Simplifying Permitting for Enhanced Economic Development (SPEED) Task Force

Calling meeting to order. Welcome. Perfect. All right. Start that over. Welcome and happy New Year, everyone. Today is going to be our last. Should I mute my. All right, it's muted now. Should be good. Okay.

Today is our last meeting until Maine, and this is a very important meeting because this is where we're going to be discussing and as well as voting on these recommendations that our pigs have worked very hard on, as well as members who want to put up recommendations, we will be hearing those recommendations as well.

My name is Greggor Ilagan. I'm a State Representative and Chair for the Speed Task Force. Today is Tuesday, January 6, 2026. The time is 9:40 am in Conference Room 325. With participation also available in Zoom. Thank you for your patience. Again, we will begin with introductions. First, our members joining on Zoom.

Please state your name and let us know if anyone is with you. If not, simply say you are alone. We will start with the State House. Is there any members in the State House in the Zoom?

Aloha. My name is Kellie Dinwiddie Kala. I'm the Office Manager of Representative Daniel Holt. I'm going to be attending this morning's portion of the task force meeting. Representative Holt is in the finance info briefing this morning. Happy to be here.

Thank you for being here. Looks like no one else from the House is on Zoom. Is there anyone in the State Senate on Zoom? No one in the Senate. Anyone from the Office of the Governor?

Hi, this is Jill Thomas. I'm with Rep. Simei Xu's office. He's currently in the Finn meeting, so I'm standing in.

Thank you for being here. Anyone from CWRM?

Good morning. Deputy Director Ciara Kahahane, here on zoom.

Thank you. HCDA? HHFDC?

Hi, good morning. Dean Minakami, Executive Director of HHFDC. Here, I'm alone.

LUC.

Aloha. Daniel Orodenker. Executive Officer of Land Use Commission. On Zoom.

Office of Planning.

Present in the room. And not on zoom.

Thank you. Energy Office. PUC. I'm going to skip some because I know they're in this room. State Historic Preservation Division.

Good morning. This is Jessica Puff, Administrator of SHPD, and I'm alone.

Any members in Maui County?

Lance Nakamura, Development Services Administration, Department of Public Works. County of Maui. And I'm alone.

Jordan Molina, Director with Public Works for the County of Maui. On Zoom. Thank you.

Kristin Shimada of the County of Maui, Chief Building Plans Examiner, and I am alone.

Any Members in Honolulu City and County.

Good morning. This is Council Member Esther Kia`āina. I am alone. But I do have one of my staffers, Gloria Palma, watching via YouTube. Thank you.

Kauai and Hawaii County, I'm sure, is not on Zoom. Is there any representative from the unions, HGA or, Competers?

Right here. Charlotte Valinosa. And then we have [Inaudible]

Thank you. They're not on Zoom. They're here in person. And then is there any. New homeowner, family business, residential developer, commercial developer on zoom?

Yes.

Christine, could you please introduce yourself?

Good morning. My name is Christine Camp. I represent Commercial Development from Avalon Group.

Perry.

Yes. Aloha. My name is Perry Arrasmith, Director of Policy at Housing Hawai‘i’s Future. And I'm alone.

Is there anyone else? Richard, could you please introduce yourself from the Senate?

Hi. Good morning. My name is Richard Mizusawa. I'm listening in for Senator Wakai, who is not able to make it today. Thank you.

Director Tokioka.

Yes. Good morning, everyone. James Tokioka. And I'm in my office alone.

Is there anyone else I'm missing? All right, with all the members mentioned in Zoom, we have complied with our Sunshine Laws. Denise, please.

Denise Nakanishi. I'm Realtor Member. I'm Alone.

One last time. Is there anyone else on Zoom?

Yeah. Brian Kong, an individual homeowner.

And Alec Ikeda, here on behalf of Senator Troy Hashimoto.

Anand Samtani. PUC.

One last introduction. Anyone else?

Kamuela Potter, President, BIA Hawaii.

Just to mention, BIA Hawaii is not a bember, but go ahead. Anyone else? All right, thank you, everyone. For those in person, we have recorded your presence, and you will appear in our minutes. Thank you, members, for your participation in our Speed Task Force.

Public testimony will be heard throughout the meeting specific to the agenda item on hand. I will now open up the floor for public testimony only on the first item of the agenda, which is our last meeting minutes. Anyone on Zoom wishing to testify on our minutes? Anyone here in person wishing to testify? Seeing none testimony is closed.

Members, the minutes on your board packet is accessible online. I will open it up for any questions on the minutes. Anyone on Zoom? Anyone here in person?

With no question. The Chair moves to file the minutes. No second. Since no vote is needed to file the minutes is now filed. I will now open up the floor for public testimony on the second item on the agenda, which is the Chair's report. Anyone on Zoom wishing to testify?

Anyone here in person wishing to testify? Seeing none. Testimony is closed. I've conducted no presentations since our last meeting on December 15th. I know, I'm slacking, not to the public. If your organization would like a presentation at your meeting, please feel free to reach out.

I am happy to present what the SPEED Task Force is about and share what we are doing. The next agenda item is the Building Permit Permitted Interaction Group Presentation and Report. Questions and answers. Public testimony is now open. Anyone on Zoom wishing to testify on item 3? Any members here present wants to testify on item three.

Seeing none, the testimony is now closed. We will now transition to the discussion on Building Permit Permitted Interaction Group Presentation and Report. I will now take any comments or questions regarding the Building Permit Permitted Interaction Group Presentation and Reports. Starting in person, naturally move to the Zoom attendance.

But before I do that, I just want everyone to understand that once we finish these discussions, the PIG will officially be dissolved. Because we have satisfied the three meetings that's required for the PIG, which is one, on September 11th, we established the PIGS. On December 15th, the PIGS provided a presentation.

And today, January 6th, we have discussed and asked questions about that report and presentation. So once we're finished with this, the PIG, the Building Permit PIG, will officially be dissolved. So let's start with questions.

If we could start off here in person. Is there anyone wishing to ask a question on the building presentation? I'll start off. I really appreciated the recommendations that came out of the report, and I do want to see these recommendations come up for a vote.

And I wanted to ask you, Chair, what led you to these recommendations? And I know you put in a lot of time and effort and energy into it. Could you give us the process that you had and what made you ultimately decide on these?

Yeah, thank you for that question, Chair. As we know, our counties actually are the ones that issue our construction permits. And we all understand that it is a complex process where not only county agencies touch the review and process of these construction permits, but other state agencies.

And so, it really landed for a number of members within the state task force how our building code officials really are kind of a conductor of an orchestra. While providing information back to the applicant and coordination of the various reviews of the construction permit process through their online permitting system.

It's also very clear that because permits are issued at the county level, the recommendations related to ensuring that counties provide the appropriate funding to staff up, provide a platform, along with education and training for other design professionals to interact with the construction permit process landed with our counties.

And so the first few recommendations really is to support and encourage counties to really invest with our counties' building permit classes and our building code officials. We've heard loud and clear that staffing was a hindrance to some of the challenges on issuing permits, along with the modernization of an online platform, along with the complexities of all of our construction codes. And so those first few recommendations.

Really is more of an encouragement to help our building code officials have the right resources. The final recommendation really emerged as a desire to fall forward. We all understand the construction codes as they are right now, but we see this emerging product with off-site construction becoming a key and critical pathway for individuals to secure housing, whether it's accessory dwelling units, off-site construction, mobile homes, or the like.

And so that final recommendation really is where our stakeholders within the building permit PIG landed, that we're in the process of fixing the permit process and putting in the right resources within the system right now, staffing it up.

But with this new emerging field of off site construction, the desire to have a pathway and a review process handled at the state level to help our building code officials review and approve off site construction, whatever that looks like. I know a lot of people when they think of off site construction, they think of factory built.

But off-site construction is a whole lot more. We've seen, and our building code officials have seen, emerging companies trying to introduce off-site construction from outside the State of Hawaii. And they are absolutely challenged with the review process and inspection process that goes with off-site construction.

So, there is a strong desire to help us step ahead of it, rather than this off-site construction become another slow process within the permit system.

So, that final recommendation emerged basically as a beacon, as a call out to how do we get the state to help our building code officials at the county level to come up with a review and inspection process that can be applicable across all of our counties, whereby reducing the workload, keeping the building permit process streamlined and efficient at the county level, while addressing this emerging housing product type.

We landed at the Office of State Planning partly because we were getting a lot of help within the SPEED Task Force for the review and ability to come up with a program and a plan to review off-site construction. I know Director Tokioka was online, and I know this might not be the best fit, but I found it as a way to at least start the conversation and really urge other members within this task force to support it.

And if there is a different agency, I'm wide open to who would be the best organization, agency, or group to come up with a pathway and a process to address off-site construction. We know the state building code council has been on pause for some time, and I understand that would be a nice fit for them to evaluate off-site construction.

There's some other skill sets within the Department of Accounting and General Services and our DAGS Division that might also be a good fit, you know, and I stand ready to answer any questions or hear any other thoughts on how we could actually move this recommendation forward.

It might not be a great fit right now, but I also believe that's what this task force was intended to do was to have these ripe, robust conversations with subject matters in the room, and we can all collectively come up with an idea, an agency or group that might be able to help us evaluate off-site construction.

Thank you. I have just one more, and then we'll open it up for in-person. To all the planning departments. One of the recommendations for adoption is to develop a statewide AI-enhanced digital permit intake platform.

I know when we had those PIG meetings, some of the challenges is going to be how do we have those data identification be in sync because everybody has different needs in different counties with different numbers and IDs, and that's all the very technical thing.

But on the top level, I want to hear from the counties is, if that were to be implemented, and we do have one site where we can process permits, how much of an improvement would that be in the process? I know there's a lot of logistical concerns with implementing this idea.

I just want to hear from you if we were able to overcome those concerns, how much of do we really need that or is it better to have each county have their own input process? I know it's a loaded question.

This is Jordan from Maui County. I'll be glad to take a crack at that.

Go ahead.

I don't necessarily agree that it has to be a standardized tool or product because that's going to be a huge lift. I mean, it's hard enough just to get a task force coordinated, much less a statewide county-wide integration. And I don't think it has to be that technical. It's just more putting in that ability to coordinate with our county systems and allow the state agencies, I mean, maybe if the state wants to create a portal of that effect, that might be a good way to hand it off.

But, you know, if the state agencies could operate in the country systems, and the legalities around that could be resolved. That could be a more effective and efficient way of integrating, rather than going out for this product hunt that is gonna hopefully solve everybody's problem.

Thank you, Jordan. Appreciate your candidness. Neil.

Neal Tanaka, County of Hawai'i. Building Division. I think statewide, to Echo Jordan, might be a big lift. But I think for us at the county of Hawaii, a majority of our intake comments that go back to the public happen there. And the AI software could be utilized for that completeness check.

And generally, I would expect that the completeness of an application is consistent for all the counties, so it can go either way. To that end, in general, we've evaluated several AI or companies that say that they can do this as a tool, and they all say that it's scalable. Right?

And so, with the foot in the door, if you will, to get past this intake hurdle that I think all of us at the counties endure, for lack of a better term or experience, it could be incredibly helpful just to get through the door. Right? I think that is one of, like I said, our biggest hurdle.

Nice. Anyone else?

Leolynne Escalona. County of Kauai. For our county, we have a separate planning department and building division. So I mean, as far as what Neal had touched on, I mean, if we were to try and implement something statewide, I'm thinking maybe it would start at the Planning Department, you know, for zoning, just, you know, to cover the basics. What can you build on your property? Maybe, you know, just to get our foot in the.

And perhaps if that's successful, then we can, you know, delve deeper into other facets of AI.

Thank you. I just want to make one comment on that and then one other thing. I appreciate your honesty. We need to make sure that in this task force, we're realistic on what we can accomplish. And we want to make sure that when we deliver these recommendations that the community understands that these are realistic goals that we're trying to make. And so logistically, there are going to be problems with some of these grand visions.

And maybe we don't have the answers right now, but we could try to aim towards it and make some progress along the way. So, I really appreciate that. Is there anyone else from Honolulu City County? I didn't see them.

Okay. With that said, I will just want to make one comment with recommendation for adoption one, which is building a permitting workforce pipeline, and recommendation four, which is invest in ongoing professional development for permanent staffing. I've heard many times as one of the key things that we need to really focus on to improve the process. And I'm glad those recommendations are on there.

And I just want to say I'm fully supportive of that. With that said, Council Member Esther Kiaʻāina.

Yeah, thank you so much. First of all, I just wanted to applaud the Chair and the Members of the Permitted Interaction Group. This is critically important with regard to the workforce pipeline. And so I saw about tuition support and service commitments. I just want to make sure that we're also looking at loan forgiveness.

I think it's a critically important tool with regard to capacity building. And as we prepare for our respective budgets, I'm looking for myself. I've talked about it for years of helping DPP in Honolulu with regard to helping potential candidates, because I do know that educational cost is the key reason a lot of people are unable to come into public service. They go directly into the private sector.

So my question is, I'm assuming for the tuition support, you also mean loan forgiveness. I just want that clarity.

I believe we're going to look at all aspects, including the loan forgiveness as well.

Yeah. Because I think the loan forgiveness to me, I know it helped, I would not be in public service if it wasn't for loan forgiveness. I was able to pay off all of my law school loans because of a loan forgiveness program. So that's all. But thank you so much for all the good work of this PIG, which I fully support this recommendation.

Of course. I also want to make sure that the chair for the Building Permit PIG has a chance to answer your question as well.

Council Member Kiaʻāina. Thanks for being here. I think the language would actually provide that flexibility. However, I was actually curious and getting your input on what that no-forgiveness program would look like and if it should be married to some type of commitment to public service for some extended period of time.

So, for example, with your loan forgiveness would be a dedication to public service with any county or state agency for a 36-month period or a 60-month period. Just wanted to get your feedback on that.

So, how the system would work is that, say for example, in my case, I work for a federal congressional member, it was a requirement. So, the parameters would be that they could either work in a state or county office for permitting, right?

Oh, I'm sorry, in the county offices for permitting, we would budget a allocation. Say we would give up to $500 a month, for example, I know in my case it went up to $600 a month. We could figure out the numbers.

What would happen is they would have to, they're going to have to work X amount of years in order for them to receive a loan forgiveness. They would have to work for the government. So, their working is actually public service already.

So, it's not like you would have to get loan forgiveness and work an extra two to five years. So, you see what I'm saying. So, the incentive is a lot of engineers, for example, who are qualified, are skipping the public sector because the pay is lower and they go to the private sector directly.

So, I believe if you mitigate their educational costs by providing a cushion for repayment of their loans, that is an incentive. And say if after two to five years they go into the private sector, at least we would have had them two to five years.

But we should be doing this in a long-term fashion to help strengthen our pipeline. Because if we don't make inroads, which is why this recommendation is so important, we will always be in the hole. We need to make it. If you don't have the manpower, it is not going to work.

Yeah, thanks, Council Member. And I do appreciate your readiness to tailor your county's budget to help lift out these recommendations.

Absolutely. So, I'm going to look at both tuition support as well as flexibility for loan forgiveness.

That's a great incentive. Thanks.

Thank you.

Thanks, Council Member.

All right. Is there any other questions?

I have a question.

Sure.

About creating experiential alternatives for architectural or engineering licenses. So, as of right now, they have to take exams in order to receive their license to be an architect or an engineer. But perhaps somebody could work in a permitting office, gain experience, and then use that experience towards their license.

To your point, that shadowing program where years of service, but at the end of the day, and I'll actually ask Howard Wiig to chime in here, subject matter expertise, training, and education for an architect, an engineer, is critical to the safety of our construction. And so I do think there is room for that.

But at the end of the day, there is a minimum standard of these licensures for these specific positions. Howard.

We've had a intern program. Where we brought people straight in from college or just a few years of elemental job experience. And we've given them specific tasks related to building codes, energy efficiency, and so forth. And we have seen them grow. These are very bright, dedicated young people to begin with. And you can see their growth.

And then they leave the internship and sometimes they get hired right back by us because they're doing very well or they go into the private sector and find jobs. So this experiential aspect is really, really fortunate.

Morgan, did you have a comment?

Yeah, I guess I could share. I guess I have experience of becoming an architect myself. Took me about seven years, and then with my old firm I worked at, there's a number of young, we hired people out of college, and so spent time training them.

So, I think that experience working with a licensed architect is kind of key because then you understand how to design a building.

But I think there is an opportunity if you do have licensed architects, like on Hawaii island in the public sector, if a young aspiring architect wants to work there, that's a opportunity they can gain that experience. But I think working under licensed professionals is kind of key for that.

Tell your organization.

AIA Hawai'i.

People don't know what that is.

Or American Institute of Architects.

Chair, any other final thoughts before I open it?

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Chair Leloy. We support all four of these recommendations. But for number three, establish a statewide off-site construction program. We have concern that the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development doesn't have the skill sets and knowledge available to do that.

But we support the intent of exploring that and would be willing to help look for the right home for that. But I want to make sure that you know, you're aware of my reservations on that. Thank you

Of course. Thank you. All right, is there any other questions? We have nine more minutes.

Yeah. Chair, if I may join. Question for item three. You know, when you throw out Office of Planning, is there any discussion about filling the Executive Director position at the State Building Core Council as required by statutes?

Yes.

A key position at the state level to have on this subject matter that we've been waiting for for a long, long time. And I think you know, that would be the right person to help further this along. But if we're not serious about that, I don't know how serious we can take any of these.

Well, Jordan, I just want you to also understand that in May we will, our second part of the SPEED Task Force, we will be looking at building codes, and that PIG will be looking into the position that you mentioned.

But for now, maybe Howard could if you have information you would like to share with that question.

We've been working with the Governor's office on resurrecting, and DAGS also, resurrecting the State Building Code Council. And we've agreed that we're going to start with the residential code and the commercial code and then move into the energy code. And we're fully prepared to launch that.

And tangentially with regard to manufactured housing, we've hired a very distinguished subject matter expert named Sam Rashkin, and he was the co-founder of the Energy Star Program many, many years ago. And he has come up with home design options which would be very, very energy efficient, very, very resilient, and reduce the cost of construction.

His estimates between 30 and 60%. And we have been working so far with DHHL because they have 29,000 homes in the pipeline, and they're already looking at one option outside construction.

And this is our discussion is really in the preliminary stage, but we will be putting the two of them together in the very near future and would be very delighted to keep you folks in the pipeline.

Thanks, Howard. Thank you.

So, Jordan, the answer is definitely a yes and yes. Angela, I see your your hand raised. However, this discussion and questions are reserved for the members and delegates. You will have an opportunity to testify on the next agenda item. But thank you for raising your hand.

Members, are there any other?

Questions? All right. I want to close with thank you to the members of the building permit. Your long hours and devotion to those meetings were very inspirational. I don't know how you did it because I could not attend all those meetings. I really appreciate all the work that you put in.

It's really refreshing to see those discussions happen and I can see the product that came out of it and the discussions that we had. So I want to encourage everybody here when we get into the recommendation that to be frank and to truly try to move the needle forward and realistically vote your conscience on these recommendations.

We want to make sure that your honest opinion are voiced out because we're trying to do real work here and, and we want to make sure we know all the information that it takes to move that recommendation forward. So with that said, we are moving to our next agenda item and we are now.

Next is the Agenda Item 4, Chapter 6e, Historic Preservation Big presentation report Q and A public testimony is now open. Anyone on zoom wishing to testify on this item?

Yes. Aloha. I'd like to testify.

Go ahead.

Thank you. I'm Pamela Tumpap, President of the Maui Chamber of Commerce and I am alone in my office, and I would first also like to thank you, Chair Ilagan, and members of the task force for their tremendous commitment to this. This is helps us address a long standing issue that we've had in in creating housing.

Dealing with many challenges, but it also affects our economic health and Hawaii's business friendly environment which remains at the bottom of the national rankings 49 out of 50 states. So you know, this is a great opportunity for us to look at this for our economic growth, diversity and sustainability.

And we appreciate the opportunity to be here with respect to Chapter 6e historic preservation. Excuse me. We wanted to support the recommendations from the Chapter 6e Historic Preservation Big as they reflect and address many of the concerns we've heard for years regarding the SHPD process.

Recommendation number one on clarifying and extending statutory timelines under Chapter 6e and the complete submittal is an adjustment that will greatly help homebuilders as well as clear expectations and timelines to help keep housing projects on track and reduce the risk of carrying costs for delays which all permitting really impacts.

We also support the recommendations for further study, particularly exploring expedited review frameworks and evaluating a self certification pathway for low sensitivity projects.

These are key to streamlining the SHPD process and therefore we would like to see these reviews and evaluation expedited and my apologies, I went to ring in on the building and I rang in late, but we also want to note that we support all of the building recommendations as well and would like to move up some of the other recommendations higher up that deal with seeing looking at the important building process and the long standing needs by strengthening the front end checklists by permit type and feel that strengthening the checklist and standardized forms and templates will also go a long way into making sure that submittals are more accurate when received the first time.

Thank you. Let's move on to our next Angela Yum.

Committee. Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES and so as we transition into the modern generation, the state has much to do to preserve history historic properties.

I testified to stand up the Oahu Historic Preservation Commission Bill 44 at the county and to help with enrolling in the certified local government program grants to protect significant historic state properties.

I think there is a lot of work right now on technical issues as someone concerned about actually getting properties approved that could be more focused on eligible properties such as Hawaii Theater or historical churches like Kawaiahaʻo Church, that was a church for monarchs.

And so also if they were more focused on collaborations of the Oahu Historic Preservation Commission, SHPD and National Park Service to talk about priorities as a group, I think this could ensure moving things forward efficiently. So each entity has a specific responsibility.

Oahu Historic Preservation Commission is a team of volunteer Members to advise and streamline processes between DPP and SHPD and then National Park Service is actual management of specific historical sites. And SHPD focuses on law, archaeological and architectural characteristics to manage nominations for eligible properties with a focus on education and outreach with the GIS data-based system.

So I think there are just very technical focuses right now without actually getting more eligible properties. So as someone who really wants to see more eligible properties to protect. Yeah, these are just my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Angela. We're going to take Jessica Puff and then we're going to move on to in person testimony.

Thank you everyone. Just as a quick follow up to Angela Young's testimony, really quick, I wanted to give a brief shout out to Kirsten Bauchner at Historical Hawaii foundation because she's stepped up to kind of help all the CLG communities coordinate in a bi monthly meeting getting all of the representatives from the different counties that manage their CLG programs on the same call together to kind of brainstorm and coordinate.

It's been ongoing for I want to say six months. And so Angela, I think great minds think alike. You and Kirsten are definitely on the same page and trying to coordinate the counties to get them to work collectively or at least talk about issues that they're running into.

So I think there's a lot of promise there for making improvements and listing things at the county level. But really my testimony, I just wanted to first, I like to say I've really appreciated the care and consideration that all of you on the task force have given to historic preservation.

Whether you represent the Legislature or state and local government entities or are a member of the public or the private sector. Throughout this whole process, historic preservation hasn't been questioned the importance of preserving our history and our culture. So I just really wanted to thank you all for that care and consideration that you've given.

In terms of the recommendations within the report. I think that they have reflected the transparent conversation we've tried to have or the information that SHPD has been trying to provide to all about the strengths and weaknesses of the 60 process and where we're at and how we can improve.

So based on all of our conversations and on the information shared, I think that these recommendations, both the action items and the future consideration items are reasonable. They're feasible. But that's it for me. Thanks

Thank you. Can you please come up to our testifier podium and please state your name.

Aloha. My name is Iman Clyman, Co-manager of Mono llc. I needed WC Corporation operating on the WI coast and I just came here just for this testimony with this agenda item. I have a pilot program with Department of Hawaiian Homelands in Rurale that deal with vacant unmanaged lands.

And one of the requirements that we have to do is we have to comply with 6e. The problem with that is a new website on the HiQuest website and another portion of the website, it states that we're experiencing technical issues with HiQuest. Please do not submit any new surveys or resources at this time.

So how are we supposed to comply if your own website is not allowing us to comply? And I know that, you know, if we try to, if we get dinged for that, you know, it's a mitigating issue because you're not able to come to have your website comply.

So in this, the pig that's responsible for this, I would think that you would put into your recommendations that if the website for whatever reason is down for over 24 hours, that you not hold people responsible for not being able to comply.

It's not our fault that we cannot comply if you cannot provide us with opportunity to do so. And so it's a major problem. I noticed earlier that you had Homeowners also on the website.

But as a Native Hawaiian advocate for our Native Hawaiian community, we are trying to get Native Hawaiians who are 30% below AMI on vacant, unmanaged lands, and we don't have time to wait for the state to get their website up and running in order for us to be able to comply with 6e.

So regardless if you guys do them or not, in my opinion, we're just going to skip 6e, but then that shows a disrespect for the system, and we don't want to do that. So if you would take this comment seriously, I would ask that you implement something in your.

In your pig that directly addresses this issue and how you guys plan on resolving this matter so that us Native Hawaiians or anybody else who got to do 60 compliance that we don't. We don't get dinged because we cannot comply because your website is down. Aloha.

Thank you. All right, is there any other testifiers in person? Christine, I see you in Zoom, and I'm going to say that you will have an opportunity to speak when we are going to be having this discussion, and you'll be the first person I'll call up.

I kind of made an exception with Jessica, since she's the administrator for the Department. So, is there anyone else? We want to make sure that testimony is open to the public, and if they have anything else they want to share with us. All right. With no others willing to testify, this testimony is now.

This section of testimony is now closed. Before we go into it with discussion, I just want to give an opportunity of a break for everybody. It'll be five minutes for those of us who's not in Zoom to go to the bathroom or do what they need to do in five minutes, and then we'll go into those discussions.

And then what time are we going to break for lunch? And then 11:30, we'll break for lunch. So we're gonna take a five minute.

Calling this meeting back to order. We are now in discussion about the report and presentation from the 6E historic preservation PIG. And I want to start off over in Zoom with Christine Camp. I think she has a question. Christine, would you like to kick us off?

Thank you very much. Chair, I do want to thank everyone in this group. What I've seen. I was so impressed at how open and committed the agencies were, especially SHPD in trying to help. I think the ideas are really good.

I just can't overemphasize if there was anything that as a developer, property owner who provide, you know, venues for retailers, restaurants, as well as building homes, the area that is most significantly needing change is SHPD. And I think that, you know, the woman from Chamber of Commerce had mentioned that it is an economic issue.

So I can't emphasize how important 6e process is for all of us to look at. I feel that the recommendations are right on to the point. And so I. You know, I'm not saying that we should change it, but I'd like to emphasize a couple of areas that are very critical in my view.

It seems minor, but, you know, the burial councils or cultural commissions or things that are related to review, they often can't do their business because there's not enough quorum. In one year, there were nine meetings canceled for one of the burial councils because they didn't have enough quorum.

It's one of those things where I think it's not just a recommendation of something to study, but it might be something that is more important for us to look at how they function and what alternatives can be provided when there isn't enough quorum to make the decision. I think, you know, that is a.

It seems minor, but it's very, very important. The second thing that I'd like to ask for and emphasize in the recommendation is this group convening, which is a recommendation to, say, have a regular convening of groups, state of stakeholders. What's the sense of having the convening of the groups if the recommendations don't have any weight?

So my recommendation would be not just the convening of the groups, but that you give some authority to that group that can make that recommendation workable. I just love the way that this was structured.

Chair, your idea of having these PIGs that really opened up, and they were all there to solve problems and move things forward without giving up the protections that had been set in stone for our cultural history.

But I feel that this needs to keep going, and I feel that we need to set aside a Budget and a structure in which that the recommendations can be taken for real, not just groups talking, because we've already been doing so much talking already. So those are the couple of points that I wanted to make.

But I just want to thank you all. You know, it's been very challenging for business people like me to be able to attend these meetings because it's not part of our normal jobs.

And I can just imagine the stakeholders, like people who own restaurants or trying to put in a grease trap and dealing with SHPD issues, or just small businesses that are trying to build their own little store and having to deal with SHPD issues, people on Maui and they just can't come to all these meetings.

But the fact that what I've seen was the agencies that actually do these, they understand our plight and how they're trying to solve the problem was very heartening. And thank you very much.

Thank you. Chair, would you like to say.

No, I agree. Thank you, Christine. Thank you, Chair. That we do have to keep moving. That was one of the main recommendations, as my colleague from the Big Island also mentioned, fall forward to keep it going, keep the conversations and discussions, the subject matter, stakeholders that were all present that, you know, shared their knowledge and input.

So I agree. And I agree that the working group isn't just a talk story, but they have a purpose to find solutions to help make the state more efficient in building, help with economic development.

All right, is there any other questions online or in person?

Go ahead, Michael.

Thank you, Chair.

I just also wanted to build off of what Christine mentioned about the burial councils. And there is the recommendation for further. Further study for improvements. But I do want to emphasize that making improvements to shifty might ultimately shift burden to the councils.

So it's important to keep in mind that if we are making improvements, we should be doing that holistically with all the groups. So I think the burial council plays an important role. So it takes time and energy to get those groups to meet.

So having dedicated staff to support them, actively recruiting to find members that can show up so that they need for them, you know, finding the support wherever it can, is something that should be looked at.

Jessica, would you like to make a comment?

Hold on one second. Okay. I don't. I don't disagree with what Christine or Michael are saying. In terms of the burial councils, in particular, the issue of quorum.

That is an ongoing problem that we've had for years in terms of one, communicating to the public effectively to, particularly to those individuals who would want to be on the council when openings are when there are openings on the councils and then also how to become a member of the council. I think that there's.

We're still not hitting the right message or medium for getting that information across and then working with, you know, the Legislature and the governor's office to ensure that those seats get filled so that when people do apply, they're actually appointed. So I think that there's something that we all collectively to continue to work on.

Whether it's in one of these groups. I think that the group identified in the report of stakeholders meeting. I think in one respect that's a separate sort of group.

But there's still got to be a team of us on the Legislature, SHPD and governor's office side to actively be working on filling these seats, that the councils do meet regularly and that the items are then dies and then moved on. So I think that's one of the issues with this.

The just the scope of this task force is that we're getting into this one issue here councils and it's so complicated in so many ways. There's so many different gears at play that it's hard to resolve this issue in the scope of this task force alone.

And it kind of needs its own focus group for work on that one issue. So I'm kind of going off in a rambling way. I apologize. The cold medication is getting to me. But yeah, I, I don't disagree with them.

I think it's something that we have to do more than just make a commitment to but like set a deadline or goals to kind of ensure that we not just work on it, but we find a resolution to this issue, I guess.

Thank you. Council Member, did you have a comment? Question?

Yes, I did. Thank you. I, I echo the concerns about finding number six with regard to the quorum. This is, this has happened historically and it is that it does impede projects. And I guess for those who are on the PIG, I'm wondering if you thought about potentially modifying underlying state law to provide in circumstances that don't.

That doesn't impede the process, a potential role for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

I do know that they comment as part of normal processes, many processes, but is there not a role and they have full time staff over there, Is there not a role that in certain circumstances that a project needs to have a determination made and there is a lack of quorum that the law could be modified to give authority to OHA to.

To help in making that decision?

Jessica, would you like to answer that?

Yeah. Thank you. Apologies. I probably should have brought this up in my answer. I think one of the. I don't. I don't think that that is. I think that I'll say no. I won't say no to anything, but I will say that it's not SHPD place alone to make that recommendation or decision.

And I think one of the complicated issues with trying to do everything all at once in this task force is that we don't have representatives from the Native Hawaiian community, cultural practitioners, the burial councils, or OHA on this task force course.

So we did have discussions about what could be an alternative means of moving an agenda item, moving an issue through the process if quorum can't be achieved. And there were discussions in our group about having one statewide burial council that the issue could be appealed to.

There's been discussions like that in our office outside of this task force, for other methods to achieve the same goal of preserving, protecting Iwi Kupuna, but at the same time moving projects through that are critical. But it's kind of hard to come up with a legislative recommendation when some of the critical stakeholders aren't part of this conversation.

And I think that's why it was left in the report as something that we need to continue to work on. We need a separate group of those stakeholders.

Okay, I understand that, but I am just saying that as policymakers, all of us who are here, nothing is wrong with us looking at these recommendations and looking at implementation of policies. And during that process, legislative process, all of the stakeholders can come.

I don't believe that I was expecting for the chairs and the Members to be making specific recommendations. And by the way, I'm speaking as a Native Hawaiian, someone who has worked in all of these various organizations, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Kamehameha Schools, and now I'm the Zoning chair.

And so I do believe that I'm coming with a unique perspective of safeguarding, of course, Native Hawaiian rights, and particularly as it pertains to Ibi Kupuna.

But as someone who is at the threshold of looking at policies and funding strategies to help in moving processes forward for greater efficiency, I think that it's incumbent for all of us to be thinking about this. I don't believe they needed to be on this task force for us to be making recommendations. Policy.

Anyway, thank you guys for your time. Thank you. I agree with you. Councilmember Jordan.

Thank you. Just wanted to make a quick comment. As far as the idea of, you know, creating an alternate to the burial council to consider, perhaps modifying the membership with people with agency staff that can be more available to help bridge the quorum gap as an alternative to completely an alternate entity to the burial councils.

As a suggestion, we have a couple committees at council or as a county that includes staffers from various agencies. And I think that's an effective balance to have the staff be part of these committees along with the stakeholders. It can help with quorum issues as well.

So thank you. Yeah, I Chair, I definitely want to pass it on to you. I just want to make a comment and my comments will be brief. Attending those 6E PIG meetings, there were a lot of suggestions and solutions of addressing these problems. And I'm so glad that you went into it.

I want to give you the opportunity to say what you would like to say.

No. I'm grateful for the opportunity, Chair, for having you pick me to do the 6e process. I learned a lot. I'm very grateful to administrator Jessica Puff, you know, for her willingness. She never, she did, she never said no to any ideas which helps that collaboration amongst with the stakeholders come up with these findings.

And I the burial council OHA issue, I know it's a very sensitive issue. I am not native Hawaiian, so I didn't feel right to like just task them with something without having them present in the group or at the table. And that was in collaboration also with Jessica.

That's why we put it in as a working group meeting to like continue that conversation. I know we're policymakers, but I didn't want was such a collaborative discussions that there was no tension.

And so I didn't want anyone to felt like I was adding things to their plate or ramming things down their throat, like bad work for OHA or the Barracuds to do. But I hear their inputs on the findings.

I appreciate the feedback, but I'm very, very grateful that the stakeholders met weekly and we came up with this and we will be moving forward. So that's the overall goal. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. All right, is there any other comments or questions on Zoom or in person? All right, well, with no further comments and questions, officially the 6e historic preservation PIG is now dissolved. You are no longer tied to this PIG.

And I didn't say it previously, but officially as well, the building permit PIG has also been dissolved. And so there's no more five hour meetings that you have to attend. Planning Department. I don't know how you did it. And it's like, that's a long meeting. Okay.

With that said, we are moving on to our next agenda item and our next agenda Item is item 5, which is the individual wastewater system approvals. PIG presentation and report for Q and A public testimony is now open. Is anyone in Zoom wishing to testify? Yes, I would like to testify.

All right, and then we'll have Angela go after.

Go ahead, Pamela.

Sorry. Aloha. This is Pamela Tumpap with the Maui Chamber of Commerce again. And we support the recommendations for adoption from the individual wastewater systems. We appreciate the recommendations to fund incentives because conversions can be very costly. And of course, we have, you know, a deadline for conversion. So that's going to come up very quickly.

And know as we're looking at housing. And the cost of housing, this is. Really important to address. So we appreciate that. You know, we're looking at other ways. Of doing septic systems and sewer systems. We also value the recommendations to fund a study to look at new technologies. As this could be a key to.

Reaching our state's 2050 sustainability goals and to. And the septic conversion goals. So we. We really hope to see broader improvement in this. Again, appreciate the time and effort of everybody involved for supporting this effort and the recommendations.

And we stand with their recommendations.

Thank you. Angela.

Aloha, Angela Melody Young, testifying on behalf of CARES. And so, like I mentioned in.

Hope you're not driving, Angela.

Oh, I'm not.

Okay. You're in the passenger seat. Okay. Does safety come first?

Testify, Representative. I obey the laws. You can bet I obey the laws.

I apologize for interrupting you. I should have never questioned you. Go ahead.

So, yeah, I just wanted to provide comment that, for example, at the county, the gray water systems can help with managing just environmentally friendly individual wastewater system. Because it's a advanced equipment and it. Depends on specific system certifications and compliance with local codes.

For example, like with the Uniform Plumbing Code and state's regulations to get approved gray water features built in new buildings. And so I think that will have. To be like something that is collaborated. Within those groups of like engineers and the plumbing industry. And so building designs to incorporate gray water features with diversion of wastewater from.

Sources such as. Like laundry, toilet flushing to repurpose the use for irrigation. It reduces demand on water supply and. So it helps to reach sustainability. Goes for the state of Hawaii in newer buildings popping up. And also it helps to achieve higher. Ratings in green building certification programs like.

Bleed, which stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for a Sustainable Future.

Yeah. Thank you, Angela. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on Zoom or in person with no other testimony? We are. The testimony section is now closed. We will transition to discussion on the individual wastewater system approvals and the PIG presentation and report. Is there anyone who wants to kick us off first? All right, I will.

I actually have a question first.

I want to say I'm very thankful for this pig changing its direction and actually implementing some of these recommendations because I was in one of those PIG meetings and I was trying to, trying to move forward with changing some of the ideas and I wanted to, I wanted to expand a little bit more on recommendation one because this recommendation would fund a data driven study to modernize IWS limits and enable innovative wastewater technology.

To me is very revolutionary and moving the needle in this topic. So I wanted to ask the Chair as well as Jon if you could expand on this recommendation and if funding were allocated, what is the potential result of this recommendation? Let's go with Jon first.

Thank you, Chair, thank you for the opportunity and for this first recommendation. The reason we supported a data driven study is I know the Department of Health has been asked a lot of times where a lot of our requirements come from. What's the basis?

For example, 1,000 gallons per day is the maximum for single family residents. That's associated with bedrooms. So normally that's about five bedrooms for residents. Commercial, we go into 1,000 gallons per day. Another one could be the 50 residential lots for development or 15,000 gallons per day for commercial development.

So a lot of these, you know, when the rules are written, there are, you know, older federally funded studies and manuals. But you know, those are from the 50s and 60s if I'm not mistaken. And then EPA has done their own studies and they do still have them up.

But they just talk about these types of numbers which we're aligned with. But they don't go deeper into how they, how they got these numbers. They're, they're industry accepted but not long term or studies driven based on what, what happens to the environment. So you know, we're supportive of looking into can those numbers change specifically for Hawaii.

You know, specifically looking at the geography and the geology for each of the islands is different also. So, you know, we want to be very specific if these lots and development has to increase. But these lots are kind of small and things like that. We want to be very specific. We don't want to over generalize.

So that's where we're coming from with the innovative systems. Is it possible to also include in the research and discovery pre approved systems?

I think when you say pre approved, we already kind of have that mechanism for pre approved in a sense that when a new company or product comes into the individual wastewater system world, they do usually appropriate Department of Health and then make sure that we approve all their, for example, their National Sanitation Foundation Certification.

In the bigger systems in the wastewater treatment works world, like a treatment plant, that's not necessary. Everything is actually basically custom built. Although there are brands, what they call package units and then there's custom built like you know how Staten Island was built, you're basically forming up everything. You're not buying it from a factory.

Whether you go with those two options, there's no certifications. It's purely based on the engineer's design because we constantly monitor the results over the license system. Where in the individual we saw the world, it's set it and forget it in a sense. So we need a very stringent certification.

So we look at that, we look at the data and we do issue a letter and that's always been our process. So they're in a sense pre approved once they get their national Satisfaction Foundation.

Do you have any comments on recommendation One, Chair?

On finding one or recommendation number one? Because they were similar but they're a little different. I just want to turn the difference.

Recommendation for Adoption 1. Fund the data study.

Yeah, so I think when you're looking at some of the final findings in number one, as well as the flow threshold, which is different than finding number one, the data driven study is to modernize IWS limits.

Not so much the pre approved designs, but if we do pre approve a funded study, what we add into the study, of course it'll cost more money, but it allows DOH and the state more flexibility to do a little bit more.

But on the technological end, what we are looking at, we've talked about designs, but it's not just the flow threshold but also some of these integrated systems that don't communicate with one another so that the homeowner can also just be aware without getting into the weeds with the engineer and DoH just to be aware of where a project is so that they can also self monitor as well and work with DoH and the engineers.

But I think it's a strong recommendation and of course, you know, political liability. We should be doing a data driven study, but I think we've also been open to a comparative adoption of other states rules for the threshold limit that wouldn't cost the state as much money as well.

Thank you. Especially communities like mine, we, we don't have permanent solutions like sewers and we depend on these septics for our livelihood.

So is there any other. Go ahead. Oh, I just wanted to clarify when your question chair about talking about technology or we talked about the designs. Designs. Oh and I think we would cover that in the recommendation three.

So the fast lane. Yeah, yeah. So I think perfect. When we get to that one, I. Wasn't sure if it was. We can go on to it because it doesn't look like anyone has pressing questions. So why don't you cover trade in IWS fast lane? Yes.

I think anytime you say fast speed. Or expedite, I'm all here and I think everybody. Yeah. Excited about that and I think that's kind of nicely packaging. One of your recommendations which was to kind of come up with a package individual wastewater system design. So.

We, you know, we did want to take a look at that kind of similar to what the building industry does. You know, everything's drawn out, specked out ahead of time. It might look similar to custom, just like the package homes.

But it really has to stick to whatever is set in, you know, whatever how many options we go with. And if they can fit that prepackaged IWS design, then yeah, the review should be significantly quicker because that's where we get caught up in, in the plan review time.

You know, it's the back and forth between the Department and the consulting engineer, you know, very down sometimes into the minutiae of distance or things like that. So if they can just plop down like the rectangle or the polygon of this drawn out system, then yeah, our review time should, should significantly decrease.

So that's where I think that's the start to that IWS fast lane. And just for clarification, this has never been implemented before.

This is, I mean first in your Department. We've had a few discussions about it because I think it was always the Department and the branches view that, you know, we don't want to dictate, you know, and that's where I think we're slightly changing. Know we're giving them options. We're not telling them they have to.

They could still do a normal custom design. You have to tweak the polygon the shape a little bit. And that's what they do as engineers, consulting engineers. But if the lot that they're working on, you know, allows it, then yeah, hopefully that they could just fit it into their lot and we can. Get past the boxes.

The other thing besides the speed component, but I can't totally control would be possibly the cost, you know, maybe that might actually help deliver the cost.

But again that's kind of an industry thing. So hopefully we can go on thank you. Sure. I wanted to add that, you know, it, it will help. It will not be a silver bullet, but I think where it will help a lot is that you have pre approved designs that engineers are becoming familiar with.

Even though, as we've learned, every house, every residence is very site specific, it'll also make them more familiar with that process as well. Along with the recommendations, I think there will be a significant change, but I don't think it's a silver bullet though.

But I think it's part of a comprehensive approach to changing.

Well, Chair, I don't know what magic or voodoo you placed on that Department, but their mindset has changed. And I want to thank you for your leadership in that and I want to thank your Department for changing your mindset and being open to explore this possibility. This to me is really moving the needle forward.

So thank you, Jennifer.

Chair and PIG. Chair, we thank you for getting us all in the same room. In all of these PIG discussions, we're hearing other people talk from different perspectives. Perspectives, different locations, different staff members, elected members, myself part of, you know, private sector.

And it seems that not just in DoH or 6E or building permits, there's two things that are emerging. You have, I'm going to use terminology here, and I don't mean it disrespectfully, but you've got a simple versus the sophisticated. And that means the applicants also, whatever it is we're building. Right?

So you've got the simple applicant, which will be the one permit in their whole lifetime. This is most of Lahaina. This is the person. And then you've got the more sophisticated. This is the Morgan Girdles, this is me. Right.

People who are applying for lots and lots of permits and doing more of the sophisticated, obviously the applicants have to be treated differently. Whatever it is we're applying for, I think could also be under the same lens, simple versus sophisticated.

And I love that DOH has now added this in going, you know what, there is a way that we can create this fast lane. Right. I'm not sure that we're there with 6E. We're not quite there in all counties on building permits, for example. But for DOH, this is a huge step forward.

And I'm not saying this is the end all, be all, but for the task force to get the same people together and herding a lot of people and a lot of personalities together and actually create some different recommendations. These five recommendations, this is huge.

And if this is just the first set of the PIGs, I'm Actually amazed that these conversations will continue.

Well, I want to state that it's your work attending those meetings because I have not attended all those meetings and I don't know all these chairs have attended these meetings because they have to facilitate these meetings. So your work really shown and the product that you created is quality product.

So I want to say kudos to all of you. Round of applause to all the work that you have all provided. So I'm just. This New Year, I'm a bit grateful for everything. We just needed a moment there.

All right.

Is there any other question? Go ahead. Michael. Thank you for the recommendations for further study, the strengthened DOH capacity. I was curious to know if that also included exploring qualified professionals or people familiar with historic review Binding for was that iws and historic preservation are often intertwined.

When that's discovered late in the process, it's very expensive and timely. So I wasn't sure if that was trying to build that penthouse capability for DoH because the counties are trying to do that.

But if it doesn't start with us, then that gets missed. Yeah. So based on that, what we were talking about throughout the pig is that wasn't one of the final recommended recommended fully recommended recommendations, but it's one of the things that we're looking at for the funded study and we will be continuing to work on that.

Go ahead. I have a question and for Jon and Mike, really I've seen enormous growth in this particular community, especially Jon and New York leadership. Now I had a question and it really dates back to our original meeting when the question was asked as to how long an individual wastewater system permit was good for.

And at that time the answer was a year. And in this idea of speeding up the building permit process, we know that our construction permits are good for sometimes 45 or even 66 years.

And what didn't connect for me was an individual wastewater system is good for a year, whereas a construction permit for a single family resident is good for. Five or six years. And so where that check in period would be if I was an owner applicant, I got my construction permit to build my home. I'm waiting on financing.

Our interest rates have changed and so now I'm trying to augment my financing. But every year now I have to go back to recertify my individual wastewater system. Was any consideration giving given in light of the recommendation to come up with a pre approved design to extend that permit lifespan to match up with a construction.

So are you asking for two things when extending the individual wastewater system timeline or the Eligibility, I guess or.

Well, we get our individual wastewater system, we take it to DOH, it gets approved and then building division moves forward. Right. Because. Check. But what I heard in that first meeting was that individual wastewater system permit was only good for a year when it might take me three or four years to actually construct.

So I think that the time can be reconsidered. I mean honestly it was. I think I wasn't there when they set that of my months or one year. It just probably seemed to probably my predecessors a reasonable amount of time to get the work done. Not considering other departmental timelines.

So something that we want to talk to all the colonists because although we're one agency, we work with four different.

And they all have their requirements and systems and stuff. So. And would that be an internal rule or would that be a policy shift? I'm only asking because there can be easy fixes to marry the permits together so that the inspection process would kind of coincide together.

Yeah, it's a. It is in our rule and like. That in our letters. It's something that I think on the fly we can work on because like if somebody.

And we do rely on the professional consultants, we do rely on the architect and the engineers who submit their documents to us to keep us informed of where their projects are at. We actually don't rely on the homeowner. We actually rely on the professional to do it.

And that's some of our findings is getting that education to the homeowner to get it from their. But in the meantime, until we can get the consultants to stay on top of it themselves. Consider extending because we do, we just extend it.

If they tell us we need another year, we just give them the.

So it's not like they have to reapply and pay a new permit.

Yeah, that would be. So it was really just to be able because without a termination those, those, those approvals go on forever and we can't close them out. So we solve one problem a long time ago, possibly create a slightly different one. So yeah, I think we would consider extension or a different timeline but we'd have to.

We'd like to talk to each county. Yeah, we did talk about it briefly.

I'm not sure if it was offline but about the fact that DOH rarely tells someone no, you know, extension and I think within reasonable accommodation.

Let's hear from the counties. Yeah, you know, honoring your guys work and I truly appreciate your guys conversation and standing. In truth, I had to drop out of a couple of the meetings. But specific to the Recommendations for further study.

And to what John was saying about the approval to use and what representative was talking about, we just wanted to encourage that further meetings between the counties and, and doh so that, you know, as we intertwine the IWS process with our building permit process and even SHIP D that we can close those gaps that are keeping our building permits kind of in limbo.

Right. Like one of the recommendations that I put in was to have the SHPD resolved at IWS as a potential solution to get it out of the building permit process. So all of that stuff, stuff is handled ahead of time. But to the point of the report, that takes a lot of bandwidth.

Right.

But more, more specific to the approval to use gap. Right. While honoring Jon's problem of those IWSS never getting closed. We are really concerned about building permits hanging at application in limbo until that that use is closed. Right.

And kind of encouraging work without a permit, a building permit to install an IWS, which is kind of an endless loop. Right. So I'm hoping to consider continuing the conversations for the recommendations for further work, but to somehow expedite that so that we can get to some level of resolution.

And I think that all intertwines with mostly the recommendations for further study. Right. Interagencies and this third party review and or even third party approval to use gap.

So we definitely are supportive of your work, Jon, and thank you. Or Jordan, do you want to say anything?

Well, similar to Gwenito touched on for out in Kauai, the building permit does not get approved without IOS installed and finalized and the EOH issues their approval letter. So. But I really haven't seen them like disapprove something that went over a year. I think they, they worked with our constituents.

But I would like to see as far as lands going forward, maybe some overall general design residential construction with the implementation of the water. You know, maybe that would open the eyes to our drafts people or architects.

Like these are other options other than all of the ways going into an iws, you know, make use of the water for aerification. So I think if we could develop maybe some simple plants at the stable, I would open the eyes or you know, new construction.

Jordan. All right, well, we'll open it up to questions again.

Question under the first point for recommendations for future studies.

Go ahead.

Jimmy Sebast, Legislative Manager for HDEA. I was just wondering if I guess. Someone could speak more about the third party review. I mean, I guess the justification for it.

Just state your name and your organization. Just so

Jeff Chair would You like to kick us off or Jon?

Yeah. So I think there are a lot of recommendations made, and in terms of third party review, I think it was important to remind everyone we're here to really just look at expediting the process.

It's one of many recommendations, including workforce development, including a lot of other things.

And I think what we chose to do in the pig was not just look at what was always going to be 100% possible in the immediacy in terms of the immediate in the current time, but also what can we do to just make it happen faster. So these are all recommendations that we're going to be pursuing.

But right now there is a shortage on some of these. And I can let Jon speak more to that. But it's one of the recommendations that we seriously considered.

And when we looked at speed and scalability was something that was very popular with the big. And also it's definitely under the for further study. So it didn't make it for the recommendation for adoption, but it's the recommendation for further study.

Go ahead. I just agree with what Representative Lee was mentioning. We're just trying to keep. You know. We don't think that we've hit our full capacity for each of our positions, but we're trying to prepare for, you know, the. The numbers that we see when we talk about cesspool.

So I think what kind of got a little confused was, you know, we are working on speed for our process in this, you know, task force, but for our specific topic, cesspool conversions kind of are right next to this topic. And everybody looks at the number, the 83,000.

So everybody's just doing the math and they're looking at what our output is now. Output needs to be in the future to accomplish those successful conversion goals. So from the pig Members looking at your part, one of those other options.

All right, is there any other questions? We do have five more minutes and we're gonna break for lunch. So I'm gonna cut you off at the five minute mark.

Definitely.

But is there any other questions or comments?

Recording stopped.

Oh, I guess that's it.

Okay, well, that's a great sign. I want to make a comment. Go ahead. Please close us off. Only because everyone else got to close.

And I just wanted to reiterate what some of the people here are speaking to, which is, I think we all are recognizing that the work that you're doing, Chair, and the work that the PIGs are doing are really important for our local residents.

And I want to thank all of the stakeholders, but especially the Department of Health for really coming with an open mind and a willing heart to do what is necessary. It's not always going to make everyone happy, but that's not the role we're in.

We have objectives and we have to do what we think would be best for everyone. And I really want to just thank and give props to all of the PIG Members in the IWS PIG specifically for their willingness to just throw it out there. We even had a conversation about do we even need to do this?

How big of a deal is this really? Why are we even doing this? And we kind of started at ground zero because we wanted to make sure we had a clear understanding about the importance of these conversions and how it affects their public health and safety.

So I just want to make sure that we also model the IWS PIG as well. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. With that, it's official. The IWS PIG is now dissolved.

No more responsibilities. Jon, you don't have to listen to.

Thank you, everyone. We are calling this meeting back to order, and I hope your quick lunch is tasty. And for those on zoom, please continue eating. For everyone here, I want to. I want to first get back to our agenda item. Before we get into it, I just want to make sure everyone's on the same page.

We just finished agenda item 5, and all the have been dissolved. So, we are now kicking off agenda item 6, and we are going to open up testimony for voting on recommendations for building permits, Chapter 60, historic preservation. And individual wastewater system approvals. So at this time, we will open up for testimony.

And is there any members on Zoom wishing to testify? Any members in person wishing to testify? With no other members wishing to testify both on Zoom and in person, testimony for agenda item six is now closed.

Okay, so all our pigs have been dissolved, and we are back here at our SPEED task force and with our full Members. We are taking recommendations from our PIGs that are ready for adoption and going through them and voting on each one.

Before I go through each of the recommendations for adoption, I want to read out some of the guidelines. You have access to this. It was provided online on our board packet through the memo. You also have a copy in front of you.

And in short, 1A on our recommendation guideline states that each member, which is 34 members of this task force, is able to put up a recommendation to a vote. The reason why we have it this way is because not all Members participated in the PIG due to sunshine that we can't.

We can't fill up the pigs with more than a quorum. So it has to be less than a quorum, which means some of you who are in the task force were not able to participate in these pig discussions.

However, you as Members have experience and history and expertise in subject matters that you can bring forth in your recommendation. And as a Member of the spay task force, you are able to put up one recommendation. And we can. We will do that after we adopt all the recommendations for adoptions from the pigs.

So 1a, that's what it states. 1B states that we will take up all the recommendations for adoptions today, right now on this agenda item, and we have until 3pm to do all that work. 2A talks about how I will proceed with the recommendations.

And what I will do is state the recommendation, and then I will also identify that this recommendation is either statewide, countywide, or Department or agency. Only after that, I will choose whoever volunteers. Typically the chair or the Member who's introducing the recommendation will speak in support.

And if there's an opposition of that recommendation, that person will speak in opposition. So there will be two people speaking and that will consist of one round. There will be a max of four rounds. I mean three rounds. Take that back, three rounds. A max of three rounds.

And that is the discussion process of the recommendation based on the result of the recommendation. At this time, it looks like we will not have a unanimous recommendation because all task force Members are not present. But we may have super majority. We may have, we will have a majority recommendation.

And then the other two is failed recommendation and not voted recommendation, which means we just didn't have enough time to go through that recommendation.

And the reason why is if not only we have the pig's recommendation for adoption to vote on, if all of us decide to have a recommendation, that's 34 recommendations that we would have to cover. And there's no way we're able to cover that till 3 o'clock. So that's the reason why that category exists.

To see is very important because as we have started off this meeting, I want you to be frank and I want you to be honest and I want you to help us move these recommendations forward, whether it's negative or positive. And to see if you vote in opposition of a recommendation.

You can follow up anytime, hopefully as soon as you can after this meeting and submit a letter to the Chair, which is to me, to our STF email. This letter will consist of why you vote in opposition.

And this will help us understand what we need to work on with these recommendations, what we can see for improvement because of your vote in opposition.

This is a way for us to be able to capture in the final report that even though this particular member voted in opposition, after the research and sending in the letter, it gives us an understanding of why they voted in opposition. And that is very important because we would love to have all recommendations positive.

But we understand that there's some recommendations that are very grand in vision and there are some logistical work that needs to happen. And this letter that you would provide would help us figure out what that hurdle is and that challenge that we need to overcome.

So that's the reason why even if a recommendation failed, and after reading all the letters that come in, because of your no in our speed Task force recommendation, we may be able to push forward on a recommendation because we see what we need to address. So 2c is very important and 2d is logistical.

There's no amendments on any recommendation. We're not going to be hashing out a recommendation through this process. The Recommendation has to be clear and that's the recommendation we're voting on. So this keeps us in line of the integrity of the recommendation that we're putting forward and there won't be any changes on that recommendation at all.

If we put forward a recommendation and we need to change it, then we got to start all over, go through the whole process. So these are the guidelines that we have and this is the guidelines that we'll be following for the recommendations. I hope that is clear. I will open it up for questions on these guidelines.

Now, is there any questions that you may have, anyone on ZOOM or anyone in person? Alright. With no questions, we will move to the recommendations for adoption and we'll go in, we'll go into order of the.

PIG report, which means the first recommendation that will come up will be the 6e one, which is clarify and extend the statutory timelines under hrs. 6e.

I am gonna from here on forward, assume that every Member has read the report and this is the understanding that everyone has read the report, read the recommendation, and now we are voting on the recommendation and we will, before we vote, we will have the discussion. So for recommendation for adoption for our first one, bear with me.

I have to get organized a little bit here. We will start our first discussion. So for recommendation 1 from the 6e PIG, clarify and extend the statutory timelines under Chapter 6e. This is a statewide recommendation. Hold on, give me a second.

This is a statewide recommendation and the first, the first person to speak in support is going to be the chair. So Representative, would you like to start us off? I support the recommendation number one. Maybe start off just reading the description of the recommendation so that way the public is able to understand what it is.

Okay. The PIG recommends that the Legislature amends Act 1160 Senate Bill 1263 from 2025 session to apply its complete submittal standard and associated review timelines to all state projects subject to hrs 6e8 and consider extending the same framework with appropriate tailoring to county projects reviewed under 6e42.

The PIG further recommends adding a consistent definition of complete submittal to other core sections of Chapter 6e including 6E 10 and 6E 42 and expressly providing for restart date when applicants submit new or substantially revised information so the statutory timelines reflect ship these actual review window and provide predictable expectations for agencies and applicants.

Is there any Members who are speaking in opposition of this recommendation? All right. Any Members in Zoom? All right. Well, it sounds like we may have our first unanimous. I guess we'll See what happens. So we have finished our discussions and now we are gonna take it up for a vote.

So we are going to go down the list. The State House is gonna vote yes. Aye. Senate Richard, are you present? Excuse. Let me just take a moment and. Okay. Office of the Gov. Believe they are excused. We have d bed. That's gonna be Seiji. I'm in support. Yes.

We have sea worm, Sierra. We support the recommendation. HCDA- in support HHFDC Okay, give me a second. Since we just started, some of the Members may not know that we are conducting our vote. So I just want to remind them. All right. Excuse.

LUC. We support the recommendation. Thank you. Office of planning. Aye. HSEO-support. PUC. Excuse. SBRRB. Aye. State historic preservation division. We support. Department of Health. Support.

State Building Code Council. Support. Kaua' I County. Aboard. Hawaii County Planning Public Works. Maui County Public Works. Support.

Honolulu City and County Planning and Permitting Department. Please support. Kauai County Council. Excuse. Hawaii County Council. Excuse. Maui County Council. Excuse me.

Honolulu City County Council. Excuse. Jill's office is excused. 25 Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters. Yes. HGA yes. New homeowner Jordan. Yes. New homeowner Brian. Yes.

Family business. Monica is excused. Family business. Denise. Hi. Residential developer Perry. Support. Residential developer Darrell. Excuse. Commercial developer- Support. And commercial developer Christine. Support.

Right. Members, with all the excuse and minusing the excuse, we have a unanimous recommendation from this body and it is our first recommendation on the floor. So I'm very excited to share that with everyone. It looks like some of our Members are starting to come in and we have finished our first recommendation.

We will now move on to our second recommendation. Just for the Members who did come in. We have our first recommendation, unanimous recommendation in support and we are now moving on to our second recommendation. Our second recommendation is 6E2 which is increase ship D staffing and digitalization capacity. This is a statewide recommendation.

I'm just verifying it's a statewide recommendation and we will have our first President support speak on it. Could you please?

Thank Chair. The PIG recommends that the Legislature appropriate additional funds to expand shifty staffing including archaeologists, architectural historians, cultural specialists, GIs, administrative analysts and administrative support with flexibility to use intern, temporary or project based positions where appropriate.

The PIG further recommends dedicated funding for short term teams such as interns or limited term staff focused on digitizing archival records and integrating them into Shipti's electronic systems to improve access to legacy information and reduce data delays caused by incomplete or inaccessible files.

Is there anyone in opposition to this recommendation? Anyone in zoom? Anyone in person? Since there's no opposition. We will close discussion and we will go straight to votes.

State House vote. Aye. State Senate. Excuse. Office of the Governor. Yes. D Bed. Aye. Sea Worm. Aye. ACDA. HHFDC. Excuse. Luc Luc strongly supports. Office of planning. Aye. Energy office support. PUCH support.

All right. SBRRB aye. State Historic Preservation. Aye. Wastewater branch. Aye. State Building Code Council. Aye. Planning Department. Kauai County. Kauai County. So you're a delegate with. Yes. So you can vote for him.

Hawaii County, Maui County. Support. Honolulu City and county. Kauai County Council is excused. Hawaii County Council is excused. Maui County Council is excused. And Hawaii City County Council. Hawaii or Honolulu? I apologize. Honolulu City and county council support.

Jill's Office is excused. Hawaii Region Regional Council Carpenters' support. HGA Support. New homeowner Jordan. Support. New homeowner Brian. Aye. Family business Monica. Excuse. Family business, Denise. Support.

Residential developer Perry. Support. Residential developer Darrell. Excuse me. Commercial developer Morgan. Support. And commercial developer Christine support. Thank you. Thank you. It looks like the recommendation has passed and is unanimous for those. It's unanimous on the votes. And so we have successfully pushed out another unanimous recommendation.

I think now all the Members who we've reached out has joined and I am going to state from here forward, I hope we can identify them when they do come in. But from here on out, Senate will be excused. Hhfdc will be excused. Hawaii Kauai County Council excused. Hawaii County Council excused. And Maui County Council excused.

Jill Takuda's office is excused. Family business. Monica is excused for the entire pig adoption. Daryl will be excused only for the 6e adoption. And this should go faster. Now for our next recommendation. Our next recommendation is going to be to 6e3 is to invest in the ship D GIS tools and it is a statewide recommendation. Chair, could you speak on this recommendation in support?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. The PIG recommends that the Legislature appropriate funds for upgrades and ongoing maintenance of high CRIS digital maps and GIS layers.

This investment should support development and regular updating of archaeological sensitivity data set, secure handling of confidential burial information and technical integration with county permitting platforms so that cultural and historic resource flags are available early in process project planning and review.

Is there any Members who wish to speak in opposition of this recommendation? Any on zoom? Seeing that there's no Members speaking in opposition, I will assume that all Members are voting in the positive. Is there any Members wishing to vote in opposition? Seeing none, the recommendation has been adopted unanimously. Thank you, Members.

We are now at three recommendations voted unanimously. Moving on to 6e4, which is the last recommendations from the 6e tape. Convene 6e stakeholders regularly. Chair, could you speak on in support of this recommendation?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. The PIG recommends regular structured stakeholder convenings to review how the historic preservation program is functioning in practice and coordinates statutory, regulatory and program changes.

Participants should include representatives from Shipti Island Burial Council, counties, the Legislature, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the University of Hawaii, federal partners as needed, cultural practitioners and industry professionals to include archaeology and real estate development. Convening should operate as working meetings with data, with shared data, clear agendas and public reporting on decisions and action items.

Is there any Members wishing to speak in opposition of this recommendation?

Oh, sorry, I do. I'm not opposition, but I'd like to. Add, of course, recommendation on this particular item. Thank you. And thank you, Chair Mike. This is excellent. But as my previous comment had indicated, I think that you need.

We need more representation, not just real estate development, but chamber of commerce and retail merchants of Hawaii, as well as family businesses included in that voice, primarily because real estate development might be a much larger perspective.

But the small businesses and retail businesses, they're, you know, they may have their own specific, specific issues that prevents them from growing or expanding into their businesses. So again, I would like to ask that we specify that it's beyond just real estate development, but the business community at large.

In addition, I'm not sure what, you know, it does say shared agenda, data agenda, public reporting and decisions and action items. Is there language that, may I suggest or do we work on that at a later time related to what do these decisions and action items really lead to? Do they have some level of authority to direct the agencies?

All right, that is one round for, for our discussion. We'll go to the second round. Would Chair, would you like to address that or would you like someone else to address that for the support?

I can go ahead. Noted. Thank you, Christine. I agree it is, it is a work in progress. We just want to keep these meetings going, you know, to help find the efficiencies. So I did notate to include chambers, retailers and other stakeholders to the group. I do agree.

As we, I guess as we start crafting, if the recommendation is approved, we start crafting these stakeholder meetings, we can have it more structured in policy making.

All right. Is there, Christine, would you like to speak again in opposition or does anyone else want to speak in opposition?

I know just as long as there's a recognition that these additional voices would be included in these stakeholders beyond just real estate development, that it's not Specifically, just the real estate development. So if there's a possibility of including that here at this level before it's adopted, it would make us feel better that the multiple voices are represented.

But, you know, if it's something that is intended and we're documenting now that the intention is to include these voices at a later time and that the decisions and action items as identified in these stakeholder meetings lead to some level of authority, then I no longer have any additional comments to provide.

All right, that's the second round. There are some questions right now, so I'm just going to answer some of these questions.

Pamela, you have your hand raised. Yes, mahalo. Basically, I just wanted to support that. I, too, feel that our business input, especially if you have include the groups that were mentioned, they do have constituents, and we are very well aware of many different stories and help often with some of those challenges.

So I feel that's an excellent amendment. Thank you, Pamela. I just want to remind the public that this voting process is not open for discussion. And we are just pointing out some point of clarification right now. Jordan, do you have a question? Point of clarification?

I guess it was speaking to the recommendation. Are you in support of an opposition? I guess it would be more. Not total opposition, but it would be on that side. Okay, we're gonna go in the third round. Maybe you can take the final say on that.

But before we do that, Michael, did you have. Yes. I just wanted to build off of what Christine was saying about including under representatives. Why is the first state to have full representation? The certified local government program. And each county has a historic preservation commission of some sort. So including the chairs of those commissions, because their perspective might be different from that of the counties.

And so I just want to make sure that they're included in them. Thank you for that point of clarification. So, one question. Jordan, did you have something to add? Sorry, I just saw your hand. Oh no, sorry.

Okay. The question I heard was that an amendment wants to be made. And again, I want to go back to the guidance that there's no amendments to be made on any of these recommendations.

However, the Chair can speak that whether or not Christine's or of authority at the end with these stakeholder regular meetings will be, I think, will be based on the membership of these regular stakeholder meetings, and the membership will determine that sort of authority. So with that said, I will open it up for our last final round.

I'm gonna have the chair say in support. And Jordan, you can. You can speak what you Want to speak.

And that's gonna end our discussion. Go ahead.

We cannot make any amendments. No amendments. We can. We can take this back and just say remove this recommendation and then you can restate. Restate everything and then just read in what. What you want. But we would just have to start over.

So we would have three rounds again. That's all it is. Okay.

Chair, I would like to take back the fourth recommendation from the 6e pig. Okay. We will withdraw the recommendation that's on the 6e pig for the number four. And we will reintroduce a modified version of the 6e four and convene 6e stakeholders regularly. We're gonna. It's a statewide recommendation. And Chair, you can speak in support of this. This is our first round.

Chair, I would like to add more stakeholders, if I may, participants into the stakeholder 60 regular meetings, future meetings.

Do me a favor, just read out the whole thing and then say what. You wanted to say. The PIG recommends regular structured stakeholder convening to review how the historical Historic Preservation program is functioning in practice and coordinates statutory, regulatory and program changes.

Participants should include representatives from Shipti island burial councils, counties, the Legislature, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the University of Hawaii, federal partners as needed, cultural practitioners as needed, and industry professional professionals to include archaeology and real estate development. I would also like to add business and commerce representatives as well. Into that stakeholder group.

And convening should operate as working meetings with shared data, clear agendas and public reporting on decisions and action items.

All right. Thank you for the recommendation. Do we have any in opposition?

Chair is Jordan from Kami, Maui. And I apologize because my comments were not or I guess were additional, perhaps amendments to consider. I don't know if it's appropriate time, but what I wanted to bring up is the absence of an agency or an entity assigned to this recommendation. You know, the three previous call out the state legislator here. I don't know who's convening or responsible for stakeholder meetings. So the concern is. Yeah, this is not.

So what I'm going to advise is Jordan vote in opposition and then we have it on record on what you're asking for, but you can reinforce it and put it in a letter form and we can make sure that on the final report for speed, that it's something that we can take into consideration. Are you.

Are you okay with that? Yes. It may not be.

Point of clarification, Council Member. Thank you. I just want to. I know that we brought up the issue of the county historic preservation offices. Is the verbiage going to be modified in the future to reflect the inclusion of the county historic preservation offices or preservation commissions like we have the Oahu Historic Preservation Commission, for example.

Yes, I I would like to Chair, if I may, like the OEV resources from each county represent Representative.

So it sounds like let's withdraw this and actually take Jordan's consideration if you want. Do you want to take that? Okay. Let's... Let's take a recess. Let's hash this out and get this right. Recess.

We are back in session in our meeting, and thank you again for your patience. I think that you withdraw the previous recommendation, and now we are reintroducing 6E, number 4, convene 6E stakeholders regularly. This recommendation is modified, and Chair Miyake will speak on the recommendation.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee Task Force for your patience. The PIG recommends regular structured stakeholder convenience to review how the historic preservation program is functioning in practice and coordinates statutory, regulatory, and program changes.

Participants should include representatives from SHPD, Island Burial Council, counties, the Legislature, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the University of Hawaii, federal partners as needed, cultural practitioners, and industry professionals to include archaeology and real estate development.

I would like to also add representatives from the business and commerce sector, such as retail merchants, restaurants, a restaurant representative, realtors, home builders or a general contractor, a member from the Island Chamber of Commerce, and the Chair or a designee from the county historic and cultural commissions, and other ex officio members.

I would also like that this stakeholder have the state legislature be the lead or Chair of the working group. Convening should operate as working meetings with shared data, clear agendas, and public reporting on decision and action items.

Members, is there anyone speaking in opposition with this recommendation? Seeing that there's no opposition, I am verifying that everybody here is in support. But before we take the vote, I just want to recognize Hawaii... I want to recognize Kauai County Council.

Council Member Bulosan, are you present? Moving on to Council... Hawaii County Council Member Dennis “Fresh” Onishi. I see him, but there is no response, so I'm still gonna mark him as excused, as well as Council Member Bulosan is still excused. Is there anyone who just stepped in that was... That has...

It doesn't look like anyone else. All right, everybody who I've mentioned that was excused... Oh, Richard stepped in, representing the Senate for Glenn Wakai. So taking... He is now present. So taking everybody who is excused and who's newly present, they are all in support. Any Members here wishing to vote in opposition? No Members voting in opposition.

We have a unanimous vote on this recommendation. And thank you, Members, for adopting four of the recommendations from the PIG report. Let's give ourselves a round of applause. Alright, let's move to the IWS-1 and its recommendation. We have the IWS-1, fund a data driven study to modernize IWS limits and enable innovative wastewater technology. This is a statewide change and recommendation. And Chair Lee, would you speak in support of this recommendation?

Sure. I support, Chair. And did you want me to follow suit and read it out or just... The PIG recommends that the Legislature fund a comprehensive study to re-examine key IWS thresholds and clarify what innovative technologies can safely expand options. This study would evaluate the scientific basis for various sizing inputs.

The 1000 gallon per day and 5 bedroom caps per system, the 1 system per 10,000 square foot rule, the 50 lot cap for IWS dependent developments, and other restrictions to include performance and monitoring criteria. It would reassess cumulative impact on groundwater, surface waters, and nearshore ecosystems.

You should also inventory alternative and advanced treatment technologies, such as composting and incinerator toilets, natural systems, cluster systems, and other configurations and identify the conditions under which they can be deployed without compromising public health, cultural, and environmental resources.

The study should be led by DOH in partnership with the University of Hawaii and other technical experts with participation from counties, SHPD, the development and engineering community, and community stakeholders. The study should be scoped to produce concrete data and recommendations for rule and guidance changes under findings 4 and 5.

Is there any Member wishing to speak in opposition to this recommendation? All right, I will take a roll call on this just to make sure we have everybody accounted for. State House votes aye. [Roll Call]

It looks like we have an unanimous recommendation for the IWS-1. Congratulations, Chair, on the passage of the recommendation. Let's move on to the second recommendation, convene IWS stakeholders regularly. This recommendation will impact the, will impact a department and agency. It's a policy impact change. So for the IWS-2, the second recommendation, convene IWS stakeholders regularly. Will be a recommendation that impacts the department or agency. Chair Lee, would you like to speak in support?

In support.

Please state the recommendation.

The PIG recommends regular structured stakeholder convenience at least every five years to review statewide progress on cesspool conversion and IWS performance, reset priorities, and coordinate program changes. Participants should include DOH, all four counties, SHPD, other relevant state agencies, the Legislature, the University of Hawaii, industry and trade representatives, environmental and cultural organizations, and federal partners as needed.

The DOH has offered to chair and host these convenings. Sessions should function as working meetings with shared data, clear agendas, and public reporting on decisions and action items.

Each convening should integrate new engineering research, update cesspool priority mapping, assess whether incentives are reaching target households and communities, and adjust statutory deadlines or program design as needed to stay aligned with the January 2050 mandate.

Any Members wishing to speak in opposition? Christine.

Yes, I have a comment, not an opposition.

Okay, go ahead.

So I missed this in my first reading, but as I'm reading this closely, may I recommend, Chair, that you add that the convening... The first convening should be after the first year because, I mean, I would hate to see this, you know, the convening to be five years after this whole thing happened because then, you know, it's just too slow moving in a sense that you want to have a little more...

What is it, the faster turnaround of what the stakeholders are going to provide. Like is it working, for example? So to see the convening, I think we should have it at least for the first convening to be within the first year or some timeline that's sooner than five years.

And the reason why I'm asking for this is because I would assume the convening will need to be staffed up and that there must have a budget for it or something of that nature.

Thank you, Christine. We have that on record, so we can reference it, and you can also follow up with a letter if you choose so. Denise, are you speaking in opposition or in support?

I just wanted again to make a, not an opposition, but to make a... I don't know if it's a friendly amendment or comment, but I agree with Christine said. But also I think it needs to be more often than every five years. And I know there was some latitude in the verbiage, so let me put that out there.

Thank you. Again, we have it on record and our first round of discussion, as we have our first round, we're gonna move on to our second round. Chair, would you like to speak in support?

No, I'm still in support of the recommendation. And I hear the comments loud and clear and I understand the intent and the utility behind them, so we will reference them in the future. But I still support the recommendation as is.

Perfect. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? All right, that finishes our second discussion for the IWS second recommendation. I recognize that all the Members are voting in favor, and for those who I recognize are excused. Any Members wishing to vote in opposition?

With no Members voting in opposition, we have a unanimous recommendation for IWS for a second recommendation. Thank you everybody for the passage of this recommendation. Moving on to our third IWS recommendation is to create an IWS fast lane, and this fast lane impacts the department and agency policy wide. And Chair Lee, please state the recommendation and support.

The PIG recommends establishing a standardized fast lane for straightforward residential IWS projects built around pre-approved designs, computer assigned design or CAD templates, and streamline submitter requirements. DOH would develop a small suite of standard designs for common site conditions.

For example, typical single family lots outside sensitive areas, with accompanying CAD files, engineering requirements and calculation templates that consulting engineers can adapt for site placement. These packages should be paired with a clear eligibility checklist, standardized application forms, and a digital submittal pathway that allows DOH reviewers to confirm eligibility and complete completeness quickly.

Importantly, a fast lane would not lower standards in environmentally or culturally sensitive areas. Instead, it would free DOH staff to concentrate their time in those high risk cases while routine projects with similar designs move through a well defined, consistent process addressing findings 1, 2, and 3.

Thank you. Is there any Members wishing to speak in opposition of this recommendation? Any Members on Zoom? Seeing there are no Members wishing to speak in opposition, I just want to ensure the PUC... Are they present? Perfect.

All right, we have the PUC here. And seeing that everybody is voting in support and recognizing all the Members who are excused. Any Members wishing to vote in opposition? With no Members voting in opposition, this recommendation unanimously passes. And congratulations, Chair. Your three recommendations has passed.

Moving on to our next recommendation is the IWS-4, fund incentives for cesspool conversion and regional infrastructure. This affects, this recommendation affects everybody statewide. And Chair, could you please state the recommendation and support?

The PIG recommends a coordinated suite of state funded incentives to accelerate cesspool conversion and strategic wastewater infrastructure investment. On the homeowner side, this includes renewing and expanding the prior DOH Cesspool Conversion Grant Pilot established by Act 153 SLH 2022.

The updated program should incorporate the lessons identified in the December 2023 final pilot report from DOH, including adding other tools, such as low interest loans, rebates, or tax credits, clarifying the taxability of grant awards, including funds and positions for grant administration, and focusing on priority one cesspools.

Incentive levels should be calibrated so that conversions are financially realistic for lower and moderate income households and can be combined with other housing or renovation financing.

On the infrastructure side, the PIG further recommends funding targeted regional wastewater investments and county level incentives where sewers or shared systems can cost effectively reduce reliance on IWS and support housing in both areas. This includes identifying priority corridors to UHM WRRC analyses and county planning and providing infrastructure financing tools to address county capacity constraints.

Without such public investment, the state risks missing the 2050 deadline or facing an unmanageable surge of IWS applications as it approaches, even in locations where regional systems would be more appropriate, sustainable, and equitable in the long run.

Thank you, Chair. Is there any Members wishing to speak in opposition of this recommendation? Anyone on Zoom? With no one speaking in opposition, our discussion has ended. I am verifying that everybody here is voting in support and recognizing all those who have been excused. Is there any Members voting no on this recommendation?

With no Members voting no, this recommendation passed unanimously, and now we have four recommendations passed unanimously. Moving on to IWS-5 recommendation, protect homeowners through education and required disclosure. This recommendation... This recommendation impacts the state statewide. And Chair Lee, could you please state the recommendation and support?

Yes, Chair. The PIG recommends a coordinated education and disclosure initiative so that sellers, buyers, realtors, and vendors understand both the January 2050 cesspool conversion mandate and the two step IWS approval process.

A core element would be a new statutory requirement that sellers disclose the presence and type of any on site individual wastewater system, cesspool, septic tank, treatment unit, private waste water treatment works, etc, and the status of DOH approvals as well as statewide 2050 conversion requirement at point of sale. This should be completed...

This should be complemented by clear plain language DOH guidance and outreach materials explaining approval to construct and approval to use, what records homeowners should retain, and what steps are required to convert cesspools or connect to public wastewater collection systems.

Parallel education efforts should target consulting engineers and contractors, emphasizing their responsibilities for closeout documentation, and highlighting potential enforcement and licensing consequences for repeated failures. Together, enhanced disclosure requirements and sustained public education can reduce unpleasant surprises, improve compliance, and support smoother implementation of the 2050 mandate addressing finding water.

Is there any Members wishing to speak in opposition? Anyone in Zoom? With no opposition, discussion is closed. I am verifying that everybody here is voting in support and all the Members who are excused have been recognized as excused. Is there any Members wishing to vote in opposition? Anyone on Zoom? With no Members voting in opposition, our last recommendation with the IWS has been approved and adopted unanimously.

Congratulations, Chair Lee, for five recommendations unanimously. All right. Last but not least is is the building. Saving the best for last is the building permit PIG recommendations. And the top of the agenda for the recommendations is the building permit 1 recommendation for adoption is to build a permitting workforce pipeline. And Chair Keohokapu-Lee Loy, could you please state the recommendation and support?

Thank you, Chair, and support. The PIG recommends that the Legislature and counties jointly invest in a long term permitting workforce strategy built around recruitment, training, and clear career ladders.

This should include UH and community college based pipelines for permit technicians and plan reviewers with tuition support and service commitments, formal plan reviewer 123 classifications, and competitive salaries and benefits relative to the primary sector. Members also discussed and expressed support for greater flexibility in hiring at the agency level with respect to salaries and minimum qualifications.

Counties should be able to use training and junior reviewer positions to handle routine scopes under supervision, freeing senior staff to focus on complex projects. Emergency hiring tools may be useful to fill immediate gaps, but the core objective should be a sustainable, professional public review function rather than serial ad hoc fixes.

Is there any Members wishing to speak in opposition? Christine? We can always rely on you, Christine. Go ahead.

It's not opposing. I support it. I think this is fantastic. But I'd like to add to this, Chair, recommend a comment here. So, you know, I think that this is fantastic related to having the pipeline from UH and community colleges. But what we failed to add in was high school technical education that maybe could...

Because not all kids need to go to college to get to the reviewer beginning process. So wondering, you know, especially for plans reviewer or at the very low junior level that they need to fill in. I'm just wondering if there's some level of, you know, work with Department of Education as well.

Thank you for that comment. Jordan, do you also... Is this speaking in opposition, or did you... Go ahead.

I guess sort of building up off Christine's comments.

Go ahead, proceed.

I feel like the university should be part of this joint effort of responsible entities for furthering this recommendation rather than them being kind of a secondary thought. I think they need to be better engaged in our workforce needs to help solve these issues.

Got it. All right. Is there anyone else? Okay. Go ahead, Council Member.

This is just comments. Today at our community finance, we had a briefing about our workforce innovation and opportunity funding. And they're working with the community college on different trades and also with the high schools. But listening and I'm sorry I wasn't there earlier to listen to other discussions, but to what I understand what this proposal in front of us is like talking more about the counties providing I guess the staffing and the funding for improving the building permit process. Is that correct?

I think it's a mixture of things.