ÌìÃÀÊÓƵ

When the Star-Advertiser broke the news Aug. 20 that Kalihi residents were shocked to find their property tax bills had , it was all but ordained that it would be used against former Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann.

It didn’t take long. His rival in the Democratic primary for governor, Neil Abercrombie, brought it up not once, not twice, but thrice at the debate held by KHON 2 that very night.

The first mention came in response to Hannemann’s claim that tax hikes should be the “last resort” in balancing a budget, about nine minutes into the hour-long debate. KHON has posted on its website.

About 20 minutes in, after being asked about working with Republicans, Hannemann said he’s a “fiscal conservative with compassion,” leading Abercrombie to reply that the Kalihi tax hike was not compassionate.

Hannemann gave a substantive response after the second of Abercrombie’s three attacks. He said:

“Twice tonight, Neil has said that this property tax that has been raised on Kalihi residents, that’s patently false and absurd. Had he done his homework, he would have found out that the mayor does not have discretion on classification. That determination is done by the assessor based on ordinance that calls for the highest and best use to be applied. And the City Council has voted on bills that are going to go forward to address that situation, so they’re not going to have to pay higher tax bills. So, you know, Kalihi, please don’t believe some of the things that are being said by my friend here, Neil Abercrombie, he just needs to have a little more factual information before him.”

We at Civil Beat agree wholeheartedly that everyone should have more factual information.

The issue came up a third time. In the , at the 23-minute mark of the video, Abercrombie asked Hannemann if he would apologize to the “modest-income homeowners” for the tax hike.

Hannemann told fellow Kalihi-ans, “I love Kalihi, it’s my hometown. There’s no way I would put you at a disadvantage or treat you differently from the other parts of the island.”

Abercrombie shot back, “Once again Mr. Hannemann never takes responsibilty when something goes wrong. He blames others. … The plain fact of the matter is that this happened during the Hannemann administration. Either he knew about it and approved it or he didn’t know about it. And his whole campaign is based on executive experience and competence. If that’s an example of competence, I leave you to be the judge.”

So, does the mayor have the power to approve or stop property tax reclassifications? And even if he doesn’t have the power, does he have the ability to communicate with taxpayers to make sure they’re fully informed about changes that might affect them?

At first blush, it would seem obvious that the mayor is in charge of the entire city government.

The organizational chart made publicly available at shows that the electorate reigns supreme. That’s a nice reminder, especially during election season. Below us voters sits the mayor, then the Office of the Managing Director, then the Department of Budget and Fiscal Services.

Within that department is the Real Property Assessment Division.

Ultimately the mayor has to answer to the voters for the actions of his entire administration. But that doesn’t mean he or she necessarily has direct control over every action that’s taken on his or her watch.

The Revised Charter of Honolulu — the city’s primary legal document — lays it out in black and white. Article V, [pdf] describes the powers, duties and functions of the mayor. The list makes no specific reference to assessing property taxes, but does make clear that the mayor exercises supervision over city agencies and “shall provide for the coordination of all administrative activities and see that they are honestly, efficiently and lawfully conducted.”

of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu describes the responsibilities of the director of budget and fiscal services, including assessment of real property taxes. City spokesman Bill Brennan said the director in turn delegates the work of reviewing 280,000 parcels each year to assessors in the real property tax office. Those assessors implement the laws relating to property taxes, including that requires parcels be classified by their “highest and best use.”

“In assigning land to one of the general classes, the director shall give major consideration to the districting established by the city in its general plan and zoning ordinance, and such other factors which influence highest and best use,” reads Section 8-7.1(c)(2).

“I think it’s by design so that politics doesn’t enter into it,” Brennan said, though he had not reviewed the legislative history of the charter or the underlying ordinances to discern intent. “I think by design the elected office-holder is not included in this so that you can’t play politics with property taxes and assessments.”

A mayor with the power to cut preferred homeowners a break on their property taxes is a mayor with the power to inflict political punishment via property assessments, he said.

Brennan told Civil Beat last week that the zoning for the Kalihi parcels in question had been changed long ago — perhaps 25 or 30 years — but the property tax classifications did not follow suit until assessors discovered several discrepancies across the island in the past three years. The oversights had been brought to the city’s attention by citizens who were frustrated that they had to pay commercial or industrial property tax rates while neighbors got away with standard homeowner rates.

City Councilman Romy Cachola, whose district includes a portion of Kalihi, told Civil Beat last week that notices were sent to the homeowners on Dec. 15, 2009, more than three months after the application deadline for designations that would have kept the homes in a residential tax rate in exchange for a promise that the properties wouldn’t be developed further for five years.

Cachola also complained that the notices sent to the property owners were not explicit and failed to adequately explain the property tax ramifications of the change. He called the process a “sneak attack” that lacked transparency.

“Only when they received the bill did they find out what happened, and they were all shocked. A lot of them cannot make the payment,” Cachola said of the property owners. “The administration did not tell us that they reclassified so many properties to their highest and best use. Us in the council were not given notice when they pulled the trigger to raise the property tax.”

Asked if Hannemann was notified by tax assessors when the decision was made to reclassify the parcels, Brennan said he did not believe that happened in the final months of 2009. “Even if he was told, there would be nothing he could do about it. It would only be for his information. He’s got no say in it.”

While there may be good reason for ensuring the mayor has “no say” in assessing property values or tax classification, that does not mean the mayor can’t help ensure that homeowners are adequately notified about changes to their bills. And it doesn’t mean the mayor can’t do anything to help reverse the damage, as was made clear last week by acting Mayor Kirk Caldwell.

The administration proposed legislation to refund — with interest — the overpayments by those property owners in the “gap group” for this year only, the city announced in .

Sept. 1 — Wednesday — is the deadline to apply for the refund and to apply for the residential dedication for the property tax year beginning July 2011.

Would Caldwell had to have taken the step he did if his predecessor, Hannemann, had handled the situation differently? We think not.