August 31, 2005 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Lynn Barrington, Jim Sparkes, Bryan Wyatt, Kevin Chaney |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Frank Estrada |
|
|
|
|
|
GUEST PRESENT: |
|
Ken Christianson, IAPMO Robert Shepherd, IAPMO |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT:
EX-OFFICIO: |
|
Adrian Jones, Building Inspector
Patrick O’Brien, Mechanical Inspector |
|
|
|
|
Meeting called to order at 6:31 p.m.
Barrington made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Chaney, pass 4-0.
Discuss contractor licensing ordinance for trade contractors
Wyatt opened the discussion and asked staff if there were any new developments from the state (of Kansas) or the city regarding the continuing education requirements.
Staff stated that nothing has changed at the state or city level. Staff added that the Plumbing Board of Appeals has voted to be included back into the contractor licensing ordinance.
Barrington mentioned that if the state is requiring continuing education for all licensed mechanical tradesman, then the city should also require all licensed mechanical tradesman. Barrington stated that the city should take a proactive approach and not only require the shop master to have the continuing education.
Staff acknowledged that the idea was well received, but at this time, the resources to track all trades licensed workers’ continuing education was not in place. Additionally, the city has an agreement with Johnson County licensing program to administer continuing education to approximately 160 contractors. If all licensed tradesman were required to have continuing education, the number would be closer to 1500 people. Another source for continuing education needs to be developed.
Wyatt inquired what the continuing education requirement by the city will be.
Staff responded that the continuing education requirement will be 8 hours per year.
Motion made by Wyatt to have mechanical trade contractors to be included back into the Contractor licensing proposal as written. Seconded by Barrington.
Barrington inquired if the shop master could be changed so another person could take the continuing education.
Staff stated that the shop master could be changed at any time to any qualified master.
Sparkes asked if there will be additional bookwork involved with having 8 hours versus 6 that the state requires.
Staff responded that there would not be any additional bookwork.
Wyatt stated that without the Mechanical Board in the Contractor licensing ordinance, there was no representation on the Contractor Licensing Board.
Barrington agreed.
Motion Pass 4-0.
Review and discuss changes to Mechanical ordinance for updates
Staff stated that all the changes were highlighted and the board reviewed the changes with staff.
Chaney made a motion to accept the changes to the ordinance from 2000 to 2003. Seconded by Wyatt. Pass 4-0.
Receive report concerning adoption of 2003 Uniform Mechanical Code
Staff member Adrian Jones began with a brief about the concerns that have been raised regarding the adoption of the 2003 UMC. At the request of the City Commission, research conducted by Staff showed that with the printing of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, there would not be any newer versions of the Uniform Building Code printed. Starting with the 2000 edition of the International Building code, the ventilation requirements that were originally in the Uniform Building Code had been moved into the IMC. With the International “family of codes” there is not a problem. The problem arises when municipalities adopt a blended code scenario such as Lawrence adopting the UMC. The 2003 UMC does not have the ventilation requirements contained in the book, thus creating a gap where no code that is adopted has the ventilation requirements contained in them. IAPMO, which produces the 2003 UMC, realized that the absence of the ventilation requirements was creating a gap for blended codes and has sought to fill the gap starting with the 2006 version of the UMC. Although, at this time there are gaps that exist. Adrian mentioned that other municipalities had sought to adopt the 2003 UMC along with the other International codes but went to the 2003 IMC because of the gaps and the burden of making multiple amendments. There are also gaps in the blended codes when it comes to the International Fire Code. If the Uniform Mechanical Code and the International Building Code are adopted, the gaps will exist and will have to be amended.
Chaney stated that he understands that the requirements are missing, but at this time, the Mechanical Board needs to stay with the most current version. Chaney continued that the International Building Code has not been adopted and that when it is, then the Mechanical Board can discuss making possible changes at that time.
Barrington agreed that he realized there was going to be a lot of work to get the UMC adopted.
Jones responded to Chaney’s concern that the timeline for adoption of the IBC would be approximately the first of the year.
Chaney reiterated that his main concern is to get current with the UMC and then review the differences between the UMC and the IMC with an open mind.
Jones stated that on the commercial side of the code, there are requirements that will be missing when the blended codes are adopted. With the discrepancies that have been described, any commercial plan will have to have an engineer design the mechanical installations.
Robert Shepherd with IAPMO addressed the board and confirmed what Jones was reporting about the discrepancies in the 2003 UMC, and stated that the discrepancies have been addressed in the 2006 UMC and all the ventilation and exhaust requirement will be included in the 2006 UMC to fill that gap. Shepherd also mentioned that the 2006 UMC will be printed and possibly be ready for distribution by December 1st for review by the board.
Chaney asked if there was a reason that the Building board could not wait until the Mechanical Board had a chance to look at the 2006 UMC to verify that the missing provisions were included and then adopt the codes concurrently.
Jones stated that at this time, Lawrence continues to lag behind the rest of the area with the 1997 UBC, architects, engineers have to refer back to the older code to draw plans when everywhere else has moved to the newer codes such as the 2000 and 2003 International codes. The inspections department continues to send plans back to architects and engineers to revise plans under the correct codes.
Wyatt stated that the other trades, including Mechanical, have stayed current and it has been the Building Board that has lagged behind. He continued that he wants to make the right decision even if the board had to wait a few months to get it right.
Chaney mentioned that if the board went to the commission and stated that the adoption of the 2003 UMC and the 2003 IBC would cause problems that could be solved by waiting for the 2006 UMC, which would only be three months. They may be willing to wait that amount of time.
Wyatt questioned if the exhaust and ventilation requirements were the only provisions that would be missing.
Jones confirmed the question.
Chaney asked Jones if he could ask the Building Board to recommend to the commission to postpone the adoption of the 2003 IBC until the Mechanical Board can review the 2006 UMC and then the two boards could adopt the corresponding codes and not have any discrepancies in the codes.
Jones stated that he would address the Building Board as to the request. He asked for assurances from the representatives fro IAPMO that the 2006 UMC would be ready for distribution by December 1st stating that the web site was relaying February 2006 as the target date for distribution.
Robert Shepherd stated that the published version with the final covers will be available in February, but there will copies available by December 1st.
Jones stated that the Building Board will likely request a target date for when the 2006 UMC would be ready to adopt.
Chaney stated that at the latest would be March 1st, 2006 to be ready for adoption. He also suggested not adopting the 2003 UMC and just wait for the 2006 UMC to adopt codes back to back.
Miscellaneous
Chaney introduced for discussion the issue of permit fees for residential change outs (furnaces and air conditioners). The example was an entry-level system compared to a top-level system. The permit fee for one may be three times as much as the other, but the inspections for both systems will take the same amount of time to administer.
Staff inquired if a “flat rate” fee system would be a feasible alternative.
Chaney stated that by moving to a “flat rate” fee system in his opinion will encourage more people to be honest with the valuation and encourage more people to obtain permits.
Sparkes stated that he has changed his procedures to charge the customer the actual price of the permit fee after the fee has been billed to him.
Chaney stated that he is not concerned about how much the fee is as long as he knows what the fee will be.
Sparkes agreed with Chaney.
Staff acknowledged that the concern will be discussed with Management on the feasibility of a “flat rate” fee system.
Motion to adjourn made by Chaney, seconded by Wyatt, passes 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.