WAI-10 Bill 87 (20233) BILL 87 (2023), RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PAID PARKING ZONES AND PERMIT PARKING ZONES IN WAILUKU, PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES FOR THE WAILUKU GARAGE, AND PENALTIES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS (WAI-10)
TESTIMONY related to Paid Parking rules in Wailuku as described in Bill 87 (2003), to be heard in Mon. Oct.16, 2023 in Water and Infrastructure Committee
My name is Susan Halas, I am a resident and homeowner in Wailuku Town.
I urge the council to defer action on Bill 87(2003) until the residents, employers and workers who live and work in Wailuku can be more fully informed of its contents and the council can obtain a legal opinion as to whether it is permitted to act upon matters in the Wailuku Redevelopment Area without having those matters previously reviewed and receiving recommendations from the Maui Redevelopment Agency (MRA) as required by law.
Since 2000 the county has had a board known as the Maui Redevelopment Agency (MRA). It is the job of the MRA to review all matters pertaining to Wailuku and make recommendations to the council.
Following legal action, some powers were removed from MRA authority, for example the MRA can no longer make zoning policy. However, the requirement that the MRA review all projects in the redevelopment zone remains.
Bill 89 (2023) is proposed legislation related to a parking structure and other activity within the redevelopment zone. It has never been reviewed by the MRA. No recommendations to the council have ever been made on this matter by the MRA.
That may be because the MRA has not met since March of
2023. All subsequent meetings have been cancelled. None of the many projects relating to Wailuku have been reviewed by the MRA.
I do not think the Council would act on any development matters that were in the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission without receiving input from the Planning Commission. The same holds true for Water, Public Works and various other county advisory boards.
At some future date the administration and the council may decide that the need or desire for the MRA has ceased, but until then I do not think it can unilaterally skip the step of reviewing and receiving recommendations. I think any action taken without review and recommendations could be challenged as circumventing the letter and intent of the law.
In the absence of prior review, the public has no way of knowing what is in this legislation and is faced with the complex task of trying to interpret items which should have been discussed and resolved and received input before coming before the council.
I contend in the absence of MRA review, or action dissolving the MRA, the Council does not have the authority to consider this legislation and could face legal action resulting from ignoring its own rules relating to boards and commissions and the role they play in vetting upcoming legislation.
Even were the council to have the authority to consider this legislation, Bill 89 (2023) it is insufficient as it does not identify the districts, does not identify the fees, does not identify who or how to get permits and moves forward on a subject that will impact a great many people without providing adequate information, advance notice, or legal authority.
I urge the council to consult the rules regarding the MRA, its function and purpose and defer action on this and related matters until the necessary and required review and comment is received.
That it has come this far without being challenged only leads me to believe that the administration and the Department of Management have failed to carry out their duties to the detriment of the public interest.
I think the public needs a chance to learn about this item and provide quality testimony. Please defer.
TESTIMONY related to Paid Parking rules in Wailuku as described in Bill 87 (2003), to be heard in Mon. Oct.16, 2023 in Water and Infrastructure Committee
My name is Susan Halas, I am a resident and homeowner in Wailuku Town.
I urge the council to defer action on Bill 87(2003) until the residents, employers and workers who live and work in Wailuku can be more fully informed of its contents and the council can obtain a legal opinion as to whether it is permitted to act upon matters in the Wailuku Redevelopment Area without having those matters previously reviewed and receiving recommendations from the Maui Redevelopment Agency (MRA) as required by law.
Since 2000 the county has had a board known as the Maui Redevelopment Agency (MRA). It is the job of the MRA to review all matters pertaining to Wailuku and make recommendations to the council.
Following legal action, some powers were removed from MRA authority, for example the MRA can no longer make zoning policy. However, the requirement that the MRA review all projects in the redevelopment zone remains.
Bill 89 (2023) is proposed legislation related to a parking structure and other activity within the redevelopment zone. It has never been reviewed by the MRA. No recommendations to the council have ever been made on this matter by the MRA.
That may be because the MRA has not met since March of
2023. All subsequent meetings have been cancelled. None of the many projects relating to Wailuku have been reviewed by the MRA.
I do not think the Council would act on any development matters that were in the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission without receiving input from the Planning Commission. The same holds true for Water, Public Works and various other county advisory boards.
At some future date the administration and the council may decide that the need or desire for the MRA has ceased, but until then I do not think it can unilaterally skip the step of reviewing and receiving recommendations. I think any action taken without review and recommendations could be challenged as circumventing the letter and intent of the law.
In the absence of prior review, the public has no way of knowing what is in this legislation and is faced with the complex task of trying to interpret items which should have been discussed and resolved and received input before coming before the council.
I contend in the absence of MRA review, or action dissolving the MRA, the Council does not have the authority to consider this legislation and could face legal action resulting from ignoring its own rules relating to boards and commissions and the role they play in vetting upcoming legislation.
Even were the council to have the authority to consider this legislation, Bill 89 (2023) it is insufficient as it does not identify the districts, does not identify the fees, does not identify who or how to get permits and moves forward on a subject that will impact a great many people without providing adequate information, advance notice, or legal authority.
I urge the council to consult the rules regarding the MRA, its function and purpose and defer action on this and related matters until the necessary and required review and comment is received.
That it has come this far without being challenged only leads me to believe that the administration and the Department of Management have failed to carry out their duties to the detriment of the public interest.
Susan Halas
wailukusue@gmail.com
(808) 280-9205