REP PC 106 08/21/2006 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Communication 998 , Bill 318 Page 4 of 5 Ms. Isbell said that if it were a bill that everyone worked on for a long time then it would be fine, however, she had not seen the bill before yesterday. Ms. Isbell felt this should have been discussed with the Planning Department first and suggested voting against the referral and the bill, even though she said she made the motion. She noted the motion was made just to get it on the floor and thinks the Planning Director should informally look at the bill first. Council Member Jacobson noted that Mr. Higa's motion was only to refer and not refer and approve, and asked whether Mr. Higa's motion to refer erased the thrust of the original motion to approve with the amendment. Ms. Kiriu noted that sometimes there is an override when there's an amendment because the override is with a different type of action. Ms. Kiriu stated that ut this case the amendment actually changes or diverts an action, however if it fails to pass by vote on the amendment, then you go back to the main motion. Mr. Higa stated he would like to see the bills have it's day in court and go through the process because if the Planting Director chose not to work on it informally with a council member, the bill may never see the Tight of day unless we do what we're trying to do right now by referring the matter to the Planning Director and Planning Commission. This would trigger the 120 plus 60 days and, like it or not the bill comes back before the council for further action. Mr. Higa stated that the bill needs some work but totally understands this is the only way Mr. Hoffmann's bill stands a chance of becoming law. At least in 120 days it comes back to the council to be voted up or down, but on the other hand, if discussions were done informally and did not go through the process, it may never come before the council for consideration. Council Member Doc Holschuh stated that basically, the concept and the concurrency ideas aze good and tthat no question something needs to be done now. Doc Holschuh said he didn't like certain aspects of the bill and doesn't want to support it because he agrees with Ms. Isbell. However, he does want the bill to go to the Planning Duector and Planning Commission and would vote only for a referral of the bill, without agreeing or endorsing its contents. Doc Holschuh confirmed with Ms. Kiriu that by referring the bill it did not mean the committee was voting yes on the details. Committee Chair Pilago noted that if the amendment to refer occurs and goes to the Planning Commission, it returns to Council and not Committee. Ms. Isbell stated she could not vote for this as she feels it should go informally before the Planning Department and Commission. Council Member Jacobson stated he could not see complying with sunshine law regulations through an informal process which would also potentially subject members to serial communications. Ms. Kiriu then read the full amendment as follows: A motion to recommend to the full council that bi11318 be referred to the Planning Director and Planning Commission for their recommendation and comments in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 25-2-43, Hawaii County Code. The motion to refer carried. Ms. Kiriu also noted that it was not necessary to vote on the main motion due to the affirmative vote on the referral, and therefore the main motion is gone. PC REPORT N0. 106