Grassroot submits proposals to Honolulu Charter Commission

from Grassroot Institute

The Honolulu Charter Commission has convened again for the first time in 10 years to mull over more than 270 proposals submitted by Oahu residents with the intent to improve how the county is run. 

Ted Kefalas, the Grassroot Institute’s director of strategic campaigns, spoke with radio host Johnny Miro of H. Hawaii Media on Sunday about the process of updating Honolulu’s city charter, calling it “a chance to update the city’s blueprint for modern challenges and opportunities.”

Grassroot submitted four proposals, which Kefalas said are designed to help the city operate more efficiently, reduce costs and make it easier for residents to access city services. They are:

>> Streamline housing approvals.

>> Exempt the civil service requirements for certain employees in the Department of Planning and Permitting.

>> Create a cost-of-government commission that would review city spending and suggest ways to cut costs.

>> Require fiscal-impact assessments, also called fiscal notes, for all proposed charter amendments and City Council legislation.

Kefalas said that Honolulu City Council Chair Tommy Waters and city Managing Director Mike Formby also submitted proposals regarding fiscal notes, which he described as “a super simple concept, but one that can prevent a lot of unfunded mandates.”

Regarding streamlining housing approvals, Kefalas said it’s “really just about making the process faster, more predictable, and really less political.” 

“It’s not so much about cutting corners,” he said. “It’s about removing obstacles that slow down projects that are already compliant with the rules.”

And Civil service exemptions for DPP “would allow the city to hire more specialized talent for critical roles,” Kefalas said, which would also “ ensure that projects like housing and infrastructure … can move forward quickly and effectively.”

While many of the proposals have great potential, Kefalas said some “would unintentionally make Hawaii less affordable or just add new layers of bureaucracy.” Those include creating a new high-value residential property tax class and establishing rent control.

Rent controls, he said, have actually been shown to reduce rental supply and “could make things worse over time, even though on the surface it sounds good.”

Kefalas explained that the Charter Commission will receive testimony from the community over the next several months as it goes through the process of vetting the proposals to decide which to put on the ballot for voters to consider next November, and he encouraged people to participate.

“Your voice matters,” he said. “Whether you support some of these reforms or you’re opposed to them, it’s really, really crucial to get involved.”

TRANSCRIPT

11-23-25 Ted Kefalas on Johnny Miro

Johnny Miro: Good Sunday morning to you, I’m Johnny Miro. Once again, it’s time for our public access programming on our five Oahu radio stations, also our five on Kauai, and five on Maui, available via your smart device at hawaiistream.fm and Live365. 

Another important topic to discuss this morning with a member of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

Every 10 years, residents here in Honolulu get a rare opportunity to weigh in on how their city government operates by voting on suggested changes to the Honolulu Charter.

This year, more than 270 proposals have been submitted. So joining me today to talk about these proposals and what they could mean for Honolulu is Ted Kefalas, the director of strategic campaigns at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

The Grassroot Institute is a nonpartisan public policy think tank. They’re based in downtown Honolulu, and Ted and his colleagues focus on policies that help increase housing, improve government efficiency and make our state more prosperous and free. 

Today, Ted is going to walk us through the key charter amendment proposals, highlight the ones he and his team are supporting and explain why residents should pay attention to this once-in-a-decade opportunity to shape the future of our city. 

So we wish Ted a happy Sunday morning to you. Ted, good morning to you.

Ted Kefalas: Hey, good morning, Johnny. Thanks for having me on.

Miro: Ted, can you give our listeners a quick overview of what the Honolulu Charter is and why it matters?

Kefalas: Sure. Well, I think it’s important, when we think about the Honolulu Charter, it’s essentially like the city’s constitution. It’s a rulebook for how our local government operates, and it sets out the powers of, you know, the mayor, how the City Council functions. 

There’s different rules for public projects, and it talks about how city employees are hired. Pretty much everything that is happening in the city has a place in the charter.

And so every 10 years, residents get a chance to suggest changes and vote on them, which is a really powerful way for citizens to directly shape how our city is run. 

These changes can have long-term effects on everything from how efficiently our government operates, to how easy it is for residents to get a permit, or businesses to operate. 

Essentially, it’s a chance to update the city’s blueprint for modern challenges and opportunities.

Miro: And I guess this session, the Honolulu Charter Commission, which reviews the suggestions, announced that more than 250 were submitted by the deadline of November 7th, compared to 154 a decade ago, of which 20 were put on the ballot and 16 passed. So how does this charter commission decide which proposals make it onto the ballot in the first place?

Kefalas: Yeah, well, the process is designed to be thorough and transparent. Anyone in the community can submit a proposal for consideration. And we actually, this year have 270 submissions …

Miro: OK.

Kefalas: … which is really a great amount. It’s gonna make it, though, really difficult to sort through all of those different proposals. 

But essentially, the city, the Charter Commission reviews every proposal to ensure that it meets, you know, different legal requirements and aligns with the scope of the charter. And after that, they hold a bunch of public hearings. Almost like a legislative body. But that allows residents, stakeholders, and different experts to provide input.

The commission then considers things like how feasible a proposal is or how it might affect city operations, or whether it truly serves the public interest. 

Then they also weigh the potential costs and unintended consequences from some of these proposals. And from there, the commission selects a smaller set of proposals, which are essentially like the finalists — you mentioned 10 years ago there were 20 that were on the ballot. 

And so those finalists are what actually appear on the ballot for voters in November. And this process really just ensures that the most well-thought-out and impactful ideas have a chance to be voted on, while proposals that may create some problems or aren’t necessarily practical get filtered out of the process.

Miro: Ted Kefalas, director of the strategic campaigns at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is joining me this morning. Your organization, the Grassroot Institute, Ted, submitted multiple proposals. What are they about?

Kefalas: Yeah, so at Grassroot Institute, we are focused on policies that make the government more efficient, accountable, and really responsive to residents. So this year we supported, or, submitted four different proposals. 

First we want to streamline housing approvals. And that essentially would reduce unnecessary delays and just make it easier for families to get into homes.

Another proposal that we’ve pushed is to exempt the civil service requirements for certain employees in the Department of Planning and Permitting, which that would allow the city to hire more specialized talent for critical roles. 

Then we look at a proposal that we submitted to create the Cost of Government Commission. And that’s a small panel that would review city spending and just recommend ways to save taxpayer dollars. 

And the fourth, you know, last but not least, we want to push a fiscal impact assessment for all proposed charter amendments and Council legislation. That way, voters and officials know the financial implications of any sort of bill or charter amendment before they make a decision.

And all of these proposals are designed, really, to just help the city operate more efficiently, reduce costs, and make it easier for residents to access, you know, city services. 

And if you’re interested in learning more about these proposals or just staying up to date on some of the things that we’re working on when it comes to the Honolulu Charter Commission, I would encourage you and the listeners to visit our website, grassrootinstitute.org. That’s dot O-R-G and subscribing to our newsletter. I promise we won’t spam you, but it’s a great way to just stay informed and involved.

Miro: I can attest to that. I read it every week, as much as I can. All right, Ted, can you explain what you mean by streamlining housing approvals?

Kefalas: Yeah. Streamlining housing approvals is really just about making the process faster, more predictable, and really less political. But we don’t want to necessarily remove the important safeguards. 

But right now, getting approval for zoning variances and other housing projects — that can take months or even years because we have multiple hearings, notice requirements, procedural hurdles. 

So our proposal looks at reforming these processes, for example, by reducing some of these redundant hearings so homebuilders and homeowners can move forward without unnecessary delays. 

And this matters, you know, obviously Honolulu has a severe housing shortage, and every delay just makes housing more expensive. So by streamlining some of these approvals, we can increase our housing supply, we can reduce costs, and we can help more families find homes and afford homes. 

You know, it’s not so much about cutting corners. It’s about removing obstacles that slow down projects that are already compliant with the rules.

Miro: Makes sense. Ted Kefalas, director of strategic campaigns at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. Now, you mentioned civil service exemptions. Why does Honolulu need them?

Kefalas: So, civil service rules can sometimes make it difficult for the city to hire people with specialized skills. For example, the Department of Planning and Permitting, DPP, they often need experts who can manage complex zoning or large-scale development projects. 

But without these sort of exemptions, the city is limited in who it can hire and how much it can pay. And that slows down projects and frustrates residents.

A lot of times we hear about the staffing shortages at places like DPP. And by allowing certain civil service exemptions, it gives the city the flexibility to bring in the right talent for specific roles while still protecting employee rights. 

You know, civil service rules, like I said, they also limit how much our government employees get paid. So if we really want to make these jobs as attractive as possible to actually fill the roles and have some flexibility, it’s about allowing these departments to hire the right talent, and making government more efficient, to ensure that projects like housing and infrastructure, that these things can move forward quickly and effectively.

Miro: OK. You also want fiscal impact assessments for legislation. You’re going to need to break that down for us. So, fiscal impact assessments for legislation — what’s that all about?

Kefalas: Yeah, fiscal impact assessments, it’s essentially fiscal notes. And we’ve talked about this for a long time, but fiscal notes are attached to legislation or things like charter amendments. And all they do is they show exactly how much a proposal will cost and who is going to be paying for those costs, whether it’s through a tax hike or whatnot. 

Right now, decisions are made without a clear understanding of really the financial consequences. That leads to budget surprises or unintended consequences for taxpayers where we’re on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. 

But by requiring a fiscal note, the Council and the public can make more informed decisions. So, for example, if a proposed bill would increase city spending, voters and elected officials, and everybody, would all be on the same page. We would all know upfront how much it might cost and whether it would be sustainable. 

So really this just adds transparency, accountability, and just helps make it a smarter policymaking to ensure that any sort of changes to the charter or city law, that they’re not inadvertently putting a strain on our budget or increasing the cost of living for our local residents.

Miro: As far as you know, because I haven’t heard of it, when there’s legislation or there’s candidates, there’s influence. Powerful interest groups come in and try to say, “Hey, let’s pass this.” 

Do you have any knowledge of that or is this just live or die just based on the merits of the proposal? Do you know of any influence groups that might push one proposal over another?

Kefalas: Not necessarily. At least it’s a charter commission. I mean, my understanding is that anybody can come in and testify on a piece of an amendment or anything like that. 

But these folks are not necessarily elected officials, they are appointed. And so they are not necessarily worried about running for reelection and trying to fill their campaign coffers, if you will, like a typical elected official. 

And so that’s not to say it’s impossible, but it seems like the Charter Commission is relatively insulated from some of those incidences.

Miro: [laughs] Novelty. That’s good to know. Good to know. All right, Ted, are there other proposals this year that you think are particularly good that we haven’t mentioned?

Kefalas: Yeah, I think there are several proposals this year that really stand out as positive steps. And we talked about fiscal notes, but there were actually — we submitted a proposal to allow fiscal notes, but we weren’t alone. 

Council Chair Tommy Waters, as well as Managing Director Mike Formby from the mayor’s office, they both submitted pretty similar proposals, and in certain cases, their proposals took it a step further. So we’re very supportive.

You know, these would require, again, basic financial analysis for new legislation. It’s a super simple concept, but one that can prevent a lot of unfunded mandates and just help the Council and the Charter Commission make more informed decisions. I think that that is a really good common sense governing tool that we need to put in our toolbox.

But another promising idea is the proposal that would allow automatic ministerial approval for projects as long as they conform to the general plan or our development plan. 

So if a project already meets the city’s rules, it shouldn’t have to go through multiple layers of review. This kind of goes back to what I mentioned earlier about streamlining housing approvals. 

But this is another proposal that would add also a 60-day deadline for DPP to act on applications. And it says if the agency doesn’t act, the application is automatically approved. 

Other cities use similar “shot clocks” and they’re extremely effective at improving predictability and reducing delays. I mean, my goodness, Johnny, could you imagine if you got a permit out of DPP in 60 days? That would be unheard of.

Miro: Headline. Headlines [crosstalk]

Kefalas: Exactly. Exactly. And finally, you know, there’s another proposal to allow repairs to nonconforming homes. I think that’s fair and practical. 

So we have a lot of older homes here in Honolulu and some, you know, back from like the 1930s and ’40s. But they, some of these older homes, they ended up in industrial zones after zoning updates. They were legal when they were built, but now they are nonconforming, they’re not in the right zone. And so you’re limited to how much you can repair that house. 

But allowing for more substantial rehabilitation and repairs of that house doesn’t create new housing industrial areas. It’s not like we’re going to put a neighborhood next to a bunch of warehouses. These are homes that are already existing there. 

This would just simply let people and families maintain safe, livable homes without having to wait on doing any repairs like is currently the case. 

And together, these proposals would really, I think, improve transparency, reduce bottlenecks, and just really preserve our existing housing, all without compromising safety or environmental standards.

Miro: A few more questions for Ted Kefalas of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, shaping Honolulu’s future with the 2025 Charter Commission. Ted, you mentioned some of the good proposals that are out there, so there’s got to be a flip side. What are your concerns?

Kefalas: Yeah, exactly. Well, with the good, there’s always some not so good. And there are a few that raise some concerns, mainly just because they would unintentionally make Hawaii less affordable or just add new layers of bureaucracy. 

One is a proposal for a new high-value residential tax class. And the goal is to target luxury properties, which again, you know, I understand, and not to support a bunch of billionaires, but we already have high property taxes for nonowner occupants. 

Creating another tax class just risks putting ordinary people in high-value neighborhoods into this tax bracket, and that could encourage things like long-term vacancies or, you know, even conversions to short-term rentals as people try to get around this.

We’re also watching a proposal that would stabilize rent. Now, the intention is understandable, and I think everybody has seen rent jump through the roof. But rent caps in other cities have consistently led to reduced rental supply. They actually discourage new construction, and they push landlords to convert their properties into condos and whatnot. 

So with Honolulu already facing a shortage of rentals, this, I think, could make things worse over time, even though on the surface it sounds good.

Another concerning proposal would add mandatory community input processes for every land-use change and permitting application. Even when, you know, these sorts of hearings already exist. That kind of duplication just slows down every project. 

And even those that fully comply with existing rules, you know, it just allows small vocal groups an effective veto over much-needed housing. 

So, you know, the intentions behind these proposals, like I said, they’re well intended, but I do fear the potential for, you know, the unintended consequences. Things like higher costs, fewer homes, or slower permitting. Those are real things that we need to consider.

Miro: All right, Ted. Ted Kefalas with the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, [you] always have a message for the residents out there, so what is it this time as far as the 2025 Charter Commission is concerned?

Kefalas: Yeah, well, my message this time is really simple. I mean, this is an opportunity to shape the future of our city. And it comes around every, you know, once every 10 years. 

The charter affects everything from housing to taxes, to government efficiency and transparency. 

So I just want to encourage residents to stay informed, attend public hearings if you can. I know it’s hard with work and families. And just try to participate in the process. Even if these proposals, they may seem technical, but the decisions made now are going to affect Honolulu for years and potentially decades to come. 

Your voice matters. 

Whether you support some of these reforms or you’re opposed to them, it’s really, really crucial to get involved.

And if you want to learn more about how to actually get involved or stay informed, I do want to encourage folks to subscribe to our newsletter. Again, that’s at grassrootinstitute.org. You know, our newsletter has a great, comes out every couple of weeks, it’s got a great way to stay up to date on things and just an opportunity to see what’s happening in your city. 

So again, subscribe on grassrootinstitute.org.

Miro: A very busy man, and we appreciate his time so much. Every opportunity we get to speak with Ted Kefalas of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, their director of strategic campaigns. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday, Ted. Thanks for joining us.

Kefalas: Aloha, Johnny. Thank you so much.

Miro: Aloha.