Policy Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit - April 21, 2026
Policy Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit - April 21, 2026
The meeting was called to order at 12:00 PM at the West Y Civic Center, Kona Chamber, with Hilo Chambers participating. The sole agenda item was Bill 132, an ordinance to regulate paid parking facilities in Kailua Village. After extensive public testimony and discussion, the committee voted 8-0 to postpone the bill to the May 19, 2026 meeting in Hilo.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Gregory Ogen spoke in opposition to Bill 132, arguing that the cost of providing parking is expensive, that market forces have already adjusted rates, and that the amendment would place undue burden on private landowners while the county has failed to provide adequate public parking.
- Manuel Martinez, property manager with SVNGO Commercial representing several property owners, opposed the bill, stating it unfairly targets small landowners while exempting large hotels and resorts, and that the responsibility should be shared more broadly including public facilities.
- Tyler Sainz, a small business owner representing parking management in Kona, opposed the bill, emphasizing that managed parking had restored access for customers and driven 19% year-over-year growth in local visits. He acknowledged concerns about signage and stated that changes had recently been implemented to improve price visibility.
Discussion Items
- Councilmember Viegas, the bill's sponsor, expressed concern about predatory parking practices and the need for policy to protect the Kailua Village Business Improvement District. She noted ongoing discussions with corporation counsel regarding legal vulnerability and mentioned a forthcoming piece of legislation with Council Chair Inaba to prohibit additional paid parking lots countywide.
- Councilmember Galembo questioned the new legislation and noted problematic elements in the current bill.
- Councilmember Connelly Kleinfelder highlighted that the community had raised these issues over three years and that property owners only began addressing signage concerns after the bill was introduced.
- Planning Department Director Jeff Darrell reported that staff were reviewing whether paid parking facilities in Kailua Village had received required SMA reviews and sign permits.
- Acting Building Chief Aaron Spielman confirmed the building department had not yet reviewed the properties.
- Public Works Director West Segawa stated that DPW would be responsible for administering the bill if enacted but expressed reservations about their capacity to enforce it on the west side.
- Councilmember O'Neishi raised concerns about government overreach into private property rights and suggested exploring alternative solutions such as purchasing land for public parking or constructing a parking structure.
- Councilmember Viegas clarified that the parking operators had not obtained proper permits for signs in special management areas or approval from the Kailua Village Design Committee, and that she had filed complaints with the planning department.
- Councilmember Connelly Kleinfelder noted the lack of county enforcement in public parking lots and suggested involving HPD or hiring additional parking control officers.
Key Outcomes
- Councilmember Viegas moved to postpone Bill 132 to the May 19, 2026 Policy Committee meeting to be held in Hilo. The motion was seconded and passed 8-0.
- Planning and Public Works departments will continue their review of the properties and sign permitting.
- A separate bill by Councilmembers Viegas and Inaba to regulate paid parking countywide is expected to be formally introduced.
Meeting Transcript
Aloha, good afternoon. Welcome to the 13th session of the Policy Committee on Public Works and Mass Transit. It is 12 p.m. Good afternoon. We are here in the West Y Civic Center. Call this meeting to order. We are joined by members here in the Kona Chamber, Michelle Galimba, Councilmember Viegas, Councilmember Connolly Kleinfelder, Councilmember O'Neishi, and our Hilo Chambers. We have Councilmembers Kimball, Kagiwada, and Kirkkowitz. And I am your chair and presenting officer James Eustace. Mr. Clerk, we have one item on the agenda. If you could start us off with public testimony. Thank you, Committee Chair. Thank you, Committee Chair Houstis. Could I ask Gregory Ogen and Manuel Martinez to both come forward by testimony on Bill 132 and Mr. Ogen, you may be you may proceed when you're ready by activating the microphone. It'll turn red. That'll mean it's good to go, as are you, and then you can start by introducing yourself, and you'll have three minutes. Just the button at the base of the microphone. There you go. Okay, please proceed. Introduce yourself. You'll have three minutes. Council Chair and Chair People. Um, I just want to say I appreciate the interest in the village and trying to make the village a more attractive and inviting place to come, and I think that's what we're all trying to do. The I am speaking in in opposition of the amendment because um for a number of reasons. Um, the cost of providing parking in the village is extremely expensive. And controlled parking in the past has really been due to the abuse of the general public in utilizing parking that is that is basically been designated for patrons. Patron is somebody that visits employees of the establishment, and it's required by zoning. You know, you know the zoning codes, and you know that what each project is required to provide in order to facilitate the parking for their customers and their employees. The cost of controlled parking will be adjusted by the market forces. In a lot of cases, a lot of the things that were in this amendment have already been taken uh into consideration by the market. And in a lot of cases, you already have an hour and a half to three hours of free parking. Um in the beginning, it was rolled out, and you know, one can argue that it was rolled out correctly or incorrectly. And um basically, because of the input by the tenants and the customers, the rates that were originally charged changed. They changed to the market, and the market came down to basically what the amendment is now asking for. And so there really is no need to have that type of uh requirement or control over paid parking. Zoning code, the zoning code for parking stalls for for use by patrons uh for patrons of the property. One of the definition of a patron in the amendment is one that causes paid parking to happen. Well, that basically includes the general public, and parking on these various properties is intended for the customers, the employees of the property that was built on that land. By by having this type of requirement, it takes away from the government the requirement to have legitimate paid parking. You know, one of the things that we have overlooked in the past is we have never provided appropriate public parking in the village. Nobody has really addressed it. It's been talked about, it's been kicked around, but nobody has ever addressed it. And to put that onus on the um the um the private landowner is is just not right. Thank you for your testimony. Your time has elapsed. Okay, Mr. Martinez, you may proceed. Please start by introducing yourself.
openpublica.com