# Cutting codes to cut costs of construction



## Coder (Jan 10, 2019)

I have been given the task of figuring out what code provisions can be amended out in an effort to "break down the barriers of affordable housing" as one council member stated. The consultants that were hired to get paid a bunch of money from the City to tell us where we can begin to get rid of the barriers immediately went to the fire sprinkler requirements. The Fire Marshal and I wholeheartedly disagreed. We both think that we should take a hard look at the energy code requirements instead. For our area it comes down to getting rid of overkill high R-values that basically dictate rigid and spray foam plastics (this along with todays light weight construction materials consisting of a bunch of "was wood" make sprinklers even more important!), blower door testing, mandatory whole house mechanical ventilation, etc. We believe that these could all be ways to reduce the expense of new construction. We would rather see a reduction of the requirements of a non- life safety "green" happy feel good code than take away automatic fire sprinklers to save money instead of saving lives. Thoughts?


----------



## linnrg (Jan 10, 2019)

add up all of the permitting and fees - from development (subdivision), Utility, planning/zoning. building/fire and you are going to get the biggest figure (cost)
You will also get a big cost if you combine sprinklers, AFCI's, blower door tests, higher insulation values, new solar requirements, etc.


----------



## steveray (Jan 10, 2019)

The energy code saves money in the long run which is part of being "affordable" (ongoing costs).....Sprinklers save not much...99.62% survival rate with HW smokes and CO...%99.88 with RFS....

Let them build tiny houses?


----------



## Coder (Jan 10, 2019)

Thanks for the reply. Where did you get those stats from?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 10, 2019)

Affordable housing is a term that is used to describe a forever moving number based on economics not building codes and development fees so much. If I can develop a
300 unit subdivision for cost of $15,000 per lot and sell them all within a year for $20,000 per lot I made a nice profit. However if it takes 5 years to sell all my lots and the market has doubled the price of a lot to $40,000 will anybody in their right mind still be selling them at $20,000? Same scenario applies to building a home if you eliminate all code requirements similar to the rural areas of my state the price for the exact same home out in the rural area built by the same builder will be the same or higher as the home he built in the city with code requirements and permit and impact fees. Why because that is how a free market works. It is not the responsibility of government to provide ways to build affordable housing or a path to affordable housing. Job markets, wages and where you choose to live determine what an individual can afford in the way of housing.


----------



## cda (Jan 10, 2019)

Trash all codes,

Than start taking pictures of what is built, and post them here after you show the good city higher ups.

I would insert a few places for examples, but I am on that political correctness train right now.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 10, 2019)

Coder, that's very interesting that your powers might think the codes are the culprit in high cost of construction.  After you've cut all these cost how does the community keep the landowner from taking the savings when they increase the cost of land to the developer or builder?  The housing price most likely will not decrease?  How are they controlling the building material cost, did they lower the sales tax rates? Have they looked at giving the permit fees away? Builders like that one!  

What's Public Works Department changing to make housing more affordable? Are they eliminating stop signs or changing the types of curbs or putting sidewalks on one side instead of both sides to cut the cost to the developer, which in turn could reduce the cost of the house, ...right?

Is the City Council requiring a percentage of the housing to be set at lower cost like they do in ski resort towns in Colorado? Aspen comes to mind.

My suggestion: Might look at adopting the 2009 IECC, no blower door test and the R-values are reasonable and would save some $$. Shouldn't affect the ISO insurance ratings that much. 

Have they looked at eliminating the building department and using third party inspections, "Did I say that out loud?"


----------



## Coder (Jan 10, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> My suggestion: Might look at adopting the 2009 IECC, no blower door test and the R-values are reasonable and would save some $$. Shouldn't affect the ISO insurance ratings that much.


That is one thought that crossed my mind.


----------



## cda (Jan 10, 2019)

Does someone need to set down 

Run an average house through the process

And see what are all the costs the city puts on a project

Lay it out on the computer screen


As part of that include land costs

And cost of the house itself



Might find out the city has very little impact on the total


----------



## cda (Jan 10, 2019)

Does your city allow the mini houses like Salida???


----------



## Coder (Jan 10, 2019)

Won't be long now.


----------



## Coder (Jan 10, 2019)

cda said:


> Does your city allow the mini houses like Salida???


Not yet. HUD manufactured homes with the "arctic package" could start to become pretty popular around here though. No IRC or IECC to deal with and you can get one delivered and installed in an empty mobile home park lot for under 100k.


----------



## cda (Jan 10, 2019)

https://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/16/salida-community-tiny-homes-housing-crunch/


----------



## cda (Jan 10, 2019)

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/910-J-St-G-2-Salida-CO-81201/2088380182_zpid/


----------



## Coder (Jan 10, 2019)

I like it! For the right person (my single mother in-law comes to mind) this would be perfect. This is exactly where our zoning regulations for existing MH Parks need to be heading. Kudos to Salida for thinking outside the box.


----------



## steveray (Jan 10, 2019)

Coder said:


> Thanks for the reply. Where did you get those stats from?



NFPA study from 2014 maybe....I probably lost it when I changed jobs but I will look for the link....NFPA buried it pretty good...


----------



## cda (Jan 10, 2019)

Coder said:


> I like it! For the right person (my single mother in-law comes to mind) this would be perfect. This is exactly where our zoning regulations for existing MH Parks need to be heading. Kudos to Salida for thinking outside the box.




Well the person’s in charge should allow them in neighbor hoods

If they are so into affordable housing

Sounds like mobile home park is segergation


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 10, 2019)

Park Models less than 400 sq ft are built to the ANSI standards for recreational vehicles. You need to find models that are over 400 sq ft and built to HUD standards to be legal to use as a home. Chariot is one manufacturer that has HUD park models more they are between 400 and 500 sq ft. 
As always check your state laws first.

*910 J St # G-2*
*Salida, CO 81201*
*1 bed 1 bath 391 sqft*
 FOR SALE
$88,500
$Get pre-qualified
Own a brand new Park Model / Tiny home in a quiet park at 910 J Street. Great location just 2 blocks from elementary school and a short walk along the bike path to downtown Salida and the Arkansas River. G-2 is a brand new Athens Park Model 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath, 391 S.F. with many upgrades including a large covered side deck, 2x6 floor and 2x4 wall construction, low-e windows and updated insulation. Good size bedroom and bathroom. Bright and open kitchen and living area; tile floors throughout home. Kitchen features full size gas range/oven and refrigerator. Washer/Dryer hookups, storage shed and small side yard. On-site park manager helps ensure a quiet and safe neighborhood, all units are owner occupied, cats ok but no dogs. Homes have many additional upgrades - see attached list. Park Model Recreational Vehicle designed only for recreational use, *and not for use as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy.*


----------



## steveray (Jan 11, 2019)

Really.....You can BUY a house that doesn't allow dogs?....'Merica...


----------



## Mark K (Jan 11, 2019)

What state are you located in?

What has the state legislature said regarding building codes?

Many individuals mistakenly believe that Cities have more autonomy than they really do.


----------



## Coder (Jan 11, 2019)

steveray said:


> NFPA study from 2014 maybe....I probably lost it when I changed jobs but I will look for the link....NFPA buried it pretty good...


No worries. You don't have to. Thanks,


----------



## Coder (Jan 11, 2019)

Mark K said:


> What state are you located in?
> 
> What has the state legislature said regarding building codes?
> 
> Many individuals mistakenly believe that Cities have more autonomy than they really do.


Colorado and yes there is a house bill 07-1146 that states an energy code shall be adopted. Amendments can be made as long a it doesnt lessen the effectiveness of the code.


----------



## Coder (Jan 11, 2019)

We are now looking at ways that we can cut costs to the permittees internally. Lower permit fees, less tax, lower tap fees, etc.


----------



## jeffc (Jan 11, 2019)

As for reducing the energy code requirements, it looks like Salida's average low in January is 13 degrees. If the resulting energy code savings take 5 -10 years to pay for themselves and the house is expected to last 50 years, that is 40 - 45 years of positive cash flow for the owners.


----------



## Coder (Jan 14, 2019)

Also considering replacing the R and U value prescriptive tables of the 2015 IECC with the 2009 IECC tables. I know that there are other ways to demonstrate compliance besides the prescriptive path but the contractors around here like the simplicity of prescribed R-values. The cost saving is in the materials needed to adhere to the table.


----------



## jeffc (Jan 14, 2019)

On my own projects, I usually use less window area than the prescriptive path is designed for. Using the component performance path, I have been able to reduce the floor insulation and joist depth with a crawlspace house and on another project, eliminated perimeter foam on a slab on grade. The projects complied with the energy code and I was more than happy to save on construction costs.


----------



## Coder (Jan 15, 2019)

Should probably move this thread to the Residential Energy Code forum.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 15, 2019)

steveray said:


> NFPA study from 2014 maybe....I probably lost it when I changed jobs but I will look for the link....NFPA buried it pretty good...



I believe you are right.

How does the councilor know that this is a problem that needs solved? 

To evaluate sprinklers, we have to look at the expected performance of a building during a fire. For most housing, the expectation is that the building will burn to the ground. We know this when there are no fire separations required, you have interconnected floor spaces connecting multiple stories, and there are no facilities to allow fire fighters to fight the fire from within the building. With this in mind, the intentions of most codes is for life safety only for single family residential.

To look at what best helps in a fire, you first look at what occupants were doing during the fire. Most deaths are when people are sleeping (also from a NFPA study), which means the fact that there is a fire isn't the problem. The problem is that there is a fire the occupant doesn't know about. A better solution might be advanced detection and notification. 

We had a builder who was building a nice front end split for about 250000. Thats a good price for a single family dwelling here. He has moved into the 350000 market because he was having trouble selling the cheaper houses. My point is, it's all good saying you need "affordable housing", but if the market won't support it, I have to question if it is really needed. Look at your own market. How many builders do you have building a house that meets the minimum code with few, if any, upgrades? This should give you a good idea if this is actually something the market wants or not.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 15, 2019)

Coder said:


> Should probably move this thread to the Residential Energy Code forum.



Done, it is there, and it will be here for 2 days, then disappear from this forum.


----------



## conarb (Jan 15, 2019)

fatboy said:


> Done, it is there, and it will be here for 2 days, then disappear from this forum.



Why, the subject is "cutting codes to cut costs of construction", somehow we zeroed in on two of the most useless and expensive codes, Green and fire-sprinklers, we can get rid opf a lot more codes and code provisions without impacting health and life safety.

We sent Jim Brown to Washington to try to clean up the corrupt codes, he has come back to admit that he's "drunk the Koolaid", he also admits that most everything the ICC does is at the direction of the corrupt U.S. Government. 

Codes have driven the costs of construction well beyond the ability of most people to pay.


----------



## conarb (Jan 15, 2019)

Here in California the new governor wants to build 3.5 million new homes, the workers are going to be, for the most part, incompetent, we need new reasonable codes:


			
				East Bay Times said:
			
		

> Gov. Gavin Newsom has said he wants to build as many as 3.5 million new houses by 2025 to solve California’s housing crisis.
> 
> But those ambitious goals could be derailed without hundreds of thousands of new construction workers needed to dramatically accelerate the pace of California home building, even assuming that cities agree to zone for more housing and there’s money available to build it all. And it’s hard to imagine, given recent trends, where that many additional workers in the low-wage, high-risk industry would come from.
> 
> ...



The most expensive line item in residential construction is the costs of permits and other government fees, eliminate government fees and allow private inspection. I've told of my lawyer friend who jsut build a new $2.7 million retirement home in Nevada, total permit fees and private inspection were just over $3,000 as opposed to around $200,000 here over the hill/


¹ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/0...s-threatened-by-construction-worker-shortage/


----------



## RJJ (Jan 15, 2019)

Everyone remember it is a minimum code!


----------



## Coder (Jan 15, 2019)

Seems like the energy code has gone to the maximum instead of the minimum (at least for climate zones 7&8). That is why we are discussing going back in time a bit to when the requirements were reasonable.


----------



## Keystone (Jan 15, 2019)

Residential wallboard inspection, not sure about you but I have had one handful of inspections fail and it was due to them not being ready. What about replacing this inspection with an affidavit from the responsible party, dated, print and signed. Indicating material placed, method of fastening, material to do so and spacing. A simple one page form you generate could become the affidavit. 

The exception to this would be if the wallboard is part of a braced wall assembly and without question core walls.


----------



## Coder (Jan 15, 2019)

I could see dropping the drywall (wallboard) inspection. Kind of a waste of time unless it is for an important feature of the building. Don't see how that is going to save money on construction though. We do not charge a "per inspection" fee.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 15, 2019)

Getting rid of an inspection does not save money. Maybe a little bit of time in the summer months but here in the winter they will have the heat on for 24 hours before the finishers can work.

Get rid of the continuous insulation requirement for one and two family dwellings. The added cost for adding backing for door and window trim and extending door bucks cost more than the insulation and it adds very little to the energy savings. My state is 3rd in the lowest energy cost in the nation so some of the requirements have a 40 year payback.  
*The Cheapest States for Utilities*
10. Wisconsin ($390.65)
9. Arkansas ($388.28)
8. South Dakota ($382.57)
7. Oregon ($381.30)
6. Louisiana ($380.79)
5. Nevada ($376.93)
4. Washington ($369.18)
3. Montana ($359.03)
2. Utah ($350.17)
1. Idaho ($343.71)


----------



## conarb (Jan 15, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Getting rid of an inspection does not save money. Maybe a little bit of time in the summer months but here in the winter they will have the heat on for 24 hours before the finishers can work.
> 
> Get rid of the continuous insulation requirement for one and two family dwellings. The added cost for adding backing for door and window trim and extending door bucks cost more than the insulation and it adds very little to the energy savings. My state is 3rd in the lowest energy cost in the nation so some of the requirements have a 40 year payback.
> *The Cheapest States for Utilities*
> ...



Its' not the cost, the state has no business telling a man how much energy he can use, that's tyranny.  The Green Code is a political code, that new socialist congresswoman Alexandra Occasio Cortez has campaigned on a new Green Bill of Rights, she is an avowed Socialist.  

In today's paper there is an article about the Mayor of San Francisco wanting to provide emergency shelter for the homeless:



			
				San Francisco Chronicle said:
			
		

> Allowing shelters to proceed without building permits also means that city departments could avoid paying fees to one another, which is common during the permitting process. That would allow more money to be spent directly on homeless services.
> 
> “It’s not like anyone’s cutting corners. We make sure it’s secure and safe, but at the same time you don’t have to do the long line of waiting,” said Shari Wooldridge, executive director of the St. Vincent de Paul Society of San Francisco, which operates several homeless shelters in the city. “It’s an emergency situation, so you want to move a little quicker. Sometimes the bureaucracy gets separated from the humanity a little bit.”
> 
> ...



Getting rid of the stupid bureaucracy and red tape would be a good start. 


¹ https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...would-cut-red-tape-help-homeless-13533569.php


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 15, 2019)

conarb said:


> the state has no business telling a man how much energy he can use,


The state doesn't, the people that can afford it install a snow melt system on their driveways that can be 600 feet long and let them run throughout the winter whether they are there or not. Outdoor Hot tubes and patio heaters are all over the place up here.

I agree the energy codes as written are over the top for one and two family dwellings.


----------



## conarb (Jan 15, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> The state doesn't, the people that can afford it install a snow melt system on their driveways that can be 600 feet long and let them run throughout the winter whether they are there or not. Outdoor Hot tubes and patio heaters are all over the place up here.
> 
> I agree the energy codes as written are over the top for one and two family dwellings.



In a free country people nave a right to heat their driveways and hot tubs if they are willing to pay for it.

The problem here is the stupid ICC, there was a time here that most of us were against them, Jim went to Washington to clean up the mess when the ICBO changed to the ICC and spent triple the going rent on a "Green" headquarters in Washington, we need to get rid of the ICC and get back to something like the ICBO, if that's even possible, if San Francisco can get rid or permits and codes why can't the rest of us?  Building permits have become nothing but taxes.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 16, 2019)

Building permits fees that are kept exclusively to operate a building department (special revenue fund) to cover the cost associated specifically with that department only are not taxes but fees for services rendered. It sounds like you live in an area that does not operate that way an I agree the fees can get out of hand. 
Our permit fees do not exceed 2% of the cost of the building. We do not include any cost that are outside the foundation such as driveways, parking lots, landscaping sidewalks etc.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 16, 2019)

Coder, Some lady in Colorado had all the windows in her house replaced with new triple-insulated energy-efficient windows. Twelve months pass and she gets an irate call from the installer complaining that they haven't been paid for the job or received the first payment.  The young lady replies, "Now, don't try to pull a fast one on me!" The salesman who sold me those windows told me that in one year they would pay for themselves! 

I think the newer energy code is a bit too much to swallow with requiring blower test and additional insulation when it's not needed and that's one reason to stayed with the 2009 IECC. 

I really don't have a problem with a little heat escaping the heat runs in a basement, but we now require the joints to be sealed. Dollars up front by the contractor but may not be saving any $$ on energy by the homeowner. 

But jacking with the thermostat and house air changes, sounds like the EPA and other agencies have found their way into the codes and it's not about safety anymore, IMO.

There was a proposal to reduce water flow rates again, a 1.5 toilet sometimes need another flush. At some point the solids will not go down the line and the plumber will be called to dig up the front yard sewer line, where's the savings in that?


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 16, 2019)

I don't know why you think 3rd party inspectors are cheaper. I'm 3rd party and I make more than the inspectors make in a city near by plus the company I work for makes a profit. The local government is not allowed to make a profit on permits. Also get to use the company car for anything I want but the city guys don't. And they have to pay to park there own cars. We charge about 2% of the cost of construction.

Land cost more around here than construction cost of a ordinary house. Especially where they have strict zoning laws that require a house to be on so much land and try to "zone out" townhouses, trailer parks and apartments. Also I forget what it is called but they have a scheme where if a property owner promises to keep a area "open" by not developing it, they get a big break on real estate taxes. Farmers take advantage of this. So if someone buys the land later and wants to develop it they have to pay back all the back taxes that the previous owner saved. All these things just makes land more expensive for the whole area.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 16, 2019)

Energy codes are not just to save the home owner money but when they need to build more electrical plants everyone pays more.

Years ago the local utility needed more power and said if they built a nuclear power plant it would save money for the utility and it's customers. Before that I would only got an electric bill every other month. Right after they built it i started getting bills every month for the same amount as the every other month bills.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 16, 2019)

You beat me to it Rick
It's not about saving energy for the sake of conservation.
It's about, not Building new power plants, not damming up the fishing streams to build new hydro plant reservoirs.
It's about, not Building new Coal power plants, polluting the Air.

Some old farts don't care they will be dead soon, others care about our kids and grandkids.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 16, 2019)

If it is about not building new power plants then why the push for electric vehicles?
Where do you think the power will come from to recharge them, and the demand for quick charging stations will require a huge amount of electricity.
What is your solution for fueling a power plant? Nuclear, gas, hydro and coal are the only consistent reliable methods currently available.   
Wind and solar are not consistent or reliable and there are a lot of NIMBY out there who believe wind farms and solar panel farms are noisy and ugly .

Electrify America, a subsidiary of VW, announced earlier this year that it plans to install EV charging stations at more than 100 Walmarts in 34 states. ChargePoint, which operates one of the world’s largest charging station networks, said it is targeting a nearly 50-fold increase by the middle of the next decade: 2.5 million charging stalls by 2025, up from a network of around 53,000 currently.


----------



## Coder (Jan 16, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Coder, Some lady in Colorado had all the windows in her house replaced with new triple-insulated energy-efficient windows. Twelve months pass and she gets an irate call from the installer complaining that they haven't been paid for the job or received the first payment. The young lady replies, "Now, don't try to pull a fast one on me!" The salesman who sold me those windows told me that in one year they would pay for themselves!


Ha! Good one!


----------



## JCraver (Jan 16, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> Energy codes are not just to save the home owner money but when they need to build more electrical plants everyone pays more.
> 
> Years ago the local utility needed more power and said if they built a nuclear power plant it would save money for the utility and it's customers. Before that I would only got an electric bill every other month. Right after they built it i started getting bills every month for the same amount as the every other month bills.





mark handler said:


> You beat me to it Rick
> It's not about saving energy for the sake of conservation.
> It's about, not Building new power plants, not damming up the fishing streams to build new hydro plant reservoirs.
> It's about, not Building new Coal power plants, polluting the Air.
> ...




Talk about drinking the kool-aid...  You guys drank the whole gallon!


Let me ask you a question:  Is there an exception in any energy-related law or in any energy code in either of your states/jurisdictions that exempts an off-grid property owner from said energy regulations?  In other words, can I buy a piece of land in your town, pay the taxes on it, and then take care of my own well and my own power generation and not have to follow your energy code?  "No", you say?  Well then, there's your answer. 

The energy codes have f*^%-all to do with energy.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 16, 2019)

It's about the reduction of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere. Regardless of you beliefs in global warming, no one I know of can breath carbon monoxide. 



JCraver said:


> Let me ask you a question:  Is there an exception in any energy-related law or in any energy code in either of your states/jurisdictions that exempts an off-grid property owner from said energy regulations?  In other words, can I buy a piece of land in your town, pay the taxes on it, and then take care of my own well and my own power generation and not have to follow your energy code?  "No", you say?  Well then, there's your answer.
> 
> The energy codes have f*^%-all to do with energy.



I have designed net zero buildings and the reality is that if you want an "off the grid" building, you will be far and above the energy code for that climate zone. The alternative is to install significantly more site generation at an extremely high cost in comparison to the insulation requirements. I would hope no one is that crazy, but whatever floats your boat.

We actually had a net zero building recently that we waived a couple provisions of the energy code because they were so significantly over in other areas.

This is no different than when public places started to go non smoking. All the smokers get up in arms over their "right" to smoke, but no one thinks about the non-smoker being forced to breath in cigarette smoke. You want to use as much energy as you want? I don't care. You want to pollute my air to do it? I don't think so.


----------



## steveray (Jan 16, 2019)

We exempt the envelope:

(Amd) N1102.1 (R402.1) General (Prescriptive). The building thermal envelope shall meet the
requirements of Sections N1102.1.1 through N1102.1.5.
Exception: The following low energy buildings, or portions thereof, separated from the
remainder of the building by building thermal envelope assemblies complying with this section
shall be exempt from the building thermal envelope provisions of Section N1102.
1. Those with a peak design rate of energy usage less than 3.4 Btu/h · ft2 (10.7 W/m2) or 1.0
watt/ft2 of floor area for space conditioning purposes.
2. Those that do not contain conditioned space.
3. Buildings and structures for which heating and cooling is supplied solely by utilization of
nonpurchased renewable energy sources including but not limited to, on-site wind, on-site
water or on-site solar power, or wood-burning heating appliances that do not rely on
backup heat from other purchased, nonrenewable sources.


JCraver said:


> Talk about drinking the kool-aid...  You guys drank the whole gallon!
> 
> 
> Let me ask you a question:  Is there an exception in any energy-related law or in any energy code in either of your states/jurisdictions that exempts an off-grid property owner from said energy regulations?  In other words, can I buy a piece of land in your town, pay the taxes on it, and then take care of my own well and my own power generation and not have to follow your energy code?  "No", you say?  Well then, there's your answer.
> ...


----------



## tmurray (Jan 16, 2019)

Is there an actual cost comparison of a energy code compliant one to one that isn't?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 16, 2019)

Well Coder we've determined that you can save some dollars not adopting any newer IECC's, how bout rolling back your permit fees? Do you use a fee like Appendix-L, try adjusting the figures a bit or suggest giving the permit fee away and only charge the essentials, water and sewer hook ups and EDU fees. 

Try offering 10 free permits with City Council approval,  minimum of two per applicant or some kind of gimmick like that. That would be your city trying to help the little builder out? you'll be a hero. Could you imagine Conarb getting a free permit in CA, he'd probably give some government employee a big "ol" sloppy kiss, with tongue!


----------



## Coder (Jan 16, 2019)

How about free permits and no energy codes for a summer? I guarantee the contractors would happier than pigs in mud and still build to a level of acceptable energy efficiency/insulation/air sealing and space conditioning.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 16, 2019)

tmurray said:


> no one I know of can breath carbon monoxide


No you can't breathe it but you need it to produce oxygen that you do breathe and to promote plant and crop growth. Remember it is called *Photosynthesis *



Schematic of photosynthesis in plants. The carbohydrates produced are stored in or used by the plant.


----------



## steveray (Jan 16, 2019)

I can breathe CO and CO2....Just not straight. I like mine on the rocks with an O2 chaser...


----------



## Coder (Jan 16, 2019)

Love it when someone calls and say's my combination smoke and CO2 alarm is going off. duh


----------



## mark handler (Jan 16, 2019)

Energy conservation is the effort made to reduce the consumption of energy by using less of an energy service
Energy conservation reduces the need for energy services and can result in increased environmental quality,


----------



## Coder (Jan 16, 2019)

I am mastering the art of conserving energy since I started this career. I could also stand to lose about 20 lbs!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 16, 2019)

Underwriters probably have more requirements that will drive up the cost of construction than the codes do.
Codes do not require floor covering you can have OSB
Codes do not require you trim a house out
Codes do not require you install interior doors
Codes do not require expensive counter tops
Building codes do not require paved driveways, landscaping or that a garage or carport be provided

However try to sell a home with none of that and you will not be able to get financing.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 17, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> No you can't breathe it but you need it to produce oxygen that you do breathe and to promote plant and crop growth. Remember it is called *Photosynthesis *
> 
> 
> 
> Schematic of photosynthesis in plants. The carbohydrates produced are stored in or used by the plant.


Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are not the same thing.


----------



## Flexo (Jan 17, 2019)

Our municipality adopted the IECC standards of zone 1. We are actually in zone 3.


----------



## Coder (Jan 17, 2019)

Flexo said:


> Our municipality adopted the IECC standards of zone 1. We are actually in zone 3.


I like that idea! Lower zone/same code. brilliant! Doesn't do much for the 6,7,8 Zones though. Dang.


----------



## conarb (Jan 17, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> I don't know why you think 3rd party inspectors are cheaper. I'm 3rd party and I make more than the inspectors make in a city near by plus the company I work for makes a profit. The local government is not allowed to make a profit on permits. Also get to use the company car for anything I want but the city guys don't. And they have to pay to park there own cars. We charge about 2% of the cost of construction.
> 
> Land cost more around here than construction cost of a ordinary house. Especially where they have strict zoning laws that require a house to be on so much land and try to "zone out" townhouses, trailer parks and apartments. Also I forget what it is called but they have a scheme where if a property owner promises to keep a area "open" by not developing it, they get a big break on real estate taxes. Farmers take advantage of this. So if someone buys the land later and wants to develop it they have to pay back all the back taxes that the previous owner saved. All these things just makes land more expensive for the whole area.
> 
> ...



I'm basing this on my lawyer's experience in Nevada, $2.7 million retirement home, $3,000 permit fee, architect was allowed to do all inspections which he charged very little for. 

Land costs are more here too, that's because fo zoning regulations. 

Building more electrical plants is a function of overpopulation, cut the population. look at books like Ehrlich's Population Bomb¹, Meadows Limits to Growth², and Ehrlich's and Holdren's Ecoscience.³  BTW, John Holdren was Obama's Science and technology Tsar all eight years. 



¹ https://www.amazon.com/Population-B...id=1547745156&sr=1-2&keywords=population+bomb

² https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growt...PKVFRAV2PDM&psc=1&refRID=WZG35WN91PKVFRAV2PDM

³ https://www.amazon.com/Ecoscience-P...e=UTF8&qid=1547745562&sr=1-1&keywords=holdren


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 17, 2019)

conarb said:


> Building more electrical plants is a function of overpopulation, cut the population. look at books like Ehrlich's Population Bomb¹, Meadows Limits to Growth², and Ehrlich's and Holdren's Ecoscience.³ BTW, John Holdren was Obama's Science and technology Tsar all eight years.



I would not agree. Building more electrical plants is a sign of needing more power. Hot tubs are installed, Walmarts and water parks are built even without any rise of population rise. PA population has gone down but they didn't shut off any power plants but have built new ones.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 17, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Well Coder we've determined that you can save some dollars not adopting any newer IECC's, how bout rolling back your permit fees? Do you use a fee like Appendix-L, try adjusting the figures a bit or suggest giving the permit fee away and only charge the essentials, water and sewer hook ups and EDU fees.
> 
> Try offering 10 free permits with City Council approval,  minimum of two per applicant or some kind of gimmick like that. That would be your city trying to help the little builder out? you'll be a hero. Could you imagine Conarb getting a free permit in CA, he'd probably give some government employee a big "ol" sloppy kiss, with tongue!



Would not work here. 3rd party inspectors won't work for free


----------



## conarb (Jan 17, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> Would not work here. 3rd party inspectors won't work for free


He said that the permit cost $3,000, he paid for it.   He also said that the choice fo municipal inspection or private, he chose private and the architect handled it, I asked twice how much the inspections cost and he said it was so little he didn't even remember.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 17, 2019)

conarb said:


> He said that the permit cost $3,000, he paid for it.   He also said that the choice fo municipal inspection or private, he chose private and the architect handled it, I asked twice how much the inspections cost and he said it was so little he didn't even remember.



Not sure how it works there but there the $3,000 for the building permit would include all inspections by a 3rd party and the home owner would not pay anything more. Also here I never herd of an architect that has the certifications do a code inspection.

Different strokes for different states


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 17, 2019)

Coder, I'm curious, do you charge for a plan review fee, and if you do, is there a charge again for the same house plan even if it's flipped?


----------



## Coder (Jan 17, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Coder, I'm curious, do you charge for a plan review fee, and if you do, is there a charge again for the same house plan even if it's flipped?


Yes there is a plan review fee. 30% of permit fee residential 65% commercial. If the same set of plans (flipped/mirrored/etc.) gets turned in for the same project more than once then the plan review fee is $100. I can also waive the plan review fee altogether depending on what it is.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 17, 2019)

Plan review fee could be looked at to reduce construction cost. I do the plan review here but don't charge the fee. 

You could do a flat fee for the review?


----------



## fatboy (Jan 17, 2019)

We are at 55% of the permit fee, rewrites are $50.


----------



## conarb (Jan 17, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> Not sure how it works there but there the $3,000 for the building permit would include all inspections by a 3rd party and the home owner would not pay anything more. Also here I never herd of an architect that has the certifications do a code inspection.
> 
> Different strokes for different states



Rick:

I'm comparing that to the Bay Area, the last comparable I built I paid around $100,000 plus another $50,000 in Special Inspection fees, and to get it through in a little over two years I left up a part of the old house incorporating into what looked like a new home.  

Red tape is a major problem, I could permit a home over the counter in the 50s and 60s, now its' several years unless you play games like calling it a remodel, in today's paper:



			
				East Bay Times said:
			
		

> Recent California reforms designed to make it easier to build granny flats — one fix to ease the housing crisis — have not gone far enough to overcome local bureaucracy and neighborhood opposition, housing advocates say.
> 
> But supporters of the small, relatively cheap rentals known as accessory dwelling units are aiming to bolster state law and nudge cities toward more permissive building codes.
> 
> ...





¹ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/01/17/building-a-bay-area-granny-flat-still-challenging/


----------



## steveray (Jan 18, 2019)

Granny flats are not a building code restriction.....ZONING....


----------



## conarb (Jan 18, 2019)

steveray said:


> Granny flats are not a building code restriction.....ZONING....



I keep saying this but to us on the bright side it's not just the building code, but anything the evil government doers to us.  As a matter of fact getting permits for whatever reason is a function of the building department, it's through their door.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 18, 2019)

conarb said:


> I'm basing this on my lawyer's experience in Nevada, $2.7 million retirement home, $3,000 permit fee, architect was allowed to do all inspections which he charged very little for.



I think it is a conflict of interest for the designer to do all of the official code inspections on a project they designed.  We see mistakes on a daily basis by architects, engineers and contractors.  A second or third set of eyes, especially a set of eyes that does not have a pony in the race so to speak.  So, if the architect did all of the inspections, why was there a $3,000 permit fee?  What services were performed for that money?


----------



## conarb (Jan 18, 2019)

jar546 said:


> I think it is a conflict of interest for the designer to do all of the official code inspections on a project they designed.  We see mistakes on a daily basis by architects, engineers and contractors.  A second or third set of eyes, especially a set of eyes that does not have a pony in the race so to speak.  So, if the architect did all of the inspections, why was there a $3,000 permit fee?  What services were performed for that money?



His words to me were:  "I had a choice of County inspection or private inspection, I chose private inspection and the a architect took care of everything,"  I asked:  "How much did inspection cost", his response was: "It was so minimal that I didn't; even notice", it could by that the architect hired the inspectors.  As to what the $3,000 fee was for I would assume the same as the 100s of thousands I pay here, the last home I built the fees were about $100,000, Special Inspections about $80.000, the field inspector made 5 visits of less than an hour each, he did return once the next day with an 8x11 sheet with a County ordinance on it, he apologized for missing it but explained that the County had a special ordinance requiring 6" lips on propane pans, I had to tear out my 4 copper propane pans with 2" lips and have 4 more made with 6" lips.  Since Plan Check spent about two years on the plans, repeatedly calling in the architect, structural engineer, and soils engineer, it seems to me the pan lips were an error on the part of Plan Check, and error that cost me a couple of thousand dollars. 

Since anyone can get ICC certifications by taking open-book tests why not let contractors and or architects get their own certifications and avoid inspections altogether?


----------



## fatboy (Jan 19, 2019)

"Since anyone can get ICC certifications by taking open-book tests why not let contractors and or architects get their own certifications and avoid inspections altogether?"

Because for the most part they cut corners, ignore the requirements....do whatever they want to do......thus the need for inspections. 

Duh

Fox guarding the hen-house.............


----------



## conarb (Jan 19, 2019)

fatboy said:


> "Since anyone can get ICC certifications by taking open-book tests why not let contractors and or architects get their own certifications and avoid inspections altogether?"
> 
> Because for the most part they cut corners, ignore the requirements....do whatever they want to do......thus the need for inspections.
> 
> ...



If they had insurance their screw ups would be covered, with civil servants inspecting they always claim _sovereign immunity_, In the Nevada case above the owner was a construction deflects attorney, I asked him once         why he didn't subpoena city inspectors to testify in his cases, he said "building inspection never involved the important stuff."

In 1994 he won the biggest construction defects case ever, windows set in caulking found to comply with code by the inspector:



> In 1994 Jack was lead litigation counsel for plaintiff in the Pacific Park Plaza construction defect litigation which resulted in a $19,300,000 settlement, which at that time was the largest condominium construction defects settlement in California history. In 1999 Jack was lead plaintiff's counsel in the case of Montgomery Washington Homeowners Association construction defects litigation which resulted in a $1,300,000 verdict for plaintiff.
> 
> In 1996, he served on the Blue Ribbon Task Force on California's Home Construction Industry convened by Bill Lockyer, President Pro Tem of the California State Senate.¹



Be interesting to see how San Francisco's plan to eliminate permits and inspections on it's ADUs works out, if it works there maybe it's time to eliminate permits and inspections on all residential work. 


¹ http://bpbsllp.com/jack-provine


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 19, 2019)

My stepfather worked for an airline as an inspector and supervisor for over 36 years. 

Would you still fly if planes were not inspected when being overhauled?

Does the public want to buy a home that has not been inspected?

My realtor set home inspectors are deal killers, Conarb, you,d like him, simular opinions.


----------



## conarb (Jan 19, 2019)

This subject would have never come up had you guys fought the I Codes, we all sat and many fought the stupid fire-sprinklers seeing the fraud involved, section by section kept getting added and you did nothing about it going around measuring the heights of mirrors and signs, and now people are questioning all inspection and codes. Jim Brown went to Washington amid a lot of fanfare saying he was going to clean up the ICC, now he admits to having drunk the Kool-Aid.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 19, 2019)

Conarb, who's brain child was it to eliminate the other codes like the UBC and Southern Building Code and give the power to the ICC with an office in DC. Seems there's a lot of federal agencies getting involved with the code writing.


----------



## conarb (Jan 19, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Conarb, who's brain child was it to eliminate the other codes like the UBC and Southern Building Code and give the power to the ICC with an office in DC. Seems there's a lot of federal agencies getting involved with the code writing.



PC:

That's my gripe, I could tell something nefarious was afoot when they formed the ICC, then I was sure when they rented space in DC at triple the going cost in order to be in a Green building.  Codes are now political, enforcing  codes you are enforcing a political party's agenda.   Before he dropped out Uncle Bob gave me a personal phone call saying that he had it on good authority that the ICC would never let Jim Brown in, well Jim did get in, in his words "He drank the Kool Aid and hasn't cleaned up anything.  From what he says the ICC just does what the Feds tell them to do.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 20, 2019)

"Be interesting to see how San Francisco's plan to eliminate permits and inspections on it's ADUs works out, if it works there maybe it's time to eliminate permits and inspections on all residential work."

Not in this AHJ..........not under my watch.....


----------



## conarb (Jan 20, 2019)

fatboy said:


> "Be interesting to see how San Francisco's plan to eliminate permits and inspections on it's ADUs works out, if it works there maybe it's time to eliminate permits and inspections on all residential work."
> 
> Not in this AHJ..........not under my watch.....



Fatboy:

What's your solution?  I had to go into Oakland this morning and the situation is unbearable, people sleeping all over the place in tents, codes and regulations have gone mad, the primary problem is overpopulation and we've been warned about it for years, what are we going to do with all these homeless people?  

Number one I'd say is get entirely rid of the International codes, go back to about the 1994 UBC.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 20, 2019)

conarb said:


> Fatboy:
> 
> What's your solution?  I had to go into Oakland this morning and the situation is unbearable, people sleeping all over the place in tents, codes and regulations have gone mad, the primary problem is overpopulation and we've been warned about it for years, what are we going to do with all these homeless people?
> 
> Number one I'd say is get entirely rid of the International codes, go back to about the 1994 UBC.



I'd really like to see the fact based study that links building codes to homelessness.  The major causes of homelessness are:
1) Lack of affordable housing
2) Unemployment
3) Poverty
4) Low wages
5) Mental Illness
6) Substance abuse
7) Domestic violence

So yeah, lack of affordable housing but rigorous quantitative analyses indicate that codes increase housing costs by 5 percent or less.  One of the problems that I see is that Conarb is using unvetted examples from a specific area of the country, state and region, therefore his viewpoint of all codes is based on the bubble he lives in.


----------



## conarb (Jan 20, 2019)

jar546 said:


> So yeah, lack of affordable housing but rigorous quantitative analyses indicate that codes increase housing costs by 5 percent or less.  One of the problems that I see is that Conarb is using unvetted examples from a specific area of the country, state and region, therefore his viewpoint of all codes is based on the bubble he lives in.



I admit that, my dad had a new home built here in 1939, when WWII started there was an influx of "Oakies" that came here to work in the war industries, they homesteaded land and built tar paper shacks to live in, they somehow lived in them without dying in fires or earthquakes.  We had little government land, no  zoning regulations, and minimal code enforcement, there was a two lane road that was part of the "Victory Highway" system built after WWI, few cars traveled that road, now that road is a 10 lane freeway with frontage roads on each side, they are in the process now of creating toll lanes, all the raw land is now parks or some kind of public lands.   A few years ago my tile setter moved to Southern Oregon, he called to say it's just like it was in the Bay Area 50 years ago, he bought a few acres and can go down town and pick up a permit to build a home in a day.  

I want to make something clear, when you guys say code you mean building codes, when we on the bright side say codes and regulations we mean all codes and regulations accessed through the building department when we go in to get a permit.  When we had the sprinkler fights here the coalition brought on a guy from South Carolina who could install fire sprinklers for $2 a square foot, at the time I was permitting a new home and they came in at $25 a foot, copper required, snaking it up through clearstory ceilings as high as 40 feet in the air, 20,000 gallons of water storage on site.  BTW, everything we build we pay an "Affordable Housing Fee", it varies with the community but can be as much as whole homes in cheaper areas of the country.   If something isn't done the rest of the country will end up in a mess just like we are, we got this way gradually and I'm talking about what I've witnessed over the last 80 years. 

I don't want  International codes, what's wrong with going back to something reasonable like the 1994 UBC?


----------



## Coder (Jan 23, 2019)

1994 UBC? Wouldn't it would be nice if we could turn the clocks back on everything? Not happening.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 23, 2019)

It is about 15 years old and long but interesting paper

https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/cityscpe/vol8num1/ch2.pdf

Abstract This article examines whether and to what extent building codes affect housing costs. It first describes these technical provisions, then considers how building codes could theoretically affect housing costs, and finally analyzes empirical studies on the subject. While the latter are dated and suffer from other limitations, the more rigorous quantitative analyses indicate that codes increase housing costs by 5 percent or less. Further, building codes are in a state of flux and we need to examine how the current generation of regulations affects housing. Thus, building codes merit contemporary investigation; however, these regulations have much less impact on housing costs compared to other regulations such as zoning and subdivisions requirements.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 23, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> who's brain child was it to eliminate the other codes like the UBC and Southern Building Code and give the power to the ICC


My understanding is the feds where looking at developing a national building code which would have been a disaster so the model code groups saw the writing on the wall and decided to merge together  and develop one code


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 23, 2019)

One issue I see is we don't eliminate hardly any codes. A work receptacle comes to mind, why we require a receptacle on a roof top and a receptacle near an A/C unit when just about everyone in the trades are using battery powered tools. I'm sure someone will say we still need them but I'm sure there are some codes that can be removed.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 23, 2019)

I would think the the only extra cost because of the building codes would only be the cost of the permit and inspection. Because it should be built that way anyway even where they don't enforce codes..


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 23, 2019)

Long discussion, consider that total cost ='s land  (+) materials (+) labor (+) soft costs; reduce labor (as in Davis Bacon) and your costs drop while still maintaining safety and durability.


----------



## conarb (Jan 23, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> My understanding is the feds where looking at developing a national building code which would have been a disaster so the model code groups saw the writing on the wall and decided to merge together  and develop one code



That's what we were hearing at the time, but could it have been any worse than what we've got?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 23, 2019)

conarb said:


> but could it have been any worse than what we've got?


Absolutely it would be worse with no way to implement changes at the state or local level


----------



## Richard Kimball CBO CFM (Jan 24, 2019)

Coder said:


> I could see dropping the drywall (wallboard) inspection. Kind of a waste of time unless it is for an important feature of the building. Don't see how that is going to save money on construction though. We do not charge a "per inspection" fee.



I agree, drop the drywall inspection.   Not that it saves on inspection fees so much as it reduces delays, which cost money.  Remember "Time is Money".  The only drywall inspections that are required by code are when sheetrock is used for braced wall panels or when it is a UL Listed assembly.  All of the homes built in my jurisdiction are using the WSB method instead of the GB method for wall bracing.  I have eliminated the drywall inspection and replaced it with an exterior shear panel nailing inspection.  This allows for a preliminary framing inspection prior to installing housewrap which can prevent framing errors at an earlier stage of construction, again saving costs while improving compliance.


----------



## steveray (Jan 25, 2019)

WSB?.....BTW...CS-WSP requires the GWB on the inside typically, so would you be verifying that fastening?


----------



## tmurray (Jan 25, 2019)

The objective of a businesses is to generate as much profit as possible. Reduce the cost of construction and the market will keep paying the same and profits for businesses will increase.


----------



## Coder (Jan 25, 2019)

Richard Kimball CBO CFM said:


> I agree, drop the drywall inspection. Not that it saves on inspection fees so much as it reduces delays, which cost money. Remember "Time is Money". The only drywall inspections that are required by code are when sheetrock is used for braced wall panels or when it is a UL Listed assembly. All of the homes built in my jurisdiction are using the WSB method instead of the GB method for wall bracing. I have eliminated the drywall inspection and replaced it with an exterior shear panel nailing inspection. This allows for a preliminary framing inspection prior to installing housewrap which can prevent framing errors at an earlier stage of construction, again saving costs while improving compliance.


I am going to look at removing the typical drywall inspection from my list but I do have to say that I have seen some pretty crappy screw jobs over the years. I think that it is still a good idea to check on them every once in a while. Especially when it is a new outfit that doesn't know the drill. (pun intended)


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 25, 2019)

Caution: Where 5/8-inch Firecode drywall is required (the garage separation), that would be a concern. At some point you need to see the drywall edges to verify that the correct drywall was used with nail or screw patterns and or adhesive/screw/nail patterns. Might need to see pre-rock drywall behind a furnace?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 25, 2019)

Coder,
Not sure if your using any software that makes it easier for the trades or not, but time is money. Does a contractor have to wait on inspections or can he/she schedule inspections by using website software? A small investment by the city in technology might be proposed to save the contractor time. 

Could make a list of engineer inspections like footers, walls, drain tile and floors, give the contractor a list of qualified engineers that the AHJ will allow to do inspections and submit the reports to the AHJ. Some projects that can be inspected on the weekends provides a cost savings to a contractor not having to wait on you the Inspector on Monday?


----------



## Richard Kimball CBO CFM (Jan 25, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> I don't know why you think 3rd party inspectors are cheaper. I'm 3rd party and I make more than the inspectors make in a city near by plus the company I work for makes a profit. The local government is not allowed to make a profit on permits. Also get to use the company car for anything I want but the city guys don't. And they have to pay to park there own cars. We charge about 2% of the cost of construction.
> 
> Land cost more around here than construction cost of a ordinary house. Especially where they have strict zoning laws that require a house to be on so much land and try to "zone out" townhouses, trailer parks and apartments. Also I forget what it is called but they have a scheme where if a property owner promises to keep a area "open" by not developing it, they get a big break on real estate taxes. Farmers take advantage of this. So if someone buys the land later and wants to develop it they have to pay back all the back taxes that the previous owner saved. All these things just makes land more expensive for the whole area.


  I agree!  I have worked for private third party companies, government, and had my own third party company.  I only know of one governmental building department that is in the black financially and takes in more in fees than it cost to run the dept.  All other building departments operate at a loss while third party inspectors have to make a profit to remain in business.


----------



## Coder (Jan 25, 2019)

Yes the garage lids below living space will still need to be inspected and verified as complying. We fortunately do not have the volume of inspections that require electronic inspection requests. Most are performed the same day they are requested. Good thoughts though. Thanks!


----------



## Richard Kimball CBO CFM (Jan 25, 2019)

Richard Kimball CBO CFM said:


> I agree, drop the drywall inspection.   Not that it saves on inspection fees so much as it reduces delays, which cost money.  Remember "Time is Money".  The only drywall inspections that are required by code are when sheetrock is used for braced wall panels or when it is a UL Listed assembly.  All of the homes built in my jurisdiction are using the WSB method instead of the GB method for wall bracing.  I have eliminated the drywall inspection and replaced it with an exterior shear panel nailing inspection.  This allows for a preliminary framing inspection prior to installing housewrap which can prevent framing errors at an earlier stage of construction, again saving costs while improving compliance.


Yes, I had a typo. meant to type WSP, not WSB.


----------



## Richard Kimball CBO CFM (Jan 25, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Coder,
> Not sure if your using any software that makes it easier for the trades or not, but time is money. Does a contractor have to wait on inspections or can he/she schedule inspections by using website software? A small investment by the city in technology might be proposed to save the contractor time.
> 
> Could make a list of engineer inspections like footers, walls, drain tile and floors, give the contractor a list of qualified engineers that the AHJ will allow to do inspections and submit the reports to the AHJ. Some projects that can be inspected on the weekends provides a cost savings to a contractor not having to wait on you the Inspector on Monday?


Pcinspector1 excellent comment, One of the first things I have done since taking on a new jurisdiction is to implement new software to streamline the permit application, inspection scheduling and reporting process.  Previously everything was paper records and had to be done in person at our office.  Our investment was minimal and as soon as we are done beta testing it to go live contractors and owners will be able to submit permit applications online, request inspections and receive results immediately via text to voice or email depending on their preference.  Not only does this provide a convenience for the builders but also insures inspections don't get skipped, applications don't get approved with incomplete information, staff time is reduced and reporting is greatly improved.  The response has been overwhelmingly great to this approach.  I have also gone to great lengths to be more responsive and speed up the plan review and permitting processes.  This helps lower costs without sacrificing compliance.


----------



## Richard Kimball CBO CFM (Jan 25, 2019)

Coder said:


> Yes the garage lids below living space will still need to be inspected and verified as complying. We fortunately do not have the volume of inspections that require electronic inspection requests. Most are performed the same day they are requested. Good thoughts though. Thanks!


Volume?   I issue less than a hundred permits a year.  I found a software company that bases their fees on permit volume, with no initial setup fee to configure the software.  The software pays for itself in saved staff time alone.  I have used five different software systems over the last ten years.  One was completely useless, one was simply a Microsoft Access database, one was lacking flexibility and the other two were good (one was around $8,000 for the first year, the other $1,200 per year for 100 permits or less per year).  It does depend a lot on the software package whether this will help or not.


----------



## linnrg (Jan 25, 2019)

can you tell us the name of this software?


----------



## Richard Kimball CBO CFM (Jan 25, 2019)

I can do better than that.  Here's a link to the software's website.  https://www.mygovernmentonline.org/
Ryan Hutchinson is the guy to contact, he's their chief technology officer.  If our permits exceed 100 per year we will have additional fees, and it is modular so you can customize it and subscribe to additional modules for code enforcement, planning & zonning, etc. depending on your department's needs.  We went with the bare minimum package and that is why it is affordable for my jurisdiction.


----------



## Richard Kimball CBO CFM (Jan 25, 2019)

Coder said:


> Yes the garage lids below living space will still need to be inspected and verified as complying. We fortunately do not have the volume of inspections that require electronic inspection requests. Most are performed the same day they are requested. Good thoughts though. Thanks!



Yes there are parts of the drywall inspection that still need to be performed, such as garage lids and separation walls but these can often be combined with another inspection.  I did not mean to infer that they should be eliminated altogether.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 25, 2019)

Out of hundreds of drywall inspections I only failed 2. one where they only had 1/2 on the garage ceiling and one that was  badly cut-out around the outlet boxes. But I don't think the township would change the fees if they eliminated the drywall inspections for houses. They never increased it when we started looking at air sealing.


----------



## Sifu (Jan 25, 2019)

Richard Kimball CBO CFM said:


> I agree, drop the drywall inspection.   Not that it saves on inspection fees so much as it reduces delays, which cost money.  Remember "Time is Money".  The only drywall inspections that are required by code are when sheetrock is used for braced wall panels or when it is a UL Listed assembly.  All of the homes built in my jurisdiction are using the WSB method instead of the GB method for wall bracing.  I have eliminated the drywall inspection and replaced it with an exterior shear panel nailing inspection.  This allows for a preliminary framing inspection prior to installing housewrap which can prevent framing errors at an earlier stage of construction, again saving costs while improving compliance.


When I got where I am now they were doing drywall inspections.  It took a little time but I finally got them eliminated except for rated assemblies and wall bracing.  It falls to me as the plans examiner to recognize those instances and include the required inspection, but it only takes me 30 seconds, and it can save a lot on the other end, for everybody.  (Haven't had a single gyp wall bracing, though I did see a few in my last job).  I would like us to spend more time on life-safety provisions.  Drywall is a good example, an inspector who doesn't need to go look at 5 other non-rated drywall inspections to count screws can spend a lot more time inspecting a rated assembly, it's penetrations, joints etc.  Many, many things in the code can't be observed by inspectors (if not then the 5% would be much higher) and must rely on the integrity of the installers and designers, I think drywall can be one of them.  If a community starts having an epidemic of drywall falling down then it could be implemented.
Drywall inspections are often an example of an AHJ using them to keep inspectors busy in slow times, which can be a valid but tricky concern, worthy of it's own discussion.  Drop an un-needed dw inspection, spend time on the needed inspections, everybody wins. (as long as the politicos and bean counters can be made to see the value in quality of inspections vs. quantity of inspections).


----------



## Sifu (Jan 25, 2019)

Richard Kimball CBO CFM said:


> I agree, drop the drywall inspection.   Not that it saves on inspection fees so much as it reduces delays, which cost money.  Remember "Time is Money".  The only drywall inspections that are required by code are when sheetrock is used for braced wall panels or when it is a UL Listed assembly.  All of the homes built in my jurisdiction are using the WSB method instead of the GB method for wall bracing.  I have eliminated the drywall inspection and replaced it with an exterior shear panel nailing inspection.  This allows for a preliminary framing inspection prior to installing housewrap which can prevent framing errors at an earlier stage of construction, again saving costs while improving compliance.


We do the exact same thing.


----------



## steveray (Jan 28, 2019)

Richard Kimball CBO CFM said:


> I agree!  I have worked for private third party companies, government, and had my own third party company.  I only know of one governmental building department that is in the black financially and takes in more in fees than it cost to run the dept.  All other building departments operate at a loss while third party inspectors have to make a profit to remain in business.



I took in about $6 million in the last 3 years and maybe spent $1.5 million....


----------



## conarb (Jan 28, 2019)

steveray said:


> I took in about $6 million in the last 3 years and maybe spent $1.5 million....



There is that kind of profit in building permits?


----------



## fatboy (Jan 28, 2019)

I carry Planning (who has little revenue), and Engineering Development Review , admin and management (no revenue from any of those) with building permit revenues, it is not as easy as looking at my revenue vs.my expenditures.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 28, 2019)

We are audited every year by the state to make sure we do not support other departments. We are a special revenue fund and are allowed to keep one year of operating cost in reserve if we exceed that amount we need to reduce our fees. It works really well and provides funding for capitol outlay items such as vehicles every 10 years, transitioning to electronic plan review cost etc.


----------



## Richard Kimball CBO CFM (Jan 28, 2019)

Sifu said:


> When I got where I am now they were doing drywall inspections.  It took a little time but I finally got them eliminated except for rated assemblies and wall bracing.  It falls to me as the plans examiner to recognize those instances and include the required inspection, but it only takes me 30 seconds, and it can save a lot on the other end, for everybody.  (Haven't had a single gyp wall bracing, though I did see a few in my last job).  I would like us to spend more time on life-safety provisions.  Drywall is a good example, an inspector who doesn't need to go look at 5 other non-rated drywall inspections to count screws can spend a lot more time inspecting a rated assembly, it's penetrations, joints etc.  Many, many things in the code can't be observed by inspectors (if not then the 5% would be much higher) and must rely on the integrity of the installers and designers, I think drywall can be one of them.  If a community starts having an epidemic of drywall falling down then it could be implemented.
> Drywall inspections are often an example of an AHJ using them to keep inspectors busy in slow times, which can be a valid but tricky concern, worthy of it's own discussion.  Drop an un-needed dw inspection, spend time on the needed inspections, everybody wins. (as long as the politicos and bean counters can be made to see the value in quality of inspections vs. quantity of inspections).


The only place that I have run into gypsum board wall bracing was in Arizona, and Interior braced wall panels using sheetrock were only on very large residences.


----------



## Richard Kimball CBO CFM (Jan 28, 2019)

conarb said:


> There is that kind of profit in building permits?


Not permits, but inspections and plan reviews.


----------



## conarb (Jan 28, 2019)

fatboy said:


> I carry Planning (who has little revenue), and Engineering Development Review , admin and management (no revenue from any of those) with building permit revenues, it is not as easy as looking at my revenue vs.my expenditures.



Fatboy:

I know nothing of Colorado law, but if you were in California you could, and should go to jail, from what Mountain Man says Montana is like California, so you better look at what you are doing.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 29, 2019)

This report was just presented to the Canadian Building and Fire Code Commission on sprinklers for single family dwelling units. Based on the report, the CBFCC rejected a code proposal to include sprinklers as a requirement in the next code cycle here.

https://www.chba.ca/CHBADocs/e-Publications/2017-04-14_JTG-ResSpr-Report-Approved.pdf


----------



## mark handler (Jan 29, 2019)

tmurray said:


> This report was just presented to the Canadian Building and Fire Code Commission on sprinklers for single family dwelling units. Based on the report, the CBFCC rejected a code proposal to include sprinklers as a requirement in the next code cycle here.
> 
> https://www.chba.ca/CHBADocs/e-Publications/2017-04-14_JTG-ResSpr-Report-Approved.pdf


".....*unable to agree and reach a consensus on a conclusion* based on the gaps identified and the data used. As such, it is not the intent of this report to provide the EC with any recommendations or interpretations of the analysis...…"

Spend a lot of money, and "*unable to agree and reach a consensus on a conclusion"*.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 29, 2019)

mark handler said:


> ".....*unable to agree and reach a consensus on a conclusion* based on the gaps identified and the data used. As such, it is not the intent of this report to provide the EC with any recommendations or interpretations of the analysis...…"
> 
> Spend a lot of money, and "*unable to agree and reach a consensus on a conclusion"*.


That simply means it makes sense in some areas, but not in others. Jurisdictions with adequate municipal water sprinklers likely aren't much of a big deal. For those of us without...it gets expensive really fast.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 29, 2019)

tmurray said:


> That simply means it makes sense in some areas, but not in others. Jurisdictions with adequate municipal water sprinklers likely aren't much of a big deal. For those of us without...it gets expensive really fast.


So much for "national codes".


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 29, 2019)

Coder, does your area require the residential sprinklers? Additional cost that could be amended out by your council unless State mandated.


----------



## Coder (Jan 29, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Coder, does your area require the residential sprinklers? Additional cost that could be amended out by your council unless State mandated.


We currently require sprinklers in everything residential except single family dwellings. Here is the introduction to a recent memo being drafted to Council regarding the Fire Marshal's and my take on getting rid of sprinklers. Not happening as far as we are concerned.
*Introduction:*
_
At the end of August 2018, the City received the “Land Development Code Diagnosis” Final Report from Cascadia Partners. One of the recommendations given in the report was to “Align Building Code and Zoning.” The specific issue mentioned was regarding the removal of fire suppression system requirements from the IRC in buildings with up to 4 residential units. With the nature of the modern fire environment, residential fuel loading and lightweight construction materials, staff is not comfortable recommending this change. We feel that the potential benefits of having a residential sprinkler system in place far outweigh the cost. Fire suppression systems have been proven to save lives and we feel that removing these systems from the code is akin to playing the odds that there will not be a fire in these newer residences. 


As a result, we began to look at other avenues to reduce the cost and increase the feasibility of creating more dwelling units without affecting life safety. After speaking with several contractors and looking at the construction process, we believe that the best building and fire code related avenue to reduce costs is through a set of amendments to the currently adopted 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). 
_


----------



## tmurray (Jan 29, 2019)

mark handler said:


> So much for "national codes".



National code in that it is a minimum. Local jurisdictions can and do have more restrictive requirements through provincial acts and municipal by-laws. For instance, we require a building permit for most construction. There is no requirement in our code for a building permit. We require a back flow preventer on all sewer lines. The plumbing code only requires them on lines that may be subject to surcharge.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 29, 2019)

The JTG found that installing sprinklers in houses in most Canadian locations would cost between $4 500 and $17 000 per house with installed price highest in rural and remote locations


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 29, 2019)

Coder said:


> We feel that the potential benefits of having a residential sprinkler system in place far outweigh the cost. Fire suppression systems have been proven to save lives and we feel that removing these systems from the code is akin to playing the odds that there will not be a fire in these newer residences.



I find it sad that so many things today are based on "feelings" in lieu of hard empirical data and that very few will entertain the idea that there may be an acceptable number of loss of live when considering adopting codes and laws trying to prevent loss of life.


----------



## Coder (Jan 29, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> acceptable number of loss of live


As a Code Official, Is there such a thing?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 29, 2019)

Coder, I got one more for ya!, How bout reducing the minimum square footage of a residential home, they'll love you. 

If a home is priced out by the square foot you can show this to the council and be done with this exercise and still get to go on vacation! That's what they want, to reduce the cost of construction.


----------



## Mark K (Jan 29, 2019)

Building codes reflect and implicit tradeoff between loss of life and cost of construction.

The governmental entity adopting the Building Code establishes the nature of this tradeoff.

The role of the building official is to enforce the adopted regulations whether or not the building official agrees with the tradeoffs.


----------



## steveray (Jan 29, 2019)

Coder said:


> As a Code Official, Is there such a thing?



Absolutely....Otherwise we would eliminate stairs...


----------



## tmurray (Jan 29, 2019)

steveray said:


> Absolutely....Otherwise we would eliminate stairs...



And require non-combustible construction...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 29, 2019)

Coder said:


> As a Code Official, Is there such a thing?


Absolutely...............The intent of the code even states it
[A] 101.3 Intent.
The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of safety, public health and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire, explosion and other hazards, and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

What becomes unreasonable is a desire to try to save every puppy in the pound by requiring something that will have minimal impact in achieving that desire.
Locking caps on Freon refrigeration systems is another "feeling" driven code requirement to try and save people from doing stupid things while committing a criminal act.


----------



## Coder (Jan 29, 2019)

I guess thats why automatic fire sprinklers are required by code and shouldn't be amended out. They provide a reasonable level of safety.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 29, 2019)

Consider this:


Each year, over 2,300 home fire deaths occur in more than 365,000 reported structure fires. Therefore, the likelihood of surviving a home fire is approximately 99% without regard to the presence of smoke alarms or any other fire safety provisions. Does that mean 2,300 deaths are acceptable? Most people would say no.  
Each year, there are an estimated 12,000 deaths due to falls in homes and an estimated 11 million fall injuries in the home.  The likelihood of surviving a fall is therefore 99.9%. Does that mean 12,000 deaths are acceptable? Most people would say no.
Each year, there are an estimated 42,000 deaths due to motor vehicle crashes and an estimated 6 million reported motor vehicle crashes. The likelihood of surviving a motor vehicle crash is 99%. Does that mean 42,000 deaths are acceptable? Most people would say no.
Change the numbers to percentages and 3/10 of 1% does sound acceptable for fire deaths 
or 1/10 of 1% for death due to falls in homes
or 7/10 of 1% for motor vehicle crashes

Numbers will drive more emotions than percentages when making reasonable decisions  

rea·son·a·ble
*Dictionary result for reasonable*
/ˈrēz(ə)nəb(ə)l/
_adjective_

1.
(of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.
"no reasonable person could have objected"
synonyms: sensible, rational, open to reason, full of common sense, logical, fair, fair-minded, just, equitable, decent; More







2.
as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.
"a police officer may use reasonable force to gain entry"
synonyms: within reason, practicable, sensible; 
appropriate, suitable, fitting, proper


----------



## fatboy (Jan 29, 2019)

conarb said:


> Fatboy:
> 
> I know nothing of Colorado law, but if you were in California you could, and should go to jail, from what Mountain Man says Montana is like California, so you better look at what you are doing.



I am going nowhere sport.

Not from Montana, in Colorado.


----------



## conarb (Jan 29, 2019)

fatboy said:


> I am going nowhere sport.
> 
> Not from Montana, in Colorado.



Any government employee who takes money for a permit and diverts it to another department belongs in jail, it's the same as pointing a gun at his head and taking his money, just like all the inspectors here who took bribe money from the sprinkler coalition to go to Minneapolis and vote for sprinklers deserved to be put in jail.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 29, 2019)

Conarb
It is not the government employee within the building department who is diverting the money from building departments to fund other departments it is the elected officials and possibly the city/county manager who is leading the elected officials down this path all in the name of keeping tax rates down.
Don't blame fatboy and others who have to work within a system that has been created by others and those who came before him

When I came to work here the building department sent 39% of building permit fees to the fire department to do plan reviews and inspections on sprinklers and alarm systems.
The bottom fell out in 09 a new city manager came in. She took the 39% away from the fire department and gave it back to us disbanded the fire prevention division of the fire department. Laid off the fire marshal, put one guy back on the truck and sent the other to me. (he started as a building inspector) Gave my department 1/2 a year salary from the general fund to cover fire inspections and we started to do the fire sprinkler and alarm plan reviews and issue permits. The first year out even as slow as it was the fees covered the salary of the one man I was given.
With the right ethical leadership at the top the system can be changed


----------



## conarb (Jan 29, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Conarb
> It is not the government employee within the building department who is diverting the money from building departments to fund other departments it is the elected officials and possibly the city/county manager who is leading the elected officials down this path all in the name of keeping tax rates down.
> Don't blame fatboy and others who have to work within a system that has been created by others and those who came before him
> 
> ...



Mountain Man, didn't you instigate the reform with the new City Manager?  Maybe Fatboy and others should instigate reform in their jurisdictions.  

I was reading this morning about sheriffs in Eastern Washington State refusing to enforce unconstitutional gun laws, you guys should assert yourselves and do the same, I know an inspector who had a "Green is the New Red" sign in his cubicle, he soon quit rather than enforce socialist codes like the green code.  



> Washington state recently introduced bills for some of the strictest gun laws in the country but they have some very important opponents: the sheriffs.
> 
> Long thought to be the last line of defense between authoritarianism and freedom, sheriffs are in a unique position. As elected officials, basically nobody has authority over them – not the judges, not the Feds – no one except the people who may or may not choose to re-elect them.¹




¹ https://www.theorganicprepper.com/t...-refuse-to-enforce-unconstitutional-gun-laws/


----------



## jar546 (Jan 29, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Consider this:
> 
> 
> Each year, over 2,300 home fire deaths occur in more than 365,000 reported structure fires. Therefore, the likelihood of surviving a home fire is approximately 99% without regard to the presence of smoke alarms or any other fire safety provisions. Does that mean 2,300 deaths are acceptable? Most people would say no.
> ...



I would like some more details in the statistics.  I would like a break down of the number of working structure fires for residential structures while occupied vs fatalities because I think the survival rate might me significantly lower.  How about number of working residential structure fires at night while people are sleeping vs fatality rate?


----------



## Coder (Jan 29, 2019)

I sincerely appreciate all of the candid comments here. It provides me with good insight as I forge the path of this jurisdiction that I am responsible for. Ultimately it is the decisions of the leaders of this community. I am just trying  to educate them to make the right decisions. I have come to the conclusion that getting rid of or reducing certain code provisions isn't the answer.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 30, 2019)

Coder said:


> I sincerely appreciate all of the candid comments here. It provides me with good insight as I forge the path of this jurisdiction that I am responsible for. Ultimately it is the decisions of the leaders of this community. I am just trying  to educate them to make the right decisions. I have come to the conclusion that getting rid of or reducing certain code provisions isn't the answer.


If they decide to eliminate some code provisions in an attempt to reduce cost of construction despite your recommendations, I think we would all be interested to hear if it does have an impact on the price of housing.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 30, 2019)

jar546 said:


> I would like some more details in the statistics.  I would like a break down of the number of working structure fires for residential structures while occupied vs fatalities because I think the survival rate might me significantly lower.  How about number of working residential structure fires at night while people are sleeping vs fatality rate?





This is from a NFPA study. It clearly shows that the problem isn't that the building is on fire, because when most of the fires are happening is when the least number of deaths occur, it has to do with the activity of the occupants. At 5-7PM most of the fires are happening, but people mostly awake and alert, so there is the least number of deaths. 3-5AM we are seeing very low numbers of fires, but it is the highest death rates. If your objective is life safety, all you need to do is notify the occupants that there is a fire, which means increasing the requirements for smoke alarms. If your objective is to reduce damage to the building then hood suppression systems should be required.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 30, 2019)

Jar
The statistics came from the NFPA web site

https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Educati...ive/Take-action/Free-downloads/Myths-vs-facts


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 30, 2019)

Good stuff tmurry!


tmurray said:


> it has to do with the activity of the occupants.





tmurray said:


> If your objective is life safety, all you need to do is notify the occupants that there is a fire, which means increasing the requirements for smoke alarms.



The exceptions in section P2904.1.1.
Garages, carports and exterior porches do not require the sprinklers. 

Does the research take these areas into consideration? Are there less garage fires, not requiring sprinklers in a garage or is it because we don't heat the garage and that's why there's an exception?


----------



## mark handler (Jan 30, 2019)

tmurray said:


> ...does have an impact on the price of housing.


Penny wise and pound foolish.
More destruction, and death, in natural disasters. 
Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Tornados, Wildfires, Blizzards......


----------



## tmurray (Jan 30, 2019)

mark handler said:


> Penny wise and pound foolish.
> More destruction, and death, in natural disasters.
> Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Tornados, Wildfires, Blizzards......


My hypothesis is that it won't affect housing prices at all. I'd love to see it tested, but I'm not going to do that


----------



## mark handler (Jan 30, 2019)

tmurray said:


> My hypothesis is that it won't affect housing prices at all. I'd love to see it tested, but I'm not going to do that


It won't, it will add to the pocketbook of the contractor.
Cost is not the materials, et al, is not the driver.
*Land cost is.* And last I noticed we are not making good choices on that. 
Removing farmland for housing is stupid.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 30, 2019)

https://howmuch.net/articles/this-animated-map-shows-the-rising-cost-of-land-past-forty-years-gif4


----------



## fatboy (Jan 30, 2019)

conarb said:


> Any government employee who takes money for a permit and diverts it to another department belongs in jail, it's the same as pointing a gun at his head and taking his money, just like all the inspectors here who took bribe money from the sprinkler coalition to go to Minneapolis and vote for sprinklers deserved to be put in jail.



We do NOT divert it to other Departments, it supports other Divisions within our Department, that all interact with permits and inspections, we just happen to be the gateway. How do you think Planner's and, and Engineers, and Admins, and Management salaries get paid??

And guess what? When construction was slumping, and revenues did not cover even my expenses, all those salaries in other Divisions continued.


----------



## conarb (Jan 30, 2019)

fatboy said:


> We do NOT divert it to other Departments, it supports other Divisions within our Department, that all interact with permits and inspections, we just happen to be the gateway. How do you think Planner's and, and Engineers, and Admins, and Management salaries get paid??
> 
> And guess what? When construction was slumping, and revenues did not cover even my expenses, all those salaries in other Divisions continued.


If you remember Fatboy, it was in Colorado about 20 years ago that a state legislator introduced a bill to pretty much abolish building departments, their only function was to collect a $35 fee for each permit so the city had a record, the bill was defeated but he said at the time that he would reintroduction it if the building departments didn't clean up their collective acts. 

Why don't you frigging government employees stop telling the rest of us what to do?  I see in Germany there is a movement to take people's freedom away and put speed limits on the autobahn:



			
				Bloomberg said:
			
		

> A government commission has recommended a speed limit on the autobahns in Germany, the only rich country where a driver doesn’t need to watch the speedometer on most of the highways. So the nation is debating what speed restrictions can actually achieve in terms of traffic safety and climate protection, a conversation the rest of the world should tune in to, as well.
> 
> Germany actually has speed limits on about 40 percent of its 13,000 kilometers (8,000 miles) of autobahns, where authorities believe road conditions warrant it and where road repairs are taking place. But the other 60 percent are a territory of freedom unlike anything elsewhere. There are no highway speed limits in Afghanistan or Nepal, either, but anyone who’s tried to drive there knows that going fast is somewhere between risky and suicidal. Besides, Germany’s highway network is the fourth biggest in the world, after those of China, the U.S. and Spain.
> 
> ...



There is an inherent conflict built in here, government employees tend to be risk-averse people who value safety over freedom.


¹ https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-the-environment-bad-for-germany?srnd=opinion


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 30, 2019)

fatboy said:


> How do you think Planner's and, and Engineers, and Admins, and Management salaries get paid??


Out of the General fund.
All departments pay a percentage of cost to cover the city manager, attorney and IT department along with a sq ft cost for  rent for the space a department occupies. This is an equitable solution no matter how a department is funded. General fund, or special revenue fund
Engineers charge separate permit and plan review in addition to the building departments.
Zoning bills me quarterly (set hourly rate) for their review of commercial projects are complying with accessible parking, site arrival points and pedestrian access from the public way.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 30, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> https://howmuch.net/articles/this-animated-map-shows-the-rising-cost-of-land-past-forty-years-gif4


Thanks for that


----------



## mark handler (Jan 30, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Out of the General fund.
> All departments pay a percentage of cost to cover the city manager, attorney and IT department along with a sq ft cost for  rent for the space a department occupies. This is an equitable solution no matter how a department is funded. General fund, or special revenue fund
> Engineers charge separate permit and plan review in addition to the building departments.
> Zoning bills me quarterly (set hourly rate) for their review of commercial projects are complying with accessible parking, site arrival points and pedestrian access from the public way.


As do we.


----------



## classicT (Jan 30, 2019)

conarb said:


> Why don't you frigging government employees stop telling the rest of us what to do?


Why don't you and the rest of the "disgruntled public" get together and elect officials who will repeal the building codes?

Oh wait, the majority of people value building codes. A couple old codgers like you don't want to have someone telling you what you can or cant do and it has hurt your feelings. (I thought hurt feelings were more of a problem with the new generation, not yours?)

Building Codes save lives.

I cant argue that they are perfect and don't have flaws, or that all codes are a matter of life safety (energy). But what I can tell you, the State (at least here in WA) adopts the code as law; I am just tasked with enforcing it. If I choose to willingly ignore or take no enforcement action, I can be held civilly or criminally liable.

Want to see change - go vote. Get your friends, family, community, etc. to vote with you. But just my guess, you (conarb) are a fly on the wall with little to no voice because not many agree with you.


Furthermore, stop posting your cr*p - - all you have done is isolate yourself. Your complaints will continue to fall on deaf ears because of your hostility and belligerence.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 30, 2019)

No building department is a way to cut the cost and save some coin.


----------



## Coder (Jan 30, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> No building department is a way to cut the cost and save some coin.


Not going to suggest that!  I like getting paid too.


----------



## conarb (Jan 30, 2019)

Coder said:


> Not going to suggest that!  I like getting paid too.



That's the problem with talking to you guys about it, this is your job and you'll always defend the necessity of doing it, needed or not.  Be interesting to see how cities like Oakland will get by suspending codes on their ADUs.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 30, 2019)

Maybe they ought to think about reducing or eliminating property taxes to make housing affordable. Mine are over $200.00 per month.

A lot of zoning ordinances have a minimum house size. Maybe they should put a maximum size allowed say 400 sq ft per sleeping room would limit a 3 bedroom house to 1,200 sq ft. However the law of unintended consequences will kick in a couple of years down the road when their tax base starts dropping because the value of the homes are less and the services provided are the same.

In reality there is no answer to your question. The market is what drives the sale or rental price of a home. Income determines if it is affordable and the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. Minimum wages equate to apprenticeship wages you are getting paid while you learn and hone your skills as you move up the ladder in the job market. 

*Household income and wealth[edit]*
Income is the primary factor—not price and availability, that determines housing affordability.[16] In a market economy the distribution of income is the key determinant of the quantity and quality of housing obtained. Therefore, understanding affordable housing challenges requires understanding trends and disparities in income and wealth. Housing is often the single biggest expenditure of low and middle income families. For low and middle income families, their house is also the greatest source of wealth.[17]

The most common approach to measure the affordability of housing has been to consider the percentage of income that a household spends on housing expenditures. Another method of studying affordability looks at the regular hourly wage of full-time workers who are paid only the minimum wage (as set by their local, regional, or national government). The hope is that full-time workers will be able to afford at least a small apartment in the area where they work. Some countries look at those living in relative poverty, which is usually defined as making less than 60% of the median household income. In their policy reports, they consider the presence or absence of housing for people making 60% of the median income.

*Inequality and housing[edit]*
A number of researchers argue that a shortage of affordable housing – at least in the US – is caused in part by income inequality.[22][23][24] David Rodda noted that from 1984 and 1991, the number of quality rental units decreased as the demand for higher quality housing increased.[22]:148 Through gentrification of older neighbourhoods, for example, in East New York, rental prices increased rapidly as landlords found new residents willing to pay higher market rate for housing and left lower income families without rental units. The ad valorem property tax policy combined with rising prices made it difficult or impossible for low income residents to keep pace.[25


----------



## conarb (Jan 30, 2019)

What about bringing codes back to minimum health and safety standards?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 31, 2019)

conarb said:


> What about bringing codes back to minimum health and safety standards?



Conarb, how far back would you to get the minimum health and safety standards, it wouldn't be the I-codes?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 31, 2019)

Coder said:


> Not going to suggest that!  I like getting paid too.



Hey the next town over the hill is looking for sharp guy like yourself! Just putting it out there, my council will probably want to tie me up doing the same research. Already hear about the tiny housing subdivision idea.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2019)

Tell the families of the dead and missing or the recent wild fires why Sprinkler codes should be elininated from the codes, so more willburn in their homes...
Tell the people caught in the polar vortex why the energy code should be eliminated so more will die in their homes,  and have heating bills they cannot pay.
Not a code issue but a cost issue: tell me why a contractor charges 10,000 more for  making the walls of a new restroom 8 feet instead of 5 feet for a accessible restroom?
All the codes are there for a reason, you may not understand why, I may not understand why, but they do have a reason.


----------



## steveray (Feb 1, 2019)

Mark..I'll call BS on part of that....Sprinklers (likely) won't save you from a wildfire....


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2019)

steveray said:


> Mark..I'll call BS on part of that....Sprinklers (likely) won't save you from a wildfire....


*Knee-Jerk reaction
If it stopped the building from burning down combined with chapter 7A of the code, yes it could, and it does. 
Not BS*


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 1, 2019)

Could you enlighten the rest of us what chapter 7A is in California codes that help saved this house


----------



## classicT (Feb 1, 2019)

mark handler said:


> *Knee-Jerk reaction
> If it stopped the building from burning down combined with chapter 7A of the code, yes it could, and it does.
> Not BS*


As one can tell from the un-scorched ground around the house, the fire never made it to the house. I also fail to comprehend how sprinklers on the inside of a home would protect from a wildfire. How would interior suppression protect the exterior?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Could you enlighten the rest of us what chapter 7A is in California codes that help saved this house


Chapter 7A Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure
https://up.codes/viewer/california/...ion-methods-for-exterior-wildfire-exposure#7A

*Another code that CA developers (including some on this forum) want to eliminate*


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> As one can tell from the un-scorched ground around the house, the fire never made it to the house. I also fail to comprehend how sprinklers on the inside of a home would protect from a wildfire. How would interior suppression protect the exterior?


The Photo is taken months after, you can see some of the regrowth on the trees
Soot, ash and debris have been cleared from around the structure and the road to it.
and as I stated See Post above RE: Chapter 7A, which is the structure protection.
Sprinklers protect the people


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2019)

Redding, CA



*Let's weaken the codes and put more money in the developers pockets*


----------



## classicT (Feb 1, 2019)

mark handler said:


> The Photo is taken months after, you can see some of the regrowth on the trees
> Soot, ash and debris have been cleared from around the structure and the road to it.
> and as I stated See Post above RE: Chapter 7A, which is the structure protection.
> Sprinklers protect the people


Where/how did you get that information?

The photo is taken from an NFPA video that discusses the importance of maintaining combustibles away from the home.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> Where/how did you get that information?
> The photo is taken from an NFPA video that discusses the importance of maintaining combustibles away from the home.


I got it from Google Photos, not from the video. I searched for Fire Sprinklered buildings in wild fire areas. Woop Woop….
I never said it was the current fire series
I also said with  "Chapter 7A, which is the structure protection."

Do you feel better now. nothing is different.


----------



## classicT (Feb 1, 2019)

mark handler said:


> I got it from Google Photos, not from the video. I searched for Fire Sprinklered buildings in wild fire areas. Woop Woop….
> I never said it was the current fire series
> I also said with  "Chapter 7A, which is the structure protection."
> 
> Do you feel better now. nothing is different.


Not about feeling better. The information and evidence that you gave to support your claim was false. The home pictured is most likely not protected by a fire sprinkler system, and even if it is, had no impact on protecting the home from the forest fire.

The structure pictured and being discussed survived because of good property maintenance, which is something the building codes for the most part do not and should not regulate. If you build in a fire prone or susceptible area, then it is necessary to keep trees and shrubbery away from the home. Keep gutters and roof clear, pine needles cleaned up, etc. Use of buffer zones is hugely important. Even a typical underground irrigation sprinkler system and landscaping can be a fundamental part of a buffer zone.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 1, 2019)

A wildfire is clearly outside of the scope of what a residential fire sprinkler system can handle from a fuel load/heat creation perspective. 

Non-combustible materials? That will certainly help.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> Not about feeling better. The information and evidence that you gave to support your claim was false. The home pictured is most likely not protected by a fire sprinkler system, and even if it is, had no impact on protecting the home from the forest fire.
> 
> The structure pictured and being discussed survived because of good property maintenance, which is something the building codes for the most part do not and should not regulate. If you build in a fire prone or susceptible area, then it is necessary to keep trees and shrubbery away from the home. Keep gutters and roof clear, pine needles cleaned up, etc. Use of buffer zones is hugely important. Even a typical underground irrigation sprinkler system and landscaping can be a fundamental part of a buffer zone.


Obviously you did not read the post relating to Chapter 7A
Obviously you do not know what an example is.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 1, 2019)

Sure is a lot of green trees and bushes around those homes.
If 7A  was part of your codes at the time this subdivision went in how come the other homes where destroyed.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 1, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Conarb, how far back would you go to get the minimum health and safety standards, it wouldn't be the I-codes?



Anyone.. anyone?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 1, 2019)

I find it interesting where the word "reasonable" was added to the intent of the code. At some point a code provision could be determined by the courts as unreasonable based on any number of findings changing or empirical data. 
Example: Energy code requirements that do not contribute to the overall performance of the house. Example all the mandatory air sealing requirements that are not enforced or installed in this state yet the homes are achieving a blower door test of 2.8 to 3.4 ACH and the state maximum is 4 ACH. If you meet the blower door test then the rest of the mandatory requirements could be found to be an unreasonable cost and requirement to the builder and homeowner.

2012 IBC
[A] 101.3 Intent.
The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

2018 IBC
[A] 101.3 Intent.
The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements* to provide a reasonable level *of safety, public health and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire, explosion and other hazards, and *to provide a reasonable level *of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

Our government was founded and operated for over 100 years by decisions based on "reason". Today we hear "compromise" is what is needed to get things done in government at all levels. However it seems to be emotions and pre-conceived beliefs are what guides most people today. I believe the code development process is falling into that same mindset. Numbers used to justify a code proposal can be large, emotional and horrifying when taken as presented but turn them into percentages and they can quickly become a minuscule amount. We all hear about "follow the money" when you want to know the truth or motive behind something political or criminal. The same can be applied to code development. Is the proposal to get a specific product into the code such as locking caps on refrigeration systems or the intent of the code proposal for "safety to life" such as CO detection in residential homes.   

*reason*
[ree-zuhn]
*noun*
a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.:the reason for declaring war.
a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action:I dare you to give me one good reason for quitting school!
*verb (used without object)*
to think or argue in a logical manner.
to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
*verb (used with object)*
to think through logically, as a problem (often followed by out ).
to conclude or infer.
1. intelligent, judicious, wise, equitable. Reasonable, rational refer to the faculty of reasoning. Rational can refer to thereasoning faculty itself or to something derived from that faculty: rational powers; a rational analysis. It can also mean sane or sensible: She was no longer rational; a rational plan. Reasonable most often means sensible: A reasonable supposition is one which appeals to our common sense. 

*emotion*
[ih-moh-shuh n]
*noun*
an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from
cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.

*compromise*
*noun*
a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposingclaims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2019)

*These do not have clearances
*


----------



## classicT (Feb 1, 2019)

mark handler said:


> View attachment 3872
> 
> *These do not have clearances*


Is this supposed to be where I live, because I'm not Ty J. Lathrop of Bothell


mark handler said:


> Obviously you did not read the post relating to Chapter 7A
> Obviously you do not know what an example is.


I read it, but we do not have your Chapter 7A requirements.
And I know an example, but you did not provide as an example. You indicated that you knew what happened.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 1, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> I find it interesting where the word "reasonable" was added to the intent of the code. At some point a code provision could be determined by the courts as unreasonable based on any number of findings changing or empirical data.
> Example: Energy code requirements that do not contribute to the overall performance of the house. Example all the mandatory air sealing requirements that are not enforced or installed in this state yet the homes are achieving a blower door test of 2.8 to 3.4 ACH and the state maximum is 4 ACH. If you meet the blower door test then the rest of the mandatory requirements could be found to be an unreasonable cost and requirement to the builder and homeowner.
> 
> 2012 IBC
> ...



Having done many blower door tests, I would agree that it does not take much to get to around a 3 ACH. 

A single death is a tragedy. Those events can easily be used to polarize people into action. We don't think about the overall costs of a provision, just that one life it could have saved. Once people get in that mindset, they just think about the fact that something that only costs a dollar could have saved that person's life. Often forgotten is the fact that that one dollar piece of hardware might need to be installed on millions of homes in order to save that life. Here, our codes council requires a cost per life saved analysis. This helps to ground us in "reason".


----------



## Coder (Feb 1, 2019)

I have mentioned to several contractors that I am going to try and get rid of the blower door test requirement someday. Guess who is the only local group "not" in favor of this?


----------



## Rick18071 (Feb 1, 2019)

Does CA use the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code or do they have their own code??


----------



## JCraver (Feb 1, 2019)

mark handler said:


> Tell the families of the dead and missing or the recent wild fires why Sprinkler codes should be elininated from the codes, so more willburn in their homes...
> Tell the people caught in the polar vortex why the energy code should be eliminated so more will die in their homes,  and have heating bills they cannot pay.
> Not a code issue but a cost issue: tell me why a contractor charges 10,000 more for  making the walls of a new restroom 8 feet instead of 5 feet for a accessible restroom?
> All the codes are there for a reason, you may not understand why, I may not understand why, but they do have a reason.





steveray said:


> Mark..I'll call BS on part of that....Sprinklers (likely) won't save you from a wildfire....




The less than 1% that sprinklers save vs. smoke detectors won't even hold up statistically - it's within the margin of error that that part of 1% even exists.

The energy code(s) have not saved a single life since they've been in existence.  Not a single one.  Prove your work, or that's just a made up talking point.  I'll give you that some people die every year when it is very hot or very cold - but any energy code anyone has ever adopted wouldn't have saved even one of those lives.

An 8 foot bathroom could easily add 10K to a bid over that 5 footer when you add architect fees, plan review fees, more architect fees, the cost of re-arranging the other areas in the space, etc. etc.  It's not as cut-and-dried as contractors being dirtbags.


----------



## Coder (Feb 1, 2019)

This thread is getting good!


----------



## fatboy (Feb 2, 2019)

Look what you started......


----------



## TheCommish (Feb 3, 2019)

I do not think it is the codes that drive up the costs of the home; it is keeping up with the Jones and what the market will bear.

The is no need for a 3000 sf cut up home with marble tops and top of the line fixtures and finishes. Build a rectangular building with durable materials 8-foot ceilings. I my opinion most cost-effective 2 story 26x32 cape style home for the northeast and cold climates, 26x48 foot ranch for sab on grade where frost deep is not deep and a raised ranch for the  middle  latitudes.


----------



## Rick18071 (Feb 4, 2019)

JCraver said:


> The energy code(s) have not saved a single life since they've been in existence. Not a single one. Prove your work, or that's just a made up talking point. I'll give you that some people die every year when it is very hot or very cold - but any energy code anyone has ever adopted wouldn't have saved even one of those lives.[/QUOTE
> 
> You need to ask anyone that lost the life of a loved one in the in the continuing to get worst storms or wildfires that are caused by climate change. (only 99% of scientists believe the world is round too)
> 
> ...


----------



## tmurray (Feb 4, 2019)

JCraver said:


> The less than 1% that sprinklers save vs. smoke detectors won't even hold up statistically - it's within the margin of error that that part of 1% even exists.
> 
> The energy code(s) have not saved a single life since they've been in existence.  Not a single one.  Prove your work, or that's just a made up talking point.  I'll give you that some people die every year when it is very hot or very cold - but any energy code anyone has ever adopted wouldn't have saved even one of those lives.
> 
> An 8 foot bathroom could easily add 10K to a bid over that 5 footer when you add architect fees, plan review fees, more architect fees, the cost of re-arranging the other areas in the space, etc. etc.  It's not as cut-and-dried as contractors being dirtbags.



The issue with energy efficiency being a "life safety" code is that it is not the clear cause and effect relationship that we are used of. When someone is required to install a smoke alarm, it could save their life. When people are required to build more energy efficient buildings, coupled with more fuel efficient cars, reduction in industry emissions, we start to see less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This in turn prevents deaths from related illnesses; lung cancer, heart attacks or respiratory diseases. Fundamentally, this is no different than radon gas, VOCs, or other long term health hazards.


----------



## Coder (Feb 8, 2019)

tmurray said:


> The issue with energy efficiency being a "life safety" code is that it is not the clear cause and effect relationship that we are used of. When someone is required to install a smoke alarm, it could save their life. When people are required to build more energy efficient buildings, coupled with more fuel efficient cars, reduction in industry emissions, we start to see less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This in turn prevents deaths from related illnesses; lung cancer, heart attacks or respiratory diseases. Fundamentally, this is no different than radon gas, VOCs, or other long term health hazards.


Just playing the devils advocate here. Dow Chemicals: Lets increase the R-values of residential construction so much that they have no choice but to use our spray foam and rigid foam plastics (plastic=petroleum=$$$) So that we can keep churning out more more more plastic and continue destroying the planet in the name of energy efficiency. Makes sense to me.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 8, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> Does CA use the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code or do they have their own code??


yes, with CA amendments


----------



## mark handler (Feb 8, 2019)

JCraver said:


> The less than 1% that sprinklers save vs. smoke detectors won't even hold up statistically - it's within the margin of error that that part of 1% even exists.
> 
> The energy code(s) have not saved a single life since they've been in existence.  Not a single one.  Prove your work, or that's just a made up talking point.  I'll give you that some people die every year when it is very hot or very cold - but any energy code anyone has ever adopted wouldn't have saved even one of those lives.
> 
> An 8 foot bathroom could easily add 10K to a bid over that 5 footer when you add architect fees, plan review fees, more architect fees, the cost of re-arranging the other areas in the space, etc. etc.  It's not as cut-and-dried as contractors being dirtbags.


Cannot prove that, nor can they prove Seat belts save lives. Some that use them live, some die; some that don't use them live, some die.  But fatalities appear less....
Cannot prove that drinking and driving will end in an accident. Some do, some don't. But fatalities appear less....

It's all a best guess.
I have never heard of a death in a sprinklered SFD house.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 8, 2019)

Coder said:


> Just playing the devils advocate here. Dow Chemicals: Lets increase the R-values of residential construction so much that they have no choice but to use our spray foam and rigid foam plastics (plastic=petroleum=$$$) So that we can keep churning out more more more plastic and continue destroying the planet in the name of energy efficiency. Makes sense to me.


Absolutely. But on the other side, the utility companies are making more money. Either way you make that argument someone is making money. The only difference is in adding more insulation Dow makes less than the utility companies would over time, meaning the building owner has saved money.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 8, 2019)

tmurray said:


> Dow makes less than the utility companies would over time, meaning the building owner has saved money.



Utility company rates are usually heavily regulated but it would only require one rate increase to offset the time the building owner saved money. If a non-government company does not make money they will not survive. That includes private, "nonprofit" and co-op structured companies.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 11, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Utility company rates are usually heavily regulated but it would only require one rate increase to offset the time the building owner saved money. If a non-government company does not make money they will not survive. That includes private, "nonprofit" and co-op structured companies.



I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that when utility rates go up that adding insulation becomes less profitable?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2019)

*It should not be a "cut Codes" debate it should be an "alter the codes to make sense.*

As an example:
The Diminishing Returns of Adding More Insulation
https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/76941/The-Diminishing-Returns-of-Adding-More-Insulation
Adding any insulation to uninsulated homes can save more energy than adding more insulation to already-insulated homes.
Too much is never enough
The debate over how much insulation to use is an important one. There's no clear-cut answer. I can't tell you, "Use this much in climate zone 4 and this much in climate zone 5" because there are multiple variables involved. Here are the main ones:
Climate zone
Type of heating and cooling system
Fuel used for heating
Utility costs
Photovoltaic (solar electric) system costs
Comfort
Your interests and goals - utility bills, carbon footprint...

Whether you're trying to reduce power plant emissions or just save money, at a certain point, it becomes wiser to stop with the insulation and spend your money on the stuff that, dollar for dollar, will yield better results.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 11, 2019)

tmurray said:


> I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that when utility rates go up that adding insulation becomes less profitable?


 No I am referring to the cost versus payback period over time. With fluctuating energy prices it is hard to determine if that payback period is 5 years or 50 years.


Look at wind turbines for SFR

Using Windustry.org’s estimate of $3,000 to $5,000 per kilowatt, we’ll assume an average of $4,000 per kilowatt for the cost of a small wind turbine.

A *5 kW* small wind turbine would cost about $20,000 (5 kW x $4,000).  With electricity costs of $1,340 per year, it would pay for itself in *14.9 years*.

A *10 kW* turbine would cost about $40,000.  With electricity costs of $1,340 per year, it would pay for itself in *29.9 years*.

A *15 kW* turbine would cost about $60,000.  With electricity costs of $1,340 per year, it would pay for itself in *44.8 years*.

It’s important to note that small wind turbines have a lifetime of about 20 years, which means that some of these payback periods are longer than the product’s actual lifetime.  That means that the wind turbine would have to be replaced before it paid for itself in energy generation.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 11, 2019)

coder,

Does your city require only copper water service lines to the house? Some communities only allow copper. There is a savings in allowing PEX type water service lines. Have you thought about TWO water meters in one pit to single family houses? Both are small reductions in cost to a developer or home builde

Man, I'm running out of ideas to cut cost.


----------



## Coder (Feb 11, 2019)

Copper only so that if they have to throw heat at it to thaw they dont melt. Like someone else on here said, cutting costs of construction doesn't make housing more affordable, it just puts more money in the contractors pocket.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 11, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> No I am referring to the cost versus payback period over time. With fluctuating energy prices it is hard to determine if that payback period is 5 years or 50 years.
> 
> 
> Look at wind turbines for SFR
> ...


I'm sorry, I didn't realize your code required on-site generation of energy.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2019)

The typical solar payback period in the U.S. is *between 6 and 8 years*. If cost of installing solar is $20,000 and system is going to save $2,500 a year on foregone energy bills, solar panel payback or “break-even point” will be 8 years ($20,000/$2,500 = 8).Oct 26, 2018


----------



## conarb (Feb 11, 2019)

Coder said:


> Copper only so that if they have to throw heat at it to thaw they dont melt. Like someone else on here said, cutting costs of construction doesn't make housing more affordable, it just puts more money in the contractors pocket.



Kill all permit fees, permits have  become nothing but taxes, if cities want inspections let them pay for them out of the general fund, for too many years cities have been illegally robbing the permit fees for other purposes anyway/


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 11, 2019)

tmurray said:


> I'm sorry, I didn't realize your code required on-site generation of energy.


We don't but they are popular in rural areas (no electric) and eastern MT where the wind is more reliable


----------



## tmurray (Feb 11, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> We don't but they are popular in rural areas (no electric) and eastern MT where the wind is more reliable


I'm wondering if photovoltaic wouldn't be a better option. We have areas that have been running solar panels for about 40 years with little drop in efficiency. In lower latitudes they get a lot more wattage, but it really hurts the lifespan of the units. Montana has a latitude relatively similar to where I am.


----------



## conarb (Feb 11, 2019)

This on the front page of today's paper:



> Stacey Sonnenshein got some bad news when she spoke to Contra Costa County planners about making a minor addition to her 60-year-old hillside home.
> 
> The county had no record that a decades-old basement apartment, rented to a friend, was built legally. Sonnenshein was told to either evict the tenant or do a renovation that she and her partner couldn’t afford.
> 
> ...




¹ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/02/11/illegal-adus-in-bay-area-when-in-law-units-become-outlaws/


----------



## conarb (Feb 11, 2019)

San Francisco is going to try to do something about the enormous fees:



> The ordinance — which could be introduced at the Board of Supervisors’ meeting Tuesday meeting or next week — is Breed’s latest effort to chip away at what she sees as the administrative forces that make it harder to build housing.
> 
> “We have to remove the barriers and bureaucracy that get in the way of building more housing,” Breed said. “This means not only streamlining how we build housing, but also cutting fees so our dollars can go toward building more affordable housing and so more people will come forward to build in-laws, allowing us to add new rent-controlled units throughout city.”
> 
> ...




¹ https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...-bill-to-make-affordable-housing-13605351.php


----------



## tmurray (Feb 12, 2019)

conarb said:


> This on the front page of today's paper:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here, we have 6 months from the date we should have know about a violation for any corrective action. After that date, we can no longer pursue enforcement.  In this situation, if she has been taxed for two dwelling units for more than 6 months, we would not be able to force her to do anything. The property would be labeled a legal non-conforming use and can continue with that use.


----------



## steveray (Feb 12, 2019)

tmurray said:


> Here, we have 6 months from the date we should have know about a violation for any corrective action. After that date, we can no longer pursue enforcement.  In this situation, if she has been taxed for two dwelling units for more than 6 months, we would not be able to force her to do anything. The property would be labeled a legal non-conforming use and can continue with that use.



Interesting approach, I kind of like it but worry about the "next" buyer and their safety....


----------



## JCraver (Feb 12, 2019)

conarb said:
			
		

> Circumstantial evidence suggests the county did know about the unit, Sonnenshein said. She discovered a notation of a work permit for the basement addition — but no actual permit — in public records dated three years after the house was built. The county has long considered it a duplex on tax rolls, and Sonnenshein considers that further proof the county approved the addition.¹



Man I hope her lawyer rubs the County's nose in that.  A judge around here would smack us down hard if the 2 issues in that paragraph are true.


----------



## JCraver (Feb 12, 2019)

mark handler said:


> Cannot prove that, nor can they prove Seat belts save lives. Some that use them live, some die; some that don't use them live, some die.  But fatalities appear less....
> Cannot prove that drinking and driving will end in an accident. Some do, some don't. But fatalities appear less....
> 
> It's all a best guess.
> I have never heard of a death in a sprinklered SFD house.




So then you're ok with writing code based on best guesses?  That's my issue here.  Prove it saves a life, or leave it out of the code.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 12, 2019)

"The ordinance would prevent the city from moving money from one pocket to another. In San Francisco, the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development is the main source of funding for affordable housing projects."

Conarb
You can't have it both ways. You are against using building permit fees to subsidize other agencies yet you think waiving building permit fees for a department that probably receives a majority of its construction funding through federal grants is okay.

If a building department operates as a special revenue fund and all fees stay within that department to cover operating cost then no permit fees are ever waived. Why should those who pay a fee for a specific service subsidize the cost to provide that same service to others.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 12, 2019)

JCraver said:


> So then you're ok with writing code based on best guesses?  That's my issue here.  Prove it saves a life, or leave it out of the code.


Not the way Laws work
Cannot prove that, nor can they prove Seat belts save lives.
Cannot prove that drinking and driving will end in an accident.
Do you want those "vehicular codes" changed?

Cannot prove anything.
It's all a best guess.

Cannot prove that Smoke or CM Detectors, save lives.
Cannot Prove that framing anchors will keep the building intact during an earthquake or wind event.

So it should be a free for all, no society, Build what you want, where you want and sell it to any poor slob, because nothing is provable.

So Joe, you enforce No codes, because you cant prove it? You as a code enforcement officer  collect money for not enforcing the state codes?


----------



## conarb (Feb 12, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> "The ordinance would prevent the city from moving money from one pocket to another. In San Francisco, the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development is the main source of funding for affordable housing projects."
> 
> Conarb
> You can't have it both ways. You are against using building permit fees to subsidize other agencies yet you think waiving building permit fees for a department that probably receives a majority of its construction funding through federal grants is okay.
> ...


I agree and also see lots of constitutional issues here, the point is that the city makes lots of money with it's building department, now that it's building policies have put people on the streets something has to be done, so they want to reduce fees for the poor but not the rest of us, more good old communism, take from the rich and give to the poor. 

Government has always used building departments to achieve political goals, there was an article in the paper the other day about Urban Renewal in San Francisco:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Urban renewal often refers to the clearing out of blighted areas in inner cities to clear out slums and create opportunities for *higher class housing*, businesses, and more. Modern attempts at renewal began in the late 19th century in developed nations, and experienced an intense phase in the late 1940s under the rubric of reconstruction. The process has had a major impact on many urban landscapes, and has played an important role in the history and demographics of cities around the world.¹



San Francisco demolished it's entire Western Addition, Oakland it's entire West Oakland, both almost 100% black areas that the cities wanted to clear out.  



			
				SF Chronicle said:
			
		

> City officials, however, saw only the negatives. In 1947, a city report said that only a “clean sweep” could make the Western Addition “a genuinely good place to live.” In 1948, the Board of Supervisors declared the neighborhood a “blighted area” and designated it for redevelopment, for which federal funds were made available.
> 
> The newly created San Francisco Redevelopment Agency was charged with cleaning up the “blight.” For years, it accomplished little. But when a hard-charging executive named Justin Herman was appointed as head of the agency, *“urban renewal” — which the writer James Baldwin famously called “Negro removal”* — began in earnest.²



In Oakland a good friend was Oakland's only black building inspector, he was a licensed engineer and drew/engineered my plans and even got my permits in some cities, back when builders and inspectors were friends. Because he was black the city assigned him the chore of condemning West Oakland, after all why go through the courts, get property through eminent domain, pay for it, when you can send a building inspector out and condemn it?  He asked that I ride with him one day, he didn't even bother to go in, he had seen so many that he could write up a list of violations at the curb and hang them on the doors, those old Victorians were only worth $5,000 to $10,000 at the time, they all had brick foundations and foundations alone would cost more than that.  A demolition contractor got the entire area, he bought a war surplus army tank, started at one end of a block and ran right through all the homes that collapsed on top of his tank. meanwhile he had excavators picking up the debris and dropping it into lines of semi trucks.

Is there any difference between the building departments of the 50s clearing blacks out of town and those of today enforcing green and energy codes?  All are political, just look at Alexandria Occasio Cortez's "Green New Deal".

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_renewal

² https://www.sfchronicle.com/chronicle_vault/article/Vertigo-mansion-s-fate-was-a-San-13601725.php


----------



## JCraver (Feb 12, 2019)

mark handler said:


> Not the way Laws work
> Cannot prove that, nor can they prove Seat belts save lives.
> Cannot prove that drinking and driving will end in an accident.
> Do you want those "vehicular codes" changed?
> ...




No, Mark, I enforce what they pay me to enforce.  All of the codes we have adopted or are obliged to enforce by the State, even the ones I don't agree with.  The difference is, when we're adopting new codes, updating existing one's, or my crazy State tries to pass any, I opine against those that overreach.  Like those we've talked about in this thread - energy, sfd sprinklers, etc.

And seatbelts?  That's a whole other topic, but forcing me to wear a device while operating a vehicle I own and where only I may be injured as a result of "disobedience", is protecting me from myself and a giant overreach of law.  But the insurance lobby sure is happy..


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 4, 2019)

Keystone said:


> Residential wallboard inspection, not sure about you but I have had one handful of inspections fail and it was due to them not being ready. What about replacing this inspection with an affidavit from the responsible party, dated, print and signed. Indicating material placed, method of fastening, material to do so and spacing. A simple one page form you generate could become the affidavit.
> 
> The exception to this would be if the wallboard is part of a braced wall assembly and without question core walls.


Bad idea, thats all you need to do, give the "Sharkskins" another treasure chest to open.


----------



## Keystone (Mar 5, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> Bad idea, thats all you need to do, give the "Sharkskins" another treasure chest to open.



Since the I Codes existence, how many wallboard inspections have you had to fail for incorrect installation? This doesn't include firewalls and core walls.


----------



## Coder (Mar 28, 2019)

The only _residential_ drywall inspecting I am going to do now is in accordance with the 2015 IRC section R109.1.5.1, braced wall panels and garage lids under living space.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Mar 28, 2019)

Builder wanting to save $$$, just did a rgh-in inspection. Joist hangers all bent laying in the mud, nail clips all over the place, bent soffit vents, boards laying around with nails, mud all over the siding (hear the newly applied paint will pop off wherever there's clay soil on the siding afterwards). Does the builder real know where he/she's loosing money? And they think the city's gigging em! 

It's a travesty I say!!


----------



## Rick18071 (Apr 4, 2019)

Keystone said:


> Since the I Codes existence, how many wallboard inspections have you had to fail for incorrect installation? This doesn't include firewalls and core walls.



Had a few times where they had 1/2' water-resistance gypsum board (green board) on bathroom ceilings where trusses were spaced over 12" IRC702.3.8

And had one that the drywall job looked unbelievable bad and used E3906.6 more than 1/8" opening around electrical boxes.


----------



## Coder (Apr 8, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Builder wanting to save $$$, just did a rgh-in inspection. Joist hangers all bent laying in the mud, nail clips all over the place, bent soffit vents, boards laying around with nails, mud all over the siding (hear the newly applied paint will pop off wherever there's clay soil on the siding afterwards). Does the builder real know where he/she's loosing money? And they think the city's gigging em!
> 
> It's a travesty I say!!


It all started when they began cutting the vocational trades from High School curriculum.


----------



## Keystone (Apr 11, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> Had a few times where they had 1/2' water-resistance gypsum board (green board) on bathroom ceilings where trusses were spaced over 12" IRC702.3.8
> 
> And had one that the drywall job looked unbelievable bad and used E3906.6 more than 1/8" opening around electrical boxes.



Ironically enough, yesterday I failed two production bldr homes for lack of fasteners at the butting sections of wallboard on the ceiling.  

Even with this I’m not 100percent convinced this is still needs to remain a mandatory requirement.


----------



## Elior Rosenkrantz (Mar 7, 2021)

mark handler said:


> *It should not be a "cut Codes" debate it should be an "alter the codes to make sense.*
> 
> As an example:
> The Diminishing Returns of Adding More Insulation
> ...


That's the beauty of the blower door test. It let's you know exactly how many air changes per hour are in the house therfore making sure you are not under or over insulating the home. Just be in line with IECC guidelines for the climate zone. 

I get calls from home owners who bought flipped homes which look brand new but are in the 1950's in regards to Insulation. It's like slapping lipstick on a pig. 

Ori Rosenkrantz 
BlowerDoorTester.com 
LocalEnergyAudits.com/blower-door-testing


----------

