Council reopens debate on mayoral veto of construction code commission; administration warns of cost and overlap

The Hawaii County Council reopened debate on Bill 127 Draft 3 on April 22, 2026, after a motion to reconsider and override the mayor’s April 2 veto. The measure would amend Chapter 5 of the Hawaii County Code to establish a seven-member construction code commission to advise the mayor, council and director of public works on code adoption and interpretation.

Administration witnesses urged the council not to override. Wes Segar, director of the Department of Public Works, said the department supports the mayor’s veto on the grounds that a permanent commission would require ongoing administrative support — agendas, minutes, coordination with corporation counsel — at a time when the department is understaffed. "This commission will require attendance and direct involvement of our corporation counsel and department staff during commission meetings," Segar said.

Acting building chief Aaron Spielman told the council that building-code adoption follows a hierarchy starting at the International Code Council (ICC) and moving to the state before counties adopt amendments. He cautioned against county action that could "leapfrog" the state process and create unintended noncompliance with state law.

Mike Alameda, executive assistant to the mayor, reiterated the administration’s opposition and said the mayor supports the bill’s intent but not the permanent form proposed, adding that the county already provides administrative support to many boards and commissions and that another permanent body would add staff burdens.

Council members who sponsored or supported the bill argued for structured local expertise. Council member Kerkowitz said advisory expertise would help councilors make technically informed decisions on highly technical building-code issues and could prevent adopting amendments that do not fit the island context. Others proposed alternatives such as a cyclical or temporary task force, centralized administrative support for boards and commissions, or budgeted staff to reduce the workload on departmental staff and corporation counsel.

The transcript records a motion to reconsider and override of the mayor's veto moved by Council member Eustace and seconded from the dais; the provided segments contain extensive discussion but do not record a final override vote. Administration and several council members agreed to discuss options, including a task force or centralizing boards-and-commissions administration, as possible alternatives to creating a permanent commission.

Next steps: the motion to reconsider/override was made and seconded; no override vote is recorded in the provided transcript. Council discussion continued, including proposals to explore temporary or cyclical structures and to review administrative capacity.