Public Meetings - Maui County, Hawaii

On July 30, 2026, the Maui County Council's Committee on Human Services convened at 1:23 PM to receive a presentation on the Align HR project, a comprehensive review of the county's human resources services and strategic planning. The meeting included opening remarks from County Managing Director Josiah Nishita and Director of Personnel Services Cynthia Razo-Porter, followed by a detailed presentation from Guide House, the consulting firm contracted to lead the project. Public testimony was taken from two individuals, and council members engaged in extensive discussion about the project's scope, challenges, and potential solutions. The meeting concluded at 3:30 PM with no legislative action taken. Consent Calendar - No items on the consent calendar. Public Comments & Testimony - Jesse Lall: Testified anonymously, expressing concerns about county employee conduct and referencing a negative experience with a state official at the airport. He urged leaders to act with honesty. - Johan Lal: Testified on his own behalf, sharing his experience with the county hiring process (applied 5-6 times, offered 3 jobs, accepted 2). He made several suggestions: allow more flexibility in starting pay within the salary range to attract applicants; permit substitution of experience for degrees in job qualifications; reconsider drug testing for non-safety-sensitive positions; and give hiring managers more direct access to applicant lists rather than heavy filtering by HR. He noted that current rules already provide flexibility but are not utilized. Discussion Items - Project Overview & Presentation: Guide House (Matt Petrowski, Amber Seagroves, Callie Seymour, Miranda Vetter, Melissa Pavlachek) presented the Align HR project. The county budget has nearly doubled from $870 million in 2020 to $1.6 billion today, with five new departments added in recent years. The existing HR framework was designed many years ago and is not suited to current needs. The project has two work streams: (1) reviewing and updating personnel rules, policies, and procedures; (2) evaluating current HR practices, roles, and structure to develop a strategic plan and phased implementation. Guide House has completed 10 interviews and 8 working sessions with over 70 additional interviews planned. Priority processes for improvement include recruitment/hiring, classification, and reorganizations. The project timeline spans 11 months of assessment and planning, with a second year dedicated to implementation and change management. - Committee Vice Chair Tamara Paulton: Expressed strong support for the project and asked about addressing state-level legislative obstacles. Managing Director Nishita confirmed that if state law barriers are identified, the county may pursue legislative changes through HSAC. Paulton inquired about reducing hiring time (e.g., from 90 days to match private sector). Guide House noted they have reduced hiring time by 30-50% in other public sector jurisdictions by improving alignment and process steps. She also raised the issue of tying wages to the actual cost of living in Maui, noting that many employees cannot afford to live where they work. Nishita said that compensation and classification analysis may follow in a future phase, but collective bargaining constraints exist. - Member Kawanoya Batangan: Asked whether the fraud risk assessment recommendations are being incorporated into the hiring process. Nishita clarified the two projects are separate but collaborative, and that items like background checks are already being flagged by stakeholders. He also asked which issues require coordination with the state and other counties versus those the county can address independently. Director Razo-Porter explained the project covers DPS administrative rules (14 chapters, 102 pages) covering pay, classification, recruitment, performance evaluations, and training. Departmental reorganizations are included if they touch HR. - Member Gabe Johnson: Emphasized the need to understand what workers want (e.g., daycare, adult care, gym memberships) beyond just rules and procedures—a holistic approach to employee engagement. He shared an anecdote of a qualified applicant who applied 16 times before being hired, calling for process streamlining. He offered to help change county code if it is a barrier, and urged the administration to flag legislative needs at the state level. Nishita welcomed legislative assistance and noted future requests for additional resources may arise. - Council Chair Alice Lee: Recalled that when she served on the Civil Service Commission, a department-level survey revealed that roadblocks often lie with line staff doing the hiring, not directors. She emphasized finding bottlenecks through interviews with those staff. She asked Guide House about typical problems and solutions from other projects. Guide House cited lack of process tracking (e.g., simple Excel trackers for hiring steps) as a common issue. Lee also pressed on the role of collective bargaining and union constraints; she noted that for hard-to-fill positions (e.g., engineers), the county could reconsider bargaining unit classifications and increase pay through supplemental agreements. She stated the council will find funding if the administration identifies solutions. - Member Yuki Lei Sugimura: Expressed excitement about the project, noting that departments often blame personnel for delays. She mentioned her uncle, a former DPS employee, and the historic view of county jobs as desirable. She asked why Guide House works with only DTS among state departments, and was told it is due to alignment with their services (Act 100 compliance). She raised the issue of 911 dispatchers, seeking higher pay and recognition for their skills, but acknowledged that creating a new bargaining unit would require legislative action. She supported telework, 4/10 schedules, and childcare/parent care benefits to make the county a more attractive employer. - Member Shane Senancy: Identified three key issues: (1) the hiring process filters applicants before managers can interview them directly; (2) minimum qualifications (MQs) are too rigid, excluding qualified candidates who don't check every box; (3) merit pay for high performers is not allowed due to rules. He urged the project to focus on fixing these structural impediments, noting that legislative changes at both county and state levels may be needed. He acknowledged current staff are doing their best within the system. - Member Cook: Asked how salaries can be adjusted to address the high cost of living, given that HUD guidelines haven't kept pace. Guide House said total rewards (compensation + other incentives like bonuses) are being considered, and while a full compensation study is outside current scope, they will look at recruiting bonuses and other incentives. The project is still in early information-gathering stages. - Chair Rollins Fernandez: Noted that the current administrative rules (Title MC 11) were last updated in December 2002 (nearly 24 years ago). She asked about the process for updating them, which includes public hearings and approval. She asked who will shepherd the contract after Director Razo-Porter's departure; Managing Director Nishita confirmed Diana Marantes, Kainea, and others will continue. She asked if Guide House plans to meet with the Civil Service Commission (the oversight body); they have not yet, but it is scheduled in the coming weeks. She also asked about technology and software assessment—Guide House confirmed technology will be reviewed. She suggested a 15-minute recess, but after polling members, questions continued without a break. - Committee Vice Chair Paulton (further questions) : Asked about performance evaluations—how to improve completion rates and tie evaluations to monetary incentives or promotions. Guide House suggested opportunities exist to streamline the process and make it easier for supervisors and employees. Paulton also raised worker safety, citing an incident where a gun was brought into the planning department. She asked if workplace safety policies (including public-to-worker harassment) were part of the project. Counsel clarified that HR-related policies, including violence in the workplace, are within scope. Paulton asked where the current rules are posted; they are on the county website under DPS. - Member Johnson (further) : Questioned why a supplemental income for clerks and planning staff did not move forward. Managing Director Nishita explained that a letter was sent to the council outlining necessary steps, but no action has been taken by the council since. The ball is in the council's court. - Chair Rollins Fernandez (final) : Noted that HR specialists are in BU13, which often receives less competitive pay increases, and stressed that to fix the system, the county must retain its HR staff as well. Key Outcomes - No legislative action was taken; the item was a 7B presentation only. - The project will continue with stakeholder interviews (over 70 planned) and analysis of findings. - The administration committed to providing progress updates to the committee, with the next anticipated update around the beginning of 2027. - Council members expressed strong support for the project and offered to assist with legislative changes at both county and state levels as needed. - Managing Director Nishita confirmed the project budget is a two-year contract with an option to extend for three additional one-year terms. - The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 PM.

The Housing and Land Use Committee of the Maui County Council met on July 29, 2026, at 9:07 a.m. to consider Bills 89, 90, and 91 (2026) – land use amendments for a 6.097-acre parcel at Ha'ikū Fire Station site (TMK (2) 2-7-007:008). The meeting included a presentation, public testimony, legal discussion, and a vote to recess to August 10, 2026, for continued deliberation. Public Comments & Testimony - Leilani Miranda (long-term resident, board member of Mālama Hāmākua) opposed the site location (Site B), recommending Site D (Holokai Road) due to clear title issues, water access, less grading, and reduced conflict with cultural sites and Kuleana interests. She stated the project lacks proper permitting and would impact erosion and downstream areas. - Suzette Philosilda (Lahaina fire survivor) opposed the project, arguing that federal funds allocated for Lahaina recovery should not be used for this project. She requested clarification on the source of $15,181,000 in federal funds referenced for FY2026. - Kanani Puho (Lahaina) opposed the station, stating it does not support Lahaina recovery under RCD 9, and that the county has not demonstrated the property qualifies as publicly owned land under the directive. She urged prioritizing Lahaina's needs. - Kai Coolkine (calling in) expressed concern about procedural transparency, inclusion of Native Hawaiians, and the Royal Patent chain of title. He supported other testifiers and questioned the county's approach. - Jocelyn Costa (ʻĀhamoku representative for Hāmākua Loa) opposed the specific location, citing prior development that disturbed burials. She cautioned that the archaeological assessment is inadequate and called for a halt until proper cultural consultation occurs. - Kaw Moku Kapu (Lahaina) presented a Royal Patent (LCA 1714) adjoining the property, arguing the county does not have clear title and that undivided family interests exist. He urged the committee to verify title before proceeding. - Coniloa Kamaunu (Kuleana descendant) urged rejection, arguing the county failed to demonstrate a clear chain of title, that the Newlands Resolution did not extinguish private rights, and that descendant interests must be respected. - ʻIolana Johnson (Kanaka Maoli) requested careful consideration of OIP Appeal 26-30 concerning a Sunshine Law issue at the Planning Commission meeting. She highlighted the need for transparency and meaningful consultation with Kuleana families. - Moʻi Kawaʻakoa (descendant of Hāmākua) opposed, citing existing fire station in Paia, the need for investment in existing stations, and the presence of burials and cultural sites. She supported alternative site locations with full community dialogue. - James Langford (software developer and auditor) characterized the funding approach as a potential RICO pattern, alleging misuse of federal money. He opposed the project but supported a fire station at a more appropriate site. - Jason Medina (Paia resident) opposed Site B, preferring Site D for its larger space and lower environmental impact. He argued the 6.1-acre proposal is oversized and noted the water corridor would disturb additional parcels. - Maya (community member) opposed Site B, advocating for cultural preservation over expediency. She emphasized that community love for land should not be seen as an inconvenience. - Kapali Keyahi (testifying via Teams) urged deferral until legal, cultural, and procedural questions are resolved, including title, archaeological studies, and alternative site evaluation. He warned of costly litigation if the project proceeds prematurely. - Dr. Kahala Johnson (activist, Kiaʻi) opposed the bills, citing the county's use of police force against Kanaka at Ukumehame and warning that similar actions would necessitate community defense. She argued the county cannot ignore disputed title and should choose an alternative site. - Kanye Lee Williams (recognized cultural descendant) provided extensive legal and archaeological testimony: the 2010 AIS omitted Land Commission Award 3336; burials on site are not registered; consultation has not occurred; the water corridor crosses parcels under active litigation; and the county has not fulfilled its fiduciary duty. He incorporated prior testimony and requested the committee defer action. Discussion Items - Presentation by Munekiyo & Hiraga (Hoku Kruger, Mark Roy) and Fire Chief Bradford Ventura detailed the project need – 17 years in planning – to improve emergency response in Haʻikū and reduce station coverage gaps. Proposed improvements include a 10,360 sq ft building, apparatus bay, parking, water tank. The project is county-funded (no federal money). The site (Site B) was acquired in 2007; the final EA and FONSI were published in 2024. The Planning Commission recommended approval in January 2026. - Legal discussion on Recovery Coordination Directive (RCD) 9: Deputy Corporation Counsel Nūnūkawā explained that RCD 9 (June 15, 2026) allows public uses by right in agricultural districts on county-owned land during the emergency proclamation. If the committee does not approve the zoning change, the administration could proceed under RCD 9, but that status is temporary. A code amendment is being drafted to make the use permanent. RCD 9 does not affect funding eligibility. - Committee recusal: Chair Nohelani Uʻu-Hodgins recused herself due to a potential Ricoh-related concern? Actually, after recess, she stepped aside out of abundance of caution. Vice Chair Batangan recused earlier due to prior work with Munekiyo & Hiraga. Tamara Paltin served as temporary chair. - Funding clarification: Chief Ventura stated that the $15.181 million in the mayor's budget was a placeholder for a federal grant that did not materialize; the project is fully county-funded. Funds for FY2026 are under contract; additional funds in FY2027. - Site D (Holokai Road) analysis: Chief Ventura explained that Site D lacks a water meter; the state-owned property would require a new water storage tank and additional purchases – costs are prohibitive. - Title and land disputes: Guy Hiranaka (Land Acquisitions) presented a title insurance policy for the 27.9-acre parcel (from Grant 6553) showing county ownership free and clear. Kanye Lee Williams disputed this, arguing that the chain from Royal Patent 383 (Richard Armstrong) and Land Commission Award 3336 (William Pit Lileohoku) shows unextinguished Kuleana interests, and that county records do not show a complete chain. He cited a county policy for returning land to families when title disputes arise. - Archaeological concerns: Gina McGuire (Kialapono Archaeological Consulting) stated that the Kapakai analysis consulted 18 individuals, resulting in 5 interviews. The analysis recommended verifying LCA boundary survey. Kanye Lee Williams noted that burials are present but not registered or addressed, and that the AIS did not cover all parcels. County archaeologist Janet Six had begun consultation but it stalled. SHIPD has received burial registration materials since March 2026. - Future meeting: The committee lacked time for full deliberation and agreed to recess to Monday, August 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. using the same meeting link and location. Key Outcomes - Motion approved (7 ayes, 2 abstentions) to have Councilmember Tamara Paltin serve as temporary chair under Rule 7(c) after Chair Uʻu-Hodgins recused herself. - No vote on Bills 89, 90, 91; the committee recessed without taking action. - Meeting recessed to August 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. via the same Microsoft Teams link and in-person at the Planning Conference Room, Kalana Pakui Building, Wailuku. Written testimony remains open.

Disaster Recovery, International Affairs, and Planning Committee Meeting - July 29, 2026\n\nThe committee met to discuss a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the County of Maui and Maui Land & Pineapple Company (MLP) regarding the potential acquisition of water infrastructure assets and related real property in West Maui and Upcountry. The meeting included presentations from the Department of Management and Department of Water Supply, public testimony, and extensive committee discussion. No legislative action was taken.\n\n Public Comments & Testimony\n- Greg (in-person): Expressed full support for the acquisition, emphasizing the importance of public water stewardship, fire suppression, and addressing housing needs through water system integration.\n- Tyler Sonamaker (Cahale via Media): Summarized community feedback from dozens of interviews: desire to reprioritize water for local communities and Native Hawaiians (Kānaka Maoli), reclaim water systems from private interests, ensure taxpayer-favorable negotiation, reinvest in infrastructure, and move toward community-led governance. Stated that private water systems historically led to higher prices, worse service, and environmental harms.\n- Phone testifier 4945: Raised concerns about public access to offices and meetings, and expressed appreciation for some county staff.\n- Royal Patented Kingdom representative: Argued that lands under royal patents from Kamehameha III are not subject to county jurisdiction, demanding return of lands to descendants.\n- Paʻela Kiyokona (Honokōhau Valley resident): Supported removing private entities from public trust water resources, but expressed concern about water credits tied to development that could prioritize luxury over affordable housing. Requested full public transparency of the MOU and consultation with kuleana landowners affected by diversions.\n- Kapali Keahi (West Maui community member): Stressed that Kānaka Maoli must have decision-making authority in water governance. Argued that mere transfer from private to government ownership does not change governance unless communities are centered. Noted that MLP's history of injustice should not entitle them to future water holdings for luxury development.\n\n Discussion Items\n- Presentation by Managing Director Josiah Nishita and Deputy Director Landgraf (Dept. of Water Supply):\n - The MOU is non-binding and outlines a framework for due diligence. It does not authorize any purchase; final council approval would be required.\n - Goal: restore public stewardship, increasing public ownership of West Maui drinking water systems from 45% to 93%.\n - Water assets: Honokōhau Ditch system, wells (including drilled/undeveloped), reservoirs, pump stations, and easements.\n - Non-water elements: county support for zoning changes on three parcels (Makawao, Hāliʻimaile, Honokiana) for housing; water source credits (existing balance of 911,520 gallons/day from prior agreement); long-term lease of Pūʻukukui watershed.\n - Due diligence and appraisals expected by fall/winter 2026, with aim to bring a resolution to council thereafter.\n - MLP submitted testimony expressing commitment to the process and alignment with county goals.\n- Committee Questions and Member Positions:\n - Members asked about the definition and process for county-supported zoning changes, appraisals, audits, liabilities, water credits tracking, and relationship to the Upcountry water meter list.\n - Several members (Chair Paltin, Batangan, Lee, Sugimura, Johnson, Cook, Rawlins-Fernandez, Sinenci, Uʻu-Hodgins) expressed general support for acquiring water assets, but with caveats:\n - Strong preference to separate water asset purchase from land entitlements and zoning changes.\n - Concerns about converting agricultural land to residential, especially adjacent to active pineapple farming (Maui Gold).\n - Desire for housing developed on any rezoned land to be affordable, owner-occupied, or placed in a community land trust to serve local residents, not luxury.\n - Need for full due diligence including title reports, condition assessments, and audits of MLP’s financial status and liabilities.\n - Several members noted that water credits should not be used for luxury or golf course development.\n - Members Batangan and Rawlins-Fernandez requested that the fourth amendment to the water purchase agreement (regarding credits) be transmitted to the committee.\n - Managing Director Nishita indicated that administration is open to discussing mechanisms for ensuring affordability and that council input on negotiation priorities is welcome.\n\n Key Outcomes\n- No action taken: The item was informational only; no vote or legislative action occurred.\n- Deferral: Chair Paltin deferred the item, stating it will be brought back after the administration receives and reviews preliminary due diligence documents, title reports, appraisals, and the asset purchase agreement as requested by member Batangan.\n- Next Steps: The committee will reconvene on the item later in 2026 after the due diligence process advances and the administration can provide more concrete information. The MOU is valid through May 18, 2027.\n- Administrative request: Members asked for written follow-up on the Honoapiʻilani Highway (Hui Road) subdivision request and for copies of relevant existing agreements.

The Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Committee met on July 28, 2026, to consider two items: Bill 81 (2025), which would require disclosure of use restrictions on county-owned property when requesting appropriations, and a discussion on the Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) billing, collection, and system implementation. The committee heard public testimony, debated Bill 81, and received an update on TAT progress. No consent calendar was presented. Public Comments & Testimony - Jesse Long (calling in) testified in support of the TAT discussion, expressing hope that Maui County becomes more self-reliant in managing its revenue. He also inquired about the availability of a South Maui residency office for testifiers. No other public testimony was offered for either agenda item. Discussion Items Bill 81 (2025) – Disclosure of Use Restrictions on County-Owned Property - Purpose: To require the administration to disclose any use restrictions (e.g., funding source conditions, executive order requirements, deed restrictions) when requesting appropriations for development on county-owned property, ensuring consistency with authorized uses. This was prompted by the use of open space funds to acquire property (Kaulu Onapili) that was later repurposed for affordable housing. - Administration Position: Deputy Managing Director Aaron Wade expressed no objection, suggesting the information could be included in transmittals or budget appendices. - Council Positions: - Chair Sugimura (sponsor) argued the bill ensures transparency and prevents future confusion as council members and administrations change. - Member Batangan supported the disclosure requirement, noting it would help newer members understand property restrictions. - Member Johnson acknowledged the prior transparency but saw codification as beneficial for future administrations. - Member Paltin expressed frustration, stating the bill was unnecessary because the current administration was transparent; she also urged focus on pressing housing issues, such as rising rents for low-income tenants in 201H projects. - Member Rollins Fernandez suggested the bill was an election-year ‘gotcha’ but later stated she could support it for consistency. - Member Cook noted the bill clarifies how special-purpose funds can be swapped when property use changes. - Key Data: The property in question was purchased with $1.434 million from the Open Space Fund; the FY2027 budget includes an appropriation from the Affordable Housing Fund to reimburse the Open Space Fund. Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) – Billing, Collection, and System Update - Update from Deputy Director Zelensky and Revenue Manager Nighthart: - The TAT software implementation (by FAST Enterprises) is on schedule, going live on October 5, 2026 (approx. one week ahead). - The county currently has 15,000 TAT taxpayers; the department has 6 positions (5 active, 1 vacancy). - Annual TAT revenue is trending at $70 million. - Policies and procedures have been developed for refunds, penalties, and interest. - A refund of approximately $1 million was issued to a large West Maui taxpayer after it was determined a property did not qualify as a short-term rental. - The new system will collect Tax Map Key (TMK) numbers, which the state does not require, allowing for district-level reporting. - Council Concerns: - Member Batangan questioned whether some collection activities require rulemaking under HRS Chapter 91; the committee requested a written opinion from Corporation Counsel. - Member Paltin urged collaboration with the state for enforcement and suggested exploring joint task forces. - Member Cook asked about auditing the state’s TAT distribution; Deputy Director Zelensky noted limited cooperation from the state. - Member U’u-Hodgins asked about the statute of limitations for collections (three years from annual reconciliation). - No legislative action was taken; the item was for information and discussion only. Key Outcomes - Bill 81 (2025): The committee voted 9-0 (with all members present in favor) to recommend passage on first reading to the full council. The motion was made by Chair Sugimura and seconded by Member Cook. - TAT Update: No vote was taken. The committee received the update and agreed to have Corporation Counsel provide a written response regarding HRS Chapter 91 compliance. Members also discussed potential state legislation and further collaboration with the state Department of Taxation.

The Government Relations, Ethics, and Transparency (GREAT) Committee of the Maui County Council met on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, at 1:35 p.m. (reconvening from a recess at 3:07 p.m., adjourning at 4:39 p.m.) to consider three bills aimed at strengthening ethics oversight. The committee heard public testimony, deliberated at length, and voted to recommend passage of Bill 55 (2025) on first reading with amendments, while deferring Bill 99 (2026) on nepotism and Bill 100 (2026) on lobbyist regulations to a future meeting. Public Comments & Testimony - Chivo Ching Johnson testified in support of all three bills, emphasizing the need to close loopholes and align Maui’s ethics framework with the state. He supported the six‑year statute of limitations and retroactive application. - Katie Schroeder (Board of Ethics volunteer) urged passage of Bill 55 to prevent employees from escaping accountability by resigning, and supported the anti‑nepotism and lobbyist bills, noting Maui is one of only two counties without a countywide nepotism policy and the only county without comprehensive lobbyist rules. - Albert Perez (registered lobbyist) supported Bill 100 but asked that reporting requirements align with state schedules, that the $5,000 penalty allow for warnings or graduated fines, and that state ethics training be accepted for county lobbyists. He also questioned how the county maintains its lobbyist registration list. - Jesse Law expressed general support for the ethics bills but raised concerns about accessibility of meeting information and the process for filing complaints. - Travis Liggett (mayoral candidate) testified about his experience as a whistleblower, urging the committee to consider broader corruption risks and foreign influence when drafting ethics laws. - Christopher Salem supported the six‑year extension, citing examples of long‑running ethics investigations where jurisdiction was lost. He also called for expanding nepotism rules to cover “wink‑wink” relationships. - James Langford shared his background in ethics and urged the committee to include community voices in drafting further reforms. - Michael Lilly (Chair, Board of Ethics) strongly supported all three bills, explaining that they address practical gaps: lost jurisdiction when employees leave service, lack of a nepotism policy, and insufficient lobbyist transparency. He deferred to staff for technical details. - Mad Schaefer testified in support of Bill 55, noting she filed a complaint that the board could not pursue because the employee had left county service. She confirmed the complaint was also referred to law enforcement. Discussion Items - Bill 55 (2025) – Relates to Code of Ethics violations and penalties. The original bill extended the Board of Ethics’ jurisdiction to six years after an employee separates from county employment. The committee considered a proposed CD1 version that: 1. amends the title; 2. starts the six‑year window from the date the alleged violation occurred (rather than separation); 3. extends jurisdiction to six years from discovery (or when it should have been discovered) if the violation was concealed by fraud; 4. changes the effective date to upon approval. After extensive discussion, the committee adopted an additional amendment to explicitly state that the law applies retroactively, inserted into Section 2.56.010. The board explained that employees are on notice of ethics rules from day one, and the Hawaii Supreme Court allows retroactive application when clearly stated. Some members expressed concerns about notice, the $1,000 fine cap versus the $5,000 lobbyist penalty, and the need for better referral systems between the ethics board, prosecutor, and council. Others supported the longer window to address past misconduct, citing COVID‑era procurements. - Bill 99 (2026) – To establish prohibitions concerning nepotism. After brief discussion, the committee deferred the item without action, intending to bring it back at a later meeting. - Bill 100 (2026) – To establish comprehensive lobbyist regulations. The committee also deferred this item, with Vice Chair U‘u‑Hodgins noting the need to clarify how often the lobbyist list is updated and to consider annual registration. Key Outcomes - Bill 55 (2025) was passed on first reading with a vote of 9–0 (all members present) after adopting two amendments: (1) replacement with the CD1 version (six‑year window from violation, discovery rule for fraud, effective upon approval); (2) addition of language explicitly stating retroactive application. - Bill 99 (2026) was deferred to a future GREAT Committee meeting. - Bill 100 (2026) was deferred to a future GREAT Committee meeting. - The committee expressed interest in future bills on additional financial disclosures and conflicts of interest, and in developing a formal referral system between the Board of Ethics, county auditor, prosecutor, and council.

The Water Authority, Social Services, and Parks Committee of the Maui County Council convened on Monday, July 27, 2026, at 9:02 a.m. in the Planning Conference Room, Wailuku, with virtual participation via Teams. Chair Shane Sinenci presided. The committee received two informational updates: first on the Kīpūola Kauhale, Maui’s first kauhale community under the state’s Kauhale Initiative; second on the spring 2026 Kona low storms’ impact on Maui County parks. No legislative action was taken; both items were deferred for further committee information. Public Comments & Testimony - On Kīpūola Kauhale: A testifier representing the Royal Patent of the Hawaiian kingdom raised concerns about health effects from agricultural chemicals in the area, questioned whether a cultural practitioner would be involved in hooponopono, and requested the return of Native Hawaiians to their royal patented lands under HRS 172-11. A second testifier (James Langford) commented on the project positively, noting the state is doing something to help Maui County, but urged careful vetting of management due to outside origins. A third testifier offered personal experience from living in post-wildfire state facilities and requested a dialogue with the committee on ethical governance. - On Kona Low Storm Impact: A testifier (Dawn) advocated for more recycling in parks and speculated that tree removal behind Kula Gym contributed to wind damage during the storm. Another testifier (Quincy) asked about plans and timeline to rebuild Kula Gym. Discussion Items Update on Kīpūola Kauhale (WASSP-1(22)) Kimo Carvalho, CEO of HomeAid Hawaii, presented an update on the 64-unit kauhale community in Kahului, consisting of 100-square-foot modular tiny homes arranged in clusters of 16 with shared kitchens, restrooms, and showers. He highlighted the model of “community first” deeply affordable housing for households at 30%–50% area median income, with program fees of $450/month. Key statistics: 538 total applications in eight months, 80% single men, 20% women, and most applicants were working poor or wildfire survivors. The project cost under $9 million, funded primarily by the state with private sector contributions. Carvalho noted the project’s success in reducing crime and stabilizing the area compared to the previous field shelter. Council members asked about caseworker-to-resident ratios, security staffing (24/7, at least two guards), program duration (six-month renewable agreements), sobriety enforcement (dry campus, but case-by-case flexibility), and partnerships with local organizations. Deputy Director Robinson (Office of Economic Vitality and Resources) suggested incorporating cultural curriculum and connection to āina to enhance resident healing. Deputy Director Mataafa (Department of Housing) described other county efforts for deeply affordable housing, including use of Housing Trust Fund monies and projects like Huliao. Carvalho identified four needs for success: access to public land, emergency proclamations for permitting flexibility, public-private partnerships to reduce construction costs, and revised infrastructure calculations for water/sewer to reflect tiny home density. He reported three successful exits to permanent housing and no evictions to the streets to date. Committee Vice Chair Johnson proposed exploring county-owned land, such as the 100-acre parcel behind the South Maui police station, for replicating the model. Member Sugimura asked whether codification of the kauhale model is needed, with Carvalho expressing openness to continued dialogue. Update on Kona Low Storms’ Impact on Maui County Parks (WASSP-1(21)) Deputy Director Dudoit (Department of Parks and Recreation) presented damages from the spring 2026 Kona low storms. Key impacts: - Kula Gym: Roof truss and south wall structurally compromised; tarping estimate of $1.9 million under FEMA review. No alternate gym available in the area. - South Maui Parks: 88 accesses at Kamaole One closed; Kalepolepo closed due to natural springs; Kamaole Two sand restoration underway. - Kanaha Beach Park: $62,800 for removal of 16 downed trees (kukui, milo, ironwood). - Ukumehame Gun Range: Flooding, berm damage; reopened June 6; $16,000 in repairs; estimated $5–6 million for pavilion repairs. - Waiehu Golf Course: Flooding, fallen trees, fence damage; $657,000 estimated repair cost; closed seven days. Meredith Sanders (Tetra Tech) explained that FEMA initially did not include parks in eligible categories, but an appeal has been submitted. Site inspections must be completed within 30 days. Emergency work (debris removal, protective measures) should be reimbursed within six months; repair work six to nine months after invoicing. All costs so far have been borne by the parks department’s general fund. Council members asked about timelines, budget strain, coordination with FEMA, and the process for right-of-entry for salvage of beached boats (two boats have right-of-entries issued; a third recently beached). Member Paltin inquired about an expedited salvage process. Deputy Director Barney (Public Works) noted that repair of the Lahaina Civic Center sinkhole is under contract with pre-final inspection scheduled soon. The department confirmed readiness protocols for the approaching storms (Fausto and Genevieve), including pre-storm preparation and standby staffing. Key Outcomes - Both agenda items were received as informational updates and deferred by the committee without objection. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken. - The committee directed staff to follow up on several items: written responses to questions about costs, partnerships, and FEMA reimbursement; continued dialogue with HomeAid Hawaii on codifying kauhale models; and coordination between Parks and Recovery offices on emergency fund access and salvage processes.

The Water and Infrastructure Committee of the Maui County Council met on July 27, 2026, from 1:33 p.m. to 3:53 p.m. to discuss Resolution 26-116, which authorizes the acquisition of water system assets from Launiupoko Water Co., Inc. and Olowalu Water Company, Inc. for up to $6,000,000, exclusive of closing costs. The meeting was a discussion-only item (7B) with no legislative action taken. The Department of Water Supply presented detailed information on the assets, financials, and transition plans. Public testimony was supportive, and committee members posed extensive questions about pricing, infrastructure condition, regulatory approvals, and future expansion. The item was deferred to the Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Committee on August 4, 2026. Public Comments & Testimony - A South Lahaina resident expressed full support, noting the long-overdue public control of West Maui water systems. He hoped the county would eventually connect the systems for better fire suppression and drought resilience. - A caller from Kahului (Jeff M.) supported the acquisition, citing it as a major reason for his vote, but noted difficulty accessing meeting materials from the Office of Council Services. - Paele Kiokona spoke in full support, emphasizing that 77% of West Maui water systems are privately owned and that this acquisition is a step toward reclaiming a public trust resource and reducing speculative interests. - A testifier from the audience (Jackie K.) expressed support but raised concerns about the purchase price exceeding the appraised value for Olowalu and urged the county to use the acquisition as an opportunity to stop environmental irresponsibility. - James Langford supported the acquisition and suggested incorporating atmospheric water systems as a supplemental solution, urging collaboration with local tech innovators rather than outside disaster-capitalist firms. Discussion Items - Presentation by Deputy Director Landgraf: Detailed the assets of both systems. Launiupoko: 3 wells (692, 850, 749 ft deep), 2 tanks (400,000 and 50,000 gallons), 14.5 miles of water main, 402 active connections, 276 million gallons produced in 2025. Purchase price $3.5M vs appraised $8.056M. Olowalu: portable system with 1 well, 79 customers, 52 million gallons; non-potable system with 2 shafts, stream diversion, 72 customers, 108 million gallons. Purchase price $2.5M vs appraised $1.987M (package deal). Post-closing obligations include transitional services ($46,500/month for Launiupoko, $53,600/month for Olowalu for 6 months) and capital improvements (fencing, relining, SCADA, etc. totaling $1.054M). Estimated annual operating costs: Launiupoko $879,664 with revenue $2.561M; Olowalu $671,554 with revenue $734,363. The closing timeline anticipates council approval by end of August 2026, PUC approval by March 2027, and escrow by April 2027. - Pricing and Appraisal Discrepancy: Councilmember Batangan asked why Launiupoko's purchase price is significantly below appraisal while Olowalu's is above. Managing Director Lee explained that the two systems are sold as a package; the combined appraised value via investment approach is $10M, and the total acquisition cost plus post-closing obligations is below that. Additionally, the replacement cost approach for Olowalu values it higher than the purchase price. - Liabilities and PUC Approval: Councilmembers Batangan and Sinenci clarified that the county is buying assets only, not the companies, so no existing liabilities or litigation are assumed. The PUC must approve the transfer; if denied, the purchase does not close. The county's operational and financial capacity should make approval straightforward, though rate changes for customers could be a concern. - System Interconnection and Expansion: Deputy Director Landgraf confirmed plans to connect the Launiupoko and Olowalu systems with the county's West Maui system, increasing redundancy and resilience. No district-to-district restrictions apply within West Maui. The existing water use permits allow continued operation at current levels; expansion would require new CWRM water use permits. - Infrastructure Condition: Questions about aging pipes, tank liners, and underground assets. The department inspected above-ground components and records and believes the systems are well-maintained. CCTV of pipes was not feasible due to live service. Tanks were relined recently (Peak in 2024, Snake in 2023). Backup generators exist only for Launiupoko. - Rate Comparison and Revenue Estimates: Current private rates are lower than county rates for low usage but higher for high usage. The transition to county rates may increase bills for some customers, which will be addressed in the PUC process. Revenue estimates used May–June 2026 consumption data and did not account for potential rate-induced demand reduction. - Easements and Land Ownership: The county will acquire easements for water lines and small parcels for wells/tanks, not underlying land. Councilmembers Lee and Cook asked about title risks and the ability to subdivide or expand facilities. Corporation Counsel noted that clear title evidence will be required and that right-of-first-refusal provisions can be included in easement agreements. - CWRM and Sustainability: Councilmember Rollins-Fernandez noted that sustainable yield (7 MGD for Launiupoko, 2 MGD for Olowalu) does not mean the county should extract up to that limit; climate change and cultural uses must be considered. The department confirmed that current pumping is well within existing permits (Launiupoko 1 MGD, Olowalu 0.7 MGD for portable). - Olowalu Fire Station: Councilmember Sugimura raised concern that activating the new fire station might require a new water use permit and delay. Corporation Counsel said the fire station is a building permit matter and the water needed is already anticipated under existing uses, but the department agreed to clarify the limits with CWRM. Key Outcomes - No votes were taken; the committee held a discussion-only session (Rule 7(B)). The item was deferred to the Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Committee meeting on August 4, 2026. - Follow-up questions were identified, including: clarifying the expansion potential under existing pumping permits (especially for the Olowalu fire station and additional homes), obtaining CWRM guidance on when new use permits are needed, and verifying title and easement details. - Next steps: Staff will provide responses to questions by August 4. If the BFED committee and full council approve, the county will proceed with PUC review and closing by April 2027.

The Housing and Land Use Committee reconvened at 11:06 a.m. on July 6, 2026, under Chair Nohelani Uu Hodgins. The meeting focused on two resolutions—26-110 and 26-111—to recommend county-initiated rezoning of specific properties to H3/H4 (hotel) districts. After an executive session to consult with legal counsel, the committee deliberated for several hours, voting on multiple amendments and ultimately approving both resolutions. Consent Calendar - No consent calendar items were considered. Public Comments & Testimony - Oral testimony was closed before the meeting; no public comments were heard during the open session. Discussion Items Resolution 26-110 – Timeshares, Leaseholds, and Single-Ownership Properties - The committee discussed which properties to include on the list for rezoning. Chair Uu Hodgins presented a list broken down by current zoning (multifamily, residential, hotel) and category (timeshare, leasehold, single-ownership with fewer than five units). - Leasehold criteria debate: Member Rollins Fernandez moved to limit the leasehold properties to those 100% leasehold. An amendment to set the threshold at 75% was withdrawn. The motion for 100% failed 4–5 (4 ayes, 5 noes). - Removal of Hale Onoloa: A motion to remove Hale Onoloa from the leasehold list passed unanimously (9–0) after testimony indicated it no longer had leasehold units. - Member Paulton’s amendment (ASF) added properties with a single owner, variances, and 100% timeshares (as of a date to be determined). The amendment passed 8–1 (Chair Lee, Sugimura, Paulton, Rollins Fernandez, Cook, Sinansi, Batangan, Uu Hodgins in favor; Johnson opposed). - Member Cook’s amendment added three leasehold properties (Kana‘i ā Nalu, Kahana Village, Maui Sands 1). Passed 6–2–1 (Paulton excused; Johnson and Rollins Fernandez opposed). - Planning corrections (correcting Halama Street properties and including all of Milowai Ma‘alaya) were adopted 6–2–1 (excused: Paulton; opposed: Rollins Fernandez and Johnson). Resolution 26-111 – Hotel-Like Properties - Chair Uu Hodgins described the resolution as covering properties that operate like hotels (centralized services, front desk, etc.). The initial list included Wailea Ekahi 1–3, Wailea Ekolu, The Palms at Wailea 1, Papakea, and Maui El Dorado. - Member Cook’s amendment added three properties: Kamā‘ole Sands, Luana Kai, and Mahina Surf. Member Cook detailed their hotel-like features (front desk, linen service, round-the-clock staff, etc.). The amendment passed 6–2–1 (excused: Paulton; opposed: Johnson, Rollins Fernandez). - Member Sinansi’s amendment added Hanakai Maui in Hāna, described as a boutique hotel serving both visitors and residents. Passed 6–2–1 (same lineup). Key Outcomes - Resolution 26-110 (as amended) was approved 6–2–1 (Chair Lee, Sugimura, Cook, Sinansi, Batangan, Uu Hodgins aye; Johnson, Rollins Fernandez no; Paulton excused). The resolution will now be transmitted to the Maui Planning Commission for a 120-day review, with the list expanded to include timeshares, leaseholds (all percentages), single-ownership properties, and planning corrections. - Resolution 26-111 (as amended) was approved 6–2–1 (same vote tally), forwarding hotel-like properties plus the three additions from Member Cook and Hanakai Maui to the Planning Commission. - The committee noted that the Planning Commission may recommend modifications, and any final decision to reject portions of the commission’s recommendations would require a two-thirds vote of the Council. - Chair Uu Hodgins adjourned the meeting at 4:26 p.m.

The Adept Committee of the Maui County Council met on July 2, 2026, to consider Bill 95 (2026), which aims to promote Maui Bus ridership by expanding the Fare-Free Bus Pass program. The bill, introduced by Chair Gabe Johnson, expands eligibility to students of any age, county employees, and increases the income threshold from 200% to 300% of the federal poverty level. It also authorizes the Transportation Director to suspend fare enforcement for up to 14 days per fiscal year for special events or emergencies. After public testimony with no testifiers, the committee deliberated and voted unanimously to recommend passage on first reading. Discussion Items - Chair Johnson outlined the bill’s provisions: expanding fare-free passes to students of any age, county employees, and those up to 300% of the poverty level; and allowing the director to suspend fares for up to 14 days per fiscal year for promotions or emergencies, with a 14-day notice to council unless impractical. - Director Mark Takamori (Department of Transportation) expressed full support for the bill, noting it aligns with climate action goals and provides flexibility for promotional events such as the Maui County Fair, Earth Day, or Tri-Transit Day. - Vice Chair Senancy asked about bus capacity during special events; Director Takamori stated current buses would be used without increased frequency, and data would inform future adjustments. - Councilmember Cook inquired about backup drivers and adaptability; the director confirmed existing buffer drivers and that the department would plan for higher demand as needed. - Chair Lee requested budget details: the total transit budget is approximately $27 million, with 13% from the highway fund and the rest from general fund/grants. The estimated daily fare revenue loss from fare suspension is $2,806. Ridership has increased 2-3% over the prior year, with growth in commuters, paratransit, and fixed route. - Councilmember Paulton expressed full support and suggested expanding the program to all riders, but acknowledged funding challenges. She proposed seeking funds from other sources (e.g., EPNS, human services) and marketing partnerships (e.g., with Maui University or social media influencers) to promote fare-free days. - Councilmember Batangan supported the bill but disagreed that cost is the primary barrier to ridership; he emphasized frequency and route reach as more critical. He questioned the impact of raising the income threshold to 300% on operations and clarified that the fare suspension applies system-wide (not route-specific) based on the text. He also noted the removal of “director’s designee” language and requested its retention to allow MEO to continue processing applications. - Councilmember Hodgins had no further questions and expressed support. - Chair Johnson elaborated on the interaction with federal funds: making fixed route free would require free paratransit, which could increase costs due to additional buses and drivers. He cited Honolulu’s example, where free fare days led to a 12% increase over the previous week and 25% increase over the same week the previous year, with paratransit ridership rising 18%. - Councilmember Batangan asked about the triggers for fare suspension (disaster, emergency transit disruption) and whether a disaster declaration is required. Deputy Corporation Counsel Reef Snyder indicated the language is not specific about who declares, and the director clarified that any suspension would be coordinated with the managing director and mayor. Batangan requested that the director also collaborate with the council via a letter to the council chair. - On the “designee” issue, Councilmember Batangan moved to retain the phrase; after a drafting clarification from staff (Moniz) that the code already allows subordinate officers to act, the committee agreed to keep the original language for clarity. Key Outcomes - The committee voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend passage of Bill 95 (2026) on first reading, with non-substantive revisions. - The motion was made by Vice Chair Senancy, seconded by Councilmember Batangan. - The committee agreed to retain the “director or director’s designee” language in the code to ensure MEO can continue processing fare-free pass applications. - The meeting adjourned at 9:38 AM.