Loading...
07-22-2003 Minutes MINUTES BUILDING ADVISORY BOARD Tuesday -July 22,2003 - 4:00 P.M. Room 107 - City-County Building Members Present: Jeffrey Crist, Ralph Carter Jr, Bob Haworth, Henry Hoeffher, Jim Lytle, Stan Smith, Ron Stratman, Larry Taylor, Rick Walters Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mike Roberts, Building Official; Patricia J. Schempp, Secretary; Sue Cline, Supervisor Other Staff Present: Shawn O'Leary, Director of Engineering Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Haworth at 4:00 P.M. (A) Approval of Minutes of June 24,2003 meeting. Motion was made and seconded to approve Minutes as written. Motion passed. (B) Report by Shawn O'Leary on policy regarding new charge for street repairs. Shawn handed out some reading material to help in addressing this issue. He shared some information and said he would look to the Board's guidance to where they want this to go from here. Discussion was held between Board and Staff. Haworth - Anybody else have comments or questions. Monty Betts, Advanced Plumbing - I guess my question is, part of this subject was brought up by the trench safety issue and I agree with a lot of what Shawn said. Part of it I don't agree with. You can talk to any plumber here in town. The City is very helpful in their mapping of mains and services, but they're not always 100% accurate. So, if's awful hard for a contractor to give a price to a homeowner on a street cut. We can estimate and it is a big surprise to the customer first of all to find out that they are responsible for that sewer in the street. That's what the big surprise is. Then the price is secondary, a surprise, in my cases anyway that I've run into. I guess my question is if we're only dealing with 23 holes, why is it so hard for the City to take over that portion ofthat work to begin with. We had a report from Don Hoff, stating that it wouldn't be fair for the rest of the citizens in Salina to bear that cost. It doesn't sound to me like it's going to be an exorbitant cost if they would spread it out over the entire city. Take the plumbing contractor out ofthe city right-of-way. That's the only time a plumber has the right to go on the city right-of-way is on these deep sewers, where we are struggling with safety equipment. I mean we have been over and over this. I don't see why we should be Building Advisory Board Meeting July 22, 2003 out there to begin with. I think it should be the city's responsible to take care of that sewer from the main up to the property line. It's their right-of-way. It's not the customer's right-of-way. The city should be maintaining that sewer line and this problem would go away for the plumbing contractors. Haworth - Would anyone else like to make a comment? Of all the people that are here, would someone like to make a comment on how they feel on these issues? If they agree, what they agree with or what they don't agree with. Otherwise, as a Board we have nothing to draw our decision off of? Gene Blaske, Systems 4 - I don't know how many cuts we do a year but the program that they have now gives the cubit feet for the backfill and everything. Like I say, the only problem I ever had was that we used to cut all the streets. We didn't just take a jackhammer. But no matter how many times we cut, it was never good enough. And then you have to have a six inch bank on each side of your trench so that the replacement concrete has a base to set on. You know if you had six inch or eight inch or 12 inch all the way out, it was fine, but all of a sudden if you have a notch in there, they had to re-cut it. I don't know - everyone we cut, we had to pay double for a double cut. That's the only complaint I got. The formula is great. I mean we give the customer a set price before we come out. We include the street cut, the street repair, and everything in that. I mean once in a while you're going to get some surprises like everything else, you know like you said if the trench got a little bigger than was figured or the tap wasn't there where it was supposed to be, that's what screws up the works. I would like to see something ifthe city has all this information like Shawn said sometimes it's not completely correct, if you're in the street and you start digging off their measurements and you don't find it, I think: somebody else should take over responsibility for making this cut. Taylor - And it shouldn't be the homeowner. Blaske - It shouldn't be the homeowner. Other than that, the fee structure is pretty nice. We have no trouble with that. It doesn't happen all the time. Their measurements are pretty good, if they got it on camera, they're pretty well on it. But, if you're digging out there and you don't' find it, you know, all you see is dollar signs because you're going to have to move over especially in the street. In the easement, no big deal, but in the street, you have to find it. That's all I have to say. More discussion was held by Board and Staff. Haworth - One thing that we approached Don Hoff on was to try to get a flat fee based on asphalt, concrete, you know, that type of thing. That's what I understood what the Board directed at the beginning. Possibly, even with the flat fee, maybe even some type of a permit fee that the plumb~rwould pay for to where the city would be involved and have to go there and say o.k. I agree this is where the cuts need to be and then have it on a permit fee basis. That permit fee obviously would be based on asphalt, concrete and gravel. That may not be to the extent as you said with the total of $15,000. It may not reach the whole 15, but as you said some people might be paying a little bit more, some might be paying a little bit less. The Board would have to discuss that, you know 2 Building Advisory Board Meeting July 22, 2003 possible $300, $400, whatever pennit fee as a possibility to where that permit fee is picked and there is direct communication. Then obviously the city takes responsibility after that, everybody agrees that this is where the cuts need to be, this is going to be the fee, this is how it's going to be done. Smith - People have already paid special assessments once, why should they have to pay for it twice. Walters - As Mr. Betts pointed out with the limited number here I think it would be advantageous for the city to go ahead and take responsibility for those utilities up to the property line. Then spread those costs throughout the community instead of the one unlucky, or the 23 unlucky individuals each year approximately, getting hit with a $1500 to $2200 charge for a simple street repair. Crist - As a citizen, do you want to pay for the one guy who has a lot someplace where the sewer main is 15 foot deep and he just plain didn't bother to find out, so now he's upset because he has a big bill? Walters - Absolutely, these costs should be spread out. I think all the work to maintain those lines in the city right-of-way should be a cost that's absorbed by the city and then passed on through whatever fee is required to cover those costs, whatever additional costs are required. I think that's exactly how it should be. Those lines were put in by the utility contractor, supervised by, inspected by city employees, it's in their right-of-way, it's not on the property owner's property and it's in that right-of-way, and if it breaks down I think that should be the responsibility of the city to maintain those lines. Haworth - As a Board this is going to be a difficult decision. I don't know if that decision can be brought forth today or the Board may possibly just want to give you another direction for you as a staff to discuss before our next meeting. But obviously as a Board would then have to give a direction. Right now from our discussion you don't know which way to go. O'Leary - We're happy to do that. I think that's exactly the case. We found some more information this time that we didn't have last time and I think we can go back within our system and the Utility Dept. system and come back with more definitive answers if the direction from you today is to go back and find a way for the city to inherit these completely and just quit arguing about it, then that's what we'll do and we'll bring that back to you. Haworth - Possibly give us a couple of options. O'Leary - A couple of options, you bet. Haworth - Anybody else on the Board want to start discussing this issue? Roberts - As staff, I would just like to follow up with one other issue here for the Board's consideration. At the last meeting the plan that was suggested to the Board was that the Engineering Dept. would come up with basically a uniform fee for these and not the 3 Building Advisory Board Meeting July 22, 2003 option of completely taking the work over. I think there are other affected parties. We heard from some contractors that feel like this is definitely the role the city should play. At our last meeting Don Hoff suggested that when the city took over the water installations several years ago that there was some resentment on the part of the p]ivate contractors that, that work was taken away from them. So I want to be sure that if that's the direction the city is going to go, that those contractors have an opportunity to be here to present their concerns, if that scope of work is going to be taken away from them. Walters - I would like to explore the option of the city going ahead and taking that over completely, and I agree, Mike, we need to get the contractors that are going to be affected by that decision, if we do choose to go that way, involved. Haworth - Would other Board members like to make comments? A couple of things have been suggested as possibilities. I'm not saying that you have to be locked in to one of them but just trying to get again Shawn a direction to possibly bring forth to the Board. Or does the Board just want the city to look at taking over 100%. Taylor - I think we still need input from the people who do the work. Walters - As Mike said and Shawn agree with for those contractors who want to do this work, there might be a possibility for them to contract through the city and continue to do that work, but that the cost of that work in the R-O-W is spread throughout in some sort of fee in the department. Haworth - Gene, you talked earlier, what's your thoughts on some of this or do you have some here? Blaske - I was here when they took over the water service and even though we were against it we had no choice, you know, 35 cents a month on each meter was the charge at the time. Now we give away the gas service to Kansas Gas and now we want to give the sewer away, but you have two issues here, new and existing. We do a lot of new water services. The city doesn't put them in for free for us. We cut the street. We put the new services in. Then you've got the existing -like sewers too - I mean on new projects the owner pays for it all. The existing homeowner out there if he has a break in the street, he pays for it if it's a sewer, for all, if it's water the city pays for it. You have two issues here - you're going to - I don't like giving up much work - I mean we're geared. I mean there are a lot of contractors that are geared for this type of work and you know we have trouble with the city once in a while, yeah, it's a good relationship, you know, sometime you don't agree with them, I don't want to give away some more work that are plumbing work. A sewer, you know, the new projects you can do what you want but I mean if you do make a decision the way you want to alleviate this price over the people living, you know the little old lady 65 years living in the house, that's existing. But I think you should designate between new and existing work if you're going to set a fee. That's all I've got to say, but I just you kllow the majority of my work is cutting in new services. Not majority, it's a minor part, but it's still plumbing work. Stratman - Is there special assistance or anything that people can get if it is a catastrophic deal for this one person? 4 Building Advisory Board Meeting July 22, 2003 O'Leary - There is assistance for low-income homeowners that go in the rehabilitation program, whether it be sewer lines or roof repair or furnace repair. So, I think we have systems in place to help them. I don't know how many cases there actually are. I know of a couple cases where very catastrophic sewer repairs that they were able to get those grants, but they are based upon low-income status ofthe owner and that could be an elderly person or a number of other status conditions. Taylor - It seems like if you were going to lean that way, if you were going to differentiate between new or existing, then it would make more sense to go to a flat fee system for a permit system for the existing homeowners so that they would know the cost up front. Then if they're low income and you've got plans available for them, otherwise that kind of spreads the cost so you don't have a surprise. O'Leary - That's an interesting concept. I mean that's kind of the blend of all these things and I think if you went that route that you'd be looking at the lower end of it. I think Bob mentioned $400 - I think that's where you would be somewhere in there. When you do that, the Systems 4 that had the $97 cut just paid $400 more dollars for that then what they had that time but the guy that had the $1600 cut and saved $1100. Taylor - It's a known cost to the homeowner up front. Crist - It's all cost to the homeowner, no matter where it comes ftom. O'Leary - That's correct. In that case everyone's giving something on the capital or the immediate cost so now the city is giving some. It really costs to do that but the city is absorbing some and the owner's absorbing some and the plumber is absorbing some. When you do that, you're also having the plumber in the business doing the work. Haworth - That's just where I was leaning for, but again, that's just my thoughts, keeping it with the private citizen. O'Leary - That's why this is so complicated because it's a series of blends that you can do. It doesn't have to be black and white, it can be a number of different approaches. The existing and new is an interesting thing I hadn't thought too much about, but that's a realistic issue and many times the stories we're hearing, we've heard today, are about those existing conditions, those catastrophic 40 to 50 year old sewer lines and the combined $4,000/$5,000 bill to do that. We're all going to feel the pain of that one if we have that situation and maybe that's what we ought to be addressing here. Hoeffner - Shawn, would we have to monitor - if I've got this right - say a plumber comes in and there's a $300 permit fee to go into the street and they go in and they have a bill of $600, how do we know,that's a legitimate cost when it's being borne by the city? O'Leary - I think if I'm understanding the question, what I understood to be the proposal was that there would be a $300 fee and no other fees and no other expenses. The city would absorb all the service for that repair for that fixed number. 5 Building Advisory Board Meeting July 22, 2003 Hoeffner ~ How do we know that's a legitimate number? O'Leary - That's where you almost have to take this history and we could go back as many years as you wish and arrive at some reasonable number, but I think it's going to be a sense of judgement on your part or someone's part that says what is the right nwllber. Haworth - And again what I'm saying is the city has to be involved from the beginning versus if it's a flat fee and then plumber digs hole, makes barricade, and the city shows up and like "my gosh, what did you do here?", you know versus no surprises. O'Leary - That's where you can go. You can track it. I mean you could do this for a year and track the real fee or the real permit fee versus the real experience and come back a year from now and have learned ftom it and perhaps that fee gets adjusted up or down. Hoeffner - Maybe I'm missing the point here, but what I'm talking about is no matter what the fee is whether it's $200/$300, the actual cost the plumber is charging, they're going to charge it to the city, right? O'Leary - I see. Hoeffner - How is that going to be legitimized? Who's going to pay? Haworth - The plumber charges the citizen. Walters - The homeowner. The homeowner is going to get $300 say from the city no matter what, is that what we're saying or they have to pay the city $300. Hoeffner - I'm misunderstanding about the permit. Haworth - (Not picked up on tape.) O'Leary - The building permit fee for the new home, that's in your Haworth - And then the citizen would pay the plumber and the plumber on his schedule or her schedule would have everything written down that would include that permit fee cost within those expenses. It is just a proposal that I had thought about reading this stuff that might be fair to try as a small step within the city. The city would still be subsidizing some expense. There's going to be some higher expense here that the city is going to have to absorb because the permit fee of $300 or $400 for all of these that's happening isn't going to add up to our total of $15,000 per year. O'Leary - So the unknown there, the variable, is being absorbed within the utility system Hoeffner - That's where my problem is. How are we going to determine that additional cost? Say it's a $600 plumbing bill, o.k.? Haworth - The plumber knows presumably where that sewer is and is going to estimate their expenses. 6 Building Advisory Board Meeting July 22, 2003 Crist - The city will track that, Hemy, just like the numbers Shawn has brought up. You've got them from somewhere, so you track sites and that kind of stuff. O'Leary - We can track them again. If you set any fee system, it has to be reviewed on an annual basis to make sure it's appropriate and fair and a change with time, of course. I think if you adopted something different, we'd be doing that very carefully the first couple of years to make sure it's working. Hoeffner - So you'd have a set fee. In other words if a plumber comes and they were putting in ten foot of line, for instance, they'd be able to charge so much to the city, o.k. O'Leary - That's correct. Crist - No, the city's charging the plumber. O'Leary - The city's charging the plumber one fee for that permit and all the services are included in that fee. Crist - The city's going to do the work inside the right-of-way and charge the plumber for it. Hoeffner - Oh, I thought we were getting back to allowing the plumber to do the work in the right-of-way. Smith - We do the excavation. Betts - They do the backfill. Haworth - It's not changing what the city's doing now. O'Leary - Instead of the variability of that ftom $100 to $1600, it's going to be $300 every time. Hoeffner - O.K. What I was understanding was that we were just going to charge that homeowner a set fee for all the work that's being done in the city right-of-way. Haworth - No. O'Leary - It's not that proposal. I mean that's another proposal but the one your Board members want is the city do all the plumbing and repair and that's a whole other thing. Haworth - Ifwe could give a direction to Shawn, I don't feel, us as a Board, is willing to make a decision at this time aÙhis meeting. As I look at it, there are two primary proposals that we could have Shawn study on before our next meeting. Obviously, the one is the pennit fee schedule and the other one would be the city taking over the entire work and costs 100% in the city right-of-way. Correct? Is that what the Board wants? Then also have Mike Roberts go to the plumbing contractors and see what some of their 7 Building Advisory Board Meeting July 22, 2003 opinions are, in the meantime. I believe that is what I have heard as a Board. Is everybody agreeable to that? O'Leary - I'll be glad to do that. Roberts - Yes. Haworth - With the time that we have allotted, do we want to delay - - Roberts - Mr. Chairman, if I might suggest, we were going to look at the International Building Code today. We have a gentleman that's a guest here that would like to speak to this Board about the possibility of adopting a different code. As he's here today and he's come from a long way away, I think the Board perhaps might find it reasonable to give him an opportunity to speak at this time. Haworth - We'll do that. Allen Inlow, Chief ofField Service Operations, IAPMO - I received word about 30 days ago that the City of Salina was ready to start looking at a new codes adoption process. Since your last adoption process, there's a whole new complete set of nationally recognized model codes. I did include information on all of those codes, some of which you currently use in the city and would simply ask that you allow me to put together a program with NFPA and IAPMO. We would like to put on a public meeting for you. Do an introduction to the codes, give you updated information on all the 2003 codes that come from the NFP A package set and allow you to begin the process. I have spoken with Mr. Roberts, he has told me he's pretty much neutral on the codes, but I do think you ought to look at them side-by-side. There are significant differences. I've tried to outline my viewpoint in the correspondence that I sent you in the industry. Obviously, you will be discussing it with my competitors as well, as you well should. So if you're going to defer further consideration, sometime in the next 30 days I will try to get NFP A here, hold a public meeting at one of your local motel meeting rooms and invite this Board as well as the entire industry, who might be interested in coming and seeing that presentation. Then at a following meeting, if you would be kind enough to put me on the agenda, 1'd be more than happy to come back and respond to any questions you may have. Haworth - Does the board have some questions here or comments? Crist - I have a question and I have been doing a little bit of research. Do I understand this correctly the main difference between the IBC and the C3 package is the way in which it is formulated, not so much the language but the input in terms of the IBC is sponsored by what used to be ICBO, which are government building officials? Inlow - That's correct. Crist - The access to code decisions or recommendations, answers or the way the consensus is built, is just those folks and does that exclude design professionals and contractors? 8 Building Advisory Board Meeting July 22, 2003 Inlow - The ICC system, which was created by literally a merger of the three building official organizations in the United States, do limit voting on codes adoption and matters within their association to the building official or designated government employee. They do have public hearings where you or I can go make a presentation and state this is the code change we would like to see. From that process forward, voting is limited to building officials participation only. Crist - As a private citizen, if I had a question on some code issue and I wanted to ask what their opinion was, would I have free access to that system? Inlow - My understanding - I would be far more comfortable if you would literally ask them that when they come. It's my understanding that if you need code advice or an interpretation, they will ask you to go to your building official, let him ask, and then he'll transmit the information back to you. Crist - Because he's a member of the organization and you aren't? Inlow - That's correct. Unless you are a non-voting member of the organization and I understand you can get code advice if you are a member of the ICC. And to make sure we're clear, the books are not written in the same manner either. As you noted, there is a significant difference in the philosophy of development. The process and the procedure are significantly different, but when you lay the books side-by-side, you'll find that they're written in distinctly different formats as well. The ICC has chosen to follow a perfornlance format wherein they rely on tables, designers and reference books. We, literally, have followed the more historic prescriptive format which does set a shelf level and then allows you to do the design and engineered systems above that minimum level. So, you'll notice as you look at the two books, they are decidedly different as well in the way they are written. Properly applied, will they both result in safe, sound, sanitary systems, yes, I believe that's true. But how easy are they to work with is something that definitely needs to be taken in to account by this Board and the industry. Roberts - Is there anything available that is a comparative analysis between NFP A 5000 and either the UBC or the IBC? I know that there's comparative analysis available that IAPMO has done between IPC and UPC. Is there any sort of work that has been clone to analyze the differences. Part of that question comes from Mr. Crist's question as to the differences between the documents. His question was is there anything substantive between the documents besides the manner in which they're written or brought into acceptance by the code-writing bodies. Obviously, there are differences probably between the two documents. Has there been work done to do any kind of a comparative analysis between the two? Inlow - I believe that there has and when we do the public meeting, I would hope that NFP A would be able to introduce that document and pass it out. I believe that the ICC also has a document, which I am sure will be made available to you as well. 9 Building Advisory Board Meeting July 22, 2003 Haworth - Is this something you think, as a Board if we think this is a possibility, that you'd go ahead and direct other people to come here and set a meeting date in a hotel you said and get some people involved? -. Inlow - I'd be pleased to do that at your pleasure, yes. Crist - Do so. Haworth - I was going to say, why not. Let's go ahead and do it. Inlow - Thank you very much. Roberts - Just following up the other question that Ijust had for Mr. Inlow, that would be staffs imperative at this point. The research that we've done and I want to clear up one, I think perhaps there was one misconception in the letter £Yom Mr. Inlow that this Board was ready to accept the full "I" code package and that was not the case. Staff was purposing to look at the International Building Code but the other codes we were going to look at side-by-side with the C3 codes and make a determination. There are several interested groups within the community that have vested interests in which documents , that we adopt. So, it was nevif the implication or inference £Yom staff that we were suggesting to you that we adopt the I-family of codes. Our staff research to this point of the building code has been to try and determine what effect or impact that the changes in the code would have on the actual construction in Salina for the designers themselves and for the construction community as to costs. So, our local amendments that we have adopted that are codified in Chapter 8 are based on the Uniform Building Code, which in large part has been carried forth into the International Building Code. So, we're not prepared to offer any staff recommendations on the NFP A because we have not had any opportunity to use that document, to analyze that document or research the differences or what kind of impact that might have on our community. Hence my question to Mr. Inlow about providing some sort of analysis for us to have a side-by-side comparison. I would suggest that the Board put off review of the Staff Report on the International Building Code and of local amendments at this point in time. Our goal is to have reached a complete review of the codes for adoption by January of 2004. One of the substitive differences between NFP A 5000 and the new International Building Code is that the building code now has a separate sister document, the International Residential Code, which staffhas hoped to consider at our next meeting. Obviously, this will postpone that but I would suggest that if the Board is going to hear from NFP A representatives, that they be scheduled at our next regularly scheduled meeting, which would be August 12 th, if that can be scheduled with NFP A, in that kind of a time- £Yame. That would conclude my suggestion at this time for the Board for recommendations. Haworth - We've done this before, scheduled meetings at an earlier time, maybe we can do this on August lib if the ro?m is available. Roberts - We can check and see if it's available, if the Board is willing to meet at an earlier time. Haworth - Do you want to try for 3 :OO? 10 Building Advisory Board Meeting July 22, 2003 Roberts ~ 3:00 P.M. Haworth - Everyone on the Board acceptable with that? Hearing no comments on that, we'll just tentatively plan on that unless we hear differently. Anything else that you have to add, Mike? Roberts - Not on that issue. Haworth - Do we want to go to the next item? Roberts - As you know, we try and let the contractors know well in advance of when any changes in fees are going to occur, we wanted to have that information in our August newsletter about what the fees would begin to be in January of2004. Basically, what we are proposing to take - it's Mike Morgan's goal to take this to the City Commission next Monday - hopefully, if it's not next Monday, it will be the following Monday. One of the changes in the IBC that we would have talked about today in the administrative portion, is that the fees are now set by the administrative body. There's no more fee schedule in the building code and so we were left with trying to make a determination of what we were going to use as a fee schedule £Yom now on. The ICC does publish a valuation table in their ICC magazine, much as the ICBO did in their Building Standards magazine before. We are suggesting that we use that table as it is. After a cursory examination of it there's a slight increase in the valuation cost of construction. Then as far as the building permit fees themselves we haven't increased the building permit fees for approximately three years. We have been using 80% of the value of the fees published in the '97 Uniform Building Code. It is our proposal to suggest to the Commission that, that table be increased about 3% and then the newest proposal that will probably come as good news to some of you is that we are going to propose to go to a actual square foot fee for residential permits, in that your fee would be that you wouldn't do an intermediate valuation to determine, your fee would just be based on a squa:re foot number. For example, it works out roughly for a $100,000/$120,000 house the fee. would be about 48 cents a square foot. Weare looking at that number except that we haven't arrived at exactly what that number should be yet, but Mike Morgan wants it to be lower than it has been. He wants to lower the cost for residential permits. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 5:20 P.M. 11