Omaha City Council Stalemate Highlights Tensions Over Building Code Updates

[jar546]

Omaha City Council Stalemate Highlights Tensions Over Building Code Updates​

Building codes are once again at the center of a heated debate in Omaha, Nebraska. Disagreements between the City Council and Mayor Jean Stothert on stricter building standards came to a head after the mayor vetoed proposed updates to the city’s electrical code. The veto sparked controversy over balancing safety, affordability, and practicality in building regulations.

The Veto and Its Aftermath​

Last week, Mayor Stothert vetoed the City Council’s plan to adopt stricter electrical code requirements, arguing that the proposed changes were unnecessary and would inflate construction costs. One contentious element was the proposed mandate for whole-house surge protectors, which the mayor and others deemed an undue burden on affordable housing development.

On Tuesday, the council failed to secure enough votes to override the veto. Despite the setback, some council members remain optimistic about improving the proposals.

“We’re working hard to move forward with affordable housing ideas,” Councilman Don Rowe said. “I still believe these carve-outs were appropriate.”

Diverging Perspectives​

The debate over stricter codes pits safety advocates against concerns over housing affordability. Supporters of the stricter standards argue that safety should be paramount, regardless of cost. Conversely, critics, including members of the homebuilding industry, worry that the added requirements would exacerbate Omaha’s affordable housing crisis.

“If it’s not required in existing homes, why would we require it in new construction?” questioned one industry representative, pointing out that Nebraska’s newly adopted state electrical code doesn’t mandate whole-house surge protectors.

The Bigger Picture​

While the electrical code update remains unresolved, the council took a step forward on another housing initiative during the same meeting. They approved a plan to build 56 affordable housing units downtown, with rents expected to range from $700 to $900 per month. The development is part of a broader effort to address Omaha’s pressing need for affordable housing, with estimates suggesting the city requires an additional 30,000 units.

In the wake of the veto, the City Council still has 60 days to revisit and update Omaha’s electrical code to align with Nebraska’s legislative updates passed in the spring. These amendments, made under LB-716, maintain safety standards without imposing additional costs for single-family homes, according to the mayor’s office.

Striking a Balance​

Omaha’s debate underscores a common challenge in building code updates: how to balance public safety with housing affordability. While the veto may temporarily delay the stricter requirements, the conversation highlights the need for careful consideration of how regulatory changes impact builders, homeowners, and the community at large.

As the City Council navigates these complex issues, all eyes will remain on Omaha to see how it addresses the dual pressures of safety and affordability in its building codes.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Invariably, whenever I see "new codes cost more" arguments, is a straw-man argument put forward by developers who want to save capital costs at the expense of downloading increased costs from inefficiency onto the owners.

Most times, the calculus favours better work.

 

[BayPointArchitect]

Having been involved in the development of the 2024 ICC codes, I am a little suspicious of new mandates in the codes. But I would say that anything that costs $300 can be absorbed into the overall cost of any new home. Many developers who show up with the "affordable housing" argument are busy building $500,000 homes (not the affordable category). The whole-house surge protector is a $300 device. Not a big deal.

 

[steveray]

Invariably, whenever I see "new codes cost more" arguments, is a straw-man argument put forward by developers who want to save capital costs at the expense of downloading increased costs from inefficiency onto the owners.

Most times, the calculus favours better work.

They would be better to argue “is this necessary or what is the cost per life saved” or more cost analysis on code changes.

 

[steveray]

Having been involved in the development of the 2024 ICC codes, I am a little suspicious of new mandates in the codes. But I would say that anything that costs $300 can be absorbed into the overall cost of any new home. Many developers who show up with the "affordable housing" argument are busy building $500,000 homes (not the affordable category). The whole-house surge protector is a $300 device. Not a big deal.

But it is also required on the $2000 service change…which is like 15%….

 

[BN4537]

Done. No labor increase either, if you can't install this in 10 seconds, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[BN4537]

“If it’s not required in existing homes, why would we require it in new construction?” questioned one industry representative, pointing out that Nebraska’s newly adopted state electrical code doesn’t mandate whole-house surge protectors.

How does this guy think we would retroactively enforce code on houses not under construction? Completely ignorant statement. He would have said the same thing about smoke and CO alarms back in the day.

 

[BN4537]

Some contractors like to complain that they can't make any money because they have to spend more to meet code, but they can't sell houses for more money to make a profit because the market is not driven by the cost of construction. They also complain the cost of of materials is driving home prices up and eliminating affordable housing.

You can't have it both ways.

Affordable housing problems are a symptom of the economy and decreased buying power, not codes and safety. The answer is not to cram people into tiny apartments, the answer is to fix the economy so that people have money to buy things with again.

 

[tbz]

So What is the ROI?

I have always questioned why those who work on the NEC haven't gotten a mandate that all new service panels have "whole house surge built in" as all the new automated devices and appliances over the last 30 years basically need them anyway to extend life expectancy. I get it, the manufactures don't like it as the norm.

However, I have yet to see a MiniSplit manual where they don't specify to install a surge protection device at the service disconnect.

and i don't have a computer of TV that isn't on a pass through UPS since the late 80's, people call me crazy, but I even had a 1500watt unit on my refrigerator in my old place because of all the power spikes and power drops, lost 2 frig over 9 months, added the ups, 3rd one lasted 20 years, and yes they were all the same exact model, go figure.

I get both sides of the fight, but at some point it will probably just be the norm, till then the first one through always gets the the worst push back.

 

[Yikes]

Technical question, sorry if I sound dumb but I have to ask: do whole-house surge protectors directly and significantly improve occupant safety? Or are they mainly there to protect sensitive electronic components?

 

[BN4537]

Technical question, sorry if I sound dumb but I have to ask: do whole-house surge protectors directly and significantly improve occupant safety? Or are they mainly there to protect sensitive electronic components?

The rationale used to get them in the code was that they protect life-safety systems like smoke alarms, CO alarms, AFCI's and GFCI's from getting smoked by a minor voltage spike. Theoretically, those could get damaged by a surge and still operate well enough that a person would not know that the protection is gone.

I'm basically ambivalent on whether they should be required or not.

 

[jar546]

estioned why those who work on the NEC haven't gotten a mandate that all new service panels have "whole house surge built in" as all the new automated devices and appliances over the last 30 years basically need them anyway to extend life expectancy. I get it, the manufactures don't like it as the norm.

Because there are a multitude of ways to set up a service on a house which includes many different ways to decide where and what kind of service disconnect. You may just purchase an MLO as a main panel that comes with no breakers, just a buss bar. It is not practical.

 

[Yikes]

I wonder if there was some incident in Omaha that triggered them seeking this additional requirement.
For example, there's a southern California city that once passed an ordinance outlawing Oleander bushes after a girl got poisoned eating the leaves.

 

[Paul Sweet]

I think the 2020 NEC added the requirement for whole-house surge protection.

I have always specified them, and I added one to my house. It just took 10 seconds or so to snap it into place, but a few minutes to remove and re-install the panel cover.

 

[Sifu]

How many 300.00 increases before they add up to something that can't be absorbed? When does a seller start passing the cost on to buyers? Every code change, every new step up in the minimum codes should be scrutinized.

 

[steveray]

Technical question, sorry if I sound dumb but I have to ask: do whole-house surge protectors directly and significantly improve occupant safety? Or are they mainly there to protect sensitive electronic components?

Because the manufacturers make more money this way....

 

[jar546]

Because the manufacturers make more money this way....

After I read through CMP-10 and all of the submissions to require SPD's, I have come to the following conclusion.

The requirement for SPDs in NEC 230.67 is based on real-world data, technical necessity, and established safety standards. Sensitive electronics like GFCIs, AFCIs, and smoke alarms are vulnerable to power surges caused by lightning, utility switching, or internal events. This mandate ensures a baseline level of protection for critical devices we rely on every day.

Some claim manufacturers pushed for this change, but the reality is that it's backed by field studies, standards like NFPA 780, and input from recognized experts. Sure, manufacturers like Schneider Electric contributed to the discussion, but their involvement reflects expertise, not undue influence. The NEC's goal is safety, not catering to corporate interests.

Yeah, there’s a cost to adding SPDs, but the price is minor compared to the potential loss of expensive equipment or critical safety devices. This isn’t about over-engineering; it’s about ensuring homes and buildings have the protection they need in today’s electrical environment. The evidence is clear—this change was practical, necessary, and well-justified.

 

[tmurray]

I used to hear the affordability argument from a lot of builders/developers when I did inspections. It was surreal to hear that a code update on insulation that ultimately decreases the overall cost of ownership was making housing unaffordable while I was standing in a new home with engineered hardwood and tile throughout and every counterspace finished with granite or quartz.

I always had the same response: I'll start believing there is an affordability issue around new construction when I stop seeing premium finishes used for almost everything in almost every single house I inspect.

 

[steveray]

After I read through CMP-10 and all of the submissions to require SPD's, I have come to the following conclusion.

The requirement for SPDs in NEC 230.67 is based on real-world data, technical necessity, and established safety standards. Sensitive electronics like GFCIs, AFCIs, and smoke alarms are vulnerable to power surges caused by lightning, utility switching, or internal events. This mandate ensures a baseline level of protection for critical devices we rely on every day.

Some claim manufacturers pushed for this change, but the reality is that it's backed by field studies, standards like NFPA 780, and input from recognized experts. Sure, manufacturers like Schneider Electric contributed to the discussion, but their involvement reflects expertise, not undue influence. The NEC's goal is safety, not catering to corporate interests.

Yeah, there’s a cost to adding SPDs, but the price is minor compared to the potential loss of expensive equipment or critical safety devices. This isn’t about over-engineering; it’s about ensuring homes and buildings have the protection they need in today’s electrical environment. The evidence is clear—this change was practical, necessary, and well-justified.

Is there a study that shows how often the person paying for the study has the study come out in their favor? I have firsthand seen NEMA trying to push crap into the building code: Lightning protection for all buildings, OS4 boxes, UV sterilization for all air handlers...Some successful, some not, none "necessary" for a minimum standard code....This is not a different argument than residential sprinklers....They will save lives...But at what cost....