ÌìÃÀÊÓƵ

Honolulu Mayor Peter Carlisle promised to get the city’s financial house in order, but the City Council is challenging him on some of his key proposals.

How Carlisle reacts to the council’s budget action will be telling. On the campaign trail, he promised a tough approach to government, and said he wasn’t worried about being unpopular if his decisions would improve the city’s financial picture. Council members have been vocal about the areas of Carlisle’s budget they see as problematic, and they will likely take action to reverse some of the mayor’s plans.

The council plans to finalize the operating and capital budgets for the fiscal year starting July 1 in a meeting on Friday.

At $1.925 billion, the City Council’s version of the operating budget is $114 million more than current operating budget and $7 million cheaper than the Carlisle’s $1.932 billion proposal. His capital spending plan was $526 million, down from the current $805 million. The City Council’s version of the capital budget is $546 million.

Given what’s on the agenda, and what’s happened in committee meetings in recent weeks, it appears the council is going to:

• Reinstate $32 million for roads rehabilitation that Carlisle wanted to cut
• Delete $26 million for a sewage digester, equipment that treats sewage sludge
• Scrap the mayor’s plan to raise the fuel tax by 6 cents a gallon over the next three years
• Pass a bill undermining a new law Carlisle signed into law eliminating a city subsidy for private recycling companies
• Kill a bill that would increase parking fees at Honolulu parks
• Institute 1.5 percent across-the-board departmental cuts, including to police and fire
• Add more money for the city’s crime prevention partnership with the federal government
• Create an agricultural liaison position
• Keep transit-oriented development staffers within the city, rather than transferring them to a new transit agency
• Take charge of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) budget, which Carlisle deliberately left out of document he sent to council members

So far, the mayor has indicated he’ll push back on only one of the council’s key changes to his budget plans.

Carlisle told the council he would veto its versions of the HART budget. Carlisle and City Council members have said they would sue each other over the dispute.

If Carlisle nixes the bills related to HART, it will be his first veto. On Wednesday he said he had no comment about what other bills he would consider vetoing. A spokeswoman says the mayor is waiting to see what the council does on Friday. On Tuesday, Carlisle sent to the City Council outlining his concerns about removing funding for a sewage digester.

In his March budget presentation, the mayor spoke strongly about the importance of cutting spending on roads as a way to reduce the city’s debt service. The council was adamant about reinstating those funds.

Carlisle in an April interview said some of the changes the council proposes — like across-the-board cuts to departmental spending — are “not at all unreasonable.”

Council Budget Chairman Ernie Martin said he was able to identify more fat to be trimmed, like cutting some — but not as many as the council originally proposed — of the vacant funded positions, or city jobs not filled. Civil Beat reported earlier this year that Carlisle’s budget included $44 million for vacant positions.

Still, the council agrees with Carlisle on many things. Some of the proposals Carlisle introduced that appear likely to pass include:

• Increasing by 8 cents the mill levy for residential property owners who live in their homes
• Increasing user fees at some city campsites
• Increasing some fees for golfing at city golf courses
• Increasing admission prices to the Honolulu Zoo

How Carlisle reacts to the areas in which he and council members disagree on his first budget will reveal much about his still-developing mayoral style.

Already, Carlisle found that he was not in control of union negotiations. The deal that the state’s largest union struck with state and city governments ran counter to the savings Carlisle hoped to get from union workers. Carlisle found that the agenda was set by the governor, not him.

In this case, a City Council with a majority of its members new to the job, may take a sharper knife to spending than the self-identified fiscal conservative who ran for office promising to bring financial discipline to the city.