Perhaps the members of the Honolulu City Council need not feel they have a gun to their head, forcing an immediate vote on the extension of the general excise tax (GET) surcharge that’s financing Oahu’s rail project.
But surely there’s call for more urgency than what Council Chairman Ernie Martin called “the luxury of time.”
The enabling legislation for the tax extension is Bill 23, and Martin said he plans to let the Council take its time, holding public hearings to draw comments from different Oahu communities.
This much is fine: Giving the taxpayers a chance to voice their opinions on a pocketbook issue always has merit.
But Martin must keep in mind that the public already testified at length at the Legislature’s last session, when state lawmakers wrangled over the authorization of the half-percent surcharge for an additional five years, through 2027.
The Council’s round of hearings should give the public a chance to get additional clarity on what the tax extension buys them. Many people may have been confused by the mixed messaging Mayor Kirk Caldwell gave, when he was testifying on the extension.
The mayor was pitching varying financing scenarios, for completing the current approved 20-mile project and, alternately, for extending the system to its fullest proposed buildout, from West Kapolei to the University of Hawaii-Manoa. Many have felt he left unclear what the impact on property taxes would be if the GET surcharge is not extended. Hearings would provide the Caldwell administration a second chance to make its case plainly.
But the Council chairman also noted that the legislation gives the city until June 30 to make its decision. There is no reason why this process should take the better part of a year to conclude. For Martin to drag this out would only make him an obstructionist. Completing the hearings and the vote by the end of this year would provide ample time for the public to vet the tax extension further.
The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation has sought the extension because cost overruns made it clear the project would bust its budget before completion.
HART officials told the mayor and Council chairman in a letter that delaying the authorization could hold up progress for key contracts, which is scheduled to happen between now and April.
Martin has countered that postponing the contracts beyond what he described as a “booming” construction cycle could yield lower bids. But for the life of this project to date, delays have meant only one thing: higher costs. The chairman should rethink his assessment, which represents too much of a risk.
Keeping on task with the remaining contracts for the final “City Center” guideway and stations segment is critical to the timely start-up of this long-awaited and much-needed transportation system.
Martin underscored that Caldwell, a persistent lobbyist for the project at the Legislature, should “be present at every hearing” that he plans to schedule. There’s no argument there.
However, it’s hard to ignore the political tension in this entire exchange. Martin and Caldwell are all-but-certain rivals for the mayor’s job in 2016. The public interest won’t be served if politics is allowed to obscure clear thinking and decision-making.
“It would be irresponsible for the City Council to expedite this particular matter for the mere convenience for the transit authority,” Martin said.
In fact, this matter concerns timely completion of the state’s largest public-works project, not “mere convenience,” and ignoring that fact is what would be irresponsible.
