slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Value of the Permit Process Robert Rice, Josephine County Building Safety Director PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Value of the Permit Process Robert Rice, Josephine County Building Safety Director

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 81

The Value of the Permit Process Robert Rice, Josephine County Building Safety Director - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 61 Views
  • Uploaded on

The Value of the Permit Process Robert Rice, Josephine County Building Safety Director. Introduction/Welcome. Personal Background: 10 years in Construction/Destruction Returned to College: AAS Manufacturing CAD/CAM - RCC

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

The Value of the Permit Process Robert Rice, Josephine County Building Safety Director


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. The Value of the Permit Process Robert Rice, Josephine County Building Safety Director

    2. Introduction/Welcome • Personal Background: • 10 years in Construction/Destruction • Returned to College: AAS Manufacturing CAD/CAM - RCC • 7 Years in Engineering Firm as a Drafter doing structural, mechanical, electrical & plumbing plans using AutoCAD • 3 Years w/ Engineering Firms as a Structural Designer • 4 Years as Plans Examiner for Jo Co Building Safety • Josephine County Building Safety Director since 2007

    3. Certifications • State of Oregon A-level Plans Examiner • State of Oregon Residential Plans Examiner • State of Oregon Residential Inspector • State of Oregon Post-Earthquake Evaluation • State of Oregon Manuf. Dwelling Inspector • State of Oregon Inspector Certification • ICC Residential Inspector • ICC Building Plans Examiner • ICC Residential Plans Examiner • ICC Building Official – Legal / Administrative • ICC Fire Plans Examiner

    4. Other Related Interests/Involvement • RCC Part Time Instructor: • AutoCAD, CADkey, DataCAD • Blueprint Reading I & II (10 years) • President of the Southern Oregon Chapter of the International Code Council (ICC) representing 15 jurisdictions in our region • Actively Involved in code changes at the State and National level to help make better codes

    5. Topics • History of Building Codes • Model Code Development • Oregon’s Code Adoption Process • Permitting Process • Inspections • Certificate of Occupancy

    6. The History of Building Codes

    7. Babylonian Empire of Hammurabi • Oldest know written code pertaining to building construction. • Around 2000 B.C. • However, it was more about prescribing punishment than how to build.

    8. Building Code of Hammurabi • Translations: • 228: If a builder has built a house for a man and his work is not strong, and if the house he has built falls in and kills the householder, that builder shall be slain.

    9. Building Code of Hammurabi • Translations: • 230: If the child of the householder be killed, the child of that builder shall be slain. • 231: If the slave of the householder be killed, he shall give slave for slave to the householder

    10. Building Code of Hammurabi • Translations: • 232: If goods have been destroyed, he shall replace all that has been destroyed…… • 233: If a builder has built a house for a man, and his work is not done properly and a wall shifts, then that builder shall make that wall good with his own silver

    11. The earliest “Modern” Building codes were a result of tragic catastrophes. Burning of Rome 64 A.D. The rebuilding of the city, public and private, was closely monitored and controlled.

    12. London Fire 1866 5 days/nights 15,000 buildings destroyed Parliament enacted a building code called “London Building Act”

    13. Chicago Fire - 1871 • 2 days/nights • 17,000 buildings destroyed • 250 lives lost • 100,000 homeless due to fire • 60 insurance companies went bankrupt

    14. Early controls in the United States Wooden chimneys were forbidden in New York as early as of 1648 and inspectors were appointed. • Fire district created in 1766 where “..all buildings shall be made of stone or brick and roofed with tile or slate.”

    15. Pre-1994 Legacy Code Groups BOCA: (Northern and Eastern States) Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. Established 1915 ICBO (Western States) International Conference of Building Officials Established 1922 SBCCI (Southern States) Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. (SBCCI). Established 1940

    16. Since the early part of the last century, these nonprofit organizations developed the three separate sets of model codes used throughout the United States.

    17. Although regional code development has been effective and responsive to our country’s needs, the time came for a single set of codes. The nation’s three model code groups responded by merging into the International Code Council (ICC) and by developing codes without regional limitations known as the International Codes.

    18. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCILwww.iccsafe.org The International Code Council (ICC) was established in 1994 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing a single set of comprehensive and coordinated national model construction codes.

    19. ICC Vision Protecting the health, safety, and welfare of people by creating better buildings and safer communities.

    20. ICC Mission Providing the highest quality codes, standards, products, and services for all concerned with the safety and performance of the built environment.

    21. So, who are these people that actually writes the codes?

    22. Lawmakers in Washington DC ?

    23. Lawmakers in Washington DC

    24. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL Code Development Process

    25. 13 ICC I-Codes Building: International Building Code (IBC) International Residential Code (IRC) Fire: International Fire Code (IFC) International Wildland Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) Plumbing and Mechanical International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) International Mechanical Code (IMC) International Plumbing (IPC) International Private Sewage Disposal Code (IPSDC)

    26. 13 ICC I-Codes (cont) Existing Buildings: International Existing Building Code (IEBC) International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) Specialty: International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities International Zoning Code (IZC)

    27. Characteristics of International Codes • Each code is comprehensive • All codes are coordinated and compatible with each other • All codes are developed according to the same process in the same forum • All codes reference consensus national standards

    28. Coordination of I-codes • Defined scope of each code • Interdependence and reliance on the entire family of codes - cross referencing and duplication of provisions within code scopes • Issues resolved in a single and central public forum • Single interpretation applies to all codes

    29. Development Process Goal Utilize a process open to all parties with safeguards to avoid domination by proprietary interests. ICC Governmental Consensus Process achieves this with the final vote resting with those enforcing the codes.

    30. The players: • Code officials • Design professionals/consultants • Trade associations • Builders/contractors • Manufacturers/suppliers • Government agencies • Property owner/maintenance groups • Insurance companies • Anyone with an interest

    31. Gary Ehrlich National Home Builders Association

    32. Kelly Cobeen, P.E. Cobeen and Associates, Inc

    33. Professor Dan Dolan, P.E. S.E. University of Washington

    34. Ed Keith, P.E. American Plywood Association

    35. Randy Shackleford, P.E. Simpson Strong-Tie

    36. Robert Rice Building Official

    37. The Process • Hearings are according to “Robert’s Rules of Order” where motions are made, discussed and voted on. • Open • Transparent • Balance of Interest • Due Process • Appeals Process • Consensus

    38. Code Changes Submitted Code Changes Printed & Distributed Supplement Or New Edition Published Code Development Hearing I-CODE DEVELOPMENT CYCLE Final Action Hearing Public Hearing Results Printed & Distributed Public Comments Printed & Distributed Public Comments Sought on Public Hearing Results

    39. Code Development Hearing • 13 Code Committees. One for each code, except: • IBC 4 Subcommittees • IFC & IWUIC combined • IPC & IPSDC combined • IPMC & IZC combined • IRC 2 Subcommittees • Anyone can attend and testify. No cost to attend the hearings

    40. Code Committees • Materially affected interests represented • Not less than 33% of each committee is to be regulators • All meetings in public forum • All actions and reasons for action published

    41. Code Development Hearing(Speaking to the Committee) • Committee action • Approval as Submitted (AS) • Approval as Modified (AM) • Disapproval (D)

    42. Code Development Hearing(Speaking to the Committee) • Committee action • Approval as Submitted (AS) • Approval as Modified (AM) • Disapproval (D) • Assembly action • All members of ICC can vote in response to committee action (e.g. Overturn committee action) • Successful assembly action results in an automatic public comment

    43. Public Comment Submittal • Allows anyone to submit a comment (“Public Comment”) in response to the results of the Code Development Hearing

    44. Public Comment Submittal • Disagree with the committee action • Disagree with the assembly action • Propose revisions (“modifications”) to the code change. Further revisions proposed in legislative format. • Public Comments are then published in the Final Action Agenda

    45. Final Action Hearing(Speaking to the Assembly) • Anyone can attend and testify. No cost to attend the hearings. • Agenda: • Consent agenda: Block vote on all code changes which did not receive a public comment or successful assembly action • Individual Consideration Agenda: Vote individually on each code change which received a public comment or successful assembly action

    46. Final Action Hearing Final vote on whether or not to change the code rests with the Governmental Member Representatives – those who enforce the code and are charged with the public’s safety • Open, fair and objective with no proprietary interest