Most of these committees had 18 to 20 meetings each. We had two public hearings; one on February 20, 2003 and one on March 6, 2003. At the March 6th meeting the Development Advisory Board passed a motion to an end of receiving comments for the proposed amendments for March 31st. At the March 17th meeting we had a regular Development Advisory Board meeting. At the May 15th, Development Advisory Board meeting, they approved to go on to Step-Five of the National Electrical Code and two elevator codes.

All around the same time the Board made a motion to what I call "the circle and hold pattern" to look at the past amendments. If people have comments, questions, or concerns to get them to staff by September 15th. That's what happened.

We have received several comments from different individuals where we have found typos, where something is approved in the minutes and by accident, left off. There is a handout that was handed out to everybody that looks like a landscaping document (Revisions Made to NFPA 5000 City Amendments) that shows all the changes that were made as revisions to the NFPA 5000. A lot of those were editorial typing issues that have happened. Several places where I've forgotten one whole section about pool barriers. Some people were really happy about it, some people were mad about it. Any questions for me?

Herman Orcutt
Any questions for Joe?

Joe McElvaney
Mr. Chair, one quick note, if I can. In the back of your packets, there is a handout that I've provided for information only. NFPA will be coming to Phoenix November 6th and 7th to provide training classes for NFPA 5000. For those who wish to go, the registration is on the back of the form with the information. This has been scanned and will be e-mailed out to everyone.

Herman Orcutt
Ok, we've got several people in the audience who wishes to speak on this item.
(Mr. Orcutt welcomed Mr. Hacker to the meeting, via telephone)

Ok, we're getting ready to hear from our audience and I'd like to start with Carl Triphahn. Carl is in favor is this item.

Carl Triphahny
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. I probably sound like a broken record. I'm the Executive Director of PIPE. On item no. 6, I would very much like to see this move forward. A lot of time has been spent on this issue and a lot of efforts by a lot of people. It's certainly been one of the most open processes for code development in the City of Phoenix history. I know that we've been given more than ample opportunity to come down and amend and put your two cents worth in the committees. We've been given an ample opportunity to participate. I would encourage you to move forward with this so we can move on with a new building code for the City of Phoenix.

Typically it doesn't take this long to do this. Again, I would urge the committee to put some sort of process in place so that that we could address amendments to the code on as an add needed basis. This needs to be done, as quickly as possible for those in the industry who think that there's an issue at these meetings and they feel that they weren't given as much time as they think they were. I think it would be very important to do that, and that would move this process along and not leave those individuals on the outside looking in to do something like this. I thank you very much for your time and urge you to move this forward, if you would. Thank you very much.

Herman Orcutt
Thank You. Any questions of the Board? OK

Sharon Habert
Just for the record, I'd like to say that I'd like to see this move forward.

Herman Orcutt
OK, Thank You. Jim Ternosky. Jim's opossed to this.

Jim Ternosky
Thank you. My name is Jim Ternosky. I'm an Architect, 2249 East Ocotillo Road, Phoenix. I just want to quickly reiterate a few comments of the Board.

I think that the City at this point should reject certain amendments having to do with the height and area provisions. I think that the two model codes are pretty consistent on the requirements (inaudible). Provisions are consistent with each other and I think they've adequately addressed them. I don't think there's any purpose served by (inaudible) Table 7.4.1, Section 7.5.2, Section 7.6.2.2, Table 7.2.2, and Sections 7.6.2.3 and 7.6.2.31. Thank you.

Herman Orcutt
That's it. Ok, any questions of the speaker?

Next is Ray Bizal. Ray's in favor of this motion.

Ray Bizal
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. I am Ray Bizal. I am Regional Manager for NFPA and obviously support moving forward with this.

The Development Advisory Board and Staff have conducted a number of these extensive processes, quite honestly. I have to say that I represent many of the western states and I have never seen a more open and forgiving process in the code adoption from California to New Mexico up to Alaska. I think that you deserve a hand with all the work that you have done. I think it's just phenomenal.

We take no position on the amendments themselves. I would like to say that the Building Code Development Committee and NFPA met recently, with one a staff members from the City of Phoenix attending, and brought their amendment package through. I took a look at them, there were some provisions that they were not in favor of submitting to NFPA, but there were a large number of proposals that were in any amendment package that they wanted to consider. They looked at it, and there were a number of amendment proposals that they were going to submit to NFPA 5000. Hopefully, I believe that City Staff will also be doing that. What I'm trying to get at is, that hopefully the next addition of the NFPA 5000 will look more like the document that I hope will become the City of Phoenix code.

We, also, since the last meeting, NFPA's codes were selected for adoption in California. As a result of that, the technical office that's in California will serve not only in California, but also the western states. That is another support service that is opening up to the City of Phoenix if it so chooses to go with the NFPA 5000.

Thank you very much.

Herman Orcutt
Thank You. Are there any questions?

Dave Dratnol, he's also in favor of this item.

Dave Dratnol
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Basically I am in favor of moving this forward to Step-Five of the process. The City amendments that have been gone through were done at the subcommittee level as debated from there. Those then went to the Correlating Committee and were debated at that level, and put forward in the final document that has been presented to you guys back in May of this year. So I urge you to go ahead a move this process forward and to support NFPA and the final process.

Herman Orcutt
Thank you. Any questions for Dave?

Suzanne Gilstrap, and she's opposed.

Suzanne Gilstrap
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, you know my name, I've been here quite a few times on this issue. Suzanne Gilstrap, formerly Gilstrap and Associates now Capital Consulting.

With all due respect to the tremendous, tremendous amount of work that has gone into the review of this code by literally by everybody, not only by the Board, but volunteers (inaudible) and others that are not here today to be recognized for the work that they did.

We've had quite a bit of discussion about this. Now it seems as though, with all of the amendments that have been added to this code, about 300 pages of amendments, that we have to step back and question whether in fact it really does meet the intent of the resolution that the City passed in 1997 to only consider the consensus code.

We would hate to see that move forward to only be turned back to this board and all the good work of this group not be recognized. What we would ask at this time, is that you ask for clarification of that from Council. We have several new members on the Council that were not there in 97' when this resolution was passed. We would encourage, than rather moving this forward at this time, that you could ask City Council to reevaluate, whether in fact, this code meets the intent of that resolution or whether they want to make any modifications to that resolution or would make final adoption (inaudible) condition. Thank you.

Herman Orcutt
Thank you.

Pete Hemingway
I've got a question. Suzanne, when you say consider, do you mean the resolution or what specifics are you asking the Board to consider?

Suzanne Gilstrap
Mr. Chairman, as you know, this Board as questioned before the Council and questioned why they were only looking at the one code and it was made very clear, rather the response that came back, not sure whether it was actually taken to the formal Council meeting. At least it was reported back from staff, saying that the only intent of that resolution was the NFPA code.

What we're questioning is that it no longer meets that. In fact this (inaudible) feels strongly about it, our organization isn't the only one. I think it's only appropriate that the Council be given the opportunity to review the resolution again and review what's happened to this code. It's been in the amendment process for 18 months and make a second determination, it's only appropriate at this time.

Pete Hemingway
So the question that you would say that your recommendation would be that the code as it stands amended by this Board and the Subcommittees, is that code as it exists now a consensus code?

Suzanne Gilstrap
Does it continue to meet the intent of the code? Thank you.

Ben Barcon
Is there someone here with that Five-Step Process that can read it or, not only for those that have been on this Board for a while, but those that are new members of this board.

Joe McElvaney
This is the Five-Step Process that this Board approved:
Step 1
Consensus Review Code for complying to Resolution to 19015
This was taken to City Council in a City Council Subcommittee Report in December of 2000. In that report we stated that staff will meet the needs of the NFPA 5000, at least that part in the way they do their business, looking at other codes that are available at that time. That past through Subcommittees and went up to City Council in a Council Report.

Step 2
Step 2 is Staff review. Staff will review the codes. If there was more than two in that resolution, unfortunately there was only one. Compared to current codes that we have right now. In the form of the amendment packet that staff did. That began April 9, 2002.

Step 3
Step 3 is when the DAB developed subcommittees. At that time I came to the Board and asked for subcommittees. We broke down to five to six subcommittees. DAB members were chairing those meetings and that is when we asked the public to get involved. That work began in November 2000 and ended sometime in March of 2003.

Step 4
Step 4 had some public hearings. This Board had public hearing in February, March, and in May of this year. People were discussing this issue.

Step 5
Now we're asking to go to Step 5. We had all the public hearings. We did the review process. We opened up a process where we can look at the proposed amendments. We received several e-mails from Board members and outside sources, pointing out typos and items that were left out. All of these changes were done, per the landscaping document that is in your packets.

Ben Barcon
Can you go through Step 5, where it shows the City Council . . . .

Joe McElvaney
Sure. What happens in Step 5 is staff needs to take an amendment package to the Law Department for their review. Once the Law Departments reviews this package and makes grammatical changes, then it is then taken to the City Council Subcommittee, where they will hold a public hearing.

This is an opportunity for the public to voice their opinions and ask for changes. That subcommittee can almost do anything, I would hate to venture as to what they can do.

Then the Fire Safety Subcommittee, which our department reports to, would then make a final recommendation and take this to City Council.

Rick Doell
What Joe was referring to is the City Council Report that was presented on the consent agenda, I believe to the Ethics and Public Safety Subcommittee by Kenny Harris, who was our department head at the time. There was a memo written to George Britton, who was the Deputy City Manger in charge of Development Services at the time. In that report, which was approved on September 5, 2000, the recommendation, the summary of what the report said, and I'll read it.

Staff recommends City Council approves of the Five-Step Code Adoption Process presented above. This process has been recognized by the Development Advisory Board. It is further recommended that the City Council approve the time that is proposed for the review and adoption of the 2000 Uniform Mechanical Code, State Plumbing Code, Uniform Fire Code, and the NPFA Building Code. The Ethics and Public Safety Subcommittee unanimously approve both the process and the timelines at their December 5, 2000 meeting.

This is why we're here today.

Herman Orcutt
Ok. Dennis Correll. He's in favor.

Dennis Correll
(Metro Phoenix, Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors Association)
I'm in favor. I've testified before. Our association is in favor of NFPA 5000.

Herman Orcutt
Ok. Victor Hicks.

Victor Hicks
I'm in favor. I belong to the Arizona PCC and we're in favor of it.

Herman Orcutt
Russ Brock, Homebuilders.

Russ Brock
I'm Russ Brock, The Homebuilders Association of Central Arizona.
I'm really just going to recap some material. This is in a memo I wrote to this same Board on September 18, 2002. In the last paragraph I went back and looked up what the responsibilities of the Development Advisory Board are.

Considering recommendations to the City Council for periodic updating of the Phoenix Construction code. The premises that were adopted is to operate from a base of knowledge. At that time, and I still feel the same way today, that the fact that the City Council has boxed themselves in to potentially approve one code, did not relieve this Board of the responsibility to make a recommendation of what would be the best code for the City of Phoenix.

That would be the Councilman's issue to take themselves out of that box, that they've created for themselves in approving the resolution (inaudible) moving ahead with (inaudible) this Boards duty, by virtue of the responsibilities each one of you agreed to do to operate on your own basis of knowledge and respect in all you've done in the last several years. All of you are people with integrity and I just see your role a little different. I think you've had the responsibility of old codes and make recommendation and Council can sort it out from there, as they've put themselves in a box.

That's my opinion. It really hasn't changed over this past year. I still believe you have an obligation to do what you said you do. (Inaudible) I don't think that one out of two codes constitutes it basically.

Herman Orcutt
Thank you. Questions for Mr. Brock.

I think the Chair is probably ready for a motion then

Michael Friess
Mr. Chair with acknowledgement to the fellow members who volunteered to be involved with this effort and all the City staff who have worked very hard on this amendment.

In good conscience I am a member of this Board and I make a motion not to send the NFPA 5000 to Step-Five until I believe City Council has given us two directions that they consider that the fact that the amendment process has had unconsensus status and also, that Council is advised that this Board, that they acknowledge to us that they have truly heard what we have heard from a number of City constituents that they believe that going with this in what will have a detrimental effect on the development in the City of Phoenix.

We've heard that from many, many people over the past six months.

Herman Orcutt
Is there a second?

Julie Stiak
I second that motion.

Herman Orcutt
Time for discussion. Does anybody have anything to say about that?

Mike Colletto
This Board has voted once to send this back up to the City Council for review. That was pretty well rejected. This Board, being made up of diverse body, the vote has gone over these items, quite (inaudible) they've looked at each individual items on these amendments and they voted on them. In both cases on more serious items, they voted on them two or three times. I know, that as the Chairman of the Correlating Committee, we've voted on those issues as many as three times.

I don't know of a single code that's been adopted throughout the history of this country that wasn't brought back to local jurisdictions and makes amendments of those codes. The ICC codes, the BOCA codes, the Southern codes, all of them, when they go back to their local jurisdiction the local jurisdiction makes changes to those codes. Especially, when you have a brand new code. In which case we're dealing with only two codes out their and their both brand new, as far as Phoenix is concerned.

There are always major changes to those adoptions and that's what we've done. This Board spent 18 months and hours that I could count going through that and I can't see, at this point, changing that. The folks that were opposed to NFPA 5000 or have different views on different amendments have had their voice. There has never been, in the City of Phoenix, this kind of review of a code or any amendments that is so into the public and so open to so many people to sit down and have their (inaudible).

The City Council has given direction, we've questioned that direction, they have set the policy. We are the Developmental Advisory Board. We advise, we don't direct.

With that I oppose this motion. We've invested a lot of time and effort. I think it's time to move this forward. We've had two public meetings, the public has had their say, and we've just bent over backwards to have a conclusion.

Ken Roth
Mr. Chairman one thing that I'd like to add to Mr. Fries comments was that one thing that's concerning me from the beginning was the fact that Phoenix would be out of step with all the other communities in the valley. To be (inaudible) architectural teams and engineers would have a separate (inaudible) codes just for the City of Phoenix, I thought that would be detrimental to the City of Phoenix. So I think that would be an important issue to consider, also.

One other thing, I know that we discussed at the last session of the Homeowners Association our comments and I talked with (inaudible) and after we discussed a little, it occurred to me that (inaudible) what was a code and through the amendments do what you could do. With so much interpretation, what the final result would be that just seemed to be taking something with 300 pages of explanation (inaudible). Thank you.

Pete Hemingway
I have a comment. I guess I'll ask the Board to consider, Mr. Fries, what type of action to we want City Council to take, in that we have to be specific and also in consideration will City Council…. as Mike stated, we've sent this issue up to City Council before and it has not been heard by the subcommittee. I understand your position. My concern is that we're not going to get an action from the City Council. What's to motivate City Council to take an action on our behalf one way or another?

I know the essence of the question is that we hide behind this consensus code, but in reality we know we're looking at two issues between two separate codes. To get City Council to take action, it's going to be relative to that consensus code issue, I would imagine, in deciding whether or not the ICC Code is a consensus code.

To be honest with you, I'm not sure at this point and time given that City Council has decided that NFPA 5000 is a consensus code, that us making amendments to that makes it a nonconsensus code. So I don't know if your motion is obtained in what you're trying to obtain, because the way it's stated I don't see how they don't have any other choice but to say our original thing was it's a consensus code the, it's a consensus code now.

Just because you put amendments on it, if we look at the International code, we're going to make amendments to any code. That's just the reality of dealing with Phoenix. There are things that apply to Phoenix that are unique to cities. And each city is unique unto itself.

How do we get this thing off with a dime? Rus stated that we have a responsibility. I concur with that. Our responsibility is to make a decision one way or another. Either that forces City Council to make another decision and get them off of the dime and out of this box. However that needs to happen, but to leave it open in the back and forth, in some point and time, we're doing an injustice to the citizens of the City of Phoenix who need to move forward with a building code, one way or another.

If that decision needs to be we have to go back through that process again and look at the I-Codes, so be it. We have to get somebody to make a decision and move off of the dime. Now we need to make a decision, I think, one way or another. Either we end up telling them you need to look at the other code, and that's fine. If that's the decision of this Board, but let's make a decision today. Let's not just leaving this hanging out there. We have to make a decision. If we have to spend another 18 months to look at the next code, that's ok, I'm willing to put the time in. But let's make a decision. Don't just not make a decision today.

Michael Fries
I agree with your decision that a decision needs to be made. My issue is here besides the strict technical side of it. We've sat here for six months and heard many major areas of development. Groups of development come here and tell us, to this committee, what we're doing here is going to have an impact on the development in the City of Phoenix. I think part of our role here as an advisory board is to understand that and say, "has anybody heard this, do they understand the impact this is going to have before." Let's be honest, the five-step process, in many ways, the final step is kind of whatever we say. If we pass it on to the next step, obviously, there are two more steps.

Here's where it needs to come down to. Somebody needs to ask the question. Do they understand that this may have financial repercussions on the City of Phoenix? Part of what we do here is look at the group we advise and it's going to have a major impact on them and their financial outcome.

If you don't build here and you don't put more permits in here, we're dealing with issues on the financial side, not just on the technical side. I understand that everybody wants a code put in place. It's not that we don't have a code already in place. We have a code. If it takes another 30 or 60 days to get a response back on this issue before we make the final vote, I would feel more comfortable serving my role that we made a financial decision here besides a technical decision.

Pete Hemingway
I guess my question is, do you really feel honestly that in 30, 36, or 90 days that the City Council is going to come back to us with a recommendation that gives us specific direction either to move forward on another code or that the resolution from 1997 is not, in essence, what they said it is, which supports NFPA 5000. Yet we've heard from people on the other side that said NFPA 5000 is great.

We've have people, who I think, the majority of the cards today people were in favor of it. I've yet to hear in these 18 months people giving me specifics as far as what the real economic impact is going to be. I believe from day one, members of this Board have asked, show me the numbers, show me something that's more cost prohibitive. I've talked to some architects, in fact I met with one an hour ago before the Board, who's totally independent and told me NFPA 5000 saved his project millions of dollars.

So I've heard from both sides that some good, some bad, in regards to that. I guess my question is again, are we prolonging the process unnecessarily. Looking at the Five-Step Process, City Council Subcommittee holds public hearings. I'm just asking a question, if we move it forward to the fifth step, with a specific recommendation in regards to looking at the other code, does that accomplish what we're trying to get a decision made from City Council, one way or another.

Steve Speer
Mr. Chairman, I have to share Peter's opinion in that I believe that we've studied this issue for 18 months. I believe we owe the citizens of the City of Phoenix and the City Council, who charged us the responsibility to review the issue a decision and a recommendation one way or another.

I think it's up to the City Council to make the decision as to whether the final adoption takes place or some other aspect of influence comes into change their mind one way or another. I think we were charged with the responsibility, and I don't think we've served that well to continue to stall off making a decision. We can study this thing forever. We're not doing to make the decision for final implementation, the City Council will. I think that we've been asked a question, we've studied this efficiently, and we put hundreds and hundreds of hours in on that effort. I think that the City Council had confidence that this Board would make a recommendation. I think we owe them that recommendation, one way or the other.

Mike Colletto
I know that I've said this myself and Peter did as chairman. The folks that didn't like this process because of the resolution that the City Council past, that after this Board voted to have the Council review the resolution and then it was rejected, then from that point forward, those individuals that were opposed to the implementation of the NFPA 5000, should take their arguments to the City Council. I know I've mentioned that at this table before, that those folks that were opposed to the NFPA 5000 and opposed to that resolution should take their arguments to the City Council and get that policy reversed.

This council had clear direction on which way they were going, and we put in those hundreds of hours in that direction. At this point and time, we need to move this thing on and get to the final resolution. I don't think we ought to bat the ball around anymore. We've already batted it around for 18 months. We ought send this to the next step and have City Council Subcommittee review it. If they want to send it back, if they want to make that change, then that's where it's going to be made any. Their the folks that are going to have to change it the resolution to make a recommendation that going to have some impact on the direction. We've already had direction. Thank you.

Herman Orcutt
Herb, you still there.

Herb Hacker
Yes, I am. I'd like to point out that there are many hours that have been spent on this code. There's totally difference in what most of us (inaudible) professionals know about the International or the Uniform. It's totally different in (inaudible) the organization, etc. etc.

However, the concept is the same. I've always heard that the City Council past the resolution it did, is because the International Code can always be voted on by the Building Officials who are members. They cannot be voted on by people who make proposals, industry, etc., etc.

In the interest of opening up the process, the Council voted (inaudible) ANSI standards and much greater detail and much greater variety. Now we (inaudible) through an amendment process to allow the code, which by is a consensus, it's a consensus of the citizens of Phoenix.

The hours that were put into it, I think we (inaudible) when this thing goes through that (inaudible) NFPA 5000 and all the suburbs around us will be on the International Code 2000-2003. I also will deeply regret that there is no correlation between the International Fire Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Codes, and MAG, and the NFPA 5000.

So this Board, the Development Advisory Board, I suggest will have a hand full in the next years over interpretations, over clarifications, over someone from the audience. (Inaudible)

Scott Mardian
Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the Board that the code we have now works. A year from now it'll still be working. There's the adage the early worms get eaten and you may have heard the one the second mouse gets the cheese.

I don't know this for a fact, but I heard that California went through a process similar to ours and the state of California adopted NFPA 5000 over the recommendations of whatever committee had made the recommendations.

I'm more like, I went through the process went we went from the City Code to the UBC Code, what 8 years ago. I think, my opinion is, this is one of those cases where, let's see how Los Angeles does for a year and see how the code works. The Board doesn't want to be associated with something that is the first thing out of the box. Phoenix is a progressive city, but a change of this magnitude to something that hasn't been proven; UBC had been around. When we went to that we had confidence in that. I'm hearing that there's not a lot of confidence that the NFPA is going to be appropriate for the citizens of Phoenix.

I was on Chapter 12 and Janet Reed and the staff, they put together a superior effort through this. They rewrote the entire Chapter 12, so that it's actually a better chapter for the citizens of Phoenix. It's more accessible.

We put in a lot of effort so I would like to see, I don't want to see that effort wasted on the other hand, two years from now, I don't want to be associated with something that's a mistake. Thank you.

Herman Orcutt
Any other comments?

Pete Hemingway
In regards to your motion, is there a way to put some kind of time frame or something on here to get reaction from City Council. Otherwise, I think we're putting it out there in nomansland. Between City Council and us, how do we get action? That's my biggest concern. There's no direction here there's no decision.

How do we move it to the subcommittee in the City Council so we get it moving forward? Scott is suggesting have City Council say we won't do anything for a year.

Michael Fries
Mr. Chairman I make an amendment to my motion to put a time frame in place as Mr. Hemingway has suggested.

Herman Orcutt
What would that be?

Michael Fries
I think 45 to 60 days would be good. We're obviously going to have to go meet with members of Council to let them know whatever the vote is here, whether it's to put that in front of them for consideration on the issues that you heard today, plus the financial issues that I brought up and/or there is none. I would put in there a time frame of 45 to 60 days.

Herman Orcutt
Probably needs to be one or the other. I'd put 60 days. Does the second agree with that?

Julie Stiak
Yes, I agree. I second that amend.

Mike Colletto
Is that . . . we're an advisory board. I don't understand how we can them to tell us what to do in 60 days. That's not going to work. It's just not going to work.

Pete Hemingway
We have to get some sort of direction. You're asking them a question. How are we going to get a response? We don't hear from them in 60 days, do we move it forward? There's got to be some direction. We're wavering.

Julie Stiak
Mr. Chairman, if you read that step-five, doesn't get this referred to the City Council Public Safety Subcommittee. We are asking for the Public Health Subcommittee of the City Council to hear this motion and give us (inaudible) we'd like to be invited. There needs to be DAB and DSD and pubic participants there at that City Council Subcommittee meeting.

Herman Orcutt
My understanding is that we're actually asking the City Council to go back and review the consensus.

Julie Stiak
If they take that first step if within 30 days we're going to be meeting with that subcommittee and then by that time will be a City Council meeting. We should be able to meet our target.

Lionel Lyons
I'm Lionel Lyons, DSD Director. My general observation is the things that you all are discussing is to clearly think and will happen in Step Five. Step-Five and Step-Five of the process is the review of the Public Safety Subcommittee, which is the members of your City Council who are taking into consideration all of their concerns that you are having.

I think by not moving to Step-Five, whether you agree with it or disagree with what is or what's not going on, what you want to agree to do is leave the item out there just to fall clear through the cracks with no sense of direction. The very things that you're asking for, Mr. Fries, it is my understanding is you can still get that same degree of clarity by going back to Mr. Brock's comment from that Public Safety Subcommittee. Is this clearly the one or should there have been others that we should have considered. That ultimately becomes the job of the Public Safety Subcommittee.

As you all talk about the issue as to whether or not this is an open consensus process, we did do our due diligence as staff, in terms of taking the information back and relying very heavily and clearly on our Legal Department that says NFPA 5000 as it was presented, as it was directed to us to proceed by the City Council, clearly meets the open consensus process. By moving it to Step-Five does not mean to agree to go the NFPA 5000 versus the other. It ultimately helps you to get clarity you need in terms of some final determination of whether or not we go with NFPA 5000 or go in another direction.

As the staff people here are clearly saying that the staff has done it's due diligence. The one thing that I want to make very, very clear to all of you from a staff perspective and as a department director, we created our roll in providing you the best staff in position that we needed to provide. What direction you pick and choose to decide to go in is a direction that we will work on to prepare to provide the best system for our City of Phoenix residence. I would hate for all of you today to not move this to Step-Five, because in the end this will just fall through the cracks. I'm not sure, even as a department director, where do we go from here?

Because if we drop it there, from a staffing prospective, how will we then be able to provide freely, staffing support to that. Step-Five relies on City Council a clear sense of direction and will tell you they recommend and or go in another direction. You goal as the advisory board you will be doing the very job that the City Council expects you to do, wants you to do, and needs you to do. Otherwise, you basically take the entire item and dumped it in their laps to address the issue. All of you, along with the volunteers in the audience, have been more closely involved in this than anyone else. Someone asked me, would I let them have everybody on the same page. This is an issue right now, no matter where you go, ultimately, to the Public Safety Subcommittee and the City Council will have to figure out that final decision. I would say to all of you, whether you agree to where we are with NFPA 5000 or not, that the next step, in terms of Step-Five will greatly (inaudible) in the process to get those clarifications and some answers in terms of whether or not go with this or go in another direction.

Ben Barcon
Has staff looked at the question that Mr. Fries is asking and have the made a determination and have answered this question already?

Lionel Lyons
We were clearly directed by the City Council. The issue that you have raised is not the first time that this issue has been raised. As a result of that, we did consult back with our (inaudible) in talking with others.

In terms of comparison, the observation that has been made by staff and others as we've gone through this process is that NFPA 5000, in terms of where we are and what we're recommending to you today, has not been done in isolation. It has been done in consideration of what we even have existing. No one is saying here today that what we have is broken, but we are saying that this based on the direction of the City Council of an open and an consensus process. NFPA 5000 being the one directed that we look at and to clearly evaluate that, by our (inaudible) legal people and others to make sure they are at the Five-Step Process. We think that addresses that.

When you have a bigger issue that you're raising, which is an issue that supersedes me, if this is the right one or the other one; that was made by another political body at some other time. At the same time as staff, we had an obligation to do due diligence in the direction that they've asked us to do. I appreciate whatever direction you've given us as staff so that we can move forward one way or another based on our direction.

Herman Orcutt
We have more card. Since Lionel came up I'd like to have this person come up also. Chuck Couglin.

Chuck Couglin
Hello Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Chuck Couglin and I work for (inaudible) and I represent the National Code Council.

In all due respect to Mr. (inaudible) I think it's very important to wait. Since City Council (inaudible) at one point start making work in the resolution adopted some years ago by another City Council. I think it's a very peaceful thing to ask this board to ask the City Council to again review it. After all it's a new City Council, it is a busy Council, at least three members on it that did not participate in that discussion and did not pass that resolution. Also, we'll have a new Mayor start next year.

With a City that is this big that has a potential economic consequences that this community faces. I think it's entirely meaningful for this committee to ask your City Council to reconfirm or redirect you as to regards the data and the resolution.

I think that's a reasonable, appropriate, economically intelligent step to ask for new leadership in this community if they want to abide by that same resolution as Mr. Brock said and put you in the same box again. I think that's an appropriate question for this committee to ask. I think it's a thoughtful question for this committee to ask. I think the Council would welcome the opportunity to answer that question.

Mike Colletto
Mr. Chairman based on the Director's comments; I'd like to call for a motion.

Herman Orcutt
Ok, All those in favor, please signify by saying I, (various responses throughout the Board), all opposed nay (various responses throughout the Board). I think it's time for roll call.

Steve Speer
Mr. Chairman, are we voting to cease debate or are we voting on the motion?

Herb Hacker
Will the motion please be read again.

Steve Speer
The motion was to cease debate.

Herman Orcutt
It was?

Steve Speer
I called the question. The question was called twice to cease debate.

Scott Mardian
I think we're all in favor of ceasing debate.

Herman Orcutt
Yea, I think that we agreed to that. My impression was that we voted on the motion. Rick Doell
No, we did not.

Michael Fries
* MOTION *
That the Board puts back to City Council a request for redirection on the consensus status for the NFPA 5000 amendment process, and also for consideration of the financial implications that the Board has heard from constituents through the process and that this be completed in a 60-day period.

Julie Stiak
A point in clarification that we want the new Mayor and Council to review this. So do we have to wait until January?

Herman Orcutt
I think we want to leave the motion. Mike, it's up to you, do you want to leave the motion the way it is?

Julie Stiak
I think we want the Public Safety Subcommittee to hear it.

Michael Friess
I will accept the change in motion.

Herman Orcutt
I think we can't do that. (Call for a vote)

Members Present Ben Barcon Mike Colletto Stephen Elssmann Michael Fries Herb Hacker Peter Hemingway Barbara Koffton Scott Mardian Herman Orcutt Danny Ortega Kenneth Roth Greg Russell Steve Speer Julie Stiak Darrell Wilson

Vote Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

TOTAL:
9 YES
6 NO

Discussion/Information/Possible Action on Residential Plot Plan Review and Turnaround Times for Residential Plan Review:
Bob Goodhue, Deputy Director, DSD, stated that the Residential Plan Review Process has been backlogged due to the residential development in the City of Phoenix. One of the larger processes is the Plot Plan Review. This deals with residential standard plans.

DSD has been backlogged for over a year. DSD's goal for a turnaround time is 2 days. Currently it's been taking 4 to 6 weeks for a complete review. What we've done to shorten the turnaround time is to apply these to overtime for staff. There are some permits that take additional times because additional options have to be created for the standards, which takes time and additional staff to work on this. Mr. Goodhue continued to explain that this is just a short-term solution and a long-term solution needs to be created. This is currently being worked on.

Mr. Goodhue stated that the Information Systems (IS) staff is working to devise a process to monitor the plans coming in. The current log in process is a very tedious process. The IS staff is creating a short form to log the plan/application in and create a permit with a clearance checklist like what is created for plan review. Basically that is the permit and it's ready to go out the door. The goal is to log these in quickly and track the status. If there are problems with the plot plans; it's not complete or has errors, we can sign it off through the system, contact the developer, tell them what the errors are and get it resolved.

Mr. Goodhue continued to say that this new process has been created and will go into effect on October 1, 2003. This will bring the application on-line and will make service more efficient.

Mr. Goodhue presented this new procedure to the Homebuilders Association and received a positive result for his presentation. He stated that from an efficiency standpoint, this process will work better for the customer and DSD.

Rus Brock, Homebuilders Association, complimented Mr. Goodhue and DSD for their hard work. He stated that DSD exceeded their expectations in terms of providing this service to the public. He was impressed with the feedback the Homebuilders received from Mr. Goodhue and DSD.

Tracy Finley, Shea Homes, stated that this is a very, very positive step in the right direction for permits and plot plans in the City of Phoenix. He stated that it would be so much easier to track on the internet for the homebuilders and developers.

Discussion/Information/Possible Action on scheduling a date and time for a DAB Retreat:
Mr. Orcutt asked the Board for their opinion on what date and time they would like to have a retreat.

It was agreed upon to hold the DAB Retreat on Wednesday, November 5, 2003 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Location is to be determined.

Rick Doell, suggested going through the DSD Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations at the retreat. Mr. Orcutt concurred that this would be a good start.

Call to the public:
None

ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION was made by Danny Ortega, seconded by Pete Hemingway, to adjourn the September 18, 2003 DAB meeting. Motion carried unanimously.

Respectfully submitted:

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

Minutes Prepared by:
Carole Borrego, Secretary III

c:

Board Member Mayor Skip Rimsza City Council Members Mr. Fairbanks Mr. Washington City Clerk Mr. Lyons

Mr. Wendt Mr. Doell Mr. Dolasinski Mr. Goodhue Ms. McKinley Ms. Beckley Mr. Bunyard Mr. Fleming Mr. Horne Mr. Kienow Mr. Mundy

Mr. Parks Ms. Reed Mr. Singbush Ms. Stotler Ms. Owens