|
minutes 04-12-00Page 17 of 26
<br />RAY: The deletion of the language in the Planning Department which would allow for a Division of Permitting to be created
<br />in the future. I’m wondering if that makes any sense. It’s just hard, in my mind, to engage people on something that may, or
<br />may not, ever happen.
<br />IRVINE: John, it seems to me that we had quite a bit of testimony from, like, contractors, or this or that, who didn’t like to
<br />see this muddying of where can I go if I need a permit. They want to know that Planning has that power rather than Public
<br />Works, which is more like engineering, and knows how to build a road but isn’t into where a road ought to be built. You
<br />know what I mean?
<br />RAY: I guess the bigger question should be if it isn’t broke, why fix it. In spite of it being two separate offices, my sense is
<br />that’s not a major imposition, or problem, right now. But we’re not mandating that change anyway. All we’re doing is
<br />making it possible so that if a future Administration wanted to make that change, they wouldn’t have to amend the Charter to
<br />do it. Marni.
<br />HERKES: But, as you pointed out several times, it is not difficult to amend the Charter, and in this particular instance, there
<br />is no plan in place. There is no will by a current Administration. We’re, kind of, taking pie-in-the-sky stuff and putting it in
<br />here that doesn’t really have any grounds to it. If we were going to omit something, this is probably something I would think
<br />that really isn’t necessary to keep in there.
<br />RAY: So, in other words, if future Council Administration wants to take this up, they also have the ability to vote on a
<br />Charter Amendment to make it happen, and so I’m just throwing that out there. Any other comments? We’ll discuss this
<br />further on the 29th.
<br />In regard to the Planning Commission powers, Chris wrote a lengthy legal opinion. There again, both of these, especially we
<br />heard a lot at the Kona public hearing, seemed to be very difficult for the public to understand and be put in a real negative
<br />light that somehow we’re giving extra powers, additional powers. That’s the way it’s being portrayed. So, I think we should
<br />consider, anyway, whether it makes sense to include these two as well.
<br />IRVINE: I got the same feeling you did, but I thought either just skip it, or give the Planning Commission some real power
<br />and have them elected. Well, they do their thing and be elected. At least these people wouldn’t, at least, keep saying well, the
<br />Planning Commission does this and that.
<br />RAY: Well, I think, in that case, you’d make the Planning Commission advisory only, and the County Council is elected and
<br />they’d make these decisions. Anyway, Chris explains that process, I think, real well. I know we just got it so we need to all
<br />digest that a little bit, but I’d like to throw out that we consider whether these really make sense to go forward with. Gary.
<br />YOSHIYAMA: I have a question. If we don’t need it and then we go through a second round - I’ll count this a second round,
<br />Chris, right? And it gets defeated, or voted down, are we in a more difficult position than we were in the first place? Unless
<br />we say, in the intent of this thing, or on the record, that it’s for clarity purposes only.
<br />YUEN: That’s a good question and I thought of the same thing. I think it actually doesn’t change it if they vote it down. My
<br />ultimate conclusion on the Rules and Regulations was that they had the power to do it, and if you try to put it back and then
<br />the voters voted it down, then they would still have the power to do it, but it’s a little hard to explain, then, to the voters why
<br />you asked them their opinion if it didn’t matter either way. The same thing holds true, and perhaps even more so, for the
<br />special permits, Special Management Area Authority. I didn’t write this up in the letter but the Planning Commission
<br />requested that it be put specifically in the Charter. If we don’t do anything with the Charter, they will continue to give the
<br />Special Management Area permits, as they have been doing for the last 20 years. If you put it on the ballot to give them the
<br />power and then the voters said no, then we’re in a little bit of a quandary, I think.
<br />RAY: Legislative Research Office. I’ve been thinking about this one. I met with the Legislative Auditor today, and her
<br />recommendation is we drop this one. That it doesn’t change anything and there again, it’s confusing. The normal reaction
<br />we’ve been getting is people like the auditing function. You say, well, that’s not what happens. Well, why don’t you make it
<br />happen? Why don’t you make a Charter Amendment? So, I think this is another dropper.
<br />IRVINE: I got the same impression you did. What people would really like to see us do is set up some way to actually audit
<br />rather than dropping the whole thing.
<br />RAY: But I do point out to people the language that strengthens the County Managing Director position. There are two
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 04-12-00.htm7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|