Maui committee pauses debate on Bill 9 after legal briefing; planners urge individual review of hotel‑zoned sites

The Maui County Housing and Land Use Committee on July 2, 2025 recessed public deliberation on Bill 9 — a proposal to amend chapters of the Maui County Code relating to transient vacation rentals and apartment districts — after consulting legal counsel and receiving planning staff guidance on how to treat properties with hotel or resort designations.

Chair Tasha Kamara opened the reconvened recess meeting and said the committee would consider Bill 9 with the goal of making a recommendation by the end of the day, but that members might need more time. The committee then voted to enter executive session to consult with Corporation Counsel on legal questions related to the proposal; the motion to convene executive session passed unanimously, 9-0.

Planning staff told the committee that the department’s review showed several properties on the list of transient vacation rental (TBR) sites also carried community‑plan or zoning designations that could allow hotel uses. Greg Post of the Department of Planning said the department’s preferred approach was to keep Bill 9’s broad phase‑out of TBRs in the apartment district and then use separate code‑amendment or change‑of‑zoning proceedings to review individual properties that appear to have hotel or resort entitlements.

“We would recommend that those properties actually go through a code amendment process so that we can actually go through and dive in in more detail to determine whether or not these were actually — I mean, there may be some history on these properties,” Post said.

Deputy Planning Director Anna Lillis told the committee that planning had transmitted written responses and that the planning commission had recommended the council consider excluding five named properties from the bill review because those sites carry hotel or mixed‑use designations: Wailea Ekahi 1, Wailea Ekahi 3, Papakea, Hale Kanapali and Maui Eldorado. Lillis said either council or the planning director can initiate change‑of‑zoning proceedings; she also described the charter’s process and time frame for council‑initiated land‑use requests that involve the planning commission.

Members pressed administration staff on the broader housing intent of Bill 9 and on projected revenue impacts if TBRs in apartment districts are phased out. Ms. Abraham from the mayor’s office said the administration anticipates follow‑up steps if the bill advances, including potential tax amendments to offset revenue changes. Committee members and administration staff discussed an estimated $60 million loss in real‑property tax revenue tied to the proposal; one member later noted a larger $100 million figure that combined real‑property tax, transient accommodation (TAT) and general excise tax estimates.

Committee business proceeded with two formal procedural votes: a motion to suspend Rule 14 of the council rules (to permit a recess date within the required notification window) carried 9‑0, and the committee agreed to recess the HOU meeting to July 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., with a possible rollover to July 24 if more time is required. Members asked staff to re‑invite the administration and the outside resource people who participated in the hearing so they can answer outstanding questions when the committee resumes.

No final vote on the substance of Bill 9 occurred on July 2. Committee members, planning staff and administration officials repeatedly framed the next steps as technical and procedural: preserve the bill’s broad objective to return apartment districts to long‑term housing use, then refine the approach for specific parcels through established planning and zoning processes.

Next steps: the committee is scheduled to reconvene July 23, 2025; planning staff advised the council that properties with separate hotel or resort entitlements would be best addressed through individual code‑amendment or change‑of‑zoning actions rather than by blanket exclusions inside Bill 9.