Requesting The State Auditor To Conduct A Performance Audit Of The Hawaii State Building Code Council.
HCR174 is a House Concurrent Resolution requesting that the State Auditor conduct a performance audit of the Hawaii State Building Code Council. The resolution states that the Council was created to maintain a statewide building code and promote public safety and consistency, but argues that its practical effect has been increased inconsistency, delays, and burdens on the construction industry. It also points to the Council’s required three-year code adoption cycle, the adoption of national model codes such as the International Building Code and International Residential Code, and the Council’s role in coordinating among counties and state agencies.
The resolution emphasizes the State’s housing shortage and the Governor’s September 15, 2023 emergency proclamation related to affordable housing, which suspended certain Council-related provisions and left the Council effectively inactive. HCR174 asks the Auditor to examine whether the Council remains necessary, whether its functions are duplicative of county responsibilities, and whether alternative governance structures—such as county-led code adoption and funding—should be considered. The audit is also requested to assess the Council’s impact on construction costs, permitting timelines, housing production, and public safety, and to report findings and recommendations, including possible legislation, before the 2027 session.
This resolution does not itself change Hawaii’s building code laws or the authority of the Hawaii State Building Code Council. Instead, it directs the State Auditor to study the Council’s statutory purpose, operations, funding, and effectiveness, and to evaluate whether the Council should be restructured, modified, or repealed. The requested audit could influence future legislation affecting statewide building code adoption, county roles, permitting processes, and the funding and governance of code administration in Hawaii.
The overall sentiment reflected in the resolution is skeptical of the current Council structure and supportive of a review aimed at streamlining regulation. The bill’s findings frame the Council as inefficient, a possible barrier to housing production, and potentially duplicative of county functions, while also acknowledging the need for public safety and updated building standards. No committee testimony or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded opposing or supporting debate beyond the resolution’s own stated rationale.
The main points of contention are whether a statewide building code council is still needed, whether its three-year update cycle is too frequent, and whether the Council has improved consistency or instead created more inconsistency across counties. Another disputed issue is funding and governance: the resolution raises whether counties, rather than the State, should fund and drive the code adoption process because counties directly administer and enforce building codes. It also questions whether the Council’s inactivity since the 2023 emergency proclamation demonstrates inefficiency or simply a temporary emergency measure, and whether repeal or restructuring would better serve housing production and regulatory efficiency.