Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilor Kimball’s proposed biennial budgeting amendment fails to win finance committee support
Summary
A charter amendment to move Hawaii County to a biennial operating budget drew questions about system readiness and public input; the finance committee voted to forward the measure with an unfavorable recommendation after an 8–1 roll call.
The Hawaii County Committee on Finance debated Bill 159, a charter amendment introduced by Councilor Kimball that would establish a biennial operating budget with a primary adoption in odd-numbered years and a supplemental in even-numbered years. Supporters said the change would encourage longer-term fiscal planning and align the county’s schedule with the state's two-year budget cycle.
"By providing a two-year cycle, we would align with the state's two-year budget cycle," Kimball said, arguing the change could "force more long-term planning in terms of expenditures and revenue" and reduce staff hours spent on annual budget development.
Finance Director Diane Nakagawa, however, told the committee the county’s new financial system was designed for annual budgeting and would require "about 12 to 18 months" of developer work to adapt to a biennial process: "It would take a significant amount of effort to shift the system to a biannual budget." Nakagawa also said forecasting reliably two years out could be difficult and noted lingering implementation questions about lapses and programing.
Other members questioned timing and community engagement. One council member raised concerns that a newly elected administration could face compressed deadlines in its first months under a new biennial schedule; another said the county’s recently upgraded financial and grant-management systems should be given time to operate before structural changes are imposed.
Proponents countered that a biennial cycle could provide administrative efficiencies and better support outcome-oriented budgeting, while opponents cautioned the change could reduce opportunities for annual public input.
After extended discussion, the committee took a roll-call vote on a motion to forward the bill with a favorable recommendation. The clerk recorded: Miss Kalimba – No; Mister Eustace – No; Mister Inaba – No; Miss Kagiwara – No; Miss Kerkowitz – No; Miss Kimball – Aye; Mister Onishi – No; Miss Villegas – No; Chair Kennedy Kleinfelder – No. The motion failed and the committee forwarded the measure with an unfavorable recommendation.
What happens next: Because the committee forwarded the bill with an unfavorable recommendation, the full County Council will receive the measure and may choose whether to advance, amend or schedule further hearings.
