Laserfiche WebLink
I~TI~NAL <br /> Verizon Hawaii opposes the current language proposed in this bill because it <br /> does not take into account existing circumstances that will require an enormous amount <br /> of resources and conditions such as the condemnation of land and/or infrastructure in <br /> order to address this mandate. It also does not allow for the director of public works to <br /> determine on a case-by-case basis whether the overall costs to the consumer is greater <br /> <br /> than the project itself or if the project is even feasible. Sy requiring the applicant, in this <br /> case, Verizon Hawaii, to undertake the expense of ,A®A compliance when carrying out <br /> any project-for repair, restoration, or replacement of a county street without taking into <br /> consideration the overall costs of possible land and infrastructure condemnation, the <br /> movement of right-of-ways, or possibly the transferring of easements, will equate to <br /> direct costs passed on to the consumers, in this case, the residents of Hawaii County in <br /> <br /> the form of higher utility rates. <br /> ~~~~~~S~~IV <br /> Verizon Hawaii respectfully requests that this bill be passed with the <br /> deletion of this requirement in Section 22-4.~, subsection (h). Thank you for the <br /> opportunity to submit testimony on this matter. <br /> <br />