Flagstaff Building Safety Board launches 2024 code update amid snow load, energy cost disputes
FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA — September 15, 2025

Flagstaff Building Safety Board launches 2024 code update amid snow load, energy cost disputes

Building Safety Board of Appeals held inaugural meeting on 2024 building and fire code updates with significant discussion of energy efficiency requirements, snow load changes, and affordable housing concerns ahead of city council presentation.

Flagstaff Building Safety Board Opens 2024 Code Update with Affordable Housing Alarm Over Green Building Costs

The Building Safety Board of Appeals convened for its first meeting in what the city describes as a six-year code cycle, tasked with steering proposed amendments to the 2024 International Building Code and fire code through a public process culminating in city council adoption by February 2025. The meeting revealed sharp tensions between environmental ambitions and construction cost—tensions that will likely intensify as the city moves toward commission hearings, open houses, and eventual council presentation.

Jacob Conger, construction-management graduate and estimator at Fairmont Homes, and structural engineer Dave Merrill of Hubard Merrill Engineering were elected Chair and Vice Chair unanimously. The board, currently four members, welcomed city staff from sustainability, buildings, fire, zoning, and administration, plus consultants from Shumsota Associates (Dave Basinger, principal; Barbara Rice, Arizona regional manager) who are drafting the code amendments.

Timeline

Key Speeches

"I came up here in 2018 to go to NAU, studied construction management, graduated in '22 and have been with Fairmont Homes since then." — Jacob Conger, Board Chair

"Snow loads have historically been listed as roof snows. Recently in the last code update they got changed to ground snows. Now the code is changing them to ultimate snowloads." — Dave Merrill, Vice Chair and structural engineer, on methodology change

"So um I don't know how to handle it. I don't I was thinking that we might be getting recommendations from our code group… if we don't have any recommendations, I would probably suggest that we go with some kind of um engineers design per the code or we adopt a standard roof snow load for those that don't get engineering. That would be my recommendation." — Dave Merrill, on snow load adoption strategy

"We want to go to city council just um, sooner rather than later just to get their general direction on how far they want to take it because we also have our housing plan. So we and we want to, you know, make sure that we're accounting for costs and making, you know, looking at all these things together." — Genevie P3, Sustainability Division, on energy code direction

"I know when I have to be the new coder I can say on the old code, but I think a lot of these other things, you know, if I remodel my kitchen, am I going to have to make my garage EV ready?" — Mitch Walzer, board member and architect, raising existing-building code compliance concern

"I just have a quick question, Amy. Um, when you guys have your metal buildings, uh, are they brought in under prescriptive or are they typically engineered?… They are typically engineered… So, so special inspections are already required per that and you could simply leave that in there, I would assume." — Exchange between Jacob Conger and Amy Tresler (Building Official, joining via video), on metal building inspection costs

"I will say that there's a big I don't know that it's a majority of public, but it's a very loud voice in public that's pushing for net zero… And the really hard part and I think it's in the back of the mind of council pretty often is this affordable housing component, right? because they really do pull at each other, right? They're both good objectives, but they really do pull at each other." — Mitch Walzer, on political dynamic driving code debate

"What if we're able to have it a you need to provide two out of the three of these things for a builder or is that kind of out of the power of code amendments? Um like if they apply if they supply dual fuel and an outlet in the garage, solar ready wouldn't necessarily have to be or if they did solar and an outlet in the garage, they wouldn't have to do dual fuel." — Jacob Conger, proposing compliance pathways

"I mean, here's the thing is on amendments, anything is a possibility… So, it's just having to write it into it to make it law essentially." — Genevie P3, on board discretion

"I have to explain to people a lot of times that the IBC is really not a code. It's a model code. It's not a code until a jurisdiction adopts it. And so, however the city of Flagstaff adopts it, we call them amendments, but they're not really they're just amending a model code." — Amy Tresler, on adoption mechanics

Project Details

Case/Process: 2024 International Building Code and International Fire Code adoption and amendment.

Applicant/Jurisdiction: City of Flagstaff.

Key Staff & Consultants:

Board Members:

Last Adoption: 2018 International Building Code, adopted July 2019. Six-year cycle means 2024 code is due now.

Process: Four to potentially five board meetings; commission and public engagement; two council work sessions; first read and adoption January; February effective date.

Snow Load Controversy

The most technically fraught debate centered on snow load calculation methodology. The 2024 International Building Code shifts from "ground snow load" to "ultimate snow load"—a change in stress condition akin to the wind load transition from allowable stress to ultimate wind load in previous cycles.

Dave Merrill explained the paradox: numbers will appear to increase dramatically (e.g., 193 psf at Flagstaff Phoenician Airport for occupancy category 3), but the actual load on a roof may increase only 5–10% because the calculation methodology has changed. "It's gonna sound terrible, but it actually works out to about 5% to 10% more than it is today," he said.

Worse for implementers: snow load will now vary by precise location. Seismic loads already follow this pattern (engineers input latitude/longitude to pull site-specific seismic codes from USGS). Snow will be identical—different zones across town will have different ultimate snow loads. Merrill noted a 20 psf difference between his office and home (1.5 miles apart), translating to roughly 6 psf on roof.

Industry pain points flagged:

Merrill's recommendation: Adopt either engineer-designed loads per code or a standardized roof snow load for non-engineered structures, rather than requiring location-specific ultimate calculations for every project. Barbara Rice (Shumsota) noted that in practice, engineers adjust calcs readily and cost impact has been modest (5% or so) in projects they've reviewed.

Ken Cranky, retired, asked whether the IRC retains snow load tables that would help align jurisdictional and manufacturer expectations. Barbara Rice confirmed: IRC has snow loads in tables and climate maps, but jurisdictions can amend. Amy Tresler said she would look up the exact spine-table language in the 2024 IRC.

Unresolved: The board flagged snow load strategy for further discussion and potential recommendation, but no consensus emerged on how to navigate the calculation transition without breaking prescriptive construction pathways.

Energy Code Amendments: Four Options and the Affordability Collision

Genevie P3 presented the crux of the city's policy dilemma: Flagstaff's 2021 Carbon Neutrality Plan mandates energy-efficiency improvements and net-zero residential buildings by 2030. But the Housing Plan exists alongside it. City council must arbitrate between them by providing "general direction" on how aggressively to pursue 2024 IEC amendments and appendices.

The 2024 residential IEC includes 12 new amendment appendices (vs. one in 2018). Commercial has 8–9. These are optional; jurisdictions select which to adopt locally.

Four options presented:

Option Zero: No Change

Option One: Base 2024 IEC + Minimal Appendices (~15–20% improvement)

Option Two: Option One + Enhanced Solar (~25% improvement)

Option Three: Option One + Energy Efficiency Appendix (~25% improvement)

Option Four: Net-Zero-Ready Construction (~30% improvement)

Cost Considerations:

Genevie cited National Association of Homebuilders analysis showing single-family cost adder of $500–$600 for EV charging. Multifamily data sparse. The board pressed repeatedly on cumulative cost of multiple amendments.

Jacob Conger raised concern: "we already have a problem with the cost of construction in this town. Are we looking at what all of these amendments are going to do as far as cost?"

Genevie acknowledged: "Incrementally, all these different changes are not going to cost very much or some more than others, but when you add them all together"—the point hit home. She noted her analysis (still being refined) suggests that despite higher sale price, monthly ownership costs could be lower even in year one due to utility savings, if households can afford the mortgage. She plans to share detailed payback analysis once finalized.

Merrill warned: "I think we have to progress forward at some level. I think we have to try to help council set that level, right?… Option zero is never going to fly… and four probably won't fly either. So where's that happy medium?"

The board consensus: council must choose. The board's job is to present tradeoffs and be "the responsible voice in the room" because "there's a lot of people that are very loud that will want four to fly" but affordability concerns are quieter.

EV Charging and Fire Code Implications

Genevie presented EV appendix options: garages and parking lots can specify EV-capable (wiring only), EV-ready (outlet), or EV charger (full installation). Fire Marshal Chris Jack indicated flexibility: chargers are safer outside but nothing in code mandates it. Heavier wiring and larger electrical panels are the real cost drivers, and retrofitting post-construction is nearly impossible.

Jacob Conger asked: single-family home without garage—must it have outdoor EV-ready? Genevie said the appendix likely accounts for that, but she'd confirm.

Mitch Walzer raised concern about existing buildings: if someone remodels their kitchen, does that trigger EV-ready or other code upgrades in other parts of the house? Amy Tresler noted the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) sets thresholds by alteration scope, but the board flagged this as needing deeper analysis.

Metal Building Inspections and Affordability

Dave Merrill identified a new code requirement: special inspections on metal buildings during construction in addition to existing Chapter 16 inspections. He called it "a hard sell" for prescriptive metal buildings.

Amy clarified: engineered metal buildings already require Chapter 16 special inspections. The new amendment adds construction-phase inspections.

Merrill noted the cost stacking: buyer thinks they're buying a simple metal building, then discovers they need foundation engineering, special inspections on the foundation, inspections on the building—"four or five inspections, you know"—adding cost and complexity.

Flagged for potential amendment: The board will consider whether to carve out metal buildings or modify the special-inspection requirement.

Genevie flagged a red flag: the 2024 IEC commercial appendix includes mandatory on-site renewable energy requirements. She has scheduled a meeting with the city attorney to analyze compliance with Arizona state law, which may preempt local renewable mandates.

She noted: "I wouldn't get too hung up on the mandatory renewable energy stuff yet because we are actually meeting back with our attorney tomorrow to understand what that looks like and if we need to amend that out uh because of Arizona state law."

She also pointed out that some peer cities that adopted the 2024 ICC (Phoenix included) removed those provisions. The board will await legal analysis before recommending.

Wildfire Risk & Vegetation Code Updates

Neil Javan presented ongoing wildfire risk reduction initiatives: 0–5 foot fuel-free zone around new construction (emerging best practice from recent disasters—Marshall Fire, Lahaina, Paradise, Palisades); changes to vegetation standards in landscaping code; resource protection overlay modifications.

He emphasized a counterintuitive point: perimeter development, if done smartly, can reduce risk by creating a defensible buffer around the city's existing footprint. However, tree retention and code flexibility are thorny: Is the 5-foot buffer measured to tree trunk or canopy edge? Current zoning code allows 20% canopy encroachment to preserve trees; how does that interact with fire safety?

Javan and Tiffany Antal are piloting a model-based tree-retention approach to move beyond rigid percentage thresholds (50%, 30%) toward separation and spatial reasoning.

Cost caveat: Headwaters Economics is analyzing local cost impacts of proposed wildfire-related changes; preliminary assessment is minimal but will be firmed up.

Unresolved: The board will receive detailed wildfire code recommendations at the October 2 meeting.

Existing Buildings & Code Alteration Triggers

Mitch Walzer raised a systemic question: How do energy and green-building amendments apply to existing structures undergoing remodeling? If I remodel my kitchen, do I trigger EV-ready, solar-ready, or electric-ready requirements in unrelated parts of my home?

Genevie and Amy acknowledged the IEBC sets alteration thresholds but noted this requires careful drafting. The board flagged it for future discussion, particularly because much of Flagstaff's construction activity is remodeling, not new construction.

Walzer also wondered whether cost triggers (valuation of the permit) or scope triggers (cost of electrical work only) should govern code compliance, suggesting the board may need to recommend local amendments clarifying the nexus.

Controversies & Context

Affordable Housing vs. Green Building Tension The core tension animating the meeting: incremental green-building requirements (solar, EV-ready, electric-ready, renewables) each add hundreds or thousands to construction cost. Stacked, they price out lower-income buyers and renters. Yet the city has committed to net-zero by 2030 (Carbon Neutrality Plan). Mitch Walzer captured the dilemma: "they really do pull at each other, right? They're both good objectives, but they really do pull at each other. And so I think it's in the back of the mind of council pretty often is this affordable housing component, right?"

Walzer also noted data showing median home ownership in Flagstaff is ~12 years, suggesting payback periods may align with occupancy—if residents can afford to buy in the first place. He implied council must choose: green or affordable, or both at lower levels.

Regulatory Change Pace vs. Technology Pace Jacob Conger and Merrill noted that the code is written for a six-year cycle but green-tech (solar efficiency, EV batteries, heat pumps) is advancing rapidly. "Better and cheaper" are converging, but the code freeze will lag behind. Merrill: "I can almost promise you that green technology will be probably 10 times better in the next six years… it's just really hard to understand where that balance is."

Arizona State Law Preemption Mandatory on-site renewable energy may conflict with Arizona state law limiting local authority to impose renewable-energy mandates. Genevie is coordinating with city counsel to clarify. This is a silent legal risk: if the board and council adopt a mandatory-renewable appendix and it is later invalidated, the code is undermined.

County Coordination Coconino County is adopting its first energy code and may pursue similar amendments. However, county's vastly larger footprint and diverse climate zones (from Flagstaff to White Sage, Doney Park) mean county and city snow loads, vegetation standards, and wildfire risk profiles differ materially. Staff will align where feasible but expect divergence on energy codes.

Vote Breakdown

Chair Election

Vice Chair Election

No roll-call votes were conducted on substantive code positions; the meeting was deliberative and exploratory.

Outcome & Next Steps

Immediate:

October 2, 2–4 p.m.:

October (later date, via Doodle poll):

October–November:

Potentially November (mid-month):

December:

Early January:

February:

Outstanding Items:

  1. Snow load calculation methodology recommendation (engineer-designed vs. location-specific vs. standardized).
  2. City attorney legal opinion on mandatory renewable energy vs. Arizona state law.
  3. Energy code cost-benefit analysis (Genevie's payback model).
  4. Headwaters Economics wildfire-code cost study.
  5. Existing-building code alteration thresholds and triggers.
  6. Metal building special-inspection carve-out or modification.
  7. Tree-retention/canopy measurement (trunk vs. edge) for wildfire fuel-free zone.
  8. IRC span-table alignment with location-specific snow loads.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Board Recruitment The board has four members; council appointed additional vacant seats. City staff (Georgia and public affairs) are recruiting via social media to add members before the process concludes. Openings could help offset scheduling friction caused by holidays and vacations (Ken Cranky will be gone October 7–15).

Process Innovation: Model Plans & ADU Library City is launching an ADU model-plans library (county partnership). Snow load variation by location could undermine model plans' applicability across Flagstaff—a wrinkle Jacob Conger raised. Manufactured homes are also flagged as a statewide issue that could be affected.

Federal Tax Credit Deadline Merrill noted the federal 30% EV tax credit expires October 1, 2025, which will reduce incentive for homeowners to invest in EV infrastructure—another headwind for green-building mandates.