Laserfiche WebLink
FC-79 Page 3 February 6, 2018 <br /> Council Member Herbert M. Richards, III presented his motion to amend Bill 102 with the <br /> contents of Communication 722.3. His amendment is to take the general funds being <br /> replaced for public transportation and revenues from the surcharge and use it to reduce the <br /> fuel tax for the next three increments coming up and reducing the real property tax rate for <br /> all classes by a minimum of 10 percent. Mr. Richards' amendment, as presented, failed. <br /> Council Member Karen Eoff commented on the amendment and that for Mr. Richards' <br /> proposal, there is a completely separate process that needs to be followed along with <br /> public hearings. As much as we want to tax where most appropriate, it cannot be <br /> accomplished through the proposed amendment. <br /> Council Member Aaron Chung stated that due to the severity of this measure and the <br /> ramifications it has on everyone, not just now but going forward, timing of bringing this forward <br /> is poor. Mr. Chung feels at this time, it is impossible to meet with constituents, and we need to <br /> utilize the media and get it out quickly. Working through everything in such a short period of <br /> time is very difficult, especially since no one knew it was coming. When Mr. Chung realized it <br /> was coming to Council, he felt the timing was off. Despite that, he does support it. Imposing this <br /> tax will help the poor immeasurably with the transit system. The fuel tax money, established by <br /> state statute, does not allow for road repairs,but this could allow for it because it is not fuel tax <br /> monies. Mr. Chung also noted we could propose an ordinance which would allow for certain <br /> private roads to be improved. <br /> Chair Maile David noted that Bill 102 is before the Council to approve the Mayor's proposal to <br /> implement the Act 1 recently signed into law. She inquired of Joseph Kamelamela, Corporation <br /> Counsel, whether proposed amendments to Bill 102 can be made to a law that is under State <br /> jurisdiction or do we need to wait until this Council elects whether or not to impose such an <br /> increase and then bring forth amendments to the bill. <br /> Mr. Kamelamela stated he has concerns with the amendments because Section 3-10, of the <br /> Hawaii County Charter, contains a provision which states a Bill should have but one subject <br /> matter. In this case, it addresses three distinct matters and this is something major. If it goes <br /> through the public hearing and passes, Mr. Kamelamela would have no alternative but to advise <br /> that the Mayor veto the bill because it violates the Charter. The clear path is to deal with <br /> everything separately. <br /> Mr. Richards stated he disagreed with Mr. Kamelamela because under the name of the bill it says <br /> "Adding New Article Relating To Transportation Surcharge" and that nowhere in Mr. Richards' <br /> amendment does it change that. It only puts a timeline; so until this actually happens, we don't <br /> adopt the function of this bill. He stated the amendment does not change anything, it is complete <br /> separate legislation. If the bill were named differently, he would appreciate that, but this all <br /> relates to the bill. Mr. Richards states that he is trying to be fiscally-minded and responsible by <br /> tying things together going forward. <br />