Colorado Codes Helpline...Bl, Pl, Me, ++++

[ICE]

Brought to you by Glenn.

Sponsored by the State of Colorado. Guaranteed correct opinions. Addresses Colorado building, plumbing, mechanical codes and more.

New Ticket - Colorado Codes Helpline

coloradocodes.happyfox.com

 

[Glenn]

Brought to you by Glenn.

Sponsored by the State of Colorado. Guaranteed correct opinions. Addresses Colorado building, plumbing, mechanical codes and more.

New Ticket - Colorado Codes Helpline

coloradocodes.happyfox.com

EDIT: Promoted to you by Glenn (a little bitty spoke in the big wheel). Brought to you by Noresco and the Colorado Energy Office.

 

[jar546]

Now let's tackle the legal aspects of this. What this sets out to do and what it will be used for can be two different things.

Does Colorado have a Building Commission that has binding interpretations?
Does Colorado have an appeals process that includes this service?
Is there a disclaimer for interpretations?
Are interpretations considered non-binding?
Does a committee interpret, or does whoever answers the phone/email issue the interpretation?

The reason why I am asking is that unofficial, non-binding interpretations that are not part of the appeals process can be dangerous and complicate the enforcement process. I think this IS a good idea, providing interpretations are the consensus of a qualified committee in the field of the question and it is clear that the interpretation is non-binding and has no legal value in the appeals process. It is just the opinion of one person who may or may not be an expert in the area they are answering the question.

We've seen the varying degrees of interpretations right here, some surprising. Just asking.

 

[ICE]

We've seen the varying degrees of interpretations right here, some surprising.

They don’t do electrival.

 

[Glenn]

Now let's tackle the legal aspects of this. What this sets out to do and what it will be used for can be two different things.

Does Colorado have a Building Commission that has binding interpretations?
Does Colorado have an appeals process that includes this service?
Is there a disclaimer for interpretations?
Are interpretations considered non-binding?
Does a committee interpret, or does whoever answers the phone/email issue the interpretation?

The reason why I am asking is that unofficial, non-binding interpretations that are not part of the appeals process can be dangerous and complicate the enforcement process. I think this IS a good idea, providing interpretations are the consensus of a qualified committee in the field of the question and it is clear that the interpretation is non-binding and has no legal value in the appeals process. It is just the opinion of one person who may or may not be an expert in the area they are answering the question.

We've seen the varying degrees of interpretations right here, some surprising. Just asking.

This is why people don't just help each other anymore... What a shame.

 

[Energystar]

Thanks Glenn. I submitted my diatribe on notching. I am helping some friends remodel their basement in Fort Collins. I will post what they come up with if they respond.

 

[jar546]

This is why people don't just help each other anymore... What a shame.

They were just questions. If this is for educational purposes then it needs to say so. Once someone takes your email and hands it to an inspector after they fail an inspection, that is another story. My point is that people will be using this for purposes not intended by the program. As long as you are living in the litigious United States where everyone has a personal attorney looking for work, a disclaimer is in order. That's what's a shame.

 

[Glenn]

Thanks Glenn. I submitted my diatribe on notching. I am helping some friends remodel their basement in Fort Collins. I will post what they come up with if they respond

I hope you submitted a question about notching.

 

[tmurray]

This is why people don't just help each other anymore... What a shame.

I think his questions were reasonable.

As someone who hears appeals and issues binding interpretations, this type of venture could be challenging to reconcile.

 

[Glenn]

They were just questions. If this is for educational purposes then it needs to say so. Once someone takes your email and hands it to an inspector after they fail an inspection, that is another story. My point is that people will be using this for purposes not intended by the program. As long as you are living in the litigious United States where everyone has a personal attorney looking for work, a disclaimer is in order. That's what's a shame.

I forget that other states have wildly different ways of serving their citizens. Colorado is a home rule state. Building officials are employed by the local jurisdiction. See R104.1 in the IRC and similar sections in other I-codes for who has the authority to direct, enforce, and interpret the code. It's really that simple. It's help. Like this forum, like the commentary, like your colleague in a neighboring jurisdiction. If that's a threat to a building authority... then that's a shame.

Back on track: If anyone in COLORADO would like some help with a question about codes, here is a free program for you to submit your question. A team of qualified code consultants has been selected to assist in researching and answering your question. The program is designed for building authorities, as Colorado is in the middle of a massive statewide trend of updated local codes due to the adoption of a first ever statewide energy code. The funding is provided to assist jurisdictions that are updating to new energy codes. HOWEVER... It was decided that this should not be only for government and energy. So it is also available for the public and for all other codes. I think that is awesome.

 

[Glenn]

I think his questions were reasonable.

As someone who hears appeals and issues binding interpretations, this type of venture could be challenging to reconcile.

It just was such a downer, but that's because I'm used to Colorado governance. We do not have a statewide building authority. The building official of local jurisidications has the authority in interpretation and enforcement as provided for in Chapter 1 of the I-Codes. I did not expect this kind of helpful service to be so shocking to others in other states and countries. It's just help. It should not be a threat to any authorities authority.

 

[ICE]

Once someone takes your email and hands it to an inspector after they fail an inspection, that is another story.

Inspectors are not required to go along with anything that the inspector disagrees with…no matter the origin of the opinion. It’s a big NOOO

I see value in an APP that can provide evidence in support of a particular interpretation of a code section. While it is not binding, there might be a persuasive argument that I had overlooked.

 

[ICE]

The building official of local jurisdictions has the authority in interpretation and enforcement

That sounds terrible. LA County has dozens of local jurisdictions that are supposed to be on the same page. If they were ever on the same page it was in different books. Doing that with an entire state must create problems….but then, Colorado has a quarter of the population of SoCal….can’t be a whole lot going on…thirty inspectors could handle it all.

 

[Sifu]

FWIW I have had opinions from some of the people involved with that site (though not from that site, which I tried out some time ago and found clunky and never got a reply....maybe it has improved now) that I was in agreement with, which I used as validation for my own opinions. I have also had opinions that I did not agree with, those I considered and either came around to see it their way or not, and stuck to my own opinion. I know my role in the state, and the role of the opinionators, but others may not. It is an important distinction to make when providing advice or opinions. Whenever I am asked by an outside party I ALWAYS preface it with "I can only tell you what I would do".

I have worked in states with adopted state codes, and interpretation sections. I would still find this site and others like it invaluable.

Working in the states with statewide adopted codes in no way eliminated differences (sometimes stark differences) in interpretation and enforcement from one jurisdiction to the next. There were benefits from an interpretation standpoint, they were more easily enforced, and from an appeal standpoint, as someone could appeal a decision by the local AJH to the state for a final determination. Overall, I liked it better, but it didn't cure everything.

 

[Glenn]

That sounds terrible.

Colorado loves our home rule. From farmers in the plains to the front range metro to the wealthy hills and ski resorts to the leave-me-alone mountains to the western slope we have different expectations for our local governance and we want it close to us and accountable. Home rule in building regulation has pluses and minuses but the plus that has always won out is the closeness you have to the rules. The local people really do have an opportunity to affect their local codes or walk with pitchforks to city hall. Sure… as a young contractor it was frustrating having different codes around the metro, but as a middle aged American family man that cherishes the foundational concepts of the country, I am now a fan of Home Rule and more local laws. We can be United but different. Just some thoughts about home rule.

 

[ICE]

There are features of “home rule” that appeal to the masses. The concept sounds great until you peal off a few layers of accolades. Having no statewide construction codes removes the expectation that a house in Denver will have the same life/safety components as a house in Manitou Springs. Contractors would be better served if there was one code to adhere to. How are inspectors certified to a code that doesn’t exist?

Now don’t get me wrong here. I am an inspector that could run with it…… taking Tiger Code to the net level.

 

[Glenn]

Contractors would be better served if there was one code to adhere to.

My number one concern is how the code serves the people. Those people’s professions can then follow suit, contractor, designer, and regulator.

 

[ICE]

My number one concern is how the code serves the people.

The premise that the "people" of a home rule state have the ability to formulate the building codes to their liking is disingenuous. The "people" had little to nothing to do with it. The elected officials relied on the best guess put forth by municipal employees.

The first time the "people" become aware of a code is when they have violated a code. That's universally true. Unfortunately that happens with contractors, designers, and regulators as well....although not universally.

I have no experience with the way Colorado regulates construction. Apparently the system functions well enough to have survived.

I remember my time in Colorado Springs The "people" drove Ford F250 4WD and had guns all over the place..on the seat, racked in the back window, on the hip. Pair that with Coors beer and a hootenanny.

 

[tbz]

Not sure the issue here is anything more than one persons opinion over another,

Even when a state has a uniform statewide code, as NJ has since 1975, where the inspectors needed to be certified by the state and go through the state training programs. And the local authority employing the inspector is following state law and requirements with enforcement, much like the police department in every town does for the state law, not talking about local ordinances.

Where you can request from the state division of codes an interpretation and are given the states opinion on the code as the state see's it adopted.

The opinion always comes back, that they have no authority to overrule the local inspectors call, you can only use it as a simple letter, this is how the states see's what is required.

Thus, the bottom line is the information is worthless unless for some reason the original AHJ wants to listen. And from my experience, does not matter who provides you with the information, its more about the delivery of the information, and telling someone they are wrong never really ends well, when they have the final call.

 

[ICE]

the information is worthless

Not even a little bit of worth. Shirley the individual that provided the information disagrees. Even wrong answers can lead to thoughts.

 

[tbz]

I remember my time in Colorado Springs The "people" drove Ford F250 4WD and had guns all over the place..on the seat, racked in the back window, on the hip. Pair that with Coors beer and a hootenanny.

I remember a visit to Compton, California some years back, not much of a difference in your description, but with different laws in place and enforcement.

Given the option, I would rather be in Colorado Springs, CO than Compton, CA.

 

[ICE]

Compton has it's own laws and scant enforcement. The ride of choice is a Mercedes and the machine guns fit in their sweats. I would rather be anywhere other than Compton Ca.

 

[tbz]

Not even a little bit of worth. Shirley the individual that provided the information disagrees. Even wrong answers can lead to thoughts.

Yes, the information can be of worth from anyone, my point is, it is worthless in either case, if you don't present it to the AHJ in a manner they are open to listening to.

Doesn't matter if from a higher state authority or Joe Schmoe on the street corner.

More about getting them to be open minded and talk about it, than simply saying you're wrong and the state or this authority says so.

 

[Glenn]

I shared about a free service to offer help in understanding Colorado's variety of codes and the responses immediately turn to who's right and who's wrong.

Disheartening. I'm not in the correct room.