• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Holding the Inspectors and Building Department Accountable?

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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
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.
 
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.
 
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?
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.
 
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
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?"
 
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.

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