1.  Maureen Traxler Code Development Manager City of Seattle Lee Kranz Plan Review Supervisor City of Bellevue Chair WABO Technical Code Development Committee Tim Nogler Managing Director Washington State Building Code Council

2.  Code development process 30 minutes o ICC o WSBCC  cdpACCESS Hands On—Voting for real 30 minutes o Work through one as an example; vote as a group o Each table/person with laptop votes  Writing proposals with exercise 60 minutes o Picking an issue o Formatting your proposal o Reason statements o Code change pitfalls

3.  You learn a lot—about codes, reasons for code sections, new technologies…  It fixes problems you encounter  Keeps codes current for new products and technology  You can get the code changed o WABO’s proposals have a good success rate  Code development just got easier with cdpACCESS o We asked for a way for everyone to participate, now we have it. o You have opportunity to vote; understanding the code development process will help you understand how to vote  Your participation is important  One person can’t do it alone  With more people participating, the end result is better

4.  Open to all parties  Not dominated by proprietary or commercial interests  Transparent  Balance of interests  Based on consensus “Governmental consensus process” Final vote is consensus of governmental members who have no financial interest in outcomes; represent the general public “ANSI process” is very different. Used for A117, ASCE 7, ACI & other materials standards, UPC, NEC, NFPA 13 Allows longer debates, industry votes (no group can dominate), less opportunity to participate for people who aren’t on the committee  Fair appeals process

5.  Codes are divided into 3 groups for each code edition (Groups A, B, & C)  One-year of code development for each group o Group C (2014): IGCC o Group A (2015): IBC except structural, IEBC, IFGC, IMC, IPC, IPMC, IPSDC, IRC - M, IRC - P, ISPSC, IZC o Group B (2016): Admin all codes, IBC Structural, IECC-Commercial, IECC-Residential + IRC Energy, IFC, IRC - B, IWUIC

6.  2015 codes published in 2014 o all except IGCC  2015/2016/2017 Cycle o Group A: proposals due Jan, 2015; final results Nov 2015 o Group B: proposals due Jan, 2016; final results Nov 2016 o Group C: proposals due Jan, 2017; final results Nov 2017 o 2018 codes published mid 2017 (except IGCC)

7. Early January Proposals submitted August Comments submitted Mid March Proposals posted Late August Comments posted Late April Committee Action Hearings Late Sept Public Comment Hearings Mid May Online vote on assembly actions Mid Oct Online vote on final actions Mid Nov Final results posted Early June Results posted Phase 1: Proposals & Committees Phase 2: Public Comments & Final Vote Draft proposals Review proposals Attend hearings Prepare recomdtn for voting Draft comments Review comments Attend hearings Prepare recomdtn for voting ICC staff works w submitters Start next Group

8.  Committee votes on each proposal at the hearing  If someone present disagrees with committee vote, they make assembly motion  All ICC members can vote on assembly motions on-line after the hearing

9.  Only Committee members make motions (except for assembly motions)  Possible motions: o AS As Submitted o AM As Modified o D(Disapproval)  Committee must state a reason for the motion. o Reasons published with hearing results

10.  Anyone can make a motion  Possible motions: o AS As Submitted o AM As Modified by code development committee o AMPC As Modified by Public Comment (only mods published in the agenda are allowed—no floor modifications) o D Disapproval  Process is weighted in favor of status quo (disapproval) first; committee action second. o Disapproval needs simple majority regardless of committee action; committee action needs simple majority

11. STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL Process for adoption of state amendments S TEP O NE : STATEWIDE AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED Proposal proponent completes the ‘Application for Review of a Statewide Amendment’ form. assessment of why the amendment is needed based on the listed criteria: critical for life/safety; required by law; needed to address a unique character of the state; fix errors and omissions The form is submitted to the SBCC by the yearly March 1 deadline.

12. STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL Process for adoption of state amendments S TEP T WO : S TAFF R EVIEW SBCC staff checks for complete information Staff may request additional information from the proponent if necessary. Staff may be directed to conduct or provide additional research on the benefits and impacts of the proposal if necessary.

13. STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL Process for adoption of state amendments S TEP T HREE : C OUNCIL C ODES C OMMITTEE R EVIEW * ACTION ITEM File CR 101 Notice of Intent Note: Rule Making must follow Administrative Procedures Act Council delegates to codes committees for review and public input. Proposals posted on Council website. Codes committees recommend proposals be sent either to a TAG for further review or be denied, tabled or deferred.

14. STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL Process for adoption of state amendments S TEP F OUR : T ECHNICAL A DVISORY G ROUP P ROCESS TAGs appointed by SBCC chair TAGs review new proposals, and new code edition significant changes, and existing state amendments TAGs make recommendations on adoption to the SBCC codes committee (AS, AM, D)

15. STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL Process for adoption of state amendments S TEP F IVE : W ORKGROUP ON E CONOMIC I MPACT TAG Chairs and staff present economic findings to the economic workgroup (SBCC members) Public may address the workgroup. Workgroup may recommend further economic analysis be conducted by the proponent, by staff, or by a third party.

16. STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL Process for adoption of state amendments S TEP S IX : TAG RECOMMENDATIONS Codes committees review proposed amendments Staff prepares a report to the Council on the economic impacts of all proposals reviewed. Where an impact on small business is found, the report includes a Small Business Economic Impact Statement on those items. ACTION ITEMS— SBEIS filed with proposed rule according to Regulatory Fairness Act. Proposed rule filed for public hearing Proposed rule contains all amendatory language

17. STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL Process for adoption of state amendments S TEP S EVEN : C OUNCIL R EVIEW Council reviews the proposed rules Public may address the Council regarding proposals. Council moves to forward proposed amendments to the public hearing process. ACTION ITEM —File CR 102 Proposed Rule with small business economic impact statement ; sets public hearing dates.

18. STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BUILDING CODE COUNCIL Process for adoption of state amendments S TEP E IGHT : P UBLIC H EARING / ADOPTION P ROCESS Members of the public may address the Council regarding the economic (and other) impacts of proposed amendments to the codes. The Council makes a final decision on adoption of proposed statewide amendments by December1. ACTION ITEM– File CR 103 Permanent Rule with cost benefit statement where necessary

19.  On line submittal of code change proposals and public comments o Allows collaboration  Remote voting—2x for each code Group 1. Committee Action Hearings (mid May) Vote on assembly motions following the hearings All ICC members vote 2. Public Comment Hearings (mid October) Vote to occur following the hearings Governmental members only  ESSENTIAL to meet registration deadlines

20.  Response to ICC members’ request for a way to participate in code development w/o travel o Can’t afford time & money to attend hearings  Added benefit: participate at your own pace o 2-week window to vote

21.  Voters can view video of hearings, text of proposals and comments  For more information on cdpACCESS™ go to: http://www.iccsafe.org/cdpACCESS http://www.iccsafe.org/cdpACCESS

22.  Works as a group on: o Drafting code change proposals o Drafting public comments o Reviewing proposals and comments o Testimony for hearings o Issues related to code development  WABO TCD is not the same as WABO Membership: o Does not represent WABO Membership except as directed by the WABO Executive Committee o Identify ourselves as representing WABO TCD on all proposals o WABO TCD focuses on ICC codes and Washington State codes

23.  Code change proposals have 2 parts o Revision to code text o Reason supporting change

24.  WABO Discussions—TCD discussion forum (WABO website)  Lee keeps ideas in a 3-ring binder and on website forum  Maureen keeps a list in her computer

25.  Underline words you want to add to the code  Strike through words you want to remove from the code

26.  Reason should be based on data when available o Is there a study that supports your proposed change?  Be Clear o OK to use diagrams and photos if it will make your reason clearer o Longer reason statement isn’t always more persuasive  Be Concise o Keep it short unless it’s a complex issue that has not been discussed before  Focus on what’s persuasive o “That’s the way we do it” isn’t persuasive o Anticipate opponents’ arguments, but don’t focus on them, and you don’t have to mention them  Tell the truth o Don’t distort data o Don’t overstate your case

27.  Fixing obvious errors o Fixing cross-references might be dealt with “editorially” – staff discretion -- but they usually ask you to prepare a code change proposal  Resolving conflicts within or between codes  Fixing confusing language o Be careful of unintended consequences (changing intent of original provision)

30.  Eliminating unenforceable code requirements  Complex issues o Complexity can be technical or political o Support with data or good reasoning  Examples: o Political issue, like residential fire sprinklers o Adding new requirements, like CO alarms o Confusing or complicated issues, like State Res Code provisions on protection of cantilevered floors

31.  Technical merit o Consistent with IBC philosophy (not “because that’s how it was in UBC” or “this is from the Washington State Code”)  Well-written and supported  Simple to understand (Committee has limited time to review loads of proposals) o Deal with one issue o Not too long o Note: if complex issue, try to break it into smaller proposals Breaking it up may lead to “chicken and egg” problem, esp. if parts go to different committees.

32.  Wrap up:  WABO TCD wants you (to give us your code change ideas)!  You can make a positive difference in your community.  Let us know if you need help with your code changes.  TCD keeps a meeting schedule on the WABO website.  Thanks for your participation today and in the future!