# Valuation and hardship



## earshavewalls (Oct 28, 2009)

I posted this topic on the "New ICC Communities of Interest". There are a whole 10 people signed up for this "Community", so I got a really dumb response to this. I am pasting the exact post along with my response to the response. We are still wrestling with this issue and would like some opinions, insights, or anything really. We strive to be consistent and fair, but sometimes it can go too far in one way or the other.....so, here they are:

Original post:

We have a project in plan check with an interesting proposition. The applicant feels that the processing equipment within the bottling facility that is being installed as a part of the permit is exempt from inclusion in the valuation to determine the level of accessibility upgrades that they will need to provide. Our valuation (surprisingly the same as theirs was originally) is at $300,000, meaning that full compliance will be required for all accessible features on the path of travel to the location of alterations and improvements.

There is no real guidance in the California Code, Section 1134B as to what equipment must become a part of the valuation relative to this issue. Is it just equipment directly related to the usability of the building (service gear, HVAC units, plumbing fixtures, light fixtures, etc.) or is all equipment that will be attached to the structure and connected to one or more of the utilities included?

This has led to discussions on what equipment IS to be included in project valuations. Do you include the spray booth value for a Body Shop? Do you include a printing press for a Newspaper? Do you include cooking appliances in a restaurant? What about walk-in coolers and freezers?

The other issue is the three-year period for aggregate amount of improvements. When does this time frame start? At the original submittal or at issuance of permit or at final? Where does it end, or cutoff? We have just recently decided (for now) to use the submittal dates, since these are the only firm date available. But this could be argued on the present end and pushed to final, since this is when final payment is made........it could get a little litigious, if you see what I mean, especially if the improvements are substantial.

I posted a similar thread the day before the ICC closed the old site, so I was unable to see if any responses came up.

Second post:

As we see it, items such as a spray booth, walk-in cooler/freezer, kitchen exhaust hood systems, grease interceptors, etc.

Right now, a bottling company is replacing much of their assembly line equipment as well as adding two new boilers, a large chiller and all of the associated accessories as well as sumps and tanks to hold the processed waters. They claim that all of this equipment is only for their manufacturing process and is not a part of the essential services to the building and as such are exempt from the valuation.

We do not completely agree. It is our stance that the boilers and chiller and all associated equipment essential for the operation of those appliances ARE a part of the valuation. We are allowing them to not include packaging equipment, palletizing equipment, conveyors, and other equipment that is used only to package the beverages.

Personally, I feel that ALL equipment that is to be permanently connected to the building electrical, water, sewer, or other system should be included. Portable equipment or cord-and-plug equipment should be exempt. This mirrors the criteria used by OSHPD as far as hospital valuations and makes more sense to me.

Our building official feels that processing equipment that is not part of an essential service be exempt from valuation, but he wants to include spray booths and the other items mentioned earlier.

That, my friend, is our dilemna.


----------



## vegas paul (Oct 28, 2009)

Re: Valuation and hardship

In southern Nevada... all jurisdictions, ALL portions of whatever is being built, installed, etc. is part of the valuation.  This includes cooking equipment, walk-ins, mechanical, etc. electronics, conveyors/industrial equip.  I recently permitted a +- 300 sq. ft. unoccupied building to house Cox communications equipment - valuation was about $1.5 million...  including equipment, of course.


----------



## JBI (Oct 28, 2009)

Re: Valuation and hardship

Sounds to me like someone is confusing 'construction cost' with 'assessed value' (as in for property tax levy).

Doesn't matter to me if it is hard-wired OR plug-n-play. If it is part of what they do, it is part of the cost of construction. I would leave out vending machines in the employee lounge, but any and all equipment, systems, appliances, etc that are part of the process should be included. If they don't want to add in those costs, tell them to leave out those pieces of equipment. If they can't leave them out because they can't do business without them, obviously they should be included in cost of construction.

As far as time frames, just be consistent. If you use date of application then use it every time. If you use date of permit issuance use it every time. If you use date of CofO use it every time (bad choice by the way... what if there was a conditional CofO?). What will hurt your case in court is NOT being consistent, moreso than which set of dates you choose. JMHO


----------



## Mac (Oct 28, 2009)

Re: Valuation and hardship

From the Building Code...

101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, EQUIPMENT, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings.

And here is my local law requirement...

5) The estimated cost of the proposed work, with appropriate substantiation.

"Appropriate substantiation" means contract award letters, good faith estimates, and equipment costs,  all of which are subject to verification.

I  say include the cost of the equipment in the permit fee because its installation & maintenance is subject to code compliance.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 28, 2009)

Re: Valuation and hardship

The 20% rule applies to the route to the primary function area and the area itself. I believe the work you described is part of the primary function of the facility. That said you could drop out the mechanical equipment as outlined (HVAC) in exception 3. Like John said you just need to be consistant in how you apply the 205 rule.

3409.7 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function.

Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of primary function, the route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities or drinking fountains serving the area of primary function.

Exceptions:

1.	The costs of providing the accessible route are not required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the alterations affecting the area of primary function.

2.	This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to windows, hardware, operating controls, electrical outlets and signs.

3.	This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to mechanical systems, electrical systems, installation or alteration of fire protection systems and abatement of hazardous materials.


----------



## Alias (Oct 28, 2009)

Re: Valuation and hardship

earshavewalls -

Check in the 2007 CBC Appendix Chapter 1, Administration, Section 108.3, Building permit valuations.

This will probably really muddy the waters but it does give clear guidelines for determining fees for any project.  It ultimately gives the final determination of fees to the BO.

Good luck.

Sue


----------



## atomahutna (Oct 28, 2009)

Re: Valuation and hardship

I know this is really simplistic, but I always look at it from the standpoint of what I have to review.  So cooking equipment, yes.  Equipment for industrial processes where we look at hazmat, exiting, etc, yes.  A giant paper shreddder, no.  Ok there are always grey areas, but that's the part that makes it interesting for me. :roll:

Tom


----------



## brudgers (Oct 28, 2009)

Re: Valuation and hardship

If they cannot afford to buy the equipment and meet accessibility requirements, then they cannot afford to buy the equipment.


----------



## earshavewalls (Oct 28, 2009)

Re: Valuation and hardship

Well, they caved in and are now going to provide the proper accessible parking and are reconfiguring their restrooms to meet accessibility requirements...................among other things. These folks got away with this three years ago when they did $300,000 in improvements and the plan checkers missed the accessibility upgrade requirements (go figure). It worked out that they submitted exactly 3 days past the three year limit for aggregate improvements to this area. We determined that we would go from submittal date to submittal date for computing aggregate improvements and accessibility upgrades. They actually would have had to do all of the upgrades anyway, even if we allowed them to reduce their valuation based on equipment exclusions........

We are still arguing over other things.....just about everything we wrote them up for in our first plan check pass, even with complete code cites and quotes, they continue to argue to try to get out of compliance................it must really be hard out there if a multi-million dollar, international company is fighting this hard to avoid ANY expense that they have not already counted on. I think the consultant is being embarrassed.


----------



## Alias (Oct 29, 2009)

Re: Valuation and hardship

'The bigger they are, the harder they fight' seems to be the rule of thumb.

I would require accessibility to the facility, period.  My favorite argument when I'm dealing with a recalcitrant business owner is that if they don't do it, will they be able to pay if a lawsuit for discrimination is filed by a disgruntled customer/employee?

Sue


----------



## Gene Boecker (Oct 29, 2009)

Re: Valuation and hardship

Here 'ya go go Wayne.  Since you copied your original post from the ICC page, I'll copy my *"dumb*" response:

  :x



> hate to start out like this - but 1134B2.1, exception #1 is overly complicated.  They should have left about half of it out.  It needs to be based on some cost estimate and they use most of the text to address how you get that cost.  That's not the critical part.  What's critical is how you measure that 20 percent.In evaluating the 20 percent, find out what the cost of construction is without any alterations for accessibility.  That's called the denominator.  Then take 20 percent of that number.  The number includes ALL the work of construction including built-ins.  It does not include consumables like paperclips, chairs, etc.  It would include built-in casework and fabrication equipment though.
> 
> The issue is about a proportional cost of what it takes to do the work.  Furniture and paperclips could be taken from another building and moved in but you can't operate without the fabrication equipment.  So the spray booth counts.  This is teh intent as I have seen it applied in California.  It's not necessarily what is done by the DoJ when they evaluate the 20 percent rule.
> 
> The cost for accessibility alterations can be up to 20 percent of the cost to do the work without accessibility upgrades.  Does that make sense?


----------



## earshavewalls (Nov 3, 2009)

Re: Valuation and hardship

The "dumb" part was that your response did not address the question, only the simple, obvious portion of minimum 20% compliance. That wasn't the issue. The issue is what to include in the valuation of a project when determining the level of compliance and the application of a 'hardship'.

I posted on a few of the Communities and the majority of responses were from ICC staff trying to fill the pages. I assumed that your post was one of these. All of the responses I got from the ICC staff were generic and did not address the issue, simply filled lines on the page, sorry I mistook your response for one of theirs.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 3, 2009)

Re: Valuation and hardship



			
				earshavewalls said:
			
		

> The "dumb" part was that your response did not address the question, only the simple, obvious portion of minimum 20% compliance. That wasn't the issue. The issue is what to include in the valuation of a project when determining the level of compliance and the application of a 'hardship'.I posted on a few of the Communities and the majority of responses were from ICC staff trying to fill the pages. I assumed that your post was one of these. All of the responses I got from the ICC staff were generic and did not address the issue, simply filled lines on the page, sorry I mistook your response for one of theirs.


If someone has $300,000 to spend, how can they claim a hardship?


----------

