Oahu voters are being asked to study up on 20 proposed changes to the Honolulu City Charter dealing with topics as diverse as giving more teeth to the Honolulu Police Commission to creating a new Department of Land Management.

Commission Chairman David Rae doesn’t apologize for the large number of proposals.

“There are as many as there needs to be,” he said, pointing out that the panel started out looking through 154 initial proposals.

In 2006, Oahu voters considered 12 proposals and approved three; in 1998 they reviewed eight and approved seven; and in 1992 they looked at 32 and approved 27.

Here’s a synopsis of some of the more significant and interesting proposals and what their passage would mean for city government and Oahu residents.

>> Charter Amendment 1: Makes it clear that the Police Commission has the authority to suspend or fire the police chief at-will. Additionally, it would clarify that the commission has the ability to subpoena witnesses and evidence while investigating allegations of wrongdoing by officers, and the police chief would have to provide written reasons if he or she disagrees with a recommendation of the commission.

Background and impact: The amendment comes amid criticism that the current commission has been ineffectual in addressing a string of controversies involving Honolulu Police Department officers, among them Chief Louis Kealoha, currently the subject of a federal investigation involving the alleged misuse of his authority. There’s been disagreement over how much of an impact the amendment would have. For instance, Police Commission Chairman Ron Taketa maintains his panel already has the ability to fire or suspend the chief when necessary. But Charter Commission members who wrote up the proposal say the amendment would eliminate any ambiguity. (The brochure distributed to voters by the Charter Commission incorrectly suggests that the chief now can be fired only for continuous maladministration when, in fact, maladministration is not the only reason the chief can be removed.)

>> Charter Amendment 2: Gives the authority to set the salaries for staff attorneys of the Ethics Commission to the commission itself rather than the mayor’s administration. Like most other city attorneys, the salaries would need to be within a range set by the Salary Commission.

>> Background and impact: The amendment arises largely from what had been a tug-of-war over control of the Ethics Commission budget between former Executive Director Chuck Totto and Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s administration. The salaries of Ethics Commission attorneys have been less than that of deputy prosecutors and assistant corporation counsels.

>> Charter Amendment 3: Gives the Prosecutor’s Office final say over its budget following approval from the City Council.

Background and impact: The amendment ensures the elected city prosecutor maintains independence from the budget ax of the city administration.

>> Charter Amendment 4: Creates a rate commission to review and recommend fares for bus, paratransit and rail riders, and even parking fees. It also puts responsibility over operation and maintenance of the upcoming rail line in the hands of the Department of Transportation Services, which already is responsible for the city’s bus and paratransit operations.

>> Background and impact: The City Charter now says the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation is responsible for rail operations. The amendment would unify rail, bus and paratransit operations under a single entity and allow the rates to be determined by a single commission. Proponents argue decisions about all three should be under the same group because they work in concert with each other and riders use them interchangeably. HART would still be responsible for rail construction. The proposal was pushed by Caldwell.

>> Charter Amendment 5: Changes the criteria for use of Affordable Housing Fund monies to allow for development of rental housing for those earning 60 percent of area median income or less and that the housing remains affordable for at least 60 years.

Background and impact: Introduced by Councilman Brandon Elefante, the proposal is aimed at making it easier for developers to create affordable rental housing to a broader pool of applicants. The current law says housing fund monies can be used for those earning less than 50 percent of AMI, and that the housing must remain affordable in perpetuity. The 60 percent, 60-year formula is what the state uses. The proposal was supported by affordable housing developers, but opposed by housing advocates who say priority should be given to those most in need, and for a longer period than 60 years.

>> Charter Amendment 9: Establishes a Honolulu Zoo Fund funded by a minimum of one-half of 1 percent of annual property tax revenues.

Background and impact: This proposal is essentially a referendum on the fate of the zoo. The facility has lost its accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and city officials say a dedicated source of funding is critical to regain it. Some opponents disagree with the concept of zoos, while others believe dedicated funds of any sort is bad government policy. In April, city budget officials estimated that a 0.5 percent share of annual property revenues was about $6.5 million.

>> Charter Amendment 13: Requires that all city-funded grants to nonprofits come from the Grants in Aid Fund, regardless of the source of those monies.

Background and impact: The Caldwell administration and City Council leaders have been warring over the process for selecting nonprofits that get federal grants. The proposal seeks to settle that issue somewhat by making the Grants in Aid Fund the sole source for city-funded grants, regardless of where those funds originate. As a result, organizations would need to go through the same vetting process to obtain the funds, making it more difficult for Council members to direct grant money to their personal favorite charities.