The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-03-14 Letter to Takashi Ohno re SB 1201 SD 2 Relating to Technology MtY orp .'rfJ• '� ' . . Wil Okabe " � �£ Managing Director Harry Kim �I�.� : Mayor - --. Barbara J.Kossow • -' Deputy Managing Director r•o:•w..i'-' tEouufg ufcbsi i`i (Office of flip 4J &ttgor 25 Aupuni Street,Suite 2603 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 • (808)961-8211 • Fax(808)961-6553 KONA' 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy,Bldg.C • Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 (808)323-4444 • Fax(808)323-4440 March 14, 2017 Representative Takashi Ohno Intrastate Commerce Hawai'i State Capitol Honolulu, HI 96813 Dear Chair Ohno and members: RE: SB 1201, SD2 Relating to Technology Thank you for this opportunity to testify against SB 1201, SD2. Over the past weeks, we have raised objections to various aspects of numerous telecommunication bills. Each time, we have suggested that the bills be kept alive for further discussion, but we now believe that the issues are simply too complex to expect them to be resolved this session. At this point, we would urge that no bill pass this session, and that the Legislature set up a mechanism (by Joint Resolution, study by the Auditor, or some other approach) for further discussion in the interim, with a consensus bill to be presented to next year's Legislature. The installation of telecommunication facilities on county-owned or State-owned property is complicated, far reaching in scope, and raises substantial questions related to fairness and public safety. Our concerns are mirrored by the State and the other counties, and with numerous private sector voices compounding the number of perspectives that must be accommodated, we trust that the legislative process will yield a satisfactory result, but only if given substantially more time. Our main objection to SB 1201, SD2, remains the same—it still does not protect radio towers/first responder communications. It may give the counties some ability to regulate in the right of way, but those towers are still vulnerable (and probably prime targets for the telecommunications companies because they will get good coverage where we get good coverage). County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Takashi Ohno March 14, 2017 Page 2 Among numerous concerns we have is that, if this or any other bill were to pass in present form, the County could not adequately protect against the overburdening of its equipment, which could cause interference with the County's existing equipment or system. In addition, coerced co-location could interfere with the County's existing and prospective contractual relations, as some County "structures" are on leased or licensed properties that do not allow collocation without a landowner's consent, and landowners may be hesitant to let the County have a structure on their properties if doing so will allow any and all small wireless facilities or small wireless facilities networks to be placed on their properties without their consent. Co-location raises security concerns, concerns about existing equipment being damaged by allowing private entities to do installation and other work on County sites, and concerns about increased use and wear-and-tear on existing structures, equipment, and access routes to rural sites. We do not believe any of the bills a) grant counties immunity for private entities accessing and using county property, b) allow the counties to recoup costs due to a small wireless facility or network's use of counties' utilities, or c) expressly allow counties to require companies that are accessing or using a county's property to assume liability for any damages to existing equipment or structures and to defend and indemnify a county for any such damages. If the final bill doesn't define "structure," it could be read to allow wireless equipment to be placed on any County owned or operated building. An earlier draft totally exempted wireless equipment from any County permits. It required the wireless companies to provide notice prior to installation to the DCCA but not to an affected county. It allowed utilities to reject applications but did not provide counties that authority and did not have any process for applications. It required wireless companies to comply with "applicable safety and engineering requirements", but that would be difficult for us to check with no prior notice or permitting process. Another draft seemed to limit collocation charges to $20 annually—a giveaway that does not seem to reflect proper stewardship of the public trust. Staff did some brief research and did not see other states giving away public land so freely. Washington State, for instance, has a schedule of fees and regulations in place that looks like a better balance protecting public land. At an absolute minimum, we would ask that any bill that passes provide that an entity proposing the installation, construction, development, or improvement of broadband networks must file a written request to do so with the State and affected County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Prov,dcr and Employer. Takashi Ohno March 14, 2017 Page 3 county, and allow the counties to reject an application if the proposed installation might interfere with or overburden existing equipment. But for a subject this big with so many long-term ramifications, it would be better to assure that these bills not become law without a good deal of further discussion and amendment. A very real danger to public safety could inadvertently result if, for instance, civil defense operations or emergency and first responder networks were compromised by the anticipated new installations. Respectfully submitted, lm Harry Kids Mayor County of Hawar i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer