Newton staff outline 2024 building-code updates, seek state review of sprinkler exemptions

Newton city staff presented proposed updates to three model codebooks — the 2024 International Building Code (IBC), International Existing Building Code (IEBC) and International Mechanical Code (IMC) — during a work session on building-code changes, describing a package of amendments intended to align local rules with regional practice and to clarify permit and enforcement procedures.

City staff said the primary goals of the updates are regional alignment with the Wichita metro area, clearer administrative rules for permits and inspections, and targeted exemptions intended to reduce burdens for lower-risk activities. Rebecca (staff member) told commissioners the proposed ordinances would bring Newton’s codebooks into better alignment with recently adopted fire code provisions and with practices used in the Sedgwick County/Wichita area.

Staff emphasized why periodic updates are needed. "If we don't update our codes on a regular basis, we could really, leave out some of those modern pieces," Rebecca said, referring to new technologies such as lithium-ion batteries. She and other staff said Newton typically updates codes on a roughly three-year cycle and that the 2024 books would pair with the fire code the commission adopted at earlier meetings.

What staff proposed City staff presented the bulk of the model code language for adoption "as is" while advancing a set of local amendments and clarifications. Justin (Building and Zoning Supervisor) explained one administrative change: moving from an advisory appeals panel to a formal Board of Appeals process so owners can bring code interpretation disputes to a quasi‑judicial board. "The Board of Zoning Appeals, which also would be the Planning Commission … would serve to meet those needs if we had any kind of appeals come before us," Justin said.

Other administrative changes described by staff include: - Permit and inspection rules: staff proposed removing a rule that would have invalidated permit applications after 180 days and instead clarified when a project would be considered abandoned, plus a rule requiring that emergency repairs be reported to the building official within one day. - Fees and plan review: plan-review fees would be formalized and aligned with engineering plan-review fees already charged by the city. - Permit postings and certificates: permit-card placement outside job sites would be restored (mirroring Wichita). The certificate-of-occupancy form would be updated to match current practice. - Enforcement penalties: for work done without a permit, staff proposed a graduated first/second/third-offense structure rather than automatically doubling the permit value.

Technical and occupancy changes Staff proposed multiple substantive technical amendments intended to reflect regional conditions and to facilitate adaptive reuse of older buildings: - Existing-building flexibility: adoption of the IEBC is intended to give more options for renovating older structures, a priority because many Newton buildings predate 1970. - Daycare occupancy threshold: the code’s Group E daycare threshold would be changed from five children to 10 to match Kansas state law, staff said. - Residential sprinkler exemptions: staff reiterated an earlier request to allow certain small multiunit residential buildings (triplexes and fourplexes) to be exempted from residential sprinkler requirements; that exemption was previously approved in some jurisdictions but was rejected by the State Fire Marshal when last submitted. Andy (staff member) said Newton has resubmitted the request and that statute gives the State Fire Marshal 30 days to review submissions. "As far as what we submitted, the statute gives them 30 days to review it," Andy said. Staff noted that if the state does not act within the 30‑day window, an item can default to approval under the procedural rules the city described. - Restaurant sprinkler alternative: staff described a proposed, previously rejected, technical exception that would allow restaurants with up to 299 occupants to install a third exit instead of a sprinkler system; the fire‑marshal rejection was cited as the reason the language was not adopted locally previously. - Aircraft hangars and open parking structures: several exemptions were proposed that mirror Wichita and Sedgwick County practice — for example, some aircraft hangars (up to 18,000 square feet) and certain open parking structures would not require sprinklers under the proposed local amendments. - Egress, door widths and window allowances: staff recommended raising minimum door widths in some cases from 28 to 32 inches, clarified egress-window dimensions to aid firefighter access, and added targeted exceptions for canopies and drive‑up drop-off areas. - Roof loads, frost protection and flood reference: staff proposed a local minimum uniform roof live load of 20 pounds per square foot (snow load), clarified frost-protection requirements for foundations and cited the City of Newton Flood Insurance Study (Harvey County, December 1989) as the study currently referenced in code language. - Shipping containers and finishes: the draft would require intermodal shipping containers used as buildings to be finished in colors and styles consistent with surrounding buildings.

Regional alignment and contractor familiarity Staff repeatedly said aligning Newton’s amendments with Wichita and Sedgwick County reduces friction for contractors who work across jurisdictions. "We wanted to allow more opportunities for adaptive reuse and revitalization ... most of our buildings are older than about 1970," Rebecca said, urging that the IEBC give flexibility for existing structures. Staff also said code familiarity helps developers and building owners who operate in multiple nearby jurisdictions.

Process and next steps Staff said the proposed local amendments have been submitted to the State Fire Marshal for review; that review includes a roughly 30‑day waiting period for comment. Commissioners were told there will be additional work-session time during the next regular meeting to review comments received from stakeholders. Justin and other staff noted that the redlined draft in the packet contains some larger formatting edits and relocations that staff will clarify in follow-up materials.

Who spoke Speakers at the work session included Rebecca (staff member), Justin (Building and Zoning Supervisor), David (staff member), Andy (staff member), the mayor (presiding), and Commissioner Scribe. Staff also noted that another staff member, Mr./Ms. Valentine, was absent and may be reviewing materials remotely.

The meeting was a staff work session and did not include a formal vote. Staff asked commissioners to submit questions ahead of the next review so staff can return answers at the next scheduled meeting.