HB1 would revise the duties of Hawaii’s State Building Code Council and change how building codes are evaluated and recommended for adoption. The bill is framed as a response to Hawaii’s housing affordability crisis, arguing that delays in updating building codes can add cost and slow the adoption of newer national model codes. It would remove the current subcommittee-based process for recommending state amendments and instead require the council to conduct financial analyses of proposed new codes and standards, determine which codes and standards are necessary for public safety, and consult more directly with contractors, trade associations, and developers on cost and training implications.
The bill also changes the relationship between the council and the counties. Rather than the council adopting, amending, or updating codes on a staggered basis under the current process, the council would make recommendations to each county governing body on which codes and standards should be adopted, amended, or updated, with recommendations due within two years of a code’s official publication date. If the council fails to make a recommendation within that period, the county may treat the code as recommended for adoption. The bill retains annual reporting to the governor and preserves the council’s authority to provide technical assistance, training, and research support.
Impact
HB1 would amend section 107-24 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes governing the State Building Code Council’s authority and duties. It would repeal the existing subcommittee process and automatic statewide adoption mechanism tied to the council’s action timeline, replacing it with a financial-analysis and recommendation framework focused on public-safety determinations and county-level adoption decisions. The bill would affect the council, county governing bodies, building officials, and stakeholders in the construction industry by changing how quickly and through what process building codes and standards are reviewed and adopted in Hawaii.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and framing suggest support for streamlining regulation to reduce housing and construction costs, and the text reflects concern about affordability, delays, and the burden of code changes on development. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill text alone, the sentiment appears generally pro-reform and pro-housing-affordability, with an emphasis on efficiency and cost control.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be the balance between public safety and construction affordability. The bill explicitly notes criticism from the private sector that the current council, dominated by government officials, has adopted code changes with insufficient attention to overall construction costs. At the same time, the existing framework was originally justified as a statewide public-health, safety, and disaster-preparedness measure, so any shift toward county discretion and cost analysis may raise concerns among safety advocates, county officials, and others who favor uniform statewide standards. The bill also implies tension over whether code adoption should remain centralized and uniform or become more flexible and locally driven.
A resolution to direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives to only present to the Governor enrolled House bills finally passed by both houses of the One Hundred Third Legislature.
Relating to nonsubstantive additions to, revisions of, and corrections in enacted codes, to the nonsubstantive codification or disposition of various laws omitted from enacted codes, and to conforming codifications enacted by the 88th Legislature to other Acts of that legislature.