Maui committee defers bill on encampment removals after hours of testimony; administration urges flexibility

The Maui County WĀSŌ committee on Sept. 4 deferred consideration of Bill 111, a proposed ordinance that would establish procedures for “compassionate” removal of encampments, storage of personal property found in public places, and recognition of a right to shelter. Vice Chair Johnson moved to defer the bill after hours of public testimony, administration remarks and legal cautions; the committee closed discussion by consensus and did not record a roll-call vote on the deferral.

Bill 111 was the only item on the committee’s agenda and drew more than two hours of oral testimony from residents, service providers and advocates. Testifiers urged stronger safeguards — including a shelter precondition requiring that an acceptable place to sleep be offered before an encampment removal — clearer notice and multilingual postings, access to property retrieval, and protections for pets and family units. Janice Hill urged “humanity for all,” saying she had watched personal items destroyed in past removals. Julie Chechnita said “sweeps are for trash, not for humans” and stressed that many people turned away from shelters lack identification or other paperwork.

The administration and Corporation Counsel said they share the committee’s goals but warned that codifying detailed procedures into county code could reduce necessary operational flexibility. Deputy Managing Director Aaron Wade and Department of Human Concerns officials described recent changes in practice after the Davis v. Bissen litigation: storage and notice procedures have been implemented for removals, and storage periods have in some cases been extended to aid retrieval. Deputy Corporation Counsel Mimi Desjardins told the committee that administrative guidance or rules provide flexibility while the county continues to adapt operations; she said corporation counsel is prepared to help the council draft enforceable text if the body so directs.

Nut graf: The committee’s pause reflects a split between two aims often voiced during testimony — stronger, legally enforceable safeguards for people affected by encampment removals, and the county administration’s request for operational flexibility to adapt to differing field conditions. Committee members asked administration and counsel to continue working with advocates so a bill that can be legally supported and practically implemented returns to committee.

Most important details

- Deferral: Vice Chair Johnson moved to defer Bill 111; members closed public testimony and, by consensus, agreed to defer further action. No formal roll-call vote was recorded.

- Public testimony: More than 30 speakers called for (a) a requirement that adequate shelter or safe alternatives be available before removals, (b) longer and clearer notice and multilingual posting, (c) accessible storage and retrieval procedures for personal property, and (d) cultural safeguards for Native Hawaiians and protections for kupuna and those with pets.

- Administration stance: County officials said a package of written guidance and updated contracts already exists, that they have been adapting operations since the Davis v. Bissen decision, and that codified requirements could limit necessary on-the-ground flexibility. The administration provided a written transmittal describing current practices and a draft operational guidance document.

- Legal caution: Deputy Corporation Counsel Mimi Desjardins said codifying rigid timelines or procedures into county code can make it harder for the county to respond to changing circumstances; she encouraged further collaboration and public rulemaking as an alternative pathway.

Supporting details and examples

- Definitions and notice windows were prominent points of contention. Advocates and some members pushed to define an “encampment” as five or more tents rather than a single tent, and asked for minimum notice windows (45 days was mentioned by some advocates). The draft amendments discussed in committee included provisions to post the date, time and location of an informational meeting at least four calendar days before removal and to require that informational meetings occur at the removal site.

- Storage and retrieval: The committee discussed minimum storage times and retrieval logistics. Administration officials stated the county currently stores property for a minimum of 30 days following removals (and in some situations extended another 30 days after Amala Place). The committee discussed whether the county should be required to post where property would be stored (the draft language debated whether notices must state storage location or provide claim instructions and a telephone number).

- Outreach and culturally specific safeguards: Testimony repeated concerns that outreach providers named in county notices were not consistently present or connected to enforcement; advocates asked for mandatory outreach-provider participation and cultural consultation for Native Hawaiian sites. Rapid Response, Family Life Center and other local providers were repeatedly cited during testimony as key field partners.

- Costs and vendors: Speakers and some council members referenced recent cleanup costs. The administration said the Amala Place cleanup cost about $15,000 (with about $5,000 for property handling and retrieval under the HTM vendor contract); another cleanup figure cited from Granicus for Wahikuli was $46,928. The administration said it is pursuing an on-island storage vendor to minimize off-island logistics.

Ending/next steps

The committee agreed to defer the bill so council members, corporation counsel and the administration can continue negotiating text and to give advocates time to review changes. Vice Chair Johnson said he intends to continue working with Corporation Counsel to produce a version the office can sign. Administration staff agreed to continue refining a written guidance document and to report back; committee members asked for clearer timelines and a path to revisit the matter when a corpus of agreed language — including practical operational details — is ready. No further committee action was taken on Sept. 4.

Quoted speakers (partial)

"We need kamaʻāina prosperity for locals and humanity for all," Janice Hill said during public testimony.

"Sweeps are for trash, not for humans," Julie Chechnita said, adding that many people lack the documentation shelters require.

"The notice required by that decision was established," Deputy Corporation Counsel Mimi Desjardins said, referring to the county’s compliance steps following Davis v. Bissen.

"If we continue to leave this policy to the administration, we can expect more of the same," Vice Chair Johnson said during committee remarks, describing his intent to pursue codified safeguards.

Speakers referenced in this article are listed in the article record.