RELATING TO BUILDING CODES.
HB1 revises the process for establishing and updating Hawaii’s state building codes. The bill responds to the state’s housing affordability crisis by arguing that delays in adopting updated building standards add cost and slow construction. It keeps the State Building Code Council as the body that establishes the Hawaii state building codes, but changes its role from directly adopting and updating codes on a staggered schedule to focusing on financial analysis and determining which codes and standards are primarily for public safety.
Under the bill, the council would no longer appoint a county-building-official subcommittee to recommend state amendments, and the prior automatic-adoption mechanism for codes not acted on within two years would be removed. Instead, the council would conduct financial analyses of proposed new codes and standards, may hire outside persons to perform those analyses, and must consult with contractors, trade groups, and developers about construction practices, training, and cost implications. The council would also submit recommendations to each county on which codes and standards should be adopted, amended, or updated, along with the required financial analysis, and counties would then act on those recommendations under county procedures.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to amend section 107-24, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and reshape the State Building Code Council’s duties. It would reduce the council’s direct code-adoption authority, emphasize cost analysis and public-safety screening, and alter the timeline and process by which counties consider building code updates. In practical terms, the measure is intended to streamline code adoption and potentially lower construction costs, while preserving a statewide framework for building standards and annual reporting to the governor.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of reforming the code-adoption process to address housing affordability and construction delays. The findings emphasize that Hawaii’s housing costs are among the highest in the nation and that the current two-step code process contributes to lagging adoption of national model codes. At the same time, the bill acknowledges concerns from the private sector that code changes may increase construction costs without sufficient consideration of affordability.
The main point of contention is the balance between public safety and cost containment. Supporters appear to favor faster, more cost-conscious code updates and greater input from builders and developers, while critics may be concerned that narrowing the council’s role could weaken health, safety, and disaster-preparedness protections. The bill was deferred by the House committee on Housing, suggesting that it did not advance at that stage despite its stated goal of streamlining the building code process.
HB1 would amend Hawaii Revised Statutes section 107-24 governing the State Building Code Council. It would replace the council’s current code-adoption and amendment duties with a more limited role centered on financial analysis, public-safety classification, consultation with industry stakeholders, and recommendations to counties. The bill would also remove the existing subcommittee structure and automatic adoption deadline for new model codes, thereby changing how statewide and county building codes are updated and potentially affecting builders, designers, county building officials, developers, and code enforcement agencies.
The bill is framed positively in response to Hawaii’s housing crisis, with a clear pro-reform and pro-affordability tone. Its findings suggest broad concern that current building code procedures are too slow and too costly, and the measure appears designed to appeal to those seeking faster construction and lower housing costs. The available context shows no recorded votes or committee testimony, but the committee action to defer the bill indicates that, at least at that stage, there was not enough support to move it forward.
The central controversy is whether streamlining building code adoption will reduce housing costs without compromising safety. Supporters, including likely industry stakeholders such as contractors, trade associations, and developers, would favor the bill’s emphasis on financial analysis and quicker code updates. Opponents or skeptics would likely worry that reducing the council’s direct authority and shifting more responsibility to counties could weaken statewide uniformity, slow safety-focused updates, or undercut disaster preparedness and public health protections. The bill also implicitly raises concerns about the composition and independence of the council, since it responds to complaints that government-heavy membership has not sufficiently weighed construction costs.