Minimum Submittal Requirements

[tmurray]

I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that a citizen has the right to have every aspect of their project inspected and reviewed by a governmental agency, let alone making a claim that a minimal or reduced governmental agency budget is an equivalent to justify the private sector budget model. That is a long and slippery road, and I would prefer this thread stayed on topic. I can understand you may have some frustrations with governmental agencies, but I assure you, there are other forums or threads in which to make those assertions, or state those claims. To actually delineate the differences between an RDP/Owner's budget-project model, and a governmental agencies budget model, is a bit more off-topic than a simple discussion of common excuses given by RDPs for incomplete plan submittals.

I think what he was saying is that if there is legislation for a certain level of service, then that service must be provided. In my jurisdiction we have mandatory inspections on small scale construction at certain levels. It is important to note that the contractor is required to request them and the BO is required to preform them.

 

[Mark K]

Do not disagree that the Owner has an obligation to comply with the building code.

I am not expecting that the building department thoroughly inspect everything. I realize that the courts are generally forgiving of governmental agencies failing to do their job.

I am not talking about budget models. We are not talking about unfunded mandates

I am simply stating that when regulations are adopted they can give the applicants rights. Why is this concept pushing buttons?

 

[Yankee]

I think what he was saying is that if there is legislation for a certain level of service, then that service must be provided. In my jurisdiction we have mandatory inspections on small scale construction at certain levels. It is important to note that the contractor is required to request them and the BO is required to preform them.

What you describe sounds like a local ordinance for inspections and that is fine, as it is the local citizens that are setting the bar and funding the inspections, both. We are not describing that scenario.

 

[Yankee]

Do not disagree that the Owner has an obligation to comply with the building code.I am not expecting that the building department thoroughly inspect everything. I realize that the courts are generally forgiving of governmental agencies failing to do their job.

I am not talking about budget models. We are not talking about unfunded mandates

I am simply stating that when regulations are adopted they can give the applicants rights. Why is this concept pushing buttons?

Give one example of where an applicant has a right to an inspection or even review that has been upheld by a court.

 

[mtlogcabin]

110.3 Required inspections.

The building official , upon notification, shall make the inspections set forth in Sections 110.3.1 through 110.3.10.

On average that is about 6. I think that is well within every departments budget.

The other inspections each AHJ may require need to be evaluated especially as it relates to the limited budgets/revenues. Examples would include, foundation drains, windows flashing, ice & water shield, and dozens of others i read about on this board that I wonder why are they being done.

 

[texasbo]

Do not disagree that the Owner has an obligation to comply with the building code.I am not expecting that the building department thoroughly inspect everything. I realize that the courts are generally forgiving of governmental agencies failing to do their job.

I am not talking about budget models. We are not talking about unfunded mandates

I am simply stating that when regulations are adopted they can give the applicants rights. Why is this concept pushing buttons?

Generally speaking, the adoption of building ordinances don't give applicants "rights". Such ordinances fall under the Public Duty Doctrine, which case law has, time and time again, shown to be an affirmative defense to jurisdictions. The Public Duty Doctrine states that the municipality has an obligation to the public, and not to any specific individual. Just as the Police cannot be sued for not giving every speeder a ticket, neither is the building department, while acting in good faith, liable for missing items on an inspection.

 

[Yankee]

110.3 Required inspections.The building official , upon notification, shall make the inspections set forth in Sections 110.3.1 through 110.3.10.

On average that is about 6. I think that is well within every departments budget.

The other inspections each AHJ may require need to be evaluated especially as it relates to the limited budgets/revenues. Examples would include, foundation drains, windows flashing, ice & water shield, and dozens of others i read about on this board that I wonder why are they being done.

You need to separate what is written in the building code from what is (said to be) required under each jurisdiction's LAWS.

 

[Yankee]

Generally speaking, the adoption of building ordinances don't give applicants "rights". Such ordinances fall under the Public Duty Doctrine, which case law has, time and time again, shown to be an affirmative defense to jurisdictions. The Public Duty Doctrine states that the municipality has an obligation to the public, and not to any specific individual. Just as the Police cannot be sued for not giving every speeder a ticket, neither is the building department, while acting in good faith, liable for missing items on an inspection.

And the very good reason for that is that jurisdictions would never be able to fund, from tax dollars, the conceivable financial liability that would be ordered if they were "responsible" in a court of law. And it would even become impossible to fund, from tax dollars, liability insurance.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

I realize that the courts are generally forgiving of governmental agencies failing to do their job.

Granted, it may not be what you said, but how you said it. Moving back on topic...

I am simply stating that when regulations are adopted they can give the applicants rights. Why is this concept pushing buttons?

Please forgive me if I misconstrued your statement. I don't dispute that the local adoption of regulations can give applicants and citizens additional rights, but I am at a loss as to how that pertains to the discussion of plan submittals. If there is indeed a correlation between an adopted regulations/applicants rights and minimum plan submittal requirements, I am all ears and no buttons.

Maybe we should start over with a re-wording of your question:

What is the governments responsibility if the law requires the building official to perform a plan review before work can proceed but the building department did not have the funds to perform the plan review?

The building official is to perform a plan review as required by the law. The mandate of that law may vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. How should we continue this discussion in your view? (This is a sincere question)

 

[gbhammer]

The other inspections each AHJ may require need to be evaluated especially as it relates to the limited budgets/revenues. Examples would include, foundation drains, windows flashing, ice & water shield, and dozens of others i read about on this board that I wonder why are they being done.

I would be willing to bet that most of the inspections like those you mention are simply observations made during one of the required inspections. Just because your out there for a framing doesn't mean you can ignore the fact that there is no foundation drain in a hole that you see being backfilled.

 

[gbhammer]

Granted, it may not be what you said, but how you said it. Moving back on topic...What is the governments responsibility if the law requires the building official to perform a plan review before work can proceed but the building department did not have the funds to perform the plan review?

The building official is to perform a plan review as required by the law. The mandate of that law may vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. How should we continue this discussion in your view? (This is a sincere question)

Subsection 107.3 Examination of documents– ‘The building official shall examine or cause to be examined’ is amended by adding the words ‘at no expense to the jurisdiction’ …

 

[righter101]

Isn't someone going to blame George Bush for all of this?

 

[gbhammer]

Senior did puke in japan, and junior did inact no child left behind...

No not their fault that we have a whole lot more gov now than ever before. It is all of our fault for letting it happen.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Senior did puke in japan, and junior did inact no child left behind...No not their fault that we have a whole lot more gov now than ever before. It is all of our fault for letting it happen.

I am as much to blame as anybody...I voted, hanging chad or not, and am responsible for my part, but not sure why.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Subsection 107.3 Examination of documents– ‘The building official shall examine or cause to be examined’ is amended by adding the words ‘at no expense to the jurisdiction’ …

Okay...first things first, the sam part of your closing reminds me of quantum leap.

106.1 Submittal documents....Exception: 'The building official is authorized to waive the submission of construction documents...if it is found that the nature of the work appied for is such that review of construction documents is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code.'

 

[gbhammer]

Okay...first things first, the sam part of your closing reminds me of quantum leap.

Good showopcorn. He should have never went to Enterprise, just didn't work for the guy.

We have in our area a few small incorporated areas that do not have the man power or resources to review a large set of plans. They sub the work out, and let the applicant pay for it.

I guess my point is that a small budget is no reason for an AHJ to just let plans slip through with out review.

 

[Yankee]

Good showopcorn. He should have never went to Enterprise, just didn't work for the guy.We have in our area a few small incorporated areas that do not have the man power or resources to review a large set of plans. They sub the work out, and let the applicant pay for it.

I guess my point is that a small budget is no reason for an AHJ to just let plans slip through with out review.

I sure agreee with that and there needs to be the political will to allow the BO to require the applicant pay for a review if that is what's nessesary to get it done. But, this is the real world and often enough the business interests have enough clout to put the BO on the skids. So there is a fine wire to walk, , , always.