[Michael Leavitt's Home Page | Back Issues of the MMM | Current Issue of the MMM]
It really is a great day here in Orem, Utah. We are trying to keep our sanity here while completing the heavy workload. The business phone is ringing off the hook as the market has taken an unusually sharp upturn. I don't know if it is being driven by fear of higher interest rates to come or if the unusually warmer weather has brought the buyers back out of their warm homes, but the interest in buying homes is definitely high.
Last week broke the $3,000 barrier. That is unusual for this time of year, but was well appreciated by our bank account which had seen slow to moderate amounts of deposits in the last months. Earning $3,000 in a week requires full-time commitment to the job at hand. The inspecting portion of a 3 grand week is the easy part. It is the phone calls and document preparation that makes completing the task very difficult. Last week was not overloaded with the number of addresses to be inspected, but it was the various types and locations of inspections that added an interesting twist to the week. Because of the recent lower inspection volume I found myself saying "Yes" to almost any inspection. This found me driving up to 80 miles away to perform the inspection. I'm not whining because I know that that is standard procedure for many of the remote Inspectors out there, but I usually inspect within 15 miles of my home.
We performed EIFS, stucco, termite, radon, wet basement evaluations, as well as large and small home inspections. The oldest home was 106 years old, the newest will be completed by next week. The smallest home had 700 square feet with a 900 square foot garage and the largest had over 9,000 square feet and garages for 7 cars. We truly did cover the entire spectrum within a 5 day work week. The brighter spot is that I only have 3 time slots open for the week to come. It will be fun to once again confidently laugh when they want to know if I can do an inspection the same day that they are calling! =:}
The biggest inspection last week was a 9,000+ square foot Mansion on Osmond Lane, which is an exclusive area in Provo, Utah, originally developed and occupied by the famous Osmond family. The buyer's flew in from out of state for the inspection and they were originally considering purchasing the 14,000 square foot original Osmond family home just two houses down the lane. I drew a sigh of relief as the buyer downsized their offer to a 9,000+ square foot home pictured here.
Have you done any mansions like these??? Bidding on Mansions has always been hard for me. The first reason is because such a large dollar amount for the fee quote has to leave my lips (still very difficult even though I know that I am worth every penny). The second reason is because Mansions are their own breed and although the homes are well kept, there are tons of rooms. I never know if the 9,000+ square feet homes are going to take 3 1/2 hours or 8 hours. This latest mansion took 7 hours. It had 7 bathrooms, 6 bedrooms, 2 kitchens, 3 laundry rooms, 3 attic spaces, 5 heating systems, 3 A/C systems, 3 water heaters, 3 separate garage spaces providing parking for 7 cars, 2 spiral staircases, 3 decks and 100's of feet of exterior concrete retaining walls.
In truth, I underbid the job and during the inspection I solidified in my mind my new and improved Large Home Inspection Fee Schedule. In my area, a Mansion is anything over about 6,500 square feet. Keep in mind that we have full basements, so for you crawlers and slabbers out there, that is probably equivalent to 3,500 to 4,500 square feet home in your areas. My Mansion fees are now as follows:
Therefore, a 14,000 square ft mansion would be $1,435 and the one I did last Wednesday should have been $935. Instead, my fee was $850 and I thought that it would take about an hour and a half less than it actually did. Oh well, that is still not a bad fee for a day's work. The new Large Home Inspection Fee Schedule works out to about 10 cents a square foot and closely mirrors the selling price of homes in this area. A 10,000 square ft Mansion is going to sell for about 1 million dollars. I would be interested in hearing how some of you quote your large home fees. I realize that fees are so regional, as are the definition of a Mansion in size. How have you set your large home fees?.... Do you base it on the selling price of the home? Or by the square footage? Do you have a firm fee schedule or do you quote the fee depending on your mood and current need for money?..... I look forward to your feedback.
While performing the Mansion inspection last week, I received a call from a recent Home Buyer who purchased a 1950's home very near one that I had done a year or so ago that had $7,000 of structural damage from a wet crawl space. She said that they had been living in the home for 2 months and when they bought the home the Agent said that they should forego the Inspection because it would just delay the transaction. The Buyer was now upset because all of the newer rubberized paint covering the concrete and cinder block basement walls was bubbling and water was coming in. How is your disposition with those home buyers who were too cheap to have an inspection or were coerced to forego the inspection by an Agent?
I visited the home for my $160 quick evaluation fee and found all of the typical surface water contributing factors for a wet basement. The highest moisture and mold areas were at the downspout discharge points. Negative grading exacerbated the condition and the recommendations were very straight forward. The bottom line is that the Seller's lied on their disclosure forms and they had the basement painted to conceal the regular water entry and then they did not disclose the condition on the official Disclosure Sheet. My report and guidance for possible cures and specialist that they needed to obtain bids from will be used as the buyers extract the money from the deceiptful Sellers and the Agent who played the Dual role representing both parties.
When will the Agents ever learn that it is better to identify and disclose the issues before closing on a home than wait for the Buyers to move in, get mad and sue for damages? If this method of selling a home continues, then we are going to make a lot more money as expert witnesses in the future than we are from Inspecting homes - Topic for another MMM.
The first photo from Ken Ives shared last week in the MMM...
PHOTO#1 - Bedroom
The following responses were received.......
The bedroom window to small for emergency egress. Mark Daughtry - WA
The window appears to be too narrow for most people to exit through in the event of an emergency (i.e. house fire). Nathan Buckley - OR
Michael: Saw your photo and tried to remember the requirement for egress at "second exits"; I can't remember, but I think it's 5.5 sq ft.? I also can't remember the height & width (minimums of 20" wide & 24" high - I think!). The openable part of the window in your picture does NOT look wide enough! - Richard Grisham - NV
It looks like a broken seal between the double glass. Roger Ball
Sorry, Ken---The photo doesn't show me a blessed thing I would call reportable. Maybe the problem is in the photo transmission quality or my recieving system. What do you others say?? Steve Jordan - OR
This window appears to have a bad Thermo-Seal. It also appears to be a poor installation. Bill Schwahn - MT Unless there is some other exit besides the bedroom door, this window is not big enough to provide emergancy egerss. I would guess that it is a replacement window for an old double hung. Jon Gudnason
Egress? Carl Turnbow (Carl is famous for his 1 worded wisdom) - CA
I don't know the scale of the photo, but the first thing I'd question is the dimension of the opened window being undersized for emergency egress. Barry Bonds
This window appears to be less than a 20" opening for fire egress. Is the window above 42" maximam height? Should this window be of an aluminum thermal pane construction, possibly Ken wanted to show the results of a lost seal and condensation evidence in the window. Also a screen does not appear to be present. All reportable conditions. If less than 20" wide and above 42"high it would be a Potential Hazard. But the bedroom may have a window over the minimum standards and less than 42" from the floor and or a sliding glass door (with safty glass of course). In that case this window would not be reportable as a Potential Hazard in my humble opinion. Steve Bradley - OR
NOTE: This window does not meet minimum safety egress standards. In other words, if you, a child or an older person needed to leave this room and the bedroom door was blocked this window would make it difficult to impossible for someone to use as an emergency escape route. Steve E. Dansby - CA
Unless I'm judging the scale of the picture wrong, it appears that the width of the openable side of the window is too small to allow all but small children and very thin adults to exit the bedroom in the event of an emergency. Gary Holzbauer - OR
The picture came out a little dark. It appears to be a tall, narrow window that is close to the floor. It does not appear to meet the minimum square foot opening for safety. It also appears to swing out providing only a partial opening when opened. Jim Corbin - WA
Ken agreed to not keep us all in suspense and provided the following picture to better show what he wanted us to see. He also shared the following explanation....
This house was built in the 1940's and originally had double hung wood sash windows. In 1993 the house had an energy audit as part of a new FHA purchase. That is a mortgage upgrade program called and EEM (Energy Efficient Mortgage). This is what they determined was the best window for this location. Notation on the report should indicate that the window doesn't comform with needed emergency egress designs, creating a safety compromise and one should have the window modified to allow emergency access out of this sleeping area.
P.S. - Might be hard to tell, but the window also has broken dual pane seals. If you included that in your respnse, then you get an extra "Atta-boy"!!! Ken Ives
Thanks so much for all of the feedback on the Photo Challenge. I have to admit that I stared at the first photo quite a while thinking that there must be something more. Ken's original explanation omitted the fact that it was a bedroom window and I was not sure what he was trying to point out. I cleared up the Bedroom issue before sharing it with the readership and most of you were right on top of the Safety Hazard that was present.
As a clarification, I wish to share the details on window installation guidelines. According to the Code Check flip booklet it says.... "The second exit required in a bedroom is usually a window. The dimensions of the opening are to assure the residents and escape route, but equally important, they are designed to allow a firefighter with a backpack to enter. This opening must be 24" high and 20" wide minimum. The window sill must not be higher than 44" from the floor." (NOTE: Code Check can be purchased at www.CodeCheck.com)
There are also references to the fact that the openable window must have at least 5.7 square feet of openable glass. A window that is the minimum20" width would have to be at least 41" high, while a window with the minimum 24" height would have to be at least 34" wide to meet the current standards. So Ken's window is at least 6" too narrow for sufficient egress and it has a blown thermo-seal.
Ken Ives couldn't wait for the one week process for the Photo Challenge so he submitted his next challenge directly to the AII™ Inspector Hotline....
Need some info from the assembled masses. Here is a picture of a Garage support glue lam beam, supporting the second story bedrooms in a house I inspected today. As you can see by the picture, it has been drilled near the top and carved out, plus it has been cut and notched on the bottom. I have a question. Is this acceptable? Let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. Ken Ives - Sacramento, California
This is a condition that I have also encountered many times. I have always noted the condition and recommended further evaluation by a Structural Engineer without never really understanding why it was such a big deal. All I knew was that it really is a big deal.
Steve Dansby shared..... Ken, This is an engineered beam. You cannot cut, drill or alter an engineered support. Defer to an engineer immediately and automatically-- every time. Steve E. Dansby - Portola, CA
The Engineers among us are so filled with information that when they respond they remind us of just how insignificant our knowledge really is. Steve Jordan responded.....
Ken Ives--- Your pictures are great!! I have seen glue lam beams notched like this before.
In general, the rectangular hole near the top does not compromise strength as much as the notch at the bottom. It looks like there might be 3-4 inches of undisturbed wood from the top of the upper hole to the top of the beam. The structural load on the beam puts the top fibers all in compression, whereas the bottom fibers (bottom of the beam) are all in tension.
As an interesting side note, horizontal holes can be cut through a beam like this on it's centerline (halfway between top and bottom) with very little weakening of the beam. It is the top and bottom few inches of the beam that carry the load. The center portions only serve to keep the top and bottom portions spaced rigidly away from each other!!
Now---forgive me if I get a little technical: The stress in the top and bottom fibers of the beam is directly proportional to the moment of inertia of the cross section of the beam, called "I" like the roman numeral "I". The formula for "I" is:
"I" = b (width of the beam) x h (height of the beam) cubed, divided by 12.
I could write this a lot more simply if I could figure out how to make a "cubed" symbol on this dumb computer.
For example lets assume some numbers. Assume the beam is 16" high by 4" wide and the notch at the bottom is 2" deep. So, using the formula above, "I" for the undisturbed beam is (4 x 16 x 16 x 16) / 12 or 1,365 inches to the 4th power. Then "I" for the notched beam is (4 x 14 x 14 x 14) / 12, or 914 inches to the 4th power.
Looking at the ratio of these two "I" numbers, 1365 / 914 = 1.494, so the stress in the notched beam is about 1 1/2 times the stress in an un-notched beam.
Similarly, 914/1365 is .669, so the load carrying capacity of a notched beam is only about 2/3 of the load carrying capacity of an un-notched beam.
If I were you, I would put in your report something like this:
"Noted that the glue lam beam has a notch about _____ deep in the bottom to provide space for the door operator mechanism. This appears to give significant weakening of the beam. If this is a concern to the involved parties, recommend analysis and recommendations by a Structural Engineer."
Call or E-mail me if you have any questions. I will be interested in seeing if others in our group have the same feelings I do about this. Steve Jordan in the Oregon rain forest.
Fred Corlis gave Steve a big Attaboy with.....
Great Job Steve!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it would reduce the structural strength of the beam and the bottom notch was the worst, try cutting a notch in the bottom of a 2x4 spread it between two saw horses and then stand on it, but I was not sure of the %. But by giving this great explanation on how it actually affects the beam we now have a grasp for it's actual effect.
Surely not always however sometimes a question is asked on the hotline and an answer is given but it's not explained in detail.. Those who know exactly what they are talking about can read between the lines... But for some of us on some subjects, I'll include myself, are playing with a short deck and don't understand exactly what your talking about. Especially on a definition of terms or abbreviations where a more detailed explanation would turn on the light in the old light house....Bingo...
I would like to thank you for the mechanic's of the explanation, my light bulb went from a 30 watt to a 75 watt on this subject.......... Fred Corlis, - Maple Valley, WA
Jim Corbin, another Engineer in the group, shared.....
Hi Ken, Glue Lam beams are an "engineered" product, designed for specific installations to support specific loads over a distance. They are assembled to allow spans greater than dimensioned lumber will sustain. Most holes and other breeches of the beam structure are round to avoid high stress concentration at sharp corners and are designed into the cross section of the beam.
With this beam, any increase in loading is no longer distributed throughout the cross section of the beam but concentrated at those sharp corners. This is not to say the beam is no good, but it is safe to say the design load limit is now reduced from the original design. I would call out that the beam is a engineered member and, based on the homeowner modifications, the manufacturer should be contacted for an opinion .
If the manufacturer is known, recommend contact to see if there is a concern. If the manufacturer is not known, many lumber yards have the specs on typical beams, and, based on design of the subject home installation, may be able to give assistance. Correction, if it is needed, may be something like sistering another wood member or a metal channel at the bottom to regain the original cross sectional strength. At least I would make them aware of the potential. Most of the installations, however, do have a healthy safety factor, but it would be good to mention and make it a matter of record.
Hope that helps. Have a good day! Good picture, by the way. I now have a digital camera and am anxious to learn some additional software to use the products. Regards, Jim Corbin - Bow, WA Jon Gudnason shared an interesting caution to how the reportable conditions should be documented in the report.....
Steve, That was a bit technical, but I found it interesting and good knowledge. I take some exception to your proposed language for reporting the condition. You say "If this is a concern to the involved parties, recommend analysis and recommendations by a structural engineer." The "involved parties" have hired us to tell them if it is a concern. They usually don't know any better. Someone just like them notched the beam to start with. I think we do our job better if we tell them to that the notch has weakened the beam and they should have a qualified engineer check it out to see if it is a concern. Jon Gudnason, - Placerville, CA Jon makes a good point that we need to let them know that it is an issue and that it should be further evaluated.
According to your Eagle Inspector Eye.... 'What would your reportable comment be about the notched beam???"
Jim Corbin from Bow, WA, shared a wonderful experience with me this week over the phone. It seems that he recently earned a client for life because of his phone answering skills. When the woman called, Jim went through all of the questions prompted by his pink scheduling sheet. He asked the age, location, condition, as well as information about the roof , heating and cooling systems. In the process of doing this he didn't think he was doing anything out of the ordinary. In fact, he does this with all of his clients.
The potential client called back a short time later to schedule her inspection. She told Jim onsite that she had called several other Inspectors and she decided to use Jim because he cared about her house. She said that all of the other inspectors quickly gave a quote with very little interest in her home, yet Jim had given the best effort to learn about the home before he had given her a quote.
As Jim shared this success story I thought back in my own mind to many of the less than satisfying phone quotes that I have provided in the last few years. All of them were the ones where they asked how much an inspection was and I quickly asked the square footage and then gave the quote. There is something magical on the phone when you take the time to learn about the house first. A bond is quickly formed and the potential client gains trust as they open up to you about their feelings for their potential new dream house.
TIP: Don't rush your phone quotes. If they ask how much is a home inspection, take them on a little journey before you give them the quote. If you build enough confidence through asking questions and listening, you will find that they are eager to give you the higher fee by the time you quote them. Thanks, Jim, for reminding us what makes our inspection process so special.
One of the nice features about the CE machines over the traditional laptop is battery life. A laptop battery is usually good for about 2 to 2 1/2 hours, but you can buy a second battery for $100 to $300 to double that lifespan. What I have found is that I plug in my laptop whenever there is a plug nearby. The A/C adaptor is always hanging from my custom tripod stand for easy plug-in.
Now comes the challenge with the battery life on the Casio E-100. I wish that I could tell you how long they last. The documentation says that it last up to 6 hours of continuous use, but I have seen some reports of 10 hours of use. These claims do not specify at which light setting the unit is on. I have read reports that by lowering the light setting just one notch from the brightest setting will nearly double the battery life. So does that mean that you have 3 to 5 hours on the brightest setting and 6 to 10 with one notch down??? The answer to that remains unknown.
Next comes the question of how much time is the unit on during a normal inspection. I have my settings set so that after 15 seconds of non-use the backlighting dims and after 2 minutes of non-use the machine turns off. The great aspect of the flash memory technology used in the CE machines is that you turn it off quickly and the moment you turn it back on the machine is right where it left off. There is no lag time, no rebooting, and most importantly, no delay.
So far I have been able to do two inspections in a day with no charging issues. I charge the unit overnight in the cradle and then plug it into a DC adaptor in between the inspections. This works well if you remember to charge it overnight. I don't know yet how long it takes to recharge and I see having just one battery an extreme liability..... Let me share with you a real life example.
Last Wednesday I thought that the 9000+ square feet Mansion would be the perfect test for the unit. I worked hard to develop the form set for the large number of systems and rooms. The form set was so large that I actually had to divide it into two halves, open up 3D twice on the Casio and then toggle back and forth between the two forms as needed. This is a limitation that you don't encounter on the full Windows version, but a reality with the CE platform.
I showed up ready to go and I started on the outside of the home. I inputed all of the exterior information and talked in about 9 comments into the built-in voice recorder to be keyed in later. I normally would have keyed them in on the little machine, but it was drizzling outside and I was motivated to get indoors. I then completed the two 3-car garages and then the separate 1 car garage. At this point I got the Main Battery Is Low warning message and realized that I had failed to leave the unit plugged in overnight.
So much for the real test..... At that point I plugged the E-100 into its cradle and synchronized the files into the laptop. From there I completed the large home in the traditional "tote the tripod from room to room" style. I made the decision last Wednesday to purchase the optional $44.99 second battery to prevent this mishap in the future.
SIDE NOTE: This type of mishap probably would not have happened with the more inexpensive Compaq Aero 1530. The monochrome screen is easier on the battery life and there are reports of 14 to 20 hours per charge. You lose the beauty of the color screen, but gain the advantage of clear visibility in the bright sunlight and the increased hours of use per battery charge.
For more information E-MAIL Us