Relating To State Construction Projects.
SB74 would create a new Office of the State Architect within the Department of Accounting and General Services (DAGS) and place a full-time state architect in charge of centralized design review for all state construction projects. The state architect, appointed by the governor and required to have at least five years of architectural licensure, would review plans and specifications, ensure compliance with applicable building and prescriptive standards, issue design approvals before construction begins, and assign inspectors to projects. The bill also authorizes the office to hire or contract with architects and engineers, collect fees for design review services, and maintain a dedicated design review special fund.
The measure further exempts state construction projects from county building permit, inspection, and certificate of occupancy requirements when the project meets applicable standards as determined by the state architect. It preserves other state and county laws that still apply, including zoning, master plans, and health and building codes. The bill also requires annual reporting to the governor and legislature and directs the comptroller, in consultation with the state architect, to adopt implementing rules by December 31, 2026. Appropriations are included to establish the office and fund its operations, though the dollar amounts and staffing levels are left blank in the introduced text.
If enacted, SB74 would amend Hawaii law to centralize design review authority for state construction projects in a new state-level office and modify DAGS’s statutory duties to include exclusive centralized design review and design approvals. It would also create a new special fund for design review revenues and appropriations, authorize fee collection for review services, and establish reporting and rulemaking requirements. In addition, it would add a new exemption in chapter 46 for state construction projects from county permitting, inspection, and certificate of occupancy processes, shifting much of the project approval function from county oversight to the state architect while leaving other land-use and code requirements intact.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as an administrative and efficiency reform intended to streamline state construction oversight and standardize design review. The inclusion of appropriations, a dedicated fund, and annual reporting suggests an effort to create a structured and accountable new office rather than a temporary program.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s centralization of authority and its exemption of state projects from county permitting and inspection requirements. Counties may view the measure as reducing local oversight and limiting their role in construction review, while supporters may argue that a single state architect would improve consistency, speed, and coordination for state projects. Another possible area of concern is the creation of a fee-funded special fund and the authority to hire outside professionals without regard to certain civil service provisions, which could raise questions about cost, accountability, and administrative flexibility.