WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HCR 26

House concurrent resolution congratulating Ilona Delsing Rosa Maher on her 2024 Paris Olympics rugby sevens bronze medal

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Angela Arsenault and 148 co-sponsors

HCR 26 asks SHPDA/DOH to require public meetings for CONs of special treatment facilities and to mandate applicants appear before neighborhood boards, boosting local input.

Ceremonial Reading
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HCR 26

Summary of HCR 26 (2025 Regular Session) — Certificate of Need / Public Meetings for Special Treatment Facilities

Status: Concurrent resolution introduced in the 2025 Regular Session (House and Senate concurring). Non‑binding request to State agencies.

Note on source material: the provided document contains multiple, unrelated resolution fragments (including National Minority Health Month and other states’ text). This summary focuses on the HCR 26 text included in the packet that addresses certificate of need (CON) applications and public meetings for proposed “special treatment facilities.”

Purpose / Intent

HCR 26 asks the State Health Planning and Development Agency (SHPDA) and the Department of Health (DOH) to increase transparency and community input in the CON process for proposed special treatment facilities by (1) holding public meetings in neighborhoods with community associations and (2) adopting rules requiring CON applicants to appear before neighborhood boards.

The resolution frames the request as consistent with open‑government principles (citing Hawaii’s Sunshine Law) and community concerns about projects that may be approved without local public input.

Background (brief)

  • A certificate of need (CON) is state authorization to construct, expand, convert, or initiate certain health facilities or services. SHPDA administers CON review (administratively attached to DOH).
  • CON applications proceed by either:
    • Administrative review (used for smaller/low‑impact proposals), or
    • Standard review (used for larger or potentially impactful proposals).
  • The resolution cites common administrative review thresholds: capital expense ≤ $1,000,000 and increased annual operating expense < $500,000. Administrative review typically does not require a public meeting unless requested; standard review requires at least one public meeting with opportunities for oral/written testimony and questioning.

Key Provisions

  • Requests that SHPDA and DOH hold a public meeting for all CON applications for any proposed special treatment facility located in neighborhoods with community associations.
  • Requests that SHPDA adopt rules requiring CON applicants for special treatment facilities to appear before the neighborhood board for the area where the facility is proposed as part of the application process.
  • Requests that certified copies of the concurrent resolution be transmitted to the Director of Health and the Administrator of SHPDA.

Who/What Would Be Affected

  • SHPDA and DOH — asked to hold meetings and to promulgate rules (administrative action requested, not mandatory by this resolution).
  • CON applicants proposing special treatment facilities — would be expected to appear before neighborhood boards and participate in public meetings.
  • Neighborhood boards, community associations, and local residents — expected beneficiaries of increased opportunity to provide input.
  • Proposed special treatment facilities (e.g., behavioral health, rehabilitation, other regulated “special treatment” providers) — may face additional public engagement requirements.

Practical Effect and Considerations

  • As a concurrent resolution, HCR 26 is not itself a change in statute; it requests agency action and rulemaking. Agencies retain discretion in response and in any formal rulemaking process (notice, comment, adoption).
  • If SHPDA implements the requested rules, applicants may experience additional procedural steps, potentially increasing time and administrative burden but also improving community engagement and transparency.
  • The resolution addresses local community concerns about being excluded from CON decisions affecting neighborhood character and services.

Timeline / Procedural Notes

  • The text references the 2025 Regular Session and directs agencies to take the requested steps; it does not establish statutory deadlines for agency action.
  • Any rule changes by SHPDA would follow the agency’s rulemaking procedures (public notice, hearings, comment periods) before becoming binding.

If you want, I can draft a one‑page briefing for SHPDA explaining likely next steps for implementing the resolution (rulemaking checklist, outreach plan, and estimated timelines).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.