COM 0230.008 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Wurdeman Page Two 4. If, at the request of a private road owner, the Department of Public Works drafts and submits to the Council a bill which would implement traffic regulations on that private road, but does not evaluate the traffic regulations proposed by the bill for reasonableness or consistency with relevant engineenng standards, in any way, could the County later be held liable for the traffic regulation? 5. Bill 68, Draft 2, adds language from sec. 46-16, HRS, that provides that the imposition of traffic regulations shall neither result in County responsibility for maintenance and repair of these streets, nor constitute ownership or control over such streets. Assuming that these proposed amendments have been passed, if the Council adopts a bill that contains traffic regulations that have been proposed without any regard for relevant traffic engineering standards, principles, or other criteria that may determine the reasonableness of the regulation, could the County later be held liable for the traffic regulation? Your input regarding any matters relating to the legal implications of this bill or the form or legality of this bill that you become aware of during your review are also requested. Witlt apologies for the short time frame, a response prior to the August I8, 1998 meeting is requested. Although extensive research and discussion has already taken place, including several meetings with Deputy Corporation Counsel Gerald Takase on this bill, these questions have been raised during my recent discussions with Council Members. Please contact me as soon as possible to discuss this. Much research, including the legislative history for the state law, has been completed and can be made available to you if it would be helpful. Thank you very much for your help. APPROVED: . r~ Connie Kiriu Legislative Auditor Encl. Bi1168, Draft 2 and Communication No. 230.02 ce: Council Member Dominic Yagong