Hawaii County committee hears heated testimony on proposed Kailua Village paid‑parking rules; vote postponed

The Hawaii County Council policy committee on public works and mass transit spent more than three hours on March 3 hearing public testimony for Bill 132, which would regulate paid parking at private lots in Kailua Village and require clear, posted rates at lot entrances. Supporters said unpredictable and high fees have hollowed out downtown Kona businesses; opponents warned of legal and economic consequences.

Council member Rebecca Villegas, who introduced the measure, framed it as a response to community complaints about ‘‘predatory parking’’ and a lack of transparency. Planning Director Jeff Darrow told the committee that many of the commercial parking signs in Kailua Village appear to lack required Special Management Area or sign permits, and that the planning department is reviewing whether existing plan approvals covered the current paid‑parking uses.

The bill drew a long line of residents, business owners and managers. Small business owner Jeffrey Foster said unpredictable rates have driven customers away and reduced staff, calling the downtown ‘‘on the decline’’ unless the county acts. Visitor advocates and longtime residents told similar stories: one frequent visitor said she once paid $35 to park after a $55 meal, and speakers repeatedly cited hourly charges that had reached $17.50 in examples presented to the committee.

At least one technical witness urged careful alignment with state law. Brian Mick of the State Disability and Communication Access Board recommended that the committee match the bill’s disabled‑parking fee exemptions and signage references to federal ADA standards and the state statute that limits a paid‑parking exemption for certain disabled permits to two and a half hours.

Property managers and owners pushed back. Manuel Martinez, a commercial property manager, said Bill 132 as drafted would shift the burden of providing public parking onto a small group of private owners ‘‘without compensation,’’ and worried the measure would drive event parking into non‑exempt lots. Thomas Fine Sr. and other opponents warned of takings claims and litigation risk if the county imposed rate limits on privately owned lots.

The committee also took legal advice. After receiving a confidential memorandum from corporation counsel, members moved into an executive session to confer with counsel. When the committee returned to open session, members summarized counsel’s guidance that allowed the committee to proceed with consideration of the ordinance, but left open substantial questions about legal exposure, enforcement roles and how the bill interacts with plan approvals and SMA permits.

Members debated whether enforcement should rest with the Department of Public Works or planning, and asked staff to review whether large existing lots would trigger newly enacted electric‑vehicle parking requirements if they were subject to plan‑approval reviews as new or expanded uses.

Rather than vote the ordinance out of committee, members decided to postpone action to allow time for amendments and further work with corporation counsel. Council member Veil moved — and the committee voted 8‑0 — to postpone Bill 132 until the committee’s April 21 hearing in Kona, giving the author and staff time to reconcile enforcement language, legal concerns and plan‑approval questions.

What happens next: The committee will reconvene on April 21 in Kona to consider proposed amendments and any further legal analyses. Supporters urged the council to preserve the bill’s price‑posting and consumer‑protection provisions even if other elements change; opponents said the committee should prioritize collaboration with property owners and review compensation or mitigation mechanisms.