SUMMARY
Joint NCSBCS/AMCBO Public Sector Members Teleconference
Topic: ISO Rating System, State and Local Code Adoption, Regulatory Streamlining and Building Department Best Practices
Participants:
States of: Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon & Wisconsin
Cities and Counties of: Fairfax County, VA; Murfreesboro, TN; Nashville, TN; New York City, Philadelphia, PA; Richmond, VA; San Jose, CA
ISO Representatives: Dennis Gage (Manager) & Ralph Dorio (Senior Technical Coordinator)
NCSBCS President Tom Joachim (MN) and AMCBO Chairman Claude Cooper (Richmond) welcomed everyone to the joint NCSBCS/AMCBO public sector member important issues conference call and thanked Dennis Gage and Ralph Dorio for participating on the call to address state and local government questions regarding ISO’s programs and rating system.
Claude Cooper then took over as the moderator for the day’s call and asked ISO’s representatives to start the session by addressing the first of three prepared questions from the members of NCSBCS and AMCBO.
QUESTION #1: How is ISO handling in its rating system (Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule – BCEGS) the issue of jurisdictions that are unable to update their building code due to ongoing discussions among elected officials over which building code to adopt – the ICC’s International Building Code or the NFPA’s 5000 Building Code?
ISO Response:
Before ISO publishes a less favorable community classification, the community is enrolled in a regression procedure. During this procedure, the community has the opportunity to develop and implement a plan to regain its original classification. While this plan is being implemented, the community maintains its more favorable classification. This process can continue for up to 18 months.
In cases where there are statewide adoptions, ISO will be able to administratively revise classifications minimizing the efforts of community personnel.
Recently ISO has made some schedule revisions. One of the revised issues addresses the apparent trend that communities are spending more time reviewing, amending, and adopting the published codes. ISO has changed its calculation system somewhat to accommodate this but has not varied from its opinion that it is good public policy for the BCEGS program to provide incentives for a jurisdiction to update its building codes within a five-year period.
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: In California, localities cannot update their building code until the state adopts an updated code for local jurisdictions. Localities, therefore, are being penalized in their ISO rating for inaction by the state and not by the local community. Will ISO write and/or send copies of the local ratings to the State of California and formally tell inaction on the state code caused a drop in those local governments ratings?
ISO Response:
Communities in California are allowed to amend the state-adopted code when local seismic or climatic conditions dictate more stringent code requirements. Several communities in California have amended their codes locally. We are currently working with The Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) to evaluate the effectiveness of these code amendments.
In cooperation with the California building officials (CALBO), ISO has revised the letters which notify the community of a less favorable classification. The revised letter clearly states that the lower classification is not a reflection of the building official or code enforcement staff but rather has been influenced by the building code enforced.
If requested by a locality in California, ISO can send a letter to the California Building Standards Commission communicating to them that the community is now under a regression procedure pending statewide adoption of a more recent code publication. The letter would indicate that a lack of action within an 18-month period will result in publication of the less favorable classification.
We have offered to make a presentation to the Building Standards Commission but the opportunity has not presented itself to ISO as of yet. ISO will work with interested localities in California (and in any other interested states) to develop a formal letter to their state building codes agency on this matter.
ADDITIONALLY – ISO and NCSBCS and AMCBO will work together to develop and
issue an information piece on the subject of how ISO is handling delayed
building code updates by jurisdictions.
QUESTION #2: Several jurisdictions have reported to NCSBCS and AMCBO that ISO
has told them that some of their regulatory reform programs and privatization
efforts have cost them points under ISO’s BCEGS evaluation system. What has
occurred here? What reform or privatization steps does ISO have problems with
and why? Does ISO have data (claims data or losses of life) to back up the
concern? Is there anything NCSBCS and AMCBO can do to help ISO and the
jurisdictions that may be involved here?
ISO Response:
ISO follows the model building code philosophy about these issues. Streamlining or the use of third party agencies will not have an affect on the BCEGS classification as long as information is available. Neither of the code publication organizations or the BCEGS program acknowledge self-certification programs.
The Oregon Master Builder Program presented a problem for the code publication organizations and the BCEGS program because the program allowed self certification and inspection of structural components in an area subject to natural hazards. Communities that utilized the master builder program had less points available under the plan review and inspection sections of BCEGS. These points were a result of a proration of the percentage of units built under the master builder program and those reviewed and inspected by the building department.
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Does ISO have a problem with licensed architects and engineers self-certifying their work?
ISO Response:
No, not as long as the work they do is in the area in which they are licensed. However, Registered Design Professionals are not necessarily knowledgeable regarding code compliant construction. A well trained adequately staffed building code enforcement department is an essential element in reducing structural losses due to natural hazards.
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Does ISO have a problem with Oregon’s minor label program? (This program covers such items as the installation of water heaters, minor electrical work.)
ISO Response:
No, BCEGS does not have a problem with this program.
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Does ISO have guidelines regarding the qualifications of building officials and recommendations that such officials should be licensed architects or engineers?
ISO Response:
BCEGS considers the selection process and qualifications of the building official. The schedule offers a wide variety of credits for education, experience, and the selection process. The goal is to provide credits for different steps taken to employ the most qualified individual to run the building code enforcement department.
QUESTION #3: Does ISO have any "best management practices or standards" that relate staffing to work load?
ISO Response:
BCEGS has established benchmarks to measure staffing. These benchmarks relate to the thoroughness of inspections.
We have revised our data collection to assist the building official in the management of their department. Currently, our report details how a department activity compares to the BCEGS schedule. In January of 2004, we plan to begin distribution of a revised classifications detail report. The revised report will take the next step by comparing a community's responses to the BCEGS questionnaire to other communities in the state or nation that are of similar size, population, or construction activity. This comparison should be beneficial to the building official when preparing budgets and projecting future staffing requirements.
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: How does ISO count inspections? Say on a big casino?
ISO Response:
BCEGS counts every inspection (no matter how small) individually and then bases their calculations upon the total number of inspections performed by all inspectors over a 220 day period. This provides an average number of inspections per day per inspector.
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Some communities use combination inspectors who are certified in all four trades. How do you count their inspections?
ISO Response:
ISO still counts each inspection individually. A combination inspector doing four inspections on each of two houses in a day would count as eight inspections for ISO.
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Does ISO assign a minimum amount of time to conduct different types of inspections?
ISO Response:
No, but ISO would be interested in NCSBCS/AMCBO members working with us on a task group to look into this issue. We are aware that there are variables that affect the number of inspections that can be effectively conducted on any given day. Things, such as type and size of construction project, travel time, and many other factors, can have significant influence. It is difficult to quantify these issues into a meaningful factor for calculating effective and efficient staffing.
QUESTION #4: Where have premiums for property insurance been raised or lowered based upon ISO’s BCEGS system? Is that fact communicated to the jurisdiction where that has happened?
ISO Response:
The BCEGS program is an advisory program to the insurance industry. ISO has filed and received approval on advisory discounts nationwide that insurers may use in the rating plans. We do not track which insurance companies are using them or by how much they are decreasing premiums.
At the federal level, FEMA is using BCEGS ratings for communities as a part of the FEMA ratings in their Flood Mitigation Program (CRS). FEMA is also using the BCEGS classification as a criterion for establishing eligibility for pre-disaster mitigation funding.
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: How do jurisdictions find that out?
ISO Response:
The most effective way would be to contact the insurers who write policies in
a particular area.
CLOSING OF CALL AND PROPOSED ACTIONS BY NCSBCS AND AMCBO
At 1:15 p.m. both Messrs. Cooper and Joachim thanked Messrs. Dorio and Gage for their participation in the call and for the states and localities who joined the call.
It was determined that NCSBCS and AMCBO will follow up with ISO on several items including: