Policy committee pauses vote on Hawaii County's draft 2045 general plan; asks for cost and implementation analyses

The Policy Committee on Planning, Land Use and Economic Development on July 29 resumed deliberations on Bill 66, the draft 2045 Hawaii County general plan, heard a department presentation and voted to postpone final action to a special meeting on Aug. 20.

Bethany Morrison, the county's long-range planning program manager, opened the session with an overview of the plan's legal basis and structure, saying the general plan is required by the State Planning Act and the county charter and serves as an umbrella to guide land use, infrastructure and program decisions. "The general plan is meant to be a broad, islandwide overarching framework," Morrison told the committee, explaining the document's vision, goals, objectives, policies and actions.

Morrison also summarized the comprehensive review process, saying outreach began in 2015 and included scenario planning and multiple public drafts. "We held 125 public meetings with over 4,000 people participating and received over 8,600 written comments," she said, and demonstrated online tools, including the planning website and an interactive draft map viewer that lets users compare the adopted 2005 map with the recommended 2045 draft.

Council members spent the bulk of the session pressing staff on how the plan's numbered policies connect to specific actions and who would implement them. "Some policies may not have corresponding actions, and some policies may have multiple corresponding actions," Morrison said, noting the plan's implementation table as a place for clearer alignment. Council Member Eustace urged tighter numbering and clearer linkages so the council can track who is responsible for each action.

Another recurring concern was implementation capacity and funding. Several members said the plan lists many programs assigned to county and state agencies but provides limited detail on whether those agencies can take them on or how much the initiatives will cost. The planning manager said the department would provide a memo with consultant costs and that implementation is intended to be phased; she pointed to a phasing figure (implementation figure 12) and to code amendments and other early priorities.

The hearing also included a notable procedural disclosure: Morrison told the committee the planning staff used ChatGPT for limited summarization queries during drafting but said any AI-generated text was edited into the department's own voice. "We did use ChatGPT," she said, adding that outputs were reviewed and rewritten by staff and that the plan was drafted and finalized by planning department personnel with consultant technical support.

Council members sought additional materials before resuming deliberations: a spreadsheet tracing goals and actions across prior plans (1971, 1989, 2005 and the current draft), a memo listing consultant names, scopes and costs, implementation-priority rankings and an assessment of which county or state agencies can realistically carry out listed actions. Chair Ashley Kirkwitz said her office and corporation counsel have compiled a comparison spreadsheet and will share it with the council.

At the end of the session, the committee voted to postpone Bill 66 to a special committee meeting on Aug. 20 at 5 p.m., when the council will accept new oral testimony and review the additional materials. Council member Heather Kimball moved to postpone and Council member Jennifer Kogewata seconded; the motion carried with six ayes and several members excused.

Next steps: Planning staff will provide the requested cost and consultant memo and respond to questions about action-policy linkages and implementation phasing in advance of the Aug. 20 meeting.