# Holding the Inspectors and Building Department Accountable?



## jar546 (Jul 12, 2021)

This just went into effect in Florida July 1st, 2021. Here is an excerpt from HB 667


(7)(a) A local enforcement agency must refund 10 percent of the permit and inspection fees to a permit holder if: 

1. The inspector or building code administrator determines that the work, which requires the permit, fails an inspection; 

and 

2. The inspector or building code administrator fails to provide, within 5 business days after the inspection, the permit holder or his or her agent with a reason, based on compliance with the Florida Building Code, Florida Fire Prevention Code, or local ordinance, for why the work failed the inspection.

   (b) If any permit and inspection fees are refunded under paragraph (a), the surcharges provided in s. 553.721 or s. 468.631 must be recalculated based on the amount of the permit and inspection fees after the refund.


----------



## steveray (Jul 12, 2021)

Interesting.....The bigger the project the bigger the "fine"? What about compliance with the con docs that may be "above code"?


----------



## Keystone (Jul 12, 2021)

5 days to provide a code section regarding a failed inspection is very generous for the inspectors and onerous to the bldr.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 12, 2021)

I note that it does not appear that the official has to provide the actual section number, just the reason. In that situation, I would agree with Keystone, it is very onerous on the builder. 

It would be interesting to see if the courts find a plain English reason for why the inspection fails as sufficient to meet the intent of the law, or if a section number is also required.


----------



## steveray (Jul 12, 2021)

Keystone said:


> 5 days to provide a code section regarding a failed inspection is very generous for the inspectors and onerous to the bldr.


Hopefully it does not inspire "those" inspectors to hold all results for 5 days...That would be ugly....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 12, 2021)

It does not state you have to provide a code section. It states you have to provide a "reason". It could be in the specs which are part of the construction drawings. Or it could be with the batch ticket for the concrete or any number of referenced referenced standards that are in the code


----------



## steveray (Jul 12, 2021)

jar546 said:


> a reason, based on compliance with the Florida Building Code, Florida Fire Prevention Code, or local ordinance, for why the work failed the inspection.


Close enough...Devil would be in the details as to whether or not your code/ statutes requires compliance with the con docs.....


----------



## ICE (Jul 12, 2021)

What happens when a corretion is overruled?  The phrase "with a reason, based on compliance with" could result in a problem for inspectors that are incompetant.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 12, 2021)

Doesn't the inspection report that's left at the site call out the failed inspection item? That meets the 5 day rule.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 12, 2021)

tmurray said:


> I note that it does not appear that the official has to provide the actual section number, just the reason. In that situation, I would agree with Keystone, it is very onerous on the builder.
> 
> It would be interesting to see if the courts find a plain English reason for why the inspection fails as sufficient to meet the intent of the law, or if a section number is also required.


I noticed and interpret it the same way.  Why but not a code section.  So "Failure to maintain 1/4" per foot pitch" is suffice without citing the code section.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 12, 2021)

ICE said:


> What happens when a corretion is overruled?  The phrase "with a reason, based on compliance with" could result in a problem for inspectors that are incompetant.


Incompetent


----------



## ICE (Jul 12, 2021)

jar546 said:


> Incompetent


The TheCommish wrote that.

When the regulation says "based on" there is a clear intent to require evidence of the basis of the correction.  IE a code section.

It doesn't say that the recipient must request the reason either.  So you might as well build in the refunds at the start.  Does this apply for every time the work fails inspection?

The legislators haven't a clue.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 12, 2021)

jar546 said:


> I noticed and interpret it the same way.  Why but not a code section.  So "Failure to maintain 1/4" per foot pitch" is suffice without citing the code section.


I think the turn around time for inspection results without a code section should be provided relatively quickly. We provide them within 24 hours of the inspection (typically same day). We let the contractor know if they are on site, but always send them an email as well, which helps to make sure they have everything done on the list before we get a call back.

If the requirement is intended to also provide a section number, my worry is that this will bog down staff to the point where additional staff needs to be brought on. I have an issue with increasing quantity of work without necessarily the quality, but that is just the Lean Six Sigma training in me.


----------



## ORinspector (Jul 12, 2021)

In Oregon we are required to cite the code section or ordinance for each correction we write.

918-098-1900
Corrective Notices — Cite-it Write-it Requirement

In addition to any other requirements set forth in statute and rule, all building officials, inspectors and plans examiners certified under Division 098, OAR 918-225-0540, 918-281-0020, 918-695-0400, and ORS 460.055 must include an exact reference to the applicable specialty code section, Oregon administrative rule, or statute, when issuing corrective notices at construction sites or to buildings or related appurtenances during a plan review while administering or enforcing a building inspection program. The building official, inspector, or plans examiner must include a plain statement of facts upon which the citation for correction action is based.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 12, 2021)

ORinspector said:


> In Oregon we are required to cite the code section or ordinance for each correction we write.
> 
> 918-098-1900
> Corrective Notices — Cite-it Write-it Requirement
> ...


wow


----------



## steveray (Jul 12, 2021)

I could do without the last sentence in the Oregon rule.....But it is on the right track.....If I have to give them the code section, I shouldn't have to give a "plain statement of facts" as well...Whatever that is...


----------



## Sifu (Jul 12, 2021)

I cite the code section.  I find it cuts way down on arguments and "why's".  It forces them to look it up and figure out a path to compliance on their own, and leaves little room for argument.  I recently asked for an accessible service counter on a plan that had a 2'1" wide counter section for a parallel approach, citing the section for providing accessible service counters, giving them options; widen it to 36" , or make it a forward approach at 30".   Otherwise I would have either limited their options or had to write a bunch of "ifs" and "ors".  It takes a little more time sometimes to look up the citation, but the savings in resubmittals and hassles makes up for it.  I encourage everyone to use this method whenever possible, but most do not.  To each his/her/its own.

I still get some arguments, but usually not on the merit of the citation, more on the "we can't", or "we don't want to" basis, with an admission that they don't meet the code as written.  When they take the time to read the code they usually figure out what they did wrong and form a plan to achieve compliance.  When they don't take the time, my first question is -why not?  For me personally, I have found the level of irritation in the arguments is lowered when they come into it with an understanding that I am not making something up, because it is "right there in black and white", and when they enter the conversation with an admission that they don't meet the code.  The dialogue is just better.

Finally, I think it makes me a better building official.  Often, when I look up the citation and re-read it for myself, I am challenging my own assumptions, and find that what I thought was "right there in black and white" really isn't, and I avoid a mistake.  I try very hard to administer only what the code explicitly requires, looking up the sections myself over and over helps me with that.

I fully admit I have more time do this than a field inspector, but even back when I did that I usually cited a code, but if I couldn't due to time constraints, made darn sure I could if asked to.  I also strongly believe that doing this on the PE side helps the field inspector, especially in the case of a red-line on an accepted plan.


----------



## e hilton (Jul 12, 2021)

This was probably driven by some lobbyist on behalf of a contractors association, cuz you mean ol’ inspectors are just making up most of the rejections.  

They need to be careful what they ask for … if I was an inspector, my inspection tickets would consist of nothing but IBC paragraph numbers … let them figure out the details.


----------



## Keystone (Jul 12, 2021)

How long before an inspection takes place on a Wednesday, national holiday on a Thursday and inspector decided to take off that Friday for the extra long weekend.  The inspector returns Monday and has a full plate, no time to cite a “reason” but gets to it on a Tuesday. That exceeds 5 days, the verbiage states 5 days not business days.   

Add this to the many comments above, all ya Fl inspectors get ready to have several amendments along the way. If ya have the opportunity to be proactive I’d suggest doing so and addressing the entity.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 12, 2021)

e hilton said:


> if I was an inspector, my inspection tickets would consist of nothing but IBC paragraph numbers … let them figure out the details.


I would do that with design professional's when I did plan review. A lot of correction requirements are not "code" the contractor is not following the plans or specs and that is all the reason that is needed.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 12, 2021)

We are loosing track of the fundamentals.

We are a country of laws.  If a government representative imposes a requirement that is not based on a properly adopted law, the government representative is acting illegally.  If the government representative is not able to justify the requirement based on the adopted laws then the assumption should be that the requirement is not valid.

Yes to the rule of law.  No to autocrats.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 12, 2021)

e hilton said:


> This was probably driven by some lobbyist on behalf of a contractors association, cuz you mean ol’ inspectors are just making up most of the rejections.
> 
> They need to be careful what they ask for … if I was an inspector, my inspection tickets would consist of nothing but IBC paragraph numbers … let them figure out the details.


When there are "issues" with a contractor, I explain nothing and just cite code sections.  In the end it just ends up causing a bunch of phone calls that take more time but they get it at the end of the day.  Yes, be careful what you wish for.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 12, 2021)

Keystone said:


> How long before an inspection takes place on a Wednesday, national holiday on a Thursday and inspector decided to take off that Friday for the extra long weekend.  The inspector returns Monday and has a full plate, no time to cite a “reason” but gets to it on a Tuesday. That exceeds 5 days, the verbiage states 5 days not business days.
> 
> Add this to the many comments above, all ya Fl inspectors get ready to have several amendments along the way. If ya have the opportunity to be proactive I’d suggest doing so and addressing the entity.


Everyone that works in my department uses an app that is part of our permitting software.  Inspections are resulted in real time at the jobsite and can include photos so there is no excuse to not result before you leave for the day.  It is not fair to the contractors to have to wait until after a weekend to be told why you failed an inspection.  
I do realize that there are very, very rare circumstances where you have to take the time to research and that is where the 5 days comes in.


----------



## cda (Jul 12, 2021)

Our basic software has the general code section imbedded in the report already


----------



## Sifu (Jul 12, 2021)

Interesting CDA, do you have a canned drop down list to choose from?  Otherwise how does it work?  What is the software?


----------



## Sifu (Jul 12, 2021)

Funny how "progress" can be usurped.  Back in the days of written corrections, a two or three part form left on site, nobody had to wait...until the contractors complained about having to go to the job site to get the ticket.  They wanted the ability to see the inspection without going to the site...RED FLAG?  They got their wish, but now could end up waiting even longer.  Using the technology to your advantage is a big help, but not using it correctly can create even bigger road-blocks.  Sometimes I want to be "ransomed" back a few years.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 12, 2021)

Does this override or replace the building code appeal process that is adopted, section IBC 113 Board of Appeals?


----------



## ICE (Jul 12, 2021)

As an example the correction on a PEX repipe reads:  “Establish a grounding electrode system for the premises wiring per the CEC.”  If asked for a reason why, the obvious answer is that there is a need for one and that there is not one.  How many CEC sections are relevant for a grounding electrode system?

How about a bedroom addition with a window that does not meet egress requirements?  The correction reads: “Provide an egress window per the CRC.” 

It seems to me that the reason for a failure is the correction as it is written.  It’s rare that I just say “NO”….although it has happened….followed up with ”NOT YET”

One in a thousand has a code book and that code book is fifteen years old.  So what’s the point?


----------



## e hilton (Jul 12, 2021)

ICE said:


> One in a thousand has a code book and that code book is fifteen years old.  So what’s the point?


Well theres part of the payback … more will be forced to become familiar with the book.


----------



## cda (Jul 12, 2021)

Ers,  it has a list of questions for different inspections,, on the fire side



Sifu said:


> Interesting CDA, do you have a canned drop down list to choose from?  Otherwise how does it work?  What is the software?



ERS. It has a checklist of questions, that you make up and code section included






__





						Fire and EMS Records and Reporting | Emergency Reporting
					

Our fire and EMS software provide the tools needed to get the job done on the go and in the station, including NFIRS, NFPA, and NEMSIS 3 reporting.




					emergencyreporting.com


----------



## ICE (Jul 12, 2021)

cda said:


> Our basic software has the general code section imbedded in the report already


Because I am working from home, I send an email with the result of the inspection.  I have been told to not use the word fail, failed, failure.  Instead I say, " _the address_ was inspected with the following result:" and then I list the corrections. Win, lose, or draw everybody get a trophy.


----------



## TheCommish (Jul 13, 2021)

ICE said:


> The TheCommish wrote that.
> 
> When the regulation says "based on" there is a clear intent to require evidence of the basis of the correction.  IE a code section.
> 
> ...


*That would be ICE not *I, I know I have spelling issues


----------



## Sifu (Jul 13, 2021)

Yes, we too have been advised that pass and fail can hurt feelings.  Can't say not approved, approved either.  Not exclusive either, many AHJ's have adopted the warm and fuzzy.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 13, 2021)

Mark K said:


> We are loosing track of the fundamentals.
> 
> We are a country of laws.  If a government representative imposes a requirement that is not based on a properly adopted law, the government representative is acting illegally.  If the government representative is not able to justify the requirement based on the adopted laws then the assumption should be that the requirement is not valid.
> 
> Yes to the rule of law.  No to autocrats.


The premise appears to be that by adding in a requirement to cite code language or code sections, inspectors and plan reviewers will be forced to only enforce the code. This premise does not stand up to any scrutiny at all once you understand that by not restricting their review or inspections to the adopted code, they are already breaking the law. 

So if they are already breaking the law by not enforcing the adopted code, which I certainly agree with you is an egregious infringement on the rights of the private individual, why would they care about breaking a law that is simply administrative in nature?

The reality is that these people already justify what they are doing and will do similar mental gymnastics to justify not complying with this law too.


----------



## Darren Emery (Jul 13, 2021)

Interesting discussion.  Two comments to add:

Our inspection software allows for the inspector to add violation types on the fly, and then we add code sections to the violation library later.  The next time that violation type is used, the code reference is included in the email notification.   The one drawback to this system:  we're going to have to review the entire library of code section changes every time we adopt a new code cycle. 

We tried to stay away from "failed" as well.   "Further Action Required" is what we landed on.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 13, 2021)

We have "Satisfactory" or "Unsatisfactory" like you had on your kindergarten report card..  I mean kindergarten progress report. I mean pre-school progress report.

_I always had "Improvement needed" on my report cards._

I recently had to go to the free health clinic with writers cramp after listing eighty seven code related inspection items, some of my questions were "What kind of of light fixture are you using within 3-ft of the tub?" Would that be a "Doesn't look right!" or "Get back to me later" on my inspection report?

How bout "Nonperformance" or "Code negligence". Can I use those?

Marry Chri...   "I mean Happy Holidays!"


----------



## Mark K (Jul 13, 2021)

tmurray

While certain individuals will try to justify illegal actions it is still important to recognize the principle that any comment during plan check and violation during construction must be supported by a code reference.  Preferably this principle should clearly be stated in the building code or the enabling legislation.

This will allow he owner and the design professionals to push back against improper requirements.  For example if when a plan checker did not provide a code reference the designer were to send a letter/email to the building official stating that the comment was improper and cannot be responded to, the building official would either correct the plan checker or support the plan checker.  Since the plan checker does not want his boss correcting himself most plan checkers will provide a code reference.  This may also help the building official to understand that he has a problem employee which could allow him to correct the problem at its source.

If the building official refuses to correct the behavior of the plan checker then the design professionals will  understand that the problem is with the building official.  In these situations it should be easier for appeals boards and potentially the courts to slap the wrist of the building department.

Will this solve all problems? No it will not but it will reduce the problems and allow the design professionals and owners to push back when the building department employees have over stepped their authority.

Let us assume the designers have notified the building department that they could not respond to the comment because no code provision was referenced and then the building department would not issue a permit.  In such a situation it should be relatively easy for the owner to request the court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the department to issue the permit.

If everybody recognizes that code references need to be provided then it will be harder for bad actors to continue their practices. 

Sure some individuals will still promote contorted code interpretations to justify their actions but then it makes it easier for the design professionals to push back.  While we cannot solve all problems  this will be a positive step forward.


----------



## cda (Jul 13, 2021)

Instead of code violation 

Participation Deficiency

Or 

Correction Notice Issued


----------



## tmurray (Jul 13, 2021)

Mark K said:


> tmurray
> 
> While certain individuals will try to justify illegal actions it is still important to recognize the principle that any comment during plan check and violation during construction must be supported by a code reference.  Preferably this principle should clearly be stated in the building code or the enabling legislation.
> 
> ...


We are not arguing the principle though. 

All I am saying is that placing a requirement on the building official to provide a code section does absolutely nothing. 

It does nothing from an employment standpoint because they are already not doing their job. the contractor/owner/RDP just needs to tell someone up the chain of command who will do something.

It does not help from a legal standpoint because they are already not following the law. Well, ok, you can slap them with a separate charge for not citing a code.  

The real issue here is that we have additional workload, the costs of which will either be bourn on the applicant and/or the tax payers, with no actual increase in quality of work. We know it isn't really going to improve anything because the contractor/owner/RDP can already complain about not getting code references, but we've already discussed in another thread why they don't. They are not complaining now, why are they going to complain later?

Whether refusing to provide code references are a violation of administrative law or not, it is already a violation of basic procedural fairness. I'm not sure if that is enforceable for you folks, but a municipality was found guilty and liable for the damages of a plaintiff here in Canada a number of years ago.


----------



## Sifu (Jul 14, 2021)

I am a plans examiner.  I examine plans to try and determine, within reason, that a proposed design will be in conformance to the code when it is constructed.  I report my observations for code related issues.  I don't consider the observations I make as code violations, since they are (supposed to be) in front of me before they are constructed.  I restrict my comments to verifiable codes, and citing the code sections ensures I stay true to it.  I view my purpose as pretty simple and definable with a few points of service:

-I try to identify a condition that will not pass field inspection once constructed, thereby saving time and money for applicants
-I try to identify a condition that requires further attention to specific codes so that once constructed it will be compliant
-I try to provide code related information to inspectors and constructors that if overlooked, will lead to a non-compliant condition once constructed

I don't pass or fail a review.  I make comments, some of which require an answer from the applicant to help me determine if any of the aforementioned points of service need to be provided, or resubmittal because as a result of the comment a re-design is required, some of which don't, and are just alerts to the end users.  (Some AHJ's want minimal redlines, some don't care, some DP's love them, some don't.  That level of service is a moving target.)

The following is an example of an event from yesterday.

I had made a previous plan review comment to provide an accessible service counter in accordance with ANSI 117.1 904.3 because an accessible counter was not identified and I couldn't find an elevation that indicated they were aware of the requirement.  The section I cited leaves them with two options, they can pick whichever they want.  A response came back with a 30" wide, 36" tall counter, without knee/toe space, (a parallel approach).  I could return another marked plan and provide them with another more specific comment for a parallel approach.  I could also pick up the phone, call the DP and explain the concern.  I chose the latter, and asked if I could simply red-line the plan to either provide a 36" counter for parallel approach, or provide a forward approach.  This way I could move the plan forward without further delay.  I explained that my job was to try to avoid a situation where the field inspector would go in and "fail" the condition and cause delays and expenditures a few months from now, by addressing it with minimal delay and no expenditures today.  

I provided the nature of the condition that needed addressed, and the code section to guide them to the options.  They didn't pay close enough attention, so I took further steps.  (in this case they didn't want a red-line, but revised the drawing and I had it within a few hours, and still turned the plan over the same day).  The DP was very happy with the end result.

I view my position as a service, and in many cases it is optional depending on the nature of the work and the rules of the AHJ.  The value in a plans examination is to identify issues before they cost money, and hopefully in a more comprehensive manner than a field inspection since more time is afforded and a more holistic approach can be used.  My methods save time and money for the applicants, and time and confusion for the inspectors.  I humbly submit that I am a helpful part of the process, not a hinderance, although that belief is probably not shared by all.

So, a very long winded narrative on why I use code citations.  My goal is to advance plans to issuance as quickly and efficiently as possible with savings for end users.  Code citations serve to ensure I am not over-stepping, expedite responses by avoiding confusion, and explain my concerns and offer pathways to answers.  Not everyone has the time, motivation and support to do it the same way, but I think if they did, they might find some value in it, and I think the end users would to.


----------



## ICE (Jul 14, 2021)

In the beginning any residential project that was under six hundred square feet was not plan checked for other than a site plan.  In other words, unless they were building an entire house there was no plan check and it didn't matter how large it was.  At that time I was a one man operation in a contract city.  The meant that I issued the permit and did the inspections.  I would staple Type V sheets to the plans and off they would go.

A bureaucratic creep took over. We have reached an absurd condition where nobody can function on their own.  A patio cover needs an engineer and every nit-picking deficiency demands a code section.  Where are we headed with this?  I envision the day that engineers are wearing coveralls with smashed thumbs.


----------



## ICE (Jul 14, 2021)

Those of you that provide a code section for each correction do so for various reasons.  It might be that the AHJ requires that...maybe it's the State you live in....or perhaps you do it as a personal choice.  Well whatever the case may be for you, it would be a waste of my time...and a considerable waste at that.

There's at least fifteen million people in southern California and half of them are contractors.  Of the 7.5 million contractors there's a dozen code books.  They can't understand those code books.  What became of inspectors that could be trusted?  If I have to tell you that one receptacle in a bedroom isn't enough, do I really have to back that decision up with a code section?  Tell ya what, take me to court and I'll come up with a code section.  Otherwise, learn what you should already know before you take money from people as you masquerade as a contractor.

The personal choice of many of my fellow conscripts is to avoid writing corrections....maybe they are lazy....perhaps they don't know a correction when they see it.  Well whatever the case may be for them, it would drive their numbers even lower if they were required to provide a code section.

As I read this I realize that there are inspectors that write complete total bullshit corrections....I mean it's some of the damnedest stuff you can imagine.  Mark K has been dealing with such inspectors for an entire career.  I'll give you an example; the inspection was for a final of an ADU.  That inspector did all of the inspections from start to finish.  A correction was written to replace a kitchen window because it was not tempered.  The correction stated that the window must be tempered because it was over a kitchen sink.  And that's not all, a bathroom window must be replaced because it is in a bathroom....over a toilet.

At the rough plumbing inspection a correction was written to remove the plumbing for a laundry room sink.  There was no written explanation for that.  The contractor said that the reason given was that a sink would encourage the owner to create a second kitchen.

Now I suppose that a code section would have made a difference here but the evil would find another way out.  Holding my feet to the fire isn't going to fix that.

And by the way TheCommish, it was just a lighthearted tease.


----------



## Sifu (Jul 14, 2021)

ICE said:


> Otherwise, learn what you should already know before you take money from people as you masquerade as a contractor.


Ice, agree 100%, and in some cases I would add design professional to that.  However, that mentality wouldn't fly here and now.  I have worked in places it would fly (or used to, not sure now) and it was a whole different, and largely better environment.  As a contractor that is the exact mentality that existed with the inspectors I had on my jobs.  It made me a better contractor too.  I wish that way of thinking still existed, in any extent, but in my AHJ it would be suicide.  Right or wrong, many of us are now babysitters.  I simply use a method that covers my arse to the greatest extent possible, while still getting the message across.  You are correct, it can be a huge waste of time, and I wouldn't do it if it didn't have value, but for me it does.  Don't mistake my opinions for an admonition or instruction on how you do your job, I would never presume to do that,  In fact, I like your methods better, I just can't pull them off anymore.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 16, 2021)

ICE said:


> Now I suppose that a code section would have made a difference here but the evil would find another way out.  Holding my feet to the fire isn't going to fix that.



That inspector thinks they are doing the world a favor. They write the correction to remove the plumbing for a laundry room sink and the code section/citation they use would be that it has to be to approved plans, they need a fire separation between dwelling units, etc. There is no limit to code sections they could misinterpret to get to their intended objective of removing that rough plumbing. 

We can all agree that there are inspectors who have no business doing inspections. They have no respect for the fact that they are an extension of the collective will of the public, not someone who has been granted absolute authority to require whatever they want because they play the "what-if" game or "well, I know best".


----------



## Mark K (Jul 17, 2021)

Requiring the plan checker and inspector to reference specific code provisions serves several purposes.  First it allows the designer to understand what the inspector sees as the problem and  thus  what the designer must do to get the comment resolved.  The need to provide code reference reminds the plan  checker and inspector that they can only require what is in the building code.  But just as important once it is recognized that the building department must reference code provisions it makes it easier for the designer to push back against the plan checker or inspector who abuses his or her authority.

The need to reference a code section should also cause the plan checker or inspector to think more clearly what they believe the problem is.

Yes there will be cases where creative code sections will be referenced but this will put the designer on notice that games are being played.   We can only hope that the building department will become aware of these instances and will work with the plan checker or inspector to change their behavior.

The appropriate response to a comment not supported by a code reference should be that since no code section is referenced the comment is ignored.  This should either result in the plan checker of inspector providing the appropriate code reference, thus allowing the designer to understand what must be done, or result in the comment being abandoned.


----------



## ICE (Jul 17, 2021)

Section numbers you say?  How about actual inspectors to write those section numbers?  Wouldn't that be a more impactful start?  You really don't expect to have one without the other do you?  The trouble with that is there would be actual inspecting going on.  Actual inspecting has a negative effect on the customer service score.  Right away you know that's not happening.  And who has the big issue with the status quo?  Is it someone we know?


----------



## classicT (Jul 19, 2021)

Ya know Mark, all you ever do is rail on Code Officials. I get that some code officials act beyond their authority, but you know what? I know of far more design professionals who are incompetent, who should not be allowed to design a shed yet alone a habitable multistory office building.



Mark K said:


> But just as important once it is recognized that the building department must reference code provisions it makes it easier for the designer to push back against the plan checker or inspector who abuses his or her authority.



So you know what, maybe we should require that the designer provide a code reference for every aspect of their design. After all, why should they not be held to the same standard?


----------



## steveray (Jul 19, 2021)

classicT said:


> Ya know Mark, all you ever do is rail on Code Officials. I get that some code officials act beyond their authority, but you know what? I know of far more design professionals who are incompetent, who should not be allowed to design a shed yet alone a habitable multistory office building.


Really....I think I am about even with the number/ % of sucky designers and sucky inspectors.....And it is getting worse all the way round...


----------



## e hilton (Jul 19, 2021)

tmurray said:


> once you understand that by not restricting their review or inspections to the adopted code, they are already breaking the law.


You have made that statement a couple of times, and i still don't understand your point.  How are they breaking the law?


----------



## tmurray (Jul 19, 2021)

e hilton said:


> You have made that statement a couple of times, and i still don't understand your point.  How are they breaking the law?


As a building official, I can only legally make a contractor do what has been lawfully adopted. If a government official goes beyond this point, they are in violation of that person's rights guaranteed under your constitution and my charter. 

If a government official is willing to infringe on the guaranteed rights of the individual, a right that is so intrinsic to your society that it become inseparable, I would question what methods, short of termination, would cause the government official to correct their behavior.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 19, 2021)

I see the world from the design professionals point of view.

When we have competing world views there are two ways to resolve conflicts, either the one with the most power wins or we use our legal system to resolve the disagreements.  I am just asking the building department to comply with the laws.  When a plan checker says that he does not need to identify the code basis he is saying that he is the law.

Contemplate what tmurray has said

The design professional is required to show why his design complies with the law, for example by submission of calculations, so why should the plan checker not be required to defend his comments?

Are we a country of laws or are we ruled by autocrats?


----------



## classicT (Jul 19, 2021)

Mark K said:


> I see the world from the design professionals point of view.
> 
> When we have competing world views there are two ways to resolve conflicts, either the one with the most power wins or we use our legal system to resolve the disagreements.  I am just asking the building department to comply with the laws.  When a plan checker says that he does not need to identify the code basis he is saying that he is the law.
> 
> ...


With regards to the above, I do not disagree at all. I do my best to always provide code sections. I think all code officials should.

There are certain times you don't need to, but those are practical in nature. (i.e. beam calc. and plan conflict, missing supporting doc.s, etc.) Laws saying that a code section must be provided can cause issue herein. That said, code officials will just use a catch-all like IBC 107.2.1.

*[A] 107.2.1 Information on Construction Documents*​Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn on suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted where approved by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the building official.​
Sufficient clarity as determined by the building official... that is pretty open ended. Not enough detail, provide more. Boom!

Mark, what I was really getting at is that you sound like a broken record always complaining about the code official who usurps his/her authority. With that attitude, I can't imagine that as a code official, that I would want to work with you. As a code official, I see myself as part of the project team. I am here to help identify issues within the design before construction when the cost to fix and address is typically 10-fold. I am not the enemy.

Design professionals are no more immune to mistakes or lapse in judgement than a contractor or a code official. If your world view of code officials is so gloomy, perhaps you have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps you are so argumentative and challenging that the code officials you work with (wait, you don't work with them, but against them) do not want to help you.

Perhaps you should invite the code official to be a part of the team. Work with them and not against them. Use them as a resource and don't make them a hurdle. Have an open line of communication.

I will tell you that I have a number of design professionals that when I see an issue, I call and typically get a revised drawing the same day. I also have a number that I do not call and every issue they have gets a formal correction letter addressing their issues by code section.

The difference? Their attitude. Work with me, and I will work with you. Fight me just because, and I wont fight back; I will just send you a correction letter and you can figure it out.


----------



## e hilton (Jul 19, 2021)

Mark K said:


> The design professional is required to show why his design complies with the law, for example by submission of calculations, so why should the plan checker not be required to defend his comments?


Take that to the next level … the DP should be required to add a note to every detail on the page indicating what code he/she used when creating that detail.  Some details will require 4 or 5 notes to be properly annotated.  The drawings will become cluttered and almost unreadable … or the number of drawing sheets will double.  

Absurd?  Of course.  But so is tmurray‘s position.  

Here’s my thought … let the plan checkers and building inspectors continue to mark drawings and do field inspections as they always have … its a fairly efficient system that works … and if questioned by the contractor or architect they must provide reference to the code section within X days.  If the contractors would perform their work properly, and become familiar with the code book, there would be a lot less failed inspections.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 20, 2021)

Mark K said:


> I see the world from the design professionals point of view.
> 
> When we have competing world views there are two ways to resolve conflicts, either the one with the most power wins or we use our legal system to resolve the disagreements.  I am just asking the building department to comply with the laws.  When a plan checker says that he does not need to identify the code basis he is saying that he is the law.
> 
> ...


I have no issue providing code sections where asked. In fact, I have no issue with the law requiring that we must provide one when it is requested. 

Where I have the issue is to provide it for everyone. While providing a code section to a person knowledgeable in the codes generates positive discussion and a potential resolution, providing it to someone who has never even seen a code book is less than useless, it is a waste of government resources. I have been in situations where I tell a contractor what I *think* the code requires. I have made it abundantly clear that it is just what I think it requires, but need to check the code to confirm. The contractor just goes ahead and does what I think the code requires because it was the better way to do it anyway. In that situation, I always look it up anyway and inform the contractor, but it does not change their behavior. They do it the "better" way regardless of whether it is required by code or not. 

As a department manager, I have a responsibility to ensure the efficient use of tax payer money. In this situation, I simply cannot agree that providing everyone a code section for every single violation provides any actual benefit for the additional tax payer money that this initiative would cost. I understand as a designer this would make your life easier, but as a regulator, we have a different world view. I have to take into account the effect of any initiatives on not just the designer community and the owners they serve, but on my entire community.


----------



## steveray (Jul 20, 2021)

Welcome to the gray area between customer service and regulation and ridiculousness.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 20, 2021)

tmurray said:


> I have no issue providing code sections where asked. In fact, I have no issue with the law requiring that we must provide one when it is requested.


I agree with this comment


tmurray said:


> As a department manager, I have a responsibility to ensure the efficient use of tax payer money. In this situation, I simply cannot agree that providing everyone a code section for every single violation provides any actual benefit for the additional tax payer money that this initiative would cost. I understand as a designer this would make your life easier, but as a regulator, we have a different world view. I have to take into account the effect of any initiatives on not just the designer community and the owners they serve, but on my entire community.


I agree with this comment

I recently received a set of plans that had the, wrong address, the wrong codes and the square footage listed incorrectly for two occupancies on the first page. What do I cite? Can I just list "Not approved?" and move on to my next review? Please? 

I know a city that stops the review right there in it's tracks, I don't want to do it that way.


----------



## steveray (Jul 20, 2021)

i'd go with 107.2.1....

[A] 107.2.1 Information on construction documents.
Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn
upon suitable material. Electronic media documents are
permitted to be submitted where approved by the building
official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient
clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the
work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to
the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances,
rules and regulations, as determined by the building official.


----------



## e hilton (Jul 20, 2021)

Pcinspector1 said:


> I know a city that stops the review right there in it's tracks, I don't want to do it that way.


In that particular case I think it should be rejected and sent back … too many mistakes in the beginning.


----------



## steveray (Jul 20, 2021)

We always do the best review we can, even if it is crap...Don't like to penalize people for cut and paste errors...


----------



## Mark K (Jul 20, 2021)

We have a basic disagreement about the role of the building department in permitting a project. The plan checkers role is to check for code compliance, not to tell me how to format my drawings or to suggest that I should have done it differently.

I do not work against the plan checker. I accept that we have building codes and building departments and simply want to address the issues in the codes with minimal disruption to the project. When I get a plan check comment, I will respond to it professionally. There is no advantage in getting personal. If I had made a mistake, I will revise the documents. If I believe my design is correct, I will defend it. Sometimes I will make an unnecessary change when it is not worth the fight.

I find it interesting that when the plan checker criticizes my design, I am expected to say yes sir and do what the checker says but when I defend my design I am being argumentative.

I cannot assume that the plan checker is there to help me because experience has shown me that such an assumption is not reality. To often the plan checker has his own agenda. I do not need another “team member” imposed on me by the jurisdiction. What I want is for the plan checker to perform his or her job competently and consistent with state law. When this happens, things go smoothly.

With regards to the comment about spending taxpayer’s money. In California the building department is funded by permit fees. In fact when averaged over a year or more if the fees are greater than the departments costs they need to adjust the fee structure. Any excess does not go into the general fund. Thus it is the applicants not the general taxpayers that fund the department.


----------



## steveray (Jul 21, 2021)

Mark K said:


> Thus it is the applicants not the general taxpayers that fund the department.


Correct...I was $1 million cash positive this year.....


----------



## tmurray (Jul 21, 2021)

Mark K said:


> With regards to the comment about spending taxpayer’s money. In California the building department is funded by permit fees. In fact when averaged over a year or more if the fees are greater than the departments costs they need to adjust the fee structure. Any excess does not go into the general fund. Thus it is the applicants not the general taxpayers that fund the department.


Wasn't this thread about Florida?


----------



## steveray (Jul 21, 2021)

tmurray said:


> Wasn't this thread about Florida?


That was where it started...Not really OT yet....


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 21, 2021)

All fees I collect for building permits go into the general fund, then some smart guy tells me how much the budget is for my department after I give my wants and needs. I requested an ink pen once, "Please sir can I have some more?"


----------



## classicT (Jul 21, 2021)

Mark K said:


> I find it interesting that when the plan checker criticizes my design, I am expected to say yes sir and do what the checker says but when I defend my design I am being argumentative.


I don't think anyone has said that... what we have suggested is that you are a broken record and you constantly rail against code officials.



Mark K said:


> I do not need another “team member” imposed on me by the jurisdiction.


Why not? It is not imposed; it is someone who may have a different perspective and is trying to help you and the project team find success. Again, sounds like you are the one shut down and being difficult.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 21, 2021)

If the fees are put into the general fund and only a percentage is used to provide the service the fees were intended to pay for  then there is a conflict of interest.  The city profits if the building department does a minimal job.


----------



## ICE (Jul 21, 2021)

Mark K said:


> The city profits if the building department does a minimal job.


So does the designer, the contractor and the owner.  California has passed a law that prevents jurisdictions from performing plan checking on solar projects.  EV charger permits must be permitted immediately upon receipt of the application with no other constraints such as a load calculation.  It's about as minimal as it gets....all to build profit.  Well they say that it's to enhance the solar industry but the reality is that there is nothing altruistic about the solar industry.

There is a push by a few cities to blindly accept plans as long as there is a licensed engineer taking responsibility.  The same engineer will take responsibility for the inspections as well.  Now there is some real savings for the municipality.  No building plan checkers, no inspectors....all they need is a clerk. 

I do not know what the motivation is and it could be a step up in performance.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 21, 2021)

Mark K said:


> If the fees are put into the general fund and only a percentage is used to provide the service the fees were intended to pay for  then there is a conflict of interest.  The city profits if the building department does a minimal job.


Agreed. Building departments need to be carful at the difference between a fee and a tax. A fee at most pays for the delivery of the service. A tax may exceed the cost of delivery of the service. If the "fee" exceeds the costs to deliver the service, it is a tax. There could be legal implications if taxes must be adopted differently than fees (as is the case in Canada).


----------



## Mark K (Jul 21, 2021)

The laws on permitting solar systems in California were driven by the Solar industry arguably because the building departments were taking too much time.

Building departments are often concerned about the engineer taking responsibility.  This is not their job.  An engineer is responsible for his or her recommendations and that  responsibility is enforced by the courts and the state licensing boards NOT the building department.  So please stop playing games by trying to hold the engineer "responsible".

The building department is responsible for enforcing the building code.

It is interesting that building departments are obsessives  about the  responsibility of the engineer when they have no responsibility for their own actions. 

The fact that an engineer has signed the construction documents does not relieve the building department of its responsibilities.

When I hear of a building department the blindly relies on the engineers signature and stamp my first impression is that the department does not have anybody qualified to perform the plan check.


----------



## Joe.B (Jul 21, 2021)

It's hard to find qualified people, on either side of the counter.


----------



## ICE (Jul 25, 2021)

The fees that are collected for permits are not based on the building department’s expenditure of resources for a given project.   Building permit fees are based on the valuation of the material and labor whereas all other permits have set prices.  The evidence suggests that building permits are too expensive and MEP  permits are too inexpensive.  A few pay more to support the many.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 23, 2021)

ICE said:


> As an example the correction on a PEX repipe reads:  “Establish a grounding electrode system for the premises wiring per the CEC.”  If asked for a reason why, the obvious answer is that there is a need for one and that there is not one.  How many CEC sections are relevant for a grounding electrode system?
> 
> How about a bedroom addition with a window that does not meet egress requirements?  The correction reads: “Provide an egress window per the CRC.”
> 
> ...


Need to stay current with code changes "duh", code is a tool, tools require periodic sharpening.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 15, 2021)

Another item for spec writers to address but many projects do not have specs and what of contractors responsibility to know and have a copy of the code on site?


----------



## Mark K (Sep 15, 2021)

While we would wish that the Contractor knew the code there is no code requirement that there be a copy of the code on the construction site.

As far as the building department is concerned it is the Owner's not the contractor's responsibility to comply with the code .  The building department can stop the job or refuse to issue certificate of occupancy but if any formal legal action is taken it would be against the property and the owner of the property.

Any obligation the contractor has to comply with the building code is a contractual obligation between the owner and the contractor.

In California as far as the Contractor's licensing board is concerned the contractor is only responsible for code compliance if there is no architect or engineer.  When here is a licensed architect or engineer is involved their position is that the contractor only need comply with the construction documents.  But this only is relevant with respect to complaints with the licensing board against the contractor.


----------



## bill1952 (Sep 15, 2021)

Interesting Mark. I suspect you enforce IBC accesibility requirements but not the federal ones, correct? It seems the feds have gone after the designers and builders, as well as the owners I presume.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 15, 2021)

I am an engineer who designs buildings not a regulator.  

The building department can only enforce those laws that they have the authority to enforce.  Unless the feds have delegated enforcement of federal ADA to building departments the department is limited to enforcing the accessibility requirements in the building code.  What gives building department authority to enforce Federal regulations?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 15, 2021)

Mark K said:


> What gives building department authority to enforce Federal regulations?


I found this:
IBC2012 Chapter 11, User notes: First paragraph, last sentence: 
_The provisions in the I-codes are intended to meet or exceed the requirements in the federal accessibility requirement found in the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act._

I try my best to enforce this chapter but I don't have the authority to work for the feds!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 15, 2021)

Mark K said:


> there is no code requirement that there be a copy of the code on the construction site.


AGREE
Anybody with a smartphone will have the codes in their pocket so it is unreasonable to expect or try to require a copy of a code book on site.


----------



## bill1952 (Sep 15, 2021)

Mark K said:


> I am an engineer who designs buildings not a regulator.
> 
> The building department can only enforce those laws that they have the authority to enforce.  Unless the feds have delegated enforcement of federal ADA to building departments the department is limited to enforcing the accessibility requirements in the building code.  What gives building department authority to enforce Federal regulations?


Some jurisdictions - or at least one I lived in - specifically directed their building codes department to inspect for and enforce ADA.  I don't claim there was wisdom in the village boards voting on this, just saying.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 15, 2021)

The IBC cannot give states and local jurisdictions the authority to enforce federal laws.  I am not aware that the user notes are part of the adopted law.  Further what the notes say is that it is the intent of the IBC to provide provisions that are compatible with the federal law.  

My understanding is that the DOJ has taken a position that if the adopted building code complies with certain standards and the project complies with the building code that they will not prosecute the owner for violations of the ADA laws.   Think of this as providing a safe harbor.  What the building official can do is enforce the building code laws which parallel the Federal laws.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 15, 2021)

Mark K said:


> The IBC cannot give states and local jurisdictions the authority to enforce federal laws.  I am not aware that the user notes are part of the adopted law.  Further what the notes say is that it is the intent of the IBC to provide provisions that are compatible with the federal law.
> 
> My understanding is that the DOJ has taken a position that if the adopted building code complies with certain standards and the project complies with the building code that they will not prosecute the owner for violations of the ADA laws.   Think of this as providing a safe harbor.  What the building official can do is enforce the building code laws which parallel the Federal laws.



I wholeheartedly agree with both paragraphs


----------



## RickAstoria (Sep 18, 2021)

To steveray, 

If the code section is clear and plainly understood, you can probably state what it say. The idea is in stating your interpretation of that code that you are clear, concise, about what is required and why it is required. Some codes are linked to other codes so you could clearly communicate that requirement as the code sections are used together. It's part of the "customer service" of informing the non-professionals like the clients/property owners who don't know squat and they freak out as usual. Design professionals (licensed and non-licensed) would be able to figure out what you are requiring but some codes are grounded in the latitude of interpretation and you need convey what your position/interpretation in a reasonably clear manner versus writing a response in a lawyer like fashion which can be dreadful to even follow let alone understand.


----------



## RickAstoria (Sep 18, 2021)

Sifu said:


> Yes, we too have been advised that pass and fail can hurt feelings.  Can't say not approved, approved either.  Not exclusive either, many AHJ's have adopted the warm and fuzzy.



Personally, I call it for what it is. "F" worrrying if their emotions are hurt or they have a buttache over it. They are adults and therefore should be able to manage and control their "feelings" as that's part of becoming adults. They either meet or do not meet the requirements. No sense in 'sugarcoating' it. Too much is being done to not 'offend' that its ridiculous. There is a balancing act though. There's a difference between being forthright and candid with being outright rude but "customer is always right" doesn't apply here. They are required to meet and comply with the laws. If they don't want to, they can appeal and challenge the law with a lawyer or maybe seek their representative in city, county or state, so as to petition that the law, rule, or ordinance maybe amended/repealed. 

If someone isn't getting their permits, they are going to b-tch, moan, groan, cry, whine, etc. about it. If a design doesn't meet the code requirements because the point is the design meets the code requirements BEFORE permits are issued. It may take making corrections to the plans. This is why the plans are reviewed. It's a service and it will usually costs less to make changes in CAD than it will in construction materials. Therefore, in the long rune, it will usually be less expensive. I can't say it will always be but that would be incredibly rare and unusual. 

However, sometimes saying the words.... meet or complies OR doesn't comply or meet is more clearer. However, when giving the bad news, it's good service to provide suggestions but plan reviewers, building officials, etc. may be limited in what they can do because they are not designers or in that capacity and would be restricted from offering such in the course of performing their duties.


----------



## RickAstoria (Sep 18, 2021)

ICE said:


> Those of you that provide a code section for each correction do so for various reasons.  It might be that the AHJ requires that...maybe it's the State you live in....or perhaps you do it as a personal choice.  Well whatever the case may be for you, it would be a waste of my time...and a considerable waste at that.
> 
> There's at least fifteen million people in southern California and half of them are contractors.  Of the 7.5 million contractors there's a dozen code books.  They can't understand those code books.  What became of inspectors that could be trusted?  If I have to tell you that one receptacle in a bedroom isn't enough, do I really have to back that decision up with a code section?  Tell ya what, take me to court and I'll come up with a code section.  Otherwise, learn what you should already know before you take money from people as you masquerade as a contractor.
> 
> ...



The reason there is the "write it cite it" is that law enforcement (which the building departments are a form of) are required to be transparent about what you are charged with. If a police officer is writing you a traffic ticket, they are required to state what the traffic violation is. Likewise, the building department is required to cite what the violation is. 

This was because some building officials made stuff up or was applying requirements in other states or their own personal preferences and making it out as if it was required and mandating it when there wasn't a law or rule, or regulation that has jurisdiction to support such. It is about accountability of public officials so they aren't abusing their privileged status regardless if their intent may or may not increase health, safety, and welfare standards of the built environment. That is why.

However, I think there is a good middle ground of good sense. I can see where some of this gets out of hand and ridiculous as much as  too little is likewise ridiculous.


----------

