Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Intergovernmental Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maui County committee files IGA with Hawaii Army National Guard on alarm response
Summary
The Disaster Recovery, International Affairs and Planning (DRIP) Committee voted to file Bill 121, an intergovernmental agreement authorizing a 15-minute response by Maui Police to intrusion detection alarms at Hawaii Army National Guard facilities, citing no county financial obligation and routine patrol duties.
The Disaster Recovery, International Affairs and Planning Committee of the Maui County Council voted to file Bill 121, an ordinance that would authorize the mayor to enter an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the Maui Police Department and the Hawaii Army National Guard to establish response procedures to intrusion-detection system alarms at Guard facilities. The action took place at the committee’s Sept. 24 meeting.
Committee Chair Tamara Poulton said she recommended filing the bill because the proposed agreement imposes no financial obligation on the county and falls within the department’s normal patrol duties. "If members have read... we—re not really required to approve intergovernmental agreements that have no financial burden and are within the scope of the entity's normal work," Poulton said during opening remarks.
Deputy Police Chief Wade Maeda described the operational detail the IGA would formalize: "All they're asking is for us in in the event of an an alarm goes off that we check it, within 15 minutes," Maeda said. He and the chair emphasized the agreement does not create a county expense and would align with regular MPD patrol responsibilities.
A member of the public who identified himself while approaching the podium expressed uncertainty about the alarm system and posed hypothetical security concerns; he said, "I don't know what this intrusion detective system is," and raised broader questions about when Guard or law-enforcement resources would be used. No additional witnesses signed up to testify.
Member Gabe Johnson moved to file Bill 121; the transcript records the motion as "Moved by member Johnson, second by member Comma." The committee voted to file the bill; the item advanced with seven ayes and two members excused.
The chair and staff noted that, because the IGA imposes no county cost and falls within routine duties, future similar IGAs could be transmitted to the council as county communications rather than as ordinance referrals. The committee did not direct additional study or conditions and closed public testimony before voting.
