Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> B. 1997 HSAC Legislative Package <br /> The purpose of this item is to consider and act on the items proposed by HSAC for <br /> inclusion in the 1997 Legislative Package. These items are discussed below; <br /> 1. Bill relating to public land liability immunity <br /> The purpose of this bill is to immunize the counties from liability for <br /> injuries caused by a natural condition of unimproved public property, even <br /> in the absence of warning signs and other public safety services. <br /> Maui County reported that this matter is scheduled for consideration on <br /> December 4, 1996. AU, other counties reported inclusion of this item. <br /> Action to include this item into the HSAC Legislative Package was <br /> therefore deferred until the next meeting. <br /> 2. $ill relating to preference to bidders on county contracts <br /> The purpose of this bill is to authorize the counties by ordinance to give <br /> preference for county public works projects to bidders who have <br /> successfully paid their applicable State taxes. As a result of discussions at <br /> the County Council level, two versions of this bill have surfaced. <br /> Version One, authorizes the counties to adapt "identical" provisions to those <br /> adopted by the State in the granting of a bidders preference. Version Two, <br /> authorizes the counties to adopt "similar" provisions to those adopted by the <br /> State. <br /> In discussion, it was pointed out that adoption of "similar" provisions' <br /> afforded the counties more flexibility in implementation. After granting <br /> up to a 15% preference to a vendor, the State recovers a portion of this <br /> preference from increased general excise taxes and possibly increased <br /> income taxes. Counties tray want to grant a smaller preference. <br /> It was also noted that island residents just starting out in the business will <br /> not qualify for a preference. An example was cited where on the island of <br /> Kauai, the low bidder to a State project, who also happened to be a new <br /> "kamaina" contractor, did not get the contract because of this provision. <br /> Counties may want the flexibility to protect against this type of exclusion. <br /> In light of these discussions and due to the fact that two of the counties did <br /> not consider the application of bidder preferences under these <br /> considerations, the Executive Committee referred the bill authorizing the <br /> adoption of "similar" provisions back to the counties for consideration. <br /> 3 <br /> <br />