My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Building Code Board of Appeals Minutes 2000
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
>
2000-2019 Building Code Board of Appeals Agendas and Packets
>
2000 Building Code Board of Appeals Agendas and Packets
>
Building Code Board of Appeals Minutes 2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:01:12 PM
Creation date
10/4/2018 10:28:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BCBOAMIN 2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
previously When we adopted the IPC we kept the fee schedule from the 1994 UPC. The State <br /> does not adopt the first chapter of the Plumbing Code,which is where the fees are. <br /> Sam Light—So on page 3 of the draft ordinance which you have, section 4 says only that we are <br /> going to use the fees in table 1-1 of the Uniform Plumbing Code,but we do not have to do that. <br /> We have very wide discretion to set our own fees, provided the fee to equals the cost of the <br /> service which we are providing. <br /> Ray Schlott—I think we should continue with the same fee schedule. <br /> Sam Light—Yes,you could do that, we would need to restate that in the ordinance. <br /> Giles Schurman—I for one, don't think that we need to go through the Uniform Plumbing Code <br /> and digest the whole code. This is a code that has been widely accepted for years and the State <br /> has adopted. I don't think we need to go through it the way we did the IPC, which is a relatively <br /> new code. I am thinking that we ought to adopt it in it's entirety It has already been scrutinized <br /> by the code panels. With the exception of the administrative section,which we can add to or <br /> delete where it is necessary For fees I don't know if you can have higher fees than the State. I <br /> know for electrical fees you cannot go higher than what the State sets. <br /> Thomas Talboom—You can go five percent higher <br /> Sam Light—For Plumbing we are simply guided by the prmciple that we can charge whatever <br /> fee is reasonably calculated to cover the cost of the services provided. <br /> Greg Cullison—In talking with plumbers in the field they feel there are not significant changes <br /> between the 1994 and 1997 UPC. So I feel we really don't need to get into great depth. <br /> Ray Schlott—I don't disagree. I am just concerned about some of the wording. "Board of <br /> Appeals and City Staff have reviewed the 1997 addition of the UPC as adopted" <br /> Thomas Talboom—One change that is probably significant is the muumum fixture counts. The <br /> minimum fixtures required has moved from an appendix into the body of the code. One of the <br /> effects that will come out of this is that there will be an increase in the number of plumbmg <br /> fixtures by occupancy Also the pipe sizing tables are larger The studor vent may be a moot <br /> issue at this time,but the UPC does not allow a studor vent. What you end up with is larger <br /> fixture counts,with probably increased tap fees. By adopting the UPC there will increased cost <br /> both to the consumers and contractors, and there will probably be an increase in tap fees. <br /> Sam Light—Is it correct that the increase in tap fees will be in those situations where the fixture <br /> count,because of the new code,will bump into the next category? <br /> Thomas Talboom—Yes. <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.