Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Act 279 Funds Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beneficiaries accuse DHHL of deviating from Act 279 plan, say millions spent with few lots delivered
Summary
Several testifiers told the commission they believe deviations from the original Act 279 strategic plan have reduced the program’s effectiveness, arguing that fiscal decisions in FY24 encumbered hundreds of millions while removing relatively few applicants from the wait list.
Multiple beneficiaries used their public comment time to criticize how funds from Act 279 — the state appropriation intended to reduce the DHHL wait list — were expended and to ask the commission for transparency and an audit of decisions that changed the program’s originally proposed outcomes.
Germaine Myers of Nanakuli, who said she is a long‑time wait‑list applicant for agricultural lots, accused the commission and department leadership of deviating from the December 2022 strategic plan for Act 279 and of approving a revised package that she said constrained results. Myers cited reported encumbrances in fiscal year 2024 — figures she said included $363 million in encumbrances that were used to assist only 185 applicants — and argued that following the original plan would have removed thousands of applicants from the wait list.
Myers requested documentation showing how funds were encumbered and asked why prior staff (she named Stuart Matsunaga) who produced monthly progress reports were no longer providing similar updates. She said the change in approach resulted in far fewer lots delivered per dollar and urged an independent audit or review of program deviations and stewardship of the public funds.
Other testifiers echoed concerns about Act 279 implementation, and some commissioners asked staff to consider periodic reporting to the commission on Act 279 status. Staff present acknowledged the complexity of large multi‑year infrastructure and land acquisition projects and that some decisions on sequencing had concentrated funds on different project types, but there was no vote or directive to alter previously approved budgets during the public‑comment period.
The testimony underscores continuing beneficiary distrust about how legislative appropriations intended to reduce the wait list are prioritized and spent; commissioners and staff agreed on the record to explore better transparency and to discuss reporting mechanisms that would keep the commission and beneficiaries informed of Act 279 encumbrances and outcomes.
