MINUTES BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODES COMMISSION February 4, 2013

MEMBERS PRESENT ALTERNATE MEMBERS PRESENT Mr. Fred Malicoat Mr. Rob Jackson Mr. Kas Carlson Mr. Eric Lidholm Mr. Brian Connell Mr. Doug Muzzy Mr. Jay Creasy Mr. Stuart Scroggs Mr. Ben Londeree Mr. John Page Mr. Mike Rose Mr. Richard Shanker Mr. Matt Young

1.) CALL TO ORDER MR. MALICOAT: Call the meeting to order. 2.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. MALICOAT: I’ll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. Do I hear one? Everybody read the minutes from the last time? MR. CONNELL: I did not. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Were they e-mailed? MR. MALICOAT: Yes, sir. MR. CONNELL: When? MR. MALICOAT: Friday. Excuse me. They were e-mailed Wednesday. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: People didn’t get their e-mail. MR. MALICOAT: Well, I read them, so I’ll make a motion to approve the minutes. I wasn’t here, but I read them. MR. CONNELL: Well, I’ll second it then. MR. MALICOAT: Okay. MR. SHANKER: Two uninformed individuals. MR. MALICOAT: All those in favor of the minutes, aye. Opposed? (Unanimous voice vote for approval.) 3.) INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE REVIEW MR. MALICOAT: All right. Let’s move right into the Code Review, the IBC. I believe, Brian, you were the chairman of that committee. MR. CONNELL: Yes, sir.

1 MR. MALICOAT: So we’ll let you have the floor. MR. CONNELL: Thank you. MR. MALICOAT: And when you ask to talk to Brian, raise your hand please, and he will acknowledge you and we’ll go from there. MR. CONNELL: Does everybody or most everybody have one of these handouts (indicating)? Because in an effort to expedite this process, I’m going to suggest that we breeze through the stuff where it’s -- we considered it administrative or there were no changes, and get right to the heart of things that we wanted to bring before the BCCC and keep this thing moving. If anybody has any questions, just stop me. And, Phil, I will be calling on you for -- (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. LONDEREE: Are we going to do the IBC? MR. CONNELL: We’re going to start with the IBC, Ben. MR. LONDEREE: Do you have another one of -- MR. CONNELL: I do not. All right. Basically -- (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. CONNELL: Let’s go ahead and jump in. As usual Chapter One is all administrative and it’s just a matter of amending the ordinance to basically acknowledge the new code. So there’s really nothing worth discussing in Chapter One, unless somebody wants to argue about permit fees or demolition fees. Moving right on through all that -- MR. SHANKER: Mr. Connell, who was on your committee that’s here? MR. CONNELL: No one that’s here. MR. SHANKER: Okay. MR. CONNELL: And good question, Rick. We had -- Stuart Scroggs attended pretty regularly. We had Dave Forward, representing the County, just simply auditing the process. And by the way, I want to acknowledge that he contributed a great deal of information to our process. And I think it’s important, and you guys probably sensed this in your other committees, but County is very interested in cooperating and coordinating with the City’s efforts to adopt a code that’s unified so we can kind of erase those lines between City and County in that regard, because almost everybody works in the city and the county. Of course, Phil attended all the meetings, and from time to time we had Mr. Weber and Mr. Lidholm when we had structural issues come up. But I’m hard pressed to think -- and then we had City Staff. We had John Simon and Nadine were present most of the time. MR. SHANKER: So it was you and occasionally Weber and occasionally Eric? MR. CONNELL: And Stuart. MR. SHANKER: Huh. MR. CONNELL: Who is my alternate. MR. LIDHOLM: Dave and I were there when it was appropriate for our profession. MR. ROSE: I was there at the beginning, but that was --

2 MR. CONNELL: That’s right. I’m sorry. So we had people come in from time to time. Hearing no other questions about that, I’m going to move right on through Chapter One, and we’re going to jump to Chapter Three, 305.2.3, which talks about -- we’re in the occupancy classifications. And the committee proposed a revision -- yeah, 305 -- well, you don’t have your book. 305.2.3, and I’ll read it out of the code book for everybody. Basically, we’re talking about Educational Group E. And under 305.2 we have Group E, daycare facilities. This group includes buildings and structures or portions thereof occupied by more than five children older than two and a half years of age who receive educational, supervision, or personal care services for fewer than 24 hours a day. In other words, they don’t live there. And 305.2.3, in the code it’s published that five or fewer children in a dwelling unit, a facility such as the above, within a dwelling unit and having five or fewer children and receiving such daycare, shall be classified as a group R-3 occupancy or shall comply with the International Residential Code. We had discussion about this. City Staff recommended that we change five or fewer to ten or fewer, which lines up with our city zoning ordinance. Is that correct, Phil? MR. TEEPLE: That’s correct. MR. CONNELL: So that basically if we were to adopt this as published, a whole bunch of home daycare would become noncompliant and cause tremendous heartburn. So we thought about it, talked about it, decided that it was appropriate to go ahead and amend it to line up with the city’s zoning ordinance, which is already in place. Any question about that or any comment? We’re talking about ten or fewer children in a dwelling unit -- MR. CREASY: Makes sense. MR. CONNELL: -- in a daycare. So the State recognizes that number, the city zoning ordinance recognizes it, so we just thought we would bring the building code into alignment with that. Okay. So that’s -- and a procedural question: I don’t know if we need to act on that. It’s our recommendation as the committee, but I don’t know if we need to -- MR. PAGE: Can’t we vote on all of them at the end? MR. MALICOAT: I would say as a procedure, if there’s no discussion on anything and everybody’s in agreement, we can just vote on them at the end. MR. CONNELL: Okay. MR. MALICOAT: But if there’s something that causes heartburn with somebody, then we need to bring it up and vote on it as an individual item and iron it out amongst ourselves. MR. CONNELL: Okay. So hearing no debate over it, I think we’ll move on and vote on it as part of the package at the end. The next item jumps to Chapter Nine, Section 903.2.1.2, and this, basically -- once again we are proposing an amendment to this section. What we’re talking about here is Chapter Nine talks about fire protection systems, so basically this is describing when a sprinkler system is required in certain uses. In 903.2.1.2, it specifically talks about Group A-2, which is bars, restaurants, nightclubs, et cetera. The code for the last several cycles has a minimum threshold, above which you have to sprinkler the building, and it has always included, A fire area exceeding 5,000 feet or the fire area has an

3 occupant load of 100 or more people. And we discussed this in numerous committee actions and bottom line is it doesn’t take a very big space at all to generate an occupancy load -- a calculated occupancy load by the table of 100 people, and that would require an awful lot of establishments, facilities to be sprinklered that would -- it would just bring hardship on the community, I think. And so we’ve always -- I think the committee’s agreed and the Commission has agreed that 200 is a reasonable revision. Any questions or -- MR. CARLSON: How does that change from what it is now? MR. CONNELL: Well, it’s published -- well, we’ve been carrying that amendment forward, so -- MR. CARLSON: Okay. So it’s -- we’re keeping the amendment the same. MR. CONNELL: -- it’s been 200; we’re keeping it the same. MR. CARLSON: 5,000/200. MR. CONNELL: Yeah. So everybody seems to think that’s pretty fair and reasonable. Any questions about that? MR. SHANKER: There’s no retroactivity in that, is there? MR. CONNELL: I’m sorry. MR. SHANKER: There’s no retroactivity in that, is there? MR. CONNELL: No. MR. SHANKER: Thank you. MR. CONNELL: There is not, and we’ll get to that. Okay. 907 -- I’m sorry. 903.2.7, Group M, 903.2.7, and again we’re talking about where it’s required to sprinkler an area, and Group M is mercantile, and Item 4 -- and this came up the last time -- or last code cycle, where Group M occupancy used for the display and sale of upholstered furniture or mattresses exceeds 5,000 square feet. And basically prior to this, in the last cycle, it simply said any Group M occupancy that was used for the display and sale of upholstered furniture. Didn’t have any minimum square footage or anything. MR. PAGE: That was in the fire code. I remember talking about that last week. MR. CONNELL: Right. And, you know, the potential for mayhem there was simply -- you could have a mom-and-pop antique store that would be -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: One chair. MR. CONNELL: -- one chair would throw them into a category of requiring sprinkling. Now they’ve clarified that it’s 5,000 square feet or more. MR. PAGE: And that makes fire code and this code the same. MR. CONNELL: I believe it does. I didn’t sit in on the fire code -- MR. SHANKER: There are certain group characteristics that are maybe a little bit different, but, yes. MR. CONNELL: So what we’re -- I think what we’re saying here is that in the past we had -- our amendment to the code was to delete that condition, but now it’s -- isn’t that right? Now it’s clarified, so we’re okay, so we can lose our amendment and go back to what’s published. It’s a little bit unclear the

4 way this written in this table. Section 907.2.3 at Exception 4 -- and this was at the request of the fire marshal -- an emergency voice alarm communication system is not required in Group B occupancies with an occupant load of 75 or less. The explanation is that these would typically be small facilities and the benefits of an evac system over a standard fire alarm system would be minimal. So what we’re saying is that we’re willing to add an exception that if you have 75 or less, this emergency voice alarm communication system is not required. MR. SHANKER: Brian, what’s B? Group B you said. MR. CONNELL: No, E. MR. SHANKER: What is Group E? MR. CONNELL: Group E is education. MR. SHANKER: Thank you. MR. CREASY: And the voice alarm, is that just an actual, like, comes out of the detector itself or is that a completely different part of the system? MR. CONNELL: It’s my understanding it would be completely different. MR. MALICOAT: Instead of the horn strobe, it’s a speaker strobe -- MR. CREASY: That says fire -- MR. MALICOAT: -- so you get actual voice direction on what to do -- MR. CREASY: Actual direction? MR. MALICOAT: -- as well as a strobe. Yes. There’s a recorded voice on it. MR. CONNELL: And the point is they’re pretty expensive. I understand they’re pretty complicated to maintain. And for an occupancy that’s 75 or less, the fire marshal agreed that it’s -- the benefit’s minimal. MR. CREASY: So it’s more than the smoke detectors that say, Fire, fire, whatever. MR. CONNELL: Right. MR. CREASY: Okay. MR. CONNELL: Right. Any question about that? 915.1, which talks about the emergency responder radio coverage, we’ve had a lot of discussion about that. I think fire committee also talked about that, and we’ve all agreed to keep our current amendment, which is basically to allow the fire marshal the latitude of deciding where that’s required. Isn’t that right? MR. SHANKER: No. This is in regards to the equipment he intends to -- I wish he was here. We had the agreement -- correct me if I’m wrong -- that they were going to look into their own equipment for this kind of stuff. MR. CONNELL: Right. But I think the discussion is there are so few opportunities in Columbia today for this even to be an issue, you know. It’s the underground over at Subterra, Paquin Tower -- I think there’s, like, three places -- MR. SHANKER: Shelter. There’s several. MR. CONNELL: -- where this would be --

5 MR. SHANKER: I just hate for ambiguity to be the -- the calling card that will come back to haunt us. MR. CONNELL: Yes, sir? MR. TEEPLE: My recollection is that we were deleting our current amendment and going with the code text. MR. CONNELL: Well -- MR. SHANKER: Brian? MR. CONNELL: Okay. Yes? MR. SHANKER: I’d like to make a motion to table this one until fire is here because they didn’t cover that in our last meeting, and I was surprised they didn’t bring it up, but we had an understanding -- Mike and Fred, correct me if I’m wrong -- that they were just going to hold off on this because they were looking into equipment to take care of this themselves. What I hate to think of is these two guys retire and we get someone else in here and says, Well, here it’s in the code, and we can just say, Well, we thought that such-and-such was going to happen, and we get bit. So I’d recommend that we table this one. MR. CONNELL: Is that a motion? MR. SHANKER: That’s a motion. If it doesn’t get a second, it doesn’t go anywhere. MR. ROSE: I’ll second it. MR. CONNELL: Okay. We’ve got a motion and a second to table this until we can get more input from the fire marshal. Any discussion? All in favor of that motion, raise your right hands. (Unanimous vote for approval.) MR. CONNELL: Looks unanimous; we will table that. All right. Okay. Here’s a fun one: 1011.2, floor-level exit signs, Where required, illuminated exit signs in A-1, A-2, R-1, and R-2 use groups shall be placed above exit doors and to the side of exit doors 18 inches from the floor. The floor-level exit sign shall be protected by a guard to prevent physical damage. This amendment shall not be retroactive in nature and shall not apply to structures prior to January 1, 2007. MR. LONDEREE: Doesn’t that make it retroactive to 2007? MR. CARLSON: It was required then anyway, wasn’t it? It was required back then. MR. PAGE: Yeah. I was going to say I remember discussion about this and I thought it had been in there for some time anyway, hadn’t it? MR. CARLSON: I didn’t think the guardrails was part of it though. Was it? MR. CONNELL: Well, I think -- Rick? MR. SHANKER: Fire department wanted this several years ago and we said okay. Since then they’ve kind of second thought this and gone through a lot of problems with it. It’s actually a good idea; because the smoke rises, you won’t see your fire alarm. So we might get clarification from them in regards to this. But in our meetings we talked about this. We didn’t take any action because -- I don’t know why quite honestly. Do you guys, Fred or Mike, remember talking about this?

6 MR. ROSE: I don’t remember -- MR. SHANKER: I mean, they all have to jibe. Right, Brian? MR. CONNELL: We think that’s appropriate that fire code and building code jibe. MR. SHANKER: There was some restaurants that were having problems with this because in their master plan there’s supposed to be a waste can where this exit was supposed to be, and it was just causing all kind of hair pulling for McDonald’s or whoever it was, and they just had to have that garbage can there, which covers the smoke -- the fire alarm. So that’s where -- MR. CONNELL: Well, Phil, quick question: It seems to me that when this -- when this concept first came into the code language, I don’t think it applied to assembly, did it? It seems like it was primarily focused on hotels and motels and R-1, R-2 stuff. MR. SHANKER: Missouri Theater -- I don’t know if you guys remember that -- we had that there, we had a variance to that. So maybe this is another one we can just refer to -- MR. CONNELL: So you want to table this one? MR. SHANKER: -- fire when they get in here. I thought they’d be here tonight. MR. TEEPLE: I thought this was actually -- we were ahead of the code on this one. Now, this is the first time this is in the code, but for residential occupancies, and ours was for assembly occupancies and also R-1 and R-2 use groups. MR. CARLSON: It’s the same as what we have now. Right? MR. TEEPLE: Well, there’s not code language for group R-1 to require the floor-level exit signs. MR. SHANKER: Brian? MR. CONNELL: Yes? MR. SHANKER: This fits in, what Phil just said, to what actually happened. The fire department, I think before your tenure, came in and asked us to do this. We said okay. Now it’s in the code. But let’s -- I still maintain we should get them in there so there’s an understanding between buildings codes and fire, that there should be an understanding of how it’s going to be enforced. So I recommend a motion to table this one also until fire can be here. MR. CONNELL: Is there a second? MR. PAGE: I’ll second it. MR. CONNELL: Second by John. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your right hands. (Unanimous vote for approval.) MR. CONNELL: Once again it’s unanimous. All right. So we’ll table that one as well. Okay. The next one was just simply a typo. Section 1301.1.1, criteria for -- this is where we’re deciding that everything is going to be designed in accordance with the energy code. Anybody have any thoughts about that? Rick? MR. SHANKER: I’d like to make a motion that we -- I don’t know if you guys talked about some of the things that got passed before, but -- that are hangnails to me at least, the programmable thermostat

7 that’s required, things like that. Have you guys in your committees looked at that, thought about recommending -- and the blower door thing -- MR. PAGE: Yes. Yes. MR. SHANKER: -- that I think have passed -- go ahead. MR. MALICOAT: Coming up in the IRC. MR. SHANKER: Okay. So it’s not related? MR. CONNELL: Well, I think it’s worth noting that during the course of our work in the IBC Committee, we were led to believe that there was work ongoing with the EEC and that we were going to get recommendations back from them. And my understanding is that when it came to the commercial side of the energy code, their recommendation was they had no problem with any of the code as published and they just -- I don’t want to -- I didn’t quote them, but they’re assuming that we’re just going to adopt it as published without any exceptions or amendments. MR. PAGE: I’m not sure what’s in the IBC energy code. I don’t know -- MR. CONNELL: Well -- MR. PAGE: I have not reviewed the IBC energy code. MR. CONNELL: There it is right there. MR. PAGE: Okay. What does it say? MR. CONNELL: It just refers you to the energy code. MR. PAGE: Oh, it refers you to the IRC energy code. MR. CONNELL: No. MR. PAGE: No? MR. SHANKER: No. MR. CONNELL: When you go to the energy code -- MR. PAGE: Okay. MR. CONNELL: -- it’s split into two pieces. There’s the residential -- MR. PAGE: Oh, okay. MR. CONNELL: -- and then there’s the commercial. MR. PAGE: I have not seen that book. MR. CONNELL: So -- MR. PAGE: I don’t even know how that relates to what we have in here (indicating). MR. CONNELL: Well, it’s -- when you point in here, are you talking about IRC? MR. PAGE: IRC. MR. CONNELL: Yeah. Well, it’s different because it’s commercial. Fred -- I’ll get to you -- MR. SHANKER: I’m patient. MR. CONNELL: -- have you got any input as far as the -- MR. MALICOAT: It talks about insulation, just like the residential code does, and I can’t remember the numbers. And there’s one thing you have to do in commercial, it’s called a COMcheck,

8 and you have to do a lighting calculation and an HVAC calculation for the building and see if it passes or fails. So that’s one difference, but we’ve already been doing COMchecks anyway, last time. MR. CONNELL: Rick? MR. SHANKER: Did your committee find any problem? If they didn’t, I’m totally good with it. MR. CONNELL: I don’t know if I can say that we didn’t find any problem. It’s -- MR. SHANKER: Okay. What were the problems? How’s that? MR. CONNELL: Just that we haven’t invoked an energy code until now, and we’re faced with the prospect of some pretty onerous requirements. I think it’s not too much unlike the residential code. I think the notion out there in the community is that commercial designs already incorporating the requirements of the energy code. But I don’t know that it is. I mean, Fred’s saying that we did COMchecks and, you know, other issues like that, but I have to admit, as the chairman of the IBC committee, I was deferring to some sort of recommendation from the EEC, and they never really addressed the commercial side of this code. So we didn’t get any real direction from them. MR. SHANKER: So if they said endorse it -- adopt it in its entirety, are you saying no problem or are you saying problem? Or have you not reviewed it enough to know? MR. CONNELL: I can’t tell you that I know how to assess that. It’s -- I don’t know how to evaluate it to understand fully the impact of saying let’s just adopt this. Phil? MR. TEEPLE: The energy code there basically has three methods of compliance. There is the ASHRAE, 90.1 I believe. You can follow that and get your compliance. There’s a prescriptive compliance path. Then there’s also a simulated performance compliance path, similar to something we discussed in the residential energy code. Some of the things that we thought were a bit different in there was that they were going to require skylights if the building’s ceiling height is over 15 foot tall. They’re going to require a blower door test. They’re going to require some commissioning on some larger HVAC units. And those are some of the things that in their prescriptive compliance path we thought were different than what we’re doing now. MR. SHANKER: A requirement to have skylights? MR. TEEPLE: Yes. MR. SHANKER: Huh. MR. CONNELL: For day lighting. And then you have to balance that with the insulation requirements for the roof. MR. SHANKER: So do we need more studying this before we jump into it and say yes? Or give us some guidance. MR. CONNELL: Well, this is one of those -- I wish Gary Naugle were here. MR. SHANKER: He is, but not for much longer. MR. CONNELL: It’s one of those situations where I believe that City Staff -- and I’m not speaking of Phil particularly, but I think over in Water and Light, I think they’re advocates for this. You know, everybody’s looking towards demand side, conservation. So I think there’s a strong desire on the part of

9 the City to adopt this as is without any amendments. And, again, I would defer to Fred and others who are actually practicing these requirements to tell us what you really think the impact is from where we are today. MR. MALICOAT: Do you remember, did I come up with a number for this commissioning process? Remember I was charged to do that, and I can’t remember what I found. I know there is a company in St. Louis that focuses on just commissioning. They used to be a design firm, but now that’s all they do is commission buildings, and it’s based on the energy code and -- MR. SHANKER: Where’s the commissioning -- say whether it’s up to snuff? MR. MALICOAT: Yeah. To see if it actually meets what was specified and what the code says it has to have. If it actually meets those criteria and -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So we’re going to have -- MR. MALICOAT: -- performs. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: -- someone out of -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Blower door tests? MR. MALICOAT: That would be part of it. The blower door would be part of it. MR. CONNELL: John? MR. PAGE: But Phil, I think, said there’s three different methods by which to comply by this code in commercial buildings. So you have three options. Correct? MR. TEEPLE: Uh-huh. MR. CONNELL: Well, there’s three options for how you choose to model your building. But commissioning, for example, may be a requirement regardless of how you -- MR. PAGE: In all three instances. MR. CONNELL: Right. I think the number, Fred, was somewhere in the 3 to 5 percent of project cost, which is pretty significant. I mean, that’s the equivalent to all of the other consulting costs oftentimes, depending on the scope of the project. So depending on the scale of the project, it can be significant. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I would think so. MR. SHANKER: I want to remind myself and everyone else that Phil, Curt, and anyone who’s in the City should be advocates for our existing codes. The advocacy for codes that are not adopted is not appropriate for them because we have not adopted those codes. So you’re comment that the City wants to do something according to that code -- let me finish -- may or may not be true. Once it’s adopted, we pay them to be advocates, just like the fire department. But I -- what I’m trying to understand from you guys is if we need more time to look at this in detail, let’s do a little subcommittee, two weeks we’ll get it knocked out. But I’m afraid that we’re talking about adding cost to buildings and design features into buildings that we may or may not want. And if we just say okay, it’s done. It’s going to be there. And I don’t know these three paths and I’m not in the designing business, but I do know 3 or 5 percent is a lot of money when you’re talking millions.

10 MR. CONNELL: Eric? MR. LIDHOLM: So let’s just go down this path a little bit. Let’s say we do have a subcommittee and we do come up with some amendments. What does that do with the Energy and Environment Commission -- (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. MALICOAT: Brian? MR. CONNELL: Yes, Fred? MR. MALICOAT: Can I ask John to speak to the Environment and Energy Commission? MR. CONNELL: Sure. MR. PAGE: How much time do we have? MR. MALICOAT: Yeah. Briefly speak to it. MR. PAGE: First of all, let me say one question at our meetings that I had for Terry Freeman -- Terry Freeman’s the Water and Light Department -- I asked him twice at two different meetings, If we make amendments to the energy code, does that in any way affect anything you do with programs, incentives, or anything, and the answer is no. The Energy Environment Commission has made an effort with us -- and I’ll get into it with my stuff -- has made an effort -- unless they do something in the eleventh hour -- made an effort and produced a letter to agree with us on most every point and every recommendation that we came up with on the energy code, which is unusual. But it is in a letter form to the Council, so I’m hoping we don’t have any of this eleventh hour stuff going on like we did last time. MR. LIDHOLM: That’s why I asked the question. MR. PAGE: I could say more, but I’m going to stop. MR. LIDHOLM: I’ll pull the Band-Aid off faster next time. MR. CARLSON: Well, we only spent eight weeks working on the energy side in residential. It seems like commercial’s going to be more costly, a hell of a lot more money, than the residential -- MR. PAGE: That book you were holding up is a new book. MR. CONNELL: Well, it’s not -- MR. PAGE: That energy book. MR. CONNELL: -- a new book, but it’s new to us because we haven’t adopted it. MR. CARLSON: And your code is asking to adopt it. MR. CONNELL: Right. This particular -- I mean, there’s the commercial and that’s the beginning of the commercial energy code (indicating). MR. CARLSON: Blower door test on a big building. MR. PAGE: Maybe you recommend we don’t adopt that. (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. TEEPLE: I think that actually was adopted to the code last time because it wasn’t amendment now. MR. MALICOAT: Right.

11 MR. TEEPLE: However, we did amend Groups R-2, R-3, and R-4 occupancies and stated what the requirements were for those. MR. CONNELL: So you believe we adopted it last cycle. MR. TEEPLE: Yes. MR. CARLSON: Parts of it, because apparently we’re not doing the blower door test. MR. TEEPLE: That’s new to this version. MR. CARLSON: We’re not calling in firms from St. Louis because we can’t do our work and saying, Hey, is this okay. I mean, there’s got to be something in there that’s different than what we’re doing. MR. TEEPLE: Yeah. The commissioning and the blower door testing is new to this cycle. MR. PAGE: You know, I don’t think there’s any way that we have time to -- in the IRC the energy code went from 20 pages last time to 30 pages this time, and 30 pages we spent two months. You got a lot more than 30 pages there and you couldn’t get through that in two months. You meeting every week, there’s no way. So I would think we would try to align with what we’ve got currently and move from there. I don’t -- now, this is -- it seems to me that the Energy Environment Commission is more concerned about residential new homes than they are anything else. They don’t seem to be concerned about commercial. They don’t seem to be concerned about existing. You know, I asked them, I said, What about existing houses? Why don’t we concentrate on them? We’re worried about this new stuff and the new stuff’s fine. And their comment to me was, Well, some day your houses will be old. MR. CARLSON: Phil, do we have a way of knowing in those 100 pages or whatever what the big difference is? I mean, we cannot just have an amendment that says, Hey, we’re going to do what we were doing last year, can we? MR. TEEPLE: I mean, you could choose to adopt the 2009s. It is very difficult to quantify the differences on commercial buildings because of the various nature and type. We looked at quite a few documents to try to address the differences between the 2009 and 2012 commercial code, and it was overwhelming. MR. CARLSON: Okay. MR. SHANKER: Brian? MR. CONNELL: Yes? MR. SHANKER: May I address Phil? MR. CONNELL: You may. MR. SHANKER: If a commercial plan comes in, are you looking for a cert-- or will you be looking for a certification of whatever this commissioner thing or a stamp or something that says it complies with that? MR. TEEPLE: Currently we require the COMcheck and we do check that. Depending on whether or not they follow the ASHRAE standard or the IECC standard, I think that would depend on

12 whether or not we require the commissioning and the blower door. I’m not familiar enough with the ASHRAE standard to know what all is in there. MR. SHANKER: Are there significant changes, marks in there Brian like all the other codes? MR. CONNELL: Oh, yeah. Yeah. There’s quite a bit that’s brand new. There’s quite a bit that’s revised. I’m just pulling out some of the many publications that either Phil or Dave Forward helped us come up with, and we tried to wade through this stuff. And depending on who authored it, you might get a different take on the impact of all this stuff. I mean, here’s one from the AIA -- MR. SHANKER: Have you gone through the significant changes in the IECC? MR. CONNELL: No. MR. SHANKER: I don’t think that we should pass anything that we haven’t -- that hasn’t been reviewed. MR. CONNELL: I think what we can all know for certain is that if we adopted it as is, it will in fact result in an increased cost in the development of commercial buildings. I don’t know how to quantify that. MR. MALICOAT: They’re all different, Brian, so we can’t. MR. CONNELL: Pardon? MR. MALICOAT: They’re all different, so you -- MR. PAGE: How are you going to know until you do it? MR. MALICOAT: -- can’t quantify it. MR. PAGE: You don’t know until you do it. MR. CARLSON: Well, you don’t know until you know what the difference is either. MR. CONNELL: So, I mean, you know, you can see everything that I marked (indicating) that -- you know, I got comments like, Holy cow, All new -- MR. CARLSON: Are you sure that’s what it says, Holy cow, or you just toned it down for us? MR. CONNELL: Yeah. I had to tone it down. So, you know, everything that’s highlighted represented some kind of change, and there’s a lot of it. You know, all those tables are either new or different. Rick? MR. SHANKER: In order to get this off dead center, what do you recommend? Table it, not adopt it, you review it one more time in a week? Well, maybe you’ll have a stomach virus and have to be on the pot all the time and then you could read it. I don’t know. Where’s the committee’s recommendation? MR. CONNELL: I have to be honest. We don’t really have one. We came here to throw this thing out here. And I’d be the first one to agree we probably need more study. But I think what we’re going to learn after a whole lot more study is that, yes, it results in more cost and just as important, in my opinion, my own personal opinion, is that it results in more time involved in producing and submitting commercial projects. Rick? MR. SHANKER: To get it off dead center, I’m going to suggest something that Phil indicated that’s a possibility, that we adopt the previous IECC that we’re already doing.

13 MR. CONNELL: As amended? MR. SHANKER: No, the previous one. Whatever the previous one was, whatever incarnation was, that’s what we’ll be -- MR. CARLSON: Did we have amendments to the other one? MR. TEEPLE: Yes. We had amended Groups R-2, R-3, and R-4. MR. SHANKER: So we’d be looking -- that, I assume, is the new and improved version, and if we have the old one, we’ll just adopt that. My motion is we adopt the old one with the current amendments, just to get this thing moving because we could be here all night. MR. PAGE: I second. MR. CONNELL: Any discussion? MR. LONDEREE: Would you characterize the changes as being more restrictive than they were before? MR. CONNELL: I don’t know if restrictive is the right term. I think it’s -- MR. LONDEREE: More expensive. MR. CONNELL: There’s an increased requirement. MR. LONDEREE: And it will cost more. MR. CONNELL: Yes. MR. SCROGGS: Brian, did you say that, as an example, windows and fenestration, that is probably more restrictive, the openings that are allowed? MR. CONNELL: Yes. MR. SCROGGS: As an example? MR. CONNELL: As one example, yes, and that’s a good one. If we adopt this code as published, it starts to limit the amount of glass area in an entire building, and in certain orientations on a building. It starts to require a certain amount of daylighting so many feet into the building, and if you can’t get there with your outside windows, then that’s when skylight requirements kick in. And there’s a requirement in here I just glossed over before. I think in the past code cycle, there was a requirement for -- let’s see if I can find it again -- in terms of high-efficacy, not efficiency, but high-efficacy lighting was 50 percent, now it’s 75 percent in commercial buildings. So they’re ratcheting everything up. MR. PAGE: Is that of the bulbs or of the fixtures though? That’s the big difference. Seriously, it’s big difference. MR. MUZZY: You know, it seems like the implications of keeping it the same would put the burden back on somebody who cares enough to be an advocate for changes to step up and do it. I mean, lots of times what I find is that so much of the energy code increases are pretty arbitrary and they’re really -- you know, we can evaluate a lot of that stuff and not sure whether it helps or hurts. And you hear all kinds of different opinions from everybody, but it seems like that should be pushed by, you know, possibly somebody with expertise in that area that cares about that. If we put it back, then it’s -- they can come back and fight for any of those improvements.

14 MR. SHANKER: This doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow that book. You can do whatever you want; we’re not eliminating things. And I’m sure this is a public forum, that other people are going to have their in -- hear about this, and the Energy Commission may say, You know what, we need to adopt this and then we can put it before the Council in terms of why they should or shouldn’t, but I’d at least recommend a vote. MR. MALICOAT: And one more item: When you’re looking at that, typically in a commercial building, to sell a client something, you have to show them there’s a cost benefit analysis done and that it pays out, it has a certain pay-out period. MR. CONNELL: Almost every time. MR. MALICOAT: Right. Which the code may or may not address. MR. CONNELL: Okay. We’ve got a motion and a -- MR. SHANKER: Ben wants to say something. MR. CONNELL: Oh, I’m sorry, Ben. MR. LONDEREE: I don’t understand anything in there, but I think we all remember what happened last time: We got trumped by what the Energy Commission wanted. We offered something less and they ignored it and went with the IEEC [sic], so we have to be concerned about that as well. MR. CONNELL: Eric? MR. LIDHOLM: The point taken, but it shouldn’t affect the way we vote. MR. LONDEREE: I just was bringing -- MR. LIDHOLM: Yeah. I understand, but I just think we’ve got to vote and -- MR. LONDEREE: It creates a little egg on your face when you get shot down in public as a commission. MR. CONNELL: Rick? MR. SHANKER: Let’s vote. MR. CONNELL: Okay. We’re calling the question. All in favor of the motion -- would you please restate it just -- MR. SHANKER: We will continue using the previous IECC code with the amendments that are on the books. Anyone wants to bring -- obviously, if they want to bring it forward and do this design, any conflicts they can bring it in and get a variance. MR. CONNELL: All in favor of that motion, raise your right hand. (Unanimous vote for approval.) MR. CONNELL: Unanimous. Okay. Moving on. Section 1604, now this gets into structural stuff, which I’m not entirely familiar with, 1604.1 -- and, Phil, can you help me clarify the ordinance language where it says, We’re adding the following to this paragraph, the following standard structural design criteria are established. MR. TEEPLE: Yeah. Basically, the next items, one through four, you know, A, B and 1 and 2, are underneath that paragraph that are being added.

15 MR. CONNELL: Okay. So basically -- I see what you’re saying. So all of the established criteria that we had already -- we’ve already adopted, we’re keeping. MR. TEEPLE: You’re clarifying based on maps and information what the loads are to this particular area. MR. CONNELL: Okay. All right. So we’re -- okay. I’m with you. MR. LONDEREE: So are those different than they were? MR. CONNELL: No. They’re pretty much the same. I don’t see any controversy there. That takes us all the way through Chapter 18. Okay. Residential swimming pools, 3109.4. And again, Phil, clarification: We’re deleting the exception and sticking with our current amendment? Is that the way I read your -- MR. TEEPLE: Correct. To start with your current amendment is to delete the exception. MR. SHANKER: Which is? MR. CONNELL: Okay. Under 3109.4 it reds, Residential swimming pools, Residential swimming pools shall comply with 3901.4.1 through 3901.4.3. The exception is a swimming pool with a power safety cover or a spa with a safety cover complying with ASTM F1346 need not comply with Section 3109.4. And we are deleting that exception. MR. SHANKER: And how does the exception -- what does it do in order -- that changes? If you have a cover and we did adopt the code -- let’s forget about our amendment -- what does that mean? MR. TEEPLE: Basically, what our exception here says, if you put a pool cover on here, you still have to have a guard around your pool, you still have to have a fence. MR. SHANKER: But in the code it says you don’t? MR. TEEPLE: Correct. MR. SHANKER: All right. Thank you. MR. CONNELL: Any issues with that? MR. SHANKER: Does that talk anything about electrical or fire or -- electrical in regards to pools, because we will when talk electrical. I just want to make sure we’ve jibed up. We’ll talk about it. Don’t worry about it if you don’t -- if it doesn’t stick out. MR. CONNELL: We don’t have any -- MR. SHANKER: All right. Good. MR. CONNELL: -- electrical. Okay. MR. PAGE: Brian, on the cover, is the assumption -- the reason we have that in the amendment that you still have to have a fence -- we assume that maybe somebody wouldn’t close that cover? MR. CONNELL: Yeah. (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. PAGE: So some kid would fall in anyway if they didn’t bother to close it. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yep. MR. PAGE: I’m surprised the code doesn’t say the same thing.

16 MR. SHANKER: Shhh. Don’t let them know. MR. CONNELL: Well, and again, this is not my forte, but I think there was some discussion about there are certain kinds of covers that actually create a hazard. When you fall onto the top of them, they actually trap you below the surface of the water. So there’s -- it’s really not safe, so we require the barrier around the pool anyway. MR. SHANKER: And this is great for the homeowner because it reduces their liability. You forget to leave it open [sic], you have a fence up, he jumps in, drowns yourself [sic], so this is -- MR. PAGE: I’m not disagreeing with -- MR. SHANKER: -- good for everybody. This is -- MR. PAGE: -- it. I was just asking. MR. SHANKER: -- is good for everybody, I think. MR. PAGE: Yeah. I’m not disagreeing with -- MR. SHANKER: -- with the code. MR. TEEPLE: Obviously, I wasn’t here whenever that came into the code, but I think that there was also another issue where either people had gotten into a neighbor’s pool, or there was some other issue where we require now even a -- I think the six-foot fence around the pool in addition, where the code only requires a 48-inch. So I think it’s also a health code and some other -- there were some other impetus for -- MR. SHANKER: There’s a six-foot requirement? MR. MALICOAT: Yes. MR. SHANKER: Is that ours or the code? MR. MALICOAT: Ours. MR. PAGE: Ours. MR. SHANKER: So in addition to the pool cover thing, we have six foot? MR. MALICOAT: Right. MR. CARLSON: Have had for a long time, I think. MR. MALICOAT: Ten years. MR. PAGE: Well, I think if you have a door -- if you have a door -- a back door that exits into that pool area, it has to have an alarm on it too. MR. TEEPLE: That sounds right. MR. SHANKER: I don’t know about that. MR. PAGE: That as something, I think, if I’m not mistaken just one or two -- MR. CARLSON: Two code cycles ago. MR. PAGE: -- code cycles ago came into -- MR. CARLSON: Two code cycles ago. MR. MALICOAT: Right. MR. CONNELL: Moving on.

17 MR. PAGE: Yeah. MR. CONNELL: Chapter 34 -- or Section 3412.3.2 -- MR. CARLSON: But, John, that alarm only goes off for people that are under 5’8”. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Easy now. MR. PAGE: I’ve been waiting for that. MR. SHANKER: Wouldn’t recognize the place without Kas saying that. MR. PAGE: He only took 55 minutes. MR. CONNELL: All right. This is an issue that’s been contentious for a long time. We’re in Existing Structures, Chapter 34. Section 3412 addresses compliance alternatives, and as a commission all of you’ve heard many, many cases where some sort of alterations or addition or modifications were being proposed to an existing building. And we would -- the design consultant would evaluate the building based on compliance alternatives. And we were finding ourselves in conflict with the fire department because the IFC, the fire code, doesn’t recognize the compliance alternative, and in the past it’s been recognized that the fire code trumped the building code and that the retroactive nature of the fire code prevailed. And so it’s been an issue that’s come before this commission numerous times. You’ve heard debates between fire marshals and design professionals, and we’ve had to deal with that. Interestingly enough, in this code cycle, early on back in the administrative chapter, it talks about it in the significant changes that a statement is made in here that says that in the event of a conflict in language, this code prevails. So we had that discussion with Fire Marshal Fraizer and Lieutenant Brian Davison and after a lot of ribbing on their part at me, they basically came back and agreed that -- which is what you’re reading here -- that where it’s applicable, Chapter 34 would, in fact, take precedence. But the question that comes up -- and I don’t really know how to address this -- is that the fire code still says that it’s -- it’s basically a retroactive code. That you don’t have to propose an alteration or change of use or an addition or anything to trigger the fire marshal showing up and doing an inspection and declaring that you need to bring something up to a current requirement. MR. PAGE: But if you do that, you can go to Chapter 34 and do your evaluation and tell them you don’t have to do it? MR. CONNELL: Well, that’s where it’s a little unclear to me, and I would certainly invite input from Stuart or anybody else that has some experience in this -- MR. SHANKER: Is this in regards to a remodel or is this in regards to things that you guys passed last week, where they can walk in anywhere and say, You got to change this? MR. CONNELL: Well, it’s -- when you say we “passed” it, we approved the language in the fire code that gives them -- that has basically stated for several cycles that they have that right. MR. SHANKER: I mean, is this what you’re addressing now? MR. CONNELL: Well, let me try to address the question that John brings up. Again, absolutely no action is required for the fire marshal to come inspect your building and decide if certain aspects -- it’s almost like Property Maintenance -- that certain aspects of the building are required to be brought up to a

18 code, up to a standard. Chapter 34 addresses buildings where you are proposing either a change of use -- for example, somebody clears -- some mercantile store clears out of a building downtown and a bar moves in or an office or a daycare or anything other than what was there previously. That’s a change of use. Or if you’re proposing to remodel the building, doing alterations to it, whether they’re structural or not, anything that would affect means of egress, configurations, anything that has to do with life safety. So Chapter 34 addresses it when you -- I’ll say touch the building. You’ve decided you’re going to change something about the building. And I think the larger question still comes up, is -- you know, again, this code took a direct action early on in Chapter One that says, This code shall prevail where there’s a conflict between it and other codes. And we had this debate with Fire Marshal Fraizer and Brian Davison, and they conceded that when you apply Chapter 34 that the fire marshal’s office would acknowledge that, would recognize that. As long as you when you go through the evaluation and you score a building and if it passes that test, so to speak, that they would recognize that. But that doesn’t necessarily meant that all buildings are exempt from this retroactive requirement. Is that a fair assessment, Phil? MR. TEEPLE: Yes. MR. SHANKER: So what’s the dilemma? I didn’t -- MR. CONNELL: Well, I’m not sure that there really is one, other than the fact -- I wanted to make the distinction that, again, in the building code, Chapter 34 only kicks in if you are altering a -- MR. SHANKER: Correct. MR. CONNELL: -- building in some way. And you have two choices: You can either just outright comply with all the previous sections in the code, or if for some reason that creates a hardship, you can evaluate the building under all these different -- 20 different criteria and you earn points for different characteristics of the building. And at the end when those points drop out, if they exceed a certain minimum number, the building passes and you don’t have to comply with the new requirements. MR. SHANKER: But Fire will still whine about it -- no offense to Brad, even if he was here -- and then it comes before us. MR. CONNELL: Possibly. MR. SHANKER: Right. But there’s no way -- and over time, if you guys haven’t noticed, Fire keeps getting more powerful and powerful over buildings. And it’s just been happening since way back. And to me it’s a problem because who knows more about buildings than these guys (indicating)? Not Fire; they know about egress. So as long as it’s Chapter 4, it’s the same ole thing that we’ve done for years. Right? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. MR. CONNELL: Well, and if anything -- MR. SHANKER: Well, I know -- MR. CONNELL: -- I think we’re pleased that it’s clarified. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It’s clarified that --

19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And that will -- MR. PAGE: This is a big difference. It says now that 34 will take precedence when conflict occurs. It didn’t say that before. MR. SHANKER: Okay. Well -- MR. PAGE: Fire thought they had -- MR. SHANKER: Then there’s no real problem, is there? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It’s just letting us know that it’s -- MR. SHANKER: Good. MR. CONNELL: Again, this doesn’t solve the issue of retroactivity, but when you’re touching existing buildings -- MR. CARLSON: It helps. MR. CONNELL: It helps. It just clarified something that we’ve struggled with in the past. MR. SHANKER: But in your case you can’t -- if there’s a final inspection and there’s a Health Department inspection, your inspection, and Fire, if any one of those rejects, you can’t supersede any of those departments, can you, Phil? MR. TEEPLE: No. MR. SHANKER: So it would come before us again. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Possibly. MR. CARLSON: That would be correct If they did not pass. MR. PAGE: But now -- but now when they do the Chapter 34, he’s got some teeth (indicating). Before he didn’t; he had to argue with the fire guys. MR. CONNELL: Well, just as importantly -- MR. SHANKER: He’ll still have to do that. (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. PAGE: No, they won’t. It says right here that Chapter 34 takes precedence and he’s got that language and he can say, Look, guys, right here. MR. CONNELL: Just as importantly, this body has teeth. We now have -- MR. PAGE: Right. MR. CONNELL: -- something to -- MR. PAGE: And he does too (indicating). MR. CONNELL: So again, the fire official has every opportunity to -- he can look at a Chapter 34 evaluation that might very well pass in terms of numbers, and he still might have a problem with it and reject it. But I could cite all kinds of examples -- but we don’t need to get hung up with that -- where he would challenge it and it would end up here anyway. MR. PAGE: That’s okay.

20 MR. CARLSON: That’s okay. That’s why we’re here. MR. CONNELL: All right. Moving along, and almost finished here. We’re going to go back to the energy code, and this is kind of a big deal. This is C101.4.3, and I’ll read it to you. MR. SHANKER: Is this in the new or the one that -- MR. CONNELL: This is in the new, and I realize we’ve already acted to oppose that, so maybe we don’t need to address this. MR. SHANKER: Right. Is it in the old? MR. CONNELL: I didn’t bring my old one. MR. SHANKER: Does it have a mark on the side of it? I mean, go ahead and read it. MR. CONNELL: This would have been in the old one because it’s not -- it doesn’t have a change bar in front of it. MR. SHANKER: Go ahead and let’s hear it. MR. CONNELL: Okay. This is a little lengthy, but I’ll read it. This is Additions, Alterations, Renovations, or Repairs. We’re in the scope of the energy code. Additions, Alterations, Renovations, or Repairs to an existing building, building system, or portion thereof, shall conform to the provisions of this code -- and, again, this is the same language as the last code -- as they relate to new construction, without requiring the unaltered portions of an existing building or building system to comply with this code. Additions, alterations, renovations, or repairs shall not create an unsafe or hazardous condition or overload existing building systems. An addition shall be deemed to comply with this code if the addition alone complies or if the existing building and addition comply with this code as a single building. The exceptions -- and there are eight of them, and the one that we’re referencing here is exception five regarding reroofing, and I’m going to jump right to it. Reroofing for roofs where neither the sheathing or the insulation is exposed. That means that if you reroof a building and you don’t skin the insulation or the sheathing, then that roof is exempt from the requirements of the energy code. Roofs without insulation in the cavity and where the sheathing or insulation is exposed during reroofing shall be insulated either above or below the sheathing. The point of this is under the roofing requirements of the energy code, you’re required to go back to ANSI 90.1 or one of the other two, three criteria, the modeling criteria, which are pretty extreme. And what this is saying is that you’re exempt from that if you don’t touch the sheathing or the insulation. Well, in my experience, on commercial buildings when you go and reroof something, it’s impossible not to touch either the insulation or the sheathing or decking underneath that roof. So the point of that is in the process of an ordinary maintenance or repair of a roof, if you happen to skin the foil facing off of the insulation underneath it, technically that would trigger the requirement for meeting the current insulation requirements for the roof, which are probably extremely different than what’s on that existing roof. Rick? MR. SHANKER: I had a real experience watching Fred doing some of his roofs, so when they do the roofs, they take it down, don’t they, to the -- what was there before, in which case -- MR. MALICOAT: It all depends on the condition.

21 MR. SHANKER: Okay. So why is this a red flag for you because it seems to me -- MR. CONNELL: Just because there are -- there’s a lot of opportunities to do a roof rip repair or a renovation or a replacement, where what you’re really trying to solve is the fact that the membrane is worn out or leaks or whatever. And the point is any reroofing project would involve exposing either the insulation or the sheathing. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: A repair -- MR. SHANKER: Are you recommending a certain percentage? If, let’s say, this roof leaks 10 percent, you’ve got to repair excluded from this? Or what are you recommending? I mean, that seems real logical. If you’ve got a roof leaking, you don’t want to tear the whole thing up because once you do that, you’ve probably got 10 more percent you just exposed to more leaks. MR. CONNELL: Again, this is a situation where I’m thinking about -- you know, it’s one thing if a building owner decides that he wants to do a total roof replacement and he wants to bring his building up to speed. It’s another thing if the roof leaks and he needs to hire a roofer to come up and just keep it from leaking. Again, technically, I don’ t know if the guys in black helicopters will be watching to see, you know, whether or not the insulation gets skinned or the sheathing gets exposed, but technically that would -- you know, that throws the whole roof into a situation where you go from an R5 to an R25. MR. PAGE: When they do a roof repair, do they come down and get a permit on that? MR. TEEPLE: If they do a reroof. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They’re supposed to. MR. PAGE: Not a reroof. I’m talking about just a repair. MR. TEEPLE: (Shook head.) MR. PAGE: No. I didn’t think they were. You’re talking about a repair. MR. CONNELL: Well -- MR. CREASY: He’s saying if it’s exposed during a repair. MR. CONNELL: I mean, this is saying reroof, so -- Rick? MR. SHANKER: Typically, reroofs, aren’t they architecturally designed or not? MR. MALICOAT: I would have an architect involved. That’s me. MR. SHANKER: Let’s say Phil wins the lottery tonight and doesn’t show up tomorrow. I think it would be great if we could say if a repair is 20 percent or 30 percent or 10 percent, whatever you want to say, or less, then this won’t apply. If it’s 50 percent or more, for that 50 percent, it has to comply, or something like that so there’s guidance for you and it’s not an arbitrary thing. If you think this is a problem. If you don’t think it’s a problem at all -- MR. TEEPLE: I think it’s just going to be very difficult to administer. MR. SHANKER: Which part? MR. TEEPLE: The entire section of dealing with reroofs. MR. SHANKER: Unless it’s specified or --

22 MR. TEEPLE: Say we have -- let’s say it’s not a flat roof. Say we have a beam or hip roof. You expose the sheathing there, you’re going to have to either add insulation inside the building or outside. MR. SHANKER: Uh-huh. MR. TEEPLE: That’s going to be very difficult for us to try to enforce. MR. SHANKER: That’s why if you had guidance in the grey part of it -- MR. MALICOAT: Is there a definition of reroof in there -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. MR. MALICOAT: -- because that could be -- MR. CONNELL: I don’t know the answer to -- MR. CARLSON: You’re saying a building that had regular shingles on it, if those shingles were removed for a reroof and the plywood was exposed, that kicks in the insulation requirements? MR. MUZZY: Well, we talked about this -- didn’t we talk about the -- I know we went through that because that same concern -- MR. CARLSON: That’s when you remove the OSB because of damaged areas and had to replace it. MR. MUZZY: Right. But -- MR. CARLSON: But he’s saying expose the OSB and it comes into account -- MR. CONNELL: That’s correct. MR. CARLSON: -- or the plywood or whatever. MR. SHANKER: As part of the roofing system or as part of the insulation system, or does it distinguish? MR. CONNELL: Well, it’s just saying if you expose either the sheathing or the roof -- or the insulation, then you’re required to bring it up to this current standard. And that, again, is the same language in the ’09 code. MR. CREASY: So that is the same language? MR. CONNELL: It is, because it’s not - there’s no change bar by it. MR. CREASY: Okay. MR. TEEPLE: What we recommended under the IRC was deleting the administrative provisions so that it’s administered the same as the rest of the residential code. And I would suggest that also for the IEC -- MR. SHANKER: So what does that mean in terms of what he’s talking about? MR. TEEPLE: If you were going to reroof, we would not make you bring your building up to any sort of energy standard. You don’t have to -- MR. SHANKER: I’d like to make a motion. I would make the motion that we follow your recommendation that follows the IRC, that there is no requirement for insulation requirements in exposing commercial roofs. MR. CARLSON: Second.

23 MR. LONDEREE: Is that applying only to commercial or to residential? MR. SHANKER: Well, we’re only doing commercial right now. We’re just mirroring what John’s -- MR. CARLSON: What the requirements are in residential. MR. SHANKER: And I’ll have a second from Kas. MR. LIDHOLM: Does that apply even though we adopted to go one more code cycle -- MR. SHANKER: This was in the old codes from what he’s reading. He’s just bringing this to our attention. And part of our job, I think, is to make it so if -- so it’s not necessarily easy for you, but manageable for you, and if you’re gone, the next guy has something to fall back on, that he’s got a way to do this versus, Well, Dan said or he said or he said. None of that anymore. MR. CONNELL: We have a motion. MR. SHANKER: And a second. MR. CARLSON: And a second. MR. CONNELL: And a second. Any other discussion? MR. LONDEREE: How much insulation are we talking about here? MR. CONNELL: To give you a -- if you go to -- I won’t be able to pull it up very quickly, but on a commercial building, in order to meet ANSI 90.1, the minimum requirement would be an R25, and that’s essentially four and a half or five inches of polyisocyanurate, which is the most efficient insulation, which is also the most expensive. If you go to EPS or some other kind of foam, it just gets thicker. And I’ll -- hang on. MR. SHANKER: I’m hanging. MR. CONNELL: The thing that -- I do a lot of roofing consulting for the State of Missouri. I’ve done millions of square feet of roofing, and the thing you have to understand is that when you increase the thickness of that roof system, it has a exponential impact on the cost of the roof because it raises equipment curves, it raises termination bars, reglets and masonry parapet walls. Everything gets affected. It’s not just the cost of the insulation. So it can have a dramatic impact on the cost of a reroof. Fred might be able to speak to cost benefit, you know, payback over a certain period of time. And, you know, I think it takes a long time for those curves to cross, way out there in -- what ends up happening is that most roofs -- and I will get to you -- most roofs have a serviceable life of 15 to 20 years today. If you get under the membrane roofs, they’re warranted for 20 years, but it takes longer than that to pay them off. So you don’t ever catch up. We can all agree that insulating a roof is probably the best place to put insulation in a building, but the requirements -- and when I say R25, that’s a minimum. So if you have a tapered system to make it drain, then it just keeps getting thicker and you just add more insulation, but more cost. Rick? MR. SHANKER: And I want to mirror what he said. It’s not like a house because a lot of times it’s the roof system and the insulation system are integrated, so even if you did a certain area, you could be affecting, just like he said, the whole thing and it’s like a cavalcade of things. It’s not really simple like

24 we added another bag of insulation. It impacts everything. And I’m speaking from the experience of working with Fred on some roofs, and you can testify to that. It’s not -- it’s a whole roof insulation system. MR. CONNELL: Well, and to reinforce that, for example, there are lots and lots of roofing manufacturers out there. Almost every building owner expects a warranty to be delivered by the manufacturer, but the manufacturers will not warrant the roof membrane unless it’s placed over their insulation product or their roofing board product. So the point is to go up and do something that would be warrantable, you’d have to touch these things that this is saying, If you don’t touch them, then we won’t require these requirements, but you end up having to do that anyway. MR. LONDEREE: Well, I’m just trying to get an understanding of the requirements. I just replaced a flat roof and took the parapets down because the parapets were ready to fall off. And so they went without the parapets and they put insulation to create slope and put eaves on. But I don’t think it was five or six inches of material that you’re talking about. MR. CONNELL: Well, again, it’s not so much the thickness, but it’s the R value. The minimum R value is 25. MR. LONDEREE: That stuff is kind of like Styrofoam? MR. CONNELL: Uh-huh. MR. LONDEREE: They used that, but I don’t think it was five inches. MR. TEEPLE: Well, we have not been enforcing this. MR. CONNELL: Eric? MR. LIDHOLM: I was wondering -- I heard you motion and second -- would it be better to make it so it only applies to buildings that are built in 2013 and beyond or just handle it the way you -- MR. SHANKER: These aren’t new buildings. MR. LIDHOLM: Well, they’ll be old buildings soon enough. Right? MR. SHANKER: Oh, I see what -- MR. CARLSON: These are reroofs on old -- (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. LIDHOLM: Eventually it will work its way into code. MR. SHANKER: I understood it as any roof repair, period. Now, if you want to put a date on it that’s -- MR. LIDHOLM: No. I was just asking as just another option. I’m not opposed to what you said. I just -- MR. CONNELL: Can I speak to that? MR. LIDHOLM: Sure. MR. CONNELL: Because what I -- if you’re talking about buildings that would be constructed today, they would be constructed in accordance with the code, so you’d get that minimum R value as part of --

25 MR. SHANKER: But by the same token, Brian, in five years, the R factor may increase. So a building built today, if they have a leak and they have to fall into the repair -- MR. CONNELL: Sure. MR. SHANKER: So that’s where Eric may be -- MR. LIDHOLM: And that was kind of what I was alluding to. That way it will get into the code and eventually, when we’re fossilized, it’ll be in there without the amendment. MR. CONNELL: Fred? MR. MALICOAT: I don’t think you need a year -- MR. CONNELL: Okay. MR. MALICOAT: -- because it’s built like this today. You don’t have the same insulation, if you repair it, that it does today. MR. CARLSON: It’s the old ones you’re worried about. MR. MALICOAT: Right. MR. CONNELL: For clarify, can you restate the motion and then we’ll call the question. MR. SHANKER: We’ll reject that portion of the code. MR. CONNELL: Okay. MR. SHANKER: Is that how you understand it, Kas? MR. CARLSON: (Inaudible.) MR. SHANKER: You seconded. MR. CARLSON: Which takes us back to what we’ve been doing. MR. SHANKER: And it codifies it. MR. TEEPLE: You want to delete C101.4.3. MR. CARLSON: Which automatically puts us to what we’re doing now. MR. TEEPLE: Yes. MR. CONNELL: So we have a motion and a second and it’s clarified. All in favor of the motion, raise your right hands. (Unanimous vote for approval.) MR. CONNELL: It’s unanimous. That concludes our look at the building codes, with the exception of the -- (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. CARLSON: What was the one you had right before that where it said permitting and inspecting NFPA -- MR. CONNELL: Actually, we talked about that last week. MR. CARLSON: Okay. (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. CONNELL: Brad Fraizer and Brian Davison were here and talked about the -- or I thought we did; it was on our agenda -- the NFPA 13D.

26 MR. CARLSON: Is that sprinklers? MR. CONNELL: Yes. MR. TEEPLE: Thirteen D is a residential sprinkler. MR. CONNELL: Right. MR. TEEPLE: We have not -- the City has not developed a -- MR. CARLSON: Okay. MR. TEEPLE: -- policy for how we handle -- (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. PAGE: Well, that’s been put off by the State until 2017, I think. MR. TEEPLE: Yes. MR. PAGE: We don’t have to deal with -- MR. CARLSON: Thirteen D, that’s a circulating system through you’re regular water? MR. TEEPLE: Yes. I think it’s attached to the regular water system. MR. PAGE: Domestic. MR. CONNELL: It’s domestic water. MR. TEEPLE: If someone was to put one of those in today, the City doesn’t really know how we’re going to handle it, other than through our standard processes which would not be adequate. MR. CARLSON: But are the lines inspected by you-all or by fire department? MR. TEEPLE: Fire department. MR. CARLSON: And the permit process is just part of -- the inspection process is through the fire department. The permitting is just like getting a normal permit. You showed your engineering on your sprinkler system. It’s not an extra permit. It’s just part of your -- MR. TEEPLE: It’s an additional permit by the fire department. MR. CARLSON: The fire department does all the inspection. MR. TEEPLE: Yes. (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. SHANKER: There may be a new requirement that the installer has to be certified, which I’m going to bring up again. You weren’t here for this. MR. CARLSON: I’m just wondering how many people know that the fire department is inspecting sprinklers. (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. CARLSON: I’m just wondering how many people that go out and do a small commercial building, if they’re not there every day or haven’t been doing it for 20 years, are thinking that you’re inspecting the sprinkler system and you’re inspecting everything else. And I would think that that would happen a lot. Maybe it doesn’t happen at all. MR. TEEPLE: Well, the sprinkler contractors certainly ought to know.

27 MR. CARLSON: If they call for the inspection. Normally, they don’t -- normally, do they take out the permits? MR. TEEPLE: They have to, yes. MR. CARLSON: Okay. MR. CONNELL: Kas -- MR. TEEPLE: We don’t have an issue with that. MR. CONNELL: -- in light of your question, we should probably also table this along with the other items we’re going to discuss with the fire marshal when we get them back. MR. SHANKER: Second. You made the motion, didn’t you, Brian? MR. CONNELL: I think I did, yes. All in favor of tabling that along with the other fire related issues, raise your right hands. (Unanimous vote for approval.) MR. CONNELL: Again, it’s unanimous. MR. CARLSON: And then we’ve passed everything already that we already didn’t vote on? MR. CONNELL: We did. Well, no, we haven’t. MR. CARLSON: That’s what I was wondering. There was only like two of them because we had discussion on every damn one of them but maybe two or three. MR. CONNELL: So do we hear a motion for -- MR. PAGE: A motion for approval on the stuff that we all kind of agreed on. MR. LIDHOLM: Two were tabled. That’s what I had. MR. CONNELL: Right. Well, and now three. MR. MALICOAT: Three now. MR. LIDHOLM: So moved. MR. PAGE: Second? Is that a second? MR. LIDHOLM: Yeah. That’s a second. MR. CONNELL: Okay. All in favor? (Unanimous vote for approval.) MR. CONNELL: Unanimous. MR. MALICOAT: John, how long do feel the residential is going to take? MR. PAGE: I can go through it probably in 30 minutes, but it looks like to me with the discussions taking place it’ll take at least an hour. MR. CARLSON: I think so too. MR. PAGE: With the discussions taking place in what we just did. That’s 7:00 at least, if not longer. MR. SHANKER: I make a motion we do it another night. MR. PAGE: We’ve already decided last week we’re going to meet weekly to get through all of these. So unless somebody wants to move forward, we’ll come back next week.

28 MR. MALICOAT: Well, I don’t think five, six, and seven are going to take very long. MR. PAGE: Yeah. And if there’s one that takes a shorter time, let’s go through these other ones and then I’ll get to mine next week, because I got a feeling -- MR. MALICOAT: Matt, do you want to -- MR. PAGE: -- that we’re looking at least an hour. MR. MALICOAT: Matt, you want to try the plumbing code here and see? MR. YOUNG: Sure. MR. MALICOAT: I don’t think that’s going to take long, do you? MR. YOUNG: No. MR. PAGE: That’s fine. I’ve got a question on the plumbing code whenever you get to it. MR. SHANKER: I’ve got to go to the plumbing -- (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. MALICOAT: Okay. Let’s keep our order. And, Matt, you’re in control. MR. YOUNG: All right. Chapter 1, same stuff, clerical I guess. No issues there. Here. I will pass this out. (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. YOUNG: Those things I passed here are some recommendations that we had on the committee. We dealt with, in the last couple of years -- contractors as well can agree with this -- some of the main issues deal with plumbing: Three-inch bent (inaudible), backwater valves, and such like that. Those are some of the issues that I passed out to you. I’ve never done this, so deal with me here. All this stuff through Chapter 1, no changes. 305.4.1, still at 30 inches. Is there any discrepancies or anything we need to discuss on that amendment that was adopted last year -- last code cycle, as far as the building sewer being 30 inches deep below grade? MR. PAGE: The only think I can think of is in our discussion before -- the County’s at 18 because of septic tanks, because the -- MR. YOUNG: Right. MR. PAGE: -- holes and all that. MR. YOUNG: Right. MR. PAGE: And the County’s trying to be like the City as much as they can, but they can’t be like the City in this regard. MR. YOUNG: Right. MR. PAGE: So just a point. MR. YOUNG: My professional opinion, I really don’t see an issue there. You run into special circumstances, and when that does happen it’s going to get brought to us, our attention, so I don’t feel it’s an issue. (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: -- not going to freeze either.

29 MR. YOUNG: I agree, but, you know, everybody’s doing it. I don’t think there’s a need to change it. MR. PAGE: Yeah. I don’t have a problem with it. MR. YOUNG: 403.2.1, The family or assisted-use toilet facilities serving as separate facilities: Where a building or tenant space requires a separate toilet facility for each sex, each toilet facility is required to have only one water closet. Two family/assisted-use toilet facilities shall be permitted to serve as the required separate facilities. Family or assisted-use toilet facilities shall not be required to be identified for exclusive use by either sex as required by this section. Current amendment, any issues with that? 405.3.1.1, Water closets. Toilets, the minimum is 15 inches away from an adjoining wall, and we determined 12 inches if they was next to a shower stall or a tub/shower is ample enough space. Any issues with that? MR. CREASY: Is that if there’s a glass door on the -- MR. YOUNG: I don’t think it states that. It could have a glass door on it. 410.2, Businesses, mercantile stores deals with drinking fountains. No big deal. 402.3, Individual water supply where potable water supply is not available: Individual sources of potable water supply shall be used. Any issue there? MR. ROSE: Are all these all on the books already this way? MR. YOUNG: Yeah. MR. ROSE: Okay. MR. YOUNG: Yeah. I mean, we can kind of just scroll through them. If anybody has any issues, please speak up. 602.3.1, Availability. A potable public water supply system shall be considered available to a building when a portion of the property is located within 225 feet of the public water main; current amendment. 606.1, Location of full open valves: Full open valves should be installed in the following locations; current amendment. MR. PAGE: I don’t guess there’s much to talk about if we keep the current amendment. We don’t have any problem with the current amendments. MR. YOUNG: No. And we brought some other issues to discussion, that handout I just handed to you. MR. TEEPLE: That’s why I handed out the IRC code again today, because I had not included their changes in that. So those are in the IRC changes now. MR. YOUNG: They are? Okay. I think I handed all my copies out. Is there another copy down there? MR. SHANKER: You should have these memorized by now. MR. YOUNG: There’s not much to it. Section P2503.8, Inspection and testing of backflow prevention devices. Code requires testing of backflows at the time of installation. Called to question, the backflow devices are tested at the factory. That would be sufficient enough or do they have to be certified

30 at the time of installation, which seems somewhat foolish to me that they would have to be certified whenever it was installed. MR. SHANKER: Are you able to insert these things backwards? I mean, is there a chance of screwing up? MR. YOUNG: No. Backflow device only goes one way. MR. SHANKER: I mean, that’s why -- I guess, the only reason you’d have to inspect them. Is that right, Phil, or not? MR. TEEPLE: I’m wondering if this is a state requirement, because all backflow prevention devices have to be inspected, is my understanding. MR. YOUNG: Yearly, yeah. MR. SHANKER: Is that what you’re referring to? MR. YOUNG: Well, it states that it has to be inspected at the point of install-- at the time of installation. And I really don’t see the purpose in that if it’s already manufacture tested, you know, before you purchase it. You know what I mean? I just don’t -- I don’t see a purpose in having it verified whenever it’s installed when you have to get it checked every year thereafter anyways. MR. SHANKER: Who checks it yearly, Phil? MR. TEEPLE: I don’t know. Maybe that’s the water department. MR. PAGE: These backflow devices, I’ve heard plumbers say that when a city jets out the sewer that these things will actually wedge shut and won’t open back up when you flush your stool or whatever you do; is that true? MR. YOUNG: That’s correct. Yeah. I’ve actually seen -- we’re talking on two different terms though. Backwater and -- we’re talking about backflows currently and you’re talking about a backwater valve. MR. PAGE: Backwater valve, yeah. MR. CARLSON: Backflow would be drinking water. MR. YOUNG: Yeah, drinking water. MR. PAGE: Okay. And that’s -- (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. PAGE: Yeah. That’s the only -- MR. CARLSON: And this is in commercial. Right? MR. TEEPLE: This is residential. MR. YOUNG: I’m talking about water currently. MR. PAGE: Forget what I said then. We’ll move on. MR. YOUNG: Well, my -- MR. SHANKER: What are you recommending, Matt?

31 MR. PAGE: The backflow device, yeah. They have to be inspected yearly by the -- well, the City used to do it, but now private individuals -- I have to have it every year at my car wash. I have to have that done. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right. MR. PAGE: And a guy will come in and certify that, that it’s working. And if it’s not working, he fixes it. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Shanker? MR. SHANKER: Mr. Young, what are you recommending? MR. YOUNG: I recommend that we strike it as far as being certified at the point of -- at the time of installation because it’s going to be certified from the manufacturer whenever you buy the product and it gets inspected every year thereafter. I mean, it’s just another -- MR. SHANKER: So is this -- may I ask Phi, Matt, does this get inspected at the time of a rough- in? Is that how this works? MR. CARLSON: Time of occupancy. MR. TEEPLE: My understanding, at least on commercial, was that the Water Department did it before we would -- before they turn the water on. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That’s correct. MR. SHANKER: So were you saying -- MR. MUZZY: We’re talking residential. MR. YOUNG: Well, it depends on what it’s serving. Right? Because we’re on -- I’m pretty sure it states in the residential side too, so even, like, an irrigation backflow device would have to be inspected prior to turning on and at that point of time of installation. It just doesn’t make much sense to me. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It either works or it doesn’t work. MR. CARLSON: I think you’d have to get an explanation from the water department because I think they over rule on -- I mean, they’re in charge of the water and lights in Columbia. MR. YOUNG: Right. MR. CARLSON: We can’t tell them that we’re not inspecting backflow devices anymore until after one year. MR. YOUNG: Right. MR. CARLSON: I think they’re going to have something to say about that. I think they’re worried about contamination and natural -- when you’re ready for usage -- MR. YOUNG: Right. MR. CARLSON: -- that contamination may have a big deal -- MR. YOUNG: Right. MR. CARLSON: -- due to construction and cause it not to work. MR. CONNELL: Matt, is this a new requirement in the plumbing code? MR. YOUNG: Yes, it was.

32 MR. CONNELL: Okay. MR. YOUNG: It was basically -- I’m going to look it up here real fast. MR. CONNELL: I mean, I hear what you’re saying about, you know, that the actual piece of equipment is certified as it leaves the manufacturer, but I wonder if the intent here is that they’re inspecting and testing the installation. MR. SHANKER: That’s why I asked if you could put it in backwards. MR. LIDHOLM: We put a waterdrop [sic] in at our office and it was inspected, you know -- MR. CONNELL: By? MR. LIDHOLM: The City I guess. MR. CARLSON: Phil doesn’t inspect them. MR. LIDHOLM: I know somebody from the City came. I guess it was Water and Light, but they -- MR. MALICOAT: It’s Water and Light. MR. YOUNG: If you’re doing, like, a metering device in a specific room in, say, a commercial building, you have to have a backflow device in place along with your shank for your metering device from the Water and Light. That’s all inspected whenever it’s installed. My main concern is, like, on the irrigation side of it. You know, stuff where it’s already certified. MR. SHANKER: Matt, in regards to irrigation on new property, who inspects that? MR. YOUNG: Whoever they hire. MR. SHANKER: Who’s they? MR. YOUNG: They, the property owner. They’ll get a letter in the mail that says -- MR. SHANKER: I buy a new house -- MR. MUZZY: Yeah. It’s not inspected. Lots of times it’s landscapers and sprinkler guys that are putting those in and it’s not inspected upon installation because you do have to have it certified every year and send the information to Water and Light. So it is taken care of that next year. MR. SHANKER: All right. Well, if it’s -- do you want to make it specific to certain instances, like -- it seems like the irrigation one’s a no-brainer. I mean, tell us -- MR. YOUNG: That’s really the only time it’s not looked at. MR. SHANKER: What’s that? MR. YOUNG: That’s really the only time that it wouldn’t be looked at and inspected. MR. SHANKER: What I’m getting at is it seems like the only thing that’s been brought up is irrigation, and -- go ahead. MR. TEEPLE: I didn’t look into this really at all. Would this also include hoses or, you know, the non-backflow type? MR. YOUNG: Not that I’m aware of, no. There’s only one scenario that I can think of and that’s on irrigation. Everything else is checked. MR. SHANKER: So are you recommend-- are you suggesting that we should eliminate irrigation from this testing, being that there’s nobody there to test it anyway?

33 MR. YOUNG: Well, I would -- MR. SHANKER: And Muzzy’s indicating that we -- you get a certification. Right? MR. MUZZY: Every year it has to be certified, or Water and Light finds out and they have the capability to shut it off. MR. YOUNG: This only came into play probably three -- I would say three years ago maybe, they started making that a requirement. Before then backflows didn’t need to be certified and tested every year. It was approximately three years ago. MR. CARLSON: I think they did it themselves. Didn’t the City -- MR. YOUNG: Right. Right. MR. PAGE: They used to -- MR. CARLSON: And then they did away with that because it was costing too much money, so now it’s an independent -- MR. YOUNG: And the independent person, I mean, it’s not an expensive process or anything like that. MR. PAGE: $40. MR. YOUNG: Yeah. I mean, it’s -- MR. CARLSON: Matt, do you think this is a Water and Light question? MR. YOUNG: It could be, yeah. MR. CARLSON: It’s definitely their department. It’s not -- it’s an outside situation. MR. SHANKER: I thought you said it was State. MR. PAGE: No. It’s City. MR. TEEPLE: I was wondering if the requirement for testing the backflow, which I think is probably a State requirement, but -- for potable water. MR. SHANKER: If it’s State -- (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. PAGE: I think you’re right. I think it is -- State requires it. They require a municipality to do it somehow, I think is how it works. Because the guy that does mine, he’s actually city employed, and he does this on his own. He works for Water and Light, but he does it on his own, but he told me had to get certified through the State. MR. SHANKER: I’d like to make a motion that we exclude testing of backflows at the time of installation because it’s going to be taken care of the next year if it’s wrong. Now, of course, we could be poisoning everyone in the meantime. MR. CARLSON: I think we should get a clarification from Water and Light. MR. SHANKER: Okay. MR. CARLSON: It’s the City’s water. It’s the Water and Light that’s worried about the backflow preventers and I’m not sure we can supersede -- I mean, what they want is what they’re probably requiring now. We just need to make sure we’re clear on it. Right?

34 MR. YOUNG: Yeah. I would say that the metering devices are quite a bit different now than what they used to be. They used to allow back siphoning and that’s why we’re having more issues with expansion in the lines and such because there’s no give in the house. That’s why you have expansion tanks and everything. The old metering devices would allow for some movement back -- MR. CARLSON: Some give and take. MR. YOUNG: The new ones, not so much, so that’s why you’re getting houses with a lot of expansion in the lines. MR. LONDEREE: Is there a way to install them incorrectly? MR. YOUNG: Yeah. There’s a way to do anything incorrectly, really. MR. LONDEREE: When you’re talking about inspection, are they just looking at it to see if it is installed correctly, or are you talking about -- MR. YOUNG: They’re testing. MR. LONDEREE: -- physically test it to see if it is preventing backflow. MR. YOUNG: Uh-huh. MR. LONDEREE: And I think I figured out you’re talking about the water line, not the sewer line. MR. YOUNG: Yeah. MR. LONDEREE: Okay. MR. YOUNG: We could table it or whatever. MR. SHANKER: Well, some of the code -- I had a motion and it didn’t go very far. Kas said let’s talk to the people in charge. Who’s in charge? Who’s on first? MR. MALICOAT: Columbia Water and Light. MR. SHANKER: Bring them in. How’s that? MR. CARLSON: Either that or Phil could -- MR. SHANKER: There you go. MR. TEEPLE: I’ll talk to them and see what they say. MR. CONNELL: So do we need a motion to table it? MR. SHANKER: Are you tabling this, Matt? Or do you suggest tabling it until we here or what? MR. YOUNG: Whatever your recommendations are. MR. LIDHOLM: If we don’t pass it, it’s got to be -- MR. SHANKER: All right. Kas has a motion. MR. CARLSON: I make a motion for Phil to check this out with Water and Light -- MR. SHANKER: Second. MR. CARLSON: -- to get a clarification on it. MR. YOUNG: All those in favor, raise your right hand. (Unanimous vote for approval.) MR. YOUNG: Number two, Section 2603.4, I wanted to ask some clarification on this: Pipes through a foundation wall. Code requires a sleeve twice the diameter of the pipe -- twice the pipe

35 diameter for the pipe through a foundation wall. The question was, if the hole is bored, does it still have to be twice the pipe diameter or would the annular space be sufficient? Some issues with this, if you have to bore a lift station of whatever, water main, whatever, going through a foundation wall, in that annular space they have certain seals and stuff that come into play that only -- they’ll only seal on a certain size hole for a certain size pipe. And to my knowledge there’s not -- they’re called Link-Seals. And if you did twice the diameter pipe to twice the diameter hole, I don’t -- to my knowledge, there’s not a -- there’s nothing that’s actually going to seal that. MR. PAGE: I didn’t know that we did that on water lines. Typically the water lines are only drilled whatever they got to be drilled -- MR. YOUNG: Right. MR. PAGE: -- so you can get the three-quarter water lines to fit. MR. YOUNG: Right. MR. PAGE: Now, on the sewer lines on a lift station, which is another question I was going to ask -- I’ll tie it in right here; and I think this was a Dan Darnell rule -- when you run a -- say you got a slab on grade house, you run a -- you got a four-inch sewer line going out, means you got to have a six-inch sleeve going under that footing, and I never understood that. What does that sleeve do? And a lot of guys will just dig under it and then they’ll slip a sleeve over it after they’ve already dug -- MR. CARLSON: It would have to be eight inches. It’s double. MR. YOUNG: Yeah. It would have to be eight inches. MR. CARLSON: In the county. MR. PAGE: Well, in the city it’s six. Why? I’ve never known -- other than I remember Dan Darnell thought it was a good idea. Why do we do that? MR. CONNELL: This is you, technician. MR. LIDHOLM: Settlement, foundation settlement. You’re thinking on a slab on grade residential house? MR. PAGE: Yeah. MR. LIDHOLM: Swell. MR. PAGE: You think that space in there is going to stop -- MR. LIDHOLM: I didn’t write the ordinance. MR. PAGE: I think it’s silly and I don’t understand why we do it. I’m just asking, why do we do that? MR. LIDHOLM: You know, when we have, like, building additions or anything like that, we always do flexible connections between them, just simply because of differential movement. And that’s the only thing I can figure it would be. MR. PAGE: It’s nothing -- it’s not in the code that we do that. I don’t think there’s anything in the code that says when we go under a footing we have to have that pipe in there as a -- MR. YOUNG: There is. We actually looked at it.

36 MR. PAGE: It’s actually in the code? MR. YOUNG: Yeah. It’s in -- Phil, do you remember what section that was in? I believe you were there whenever we were discussing that. MR. TEEPLE: Yeah. I don’t remember what section that was in, but I do remember talking about it. MR. PAGE: When you have a lift station and a pipe going through, it would seem to me you just bore the hole you need and something you plug up around it effectively. MR. YOUNG: Correct. MR. PAGE: Yeah. That would make sense to me. I still don’t understand the sleeve. MR. LIDHOLM: If it makes you feel any better, I understand your point. MR. PAGE: Thank you. MR. LIDHOLM: Yeah. But I think after you get to a certain diameter, maybe after that you only have to oversize it two inches or something like that is what you’re getting at. MR. YOUNG: Right. MR. SHANKER: So what are you suggesting? MR. YOUNG: I would say it would be at the -- I don’t know a way to properly put it. MR. SHANKER: Well, if they make -- if there’s a manufactured product that will do the same thing as an oversized hole, why don’t you incorporate an either/or. Either this big, twice as much or 20 times as much, or the appropriate product. MR. YOUNG: We’re dealing with multiple things here. MR. SHANKER: Okay. MR. YOUNG: We’re dealing with a foundation wall, a slab on grade with a trench footing, same scenario. Granted, it’s not a nice finished wall, but it’s the exact same scenario. MR. SHANKER: Well, are there products available to seal that hole or provide structural integrity versus an oversized hole like they are suggesting? MR. YOUNG: There are products, but I think that this is -- we’re thinking about it in one context when there are -- when there’s a wider range of things that it’s actually going to affect. Fred? MR. MALICOAT: Can we just say -- because you mentioned Link-Seal, and that’s a great product -- the manufacturer’s recommendation overrules the code, the installation instructions? MR. YOUNG: Right. And there’s a little bit of discrepancy with the size of the actual sleeve. If we’re going twice the dia-- twice the size of -- you got a four-inch sewer line, that means an eight-inch sleeve that has to be put in a footing. The annular space on an eight-inch, I mean, you got a ton of annular space, and my professional opinion, I don’t see the value in a ton of annular space. MR. PAGE: Trying to plug something up like that looks horrible. MR. YOUNG: Right. MR. MALICOAT: Four-inch would be a six, because they make a five. It’s not common, but they make a five, so you could just do it a six. And I see your point --

37 MR. SHANKER: It said it has to be twice though, Fred. MR. MALICOAT: Yeah. Four, five, six. MR. SHANKER: Four would be eight, five would be ten. MR. MALICOAT: No. Twice the -- oh, not two pipe sizes. I got you. Twice the pipe -- MR. SHANKER: So why don’t -- (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. SHANKER: We could do the product or two inches bigger than or something. Help us out here. MR. YOUNG: I think two inches bigger would be sufficient. MR. MALICOAT: Or two pipe sizes -- MR. PAGE: Two pipe sizes. MR. YOUNG: Two pipe sizes would probably be better verbiage. MR. MALICOAT: Yeah. Two pipe sizes maximum. MR. YOUNG: Right. MR. MUZZY: I mean, we don’t currently put sleeves in with water lines and stuff through the foundation wall, so that’s not requiring something that -- MR. YOUNG: No. We’re not talking about anything like that. That’s not even a part of it. MR. LONDEREE: Where does it apply then, just on sewer? MR. YOUNG: Basically. MR. CARLSON: Through walls or foundations. MR. PAGE: If you’ve got a lift station in your basement and it goes up more through -- you get more through the walls, it makes something -- some way to get through that wall, is what he’s talking about. MR. YOUNG: And you brought up a very good point about the sleeve that’s -- say the sleeve that was placed in the footing that you were supposed to pass through got covered up or whatever. Well, you ultimately, if it’s a slab-on-grade home, you have to dig underneath the footing to take the sewer line out. Would it be required to put a sleeve around the pipe -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Uh-huh. MR. YOUNG: Does the City inspect -- would the City want to see that or not? MR. PAGE: City wants to see that too. MR. YOUNG: That’s another issue that I would probably have. MR. CARLSON: Yeah. I mean, what’s going to happen? MR. PAGE: Nothing. MR. SHANKER: Does that pertain to this one or is this a separate little -- MR. YOUNG: It’s kind of another issue. MR. SHANKER: How about we knock this -- get this one moving. I’d like to make a motion that we modify P2603.4 -- is that the one? Correct?

38 MR. YOUNG: Yeah. MR. SHANKER: That the code will read in ours that the hole that is bored will have to be twice the pipe size or approved manufactured product. Does that suit you? MR. PAGE: You mean two pipe sizes -- MR. SHANKER: Two pipe sizes. I thought I -- MR. PAGE: -- not twice the -- MR. SHANKER: -- said that. Two pipe sizes. Does that suit you? I mean, does that work? MR. YOUNG: Perfect. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Don’t say perfect. MR. CARLSON: Bored or sleeved? MR. SHANKER: What’s that? MR. CARLSON: Bored or sleeved? MR. PAGE: Either way. MR. YOUNG: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. CARLSON: Second. MR. YOUNG: Second. MR. LONDEREE: What’s the purpose of the sleeve? MR. YOUNG: Gives it annular space so it can deflect -- MR. PAGE: Sewer pipes got to run downhill. MR. YOUNG: Yeah. And settling issues or whatever, there’s hopefully enough room. MR. LONDEREE: But it’s still got to be waterproof. MR. YOUNG: Uh-huh. MR. LONDEREE: So why do you put it in there to keep it from being -- from water getting in the foundation. MR. YOUNG: Depends on the circumstances. A four-inch sewer line going out a house, you’re going to have a six-inch hole with a Link-Seal, which is a mechanical seal that squeezes around the pipe and seals it against the foundation. MR. CARLSON: If you’re going underneath the footing, they’re not worried about that. MR. YOUNG: Yeah. We have a motion and we have a second. MR. PAGE: I was ready to vote. I’m sorry. MR. YOUNG: Those in favor, raise your right hand. (Unanimous vote for approval.) MR. YOUNG: Unanimous. MR. CARLSON: Hopefully we get that memo to the county to. MR. PAGE: They need to see that. Yes, I agree. MR. YOUNG: 2905 --

39 MR. PAGE: Let me ask a question. Do you want to address something with pipes under a trench footing? You talked about it earlier, that it was a separate issue, so whatever. MR. YOUNG: I think -- I think it needs to be. I think there’s some discrepancy in the inspecting of it, because I’ve seen where people have wanted it and I’ve seen where people have not wanted it. I think there needs to be a final line drawn there. MR. CARLSON: Is it in the code? MR. YOUNG: It is. It’s for -- MR. PAGE: Phil’s been looking at it, I think. You haven’ found it yet, have you? MR. TEEPLE: I have not been able to find it. MR. PAGE: I don’t think it’s in the code. I think it’s a Dan Darnell rule. I really -- I’m serious. I think that he started that on his own years ago, and we all just kept doing it. MR. TEEPLE: I think for as far as I was concerned is what’s the difference if the pipe is in the footing versus right below the footing? It’s a very similar situation -- MR. CARLSON: The sleeve is -- MR. TEEPLE: -- that ought to be treated -- MR. CARLSON: The sleeve is actually fixed in the footing. MR. PAGE: And if you put a sleeve in the bottom of the footing, yeah, you’re going to have to have a sleeve. But if you chose not to do that and you just want to dig under the footing, why are we slipping a sleeve on it? MR. SHANKER: Matt, for those of us who are raising our hands and not biting our fingernails, what is the problem for the rest of us who don’t know what the hell you guys are talking about? MR. YOUNG: I don’t see a problem with or without it. MR. SHANKER: Then what is it we’re discussing? MR. YOUNG: If it’s an over-dug trench, I don’t see a value in sliding a sleeve over a pipe that’s just going to be imbedded in gravel. MR. SHANKER: So there’s a rule now that says what? MR. CARLSON: We don’t know that. That’s why we asked if there’s -- MR. YOUNG: Let me see if I can find that. MR. PAGE: It’s not in there, I don’t think. MR. SHANKER: Well, if it’s not in there, what are we worrying about? MR. YOUNG: We’ll come back and entertain that in a minute. Section 2905.9.1.3, PVC plastic pipe: This section requires the use of purple primer at joints and fittings. Members suggested use of purple primer should be used below ground for pipe -- for below ground piping only, not for above ground use, not required anyways. MR. PAGE: I would agree with that, and the reason -- my understanding, the reason that you are required to use purple primer is so the inspector can see that you used a primer on it. MR. YOUNG: That’s correct.

40 MR. CARLSON: But that does not exclude primers being used above ground. MR. YOUNG: Correct. MR. CARLSON: Just doesn’t have to be purple. MR. YOUNG: Correct. MR. PAGE: Yeah. And there is -- I guess there’s some -- I’ve seen some tubs that got purple primer spilled on them and that’s hard to clean off. MR. YOUNG: That’s the main issue with it. It’s just the looks and causing damage to property on site: Tub/showers, as you brought up, flooring, and such. That’s the main issue there. MR. LIDHOLM: So how does somebody inspect whether primer was used on the exposed piping then? It doesn’t happen? MR. YOUNG: We used to not have -- it wasn’t required back in the day and I, personally, didn’t see too many problems out of it and I personally didn’t have to go back on any jobs because of not having to use purple. MR. PAGE: I guess -- MR. YOUNG: Mr. Teeple? MR. PAGE: -- on disadvantage could be -- MR. SHANKER: Wait, John. He’s recognized Phil. MR. PAGE: Oh, I’m sorry. Go ahead. MR. TEEPLE: Do you pressure test your pipe? Do you put the ten foot -- MR. YOUNG: No. MR. TEEPLE: Because that’s also a code requirement. MR. YOUNG: Right. MR. TEEPLE: And when we’ve dealt with other situations where we haven’t had the purple primer, we have asked to witness that test. MR. PAGE: Where you haven’t had it? MR. TEEPLE: And I think it’s important that we start requiring that test or plumbers actually follow the code and do that more often. We’ve had a couple of projects now that aren’t commercial projects where they’ve had quite a few leaks. MR. SHANKER: May I follow up on Phil? MR. YOUNG: Sure. MR. SHANKER: You’re saying in residents and commercials, if they don’t see purple, they can require this test? MR. TEEPLE: It’s actually required by the code now -- MR. CARLSON: By the code. MR. TEEPLE: -- regardless of -- MR. SHANKER: I would say use the purple stuff and be done with it. MR. CARLSON: He said regardless, even with purple primer.

41 MR. TEEPLE: Correct. MR. MALICOAT: Right. MR. CARLSON: He’s not saying if you don’t use purple primer you got to test. He said you got to have a test -- MR. TEEPLE: We’ve asked to witness it where we haven’t seen the purple primer. MR. SHANKER: Where you haven’t seen it. MR. TEEPLE: Yeah. It’s still -- MR. SHANKER: Are you saying if you see it, you’re not requiring that test? MR. TEEPLE: Correct. MR. SHANKER: So if you use purple, no test. Is that what you’re saying? MR. TEEPLE: Most plumbers are using the purple primer, but where some -- either they’re out of town or something -- they have not used the purple primer, we’ve asked to witness the test that they’re supposed to be performing anyways. MR. CARLSON: But that test is not required on residential? MR. TEEPLE: It is required. MR. SHANKER: Matt, may I follow up with his comment? MR. YOUNG: Sure. MR. SHANKER: Why would you guys not want to use the purple, because it seems like it would save everybody a lot of headaches, besides that it -- like John says -- spills or whatever. MR. YOUNG: That’s it and damage to property. That’s my -- MR. SHANKER: But behind these walls -- it’s kind of like wire, if they’re crooked or straight, no one sees them. What difference does it make behind a wall if it’s purple or clear? MR. YOUNG: It doesn’t. MR. SHANKER: It just seems to me -- MR. YOUNG: It was brought to my attention. MR. SHANKER: Oh, I see. From my point of view, it helps everybody to use purple primer, period. MR. YOUNG: I would agree. MR. PAGE: I guess the advantage of it would be -- even in a rough-in, would be a plumber could forget to use primer. If it was a clear primer, he wouldn’t remember if he used it on there or not, so I guess there are advantages to using the purple. That way that plumber knows he’s been there. And I could agree with Phil. I mean, I would think if you saw the purple primer, you’d tend not to worry about a test, but if you didn’t see, you’d wonder, Did he get primer on that? Did he get glue on that? It would make you wonder. MR. CARLSON: (Inaudible.) MR. PAGE: No, you wouldn’t.

42 MR. SHANKER: For my millionth motion, I want to make a motion that purple primer is used; a test is not required, period. Residential, commercial, if you want to use clear, then you’re subject to whatever they want to do. Does that suit you? MR. TEEPLE: I like having the test. MR. SHANKER: You like that? Well, how do you determine whether a test should be administered? MR. TEEPLE: There’s a lot of things in the code that we cannot witness and these guys do every day. MR. SHANKER: So are you saying that on all commercial you’re going to require the test or just some commercial? MR. TEEPLE: Well, we don’t -- we don’t require us to witness it either, but I know on most commercial projects it is being done. MR. SHANKER: Well, you can’t have good for the goose, but not good for the gander. One of the problems that I hear over and over is inconsistency. And it’s not just that they’re whining; it’s a pain in our ass too. You can quote me on that. MR. LIDHOLM: The pressure test on the system, how long does it run? Is it over night or 12 hours? It’s not very long, is it? MR. TEEPLE: It’s an hour. MR. LIDHOLM: Yeah. MR. SHANKER: Now, this is on the sewer -- (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. LIDHOLM: We’ve been asked to witness a test, I mean, a handful of times and it’s like watching paint dry. MR. TEEPLE: There are some difficulties with piping, getting everything plugged up and -- MR. PAGE: All your bits. MR. CARLSON: Your temporary cap, you just stick on there instead of -- you’re sticking it on there so you can reuse it. Now, you’re gluing it and throwing it away, where it goes out the wall. I mean, you want to stick a cap to keep gases out, but it’s never put on. Now you need -- MR. YOUNG: Well, they got specialties that are gasketed that actually spin on. Every lavatory would have to have the special -- MR. CARLSON: Stools -- MR. YOUNG: -- would have to be plugged -- MR. CARLSON: Yeah. I mean, it would be -- MR. YOUNG: -- with a gasket. MR. MUZZY: All your vents. MR. YOUNG: Everything.

43 MR. SHANKER: I guess what I’m asking, Phil, is how do you determine whether it gets it or it doesn’t? MR. TEEPLE: Well, currently everybody is supposed to be using purple primer. If we go to a job site and we don’t see the purple primer, sometimes we’ll offer this as an option. MR. SHANKER: Okay. Let’s just say that -- MR. TEEPLE: There’s more to putting two pipes together than just putting primer and -- MR. SHANKER: I agree, but -- MR. TEEPLE: I mean, you got to -- MR. SHANKER: -- you have -- MR. TEEPLE: -- twist it, hold it together. MR. MALICOAT: Yeah. MR. TEEPLE: We don’t witness that. MR. SHANKER: But how can you rectify a problem of enforcement versus not enforcement? In other words, how do you choose whether his gets done or his doesn’t, or his gets done or his doesn’t? It either has to be this is the way we’re going to do it, or we’re not. Are you going to require it for all of them, no matter what? Or if you just, Hey, I don’t know about this guy’s purple stuff -- that’s what I’m trying to get to is ease of operation for you guys. MR. YOUNG: To my knowledge, it’s not practiced at all in the city of Columbia; is that right, Phil? MR. PAGE: Residential. MR. TEEPLE: The residential testing? MR. YOUNG: Yeah. MR. TEEPLE: As far as I know, it’s not. MR. SHANKER: So this only pertains to residential, this P? I thought it was all encompassing. MR. YOUNG: No. It doesn’t, but I’m just saying -- MR. TEEPLE: It’s the IRC amendment. MR. SHANKER: IRC, okay. So would it not be logical if you used purple primer stuff, that you’re going to assume it does not need this test in a residential environment? I’m not talking about commercial. MR. TEEPLE: The code requires the test. You guys have to determine whether or not that test -- either take it out of the -- MR. CARLSON: I think we need an amendment to whatever the hell -- MR. MUZZY: Are you against -- I mean, I really think that it wouldn’t b bad to enforce the test. I guess I didn’t realize that they were supposed to be testing them. That is the best way, and forget the purple primer. Do you think that’s cost prohibitive? MR. SHANKER: What’s the test cost, Matt? MR. YOUNG: It’s doing business. You know, no cost to anybody. I would say, contractors that are here, how many times have you guys seen a drain line actually leak in a house that’s finished? MR. PAGE: Never.

44 MR. YOUNG: So on the residential side of it, I don’t see the value to it. Commercial side, yes, I would see a value. MR. CARLSON: Well, if you’re going to test residential, which it says it in the code, are you just taking the word of the plumber or are we hiring an independent person to -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right. MR. CARLSON: -- do the test? Because you don’t take -- if I had to do a blower door test, I could go out and get a blower door and say, Yeah, I did it. You never say, Okay. I got to show you some proof. I mean, we’re talking proof here. We’re hiring somebody to look at what you did to test it. I don’t think we’re getting by with just -- MR. TEEPLE: I’m okay with witnessing the test. MR. MUZZY: Is it a rough-in pressure test or is it supposed to be -- what’s the code -- MR. TEEPLE: I’d have to look, but I would say it’s a rough-in type before you put the fixtures on -- MR. SHANKER: You would want to do it in rough-in. MR. MUZZY: What’s that? MR. CARLSON: Yeah, it’s rough-in. MR. MUZZY: Well, but there’s a big difference between running all your -- MR. TEEPLE: And the other issue is you also want to do it when you do your groundwork, and you’d want to separate your upper floors, unless you want to put that kind of pressure on your -- MR. SHANKER: Oh, I see what you’re talking about, Muzzy, groundwork versus rough-in. MR. MUZZY: Yes. MR. SHANKER: That would be -- MR. MUZZY: It’s a lot easier to do on groundwork. MR. YOUNG: How many times whenever you do a groundwork do you run the lateral line out? Lateral line has to be tested too from the point it ties into the lateral stub. That means the lateral line needs to be aired up as well. I mean, this is not just airing up a line. This is substantially quite a bit harder. Mr. Shanker? MR. SHANKER: Once again I’d suggest -- and you tell me what your industry would think of it -- purple paint for residential precludes testing, and then after that, leave commercial by itself. Because he’s indicating -- Phil, correct me if I’m wrong -- that this is not happening in residential. Now, you may want to have the authority, but if you have the authority, then you either have to do it for everybody or for nobody or you’re going to ask for a lot of problems. I mean, that’s up to you if you want the problems. But it seems like in a residential this would take care of your problem and their problem. Just keep the purple paint. MR. YOUNG: I don’t have a problem with the purple; it was just brought to my attention that -- MR. SHANKER: Does that suit you -- MR. YOUNG: -- people weren’t happy with having to use the material.

45 MR. SHANKER: -- from a pragmatic point of view, not a code point of view? MR. TEEPLE: From a pragmatic point of view, yes. I don’t know how much of our piping that’s installed would leak, and I don’t know if that’s a plumber to plumber issue. Obviously, we’re not seeing it so -- MR. CARLSON: But it’s in the code. MR. TEEPLE: Yes. MR. CARLSON: Thus it needs to be removed. MR. SHANKER: Matt, may I ask, as an inspector, are you into red or purple, man? MR. LICHTY: We are into the purple. Yeah. If we don’t see the purple when we run the pipe, then for all we know -- MR. SHANKER: So it could cause a reinspect. MR. LICHTY: Yeah. MR. SHANKER: Just seems to me if you use purple paint, it’s taking care of a lot of problems. MR. MUZZY: You mean on both inspections. MR. SHANKER: On what? MR. MUZZY: On groundwork and on rough-ins? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. MR. PAGE: Just having the purple primer doesn’t mean that it’s a seal. (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. YOUNG: But the ease of inspecting and everything definitely helps. MR. CREASY: I think that the City should have the ability, based on not just necessarily the purple primer -- if they see something that they think is a red flag, that they should -- MR. PAGE: The City always has a right to do anything. The require engineering -- if they go out on a house and they don’t see something in the frame that looks right, they can require an engineer. If we say, Use the purple primer, you don’t have to test, they could still, if they see a problem or think there’s a problem, they can still require it to be tested. I think they always have that right. MR. CREASY: I want to make sure that that’s not taken away. MR. YOUNG: Phil? MR. TEEPLE: I just thought I’d read what the code says about testing. This is P2503.4, Building sewer testing: The building sewer shall be tested by insertion of a test plug at the point of connection with the public sewer and filling the building sewer with water, assessing with not less than a ten-foot head of water and be able to maintain such pressure for 15 minutes. MR. CARLSON: Never seen it done. MR. SHANKER: I’ve head about the water testing. MR. YOUNG: And to the point of flowing out. Right? Isn’t that what it says? Mr. Shanker? MR. SHANKER: Addressing Jay’s concern, obviously, Jay, I assume if they see something cracked or there’s a hole and they say, This has got to be repaired, and they say, No, I used purple

46 primer, then there’s going to be, like John said, the reasonable assumption that they have the authority to go beyond. But as a compromise measure, you could hear from what Curt said, if he doesn’t see purple paint, he flags it anyway. So by saying use purple paint, I think it takes care of your problem and the problem of the inspector. I think it’s a good compromise, so I want to make that a motion, that in residents that purple paint -- MR. PAGE: Primer. MR. SHANKER: -- purple primer, excuse me, is used. And that would preclude, unless other circumventing problems are shown, the preclusion of a test. MR. YOUNG: We have a motion. Do we have a second? (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I’ll second. MR. CARLSON: I just have a question how -- he just read what testing is required. Your amendment is overriding that testing. MR. SHANKER: Seems on residential, it is. Unless, obviously, if, like Jay’s concerned, there’s a crack or there’s something conspicuous. You can’t -- the plumber can’t come to the inspector and say, Look, I got purple paint; I’m not doing it. You still have the ultimate authority, but I think it should be a well-stated fact that unless there are extenuating circumstances, we’re not going to require these head tests on residential with purple primer. MR. LONDEREE: I thought I heard Phil say earlier that he’s had some cases where the purple primer was there, but it still leaked. MR. TEEPLE: Correct. This was on the 308 South Ninth Street building. They were testing that pipe and it had substantial leaks. MR. CARLSON: That’s commercial. MR. LONDEREE: Is that a bigger -- MR. TEEPLE: It’s commercial. It’s a multi-family residential building. MR. CARLSON: It still comes on commercial. MR. TEEPLE: Yes. MR. CARLSON: We’re not talking about that. Right? MR. TEEPLE: Correct. MR. LONDEREE: Is that under more pressure than a house? MR. TEEPLE: No. It was tested under the ten-foot vent is my understanding. MR. LONDEREE: I guess I would be concerned. If we adopt this motion, it sounds like we’re assuming that a plumber never makes a mistake. MR. SHANKER: No, we’re not. That’s not my intent, Ben. My intent is that there has to be a little bit of logic and pragmatism in all these things. Curt can’t go and look through every part of the code; however, he is saying if he doesn’t see purple paint, that’s a red flag. However, if he sees purple paint, he’s relatively assum-- he’s assuming that not only was it painted, it was twisted and held together for

47 whatever length of time it’s supposed to be. He’s got to assume some things. Otherwise he’d be on the same house all day long. And what he was referring to is a commercial application that is residential, which is a whole different story as far as apartments downtown. And let’s not go there. So I -- and the pressure that we’re talking about is not a water pressure thing, like it will spring out all over the place. It’s just to make sure there’s no leaks. MR. YOUNG: John. MR. PAGE: I can tell you in 32 years of being in business, when they glue pipe together, I’ve never had a leak. Where you have your leaks -- after they put the pea traps in and screw them together, that’s where you get your leaks under your vanity. But where they glue it together, I’ve never had a leak. MR. ROSE: Am I right, plumbers have to be licensed just like electricians? MR. YOUNG: Uh-huh. MR. SHANKER: Their test is a lot easier. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Obviously. MR. MUZZY: Is the purple primer -- is that the only color all manufacturers make? MR. LICHTY: No. There’s a clear primer out there. MR. MUZZY: Well, I know clear, but it’s -- I mean, we’re not choosing somebody who’s lobbied purple through the code or something here, are we? MR. YOUNG: No. I think it’s just recognized. MR. LONDEREE: It’s easy to see. MR. YOUNG: John? MR. PAGE: I was ready to vote. MR. YOUNG: All right. All those in favor or Mr. Shanker’s motion, raise your right hand. All those opposed? All righty. MR. SHANKER: You need to do the count. There was one against. (Vote for approval.) MR. YOUNG: Ten for, one against. The next section we have is P3008, Backwater valves. We’ve had a lot of discussion with this, City Staff, other tradesmen, contractors. Basically, what we would be presenting to you guys on backwater valves, amend the section to protect all fixtures with a backwater valve is required to be installed versus the fixtures below the upstream manhole. Currently, if -- backwater valve is required if the sewer manhole -- the elevation of the lid of the manhole is above the elevation of any point in the house. The point in the house where the fixtures are below the manhole have to be protected against backwater -- with a backwater valve against sewage coming back up in the house. Well, even if you have a two-story house, the manhole splits the first floor and the second floor, that means two separate groundworks under ground to pick up the house because it has to be separated out. The part that’s the below the manhole through one and the part that’s above it through another, and then tie them outside the building, or inside the building for that matter, and then one lateral line ran out. What we would be proposing is if the elevation on the house at any point is below a manhole, it’s required

48 to have a backwater valve. If the house is completely above the upstream manhole, it’s not required to have a backwater valve. If it splits it, it’s only required to have one, not two separate groundworks, two separate main lines in the basement. Some of the concerns with this is if -- is flooding yourself. Say they were sewer checking the sewer or there’s a backup in the sewer main, the backwater valve would stop, say, the lower portion of the house. The upper portion of the house you could still use. The concern with running two separate ones is that you would have room in your line to be -- I’m probably not explaining this too well. Definitely not explaining it too well. MR. SHANKER: No. I followed it so far. MR. YOUNG: The main concern with running -- the code requires you to have two separate lines, separating it out, if it needs to be, just on manhole elevation. What we would be -- what I would like to make a motion to do is if the house resides underneath a manhole, put one backwater valve, not two separate groundworks or anything else. And that’s about it. MR. CARLSON: So you’re saying not separating them. MR. YOUNG: Not separating them. MR. SHANKER: And, Phil, tell us why that’s important to separate them. MR. CARLSON: You don’t have an option on there? I thought the option was there, you could separate them or not. It’s not there? MR. YOUNG: Every fixture that’s below the upstream manhole has to be protected by a backwater valve. You don’t actually have to separate them out if you put a backwater valve on every branch that’s below the elevation of the manhole. MR. TEEPLE: The code currently requires that plumbing fixtures that have flood level rims above the elevation of the manhole cannot discharge through that backwater valve. So therefore you do have to separate those two systems. And essentially -- and I think some of this is theoretical more than practical -- it’s that if -- in theory, if you have -- if this sewer gets backed up and it’s above that manhole rim elevation, it’s going to blow the lid of that manhole. So anything you keep washing down the sewer is going to go back and eventually go back up through the upstream manhole or the down -- or I guess the upstream manhole at that point. So in theory, you could keep flushing your toilet or taking your shower upstairs or -- MR. PAGE: Just be running out on the ground. MR. TEEPLE: -- whatever’s above the -- not going through that backflow valve. MR. SHANKER: But if you -- okay. Do you have experience with this or why the -- do you have another way of explaining that? Do you do that kind of stuff? So you have an upstairs that’s not going through the backflow, it’s a separate system, you can still keep using it, and the manhole would do what? I mean, your effluent would keep on going no matter what or -- MR. TEEPLE: Part of it, I think, depends on, you know, the difference between the manhole an the fixture. But assuming these fixtures are far enough above the manhole elevation, yes, the water would still keep flowing out --

49 MR. SHANKER: So what’s the problem in combining them? MR. TEEPLE: The problem with combining them is if you’re still using that fixture upstairs and that backwater valve is closed, that water’s going to come up through your drains in the basement. MR. SHANKER: I see. Now, when you have things that are below and you have these -- are you talking about a pumping station? Don’t you have to have a pumping station for this, or not? MR. YOUNG: No. MR. SHANKER: Okay. MR. YOUNG: No. Say you had a slab on grade at this elevation of the table and the upstream manhole’s up here (indicating). Slab on grade has to have a backwater valve. Same scenario: You’re going to be flooding yourself anyways. MR. SHANKER: But you’re saying -- how does that run uphill like that without a pump? I guess I’m not vis-- MR. CARLSON: No. no. MR. SHANKER: It’s just the manhole top you’re talking about. Oh, okay. I see. MR. CARLSON: it just keeps it from going in your house. (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. YOUNG: From a plumbing standpoint, I would rather see one line in a house that’s getting washed multiple times in a day’s time instead of separating -- having to separate out a house or putting a bunch of apparatuses in the slab in a house that would have to be accessible forever. One great thing, the most important thing for the sewer lateral or a drain line is to have water going through it. If you separate 50 to 75 percent of the water going through one branch of your line, that’s usually not a good thing. MR. SHANKER: Why? MR. YOUNG: You’re more susceptible to clogging. Yes, sir. MR. LIDHOLM: I’ve got my question now. All right. So if you had the house split where your upstairs is above the manhole and your downstairs is below and you try to run it all on one line with a backflow preventer and we’re at that high condition, how does the water actually -- do you get enough head to send out with the backflow or is it going to flood the fixtures -- is it going to come through downstairs? MR. YOUNG: It could, yeah, if you keep using your stuff upstairs. But you’re going to have the same scenario if the house is underneath the manhole elevation, same exact scenario. MR. PAGE: Just takes longer. MR. YOUNG: No. I’m saying -- he’s saying that the upper level would ultimately fill up the lines and come out the floor drain. Slab on grade, two-story, below a manhole elevation is the exact same thing. It’s going to flood too, you know, being protected by one instead of two separate lines. Yes, Mr. Shanker?

50 MR. SHANKER: Phil, do you think we need to get somebody with more expertise as to why this is? I’m not really -- or do you see a problem with doing it the way he’s suggesting it, besides, obviously, it’s in the code the other way? MR. TEEPLE: I think a lot of our sewer problems are in older parts of the city. I don’t think we have a lot of clogging issues or backups and a lot of infiltration on our new lines, and I think it would stay that way for a very long amount of time. So I’m in agreement with Mr. Young on this. MR. SHANKER: So you don’t think it’s a problem, doing what he’s suggesting? MR. TEEPLE: I think the worst-case scenario here is somebody is flooding themselves. (Multiple people talking simultaneously.) MR. PAGE: Do you have a feel for what percentage of times this comes into play? MR. TEEPLE: No, I do not. MR. PAGE: I’m just curious. Do you have a feel for what percentage of times this comes into play? It’s probably not that often, is it? MR. LICHTY: Probably about a quarter. MR. PAGE: 25 percent? MR. LICHTY: Or less. MR. PAGE: 25 percent or less. MR. LICHTY: Somewhere in that neighborhood. MR. PAGE: Well, I grew up -- MR. YOUNG: Wait. What was the question? How many times we have to put a backwater valve in place or -- MR. PAGE: Right. MR. YOUNG: -- how many times -- MR. PAGE: How many times -- MR. YOUNG: -- the issue of -- MR. PAGE: -- you have a backflow valve -- when it comes into play. He’s saying 25 percent or less. MR. YOUNG: Probably the worst scenario with it is having to split elevations -- MR. PAGE: But I’m just -- MR. YOUNG: -- and probably half, I would say I’ve done -- I’ve had to do. MR. PAGE: I mean, you can -- if you split the system, you can keep using your upstairs fixture because it’s going -- I have a lot of experience with this. I grew up in a house below a manhole. Okay? And I woke up many -- well, quite a few nights with my mom screaming and walk downstairs and that much sewage. You know, driving wooden plugs into the floor, draining the shower drain, you know, and all that trying to stop it. It’s pretty nasty. But you can keep using your upstairs fixtures. It’s just going to drain out on the ground. It’s going to out the top of the manhole and run out on the ground. I’m not sure

51 you want to require -- maybe make it an option or something. I mean, boy, I -- in my situation growing up, I would love to have had a system where we could’ve kept using the upstairs. MR. CARLSON: I think that’s what he’s asking for, an option to do either or. Right? MR. PAGE: You’re saying option or mandatory? I understood it to be mandatory that you put one in. MR. SHANKER: Option. MR. YOUNG: The ability to only put -- MR. PAGE: Option: That’s a key word there. I didn’t hear that before. MR. ROSE: Whose discretion is the option? MR. YOUNG: The person installing the system. The manhole elevation is the manhole elevation. That’s established. MR. CARLSON: A backflow preventer is a backflow preventer. MR. TEEPLE: Manhole elevations do not stay the same. Whenever somebody, you know, starts grading out their yard, oftentimes they will raise or lower the manhole. MR. LONDEREE: And every time they pave, they raise it. MR. SHANKER: Yeah. MR. LONDEREE: Every time they put a layer of asphalt, they raise it. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Shanker? MR. SHANKER: I’d like to make two motions, one I know you’re all going to like. The first motion is that we allow the option, either or. The second option is we vote on this one and then we call it for the evening and resume the next few parts on our next meeting. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Double motion. MR. CARLSON: Second. Second, second. MR. YOUNG: All those in favor, raise your right hand. All those opposed. One opp-- two opposed. MR. SHANKER: Two opposed. (Vote for approval.) MR. LIDHOLM: So if I voted opposed, that means I couldn’t go home? MR. SHANKER: No. We just did the poopy one. Now we have to do the other one. MR. CARLSON: We had two motions and two seconds. MR. SHANKER: Is it okay to table it now and continue the rest of yours at this spot? Would that be all right? MR. YOUNG: Yes. Yes. All those in favor, raise your right hand. (Unanimous vote for approval.) MR. YOUNG: Meeting adjourned (Off the record.)

52