Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cochise County supervisors review proposed building code update, retain 2012 energy standard
Summary
County staff outlined a plan to adopt newer International Codes for most building regulations while keeping the 2012 energy code to limit cost impacts; Planning & Zoning will hold a public hearing in July and the board is targeted to consider adoption July 14 with a proposed effective date of Sept. 1.
Miss Mclofflin, Cochise County’s development services director, told the Board of Supervisors at a June 6 work session that staff are recommending a county update to the model building codes to reflect recent International Code Council revisions but are keeping local amendments and moderating energy requirements to limit costs.
“Today we are here to provide an overview of the proposed building code update,” Miss Mclofflin said, explaining county staff reviewed new code additions, drafted local amendments, and sought contractor and public input. She identified Paul Sparza as the county’s building official and noted plans examiners and inspectors led technical reviews.
Why it matters: staff said older local codes leave gaps for newer technologies such as battery energy storage systems (BESS) and modern electrical systems. Updating to more current codes, staff said, improves consistency with neighboring jurisdictions and clarifies expectations for builders who work across multiple communities. At the same time, the county aims to preserve rural flexibility and avoid energy‑related requirements that would significantly raise construction costs.
Staff emphasized a mixed approach. While recommending most building standards move toward the newer (spoken as 2024) I‑code series and keeping the National Electrical Code roughly one year behind, staff recommended retaining the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code so homeowners and small builders would not face steep new insulation and equipment costs.
Addressing common questions, Mclofflin said building permits for single‑family homes will not be issued until Environmental Health approves septic plans. “We will not issue the building permit until we get… this is routed to environmental health,” she said, describing the county’s concurrent septic‑permit review and field inspections.
On safety, staff pointed to new IFC provisions intended to reduce risks around batteries and energy storage, noting that the newer code editions add fire‑safety measures for rack separation and other protections. Staff also described local amendments already proposed — for example, higher pool barrier requirements tied to state law and requiring 5/8" Type X gypsum in some garages — as responses to county practice and local conditions.
The statutory limit on sprinkler requirements was discussed. Staff cited a statute spoken in the session as “ARS 11861,” saying the statute prevents the board from mandating sprinklers for single‑family dwellings and similar small residences.
Public outreach and next steps: staff said they held a builder roundtable and a public meeting (about 25 contractors attended the contractor session), maintain a contractor email list and project website, and published a survey for public feedback. The Planning & Zoning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing and provide a recommendation in July; staff said they expect to bring a final adoption item to the Board of Supervisors on July 14 and propose an effective date of Sept. 1 to give building permit applicants lead time.
The board offered thanks to staff and asked clarifying questions about costs, interjurisdictional coordination, and implementation timing. The work session concluded without a formal vote; adoption remains a future board action pending the P&Z recommendation and a public hearing.
The next procedural steps: Planning & Zoning Commission public hearing (July), Board of Supervisors adoption hearing (target: July 14), proposed effective date (Sept. 1).
