January 2, 2001 - Special Meeting
| Members Present
John Augustine Patricia Childs Gary L. Coley Mike Colletto Michael Fries Peter Hemingway David Kelly Gary Morris Herman Orcutt Danny Ortega Greg Russell Steve Speer Julie Stiak Darrell Wilson
Members Absent |
Staff and Interested Parties
Shawn Billman, City of Phoenix, DSD Rick Doell, City of Phoenix, DSD Frank Dolasinski, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Fitz, City of Phoenix, DSD Ryan Gregory, City of Phoenix, CED Kenny W. Harris, City of Phoenix, DSD Chris Hartye, City of Phoenix, Mayor's Office Don Jones, City of Phoenix, Law Larry Litchfield, Development Services Tony Motola, City of Phoenix, City Council Kelly O'Neal, City of Phoenix, DSD Alan Olson, City of Phoenix, DSD Dave Siebert, City of Phoenix, City Council, District 1
Rus Brock, Home Builders Assoc. of Central Arizona |
DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE DEFINITION OF CONSENSUS CODES AND STANDARDS
Mr. Coley briefly reviewed the discussion that took place on this item at the December 21, 2000 Development Advisory Board meeting. Mr. Coley summarized that the issue at hand is the definition and evaluation of "consensus" codes. Mr. Coley stated that according to his research he is not sure that any of the codes presently available would strictly meet the Council's definition of "consensus." Development Services has stated that the ICC codes do not meet the Council definition. Mr. Coley advised that under current definition, the last three editions of the Uniform Codes do not meet it as well, since ANSI removed their accreditation of IAPMO in 1999.
Mr. Coley stated that a motion was made at the last meeting to urge City Council to reassess their position on this issue; to remove the language added to DAB's process approval; and to reconsider the definition of "consensus." It is the belief of some Board members that none of the codes available meet the consensus requirement and that the issue should be addressed in a different manner.
Mr. Coley opened the issue for discussion by the Board. Mr. Herman Orcutt advised that he would like to make a motion, which may help generate further discussion.
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.
Mr. Mike Colletto asked, if under this process of open and voluntary consensus codes, is there going to be equal voting strengths from all the participants? Or is one set of individuals going to be doing the voting and the other advising? Mr. Coley responded that this is part of what the DAB is asking to be reviewed. Mr. Coley stated that it is opinion, having read the resolution, that in the absence of a true consensus code (which he does not believe exists), that the City of Phoenix is to take their own path and develop a consensus to approve codes. Mr. Coley feels that the DAB, as well as the public at large, and the Development Services Department would fit those criteria.
Mr. Colletto stated that he noticed in the resolution (second page) that it states "...and equal voting rights." He stated that he feels that clearly goes to the intent of the resolution. Mr. Coley stated that he was not getting Mr. Colletto's point. Mr. Colletto clarified that his understanding is that in a good number of the codes drafted today, the voting block is not by all participants in the process. There is a group that votes, and everyone else is excluded from voting on the code.
Mr. Coley agreed that is exactly the point, and the position that he is taking is that there is no consensus process that has produced a code that the DAB could review. The ICC does not meet the resolution requirements as a consensus code. Under the ANSI definition, ANSI has removed IAPMO's accreditation of the last three publications they have produced because they don't implement a true consensus code process either. IAPMO votes on the tail end, but they severely limit input on the front end. So having said that, we don't believe that any consensus code exists. The City of Phoenix should pursue a process that reviews whatever existing codes are available in the best interests of the City and create their own consensus process involving neighborhoods, businesses, whatever is appropriate. Mr. Coley stated that he feels strongly that the DAB fits those criteria. He clarified that they could also bring in representatives from AIA and the Pipe Industry and other organizations for participation, but not dominated by any single group. He further stated that Building Officials dominate the ICC codes, the plumbing industry dominates the IAPMO codes, so in either case you would fall into that scenario.
Kenny Harris added that the points just made regarding the voting requirements are the primary reasons why the City Council has deemed the International Codes as not meeting the consensus requirements. Mr. Harris stated that the ANSI or ANSI only reference is not correct.
Mr. Coley responded that he was speaking from the experience of having attended the subcommittee hearing, which approved the DAB process and also added to it the codes to be reviewed under the process. He quoted from Mr. Harris' memo, "...definition of consensus as stated in the American National Standards Institute is...Consensus means substantial agreement has been reached by directly and materially affected interest categories. This signifies concurrence of more than a simple majority, but not necessarily unanimity. Consensus requires that all views and objections be considered and that an effort be made toward their resolution."
Staff has interpreted that to mean that the consensus process is open to all persons. Mr. Harris agreed that was in part the answer; the other part is what we have mentioned here. The two put together will have the essence of what the City Council's action and what staff is implementing means.
Mr. Coley stated that he understands and he thinks the point is that the definition of "consensus" is very broad and altruistically is a goal we should absolutely try to reach. But the fact of the matter is that no code meets that totally broad definition. In the absence of any code meeting that definition, we should consider all codes available under our own consensus process. Whether that be by an appointed board such as the DAB or some conglomerate that adds to it, he is open to suggestions. But whether a code is dominated by the plumbing industry or by building officials, we are saying the same thing exists. It is not a fair process and if we are going to be the best we can be in Phoenix, we shouldn't allow either interest to influence our decision process. Mr. Harris wished to add that Development Services is staff to the DAB and whatever action the Board takes today, DSD will be the ones that bring it forward to the City Council.
Mr. Colletto asked for clarification. He stated that, as he understood it, the motion made is to ask the Council to reverse Resolution #19015. Mr. Coley stated that it was to consider the motion made on the Consent Agenda and to assess their position based on reviewing all available codes on fair consensus approval basis developed by the City.
Ms. Julie Stiak asked for a point of clarification. If the DAB does endorse the motion that Mr. Orcutt presented, would they, as the Development Advisory Board also recommend a different sequencing of the proposed codes that would be reviewed?
Mr. Coley responded that he thinks the process is a good one, but feels that the process is skewed a bit by the conception that consensus codes exist. Again, Mr. Coley stated that DAB is asking that Council reconsiders their vote on the Consent Agenda and allow the review and redefinition of what consensus is.
Ms. Stiak asked if the total report would be presented to the City Council. Mr. Harris stated that the Council Report that Ms. Stiak was referring to was a report prepared for Council prior to the December 5 Subcommittee Meeting. That document and its use has already passed. He explained that we would be sending something separate and new to the City Council that would probably contain in part a chronology of what has transpired at the December 5, December 13, meetings and at today's meeting. That document is what would go to Council.
Mr. Orcutt commented that as a representative of the American Institute of Architects, they look at the International Codes as a way of developing consistency across the United States. He hates to see the ICC thrown out here in one of the biggest cities in the country. He emphasized the influence that it has on manufacturers, products, and systems. He mentioned three code agencies (BOCA, ICBO, SBCCI) have been involved in assembling these codes involving a terrific amount of effort.
Mr. Coley asked Mr. Harris if the motion is passed and is based on a redefinition of what consensus is, would all of those codes be reassessed? Mr. Harris stated that it would be up to City Council. He further stated that would be different from the direction we have currently been given from the City Council. Mr. Harris stated that what DSD would do as staff would be to articulate whatever the Development Advisory Board wished to be transmitted to City Council on their behalf. Mr. Hemingway felt that should be clarified as part of the motion, since a part of the Consent Agenda action was the International Code not being accepted by the City of Phoenix.
Mr. Coley stated that if they are going to review all codes, the key issue then becomes the redefinition of what a consensus code is. The City Council passed a resolution that gave a general definition of consensus codes. In an attempt to meet requirements of that resolution, Development Services has used criteria, including the definition utilized by ANSI in their process. In order to come up with something different to bring clarity of all of this, an understanding of what the term "consensus code" means is needed. So asking the City Council to change their vote doesn't mean anything if the City Council doesn't also consider the definition of consensus. Mr. Harris agreed and stated that they could also issue a new resolution that would supercede and replace the existing resolution. Mr. Don Adams, Law Department, concurred.
Mr. Coley asked if that made the issue clearer for everyone. Mr. Greg Russell inquired if we needed to modify the resolution to incorporate all of that language? Mr. Coley stated that if the intent of the Board is to specifically to address the International Codes, they could do that. But to fairly review all codes and review the definition of consensus; he stated that he didn't have the answer. Mr. Orcutt stated that his intention would be to keep it broad to be more inclusive for the review of all codes.
Mr. Russell expressed his concern that if we charge Mr. Harris and DSD to go back to the Council with a resolution, that they understand what the Board's intent is. If it is too broad, he doesn't feel they have accomplished anything. Both the City and the Council need to clearly understand the Board's intent. Mr. Harris suggested that the Board author and sign a document of their own and DSD staff would attach the Board's document to the Council Report.
Mr. Coley responded if that is the intent, he would suggest changing the motion to state that the Development Advisory Board, recognizing that no present code meets the consensus definition, strongly urges that the Council reconsider their vote of December 13; readdress the definition of consensus code for the City of Phoenix's use; and a resolution be passed to that effect.
Mr. Harris suggested that the Board defend their position, remembering that there are Councilmembers that understand a lot less than the Board does about this issue and might need some type of explanation. Mr. Russell agreed that the Board needed to develop some verbiage as to why they wish this action to be taken and to clarify what they are requesting.
Ms. Stiak referred back to the original resolution from 1997, the City of Phoenix tried to define what they thought open consensus was, and the code groups try to adhere to that premise, but many times portions of the process are closed. Miss Stiak directed attention to section one of the resolution, which she feels supports the Board's recommendation. The second sentence states, "In the absence of such consensus codes, the City of Phoenix shall move to develop consensus construction codes…." Ms. Stiak advised that is what this Five-Step Process fully supports. They are using the resolution as it is defined. She doesn't feel that there is any modification needed, but that the Board just needs to ensure that the City Council understands that consensus codes do not exist. So all codes that have been developed should be evaluated. She stated that it might be an over simplification, but that's what she thinks needs to be made clear. Mr. Russell agreed that clarification does need to be included in their verbiage that no consensus codes exist and that all need to be addressed. He feels that definitely needs to be spelled out.
Mr. Colletto stated that he felt that part of the reason this resolution came about is because there were those who knew there weren't consensus codes and they wanted to initiate that process and have input and opinions from all groups. Mr. Orcutt reiterated that assuming the fact that none of the codes are really developed by consensus that the City of Phoenix should look at all codes using their own consensus process and that the Board's original motion states that by saying, "….to allow the inclusion and review of all codes.
The Board continued to discuss the verbiage of the motion. Mr. Coley advised that it was up to Mr. Orcutt to modify his motion.
Original MOTION was amended by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Greg Russell, recognizing that no present codes meet the consensus definition and have not been fairly reviewed, the Development Advisory Board strongly urges 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 with 10 in favor and 3 opposed.
CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
Mr. Dave Nichols, TRW, Inc., advised that he has twenty-one years of previous service with the Mesa Fire Department and also served as the Fire Marshall. He added that members of the Mesa Fire Prevention staff were involved with the code development of the Uniform Fire Code. Subsequent to that, as the Arizona Fire Code Committee met, Mesa participated as well. That committee was working on the International Fire Code as part of the process of code development.
TRW's position is that it is really important to look at all the codes fairly and not exclude any of the codes prematurely. The codes have served very well and it is of extreme importance from an economic development standpoint to be competitive in the Valley, State, and in our country. We shouldn't automatically exclude these International Codes representing over seventy-five years of progressive code development. It is true that some of the interests do not have the same voting rights as the public officials who voted at the final code hearings, but he has attended those hearings and knows that industry feels they are well represented. They have an opportunity to present their case on technical merit. The code officials who have the responsibility for the public safety have the final vote. Anyone can make a recommendation in the model code hearing process.
Mr. Nichols urged the Board to keep these things in mind. He stated the ICC may not have an ANSI consensus process; but it is a governmental consensus process and has served the public well. His concern is that if the City of Phoenix takes a quick turn away from what the rest of the country is doing, it would cause harm to business in our area. Mr. Nichols commended the Board for their action today in being more inclusive and looking at things carefully. He feels that the Board's recommendation to Council is a wise course.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION was made by Herman Orcutt, seconded by Dave Kelly, to adjourn the January 2, 2001 DAB meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Session adjourned at 5:03 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 11:38:34