The Maui County Council on Nov. 7 voted to separate two related enterprise‑zone requests and approve redesignation of the Greater Maui Enterprise Zone while postponing action on a Napili/Na′ili proposal.

The council initially considered committee report 25‑72, which recommended the mayor ask the governor to designate the Na′ili Enterprise Zone and redesignate the Greater Maui Enterprise Zone for 20 years. After discussion about the scope of eligible businesses and whether the county or state decides which firms receive tax credits and expedited permitting, the motion to adopt the committee recommendations resulted in a 4‑4 tie and failed.

Council members and representatives from the state Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism said the enterprise‑zone statute does not define “small business” and relies on broader definitions (for example, Small Business Administration guidelines are commonly used). Jason Ushijima of DBEDT told the council the statute’s description of agricultural products includes genetically modified crops, so the law would not by itself exclude GMOs; changes to eligibility would require legislative amendment to HRS.

After a unanimous motion to reconsider the failed committee report, the council moved to separate the two resolutions. The council then adopted Resolution 25‑1‑94 CD1 (the Greater Maui Enterprise Zone) by an 8‑0 vote; Resolution 25‑1‑93 CD1 (the Napili/Na′ili proposal) was laid on the clerk’s table for further work.

Why it matters: Enterprise‑zone designation makes state tax credits and incentive programs available in the designated areas for up to 20 years; those state credits remain governed by state law, while the county can decide what local incentives or permitting concessions to pair with them.

What happened next: Council members said they would work together to answer outstanding community questions about outreach and the types of businesses that might use the incentives and to return to the Napili item before the state’s application deadline.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the council meeting record and council staff notes. No factual claims about state or county authority beyond statements made in the meeting are asserted here.