Loading...
2019-12-18 Minutes INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL (IDAC) THE REVISED MINUTES OF THE IDAC MEETING(12/18/2019) Location: Lucille Harrell Conference Room, Government Center Date: December 18, 2019 Scheduled Duration: 3:30 pm 5:00 pm IDAC Members present David Smith, Randall Siegel, Sean Lewis, Rudy Dombroski, Pete Avery, Garry Pape. Special Guest Attendees: County Commissioner Rob Zapple; Cameron Moore, Executive Officer of WCFHBA. NHC Building Safety Staff: Nicholas Gadzekpo, Building Safety Director; Hans Schult, Building Safety Assistant Director; Teresa McCormick, Building Safety Systems Coordinator; Chief Code Compliance Officers Arthur Malpass, Randal Gray, and Edward McCaleb; Code Compliance Officers James Stokley; Representing the County s Office: Tim Burgess, Deputy County Manager. Other County representatives present: None. Chairman David Smith opened the meeting at 3:35 pm by asking if everyone present was ready for the meeting to begin. He thanked everyone for coming and also thanked Tim Burgess for taking the time to come. Chairman Smith referred to the Agenda and asked Nicholas Gadzekpo (Nicholas) to proceed with the matters related to the Minutes. Nicholas defined the framework for the discussions as centering on the Minutes of the two previous meetings, thth particularly that for August 14 (the fourth regular meeting) and the other for October 9 (the fifth regular meeting). He stated that the IDAC members already have copies of those minutes and that the purpose of the discussion was to help answer any questions concerning the minutes. Nicholas said that this time allows for comments on statements made in those meetings, and for IDAC to approve and accept those minutes. Commissioner Zapple mentioned that with no changes necessary, he would make a motion to approve the minutes. Nicholas admitted that the only correction known of was minor, and was in name. However, he confirmed that he had previously reached out to Rudy on that matter and that it was a typographical error related to the positioning of the w and s keys on the keyboard. Chairman Smith asked Nicholas if IDAC should approve the minutes separately or together? Nicholas replied that it was at the discretion of the Chair. Chairman Smith stated that IDAC would approve the minutes individually. Chairman Smith called the question on th the minutes of August 14, and Pete Avery made a motion to approve those minutes, with Commissioner Zapple supporting as the seconder. All votes were aye for approval. th Next, Chairman Smith referenced the minutes of October 9 and asked Nicholas to facilitate a discussion on it. th Nicholas started by saying that the meeting of October 9 was an interesting one and that much of that meeting highlighted matters discussed before that date, such as EIFS and Roof Inspections. Others, he said, were new including the presentations that new Development Services Specialists and their immediate supervisor made to IDAC. Nicholas also mentioned the discussion on Inspectors and badges, and that overall, it was a good meeting. He stated that he did not find any items of the meeting that stood out as glaring or misleading and that IDAC should confidently approve and accept the minutes. just make a comment, and (by the way) I have no problems with the minutes fineas follows. One of the items that we discussed about interpretations and the codes I talked to Cliff Isaac (Cliff), and he is trying already to get the interpretations and the proposals that go through to become codes, etc., etc., all the codes, Plumbing, Mechanical, Residential, etc., to put them on the internet. I think , ve got to hunt for some of the stuff that I know have been approved, but maybe not necessarily in a timelier manner. And I did bring that up to Cliff as well, and he said they are getting much better at it. They are in the process of hiring new people, they need new people. (Page 1 of 8) Chairman Smith continued with the following. -of-fact, the Residential person is no longer doing replacement is; but they are getting ready to hire Chairman Smith said he brought up all those statements because he knew there were th concerns that we all had and had talked about during the October 9meeting.He said that he is waiting to see if things change, for the better, from the way things were with the NCDOI (North Carolina Department of Insurance) updates. Nicholas said he could add that he greatly benefited from all the updates that Chairman Smith gave on new inclusions to the code. Those were the updates that included the references to the king studs and wall climbs and all the other technical details of the codes. -Hoc meetings that you attend and the updates that you bring back to us are valuable, and I have benefited from them too. And I think that once we get information like that, Hans and I can And so, I benefited from them, and I want Chairman Smith further stated: You can go online and get the Agenda for the Building Code Council Meetings, which has all the proposals to make changes to the codes. It has all the pages and pages of documents; they could be Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, or Residential, etc. If you look at the Agenda Items that we have A, B, C, D; B items are the new items, C items are the ones to be commented on during that day, D items are the ones to be voted on; ĬǒƷ by looking at the Agenda, (really) going to be brought up; the minutes of the meetings always come out right s Agenda Items, and so can become confusing. I used to send ƷŷƚƭĻ so lately. Anybody can get ƷŷĻƒ, and maybe it will help if I can send them to you (speaking of Cameron) and Nicholas; send the minutes out. I found that if I send the Agenda out, the Agenda Items may have lists on them that may not have been accepted, and ƦĻƚƦƌĻ Ǟŷƚ ƩĻĭĻźǝĻ ƷŷĻƒ think the items automatically become code. And they may call you all saying, item).I think minutes to the members (referring to all those on the IDAC Committee, or anyone on an email list who could receive his email) (Revised text per March 4, 2020, Clarification from Chair). Edward McCaleb (Edward) suggested that motions get placed into the Chairman Smith then explained to Edward that the effective date typically falls to the next year. He stated that he could ask for an earlier date. But jurisdictions cannot enforce or administer those code provisions before the proposal goes to even after the Building Code Council approves the proposal, it still goes to the legislature via Rules and Review. And that, the approvers or may not fully understand the proposal. And thus, the proposal could be sent back to the Building Code Council to further clarify it to the satisfaction of overall process. And he commented on how there could be various approvals and tweaks within each committee or the legislature. And thus, the initial votes, comments, and rationale of the Building Code Council may not be the only notes of importance. And that including just only what the Council approved in the amendment may mislead rather than inform since the initial actions and votes of the Building Code Council may not ultimately be the outcome. He said the minutes of the Building Code Council from an earlier date might also not reflect all the above scenarios. Nicholas, refocusing on the IDAC Mi October 9th, 2019 IDAC Meeting needing your approval for acceptance Avery made a motion to accept the minutes, and they were several supports for the second, all in unison. And, all votes were aye for approval. (Page 2 of 8) Next, under Informational Updates, Chairman Smith called on Teresa McCormick (Teresa) to give an update on the upgrades for COAST and EnerGov. Teresa said Tyler had developed upgrades to help fix the systems bugs and errors from the usage of EnerGov. Teresa said the Building Safety Department has been working with the IT Department of New Hanover County. And that, some challenges occurred daily as the County shared its unique environment with CFPUA and the City of Wilmington. And with the City of Wilmington desiring to go-live, New Hanover County has been working hard towards a seamless transition and interface with the City. She also said that Tyler needs a single sign-on for the users of each of its products and modules. Because the County currently has Tyler Munis (for its finance and financial data records), and EnerGov (for Permitting, Inspections, and Land Use or Planning Management), and a -related data. The Financial and EnerGov modules must be able to communicate with each other, particularly concerning fees in general. Teresa informed IDAC that barring any unforeseen impediments, Tyler and IT had initially proposed the Martin Luther King Holiday weekend as the target dates for the upgrades. She also emphasized that the single sign-on must work appropriately for the update to be effective. Hence, separately, there would be a Munis update and an EnerGov update. She clarified that if the Munis update successfully launches, then the EnerGov update would follow in sequence. The timelines could (possibly) place the usage of the upgrades close to the end of the first quarter. Or maybe further into the second quarter of 2020. Nicholas briefly remarked on the compatibility that paid fees must have with entries into the ledgers in Munis. Teresa then informed IDAC that the Building Safety Department already provided the data entry (with at least 150 permit scenarios) needed for testing the upgrade. But it has not yet accessed the Test Environment to test the newly upgraded EnerGov because the Test Environment is not available. She said such tests are necessary for ensuring that the new upgrades would not cause issues when in full use. Teresa provided more clarity to those who asked questions. Hans Schult (Hans) also added comments and remarks, reinforcing statements already made by Teresa. Teresa briefly described what customers would see on their new dashboards. She said the system, with its intuitiveness, would provide useful and user-friendly customized charts and summaries helpful to customers. Nicholas cited an example on inspections history would let customers know when they were at say, 90%, or 60% completion of all their inspections needed for finishing the jobbefore occupancy. Teresa said the dashboard would have all the pertinent information that the customer can see, for their records. And she said, so far, she liked what she observed about the new upgraded version. Cameron Moore asked whether the new dashboard will be drastically different from the current one? Teresa responded that the version she saw could have been one that was a work-in-progress. And that, the final version could be somewhat further tweaked, all for optimum customer experience for end-users. And so she summarized that she could not tell what the upgraded version would finally look like at completion. Cameron Moore asked if Tyler Technologies, EnerGov's Team, provide training for permitting staff in jurisdictions that have launched EnerGov? Nicholas explained that the training that Tyler can pcanned for use by jurisdictions in general. And that Tyler may not be intimately aware of the workflows and specifics of how ajurisdiction runs its business. Nicholas said New Hanover County received training internally through processes and a business model meshed with the Tyler product, and hence the reason for our success. However, to train staff, Tyler must know the jurisdiction's processes and business models. Nicholas added that, our product from which IT and our SMEs (Subject-Matter-Experts) provided internal training, came with a custom-designed portal (COAST). That took a lot of hard work and . Other jurisdictions that may or may not have the capacity or the will to work hard towards making things (real) easy for the customer, might not easily replicate something similar to our COAST portal. Cameron Moore commented that he had some conversations with Cliff Isaac (Cliff) centering on how various jurisdictions had needed numerous cleanups after Tyler launched its EnerGov products. (Page 3 of 8) Next, with no more questions for Teresa, Chairman Smith called on Arthur Malpass to give an informational update on Live-Remote-Inspections. At that same time, Nicholas was passing around copies of the written directives from NCDOI (North Carolina Department of Insurance) on Live-Remote-Inspections. Cameron Moore quickly remarked that the Live-Remove-Inspection program was a pilot program that NCDOI allowed Brunswick County to develop. And it was mainly for Hot-water-heater inspections, Change-outs, and simple inspections. Arthur Malpass (Arthur) began by saying that New Hanover County will be using Live-Remote-Inspections, as the tool provided for in the directives from NCDOI. Arthur remarked that the Building Safety Chiefs, the Assistant Director, and the Director, all met with the IT Director and her team. And it was to inform IT of the Building tool to increase capacities for efficiencies and timeliness of inspections for customers. He stated the possibility of using specific FaceTime, etc. Arthur said that IT was exploring the use of a new Microsoft application, called Teams, for establishing communications between the contractor and inspectors. Arthur also stated that the contractors would be responsible for providing the mechanism, whether a handheld device, for verifying the inspections. He then gave examples of some inspection types that could fit the profiles for Live-Remote-Inspections, and the protocols for setting them up. He added that he thought the tool would benefit contractors in general, and quickly responded to some brief questions. Arthur cited some examples of re-inspections and the ease with which some could be via Live-Remote-Inspections by the same inspector who had initially failed the inspection. Arthur, emphasizing on the guidelines given by NCDOI for the Live-Remote-Inspections, read from the NCDOI directives handed out by Nicholas. Of notable mention was the discretion given to jurisdictions, in this case the county, where the county reserved the right to determine which contractors could participate in the program. Arthur also -in with Live-Remote- Inspections, as inspectors begin their workdays from their respective residences instead of the Government Center. Arthur read a list of the different types of permits and inspections, mainly those for residential, that can use Live-Remote Inspections. And then, there were general discussions on the subject. Cameron Moore then requested that staff should advise him of instances where commercial buildings or other inspection types could benefit from the use of Live-Remote Inspections. And that, he was ready to advance such discussions with Cliff Isaac. And as to timelines for implementation, Arthur said that much would depend on IT, and deferred to Nicholas for input. Nicholas said that the realistic timeline for implementation could be by the beginning of the second quarter of the 2020 calendar year. He cited as one of the necessary requisites, a conference room (for group- conferencing) solely dedicated to viewing Live-Remote-Inspections (with no other conflicting meeting schedules or use of the room by other parties in the county). Nicholas also stated how pragmatic it would be to have those inspections requested via separate request protocols to prevent confusing them with regular requested inspections. Commissioner Zapple wanted to know how Building Safety would authenticate the true-location/site of the inspection. Arthur, using the guidelines given by NCDOI, explained the sequence required from start points on the site to the further sequencing required towards the spot of the inspection. He mentioned how GIS would resolve the Group discussions continued on the subject matter at hand, there were remarks about how from the on-set, this tool would benefit the contracting community. Commissioner Zapple asked Nicholas if he had money in his budget to implement the program. Nicholas said that there is money for converting a room to a conference room needed to house group conferencing and audio-visuals for the program. He also said that both he and Hans had discussed some versions of the program as far back as three years ago and had wanted to implement it. But they faced opposition from conflicting statements barring the use of FaceTime and Skype, as purporting to be from IT (we now know it was not from IT). Nicholas then asked Arthur to give a brief history of those incidents. Arthur gave a history of the attempts made at using the program, even as far back as 2017. Nicholas said with the time NHC lost, Brunswick County came up with that solution to fit its vast geographic coverage for inspections and staff deployment. Nicholas said that NHC did not have a vast geographic territory. But that the daily challenges faced by Inspectors in their commutes from site to site make the Live-Remote-Inspection program an attractive and viable option for NHC. (Page 4 of 8) And with no more questions or discussions on the Live-Remote-Inspections, Chairman Smith asked Nicholas to proceed with the next item under Old Business on the Agenda. Nicholas mentioned that what he would be reporting, under Old Business, had a direct link to Inspection Job Cards. He recalled that the department first met with some members of the local construction community on the subject matter of Job Cards. And the department facilitated all the steps for improvements using excellent follow- ups and focus. As a result, the collaborations came up with IT enhancements for downloading inspection reports. He stated that he wanted to report on a favorable complement the department received from a customer, who, in time past, was openly unabashed to voice concerns about the bugs in COAST or EnerGov. Nicholas passed around a hard copy of an email message (highlighted in yellow) sent on November 21, 2019, to Gina Bombolino, the Development Services Supervisor in the Building Safety Department. The email also read as follows: related to inspection reports seems to be working just fine. I have received only a few of those but each time everything with the email notification is just fine. In fact, the attached PDF is very useful so we can open that really fast instead of logging into COAST. Reports seem to be sent out very quickly after the my limited exposure to the system.). Nicholas remarked that the Inspections Report is comparable to a coin with two sides heads and tails. He said d one side of the coin. And further, Nicholas explained that the way the Inspectors would use the Inspections Report would represent the other side of the coin. And on that note, he called on Hans to give a brief report on how the Inspectors would use the Inspections Report that now replaces the Job Cards. Hans said the Inspectors would be using the report just as the customers are, and they are being trained to do so. He then passed around, as a sample, a six-page copy of the Permit Inspection History Report on an existing permit (Permit #19-00587). The report showed the following. Various scheduled dates and actual start dates of each inspection, inspection (identification) number, inspection status, the primary inspector, and as to whether it required a re-inspection, and the status of the completion. Hans pointed out that there used to be a section on notes that did not seem necessary. He said he was showing a streamlined copy of the report. Chairman Smith asked if there was any other Old Business. Nicholas said there was none. Hans began Just for your information out there in the construction/building community; but our staff, on the telephone and even in person, are getting verbally berated, yelled at, chewed out, cursed at, by the public in general. I just want you all to be aware of that. Our staff are all doing their jobs and trying their best to help customers, and do not need to be subjected to this. We are asking you, Cameron, if you could put a little blurb in your Newsletter asking for builders and their helpers to be a bit ci but Chairman S one example ˁŷĻƩĻ Ǟğƭ ğ ĬƩźĻŅ ƦğǒƭĻ͵Μ d like to get a couple of HansA builder called requesting information on his permit. Everything he asked for, the DSC staff person could not give answers. The builder was in a rage. After probing into the matter, we found that he had the ve been dealing with Λ.ƩźĻŅ ƦğǒƭĻ͵Μ for their lives (Page 5 of 8) There was some discussion, constructive exchange, and input from Cameron Moore and Chairman Smith. happened twice now, and Risk Management is involved now with helping to address the safety concerns of the Building Safety employees and those who work in the public-facing areas of the Government Center. Cameron Moore said he wanted to make a suggestion and would like to send a general message to his members without knowing who started the incident. Last couple of weeks, it got so heated, and some of our Inspectors who were in the back (Inspections workstations) behind the lobby area heard what was going on and came out to escort a man out of the building. .Λ.ƩźĻŅ ƦğǒƭĻ͵Μ Chairman Smith remarked of the exhibited behaviors by Group discussions continued and even touched on weapons. thought of, in Inspections Hans said he gave a scripted message to the staff person (who was berated) to use if that incident ever reoccurred or if a similar one takes place in the future. And that, if DSC staff knows who it is, Hans would call the owner of the firm to report the incident. Nicholas interjected and said that the unsafe situations that customers can cause through their behavior may give some employees terrible feelings about coming to the Government Center. There were group discussions in general. Cameron Moore offered some possible explanations. They included scenarios where new job foremen or superintendents may not fully grasp all the details of the scopes of work. When such situations result in superintendents feeling some inadequacies, they could take their frustrations out on the Building Safety employees providing the customer service. inspections. There are many requests for inspections that Inspectors find are not even ready for approval. And those scenarios result in frustrations that builders and Inspectors go through because of the incomplete works scheduled for inspections. Discussions continued on inspectors communicating with builders via phone on the scheduling of inspections, etc. Commissioner Zapple asked if it was possible to use mobile texting, whether automated or manual, as a means to communicate with builders and their subcontractors (subs). Also, whether an automated text message could let the builder (and) or subs know that the inspector is on his way or has encountered delays, etc. Nicholas said that there might be some limitations with texting, primarily if used to record data for public records, etc. There may also be legalities with the format and language used in the text, etc. However, he said he would inquire from IT (and even Legal) and find out if there are ways COAST could send auto-texts, etc. He also said he would explore what legal possibilities exist for text communications coming directly from the Inspectors or staff. numbers could be for builders and their subs. numbers on its webpage. Hans informed Chairman Smith that he had no more comments to present on the safety issues Building Safety staff had expressed. Still, the discussions continued. And again, the talks led to matters on contractors and their subs and inspection requests. And, continued to focus on the frustrations inspectors are having upon arriving on job sites only to find that the work still not ready for inspections. The discussions were timely since they were all under the umbrella of Concerns Cameron Moore wanted to explore the possibility of sending a message or series of messages to his WCFHBA constituents on some of the matters discussed Still,under New Business, Chairman Smith invited discussions on proposed dates for 2020 meetings. (Page 6 of 8) Chairman Smith, stating that he did not have any problems with having the meetings on Wednesdays, asked if All present did not have objections to Wednesdays. Next, he asked if the middle of the month was acceptable? Pete Avery asked to move the meeting to 3:00 pm. A majority of those present, in unison, seemed to agree to the new starting time. Chairman Smith asked Nicholas to send an email for the meeting date on which the 3:00 pm start time would take effect. Also, he requested Nicholas to be sure the meeting dates do not coincide with holidays or days with special events. Chairman Smith providing other informative notice, said that the Building Code Council Meetings (at the State level) would be held in different localities within the state, instead of just one location. Next, Chairman Smith invited Cameron Moore to report on the Continuing Education for Contractors. Cameron Moore informed IDAC that, for the first Coastal Class, WCFHBA will partner with the North Carolina sponsor a class (course) in 2020. He said that he spoke with Nicholas for help (with New Hanover County) to set up a venue for a course in the Government Center. Cameron Moore mentioned May thththth 12,13, 20, and 26 as one of the possible dates for the class. He hinted that the availability of the room would narrow it down to the desired date. Cameron Moore also said it would be an eight-hour class, but does not know of the expenses at this time. However, he stated that the costs - members of WCFHBA and its Associate members. And that, for non-members of WCFHBA, it would present an opportunity for them to become members. Cameron Moore asked all present to look for more updates (about far as some of the forms, and the possibility of Chairman Smith becoming one of the Instructors for the class. anywhere for the Licensed Contractors. The e simply because of the numerous measures and protocols that must be in place to approve the courses. Chairman Smith speculated that the actual renewal of the licenses could be in October 2020. And to alleviate concerns and questions from contractors who are also on the IDAC Committee, Cameron Moore th said that most indicators are pointing towards a May 26 date for the course. He indicated that once he confirms the day of the class, he would consult on marketing needed for the event to be a success, etc. Chairman Smith requested clarity about providers and instructors, and also how the WCFHBA would relate to both the provider and instructor, and whether the providers select (provide) the instructors. He then asked if Cameron Moore knew whether the Cape Fear Community College would be among the instructors or providers. Cameron Moore said Cape Fear Community College had reached out to him but that he was not intimately aware of their plans. And that, as for providers, WCFHBA is one but would not provide the instructors, per se. He said Option 2 would be more comfortable for him to put together. That, the option entails a plan where each HBA provides an instructor and coordinates things with the Licensing Board. This would allow Cameron Moore to only ensure his WCFHBA members show up for the classes. And he could provide membership information for those who are not members. Option 1 would require either Cameron Moore or one of his staff persons to sit in an eight-hour class (almost like a proctor for an exam). But neither he nor his staff would have the time to submit to Option 1. Discussions continued, and Cameron described some proposed details for a typical class-day. He stated that there would be more to come, as to further details. He also said the one-day class seemed more feasible than a multi-day class. More discussions examined the possibility of holding classes at different locations like the Government Center, Brunswick County Offices, etc. On a separate matter, Edward McCaleb (Edward) asked Chairman Smith to look into the Emergency Responder Radio Coverage provision in the State Building Code. Edward said he was seeking clarity on the code provision. Chairman Smith promised to look into the code requirement at the next Building Code Council Meeting in January, and he also asked Edward to send him an email reminder. (Page 7 of 8) Next, Chairman Smith began to address the last item on the Agenda. The report was about an update on the Ad- Hoc and Building Code Council Meetings held to-date. Chairman Smith said he had mentioned earlier about the B, C, and D items labeled on code change proposals. However, for the benefit all, he reiterated that proposals for changes go to the B items. Chairman Smith said If the gets accepted it takes about a nine-month process, and with Rules and Reviews it takes about a year. And C items are that are for discussions by any interested parties. And when voted on, become D items, provided there were ¾ of the votes in favor of the proposal. He said one can read the minutes of those meetings and get an accurate idea of the status of the proposals. Chairman Smith that when one or two persons speak in favor of a proposal, it usually goes through the process. Chairman Smith stated that it is not easy to predict the outcome of a proposal that has comments registering as for and against. Chairman Smith then mentioned that there were several items but could not go through all of them during the IDAC Meeting. However, he said he could cite some examples. And that, the Ad Hoc Committee was going through about eight to ten items as changes that did not carry over to the 2018 Building Code. Chairman Smith said he would give an item number of a few code-change proposals, for the record. There is item B5, which is dealing with deck codes and their girder supports, etc. And that, what was proposed would delete a lot of the Tables on bracing, etc., and would add in one Table to cover the length of the required bracing on the sides, etc. On size, height, and spacing of wood studs, etc., there will be a brand new attachment to delete the original Table. And there will be spans dealing with distances and the number of King Studs. There is Item B11, which deals with supports by steel angles put on roofs. Chairman Smith said much effort went into trying to update these details, and clean up what was in the codebook. He stated that when one looks into the codebook (derived from the IRC), there is a figure showing how to install a steel angle; but the arrow to identify the angle points to the wrong component. There is item C11, a proposal worked on by Simpson Strong-Tie, which would allow for a generic product that (is manufactured by others as well, and) performs to the requirements of the code. (Revised text per March 4, 2020) said there was a revised copy submitted at the beginning of the meeting. And that his Committee had spent much time discussing the form, etc. When Edward McCaleb (Edward) said he was looking forward to the revised form, Chairman Smith said that the form has an Inspections Department disclaimer at its bottom. Chairman Smith also noted that the current version of the form is the latest revision. And that, barring no changes, the form would be voted on during the next meeting, in January 2020. Chairman Smith reiterated that the form has been through so many changes and that what he presented in this IDAC Meeting is the latest copy of the form. Chairman Smith also said Cliff Isaac said he had worked extremely hard on the form. Chairman Smith said there were many more items but, because of time constraints, could only mention the ones above. Next, Chairman Smith asked if there were any questions on the things he spoke about before IDAC. There were no questions. Chairman Smith called for the meeting to adjourn. The meeting ended at 5:05 pm (circa). Submitted by: Nicholas Gadzekpo, Building Safety Director New Hanover County (Revised on March 4, 2020) (Page 8 of 8)