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