2017-02-23 Letter to Rosalyn Baker RE SB760, SD1 / SB1201, SD1

Home

Rosalyn Baker Commerce, Consumer Protection and Health February 23, 2017 notice of this intent on the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affair's website. These bills also allow "utilities" (but not the State or counties) to reject an application to co-locate if collocation is going to overburden existing equipment. In addition, coerced co-location could interfere with the County's existing and prospective contractual relations, as some County "structures" are on leased or licensed properties that do not allow collocation without a landowner's consent, and landowners may be hesitant to let the County have a structure on their properties if doing so will allow any and all small wireless facilities or small wireless facilities networks to be placed on their properties without their consent. Co-location raises security concerns, concerns about existing equipment being damaged by allowing private entities to do installation and other work on County sites, and concerns about increased use and wear-and-tear on existing structures, equipment, and access routes to rural sites. The bills do not a) grant counties immunity for private entities accessing and using county property, b) allow the counties to recoup costs due to a small wireless facility or network's use of counties' utilities, or c) expressly allow counties to require companies that are accessing or using a county's property to assume liability for any damages to existing equipment or structures and to defend and indemnify a county for any such damages. If the final bill doesn't define "structure," it could be read to allow wireless equipment to be placed on any County owned or operated building. SB 760, SD1 totally exempts wireless equipment from any County permits. It requires the wireless companies to provide notice prior to installation to the DCCA but not to an affected county. It allows utilities to reject applications but doesn't provide counties that authority and doesn't have any process for applications. It requires wireless companies to comply with "applicable safety and engineering requirements", but that would be difficult for us to check with no prior notice or permitting process. SB 760, SD1 would also seem to limit collocation charges to $20 annually—a giveaway that does not seem to reflect proper stewardship of the public trust. Staff did some brief research and did not see other states giving away public land so freely. Washington State, for instance, has a schedule of fees and regulations in place that looks like a better balance protecting public land. For the above reasons, we cannot support the current drafts. County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.