HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0604.060 1996-1998 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~
Dominic Yagong, Member
23 October 1998
Page 2
In this case, the original authorization, granted by Resolution 284-96 explicitly contemplates
inquiries received at that time (March 1996) and a perceived fire hazard existing at that time, and
is limited to the granting of a five year lease. Two and one half years later, this lease has not
been pursued, and the only reasonable construction of the resolution's intent is that it was meant
to meet a short term situation.
For these reasons, I do not believe that the pre-existence of Resolution 284-96 has any effect on
Resolution 333-98.
RDW:brel
hamakua-lands