Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Encampment Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maui County subcommittee delays vote on bill setting rules for encampment removals and storage of belongings
Summary
The West (WASP) Subcommittee met March 24 to review Bill 111, which would set notice, storage and retrieval procedures after encampment removals. Corporation Counsel summarized the Hawaii Supreme Court’s Davis decision; the panel deferred action and asked for further amendments and follow-up information.
The Maui County Council West (WASP) Subcommittee on Monday, March 24, 2025, held a special meeting to review Bill 111, a proposed ordinance establishing procedures for removal and storage of personal property in public places and creating a right to shelter. The committee heard a legal briefing from First Deputy Corporation Counsel Miss Desjardins, public testimony and member discussion but took no legislative action; members voted by unanimous consent to defer the item to allow additional work and to satisfy Council Rule 15(a).
The bill matters because it is the county’s principal response to a Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Sonya Davis v. Bisson that found the county had improperly destroyed personal property during an encampment removal at Amala Place in 2021. Miss Desjardins told the committee the Davis decision requires notice of an upcoming removal, contact information to challenge the action, inventory and temporary storage of removed property that is not a health or safety hazard, and notice of where and how to reclaim property.
Desjardins summarized the court’s requirements and the bill’s provisions. “You must provide notice of upcoming encampment removal. You must provide notice of who to contact to challenge that action. You must inventory and temporarily store any property that’s removed that isn’t considered either a health or safety hazard,” she said. She added, “So the takeaway from this decision is that there is no requirement imposed by the Hawaii Supreme Court for a contested case hearing prior to encampment removal so long as there are notices in place that are done properly.”
Bill 111, as discussed during the meeting, would codify multiple procedural steps not explicitly required by the Supreme Court opinion. Provisions described to the committee include a requirement (tracked in the draft as section 9.3705(o)) to post notice of the date and time range of a removal, where removed property will be stored, how long it will be stored and how persons may retrieve it. The draft also calls for an initial and a final notice — the final notice to be affixed to tents, structures or vehicles no later than two days before removal — and requires translated notices in several languages. The ordinance text discussed separately (9.371) sets out inventorying and storage procedures; the draft before the committee included a 90-day storage period, whereas the speaker noted many U.S. jurisdictions typically use around 30 days.
Public testimony reflected both advocacy and operational concerns. Lisa Darcy, founder of Share Your Mana, urged the council to incorporate work from existing outreach groups and said hundreds of contested-case forms and related requests had been submitted in the past without being honored; she asked for stronger collaboration between the county and community providers. Another testifier suggested churches could be used as storage locations in some cases and urged the county to preserve salvageable recyclables seen during cleanups.
Committee members and staff pressed for implementation details and follow-up. Members asked Corporation Counsel to provide a written summary of the Davis decision and requested the administration clarify which department leads or coordinates cleanups (several members said Department of Human Concerns has a homeless division but does not always initiate removals). The committee also asked staff to locate the original RFP and contract for an EcoNorthwest homelessness study (RFP 22-23-P-67) after discussion that the county paid $240,000 for a strategic-plan contract; members requested EcoNorthwest and the Department of Human Concerns be invited to present on whether the deliverables matched the contract.
Members discussed related policy tools such as safe parking and street-medicine services. Council members and staff indicated an RFP for safe spaces and street medicine would be forthcoming; several members asked for updates on any current RFPs and for clarification whether nonprofits or the county must provide land for safe-parking proposals. Vice Chair Gabe Johnson said he and outreach partners are preparing amendments and intends to post an amended bill after the county budget process so the subcommittee can take fuller action.
The subcommittee’s immediate action was procedural: the meeting preserved Bill 111 in the WASP subcommittee to satisfy Council Rule 15(a)’s 90-day scheduling requirement and to allow additional community and administration review. The item was deferred by unanimous consent; members directed staff to follow up with Corporation Counsel, the Department of Human Concerns and the vendors involved in the EcoNorthwest study and to return with an amended bill and additional materials after budget season.
Looking ahead, the subcommittee expects a posted amended ordinance and supporting materials (legal summary of Davis, department implementation plans, RFP/contract documents and presentations by EcoNorthwest and relevant administration staff) before taking legislative action on Bill 111.
