HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09.19.2002 Building Trades & Fire Code Board of Appeals
Minutes
For
September 19, 2002
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ricky Mason, Roger Dowdy, David Julian, Chris Lefevre
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Zielinski, Code Enforcement Officer, Larry Gould, Chief
Building Inspector, and Katy Seals, Secretary
GUESTS PRESENT: Ray Castillo, Stan Parker, Don McMillan, Donny Ontiveras, and Bruce Sisk
Meeting called to order by Ricky Mason
First Item on the Agenda: Approval of August 2002 minutes — Chris LeFevre made motion to approve
the minutes. Roger Dowdy seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0.
Second Item on the Agenda: Discussion of an ordinance for the 2000 International Energy Efficiency
Conservation Code. Larry Gould told the Board the ordinance is ready to be sent to the City Council, with
the exception of a minor change in the table on page 3. David Julian asked if the ordinance would result in
a mechanical code, adding that the City Council had previously amended it out. Larry Gould said the
Board is submitting the information and he doesn't believe the City Council can legally make the
ordinance less than what is stated since the ordinance is a state law. Ricky Mason asked if the new
ordinance gives the inspectors plenty of time to review plans. Larry Gould said further education will be
required and more time to review the plans may be needed. He added that contractors are not supposed to
begin a site until the plans have the inspector's approval. Ricky Mason asked if there were comments
from the audience and no one responded. Ricky Mason asked if there would be a grace period if the
ordinance is passed before it is enforced and Larry Gould said there would be. Larry Gould said this code
would affect all contractors. Greg Zielinski said the ordinance will go to the City Council for two
readings before it would become effective.
Third Item on the Agenda: Discussion of the wording for changes for electrician apprentice licensing.
Ricky Mason read the current definition for an apprentice electrician with proposed changes being double
underlined:
Apprentice electrician: One who assists a master or journeyman electrician in
installations and who works under the constant, direct supervision of a
master or journeyman electrician, and who holds a license issued under
the provisions of this chapter, and who is employed by a plaster electrician.
Atricle IV, Sec. 10 -82.
Scope of apprentice electrician license:
(a) Apprentice qualifications and experience. Anyone desiring to do work
as an apprentice electrician shall be able to read and write the English language.
(b) City apprentice work permit. Anyone desiring to do work as an apprentice
1
410 111.
electrician within the city shall register with the electrical inspector and
obtain from such office an apprentice ffJuNaRk.license for a fee of tin
dollars ($5.00). When the application is submitted for the apprentice license,
it shall be signed by the employer (master electrician) and give the company
name. Such iccnses shall expire on the thirty-first (31) day of
December of each calendar year, and may be renewed by application
thereafter to the electrical inspector and payment of a five dollars ($5.00)
renewal fee.
(c) Possession of an apprentice work p e. mit license,. Every apprentice electrician
shall keep such mitlicense in his possession and on his person at all times
when engaged in work on any electrical installation project or site.
(d) Working under supervision. Every apprentice shall undertake electrical work
only when engaged under the direct supervision of a master electrician, master
sign electrician, journeyman electrician or journeyman sign electrician. No more
than three (3) apprentice electricians shall he under the direct supen ision of a
1 icensed journey man or master electrician on an mdi\ idual _jobsite.
The Board suggests adding the wording: 3:1 ratio at the end. Chris Lefevre asked if they were going to
also request adding a grace period. Greg Zielinski responded by saying the current proposed wording is
better since the apprentice must come into the office and sign up before he can do work.
Chris Lefevre asked if notification of expiration of licenses would be sent out at the end of year. Greg
Zielinski said notification is sent out to those who are registered and all electricians the first part of
December. Greg Zielinski noted the current ordinance does not state $5 is to be charged for the initial
license; it is added in the proposed wording. Roger Dowdy asked if there is a penalty for not renewing
and Greg Zielinski they are not penalized but if they have been working, is was done illegally. Ricky
Mason said since PRELA (Panhandle Regional Electrical Licensing Association) has been handling our
licensing, we do not license apprentices right now. Larry Gould said there had been some confusion and
we were supposed to have been. Greg Zielinski said we thought PRELA was handling apprentice
licenses and they were not. Ricky Mason asked if there should be a penalty for not being licensed? Greg
Zielinski said the penalty for violating any part of the electrical code is a citation with a maximum fine of
$1000. Ricky Mason asked for discussion from the audience.
Don McMillan of 1408 Ennis asked for clarification on the term "employed by ". Larry Gould said a
master electrician must employ an apprentice electrician or a journeyman electrician. Don McMillan
asked what is intended by the word employer? Is that the one who writes the checks or the one who is
supervisor over the apprentice? Larry Gould said the application has a place for both the name of the
business and the name and signature of the master electrician. Greg Zielinski said an apprentice must be
under "direct, constant supervision." David Julian made a motion for the ordinance with proposed
changes adding the 3:1 ratio to be submitted to City Council. Chris Lefevre seconded the motion.
Fourth Item on the Agenda: Review and consider changes for the requirements of master electricians.
Larry Gould said he asked Wally Hatch, City Attorney to provide the Board the definition of "entity and
he read the following:
2
41.
ENTITY - various forms of business, such as corporations, limited liability companies
and partnerships -for profit
vs.
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION - divisions of the state that exist primarily to discharge
some function of local government i.e. city, county, school district
Larry Gould told the Board Wally Hatch said our ordinance does not refer to government entities. Ricky
Mason said the ordinance does not state the other entity either. He says the ordinance isn't clear. Larry
Gould told Ricky Mason if he wanted to try to change the wording that he as an individual or the Board as
a group could meet with Wally Hatch and work out the wording. Ricky Mason said a master electrician
cannot license two businesses or two entities and this is the reason this has come before the Board.
Ricky Mason invited discussion from the audience. Don McMillan of 1408 Ennis he felt the intent of the
ordinance "was to prevent a master electrician from allowing another unlicensed electrician to use his
master to qualify a company." He added that he felt "the intent of some parties now is to turn that around
and to use that to disqualify an individual, using myself as an example. Because I am employed by the
schools and I don't do much work on the side, and don't intend to, but, nevertheless, I believe I have that
right under my license. I qualify Don McMillan as a master. I took the test. I am the one that inspection
department comes to look for if there is a problem. I am Don McMillan, the licensee which, after hours,
should I chose to engage in electrical work, I still am Don McMillan. I still am a license holder. I have
still been approved by the City of Plainview to do work. I don't believe the intent is to try to prevent me,
as an individual from being able to use my license. I believe the intent of the Board as well as the
inspection department is for the protection of the citizens of the City of Plainview. In protecting the City
of Plainview, they set out ordinances and licenses to be sure we've got qualified individuals to do the
work. I don't think my qualifications change when I get off work Friday 'til Saturday morning. I don't
think that disqualifies me from being a qualified electrician.... (inaudible)...It is kind of a temporary
arrangement for a particular job to be done (inaudible) for that one entity as you mentioned, one particular
project for that entity. I think he was hired for express purpose of one job and to me, that doesn't sound
proper and it is circumventing the ordinance, but that is just my opinion. But on the other issue, I don't
think the wording should be interpreted as preventing me as a master electrician to be able to work on any
given day because I am not qualifying two entities. I am qualifying myself as a PISD employee and I am
qualifying myself as a private citizen afterwards."
Ricky Mason said "maybe I was taught wrong a long time ago because you have a lot of points that are
very true; very understandable. That is why I wanted you guys to come. We all have opinions and I am
not saying anybody's is right and anybody's is wrong. I don't know that I feel like I want to change the
wording. I don't know if that is the answer. That is why we're having the meeting. You say you qualify
yourself and the school. There are a lot of places you can't do that. You can only qualify one business or
one entity and I don't know whether they're wrong or what I am saying is wrong."
Don McMillan said, "You mention qualifying a business. In my opinion, the school is not a business.
The school does not go out and contract and do work for anybody outside the district. I think that sets it
aside from qualifying a business. We're not doing any work for anyone other than school -owned
property."
3
111110 4011°
Bruce Sisk, of S &S Electric said, "I think you guys bring up the gray areas and there is always going to be
somebody that is going to sit there and try to make something work for them and they are going to look
for these gray areas. I think that is basically what you're trying to prevent. But you know there will
always be somebody trying to be sneaky and this deal over here, to me, this guy is qualifying two. But in
order to eliminate these kinds of things, people think in one way and you have to put it down where it is
plain. The entity may be vague because you can sit there and it is your opinion versus mine versus the
next guy's. Maybe in order to lessen confusion, it needs to be reworded, entity or qualifying several
different jobs. I kind of agree with Don (McMillan). Of course he's in a different job position than I am.
If I want to go out and wire a ceiling fan tomorrow, I can do it because I am with S &S Electric. But you'd
think that Don would be able wire his own ceiling fan and I am sure he would be. The main thing is if you
set a precedent and then let this guy do that and you know the next guy is going to come in and say, 'Hey
what about you let him do this then what about this.' That is why it needs to be in black and white and as
plain as possible so people aren't skirting around the issues and skirting around the ordinances and
everything else. I don't know what to recommend on how to make it plainer, but I believe 'entity' may be
a little vague."
Ricky Mason asked, "Do you think the school or the county is a separate entity ?" Bruce Sisk responded,
"Yeah but in Don's situation, he's running that deal and he oversees his guys. The thing about the, to me,
if they want to go about this correctly, then they ought to hire this guy full -time. Anybody, whether it be a
hospital or county or whatever." David Julian said, "They can hire him full -time for six months." Larry
Gould said, "That's fine if they're a full -time employee. Ricky Mason asked if a full -time employee can
pull a permit on anything else? Larry Gould said, "They are not qualifying the school, county, or city as a
business." Chris Lefevre said, "As Don said, he's not going out and taking bids away from you. He's not
going out there and taking jobs away from you. He's taking care of the school district's facilities. He is
qualifying the electricians that are employed by the school. That is separate from anything that S &S
Electric does, City Electric does, Parker, Ray, whoever. He is not out there on a daily basis, bidding on
each and every job that you're doing. Now, he may come across something that he is going to do a job
and pull a permit on, but I am going to guess that if he pulls a permit on a job, it is not going to be
something that he went and bid on. It is going to be someone that comes to him and asks him for
whatever reason to do that job as Don being a friend or whatever. I don't feel that at night he's going to go
out and try to underbid anybody. Now, I can see where if he tried to run a business during the day and
work for the school, then we might have a problem." Larry Gould said that would be a conflict of interest.
Ricky Mason asked how, since it is not written in any ordinance. Greg Zielinski said it would probably be
a conflict of interest with his employer. Chris Lefevre said, "The situation that everybody is here for, I
believe there is a problem with that. But I do not believe it is the Electrical Board's problem. I think the
problem will come out on a law or an ordinance somewhere else. I don't think the writing of this, the
reason that is in there is what Don precisely brought up. It is so no one individual can run more than one
business and go and get bids. Everybody knows what the intent to that is. What is happening over there is
something out of the ordinary and I know those things come up from time. Regardless of how you word
anything, there is going to be a gray area. Someone is going to come up with something else. You are
fighting an uphill battle. This is an isolated case. If we had widespread, everybody out of control, I would
be putting our nose to the grindstone and figuring out some way to correct it. It is not always the
inspector's place to come in and solve this problem. I don't agree with it either, but I still don't see setting
on this Board where it is something we can stop or prevent." Greg Zielinski said, "You can write pages,
you can write books of ordinances. You're always going to have some kind of a gray area. Something is
always going to come up. In my opinion, it is best to leave them the way they are until you actually can
4
1 11. 11.
put something in there when you actually have a big problem. To you, or to an electrician's business, this
is a big problem but I don't see where you can change this ordinance to make it any better unless you go
out and say you have to work for whatever business you say and you can't work anywhere else. Then you
are dictating something that city ordinances aren't supposed to dictate."
Ray Castillo of Hale County asked, "Aren't the City, County, and State exempt from some of this stuff?
Larry Gould said, "The only one that I know that is exempt from permitting and licensed working is the
state. They do not have to do anything with the City government as far as permitting their work." Greg
Zielinski said that applies to federal as well as state.
Chris Lefevre made motion to leave the requirements of a master electrician as they are stated now in the
codebook. Ricky Mason called for discussion and said, "We got stuck on this 'a person shall not qualify
more than one' and I had forgotten about the other point on 'D - no person or firm shall engage in electrical
contracting business within the City unless the business is qualified by a master electrician who is an
owner of full -time employee of the business, directly supervises the day.' The other point that we brought
up with Wally (Hatch) was the owner or full time employee of the business." Larry Gould said, "In both
cases they are the owner of their business. Don is the owner of his business and so is the other party."
Ricky Mason said he drops his discussion. Chris Lefevre made motion to leave the requirements of a
master electrician as they are now with no changes. David Julian seconded motion. Motion carried 3 -1
with Ricky Mason opposed.
Fifth Item on the Agenda: Discussion of possible changes to the entire electrical ordinance. Larry
Gould recommended this be tabled due to the length of the meeting. He recommended each Board
member to review the ordinance in it's entirety to see if there is anything that needs to be addressed.
David Julian made motion to table this until the next meeting. Roger Dowdy seconded. The motion
carried 4 -0.
Sixth Item on the Agenda: Adjournment. Chris Lefevre made motion to adjourn. Roger Dowdy
seconded. Motion carried 4 -0.
MEETING ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN
Agir ,12()
SECRET ' Y
5