I respectfully submit this testimony in opposition to Bill 66 and specifically in response to testimony submitted in support of creating the Climate Action and Resiliency Revolving Fund.
The testimony in support of this bill argues that Maui’s problem is not planning, but implementation. That statement deserves serious scrutiny.
Maui County already operates with a government budget approaching $1.6 billion. The County already has planning departments, public works departments, emergency management structures, consultants, studies, grant writers, state partnerships, federal funding access, and countless planning documents.
The public should be asking a very direct question:
If implementation continues to fail after decades of expanding government, why is the solution always another permanent fund, another dedicated revenue stream, another layer of administration, and another revolving program?
At some point government must be judged not by plans, concepts, or funding mechanisms, but by actual delivery.
The testimony references the West Maui Greenway as an example of why Bill 66 is needed. However, many residents see the Greenway as evidence of the exact opposite problem: decades of studies, planning, meetings, grants, and public discussion with limited physical infrastructure actually delivered.
That is not a funding problem alone. That is a management and execution problem.
Bill 66 would create another permanent spending structure tied to climate and resiliency language broad enough to justify almost unlimited future expansion. The testimony itself describes these projects not only as climate projects, but as investments in “community wellbeing,” “economic resilience,” and “quality of life.”
That wording should concern taxpayers because it dramatically expands the scope of what this fund could eventually finance.
At the same time, Maui County is already facing growing financial uncertainty.
Bill 9 reduces the visitor accommodation base generating Transient Accommodations Tax revenue. Shipping costs to Hawaiʻi continue rising, increasing the cost of living for residents. The state has lost major visitor events and tourism-related economic activity. These are warning signs that should be forcing government to tighten spending and focus on core infrastructure responsibilities.
Instead, this Council continues creating new permanent funds and obligations.
Residents are repeatedly told there is not enough money for essential infrastructure projects like the long-delayed Maʻalaea wastewater system unless taxes increase. Yet government somehow continues finding money for new revolving funds, grant programs, and policy initiatives.
That contradiction is becoming impossible for the public to ignore.
Maui County does not suffer from a lack of plans, studies, or funding mechanisms.
It suffers from a lack of prioritization, discipline, accountability, and execution.
For these reasons, I respectfully oppose Bill 66 and urge the Council to focus on improving the delivery of core government responsibilities before creating additional permanent funding structures tied to unstable revenue streams and broad policy agendas.
May 16, 2026
Aloha Chair Johnson and Committee Members,
My name is Saman Dias, and I serve as Chair of the Maui Bicycling League (MBL), a volunteer-led nonprofit organization advocating for safer, healthier, and more resilient communities across Maui County.
I am writing in strong support of Bill 66 and the creation of the Climate Action and Resiliency Revolving Fund for Maui County.
This bill represents an important step toward creating long-term local commitment and accountability around climate resilience, disaster preparedness, public safety, and implementation of community priorities.
One of the key challenges Maui faces today is not simply planning — it is implementation.
Over the years, our community has produced many thoughtful plans, studies, and vision documents. In some cases, projects have even secured significant outside funding. However, implementation often moves far too slowly due to lack of sustained local funding, coordination, staffing capacity, or prioritization.
The Lahaina wildfires made clear that we cannot afford to move at the pace of the past.
We need systems and funding mechanisms that help move projects from planning into action.
The West Maui Greenway is one example. The project has been discussed for decades and now has secured federal RAISE grant funding for Phase 1 because it addresses multiple public priorities simultaneously — active transportation, public health, climate resilience, connectivity, and emergency evacuation redundancy. Yet even with funding in place, implementation remains a slow and challenging process.
Bill 66 can help create the type of sustained local investment and commitment necessary to accelerate implementation of critical resiliency projects countywide.
I also believe this fund positions Maui County proactively in relation to the State’s emerging Green Fee funding initiatives focused on climate resilience and disaster preparedness. By establishing a dedicated local resiliency funding mechanism now, Maui County can better align and leverage future state and federal funding opportunities.
Importantly, the projects envisioned under this bill are not only climate projects — they are investments in community wellbeing, public safety, economic resilience, and quality of life for future generations.
Mahalo to Chair Johnson and the committee for advancing this important conversation and for recognizing the urgency of investing in a more resilient Maui.
Respectfully submitted,
Saman Dias Chair, MBL
I support targeted, infrastructure-focused resiliency investments that strengthen Maui County’s physical disaster preparedness and critical infrastructure systems. However, I oppose the creation of broad permanent funding and governance structures without strict oversight, measurable deliverables, clearly defined operational priorities, and transparent public accountability.
Please see the attached testimony further outlining my position and concerns regarding the proposed Climate Action and Resiliency Revolving Fund and related Charter proposal.
Testimony in Opposition to Bill 66
Chair and Members of the Committee,
I respectfully submit this testimony in opposition to Bill 66 and specifically in response to testimony submitted in support of creating the Climate Action and Resiliency Revolving Fund.
The testimony in support of this bill argues that Maui’s problem is not planning, but implementation. That statement deserves serious scrutiny.
Maui County already operates with a government budget approaching $1.6 billion. The County already has planning departments, public works departments, emergency management structures, consultants, studies, grant writers, state partnerships, federal funding access, and countless planning documents.
The public should be asking a very direct question:
If implementation continues to fail after decades of expanding government, why is the solution always another permanent fund, another dedicated revenue stream, another layer of administration, and another revolving program?
At some point government must be judged not by plans, concepts, or funding mechanisms, but by actual delivery.
The testimony references the West Maui Greenway as an example of why Bill 66 is needed. However, many residents see the Greenway as evidence of the exact opposite problem: decades of studies, planning, meetings, grants, and public discussion with limited physical infrastructure actually delivered.
That is not a funding problem alone. That is a management and execution problem.
Bill 66 would create another permanent spending structure tied to climate and resiliency language broad enough to justify almost unlimited future expansion. The testimony itself describes these projects not only as climate projects, but as investments in “community wellbeing,” “economic resilience,” and “quality of life.”
That wording should concern taxpayers because it dramatically expands the scope of what this fund could eventually finance.
At the same time, Maui County is already facing growing financial uncertainty.
Bill 9 reduces the visitor accommodation base generating Transient Accommodations Tax revenue. Shipping costs to Hawaiʻi continue rising, increasing the cost of living for residents. The state has lost major visitor events and tourism-related economic activity. These are warning signs that should be forcing government to tighten spending and focus on core infrastructure responsibilities.
Instead, this Council continues creating new permanent funds and obligations.
Residents are repeatedly told there is not enough money for essential infrastructure projects like the long-delayed Maʻalaea wastewater system unless taxes increase. Yet government somehow continues finding money for new revolving funds, grant programs, and policy initiatives.
That contradiction is becoming impossible for the public to ignore.
Maui County does not suffer from a lack of plans, studies, or funding mechanisms.
It suffers from a lack of prioritization, discipline, accountability, and execution.
For these reasons, I respectfully oppose Bill 66 and urge the Council to focus on improving the delivery of core government responsibilities before creating additional permanent funding structures tied to unstable revenue streams and broad policy agendas.
May 16, 2026
Aloha Chair Johnson and Committee Members,
My name is Saman Dias, and I serve as Chair of the Maui Bicycling League (MBL), a volunteer-led nonprofit organization advocating for safer, healthier, and more resilient communities across Maui County.
I am writing in strong support of Bill 66 and the creation of the Climate Action and Resiliency Revolving Fund for Maui County.
This bill represents an important step toward creating long-term local commitment and accountability around climate resilience, disaster preparedness, public safety, and implementation of community priorities.
One of the key challenges Maui faces today is not simply planning — it is implementation.
Over the years, our community has produced many thoughtful plans, studies, and vision documents. In some cases, projects have even secured significant outside funding. However, implementation often moves far too slowly due to lack of sustained local funding, coordination, staffing capacity, or prioritization.
The Lahaina wildfires made clear that we cannot afford to move at the pace of the past.
We need systems and funding mechanisms that help move projects from planning into action.
The West Maui Greenway is one example. The project has been discussed for decades and now has secured federal RAISE grant funding for Phase 1 because it addresses multiple public priorities simultaneously — active transportation, public health, climate resilience, connectivity, and emergency evacuation redundancy. Yet even with funding in place, implementation remains a slow and challenging process.
Bill 66 can help create the type of sustained local investment and commitment necessary to accelerate implementation of critical resiliency projects countywide.
I also believe this fund positions Maui County proactively in relation to the State’s emerging Green Fee funding initiatives focused on climate resilience and disaster preparedness. By establishing a dedicated local resiliency funding mechanism now, Maui County can better align and leverage future state and federal funding opportunities.
Importantly, the projects envisioned under this bill are not only climate projects — they are investments in community wellbeing, public safety, economic resilience, and quality of life for future generations.
Mahalo to Chair Johnson and the committee for advancing this important conversation and for recognizing the urgency of investing in a more resilient Maui.
Respectfully submitted,
Saman Dias Chair, MBL
To Whom It May Concern:
I support targeted, infrastructure-focused resiliency investments that strengthen Maui County’s physical disaster preparedness and critical infrastructure systems. However, I oppose the creation of broad permanent funding and governance structures without strict oversight, measurable deliverables, clearly defined operational priorities, and transparent public accountability.
Please see the attached testimony further outlining my position and concerns regarding the proposed Climate Action and Resiliency Revolving Fund and related Charter proposal.
Thank you for your consideration.