The URL can be used to link to this page

5.b) Building Official Position �� . � � ,-� J � ..��. ._.,�. U SC��IVDIA Memo - • To: Mayor and City Council From: Anne Hurlburt,City Administrator Date: June 9,2011 for June 14,2011 Work Session Meeting Re: Building OfficiaUMaintenance Supervisor Position Purpose of this Report: At the May 10 Council meeting,Council member Schneider made a recommendation to eliminate or reduce the full-time position of Building OfficiaU Public Works Supervisor. The reason given was that the downturn in construction and building permit activity has reduced the workload and that the revenue no longer justifies the expense. This report will provide information for the Council's discussion,including: • the history of the Building Official position; • how it has evolved into the Building OfficiaUMaintenance Supervisor position; • building inspection work load; • costs and revenues associated with the position; and • impacts of reducing or eliminating the position. Summary and Conclusions: Based on the information that follows,my conclusions are: • The creation of the Building Official position shortly after the incorporation of the city was a well-founded decision based on the economic situation of the time. • It has met the original goals to improve building-code related services to the public as well as to provide local planning and zoning administration necessitated by the incorporarion. • The building downturn allowed the city time to address a chaotic situation with public works staffing. Expanding the position to include the Maintenance Supervisor duties is helping to improve management of those functions and to address critical issues with the city's infrastructure. 6/9/11 for 6/14/]1 Work Session Page 2 of 11 • About half of Steve Thorp's time is now spent on Building Code related work,and the other half in other duties. Building permit fee revenue more than covers that portion of his time spent on building code work. • It may be desirable to alter the budget to more accurately show how Steve's time is divided among multiple departments. • Reducing or eliminating the position will not save money,as the city would incur significant costs to hire consultants and will potentially lose opportunities for additional revenues. The city may also be at risk for geater expenses in the future. • Scandia has made only modest additions to staff since the incorporation of the city. Reducing or eliminating any position will severely affect the city's ability to function and would result in major reductions in service to the public. History of the Building Official Posidon: Enforcement of the state building code is required for all towns and cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area. The Township hired its first contractual Building Official in 1999,when Washington County ceased providing the service. T'he contract was held by A1 Goodman through 2001 and Jon Ludwig through 2005. Following Ludwig's retirement,the service was provided by Jim Schneider,who had been working as a subcontractor for Ludwig,by an informal arrangement under the same terms as Ludwig's contract until July 2007 when Steve Thorp was hired as the Building and Code Enforcement Official. The contract Building Official was paid based on a share of the building permit fees(70%)and plan check fees(100%)collected by the city. Ludwig's contract also provided for office space,telephone and clerical support. They were not employees and were free to accept other work,even full-time employment elsewhere(in the case of Schneider.) They were not required to report the number of hours they worked and were free to employ subcontractors or employees of their own if needed to perform the service. In the early part of the last decade,during the peak of new home construction in the Township,payments to the contract Building Official were as much as$134,397 in a single year (2005.) The contractors' responsibilities were limited to enforcement of the building code. About 2004 to 2005,the Township began planning for a change to the City form of government. Studies prepared by Springsted, Inc. to analyze the potential incorporation noted that the township would lose services valued at about$80,000 from Washington County in the area of planning and zoning administration. T'heir report stated that the new city could combine the zoning administration and building official responsibilities into a single full-time position. The report also said it would likely be necessary to increase at least one of two existing part-time receptionist positions(then working a total of about 40 hours per week)to a full-time position,to provide enough support for the planning,zoning and building inspection work. 6/9/11 for 6/14/11 Work Session Page 3 of 11 In early 2006,long-time Town Clerk Dolores Peterson rerired and the Town Board, anticipating the incorporation of the city later that year,decided to hire an Administrator to provide overall management for the town/city government. By the time I began the position in September 2006 one of the part-time support staff had also retired,and one of the two full-time maintenance workers retired shortly thereafter. Anticipating filling these vacancies and the Building Official position, personnel policies were written,job descriptions were developed for all city positions and benefits and salary rates were set. The City hired several new staffmembers in quick succession: an office Assistant in May 2007,a full-time maintenance worker in June 2007(Mike Egella�aut), and the Building/Code Enforcement Official in July 2007 (Steve Thorp.) The job description for the Building/Code Enforcement Official incorporated all the duties of the contract posirion plus: • Monitoring construction sites and developments for compliance with erosion control measures,tree preservation,conservation easements,architectural control and other standards • Monitoring conditions of approval,development agreements and financial guarantees for all zoning permits, subdivisions and mining peimits • Receive,investigate and document complaints regarding property maintenance,construction and other land use activities • Coordinate enforcement actions. • Other duties as assigned. The goals for bringing the position in-house included: • Improved service to the public. An employee would be available at the city office during regular hours to meet with citizens about their projects,answer phone calls and perform inspections. Simple permits could be issued immediately. • Better enforcement of building code and existing local ordinances. Over the years it had been reported to Board members that the contract inspectors performed cursory inspections or none at all. Building permits were sometimes issued without due regard for local zoning requirements. An employee would be more accountable to the Board/ Council. They would provide information on and enforce local ordinances (such as property maintenance requirements) that are not part of the building code. • Better enforcement and monitoring of development approvals. Conditions on CUPs, variances and other approvals require follow-through. New subdivisions require monitoring to ensure all improvements are completed to city standards. Costly errors had been made and more oversight was needed. (For example, an inadequate financial guarantee cost the city over$20,000 to complete a street when the developer defaulted.) • New regulations needed enforcement. The city assumed full responsibility for regulation of mining, shoreland and floodplains and all other land use matters. Mining regulations, for example, require on-going monitoring and enforcement and coordination 6/9/11 for 6/14/11 Work Session Page 4 of 11 with other agencies. The new position would replace at least some of the services formerly provided by the County. • Streamlining permitting processes. With staff available to review and/or issue permits, the burden for the Council to act as the zoning administrator could be reduced. Having staff available to process administrative permits and answer questions would save time and cost, and reduce the reliance on consultants. Evolution of the Position to Maintenance Supervisor: In October of 2006, as the Town was preparing to make the transition to the City form of government, a long term maintenance worker(Brian Jemelka) retired, leaving the city with 1 full-time maintenance worker(John Morrison) and a 3/5 (24 hour/wk)part time maintenance worker. Hiring a replacement was delayed due to a large severance payment (not possible under new policies) creating an opportunity to evaluate the staffing in that area. Maintenance work had been primarily focused on roads and reacting to immediate needs, with very little planning for future needs. The 2 full-time employees functioned almost completely independently of each other and rarely spoke. There was no lead worker or anyone in charge. With a new hire imminent, who would need training and work direction, it was decided a supervisor was needed and John Morrison was promoted in March of 2007. He was expected to plan and coordinate all maintenance work and give input for the CIP and budget. Over approximately the next year, it became apparent that even if he had the skills and abilities, John would not have enough time to step up to the new role. With only 2 and 3/5 FTE workers, all of their time was needed to keep up with the basic maintenance tasks. He wasn't able to give meaningful input for the pavement management plan, budget or CIP as was hoped. Meanwhile, the list of maintenance concerns was growing. Some notable examples: � The Community Center well became contaminated, and subsequently the Uptown Water System was found to be out of compliance with Heath Department guidelines. Deferred maintenance had to be corrected and a new program of compliance inspection and testing initiated. • Maintenance issues with the Uptown sewer system were becoming frequent, highlighting years of neglect and lack of planning for the future. • Major deficiencies in safety training and reporting requirements were identified, and mock OSHA inspections generated a long list of corrections to buildings and equipment. • LMCIT loss control inspections required corrections and regular inspection programs for various facilities, such as playgrounds. Without maintenance staff to take the lead, Steve was the logical choice to work on these and 6/9/11 for 6/14/1] Work Session Page 5 of 11 other projects in areas where he had some experience and expertise—part of the "other duties as assigned" in the job description. On July 1, 2008, John Morrison went out on a medical leave that lasted until early spring of 2009. We did not know whether or when he might return. The 3/5 part-time maintenance worker decided to retire that fall, leaving the city with only 1 worker with winter-season experience. Steve took the lead to help hire, train and coordinate the temporary hires necessary to ensure basic snowplowing services. Steve gave direction to the team and we made it through the winter, partly because he did some snow removal himself to fill the gaps. In the Spring of 2009, still unsure of John's ability to supervise employees, we decided not to immediately fill the vacant 3/5 part-time position and to use seasonal labor for the summer months, with Steve continuing to provide work direction. Steve continued to work on many projects that ideally should have been taken on by the public works staff, had they the time and ability to do so. These included developing plans for the salt storage structure, coming into compliance with the uptown water system issues, and working with the County Health Department on sewer issues. Other projects included demolition of the former Rasmussen home, coordinating building maintenance and repairs, organizing required training , applying for grants, managing small construction projects (such as the Lilleskogen Weir) and many other items not strictly within his job description. John Morrison finally retired for medical reasons in June of 2010. (John passed away the following October.) The HR Committee and Council met, and found that with only 2 full-time staff inembers there would never be time for one for one of them to be a supervisor. Because Steve Thorp was already taking on a large share of the work, the Council approved a revised job description adding the primary objective to "provide oversight and work direction for maintenance personnel and contractors to ensure that all city infrastructure (including roads, drainage systems, sewer and water)and facilities (including parks and public buildings) are operated and maintained in good condition." The new job description was approved in June of 2010. It was noted that this might be a temporary arrangement. If building and development should increase, the combination of those duties with supervision of maintenance functions would be too much for one person. The work load would need to be monitored and re-evaluated as necessary. Jeff Anderson was hired in September, 2010, restoring the full-time maintenance staff to 2 people. Jeff, Mike and Steve are working well as a team, and together have addressed a number of issues such as snowplowing, providing input for pavement management and a major equipment purchase, and undertaken projects that would have been difficult over the time when the staffing was uncertain or short-handed due to John's illness. 6/9/11 for 6/14/11 Work Session Page 6 of I 1 Steve Thorp spends approximately half of his time on activities other than what was in his original job description. Most of that time is on activities that were not being done by anyone else in the past. We expect that more time will be spent on maintenance issues in the near future. We are just starting to identify problems with drainage ways, and the need to adopt federally- mandated policies for sign maintenance, for a couple of examples. Depending on the outcome of the Uptown Sewer Study, staff may acquire more day-to-day responsibilities for maintenance of that system. The city is already spending over$30,000 per year for contractual services for management of the 201 Community Sewer System. There may be an opportunity to reduce costs overall by bringing some sewer maintenance expertise in-house. We may want to add maintenance staff in the future. Because the blended position of Building Official/Maintenance Supervisor is new, and it was seen as potentially a temporary arrangement, the 2010 budget was not amended nor was the 2011 budget prepared to show the costs (salary, benefits, etc.) of the position split among the departments affected. The position is still accounted for completely within the Planning/Building budget in the General Fund. While the accounting would be a bit more complicated, it may make sense to split this position in proportion to time spent across all the affected budgets, to more accurately pornay how the city spends its money for various functions. Building Inspection Work Load: How much staff does it take to administer the Building Code? The number and type of permits matters, as does the level of service the community wishes to provide. It can be done with an absolute minimum level of effort or it can be done with a greater goal of service to the public,to help them do the job right and recognizing the importance of proper construction to public safety. In 2001, two years after the Township took over responsibility for building inspection, Inspector A1 Goodman wrote to the New Scandia Town Board that "the building inspection volume for New Scandia has turned out to be much more than I anticipated, and the only way to do it justice, and keep my saniry.... is to deal with it on a full time basis. " The total number of permits was 136 and 133 in 1999 and 2000, respectively, with 28 and 21 new single family home permits. The total revenue in those years ($91,551 in 1999 and $77,574 in 2000) would have supported a full-time employee. (See attached table and chart of permits and fees.) For the next several years the "boom" continued. During the 7-year period from 1999 through 2005 an average of 30 new home permits, and an average of 160 permits of all types, were issued each year. The housing market crashed in 2006, and in the 5-year period of 2006 though 2010 the average number of new homes per year fell to less than 9. However, the average number of all types of permits during that same period was 173,more than during the boom years. This 6/9/11 for 6/14/11 Wark Session Page 7 of 11 was fueled partly by a large number of permits to repair storm damage in 2008, but indicates that small projects have continued even as new home construction slowed. Not all permits are created equal when it comes to the level of effort and staff time required. Steve and I have both have many years of experience with building code administration in small communities as well as some of the largest in the state, and we agree in the following observations: • New homes and businesses generate the highest permit fees because of their value; but the staff time needed for plan reviews and inspections often cost less than the fees generated because of the expertise of the professional architects, engineers and contractors working on the project. • Homeowner projects generate minimal permit fees; in fact fees are generally kept low to encourage compliance with permit requirements. The time it takes to educate and advise on do-it-your-self projects can be wildly out of proportion to the permit fee collected. But this is a service often highly valued by the citizen and important to ensure building safety. Steve often finds himself in lengthy, unscheduled conversations with residents about their projects. Another source of data on building inspection departments is ISO (Insurance Offices, Inc.) which evaluates building code enforcement in thousands of jurisdictions around the country. They apply ratings that can result in insurance discounts for new structures in communities with good enforcement of building codes (they also rate fire departments.) ISO evaluated Scandia this spring. A copy of the full report has been provided to the Council separately from this memo. The report includes some benchmarking data that communities can use to compare their staffing levels with data collected from over 14,000 code enforcement departments across the nation. Scandia ranked lower than the benchmarks for plan reviews; not unexpected because of the very small number in 2010 (many minor permits do not require plan reviews.) However, Scandia exceeded the benchmarks for annual workload per inspector compared to communities of similar populations, issuing similar numbers of permits and conducting a similar number of inspections. This report does not appear to find Scandia to be overstaffed. It is my opinion that the current workload for the Building Inspection functions requires at least a half-time position. This does not include the local code enforcement and additional planning and zoning duties, or any of the other work not previously performed by contracted inspectors. As will be described in the following pages, revenues are sufficient to cover this service. Building Code Enforcement Costs and Revenues: The following table shows the total cost of the position as projected for 2011, compared to the actual revenue from 2010, the last full year available. The first column shows the entire cost; the 6/9/11 for 6/14/11 Work Session Page 8 of 11 second column shows half the cost because as discussed above, approximately half of Steve's time is spent on activities other than Building Code enforcement. For the portion of Steve's time spent on Building Code Enforcement, revenue is estimated to exceed the cost of the position by $12,356. Cost of Staff Position 100% 50% Personal Services: Salary 70,000 35,000 PERA-Employer Contribution 5,075 2,538 FICA- Employer Contribution 4,340 2,170 Medicare-Employer Contribution 1,015 508 Life Insurance 220 110 Health(Insurance&HSA) 6,312 3,156 Disability Insurance 380 190 Workers Comp Insurance Premium 735 368 Subtotal $88,077 $44,039 Other Expenses: Materials&Supplies(exc.Fuel) 700 350 Fuel 40 20 Employee Training 500 250 Telephone 700 350 Dues and Subscriptions 250 125 Vehicle Replacement 1408 704 Subtotal $3,598 $1,799 Total,All Expenses(2011) $91,675 $45,838 2010 Revenue,Less State Surcharge $58,193 $58,193 Net Expense after Revenue $33,482 -$12,356 Impacts of Reducing or Eliminating the Position Could the City save money by reducing this position to part-time, or eliminating it entirely? Reducing the position to part-time would require eliminating all of the duties not strictly related to building code enforcement; essentially reducing the service to what was in place when contractual services were used. This would eliminate supervising public works and all of the special projects now done by Steve. Any time available to work on code enforcement issues and deal with planning and zoning requests would be gone. I would expect we would lose our current employee. Hiring a part-time employee with no benefits would be difficult, so we would likely have to return to a contractual arrangement. 6/9/11 for 6/14/11 Work Session Page 9 of 11 The table below shows the estimated annual cost to eliminate the position and replace only part of what Steve does with contractual services. There would also be a one-time cost up to $22,500 for unemployment compensation. Cost to Eliminate Position Annual Expense: Assumptions: Building OfficiaU Contractual $44,073 70%permit fees, 100%plan check Water System Operator Contractual $2,252 EcoCheck proposal; assumes no service calls Planning $23,088 $111/hr,4 hrs/week X 52 weeks Engineering $12,960 $135/hr, 12 hrs/mo X 12 months Legal,Prosecutor $8,640 $120/hr,6 hrs/mo Total Expenses $91,013 2010 Revenue,Less State Surcharge $58,193 Net Expense after Revenue $32,820 I consider this a very conservative estimate of the cost to replace Steve's services. It does NOT include any costs to replace the value he provides as maintenance supervisor. A few notes about the assumptions: • The cost for contractual Building Official services is based on the old Township contract. Some communities pay higher-80% of permit fees is common. I would estimate that returning to a contract inspector may also increase the burden on support staff, as the inspector would be less available to take calls. No estimate is given for any such impact. • Steve is the only staff inember with the required license to operate the Uptown water system. Services would have to be secured immediately, or the city would face a $10,000 fine for violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. I have not included any costs for an operator for the Uptown Sewer System. We will not know until after the current engineering study is completed,but it is likely we will need to increase the monitoring and maintenance program. The 2 maintenance workers do not have the time to absorb this work. • The additional cost for planning services is based on estimates of non-reimbursable planning fees paid to TKDA by other clients who do not have staff in-house to answer zoning inquiries (such as Stillwater Township and Newport.) • Extra engineering services would be needed for review of certain non-building permits (such as utility permits) now handled by Steve, inspecting mining operations, etc. The hourly rate is an average of the typical rates charged, so could be higher. • More legal services would be necessary to follow up on code issues (such as investigating and following up on animal complaints) and on ordinance and resolution preparation. 6/9/11 for 6/14/11 Work Session Page 10 of 11 I believe these estimates to be very conservative. To the extent that elimination of the position requires the Administrator or some other staff to absorb Steve's non-building related duties, the additional consultant costs could be significantly higher. Consultant costs can be exorbitant compared to the cost of staff, and some staff time is required to provide proper oversight. (Salaries and benefits for the Administrator total $50 per hour, significantly less than any of our consultants) It would be very difficult to measure,but the city may also lose opportunities for additional revenue. It would be difficult to apply for grants (such as the ones recently received from the Health Department and the SHIP program) without staff resources. Without staff to investigate, it will also be much more difficult to explore cost savings or shop for less expensive services and materials. The city also risks potentially greater costs in the future if certain work Steve does is eliminated. For example, Steve helps keep the city's safety training and inspections programs on track. A single OSHA inspection could result in a major fine. And, failure to follow up on a minor road or drainage issue today can result in a much costly repair in the future. Springsted's incorporation study documented the need to replace services lost from the County, and suggested that staff could be hired to handle planning and zoning matters along with increasing support staff. What wasn't known at the time were all of the deficiencies that would need to be corrected to bring management of the local government into compliance with basic requirements of all cities. It also wasn't known how much defened maintenance Scandia was facing and the significant policy issues that the new city government would be dealing with. There still may be feelings in the community that"things were just fine in the township days." However,many things needed to change, and that level of staffing would clearly be inadequate today. Only two new positions have been added since 2005: Building Official/Maintenance Supervisor and the City Administrator(which replaced the Clerk, many duties of which were absorbed by Deputy Clerk.) This is only about 1.25 FTE (full time equivalent positions) of added staff time. Both positions are spread very thin and deal with a very large array of issues. Eliminating a position would reduce the staffing level to about what it was before the incorporation of the city; or less, when you consider that the 3/5 maintenance job was not fully replaced. Eliminating any position would severely impact the city's ability to function. Comparing Scandia's overall staffing level to that of other communities is beyond the scope of this report. A survey was conducted in 2010 to compare the number of public works employees and snow removal equipment and practices across a number of communities. This showed Scandia to have a very small number of employees compared to other cities, particularly when comparing the miles of roads to be maintained. Based on our knowledge of staffing in other 6/9/11 for 6/14/11 Wark Session Page 11 of ll communities, we believe Scandia is extremely lean and has been very conservative about hiring staff for all purposes. Attachments: 1. New Scandia Township/City of Scandia Building Pecmits, 1999-2010 2. Position Description,Building and Code Enforcement Official(March 20,2007) 3. Position Description,Building Official/Maintenance Supervisor(June 15,2010) 4. Survey of Public Works Staffing&Equipment for Snow Removal,2010 New Scandia Township/City of Scandia Building Permits, 1999-2010 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Number of Permits by Year Single Family New 28 21 31 33 33 30 35 15 7 5 8 8 AllPermits 136 133 162 161 193 158 180 128 129 268 189 154 Valuation $7,235,236 $5,939,288 $9,413,280 $10,090,979 $14,838,291 $13,000,251 $16,049,295 $7,823,607 $4,524,821 $4,597,134 $3,145,364 $3,971,068 FeeS(excluding State Surcharge) Permit Fee 58,746 47,452 72,390 80,001 110,700 94,574 114,817 59,963 31,623 37,620 29,013 37,942 Penalty 154 125 0 287 350 0 1,018 71 0 0 533 378 Other 475 1,325 125 425 475 400 350 1,625 250 5,036 4,057 2,359 Plan Review Fee 32,176 28,673 41,979 47,489 66,195 67,895 68,268 35,458 16,537 13,221 9,097 17,514 Total Permit Fees $91,551 $77,574 $114,493 $128,202 $177,720 $162,870 $184,452 $97,117 $48,410 $55,877 $42,700 $58,193 Cost of Contract Services $69,181 $57,951 $84,109 $103,777 $125,183 $116,737 $134,397 $76,498 $31,448 Township/City Share $22,370 $19,623 $30,384 $24,425 $52,537 $46,132 $50,055 $20,619 $16,962 $55,877 $42,700 $58,193 � ------- - ------------ -- ------ _ _. --_. .�___---- ------------ --------� ____._._ _ _ _�_ i � Permits by Year, 1999-2010 , Permit Fees by Year, 1999-2010 � _---- -----------_--- ---._ _--___.. ---_______ i szoo,000 -- - i 300 : I � � 51ao,000 ----- - 250 �--------- --- --- � $16Q000 �- �.�-- - � ' � $140,000 � --- i 200 - -- - - � , $120,000 --- -- --- � I � 150 I,-- --- - $100,000 �- - -- � i ■Single Family ■Cost of Contract I' � i New $80,� ' - -------- Services � ' 1� ~ $60,000 � - ■Township/City ! i ' •All Permits I i 50 ! $40.000 ,- Share � � ' ; $20 000 � I �I 0 -2 - 1 2 4 -2 --2 7 20 2009 2010 � $p _ _ _ - _ � � I 1 9 9 9 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 � i 1 9 9 9 2000 20012002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 � � ------ --- --J �-------------------------------- -J Approved by City Council, March 20, 2007 City of Scandia, Minnesota POSITION DESCRIPTION TITLE: BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL STATUS: Full-time (40-hours/ week) regular position Normal working hours per personnel policy FLSA Exempt REPORTS TO: City Administrator City Council PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Administer and enforce codes and regulations relating to building construction, remodeling, zoning, subdivision, land development and property maintenance. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: 1. Serve as the Building Official as defined by the Minnesota state building codes, including but not limited to reviewing and approving building construction plans, Issuing permits, conducting inspections, issuing correction and stop work orders, issuing certificates of occupancy, maintaining records, and recommending fee schedules. 2. Serve as the primary contact for the public regarding the Building Code and local codes and ordinances, including providing advice to applicants on approval processes and permitting requirements, and receiving and reviewing application materials. 3. Explain, interpret and provide guidance on all applicable codes to architects, engineers, contractors, developers, residents and others as necessary. 4. Coordinate application review and permit issuance with other governmental agencies (state, county, watersheds, and adjacent municipalities), city staff and consultants. 5. Provide technical advice and recommendations to staff, advisory bodies and the City Council as requested. 6. Monitor construction sites and developments for compliance with erosion control measures, tree preservation, conservation easements, architectural controls and other perFormance standards, as applicable. 7. Monitor conditions of approval, development agreements and financial guarantees for all zoning permits, subdivisions and mining permits. 8. Receive, investigate and document complaints regarding property maintenance, construction and other land-use activities. Page 1 of 3 Printed 6/5/2011 9. Coordinate enforcement actions with city staff(administrator, attorney, engineer, police department) and other agencies. Testify in criminal and civil matters as needed. 10.Prepare reports regarding permitting, inspection and enforcement functions. 11.Develop and maintain application forms, checklists and other materials to inform the public about code requirements and procedures. 12.Perform other duties as assigned. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES: 1. Thorough knowledge of building, plumbing, accessibility, mechanical and general construction codes. 2. Knowledge of applicable federal, state and local laws. 3. Considerable knowledge of building design, construction and contracting practices, including carpentry, concrete and cement and plumbing; knowledge of zoning and subdivision regulations, inspection methods and enforcement. 4. Ability to develop and maintain an accurate understanding of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinances, Subdivision Regulations and other city codes. 5. Skill in evaluating the quality and value of construction and remodeling projects. 6. Mathematical skills as applied to building construction principles. 7. Skill in handling customer complaints and general information requests regarding codes through phone and/or personal contacts. 8. Basic skill level with personal computers and Microsoft Word and Excel spreadsheet software. Ability to learn and use other software as required. 9. Ability to develop and maintain effective working relationships with a wide variety of City personnel and the general public. 10.Ability to occasionally attend meetings or perForm inspection activities on weekday evenings and/or weekends. 11.Ability to deal discreetly with confidential information. 12.Ability to prioritize work responsibilities and effectively utilize time. 13.Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing. EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA: 1. Ensures that all permits issued meet requirements of state and local codes and ordinances. 2. Permits are issued and inspections are performed in a timely manner. 3. Requirements of state laws and local ordinances and policies are met. 4. Records are accurate, current and efficiently maintained with information readily available, and reported in a timely manner. 5. Preparation of required and requested materials and reports is timely, thorough, and complete. 6. Public contacts are courteous and businesslike and the information provided is accurate and timely. Page 2 of 3 Printed 6/5/2011 7. Develops a positive relationship with residents, contractors and others. 8. Performs assigned tasks with minimum direct supervision. 9. Keeps supervisor informed of all significant matters he/she must know to perform his/her responsibilities effectively. 10.Expenditures are within budgetary limits. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Completion of formal recognized course work in building inspection technology and administration or equivalent. 2. Certification as a Building Official by State of Minnesota is required. 3. Certification as Building Inspector and Plans Examiner by I.C.C. or equivalent credentials is desirable. 4. Must be capable of safely performing physical actions necessary to conduct inspections at, above or below ground level of construction sites. 5. Four years of responsible experience in construction inspection, preferably in a municipal government setting, or equivalent education and training. 6. Valid Minnesota Class "D" driver's license. SUPERVISION OF OTHERS: 1. Some direction may be provided to office support personnel. Page 3 of 3 Printed 6/5/2011 Approved by City Council, June 15, 2010 City of Scandia, Minnesota POSITION DESCRIPTION TITLE: BUILDING OFFICIAL/ MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR STATUS: Full-time (40-hours/week) regular position Normal working hours per personnel policy FLSA Exempt REPORTS TO: City Administrator City Council PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: Administer and enforce codes and regulations relating to building construction, remodeling, zoning, subdivision, land development and property maintenance. Provide oversight and work direction for maintenance personnel and contractors to ensure that all city infrastructure (including roads, drainage systems, sewer and water) and facilities (including parks and public buildings) are operated and maintained in good condition. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: 1. Serve as the Building Official as defined by the Minnesota state building codes, including but not limited to reviewing and approving building construction plans, Issuing permits, conducting inspections, issuing correction and stop work orders, issuing certificates of occupancy, maintaining records, and recommending fee schedules. 2. Serve as the primary contact for the public regarding the Building Code and local codes and ordinances, including providing advice to applicants on approval processes and permitting requirements, and receiving and reviewing application materials. 3. Explain, interpret and provide guidance on all applicable codes to architects, engineers, contractors, developers, residents and others as necessary. 4. Coordinate application review and permit issuance with other governmental agencies (state, county, watersheds, and adjacent municipalities), city staff and consultants. 5. Provide technical advice and recommendations to staff, advisory bodies and the City Council as requested. 6. Monitor construction sites and developments for compliance with erosion control measures, tree preservation, conservation easements, architectural controls and other performance standards, as applicable. 7. Monitor conditions of approval, development agreements and financial guarantees for all zoning permits, subdivisions and mining permits. Page 1 of 3 Printed 6/5/2011 8. Receive, investigate and document complaints regarding property maintenance, construction and other land-use activities. 9. Coordinate enforcement actions with city staff(administrator, attorney, engineer, police department) and other agencies. Testify in criminal and civil matters as needed. 10.Prepare reports regarding permitting, inspection and enforcement functions. 11.Develop and maintain application forms, checklists and other materials to inform the public about code requirements and procedures. 12.Coordinate and schedule activities of maintenance personnel and contractors. 13.Provide information on maintenance and equipment needs for annual budget and capital improvement plans. 14.Coordinate safety meetings and training, and oversee inspections of facilities and equipment. 15.Provide feedback and participate in performance reviews of public works staff. 16.Perform other duties as assigned. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES: 1. Thorough knowledge of building, plumbing, accessibility, mechanical and general construction codes. 2. Knowledge of applicable federal, state and local laws. 3. Considerable knowledge of building design, construction and contracting practices, including carpentry, concrete and cement and plumbing; knowledge of zoning and subdivision regulations, inspection methods and enforcement. 4. Ability to develop and maintain an accurate understanding of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinances, Subdivision Regulations and other city codes. 5. Skill in evaluating the quality and value of construction and remodeling projects. 6. Mathematical skills as applied to building construction principles. 7. Skill in handling customer complaints and general information requests regarding codes through phone and/or personal contacts. 8. Basic skill level with personal computers and Microsoft Word and Excel spreadsheet software. Ability to learn and use other software as required. 9. Ability to develop and maintain effective working relationships with a wide variety of City personnel and the general public. 10.Ability to occasionally attend meetings or perform inspection activities or respond to emergencies on weekday evenings and/or weekends. 11.General knowledge of road construction and maintenance practices. 12.Knowledge of subsurface sewage treatment systems and small water systems. 13.Ability to deal discreetly with confidential information. 14.Ability to plan, prioritize and coordinate work responsibilities and effectively utilize time, equipment, materials and personnel. 15.Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing. Page 2 of 3 Printed 6/5/2011 EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA: 1. Ensures that all permits issued meet requirements of state and local codes and ordinances. 2. Permits are issued and inspections are performed in a timely manner. 3. Requirements of state laws and local ordinances and policies are met. 4. Records are accurate, current and efficiently maintained with information readily available, and reported in a timely manner. 5. Preparation of required and requested materials and reports is timely, thorough, and complete. 6. Public contacts are courteous and businesslike and the information provided is accurate and timely. 7. Develops a positive relationship with residents, contractors and others. 8. Performs assigned tasks with minimum direct supervision. 9. Infrastructure and facilities are maintained according to adopted policies. 10.Maintenance workers perform as a team to accomplish objectives 11.Equipment and labor are utilized appropriately, effectively and safely. 12.Keeps supervisor informed of all significant matters he/she must know to perform his/her responsibilities effectively. 13.Expenditures are within budgetary limits. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Completion of formal recognized course work in building inspection technology and administration or equivalent. 2. Certification as a Building Official by State of Minnesota is required. 3. Certification as Building Inspector and Plans Examiner by I.C.C. or equivalent credentials is desirable. 4. Must be capable of safely performing physical actions necessary to conduct inspections at, above or below ground level of construction sites. 5. Four years of responsible experience in construction inspection, preferably in a municipal government setting, or equivalent education and training. 6. Supervisor or lead worker experience is desirable. 7. Valid Minnesota Class E Water Supply system Operator certificate is required. 8. Valid Minnesota Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Inspector certification is desirable. 9. Valid Minnesota Class "D" driver's license. SUPERVISION OF OTHERS: 1. Maintenance Worker, Full-Time (2) 2. Maintenance Worker(s), Seasonal 3. Some direction may be provided to office support personnel. Page 3 of 3 Printed 6/5/2011 Survey of Public Works Staffing&Equipment for Snow Removal,2030 City Pop. Road Miles Number of PW Employees Equipment Circle Pines 5,211 17 5 2-single axle dump trucks w/plow&wings;two-l-ton pickups w/boss V plows Lindstrom 4,600 27 3 FT, 2 FT in summer mow parks 2 single axle plow,front reversible plow w/wing;CAT front end loader w/reversible plow&wing;small bobcat/skid steer w/broom&blade;2 pickups-no plows; 1-ton truck w/plow-not used much anymore 1984 Stewartville 5,842 28 7 FT, 1-PT 1 loader w/12'plow;one-4 wheel drive tractor w/12' plow;2 skid loaders;3 trucks w/plows&wings; 1-ton truck w/plow Arden Hills 9,796 31 8 FT, no PT in winter 2 single axle dump trucks w/plow,wing&sanders; 1 tractor loader w/plow&wing;4 one ton dumps w/front plows&sanders;2 pickups with V plows;several smaller tractors w/attachments for trails&sidewalks Annandafe 3,005 32 4 FT,2 PT on call 2 single axle plow trucks;one loader plow;a leased farm tractor w/plow St. Paul Park 5,293 32 7 FT 1-JD front end loader; 1-tandem dump w/12'two-way plow, 12'side wing under body �, blade,stainless steel sander; 1-single axle dump w/12'two-way plow, 10'side wing ', under body blade,stainless steel sander,2-single axle dump w/1-way plow w/10'side i wing,stainless steel sander; 1-ton dump w/Boss Power V plow and 400 gal. liquid de- i icer sprayer;two-3/4-ton pickup w/Boss Power V plows; 1-Cat skid steer w/quick attach boom-blower; 1-JD 1145 4x4 tractor w/blower Glencoe 5,760 33 3 FT, 2 park guys,haul out downtown two 1-ton pickups for alleys&parking lots;grader w/wing;single dump to sand snow,clear airport runway 2 guys-2 behind grader; 2 single axle dump trucks;loader w/reversible plow&a wing, blows hrs., 15 mi.walking paths(8 guys=8 downtown snow into trucks hrs) Blue Earth 3,395 35 4-FT,3 to 7 PT 2-tandems;2-single axle truck plows;544 JD plow;2 graders, 1 w/a wing, 1 w/a snow gate Jordan 5,418 35 6 FT,4 PT 4-single axle dump trucks w/12'plows,wings&sanders; 1-single axle dump truck w/11'plow&sander;2-544H Deere loaders w/12'plows; 1-5210 JD tractor w/7' blower, broom, &9' plow; 1-1445 JD tractor w/plow,broom,blower for trails& sidewalks; 1-Bobcat Toolcat w/plow, broom,&blower for trails&sidewalks Victoria 6,665 41 8 FT,2PT summer 3—Dump trucks with front plows&wings and sanders; Five 1-ton pickups with plows; 1—Front end loader with plow&wing; 1—Road grader with wing( used as back up or for winging back); 1—Bobcat Afton 2,899 50 6 3 dump trucks; 2 pickups;one ton pickup;4 have sanders \\SERVER\SharedDocs\Departments\Public Works\Salt Shed\Cities Page 1 Survey of Public Works Staffing&Equipment for Snow Removal,2010 City Pop. Road Miles Number of PW Employees Equipment Dayton 5,019 50 3 FT,2 PT 2 tandem trucks;2 front end loaders; 1 grader;2 pickup trucks Orono 7,896 50 7 FT Front End Loader;Grader; 8 Snow Plows Columbus 4,115 54 3 1-tandom w/plow wing&sander; 1-single axle w/plow wing&sander; 1-ton w/plow& Boss V-plow;3/4 ton pickup w/Box V-plow;Cat grader w/12'plow in front,or can mount plow on JD 4441 loader Chisago City 4,718 60 4 FT 1-tandem dump w/plow,wing&beliy blade;2-single axle dumps w/plows&wings;2- pickup trucks w/blades; Bobcat w/snow blower&broom Minnetrista 6,189 60 9 FT 4 tandem trucks; 1 single axle;1 loader;4 one-tons Hermantown 9,318 73 2 FT, 1 PT 3 plow trucks;grader Scandia 4,167 90 2 FT,3 on call 2 plow trucks w/wings-single axle; i-ton pickup w/plow;3/4 pickup w/plow;grader Elk River 23,888 150 8-FT,5 on call tandem&single axle trucks; 1-grader; 1-ton;front end loaders Ham Lake 15,148 157 7-FT,6 on call 4-1-tons w/plows;5-single axle trucks w/plows and wings; 1-tandem w/wing&plow; 1 loader w/plow&wing. \\SERVER\SharedDocs\Departments\Public Works\Salt Shed\Cities Page 2 - 1� ' II � I � � � � Building C�ode Er�or�emet�t Evalua�ior� Report � � � � � � Selections from the review of the Scandia Building Code Er�fioroeme�r�tAger�c�r �2011 Evaluation �� , , ; . ciT�� oF scav��a — ____— Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule(BCEGSTM') OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 111 NORTH CANAL STREET SUITE 950 CHICAGO,IL 60606-7270 � TEL:(312)930-0070 (S00)444-4554 FAX:(312)930-0017 -__�_ � ��t�� May 23, 2011 CI1-Y OF SCA�!D!A Ms. Anne Hurlburt City Administrator City of Scandia ' ,. �S� 14727 209�' St. '�� `�'�' � �� , Scandia, MN 55073 ��t`�( �-j,� ��t�� RE: Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (�@°)�1�� - � Scandia,Washington County, MN �°' Dear Ms. Hurlburt: We wish to thank you and Steve Thorp for the cooperation giv n to our representative, Nola Lebrecht,during our recent survey. We have complete our analysis of the building codes adopted by your community and the efforts put forth t erly enforce those codes. The resulting Building Code Effectiveness Grading Classification s 99 r 1 and 2 family residential property and 5 for commercial and industrial property. The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) is an insurer-supported organization with the primary mission of providing advisory insurance underwriting and rating information to insurers. There is no requirement that insurers use our advisory material. Insurers may have adopted, or may be in the process of adopting, an ISO insurance rating program that will provide rating credits to individual property insurance policies in recognition of community efforts to mitigate property damage due to natural disasters. These insurers may use the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Classification we have recently developed for your community as a basis for the credits used. While individual insurers may use different credits or different effective dates, the ISO program will apply credits to new construction within Scandia that has been issued a Certificate of Occupancy in the year 2011 and forward. We have attached a copy of our report which provides additional information about our classi�cation process and how we have graded various aspects of your community's building codes and their enforcement. We want to highlight the fact that the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule is an insurance underwriting and information tool; it is not intended to analyze all aspects of a comprehensive building code enforcement program nor is it for purposes of determining � compliance with any state or local law or for making property/casualty loss prevention and life safety recommendations. If you have any questions about the Classification that was developed, please let us know. Additionally, if you are planning on any future changes in your building codes or their enforcement, please advise us as these changes may affect our analysis and your community's grading classification. Sincerely, Building Code Department (800) 930-1677 Ext. 6208 Enclosure cc: Mr. Steve Thorp 14727 209"' St. Scandia,MN 55073 � � � � � � �"" � Table of Contents � I�!' �,t� Tab Description � �► Section 1 Executive Summary Section 2 Background Information � Section 3 Code Adoption Section 4 Education, Training and Certification Section 5 StafFing Levels Section 6 BCEGST"" Point Analysis Section 7 Natural Hazards Appendix A Natural Hazard General Information OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � - � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � 1� • � Not all communities have rigorous building codes, nor do all communities enforce their codes with � equal commitment. Yet the effectiveness of local building codes can have a profound effect on how � the structures in your community will fare in a hurricane, earthquake, or other natural disaster. M� Studies conducted following recent natural disasters concluded that total losses might have been as � much as 50% less if all structures in the area had met current building codes. Building-code � enforcement can have a major influence on the economic well-being of a municipality and the safety of its citizens. Insurance Services Office (ISO) helps distinguish amongst communities with effective � building-code adoption and enforcement through a comprehensive program called the Building Code � Effectiveness Grading Schedule(BCEGST"") � ISO is an independent statistical, rating, and advisory organization that serves the property/casualty � insurance industry. ISO collects information on a community's building-code adoption and enforcement services, analyzes the data, and then assigns a Building Code Effectiveness � Classification from 1 to 10. Class 1 represents exemplary commitment to building-code enforcement. � The concept behind BCEGST"" is simple. Municipalities with well-enforced, up-to-date codes � demonstrate better loss experience, and their citizens' insurance rates can reflect that. The prospect of minimizing catastrophe-related damage and ultimately lowering insurance costs gives � communities an incentive to enforce their building codes rigorously. � The following management report was created specifically for Scandia based on a BCEGST"" survey � conducted on 4/22/2011. This report can help you evaluate your communit�s building-code , enforcement services utilizing benchmarking data collected throughout the country. The report is ' designed to give your management team an expanded prospective for dealing with the important issues surrounding effective building code enforcement. This is accomplished through comparisons � of your code enforcement to that of others in your area and state. The analysis goes further to allow � you to compare your jurisdiction to others across the country with similar permit, plan review and inspection activity. ISO thanks you for your participation and we encourage you to take advantage of � the information contained in this report to assist in making decisions regarding the level of code p enforcement best suited for Scandia. � The survey conducted has resulted in a BCEGST"" class of 99 for 1 and 2 family dwellings and a � class 5 for all other construction. More information regarding how this recent survey compares to � previous surveys is located in section 6 of this report. � � � 1 I � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 1 PAGE 1 OF 1 i � . � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � . . . . . . � � intreduction � ISO collects information from communities in the United States on their adoption and enforcement of building codes. ISO analyzes the data using its Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule � (BCEGST"")and then assigns a BCEGST"" Classification number to the community. The classification � number—which ranges from 1 to 1a—measures a jurisdiction's commitment to the adoption and � enforcement of building codes affecting the construction of new buildings. Class 1 indicates the most favorable classfication of commitment to the adoption and enforcement of building codes. � � ISO's commitment to polling each building code enforcement agency on a regular basis is important to the program – periodic surveying helps determine 'rf a community has made any significant I� changes since its last field evaluation. This ongoing effort is designed to re-evaluate each community � at approximate 5-year intervals or sooner if changes indicate a potential revision to the classification � number. � The purpose of this report is fourfold: � 1. To summarize a communit�s scoring under the criterion contained in the BCEGST"" TM � program. 1� 2. To identify opportunities for communities desiring to improve their BCEGST"" classification � number. � 3. To assist a community in understanding how other jurisdictions with similar needs address � building code adoption and enforcement. � 4. To provide hazard mapping information important in planning and developing a sustainable community. M� � Data Collection and Analysis � ISO has evaluated over 7,000 building code enforcement agencies across the United States. In � each of these communities, three elements of building code adoption and enforcement are reviewed. �, These three elements are the administration of codes, plan review and field inspection. � Administration of Codes: !� � ISO evaluates the administrative support for code enforcement within the jurisdiction – the adopted building codes and the modifications of those codes through ordinance, code enforcer qualifications, � experience and education, zoning provisions, contractor/builder licensing requirements, public � awareness programs, the building departmenYs participation in code development activities, and the � administrative policies and procedures. This section represents 54% of the analysis in the BCEGST'" program. � �! � � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 2 PAGE 1 OF 2 � � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � Plan review division: � Consideration is given to determine staffing levels, personnel experience, performance evaluation � schedules, and the level of review of construction documents for compliance with the adopted � building code of the jurisdiction being graded. This section represents 23%of the analysis. � Field inspection: � Consideration is given to determine staffing levels, personnel experience, performance evaluation � schedules, and the level of the agency's review of building construction. This section also represents � 23% of the analysis. � The information necessary to determine the BCEGST"" classification number was collected from the � community building officials through a combination of on-site interviews and completed � questionnaires. � � � � � � � � 1� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1�1 OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 2 PAGE 2 OF 2 � .� � � � • � Jurisdiction: Scandia County:Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � . . . - � . . . . � Recognizing that building codes are continually being reviewed and updated to reflect emerging � technology and best practices, the BCEGST"" program encourages communities to make every effort ' � to adopt the latest edition of one of the building codes without amendments. The program is sensitive to the reality that building code adoption is not always a local issue, nor do the wheels of � progress turn rapidly all the time. To receive maximum BCEGST"" credit for this very important � section a cornmunity must adopt and implement the revised code within finro years of the publication � of the building code. � As detailed in Figure 3-1 below, eight points are the maximum available for the adoption of a building � code. The final calculation to determine a jurisdiction's BCEGST"" class�cation employs the ratio of the points possible and the points earned in the building code adoption section as a factor for all other � points earned in the system. Therefore, a jurisdiction enforcing the latest building code will have a � ratio of 1 and no adjustment will be made to the points earned. A department enforcing a building � code that was published six years prior to the survey date would have a ratio of 6.88/8 or .86 so the jurisdiction would receive credit for 86% of the points eamed throughout the evaluation process. � � Fig 3-1 Criteria for Building Code Adoption Points � If the published date of the listed codes is within 5 years of the date of the grading: � Building Code(s) addressing commercial and /or residential � construction ....................................................................... 8.00 points � If the published date of the listed codes is within 6 years of the date of the grading: � Building Code(s) addressing commercial and /or residential - construction ....................................................................... 6.88 points � � If the published date of the listed codes is within 10 years of the date of the grading: Building Code(s) addressing commercial and /or residential � construction ....................................................................... 2.21 points � � If an earlier edition of the listed codes is adopted: Building Code(s) addressing commercial and /or residential � construction ....................................................................... 0.85 point � � � � � � � � � � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 3 PAGE 1 OF 7 � r � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 �' � For departments surveyed in 2007 the BCEGST"' program uses the following as the latest edition of Building codes available. � �, Fig. 3-2 Latest Edition Available � Publisher Publication Date � � Commercial Buildin Code ICC/NFPA 2006/2006 Residential Buildin Code �CC 2006 � � Fig. 3-3 Building Codes Adopted by Scandia � � Publisher Publication Date Adoption Date � a. Ado ted Commercial Buildin Code ICC 2006 2007 � b. Ado ted Residential Buildin Code ICC 2006 2007 � � The following is the first of many "Benchmarking Information" sections located in this report. The � purpose of the benchmarking information is to provide data ISO has collected in the course of its � evaluations of code enforcement departments throughout the country. The data should not be � considered a standard but rather information which allows you to compare operations in your jurisdiction to those conducted by other jurisdictions with similar conditions. Benchmarking � information will be distinguished from other information in this report by the letter B preceding the � table or figure number and a green Benchmarking Information bar above the table or figure. � . � . � i� Table B 3-4 BCEGST"" points awarded comparison � Adopted Buildin Code � BCEGST"" BCEGST"" Counry State National � Points Points Average Average Average � awarded ossible Commercial Buildin 6.88 8.00 6.74 5.70 5.12 � Residential Building 6.54 8.00 6.73 5.68 5.02 � � � � � � � L� � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 3 PAGE 2 OF 7 � � , �' . � ' � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � Item 108. Additional Code Adoptions: � This section reviews the adoption and enforcement of electrical, mechanical, plumbing, energy, and � wildland urban interface codes. Adopted codes are evaluated by year of publication including amendments and enforcement efforts. Table 3-5 details the criteria for eaming points under this � section. � Table 3-5 Criteria for sub-code adoption points � � If the published date of the listed codes is within 5 years of the date of the grading: � 0.67 point for each of the five subcodes M� If the published date of the listed codes is within 6 years of the date of the grading: � 0.33 point for each of the five subcodes �' If the published date of the listed codes is within 10 years of the date of the grading: � 0.18 point for each of the five subcodes � If an earlier edition of the listed codes is adopted: � 0.004 point for each of the five subcodes � � � � � � M� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 3 PAGE 3 OF 7 � : o � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � For departments surveyed in 2007the BCEGST"" program uses the following as the latest edition of sub-codes available � � Table 3-6 Latest edition of Sub-Codes Available � Type of Code Publisher Publication Date � � Commercial Electrical Code NFPA 2005 Residential Electrical Code NFPA 2005 � Commercial Plumbin Code ICC/IAMPO 2006/2000 �j Residential Plumbin Code ICC/ IAMPO 2006/2000 � Commercial Mechanical Code ICC 2006 Residential Mechanical Code ICC 2006 �' Commercial Fuel Gas Code ICC/ IAMPO 2006/2000 � Residential Fuel Gas Code ICC 2006 � Commercial Ener Code ICC/ASHRAE 2006/2001 Residential Ener Code ICC/ASHRAE 2006/2001 � Commercial Wildland Urban Code ICC/NFPA 2006/2002 � Residential Wildland Urban Code ICC/NFPA 2006/2002 � ASHRAE— American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers � ICC- International Code Council � IAMPO— Intemational Association of Mechanical and Plumbing Officials NFPA— National Fire Protection Association � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 ` SECTION 3 PAGE 4 OF 7 � S. � � ' � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 �' � Table 3-7 Sub Codes Adopted by Scandia � Type of Code Publisher Publication Date Adoption Date � Commercial Electrical Code NFPA 2008 2008 � � Residential Electrical Code NFPA 2008 2008 � Commercial Plumbing Code OTHER 2009 2009 � � Residential Plumbing Code OTHER 2009 2009 � Commercial Mechanical Code ICC 2006 2009 � Residential Mechanical Code ICC 2006 2009 � � Commercial Fuel Gas Code ICC 2006 2009 � Residential Fuel Gas Code ICC 2006 2009 � � Commercial Energy Code OTHER 2004 2009 � Residential Energy Code NFPA 2006 2009 � � Commercial Wildland Urban Code � Residential Wildland Urban Code � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 3 PAGE 5 OF 7 � � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � • s r � � Table B 3-8 additional code adoption � � Type of Sub-Code BCEGST"" BCEGST"" County State National � Points Points Average Average Average awarded possible � � Commercial Electrical 0 0.67 0.55 0.45 0.41 I� Residential Electrical 0 0.67 0.55 0.45 0.41 � � Commercial Plumbing 0.67 0.67 0.28 0.24 0.39 � Residential Plumbing 0.67 0.67 0.28 0.24 0.38 � Commercial Fuel Gas 0.33 0.67 0.28 0.24 0.36 � � Residential Fuel Gas 0.33 0.67 0.28 0.24 0.37 � Commercial Mechanical 0.33 0.67 0.67 0.47 0.41 � � Residential Mechanical 0.33 0.67 0.67 0.46 0.41 i1� Commercial Energy 0.18 0.67 0.37 0.28 0.35 � Residential Energy 0.33 0.67 0.42 0.31 0.35 � � Commercial Urban Wildland 0 0.67 0.22 0.12 0.17 � Residential Urban Wildland 0 0.67 0.23 0.12 0.17 � � � Item 110. Modification to adopted codes: � The BCEGST"" program encourages timely and unmodified adoption of the latest edition available of � the building code. It is not uncommon for a jurisdiction to adopt a code and then modify it in some � way. The most common modifications are administrative, which the BCEGST"" program is not overly � concemed with. Some jurisdictions, however, modify the structural aspects of the code. Modifications are viewed as favorable when the intention is to strengthen the code. Due to the � difficulty and expense of finitely determining the effect on a code of a specific action which weakens � the code, no partial credit is available for this section. Note, however, that due to the formula: (Points credited in section 105 x 0.125 x 4.0) the points awarded for this item are reduced if the latest l� building code is not adopted and enforced. There is a direct correlation befinreen the points earned �, for the adopted building code and the points available for this section. When modification serves to � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 3 PAGE 6 OF 7 � � � � � • � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 II� � weaken the intent or effectiveness of the adopted building code relative to structural aspects or natural hazard mitigation features, no points will be awarded for this section. � � f ! • � � Table B 3-9 Comparison of Points Earned for Section 110 � BCEGST"" BCEGST"' Country State National M!� Points Points Average Average Average � awarded ossible � Commercial 3.44 4 3.37 2.85 2.51 Residential 327 4 3.37 2.84 2.22 � � Item 112. Method of Adoption: � � Updating the adopted codes to the latest code published by a nationally recognized building code development and publication organization within 12 months of the publication of the code is beneficial � for the jurisdiction. It provides the latest and most modem technology for natural hazard mitigation. � This section allows the opportunity to recognize the timely un-amended adoption of a nationally � promulgated building code � : - . . . . . � � Table B 3-10 Points Earned for Timely (within one year of the publication date) Un-Amended Code � Adoption '� BCEGST"" BCEGST"" County State National � Points Points Average Average Average � awarded ossible Commercial Adoption Bonus 0 1 0.03 0.00 0.15 � Residential Ado tion Bonus 0 1 0.03 0.00 0.12 � � � � � � � M� � � � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 3 PAGE 7 OF 7 � a � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � . - . . . . . � The Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule reviews the tools available to a building code � department to determine what level of protection the jurisdiction has decided to offer. In this section � we review the qualifications of the code enforcement personnel. By maintaining highly qual�ed, well trained staff the building code enforcement department is better equipped to encourage the � construction of code compliant buildings. � The BCEGST"" program does not mandate any level of training certification or experience but it does � recognize the technical and evolving nature of construction code enforcement. Therefore, 39%of the � available points in the analysis are dependent on education, training and experience. The evaluation � is much diversified. For instance, credit can be earned for hours of training taken, dollars spent on training, incentives for outside training, and hiring requirements. After review of this information a � building code department may determine that a higher caliber employee or more incentives to current � employees could assist them in performing their duties more efficiently and professionally. � The number of personnel is an important factor when comparing and correlating education and � training. To standardize these numbers this report converts all employees to full time. Therefore a � department with two full time code enforcers the number of employees will be two. If a department has five full time code enforcers and seven part time code enforcers each working twenty hours per � week the department will show as eight and one half employees. � Scandia employs 1.00 code enforcement personnel. This staffing level is equal to one code � enforcement personnel for each 3936.00 citizen or one code enforcement personnel for each 279.00 � permits issued. If the jurisdiction was divided equally, each code enforcer would be responsible for � an area of 39.00 square miles. � Table 41 displays the total and the average number of hours spent in training by code enforcement � personnel in Scandia. Training is broken down into four categories; a maximum of 1.25 points may be earned for the first 12 hours of training in administrative aspects of code enforcement, legal � aspects of code enforcement, and being mentored in code enforcement. The first 60 hours of training � in technical aspects of code enforcement may also earn maximum credit of 4.25 points. To receive the maximum available points in this area each employee must train a minimum of 96 hours per year � and the subject must follow the details above. ISO has developed training logs to assist you in � tracking the training of building code enforcers. The logs can be downloaded from our web site � www.isomitigation.com. � � � � � � � M� � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 4 PAGE 1 OF 5 � � � � �' ' � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � Table 41 Training hours for Scandia � Total hours for department Average hours of training � Administrative 2 2.00 � � Legal 2 2.00 � Mentoring 0 0.00 � � Technical 20 20.00 � � . � . � � Table B 42 Comparison of average hours of training � � Your average Your County Your State National average � hours of training average hours of average hours of hours of training training training � � Administrative 2.00 20.61 21.95 14.58 � Legal 2.00 11.18 14.43 9.46 � � Mentoring 0.00 61.89 45.95 25.00 � Technical 20.00 62.34 62.14 43.22 � � � Building code enforcement departments may choose to emphasize their commitment to training and � education through incentives, such as funding certification, exam fees, and continuing education or - providing incentives for outside training. The following table is broken down for residential and � commercial construction and indicates the incentives provided by Scandia. � � � � � � � M�! � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 4 PAGE 2 OF 5 � � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County:Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 �' � Table 4-3 BCEGST"" points earned by Scandia for training incentives � Commercial Points eamed Residential Points eamed � Department pays for certifications Yes 0.5 Yes 0.5 � and exam fees � � Provides incentive for outside No 0 No 0 training or certification � �, Pays for continuing education Yes 0.5 Yes 0.5 � � . . . � � � Table B 44 Comparison of training incentive points � Commercial ; Residential � County% State % National % ,,. � County% State% National % � � % of Departments that pay for certifications and exam fees � 62.90 70.85 68.18 41.94 42.56 43.96 � � % of Departments that provides incentive for outside training or certification MI� 8.06 9.47 20.49 6.45 5.54 13.22 � % of Departments that pays for continuing education � � 69.35 75.77 71.89 46.77 47.23 46.52 � � � � � � � � � � � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 4 PAGE 3 OF 5 � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � Hiring only certified code enforcement employees or allowing a short probationary period for new � hires to earn their certification are valued practices which elevate the quality and consistency of the � code enforcement process. The following two charts compare yourjurisdiction's policies regarding certification with those of other departments within your county, state and across the country. The � charts represent the percent of plan reviewers and inspectors that held appropriate certification for �, the duties they performed at the time of the latest BCEGST"' survey. 64-5 represents commercial � work and 64-6 represents residential work. � B4-5 Commercial Duties Performed � � 100% � ; � 90% I� -a 80% ', k.'; � ;� 70% y 60% � � 50% i� d 40% � � a 30% � 20% � � 10% 0% � Building Electrical Mechanical Plumbing Fuel Gas � �YourJurisdiction ■County OState ■National � � � B4-6 Residential Duties Performed � � 100% � 90% � � 80% ' � � 70% � 60% � � 50% I� a=i 40% � d 30% � a 20% �;:� � 10% ill� �% ' Building Electrical Mechanical Plumbing Fuel Gas � � �Your Jurisdiction e County �State ■National � � O ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 4 PAGE 4 OF 5 � � ;� � � Jurisdiction: Scandia Counry: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � Requiring certification as a condition of employment is an important factor. However, the evolving � nature of the building technology and the wide variety of situations encountered by plan reviewers � and inspectors dictate the need for continuing education. The following two charts are based on the period of time allowed to complete the required amount of continuing education requirements � for building inspectors in order for them to renew their license / certification. Information in these � charts represents data gathered across the country. � � � 4-7 Building Certification Renewal Period � Commercial � .. . � K �c ::$'y�,� �'>§� �°�'tw��, �' ��' . �� . � ..G� �.a r r � � ♦ � ' � ' _..._,._w. �.:..� ,_ . . ..,a . .. �, z.��....w. �.-- �k�. ., - . «_ �"- � .,: '^-, ,`', . .;'.,_,, r- ,.., ..�.�- ...�^,-�.�.-,�_., � : -•.` � . .. . : . .. � f _�•� ` --.. . , � . {�. ' �"7�-d.•—.-.., - . � t ~_ '�. 4 `g`' 6. . ' ��1' k° �°.�f 1;'�.45"a�p`��' � � � � i � ��"�R. � �"'^+��v. 'L �'i �}n �`. � � --.. _ �� r �^ , �� '----�-....—..�i.�...�� ■1 Year ❑2 Years �3 Years ❑> 3 Years �Not Required � � � � 4-8 Building Certification Renewal Period � Residential M!i —; • � ,� � ��,�s�� .-- �s�,K �' u � �` '�" ��f'� �`� � �,u.��_ _ .. � .. t;' r� '� .r�.ii� / ' � . . ,�� ,,,,.;��Gcat+ � � -� � _'�. 'M �nMs'� ;'%�. � , . � �� f' t:� ��"� t : � � � � :x R '�u.�',.y..,,,...,_ ��'�'�� I � � `` �`�� , _, ;:�� r 'C � � � - .. � .��+�-�t � � � � . I 4 {e��"� Y��. � ' ' ... ' . / .�. :��..;. ,. ;� �. "' I � L . . .. .. . _ . . .—�."`—.9�"_.'._��i'�.. ' . .. -. . � ■1 Year o 2 Years o 3 Years o> 3 Years ■Not Required � � � OO ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 4 PAGE 5 OF 5 � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � . . 1� � One of the most frequently asked questions from community administrators and building officials is: How many inspectors and plan reviewers do we need to supply the desired level of service to � our community? This section will provide valuable information to assist in this vital decision. The � BCEGS schedule uses the following benchmarks to calculate the staffing levels: � • 10 inspections per day per full time inspector � . 1 commercial plan review per day per full time plan reviewer � • 2 residential plan reviews per day per full time plan reviewer � � � These are average numbers of the entire department over the course of a year. Some inspectors � because of the type of work they are assigned will exceed these benchmarks while others will not be able to reach them, the same is true of plan reviewers. The fact is that these benchmarks have � proved to be realistic over the course of surveying 14,000 code enforcement departments. � � However, we realize that your community may have varying circumstances and may want to base � staffing decision on other information. In the following set of charts we have scoured our database to find communities that are of similar size, and population to your community to provide data that �' may be helpful in your decision process. The next key element of staffing decision is the workload; � again we queried our records to find communities with similar number of permits issued, � inspections and plan reviews completed. This data can be useful in further defining your staffing levels. Realizing the some jurisdictions cover vast area while others are metropolitan we did some � calculations and arrived at a unique category of permits per square mile. You may find that this � category affords benchmarking opportunities that take into account workload and travel time for � your inspecting staff. f� � Table 5-1 � Your communi falls into the followin ran es � Po ulation 2,001 - 5,000 � S uare Miles > 38.0 � Permits Issued 201 -500 Number of ins ections conducted 401 - 1,000 � Plan reviews conducted 50 - 150 � Permits er S uare Mile <= 10.00 � � � � 1� � � � �O ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 SECTION 5 PAGE 1 OF 8 � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � � '�` f . .. _ , � � �.a.. _ s t�� m, ��.,. �,p}� ��y x ,�,.� �`„� ��e�:x,�s� ,��.. � - � . ':t �� ` i ,�` �� .�,^��s��i,;�,. .�� . .. ��_ ��^_ :-��„�� ,r_:� .�.,� n�?.� �:n�.n�.�� tc t,�,�a � �`�.� ' ��a� � The information in Charts 65-3 through 65-14 depicts the staffing levels of your jurisdiction along � with the average staffing levels of all the communities that fall within the range for each category � as defined in Table 5 -1. To standardize these numbers this report converts all employees to full � time equivalents. Therefore, in a department with two full time employees the number of personnel will be finro. If a department has five full time code enforcers and seven part time code enforcers � each working twenty hours per week the department is considered to have eight and one half full � time employees. The data is further broken down by the responsibilities of each code enforcer. � For example a department may allocate time as follows: � � Table 5-2 Time Allocation Example I' � � Time allocation Time allocation Time allocation Total calculated employee#1 employee#2 employee #3 employees � Full time 30 hrs er week 20 hrs er week 2.25 � Commercial � Plan Review 40% 5% 0% 0.44 � Residential Plan Review 20% 5% 0% 0.24 �i Commercial � Inspection 35% 80% 10% 0.95 � Residential Inspection 5% 10% 90% 0.56 � � The calculations used to make up the graphs for the example above would be the number of � commercial plan reviews conducted in yourjurisdiction divided by .44 (the number of commercial plan reviewers employed by your jurisdiction). Similarly assuming 732 residential inspections � divided by the number of residential inspectors (.56) returns a workload of 1307 inspections per full � time inspector per year. The calculation for the control group is the same except that the results � are averaged. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � O ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 5 PAGE 2 OF 8 � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � � Chart B5-3 Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities I� Serving Similar Popul�tions � � 350 :� � 300 1� �; 250 "" � � 200 i � � � �.. i"'� 150 ' '"� !!�4�' h,��- . . . �=-r�,:..� . � � 100 � �� 0 � Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per � Commercial Plan Residential Plan Review � �Similar Communities 37.27 317.44 � ■Your Jurisdiction 80 95.32 � I� Chart B5-4 Inspection Staffing Comparison of � Communities Serving Similar Populations � . � 2500 . _ � $ � 2000 � � 1500 � �000 � � 500 � � � � Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per � � oSimilar Communities 572.54 1748.91 ■Your Jurisdiction 2011.43 1984 � � � � � O ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 �i SECTION 5 PAGE 3 OF 8 ,, � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � � Chart B5-5 Plan Review Staffing � Comparison of Communities Serving Similar $quare Miles � � 600 y$ � 500 � �� . � �; � 400 � � ��'� r,� � � 300 A,k'` ,.;:.. � �+� y� +,. . 2�� '�e ��f � ;,� ��;' .: q � 100 � � 0 � Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per � Commercial Plan Residential Plan Reviewer � �Similar Communities g0.48 547.38 � ■Your Jurisdiction 80 95.32 �1 � t�► Chart B5-6 Inspection Staffing Comparison of � Communities Serving Similar Square Miles � � 3500 �° 3000 � 2500 � � 2000 �► 1500 _ ��_' � 1000 � 500 � �.. A � ` Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per � OSimilar Communities 1117.11 3306.88 � ■Your Jurisdiction 2011.43 1984 � � � � O ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 5 PAGE 4 OF 8 � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � � Chart B5-7 Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities � Issuing Similar Number of Permits � � 300 �+ ,_ � � �� 250 �`� �f; � ��- ; t , 200 � : `� � � �`' �� 150 r��' � 100 � �� I�1� �� A': 2. rt� 50 �' rA f� ' •, � O . '�.. ... .� ... � Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per Commercial Plan Residential Plan Reviewer � � �Similar Communities 38.47 291.01 � ■Your Jurisdiction 80 95.32 � � Chart B5-8 Inspection Staffing Comparison of � Communities Issuing Similar Number of Permits � � 2500 � � 2000 ,�: � 1500 `��`':: � e'� W�. � � � �� z - 1000 ' ' � � , �� ,V"� .•Y . . � � �J�� ;,�y,. '� �i:Y: � '`. �.4.. ....... ,� . � � 0 . Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per � � OSimilar Communities 552.44 1686.32 ■Your Jurisdiction 2011.43 1984 � � � � � OO ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 5 PAGE 5 OF 8 � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � � Chart B5-9 Plan Review Staffing Comparison of Communities �' Conducting Similar Number of Inspections � � 250 � 200 � �� " .--� � 150 ��; `' � � 100 '�:� M� � 50 � 0 � Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per � Commercial Plan Residential Plan Reviewer � �Similar Communities 78.88 246.94 � aYour Jurisdiction 80 95.32 � � � Chart B5-10 Inspector Staffing Comparison of � Communities Conducting Similar Number of Inspections i� _ - , � 2500 � �� 2000 ``' � 1500 � � � 1000 - °�; � �:: � 500 � 0 � Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per � oSimilar Communities g24.1 1322.71 � ■Your Jurisdiction 2011.43 1984 � � � �' O ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 �1 SECTION 5 PAGE 6 OF 8 c, � �' ' � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � � Chart B5-11 Plan Review Staffing Comparison of �' Communities Conducting Similar Number of Plan Reviews � � 350 � 300 � � 250 � 200 � � � 150 jl� 100 ' �"�� ;,, 50 I� �� _. 0 � Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per � Commercial Plan Residential Plan Reviewer Revi r � o Similar Communities 90.17 307.93 � iYour Jurisdiction 80 95.32 � � j�j Chart B5-12 Inspector Staffing Comparison of � Communities Conducting Similar Number of Plan Reviews I(�► � 2500 � � ��: � 2000 " �` �. � 1500 � °, � �� : � r �� k�" ', � r kS �j 500 � � � Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per � �Similar Communities 1562.93 2393.42 � eYour Jurisdiction 2011.43 1984 � � � � OO ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 �l SECTION 5 PAGE 7 OF 8 � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � � Chart B5-13 Plan Reviewer Staffing Comparison of � Communities Issuing Similar Number of � ermits Per Square Mile � .,. � _ � 450 , � 400 ' W �:; 350 ��''� ' � 300 � 250 � 200 � 150 � 100 � � 50 .;.: � � Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per � Commercial Plan Residential Plan Reviewer Rviwr � �Similar Communities 81.23 439.16 f� ■Your Jurisdiction 80 95.32 � � � Chart B5-14 Inspector Staffing Comparison of � Communities Issuing Similar Number of � Permits Per Square Mile � 3000 � � 2500 � 2000 � 1500 � � 1000 ��". �I � 500 ��_;� � ;:� � 0 Annual Workload Per Annual Workload Per � � oSimilar Communities 801.44 2503.71 ■Your Jurisdiction 2011.43 1984 � � � � O ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 5 PAGE 8 OF 8 � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � • • • . . � ISO has been surveying and evaluating building code adoption and enforcement in communities � around the country since 1995. To maintain relevant information the BCEGST"' program is � designed to conduct surveys on a 5 year cycle. The information in this section will give you some � insight to trends in yourjurisdiction, your state and across the country. � Table 6-1 details the points your department earned during the most recent survey as well as the � points earned in the previous survey including a comparison of the two. This information may be � used to track local trends or pin-point improvement target areas. � Table 6-1 � Building Code Effectiveness Grading Point Comparison � � Point Tbtals Current Grading Yr: Maximum Previous Grading Yr: � 2011 Points No Difference � Possible Com Res Com Res Com Res � Section I-Administration 34.75 34.84 0 0 34.75 34.84 � of Codes Section 105-Adopted 6.88 6.54 $.00 0 0 6.88 6.54 � Building Codes � Section 108-Additional 1.51 1.66 4.00 0 0 1.51 1.66 Adopted Codes � Section 110-Modification to 3.44 3.27 4.00 0 0 3.44 3.27 � Adopted Codes Section 112- Method of 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 � Adoption � Section 115-Training 5.35 5.35 13.00 0 0 5.35 5.35 Section 120-Certification 12 12 12.00 0 0 12 12 � Section 125-Building � Official's Qualification/Exp/ 2.4 2.4 4.00 0 0 2.4 2.4 Education � Section 130-Selection � Procedure for Building 0.25 0.25 D.SO 0 0 0.25 0.25 Official � Section 135-Design 0 0 2.00 0 0 0 0 � Professionals Section 140-Zoning 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 � Provisions � Section 145-Contractor/ 0.21 0.66 7.00 0 0 0.21 0.66 Builder Licensing&Bonding � Section 150-Designer 0 0 0.50 0 0 0 0 � Licensing Violation Reporting Section 155-Public 2,11 2.11 2.50 0 0 2.11 2.11 � Awareness Programs Section 160-Participation in 0.5 0.5 0.50 0 0 0.5 0.5 � Code Development Activities � Section 165-Administrative 0.1 0.1 0.50 0 0 0.1 0.1 Policies&Procedures � � � O ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 6 PAGE 1 OF 6 �� Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � Building Code Effectiveness Grading Point Comparison (continued) � Point Totals Current Grading Yr: Maximum Previous Grading Yr: � 2011 Po�nts No Difference � Possible � Com Res Cpm Res Com Res � 5eCtion il-Plan Revi�w ' 18.43 16.65 0 0 18.43 16.65 Section 205- Existing � Staffing 7•43 6.65 9.00 0 0 7.43 6.65 Section 210- Experience of � Personnel 1.5 1.5 1.50 0 0 1.5 1.5 � Section 215- Detail of Plan Review 9•5 8.5 11.50 0 0 9.5 8.5 � Section 220- Performance 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 � Evaluation for Quality � Section III-Field 1526 18.9 0 0 15.26 18.9 Ins ectio� � Section 305- Existing 6.48 9 9.00 0 0 6.48 9 � Staffing Section 310- Experience of 3 3 3.00 0 0 3 3 � Personnel Section 315- Manage � Inspection and Re-inspection 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 � activity Section 320- Inspection � Checklist 0 0 2.00 0 0 0 0 Section 325-Special � Instructions 0.9 0.9 1.00 0 0 0.9 0.9 � Section 330- Inspections for 1.08 1.5 1.50 0 0 1.08 1.5 � Natural Hazard Mitigation Section 335-Final �,g 2.5 2.50 0 0 1.8 2.5 � Inspections Section 340-Certificate of 2 2 2.�0 0 0 2 2 � Occupancy � Section 345- Performance Evaluation for C�uality 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 0 � Assurance � Subtotat: 68.44 70.39 100.00 0.00 0.00 68.44 70.39 � The final score is determined by a relationship between Item 105 and the balance of the scoring. � Final Score: 59.82 58.74 100.OA 0.00 0.00 59.82 58.74 � � r -'� r F � z r��=' ��; J "�`� �`°= Y _ �. ., . .,a_ �»�_ ,-e�9'`.�� r .��' . 1 t i��.1� (�a ..i i�5. �� [ .��, ne��, �'� _ i3*',^�,. . . _ � F r,. � � Charts B6-1 through 66-4 compared the points earned by your department to the points earned by � other departments in your state and across the country. The charts are broken down by commercial and residential as well as by section. You may use Table 6-1 as a guide for how �A points are earned in each section. � � �N � � O ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 6 PAGE 2 OF 6 � � � . � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � � M� B6-1 Commercial Points Scored Compared to Your State � � � 35 - b` � 30 .�:" � � � � � � � il� 25 M� 20 � 15 � �� I� 5 � 0 � Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 IA� ❑Your Jurisdiction ■State Jurisdictions � M4� � B6-2 Commercial Points Scored Compared Nationwide � � � 35 l� 30 .. � _ � 25 � 20 � 15 � �� ':y : � 5 � 0 � Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 � ❑Your Jurisdiction ■Nationwide � � � � � � r � OO ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 6 PAGE 3 OF 6 � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � � � B6-3 Residential Points Scored Compared to Your State � � ::,tt. , � 35 � 30 � � 25 � 20 �1 �5 � �� : 4 � ��; 5 �' . � � '� _ � . ` � - �. � � � � Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 � �Your Jurisdiction ■State Jurisdictions � � � B6-4 Residential Points Scored Compared Nationwide � � � 35 � 30 : i� 25 i� 20 i r 15 ; i ' r �� ; � �� 5 , '� :, s � s �. ., � � � � �° �'�:_ �' Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 � � oYourJurisdiction ■Nationwide � � � � � � � OO ISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 6 PAGE 4 OF 6 � � ' ' � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN I� � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � The following four charts represent the variation of classifications uncovered during the many BCEGST"' surveys ISO conducts each year. The charts compare the classification a community M� received in its previous evaluation to the evaluations conducted during the year indicated. � Classifications are broken down by personal (residential)class, and commercial class. The results � are grouped so that the first two charts(6-5 &6-6)represent regions where seismic concerns are the major issue; while the second pair of charts represents regions where hurricane concems represent � the most prevalent natural hazard potential. � Chart 6-5 residential classification variations in the seismic region � BCEGS Pers Class Changes � r�►1 �oo°io "� d so�iQ � �' ,; gp% ■Improv� � o �Regrass � = 40% ;, a Same � V � � a 20% 'z ;w� � 0% � 2004 Pers Zt103 Pers 24}J2 Pers 2Jt71 Pers 2000 Pers � � � Chart 6-6 commercial classification variations in the seismic region � � � BCEGS Coml Class Changes � 1Q0% _ _ _ __ � � „ 80% - x � � �p�/, ■Impr�ove M� ? o � �Regress ^ I as � � AO°Ia �Same u ;,o � a 10% , � �% �' 200a Com� 2C�03 ComE 2�12 Caml 2001 Coml 2000 Coml � � � � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 6 PAGE 5 OF 6 � : a � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � Chart 6-7 residential classification variation in the hurricane region � � BCEGS Pers Class Changes � � 100°/a � 90% d 80°!0 � � 70% V GCI°!a r Improve � o SO°/a �Regress � � 4G% ■Same � � .7414�6 a' C V��O � �O'IG � �� ' 2004 Pers 20J3 Pers "��tlJ2 Pers 2�h?1 Pers 2000 Pers � � � Chart 6-8 commercial classification variation in the hurricane region � � � BCEGS Coml Class Changes fM� � 100% . �% � � �% � 7Q�la � ,_, �po/4 ■Improve � c 5Q°!o �v-. �Regress `^ 40% ■Same � � 30% � " - u$ a 20°!0 � 10% 0% � 2004 Coml 2�3 Coml 2�EJ2 Coml 2CI�1 Com{ 2000 Coml � � � � � � � � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 6 PAGE 6 OF 6 � � � � � • � Jurisdiction: Scandia County:Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � . . � � � Different parts of the country are subject to a variety of potential natural hazards. The map below is an overview of those potentials: � � Map 7-1 � � � Earthquakcs � �: Law fJledium lii�gh � r , Risk Risk Risk • � Tarnaaoes � ' � � �ome Exireme i:,,,,,, Risk Risk � � liurricancs � ,"�.�'� ^ �=I �=mc � _....� . �,..«.e Risk Risk ".+,e,�4� � . � v�+�,�µ. ��. ., �p�. ��,n.c:w��. � �"'��rrerMwU . Q�h C f � � ��" � Vdcana Tsunami � � Risk Risk � � � � � � � In cooperation with AIR (an ISO company) we have prepared the following hazard report using the � municipal building address you supplied during the survey meeting. A full explanation of how to read and interpret the following profiles can be found in Appendix A. � � � � � � � � � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � SECTION 7 PAGE 1 OF 8 � �i � � � i►� a�R woa�owip� � Single Location Hazarc! Profile � Location Name: � Entered Address: 14727 209th Street,Scandia,MN 55073 � � Catastrophe Hazard Infarmation � Matched Address: 14727 209TH ST N, SCANDIA, WASHINGTON Counry, MN 55073 Geocode Match: Relaxed Address � Latitude: 45.250858°North Longitude: -92.778991°East � Warning: � The geocoding engine did not find an"exacY'match for your address.The high resolution of CATStation data makes it important to achieve an"exacY'match for the most accurate results. � Please go back and review the address for errors. � For Catastrophe Hazard only If the address was entered correctly,please use an alternative geocoding website and enter the geocode(latitude and � longitude)in the Location edit page. � � More Maps: -- select a map -- Y�ew�aR Disclaimer Google'"Earth �—._._A_ � . � '�.�� ,��_._._H. . � ti�; ', � �IRI�'[apSeruerT"^ � � 2t�ar» rn ; � . � _.__ .r... � �� r�; � ��.�,5 . ... . � �,w ��pgri,�t t� �`� � �,; � � ' � � � � �� '•;�a;;j�, ��.�' Zaom out � � m2009,AIR Worldwide Corp. � s� �� , , � S --_.. " .. • � � Fiurricane Profile � A Hurricane Profile is not available. � � Severe 7hunderstorn� Frofile Risk � (Percentage Loss) „�, r t�� i:, �t> >s ,7�: �5 4.a a; et�G+r. � 100-year loss level: �.� = ' p�;� � � � � . � „ 250-year loss IeveL• y.•�a�, � � Average Annual Loss: 0.1 % � Relative Risk � (Percentile) u� .. �0 3o re so �:. xa do �� .�o�, � within countY: �� 4;. � < �� within state: ��._,,r; ;�I�� Hazard Information � Tornado: Very High/High Moderate /Low Nery Low � Hail Storm: Very High/High Moderate /Low/Very Low � Straight-line Wind: Ve Hi h High/Moderate/Low Nery Low � � Nearest Historical Tornadoes � Date Distance Intensity � (mi) (Fujita Scale) June 4, 1958 32.67 5 � May 21,1957 23.16 4 � May 6,1965 23.49 4 � June 19, 1951 27.86 4 May 6, 1965 42.11 4 � � Nearest Historical Hail Storms � Date Distance Intensity by � (mi) Average Hail Size , (in) June 19,1988 27.43 >=4.0 � June 14, 1981 25.68 >=4.0 � August 11, 1963 27.11 >=4.0 t July 8, 1966 32.24 >=4.p August 27,1990 44.23 >=4.0 � � Nearest Historical Straight-Line Wind Storms � Date Distance Intensity by � (mi) Average Wind Speed , (mph) July 1,1993 14.72 90-100 � May 23, 1964 37.97 90-100 � July 15,1980 45.36 80-90 May 19, 1975 29.94 80-90 � June 14, 1981 47.59 80-90 � � � Winter Storm Profile Risk � (Percentage Loss) o� � :a li �a Zq 3� �5 aa �s too°ro � 100-year loss IeveL• L,. �3'M:�::. .�; � 250-yearlosslevel: �:.t; . ��,�� Average Annual Loss: <0.1 % � Relative Risk � (Percentile) u^� .� �� 30 sj so �: �o eo 9� :� � within county: ��Mw�t�4..,,:. . ;�'�'��, � within state: r��rrr�r�r. � �:�� Hazard Information � Wind Frequency: Very High/High/Moderate/Low/ Ve Low � Snow Frequency: Very High/High/ Moderate /Low/Very Low � � Earthquake Profile � Risk (Percentage Loss) fl�, � :p ls 2a 2s 3� 3s aa ss toa�, � 100-year loss IeveL• r��...� ;��. � 250-year loss level: �1�r::� . e�� Average Annual Loss: <0.1 % � Relative Risk � (Percentile) �y� „ .o so .� so s� �n e�o s� :� � within county: ��iIAA;:.. ,,�;� � within state: ��,: �� Earthquake Information � CA DOI Zone: Not Applicable � Liquefaction Potential: Data Not Available Landslide Zone: � Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone: Not Applicable � Soil Type: Soft to Firm Rock(stiff soil) � Intensity by Probability of Exceedance(PE): Modified Mercalli Intensity VI VII VIII IX X XI XII � 30 Yeaf PE 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Intensity by Return Period: � Return Period 100 Year 200 Year 250 Year 475 Year Modified Mercalli Intensity 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 � � Fault Information � No significant active fault has been mapped within a 200 mile radius of the address. � � Historical Earthquakes � No significant historical earthquake has been recorded within a 200 mile radius of the address. � Fiaad Profile � Flood Information � Source: Q3 FIRM � Flood Zone: Outside Flood Zone � FEMA Flood Zone: X Flood Zone � Elevation: 750-1000 feet above mean sea level � � � � � • ' Shortest Distance to: � Water Body: More than 5 miles ' 100 Year Flood Plain: 0.8 miles � 500 Year Flood Plain: 0.8 miles � 1 ,��:�a �----�`"N =� - ti�;��, 1 � Ftood 2oaes ATRMapSeruerT"' ' Ur�6:nown[-_ _ p � 0.�tslde`t:� --i QiJT 2oorn Ir� � �� X500 ,.: . � 500-Year! _'SOOIC � , � 1 QQIC �� , � �'�£ !`�. �O /`; 1 ., 1 �w �vv ��r��m��t ta ��`, � 1t?0•y�ur� �', � { 1- \r �4 ey � , � �� - ; �`'�;::;;; �:ovEi � � � � �;,;;:� �gs �`' ' �4R � i._ Fac� � Channet �- � banks � �'� �.�,,;r, �tt5� �cia�tt Uut � �y r ��.�'�DEv � hia d�t� - �� p2009,AIR Worldwide Corp. � s t4 . � � , , .._.. , , , __ ; . , _, 1 ._ _ 1 The data provided in the CATStation Flood Profile is based on Digital Q3 Flood Data compiled by FEMA.The Digital Q3 Flood Data has not been modified in any way by AIR.Digital Q3 Flood Data is developed by FEMA by scanning existing hardcopy Flood Insurance Rate � Maps(FIRM),vectorizing a thematic overlay of flood risk.More information of Digital Q3 Flood Data can be obtained from FEMA Map Services Center. � , The User should note that Digital Q3 Flood Data does not replace existing hardcopy FIRM or Digital FIRM.Digital Q3 Flood Data does not provide base flood eleva6on information and it contains only certain features from existing hardcopy FIRM.Therefore,Digital Q3 1 Flood Data should be used only as a general guide to a particular loqtion's proximity to Special Flood Hazard Areas(SFHAs). � � Terrorism Profile � Terrorism Information � Distance To Nearest Target: 5.9786 miles , Target Type: AIRPORT � ,_ �_ �... - . � �� __.�._._._.. - .r.... ��.' 1 � � Za�im In � _ ___._. � � 1 � � � AIRIv1a��erverT'" � i � � � r111�M11t. � � � � � �' � �' � € , ;yv �; ; �� zoo o t � ; ': � � � ' ,� � � � � fi(� '� m2009,AIR Worldwide Corp. '� � ��i4 ��:. � ' S _ , � This illustration is an aid to understanding the terrorism report information and does not provide an actual representation � of the property. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN �' Survey Date: 4/22/2011 r _. � � � . � - . � . . . F- � AIRProfiler is designed to provide users with vital, peril-specific characteristics of the property 6 location, such as storm surge potential and distance to nearest active fault, as well as risk scores, � which are quick measures of the risk and relative risk associated with the property. � This release of AI RProfiler includes hurricane profiles for all states in the continental U.S. at risk from � hurricanes, as well as earthquake, severe thunderstorm and flood profiles for the forty-eight �, contiguous states. � ` • The Address Profile displays important information regarding the accuracy of the look-up for � the entered address, the geocode of that address and a street map. The Hurricane Profile �' provides hurricane risk information for the location as well as other related hazards including � storm surge potential and distance to nearest historical hurricane track. � • The Earthquake Profile, in addition to showing risk level and ranking, shows susceptibility of �° the location to different hazards. Those hazards include liquefaction, landslide potential, and !iM!� fault zone information. � The Flood Profile provides the proximity of a location to one of five flood zone categories as . �' well as the location's distance to various flood plain boundaries based on FEMA Digital Q3 I�i� flood data. � • The Severe Thunderstorm Profile provides information about risk from tomado, hail, and fM�! straight-line windstorms for a given location, including distance to nearest historical storms � and annual frequency. � Based on the address information provided, AI RProfile�' displays the corrected and standardized � address following USPS� rules and guidelines, as well as the geocode (latitude and longitude), county, and ZIP Code of the location. AIRProfiler performs a look-up in the LOCATIONT"" database. � The hazard is then assessed based on an exact address or ZIP Code match. � AIR's geocoding algorithm, based on the TIGER� geographical database, is used to convert the � location address entered by the user into the corresponding latitude and longitude. Depending on the � address match, either the exact geocode, or the geocode of the appropriate ZIP Code centroid, is � used for assessing the nsk. � � � � � � � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � APPENDIX A PAGE 1 OF 11 � ri1 � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 i� � � The Address Profile also provides a street map of the location. � � Given a location, the loss potential from specific perils is represented by various risk scores. Risk � scores are determined by performing a loss analysis on a typical residential building at that location. The analysis is performed using AIR's state-of-the-art modeling technologies. Note that content and � time element (loss of use) cafcufations are excluded from the analysis. Based on this analysis of the � location, AI RProfile�provides finro sets of scores: �' Risk Scores. The user can obtain indications of risk based on three measures of potential loss: the � 100-year loss level, the 250-year loss level, and the average annual loss. These levels represent, � respectively, the loss likely to occur in one year out of every 100 years, one in every 250 years, and every year on average over a period of many years. The resulting risk scores are expressed in MM� percentage terms, as below: � Very High M� Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk Risk � <5% 5-10% 10-15% 15-20% 20-25% 25-30% 30-35% 35-40% 40-45% >45% M� M� �' Relative Risk Scores. In addition to the risk score of a given location, AIRProfileralso displays the iMi� location's relative risk by county and state. Relative risk ranks the loss potential of a location with � respect to the loss potential of other locations in the county or state. The format of the ranking is based on percentile values from 10% to 100% percent. � � The AIRProfiler�' Hurricane Profile provides users with information about the hurricane risk potential for a specific location. Risk scores for 100-year, 250-year and annual average losses, as well as � relative risk ranking within county and state, are displayed. The profile also displays the following � hurricane risk information: � • Storm surge potential � • Distance to coast � • Elevation � • Terrain/Land use • Intensity and nearest distance to historical storm track for nearest historical hurricanes � � In addition to strong winds and tides, storm surge can pose significant danger to life and property � during hurricanes. Storm surge is caused by winds pushing water toward the shore. When combined � with high tide, storm surge can cause an increase in the mean water level and so result in severe � flooding and substantial property loss. The densely populated Atlantic and Gulf coastlines that lie less than ten feet above mean sea level are particularly vulnerable to storm surge. � �? The AI RProfile�`'Hurricane Report indicates whether or not the property is at risk from storm surge. � � �' OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 �, APPENDIX A PAGE 2 OF 11 � � � � � ° � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date:4/22/2011 � � The AIRProfiler� Earthquake Profile provides users with information about the earthquake risk potential for a specific location. Risk scores for 100-year, 250-year and average annual losses, as � well as relative risk ranking within county and state, are displayed. The profile also displays the � following risk information: � • The California Department of Insurance (DOI)zone #� • Liquefaction potential � • Landslide zone � • Earthquake fault(Alquist-Priolo)zone • Soil type � • Seismicity � • Fault information � • Historical earthquakes � � When seismic waves pass through water-saturated, loosely packed sandy soils, contact pressure between the individual grains is lost. The grains become more densely configured, causing pore M� pressure to increase. If drainage is inadequate, what was once solid ground now behaves as a � dense fluid, incapable of supporting buildings. Structures that may have survived the effects of � shaking can deform, tilt or sink. They may remain structurally intact, but have become unusable and unsalvageable. � � Liquefaction risk at a given site is represented by that site's potential to experience damage resulting from liquefaction. Liquefaction potential is a measure of a soil's susceptibility to liquefaction combined M� with a location's level of earthquake risk. AIR applies standard methodologies used by the Division of � Mines and Geology (DMG), United States Geological Survey (USGS), to calculate liquefaction potential. The AIRProfiler�' Earthquake Profile describes a location's liquefaction potential by one of � five levels: very high, high, moderate, low, or very low. � The underlying soil type may have a determining effect on potential earthquake damage to � structures. Certain types of soils, such as soft soils, are capable of amplifying seismic waves, hence � causing more severe damage. Also, some types of soil, such as bay mud, sandy soil, and stiff to soft � soil, are also more susceptible to liquefaction. Soil is classified according to its mechanical properties. I� The AIRProfile�'Earthquake Profile for a particular location uses ten soil rype classifications: � • Hard rock � • Rock � • Very dense soil � • Stiff soil • Soft soil � • Rock to very dense soil � • Very dense to stiff soil � • Stiff to soft soil • Bay mud Water � � � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � APPENDIX A PAGE 3 OF 11 � � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � One measure of earthquake intensity is the level of ground shaking at any particular location. Over � the years, several intensity scales have been proposed, but the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) � scale is the most commonly used, especially in the United States. The MMI scale describes the � intensity of an earthquake based on human reaction and observed damage to natural and man- made structures. This is useful because it allows for an attribution of intensity to events that occurred � prior to the advent of modern measuring devices, as well as in instances in modern times where � those devices were not available. The drawback to this standard of ineasure is that the MMI scale is highly subjective. The following table lists the MMI scales and definitions. � � MMI Definition � I. People do not feel any movement. � II. A few people might notice movement if they are at rest and/or on the upper floors of tall � buildings. � III. Many people indoors feel movement. Hanging objects swing back and forth. People � outdoors might not realize that an earthquake is occurring. � IV. Most people indoors feel movement. Hanging objects swing. Dishes, windows and doors rattle. The earthquake feels like a heavy truck hitting the walls. A few people outdoors may � feel movement. Parked cars rock. �' V. Almost everyone feels movement. Sleeping people are awakened. Doors swing open or � close. Dishes are broken. Pictures on the wall move. Small objects move or are turned over. � Trees might shake. Liquids might spill out of open containers. � VI. Everyone feels movement. People have trouble walking. Objects fall from shelves. Pictures fall off walls. Furniture moves. Plaster in walls might crack. Trees and bushes shake. � Damage is slight in poorly built buildings. No structural damage. � VI I. People have difficulty standing. Drivers feel their cars shaking. Some fumiture breaks. Loose � bricks fall from buildings. Damage is slight to moderate in well-built buildings; considerable in poorly built buildings. � VIII. Drivers have trouble steering. Houses that are not bolted down might shift on their � foundations. Tall structures such as towers and chimneys might twist and fall.Well-built � buildings suffer slight damage. Poorly built structures suffer severe damage. Tree branches break. Hillsides might crack if the ground is wet. Water levels in wells might change. � IX. Well-built buildings suffer considerable damage. Houses that are not bolted down move off � their foundations. Some underground pipes are broken. The ground cracks. Reservoirs � suffer serious damage. � X. Most buildings and their foundations are destroyed. Some bridges are destroyed. Dams are � seriously damaged. Large landslides occur. Water is thrown on the banks of canals, rivers, lakes.The ground cracks in large areas. Railroad tracks are bent slightly. � XI. Most buildings collapse. Some bridges are destroyed. Large cracks appear in the ground. �, Underground pipelines are destroyed. Railroad tracks are badly bent. � XII. Almost everything is destroyed. Objects are thrown into the air. The ground moves in waves � or ripples. Large amounts of rock may move. � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � APPENDIX A PAGE 4 OF 11 � ■ � � � • � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � � The data presented in AIRProfile� is developed by calculating MMI values for each location. It � incorporates all potential seismic sources, the distance of those sources from the location of interest, � and local site conditions. Because MMI is considered as a measure of what the ground is doing during an earthquake, rather than an index of damage to structures, damageability of building at the � site is not included in the calculation. Those who are more interested in damage estimation should � refer to 100- and 250-year loss levels. � The MMI values are represented in finro ways in the Earthquake Profile: � • Intensity by PE (probability of exceedance) � • Intensity by Retum Penod � � The first representation, defined by probability of exceedance, is the probability that at least one � event of that MMI will occur within 30 years. The second representation, based on return period, � depicts the maximum intensity of an event that is likely to occur within the designated return period; that is, the intensity corresponds to the maximum event that is likely to occur within the return period � displayed. � Proximity to an active fault is an important indication of seismicity for a specific location. The � AIRProfile�' Earthquake Profile displays the property's distance to the nearest known active � faults. Important characteristics of these faults are displayed, including fault length, and the � magnitude and frequency of the "characteristic" event associated with that fault. (Scientists believe that many faults tend to produce earthquakes of a particular size, or magnitude, that � is "characteristic" of that particular fault, and that occur with a particular frequency, or � recurrence rate). � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � APPENDIX A PAGE 5 OF 11 � � � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � The AI RProfiler�' Flood Profile provides users with information about the flood risk potential for a q'_ specific location. Each location is characterized by its proximity to one of five flood zone categories as � follows: � � • Water body: Includes large lakes and rivers • 100-year flood plain:Areas where there is 1% chance of being flooded � • 500-year flood plain: Areas where there is 0.2% chance of being flooded � • Outside flood plain: Areas outside of water body, 100-and 500-year flood plains � • No data:Areas where there is no data available � � The proximity of the location to FEMA defined flood zones is also provided: � FEMA Description � Zone � V An area inundated by 100-year flooding with velocity hazard (wave action); no BFE*s � have been determined. � VE An area inundated by 100-year flooding with velocity hazard (wave action); BFEs have been determined. � A An area inundated by 100-year flooding,for which no BFEs have been determined. � AE An area inundated by 100-year flooding,for which BFEs have been determined. � AO An area inundated by 100-year flooding (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain),for � which average depths have been determined; flood depths range from 1 to 3 feet. � AOVEL An alluvial fan inundated by 100-year flooding (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain), � for which average flood depths and velocities have been determined; flood depths range from 1 to 3 feet. � AH An area inundated by 100-year flooding (usually an area of ponding),for which BFEs � have been determined;flood depths range from 1 to 3 feet. � A99 An area inundated by 100-year flooding, for which no BFEs have been determined. � This is an area to be protected from the 100-year flood by a Federal flood protection system under construction. � D An area of undetermined but possible flood hazards. � AR An area inundated by flooding, for which BFEs or average depths have been 1 determined. This is an area that was previously, and will again, be protected from the � 100-year flood by a Federal flood protection system whose restoration is federally funded and underway. , X500 An area inundated by 500-year flooding; an area inundated by 100-year flooding with � average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; or r an area protected by levees from 100-year flooding. � X An area that is determined to be outside the 100-and 500-year floodplains. � 1001C An area where the 100-year flooding is contained within the channel banks and the channel is too narrow to show to scale.An arbitrary channel width of 3 meters is �1 shown. BFEs are not shown in this area, although they may be reflected on the l� � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � APPENDIX A PAGE 6 OF 11 � W � � � • � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � corresponding profile. � 5001C An area where the 500-year flooding is contained within the channel banks and the r channel is too narrow to show to scale. An arbitrary channel width of 3 meters is shown. � FWIC An area where the floodway is contained within the channel banks and the channel is � too narrow to show to scale. An arbitrary channel width of 3 meters is shown. BFEs � are not shown in this area, although they may be reflected on the corresponding profile. � FPQ An area designated as a"Flood Prone Area"on a map prepared by USGS and the � Federal Insurance Administration. This area has been delineated based on available � information on past floods.This is an area inundated by 100-year flooding for which no BFEs have been determined. � IN An area designated as within a"Special Flood Hazard Area"(or SFHA)on a FIRM. � This is an area inundated by 100-year flooding for which BFEs or velocity may have � been determined. No distinctions are made between the different flood hazard zones � that may be included within the SFHA. These may include Zones A, AE, AO, AH, A99, AR, V, or VE. � OUT An area designated as outside a "Special Flood Hazard Area"(or SFHA)on a FIRM. � This is an area inundated by 500-year flooding; an area inundated by 100-year � flooding with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; an area protected by levees from 100-year flooding; or an area that is � determined to be outside the 100-and 500-year floodplains. No distinctions are made � between these different conditions. These may include both shaded and unshaded � areas of Zone X. ANI An area that is located within a community or county that is not mapped on any �' published FIRM. r UNDES A body of open water, such as a pond, lake, ocean, etc., located within a community's � jurisdictional limits, that has no defined flood hazard. r *BFE = Base Flood Elevation � . r The Flood Profile provides the shortest distance of the location to the various flood plain boundaries. Three types of distance measurement is provided: � � • Shortest distance to the boundary of water body ! • Shortest distance to the boundary of 100-year flood plain • Shortest distance to the boundary of 500-year flood plain � � � � � �' � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � APPENDIX A PAGE 7 OF 11 � � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � � The following map illustrates the way distance from flood plain boundaries are calculated: � � t00 Y�ar Fbod Plaln 600 Yaar Floodl Plai� Boundary Boundaryr � ,, s ; •w� � �� a . a � } � ��t,�� 4,� tS � �' � b 1 S{?,.`��FJ � M1 f� �� / � ��M�x i ��:� � � �+� . . , �� ` �t� � � � �'� � a�� d il` � �� j �` ;.3 ! � ' r � . . �� f��.��; �'r N�_� y. �� i�f � � ��, ! ',.:a � ' � � � . ,. _ .. .. � f � � � The AI RProfiler� Severe Thunderstorm Profile provides users with information about the severe � thunderstorm risk potential for a specific location. The Severe Thunderstorm Profile includes risks due to tornado, hail, and straight-line wind. Risk scores for 100-year, 250-year and annual average � losses, as well as relative risk ranking within county and state, are displayed. The profile also displays � the following risk information: � Annual Frequency � This field represents the annual frequency of occurrence for tornado, hail, and straight-line � windstorms. A qualitative description of the frequency(very high, high, moderate, low, or very low) is � displayed. � Historical Severe Thunderstorms � � In this section of the Severe Thunderstorm Profile, AIRProfiler identifies information on the five most severe tornado, hail, and straight-line wind events within 50 miles of the given location. The following � characteristics are displayed: year, date, distance from location, and intensity. The description of � intensity varies by peril. For tomadoes, the Fujita scale is used. The intensity of hailstorrns is measured by average hailstone size and the intensity of straight-line windstorms is derived from a �' measurement of maximum wind speed. � � 02005 AIR Worldwide Cor�oration.All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part on any medium without the express wHtten � permission of AIR Worldwide Corporation. � Send questions or comments about this web site to airprofiler@air-worldwide.com Version 2.2.1.20040326 � AIR Worldwide Corporation Privacv Policv � Conditions of Use(6) � �' OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � APPENDIX A PAGE 8 OF 11 � � � � ' � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � A description of the listed hazards follows: � A. Brush and Forest Fires: Areas with heavy vegetation and a dry season can be subject to � forest and brush fires. Local building and zoning regulations address this hazard in some areas of the country. Buffer zones which are free from brush and other fuel sources, as well � as the use of fire resistive exterior siding and roofing can be utilized to mitigate this hazard. � B. Earthquake: Earthquakes are caused by a tension release from the earth's tectonic plates � that causes the ground to shake or vibrate. Most casualties associated with earthquakes are � caused by structural failures in buildings and fires caused from electrical shorts and gas � leaks. All of the model codes have seismic zones where buildings should be constructed to withstand at least a moderate earthquake. The codes are currently geared towards avoiding � a structural collapse. This is a life safety issue and a building can still sustain enough � physical damage to render it unusable after the earthquake occurs. Since 1900 earthquakes � have occurred in 39 states and caused damage in all 50. � C. Floods: Floods are one of the most common disasters in the United States, and cause � damage to thousands of structures annually. Floodplain construction is addressed in most building codes and many zoning regulations. Flood mitigation is addressed through the !� National Flood Insurance Program which provides insurance credit incentives for complying � with FEMA regulations. Flood as a hazard falls outside the scope of the BCEGS program. � D. Hail: Consists of icy pellets of various sizes that are usually associated with thunderstorms � or tomadic activity. Large hail can cause substantial damage to roof surfaces. In a typical � year the insurance industry pays out $1.5 Billion in hail damage claims. In rare cases hail has caused structural damage and building collapses. Building codes usually do not address � potential damage from hail. � E. High Winds: High strait line winds can occur anywhere in the United States and are caused � by pressure and temperature variances in the Earth's atmosphere. High strait line winds are � common in thunder storms, in the open plains were there are no obstructions to slow down the wind, in mountainous areas from upslope and downslope wind effects, on the East Coast � from "Northeasters", and on the Pacific Coast from Santa Anna winds. Model Code groups � have formulated maps based on 50 year mean recurrence intervals. The model codes � currently apply the concept of"fastest wind speed" which is determined by an anemometer 33 ft. above the ground in open terrain. The anemometer measures the time it takes for one � mile of air to pass its location. Wind maps are not based on potential maximum wind gust, � but on"fastest wind speed,"which has created confusion in media coverage of storms. � F. Hurricane: This is a tropical low pressure system with a circular wind rotation of 74 mph or � greater usually accompanied by rain, lightning, and sometimes tomadoes. These storms � have the ability to travel inland for hundreds of miles, maintaining hurricane force winds. � G. The Saffir-Simpson scale is used to rate the strength of a hurricane from 1 to 5 with 5 being � the most severe. The Saffir-Simpson scale uses wind speed and storm surge to rate the hurricane's strength and potential for devastation. Model codes have addressed the � probability of hurricanes by creating wind zones that range from 110 mph on barrier islands to �, 70mph inland. Structures must be designed and built to compensate for the potential � � OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � APPENDIX A PAGE 9 OF 11 � � � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County:Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 � � additional stress placed on structures by the wind in these zones. The structural designs must take into account both Positive and Negative Wind Loads. Roof systems must be � anchored to the wall systems to resist the wind loads. The wall systems must also be � strapped or bolted to the foundation and footing system to create a continuous resistive system. Building codes also address the potential storm surge for coastal construction, by ' � requiring structures to be elevated on pilings. � � H. Landslide/mudflow/debris flow: This hazard is more common in, but not limited to mountainous areas. Earthquakes and heavy rains cause landslides. Mudflows and debris � flows can be caused by heavy rains as well as volcanic eruptions in areas with snow and ice � present. This is usually a localized occurrence, and is more of a zoning than a building code issue. � � I. Lightning: All states are subject to lightning in varying degrees. Lightning rods can be � installed on structures in high probability areas, but most building codes do not address when lightning rods are required. In a typical year the insurance industry pays out over$1 Billion in � residential lightning damage claims. � J. Snow Loads: This is a concern in snow belt areas in northern states and in mountainous i(� areas. There are snow load maps created by the model code groups that address this �j situation. Some areas require a minimum roof pitch and higher design factors to compensate for the additional weight imposed on roofs by snow. � � K. Soil Liquefaction: This is a seismic concern. There are some soil types which, in the � presence of a high enough water table, will take on the physical properties of a liquid when shaken by an earthquake. Buildings constructed in areas subject to liquefaction need to be � designed to reduce or eliminate the possibility of uneven settling or tilting during an � earthquake. I� L. Soil Subsidence: This is the shrinking or settling of soil due to its composition. Some soils � compact or shrink excessively and this could cause foundation failure if not compensated for � by foundation reinforcement. Some areas are subject to sink holes. These are typically caused by lime deposits being dissolved by underground water. � � M. Swelling Soils: This is common in clay based soils that do not drain well and needs to be compensated for by foundation reinforcement. Footings or foundations placed on or within � expansive soils need to be designed to resist differential volume changes to prevent � structural damage to the supported structure. As an alternative to special design the soil can be removed and replaced or stabilized. � �, N. Tornado: Tornadoes are formed from mesocyclones or supercell thunderstorms. � Tornadoes can strike in many places in the United States, but the greatest probability of tornadic activity is in a corridor from Texas to Wisconsin known as tomado alley. They occur � usually in the spring or fall of the year during the late aftemoon when the atmosphere is least � stable. Tornadoes are measured by the Fujita Scale (F-SCALE), which measures the wind speed and damage potential. The scale ranges from FO to F5 with F5 being the most severe !� storm. Damages from a direct hit by the strongest tornadoes cannot be mitigated, but the � � 1� OISO PROPERTIES, INC 2005 � APPENDIX A PAGE 10 OF 11 � r � � � � Jurisdiction: Scandia County: Washington State: MN � Survey Date: 4/22/2011 �� collateral damages that occur in surrounding areas can be reduced. The wind provisions of the model codes can help to limit damages from the most common, weaker tomadoes. � � O. Tsunamis: (tidal wave) These are large sea waves usually caused by earthquakes or � volcanic eruptions, and are most common in the Pacific Ocean. The potential devastation of a Tsunami is enormous, but little is being done to mitigate this hazard. Several Pacific Coast � States have enacted zoning regulations to prevent schools and hospitals from being built in � low areas subject to tsunamis. �1 P. Volcanoes: There are numerous dormant and active volcanoes in the Western United � States, and the potential danger is catastrophic near these volcanoes. Collateral damage could occur for hundreds of miles. Building codes can do little to address this danger, but � some areas require additional roof structure design to compensate for volcanic ash load. � Zoning restrictions are a more viable means of mitigation. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � OISO PROPERTIES, tNC 2005 � APPENDIX A PAGE 11 OF 11 � r