2017-02-27 Letter to Angus McKelvey re HB625, HD2 Relating to Infrastructure

Home

Angus L.K. McKelvey Consumer Protection & Commerce Committee February 27, 2017 The bills have, of course, varying provisions. Some raise concerns because they say actions relating to the installation, construction, development, or improvement of broadband networks will be exempt from County permitting requirements. Some bills do not state that an entity seeking to install or construct equipment for a broadband network must apply with the State or an affected utility or county, but instead provide that an entity proposing such an action must post notice of this intent on the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affair's website. Some 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. Separately, coerced co-location could interfere with a 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 a 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. Some 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. One version 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. Limiting collocation charges may not 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. County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.