NAHB needs our help

[jar546]

*I am not endorsing the NAHB, just posting this email I received*

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) recognizes – and appreciates – the important work of code officials, who review plans and inspect homes and other buildings during their design, construction and remodeling to ensure public safety and welfare. You make sure the places where we live, work and play are safe with your consistent and effective code enforcement.

Every day code officials throughout the country ensure that each home is constructed with hazard-free structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems and meets minimum energy-efficiency requirements. But you have a second and very important responsibility: Model code development and code administration. As voting members of the International Code Council (ICC), you have an opportunity to ensure that only those codes that are practical, enforceable and cost-effective are adopted.

As you know, ICC is in the midst of its code development cycle for the “Group B” codes, which includes the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Because code updates are often the result of lessons learned during building design and construction, technological advances, and code enforcement, it is instructive to look at past experience to help guide what the new 2015 IECC may look like.

The fact is that the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is broken and is not cost-effective, which is why it has the lowest adoption rate in history; only one state has adopted the code as written. The reason is that the costs associated with complying with the code consistently outweigh the benefits.

“Code enforcement officials have indicated that due to the restrictiveness of the most current published code, jurisdictions are either not adopting it or are making substantial amendments to justify adoption,” said Tim Ryan, CEO of the International Association of Building Officials.

Here are just a few of the reasons most code officials have decided NOT to adopt the 2012 IECC:

1. It increases construction costs by more than 15% compared to the 2009 edition of the code and more than 30% over the 2006 edition;

2. Many of its requirements are extremely stringent, but are neither practical nor cost-effective. In fact, NAHB estimates it will take 13 years on average to recover initial construction costs through annual energy savings;

3. Many of the requirements are the result of propriety interests inappropriately trying to sell their products through the codes. The result is a code that many of your colleagues believe is unenforceable and unnecessary;

4. Its stringency raises constructability issues and places constraints on design, reducing options for home owners and architects.

5. It adversely and unnecessarily impacts housing affordability, as every $1,000 increase in the price of a new home prevents 234,000 potential home buyers from qualifying for a home mortgage.

We hope you are among the code officials and other building safety experts meeting Oct. 2-10 at the ICC Public Comment Hearings in Atlantic City, N.J., to create the next generation of building and energy codes.

Please join the International Association of Building Officials, Leading Builders of America, National Multi-Housing Council, Building Owners and Managers Association and other groups that are already in support of many of NAHB’s positions regarding the proposed code changes to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC).

The IECC-Residential Energy (IECC-RE) code change proposal hearings are scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 5 and the IECC-Commercial Energy (ICC-CE) proposals are expected to start Oct. 7.

Make your attendance at these code development hearings a PRIORITY.

By casting your votes in support of NAHB’s positions, you will make the critical corrections necessary to fix a broken code and the end result will be a workable, viable, adoptable and enforceable 2015 energy code which eases construction costs, provide consumers with more choices and lowers their home-buying costs.

Please review these additional resources available from NAHB:

Is the 2012 energy code cost effective? This analysis shows that it isn't.

Congress is concerned about the code's product-specific requirements: Read their letter to the Department of Energy.

Learn why the U.S. Conference of Mayors based their energy-efficiency resolution on the wrong information.

Let’s remove artificial energy code restrictions and improve cost effectiveness. Learn how here.

Ask for support from your mayor, county executive or governor by customizing this template.

Please visit NAHB’s code information Web pages.

For more information, please contact Neil Burning, VP Construction, Codes & Standards at nburning@nahb.org or (800) 368-5242 ext. 8564.

 

[Mark K]

My impression has been that historically the NAHB has focused on initial cost of construction and has not been sensitive to safety or long term economic considerations.

 

[jar546]

NAHB needs our help

I would agree Mark K

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[north star]

~ + ~

There's an International Association of Building Officials ?

~ + ~

 

[jpranch]

~ + ~There's an International Association of Building Officials ?

~ + ~

Sure is and I'm a member and so are many that are on this board. IABO Scholarships | IABO

 

[Wayne]

Re: NAHB needs our help

I always wondered what happened to Neil Burning after he left Clark County Nevada. I believe he was the manager of plans examination.

 

[jpranch]

Just so you know our own High Desert is on their Board of Directors. You have all seen his posts. That at the very least, minimum should give credibility.

 

[Uncle Bob]

The goal of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) is to represent it's members; who's goal is to produce a product and sell it at the lowest possible cost. That is why the word "affordability" was introduced into R101.3 Intent of the IRC; not to make homes more affordable for buyers; but to make them less expensive to build. The NAHB on the IRC committees is the fox in the hen house; and now you people are being set up to catch chickens and feed them to him. Crap, framers don't even remember how to make a "real corner" any more because the code was changed (to increase insulation value); and to hell with the structural integrity of the building. Of course, I don't know what I'm talking about because the engineers and architects; who's livelyhood is controlled by the builders; will back the builders up. Unfortunately I do agree that homes are over insulated and not allowed to breath; but, feeding into the NAHB's insane sob story about affordability is unconscionable. Shame on you, Uncle Bob

 

[jpranch]

U.B. I have to respectfully disagree. The energy code is in fact broken. Too far too fast. We all want the same thing but disagree on how to get there. What good is a code that nobody adopts? To me it doesn't matter who or what entity has raised this issue.

 

[Glenn]

I think "minimum standard" speaks directly to "affordability".

I, as a code administrator, believe affordability has a just place in the IRC. Affordability has a just place in any and all government regulation.

I would prefer a reasonable, affordable, minimum standard that I can hope to get maybe 90% of my citizens to be willing to conform to (without having to muscle them), rather than an ivory tower of a code that only 50% of citizens are willing to work with. (note: the percentages are only illustrative). This is what the NAHB is referring to about adoption. Many communities are indeed not happy with the direction of the IRC as a model code to reference as the LAW on their citizens.

Regulation that has to be shoved down the throats of our countrymen does not represent a democracy. Our authority should be for the people, not against the people. The people want affordable homes and affordable remodeling. Its way too easy to just blame the home builder as some greedy evil, but they know a lot more about home buyers than we do. The buyers want a choice of how to spend their money. I think they deserve it.

I'm not a veteran of code development hearings, but in my attendance I heard ideas from the NAHB that I both very much agreed with and that I did not. Their opinions and ideas should not be outright thrown out. They should be respected and listened to...and then be judged. We code administrators don't have the pulse on the construction industry that we think we do, and we need to work positively with all professionals, especially those dealing with where our codes meet our neighbors.

Politicians should LISTEN to their constituents. In code development we are lawmakers; in permitting we are judges; in inspection we are police. We have more power over the "laws" of construction than any other single group has over any law in our nation. By God we better be respectful with that authority.

There is NO SHAME in this thread.

 

[Glenn]

U.B. I have to respectfully disagree. The energy code is in fact broken. Too far too fast. We all want the same thing but disagree on how to get there. What good is a code that nobody adopts? To me it doesn't matter who or what entity has raised this issue.

While I was writing my book of a reply, Jpranch said it much more slenderly.

 

[Codegeek]

I'm like Glenn in terms of at the code hearings and NAHB's arguments. Sometimes I agree spot-on with their side, sometimes I don't get it. In the case of the energy codes, I don't necessarily agree with their argument on the cost of home construction, but I do agree that the energy code is getting out of control. I sat through the commercial energy code committee hearings in Dallas this past April/May. There were hardly any code officials in the hearings as most were in the IRC hearings. I spoke up on several issues but I'm no longer a code official so I cannot vote at the final action hearings.

I know that most code officials are not educated enough on the energy code. I didn't like it when I was a code official as the topic as a whole is something that many of us are still trying to swallow. I think the best solution for the energy code is for more code officials to become better educated on the requirements and really understand what it is they are enforcing. They also need to be playing a more active role in the energy code development process just like they do for the IRC and IBC. Most of the energy code (and the green code now) is written by folks who do not enforce it and never will enforce it. They're getting their agenda in the code and a lot of it is not for good code language. I know I may be p*ssing some people off, but I'd like to think I'm speaking the truth and how many people feel.

When you attend the code hearings and exercise your right to vote on proposed changes, vote for those changes that make good code sense; don't vote for something you cannot enforce or don't understand how to enforce. If it doesn't make sense to you, then don't approve the code change.

 

[High Desert]

Some of their positions have credibility to them, others not so. IABO has taken some pretty firm positions on the energy code and its members will be very active in Atlantic City. I'm fairly impartial on code changes and will support any change that improves the code, regardless of who proposes it. Like Codegeek and Glenn, I have testified in favor of NAHB, industry and other non-code official entities if I thought the proposal had merit. I won't deny that many of the NAHB positions are based on financial aspects and are not good, but they do have some good ones every now and then.

Hope to see some of you in Atlantic City. I'll be there the 28th thru the 9th.

 

[Mac]

What happens after the thirteen-year payoff of the energy code related costs?

The building continues to deliver savings for the occupants. Exponentially, given the cycle of ever increasing energy costs.

 

[mjesse]

What happens after the thirteen-year payoff of the energy code related costs?The building continues to deliver savings for the occupants. Exponentially, given the cycle of ever increasing energy costs.

That is, unless the building is rotting away or filled with mold from being built too tight.

Or, if the residents start bringing in too much unconditioned air to deal with the stale environment, their energy consumption rises.

I'm firmly on the fence. Like many other Code items, there should be viable alternatives to achieve the Nation's goals. High efficiency/low consumption equipment and alternative energy sources need to develop at a similar rate to the building itself. I think net-zero and the path to 2030 are overly optimistic, and unreasonable at this time.

 

[tmurray]

That is, unless the building is rotting away or filled with mold from being built too tight. Or, if the residents start bringing in too much unconditioned air to deal with the stale environment, their energy consumption rises.

I'm firmly on the fence. Like many other Code items, there should be viable alternatives to achieve the Nation's goals. High efficiency/low consumption equipment and alternative energy sources need to develop at a similar rate to the building itself. I think net-zero and the path to 2030 are overly optimistic, and unreasonable at this time.

Sorry to get this off track, but are HRVs not required by code in the US?

Back on track, Agreeing or disagreeing on something based solely on the the party who said it tends to be flawed logic. We are all done a disservice when we do not evaluate the argument, but the party proposing the argument.

 

[mjesse]

Sorry to get this off track, but are HRVs not required by code in the US?.

Make-up air is required, but not HRV.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Acording to National Realtor Assoc. the average time one owns a house is 6 years. If they can't get the investment back on what it costs for the increase cost of the new energy codes by the savings and the selling price in 6 years I don't it is worth it.

 

[RJJ]

I am also an IABO member and been in support from the beginning. Don't agree with everything but they a trying to fill a void that has existed for a while. BCO should look into joining. I agree with JP that the energy code has gone to far to fast. You all need to be on the floor to vote if you want to make your self heard.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

The 10%'ers. Bureaucrats are the specialists at 10%.

"Brent, what, pray-tell you insolent lout, art thou referring to?

Residential Seismic building practices will only add 10% to building costs.

Adding arc- fault interruption devices will only add 10% to electrical costs.

Requiring low VOC components will only add 10% to materials costs.

Requiring Green approved structure will only add 10% to framing material costs.

Requiring third party insulation quality inspections will only add 10% to insulation costs.

Adding SWPPS controls only adds 10% to site development costs.

Putting in suppression sprinklers only add 10% to plumbing costs.

Installing CO detectors only adds 10% to smoke detector costs.

On and on and on and on.

Is there really any question why you have to have a builders association to push back on regulation?

Now, not all these things are bad or unwanted. But we are all part of the building trade. When you couple the above with development costs of things required by the governing area such as parks, enhanced landscaping, and beautification, plus added fees for all sorts of tax workarounds, then plug in the expectations of home buyers, such as high ceilings, gingerbread and accoutrements, which adds costs for multistory open space shear, and high costs of buying and developing land, with attached water requirements, and access, requirements for overdone firehouses placed every square mile (but we have sprinklers), you will come to realize that if you don't curtail the wishes of the well meaning bureaucrats,who themselves want higher pay and better benefits, a home of any standard size will become unaffordable. To anyone.

The fact is that houses built in the 1970-1990 range are perfectly sound, perfectly safe, and if maintained properly will last a lifetime or more.

Energy savings? Gone are the 1/2 acre lot with trees and shade shrubbery, 2 foot or more overhangs, swamp coolers, fireplaces and woodstoves, 8 foot ceilings, well defined and walled rooms, and solid 3 coat stucco. THAT is an energy saving house. It breathes well, cools and heats well and uses natural ventilation, has plenty of overhang that protects it from the elements and diminishes direct sunlight.

These homes have been through multiple earthquakes, been rerocked after floods, but are lightweight on their foundations and well built. The electrical is modern romex, the pipes are still copper, the wastes are generally cast (I don't have too much of a hard on for ABS.)

Sell the public back on these homes and THEN see the savings in energy, especially with just a few modern upgrades like e366 glass and such.

Brent.

 

[Uncle Bob]

The title of this thread is "NAHB needs our help"; not "are the new energy requirements too expensive" and not "is the 2012 energy code too much". I addressed the title of this thread. During the Mini Soda fiasco some of us exposed proof that the NAHB had been funding building official's way to the hearings; and posted it on the ICC board. I also posted a report I got on the NAHB website that bragged about weakening the IRC to it's members; after which that area was sealed off on their site and available to members only. If you want to change the energy code; I'm all for it. I have advocated letting homes breath and allow moisture to dry out by "not sealing homes" for years while most building officials and inspectors have turned a deaf ear. As far as "affordability" is concerned; when is the last time you have seen an 800 to 1200 sq. ft. home built in your AHJ? When I was a carpenter in the 50s and 60s we built many two and three bedroom homes that were that size. Builders make more money off one home over 2,000 sq. ft. than they would from two homes less than 1200 sq. ft.; so don't give me that "affordability" tear jerking crap. This country needs smaller, more "affordable" homes; and not these mini-mansions they are building today. Uncle Bob

 

[Glenn]

Bob,

I just released permits two weeks ago on three new homes that were 1300 sq ft. ranches. (in-fill lots in older neighborhood...only homes for miles that will have a fire sprinkler system)

I'm also working on an entire neighborhood of 1300 square foot ranch duplexes.

Meanwhile we have a development of two story duplexes slightly larger.

Then we have a couple of the standard developments of two-story single-family homes around 2500 to 3500 square feet. One a high density, family-oriented development, the other designed for "mature" couples, with HOA amenities designed for retirement.

Then we have the booming Huntington Trails with monster 5,000 to 10,000 square foot custom homes for those that just have to be that cool.

Some are worried about affordability, some our not. The builders do not have complete control, as they have to get past the Planning Division. The City Planning Division (in my city) is responsible for assuring smart development of the undeveloped, incorporated land in our boundaries. You don't just get to build whatever you want, as our city plan includes diversity of home stock.

Yes...this is not always perceived as "fair" to the land owner.

The point is there is a lot that goes into deciding what get's built...at least in some places.

 

[tmurray]

The building industry is in essence a reactive industry, not a proactive industry. It can be argued that the industry continues to do things until they become intolerably bad and then the industry changes.

I like energy efficiency, but I hate green. Energy efficiency is easy to measure. There is an easy return on investment calculation to show me what makes sense. But green is much harder to measure. Bamboo flooring is green, but I can't grow bamboo (or not really well) here in Canada, so I need to ship it halfway around the world. But when it gets to Canada the hardware stores and tv shows tout it as being green and good for the environment because it grows so quickly. Nobody thinks about how much damage has been done to the environment from the shipping, about the damage done by harvesting because where it was harvested there are no regulations for forest management or labour. All green is, is a way for those who have taken more than their fair share from the environment to feel a little less guilty about it.

Energy efficiency is important (and yes Uncle Bob in my neck of the woods that means a tight building envelope and mechanical ventilation).

Sustainability is important, because if what we are doing today is not sustainable we will have to change eventually.

...But green gives efficiency and sustainability a bad name.

 

[Min&Max]

As a board member for our local Habitat for Humanity I have significant concerns about what we, code officials, are doing to the affordability of basic, decent housing. When it gets to the point that hard working families can not afford a Habitat home on a 40 year interest free loan something is broke. Twenty years ago the term was 15-20 years. We really need to get back to basics and determine a MINIMUM standard that provides a REASONABLY safe dwelling. Keeping families housed in broken and dilapidated houses and trailer houses is not in the best interest of overall public safety.