The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically HRS §46-1.5, outlines the powers and limitations of counties regarding zoning and planning. This statute grants counties the authority to adopt and amend zoning ordinances, including the power to establish districts, regulate land use, building heights, and density. However, this authority is not absolute and is subject to state-wide planning policies and environmental review requirements, such as those mandated by the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA), HRS Chapter 343. When a county proposes a significant change to its zoning ordinance that could have a substantial impact on the environment, it must undergo an environmental assessment or impact statement process. The question asks about the primary legal mechanism for a county in Hawaii to implement a comprehensive change in land use regulations across its jurisdiction. Zoning ordinances, enacted under the authority granted by HRS Chapter 46, are the direct legal instruments for achieving this. While general planning, county charters, and intergovernmental agreements are relevant to local governance, zoning ordinances are the specific legislative tools used to translate planning goals into enforceable land use controls. Therefore, the adoption of a new or amended zoning ordinance is the most direct and primary legal mechanism for a county to implement widespread land use changes.

The question pertains to the authority of a county in Hawaii to impose a special assessment for a public improvement project. In Hawaii, counties have the power to levy special assessments to fund public improvements that provide a direct benefit to the properties being assessed. This authority is derived from state statutes, such as Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, Part IV, which governs county powers and special assessments. The key principle is that the assessment must be proportional to the benefits conferred upon the property, not necessarily its value or the cost of the improvement. A special assessment is a charge against real property to pay for a public improvement that is of special benefit to that property. The assessment district is typically defined based on the area that will receive the direct benefit. The rate of assessment can be determined by various methods, including front footage, area, or a combination thereof, as long as it reasonably reflects the benefit. Therefore, a county can legally impose a special assessment on properties within an improvement district for a sewer line extension, provided the assessment is levied in a manner that reflects the special benefits conferred upon those properties. This aligns with the general principles of special assessments in local government finance across the United States, where such levies are permissible to fund improvements that enhance property value or utility, but they must be carefully structured to avoid being deemed an unconstitutional taking or a general tax.

The question probes the procedural requirements for amending a county general plan in Hawaii, specifically focusing on the role of the county planning commission and the county council. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, particularly HRS §46-4, outlines the powers and duties of county governments. For general plan amendments, HRS §46-4(a)(6) mandates that the county council shall adopt, amend, and repeal ordinances. However, the process for significant amendments, as defined by HRS §46-4(a)(6) and often elaborated in county ordinances, typically involves a recommendation from the county planning commission. The commission, established under HRS Chapter 46, is tasked with advising the council on planning matters, including the general plan. While the council holds the ultimate legislative authority, the planning commission’s review and recommendation are a critical procedural step, ensuring public input and expert consideration before legislative action. The planning commission’s role is advisory but substantive in the amendment process. Therefore, the council cannot unilaterally adopt an amendment without the commission’s involvement, which usually entails a public hearing before the commission. The county council then considers the commission’s recommendation and may hold its own public hearings before voting on the ordinance to amend the general plan. This structured process is designed to ensure thorough deliberation and public participation in shaping long-term land use and development strategies for the county.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically HRS §46-1.5, outlines the powers and limitations of counties in Hawaii regarding the regulation of certain businesses and activities. This statute grants counties broad authority to enact ordinances for the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens, including the power to license and regulate businesses. However, this authority is not absolute and is subject to limitations, such as not conflicting with state law or the Hawaii Constitution. When a county ordinance addresses an area that is also regulated by the state, a preemption analysis is necessary. State preemption occurs when state law occupies the field or when a local ordinance directly conflicts with state law. In this scenario, the county ordinance imposing a higher licensing fee on short-term rentals than what is stipulated or implied by state regulatory frameworks, without a clear legislative delegation of such specific authority, could be challenged. The key is whether the state has exclusively occupied the field of short-term rental licensing fees or if the county’s fee structure creates an undue burden or conflict with state policy. Without specific state legislative authorization for differential county fee structures on short-term rentals that exceed a state-defined or implied reasonable regulatory cost, such an ordinance may be found to be an unlawful exercise of extraterritorial power or an invalid attempt to regulate beyond the scope permitted by state law, potentially impacting the county’s ability to impose such a fee. The question focuses on the county’s power to impose a fee that is significantly higher than the state’s implied regulatory cost, testing the understanding of preemption and the limits of county fiscal powers when they intersect with state regulatory schemes.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically HRS §46-15.5, governs the establishment and operation of special improvement districts by counties. This statute outlines the process by which a county can create a district to finance public improvements that benefit properties within that district. The key element for establishing such a district is the requirement for a petition signed by at least sixty percent of the property owners within the proposed district, representing at least sixty percent of the assessed valuation of the land within that district. This dual threshold ensures broad support from both the number of property owners and the economic stake they hold. If this petition threshold is met, the county can then proceed with the formation process, which typically involves public hearings and council approval. The purpose of these districts is to allow for localized funding of specific projects, such as infrastructure upgrades, which might not be feasible through general county funds alone. This mechanism promotes a form of user-pays financing for targeted improvements.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically HRS §46-15.5, addresses the authority of counties to impose and collect special assessments. This statute grants counties the power to levy assessments on real property for public improvements that benefit the property. The statute outlines the process for establishing assessment districts, levying assessments, and the procedures for notice and hearing. When a county proposes to undertake a public improvement project, such as a new sewer line installation in a specific neighborhood, and wishes to recover a portion of the costs from the properties directly benefiting from this improvement, it can utilize the special assessment mechanism. The total cost of the improvement is not necessarily borne by the county general fund; rather, a portion can be allocated to the properties that receive a special benefit. The allocation is typically based on factors like frontage, area, or a combination thereof, as determined by the county. This method of financing public works is distinct from general taxation and is designed to ensure that those who directly benefit from an improvement contribute to its cost. The statute provides a framework for due process, requiring public notice of the proposed improvement and assessments, and allowing property owners to protest. After considering any protests and making necessary adjustments, the county can finalize the assessments. This ensures that the county can fund essential infrastructure projects while distributing the cost equitably among the beneficiaries.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically section 46-6, outlines the powers and duties of counties, including their authority to enact ordinances. When a county ordinance conflicts with state law, the principle of preemption generally dictates that state law prevails. However, the scope of county authority is not absolute and is subject to limitations imposed by the state constitution and state statutes. In this scenario, the county ordinance concerning waste management, while intended to address local environmental concerns, directly contradicts HRS Chapter 342D, which establishes statewide standards for solid waste management. HRS § 342D-1 defines solid waste management and provides the framework for its regulation. Because the state has occupied the field of solid waste management through comprehensive legislation, a local ordinance that imposes substantially different or conflicting requirements is preempted by state law. The county’s attempt to regulate waste disposal methods in a manner inconsistent with the state’s established regulatory scheme is therefore invalid. This principle ensures uniformity in environmental protection across the state and prevents a patchwork of conflicting local regulations that could hinder statewide environmental goals and interstate commerce. The county’s authority is derived from the state, and this authority can be limited or superseded by state legislative action when the state deems it necessary to enact uniform policies.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically HRS §46-1.5, outlines the powers and limitations of counties in Hawaii regarding the acquisition, management, and disposition of property. This statute grants counties broad authority to exercise powers of self-government not inconsistent with the state constitution and laws. Regarding the disposal of real property, HRS §46-1.5(12) states that counties may sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of property when it is no longer needed for public use, subject to certain procedural requirements. These procedures typically involve public notice and competitive bidding or public auction, unless specific exemptions apply. The statute aims to balance the county’s need for flexibility in managing its assets with the public interest in ensuring transparency and obtaining fair market value. Therefore, a county’s ability to convey property to a private non-profit organization without a public auction hinges on whether such a transfer aligns with the statutory provisions for property disposition and serves a public purpose that might justify an exception to standard competitive processes, or if the non-profit is acting as an agent for a public purpose. The critical element is that the conveyance must be for a public purpose and adhere to the statutory framework for property disposal, which generally prioritizes public participation and fair value.

The question pertains to the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically concerning the powers and limitations of counties. HRS §46-15.2 addresses the establishment of special improvement districts and the levying of assessments for improvements. When a county council proposes to establish a special improvement district and levy assessments, HRS §46-15.2(a) mandates that the council must hold a public hearing. This hearing is a crucial procedural safeguard to allow property owners within the proposed district to voice their concerns and objections. The statute specifies that notice of the hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the county at least once, not less than twenty nor more than thirty days prior to the hearing. Furthermore, notice must also be mailed to all owners of property within the proposed district whose names and addresses are known. The purpose of this dual notice requirement is to ensure broad public awareness and provide an opportunity for direct input from affected individuals. Failure to adhere to these notice and hearing requirements can render the establishment of the district and the levy of assessments invalid, as it violates due process principles and statutory mandates for local government actions impacting private property rights. The county’s authority to undertake such improvements and finance them through assessments is conditioned upon strict compliance with these procedural prerequisites.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 92, specifically the Sunshine Law, governs open meetings for state and county boards, commissions, and committees. The intent of this law is to ensure transparency and public access to governmental decision-making processes. Key provisions include requirements for public notice of meetings, the opportunity for public participation, and the prohibition of discussions or decisions made in closed sessions unless specifically authorized by statute. For example, HRS §92-3 mandates that notice of any meeting must be published at least six calendar days prior to the meeting in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the meeting will be held, or if no newspaper is published in the county, then in a newspaper of general circulation in the state. Furthermore, HRS §92-5 outlines permissible reasons for closing a meeting, such as discussing sensitive personnel matters or pending litigation, but even then, the meeting must be properly convened and a vote taken to close it, with minutes recorded. The law emphasizes that all governmental affairs should be conducted openly, and any deviation requires strict adherence to statutory exceptions. Understanding these principles is crucial for ensuring governmental accountability at the local level in Hawaii.

The question pertains to the concept of “home rule” in Hawaii’s governmental structure, specifically as it relates to the powers and limitations of its four counties: Honolulu, Maui, Kauai, and Hawaii. Unlike many other U.S. states where counties derive their powers from specific state statutes that can be amended or repealed, Hawaii’s counties possess broader powers due to Article VIII, Section 6 of the Hawaii State Constitution. This constitutional provision grants counties the power to frame and adopt a “charter” for their own self-government, which, if not inconsistent with the constitution or laws of the state, supersedes any conflicting county ordinances or laws enacted by the state legislature that are not of state-wide concern. This means that counties in Hawaii have a significant degree of autonomy in managing local affairs, provided their charter provisions and ordinances do not contravene state law or the state constitution, and do not infringe upon matters of statewide significance. For instance, a county charter might grant a county the power to regulate zoning within its borders, a power that is generally considered a local matter. However, if the state legislature were to enact a law concerning environmental protection that had statewide implications, a county ordinance that conflicted with this state law would likely be preempted, even if it were contained within the county’s charter. The key is the distinction between local and statewide concerns. The correct answer reflects this constitutional empowerment of Hawaiian counties to adopt charters and exercise self-governance within the bounds of state law and constitutional limitations.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically Section 46-1.5, outlines the powers of counties to enact ordinances. This statute grants counties broad authority to adopt and enforce ordinances for the public welfare, health, safety, and morals. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to limitations, including the principle of preemption by state law. Preemption occurs when state law supersedes local ordinances that attempt to regulate matters already governed by the state. In the context of environmental regulations, Hawaii has established comprehensive state-level environmental protection laws. Therefore, a county ordinance that directly conflicts with or attempts to regulate an area exclusively reserved for state authority under environmental statutes, such as setting specific emission standards for industrial facilities that differ from state-mandated standards, would likely be preempted by state law. The county’s authority to enact ordinances is derived from the state constitution and statutes, and it cannot enact laws that contravene state legislative intent or established statewide regulatory frameworks. The question probes the understanding of this balance of power and the limits of county legislative authority when state law occupies a particular regulatory field.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically HRS §46-1.5, outlines the powers of counties to enact ordinances. This section grants counties broad authority to enact, amend, and repeal ordinances for the welfare of their residents, including provisions related to zoning, building codes, public health, and safety. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to limitations imposed by state law and the Hawaii State Constitution. For instance, ordinances cannot conflict with state statutes or constitutional provisions. In the context of land use and development, counties are empowered to implement zoning ordinances that regulate the use of land, building heights, setbacks, and density. These zoning powers are a cornerstone of local government’s ability to manage growth and protect the environment. When a county enacts an ordinance, it is exercising its police power, which is the inherent authority of a government to regulate for the public good. The process of enacting an ordinance typically involves public hearings and council approval, ensuring transparency and community input. The specific scenario presented would require an understanding of how county ordinances, particularly those concerning land use and development, are derived from and constrained by state legislative authority in Hawaii. The question tests the understanding of the source and scope of county ordinance-making power within the framework of Hawaii’s governmental structure.

The question probes the understanding of Hawaii’s Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically concerning county powers and limitations regarding the establishment of special improvement districts. HRS §46-43 outlines the general authority of counties to establish such districts for public improvements. However, HRS §46-44.5 imposes a critical limitation: the county council must approve the establishment of any special improvement district by a two-thirds vote if the proposed district includes residential property that is not vacant. This two-thirds vote requirement is a safeguard to ensure broader consensus when the district impacts existing homeowners. The scenario describes a proposed district encompassing residential properties with existing homes. Therefore, the county council’s resolution to establish this district would require a two-thirds majority vote of its members to be validly enacted under this specific provision. This requirement is distinct from the simple majority needed for many other county legislative actions and reflects a legislative intent to provide greater protection for homeowners against the imposition of special assessments without substantial agreement.

The question pertains to the procedural requirements for amending a county general plan in Hawaii, specifically focusing on the role of public hearings and notice. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 6E, while related to historic preservation, does not directly govern the amendment process of county general plans. Instead, HRS Chapter 46, particularly sections concerning county planning and zoning, and HRS Chapter 205, which addresses land use, are more relevant. The process for amending a general plan typically involves a proposal by the county planning commission or county council, followed by public hearings. HRS § 46-1.5 outlines the powers and duties of county planning commissions, which often include holding public hearings on proposed general plan amendments. HRS § 205-1.5 also mandates public hearings for certain land use decisions that could impact the general plan. The critical element is that a public hearing must be held after adequate public notice. The specific duration of notice and the method of dissemination are often detailed in county ordinances, but the statutory requirement for a hearing and notice is fundamental. Therefore, an amendment adopted without a properly noticed public hearing would be procedurally defective. The scenario describes an amendment being adopted without any public hearing, which violates the established procedural safeguards intended to ensure public input and transparency in land use planning, a core tenet of Hawaii’s local government law. This procedural flaw renders the amendment invalid.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically HRS §46-15.5, outlines the authority of counties to issue revenue bonds. This statute permits counties to issue revenue bonds for various public improvements, including the acquisition, construction, and improvement of any public or private undertaking, facility, or property that the county deems beneficial to the public welfare. This broad authority is subject to certain procedural requirements, such as a public hearing and a resolution of the county council. The key aspect is that revenue bonds are payable solely from the revenues derived from the undertaking for which they are issued, or from other specified revenue sources, and do not constitute a general obligation of the county. Therefore, a county council’s resolution to issue revenue bonds for a wastewater treatment facility expansion, as long as it follows the statutory procedures and the facility’s revenues are pledged, is a valid exercise of its fiscal powers under Hawaii law. Other options are incorrect because they either misstate the purpose for which revenue bonds can be issued, misrepresent the nature of the debt, or propose actions outside the typical scope of county revenue bond authority as defined by state statute. For instance, general obligation bonds require voter approval and are backed by the full faith and credit of the county, a different mechanism than revenue bonds. Issuing bonds for purely private, non-beneficial enterprises without a public purpose would likely be ultra vires.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically HRS §46-1.5, addresses the powers and limitations of counties in Hawaii concerning zoning and planning. This statute grants counties broad authority to enact zoning ordinances, including provisions for land use, building regulations, and development standards. However, this authority is not absolute and is subject to state-level oversight and certain constitutional limitations. When a county ordinance conflicts with state law, the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and Hawaii’s own constitutional framework generally dictate that state law prevails. In this scenario, the county’s attempt to impose a moratorium on all new construction without a clear statutory basis or a compelling, narrowly tailored justification that aligns with state planning goals would likely be challenged. HRS §46-1.5(a)(11) allows counties to adopt and enforce zoning regulations, but these must be consistent with the Hawaii State Planning Act (HRS Chapter 226). A blanket moratorium, especially one that appears arbitrary or overly broad, may be seen as exceeding the county’s delegated powers or infringing upon property rights without due process. The county’s authority to regulate is derived from the state, and thus, its actions must remain within the bounds of the powers granted and be consistent with overarching state policies. The state legislature has the ultimate authority to delegate or reclaim powers related to land use and development. Therefore, an ordinance that directly contradicts or undermines state legislative intent, or is enacted without proper procedural safeguards and substantive justification, would be invalid. The principle of Dillon’s Rule, which limits the powers of local governments to those expressly granted, implied, or essential to their governmental functions, is relevant here, although Hawaii’s constitution provides somewhat broader home rule powers than many other states. Nevertheless, these powers are still circumscribed by state law.

The question probes the specific procedural requirements for the adoption of a new zoning ordinance by a county in Hawaii, focusing on the interplay between public notice and the final adoption process. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically HRS § 46-1.5, outlines the general powers of counties, including zoning. However, the detailed procedures for zoning ordinance adoption are typically found within county charters and ordinances, which must align with state enabling legislation. A critical component of due process in legislative actions, especially those affecting property rights like zoning, is adequate public notice. HRS § 46-1.5(a)(2) mandates that counties provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing before adopting zoning ordinances. This notice requirement is not merely a formality but a substantive due process guarantee. For zoning ordinances, this typically involves publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the county and often posting on the county’s official website. The “three distinct readings” requirement is a common legislative practice for ordinances, ensuring thorough deliberation and opportunity for amendment, but it is not universally mandated for all ordinance types or in all jurisdictions, and its specific application to zoning in Hawaii counties is governed by their respective charters and ordinances, which are themselves enacted under state authority. The critical factor for validity is adherence to the statutorily and charter-mandated notice and hearing procedures. The adoption of a zoning ordinance requires the county council to follow the prescribed legislative process, which includes public hearings and proper notification. Failure to provide adequate public notice, as defined by state law and county ordinances, can render the ordinance invalid. The process generally involves introduction, committee review, public hearings, council deliberation, and a final vote. The question centers on the timing and nature of public notice relative to the final adoption. The requirement for notice prior to the *final* adoption is paramount for ensuring public participation and due process. While multiple readings and public hearings are part of the process, the final adoption must be preceded by legally sufficient notice that allows affected parties to understand the proposal and voice their concerns. The specific number of days for notice and the method of publication are detailed in county ordinances and charters, which are enacted pursuant to HRS § 46-1.5. The core principle is that the public must be informed before the final legislative act occurs.

The question concerns the process by which a county in Hawaii, specifically the County of Maui, can initiate proceedings to acquire private property for public use through eminent domain, a power inherent in the state and delegated to its counties. The relevant legal framework in Hawaii for eminent domain is primarily governed by Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 101, “Eminent Domain.” Specifically, HRS §101-12 outlines the preliminary steps a condemning authority must take before filing a lawsuit. This statute mandates that the condemning authority must make a good faith effort to negotiate with the property owner for the purchase of the property. This negotiation involves providing the owner with a written offer to purchase, which must include an appraisal of the property’s fair market value. The owner must be given a reasonable time to consider the offer. Only after these good faith negotiation attempts have been exhausted, and an agreement has not been reached, can the condemning authority file a complaint in the appropriate circuit court to commence the eminent domain action. This process is designed to ensure due process and fair compensation for property owners, aligning with constitutional protections against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. The county’s legislative body, in this case, the Maui County Council, would typically authorize the initiation of such proceedings through a resolution or ordinance, following the executive branch’s (Mayor’s office) recommendation and the availability of necessary funding. The legal department would then handle the formal filing and subsequent court proceedings.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically HRS §46-1.5, outlines the powers of counties to enact ordinances and manage their affairs. This statute grants counties broad authority, but it is subject to limitations imposed by the state constitution and state law. When a county ordinance conflicts with a state statute, the doctrine of preemption generally applies, meaning the state law supersedes the local ordinance if the state has occupied the field or if the ordinance directly interferes with the state’s objectives. In this scenario, the county’s attempt to regulate the disposal of certain materials in a manner that is less restrictive than the state’s comprehensive environmental protection scheme, as established in HRS Chapter 342D concerning solid waste management, would likely be preempted. State environmental regulations are often considered a matter of statewide concern, and local governments cannot enact ordinances that undermine these statewide standards. The county ordinance, by allowing a disposal method prohibited by state law, creates a direct conflict. Therefore, the state law would prevail, rendering the county ordinance invalid to the extent of the conflict. The principle of home rule, while granting significant autonomy, does not permit counties to enact laws that contradict or weaken state-level mandates, particularly in areas of public health and environmental safety.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically section 46-15.5, governs the issuance of revenue bonds by counties in Hawaii. This statute outlines the procedures and requirements for a county to issue bonds for public improvements. The question revolves around the specific circumstances under which a county can issue revenue bonds without a public referendum, as provided by state law. HRS § 46-15.5(c)(1) details that a county may issue revenue bonds for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, or improving public works or facilities, including but not limited to, water systems, sewer systems, and refuse collection and disposal systems, without the requirement of a public referendum if the bonds are payable solely from the revenues derived from the public works or facilities for which the bonds are issued. This means that if the revenue generated by the specific project being financed is sufficient to cover the debt service on the bonds, the county can proceed without voter approval. Other methods of financing, such as general obligation bonds, often require voter approval due to their pledge of the county’s full faith and credit, which is a broader commitment than revenue bonds tied to specific project income. The concept of “special purpose revenue bonds” is central here, emphasizing the direct link between the project’s revenue stream and the bond repayment.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically HRS §46-15.5, outlines the powers and duties of counties regarding public improvements and the financing thereof. This statute permits counties to finance public improvements through the issuance of bonds, including revenue bonds, and to establish special assessment districts. When a county undertakes a public improvement that benefits specific properties, it can levy special assessments against those properties to recover a portion of the costs. The determination of the assessment amount is typically based on the benefit conferred upon the property, often calculated using methods such as front footage, area, or a combination thereof, as prescribed by county ordinance and state law. In this scenario, the county of Maui is proposing to upgrade the wastewater treatment infrastructure in a particular district. This type of improvement directly benefits properties within the vicinity by providing essential services and potentially increasing property values. Therefore, the county has the authority under HRS §46-15.5 to levy special assessments on the properties that will receive this direct benefit to help finance the project. The specific methodology for allocating these assessment costs would be detailed in the Maui County Code, which must align with the broader framework provided by state statutes. The core principle is that the assessment should reflect the special benefit derived by the property from the public improvement, distinguishing it from general tax revenues that fund services benefiting the entire county. The county’s ability to establish a special assessment district and levy these assessments is a key mechanism for funding localized public works projects.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically HRS §46-1.5, outlines the powers and limitations of counties in Hawaii. This statute grants counties broad authority to enact ordinances for the public health, safety, and welfare of their residents. However, this authority is not absolute and is subject to state preemption. When a county ordinance conflicts with a state law, the state law generally prevails. In this scenario, the county ordinance regarding solid waste disposal fees directly impacts environmental regulations and public health, areas where the State of Hawaii has a significant interest and often exercises its preemptive authority. The state’s comprehensive solid waste management program, established under HRS Chapter 342G, sets forth statewide standards and regulations for waste management. A county ordinance that imposes fees for services already regulated or provided under a state program, or that creates a conflicting regulatory framework, could be challenged as preempted by state law. The question hinges on the principle of Dillon’s Rule, which is generally applied in many US states, but Hawaii follows a more liberal interpretation of home rule powers for its counties, often described as a “strong home rule” or “Hawaii Rule.” Under this interpretation, counties possess powers not expressly prohibited by the state constitution or statutes. However, even with strong home rule, the state retains the power to preempt local authority when it demonstrates a compelling state interest. Environmental protection and solid waste management are typically considered matters of statewide concern. Therefore, if the county ordinance’s fee structure or operational requirements create a conflict with or undermine the state’s established solid waste management framework, it is likely to be deemed invalid due to state preemption. The core concept tested is the balance of power between state and county governments in Hawaii, particularly concerning matters of statewide importance like environmental regulation. The correct answer reflects the understanding that while Hawaii counties have broad powers, these powers are limited by state law, especially when the state has acted to preempt the field.

The question concerns the application of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically concerning the powers and limitations of county governments. HRS § 46-1.5 outlines the general powers of counties, including the authority to enact ordinances for the public peace, health, safety, and welfare. However, this authority is not absolute and is subject to limitations imposed by state law, including the principle of preemption. When a county ordinance conflicts with a state statute that has preemptive intent, the state law generally prevails. In this scenario, the county of Maui enacted an ordinance that, while aiming to protect local agricultural land from development, directly contradicts HRS § 205-2, which establishes the State Land Use Commission and its authority to classify lands, including agricultural districts, and sets forth statewide land use policies. The county ordinance’s attempt to create a stricter, county-specific prohibition on agricultural land conversion that is more restrictive than the state’s framework, without express state authorization for such a divergence, runs afoul of the state’s preemptive authority over land use planning and regulation as established in HRS Chapter 205. Therefore, the county ordinance would likely be deemed invalid due to preemption by state law.

The question pertains to the principle of extraterritoriality as it applies to local government powers in Hawaii, specifically concerning the regulation of activities that extend beyond a county’s physical boundaries. In Hawaii, counties possess broad police powers, but these are generally limited to their territorial jurisdiction. However, certain state statutes can grant or imply extraterritorial reach for specific purposes. For instance, environmental regulations, public health mandates, or economic development initiatives might necessitate cooperation or enforcement mechanisms that cross county lines. The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 701-102, which deals with territorial application of penal provisions, provides a framework for understanding jurisdiction. While not directly granting extraterritorial regulatory power to counties in all instances, it establishes that conduct occurring outside the state may be punishable if it has or is intended to have a substantial effect within the state. Local governments in Hawaii, when acting under their delegated authority, must operate within the bounds set by state law. If a county ordinance aims to regulate an activity originating outside its borders but causing a direct and substantial impact within the county, its enforceability would hinge on whether state law permits such extraterritorial application or if the activity itself falls under a recognized exception or a cooperative intergovernmental agreement. The concept of “impact” is key; a mere indirect or speculative effect is unlikely to justify extraterritorial enforcement by a county alone. The question tests the understanding that while county powers are primarily territorial, specific state legislative authorization or a clear nexus of substantial impact can create limited extraterritorial reach, often requiring coordination with other jurisdictions or state agencies. This is distinct from the inherent sovereignty of the state itself to regulate across its entire territory.

The County of Maui’s Department of Planning is considering a rezoning application for a parcel of land in an agricultural district. The applicant proposes to rezone the land to allow for a mixed-use development that includes residential units and commercial spaces. Under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 205, which governs land use, agricultural lands are primarily intended for agricultural uses. Any rezoning of agricultural land requires a district boundary amendment by the Land Use Commission (LUC). However, HRS §205-4.6 specifically addresses the process for “agricultural park” developments, which are defined as areas designated for agricultural uses but intended to facilitate the development of agricultural businesses and related facilities. If the proposed development qualifies as an agricultural park, the county planning commission can approve the rezoning without requiring a LUC district boundary amendment, provided certain conditions are met. These conditions often include ensuring the development complements existing agricultural uses and does not unduly burden agricultural infrastructure. The key distinction here is whether the proposed development fits the statutory definition and intent of an agricultural park, which is a county-level planning decision with specific criteria outlined in state law. Without a LUC amendment, the county has the authority to rezone if it meets the agricultural park criteria.

The County of Maui’s Department of Public Works is responsible for the maintenance and improvement of public infrastructure. When a private developer proposes a new residential subdivision, the county may require the developer to dedicate land for public use, such as parks or roads, as a condition of subdivision approval. This requirement is often formalized through a development agreement or a condition in the subdivision plat approval. The legal basis for such exactions stems from the police power of the state, delegated to counties, to regulate land use for the public welfare. Specifically, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, Part III, addresses county planning and zoning powers, and HRS Chapter 205A outlines coastal zone management, which often involves public access and recreational space requirements. For an exaction to be constitutionally permissible, it must bear an essential nexus to the projected impact of the development and be roughly proportional to the impact. This is often referred to as the “Nollan-Dolan” test, derived from U.S. Supreme Court cases. In this scenario, the county’s requirement for land dedication for a new public park directly relates to the increased demand for recreational facilities generated by the new residential development. The park acreage would be assessed for its rough proportionality to the projected increase in population and their recreational needs. If the county can demonstrate this nexus and proportionality, the exaction is likely valid.

The question revolves around the concept of extraterritorial jurisdiction for county law enforcement in Hawaii, specifically concerning offenses committed on state waters adjacent to a county. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §130-1 grants the sheriff and deputy sheriffs of each county jurisdiction over all crimes committed within the county and all crimes committed on any vessel or aircraft belonging to the county or its citizens, or in any waters adjacent to the county within the distance of three miles from the shore. This statute establishes a clear boundary for county law enforcement’s reach. Consider a scenario where an individual commits a misdemeanor offense on a commercial fishing vessel that is located precisely two miles offshore from the coastline of Maui County. Since two miles is within the three-mile limit established by HRS §130-1, Maui County law enforcement officers would have jurisdiction to investigate and make an arrest for the offense committed on that vessel. The legal basis for this jurisdiction is the statutory grant of authority to county sheriffs over offenses committed within three miles of the county’s shore. This principle is fundamental to understanding the division of law enforcement responsibilities between state and county entities in Hawaii. The key is the physical proximity to the shore as defined by state statute.

The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 46, specifically HRS §46-15.5, governs the establishment and operation of special improvement districts by counties. This statute outlines the process for creating such districts, including the requirement for a petition by property owners or a resolution by the county council. Crucially, it details the methods of financing these improvements, which can include assessments against benefited properties. The statute also specifies the types of improvements that can be undertaken, such as water systems, sewage systems, and public improvements that benefit the district. For a county to levy assessments, there must be a clear demonstration of benefit to the properties within the district, and the assessment must be proportional to the benefit received. The process involves public hearings and notice requirements to ensure due process for affected property owners. This mechanism allows counties to fund specific local infrastructure projects by spreading the cost among those who directly benefit, a common practice in local government finance across the United States, but with specific procedural safeguards mandated by Hawaii state law.

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 342D, the Safe Drinking Water Act, governs the regulation of public water systems. Specifically, HRS §342D-17 addresses the enforcement of drinking water standards. When a public water system violates a requirement of this chapter, the Department of Health (DOH) has the authority to issue an administrative order. This order can include directives such as requiring the system to comply with the violated standard, mandating corrective actions, or imposing penalties. The statute provides for notice and an opportunity for a hearing before such an order becomes final. The enforcement mechanisms are designed to protect public health by ensuring that water provided to consumers meets established safety standards. The question probes the understanding of the procedural steps and the DOH’s authority under HRS Chapter 342D when a violation occurs, focusing on the initial administrative action taken by the department.