COM 0604.060 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

rtv,w rPh~~, l Stephen K. Yamashiro Richard Wurdeman Mayor - Corporation Counsel ~i•~....•°•'y~ ra Or N~ ~IIItII~~I II~ ~.2CitT2Ttt OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL - IOI Aupuni Stree4 Suit< 325 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720.4262 • (808) 961.8251 • Fax (808) 961.8622 23 October 1998 TO: DOMINIC YAGONG, Member Hawaii County Council FROM: RICHARD D. WURDEMAN~ti~' Corporation Counsel SUBJECT: RESOLUTION 333-88 In your letter of October 8, 1998, you asked questions concerning the relationship between Resolutions 333-98 and 284-96. Resolution 284-96 authorized the Director of Finance to negotiate a lease of a certain parcel aT Koholuele, Hamakua for up ±o five years, with the proviso that any negotiated lease be submitted to the County Council for approval. Apparently, no lease was ever executed under the authority granted by this Resolution. Resolution 333-98 requested that the Mayor prepare a disposition play for various lands in Hamakua, including the subject of Resolution 284-96. This plan was requested tri include provisions for leasing or sub-leasing, exchange, and sale. These two resolutions are not, as seems to be thought, necessarily inconsistent. One is an authorization to enter into a short term lease on one property. The other is a request for a plan, that might include leasing, on all the properties. Thus, hypothetically the two resolutions could be totally consistent. Even had they been inconsistent, a resolution, unlike an ordinance, is meant to deal with matters of special or temporary character. O'Connell v. Bruce 710 A2d. 6"4 (871998), International Association of Fire Iphters Local 1596 v. Citv ofLawrence 798 P.2d. 960 (Kan. Apj 1990). As such it is only in effect for a reasonable period of time. Fountai~z Hills Civil.4ss'n v. City Scottsdale Ariz. 733 P.2d, 1152 (Az App. 1987. bpa. ~Q LU w._ _ _ ~;I~~~ ; lss~