Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PWMTC 2019/01/08 2018-2020Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit l't Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii January 8, 2019 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit ORDER: was called to order at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair Ms. Karen Eoff, Member Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member (came in later) Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice Chair Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The Chair called Abalghassem Abraham Sadegh, who registered to comment in regards to Comm. 32, and came forward when called. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Sadegh. You know it is a late hour. So, what I'm going to ask my colleagues to do is if we could recess this meeting and reconvene at 1:00 o'clock tomorrow, in which we can take up Communication 32. And we could have a fresh set of eyes and ears on what I think will be a wonderful presentation about something important to the building industry. So, with that, this meeting is in recess. Recess: At 6:09 p.m., the Chair called for a recess to January 9, 2019, following the regularly scheduled Council Meeting Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 1:03 p.m., on January 9, 2019. CHR. LEE LOY: Good Afternoon. We're going to get started with the meeting on Public Works and Mass Transit. At this time, I'm going to take this meeting out of recess. Mr. Clerk. PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 32: REQUESTS A PRESENTATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS REGARDING POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BUILDING, ELECTRICITY, AND PLUMBING CHAPTERS OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE TO CONSOLIDATE REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS; AND AN UPDATE ON IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESSING SYSTEM, INCLUDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENERGOV PERMITTING SOFTWARE SYSTEM From Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy, dated December 19, 2018. Motion to Close File: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to close file on Comm. 32. Seconded by Ms. Kierkiewicz. (Note: At this time, Acting Deputy Public Works Director Merrick Nishimoto; Acting Building Division Chief Andrew Donovan; and Engineer Neal Tanaka came forward and provided a PowerPoint presentation to the members of the Committee. For viewing of subject presentation, see the DVD copy of the meeting proceedings on file in the Clerk's Office. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is made a part of the record, see Comm. 32. 1.) CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Tanaka. I think that's become a very reoccurring theme, that we are better together. With that, I'm going to open up to some questions from my colleagues. So, I'll start with Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Hello again. Nice to have you back. Sorry for the delay yesterday, it was a very long meeting. MR. TANAKA: Well, I appreciate you putting us forward today and being sensitive to that, so thank you, I appreciate it. MR. KANEALII-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. I work in the trades. That's why I have a unique perspective on what we're talking about, because of permitting; at doing electrical and being a part of the building process. I've seen it first-hand, delays, and good and bad inspectors. Kind of the whole gambit. I'm really excited that you're speaking in words that I like to hear. Streamlining, increasing transparency, and efficiency; and using technology to accomplish that. Both in permitting as well as the depth of the whole process from when they walk in the front door. Like Merrick said, they're able to go online and view where their permit is at. One thing that I think I brought up in the meeting again was when an applicant is listed, I think having the owner's email on that list as well for where their permit is would help both the County as well as the public understand where their permit is. The applicant can be the contractor. It doesn't Page 2 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 always have to be the homeowner. So, and there's a few different levels that would be beneficial including just increasing that transparency. And I believe we talked about that. I just remembered it today, and I want to hit on that again. I also feel like I should come walk a day in you guy's shoes and see what is going on; how that works, so I can understand your process. And bettering and making it more efficient would benefit the entire island, and I'm really glad to hear what you're saying right now. MR. TANAKA: Thank you. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I'm just going down my list. The affordable housing, what kind of timeline are we looking for as far as amending provisions, if any? And I think that's kind of a key issue right now. We've talked about it a few times, many different meetings that come up. So, where are we at, timeline? Even if it's a good estimate, I'd like to know. MR. TANAKA: Okay, so, I also serve on the State Building Code Council. And our efforts are also to utilize every source with regards to vetting the language that is already out there for preapproved packaged homes; premanufactured homes; and specific to the tiny homes. With regards to cleaning up our messy language that's existing, right, that's something that we can move along I think fairly quickly. And as we move to adopt the Building Division administrative code where we're going to have to modify our existing Chapter 5 where that language is located. That can happen short term, as early as, hopefully April 2019 depending on how fast this ordinance gets taken up, right? Or adopted. The tiny homes would also fall under that. Or it's just a matter of, as Sue put it yesterday, putting words on paper and rearranging it. And I think that's something that we can work closely with you folks to make that happen. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes. MR. NISHIMOTO: I would like to add a little to that Matt. This is Merrick again. You know, this issue of affordable housing, it's got a whole bunch of different subsets that we can look at from different lenses. And what I mean by that is affordable housing, housing can be make affordable through multiple approaches. One of the approaches that we're trying to do right now is efficiency of the permitting process. The faster we get the permits out, the faster people can get them built. The faster they can turn that construction loan into their mortgage and reduce costs. That's one aspect of it. The other aspects that we're trying to approach are preapproved packaged homes. So, we already got 24, or 22 preapproved house plans, both from HPM and Honsador. Those are the two manufactures that have approached us and gotten that in to us. So, with those preapproved packaged homes, if a homeowner or individual comes in with that preapproved now they can't make changes. Preapproved means preapproved. Page 3 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 You keep the walls the same; the roofline, everything. You can change colors, and there's some cosmetics you can do, but if you keep that same house plan, the review time will be much quicker. So, that's another approach. The other approach that we're trying right now is prefabricated homes. There are some people that have been approaching us. You know, there's a prominent supplier here that we're in talks right now. I don't think I should say the names right now of that people, but we'll be having a meeting with them next week, I think in the Mayor's Office, and how to try to get this forward. And their hope for the prefabricated homes is to literally cut costs, because if they can control the fabrication at their factory, and get the people use to these specific plans and controllable environment, they're hoping to keep those costs down and ship them to site. And also the installation would be much faster. Another approach that we're doing for affordable housing to trying to get the legislation amendments done for tiny homes. I think we all see it here on the media; on the TV. You know, there's a whole bunch of TV shows, which I love. The Discovery Channel and all those things about tiny homes, that people living in 120 square -foot house. You know, but they're just not code compliant. They cannot live in them legally now. But, we're trying to address that, because if you can built a 120 square -foot house or a 200 square -foot house, it's real easy to see how much more affordable that is from the 1056 (model home). Or, whatever home you want. I live in a 1056 in Kona; however, during the week I'm here in Hilo. So, I would personally benefit from these tiny homes. Man, I could buy a lot someplace out in Volcano or wherever it is and plop down one of these tiny homes, and I could have homes on two sides of the island. You know, enjoy the beauty of both sides of the island. But, those are some of those things that we're trying to approach for affordable housing. It's such a big monster. It's a big topic to address, but we're trying to get to it, because we're also keenly aware that with this event of lava which we had on May 3rd. Before that event, we were short of inventory. We were short of that affordable housing aspect here. But that event just made the problem a little more complicated. And that's one of the things this administration, the cabinet, is trying to do. This is being driven by the Mayor. It's one of his visions, it's one of his dreams for the people here is to get Hawaii County to be a better place for the locals to live. Then in turn that would help with the work environment and also with the visitor industry. You know, it's a whole complex integrated thing. And I'm glad you touched on affordable housing, because it's intertwined with a whole bunch of other topics that we're trying to get a grasp on. But one bite of the elephant at a time. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. And as far as Energov, being that's it's new and technology is always scary when you jump in for the first time. Page 4 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 Are you in any kind of trial runs or are you going to be trial -running it before you jump in full-scale? MR. TANAKA: Absolutely. Training is a major part of this outreach. Not only for the public, but for us as well. Internal, right? Getting all our clerks up to speed; our plan -reviewers up to speed. As I mentioned, the beauty of Energov is that there's workflows that make many of the processes automated and pushed through. But, you know, like you said, with change comes sometimes resistance. Sometimes difficulty in catching up, but we've got our go -live date targeted for the end of Q2 (2nd quarter 2019, ends June 30, 2019). We're in the middle of finalizing some of the development quirks of the project and should be starting our training, I would say soon. I don't have a target date on that yet, because we still have some issues that we're working out, but training is a high priority of us. As I mentioned, internally and specifically for the public. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: As with any technology, there's always a learning curve. So, I'm glad you're working on that already, and you can kind of see that coming. I mean get a foot on it. I'm just excited to see that we're moving toward some good changes for expediting the process. That's been a key issue for a lot of people for long time. So, I'm really excited to see where we go from here and I look forward to working with you, and I appreciate your time. CHR. LEE LOY: Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Madam Chair. Bravo, you guys. I mean it's very clear that you put a lot of thought and hard work over a long period of time to really put this together. So, I appreciate the update, and I know you're working in partnership with Sue. I think we have a lot of really great changes in store for our County that are going to be really appreciated. I just personally want to thank you, Merrick and Neal. A few weeks ago, you guys spent two hours with me answering all kinds of questions, so I really appreciate those open lines of communication because I think that's the start of just making great changes within the County. I had a few questions about the Energov system. I was wondering if there are other counties that are using this system. MR. TANAKA: Yes, currently Maui is implementing it. I have to check, but I don't' think that they've gone live yet. They are also working out some internal issues, but they are implementing it. I believe there are other agencies, including Los Angeles, that has Energov as their primary permitting software. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Okay, so it's a proven software, and it's customizable for the needs of our County? MR. TANAKA: Correct. Page 5 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: In terms of transparency, and I want to visualize this. You submit your permit and then it basically tells you online where the holdup is, or who's reviewed what part of your application? Just trying to get a sense of how we're able to track transparency and identify any bottlenecks. Addresses those and then lets us know, are there additional resources that we need to deploy into key areas in order to build up capacity and really start to accelerate the process of review. MR. TANAKA: Yeah, the beauty of Energov is that it is to improve the customer experience, whether it's from applying online or in person, whatever the case may be, but trackability of your permits to see where it is at; who needs to review it; to open the communication lines between the reviewers and the applicant. Those are some of the key elements with regards to transparency. You know, the Energov software, we're speaking to it for building permits, but it's also inclusive of inspections. And keeping our inspectors accountable; scheduling inspections online; making appointments, and so on and so forth. So, in line with that is our administrative code, which also addresses inspections and trying to clean up some of those issues that our public also have. So, again, as Merrick mentioned, it's holistic, and I hope I spoke to your question. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yes, you did. Thank you. And then you mentioned the potential of adding other permits to this system down the road. Could you just provide some examples of what that would look like? MR. TANAKA: Sure, for example, the Engineering Department has a grading and grubbing permit. Or say, the Fire Department has their fireworks or several other temporary permits. Or the Department of Environmental Management has some permits. Planning specifically, but this already includes Planning, so MR. NISHIMOTO: I want to add just a little bit to that. You know Energov is part of this push nationwide to go to a lot of these GIS (Geographical Information System) systems. So, basically, what the hope is for the County and all these different municipalities is to provide a one-stop shop for the consumer; for the public. So, you can go online and click on a property. On that click, all the different permits come up; property tax, building permits. I'm not sure if violations, that might be a legal issue, but it's supposed to provide a lot of information. But, one place, and one portal, as opposed to the process and procedure now, where you need to go to all different departments. You know, a lot of times what happens—you know, I've been working at the County for 12, 13 years and a lot of that has been at the frontline in the Engineering Division, and you would have a lot of real estate people come in vetting properties doing their frontend work, and rightfully so, but they would have to go to the Engineering Division, "Hey do you have any violations; is this in the flood zone?" What about this, what about that? Okay, thank you, then they Page 6 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 would go on to Planning. They would go on to the Building Division. They would vet a whole bunch of different issues and topics and information about one piece of property. But what we're trying to do is make it a lot easier for the public with the GIS. And Energov is one of the things that's going to be able to integrate a lot of that information into this system. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Excellent. The last question I have is in regards to the checklist. I was looking at list that you provided early on, about 50 percent passing first review? That's pretty staggering when you think about the people that are applying for permits are not providing all of the information. That makes your life a little more challenging. And I feel like just a waste of time reviewing plans and not being able to have all the information from the beginning. So, this checklist is an excellent idea. Can you just touch on what that would include? And I don't see it on the Next Step sheet, so just wondering about timeframe from rolling that out. MR. TANAKA: So, we never think that's a waste of time, right? The public definitely deserves our time when it comes to review, but it would be helpful. Like we said, we're asking them to help us help you. Specifically, as you can see here, line, Item 2, we're talking about items that maybe out of our control when it comes to Building. You know, SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division) approvals, or IWS (Individual Wastewater System) approvals by the Department of Health. Solar hot water variances that are also controlled by the State. Those are things that we want to let the public know. Say, "Hey, you guys need to have these in line." You know, as Merrick mentioned, checking with the Planning Department before you come in so that we can help push this forward, right? As I mentioned, we did just bring the permit process back into the Building Division. The checklist, we didn't want to overwhelm the community with so much at one time. And we're slowly rolling it out. We wanted to make this presentation to the Council as a kick-off point. Let you guys know that this is what we're intending to do. And as we come out with our outreach, we intend to have this checklist with us, go line item by line item, and explain to them what those issues are. Why we need them, and hopefully they understand how important it is in order to push these permits through. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Great. You've answered all of my questions. Thank you again for taking the time to make this presentation and let us know about the great changes that are coming ahead. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Thank you gentlemen. That was really informative and I really thank you folks for giving this presentation. I just have some questions on your Next Steps. Your public and community outreach, you're doing it for communities and professionals, contractors and then the general Page 7 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 community chambers. What is your timeline on doing that with respect to what's listed in your Next Steps? Just an idea. I mean I know it's not listed here, but I just would likeI think that's great, so I just wanted to know what the timeline is on that one. MR. NISHIMOTO: As far as public outreach, we've actually started it last year, the ending of last year. One of the first things we did, there was a HICA (Hawai`i Island Contractors Association) meeting in Kona. I spoke there very briefly about some of the improvements we were hoping to do for the building permit process. Next week, we're going to do another. And today is definitely an outreach that we're very much looking forward to. And next week, we go back to Kona. There's a chamber meeting on the 15th. And then, we're lining up another HICA meeting in Hilo the beginning of February, I believe. As far as the timeline for some of the other professional associations, architects and so forth, sorry, I don't know the timeline on the tops of our heads. But, we're lining them up. MS. DAVID: But, you're still working into these Next Steps. That's great. And then I only have one other question. On your one -permit system, the rollout is anticipated to be April of this year. And just generally, in order to convert to this one -permit process, what would it take or what's involved in conversion? From getting out of Planning and 100 percent with your department. I'm just wondering how entailed that would be and whether you have existing staff to take care of that. MR. TANAKA: Yeah, I'm sorry. I think that there was a little miscommunication. We don't intend to take over Planning's permits at all. MS. DAVID: So, your one permit is MR. TANAKA: One permit is specific to the actual Building umbrella. Building permit, plumbing permit, electrical permit are three separate permits. Forms and applications within the building permit. Correct. MS. DAVID: So you are condensing all of that into a one-step process. MR. TANAKA: Correct, correct. MS. DAVID: Where people can know just by looking at this new program where it is. MR. TANAKA: Yeah, I mean some of the challenges, and that's where the outreach is going to come into play is that we need toand the checklist is to let the owners know that. You know, make a conservative effort to try to select your contractors at the beginning of your project when it comes to electrical permits and plumbing permits and the work to be done. They need to be done by licensed contractors. And sometimes that's going to be hard to juggle, or even find at such Page 8 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 an early stage of the project. So, those are some of the things that internally, procedure -wise, we're ironing out. And that's why, we wanted to figure those items out prior to rolling it out. And hopefully by April we'll be ready to go. MS. DAVID: Okay, well that's really helpful, because it's been a long time since I had to visit Planning Department for any building permit. But, about more than 10 years ago I built my house. Yes, if we had an information sheet on what is necessary or what to expect that would really be helpful. Because it was like a hit and miss, right? After you call—where's my permit. They go, "I think it might be here." And then you call there and, yeah. I totally understand it. The streamlining would be very helpful in the process. So, thank you very much. I think it's very necessary. Awesome. MR. TANAKA: Sure. I think when it comes to the checklist, I mean those are things that are generally, like I mentioned, kind of out of our hands. Maybe other State agencies or other County agencies. I mean, we still are heavily reliant on the professional community to hold up their end of the bargain as well. Design homes that are code compliant, right? I mean no one's perfect. Mistakes happen every now and then, and we're here to help support that, right. But, we do request the professional community to research codes. We're here to answer code questions. We're not in the position to design the homes for clients, right? But we are here as a resource, so as I said, in our outreach, that's something that we are working to communicate. MS. DAVID: Okay, cool. Alright, thank you so much again. And I was just wondering whether Mr. Donovan needed to say anything? You're sitting there really quiet. MR. DONOVAN: I'm diving into this in midstream. So, Neal's done a fantastic job in pulling together not only this presentation working with Merrick, but also a lot of these code changes and amendment changes that are being made. I'm following along getting caught up and more than on board with everything. My relatively brief tenure in this position, I've seen a lot of the challenges already, acting as a structural plan reviewer for the Building Division and seeing how the process works. At this point, I really have nothing to add. I think the direction that we're heading in is great. MS. DAVID: Awesome. Thank you for your comments. And, I yield. Mahalo. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. David. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Again, Neal, Merrick, thank you very much. It's been very informative. David, I know you've been on the job, what four hours, and you've got a good team working for you so far. Question on coming forward, this is exactly what we've been wishing for the last couple of years. And so, this is quite exciting. To listen to itcouple of questions. You Page 9 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 said, 50 percent passed on the first review. How does that metric stack up against other jurisdictions? Do you know? MR. TANAKA: I'm sorry, I don'tunfortunately, I'm not that close to other counties, but, I can ask them. Like I said, I'm on the State Building Code Council, and that's something that we can definitely address on. MR. RICHARDS: Just curious. Then on the heels of that, the Building Code Council, I think we've talked about it. And you're going to have to tell me because I'm not an engineer, but I know we have different codes that come forth that have to get approved. And you may have told me about this, Neal. They get approved at the State level before they come down to the County level. By the time we approve at the County level, the National Code has changed already. And so, we're years behind. MR. TANAKA: Correct. So, I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS. Just so to articulate on that one, are we going to be able to catch that one up? Because that's, to me, paradoxical. If we know there's going to be a change, is there a way of speeding that process up? It's probably not quite germane to this presentation, but I'm just curious on that one. MR. TANAKA: No, since we last spoke, there was State legislation that required the State Building Code Council to adopt the most current published code two years after publication. So, that keeps the code cycles current. And then concurrent after that, the counties have the two years after to adopt. So, there's still a possibility of falling behind one code cycle. But, it gives us, as well as the community, time to continue and progress with regards to those cycles. Because what that time, the two years at the State level, as well as the County level does is, it allows for the State to use their resources to vet the codes to see the impacts financially and/or otherwise, relative to the State in general. And then, we take those amendments upon adoption, and we really assess how they apply to our County specifically. And with our limited resources, I think that time is fair, but to really assess how impactful that would be. And Ms. Lee Loy has extended her hand to help support us in evaluating some of those things to help push that along. Because the two-year deadline is definitely adopted or this is what it is, right? So, whether we make our amendments or not, it's that timeline, but there's nothing in the code that says we can't adopt it prior to the two-year allotment after the State adopts it. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so it sounds like the cycle has been made a bit more efficient coming forward? MR. TANAKA: Correct. I mean, as of right now, the State did, as of the end of last year, adopt the 2012 code. There was a lot of research and some political Page 10 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 things that made that happen. But, now that we're in 2019, the 2018 model code was published in 2017. So, right now, that timeline has started. The 2018 code should be adopted by the State Building Code rather shortly. And then, our timeline for the County will be on top of that. MR. RICHARDS: Okay, so that sounds like efficiencies are catching up. And final thing, lot of efficiency. Again, Chair, if you give me a little bit off topic. But, one of the questions, concerns, and complaints, whatever in our jurisdiction is that for a plan approval has to be approved by our engineers. I know in other jurisdictions, if a reputable firm comes in and they've done the engineering, and they carry their credentials. And that's recognized by those jurisdictions that they don't go through the same reviewing process as I understand. I may not quite have that right. Is there a way, if we have a certified engineer doing the work, do we always have to go back and review. And I pose that question to kind of streamline things. Third party? MR. TANAKA: Yeah, I think that you might be referring to the third party review, on Oahu. Oahu implements this. What it is essentially is that the applicant engineer, the one that designed the project, licensed, still needs to go through the County permitting process. But, what the County unfortunately did, because they lost a little bit of control, was to hire third party reviewers to review that process. To supplement their review time for a fee, right? So, it's not a service that the County provides. All the monies goes to that third party review and stays there. And that third party reviewer says, "Okay, you know what, this design engineer complied with the code, you can issue that permit." MR. RICHARDS: Okay, that clarifies that. Thank you, Chair. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Mr. Chung. MR CHUNG: Thanks. How you guys? Thanks for the presentation. How does manpower play into this whole process? MR. TANAKA Real briefly before I yield to Merrick. One of the challenges, number one is manpower. Our County has the worse ratio. Number of applications to our reviewers. So, in fact, we're losing reviewers. MR. CHUNG: So you guys need manpower. It would help. MR. TANAKA: Yes, it would help. It always helps. But, at the same time, we are sensitive to budgetary constraints. MR. CHUNG: Budgetary constraints. Of course. MR. TANAKA: But, at the same time, we do have positions that we're advertising for. And, we're looking for good talent that can help us, right? Page 11 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 MR. CHUNG: And help you guys in what regard? I mean, specifically, what I'm looking at, and I don't know it's going to play into this new process that you guys have. But, what if somebody's out sick, for example? Like, the Building Department, or building plan reviewer, or electrical? Do you guys have someone who can step in right now? MR. TANAKA: Yeah, currently, the way our structure is built, we have a west side and east side right? Both have plan reviewers, building, electrical, plumbing on both sides. So, there is the ability to defer and reassign the plan to the plan reviewers with electronic plan review. However, if it's the current system as it is currently, there's paper review, sequential. We would need to pouch it over one way or another; or, have coverage, one way or another that way. So, it's not as seamless. MR. CHUNG: But, it might become seamless. MR. TANAKA: With electronic plan review, it makes it far easier to become seamless, yes. MR. CHUNG: Okay, okay. And, maybe we can talk about the manpower issues later one. MR. TANAKA: Yeah, I mean it's plan reviewers. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, okay, okay. MR. NISHIMOTO: Sorry, Mr. Chung. Could I add a little bit about the manpower issue? You know, as the statistics says here, that Hawaii County has the worse ratio of plan reviewers to the amount of permits that are coming through here. So, from that you can definitely infer that we would like to have additional manpower for sure. We would want additional staff. We are keenly aware of the budget shortfalls of Hawaii County. So, we may ask, but we need to be prepared for not getting the additional staff So, we're taking other steps to address manpower issues. You know, some of the things that we're doing that David Yamamoto instituted in his Building Division was cross -training. And he's calling it, not just crosstraining, but cross -execution where other individuals who are doing additional duties. And the additional duty is plan review. So for example, in Kona, the full-time plan reviewer, Kelly Wilson. However, recently he's asked that Chris Domino, who's a supervising building inspector, review plans also, on a part-time basis. And then, we also have a building inspector that's on light duty, I think that's what we call it. He's injured, so he has difficulty going out in the field. So, we're using him as a plan reviewer also. Page 12 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 Now, in Hilo we just lost a plan reviewer to the Planning Department. She was excellent; Jessica Andrews. So, what David's done is he's taken a building inspector from the Kona side and brought him over to the Hilo side on a part-time basis to help with that. So, yes, manpower is an issue. Yes, we would like additional staff However, we are aware of the budget shortfalls. But, we are trying to address some of those issues the best that we can. We know there's going to be a time and place. We're going to be asking for additional staff if the expectations of this department is to continually improve and get the turnaround time of these permits faster. I would love to have somebody to walls here to the department right now and have a whole bunch of reviewers just lined up there to address those questions to get the permit out that day. But, that's just not realistic. We cannot do that with the fiscal responsibilities we have. MR. CHUNG: And then, what are the qualifications for these individuals anyway? MR. NISHIMOTO: It really depends on what their role as the plan reviewer is. MR. CHUNG: But, they're not necessarily engineers or architects, or anything like that. MR. NISHIMOTO: Not all the time, but sometimes they are. MR. CHUNG: I mean, which would be good, I would suppose. Right? MR. NISHIMOTO: Yes, correct. MR. CHUNG: But, what would be the lower end of the qualifications scale? MR. NISHIOMOTO: So, the lower end would be the building inspector reviewing plans. And the high end would be a licensed individual. MR. CHUNG: That's what you would try to aspire towards. MR. NISHIMOTO: We would like to, for sure. You know, and part of the reality is we have those positions open. We have positions open for a licensed structural engineer, a licensed electrical engineer, a licensed mechanical engineer. But, the motivation to come over to the County, if it's pay—it's lacking. MR. CHUNG: That's an age-old problem, of course. MR. NISHIMOTO: Correct, correct. Page 13 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 MR. CHUNG: And you know, the Council has stated to all of you and David, our desire is to have this whole process streamlined and become more efficient and faster. And, I guess, conversely from our side that implies that we should be giving you whatever resources you ask for reasonably. But, I think the last thing we want to do is give you guys more people and to make the process slower, right? I mean, I hope that doesn't happen, where you have more people and they find more reasons to hold the process up. I mean, you understand where I'm coming from, right? MR. NISHIMOTO: Correct. My personal feeling is that because you throw bodies to the problem doesn't mean you solve it. MR. CHUNG: Right. That's where you guys come in as administrators, right? MR. NISHIMOTO: Part of the—yeah. Thank you, absolutely. I agree. whole-heartedly buy into the fact that we need to manage better. MR. CHUNG: And then so, my last question is, and I think my colleagues know. You know, I've been somewhat critical of statistics from time to time because they can be misleading. But, at the same time, have you guys developed any kind of statistical framework by which we can judge the efficacy of your newly implemented program? I mean, maybe starting from now, we see what kinds of numbers you guys come up with. And then, as soon as your new process is put into place, then hopefully we'll see improvements. Have you guys developed something like that? And if not, could you guys please develop something? MR. NISHIMOTO: Okay, let meI just want to rephrase the question to make sure I'm understanding what you're asking for. I believe you're asking for some type of baseline now to determine the amount of permits approved, disapproved, whatever it is, but a baseline. And after we get Energov up and running, to also have a measurable back to what that baseline is. MR. CHUNG: Right. MR. NISHIMOTO: Okay. We have not thought about it in that much detail, but we canoh, did we? MR. TANAKA: Well, based on the fiscal year 2016 data that I have, I think that's a fair baseline, right? MR. CHUNG: And you did mention that earlier, right? MR. TANAKA: Right. So, hopefully, all we can do is improve on that number. I don't know what beyond was, and we still don't have the data from this past fiscal year yet, but we'll absolutely update the info. Page 14 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 MR. CHUNG: If you could make those numbers available to the Council just by a submission, so that we have some kind of running idea as to what's going on. MR. TANAKA: Okay. MR. CHUNG: Oh, David. (Note: At this time, Acting Public Works Director David Yamamoto came forward to address the members of the Council.) MR. YAMAMOTO: I just want to add a little to that. We have been tracking the permit process. We track how long it takes from the time we receive the permit to the time we issue it. You know, and although the system it not perfect, but when we get Energov we can actually start tracking how long do we have it in our possession and in our processing system opposed to it being returned back to the applicant to get it corrected. But, we do have that information as far it be a residential permit, what is the average time it takes us, what percentages if permits get out between 10 days or 15 days. Right now, we can extract that data from the current software. And the new software will give us even more flexibility to evaluate. MR. CHUNG: Whatever you come up with, the more specificity the better. Like for example, commercial; residential, and then certain periods. And then, certain periods, and reasons why it hasn't been advancing. Or maybe categories, you know, that would really be helpful. At least, we can see if this thing is progressing. It's actually a good system or it's not working. I don't know. And one more thing, what are the County agencies that are involved in the building permit process? You guys, DPW, Planning, Fire, State DOH (Department of Health); and then Environmental Management? MR. YAMAMOTO: Yeah, Environmental Managementmoreso, well I guess Merrick didn't mention it. But, we did convince DEM (Department of Environmental Management) to nix their Solid Waste Division's review from being in the process. We eliminated one agency's review. But the Wastewater's review is still there, especially if and when it's applicable to their sewer system. And then if not, it'll go to the Department of Health for their wastewater MR. CHUNG: Maybe Madam Chairman, we can have a broader discussion later on to see how all of those things are working in concert with one another. But thank you very much again. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Chung. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Yeah, real quick follow-up on what Mr. Chung just said. That's essentially, Neal, what we were just talking about. Probably less Page 15 PWMTC-1 January 9, 2019 important. It'll be nice to know statewide how we stack up. But, that's the metric baseline that we can see where we were improving from there. So yeah, that's what I'm asking for. Thanks. MR. TANAKA: Absolutely. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Anyone else? Alright, well I'll take us home. I really did want to take the opportunity to thank you folks for being here. You know, I've been behind the scenes for a solid six months now. So, I'm really pleased. First of all that you came to us after lunch. And so, just keeping us awake after lunch is a challenge. But, you know, the takeaways here from my colleagues. They all are very interested. And I think, from my colleagues, I think we see such a wonderful disposition from this team right here. They know the challenges, but they're really taking an approach with providing a system that works best for everybody. I really don't have a lot of questions just because I worked so much with folks already. But, I do want to highlight the hard four corners that you folks have put on this program, which is those incremental changes. Long-lasting improvements, incentivizing the program, because all too often we have carrots or sticks. And the program for a long-time has used the stick. And so, this incentive piece, I'm hopeful will really flip the script and shift. And then, the outreach piece. I think those four corners really will help to begin to improve the system. And so, what I do want to leave you folks with is on the Next Steps. Besides are trades, I think our business community like our chambers are really, really important to outreach to. Our financial institutions is another one. From flipping it from a land loan to a mortgage. Because they have their own timelines. And the consumer will have to pick between a three-year land loan and a five-year land loan. And so, that decision making is very critical as far as interest rates go. And so, sometimes they get into it with three years thinking they have a lot of time, and it turns out that they don't. And then the final piece is Na Leo TV. I think that would be a huge space for you folks to take up where you can have a real broad outreach. And they run the programs throughout the day, and you'd be surprised how many people watch Na Leo TV. So, with that, I have a motion on the floor to close Communication 32. All those in favor? Page 16 PWMTC-1 January 9,2019 Vote on Comm. 32: The motion to close file on Comm. 32 was carried (Filed) by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 2:07 p.m., Ms. Poindexter moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kierkiewicz, Poindexter, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy—9. Noes: None. Absent: None. Excused: None. 40 dip 2./evo t5\41k s. S - oy, Cha (Date) ' .blic Wor.. a + . Transit ommittee SL/dt Page 17