Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0230.008 1996-1998 `OJhiV Oi ~ ~~~ilil. DONALD IKEDA I~~ ALAN S. KOMSFII County Clerk ~'•,e] -~--°=°-';5: • Drputy County Clerk `OYC .L ~rf Or~Xr'Ir~ CONSTANCE 12. KII2IU Legulativc Auditor OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLEKK County of Haiuaii Hnwaii County Building 25 Aupurti Street ~.~y~ q+~ Hilo, Hamnii 96720 ~f~i.-r.. 7 rrry Council August 14, 1998 TO: Richard Wurdeman Corporation Counsel ATTN: Ted Hong Assistant Corporation Council Lcbuu ChAr..r FROM: Leslie Chow Fiscal/Program Review Auditor RE: Bill 68, Draft 2 Bill 68, Draft 2, will be considered by the Public Works and Parks Committee at its meeting on August 18, 1998. A number of questions have arisen regarding this matter. Your legal advice regarding the questions that follow would be greatly appreciated. 1. Sec. 46-16, HRS, excludes private roads used primarily for agricultural and ranching purposes from operation of the County's authority to impose and enforce traffic regulations on private roads. If the Council wishes to regulate such roads, is it precluded by sec. 46-16, HRS from doing so? 2. Sec. 46-16, HRS, was adopted by the State Legislature to regulate private roads such as those contained in the many private subdivisions in Puna and Hawaii Ocean View Estates. However, many of these subdivisions are designated for agricultural use by the County Zoning Code. Does sec. 46-16, HRS, preclude the County from imposing and enforcing traffic regulations on roads in areas that are designated for agricultural use by the County Zoning Code? 3. Inclusion of traffic regulations regarding private roads in the County traffic code, obligate the County Police to enforce these regulations, pursuant to sec. 24-12, HCC. Can private roads be excluded from operation of this law if they are in such poor condition that it would be imprudent for police vehicles to traverse them? Coa~re. No.~^^~' g Y~'tle Na. ~~~ff Ref. 7`rr Presented 1°W~~-- Ref. I?~*- ~l if ;.-S-iam"•' Mr. Wurdeman Page Two 4. If, at the request of a private road owner, the Department of Public Works drafts and submits to the Council a bill which would implement traffic regulations on that private road, but does not evaluate the traffic regulations proposed by the bill for reasonableness or consistency with relevant engineenng standards, in any way, could the County later be held liable for the traffic regulation? 5. Bill 68, Draft 2, adds language from sec. 46-16, HRS, that provides that the imposition of traffic regulations shall neither result in County responsibility for maintenance and repair of these streets, nor constitute ownership or control over such streets. Assuming that these proposed amendments have been passed, if the Council adopts a bill that contains traffic regulations that have been proposed without any regard for relevant traffic engineering standards, principles, or other criteria that may determine the reasonableness of the regulation, could the County later be held liable for the traffic regulation? Your input regarding any matters relating to the legal implications of this bill or the form or legality of this bill that you become aware of during your review are also requested. Witlt apologies for the short time frame, a response prior to the August I8, 1998 meeting is requested. Although extensive research and discussion has already taken place, including several meetings with Deputy Corporation Counsel Gerald Takase on this bill, these questions have been raised during my recent discussions with Council Members. Please contact me as soon as possible to discuss this. Much research, including the legislative history for the state law, has been completed and can be made available to you if it would be helpful. Thank you very much for your help. APPROVED: . r~ Connie Kiriu Legislative Auditor Encl. Bi1168, Draft 2 and Communication No. 230.02 ce: Council Member Dominic Yagong