SBCC economic-impact work group presses for small-business input as contract delays push analysis past CR-102 filing

Members of the State Building Code Council’s work group on economic impact on Sept. 2 reviewed the status of cost-benefit and small-business economic impact work for the 2024 code cycle and discussed steps to gather stakeholder input after contracting delays slowed delivery of contractor analyses for the energy codes.

The group’s staff lead, Dustin (Staff member), told attendees that "the final results of the contract is not anticipated till the December," and that preliminary contractor deliverables were unlikely to arrive in time for the council’s CR-102 filing on Oct. 1, 2025. He said staff would prepare draft cost-benefit material from the proposal documents and that the small-business economic impact statements — required by the Regulatory Fairness Act (RCW 19.85.040) — posed a particular timing challenge.

The work group’s concern centered on two, related constraints: the statutory filing requirements tied to CR-102 and limited staff capacity. Dustin explained the council can file a preliminary cost-benefit analysis with CR-102 and supplement it later, but the small-business economic impact statement historically has been expected with the CR-102 filing and is harder to complete without additional, solicited input from affected small businesses.

Why it matters: the Regulatory Fairness Act requires agencies to consider how rules affect small businesses and to document mitigation efforts for disproportionate impacts. The SBCC’s code package covers many cross-cutting proposals — particularly in the commercial and residential energy codes — where cumulative changes can alter both first costs and long-term benefits. Council members said they wanted to be able to show the council and the public that deliberative outreach had occurred before final votes on adoption.

Discussion highlights and next steps

- Contract timing and scope: Dustin said the contracting process that will deliver a comprehensive economic analysis for the energy codes began in late 2024 but has moved more slowly than anticipated. He told the group that no bids had been received yet and that the full contractor results were expected around December, after the Oct. 1 CR-102 deadline. "We started moving forward again," he said, but added the schedule creates a gap between the council's filing needs and contractor outputs.

- Limits of proposal-level analysis: Council members noted that many individual proposal cost statements are useful but that cumulative code-level analysis is more complex. One participant observed that among the roughly 200 energy-code proposals, only a few dozen are likely to drive most first-cost impacts; staff and volunteers must prioritize which proposals need deeper review.

- Small-business economic impact methodology: The group discussed several approaches to gather small-business data: staff-prepared statements based on proposal materials, surveys, and structured listening sessions. Dustin emphasized resource limits and said the SBCC does not have the in-house economist capacity some other agencies employ. Several attendees argued a survey could provide the quantitative metrics required by statute, but others warned response rates can be low and that a short turnaround would reduce statistical reliability.

- Listening sessions and hearings: As a practical compromise, members proposed targeted, structured listening sessions focused on a short list of proposals the tags flag as potentially impactful. The sessions would be recorded and accept written testimony. Dustin suggested two multi-hour sessions (spread over two days) to cover the most consequential codes — the energy codes, building code, residential code and fire code — and offered to publish a flagged spreadsheet for public review before those sessions.

Quotations from the meeting illustrate the split in emphasis: Dustin summarized the scheduling problem and statutory constraints: "The final results of the contract is not anticipated till the December." Patrick, a participant involved with the IRC tag, urged combined outreach and listening events, saying stakeholders had proposed "doing, and helping potentially coordinate with the State Building Code Council to do, like, listening sessions in conjunction with those surveys." Dwayne, a stakeholder, voiced a common practical concern: "what a political bias ... are we gonna get a balanced and reliable set of survey results back?" The group responded by emphasizing a broad distribution strategy (GovDelivery, website notices, direct stakeholder outreach) and written testimony options to reduce skew.

Administrative and substantive items noted

- Staff committed to post a working spreadsheet of flagged proposals and to coordinate tag chairs to finalize those flags within the coming week.

- Dustin said draft CR-102 documents and the draft cost-benefit inputs should be advanced by Sept. 22 to give the council time to review before the October 1 filing.

- The group agreed to explore two-day, structured listening sessions the week following the meeting (staff to circulate dates and agendas), with written comments accepted as part of the record.

Nonvoting technical discussion

The fire-code tag reported one technical correction — IFC 909.20.5.4 — proposed by David Cocotte to clarify ventilating equipment in smoke-control shafts; tag members characterized it as a clarification with no economic impact. Ben O’Meara concurred: "I concur." The item was identified for the record and will remain visible in the posted spreadsheet of proposals.

Ending: procedural votes and next council briefings

Work group members closed the session by confirming they would present the group's progress to the full council at the next SBCC meeting and said they aimed to document the economic-screening work done to date when the council reviews CR-102 materials. Staff will follow up by posting the spreadsheet of flagged proposals and by proposing dates and structure for the targeted listening sessions and written-comment period.