February 10, 2005 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Lee Queen - Chairperson, Janet Smalter Vice Chairperson, John Craft, Mark Stogsdill Mike Porter |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
GUESTS PRESENT: |
|
Victor Torres - Director Neighborhood Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Officio |
|
Adrian Jones, Structural Inspector |
|
|
|
|
A quorum was established, Chairman Queen called the meeting to order at 4:07 pm.
Correspondence
- Memorandum Wood shake shingle provided by Victor Torres
- Draft of statement to the commission
Approval of January 20, 2005 minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes.
Queen wanted to it noted that there was dialog that indicated that Chapter 11 would more greatly affect entry level housing than mid to upper level housing. Higher end housing comes closer to meeting most of the requirements. Jones agreed, and noted that he was conducting an informal survey of energy efficiency of windows while in the field. He stated that on entry level homes the u-factor of windows were between 40 and 55, which did not meet the requirements of Chapter 11. As the price level of homes increased, he saw more windows with the u-factors in the 30s.
Porter wanted the minutes to state that Section 1202 of the contractor licensing. “The intent of Section 1204 appears to allow the homeowner to perform work on their own property”. Queen wanted it to note that just because a homeowner works on his own property or builds his own home, he still has to have a permit for all the work the City requires permits for.
Smalter wanted the minutes to reflect that under Section 1209 Class B contractor her question was would the contractors be required to get the continuing education from Johnson County. Jones stated that fee refunds were discussed. Porter agreed and noted that Smalter did ask specifically about continuing education. Queen stated that he knows that $135 of the contractors fee goes to continuing education, but the question becomes does other types of continuing education count and would a contractor be eligible for a refund. Jones invited Victor Torres to address the Board on the issue of contractor licensing CEUs.
Smalter asked Torres if the contractor licensing would only allow CEUs from the Johnson County program. Torres stated the program would allow other types of CEUs. He stated that as the City implements the program the focus is on implementation. It is better to have the CEUs from Johnson County because it is there and straight forward for staff to implement the program get the continuing education part and move ahead. As time goes on it is going to become obvious that there are going to be other programs that will provide the same level of training. Staff will look at those programs individually. Today, the City has not looked at other forms of continuing education that closely, but Staff does know that it is something that will need to be considered in the future. Staff made some revisions to the ordinance to that effect that there is a committee that may consider other technical courses as far as continuing education. He stated as far as a refund, there probably will be but that will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. The more complex the administration of the ordinance becomes the more staff intensive it becomes. Staff is trying to make the administration of the ordinance as simple as possible. If it starts off with Johnson County no additional staff will be required to monitor the program.
Torres stated that there had been some revisions to the ordinance since the January 30th meeting. He offered to provide the Board with a revised draft. Torres also reported on the Public Meeting that was held on the contractor licensing ordinance. Stogdill asked about prorating the fees. Torres stated that at the program inception, the fees would be prorated, but after the program is implemented there would be no prorating.
Jones asked Torres to explain the wood shake shingle memorandum provided to the Board. Torres explained each of the documents in the handout. He asked the Board to review the information and give the Commission a recommendation on the use of wood shake shingles.
The board reviewed the draft of the statement to the Commission. Craft stated he was concerned that the statement was not giving the Commission any numbers to compare or whether the code was going to increase the cost of housing 5% or 10%. The statement was not giving the Commission any information other than saying it has left the technical area and become a policy issue. He realized that if he was a commissioner he would want to know right away what are the numbers and how severe is it going to increase the price. Porter said he agreed with Craft but in reality if the commission needs the information it should be going to staff. Queen said he disagreed. He stated that he thought he was more of an expert on cost than Jones. Porter stated that his point is that someone was going to have to come up with some numbers, whether it’s Queen or Jones or whoever it is that actually comes up with some hard numbers, there is some considerable effort that’s required. Porter stated that he is not convinced that any of us (the Board) have those numbers.
Stogsdill stated that he wanted the wording changed from a political decision changed to a policy decision.
Queen stated that he wanted the statement to say “ the issue becomes affordable housing versus more energy efficient homes”. He believes that the new homes are the most energy efficient homes in Lawrence. Craft stated that the statement should be “ affordable housing versus improved energy efficiency in new homes”.
Queen wanted to change the statement to that “It is in this area that the majority of the Board feels that the effect of adopting the new energy standards becomes policy decision and not that of a technical advisory board”.
Statement to the commission
The building Code Board of Appeals has reviewed Chapter 11 of the 2003 International Residential Code. Chapter 11 sets forth the energy efficiency related requirements for the design and construction of buildings regulated by the IRC. The board is aware of the lack of affordable housing in the City of Lawrence. The Board anticipates that the added cost due to the new energy requirements may result in increased cost for existing, less energy efficient homes as well as for new homes. This would exacerbate the affordable housing problem. If this holds true, the issue becomes affordable housing versus improved energy efficiency in new homes.
From a technical viewpoint, the Board believes the recommended energy standards are solid and will save significant energy for new homes. However, the cost of ownership for existing homes may be increased by the standards (which apply only to new homes). It is in this area that the majority of the Board feels that the effect of adopting the new energy standards becomes policy decision and not that of a technical advisory board. The Building Code Board of Appeals is requesting input or guidelines from the commission before proceeding to do further analysis and make recommendations.
Craft stated that the Kansas Building Science Institute had allocated some money to provide training for demonstration of the Home Energy Rating System. Stogsdill stated that it was the direction that he would like to see the Commission go. He wanted to receive input from various groups and develop some hard numbers. Queen stated that he did not see how that would provide any numbers for the Commission. Stogsdill stated that that demonstration would be more beneficial at the Energy Fair.
Stogsdill asked Jones what is the time table for Code adoption. Jones explained that the trade review boards had completed the reviews and were forwarding the recommendations to the Commission. Jones stated that the reviews had not gone as smoothly as was hoped when the Code Committee forwarded it’s recommendation to the Commission. Jones stated that the Code Review Committee forwarded a recommendation to the Commission to adopt the International Family of Codes. The Commission Voted 3-2 to adopt the I-Codes and directed the trade boards to review the Codes for adoption. A letter was forwarded to the boards that said the boards could review or compare other codes. So the review process took a lot longer than anticipated. Jones stated that in speaking to the other inspectors who are ex-officio members of the boards, the boards felt like they got conflicting directions from the Commission. In making a comparison, the plumbing and mechanical boards recommended to adopt the Uniform Code. The Electrical Board voted not to adopt the electrical section of the IRC. The Mechanical Board chose not to review the IRC. Queen said that he heard that the Mechanical board would not even open the book. Queen stated that in his mind as a builder the true value in having the IRC is having one book containing building, electrical, plumbing and mechanical. The book should be in every builders and remodeler’s truck. Jones stated that the Electrical Board decided that it wanted to amend out the electrical section of the IRC. Queen stated that that decision was insane because the electrical portion of the IRC was right out of the electrical Code. Jones said the reasoning was that the board did not want to amend two code books every three years. Jones stated that staff is going to recommend adoption of the I-Codes. Craft said that he was at that Commission meeting, and there were a number of votes. Jones stated that there were two votes. One vote was to allow the adoption of blended codes, which failed 2-3. The other vote was to adopt the International Family of codes, which passed 3-2. Queen stated there was a secondary statement of some sort that said if the boards could not make the I-Codes work then come back to the Commission with an alternative. Craft asked Queen if he had any input as to why the mechanical board is so opposed to the IRC. Queen stated that he knows they are being lobbied by the IAPMO code officials. Jones stated that staff’s recommendation is going to conflict with the recommendation of the Board. He believes the Commission will have to resolve the differences.
Porter made a motion to send the statement as amended.
Queen stated that the Board could not make a motion to adopt the IRC with the exception of Chapter 11 because it had not reviewed the draft report. Queen asked why the board was forwarding the statement to the Commission before the complete review of the draft ordinance. Jones stated that the Commission wanted to know the general direction of the boards. He stated that none of the other boards had completed a final draft ordinance to forward to the Commission. Porter stated that the board did not have the authority to adopt the Codes. The only authority of the Board is to recommend.
Craft moved that the Board rescind the motion to approve the minutes. Stogsdill seconded the motion, which passed 4-1.
Queen stated that he still believes that the statement should not accompany the motion to adopt the IRC. Craft said that he saw it as the Board asking input on Chapter 11 so it could forward amendments for adoption including Chapter 11.
Queen moved to revise and approve the minutes to include the statement “ Stogsdill made a motion to recommend adoption of the IRC with the exception of Chapter 11, upon final review of the amendments and to draft a statement to the commission.” Seconded by Porter seconded the motion, which passed 5-0
The Board agreed to review the draft report at the following board meeting.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Stogsdill moved to adjourn. Porter seconded the motion, which passed 5-0.
The meeting adjourned 6:25 p.m.