October 4, 2006, minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Russell Brickell, BJ LaBounty, Larry Frost, Jeff Hardie and Tim Kaufman |
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Jeff Oliver and Daniel Beebe |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Phil Burke |
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
None present |
|
|
|
|
Chairman Frost called the meeting to order at 6:10 pm.
Minutes
The minutes of the August 2nd, 2006 meeting had been emailed to all members. All members present had viewed the minutes prior to the meeting. Brickell made a motion to accept the minutes and LaBounty seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business to discuss.
New Business
Brickell reported that the Fire Board currently has an ordinance being drafted and they are going with the 2006 IFC. He stated that all the Board Chairmen have been meeting in order to pave the way for all adopted Codes to be of the International type. Brickell has been playing a dual role, representing the Electrical Board as well as the Fire Board.
Brickell suggested that the Electrical Board consider amending the IRC Electrical portion to reflect our current amendments and submit this to the Building Board as part of their adoption. It would only impact one and two family dwellings and would allow the building community to refer to only one book.
Frost asked what we had done before in regards to the IRC.
Staff responded that the Board had completed the work of reviewing the IRC and creating amendments, but the final vote failed.
Frost asked if all that information from the previous review was available.
Staff stated that all the material from the first review is available for reference.
Brickell thought we could vote on the necessary amendments and pass those along to the Building Board and they could handle it from there.
Frost suggested that Staff provide the information from the past actions regarding the IRC review and amendments since several members were not on the Board at that time. A small review session could be held during the next meeting to get everyone up to speed on what would be required in amending the IRC to reflect our current amendments.
Hardie mentioned that he was not familiar with the IRC.
Brickell explained that it was basically a single code book made up of all the necessary codes to construct one and two family dwellings. The Building Board is working on the adoption of the 2006 version of the IRC.
Hardie questioned if this had some tie in with the Contractor Licensing program.
Frost commented that all of Johnson County was under the International Codes and their Contractor classes are based on the International Codes. The City’s building code is very outdated and no longer in publication.
Staff stated that an electrician could wire a one or two family dwelling using the 2005 NEC and our amendments with no problem. The builder could also refer to the 2006 IRC and its’ amendments and discuss disapprovals or other issues regarding the electrical system. Specialty trades typically receive a call from the builder regarding disapprovals, but framing issues are very often discussed with the builder first before they relay what corrections need to be made to the framer.
Brickell is confident that the Building Board would like to include the electrical sections in their adoption of the IRC.
Frost hoped that another complete review similar to last time wouldn’t be necessary.
Brickell stated the other big issue out of this is that they want everyone to go to the International Codes. If everyone could get under that same set of codes it would create much less difficulty in design and review of plans. He thinks our movement towards the IRC may help other boards to make the same decision. The IEC is basically an administrative manual to the NEC which is also recognized as the International Electrical Code. Brickell thought that it could be amended however necessary to meet the requirements of the City. The Fire Board has gone exclusively with the administrative section in the IFC.
Frost mentioned that an article 80 had been added to the NEC for administration, but was removed in favor of the current administrative language in the ordinance.
Staff presented a document outlining the “flat fee proposal” suggested by the Mechanical Board. This topic has been around for awhile but has recently surfaced again and Staff was directed to present it to the Electrical Board for comments.
Frost asked what was wrong with the way it worked now and who had purposed this change.
Staff thought some of the issues had to do with discrepancies in valuation of work on furnace and air conditioner change out permit applications. Staff was under the impression that it was brought forward by the Mechanical Board or suggested to the Board by an outside source, it wasn’t the City.
Frost questioned why they would care. If the Contractor was concerned about the cost he would just under value the work. Frost mentioned that this has been happening for a long time.
Hardie thought if they were competing against someone on the bid it could make some difference. Hardie added that there were many variations in doing a service change that could add to the cost significantly.
LaBounty asked how much difficulty was involved in changing to a flat fee.
Hardie added that the City would see no benefit. He would like to see more reasons why, than just a suggestion from the Board.
Kaufman asked if this was only applied to residential.
Labounty commented that this would not do away with the valuation system on commercial and other types of projects. He expressed that one system would be better than just changing one small section and retaining the current system for all other permits.
Frost and Hardie echoed the comment “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”, until significant reasons can be presented to the Board to cause a change, it just doesn’t seem logical.
Brickell made a motion to support the current method used by the City to calculate permit fees and it was seconded by Frost, the motion passed unanimously.
Staff mentioned that the NR Department is soliciting persons interested in serving on the Contractor Licensing Board.
Adjournment
Frost made a motion to adjourn and it was seconded by LaBounty. Motion passed unanimously and meeting was adjourned at 6:42 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Phil Burke Secretary