• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Code cycle--State of Washington

R

righter101

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
604
Any code enforcers, building officials, plans examiners, and inspectors on this forum in the state of Washington....

As you likely know Washington State SBCC adopts the building codes on the 3 year ICC publication cycle, with a 6 month delay in effective date, and the publications of ammendments.

I am wondering if there is any interest in working to push for adoption of the I-Codes perhaps on an every other code change, basically a 6 year cycle. I realize there is a lot of money involved in the code publications so there would be opposition from those lobbies. I feel that the Washington State Ammendments could continue through out the code cycle for 6 years instead of 3, with the usual emergency ammendments, on an as needed basis.

I am willing to do the research to come up with state wide cost savings estimates, and i believe our legislature and SBCC would not have any particular view either way. WABO and ICC, however, have a financial interest in our purchasing of their books.

Just wanted to get a feel from the other jurisdictions if there would be wide spread support for this, before i expend too much time.

All feedback, even from jurisdictions in other states, is welcome.

Thanks.

John
 
I'm in Washington.

I understand the frustration of going through code changes. Is the reason you want to do this only for the sake of not having to buy books every three years?

We've talked this over in our department. The way I see this within the department I'm with, is that the code cycle change keeps everyone on their toes, in having to learn new things every three years. I see that as a good thing. Maybe I'm simplifying it too much.

However, from the contractor's side, we just had a long conversation with a local contractor on how frustrated he is in that he has to have his master plans re-reviewed already. For them the cycles are almost too close together. They build just a few buildings and suddenly they have to have everything reviewed again.

It will be interesting to see what other responses you get.
 
Washington to key west it does not matter

I find it frustrating that as we roll out the 09/10 code here everyone else is off to Nascar to approve the 2012

A five year cycle should be minimal

Newtons laws of physics still havent changed all that much

thermo dynamics and photo volts are big these days but the codes allow for new methods and materials.

we have long term design and construction projects that were being designed under 97 BOCA redone to 2003 permitted and completly skipped 06

and are just abot ready for C of O now that we read 09.
 
Reasons for code cycle change suggestion

Saving the cost of buying books is one of my motivations. On a state wide level, I belive this would be in the millions of dollars of tax payer savings, given the number of jurisdictions and libraries that purchase them.

I just wanted to see if there was much support or similar opinions to mine before I start putting too much time and effort in to pressing for this change. I know it would not bode well for the ICC and WABO as they make money on books sold. Just want to put out feelers to see if anyone had opinions either way.

The codes haven't really changed all that much. A lot of it is rewording and moving sections around in attempts to "clarify", which often has the opposite effect.

Anyway, again, input appreciated.
 
As a building inspector I feel it is only fair to the people making a living in the building industry to have a code cycle every ten years.

We have alot of codes on the books already, do we really need any more?

Stay focus with fire life safety.
 
The problem is that if the code cycle is too long then it becomes difficult to implement changes needed because of mistakes in the code, new technologies, and advances in knowledge.

If we look only at the cost of code books then I think we will make the wrong decision.
 
Bootleg - I almost agree - Census for question 11 - Do you own a new code book??

Mark K - Eratta corrects misteaks / mistakes - New Technolgy is addressed even though you can still build a Pyramid (with enough efflorescent exit signs)
 
The ones who are benefiting from a three year cycle are the ones who are selling all of the information and are being paid to create the cycle. There's also way too much nitpicking when going over the codes for the cycle, stairs can't be 8" rise, now they're 7.75", 1/2" A.B.'s instead of 5/8", 1/2" gyp.bd instead of 5/8" for the common wall, blah, blah, blah. 5 years at a minimum and maybe more would be so much better. As pointed out the laws of physics don't change.
 
thanks for weighing in

Inspector Gift said:
Yes, the idea is worth researching and promoting. I would support either a 5 or 6 year cycle. 5 year seems to be a better compromise.
Click to expand...
Mr. Gift!!!! How are you?!?! Long time no talk. I am bad about correspondence.

Thanks for weighing in on this one.

I think the best approach would be a 6 year cycle. We are never going to get ICC to adopt any changes to the length of code cycles, so it would have to be a State adoption of every other cycle, thus 6 years.

Washingtion, as you know, publishes ammendments with every code change, emergency ammnedents as needed, and errata and adendums.

Someone pointed out that "cost shouldn't be the only consideration". It isn't. It is other resources, time, training, job site productivity lost due to miscommunication between code changes. I see both points of view, but i think 6 years would be much better.

I will start to look at this in terms of petitioning for change in Washingtion.

thanks.
 
I am in Washington State. Go for 10, compromise at 6. One can always approve alternate methods and materials. I am running out of room to store old copies of code and spending close to $1,000 on books every 3 years for a one person dept. Long term dollar savings huge statewide.

Jeff Morrison

City of East Wenatchee
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sounds like a great idea to me. 6 years would be great. I'm a one person architectural department and the the expense does get out of hand. I just spent 8 hours in IBC code update and another 8 hours in Washington State energy code update just last week. I'd be better spreading my ceu requirements in other areas besides keeping up with the code books.
 
I'm looking at my '79 code book. $24.55, and it included all the material (now adopted by reference and very expensive to acquire) that one needed to persciptively design. I'm not sure that the "advances" in the art are making us that much more safe. Truth be told, the substantiative changes that actually relate to life safety and health could probably be done as a suppliment to the code. The major swings seem to mostly relate to either editorial changes or public policy.
 
Smeismer, ah, those were the "Good Ol' Days!" I enjoyed the smaller sized books as well... fit well nicely in my lunch box.

Richter101, glad to see your post as well! You brought up a great topic that concerns all building departments in every state. Keep beating the drum! Hopefully many more will rally to the cause and the change will happen. With our current budget problems, this is a great time to promote the idea.
 
PA UCC 1980 = $8.00 plus automatic and free snail mailed amendments. valid up until 2003.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top