those definitions into the code text, as well as disputing how other statutes that reference or interact with the adopted code provisions should be displayed (ICC Supp. SUMF ¶¶ 16–23; Defs. Supp. Resp. ¶¶ 16–23.)
ICC argues too much here. As Defendants point out, South Holland’s enacting ordinance states that “the International Building Code (2012) be and is hereby adopted as the building code of the Village of South Holland in the State of Illinois.” (Defs. Supp. Resp. 39; Wise Opp. Decl. Ex. U.) While South Holland undoubtedly has other laws that pertain to building safety, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants’ description of the IBC 2012 as the building code of South Holland was inaccurate when South Holland’s ordinance states the same. The Veeck court did not fault Veeck for identifying the SBCCI codes as the building codes of Anna and Savoy, even though those towns may well also have had other statutes and regulations governing the same topic. See Solicitor General’s Brief, Appendix (City of Anna ordinance declaring the SBCCI code “hereby adopted by reference as though … copied herein fully”). Similarly, while the related Wyoming statute’s definition of “owner” may impact interpretation of the model codes adopted by Wyoming, it is unclear how Defendants’ failure to
57
