HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0787.000 2004-2006
Hawaii State Association of Counties
Counties of Kauai, Maui and Hawaii, City & County of Honolulu
+'C) E
9A
March 24, 2006 -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Council Members
I lawai' i County Council
p.
FROM: Stacy K. Higa, Vice Chair '441/
Hawaii State Association of Counties
SUBJECT: HSAC Executive Committee Meeting of March 20, 2006
Attached for your information is the packet consisting of the HSAC Executive
Committee Meeting agenda and related communications.
The attached communications regarding the nominations to If SAC, NACo and WIR, as
well as the proposed HSAC budget for next fiscal year, are just for your information. I
will be referring the originals to the full Council under a separate cover for Council
approval.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
SKH/daw
Attachments
Comm. No.
Ref. To. W ,
Ref. Date Al
' Hawaii State Association of Counties p
Counties of Kauai, Maui, Hawaii and City and County of Honolulu q
rn AGENDA
HSAC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
v Monday, March 20, 2006
- 10:00 a.m.
- Council Committee Room, Honolulu Hale
Honolulu, Hawaii
C; U
E
1. CALL TO ORDER
IL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes of the February 16, 2006 Executive Committee Meeting,
submitted by the HSAC Secretary.
III. TREASURER'S REPORT
A} Report for January 2006, submitted by the HSAC Treasurer, by
,Z'~"correspondence dated February 9, 2006, for the fiscal period January 1
- through Januar 31, 2006.
IV. REPORTS;
A. Executive Committee Reports. "xr
B. County Reports. ~.<1. Maui County Report.
2. Hawaii County Report.
G' x
3. City and County of Honolulu Report.
z
4. Kauai County Report.}
fir.
ti-"~ rya'
HSAC Executive Committee Agenda
Page 2
C. National Association of Counties (NACo) Report.
D. Western Interstate Region (WIR) Report.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Status of HSAC bill.
1. House Bill (HB) 2541.
2. Senate Bill (SB) 2828.
B. Other bills.
1. HB 2518.
2. SB 2412.
3. HB 2515, House Draft 1.
4. SB 2415.
C. Uniform Statewide Building Code Task Force.
1. Correspondence dated March 3, 2006, from the HSAC President,
transmitting two versions of HB 3230, received from Russ K. Saito,
relating to the establishment of a State Building Code.
D. School Impact Fee Working Group.
E. Schedule of Upcoming HSAC Meetings.
April 21, 2006, Friday, Honolulu Hale, 10:00 a.m.
May 12, 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced.
Sunc i~ June 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced.
July 14, 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced.
August 2006 - no HSAC meeting.
September 2006 - no HSAC meeting.
October 13, 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced.
November 9, 2006, Thursday, place and time to be announced.
December 8, 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Proposed Annual Budget.
HSAC Executive Committee Agenda
Page 3
1. Correspondence dated February 27, 2006, from the HSAC
Treasurer, transmitting the proposed HSAC Fiscal Year 2006-2007
Annual Budget.
B. Nominations.
1. Nominations to the NACo Board of Directors.
a. Correspondence dated February 27, 2006, from the HSAC
Treasurer, informing the HSAC Executive Committee of
Councilmember Daryl Kaneshiro's nomination to serve as a
NACo Board Director, replacing Councilmember James
Kunane Tokioka.
b. Correspondence dated March 1, 2006, from the HSAC
President, requesting nominations for three NACo Directors
to be forwarded to the four counties for approval.
2. Nominations to the WIR Board of Directors.
a. Correspondence dated March 1, 2006, from the HSAC
President, requesting nominations for two WIR Directors to
be forwarded to the four counties for approval.
C. Resolution.
1. Correspondence dated March 8, 2006, from the HSAC President,
requesting consideration of a proposed resolution urging the
Governor of the State of Hawaii and the State Department of
Health, Disability and Communication Access Board, to fairly and
adequately reimburse the County of Maui for expenses incurred in
the operation of the Statewide Program on Parking for Persons with
Disabilities.
D. Miscellaneous Correspondence.
1. Correspondence dated January 2006, from the NACo County
Service Representative, transmitting a document entitled "Format
for NACo Involvement at State Association of Counties
Meetings/2006".
HSAC Executive Committee Agenda
Page 4
2. Correspondence dated February 7, 2006, from the American
Planning Association Policy Director, encouraging attendance at
the American Planning Association's National Planning Conference
in San Antonio, Texas, from April 22, 2006 through April 26, 2006.
3. Correspondence dated February 9, 2006, from Hank Bartos,
requesting support of a bid by Fairbanks, Alaska, to host the 2007
NACo/WIR meeting.
4. Correspondence (undated) received on March 6, 2006, from the
Co-Chairs of the Internet Innovation Alliance, transmitting a study
conducted by The Phoenix Center and testimony from the Mayor of
Fort Worth, Texas, pertaining to franchise reform.
VII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A. HSAC Officers.
1. Correspondence dated February 27, 2006, from the HSAC
Treasurer, informing the HSAC Executive Committee that he will
continue to serve as an HSAC Officer until December 1, 2006; and
Councilmember Mel Rapozo will serve as an HSAC alternate,
replacing Councilmember Daryl Kaneshiro.
2. Correspondence dated March 1, 2006, from the HSAC President,
requesting appointees to serve on the HSAC Executive Committee,
pursuant to the HSAC Bylaws.
VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Next Executive Committee Meeting to be held on Friday, April 21, 2006,
10:00 a.m., at Honolulu Hale.
B. Other announcements.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
ocs: proj: hsac: hsac2005-2006:06agend as:060320:ske
Hawaii State Association of Counties
Counties of Kauai, Maui and Hawaii, City & County of Honolulu
E~
MINUTES
HSAC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
February 16, 2006
Council Committee Meeting Room, City Hall
Honolulu, Hawaii
I. CAT'TO ORDER
The Executive Committee was called to order by President
Dain P. Kane at 1:06 p.m. The following members present
comprised a quorumrt ,4.:
rte"
~Ai
County of Maui: ~ ,president Dain P. Kane
County of Hawaii: Alternates7a~tes Y. Arakaki
City and County of Secretary,RamyA Gachola
Honolulu
County of Kauai: Treasurer Jame" Tokioka
Others Present: Maui Staff Shelly Espeleta.
Hawaii Staff Donna Watanabe
Kauai Staff Cyndi Ayonpn
Honolulu Staff Calvin A
IT. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
The minutes of the January 18, 2006 meeting of
Executive Committee was approved.
III. TREASURER'S REPORT
The Treasurer's Report, dated January 24, 2006, for the
fiscal period December 1 through 31, 2005 was approved.
IV. REPORTS
A. Executive Committee Report
There was no Executive Committee report. „
OCS/022706/08:36/CT
B. County Reports
There were no county reports.
C. National Association Of Counties (NACo) Report
President Kane noted that the next NACo Conference is
scheduled for March 3 to 9 in Washington D.C. He
reported that Maui Council Chair Riki Hokama and
himself are planning to attend.
Treasurer Tokioka reported that two Kauai
Councilmembers also are planning to attend.
He asked President Kane if Chair Hokama is planning to
schedule visits to the offices of the Hawaii
Congressional delegation.
President Kane responded in the affirmative.
D. Western Interstate Region (WIR) Report
President Kane stated that the next WIR Board meeting
will be held during the second week of May in
Sacramento.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Uniform Statewide Building Code Task Force
President Kane reported that he has not received any
feedback yet on the Uniform Statewide Building Code
issue. When any is received, he indicated that
Executive Committee members will be notified.
Treasurer Tokioka reported that he has circulated a
memo on the issue to the Kauai County Engineer and
Fire Chief.
Secretary Cachola stated that the Task Force report
has been sent to Honolulu Councilmembers.
Ms. Ayonon indicated that a bill to implement the Task
Force's recommendations is moving through the
Legislature.
2
President Kane requested the number of the bill so it
may be posted on subsequent agendas.
B. School Impact Fee Working Group
President Kane reported that the Working Group, of
which he is a member, will have a meeting next Monday
at the State Capitol.
Treasurer Tokioka reported that the information
previously presented was circulated to Kauai
Councilmembers. They were requested to submit
comments by February 9. None did.
C. Schedule Of Upcoming HSAC Meetings
President Kane noted that the next Executive Committee
meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 20, in
Honolulu. He asked anyone who has a problem with
meeting on that date to let him know.
Alternate Arakaki indicated that, because he will be
out-of-state, Hawaii Council Chair Stacy Higa will
attend the April 13 meeting.
President Kane stated that NACo President Bill Hansell
is interested in attending the HSAC general membership
meeting in June, even though it will not be a full-
fledged conference.
Treasurer Tokioka indicated that he attended a meeting
of the State Solid Waste Association this morning. He
suggested that HSAC join with the Association to hold
a solid waste workshop. The holding of a joint
conference or workshop on landfill regulations was
preliminarily discussed at the meeting. The June
general membership meeting date might be a good one
for the conference or workshop. He requested dialogue
on the proposal.
President Kane responded that the idea is worthy of
consideration and requested that the Executive
Committee be kept informed of the plans. He
emphasized that the Special Committee should be
cognizant of the available resources for holding a
conference in June.
3
Treasurer Tokioka remarked that the conference or
workshop probably will have to be held in Honolulu
because that is where most of the solid waste
management consultants are based.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Correspondence from Chris Cannon, member of Congress,
Utah 3rd District, requesting WIR to withdraw its
letter, dated October 1, 2005, recommending that
counties not participate with the "Western Counties
Alliance."
President Kane stated that Chris Cannon, a Utah
Congressman, has requested WIR to withdraw its letter
recommending that counties not participate with the
"Western Counties Alliance." WIR had issued the
letter because it felt that the Western Counties
Alliance was inappropriately taking credit for WIR's
work at the national level. Congressman Cannon, who
helped create the Alliance, objected to the letter and
had a long discussion about it with WIR President
Connie Eissinger. President Kane anticipated that the
matter will be discussed at the next WIR Board meeting
on March 4.
Alternate Arakaki asked: what is PILT?
President Kane responded that it is "payments in lieu
of taxes." The federal government makes certain
payments to states in lieu of the taxes that are not
imposed on exempt federal property. The western
states have a lot of federal lands, and the issue is
of major importance to them.
B. Correspondence, dated February 3, 2006, from Hawaii
Councilmember James Y. Arakaki to the HSAC President
requesting that H.B. No. 2839, relating to land use,
be placed on the agenda of the HSAC Executive
Committee meeting of February 16, 2005 for discussion.
Alternate Arakaki reported that a substitute for H.B.
No. 2839 will be heard this afternoon by the House
Economic Development and Business Concerns Committee.
The substitute, H.B. No. 1368, proposes to make legal
agricultural subdivisions created from 1976 to the
present. He requested the Executive Committee members
4
Land and Ocean Resources Committee. The Committee,
however, reported out a different bill that repeals
the sunset dates of the beach and lifeguard liability
provisions. The Committee did not act on the sunset
date of the public land liability provisions because
the State Department of Land and Natural Resources has
not yet completed a report on the impact of those
provisions. According to the Department, the report
is only 75 percent complete. He further reported that
the Senate did not hear the HSAC companion bill.
President Kane noted that the public land liability
provisions are due to sunset in June 2006 while the
other two provisions are due to sunset in June 2007.
He asked if the latter sunset date was the reason the
public land liability provisions were deleted from the
Bill.
Secretary Cachola responded in the affirmative and
also reiterated that the State Department of Land and
Natural Resources has not completed the report on the
provisions.
President Kane indicated that the counties should be
concerned and should try to get the 2007 sunset dates
repealed this year to avoid serious immunity issues
next year.
Treasurer Tokioka stated that the Kauai Council keeps
a status sheet of county-related bills, including the
liability bills. He indicated that he will transmit
the sheet to Executive Committee members.
Secretary Cachola asked whether HSAC could support the
liability bills that were not introduced for HSAC, but
have the same purpose and intent as the HSAC bills.
President Kane responded in the affirmative, noting
that the HSAC Bylaws allows the Executive Committee to
endorse county-related measures during the legislative
session. He stated that he will send supportive
testimony when the liability bills are heard.
There was no objection to the President's intent to
support the bills.
6
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, President Kane adjourned
the Executive Committee meeting at 1:37 p.m.
Very t my yours,
M. ACHOLA, Secretary
Ha ai' tate Association of Counties
7
i
Hawaii State Association of Counties
Counties of Kauai, Maul and Hawaii, City & County of Honolulu
a~ _ Y 4
February 9, 2006
mY _
Executive Committee Members
awai`i State Association of Counties
Dear Executive Co embers
t "~.anc>Please find enclosed a reporto o~ion's revenues
collected and expenses paid for the ¢ p January 1
x
through January 31, 2006.
Since
J E ANE TOIL
reasurer, Hawaii State', S } i
Association of Counties
JHSY Ol
JKT/ca2006-66 ~•W
HAWAII STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
REVENUES COLLECTED AND EXPENSES PAID
Fiscal Period: January 1 through January 31, 2006
FUND BALANCE AT BEGINNING DATE $62,237.46
This Period Year to Date Budget
001 Membership Fees $0.00 $42,000.00 $42,000.00
010 Conference Income (2004 Mid-Year Conference-Oahu) $0.00 $104.51 $10,000.00
030 Interest Income $28,55 $167.38 $300.00
050 Corporate Sponsorship $0.00 $0.00 $500.00
Carryover Balance $5,000.00
Total $28.55 $42,271.89 $57,800.00
TOTAL RECEIPTS THIS PERIOD $28.55
Disbursements
Executive Committee
201 Travel 0.00 450.00 4,500.00
202 Auditing Services 0.00 0.00 8,100.00
203 Stationery 0.00 0.00 100.00
209 Miscellaneous 0.00 5.00 500.00
Special Committees
301 Travel 0.00 0.00 600.00
309 Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 100.00
NACo
401 Travel 0.00 785.15 9,000.00
402 Promotional 0.00 0.00 500.00
403 Dues 0.00 23,686.00 23,700.00
409 Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 1,200.00
WIR
501 Travel 0.00 1,000.00 6,000.00
502 Promotional 0.00 0.00 500.00
503 Dues 2,750.00 2,750.00 3,000.00
509 Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00
Conferences
609 Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00
611 NACo Annual Conference 2005 0.00 0.00 0.00
613 2005 Mid-Year Conference 0.00 1,000.00 0.00
Total $2,750.00 $29,676.15 $ 57,800.00
TOTAL EXPENSES THIS PERIOD $2,750.00
FUND BALANCE AT END OF PERIOD: $59,516.01
Hawaii State Association of Counties q
Counties of Kauai, Maui, Uawaii and City and County of Honolulu e
March 3, 2006
Hawaii State Association of Counties (HSAC)
Executive Committee Members
Dear Members of the HSAC Executive Committee:
SUBJECT: UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE TASKFORCE
Please refer to the attached correspondence dated March 2, 2006, from Russ K.
Saito, transmitting two versions of House Bill (H.B.) 3230, relating to the establishment
of a State Building Code. The first version, H.B. 3230, House Draft (HD) 1, would allow
the counties to amend the State Building Code subject to the approval of the majority of
the State Building Code Commission. The second version, H.B. 3230 (proposed),
woul*request counties to amend the Code without approval from the Commission..
t*.revJ iew the attached legislation and be prepared to provide
comments at the HSA Committee meeting on March 20, 2006.
Thank you for yratio i uest.
S' er
DAIN P. KANE
HSAC President
Attachment
oes:proj: hsac: hsac2005-2006:061 etters: h b3230: ske
by er •n ea
90 O
Shelly Espeleta State Buiid:^g Code
Page 1
From: <russ.k.saito@hawaii.gov>
To: <shelly.espeleta@mauicounty.us>
Date: 3/2/2006 8:37:55 PM
Subject: State Building Code
Shelly Espeleta,
This is being transmitted at the request of HSAC President and Maui County
Council Chair Dain Kane.
President Kane,
Attached are two versions of Legislation that would establish a State
Building Code. The file titled "HB 3230 amended for SCR 17 (SEAOH).doc" is
what was recommended by the SCR 17 Task Force and is based on the report
and recommendation that I presented at the December 2005 HSAC Meeting on
the Big Island. The file titled "HB 3230 HD!" is what was passed out of
committee and sent to the House Committee on Finance.The substantial
difference between the two versions is that in "HB 3230 amended for SCR 17
(SEAOH).doc", the Counties may amend the State Code without the approval
of the state building code commission whereas in "HB 3230 HD!" the
Counties would amend the code subject to the approval of the majority of
the state building code commission. HB 3230 wasn't heard so it will nor
cross over. However, SB 2214 received testimony that put all of the
language in "HB 3230 amended for SCR 17 (SEAOH).doc" into the record. SB
2214 was passed out of WAM.
Whatever the outcome of the State Building Code in this year's
Legislature, It would be beneficial to understand what HSAC's position on
the proposed bill(s) would be. The attached files are provided for your
and the HSAC Executive Committee's consideration. Please call or email me
if you have any questions or require more information.
Russ Saito
HB3230 HDI Page 1 of 4
Report Title:
Building Codes; State Building Code
Description:
Establishes a state building code commission that shall adopt a comprehensive state building
code by 12/31/07 to be based on codes published by the International Code Council. Makes the
state building code the building code in each county, subject to commission approved
exemptions for individual counties. Appropriates funds for commission operations (HB3230
HD1).
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES B. N O. 3230
TWENTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, 2006 H. B. 1
STATE OF HAWAII
A BILL FOR AN ACT
relating to building codes.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. The purpose of this Act is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the
occupants or users of buildings and structures and the general public through the adoption
of a uniform statewide model building code.
SECTION 2. The Hawaii Revised Statutes is amended by adding a new chapter to be
appropriately designated and to read as follows:
"Chapter
STATE BUILDING CODE
-1 Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
"Commission" means the state building code commission.
"State building code" means the uniform statewide model building code.
S -2 State building code commission. (a) There is hereby established a state building code
commission. The commission shall be attached to the department of accounting and general
services for administrative purposes only.
(b) The commission shall consist of nine voting members, who, except as provided in
paragraph (1), shall be appointed by the governor, and one nonvoting member. The members
file,-//r•\l)ocuments%20and%20Settines\user.000\Local%20SettinQs\Temp\GW Viewer\HB3230%20H... 3/3/200(
HB3230 HD1 Page 2 of 4 .
shall include:
(1) One county building official from each of the four major counties of
the State, appointed by the mayor of each county;
(2) One member representing the state fire council;
(3) One member representing the state department of health with
significant experience in building mechanical and sewage disposal
systems;
(4) One member representing the department of labor and industrial
relations with significant experience in fire safety;
(5) One member representing the Structural Engineers Association of
Hawaii;
(6) One member representing the American Institute of Architects, Hawaii
State Chapter; and
(7) The comptroller or the comptroller's designated representative who
shall be the nonvoting member.
(c) Members shall not be compensated, but shall be reimbursed for interisland travel and
other expenses directly related to performance of their duties.
(d) The chairperson of the commission shall be elected annually by a majority of its members
from among all of its members.
(e) Except as provided in this section, the commission shall be subject to sections 26-34,
26-35, 26-35.5, and 26-36.
5 -3 Executive director and executive assistant; employees. (a) The commission shall select
an executive director, who shall serve at the pleasure of the commission and who shall have
administrative abilities and expertise in engineering or architecture, and an executive
assistant, who shall have experience in statutory and administrative rulemaking processes.
The commission may engage employees necessary to perform its duties, including
administrative personnel, as provided by section 26-35.
(b) The positions of executive director and executive assistant shall not be subject to
chapter 76; provided that the executive director and executive assistant shall be entitled
to any rights and benefits accorded to similarly employed state employees.
(c) The salaries of the executive director and executive assistant shall be determined by
the commission.
5 -4 Authority and duties of the commission; state building code. (a) Any law to the
contrary notwithstanding, by December 31, 2007, the commission shall adopt a comprehensive,
uniform state building code through the rulemaking process set forth in chapter 91.
(b) If the commission does not adopt the state building code by December 31, 2007, then the
latest editions of the codes set forth in subsection (c) (1) to (4), together shall be the
state building code.
(c) The state building code shall be based on the latest editions, as published by the
International Code council, of:
~lo•//(` \PNrnm on4e4/7(\anA~~7n~'PH1T14C~11CP.7 0n0\T,ncfl1%20Settines\TemD\GVWiewer\HB3230%20H... 3/3/2006
HB3230 HD1 Page 3 of4
(1) The International Building Code;
(2) The International Residential Code;
(3) The International Mechanical Code;
(4) The International Plumbing Code; and
(5) Code provisions based upon nationally published codes or standards
that include but are not limited to fire, elevator, electrical energy
conservation standards for building design and construction, private
sewage disposal, and hurricane resistive standards for one- and two-
family residential construction.
(d) In adopting the state building code, the commission shall appoint a subcommittee
comprised solely of each of the commissioners appointed pursuant to section -2(b)(1),
whose duty shall be to recommend to the commission any necessary or desirable state
amendments to the codes and standards in subsection (c), for inclusion in the state building
code. Any recommended state amendments shall require the unanimous agreement of the
subcommittee.
(e) The commission may appoint other investigative or technical expertise committees that
may include commissioners and other appropriate persons.
(f) In adopting the state building code, the commission shall not adopt provisions that:
(1) Relate to administrative, permitting, or enforcement and inspection
procedures of each county; or
(2) Prohibit indigenous, pre-western contact, Hawaiian architecture.
(g) Upon adoption of the state building code, the commission shall review and adopt, for
inclusion in the state building code, new model building codes, as appropriate, within
eighteen months of their official published date.
(h) The commission shall provide educational and technical training and administrative
assistance in the form of services or grants at the state and county levels relating to the
implementation and enforcement of the state building code and county building codes adopted
pursuant to this chapter.
(i) The commission may make expenditures for technical references, equipment and supplies,
and other operating expenses and may contract, pursuant to chapter 103D, for the conduct of
research studies and provision of technical services.
§ -5 County building codes; exemptions. (a) Any law, charter provision, ordinance, or rule
notwithstanding, upon the adoption of the state building code by the commission or the
automatic enactment of the state building code pursuant to section -4(b), the state building
code shall be the building code for each county and shall supersede any law, charter
provision, ordinance, or rule of any county relating to building codes and standards.
(b) At any time prior to the adoption of the state building code and from time to time after
the adoption of the state building code by the commission, any county may petition the
commission for an exemption from the state building code as it applies within the
petitioning county's jurisdiction. Any county exemption shall be consistent with the minimum
performance standards of the state building code, promote the health, safety, and welfare of
the occupants or users of buildings and structures and the general public, and shall be
Mfl\T.nna1°/(1Cettinoa\Temn\~WViewer\HA3230%20H... 3/3/2006
HB3230 HDl Page 4 of 4
subject to the approval of a majority of the members of the commission."
SECTION 3. There is appropriated out of the general revenues of the State of Hawaii the sum
of $ or so much thereof as may be necessary for fiscal year 2006-2007 for the
operations of the state building code commission and any technical assistance services and
technical assistance grants provided by the commission to the city and county of Honolulu,
the county of Hawaii, the county of Kauai, and the county of Maui.
The sum appropriated shall be expended by the department of accounting and general services
for the purposes of this Act.
SECTION 4. This Act does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were
incurred, and proceedings that were begun, before its effective date.
SECTION 5. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2006.
F 1 e • / •\Tlnnnm cn4c~/ 7 (lanAo~ 70R eYY1T14C\11SP.T'.000\T.oea' %20Settin2s\Temt)\GVvViewer\HB323 0%20H... 3/3/2006
Structural Engineers Association of Hawaii Proposal Feb. 14, 2006
Report Title:
State Building Code
Description:
Adopts for the State the International Building Code, and requires
the counties to utilize this and other model codes for the basis
of county building codes within two years after State adoption by
a State Building Code Commission.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 3230
H. B. NO. (proposed)
TWENTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, 2006
STATE OF HAWAII
A BILL FOR AN ACT
RELATING TO BUILDING CODES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. The legislature finds that the counties have
heretofore adopted various portions of the building codes, but
these codes differ considerably from county to county', and
fragmented building requirements in Hawaii are of serious concern
to those involved in building design and construction and code
enforcement. The degree of life safety protection afforded by
county building codes varies from county to county. For reasons of
public safety, buildings need to conform to modern standards to
afford sufficient protection against hurricanes, earthquakes,
tsunami, floods, fire, and other natural hazards. The adoption of
a set of statewide model building codes applicable to one and two
family dwellings, all other residential uses, and commercial,
industrial, and State buildings would provide for building owners,
designers, contractors, and code enforcers within the State to
apply a consistent set of standards, and the health and safety
considerations related to these codes are of statewide interest.
Having investigated the feasibility of a statewide model building
code process through a Task Force convened by the Department of
Accounting and General Services, which provided recommendations by
unanimous consensus, this Act addresses the need to:
' Revised Ordinances, City & County of Honolulu, Chapter 16, Article 1, County
of Hawaii, Chapter 5, County of Kauai, Chapter 12, County of Maui, Chapter 16
Structural Engineers Association of Hawaii Proposal Feb. 14, 2006
a. Produce quicker response in adopting better life safety
provisions.
b. Mitigate economic losses and casualties from future natural
disasters, such as fires, tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, and
hurricanes.
c. Create standards that substantially coordinate both state and
county codes.
d. Require more timely and predictable adoption of performance
standards for construction and construction materials,
consistent with modern accepted standards of engineering,
fire and life safety of statewide interest.
e. Ensure that all related codes are updated and adopted nearly
concurrently, avoiding contradictory or confusing layers of
regulation, and eliminate restrictive, obsolete, conflicting,
duplicating and unnecessary regulations and requirements
which could unnecessarily increase construction costs or
retard the use of new materials and methods of installation
or provide unwarranted preferential treatment to types or
classes of materials or products or methods of construction.
f. Permit the use of modern technical methods, devices and
improvements that should lead to greater economy.
g. Create a more favorable property insurance and reinsurance
market that reflects reduced expected losses in the future by
adopting consistent building standards that will replace the
current fragmented and obsolete codes and building
regulations.
h. Ensure compliance with State and County Hazard Mitigation
Plans and National Flood Insurance Program requirements
mandated by the federal government.
i. Administer a more efficient code adoption process with
overall economy of total effort, and this would promote
efficiency in county code adoptions and the overall benefits
of simplification.
j. Provide an increased level of needed technical support to the
Counties to adopt codes and standards on a consistent
periodic basis.
SECTION 2. The Hawaii Revised Statutes is amended by adding a
new chapter to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:
"CHAPTER
STATE BUILDING CODE
§ -1 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the
health, safety, and welfare of the occupants or users of buildings
and structures and the general public through the adoption of
statewide model building codes and standards.
Structural Engineers Association of Hawaii Proposal Feb. 14, 2006
§ -2 State building code commission. (a) There is hereby
established a state building code commission. The commission
shall be assigned, for administrative purposes only, to the
department of accounting and general services.
(b) The commission shall consist of nine voting members and
one non-voting member. The members shall include:
(1) One county building official from each of the four
major counties of the State;
(2) One member representing the state fire council;
(3) One member representing the state department of health
with significant experience in building mechanical and sewage
disposal systems;
(4) One member representing the department of labor and
industrial relations with significant experience in fire
safety;
(5) One member representing the Structural Engineers
Association of Hawaii;
(6) One member representing the American Institute of
Architects, Hawaii State Chapter.
(7) The comptroller or the comptroller's designated
representative. The comptroller shall be the non-voting
member.
(c) Members shall not be compensated, but shall be
reimbursed for inter-island travel and other expenses directly
related to performance of their duties.
(d) The chairperson of the commission shall be elected
annually by a majority of its members from among all of its
members.
§ -3 Executive director and executive assistant. The
commission shall select an executive director, who shall serve at
the pleasure of the commission and who shall have administrative
abilities and expertise in engineering or architecture, and an
executive assistant, who shall have experience in statutory and
administrative rulemaking processes.
5 -4 Authority and duties of the commission. (a) Any law to
the contrary notwithstanding, the commission shall establish a
comprehensive state building code through the rulemaking process
set forth in chapter 91.
(b) The design of all state building construction shall be in
compliance with the state building code within one year of its
effective date. As used in this chapter, "state building
construction" means "any building construction project or program
initiated by a state agency or requiring the use of state funds."
Structural Engineers Association of Hawaii Proposal Feb. 14, 2006
(c) The state building code shall include the latest edition
of:
(1) The International Building Code;
published by the International Code Council; and
(2) Code provisions based on nationally published codes or
standards that include but are not limited to residential and
hurricane resistive standards for one- and two-family
residential construction, fire, elevator, electrical,
plumbing, mechanical, energy conservation standards for
building design and construction, and private sewage
disposal.
(d) The commission shall appoint a subcommittee comprised
solely of each of commissioners holding the county building
official seats, whose duty shall be to recommend any necessary or
desirable state amendments to the national and international model
codes. Any recommended state amendments shall require the
unanimous agreement of the subcommittee.
(f) The commission may appoint other investigative technical
expertise committees which may include commissioners.
(e) The commission shall review and adopt, as appropriate,
new model building codes within 18 months of their official
published date.
(f) The commission may make expenditures for technical
references, equipment and supplies, and other operating expenses,
and may contract for the conduct of research studies and provision
of technical services.
(g) The commission shall provide education and technical
training and administrative assistance in the form of services or
grants at the state and county levels relating to the
implementation and enforcement of the state building code and
county building codes adopted pursuant to this chapter.
(h) In adopting a statewide building code, the commission
shall not adopt provisions that:
(1) Relate to administrative, permitting, or enforcement
and inspection procedures of each county; and
(2) Prohibit indigenous (pre-western contact) Hawaiian
architecture.
Structural Engineers Association of Hawaii Proposal Feb. 14, 2006
§ -5 Annual report. The department of accounting and
general services shall report to the legislature no less than
twenty days prior to the opening of the regular session on the
commission's activities and accomplishments."
§ -6 County amendments The governing body of each county is
authorized to amend the state building code as it applies within
its jurisdiction, in accordance with section 46-1.5(13), without
approval of the commission. Each county shall use the model codes
listed in section -4(c), as the referenced model building codes
for its county building code ordinance no later than two years
after the adoption of the state building code. County amendments
shall be consistent with the minimum performance standards of the
state building code and the objectives enumerated in section -1.
If the counties do not amend the statewide model codes within the
two-year timeframe, the state building code shall become
applicable as the interim county building code until such time
that the county adopts its amendments.
SECTION 3. There is appropriated out of the general revenues
of the State of Hawaii the sum of $ , or so much thereof as
may be necessary for fiscal year 2006-2007, for operations of the
state building code commission. There is appropriated out of the
general revenues of the State of Hawaii the sum of $ , or so
much thereof as may be necessary for fiscal year 2006-2007, for
technical assistance services and technical assistance grants by
the commission to the City and County of Honolulu, the County of
Hawaii, the County of Kauai, and the County of Maui.
The sum appropriated shall be expended by the department of
accounting and general services.
SECTION 4. This Act does not affect rights and duties that
matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were
begun, before its effective date.
SECTION 5. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2006.
Hawaii State Association of Counties
Counties of Kauai, Maui and Hawaii, City & C ousxty of Honolulu
S~ Y
< 0
a MEMORANDUM s
February 27, 2006
TO: MEMBERS OF THE HSAC E CUTIVE COMMITTEE
,R
FROM: JAMES KUNANE TOKIO REASURER
RE: HSAC FY 2006-2007 ANNUAL BUDGET
Pursuant to the ByLaws of the.Hawai`i State Association of Counties and as
the Treasurer of the Association,-fam submitting the attached budget for Fiscal
Year 2006-2007 along with the budget details.
In preparing this next year's balanced budget, I have incorporated the
following assumptions and changes:
1) Interest income decreased from last fiscal year.
2) Conference Income will remain the same from last fiscal year, with
only one (1) conference to be held in June 2007 pursuant to
the ByLaws.
3) HSAC assessments (dues) will remain the same for each county from
last fiscal year.
4) Executive Committee Travel will increase from last fiscal year.
5) Auditing/Professional services account will decrease from last
fiscal year.
6) Special Committee Travel will increase from last fiscal year.
7) NACo dues to increase by 2.8%.
It is my recommendation that the Executive Committee submit this budget
by April 15, 2006 to the Councils for consideration.
Att.
FY 2006-2007
BUDGET DETAILS:
Revenues
1) Interest Income ($9.58 x 12 months) = $115.00
2) Conference Income from June 2007 Year-End Conference = $10,000.00
3) County Assessments ($10,500.00 x 4 counties) = $42,000.00
Expenditures
1) Executive Committee Travel = $5,250.00
($175 x 3 members x 10 meetings)
2) Executive Committee Audit/Professional Services = $4,500.00
($4,500 financial audit/professional services)
3) Executive Committee Miscellaneous = $500.00
4) Stationery = $100.00
5) Special Committee Travel = $2,100.00
($175 x 3 members x 1 committee x 4 mtgs.)
6) Special Committee Miscellaneous = $100.00
(contingency or Special Committee expenses)
7) NACo Travel = $9,000.00
($1,000 x 3 Board Directors x 3 mtgs.)
8) NACo Promotional = $500.00
(promotions at NACo meetings)
9) NACo Miscellaneous = $1,200.00
(Congressional Luncheon and contingency)
10) NACo Dues = $24,365.00
(City & County $18,390.00; Hawaii $2,650.00; Kauai $1,120.00;
Maui $2,205.00)
11) WIR Travel = $6,000.00
($1,000 x 2 Board Director x 3 meetings)
12) WIR Promotional = $500.00
(promotions at WIR meetings)
13) WIR Dues = $3,000.00
($2,750 for dues/$250 for Public Lands Trust Fund)
PROPOSED HSAC BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007
Proposed
FY 05-06 FY 06-07
REVENUES Budget Budget
1. Interest Income 300.00 115.00
2. Conference Income 10,000.00 10,000.00
3. County Assessments 42,000.00 42,000.00
4. Corporate Sponsorship 500.00 00.00
Total Revenues 52,800.00 52,115.00
Fund Balance, prior FY 5,000.00 5,000.00
TOTAL REVENUES AND FUND BALANCE 57,800.00 57,115.00
EXPENDITURES
HSAC Committees:
1. Executive Committee Travel 4,500.00 5,250.00
2. Auditing/Professional Services 8,100.00 4,500.00
3. Executive Committee Misc. 500.00 500.00
4. Stationery 100.00 100.00
Special Committees:
5. Special Committee Travel 600.00 2,100.00
6. Special Committee Misc. 100.00 100.00
NACo/WIR:
7. NACo Travel 9,000.00 9,000.00
8. NACo Promotional 500.00 500.00
9. NACo Miscellaneous 1,200.00 1,200.00
10. NACo Dues 23,700.00 24,365.00
11. WIR Travel 6,000.00 6,000.00
12. WIR Promotional 500.00 500.00
13. WIR Dues 3,000.00 3,000.00
14. NACo Conference - 2005 (O`ahu) 00.00 00.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 57,800.00 57,115.00
s~
COUNTY COUNCIL a~qY OF p~ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK
Bill "Kaipo" Asing, Chair p Gy
James Kunane Tokioka, Vice Chair Peter A. Nakamura, County Clerk
Jay Furfaro G Ernesto G. Pasion, Deputy County Clerk
Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho
Daryl W. Kaneshiro qT~ P Phone (808) 241-6371
Mel Rapozo OF Fax (808) 241-6349
JOAnn A. Yukimura
Council Services Division
4396 Rice Street, Room 206
Lihu'e, Kauai, Hawai'i 96766-1371
February 27, 2006
=-n =19 FT-1
Dain Kane, HSAC President -<m
and Members nc) m
200 South High Street xT r^
Wailuku, HI 96793 t
t- o
Dear President Kane:
Subject: NACo Board Representative and HSAC Alternate
This is to inform you that the Kauai County Council at its February 22, 2006
meeting approved the following changes in our county's representation to the NACo
Board and the HSAC Board for the remainder of the term ending December 1, 2006.
National Association of Counties (NACo) Board
Councilmember Daryl Kaneshiro - Director (replacing James Kunane Tokioka)
Hawaii State Association of Counties (HSAC) Board
Councilmember Mel Rapozo - Alternate (replacing Daryl Kaneshiro)
I will continue to serve as the Kauai County Council representative to the
HSAC Board until December 1, 2006. Serving on the NACo Board was a valuable
experience for me and I wish to express my heartfelt appreciation to all of you for
your support.
Upon your approval, may I request that the HSAC President submit a
request to the NACo President Bill Hansill for Councilmember Kaneshiro to serve
as my replacement.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sine yES OKIOKA
Council Vice Chair
HSAC Representative
JKT/ca2006-100
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Hawaii State Association of Counties
Counties of Kauai, Maui, Hawaii and City and County of Honolulu v
March 1, 2006
Hawaii State Association of Counties (HSAC)
Executive Committee Members
Dear Members of the HSAC Executive Committee:
SUBJECT: NOMINATIONS TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES (NACO) BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Pursuant to Section 5A of the HSAC Bylaws, may I please request that you be
prepared to discuss the nomination of three NACo Directors to serve on the NACo
Board of Directors for the period of July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 at the HSAC
Executive Committee meeting on March 20, 2006. Once the HSAC Executive
Committee has reached an agreement on the nominations, the names of the nominees
shall b ded to the four counties for approval. If all four counties approve of the
nomii: names shall be forwarded to the NACo President and Board of Directors
for cons Ion.
For ease of refere ation 5A of the HSAC Bylaws states:
There shall be three (3) Directors rvi on the National Association of
Counties' Board of Directors who ar i ositions by HSAC. All
three (3) of the Directors shall be ele !We ifferent NACo member
counties within the State of Hawaii. The all be nominated by the
executive committee and the individual councils and forwar to the NACo
President and Board of Directors for consideration in accorda Article VI
of the NACo Bylaws. In the event of a vacancy, the vacancy led in
accordance with Article VI of the NACo Bylaws.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,. '
DAIN P. N
HSAC President
ocs:proj: hsac: hsac2005-2006:06lefters: NACoBoardNominations:ske
oa •O
Hawaii State Association of Counties .9
Counties of Kauai, Maui, Hawaii and City and County of Honolulu v
Mf•
March 1, 2006
Hawaii State Association of Counties (HSAC)
Executive Committee Members
Dear Members of the HSAC Executive Committee:
SUBJECT: NOMINATION TO THE WESTERN INTERSTATE REGION
(WIR) BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Pursuant to Section 5B of the HSAC Bylaws, may I please request that you be
prepared to discuss the nomination of two WIR Directors to serve on the WIR Board of
Directors for the period of July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 at the HSAC Executive
Committee meeting on March 20, 2006. Once the HSAC Executive Committee has
reached an agreement on the nominations, the names of the nominees shall be
forward a four counties for approval.
your ease of ref, .ence, Section 5B of the HSAC Bylaws states:
There may be two . , e. ctors serving on the Western Interstate Regions' (WIR)
Board of Directors ti _{arecto elected officials from a NACo member
shall be nominated by the
county within the State of Hawaii. V e'
executive committee and approve by 'dual councils. Upon
appointment, the Directors shall atten pos s of the WIR Board of
Directors. In the event that a Director is una a end a posted WIR Board of
Director's meeting, the HSAC President or a President's des' ee shall attend
the meeting in the Director's place. The designee shall be ted official
from a member county. In accordance with Article 4, Secti WIR
Bylaws, any vacancy shall be filled by HSAC.
K
Thank you for consideration of this matter.
I
Sincerely,
DAIN P. N
HSAC President
ocs:prof:hsac:hsac2005-2006:06letters:WIR nomination:ske
90 `dyrr w,yw
,M~ U TY
` Hawaii State Association of Counties 4
Counties of Kauai, Maui, Hawaii and City and County of Honolulu v
March 8, 2006
Hawaii State Association of Counties (HSAC)
Executive Committee Members
Dear Members of the HSAC Executive Committee:
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE STATEWIDE
PROGRAM ON PARKING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Attached for your consideration is Resolution No. 06-20 entitled, "URGING THE
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF HAWAII AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION ACCESS BOARD TO FAIRLY AND ADEQUATELY
REIMBURSE THE COUNTY OF MAUI FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE OPERATION OF
THE STATEWIDE PROGRAM ON PARKING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES", adopted by
the Maui County Council at its meeting on March 3, 2006.
e of the proposed resolution is to urge the Governor of the State of Hawaii and the
St Dep of Health, D• bility and Communication Access Board (DCAB) to fairly and
quately reimburse the . Maui for expenses incurred in the operation of the Statewide
Program on Parking for Per Disabilities. The resolution proposes to include a provision in
future Memoranda of Agreem n th +Maui and DCAB, commencing in Fiscal Year
2007, to fund one equivalent full-time position respo le a issuance of parking placards.
In the past, the City and County of Honolul ounty and County of Hawaii have
entered into similar agreements with the State regarding di ion of parking placards. May I
request your support of the proposed resolution and drafting of related legislat for your respective
counties.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely yours,
,DC4--- P
DAIN P. KANE
HSAC President
Attachment
ocs:proj:hsac:hsac2005-2006:06letters:placardreso:ske
YA,,,r a yb
J~SY Of
LO
ROY T. HIRAGA JEFFREY T. KUWADA
County Clerk Deputy County Clerk
Sj~TF Of Hf~'
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK
COUNTY OF MAUI
200 SOUTH HIGH STREET
WAILUKU, HAWAII 96793
March 6, 2006
aC
c~
x TI a (7';
°
Honorable Dain P. Kane, President
FTI
Hawaii State Association of Counties C')1
Executive Committee t" ion
200 South High Street
Wailuku, Hawaii 96793
Dear Sir:
Respectfully transmitted is a copy of Resolution No. 06-20, which
was adopted by the Council of the County of Maui at its meeting held on
March 3, 2006.
Respectfully yours,
~Y T. HI GA
County Clerk
/jym
Enclosure
Resolution
No. 06-20
URGING THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
HAWAII AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, DISABILITY AND COMMUNICATION
ACCESS BOARD TO FAIRLY AND ADEQUATELY
REIMBURSE THE COUNTY OF MAUI FOR
EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE OPERATION OF THE
STATEWIDE PROGRAM ON PARKING FOR
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
WHEREAS, the State Department of Health, Disability and Communication
Access Board (DCAB) is responsible for administering the Statewide Program on
Parking for Persons with Disabilities; and
WHEREAS, the County of Maui's Motor Vehicle and Licensing Division on
Maui and Driver Licensing Sections on Molokai and Lanai, respectively, have distributed
parking placards and identification cards to qualified persons with disabilities on behalf
of the State since November 1994; and
WHEREAS, as stated in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Memorandum of Agreement
between DCAB and the County of Maui, the Motor Vehicle and Licensing Division is
also responsible for obtaining and maintaining computer hardware, software, and intemet
service at the expense of the County to gain access to the parking permit database system;
ensuring that staff assigned to issue permits and input applicant information in the
database receives adequate training approved and conducted by DCAB; inputting all
application and transaction information within 48 hours or two working days from the
date of receipt; attending quarterly meetings at DCAB's Honolulu office at the expense
of the County (excluding airfare); conducting periodic checks and taking appropriate
corrective action in cases where issuance procedures are not strictly followed; and
securely storing parking placards and expiration decals to protect from loss, damage, or
theft; and
WHEREAS, in FY 2005, the County's annual expenses for running the State's
parking placard program totaled approximately $42,000; and
WHEREAS, these expenses do not account for future personnel salary
adjustments, nor do they factor in costs incurred by the County even when a parking
placard is not issued; and
Resolution No. 06-20
WHEREAS, in addition to retaining approximately $4,200 as revenue collected
from the distribution of temporary and replacement parking placards, the County received
a mere $9,495 in FY 2005 for services rendered, and is projected to receive a similar
reimbursement amount in FY 2006; and
WHEREAS, the $9,495 reimbursement amount translates into just one-quarter of
the County's total annual expenses, an amount that falls grossly short of the County's
cumulative costs of operating a State program; and
WHEREAS, Maui County strongly contends that the overall costs to efficiently
run the program have increased, and the $10 cost of issuing a parking placard per vehicle
is no longer sufficient; and
WHEREAS, although DCAB has proposed to increase the $10 unit cost to $12,
Maui County remains unconvinced that a $2 increase will remedy the severely
unbalanced share of costs with the State; and
WHEREAS, Maui County deserves to be fairly and adequately reimbursed for
operating a program that is clearly under the State's jurisdiction, and therefore, a State
responsibility; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the County of Maui:
1. That it hereby urges the Governor of the State of Hawaii and DCAB to
fairly and adequately reimburse the County of Maui for expenses incurred
in the operation of the Statewide Program on Parking for Persons with
Disabilities; and
2. That it hereby urges the Governor of the State of Hawaii and DCAB to
include a provision in future Memoranda of Agreement with the County of
Maui, commencing in FY 2007, to fund one equivalent full-time position
responsible for the issuance of parking placards; and
3. That certified copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Honorable
Linda Lingle, Governor of the State of Hawaii; Maui's delegation to the
Hawaii State Legislature; the Honorable Alan M. Arakawa, Mayor of the
County of Maui; Director of Finance, County of Maui; the Executive
Committee of the Hawaii State Association of Counties; and DCAB.
paEske:06-036b
COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF MAUI
WAILUKU, HAWAII 96793
CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION
It is HEREBY CERTIFIED that RESOLUTION NO. 06-20 was adopted by the
Council of the County of Maui, State of Hawaii, on the 3rd day of March, 2006, by
the following vote:
G. RIM Robert Michelle Jo Anne Dain P. Dennis A. Michael J. JoaePh Charcoal.
MEMBERS HOKAMA CARROLL ANDERSON JOHNSON KANE MATEO MOLINA PONTANILLA TAVARES
Chair Vice-Chair
ROLL CALL Excused Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye
J
N CLERK
NACO National Association of Counties
January 2006
Re: State Association of Counties Meetines/Visits by NACo Officers and Staff.
The year has just begun and already we at NACo have compiled (to the best of our
ability) the list for all of the meetings for 2006 and have sent NACo Officers and Staff
out to meetings! Andrew Goldschmidt visited Mississippi and NACo President Bill
Hansell attended the Delaware Annual Meeting last evening.
Next week f will send a PDFJIe of the state association meeting dates and locations
(getting a few last minute ones in) for you to peruse, and again give us your chcnages, if
there are any.
Now you might ask how do I go about getting a NACo officer, or NACo staff
member to attend our state association of counties meeting? You contact me. Kaye
Braaten, NACo County Service Representative at ki t as=erta`naco_o or give me a call
at 202-942-4291. All invitations for travel to state association meetings are "funneled"
through me.
Following are the instructions that have been given to me by NACo Executive Director
Larry Naake and by the NACo Executive Committee for making the arrangements for
visits to the state association meetings:
First and foremost remember that our presence at the state association meeting is to be
an enhancement to your program. With that in mind I need to:
• Make every attempt to have a NACo presence at one meeting in each state each
year.
• Have only one NACo officer at a state association meeting unless it is a state that
has a NACo officer serving in their state.
• Have a NACo membership presence in those states with potential membership
gain.
• Try to interest the state associations in utilizing the various programs that NACo
offers. You can find out more about these programs by reading through the
Community Services Department Resource Guide on the NACo website at
v, ~=,w ii c,.~v:g. You will find several programs that offer counties grant
opportunities! I will send this Resource Guide out at the same time as I send the
PDFftle for meeting dates and locations.
440 First Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2080
202/393-6226
Fax 2021393.2630
www.naw.org
Motivate the state associations to "showcase" the NACo/FSC and US
Communities cost saving programs. You can learn more about these programs by
visiting the NACo web site at .i -'-_r.a•,:c._ c_: I will send more information about
these programs next week also.
e And last, but definitely not least, remind the state associations that endorse the
NACo/NRS Deferred Compensation Program to place the NACo booth next to
the NRS booth for maximum marketing opportunities during their state
association meetings. To learn more about this almost $8 billion program that
assists county employees save for their retirement visit the NACo website at
To accomplish these goals, I have enclosed a Format for NACo Involvement at State
Association of Counties Meetings. Some of you will note that there is an officer or staff
member who has already expressed a desire to attend your conference in order to present,
or follow a specific policy or program. You decide whether, or not you will be willing to
have the listed person attend and what you would like that individual to do during their
visit to the meeting. Or, you might want to have someone else attend. Just let me know.
If the individual you have requested is unable to attend, we may be able to send another
officer, or staff member. Always remember that I will try to get you "what you want"!
After you decide who and what you want, fill out the Format form and send it via e-mail
tome, Kaye Braaten. Once again my e-mail address is I will then
shepherd this through the NACo structure and make every attempt to meet your request.
We are already receiving invitations for the officers so don't hesitate to let me know now
about this year's meetings.
Thank ou so much for all of your time and consideration. If you have any questions,
pleas et me know. E-mail is the best way to contact me.
Kaye Braaten
NACo County Service Representative
Format for NACo Involvement at State Association of Counties
Meetings/2006
Hawaii State Association of Counties
NACo Officer or Staff person requested
General
What are the dates of the conference?
Where will the conference take place?
What City/County?
What Hotel?
Who will be the contact person for this meeting? Name, address, cell phone,
number please.
What is the dress code for this meeting?
Will there be arrangements made for pick-up and delivery to and from the airport,
train?
How many people usually participate in your conferences?
Does your conference have a theme?
What are the five most important services provided by counties in your state?
NACo E_cecuth e Director Larry _hake is requesting this information.
Are there any major speakers attending your conference?
From Congress?
Governor?
Does your conference have an exhibit hall?
What are the dates and times the exhibit hall is open?
Would it be possible for us to supply materials for your packets? Such as the NACo
Prescription Drug Discount Card?
When would you have to have the materials delivered to you for that purpose?
NACo President/Executive Committee
Would you like the NACo President to speak at your meeting?
If the President is unavailable, would you like another officer to speak?
At what session would either the president or other officer speak?
What topic would you like the president to cover in his/her presentation?
How long would you like the president to speak?
Would it be appropriate for the officer to attend your association's board meeting/
dinner?
Would it be possible to arrange a meeting (luncheon or breakfast) of the officer and the
state's NACo Board member/members and those who serve on NACo steering
committees?
Larry Naake. NACo Executive Director
If Larry Naake is able to attend, can he be included in the program?
Membership
If NACo would like to run an ad in your publication prior to the meeting would you be
able to provide us with free space or what would the rates be for corresponding ad sizes?
If there is a NACo Officer or Larry Naake attending the meeting, would it be possible for
the NACo staff person attending to be introduced or given an opportunity to address the
group?
For Future Meetings, consider the following:
Enterprise Services
There are many services provided by NACo/FSC and US Communities. Consider doing
a workshop about these programs for the benefit of your counties.
Special Projects
Please check the NACo Website for a listing of all the projects that NACo offers in the
Community Services Department. You might be able to utilize these NACo staff people
as panelists, or to do a complete workshop on one of your Hot Topics.
Lezislative Affairs.
Legislative affairs staff are available to discuss key issues in general sessions or
participate in workshops.
Financial Considerations
Registration fees:
Will you be willing to waive these for NACo officers and staff?
Booth fees:
Will you be willing to waive these fees?
Hotel rooms: Will you be willing to make reservations for the NACo Officers? Does
your association cover the expenses? .
Thank you for filling this out Hopefully this will be beneficial for both NACo and the
state associations.
Kaye Braaten
NACo County Services Representative
American Making Great Communities Happen
Planning
Association
February 7, 2006
Dear Colleague:
I strongly encourage you to consider attending this year's APA National Planning Conference, which will be held
in San Antonio, April 22-26. With over 300 sessions and 65 mobile workshops, our conference covers a wide
range of topics important to America's communities, from economic development Lund envirora-nental planning to
the latest in civic participation technologies. Highlights include the following special track:::
• Safe Growth - Learn about post-disaster recovery efforts irl tha wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Other
sessions address hazard mitigation, disaster preparedness and other issues to help create safer communities.
• Housing Choice and Affordability - This track address: s APR's upcorning Super Topic, an issue in planning
that our organization will be championing over the next 18 matiths throuJm our Publications a iid programs.
This track will attend to the relationship between planning and housing programs and :iiscuss ways to
promote housing options to meet the needs of all people.
• Additional tracks include: American Property Rights and .Load Use, Plarningfor Mater, Planing and the
Food System, Revitalization of Downtowns and Transportation Shaping Regions.
Please note that early-bird registration for this year's conference ends February 23rl. The last date for registratioll
prior to the conference will be March 23i1. You can book your hotal online at:
www.planning.org/2006conference/housinp.htm using APR's Housing Bureau, l hope to see you in April!
Sincerely,
O~
Jeffrey Soule, FAICP n Z}
Policy Director q ^r-
opt
t`j
Plrn.ve rrplr /a
National headquarim Chicago office David M. Siegel, AICP, Prosident
1776 Massachusetts Ave. WT. Suite 400 122 S. Michigan Ave.. Suite 1600 Marv Kay Peck. ART, Immediate Past President
Washington. DC 30036 Chicago, IL 60603 W. Paul Farmer, svcr, Executive Director S CEO
Phone 202.872.0611 Fax 202.872.0643 Phone 312.431.9100 Fax 312.431.9985 www.planning.mg
February 9, 2006
Mr. Dain Kane
President
Hawaii State Association of Counties
200 South High Street
Wailuku, HI 96793-2155
Dear Mr. Kane:
It is coming up on the NACO Legislative Conference in DC and t know that means the
Western Interstate Region Board of Directors will be making a decision on the site of the
2007 WIR Annual meeting. As you know, Fairbanks has invited WIR to meet on the
banks of the beautiful Chena River that runs through our town. We appreciate that the
WIR Board last year made the necessary changes to the Request for Proposal that
allowed Fairbanks to extend this invitation.
I was struck last year by the Board's enthusiastic response to the idea of a meeting in
Fairbanks. May is a great time of the year to visit Fairbanks, just as we are beginning
surnmer but before high tourism season. This means the prices are still relatively low
and the attractions will belong to our attendees. The temperature is in the 60's and 70's
during the day and we have almost 20 hours of daylight.
Working with the Fairbanks Convention and Visitors Bureau we have come up with an
outstanding array of activities and special sites that will make this a truly memorable
convention. The FCVB will be working with the airlines to secure a discount on airfares.
Our Fairbanks International Airport offers direct flights in the summer to and from several
major airport hubs. There is also a wonderful package offered by the Alaska Railroad
and Alaska Airlines. Through this package you can fly into Anchorage and then travel by
rail to Fairbanks. During this trip you are able to see up close the unimaginable
wilderness that is Alaska. You can travel straight through to Fairbanks or get off the
train in Denali National Park, the home of Mt. McKinley, and spend a few days before
completing your trip to Fairbanks. When you are ready to go home, you just hop on an
Alaska Airlines jet and you'll be back in Anchorage in 45 minutes with connecting flights
to the Lower 48.
While you are in Fairbanks you will be dining on fresh salmon and halibut, seeing
Fairbanks the way the early pioneers did by riverboat, and meeting some of the
friendliest people you can imagine. Our small town hospitality and pioneer spirit will
make each member's stay one they will remember for a lifetime.
I am hopeful that I can count on you to support Fairbanks' bid for the 2007 NACo/WIR
meeting. Members of the community including the Fairbanks North Star Borough, our
Mayor Jim Whitaker, and the entire visitor's industry look forward to seeing you in
Fairbanks and ensuring a great and memorable meeting.
Sincerely,
Hank Bartos
RFCFIvro
lie
'06 MA!' -6 p p ;44
ii
Dear Councilmember Kane:
As the National Association of Counties prepares to host their Annual Legislative Conference in
Washington, D.C. March 4-8, we wanted to take this opportunity to provide you with our perspective on one
of the most important consumer issues likely to be debated in Washington this year - the issue of video
franchising authority, particularly as it relates to competitive new services.
Consumers across the country are at the mercy of ever-increasing cable television rates because this industry
has virtually no competition, and archaic franchising rules are blocking new entrants from the market.
Attached is one piece of recent testimony that addresses this issue. It is from Fort Worth Mayor Mike j
Moncrief, who testified before the FCC open meeting on franchise reform in Keller, Texas. We commend
the Mayor for his commitment to both reform and to consumers, and we hope you will find his perspective
informative as well.
I ~I
It should be noted the Mayor was originally an opponent of franchise reform. Eventually, Mayor Moncrief
concluded that consumers deserve more choice and lower prices when it come to choosing their video
offerings, and that franchising reform brings those benefits to all citizens.
ii
We have also included for your review, a recent study conducted by The Phoenix Center which demonstrates
that delay in franchise reforms deprives consumers across the country.
I
The Internet Innovation is committed to increased usage and availability of broadband through wise policy
decisions. We urge you to read Mayor Moncrief s testimony with an open mind. We believe his testimony
will help you to understand why we support reforms that will ultimately bring consumer benefits and
investments to your cities and your constituents as well.
Sincerely,
I,
Larry Irving, Co-Chair IIA Bruce Mehlman, Co-Chair IIA
I
The Internet Innovation Alliance is an association of nonprofit groups, business associations, consumer advocates, think tanks,
corporations and technology leaders. We believe in the power behind broadband Internet and its ability to improve American lives
by encouraging innovation and freeing the market forces that foster greater competition, job creation and economic growth. The
co-chairmen of IIA are Larry Irving, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce under President Clinton, and Bruce Mehlman, j
former Assistant Secretary of Commerce under President George W. Bush.
www.internetinnovation.org
P.O. Box 19231 ¦ Washington, D.C. 20036-9231 ¦ www.intemetinnovation.org ¦ (866) 970-8647 -
- - - -
i
I~
If you believe in broadband, free IPTV
By Bruce Mehlman and Larry Irving i i
Published: November 2, 2005
t
I
http://news.com.com/lf+vou+believe+in+broadband%2C+free+IPTV/2010-1034 3-5928655.html
I
There is very little on which Democrats and Republicans agree these days. }
I
From taxes to trade to the United Nations to the Supreme Court, Washington politicians are long on battle j
grounds and all too short on common ground. Yet despite a seemingly ever-rising tide of partisan acrimony, I
there is broad bipartisan agreement on at least one thing: the vital importance of broadband to America's
future.
i
I
Broadband, or high-speed Internet connectivity, is proving increasingly critical to how citizens around the
world work, live, play and learn. Broadband has helped businesses become more productive, governments
become more accessible, students become better prepared and citizens become more involved with their
entertainment, community and even family lives.
i
i
While 34.5 percent of Americans have signed up for broadband, 65.5 percent have
not.
I
I
The good news here is that more than 120 million Americans already have broadband access in their homes,
up from 103 million in January. The Federal Communications Commission reports that 95 percent of U.S.
ZIP codes are served by at least one high-speed Internet provider, with access "hot spots" sprouting up in I
thousands of coffee houses, hotels, airports and community centers. Political leaders of both major parties,
plus an engaged and highly effective FCC chairman, are committed to universal broadband availability as
soon as possible. j
i
Unfortunately, this broadband good news is not always as good as the broadband bad news is bad. The most
recent international comparisons report that the United States has fallen to 12th in connectivity per capita,
well behind such bona fide competitors as Korea (No. 1), Japan (No. 8) and even Iceland (No. 4). American
broadband connection speeds are also far slower on average than those in many other parts of the world, and
these slower networks limit the potential for broadband connectivity to have maximum transformational
impact.
Of even greater concern is that while 34.5 percent of Americans have signed up for broadband, 65.5 percent
have not. The deployment of broadband (supply) continues to significantly exceed adoption (demand),
I
`j
i www.intemetinnovation.org
L P.O. Box 19231 ¦ Washington, D.C. 20036-9231 ¦ www.internetinnovation.org ¦ (866) 970-8647
I~
Legislative Battles
I
2006 will surely be a landmark year for telecommunications legislation.
As the debate continues on both the federal and state level, IIA endorses the following legislative
principles: i
First Do No Harm: Policy makers should strive for minimal regulation of broadband services
and networks.
• Broadband deployment and adoption are critical to our economy and growth, bringing
benefits and opportunities to consumers in business, education, health care and entertainment.
¦ There should be fewer regulations and they should be national, not local. If the goal is local
competition, separate negotiations with tens of thousands of localities do not advance that
goal.
¦ Locality by locality licensing regimes have no compelling needs and are duplicative of j
existing regulations and taxes. I
i
Trust Market Principles: Market-based competition best promotes innovation and consumer
welfare.
¦ Competition drives innovation and investment and accelerates the development and
deployment of technology faster than government mandates or regulations.
¦ Regulators generally cannot keep pace with technological change and can serve as
bottlenecks to innovation.
j ¦ In those limited instances where markets fail to serve the needs of all consumers, relief should
be targeted specifically to respond to the market failure.
Amend Don't Extend: Policy makers should fix outdated regulatory regimes, preferring
deregulatory parity.
¦ Extending antiquated legacy regulations to new technologies hinders competition and
frustrates innovation.
¦ New entrants bringing competition to dominant players should be encouraged, by amending
i monopoly-era regulations (such as the franchising system) for all similar service providers.
i
i
1 www.internetinnovation.org
P.O. Box 19231 ¦ Washington, D.C. 20036-9231 ¦ www.internetinnovation.org ¦ (866) 970-8647 I
i
i limiting investment in next-generation networks and services, and restraining the positive impact of
broadband on our citizens and society.
i
!i While there are multiple reasons for this lack of widespread adoption--privacy and security concerns, desire
j for separation from what is associated with work, generational disinterest--the biggest factor by far remains j
I that too few citizens see the value. This is not a question simply of cost, since broadband access costs less, on
average, than cable or satellite television, to which 95.7 million households subscribe when they could
alternatively watch over-the-air television for free- i
For anyone seeking more rapid broadband adoption, the "silver bullet" is made of better content and new
services. No new service or technology offers more promising content and services than IPTV, video
offerings provided over Internet Protocol. IPTV offers rich video programming (like digital cable TV) and
two-way interactive options, allowing a compelling and differentiated experience. E
i
Our message to policy leaders is simple: Hands off IPTV!
I
IPTV networks are about more than television-viewing options. They also can improve health care in rural
and urban America; as educational resources for grade school students and their parents; and as lower-cost
} 11 broadband capacity for small and midsize businesses, which increasingly are dependent on electronic
l networks.
i.
Companies are working on and investing in competitive video offerings such as IPTV to consumers, j
recognizing that many consumers are fed up with cable, whose rates have increased more than 40 percent in
the past five years with no sign of letting up. And preliminary indications suggest that consumers are excited
for the competition to cable, eager for the new offerings and much more ready to embrace broadband when it
includes voice, video and data services.
li
j Yet IPTV faces a major challenge. It is not technological, with the best and brightest engineers solving those
III issues. And it is not market-created, with investors ready to deploy the new networks. Rather, the challenge ;
to, more rapid IPTV deployment is governmental.
i
i Because some state, local and federal policy makers misperceive new broadband video offerings as identical
j to the cable television services deployed by monopolies more than a decade ago, they seek to regulate them 1
identically. Specifically, they demand that IPTV providers negotiate franchise agreements separately and
j individually with more than 33,000 municipal governments for the right to send content over the Internet.
I Not surprisingly, industry analysts and objective observers identify this regulatory burden as the single j
i biggest barrier to more rapid IPTV deployment and thus accelerated broadband adoptions and investments.
But there is hope. I
i
To their credit, far-sighted members of the House and Senate, Republican and Democrat alike, have
j identified the need for minimal regulation and simplified franchising processes. The Texas legislature i
similarly recognized that those who truly believe in broadband need to free IPTV and overwhelmingly
passed forward-looking legislation that should serve as a model for the rest of the nation.
i!
Our message to policy leaders is simple: Hands off IPTV! The new content and services needed to accelerate
broadband adoption and encourage investment in next-generation networks, especially IPTV, are ready, ( j
j willing and able to deploy--that is, if government gets out of the way.
i
i
www.internetinnovation.org
P.O. Box 19231 ¦ Washington, D.C. 20036-9231 ¦ www.internetinnovation.org ¦ (866) 970-8647 i
Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief
Testimony before the FCC
Friday, February 10, 2006
Keller Pointe Community Center, 405 Rufe Snow
REMARKS
First and foremost, I want to welcome you to North Texas and to the DFW area. I
hope you enjoy your visit to our state and to Tarrant County.
Keller, Texas is a beautiful place to live and a great neighbor to Fort Worth. I
enjoy working with my colleague, Mayor Tandy, on local issues.
So we welcome you.
Secondly, 1 appreciate the opportunity to appear before this prestigious
Commission... and the opportunity to share "the city" perspective regarding cable
franchise reform.
I find it appropriate for the Federal Communications Commission to visit Texas
given all the hard work and effort we have already invested in this issue. As you
know, we passed a piece of legislation all sides can live with. I believe the new
Texas law is a great model for your Commission's deliberations.
To begin, I want to be clear: The City of Fort Worth, and Texas cities in general,
support competition in the cable market. In fact, we want competition in the cable
market. As you know, competition brings innovation to the market. New
technology translates into a host of positive developments. New technologies
mean new jobs. It means new investment. It means more choice and lower rates
for our citizens.
In Fort Worth, the cable rates have increased 38 percent over the last five years
and I believe this is because there is no competition in the local market.
Bottom line, competition makes for an attractive business environment and
benefits the citizens. In short, cities support competition just as I know your
Commission does.
Unfortunately the previous regulatory system in Texas was not spurring
competition. That said, in my remaining time, I want to share a few observations
that stem from the debate we had last Spring.
As you know, Texas has been very proactive regarding the issue of cable
franchising reform. I think it is important for you to understand from the outset of
my comments, that it was not easy for us to pass a bill that cities could live with.
1
However, I am proud to share with you that we did. Cities across Texas worked
with our state legislature to finally produce a compromise piece of legislation
known as Senate Bill 5.
Although cities opposed several versions of this bill-and, I will confess, that the
opposition was sometimes at my urging-the final version of SB 5 was a bill that
Texas cities accepted as a balanced compromise that protected the key city
issues.
I would like to share those key city issues with you to convey what Texas cities
need in order to support federal cable reform. Specifically, Texas cities need
three main protections within any franchise reform bill.
First, we need a bill that protects city right-of-way revenues. Cities need to be
ensured that any cable franchise reform will not create a fiscal hardship on them
or their citizens. I do not know how it works in other states, but cities in Texas are
bound by our state constitution to collect fair market value for the use of public
lands by a private entity. As a result of this legal requirement, cities receive
"rental" payments when utility companies locate their wires and equipment on
public land. These rental payments are a fundamental part of the cities' budget
and helps fund the basic city services we are expected to provide our citizens.
Any proposed change to the right-of-way compensation system that puts cities at
a financial disadvantage or that creates a financial hardship for our taxpayers
would be met with stern opposition.
And to be clear, the "compensation system" includes in-kind compensation as
well as direct rental payments. We must account for items such as cable drops to
our libraries and network equipment for the police departments in order to make
cities financially whole.
Secondly, cities need to be ensured that the physical management of the public
rights-of-way remains a local responsibility. We absolutely must maintain local
control of our public lands in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our
citizens. During the SB 5 debate, local elected officials were adamant that we
maintained our long-standing control of the local right-of-way. The bottom line is
that cities cannot cede any management authority of the public lands within our
cities to a state or federal agency.
And lastly, we need a bill that protects what I call "the social obligations". For
example, we need to ensure that public access channels are still offered to our
citizens. Additionally, we need to ensure that cities have the proper recourse if it
is shown that providers are discriminating on the basis of income. These social
obligations are common in local cable franchises and cities enforce them
vigorously. If the state, or the federal government, takes over the franchising
process, then these obligations must be accounted for.
2
Commissioners, those three objectives-revenue neutrality, local control of the
public rights-of-way, and protecting the social obligations-are the most
important issues to Texas cities. I am proud to say you can find all three
principles in the language of SB 5.
Cities were made financially whole in SB5. Cities maintained police power control
of the local rights-of-way in SB 5. And finally, SB 5 afforded cities the protections
they needed to ensure basic social obligations were met.
Again, it is important to state there were provisions in SB 5 that cities were less
than enthusiastic about. I am sure, there were provisions the phone and cable
industry also objected to. However, taken as a whole, SB 5 offers a very
balanced compromise to a very complicated issue.
As a former state Senator, I understand the give-and-take of the legislative
process. During my 11 years in the Texas Senate, I always believed the best bill
was one all sides had something they liked and disliked. I am proud to say we
were able to pass a bill that nearly everyone could live with.
Commissioners, in closing, I appreciate the opportunity to go on record as
testifying that SB 5 represents an excellent model for Congress and the FCC as
you begin reforming the cable and telecommunications laws.
Please know, from the cities' perspective in Texas, SB 5 is the basis upon which
we will judge all future proposals. Since this bill also gained widespread support
from the telecommunications industry, it would be hard for Texas cities to accept
a step backward from the protections and provisions afforded in SB 5.
So I urge you, the FCC, and I urge my friends in Congress like Chairman Barton
and my dear friend Senator Hutchison to use SB 5 as the model to shape the
federal debate.
I wish you luck and I appreciate the opportunity to be here this afternoon.
I hope you will call on me if we can be of assistance as you continue to address
this important issue.
Thank you.
3
ADDENDUM
PHOENIX CENTER POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13
Page 1 of 8
ADDENDUM:
PHOENIX CENTER POLICY BULLETIN N0.13
PHOENIX ; n° „o February 2006
C[ X T L S P.-C p .Cl 11m6
.r .p M1neniacenu,.a {
STATE-BY-STATE BREAKDOWN
OF THE CONSUMER WELFARE COST OF FRANCHISE REFORM DELAY
In PHOENIX CENTER POLICY BULLETIN No. 13, "In Delay There Is No Plenty:" The Consumer
Welfare Cost of Franchise Reform Delay,, we estimated that delaying video entry by one year
would cost Americans $8.2 billion in consumer welfare and, moreover, that these losses increase
with each year of delay (nearly $30 billion for a four year delay). In this ADDENDUM, we
provide a state-by-state breakdown of these consumer welfare losses, by means of the same
methodology used in POLICY BULLETIN No. 13.
Seeking to emulate the success of Texas's recent overhaul of their local franchise process,
other state legislatures are also exploring whether their local video franchising rules should be
modified in order to accelerate entry? The delays and increased entry costs caused by the local
franchising process are well-documented, and it is no surprise tows that the only competitors
that have made any significant inroads into the multichannel video programming distribution
market are Direct Broadcast Satellite firms, which are specifically exempt from the local
franchising process and do not pay franchise fees. Nevertheless, the Federal Communications
Commission and the Government Accountability Office have repeatedly found that DBS
1 G.S- Ford and T-M. Koutsky, "In Delay Diere is No Plenty:" The Consumer Welfare Cost of Franchise Reform
Delay, PHOENIX CFNTER PoUcv BULIETIN No. 13 (January 2006) (available at: httn:/lwww.uhoenix-
center.org/Polic BLilletin/PCPB13Final.ndfl-
2 At the time of this writing, the media has reported that franchise reform legislation is either under
consideration or is about to be introduced in such diverse states as Indiana, Florida, Virginia and New Jersey, and
more states are expected to join the fray shortly-
PHOENIX CENTER FOR ADVANCED LEGAL & ECONOMIC PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 990
Washington, D.C. 20015
Tel: (+1) (202) 279-0235 Fax: (+1) (202) 299.8257//9342 a-Fax: (+1) (202) 31&9909
www.phoenis-centenorg
c ,
ADDENDUM
PHOENIX CENTER POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13
Page 2 of 8
competition does not provide consumers with lower prices to the same degree that direct,
wireline video competition presents?
The premise of POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13 was that delays in reforming the franchise process
force consumers to pay higher prices for video services. Cable rates are the ultimate "kitchen .
table" issue-every month a family pays a cable bill that is higher than it otherwise could be,
and once spent that money cannot be made given back to the consumer by future competition.
Moreover, in places where states act, consumers see almost immediate benefits. Last year, the
Texas legislature implemented a statewide franchising law without build-out requirements, and
consumers in Texas are seeing significant new entry4 and cable price cuts immediately: a recent
survey by Bank of America shows that in areas where Verizon's new FiOS television service is
now available, incumbent cable companies have implemented price cuts of 28-42%.5
Policymakers should engage in a cost/benefit analysis when making decisions that affect
consumers. The dramatic price cuts that await American consumers if wireline video
competition emerges are real and not mythical. Delaying the onset of these lower prices for
video services imposes a real cost on consumers, and POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13 tried to quantify
the costs to consumers. We showed that policies that delay entry for one year would cost
American consumers $8.2 billion nationwide; policies that delay entry for four years would cost
consumers $29.9 billion. In this ADDENDUM, we use the same methodology to estimate the costs
of delay on a state-by-state basis. A short description of that methodology follows, and the
results are found in the attached tables.
3 Direct Broadcast Satellite Subscribership Has Grown Rapidly, but Varies across Different Types of Markets, Report to
the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Committee on the judiciary, U.S. Senate, US
Government Accountability Office, GAO-05-257 (2005) ("GAO 2005 Study'). See also George S. Ford and Thomas M.
Koutsky, Franchise Fee Revenues After Video Competition: The "Competition Dividend" for Local Governments, PHoENtx
CENTER PoucY BULLETIN No. 12 (November 2005) at nn 16 and 27 (available at: littp://www.ohoenix-
center.org/Polic Butletin/PCPB12Finil.pdO, for a detailed analysis of the price effects from competition estimated
by the GAO 2005 Study.
4 According Texas Public Utilities Commission's official "State-Issued Certificate Of Franchise Authority
Directory" (available at: htto://www.puc.state.tx.us/cable/directories/SICFA/SICFA Directory.htm) as of the date
of this writing, over fifteen new franchises were granted since the passage of the Texas legislation, and seven other
new franchises (all of them ironically from existing cable MSOS) are pending-
5 Bank of America Equity Research, Battle for the Bundle: Consumer Wireline Services Pricing, (January 23, 2006),
10. Verizon Chairman and CEO Ivan G. Seidenberg testified that "even customers who don't have FiOS TV like it.
That's because, where FiOS TV competes with cable, consumers see their cable bills go down."). Testimony of Ivan
G. Seidenberg, Chairman and CEO, Verizon Communications, before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation (January 31, 2006) (available at: ht ,://comnierm.senate.vov/pdf/seideiiberg-021506.pdf) at 2.
PHOENIX CENTER FOR ADVANCED LEGAL & ECONOMIC PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NNW, Suite 990
Washington, D.C. 20015
Tel: (+1) (202) 274-0235 Fax: (+1) (202) 244-8257//9392 a-Fax: (+1) (202) 3184909
www.phoenix-center.org
ADDENDUM
PHOENIX CENTER POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13
Page 3 of 8
Estimation Methodology. Generally, the welfare loss we compute is the difference between
the consumer welfare in a scenario where franchising is eliminated and consumers begin to
realize the benefits of increased competition in the video services markets now versus
elimination at some point in the future. The gains to consumers are measured in the form of
price reductions for video services and the (monetized) welfare gains from prices moving closer
to marginal cost. Since construction and penetration of the rival network occurs over time, all
the benefits are measured as the present value of the flow of surplus over the planning horizon.
Figure 1 illustrates the calculation. In the left-hand panel, the S-curves for consumer welfare
gains without (ACSNO) and with delay (ACSwo) in franchise reform are illustrated. The
"difference" in these two curves is the lost consumer surplus from delay (the shaded area
labeled "Lost Surplus") .6 A full description of the left-hand side figure and calculations are
provided in POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13.
In the right-hand panel, the changes in consumer welfare are presented in their present
value or discounted form [i.e., PV(OCSNO) and PV(ACSND)]. Discounting implies future dollars
have less value than current dollars. For example, at the discount rate assumed in the
simulation (5.25%), a dollar twenty years from now is worth only $0.36 today. The downward
sloping portions of the Present Value curves are manifestations of discounting. As illustrated in
the right-hand panel, most of the gains from franchise reform are in the early years of the
planning horizon, showing why changes to the planning horizon do not materially alter the
resu]ts.7
Figure 1. Loss Calculation, Nominal and Present Value
$ Nominal $ Present Value
ACS.
ecs~
FV(ecs„r)
ri-
q':
uryh
,y PV(eCSM)
k t, 9- Time b n tm. Time
6 it is the difference in the integrals of the two curves (or, the area beneath the curves).
7 See POLICY BULLErtN No. 13, supra n. 1 at Sec. IV.E. (-If the horizon is reduced to 20 years, then the surplus
loss falls by about 5%. Alternately, if we increase the horizon to 30 years, then the surplus loss increases by about
4%.")
PHOENIX CENTER FOR ADVANCED LEGAL & ECONOMIC PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440
Washington, D.C. 20015
Tel: (+1) (202) 274-0235 Fax: (+1) (202) 244-8257//9342 a-Fax: (+1) (202) 3184909
www.nhoenix-center.ore
ADDENDUM
PHOENIX CENTER POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13
Page 4 of 8
For state level estimates of the welfare loss, we employ the exact same methodology as in
POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13, but replace national with state-level inputs where necessary. This
procedure requires the replacement of three inputs: (a) the number of television households; (b)
household growth; and (c) aggregate video penetration.8 Inserting these three inputs into the
simulation algorithm, the share of the total welfare loss for each state can be computed? The
other benchmark assumptions are unchanged, including the own-price demand elasticity for
video service (-1.5), the price reduction from competition (15%), an average monthly price of
$50, and a terminal overlap of the rival network of 90%. The deployment rate of the rival
network is homogeneous and identical to that in POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13 (S-Curve parameters
are b = 4.3, k = -0.27). Welfare effects are computed over a 25-year planning horizon and are
discounted at a nominal social discount rate of 5.25%. We provide a sensitivity analysis of the
results to key assumption in POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13, so we do not repeat that analysis here.
By using state level to run the simulation rather than simply allocating welfare losses by
television households, we get a more accurate indication of what consumers lose from a delay
in franchise reform. A state with a lower penetration of video services or slower household
growth will have less to gain from lower video prices, and our method accounts for this fact. A
simple household allocation scheme would not.
Table 1 summarizes the state-level welfare losses. By design, the sum of the state estimates
equals the national aggregate values from POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13. We do note that the $8.2
billion (for one-year delay) is only $7.6 billion once we account for the fact that the state of Texas
has passed a law radically reforming the franchising process and consequently substantially
reducing barriers to entry for terrestrial video competition (reducing the loss to consumers by
$597 million). As the Texas experience indicates that consumers will immediately enjoy the
fruits of franchise reform in the form of lower prices, increased choice and, perhaps most
significantly, advanced broadband network deployment,to the benefits to consumers estimated
here, which are by no means exhaustive of the benefits of increased competition in video and
related markets, should be accounted for in a cost-benefit analysis of franchise reform.
8 For the first two inputs, census data is used. For aggregate video penetration, we use estimates provided on
the website for RFDTV dated January 1, 2005 (ham:/ /www.rfdtv,com/demogriphics.asn)-
9 The simulation computes total consumer welfare loss, but we use these numbers to allocate the $8.2 billion
for consistency. The simulation actually estimates a national welfare loss of $7-9 billion, which is very close to the
$8.2 billion using national figures (less than a 4% difference). The differences are attributable to the different data
sources and methods by which national data is constructed from state data.
10 See Bank of America, supra n. 5.
PHOENIX CENTER FOR ADVANCED LEGAL & ECONOMIC PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440
Washington, D.C. 20015
Tel: (+l) (202) 274-0235 Fax: (+1) (202) 244-8257//9342 a-Fax: (+1) (202) 3184909
wmtiv.phoeNx-center.ore
ADDENDUM
PHOENIX CENTER POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13
Page 5 of 8
Table 1. Consumer Welfare Losses from Delayed Franchise Reform
(M = Million)
One- Two- Three- Four- Five-
Year Year Year Year Year
Region State Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay
West
AK $12M $24M $35M $45M $55M
CA 852M 1,653M 2,404M 3,114M 3,783M
CO 150M 291M 421M 544M 658M
HI 31M 59M 86M 112M 136M
ID 33M 64M 93M 121M 146M
MT 22M 42M 61M 79M 97M
NV 103M 197M 285M 366M 441M
OR 94M 182M 265M 342M 416M
UT 62M 120M 173M 224M 271M
WA 173M 336M 488M 632M 767M
WY 15M 30M 44M 57M 69M
Southwest
AZ 178M 344M 498M 642M 777M
NM 49M 94M 137M 178M 216M
OK 90M 175M 255M 331M 402M
TX 597M 1,156M 1,678M 2,169M 2,630M
Southeast
AL 134M 260M 378M 490M 595M
AR 74M 143M 208M 269M 327M
FL 626M 1,211M 1,756M 2,268M 2,748M
GA 348M 673M 975M 1,257M 1,522M
KY 124M 240M 349M 453M 550M
LA 117M 227M 330M 428M 520M
MS 76M 147M 213M 276M 336M
NC 288M 556M 807M 1,043M 1,264M
SC 129M 250M 363M 469M 569M
TN 177M 343M 498M 645M 783M
VA 236M 457M 664M 858M 1,042M
WV 54M 105M 153M 198M 241M
PHOENIX CENTER FOR ADVANCED LEGAL & ECONOMIC PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440
Washington, D.C. 20015 -
Tel: (+1) (202) 274-0235 Fax: (+1) (202) 244-8257//9342 a-Fax: (+1) (202) 318-4909
www.phoenix- enter.org
ADDENDUM
PHOENIX CENTER POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13
Page 6 of 8
Table 1. Continued
Consumer Welfare Losses from Delayed Franchise Reform
(M = Million)
One- Two-Year Three- Four- Five-
Year Delay Year Year Year
Region State Delay Delay Delay Delay
Northeast
CT $93M $181M $263M $341M $415M
DC 12M 24M 34M 44M 54M
DE 27M 52M 76M 98M 119M
MA 165M 321M 468M 607M 739M
MD 151M 292M 425M 551M 669M
ME 37M 72M 105M 136M 166M
NH 39M 76M 110M 143M 173M
NJ 229M 445M 647M 839M 1,020M
NY 458M 889M 1,295M 1,680M 2,045M
PA 329M 639M 930M 1,206M 1,467M
RI 26M 51M 75M 97M 118M
VT 18M 34M 50M 64M 78M
Midwest
IA 85M 165M 240M 311M 378M
IL 339M 657M 956M 1,239M 1,505M
IN 174M 337M 490M 634M 770M
KS 73M 141M 206M 266M 324M
MI 271M 525M 764M 989M 1,202M
MN 140M 271M 393M 509M 617M
MO 151M 294M 427M 553M 672M
ND 18M 35M 51M 66M 80M
NE 49M 95M 138M 179M 218M
OH 306M 593M 863M 1,119M 1,360M
SD 21M 40M 58M 75M 91M
WI 149M 289M 420M 543M 660M
PHOENIX CENTER FOR ADVANCED LEGAL & ECONOMIC PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440
Washington, D.C. 20015
Tel: (+1) (202) 274-0235 Fax: (+1) (202) 244-82571/9342 a-Fax: (+1) (202) 318-4909
wwnr phoenix-centenore
ADDENDUM
PHOENIX CENTER POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13
Page 7 of 8
Table 2. Consumer Welfare Losses from Delayed Franchise Reform
(Per Video Household)
One- Two- Three- Four- Five-
Year Year Year Year Year
Region State Delay Delay Delay Delay Delay
West
AK $73 $145 $212 $272 $333
CA 78 150 219 283 344
CO 100 194 281 363 439
HI 79 150 219 285 346
1D 94 183 265 345 417
MT 72 137 199 257 316
NV 136 260 376 483 582
OR 80 156 227 293 356
UT 98 190 275 355 430
WA 82 160 232 301 365
WY 72 145 212 275 333
Southwest
AZ 106 204 296 382 462
NM 81 155 226 294 357
OK 74 144 210 272 331
TX 90 174 253 327 396
Southeast
AL 77 150 218 283 344
AR 79 152 221 286 348
FL 95 184 267 344 417
GA 104 201 291 375 454
KY 79 152 221 287 349
LA 75 145 211 273 332
MS 78 151 219 284 346
NC 94 182 264 341 413
SC 88 170 246 318 386
TN 82 160 232 301 365
VA 86 166 242 313 380
WV 71 137 200 259 315
PHOENIX CENTER FOR ADVANCED LEGAL & ECONOMIC PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440
Washington, D.C. 20015
Tel: (+1) (202) 274-0235 Fax: (+1) (202) 244-8257//9342 a-Fax: (+1) (202) 3184909
www.12hmiii.x<enter.org
ADDENDUM
PHOENIX CENTER POLICY BULLETIN NO. 13
Page 8 of 8
Table 2. Continued
Consumer Welfare Losses from Delayed Franchise Reform
(Per Video Household)
One Two-Year Three- Four- Five-
Year Delay Year Year Year
Region State Delay Delay Delay Delay
Northeast
CT $69 $134 $195 $253 $308
DC 65 130 184 238 292
DE 85 165 241 310 377
MA 68 133 194 252 307
MD 78 150 219 284 345
ME 74 143 209 271 330
NH 79 153 222 289 349
NJ 72 140 204 264 321
NY 68 133 194 251 306
PA 71 137 200 259 315
RI 66 130 191 247 300
VT 75 141 208 266 324
Midwest
IA 78 151 220 284 346
IL 76 147 214 277 336
IN 82 159 231 299 363
KS 77 149 218 282 343
MI 77 149 217 281 342
MN 85 165 240 310 376
MO 78 152 220 285 346
ND 75 145 212 274 332
NE 77 150 218 283 344
OH 74 144 210 272 330
SD 83 158 229 296 359
WI 82 159 231 298 362
PHOENIX CENTER FOR ADVANCED LEGAL & ECONOMIC PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440
Washington, D.C. 20015
Tel: (+1) (202) 274-0235 Fay (+1) (202) 244-8257//9342 a-Fax: (+1) (202) 318-4909
w"+ v.phoenix-centmore
Hawaii State Association of Counties 4
Counties of Kauai, Maul, Hawaii and City and County of Honolulu r
March 1, 2006
Hawaii State Association of Counties (HSAC)
Executive Committee Members
Dear Members of the HSAC Executive Committee:
SUBJECT: HSAC OFFICERS
Section 5 of the HSAC Bylaws requires in relevant part:
(1) Prior to April 15 of each year, each council shall appoint one of its
members to serve as an officer of the corporation for the term
commencing the immediate following July 1. Each council shall designate
an alternate to the member serving as an officer of the corporation. Each
& ouncil shall make the appointment in accordance with their respective
""K' ules and/or procedures. In making the appointment, each council shall
delegate to appointee sufficient authority to formulate the slate of
proposed as provided under paragraph (2).
(2) Prior to Ma ' at s the four appointees, after consultation
among themselves, sha pre t ch council a slate of proposed
officers. The slate shall propo h e appointees, is to serve
in each office of the corporatio the t mencing the immediate
following July 1.
(3) Before the annual meeting of that same year, each cou r receipt of
the slate shall take the action deemed necessary to act o at the
annual meeting; provided that no council shall take an ing
or requiring removal from the slate of an appointee fr
(4) At the annual meeting of that same year, the slate s
the general membership for approval. The general mep
on the slate as a whole, and not for each proposed ate
individually. If the slate is approved, the proposed o become
the officers of the corporation for the term commencing immediately
following the annual meeting. If the slate is disapproved an another slate
of proposed officers is not approved at the annual meeting, each officer
holding office on the date of the annual meeting shall continue in the same
office until the general membership approves a slate.
00 a
Page - 2 -
Based on these requirements, may I respectfully request that each council
appoint a member and alternate to serve on the HSAC Executive Committee and report
their appointments at or prior to the HSAC Executive Committee meeting to be held on
March 20, 2006. Please be sure the appointees have sufficient authority to formulate
the slate of proposed officers.
At the HSAC Executive Committee meeting to be held on April 21, 2006, the
HSAC Executive Committee should be prepared to discuss and decide upon a slate of
proposed officers for the year beginning July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 to be
transmitted to the councils for approval prior to the HSAC Executive Committee meeting
to be held in June 2006. The approved slate of officers will be presented to HSAC's
general membership at the June 2006 General Membership meeting for final approval.
Your favorable consideration of this request would be appreciated.
Sincerely, ,
DAIN P. J
HSAC President
ocs:proj:hsac:hsac2005-2006:06lefters:HSAC officers:ske