Legislature Scales Back Rohl’s Proposed Exemptions to Building Permits

The Legislature has significantly scaled back Senate Bill 3, Senator Michael Rohl’s (R-1/Aberdeen) proposal to prohibit local governments from requiring permits for various home renovations. Senator Rohl originally wanted to stop counties and cities from requiring permits for a wide range of exterior and interior renovations. Faced with broad opposition from local officials (the only group backing SB 3 is, predictably, the Home Builders Association), Rohl agreed to strip the interior free-for-all, cut down the exterior exemptions, specify that homeowners still have to comply with other building codes and ordinances, and allow local governments to retain permitting authority over historical buildings. Even so narrowed, SB 3 barely survived Senate Local Government on a 4–3 vote. House Local Government further pared down SB 3, removing roofing and related weatherproofing from the exempted renovations. SB 3 now covers only doors and windows with no changes in dimension, downspouts, fencing, gutters, and nonstructural siding. A conference committee met yesterday to resolve the roofing difference between the Senate and House versions.

The Legislature has acted reasonably in reining in Senator Rohl’s attempted demolition of local authority over building practices. As Jim Pauley, president and CEO of the National Fire Protection Association writes, building codes save lives:

…in state after state, lawmakers are increasingly framing life-saving codes and standards as obstacles to affordable housing rather than addressing root causes like restrictive zoning and land costs. These changes may seem like minor adjustments, but they circumvent decades of technical analysis and lessons learned from fatal events.

Modern buildings feel safe to us because codes and standards quietly do their job. When they work, nothing happens. But that very success breeds a false sense of security.

Too often, safety codes are dismissed as potential “red tape” or expensive roadblocks to housing affordability, without understanding that the only reason safety feels automatic today is because past generations insisted on strong protections in the wake of devastating losses.

There’s also widespread misunderstanding about how safety standards are developed. Government determines which codes become law and how they’re enforced, but it’s independent standards development organizations that create them based on technical rigor and broad stakeholder input where no one group can dominate the process.

The resulting standards represent a consensus on a level of safety that the public can rely on. Historically, this public-private relationship was built on mutual trust. Increasingly, however, that trust is being replaced by a narrative that frames safety and affordability as competing goals.

They are not. Safety standards exist because somebody paid the price for their absence. Cutting them in the name of cost savings is an illusion. The only real benefit is the building industry’s bottom line. The result is substandard construction and reduced safety protections that can last generations [Jim Pauley, “Building and Fire Safety Codes Save Lives. Why Are States Weakening Them?” Governing, 2026.03.02].

Hmm… so restricting building permit authority doesn’t just violate Republican professed dedication to “local control”; it also contradicts their vaunted commitment to “pro-life” legislation.