[ITEM 2: The Commission to hold a public hearing, consider and take action to determine the condition of structures as prescribed by City of Decatur Code of Ordinances, Article IV Unsafe, Dangerous or Hazardous Buildings and Structures, Section 10-105 Proceedings of the Building Standards Commission, (b) Criteria for Determining Substandard Condition, of property owned by Jose Matilde Nieto at 1406 N Business 287 City of Decatur, Wise County, Texas also described as 0.360 Acres of A-857 GM Vigil. If structure is determined substandard the commission shall take action according to the City of Decatur Code of Ordinances, Article IV Unsafe, Dangerous or Hazardous Buildings and Structures, Section 10-105 Proceedings of the Building Standards Commission, (d) Action by commission; time frames. (BSC 23-00190)]

>> I'VE GOT A LOT OF INFORMATION IN THIS.

WE HAVEN'T DONE A LOT OF THESE AND SO I WANTED TO GO BACK THROUGH A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION BEFORE WE MOVED INTO THAT PUBLIC HEARING.

THE PURPOSE OF THE ARTICLE THAT CREATED THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION IS INCLUDED IN THAT.

THE PURPOSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO PROVIDE A JUST EQUITABLE AND PRACTICAL METHOD TO BE CUMULATIVE WITH IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REMEDIES AVAILABLE BY LAW, WHEREBY BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES WHICH ARE DILAPIDATED, UNSAFE, DANGEROUS, UNSANITARY, OR A MENACE TO LIFE, LIMB, HEALTH, MORALE, PROPERTY, SAFETY AND THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY, OR WHICH TEND TO CONSTITUTE A FIRE HAZARD, MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE REPAIRED, VACATED, OR DEMOLISHED.

THIS AUTHORITY COMES FROM SECTION 10-104 OF THE CITY OF DECATUR CODE OF ORDINANCES.

ADVANCE ME ONE THERE, CARL IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION ARE OUTLINED IN 10-105 OF THE CITY OF DECATUR CODE OF ORDINANCES.

GENERALLY, THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION SHALL ADOPT RULES TO GOVERN ITS PROCEEDINGS, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH RULES ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS ARTICLE OR THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.

THE RULES SHALL ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR USE IN HEARINGS, PROVIDING AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY BY RESPONDENTS OR PERSONS OPPOSING CHARGES BROUGHT BY THE CITY OR ITS OFFICIALS RELATED TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDINANCE.

GO AHEAD AND ADVANCE IT, PLEASE.

AGENDA ITEM 2, WILL BE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS, COMMISSION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION TO DETERMINE THE CONDITION OF STRUCTURES AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY OF DECATUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, ARTICLE 4, UNSAFE, DANGEROUS OR HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES.

SECTION 105 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION B, CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SUBSTANDARD CONDITION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY JOSE NIETO AT 14:06 NORTH BUSINESS 287, CITY OF DECATUR, TEXAS, WISE COUNTY, TEXAS.

ALSO DESCRIBED AS 0.360 ACRES OF A 857 GM VIGIL.

IF THE STRUCTURE IS DETERMINED TO BE SUBSTANDARD, THE COMMISSION SHALL TAKE ACTION ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF DECATUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, ARTICLE 4, UNSAFE, DANGEROUS OR HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, SECTION 10-105, PROCEEDINGS OF THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION, D, ACTION BY THE COMMISSION IN TIME FRAMES.

IT IS 353,

[00:05:02]

AND I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT NOTIFIED THAT THEY WANTED TO SPEAK TODAY? LET ME LET ME GO AHEAD AND PRESENT MY CASE AND WHAT I HAVE TO PROVIDE TO YOU.

ONCE WE'VE DONE THAT, I'LL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION.

I DO WANT TO GO INTO THIS LETTING YOU KNOW THAT RIGHT BEFORE THIS STARTED, WE RECEIVED A CONTRACT FROM A CONTRACTOR TO DEMOLISH THE BUILD THE HOUSE PART OF THIS STRUCTURE.

THERE ARE OTHER PARTS TO THE STRUCTURE.

THERE'S THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO THAT.

OF COURSE, THAT CREATES OTHER ISSUES WITH A ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITHOUT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

WE'LL GO THROUGH THAT.

WE ARE ASKING THAT ALL OF THE SITUATION BE REMEDIED IF THEY CHOOSE TO GO WITH A DEMOLITION, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'VE PROVIDED IN THIS.

GIVE ME THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

IN YOUR PACKET, YOU HAVE A LOT OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE PROVIDED YOU ON THIS.

WE HAVE THE INITIAL LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ON 8/29/23.

WE WORKED WITH HIM DURING THAT TIME.

THEY DID MAKE SOME PROGRESS ON THE PROPERTY, CLEANING UP SOME OF THE DISCREPANCIES THAT WERE AT THE PROPERTY, BUT THE HOUSE STILL REMAINED.

WE STILL WORKED WITH THAT TRYING TO MOVE THAT FORWARD.

WE SENT A FINAL NOTICE PRIOR TO FILING FOR A BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION CASE IN DECEMBER 6, 2023.

AFTER THAT, WE OBTAINED THE OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE REPORT FROM WISE COUNTY TITLE.

IT'S ALL INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

ALL OF THAT'S IN THERE THAT CAME BACK WITH NO ENCUMBRANCES, NO LINES THAT WERE ABLE TO BE FOUND ON THEM.

NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION BY THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION WAS MAILED AND DELIVERED TO THE OWNER ON MARCH 27, 2024.

YOU'VE GOT A COPY OF THAT IN THERE.

WE MET HIM ON LOCATION TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE OPTIONS, AND HE SIGNED THAT AT THAT TIME.

THERE'S ALSO A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER AND POSTED ON THE PROPERTY.

THEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE PICTURES THAT WERE INCLUDED WITH THAT.

THAT'S NOT UP THERE. I'M SORRY.

I DIDN'T KNOW THE PICTURES WEREN'T IN THERE.

EVIDENTLY, THE PICTURES AREN'T IN THERE.

BUT DO YOU HAVE THE PICTURES THAT ARE IN YOUR PACKET RIGHT THERE.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO RIGHT NOW IS ALLOW MR. NIETO TO COME UP AND PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION THAT HE'D LIKE TO TO YOU FOR THIS? THEN WE WOULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DETERMINE IF IT IS CONSIDERED A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE.

MR. NIETO IS GOING TO BE USING A TRANSLATOR.

WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY IN HERE FOR HIM SO HE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH YOU.

>> [FOREIGN].

>> HE IS THE OWNER OF THE 1406 PROPERTY.

HE THOUGHT IT HAD BEEN RESOLVED.

I WAS SPEAKING TO THEM BACK THERE, SO I APOLOGIZE IF I'M SPEAKING A LITTLE BIT ON HIS BEHALF.

THEY DID A CONTRACT AS IT WAS STATED, AND THEY THOUGHT IT WAS ALREADY, EVERYTHING IN ORDER, AND THEY WERE TOLD THAT ACCESSORY WAS NO PROBLEM.

BUT NOW I SEE THAT WE WERE INFORMED THAT IT CANNOT BE HELD WITHOUT THE ACTUAL PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

BUT ME GIVING THEM THE INFORMATION, THEY'RE WILLING TO COMPLY

[00:10:06]

WITH EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING BEING DEMOLISHED COMPLETELY AND KEEPING THE CEMENT PORTION.

THEY UNDERSTAND NOW WHAT THE HOLD UP IS AND THEY'RE WILLING JUST TO GET EVERYTHING STARTED AS STATED ON THE CONTRACT, BUT NOT LEAVING THAT SECONDARY STRUCTURE.

>> JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND. WE HAVE A CONTRACTOR/ THERE WE GO. IS THAT BETTER?

>> YES.

>> YOU HAVE A CONTRACTOR ALREADY DOING THE DEMOLITION PROCESS?

>> YES.

[BACKGROUND].

>> [FOREIGN]. .

>> AT 2:00 IN THE AFTERNOON, THEY DID THE CONTRACT TO START THE DEMOLITIONS, AND THE CONTRACTOR HAS TOLD HIM THAT HE WOULD TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING AS IN PERMITS AS NEEDED.

THEN THEIR PAID TO START, AND THEN THE FINAL PAYMENT ONCE IT'S COMPLETED.

>> DID THE CONTRACTOR IDENTIFY HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO REMOVE ALL OF THE STRUCTURES?

>> [FOREIGN].

>> NOT NECESSARILY, BUT THEY SAID A WEEK THE MOST.

STARTING NEXT WEEK.

>> DO DEMOLITION PERMITS GET ISSUED THAT QUICKLY?

>> WE CAN.

>> WE CAN? OKAY.

>> [FOREIGN].

>> SINCE WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS AND WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTRACTOR.

YES, HE ACTUALLY CAME TO ME LAST WEEK AND ASKED ME WHAT ALL REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE INVOLVED WITH THAT.

WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ISSUE THAT PERMIT FAIRLY QUICKLY ON THIS.

>> FANTASTIC. HE'S ALREADY REACHED OUT TO YOU DIRECTLY?

>> YES.

>> HE WANTS TO KNOW HOW LONG HE HAS TO COMPLETE.

>> IF YOU READ IN HERE, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WERE SOME DEALS THAT WE CAN DO TO HELP THIS GENTLEMAN.

>> MARIA LET HIM KNOW THEY'RE ABOUT TO DISCUSS HOW LONG AND THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT AFTER ACTION.

>> OKAY. [FOREIGN].

>> YEAH. HE WAS JUST STATING THAT HE WAS TOLD THAT IT STARTS NEXT WEEK, BUT I GUESS JUST DEPENDING ON YOUR ANSWER.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?

>> I DON'T THINK I DO.

>> ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD?

>> [FOREIGN].

>> HE'S STATING ABOUT THE ACCESSORY, BUT I WAS JUST REFERRING TO HIM AS TO WE WERE INFORMED THAT IT HAS TO GO AS WELL AS INSERTIONAL PRIMARY FOUNDATION OR RESIDENCE.

>> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> [FOREIGN].

>> THANK YOU.

>> AS THEY WERE TALKING, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THERE WAS THE CONCRETE, THE DRIVEWAY AND APPROACH THAT ARE THERE.

THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO COME UP.

[00:15:01]

WE DO NEED FOUNDATIONS TO STEM WALLS AROUND, AND I'VE SPOKE WITH THE CONTRACTOR ABOUT THIS, THAT WE DO EXPECT THE STEM WALLS.

BUT ANY FLAT WORK THAT'S AT THE PROPERTY, WOULD BE ABLE TO STAY.

DRIVEWAYS, PATIOS, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE ACTUALLY AT GROUND LEVEL, WOULD BE ABLE TO STAY.

BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE ANY STRUCTURES ON THAT.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:04.

PLEASE.

YES. ALL RIGHT.

THIS IS THE PROCEEDINGS FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS.

THIS TIME, YOU WOULD MAKE A DETERMINATIONS, IF THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE AS DEFINED BY OUR ORDINANCE.

YOU'VE GOT THAT DEFINITION THERE.

YOU'VE GOT THE PICTURES TO WORK THROUGH ON THAT ALSO. NEXT ONE, PLEASE.

AND THEN AT THIS TIME, THIS WILL BE THE DETERMINATION OF A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE.

I HAVE TWO PROPOSED MOTIONS UP THERE.

ONE IS THAT IT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE AND THE OTHER ONE IS THAT IT DOES MEET THESE STANDARDS AS A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE.

>> GENTLEMEN, WE ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

TEND TO AGREE. YES.

>> YES, PLEASE. MY APOLOGIES.

I WAS SIMPLY SAYING, I THINK THE PICTURES ARE PRETTY CLEAR OF THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY.

I WOULD MOVE THAT THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 14:06 NORTH BUSINESS 2807 DOES MEET THE DEFINITION OF A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE.

>> I WILL TAKE A SECOND.

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE OUR MOTION FROM SAM AND OUR SECOND FROM MR. DANNY. ALL IN FAVOR.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.

THE MOTION PASSES.

>> NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THE NEXT PORTION OF THIS WOULD BE DETERMINED THE TIME FRAMES.

THE STATE LAW AND ORDINANCE SPELL THESE OUT PRETTY CLEARLY.

THERE'S BASICALLY THREE OPTIONS TO THIS.

YOU CAN DO A 30 DAYS.

AT THAT TIME, THEY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT REMAINS SECURED FROM UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY.

THEN REPAIR, REMOVE OR DEMOLISH THE BUILDING WITHIN 30 DAYS.

THE SECOND OPTION WOULD BE A 30-90 DAY TIME PERIOD, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR MAKING SURE THAT THE STRUCTURE STAYS SECURED AND REMOVE IT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME THAT YOU SET AS THE BUILDING STANDARD COMMISSION.

THE THIRD IS ONE MORE SLIDE, PLEASE.

MORE THAN 90 DAYS, WHICH REQUIRES A DETAILED PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.

AGAIN, SECURING THE STRUCTURE AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT REGULAR PROGRESS REPORTS TO OUR OFFICE.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR THE TIME THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO DEMOLISH THAT FALLS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER.

WOULD YOU AND SO I HAVE THREE MOTIONS THAT WE COULD MOVE FORWARD THROUGH ON THAT.

WE WOULD LEAVE THAT UP TO THE COMMISSION.

>> I SAY OPTION 2 MOTION THAT I MOVED AT THE STRUCTURE AT 1406 NORTH BUSINESS 2807 BE REPAIRED, REMOVED OR DEMOLISHED WITHIN 90 DAYS.

THEM DEMOLITION SHOULD BEGIN NO LATER THAN, ITS PERMITS TOMORROW?

>> IT WOULD BE LATER THIS WEEK.

>> SEVEN DAYS FROM TODAY, THE 22ND. APRIL 22.

THEN WE GO 90 DAYS THEREAFTER, WHICH WOULD BE I DON'T HAVE A CALENDAR IN FRONT OF ME, BUT MAYBE CHERYL CAN YOU HELP ME.

JULY 22. APRIL, MAY.

[00:20:05]

THEY'D BE COMPLETED BY JULY 22ND.

>> HEARING A MOTION FROM MR. GILLESPIE FOR OPTION 2, I WILL HEAR A SECOND.

>> I'D LIKE TO MAYBE MODIFY THE MOTION SLIGHTLY TO INCLUDE ALL STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY.

>> MR. GILLESPIE, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

>> YES.

>> THAT'S MR. GILLESPIE'S MOTION THEN. THANK YOU.

>> MR. GILLESPIE'S MOTION TO REMOVE ALL THE PROPERTY SECONDED BY SAM HERE. ALL IN FAVOR.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.

MOTION PASSES, FOR OPTION 2.

>> JUST FOR THE COMMISSION'S INFORMATION, AS WE MOVE THROUGH THIS, WE'LL KEEP REGULAR TABS ON THIS.

WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING IT TAKEN CARE OF.

IF THAT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU'VE SET FORTH IN THE TIME FRAME THAT YOU'VE ESTABLISHED ON THIS.

WE'LL BE BACK BEFORE YOU TO LET YOU KNOW.

THESE TIME FRAMES HAVE EXPIRED, AND THAT WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT DEMOLITION TO MOVE FORWARD.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE WANTED TO GO THROUGH THIS, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD A CONTRACT IN PLACE IS WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO DO THIS ALL OVER AGAIN.

WE'RE ALREADY OUT QUITE A BIT WITH TITLE WORK AND NOTIFICATIONS, AND OF COURSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ALL OF THAT.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD JUDICIOUSLY WITH THIS.

WE WILL BE MOVING FORWARD NOW THAT WE HAVE DATES SET ON IT.

>> I THINK SO.

>> THE CONTRACTOR THAT I TALKED TO HE SAID THAT, I DON'T THINK HE PUT IT IN HIS TERMS ON THIS, BUT HE SAID IT WOULD BE DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

THAT WAS ON THE STRUCTURE ITSELF.

IF MR. NIETO WANTS TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE METAL STRUCTURES HIMSELF, HE COULD ALWAYS DO THAT AND HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO BE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THAT.

>> JULY 21.

>> WELL, IT WAS IN THE MOTION FOR JULY 22ND.

>> THAT FINISHES OUT THAT FOR SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURES.

THAT'S ALL WE HAVE, SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE BACK ON TO BUILDING CODE ADOPTION, EVERYBODY'S FAVORITE OR AT LEAST MINE.

AGENDA ITEM 3.

[ITEM 3: Discuss code adoption schedule for 2021 ICC and 2023 NEC.]

DISCUSS CODE ADOPTION SCHEDULE FOR 2021, ICC AND 2023 NEC.

JUST A QUICK RECAP ON THIS.

WE WENT THROUGH THE 2023 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE REVIEWED AND WERE PENDING FINAL RECOMMENDATION ON THAT.

ALL OF THESE WILL COME BACK TO YOU AT THE END FOR FINAL RECOMMENDATION.

AT THE LAST MEETING, WE WENT THROUGH THE INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE AND THE INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE.

THEY HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND THEY ARE PENDING FINAL RECOMMENDATION.

2021 IPC WAS REVIEWED PENDING AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN TODAY'S PRESENTATION.

WE'RE ALSO GOING TO REVIEW THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE AND THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE.

AT THE MAY 20TH BUILDING STANDARD COMMISSION MEETING WILL INCLUDE THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL AND SPA CODE.

THOSE AMENDMENTS FROM THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

THOSE ARE THE AMENDMENTS FROM COG.

WE WILL HAVE SOME TWEAKS ON THOSE AS WE MOVE THROUGH THOSE, AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE IN THOSE.

WE'LL PROVIDE YOU THE LOCAL AMENDMENTS TODAY FOR RESIDENTIAL CODE AND EXISTING BUILDING CODE.

THAT WOULD LEAVE ONE SET OF CODES TO REVIEW THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE AND THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE, WHICH WOULD BE AT THE JUNE MEETING.

AT THAT POINT, WOULD BE THROUGH HAVE ONE MORE MEETING TO MAKE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON EVERYTHING AND MOVE IT TO CITY COUNCIL AND SET A DATE FOR ADOPTION.

AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, YOU'VE GOT THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, COG AMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN YOUR PACKET AND

[00:25:01]

THE INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL AND SPA CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE BROUGHT TO YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING. SURE.

>> WOULD YOU GO FORWARD ONE?

>> YES. I WANT TO DISCUSS

[ITEM 4: Discuss 2021 International Plumbing Code with Local Amendments adoption review and make a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption.]

THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE WITH LOCAL AMENDMENTS ADOPTION REVIEW AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY MADE IN THIS ARE INCLUDED WITH WHAT YOU'VE GOT THERE.

THE ONLY THING WE'VE GOT LEFT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE LAWN IRRIGATION BACKFLOW PROTECTION THAT WE'VE GOT ON THIS.

I GOT A LOT OF INFORMATION TO BRING TO YOU TODAY.

I DID NOT GET YOUR PICTURE OF THE SUBMERGED DEVICE IN THERE, BUT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT INCLUDES THE DOUBLE CHECK BACKFLOW PREVENTER IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION.

BASICALLY, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS REMOVING THAT, AND IT WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

WE DO HAVE NEXT ONE, PLEASE.

I FOUND A VIDEO.

IT TOOK ME A WHILE TO FIND THIS ONE. IT'S VERY SHORT.

IT'S ABOUT TWO MINUTES LONG, BUT IT WILL GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION ON HOW BACKFLOW WORKS, ESPECIALLY RELATED TO A SPRINKLER SYSTEM.

WOULD YOU FIRE THAT OFF FOR ME, SHAWN?

>> ONE QUESTION FREQUENTLY ASKED BY CHARLESTON WATER SYSTEM CUSTOMERS IS, WHAT IS BACKFLOW AND WHY DO I NEED TO INSTALL A BACKFLOW PREVENTER? BACKFLOW IS THE REVERSAL OF NORMAL WATER FLOW, CAUSED BY A SUDDEN CHANGE IN WATER PRESSURE.

BACKFLOW COULD CONTAMINATE THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WHENEVER A CROSS-CONNECTION EXISTS.

A CROSS-CONNECTION IS A LINK BETWEEN A POTABLE WATER SYSTEM AND A NON-POTABLE WATER SYSTEM.

IN THIS CASE, WE'RE REFERRING TO THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CHARLESTON WATER'S PUBLIC WATER LINES AND OUR CUSTOMERS' PRIVATE PLUMBING SYSTEMS. OVER THE PAST FEW DECADES THERE HAVE BEEN MANY DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES NATIONWIDE, WHERE CONTAMINATION OF WATER THROUGH BACKFLOW HAS CAUSED ILLNESSES, BURNS, AND EVEN DEATHS.

ONE SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF A POTENTIAL BACKFLOW HAZARD IS YOUR HOME'S IRRIGATION SYSTEM IF THE HOMEOWNER USES PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS AND WATER POOLS AROUND ONE OF THE NOZZLES.

DURING A LOSS OF SYSTEM PRESSURE, PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZER COULD BE SUCKED BACK DOWN THOSE LINES.

THEN WHEN SYSTEM PRESSURE IS REGAINED, THOSE PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZER COULD BE INTRODUCED INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S DRINKING WATER.

BUT WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A BACKFLOW PREVENTER, POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ARE PREVENTED FROM ENTERING THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM.

THIS IS WHY CHARLESTON WATER SYSTEM REQUIRES CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO INSTALL A BACKFLOW PREVENTER AND HAVE IT TESTED ANNUALLY TO MAKE SURE IT'S WORKING.

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND BUSINESSES WHOSE OPERATION PRESENTS A BACKFLOW HAZARD SUCH AS CAR WASHES, DRY CLEANERS, RESTAURANTS, AND SALONS, ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO INSTALL A BACKFLOW PREVENTER.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVICES DESIGNED FOR VARIOUS DEGREES OF HAZARD.

CHARLESTON WATER SYSTEMS CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT WORKS WITH CUSTOMERS TO DETERMINE WHETHER A BACKFLOW HAZARD EXISTS, AND IF SO, WHAT TYPE OF BACKFLOW PREVENTER IS REQUIRED? FOR MORE INFORMATION AND BEFORE INSTALLING A BACKFLOW PREVENTER, BE SURE TO REVIEW THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON OUR WEBSITE OR CONTACT OUR CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT.

>> IT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THE SITUATION IS AND WHY THAT'S NEEDED IN THIS LOCATION.

TEXAS IS ONE OF THE FEW PLACES THAT ALLOWS A BACKFLOW PREVENTER TO BE INSTALLED BELOW GRADE, MOST PLACES WILL NOT ALLOW THAT BECAUSE THAT'S A CROSS-CONNECTION ITSELF.

YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT IT'S DOWN IN A BOX THAT'S BELOW GROUND, IT GETS FILLED FULL BACK FULL OF WATER AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT THEY'RE NOT TESTED AND SO WHENEVER CROSS-CONNECTION HAPPENS, IF THOSE DOUBLE-CHECK VALVES ARE STUCK, YOU ARE STILL BACKFLOWING INTO THE CITY SYSTEM AND COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS DOWN THE LINE.

GOT A COUPLE OF PICTURES UP HERE OF BACKFLOW DEVICES.

THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING LIKE.

IF YOU SEE IN THIS, YOU CAN SEE THIS IS A RPZ DEVICE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT IT HAS [INAUDIBLE] FILED AND SO THIS CHECK [INAUDIBLE] OPEN.

WITH AN RPZ, IT HAS A THIRD [INAUDIBLE] AND IT WILL NOT ALLOW WATER TO GO BACK [INAUDIBLE].

IF THERE IS BACKFLOW CONDITION, WILL OPEN THIS ACROSS EVERYTHING [INAUDIBLE] RATHER THAN ALLOW IT TO GO BACK.

[00:30:06]

WHERE WITH A DOUBLE CHECK DEVICE, IF IT'S FILED INTO THERE AND [INAUDIBLE] CONDITION.

OBJECTION [INAUDIBLE], IT WOULD GO BACK THROUGH THOSE DEVICES.

[INAUDIBLE] THERE'S SEVERAL WAYS TO HANDLE THIS.

ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MEETING WAS THE COST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOUBLE-CHECK AND AN RP DEVICE.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THEY CALLED IT AN RPC DEVICE BUT THAT'S WHAT GOT UP THERE.

BUT YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN RP DEVICE AND A DOUBLE-CHECK DEVICE.

BUT THAT'S ONLY ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT'S AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE.

WOULD YOU ADVANCE ONE MORE, PLEASE? PRESSURE VACUUM BREAKERS ARE ALLOWED FOR LAWN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS. THEY ARE TESTABLE, JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS EXPENSIVE THAN EVEN A DOUBLE-CHECK.

THERE ARE OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR THAT USE.

IT DOES NOT TAKE UP AS MUCH ROOM AS A RPZ DEVICE, THEY'RE NOT AS LONG.

GENERALLY, THESE COME UP AND THEY COME UP, 90 OVER AND THEN 90 BACK DOWN INTO THE GROUND WHERE A RP DEVICE HAS A LITTLE BIT OF LENGTH TO IT ON THERE.

THERE ARE OPTIONS THAT CAN GO FORWARD WITH THIS AND THERE'S STILL WAYS TO MAKE THIS AFFORDABLE FOR HOMEOWNERS.

WE ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH THE TESTING OPTION BECAUSE ONCE WE DO THIS WE WOULD NEED TO CREATE A TESTING PROGRAM.

I'VE LOOKED AT SEVERAL CITIES THAT HAVE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FROM TESTING ANNUALLY, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER BACKFLOW DEVICE DOES.

SOME CITIES DO EVERY TWO YEARS, THEY WOULD TEST THAT.

I'VE RAN ACROSS A COUPLE OF INSTANCES WHERE CITIES ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DEVICES TO BE TESTED EVERY FIVE YEARS.

WE DO HAVE A BACKFLOW TESTING REPOSITORY THAT KEEPS ALL OF THAT AND SENDS OUT OUR LETTERS SO PEOPLE KNOW WHEN THEIR DEVICES REQUIRE TESTING, AND THEY ARE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THAT IN.

THEY WOULD RECEIVE LETTERS JUST LIKE THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES DO WHENEVER THEY HAVE A BACKFLOW DEVICE SAYING WHEN THEIR DEVICE IS DUE FOR TESTING, WHETHER IT'S ANNUALLY, BIANNUALLY, OR ANOTHER TIME MOVING FORWARD.

THERE ARE OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR THAT AND IF WE CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, WE WILL END UP WITH THE TESTING COMPONENT TO IT.

WOULD YOU GO AHEAD AND GO FORWARD, PLEASE? DO WANT YOU TO HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS NEEDED FOR THIS.

THERE IS A COST BETWEEN AN RP AND A DC DEVICE.

THE COST OF THE DEVICE ITSELF, PROTECTION OF THE DEVICE BECAUSE IT DOES NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM FREEZING AND DAMAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THERE'S ALSO THE ANNUAL TESTING THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THAT.

THIS AMENDMENT WOULD NOT ALLOW DEVICES TO BE INSTALLED BELOW GROUND GOING FORWARD.

IF A DEVICE IS INSTALLED AS IT IS RIGHT NOW AND MEETS THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT FOR INSTALLATION, IT WOULD BE ABLE TO STAY.

IT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE REPAIRED IN PLACE AS LONG AS THAT DEVICE STAYS IN PLACE.

THEY ARE REPAIRABLE IN PLACE.

SO AS LONG AS IT CAN BE REPAIRED, AS IS, THEN IT WOULD BE ABLE TO STAY.

IF THERE IS DAMAGE TO THE DEVICE OR A REPLACEMENT IS NEEDED, AT THAT POINT, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME UP TO CURRENT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE IT TO BE ABOVE GRADE.

ALL COMMERCIAL DEVICES ARE CURRENTLY TESTED.

RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION DEVICES ARE NOT CURRENTLY TESTED.

THE FAILURE OF A DOUBLE CHECK IS NOT KNOWN BECAUSE THERE'S CURRENTLY NOT A TESTING REQUIREMENT FOR THAT.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF THEM ARE STILL WORKING.

WE WOULD HAVE TO COME UP WITH A PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH TESTING FOR OLD DEVICES TOO AND GET THOSE ON THE SAME SCHEDULE.

[00:35:02]

THE CHANCES OF CROSS CONNECTION ARE INCREASED WHEN THE DEVICE IS INSTALLED BELOW GRADE.

THEY BECOME SUBMERGED IN WATER.

THEY HAVE VALVES AND THEY HAVE TESTING PORTS THAT ARE ON THEM, THEY DO CREATE THAT CROSS CONNECTION.

WHEN A BACKFLOW INCIDENT OCCURS, IT CAN'T BE UNDONE.

IF YOU HAVE BACKFLOW INTO THAT SYSTEM, YOU CAN MITIGATE IT.

THEY CAN TREAT THE LINE IN SOME INSTANCES, BUT IT CAN'T EVER BE UNDONE AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THAT GOES.

NEXT ONE, PLEASE. EXISTING DEVICES WOULD BE ABLE TO REMAIN UNLESS THEY'RE REPLACED OR FOUND TO BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH LEAD LEAD FREE REQUIRE REQUIREMENTS.

THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE PLUMBING CODE AND STATEWIDE THAT ALL PLUMBING DEVICES BE LEAD FREE.

WE JUST FOUND THIS OUT THE OTHER DAY.

WE HAVE SEVERAL LEAD DEVICES THAT ARE STILL IN THE CITY OF DECATUR.

MY OFFICE HAS ONE THAT'S FIXED TO COME OUT OF THERE.

BUT IF WE DO FIND THAT IT IS A LEAD CONTAINING DEVICE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE UPGRADED TO WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS.

WE WILL TACKLE THE TESTING OF EXISTING DEVICES AT A LATER DATE.

NEW INSTALLATIONS WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS.

RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION DEVICES ARE NOT CURRENTLY TESTED AFTER INSTALLATION.

THEY ARE TESTED UPON INSTALLATION, BUT NOT AFTER THAT CURRENTLY.

THE SAME INFORMATION GOING FORWARD WITH THAT.

AT THIS POINT, SO I'VE GOT THAT AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE TO REMOVE A DOUBLE CHECK FROM THOSE DEVICES THAT ARE ALLOWED FOR IRRIGATION BACKFLOW PREVENTION.

I WOULD MOVE TO SOME TYPE OF OTHER DEVICE THAT WOULD BE OUT OF THE GROUND.

IF YOU'RE HAPPY WITH THAT, WE'LL LEAVE IT AS IT IS.

THERE'LL BE CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THIS, I'M SURE.

BUT THEN THIS PLUMBING CODE WOULD COME BACK BEFORE YOU FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL WHEN WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD, THAT WE WOULD MOVE INTO THIS REVIEWED AND PENDING RECOMMENDATION. IF YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT.

>> JOE, I HAVE A QUESTION.

THE VACUUM DESIGN. THE OPTION, I THINK IT'S CALLED A VACUUM BREAK DESIGN.

>> PRESSURE VACUUM BREAK.

>> PRESSURE, FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE, IS IT AS RELIABLE AS THE RPC RPZ?

>> NO. RPZ IS THE KING OF HIGH HAZARD SITUATIONS.

AS WE SHOWED YOU IN THE PRESENTATION THERE, YOU CAN HAVE BOTH OF THEM FILED AND IT WILL NEVER RETURN.

NOW, A PRESSURE VACUUM BREAKER HAS LESS CHANCE THAN DOUBLE CHECK.

IT'S A BETTER OPTION AND IT IS IN THE HIGH HAZARD DEVICE SITUATION, BUT RP IS BY FAR WAY FURTHER AHEAD THAN THE OTHERS.

THAT'S WHY I RECOMMEND THOSE.

>> DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THE COST OF OTHER NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITIES WHEN THEY DO THE TESTING? HOW MUCH ARE THEY CHARGING RESIDENTS?

>> THE TESTING THE MUNICIPALITY, WE HAVE A ADMINISTRATIVE FEE THAT'S INCLUDED WITH THAT.

IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, IT'S $54, 53.

>> YES. PART OF THAT GOES TO THE BACKFLOW TESTING COMPANY, THE COMPANY THAT KEEPS THE RECORDS FOR THE DEVICES, AND THEN WE RECEIVE THE REST OF IT BACK IN A REBATE.

WE DO STILL KEEP UP WITH A LOT OF RECORDS IN HOUSE.

THE BACKFLOW TESTING COMPANY THAT WE USE,

[00:40:04]

WHICH IS BSI, BACKFLOW SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED.

THEY WILL SEND LETTERS OUT LETTING CUSTOMERS KNOW IF THEY HAVE A DEVICE ON FILE, THEY LET THEM KNOW WHEN IT'S TIME TO TEST THE DEVICE THAT THEY HAVE.

IF THEY DO NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE FROM THAT, THEY SEND A SECOND LETTER.

AT THAT POINT, THEY NOTIFY THE CITY.

THEY HAVE NO ENFORCEMENT ARM.

IT DOES COME BACK TO US FOR ENFORCEMENT, AND WE DO HAVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON SOME OF THAT SOME OF THE TIMES.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE KEPT THAT REBATE IN PLACE ON THAT BECAUSE WE DO STILL HAVE FEES AND COSTS THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH THE BACKFLOW PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE.

IT'S $53 RIGHT NOW, AND THEN THERE'S THE TESTING WHICH COMES FROM AN OUTSIDE COMPANY TO TEST THOSE.

>> THANK YOU. IS THAT PART OF THE WATER BILL OR SEPARATE FROM THE WATER BILL?

>> IT IS SEPARATE FROM THE WATER BILL.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE TALKED TO ME ABOUT WAS POSSIBLY COMING UP WITH A PROGRAM THAT INCLUDES THAT WITH A WATER BILL AS FAR AS TESTING GOES.

DIVIDE THAT OUT, HOWEVER MANY MONTHS IT IS IN BETWEEN TESTING AND INCLUDE THAT WITH BILLS THAT GO OUT ON THERE.

WE WOULD HAVE TO SEE IF OUR SOFTWARE THAT TRACKS THAT IS SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH TO KEEP TRACK OF THOSE THINGS AND TO BUILD THOSE OUT AND CREATE THAT SEPARATE ACCOUNT IN THERE.

THERE'S A LOT OF LOGISTICS THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH IT.

>> WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, 90% OF THESE DEVICES.

IN OUR COMMUNITY, THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS CAN AFFORD.

IT GOES CITY WIDE, YES.

YOU GOT TO LOOK AT THE LOGISTICS OF WHO'S USING THESE DEVICES.

IF THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU.

>> I'M ASSUMING THAT SOUTH MARTIN BRANCH HAS THESE ON THERE.

>> EVERY HOUSE IN SOUTH MARTIN BRANCH HAS AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

>> HAS A BACKFLOW ON EACH.

>> I HAVE A BACKFLOW ON EACH ONE OF THEM.

OVER THE COMING YEAR, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME UP WITH A PLAN TO INCLUDE SOUTH MARTIN BRANCH IN THE TESTING PORTION OF THIS.

>> MY MEMORY SHOW ME RIGHT.

DID YOU SHOW ME MINE? WE WERE OUT THERE. NO CLUE WHAT.

>> THEY'RE ALL RIGHT THERE IN THE FRONT YARD.

>> WHAT IS THE LIFE EXPECTANCY BETWEEN THE DIFFERENCE AND SAY BAG FULL OF DEVICE.

I WILL TELL YOU THIS.

BUT BASED OFF OF WHAT NUMBERS I'VE DONE, USUALLY YOU HAVE ANYWHERE FROM IN THIS TOWN, IT SEEMS TO BE LIKE ABOUT 20% FAILURE.

ON NATIONAL AVERAGE, IT'S A 30% FAILURE RATE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THESE DEVICES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WE'RE WANTING TO REMOVE FROM IN GROUND TO ABOVE GROUND.

THERE'S SEVERAL REASONS FOR THAT.

THEY PROTECT YOUR PUBLIC WATER.

THAT'S THE BIGGEST THING IS THERE'S SO MANY WAYS THAT THOSE DOUBLE CHECKS CAN FAIL THAT ARE AND IT'S BEEN ACCEPTED PRACTICE IN TEXAS AND I WISH THEY WOULDN'T HAVE.

BUT ANYWAY, BUT THIS IS WHAT IT IS.

THEN THAT'S THE FAILURE OF THE COMPONENTS INSIDE THE RUBBER SEALS.

THEY WEAR OUT. WE'VE GOT HARD WATER AROUND HERE.

WE'VE GOT WHAT WE CALL IT CALCIUM, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY LIMESTONE IN OUR WATER.

WELL, IT JUST CUTS GROOVES IN THOSE SEALS AND STUFF.

OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, YOU'LL GET ONE LIKE AT THE CITY THAT IS NON REBUILDABLE BECAUSE THE SEAL IS SCRATCHED ON THE METAL, SO IT'LL CONTINUALLY DRIP, SO THEN IT HAS TO BE REPLACED.

>> BY 12-14 YEAR OLD HOME IN SOUTH MARTIN BRANCH, HOW LONG WAS THAT BACKFLOW DEVICE GOOD FOR? IS ALREADY PASSED THREE.

>> AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE WAY I SEE IT, IT WAS TESTED WHEN IT WAS PUT IN.

AS LONG AS IT'S THERE, IT'S IT'S GOOD ON A RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION. AM I RIGHT?

[00:45:02]

>> YES.

>> THEY CAN LAST 20 YEARS, 15, 20 OR MORE.

I CAN'T SHOW THAT PICTURE.

>> I DON'T HAVE A WAY TO DO THAT NOW.

>> THAT'S THE REASON FOR US NOT APPROVING EACH ONE OF THESE CODE.

AS WE MOVE THROUGH THEM, WE'RE GOING TO BRING THEM BACK TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL IN ONE LUMP SUM TO BRING THEM ALL TOGETHER, BUT WE'RE ALWAYS ABLE TO COME BACK TO THESE.

AS YOU'RE WORKING THROUGH THIS, IF ANY OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS DECIDE THAT THEY WANT TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS ON THIS.

IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION ON IT, SIT DOWN WITH ME.

WE'LL GO ON A FIELD TRIP, WE'LL SPEND TIME IN THE OFFICE.

WE'LL LOOK UP VIDEOS, WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO TO GET QUESTIONS ANSWERED FOR YOU SO THAT YOU'RE MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION.

BUT THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T WANT TO APPROVE EACH ONE OF THESE AND KIND OF STICK THEM ON A SHELF AND OUT OF THE WAY.

SOMETHING MIGHT POP BACK UP THAT WE NEED TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THESE AS WE GO THROUGH IT.

SO WE WILL BRING THESE BACK TO YOU FOR RECOMMENDATION ON ALL OF THE CODES ONCE WE'VE WENT THROUGH THOSE.

>> I THINK THE LAST QUESTION THAT I HAVE HERE, JUST TO CONFIRM, I THINK YOU ALREADY STATED THIS, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO IN ANY OF THE EXISTING DEVICES THAT ARE IN PLACE NOW UNTIL THEY'RE TESTED AND DEEMED UNWORTHY ARE STILL GOOD UNDER AMENDMENT.

>> ONCE A DEVICE COMES BACK INTO THE TESTING ARENA, SO LIKE I SAID, WE'RE GOING TO SET UP A SCHEDULE TO START TESTING ALL DEVICES.

>> RIGHT. UNLESS THEY FAIL AND WOULD NEED AN UPGRADE, THEY'RE FINE IN THEIR CURRENT CONDITION?

>> ABSOLUTELY. AS LONG AS THAT DEVICE IS IN THERE? YES. YEAH. WE DEFINITELY WANT ANYTHING THAT WAS LEGAL AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION AND STILL FUNCTIONS IN THAT CAPACITY, WE DEFINITELY WANT TO KEEP THAT IN PLACE.

>> VERY GOOD. THAT CLEARS IT UP FOR ME.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE WILL MOVE PLUMBING CODE TO REVIEWED.

WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO YOU WHENEVER WE DO RECOMMENDATIONS ON THAT.

ITEM 5 ON THIS IS OUR AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE.

[ITEM 5: Discuss 2021 International Residential Code with Local Amendments adoption review and make a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption.]

YOU'VE SEEN THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT'S AMENDMENTS TO THIS.

I HAD SEVEN ADJUSTMENTS TO THIS.

A COUPLE OF THEM ARE JUST JURISDICTION AND DEPARTMENT NAMES THAT GO IN THERE.

WE DO HAVE ONE FOR 105-2, WHICH IS REMOVING SMALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND FENCES FROM EXEMPT FROM PERMITS.

WE DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH SOME FENCES THAT GO IN AND LOCATIONS WHERE THEY SHOULDN'T BE.

THEN WE'RE HAVING TO GO BACK TRACK AND TELL PEOPLE, SORRY, YOU CAN'T PUT A FENCE AT THAT LOCATION.

THEY SAID, WELL, I DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT, SO I DIDN'T KNOW. I JUST PUT IT UP.

SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO, IS WE WANT TO COME IN AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT A FEE ON THOSE YET, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THOSE FEES WILL BE VERY SMALL.

I'M LOOKING AT NO MORE THAN $20 PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL FENCE PERMIT.

JUST SOMETHING SO WE'RE ABLE TO REVIEW A SITE PLAN WHERE A FENCE IS GOING TO BE INSTALLED SO WE DON'T HAVE THOSE CONFLICTS BETWEEN OUR ORDINANCES AND WHAT IS BEING INSTALLED, AND THEN HAVING TO GO BACK AND HAVE SOMEONE TO REMOVE SOMETHING THAT THEY JUST INSTALLED.

THEN THE SAME THING WITH THE SMALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. NOT A REQUIREMENT.

IT'S AN EXEMPTION FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 200 SQUARE FEET AND BELOW.

THAT'S A 10 BY 20.

YOU START SETTING 10 BY 20S IN EASEMENTS AND SETBACKS, IT BECOMES AN ISSUE, AND SO WE WANT TO START DOING REVIEW ON THOSE TO SEE WHERE IT'S LOCATED AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING ATTACHMENT OF THESE STRUCTURES TO THE GROUND SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THESE MOVING AROUND DURING A WIND EVENT OR A STORM EVENT.

SECTION 309.21, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME CAR PORTS THAT ARE COMING FORWARD.

I THINK MOST OF THIS GROUP WAS INVOLVED WITH THE CAR PORT DISCUSSION.

[00:50:04]

WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE WIND LOAD REQUIREMENTS ON THAT AND PROVIDE SOME MORE GUIDANCE ON CAR PORTS MOVING FORWARD.

THERE IS A CHANGE IN THERE THAT ALLOWS FOR THAT AND CAPTURES THAT IN THERE SO THAT IT'S PART OF THE BUILDING CODE AS WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT.

THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE FOUNDATION PORTION OF THIS THAT ALL FOUNDATIONS HAVE TO BE DESIGNED BY AN ENGINEER.

IN OUR AREA, IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, THAT IS A VERY GOOD PRACTICE.

HOWEVER, WHENEVER YOU HAVE A SMALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO BE EXPATIATE GARDEN SHED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT DOES NOT NEED TO BE DESIGNED BY AN ENGINEER.

THERE ARE PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE THAT WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT.

IT'S NOT A HABITABLE STRUCTURE.

SO WE WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME RELIEF SO THAT PEOPLE AREN'T HAVING TO GET ENGINEERED FOUNDATIONS FOR SMALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OFF OF THAT.

WE HAD SOME REQUIREMENTS IN THE IPC FOR LAWN IRRIGATION.

THAT SAME REQUIREMENT EXISTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL CODE.

RESIDENTIAL CODE IS A STANDALONE CODE.

SO IT COVERS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, FUEL GAS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

SO ANYTHING THAT WE CHANGE IN THE PLUMBING CODE, WE WOULD NEED TO CHANGE IN THE RESIDENTIAL CODE ALSO BECAUSE IT'S A STANDALONE CODE.

THE SAME THING WITH THE PRIMER.

WE MADE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PRIMER SECTION IN THERE.

WE BROUGHT THAT FORWARD INTO THE IPC.

THEN THERE ARE SOME APPENDICES AT THE REAR OF THESE BOOKS.

THOSE APPENDICES ARE GUIDANCE INFORMATION, BUT THEY'RE NOT ENFORCEABLE UNLESS WE SPECIFICALLY ADOPT THEM.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE CONTINUOUSLY APPROACHED ON IS TINY HOUSES HERE.

OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE DOES LIMIT WHAT A TINY HOUSE COULD BE.

OUR SMALLEST FOOTPRINT IS 1,000 SQUARE FEET BY OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.

HOWEVER, IF THAT WERE TO EVER CHANGE OR IF SOMEONE WERE TO DO A PD THAT ALLOWED FOR THIS, WE'D WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE PROVISIONS FOR TINY HOMES ALREADY IN PLACE FOR THAT.

THERE IS A SECTION IN THE APPENDICES OF THE RESIDENTIAL CODE THAT COVERS TINY HOUSES AND PROVIDES YOU SOME GUIDANCE ON HOW TO ADMINISTER THAT.

I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE THAT APPENDICES JUST IN CASE WE EVER MOVE INTO THAT ARENA.

SO YOU HAVE THOSE IRC AMENDMENTS IN YOUR PACKET.

ANYTHING THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IN THOSE DOES CONTAIN A LOCAL AMENDMENT TO THAT.

THE REST OF THEM ARE ALL NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AMENDMENTS.

LAST ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 6,

[ITEM 6: Discuss 2021 International Existing Building Code with Local Amendments adoption review and make a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption.]

WHICH IS THE INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE.

THIS IS A VERY GOOD CODE FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES IN AND AROUND TOWN STRUCTURES THAT MAY BE OLDER.

ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS LIKE THESE PROVISIONS BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM OTHER WAYS TO GAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS.

SO WE'VE ADOPTED THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE FOR THE LAST FEW TIMES THAT WE'VE HAD THIS IN HERE.

THE LOCAL AMENDMENTS ON THIS ARE ONLY THE JURISDICTION AND DEPARTMENTAL NAMING CHANGES.

THE NCTOG HAS REMOVED THE CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCIES ON THIS.

BUT I'VE ADDED IT BACK IN.

OUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES DOES HAVE AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM INFORMATION THAT'S ON THERE.

SO I'VE ADDED THAT BACK IN THERE.

BASICALLY JUST REMOVE SECTION 110.2 FROM THE EXEMPTIONS, AND THEN NO OTHER LOCAL AMENDMENTS FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE.

I THINK THAT THAT IS ALL I'VE GOT.

SO IF YOU'RE HAPPY WITH THOSE CODES,