The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0177.186 1998-2000 .~~N AL KONISHI ~ ~ DONALD IKEDA coueycterr< nepaycoaaycieit CONSTANCE R KIRIU Legieiaave Aadttor OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK Coanry ojKonmli Hawott CoaNyBanding 23AupuntSdaet ' RECEIVED Hilo, Hawaii 96710 Telephone: (808) 961-8133 D'~,_, FaaNmile: (808) 961-89/1 , County Council June 17, 1999 Richard D. Wurdeman i . Corporation Counsel, County of Hawaii 101 Aupuni Street, Third Floor , Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RE: Request for Opinion Dear Mr. Wurdeman: The purpose of this letter is to request an opinion relating to the attached veto message I received from Mayor Stephen K. Yamashiro yesterday. This matter is scheduled to be discussed at the June 23, 1999 meeting of the County Council, therefore I would appreciate an expedited response. Facts Pursuant to the provisions of Article X, Hawaii County Charter, the Mayor submitted a proposed operating budget for fiscal year 1999-2000 on March 1, 1999 and an amended budget on May 5, 1999. The Mayor's proposals became Bi1145 and Bi1145, Draft 2, respectively. The County Council amended Bill 45 twice and on June 8, 1999 passed on final reading Bi1145, Draft 4. The Council amended the Mayor's proposals by deleting or decreasing certain appropriations and increasing others. The Mayor's veto message stated in relevatt part: After reviewing the approved budget, I am returning Bi1145, Draft 4 with vetoes to certain 'ons and re orin funding for some programs. (underlining added) Charter Proviaioua In reviewing the Mayor's letter, it appears that two charter provisions apply, one specific and one general. The specific provision is contained in Section 10.5 which states in relevant part: If the Mayor disapproves of the bill adopting the operating budget ran thereof, the mayor shall return the bill or the portions vetoed with a written statement of objections to the clerk for further council action within ten calendar days of receipt of bill. (underlining added} Comm. No. ~ 7 ~ A S H File No. ~~t Ref. Tot ~ UtJC I L Ref. Date JIJN ? 3 1999 Richard D. Wurdeman Re: Request for Opinion June 17, 1999 page two The general provision is wntained in Section 3-12 which states in relevant part: If any appropriation bill is presented to the mayor, the mayor may veto any item or portion thereof by ' 'n o t or r u ' the same. (underlining added) Issue Does the County Charter authorize the Mayor to `Yestore" proposed funding by purporting to veto "certain actions?" Also, is the Mayor's `9ine item veto" power restricted to ~ "striking out" or `Yeducing" appropriations? It seems clear that while the Mayor can eliminate or reduce appropriations contained in the budget, there does not seem to be any authority for the Mayor to "restore" funding that the County Council deleted from Bill 4S. Section 10-5 states that the operating budget as submitted and amended shall be deemed adopted if the Councit fails to adopt the operating budget by June 30. The provision is most logically read to apply only if the Council fails to adopt the entire operating budget. However in this case, the Council clearly met its deadline and that provision would seem to be not applicable. It is my understanding that the basic premise for all `9ine item" veto provisions (national, state and local) is that the chief executive should have the power to refrain from spending when it is in the best irrterests of the jurisdiction. I am not aware of any "line item veto" provision which gives the chief executive the power to unilaterally authorize new spending or authorize spending above a level approved by the legislative branch_ the power to authorize or increase spending is generally strictly reserved to the legrslatrve branch except in certain emergency situations. If an appropriation is not present in Bi1145, Draft 4, it does not seem possible for the Mayor to "restore" it by "striking out" or `Yeducing" a portion of the measure. If an appropriation is contained in Bi114S, Draft 4, it also does not seem possible for the Mayor to increase the authorization by "striking out" or "reducing" a portion, of the measure. Conclusion I would appreciate your prompt attention to this inquiry. Please contact me if you require further information or comment in order to wmplete your analysis. 'nc y ` ~ , Al K 's w: Members, Hawaii County Council ' - ` William G. DaLis Stephen K. Yatnashiro . • Managing Dvector Mayor . Henry Cho • .M^.~ Deyuty Managing Director laaunt~r u#` ~.ttfuttii ZS Aupuni Street, Roma 215 Hilo, Hawaii 967201752 • (808) %1.8211 Fax (808) %1-6553 LO KONA: 75.5706 Kualuni Highway, Suite 103 Kailas-Kmu. Hawau 96740 ~ 5808) 329-SM6 Fax (BOg) 3265663 O ~ C June 11, 1999 C O r ' ~y~c~ r~ o ~ Mr. Al Konishi ~ ~ 3 fr County Clerk ~ ~ °4 G County of Hawaii - ro Hilo, HI 96720 i"'' RE: Bill 45, Draft 4, Operating Budget for 1999-2000 GENERAL FUND The Hawaii County Council is to be commended on its efforts in reviewing sad approving Bill 45, Draft 4, Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-2000. With so many uncertainties; it has been one of the most difficult budget efforts. The policy setting role of the Council in establishing the budget for the nezt fiscal year is vary difficult. As part of Bill 45, Draft 4, the Council established an $857,996 Contingency Relief account within the Legislative Budget. In so doing, the Council deleted funding for some ' ongoing activities. While this account map seem prudent, the realities of our fiscal position require that some of the items deleted be restored and I am therefore 11ne item vetoing this account. After reviewing the approved budget, I am returning Bill 45, Draft 4 with vetoes to certain actions and restoring funding for some programs. The action to delete the appropriations for janitorial services . ($46,855) and electricity ($159~,DOOr for operations of the, One Pauahi complez is being vetoed. Renovation work on the One Pauahi project is under way and we ezpect to have agencies moving into the facility during the 1999-2000 fiscal year. Operational funds need to be available. Three positions in the Planning Department ()$90,828) were defunded. Two of the positions relating to taz map drafting are anticipated for the full transfer of the taz mapping function from the City and County of Honolulu. The Planner IV position is needed for the General Plan Review which has just started. Please note that all three positions have some relationship to our real property tae base. Operating Budget , Page 2 June 11, 1999 In preparation for the SHOPO arbitration panel's decision, I am transmitting a proposal which places the 5561,113 balance of the Contingency Relief account into the Provision for Compensation Adjustment account. SEWER FUND 'The Council deleted fuade`from positions and equipment in the Wastewater Division. I am disapproving these actions as we have been cited by the Department of Health in our operations of the Hilo Wastewater Treatment plant and these funds should be made available for compliance purposes. During my review of the ,budget document, I also noted that Section 7 included language which placed conditions on certain eapenditures. I am allowing the language to stand as it does not require any further legislative action. The Council needs to be aware of the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Thera is a June 27, 1988, opinion on this matter issued by former Corporation Counsel Sohn Wagner. Again, congratulations on the budget review effort. Sincerely, Cr~ Stephen~Yl. Yamashiro MAYOR ,