Committee members flagged new FEMA flood maps and state code changes requiring higher finished-floor elevations as factors that could restrict development, raise foundation and insurance costs, and alter mortgage requirements for many properties.

County staff proposed adding expertise requirements to the state board that oversees building-code decisions; delegates urged a committee/work-group strategy rather than direct statutory changes to navigate committee opposition.

The Building Code Council adopted a recommendation to eliminate three credit measures in C406 that had allowed credits for spaces without heating, cooling, or service hot water and instead add a required credit target for low-energy and semi-heated spaces. The change aims to reduce unintended compliance loopholes.

Representatives from Historic Charleston Foundation, the Preservation Society of Charleston and Save Our Structures Charleston told a Charleston City committee the loss of the Emmett Abbot Memorial Chapel at 52 Cooper Street shows gaps in existing rules, and they urged code amendments, salvage requirements and a heirs-property legal clinic to prevent future demolition by neglect.

SSG recommended the county concentrate on six immediate priority actions — municipal asset performance, permitting reforms, benchmarking disclosure, weatherization, circular economy programs and advocacy for financing and code reforms — and asked the RSAC to validate and possibly add priorities for council consideration.

City staff introduced a comprehensive rewrite of Title 15 (building and fire code), defended outreach to the contracting community and rejected allegations of targeted enforcement; councilors raised concerns about new licensing categories, continuing education, penalties and whether to separate statutory code adoptions from local policy changes.

The Washington State Building Code Council signaled support for narrowly targeted code relief for homeowners affected by recent wildfires, directing its ad hoc wildfire committee to draft specific emergency and permanent rule options for review next week.

Boards discussed FEMA coastal‑zone changes and new building‑code elevation rules that could make ground‑floor commercial uses harder in the NBOD and require further study for HRA planning and zoning.

The Building Code Council wildfire response committee finalized a draft report for the governor identifying targeted waivers and council-led rulemaking to speed post-fire rebuilding while preserving life-safety rules; the committee recommended surgical changes (credit waivers, emergency rule windows, and preapproved plans) rather than blanket suspensions.

Council member Roger Haringa presented a late amendment to allow building officials to approve alternate or updated embodied‑carbon table values (e.g., geographic averages or updated CLF reports); the body could not vote before losing quorum, and members suggested revised wording for next week.

City and SPG Cooper City agreed a global stipulation to resolve multiple code- and building-code cases, including steep reductions and an overall reduced-amount payment schedule; Magistrate Rosenberg approved the agreement on Sept. 2, 2026.

Building Official Dennis Pedler presented Resolution 3111 to adopt local findings for updating to the 2025 California Building Standards Code and introduced Ordinances 783 and 784, the latter adding Chapter 9.48 to regulate sleeping in public places; council voted to adopt the resolution and introduce both ordinances.

Councilmembers reviewed a proposed IRC amendment to allow solar equipment to satisfy EV-ready outlet requirements and to specify breaker location on panels; electrical-code overlap and locational clarity were key concerns prompting a request for more detailed drawings and time for review.

Planning director Scott Chazy urged the county to replicate its 2023 approach allowing homeowners to rebuild on the same footprint without triggering shoreline or critical-area rules, and recommended a two‑year vesting window and use of the 2015 energy code to reduce permitting bottlenecks.

Alachua County planning staff outlined several 2026 state bills that will require code changes or policy responses including SB 182 (private‑school preemption in commercial/mixed‑use zones), HB 399 (expanded allowances for manufactured homes), HB 803 (private providers and glazing limits), new timelines for local review and a data‑center planning framework; commissioners asked staff to expedite local rules for data centers and review glazing and inspection impacts.

Members advocate for elevating homes to combat flooding and update outdated codes.

Douglas County officials discuss mobile home park code compliance challenges and repairs.

Torrington27s ordinance subcommittee voted to send amendments on building-code appeals, peddling/soliciting rules and criteria for elderly property-tax relief extensions to public hearing, asking staff to coordinate enforcement language with the police chief and include a reversion clause for fee changes if state law alters publication requirements.

City staff outlined proposed code clarifications and selective changes after inviting roughly 500 contractors to submit concerns; recommendations include an optional manual dimmer mandate, clearer guidance on sprinklers vs. firewalls for small multiunit buildings, requiring smoke alarms in rooms that could become bedrooms, and a local energy‑table option to ease prescriptive R‑value requirements.

Parks Director Jason Gerwin updated council on the Civic Plaza proof-of-concept, saying the planned temporary 'indoor' structure may trigger code requirements that would limit its temporary use to roughly 45 days; staff reported HUD and CDBG funding and asked council for direction on spending and alternatives.

FutureWise testified in support of code language clarifications to permit taller single‑stair residential buildings, stacked flats and related flexibility in the IRC/IBC, while flagging cost concerns about sprinkler requirements; written comments with technical details were submitted.

SBCC heard dueling views on proposed embodied carbon provisions: architects and carbon‑leadership advocates supported optional materials and pathway approaches; the Washington Aggregate & Concrete Association urged rejecting or tabling proposals, arguing SBCC lacks authority to regulate embodied carbon as a health/safety standard.

Advocates including Futurewise supported allowing taller, single-stair residential buildings to expand housing options; planners and some witnesses urged the Council to study cost-benefit impacts (sprinklers, types, affordability) before finalizing amendments.