HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-AU Limited Scope Performance Audit of the Highway FundEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This limited scope performance audit was initiated by the Hawaii County Office of the Legislative Auditor in
accordance with Hawaii County Charter section 3 -18 and Generally Accepted Government Auditing
Standards (GAGAS). The Highway Fund was designated for review based on a 2007 County -wide risk
assessment conducted by the Legislative Auditor's Office.
HIGHWAY FUND
The Highway Fund was established under section 249 -18, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), to provide for the
expenditure of vehicular taxes collected in each county for acquisition, design, construction, improvement,
repair, and maintenance of public roads and highways, storm drains, bridges, and bikeways; installation,
maintenance, and repair of street lights and power on county maintained public roads and highways;
implementation of functions related to traffic control and safety upon public highways and streets; payment of
interest on and redemption of bonds issued to finance highway and street construction and improvements;
and implementation of functions related to mass transit.
In addition to vehicle weight taxes and motor vehicle registration fees collected by Hawaii County, other
sources of Highway Fund revenues include fuel taxes, public utility franchise taxes, and other revenues such
as State reimbursement for highway traffic signal maintenance and recovery for damages. In FY 2007 -2008,
actual Highway Fund revenues for Hawaii County were $25,575,907; in FY 2008 -2009, budgeted Highway
Fund revenues were $27,473,575; and in FY 2009 -2010, estimated Highway Fund revenues are $27,599,091.
In Hawaii County, the Highway Fund is administered by the Department of Public Works and provides
operational funds for its Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions, with a portion of vehicle weight taxes
going to the Mass Transit Agency. Highway Fund revenues also fund capital improvement projects
authorized under HRS section 249 -18.
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND TRAFFIC DIVISIONS
Hawaii County Code section 2 -41(4) states: "... The highway maintenance division shall be responsible for
the construction and maintenance of all roads, streets, highways, footpaths, storm drains, bridges, flood
channels, and certain cemeteries." The Highway Maintenance Division also responds to emergencies
caused by accidents, hazardous material spills, and natural events and evacuations related to heavy rains,
high winds, fires, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis, and provides assistance to Civil Defense,
Police, Fire, Solid Waste, Parks and Recreation, and other County departments and State agencies.
Hawaii County Code section 2 -41(2) states: "...The traffic division determines the location, installs, maintains,
and repairs all traffic control facilities and devices and street lighting systems; is responsible for all traffic
engineering in the County; maintains a traffic education program; and is responsible for the installation,
maintenance, and repair of on- and off - street parking meters."
The mission statement for the Highway Fund designated by the Department of Public Works is:
"To maintain and to continually improve the County's roadway transportation system
for a safe and efficient movement of people and aoods around the island."
AUDIT SCOPE
This limited scope performance audit is intended to provide a broad review of the adequacy of existing
internal control systems of the Department of Public Works and its Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions
to support attainment of its stated mission for the Highway Fund. As such, the audit also reviews the
effectiveness of the County's overall internal control systems as they relate to attainment of the Highway Fund
mission as well as fulfillment of the County's broader responsibilities for providing programs and services
effectively, efficiently, and economically in a transparent and accountable manner. In addition, the audit
considers the impacts of DPW Administration, elected County officials, other County departments, and State
and federal agencies on the operations of the Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions and their ability to
effectively and efficiently meet their responsibilities under the Highway Fund. The audit also examines the
operational activities of the Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions and compares them to industry
standards and recommended practices related to road, bridge, and flood control maintenance and safety,
including recommendations from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP). As part of our review of the adequacy of existing internal control systems, the audit also examines
the implementation by the Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions of relevant measurable program and
performance objectives to define and assess progress made toward meeting stated goals and standards for
infrastructure condition and maintenance and road safety.
Quoting from Government Auditing Standards: "Internal control comprises the plans, policies, methods and
procedures used to meet the organization's mission, goals and objectives. Internal control includes the
processes and procedures for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations, and
management's system for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance...."
The audit period covers fiscal years 2006 -2007 and 2007 -2008.
FINDINGS
Our review of the operational activities of the Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions identified the failure
of prior DPW Administrations to establish a proper "Tone at the Top ", which requires the implementation of
program goals that are supported by action plans directly linked to measurable program objectives and
relevant performance measures. However, this finding is not unique to DPW, since County government as a
whole has historically failed to establish a "Tone at the Top" that requires consistent outcome -based planning
and budgeting for effective decision - making, maximization of resources, and regular performance reporting to
the public it serves. DPW is also restricted by an annual Highway Fund allocation process that is based on a
strict formula of road miles per District instead of an objective assessment of road conditions and traffic
volumes, as well as an annual budget allocation process that is driven by Department, District, or high - profile
projects instead of the economies gained by budgeting for preservation of existing assets and public safety
through regularly scheduled infrastructure maintenance and safety improvement programs.
DPW Administration and its Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions lack basic internal control systems to
gather, analyze, and communicate information required to promote the effective and efficient utilization of
Highway Fund revenues. They have collectively failed to establish, document, and communicate policies and
procedures to clarify roles, responsibilities, and expectations within each Division and the Department;
delineate the information and data needed to be collected and maintained; and establish formal processes for
planning, scheduling, communicating, and coordinating infrastructure maintenance and safety improvement
duties. DPW Administration and its Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions have not incorporated industry
recommended standards and practices for road, bridge, and flood control maintenance and traffic safety
programs. While it seems intuitive that the housing of the Highway Maintenance, Traffic, Engineering, and
Building Divisions under the Department of Public Works is to facilitate communication and coordination of
related duties, DPW management has historically permitted the perpetuation of a culture of autonomous units
and lacked the leadership and oversight required to implement the fundamental framework for planning,
communicating, coordinating, and assessing the complex and critical tasks for which the Department of Public
Works is responsible.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the report, we offer recommendations to the Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions and DPW
Administration specifically relating to their Highway Fund activities, as well as recommendations to the Mayor
and Council in their capacities to set a new "Tone" for County government that will impact all County
programs and operations, including those programs and operations supported by Highway Fund revenues.
The recommendations relate to establishing internal controls, or essentially building a foundation or
framework, to guide and direct County personnel charged with operational responsibilities for road, bridge,
and flood control maintenance and safety programs that were established to fulfill the County's stated mission
for the Highway Fund.
Summarized below are the broader recommendations offered in the report:
DPW Administration and Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions:
o Immediately develop written policies and procedures for all activities and functions, including requirements
for formal oversight, communication, and coordination within and between DPW Administration and its
Divisions, other County departments, State and federal agencies, and private utility providers, consultants,
and contractors that will set a "tone" focused on effective and efficient execution of planned activities in
support of fulfilling the County's mission under the Highway Fund.
• Identify informational needs of all key stakeholders relating to Highway Fund operational activities, and
research and implement automated systems to enable efficient and timely tracking, archiving, analyzing,
and reporting of data.
• Develop a long -term strategic plan for all Department and Division programs supported by Highway Fund
revenues, including sufficient detail regarding program activities and timing to permit use of the strategic
plan as a foundation for annual division and program budgets and operating plans.
• Adopt industry recommended practices relating to infrastructure planning; preventative maintenance and
extension of service life for capital assets and infrastructure; and road safety issue identification,
prioritization, and remediation.
• Develop and maintain complete inventories for all capital and infrastructure assets, including current
condition and assessment of remaining service life, and implement a system to permit maintenance of
historical data relating to asset condition, maintenance and rehabilitation applications, dates of treatment,
and related costs.
• Work with the County Administration to develop a common standardized system for identification of
County road segments for use by all County departments and agencies (incorporating GPS coordinates, if
possible).
• Coordinate with other County agencies, such as the Police and Fire Departments, to develop a systematic
method for identifying, recording, and transferring crash location data to facilitate efficient traffic safety
analyses.
• Develop, document, track, and report on relevant and measurable performance objectives for each
program and program activity supported by the Highway Fund.
• Actively pursue funding for transportation infrastructure maintenance and improvement from all available
sources, such as the High Risk Rural Roads Program.
County Council:
o Establish or codify a requirement that the County Administration provide regular, relevant, and detailed
reports relating to all County infrastructure, including sufficient detail to assess historical and current
infrastructure condition; estimated remaining service life; and proposed timing, cost, and method of
maintenance or rehabilitation treatments.
• Require that DPW implement systems and processes for development of long -term plans, including major
program activities and timing by fiscal year to be utilized as a basis for developing annual program plans
and budgets that will objectively and adequately address resource allocation based on greatest need and
benefit rather than on a strict formula of road miles per District.
• Require that DPW develop and report on relevant performance measures for each of its major programs
and operational activities supported by Highway Fund revenues on a regular basis.
Mayor:
• Ensure that adequate information systems are provided to permit timely and accurate gathering, archiving,
analyzing, and reporting of data relating to Highway Fund program activities and functions.
• Implement an efficient process for review and coordination of road safety issues by and with all County
departments and agencies with authority to impact road safety, in order to permit the implementation of
combined remediation (where appropriate) and facilitate expediency and cost - effectiveness.
• Adopt policies and procedures that will set the "tone" for all County services and operations stressing the
cost - savings related to proactive planning and the development of formal long -term plans, relevant
performance measures, and adequate and timely maintenance of capital assets and infrastructure.
• Ensure the proper safeguarding of County assets through review of and strict adherence to proper
controls, such as the implementation of perpetual inventory systems, regular inventory documentation,
proper segregation of duties, and unannounced counts and audits.
• Implement a centralized intake center for public complaints to ensure that ALL reports are more
consistently and timely documented and addressed, and to permit the standardization of prioritization,
response, and reporting protocols.
Mayor and Council:
• Require that DPW and its Divisions implement an outcome or performance based planning and budgeting
process to provide direction to program operations and improve public accountability. Thereafter, ensure
that resource allocations are adequate to permit DPW and its Divisions to execute planned and prioritized
operational activities and meet their respective responsibilities under the Highway Fund.
• Review the adequacy of the County's Code of Ethics as well as its monitoring and enforcement of Code of
Ethics provisions, and implement internal control processes that address both the fact and appearance of
impropriety in County contracts.
DPW RESPONSE
In response to audit recommendations, the Department of Public Works stated that it recognizes the
importance of effective internal controls to ensure that the mission and objectives of the Highway Fund are
achieved. DPW also stated that its new administration is committed to continue improving coordination,
planning, and monitoring of its Highway Fund operations; and as part of this ongoing process, DPW will
review findings and incorporate recommendations of the auditor as appropriate.
CONCLUSION
We found the internal control structures of the Department of Public Works relating to operational activities
financed by the Highway Fund for the maintenance and improvement of road, bridge, and flood control
infrastructure and safety to be inadequate. We also reported on deficiencies in the design and /or
implementation of related County internal control structures that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the
County's broader goals and objectives related to governance, transparency, and public accountability.
Given current economic realities, County departments and divisions cannot afford to operate in a reactive
manner as isolated operational units. The November 2008 mayoral election, and subsequent appointment of
new department directors, provides an ideal opportunity to put a fresh face on County government. A new
"Tone at the Top" needs to be established by County administrators at the highest levels and communicated
by example as much as policy to foster a clear understanding of each employee's role and contribution in
meeting program, division, department, and County goals and objectives for providing services and
safeguarding assets. Program, division, and department goals, objectives, and action plans need to support a
broader County -wide strategic plan for long -term infrastructure maintenance and improvement, and should
include realistic timelines and budgets and relevant program measures to assess progress. We need to know
where we want to go as a County; how and when we are going to get there; what tasks need to be completed
when; and what performance measures need to be implemented to define, track, and report outcomes.
Under its new leadership, County government needs to develop new strategies for providing consistent and
reliable infrastructure maintenance as well as improved road, bridge, and flood control capacity and safety, if
we are to meet our mission under the Highway Fund.
Colleen M. Schrandt
Legislative Auditor
County of Hawaii
September 2009
Limited Scope Performance Audit
of the Highway Fund
A Report to the
Hawaii County Council
Report No. 09 -02
September 2009
,wYY OF �9
At• � w.
�TF OF'N P�
OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR
COUNTY OF HAWAII
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: AUDIT PLAN ............................................................................... .............................1 - 4
CHAPTER 2: HIGHWAY FUND ...................................................................... ..............................5 - 6
CHAPTER 3: HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND TRAFFIC DIVISIONS ....... ..............................7-10
CHAPTER 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ................11-24
CHAPTER 5: ROAD SAFETY ...................................................................... .............................25-45
CHAPTER 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE ......................................................... .............................46-65
CHAPTER 7: BRIDGE AND FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE ............. .............................66-74
CHAPTER 8: INVENTORY ACCOUNTING PRACTICES ........................... .............................75-78
CHAPTER 9: NON - HIGHWAY FUND WORK ............................................. .............................79-80
CHAPTER 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS ....... 81-95
CHAPTER 11: RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... .............................96-101
Highway Maintenance Division ................................................................... .............................96
TrafficDivision ............................................................................................. .............................98
Department of Public Works Administration ............................................. .............................98
CountyCouncil ............................................................. ............................... ............................100
Mayor............................................................................. ............................... ............................100
Mayorand the Council ................................................. ............................... ............................101
CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSION ............................................. ............................... ............................102-103
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS REPSONSE ... ............................... ............................104-105
APPENDIX A: Department of Public Works 2009 Organization Chart ......... ............................106
APPENDIX B: Highway Maintenance Division 2009 Position Organization Charts....... 107-111
APPENDIX C: Traffic Division 2009 Position Organization Chart ................ ............................112
APPENDIX D: Hawaii 2008 Five Percent Report ... ............................... ............................113-115
Chapter 1: AUDIT PLAN
Chapter 1
AUDIT PLAN
Audit Scope This limited scope performance audit is intended to provide a broad
review of the adequacy of current internal control systems of the
Department of Public Works and its Highway Maintenance and
Traffic Divisions to support their attainment of the mission statement
of the Highway Fund: "To maintain and to continually improve the
County's roadway transportation system for a safe and efficient
movement of people and goods around the island." This
performance audit also reviews the County's broader program goals
and performance objectives related to the provision of services in a
fair, efficient, and effective manner that is transparent and
accountable to the public. The audit period covers FY 2006 -2007
and FY 2007 -2008.
As defined in section 1.30 of Government Auditing Standards, July
2007 Revision (Yellow Book): "Internal control comprises the
plans, policies, methods and procedures used to meet the
organization's mission, goals and objectives. Internal control
includes the processes and procedures for planning, organizing,
directing, and controlling program operations, and management's
system for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program
performance..."
Audit Objectives Assess the adequacy of internal control systems to provide current
and historical information in a timely manner and in a format that
permits analysis as a basis for decision - making relating to County
roadways in the following areas:
• Ranking of road conditions.
• Development of useful life estimates.
• Determination of timing and resource allocation for road
rehabilitation and repair.
• Incorporation of data into Department of Public Works and
County -wide operational planning and budget processes.
• Compliance with GASB 34 (Government Accounting Standards
Board Statement 34: Basic Financial Statements — and
Management's Discussion and Analysis — for State and Local
Governments).
Assess the adequacy of internal control systems for communicating
and coordinating operational tasks within and between the Highway
Maintenance and Traffic Divisions; between the various DPW
Divisions and DPW Administration; between DPW and other County
1
Chapter 1: AUDIT PLAN
departments; and between DPW, the County, and external State
and Federal agencies related to Highway Fund programs and
activities.
Assess the adequacy of internal control systems for receiving,
tracking, and responding to public complaints related to Highway
Fund work.
Assess the adequacy of internal control systems for documenting,
collecting, and accounting for reimbursable costs incurred in Non -
Highway Fund work.
Assess the adequacy of internal control systems for infrastructure,
equipment, and material inventories to track and safeguard assets
and provide data for planning and budgeting of Highway Fund
programs and activities.
Audit Review departmental documentation provided by the Department
of Public Works and its Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions
Methodology pertaining to the audit objectives outlined above.
Review Industry Best Practices including source materials from:
• U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA).
• American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO).
• Transportation Research Board of the National Academies
(TRB).
• The Road Information Program (TRIP).
• State of Hawaii Department of Transportation.
• City and County of Honolulu, Office of the City Auditor.
Review Federal, State, and County laws, rules, and regulations
including:
• Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB).
• Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS).
• Hawai`i Administrative Rules (HAR).
• Hawai`i County Charter.
• Hawai`i County Code.
Interview County personnel including Department of Public Works
administrators and support staff; the Highway Maintenance Division
Chief, District Overseers and Supervisors, and support staff; the
Traffic Division Chief, Section Supervisors, and support staff; and
representatives of the Finance Department and Office of the
Corporation Counsel.
2
Chapter 1: AUDIT PLAN
Audit Criteria: The Internal Control Integrated Framework published by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) is the recognized
Internal Control standard for establishing internal controls. Under the COSO model,
a system of internal controls is a process that is made up of five
interrelated components.
Control "Tone at the Top" is a term that is used to define management's
leadership and commitment toward openness, honesty, integrity,
Environment and ethical behavior. It is the most important component of the
control environment. The "Tone at the Top" is set by all levels of
management and has a trickle -down effect on all employees. Other
factors that affect the control environment are organizational
structure; clear assignment of authorities, duties, and
responsibilities; industry and business environment in which the
organization operates; economic and regulatory events; and the
attentiveness of governing bodies.
Risk Assessment All organizations and levels within an organization face a myriad of
operating risks. Risks affect the organization's ability to survive,
successfully compete, maintain financial strength and positive
public image, and maintain quality of services and products.
Therefore, risk assessment deals with the organization's ability to
set clear operating goals and objectives, identify risks that could
impede achievement of those objectives, and mitigate exposure to
those risks to acceptable levels.
Control Activities Internal controls are the systems, policies, procedures, and
processes put in place by management to provide reasonable
assurance for the achievement of management objectives,
including effectiveness and efficiency of operations; reliability of
financial reporting; and compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, and policies. Examples of control activities include
performance reports and reviews, segregation of duties,
documentation to support financial transactions and contractual
agreements, physical security controls, and IT access controls.
Information and Communication of information through the organization is essential
to achieving management objectives. This component examines
Communication the way in which information is communicated throughout the
organization and whether there is continuous feedback.
3
Chapter 1: AUDIT PLAN
Monitoring Monitoring of internal controls is critical to an organization to
determine whether internal controls are consistently and correctly
applied and whether they remain relevant and useful.
[Source: Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO), Internal Control
Integrated Framework; and Boise State University:
http: / /www. boisestate. edu/ interna lauditlintemalcontrolbasics. shtmll
The Office of the Legislative Auditor extends its appreciation
to the Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions for their time
and effort in compiling the documentation requested and their
cooperation in allowing us to visit their facilities and interview
personnel.
0
Chapter 2
HIGHWAY FUND
Chapter 2: HIGHWAY FUND
Established under section 249 -18, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS),
the Highway Fund provides for the expenditure of vehicular taxes
collected in each County for the following purposes: "(1) For
acquisition, designing, construction, improvement, repair, and
maintenance of public roads and highways, including without
restriction of the foregoing purposes, costs of new land therefore, of
permanent storm drains or new bridges, as well as repairs or
additions to storm drains or bridges; (2) For installation,
maintenance, and repair of street lights and power, and other
charges for street lighting purposes, including replacement of old
street lights, on county maintained public roads and highways; (3)
For purposes and functions connected with traffic control and
preservation of safety upon the public highways and streets; (4) For
payment of interest on and redemption of bonds issued to finance
highway and street construction and improvements; (5) [applicable
to city and county of Honolulu only]; (6) For purposes and functions
connected with mass transit; and (7) For the acquisition, design,
construction, improvement, repair, and maintenance of bikeways."
In addition to vehicle weight taxes and motor vehicle registration
fees collected by the County under chapter 249, HRS, other
sources of revenue for the Highway Fund include public utility
franchise taxes under chapter 239, HRS; fuel taxes under chapter
243, HRS; and other revenues such as State reimbursement for
highway traffic signal maintenance and recovery for damages.
Hawaii County
Highway Fund Revenues and Expenditures
Highway Fund Revenue Sources
As reported by DPW Deputy Director Jiro Sumada to the County Council
in Communication No. 950.2 dated February 6, 2008:
Revenue Sources (Average Over Past 5 Years)
Fuel Tax — Operations (5.0 cents per gallon) . ............................... $ 4,410,420
Fuel Tax — Local Road Improvements (3.8 cents per gallon) ........ $ 3,350,578
Public Utility Franchise Tax ............................. ..............................$ 6,411,124
Vehicle and Trailer Weight Tax ...................... ............................... $ 5,035,282
Other (State DOT Signals, Recovery for Damages, etc.) .............. $ 952,874
$ 20,160,278
5
Chapter 2: HIGHWAY FUND
In Hawaii County, Highway Fund revenues provide operational
funds for the Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions of the
Department of Public Works, with a portion of vehicle weight taxes
going to the Mass Transit Agency. Highway Fund revenues also
fund capital improvement projects authorized under HRS section
249 -18 cited above. This limited scope performance audit focused
on the internal controls related to the operational activities of the
Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions.
Highway Fund Revenues and Operational Expenditures
FY2007 -2008 (Actual)
Actual Revenues ........................
............................... .................$25,575,907.56
..............................$
Actual Expenditures:
Highway Maintenance Division ... .................$12,633,080.05
Expenditures:
Actual Expenditures:
Traffic Division ........... ..............................$
5,325,056.97
Actual Expenditures:
Mass Transit Agency . ..............................$
812,721.53
Actual Expenditures:
Transfers to Capital Projects ...................$
5,870,837.66
Actual Expenditures:
Employee Benefits and FICA ..................$
2,331,419.25
Actual Expenditures:
Miscellaneous (Workers Comp /etc) .........
$ 360,831.94
Actual Expenditures:
Other Costs (Public Safety Disaster) .......
$ 41,046.69
[Source: County of Hawaii, FY2009 -2010 Operating Budget, Part 1, Ordinance No.
09 -64, pp. 26 -29.]
Employee Benefits and FICA ................$
Highway Fund Revenues and Operational Expenditures
FY2008 -2009 (Budgeted)
Budgeted
Revenues ........................................
..............................$
27,473,575
Budgeted
Expenditures:
Highway Maintenance Division .............$
Traffic Division ....... ...............................
11,165,669
Budgeted
Expenditures:
Traffic Division ........ ...............................
$
6,595,867
Budgeted
Expenditures:
Mass Transit Agency .............................
$
1,177,480
Budgeted
Expenditures:
Transfers to Capital Projects .................
$
4,349,067
Budgeted
Expenditures:
Employee Benefits and FICA ................$
2,861,947
Budgeted
Expenditures:
Misc (Workers Comp /etc) ......................
$
823,545
Budgeted
Expenditures:
Other Costs (Public Disaster) ................
$
500,000
[Source: County of Hawaii, FY2009 -2010 Operating Budget, Part 1, Ordinance No.
09 -64, pp. 26 -29.]
Highway Fund Revenues and Operational Expenditures
FY2009 -2010 (Estimated)
Estimated Revenues ......................................
...............................
$ 27,599,091
Estimated Expenditures:
Highway Maintenance Division .............$
11,843,002
Estimated Expenditures:
Traffic Division ....... ...............................
$ 6,630,907
Estimated Expenditures:
Mass Transit Agency ............................
$ 1,055,982
Estimated Expenditures:
Transfers to Capital Projects ................
$ 3,540,000
Estimated Expenditures:
Employee Benefits and FICA ...............
$ 2,923,000
Estimated Expenditures:
Misc (Workers Comp /etc) .....................$
1,106,200
Estimated Expenditures:
Other Costs (Public Disaster) ...............
$ 500,000
[Source: County of Hawaii, FY2009 -2010 Operating Budget, Part 1, Ordinance No.
09 -64, pp. 26 -29.]
0
Chapter 3: HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND TRAFFIC DIVISIONS
Chapter 3
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND TRAFFIC DIVISIONS
Highway Fund "To maintain and continually make improvements to the County's
roadway transportation system to permit the safe and efficient
Mission movement of people and goods around the island."
Statement
Department of The Department of Public Works is headed by its Administration to
which report its five functional divisions - Engineering, Building,
Public Works Highway Maintenance, Traffic, and Automotive, of which the
Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions are provided
operational funds by the Highway Fund. [See, Appendix A,
Department of Public Works - 2009 Organization Chart.]
Highway Hawaii County Code section 2 -41(4) provides
Maintenance "...The highway maintenance division shall be
responsible for the construction and maintenance
Division of all roads, streets, highways, footpaths, storm
drains, bridges, flood channels, and certain
cemeteries."
The Division's FY2008 -2009 budget proposal included the following
program description:
"The Highway Maintenance Division oversees
and directs all Highway Programs; i.e.,
maintenance of roadways, flood control structures
and canals. The Division also establishes safety
programs and conducts training, coordinates in-
house resurfacing projects and responds to
various emergencies as needed. The Division
continues to update electronic storage of
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and
Global Positioning Systems (GPS) for inventory
and maintenance of street layers."
[Source: County of Hawaii, FY2008 -2009 Proposed
Operating Budget, Part 1, Volume ll, Highway Fund, Highway
Maintenance Division, pp. 343 -346.]
7
Chapter 3: HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND TRAFFIC DIVISIONS
Per the County's FY2007 -2008 Annual Report, the Highway
Maintenance Division maintains a total of 941.76 miles of roads
island -wide.
South Hilo
297.08 Miles*
North Hilo
35.64 Miles **
Hamakua
67.69 Miles
North Kohala
28.14 Miles
South Kohala
102.85 Miles
North Kona
126.69 Miles
South Kona
26.71 Miles
Ka'u
65.55 Miles
Puna
191.41 Miles
*Corrected from 279.09 miles in County FY2007 -2008 Report to 297.08 miles
in DPW FY2008 -2009 Six -Month Status Report, p. 188.
* *Corrected from 25.64 miles in County FY2007 -2008 Report to 35.64 miles in
DPW FY2008 -2009 Six -Month Status Report, p. 6.
Per the County's FY2007 -2008 Annual Report, the Highway
Maintenance Division's activities include:
• Maintaining paved and unpaved roads.
• Maintaining road shoulders.
• Maintaining guardrails including replacement, repair, and new
installations.
• Repairing and maintaining bridges.
• Repairing and patching potholes.
• Investigating complaints.
• Grass cutting.
• Applying herbicides.
• Litter pickup.
• Manually cutting overhangs.
• Tree trimming.
• Cleaning and maintaining culverts, ditches, and other flood
prone areas.
• Constructing sidewalks, retaining walls and headwalls.
• Establishing employee safety programs and conducting
employee safety training.
• Responding to emergencies (such as flooding, high winds,
earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, evacuations, etc.)
• Providing assistance to Civil Defense, Police, Fire, Solid
Waste, Parks and Recreation, and other departments and
agencies as needed.
• Other related activities.
[Source: County of Hawaii, FY2007 -2008 Annual Report, Department of
Public Works, pp. 177 -193.]
0
Chapter 3: HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND TRAFFIC DIVISIONS
The Highway Maintenance Division is divided into six operational
districts — South Hilo, North Hilo /Hamakua, North /South Kohala,
North /South Kona, Ka'G, and Puna — with a baseyard in each
district. Currently, five District Overseers — in South Hilo, North
Hilo /Hamakua, North /South Kohala, North /South Kona, and a
combined Puna /Ka'G district — report directly to the Highway
Maintenance Division Chief.
In FY 2008 -2009, the Division budgeted program expenditures of
$11,165,669, including operations, equipment, and salaries and
wages for 164 permanent and 36 temporary positions. [See,
Appendix B, Highway Maintenance Division - 2009 Organization Charts
(Proposed)]
[Source: County of Hawaii, FY2008 -2009 Proposed Operating Budget, Part 1,
Volume fl, Highway Fund, Highway Maintenance Division, pp. 343 -346.]
Traffic Division Hawaii County Code section 2 -41(2) provides:
"...The traffic division determines the location,
installs, maintains, and repairs all traffic control
facilities and devices and street lighting systems;
is responsible for all traffic engineering in the
County; maintains a traffic education program;
and is responsible for the installation,
maintenance, and repair of on- and off - street
parking meters."
The Traffic Division's FY2008 -2009 budget proposal included the
following program description:
"...The Division installs, maintains, and repairs
traffic control facilities and devices and street
lighting systems in compliance with Chapter 24 of
the Hawaii County Code. The Division is also
responsible for traffic engineering projects for the
County and also educating the public on public
safety."
[Source: County of Hawaii, FY2008 -2009 Proposed Operating Budget, Part 1,
Volume fl, Highway Fund, Highway Maintenance Division, pp. 343 -346.]
Per the County's FY2007 -2008 Annual Report, the Traffic Division's
activities include:
Operations Management
• Investigating complaints or requests for repairs, improvements,
studies, and other traffic related matters.
• Processing road closure permit applications.
• Reviewing preliminary and final plans, including traffic impact
studies.
D
Chapter 3: HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND TRAFFIC DIVISIONS
Streetlights
• Operating and maintaining County, State Highway, and DHHL
streetlights.
• Operating and maintaining bridge and parking lot lights.
• Completing streetlight maintenance work orders.
• Processing joint pole applications with HELCO /Verizon.
• Investigating requests for new streetlights.
Traffic Signals
• Operating and maintaining County, State Highway, and DHHL
traffic signal systems.
• Operating and maintaining flashing beacon light systems on
County highways.
• Operating and maintaining embedded flashing lights.
• Receiving and resolving traffic signal trouble calls.
Traffic Signs and Markings
• Issuing work orders for new traffic control devices.
• Fabricating traffic signs.
• Installing traffic signs and sign supports.
• Painting pavement markings.
• Installing raised pavement markers.
• Completing work orders, trouble calls, police reports, and sign
deficiency reports.
[Source: County of Hawaii, FY2007 -2008 Annual Report, Department of
Public Works, pp. 177 -193.]
The Traffic Division is currently divided into four operational
sections — Traffic Signals and Streetlights, Traffic Signs and
Markings, Traffic Safety, and Support Staff — that report to the
Traffic Division Deputy Chief (Civil Engineer V) and the Traffic
Division Chief. The Traffic Division maintains two baseyards, one in
Hilo serving East Hawaii (South Hilo, North Hilo /Hamakua, Puna,
and Ka'u) and one in Kona serving West Hawaii (North /South Kona
and North /South Kohala).
In FY 2008 -2009, the Traffic Division budgeted total program
expenditures of $6,595,867, including operations, equipment, and
salaries and wages for 42 positions. [See, Appendix C, Traffic Division
- 2009 Position Organization Chart (Current)]
[Source: County of Hawaii, FY2008 -2009 Proposed Operating Budget, Part 1,
Volume fl, Highway Fund, Highway Maintenance Division, pp. 343 -346.]
10
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Chapter 4
CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
FINDING: Hawaii Island Roads are comprised of a network of County,
State, Federal, and privately owned and maintained roads.
County lacks Hawaii County recognizes 941.76 miles as County roads; 122.6
authority to remedy miles as accepted "roads -in- limbo "; and 286.3 miles as "paper
roads ".
road safety issues [Sources: Hawaii County FY2007 -2008 Annual Report, and Hawaii County
on all Hawaii website, "Roads in Limbo Fact Sheet'; February 2009.]
Island While the stated mission of the Highway Fund is "to maintain and
to continually improve the County's roadway transportation
Roads. system for a safe and efficient movement of people and goods
around the island ", the Department of Public Works faces
challenges shared by other counties and local municipalities
where transportation infrastructure is comprised of roads, bridges,
and flood controls owned and /or maintained by multiple
governmental jurisdictions as well as private landowners.
When used in this chapter, "Hawaii Island Roads"
collectively refers to County and State roads on Hawaii
Island.
FINDING:
We compared Hawaii Island's traffic crash rates with national,
state, and county crash rates, and reviewed industry reports of
County lacks
roadway factors contributing to crashes as well as recommended
to
practices for reducing crashes from the U.S. Department of
authority remedy
y y
Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the
road safety issues
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), and National Cooperative Highway Research
on State Highways
Program (NCHRP).
without State
[Source: http://safety.fhwa. dot. _go v/ FHWA Desktop reference for Crash Reduction
Factors, AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and NCHRP Report 500.]
approval.
In 2006, the Hawaii County Police Department reported 7,445
traffic crashes (average of 1 accident every 70 minutes), with
1,785 reported injuries (average of 5 injuries per day) and 33
deaths per year.
(Source: Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, By Districts, Hawaii County: 1991 to 2006,
County of Hawaii, 20071
11
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PULIC WORKS
Chart: North m rce-
Hawaii ClulcOes Project - August 2009 sou Numerator Irom Oepenmenl a7ransp0naliw=
irafOc fat 11— lriclu ;manor vMkte Tato 1: I EMimol s ro coumms ter
pperalpra, Ary pprr� and bin arts. Raoul: April 1- 200010 July 1, 20071CL�EST2o07 -01 -1i1
Sourw: Po Lmlw DOW— U-S. Ca 6v
HeOeafe D&e: RIerM 19, 2009
The North Hawaii Outcomes Project's analysis of Hawaii State
Department of Transportation (HDOT) figures for years 2001
through 2006 showed that the traffic crash fatality rate on Hawaii
Island roads was about three times the rates of the City and
County of Honolulu and twice the rates of Maui and Kauai
Counties.
[Source: "Recommendations to Reduce Motor Vehicle Related Fatalities &
Injuries in Hawaii County — January 2008 ", North Hawaii Outcomes Project at
www. nhop. org, 2008]
A national study by the Pacific Institute for Research and
Evaluation found that the cost and severity of crashes where
roadway conditions are a factor greatly exceeds the cost and
severity of crashes where alcohol or speeding was involved or the
cost of non -use of seatbelts. This study found that nationally
roadway condition is a contributing factor in more than half - 52.7
percent - of the nearly 42,000 American deaths resulting from
motor vehicle crashes each year and 38 percent of the non -fatal
injuries.
[Source: Dr. Ted R. Miller & Dr. Edward Zaloshnja, On a Crash Course: The
Dangers and Health Costs of Deficient Roadways, Pacific Institute for Research
and Evaluation, 2009, p. 7.]
In addition to the suffering that traffic crashes cause to victims
and their loved ones, the following table from the Pacific Institute
for Research and Evaluation study shows the staggering costs of
road condition - related traffic crashes in comparison to other crash
factors.
12
Rate of Traffic - Related Fatalities
3a -0
7S C
25 -0
2a i
7? t
22 -0
21.1
19 9
Hawaii County
R 20,0
18.3
Average 22 -1
a
g
State
i5 -0
Average ii -.
c
e
12 -6
11 -5
107
11.3 11.1
10.8
m$ 10.0
8.4
y
''
7.6
7 -8
7 -d
50
City & County of Honolulu
Average 8.4
Hawaii County
—City & County of Honolulu
— —5tate
0.0
2001
2002 2009
2004 200S
2006
2007
Chart: North m rce-
Hawaii ClulcOes Project - August 2009 sou Numerator Irom Oepenmenl a7ransp0naliw=
irafOc fat 11— lriclu ;manor vMkte Tato 1: I EMimol s ro coumms ter
pperalpra, Ary pprr� and bin arts. Raoul: April 1- 200010 July 1, 20071CL�EST2o07 -01 -1i1
Sourw: Po Lmlw DOW— U-S. Ca 6v
HeOeafe D&e: RIerM 19, 2009
The North Hawaii Outcomes Project's analysis of Hawaii State
Department of Transportation (HDOT) figures for years 2001
through 2006 showed that the traffic crash fatality rate on Hawaii
Island roads was about three times the rates of the City and
County of Honolulu and twice the rates of Maui and Kauai
Counties.
[Source: "Recommendations to Reduce Motor Vehicle Related Fatalities &
Injuries in Hawaii County — January 2008 ", North Hawaii Outcomes Project at
www. nhop. org, 2008]
A national study by the Pacific Institute for Research and
Evaluation found that the cost and severity of crashes where
roadway conditions are a factor greatly exceeds the cost and
severity of crashes where alcohol or speeding was involved or the
cost of non -use of seatbelts. This study found that nationally
roadway condition is a contributing factor in more than half - 52.7
percent - of the nearly 42,000 American deaths resulting from
motor vehicle crashes each year and 38 percent of the non -fatal
injuries.
[Source: Dr. Ted R. Miller & Dr. Edward Zaloshnja, On a Crash Course: The
Dangers and Health Costs of Deficient Roadways, Pacific Institute for Research
and Evaluation, 2009, p. 7.]
In addition to the suffering that traffic crashes cause to victims
and their loved ones, the following table from the Pacific Institute
for Research and Evaluation study shows the staggering costs of
road condition - related traffic crashes in comparison to other crash
factors.
12
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
U.S. Cost by Crash Factor in Billions of
Dollars
per Year
Road Condition - Related
Alcohol - Related
Speed - Related
Not Using Seatbelt
0 50 100 150 200 250
[Source: Dr. Ted R. Miller & Dr. Edward Zaloshnja, On a Crash Course: The
Dangers and Health Costs of Deficient Roadways, The Pacific Institute for
Research and Evaluation, 2009, p. 7.]
This study also showed that Hawai'i State had the highest road -
related crash costs per mile of road in the United States.
Specifically, the annual cost of road - related crashes in Hawai'i
State for 2006 was $338,310 per mile of road.
[Source: Dr. Ted R. Miller & Dr. Edward Zaloshnja, On a Crash Course: The
Dangers and Health Costs of Deficient Roadways, Pacific Institute for Research
and Evaluation, 2009, p. 8.]
The Road Information Program (TRIP), a national non - profit
transportation research group, estimated that motor vehicle
crashes in which roadway design was an important factor cost
Hawai'i State motorists approximately $218 million per year, or
$261 per motorist per year, in medical costs, lost economic and
household productivity, property damage, and travel delays.
[Source: Paying the Price for Inadequate Roads in Hawaii: The Cost to Motorists
in Reduced Safety, Lost Time and Increased Vehicle Wear, TRIP, Washington
D.C., 2005, p.17.]
With 122,087 licensed drivers in Hawai'i County reported in 2006
by the Hawaii County Data Book and using TRIP's estimate of
$261 per motorist per year, the estimated cost to Hawai'i County
drivers for crashes on Hawai'i Island roads would be $31,864,707
per year (122,087 motorists multiplied by $261 per motorist).
However, these are estimated costs only and actual costs may be
higher or lower for Hawai'i County. Traffic crashes also require
Police, Fire, DPW, and other agency resources. For example, the
Police Department responds to traffic crashes on average of 20
times each day and the majority of Fire Department responses
involve traffic crashes.
13
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PULIC WORKS
The federal government requires each state to produce a Five
Percent Report, which lists the 5% of each state's locations
exhibiting the most severe highway safety needs, in order to raise
public awareness of the highway safety needs and challenges in
each state. This annual report prioritizes the 5% of State highway
locations exhibiting the most severe safety needs, and lists the
recommended safety improvements and estimated costs. Each
year, our State reports on the locations needing the most safety
improvements in the Hawaii Five Percent Report (sue Appendix
D). The Hawaii Five Percent Report only examines roadways
maintained by the State and therefore, only includes intersections
of State highways with County roads (not County roads in their
entirety). The majority of road safety issues in the HDOT's 2006,
2007, and 2008 reports have been located on Hawai'i Island.
Following our inquiries, the Traffic Division requested and
received these HDOT reports for review.
The HDOT's 2006 Hawaii Five Percent Report showed that out of
the 107 intersections examined statewide, the three intersections
with the most severe safety needs in the State are concentrated
on a section of the Pahoa bypass just over a mile in length. The
Honolulu Advertiser's March 15, 2007 edition included a
compilation of the HDOT's 2006 Hawaii Five Percent Report that
showed that 10 of the 11 most dangerous intersections or
roadways in the State are located on Hawai'i Island, as shown in
the following map and table. Several of these locations are where
County roads intersect with State highways.
DANGEROUS LOCATIONS
Starting last year, the tederal government requtred all states to Idenit-
ty the 5 percent of roadways that had the most severe highway safety
needs. Hawai'l idenlrfled 1 1 sites. wltti all but one Can the Big Islartd.
270 SITES ON THE
250
BIG ISLAND
Kaw alnae ;lati•:a,� �
• Waimea 4d'poab' 0 20
r_,9` Miles
� zoo,
sar�� Hilo
a Kailua-
Kona
HAWAI plCalq
•
PShoa
s
�� Ni'a61Ah�e
14
SITE ON
O`AI-IU
r
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
HERE ARE THE SITES, PLUS THE REMEDY, STATUS OF THE PROJECT AND ESTIMATED OR ACTUAL COST:
BIG ISLAND
SITE REMEDY STATUS COST
1, Kea'au -Pahoa Road
Installed
@ Pahoa- Kapoho Road
Traffic signal
construction
$304,300
2, Kea'au-Pdhoa Road Q Kahakai Boulevard
Traffic signal
Corsliw1ion not staged
$450,000
3. Kea'au -Pahoa Road @ Old Pahoa
Based on effect of
To be
To be
Road & Old Government Road
nearby improvements
determined
determined
4, Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway
@ Waikoba Beach Drive
Traffic signal
Installed
$1.8 million
5, Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway
@ Hinalani Street
Traffic signal
Installed
9698,732
6. Saddle Road, mile posting 13.4
to 16,8, between Hilo and
Safety
To be
To be
the Mauna Kea Access Road
improvements
determined
determined
7, Saddle Road, mile posting
14.1 to 14.4, between Hilo and
Safety
Under
$59.1
the Mauna Kea Access Road
improvements
construction
million
8, Mamalahoa Highway, mile
Construction
Construction
posting 90.7 to 91,0, Soulh Kona
safety
not
near C.Q. Yee Hop Ranch
improvements
started
$250,000
9, Mamalahoa Highway, mile posting
Safety
Construction
67.5 to 68. 1, at Kiolaka'a Homestead Road
improvements
not started
$230,000
10. Mamalahoa Highway, mile posting
20.8 to 21.1, near Pu'uwa'awa'a Ranch
Construction
Construction
and Pu'u Lani Ranch, between Waimea
safety
not
$115
and Kailua, Kona,
improvements
started
million
OAHU
11. Iroquois Road Q Keaunui Drive
Traffic signal
To be installed
To be
by developer
determined
Source: Federal HignWBy Admnistr&li6n, state DeRartment of TransoonatiM A60 1W
The Honolulu Advertiser
[Source: Rob Perez, State's Traffic Crash Records Questioned, Honolulu
Advertiser, March 15, 2007.]
The HDOT's 2008 Hawaii Five Percent Report listed the following
locations as exhibiting the most severe safety needs in the State:
Volcano Road at Old Volcano Road, Kea`au -Pahoa Road at
Ainaloa Boulevard, Kea`au -Pahoa Road at Kahakai Boulevard,
and Kea`au -Pahoa Road at Old Pahoa Road and Old
Government Road. However, the County has no authority to
implement road and traffic safety countermeasures without State
approval within the approaches to State /County intersections that
are within the State roadway rights -of -way.
15
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PULIC WORKS
FINDING: Coordination between the State and County on the installation of traffic
safety improvements at locations identified in the Hawaii Five Percent
State /County Report seems to be lacking, and a more focused approach and
working relationship between the State and County may help speed
need to expedite the implementation of suggested remedies and reduce the number of
planning) crashes. Specifically, remedies for known road safety issues at
intersections of State highways and County roads have often taken
coordination/ many years to complete or have yet to be addressed. For its part, the
County should develop a formal process for lobbying, coordinating, and
implementation reporting on the status of State /County intersection improvements, and
expedite required permits, facilitate the acquisition of land, or assist in
of traffic safety the installation of low -cost safety measures as well as major
improvements at improvements.
State /County The intersection at State Highway 130 and County -owned Kahakai
Boulevard has been listed in the Hawaii Five Percent Report in 2006,
intersections. 2007, and 2008, without completion of the proposed traffic signal
installation. This delayed resolution of known safety issues has
resulted in the HDOT reporting on the same locations in successive
annual Hawaii Five Percent Reports, without focusing public
awareness and government resources on other locations that may
require safety improvements.
Based on HDOT data for 2004 -2006, the highest number of crashes on
State Highway 130 occurred at the intersection of County -owned
Ainaloa Boulevard, with 37 major crashes reported in the three -year
period. The Ainaloa Boulevard intersection was not listed in the State's
2006 Hawaii Five Percent Report due to the State using older traffic
accident data, but it was listed in the Hawaii Five Percent Report for
2007, and again in 2008. The proposed remedy of installing a traffic
signal at Ainaloa Boulevard has not yet been completed.
The number of crashes at County road intersections with State
Highway 130 highlights the need for the County Administration to work
in tandem with the State to assess factors contributing to crashes at
State /County intersections and implement timely and appropriate traffic
safety solutions.
FINDING: The HDOT also compiles and reports on the major traffic crashes
reported by the Hawaii County Police Department. Currently, the
State /County Police Department does not have a unique identifier or GPS
coordinates and may list an intersection differently in crash reports,
agencies need to which prevents a State analyst from readily sorting crash data. This
standardize has resulted in a delay of over a year for HDOT to compile its crash
reports. Since the data is old and only includes major crashes and not
reporting of all crashes, the Traffic Division Chief reports that its usefulness in
identifying road condition - related crashes at County intersections is
traffic data to limited.
facilitate traffic The following table prepared by HDOT lists all State intersections
safety planning. (including State /County intersections) with three or more major crashes
per year within the last three -year time period (2004 to 2006).
16
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
2004 - 2006 HAWAII COUNTY STATE ROUTE INTERSECTION LIST APRIL 29, 2008
INTERSECTION CRASH LOCATIONS WITH 3 OR MORE CRASHES PER YEAR IN THE LAST 3 YEARS*
Rank
Street/Highway
Reference
Accidents
(acc /3 yr) (04,
05,06)
ADT (veh /day)
(04, 05, 06)
Acc Rate
(acc /mil -veh)
RTE
MP
STA
1
Volcano Rd
Old Volcano Rd
29
14,617
1.8119
11
7.80
11 SL
2
Keaau -Pahoa Rd
Ainaloa Blvd
37
21,595
1.5647
130
7.00
2 -J (08)
3
Keaau -Pahoa Rd
Kahakai Blvd
23
16,219
1.2951
130
10.20
2 -R (08)
4
Keaau -Pahoa Rd
Old Government Rd
26
20,087
1.1821
130
10.00
130SC (08)
5
Kuakini Hwy
Lako St
26
20,355
1.1665
11
119.30
11 SL
6
Keaau -Pahoa Rd
Makuu Dr
24
18,961
1.1559
130
6.70
130SL
7
Volcano Rd
North Kulani Rd & South Kulani Rd
18
14,247
1.1538
11
13.50
3 -K (08)
8
Kamehameha Ave
Lihiwai St & Manono St
24
19,001
1.1535
19
1.40
19SL
9
Queen Kaahumanu Hwy
Hinalani St
28
23,834
1.0729
19
96.20
19SL
10
Puainako St
Kekela St
16
18,220
.8020
2000
0.10
2000SL
11
Volcano Rd
Old Keaau -Pahoa Rd
17
19,428
.7991
11
7.30
2 -1-1- (00)
12
Keaau -Pahoa Rd
Kaloli Dr
16
18,961
.7706
130
4.60
130SL
13
Keaau -Pahoa Rd
Paradise Dr
16
18,961
.7706
130
5.70
130SL
14
Volcano Rd
Keaau -Pahoa Rd
30
36,865
.7432
11
6.70
2 -K (02)
15
Keaau -Pahoa Rd
Pohaku Dr & Shower Dr
16
20,029
.7295
130
3.50
2 -H (95)
16
Keaau -Pahoa Rd
Old Keaau -Pahoa Rd
18
24,534
.6700
130
1.80
2 -W (02)
17
Mamalahoa Hwy
Hinalani St
10
13,954
.6545
190
35.10
190SL
18
Kanoelehua Ave
Puainako St
33
48,510
.6213
11
1.90
18 -G (02)
19
Kanoelehua Ave
Kamehameha Ave & Banyan Dr
22
34,414
.5838
11
0.00
18 -D (02)
20
Kanoelehua Ave
Makaala St
21
33,604
.5707
11
1.60
11 SL
21
E t en Kaahumanu Hwy
Henry St
26
42,447
.5594
11
122.10
9 -N (02)
22
Puainako St
Kinoole St
11
18,752
.5357
2000
0.30
18 -Y (02)
23
Puainako St
Kilauea Ave
15
28,806
.4755
2000
0.20
18 -E (02)
24
E t en Kaahumanu Hwy &
Palani Rd
19
41,955
.4136
11
122.40
C -9 -C (02)
25
Kanoelehua Ave
Kahaopea St
14
32,722
.3907
11
2.20
11 SL
26
Kanoelehua Ave
Kawailani St
13
32,722
.3628
11
2.60
11 SL
27
Kanoelehua Ave
Kekuanaoa St
16
43,742
.3340
11
0.70
18 -Q (02)
28
Volcano Rd
Mamaki St
12
35,636
.3075
11
4.30
11 SL
29
Kanoelehua Ave
Palai St
9
32,722
.2512
11
3.00
11 SL
The State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, has provided this traffic accident information under the protection of 23 USC 402(k) and 409. This
information may not be used in any federal or State court proceeding in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or
addressed in the information provided.
*Per a HDOT engineer, this report includes major crashes, which are crashes with fatalities, injures, or property damage of $3,000 or more.
17
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The Traffic Division Chief reported that GPS coordinates would be a
useful tool by making the recordation, analyses, and reporting of
crash data significantly more efficient, while also aiding in the
development and maintenance of a traffic sign inventory and
management system to comply with federal mandates. These
federal mandates include a retroreflectivity assessment of all traffic
signs by 2012; replacement of substandard traffic signs by 2015;
and replacement of substandard street name signs by 2018.
Similarly, use of GPS coordinates by the Traffic Division would be
useful in developing and maintaining traffic signal, pavement
marking, and streetlight inventories. In consulting with a County
Data Systems GIS analyst, the audit team was advised that a basic
GPS unit currently costs approximately $100. Since GPS units are
supplied to the County Fire Department's Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) unit, they would serve as practical tools for other
first responders such as other Fire Department units, the Police,
Civil Defense, and DPW Traffic and Highway Maintenance
Divisions.
The utilization of GPS coordinates may also facilitate the
compilation by HDOT of more timely crash reports on State
intersections; assist the Hawaii County Police Department in
recording exact crash locations in accident reports; and provide the
County with the ability to gather, analyze, report, and use relevant
and timely crash data for all County roads by all appropriate County
divisions, departments, and agencies in the planning and budgeting
processes. Receipt of more current crash reports and maps would
permit the Traffic Division to resolve safety issues in a more timely
manner since effective low -cost improvements (such as zigzag
awareness striping or four -way stop signs) can be installed
relatively quickly, and would assist the County in its efforts to
coordinate with the State on resolving safety issues at State /County
intersections.
FINDING: While the data needed to determine the actual cost to Hawaii
County motorists related to County road conditions is unavailable,
Insufficient data The Road Information Program (TRIP) estimated that driving on
to determine roads in need of repair costs Hawaii State motorists $312 million,
or $395 per driver, annually in extra vehicle operating costs,
vehicle operating including accelerated vehicle depreciation, additional repair cost,
and increased fuel consumption and tire wear. Based on 122,087
costs related to licensed drivers in Hawaii County reported in 2006 by the Hawaii
CountCountroad County Data Book, the estimated cost to Hawaii County drivers for
y driving on Hawaii Island roads in need of repair would be
conditions. $48,224,365 per year (122,087 motorists multiplied by $395 per
motorist). This cost estimate combined with National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) studies, which show that one
dollar spent on preventative maintenance at the appropriate time in
IN
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
the life of pavement may save up to four dollars in future
rehabilitation costs, points to the cost benefit of implementing a
preventative road maintenance program.
[Source: NCHRP Synthesis 223: Cost - Effective Preventative Pavement
Maintenance. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 1996, p.2.]
FINDING: 'Roads in limbo' refers to roads that were laid out by the
government, but are not part of the State road system and are not
Maintenance of currently maintained by the County government. As of February
CountCount roads -in- 2009, the County's website Roads in Limbo Fact Sheet states:
y "[T]here are 408.9 miles of Roads in Limbo located island wide. Of
limbo still in that, 122.6 miles exist and are recognized as government or
homestead roads. There are also 286.3 miles of paper roads; rights
limbo. of way that are shown on tax maps, but have not yet been built.
The County has now accepted responsibility for maintaining 122.6
miles of existing Roads in Limbo." The State's Deputy Attorney
General in 1963, Op. 63 -54, referred to a real property parcel
reserved for a road that had never been opened, laid out, or built as
a "paper" road.
When the auditors requested documentation of the policy and
criteria used to accept 122.6 miles out of the 408.9 miles of
disputed roads -in- limbo, a DPW Division Chief responded, "I don't
know. Corporation Counsel, myself and others are supposed to
come up with some sort of policy." Without a policy and criteria for
determining if a road had been opened, laid out, or built, the
question is raised as to how the County determined that 122.6 miles
exist and the rest of the roads are "paper" roads.
The State has established that along with other duties, the County
has the duty to maintain and repair all county highways:
Section 265A -1, HRS, provides as follows: "County
authority. The several councils or other governing bodies
of the several political subdivisions of the State shall have
the general supervision, charge, and control of, and the
duty to maintain and repair, all county highways, bikeways,
and sidewalks and shall have the power to determine the
terms under which irrigation or drainage ditches, flumes,
railroads, including plantation railroads and similar
structures, telephone, electric light and power lines and
pipes and other conduits may be maintained upon, under,
over, and across the same, and the councils or other
governing bodies may make all regulations needful for the
public convenience and safety in all cases where
permission has been or may be granted to maintain the
ditches, railroads, pipes, or other structures across, under,
over, and upon all county highways. All other law to the
19
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
contrary notwithstanding, the several counties by
ordinance may take over, or receive by dedication or
otherwise, any private street or way or may improve,
grade, repair, or do any construction work upon private
streets, ways, pavement, water lines, street lighting
systems, or sewer repairs." [emphasis addedl
• Attorney General Opinion 86 -15 also provides that County
highways on Hawaiian Home Lands are required to be
maintained by counties but title not transferred.
• Section 264- 1(a)(1) and (2), HRS, provides as follows:
"Public highways and trails. (a) All roads, alleys, streets,
ways, lanes, bikeways, bridges, and all other real property
highway related interests in the State, opened, laid out,
subdivided, consolidated, and acquired and built by the
government are declared to be public highways. Public
highways are of two types:
(1) State highways, which are those lands, interests, or
other real property rights, as defined above, having an
alignment or possession of a real property highway
related interest as established by law, subdivided and
acquired in accordance with policies and procedures of
the department of transportation, separate and exempt
from any county subdivision ordinances, and all those
under the jurisdiction of the department of
transportation; and
(2) County highways, which are all other public
highways." [emphasis addedl
The County needs to establish a clear written policy and process for
determining whether a road is a County highway that it has a duty
to maintain and repair. Thereafter, the County needs to establish
an inventory of all County highways based on consistently applied
criteria.
The lack of a clear written and published policy defining which
roads will or will not be accepted as public highways and receive
maintenance leaves the County open to public perception of
impropriety or favoritism. For example, in 2004, Mud Lane was a
narrow gravel country road between Waimea and Waipio Valley,
part of which was a narrow winding dirt trail used by the public for
hiking and riding horses. The Hawaii Island Journal article " Waipio
Expressway? The fight over Mud Lane" by Krista Sherer highlights
the potential for negatively impacting public perception in the
absence of having a clear written policy and criteria for public
highway maintenance. In this article, some local residents believed
that the County acted improperly in starting construction of a road
where only a trail existed to provide access to a single property sold
20
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
by the County to a developer. Hawai'i County Real Property Tax
Office records show that the Department of Finance sold a parcel
consisting of two lots totaling 660.8 acres (Tax Map Key No. 4 -8 -3-
5) abutting Mud Lane for $1,600,000 (about $2,421 /acre) on March
16, 2005. Prior to the sale, the Planning Director wrote a letter
dated July 8, 2004 and copied to the Director of Finance,
responding to questions from a prospective purchaser. The letter
stated: "I have consulted with the Department of Public Works and
we would be comfortable with re- graveling of the poorer areas of
the existing Mud Lane, and a gravel road approximately 18' wide to
the property boundary on the portion that currently exists only as a
trail on the ground (approximately .5 miles). We would require
covenants in the deeds that the purchasers understand that Mud
Lane has not been regularly maintained by the county, and that
they do not expect regular maintenance, and that lot owners would
maintain the last .5 miles (although it could not be closed to the
public.)"
"An official with the County Department of Finance said at the time
that the price was so low because the land was sold 'as is', with
poor access. At the time the County initially listed the property at
$4.9 million, sold to Waimea 660 for less than a third of that.
Waimea 660 currently has it on the market for $6.9 million. When
Waimea 660 made its purchase, Mud Lane was in bad shape. It
was designated a substandard 'road in limbo' over which the county
claimed it had no jurisdiction..." Additionally, approximately 1.8
miles of Mud Lane were paved by the County shortly after the sale
of the property.
[Source: Krista Sherer, Waipio Expressway? The fight over Mud Lane, Hawaii
Island Journal, December 8 -14, 2007]
The determination of which roads are accepted for maintenance
and repair appears to be inconsistent. Again, the foregoing letter
regarding Mud Lane from the Planning Director stated: "I have
consulted with the Department of Public Works and we would be
comfortable with re- graveling of the poorer areas of the existing
Mud Lane, and a gravel road approximately 18' wide to the property
boundary on the portion that currently exists only as a trail on the
ground (approximately .5 miles)." However, a letter from the Office
of the Corporation Counsel dated July 26, 2007, regarding County
Ownership of Homestead Road, North Kona, Hawaii, stated: "Our
County surveyors generally agree with this historical background.
However, we understand that there is no actual homestead road
constructed, but only a rough trail that traverses the general area.
Hence, we must regard this not as an actual road for highway use,
but no more than a 'paper' road, not in actual existence."
Given that historical roads used to access properties by horse -
drawn vehicles, early automobiles, and plantation trucks were not
built to current County standards, it is important that the County
have a plan, policy, and procedure with standardized and objective
21
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
criteria for accepting responsibility and providing usable legal and
emergency road access to properties still accessed by roads that
were opened, laid out, or built to standards of another era. Certain
historical roads may have even become completely overgrown
because of lack of State or County maintenance and may not even
appear to exist today.
History of "Roads in Limbo"
Many roads throughout the State were constructed or acquired by
the Territorial Government of Hawai'i. When county governments
were created in 1905, controversy and jurisdictional questions
arose regarding highways, roads, and streets. Many of these roads
were not repaired or maintained. The State attempted to resolve
the dispute with various legislation:
1913
Hawaii, Senate Standing Committee Report on House Bill No. 280,
1913 Senate Journal at 1169.
"Ever since the beginning of county government ... there has been a
great deal of confusion in regard to the streets, roads, etc. This bill
is designed to place the entire matter in the hands of the Boards of
Supervisors of the several counties, where it properly belongs, thus
doing away with all confusion and conflict of authority."
1947
Hawaii. Senate Standing Committee Report No, 341 on
House Bill No. 90, 1947 Senate Journal at 903.
"The purpose of this bill is to clarify, without extending, the
provisions of the present law relating to public highways ... and the
provisions concerning who shall be in charge of them."
1965
Hawaii, Senate Standing Committee Report No 468 on
House Bill No. 364, Third Legislature, 1965.
"This bill would erase any doubt as to the intent of the Legislature
in 1963 when it passed Act 190 to turn over title to county
highways."
1966
Hawaii, Senate Standing Committee Report No. 185 on
Senate 6111320, Fourth Legislature, 1966.
"There presently exists an uncertainty of jurisdiction and
responsibility between the State and the several counties in the
areas relating to highway ownership, maintenance and repairs ... The
present Bill would clearly define the counties' responsibility."
22
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
1981
Hawaii, Senate Standing Committee Report No. 753 on
House 8111160, Eleventh Legislature, 1981.
"The purpose of this bill is to clarify the assignment of responsibility
for all county highways ... to the several counties."
1993
Act 288, Session Laws of Hawai'i 1993, formally declared that the
Department of Transportation was responsible for the State
Highway System and that all other public highways are to be
maintained by the counties.
2005
The Legislature appropriated $2,000,000 in funding to the County of
Hawai'i for repairs on these roadways.
Hawaii County Managing Director Dixie Kaetsu said Mayor Harry
Kim's administration had been trying for several years to obtain
state funding for so- called roads in limbo -- over which the state and
county could not agree on ownership. The state mandated the
county to take over the roads. The county has been lobbying the
Legislature for four years for funding to repair these roads and
county officials were happy when the money was approved this
past session. Kaetsu said the county has about 425 miles of these
roads to repair and upkeep and many of them are in poor condition
and are located mainly in rural parts of the island.
Hawaii Star Bulletin,
September 9, 2005
The City and County of Honolulu has attempted to clarify the issue
through further local legislation. The Honolulu City Auditor's 2005
Audit of the City's Road Maintenance Practices stated: "The
ownership of disputed roads appears to be settled by separate
statewide and city legal acts from 1993: Act 288 of 1993 Session
Laws of Hawai'i (Act 288) and CCR 93 -287. A plain reading of
these two documents together suggests that there are no disputed
roads on Oahu. The statewide act appears to have transferred
ownership of all disputed roads from the state to the counties,
subject to acceptance by the counties. The city's 1993 resolution
appears to be an unqualified acceptance of the transfer." The audit
further stated: "However, the division presently holds the opinion
that the transfer of all disputed state roads to county jurisdiction
within CCR 93 -287 does not mean that all disputes are settled. The
division believes that because the resolution did not have a
comprehensive list of all roads transferred, not all state roads were
included in the transfer. Unfortunately, this interpretation does not
appear supported by language or intent of Act 288 or CCR 93 -287,
23
Chapter 4: CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
and may promote a continued misunderstanding that the disputed
roads issue still exists." However, the audit found that: "[T]he
conditions, maintenance activity and evaluation of these disputed
roadways were similar to those owned outright by the city, as
documented in the 2005 island -wide inventory." The Oahu scenario
further exemplifies the need for Hawai'i County to establish a
complete and accurate inventory of all County roads; address and
resolve legal issues involving roads -in- limbo; and develop clear
policies and criteria for County acceptance of road ownership and
maintenance responsibilities including roads -in- limbo.
A District Overseer reported that road paving and resurfacing work
has been performed by County personnel with County equipment
on certain subdivision roads that are privately owned. If so, this
raises the question of whether such work constitutes proper
expenditure of the Highway Fund. The County needs to address
whether costs of manpower and equipment utilized on privately
owned roads need to be reimbursed to the Highway Fund. Again,
the lack of a clear and consistently applied written policy and
procedure as well as standard criteria for determining which
subdivision roads receive County road maintenance may result in
public perception of impropriety and favoritism, or possible litigation
arising out of the lack of consistently applied criteria and claims of
misuse of Highway Fund revenues.
The Hawai'i State Legislative Reference Bureau stated in its 1989
report entitled Roads -in- Limbo: An Analysis of State - County
Jurisdictional Dispute that: "Today, the dispute continues, as it will
likely continue twenty years from now if no serious consideration is
given to the problem and a concerted but cooperative effort is made
on the part of all involved to deal with the real issues. Only if the
principals involved adopt an attitude of mutually striving to arrive at
a consensus of what has to be done rather than one of saying the
responsibility lies elsewhere, will the parties have made the first
genuine attempts at resolving a situation whose correction is long
overdue."
The County should consider the impact of this lingering state of
limbo on its ability to attain the Highway Fund's mission statement:
"To maintain and continually make improvements to the County's
roadway transportation system to permit the safe and efficient
movement of people and goods around the island." This inaction
on the part of prior County Administrations points to the lack of
strategic and operational planning and vision to translate the
Highway Fund mission statement into relevant and measurable
objectives and action plans to address and resolve the roads -in-
limbo issue. While roads -in -limbo remains an issue State -wide, the
newly elected Mayor's mantra of "Together We Can" is what is
needed to resolve what the Hawai'i State Legislative Reference
Bureau has called "a situation whose correction is long overdue."
24
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
Chapter 5
ROAD SAFETY
FINDING: The Highway Fund mission statement is: "To maintain and
continually make improvements to the County's roadway
County has not transportation system to permit the safe and efficient movement of
defined what a people and goods around the island."
"safe" road is. A Department goal for the Highway Fund is "to provide a safe
roadway for the public's use." To accomplish this goal, ideally both
the Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions under the
leadership of DPW Administration would effectively and efficiently
coordinate their operational resources and activities. Further, DPW
would effectively and efficiently communicate and coordinate its
road safety improvement efforts with other County departments and
State and Federal agencies with shared responsibilities to support
implementing the goals and mission of the Highway Fund.
However, in order to be useful, a goal needs to be translated into
measurable program objectives and quantifiable performance
indicators; and DPW has not defined what constitutes a "safe
roadway" for the public's use. Since what constitutes a "safe
roadway" may be difficult to objectively define, a more realistic
program goal may be "to continually improve road safety ". This
goal can be supported by performance measures, such as a
reduction in road safety - related public complaints and vehicular
crashes with fatalities and injuries (by traffic volume) at identified
road segments or intersections. However, the assessment of
progress made toward attainment of program goals under the
Highway Fund would still require that the County implement
sufficient information systems applications and reporting
procedures to permit accurate tracking, compilation, and analysis of
public complaint and traffic crash data.
FINDING: To improve road safety, the County needs to know exactly where it
is, where it wants to go, and how it will get there. Strategic planning
Insufficient combined with relevant measurable program objectives and
planntannin for road accurate reporting of progress will aid in the development of a
ing roadmap of program activities to achieve those objectives. The
safety. FHWA recommends developing and implementing a Transportation
Safety Plan that proactively addresses safety for both new and
existing roadways, bikeways, and pedestrian walkways. A
Transportation Safety Plan is a comprehensive strategic plan on
how to improve roadway, bikeway, and pedestrian safety. The plan
outlines specific steps for improving safety, such as installing
25
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
proven safety measures at those intersections and roadway
segments with the highest traffic crash rates, and defines timelines
for reaching measurable objectives. An effective plan should be a
dynamic document with an ongoing process for updating the plan,
and should incorporate a process for implementing the plan and
measuring progress towards achieving plan goals.
As discussed in Chapter 4, the County and State have a shared
responsibility for roadway issues on Hawai'i Island, creating the
need to coordinate planning and implementation. The State has a
Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Although the County does not yet
have a plan, any future plans should complement and augment the
State's plan. The County does have a Hawai'i County Highway
Safety Council authorized by section 286 -6, HRS, to advise the
Mayor on matters relating to highway safety, with the Chairperson
also serving on the Governor's Highway Safety Council. However,
this safety council has lacked sufficient current road safety
information from the County, such as a Hawai'i County
Transportation Safety Plan and current summarized crash data, to
enable it to effectively advise the Mayor.
The Traffic and Highway Maintenance Divisions have endeavored
to improve the overall safety of the County's roadway transportation
system, specifically the Traffic Division has implemented effective
low -cost safety improvements at intersections (such as zigzag
awareness striping and four -way stop signs) and the Highway
Maintenance Division has applied rough road surface to slippery-
when -wet roads to increase traction. However, their efforts are
hindered by the County's and DPW s failure to develop a road
safety planning process, an island -wide strategic Transportation
Safety Plan, and adequate coordination of road safety related
operations. Improved guidance and oversight of their respective
divisions and departments by the DPW and County Administrations
are necessary to develop and implement an overall safety plan
encompassing multiple departments and divisions. Ideally, the
Mayor and County Council would work together with the Governor,
State Legislature, Hawaii Department of Transportation, and other
agencies and organizations responsible for planning, funding,
implementing, enforcing, and reporting on progress towards
improving safety of public roads.
As stated above, DPW has not developed a comprehensive
strategic plan — one that includes all County roads — to improve
road safety and meet its stated mission for the Highway Fund.
Additionally, although the Traffic Division has measurable
objectives for traffic controls and has reduced traffic crashes at
some intersections, the Division lacks sufficient program measures
indicating reductions in traffic crashes by traffic volume. While the
Traffic Division is attempting to identify and remediate locations with
safety issues, DPW Administration has not created the standard
26
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
unique road identifiers, coordinated the reporting and exchange of
crash data with unique location identifiers or GPS coordinates,
facilitated tracking road improvements completed by all Divisions, or
established an information system to track safety issues and the
effect of safety improvements on reducing crash rates on all County
roadways. DPW Administration has not provided sufficient and
timely coordination among its own Divisions, even when safety
improvements such as realigning a roadway may require resources
from its Engineering, Traffic, and Highway Maintenance Divisions.
Furthermore, DPW Administration has not coordinated with other
County agencies tasked with road and traffic safety related
programs. DPW lacks sufficient coordination with the Planning
Department, whose role affects roadway and pedestrian safety; the
Police Department, whose role involves response to traffic
accidents, tracking of crash data, and enforcement of traffic laws;
the Fire Department, whose role involves response to traffic injuries
and knowledge of crash severity at roadway locations; and the
Office of Liquor Control, which oversees alcohol regulations.
Taking an integrated, "big picture" approach by coordinating safety
improvement planning with enforcement and education would
provide an opportunity for Hawaii County to be more effective in
increasing road and traffic safety while maximizing its limited
resources.
FINDING: Adequate budgeting for planned safety improvements is necessary
to improve road safety, but relies upon timely and relevant
Insufficient information, including identification of safety issues and
information to determination of what corrective measures are required, so that
annual budget allocations for safety improvement projects are
permit adequate prioritized on greatest need rather than dictated by a strict formula
of road miles in a District. For example, because road segments or
budgeting and intersections have not been sufficiently identified and prioritized for
resource installation of safety improvements (such as roadway realignment
and traffic signalization), funds have not been consistently included
allocation for in the Capital Improvement Projects Budget.
road safety As part of the budgeting process and in keeping with an integrated
measures. County approach, research and application for other funding
sources could be more actively pursued within DPW (with the
assistance of the Department of Research and Development). For
example, the High Risk Rural Roads Program, a federal set -aside
provision of the Highway Safety Improvement Program for
construction and operational improvements on high -risk rural roads,
accrues approximately $450,000 each year for projects in the State.
However, while a prior DPW Administration received written
notification from the HDOT requesting that counties strongly
consider participation in the program, a HDOT employee reported
that DPW had not requested any of these funds.
27
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
As stated in Chapter 4, a Pacific Institute for Research and
Evaluation study found that the annual cost of road - related crashes
in Hawaii State for 2006 was $338,310 per mile of road, which is
the highest in the nation. The more conservative TRIP cost
estimate of $261 per motorist per year for road - related crashes
when multiplied by 122,087 licensed drivers in Hawaii County
equals a total estimated cost of $31,864,707 per year to Hawaii
County drivers for crashes in which roadway design was an
important factor.
[Sources: On a Crash Course: The Dangers and Health Costs of Deficient
Roadways, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2009, p.8; and Paying
the Price for Inadequate Roads in Hawaii: The Cost to Motorists in Reduced
Safety, Lost Time and Increased Vehicle Wear, TRIP, Washington D.C., 2005,
p.17.]
Traditionally, the County itself has budgeted significant resources to
departments for providing emergency services to respond to
crashes. However, with the implementation of a comprehensive
Transportation Safety Plan as recommended by the FHWA, and
more effort being directed toward effective prevention of road -
related crashes in keeping with the Plan, fewer accident response
services may be required.
FINDING: Historically, inadequate planning and performance budgeting,
coupled with a lack of objective data, has resulted in insufficient
Insufficient budgeting and delayed implementation of traffic safety measures. If
tannin t0 the County had a plan and forecast expenditures in advance, it
planning could also be more proactive in securing available private, state, or
permit timely federal funding for projects, such as with the High Risk Rural Roads
Program or current "Stimulus" funds. If adequate data to permit
application for objective analysis and project identification were available, and
State and Federal planning and resource allocation were based on prioritized need
and preventative maintenance, the County's outlay of resources
funds. over time could be leveled and reduced, and especially in times of
economic downturn, DPW would be better able to meet its stated
mission and goals for the Highway Fund
W
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
FINDING: The Federal Highways Administration stresses the importance of
good crash data. The total number of traffic crashes at an
Traffic Division intersection or road segment is necessary for identifying hazardous
hindered b lack road segments and intersections. Calculating crash rates by traffic
y volume would further help identify hazardous locations that may not
of crash data. have been identified by the total number of traffic crashes alone.
Usable and relevant crash data is crucial for identifying roadway
safety issues, pointing the way to effective solutions and providing
information for evaluating the results of safety improvements.
However, The benefit of analyzing traffic crash information to locate and
improve roadway safety conditions is highlighted by a Hawaii
initiative of County traffic control success story where awareness striping was
Traffic Chief has installed to reduce traffic crashes. The Traffic Division installed
awareness striping with zigzag markings at the intersection of
significantly Kekuanao`a and Kalanikoa on October 27, 2005. Based on Police
Department data that reported 20 crashes in the 34 months prior to
improved safety the installation and only three crashes occurring in the 23 months
at specific following the installation, the awareness striping reduced the
average number of crashes from .59 per month to .13 per month (a
locations. 78% reduction). The Traffic Division likely prevented an average of
5.5 traffic crashes per year at just this single intersection. After the
Traffic Division applied zigzag awareness striping at KUkUau and
Mohouli in November of 2005, the average number of crashes
decreased from .2 crashes per month to 0 crashes in the following
25 months reported (a 100% reduction). This likely prevented five
traffic crashes from occurring at this single location during the 25
months following the installation. As this example demonstrates,
relevant historical information is needed to identify roadway safety
issues as well as to assess the success of the remedy. However,
relevant historical data is not currently maintained in an information
system that would permit efficient analyses of all County
intersections and roadways.
29
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
Crashes at Hawaii County Intersections
with 3 Or More Major Crashes
Per Year In the Last 3 Years
(2004 - 2006)
County Road Intersection
Number of Major
Crashes in 3 -Year
Period
(Major crashes with
fatalities, injuries, or
$3, 000 or more in
property damages)
Komohana St. & Kawailani St.
18 major crashes
Kilauea Ave. & Kekuanaoa St.
15 major crashes
Kekuanaoa St. & Kalanikoa St.
15 major crashes
Kilauea Ave. & Kawili St.
13 major crashes
Haili St. & Kapiolani St.
13 major crashes
Kilauea Ave. & Kahaopea St.
12 major crashes
Kilauea Ave. & Mohouli St.
12 major crashes
Kilauea Ave. & Palai St.
11 major crashes
Kinoole St. & Kawili St.
11 major crashes
Kekuanaoa St. & Hinano St.
11 major crashes
Kilauea Ave. & Kawailani St.
10 major crashes
Kawailani St. & Iwalani St.
10 major crashes
Pahoa - Kapoho Rd. & Nanawale Blvd.
9 major crashes
Kinoole St. & Mohouli St.
9 major crashes
Kinoole St. & Waianuenue Ave.
9 major crashes
Komohana St. & Mohouli St.
9 major crashes
Mohouli St. & Kumukoa St.
9 major crashes
The State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, has provided this traffic
accident information under the protection of 23 USC 402(k) and 409. This
information may not be used in any federal or State court proceeding in any
action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or
addressed in the information provided.
Subsequent to the end of audit field work, the Traffic Division
provided the following table summarizing the status of safety
improvements at those intersections of County roads identified by
HDOT in its reports on intersections with three or more major
crashes per year in the last three years (2004- 2006).
30
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS FOR INTERSECTIONS OF
COUNTY ROADS WITH 3 OR MORE MAJOR CRASHES PER YEAR IN THE LAST 3
YEARS (2004 - 2006)*
31
LOCATION
WORK DONE
WORK DONE OR
NO.
INTERSECTION
Thru June 30, 2008
IN PROCESS To
PRESENT
1. 4/3/08 - Installed zig -zag awareness
1
Komohana St./
striping.
W. Kawailani St.
2. 4/18/08 - Installed "STOP AHEAD" word
legends on all approaches.
2
Kilauea Ave./
2005 Signal upgrades
Kekuanaoa St.
1. 6/3/04 - On southbound leg of Kalanikoa
St., replaced 30 "x30" standard stop sign
with larger 36 "x36" stop sign.
2. 6/3/04 - On southbound leg of Kalanikoa
St., removed damaged flashing beacon.
3. 7/6/04 - On northbound leg of Kalanikoa
3
Kekuanaoa St./
St., relocated stop line to 4' from edge of
Kalanikoa St.
travelway of Kekuanaoa St.
4. 10/27/05 - Along Kalanikoa St., installed
zig -zag awareness striping, increased
width of stop lines to 24 ", increased
width of edge lines to 8 ", and painted
"STOP AHEAD" word legends on both
approaches to Kekuanaoa St.
4
Kilauea Ave. /Kawili St.
2005 - Installed left -turn pocket Kilauea Ave.
1. 5/13/08 - Along Haili St., installed stop
signs to create an all -way stop at
intersection, installed stop ahead signs,
and stop bars.
2. 5/13/08 - Installed zig -zag awareness
striping on all four legs of intersection.
3. 5/13/08 - Installed "STOP AHEAD" legend
5
Haili St. /Kapiolani St.
on approaches to new stop signs on Haili
St.
4. 7/1/08 - Installed 4 -way supplemental
signs to the two stop signs along
Kapiolani St.
5. 9/15/08 - on northbound leg of Kapiolani
St., removed 3 -min passenger loading
zone sign and installed stop ahead sign.
31
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
* DUE TO THE TIMING OF SUBMISSION OF THIS REPORT BY THE TRAFFIC DIVISION,
THE DATA PRESENTED HERE HAS NOT BEEN AUDITED, TESTED, OR VERIFIED.
32
LOCATION
WORK DONE
WORK DONE
NO.
INTERSECTION
Thru June 30, 2008
OR IN PROCESS
To PRESENT
Signal coordination
6
Kilauea Ave. /Kahaopea St.
Signal work in 2005 TBD
in progress
Signal coordination
7
Kilauea Ave. /Mohouli St.
in progress
Signal coordination
8
Kilauea Ave. /Palai St.
in progress
Signal coordination
9
Kinoole St. /W. Kawili St.
Signal work in 2005 TBD
in progress
10
Kekuanaoa St. /Hinano St.
RSA in progress
9/12/06 - On southbound leg of Kilauea
11
Kilauea Ave. /Kawailani St.
Ave., installed three pavement arrows for
Signal coordination
right turn only lane and extended lane
in progress.
line to 130' long and widened to 8" thick.
12
W. Kawailani StAwalani St.
RSA in progress
13
Pahoa - Kapoho Rd./
RSA in progress
Nanawale Blvd.
Signal coordination
14
Kinoole St. /Mohouli St.
in progress
Signal controller upgrade to allow for
Signal coordination
15
Kinoole St./Waianuenue Ave.
future coordination
in progress
1. 05/09-
Extended
right -turn lane
16
Komohana St. /Mohouli St.
on Mohouli St.
ext
2. RSA in
progress
11/08 - Traffic
signal and
17
Mohouli St. /Kumukoa St.
channelization
striping installed
* DUE TO THE TIMING OF SUBMISSION OF THIS REPORT BY THE TRAFFIC DIVISION,
THE DATA PRESENTED HERE HAS NOT BEEN AUDITED, TESTED, OR VERIFIED.
32
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
Unfortunately, the data provided in HDOT reports is over a year old,
and there are no State reports showing major crashes on stretches
of County roads. Although the Police Department logs traffic
accident information in a database, the County Administration has
not taken the lead to identify what information would be beneficial to
DPW, and coordinated with DPW, Police, Fire, Data Systems,
Corporation Counsel, and other County agencies to review issues
related to data - sharing and developing an efficient method for
capturing, storing, filtering, and reporting crash data to the
appropriate agencies /departments in a timely manner.
Because the County does not routinely compile (and analyze) crash
data for all County intersections and roadways, it cannot answer the
basic question: "Is road safety improving in Hawaii County ?" Nor
does the County have the necessary fact -based assessment of
roadway safety conditions as a starting point for planning of
roadway safety improvements.
At the request of the Traffic Division Chief, the Traffic Division had
been receiving crash data directly from the Police Department for
approximately 30 intersections for the last three years. Following
our initial audit request, the Traffic Chief requested and received
from the Police Department all crash data for the past five years.
The Police Department supplied this data as Excel spreadsheets
showing raw data from police accident reports. However, the lack
of a unique identifier for the location of crashes makes the
information cumbersome and analysis time intensive. For example,
the same intersection may start with a different cross - street or a
part of the road name may be abbreviated differently, which
requires an analyst to review thousands of crash locations to see if
the crash location is the same and group the locations together to
establish crash patterns for intersections.
The following are examples of how the same intersection can be
recorded differently:
Kilauea Ave & Kekuanaoa St
Kilauea and Kekuanaoa
Kilauea Avenue and Kekuanaoa Street
Kekuanaoa Street and Kilauea Ave
Kekuanaoa and Kilauea
Kekuanaoa at Kilauea Avenue
Because the location of crashes on County roadways is reported as
a distance from an intersection (or mile- marker on State highways),
the crash data is extremely difficult to sort and analyze. If the
Police Department were to use hand -held GPS units and record
GPS coordinates in their accident reports, a location could be easily
33
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
mapped or correlated with a road segment. The Fire Department's
EMS unit already uses GPS units to record the GPS coordinates for
crash locations when they respond to crashes with injuries and
fatalities. Recording GPS coordinates for crashes by Police would
also permit crash data to be sorted more quickly, facilitate analysis
to guide the implementation of safety improvements, and provide
for evaluation of the effectiveness of safety improvements over
time.
DPW has lacked summarized useable data for crashes on roadway
segments, and has not created a prioritized list of County roads
exhibiting severe safety issues coupled with recommended safety
improvements, project costs, and proposed installation timetables.
Although the Traffic Division has a process for ranking safety issues
at some intersections, DPW in general lacks an adequate overall
process for monitoring, analyzing, and ranking safety conditions for
the entire County road system and a formal process for
communicating and coordinating traffic control or safety issues
among its Divisions, County departments, and external agencies.
DPW also lacks a process for gathering and prioritizing information
relating to bicycle and pedestrian safety conditions. In 2006, the
Hawai'i State Department of Health and the American Association
of Retired People conducted a walk audit that reviewed five
crosswalks on Hawai'i Island. They observed that all three
crosswalks with a signal (Hooku Street and Paniolo Avenue,
Mamalahoa Highway and Lindsey Road, and Ponahawai Street and
Kilauea Avenue) had cross times that were too short to permit
people of normal physical ability to cross. For the two crosswalks
without signals (Haiti Street and Kamehemeha Avenue, and
Waikoloa Road and Paniolo Avenue), it was determined that walk
signals were needed.
[Source: Walk Audit Report: Making Pedestrian Safety and Walkability a Top
Priority. Hawaii State Department of Health, 2006, p.21.]
In response to this data, the Traffic Division Chief stated that the
Traffic Division follows the specifications detailed in the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for traffic signal and
crosswalk time settings, which specifies crosswalk time settings that
provide enough time for pedestrians walking three miles per hour to
cross the distance of the crosswalk. He further stated that a
developer is tasked with installing a roundabout at Waikoloa Road
and Paniolo Avenue and that a crosswalk signal was not warranted
at Haili Street and Kamehemeha per the MUTCD.
Although the Traffic Division under its current Division Chief has
shown leadership in improving internal controls and reporting, the
Traffic and Highway Maintenance Divisions, DPW Administration,
and the Executive Branch have historically set a "tone" of reactive
management and budgeting rather than one focused on
development and execution of planned activities to attain relevant
34
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
and measurable goals related to their operational functions. All
levels of County government have historically failed to implement
systems that efficiently track and assess areas of need on which to
focus limited resources and to insist on programs and budgets that
recognize the cost - savings of strategic preventative maintenance
programs. Instead, of annual budget allocations by Department,
District, or high - profile project, plans and budgets need to be based
on an objective assessment of actual road and safety conditions,
traffic volumes, and public benefit.
FINDING: Another DPW goal for the Highway Fund is: "To develop a system
for rapid retrieval of records and documents to support litigation and
Inadequate planning activities." Timely and relevant information is needed to
identify where roadway conditions may be a contributing factor in
information traffic crashes and assess the most effective countermeasures in
systems to improving safety on Hawaii Island roads.
identify road The County's traffic crash data is not currently captured in an
safety ssues and information system that supports good road safety decision - making.
y Since meeting with audit staff, the Traffic Division Chief requested
track the and received from the Police Department all the crash data for the
previous five years. However, as stated earlier, the data was
effectiveness of provided in Excel format with the information lacking unique location
remedies. identifiers, with street names being entered with different
abbreviations or in different orders. As such, a person would have
to go through thousands of Excel records to compile which
locations were the same. Coordination between departments could
be improved if the County adopted a unique identifier for road
intersections and road segments. For example, if the Police used a
geographical positioning system (GPS) unit to establish the location
of accidents, and DPW used uniquely identified road segments
referenced by GPS coordinate start and end points, crash data
provided by the Police could be better used for road safety
evaluation.
In its program description, the Traffic Division includes the goal to:
"Identify safety improvement projects based on accidents and
conflict analysis procedures." However, as discussed above, the
Traffic Division is hindered in achieving this goal because of
insufficient reporting of road improvements by the various DPW
divisions and because crash locations are recorded by the Police
Department without a standard unique location identifier or GPS
coordinates. The Traffic Division Chief reported that available State
traffic crash data is two years late and only reports major crashes.
However, using old data only reporting major crashes to locate and
prioritize island -wide safety issues is better than not creating any
prioritized list. The Traffic Chief has worked with the Police
Department regarding traffic crash reporting since arriving three
years ago, and now receives a traffic crash summary on
35
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
approximately 30 intersections. If crashes reach three crashes per
year at any one of these intersections, detailed crash reports are
requested. The Traffic Chief recently requested and received all
crash data, but the data has not yet been summarized to allow for
easy analysis. The number of crashes before and after installation
of safety remedies has been recorded in an Excel spreadsheet for
some intersections. However, the Traffic Division lacks an
automated system that permits efficient gathering and analysis of
crash data and other traffic - related information for incorporation into
its priority ranking, planning, budgeting, and reporting processes.
As discussed above, DPW does not regularly receive traffic crash
information reports and has no formal process or system for
incorporating traffic accident information when ranking road
conditions. DPW also does not generally record when maintenance
or safety improvements are installed or monitor the effectiveness of
the improvements in reducing crashes. Having crash data and
safety installation information for all intersections and roadway
segments would facilitate the identification of traffic safety issues
and tracking of the effectiveness of safety improvements. An
example of tracking traffic crashes, remedies, and the effectiveness
of the remedies is shown below.
Example of Tracking Traffic Crashes, Remedies, and Effectiveness
Road Location:
Kekuanao'a and Kalanikoa
KOkOau and Mohouli
Average No. of
.59 per month
.20 per month
Crashes 2003 -2005:
7 per year
2.4 per year
No. of Injuries and
Fatalities:
? injuries
? injuries
Safety Remedy:
Zigzag Striping
Zigzag Striping
Installation Date of
Safety Remedy:
10/27/05
10/24/05
Average No. of
.13 per month
0 per month
Crashes After
1.5 per year
0 per year
Remedy 2006 -2007:
Percent Crashes
Reduced:
78%
100%
With traffic crash data already tracked and recorded in the Police
Department's Records Management System (RMS), improvements in
analysis, reporting, and dissemination of data on crashes and fatalities
at intersections and roadway segments could provide vital information
for decision - makers. A publicly available Internet -based road safety
condition ranking system for all roads and intersections on Hawai'i
Island would provide the Highway Maintenance Division, Traffic
Division, Engineering Division, Planning Department, other County
Departments, Community Development Planning groups, the Hawai'i
County Highway Safety Council, the Mayor, the County Council, and
the general public with important decision - making information. Having
easy -to -use traffic crash information for all roads, along with proposed
and implemented safety remedies, would facilitate proactive planning
and improvement of safety conditions where State, County, and private
36
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
roads intersect. If road safety conditions were monitored island -wide
and effective safety improvements were completed, statistics indicate
there would be a significant reduction in fatalities, injuries, and vehicle
damage.
FINDING: "The Leilani Estates Curve"
County does not We talked story with local residents about "the curve" on Leilani
have an effective Avenue close to Maile Street. Leilani Avenue is a two -lane road
through a residential area, with a good amount of traffic volume as it
process to connects Highway 130 and Pohoiki Road. Most of the road is
include all key straight and level, with the exception of "the curve" near the
intersection with Maile Street. Residents said that over the last 10
stakeholders in years the curve has claimed more than 20 vehicles, but as yet no
road safety one has died. The posted speed limit on Leilani Avenue is 35 miles
y per hour, with the curve posted at 30 mph with two speed limit signs
problem as well as five large yellow reflective curve signs. Residents said
the usual cause of crashes was speeding and drunk driving. They
identification and said often times if the vehicle is not severely damaged, drivers will
drive off without reporting the crash. They said that a truck rolled
resolution. over in a recent crash, but that the occupants did not appear to be
injured and were busy throwing beer bottles into the brush before
the Police arrived. Residents indicated that it appears that the
problem is the known lack of police enforcement or presence on the
road, not a lack of signage. Residents said that despite repeated
requests for greater enforcement presence, they have never seen
the Police enforce traffic laws near the curve, but the County had
been out recently to install two additional large yellow reflective
curve signs and cut back the brush to allow a better view of the
intersection at Maile Street.
This example highlights the need for capturing and sharing relevant
traffic safety information in a timely manner, and for County
agencies, departments, and divisions to work together to assess
issues and develop effective solutions for road segments identified
as safety hazards. Currently, the crash data is in a format that
inhibits the County from efficiently analyzing the number of crashes
that have occurred at this curve. However, even if crash data were
readily available, the County still lacks an effective process for
incorporating public input and coordinating participation of all
County agencies, departments, and divisions that are functionally
responsible for the development and implementation of appropriate
interrelated road or traffic remedies. For example, if the road
segment requires realignment, then coordination between the
Engineering, Traffic, and /or Highway Maintenance Divisions may be
necessary. During our brief site visit to this curve, we observed
several traffic violations. If as the residents interviewed indicate,
speeding and drunk driving are contributing factors in many of the
wrecks on this curve, additional signs and brush clearing alone will
probably not adequately address traffic safety issues. Coordination
37
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
of Police presence and enforcement of posted traffic signs and laws
will also be critical to reducing the number of accidents on the
curve.
FINDING: Information and complaints from the public regarding road safety
and maintenance have not been recorded in a system that supports
County lacks an dissemination of information, tracking of the resolution, and an audit
adequate system, trail for accountability. Currently, the public does not have one
process and central hotline to call to report road safety and maintenance issues.
Until a centralized intake of safety and maintenance concerns and
procedures to complaints is established, the County lacks adequate controls to
receive, track, and ensure that 100% of the public's safety concerns are recorded,
tracked, responded to, and resolved in a timely manner. When the
report on public public calls in reports to the various DPW Divisions, Police, or other
complaints County departments, this information is not uniformly recorded and
may not be shared with other County divisions or departments
regarding road responsible for resolution of road and traffic safety issues. This
safety issues. information is not recorded in a system that allows for all County
departments and divisions to review and incorporate road and traffic
safety data into their own strategic or operational plans for
transportation infrastructure and public safety.
If the County had a central hotline for intake of all road safety and
maintenance concerns and complaints, the public could call a single
number without the confusion of which department or division to
call. This information could then be recorded into a Public Report
Tracking System that delivers the report to the proper County
department or division responsible for addressing the specific issue.
Public Report Tracking Systems also provide for the public or
internal County departments to enter reports on the Internet, with
the option to email or fill out a web -based report form, and enable
departments that receive reports to record information (such as
response data) into the centralized system. Public Report Tracking
Systems have proven to significantly reduce the problem of reports
"falling through the cracks ", facilitate information sharing and
communication, promote timely response, and provide an audit trail
for accountability. When information is not documented and
recorded into a centralized system, important information may not
be timely distributed and /or distributed to all personnel who need
the information.
FINDING: Improving road safety requires correcting identified locations with
County needs to proven safety measures. We compared the Traffic and Highways
Maintenance Divisions' implementation of safety measures with
continue to implement those measures recommended by the Federal Highways
recommended Administration in ACTION: Consideration and Implementation of
practices to identify Proven Safety Countermeasures.
and correct road [Source: Jeffrey A. Lindley, `ACTION: Consideration and Implementation of Proven
Safety Countermeasures ", U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway
safety issues. Administration, July 10, 2008.]
W
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
The FHWA recommends Road Safety Audits (RSA) for proactively
improving safety. An RSA is a formal safety examination of a future
roadway plan or project or an in- service roadway that is conducted
by an independent, experienced multidisciplinary RSA team. An
RSA can also identify various pedestrian safety issues, such as
crosswalks with too short of signal time to give the elderly or
physically disabled enough time to cross safely. RSAs have
reduced crashes by uD to 60% in locations where aDDlied.
[Source: Jeffrey A. Lindley, `ACTION: Consideration and Implementation of Proven
Safety Countermeasures ", U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration, July 10, 2008, p. 1.]
The Traffic Division Chief reports that he has contracted a
consultant to conduct RSAs, and that Traffic Division staff have
received a demonstration of the RSA process. In addition, he
reported on plans to incorporate RSAs into a proactive road safety
identification, planning, and implementation process.
While hindered in its ability to assess safety conditions for all road
segments and develop a comparative safety risk ranking, the Traffic
Division has used low -cost safety measures for specific safety
issues that it has identified or that have been brought forward by the
Police, the County Council, and the public. For example, raised
pavement markers are used in high- traffic areas to further increase
the visibility of striping. The reflective surface of pavement markers
enables them to be clearly visible at long distances at night and in
rainy weather. The Traffic Division's program objective to "install
4,000 new or replacement raised pavement markers" is a clear and
measurable performance indicator for the installation of a specific,
proven low -cost safety measure. Other low -cost safety measures
proven to be effective are listed in the table below.
Potential Effects of Low -Cost Safety Measures
Improvement
Crash Reduction (Type)
Post - Mounted Delineators
15%
Chevrons
35%
(Nighttime, Run - off -Road)
Two -Lane Road Edge Lines
19% (Total), 37% (Fatal)
Raised Pavement Markers
9% (Total), 15% (Injury)
Shoulder Line Rumble Strips
20%
Centerline Rumble Strips
20%
(Source: Low Cost Local Road Safety Solutions, National Association of County
Engineers, March, 2006, Foody, T.J. and W.C. Taylor. Curve Delineation and
Accidents. Ohio Department of Highways, Bureau of Traffic, Columbus, Ohio,
1996; Peas /ee, G. Signs Show the Way to Cost - Effective Rural Safety. In Public
Roads, Vol. 68, No. 4, January /February 2005, Musick, J. V. Effect of Pavement
edge Markings on Traffic Accidents in Kansas. In Highway Research Board
Bulletin 308, Highway Research Board, National Research Council, Washington,
39
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
D.C., 1962, pp. 80 -86., Miller, T.R. Benefit -Cost Analysis of Lane Marking. In
Transportation Research Record 1334, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1992, pp. 38 -45.; Neuman, T.R., R. Pfefer,
K.L. Slack, K.K. Hardy, F. Council, H. McGee, L. Prothe, and K. Eccles.
Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan
Volume 6: A Guide for Addressing Run - Off -Road Collisions, NCHRP Report 500.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003, Carlson, P. J. and J. D.
Miles. Traffic Operational Impacts of Transverse, Centerline, and Edgeline
Rumble Strips. Report 0- 4472 -2. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station,
Texas, September 2003.]
While the effectiveness of these traffic safety measures has been
documented in other jurisdictions, the greatest degree of
effectiveness can only be achieved when the necessary road safety
data is available for all County road segments to ensure that viable
safety improvements are installed at roadway segments with
greatest need of remediation or those posing the greatest risk.
The Traffic Division has accomplished another measurable program
objective: "To stripe or restripe 125 miles of traffic pavement
markings ". The Division uses either paint striping or thermoplastic
striping. While the Division owns thermoplastic striping equipment, it
has outsourced all thermoplastic striping due to a lack of County
employees trained to use the equipment. This indicates past
underutilization of equipment as well as inefficient allocation of
limited budget resources. However, the Traffic Chief has included
necessary positions in the Division's FY2009 -2010 budget.
The Traffic Chief reported that thermoplastic striping takes two to
three times longer to apply than paint striping, but lasts five times
longer than paint and provides better reflectivity. Studies have
shown that application of long -term pavement striping has reduced
traffic crashes. In a survey from 2000, the Washington State DOT
reported a reduction in traffic crashes due to pavement markings. A
benefit -cost ratio of 1.9 for year -round pavement markings on a
rural, two -lane, two -way arterial was achieved.
[Source: Long -term Pavement Marking Practices - NCHRP Synthesis Report
#306, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2003, p.32.]
The Traffic Division reports that it inspects road striping at least
quarterly for presence and reflectivity. The current striping
condition information is maintained in an Excel spreadsheet. The
Signs- and - Markings Section Supervisor stated that most requests
for repair come from the public, or from the Police Department and
Highway Maintenance Division. This indicates a reactive approach
rather than a proactive striping cycle based on road safety
considerations, or a cost - benefit analysis that factors useful life of
paint versus thermoplastic striping, quantity of and cost per linear
foot, and manpower requirements.
.E
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
A TRIP analysis of U.S. Department of Transportation data showed
the following reduction in fatal accidents after roadway
improvements.
Type of Improvement
Reduction in Fatal
Accidents After
Improvements
New Traffic Signal
53%
Turning Lanes and
Signalization
47%
Widen or Modify Bridge
49%
Construct Median or Traffic
Separation
73%
Realign Roadway
66%
Remove Roadside Obstacles
66%
Widen or Improve Shoulder
22%
[Source: Paying the Price for Inadequate Roads in Hawaii: The Cost to Motorists
in Reduced Safety, Lost Time and Increased Vehicle Wear. TRIP, Washington
D.C., 2005, p.13.]
In addition to the above - listed safety improvements, roundabouts
have reduced crashes with fatalities and injuries by 60 to 87 percent
where installed. Roundabouts have also been shown to improve
traffic flow when compared to traffic signals at intersections with
heavy traffic volume from intersecting roadways.
The Highway Maintenance Division lacks a sufficient process to
identify, implement, and track the success of installing proven
safety measures or removing roadside obstacles. While it has been
routinely widening shoulders on resurfacing projects, without
access to reliable crash data or an RSA to identify roadway
segments with safety issues, the Highway Maintenance Division is
unable to target the highest risk roadway segments for corrective
action and accurately assess the impact of its roadside
improvements on reducing crashes or increasing road safety.
Most importantly, the County Administration needs to take a
leadership role in coordinating intergovernmental funding and multi -
agency operational activities to improve the County's roadway
transportation system. Until proven safety practices are
implemented and industry- recommended safety improvements are
installed, dangerous roadway conditions will persist and continue to
contribute to traffic fatalities and crashes.
41
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
FINDING: For the public to know whether DPW is reaching its road safety
goals, relevant performance measures must be defined, information
Insufficient necessary to assess performance must be tracked, and actual
performance must be reported. This process would also provide
reporting on DPW and its Divisions a clearer guide for and measure of their
program operational efforts. An example of statistical measures to quantify
progress toward providing safe roadways would be an analysis of
measures for reductions in crash rates and severity of injuries at dangerous
road safety. locations after the installation of safety improvements
A review of the County's Six Month Progress Report on FY 2008-
2009 Program Objectives or General Plan Annual Report does not
answer the basic question: "Is the County improving road safety ?"
DPW has failed to include or report on relevant program measures
that quantify the effectiveness of road safety remedies implemented
at roadway locations where numerous traffic accidents have
occurred.
Historically, the DPW Administration has failed to establish a proper
"Tone at the Top," requiring action plans directly linked to
performance objectives and measures that permit assessment of
performance. Insufficient program reporting to decision - makers and
the public has resulted in a lack of information on existing road
safety issues and effectiveness of road safety improvements and
has contributed to ineffective planning, budgeting, and
implementation of the Highway Fund program.
FINDING: Emergency routes for tsunamis, flooding, and volcanic eruptions
are not recorded in a system for ranking road safety conditions.
DPW lacks a However, Highway Maintenance District Overseers indicated that
formal process in -house knowledge of emergency routes is often incorporated into
p decision - making. The retiring Puna District Overseer with 33 years
for documenting of experience said, "It's all in his head ". This statement highlights
the problem of not recording information in a centralized system
and transferring that will ensure the transfer of critical institutional knowledge to
institutional decision - makers requiring the information.
knowledge.
42
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
ROAD SAFETY PRACTICES RECOMMENDED BY
FHWA, AASHTO, AND NCHRP*
43
Recommended Practice
Does the County
Analyst Comments
Comply with the
Practice?
1
Establish a process for development and
Somewhat
The Hawaii County
revision of a Transportation Safety Plan
Highway Safety Council
that will guide DPWs efforts for
was established to advise
transportation infrastructure. Ensure the
the Mayor on highway
process includes representation of key
safety. Other County
stakeholders. Recruit a group of
employees and
stakeholders to work collaboratively with
organizations have met.
planning professionals to identify safety
However, the meetings did
issues and brainstorm solutions.
not progress to coordinated
safety planning and
Educate stakeholders in the value gained
budgeting.
by integrating safety considerations into
the planning and budgeting processes.
Publicize the importance and potential
benefits of the activities.
2
Develop a Transportation Safety Plan that
No
DPW lacks an adequate
proactively addresses safety for both new
written plan for improving
and existing roadways, bikeways, and
road safety.
pedestrian walkways. Establish safety
goals, objectives, and relevant
performance measures.
http ://safety /fhwa.dot.gov /hsip /tsp /fact sheet.cfm
3
Identify available materials as a starting
Somewhat
The Traffic Division uses
point for developing a user - friendly
the MUTCD and other
"Transportation Safety Planning Manual"
materials.
for local transportation and transit
planners. To the extent possible, integrate
the information into the guidelines and
processes currently used by planners to
proactively address safety.
4
Identify, collect, and analyze crash data to
Somewhat
The Police Department
determine high -risk locations. The
records the location of crashes
importance of good data cannot be
in its system. The Traffic
overemphasized. It is crucial for accurate
Division has now received raw
hazard identification. It points the way to
crash data for the last five
effective intervention strategies, helps
years; however, the data
format is cumbersome at best.
identify future problems through trend
The Highway Maintenance
analysis, and provides information for
Division did not receive
evaluating countermeasure results.
detailed crash data.
43
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
..
Recommended Practice
Does the County
Analyst Comments
Comply with the
Practice?
5
Integrate and maintain safety information
Somewhat
DPW does not have a
systems. Develop community -based data
system that combines the
identification, collection, and analysis
Police's crash data with
systems to integrate fully with safety
safety measures. DPW
information systems.
lacks an adequate process
and system for receiving
road safety related
information and requests
from the community.
6
Make those who collect, analyze and use
Somewhat
The Traffic Division
data a part of the planning and design
analyzes only a subset of
process. Develop and provide training for
data for planning for safety
planners on how to access and analyze
measures.
safety data. Develop training modules for
key stakeholders, tailoring the content to
their specific responsibilities, and
emphasizing the importance of safety.
Provide them with tips on how to integrate
the concepts into the planning processes.
Compile a set of guidelines for "best
practices" in collecting, accessing,
analyzing, and utilizing safety data in the
planning process.
7
Identify the locations with the highest
Somewhat
The Traffic Division gets a
number of crashes. Determine if there are
report on intersections with
site - related factors that cause crashes to
3 or more accidents per
occur. Develop a process wherein all
year. The Traffic Division
departments, divisions, and agencies are
evaluates traffic crashes at
involved in safety issue review and
about 30 intersections and
countermeasure determination. Continue
determines safety
to track and monitor safety statistics after
countermeasures that are
implementation of countermeasures in
within its purview to
order to determine its effectiveness.
implement. The Highway
Maintenance Division
lacked crash data.
8
Have Road Safety Audits (RSAs) completed
Somewhat
The Traffic Chief has
for existing roadways or future roadway
contracted a consultant to
projects to proactively address safety. An
conduct RSAs, and Traffic
RSA provides a formal document reporting
staff have received a
solely on safety issues. RSAs have reduced
demonstration of the RSA
crashes up to 60% in locations where they
process.
have been applied. Have RSAs for
pedestrian walkways.
..
Chapter 5: ROAD SAFETY
" This partial list of recommended road safety practices is based on information from the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Federal Highway Administration website and related safety links at http://safetV.fhwa.dot.gov /, Jeffrey A.
Lindley, `ACTION: Consideration and Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures," U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration, July 10, 2008, FHWA Desktop reference for Crash Reduction Factors,
AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and NCHRP Report 500.
45
Recommended Practice
Does the County
Analyst Comments
Comply with the
Practice?
9
Prepare a summary of prioritized safety
Somewhat
The Traffic Division uses
issues, recommended actions, and overall
HDOT crash reports to
evaluation of road segments.
prioritize some intersections.
DPW lacks an overall
prioritization of safety issues
with recommended actions
and evaluation for all County
road segments.
10
Seek special funding as needed, such as
Somewhat
DPW has requested funds for
the federal High Risk Rural Roads Program.
some safety related projects.
Consider applying for safety funding.
However, DPW has not
Contacts are listed on the FHWA website at
requested any funds from the
www.fhwa.dot.gov.
federal High Risk Rural
Roads Program.
11
Design and implement specific projects and
Somewhat
The Traffic Division has
programs. Install proven safety measures,
installed some very
such as rumble strips and stripes, median
successful safety measures.
barriers, safety edges, roundabouts, turn
The Traffic Division has
lanes at stop - controlled intersections,
recorded and tracked the
increasing yellow traffic signal intervals,
success of some safety
medians and pedestrian refuge areas, and
installations. However, DPW
walkways. As an example of the
does not have a coordinated
effectiveness of proven safety measures,
overall plan for implementing
roundabouts have reduced fatal and injury
proven safety measures or
crashes by 60 to 87 percent. Identify what
an overall procedure for
was done, when it was done, and what other
evaluating the effectiveness
improvements were considered.
of installed safety measures.
12
Develop, implement, and report on relevant
Somewhat
While the Traffic Division has
safety performance measures and safety
some relevant safety
improvement results. Analyze and evaluate
measures, the County lacks
the outcomes and publicize the results.
adequate performance
measures for reducing road,
bicycle, and pedestrian
crashes. The County does
not generally track and report
the reduction in crashes at
locations after installation of
safety improvements.
" This partial list of recommended road safety practices is based on information from the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Federal Highway Administration website and related safety links at http://safetV.fhwa.dot.gov /, Jeffrey A.
Lindley, `ACTION: Consideration and Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures," U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration, July 10, 2008, FHWA Desktop reference for Crash Reduction Factors,
AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and NCHRP Report 500.
45
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
Chapter 6
ROAD MAINTENANCE
The Highway Fund mission statement is: "To maintain and
continually make improvements to the County's roadway
transportation system to permit the safe and efficient movement of
people and goods around the island." One Highway Fund goal is:
"To provide leadership, administrative and technical support to
accomplish the Division Program," which requires that the
Department of Public Works implement managerial or internal
controls to assist the Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions to
achieve their primary functions and program objectives. As stated in
its program description, the Highway Maintenance Division
"oversees and directs all Highway Programs; i.e., maintenance of
roadways, flood control structures and canals." The Highway
Maintenance Division also responds to various emergencies island -
wide caused by accidents, hazardous material spills, and natural
events and evacuations related to floods, high winds, fires,
earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis, and provides
assistance to Civil Defense, Police, Fire, Solid Waste, Parks and
Recreation, and other County departments and State agencies as
needed. As stated in its program description, the Traffic Division
"installs, maintains, and repairs traffic control facilities and devices
and street lighting systems in compliance with Chapter 24 of the
Hawai'i County Code."
FINDING: DPW Administration stated that the Highway Maintenance Division
under its current chief has implemented an in -house road
County lacks resurfacing program that now serves as a model for other counties
strategic in the State. However, the Highway Maintenance Division has been
g hindered by a historic "reactive tone" regarding management and
preventative budgeting. Prior DPW Administrations have failed to facilitate the
proactive development, improvement, and execution of operational
maintenance activities within the Department. DPW and County Administrators
programs for have historically and collectively failed to implement systems that
efficiently and effectively track and assess areas of need and
existing assets. prioritize the use of limited resources by not insisting on programs
and budgets that recognize the long -term cost - savings of strategic
preventative maintenance programs for existing assets. The
continuance of budget allocations by Department, District, or high -
profile project rather than utilizing a plan based on objective
condition and safety assessments perpetuates reactionary
operations, hinders leveled and planned resource allocations and
expenditures, and may over time result in deteriorated assets
requiring more costly rehabilitation. National Cooperative Highway
Ml
FINDING:
Highway
Maintenance
Division lacks
measurable
program
objectives and
relevant
performance
measures for
road
maintenance.
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
Research Program (NCHRP) studies report that one dollar spent on
preventative maintenance at the appropriate time in the life of
Davement may save uD to four dollars in future rehabilitation costs.
[Source: NCHRP Synthesis 223: Cost - Effective Preventative Pavement
Maintenance. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 1996, p.2.]
While the Highway Maintenance Division should be commended for
its initiative and development of an in -house resurfacing program,
the Highway Maintenance Division lacks written program objectives
relating to basic road maintenance. Other than its program
objective to continue its island -wide in -house resurfacing program
by resurfacing 35 miles total per year, the Division has no written
program objectives specifically related to preventative maintenance
or fixing potholes. While DPW considers repaving with thicker
overlays to be pavement maintenance, FHWA and AASHTO
consider resurfacing with thin overlays to be pavement
maintenance and repaving with thick overlays to be road
rehabilitation.
TRIP determined that a desirable goal for local governments
responsible for road maintenance is to have 75 percent of major
roads in good condition at any given time.
[Source: Paying the Price for Inadequate Roads in Hawaii: The Cost to Motorists
in Reduced Safety, Lost Time and Increased Vehicle Wear. TRIP, Washington
D.C., 2005, pg. 2 -3.]
The following table shows the total miles of road in each road
condition rating as reported by the Highway Maintenance Division
in 2002 and 2009. Detailed road condition information for most
years was either not available or not provided to the auditors.
COUNTY ROAD CONDITION RATINGS FROM 2002 AND 2009*
Road
Miles of
% of
Miles of
% of
Condition
Road in
Roads in
Road in
Roads in
Rating
Each
Each
Each
Each
Condition
Condition
Condition
Condition
in 2002
in 2002
in 2009
in 2009
Excellent
493.97
54.66%
Good
185.78
20.56%
658.52
69.81%
Fair
157.99
17.48%
119.83
12.70%
Poor
44.93
4.97%
107.06
11.35%
Very Poor
26.91
2.85%
Unpaved
21.05
2.33%
30.99
3.29%
Total
Road
903.72
943.31
Mileage
47
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
" Between 2002 and 2009, the Highway Maintenance Division changed its
condition rating system by eliminating the "excellent" rating and
adding a "very poor" rating. Road miles exclude "Roads in Limbo ".
[Data Sources: "03 -04 Budget Narrative ", Department of Public Works, County of
Hawaii; "Miles of Existing Road by Road Condition, Hawaii County, By District:
2009 ", Highway Maintenance Division, County of Hawaii]
The Division reported that in June of 2002, there were 493.97 miles
of road rated in excellent condition; 185.78 miles rated in good
condition; 157.99 miles rated in fair condition; 44.93 miles rated in
poor condition; and 21.05 miles rated as unpaved condition.
[Source: Department of Public Works Highway Maintenance Division Budget
Narrative for FY 2003 -04, County of Hawaii, p. 2.]
This would mean that 679.75 (493.97 plus 185.78) miles of road
were rated in excellent or good condition out of 903.72 total road
miles, which is 75 percent. If this data is used as the baseline or
benchmark, then maintaining or improving the overall road system
would require that at least 55 percent of roads are still in "excellent"
condition. However, since road condition information has not been
maintained in sufficient detail and the Division's road condition
rating system has been changed and no longer utilizes an
"excellent" condition rating, it is difficult to determine whether roads
have been maintained, have improved, or have declined in overall
condition. Also, the 122.6 miles of roads -in -limbo that the County
accepted responsibility for maintaining have not been added to the
road condition rating list despite there being an "unpaved" condition
rating. An email from the Highway Maintenance Administration
stated that per the Division Chief: "[T]he Highway Maintenance
Division does not maintain Road in Limbo on a daily basis. Roads
in Limbo is currently with the Director of Public Works."
The Highway Maintenance Division's road condition rating system
was created by the Division, and does not appear to represent
standards for condition rating, such as Present Serviceability Rating
(PSR) or International Roughness Index (IRI). However, if
consistent road condition ratings are consistently applied and
historical data is regularly maintained (detailing dates of inspection
and maintenance as well as specific road treatment applications),
the Highway Maintenance Division's current road condition rating
system may be sufficient to permit comparison of road conditions
over time and proper management and reporting of road
maintenance activities. The purpose of a condition rating system is
to provide a basis for planning, timing of life- prolonging treatments,
rehabilitation, and replacement.
One of the Department's program goals for the Highway Fund — "to
continue the resurfacing program island- wide" — is quantified by the
Highway Maintenance Division's program objective to "continue the
island -wide in -house resurfacing program and resurface a total of
35 miles ". While the 35 -mile resurfacing goal has been reached in
EN
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
some years, the Highway Chief stated that not receiving adequate
resources such as paving materials has kept the resurfacing team
from reaching its goal in other years. Also, although sufficient data
is not available to conduct a complete analysis, based on
information available, this program objective appears to be
insufficient to support maintaining at least 75% of roads at a
minimum of "good" condition, based on the current total road
pavement mileage and the current useful life of the pavement.
The Highway Maintenance Division Chief stated that he has
implemented a 20 -year road resurfacing cycle, which he feels can
be supported by current staffing and equipment levels. However, if
941.76 miles of road reported in Hawaii County's FY2007 -2008
Annual Report, together with at least an additional 122.6 miles of
roads -in- limbo, are to be resurfaced on a 20 -year cycle, then at
least 53 miles of road must be resurfaced each year to complete
the 20 -year cycle. Additionally, the Highway Maintenance Chief
conceded that the 20 -year cycle is not based on actual useful life of
roads, and District Overseers interviewed stated that Hawai'i
County roads have historically lasted only 10 to 15 years before
requiring resurfacing. This extremely short useful life of Hawai'i
roads would indicate a lack of adequate preventative road
maintenance at the required frequency needed to extend the useful
life of County roads. As a result, the current 20 -year resurfacing
cycle when compared with estimated useful life would indicate that
the County's roadway transportation system is and will continue to
deteriorate if current practices are continued.
FINDING:
To maintain and continually make improvements to the County's
roadway transportation system, the Highway Maintenance Division
Inadequate
needs to know exactly where it stands with roadway conditions
ing
planntannin for road
island -wide, then determine where it needs to go and how and
when it will get there. The Division needs a comprehensive strategic
maintenance.
plan that includes relevant measurable objectives and action plans
detailing how and when it will achieve program objectives. This will
require a change in mindset and approach from the County's
historically reactionary policy of rehabilitation and repair rather than
proactive maintenance to prolong the useful life of infrastructure. It
will also require development of processes to ensure regular and
frequent internal communication and coordination. Currently, the
Division lacks a preventative maintenance program that permits the
development of and adherence to schedules for application of life -
extending road treatments at the appropriate times. DPW
Administration has not effectively coordinated internally with its
Engineering Division (road construction), its Highway Division (road
maintenance), and its Traffic Division (traffic control and safety).
Furthermore, the failure to strategically plan for infrastructure
needs, forecast roadway expenditures, and proactively finalize
"shovel ready" project plans inhibits the County's ability to secure
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
additional private, state, and /or federal funding for transportation
system improvement projects, including current "stimulus" monies.
FINDING: Another DPW goal designated for the Highway Fund is: "To update
highway inventory records and maps." A complete inventory is
Inadequate road fundamental to rating the conditions of County roads. An accurate
road inventory of all County- maintained roads by road type, width,
condition pavement thickness, and condition is essential for effective and
information to proactive road maintenance planning.
support effective However, due to the lack of an automated road inventory
planning application, not only is important data not being tracked, there is
inconsistency in the data that is being tracked. DPW's road
budgeting, and inventory lacks necessary information (e.g.; roads -in -limbo are not
included). It also lacks consistent construction and maintenance
decision- making. data, such as construction and /or resurfacing dates, and base and
pavement thicknesses. Additionally, the County has not adopted a
standard unique identifier for each road segment to be used across
Divisions and Departments to refer to a particular road segment that
would permit efficient communication, tracking, reporting, and
comparison of road - related information. For example, the road
inventory listing used for pavement condition rating maintained by
Highway Maintenance Division headquarters contains somewhat
different road segments than the more detailed road inventory
listing maintained by its Kona Baseyard. Use of standardized road
segments, each with a unique identifier or GPS coordinates, would
enable the District Baseyards and Highway Maintenance
Administration to more efficiently communicate with each other
about a road maintenance or safety issue and with the Police or
Fire Department regarding accidents or safety hazards, with a
greater certainty that all agencies are talking about exactly the
same segment of road or location. Again, using GPS units and
recording GPS Coordinates for infrastructure inventory could
provide improved location identification for planning and operations.
In short, the lack of a complete County road inventory used for
ranking road conditions and a County -wide system assigning
unique identifiers for individual road segments inhibits efficient
communication of roadway issues within the Department, between
County departments, and among external agencies (such as the
State and Federal DOT). As a result, the County as a whole is
hindered in its ability to execute operational tasks; plan and budget
projects; and communicate across departments and with the public.
The County needs to develop the internal controls to support a "big
picture" approach that acknowledges the ability to make more
effective decisions by gathering, analyzing, and reporting necessary
data; achieves efficiencies through collaboration, communication,
and long -term planning; and gains economies through extension of
useful life and preservation of assets through planned maintenance.
50
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
As stated in its program description, the Highway Maintenance
Division "oversees and directs all Highways Programs; i.e.,
maintenance of roadways, flood control structures and canals."
Have roadway infrastructure conditions been improving or
deteriorating? In order to determine whether roadway infrastructure
maintenance and improvements have been sufficient, it is
necessary to assess the condition of County roads.
The Highway Maintenance Division's pavement condition rating
system is based on visually comparing road surface appearance to
photographs of roads representing five pavement condition ratings.
However, condition rating is only the first step in the pavement
management process, and in order to be effective, condition ratings
need to be sufficiently detailed and correlated to specific
preventative maintenance applications and timelines. The Division
ratings range from 1 for segments with mild defects to 5 for
segments that are unpaved, as shown in the following table.
Highway Maintenance Division's
Road Condition Rating Scale
RATING
CONDITION
DESCRIPTION
1
GOOD
(No work necessary)
Cracks - Mild,
Distortion - Mild,
Disintegration —
Mild on less than 5% of rated section
2
FAIR
(First aid necessary)
Cracks - Moderately Severe,
Distortion - Moderately Severe,
Disintegration —
Moderately Severe on 5% to 25% of
rated section
3
POOR
(Re- surfacing necessary)
Cracks - Moderately Severe to Severe,
Distortion - Moderately Severe to
Severe, Disintegration —
Moderately Severe to Severe on 25% to
50% of rated section
4
VERY POOR
(Reconstruction necessary)
Cracks - Severe,
Distortion - Severe,
Disintegration — Severe on more than
50% of rated section
5
UNPAVED
Unpaved Road
ROAD
51
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
The Highway Maintenance Division Chief stated that the Division's
personnel perform visual ratings on roads every year and rate the
severity of pavement defects. Only segments of road included on
the Division's list are rated, which excludes the 122.6 miles of
accepted roads -in- limbo. Condition ratings are entered into an
Excel spreadsheet. However, the road pavement condition ratings
from the previous year are replaced with current year ratings,
thereby eliminating the ability to analyze historical data to support
effective planning and decision - making and public accountability
through presentation of comparisons over time. The dates for
completion of road construction and road treatments are not
maintained in the Excel spreadsheet, although one District
Baseyard has been recording pavement resurfacing dates in a
separate Excel spreadsheet. While District Overseers generally
know whether a road is exposed to high or low traffic volumes,
historical traffic volume data is not maintained in the road condition
ranking system. Historical conditions, treatments, resurfacing
dates, and general traffic volume data are either overwritten, not
recorded, or kept in the District Overseer's head. The institutional
knowledge about District road conditions accumulated by District
Overseers with 20 to 30 years of experience (or more) will be lost if
not committed to writing before employee turnovers and
retirements.
Insufficient road condition documentation will continue to inhibit the
Highway Maintenance Division from implementing an effective
proactive maintenance process, prioritizing and scheduling timely
treatments and improvements, and capturing institutional
knowledge to ensure the proper functioning of Division operations.
FINDING:
In order to develop realistic plans and budgets for County road
maintenance, reliable and relevant information is needed to
Insufficient
determine the actual expected useful life of all County roads. As
information to
discussed above, historical road data, such as construction dates,
pavement thickness, historical pavement condition ratings, and
determine useful
preventative treatment and resurfacing dates, is not currently
maintained by the Highway Maintenance Division in a manner that
life of roads.
permits determination of pavement useful life. The Highway
Maintenance Chief has used an estimated 20 -year road resurfacing
cycle, although he concedes that this is not based on the historical
actual useful lives of Hawai'i County pavement. The Puna District
Overseer estimated that the useful life of a road is about 10 to 15
years until resurfacing is needed. The Kona District Overseer
reported that with normal use, a new road will last 10 to 12 years
before needing resurfacing, and a road resurfaced with a 2.5 -inch
pavement will also last 10 to 12 years unless large trucks tear it up
as was the case with Palani Road. The District Overseers noted
that road traffic, especially trucks and heavy equipment, may
52
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
significantly reduce the useful life of pavement as may initial road
pavement construction, tree roots, and water run -off.
Assuming a current average useful life of 12.5 years until
resurfacing is needed as estimated by District Overseers for Hawaii
pavement, the current 20 -year resurfacing cycle will result in
deterioration of the County's overall road infrastructure. The
County listed 941.76 miles of road in its Hawaii Data Book FY2007-
2008. However, this excludes current roads -in- limbo, new roads,
work performed on subdivision roads, and work on State and
Federal roads. If 941.76 miles of County roads need to be
resurfaced every 12.5 years, then approximately 75 miles of road
need to be resurfaced each year to maintain overall road system
conditions.
941.76 miles of road/ 12.5 years pavement useful life = average
of 75 miles of resurfacing per year to meet current needs
Preventative maintenance, such as applying crack seal and slurry
seal while roads are still in good condition, has been shown to
significantly extend the pavement life in other jurisdictions.
However, available information indicates that the Highway
Maintenance Division does not apply timely preventative treatments
to roads in good condition in order to cost - effectively extend their
useful life. If the Division were to extend the useful life of pavements
to 27 or more years with timely application of fog seal, crack seal,
chip seal, slurry seal, or a thin overlay while pavements are still in
good condition, then the Division's current program objective of
resurfacing 35 miles per year may be adequate for maintaining or
improving the County's overall roadway transportation system,
assuming no additional road miles are included in the current
inventory of 941.76 miles.
941.76 miles of road / 27 years pavement useful life = average
of 35 miles of resurfacing per year to meet current needs
While the Highway Maintenance Division annual program objective
— "continue the island -wide in -house resurfacing program and
resurface a total of 35 miles" - does constitute an actual
performance measure, it needs to incorporate a repaving cycle
based on a realistic assessment of the useful life of County roads.
Useful life information is necessary to create relevant road
maintenance goals and objectives as well as realistic maintenance
and replacement budgets and schedules.
53
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
FINDING: The Engineering, Traffic, and Highway Maintenance Divisions need
Insufficient traffic volume and traffic congestion information to effectively plan
for road improvements. Traffic volume information is necessary to
information determine traffic crash rates by traffic volume. One of the Traffic
regarding traffic Division's program goals - "propose and design new traffic control
related projects to help mitigate existing traffic problems and to
volume and improve overall roadway efficiency" — requires access to road
congestion. congestion information for busy streets
Traffic volume information has been monitored and recorded for
various segments of County roads. The Traffic Division now has a
consultant working to assist in setting up certain traffic signals with
automatic traffic volume counts. The State currently funds State
and County traffic volume counts, but the data has not yet been
received. Traffic volume information is not currently integrated with
road condition ranking or traffic accident data. Access to traffic
volume information should assist with decision - making regarding
congestion, safety issues, and road maintenance planning and
scheduling in all DPW Divisions, as shown below:
Example of Road Congestion Ranking
TRIP estimates that traffic congestion in the State of Hawaii costs
licensed drivers $147 million annually in delays and wasted fuel.
[Source: Paying the Price for Inadequate Roads in Hawaii: The Cost to Motorists
in Reduced Safety, Lost Time and Increased Vehicle Wear. TRIP, Washington
D.C., 2005, p.2.]
54
Average
Roadway
Roadway
Daily
Issues
Section
Traffic
Keahole
Queen Ka`ahumanu
Airport to
Stop -and-
Highway
Palani Road
5,760
go traffic
Queen Ka`ahumanu
Extension — Kuakini
Palani Road to
Stop -and-
Highway
Honalo
24,670
go traffic
Kea`au Bypass
Kea`au — Pahoa
to Pahoa
Stop -and-
Road
Bypass
8,320
go traffic
Mountain View
Stop -and-
Volcano Road
to Kea`au
14,580
go traffic
TRIP estimates that traffic congestion in the State of Hawaii costs
licensed drivers $147 million annually in delays and wasted fuel.
[Source: Paying the Price for Inadequate Roads in Hawaii: The Cost to Motorists
in Reduced Safety, Lost Time and Increased Vehicle Wear. TRIP, Washington
D.C., 2005, p.2.]
54
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
FINDING:
As stated above, the mission statement of the Highway Fund is: "To
Failure to adopt
p
maintain and continually make improvements to the County's
roadway transportation system to permit the safe and efficient
recommended
movement of people and goods around the island." However, the
practices for cost-
Highway Maintenance Division has not developed relevant goals or
performance measures to assess performance in maintaining and
effective
improving roads. Because the Division failed to define specific
preventative road
measurable objectives as to what constitutes maintaining and
improving roads, we looked to recognized sources for comparison.
maintenance.
We reviewed the following publications to identify efficient and cost -
effective road maintenance practices, including: Best Practices
Handbook on Asphalt Pavement Maintenance, The Road
Information Program (TRIP), City and County of Honolulu Audit of
the City's Road Maintenance Practices, and recommendations from
the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Our review of professional literature
indicates that the most cost - effective approach to preserving a road
system is to incorporate a proactive preventative maintenance
program. Experts indicate that the cost of road preservation is
much less when preventative maintenance is used to extend the life
of roads in good condition than when resources are used primarily
to repair or rehabilitate deteriorated roads.
Our analysis of the Highway Maintenance Division's road
preservation practices, including methods for selecting roads for
treatment, shows that the Division has been operating in a reactive
manner to road deterioration and has not incorporated timely
preventative maintenance in a systematic way. In interviews,
District Overseers indicated that they believed they needed to
choose roads in poor or very poor condition for repair over roads in
good condition for routine maintenance. As a result, the Division
has devoted a majority of its road preservation resources to
repairing roads it has rated in fair, poor, or very poor condition, and
is doing little to preserve the useful life of roads in good condition.
Because of this, the lifetime cost of roads, or the total cost of road
ownership, will be much higher to the County and its taxpayers.
Recommended practices indicate that the most cost - effective way
to maintain roads in good condition is to schedule treatments early
in the life of a road with relatively low -cost preventative
maintenance techniques, such as chip seal, slurry seal, or thin
overlays. When a road is allowed to deteriorate, it requires more
expensive rehabilitation and reconstruction to extend its life. A
Transportation Research Board report emphasizes the importance
of preventative maintenance: "Budget constraints are making it
more and more difficult to maintain our highway infrastructure. A
sound pavement preservation program can reduce costs while
improving the overall quality of our pavement network if preventive
maintenance treatments are applied before corrective maintenance
is needed... As the demands on limited highway budgets increase, it
55
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
becomes more important to make the best use of available funds.
The traditional maintenance approach focusing on corrective
maintenance or 'worst first' does not serve today's needs for
Pavement quality and budget management... When applied early,
preventive maintenance treatments used as part of a sound
pavement preservation strategy will cost less than the
reconstruction and rehabilitation of highways that are allowed to
deteriorate."
[Source: Preventive Maintenance Treatment Performance at 14 Years" prepared
for the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, p.2.]
A recommended practice is to use a planning and budgeting
approach that will help road managers to focus on the most cost -
effective road surface treatments. The National Center for
Pavement Preservation recommends the use of a systematic
approach to managing road preservation. Based on "Remaining
Service Life" of roads, a combination of treatments is selected in
proportions that would deliver the maximum lane mile years of
remaining service life for the overall road system. Remaining
Service Life (RSL) is an approach for planning cost - effective road
preservation and optimal road preservation budgets years in
advance, rather than reacting annually to road conditions, by
predicting treatment needs based on locally determined
deterioration and treatment variables. This requires the gathering
and retention of historical road data by a unique road segment
identifier to permit analysis, tracking, and planning. Once again,
had this data been maintained to historically assess road
improvement costs, and a plan incorporating RSL or similar road
preservation treatment schedules and budgets been in place,
alternative funding such as federal stimulus funds may have been
available to help the County implement a sound pavement
maintenance program. Preventative maintenance treatments, such
as slurry seal or thin overlays, performed on roads that are still in
good condition can add many more lane mile years of service life
than can be added by the same amount of money spent on
structural resurfacing or other forms of rehabilitation.
Costs of Pavement Preservation
Activities per Lane Mile*
Type of Road
Treatment
Cost per
Lane Mile
Average
Treatment Life
Crack Seal — preventative
$5,162
2 years
Chip Seal — preventative
$12,582
4.5 years
Slurry Seal — preventative
$16,935
5 years
Thin Overlay —preventative
$40,808
7.5 years
Resurfacing
$153,563
12.5 years
Rehabilitation
$219,390
15 years
Reconstruction
$463,425
25 years
56
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
[Source: Based on annualized cost per lane mile and average life gained by
various treatment types, available in a 2005 report to the Transportation
Research Board by Ga /ehouse, Larry; King, Helen; Leach, David; Moulthrop,
Jim; and Ballou, Bill; "Preventive Maintenance Treatment Performance at 14
Years, " 2005, p. 19.]
"EXACT COSTS OF EACH TREATMENT WOULD VARY IN THE COUNTY OF
HAWAII, AS WOULD THE AVERAGE TREATMENT LIFE.
A recommended practice is to schedule the timing of pavement
preventative treatments while a road is still in good condition, and to
then schedule resurfacing before the pavement condition
deteriorates to a poor condition requiring more costly road base
repairs or reconstruction. A thinner pavement resurfacing layer
may be applied when roads are resurfaced while still in fair
condition. This assertion was supported by the Puna District
Overseer, who indicated that he had had good results with a 1.5-
inch pavement resurfacing overlay when a road in Volcano was
resurfaced while still in fair condition. The 1.5 -inch pavement
resurfacing overlay is quicker to apply in addition to using less
paving material than thicker resurfacing overlays. The Kona District
Overseer stated that a 2.5 -inch pavement resurfacing thickness has
the best results for a road in poor condition. Because roads
deteriorate more quickly once cracks progress, a written policy
establishing best practices as to when and how to apply
preventative treatments and resurface roads for greatest efficiency
and effectiveness may help standardize pavement management
and reduce per lane mile maintenance costs.
Preventative Road Treatments Extension of Useful Life
Preventative Pavement
Treatment
Treatment Extension of
Pavement Useful Life
Crack filling
2 to 6 years
Seal coat
3 to 6 years
Chip seal
3 to 7 years
Double chip seal
7 to 10 years
Slurry seal
3 to 7 years
Micro - surfacing
3 to 9 years
Thin (1.5 ") hot mix
5 to 10 years
[Source: Minnesota Technology Transfer Center, Best Practices Handbook on
Asphalt Pavement Maintenance, 2000; p. 17; Hicks, Gary, P.E.; Seeds, P.E.,
Stephen, Peshkin, P.E., David; Selecting a Preventive Maintenance Treatment
for Flexible Pavements, 2000, FHWA -IF -00 -027, p. 9., Ga /ehouse, Larry; King,
Helen, Leach, David; Moulthrop, Jim, and Ballou, Bill, Preventive Maintenance
Treatment Performance at 14 Years, 2005, p. 19., Ga /ehouse, Larry, "Strategic
Planning for Pavement Preventive Maintenance," in Pavement Preservation
Compendium, 2003, FHWA- IF- 03 -21, p. 8., Perkins, D.G.; Hoerner, T.E., and
Zimmerman, K.A.; Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance
Treatment Applications, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report 523, 2004, p. 10 -13.]
57
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
Pavement condition life cycle and relative costs
of various treatment types
Excellent—
40% drop in quality
Good
$1.00 for preventive
maintenance here
Fair—
75% of life
Will cost $4.00 to
P $5.00 or more for
rehabilitation here
40% drop in quality to get the same
pavement condition
Very P from PM
12% of life
Failed
5 10 15 20
Year
(Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration,
Selecting a Preventive Maintenance Treatment for Flexible Pavements, August
2000, FHWA -IF -00 -027, Figure 1.2, page 2, "Typical Variation in Pavement
Conditions as a Function of Time'?
Research has long shown that deferred maintenance of
infrastructure assets (such as highways and bridges) is much more
expensive over the long term than investing in an ongoing program
of preventative maintenance and renewal. Pavements generally
remain in good condition for several years following construction or
rehabilitation, with little or no upkeep. However, after 7 to 10 years,
the rate of deterioration rapidly increases, until the entire pavement
structure must be replaced at high costs at approximately 20 years.
Periodic preventative maintenance treatments, such as crack
sealing or the application of thin overlays, can substantially extend
the service life of pavements to up to 60 years, and forestall the
high costs of replacement.
[Source: Understanding GASB 34's Infrastructure Reporting Requirements. Price
Waterhouse Coopers, 1999, p.2.]
As reported earlier, NCHRP studies have indicated that one dollar
spent on preventative maintenance at the appropriate time in the
life of pavement may save up to four dollars in future rehabilitation
costs. However, when the additional costs of accidents, vehicle
damage, and driver inconvenience are included, the benefit -to -cost
ratio of preventative maintenance becomes even greater.
[Source: NCHRP Synthesis 223: Cost - Effective Preventative Pavement
Maintenance. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington D.C., 1996, p. 2.]
58
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
FINDING: Using a pavement management system is an industry-
recommended practice. Pavement Management Systems combine
Lack of a road inventory; Geographical Information Systems (GIS) road
Pavement maps; condition assessments; asset valuation; analysis of
maintenance strategies; and multi -year budgeting, queries, and
Management reporting of asset values that comply with Government Accounting
Standards Board Statement No. 34 (GASB 34) requirements. One
System. of the Internet -based pavement management systems reviewed by
the auditors including all of the above features cost $250 per month,
while another stand -alone PC -based system has a one -time
software purchase cost of $1,199.
The Highway Maintenance Division is handicapped without access
to a Pavement Management System that would provide the data
necessary for fact -based resource planning and budgeting
decisions. The Mandli system only provides a video log of roads,
and road condition assessment information is recorded on an Excel
spreadsheet for only the current year. District and Division
spreadsheets are used by different individuals, with no audit trails or
consistency as to content or format, creating redundancy of data
entry across the various spreadsheets, and yet necessary
information is not consistently provided to the right people at the
right time. As a result, there is limited ability to plan and level out
resource requirements and gain economies from proactive planning
across the Districts and Division.
FINDING:
A DPW goal for the Highway Fund is: "To continue the resurfacing
program island- wide." A Highway Maintenance Division annual
In -house
program objective for FY2008 -2009 is to: "Continue the island -wide
resurfacing crew
in -house resurfacing program and resurface a total of 35 miles."
hampered by
Having County road crews applying life extending maintenance and
resurfacing roads significantly extends their useful life, while having
external factors.
road crews filling potholes only provides necessary temporary fixes
for deteriorated roads. Based on paving costs supplied by the
Highway Maintenance Division, there is a significant cost - savings
when resurfacing roads with County employees and equipment
instead of contracting for road resurfacing. However, there was
insufficient information supplied (e.g.; lack of sufficient detail in cost
information tracked) to verify in -house resurfacing costs.
Nonetheless, preliminary analysis with available information does
support lower resurfacing costs with the use of County paving
crews. According to the Division's own cost estimates, County
crews have resurfaced roads at lower cost than private contractors,
even though the Highway Chief stated that the current allocation for
paving materials does not provide for full utilization of County -
owned paving equipment. The Highway Chief also indicated that
although he feels a second in -house paving crew and equipment
would be a much more cost - effective approach, now would not be
59
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
the time to consider it because of the current economic downturn
and impact on private paving contractors. He stated: "They are
already upset and don't want us to do any in -house paving work."
The Operating Budget Proposal 2007 -08 Program Highlights for the
Highway Maintenance Division included: "Resurfaced or paved
15.01 miles of various County roads..." Resurfacing 15.01 miles
was significantly below the annual program objective of resurfacing
35 miles of road. The stated reason for not achieving the objective:
"Due to the asphalt shortage, we could not complete resurfacing
projects as scheduled." A report by the State Attorney General
submitted to the Twenty - Fourth Hawai'i State Legislature (Regular
Session of 2007) indicated that the State's only liquid asphalt
producer at the time had shut down its asphalt production for a
couple of months, creating an asphalt supply shortage. However,
the lack of requirements in the County's Price Term Agreement
contract for a specified (minimum) amount of asphalt and an
accompanying performance bond may have contributed to asphalt
supply issues.
Another example of the negative impacts of insufficient paving
materials occurred when the City and County of Honolulu paving
crew lacked needed paving materials. As noted in Honolulu's 2005
Audit of the City's Road Maintenance Practices: "Road crew
employees also stated that private asphalt material suppliers limited
city crews to picking up no more than five tons of asphalt per day.
With this amount of asphalt, city crews were relegated to patching
potholes and other first -aid applications." This report also stated:
"Division road crew staff claim that the administration halted the
practice of in -house resurfacing shortly after the reorganization of
city departments in 1998. Staff noted, anecdotally, that this was a
union issue whereby private contractors felt that city crews should
only be doing pure maintenance (potholes) and that the private
sector should be doing resurfacing, repaving, and reconstruction."
The report showed that Honolulu's overall road conditions
significantly declined after ceasing in -house road resurfacing.
[Source: Audit of the City's Road Maintenance Practices: Report No. 05 -03. Office
of the City Auditor, City and County of Honolulu, June 2005, pp. 52 -53.]
Historically, in another year in which the Division did not meet its
resurfacing goal, the reason stated was that resurfacing projects
were on hold for a period of time due to discussions of possible fuel
tax funding for the Puainako Street Extension. Such external
factors have hindered County paving crews from consistently
reaching their annual resurfacing goal, and such delays have likely
increased per -mile resurfacing costs. Per the Highway
Maintenance Chief, while the Division may not fully utilize its paving
equipment because of material shortages or other external factors,
the Highway Maintenance Division endeavors to minimize impacts
by redirecting paving crews to other work such as pothole filling.
.E
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
FINDING: Operational plans and budgets for the Highway Maintenance
Division have been reactively based on available District fuel tax
Budgets fail to allocations and the practice of resurfacing roads in poor condition
reflect actual rather than implementing an infrastructure maintenance schedule
with an emphasis on cost - effective preventative treatment of roads
maintenance in good condition. Had strategic planning been completed at the
Department and Division levels, current budgeting could have
needs. included both preventative road pavement maintenance and
additional safety remedies.
Currently, Highway Fuel Tax revenues are allotted based on miles
of road in each District, with the requirement that funds must be
used only in that District. Therefore, paving needs do not determine
a District's budget allocation, but rather a District's fuel tax
allocation determines its paving schedule. However, a District with
fewer road miles and heavily traveled roads may require more
frequent resurfacing than a District with more road miles and less
traveled roads. For example, the Kona District Overseer expressed
frustration over the insufficiency of funds to repair roads in the
South Kona District based on the current district allocation process
and the inability to reallocate funds from other districts (such as
North Kona) in order to address existing road condition issues.
Currently, District Overseers come up with annual lists of
recommended road resurfacing projects for each District based on
their District highway fuel tax allotments. District Overseers reported
ranking resurfacing projects by pavement condition, number of
houses, and estimated traffic usage, and stated that a road
pavement generally needs to be rated a Condition 3 (poor condition
with moderately severe to severe cracks, distortion, and
disintegration) or worse to be scheduled for resurfacing. The District
resurfacing project lists are then submitted to the Highway
Maintenance Chief, who may revise them based on requests from
the Mayor and Council Members.
From the budget scenario outlined above, it is clear that there is a
lack of needs and outcome based planning and budgeting for
transportation infrastructure at all levels of County government.
The County needs to develop and implement a proactive long -
range plan for maintaining and improving roadway infrastructure
that incorporates relevant factors, such as current road conditions,
useful life based on historical data, and recommended practices for
preventative treatment methods, materials, and timelines to
maximize useful pavement life, in order to avoid poor infrastructure
maintenance decisions, such as deferring maintenance and paying
higher rehabilitation or replacement costs.
61
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
FINDING:
Insufficient
reporting to
permit
comparison of
infrastructure
asset condition
over time.
FINDING:
Insufficient
reporting on
relevant program
measures.
.!
A significant change in the financial reporting requirements for more
than 84,000 state and local governments in the United States was
issued in June 1999 when the Government Accounting Standards
Board unanimously approved Statement No. 34 (GASB 34), which
required that state and local governments begin to report on the
value of their infrastructure assets, including roads, bridges,
drainage systems, flood canals, water and sewer facilities, dams,
and lighting systems. GASB 34 provides many options on how
infrastructure assets may be reported. However, the stated intent
of GASB 34 is to allow the public, legislative and oversight bodies,
investors, and creditors to assess a government's accountability
and make economic, social, and political decisions.
While the Finance Department is in compliance with the reporting
requirements of GASB 34, the County could go the extra step by
expanding its reporting to track not only the value of long -term
transportation infrastructure assets, but to provide infrastructure
condition data in a format that would permit comparisons of asset
management and stewardship over time and to provide more
information on public assets to promote public accountability and
transparency.
The Highway Maintenance Division Chief was not aware of GASB
34. The Traffic Division Chief stated that the Division has never
been asked for GASB 34 information, but that he is in the process
of compiling an inventory of infrastructure assets managed by the
Division. The County currently lacks a complete inventory of
roadway infrastructure assets. As a result, the County lacks key
information needed to make transportation infrastructure decisions,
and the public lacks the information necessary to assess County
government's performance in maintaining its transportation
infrastructure assets.
For the public to know whether DPW is reaching its road
maintenance program goals, information and reporting are
necessary to quantify performance and evaluate progress toward
achieving program objectives for road maintenance. Examples of
measuring progress in infrastructure maintenance would be a
summary analysis by district by fiscal year detailing road condition
by road segment, or a report by district by fiscal year detailing total
miles rated in each road condition.
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
Example of
Road Segment Condition Rating by Year for District A
Road Segment
FY 2006 -07
FY 2007 -08
FY 2008 -09
Road Segment A
Excellent
Good
Good
Road Segment B
Good
Good
Fair
Road Segment C
Unpaved
Excellent
Excellent
Example of Total Miles by
Road Condition Rating for District A
Condition Rating
FY 2006 -07
FY 2007 -08
FY 2008 -09
Excellent
# miles
Good
Fair
# miles
Poor
Very Poor
Unpaved
# miles
Total Miles
# miles
However, a review of DPW's FY 2008 -09 Six Month Progress
Report on Program Objectives does not provide the reader with an
understanding of how the County's road maintenance programs
are performing, including whether the overall roadway system is
improving or deteriorating, and at what rate.
63
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
RECOMMENDED ROAD MAINTENANCE INDUSTRY PRACTICES*
Does the
Recommended Practice
County
Analyst Comments
Comply with
the
Practice?
1
Develop a comprehensive inventory of
Somewhat
DPW has an inventory of roads, but
all County roads by pavement type,
does not record pavement thickness,
thickness, and condition, allowing the
resurfacing and treatment dates. The
department to coordinate and prioritize
inventory does not include most roads -
maintenance efforts, which is more
in- limbo. The current inventory data
effective and saves money.
does not facilitate planning or
recording pavement preservation best
practices.
2
Develop a long -term road maintenance
No
The Highway Maintenance Division
plan for at least the next five years
makes an annual list of road
based on a comprehensive road
resurfacing work.
inventory.
3
Implement a pavement management
No
The Highway Maintenance Division
system.
does not use a pavement
management system.
4
Choose treatments that are cost-
No
There is no evidence that a cost -
beneficial.
benefit analysis is considered when
determining road treatments.
5
Use performance measures and
Somewhat
The Highway Maintenance Division
standards, including customer - focused
measures tons of asphalt poured, road
performance measures.
miles resurfaced, etc. But the Division
lacks performance measures relevant
to the public, such as miles of roadway
in Conditions 1 to 5 and response
times for public requests such as
pothole fixes.
6
Implement a process for ongoing
Somewhat
The Highway Maintenance Division
inspection and assessment of roadways
has an annual roadway pavement
to identify safety or roadway structure
condition rating program.
concerns, and assess surface
conditions. When work is complete, the
roadway conditions should be assessed
and reported with any necessary follow -
up documented.
Chapter 6: ROAD MAINTENANCE
" This partial list of recommended practices is based on information from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal
Highway Administration, Best Practices Handbook on Asphalt Pavement Maintenance, The Road Information Program
(TRIP), and the City and County of Honolulu Audit of the City's Road Maintenance Practices.
65
Does the
Recommended Practice
County
Analyst Comments
Comply with
the
Practice?
7
Implement and adequately fund a
No
The Highway Maintenance Division does not
pavement preservation program
have a pavement preservation program that
that postpones the need for
focuses on maintenance of road surfaces
significant rehabilitation by
that are still in good condition. Currently,
performing initial maintenance on
budgets are allocated to roads with a
road surfaces while they are still
condition ranking of fair or worse that have
in good condition.
deteriorated beyond the point for the most
cost - effective preventative treatments.
8
Apply routine pavement surface
No
The Highway Maintenance Division does not
treatment applications once every
track when treatments are applied. District
seven years. This has proven to
Overseers said that roads generally need to
be a cost - effective step for
be resurfaced after 12.5 years. This indicates
preserving and extending
that preventative treatments have not been
pavement performance service
applied seven years after construction or
life.
rehabilitation.
9
Invest adequately to insure that
Unknown
The Highway Maintenance Division recently
75% of local road surfaces are in
rated 69.81% of roads in 'good' condition by
good condition.
its own road condition rating system. The
road condition listing does not include roads -
in- limbo. While in the short term compiling a
complete road condition inventory may
present a hardship, in the long term it may
facilitate significant cost savings by serving
as a guide for development of a preventative
road maintenance plan. Had the County
been so prepared, "Stimulus" funds may
have been sought to implement the plan.
10
Reduce repetitive activity by
Yes
The Highway Division in -house road
taking permanent corrective
resurfacing program has reduced temporary
action.
pothole fixes.
" This partial list of recommended practices is based on information from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal
Highway Administration, Best Practices Handbook on Asphalt Pavement Maintenance, The Road Information Program
(TRIP), and the City and County of Honolulu Audit of the City's Road Maintenance Practices.
65
Chapter 7: BRIDGE AND FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE
Chapter 7
BRIDGE AND FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE
FINDING: Section 2 -41(4) of the Hawaii County Code provides that: "...
The highway maintenance division shall be responsible for the
Highway construction and maintenance of all roads, streets, highways,
Maintenance footpaths, storm drains, bridges, flood channels, and certain
cemeteries." The Highway Maintenance Division's program
Division description states that: "Each District Baseyard continues to
repair and maintain roads, streets, highway, bridges, storm
functions /operations drains and other flood control structures in the County." While
do not reflect the Hawaii County Code states that the Highway Maintenance
Division is responsible for bridge construction and
County Code maintenance, the responsibilities for various bridge construction
and maintenance activities reside within the Engineering
provisions for Division's Special Projects group, the Highway Maintenance
bridge construction Division, and the Building Division's woodshop workers.
and maintenance.
FINDING: The Department of Public Works has not formally defined what
types of bridge construction and maintenance are to be
DPW has not clearly completed by each of its Divisions. The Special Projects
defined which of its Engineer said that he received a memo from the DPW Director
that placed the responsibility for bridge inspections and safety
Divisions are with him. The Special Projects Engineer stated that the
Highway Division's maintenance primarily entails removing
responsible for weeds and moss from the bridge surface and clearing debris
which aspects of that may affect water erosion of bridge supports. However, the
p Highway Maintenance Division does not have a routine bridge
bridge construction maintenance schedule. The Special Projects Engineer said
that the Building Division's woodshop workers have painted
and maintenance. bridges, and the Engineering Division has contracted for bridge
plank replacement on wooden bridges. The Engineering
Division Chief said that the Engineering Division is responsible
for major repairs and construction. The Engineering Division's
Special Projects team routinely inspects and monitors bridges
that are listed on the National Bridge Inventory. However, it is
unclear as to which Division is responsible for specific
inspection and maintenance activities on bridges /culverts with
less than a 20 -foot span. The Special Projects Engineer
agreed that the responsibilities for bridge maintenance activities
need to be clarified by the DPW Administration.
24
Chapter 7: BRIDGE AND FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE
FINDING: DPW has a complete inventory of bridges with a span of 20 feet
and longer. The Engineering Division's Special Projects
DPW has a complete Engineer reported that there are 127 bridges that are 20 feet or
inventory of bridges longer, which are registered under the National Bridge
ry g es Inventory and administered by the Federal Highway
20 feet and longer, Administration. He reported that 31 of the 127 bridges are
wooden and serve the communities of Puna, Hilo, Kohala,
but its inventory of Kona, Hamakua and Ka'u. When the audit team requested an
shorter inventory of bridges less than 20 feet in length, he responded
by email: "Don't have count on bridges less than 20 ft span." In
bridges /culverts is a follow -up email, he responded, "As for bridges and culverts
with spans less than 20 feet, we will be requesting the Highway
incomplete. Maintenance Division instruct[ing] its District Overseers to
conduct a survey in their respective Districts for that
information." The Special Projects Engineer said that there is
only a small number of bridges /culverts with less than a 20 -foot
span.
An accurate bridge inventory is necessary for assessing
infrastructure conditions; planning and budgeting for
maintenance and repairs; and establishing preventative
maintenance schedules.
FINDING: The Special Projects Engineer stated that all the bridges are
safe for the posted weight limit. He said that bridges over 20
DPW routinely feet in length are inspected every two years as required by
Insinspects bridges 20 federal law, and reports are sent to the State and federal
p g governments.
feet and longer, but However, for bridges /culverts less than 20 feet in length, the
shorter bridges/ Special Projects Engineer responded, "For less than 20 ft span,
DPW is not mandated to inspect bridges by State or Feds so
culverts are only we do it on an as needed basis. Wish we could do it on a
inspected on an as- regular basis." Again, this indicates a "reactionary process" for
bridge /culvert maintenance, in which "as needed" inspections
needed basis. are conducted when a maintenance issue is brought to the
Department's attention.
FINDING: The Special Projects group did have detailed bridge inspection
reports for bridges with spans of 20 feet and longer, but did not
Bridge condition have a summary of all Hawai'i County bridges that are
information has not structurally or functionally deficient in a format that is readily
accessible to County decision - makers, County employees who
been summarized are charged with maintenance and repair duties, and the
general public. Bridge condition information should be used for
for long -term more than satisfaction of oversight mandates and should be
decision- making. incorporated into planning, budgeting, maintenance schedules,
and decisions regarding bridge replacement.
67
Chapter 7: BRIDGE AND FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE
FINDING:
Inadequate
inventory of flood
controls.
.:
"Structurally deficient bridges" refers to bridges that are rated
for a weight of less than the modern standard of 20 tons.
Functionally deficient bridges do not meet modern functional
bridge standards, such as being too narrow or a one -lane
bridge for two -way traffic. TRIP refers to bridges that are either
structurally or functionally deficient based on modern standards
as being in substandard condition. TRIP reported that 46
percent of the bridges in the State of Hawaii that are 20 feet or
longer were in substandard condition in 2004.
[Source: Paying the Price for Inadequate Roads in Hawaii: The Cost to
Motorists in Reduced Safety, Lost Time and Increased Vehicle Wear. TRIP,
Washington DC, 2005, p. 3.]
Although a review of the detailed bridge inspection reports
would indicate whether any of the County's historical bridges
are functionally or structurally deficient, this information has not
yet been summarized. The County's bridge listing showed that
82 of the 127 (which is 65 %) bridges listed were originally built
before 1950, although 20 of these have been more recently
reconstructed. The Special Projects Engineer said that all of
the County's wooden bridges would be considered structurally
deficient because the posted weight limit is less than 20 tons
even though these bridges are safe if the posted weight limits
are adhered to. The auditors' review of the bridge listing
provided by the DPW dated 9/02/2009 showed that 46 of the
127 listed bridges had a posted weight limit of less than 20
tons, which is 36% of the listed bridges.
Decision - makers need more summarized information on
structurally and functionally deficient bridges in order to decide
whether to maintain and preserve historical bridges that may
not meet modern standards or instead plan for bridge
replacement. The information included on the various bridge
inspection reports also needs to be analyzed and incorporated
into the County's planning and budgeting process.
The Highway Maintenance Division has a partial list of flood
control infrastructure. An inventory of drywells and culverts was
requested from the Highway Maintenance Division, but only a
list of drywells and culverts already cleaned by the contractor
was provided. The list contained only a fraction of the County's
drywells and culverts, and lacked specific location descriptions
within a TMK parcel (such as street or cross - street names)
where the drywells and culverts were situated. A Baseyard
Manager (District Overseer) stated that when he started many
years ago, he hunted for drywells and created a written list. He
further stated that the inventory of the few flood canals in his
District is "in his head ".
Chapter 7: BRIDGE AND FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE
The Kona Baseyard provided auditors with an Excel
spreadsheet listing the inventory of drywells and culverts in the
North /South Kona District, inspection dates and measures, and
work performed by contractors. An employee from the Kona
Baseyard stated that there were many duplicate entries for the
same drywells and culverts on the list, and that the same
drywell or culvert may be listed again on a different Tax Map
Key (TMK) number.
An employee at another Baseyard initially told auditors that an
inventory list of drywells and culverts kept as an Excel
spreadsheet would be emailed to our office. Subsequently,
however, the employee contacted our office to inform us that
we would need to request the information through the Highway
Maintenance Division Chief. Upon request to the Division
Chief, we received a response back that the Engineering
Division maintains the drywell and culvert inventory. When the
Engineering Division Chief was asked if Engineering maintains
an inventory of drywells and culverts, he responded, "No - we
do not." The Engineering Division Chief responded in a
follow -up email that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) had
completed an inventory for drywells only and that the Highway
Maintenance Division Chief had the database. The Highway
Maintenance Division Chief then supplied a hardcopy inventory
for drywells that listed 2,053 drywells with initial drywell depth
measurements. However, this hardcopy inventory did not
include the actual location of each drywell. The Division Chief
noted that the Data Systems Department is in the process of
mapping this USGS inventory of drywells. However, this USGS
drywell inventory had not been distributed to the District
Baseyards in order to locate, inspect, and measure drywells.
In order to develop and exercise adequate internal controls,
DPW Administration needs to exert leadership and establish
standardized information requirements and systems to
efficiently maintain and report on the condition of the County's
flood control inventory assets. Since the Highway Maintenance
Division is charged with the responsibility for flood control
maintenance, the Highway Maintenance Division and its
Baseyards must have a complete and accurate inventory of
flood canals, drywells, and culverts, so they may properly and
proactively inspect flood control facilities to determine whether
cleaning and maintenance is necessary and to inspect and
verify work performed by contractors.
A complete and accurate inventory of all County drywell and
culvert facilities, including specific locations and measurements,
will permit the Highway Maintenance Division to locate all flood
control facilities, conduct regular inspections and debris
measurements before and after cleaning by the contractor, and
verify that contracted services have been properly completed
.•
Chapter 7: BRIDGE AND FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE
and invoices are correct in accordance with contract terms.
Accurate flood control inventories are the foundation for
establishment of flood control construction and maintenance
plans, program objectives, and performance measures, and
should also be made readily available to County decision -
makers, County employees who are charged with maintenance
and repair duties, and the general public. DPW Administration
needs to assume responsibility for the inventory and inspection
of the County's flood control infrastructure.
FINDING: The Highway Maintenance program description provides that:
"The Highway Maintenance Division oversees and directs all
Inadequate flood Highways Programs; i.e., maintenance of roadways, flood
control structures and canals." In order to do so, it is necessary
control inspection for the Division to assess the condition of flood controls to
process and determine whether, when, and what kind of repair or
maintenance treatments are needed to extend infrastructure life
condition or ensure public safety.
information. The Highway Maintenance Division lacks a process for routinely
inspecting and ensuring that drywell and culvert cleaning and
maintenance island -wide is adequate for flood control
purposes. Without routine inspections and maintenance,
drywells and culverts may fill with debris and contribute to
flooding. One Baseyard Manager (District Overseer) said that
when he started many years ago, he hunted for drywells and
found many filled with debris, and that after clearing them,
flooding issues were reduced.
DPW has no formal policy and procedure for assessing and
reporting on flood control infrastructure conditions, with
outsourced maintenance conducted when problems become
apparent instead of implementing a planned preventative
maintenance schedule. For flood canals, a Baseyard Manager
(District Overseer) reported that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers inspects flood canal infrastructure and provides a
Flood Control Inspection Report. The Highway Maintenance
Division appears to occasionally inspect certain drywells and
flood controls. The Kona Baseyard provided the only records
for drywell and culvert inspections, and its records indicated
that some drywells had not been inspected since 1989.
The Highway Maintenance Division has historically contracted
for drywell and culvert cleaning services, apparently without
having a complete inventory indicating the number and location
of drywells and culverts or a regular inspection process in place
for determining which drywells need cleaning.
70
Chapter 7: BRIDGE AND FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE
FINDING: The Highway Maintenance Division has contracted for drywell
and culvert cleaning for at least the last 15 years, with
Highway maintenance service costs specified by price -term agreements.
Maintenance Although a cost analysis may have been completed in the past,
none was provided for the audit period.
Division failed to
reassess cost
effectiveness of
outsourcing
d rywell /culvert
cleaning.
Total of Payments for Outsourced Drywell and
Culvert Cleaning /Maintenance
Fiscal Year Ending
Total of Invoices for
Drywell and Culvert
Cleaning
2009
$1,219,667.50
2008
$1,261,145.00
2007
$563,780.00
2006
$369,487.50
2005
$318,370.00
2004
$3,000.00
2003
$241,735.00
2002
$248,845.00
2001
$650,774.25
2000
$241,610.00
A preliminary cost analysis by the auditors indicates that
developing an in -house drywell and culvert cleaning program
may provide significant savings. The County paid $1,261,145
to a contractor for drywell and culvert cleaning in fiscal year
ended June 30, 2008. $1,261,145 averages to $4,850.55 per
day based on a 5 -day work week without holidays. A review of
bids from another jurisdiction indicated that a brand new debris
collection truck costs about $260,000. If for example, the
County had purchased a new debris collection truck and
equipment for $290,000, hired two full -time County employees
dedicated solely to drywell and culvert cleaning for $100,000 in
annual wages and benefits per employee, and added $100,000
in operating expenses, the County would have spent less than
half of the money it spent for outsourced drywell and culvert
cleaning in fiscal year ended June 2008. The current contractor
awarded drywell and culvert cleaning has two employees, one
of whom is also a full -time DPW employee. The auditors'
preliminary cost analysis indicates that if the County had
purchased a new debris collection truck, trained existing County
employees, and conducted drywell and culvert cleaning in-
house, the County may have saved more than one million
dollars over combined fiscal years 2007 and 2008.
71
Chapter 7: BRIDGE AND FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE
FINDING: The Department of Public Works and the Highway Maintenance
Division lack sufficient program objectives or measures related
Insufficient program to performance of its bridge and flood control responsibilities.
Neither the 2007 -08 Operating Budget Proposal, nor its Six
objectives and Month Progress Report on Program Objectives for FY 2007 -08,
performance include sufficient relevant quantifiable objectives and measures
relating to that portion of its mission and goals. Relevant
measures. program measures may include meeting relevant inspection
schedules, keeping infrastructure in a specified condition,
responding to maintenance requests within a specified
timeframe, or cleaning a specified number of drywells and
culverts. Having relevant program measures should help the
Division monitor progress toward its goals.
FINDING: To repair and maintain bridges and flood controls, it is
necessary for the Department of Public Works to know exactly
Inadequate planning where it stands with bridge and flood control conditions, then
for bridge and flood determine where it needs to go and how and when it will get
g there. A program plan should include measurable program
control repair and objectives and detailed action plans for achieving those
maintenance. objectives.
The Department of Public Works lacks a proactive program
plan for bridge and flood control repair and maintenance as well
as relevant specific program objectives and measures to
assess performance. Additionally, the DPW Divisions which
are tasked with related responsibilities lack coordinated
planning. The role of the various DPW Divisions — Engineering,
Highway Maintenance, and Building — related to bridge and
flood control infrastructure is not clearly defined or
communicated, and reflects the "reactive tone" set by DPW
Administration in not having established Department and
Division goals, objectives, and performance measures to guide
and direct the execution of planned activities for construction
and maintenance of the County's bridge and flood control
facilities.
72
Chapter 7: BRIDGE AND FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE
FINDING: Adequate budgeting is necessary to accomplish Department
program goals and objectives related to bridge and flood control
Budaets fail to maintenance. However, operational plans and budgets have
bridge
been based on Highway Fuel Tax allocations available in each
reflect g and
District, not on an infrastructure inventory, determination of
flood control
optimum infrastructure conditions, assessment of current
program measures.
conditions, and a plan and schedule for preventative
maintenance needs.
maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement. Planning and
budgeting for bridge and flood control maintenance also do not
appear to be coordinated within DPW among those Divisions
with related responsibilities. For example, the Engineering
Division requests major repairs of bridges and flood controls,
the Building Division has painted bridges, and the Highway
Maintenance Division maintains bridges, but there does not
appear to be any formal written Department program,
delineation of responsibility areas, communication and
operational protocols and procedures, or schedule for these
operational activities. Finally, while the lack of sufficient data
precludes analysis of specific costs, this current "reactionary
tone" and the lack of planning, direction, and cost - benefit
analyses may have resulted in poor infrastructure maintenance
decisions, such as deferring less costly preventative
maintenance and paying higher major repair or rehabilitation
costs.
FINDING:
For the public to know how well DPW is performing its bridge
and flood control infrastructure maintenance responsibilities,
Insufficient
relevant performance measures need to be developed, tracked,
reporting of relevant
p g
and reported to County decision - makers and the general public
on a regular and frequent basis.
program measures.
A review of the County's FY2008 -09 Six Month Progress
Report on Program Objectives does not provide the reader with
sufficient information to permit assessment of how well the
Department of Public Works is performing in its repair and
maintenance of bridges, storm drains, and flood controls. To
achieve the intent of Government Accounting Standards Board
Statement No. 34 (GASB 34) as previously discussed under
road maintenance, reporting on bridge and flood control assets
should be improved to provide the County Council and the
general public with information clearly outlining whether bridge
and flood infrastructure is being adequately maintained. To
date, stakeholders have lacked the necessary data to make
informed fiscal and public policy decisions regarding the
County's bridge and flood control infrastructure.
73
Chapter 7: BRIDGE AND FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE
FINDING: "The effectiveness of internal controls cannot rise above the
integrity and ethical values of the people who create, administer
Monitoring and and monitor them. Integrity and ethical values are essential
enforcement of elements of the control environment, affecting the design,
administration and monitoring of other internal control
Hawaii County's components."
[Source: Internal Control - Integrated Framework, Committee of Sponsoring
Code of Ethics Organizations (COSO), May 1994, pp. 23.]
related to "Conflicts During the audit, we found matters that may raise ethical issues
of Interests" appear in appearance or in fact. A District's current infrastructure
inventory and inspection listing also included a past
to lack adequate maintenance priority request to the Division Chief from a District
internal controls. Overseer, who at the same time had a substantial financial
interest in the business being contracted to perform the
maintenance work.
Hawai'i County Code, chapter 2, Administration, article
15, Code of Ethics, section 2- 84(a)(1), Conflicts of
interests, provides as follows:
"(a) No officer or employee shall take any official
action directly affecting:
(1) A business or other undertaking in which
that officer or employee has a substantial
financial interest;"
The County needs to review the adequacy of its monitoring and
enforcement of its Code of Ethics provisions related to conflicts
of interests, and implement internal control processes that
address both the fact and appearance of impropriety. Public
confidence in government is maintained and strengthened
when those charged with governance comply with both the
letter and intent of the law.
74
Chapter 8: INVENTORY ACCOUNTING PRACTICES
Chapter 8
INVENTORY ACCOUNTING PRACTICES
FINDING: Hawai'i Revised Statutes section 103D- 205(a)(2) provides:
Inadequate "Authority and duties of the chief procurement officer.
seseparation of (a) For their respective jurisdictions and unless otherwise
p specifically provided in this chapter, each chief
inventory procurement officer shall serve as the central
procurement officer and:
accounting (2) Exercise general supervision and control over all
duties. inventories of goods;"
The County of Hawai'i Finance Department's Accounting Manual,
Part 1, Departmental Internal Control Systems, page 103.11
provides:
"Required Features. Any system of internal control
should include, as a minimum, the following elements:...
2. Separation of duties concerned with record
keeping and accounting reports from those
concerned with operations or asset custody.'
In the annual financial audit of County financial transactions
required by Hawai'i County Charter section 10 -13, external auditors
assess the sufficiency of the County's internal controls to
reasonably detect and prevent misappropriation or misuse of
County's assets. In accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing
Standards (GAAS), current external auditor KPMG is required to
include in its audit report any material weaknesses or significant
deficiencies.
To provide historical context, KPMG's County of Hawaii Financial
Audit Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2002, found that:
"During our review of the County's inventory, we noted that there
was a lack of adequate segregation of duties at several of the
County's inventory storerooms... The custodial and record - keeping
functions over the maintenance of inventory should be separated
and performed by different individuals to improve the safeguarding
and monitoring of inventory and minimize the potential for
misappropriations of inventory assets..." KPMG further noted: "We
recommend that periodic, unannounced inventory counts be
performed by an employee other than the respective department's
inventory supervisor...."
75
Chapter 8: INVENTORY AND ACCOUNTING PRACTICES
However, DPW together with the Finance Department have not
implemented this recommendation. The Highway Maintenance and
Traffic Division inventory supervisors are still responsible for
replenishing, receiving, and distributing inventory items to Division
personnel, and the same inventory supervisors remain responsible
for performing year -end physical inventory counts for financial
reporting without independent verification. Without independent
verification of inventory counts by the Finance Department, a lack of
internal controls over Traffic and Highway Maintenance Division
inventories remains unresolved. This failure to segregate inventory
accounting duties increases the risk of and opportunity for inventory
misappropriations.
FINDING: Hawai'i County Charter section 6- 6.3.3(k), Department of Finance,
Inadequate Power, Duties, and Functions provides that:
inventory "The director of finance shall be the finance officer
ry of the county and shall:
accounting (k) Prepare and maintain a perpetual inventory of
equipment owned or controlled by the county and
system. materials and supplies in county storerooms, and
dispose of property not needed by any agency or
executive agency of the county pursuant to policies
established by ordinance."
KPMG's County of Hawaii Financial Audit Report for the Fiscal Year
Ended June 30, 2002, included the following audit finding regarding
inventories: "... In addition, we also noted that inventory records are
not consistently maintained on a perpetual basis... We were further
informed that the County's current Wang system does not have a
module to track inventory balances on a perpetual basis.
Maintaining a perpetual inventory listing provides management with
a means to monitor inventory levels and to detect any inventory
shortages in a timely manner. A perpetual inventory listing will also
ensure that inventory levels are maintained at optimum levels and
prevent the County from over /under purchasing inventory items."
The audit report further recommended: "... Additionally, the County
should ensure that the new computer system contains a module for
inventory that will enable inventory supervisors to maintain
perpetual records of their department's inventory balances."
KPMG's 2003 Status of Prior Year Findings and Recommendations
report stated: "... Further, we were informed that the County's new
financial management software package will include an inventory
module that will allow departments to establish and maintain
perpetual inventory records. As efforts have been made to
implement the recommendation, the comment is no longer
applicable."
76
Chapter 8: INVENTORY ACCOUNTING PRACTICES
However, the Finance Department has not implemented the
FRESH Inventory Module in all DPW Divisions. The current Excel
spreadsheet inventory accounting method utilized by both the
Traffic and Highway Maintenance Divisions does not provide
adequate accounting functions, security controls, or the ability to
maintain perpetual records. While the value of inventories may not
be material enough to raise this issue to a "finding" for the financial
audit, it is still a risk that should be addressed.
Although heavy equipment usage is tracked on an Individual
Equipment Record at some Highway Maintenance Division
baseyards, equipment usage records were not uniformly maintained
at all District Baseyards. One District Baseyard visited by auditors
completed the Individual Equipment Record, and another District
Baseyard had stopped using the form, which provided for recording
start and end times (hour meter) and mileage, fuel and oil usage,
driver signature, and other data. As a result, inconsistent tracking of
heavy equipment usage has increased the risk for misuse of heavy
equipment within the Division.
77
The lack of an adequate inventory system has created insufficient
audit trails and information technology security controls increasing
the risks related to inappropriate inventory levels,
misappropriations, inefficiencies, abuse, and lack of accurate
inventory information for decision - making.
FINDING:
Because DPW lacked written policies and procedures relating to
heavy equipment usage and maintenance records, we looked to
Heavy equipment
recognized sources for adequate policies and procedures.
usage records
Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) provides for the tracking of
and maintenance
State equipment usage and maintenance schedules, which the
County could utilize as a model:
schedules not
HAR sections 3- 130- 4(c)(3) and (6), Internal
uniformly
control.
maintained by
(c) "Internal control procedures" shall include and
address the following:
Highway
(3) Proper usage of property which includes
Maintenance
assuring property is used by authorized personnel
and only for official state purposes; training
Division.
personnel on the proper use of vehicles and
equipment; ...
(6) Care and maintenance of property which
includes a preventative maintenance schedule;
management of warranty file; repair of broken
property; and guidelines for damaged or destroyed
property...."
Although heavy equipment usage is tracked on an Individual
Equipment Record at some Highway Maintenance Division
baseyards, equipment usage records were not uniformly maintained
at all District Baseyards. One District Baseyard visited by auditors
completed the Individual Equipment Record, and another District
Baseyard had stopped using the form, which provided for recording
start and end times (hour meter) and mileage, fuel and oil usage,
driver signature, and other data. As a result, inconsistent tracking of
heavy equipment usage has increased the risk for misuse of heavy
equipment within the Division.
77
Chapter 8: INVENTORY AND ACCOUNTING PRACTICES
Heavy equipment maintenance and replacement schedules were
also not uniformly maintained at Highway Maintenance Baseyards.
Maintenance records were requested from the Division, and various
forms were received from Highway Division headquarters and some
from District Baseyards. The equipment maintenance forms that
were submitted included: Equipment Mileage Form, Puna Road
Equipment Inspection Sheet, DPW Work Request Form for
Equipment Repair, Expenditures by Equipment Number
(spreadsheet), Invoice History Browse (spreadsheet), and Monthly
Repair Charges by Project Codes (spreadsheet). Some of the
forms contained duplicate information or redundant data, such as
repair cost, description of parts purchased, dates, equipment types,
and invoices, which could be consolidated and standardized into
one or two forms to efficiently track and support equipment
maintenance.
78
Chapter 9: NON - HIGHWAY FUND WORK
Chapter 9
NON- HIGHWAY FUND WORK
FINDING:
The Highway Fund is a restricted fund established for specific
purposes under HRS section 249 -18 for expenditure by the
Inadequate
counties. As stated earlier, in Hawaii County, Highway Fund
and
revenues provide operational funds for the Highway Maintenance
policies
p
and Traffic Divisions of the Department of Public Works, with a
procedures for
portion of vehicle weight taxes going to the Mass Transit Agency.
When performing work that is unrelated to the statutory purposes
documenting,
set forth for the Highway Fund, the County must account for its
reporting,
labor, equipment, and material costs and secure reimbursements to
the Highway Fund.
collecting, and
accounting for
The Highway Maintenance Division Accountant provided auditors
with copies of spreadsheets entitled "Department Charges for
reimbursable
County Highway Labor Services ". Each spreadsheet contains
information from Districts /Baseyards, including work order numbers;
costs of Non-
dates; costs for labor, materials, and equipment; and description of
Highway Fund
work. In reviewing the spreadsheet, auditors determined that
information adequately accounted for Non - Highway Fund work
work.
performed by the Highway Maintenance Division. Supporting
documentation included a summary sheet with general ledger
account numbers, distribution list of Department/Divisions, and total
charges. Other supporting attachments included DPW Bill for
Collection, Motor Vehicle Accident Report, and Highways Daily
Labor Report, together with Finance Department deposit forms for
reimbursements.
Two previous DPW Directors, Ms. Donna Kiyosaki and Mr. Dennis
Lee, actively sent out memoranda to County and State
departments /agencies informing them of costs related to the
provision of services paid from the Highway Fund, but unrelated to
the Fund's purposes, that would be billed or charged -back to the
respective department/agency requesting services performed by
the Highway Maintenance Division. Copies of such memoranda
were appropriately filed in Highway Division folders. However, the
Highway Maintenance Division Accountant reported that when he
was hired, he attempted to research and verify that Non - Highway
Fund work had been accounted for and charged -back to
appropriate agencies, but that there was insufficient documentation
to determine whether proper reimbursement had been received.
He has since established his own tracking system for the
reimbursement of Non - Highway Fund work performed by the
Division, and has compiled individual project folders that include
Daily Work Schedules, detailing manpower, equipment, and
material costs and containing memoranda or notices to the DPW
79
Chapter 9: NON - HIGHWAY FUND WORK
Administration Accountant that designate those Non - Highway Fund
costs requiring reimbursement from County and State agencies.
However, the Highway Maintenance Division Accountant indicated
that he has not received any clear guidelines or any written policies
and procedures outlining the process for requesting and /or
authorizing reimbursable services, documenting those services, or
collecting reimbursable costs from other County and State
departments /agencies. At a minimum, written policies and
procedures should be provided to appropriate Highway
Maintenance Division personnel and user agencies, clearly defining
what services must be charged -back; what method of calculation
and collection will be utilized; who is responsible for each step of
the process; and what information needs to be documented and
reported, including the establishment of a standardized report form,
distribution list, and timelines for submittal of reports. Standardized
policies and procedures will ensure accurate, complete, and proper
accounting, and provide an audit trail to document the County's
utilization of Highway Fund revenues in compliance with the
statutory purposes for which the Highway Fund was established.
Without consistent notification of receipt of reimbursements from
DPW Administration or the Finance Department, the Highway
Maintenance Division has difficulty closing its Non - Highway Fund
project accounting. Although several copies of Finance Department
deposit forms were noted, they have not been consistently provided
to the Highway Division. While the Highway Accountant is able to
review transactions in the County's FRESH System, because
transactions are not entered in a consistent manner, he expressed
concern as to difficulty in accurately identifying and properly
accounting for each reimbursement, which delays closing of certain
project files.
In reviewing entries into the FRESH System, auditors confirmed
that transaction descriptions do not contain sufficient detail to
adequately identify appropriate reimbursable amounts. At a
minimum, the Finance Department, DPW Administration, and
Highway Maintenance Division Accountant should meet to
collectively determine the level of detail required for each
transaction description and standardize the format and content of
information to be entered into the FRESH System in order to
facilitate the accurate identification and consistent collection of
reimbursable charges to the Highway Fund.
:E
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
Chapter 10
COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL
TASKS
FINDING: The importance of internal controls, also referred to as managerial
controls, is defined in the generally accepted government auditing
DPW standards (GAGAS) or the "Yellow Book" as follows:
Administration 1.30 Internal control audit objectives relate to an
has not assessment of the component of an organization's
system of internal control that is designed to
implemented provide reasonable assurance of achieving
adequate internal effective and efficient operations, reliable financial
and performance reporting, or compliance with
controls. applicable laws and regulations. Internal control
objectives also may be relevant when determining
the cause of unsatisfactory program performance.
Internal control comprises the plans, policies,
methods, and procedures used to meet the
organization's mission, goals, and objectives.
Internal control includes the processes and
procedures for planning, organizing, directing, and
controlling program operations, and management's
system for measuring, reporting, and monitoring
program performance..."
In addition, management needs to set the culture and environment
— "Tone at the Top" — within which operational activities are carried
out — to ensure that program goals and performance objectives are
being met in a fair, efficient, effective manner that is transparent
and accountable to the public.
At the outset of this performance audit, the Department and
Divisions were requested to provide documentation of their
respective internal control systems. However, DPW indicated that it
has no formal or documented control system relatina to its
operations supported by the Highway Fund. Therefore, we looked
to assess the control environment and determine what, if any,
controls were in place related to our audit objectives (outlined in our
Audit Plan chapter).
81
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
FINDING: The tasks with which DPW is charged are critical to the safety and
quality of life of the people of Hawaii County. In order to
Lack of formal successfully carry out these tasks, the expertise and efforts of the
Department of Public Works and other County agencies must be
policies or coordinated and focused on doing the right things at the right time.
procedures to DPW Administration has perpetuated inefficient and reactionary
operations by permitting its Divisions to operate as unrelated units
ensure timely and by not implementing the framework of planning, coordination,
communication communication, and assessment fundamentally necessary to
accomplishing these complex and critical tasks.
and coordination
within /between INTRA - DIVISIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Divisions, Although intra - divisional communication is regular and frequent
Departments the within the Highway Maintenance Division, the format and content of
information communicated is not standardized. For example, while
County ' and two Highway Maintenance Baseyards visited use and submit a
"Weekly Activity Plan" and "Daily Work Schedule" to the Highway
external Maintenance Administration, the format and content of these forms
agencies. are not standardized. If the data contained in these reports is
necessary to provide management with actual activity performed for
comparison with activities planned and an audit trail of resource
utilization and work performance, then it follows that consistent
information in a standardized format from all District Baseyards
should be required to facilitate quick and easy analysis.
Highway Baseyard personnel interviewed also reported
inconsistencies in the Division's annual planning process. While
one District Baseyard reported that it compiles an annual plan that
is submitted to the Highway Maintenance Administration for review
and approval, another District Baseyard reported that it receives an
annual plan from the Highway Maintenance Administration that has
already been approved.
In this respect, there is inadequate direction and control of
operations exhibited by management at the Division level and
inadequate oversight by management at the Department level. With
standardized report format, content, processes, and timelines,
information becomes more reliable and relevant to management
efforts to communicate and coordinate operational activities and
budgets, and to analyze and proactively address potential problems
within the Divisions and Department.
:!
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
Inadequate communication and coordination of Divisional
operations. Each of the Traffic and Highway Maintenance Divisions
is further divided into functional sections — by activity in the Traffic
Division and by District in the Highway Division. Again, the lack of
communication and coordination among DPW Divisions under
previous DPW Administrations has fostered a tone of autonomy
within Divisions. While functional divisions may make sense from an
organizational perspective, in many cases activities or projects
involve more than one Division, Section, or District, and
communication is basic to efficiently accomplishing the overall
purposes of the Department.
TRAFFIC DIVISION The Traffic Division does not hold regular joint status /review
meetings with Section Supervisors. The Traffic Chief indicates that
Section Supervisors are reluctant to speak out in front of one
another, and because no feedback is received, he holds separate
sectional meetings. He meets with the Signs and Markings section
twice a week, and with the Signals section once a week. Having to
repeat information at two separate meetings is inefficient and
hinders the exchange of ideas and discussion across sections.
Communication may also be inconsistent when sectional meetings
occur at different times.
Best practices for organizational communications can be found in:
Basics in Internal Organizational Communications by Carter
McNamara, MBA, PhD, Authenticity Consulting LLC, copyright
1997 -2008:
"Downward Communications: ...5. Regularly hold
management meetings (at least every two weeks),
even if there's nothing pressing to report ... 6. Hold full
staff meeting every month to report how the
organization is doing, major accomplishments,
concerns, announcements about staff..."
Joint meetings with both sections held by the Traffic Chief at least
monthly may improve the coordination of operational activities
within the Traffic Division (to ensure that the left -hand and right -
hand know what the other is doing), and make the processes for
identifying problems and collaborating on solutions more effective
and efficient.
83
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
HIGHWAY The Highway Maintenance Division Chief checks Daily Log
MAINTENANCE Schedules and Public Complaint Logs and visits each District
DIVISION monthly to physically inspect work conducted and monitor progress.
In addition, the Highway Chief and Highway Accountant meet with
all five District Overseers at least monthly to review and update
their operational activities, including reports on scheduling,
performance, progress, current status, current expenditures,
unforeseen events, and any additional special projects. The
auditors acknowledge that verbal communication and daily
coordination of operational activities within the Highway
Maintenance Division is good. Or, as District Overseers report,
"Ugh, Stanley runs a tight ship." However, one of the problems
associated with a "verbal' management structure is that employee
turnovers and retirements severely impact the performance of the
organization, as generally there are important processes and
activities and valuable knowledge that are not sufficiently
documented and transferred to remaining personnel.
HIGHWAY INTER - DIVISIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
MAINTENANCE AND
TRAFFIC DIVISIONS While the responsibilities of the Highway Maintenance and Traffic
Divisions are distinct, they are also inextricably interrelated. The
Highway Maintenance Division is responsible for repaving
roadways and applying temporary striping. This temporary striping
allows the road to cure before application of permanent striping,
which together with installation of safety signage and barriers, is the
responsibility of the Traffic Division. Although this process requires
coordination between the Divisions, it does not necessarily imply
consistent, timely, and effective communication for the scheduling
and execution of work from repaving through permanent striping.
The Highway Division complained of a time lag between completion
of repaving work and application of permanent striping. Various
reasons were cited as to why these delays occur, including the
Traffic Division being engaged in striping of a large roadway project
and the necessity to schedule a striping contractor several months
in advance so that crews are not contracted to other non - County
projects. To that end, the Traffic Division tries to consolidate work
allocated to the striping contractor by area, so as to minimize
mobilization fees and logistical inefficiencies in traveling long
distances between projects.
The Highway Maintenance Administration expressed some concern
about instances where permanent striping of repaved roadways by
the Traffic Division does not occur until long after completion of
repaving work. Prolonged delays in permanent striping work has
resulted in delayed receipt of striping contractor billings and the
inability of the Highway Maintenance Division to close repaving
accounts in a timely manner. The example that was given was in
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
Honokaa, where a roadway was repaved and temporarily striped by
Highway Maintenance crews with notification given to the Traffic
Division, but permanent striping was not applied until one year later.
However, the Highway Maintenance Division also acknowledged
that until recently, it had not been communicating its project plan to
the Traffic Division, and that while they are "trying" to make sure it is
now communicated, the communication does not include the
Highway Division's project schedule, nor are changes to the
schedule communicated to the Traffic Division on a regular basis.
All of the foregoing problems stem from the lack of regular
communication and coordination within the Department during the
planning and execution phases of roadway projects when work
adjustments between the Traffic and Highway Maintenance
Divisions become necessary.
FINDING: The Hawai `i State Auditor's 2009 Procurement Audit of the
Department of Education, Part 1, states at page 31: "Proper
Lack of planning Budgeting for projects is an important part of the planning phase
and direction at because it necessitates an evaluation of project needs and
identification of available resources. Creating a budget assists in
the Department the cost/benefit analysis and helps management determine whether
to contract the work or perform it in- house. If the decision is to
and County outsource, a budget assists in price negotiation and establishment
Administration of the fair and reasonable contract terms."
levels negatively Historically, DPW and County Administrations have failed to
develop a County -wide strategic plan as a foundation for strategic
impacts Division plans of the various County departments and their respective
operations. functional divisions, which are then translated into operational plans
with relevant program goals and performance measures. As a
result, inefficient governmental operations continue and politically
influenced last- minute changes to operational plans and resource
allocations create a moving target and frustration for those
employees charged with fulfilling their responsibilities under the
Highway Fund.
Special project requests that necessitate priority changes for
planned repaving and striping work are not subjected to an
objective assessment process to maximize the efficient use of both
the Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions. This is exemplified
by the disconnect between the Highway and Traffic Divisions
regarding resource allocations at the initial planning and budgeting
stages of roadway projects. This inefficiency is further exacerbated
throughout the fiscal year when for various reasons, Highway
Division schedules are changed and not communicated to the
Traffic Division, and vice versa. The Traffic Division is not included
during the planning stages of the Highway Division's annual
planning and budget session to facilitate coordination of paving and
85
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
striping work during the year, and the problem is further
exacerbated when the Highway Division's schedule is subject to
special requests from the Mayor and Councilmembers throughout
the fiscal year. This planning and budget scenario causes inefficient
and costly operations for both paving and striping work performed
or contracted by the County.
Although not addressing the underlying inefficiencies caused by
continually shifting priorities of the Mayor and Council,
communication and coordination between Divisions can be
improved by establishing what information needs to be
communicated, when it needs to be communicated, and by whom
and to whom it needs to be communicated. These inefficiencies,
however, will not be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level
until the "Tone at the Top" — the tone set by DPW and County
Administrators — changes from one of political focus to operational
focus based on long -term plans that are translated into action plans
that drive budget and resource allocations. Permitting the Highway
Maintenance Division to plan and set priorities for repaving work
based on an objective and documented system for assessing
greatest need, with the Traffic Division being involved in tandem to
enable it to schedule permanent striping work accordingly, will
better facilitate the timely completion of roadway projects.
The Highway Maintenance and Engineering Divisions also have
conflicting procedures relating to roadway resurfacing and
maintenance. According to the Highway Division, Engineering
provides oversight for resurfacing of roadway projects. During
District Baseyard interviews, auditors were told that the Engineering
Division's project management reports are noted on the Highway
Division's Daily Labor Reports to document progress. However, an
email response from the Engineering Division stated that it is not
involved with any of the Highway Maintenance Division's roadway
projects. Review of a sampling of Highway Division Daily Labor
Reports showed information insufficient to adequately determine
the actual progress of a roadway project. There was no written
report to document work — past, present, or future — to assess
progress. The fact that there are conflicting statements as to which
Division provides oversight on roadway projects is indicative of
inefficiency within the Department, and the respective
responsibilities of the Divisions should be immediately clarified and
documented by DPW Administration.
:.
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
FINDING: As discussed in Chapter 4, the County and State have a shared
responsibility for roadway issues. However, remedies for known
Communication road safety issues at County and State intersections have often
with external taken many years to complete or have yet to be addressed. The
State's Hawaii Five Percent Report included in this audit report as
agencies is Appendix D, lists the intersection at State Highway 130 and
County -owned Kahakai Boulevard with 23 crashes from years
sporadic and 2004 -2006, and the intersection at State Highway 130 and County -
lacking pertinent owned Ainaloa Boulevard with 37 accidents in the same three -year
period. This demonstrates the need for the County Administration
information for to communicate and coordinate with the State Department of
Transportation to address and remediate safety issues related to
interrelated County -State highway intersections, including timely installation of
projects. traffic signalization and other traffic control devices
A good example of how and why information, communication, and
cooperation between County departments can more effectively and
efficiently serve the public occurred when the Highway Maintenance
Division installed a rough- textured pavement surface to provide
better tire traction when notified by the Police Department of
slippery- when -wet conditions on a roadway segment in Puna. This
type of information - sharing, communication, and coordination
should be standard practice, with an established and standardized
format and mechanism for communication from one County agency
or functional unit to another.
An example of non - communication is the lack of regular traffic
accident information - sharing between the various County
departments and divisions. Traffic accident information is only
received by the Traffic or Highway Maintenance Divisions when
damages requiring repair occur to County property, such as
damage to signage or guardrails along a County roadway. The
Traffic and /or Highway Maintenance Division respond to repair
damages, but the only documentation of repairs is whatever
information is maintained by the respective Divisions. This lack of a
system or mechanism for collecting, maintaining, and analyzing
collective data makes it difficult for the Traffic and Highway
Maintenance Divisions to coordinate in maintaining safe roadways
within the County. A joint effort by the Police Department, Traffic
Division, and Highway Maintenance Division to regularly review
traffic usage, crash data, roadway conditions, and proposed traffic
safety and road maintenance improvements would facilitate
proactive planning, coordination, and implementation of traffic and
road safety solutions that are essential to meeting the County's
mission for the Highway Fund.
There also appears to be no formal communication or coordination
between the Department of Public Works, the Department of
Environmental Management — Wastewater Branch, the Department
of Water Supply, and external public utility providers on interrelated
87
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
projects. In order to maximize efficiency and reduce unnecessary
expenditures, it is again essential that these County departments
communicate and coordinate during planning and throughout
execution of an interrelated project. For example, a roadway
scheduled to be repaved by the Highway Maintenance Division may
also be scheduled for a sewer line and /or a water line to be repaired
or installed within the same section of roadway. After the Highway
Division repaves the roadway, Wastewater or Water Supply goes
back to the recently repaved roadway to install a sewer or water line
and has to tear up the pavement to complete its project. Another
example of where the lack of planning, communication, and
coordination have increased monetary costs and extended public
inconvenience has been road - widening projects in which failure to
timely communicate with public utility companies has delayed the
relocation of utility poles causing escalation of project costs and
delayed project completion.
FINDING: As discussed above, DPW has no system or mechanism in place to
collect and track relevant data relating to repaving and striping
Inadequate projects in an effort to coordinate the work between the Traffic and
Highway Maintenance Divisions. Data on traffic counts, road usage,
information road conditions, useful road life, timing between repaving and
systems to
striping, and roadway maintenance and striping records are all
plan
necessary and relevant data that will aid the Department in
effective
assessing and prioritizing future repaving and striping work.
utilization of
Various spreadsheets are used by various individuals within both
resources.
the Traffic and Highway Maintenance Divisions to track necessary
information. However, there are no policies that require, define, or
standardize the information to be tracked, nor are there policies that
define to whom said information should be communicated; the
content, format, or frequency of the communication; or any retention
requirements for the information. Therefore, necessary information
may not get to the right people at the right time in order to support
effective decision - making. Historical data necessary to support
planning activities is either not kept, is incomplete, or is not
available in an efficient format. There is no reconciliation or
verification of the completeness or accuracy of data maintained by
individual sources, and there is no audit trail to promote
accountability. There is redundancy of data entry, no ability to plan
and level out resource requirements, and loss of economies of
scale resulting from reactive planning and maintenance. An
integrated system or mechanism with the ability to store, retrieve,
collate, and report useful and relevant information is necessary for
DPW to attain its stated mission and goals for the Highway Fund.
More specifically, the County's current FRESH and Mandli systems
are inadequate to provide the Traffic and Highway Maintenance
Divisions with the capability to document, track, and store relevant
::
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
data and permit them to analyze information in order to effectively
and efficiently plan, budget, communicate, and coordinate their
projects. The County's FRESH system is adequate to support
accounting activities, but is not meant to support the Department's
need to maintain road data for successful operations. It appears
that while the Mandli System may provide some capabilities, even
when fully utilized, it is not capable of storing, manipulating, and
reporting the information necessary for the Highway Maintenance
Division to achieve its goals and objectives for road maintenance
and repair. A more efficient and effective alternative that would
integrate both systems with a pavement management system
should be explored by DPW.
FINDING: A DPW Division Chief said that there is often a 12- to 18 -month wait
for heavy equipment purchases, and that it was difficult to track the
Insufficient status of purchase orders. Being able to plan for the procurement
status reporting and arrival of heavy equipment is necessary for project scheduling.
p g Currently, there is no service level specified for purchasing heavy
of heavy equipment or required updates on the status of heavy equipment
equipment purchase orders.
purchase orders Internal departments in larger organizations (such as HR, IT, and
Purchasing) have adopted the use of Service -Level Agreements
to facilitate (SLA) with their internal users as well as users in other departments
within the same organization. An SLA is a negotiated agreement
resource between the user and service provider. In this instance, it would be
planning. an agreement between DPW and Purchasing that would provide a
performance standard of expected and maximum delivery times for
heavy equipment purchases. This can be a formal or informal
agreement. The SLA records a common understanding about
services, priorities, responsibilities, and guarantees. The scope of
each service area should have a level of service defined. That level
of service can also be specified as a minimum or target, which
allows users to be informed about what to expect (the minimum),
while providing a measurable target value (the average) that shows
level of performance. One benefit of an SLA is the ability to
benchmark the quality of service with an agreed upon standard
across multiple departments. Thus, it would provide a relevant
performance measure for the Purchasing Division, while providing
DPW with greater capability to plan its procurement and operational
activities.
I
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
FINDING: PUBLIC COMPLAINTS
Lack of a central Public complaints related to County road and traffic issues may be
integrated system reported to various County agencies: DPW - Administration, DPW -
for Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions, the Police Department,
the Mayor's Office, Council Members, or other agencies. The
intake /dispatch/ County has not established a centralized call center for receiving
public complaints, dispatching appropriate agencies to follow up on
recordkeeping of corrective action, tracking incident reports through resolution, and
public complaints reporting data to evaluate agency performance. Without this ability
to capture and report information completely, timely, and accurately,
by citizens, Police, DPW is hampered in its ability to effectively respond to citizen
Fire, Civil Defense, concerns. Public perception becomes adverse and public
dissatisfaction grows when callers are transferred from agency to
and other agency, reports "fall through the cracks," and corrective action is
agencies creates delayed or does not occur at all. Industry best practice to improve
appropriate agency response times and performance is to provide a
operational central County -wide "hotline" for intake, prioritization, delegation,
inefficiencies and documentation, and reporting of all public complaints.
safety concerns.
TRAFFIC DIVISION BACKGROUND: The Traffic Division observes the following
protocols related to public complaints communicated to the Division:
Signs and Markings — Complaint Intake /Dispatch Protocol
Emergencies: When an emergency complaint (such as a downed
stop sign) is received, it is responded to immediately. If
maintenance is performed, a work order is generated and tracked
until completion.
Maintenance: When a non - emergency complaint is received, it is
investigated. If investigation concludes work is warranted, a work
order is generated and tracked until completion.
Signs and Markings — Complaint Reporting Protocol
An Investigations Log is maintained by the Traffic Safety Section,
listing all investigations conducted County -wide chronologically, and
reporting investigation number, date, location /description,
completion date, remarks, and number of days to complete or days
pending completion.
A Speed Hump Request Status Log is also maintained by the
Traffic Safety Section, listing project street and district locations,
specific tasks and date completed, and any pertinent notes.
.c
FINDING:
Traffic Division
provides model
for performance
objectives and
measures.
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
Streetlights and Signals — Complaint Intake /Dispatch Protocol
Emergencies: When an emergency complaint regarding a downed
streetlight or malfunctioning signal is received, appropriate
streetlight or signal maintenance staff is dispatched, and a work
order is generated and tracked until completion.
Maintenance: When a non - emergency complaint (such as a
streetlight cycling or a traffic signal defaced with graffiti) is received,
a work order is generated for follow up by appropriate streetlight or
signal maintenance staff and is tracked until completion.
Streetlights and Signals — Complaint Reporting Protocol
A Street Light Repair Log Report is maintained by the Traffic
Support Staff Section utilizing an ACCESS database, listing work
order number, date received, district, street name, specific location,
pole number, type of street light, wattage, nature of complaint, crew
(West or East Hawai'i); date completed, and responsible electrician.
A Signal Repair Log Report is also maintained by the Traffic
Support Staff Section utilizing an ACCESS database, listing work
order number, date received, district, street location, crew (East or
West Hawai`i), responsible technician, date completed, and
accident damage notation.
TRAFFIC DIVISION
FY2007 -2008 Performance Measures
[Source: FY 2009 -2010 Proposed Operating Budget, Part 1, Volume fl, February
27, 2009, pp. 345 -360.]
Traffic signal service call received
456
Percentage completed within 5 calendar days
99%
Streetlight service calls received
3,093
Percentage completed within 5 calendar days
(Hilo /Puna /Kona)
85%
Percentage completed within 10 calendar days
((Ka`u /Kohala /Hamakua)
98%
Traffic sign /markings maintenance work orders issued:
703
Percentage completed within 90 calendar days
94%
Traffic safety complaints and requests received
102
Investigate and resolve complaints and request for new
traffic devices or studies within 90 calendar days
66%
91
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
The only improvements to the foregoing performance measures
would be to separately track response times for emergency and
non - emergency complaints since separate protocols were
designated by the Division, and the inclusion of narrative in public
reports to explain that response times vary among Districts based
on their distance from the Division's two baseyards, one in Hilo
serving East Hawaii (South Hilo, North Hilo /Hamakua, Puna, and
Ka'u) and one in Kona serving West Hawaii (North /South Kona and
North /South Kohala).
HIGHWAY BACKGROUND: Each Highway Maintenance District Baseyard —
MAINTENANCE South Hilo, North Hilo /Hamakua, North /South Kohala, North /South
DIVISION Kona, Puna, and Ka'u — maintains a log of public complaints.
Certain high - priority jobs (such as pot holes and fallen trees) are
consistently handled in all Districts, while non - priority jobs (such as
grass- cutting and tree - trimming) are left to individual District
Overseers to prioritize. Each District overseer submits a Weekly
Activity Plan, including regular scheduled maintenance, responses
to public complaints, and work orders for special projects. On a
monthly basis, the Division Chief checks Daily Log Schedules and
Complaint Log Sheets and physically inspects work conducted in
each District, accompanied by the District Overseer. At the end of
each fiscal year, an Annual Program Review is conducted, including
compilation of regular maintenance, public complaint, and special
project statistics, which are incorporated into an updated budget
narrative that is submitted to the Council to support Division funding
for the next fiscal year.
FINDING:
Lack of
standardized
processes for
handling of public
complaints,
including a process
for follow -up on
pending complaints
and a process for
incorporating major
corrective work into
future budgeting.
,
In the Puna District, the Senior Account Clerk maintains a
Complaint Log Sheet, which numbers each complaint and includes
date, time, complainant's name, location and description of
complaint, date of completion, and corrective action and
responsible worker (if known) noted in the Remarks section. For
each complaint received, the Account Clerk also fills out a
Concern /Complaint Slip including similar information that she gives
to the District Overseer, who turns it over to the District Supervisor
II, who assigns a work crew. The Supervisor is supposed to note
work done on a Daily Labor Report, and upon completion of work,
the Supervisor is supposed to return the form to the Account Clerk
for recording. The form is then given to the Overseer (with
completion information noted) and filed for a three -year retention
period. At the end of the fiscal year, complaints that are still shown
as "open" are given to the Overseer for verification and returned to
the Account Clerk, who updates and closes out the Complaint Log
Sheet. A report indicating how many complaints had been received
during the fiscal year and how many complaints had been
completed is given to the District Overseer and Division Chief.
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
In the Puna District, public complaints have included pot holes;
litter; dead animals such as pig carcasses left by hunters; and
emergencies such as wildfires, windstorms, and floods. The District
Overseer indicates that his crews try to respond to pothole complaints
right away — either the same or next day. As part of their regular
maintenance schedule, District crews patch potholes once a week —
usually on a Friday or a Thursday before a long weekend. However,
the District Overseer also advised that not all public complaints can be
resolved by District crews since some jobs are too large in scope and
need to be contracted out, and others occur on private or State
property where the County has no jurisdiction (other than during certain
emergencies when the Highway Division comes under the direction of
the County Civil Defense Agency).
In the North /South Kona District, the Senior Account Clerk receives
telephone calls or email complaints from the public, or is notified by the
Highways Administration (Division Chief). For each complaint, the
Account Clerk writes up a message and gives a copy to the
appropriate North or South Kona District Supervisor and one copy to
the Overseer. The Account Clerk also notes each complaint on a
Complaint Log Sheet, which numbers each complaint and includes
date, time, complainant's name, location and description of complaint,
date of completion, and corrective action and responsible worker noted
in the Remarks section. While different in format from the Complaint
Log Sheet utilized by the Puna Division, the Kona form contains similar
information. Crews note work conducted on a Daily Labor Report.
Upon completion of work, information is noted by the Supervisor on the
Complaint Log, which includes the name of the responsible personnel
and completion date. The Account Clerk maintains written complaint
messages and Complaint Logs for a minimum of six years, and
provides reports twice each fiscal year to the Division Chief indicating
how many complaints had been received and how many remain
pending. The Kona District personnel indicate that a response to a
public complaint may remain pending for a long time if it involves major
work. The Account Clerk (on her own initiative) maintains a separate
computer log of all verbal and written complaints and periodically
reminds the District Overseer about pending jobs in an effort to "keep
on top" of public complaints.
Based on interviews and sample forms provided by the Puna and Kona
Districts, it appears that intake /dispatch and reporting procedures for
public complaints differ between the District Baseyards. One baseyard
has the District Overseer involved throughout the complaint resolution
process, and the other does not. One baseyard's report form includes
prioritization of the complaint and corrective action described with
specificity, and the other does not. One baseyard maintains records
for three years; the other for six years. This lack of standardized forms
and procedures for the intake of public complaints, mobilization of work
crews, and documentation of corrective work inhibits uniformity in
operational practices, establishment of clear lines of responsibility and
accountability, and continuity following employee turnover (particularly
the retirement of senior supervisory staff).
93
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
FINDING:
Lack of effective
measurable
performance
standards for
handling of
public
complaints.
.,
While a good measure of quality control can be found in the monthly
follow -up practice of the Division Chief, accompanied by each District
Overseer, physically inspecting work reported on Complaint Log
Sheets and Daily Log Schedules, standard daily operating procedures
and performance reporting measures are not in place for future
supervisory staff to implement and evaluate County -wide.
Standardizing forms and formalizing written procedures for the
prioritization, follow -up, and evaluation of responses to public
complaints before retirement of the Highway Chief and senior District
Overseers and Supervisors are essential to the continued functioning
of the Division and would promote accountability within the Division
and with the general public.
Again, the institutional knowledge accumulated by senior staff with 20
to 30 years of experience (or more) will be lost if not committed to
writing before employee turnovers and retirements.
HIGHWAY MAINTAINANCE DIVISION
FY2007 -2008 Performance Measures
Complaints
Received
Completed
Pending
South Hilo
962
945
17
North Hilo / Hamakua
63
54
9
North /South Kohala
23
21
2
North /South Kona
580
551
29
Ka' u
7
6
1
Puna
234
193
41
TOTAL
1,869
1770
99
[Source: Final Report on Program Objectives for FY 2007 -08, Public Works, pp. 1-
4.]
One program measure designated by the Highway Maintenance
Division is the tracking of public complaints. However, Budget Status
Reports from FY2001 -2002 through FY2007 -2008 indicate that the
Division only tracks the number of complaints received, completed, and
pending for each District. These statistics are not accompanied by any
narrative or explanation as to the nature of complaints, type of
corrective action taken, or time for completion. This program measure
does not effectively assess how the Division is achieving its goals and
objectives and needs to be updated to track meaningful data relating to
public complaints, such as number of potholes patched, shoulders
graded or repaired, roadways or floodways cleared of debris,
emergencies responded to; and response and completion times for
each. For example, in the Honolulu City Auditor's 2005 Audit of the
City's Road Maintenance Practices [p. 46; p. 65], Honolulu's pothole
service turnover rate was determined to be comparable to that of other
mainland jurisdictions utilizing an industry standard of repairing
potholes within three business days from receipt of a public complaint.
More detailed tracking of public complaints will enable our Highway
Chapter 10: COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION OF OPERATIONAL TASKS
Maintenance Division to better identify specific program efficiencies
and inefficiencies (e.g.; patching potholes, maintaining road shoulders,
replacing guardrails, cleaning drywells, etc.) and improve its delivery of
services to the public.
95
Chapter 11: RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 11
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our audit findings discussed in earlier chapters, we make
the following recommendations to the Highway Maintenance and
Traffic Divisions, the Department of Public Works, the Mayor, and
the County Council to support the improvement of internal controls
relating to road maintenance and traffic safety programs,
operations, and administration financed by the Highway Fund.
We recommend Adopt industry recommended practices (such as those discussed in
Chapter 6), and implement a pavement maintenance process that
that the will provide long -term savings through the application of recognized
Highway preventative maintenance treatments at optimum times. This
g y pavement maintenance process should include, at a minimum, the
Maintenance following components:
Division: Timely application of industry recommended preventative
pavement treatments while roads are still in good condition in
order to cost - effectively extend the useful life of pavements;
• Adoption of an industry recommended pavement condition
rating system that is consistently applied;
Incorporation of pavement condition and preventative
maintenance data into the planning and budgeting processes to
ensure allocation of available resources based on greatest
need and benefit rather than a strict formula based solely on
District road miles (a recommendation that auditors also made
to the County Council);
• Identification and assessment of the informational needs of all
key stakeholders in order to standardize the content, format,
method, and timing for collecting and reporting data;
• Implementation of an automated information systems
application that, at minimum, will permit tracking of historic road
condition rating and maintenance data as well as comparison
of road conditions over time.
Create and implement a plan to maintain the 122.6 miles of
accepted 'roads in limbo'. These roads should be added to the
Highway Maintenance Division's road condition rating list and
maintained as any other County road.
•M
Chapter 11: RECOMMENDATIONS
Incorporate vehicle crash data into road maintenance planning
procedures for identification of roadside obstacles and safety issues by
road segments.
Develop accurate and complete inventories of consumables, heavy
equipment, and road, bridge, and flood control infrastructure, and
implement the necessary internal controls to effectively maintain and
safeguard these County assets.
Document, track, and report on accurate and complete inventories of
County road, bridge, and flood control infrastructure.
Develop, document, track, and report on relevant and measurable
performance objectives for each program activity (e.g.; bridge and
flood control maintenance and repair) in order to support program
planning, budgeting, and accountability.
Implement an in -house drywell and culvert cleaning program. Based
on the auditors' preliminary cost analysis, the Division should procure a
new cleaning truck and train county employees to routinely clean
drywells and culverts.
Develop formal inspection and maintenance schedules for all programs
related to bridges, flood canals, drywells, and culverts, together with
performance measures, documentation, and reporting.
Compile and transmit a comprehensive road, bridge, and flood control
current asset condition report to the Council, detailing the current
condition of all infrastructure for which the County is responsible, the
estimated costs and timelines for rehabilitating them to acceptable
industry standards, and the entity responsible for rehabilitation.
Compile and transmit a comprehensive road safety improvement
report to the Council, detailing known road hazards (such as roadside
obstacles, substandard bridges, or poor road surface conditions), any
proposed remediation, the estimated costs and timelines for
remediation, and the entity responsible for remediation.
Coordinate with DPW Administration and the Finance Department to
formalize policies and procedures and required documentation to
ensure timely and accurate recordkeeping and reimbursement of Non -
Highway Fund work and related costs.
Implement a formal process for regular and standardized
communication and coordination with the Engineering and Traffic
Divisions during the planning and budgeting processes as well as on a
regular basis throughout the year to discuss interdivisional issues
(such as safety and striping), project coordination and status,
scheduling, and resource allocations.
97
Chapter 11: RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend Develop a formal process to communicate and coordinate with the
Police and Fire Departments, State Department of Transportation,
that the Traffic and other County, State, and federal agencies as appropriate
during traffic safety issue reviews and throughout the traffic safety
Division: remediation decision - making process in order to ensure that
appropriate and effective measures are implemented.
Calculate and report on vehicle crash rates by traffic volume for
intersections and road segments.
Compile and transmit a comprehensive traffic safety improvement
report of all known traffic safety issues in the County to the Council,
detailing current known road hazard /safety locations, any proposed
remediation, the estimated costs and timelines for remediation, and
the entity responsible for remediation.
Create and implement a plan to address signage and traffic control
devices on 'roads in limbo'.
Work with the Police Department to develop a systematic method
for identifying, recording, and transferring crash location data.
Develop accurate and complete inventories of traffic control
infrastructure, heavy equipment, and consumables, and implement
the necessary internal controls to maintain and safeguard these
County assets.
Communicate and coordinate with the Engineering and Highway
Maintenance Divisions during the planning and budgeting
processes as well as on a regular basis throughout the year to
discuss interdivisional issues (such as safety and striping); project
coordination and status; scheduling; and resource allocations.
We recommend Develop adequate plans, policies, methods, and procedures
necessary to meet the Highway Fund's mission, goals, and
that the objectives. Develop processes and procedures for planning,
Department of organizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as
p management's system for measuring, reporting, and monitoring
Public Works program performance.
Administration: Develop standard road segments, with unique identifiers for each
road segment, to be used by all DPW Divisions and other County
departments and agencies.
Formalize written policies and procedures for Highway Maintenance
and Traffic Division operational activities, and formalize institutional
knowledge in the form of written records of historical road, bridge,
and flood control conditions and treatments as well as general
Chapter 11: RECOMMENDATIONS
traffic safety control data before the retirement of senior Highway
Maintenance and Traffic Division personnel or other possible
employee turnovers.
Clarify each DPW Division's program responsibilities for bridge and
flood control construction, inspection, repair, and maintenance, and
address as appropriate any amendments to the Hawai'i County
Code.
Require that all DPW Divisions conduct cost - benefit analyses for all
procurements.
Communicate with the Highway Maintenance, Traffic, and
Engineering Divisions during the planning and budgeting processes
as well as on a regular basis throughout the year to coordinate and
discuss operations, safety issues, project status, scheduling, and
resource allocations.
Implement pre - project and post - project reviews with all appropriate
County departments and external public utility providers to discuss
lessons learned from prior projects.
Develop a comprehensive ongoing planning and implementation
process for improving road - related safety issues, and incorporate
the planning and implementation process into the development of a
"Hawai`i County Transportation Safety Plan ".
Summarize vehicle crash data for all roads for use by DPW
Administration in planning and coordinating safety improvements
among the Traffic, Highway Maintenance, and Engineering
Divisions; compile a prioritized report listing locations requiring road
safety and maintenance improvements and designating each
Division's responsibilities and estimated completion dates; record
and track safety improvements installed by the respective DPW
Divisions; and report on the effectiveness of road safety
improvements at reducing the number and severity of vehicle
crashes.
Adopt and implement FHWA and AASHTO recommended road
safety practices, including the use of Road Safety Audits for higher
priority intersections and roadways.
Compile a user - friendly "Transportation Safety Planning Manuaf' for
Department use that identifies industry recommended practices,
such as safety measures and maintenance outlined in FHWA
ACTION: Consideration and Implementation of Proven Safety
Countermeasures, AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and
Best Practices Handbook on Asphalt Pavement Maintenance.
99
Chapter 11: RECOMMENDATIONS
Seek available funding for safety and infrastructure improvements,
such as requesting funds from the High Risk Rural Roads Program.
Develop and maintain an accurate and complete inventory of roads,
bridges, and flood controls.
Require routine inspection and maintenance schedules for all road,
bridge, and flood control infrastructure.
We recommend Establish or codify a requirement that the County Administration
develop a "Hawaii County Transportation Safety Plan" as outlined
that the County by the Federal Highway Administration that, at a minimum,
COUnCI�: identifies hazardous intersections and road segments, proposes
remedies and timeframes for remediation, and facilitates
coordination of road safety improvements with State and local
agencies involved with transportation safety and enforcement.
Establish or codify a requirement that the County Administration
provide regular, relevant, and detailed reports relating to all County
infrastructure, including sufficient information to assess current
condition; estimated remaining useful life; costs of rehabilitation to
acceptable standards; industry recommendations for life- extending
treatments; schedules and estimated costs of planned maintenance
and rehabilitation by fiscal year; and information sufficient to assess
performance over time for the maintenance and improvement of all
County road, bridge, and flood control infrastructure supported by
the Highway Fund.
Require that DPW implement systems and processes that permit
development of long- and short -term plans and budgets, which will
objectively and adequately address resource allocation based on
greatest need and benefit rather than on a strict formula of road
miles per District.
We recommend Ensure that systems and procedures are implemented to permit
accurate reporting of measurable progress towards reducing
that the Mayor: vehicle crashes island -wide as well as at identified locations, and
ensure that these statistics are included in the General Plan Annual
Report as a public record.
Implement an efficient process for review and coordination of road
safety issues by and with all County departments and agencies to
permit the application of combined remediation where and when
appropriate to facilitate implementation of the most cost - effective
safety measures.
100
Chapter 11: RECOMMENDATIONS
Immediately adopt policies that underscore the long -term benefits
associated with preventative maintenance programs, including the
requirement for annual reporting of infrastructure conditions based
on standardized relevant condition rating criteria.
Require proper safeguarding of County assets through
implementation of perpetual inventory systems for all significant
consumable inventories and development of asset replacement
schedules for heavy equipment and infrastructure, together with
corresponding internal controls for all departments that are
responsible for significant amounts of infrastructure, heavy
equipment, and /or consumables.
Develop and coordinate practical solutions to remediate road safety
issues at intersections of State highways and County roads.
Resolve ownership of Hawaii Island roadways (including "roads -in-
limbo"), and establish a policy and criteria for determining which
roads will be maintained by the County.
Require implementation of a centralized intake center for the
community to report road condition or traffic safety concerns in
order to ensure that ALL reports are documented and consistently
and timely addressed, and to standardize the prioritization,
response, and reporting of public complaints.
We recommend
Ensure that adequate resources are available to the Department of
Public Works and its Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions to
that the Mayor
pursue their road maintenance and traffic safety priorities and fulfill
and the Council:
their respective responsibilities under the Highway Fund.
Review the adequacy of the County's Code of Ethics as well as the
monitoring and enforcement of "conflict of interest" provisions
contained in the Hawaii County Code, and implement internal
control processes that address both the fact and appearance of
impropriety in government contracts and comply with both the letter
and intent of the law.
101
CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSION
Chapter 12
CONCLUSION
We found the internal control structures of the Department of Public
Works relating to operational activities financed by the Highway
Fund for the maintenance and improvement of road, bridge, and
flood control infrastructure and safety to be inadequate. We also
reported on deficiencies in the design and /or implementation of
related County internal control structures that, in our judgment,
could adversely affect the County's broader goals and objectives
related to governance, transparency, and public accountability.
The Department of Public Works Administration and its Highway
Maintenance and Traffic Divisions lack basic internal control
systems to gather, analyze, and communicate the information
necessary to support decision - making and promote the effective
and efficient utilization of the Highway Fund. They have collectively
failed to establish, document, and communicate policies and
procedures to clarify roles, responsibilities, and expectations;
delineate the information and data to be collected and maintained;
and establish formal processes for planning, scheduling,
communicating, and coordinating infrastructure maintenance and
safety efforts. The Department of Public Works Administration and
its Highway Maintenance and Traffic Divisions have also not
incorporated proven industry best practices for road, bridge, and
flood control maintenance and traffic safety programs. While it
seems intuitive that the purpose of housing the various
Engineering, Building, Highway Maintenance, and Traffic Divisions
under the Department of Public Works is to facilitate communication
and coordination of related duties, the historical "Tone at the Top"
has permitted DPW Divisions to operate as autonomous units in the
absence of the leadership and oversight required to implement the
fundamental framework for planning, communication, coordination,
and assessment of the complex and critical tasks for which the
Department of Public Works is responsible. As a result, the County
is at risk for deteriorating road, bridge, and flood control
infrastructure; increasing rehabilitative costs; continuing traffic and
public safety issues; and growing public dissatisfaction.
Given current economic realities, County departments and divisions
cannot afford to operate in a reactive manner as isolated
operational units. The November 2008 mayoral election, and
subsequent appointment of new department directors, provides an
ideal opportunity to put a fresh face on County government. The
correct "Tone at the Top" needs to be established by County
administrators at the highest levels and communicated by example
as much as policy to foster a clear understanding of each
102
CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSION
employee's role and contribution in meeting program, division,
department, and County goals and objectives related to the
provision of services to the citizens of Hawaii County. Program,
division, and department goals, objectives, and action plans need to
support a broader County -wide strategic plan, and should include
realistic timelines and project budgets and relevant performance
measures to assess progress. We need to know where we want to
go as a county; how and when we are going to get there; what
tasks need to be completed when; and what relevant and
measurable performance objectives should be established and
implemented to define, track, and report outcomes. Under its new
leadership, County government needs to develop new strategies for
delivering services to the public in the form of consistent and
reliable infrastructure maintenance and improved road, bridge, and
flood control capacity and safety, if we are to meet our mission
under the Highway Fund.
103
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS RESPONSE
QTY OF
William P_ Kenoi
Warren H. W. Lee
May—
Director
William T. Takaba
Tim T. N:saki
Managing Drrec+ur
Deputy Director
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Aupuni Center
101 Pauahi slrest, suite 7 Hilo, Hawaii 967x0-42.24
(808) 961 -8321 - Fax [lii]R) 961 -8630
Nkl v.co.hawaii.hmis
c�O
r
MEMORANDUM
�
.�
0
DATE:
September 30, 2009
tie
w
as
TO-
Colleen Schrandt
Legislative Auditor
FROM:
Warren H.W. Lee, P.E.
�FPfihbiA
Director, Department o
SUBJECT:
Limited -Scope Performance Audit of the Highway Fund
The Department of Public Works extends its appreciation to the Legislative Auditor
and her team for their time and effort in preparing the Limited -Scope Performance
Audit Report of the Highway Fund for the two -year period ended June 30, 2008.
The department recognizes the importance of effective internal controls to ensure
that the mission and objectives of the Highway Fund are being achieved. Since the
end of the June 30, 2008 audit period, actions toward strengthening the
accountability and integrity of the Highway Fund internal control system have taken
place.
The new administration is committed to continue improving coordination, planning,
and monitoring of its Highway Fund operations. As part of this ongoing process we
will review the findings and incorporate recommendations of the auditor as
appropriate.
The health and safety of the public's travel on the County's roadway transportation
system is of paramount importance to the department. Highway safety is a
County or Hawaii i5 an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
104
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS RESPONSE
Colleen Schrandt
Legislative Auditor
September 30, 2009
Page 2
complex and multi- faceted issue. In addition to road design, maintenance, and
engineering of safety measures, there are many other factors which must be
considered such as:
• Alcohol and drug impairment
• Driver behavior, including speeding and aggressive driving
• Enforcement
• Legislative policies
• Budgetary constraints and availability of grant funds
• Emergency medical services
• Community education and awareness
The development of our strategic plan and other internal control measures will
therefore need to incorporate the technical knowledge and specialized experience of
various stakeholders, including the County Traffic Safety Coordinator, the State
Department of Transportation, Police, and community groups.
We believe this comprehensive approach will ensure that we are maximizing the
effectiveness of the County's resources in the attainment of the mission and goals
of the Highway Fund.
cc: Mayor William Kenoi
William Takaba, Managing Director
Nancy Crawford, Finance Director
County of I Iawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
105
APPENDIX A: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2009 ORGANIZATION CHART
Submitted by: Chart i
County of Hawaii 07101109
Director Date Department of Public Works
Approved by: 2009 Organization Chart
Mayor Date
Administration
Chart I -A
Automotive Buildin2 En2ineerin2 Hi2hway Maintenance Traffic
Division Division Division Division Division
Chart II 1 Chart III Chart IV Chart V I I Chart VI
106
APPENDIX B -1: HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE DIVISION 2009 POSITION ORGANIZATION CHART
107
County of Hawaii
Chart V_A
07/01/09
Department of Public Works - Highway Maintenance Division
2009 Organization Chart
Highway Division Chief
EM -07 0312
Highway Superintendent
EM -03 4773
*Technical support received
from Director's Office
Support Staff Operations
Regulatory/
Administrative
Safety /Training
Com liance
Safety &Driver Improvement
Accountant II
Civil Engineer IV
Coordinator
Hilo
Hamakua
SR -18 3802*
SR -24 3602
SR -21 0322
Senior Account
Senior Equipment
Highways Support
Clerk
Account Clerk Operations
Technician Puna
Kohala
Temporary Positions
SR -13 0323
SR -13 4723 Instructor
SR -17 1404
SR -17 4738
2910 (Temp.)
2911 (Temp.)
Kau
Kona
4170 (Temp.)
Mason Equipment
Tree Trimmer
Equipment
Equipment
Road Const.
BC-10
2718 Operator I
BC -04 2722
Operator II
Operator III
& Maintenance
2719 BC -06 2433
4053
BC -09 1872
BC -10 1862
Supervisor I
2720 1876
2717
1873
1866
WS -10 1877
2818
2721
1874
1867
2575
4049
1875
1 1868 1
2755
4050
1878
2814
4051
2815
4052
2817
107
APPENDIX B -2: HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE DIVISION 2009 POSITION ORGANIZATION CHART
108
County of Hawaii
Chart V-B
07/01/09
Department of Public Works - Highway Maintenance Division
2009 Position Organization Chart
Operations
South Hilo
District Overseer II
F3 -10 2172
Senior Account Clerk
Road Crew
Night Crew
SR -13 0313
Road Const. & Maint Supervisor II
Street Cleaning Supervisor
F1 -10 1068
WS -09
1779
1158
Road Const. & Maint Supervisor I
Street Sweeper Operator
Laborer II
WS -10 1064 1077
BC -09
1078
BC -03 1094
1074
1593
Mason Equipment Operator III
Eqipment Operator II Equipment Operator I
Laborer ll
BC -10 1088 BC -10 1089
BC -09 1102 BC -06 1082 BC -03
0329
1750
1130
1106 1085
1069
1755
1591
1113 1104
1073
1757
1125 1112
1091
1775
1922 1127
1105
2434
1441
1117
2576
1167
1119
4167
2513
1169
4350
2638 1
1589
4351
1592
108
APPENDIX B -3: HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE DIVISION 2009 POSITION ORGANIZATION CHART
County of Hawaii
Department of Public Works - Highway Maintenance Division
2009 Position Organization Chart
Operations
Hamakua
District Road Overseer II
F3 -10 0316
Senior Account Clerk Road Const. & Maint. Supervisor II
SR -13 0317 F1 -10 1740
2215
Equipment Operator III Equipment Operator II Equipment Operator I Laborer II
BC -10 2335 BC -09 1181 BC -06 1192 BC -03 1180
1193 1197 1182
1194 1407 2229
1196 1863 2232
1405 2233
2281
Chart V -C
07101109
109
APPENDIX B -4: HIGHAWAY MAINTENANCE 2009 POSITION ORGANIZATION CHART
County of Hawaii Chart V-D
07/01/09
Department of Public Works - Highway Maintenance Division
2009 Position Organization Chart
North /South
Kohala
District Road Overseer II
F3 -10 0318
Senior Account Clerk
SR -13 0319
Equipment Operator III
BC -10 1155
2339
Road Const. & Maint. Supervisor II
F1 -10 1244
1940
Equipment Operator I
BC -06 1881
2640
Operations
North /South
Kona
District Road Overseer II
F3 -10 1926
Senior Account Clerk
SR -13 0321
Equipment Operator III
BC -10 2337
Road Const. & Maint. Supervisor II
F1 -10 1261
3645
Equipment Operator I
BC -06 1266
1277
1431
2586
Equipment Operator II Laborer II Equipment Operator II Laborer II
BC -09 1224 BC -03 1220 BC -09 1252 BC -03 1271
1248 1225 1262 1289
1617 1232 1267 1465
1618 1242 1272 2266
1896 1 1770 2267
2338 2336
4358 2587
4359
4360
4365
4366
4367
110
APPENDIX B -5: HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE DIVISION 2009 POSITION ORGANIZATION CHART
County of Hawaii Chart V -E
07/01/09
Deparment of Public Works - Highway Maintenance Division
2009 Position Organization Chart
Ka'u
Road Const. & Maint. Supervisor II
F1 -10 3530
Equipment Operator III Equipment Operator I
BC -10 1302 1 1 BC -OE 1296
Equipment Operator II Laborer II
BC-09 1294 BC-03 1107
1308 1309
1870 1571
2223
4357
Operations
District Road Overseer 11
F3 -10 2333
Senior Account Clerk
SR -13 1070
Equipment Operator III
BC-10 2512
Puna
Road Const. & Maint. Supervisor II
F1 -10 1138
Road Const. & Maint. Supervisor I
WS -10 3644
Equipment Operator I
BC -06 1547 1570
1559 2639
Equipment Operator 11
BC-09 1096
1131
1546
1558
1594
Laborer 11
BC-03 1143
4352
1200
4353
1212
4354
1556
4355
1560
4356
1760
4361
4069
4362
4070
4363
4364
111
APPENDIX C: TRAFFIC DIVISION 2009 POSITION ORGANIZATION CHART
112
County of Hawaii
Department of Public Works - Traffic Division
2009 Position Organization Chart - Current
Traffic Division Chief Advisory Board
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
;CE�Vl EM -05 Highway Safety Council
gineer V
4710 1 SR -26
Support Staff
Signals & Street Lights Traffic Safety "Markings
Office Manager
TRF Operations Sup Const. Inspector Civil Engineer IV
Traffic Tech II
3113 SR -20
0288 SR -24 13366 1 SR -19 2824 SR -24 0308 F2 -09
2608 SR -15
Sr. Account Clerk
Civil En Engineer III
4470 SR -13
R &D Technical 2704 SR-22
East HI Pro g. Suppt Tech
West HI
Account Clerk
Electrical Engineer Su v. TRF Tech Traffic Tech I 4774 SR -13
4839 1 SR-11
4730 SR -22 3768 SR -21 14796 1 SR -13 TSM Sup I
TSM Sup I
4735 F1 -09
4230 F1 -09
Clerk II
Electronics Tech Traffic Tech III
3767 SR -08
4840 BC -15 13112 1 SR -17 Lead TSM Painter
Lead TSM Installer
0311 1 WS -09
4209 WS -07
Student Helper
Maintenance 3525
4733
TSM Installer
TRF Electrician Sup 4846
14208 1 BC -07
4635 F1 -12
TSM Painter
Lead TRF Electrician 0309 BC-09
2879 WS -12 0310 4847
2642 4848
TRF Electrician
3715 BC -12 TSM Het e
3906 1148 B t
2514
2641 4521
* ** BC -10 3524 4849
L
2880Electrician
* ** 4520 4850
Electrician Helper ** New approved by MD, awaiting approval by Council
4522 BC -O5 * ** Temp Downward Reallocation -
4523
version:
O =BU3 O =BU4 O • =BU13
6/26/09
112
APPENDIX D -1: HAWAII 2008 FIVE PERCENT REPORT
Hawaii 2008 Five Percent Report
This report is in response to the Federal requirement that each state describe at least 5 percent
of its locations currently exhibiting the most severe highway safety needs, in accordance with
Sections 148(c)(1)(D) and 148(g)(3)(A), of Title 23, United States Code. Each state's report is to
include potential remedies to the hazardous locations identified; estimated costs of the
remedies; and impediments to implementation of the remedies other than costs. The reports
included on this web site represent a variety of methods utilized and various degrees of road
coverage. Therefore, this report cannot be compared with the other reports included on this
Web site.
Protection from Discovery and Admission into Evidence —Under 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(4) information
collected or compiled for any purpose directly relating to this report shall not be subject to
discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for
other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or
addressed in the reports.
Additional information, including the specific legislative requirements, can be found in the
guidance provided by the Federal Highway Administration,
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/quides/guide04O5O6.cfm.
STATE OF HAWAII
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HIGHWAYS DIVISION
TRAFFIC BRANCH
STATE OF HAWAII
2008 "5 PERCENT REPORT"
23 U.S.C. 148(c)(1)(D)
A. Identification and Explanation of 5% Locations
The State of Hawaii does not have mileposts for every public road. This report will
address the locations on routes where mileposts are provided.
HDOT compiled statewide listings for high accident intersection and segment locations.
1. The statewide intersection listing includes only intersections on the State Highway
System. The locations need to meet the criteria of three (3) accidents per year for
each consecutive year for three (3) years. The number -rate method is used to rank
the locations. The intersection rate is calculated by the following:
Intersection accident rat
IThe number of accidents per million vehicles.
FY= number of years
A = number of crashes in Y years
F_
ADT = total Average Daily Traffic entering
intersection
Rate = A / [ (ADT *Y *365) / 1,000,000 ]
113
APPENDIX D -2: HAWAII 2008 FIVE PERCENT REPORT
2. Using the latest complete three (3) years of data, 79 intersections in the State of
Hawaii met the criteria. 5% of 79 is 3.95 locations. For 2008 the State of Hawaii
reported 4 highway intersections exhibiting the most severe safety needs. (See
Attachment 7)
3. The statewide segment listing included segments within the State Highway System.
The locations need to meet the criteria of nine (9) or more accidents in three (3)
consecutive years and meet the state average of 87.33 accidents per 100 million
vehicle miles. The number -rate method is used to rank the locations. HDOT also
uses sliding 0.3 -mile segments for segment locations. The segment rate is calculated
by the following:
Segment Accident Rate
The number of accidents per 100 million vehicle
miles.
FY= number of years
A = number of crashes in Y years
ADT = Average Daily Traffic
L = segment length
Rate = A / [ (L *ADT *Y *365) / 100,000,000 ]
Using the latest complete three (3) years of data, 199 segments in the State of Hawaii
met the criteria. 5% of 199 is 9.95 locations. For 2008 the State of Hawaii reported 10
highway segments exhibiting the most severe safety needs. (See Attachment 8) The first
segment on the list includes two other segments in the same vicinity.
A. Improvements in the collection and analysis of accident data
The State of Hawaii DOT will look into working with our Planning Branch to improve the
quality of data. County routes would need to be mile posted and additional volume
counts would need to be taken at intersections.
B. Discovery and Admission into Evidence
As stated in the Guidance for the HSIP 5% report requirements: "Section 148(g)(4)
stipulates that data compiled or collected for the preparation of the "5 percent reports ",
or related reports published or made available to the public by USDOT, ".shall not be
subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or
considered for other purposes in an action for damages arising from any occurrence at a
location identified or addressed in such reports." The information is also protected by
Section 409 of Title 23 U.S.C. (discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports
and surveys). This legal protection will be noted on the USDOT web site"
114
Highway Intersections Exhibiting the Most Severe Safety Needs
(Minimum of 5 %)
Location I Potential Remedies
Volcano Rd @ Old
Volcano Rd
Keaau -Pahoa Rd
Signal Installation
@ Ainaloa Blvd
(Traffic
recommended
Keaau -Pahoa Rd
Traffic Signal Installation
@ Kahakai Blvd
recommended
Estimated Implementation
Costs I Impediments
Will monitor this
intersection upon
completion of widening
project in this area.
$600,000.00
$450,000.00
Will monitor this
intersection upon
completion of project at
Kahakai intersection
(above).
APPENDIX D -2
Comments
Proposed HSIP
FY 07
Proposed HSIP
FY 06
Cost benefit
analysis favors
Kahakai Blvd
Highway Segments Exhibiting the Most Severe Safety Needs
(Minimum of 5 %)
Estimated Implementation
Location Potential Remedies Costs Impediments I Comments
Route 200, MP
Saddle Rd.
Keaau -Pahoa Rd
Project at Kahakai
@ Old Pahoa Rd
intersection (above)
& Old Government
should have positive
33.0-33.3
Rd
influence on this
East Side (MP 28 to 35)
Route 11, MP
location.
90.7-91.0
Will monitor this
intersection upon
completion of project at
Kahakai intersection
(above).
APPENDIX D -2
Comments
Proposed HSIP
FY 07
Proposed HSIP
FY 06
Cost benefit
analysis favors
Kahakai Blvd
Highway Segments Exhibiting the Most Severe Safety Needs
(Minimum of 5 %)
Estimated Implementation
Location Potential Remedies Costs Impediments I Comments
Route 200, MP
Saddle Rd.
12.3-14.4
Improvements, Phase 6,
Saddle Road
East Side (MP 19 to 11)
Route 200, MP
Saddle Rd.
33.0-33.3
Improvements, Phase 3,
Saddle Road
East Side (MP 28 to 35)
Route 11, MP
Mamalahoa Hwy Safety
90.7-91.0
Improvements @ C.Q.
Mamalahoa Hwy
Yee Hop Ranch
Hawaii Belt Rd Safety
Route 19, MP
26.7-27.0
JImprovements @
Hawaii Belt Road
IKaawalii Gulch
Route 11, MP
Mamalahoa Hwy Safety
67.8-68.1
Improvements @
Mamalahoa Hwy
Kiolakaa Homestead Rd
Route 190, MP
Mamalahoa Hwy Safety
20.7-21.2
Improvements @
Mamalahoa Hwy
Puuwaawaa Ranch
Route 19, MP
Hawaii Belt Rd Safety
28.3-28.6
Improvements @
Hawaii Belt Road IKaawalii Gulch
Unknown Design Phase. Federal Lands Project.
Estimated RTA 8/09 Rdwy Realignment &
Reconstruction.
Unknown In Construction
$230,000.00 I (Proposed HSIP FY 04
Scheduled for FY 08
$350,000.00 (Proposed HSIP FY 07
Scheduled for FY 2010
$230,000.00 I (Proposed HSIP FY 06
Scheduled for FY 09
$230,000.00 (Proposed HSIP FY 04
Scheduled for FY 08
$350,000.00 I (Proposed HSIP FY 07
Scheduled for FY 2010
115