Well stated John! The best insight into the Wind Mits that has yet to be posted!
No offense intended, I don’t want my report software supervising my report writing. I’ve already surrendered to my GPS. Please leave me a little digenity.
Seriously, unless the software program is commisioned and sanctioned by the OIR we are in no better position than we are now. We would subjected to the software developer’s interpetation of the intent of the OIR. That is little different from what is happening now. You take an approved wind/wit course and they usually provide you with a course manual, but guess what, you are subject to the course/manual developer’s interpetation of the intent of the OIR. Actually, the software program might be worse because who knows what wind mitigation expierence the software developer would have. At least the two major companies offering wind mitigation courses seem to have decent credentials in wind mitigation.
What is needed is for the OIR to publish a resource manual for the 1802 that leaves no doubt as to their intention and requirements for the wind mitigation inspection and report. Then if either software developers or course instructors want to devlop something based on the form and resource manual the product might be worth considering
No, what they need is a new form, like this:
Year home constructed: 1971
Year roof installed if not original: 2001
Permit number for roof: COC2134455
Permit Closed Date: 6/10/2001
Window protection
Year window protection installed if not original: 2007
Permit number for window protection: WI-23466
Permit Closed Date: 6/10/2007
Door protection
Year door protection installed if not original: 2007
Permit number for door protection: DL-245889
Permit Closed Date: 6/10/2007
Garage door if applicable
Year garage door installed if not original: 2007
Permit number for garage door: 5699088
Permit Closed Date: 6/10/2007
Of course, it would eliminate the need for inspections as all that would be required would be documentation, but, it would ensure that all of the work was permitted and inspected, as required by Florida Law.
The exact same for could be used for the 4-points as well. Just substitute electric, hvac, and plumbing.
Richard I can see how software can help you through the logic, but it is key on who put the logic together.
The research on the homes has not been adequate to put this together. Total Qualility Management in the public sector is a constant review and improvement of the services. This process is sad at best, as the players are …
That a look at the document call the Declaration of Independence…
What a nightmare that would be. Much rather keep what we have.
Wrong completely. The software can be a TOOL for YOU to customize the way you want it. You build it so all the comments and references YOU want are in it. It is not controlling you in any way…any more then MS Word is controlling the content of any document you create in it. It is a DATA DRIVEN system which means you take the content you want from this resource manual and place it in the software where you want it…just like we did for adding CodeCheck reference data for ITA in their version of our software for home inspectors or how we include ABYC standards for Marine Surveys that survey yachts and sailboats.
The individual does that. Bill York has worked with us along with other prominent FABI members that have wind mitigation reference data already built in there BUT each inspector can modify and change that data to ANYTHING they want. The paper form is NOT the way to go…and it will continue to be a problem until someone in charge figures that out. The paper form is trying to do 2 different things that contradict each other period. We’ve been doing this for 15 years in a lot of different markets and it is the same story over and over again…trying to using paper forms when electronic data gathering is needed instead. It isn’t any different then the outdated paper forms inspectors were trying to use over the years until they finally figured out that the paper forms were just too limited in what they were trying to do in the field. Just my 2 cents…take it or leave it.
York was a good choice, if not the best.
How would it be a nightmare?
Let me see, it would force homeowners/contractors to do things properly, it would provide a paper trail that would provide no wiggle room for insurance companies in the event of a worst case scenario, it would provide revenue for counties/cities. I consider that a win, win, win situation.
The only drawback is that inspections would no longer be needed and as such, we would lose revenue. I have always been in favor of a little loss if it helps the greater good.
To quote Spock/Kirk, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…or the one”.
Firat of all, a lot more information is needed beyond permit number ans install date. The problems I see is that there are 66 or so different counties in Florida and I don’t know how many city building departments in the state. I know that for instance across the bay in Pinellas county for example there are something like 25 different city governments and a county building department to deal with. I have no idea how detailed the information is that each local building departments have easily available pertaining to what product was installed and exactly what standards the product might meet. The areas that require opening protection may be set up better to collect the information, but anyone that has gone to the trouble and expense to have construction feature installed that qualify for a state mandated wind mitigation discount should be entitled to it not just the ones that are better described by their local building department. Let’s say you live outside the HVHZ and WBDA areas and decide to install relacement windows and doors and you decide to install impact rated windows and doors, how important do you think the impact ratings are going to be to that local department? And is that information going to be for each opeming product that was installed. Another problem is that local building departments are typically only concerned with things that are installed and asscociated with a building permit not information on what wasn’t installed. What I mean by that is lets say a home has 20 openings and only 12 of them had protection installed is a permit going to tell you that? I’ve inspected many a home that the home owner said just “had protection installed” only to 2, 3 or opening didn’t have protection. I know there are companies offering to supply remit information but the offering I’ve seen didn’t seem that detailed. I could go on and on. I just see a big variation of the information available at local building departments and I think a lot more informations is needed beyond just permit number and install date. Don’t even get into products permitted/installed prior to March 2002.
A phone call to the building department is very easy. I just did a wind mit for a client and on the permit, it said:
2006-07-12
Status CLOSED
Status Date N/A
Valuation $9,573.00
Fees $120.73
Payments $120.73
Balance $0.00
Description
SHUTTERS - 5 ACCORDIAN & 13
PANEL
View Map (Click the “Back” button on the browser to return to Permit Manager
To be honest, the inspection should be done with the shutters installed. The home owner could do that.
Just because people do things with out permits doesn’t make it right.
Again, don’t see any information about which impact standard the opening protection meets or what kind of opening it was installed on… See protection installedon 18 openings, but don’t see any information from the building department as to the total number of openings on the home. Now that you have confirmed that one juridiction does not appear to easily provide all the needed information, what about the what the rest of the couple hundred building departments in the state? You also didn’t provide any information from the building department on the roof to wall connections, the roof geometry, gable end bracing, roof deck attachment or wall construction. Maybe another easy phone call to the building department is needed. I could be wrong, but with the current requirements of the form, I just don’t believe enough information can easily be obained from most building departments to properly fill out the 1802. Honestly, for me most of the issues with the form are not opening protection question but are with the other rquestions on the form.
I think we can all agree the form is a mess all on its own. The building department had all the plans and the homeowner had all of the certifications that came with the shutters.
On another inspection I did, the building department had “doors” listed and after going through the different tabs, all of the information was there. I sent it all to the underwriter and all was OK.
Speaking of that, now, this particular underwriter, said, that sending all pertinent information would be helpful and soon, a requirement! I am pretty sure that the name of the company was Universal.
The Agent said he was the pickiest underwriter she had ever seen. He just wanted documentation, just like I have suggested here.
Wait until the underwrites find out that certain things in a home were not permitted. I have had two different underwriters request permit verification with regards to upgrades on a home. Fortunately, both had permits, but most don’t.
[quote=“evandeven, post:34, topic:59890”]
I think we can all agree the form is a mess all on its own. The building department had all the plans and the homeowner had all of the certifications that came with the shutters.
On another inspection I did, the building department had “doors” listed and after going through the different tabs, all of the information was there. I sent it all to the underwriter and all was OK.
Speaking of that, now, this particular underwriter, said, that sending all pertinent information would be helpful and soon, a requirement! I am pretty sure that the name of the company was Universal.
The Agent said he was the pickiest underwriter she had ever seen. He just wanted documentation, just like I have suggested here.
I’m not going to argue about will be required in the future. What will be will be. I was responding to your suggestion that we don’t need a OIR aurthured resource manual and that all that needs to happen permit number and install or issue date needs to be provided. I just don’t think the most building departments have enough easily obtained information to satisfy requirements of the form. The current form already requires documenting evidence.
The current form does not require permit information for opening protection and I don’t provide it because it is outside the scope as I’m not performing a code inspection. What I do what I feel is required and require positve documentation as to the protection product(s) that was installed and what impact standards the product(s) meets. I also provide that documentation with my report and always have. The customer gets credit for exactly what can be documented nothing more and nothing less. If the underwriter is going to require something beyond the scope of the current 1802 uniform inspection verification form such as permit information, then unfortunately that is between the customer, the underwriter, possibly the OIR, Possibly the building department and possibley the installer/contractor. In my expierence, with other inspections where permits were not pulled, it was not usually the homeowner but rather the installer/contractor who did not pull the permit. when performing 4-point and pre-sale home inspections I typically research permit info. Sometimes I don’t find permit information only to be surprized to find a new roof, or a new AC or some other type of work electrical, plumbing, etc. when I get to the house and the homeowner has documentation from the licensed contractor. After running into this periodically I was visiting with a contractor friend and he explained the problem was that the only penalty a contractor got when they got caught with no permit was they had to pay three times the permit fee and no other penalty. I don’t know it that is still the situation as it’s been awhile ago. That’s not to say I never run into situations where the homeowner was the who didn’t pull permits. Because I do and while it can be any of the items mentioned above, it seems most often to involve replacing a water heater.
I have had several instances where the JHA had no permits on file, only to locate copies from the homeowner.
Wind mits are not code inspections and code inspections are not wind mits. Because something meets code does not make it discount with the OIR or 1802 form.
John, you should have that set up as a one key macro, it would save you tons of time.
Maybe they’ll get it one day.
One could hope
Yes, building departments make mistakes. The big difference from them (AHJ) and NACHI inspectors that never make mistakes, is that they are enforcing the law and their mistakes are covered. The chicken **** mit inspections are a f---- joke compared to the time and effort an AHJ puts into a project. Consider plan review, revisions, heated arguments with design professionals, appeals boards and the inspector that has too many inspections in a day to take the time needed. Don’t forget they deal with all types of construction, not just bungalos/homes. Oh, I guess you don’t know about the phone calls from the brass that puts pressure on everyone.
Work for a building dept, walk in their shoes or just go screw the home owners and say I am great, look how I found this with my metal detector
Ignorance is a blessing
I am just saying they are different. Nothing more, nothing less.