonprofits
in terms of clarification in what we asked from them that will allow us to be a
little bit more granular in what we asked for in future requests. So this was a
teaching moment, continues'to be a teachingmoment from both sides year over
year. So we look forward to strengthening overtime.
MR.KANEALL`t-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I appreciate that, Mr. Benner. Thank
you. Some of the worrying ones were moving funds to different categories or not
specifying anything other than,other expenses and then not giving us an idea of
what they're trying to do besides we aim to help the people of Hawaii County.
That's great. �We all do.
MR. BENNER: Right.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But how and who are you going to service,
and what were your outcomes? And if we can't prove that then why are we
giving them money.
MR. BENNER: We absolutely agree with that and, you know, we're happy to
provide some guidance if organizations wanted to contact us on observations that
we're seen over the past as they start to prepare into the future. But I believe
Ms. Valdez is doing that as well. So we look forward to either or providing that
information is we can.
Page 8
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes,please. In the wording that I remember
that guides the funding for the nonprofit grant-in-aid programs to me is worrisome
already in that we're qualifying a minimum of$2.5 million or $1.5 million per
year. Minimum of, so that means there's no cap. And I don't like that. And so
having a zero cap with an open door with policy that doesn't really direct exactly
what has to happen or the objectives that we want met with those funds is a scary
open door policy for a substantial amount of funding from our County to
organizations that may or may not be fulfilling the objectives they say they are
going to.
MR. BENNER: In the first years review thatwe didy you know, we had made
major mention of alignment to federal standards and a lbt'of these grant programs,
you know, sometimes they're complex funding buckets. And so to have a
program administered locally one way and then having to abide by it in a separate
way federally makes it difficult for a lot of these small organizations that are
resource constrained. So if there's in opportunity to look at the Code and align it
more to federal standards over time, I think that would definitely help these small
organizations who really do want to comply.,
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEIFELDER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Benner. Thank
you, Ms. Santos. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chair:
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Over in Kona?
MS. VILLEGAS: All good. Just want to thank Chair Inaba for all the work that
you've put into get this Waiwai Grant program to this next level and also to the
Auditor and your office for your"attention to detail and incredible ability to review
these kinds ofthings and bring this information to us in a palatable format so we
can understand the broader picture by looking at all those kinds of details. So
appreciate you. I yield.
CHR: GALIMBA: ,Thank you. Anyone else?
MS. KIMBALL: Chair?
CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Kimball.
MS'KIMBALL: So thank you, Auditor Benner and your team for another
excellent document. What I was wanting to highlight was your mention just now
of adhering to federal standards or some of their similar processes and I'm going
to use this, and please stop me if I'm going beyond, as an opportunity to actually
ask something of my colleagues here, which is one of the things that we've talked
about in response to all of this is actually setting up before the Waiwai
applications go out, something based on our needs assessment of where we would
Page 9
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
like to see funds directed, which is a process that is typical in federal grant
applications at this time.
So I bring this up in this context because it is relevant to this review, this
compliance review, to get some feedback from folks about how they might like to
see that done. Our ability to do a full on needs assessment I think before the next
Waiwai Grant program is limited but there are things out there like the ALICE
(Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed)report; like the housing report,
like some of the other, the childhood learning report, there are other documents
out there that we could use to sort of frame what our current needs are. So my
question is do we want to try within the timeframe before we have our next
Waiwai applications to identify some of those needs in away that would be more
akin to how they would do things at the federal°level? And feel free, Mr. Benner,
to add to that concept in terms of the conversations we've had about a related
Code amendment.
MR. BENNER: I can't speak to the time constraints that you folks are facing, but
we definitely would support. You know,,we've done a lot of sit ins and trainings
ourselves in grants and grant writing and grant administration over this last year
and, you know, it is important because you never know where the money is
coming from. But the highestleuel of land is federal government and where the
most money exists and if should have to abide by that we should have a written
policy and procedure on the book thai'aligns to it. So it makes sense to move in
that direction.
CUR. GALIMBA: Okay. Thank you. Council Member Kagiwada.
MS. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Benner, I'm just wondering how you
think, since this wasn't done for all of the organizations this year, but clearly there
were vast differences around compliance and even results maybe like as far as
meeting their target population and things like that. I'm just wondering can any
of this be used in a way that helps us kind of going forward? I guess I'm
particularly concerned with those who just like didn't give you information that
you asked for; maybe it wasn't required so maybe we can't judge people too
harshly in that light because it wasn't required. But I do have concerns that there
were some people that simply seemed to not respond to your request and then
ethers who clearly struggled to maybe meet the goals that they propose for
themselves in the project. So any thoughts on how this information can best be
used by us going forward?
MR. BENNER: Yeah. I'm kind of myopic on my responses here. I'm sorry for
that. But as we start, if we do consider working towards some of those federal
standards right now, I mean the way that the language is written in Article 25
essentially says that, you know, if you don't do your reporting or if you come off
task that you're suspended until you do. And then when you do then you're
Page 10
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
immediately okay. And I don't know, without looking at it with the alignment
there is to penalties versus how that would be written on the federal level. So
that's something that we could provide you offline.
Again, I think we're still in the earlier and more formative years of this. These
organizations a lot of times, I mean, it's interesting just in what was originally
submitted and how many of those emails were no longer valid and how much
turnover there is. And a lot of time they're using third"party bookkeeping services
and a lot of times those bookkeepers work for multiple organizations. And so one
of the observations we made again last year and then pointed out again this year I
think is that we do lack software for compliance that,we host that would allow
them to post receipts against expenditures that they were,actually incurring, which
would really help with the original propeised alignment to the actual spenddown in
the categories that they said that they were going to spend them down in. If we
make compliance easier for them,,then there's less backend reporting and then
less things that we need them to dig,out.
Last year especially when we were asking,them to pull receipts, you know, what
we had is people saying some of our purchasing cardholders we organize the
receipt by the vendor, so we have Home Depot and Home Depot and Target and
Target. Some of them other organizations organize them by the user, by the
issuer; some of them organize them,by date. So a kit of times when we're asking
them to go back retrospectively and dig these things out and compile them, that's
different asks for different organizations. So' as easy as we can make it for them,
we'll benefit from that as well.
MS: KAGIWADA: Right. And`'justpointing out the obvious that up to $50,000,
sometimes much less than $50,000, you know, we don't want to make these
things overburdensome for these small organizations especially. For some of the
larger organizations, the amount that we are contributing to their overall needs to
serve the community might be at the top end for us but also might be a very small
amount in their overall budget given everything they do. So people are really all
over the map as far as both their ability and, you know,just having the staff and
everybody to get back to us and everything, but also just their I guess their
motivation'for it given, you know, what this means to their organization and what
other pressures they're under obviously.
MR. BENNER: Absolutely agree. And we know that there's a front end
eligibility criteria that they're having to meet. Then there's interim reporting
they're having to do while they're spending down, and then there's these post
activities that we're asking from them as well. So we're not trying to be the straw
that breaks the camels back, which is why we do a selective review process here
as compared to a comprehensive annual review.
Page 11
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Okay. I guess I still don't really know how we'reI
guess we're not using these as any sort of real evaluation of the organizations, but
more about our process. Is that the take here?
MR. BENNER: At this moment and time, that's the intent of these. Yes.
MS. KAGIWADA: Okay. Thank you. Alright. And just to answer your
question, Council Member Kimball. I'd be interested,in looking at that and
looking at federal criteria as long as we can keep the impact on what the hoops are
that these small, you know, community organizations have to jump through. So
that would be primary in my mind. Okay. I yield. Thank you, Chair.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Onishi.
MR. ONISHL Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a comment talking about the
process. For me, get supporting and getting one more staff to help us during these
grant times, right, to help with the process, right? And also the Council approves
multiple grants, right, and so that person would be there to help the Council.
Jessica does a great job but it's overwhelming I think with the amount of work
that might be there because she's got to deal with other situations too. But if we
can have one of your staff'thatgets hired to do maybe so much percent in helping
the Council with the grants. You comment on that, if it's possible?
MR. BENNER: We'd entertain,a conversation on it. The way that Article 25 is
written'i§-thateither the Finance Department, or Council, or the Auditor can look
atit. And whatwe found is that Finance was filling the eligibility role up front;
Council was filling the approval role, n the middle and then there was nothing
being cone in a lot respects on the back end of things, which is why we said that
it's not acceptable. We're,going to step in and exercise that authority and start
doing this. We can always use more resources. So I'd definitely entertain that
conversation.` I'm not going to dismiss that out yet.
MR. 01'4ISHL And'that's what it is, right, I mean with hearing discussion is that
bottom line is manpower right. Yeah, so I yield.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Kierkiewicz.
1VMS'KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your work on this really
interesting report. I'm curious, what percentage of the organizations were
exceptional; what percentage were in the minor exceptions category; and what
percentage were in the major exceptions category?
MR. BENNER: Thank you for that. So four of the organizations had a no rating.
We were unable to rate. So that's 12 percent. No exceptions; so exceptional; five
Page 12
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
organizations or 15 percent. The majorities had minor deviation. So there's 19 or
58 percent. And then five of the organizations had major deviations; 15 percent.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Your report doesn't go into details about what the various
errors or lack of controls were. Is that something that you can provide to the
Council confidentially as we move into the next process of the Waiwai grant
program. You know, I want to hone in on the fact that one of the comments that
Council Member Kagiwada made, these scores are not a--reflection of the work
that these nonprofit organizations do. The scores are in relation to their
compliance within our grant reporting process and I think we're all admitting too,
there's a lot of room for improvement on both sides.
So as we continue to build this and make it easier for nonprofits to participate and
for the Council to kind of monitor grant making programs goingforward, I think
getting those details from you would be helpful because then we can identify what
sort of capacity building and technical assistance and training we need to have
available to support our nonprofits because L don't think we can get rid of the
Waiwai. I think this is a lifeline for many of our nonprofit partners. But I do
think that we have a responsibility to build their„capacity so that they are able to
go after larger, more complex grant opportunities that the County's not providing
but perhaps the state, federal government, philanthropic sector are providing. So
are those details something that you'can provide us, Auditor, Ms. Santos?
MR. BENNER: Well we specifically excluded that because of the selective
review of these criteria. So if we had evaluated everybody in the population, you
know, essentially if Council made the determination to exclude certain
organizations from the population based on a selective review, when there were
others that weren't evaluated, may not be a completely fair comparison. So in
these, again; formative years; in these first couple of years where we're really
trying to standup internal`controls and safeguards to make sure that we can
administer the program effectively, we're tackling I guess what I'd say is the
lowline fruit here. And then as the program matures then that would be
something that you'd see in subsequent years. So we probably wouldn't be prone
to releasing that information on this selective population.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I guess I don't know how we can go about improving the
process without that information. And I don't think I'm looking for details per
organization, but just at a higher level. These were the issues; this is what we
need to do as a County to better support our nonprofits within this process.
Because for me to just read here, minor exceptions noted, I don't know what that
means. I mean, you give me the criteria here but it's so general I don't know how
to make surgical edits here to support the nonprofits and their participation in the
program but also compliance within the program.
MR. BENNER: Okay. We can provide you some information offline.
Page 13
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. That would be extremely helpful. Thank you. And
then is it safe to assume, Page 38, this is the rating score sheet?
MR. BENNER: Yup.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Was this also the basis of the questioning?
MR. BENNER: Yes.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay.
MR. BENNER: So we reached out to these organizations and asked for those
three exhibits.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, because I had a<couple of nonprofits reach out to me
a little bit confused about their scoring because°one of the questions was upload
your receipts, right, your expenses. So they followed the instructions; upload
your receipts. Then they received a low score because on the auditor's evaluation
side you didn't know what those receipts were for. But the question never asked
them to itemize their expenses. So I think you,acknowledged it earlier that there
is room for improvement in,how we are evaluating the nonprofits and their
compliance.
MR. BENNER: Yeah. That's correct. And at the closing of these things after
debriefing, bur team also does a lessons learned and calibration session where we,
you know, try to improve the process for future years delivery.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: After action review?
MR. BENNER: Yes.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ. I love those. Great. And then I'm going to pitch again. I
shared this with Director Nakagawa that as we as a County begin to implement
this grantmanagement software, which I think is going to be really fantastic for
everyone. Before we do that, we should probably convene a meeting with our
nonprofits to make sure we're all on the same page, right. They do a lot of great
work that the County is so, I think, eternally grateful for. They fill in a lot of gaps
where government cannot potentially act. And so I think as we build out this new
grant management program, they need to have a seat at the table because we need
to understand what is feasible in terms of not being overly burdensome within this
grant making process. So hopefully you can be part of those conversations as
well.
MR. BENNER: We'd welcome it.
Page 14
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. I yield.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Hustace.
MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Chair. Some good conversations from my
colleagues here. Mahalo, Auditor Benner, Ms. Santos. I just wanted to jump
back to on the timing of this compliance report. You mentioned it was during tax
season. Was that, you think, one of the primary reasons that some of these
individuals and organizations did not respond due16 correlation?
MR. BENNER: No.
MR. HUSTACE: Okay. So other outside issues in terms ofnonresponse then?
MR. BENNER: Yeah,just noncommunicative.
MR. HUSTACE: Okay. And then in terms of timing, when did this process
begin for you?
MR. BENNER: I believe the first notice went out in November.
MR. HUSTACE: Okay. And I do see some, you know,justification on and I
don't doubt the work that the nonprofits are doing here, but I do see some
justification on how we distribute funds based upon, you know, the ability to
show cause and use of the funds and so forth. So I do see maybe if there's an
effort to push this a little bit earlier so that the ad hoc committee in the next fiscal
year would have some of this information and identifying some of the potential
challenges some of the nonprofits'might face or even the Council Members in
grading or ranking the next iteration of them that they're, I don't know if there's
any opportunity to start this process sooner? Your thoughts on that.
MR. BENNER: Yeah, I think that that's feasible.
MR. HUSTACE: Okay. I just see in terms of the ones that are nonresponsive or
even the ones that were flagged for being completely ineligible but yet had gone
through the whole process, I mean, there's something to say about having some of
that information and the lead up to the review of the next round of applications.
Yeah. Thank you. Any other thoughts on that?
MR. BENNER: No. I mean, your questions and comments are well reasoned.
We don't disagree with you.
MR. HUSTACE: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate the time, Chair.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Inaba.
Page 15
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MR. INABA: Thank you. Just a request perhaps for Special Assistant and
Council Member Kimball, Communication 934.01 from the last term was the new
ad hoc to review what happened this year, and then perhaps making connections
on how we can use your folks after action review to partner better when we look
into making our next process for the upcoming Waiwai awards. So happy to
serve on that if we do stand up that ad hoc. Thank you.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Thank you, Auditor Benner and Ms. Santos, for
this very easy to read. I guess, you know,just looking at it like one of the things
that we could do next round is be more explicit about wanting those kinds of
numbers. I think we just ask for measurable,but we don't say which kind of
measurables that we really, really want. So jest being specific about that I think
would be an easy upgrade to help all of us.
And as to your question about how' do we perhaps address priorities, I believe
R&D (Research and Development)is going to be doing a survey so that might be,
I don't what the questions are but perhaps that might be a way to experiment with
that. We've talked about it a lot. I think we don't want to sort of limit folks
because the needs can be eccentric but good,;So I think this last time we had sort
of relevance, you know, add five points, minus five points. So perhaps if it's one
of the priorities however we define it, add a certain�amount of points to that to
give those applications a little bump:,, Those are some of my thoughts. Thank you
again very much. And seeing no otherlights,;all those in favor of closing file on
Communication 270 please say �4aye."
Vote on Comm. 270: The motion to close file on Comm. 270 was carried by the
Filed following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Hustace, Inaba,
Kagiwada, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Onishi,
Villegas, and Chair Galimba—8.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder— 1.
Excused: None.
CHR. GALIMBA: Next item please, Mr. Brown.
Comm. 272: PERFORMANCE AUDIT 2025-02: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS
From County Auditor Tyler J. Benner, dated April 30, 2025, transmitting the
above audit report, pursuant to Section 3-18(d)(2) of the Hawaii County Charter.
Motion to Close File: Mr. Inaba moved to close file on Comm. 272. Seconded by
Mr. Hustace.
Page 16
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
CHR. GALIMBA: Auditor Benner.
(Note: At this time, County Auditor Tyler J. Benner, Audit Analyst
Jasmine Santos, and Audit Analyst Maxine Pacheco came forward and
provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee.
For viewing of the subject presentation, see the DVD copy of the meeting
proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office or online at
http://hawaiigounty.gov.granicus.com. A copy of the PowerPoint
presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 272.)
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you for this very detailed and thorough report. DPW
(Department of Public Works), would you folks like to go'over the management
response at this time?
(Note: At this time, Public Works Acting Director Neil Azevedo,
Deputy Building Chief Aaron:Spielman, and Engineering Division Chief
Keone Thompson came forward:to address the members of the
Committee.)
MR. AZEVEDO: Good afternoon. Neil Azevedo, Acting Director for Public
Works. I'll pass it on to our Deputy Building Chief Aaron Spielman.
MR. SPIELMAN: Hi. Aaron Spielman, Deputy Building Chief. The question,
remind me,it was on the management response?
CHR. GALIMBA: Yes. If you want to. I just wanted to give you the opportunity
to go over your response before we start having comments so that we don't have
to cover anything that you would. say.
MR. SPIELMAN: Okay. Just an overview then. Okay. Management response
starts on page 93 of the report and includes a letter to Mr. Tyler Benner. Thank
you to the County Auditor's Office for providing this report. The management
response includes the recommendations that are listed out in the audit report as
well as responses about the Building Division's position on those
recommendations and following with an action plan where warranted for tracking
and implementing programs to address these recommendations, and that continues
td page 131 and includes the opening and the conclusion about those management
responses.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you.
MR. SPIELMAN: Is that general enough?
Page 17
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
CHR. GALIMBA: That is general. There was very detailed timelines for each
action. Anything else? I think we can go to Council Members then. Council
Member Hustace.
MR. HUSTACE: Thanks, Chair. Aloha, Deputy Chief. Deputy Chief Spielman,
were you part of this conversation? I know you're kind of new in the role. So did
you have any opportunity to present any recommendations from the Building
Division?
MR. SPIELMAN: Recommendations after the Audit?R
MR. HUSTACE: Yes. In terms of the managements response to the Auditor's
Office; were you part of that process?
MR. SPIELMAN: Yes. I worked with the Auditor's Office to review the drafts
one, two, and three, and then worked to help out with the management response
as like a background support.
MR. HUSTACE: Okay. I just want to make sure because you're rather new in
the role, so I don't know if Chief(Julann) Sonomura was also part of this
conversation too.
MR. SPIELMAN: Yes, she was.
MR. HUSTACE: Okay. Okay. I just had a couple questions if you could
elaborate on. 'I love to hear from my colleagues, but I just want to start off on the
training opportunities. It's kind of referenced. Finding Number 12; if you could
elaborate further onwhat you've been exploring for training opportunities within
department and also within'kind of the public realm too?
MR. SPIELMAN: Sure. Within the department we look often at the ICC, which
is our,International Code Counsel, and they provide trainings throughout the year
on different topics. The one we're looking at this year is the International
Existing Building Code, referred to as the IEBC. There are other opportunities as
well and we recently last week Tuesday and today staff was invited and attended
voluntarily was the Internation Energy Conservation Code, the IECC training.
Last week was residential; this week was commercial. So those happen
throughout the year.
MR. HUSTACE: Kind of on a regular basis then?
MR. SPIELMAN: Somewhat. Yeah. They have their preferences for when they
want to do it. We can actually request and engage with ICC for training officials
to come out under contract or via Zoom, and we've also been looking at that for
other specifics. Last year, I want to say it was in the summer, we did have a two
Page 18
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
day training session with the ICC. And so less than a year later we're continuing
with more trainings. For the inner agency cooperation, we're talking about multi-
agency often times with the state, other departments. In that regard I believe it
has to do with training on the EPIC (Electronic Processing and Information
Center) side of things and how EPL (Enterprise Permitting & Licensing) or back
office works, how those agencies would review and implement without downtime
of without things getting lost. And so we've been working with multiple
agencies. The last big push was with the Department of Health Wastewater and
that was an active pursuit to work with that agency to bring down the review
times.
MR. HUSTACE: Thank you, Deputy Chief. 'Just kind'of looking to see if, you
know, you have your regular training opportunities both here within the
department and multi interagency as well;just trying to see if there's an
establishment and a routine of training that's provided for staff, kind of�like a
schedule, I mean for the finances lack of training it's pretty stark forme. So I
don't know if there's a step forward on adding additional training, more
opportunities, and kind of building that out as kind of time table for that. Yeah,
please.
MR. SPIELMAN: There isn't at the time but certainly something we're going to
be looking at. I think part of it is the balance between necessary training to bring
everyone up to speed and maintain that level and also just getting the work done.
I think that's the juggling effect.
MR. HUSTACE: Absolutely. Completely understand.
MR. SPIELMAN; Sorry to cut you. off.
IR. HUSTACE: No. That's perfect. Thank you, Deputy Chief. The other
question I had Was on page 91 eludes to EPIC enhancement. So if you could
elaborate,„you know,the investment and additional investments were kind of
being made to enhance EPIC, where we're taking it to the next stage, to the next
level; how to streamline some of these processes using what we've already
invested iris'add additional modules, whatever it takes to kind of expand our use,
interface with the public. If you could elaborate a little on that?
MR. SPIELMAN: Sure. So EPIC enhancement, page 91, has the two notes; the
role based access controls and the exception reporting. Role based access
controls has to do with identifying and categorizing each user to a certain priority
level or ability to put in or take out information, and that's going to allow us some
oversight as well. But also let's say that I don't have approval to do something,
then I wouldn't be able to do something, that I wouldn't be able to do it. That's
save some—well, it's an organization thing. But it gives us the hierarchy and
protocol.
Page 19
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
The exception reporting has to do with things that might be pulled let's say out of
order. Let's say there's a County project that wants to be expedited and that gets
directed to us, then the exception reporting would track those individual things so
that every month or every year there could be an easily identifiable report because
the data and the EPIC program are so in depth, there's a lot of data that can be
pulled out and we just set that up in advance. That may not answer your training
question.
MR. HUSTACE: I mean they're definitely connected because there's an
opportunity to train staff more about if we're adding additional layers to EPIC, I
mean it's going to be more training that necessary and needed. What sort of
financial investments do we have to make towards EPIC ter kind of grow it, build
it out further?
MR. SPIELMAN: Sorry, I don't want to bey-all of it. No. I'm�actually not a
budget finance guy so I'll have to defer to that. I'm not sure what the technical
dollars are.
MR. HUSTACE: What do you see in terms of what we have currently and its
limitations? I mean, a Idt of these things could be maybe streamline the process;
the recommendations from Auditor, through what use have but maybe we need to
expand upon a little bit further. So you can speak to the limitations, the barriers
that we're running into with EPIC rightnow;
MR. SPIELMAN: I actually think that the EPIC system has come a long way, at
least from when I was using it in private. And the two aspects that we're not
using and they're in this report; one is the inspectors module and the other is the
code compliance module. And with both of those,which would of course need
training in'br aging staff up to speed, that would make a more robust, wholistic
program where everything is in one software instead of different aspects of
building being in different pieces of paper or computer systems.
MR. HUSTACE: Thank you. And then to Acting Director, is that something that
we're looking at adding in to building out EPIC a little more, those modules?
MR. AZEVEDO: Yes. As long as it speeds up the process.
MR. HUSTACE: Okay.
MR. AZEVEDO: We'll go whichever way we need to.
MR. HUSTACE: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate the time, Chair.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Going over to Kona. Anything there?
Page 20
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MS. VILLEGAS: I'm here. All good. Thank you.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, gentlemen.
Who's missing today; Sonomura, where is she?
MR. AZEVEDO: She's absent right now.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Mr. Spielman, a lot of things. This is
a pretty healthy audit. I think; actually I don't think the fact that the two people
that put the EPIC system into existence and began its process in the County are
not here today and do not work within the County I think ins extremely telling.
I'm just going to start with that. No one at this table, obviously: Let me start at
the beginning. I mean one of my questions that was in advance of this audit was
how long applications are stuck in the intake process, meaning the haven't been
dropped into the system. They've been submitted but they haven'tbeen actually
taken and given to one of our individuals to begin review. Was that number
anywhere in here thatwas referenced? It is? ,I see Mr. Benner is behind you.
He's probably a wealthW information if you wdnt to lean on him? So the average
was 37 days in the queue before assignment, is that correct?
MR. SPIELMAN: At that time,correct:
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And that was March 18, 2023? I'm
justtrying to read through this. I think Mr. Benner was quite clear in just pointing
outthat this was an average, that averages can be misleading given that some
were 111 days and some were justa few days before they were brought into the
system. So that number is brought to me by the community again and again,
you're not counting the time we sit in the queue before we're assigned somebody.
Has there been any,move to lessen that intake number?
MR. SPIELMAN: 'Yes.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And what was that?
MR. SPIELMAN: Staff has been working overtime. We thank the staff a lot.
Holidays and weekends, bringing that number down. We also have priority
queues, which are detailed out in this audit where say you're a hospital, you might
come in as a higher priority than say a small tenant improvement. So it's not that
everybody's waiting in the same line; it's that everybody's waiting in a series of
lines depending on the project type or permit type. And then those are addressed
in a priority order to reduce the time waiting. I think what you're referring to is
after the customer has submitted the application, they paid for the plan review fee
and now it just waits, right?
Page 21
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yup.
MR. SPIELMAN: There's this purgatory period before intake takes it up. We're
trying to reduce that, and I want to say that towards the end of the year, the
beginning of this year we say time periods as low as two weeks or less. And so
sometimes it just really depends on staffing and how many are in the queue; of
course what type of permit project type you're under.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Good: Thank you. That's what I
want to hear. This report really does point to we know what the problems are, and
I think we've known for decades, it's just how we address it. And so good to hear
we're finding solutions. Mr. Benner's always Said stop listening to the problems,
start asking for solutions. So that's why'I lave the beauty of what he does, but
your department is going to have to do that so good luck. I think one of the real
graphics that I pulled out of this Was that our application volume is actually bigger
than our processing volume consistently. Yeah,the blue and yellow line graph,
yeah, that's pretty clear. We get more applications than we are able to process on
a continuous basis and that has gone back to it looks like 2021. So has the
department made progress in increasing staffing to be able to bring that number
down or match the two; bring those lines closer together?
MR. SPIELMAN: We have made some hiring, some staff improvements, and
we're continuing to do so. Hiring on more staff and like you see in the graph, it's
a numbers game so bringing,on more staff has a direct correlation to processing
times. "'And use are actively pursuing improvements.
M1t KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Good.
MR. SPIELMAN: They're next-sorry, may I continue?
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, go.
MR. SPIELMAN: In this date range there may not be actual incidents or causes
that happen; like for example, when blue beam went down. That may not be
reflected in here and so hopefully these line reconverge and we're going to be
producing as much or more than what is coming in. That would certainly be the
goal.
MIS. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Beautiful. That would be ideal. And it's
something that II mean, I spent ten years doing electrical and solar work and I
couldn't help but notice that 25 percent of our permits are residential PV
(Photovoltaic)permits. So there's an easy win there as far as decreasing
incoming permits and our review types as well as addressing that divergent line of
applications versus what we're able to process because if we can limit reviews on
certain types of permits coming in that's brought out in this audit, I think we can
Page 22
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
do some work as far as limiting the work that your staff has to do at the same
time. Last question; can I have one last question? Thank you. Have you done
any work in addressing the public duty doctrine training?
MR. SPIELMAN: We did see that in the report, and it is something we're very
interested in pursuing, and that's on the list. I believe there's a timeline action
item list there to bring in staff in train them up on the public duty doctrine, or then
just what people are learning on their own; no direct training.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I think that would be tremendous. Yeah.
Okay. I yield, Chair.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Onishi.
MR. ONISHL Okay. Thank you,Madam Chair. Just to add about when
someone submits an application during„the budget time in March, we ask that
same question and we were told—well; it was,mentioned by the Building Chief, it
takes about 30 days before it gets out from that application time. So you're
saying now it got reduced from March till naw, the time that it's spent in there?
MR. SPIELMAN: My time period may have been'longer than what Chief
Sonomura was talking about. I may be going back in my memory to say
November, December and just knowing,thatthings were taking a lot longer, up to
60 days.
MR. ONISHI: And out of—to go into the queue?
MR. SPIELMAN: Yeah. And that was in my private practice for whatever
reason. Arid I think I attribute that to staffing and having several causes that
affected the,ability to speed that up. Now we actually see it speeding up and
that's very positive.
MR. 01'41SHL So when did it start speeding up? Because like I said, in March
we were told 30 days.
MR. SPIELMAN: So that was 30 days, one month. So that was probably late
leaps and pounds over let's say October and earlier of 2024. And between March
and today, I couldn't give you an exact number. But I'm going to say it's closer
to 30 and less and we're trying to keep it—
MR. ONISHL So it's kind of still 30, and that's where I think the time wise, like
you folks mentioned, to get it approved it's within this certain period of time. But
because it's in that first stage that adds to the amount of time being people have to
wait. Plus, to add to that, once it gets approved and for someone to get issuance
of their building permit, that takes a while too, correct?
Page 23
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MR. SPIELMAN: Sorry. Can you repeat that question?
MR. ONISHL Okay. So when the application is approved, for the applicant to
get their building permit, how long does that take?
MR. SPIELMAN: Sorry for the "it depends" answer, but it does. There's a
queue for sure and part of that is the clerks help process the permit, notify the
applicant that the project is ready. At that point the applicant pays for the permit
fee and also submits usually, the project declaration right. If the project
declaration has already been submitted, that's one less thing. But because of
timing and how we all work, it's often at the end.
MR. ONISHL So on the average, what it takes maybe another 20 to 30 days to
get it issued?
MR. SPIELMAN: I want to say it's less than that,but I don't have that data.
MR. ONISHL Okay. Because in my previous, I was a permit expediter. And we
seen waiting for that to be issued out. And part of the I guess, you know, the
comments we got was because of manpower, right. Because the clerks were
doing so many different things that I guess to issue it took a lot of time because
they had to review everything again make sure everything is all documented or
stamped and then, boom, they could issue right And then like I said they've got
to wait for that other form from the contractor,right, RM?
MR. SPIELMAN: RME(Registered Master Electrician).
MR. ONISHI; Yeah, needed to be the signature, right? Okay. Yeah, so
hopefully that can help get that going faster.
MR. SPIELMAN-., It is. And thank you for that. What I was thinking of when
you were mentioning this is that you're right, the clerical staff is doing both the
intake and the out process.
MR. ONIS I: And at one time too they were also intaking for all the PVs too?
R. SPIELMAN: Yes. Correct.
MIS. ONISHL Yeah, and so they was like overwhelmed, yeah?
MR. SPIELMAN: So one thing we've done is we've implemented daily reports,
and those daily reports really help our teams track and understand what the
priorities are.
Page 24
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MR. ONISHI: Good. Okay. Thanks. There's one about third-parry review. You
know, I was in support of that. I really like that. But what I found out recently,
it's about corruption because the third-parry reviewer, individuals, applicants,
could pay more to get that process done faster. And I don't want that to happen,
right, because then we need to think of something better. And that's where
Mr. Benner mentioned about that state law now with that SB-66. Yeah, if
governor signs that, that's beautiful because what I really wanted to see was that
if a developer comes in and they have the certified Hawai`i license, be able to
stamp your project as an engineer or an architect and you have the funding, you
move forward. You take all responsibility of that proj ect, right? I believe that we
should do that because then they don't have ter go through a County process, right.
They take the liability of doing their development. And I feel that could be done,
right. And then the request building to;gettheir inspectors into inspect to make
sure that the work that they're doing is following the County Code and if they're
not, then it's the engineer and the developer that takes responsibility. Sao that's
what I think can happen too if the administration agrees upon that, yeah.
For the training as was mentioned, I've seen where new staff come in and they've
got to start fresh, right, and you know, like for being a building reviewer, I mean,
the work must be thick right. And to go through all that is ridiculous and it's
going to take time. And the thing is they're going ter follow the book, right.
Whereas if you have a 30=year veteran,they know the ins and outs, they
understand what's going on, so it makes the process faster.
So I had mentioned at budget,you folks got to look at having that overlap where
you know someone is going to be retiring in December, maybe in like October
you folks hire someone. And I know you cannot have two positions with the
same number, so like I said before, I think police, but I know fire, they have
temporary numbers. So when a recruit comes in they have a temporary number.
And then once they pass and they graduate, then they get their permanent number.
So that's whatI think you folks need to do because I've seen where in the past
some reviewers would let this go and now the new guys, they don't let that go.
So architects or engineers who dealt with previous reviewers was like, this is
okay, it's going to pass. But now it's like, no it's not. So I had to do multiple
meetings with the director to explain what was going on and then they would
understand and just kind of, yeah okay, can move forward. So that's something
where you guys gottaa start looking at, yeah, to have that overlap, the shadow part
because you can give them as much training as you want but if they're new and
they're learning they're still going to take time, right. Yeah.
CHR. GALIMBA: Your timer has gone off.
MR. ONISHL I yield then for now. I'll come back again.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball.
Page 25
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MS. KIMBALL: Thank you for noticing me. Thank you all for being here.
Thank you again, Auditor Benner and team, for an excellent report. I'll just start
by saying, you know, I have a spouse in the design industry and so I have a front
side seat to interactions with DPW from that angle of things. So I don't want to
not admit to that, be real open about that. I have a bunch of questions. I want to
start kind of following off of what Council Member Onishi was discussing, which
is SB-66, third-party review, self-certification, I lump those all kind of into one
thing. And I notice the way I interpret the management response is that yeah, nice
maybe, but there's still a lot of controls from DPW. Is that an accurate reflection
of what I'm seeing here, and could you maybe expound more on the department's
position on these particular mechanisms for epediting the permitting process?
MR. SPIELMAN: Was it the third one associated with that;it was self-certified,
third-parry review did they mention?
MS. KIMBALL: SB-66, so a timeline enforceby the state.
MR. SPIELMAN: Okay. I'll speak for the Building Division, if that's okay.
MS. KIMBALL: I'd preferred you speak for the Building Division in that role
right now.
MR. SPIELMAN: I think the concern with self-certification is that not every
design professional carries E&O Errors and Omissions insurance. That could be
a big concern',for homeowners who may be left in the dust if some professionals
don't fulfill their obligations. Third-parry review is promising. I think one of the
big concerns is how will our current workers and staff take that; how will the
unions address that conversation? But certainly third-parry review is available
including through the ICC'. Maybe one of those related concerns would be pay to
play,„so those that can afford it can, and those that can't, I don't know. We don't
have a,grant program that would offset those costs. I think those were our
concerns.
SB-66, I know I've read it. I know I've weighed in on it. I don't remember the
exact language. Does it have to do with?
NMS. KIMBALL: Basically for residential permits, if the department doesn't do
anything within, I forget what number of days they settled on, I want to say it was
60 then it just goes to automatic approval.
MR. SPIELMAN: So I think one of the background concerns, and it might be
interrelated here but maybe with SB-66. Thank you. The onus now falls on the
owner. Let's say a plan doesn't get reviewed in the office and it goes out directly
to the field, maybe in 61 days it goes out to the field, contractors building just like
they normally would; maybe there's a new code thing, maybe there's something
Page 26
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
that was missed. No big deal. But when the inspector goes out to inspect, if
that's not code compliant it's going to have to be rectified. As you know it's far
less expensive to change ink on paper than it is to change concrete and steel in the
field. So that's I think a background concern that we have that may not be
evident.
I think also related to self-certified, I'm not sure about third-parry review, but
possibly related to self-certified; we don't know what the unintended
consequences would be mainly with the insurance companies and the lenders. So
lenders and insurance companies may walk away and that might drive the cost of
housing up, which we don't want.
MS. KIMBALL: I want to thank you for basically articulating all of the thoughts
I had in my head about these things., Particularly, for those of you that were not
present on Council the last term,I believe it was Council Member(Aaron) Chung
had introduced some language thatwould allow for self-certification. And we did
have a lot of the design professionals in"the community come out and say, "Hey,
but wait a minute." I mean, they themselves were asking for that second check.
And insurance and loan viability is a big part of that and particularly professional
liability insurance for design professionals has just skyrocketed year after year.
And if they are self-certifying''that's going to be very difficult for those
businesses to hold on. And so I did have concerns about those recommendations,
and I think that you articulated thetas very nicely.
Similarly, Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder was talking a little bit about the
prioritization and so one of the recommendations was a uniform process of
prioritizations of projects as they come through and one of the department's
responses was a manual tracking of those that kind of skipped the queue or go
into a different queue. Can you speak a little bit more around that? Because one
of the concerns,and no disrespect, Auditor Benner, that I had generally with this
report is that not all permits are equal. And I think that you did segregate them a
little bit versus residential and commercial and what not, but I think that there's
even finer granularity that really affects some of the differences about how things
go through the system. So can you speak specifically to prioritization and maybe
be a little more detailed about what you think the department should do to
improve that aspect of it. I mean, should we treat all permits as equal and just
push them through?
MIS. SPIELMAN: Personally I'm not a fan of that last option. I do like the
priority queues. I think they show the importance of those varied aspects. I want
to say high up on the list, number one might maybe is emergency permits. So that
would be let's say a fire or a flood happens, and somebody needs to rebuild or do
tenant improvements before the permit can be issued, there's a process in our
HCC (Hawai`i County Code) that allows the applicant to notify the agency and
then continue with the construction work while they're working on their drawings
Page 27
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
to submit. So that seems like a very helpful aspect. Of course, emergencies, so
we think it has to be done.
I want to say for, we have a home model package program. So not the model
home package design applications themselves, permit applications, but rather
when it comes back in to be set on a permanent lot with its site plan, those are
done at a much faster priority with a dedicated timeline. So those permits don't
get caught up in let's say all the other things that need attention. I do like the fact
that we break them out. There are quite a few, I want to say like 17 priorities. So
it can be a little much, but it gives us a subcategory for every permit type; most of
the permit types and allows us to track those individually.
And most recently we've broken out tenant improvements less than $50,000 from
tenant improvements for more than. So let's say you're doing a small existing
restaurant and you're doing a facelift type of ding for $49,000,then that would
theoretically be processed faster than a brand new commercial mall. If that makes
sense?
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, that makes sense. And I think a lot of what the response
that I was looking for, whatI think might be rather than standardizing the
process so that all permitsmove through based on'their initiation time, having
some real clear guidance and you guys,don't have rules, but I understand you are
allowed to do rule making; something around,some rules about what prioritizes a
project like you said, emergency things, under a certain threshold. Do you
operationally like have dedicated staff that you have somebody that does all the
prefab permits;you have somebody that does, I mean, that might be another
things,to consider too is dedicated staff for specific pipelines based on the type of
project;
MR. SPIELMAN: We currently have five plans examiners. So they do it all.
MS. KIMBALL: So no.
MR. SPIELMAN: Yeah.
MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, yeah.
MR. SPIELMAN: I understand. But right now if someone's out we pick up that
slack with the other people in the office. And we don't have like maybe programs
might be, we don't have dedicated staff for only that one thing. And so basically
they're cross trained in all permit types starting with the easy ones, moving into
more complexity, and that gives us death on the bench but also allows hopefully
more continuity. Mr. Onishi was speaking to that earlier. Consistency, sorry.
Page 28
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Yeah. Moving on to—I want to just highlight, you
made this comment. And this was something that—by the way I was reading this
instead of catching up on the Last of Us last night. So I'm behind thanks to you
folks. What I'd like this line just stuck out to me and something you said just a
moment ago. The inspectors role is to assess compliance with the construction
code, and you mentioned that in the context of self-certification. Do you think
that that is an accurate assessment of the inspectors role? And the reason I bring
that up—I'll finish this question. I have some more,but I'll yield my time. The
reason I bring that up is because the results of this audit vary. If you think that the
inspectors role is to ensure compliance or if you think the inspectors role is to
ensure adherence to the design documents that were permitted by the department.
And so depending on what you think the role of the inspector is the response here
changes.
MR. SPIELMAN: In my opinion,the response of the inspector is always
compliance with the Construction'Code. There very well may be things that are
missed in drawings. For examples, we'll give the example a smoke detector may
not be on the plans. Even if everybody missed it; the architect, the engineer, the
owner, the contractor,the plans examiners, itstill has to be installed. So we
advise our inspectors to start with the plans, use those as their starting point and
then pay particular attentiort'to life safety items for compliance with the Code.
MS. KIMBALL: Okay. Thank you for that answer. And I'll just conclude by
saying I think that that adds evert more weight to the auditor's recommendations
with respect to the inspector and their oversight because they have that Code
compliance component to their"responsibilities beyond just making sure the as
builtmatches what's on the drawings. I'll yield my time. Thank you.
CHR. GAL IMBA: Thank you. Council Member Kierkiewicz.
M& KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Deputy Spielman, there are a number
of actions here with"time bound deadlines, some of which are coming up
June 2025 and theri'later progressively through this year. I'm curious, are you
folks on track to meet the deadlines that are identified here?
MR. SPIELMAN: Thank you. That's a great question. Some you will have
noticed have already started and have been in progress. The other ones that are
coming up this next month we're going to be jumping out in front of. Our big
posh has been this May 23rd upgrade to the EPL, which is our back office of
EPIC. So once that deadline is gone we're going to assign staff, reconfigure, and
shoot for those June 2025 dates.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Because we've got two step submittal process, cloud delta
guidelines, you've got reports for interagency review, tracking and analyzing
various deviations, workflow adjustments, yada, yada, yada.
Page 29
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MR. SPIELMAN: It'll be a busy summer.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: It will. And I'm worried you guys aren't going to get
summer break. All joking aside though, who is principally in charge of
overseeing the implementation of these various actions? Don't all jump at once.
MR. THOMPSON: Good afternoon. Acting Building Chief Keone Thompson.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay.
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. It's been two weeks since I've been working with
Building Division right now. I think there was an announcement, right?
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I don't recall seeing an email about Ms. Sonomura no
longer serving as Building Chief.
MR. THOMPSON: It's only a temporary period.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ:, Is she reassigned to a different section within Public
Works. Sorry this is breaking now, but I just I'd like to know who's in charge.
You know, Aaron's here answering„all of the questions and I'm just curious if
he's going to be making sure that, you know, we're staying on task and
MR. AZEVEDO: As Acting Director, I'm in charge.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay.
MR. AZEVEDO: And everything will fall on me.
MS. KIERIKIEWICZ: Okay.
MR. AZEVEDO: So Keone will be the Acting Building Chief and Aaron
Spielman will be the Acting Deputy Chief.
MS. KIEkKIEWICZ: And I know the buck stops with you, Director Azevedo.
But I think at the end of the day, you have a lot of different divisions and projects
that you're overseeing as a director. I just want to know the day to day individual
that'is going to be manning the implementation of all these different actions. Is it
Mr. Spielman; is it Mr. Thompson; are we assembling a core team of individuals?
I just like know in case I get one question I know who to email.
MR. AZEVEDO: Would be both of them. Both of them will assist each other
and build together as one.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Perfect. So there's a tag teaming effort happening here.
Page 30
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MR. AZEVEDO: Yes.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: As a member of the public or the Council, and I'm sorry if
you answered this earlier, there's just a lot of really complex information and
many, many moving pieces. Is there like an online tracking system that allows us
to know progress made towards each of these actions?
MR. AZEVEDO: No. Not right now.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: But it's a great idea, right?
MR. AZEVEDO: Yes.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Like we'll work on it?
MR. AZEVEDO: Yes.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. Great. Also want to understand, like be honest
okay, be super honest because we keep seeing all these different like real property
tax assessments coming in Iand we've got a b tmore resources than we were
anticipating. Are you guys sufficiently resourced to carry out what is being
expected of you through this audit?
MR. AZEVEDO: We'll do our best to get out the permits as fast as possible.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: But do you need more personnel?
MR. AZEVEDO: Personnel for the clerks, you know, right now we're at full
capacity,right now. And we got a supervisor just hired two months ago. And we
got another,clerk in Kona just came back. So we're full right now and we'll do
our best to do What we need as of now.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Fantastic.
MR. AZEVEDO: No excuses. We're just going to get it done.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, you're a no nonsense guy, Neil. I know we're going
to get it done but again I just want to make sure because we talked about folks
having to work overtime, wanting to prevent the burnout; wanting to make sure
folks are happy to be continuing to do this work because, you know, really it is an
honor and a pleasure to serve yeah. But I don't want to max folks out. So are we
going to evaluate what other human resources we might need; software resources,
other things that we might need to carry this work out?
MR. AZEVEDO: Yes. We did. We're probably looking at a couple more clerks.
Page 31
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Don't be shy.
MR. AZEVEDO: Yes. And for our inspectors too, we adjusted the zones to
cover more zones since we have more inspectors in Hilo. So they're helping out
the Kona side to get the inspections quicker. And the inspectors are taking the
cars home; why? So when they come and work they can inspect jobs when they
come into work and when they're going home, they can finish inspecting
whatever is on their way to their home. So this was,the main concern when I first
started. You know, they don't have enough time inAhe day to inspect. They're
going home, they live in Waimea, they live maybe a half hour or 45 minutes from
the workplace. So on the way back they can do more inspections. So get the
process going quicker.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Or maybe more inspectors?
MR. AZEVEDO: Yes.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: That too, yeah?
MR. AZEVEDO: Yes.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Inspectors across the districts. And then I just want to
hone in on something that you had said earlier, Deputy Spielman. The concern
about pay to play, and the note that I wrote here was our process should work
fairly for all;-:This process has got to work regardless of your income level, right.
We want it to be a level playing,field for everyone. So thank you for your
commitment to ensuring just the integrity and efficiency of this process.
MR. SPIELMAN: Thank you., Can I add something? I think a few of these
action items', well I know a few of these action items include ISA-4s, Information
System Analyst IV,, and they might actually be the same person but the way I
understand these action plans is they can happen independently. So it might end
up being the same ISA-4 that's doing different projects, but that would be one
position that would help up in support of these both immediate and long term
goals withpermit enhancements. So we have a team of three now with Building
IT (Information Technology), that would be a fourth. But those would give us
backup,and some redundancy but also allow us to permit a role to do some project
management of information technology.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great. Last question. A couple weeks ago we get a report
from HR about 89-day contracts, and I think I saw somebody that was engaged by
Building. They were brought on board to do some kind of like permitting
analysis. Who was that and what do they do, and are they helping with this? And
the reason why I ask is was it was kind of a substantive monthly contract they
Page 32
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
were getting. I think to the tune of like $8,000 a month, so like major expertise.
Just again wondering how they are helping you folks with this process?
MR. SPIELMAN: I believe that was, sorry, Mark for ruining your last name?
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yes. Mark.
MR. SPIELMAN: Mark Krzyzanowski.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yup.
MR. SPIELMAN: But I'm sure there's a proper pronunciation. I'm sorry for
that. I want to say Mark was an 89-day hire through the Mayor's Office. I think I
might've been the last 89-day hire in,the Building Division, which was last year
in June.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. But you're permanent now?
MR. SPIELMAN: I'm permanent as of November 7t'.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yup.-Did you interface with,Mark?
MR. SPIELMAN: Yes. We worked together and there's a taskforce right now
that we're working on together. Multiple members of the Building Division and
Mark and also other members of the County on permitting improvement. And I
believe Mark's formal role was Permit Optimization Manager, I believe is correct.
And so he was in particular interested in similar metrics to what we're looking at
here today in the report and Mark has full access to the data and so he's able to
determine and analyze the data as well in different ways. I mean the EPIC, the
EPL data to understand—
MS. KIERKIEWICZ.-Which is public, by the way, right? That data. No? Yes?
MR. SPIELMAN: I don't think that data is public. Sorry. I don't know.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay.
MR. SPIELMAN: But basically I think it's under confidential, yeah, not public.
Basically understanding all of the things we continue to talk about and where can
those things be improved. For example, like photovoltaics under I OkW (kilowatt)
is already a prioritized system and so then the question comes up what else could
be done that could be in a similar fashion to reduce the amount of applications
that are being reviewed and speed up the process for getting people working in the
field, getting projects done.
Page 33
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Is he still being retained by the Mayor's Office to support
what you folks are doing?
MR. SPIELMAN: I believe so. We're in contact on email.
MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay. That's all for now. Thank you. I yield.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. Council Member Ineali`i-Kleinfelder.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. So one of the findings
repeated throughout this audit was the permit`system'l;iunched prematurely before
full configuration and optimization. Do you guys agree with that? Totally. This
just brings me right back to Mr. (Ikaika) Rodenhurst and Mr.,(Zendo) Kern
naming this system EPIC. It didn't have to be named that, but'thoy named it
EPIC, and they brought it in and walked it in the door as this amazing process
that's going to speed everything np: I think again right back to this testament that
it didn't.
So there's a lot of findings by the Auditor's Office on specifically the premature
launching. What are you folks doing as far as all of those findings that he brought
forward? I'm not going to name them because they're so numerous. But what
movement has been made by the department to streamline the process itself and
EPIC, and when you speak about that please speak about how responsive Tyler
and InterGov are being in helping make that happen? Because we have a
responsibility;to the taxpayers; Similar to what Ms. Kierkiewicz said, we have a
responsibility to the taxpayers to,make sure that we're accountable to our people.
So please go ahead.
MR. SPIELMAN: Was that a two part question; was one having to do with the
responsiveness of Tyler and InterGov?
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Well to me it's a two part question but
they're related. It's how are we meeting the findings of Mr. Benner's Office on
the audit as far as premature roll out and how we're making it better. But a
crucial part of that is, is Tyler making that happen?
MR. SPIELMAN: Okay. Thank you for clarifying. I think I can answer this
question. With our Building IT Department, which is the three people so far that
are ISAs that are currently, they do only BO, back office stuff. They work
directly with us, they're in our office, they're part of our own internal IT group.
They work directly with Tyler and InterGov. I believe is the name of the
company. They send out tickets; Tyler responds to them. Some tickets are
responded to more quickly, some take longer. But for the most part it seems like
Tyler is responsive and they're also are looking out for things that may improve
the system. So like we're just rolling out this new version May 23rd; this Friday,
Page 34
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
rolling out a new version and that's going to take care of a few things that were
problematic in the last version. So as software engineers update their systems
then we see the benefit of that.
How are we meeting the findings especially on the premature rollout? I want to
say we have something, it's in this report. The number's escaping me. It's like
149 or 159 enhancements that we're been working on. 159 enhancements. So we
have weekly meetings that talk about things we hear from the public, things that
we take away from Council meetings where we say,hey, you know, would this be
a possible enhancement to improve the customer experience, and then we try to
make it happen and if we need support we reach out to Tyler. There's also an
online form group that our Building IT uses, which is not'just us being a guinea
pig with Tyler but all the other municipalities that use EPL'or InterGov and any
problems or challenges they're experiencing, we can kind of see what that
information is and learn from it as well.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank.you. Keone or Neil,
anything? No. Okay. Highlight for me ininspections, I'm going to follow up
with the public duty doctrine. Within the audit, it sounds like one of the Building
Inspections Supervisors did not comply with the request to do a ride along.
That's concerning. And there was multiple attempt's with evasive behavior to
actually allow for a ride along. That raises questions to me. And then the other
part, I mean, I've been in the field`;I've had inspectors come to my jobs. I've
dealt with differing inspection types in both East and West Hawaii. It's always
interesting to me so I completely agree with some of the findings in this. But we
have j ourneyman plumbers and j ourneyman electricians for inspections for those
two trades specifically but for building we don't require a licensed inspector; is
that correct?
MR. SPIELMAN: I believe that's correct, Council Member. I'm not aware of
the building inspector qualification like a journeyman or a master plumber or an
electrician would carry.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So we don't require that; we just have it?
Electrical inspectors must hold supervising electrical journeyman licenses.
Plumbing:inspectors must hold a plumbing journeyman license. Despite their role
in,final walk throughs and permit signoffs, the Kona Building Inspectors are not
required to be licensed. This I'm reading from the audit itself.
MR. SPIELMAN: I believe that's island wide that building inspectors are not
required to be licensed, as well a general contractor or C-License for carpentry for
something. It's a training. It's different than electrical and plumbing
requirements in the PD, in the Position Description.
Page 35
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I think it speaks to kind of a need to
really qualify that east and west are treated exactly the same; that we have real
straightforward principles, and this is one of the policies and procedures the audit
found was inspectors operate autonomously and develop their inspection methods
resulting in variations in documentation, standards and enforcement practices.
This inconsistency creates challenges when inspectors swap work areas and when
permits must be reassigned, but it also creates a lot of difficulty for the contractors
who are getting those inspections and dealing with multiple inspectors in different
areas who do different styles of inspection. That has been something on my radar
for 16 years. So anything, any working being done to make that better?
MR. AZEVEDO: For the inspectors they got'a checklist: ;They've got to go
through the checklist and make sure everything is the same;they're checking
everything. You know, we can't be there with them the whole time so hopefully
they're doing it. And again, with the east side inspectors going more wide, going
more towards Kona, and going to South Point,taking care of from Kona Airport
all the way to South Point. You know,we have more inspectors in Hilo so we're
covering more ground. So with that, I think it's going to help us because I have
contractors reach outto me about a lot of stuff. We talked story to see how we
can get better. So I take notes from them. My phone is always open. So
whatever we can learn, whatever we can get better to serve the public, that's what
we do out there.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELI)ER: Okay, ,
MR. AZEVEDO: And so far everything's going great.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Okay. Thank you, Neil. Let me
double check on that standardized format that they all applied to their inspection
for building, electrical, plumbing, whatever trade they might be inspecting. Just
double check on'that for me.
CHR. GALIMBA: We are running late, and we have significant number of folks
that wantto testify so I just want to wrap it up.
MR. KAEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Last one for me. Are we enforcing
the ascending date driven priority protocol currently?
MR. SPIELMAN: Yes.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: No deviations for that?
MR. SPIELMAN: Under the priority queues, so someone who maybe has a
hospital might fall into a higher priority queue and get reviewed faster than
Page 36
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
someone say doing an alteration and addition. So that can be a little confusing to
the public. I think it's just coming out in this audit.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah. It's one of the still in that permit
system launch prematurely section and how to make things better. But are all
permits handled in a first in first out basis for normal residentials and normal
permits; nothing crazy?
MR. SPIELMAN: Yes. That's my understanding; And then we have a way to
start tracking it in here in our management response to start tracking now
manually. And then eventually when we have these other modules, we'll be able
to produce reports and pull out the outliers that could've been a County project
that maybe needed some attention, could be,something else to be determined.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And who's in charge of that?
MR. SPIELMAN: I think I'm in charge of regulatory.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: You're in charge of that regulation for the
first in and first out?
MR. SPIELMAN: Yes. For permitting. That's RFis (Request for Information),
complaints, extensions, and permitting. Not too much.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Well it was nice to have you folks in.
'hank you forlhis. Mr. Benner, thank you for the as usual very well done audit.
And,to,the department,please lean on us to help with whatever we can do to make
this better for you folks too. This has been decades in the making of trying to
make it better. You're just at the table now to actually make that change.
MR. AZEVEDO:;Yes. And right now we're answering phones. We're not going
to the Gall taker. Sc all the clerks need to answer their phones, you know, we
need somebody on the other side. My main goal was pushing that and right now
we're doing a good job and speeding process and we're helping them, guiding
them in the right direction; not just turning over to saying the plan's incomplete.
We're helping them; we're showing them what they need to do to go to the next
step.
MIS. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you.
MR. AZEVEDO: Thank you.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Chair, if I could; do I still have time,just
quick? Can I; one more question?
Page 37
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
CHR. GALIMBA: Quickly. Quickly.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: This one's important. Sorry. Public duty
doctrine, what is your understanding of that when it pertains to the County?
Because I think this is incredibly important. I'm not going to underscore this.
MR. SPIELMAN: I think I was actually trained on this or at least I've read it.
I'm familiar with it. Sorry for not being able to pull it out,verbatim but my
understanding is so long as the building officials,the County officials are
fulfilling their obligation and duty, not being negligent, not playing favorites, this
kind of stuff, the County and the officials are not liable for those actions because
we're reviewing in the benefit of the public. Did I kind of come close to that?
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I think you did pretty well.
MR. SPIELMAN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Limits liability for government agencies
performing a public function. And I had this 'argument for six years is that we end
up being liable for things in our minds but I d'on't—I think we have to draw a line
between where we're actually liable and where we're not and when we do that,
we begin to address what'we have to do and what we need to do and how to cover
our ass as a County and to make permitting times and permit numbers less so that
we can do more work for the public and not be inundated and overworked.
MR, SPIELMAN: I agree.
MR. IKANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Inaba.
MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair. If there are any further comments I'm hoping
we can take that offline or if we need to re-agendize this conversation for follow
up, we can do that. But we do need to move along. Thank you.
CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Onishi.
MR. ONISHL Thank you, Madam Chair. Just want to clarify about like having a
developer with their architect or engineers, you know, taking the responsibility
because just today we passed at Committee about raising chicken on residential
properties, right. And then they're saying that we shouldn't be restricting the
people on this island about being able to raise chickens. So to me, it's up to the
person, the developer, and that professional firm to decide if they want to move
forward or not no matter if the insurance is higher cost, it's up to them, right. It's
just an option to give them. That's all I wanted to make clear.
Page 38
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you.
MR. ONISHI: Resubmissions
CHR. GALIMBA: Council Member Onishi, we're really running late.
MR. ONISHI: I know. But this is the time where we have our discussion during
Committee time.
CHR. GALIMBA: I understand. I understand.
MR. ONISHL Because after this communication, that's it right? Because this is
a communication, right. So I know you guys„increase like the second time around
and the third time, right, when they kind of resubmit, right? In;the beginning I
guess you pay that review fee and,then if they've got to review it the second time,
it goes up like $500 or whatever.
MR. SPIELMAN: Yes. There's a schedule of fees for resubmissions, yes.
MR. ONISHL So I believe you folks should raise that higher because I've heard
stories where there's people out there just stamp plans, especially residential,
right. They have drafters come in,they get the stamps and then submit it to you
guys and then there's all these changes that'got to be done again. So we should be
able to,have those people who are stamping held more responsible, right, because
if they're going to stamp and not review the plans,really completely, right, you
understand what I'm saying, correct? Increase that, right, maybe on the second
time do it$1,500 and on the third time make it$5,000, because they're collecting
money for what'they're doing so,they should be held accountable.
And then the thing is when there's companies on the mainland that are doing
plans like engineering, they don't even know about the Hawaii County Code
because for the State of Hawaii there's four different County Codes, right. And
so they come in, they just do whatever they gotta do and then they're expecting us
to do the corrections. And that takes a lot of manpower times. So I do understand
where Brian Kaj ikawa had it where it comes in, there's a mistake, he sends it back
because to my understanding he felt they're professionals, they should be
knowing the Hawaii County Code and following it and not using your staff or the
County to do their corrections. So I think we've got to reevaluate that part about
increasing those fees that you guys charge. You have a comment?
MR. SPIELMAN: I agree. But I can't speak to the financial part. But yes, I
agree.
MR. ONISHL Okay. Well I'll maybe talk to the director and then find out how
we can do that. The last thing I wanted to just say, I understand about the inter-
Page 39
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
agencies, right, especially on commercial because they have to go cease the state
wastewater and so forth. They had only two inspectors on this island; one east,
one west. Now whoever inspects on the east or west has to sign off. I mean, back
then—yes?
MR. SPIELMAN: Are we talking about wastewater systems?
MR. ONISHL Yes. Wastewater.
MR. SPIELMAN: My understanding, Council Member, sorry to jump in, is that
the civil engineer of record is the one that reviews tleinstalled system. I'm not
aware that the state engineers go to every site to review,.,
MR. ONISHL I mean,just the plans.
MR. SPIELMAN: Sorry. Yes, you're right. Yes.
MR. ONISHL Yeah, because I had an incident where it was an East Hawaii
project, the West Hawaii did the review of the engineer work but wouldn't sign
off because it was an East'Hawai`i project. So4hen we had to wait three weeks
before the person came back to sign off on the permit on the application.
MR. SPIELMAN: Sorry. That doesn't sound like fun.
MR.ONIS I: I know. And so maybe that's where we've got to go and talk to
our state legislators to find out how we can do something about that, yeah. But
other than that I'm here to help support you guys and like if you folks need more
manpower, which I think you folks do, let the County know or add it in the next
budget, supplementary budget:
MR. SPIELMAN: Thank you. We will do.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you, Council Member Onishi. Seeing no other lights, I
just
MS. KIMBALL: I have
CAR.GALIMBA: Darn.
MS. KIMBALL: Ignoring me again. Okay, I will be very brief because I know
we're out of time and some of this may be an Auditor Benner and team question.
But I just want to first of all say that I agree with Council Member Onishi around
maybe having some way to regulate folks that seem to submit lower quality work
on a regular basis. And I wondered because it was in the Tinner Report, the kind
Page 40
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
of three strikes rule. Is that something that you guys are working to implement or
what's the status on that?
MR. SPIELMAN: Yes. Our plans examiners have an internal policy of three
strikes, which allows some minor deviations from the plans without kicking it
back. The whole idea being we want to review, and we want to issue permit, but
we want to do it with the responsibility to life safety.
MS. KIMBALL: Okay.
MR. SPIELMAN: So manini things can be addressed often times with a red mark
without resending and then having it brought back in.
MS. KIMBALL: Okay. So I think4his is another thing where potentially having
some official rulemaking around might be beneficial to you folks and the public.
Along that lines, I don't know if this is,a DPW question or an Auditor Benner
question. With respect to the number'er percentage returned for corrections for
each type, is there any metric that looks atthe percentage of those corrections that
require to change from the design professional versus the number of corrections
that were suggested from the department that actually were refuted and contested
by the applicants?
MR. SPIELMAN: No.
MS. KIMBALL: Okay. I think that's an important metric with respect to how we
evaluate that. 1,don't know how easy that would be able to get. But I think it's
probably something we need to evaluate in the context of the rest of this.
MR. SPIELMAN: 'Tracking refutations?
M& KIMBALL: Yes.
MR. SPIELMAN: Okay.
MS. KIMBALL: And then, you know,just to follow up on what Council
Member Kierkiewicz was saying, and I really appreciate the organization of the
departments response in terms of the smart goals, but one of the things that is
missing to me in those smart goals is who's going to do what, and I think there's
so much here that needs to be done. I would really appreciate those smart goals
put into a Gantt chart type format with some sort of assignment of who's going to
be responsible. I'm particularly concerned that a number of these are
administrative, organizational, management actions and we're a little light on
management staff. And so, you know, that's where I think, you know, we're here
to support you and all of these things I think would make significant
improvements if we could implement them. So if it is, don't say yes we have
Page 41
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
enough personnel, or we'll do enough with the personnel that we have. You need
more. No doubt about it you need more resources; you need more staff, there's
no question, especially if you want to implement these smart goals, which I think
are super important. So we're behind you on that. And I think part of what the
department needs to do now is to tell us what are those critical staff are, even if
it's bringing in a contractor to help with the implementation of these strategic
goals. Let's do that. Let's invest in that now because you've got it really well
aligned here. So let's do it.
And to that end, I just will conclude. Thank you for the leeway. With a final
comment which is, you know, I do appreciate how frustrating for the public
sometimes the permitting process can be. I do want to highlight that we are just a
piece of it and as some other folks mentioned, Department of Health is often
involved; Fire is involved. There's other places where these things get hung up.
And when we talk about the housing issue and permitting, you guys being the
people to blame for it, I don't think that's a fair assignment, really. Part of it is
entitlements; part of it is the whole process before it even gets to you guys, right.
So I do want to say that, you know, there's definitely room for improvement. I
think you've done an,excellent job with the response in terms of identifying what
we need to do. I think more clarity, a report back to us that has that in a more
format with actual assignments would be useful_ But it's a step in the right
direction and I think we're all supportive of providing you with resources and
staff you need to achieve those objectives, Thank you.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you. So, I get to speak last and then you can be off.
Given the lack of time, I'm not going to ask any questions, but I am going to
make a statement and that is looking over some of the suggestions, I think it's
important to look at them to try and step back and look at them strategically
because L think some of them are if not contradictory then potentially
contradictory,.,, I think there needs to be a strategic approach to them. For
instance, one of them is to look at Al (Artificial Intelligence) and the other one is
training, So, you know, it would be silly to train everybody up and then get AIs
so that they're no necessary anymore. So that's just like a very close example of
what the kind of strategy you might want to look at in looking at these
recommendations or timing. So I think I would love to see you come back with
sort of a strategic timeline as well as a Gantt chart so that we can continue to work
with you to make this whole process better. That would be great.
MIS. SPIELMAN: Yes. Was there a time limit set on that?
CHR. GALIMBA: As far as coming back?
MR. SPIELMAN: Sorry. Yeah.
Page 42
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
CHR. GALIMBA: We'll can talk later. We'll talk later. Yes. Let's not get into
that at this time.
MR. SPIELMAN: Do we get staff for that?
CHR. GALIMBA: Absolutely. I think it's been clear from what everyone has
said that we really want to support you and get you talent that you need to make
all of this happen. Auditor Benner, do you have anything else you want to add at
this point?
MR. BENNER: Just quickly. Tyler Benner, 'Office of the County Auditor. In
response to that last comment that you just made. We don't look at Al as
something that displaces people. There's'AI immerging everywhere that can look
at common errors within plans before people ever have to. The idea; I actually
am not a fan of artificial intelligence so much=as switching the letters around for
intelligence augmentation; that it should make the jobs easier and reduce
redundant tasks so that we can devote our staff towards the more complicated
permits that are coming through the office. So these are to work hand in hand and
in concert with each other and we don't believe in conflict with one another.
CHR. GALIMBA: I agree. I was just sort of trying'to make a point there.
MR. BENNER: Yes, ma'am. Thanks.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thanks very much for that. Anything else?
MR. AZEVEDO: What I feel rightnow is we're moving forward; we're moving
forward and gaining a lot of progress in this. And with the positive with the
community,and the private contractors out there working together as one, you
know,just hearing everyone on how we can get better and taking that in stride and
doing,what we need to do. Thank you.
CHR. GALIMBA: Thank you, Acting Director Azevedo. No doubt about that.
So seeing no other lights, all in favor of closing file on Communication 272?
Vote on Comm. 272- The motion to close file on Comm. 272 was carried by the
Filed following voice vote:
Ayes: Committee Members Inaba, Kagiwada,
Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball,
Onishi, and Chair Galimba—7.
Noes: None.
Absent: Committee Members Hustace and Villegas —2.
Excused: None.
Page 43
CRCOC-7 May 20,2025
CHR. GALIMBA: That brings us to the end of our agenda. Thank you very
much.
ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 3:43 p.m. Chair Galimba adjourned the
MENT: meeting.
Approved:
Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Chair (Date)
Communications, Reports,
and Council Oversight Committee
MG/tk
Page 44