[ OUR OPINION ]
City should keep its
mitts off Hanauma feesFEES collected by the city for admission to a city facility should be used solely for the maintenance of that facility, but the City Council is considering a dangerous departure from that principle. Less than two years after promising to use revenue from entrance fees paid by tourists at Hanauma Bay strictly to operate and maintain the bay and its facilities, the Council is poised to divert more than $1 million from the special Hanauma Bay fund to balance the city's budget.
THE ISSUE
The City Council is considering a proposal to divert more than $1 million in Hanauma Bay entrance fees to pay for unrelated projects.
When an attorney for nonresident plaintiffs challenged the $3 entrance fee in federal court, city Corporation Counsel David Arakawa argued that the 1997 ordinance providing for the fees specified that the revenue be used to protect against "the degradation of the nature preserve." Mayor Harris promised that the city would remain "committed to preserving Hanauma Bay."
The city had been improperly using nearly 20 percent of the revenues to pay city debt service, and later spent some of the revenue to maintain four other park sites. Federal Judge Alan Kay ruled that Hanauma Bay revenues no longer could be spent on those other parks or for any other non-Hanauma Bay use.
During the 2002 court proceedings, the city argued successfully that the $3 charge to tourists was a user fee, not a tax, since the city is not allowed under state law to levy new taxes. The city has discretion on how revenue from taxes is spent, but the argument can be made that revenues from admission, or user, fees should not be diverted.
Former Waikiki Aquarium Director Bruce Carlson complained at the time the Hanauma Bay fee ordinance was debated that revenue from aquarium admission fees had been transferred to the state general fund.
"Diverting designated fees and using them from other unspecified purposes is tantamount to a tax, and goes counter to the public hearing process which allowed fees to be established in the first place," he wrote in a column on these pages.
The Council may change the Hanauma Bay fee ordinance to allow some of the revenue to be spent on other city projects without violating Judge Kay's ruling. Although the proposal would allow such a diversion of funds only this year, it would create a precedent for future years in which the Council becomes desperate in searching for money to pay for pet projects.
If revenue from the Hanauma Bay fees is more than what is needed to maintain the nature preserve and its facilities, the fees should be reduced. The city should not divert user or entrance fees associated with a particular facility "in this case a nature preserve" to pay for unrelated city projects.
