HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PWC 254 05/24/1988 1984-1988 REPORT OF THE
LO11MITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: May 24 , 1983
PLACE : Councilroom
TIME: 1 : 30 p .m .
Chairman and Members
Hawaii County Council
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Your Committee on Public Works to which was referred Communication
-'No . 1305 , 1305 .1 and 1305 . 2 , reports as follows:
Communication No . 1305 is a transmittal letter dated October 6 , 1987
from the Corporation Counsel which forwards for acceptance the road
dedication deed for a roadway in the Keaau Agricultural Land Company
Subdivision, Olaa Reservation Lots, Puna, Hawaii , TMK: 1-7-13 :por . 45 .
The Department of Public Works has advised on September 11, 1987 that
the descriptions have been checked and found to be acceptable and
that the roadway lot is a portion of an existing County-maintained
roadway and is in acceptable condition for dedication .
Your Committee found on October 26 , 1987 that the roadway had not
been constructed according to County of Hawaii standards . Your
Committee deferred action on the dedication deed and referred it to
Corporation Counsel .
Communication 1305 .1 is a letter dated November 2 , 1987 from
Corporation Counsel resubmitting the dedication deed to the
Committee . The letter stated that because the acceptance of a
substandard road is accompanied by a higher potential risk of
liability claims , acceptance of the roadway cannot be recommended .
Your Committee once again deferred action on the dedication deed on
November 10 , 1987 and referred it and both Communications from
Corporation Counsel to the Department of Public Works for resolution .
Communications 1305 .2, a letter dated May 20 , 1988 from the Chief
Engineer , was circulated at the Committee meeting on May 24 , 1988 .
The letter states that the Department of Public Works met with the
offices of Corporation Counsel and the Planning Department to review
and evaluate the merits of accepting the subject roadway parcel . The
letter states the following:
254
PWC REPORT
ADOPTED : JUN 1 1988
PWC- 254 Page 2 May 24 , 1988
1 . The existing road right-of-way is 30 feet wide and the road
pavement is about nine feet wide with sections of it
encroaching on the ten-foot wide road strip proposed for
dedication .
2 . The minimum road right-of-way standard is 50 feet wide and
if the Council accepts the dedication , the right-of-way will
be 40 feet .
3 . The Department recommends acceptance for the following
reasons:
a . The new right-of-way width will be closer to the minimum
standards .
b . If the County decides to widen the existing pavement,
additional right-of-way need not be acquired with just
compensation , as required by law.
Your Committee heard testimony from the Chief Engineer and
Corporation Counsel on the agreement that was worked out between the
Planning Department , Corporation Counsel and the Department of Public
Works regarding acceptance of dedication deeds for roads which are
not built to County standards and are acceptable to the Department of
Public Works .
A Committee member asked if the recommendation from Department of
Public Works takes into consideration the opinion of Corporation
Counsel .
The Chairwoman stated that the Department met with Corporation
Counsel and the Planning Department to review and evaluate the merits
of accepting the road dedication and the recommendation is a Public
Works finding .
A Committee member asked if the Corporation Counsel changed his
position as communicated on November 2 , 1987 . The Corporation
Counsel testified as follows:
1 . The Department of Public Works feels there are sufficient
policy reasons to justify accepting the road and he defers
to their evaluation of the value of those policy reasons .
2 . Based on Public Works ' reasoning , there is justification to
assume whatever liability the County will be assuming by
accepting this road dedication .
The Chief Engineer testified as follows:
1 . This is a very unique road dedication . It 's a road that has
been in existence and part of it is outside the right-of-way.
2 . Acceptance of the additional land is in accordance with the
intent of the whole dedication process .
PWC-254 Page 3 May 24 , 1988
A Committee member confirmed that the road is not in a new
subdivision .
A Committee member stated that any road that is going to be dedicated
to the County and is going to serve this many acres should be 50 feet
wide to give adequate egress and exit or otherwise we have to go back
to them for a wider right-of-way .
The Deputy Chief Engineer testified that one side [ of the road] is
giving up ten feet [with this dedication] and the Department has no
money to condemn and purchase ten feet on the other side .
Your Committee finds that the public interest being served by
acceptance of the dedication deed outweights the slightly higher risk
of liability claims which accompanies acceptance .
Your Committee finds that both the conveyance of the roadway parcel
and the improvements are proper and recommends acceptance of the
dedication deed by the Council and its su.sequent recordation with
the Bureau of Conveyances .
ado, •
RLE K LAI , CH. RWOMAN
Al Wile LA tIoNal
R SSELL S. KOKUBUN, VICE CHR. FRANK DE LUZ III , MEMBER
24''''`-e4141°`
TAIASHI D MING , MEMBER SHERWOOD R. H. GREENWELL, MEMBER
LA/TW