Re-elect Jim Brown to the ICC Board

[jpranch]

Agree, but attendance requires funding and permission from the [ governmental ] employer to attendin the first place.

Respectfully asking, but how will it benefit the AHJ directly & quickly for one of their employees to

attend?

Thanks!

There are many benefits to attend. Just the networking alone is worth the trip. But the real benefit is having you voice and your jurisdictions voice heard through participation in the code development process. A good example is a proposed change to the IECC that will reinstate high efficiency heating & cooling equipment trade offs. This proposed change would be a benefit to all of your builders that would allow for much greater flexibility in the design of their building projects. As far as funding we all can identify with the challenge of convincing the boss and the elected officials to budget for this. The key here as I see it is that you have to "sell" it to them. If you can get them to recognize the benefits and value of attending you got it licked. This is never a one time thing but has to be maintained year after year. If you cannot make it this year start working on this long before the budget process starts for your jurisdiction. Hope this helps a little bit.

 

[Mark K]

Any engineer designing steel connections to FEMA reports and any Plan checker requiring compliance with them do not know what they are doing.

At one time these FEMA reports reflected the state of the art for steel moment connections but AISC standards for seismic design have incorporated this knowledge and have made improvements. The Feds are not maintaining these FEMA documents as standards. The FEMA reports were reports and not standards.

The IBC incorporates the AISC seismic provisions and should be what is enforced. There is no code basis for requiring compliance with the FEMA reports for steel construction. If the plan checker required something in excess of the code consider sending a bill to the City for the extra cost. They will probably deny liability but It should get their attention.

It is not clear how the Feds are mandating energy codes. Any response to this may want to be located in a different thread.

 

[Mark K]

Suggest that there be more transparency regarding ICC Board decisions. Do not believe all of the secrecy is necessary.

I think there is a bigger problem with Industry's influence on the codes than with federal mandates.

Part of the problem with more building official involvement, which should be encouraged, is that many building officials often do not have enough technical sophistication to judge some of the issues. The fear is that then decisions will be based on emotional responses as opposed to technical criteria. This is not an easy one.

Will suggest that the ICC codes as well as reference standards often have requirements that may have legal problems. To often code provisions are written to reflect what individuals believe should be without consideration of legal constraints. The model codes do not have to be legal but the problems occur when the states or local jurisdictions adopt them. There needs to be more awareness of these issues.

 

[Mark K]

Quote Originally Posted by jpranch View Post

"Green & Energy. Don’t like it do not adopt it. Simple isn’t it. Not quite. On the Green code and the energy code we must have building officials, plans examiners, inspectors, etc … at the final action hearings voting and putting a stop to the madness. Being involved and voting is the way to make change. There are some very good code change proposals for the 2015 energy code that will restore a bit of common sense to the code but again you have to be there to vote."

Will suggest that the decision to address green and energy issues in the codes is ultimately one for the policy makers to resolve. This means that the legislature, city council, and board of supervisors who represent the citizens. The building officials can advise and offer comment but at the end of the day it is not their decision to make.

While the Federal government has a concern much of the push for these codes comes from the citizens of the states.

Building officials can play an important role in the adoption of the model codes by drafting codes that reflect the policy of their jurisdiction.

 

[fatboy]

"Building officials can play an important role in the adoption of the model codes by drafting codes that reflect the policy of their jurisdiction."

If that were the case, my constituents on a vote would have me running from the energy codes.

 

[Mark K]

Fatboy

Then why isis being implemented in your jurisdiction.

 

[incognito]

Why are the energy codes being adopted by any jurisdiction? Well thats easy. Because failing to adopt will cost fed dollars. Tens of millions. It was Obamas way of creating jobs(energy testers of all ilk) and appeasing(somewhat) the tree huggers. Our current energy codes stink and they are only looking to get worse.

 

[Mark K]

Obviously your state, county, or city decided it was to their advantage to adopt the codes. What is the problem with that? It was an agreement that they freely accepted just like you agree to do some work for your employer in order to get paid.

Are you sure that the congress did not make that possible? I doubt that Obama is the only one who thought it was a good idea. Remember congress is not always the friend of Obama.

What is wrong with programs that make us less dependent on Oil from the over seas? My understanding is that the military see this as having a positive impact on our national defense.

I assume that you are talking about the ICC energy codes. Are these codes a problem because building officials were not involved in the process and abrogated their responsibility to others or are they a problem because building officials were involved and produced something you disagree with?

 

[fatboy]

"Then why isis being implemented in your jurisdiction."

Because Gov Ritter signed it into CO law, minimum 2003 IECC. Each year legislation has been in to upgrade to a newer version, pretty sure it will go through next year.

 

[tmurray]

Obviously your state, county, or city decided it was to their advantage to adopt the codes. What is the problem with that? It was an agreement that they freely accepted just like you agree to do some work for your employer in order to get paid. Are you sure that the congress did not make that possible? I doubt that Obama is the only one who thought it was a good idea. Remember congress is not always the friend of Obama.

What is wrong with programs that make us less dependent on Oil from the over seas? My understanding is that the military see this as having a positive impact on our national defense.

I assume that you are talking about the ICC energy codes. Are these codes a problem because building officials were not involved in the process and abrogated their responsibility to others or are they a problem because building officials were involved and produced something you disagree with?

I think the big problem is that building science is completely foreign to most building inspectors. We are looking at the new energy code recently approved by the National Research Council and I have been tasked with developing a course for my fellow building inspectors to take in order for them to be able to enforce this code. As building science is what I took in college and have worked as a federally certified energy advisor, it was eye-opening to see that misconception that I thought were only held by the general public were held by building inspectors as well. Fortunately our codes are objective based, so it is extremely difficult for special interest groups to subvert the process because even if they did manage to put their products into the prescriptive code, one could just do a performance based analysis.

 

[conarb]

T Murray:

Since you are interested in building science (more properly building envelope science) you might be interested in an address Joe Lstiburek made here at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories in October of 2011. For those who don't have the time to watch the hour video he explains why he has Canadian degrees (MIT wouldn't admit him), he calls LEED "stupid", he attacks architects, he calls the Greenies "Greenie Weenies", he attacks geothermal, says that water control is much more important than air control, and states the obvious to those of us who have worked in construction defects - that sealants don't work.

I think you'll find it

Another thing that should be noted is that the Green movement is a political movement worldwide, it's a well-funded socialist movement very powerful in Germany, the Green Party here in America is gaining momentum, our City of Richmond California has a Green Party mayor, if we have a Green code shouldn't we have a Democratic Code and a Republican Code?

 

[fatboy]

How about you start a different thread...........just sayin.

 

[conarb]

How about you start a different thread...........just sayin.

Well Fatboy, since we have Jim on the board I think he should be aware that he is not only dealing with the politics of the ICC but a worldwide leftist political movement. On that subject note that for sometime I've had as my tagline a quote from one of the most evil men to have ever walked this planet, David Brower who might be called the father of the Green movement, here is more Brower so Jim knows what he's dealing with:

Brower described the increasingly radical arch of his professional career to E magazine: The Sierra Club made the Nature Conservancy look reasonable. I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We’re still waiting for someone else to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable.



When you believe that “all technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent,” as Brower does, it makes perfect sense to strive for an ever-shifting landscape of what positions are “reasonable.”

According to the left-leaning “CounterPunch” online journal: “The fiery stance of today’s green militants owes everything to Brower.” Brower certainly didn’t shy away from extremist imagery. He told the Christian Science Monitor: “I’d like to declare open season on developers. Not kill them, just tranquilize them.” That’s a line Brower regularly repeated in his lectures. ¹

Working their totalitarian philosophy into our building codes is only one of their agenda to destroy "Imperial America".

¹ David Brower Biography, Quotes, Etc.

 

[jpranch]

Interesting con. Thanks.

tmurray, Thanks for the post. So help me out here a little bit. I get the building science perspective. I also get that as industry dose research and development for new and better products for energy efficiency in the built environment and brings them to market and that will help. Once industry brings these new products to the market they tend to be expensive and through time the price will come down to where there will be reasonable return on investment in a reasonable time frame. Here is what I do not get: Why are we pushing the envelope so hard that we do not give industry time to respond? Don't get me wrong. I think pushing the envelope can be a good and constructive thing but it dose have it's limits. Example: In our climate zone the minimum window U-Value has changed from 0.35 to 0.32. Not a big jump but we went with the 0.32 only because the products were easily available in our market and at a reasonable price. I would appreciate some feedback on this.

 

[ewenme]

There are many sciences that impact construction: indoor air quality, structural engineering, electrical engineering, plumbing, ventilation, floor/ceiling/wall finishing, glazing, and the details of each have impact on the others. Do all these sciences play well together? NO. Nor do their tradesmen play well together in the execution of the work. Conarb: Sealing does work, but it does't work forever without MAINTENANCE. And, as I've ranted about to local entities [schools, governmental jurisdictions, restaurateurs, big-box owners]: deferred maintenance is NO MAINTENANCE. How many people construct a building, be it residence or commercial, with the intent of maintaining the building to the degree of quality it was built? I have not personally met that person yet. Building seems to me to be a form of planned obsolescence: build it, use it for say 20 years, then dump it before it starts costing money for repairs and maintenance. Building codes cannot create the structure, they can inform the builders of MINIMUM requirements. The only way codes will ever have the great impact they intend is to first educate the end-users of the 'how to live in your new structure' and then let nature take its course. Although I'm not an evolutionist, I can see that those who don't learn won't last. I think that's rather a good thing. As my father was fond of telling me: Experience keeps a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other. Simply put, if you can't learn from the mistakes of others, then you'll have to make the mistakes yourself. There was a song in the 70s [if memory serves]: We are DEVO. It may be true.

OK, done ranting.

 

[tmurray]

Interesting con. Thanks.tmurray, Thanks for the post. So help me out here a little bit. I get the building science perspective. I also get that as industry dose research and development for new and better products for energy efficiency in the built environment and brings them to market and that will help. Once industry brings these new products to the market they tend to be expensive and through time the price will come down to where there will be reasonable return on investment in a reasonable time frame. Here is what I do not get: Why are we pushing the envelope so hard that we do not give industry time to respond? Don't get me wrong. I think pushing the envelope can be a good and constructive thing but it dose have it's limits. Example: In our climate zone the minimum window U-Value has changed from 0.35 to 0.32. Not a big jump but we went with the 0.32 only because the products were easily available in our market and at a reasonable price. I would appreciate some feedback on this.

What was the basis of the code requirements if this is your problem? In Canada they conducted an extended study of what the actual construction was over three years and then did cost/benefit evaluation of available upgrades. In general windows , doors, and mechanical equipment were left alone (most contractors won't have to adjust what they are doing), but air tightness and the insulation level of the building envelope were all increased. Canada Energy Efficiency for Houses starts on page 92

Since you are interested in building science (more properly building envelope science) you might be interested in an address Joe Lstiburek made here at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories in October of 2011. For those who don't have the time to watch the hour video he explains why he has Canadian degrees (MIT wouldn't admit him), he calls LEED "stupid", he attacks architects, he calls the Greenies "Greenie Weenies", he attacks geothermal, says that water control is much more important than air control, and states the obvious to those of us who have worked in construction defects - that sealants don't work.

I have actually seen this video before. I thought that you might be in favor of Dr. Lstiburek since he is preaching reform on the "green for the sake of green" folks. Basically throughout this video he is trying to point out that LEED should not be considered an energy efficiency program, but a "green" program, since many of the options involve things that have no impact on energy efficiency or are detrimental to it. I felt that he brought up many good points throughout the video and felt that even thought I knew much of what was discussed it was an hour well spent.

 

[jpranch]

I was only using windows as one example. Envelope insulation combined with controlled air infiltration is always a good thing.