Single-exit stair tag left largely unchanged; SBCC members debate how to interpret legislative intent
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After a tag discussion, the council heard that the tag voted to keep the single-exit stair proposal as presented and not include draft item 21; members debated whether the council should define legislative intent for rulemaking or seek clearer language from legislators.
At the March 5 legislative committee meeting of the State Building Code Council, Roger Haringa summarized a recent tag discussion and reported that the tag voted to keep the single-exit stair proposal as currently presented and not include a draft language item (item 21) proposed by a council member.
Roger told the committee the tag had a “very good conversation” and reported that some code officials opposed allowing the same Type III construction on six levels only in single-exit buildings, noting that would be inconsistent with the normal code where two-exit buildings would not be permitted the same allowance. “There was a motion to not include item 21,” Roger said, and the tag’s vote kept the proposal as it had been presented to them.
Todd Behruger said he believes the council should push for the most cost-effective engineering solutions and discussed options for drafting code language. Todd noted that earlier local efforts — including work the City of Seattle and WABO produced — provided helpful starting points for scope and appendices. "I think we could, from an engineering standpoint... get to a 6-story solution," Todd said, arguing for consideration of such approaches while acknowledging the tag and code officials had raised concerns.
Other members cautioned that the council cannot rely on a single legislator’s recollection of intent and that the committee’s legislative stage is the proper time to clarify intent. One member suggested developing a charter and boundaries for tags at the beginning of a session to avoid having to interpret intent after a bill has passed. The group agreed that clearer legislative language and early communication between sponsors and the council would reduce ambiguity in future rulemaking.
The committee did not take a formal vote on changing the single-exit proposal during this meeting; discussion focused on next steps for tag charters, engagement with sponsors and whether to pursue clarifying language in future legislation.