For the second time in nearly 10 years, a Honolulu City Council measure that would allow private sponsorship of city parks and other public facilities is drawing concern from some in the community who fear the legislation will clear the way for large billboards and other outdoor advertising signs that could mar the natural beauty of Oahu.

Introduced in January by Council member Radiant Cordero, Bill 4 revisits aspects of a prior law — Ordinance 17-16 — that established nonproperty tax revenue sponsorships in 2017.

That law — first known as 2015’s Bill 78 and introduced by former Council members Kymberly Pine and Ann Kobayashi — all but disappeared after the pilot measure’s five-year sunset clause took effect in 2022.

As drafted, Bill 4 — which mirrors the language of the earlier measure — would seek to “create and enhance public-private relationships, including with individuals, corporations, and other organizations, through the creation of commercial sponsorships.”

“Private sponsorships will create alternate revenue streams that will increase the city’s ability to deliver services and to maintain city assets, including its facilities, parks, programs, equipment, and tangible property, and provide enhanced levels of service and maintenance beyond the core levels funded from the city’s general fund for the benefit of users and the community at large,” the bill states.

In appreciation of such support, the measure states it’s “the policy of the city to equitably acknowledge the contribution of private sponsors.”

If adopted, the new bill would allow the director of a city agency to enter into a sponsorship agreement, but only for a term of less than five years, with a financial contribution of less than $50,000.

“All sponsorship agreements for a financial contribution of $50,000 or more must be approved by a resolution adopted by the Council,” the bill states. “All sponsorship agreements for a period of five years or more must be approved by a resolution adopted by the Council.”

During the Council’s Jan. 29 meeting, the panel reviewed and adopted Bill 4 on the first of three readings.

At the Council’s Budget Committee meeting Tuesday, city Deputy Managing Director Krishna Jayaram confirmed the administration’s support for Bill 4 as a way to generate “alternative revenue streams.”

“And the one thing I’d like to share with the committee at this point is that we’re taking a look at this bill with various departments to understand why it was underutilized before, and to come up with suggestions, if any, that we will route through the budget chair,” Jayaram said.

But Winston Welch, executive director of The Outdoor Circle, said his environmental group “is opposed to the (bill’s) current language, but I don’t think that our concerns are insurmountable.”

Still, he noted Hawaii’s 1926 law that prohibits outdoor signage and billboards — created with the advocacy of The Outdoor Circle during the island chain’s territorial days — should not be overlooked.

“So our concerns are especially about the signage, and I think the reason why this bill was not utilized before (was because) it became toxic,” said Welch. “And we don’t need to go down that road again.”

Such an ordinance also contributes to the “over- commercialization of our public spaces,” he added.

“In fact, the people of Hawaii have shown for 100 years that we do not, should not and cannot sacrifice our visual environment for revenue,” Welch said.

But Council Chair Tommy Waters challenged Welch’s assertions that the new measure would, in fact, harm the environment.

And Waters noted that under Bill 4 all sponsorship agreements must first be approved by a resolution adopted by the Council. “So that gives you and others an opportunity to come back and say, ‘Hey wait, we don’t like that idea,’” Waters added.

In response, Welch said “it would be much more sensible to determine those things, and what that looks like, from the beginning. Why would we want to bring that up every time?”

Waters replied, “Because it gives the public an opportunity, and yourself and your organization, to weigh in.”

The Council chair also queried Welch on whether his group “wouldn’t have a problem” with privately sponsored signage at the basket­ball court at the Neal S. Blaisdell Arena or similar locales.

Welch replied, “That would be OK, because the logo is not emblazoned on the building.”

Later, Waters noted the potential for revenue-­generating sponsorship “was vitally important” to the city.

To that end the Council’s discussion of the new measure comes as the nine- member panel and city administration allege budgetary constraints for the coming 2026 fiscal year, which begins July 1.

Those multimillion-dollar costs include siting the city’s next solid-waste landfill on Oahu; operating and maintaining ongoing city rail services toward downtown; and implementing a total increase of 115% for sewer fees across all rate-paying classes over a 10-year period to address rising operational costs and fund critical sewage treatment projects within the city’s $10.1 billion capital improvement program, scheduled for 2025 to 2040.

“We don’t want to raise taxes,” said Waters, noting the benefits of outside sponsorships. “We’ve got to figure out ways to generate revenue, right?”

Welch replied that the discussion was a repeat of Bill 78. “We don’t need to re-litigate this,” he added.

In early 2017, Bill 78 allowed the city to set up a five-year pilot program for individuals, community organizations and businesses to sponsor “city facilities, parks, programs, equipment and tangible property.”

As previously reported by the Honolulu Star-­Advertiser, the former bill gained the support of then-Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s Parks and Enterprise Services departments as well as a number of community organizations that contended public-private partnerships will allow them to enjoy more stewardship over the facilities they use.

While much of the discussion centered on city parks and their facilities, the Caldwell administration claimed sponsors could help provide funds for other projects involving city facilities, including the renovation of the Blaisdell Center.

At the time, Pine said city attorneys had reviewed the language of Bill 78 to confirm that it had not run afoul of any sign or outdoor advertising laws and that the city could not conflict with existing laws.

Additionally, the older measure stated that “any physical form of sponsorship must blend in with the surrounding environment.”

In contrast, the newly introduced Bill 4 says that “any physical form of sponsorship must be consistent with the surrounding environment as determined by the sponsorship agreement and applicable rules and regulations.”

On Tuesday, Tyler Dos Santos-Tam, the budget panel’s chair, successfully recommended his committee draft of Bill 4 be passed on to the full Council for possible second reading review and adoption.

The Council’s next meeting is scheduled for Feb. 26.