Hawaii House Bill HB944

Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/25
• Refer: 1/23/25

Caption

RELATING TO NEIGHBORHOOD BOARDS.

Summary

HB944 would create a formal county-level process for neighborhood boards to gather resident input on capital improvement projects and operating budget priorities, then package those recommendations for submission to the county mayor. The bill requires neighborhood boards to use a uniform solicitation process set by the county commission overseeing the boards, hold public meetings under Hawaii’s open meetings law, provide notice to the community, and then vote on a final package of recommendations to send to the mayor. The bill also requires the county mayor to review each neighborhood board recommendation and provide a written response explaining whether the item is included in the mayor’s proposed budget or why it is not. County councils, when reviewing and approving the budget, must consider the neighborhood boards’ recommendations, the mayor’s written responses, and the county’s overall fiscal health. If the mayor fails to respond to a recommendation, the council must include that recommendation in the budget, subject to council amendment.

Impact

HB944 would amend Hawaii law in Chapters 46 and 92 to give neighborhood boards an expressly recognized role in county budgeting, particularly for capital improvement projects and operating budget priorities. It would impose procedural duties on neighborhood boards, county mayors, and county councils, including public notice, public meetings, written responses, and budget consideration requirements. The bill would affect county budgeting practices and the relationship between neighborhood boards, county executives, and county councils, while leaving final budget authority with the county council subject to the bill’s response and consideration requirements.

Sentiment

The bill appears generally supportive of neighborhood board participation in local government and budgeting, with the stated purpose of improving resident access to decision-making and giving community concerns a more formal path into county budget deliberations. The available record shows no committee transcript debate or recorded votes, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill text itself. The referral to multiple committees suggests it was treated as a policy and fiscal matter with potential legal and budgetary implications.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the extent to which the bill constrains county budgeting discretion by requiring mayors to respond in writing and requiring councils to consider neighborhood board recommendations and fiscal health together. Another possible issue is the provision that if the mayor does not respond to a recommendation, the council must include it in the budget, which could be viewed as shifting leverage toward neighborhood boards. Counties and fiscal policymakers may also scrutinize the bill’s administrative burden, the need for uniform procedures across boards, and whether the mandated process could complicate budget preparation or conflict with existing county authority.