City Inspector - Level The Playing Field?

"We are bidding a job in San Antonio and when I met the building inspector for the preliminary inspection, he rejected our plan to go over the existing roof. He stated several times that "It is my job to provide a level playing field for roofers."

While it may be semantics, his job is to enforce building code, period! It seems like he thinks his job is to force us to tear the existing roof off simply because local roofers will have to."

Tim, I read your subsequent posts and I find the logic impeccable but as annoyed as I get with inspectors from time to time I have sympathy for them in one respect. The wheels move very slowly around them. What you are introducing is a conceptual change and it comes after the job specification (what he calls"the level playing field") was established. What you are essentially asking for is an injunction to stop the bidding process and re-design the spec. That's not an unreasonable request at all but a precipitous learning curve is too much for most people to handle on short notice.

I lost a $100k clay tile job a few years ago because, in this case, the construction manager couldn't see the difference between one layer of S/A underlayment directly penetrated by thousands of "quicknails" (long thick-guage wires with a 90 degree bend on the last inch, chopped on an angle that you punch through the membrane into the plywood substrate hooked into every tile) and a two-ply dry sheet with vertical straps screwed down every so often with every tile easily wired to the straps without penetrating anything. In my case the spec I put forward actually cost a little more but for a lifetime roof I know which one I'd want on my house. My point is, nobody around here uses the strap system because they don't understand it and the learning curve is too much for them, roofers, inspectors, gc's, and constr. managers alike. I do ok and I can be persuasive most of the time, but it's frustrating to watch people grapple with a new concept when they are in the middle of making a decision right now... Policy and the Comfort Zone doing their deadly dance together.

We have codes but not a serious code inspector. Slabs are poured then pipes are stomped in to the concrete. This happened near me not too long ago.

I just had to tell a homeowner that her five year old roof needs torn off. She had a reputable contractor(non-roofer) install a dimensional shingle OVER an existing dimensional shingle on a 3/12.

Well, if people want to build substandard, I say let 'em have at it .. we'll just end up looking like the shanty towns of Mexico or Thailand .. , I am constantly amazed at just how few there are in this country that knows anything how to build something that won't fall down in 5 years.

B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

I think residential is another animal, although I still maintain that the decision to recover should be between the homeowner, his insurance company, and the roofer. The flunky building inspector who is a failed contractor himself, should not be making decisions in the field so that the local roofers can compete.

I'm not sure how code improves "lifestyle." Unless you mean that it protects you from competition. And if that is what you meant, that's not a very good reason to force a homeowner to spend extra money for a tear off.

I'm all for codes that improve safety, but they aren't intended to level the playing field. I've seen that abused far too many times by the 1 large local contractor who was also city councilman and mayor at one time and has used his influence to write building codes that are nearly impossible for anyone but himself to comply with.

Roofguy Said:

CIAK Said: While going over an existing roof isnt best practice, if code allows it and that is the scope of work presented on the plans, a City inspector cant stand in the way. I do know because of strict enforcement of building codes in our community. This town is a much nicer place to live. B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

I guess I disagree with just about every sentence there. :-)

There are many instances where a recover is the smart, and best way to go. The roof in question has gravel, meaning wed take off 250 lbs/SQR and put back on 125. Weight not a factor. There is no trapped moisture, in fact there is no insulation and a very solid concrete deck. Absolutely no legitimate reason to tear that roof off.

Tearing it off has no advantages, and these disadvantages: 1. Landfill. 2. Loss of redundancy. 3. Exposure to unforecast weather or equipment issues during tear off. 4. Other roofer is bidding TPO - our chopped glass emulsion system will last a minimum of 2 times longer than a TPO. 5. 35% higher cost to the owner.

As for strict codes, the 2 strictest in the country are Metro/Dade and Title 24 in California - there are more fly-by-nights in FL and CA than any state I know of. Ive been exposed to roofing/roofers in 40 states.

Texas still, for the most part, believes in freedom and the concept of Caveat Emptor. As John Wayne said: Life is hard, Its even harder if youre stupid. The penalty for being stupid is that crooked people will take advantage of you. Laws and codes cannot fix that any better than gun control can stop murders with guns. People inclined to break the law arent slowed by it much. But in a futile effort to reign in the crooks, you punish everyone with too many regulations and codes.

B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

I think we're forgetting how to be free in this country. Whatever happened to the concept of small government?

I was invited to a meeting of Lubbock roofers held by the city a few months ago, to talk about possible tightened codes. The concept was roundly rejected, as it should have been. They then asked each roofer how many times they have had an inspector look on their work, and not a single one had. I've installed hundreds of commercial roofs in Lubbock, not 1 was ever inspected. So I guess Lubbock must have really shoddy roofer then, right? Wrong. San Antonio has very tight building codes and the roofs there are no better than what we have here, and no horror stories about roofers making the news.

It boils down to property rights. We were going to install a roof that will last 25-40 years for the building owner for $115,000. Because the city has rejected a recover for no good reason, the building owner now will install a TPO roof with no insulation (our foam roof would have had 9.75 R-value) that will last 8-10 years and cost him $218,000.

CIAK Said: While going over an existing roof isnt best practice, if code allows it and that is the scope of work presented on the plans, a City inspector cant stand in the way. I do know because of strict enforcement of building codes in our community. This town is a much nicer place to live. B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

I guess I disagree with just about every sentence there. :-)

There are many instances where a recover is the smart, and best way to go. The roof in question has gravel, meaning we'd take off 250 lbs/SQR and put back on 125. Weight not a factor. There is no trapped moisture, in fact there is no insulation and a very solid concrete deck. Absolutely no legitimate reason to tear that roof off.

Tearing it off has no advantages, and these disadvantages: 1. Landfill. 2. Loss of redundancy. 3. Exposure to unforecast weather or equipment issues during tear off. 4. Other roofer is bidding TPO - our chopped glass emulsion system will last a minimum of 2 times longer than a TPO. 5. 35% higher cost to the owner.

As for strict codes, the 2 strictest in the country are Metro/Dade and Title 24 in California - there are more fly-by-nights in FL and CA than any state I know of. I've been exposed to roofing/roofers in 40 states.

Texas still, for the most part, believes in freedom and the concept of Caveat Emptor. As John Wayne said: Life is hard, It's even harder if you're stupid. The penalty for being stupid is that crooked people will take advantage of you. Laws and codes cannot fix that any better than gun control can stop murders with guns. People inclined to break the law aren't slowed by it much. But in a futile effort to reign in the crooks, you punish everyone with too many regulations and codes.

While going over an existing roof isn't best practice, if code allows it and that is the scope of work presented on the plans, a City inspector can't stand in the way. I do know because of strict enforcement of building codes in our community. This town is a much nicer place to live. B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

Back in the olden days we tore all roofs off unless we could repair them however all roof overs were a no no for our company, these were all commercial coverings roofs, we did not want to cover any leak area , this was a rule for over 35 years of commercial roofing I roofed in Texas back in 2008 and I didn't know they had a building department or any building codes equal to South Florida lol

Roofguy Said:his job is to enforce building code, period!

As they say- Code is minimum...

Seems to me, a spray on product installed over existing membrane would be classified as a repair and not a new roof.

I came very close to punching an inspector in the face one time. I don't miss them at all. :ohmy: