http://webgis.promap.com/

where you select (Minnesota | Rice County | map)

then zoom in until you find the parcel you want. You can zoom by click(hold)-drag-release to define a smaller region on the map.

Then click on the “Search tab” and enter the parcel number.

You can there see the owner’s name, the lot size, miscellaneous info, tax bills, etc. Very handy.

There are people in town who will constantly disagree with that statement, as they feel it demeans their living area or other preferred shopping and dining area … one that has been ” short handed” as “Southfield”.
What else would you call a second economic development area that is larger in square feet of commercial space, larger by far, than the original central business district?

Like it or not, “Southfield” exists. And because it serves the preference of a lot of consumers, it, for the most part, thrives.

All the “downtowners” are asking for is a level playing field from which to compete. We want our downtown buildings to be as economically strong as possible; we don’t want a downtown ghost town full of historic buildings, like Pipestone, MN.

I took over $9000. (yes, nine thousand) out of my meagre savings account to pay HALF of my commercial taxes, on ONE building. I did not have it from the building’s income stream.

The EDA paid 90K for a consultant’s evaluation which reported that the DT was one of the three economic strengths of Northfield; the EDA should be fighting for the Local B.O.A., as well as the City Council supporting it. This should not have to be a contest between downtown entrepreneurs (rapidly becoming philanthropists) and the recalcitrant Staff.

It’s a “no-brainer” and that’s how its being decided (with no brains) , at least so far. I can’t change the commercial development along Highway 3 south; between the absurdly rising tax rates, and the restrictive interpretations of the building code, I’m not even being allowed to compete, and that’s where the level of frustration comes.

I speak from experience both personal and vicarious. I note and respect other’s desire not to speak either from a natural reticence or a fear of reprisal or a combination of both.
I have to believe that I am not delusional and that I can separate myself from my particular interests or the clash between my personality and my modus operandi and those of the Establishment; and be able to speak in an objective and informed way about the problems that confront the community. I tried -- and am trying -- to do so.

I know I am up against an educated citizenry who do not, in the main, speak
from an experiential view-point on this matter- councilors included -- but instead speak from an intellectual framework whereby all is well in the world but for a few tiresome troublemakers who seek to beat or side-step the system; manned as it is by a qualified, busy, and well intentioned staff.

My concerns are parochial and particular and may not engage you, even may bore or bother you, personal as they seem. But they are not -- for I am invested in this community, both financially and emotionally, and I speak for many though they be a small section of the community (and there perhaps is the rub).

I have been through the mill and listen to others who have -- and are -- treading the same worn path. They fight as best they can and then, all things considered, accept.

So, why is the Building Board of Appeals so significant?
Firstly, it is required as per the Building Codes, both International and Minnesota.
Secondly, it is being strongly resisted (see Firstly) and ponder why.
Thirdly…well thirdly means we get down and dirty which I am prepared to do but would rather not.
Lastly, it’s about Existing Buildings in general, our downtown buildings in particular and the economic health of our community most certainly.

The Downtown is the heart of our community and I do not just mean economically -- and if you disagree then we cannot talk to each other. That said….economically, there is little or no wiggle room to remodel these buildings and make them viable for all concerned (building owners, tenants, customers, community) while they are held to the same standard as ‘new build’.

The Existing Buildings Code addresses this…in Spirit…and allows the Building Official…who BTW is protected from liability in these matters of Code interpretation and application…a great deal of latitude. In the absence of a BO and a CDD who feel passionately about enabling the Downtown building owners and tenants to get on with their lives and business -- which I sense is the case -- why not create a Local Building Board Of Appeals?

Why, would anyone be opposed to this move, other than staff who might feel their authority being challenged? Why would John Doe make an issue of the creation of a STATUTORILY MANDATED B.O.A., when its inception would have zero impact on the average citizen?

We all know most comment on Council/Staff action comes from citizens who feel sovereignty threatened by -- sidewalks, parking, stop signs, speed limits, or spending taxpayer’s dollars.

Maybe, Jon, you can elaborate with direct quotes from your contacts. That would be helpful.

P.S. on an earlier thread, Jon, I asked you to bring specific Pay Plan salary adjustment numbers to your ward meeting…You did not do so …although you did bring three other council members to that meeting!
I hope to get a response to the above B.O.A. related request.

PPS. Some people say the ward meeting was properly announced to avoid the quorum question; Others have said it was a violation,because although announced, it was not held in the format required by a council meeting,roll call, agenda, minutes, recognized chair etc.
There is a formal structure to a “council meeting”; Is that another statute that is not always recognized, like the mandated B.O.A.?

Julie Bixby December 7, 2007 3:59 pm ·

Jon, Do you think that the “interpretation” (in some areas) of the Building Code should be left up to ONE person? Or do you think it is important to have a Building Code Board of Appeals? (How about a X-mas tree BOA?) Sorry, I couldn’t help that one! I am serious about my question.

Jon Denison December 7, 2007 9:41 pm ·

I believe that the council hires qualified, experienced staff and we should respect them and their ability to do the job the city has hired them for. If issues become a recurring event, then the council has an obligation to the citizens to make inquiries and ask for evidence so the issues may be corrected in whatever form that may take.

Now, as for the “local” building code board of appeals…I believe I stated my position at the dais when it was last discussed by the council. I don’t want us doubling up on something that I hear is offered by the state for free. A presentation was made to us by a gentleman from the state inspector’s office and someone from Owatonna. Both told us their appeals boards are rarely used. I’ve not made up my mind about it either way. I feel I need some more information and I expect to have some questions answered the next time this topic comes back to us.

kiffi summa December 8, 2007 9:20 am ·

Julie : I think it’s quite obvious that there has been a bit of a “stall” on this issue of the Building Code Board of Appeals. The City Council has not been elected by either Owatonna, or the “state”, and so I think they are primarily obligated to listen to the local residents who elected them, and expect more than the convenient”Party Line” … Don’t accept boilerplate cliches in place of substantive answers.

Julie Bixby December 8, 2007 2:30 pm ·

Jon writes:

“I believe that the council hires qualified, experienced staff and we should respect them and their ability to do the job the city has hired them for.”

Jon, I agree, except, what happens when some?, many?, most? think the jobs are NOT being done satisfactorily? Do those (tax paying citizens) who pay their salaries, just sit back and let them continue? Do you expect people to turn a blind eye?

Do you work for the people of your ward, those who elected you, or for the city staff? People vote for candidates who claim to represent them, their ideas, wishes, concerns…

Correct me if I am wrong and I mean this with all due respect to you as a council person, but it appears to me that as far a you are concerned the staff is always right, do an excellent job and none of us should worry about what is happening at city hall. I, along with many others, some from your ward, do not see it this way.

In a situation like this what do citizens do ? To whom is the council’s first priority?

As far as the BOA goes, the process would go much more quickly if we had a LOCAL BOA. Each city is a smaller version of our state government, which is a smaller version of our national government. Wouldn’t it seem prudent to establish our own BOA in imitation of our state and in thus doing we would take on our own struggles and leave more time for the state government to govern the state?

Anne Bretts December 8, 2007 4:16 pm ·

Enforcing building codes in old towns is a very tough job. It would seem that if there is sufficient public concern (a petition or a number of complaints) the council could get a panel (perhaps some former state officials or local officials from another community) to review the building department’s rulings over the past three years to see whether the enforcement has been too rigid or whether the frustration raised here should be focused on the code itself rather than the enforcing agent.

It concerns me that given the politicization of every decision in government here, appointing a local appeals board would just create a new body to be attacked and second-guessed.

Another solution would be to actively use the state process for a year and see whether there are enough cases to warrant a local board.

kiffi summa December 8, 2007 5:27 pm ·

Many people who have been actively involved in, and affected by, the decisions made by the building official in interpreting the code, have worked on this problem, discussed it at length, cited examples, testified to discrepancies between rulings, and the time has come for a LOCAL BOA.

The problems are not so much with new construction; the problems come with interpretation and its relationship to old, possibly historic, buildings.

Businesses have not been able to move ahead because of constant roadblocks; in Norman’s case even after an evaluation by the state ADA representative, in his wheelchair, in Norm’s building. It has been proven an evaluation by a state official doesn’t even carry enough weight , in this case!

Building owners in the downtown and the NDDC have lobbied long and hard for this needed reform. How many impediments to economic success can the DT sustain? The buildings are the DT’s “hardware”; we have to have the hardware before we can fine tune the “software.

The time is long past for a LOCAL Board of Appeals to happen.

Jon Denison December 8, 2007 7:05 pm ·

How do you quantify “some”, “many” or “most”? Is “some” you? Is “many” you and your neighbor? Is “most” you and your socio-economic peers? I’ve received phone calls and letters from both sides of the issue. Some from residents of my ward, some from residents of Northfield in whole. And last time I checked, Northfield was a part of the State of Minnesota. We will be addressing a local BOA at our council work session on Mon. and I for one certainly have some questions, because frankly I don’t think I have enough information to make a decision either way.

kiffi summa December 9, 2007 8:12 am ·

Jon: Surely you are aware of the letters and presentations from the NDDC in support of the issue. That organization is supporting the needs of the affected population.

Single building owners, architects, contractors do not like to SINGLY cite their problems, because they are afraid of reprisal.

If this is coming to the council on Monday, it would be difficult to know; because as of 2:40 PM, Friday there was no packet available at City Hall . I have not heard this “hotly debated” at the council level , or indeed anywhere, except by the affected parties and professionals, and then there IS no “debate”.

As for advice from the “State”, the State ADA expert ’s advice was not honored by the local official.

I can recall only you (at the council level) and Mr. Roder clearly expressing doubts, at your “dais”.

If you have “received letters and phone calls from both sides of the issue” it would be helpful for you to bring those letters or records of calls to the Monday discussion. I can’t imagine why any citizen would complain to you about the establishment of a Local BOA; it is those who have been negatively affected that have carried the discussion.

Yes, in fact the NDDC and building owners have been working for at least four years on the real estate tax issues and have met with Tom Neuville a number of times. His proposed legislation is based on the existing “This Old House” legislation and would allow the phase-in of the building value added by construction work over a period of years. Thus, if you do a project, it addresses the costs of that project, not the existing value of the building.

Although much appreciated, downtown building owners believe that this proposal will address five percent or less of the real estate tax issue (based on the typical project value of 20% of the building value and an average of 8% of the buildings in the downtown undertaking a project in a year over a five-year period). If your real estate taxes have gone up an average of 30% a year for the past seven years, typical in downtown Northfield (many situations are even worse), the fact that you won’t be taxed on a construction project does nothing to address your existing real estate tax issue.

To suggest that we don’t need a board of appeals because our state legislator is proposing a bill that would address a portion of the real estate tax issue is, at least in my opinion, a red herring that is distracting us from the true issue, the interpretation of the building code.

I strongly encourage you to research the Rhode Island Night Club Fire. At least two of the professional investigators have speculated that when the fire hit the insulation that was either 10 or 13 times more flammable than gas, the place exploded like a bomb, perhaps emitting poisonous gas. As I said in my previous post, some of the experts believe that sprinklers would not have saved any lives. Not locking the exit doors and not coating the night club with flammable material definitely would have saved lives.

I am not against sprinklers, I just think that all aspects of fire safety and fire suppression should be considered in a situation, particularly in a situation for which sprinklers represent a significant financial and structural challenge. In my experience, for building inspectors and architects, understandably, cost is not the most important issue. It has seemed to me that they generally advocate for the most obvious solution and let the building owner figure out how to pay for it. Building owners are just asking that a local board of appeals be created to allow another look from another perspective.

I think that it is wonderful that you and Jay Jasnoch have established a good relationship with John Brookins in your work on the ordinance revisions. I sincerely hope that you will both consider applying for the board of appeals. It would contribute much toward a successful implementation.

- Ross

As far as these being “minimum” requirements, I fully agree. One would hope to exceed these requirements in actuality, but there must be some base line established to work from. It reminds me of the story about a reporter that asked one of the first astronauts what he really thought about going into space. It is reported that he replied, “How would you like to be shot into space in a piece of equipment built by the lowest bidder?” (Or something to that effect.)

One idea expressed through many of the posts is that of a BOA easing the effect of ALL building code decisions going through one person. I have worked with various BO’s on projects, and there is a difference in how they apply the code requirements. Sometimes, this is a matter of one person having enough time to research all the applicable requirements and make a definitive decision. In the case of Northfield, there is an inference that personality is playing too much of a role. A BOA could definitely help in a personality driven situation.

As far as the make-up of such a board, are there any requirements spelled out in the state code? It would seem that there would need to be a fairly universal set of requirements for this type of thing.

After reading this, I would totally support a Northfield BOA that acted under the same rules.

What follows is a direct paste from the document:

BASIS OF AN APPEAL
“An application for appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of this code or the rules legally adopted
thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply, or an equally good or
better form of construction is proposed.” (Subpart 3) Appeals will not be heard that argue the literal understanding
of a provision.
AUTHORITY OF THE APPEALS BOARD
A. “To hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the building official relative to the
application and interpretation of this code.” (Subpart 1)
B. “The board shall have no authority to waive requirements of this code.” (Subpart 3)
C. “A request for final interpretation must come from a … state level building code board of appeals.” (Subpart 4)

The other significant part of the document is who is on the BOA. I would again state that building professionals should be the majority.

Here is another direct paste:

COMPOSTION OF THE BOARD
A. “The [state] building official shall be an ex officio member of said board but shall have no vote on any matter
before the board.” (Subpart 1) The division director shall designate the division’s ex officio member. This
person will serve as the board’s secretary.
B. Members designated to serve on the board shall be from the following five categories: Minnesota municipal
certified building officials; Minnesota municipal fire officials; Minnesota licensed architects; Minnesota licensed
engineers; Minnesota licensed homebuilders.

Also, Norm B. expressed concern that his plans submitted in February might have to comply with the new 2007 code. According to the below link, it sounds like the 2003 code is still applicable because his plans were submitted before July 10.
http://www.doli.state.mn/pdf/ccid_code_transition_2007_1.pdf

For those concerned about safety, I believe plans would still have to pass the Fire Marshall even if a Building Inspection BOA approved them. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Norm B. mentioned in the podcast that codes are rules, not laws. Actually, I believe the American Disabilities Act (ADA) standards are law, though the GREB does seem to make some modifications.

I know that there is always more than one way of solving a problem. It seems to me that the grievances I hear about our existing system for compliance with the buliding codes are not necessarily against the codes themselves, but a lack of acceptance for other ways the codes can be met and a desire by the inspector to help find them. For that reason, I feel a BOA could be very beneficial. It could be looked at as a problem solving team instead of a threat to authority.

As far as Ross’s suggestion for the make up of the BOA, I feel that there should be equal representation between building professionals and city advocates. With Ross’s proposal, professionals would be the minority. (Granted, some advocates could also be considered professionals.)

Did you know about the IBC and that changes were in the air regarding safety of occupants? And if investments were made in buildings that are occupied, did you consider the cost in the purchase of the bulding? If not, why not.

I think this speaks to the issue of investment, reinvestment, cash flow and profit expectations. It seems that all the comments are about the bottom line invesment?

I would hope that your familiarization with the code would allow you to agree, that in the code manuel exclusive to Historic structures, there are many gray areas as to final methods, materials and mere enforcement… that is, there is allowed a measure of feasibility… this in cases particular to ADA requirements.

I think you’ll also find even in issues of Fire Safety, there are alternative measures allowed… but seldom considered by our local BO.

Finally, I’ll ask two questions:

One) are your remarks based principally on NEW construction? If so can you comment on retrofitting of historic buildings?

Two) Is your your zeal to express acceptance of the BO’s rulings, jaded by the fact that you work with him and need to maintain a open relationship?

Your comments are welcomed here -- as I believe your insights allow those of us who might argue this issue, the advantage of your informed perspectives.

victor

Ross, I offer the tax issue not as a red herring, but as one that seems more likely to offer a successful conclusion. As for the tax question, Senator Tom Neuville submitted proposed language to the HPC for reducing valuations for improvements to structures in a Historic District. Perhaps you have been in contact with him regarding this subject.

As for the night club, you have certainly done your homework in describing the incident, but I think it only goes to prove the point that Building Officials are concerned about, which is that buildings are only as safe as they are operated. That nightclub should NOT have had that insulation, should NOT have had locked exits, should NOT have turned off exit lights. All of these things would not have mattered if a sprinkler system had been in place because the fire would have been put out immediately.

Your point that there are sometimes alternate means of constructing separations is valid, but there are still exceptions, especially for assembly occupancies which include restaurants. We even find that in our church work that worship spaces need to be sprinklered. This is often difficult to do in an aesthetically pleasing way, but there is no way around it, and truthfully, if it is done carefully, is inobtrusive and only seen when you look for it.

As one seminar speaker once said, echoing Jay’s comment above, the building code is only a minimum, anything less would be illegal.

No one has commented on insurance. I wonder if that is a consideration.

While your numbers may be accurate for an empty building or new construction, the calculations do not apply to a fully-occupied building. Threading pipes through occupied space requires daily clean up and usually reduced rental rates for tenants during the disruption. It is a godawful mess.

I had the Peterson Art Furniture complex in Faribault sprinkler system retrofitted. It was an expensive, dirty project. In old buildings with false ceilings, crawl spaces, nooks and crannies, most of it has to sprinkled, which can substantially increase the cost over the net floor sf.

The IBC does say that “a board of appeals shall be appointed by the governing body,” in section 112.1 on page 9. Right under that in section 112.2.1, it also notes “The board shall have no authority to waive requirements of this code.” You can go to the State website at http://www.doli.state.mn.us/bc_appeals.html to see the last recorded appeals in which the State Board ruled over a local building official. There are only 4 posted for the last 3 years, all are very minor compared to those in Norm and Dave’s projects. The issues are a matter of construction methods or product installation in order to meet the intent of the code. The obligation to meet the code still prevails. Also as a side note, the IBC really is a minimum standard for protecting the HSW of the building occupants. It may seem restrictive, would you really want it any other way?

Was the restaurant new construction or a retrofit? If it was a retrofit, it was a really good price.

The three cost estimates that I heard on downtown projects ranged from $50,000 to $75,000, on 1800 square foot spaces. Let’s split the difference and call it a 2,000 square foot space…that’s more like $30 a square foot.

Furthermore, the total project cost estimates for these restaurants were between $150,000 and $200,000. This is typical of the financial structures that I see in downtown.

No one I know wants to open a restaurant at the risk of public safety. However, the Rhode Island Night Club fire that the building official has cited for both his support of 1306 and his resistance to a local board of appeals is worth investigating.

The Club is question was located near residential uses. Apparently there had been a number of complaints about the noise. I guess people were propping open exit doors and this was adding to the noise issue.

To address the noise issue, the owners installed a homemade sound buffering system, made out of a material that investigators later noted was between 10 and 13 times more flammable than gasoline. They also chained the exit doors shut to keep them from being propped open.

In anticipation of the band’s special performance, the fire exit lights were disabled. Then the band put on a pyrotechnic display.

The fire immediately ignited the sound insulation material. With only one exit unchained, everyone tried to squeeze out one door.

Most of the people that died were crushed to death. Some investigators have speculated that the fumes released by the burning sound insulation were toxic. Given these conditions, it has been posited that sprinklers might not have saved any lives.

The building inspector cites this night club fire as proof that you should install sprinkler in buildings. I think that it proves that you shouldn’t insulate with materials that are more flammable than gasoline, that you shouldn’t chain exit doors shut, that you shouldn’t disconnect exit lights, and that you shouldn’t allow indoor pyrotechnic shows. I will also suggest that this is all common sense that would be possessed by members of a local board of appeals.

Steve, I think you are really missing the point on this topic. No one in Northfield is saying that we should ignore fire codes. We are only suggesting that sprinklers are one way to achieve fire safety and that there are other ways to achieve the necessary level of fire safety. A truly independent local board of appeals will help to assure that the development team, building owner, architect and contractor, can consider all possible methods and materials to achieve this level of fire safety.

Finally, your argument about real estate tax issue is, I’m certain, an unintended red herring. First, the 30% average increase per year for the past 7 years is killing prosperity, with or without construction projects. Second, the building owners have been working on this issue with legislators for the past 4 years and no one is expecting a miracle cure in the near future.

Downtown building owners will continue working on both for the creation of the local board of appeals and the slowing of the growth of real estate taxes. It would be great if you’d support their efforts.

- Ross