City of Lawrence

Board of Electrical Appeals

April 5th, 2006 minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT:		Jeff Oliver, Daniel Beebe, Jeff Hardie, Russell Brickell, and Larry Frost

MEMBERS ABSENT:		Moncef Hadiji and Dan Wilkus

STAFF PRESENT:		Phil Burke, Toni Wheeler Legal Services
PUBLIC PRESENT:		None present

Co-Chairman Brickell called the meeting to order at 6:08 pm.

Minutes

The minutes of the February 1^st, 2006 meeting had been mailed to all members. All members present had viewed the minutes prior to the meeting. Beebe made a motion to accept the minutes and Oliver seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.

Contractor Licensing

Toni Wheeler, Attorney with the Legal Services division of the City of Lawrence was present to discuss the Trades Contractors being placed back within the Contractor Licensing Ordinance. Documents were provided at the meeting to all Members of the current Ordinance, as well as Article 12 and a memorandum outlining the changes in table form. Ms. Wheeler’s main focus was to go over the document and explain the changes necessary and field any questions that were raised by Members. Ms. Wheeler asked Members to look over the document and feel free to contact her with any questions or suggestions that they may have. She will be visiting all the Boards during their monthly meetings during April. Ms. Wheeler briefly explained the process that Code changes go through and expressed appreciation for the Boards’ work on Electrical Code reviews.

Hardie asked about the fee of $200 dollars for licensing.

Ms. Wheeler said that was the fee for all Contractors and is paid on a yearly basis.

Staff responded that the $200 dollar fee included the cost of the continuing education component of the Contractor Licensing program. The actual cost of a Contractor’s license would be approximately $65 dollars.

Ms. Wheeler questioned the Board in regards to a desire to have a Member from the Electrical Board be placed on the Contractor Licensing Board.

Frost stated it was his understanding that this is what was discussed in a previous meeting regarding the make-up of the Contractor Licensing Board.

Ms. Wheeler stated that this draft document does not reflect that because she had just been made aware of this recommendation recently.

Frost asked if the Plumbing Board had asked to have one of their Members serve on the Contractor Licensing Board.

Ms. Wheeler responded that she didn’t think the Plumbing Board had requested that, but the Mechanical Board had done so. She does have some concerns with respect to the Contractors being Members of both Boards and how the terms would coincide with one another. Ms. Wheeler explained that citizens have and currently do serve on more than one Board, but it does limit the applicant pool from which to draw. She expressed that this may be something the Commission will want to consider further during their review of the draft document.

Frost stated that without some representation from the Electrical Board on the Contractor Licensing Board we may not stay informed on actions regarding electrical issues.

Ms. Wheeler stated that the draft document will be provided to the Commission for informational purposes this week. Her report will also reflect that she is taking this information out to all the Boards. There will be a period of time in which the interested parties can submit suggestions or changes to her or through the Staff Liaison to the Board. The proposed timeline for the Commission to take action will not be before May of this year. The Legal Services Department wants to make the Code as clear as possible for anyone that wishes to access the Code.

Frost asked if the Board would be informed as to the decision on whether or not a Member from each of the various Trades Boards would be appointed to the Contractor Licensing Board.

Ms. Wheeler’s recommendation would be that if they do it for one Board it would be done for all. She didn’t think the Commission would be interested in carving out that piece of the ordinance for only one Board.

Frost commented that an Electrical Contractor from this Board would be the most informed person on the workings of the Electrical Code, given the extensive review process.

The Board thanked Ms. Wheeler for her presentation.

Unfinished Business

Co-Chairman Brickell turned over the meeting to Chairman Frost.

Frost brought up some things from his final sweep of the changes book that he wanted to bring forth for Members to be aware of. The items listed on the agenda were as follows; 210.52 (E), 250.118, 300.4D, and 406.8 (B).

210.52 (E) The Members briefly discussed the issue and it seemed this is the way it is presently being done in Lawrence.

250.118 The Members briefly discussed the issue and no action was taken.

300.4(D) The Members discussed this section which requires cables that are not set back from the front edge of a framing member or furring strip by at least 1 ¼” would require the cable to be protected for the entire length that it is below this minimum dimension.

Frost commented that protection of this type would be difficult to come up with and voiced that it wasn’t being enforced.

Beebe stated that the protective requirement should be left in and that it might prevent damage from homeowners hanging pictures and the like.

Staff commented that it was not a real common instance, but some houses that were constructed in certain areas of Lawrence don’t have full stud width walls. Many of the interior walls of these particular homes are only 2 inches, which doesn’t allow for the 1 ¼” set back required by the Code. A recent re-wiring of one of these homes is an example of where this requirement came into play. The Electrical Contractor placed these metal strips in all necessary locations. Staff thought the change was required since furring strips are not considered framing members because they have no structural strength.

Frost brought up a possible concern with 406.8(B)(1) in regards to having waterproof covers installed indoors where a wet location exists. Frost stated many commercial kitchens are subject to being washed down as part of the nightly cleaning and thought many receptacles in these areas might fall under this new requirement. Frost also included a concern brought to him by an Electrical Contractor on enforcement of bubble covers underneath covered porches.

Oliver thought the reason bubble covers could be required in commercial kitchens would be the same reason they would be required on covered porches, since they both have the possibility of being hosed down.

Staff stated that wet location is defined in the NEC.

Staff remarked that his take on enforcement of this requirement followed the explanation in the 2002 NEC Handbook, although the NEC Handbook is not enforceable. Staff had always understood the requirement for wet location covers to be applied to all those outdoor locations listed for dwellings whether or not they happen to be partially protected by a porch roof. Staff had always considered that underneath the roof meant it was installed into the soffit or overhang much like those used for holiday lighting.

Members discussed a possible measurement to be applied to those located under roofs and if they were high enough on the wall they wouldn’t require a bubble type cover and those that fell below that measurement would require such a cover.

Frost echoed a common complaint that on front porches of a $400,000 dollar house no homeowner wants that ugly cover sticking out.

An enforcement issue dealing with a sub-division swimming pool had surfaced several times during the discussion and staff explained briefly what had been written on the notice and what the general interpretation was.

Staff distributed a copy of the proposal form he placed at the various Electrical Wholesalers located in Lawrence. Staff had not received any of these back at the time of the meeting.

Staff distributed a copy of the draft ordinance to all Members.

Hardie asked if any action should be taken in regards to the bubble cover issue.

Frost stated it could be left as it is in the Code and the Board could look into how the interpretation for enforcement is handled. He hears these issues from Contractors all the time, even though he encourages them to attend the meetings and speak up, it never seems to happen.

Correspondence

Staff made note of letters from the Mayor appointing Daniel Beebe and Larry Frost to additional terms. Staff also mentioned that he had received an email from Dan Wilkus regarding his possible resignation from his position. Staff noted that no official word had been received from City Hall regarding a vacancy, but he encouraged all Members to keep in mind a citizen at large vacancy is highly likely and be thinking of possible candidates.

Frost made a motion to adjourn and it was seconded by Brickell. Motion passed unanimously and meeting was adjourned at 7:07 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Phil Burke, Secretary