Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-17 Letter to Clarence K Nishihara and Glenn Wakai re HB 625, HD 3 relating to Infrastructure •• .?!....., Wil Okabe Managing Director Harry Kim Mayor Barbara J.Kossow - 0.• 0. Deputy Managing Director '• .ei;.AO.- ••. • County of Agurail (Mire of tilt Aim' 25 Aupuni Street,Suite 2603 • Hilo,Hawaii 96720 • (808)961-8211 • Fax(808)961-6553 KONA: 74-5044 Me Keohokalole Hwy.,Bldg.C • Kailua-Kona,Hawaii 96740 (808)323-4444 • Fax(808)323-4440 March 17, 2017 Senator Clarence K. Nishihara, Chair Committee on Public Safety, Intergovernmental & Military Affairs Hawai'i State Capitol Honolulu, HI 96813 Senator Glenn Wakai, Chair Committee on Economic Development, Tourism & Technology Hawai'i State Capitol Honolulu, HI 96813 Dear Chair Nishihara, Chair Wakai, and Committee members: RE: HB 625, HD 3 Relating to Infrastructure Thank you for this opportunity to testify against HB 625, HD 3. Over the past weeks, there have been numerous drafts of legislation trying to facilitate the deployment of high-speed broadband infrastructure. We have raised objections to various aspects of those drafts, but each time we have suggested that the bills be kept alive for further discussion. It now is becoming more and more evident 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. County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Nishihara/VVakai March 17, 2017 Page 2 Our main objection to these bills is that they do not protect radio towers/first responder communications. They may give the counties varying 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). Among numerous concerns we have is that, if this or any other bill were to pass in present form, we would be locked into a regime in which the County could not adequately protect against the overburdening of its equipment, which could cause interference with the County's existing 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 does not 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. The present draft is much better, but initial drafts were extreme enough to raise questions as to whether the parties started out acting in good faith. County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Nishihara/Wakai March 17, 2017 Page 3 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. The fee formula in HD3 needs a thorough review. 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, and allow the counties to reject an application if the proposed installation might interfere with or overburden existing equipment. The various parties will be meeting this week to see if a consensus can be achieved quickly, and we are happy to participate in that ongoing dialogue. But for a subject this big with so many long-term ramifications, it probably would be better to assure that these bills not become law without allowing time for 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, Mayor County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.