Summary#
A-11674 would amend New York’s Executive Law and New York City’s Administrative Code. Its stated goal is to add Mass Timber International Building Code (IBC) standards Type IV-A, IV-B and IV-C to building-code rules. The bill is at the introduced stage; it is not law.
- For the state, the bill adds language about standards for new buildings and construction or renovation of existing buildings. Although the title says the State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council is directed to adopt the standards, the text does not clearly name the council or say what it must do.
- For New York City, the buildings commissioner must submit proposed code amendments to the City Council by January 1, 2028, to provide for adopting the three standards. The City Council, not the commissioner, would decide whether to adopt those amendments.
- The bill does not itself set out the building requirements for these types, or establish a process for builders to apply to use them.
What it means for you#
- Builders and building owners: The bill does not directly set out new construction requirements. Its practical effect would depend on what standards are adopted and how they are put into effect.
- New York City buildings commissioner: Must submit the specified proposed amendments by January 1, 2028. The existing code language also calls for proposals to go to a commissioner-established advisory committee for review and comment before submission; how that review applies to this special proposal is not clear from the bill.
- State building-code officials: The bill’s stated direction to the state council is not clearly expressed in its operative text. The bill does not spell out what steps the council must take.
- General public: The bill does not itself require any particular building to use mass timber, or directly change taxes, fees, fines or property ownership.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill requires the New York City commissioner to prepare and submit proposed amendments, but gives no estimate of the cost or staff time.
- It does not specify funding for state or city work, or any fees, savings or later returns.
What is unclear#
- The supplied materials do not include the current Executive Law or the full current building-code provisions, so the bill’s effect on existing state law could not be verified.
- The state provision does not clearly identify who must adopt the standards or set out a duty to do so, despite the bill’s title.
- The bill does not define Type IV-A, IV-B or IV-C, identify an edition of the IBC, or provide the standards’ technical requirements.
- It is unclear whether the state and city changes would apply to all buildings in the stated categories, or how they would interact with other building-code rules.
- The bill gives a deadline for the commissioner’s New York City proposal, but not a deadline for City Council action or for any adopted changes to take effect.
- The bill would take effect 90 days after becoming law. It is an introduced bill, so passage is uncertain.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to make recognized mass-timber building standards part of state and city building-code rules.
- Requiring the New York City commissioner to submit a proposal gives the City Council a formal opportunity to consider adding the standards.
- A possible argument for the bill is that naming specific standards could provide a clearer code path for buildings designed to use those construction types. The bill itself does not guarantee that result.
Case against#
- The state provision is unclear about who must act and what adoption requires, which could leave its intended effect uncertain.
- The bill does not include the technical standards, explain how they would be applied, or state how they would fit with existing code rules.
- The New York City requirement is to submit a proposal, not to adopt it. The bill does not ensure the standards will become part of the city code.
- The bill provides no cost estimate or detail on the staff and review work needed.