County Council Committee on Finance Meeting - November 19, 2025

The Committee on Finance convened on November 19, 2025, with Councilmembers present in both Kona and Hilo chambers to review finance communications and bills related to county budget status and affordable housing initiatives. While routine reports were unanimously closed, significant deliberation occurred regarding the Affordable Housing Production Fund, specifically concerning fund lapses due to fiscal year timing and contract execution delays. Councilmembers expressed mixed sentiments, with some supporting immediate adjustments to prioritize local residents while others demanded more transparent accounting and a slower pace to prevent future funding lapses.

Consent Calendar

• Communicate 23.23: Closed file regarding fund transfers authorized October 1 through 15, 2025 (9 in favor).
• Communication 73.9: Closed file on the monthly budget status report for the month ended May 31, 2025 (9 in favor).
• Communication 118.3: Closed file on the first quarter reallocation report for July 1 through September 30, 2025 (9 in favor).

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public testimony was received during the session as no members of the public registered in the chambers or via Zoom.

Discussion Items

• Resolution 384-25 (Grant Awards) & Bill 105 (Reappropriation):

  • Staff explained that $7.3 million from the 2024-25 fiscal year and additional funds were required to reappropriate due to the lapse of funds on June 30, 2025, when contracts were not executed or funds were encumbered via Memorandums of Agreement for infrastructure rather than direct developer contracts.
  • Councilmember Onishi expressed concern that the current structure allows developers to use county funds as leverage for other funding, potentially stalling projects if other sources are rejected. Position: Cautious support for the shift toward direct homeowner support but highlighted the risk of leveraging.
  • Councilmember Kagiwata sought clarification on the number of families supported by specific grantees (e.g., 20-28 units for Hawaiian Community Assets, 8 families for Hawaii Community Lending) and confirmed that funds are deed-restricted for affordability in perpetuity. Position: Full support for the shift toward home ownership models for local families.
  • Councilmember Kirkowitz, creator of the original fund, voted against Bill 105 due to "muddy" data, the large $16.5 million reappropriation figure representing systemic failure, and the lack of a clear breakdown of lapsed funds. Position: Strong opposition pending better accounting.
  • Councilmember Igabo requested a spreadsheet detailing all units built versus dollars spent since the fund's inception and the status of projects in the pipeline. Position: Supportive of the program but concerned about the lapse mechanism.
  • Councilmember Viegas raised concerns about public accountability, funding oversight, and whether residents receive priority over outsiders. Position: Supportive of the project's intent but demanded stronger assurance mechanisms for public fund usage and resident prioritization.
  • Councilmember Galimba expressed happiness with the blend of methods but noted the difficulty of getting funding to work. Position: Full support for the program's direction.
  • Councilmember Kirkowitz (regarding Bill 105) reiterated that a 16 million dollar reappropriation indicates something is not working and demanded a schedule of funds before future votes.
  • Councilmember Kimball proposed Bill 103 to amend tax assessments.

• Bill 103 (Senior Farmer Tax Abatement):

  • Councilmember Kimball introduced a bill to freeze land assessment values for senior farmers retiring after 10 years of agricultural use (out of the last 15), capping annual increases at 3% for two tax years. Position: Proponent, arguing for fairness to prevent tax cliffs for aging farmers.
  • Councilmember Kagiwata philosophically supported the concept of tax fairness and questioned if incentives could be built to keep retired farmers leasing land for production rather than just lowering taxes. Position: Conditional support dependent on productive land retention strategies.
  • Councilmember Onishi suggested the concept requires more technical work with Real Property Tax administrators before committee action. Position: Recommends postponement for further technical definition.
  • Councilmember Inaba stated the concept is good but premature, lacking consensus on numbers and sunset dates. Position: Recommends postponement.
  • Councilmember Galimba supported the sunset date to prevent negative incentives on agricultural use and was open to adjusting the 10-year requirement (e.g., to 5 or 7 years). Position: Supportive with amendments.
  • Real Property Tax Administrator Mira noted the potential revenue loss (estimated $169,000 if retroactive) and the administrative challenge of notifying confused beneficiaries. Position: Informative, highlighting data gaps.

Key Outcomes

• Resolution 384-25: Approved and forwarded to Council with a favorable recommendation (8 in favor, Councilmember Galimba absent).
• Bill 105: Forwarded to Council with a favorable recommendation (Motion: 8 in favor, 2 opposed (Councilmembers Kirkowitz and Viegas)).
• Bill 106: Forwarded to Council with a favorable recommendation regarding Emergency Rental Assistance (9 in favor).
• Bill 103: Postponed to the December 2, 2025, committee meeting (9 in favor) to allow for further technical work and discussion on the 10-out-of-15-year requirement and sunset dates.
• Directives: Councilmembers directed Office of Housing to provide a spreadsheet of housing production fund performance and requested more structured reporting on how funds are utilized and outcomes for beneficiaries.