Thanks for the replies. Here is a draft response to the published PRO and CON position FWIW
Opinion on extending code change cycle from 3 years to 6 years:
Currently a Senate Bill in the State of Washington (SB 5378) proposed to extend the code change cycle from every 3 years (current) to every 6 years.
This is an issue I am very passionate about. I have discussed this very topic with a large number of inspectors, plans examiners, building officials, contractors, architects, and engineers, and the support for an extended code cycle was wide spread.
In reviewing the “Staff Summary of Public Testimony” (PRO position), they main point is the cost to the public and private sectors (and potential for savings). I feel this point could be addressed and even stronger evidence of costs presented. First, there are the direct costs. This includes new books and training courses every 3 years. These costs could be sufficiently estimated using data available about staffing levels at every county and city building department. The direct costs do not stop here, however. Architects and engineers involved in the design of structures falling under the purview of the codes must stay current and purchase these materials and attend training courses. Typically their total purchase volume would be considerably less, as they are able to purchase a select few books for their specialty, whereas building departments are required to possess the entire set of adopted codes.
What are not as easy to compute are the indirect costs. When a building department is mandated to update the codes, substantial resources are required to update literature, forms, and websites. Furthermore, a considerable amount of time is spent explaining changes that are often subtle or nuanced. These changes and the efforts involved in detailing them extend to the construction, architecture, and engineering community as well, resulting in additional indirect costs borne by the public.
In reviewing the “Staff Summary of Public Testimony” (CON position), I find a several flaws and misrepresentations. The premise, that a 6-year time frame is “not sufficient to keep our codes contemporary, coordinated, and also meet with modern technologies and standards”, is fundamentally incorrect. The State of Washington, through the SBCC, has the authority and processes in place to enter in to “emergency rule making”, and has demonstrated an ability to do so in the past, as warranted. The existing mechanisms already exist to adapt and incorporate changes involving emerging technologies. Furthermore, all of the adopted codes grant authority to Building Officials to consider and approve “alternate methods and materials”.
Next, in the CON argument, the issue is raised that “The greatest liability to the state if this bill is adopted is on the issue of accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act…” I find this statement to be quite baseless and rather misleading. The current working version of the ANSI standard (IBC adopted standard for Accessibility) is the 2003. It will be updated with the newest code cycle to the 2010 version. The ANSI standard does not follow the same adoption cycle as the I-Codes. Furthermore, the changes that have occurred were minor in nature. Future changes could be easily addressed through the existing amendment, addendum, and emergency rule making procedures in place with the SBCC.
Given the current and continued SBCC authority and emergency rule making provisions, nothing in these proposed changes makes “the codes less safe, less flexible, and less workable”. I find this statement, coupled with a mention of “school safety” to be entirely disingenuous. During the transition from the 1997 Uniform Building Code to the 2003 International Building Code, a decision was made not to adopt the 1st edition 2000 I-Codes. This represented a period in Washington history when a 6 year cycle for code change effectively occurred. During that time, there is no instance or occurrence of these hypothetical problems identified by the CON position. The exiting authority in the old UBC allowed modification, just as today. New technologies are not being denied simply because they are not addressed in the code.
The statement “This bill would put Washington out of sync with the national codes and its neighboring state” is entirely misleading. A number of states use older versions of the I-Codes, some under 2006, and some even under 2003. Furthermore, “neighboring states”, such as Oregon and California have their own codes entirely. Additionally, several states have moved to or are considering a 6 year cycle for similar reasons, Pennsylvania and Wyoming being good examples.
The statement that “It would be harder for national firms to work in Washington”, is entirely without basis. Engineering and architecture firms that work in states, counties or cities outside of their home routinely perform due diligence to see what local regulations apply and what codes will govern the project they are designing. To claim that an architect working in, for example, Idaho, under the 2009 I-Codes, would have a more difficult time designing a project in Washington, as compared to Oregon or California, is on its face and at its core, absurd. To illustrate the absurdity, we will envision a scenario that the Idaho architect is familiar with the current adopted version of the I-Codes, in his home state. Currently these are the same as Washington, aside from the Washington State Amendments. When making an inquiry to the jurisdiction in Washington about codes and design requirements, they would be directed to the State Amendments. In the case of designing in California or Oregon, they would be directed to an entirely different code book, specific to those states. Taking this one step further, imagine the bill has passed and Washington is on a 6 year code cycle. When the architect is told what code to use, in the Idaho example, and any other jurisdiction that implements 3-year adoption, simply would be using the previous edition of their codes. Further examples or iterations are available; however, I do not feel they are necessary to solidify this point.
On a closing note, I would offer my personal opinion, as a representative of a jurisdiction, charged with administering the codes, I believe in them entirely, understand their value, and support their continued existence and change. An important issue not being raised is that the codes have grown in to a large industry. The ICC is essentially a quasi-government agency that is in the business of code production. Frankly, they will be the biggest opponents of this as it represents a direct threat to their financial interests. I accept that code changes are a necessary part of the evolving codes. The extent and nature of changes, in recent cycles, has been viewed by some, as change for the sake of maintaining the cycle and lobbying by industry representatives. Comments on the 2015 code changes were due Jan 4th of 2012. At that time, realistically, code officials, design professionals, and contractors alike had not even seen the codes. The Final Action hearings then often have an overriding of committed changes and recommendations based on voting blocs brought in by industry lobbyists. Although they are a non-profit, ICC is a large, growing bureaucracy that has a steady and growing revenue stream by virtue of a monopolistic grasp on the codes. That they have substantial financial stake in this bill should not be over looked. One example that could be used as a test of this hypothesis is the case of IAPMO. Currently the ICC publishes most of the codes for the State of Washington. The notable exception to this is the Uniform Plumbing Code. IAPMO has maintained a strong lobby to keep their plumbing code in the State, rather than the logical transition to the I-Code version, which is fully integrated and referenced within the other codes. If you posed the question to them in this way, you would gain clear picture of motives. “Would you support a 6 year code cycle if the UPC was guaranteed to be the plumbing code for Washington State in perpetuity?”
I urge WABO to advocate strongly for passage of this bill. It demonstrates acknowledgement by a reputable organization that we have significant mechanisms in place that will allow and recognize emerging technologies, that we understand the price of code changes is ultimately paid by citizens and tax-payers of our jurisdictions, and that this bill in no way represents any compromise of safety to the public which we serve.
