March 21, 2005 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Tom Patchen, Lynn Barrington, Jim Sparkes, Bryan Wyatt |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Frank Estrada |
|
|
|
|
|
GUEST PRESENT: |
|
Jim Carpenter, Ken Christianson |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT:
EX-OFFICIO: |
|
Tim Pinnick, Inspections Supervisor
Patrick O’Brien |
|
|
|
|
Meeting called to order at 6:35 p.m.
After review of the October 20, 2004 minutes, Barrington asked to add one comment into the minutes. The comment referring to the air conditioner self-inspection that the decision by staff was the same backward thinking from the building inspection as had occurred in the past and was expected. Staff made changes as requested. Patchen made a motion to approve the minutes as changed. Barrington seconded. Pass 3-0. Wyatt was not at said meeting and abstained.
Mr. Pinnick addressed the board regarding the contractor licensing draft ordinance and began by explaining that the City Commission had removed the trade contractor licensing portion of the draft ordinance to be further discussed with staff and the trade boards. Pinnick stated that he was attending the meeting the open up a dialog between the Mechanical Board and the Building Inspection department.
Mr. Wyatt stated that he attended the City Commission meeting and at his and Plumbing Board chairman Kenny Breithaupts’ request, removed the trade contractor licensing portion because the Mechanical Board had not had a chance to meet and discuss the trade contractor licensing proposal. Wyatt continued that he was definitely a critic of Victor Torres and discussions in the past have not been very successful. But with Mr. Pinnick’s help there has been some dialog started between the Mechanical Board and Building Inspection. Wyatt stated this was a good opportunity to take a look at it and stated he still had some reservations about the proposal including the increased fees pertaining to the continuing education. Wyatt continued that the continuing education mentioned in the proposal was at Johnson County and only pertained to the International Codes and since the Mechanical and Plumbing trades were under the Uniform, the training at Johnson County would not be relevant. He mentioned that the publisher of the Uniform Codes, IAPMO would be willing to provide the training needed for the continuing education requirement and could be done locally. Wyatt stated that if Mr. Torres is willing to compromise then he was willing to compromise.
Pinnick stated that staff was interested in getting the 2003 Uniform Mechanical Code adopted as quickly as possible and working with the board to make that happen. Pinnick opened up discussion by stating that the origin of the contractor licensing draft is from the need for contractor discipline which there is none at the present time. Pinnick referred to the draft ordinance pertaining to types of complaints that would be used as basis of suspension or revocation. Another purpose for the draft ordinance is to make all the trades’ requirements consistent with each other such as liability insurance requirements which would require all trades to have a minimum of $500,000.
Barrington stated that most of the contract work that he deals with requires at least $500,000 of liability insurance for commercial jobs and agrees with the requirement.
Pinnick also stated that some of the license fees varies widely from $3 to $20. Pinnick continued that making the fees consistent is just good business practice. Pinnick referred to a bill being proposed in the Kansas house to require continuing education for all licensed Plumbing and Mechanical contractors (HB2058). Pinnick added that the draft ordinance requires continuing education administered by the Johnson County Licensing Coalition and is excellent training, the only hitch is the training is all International Codes. Since the Uniform Codes were being adopted, Pinnick noted that partnering up with IAPMO to provide the training for the Uniform Codes. The main emphasis is to have a recognized code body administer the training to be accepted for the continuing education requirement.
Sparkes referred to contractors that had been in the business for 25 or more years asked Pinnick what can you teach a person with many years of experience that is not already been learned over the years.
Pinnick answered by saying that in code change cycle years the training would be the code changes. Pinnick referred to other training such as notching and boring of framing members and proper techniques related to installing mechanical systems into a house. Pinnick noted that there were many courses offered to learn about something about construction.
Wyatt asked Pinninck what role will the Building Inspection Department in the continuing education if IAPMO was going to administer the training.
Pinninck responded that the Building Inspection Department would allow the demand to dictate the training and be willing to get a trainer in to teach any subject matter such as notching and boring.
Wyatt asked if training was administered by a separate entity, who would bridge the inconsistencies of the written code and what has been amended and also what is being enforced.
Pinnick stated that any time there is more than one person inspecting installations, even with the best of communication are bound to have some inconsistencies. Pinnick added that Building Inspections continue improving training to reduce the inconsistencies.
Wyatt Stated that he still had some trust issues with management but is willing to keep an open dialog. Because in the past, it took addressing the City Commission to get issues resolved such as the open permit letters to homeowners.
Pinnick responded that a good example is of the adoption process of the International Residential Code. There were four trade board that reviewed it and only one board supported it.
Barrington clarified that the perception from the boards is the committee formed for the initial review was a “stacked deck” referring to the several members from the City of Lawrence and Douglas County on the board.
Wyatt stated that moving in a positive direction is an advantage to everybody and he is ready to move on and start a dialog with management.
Pinnick asked board to answer a few questions for input on reinserting the “Class D” licensing back into the contractor licensing ordinance:
1. Should the City have the ability to suspend or revoke trade licenses?
Sparkes stated that the ability should be with habitual code violators and not the occasional up to 5 per year.
Wyatt stated that the city should have the ability but have a clarification of what would cause a license to be suspended or revoked.
Pinnick referred to 5-1409 that listed complaints on what criteria would warrant a suspension or revocation.
Wyatt has a separate concern that the City requires plans but then does not inspect per plans.
Pinnick stated that the City is in the process of changing the procedures of checking closer to the plans submitted.
The board concurred that on blatant violations the City should have the ability to suspend or revoke licenses.
Sparkes has a concern that if a contractor has his license suspended but continues working, what does the City do after that.
Pinnick stated that the City will then issue Notice to Appear tickets which carries a minimum $500 fine.
2. Should the City standardize certification and licensing requirements, such as liability insurance?
Barrington responded that the City should.
3. Should easy access to information, in the form of one certification and licensing ordinance be a priority?
Wyatt state that he agreed with the above question.
4. Is it reasonable for the city to require continuing education for all contractors?
Sparkes stated his concern is the content of the training and does not want to go to training and not get anything out of it.
5. If a trades’ contractor paid for the training, would a $65 annual contractor-licensing fee be reasonable?
The board as a group did not have a problem with the $65 licensing fee.
Pinnick also asked the board about training in general and the members of the board stated that they are in favor of training.
Sparkes asked Ken Christianson, IAPMO representative who teaches the classes conducted by IAPMO.
Mr. Christianson stated that with the increasing requirement of continuing education, IAPMO is beginning to develop training for that such purpose.
Wyatt stated that working with IAPMO, the trades could get the continuing education part taken care of.
Wyatt stated on a separate note that he appreciated Mr. Torres willing to work with the trade boards to do what’s best for everyone.
Pinnick asked what would be the next step in discussing the trade contractor licensing.
Wyatt suggested having the trade boards get together and have a discussion on the trade contractor licensing.
Barrington suggested having the Electrical Board included in the meeting also.
Wyatt concurred.
Staff reminded the board that Tom Patchen’s last term expires on March 31, 2005 and next month’s meeting should have a new board member.
Sparkes asked for some suggestions from the board on possible board members.
Motion to adjourn made by Barrington, seconded by Wyatt, pass 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.