H.R. 164 is a House 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 uniformity, but argues that in practice it has contributed to inconsistency across counties, slow code updates, and burdens on the construction industry. It also points to the Governor’s September 15, 2023 emergency proclamation on affordable housing, which suspended certain Council-related provisions and left the Council effectively inactive, as evidence that the Council’s role should be reexamined.
The requested audit would examine the Council’s statutory purpose, duties, membership, and historical performance; the practicality of the three-year code adoption cycle; the Council’s effect on county-level regulatory consistency; and the impact of statewide code adoption on construction costs, permitting timelines, and housing production. It would also assess whether the Council has produced measurable benefits for public safety and industry efficiency, and whether counties should instead manage, fund, and drive the code adoption process. The resolution directs the Auditor to consult with state and county planning agencies, the Governor’s Housing Team, and construction industry stakeholders, and to report findings and recommendations, including possible legislation, before the 2027 session.
The bill’s impact on state law is indirect because it is a resolution rather than a statutory amendment. It does not itself change the building code system, but it could lead to recommendations for restructuring, modifying, or repealing the Hawaii State Building Code Council, and potentially shifting responsibilities or funding toward the counties. If acted on later, the audit could influence how Hawaii adopts building codes, how often updates occur, and who bears administrative and financial responsibility for the process.
General sentiment in the resolution is skeptical of the current Council structure and favorable toward streamlining regulation to support housing production. The text frames the Council as inefficient, potentially duplicative, and a barrier to construction and affordable housing, while emphasizing the need to evaluate whether its functions remain necessary or beneficial. No committee testimony or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded opposing sentiment in the supplied materials.
The main point of contention is the proper role of the Hawaii State Building Code Council versus the counties. Supporters of the resolution appear to favor county-led code administration and question the need for a state-level council, especially given the inactive status since the emergency proclamation. The likely counterargument, though not shown in the provided record, would be that a statewide council helps ensure uniform standards, public safety, and coordinated code updates across jurisdictions.
Because H.R. 164 is a House Resolution, it does not directly amend Hawaii statutes or change building code requirements. Its practical effect is to initiate a State Auditor performance audit of the Hawaii State Building Code Council and to examine whether the Council’s structure, funding, and authority should be modified, reduced, transferred, or repealed. The resolution could ultimately influence future legislation affecting state and county responsibilities for building code adoption, permitting, and construction regulation.
The overall sentiment of the resolution is critical of the current Hawaii State Building Code Council and supportive of a review aimed at streamlining the building code process. The text repeatedly suggests the Council has been inefficient, has created inconsistency, and may be hindering housing production, while presenting county-led administration as a possible alternative. No votes or committee transcripts were provided, so the broader legislative sentiment beyond the resolution’s own framing is not available.
The central contention is whether Hawaii should retain a state-level Building Code Council or shift more authority to the counties. The resolution questions the Council’s effectiveness, the need for a three-year code adoption cycle, and whether the Council has become duplicative or a barrier to housing development. Potential supporters are those concerned with housing supply, permitting delays, and regulatory burden; potential opponents would likely include those who value statewide uniformity, coordinated code updates, and centralized public-safety standards.