Oʻahu voters will have the chance to weigh in on four Honolulu charter amendment questions in the November election.
The questions are related to the environment, councilmember salaries, an oversight commission, and the hiring of the city’s emergency management leaders.
To get on the election ballot, charter amendment questions were approved by a supermajority of at least six of nine councilmembers. From there, the amendment must win a majority of the Oʻahu ballots cast to pass.
The general election is Nov. 5 and voters can expect to receive ballots in the mail in mid-October.
Charter question 1:
"Shall the Revised City Charter be amended to require that the City Council appropriate, without having to simultaneously increase real property tax rates to fund the appropriation, one-half of one percent of the City’s estimated real property tax revenues in each fiscal year’s budget and capital program, to be deposited into a Climate Resiliency Fund, the purpose of which is to support initiatives and projects aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change, enhancing the resilience of the City’s infrastructure and communities, and promoting sustainable practices?"
The first question asks if half a percent of the city’s total revenue each year — about $8.5 million — should be put in a Climate Resiliency Fund.
It would be used to support climate change mitigation and city infrastructure resiliency, without increasing property taxes.
What does a “yes” vote mean?
It would authorize the creation of the Climate Resiliency Fund, which would take half a percent of the city’s budget and dedicate that funding to climate resiliency initiatives and projects.
Councilmember Matt Weyer, who supports the change, explained that climate change is a critical issue the city will continue to face.
“I think it's really just an opportunity for us to acknowledge that we need to prioritize our resilience and public safety and provide an ability to use these funds in a way,” he said.
“It can really keep our communities safe and also provide opportunities for us to better prepare for disasters and climate impacts and other needs.”
This would be the third special fund of its kind. There are two others — the affordable housing fund and the clean water and natural lands fund — both of which also receive a half percent of the city’s revenue.
One concern from the city’s budget office is that the creation of special funds ties up that money so it can't be used on other services.
Department of Budget and Fiscal Services Director Andy Kawano pointed out that the current city budget allocates far more than $8.5 million to climate-related projects and initiatives.
“We currently factor in climate change and climate resiliency and sustainability in almost all of our budget decisions because it's one of the mayor's priorities that we be climate change ready,” he said.
“We didn't feel that automatically setting the funding aside was necessary from a funding standpoint because it's important to us, but councilmembers felt it was very important.”
Weyer added that another reason for the special fund is it would ensure money for climate resiliency, regardless of the priorities of future mayors and councils.
Charter question 2:
"Shall the Revised City Charter be amended to establish the Department of Emergency Management as an independent agency of the City Executive Branch by assigning the Department of Emergency Management a separate chapter in the City Charter similar to the chapters assigned to all other City departments; to provide that all Department of Emergency Management positions, including its Director and Deputy Director, are subject to the civil service laws; and to specify a minimum level of qualifications for the civil service position of the Director of Emergency Management, with additional minimum qualifications to be determined in accordance with civil service laws?"
The question is largely correcting a shortcoming in a 2007 reorganization of city government that created the Department of Emergency Management but did not give it a chapter in the city charter like the other departments. Because of that, the Department of Emergency Management director and deputy director are appointed by the mayor and are not held to the same civil service minimum qualifications as the other directors.
What does a “yes” vote mean?
It would give the Department of Emergency Management its own chapter within the city charter. It would subject the director and deputy director to the same civil service requirements as other department heads. Civil service laws require positions to be filled if they meet certain standards set by the Department of Human Resources.
For the DEM director position, those standards include at least five years of experience in emergency and disaster planning, as well as knowledge of federal and local emergency management laws.
Currently, those minimum standards do not need to be met by the mayor’s appointees to those positions. A "yes" vote would require those minimum civil service qualifications to be met by all DEM employees.
DEM Director Hiro Toiya, who did meet those qualifications despite not being required to, recently stepped down to work for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
That means that this charter amendment could impact the hiring process for the new leader of the department.
Charter question 3:
“Shall the Revised City Charter be amended to establish an Ocean Safety Commission to review and make recommendations on certain activities of the Department of Ocean Safety and to appoint the Chief of Ocean Safety?”
Mayor Rick Blangiardi created the Department of Ocean Safety, splitting it from the Emergency Services Department, earlier this year. This question asks if an oversight commission should be created to monitor the new department.
What does a “yes” vote mean?
It would establish the Ocean Safety Commission which has the power to appoint and remove the chief of the department, hear complaints and review the department’s budget.
The commission is expected to work similarly to the city's Fire Commission and Police Commission, which oversees the Honolulu Fire Department and the Honolulu Police Department.
Charter question 4 (Resolution 24-105 CD1):
“Shall the Revised City Charter provisions relating to the salaries for Councilmembers be amended to cap any annual increase at no more than five percent, require that any changes be tied to the average annual salary changes of city employees in the City’s collective bargaining units, and remove the Council’s authority to vote on its own raises?”
Currently, the Honolulu Salary Commission sets the councilmembers’ salaries, but the council can veto it. This question asks if the council’s vote on their salaries should be removed and have any increases to the councilmember salaries capped at 5%. It also asks if councilmember salaries should be adjusted at the same rate as union contracts for city employees.
What does a “yes” vote mean?
It would no longer allow the city council to vote on their own salaries. This comes after the Honolulu Salary Commission in 2023 recommended a 64% raise to councilmember salaries.
Council Chair Tommy Waters refused to let the council vote on a raise in 2023, despite pushback by a few of the other council members.
“That made us all very, very uncomfortable because no other city employee gets to decide and or vote on their own salary,” Waters said.
“I felt that it was a conflict of interest for us to do so.”
Voting yes on this question would also cap annual salary increases for councilmembers at 5% and tie the changes to union contracts for city workers.
That means if union city employees received a 3% raise, the council’s raises would need to match it — provided it’s under 5%.
