The State Building Code Council legislative committee met Oct. 24, 2025, to review delays in the 2024 code cycle and to consider legislative and administrative remedies staff says are needed to preserve a November 1, 2026, implementation date.

Dustin, SBCC staff, told the committee the council adopted two motions at a Sept. 26 special meeting: to delay final adoption of the 2024 codes to May 15, 2026, and to "explore administrative and legislative remedies to allow the implementation date to remain to be 11/01/2026." He said the delay stemmed from prior legal challenges to the 2021 codes, late publication of some ICC model products (notably the energy code), a heavy number of state amendments, and limited SBCC staffing.

The issue matters because state law requires that after the council adopts final rule text the code cannot go into effect until after the next legislative session when the adoption date falls after that session. "We passed a motion to delay that final adoption till May 15," Dustin said, describing the council action that changed the adoption schedule and prompted the current discussion of remedies. He and other staff said the timing of ICC publications and the need to prepare strikeout/underline WAC drafts and economic analyses add weeks of work between final council action and a usable published code.

Representative Alex Grama (ex officio council member) outlined three legislative approaches discussed by members: remove or narrow the legislature's prereview authority so a November implementation could stand; create a one‑time statutory exception for the 2024 cycle; or pursue broader structural reform of the statutory cycle. "If we said, hey. This is something the legislature reserved for itself back when the State Building Code Council was first created ... that's an argument that we can reasonably make," Grama said.

Council members and stakeholders pressed operational concerns. Roger Hiringa proposed narrowing what must be completed by the December 1/15 rulemaking milestones—so the council could move materials into CR102 on schedule while finishing remaining administrative steps later. "My proposal would be ... the SBCC has to pass the codes just to vote to approve to move them into CR102 by December 1 and December 15," Hiringa said.

Industry and jurisdictional representatives urged caution about changing implementation timing without giving users published materials and time to train. Patrick Hanks of the Building Industry Association of Washington told the committee, "stakeholders aren't going to do a bunch of work to prepare for implementation on code changes that aren't fully adopted yet." Ardel Jala, building official for the City of Seattle, said partial or staggered implementation would be difficult for enforcement and recommended preserving synchronized implementation so code users and jurisdictions have time to train.

Technical proposals raised by members included adopting the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) by reference and keeping Washington’s state amendments as amendments to reduce administrative drafting time for the energy code, which one member said drew roughly 160 separate proposals. Several members also urged consideration of modest revenue changes—permit fee surcharges were discussed as a possible, targeted way to support additional SBCC staffing to reduce bottlenecks.

No formal legislative language was drafted in the meeting. Committee members asked staff to assemble concrete materials for follow up: a Gantt chart showing the tasks and deadlines needed to meet different implementation dates; a short list of options that could form the basis for a narrow, one‑time bill; and a catalog of the statutes and WAC sections that would need amendment for each option. Representative Grama offered to help translate options into potential bill language and to test consensus with other legislators.

The committee did not take a binding vote on a preferred path. Members generally agreed to pursue a narrow legislative option as one of several paths, while continuing to explore administrative fixes and internal process improvements. Staff emphasized the practical constraint that ICC publication timing and WAC formatting requirements create a real deadline for producing a usable published code.

Next steps agreed by the committee included weekly or near‑weekly legislative committee check‑ins during the short session, staff preparation of the timeline and statute analysis, and collaborative drafting of any narrow legislative proposal to be tested with legislators and stakeholders in the coming months.

The committee adjourned after agreeing to reconvene and to circulate the requested materials to members and legislative staff.