Committee postpones bill that would set acquisition timelines for PONC properties after lawmakers seek clearer language

The committee on July 7 postponed consideration of Bill 169 to its Aug. 4 meeting after extensive discussion about timing tiers, reporting requirements and procedural barriers that can delay acquisitions under the county's Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation (PONC) program.

Sponsor Council member Eustace said the bill aims to add administrative checkpoints so the commission and county periodically reassess whether properties selected for preservation remain high priorities and whether limited resources should be redirected. "These timelines are not intended to create rigid deadlines or force acquisitions," Eustace said, describing the measure as an accountability and transparency improvement to the program's administration.

Council members raised several substantive concerns. Council member Inaba said he wanted clearer explanation of the timing tiers and argued the proposal should more explicitly require reporting on what acquisition efforts were undertaken during the defined timeframes. Deputy Director of Finance Malia Keikai told the committee that high (90%+) scores are uncommon — she said about 11 properties scored in the nineties over the last five years — and recommended the committee clarify what "reassess" means in practice.

Council member Villegas warned of an operational bottleneck: willing sellers and appraisal-ready files can still stall if appraisal or mayoral approvals are not issued, which can freeze acquisitions even when other conditions are favorable. Several members suggested a single standard review period or a clearer process that separates "priority" from "reassessment" tasks.

After the discussion the committee adopted a motion to postpone Bill 169 to Aug. 4 to allow makers and staff to refine language on timelines, reassessment definitions and reporting expectations. The motion carried with nine members in favor.

The committee's postponement keeps the bill alive but gives staff and sponsors time to clarify how reassessments would be documented, whether the existing prioritized list should be reviewed, and whether appraisal and mayoral approval steps need procedural changes to prevent long delays in acquisitions.