Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/27/2018 - Building Review Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingBuilding Review Board Page 1 September 27, 2018 Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers Tim Johnson, Vice Chair City Hall West Brad Massey 300 Laporte Avenue Bernie Marzonie Fort Collins, Colorado Katharine Penning Rick Reider Staff Liaison: Justin Robinson Russ Hovland Chief Building Official The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing Agenda September 27, 2018 1:00 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the June 28, 2018 BRB Meeting 2. 2018 I-Codes Impact Fee Update 3. 2018 I-CODES Adoption • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Building Review Board Packet Pg. 1 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 28, 2018 Building Review Board STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 2018 BRB MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2018 meeting of the Building Review Board. ATTACHMENTS 1. BRB June 28, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT Packet Pg. 2 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 1 June 28, 2018 Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers Tim Johnson, Vice Chair City Hall West Brad Massey 300 Laporte Avenue Bernie Marzonie Fort Collins, Colorado Katharine Penning Rick Reider Staff Liaison: Justin Robinson Russ Hovland Chief Building Official The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting Minutes June 28, 2018 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, June 28, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. • CALL TO ORDER Chair Cram called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cram, Johnson, Massey, Marzonie, Penning, Robinson, Reider ABSENT: None (Reider arrived after the roll call.) STAFF: Hovland, Van Hall, Schiager, Gerber • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 28, 2018 MEETING. Marzonie moved to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2018 meeting. Penning seconded. The motion passed 5:0, with Cram abstaining due to not being present at that meeting. Building Review Board ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 3 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 2 June 28, 2018 Chair Cram explained the Appeal Process, Order of Proceedings and the role of the Board. 2. RUCKER HILL APPEAL OF D-1 GC LICENSE DENIAL DESCRIPTION: Mr. Hill, the Appellant, is requesting a temporary D-1 license so that he may build 2 new houses giving him the required 3 projects to achieve a permanent D-1 license. Staff Presentation Mr. Hovland presented the staff report. He reviewed the history of the case, the request of the Appellant, the relevant Municipal Code Section, and explained his recommendation for denial. Appellant and Parties-in-Interest in Support of Appeal Arguments Mr. Hill stated that he is seeking a variance to obtain a temporary D-1 license to enable him to complete the construction of a home in order to meet the requirements for the D-1 license. He discussed some of his experience and qualifications, stating that he has a business degree, designed model homes in Texas, and worked for a custom home builder in Texas. He has had a D-2 license in Fort Collines for three years. He explained his wife’s role in their business. He talked about his company, the volume of business they have booked, and his need to support his family. Chair Cram asked the Appellant to focus his comments on the issue at hand, which is that he has not met the requirements for a D-1 license. Mr. Hill explained why he shared the information about his company and experience. He said that the previous Chief Building Official, Mike Gebo, had allowed him to build a home on Mountain, and had given his approval of the path they proposed to meet the D-1 license requirements. Staff Questions of Appellant Mr. Hovland asked if he had any documentation reflecting the decision of the previous Chief Building Official. Mr. Hill said he had showed the Mr. Gebo examples of his work. Mr. Hovland explained why he believes Mr. Hill needs additional training for new home construction. He said Mr. Hill had failed inspections, held an open house in a home that had not yet received a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), and his license had expired more than once, indicating a lack of record keeping. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Hill declined to provide an explanation for the items Mr. Hovland mentioned. Mr. Hill said he will always be learning and assured the Board that he would improve. Staff Rebuttal Mr. Hovland had no additional information. Board Questions of Staff and Parties-in-Interest Mr. Marzonie asked Mr. Hovland for clarification of the requirements for the D-1 license. Mr. Hovland stated the contractor must have three project verifications, proof of insurance, and must pass the test. He said Mr. Hill needed the two more project verifications. Mr. Hovland explained that often this requirement is met by doing homeowner builds, which are allowed every two years. Ms. Penning asked if it was possible for a homeowner to pull the permit. Mr. Hovland said they can pull their own permit, but if a homeowner hires someone to build a home, it must be a licensed contractor. Mr. Massey asked whether Mr. Hill had done any projects with his D-2 license that might be equivalent to the required new builds. Mr. Hill talked about an addition on Skyline and a project on Mohawk, explaining the scope of work for those jobs. Mr. Massey asked about the construction values of those jobs. Mr. Hill reported that the Mohawk job was $175K, and the Skyline job was approximately $200K. Ms. Hill talked about their upcoming projects. Mr. Massey said the Board needs to know about any projects that are comparable to new builds, or equivalent training, to consider in lieu of the requirements. Mr. Hill talked about what he observed as a realtor and Ms. Hill expressed confidence in their ability to handle new builds. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 4 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 3 June 28, 2018 Mr. Massey asked if Mr. Hill does the work himself or subs out the work. Mr. Hill said he subs almost everything to licensed contractors. Ms. Penning asked if Mr. Hill had tried to find a GC to oversee his work. Mr. Hill said he had talked to other contractors. Ms. Hill talked about the complications of Mr. Hill being on someone else’s payroll or putting a GC on theirs. Mr. Robinson asked how many total new builds he had completed in Texas and Fort Collins. Mr. Hill said they had no full new builds in Texas. Mr. Hill talked about the build on Mountain, comparing the major additions to a new build. Mr. Reider disclosed that he had met Mr. Hill on two occasions and had spoken to him on the phone, but that doesn’t influence his decision. Mr. Reider confirmed with Mr. Hovland that Mr. Hill can continue doing remodels with his D-2 license. He asked if there was anything in the regulations to prohibit Mr. Hill from hiring a General Contractor himself. Mr. Hovland said he must be directly supervised as a supervisor on a new build. Mr. Reider asked if the code specified that Mr. Hill would specifically have to be an employee on the payroll of a D-1 GC. Mr. Reider asked about the possibility of a contractual arrangement with a GC without having to be an employee. Shar Gerber, City Contractor Licensing Agent, referenced Code Sections 15-156 and 15-157 which specify that the Appellant would have to be an employee of the GC. She mentioned that another alternative is to do a new build in another jurisdiction. Mr. Hovland also pointed out that doing a homeowner build in another path to meeting the requirements. Mr. Johnson asked about how code is interpreted for remodels vs. new builds. Mr. Hovland briefly explained those differences. Appellant Closing Comments Mr. Hill said he would rather be held to the Fort Collins standards and do that learning here. He stated he would be willing to have a mentor with a D-1 license, rather than being an employee. He has a General Contractor in mind who he could ask. Staff Closing Comments None Board Discussion Board members explored the options for Mr. Hill to meet the requirements. They discussed the possibility of Mr. Hill working with a mentor, but not as an employee. Other ideas were allowing Mr. Hill to do one new build, and then having him come back to ask for a third or pursuing homeowner builds. Mr. Reider inquired as to whether the Board has the option to allow the mentor arrangement. Mr. Van Hall said the Board could add a condition with a modification to their motion. Mr. Reider asked Mr. Hovland whether such an arrangement would create a problem for him. Mr. Hovland stated he would want verification that the license holder was on site with some regularity to provide supervision. Mr. Johnson said he would be concerned about having the building inspectors make more visits to confirm the presence of the licensee. Mr. Van Hall said he would need to talk with Mr. Hovland to see whether Staff is equipped to enforce such an arrangement. Chair Cram said he was concerned about setting a precedent. Mr. Robinson agreed with Chair Cram that this might open a can of worms. Mr. Johnson said there is a reason for the requirements in the Code and does not believe Board should dictate how that works. The Board discussed crafting a motion. Mr. Johnson feels like the avenue exists, but the details should be up to the City. Chair Cram wondered how they could monitor the presence of the supervisor on site. Ms. Penning proposed that the Board could allow Mr. Hill to do one new build, and then he could do a homeowner build on the lot they own to get the other one he needs. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 5 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 4 June 28, 2018 Chair Cram suggested Mr. Hill could do two homeowner builds in four years, while simultaneously working on additions and remodels for income. Mr. Reider asked whether it was required to live in the home, and Mr. Hovland said Staff doesn’t track that. The Board discussed the time it would take to accomplish the homeowner builds. Mr. Massey noted that in that past the Board has approved a variance if an Appellant had two new builds and some other experience or education, but in this case, he does not believe Mr. Hill is close enough to meeting the requirements. Chair Cram said they’ve laid out some alternatives, but he would not want to dictate the path in a motion. If they deny the Appellant’s request, he could come back for another appeal after completing one more new build. Mr. Hovland said if they have two new builds that were successfully completed, he may approve a third administratively, as Mr. Gebo had done in the past. Motion Mr. Marzonie moved to deny the variance because it does not meet the requirements of Section 15-156 under the City Code. Mr. Robinson seconded. The motion passed 7:0. • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Cram asked Mr. Hovland about the status of reviewing the new code. Mr. Hovland said the Committee would begin July 11, and invitations to the participants will be sent soon. He also said that there may not be a lot of amendments. He gave an overview of the schedule for the adoption of the amendments for the 2018 codes. Mr. Hovland mentioned that they had adopted the 2006 Property Maintenance Code and had administratively kept Chapter 34 out of the 2012 IBC. His goal is to accept the entire set of 2018 codes. Mr. Reider apologized for being late. Mr. Hovland asked other Board members to let him know if they want to volunteer for the committee. • ADJOURNMENT Chair Cram adjourned the meeting at 3:06 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on __________. _________________________________ ______________________________ Russell Hovland, Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 6 Agenda Item #2 Item 2, Page 1 P P P P P STAFF REPORT September 27, 2018 Building Review Board STAFF Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue & Project Manager SUBJECT 2018 Impact Fee Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new development related fees that require Council approval. The 2017 CEFs and TCEFs full fee proposals showed significant increases from the previously approved fees. Due to the concern in the development and building community around impact fee changes, Council asked for a fee working group to be created to foster a better understanding of impact fees prior to discussing further fee updates. The fee working group meetings commenced in August of 2017, comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders – City staff, business-oriented individuals, citizens and a Council liaison. The group met 14 times, and the topics covered included: detailed review of fee methodologies, inputs, calculations, City revenue sources, alternative revenue sources, academic economic research on impact fees, a third-party impact fee audit review and impact fee comparisons to other communities. Below is a summary of the key findings from the Fee Working Group position paper: • Bringing impact fees together for review and formation of the fee working group has been beneficial to better understand the full impact of Council approved impact fees for new development. • The group acknowledges overall sound methodologies, calculations and inputs. • The third-party fee audit revealed that the City manages impact fee expenditures very well. how the City spends and collects impact fees is sound. • Regarding economic data, the group agrees that amenities paid for through impact fees add to property value, but views differ as to what extent they impact demand and supply. Academic research showed that home price increases in growing areas are mainly demand driven. • The group agreed that impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across the community. They recommend better messaging to stakeholders and the general public. • In the 2017 study, park impact fees increased more than other impact fees due to increases in the costs of land, water and construction. These fees are the only category where impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built. • The group acknowledges the need to identify new revenue sources for park refresh and maintenance. • If council approves lower fees than the staff recommendation, alternative revenue sources will be needed. If Council goes this direction, it will be for the community to decide what alternatives to pursue. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Next Steps: November 13th Council Work Session, December 4th & 18th Ordinance readings, 2019 Utility Fees, Development Fees & Step III for CEFs 2. Feedback & Questions from Council Finance Committee STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Board agrees with the recommendation, the Board may pass a motion to support the Impact Fee changes proposed. Packet Pg. 7 2018 Impact Fee Update 1 2018 Building Code Review Committee Agenda • Impact Fee Background, Scope & Timeline • Proposed Impact Fee Updates • Feedback & Next Steps 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 8 Why Do We Have Impact Fees 3 Capital Expansion Fees • New developments pays a proportionate share of infrastructure costs to “buy-in” to the level of service • Fee revenue used to build new service capacity • In place since 1996 Transportation Capital Expansion Fees • New development contributes toward the construction of arterial and collector roadways needed per growth • Fee revenue used to build out additional infrastructure • In place since 1979 Utility Plant Investment Fees • Provides a mechanism for new development to reimburse existing utility customers for existing infrastructure • Fee revenue used to build additional infrastructure The concept of growth paying for the impact of growth is a policy decision that City Council made and continues to support Fee Revenue Used to Add Infrastructure Needed Because of Growth Example 4 Fees Provides a Revenue Source to Maintain Current Levels of Service Community Parks: • Acres of parks per capita is a measure of level of service • The goal is to maintain acres of parks per capita • As growth occurs, new parks must be added, or park service levels decline • A Community Parks Impact Fee generates only designated revenue used to build the next community park and to maintain the existing level of service Capital Expansion Fees: • Community parks • Neighborhood parks •Fire • Police • General government ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 9 Impact Fee Coordination 5 Objective: • Review fee updates together to provide a holistic view of the total cost impact • Bring impact fees forward per a defined cadence….. 2 - 4 years Type of Fee Fee Name Capital Expansion Neighborhood Park Capital Expansion Community Park Capital Expansion Fire Capital Expansion Police Capital Expansion General Government Capital Expansion Transportation Utility Water Supply Requirement Utility Electric Capacity Utility Sewer Plant Investment Utility Stormwater Plant Investment Utility Water Plant Investment Building Development 45 Development Review & Building Permit Fees Impact Fee Timeline 6 Reflects master fee data updates, does not reflect annual inflation updates 1. Detailed fee study analysis every 4 years for CEF, TCEFs & Development fees 2. Detailed fee study analysis every 2 years for Utility fees 3. Conduct fee study analysis in the odd year before BFO 4. In years without updates, an annual inflation adjustment occurs 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Capital Expansion Fees Update Step II Step III Update Transportation CEFs Update Step II Update Electric Capacity Fees Update Update Update Raw Water Update Update Update Wet Utility Fees Update Update Update Development Review Fees Update Update ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 10 2017 – Drivers of Fee Increases 7 Capital Expansion Fees (2017 proposed increase 71% to 79%): • Fee based on replacement cost of existing infrastructure • Cost of construction, land, water up significantly since last fee revision Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (2017 proposed changes -32% to 114%): • Cost of construction up since last fee revision • Current transportation plan & calculation shift Electric Capacity Fees (2017 changes approximately -50% to 40%): • Change in methodology from plan-based to “buy-in” Raw Water Fees (effective 1/1/2018): • New fee model - value of the existing water rights portfolio & growth related capital expenses Large Increase Created Significant Business Community Concern 2017 Recap: Phase I Fees 8 Council directed stepped implementation for CEF & TCEF in 2017 Success Factors: • Bringing fees together was good for understanding the full impact of fees • Formed citizen/staff working group Lessons Learned: • Fee increase recommendations were significant, caused confusion in the community • Difficult to explain with different methodologies and qualitative aspect Fee Status as of October 2017 Next Steps CEFs • 75% of fees implemented • Phased in approach - three steps TCEFs • 80% of fees implemented • Phased in approach - two steps Electric Capacity • 100% of fees implemented • Every two years Raw Water • 100% of fees implemented • Every two years ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 11 9 • Review of impact fees together is beneficial for understanding the full impact of fee updates • Overall, sound methodologies, calculations and inputs • The third-party fee audit revealed how the City spends and collects impact fees is sound • Impact fee amenities add to property value, but views differ as to what extent they impact housing costs Key Findings • Impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across the community • Park impact fees are the only category where impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built • Need to identify new revenue sources for park refresh and maintenance in the future • If less than recommended is approved, alternative revenue sources will be needed Fee Group Findings Fee Group Validated Integrity in Fee Development and Expenditures 10 Recommendations 1. Better Communication/Outreach & Notice of Fee Changes 2. Repayment of the $130k Identified in the Impact Fee Audit 3. Progressive Fees if/where Possible 4. Explore Additional Revenue Sources for Parks Buildout 5. Investigate Revenue Alternatives to Support Parks Refresh & Maintenance 6. Explore Stronger Supports for Affordable Housing Fee Waivers Fee Group Recommendations Recommendations Will be Reviewed with Council Finance in September…. Implemented as Appropriate Over Time ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 12 CEFs & TCEFs Proposed Updates Effective 2019 11 Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect calculation error CEFs & TCEFs Totals with Inflation Land Use Type Unit Current Total Step II Total Step II Total w Inflation % Increase % Increase w Inflation Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,845 $7,049 $7,473 21% 28% Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,779 $10,593 $11,221 21% 28% Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $10,283 $12,409 $13,139 21% 28% Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $11,099 $13,391 $14,173 21% 28% Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $12,147 $14,658 $15,516 21% 28% Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,430 $10,164 $10,720 21% 27% Office and Other Services $6,660 $8,028 $8,472 21% 27% Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $2,000 $2,411 $2,542 21% 27% With Inflation, Proposed Fee Increases of 27% to 28% for CEFs and TCEFs 12 Wet Utility PIFs Proposed Updates Effective 2019 Utility Criteria Current Charge 2019 Charge $ Change % Change Water $ / GPD $ 4.66 $ 4.99 $ 0.33 7.1% Wastewater $ / GPD $ 13.98 $ 15.31 $ 1.33 9.5% Stormwater Per acre (adjusted for run-off factor) $ 8,217 $ 9,142 $ 925 11.3% Proposed Fee Increases of 7% to 11% Across the Three Wet Utility Fees ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 13 What if Impact Fees are not Updated? 13 With Limitations on Total Revenue, if Full Fee Increases are Not Implemented the City Will Need to Turn to Alternatives Implications if full impact fee increases are not implemented: • Wait to build new infrastructure and service capacity • Lower current levels of service • Alternative revenue sources ‒ Sales tax increase, property tax increase, occupation tax… Fee Comparison: For Median New Home Sales Price $483K* 14 Fort Collins Fees in the Lower-Middle of the Pack *Multiple Listing Service (MLS) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 14 Neighboring Cities Median Sales Comparison with Fees 15 Of Median Home Sales Prices, Wellington Has Higher Fee Percentages… Timnath Has Lower Fee Percentages Fort Collins Fee Stack Median New Home Sales 16 Fort Collins Fees & Code Cost Impact is Leveling % of Median New Home Sales Price ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 15 Outreach Plan 17 Organization Date Super Issues Forum September 6th Northern Colorado Homebuilder's Association September 11th Fort Collins Board of Realtors September 11th Building Code Review Committee September 12th Downtown Development Authority September 13th Economic Advisory Commission September 19th North Fort Collins Business Association September 26th Parks and Recreation Board September 26th Local Legislative Affairs Committee September 28th South Fort Collins Business Association October 2nd Affordable Housing Board October 11th Human Relations Board October 11th Housing Catalyst TBD Next Steps 18 1. Next Steps: • September 17th: Council Finance Committee • November 13th: Council Work Session • December 4th & 18th: Ordinance readings • 2019: Utility Fees, Development Fees & Step III for CEFs 2. Feedback & Questions • Is there support for this process going forward? ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item #3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT September 27, 2018 Building Review Board STAFF Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official SUBJECT Ordinances, including local amendments, relating to the adoption of the, 2018 International Building Code (IBC) 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) 2018 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2018 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2018 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) 2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) The National Electrical Code (NEC) and the International Plumbing Code (IPC) are companion standards to the proposed five core building codes. The most current editions of the NEC and IPC are reviewed and adopted by the State of Colorado and become the State Electric and State Plumbing codes. Fort Collins accepts and enforces the NEC and IPC when, and as adopted, by the State. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2018 International Codes (2018 I-Codes) represent the most up-to-date, comprehensive, and fully integrated body of codes regulating building construction and systems using prescriptive and performance-related provisions. The purpose of these codes is to establish the minimum construction requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare by regulating structural strength and stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation, and property protection from hazards attributed to the built environment within the City of Fort Collins. BACKGROUND Since 1924 the City of Fort Collins has periodically reviewed, amended, and adopted the latest nationally recognized building standards available for the times. The City has updated the minimum construction standards 15 times since 1924. The 2018 International Codes will replace the 2015 editions of the IBC, IRC, IMC, IFGC, and the IECC all of which were adopted on July 17, 2017. Some code provisions formally located within the above listed codes have been relocated into new separate codes such as the IEBC and the ISPSC. These are included in this proposed adoption process however the requirements in these 2 standards have not changed from the previous code sections located in IBC and IRC. Building codes and standards are reviewed and voted on by code officials and construction industry professionals from across the country and published every three years under the oversight of the International Code Council (ICC). These core 2018 I-Codes represent the latest construction publications from ICC. Review process The implementation of new building standards can have a dramatic impact on the construction industry and the economy of the community. To better understand these impacts, a code review committee is convened to review Packet Pg. 17 Agenda Item #3 Item 3, Page 2 the new codes and all local amendments. The code review committee represents a wide spectrum of volunteers from across the local construction industry including private developers, residential and commercial builders, architects, engineers, representatives from the energy conservation sector and Poudre Fire Authority. The code review committee met regularly (See member list included) in July, August, and September 2018 to discuss new proposed amendments and current amendments. This committee will vote on support and move for adoption of the 2018 I-Codes and amendments in late September. While this review process requires considerable time and resources, it produces enforceable and effective building codes and amendments that the community and construction industry support and create together. Amendments overview A few current amendments are now in the new 2018 code as written (codes have caught up to us) and have been deleted, while other amendments that did not have the intended results or were shown to be ineffective and costly to the construction industry were deleted. Overall, the changes from the 2015 codes to the 2018 codes are few and impacts to cost of construction are minimal. A handful of new amendments are being proposed including 2 which support the City’s sustainability goals and the Climate Action Plan: Proposed amendments to the IBC: • In new commercial and multi-family buildings when a trash chute is provided as typically in a multi-story apartment building, a second chute for recycling must be provided. This can be achieved in the same fire- rated shaft to reduce costs. Approximate cost increase is $1500 per floor. • In new multi-family structures, 10% of all parking spaces must provide a conduit from the electrical room to the front of the parking space for installing electric vehicle charging equipment in the future. Approximate cost increase is $300 per parking space. • A new no-fee emergency repair permit provision was added to allow a fast permit to be issued in a disaster/damage situation where a building owner can temporarily repair a dwelling to allow occupancy while more permanent repairs are forthcoming. This was recommended by the county building department who scrambled to put this in place after several recent disasters. Proposed amendments to the IRC, • New homes are to be provided with an empty 3/4-inch conduit from the attic to the main electrical panel for ease of installing future photovoltaic (PV) system signaling wiring. Approximate cost increase for this conduit and installation is $200.00. • New homes are to be provided with an empty 3/4-inch conduit from the main electrical panel board to an empty junction box in the garage for ease of installing a future electrical vehicle (EV) charging outlet. Approximate cost increase is $100.00. • Window u-value will change from .32 to .30 for an increase in efficiency and approximate cost increase of 8% for vinyl windows. The cost assumptions discussed in each bullet above were determined after staff reached out to the tradespeople who would be involved with the code requirement such as electricians, plumbers, mechanical contractors, and fire-suppression contractors. Construction supply houses were contacted for an estimate of off- the-shelf materials. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Alterations to, or new construction of City owned properties will have to comply with the provisions of the 2018 I-Codes. The scope of work to be performed will determine the financial impact to the City. In general, there are no Citywide financial impacts expected with the adoption of the 2018 I-Codes. Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) anticipates the following financial impacts and expects these costs to be absorbed into the current CDNS budget: Packet Pg. 18 Agenda Item #3 Item 3, Page 3 1. Purchase of new building codes, approximately $5000. The necessary copies of the seven core 2018 I- Codes have been purchased for staff. 2. Staff training on the new codes is mostly accomplished in-house. When possible, staff will attend code classes that are offered at various times throughout the year. This additional training cost is expected not to exceed $5,000. 2018 BUILDING CODE ADOPTION REVIEW COMMITTEE Name Company Phone Alan Cram Cram Services; BRB Chair 303-588-8633 Bob Poncelow Poudre Fire Authority 970-416-2871 Brad Smith City Staff, Utilities/Plan Review 970-416-4321 Brian Kelly Toll Bros. 970-305-0474 Ceri Jones Triton Communities 970-567-9717 Charlie Atwood Hartford Homes 970-556-5756 Chris Allison Former CBO, Longmont 226-1247 Eric Fried CBO, Larimer County 970-4987705 Jeff Schneider Armstead Construction; P&Z Chair 970-566-9971 Justin Montgomery Design Point Engineering 430-5783 Mike Doddridge Doddridge Construction 970-218-3210 Mike Missimer Fort Collins Heating & Air 970-310-9232 Paul Higman GS Services 970-449-1612 Ron Carroll City Staff, Building Inspector 970-416-2326 Russell Hovland City Staff, CBO 970-416-2341 Sarah Carter City Staff, Plans Examiner 970-416-2748 Steve Steinbicker Architecture West 970-207-0424 Terry Heyne Custom On-Site Builders 970-412-0149 Greg Black Colorado Lic. PE 970-213-1824 BOARDS AND PUBLIC OUTREACH The 2018 I-Codes with proposed amendments have/will be presented to numerous boards and commissions: Board of Realtors Water Board Energy Board Commission on Disability Natural Resource Advisory Board Poudre Fire Authority Board Building Review Board Affordable Housing Board Air Quality Advisory Board Northern Colorado Home Builder Association Chamber of Commerce STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Board agrees with the recommendation, the Board may pass a motion to “Recommend the City adopt the 2018 International Codes and References, with any necessary local amendments.” Packet Pg. 19