Hawaii County committee postpones vote on bill to regulate paid parking in Kailua Village

The Hawaii County policy committee on public works and mass transit postponed consideration of Bill 132, which would regulate paid private parking in Kailua Village, until an April 21 committee meeting in Kona to allow time for amendments and additional legal review.

Proponents — including retail and restaurant owners, long-time residents and local advocacy groups — told the committee that unpredictable and high parking rates have reduced foot traffic and harmed businesses. "Requiring operators to post their rates at each entrance is a straightforward consumer protection measure," Elena Wiley said in remote testimony, urging the committee to keep the bill's rate-posting and signage provisions even if other parts change. Business owner Jeffrey Foster said unpredictable pricing has driven customers away and described closures and staff reductions: "Kailua Village is hurting." Several speakers urged preservation of worker protections and asked the council to move quickly.

Opponents — including property managers and commercial parking firms — warned the committee that the bill, as drafted, could unfairly shift public parking responsibilities onto private landowners and raised constitutional concerns. Manuel Martinez, a property manager, said the ordinance "shifts the burden of providing public parking onto a small group of private property owners without compensation" and flagged an exemption that would leave resorts and hotels outside the proposed rate caps. Thomas Fine Sr. said passage could invite litigation and described the measure as an "unconstitutional taking."

Planning Director Jeff Darrow told the committee the county is reviewing whether commercial parking operations in Kailua Village obtained required sign permits and special management area approvals and said many lots likely did not seek the specific approvals now under scrutiny. He noted the zoning code permits commercial parking in most commercial and resort zones but said plan-approval records and SMA permitting must be checked parcel-by-parcel.

The committee paused for an executive session to receive confidential legal advice from corporation counsel. After returning to open session, Council member Reynaldo summarized counsel’s guidance: the office provided legal analysis and "general direction" that the committee can proceed with Bill 132, though members said amendments are needed to clarify enforcement and reduce litigation risk.

Council members debated technical issues that would affect implementation, including whether off-street parking required by original plan approvals can be charged, how shared parking rules apply, and which department should enforce the ordinance (Planning or Public Works). The committee discussed whether a broader countywide ordinance would reduce exposure to takings claims.

Facing those unresolved legal and implementation questions, the committee voted to postpone consideration of Bill 132 to its April 21 meeting in Kona to allow the bill’s sponsor time to prepare amendments and to give corporation counsel and departmental staff more time to refine language.

Next steps: The sponsor plans to circulate amendments informed by planning and legal review before the April 21 meeting; no final council action on Bill 132 was taken at this session.