Posted on: Monday, May 30, 2005

EDITORIAL
City fee structure must be monitored

The surge in city fees to pay for everything from sewers to photography in public parks is not unexpected and — on balance — clearly warranted.

But the public has a right to ask why it must endure a "boom and bust" cycle in which fees stay stagnant for years and then suddenly escalate.

A far better option, of course, is to keep fees on a modest increase schedule directly related to the cost of services.

The Hannemann administration and the current City Council argue that much of the problem stems from the previous Harris administration, which made an absolute crusade over holding down both fees and property taxes.

That's true. But it is also true that every previous budget (including fee schedules and property tax rates) was approved by the City Council, whose membership included some of those now serving.

According to staff writer Robbie Dingeman, there has been little public objection to the fee hikes. If there is resistance, Honolulu taxpayers and voters should recognize that the fees and taxes are being imposed by the folks they chose — or in too many cases failed to choose — at the polls.

Sadly, recent statistics show that Hawai'i's voter turnout — by one measurement — was the lowest in the nation in the last election. Surely we can do better. And if there is unhappiness over the new fee hikes, perhaps the other half of the eligible voters who chose not to vote last time around should ask themselves if they bear some of that responsibility.

Council members say the new fee schedules will only meet, or in some cases, merely come close to covering, expenses for the services they provide. They must strictly hold to their promise then that the funds will indeed go toward the services they are earmarked for.

In addition, it is good that the council is taking a serious look at some form of "circuit- breaker" system that would hold down the impact of property tax increases on lower-income families.

It is tempting, but wrong, to raise fees in a way that generates extra cash to cover costs that by right should be met through the city's basic tax — the property tax.

If the general fund needs a boost, the fairest way to do it is to raise property taxes. Fees should be no more than needed to meet the direct cost of the services they provide.