The State Building Code Council approved a revised schedule for the 2024 code-adoption cycle on Aug. 15, 2025, directing staff and technical groups to target Oct. 1, 2025, for filing CR102 draft rules and to pursue final adoption by Dec. 1, 2025. The motion was moved by Tom Handy, seconded by Dan Young, and passed by voice vote.

Dustin (SBCC staff) told the council the condensed timeline reflects delays earlier in the cycle and the minimum Administrative Procedure Act timing for notice and hearings. He said the CR102 drafting phase must be completed by Sept. 30 to meet an Oct. 1 filing that will allow public hearings beginning the first week of November and provide time to respond to comments before a Dec. 1 adoption vote.

Nut graf: The schedule is consequential because it dictates the production and review timeline for each model code package — energy, building, mechanical, plumbing and fire. Staff and council members warned that the compressed timetable will put heavy demands on volunteer technical panels and the new work group charged with small-business economic impact analyses.

Dustin laid out a rolling set of dates: finalize CR102 drafting by Sept. 30, file CR102s Oct. 1, start hearings as early as Nov. 4 (he said Nov. 4–7 were possible hearing dates), draft CR103 responses to comments in November and target final adoption by Dec. 1 with CR103 filings completed by January 2026. He said the commercial and residential energy codes, the building code, mechanical and plumbing packages each need cost-benefit analysis and a small-business economic-impact statement before filing.

Multiple members expressed concern about workload and timing. Johnny Coker, in public comment, warned that stakeholders (industry responders) need adequate time to respond to small-business survey requests and to review economic-impact materials; he suggested a realistic two-week minimum window to collect responses, and cautioned that the November holidays compress the calendar for public hearings and committee responses.

Council member Roger Verenga (council member) reminded the group that statutory timelines exist and that the council should avoid missing them where possible; staff acknowledged a risk and said that if the council cannot finalize some items in time, staff would recommend alternate timelines and explain legal implications. After the discussion the council voted to accept the schedule as presented; staff said the revised schedule will be posted online and committees and tags will be asked to align their work to meet the filing deadlines.

Ending: Council members and staff emphasized both the urgency of completing the 2024 code suite on the stated timetable and the risks of burnout and schedule slippage. Staff and volunteers will continue to push to meet the Sept. 30 / Oct. 1 milestones and will report back if key items require more time.