Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Codes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer warns 2024 building codes may slow growth; council says many changes are state-mandated
Summary
Developer Mark Mahood told the council that newly adopted 2024 building codes will raise construction costs and slow local projects, urging the city to use new revenue sources to assist developers. Councilors and staff replied that the city made amendments to mitigate cost and that, as a non-home-rule community, its authority to spend some revenues is limited.
During public participation, Mark Mahood of Effingham told the council he feared recent adoption of 2024 building codes would make the city less competitive and slow development. "Most of it, not all of it, is going to general funds for nothing," Mahood said, arguing that some gambling and marijuana proceeds could be used to offset the cost increases for developers.
Several council members and staff responded. A council member noted that many of the new code requirements are state-mandated as of Jan. 1, and that the city had made local amendments to remove some costly appendices, such as mandatory residential sprinklers, to reduce residential costs. Another councilor explained that Effingham is a non-home-rule community and therefore limited in how it can expend proceeds from video gaming or adult-use cannabis; statutes like the TIF Act and Business District Act strictly delineate allowable uses of certain funds.
The exchange included practical clarifications: staff said the city removed several state-mandated appendices when it adopted local code amendments to limit undue cost increases for residential construction, and that some commercial requirements (life-safety measures, energy codes and EV infrastructure provisions) remain tied to state statutes.
Mahood urged the council and staff to look for incentives and fee adjustments to make projects feasible; council members encouraged continued dialogue between developers and staff to identify possible lawful avenues for support.
The council did not adopt any immediate policy change at the meeting; the public comment concluded with staff and council reiterating a willingness to work with developers within statutory limits.
