LGA Lyceum

Pennsylvania's Uniform Construction Code

The Pennsylvania Association of Building Code Officials (PABCO) has commissioned the preparation and filing of an Amicus (Friend of the Court) Brief with the State Supreme Court in its consideration of the appeal by North Union Township and K2 Engineering to overturn the Commonwealth Court ruling which reversed the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas ruling in the matter. The Commonwealth Court ruled in the Fayette County case in December 2006 that North Union Township was in violation of the Uniform Construction Code when they hired K2 Engineering as a third party contractor to perform inspections of their new commercial and residential buildings. Read an article from the Pittsburgh Tribune Review on the case

Pennsylvania's statewide building code, the Uniform Construction Code (UCC), allows municipalities that have elected to administer and enforce the UCC locally to use their own employees or certified third party agencies (private code enforcement agencies) for inspections. In these “opt-in” municipalities, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry has no code enforcement authority, except where the municipality lacks the services of a person certified as an "Accessibility Inspector/Plans Examiner." In an "opt-out" municipality, the Department of Labor and Industry is responsible for commercial code enforcement, and homeowners can choose whoever they wish to perform their inspections.

In its ruling, the Commonwealth Court agreed with two inspection companies that sued  North Union Township, Allegheny Inspection Service of Karns City and Steel City Inspection Agency of Pleasant Hills. They argued that nothing in the law creating the UCC should allow municipalities to prohibit state-certified inspectors in good standing from doing work. The state Supreme Court has to decide whether or not to overturn the Commonwealth Court’s ruling and interpret the Uniform Construction Code to allow “opt-in” municipalities, where the Department of Labor and Industry have no code enforcement authority, to designate a third party to perform inspections.

Below is the position of PABCO, which is based on a memo sent to their members from the Board of Directors immediately following the filing of the Amicus Brief:

In essence, the Commonwealth Court Ruling established two positions that PABCO and its legal advisors believe to be incorrect interpretations of the Pennsylvania Construction Code Act and the legislative history and intent of the Act. The legal advisors for the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Commissioners and Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors are supporting North Union  as well. The brief that has been filed by PABCO focuses on these two issues, and specifically, on legislative history and records of legislative intent that they believe will demonstrate that the Commonwealth Court erred in its ruling.

Those two issues are:

1.    PABCO believes that the PA Construction Code Act assigns the responsibility and authority to each opt-in municipality to determine how the Act will be administered and enforced within its jurisdiction, relying upon one or more of the options outlined in the Act at Section 501 (b).  One of those options is to retain ONE or more third party agencies for administration and enforcement.  Therefore, PABCO believes the Act and the intent of the Act are very clear and that contracts with a single third party agency are one of the allowable options under the Act that opt-in municipalities may select for administration and enforcement.

2.    The Commonwealth Court ruled that inspections are not part of the administration and enforcement function but rather, are a separate function, and furthermore, may be performed in any jurisdiction in the state by any appropriately certified inspector and that opt-in municipalities must accept any inspection report by any certified inspector.

PABCO believes the Court erred in its understanding of the inspection function as being separate from administration and enforcement and has provided the Supreme Court with clear and convincing evidence from the legislative history of the Act to demonstrate that the legislature intended that inspections were an integral element of the administration and enforcement functions of the Act by opt-in municipalities (as well as any third party agencies retained by those municipalities).

The PABCO Board of Directors has consistently taken the position that inspections are part of the administration and enforcement process and that opt-in municipalities have the responsibility and authority to choose how and by whom those inspections are to be conducted.  The filing of this brief is completely consistent with all prior positions taken by the PABCO Board.

PABCO believes that the overwhelming majority of their members, whether employed by a municipality or a third party agency, would be adversely impacted, to the point of having their professional careers and livelihood threatened, if the Commonwealth Court Ruling stands.   

According to Robert F. Loeper, Jr., President of PABCO, “If the ruling stands....that any certified inspector can perform inspections for contractors and property owners in all of the Commonwealth's municipalities and that opt-in municipalities have no choice but to accept those inspection reports....all opt-in municipalities will lose all control over the inspection process, creating absolute chaos, not to mention a system that would be ripe for corruption.”

PABCO believes that the court has erred in its decision and that all available resources must be brought to bear to convince the State Supreme Court of that reality. As of today, each opt-in municipality continues to decide who performs inspections within its jurisdiction.

If you would like an electronic copy of the brief that PABCO has filed, please email Bob Buddenbohn, Executive Officer, at rbuddenbohn@nfis.com.

The Green Roof Demonstration Project of 3 Rivers Wet Weather with Janie French, Watershed Programs Manager

LGA asked Janie French, Watershed Programs Manager at 3 Rivers Wet Weather, to explain one of their Low-Impact Development, Stormwater Best Management Practices projects, the Green Roof Demonstration Project.

Three Rivers Wet Weather is a Pittsburgh-based nonprofit that is committed to improving the water quality in the region. One of the organization’s goals is funding Stormwater Best Management Practice demonstration projects, where they focus on lot-level or Low-Impact Development projects. Low-Impact Development projects control stormwater at the source and attempt to find uses for it instead of letting it enter and overflow the sewer systems.Two 3RWW demonstration projects that have been completed are the rain barrel project with the Nine Mile Run Watershed Association in 2004, and the LID green roof demonstration project on the Shadyside Giant Eage, Hammerschlag Hall on Carnegie Mellon University's campus, and the retrofitting of an existing commercial /residential building on the main street of Homestead with a green roof.

Read about 3RWW Green Roof Demonstration Project here.

In addition to funding the construction of these green roofs, 3RWW is funding the development of monitoring projects by the engineering departments at the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). The roofs at the Giant Eagle and Hammerschlag Hall are being monitored, but monitoring on the building at 213-215 East  Eighth Avenue in Homestead has not been started. The hope is that these monitoring processes will aid in offering standards to evaluate the performance of green roofs in stormwater management, energy efficiency, and temperature reduction caused by the urban heat island effect. The urban heat island effect is a phenomenon where urban built environments and suburbs can be several degrees warmer than surrounding rural areas.

Read an article about CMU’s roof.

Click on the link at the bottom of the page to read a report on CMU’s roof, see a picture, and to see a live web cam view of the roof.

See results from Pitt’s monitoring of the Shadyside Giant Eagle roof.

Pittsburgh experiences frequent “wet weather” such as rain, thunderstorms, and snow that affects its aging infrastructure due to the overwhelming amount of runoff that enters the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Although Pittsburgh has taken steps to address the issue, a heavy focus on end-of-pipe solutions for stormwater management still results in an excess of runoff entering the sewer systems. An increased focus on source controls for stormwater management, such as green roofs, can help.

Janie referred us to a report by Mike Plumb, legal intern for the Columbia Environmental Law Clinic working for Riverkeeper, for more information on how source controls can manage stormwater more efficiently and effectively. Plumb looks at how New York’s DEP was investing in what he calls “obsolete infrastructure” in the forms of end-of-pipe tanks and in-line storage for CSO overflows. Plumb’s research found that for every $1,000 invested in these projects, New York could decrease CSO overflow by 2,400 gallons per year, whereas the same investment in source controls would decrease this overflow much more significantly. Street trees would decrease overflows by 13,170 gallons per year, green streets by 14,800 gallons, rain barrels by 9,000 gallons, new green roofs by 810 gallons, retrofitted green roofs by 865 gallons, and incentivized green roofs by 12,000 gallons per year (Plumb, 2008).

Read more about other forms of green infrastructure source controls in Plumb’s report, “Sustainable Raindrops.”

Most green roofs require an insulation layer, a waterproof membrane, a root barrier to prevent the roots of plants from penetrating the waterproof layer, a drainage layer, a filter mat, soil and, of course, vegetation. The type of vegetation planted on green roofs depends on the climate in the area and the effects of the different types of vegetation on water retention and heat absorption. Green roofs can be either intensive or extensive, where intensive green roofs usually require a deeper soil layer because they are typically planted with larger plants with roots that run deeper. Intensive green roofs are often accessible to the public, acting as a “roof-top garden.” Extensive roofs are usually not accessible for people to walk onto and enjoy, but are less expensive to install.

The benefits of green roofs can be realized at the private or building-level, and the public, or city-level. At the private level, green roofs require a larger initial investment, but they are estimated to extend the life of the roof twice as long, and they contribute to savings on energy costs, heating and cooling costs, and stormwater costs. Additionally, they provide sound insulation and aesthetic value, and intensive green roofs and rain gardens can be used for food production and can create a place for “community involvement” among employees of the building, boosting employee morale.

At the public level, green roofs can significantly reduce stormwater runoff and the impact on sewer infrastructure from too much water in the system, and they can reduce the urban heat island effect, reduce greenhouse gases, and improve air quality by replacing traditional, heat-absorbing roof surfaces with vegetation that cool the air through evapotranspiration (or evaporation of water from leaves). Greening the urban environment also improves the aesthetic quality of the city. The costs of green roofs at the private level would be the higher initial cost of the green roof and maintenance, and the costs to the public sector are those relating to program administration and start-up. However in both instances, the argument is often made that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Read more about how green roofs are built and the benefits they offer by visiting the “Green Roofs for Healthy Cities” website.

During our interview with Janie, she noted that the major barrier for green roof implementation in the southwestern Pennsylvania region is funding. We discussed the Green  Roof Grant Program in Chicago as an example of a way to use incentives to fund green roof projects.

Read about the Chicago Green Roof Grant Program.

We have identified some available funding sources through the Pennsylvania state and federal governments:

Pennsylvania has grants and reimbursements awarded through the Stormwater Management Act 167 where local governments can be reimbursed for 75% of the money they put into a watershed protection program. In Allegheny County, Conservation Consultants Inc. received $54,128 through an Energy Harvest Grant for a 1,700-square-foot green roof, and Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens received $250,000 for an integrated water management system. This system is used for geothermal heating and cooling, but also treats and reuses wastewater. Growing Greener II Grants, which give “$625 million to clean up rivers and streams; protect natural areas, open spaces and working farms” can be used for green roof demonstration projects and green infrastructure conservation projects.

The EPA also awards grants for green roof demonstration projects and other green infrastructure projects under its Nonpoint Source Management Program. “Under section 319, State, Territories, and Indian Tribes receive grant money which support a wide variety of activities including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation projects.” Funding from the EPA can also be obtained through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund; Source Reduction Assistance Grants; Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Demonstrations, and Special Purpose Grants ; and Air Quality Grants. This grant money can be received through PA’s Department of Environmental Protection. 

According to Katrin Scholz-Barth, expert and consultant for green roof installation, extensive green roofs are, “the single most effective solution to stormwater management,” because they do not take up additional land, are easily adaptable and are economically efficient, they are not difficult to add to architectural designs, and they are easily retrofitted to existing structures. For a developed city with a lot of existing buildings in need of renovations, Pittsburgh is a good candidate for green roofs.

Read more about green infrastructure in this report from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Finally, Janie informed LGA how individual homeowners can become involved in managing stormwater. In addition to rain barrels, we discussed rain gardens and water conservation and water quality protection behaviors that any homeowner can engage in.

View 3RWW’s education and outreach materials, including their “Role of the Homeowner” guide.

Read an article on planting rain gardens and Three Rivers Rain Garden Alliance.

* The construction of the rain garden at Phipps has been delayed *

Read an article about a new rain garden on Mount Washington.

The Pittsburgh region can focus on greening the urban landscape with various forms of green infrastructure, such as trees, vegetation, wetlands, and open space that can be preserved or created in built environments, because not only does green infrastructure contribute to stormwater management, it also aids in energy efficiency, causes a reduction in the urban heat island effect, and holds a greater aesthetic value than vast landscapes of concrete.

Listen to clips from an interview with Janie French on the 3RWW Green Roof Demonstration Project and what the city and homeowners can do to help control stormwater:

Click here to hear Janie talk about the green roof demonstration projects and their successes

Janie talks about the funding barriers to implementation of green roofs in the region, and the next steps that 3RWW is taking in stormwater management BMPs

Janie discusses retrofitting green roofs to existing structures

Greening the urban landscape for stormwater management and other benefits

Click here to hear Janie talk about what homeowners can do to get involved in stormwater management

To read more on stormwater management in the southwest Pennsylvania region, read the LGA Lyceum piece “This needs to sink in” by Stan Kabala, Center for Environmental Research and Education, Duquesne University.

To learn about the use of adaptive governance for stormwater management, please visit the LGA Adaptive Governance wiki.

 

Fire Capacity:Potential for Intergovernmental Cooperation in Fire Protection Services

 A new PA Senate bill is proposed to help recruit more volunteer firefighters. Volunteer departments are plagued by fundraising issues and staff shortages in the Pittsburgh  region and across the country, according to anarticle in USA Today. Senator Andrew Dinniman (D-19) introduced a bill to incentivize people to join volunteer fire protection and emergency medical service providers with a tax credit against their earned income tax liability. As of February 11, 2008, Senate Bill 1169 providing for municipal volunteer emergency responder incentives was passed into first consideration. Another bill introduced by Senator Donald C. White (R-41), Senate Bill 1236, would give financial incentives for Pennsylvania fire departments to create partnerships to share resources, but does not include any clauses to prevent duplication of service within these partnerships. This last action taken on this bill, however, was that it was re-referred to appropriations on October 3, 2006.

These bills reminded us of a 2006 study where fellows at the Coro Center for Civic Leadership researched whether there is excess capacity of fire service within the City of Pittsburgh that can fulfill a need for service in suburban municipalities. In conducting this work, the Coro Fellows referenced previous studies on this topic that found that there is an excess of engine and truck stations in Pittsburgh,  as well as staffing. For example, the 1996 Competitive Pittsburgh Task Force Study indicated that Pittsburgh had a staffing complement of 894 firefighters, 66% higher than the survey of comparable cities with an average of 538. A CMU study found that although Pittsburgh only needs 12 engine stations and 4 truck stations to meet National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) Standards 90% of the time (the required amount), the City had 33 engine stations and 11 truck stations in 2004, creating much double and triple coverage.  

To obtain the most up-to-date information on staffing and the number of fire stations, we consulted Denice Haas, an Assistant to the Pittsburgh Public Safety Director.  Denice explained that Pittsburgh has reduced the members of staff and stations in the past five years. In 2008, there are 853 budgeted uniform positions in the Bureau of Fire, and at any time there are 159 personnel working in the Operations Division, or the stations. In addition to Operations, there are non-suppression personnel assigned to Administration, Training, Prevention and Investigation, and there are also civilian support personnel. Denice noted that Pittsburgh currently has 24 engines and 11  trucks housed in 29 stations. She also informed us that a study of the Fire Bureau was commissioned by the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority (ICA) oversight group in 2006. The study was conducted by TriData and is expected to be released soon.

According to the Coro Fellow's report, the State Fire Commissioner's office should also conduct a study of the City's fire department, but should perform a needs/capacity assessment and inventory among all fire departments in the suburbs of Pittsburgh to eliminate duplication of services among Pittsburgh suburbs. From September 5th through October 3rd of 2006, Tonya Bennitt and Kate Peilemeier interviewed fire chiefs, service officials, and other municipal officials, and conducted research through the Office of the State Fire Commissioner, the Allegheny County Emergency Management team, and the internet. Their purpose was to assess whether or not there should be more intergovernmental cooperation in fire service for the greater Pittsburgh region.

Fire departments are typically staffed by volunteers in the region with some paid departments, the largest of which serves the city of Pittsburgh. Although the region's population has been in decline for over thirty years, the fire protection structure has
not changed, resulting in staff shortages and fundraising difficulties for many volunteer departments, and continued strain on the budgets of municipalities with paid departments. Some municipalities have mutual aid agreements, but there is usually little cross-over assistance between paid and volunteer departments. Bennitt and Peilemeier researched the possibility of intergovernmental cooperation between the city’s paid fire department and thirty-four surrounding municipalities, where there is one paid department, four combined, and the rest volunteer.

Bennitt and Peilemeier recommended that a needs/capacity assessment and inventory among all fire departments in the suburbs of Pittsburgh be conducted to eliminate duplication of service while encouraging sharing of services among suburbs. However, recognizing the significant amount of time that this would require, they made a short-run recommendation that a contract be made for the City of Pittsburgh Fire Department to act as a first responder for Pittsburgh's inner-ring   suburbs during peak hours of 8am-6pm, Monday through Friday.

They also recommended that the suburbs pay a fee to the city’s fire department, and that the effort be partially funded by the State of Pennsylvania through the Volunteer Fire Company and Volunteer Ambulance Service Grant Program, Shared Municipal Services Grants, and Community Revitalization Grants. Not only would this reduce the city’s costs for its department, it would create a large amount of savings in reducing wasted spending in duplication of fire services, equipment, and personnel. The city of Pittsburgh and its surround suburbs would also enjoy greater protection and a more efficient emergency response system.

In anticipation of the TriData study, which according to an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette  is expected to help implement changes for netting savings of $193,000, two questions come to mind:

• Will the report indicate that there is an excess of fire service in the city and if more intergovernmental cooperation can help address the shortage in fire      service in the suburbs?

• If excess city capacity exists, how will this modify proposals such as Senate Bill 1169 which seeks to solve a volunteer staffing need by incentivizing municipal    volunteer emergency responder service?

Fire fighting is inherently a discussion about intergovernmental cooperation. Indeed, fire fighters have the longest tradition of intergovernmental cooperation than any public service—mutual aid in answering the emergency call is both a tradition and a necessity. Intergovernmental cooperation, combined with encouraging volunteerism provides a route to assuring effective, efficient fire protection now and in the future.

To read more on fire service and intergovernmental cooperation in Pennsylvania, read the April 03, 2008 Lyceum entry entitled “York Area United Fire and Rescue: Intergovernmental Cooperation and Fire Services” by Dean Fernsler, former Local Government Policy Manager of the DCED Governor’s Center for Local Government Services. 

Update:

TriData's report on their study of Pittsburgh' Fire Bureau commissioned by the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority (ICA) oversight group in 2006 was released in June 2008.

Visit the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette website to read an article on the findings.