Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Hawaii County finance committee postpones controversial housing-lease resolution after public outcry
Loading...
Summary
After extended public testimony raising transparency, grant-compliance and conflict-of-interest concerns, the Hawaii County Committee on Finance voted to postpone Resolution 475-26 — which would authorize nominal ($10/year) leases of six county properties to nonprofits — to April 7 for additional legal and program information.
The Hawaii County Committee on Finance on March 17 heard repeated public objections to Resolution 475-26, which would direct the director of finance to negotiate one-year leases (with one-year renewals) for six county-owned residential properties at an approximate annual lease of $10 each for use as long-term housing by nonprofit operators.
Public comment lodged the most sustained critique. Douglas Halstead, who said he had filed written testimony and spreadsheets analyzing seven county home purchases, told the committee, “I feel housing has continued to stonewall to make it difficult for citizens and for the council to review and analyze the information sought,” and urged the body to deny the amended resolution or defer action 120 days to allow for due diligence and a possible county auditor review. Halstead also questioned whether the proposed leases comply with funding rules and cited chapter 201H-57 HRS as a statutory touchpoint he wanted the council to check.
Marsha Kreger, who identified herself and said she had testified previously, said she believed federal requirements for long-term affordable housing require leases of six months or longer and warned that “the plans for the home is to be used as long term affordable housing” but that the proposed structure appeared to make nonprofits, not individual tenants, the lessees. She urged the council to reject the resolution and demanded the federal grant number tied to the purchases.
Several other residents said the acquisitions appeared to lack transparency and community input. Ashley Ferraro, who described past experience as a homeless outreach worker, said permanent-housing plans risked becoming “a dorm situation” and expressed concern about on-site staffing guarantees and neighborhood impacts. Tom Krueger and Joan Toledo both cited insufficient information and questioned whether higher-priced purchases matched grant intent. Dave Baptiste, a long-term neighborhood resident, said trustees told him they had pulled out of a related deal because of community impact and suggested alternative uses such as housing traveling nurses.
Housing Administrator Kiel Costa told the committee the Office of Housing is compiling the council’s requested information and has asked corporation counsel for a legal memo covering the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act to ensure compliance. “We’re requesting a postponement till April 7 to compile the information that council has requested,” Costa said.
Council member Reynaldo moved — and a colleague seconded — to postpone consideration of Resolution 475-26 to the April 7 committee meeting to give housing staff and corporation counsel time to address legal and programmatic questions. The committee recorded seven members in favor and two absent; the motion carried.
Next steps: staff will provide the legal memorandum and additional details on grant compliance, lease terms (insurance, indemnity, upkeep) and any ethics or conflict-of-interest reviews requested by council members. The item is scheduled for reconsideration on April 7.
