A policy change at the City of Prince George will “put the City and its Citizens at greater risk,” according to a letter sent to mayor and city council on Tuesday by the city’s building inspection team.
Under the policy change, city building inspectors will no longer review plans for or conduct on-site inspections of commercial, multi-family, industrial or other buildings classified as “Part 3 buildings” under the BC Building Code. Part 3 also includes any building larger than 600 sq. metres (6,458 sq. feet) in floor space or taller than three storeys.
“We were informed by Will Wedel, Manager of Development Services on Thursday, February 16, 2023, that effective immediately, building officials are no longer permitted to review plans for complex buildings or perform on-site inspections for complex building or plumbing inspections. We would like to express our concerns for this new change in process, and other changes that have occurred within the Department and division within the last couple years,” a copy of the letter obtained by the Citizen says. “Over the last couple of years, our roles and responsibilities in relation to the building permit and approval process have steadily diminished without consultation. When we have expressed our concerns related to our responsibilities and duties as building officials, we have been threatened with the alternative of moving towards ‘full professional reliance.’”
Under the professional reliance model, the engineer or other qualified professional employed by the building developer would sign off on the plans and conduct any final inspections of the work.
“The building Division understands that the argument could be made that the City should rely on the assurances of professionals to determine compliance and therefore reduce wait times and further limit the City’s liability. However, we are very concerned about going in this direction for several of reasons,” the letter says. “There are numerous examples of building permit applications with designs that do not comply with important, life safety-related Building and Plumbing Code requirements, despite the assurances of Registered Professionals. (e.g. Incorrect snow load, dead end hallways, exiting widths, incorrect direction of door swing, missed fire separation, missed sprinklers, architectural drawings not matching structural drawings, missing water meter sizing)
“There are numerous examples of Building and Plumbing Code violations at time of final inspection despite the City having the closing documents from Registered Professionals on file. (e.g. incomplete building envelopes, incomplete fire separations, impeded egress from locked exit doors and incorrect direction of swing, exiting distances exceeding maximum allowable, sprinkler heads covered or blocked, water meter bypass, missing check valves to present cross contamination of water supply, missing grease interceptors, incorrect plumbing fixtures)”
Larger, more complex Part 3 buildings “have a high risk factor to the public and if not scrutinized by building officials thoroughly the City becomes partially liable if injuries or mistakes occur,” the letter adds.
The sudden change to a professional reliance model seems contrary to B.C. regulations, the city’s Building Bylaw and the roles and responsibilities of building inspectors, the letter says.
“We are concerned that there is a view that the unsatisfactory building permit wait times are a result of the Building Division holding up ‘processing and approval times’ with plan checking and inspections (etc.),” the letter says. “However, we believe that the high levels of staff turnover, and lack of administrative policies, procedures, and training in the Planning and Development Department, as substantiated by the internal review in 2021, have substantially contributed to the significant wait times and inefficiencies in (the) Planning and Development Department. Many of us in the Division stepped up and performed tasks outside of our job description to fill gaps and contribute to the overall success of the Department.”
In January 2022, the Citizen filed a freedom of information request to obtain a copy of the internal human resources review of the city’s planning and development department conducted by HR law firm Southern Butler Price LLP. However, that request was denied under a clause of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which prevents the disclosure of legal advice obtained by the city or other public agencies.
The city’s building inspectors are prepared to work with the city administration and city council to find efficiencies in the building permit process, the letter says.
“In addition, should there be proposed changes to the Building Bylaw, or the building permit function/process, we would appreciate the opportunity to be consulted and provide input to Council. We believe that Council and the public need to understand the duties, responsibilities, and services that building officials provide,” the letter says. “We understand that the City has received a legal opinion with regards to administration’s decision to have building officials no longer review permit applications or inspect complex buildings. However, we are concerned that this new direction may increase our liability as building officials and/or put the City and its Citizens at greater risk.”
'CONCERNS' RAISED AT CITY COUNCIL
At a regular city council meeting on Monday, Coun. Brian Skakun questioned city administration about the change, after “some concerns that have been expressed to me.”
“What is the issue with building officials, that they might no longer be able to review complex (building) plans, plumbing inspections, on-site inspections,” Skakun asked. “It that something that staff have been working on?”
Wedel said under the new policy, developers of Plan 3 buildings will have the option to move forward under the processional reliance model or the traditional model involving city building inspectors.
“On large and complex buildings, the engineer or qualified professional will be the one who signs off on those processes. So it is an enhancement of the process… If it goes under the professional reliance process, then it is done by that qualified professional and not by city staff.”
City manager Walter Babicz suggested that Skakun’s questions were not related to the business before city council, and that Skakun should send staff an email with his questions.
In an email, a city spokesperson said the policy change is allowed under the city’s Building Bylaw.
“In 2018, the City updated its Building Bylaw to include the ability to use the professional reliance model. This was in response to the customer indicating there was a duplication of work that was already being completed by the qualified professionals (engineers and architects) working on their projects,” the spokesperson said in an email. “The professional reliance model requires that applicants meet standards set out in the BC Building Code and in the City of Prince George’s Building Bylaw. It also makes qualified professionals responsible for submitting the necessary reporting documentation. The professional reliance process is used throughout the province by numerous municipalities. We are currently using professional reliance on Part 3 Buildings, and are continuing to refine the process at this time.”
The City of Prince George has issued statements, disputing the claims made in the building inspector's letter.
