HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0370.012 2000-2002 ~IL~ ~~s
d`9N ORLiON~NCi~ ~ggB~~YHCaak°d5.~69tlN~ ~,0~~`~~Ap,1~,(~~~°~~~p~bq®~I~3~ TY-1~~sf/l~f'iW1'R'I 6d0~bJ/N 1 ~~a6B91AL~dT 7-a~~1~3
&9ifT8~N~f ~~iL~ 1 A-819ia 1 1 f6~~T6~ ~°0N® S~D~Wi`°5~~0.?
~Y CLYDE N:A(3A~T°A
MANA~~~, NGi1N~f2NG D~IPAi~7"N6ENT
HAWAvI' teOT~IC L(~HT C®IVIPANY
~~Rl1ARlf 21, 20®~
Chair Arakaki and Members of the Hawaii County Council:
I am Clyde Nagata, manager of the engineering department at Hawaii electric
Light Company ("H~LCO"), submitting testimony on behalf of HBLCO on Bill 225, Draft
~ "AN OI~I~iNANCE AMBNDING CHAPTER 22, O~ THB HAWAII COUNTIt' CO®~
1983, RIeLATING TO STR~~TS AND SIDBWALKS."
St1 R/91VI,ARI~
HBLCO supports this bill with the modification proposed by Verizon Hawaii,
namely the deletion of the second sentence of subsection (h) in Section 22-4.4.
C®nstruction permits; c®nditions, which requires the construction of new curb-cuts for
persons with disabilities, accessible driveways or other improvements such that all
repair, restoration or replacement work comply with the current requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act r~ardless of existing conditions.
I€~TB~N~L~
As proposed in Draft 5 of Bill 225, Section 22-4.4(h) would require a utility that
has performed construction activities in a County street to restore the street to meet the
current requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") ~ even if the
condition of the roadway at the commencement of construction did not meet ADA
~_M
~f.
requirements. H~LCO supports the intent and purpose of ADA; however, we believe
that 13111 225 as currently drafted will result in unmerited hardship on utilities that were
not responsible for the design and construction of non-ADA compliant County
roadways. The utilities would be required to bring those roadways up to ADA standards
as proposed in Section 22-4.4(h) merely because the utilities perform construction work
in a County street to maintain service to the community.
for example, in order to meet County standards, a utility pole must be located
one and a half to two feet from the curb. However, some of the older County sidewalks
may be only five feet wide, which might not leave enough room for the utility pole whale
still complying with ADA wheelchair access requirements. If a utility needed to dig up
the sidewalk in order to repair a pole, Section 22-4.4(h) could require the entire line to
be relocated in order to widen the sidewalk to meet ADA standards. Such a result
would overwhelm any normal maintenance and repair project and would unfairly shift
the burden of ADA compliance to the utilities in the design and construction of County
roadways.
H~LCO already pays a franchise fee to the County for the right to place its
facilities in the public right of way and constructs its facilities in accordance with County
requirements. The cost-shifting proposed by Sill 225, Draft 5, would unfairly place an
additional burden on H~LCO's customers.
C®NCLIJSI®N
HIELC® respectfully requests that this bill be passed with the deletion of
the second sentence of Section 22-4.4, subsection (h). Thank you for the opportunity to
submit testimony on this matter.
_ _ _