North Texas Mail-CS 890207
.^
The City With A Beautiful Future
February 7, 1989
Larry Jackson, Attorney
Sallinger, Nichols, Jackson
Kirk, Dillard
1800 Lincoln Plaza
500 N. Akard
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Larry:
P. O. Box 478
Copper.. Texas 75019
Zia - as2 - 0022
3~a4~~°~
PwP~:.~wPu.,~~.
Attached is an article I recently read in the January/February
issue of the Journal of Code Enforcement. The article deals with
the new law passed by the U.S. Congress involving the construction
of federal buildings. In the past, federal projects have by law
been exempt from state and local regulations. According to the
attached article, Congress passed a new law on October 21, 1988,
that requires federal agencies to comply with electrical, fire,
life safety and plumbing codes as well as local zoning, landscaping
and aesthetic requirements.
The article states that Section 21 of the new law lists what
responsibilities federal projects have in reference to local
building permit fees. Please review Section 21 and let me know if
fees can be assessed. Permit fees are assessed because of services
that are rendered by the city - not as a means of taxing the
federal government.
Please review the law and provide me with your legal opinion
concerning how this law will affect Coppell. Also, if t.'~e city
does decide to make inspections during the construction of the
building, does the city assume any more of a liability for unsafe
installations than if the city did no inspections on the project
at all?
~•
Larry Jackson
Page 2
February 7, 1989
.~
It would be helpful to me if you would also send a complete copy
of the new law to me once you have located it.
Sincerely,
Dale Jackson
Building Official
DJ/mm
xc: Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager
Frank Trando, Deputy City Manager/Finance Director
Steve Goram, Director of Public Works
t
journal.ltr
4 aKT d ~ .t. ld~4t ~~i, ~]~„~i4' ': h'~°F4 ~'+X+~"'P ^.'-"~ ~ ~ __;'A s"3yr 4./et'M.Y a'~~Y' ~`M'('`~+' ian'3,~1,
..e ^b*
s ~`~Sc.11o a X
> y' " ~`
x~`!:} C'^^.i1E~k}.y~y^~ .'.. if lF _ ~ 'rt _ t ~ Y !Ct
i y
rp 'e'-q ~ xa xi'q\~`~~r+. ~i ~~,~n f' y_ ~ flK ~yS 'V'im C Ir -
zqC "M ~ ~i ~~~41'y-S'Y` ., ~, x G . Y ~c ~ i :4
+~4 ~~}f~~, h4 Y\ F- ~W ~' ~y4S+ ai 4 ~ ~ .
S~~RC.~LwR !a4.t . ,Kacw.euWa-.: k, xr.... ;ai.~., 3'~..a.. _w .e
FEDERAL PROTECTS TO
COMPLY
WITH
MODEL
CODES
The federal government is not bound
by state or local laws except with the
consent of Congress. However, Con-
gress,just prior to adjournment, waived
its rights with regard to compliance
with building codes. As part of the Pub-
lic Building Amendment Act of 1988,
federal agencies are now instructed to
adhere to the maximum extent feasible
with recognized codes in such areas as
electrical codes, fire and life safety
codes and plumbing codes. The
i
--
~~
--_
~~ ~ -
--
-.--
amendments also call for compliance
with zoning laws and laws relating to
landscaping, open space, distances be-
tween buildings, maximum building
heights, historic preservation laws and
esthetic qualities of buildings. The head
of the federal agency is to consult with
state and local officials, and, upon
request, to submit building plans to
such officials for review and permit
local officials to inspect the federal
buildings during construction.*
Continued on Page 21
r
~ s 4f
4
i
I
,y -. r nk'advv rx o- > a^fe*'f'~ 7 v~ t .a..,'4+"c E-
- YTS... X~ k.`{^-b°~~~ ~ ~ r r r x _ r
~++~ x
~`-~,? ~'~'~ 8t `u~ '°i`~'-'u-~`'tka r.61+~ .S ~'~8~ rf .?:+ r , - :.
ro ~ ' . 'ztX'~ ~,~ y,~.rt i~t. .k, ~r x r'~a ,; ~ :.
'r'.~ pyy-Q~ i~' - ir~.'b`~r 'F~Y..u&"'d5!c4z ~ 'y' v#ffi~»at a < ,. S
~~~3~1n~y~ TN ''~,t~F~~'~tl~~ ~ rf .k ~ %~7~rvdl~ dtiJ .. ~~ 5 ~ 1 ~ _
JN3iaY W~I.YA 1+~YwJJ~ ~'RFe J~MIXa~YYt xT4Mf~Ti ~4Y ".
r ax' S, r • .
~H.+4d+w d t;~:u, ~iyr4^k is i' ~ ~Ja. za c. x r S` q'y,.s~~.v, 'Y -:: . -'t '.•
S A3{°'t.'y~F5?°~F.b3 RKf~nc°a:~'W1'~+f~+r~~?~a.,,~~4t'~,./TL S~"(..t +yri''.r`rx} s ~ r _
~~~ 1~ x C 4 y ° - ~
-. $~t`~.'1~r :v'.+6~.sw~'Li.Y j.'v~6cr +~«.,-rs'.,E 'r'ti Y ~ :s~ ._.. _..., c....... ..... '`A .. - ~ - . ~ ,. .. ..: . _:s
r' ;' .. .. - ..
a ~ ., ,.
..
k
,~-~
' -;
..
[,
FEDERAL PROJECTS Page 1 Continued
Commentary by
David A. Bassett, P.E., C.B.O.
Building Safety Director,
Medford, Oregon
HR 2790 AND $ 2186 BECOME LAW
INTRODUCTION:
We have been following the issue of
federal construction projects that do
not comply with model code require-
menu for several years. I testified when
the 99th Congress considered HR 2403
which nearly passed in 1986. The
measure was re-introduced in the 100th
session by Congressman Robert F.
"Bob" Smith (R-Oregon) and it was
approved on 10-21-88. Our thanks to
the Congressman for his tenacity and
skill in seeing this measure to
completion.
The bi II has now become federal law
This article deals with some back-
ground, rationale, and implementation
aspects of this federal legislation. Addi-
tionally, Ihope to work with GSA and
other Federal Agencies in developing
rules that will assist all parties in
accomplishing a smooth and orderly
transition.
BACKGROUND:
Since we are responsible for the
safety of all our citizens, it always
seemed a peculiar and vexing anomaly
that federal buildings could be con-
structed throughout the country without
considering the model, state or local
code requirements for that jurisdiction.
Therefore, a list was developed of some
of the more significant reasons why this
bill was needed and should apply to
federal buildings open to the public.
These reasons are outlined below:
• Federal projects that are constructed
to different standards than those of the
stateof-the-art model codes pose many
problems to the designers, craftsmen,
fire personnel and citizens. Differences
from anticipated construction norms
tend to cause chaos in the building
community and accordingly, costs are
needlessly higher.
• Architects, engineers and contractors
are bound by their licensing laws to
comply with all state and local require-
ments. Working on a federal project
does not suspend that obligation or
liability.
• The model code system brings
together national technical forums of
experts in all aspects of building con-
struction. Recent efforts in specialized
fields such as fire risk assessment, high
wind/hurricane design and seismic
analysis have led to advances that could
not be recreated in the federal stand-
ardswithout enormous costs and need-
less duplication of effort. The model
code systems, as well as the local code
officials are avialable to federal agencies
just as they are to any home or business
owner.
• Our citizens deserve the benefits of
good communication between all levels
of governement. The plan review and
permit process of all three model codes
as implemented by city, county or state
agencies is basically a communication
procedure by which code compliance
can be achieved in advance of con-
struction. This is far preferable to
discovery of a major problem after
completion of the project when revision
is very costly or unrealistic.
• The city, county or state entity is
generally responsible for fire protection,
water, sewer and related utilities to
federal buildings open to the public.
Therefore, it only stands to reason that
the municipality should have know-
ledge and records as to what the federal
building is designed to do and how it
is constructed. The permit and plan
review process is how this can be
achieved. Compliance to nationally
recognized model codes will benefit
the safety of federal buildings, and
therefore, the customers and employees.
• The bill provides sufficient latitude
to "comply to the maximum extent
feasible as determined by the admini-
strator" in the event of conflicts in pur-
pose orstandard that cannot be easily
resolved. Frankly, I believe that once
the federal agencies become better
versed in code use, design accordingly,
and construct in compliance with
model codes that the quality and safety
of their projects will greatly improve.
The errors, problems and unsafe condi-
tions created by the federal agencies
have "sovereign immunity" are clearly
not in the public's best interest. Con-
siderable experience has accrued as to
unintentional, but fundamental life
safety oversights in federal projects.
RATIONALE:
A careful reading of the measure in
Section 21 will cause you some con-
cern and disappointment relative to the
authority to insist upon complete com-
pliance and to collect normal fees.
These aspects were part of the compro-
mise and balancing procedure that all
bills require in order to be passed. In
this case, the words "to the maximum
extent feasible as determined by the
administrator" were added to alleviate
fears by GSA of unwanted or illogical
local "interference': If the federal agency
invokes this section, you have grounds
to ask for a written and detailed expla-
nation. It is very unlikely that they can
provide one that is technically sound.
If it is, of course, recognition as an
"approved equivalent alternate" would
be appropriate.
As to fees, we have found that very
often the contractor will pay the permit
just as they pay for the necessary
licenses and connection costs. The
reason the bill does not incude fees
goes back to the constitutional prohibi-
tion of "taxes" levied on the federal
government by state or local entities.
Permit fees, of course, are a cost for ser-
vices rendered and are not a "tax°.
IMPLEMENTATION:
Section 21(2) states that there is no
obligation to provide plan review or
inspection services to a federal project
under this legislation. If we all care
more about compliance than we do
revenue, however, we will simply treat
a federal project like any other and as
an opportunity to insure and enhance
the safety of our citizens.
With this bill comes the chance to
review Federal projects in our juris-
diction. If we do so reasonably and
with assistance in mind, surely we will
all benefit. ~
Ilil,
*Courtesy of Liability Update Copyright 1988 Vic-
ror O. Schinnerer & Comparry, lnc. Published by the
Office for Professional Liability Research of Victor
O. schinnerer & Co., Inc., Two Wisconsin Circle,
Chevy Chase, MD 20815-7003, Liability Update,
Vol. 1 No. 12