# Is your Code Adoption Legaly Binding?



## Durant (Sep 28, 2012)

As in enforceable by law.  Here is a typical code adoption I have seen in local municipalities in the area:

"That certain documents, three (3) copies of which are on file in the office of the city clerk and the City of Younameit, being marked and designated as International Building Code, as published by the International Code Council, Inc., be and is hereby adopted as the building code of the City of Younameit for the control of buildings and structures as herein provided; and each and all of the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions and terms of such Buiding Code, 2000 or latest edition thereof, and any revisions or amendments thereto, published by the International Code Council, which are on file in the office of the city clerk and hereby referred to, adopted and made a part hereto as if fully set out in this ordinance."

Each code (IRC, IPC, IMC, etc.) is adopted with the same wording.  This municipality has one (1) partial set of the 2009 I-Codes as of today.

See any problems here?  Does your code adoption meet the legal requirments necessary to enforce them?


----------



## Coug Dad (Sep 28, 2012)

It has been my understanding that "or latest edition" is not a legal or proper way to adopt codes.  The Federal Government makes those kind of statements in ther requirements but a legally enforcable code should cite a specific edition.


----------



## cda (Sep 28, 2012)

Problem is, I am told,

The public has NO input/ public hearings on any later editions .

So say an early edition did not require those dreaded fire sprinklers, and a newer edition did for same scenario, there wound have been no public input for or against the dreaded fire sprinkler system


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 28, 2012)

The ICC gives a sample ordinace that can be used for adopting each code.

I have been looking at ours since we will go to the 2012 after the state adopts it. The building department was charged with fire prevention inspections a couple of years ago. Now I find not only do we have the 2009 IFC adopted but the *1976* Life Safety Code is still on the books to use for prevention.

_Adopted: __The provisions of that certain document entitled Life Safety Code, 1976, as adopted by the National Fire Protection Association, Boston, Massachusetts, on November 17, 1976, are hereby adopted in their entirety, except for the penalty portions thereof, as that portion of the Fire Prevention Code of the City relating to safety in life from fire in buildings and structures in the City_



Make sure older codes have been repealed when you adopt newer codes


----------



## fatboy (Sep 28, 2012)

We do as MT said, repeal all the codes each time we update, and have no language about automatic updates, we specifically adopt whatever year.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 28, 2012)

Coug Dad is correct if the jurisdiction does not list the specific edition of the adopted code then it was illegally adopted.

Whether the public has no input is a due process issue.

Failure to have the codes availible to the public could mean that they are not enforcable


----------



## Architect1281 (Sep 28, 2012)

RI Original statewide adoption was in law, and repealed local athority adoption on first implementation

the continuing ammendmendment is in law and required committee public hearing and review and reporting to Legeslative oversight which makes the ammendments law.

(ii) The committee, subject to approval pursuant to subsection ©, shall adopt the codes and standards in

accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, chapter 35 of title 42.

(iii) The provisions of the state building code, so adopted, subject to approval pursuant to subsection ©, shall

have the force and effect of law upon review and approval of the legislative regulation committee.

© There shall be established a legislative regulation committee that shall review, approve, or reject, in total or in

part, the state building code regulations proposed by the building code standards committee prior to their being

filed with the secretary of state.


----------



## Sifu (Sep 28, 2012)

Ours isn't even close to legally binding.  I did recently learn that if you have a computer with public access and you link to the free I-codes that may stand for having copies available to the public.  That would cover any edition you have legally or illegally adopted.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Sep 29, 2012)

We have a statewide code in Virginia. It is based on the ICC codes and then amended with public input and signed into law. Then, all the code officials must attend update training to remain certified. Good system IMO.


----------



## Durant (Oct 4, 2012)

As stated in the original post; the adoption includes ICC amendments "or latest edition thereof, and any revisions or amendments thereto, published by the International Code Council".

Does anyone know how many times between code cycles the ICC revises, updates, or amends a code; as in between 2009 and 20012 I-codes?  Or do they just print corrections?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 4, 2012)

I don't believe the ICC ammends the code between adoption cycles. They do provide plublished ammended codes for various state and local jurisdictions


----------



## rogerpa (Oct 4, 2012)

2004 was the last "supplement" year. Now only every third year.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 14, 2013)

I see a little feedback here but have an interesting question, perhaps someone can weigh in.

State of Washington here. We have a State Building Code Council that adopts the current version of the I codes effective July 1 of the following year.  This July we will have the 2012 I codes.  They also publish amendments that are mandated.

We have some leeway with Chapter 1 and a few other sections if a formal ammendment proceure is followed.

My question is this:  I would like to make the local (County) adoption ordinance generic to the "current adopted version as specified in WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 51-50.

There were some comments earlier that, in general, this wouldn't be allowed, considered non-binding.  I am wondering if it would fly in Washington since we are mandated by the state. Basically, the state says you will be using the 2009 codes.  Our last county adoption ordinance is for 2003, but we still enfoce the 2009 since it is required.  What we lose is the ability to modify the Ch 1 sections we want.

Thoughts??


----------



## Moscow (Jan 14, 2013)

Here when a new code is adopted the city forms a committee that holds puplic meetings, on the committee is at least 1) architect, 1) plumbing contractor, 1)mechancial contractor, 1) building contractor, 1) Genral contractor, 1) electrical contractor, 1) building supplier, and 1) from the public. They are tasked with reviewing the code with the building department. after they review the code the building offical takes to the councel for adoption.

Works real well.


----------



## brudgers (Jan 15, 2013)

righter101 said:
			
		

> I see a little feedback here but have an interesting question, perhaps someone can weigh in.  State of Washington here. We have a State Building Code Council that adopts the current version of the I codes effective July 1 of the following year.  This July we will have the 2012 I codes.  They also publish amendments that are mandated. We have some leeway with Chapter 1 and a few other sections if a formal ammendment proceure is followed.  My question is this:  I would like to make the local (County) adoption ordinance generic to the "current adopted version as specified in WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 51-50.  There were some comments earlier that, in general, this wouldn't be allowed, considered non-binding.  I am wondering if it would fly in Washington since we are mandated by the state. Basically, the state says you will be using the 2009 codes.  Our last county adoption ordinance is for 2003, but we still enfoce the 2009 since it is required.  What we lose is the ability to modify the Ch 1 sections we want.  Thoughts??


  If the building codes established at the state level are binding upon your jurisdiction, then there is no reason to have any language regarding building codes in your ordinances. The point of saying your language is "non-binding" may be that regardless of what it says it has no impact because the state requirements trump it.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 15, 2013)

*If youhave no local amendments then you may be correct but if you have local amendmentsthen you probably need to re-adopt and make sure they are not n conflict withthe latest adopted by the state. Here in MT we are required by law to adoptlocally within 90 days what the state adopts and we are not permitted to amendthem. It really is a question for the attorney and I would ask the statebuilding codes division to ask their attorney since they work with their lawson a daily basis*



*RCW19.27.031*

*State building code — Adoption — Conflicts — Opinions*

*Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, there shall be in effect in allcounties and cities the state building code which shall consist of thefollowing codes which are hereby adopted by reference:*

*19.27.040*

*Cities and counties authorized to amend state building code — Limitations.*

The governing body of each county or city is authorized to amend the statebuilding code as it applies within the jurisdiction of the county or city. Theminimum performance standards of the codes and the objectives enumerated in RCW

19.27.020shall not be diminished by any county or city amendments.


----------



## Mark K (Jan 15, 2013)

To support much of what has been said.

The entity adopting the building code must reference a specific document and must include any supplements that are included. Anything not explicitly referenced is not enforceable.  The California Attorney General issued an opinion a number of years ago that said that automatically adopting the latest version of a code constituted an improper delegation of legislative authority to the publisher of the referenced standard and was thus unconsttutional.

While the regulation of building construction is a State and not a Federal function the due process provisions of the 14th amendment impose some constraints on how the regulations are adopted in order to protect the public from abuses by the government.  Democracy and the rights of the public may be inconvenient but they are a part of the system that we have.

In California it is clear that any local amendments must be readopted when ever the state adopts a new version of the California Building Code.

You must always appreciate the state laws.  There are some states where every city has total freedom on what if any building codes to adopt while other states adopt a state code and give the local jurisdictions no authority to adopt any amendments.  In other states it could be a combination of state mandate and local authority.

Just because a state or local jurisdiction has done something different does not make it right.  It just means that nobody has taken them to court yet.


----------



## lunatick (Jan 15, 2013)

There are some states where portions of the jurisdiction has no code enforcement.

Minnesota is such a state.

While it has long had a Building Code. It was only enforcable for state project, certain buidng types (schools/hospitals) and where locals had adopted it.

Two part response

1. it is based upon Fed/State Constitutions, laws and court judgements which have rendered it as an area that may be regulated. In the manner that has existed for over 100 years.

2. Is an issue though where states do not have statewide enforcement.

Recently, (as in the last 10 years) the State put into law that the Code was to be considered the minimum standard for construction state wide. While not as strong as state wide enforcement, it provided some framework to continue forward. It also prevented any community that had adopted the code, the ability to not continue enforcement. It existed therefore it shall continue.

During the most recent code cylce, NOW, it is expected an attempt to have it as enforcable state wide building code will happen.

I know that MN isn't alone on this current state of code enforcement.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 15, 2013)

Revised post


----------



## righter101 (Jan 15, 2013)

Mark K said:
			
		

> To support much of what has been said.The entity adopting the building code must reference a specific document and must include any supplements that are included. Anything not explicitly referenced is not enforceable.


I think we are ok then by stating "

15.04.050 International and Uniform Codes adopted.

The following codes, copies of which (with the exception of referenced state statutes) are on file with the XXXX County auditor, are hereby adopted, together with all of the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions and terms included in those codes, as if fully set out in this article, and together with the changes and additions prescribed in XXXX County Code.

A. International Building Code (IBC), Current edition, as adopted by Washington State per RCW 19.27 and WAC 51 , published by the International Code Council, as amended and supplemented by the provisions of Chapter 51-50 WAC, together with Appendices C (Group U – Agricultural Buildings), E (Supplemental Accessibility Requirements), G (Flood Resistant Construction), H (Signs), and J (Grading)."

Since the RCW and WAC specify the current edition and will introduce new legislation replacing the 2009 with 2012 in July.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 15, 2013)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If the building codes established at the state level are binding upon your jurisdiction, then there is no reason to have any language regarding building codes in your ordinances. The point of saying your language is "non-binding" may be that regardless of what it says it has no impact because the state requirements trump it.


The reason for having an adoption ordinance is to ammend Chapter 1, as allowed by State Law.  I am not saying that our language is "non-binding", that was a reference from another poster.  My main concern was that other posters had commented that a reference to "current edition" may render an adoption ordinance non-binding, and my question was would that be the case in Washington where we are referencing a state mandate.

Our County attorney seems to think it is a good idea to use the "current edition" language.

You would be pleased with some of the ammendments I wrote.  Common sense stuff that is pro-builder/pro-home owner, etc...


----------



## Mark K (Jan 16, 2013)

If there is a state mandate there is no need to adopt the IBC.  Instead would suggest that you write an ordinance that adopted an amendment to the building code adopted by the state of Washington.  I would reference the version of the state building code in effect on the date of the local ordinance.  You are modifying the building code adopted by the state not the IBC.

If the state had adopted no building regulations related to a certain class of building and if the jurisdiction had the authority to adopt code provisions for these buildings then you would have to list the specific version of the IBC you had adopted.

I suggest that your attorney is lazy.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 16, 2013)

Mark K said:
			
		

> If there is a state mandate there is no need to adopt the IBC.  Instead would suggest that you write an ordinance that adopted an amendment to the building code adopted by the state of Washington.  I would reference the version of the state building code in effect on the date of the local ordinance.  You are modifying the building code adopted by the state not the IBC.If the state had adopted no building regulations related to a certain class of building and if the jurisdiction had the authority to adopt code provisions for these buildings then you would have to list the specific version of the IBC you had adopted.
> 
> I suggest that your attorney is lazy.


I think, in short, what you are suggesting is what has been done.  Thanks for the input.


----------

