Maui committee tables $20M plan to buy 162 acres in Lahaina after title issues surface

The Budget, Finance and Economic Development Committee on Wednesday paused consideration of bills and a resolution seeking authority to buy roughly 162.07 acres of land in West Maui after witnesses and council members raised outstanding title issues and asked for more documentation.

The committee, chaired by Yuki Lehi Sugimura, heard repeated public testimony urging the county to buy the land from the private owner, and heard from Department of Public Works Director Jordan Molina that the parcels are intended to support a Lahaina watershed flood-control project, an extension of Kuhua (Mill) Street and other community needs. Molina told members the county appraisal grouped many parcels for valuation and that the seller’s own valuations had been substantially higher.

Why it matters: The parcels sit above and adjacent to Lahaina town and have been proposed as a coordinated site to build flood-control channels, improve evacuation routes and expand parks and community facilities — projects county officials say would reduce risk in a town heavily affected by the Aug. 8, 2023 fires. But some parcels have unclear ownership, and council members said they cannot responsibly vote without time to review title reports and verify which lots, if any, lack insurable title.

The administration asked the committee to move quickly because the seller has imposed a closing deadline, and the purchase proposal would be funded with a combination of bond funding and lapsed bond proceeds. The resolution before the committee (Resolution 25-186) would authorize acquisition “up to $20,000,000, exclusive of closing costs and expenses,” and related ordinances (Bills 138, 139, 140, 2025) would amend the FY26 budget and bond appropriations to provide approximately $20,150,000 for the project.

Public testimony and key administration comments

Dozens of residents and lineal descendants of Lahaina testified at the meeting. Several urged the county to buy the parcels from the seller (identified in public materials and testimony as Peter Martin), arguing the purchase would allow the county to build flood-control infrastructure, expand evacuation routes, create greenways and relocate community facilities. Damon Ramos told members, "I say buy the land. It may be a high cost, but I believe that buying this land has many great benefits for the people and their safety." Several young people also spoke in favor of acquisition for safety and green-space reasons.

From the administration, Director Molina said the county acquisition would primarily serve two public-works objectives: "the Lahaina Watershed Project with the USDA NRCS to develop flood control and protection" and the Kuhua (Mill) Street extension, and that those two linear projects would directly affect more than 60 of the parcels under consideration. Molina described the acquisition as a way to reduce the complexity of future negotiations for road and flood projects and to provide flexibility when unknown site conditions are encountered during design and construction.

Title, appraisal and insurance issues raised

Counsel and staff told the committee they had only recently received updated title reports. Corporation counsel said the office and finance received updated title reports "yesterday" and had not completed a thorough review. Administration staff later told members the seller-provided documentation indicated approximately 18 parcels within the proposed acquisition area did not have insurable, clear title; three of those are road lots (including Dickinson and Mill Street) and together those unclear-title parcels total roughly 15 acres of the overall acreage.

Real property staff explained that title insurance policies generally exclude parcels that lack clear title; after county acquisition the county could pursue litigation or other means to clear title and then obtain insurance. Members pressed whether title clouds on road lots could delay or impede the county’s ability to deliver critical improvements; agency staff said clouds complicate the work but do not automatically prevent moving forward, and that remedies include negotiated cures or, if necessary, eminent domain proceedings.

Appraisal differences also drew attention. The seller had previously submitted appraisals valuing the holdings much higher (staff cited seller‑side ranges in the $40 million to $50 million range). The county’s appraisal grouped many of the 120 parcels into 15 developability groups and produced lower valuations; in the transmittal staff noted assessed real-property value (2023) of about $21.7 million and the county negotiated toward the seller’s current asking price of roughly $20 million. Members asked staff to reconcile those figures and to document the appraisal assumptions.

Committee action and next steps

After extended public comment, questions and a short recess to allow members to access title reports that had been posted in the meeting record, Chair Sugimura moved to table consideration and scheduled the matter to continue at 9 a.m. the following day. The administration agreed to provide a list of the approximately 18 parcels reported as lacking clear title and to prepare an exhibit map showing which parcels would be impacted by the public-works projects.

The committee also heard that bond/lapsed-bond funding of roughly $3,957,294 would be available from certain completed projects and that the administration planned to use a mix of bond proceeds and lapsed bond funds for the purchase. Staff emphasized the seller had indicated a firm closing date requested by the seller (November 14, 2025), and council members said that timing made prompt follow-up necessary if the county were to pursue the acquisition.

What the committee did not decide

No formal vote on the purchase ordinances or the resolution was taken. Members repeatedly emphasized they needed time to review title reports, counsel’s assessment and the parcel-level documentation before any final action. Corporation counsel confirmed title and legal issues would be part of the county’s due-diligence review and, if acquisition proceeded, additional costs could arise to clear titles or to pursue legal remedies.

Ending

The committee paused consideration so staff, counsel and members could continue due diligence. The land-acquisition items (Bills 138–140, 2025, and Resolution 25-186) remain pending; the committee asked the administration to provide the list of parcels lacking clear title and the exhibit map before reconvening, and it set a follow-up session to continue deliberations.

Discussion vs. decision

Discussion: extensive public testimony urging purchase; administration presentations on flood control and roadway projects; council questions about appraisals, title insurance and funding source.

Directions: administration to provide a parcel-by-parcel list of the ~18 parcels reported without clear title and an exhibit map showing which parcels intersect the public-works projects. Committee requested time to review the title reports already posted to the meeting record.

Decisions: committee tabled the items and scheduled continued consideration the following morning at 9 a.m.; no disposition on the ordinances or resolution occurred.

Ending note

Because the seller’s timeline is compressed, members asked staff to prioritize the parcel list and title clarifications and to return to the committee with those materials and a clear summary of outstanding title risks and any anticipated additional costs to clear title so members could weigh fiscal and legal exposure before any vote.