TAG members push for more review time, question rushed 2024 IRC schedule

5460318 · July 24, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Several TAG members objected to the short notice on staff reports and asked for additional review time; one member proposed twice-weekly meetings to meet council deadlines.

Several members of the State Building Code Council’s residential-code TAG raised procedural objections during Tuesday’s virtual session, citing insufficient time to review staff-prepared reports and asking staff to slow the process to allow detailed technical review.

"If it was up to me in a perfect world, what I would suggest is that we get one week to review these documents," said Josh Mergans, owner of Balanced Structural Engineering. Multiple members echoed that sentiment; Jen Eliuk, a plan examiner with the City of Bellevue, said she felt “thrown into this without any preparation” and asked for time to examine staff materials.

Quinn Tye, a building official attending as an alternate, proposed an accelerated meeting cadence to meet the council’s calendar: twice-weekly, three-hour sessions beginning next week. "Because there's such a rush, that we meet starting next week twice twice a week, because of that rush and for three hours," he said. Some members said they would use alternates to manage workload if meetings increase.

Why it matters: TAG review is the primary technical check before staff prepares rulemaking filings; members said compressed timelines risk hasty decisions. Staff said they had prepared the reports to reduce later formatting work and to preserve the December adoption target but agreed to circulate a poll and schedule additional sessions.

No formal policy decisions were made on the proposals themselves during the meeting; members asked staff to notify proposal proponents and to post meeting invitations once the poll results are in.

The TAG’s next steps are an internal scheduling poll and a series of additional meetings aimed at completing review of the existing-amendments and significant-changes reports and discussing public proposals.