Eagle Projects and Building Permits

[SemperParatus 1]

About three years ago, our District implemented a policy that no Eagle projects would be approved that require a local building permit (even if the sponsoring organization does the permitting). That seems to knock out a lot of ideas that the scouts come up with. In our troop alone, that prohibited (1) building an outdoor stage/decking for a community playground, (2) building a pergola/gazebo requested by our charter partner church, (3) doing some remodeling of an historic property to be used as a Native American museum. I know there are so many other projects the scouts can undertake, but I was wondering whether this is a common restriction in other councils/districts. If so, does anyone know if this is a national policy or just a local decision?

[isvirtual 10]

There is nothing in the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures book that indicates projects requiring a building permit are not permitted. I believe this requirement is a local decision. If you feel strongly about this, you might consider approaching the district advancement chair and having them justify this isn't adding or removing a BSA requirement.

 

There are some provisions in the document that empower the council to define guidelines. This might be something identified by the council as an issue. In this case you should probably cooperate.

[EagleInKY 14]

Haven't heard of it being an issue, but - then again - I haven't asked. Sorry.

[FScouter 24]

What is the purpose of the policy?

[SemperParatus 1]

The policy is explained at Life to Eagle seminars as a personal liability issue. Scouts are personally liable for their project workmanship and the district does not want to put scouts (or the district) in a position of constructing something that may fail causing injury to someone. I am not aware of any specific instances in the past where a project failure caused personal injury and liability issues for a scout/family, however, about the time this policy was announced there had been some locally publicized incidences of decks collapsing with one resulting in death. That may or may not have had some bearing on the policy being adopted (I am not on the District Advancement Committee and so am only speculating about a possible source).

[Twocubdad 665]

Being a contractor, I can tell you that if they are seeking to limit liability, the need for a building permit is a poor indicator. You tell me which has the higher risk involved: building a playground swing set or your outdoor stage/deck a foot or two off the ground? The playground equipment doesn't require a permit, but the stage does.

 

While permit requirements vary greatly from area to area, the threshold for a permit is generally base on making structural, electrical or mechanical changes to a structure or if the total cost of a project exceeds a set amount. It has little to do with the complexity or risk of the project.

[FScouter 24]

Have to agree with Twocubdad. A project built with a permit will be a whole lot safer and have a lot less liability than a bootleg job. A permit ensures the project will be designed, engineered, and built to code. The work will be inspected as it progresses by the official building inspector to ensure the work is being done correctly and the finished project will be safe. If the district is worried about liability, they should instead insist on only projects with permits, not without.

[Twocubdad 665]

Good point, FS. I had intended to make it as well but got ahead of myself.

 

If I were advising a boy on an Eagle project I may steer him away from one involving a permit for his sake, however. Sometimes the the hoops you have to jump through can be rediculous. A couple years ago we had a Scout who proposed to build a handicap ramp at a local Head Start program. He knew he would need a permit and included that in the proposal which was approved. What he didn't know was that because the building was county-owned he had to have engineer-sealed drawings and meet a much higher level of construction. Between the cost of an engineer and the added construction cost, the project was over $1,000 over budget. Of course the Scout was a death-bed Eagle and didn't have time to start over, his family came off the hip for the added cost.

[NWScouter 9]

Here is a good one for you:

An eagle project came before a troop committee meeting I was attending as their commissioner. The project was a two-story shed for a local little league ball field, the bottom for storage and the top floor for scorers box. The debate first centered on a permits that may be needed. Then it was brought up that the field was one that the county wanted removed. The county position was that the field had been built on land designated protected farmland and the use as a ball was not permitted under law. The issue is in court. The scout says that the shed will be built so it can be moved. I havent heard if the district has approved the project but I suggested to the Scout that he start thinking of plan B.

Another eagle project years ago in the Portland Oregon was to refurbish a public bus shelter. It ended up a union grievance. It seems that work on bus shelters is covered under the bus drivers/workers contract and this was ruled as taking away work.

Just a couple things to think about when you advise scouts on their eagle project.

 

[FScouter 24]

Yes. All things to think about when choosing a project. The boy should be advised. The boy should make a decision based on his analysis of all the aspects of his project. What I dislike is a committee making up a general rule banning a whole class of projects. Particularly when they arrive at their decision because of totally unfounded fears. If they're concerned about "liability", they need to ban all projects. Everything in the world has "liability". How in the world do people with no common sense get into these rule-making positions?