Posted: 9/27/05
Contractors question building code idea
By David Heiller
Argus News Editor
Thumbs down.
That was the opinion of most of the people who spoke at a meeting on whether Houston County should adopt the Minnesota State Building Code.
About 100 people filled the basement of the Caledonia city auditorium on September 20 for the informational session that county commissioners set up to gauge public opinion.
The idea of adopting a building code had previously been discussed at regular county board meetings. It stemmed from some instances in which buildings were being built for purposes other than those stated on building permits. Other reasons were given too, such as poor quality workmanship from fly-by-night work crews.
The code would apply to all buildings except agricultural ones in county townships. Ag buildings on land taxed for agriculture would be exempt. Cities have their own jurisdictions, so buildings in them would be exempt from the county building code.
Paul Heimkes, the senior representative from the Southeast Region of the Minnesotaís Building Codes and Standards Division (MBCSD) explained the advantages and downsides of having a building code.
Benefits of adopting the building code include consistent and safe construction standards, and integrating other construction-related requirements such as contractor licensing and electrical and plumbing codes, Heimkes said. Insurance rates could possibly be lowered if it is adopted, he said, but it has to be adopted in its entirety. The county canít pick and choose certain parts of the building code.
An average single family home would require approximately 12 inspections from start to finish, Heimkes said. These include a footing inspection; a foundation wall inspection; plumbing, mechanical, and electrical inspections in the rough; a frame inspection; an insulation inspection; and a final inspection for plumbing, mechanical and electrical. A Certificate of Occupancy would be issued after a final inspection, then the building could be occupied.
Heimkes said it was difficult to say what the cost of those inspections would be.
He feels the building code levels the playing field for contractors, and people wonít be cheated by someone bidding on shoddy workmanship or substandard materials. All the bidders would have to live up to the same code requirements, he said.
The inspector would also be in charge of contractor licensing, which Heimkes felt was a great benefit.
Contractors object
Most of the people who spoke at the meeting were against the idea.
Gary Thomas said that in a small rural community, a contractorís integrity and honesty speaks for itself.
Karl Sylling asked whether lumber that is not inspected and graded could be used for a structural beam. Heimkes responded that they would have to prove that it has weight bearing capacity.
Sylling added that there are a great number of reputable contractors in the area, and if he doesn't trust one, he will not do business with him.
Randy Steele reported on a foundation he poured in Rushford, which has adopted the building code. The cement and rock trucks had to wait three hours for the inspector, who was late. Steele asked who he could bill for this. Heimkes stated that the inspector needed to be ìstepping up to the plateî on that. Inspectors have items which take precedence such as pouring concrete, freezing problems, and broken water lines, Heimkes said.
Mike Walsh asked if a permit would be needed to replace a water heater. Heimkes said that a permit for a water heater or furnace replacement could usually be issued over the counter, but that a permit and inspection would be required.
The objection of too much governmental control also came up. ìIt appears to me weíve put in another government control to protect the people that donít want to protect themselves,î Tom Sawle told The Argus on September 22, summarizing comments he made at the meeting.
Other people spoke about the potential high cost and delays it would bring. Steve Bauer, who owns Caledonia Lumber, said many contractors are concerned that a building code would cause delays in the construction season. He also felt it could add $4,000-$6,000 onto the cost of a home.
There are 15-18 homes going up in Houston County at any given time, Bauer said. He wondered how one or two people could handle all the inspections that would be required for that volume of construction
Even something like changing a front door would require an inspection, Bauer told The Argus on September 22.
ìItís not as easy as it sounds,î he said.
In favor of building code
Bill Frutiger of Houston spoke in favor of having a building code at the meeting. He disagreed with the argument of contractors who said it will cost them money. ìThey always charge customers for the permits,î Frutiger told The Argus on September 23. ìElectricians have had them for years.î
Contractors shouldnít be ashamed of having their work inspected, Frutiger feels. ìIf theyíre proud of their work, why would they object?î
He said some of the 12 inspections mentioned at the meeting could be done at the same time, like the plumbing and heating one, which saves time. Inspections have to be scheduled ahead of time, he said.
The contractor should be there during inspections so the inspector can go over any problems in person, Frutiger said. He was a building inspector in Rochester for five years. He said that inspectors donít want to ìred-tagî a job and alert the homeowner. They would rather tell the contractor in person, he said.
Frutiger said he could write a book about building code violations that he saw, and the tricks and excuses that people used to give him.
He also saw things that caused serious problems down the road, such as having no ventilation in a crawl space, which would rot floor joists in five years. He estimated that 10-15 percent of the work had a fault that would cause major structural defects in years to come.
There are only two reasons for any violations, Frutiger feels: ignorance and intentional. ìHomeowners donít understand the code. They donít understand what some of those things are,î he said.
One typical complaint Frutiger hears from builders is that people have a right to do anything they want in their home. ìBut as soon as the paint is dry, the ëFor Saleí sign goes up,î he said. ìIím kind of passionate about this.î
Homeowners werenít represented at last weekís meeting because they donít go until they get nailed by somebody. His own house has a leak in the roof even though it was just re-roofed last year. ìI was absolutely appalled,î he said about his later review of the work. ìThe shingles donít even hold out the water, they were nailed on so poorly.î
Roger Stenhoff of Spring Grove didnít advocate for or against the building code at the meeting. He said the minimum the county should require is that all builders have a contractorís license. That way contractors would have the same overhead costs for things like like bonds and worker compensation. ìThose that donít have that have an advantage over those that do because of business expenses,î he explained.
Stenhoff said he is looking at the building code idea from the perspective of the homeowner. He feels it is there to protect the homeowner to make sure the house is built to proper safety and thermal efficiency standards.
Next step uncertain
County board chair person Ann Thompson said the meeting was cordial and controlled, and Heimkes did an excellent job presenting the code.
ìThe people there were not interested in having the building code for the most part,î she said on September 21.
Asked what the next step would be, Thompson replied, ìIím guessing there wonít be a step for a while.î
She said the county is in the process of making zoning changes, and would consider the building code subject and other changes all at one time. She estimated it would take a year to do the zoning ordinance review.
Caledonia Argus
314 West Lincoln St.
P.O. Box 227
Caledonia, MN 55921-0227
507/724-3475
E-Mail: editor.argus@ecm-inc.com