Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-02-06 Letter to Takashi Ohno re HB 2651, Relating to Wireless Broadband FaciltiesHarry Kim Mayor eiunf> f Anfulti`i Wil Okabe Managing Director Barbara J. Kossow Deputy Managing Director ®fftrr of flieciltavor 25 Aupuni Street, Suite 2603 • Hilo, Hawal'i 96720 • (808) 961-8211 • Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy., Bldg C • Kallua-Kona, Hawai'i 96740 (808) 323-4444 • Fax (808) 323-4440 February 6, 2018 Representative Takashi Ohno, Chair Committee on Intrastate Commerce Hawaii State Capitol, Room 429 Honolulu, HI 96813 Dear Chair Ohno and Committee Members: Re: Testimony in Opposition of HB 2651, Relating to Wireless Broadband Facilities Hearing Date: 02/06/18 — 10:30 am; Conference Room 429 Thank you for this opportunity to testify in opposition of HB 2651. HB 2651 deals with the installation of telecommunication facilities on state and county -owned property. This Bill is similar to legislation which was proposed last year that the County opposed; however, the present version of the Bill has some aspects which are even more cumbersome than the prior versions. The County objects to the limitation in the Bill of $40 for annual fees (which is supposed to, but likely will not, cover the costs of the private company occupying space in the right of way and using resources such as electricity), the overbroad definitions of "right of way" (including utility easements) and "state or county pole" (which can include poles that the County does not solely own, manage, or operate), the lack of discretion and limited bases for rejecting applications, the dearth of fees and regulation for "micro' wireless facilities, the limits on bonds of $200 per small wireless facility and $10,000 for total bonds county -wide for a company's equipment, the prohibition on the County being named as an additional insured to any insurance policy it may require, the piecemeal process which will result if an applicant chooses to file a "consolidated" application for multiple sites and there are problems with some of the sites but the County needs to continue processing the same application for the other sites, the time -limit on applications imposing deemed approvals which would even apply to a "consolidated" applications, the failure to address the requirements of Chapter 205A, the difficulties in keeping inventories of this equipment and notifying the appropriate party if the equipment needs to be inspected or repaired, and the twenty-year duration of a company's permit. County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Empllem. Testimony in Opposition of HB 2651 February 6, 2018 Page 2 The County also repeats its prior objections that this Bill will not allow it to adequately protect against the overburdening of its equipment, or a wireless facility or network causing interference with the County's existing equipment or system. The County is concerned about the effect the bill may have on various utilities' poles that the County needs for its structures and projects as working with the utilities can already be a complex process. The colocation raises security concerns, concerns about existing equipment being damaged by allowing private entities to do installation and other work on County sites, and will increase the use and wear -and -tear on existing utility poles. The bill does not a) grant counties immunity for private entities occupying and/or using county property (it grants immunity for installation, maintenance, and repairs, but not for claims arising from the private companies' operation or use of their equipment), b) allow the counties to sufficiently 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 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. The County also notes that it has actually been willing and able to work with telecommunications companies in their efforts to implement small wireless network(s) in the right of way; however, it has only been approached by one company that has not yet proposed an adequate location to install its equipment. Some of that company's proposals would have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, others were technically infeasible, and one proposed installing equipment on property that is not owned by the County. For the reasons above, we cannot support HB 2651. The County would consider legislation that would be limited to Section 10 of the Bill, which requires the State and counties to adopt their own laws, regulations, or agreements with the cellular companies. Respectfully submitted, Harry Kim Mayor, County of Hawaii County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.