• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Drop ICC membership?

C

Code Neophyte

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
271
Location
Central Missouri
Our community has been an ICC member since its inception; BOCA before that. In the past several years, our training/ travel budget has been reduced to zero, effectively. Our ISO rating dropped to a 9 from a previous 4. We are on the 2003 edition of the code, because we don't want to face the ugliness of the RFS discussion related to the IRC, so we will not likely ever update....

We received our ICC membership renewal notice the other day, and I'm wondering why we should renew? Individual inspectors are still allowed to renew their certifications without being members, if I'm not mistaken?
As I visit the ICC website's "Membership Benefits" page, I see nothing that compels:

  • "Discounts and offers" - I don't plan to buy new code books, etc.
  • "Special Products" - zero interest in whatever those are
  • "Code development" - we don't even have the budget to attend chapter meetings, so we'll never again attend code hearings. Code development has reached the point that there are very few meaningful, significant changes to the core codes. We now require phone booths to be fully sprinklered and be insulated to R-75. Our area will never embrace the IGCC or any of that ....stuff, so we really don't care about code development
  • "Education and certification" - again, I believe we can renew certifications without being members (please correct me if I'm wrong -this may be the only reason to renew) and as stated above, we have no training budget, so we won't avail ourselves of any educational opportunities they may offer
  • "Career Advancement" - ....ummmm.....yeah..........
  • "Committees" - waste of energies and see zero training / travel budget above

In light of these circumstances, is there any compelling reason to renew membership? Feedback appreciated!
 
You can participate in code development remotely, and vote on final changes remotely as well.
Of the hundreds of code change proposals submitted, I'd probably agree that many (not all) are not terribly significant, however the construction industry is constantly innovating and codes need to keep pace with these changes.
Not updating because you wish to avoid open discussion/debate on the dreaded residential sprinkler issue is short sighted at best. Most adopting entities have amended out or limited the requirement for them.
If you, or your employers, choose not to renew at least do so for solid reasons.
 
Rupert has a few questions!
Go ahead Rupert, ask your questions, we're all friends here!

Has the citizens been down to City Hall with pitchforks and shotguns asking why their
insurance premiums have gone up because of the ISO rating? Why not a 10 rating,
go for the 10? Having a building department and having to get a permit must give you
at least a 1 grade, I suspect.

Will your community require a Certified BO or Inspector when they hire? That
makes your community a cherry picker!

Does the ICC or your local chapter have a scholarship program for attending the
code hearings?

Does your community have the funds for the latest code books or discs?

Being a member, you and others in your organization may have several votes to cast
on code changes depending on your community size correct?

Is that all you got Rupert?
I gotta go pee!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
I've heard the 10 in ISO land is reserved for those who refuse to even participate in the BCEGS process.

My City Manager and Director were agitated when we slipped from 4 to 5, my request to not participate was firmly denied.

Code Neophyte, it sounds like you and your management have already pretty much made up you minds to not move off the 2003, so I suppose it doesn't make any difference if you are a card carrying paid member of ICC.

All I will add, is that someday, I can imagine that someone will ask why your community stuck with the 2003, and why your ISO is in the tank, and want some change.

That will be a huge learning curve for everyone involved, on both sides of the counter.

Good luck.
 
Sounds like I need to better explain. After reading the replies (which I very much appreciate, by the way), and then re-reading my OP, I want to clarify that much of the malaise surrounding the ICC that I described belongs to the town board and not so much with me (although it has certainly dimmed my enthusiasm).

As to the ISO and code adoption: The age of code adoption was a factor in the downgrade, but not the only one. The ISO wanted to see an increase in training budget (I think it's 2% of operating budget, which doesn't at all sound unreasonable) and a few other things that would have required a budgetary commitment, for which there was no support. In fact this year, I have basically no training budget whatsoever. That makes it difficult to be interested in chapter activity, etc. As Fatboy suggested, if you participate in the BCEGS, but score dismally, you are a '9'; if you refuse to participate, ISO does not recognize even the mere existence of your program and assigns a '10'.

It also is not me that does not want to engage in the RFS discussion. In fact, if the decision were left to me, we would have had a very thorough fleshing out of the issue and let the chips fall where they may. The powers that be wanted to preempt the whole thing by removing RFS from the get go. I wasn't interested in advocating for a lessening of public safety as a first step in the process.

These are all symptoms of a jurisdiction in the throes of a budget crisis, which also places little value on its building department and adopted codes.

Personally, I find the ICC to be of less value to me professionally. I can't tell you the last time I visited their clunky website for any purpose. I have emailed for a few code interpretations and receive no response - not even an acknowledgement.

The code development process is of little interest (I have attended hearings in the past, but as I stated above, the changes now that are of such little significance that it doesn't seem worth the time to engage in). If I am still able to renew my certifications without our jurisdiction being a member, that is really my only concern at this point. At the same time, if the jurisdiction does not budget for training to maintain the certifications, why should I care?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Code Neophyte, you have plenty company especially with small staffs. As for ISO, many here have also discussed not participating any longer with the possibility of reviews from every 5 to 3 years or annually.

FWIW:
BCEGS assesses the building codes in effect in a particular community and how the community enforces its building codes, with special emphasis on mitigation of losses from natural hazards. Municipalities with well-enforced, up-to-date codes should demonstrate better loss experience. Reducing catastrophe-related damage and ultimately lowering insurance costs provide an incentive for communities to adopt the latest building codes and enforce them rigorously.

Through the BCEGS program, ISO assigns each municipality a Building Code Effectiveness Classification from 1 (exemplary commitment to building code enforcement) to 10 for both commercial and residential construction. The building's classification is based on the community classification in effect at the time the building is constructed. The BCEGS classification will apply to buildings receiving a certificate of occupancy in the year the classification becomes effective and subsequent years. That classification will remain with the building, even if ISO subsequently reevaluates a community. It's conceivable that as a building department improves over time, a community could have more than one classification. Insurers and individual policyholders benefit from reduced losses in communities with favorable classifications.

Ultimately it's the underwriters that set the rates, with emphasis on losses.

https://www.verisk.com/siteassets/m...ial-property/building_underwriting_report.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Code Neophyte said:

"Personally, I find the ICC to be of less value to me professionally. I can't tell you the last time I visited their clunky website for any purpose. I have emailed for a few code interpretations and receive no response - not even an acknowledgement."

I will agree that the ICC website is clunky for some things. However, it doesn't seem plausible that you couldn't get responses to email inquiries. Did you follow-up with a phone call? They have a call center who does try to get you to someone to try to answer your questions.
 
fatboy said:
I've heard the 10 in ISO land is reserved for those who refuse to even participate in the BCEGS process.

My City Manager and Director were agitated when we slipped from 4 to 5, my request to not participate was firmly denied.

Code Neophyte, it sounds like you and your management have already pretty much made up you minds to not move off the 2003, so I suppose it doesn't make any difference if you are a card carrying paid member of ICC.

All I will add, is that someday, I can imagine that someone will ask why your community stuck with the 2003, and why your ISO is in the tank, and want some change.

That will be a huge learning curve for everyone involved, on both sides of the counter.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

I went through the audit process with the ISO lady, gathered all the information she wanted, wasted a bunch of time on it, blah, blah, blah. Everything in the department has improved since the last audit - code version is newer, inspector is much (MUCH!) more qualified/certified than the last one, records are more organized, volume of permits and inspections is up, CO's issued is up, etc. - and they still wanted to give us a lower rating then we already had. Nonsense.

So we opted out. First, I called every insurance peddler in the County - not a one of them had ever heard of the BCEGS. Then, I called a couple of the corporate folks, who are represented by the local guys - none of them had ever heard of the BCEGS, either.

We have a volunteer fire dept., who is not technically associated with the City. Their ISO score is fantastic, and has been improving every time they're audited for the last several cycles. The insurance folks were familiar with that rating, and said we should concentrate our efforts on it. So that's what we'll do.
 
Yeah, where I had to scramble like crazy to get ours back to a 4, our (paid) Fire Department came in at a solid 1.
 
JCraver said:
I went through the audit process with the ISO lady, gathered all the information she wanted, wasted a bunch of time on it, blah, blah, blah. Everything in the department has improved since the last audit - code version is newer, inspector is much (MUCH!) more qualified/certified than the last one, records are more organized, volume of permits and inspections is up, CO's issued is up, etc. - and they still wanted to give us a lower rating then we already had. Nonsense.

So we opted out. First, I called every insurance peddler in the County - not a one of them had ever heard of the BCEGS. Then, I called a couple of the corporate folks, who are represented by the local guys - none of them had ever heard of the BCEGS, either.

We have a volunteer fire dept., who is not technically associated with the City. Their ISO score is fantastic, and has been improving every time they're audited for the last several cycles. The insurance folks were familiar with that rating, and said we should concentrate our efforts on it. So that's what we'll do.
Click to expand...

Fatboy, as usual you are right on target!!!
 
Hey Jim, off subject but have you heard the steps Wyoming is taken to attract business from over-regulated California?

Bitcoin said:
Wyoming is a state known for its rugged individualism with the desire to achieve “first mover advantage” in key areas of legislation. It is often dubbed the “Equality State”: the first state to grant women voting rights and the first state to elect a female governor.

With respect to business and commerce, it originated the Limited Liability Company (“LLC”) in 1977. Today, nearly two-thirds of businesses formed throughout the U.S. choose the LLC corporate entity format. LLCs formed in the state of Wyoming are on par with better-known Nevada and Delaware corporations in offering stellar asset protection.

A Wyoming native and former Wall Streeter, Caitlin Long, the co-founder of the Wyoming Blockchain Coalition and former chairman and president of enterprise blockchain company Symbiont, has been an enthusiastic champion of this blockchain legislation.

Long said in an email response to Bitcoin Magazine: “HB 70 is one of five blockchain bills supported by the Wyoming Blockchain Coalition, and four are already in the Governor’s inbox (the fifth is likely to pass tomorrow). The Governor has three days to sign the bills, and most of them take effect immediately after he signs. All five are designed to attract software companies to move to Wyoming, as well as to attract businesses to register in Wyoming even if they don’t move there.”

According to Long, HB 70, coined the "utility token bill," represents the first time in the world that an elected body has recognized utility tokens as a distinct asset class that is neither a security nor money. She said that while the bill gives the industry a friendly state in which to base operations, it does not resolve the federal regulatory questions for utility token issuers. Regardless, she said, it can help set precedence in litigation and influence federal policy.

Long said that two of the other five bills are designed to be cryptocurrency-friendly, exempting cryptocurrencies from both Wyoming’s money transmitter laws and property taxes. Wyoming, she explained, already has zero income taxes or franchise taxes, so these bills are quite friendly to crypto businesses and crypto owners who want to move to the state.


Finally, she pointed to the last two bills aimed at attracting more businesses to register in Wyoming, which ranks third behind Delaware and Nevada in the number of new business registrations. She concluded: “The race is on to see which state, Wyoming or Delaware, will be the first to accept registrations in blockchain form. Game on, Delaware!”¹
Click to expand...


¹ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/wyoming-blockchain-bill-rockets-ahead-signing/
 
Oh how I wish we had not gone down the ISO road. It is filled with potholes. Here is some interesting info--1). ISO ratings are by range. 1-3, 4-6, 7-9 and the miserable 10. If my community scores a six, the insurance rating(premium) is calculated at the same rate as your community that scored a 4, 2). So praise the lord you scored a 3, that 3 only applies to dwellings constructed during this review period. All other dwellings receive the rate they received during their review period, forever. 3). Many insurance companies care little about ISO ratings. Their rates(premiums) are based on loss history--which they use your zip code to determine.
Single biggest reason to complete ISO--use to get training and continuing ed from elected officials.
 
I'd suggest calling your local insurance guys and seeing if it really makes a difference. Like I said up there ^^^, no one in my town had ever heard of the building department rating, and their overlords in the corporate world (couple of big name ins. co's.) didn't give a hoot about it. If your fire department has a good ISO PPC score, I don't think the BCEGS score means a darn thing as far as insurance rates.
 
The ISO was in Chicago now its out of Jersey, can you read anything into that?

ISO was going to raise our residential rating and we did'n't even have a single family subdivision in construction phase.

The ratings would only effect remodels and additions. So the scam is the insurance company will raise everyone's rates, wouldn't want that in the local paper.

By the way, how would that get in the local paper? ISO maybe?:eek:
 
Interesting thread. Out of 4 communities I handle only one has had ISO review. That community had two reviews and a great deal of wasted time. From the first one to the second the score increased or to say a better rating. No decrease in any insurance cost to the residence. The biggest problem the lady had was I did not use a check list to do may inspections. On both reviews a great deal of time was spent on this issue. I am not sure if there is any value in this review process.
 
Got my ISO packet a couple of weeks ago. Their rep will be here end of August. I will spend about 3 hours filling out the 22 pages they gave me and my numbers will go up because we are still on the 2012 and can't adopt the 2018 until the state does and the governor has not made any appointments to the building code advisory board which all expired in 2014.

Why do it? I use it to justify a larger training and computer and other supplies budget to purchase the items needed to move into the 21st century with regards to electronic permitting and plan reviews.

I have done hundreds of private property liability inspections for insurance companies and non of their forms ever ask for an ISO rating for a building department. Fire departments probably 75% of the forms require that info from the field inspector
 
I personally do not see any merit or value to justify any of the labor expense required to provide the information ISO requested.
Our small municipality's building department has opted out from doing the ISO report for the past 2 cycles. Ironically, our Fire Department's score has actually improved.
Lastly, and for what it's worth, two different ISO reps have told me how to raise our scores by stating things on the report that are not honest. For that reason alone, I will not participate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top