For some three years, your state association has been working to kill implementation of the 2021 International Residential Code (IRC) in Michigan and, in particular, it’s costly and inflexible energy efficiency provisions. Studies have shown its requirements would add some $15,000 or more to the cost of a typical home being built in our state. As an alternative, we’ve consistently advocated for adoption of the 2024-IRC. Its energy efficiency provisions were developed through a consensus process and provide far more flexibility to builders than the 2021-IRC. It would also save more energy. Nonetheless, LARA marched forward in promulgating the 2021 residential codes last year and they were set to go into effect in late-August. HBAM filed a lawsuit against their implementation earlier this summer and in late July, LARA agreed to a court-ordered agreement not to implement the new code rules until our suit against them was fully litigated. There are a half-dozen legal issues that the court could point to in halting the 2021 codes. Among others, these include: the fact that the 2021-IECC-based code rules LARA promulgated violate Michigan’s statute requiring energy efficiency code changes to have a 7-year simple payback or better; LARA failed to adequately provide a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) and follow the public meeting and other requirements outlined in Michigan’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA); and, LARA’s proposed rules would require the purchase of three code books (electric, mechanical and the Michigan Residential Code) when state statute requires all residential building code provisions to be published in one book. While HBAM has been in settlement discussions with LARA, we are prepared to go through a full-blown litigation process to stop implementation of the 2021-IRC if necessary. Most recently, the court approved a request by us to extend the discovery deadline until late spring.

This lawsuit over permit fee overcharges has officially come to a close, with the courts ruling in our favor. With this decision in hand, HBAM is actively working with members to identify other communities that may be charging unlawful permit fees.

If you believe your local municipality may have a fee structure that exceeds allowable costs, we encourage you to review this memo prepared by HBAM’s legal counsel and share it with your local officials, or contact HBAM for assistance in evaluating your situation.

Last year, the City of Owosso’s public works department unlawfully raised tap-in fees for both water and sewer connections by some 300%. This was an opportunistic money grab coming on the heels of announcements of much needed and new housing developments in the city. After unsuccessful dialogue with their city manager, HBAM filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the city and discovered no study or analysis was ever done to justify the increase. Cities can’t foist an unproportional share of their water and sewer systems cost onto new users. In reality, such “fees” are hidden taxes and unlawful under Michigan law. The city contends that since their city council voted to increase these fees, it was done legally. HBAM disagreed and filed suit in July. While some might think this case is similar to HBAM’s Troy lawsuit (excessive fees) the distinction is that in Owosso it is not a question of what it costs to run their building department or even what it costs to run their water and sewer department. The question is do their new tap-in fees exceed the proportional share of system expenses new users should be expected to pay. The case should begin its trial phase this spring.

This case is about sustaining past victories prohibiting mandatory sprinkler requirements for residential homes. A number of communities have adopted the International Fire Code (IFC) in recent years. While many provisions of the IFC are legitimate and enforceable, there are sections pertaining to fire suppression systems in homes that cannot be applied in our state. Michigan law and the Michigan Residential Code (MRC) state that when codes conflict, only the MRC rules apply. Nonetheless, Fruitland Township and the City of Whitehall believe these IFC provisions can be applied and have been requiring sprinklers in a number of residential homes. When it discovered this, your state association filed a lawsuit against them in late fall of 2025. This question about the IFC has spread. Fire marshals in a number of communities elsewhere across the state have tried to point to the IFC and its sprinkler requirements. In short, the IFC says that when there are limited access issues into a development or into a scattered site location, sprinklers have to be installed in homes. However, only the MRC governs residential construction regulation in our state. Otherwise, a local government could change any section of the Statewide Construction Code. The township and city’s requirement of fire sprinklers cannot be applied to one and two-family dwellings, regardless of the location of the home or any other factor. We need the courts to agree. This precedent-setting case is clear cut in our view, but it will take a concerted and sustained effort to prevail.

In this case, we are testing whether the association can be an “interested party” under the residential building appeals process. Why is this important? Instead of having to have a homeowner or builder in on an appeal, state law says an interested party may bring an appeal. “Interested party” is not defined in state statute. Local building departments have historically said a builder or homeowner can bring an appeal forward. No one, to our knowledge, has ever tried to appeal a local building department decision as some other interested party. If we succeed here, we could move forward with a number of appeals (both in GH Twp and elsewhere across the state) that usually never happen because a builder and/or homeowner doesn’t want to put their name on the appeal (fear of retribution). The case and specific issue here is whether or not GH Twp can require a permit under the Michigan Residential Code (MRC) to build or repair beach access staircases. They’ve been requiring this even when such staircases are unattached to the residence and may be hundreds of feet away from a home. The MRC’s staircase requirements are designed for interior staircases and make no sense for beach staircases. We see this permit and inspection process for beach staircases as a simple money grab and overreach by the building department. Grand Haven Township’s construction appeal board failed to consider our appeal (they had 30 days under state law to act on our request). Whenever an interested party loses a local appeal, or its appeal is not acted upon, one can appeal to the State. We have done that. The State Construction Code Commission should now hear our case in early 2026.