State Building Code Council committee to provide informational testimony on HB 2141 pause

The State Building Code Council (SBCC) legislative committee met Feb. 2 and agreed to provide informational testimony to the House Local Government Committee on HB 2141, a bill that would impose a 10-year pause on state building-code adoptions and local code amendments.

Dustin, speaking for SBCC staff, said HB 2141 would freeze code adoption activity for a decade, shift future code cycles (from three years to a six-year cycle after the pause), and bar the council from approving local amendments during the pause. "This bill, HB 2141, is at its core, looking to put a 10 year pause on adoptions for and updates for the building codes," he said. He added the council would still be required to incorporate any 2024-code errata within 12 months of the effective date and that emergency rulemaking authority would remain but its practical application would be unclear.

Committee members raised several concerns about the proposal. Roger Haringa warned the gap would mean losing incremental safety improvements, citing seismic-design changes between recent code cycles as an example. "It's night and day," he said of older versus newer codes. Kjell Anderson and others argued a decade-long pause would prevent the state from implementing innovations—battery-storage safety guidance and newer refrigerants were specifically discussed—and risk leaving jurisdictions inconsistent in the use of alternate methods.

Angela Haupt and others said alternate-method approvals already vary by jurisdiction and that a freeze would create inconsistency for developers and manufacturers. Member Doug (as identified in the transcript) and others emphasized the potential operational impact on staff and institutional knowledge, noting the difficulty of later catching up if no adoptions occur for a decade.

Legal counsel Dirk advised there is no legal prohibition on appearing in the legislature to provide information, but he cautioned presenters should clearly state they are not speaking on behalf of the full council unless the council has directed a formal position. "I don't see any legal risk with appearing there," Dirk said, "You would just want that disclaimer to make sure that you're not reporting to take a specific position on behalf of the council." The committee therefore focused on preparing informational remarks rather than adopting an official opposition.

Jay Arnold moved that a committee member testify the next day to inform legislators about the impacts of HB 2141 and asked that Roger Haringa, Angela Haupt, Jay Arnold, Todd Bayriger, Tom Handy and Dustin prepare the talking points. The motion was seconded, called, and carried by voice vote.

The committee tasked staff to synthesize talking points and manage testimony logistics, and members discussed delivering remote testimony if needed. The committee confirmed its regular meeting for Thursday and adjourned.

What happens next: SBCC staff will draft and circulate talking points to the named members for the House Local Government hearing; the committee did not adopt a formal council position at this meeting.