Missouri hearing on HB 23-84 splits builders and efficiency advocates over code rollback, single‑stair rule, and permitting timelines

The Commerce Committee heard hours of testimony on House Bill 23‑84, a broad measure aimed at reducing housing costs by limiting certain energy standards, setting permitting timelines, and allowing specified multifamily buildings to be built with a single stair.

Sponsor Representative Mike Jones opened the hearing saying Missouri faces 'a housing shortage of more than 115,000 units' and arguing the bill 'removes unnecessary barriers, preserves safeties, lowers housing costs and expands housing supply.' Jones said the bill targets three cost drivers: 'excessive energy mandates' (which he said can add up to '$30,000 to the cost of a home'), permitting delays, and allowing some multifamily buildings to be built with one staircase under strict safety standards.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on details. Members repeatedly asked whether the bill preempts local zoning; Jones and the sponsor’s floor comments emphasized that the bill is limited to 'sale'‑related statutes and not zoning, and that the bill lists specific RSMO statutes. Still, several members and witnesses said the language reads like a cap on local energy codes and would limit local authority.

Witnesses were sharply divided. Home builders and developer groups described quantifiable cost impacts. Sean Woods of Ashlar Homes testified that a model home built to 2021 IECC standards cost roughly $12,000 more than a comparable 2009‑code house and estimated the monthly mortgage impact was larger than anticipated yearly utility savings. Will Reuter of the Home Builders Association said the Kansas side of the Kansas City metro has grown while Missouri’s side has not, and he said higher local codes drive builders across the border.

Opponents included insulation manufacturers, architects and energy‑efficiency coalitions. Kurt Reich of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association urged retention of modern energy codes and said Department of Energy analyses show later codes (2012 and later) provide lifecycle savings; Amy Schmidt of the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition called the 2009 IECC 'simply unsupportable' and urged keeping up‑to‑date minimums to protect long‑term consumer costs and grid demand. Kansas City representatives and local officials argued the bill would override local choices after long public processes.

Architects who opposed the bill also urged stronger safety language for any single‑stair allowance; Laura Pastine of AIA Missouri noted model bills in Colorado and Texas add a 2‑hour rated stair construction requirement and sprinkler provisions that are not in HB 23‑84 as written.

Committee members asked for clarifying language and supporting data. Sponsors and proponents said municipalities commonly amend the energy chapter when they adopt a newer code and that the bill merely caps the energy chapter at 2009 for jurisdictions that opt into an energy code. Opponents urged the committee to consider a balanced alternative such as a state base code, not a ceiling, or a report‑back requirement to measure affordability outcomes.

The committee concluded the hearing without taking a vote on the bill. Members invited stakeholders to provide additional written data and said staff would circulate materials to clarify the bill’s scope and the precise lines in the draft that impose the energy cap or other requirements.