-
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
Why we have building codes to begin with
- Thread starter jar546
- Start date
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
This could be a re-write from the Miami Herald after Hurricane Andrew went through Dade county in th 90's and the grand jury found the same thing. Lack of enforcement, not enough inspectors to do the job correctly.
conarb
Registered User
I don't see it as "Lack of enforcement, not enough inspectors to do the job correctly" as much as your inspection mandate having been spread to thin due to the UBC intent of "Protect the health and safety and increase the tax base" changed to the ICC intent of "Protect the health and safety and the common good", these few words opened the doors to inspection to include areas never meant to be in building codes, like Green, Energy, and Disability".
steveray
SAWHORSE
No....We don't have time to ensure the basic life safety/ structural stuff gets done properly, Energy is not a big ticket inspection time item, accessibility kind of is, but most of the designers are paying attention to that...just gets ugly when we catch problems at the final...
How about a lot of the structures have been existing for years and no program to add hurricane protection
Building code not enforced on new structures/ houses
mark handler
SAWHORSE
The Energy Codes through Federal Legislation occurred as a result if the oil boycott
• Energy Policy Act of 1992 –George H. W. Bush “All States must review and consider adopting the national model energy standard.”
CA Energy Codes codified in the 1980's
CA Accessibility was codified in the 1960's.
CalGreen Codes in the 2008 code cycle.
• Energy Policy Act of 1992 –George H. W. Bush “All States must review and consider adopting the national model energy standard.”
CA Energy Codes codified in the 1980's
CA Accessibility was codified in the 1960's.
CalGreen Codes in the 2008 code cycle.
Last edited:
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
The majority of damage under Hurricane Andrew was to homes built from the mid seventies until 1992
I worked in one subdivision in homestead for 6 month installing residential HVAC (1985). The developer was completing 12 homes every 5 days. I would be installing ductwork in the trusses while they where sheathing the roof and immediately drying it in and installing shingles. No way an inspector ever did a roof sheating/nailing inspection
During the 80's Dade county had it's problems within its building department
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/06/u...ons-about-they-were-built.html?pagewanted=all
In 1987, a four-month investigation of payoffs in the Miami-area building industry led to the indictment of a building inspector and of 24 developers, contractors and homeowners. In 1990, a grand jury found numerous irregularities in building inspections, including inspectors routinely away from their jobs during work hours and inadequate enforcement of laws regulating contractors.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Nothing to be sorry about
I was pointing out that weak building code enforcement is an ongoing problem everywhere. Has been for decades and will continue for decades in different jurisdictions. A great and competent building department can fall apart in a very short time under the wrong leadership or without the backing of the elected officials and some will never change until a disaster strikes
I was pointing out that weak building code enforcement is an ongoing problem everywhere. Has been for decades and will continue for decades in different jurisdictions. A great and competent building department can fall apart in a very short time under the wrong leadership or without the backing of the elected officials and some will never change until a disaster strikes
conarb
Registered User
Mark:
The intent of this code is to "Protect the health and safety and increase the tax base", was in the Preface to the UBC for some years, the last I have is the 1997 code and it does not appear in the Preface there, I don't know in which cycle that wording was dropped, I remember because I questioned the words "and increase the tax base". Anyone here who still has older codes can check the Preface in 1994, 1991. etc. to see when it last appeared.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
1979 UBC
"minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating.......
"minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating.......
linnrg
Sawhorse
In the "Preface" of my 1976 UBC - The Uniform Building Code is dedicated to the development of better building construction and greater safety to the public by uniformity in building laws. The code is founded on broad based performance principles that make possible the use of new materials and new construction systems"
Conarb - nothing about building the tax base, Although the public sometimes thinks it is about a way for the government to be able to impose fees or peer into their business that is not in there either!
I think the interest of creating a greater tax base was confused with the Federal Governments many programs to expand home ownership.
Conarb - nothing about building the tax base, Although the public sometimes thinks it is about a way for the government to be able to impose fees or peer into their business that is not in there either!
I think the interest of creating a greater tax base was confused with the Federal Governments many programs to expand home ownership.
conarb
Registered User
I know it was in at least one edition because it surprised me, also most editions I have have two prefaces, one for Calfiornia and the second for the UBC.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
I started with the SBCCI codes and I remember seeing articles about how the building codes "protect" the tax base against natural disasters and the housing codes "protect" the tax base by keeping properties from falling into blight. That is how you would sell new code adoption to the elected officials back in the days. However I do not remember it as written as a purpose within the codes themselves
The intent or statement of purpose within the body of the code in many cases is not relevant other than as a reflection of the intent of the authors. Any statement of intent made by an entity that adopted the code would govern over any statement of intent in the printed code. When the state legislature makes a statement of intent when it adopts a state building code or when it authorizes cities or counties to adopt building codes then the legislatures statement of intent governs and will limit the content that can be adopted by the agency or local governmental entity.
Thus you need to understand the controlling statement of intent which in many instances is different from that which is printed in the model code.
From an enforcement perspective statements of intent do not give the enforcement agency any additional authority. The building official is limited to enforcing the letter of the adopted provisions. The building official should use the governing statement of intent to guide his interpretation of the regulations but it does not give the building official any authority to impose a requirement not clearly required by the letter of the regulations.
Thus you need to understand the controlling statement of intent which in many instances is different from that which is printed in the model code.
From an enforcement perspective statements of intent do not give the enforcement agency any additional authority. The building official is limited to enforcing the letter of the adopted provisions. The building official should use the governing statement of intent to guide his interpretation of the regulations but it does not give the building official any authority to impose a requirement not clearly required by the letter of the regulations.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
It does not mater what the UBC said or didn't say.
The California Constitution specifies that: "The general rule is that a regulatory fee must not exceed the sum reasonably necessary to cover the costs of the regulatory purpose sought in order to be considered as a fee rather than a guise for a tax." A 1993 California Attorney General’s Opinion (No. 92-506) also addressed this issue and concluded that building permit fees cannot exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing building inspection services, unless approved by a two-third vote of the electorate.
Building permit fees typically are based on the construction cost of a project. The higher the construction expenditures, the higher the permit fee, no matter the cost of providing the permit services. Based upon information provided to the Grand Jury by local jurisdictions, many of them appear to be profiting by collecting excessive building permit fees in violation of the Attorney General’s Opinion.
Attorney General’s Opinion.
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/92-506.pdf
The California Constitution specifies that: "The general rule is that a regulatory fee must not exceed the sum reasonably necessary to cover the costs of the regulatory purpose sought in order to be considered as a fee rather than a guise for a tax." A 1993 California Attorney General’s Opinion (No. 92-506) also addressed this issue and concluded that building permit fees cannot exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing building inspection services, unless approved by a two-third vote of the electorate.
Building permit fees typically are based on the construction cost of a project. The higher the construction expenditures, the higher the permit fee, no matter the cost of providing the permit services. Based upon information provided to the Grand Jury by local jurisdictions, many of them appear to be profiting by collecting excessive building permit fees in violation of the Attorney General’s Opinion.
Attorney General’s Opinion.
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/92-506.pdf
Last edited:
linnrg
Sawhorse
from the original article
"But, unlike most cities in the continental U.S., local governments in Puerto Rico don’t send inspectors to approve planning documents or visit construction sites, according to Mr. Alvarez-Diaz. Contractors aren’t required to be licensed, he added."
Having building codes adopted and not enforced is happening all over this country - not just a poor country like PR. In some of today's news there are articles wondering when the next big earthquake will happen, In the shower this morning I found myself wondering what the roof snow load was in Erie with that big snow load they just got. For those of us involved in building codes and their application we will all face this same spotlight sometime. I doubt there is a perfect building safety department or perfectly completed inspections or any form of absolute assurance that everything under our watch was 100 percent code compliant. Standing there on a project for every second and observing everything while it is built is never going to happen. Similarly, having plans completely detailed enough to contain all code compliance is a dream or a nightmare.
"But, unlike most cities in the continental U.S., local governments in Puerto Rico don’t send inspectors to approve planning documents or visit construction sites, according to Mr. Alvarez-Diaz. Contractors aren’t required to be licensed, he added."
Having building codes adopted and not enforced is happening all over this country - not just a poor country like PR. In some of today's news there are articles wondering when the next big earthquake will happen, In the shower this morning I found myself wondering what the roof snow load was in Erie with that big snow load they just got. For those of us involved in building codes and their application we will all face this same spotlight sometime. I doubt there is a perfect building safety department or perfectly completed inspections or any form of absolute assurance that everything under our watch was 100 percent code compliant. Standing there on a project for every second and observing everything while it is built is never going to happen. Similarly, having plans completely detailed enough to contain all code compliance is a dream or a nightmare.
conarb
Registered User
It can go to intent, as with sovereign immunity the laws are evolving, all here have to remember FBI Director Comey delivering a laundry list if crimes Hillary Clinton had committed, then unbelievably stated that no prosecutor would prosecute her because she didn't intend to violate the law, in the past he would have been wrong, black letter law doesn't require intent, but then the law is moving, for instance I can see an attorney defending a businessman accused of violating ADA arguing that the businessman didn't intend to violate a law that he didn't even know about. In Sacramento there is a firm that does nothing but research legislative intent for attorneys, so they can argue the intent of the law.
This is correct, California's famous Prop 13 made fee charges a tax requiring a vote of 2/3 of the electorate unless they are fees for services rendered, anything beyond the actual cost of providing those services is a tax and illegal absent a vote of the people.
Given California's law building departments should ignore cost-based fees and charge only the actual cost of delivering the services, they should also look long and hard at the current practice of bringing other services under the Building Department umbrella to fund social services, housing is a favorite one around here.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
Do they have private inspection companies in California? If they do can private companies set their own fees beyond the actual cost of providing those services and make a profit?
Here in PA the local governments are not allowed to make a profit on enforcing the codes but make the private inspection companies pay a fee to operate in there jurisdiction, so the government does make a profit on enforcing the codes in a round about way. Usually the fee is a percentage of what the company is charging to do the inspections. I seen it from 10% up to 50%. Some people might call this a kickback.
Here in PA the local governments are not allowed to make a profit on enforcing the codes but make the private inspection companies pay a fee to operate in there jurisdiction, so the government does make a profit on enforcing the codes in a round about way. Usually the fee is a percentage of what the company is charging to do the inspections. I seen it from 10% up to 50%. Some people might call this a kickback.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
We are required by law to operate on building revenue and not fund other departments such as fire and zoning. (special revenue fund) We are allowed to have one year of operating expenses in a reserve account to get us through the slow times. We took over the fire/life safety program and sprinkler and fire alarm reviews from the fire department about 8 years ago.
The general fund pays for the fire/life safety program no building permit revenue supports that program.
The general fund pays for the fire/life safety program no building permit revenue supports that program.
In California special inspections are performed by private firms but the jurisdictions perform the inspections required in Chapter 1.. Since there are multiple firms providing special inspections there is competition. They do not pay a fee to the local jurisdiction.
With this situation claims of not enough resources ring hollow since all they have to do is raise the permit fees. Thus any restrictions on staffing is only because the jurisdiction has decided that lower permit fees are a higher priority than more inspections.
With this situation claims of not enough resources ring hollow since all they have to do is raise the permit fees. Thus any restrictions on staffing is only because the jurisdiction has decided that lower permit fees are a higher priority than more inspections.