Laserfiche WebLink
PCHSW-6 Page 4 December 5, 2023 <br />Member Kierkiewicz reminded the maker that she requested last time to learn more about the <br />mechanics of how these ordinances that are similar in other counties have played out. Member <br />Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder said that he reached out to other jurisdictions and said that yes, they were <br />aware of that section in their State Code and their County Code and they use it, they like it, and it <br />is used. Member Kierkiewicz wanted an actual concrete example of a community that had a road <br />that needed to be repaired and was repaired. <br />Member Kierkiewicz requested to add Police and Environmental Management Departments, and <br />the State Historic Preservation Society as those who should be requested comments from, to <br />eliminate redundant work when other infrastructure improvements are already being done. <br />Member Kierkiewicz asked how road standards will be adhered to in some of these situations <br />where road improvements may be requested. Mr. Pause addressed this question and said that it will <br />be different in every situation, but said that what is done will be to improve safety. Evacuation is a <br />question that he has heard in every district, and that should be our highest priority, to make it <br />passable in the case of an emergency. <br />Multiple Committee Members wanted to know how long a road, once accepted on the list, remains <br />on the list. Mr. Pause said he doesn't know what the intent is, but in his mind, once you are on the <br />list, you are on the list. He said that once you are evaluated you would get prioritized, and they <br />could reprioritize yearly. <br />Member Kierkiewicz asked if any of this bill could be interpreted as a commitment to do the work. <br />Ms. Strance said that it is important to make sure that's not the case. As she reads the bill there is a <br />process of application and a requirement of response to that application. When the application is <br />complete and evaluated by the department, commitment would come through a contract or some <br />other document that would demonstrate that the work was going to go forward. <br />Member Kierkiewicz asked DPW if they have sufficient staffing for this program. Mr. Pause <br />replied no, and that resources are definitely a concern. <br />Multiple Members asked questions around appeals and notices. Ms. Strance said that language <br />should state that the decision, if appealed, should stay within the department for the sole discretion <br />to remain with the director. <br />Member Kagiwada asked questions around the process piece, and language in the bill that says that <br />the director "shall". Member Kimball agreed with Member Kagiwada that this language was <br />unclear, and Ms. Strance added that if the intention is that you do not pass go until each of the <br />steps before that be satisfied before moving further, then that is something that should be clarified <br />and can be addressed in an amendment. <br />Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to amend the bill with the contents of Communication 496.22, <br />this was seconded by Member Inaba. <br />Multiple Committee Members said that they still need lighting, signage, and markings to be part of <br />the improvements that are allowed in this bill. Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder said that he wanted <br />to hear from the director regarding including the markings, lighting, and signage requests. He <br />PCHSW Report No. 6 <br />