HILO — Come November, voters in Hawaii County will revisit the 2 percent land fund, contemplate changes to public meeting notices and decide on other amendments to the county’s governing document. HILO — Come November, voters in Hawaii County will
HILO — Come November, voters in Hawaii County will revisit the 2 percent land fund, contemplate changes to public meeting notices and decide on other amendments to the county’s governing document.
Only voters may amend the Hawaii County Charter. To date, four proposed amendments have been approved by the County Council and are awaiting final approval by voters.
Several other proposals, including the election of the corporation counsel and a provision that Redistricting Commission members not stand for election in the districts they have just created, are still pending before the council.
Here, in summary, are four of the questions that voters will be asked in the general election:
c 1. Shall Hawaii County follow state law in issuing meeting notices for the County Council, boards and commissions?
Current charter language provides for regular public meetings to be held according to its own rules, while special public meetings have stringent requirements for public notice.
If the County Council needed to meet immediately because of an emergency, the charter requires the broadcast of at least three announcements in English over local radio stations between the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., the “conspicuous” posting of the meeting notice on the Hawaii County building and a notice posted online.
The proposed amendment would repeal this and replace it with the requirement that notices of any regular, special, rescheduled or emergency meeting be made “according to the provisions of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.”
The state law regarding emergency meetings states that notice may be given to the county clerk and to individuals by mail or by telephone, but it does not include any requirements that the meetings be announced via radio or Internet. According to the draft of the amendment, approval would repeal provisions that are no longer applicable to special meetings.
c 2. Shall a minimum of 2 percent of the real property tax revenues be deposited into the Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Fund?
The back-and-forth debate over earmarking property tax funds for the purchase of significant lands to protect them from private development goes back to 2006, when a coalition led by Kona community activist Debbie Hecht collected 10,000 signatures to put the 2 percent initiative on the ballot. The county clerk at the time disqualified many of the signatures, rendering the petition invalid, but the council approved the question for the ballot, and voters approved it.
In 2009, a new council majority suspended payments to the fund for two years. The following year, Hecht submitted the 2 percent proposal to the charter commission, but the commission changed the minimum amount of the annual funding to 1 percent, or about $2 million per year, which voters approved.
Now, voters are being asked to double the county’s contribution to the open space fund to 2 percent, and to shield it from the shifting priorities of future mayors and County Council majorities. Opponents of this amendment say the government should be able to tap this funding source during budget crunches to avoid deeper cuts in other areas.
“The 1 percent is already on the books,” Councilman Dennis Onishi said earlier this year. “Any administration should have the flexibility in case of bad economic times.”
c 3. Shall 0.25 percent of the real property tax revenues be deposited into a maintenance fund for the preservation of lands acquired by the open space fund?
Proponents of an open space fund have been clear that money deposited into it should be used only for the acquisition of land and not its maintenance. This amendment, if approved, would create a separate fund to “preserve and conserve lands and easements” acquired by the open space fund “and keep them in good repair for public safety.” This fund would be capped at $3 million and provides for the awarding of stewardship grants by council resolution.
c 4. Shall special funds be created or abolished by ordinance?
The current language in the charter states that “upon recommendation of the mayor the council may by ordinance abolish or establish such special funds as may be necessary … .”
The proposed amendment changes the language to read “Special funds may be created or abolished by ordinance as may be necessary … .” It appears to streamline the process by removing the mayor’s recommendation as a requirement to initiate the process of creating or removing special funds, although the mayor is still required to approve an ordinance passed by the council.
Other pending amendments:
c Bill 192, scheduled for third and final reading on Wednesday, would make members of the Redistricting Commission ineligible for election to the County Council in the first election following any redistricting plan. If approved, this amendment would first apply to the 2021 commission and the 2022 County Council elections.
c Bill 152, which passed second reading and is postponed to the call of the chair, would give the County Council the right to employ special counsel without first seeking approval from the mayor’s office or the corporation counsel.
c Bill 134, which passed first reading and is postponed to the call of the chair, would remove from office any elected county official who fails a mandatory drug test.
c Bill 211, which is scheduled for first reading next Wednesday, makes the corporation counsel, the county’s top civil attorney, an elected position independent from the executive branch.
c Bill 237, which will be discussed Tuesday by the Finance Committee, will prevent the county operating budget from containing any new positions that have not been previously approved by a council resolution. This is intended to “allow for greater transparency and for the opportunity for public discussion on increasing the size of government,” according to the bill introduced by Council Chairman Dominic Yagong. The amendment prevents the county administration from creating new positions by inserting them into the proposed operating budget every year.
