Council rejects proposal to remove PE requirement for public works director on first reading

The Hawaii County Council voted down a proposed charter amendment on first reading that would have removed the requirement that the director of public works be a licensed professional engineer.

The motion to pass Bill 64 (draft 2) on first reading failed on a roll call after extended public and council discussion. The measure would have replaced the current requirement that the director be a registered professional engineer with a requirement that the director hold “a bachelor’s degree in engineering, architecture, business, public administration, or related discipline, or be a licensed attorney,” and would have required the deputy director to be a licensed professional engineer. The measure would have amended Article 6, Chapter 2, Section 6-2.2 of the county charter and required two-thirds approval to advance as a charter amendment.

Supporters of keeping the PE requirement said licensing protects public safety and reduces cost and schedule risk on county projects. “To remove the requirement for the public works director to have an engineering license...creates a situation where that person being the head of the department having supervisory powers over any of their deputies is essentially...breaking Hawaii state licensing laws,” said Polanyi Greenwell, identifying himself as a civil engineer, in testimony recorded by the council. Greenwell was among several professional engineers and surveyors who urged retaining the PE requirement.

Opponents and some council members said the change was intended to broaden the candidate pool because the administration had been unable to fill the vacancy. Retired U.S. Army colonel and long-time public works leader Deb Lewis, who spoke in favor of the bill, said leadership and systems knowledge matter: “I did not have my PE, but I led those efforts because of leadership that’s required,” she told the council, arguing the county needs management skills as well as technical expertise.

Council debate focused on two practical questions: whether licensed engineers were being sought with adequate recruitment efforts; and whether having a licensed engineer in at least one of the two top positions (director or deputy) provides necessary technical oversight. Some council members urged preserving the PE requirement for either the director or deputy as a backstop to protect public health and safety; others said mandating a PE for the director had made it difficult to hire for the position and that delegating technical work to a licensed deputy could be sufficient.

The measure drew multiple proposed amendments during the meeting, including a failed amendment to change the deputy’s licensing requirement and other technical edits. On a final roll-call vote the motion to pass Bill 64 on first reading received four ayes and failed to reach the two-thirds threshold required to advance a charter amendment. The council did not adopt the charter change at this meeting.

The proposal will remain an item for further committee work if sponsors choose to refile or reintroduce changes. Because the measure would have been a charter amendment, if it advances it would be placed on a future public ballot for voter approval.

Meeting records show broad public engagement: licensed civil engineers, surveyors and a former public works director testified in person and by Zoom during the council’s public-comment period. Council members said they will continue conversations about recruitment, delegation of engineering authority, and the legal oversight required for in-house engineering work.