City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals Meeting

August 29^th, 2013 minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Dan Wethington, Sean Reardon, Neal Ezell, Micah Kimball, Dennis Odgers
MEMBERS ABSENT:	None
STAFF  PRESENT:	Katherine Simmons – Plans Examiner, Barry Walthall – Building Codes Administrator, Kurt Schroeder – Assistant Director Development Services.
Guess Present :	Bobbie Flory, Aron Cromwell, Eileen Horn
Ex-Officio	Adrian D. Jones – Senior Plans Examiner
Attachments:	1. Solar project fee report 2. Solar photovoltaic memo notes 3. Solar fee change request 4. Solar lease program brochure 5. Email from Scott White to Building Code Board of     Appeals

Meeting called to order 11:07

Minutes

Wethington noted the minutes from the meeting on 3-15 will be reviewed at the next Board meeting.

Review proposed permit fee change for installation of solar photovoltaic systems

Wethington asked if there was a presentation.

Walthall stated that he would start with a brief staff presentation. Then the board could hear from the proponent of the changes and any others that might support or oppose the changes.

Walthall stated currently, the way fees are calculated is based on project valuation, which includes the cost of equipment.  For these types of installations, that may not reflect a reasonable fee. The cost of equipment can be significant.  For plan review and inspection, the cost of that equipment may not be entirely relevant to the fee being assessed and the cost of services provided.  Staff feels the review of these installations, as far as the review of plans go, is not necessarily complex, difficult or time consuming.  Similarly the inspection of the installation is not a situation where there are many trips being made by inspection staff.  Many times it may be only a single trip. The fee that staff proposes is a $65.00 flat fee.  The reasoning behind that fee is similar to several other fees charged by the department.  Staff has done previous studies for other types of permits and other types of fees and found that it can be compared very similarly to fees like contractor license fees, mechanical permit fees for residential installations, for which reviews are brief and inspections are few. It’s basically a minimum cost for the department to handle an application, so it reflects what we do for other situations that are very similar.  

The recommendation is to establish a standardized fee of $65.00 for standalone solar panel installations.  That would not apply to a construction project where solar panels are incorporated into a larger project.  If it’s a standalone project, we are not differentiating between residential or commercial.  We think that would be simpler for staff and customer as well.

The actual change to the code would be a change to the permit fee schedule. It would add an item F under “Other” in the inspection fee table: “Stand Alone Solar Panel Projects - $65.00”.

Wethington asked Walthall about the labor cost to inspect one of these types of installations. What do the inspectors look for in the field?  

Walthall said that basically it’s an electrical inspection. We are looking at the alteration to the electrical service. The inspector would check the alternate power switch and the way that’s configured. There might also a check of the roof attachment system.

Reardon said he keeps reading about the high cost of installations. He asked Walthall what was the average cost of a typical installation. If the average cost of a residential furnace installation is $3,500, what is it about the cost of these installations that kicks it out of the norm?   

Walthall asked Cromwell if he could give more detail on equipment cost.

Cromwell said that for a residential system, the cost was in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. On a commercial system, the cost would be dependent on the size of the system, so it could go up to any amount.    

Wethington noted that a $25,000 project valuation would result in a permit fee of $400, so the amendment would reduce the fee from $400 to $65.

Odgers asked if the larger systems were substantially different than the smaller ones. Was it just a larger array? Were the connections to the electrical systems basically the same?

Cromwell said the connections to the electrical system were identical. There might be multiple inverters that convert the power from DC to AC and sync up with the grid, but ultimately, from the inspection point of view, we’ve got a disconnect and a connection into the electrical system of the building. There is only one connection to the building no matter the size of the system. There is absolutely no difference between a small residential system and a larger one. And there is almost no difference between a small residential system and a fairly large commercial project.   

Jones asked if there was a difference in the weight of systems and the roof attachments. He noted that additional engineering would be involved for larger systems.

Cromwell said that as the systems get larger, the weight per square foot doesn’t change much. On larger systems, the entire mass might be significantly greater. The system is actually very light. The framing is all aluminum with stainless steel bolts and connections; this adds up to about a couple of pounds per square foot on average. The building is designed to handle a certain amount of flex, so the weight of the system shouldn’t be an issue.  The only time we have a concern regarding structural elements is on very old buildings.

Wethington asked: At what point in time does a system become large enough in a commercial application that it could cost more than $65 to review and inspect?

Walthall replied that historic structures are going to require some additional review and additional details on the engineering. He doesn’t believe the number of projects of that scope are going to be significant.

Wethington said if you cover the roof of Amar Garage Doors that would be significantly different than a residential installation. The proposed amendment would not differentiate between the two types of installations. It’s obviously going to cost the city more than $65.00. He just wants to make sure that if Cromwell ties into a big project then the fees will cover the cost.  

Reardon suggested some type of language that would cover those special situations.

Walthall said one solution might be to insert the word residential into the proposal. It could be something that we for now take forward as is. Staff is going to do an annual report on the fee schedule for the Commission. We may want to revisit that for those larger projects at the next annual review.      

The other point he would like to make is if a project is going to take that kind of engineering work, it may remove it from the scope of a standalone permit.

Cromwell said he would recommend that on commercial projects the city require a stamped set of engineered plans.

Wethington asked Cromwell if that was something that came with his package even on a residential installation.

Cromwell replied that in his opinion, that would be overkill on a residential system. Once you get into larger sized systems, an engineered design would be the norm.  It would remove some of the burden of plan review staff to require an engineered stamp. That’s when you get into the issue of structure and weight.

Walthall said those project that involve structural elements may require inspection by a third party special inspector as well.

Horn asked if the amendment could differentiate between solar photovoltaic and solar hot water. The latter would be more of a plumbing inspection than an electrical inspection.

Walthall said he thought that the two types of systems would be compatible. He would not have a problem considering that to be a solar installation. The effort put into the plan review and inspections would be similar.

Wethington asked if the hot water generating panels were significantly heavier than the solar photovoltaic.

Cromwell said they were heavier. Copper pipes filled with water. Each panel may weigh as much as a couple hundred pounds

Wethington expressed concerned about the structural concerns of the added weight of solar hot water systems. 

Kimball asked: If there were structural modifications necessary, or if it is an historic structure, is the threshold the board discussed earlier for an increased fee or a building permit, or for an electrical permit?

Walthall said if the structure had to be altered, then it would no longer be a standalone permit.

Kimball said at that point it would be a building permit and that could be the threshold.

Wethington asked if that threshold needed to be written into the amendment.

Jones said for most commercial solar permits, engineered electrical and structural calculations were required. If the engineer determined structural modifications were necessary, then a building permit would be required and the scope of the work would include the structural work and solar installation.

Reardon asked: If the project required $2,000 worth of structural work, would the permit fee be $65.00 for the solar work and the remainder based on a $2,000 project valuation?

Jones said we typically would not split a permit in that fashion.  

Walthall said we would not typically do that but that could be considered. That’s another situation where we could look at it as part of an annual review of the fees. If we were running into it on a regular basis, we could review it at that time. We could modify the recommended fee schedule to reflect that as well.

Wethington asked if there were any other questions.

Jones said that he would like to bring to the attention of the Board an issue with other building projects with similar simplified reviews or inspections. Jones said that if the reasoning for a reduced fee is based on a non-complex review and inspection, then there are other projects that would fall into that scope. The projects that come to mind are rooftop change outs, electrical service or boiler replacements. Other trades might petition their respective boards for fee reductions.

Wethington agreed and added that was the process and how it worked in this instance.  

Reardon added that those respective interested parties could go to their Boards and request a reduction. The Solar industry has made an effort and the Board has reviewed the request.

Ezell asked if he was to build a $200,000 house and he put $50,000 worth of solar panels on the roof, is the building valuation going to include the $50,000.

Jones noted the building permit system has built into it a method used to calculate a project valuation based on a cost per square foot. That cost is based on a national average with a regional modifier.  If the application valuation is way under the calculated amount, the valuation is adjusted up. If the application valuation exceeds the calculated amount then the application valuation is used.  Higher application valuations often reflect higher quality level of finish work and materials. 

Ezell said it was his belief that the county did not charge property tax on renewable energy installations.

Cromwell confirmed and expanded that currently the only incentive allowed by the state of Kansas is for solar installations.  If the county became aware of a new deck or bathroom remodel they could increase the value of the home. But if they saw new solar panels on the roof under state law they could not increase the value of the home.

Ezell said that seems to set a precedent for allowing a reduced fee for solar as opposed to heating and cooling equipment. If you have to base the reduced fee on something, it would be much easier to base it on valuation.

Wethington asked Ezell if he would base the permit fee based on the $200,000 house then tack on an additional $65 based on solar.

Ezell replied if the solar required any additional inspection.

Kimball said that he thought the board should find a way to encourage the installation of solar systems. Some jurisdictions waive the fees entirely.  The $65 covers the cost of the reviews and inspections.  If the installation becomes cost prohibitive because of the fees, then he feels that’s a detriment to the community.

Cromwell said actually he didn’t believe in removing the fees because he’s sat on the other side of that table and thinks that you have to cover the cost of review and inspection.      

Bobbie Flory said that she represented the Lawrence Homebuilders Association. Her association appreciates Walthall’s review of the fees and feels the City should assess what their costs are.  They are glad to hear that Aron is not asking that fees be waived completely because that would cause those costs to be dispersed to other fee payers, and the Homebuilders Association would definitely object to that. The Homebuilders Association supports this change to the fees, but would like to know when the annual review of the fees will occur so they can track results of the changes.  This change is not for just one contractor. These fees are set for others as well, and the Homebuilders Association would like to see if the fee seems appropriate and have the opportunity to request adjustments if necessary.

Walthall said the annual review is part of the annual report of fees. That occurs in March.

Wethington asked if the wording as proposed was appropriate.

Jones asked if the wording addressed a scope of work that required structural modifications.

Cromwell suggested the amendment be worded as Solar thermal and photovoltaic systems requiring no structural changes to the building. That would cover the hot water system.

Wethington said it would also cover the structural modifications. 

Kimball moved to accept the amendment to add note F. Solar, thermal and photovoltaic systems requiring no structural changes to the building - $65.00

Seconded by Odgers. Motion passed 5-0

New Business

Walthall asked to introduce and welcome Development Service Assistant Director Kurt Schroeder

Schroeder introduced himself to the Board.

Wethington moved to adjourn.  Seconded by Kimball. Motion Passed 5-0.  Meeting adjourned 11:50