COM 0183.002 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Pamela Mizuno, Deputy Director Page -2- May 5, 2003 reasonable proximity to the subdivision. Where a public park and playground presently serves a subdivision, such fees may be used for the purpose of providing additional facilities for that park or playground. The director of parks and recreation shall determine the various park areas for funding purposes. What can the fees be expended on? Interpretation of this ordinance must be done by applying the rule of "plain meaning."' In applying the "plain meaning" rule, several basic tenants are evident from this subsection giving guidance on what the funds can be expended for in a given location relative to the subdivision contributing fee: 1. Within the area of the subdivision, park dedication funds are to be used to acquire and develop park and recreational facilities, and not for improvements, repair and maintenance. 2. Outside of the subdivision but within reasonable proximity, these funds may be expended for neighborhood or community facilities. This would include design and building for the facility; as opposed to improvements, repair and maintenance. 3. Where there is an existing park or playground, within or out of the subdivision that "serves" the subdivision, these funds can be used for development of additional facilities as opposed to improvements, repair and maintenance of the park or playground. 4. The Director of Parks and Recreation has the authority to determine what lands will be considered within an identified area for funding purposes. As it appears that the new Keaukaha Gym is an improvement to this park's facility, replacing the old Keaukaha Gym, use of the Park Dedication Fund is prohibited by the enabling statute, HRS Section 46-6. Where can the funds be expended? There are several instances of broad language2 within HRS Section 46-6(a), giving the director wide discretion in determining where funds from park dedication fees can be expended. There are limitations to this discretion. Again, the "plain meaning" rule states that the language within an ordinance ~ The "plain meaning" Tole states [hat "[I]f [a] rule's language is unambiguous, and its literal application is neither inconsistent with the policies of the statute the rule implements nor produces an absurd or unjust result, courts enforce the rule's plain meaning." State v. Ferrer, 95 Hawaii 409, 435, 23 P.3d 744, 770 (Haw App. 2001). 2 In points #1 and #4 i[ states the funds are to expended in the "area" of the subdivision but i[ is the director's discretion on what the "area" will be. In points #2 and #3 the ordinance refers to "reasonable proximity" and "serves" but does not define these [emus.