 Think Tech Hawaii, civil engagement lives here. Welcome to What's on Your Mind Hawaii. I'm your host Tim Appachella. This week we hear about what's going on with the Condo Fire Sprinkler Bill, Bill 69. This bill was introduced soon after the Marco Polo condominium fire took place this summer. Our guest, Jane Sugumara, president of Hawaii Council of Community Associations has been deeply involved advocating for those concerned condo owners to address the prohibitive costs required to retrofit these condos which were built before 1975 with new fire sprinkler systems. The cost to install sprinklers will run far greater than the initial estimations mentioned in the newspaper. Those owners who are retired and subject to a fixed income may want to watch this program and make your opinion known to your council member sooner rather than later. I'm Tim Appachella for What's on Your Mind Hawaii. I'm here with Jane Sugumara. And Jane, thank you for coming on our show. Appreciate it. We were spending the time with us. And we're here to talk about the Bill 69, the fire sprinkler bill. So Jane, you've been heavily involved in this whole process from day one as soon as the mayor introduced the bill to the council. And so why don't you just briefly tell us about what do you think where Bill 69 is about the sprinkler? Well Bill 69 has changed, okay. When the mayor introduced his bill, it was a bill that mandated sprinklers in the units and in the common areas and that there would be five years to comply with the bill. And so the total bill he mandated is out, the five years is out. What is there is a process, an evaluation process, it's called life safety evaluation. It's based on national safety fire standards and each of the 351 high rise buildings, this is a building over 75, have to pass the life safety evaluation. And what that is is that there are 17 factors that need to be inspected by a professional engineer and architect that, you know, I think it's every six years or the inspection has to be done. But what it does is it looks at certain features of the building, some that you can't change and some that you can change, like the height of the building you can't change, how the building is constructed, whether it's concrete, nasonry or drywall, I mean, so some things you can't change. But then there are things like vertical openings, you know, and that's where, you know, you have conduits and pipe cycles through the building and you have to seal the openings. So the more points you get, the better you are as a condominium. Whether you have smoke alarms, fire alarms and what's the, where they are, what kind of equipment you have. So each element will have a different point score depending on how much it would increase safety for a building. Right. And the problem we have with it is right now the way that the matrix or the way that the system is set up, and you use this, what they call a spreadsheet called matrix that does the measurement. And what it has is right now, one of the elements is whether or not you have a sprinkler. And no building, no residential building built, you know, before 1980 has got sprinklers, right? It has a minus eight. So you're in a hole. You're in a hole before we begin. And because right now there's no requirement, we have been persuading the city, that city council, that they should change that minus eight to a zero. Because that means a lot of buildings, like my building right now, because my building was used as a guinea pig when we were talking about this in committee, would that get a passing score if that minus eight was a zero? Well, let me try to figure out what minus eight really means. So let's say, for example, how many points would you get? You mentioned the vertical pipes going through a building. And so let's say someone fixed that, and so there was no more open space between the pipes going up. How many points would you get for something like that? You would get plus points. Plus points. Yeah, plus points. And, you know, so it's like, you get a score, like with the height of the building. The taller the building, the more minus points, the shorter the building is plus points. Oh, I see. Yeah, because the whole point is trying to get people out of the building. How safe is the building, and for firefighters to go into the building, how safe is it? Things like exits, like if it's 50 feet, you know, like you take the middle of the building and you have exits, fire, what do you call it, stairwells on both sides. If it's 50 feet, that's a short distance, you get plus points. If it's 100 feet to get to the stairwell, it's negative points. See, so it's a range. So you get enough points through this matrix. Does that exempt you from any mandate of sprinklers? Well, first of all, any building with an exterior that opens out into an exterior corridor is exempt. So that's good news for a lot of associations. Even high buildings like Yahar powers, the Waipuna, they're all exempt. All buildings, okay? And if you're less than 10 stories, okay? So that's why we went from 351 down to about what? 150? 150 buildings that with interior corridors that are over 10 stories apart. So if you're part of that 150, you're not very happy right now. No, you're not. And what happened though at the last three iteration is that the council chair decided that a reasonable compromise from the existing language, which was 100% retrofitting, was partial retrofitting, which is retrofitting in the hallways and in the common areas, okay? So now it's a partial mapping. And so that's where Bill 69... That's a big change though. It's a big change because now the mandate does not require sprinklers in the units. Let me just touch upon that, because when that was first introduced by the mayor, that got a lot of people's attention. Yes. The question is, do you think that initial bill that was submitted, was that designed to capture people's attention? Or was it... They really thought that this could be done. I think my personal opinion, it was a knee-jerk reaction because people died. And it was like, how do we save... If they had sprinklers, they would not have died. And it's kind of understandable. The problem is, is now we're dealing with all these buildings, 150 buildings with interior corridors, and the people who live in them. And they're going to have to pay for the retrofitting. And these buildings all have asbestos, so that just adds to the cost of putting in partial retrofitting. And what we found out on the very last day of the committee is in order to support the retrofitting, you have to have pups. A consultant was brought in and told the committee that you need, at a minimum, a 10 by 10 room. And they showed us photographs of what the pumps look like. They're big. They're big. And so you have to have a 10 by 10 room. And so if you don't have a 10 by 10 room, that's an additional expense that you need to add a 10 by 10 room onto your building. And one of the members of the committee was a representative of the engineers and architects of Hawaii organization. And he said most buildings in town don't have the room to add a 10 by 10. Their footprint is, you know, they're maxed out. They won't have their physical space. They don't have their physical space. I mean, they're maxed out. So is the city going to grant them a variance? So you've been on all these hearing meetings. And so describe the feeling or the kind of the emotion that is from other people that are attending your meetings. Okay. Well, after the council set up the residential fire safety advisory committee, they had two community meetings. And one was on a Saturday, which was very well attended. But the one that was really extraordinary was the one on December 18th, the second meeting at five o'clock a week before Christmas. And there were several hundred people there. The committee room, the standing room only, they were backed up into the hallway going down the stairway. If you know, if you know what, how little, how you look right. And so to me, that was extraordinary. I mean, they see that many people before the before Christmas, right? And to a person, they told the three council members who had the most condos in the district, council members, Carol Fukunaga and Kobayashi and Trevor Ozawa. And to a person, they said we do not want sprinklers that we bought into the buildings. We knew there were no sprinklers. And we're sorry about the Marco Polo and the Marco Polo, you know, has, we've learned from the Marco Polo. We're looking at our building, we're taking steps to make it safer. We're talking to our residents and educating. They're going on to the city website, looking at the matrix and already looking at it to try to fix their building. Yeah. They're already proactively doing that. Yes. They're already proactively doing that. In fact, I know buildings that have now been taken off the list. Okay. At one of the affected 150, they're still moving ahead with proactive measures that's happening right now. They should because everybody, whether they're exempt or not, has to take the life safe. They have to pass it. And the extraordinary thing is that we had a council hearing last week and out of nine members, eight of them said either no or yes with reservations as to keeping the bill alive. So the impact of everyone showing up at these hearings is making a mark, even though they said yes with what, reservations. Right. And Trevor Oozala, his speech at the city council was very telling. He said that when the Marco Polo fire happened and this was his district, I mean, part of his, I mean, it was close to his district because he does Waikiki. Right. So it really hit home. And when the mayor came out with Bill 69 with mandatory sprinklers everywhere within five years, he was 100% behind it. At the council hearing last week, he said no to any type of mandate. And he said that when he started, he was 100% behind Bill 69. But after sitting through two community hearings that went up for hours and hours and hours, he just was persuaded that he just can't support a mandate. Well, there's the power of constituents showing up. Right. That's the power of people showing up to their council member meetings. And there was a council member in Kaikai Anderson who said he heard testimony about people who bought into these buildings, assumed the risks that there were no sprinklers, didn't want to pay for them, didn't want them, knew about the Marco Polo and they were taking steps to make their building safer. And he didn't feel that it was appropriate for government to mandate the installation of fire sprinklers. Well, I'm sure they got an earful on retirees that own units. And I can't imagine a retiree that would suddenly be faced with a special assessment or even if there's a new financing scheme, what that impact is going to have to their monthly budget. And in fact, council member Pine, who also voted yes with reservations, made a speech that said the testimony she heard is she could not, she could not in good faith support a mandate if it was going to end up with people being homeless, like she heard retirees testify that they would have to sell their units and maybe be homeless or at least become a renter. What worried me when this was first introduced, particularly when Bill 69 had the mandate of individual units in the language? I was worried about people being very proactive and panicking and making a choice to get out of their units before the market made some kind of, you know, before the market caught up with the reality of a passed law like that. So that was my concern, but obviously, you know, that's not happening, fortunately. So that's good. But the fact that a lot of people, this has caught people's attention and they're making a statement to the council, that's a good thing. Explain one thing for me, and I didn't understand it, is let's say you, the LSE matrix, you've gotten enough points that you may, you know, you may rise to where mandatory sprinkler installation may not be required. There's a concept about taking a vote that if there was a 51% vote, people opted out of sprinkler installation and then that would be post, signs would be posted in the hallways of the complex and then some recording down at the county recording office. Right. Is that still part of this bill? No, that is not. But we are thinking of putting that in if the mandate goes forward as an opt-out. But if the mandate doesn't go forward, then what we would have is basically the life safety evaluation, right, and all buildings have to pass it. And you know, and because the bill allows for a 12 to 15 year implementation period, it means that if you want to put in the sprinklers, or for some reason you fail, absolutely fail the life safety evaluation, even with a zero for the sprinkler item, then you would have 12 to 15 years to implement the sprinklers. So that's a lot better than seven. Yeah. So what I'm hearing from you today is there's a lot of progress on bill 69 that the original really scared a lot, a lot of people. And the reason why there's been changes, because people came out, they came out the week before Christmas en masse to tell their elected officials about their concerns, and they listened. And it's amazing how your elected officials will listen to you when you come out in big groups like that. Well, I wouldn't solve all the hard work that you've done short, because I'm sure your influence on the residential fire safety committee has morphed into some recommendations that are more reasonable, I would imagine. I like to think so, and the fact that they use my building, so we went through all 17 elements. And so people had an example, a graphic example, I mean it was like, okay, what about this item? What's it like in your building? I would have to describe it. And so it's not like it was a theoretical building, it was a real building that we were talking about when we went through the matrix. So let's suppose, I will say worst case scenario, because I just don't think a lot of people have the money for sprinkler installation. And let's say they have full disclosure that they live in a building that doesn't have sprinklers in the hallways. Let's say that there is some mandate for sprinklers. The state legislature actually has a couple bills addressing that. They do, as well as the city council. The city council does have bills, I mean for real property tax credit and for interest-free loans and for grants. The problem is that the amounts are not substantial. I think the most you're going to get is $1,000 as a credit on real property taxes. And the fact that maybe there's going to be some money available for low interest or no interest loans. And in the state legislature, they're also talking about income tax credit. But that also has, they have limits as to how much money it would only apply to people of a certain income level. So if you're above the, what is it, the poverty income, then you may not qualify for the income tax credit. And there is a bill too that allows buildings who have 20% or more of their unit owners who don't live in the country. And the condo statute has a provision that says if you want to borrow money, if you're the association, you want to borrow money. That you need 50% of your owners to vote for the borrowing, to approve the borrowing. But in those buildings where you have more than 20% of your unit owners living outside of the country, it's hard for you to get that 50%. And so you will be exempt from that 50% if it's a legislative mandate that requires you to do the borrowing. Well, here's what I've heard, and I'm sure you've heard them too, because you hear from all sorts of associations is, well, loans are great, but that's still a amount people have to pay back or pay into. There was a lot more interest about grants, grants that were not alone. And I just don't think what's in the legislature or in the council is talking really about grants. Right. And what condo owners have to understand is that they feel it's wrong that the government would require them to do something and not assist them in the payment. But I was told that when there was a budget committee hearing in the city that the assistant director of budget and finance testified and made the statement that based on the information that he has had, that condominium associations are fully capable of absorbing the cost of retrofitting. And when I heard that, and I did testify at the city council last week, and I said that it came to my attention that the assistant director had made the statement. And so I wanted to invite him and anybody who thinks like him to come to my annual meeting and face my unit owners and tell them that. And so on. Well, I wouldn't want to be there. I wouldn't want to be there. Well, here's an issue that that gentlemen may not appreciate. A lot of associations already have projects underway for retrofitting, be it cast iron sewer lines, elevator repairs, very, very, very expensive projects, no replacements. So that means they're already in debt to their banks for these projects, unless they were, you know, a special assessment all at one time. But most most associations actually finance all these improvements. And they do it under the button and reserves. Correct. And so, you know, a bank's only only allowed so much exposure. OK. So if you're spoken for for all the repairs that you may be doing currently, what makes a bank think that you're worthwhile for another another loan on top of the stuff you already have borrowed? And, you know, and that's the problem. And that's the dilemma that the elected officials are facing because they're hearing this. They're that's exactly what they're hearing from the condo people. You know, we already have bills that we have to pay. And if we have an older building like these buildings are, they were built before 1980, we have to replace our roads. We have spalling problems every 10 years. We have to replace our windows and now we have to replace our pipes. And, you know, so it goes on and on. And we have done our due diligence and we have complied with the budget and reserves and we've sucked away money. And now you tell us we have to put in sprinklers. It's going to cost us several millions of dollars. And where are we going to get that money? That's correct. And that is why if you're a retiree, this is really devastating to hear. Yes. Because you know that your maintenance dues are going to go up because of these existing projects. Maybe, you know, hopefully you've reserved enough money for a lot of it. But some of it you don't, you just don't. So to add on a sprinkler financing scheme, that is really pretty scary for a lot of people that just are living on a living on a limited basis. Right. And that is what the elected officials are hearing. And so we are educating them. And one of the elected officials said to me that, you know, they truly believe that if the government is going to mandate something on a group of citizens, like kind of owners, that they need to couple it with some financing assistance. Because it's not fair to not alone, but you know, to bear some of the costs because of the mandate. Right. And especially since, you know, it comes with such short notice. And if you were to say, well, we mandate it, but we give you 30 years to do it. Right. You know, that's something else, but that's not what's happening. Well, it is nice. It's gone from 7 to 12, but still. So if you, I don't know how many more hearings are left. There's two. Two left. There's one committee hearing and one more city council hearing. So what would be the suggestion for anyone that may watch this show? What should they should do to immediately? But they have an issue with this. They should contact their council members. With council member Ernie Martin and Trevor Ozawa, they should call them, thank them for their position on opposing mandated sprinklers. For everyone else, they should call them, their council member, and say, please do not vote for the mandated sprinklers in Bill 69. That's what they should do. They should call and say, you know, I live in your district. I live in a condo. And I know that Bill 69 is on your plate. Please do not include mandatory sprinklers. That's all they have to say. Well, that's a good way to leave our time here today, because I think people should get engaged. And it sounds like they already have, but they need to do a little bit more if they really feel very strongly about this proposed bill. So Jane, I want to thank you very much for spending your time with what's on your mind Hawaii. And thank you for all your tireless work on advocating for condo owners. So thank you so much. Well, that's our show. I want to thank Jane for coming on and really telling it like it is, because there are gonna be thousands of people that are affected by Bill 69 and how they're affected will really depend on how that final law is written and passed, or not passed. So again, I think Jane very, very succinctly stated that if you're affected by this proposed law, that you might want to contact your council member and let them know how you feel. And particularly if you are on a fixed income, it might be in your benefit to really make your opinion be known. The good news was that this initial bill had about 351 condominium associations that were gonna fall under the guidelines. And because those buildings were either 10 stories or less or they had an outside walkway, that list has shortened up to 150. But for those 150 associations, that represents thousands of units and certainly thousands of owners. So I want to thank everyone for joining us this week. Our next show is on February the 27th. And if you have a comment about this show, I please feel free to contact me at what'sonyourmindhawaii at gmail.com. There's no apostrophe. It's what'sonyourmindhawaii at gmail.com. I'm Tim Appichella and we'll see you on February the 27th. Bye-bye.