Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb5747 Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee raises enforcement and administrative concerns about SB 5747 affordable-housing exemption
Summary
Members warned that SB 5747, which would allow older code versions for affordable housing projects, could create administrative burdens, enforcement confusion and could roll back life‑safety improvements if enacted without clearer language.
The committee discussed Senate Bill 5747 on Feb. 20, 2025, legislation that would allow an affordable housing exemption permitting use of prior code editions for certain projects. Staff and members identified significant administrative and life-safety concerns.
Dustin, the presenter, said SB 5747 could require the State Building Code Council to maintain multiple prior code cycles in Washington Administrative Code (WAC), a process that would increase staff workload and complicate the WAC structure. "If this passes, we see it as needing four iterations of the code being active in the WAC," he said, noting the council might have to create additional WAC entries (for example, WAC 52, 53) to preserve older code editions.
Council members and witnesses asked how jurisdictions would enforce or mix-and-match codes among building, energy and other code sections. Jay Arnold testified in committee and later summarized that his testimony made three points: the administrative workload for maintaining prior codes; the ambiguity in the bill about mixing code editions across different codes; and that the bill had not yet cleared the housing committee agenda.
Several members warned the bill could inadvertently roll back life-safety protections if it allowed older structural or fire-safety requirements to be used for new projects. Angela, who submitted written testimony, noted that adopting a previous edition (for example, 2012 code language) could remove life-safety updates made in intervening cycles: "That code was actually developed in 02/2010 ... it would be rolling back life safety 16 years," she said in written testimony.
Staff and members said the committee had not taken a council position and no motion was possible at the meeting because quorum issues prevented formal action. Members urged clearer drafting to separate life‑safety requirements from energy or cost-related code adjustments and to avoid lumping building-code safety requirements into a single intent statement about housing costs.
Staff said they would continue to follow the bill and monitor hearings; no formal council vote or position was recorded at the meeting.
