The 91直播 County Council came one vote short Wednesday of overturning Mayor Kimo Alameda’s veto of a bill that would have created a commission tasked with advising county officials about construction codes.
The council voted 5-3, with Chair Holeka Inaba absent, in favor of overturning the mayor’s veto of Bill 127, which calls for establishing a seven-member Construction Code Commission to guide the mayor, County Council and Department of Public Works on updating and interpreting building codes.
According to the bill, commission members would be appointed based on their expertise in architecture, engineering, electrical work, plumbing, fire protection, building materials, homeowners’ insurance, construction management, trade representation and contracting. They would have the power to evaluate 91直播 building codes being considered by the State Building Code Council, review technical guidance and policies made by DPW’s director, and recommend code amendments.
The legislation passed the council’s first and second readings on Feb. 18 and March 4, respectively, only to be vetoed by Mayor Alameda on April 2 — the second veto of Alameda’s term. The bill then headed back to the council for consideration of an override vote, which requires the support of two-thirds of its members.
Wednesday’s vote saw five “ayes,” with the remaining three “no” votes cast by council members Michelle Galimba, Matt Kaneali’i-Kleinfelder and Dennis “Fresh” Onishi. Inaba — who supported the bill at its second reading — would have cast the deciding vote if he were present.
In a written statement issued after the vote, Alameda expressed gratitude that his veto had held and said he would continue to collaborate with the council to achieve the bill’s goals in an economical way.
“While boards and commissions serve important functions, creating a new permanent entity is not always the best option,” he said. “I am grateful that my veto prevailed, and I look forward to working with the council to pursue practical, cost-effective solutions that do not unnecessarily add to the county’s administrative costs or obligations.”
During Wednesday’s meeting, no testimony from the public was heard regarding the measure, but a handful of county officials did weigh in.
One of them was Micah Alameda, an executive assistant with the Office of the Mayor, who reiterated the mayor’s support for what the bill was trying to accomplish despite having misgivings about the costs involved. According to the executive assistant, the county already provides administrative support to 36 active boards and commissions.
“We support the intent and the spirit in which this measure was written, and the desire to improve our construction codes and enhance public safety is a goal and a kuleana that we all share together,” Micah Alameda said. “(But) with another commission or another board, that would place additional burdens on an already expansive board and commission program.”
DPW Acting Building Chief Aaron Spielman also testified, saying he maintains a “nonpartisan” position on the matter but still worries how the bill’s implications could affect state-level policies.
“We had some concerns at the Building Division level for this bill,” Spielman said. “We feel strongly that amendments should go through the State Building Code Council … there are some concerns about unintended consequences if the county were to leapfrog that process.”
Another supporter of the mayor’s position was DPW Director Wesley Segawa, who contended that manpower shortages in his department would render the legislation’s goals impossible.
“The department continues to stand behind the mayor’s veto of this bill because of associated administrative costs to establish, implement and maintain another commission,” Segawa said. “The department is currently understaffed to perform its core functions, and it does not have the qualified and trained staff necessary to effectively satisfy the desired expectations and outcomes represented in Bill (127).”
Mayor Alameda offered alternatives to the measure in a press release issued earlier this month explaining his reasons for the veto, suggesting the county create a “task force” instead of a permanent commission. This potential substitute was brought up again by Segawa during his testimony Wednesday.
“Like stated in the mayor’s veto, we are recommending creation of a temporary task force,” he said. “There are discussions already going on between the counties and also at the state level regarding other means and methods to effect the intentions of this particular bill.”
Following these comments, council members resumed their discussion about the legislation.
Puna Councilwoman Ashley Kierkiewicz, who co-introduced the bill with Kohala Councilman James Hustace, disagreed with the DPW and Mayor’s Office officials, saying that the council is in need of expert guidance if it’s expected to cast informed votes about construction codes.
“Building codes are highly technical documents, and as council members we have the responsibility to adopt them,” Kierkiewicz said. “And so the question here is very simple: Shouldn’t we have access to structured, local expert advice when we are making those decisions? That is the kind of expertise this Construction Code Commission would lend.”
She added that the council had seen in the past what happens when it makes decisions about code requirements without sufficient professional input.
“After our last building code adoption, there were a suite of amendments that were introduced because certain requirements that we adopted did not fit our community, and this is exactly the kind of problem that we would want the Construction Code Commission to help prevent,” she said. “It’s a prevention tool. It helps us get things right on the front end. It’s not bureaucracy, it’s good governance.”
At the bill’s second reading last month, Onishi cast the lone “no” vote. His position remained unchanged on Wednesday, and after the vote concluded he said in an email to the Tribune-Herald that the criticisms he expressed at the last meeting remain valid.
“I continued to not support the legislation based on previous comments by the administration,” he said, “and concerns on how the Department of Public Works would be able to handle a ‘new’ commission with the unforeseen expenses.”
Email Stefan Verbano at stefan.verbano@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
