December 21, 2000
| Members Present
Ben Barcon Patricia Childs Gary L. Coley Michael Fries Peter Hemingway David Kelly Scott Mardian Gary Morris Herman Orcutt Greg Russell Julie Stiak Darrell Wilson
Members Absent |
Staff and Interested Parties
Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD Manuel Davila, City of Phoenix, DSD Rick Doell, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Fitz, City of Phoenix, DSD Jaime Fox, City of Phoenix, DSD Ryan Gregory, City of Phoenix, CED Chris Hartye, City of Phoenix, Mayor's Office Don Jones, City of Phoenix, Law Barbara Koffron, City of Phoenix, Fire Larry Litchfield, Development Services Kelly O'Neal, City of Phoenix, DSD Alan Olson, City of Phoenix, DSD Alex Singbush, City of Phoenix, DSD Bruce Swanson, City of Phoenix, PRL Margaret Wilson, City of Phoenix, Law
Rus Brock, Home Builders Assoc. of Central Arizona |
Gary Coley, DAB Chairperson, convened the meeting at 3:09 p.m.
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2000:
Darrell Wilson advised that in the final paragraph on page seven of the minutes, there was reference to the formation of an Ad Hoc Subcommittee to address the Design Guidelines being proposed to the North Black Canyon Corridor. The minutes read as if the members were named as assigned specifically at the last DAB meeting. Mr. Wilson stated that the members were not being assigned at that time, but rather listed those interested in participating. The reference to committee members will be deleted from the minutes. Committee members will be identified during the subcommittee-reporting portion of the agenda.
MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Michael Fries, to approve the meeting minutes of November 16, 2000. Motion carried unanimously.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW DAB MEMBERS:
Gary Coley introduced Mr. Danny Ortega to the Board. Mr. Ortega represents Mechanical Contractors.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr. Coley mentioned the upcoming Planning Session scheduled for January 9 and asked that as part of that session, he would like to have as many potential future agenda items as possible to consider at that session. He asked that any proposed items be directed to himself, Larry Litchfield, Carole Fitz or Carole Borrego.
DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Fiscal Subcommittee
Herman Orcutt reported that discussions centered around the simplification of the DSD Fee Schedule and that Jaime Fox, Rate Analyst, for Development Services will be presenting a status report on that review. Manuel Davila will also be giving a recommendation for a change in the current DSD policy for customer parking charges. The subcommittee has reviewed and approved the proposal and will pass it on for review by the entire Board.
Process and Procedures:
Ben Barcon stated the subcommittee met on December 14, at which staff and outside representatives made a presentation regarding the lack of certification for steel fabricators/erectors in the Phoenix area. Staff will be presenting a more formal recommendation at the next subcommittee meeting and after review, the members will look to bring those recommendations to the DAB.
Hillside Subcommittee:
Julie Stiak stated that significant progress has been made with the proposed revisions to the Hillside Ordinance. At the December 20 Planning Commission Meeting, the commission accepted the Hillside Subcommittee's phase one recommendations for Hillside Ordinance text amendments as follows:
- |
methodology to allow slope area determination by computer analysis hillside density waivers by the Zoning Hearing Officer in Planning Commission prior to City Council combining existing grading regulations of 25% under roof and 10% maximum additional grading into a flat 35% disturbance, plus 5% grading if revegetated requiring a slope analysis density study concurrent with rezoning or preliminary site plan/subdivision submittal. |
Technical Subcommittee
Peter Hemingway reported that the Technical Subcommittee met this past week regarding residential accessibility issues. Members of the Arizona Home Builders Association presented a recommendation that they provide a majority of their models with accessible entrances and that they would list accessibility options as a part of their packages. The subcommittee felt that this would increase awareness for the availability of these options. Rus Brock of the HBACA will put this proposal before their membership for consideration. Mr. Coley asked if a draft of this proposal would be available to the DAB. Mr. Hemingway felt that a draft would be ready by the January 18 Board meeting.
FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL BRIEFING:
Darrell Wilson advised members of the Black Canyon Corridor Design Guidelines Ad Hoc Subcommittee include: Scott Mardian, Gary Morris, and Darrell Wilson, with DSD staff participation by John Parks. Sally Heinrich of the Planning Department attended the December 19th meeting and presented an overview on the status of the review by the Design Standards committee, as well as a projection of the approval process timeline. Mr. Wilson stated that he and Scott Mardian subsequently attended the Design Review Standards Committee meeting held that same day.
Mr. Coley asked if the ad hoc subcommittee would report on the timeline at the next meeting. Mr. Wilson stated that they would and will also specify concerns that the subcommittee has on the design standards. Mr. Wilson stated that due to the complexity of the guidelines, the timeline for adoption doesn't appear to be as aggressive and initially anticipated.
DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEE STUDY PRESENTATION:
Margaret Wilson, Law Department, announced that this would be her last DAB meeting, as she was being reassigned to the Planning Department. Ms. Wilson introduced Don Jones as Development Services' new Law Department representative.
Ms. Wilson addressed questions directed to her regarding interpretation of the regulations, specifically in regard to subcommittee meetings and quorum requirements. Ms. Wilson advised that the Opening Meeting Law is not meant to paralyze the committee, but that certain guidelines were designed to protect the public, so business in not conducted in secret. If a decision is not being made, or deliberations on the merit of an issue are not being made, then information can be received in the form of presentations from either consultants or staff and is permissible without a quorum.
Ms. Wilson suggested that if difficulties with quorums are being experienced, that perhaps the size of the subcommittees should be increased or reduced to enable a quorum to be more easily attained. Ms. Wilson felt that a subcommittee of five members would probably be the most manageable.
Ms. Wilson stated that the Courts look at charges of OML violations with an eye towards whether the intent was to circumvent the Opening Meeting Law requirements. Ms. Wilson advised the Board that the City's in-house expert on the OML requirements is Larry Felix, Law Department, (602) 262-6761. Mr. Felix would be happy to address any specific questions the Board may have regarding these regulations.
Mr. Coley advised that he was rearranging the agenda sequence in order to accommodate the schedules of several attendees. Mr. Coley moved on to item eleven on the agenda, Discussion of Consensus Codes and Standards.
DISCUSSION OF CONSENSUS CODES AND STANDARDS
Mr. Litchfield brought the Board up-to-date on the process, mentioning the Smart Permitting Process and the process to adopt the 1999 National Electrical Code, which has been recommended by the Board and is going before Council for adoption in January. NEC is a document of the National Fire Protection Association, an organization that produces codes and standards and currently meets the criteria of the Five-Step Code Adoption Process and Council Resolution #19015.
The Five Step Code Adoption Process and a timeline for adopting the codes was passed on December 5 by the Ethics and Public Safety Subcommittee and by the full Council on December 13. The Council specifically spelled out which codes they deemed as consensus and could be reviewed at this point in time. Those codes are the National Electrical Code (in progress), Uniform Mechanical Code (IAPMO), State Plumbing Code (IAPMO), Building Code and Fire Codes (NFPA 5000 Code - which will not be available for review until mid-2002 to 2003).
Mr. Litchfield explained that the NFPA and IAPMO codes have been deemed to be consensus, but the ICC codes have been determined not to be consensus, due to the fact that they do not meet ANSI consensus code definitions. ANSI requirements specify participation by all parties involved with the code throughout the entire adoption process and equal membership participation in the voting process. The ICC codes have what is called a "governmental consensus" process. They begin with industry representation on a committee. Subsequent recommended code changes that come before the committee are voted on and passed on to a hearing. At this point, the hearing participants can make objections to the committee action and override the action of the committee.
Once the actions of the committee and assembly are drafted into code changes, those documents are then given to the three model code groups (BOCA, SBCCI, ICBO) and the vote is controlled solely by the building officials as members of those organizations. At this point, the ICC process looses their "consensus" process, since voting is limited to the building officials, who can make changes or override items that have gone through the consensus process.
Public comment was made by Suzanne Gilstrap, representing the Arizona Multi-Housing Association. Ms. Gilstrap stated that the Association was present at the Ethics and Public Safety Subcommittee and has requested that in addition to the codes that were listed, the International Codes (ICC) also be added. Those are the codes that the Association feels, as an industry, are the best suited.
Ms. Gilstrap advised that the ICC codes are the culmination of a lengthy process incorporating the three model codes used across the country into one code. As an industry, they advocate that jurisdictions adopt those codes and believe that is the direction that the City needs to be going. With those codes comes seventy-five years of code development process and tried and true building code experience. The Association feels that what the City has done with adoption of Resolution #19015 is basically to limit the ability to review all available codes.
Ms. Gilstrap stated that the "I" Code is the only code in existence today, because once those codes came together, the Uniform Building Code ceased to exist; and the NFPA 5000 Code has yet to be completed. Even though the UBC is the code that the City uses now, there will be no new editions of that code. The Arizona Building Officials Organization has passed a resolution calling for uniformity in building codes and is asking for the adoption of the ICC codes. The MAG Building Official organization has also put their stamp of approval on uniformity and adoption of the "I" Codes. What they see is a major city going in a direction that is inconsistent with the direction that the rest of the State is taking. The Association asks that the Development Advisory Board give this issue grave consideration and go back to City Council and ask them to consider the "I" Codes along with these other codes.
Ms. Gilstrap asked how a code could be considered that hasn't yet been developed. Ms. Gilstrap stated that the code is based on the 1970 UBC; a code that hasn't seen updates for the last 25-30 years. The Association asks "Why are we doing this?" and requests that the Board ask the same question. IAPMO, with respect to the plumbing code, has lost their ANSI accreditation, and she doesn't believe it can be determined a consensus code. That is the code that the State has used as its base for the development of the Uniform Plumbing Code and even if the Uniform Plumbing Code is deemed to be a consensus code, under that description, it surely no longer is.
Rus Brock, Home Builders Association, stated that the National Association of Home Builders participated in review of the early drafts of the International Codes and they too are in concert with other regional associations in advising the push towards adoption of the Internal Codes. His concern relates to the rest of the cities not having a resolution such as Phoenix. He finds it difficult to understand that Phoenix is taking a lead role in promoting uniformity, when they have hamstrung themselves in a position where they are not allowing the review of International Codes, that other cities in the Valley as well as Tucson and Oro Valley, will be adopting.
He stated that if the Development Advisory Board is to advise the Council, how is it they are being put in a position where they cannot review a set of codes? It seems prudent business sense to review the International Codes and make use of the time until the National Fire Protection Codes come out in 2002. It doesn't preclude adopting the NFPA, if it turns out to be a better code, but it certainly makes more sense than pretending that it doesn't exists, because of some consideration of how it was assembled. This code grew out of a code-making body that has been developing codes for seventy-five years. Why is it that it would be inappropriate to even look at and consider them?
Mr. Herman Orcutt, stated that the American Institute of Architects (AIA) has also been involved nationally in development of the International Codes and see a lot of merit in its adoption. When a code develops like this one has over the past seventy-five years, systems, materials, and products develop along with it; which is another issue we need to think about. If we move in a different direction, the entire industry is going to be divided on what to do about it.
Michael Fries asked Larry Litchfield how the City choose in 1997 to determine a consensus code? Was it a direction internally from departments? Larry Litchfield responded that Development Services staff prepared a City Council Report that recommended the adoption of consensus codes. At that point, there wasn't the issue at hand; there was only one set of books on the record, and no anticipation of any problem. It has only been in the past year that the NFPA announced that they were going to create the building codes, so they weren't in the running until mid-January of this year.
Mr. Coley directed Mr. Fries to packet copies of the City Council Reports and Resolution #19015. Mr. Coley stated that if you read the resolution, it has many good things in it. Who would object to an open process where everyone has a say and gets to vote? The implementation is another issue. Mr. Coley stated that he is Government Affairs Chair for BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association). BOMA has participated in the International Codes and is as member of the Codes and Standards Committee at the national level with BOMA. Mr. Coley also stated that BOMA has a chairperson on the NFPA code process. BOMA is participating in the process in self-defense as much as anything else. If they are going to build a code, you want to be involved. If you have to live by it, it ought to be as good as they can make it. But it is not going to be finished for two years. Mr. Coley mentioned that, like Rus and Suzanne in the commercial industry and the architects association, he doesn't see why we are looking at a code that won't be finished for two years.
Mr. Coley stated that consensus codes are a good thing. The commercial real estate industry's position is that they don't exist. That there is no consensus code and it is a matter of who is reviewing it and their definition of whether it meets the criteria or not. If the process is a consensus process, but it's not applied fairly, it is not a consensus code. Mr. Coley stated that he had a copy of the ANSI definition of procedures for the development and coordination of American National Standards, ANSI Institute, which reads: "Consensus means substantial agreement that has been reached directly and materially by affected interest categories. Concurrence of more than a simple majority, but not necessarily unanimity. Consensus requires that all views and objections be considered and an effort be made toward the resolution."
Mr. Coley declared that, in his opinion, if you follow that definition none of the codes meet that definition. Some have a fair voting process, but implementation and participation is strictly limited by the subcommittee process and the chairs. The letter that he received from Kenny Harris indicated that the City Council's consent agenda vote to move this forward precludes anything else from being reviewed, which was not what was discussed at the Council subcommittee level. Councilman Phil Gordon asked specifically in that subcommittee meeting if this process precluded other codes being reviewed and at that time Councilman Siebert stated, "No, that they were approving the process which DAB recommended."
Mr. Coley explained that he then received a letter from Kenny Harris, Development Services Director, in response to his request, that says that this was not the case. Mr. Coley also stated that was not what he was told by the Mayor's Office when he called before the City Council vote was taken.
Mr. Coley explained that he is agitated because, what he was being told on the one hand at the Council Subcommittee level and what he was being told by the Mayor's staff is different from the information he received in the letter from Kenny Harris. He feels that it is a matter of who is defining "consensus" at any given time. He personally doesn't feel that any of the codes meet that definition. What he does think is that the make up of the Development Advisory Board is broad enough in scope and has enough City, industry, commercial, private representation, that the Development Advisory Board's review of the codes is a consensus process.
Julie Stiak stated that if it is Mr. Coley's assessment that there really is no consensus code in existence, then the resolution supports his action in section 1, the second sentence - "In the absence of such consensus codes and standards, the City of Phoenix shall move to develop consensus construction codes to ensure all interests are represented in the development of the Phoenix Construction Codes."
By using the previously approved Five-Step Process, and because of the make up of this committee, the DAB would be honoring the resolution of 1997 and could incorporate the International Codes in their evaluation.
Mr. Coley agreed and stated the concern he has is that the DAB approved a process, the Ethics and Public Safety Subcommittee approved the process and added to that recommendations for the other codes and in that meeting stated that it didn't necessarily limit those codes. When Mr. Coley called the Mayor's Office, he was told the same thing, yet Mr. Harris' letter states, "The Council action of December 13 confirms staff's decision that ICC codes do not meet the consensus criteria. If that decision were to be appealed, the Law Department has determined it would be appealed to the City Council and must be done by the next Council Meeting, which is January 10." Mr. Coley again stated that he doesn't understand and would like to have it explained.
Mr. Don Jones, Law Department, stated that what he advised Mr. Harris was that a motion to reconsider would have to be made at the next Council meeting and would have to be brought forward by the person quoted in the majority of the resolution. Mr. Coley asked for clarification. Does that mean one of the Councilmembers that voted for the resolution or does that mean the Five-Step Process item on the December 13 agenda. Mr. Jones confirmed that he was referring to the Five-Step Process item on the December 13 agenda. Mr. Coley advised that, to his knowledge, this was the Consent Agenda and there was no discussion by Council. Mr. Coley stated that the fact that it was put on the Consent Agenda at the very last minute so that no one could object to it being on the Consent Agenda also troubles him greatly.
Ms. Gilstrap wished to add one more point; that one of the reasons the apartment industry deems this so important is that for the first time in building code history, the new "I" Codes have incorporated the Fair Housing Accessibility Standards. Since 1988, when the Fair Housing Accessibility Standards were adopted, the only thing the industry has had to work from has been the law itself. It was never written in true building code language. The "I" Codes have incorporated these standards and are the only code that HUD has judged to be in compliance with Fair Housing law.
Ms. Gilstrap further stated that the question was asked as to why the 1997 Resolution was developed. She believes that it fell on the heels of something that occurred at the State Legislature, where the Plumbing Union went to the Legislature and asked them to create a uniform plumbing code commission. The reason being, the use of different codes in neighboring jurisdictions and the need for creation of uniform plumbing codes for the state. This is the same group that is pushing this other code. IAPMO is the group that has developed the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Mechanical Code and her organization feels that this is all about money and publishing rights of the codes and the provision of training. Her organization feels that this shouldn't get in the way of the City of Phoenix making a decision that is in the best interest of its citizens and not in the best interests of special interest groups, such as IAPMO.
Mr. Herman Orcutt asked that if they did wish to do something about this, what action could they take? Mr. Peter Hemingway emphasized that it would have to be now. Mr. Coley agreed and that it should be simply a recommendation to the City Council that they reconsider the item.
Ms. Stiak asked how many other major cities in the country have adopted these "I" Codes? Mr. Litchfield stated that he wasn't sure, but in Arizona it has been adopted by Tucson and Oro Valley. Mr. Coley advised that he has a listing provided by BOMA, which includes the Navy Facilities Division (which adopted the codes two years ago) and also the Oklahoma Department of Health. Mr. Coley stated that this is not really his issue. His issue is that he personally doesn't like being hamstrung. He came to serve on this Board because he wanted to participate in a positive process and then to have a box drawn around him…, that is the reason for his level of agitation at this point.
Mr. Coley stated that, in the commercial real estate industry, his concern is liability and can he get the best product at the best price. He doesn't care who sells code books, but he doesn't want to be told that he can't have a voice in which ones are even considered.
Mr. Orcutt reiterated that with the direction we are going with the Uniform Electric Code; and the idea of trying to get conformity across the Valley, the State, and across the country; he thinks it is extremely important. To get some uniformity would certainly make their lives better so that they can provide a better product for their clients and to get involved in less conflict. He likes the direction that all that is going and anything that we can do on a local level to help that, he would certainly be in favor of.
Mr. Litchfield offered two points of clarification, the Federal Fair Housing alignment won't be occurring in the "I" Codes until the 2003 volume, per an approval vote taken in Birmingham. The current version has approximately twenty or so changes that were made and voted on in Birmingham. The actual "I" Code today is not totally in alignment with the Federal Fair Housing regulations. It's pretty close, but the 2003 version will bring them into alignment.
Ms. Gilstrap stated that it was her understanding that the 2000 "I" Codes as amended contained the accessibility standards, but aside from that, the International Code Council has developed a stand alone document called "Curb Requirements for Housing Accessibility" which are essentially the very same code information that was amended into the 2000 "I" Code.
Mr. Litchfield stated that his second point is that they have gotten an indication that the California State Building Standards Commission has voted not to adopt the "I" Codes at this point in time. It has been put on hold and is under review by the California Building Standards Commission. This affects the entire state of California as they are on a statewide code.
Mr. Fries stated that without knowing all the specifics, it seemed to him that although we brought the process for adopting the NEC to the Council for a vote, it must not have been what everyone else in the staff liked to see happen. They must have wanted to put these four in front right off the bat. Mr. Coley stated that they were dealing with a different issue. Mr. Coley referred back to a speaker at the public hearing on residential accessibility that had spoken and warned the Board of the path that we were on when we were talking about the Five-Step Process. The Board voted on the process, which outlined how codes are to be reviewed. The argument is that we voted on the Five-Step Process and then the definition of Step 1 and the exclusion of some codes as opposed to others was added as it went from us to the City Council.
MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Greg Russell, that the Development Advisory Board strongly urge the City Council to reconsider the vote taken December 13 on the Five Step Process for Code Adoption to redefine the definition of consensus to allow the inclusion and review of all codes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Hemingway clarified his understanding that the impact of this motion would be that it would go to City Council and that we are just asking them to allow us to consider the "I" Codes. Mr. Coley stated that yes; we are asking them to reconsider their vote to allow that to happen.
Mr. Don Jones, Law Department, advised the Board that this item was on the agenda as a "Discussion" item, therefore under the Open Meeting Law it was not for action and the earlier motion would not be appropriate. Mr. Jones suggested that the motion should be rescinded.
MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Dave Kelly, to rescind the previous motion as out of order. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Jones suggested two alternatives: that the Board go to the Council as individuals, or that they call a special meeting on this item as an "Action" item.
After discussion, the Board determined that, in order to address this item and provide a recommendation to City Council prior to the January 10 Council Meeting, they would hold a special session on Tuesday, January 2, 2001 at 4:30 p.m. Ms. Childs also suggested that Board members attend the Council meeting in support of their recommendation.
Mr. Litchfield asked for clarification that on future agendas all items should all be noted as "Discussion / Possible Action in order to avoid this situation from occurring in the future. Mr. Jones advised that it would be an acceptable solution.
DISCUSSION/PRESENTATION ON THE SPECIAL HAZARDS UNIT FOR THE PHOENIX FIRE DEPARTMENT
Ms. Barbara Koffron advised that, following a $100 million fire at Central Garden Supply warehouse, the Council approved action to create a hazardous materials section to do on site inspection of hazardous materials establishments on an ongoing basis.
Most businesses do not realize that there is a continuous reporting responsibility regarding hazardous materials. As a result of the Council action, fourteen positions were approved and the unit is currently being set up. This brings the Fire Prevention section back to 1990 staffing levels.
Mr. Greg Russell asked how this unit interfaced with the normal inspections that the Fire Department does of most commercial facilities? Ms. Koffron responded that there wouldn't be double inspections, but currently the Fire Department is not able to be proactive, but are very much a request driven inspection group. This unit will address the existing industrial base in the City that is not being inspected as a part of new construction, remodeling, state-licensing requirements, etc.
DISCUSSION OF DAB RETREAT PLANNING SESSION TO BE HELD JANUARY 2001
Mr. Coley referred the Board to an information sheet included in their packets. He advised that the session would be held January 9, 2001 from 3:00 to 8:00 p.m. There will be a working dinner break. The session is being held at the new Fire Station #30, located at 2701 W. Belmont. Attendees for the meeting are the DAB Executive Subcommittee (made of the Committee chairs), the Board Chairman and Vice Chair. Any Board members who wish to participate are invited to do so. The intent is to identify what projects and issues the Board wishes to address next year.
DISCUSSION OF FEE STRUCTURE STATUS REPORT
Jaime Fox stated that per the Board's request, she would be providing quarterly updates regarding the update of Development Services' Fee Schedule. A status report was included in the Board packet providing historical information regarding the review of the fee schedule and progress to date.
Ms. Fox reported that review of data and methods to obtain data are still being conducted. But after reviewing the existing data, it has been determined that we don't have much data on valuation. Therefore, the first stage, Conceptual, will probably go to a fixed fee plus hourly rate. Based on current data, the fee factor of 1.1% of the valuation could be used to determine the fee from the drawing and construction phase. The new hourly rate will be raised from the current $90/hour to $110-120/hr in the new fee schedule. DSD staff is also working on determining a new time tracking process.
The Board questioned Ms. Fox on the methods and data used to calculate multiplier and average hour rate and discussed the possibility of obtaining information regarding surrounding jurisdictions to determine their estimated hourly rate and multiplier. Ms. Fox advised that she should be able to obtain that information as a comparison.
DISCUSSION OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT (PCD) TEXT AMENDMENT
Mr. Alex Singbush provided a presentation and handout on the proposed text amendment that is development and scheduled for review. Primarily, the amendment transfers responsibility for review and coordination of the PCD documents from Planning Department to Development Services.
Mr. Barcon asked if fees were paid for these reviews, and if so will those fees go to Development Services. Mr. Singbush advised that the fees are currently paid to the Planning Department and are a part of the rezoning fee. There is no additional fee collected for Master Plan review at this time.
Mr. Coley stated that in a sense we are assisting and subsidizing the Planning Commission. Mr. Barcon stated that one of his objectives is to simplify the overall process; to cut costs and to cut time required to review plans and issue permits and wondered if there is some way to offset the cost of the services that we are now going to provide.
Mr. Coley advised that it comes back to the fact that it is a City entity and there is an obligation to provide a service to the public, yet at the same time the decision was made for certain departments to be self-supporting. In light of the float that occurs in the economy and the up and downs that go with that, that doesn't release the City from providing the service, so there needs to be some financial structure needs to be addressed to deal with these type things.
Mr. Greg Russell stated that the people that are requiring those services should actually pay for the services that they are receiving. Mr. Coley agreed, but stated that part of what the Board is doing is pointing out the need for those services and may be they need to help try and find a way to pay for them too. Discussion regarding cost recovery, possibility of general funds, charging back to department. Mr. Singbush advised that the Auditor's Department has been tracking costs related to Master Plan Review as it relates to all departments, which may lead towards future revision of fees.
Mr. Darrell Wilson asked if the program intended to change just the administration of the PCD document reviews to DSD or is it actually moving all of the review to DSD? Mr. Singbush advised that the appropriate department (Streets, Parks, etc.) will still conduct the reviews, but DSD will serve to coordinate those plan reviews.
Mr. Barcon asked what body is charged with accepting this document. Mr. Singbush responded that the Planning Commission is the responsible body, with input from the Village Planning Committees. Mr. Wilson asked if there was any involvement by the DAB or if this was for information only. Mr. Singbush responded that it was for information only, but the Board could certainly choose to involve themselves. Currently, the document is scheduled for review by the various Villages, then review by the Planning Commission and looking towards adoption of the amendments just after the summer Council recess.
Discussion/Action item if they chose to set up an Ad Hoc Subcommittee to look at the amendments. Mr. Coley advised that he would like to place it on the agenda for next month.
CALL TO PUBLIC (NO BOARD DISCUSSION):
Mr. Rus Brock stated that his Association has reported some difficulties with the release of water meters having to do with a policy regarding submittal of as-built drawings. This policy is creating some constraints where DSD may give approval to go ahead and occupy, but the Water Department will not give you a water meter until those as-built drawings are submitted.
Mr. Coley advised that this item was on the agenda for the January 9th Planning Session. Mr. Wilson added that a representative of Ryland Homes has raised this same issue recently and we had suggested that the topic could suitably be addressed by the Process and Procedures Subcommittee and is on the subcommittee agenda for the January meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Greg Russell, to adjourn the December 21, 2000 DAB meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Session adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Larry Litchfield, PE
Deputy Director, Building Official
Minutes Prepared by:
Carole Fitz, Administrative Assistant I
| c: |
Board Member Mayor Skip Rimsza City Council Members Mr. Fairbanks City Clerk Mr. Harris Mr. Olson Mr. Washington Mr. Wendt Mr. Goodhue Mr. Litchfield |
Mr. Dolasinski Mr. Davila Ms. McKinley Ms. Beckley Mr. Doell Mr. Parks Mr. Mushtaq Mr. Thurman Mr. Kienow Mr. Taschner Mr. Bunyard |
Ms. Reed Mr. Mundy Mr. Fleming Mr. Horn Ms. Wilson Ms. Fitz |
Last Modified on 06/28/2001 11:38:32