Laserfiche WebLink
PCHSW-6 Page 2 December 5, 2023 <br />prioritization. He added that while there's no one definition of feasibility, it's included within the <br />eligibility criteria within the list. <br />Committee Member Susan Lee Loy posed a question for Corporation Counsel Judge Elizabeth <br />Strance about using public dollars on private roads. Ms. Strance said public dollars can be used <br />based on legislative action as according to HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) Section 265A -I limited <br />purpose is a public purpose as defined by legislative action, this is a limited exception to the law <br />allowing the County to do work on private roads. <br />Committee Member Cindy Evans had questions around the rationale requiring liability insurance. <br />Ms. Strance said this language was her addition and that while the County cannot contract away <br />its own negligence, the insurance can protect the County from broader claims upon doing work. <br />Ms. Strance said that many road associations may already have their own insurance and it could <br />just be a matter of adding the County as an additional insured. While Member Evans said she is <br />very uncomfortable with this requirement, Committee Member Heather Kimball said that she <br />wouldn't be comfortable without the addition of the language around insurance included. <br />All present voted in favor of the amendment. Committee Member Rebecca Villegas was absent. <br />Regarding the main motion, Member Evans had concerns about emergency access routes being <br />included and Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder said that he would work with her and LRB to make <br />sure her concerns were addressed. <br />Mr. Inaba brought up questions around the definition of the requestor, as some roads may not have <br />a representative on island or might be represented by an entity that no longer exists. <br />Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder answered that a defunct organization having ownership of the road is a <br />common occurrence. He said that first the road in question would have to meet the eligibility <br />criteria as set forth in the bill, second 60 percent of those effected would have to be in favor of the <br />improvements, and lastly, it would have to be a road that is included in the definition of private, <br />non -dedicated, and non -surrendered roads. Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder said that he used <br />numbers modified for our County's needs based off of numbers taken from the ordinances on Maui <br />and City and County of Honolulu. <br />Member Kimball wanted to confirm with Corporation Counsel that if 60 percent of owners were <br />involved in this process then that number was sufficient. Ms. Strance said that she believes that <br />number shows a strong enough expression of desire and that our requirements are higher than what <br />other counties have required for similar legislation. <br />Member Kagiwada asked if there was a way that the other 40 percent, if opposed, could lodge a <br />protest vote. Ms. Strance said that is one question that hasn't been discussed and the process <br />doesn't currently include a public notice requirement and that may be something to consider. <br />Multiple members stated they would like to see lighting, signage, painting, and striping included as <br />work that can be done and questioned if the language allowed for that. <br />Members Inaba and Kimball disagreed with roads that were platted before 1966 having higher <br />priority. Member Kimball asked if the bill would cover roads in limbo. Ms. Strance said that she <br />thought it would not include roads in limbo, as there is no one to act on behalf of roads in limbo. <br />PCHSW Report No. 6 <br />