2017-03-17 Letter to Clarence K Nishihara and Glenn Wakai re HB 625, HD 3 relating to Infrastructure

Home

Nishihara/VVakai March 17, 2017 Page 2 Our main objection to these bills is that they do not protect radio towers/first responder communications. They may give the counties varying ability to regulate in the right of way, but those towers are still vulnerable (and probably prime targets for the telecommunications companies because they will get good coverage where we get good coverage). Among numerous concerns we have is that, if this or any other bill were to pass in present form, we would be locked into a regime in which the County could not adequately protect against the overburdening of its equipment, which could cause interference with the County's existing system. 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. We do not believe any of the bills 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 does not define "structure," it could be read to allow wireless equipment to be placed on any County owned or operated building. An earlier draft totally exempted wireless equipment from any County permits. It required the wireless companies to provide notice prior to installation to the DCCA but not to an affected county. It allowed utilities to reject applications but did not provide counties that authority and did not have any process for applications. It required 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. The present draft is much better, but initial drafts were extreme enough to raise questions as to whether the parties started out acting in good faith. County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.