Valuation tables

[Sifu]

Just curious.

Assuming no locally modified valuation tables are used, or if a pointer to the ICC valuation tables are used: If/when using the published valuation tables do you plug in the classified type of construction or the actual type of construction. For example, a PEMB building uses non-combustible framing throughout, steel and concrete, easy as a type II building. However, it can be advantageous to classify it as a type V in some cases. So if the DP calls it type V, even if it works as a type II, which way would you use for valuation?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The valuation is for estimating the cost of construction. It costs the same to erect a PEMB, whether it's classified as type II or type V.

 

[Sifu]

The valuation is for estimating the cost of construction. It costs the same to erect a PEMB, whether it's classified as type II or type V.

Agree, but not my point. Some AHJ's use the valuation tables to arrive at valuation to verify the applicant's stated valuation. The valuation table cost of a V building is 30% less than a II building in the tables. So when they declare it to be a II building it is higher so then they want to use V for valuation. Minor issue, just a curiosity I notice on the occasion where I am asked to verify an applicants valuation. Since the ICC tables, and many other AHJ specific tables are based on IBC construction type.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Agree, but not my point. Some AHJ's use the valuation tables to arrive at valuation to verify the applicant's stated valuation. The valuation table cost of a V building is 30% less than a II building in the tables. So when they declare it to be a II building it is higher so then they want to use V for valuation. Minor issue, just a curiosity I notice on the occasion where I am asked to verify an applicants valuation. Since the ICC tables, and many other AHJ specific tables are based on IBC construction type.

No, my response is precisely to your point. A PEMB is a steel building, not a wood building. It should be valued as a steel building, even if the designer decides to play games and classify it as construction type V because [reasons].

 

[jar546]

The ICC Valuation Tables are useless and not realistic whatsoever to today's market, and does not take into consideration all construction types.

 

[Sifu]

The ICC Valuation Tables are useless and not realistic whatsoever to today's market, and does not take into consideration all construction types.

I agree, yet they are used widely in my area. Some AHJ's make adjustments, most do not.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

R.S. Means books also are supposed to be adjusted for localities, but many people either don't know that, or just don't bother.

The town where I used to work used R.S. Means values to update our permit fee schedule. The square foot price for single family house increased significantly from what it had been -- which shouldn't have been a surprise, since it hadn't been updated for about 15 years. When the new prices went into effect, we had one home builder come in and argue with the boss for about two hours about how unreasonable the new values were. The boss didn't back down, and at the end the builder finally admitted that the new square foot cost was almost exactly what it cost him to build a house, but he just didn't like having to actually pay for a permit based on the true cost.

 

[Sifu]

It should be valued as a steel building, even if the designer decides to play games and classify it as construction type V because [reasons].

That is my thinking as well. I hate dealing with valuations. Most AHJ's I have worked for do not ask that I get involved, some do. Most of the time the valuation stated by the applicant is higher than the table values, not sure what they are using. Some are lower and I am told to adjust them to the table values. I have one with no type of construction listed, and that is being addressed. If they come back with type II, no issues because that is what it is today, but they would have those limitations for future development, but since it is a core shell they could be planning on type V for future work, which makes sense. If they are savvy, they might also know that it would be a cheaper valuation and could argue the point. My thinking is the same as yours, place valuation as it is constructed today, regardless of classification, discount it for core shell and move on. If they argue I will kick it back to the AHJ. Not too concerned with this specific permit, but I think this is a (another) fault for those that use the tables as the only method for determining valuation without any critical thinking.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

That is my thinking as well. I hate dealing with valuations. Most AHJ's I have worked for do not ask that I get involved, some do. Most of the time the valuation stated by the applicant is higher than the table values, not sure what they are using. Some are lower and I am told to adjust them to the table values. I have one with no type of construction listed, and that is being addressed. If they come back with type II, no issues because that is what it is today, but they would have those limitations for future development, but since it is a core shell they could be planning on type V for future work, which makes sense. If they are savvy, they might also know that it would be a cheaper valuation and could argue the point. My thinking is the same as yours, place valuation as it is constructed today, regardless of classification, discount it for core shell and move on. If they argue I will kick it back to the AHJ. Not too concerned with this specific permit, but I think this is a (another) fault for those that use the tables as the only method for determining valuation without any critical thinking.

It may make sense, or it may not. Yes, it would allow any interior fit-out to use wood studs, but it also imposes constraints on future expansion.

We recently approved a PEMB shell, to be used as S-1 warehouse space. After the shell was up (applied for and permitted as construction type II-B), the owner came back and applied to finish out 1800 s.f. out of the 9,000 s.f. as offices -- using wood construction. We pointed out that this meant the building would have to be reclassified as construction type V. He asked, "So what?"

We then pointed out that he had just gotten zoning approval for a 6,000 s.f. addition. As type II-B and use group S-1, he would be allowed 17,000 s.f. without sprinklers, so a total building area of 15,000 s.f. would be okay. As construction type V, the original 9,000 s.f. building was at the limit for area unless he added sprinklers (which he didn't want to do) or qualified for area increases for open perimeter -- which didn't get him to 15,000 s.f. in construction type V.

At that point he pretty much said, "Oh. My engineer didn't tell me that." (Yeah, I've mentioned that engineer in other posts.)

 

[steveray]

Just get a contract….problem solved…