Loading...
02-08-1996 Community Forum (2) 1 Ocoee • ••1 I S. Scar Vadatecride OP 0000 150 N. LAKESHORE DRVE OCOEE, FLORIDA 34761 (407)656-2322 FAX (407)656-8504 9KE:120RANSDV511 TO: Commissioners Johnson,Anderson, Glass and Gleason EgW1: S. Scott'irandergrift, 9Kayor j"�� DATE: 'Fehruary 8„ 1996 Trip To Tallahassee To Appear Before grouse Committee on Community Affairs: Su6 Committee on grousing and Community 'Development; January 24, 1996, 5Kem6er Workshop on Building Code Enforcement Topics of discussion are luted on the following pages, Exhi6it I. Exhibit II is a proposal being considered 6y the Subcommittee to present to the full committee. There were many Representatives at the meeting both pro and con about the concept as presented 6y OSI and the insurance industry for evaluating and scoring building inspection departments. A discount on insurance rates to the City and County residents whose 6uildng inspection department gets the best rating and lowest rates was the carrot. The officials at the meeting other than the Committee expressed reservations about many facets of the program. I feel some form of this course of action will 6e adopted over the next few years. 'The unstated threat of insurance companies withdrawing from the state carries some real big clout with the Legislature. Even without state laws, I feel the insurance companies willput a grading system in anyway. One point that hung officials up was on (Page 6, cParagraph 113, Section A. 2% to 6e spent on training; one official stated that less than 4/10ths of 1% was spent on training in their department. It would he interesting to see how our department measures up overall Looking for our strengths and weaknesses. 16elueve it is coming in the form or one that is modi ed. I expressed to them that the construction pro6lems can't 6e blamed on Inspectors alone; it has to 6e a continuing process to ensure safety, security and overt enjoyment of our most prized and expensive possession-our homes. I also lobbied Representative Dan Webster on the enclave legislation; I asked him to present. Jfe says it is on track. Left home at 6:00 a.m.;got home at 10:30 p.m... need to double my pay. gra!gra! SS`c).fdg " Attachments cc: Ellis Shapiro, City;Kanager Department(Directors 5ils. Nancy(Parker THE PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE House Committee on Community Affairs Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development January 24 Member Workshop on Building Code Enforcement Topics for Discussion I. The three questions addressed by the House Committee on Community Affairs' interim project on the enforcement of residential building codes are: I) Is the enforcement of residential building codes adequate in the State of Florida? 2) Are current efforts of state agencies to ensure the adequacy of building code enforcement sufficient? 3) What policy options are available to the Legislature to enhance the enforcement of building codes? II. Individual subcommittee members have requested discussion of the following items: A) The `Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule" administered by ISO, Commercial Risk Services, Inc.; B) The efficiency of local government building code enforcement offices; C) The effectiveness of local government building code enforcement offices in ensuring code compliance; D) The uses of building permit fees; and, E) The merits of a statewide building code. ✓ briattachment ;,2 • EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM BUILDING CODE EFFECTIVENESS GRADING SCHEDULE BACKGROUND Natural disasters have received increased attention in the 1990's due to the severe impact they can have and are having upon society. Natural disasters have caused loss of life, destruction of homes, interruption of businesses and financial ruin for many. As an example, in 1992 Hurricane Andrew caused an estimated 61,000 residents of Dade County to lose their homes and an estimated 50% of those employed there to lose their workplaces. The societal effects of catastrophes such as Andrew continue long after the event as individuals and communities undertake a costly and arduous rebuilding process. The consequences of natural disasters on the United States economy are also severe. The property/casualty insured loss alone for catastrophic events since 1990 is over $48.4 billion. Unaccounted for in this figure are losses due to business interruption, unearned wages, government costs, uninsured losses and similar factors. A significant portion of the property/casualty insured losses resulting from catastrophic events can be attributed to structures not adequately built to withstand the natural hazard inflicted upon them. Even though model building codes have been established which encourage, and often require, the latest natural hazard mitigation technology to be employed in the construction of buildings, often times after a major storm we discover that buildings are not built in compliance with the model building codes. Thus, to effectively use building codes to mitigate natural hazard losses, the quality of the code enforcement process becomes critical. . STUDIES OF BUILDING CODES: ENFORCEMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS In 1992, a study was conducted in 12 coastal communities by the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI). The purpose was to assess the knowledge of code officials on the wind resistant provisions in the codes. The study indicated that codes addressing the wind hazard were sufficient and the quantity of staff to enforce the code were above the average, but the building officials knowledge of wind mitigation strategies contained within the codes scored less than adequate in both the plan review and field inspection functions. In fact, it was found that less than 33% of the building inspectors and plan reviewers could demonstrate adequate knowledge of wind-resistant construction: Mother study conducted by a professor at Clemson University and a coastal engineer at North Carolina State University compared two similar hurricanes that impacted two similar coastal communities. The communities were Galveston Island, Texas (where Hurricane Alicia hit landfall in 1983) and Cape Fear, North Carolina (which was impacted by Hurricane Dianne in 1984). Both residential communities consisted primarily of elevated wood-frame houses in exposed, low-lying coastal areas. Both suffered hurricane winds between 80-90 mph. Hurricane Alicia destroyed 35% of the homes in Galveston Island, while only 0.3% of the homes in Cape Fear were destroyed. One outstanding difference existed between the two communities — Galveston Island, Texas did not have a building code to guide developers/builders while Cape Fear enforced a version of the SBCCI Code. These studies reinforced the assumption that adoption of building codes which address natural hazards, and 1 ISO COMMERCIAL RISK SERVICES.INC..1995 The Schedule is a performance-based system with a total maximum point accumulation of 100 points. The numeric score is translated into a grading classification scale of 1 to 10, with Class 1 being the most favorable classification and Class 10 representing no recognizable code enforcement efforts. The classifications will appear in the Public Protection Classification manual along with the community gradings of fire defenses. The primary audience of this publication is insurers. All code enforcement agencies within the state are forecast to be graded under this system by 1997. Thereafter, communities will be regraded every 5 years, or earlier upon notification of significant code enforcement changes within the jurisdiction. ADMINISTRATIVE FEATURES OF THE SCHEDULE Administrative features of the BCEGS include: The effective date of the BCEGS classification for a community will be based upon the year of the survey date. The BCEGS classification will apply to those structures that received a certificate of occupancy during the year of the effective date of the community grading and beyond. If a community's classification is revised (by virtue of a reclassification of the community), the revised classification will apply to structures receiving a certificate of occupancy during the year of the effective date of the revised classification and subsequent years. We will file, under separate cover at a later date, manual rules and rating credits incorporating the community classifications developed through the use of the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule. • 3 ISO COMMERCIAL RISK SERVICES,INC.,1995 BUILDING CODE ECTIVENESS GRADING SCHEDULE ISO COMMERCIAL RISK SERVICES, INC. NOTICE TO MANUAL HOLDER:All rights reserved. Possession of these manual pages does not confer the right to print,reprint,publish,copy,sell,or file or use In any manner without the written permission of the copyright owner. EDITION 01-95 ©ISO COMMERCIAL RISK SERVICES, INC., 1995 • III. Field Inspection: This section evaluates the field inspection function to determine the staffing levels, personnel experience, performance evaluation schedules, review capabilities, and level of review of building construction for compliance with the adopted building code for the jurisdiction being graded. 35. CALCULATIONS: Whenever in this Schedule it is necessary to prorate credits, or to make any calculation using less than a whole percent or point, the following rules apply unless otherwise directed: A. All calculations with a 3 or more decimal place figure will be rounded to a 2 decimal place figure, promoting 0.005 or more, and dropping 0.004 or less (e.g., 2.285= 2.29; 2.284= 2.28). B. All values are proratable except where noted. C. If a portion of this Schedule does not apply due to an inapplicability to the jurisdiction being graded,the maximum points for that subsection will be given. For example,jurisdictions whose identified natural hazard(s)does not lend itself to mitigation by zoning regulations would receive maximum credit under Section 140. "ZONING PROVISIONS"even though there were no zoning provisions in place. D. When documentation is not provided to substantiate an item of review within this Schedule, and it is reasonable to assume that credit for the item is justified, a maximum of 75% of the credit points possible can be given to the item under review. E. The final score will be determined by a relationship between Item 105 and the balance of the Schedule. [{(Section I + SectionII + Section III) - Item 105) X Pants Achieved in Item 1057 .f. Item 105 Pants Possible in Item 105 J 40. MINIMUM CONDITIONS FOR APPLYING THIS SCHEDULE: In order to develop a Building Code Effectiveness Classification other than Class 10, the following minimum conditions must exist: A. Organization: The building department will be organized on a permanent basis under applicable state or local laws. The organization will include one person responsible for the operation of the department, usually with the title of Building Official. The department must serve an area with definite boundaries. If the jurisdiction is not served by a building department operated solely by or for the governing body of that jurisdiction, the building department providing such service will do so under a legal contract or resolution. When a building department's service area involves one or more jurisdictions, a contract should be executed with each jurisdiction served. B. Building Code: A building code addressing the structural strength and stability necessary to provide resistance to natural hazards attributed to the built environment will be adopted and enforced. C. Plan Review and Inspection: Review of construction documents and field review of building construction for compliance with the adopted building code will be done for building construction within the jurisdiction being graded. • EDITION 01-95 2 O ISO COMMERCIAL RISK SERVICES, INC., 1995 SECTION 1 ADMINISTPJ\TION OF CODES EDITION 01-95 4 ©ISO COMMERCIAL RISK SERVICES, INC., 1995 , 110. MODIFICATION TO ADOPTED CODES 5.0 POINTS" There should be no modifications to the structural design provisions of the adopted codes and referenced standards that would weaken the intent for construction mitigation of natural hazards as defined in the model codes and referenced standards. No proration is permitted in this item. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE POINTS=(POINTS CREDITED IN ITEM 105) X 0.1 X 5.0 115. TRAINING: 13.0 POINTS (-- The credit for training is as follows: A. Amount of expenditures for training equaling at least 2% of the annual operating budget for all building department related activities 3.00 points B. Each code enforcement person receiving the following amount of trainln• •er year. Administration 12 hours Legal 12 hours 1.25 points Mentoring 12 hours 1.25 points 1.25 points Technical 60 hours 4.25 points C. Incentives provided by the jurisdiction for continuing education, outside training, certification and certification maintenance 1.50 points D. Education of elected officials or governing authorities in building codes and building code enforcement a minimum of 3 hours per official per year 0.50 point 120. CERTIFICATION: 12 .0 POINTS The credit for certification is as follows: A. Certification of code enforcement personnel (applicable to the position requiremthrough a comprehensive examination representative of the performance area or ts) which certification is sought 8.00 points B. State or local jurisdiction mandated program for certification 1.00 point C. State or local jurisdiction mandated program of certification maintenance through continuing education at least once every 3 years 2.00 points D. Program of employee certification in the field they are employed(prior to employment or within one year of date of hire or advancement) 1.00 point EDITION 01-95 6 ©ISO COMMERCIAL RISK SERVICES, INC., 1995 155. PUBLIC AWARENESS PROGRAMS 2.0 POINTS The credit for public awareness programs is as follows: A. The amount of expenditures for public awareness programs equaling a minimum of 0.5% of the annual operating budget for all building department related activities 1.00 point B. The amount of hours spent by code enforcers on public awareness programs, equaling a minimum of 3 hours per code enforcement employee per year 1.00 point 160. PARTICIPATION IN CODE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 0.5 POINT The building department involvement in code development activities and associations with groups or organizations that assemble building enforcement personnel for the purpose of education and advancement of effective building codes. 165. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 0.5 POINT The credit for"Policies and Procedures"is as follows: A. A formal appeal process that a contractor/builder or architect/design professional can utilize as recourse to a building official's interpretation of the adopted building code/zoning regulations 0.30 point B. A policies and procedures guide for employees 0.10 point C. Where the policies and procedures guide covers technical code requirements (such as approved products listings)that would assist a designer or builder, publicizing the guide as available to the public 0.10 point EDITION 01-95 8 ©ISO COMMERCIAL RISK SERVICES, INC., 1995 SECTION II • 200. GENERAL: This section evaluates the plan review function to determine the following: • Staffing levels • Personnel experience • Performance evaluation schedules • Review capabilities, and level of review of construction documents for compliance with the adopted building code for the jurisdiction being graded. 205. EXISTING STAFFING: 9.0 POINTS" Staffing levels sufficient to assure comprehensive reviews of construction documents for compliance with the adopted building codes. "MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE POINTS= POINTS ACHI En w ITEi.Zl POINTS POSSIBLE IN ITEM 215 X ITEM 205 210. EXPERIENCE OF PERSONNEL: 1.5 POINTS 5 years or greater experience in plan review of plan review staff. . 215. DETAIL OF PLAN REVIEW: 11.5 POINTS . The credit for the comprehensiveness of plan review is as follows: A. Plan reviews conducted on all proposed 182 family dwelling construction or dwelling additions/modifications 5.00 points B. Comprehensive review of plans performed even if they were prepared and sealed by a registered design professional certified in the appropriate field of work 1.50 points C. Structural plan reviews conducted for all proposed building construction or building additions/modifications including a review of engineering calculations 2.00 points D. A means to evaluate, or reference evaluation service reports, for substitute products and/or materials for conformance with the intent of the structural portions of the adopted building codes 1.00 point E. A detailed checklist used with each plan review to assure all pertinent building code issues have been considered. The checklist becomes a part of the permanent record of the project address 2.00 points EDITION 01-95 10 @ ISO COMMERCIAL RISK SERVICES, INC., 1995 SECTION III FIELD INSPECTION EDITION 01-95 12 ®ISO COMMERCIAL RISK SERVICES,INC., 1995 335. FINAL INSPECTIONS: 2.5 POINTS Final inspections performed on all buildings after the construction is completed and the building is ready for occupancy. 340. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 2.0 POINTS Certificates of occupancy issued by the building department after the construction is completed and prior to the building being occupied. 345. PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE 1.0 POINT Credit for quality assurance programs for field inspectors is as follows: A. Annual employee performance evaluations 0.50 point B. "Follow-up"field inspections by a different field inspector conducted semiannually 0.50 point EDITION 01-95 14 ©ISO COMMERCIAL RISK SERVICES, INC., 1995 SiCver Bend Homeowners .Association, Inc. P.O. Box 680538 Telephone (407) 293-9333 Orlando, Florida 32868-0538 Date: February 8, 1996 To: Board of City Commissioners Ellis Shapiro, City Manager From: Martha E. Lopez-Anderson President Re: "Developer Review Committee" The objective of this memo is to bring to the attention of City Officials the need to establish a committee to oversee that Developers have met certain requirements prior to delegating the responsibilities to the homeowners. As it is a requirement of the City of Ocoee for any new development to have a Homeowner's Association, I urge you to work with the homeowners in making sure Developers have fully met their responsibilities. This in turn will cut down on the amount of valuable time and money the City will spend in researching why things were or were not done. Though, I clearly understand Developers bring income to our City, I believe we homeowners are here to stay and bring ongoing income through: utilities, franchise, city, and real estate taxes, not to mention our contribution to the local economy of this area. The following are some of the items to be reviewed: a) Retention Ponds/Drainage b) Screen Walls c) Roads d) Sidewalks Wendy Koslan 6825 Woodgrain Court Orlando, FL 32818 February 7, 1996 To whom it may concern: The front door frame in my five year old home has rotted through due to the poor roof design and needs to be completely replaced, at our expense. The garage roof slopes towards the front door so that all water drainage is aimed right at the bottom of the door, causing the rot. This situation could have been rectified with a $1 diverter or an architectural designer who takes local climate into consideration when designing homes in Florida. As with many other aggravating problems, the builder denied responsibility. When the builder's representative came to inspect the problem, he informed us that it was our fault for not installing gutters as soon as we moved in. This was never stated to us by the builder when we bought our house. Since my home (then three years old) suffered this problem, I visited other homeowners with the same design flaw and discovered they all had the same rot problem. One persistent homeowner, who kept confronting the builder on a daily basis for many months, was able to get the builder to fix the rotten door frame for them, but on two conditions: 1. The builder claimed no responsibility for the problem. 2. The homeowner must agree not to divulge to any other homeowner with the problem that the builder fixed the door frame for them. The builder's handling of this situation disgusted me. Since they fixed one home, they obviously recognized the problem as theirs, but would not accept any blame. I have recently spoken with many Central Florida homeowners with homes around the same age as mine who have experienced the following costly problems with their new homes: • "Two car" garages that can't fit two cars. • The use of shingles that are not mildew-resistant. • Leaks in the roof in homes less than one year of age (and prior to any hail storms.) • Large cracks in driveways that are not considered structural damage. • Cabinets that had the laminate peel off in less than two months of age. • Stucco homes needing the bottom section cut off, all the way around the house, in order to have termite treatments. If this is a known fact, as was stated by more than five (5) local termite control companies, why do builders continue to create this very costly situation? I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to any results you may obtain. Since ely, ,v)oledcdv„ delndy Ko Ian • r1irhael arca Kathy F'ei rlstein 504 E'er nadirlo Lir Ocoee, Fl 3476 1 Attacr: i 1'.: a list of protiiems incurreC t our r"e'sn en e since purchasing this rlorne in December 1g87 Our apEiroxirnate out of pocket expenses total over $5,000 00. iji`iST ;'iji_T ION OFF 1_I ENi=1 ER Tt=Riii BACK PORCH •Wood rotted a'yvau and infested with carpenter ants and termites .coopressure treated wood was used on the slab 2. PAINT •Peeled after less then a year due to improper sealing of blocks and house had to be repainted 3 FRONT OF HOUSE •elau window in front is termite and carpenter ant infested iv-Siding disintegrated •tioid and mildew invaded inside the house causing ruin to carnet and walls due to improper installation by bay window .Stone work on garage defective - stones failing of t "'Wood framing around chimney and narage had to be replaced iNTE IOR I t�t_it i3T bA T HR til;,_: •inside wall in tuo rotted aTiles fell off wall - water leaked be} ind tiles into wall 2 °i.ASTER bbATHRUtJrl • Soft wails caused by water leaking behind tiles •No green ooard was used •El ec tri cal wires and main electric box directly behind shower head - no insulation or protection of wires from water. *Tiles fell off wall OTHER 'Electrical outlets improperly mounted in walls of entire house. Could he pulled right out of the wall •Fi oors not properly prepared before carpet or linoleum was installed