 Think tech away, civil engagement lives here. Well, hi and welcome to Kondo Insider and let me begin by wishing everybody out there a very healthy, happy and safe new year. Next week's show, we're going to have a year in review of 2018. There are a lot of exciting changes, but today we're going to talk about the topic that never seems to die. I should say it always seems to be on fire. And that's Bill 69, the sprinkler update bill, with regard to the bill that was adopted. Then we had proposed amendments and a veto by the mayor. And we're going to kind of get some straight scoop from my good friend and I call her the godmother of Kondo management in Hawaii, Jane Sugimura, a prominent lawyer. Welcome Jane. Happy new year. Happy new year to you too. So, you know, I hate to say this, start the show off in a bad note. But I was looking at public statistics by the Hollywood Fire Department. Now, I don't remember them word for word, but my numbers will be pretty accurate. Then the last 10 years, we've had over 300 residential fires of single family homes and about 30 deaths. If you take the last 10 years and what I call multifamily living high rises, we've had maybe five fires with only one of those fires, Marco Polo, resulting in four deaths. How come we're being picked on? Well, I think a lot of associations would agree with you that we're getting picked on, that Kondo's and co-ops are being picked on. And I mean, we're the target. I mean, it's easier to target us than to target single family homes for fire sprinklers. And I guess now the new homes have fire sprinklers in them. It's just that they, you know, it's almost taboo. You don't want to touch retrofitting single family homes. But for us, you know, retrofitting high rises always seems to be an issue, because it was the issue back in 2005, you know, when we had that American Savings Bank fire, and they wanted to do retrofitting. And even before that, I mean, after that first, you know, that fire at the bank, I used to cringe every time I'd hear fire engines in downtown. And sure enough, if it was a Kondo fire, I'd get a call from whoever the council chair was. And I can remember John Noshimura calling me and talking to me about retrofitting high rises. And I don't know why that's the fallback, whenever there's a fire in a high rise building, that they want to do retrofitting. Well, I'd say, you know, the issue, we want certainly not only the residents to be safe. We certainly want our first responders, the firemen, among others, to be safe. And they wouldn't have to deal with that. We had no argument with that. We really don't. It's very difficult. But it seems to me fairly difficult to take a building that was engineered under a different building code and put restrictions on them that may be in some ways impossible or financially impracticable to put in. Right. And that's what we're finding out with the life safety evaluation. And I mean, that's why I think this issue is not done yet. It's not done yet because implement, I mean, when we were talking about it, you know, as an idea or as a thing to do that might address some of the concerns of the city officials and some people who lived in high rises that this might result in safer buildings. I don't think people thought about the implementation. And now that we're dealing with the implementation, that's where issues are coming out. The guys who are tasked with the job of doing the life safety evaluation, they have questions and they had questions about what do you mean by mobility, you know? And what about the, you know, you know, it's not clear in the ordinance, are we supposed to be checking every unit? And see, these questions are questions that the fire department has basically said, oh, well, you're the expert. You do whatever you have to do to be able to, you know, stamp your engineer or professional license architect stamp on the life safety evaluation. And yet, you know, they are confused because, you know, they say there's not enough clarity. Well, let's go back to one part. First of all, if you look at the bill, essentially right now, if you're one of these buildings that requires fire safety matrix to be done, by December 31 of this year, you're supposed to have written a fire department and said we're going to comply with it, wouldn't it? Well, you know, I'm not so concerned about that one because, you know, the deadline was November 2. And the week before that, I was with Chief Socrates Protakos and he told me that he had over 250 letters, okay? And by the city's own acknowledgement, there's about 360 buildings that would probably be subject to, you know, Bill 69. So, you know, they were, so on the deadline or a week before the deadline, they had more, they only had less than 100 buildings to get. And what are they doing about this? Are they writing them or asking them? No, what he told me he would do is that if by the deadline, they would contact the buildings who had not submitted a letter reminding them that they had to submit the letter in order to comply with the ordinance. And I don't know how much of a deadline they're going to give them before they impose sanctions. But he says that the fire department was going to write to them, but there's less than 100. And to me, that's pretty good. Two thirds, two thirds of the people, you know, who are supposed to be writing these letters have written those letters. And I told the chief, to me, that's a good sign that people are willing to comply. And it's probably an indication of the fact that, you know, all of us have been able to get the message out. The fire department, the city, property managers, you know, HCCA, CAI, all of us have been working to get the word out that, you know, this is a law. You got to do a letter to the fire department to say you're going to comply. And then you have to, you know, work on the matrix issue. And how much time do they have due to the matrix? They have three years now, because the mayor vetoed Bill 72. They have three years. And I think we are seven months into that. So now we have two years and five months to complete the first time, the life safety evaluation. You have six years to comply, because most buildings will not pass the first time. And I'm not saying they're going to be told, you know, that they're never going to be able to pass. Maybe they're two points short or four points short. And so they work with their professional, who did their life safety evaluation, and say, okay, we need six points, what do we do? And they work with their professionals to do whatever they need to, to get those six points. And then they have basically another three years to complete that work. And not to sound critical of this, but I work for a large company that does, I don't know, 400 plus associations. And I've talked to four professional architect engineers. I haven't found anyone yet willing to do a matrix, have you, what are you hearing out there in the street? I'm hearing that they're willing to do it, they're just not ready yet. And I think they're waiting for the fire department to update the matrix, because, like, one of the issues that one of the professionals told me is that the chief, when they met with them, said that they were going to do away with the mobility. That's a factor that affects risk. And that's something that you're supposed to be plugging in a number to reflect the risk that the mobility, which means whether or not people in the building are able to walk down out of the building. And I think they're willing, I think they were told that the fire department was going to update the matrix. So everybody's kind of waiting to see what the, because they don't want to do anything until that matrix is kind of set in stone, because this is what they are required to use. I mean, they can't use anything else. They have to use the matrix under the ordinance. It's under the ordinance. It's in the ordinance. And it's on the fire department website. And I'm told that only certain people are going to be able to download it. They have to register with the fire department and prove to them that they are certified and qualified to do the life safety evaluation. And then they're given some kind of a code, okay, so that they can download it onto their tablet or their laptop. And they take that into the building that they're going to do, to do the, to inspect and evaluate, and they just, you know, score different things. And the problem is that, you know, if word is out there that the matrix isn't final, then nobody's, you know, going to start making proposals. And I think because of the liability, because you've got professional engineers and architects, you know, basically certifying that the building is safe, safe, right? I mean, it's past life safety evaluation. And so these professionals are basically putting their stamp of approval on this evaluation. So I'm sure they're all consulting with their attorneys about what disclaimers they've got to put into their forms, you know, because, you know, for every life safety evaluation, they're going to have to sign off on it. And I think the way the current ordinance reads, I mean, they have to either stamp or sign to show that, you know, they have inspected the building and done an evaluation and concluded that this building is safe or has, has qualified to get a passing score on the life safety evaluation. And so that's a big liability, because if they're wrong and the next day the place, you know, has a fire, then I guess, you know, the issue is can they be sued? I can see it now that the disclaimer and indemnity on the matrix put in by the architects could be longer than the matrix itself. Yeah. I mean, think about this one. They have to have this done in three years. All right. And nobody's giving you proposals. Yet the fire department's amending the matrix. We don't really know what we're supposed to do, right? Heaven be the association that because they couldn't get it done because there's only so many people who do this work has the fire that came after the three year obligation, but before the matrix was done because nobody would do it. I mean, it's going to be a legal mess. Right. And, and like I said, the clock is ticking and bill 72 did extend the first, you know, deadline of three years to five years basically because it was on, you know, because of the uncertainty that was posed by the professionals who were tasked to doing, doing the life safety evaluation. I mean, they kept saying, well, you know, we're not really sure what we're supposed to be doing. And because of that, you know, right now we have less than three years because it's three years from the date of enactment. Enactment happened on May 3rd. Okay. So that's May, June, July, August, September, October, November. We're seven months. We're almost eight months into the first year. The first year is almost gone. And we don't even have the matrix finalized. Right. You know. And, and so, you know, I think at some point we are going to have to go back to the city and, and I'm sure the fire department, you know, will have to agree with us that if you don't have the people who are doing the life safety evaluations and, and people aren't doing it, they're going to have to extend the deadline. And the mayor has criticized, you know, a condominium association saying, oh, you know, bill 72 was just a reason for you guys to delay the process. But, you know, that's putting the cart before the horse. I mean, we asked for the two-year extension because nobody was coming forward and saying, oh, yeah, we're ready to go. We're ready to go. We'll have a proposal for you. And, and, you know, when bill 72 was first enacted, we didn't, nobody knew what it was going to cost. When you ask people, they said, oh, maybe it's going to cost a hundred thousand or, you know, and, you know, so we couldn't, and it's, you know, people say, well, you know, when you ask the professionals, like, we don't even know what we're supposed to be doing. So it's hard for us to come up with a number to charge you because we really don't know how long it's going to take. Well, this is incredibly fascinating. But we're going to take a one-minute break and come back and decide whether we should burn bill 69 or not. Anyway, we'll be back in one minute. Aloha. This is Winston Welch. I am your host of Out and About, where every other week, Mondays at 3, we explore a variety of topics in our city, state, nation, and world, and events, organizations, the people that fuel them. It's a really interesting show. We welcome you to tune in and we welcome your suggestions for shows. You got a lot of them out there and we have an awesome studio here where we can get your ideas out as well. So I look forward to you tuning in every other week where we've got some great guests and great topics. You're going to learn a lot. You're going to come away inspired like I do. So I'll see you every other week here at 3 o'clock on Monday afternoon. Aloha. Welcome back to Kondo Insider. We're with my friend Jane Sugimura talking about the fire sprinkler bill, bill 69, and the veto bill 72 that provided some additional time to comply with bill 69. And we were talking about the issues just before the break, that there's nobody willing to do the... Well, I think there's people willing to do it. It's just that they're not prepared to make proposals because nobody in the industry and no association has gotten a proposal or any information that a company out there is willing to do a life safety evaluation. And you know, with this type of thing, I mean, it probably is not going to take a whole long time to do a life safety evaluation once they get in. And so I would think that if somebody were prepared to do it, that they'd be sending out emails, they'd be notifying property management company, hey, we're doing it and this is what we're charging. I mean, and then you would send them out to the associations who are your clients, but nobody's doing that. And there's this silence that's deafening. I mean, and it's just... And when I talk to people, they tell me, well, we're not quite ready yet. You think the cost of this matrix study will be affordable? Are you getting any Tom Tom's and the coconut wireless about the cost? Well, the fire department has come out and said it's about $30 a unit. And I know Dana Birchman said that he thinks it will range from $5,000 to $20, depending on the height of the building complexity. But, you know, so we're talking maybe, you know, I think $10,000. That's probably going to be average. That's before the repair is necessary. That's before the repairs, yes. So it's going to cost $10,000 to find out. You know, and I have to say up front, if it's going to make people safer, even though it's an expense, a one-time expense, it's probably a good idea because these buildings were built a long time ago and there may be things we're not thinking of and we want to make these buildings safe for all the residents alike. So even though it's a lot of money, $10,000, I can understand that. What I can understand is the clock is running and nobody's going to do it because the matrix is still vague and there's still questions about it. So are there enforcement provisions? I doubt the fire department would become nasty about this if no one wanted to do it. If there's nobody willing to step up to the plate and actually do them, I mean, I'm sure the fire department will have no choice but to agree to an extension. And, you know, because, I mean, they have indicated in testimony that if in the repair portion, the first three years is, you have to do it the first time. The second deadline, which is six years, is for you to get a passing score. Most buildings are going to have to get building permits and the fire department has said if you apply for a building permit and the clock runs and, you know, the deadline happens because your permit has not been processed, then they will agree to an extension. They've already said that. And we all know that there is a problem with the building department in processing permits. And I think it's come up, you know, since Bill 72 came out, that most condos, I mean, it's almost crisis because it takes six to 12 months to get the DPP to approve a permit. I have, my building's got a permit. And we hired a, we have a leak under our building. And, you know, and I've tried, I've worked for my council member and I said, you know, we submitted our application on July 2nd. And here it is at the end of the year and it's still not processed yet. And every day are, something's leaking under our building. And the whole, the application is to move the pipes above ground, you know, so that they're, you know, the leaking will stop. And my, you know, the people, the concern in our building is that, you know, here is six, seven months, something's leaking and it's going to affect the structure of the building. And I see that because, you know, I know one of our buildings that voluntarily wants to put sprinklers in. And it's got some complex engineering, it's not perfect. But they've been told two to three years to get a building permit. Except that the mayor just signed a bill. He signed the bill. I think it was, it had to do with the changes to DPP where the fire sprinklers, if you apply for fire sprinklers, your permit will be approved within 120 days. That's what the mayor says. And I think that's what we should see. Because I have another kind of much simpler problem that wants to change out of its air conditioning cooling towers because they're old, doesn't want to change anything, just wants to substitute new for old. And they've been waiting now eight months for a building permit. It just seems to me there is some validity to the mayor and his team evaluating the building permit process because it's waking, taking way too long to even handle simple changes. And the delay in getting those permits approved, I mean, like in our, we don't know what's happening to our building. We just know that something is leaking under that building. We're trying to fix it. And the longer it takes for us to get permit approval, we don't know what's happening to the building. But I'm sure the water leakage is somehow affecting the structure. When I see it, I'm going to take it from a different point of view. You know, boards are, they don't like to spend money. And they're a little bit lazy. And so here you have a complex matrix problem, unknown dates, unknown information. You can't get bids. We're under the bill. They could just hold a meeting and opt out of putting this sprinkler's in. Right. Aren't we through red tape and administrative burden encouraging people to opt out so they don't have to fool around with us? Well, they can opt out, but they still have to do the life safety evaluation. Right. But it just seems to me that more difficult we make it to do this. Yeah. And then more unclear and less transparent we are. Are you happy with how the fire department's addressing this? I think that I think they're kind of kicking the can down the road. They're saying, we've done all we have to do. The experts who are named in the ordinance, they know what to do. Except the experts that I've talked to really don't know what they're supposed to be doing. And you can talk to, I've talked to two or three and I get different versions of what, they were all out of meeting with the fire department. And yet when I talk to them, they tell me different things. And I'm thinking they were all in the room, same room with the same fire department people. And yet they come back with different takes on what was said. And so to me, that's a problem. And what's driving this train is going to be liability. Because they're not going to want to be signing off and doing something and creating liability for their firm. If they're saying theoretically the building is safe, which is probably not exactly what they're going to say. But they're doing this matrix and then there's a problem. And they said those fire doors were OK. And it turns out the fire came from a fire door that wasn't OK because maybe subsequent to the inspection, it had some deterioration wherever it may be. I think that they're going to be really cautious on liability issues. And I'm sure that you raised a good point. And I'm sure when they finish their disclaimers, we're going to get some kind of a statement that at the time that they did the life safety evaluation, that these things were as stated on the evaluation, on the matrix. And that they're not responsible for any changes that occurred after. Right? Right. And so if it happens the next day after they inspected it, then they're off the hook. Well, they're probably going to put in this as not a property condition report where they've expected an untesting on the doors. And they're going to say, based on visual observations and looking at the specifications. And the use of surrogates. Right. Because this fire department has said they can use association staff to inspect the units and then give them a list of units that have the smoke detectors and the fire doors. And then all the professionals have to do is do what they call a random sample, a reasonable inspection. So they just pick maybe 10% and inspect just those units. But it helps the board liability. We have board members going out doing the inspection. They're just going to be added to the suit along with everybody else. Right? And the employee, it may sound like I'm against this, but I'm not against this. I'm just saying we're lacking clarity. And for a lack of a rush to judgment to get this going, we're not thinking through the issues because people say it's only 4,000, 5,000 units to sprinkler. Well, I know units associations that they don't have the 10 by 10 pump room and all these other engineering issues, that they're getting budget bids of 50,000 units. So it's not so easy as everybody is saying. And for the mayor to make insinuations that we don't care about people's safety, it's just ignoring the true issue of what you need to fix a building. Right. And I was quite taken aback by the mayor's comments in his veto message about how he's doing this for the protection of the people who live in these buildings. And the implication is, as a board member, we are not. And I was very taken aback by that because I know, and I think I speak for many, many boards, that's what we do. We do it day after day, week after week, month after month. We look at budgets. We look at plans. We look at repair proposals. We fix the building. And we have discussions about how do we do this and what's the best way to do this and that and what's this problem? How do we fix it so that it doesn't get worse? And that's all we do. And for the mayor to say that we don't care, that he is the hero and the protector of the people who live in these buildings, I was very offended. I was very offended by that. I understand how you feel because it's ignoring the reality of the situation. It's not about doing something to make the building safer. We certainly don't want to waste money. We certainly want to have a clear understanding what's expected before we spend money. So I tend to agree with you. So is this ever going to be over? I don't know. I think it's a work in progress. And so I'm just glad we have good friends in the city council. And so far, we do. And even with the people who aren't part of the majority that passed out bill 72, I think most of them, most of the council members, agree with us that we need to work with the city to make sure that everybody's on the same page. And that's what the issue is. We all got to be on the same page. I think we all want the same goals. We want safer buildings. We want it safe for the people who live in the buildings. We want it safe for the first responders. And we don't want to spend a ton of money. And we don't want to expose people to liability unnecessarily. And for that, I mean, we need to have clarity in going forward on this life safety evaluation and how it's going to be done. Well, I want to thank you for being here today and bringing us up to date. I'm sure that on future shows, we're going to be talking about this again. Yes. And I would say to anybody out there who thinks condo boards don't care about safety and fire safety, bah humbug to you, because I know associations and board members, they're very concerned about their residents. But they also want to make sure they make good use of the money and they need some clarity on this. So well, then happy new year. And I'm going to see you guys, Jane and I, next week for 2018 in review. Aloha and happy new year.