Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Upc Cost Benefit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SBCC committee introduces UPC cost-benefit analysis, tables formal action for review
Summary
The MBPE committee reviewed a preliminary cost-benefit analysis for 13 Uniform Plumbing Code proposals, praised staff drafting work, and voted to table any formal action so members and the public have time to review the recently uploaded report.
The Washington State Building Code Council’s Mechanical, Ventilation, Plumbing and Energy (MBPE) committee on Jan. 16 reviewed a staff-prepared preliminary cost-benefit analysis for proposed 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) amendments and agreed to table any motion to forward the report to the full council until members have time to review the document.
Dustin (staff) introduced the analysis as an initial document compiled from submitted proposals and emphasized it is ‘‘preliminary’’ and intended to be updated as proposals change and as staff incorporates public comment. Brandon, the report drafts person, walked the committee through the layout and key findings: ‘‘It’s for the 2024 uniform plumbing code amendments for Washington State Building Code Council. All 13 proposals demonstrate positive or neutral economic impact with sustainable, substantial public health and safety benefits,’’ he said. Brandon described report sections that include NAICS-code mappings, per-proposal construction cost estimates, operational benefits and a small-business economic-impact summary.
Industry participants praised the level of detail. Patrick Hanks of the Building Industry Association of Washington called the report ‘‘a massive improvement’’ and asked staff to ensure the Regulatory Fairness Act (RFA) elements — including how small businesses were involved and estimates of jobs created or lost — were clearly documented. Ben O’Mara thanked staff for the depth of analysis and suggested clearer, top-level categorization in the executive summary to help readers find which proposals fit the report’s impact tiers.
Because the draft was uploaded only hours before the meeting, committee members agreed it was inappropriate to take final action that day. The committee moved and approved a motion to table the UPC cost-benefit analysis and asked staff to post the document, add missing NAICS entries (Brandon said he would add plumbing-design-consultant codes), and return the item to the next MBPE meeting for further review.
Votes at a glance: the committee approved a revised agenda and the prior meeting minutes earlier in the session; later it approved a voice vote to table the UPC preliminary cost-benefit analysis for additional review.
Looking ahead, staff said the preliminary report will be updated before any CR-102 filing and that public comment received before the next meeting will be incorporated into the final cost-benefit analysis. The committee did not adopt or amend any UPC proposals at this session.
