DSD has been worked with the Street Transportation Department and the Water Services Department on coordination issues to assist the Homebuilders better understand their policies and procedures as it relates to residential subdivisions and inspections.

This focus group started the beginning of this year and they meet once a month with five or six of the main developers and they go back and report to the main Homebuilders Association with information.

Discussion/Information/Possible Action on a future DAB Retreat. Topics of discussion, date and time will be determined.
Mr. Orcutt suggested to the Board if they would like to have the DAB Retreat on the same day as regular DAB meeting. The Board unanimously agreed. Mr. Orcutt suggested either in January 2004 or February 2004. The Board agreed to hold the regular DAB meeting on January 15, 2004 from 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. and hold the retreat from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Orcutt stated that he would like Mr. Doell to go through the recommendations that City Council gave the DAB when it was first formed at the end of 1999. Mr. Orcutt wants to make sure that they have accomplished the goals that City Council gave them when it was first formed. He stated that he would like a facilitator do the retreat and hopes for group participation.

Discussion/Information/Possible Action on the past DAB Fiscal and Performance AdHoc Subcommittee Meetings regarding the comparison of the costs of construction under the NFPA and other building codes:
Mr. Orcutt stated that the report Michael Fries gave under subcommittee reports covered all the information for this item. Mr. Fries added that at the Fiscal Subcommittee meetings three or four of the development industry attend these meeting. He stated that their viewpoint on adopting NFPA 5000 without additional cost information would be detrimental to the City of Phoenix.

Mr. Joe Meyer, Gray Development, stated that when the Fiscal Subcommittee AdHoc met, he had contractors, subcontractors, design professionals, and his own team access two elements of the NFPA 5000 code as it presently drafted. They all feel that if adopting this code, it would have significant financial detriment to the industry. Those being the fire separation walls and the building separation requirements. They put together a significant financial analysis addressing both those points. This was based on a case study of two projects that their company developed through the City of Phoenix under the 1997 UBC.
Mr. Meyer stated that after the study and cost comparison the amendments that are proposed would significantly increase the cost because of the requirements of reducing the heights and area jobs allowed in the NFPA 5000 as drafted. This is a significant departure that what's allowed in the ICC 2000. He continued to explain that the industry who did attend the Fiscal Subcommittee Meeting they did provide financial data that they think is accurate. He stated that the cost goes well beyond the sticks and bricks. The time impact, the impact to design in solving solutions, especially with infill construction. This is extremely substantial to their industry. He asked that the Board take this information into consideration.

Discussion/Information/Possible Action on Recommendation for Adoption of the Amended National Fire Protection Association (NFPA ) 5000, 2003 Edition as the Construction Code of the City of Phoenix by Advancing the Amended code to Step 5 of the Five-Step Process:

Herman Orcutt
I'd like to note that we have several letters here for the file. One from the National Electrical Contractor's Association, they are in favor in NFPA 5000 with the process going forward. A letter from Sun Construction, requesting that it does not go forward. A letter from the Arizona Chapter of Associated General Contractors, recommending that it not be pushed forward. A letter from the Arizona Institute of Architects, recommending that the I-Codes be adopted rather than the NFPA 5000. A letter from the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce Public Affairs Committee, recommending that the City Council reconsider the consensus code and compare the two codes that are out there. These will be added to the record.

Before we get started I'd like to open the floor for a motion so that we can have something to work for one way or another.

Steve Speer
Mr. Chairman, I have a motion.

Mike Hamblin
Mr. Chairman, before that motion is heard, I would like to make an observation of some points of order with the Arizona Public Record Law.

The discussion/deliberations that may occur between less than a full body or a full quorum of the Board or other devices when used to circumvent the purposes of the open meeting law can, in some circumstances, be a violation of that law. Public officials may not circumvent public discussion by splintering the quorum and having separate or serial discussions with the majority of the public body members. Splintering the quorum can occur or can be done by meetings in person, by telephone, electronically, or through means to discuss a topic that is, or may be presented, as a public body. Therefore, my advice to the Board is, it is imperative that deliberations of this Board take place in this room and not outside this room.

Therefore, discussions off the record, whether they point in favor or opposed to any particular motion, those points in opposition or in favor, should be brought up here, if any such discussions have taken place, so that all may benefit from these comments. It is clear from the record that deliberations took place within a public meeting and not outside. Thank you.

Herman Orcutt
Ok, thank you.

Ken Roth
FIRST MOTION MADE
Yes, I'd like to propose a motion. If I may, I'll read it.

Whereas, the City of Phoenix adopted a resolution in 1997 which limited the Development Advisory Board to consideration of building code developed to use the consensus process; and

Whereas, the consensus process has been attributed to mean the ANSI open voluntary consensus process which may have been too narrow, and therefore, restricts the Development Advisory Board to considering of the NFPA 5000 Building Code only; and

Whereas, the code published by the International Code Council meet the Federal Government definition of a voluntary consensus process through OMB circular aid 119, as published in February 1998; and The National Technology Transfer Act of 1995; and

Whereas, the Development Advisory Board has held numerous public meetings soliciting comments and a recommendation through stakeholders that would be affected by the City's building code; and

Whereas, the Development Advisory Board has received considerable objections to the NFPA 5000 Building Code, as amended from a broad cross section of interests; and

Whereas, all other Arizona cities, towns, and counties, as well as a vast majority of jurisdictions throughout the country have adopted the codes published by the International Code Council, which are the successor codes to the City's Uniform Building Code; and

Whereas, the Development Advisory Board wishes that the City of Phoenix adopt the safest and most cost efficient code and a code that will not place the City of Phoenix at an economic disadvantage with other Arizona jurisdictions; and

Whereas, the Development Advisory Board has no alternative other than to move the NFPA 5000 Building Code as amended forward and request that the Phoenix City Council not adopt the NFPA 5000 Building Code at this time. Review and re-evaluate the 1997 Resolutions definition of consensus. Consider the potential negative effects such limitation could have on the City of Phoenix and those who do business in the City and amend the Resolution and or reinterpret Phoenix's definition of consensus to allow the Development Advisory Board to compare and contrast all the codes, including those published by the International Code Council, to determine which building code is in the best interest of the City of Phoenix.

That's the end of the motion, but I'd like to explain why I came up with that. Certainly the numbers of the letters that we've gotten that determines (inaudible) responsible and well-recognized organizations. I asked Valley Partnership, which is the largest organization of the development community, to do a survey of its members. There are over 500 member companies, probably 2,500 members themselves. The survey results, I think sufficient of which we should read.

There were 25 respondents. The first question was:

What is your profession?
12% were developers, 48% were architects, 18% were engineers, and 24% were general contractors.

Are you familiar with the NFPA 5000 Code? 83% Yes, 17% No

Please indicate whether you think it will be more costly to build under the NFPA 5000 or the IBC.
75% stated it would be more costly under the NFPA 5000 21% said with the IBC.

Do you think the development would shift from the City of Phoenix to other valley communities due to increased building costs under NFPA 5000?
64% Yes, 38% No

If you are an architect or engineer and Phoenix is the only valley city to adopt NFPA 5000, would you still pursue work in the City of Phoenix?
Yes, 81%, No 39%

Would the City of Phoenix suffer if it were the only City to adopt the NFPA 5000?
83% Yes, 17% No

Should the City of Phoenix adopt NFPA 5000?
0% Yes, 83% No, 17% Neutral

Should the City of Phoenix adopt the ICC/IBC?
65% Yes, 10% No, 29% Neutral

Should the City of Phoenix defer adopting a new code for one year?

Herman Orcutt
I think we need a point of order, we need to have a second, if there is a second.

Darrell Wilson
I'll second.

Herman Orcutt
Ok, thank you. I'm going to ask you to speed it up a bit

Ken Roth
Ok, the questions are almost over.

Should the City of Phoenix defer adopting a new code for one year?
79% Yes, 13% No, 17% Neutral

Should the City of Phoenix adopt the same code as the majority of the surround cities?
79% Yes, 0% No, 21% Neutral

That's the thrust of the respondents of what I consider the premier organization of the valley for the development community.

Thank you very much

Herman Orcutt
Mr. Hamblin I have a question. At the beginning of the meeting, I had suggested that we try and get the groups to focus on maybe two people present from each side. Is this appropriate in light of what you said?

Mike Hamblin
What I was concerned about was is that Board members who may or may not discussed this item amongst themselves, make certain that those points in favor or those points focused to any motion or action by the Board be discussed at this meeting so that the full Board can have benefit of their deliberations. And that the entire record will reflect all the discussion that took place. What I was addressing did not address how you wish to have members of the public address the Board.

If you wish to limit two or three per side and limit them to five or ten minutes, you may do so. My advice is not intended to affect that.

Herman Orcutt
What's the pleasure of the Board? Would you like to listen to everybody or would you . . . .

Mike Colletto
You have a great idea Herman.

Herman Orcutt
Ok, we have a motion. I would like to ask a spokesperson who would be favor of that motion. Then I would like for an opposition. So we'll have four groups up to speak.

Mike Hamblin
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, was the motion seconded.

Herman Orcutt
Yes it was.

Mike Hamblin
I have a question with regard to a point of order. With regards to the first whereas, I wanted to make sure, and it may or may not accurately reflect what happened, depending on how one reads it:

"Whereas, the City of Phoenix adopted a resolution in 1997 which limited the Development Advisory Board to consideration of building code developed to use the consensus process"

The Development Advisory Board did not exist in 1997. Although one interpretation of the sentence might suggest it, I can see that another perhaps suggests that it doesn't, just as long as it's clear that the City Council adopted the Resolution, that the Board did not exist.

Herman Orcutt
And that's true. What do I need to do in that case?

Mike Hamblin
I think as long as it is the understanding of the Board members, they can go ahead and vote on this discussion.

Herman Orcutt
I'm going to ask for the first person/persons in favor of this motion to come forward please.

Patricia Childs
Mr. Chairman, may I make one suggestion before they start speaking, can we have a time limit per speaker?

Herman Orcutt
Four minutes, does that sound reasonable to everybody?

Tracy Finley
Mr. Chairman, Board members, and Staff members, my name is Tracey Finley, I represent Shea Homes, Scottsdale, Arizona. Per your request, I am also speaking on behalf of a card that was submitted for Rus Brock, from the HomeBuilders Association and Steven Curtis from Continental Homes.

We are in favor of the motion that was presented today to not send the recommendation for adoption of the NFPA 5000. We make that decision based on four key points that I want to point out.

1. Training
2. Code Books and Materials
3. Maintaining separate sets of plans, specifically for the City of Phoenix
4. Time line coordinating and interpretation of the Building Code
   

In regards to training and codebooks and materials. The training that is available today for the NFPA 5000 is very limited. The training that is available today for some of the other building codes, such as the ICC Codes is widely available. Available in the state of Arizona and numerous locations. Although, the NFPA with the size of the organization that they are, I'm sure they will have training and some point in time, I just ask the question, who is going to provide the training to the development group in the City of Phoenix, for the City of Phoenix NFPA 5000? Although we can go to training for NFPA 5000, that's really not what we're using here in the City of Phoenix if we were to adopt it. I would just ask who would supply that training?

In regards to code books and materials. As we know there are so many references inside of the actual document of the NFPA 5000, in order for an organization, such as a homebuilder, to obtain the necessary books and necessary materials to be able to find your way through the NFPA 5000 would be huge. When you think of just homebuilders, you're talking an architectural and engineering staff of anywhere between four and ten team members. When you think of some of the large architectural firms in the valley, well now that number of training and codebooks is greatly increased. Now you need to have training and code books for your entire staff. Not just a small group. I think there's definitely some financial impact there.

In regards to maintaining separate sets of plans just for the City of Phoenix. That is a huge financial burden on the development industry. Although we can build sets of plans today in almost every other city, and actually today in the City of Phoenix using the IBC and the IRC, those plans are pretty much uniform from city to city. I know there's some interpretations out there today that each city adopt their own amendments, and each city has their own processes we need to go through in order to have your plans complete. That's really not the case in those cities.

There's organizations set up today such as Asbuilt Code Official meetings, there's the MAD meeting, and there's Regional Plan Review, where all the different cities come together. They have uniformity on the building code interpretations and amendments. So we can take that set of plans and we can build it almost in every other city, besides Phoenix if they were to move forward.

In order for us to have just a single set of plans for every single plan that every homebuilder has just for the City of Phoenix, I just don't see that happening.

Let's just take a hypothetically situation as well. If we were to look at a piece of property that was borderline City of Phoenix and another city and the homebuyer profile was exactly the same, the size of land was exactly the same, everything that we wanted to do for that community was going to be the same and both sides of the line there, we would come down to a point and we would look at it and say how fast can we bring this community in-line. Cycle time is a big key today. Can we bring this community in-line of we purchase in the City of Phoenix faster or can we bring it in-line faster if we purchase in city X. It's no doubt, it's going to be City X.

To try and maintain plans specifically for one city, when we really don't even know exactly what that building code really entails, it's going to have a huge financial impact. Those are some of the soft costs. As we mentioned before, it's difficult for the numbering of those. But they're soft costs. When you think of some of these huge developments as it was mentioned today, yes some of these builders and developers are now doing these huge developments. City of Phoenix would loose some of those huge developments, all because of the building code.

The economic future of the City, I think, really depends on a building code, what you build in the city, how you can build it (tape ended and turned over)

As far as timely and coordinated of the code today as I mentioned before, who do we go to for those interpretations? I would strictly be the City of Phoenix. We couldn't even really to do the NFPA and get interpretations, because that's really not what would be used in the City of Phoenix.

One other thing that I would like to point out, as far as a number of members, the Homebuilders Association has 200 builder members and 600 associate members strongly urge the City of Phoenix to achieve uniformity with the other municipalities and review the additional building codes that are out there today.

As you presented with a number of organizations that you surveyed, the Homebuilders Association is obviously a huge one. Single family residential construction is a big financial impact on the City of Phoenix.

Thank you.

Herman Orcutt
Thank you, any questions?

Ok

Ken Roth
Mr. Chairman, are we going to get Julie Stiak on the phone, I thought she was a part of this?

Herman Orcutt
Thank you for bringing that up. It was determined that Julie's term has run out. She's no longer on the Board. No one realized that, apparently, until today. She is no longer on the Board.

While I'm on that subject, I'd like to introduce Bob Ford. Bob is our newest Board member. He comes to us as a representative from the Planning Commission. Welcome to the Board, Bob.

Rick Doell
As it relates to Ms. Stiak, we're going to try very hard to get her back on the Board by the next meeting to see what has occurred here. She is just not listed in the public record, and not being listed in the public record recludes her being able to vote at this particular time.

Herman Orcutt
Someone in opposition to the proposed motion.

Ray Bizal
Thank you very much. I'm Ray Bizal with the NFPA. I've been welcomed here many times before. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in an opposition to the motion on the floor.

The motion on the floor kind of caught me off guard because there was a lot of whereas' and I'm going to try, I tried to write down what some of them were. Some of the whereas' in the motion, didn't see to be accurate to me and I'm not sure debate has occurred on some of those issues. For example I think one of the whereas' mentioned that ICC Codes are in compliance with the Technology Transfer Act as well as the A119 and I think they probably would have if they'd known brought up public law 104.113. In our opinion and by the definitions of certain (inaudible) the A119 I don't think that the ICC would be in compliance with that. There is certainly something that should be debated. Also, the fact that the ICC's are the successor codes. The plain and simple truth is that the IAC is not the next edition of the UBC, it is a new code.

We embarked on this path nearly two years ago at the Development Advisory Board with approval of the Five-Step Process. What has then come out of that is the most open amendment process that I have ever seen in the Western United States for the amendment of a model code. The Development Advisory Board established subcommittees that dealt with development hearing and finalizing an amendment package. It was, I believe mostly, members of the public. There was ample opportunity to amend the technical issues. Most of the amendments that are in the package today carry over from the existing code or are introduced due to things like the Bret Tarver Sprinkler Ordinance.

Most of the components of the amendments got their way. Which, also shows that this was a very open process and there was plenty of time to review that amendment package. Everybody, including the City of Phoenix, has spent a tremendous amount of time in this endeavor and process.

What's at hand today, really for the Development Advisory Board is the technical merits of the code. Do the technical provisions and the NFPA 5000 and those amendments, which was open up for amendment, do they serve the community well?

We believe this is a consensus code, that it provides the highest level of safety and due consideration for that cost for that level of safety. This is a safety issue, primarily, at least I hope it is.

The NPFA 5000 is a viable code and it is supported by the NPFA. We provide on-line access to our code. Nobody needs to buy it. The architects don't need to buy it; the developers don't need to buy it. It's on-line for free access. We'll provide whatever adoption support we can for the City of Phoenix. We provide technical interpretations on NFPA for NFPA 5000 for qualified individuals. Yes, we have Structural Engineers on staff, Civil Engineers and so on and so forth.

I think the issue of the number of references was brought up. The NFPA 5000 actually references fewer documents than the IBC. That's not an issue here. Training, I've said it before, I'll make this offer to the Arizona AIA, to the Arizona Homebuilders, and any other organization. We will put on free training for your organization if you so desire. All you have to do is contact me.

Transportability is an issue I understand, as it was brought up. Can we have separate sets of designs within a different community? Well that's going to happen anyway, because Arizona does not require all the jurisdictions to use the same code. In fact, if there is inconsistency among building codes within the State of Arizona today and it will probably continue.

But, by in large, I urge you to overturn this motion and move forward with Step Five and urge adoption of this viable code, which bring up a high level of safety for the City of Phoenix.

Thank you.

Herb Hacker
Could you for simplicity purposes, explain how NFPA has a higher level of safety than the I-Codes?

Ray Bizal
Well that's a very complex issue as indicated.

Herb Hacker
But I'm asking for a simple answer.

Ray Bizal
A simple answer the level of safety, I can site some examples, how about that. We'll just take fire-fighter safety as an example.

NFPA 5000 was the first model building code to be developed with the thought of fire-fighter safety as a specific goal. As a result of that, we've seen several key issues that bring in a higher level of safety. We at the NFPA have a higher fighter resistance rating for structural members for high-rise buildings. That's one example.

Another example is that for fire-fighter safety issues, as well as occupant safety issues there are wired stair requirements to allow the egress of people leaving the building and the ingress, if you will, of fire-fighters to reach the incident. That's a couple of examples, with a number of other ones.

Herb Hacker
Second question, if I may.

With the adoption of either model codes affects the fire insurance rating of the city and thereby fire insurance costs that we all pay out of our respective pockets.

Ray Bizal
That is a very insightful question. I didn't mention it, but the adoption of a code now will have an affect on the City of Phoenix. Building Departments, like Fire Departments, are rated by the Insurance Services Office (ISO). The ISO has rated the City of Phoenix a #2, which is very high. #1 is the highest and #10 is the lowest. This rating severely depends on the addition of the model code that is enforced. Not the title of the model code, but the edition. If it is more than five years out of date, they ISO rating can significantly be lowered. It's estimated that if you stay on the 97' UBC you will probably end up with a #6, #7, or #8 rating. Which is significantly lower than today.

It's also understood that they do re-evaluate cities and from what I understand, they are ready to come first quarter 2004 and re-evaluate the city. So it's imperative I my mind. If you don't want to derogate the ISO rating for the City of Phoenix Building Department, then you should move forward with an adoption of a code. I will say, that either NFPA 5000 or the International Building Code are accepted benchmarks by ISO. You could adopt either one of those, but it would be detrimental for you to stay on the 1997 Edition of the UBC.

Ken Roth
Can you tell me how many cities have actually adopted the NFPA 5000 now in the Country?

Ray Bizal
Actually the code, yes. I can't tell you the cities, but I can give you a rundown of some. It gets a little bit complicated. As you know, a building code is made up of fire life safety aspects, as well as structural aspects.

The basis for the NFPA 5000 was NFPA 101 Life Safety Code. The occupancy chapters, the first 75% of the code, is based on the life safety code.

Ken Roth
Just to limit time, who has adopted the NFPA 5000?

The city of Pasadena, Texas; the state or Rhode Island has adopted portions of it; and the state of California has actually adopted the NFPA 5000.

Ken Roth
But no other municipalities?

Ray Bizal
Not that I'm aware of.

Herman Orcutt
Any other questions? Ok, back to the support of the motion.

Terry Feinberg
Terry Feinberg, representing the Arizona Multi-Housing Association and I know I'm also speaking for Joe Meyer. I'm not sure how your coordination here is.

Herman Orcutt
Hopefully you'll be covering all the points that that group wants to cover.

Terry Feinberg
I believe I will. There have been many points that have been covered in the last couple of years. I'd like to focus on just a couple of them first speaking very strongly in support of the motion and I know that many comments made by our brother and in the single family home development side.

I would like to begin by addressing a couple of points that Ray has presented. He asked you to consider whether the technical provisions of NFPA 5000 would serve the city well. He mentioned that either the I-Codes or NFPA 5000 would solve the potential ISO fire insurance issue.

You don't have the option of adopting or even considering either of those codes. I would ask you to consider not whether NFPA 5000 would serve the city well, but whether it would serve the city best. Again you don't have that option because of an interpretation of that 1997 Resolution of consensus codes. That resolution did not identify or define consensus. There has since been an interpretation of that and I believe with the motion before you asks for is a reinterpretation of that to allow you to answer some of these questions. Many of the questions today have been International Codes and NFPA, but that's a consideration that's off the table. You don't have the option to be able to consider that.

What the motion before you asks you to do is to ask the Council to give you the option to evaluate both codes and choose the best code for the city.

The other two points I would like to make is to address somewhat the costs and implications and effects of implementing NFPA 5000. There both, somewhat, soft costs that are difficult to quantify, but I believe are fairly significant.

First, as it relates, probably more specifically in multi-family construction, certainly in the housing arena than single family, as the city grows and focuses in-fill and smaller parcels for multi-family development, the issues that were raised are not just the issues of the cost of constructing three walls versus one wall. When you take building separation and the type of construction that is required, it comes down to on a given a parcel, can you build 240 units or are you restricted to 212 units? I'm pulling those numbers out of the air, they can't be quantified until you look at individual parcels, but particularly in the economics of multi-family construction, the number of units that can be built are very critical to the economics of the project.

The other item I would ask you to consider relative to a soft cost is the cost to the city. You might be able to quantify how much it's actually going to cost to train somebody, to send somebody to the training, to take them off-line while you do that, to the cost of the books, whether they're donated or whether not donated, but there are additional costs that have not been raised.

No other city in Arizona has adopted this code. Pasadena, Texas is the only other city in the country that has. You place yourselves by adopting this code at a significant disadvantage in the human resource arena to be able to hire people in your planning, building, and code department. Everybody coming in will need to be trained in this code, because their existing training will be on the I-Codes. Further, anybody who has any career aspirations beyond the City of Phoenix will certainly give second thought to accepting a job at an organization that is a dead end and limits their further development because it is the only city in the country to adopt that code.

With that, I think I'll actually stick within my four minutes and again, encourage you to approve the motion before you.

Herman Orcutt
Any questions from the board. Hearing none, I'll ask for the final speaker.

Dave Dratnoll
Hi, I'm Dave Dratnol, representing the Alliance for Fire Safety. I'm not here to really speak for one code versus the other code. I would like to see this thing move forward within the process. There has been a lot of work that has obviously been done to get us to this process.

What I think that is very interesting though is, Phoenix has gone through this process in regards to the fire and life safety aspects with the amendment process and what we've come up with has been recognized nationally.

Many of the amendments that the Alliance for Fire Safety has put forward and approved by the Correlating Committee regarding height and area, raised corridors, and high-rise provisions are now endorsed by the National State Fire Marshal Association. They are also taking these amendments to NFPA National. The work that has been done through the various committees here has been nationally recognized.

Also, the State Fire Marshal Association has asked us to provide them with a package of the Phoenix Amendments in IBC format. Regardless which code this committee eventually decides to go forward with, it's been nationally been recognized now that the work has been done in the Fire Life Safety Provisions that were established by the City of Phoenix are now being taking forward nationally.

I just wanted to let you guys understand that and know that. I'd like to see process move forward, but if you decide to go with another way, then those packages are going to have to be redrawn in IBC format and now the State Fire Marshal Association has actually recognized that there is issues with the fire life safety provisions that we put forward.

Thank you.

Herman Orcutt
Any questions? Ok, time for Board discussion.

Let me just then say, as I understand it, the vote is about moving NFPA 5000 on to Step Five, recognizing that it is the last step but recommending to the City Council that they reconsider the consensus description in the Resolution about should include the consideration of more than one code. I believe that's the sum of it.

Mike Colletto
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to request a show of hands.

Ray Bizal
That's not exactly the way I wrote it down. I wonder the maker of the motion could re-read at least the "therefore be it resolved part."

Pete Hemingway
Can we discuss this as a Board?

Herman Orcutt
I don't think you meant to read the whole thing, did you?

Ray Bizal
No, just the very last whereas.

Patricia Childs
I don't even have a copy of that document.

Herman Orcutt
Ken has it. Ken, will you read the last part?

Rick Doell
They need the copies to review the motion.

Ken Roth
The last whereas states:
Whereas, the Development Advisory Board has no alternative other than to move the NFPA 5000 Building Code as amended forward and request that the Phoenix City Council not adopt the NFPA 5000 Building Code at this time. Review and re-evaluate the 1997 Resolutions definition of consensus. Consider the potential negative effects such limitation could have on the City of Phoenix and those who do business in the City and amend the Resolution and or reinterpret Phoenix's definition of consensus to allow the Development Advisory Board to compare and contrast all the codes, including those published by the International Code Council, to determine which building code is in the best interest of the City of Phoenix.

Herman Orcutt
Any other discussion?

Steve Speer
Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the members of the Board to vote against this motion and put another motion on the floor to send the NFPA 5000 up to the City Council on Step-Five with the recommendation to adopt with the amendments and changes that were developed through the one year process that we were involved in here.

The City Council sent to us over a year a code for us to review and asked the Development Advisory Board to review a code. There was a lot of debate and consternation on this Board. Frankly, the Board did not want to do that. There was a vote, it's in the record, where the Board said essentially we want to look at other codes. We got an interpretation from the City Council saying, "we said open consensus codes," which means codes that everyone has an equal say of there development.

We started that process over a year ago with a definition and understanding from the Legal Department with the City saying, "Does that mean only NFPA," they said, "yes, that means only NFPA." We did that process, we spent a year doing that process.

There's been a lot of discussion of us being the sixth largest city in the nation. We need to get in line with all the other municipalities in the state of Arizona. I don't share that opinion. This is the sixth largest city in the nation. I think we need to lead the way. I think that smaller municipals that didn't have the resources or commitment or the ability to review a code that way the City of Phoenix has reviewed this code, may have adopted the ICC Codes because it may have been easier for them, I don't know. But that's not a reason why we should snap to and adopt ICC Codes.

I think our time has been well spent. I think that we should turn this motion away and put a new motion on the Board. I hope the member will think about the amount of work they put in and get not only the best code, but the safest code for the citizens of the City of Phoenix and have less worry about whether you can have 12 units or 13 units or 14 units. I frankly don't care about that, I care about the life safety issue.

Herman Orcutt
Anybody else.

Mike Colletto
Call for questions.

Herman Orcutt
Call for questions. All in favor signify by saying "I."

Steve Speer
Cease debate.

Pete Hemingway
Oh, that's to cease debate.

Steve Speer
You put a motion on the floor to cease debate, there was a motion to cease debate, you asked for a vote, we voted to cease debate.

Herman Orcutt
I didn't understand

Ken Roth
I thought the question was to vote on the motion.

Mike Colletto
You just raise your hand, I think you got it right.

Herman Orcutt
That's what you wanted, I totally agree, I think. All those in favor, please raise your arm.

Steve Speer
What are you voting on? There is a motion on the floor to cease debate

Mike Hamblin
I have not heard a second on that motion to cease debate. I've heard motion

Mike Colletto
I've called for the question is for the motion.

Herman Orcutt
Right, yes

Ken Roth
Just to clarify, there's a motion on the floor, it's been seconded, we are now taking a vote to approve the motion.

Mike Colletto
Exactly

Ken Roth
Mr. Chairman, is that what we're doing?

Herman Orcutt
Yes, time to vote. I think that's what he's looking for.

Carole Borrego
First Motion Vote

Members Present Patricia Childs Mike Colletto Bob Ford Michael Fries Her Hacker Peter Hemingway Barbara Koffron Herman Orcutt Greg Russell Ken Roth Steve Speer Darrell Wilson

Vote NO NO NO YES YES NO NO YES NO YES NO YES

TOTAL:
5 YES
7 NO

Steve Speer
Mr. Chairman I have a motion.

Carole Borrego
5 Yes and 7 No

Herman Orcutt
Do you still want to make that motion?

Steve Speer
Yes sir, thank you.

SECOND MOTION MADE
Mr. Chairman I move that the Development Advisory Board process to Step-Five in the adoption process by sending the NFPA 5000, with the local amendments adopted, to the Phoenix City Council with the recommendation to adopt them as the Phoenix City Building Code.

Herman Orcutt
Is there a second?

Barbara Koffron
Second

Herman Orcutt
Discussion. ok, we'll do the same vote.

Carole Borrego
SECOND MOTION VOTE

Members Present Patricia Childs Mike Colletto Bob Ford Michael Fries Her Hacker Peter Hemingway Barbara Koffron Herman Orcutt Greg Russell Ken Roth Steve Speer Darrell Wilson

Vote NO YES YES NO YES YES YES NO YES NO YES NO

TOTAL:
7 YES
5 NO

Carole Borrego
7 YES and 5 NO

Pete Hemingway
THIRD MOTION MADE
I would like to make a motion to move forward to Step-Five of the process with the additional provision that the City of Phoenix City Council review or recommend to this Board if the City Council deems if it is appropriate.

In other words we move to step-five, the City Council tells us that they want us to look at another code we will look at another code. Let us move it to the City Council and give them the opportunity to do what they want to do.

Mike Colleto
I believe that is contained in the motion.

Pete Hemingway
No, moving it forward and saying that they need to at least consider looking at additional codes.

Steve Speer
Mr. Chairman, did we not just pass a motion that said that we would move the motion forward with a recommendation to approve going to Step-Five.

Herman Orcutt
Yes we did.

Steve Speer
Well then, I don't know how we can make a motion that said we move this forward with any other condition than that. Maybe we want to make a statement asking the City Council do they also want us to look at anything else. I don't think we can take action on the motion we've already passed itself forward.

Peter Hemingway
Maybe I'm not using the right words. We move it forward to Step-Five and the City Council to take action on it and ask them if they want to recommend that we look at another code. We've got to move it forward today.

Steve Speer
We just moved it forward with the adoption for the recommendation to adopt.

Ken Roth
Mr. Chairman, I've got a question. We've got a motion that was approved two months ago that seemed to (inaudible) and we have never rescinded that motion.

Pete Hemingway
What motion was that? Herman, I withdraw my motion.

Ken Roth
There is a motion out there that needs to be carried up to the council, which was, "That the Board put back to the City Council requests for redirection on the consensus status of the NFPA 5000 amendment process and also for reconsideration of the financial implications that the Board has heard from constituents through the process and that be completed in a 60-day period."

Steve Speer
That's been approved.

Pete Hemingway
We did that process, the 60-day process, this constitutes that 60-day process.

Mike Colletto
Mr. Chairman, they've got it now. They'll decide on what they're going to do.

Ken Roth
I don't know how you can have a motion that was sitting out there that was never acted upon because we failed to do anything with it the last session, so.

Pete Hemingway
We did act upon that motion 60-days ago. Right?

Ken Roth
The motion was put out there 60-days ago, but nothing has happened. It was never moved to Council per the motion.

Herman Orcutt
Let me ask Mr. Hamblin if he has any opinion on that.

Mike Hamblin
I wasn't here 60-days ago, so I'm not sure what the motion was or what did or did not happen in regards to it. The Board has now passed a motion directing that this go to Step-Five to the City Council, with a recommendation of approval of the NFPA 5000.

Ken Roth
Was that motion put back to the City Council. I'm reading it right in the (inaudible) approved by this Board, and I'll read it to you.

Mike Hamblin
Mr. Chairman, point of order. With all due respect, it's over, they got it. We can talk this and bat this around all we want.

Herman Orcutt
I appreciate that.

Steve Speer
There are minutes of the meeting. If there is some question about what we did or didn't do, there are the legal minutes that have been approved by this board.

Lionel Lyons
Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, Lionel Lyons, Director of DSD, the actual motion that you're talking about sir, and you're right, one of the things that you did agree at the last meeting or so is that we would establish 60 days or so to get together and meet as it relates to the fiscal impact.

As a part of this process, in the Fiscal Impact Subcommittee from my staff interpretation, that issue was addressed as you talked about this issue here and the recommendations that came forward today.

My other point of clarity, Mr. Hamblin can comment in as well, was the one question that Mr. Hemingway was referring to as it relates to the motion. The actual decision that you had made to take this to the fifth step and to the City Council for consideration, inherently gives them the option if they so choose to redirect staff if they so choose not to go to the NFPA 5000 for us to look at another code adoption process for review. That is something that is (inaudible) in that, because your decision is not the final decision to the City Council.

Ken Roth
But I'd still some clarity whether that motion went away or what happened to it.

Rick Doell
Mr. Chair, if you'd look at the minutes, I believe it would be contained in your packet today, we discussed this motion at the last meeting, simply because the motion was so unclear, staff didn't know what do to with it. We discussed the consensus issue and we discussed the financial issue. That is why we had the Financial Subcommittee meeting. These were held on an emergency basis to come up with some cost comparisons to bring advice to the Council, rather than direction. That's what we ended up with and that's why we're here today.

We didn't officially remove that motion from the minutes, saying we're not going to do that. What we did was address it and addressed the concerns of this Board.

Michael Fries
Mr. Chair and Mr. Roth, maybe as a formality since I was the author of that motion and it was seconded by someone now that we know who is not officially on the Board, why don't I make this as a matter of formality, I'll rescind that motion. Since the intent of that was the activity that was what took place in the last four meetings of the subcommittee.

Michael Hamblin
I think that this motion or whatever this motion requires the Board to do, I think it's been superseded by the vote the Board just did.

Herman Orcutt
OK

Call to the public
None

Adjournment

MOTION was made by Steve Speer, seconded by Pete Hemingway, to adjourn the November 20, 2003 DAB meeting. Motion carried unanimously.

Respectfully submitted:

Rick Doell, P.E.
Deputy Director, Building Official

Minutes Prepared by:
Carole Borrego, Secretary III