[00:00:03]
UM, IT IS 9 0 2 AND WE WILL START THE SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SUBCOMMITTEE.
I AM THE, UH, CHAIR AND WE HAVE A QUORUM.
WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND TAKE ROLL CALL IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU.
ALSO PRESENT IN THE MEETING FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
AND FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
INTERIM DIRECTOR MELISSA RAMIREZ.
INTERIM DEPUTY DIRECTOR DANNY LEGES.
CODE ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATOR.
VALERIE RODRIGUEZ, SENIOR PLANNER.
CAN WE HAVE INTERPRETATION PLEASE?
[ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items ]
SO BEFORE WE, WE GET STARTED, UM, I WANNA MAKE A LITTLE ANNOUNCEMENTS.UM, SO GOING FORWARD, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT COMMUNITY IS AS INVOLVED AS POSSIBLE, AND I WANT TO ALLOW COMMUNITY TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS BEFORE EACH ITEM, UH, BEFORE A MOTION IS MADE AND, AND THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, THIS WILL ENSURE THE PARTICIPATION OF THE COMMUNITY TO THE FULLEST.
UH, I WILL ASK THAT EVERYONE RESPECT EACH OTHER.
UM, I FIND IT EXTREMELY RUDE TO BE INTERRUPTED, SO I'M GONNA ASK THAT OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE NOT INTERRUPTED DURING THEIR COMMENT.
UM, I, I'LL PUT A LIMIT RIGHT NOW OF FIVE MINUTES, BUT IF THAT'S OVERUSED OR ABUSED, THEN WE'LL LOWER THAT TIME.
ALSO, IF WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF COMMENTS, WE'LL, WE'LL LOWER THE TIME.
UM, IT, IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME AND UNTIL A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS BOARD THAT, THAT OUR COMMUNITY'S VOICE IS HEARD.
SO WE WILL, UM, DO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MADAM CHAIR? UH, CAN WE GO BACK ONE, IF SOMEBODY HAS FIVE MINUTES, LIKE MR. NELSON AND I WANNA GIVE HIM MY FIVE MINUTES TO FINISH HIS THOUGHT, IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? SHE'S, YEAH.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT? YES.
AND THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, FRED? YES.
WELL, WELL, YEAH, BUT SHE KIND OF MADE IT SOUND LIKE EVERYBODY HAS FIVE MINUTES.
THE MEMBERS OF THE, MEMBERS OF THE, THE VOTING MEMBERS CAN OKAY.
NOW, WILL THAT AGAIN FOR THEM AS WELL, IF ONE OF THEM HAS FIVE MINUTES AND THEY WANNA FINISH THE THOUGHT, CAN THEY BE GIVEN THE FIVE MINUTES? THEY CAN IF THEY WANT TO FINISH THE THOUGHT, YES.
THEY CAN GIVE A LITTLE EXTRA TIME.
AND, UH, MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, PROPOSE THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS IS FOR THE LAST MEETING, UH, OCTOBER 23RD, 23RD.
I WAS JUST GONNA TALK TO THE LAST ITEM.
CAN WE FINISH THE VOTE BEFORE WE, I WENT OFF DISCUSSION.
I HAD RAISED MY HAND, ASKED TO, TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT, BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND FINISH, THAT'S FINE, BUT I DID HAVE MY HAND UP.
CAN, CAN WE FINISH THE MOTION ALL? YEAH.
FINISH THE MOTION AND COME BACK TO ME, PLEASE.
YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, I THINK IT'S FINE TO GET COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY AS LONG AS IT'S TWO WRITTEN
[00:05:01]
COMMENTS THAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED REGARDING THE, THE CODE CHANGE.UH, WE DON'T WANT TO, TO HAVE THIS, UH, CONVERSATION START TO MEANDER AND OPEN UP OTHER ITEMS, UH, THAT, THAT ARE NOT REALLY OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP THIS NICE AND TIDY.
UM, I WILL SAY THAT WE NEED TO KEEP THE COMMENTS TO THE ITEM THAT'S WE'RE, WE'RE DISCUSSING.
UM, BUT I WILL ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT.
AMIN THOMAS, INTERIM DIRECTOR AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
SO, JUST TO, UH, CLARIFY, I GUESS WHAT YOU MENTIONED.
SO THE PROCESS, UH, POTENTIALLY WILL BE IS WE BRING ONE ITEM STAFF, MOST LIKELY DANNY.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT ITEM, EXPLAIN WHAT'S THE CURRENT CODE, WHAT'S THE PROPOSED CODE, AND OUR RECOMMENDATION.
THEN WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
AND AS YOU STATED, UH, THEY HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT THAT ITEM.
I'M HOPING WE DON'T NEED THE FIVE MINUTES FOR EVERY SINGLE ITEM, AND HOPEFULLY THEY DON'T SPEAK FOR EVERY SINGLE ITEM.
OTHERWISE, WE'LL BE HERE FOR TWO WEEKS,
BUT, UH, OBVIOUSLY WE WANT THE FEEDBACK, WE WANT ALL THE, IN, WE, WE WILL, THE FEEDBACK.
THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE CHAIR.
AND WE ARE, WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE.
UH, AND THEN AT THAT POINT, IT'S OPEN TO DISCUSSION AND THEN POTENTIAL VOTING, AND THEN WE GO TO THE NEXT ITEM AND SO FORTH.
IS THAT ACCURATE CHAIR? CORRECT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM TWO, DISCUSSION OF CHAPTER SIX, ARTICLE FOUR, MINIMUM PROPERTY CODE MAINTENANCE AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
UH, DANNY LEE IS CODE ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATOR.
I'M GONNA BE GOING OVER THE, UM, PROPOSED CHANGES OR RECOMMENDED CHANGES FOR THE 2024 SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
UH, EVERYONE IN FRONT OF YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY AT LEAST OF THE LATEST, UH, SPREADSHEET.
UH, AGAIN, BE MINDFUL, THIS IS A WORKING DOC, RIGHT? SO, UH, YOU'RE GONNA SEE SOME EDITS AS WE GO ALONG THE WAY.
AGAIN, MINDFUL THAT IF THERE ANYTHING MAYBE, UM, THAT WAS ADDED OR DELETED, IT'S JUST BECAUSE IT'S, UH, IT'S, IT'S A WORKING DOCK AND IT'S CHANGING AS WE GO, RIGHT? UH, SOME THINGS I WANT TO BRING TO HER WITH ATTENTION.
UM, WE DID TRY TO COLOR CODE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, THE DOCK ITSELF.
UM, JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME, UH, I GUESS A QUICK OVERVIEW.
UH, ANYTHING THAT WAS STRUCK OUT IN THE 2024 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE THAT EXISTS IN OUR CURRENT 2021 CENTRAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, IT'S IN RED, SO YOU'LL SEE IF IT'S STRUCK OUT BECAUSE THE IPMC HAS TAKEN THAT SECTION OF THE CODE OUT AND IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE DELETE THAT IN OUR CODE.
ANYTHING THAT'S BLUE IS A NEW SECTION THAT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE IPMC THAT WE'LL BE HIGHLIGHTING OR SHOWING IN BLUE.
THAT'S BASICALLY NEW LANGUAGE THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN OUR CURRENT CODE TODAY.
AND AS WE GO THROUGH THE DOCK, YOU'RE GONNA SEE SOME LIGHTER SHADE OF GRAY.
UM, THAT IS BASICALLY AS A, AS A REMINDER FOR US TO SAY THIS IS A SECTION THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING NOT TO ADOPT INTO THE CURRENT CODE, BUT CERTAINLY ANY SECTION THAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD, AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
RIGHT? SO, WHILE WE MAY BRING A RECOMMENDATION NOT TO APPROVE SOMETHING, THE SUBCOMMITTEE ULTIMATELY DECIDE WHETHER WE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT INCLUDE THAT INTO OUR 10, OUR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, RATHER
UM, DID YOU SAY THE THINGS HIGHLIGHTED IN GRAY ARE THINGS THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO INCLUDE OR YOU'RE PROPOSING NOT TO INCLUDE? THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT THAT'S STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION NOT TO, UH, ADOPT THAT SECTION OR SECTIONS IN THE, UH, 2024 SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
AND DANNY, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS RIGHT BEFORE, BUT WOULD YOU MIND CLARIFYING THE USE OF THE TERM CODE OFFICIAL, LIKE WE, LIKE YOU EXPLAINED TO ME FOR A NEW BEAST ON THE GROUP? ALRIGHT, DEFINITELY.
UH, SO, UH, THE QUESTION EARLIER BEFORE WE STARTED THE MEETING, JASON ASKED ME WHAT IS, UH, WHO IS THE CODE OFFICIAL, RIGHT? UH, THE CODE OFFICIAL IN THIS INSTANCE IS GONNA BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
UH, HE WROTE, WEARS TWO HATS, BASICALLY, HE WEARS THE HEAD OF A CODE OFFICIAL AND THE HEAD OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
UM, I THINK THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT WAS, WELL STAFF THAT GOES OUT, ARE THEY CONSIDERED THE CODE OFFICIAL? WELL, THEY'RE WORKING IN THE CODE OFFICIAL'S CAPACITY AS DESIGNEES FOR THE CODE OFFICIAL.
THE EXAMPLE I USED EARLIER WAS, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, BEXAR COUNTY SHERIFF SALAZAR, RIGHT? HE'S THE SHERIFF FOR THE COUNTY AT THIS POINT, AND SO HIS DEPUTIES GO OUT, BUT THEY'RE ALSO RECOGNIZED AS SHERIFF.
SO THAT'S KIND OF EXAMPLES JUST FOR, FOR LAYMAN'S PURPOSES, IS THE CODE OFFICERS THAT GO OUT ARE WORKING IN THE CAPACITY AS A CODE OFFICIAL, UM,
[00:10:01]
THROUGH HIS, YOU KNOW, AUTHORITY, IF YOU WILL, UNDER THE CODE.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE START? I JUST, THAT WAS A GOOD QUE THANK YOU, JASON.
ALRIGHT, SO AGAIN, AS WE GO THROUGH IT, YOU'RE GONNA SEE THE DOCK ITSELF.
UH, DON'T MIND THE NUMBERING, LIKE THAT'S GONNA CHANGE ONCE WE DECIDE TO ADOPT OR DELETE A SECTION.
UH, SO IF YOU SEE SOMETHING OUT OF ORDER, AND SINCE THE NUMBERING, DON'T MIND THAT.
WE'LL, WE'LL CORRECT THAT IN THE FINAL, FINAL VERSION, IF YOU WILL.
UM, AGAIN, SO WE'RE STARTING WITH A DOCK ITSELF.
SO TYPICALLY AT THE VERY BEGINNING, WE DON'T NORMALLY UPDATE THE, UM, TABLE OF CONTENT.
THAT'S GONNA CHANGE AS WELL IF WE ADD A SECTION OR DELETE A SECTION.
UH, STARTING WITH THIS VERY FIRST SECTION HERE, UH, THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION, UH, THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD OR THAT WAS SUBMITTED THROUGH, OR AS PART OF YOU WILL, THE 2024 IPMC UPDATE IS THE NEW SECTION THAT THEY'RE ADDING OR RECOMMENDING TO ADD, RATHER INTO SECTION 1 0 1, 0.2 UNDER SCOPE.
UH, THE SECTION IS 1 0 1 0.1 APPENDICES BASICALLY READS PROVISIONS IN THE APPENDICES SHALL NOT APPLY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ADOPTED.
UH, IT IS A DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION THAT, THAT WE DO NOT ACCEPT THIS RECOMMENDATION.
UM, THE APPENDIX THAT WE HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE ADOPTED THOSE, THOSE ARE UNIQUE TO SAN ANTONIO.
UH, AND SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING WE HAVE IN THE I PS RATHER THE S-A-P-M-C IS A SECTION THAT WE'VE ADOPTED, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S SPECIFICALLY UNIQUE TO SAN ANTONIO'S, UH, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
AND I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR A DISCUSSION AND TURN BACK TO MADAM CHAIR.
IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT WE'RE HERE.
I MEAN, WE'RE, WE DON'T WANNA USE, IF IF THERE'S NO COMMENT ON THIS ONE, YOU CAN JUST SAY WE WAIVE FOR THIS ONE, AND IF THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT COMES UP, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO.
MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE NOT ACCEPT THE CHANGE OF 1 0 1 0.2 0.1 AS PRESENTED BY THE I-P-C-M-I-P-M-C, MADAM CHAIR.
CAN WE JUST LOOK AT THE APPENDICES AND SEE WHAT, WHAT IT IS WE'RE, WE'RE THROWING OUT? THINK THAT GOES BACK TO YOU, DANNY, MADAM CHAIR, MAYOR.
SO WE, WE ARE TECHNICALLY NOT THROWING IT OUT.
UH, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, WHEN WE FINISH EVERYTHING, WE CREATE OUR OWN PROPERTY, OUR OWN PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, THE SA IPMC OR THE S-A-P-M-C.
UM, SO WHATEVER WE NEED, IF THERE IS ANY APP DEPENDENCIES THAT WE WANT IN THE SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, WE DO ADD THAT HERE.
SO ALL WHAT WE ARE SAYING, WE DON'T NEED THAT SENTENCE IN THE BODY OF THE CODE, BECAUSE WHEN WE ADOPT THE SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, IT INCLUDES WHATEVER WE WANT IN IT.
SO THERE'S SOME EXAMPLES WHERE WE ACTUALLY ARE INCLUDING, OKAY, THEY'RE AT THE END.
UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE 2021 SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, WE HAVE TWO, UH, APP DEPENDENCIES OR APPENDIXES A AND B.
I'M SORRY, EMILY, IF YOU CAN SCROLL TO THE VERY END OF THE, UH, THIS WORKING DOCK THERE, THERE ARE TWO APPEND, I BELIEVE B, A AND BB.
CAN I JUST, THE CHECKLIST? YEAH.
I'M JUST GONNA JUMP IN REAL QUICK.
THIS, THIS IS, THIS IS JUST STATING THAT THE APPENDICES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED AS APPENDICES.
AND THAT IN THE FUTURE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO JUST HAVE APPENDICES THAT GET PUT IN THERE THAT ARE NOT PART OF PROPERTY CODE, WHICH IS, WHICH IS THE REC, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE IPMC IS THAT WE ALLOW APPENDICES TO BE IN THE BACK THAT ARE NOT ADOPTED.
AND, AND THIS ONE, AND, AND THE REASON WE'RE REJECTING IT POTENTIALLY IS BECAUSE ALL THE APPENDICES ARE ACCEPTED PROPERTY CODE AND SO THEY ARE ENFORCEABLE.
CORRECT? THAT THAT IS CORRECT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THANK YOU ALL.
SO THE NEXT SECTION, UH, AGAIN, IT'S FROM THE 2024 IPMC UPDATE.
IT IS A NEW SECTION, OR RATHER A REVISION, IF YOU WILL, UH, TO THE, UH, EXISTING IPMC.
AND, UM, IT'S GONNA BE IN SECTION 1 0 2 0.4 EXISTING REMEDIES.
[00:15:01]
AND SO IF YOU SEE HERE, WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED AND STRUCK OUT.SO WHAT THE IPMC IS RECOMMENDING IS THAT WE, UH, STRIKE OUT THE WORD AND, AND REPLACE IT WITH THE WORD OR, UH, WE'RE OKAY WITH THE REVISION, AND WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE, UH, UH, THE REVISION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE LANGUAGE AS, AS PROPOSED.
UH, I'M GONNA GO INTO DISCUSSION BEFORE I EVEN GO TO THE MOTION.
UH, THE, WHEN YOU GET INTO TO LEGAL TERMINOLOGY, WHEN YOU GET INTO THE WORD OR VERSUS, AND, UH, AND OBVIOUSLY MEANS EVERYTHING PRIOR TO THAT, UH, AND THE WORD OR MEANS THAT ANY ONE OF THOSE PARTICULAR PIECES OF THAT.
UH, AND SO WITH THAT THOUGHT IN MIND, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE TOOL TWO FOUR IPMC CODE, UH, IPM CODE RECOMMENDED CHANGES.
JUDY KRUM, JUST FOR A CLARIFICATION, WHO IS, UH, THE BOARD MEMBER THAT SECOND THE MOTION? IT'S ME.
UH, BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I JUST WANNA REMIND, UH, VOTING MEMBERS BEFORE MOTIONS GO IN, WE DO NEED TO ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY ON THE NEXT ONE.
SO THAT WE'RE GOOD ON THE NEXT ONE.
CHAIR, I'LL, I'LL BE WATCHING THEM.
IF THEY RAISE THEIR HAND, I'LL TELL YOU THAT THEY WANNA SPEAK.
IF NOT, WE'LL JUST KEEP GOING.
ALRIGHT, SO ITEM NUMBER THREE.
THE NEXT SECTION WE'RE LOOKING AT, IT'S GONNA BE AGAIN FROM THE 2024 IPMC UPDATE.
IT IS A REVISION TO SECTION 1 0 2 0.6, STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS.
UH, THE IPMC IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE STRIKE OUT THE WORD DETERMINE IF, AND REPLACE IT WITH ASSESS A POTENTIALLY, AND WE STRIKE OUT THE WORD EXIST.
UM, WE'RE OKAY WITH THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION OR THE PROVOST REVISION.
UH, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE APPROVE THE, UM, LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED OF THE IPMC.
SO COULD YOU READ IT OUT FOR ME? I'M HAVING A HARD TIME READING FROM THERE AND FROM HERE.
SO, UM, THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE WOULD READ, IF YOU WILL, UM, WHERE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS IS USED TO ASSESS A POTENTIALLY UNSAFE STRUCTURAL CONDITION.
THE ANALYSIS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO USE NORMAL NOMINAL STRENGTH.
NOMINAL LOAD LOAD EFFECTS REQUIRE STRENGTH AND LIMIT STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER WHICH THE STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY SUBSEQUENT REQUIREMENT.
DANNY, WHO'S DOING THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS HERE, I THOUGHT THIS WAS GONNA BE A, A PROFESSIONAL THAT WAS CALLED IN, UH, THE, BY THE APPROVAL OF, UH, OF V ALL, UH, TO DO THAT ANALYSIS.
SO WHY ARE YOU UNDERCUTTING IT HERE? THAT'S WHAT I DON'T GET.
IT'S, UH, IT'S JUST A GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARD.
IT'S NOT UNDERCUTTING ANYTHING.
THIS IS JUST A GENERAL PROVISION PROVIDING AUTHORITY FOR A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS.
IT'S NOT STATING WHO IS GOING TO BE CONDUCTING IT OR WHO IS NOT GOING TO BE CONDUCTING IT.
THEN WHO MAKES THE FINAL DETERMINATION? IF IT'S NOT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, THE, THE CODE OFFICIAL, AND I AM AN ENGINEER, IT GETS BEYOND THE, THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE CODE OFFICIAL.
UNLESS YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY, THEY DO HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO DO THEIR OWN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW? WELL, IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE DO NOT DO WE DO HAVE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ON STAFF? CORRECT.
THERE'S, THERE'S, WE, WE DON'T HAVE STRUCTURE ENGINEERS ON STAFF.
IF, IF WE NEED TO, WE CAN HIRE A THIRD PARTY STRUCTURE ENGINEER TO REVIEW OR ASSESS THE CONDITION.
BUT WE HAVE CODE OFFICERS WHO ARE, WE CALL IT DP OFFICERS WHO ARE TRAINED ON THAT.
AND WE HAVE THE CHIEF BUILDING.
UH, INSPECTOR IS TRAINED ON THAT AS WELL.
SO WE SEND BOTH OF THEM OUT TO ASSESS THE STRUCTURE.
WE DON'T DEPEND ON ONE PERSON.
UH, THEY SEND THE REPORT WITH PICTURES TO ME AND MELISSA.
NOW WE REVIEW THEM IF WE NEED TO, WE GO OUT TO THE SITE AS WELL.
[00:20:01]
WE, WE DO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE MOTION TO MAKE SURE INFRASTRUCTURE IS DEEMED UNSAFE.WE DO, UH, HAVE THE EVIDENCE, UH, TO CLASSIFY THAT.
AND I AM A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, JUST FYI AND MY BOSS, MIKE SHANNON IS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AS WELL.
AND, UH, THE LAW, GOING BACK TO THE 17 HUNDREDS HAS ALLOWED BUILDING OFFICIALS AND OR THEIR DESIGNEES TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
AND SO THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, JOEL.
AND ALSO THE BUILDING STANDARDS BOARD HAS THAT AUTHORITY BY STAPLE.
SO TO ADD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AT THIS POINT IN TIME, UH, WOULD DEFEAT, UH, CENTURIES OF CASE LAW AND AUTHORITY.
MADAM CHAIR? UH, SIDA? I DON'T THINK YOUR MIC'S WORKING.
YEAH, I DON'T, YEAH, MAYBE TRADE.
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING YOU ON THE RECORDING AS WELL.
OH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS IS AS NOTED, UM, WITH THE DESIRED CHANGES.
UH, ANY DISCUSSION? UH, JUST, JUST TO, UH, MAKE SURE I CLARIFY THIS, DWAYNE, ARE YOU PART OF THE, UH, SUBCOMMITTEE? NO QUESTION ABOUT IT AT THE PRESENT TIME, YES.
NO, I DIDN'T ATTEND THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS.
UH, BUT WHEN I ASKED WHO'S ON THE COMMITTEE, I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING YOUR NAME.
SO CAN CAN YOU VOTE? BASICALLY? THAT'S MY QUESTION.
I, I ASSURE YOU MY NAME IS ON IT.
I ASSURE YOU I HAVE TAKEN THE CODE
I MEAN,
I'M JUST SAYING WHEN I THINK WE ESTABLISHED A SUBCOMMITTEE, I BELIEVE THERE WAS FIVE, UH, THAT THEY WERE SELECTED.
SO I GUESS LET'S MAKE SURE, WHO ARE THE FIVE? DO WE KNOW? I, I, I DON'T HAVE THE LIST IN FRONT OF ME.
JOEL, MYSELF, UH, FRANK, FRED, FRANK AND FRED, UH, THE CHAIR PERSON, UH, AND YES, KAYLA, I REMEMBER YOUR NAME.
AND, UH, DR. RODRIGUEZ ORLINDA, IF YOU WANTED THE FIRST NAME.
AND THEN FROM THE COMMUNITY, WE HAVE JASON AND CLAY MAKING UP EIGHT AS YOUR COMMITTEE.
SO WE HAVE SIX BOARD MEMBERS FROM B, SB.
AGAIN, I, I WAS TOLD WE HAVE FIVE, THAT'S WHY I'M COUNTING SIX.
AND I'M, I THOUGHT, YEAH, WE, WE ACTUALLY WENT TO A TOTAL OF EIGHT.
BACK TO A TOTAL OF EIGHT, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED AS THE SIZE OF THE COMMITTEE.
AND BECAUSE WE ONLY HAD TWO MEMBERS FROM THE COMMUNITY, THEN WE ADDED THE TWO, UH, TO THE SIX, UH, TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS.
AND YES, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT FIVE VERSUS SIX.
UH, BUT IF YOU NEED TO GO BACK DOWN TO FIVE, WE'RE WE CAN MAKE THAT FLEXIBLE REAL EASILY.
UH, JUST TELL US WHAT YOU PREFER TO DO.
DEFINITELY WE CAN, BUT AGAIN, I WAS JUST TOLD THAT WE HAVE FIVE AND I'M WONDERING WHY WE HAVE SIX.
I UNDERSTAND THE CONFUSION BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN CONFUSED ALSO FROM THE BUILDING STANDARDS BOARD.
IF IT HELPS, I CAN CERTAINLY SECOND.
NO, I, I'LL STEP OUT
I MEAN, WE DO HAVE A MOTION ALSO.
I MEAN, WE ALSO HAVE SOME SUBSTITUTES BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT AREN'T GONNA BE HERE.
THAT, THAT'S WHAT DANNY'S SHOWING ME.
SO CAN YOU VOTE FOR DWAYNE TO BE AS PERMANENT? BECAUSE WE CAN HAVE UP TO SIX BASICALLY BOARD MEMBERS.
SO JUST TO MAKE IT LEGAL, I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO COME BACK AND SAY, DWAYNE WAS A SUBSTITUTE AND YOU ALREADY HAVE THE FIVE THAT, SO REALLY HE SHOULD FILL IN, NOT NECESSARILY BE PART OF IT UNLESS YOU VOTE HIM IN.
NOW CAN WE DO THAT AFTER THE MOTION? YEAH, I WOULD RECOMMEND YES IF THURSDAY, BUT THEN HIS MOTION DOESN'T COUNT IF WE GONNA DO IT AFTER HERE.
THE THING, HES, HE'S ALREADY VOTED AS
[00:25:01]
OF LAST MEETING, RIGHT? SO HE'S ALREADY MOTIONED ON, LAST ONE HAS ALREADY DONE THAT.I, UM, WE'RE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF ONE MOTION AND ONE A MEETING, AND NOW WE'RE HAVING CLERICAL ISSUES AFTER, SINCE OUR LAST MEETING.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M HAVING PROBLEMS WITH BECAUSE THEN THAT WOULD MAKE ALL THE VOTES FROM LAST WEEK NULL AND VOID.
UH, IT, IT WOULD NOT IF THERE WAS A MAJORITY ON THE VOTES.
AND SO TAKING ONE OUT WOULD NOT IMPACT.
UH, JUST FOR CLEANER PURPOSES, I THINK.
DWAYNE, YOU HAD SECONDED THIS MOTION.
LET'S GET SOMEONE ELSE TO SECOND MADAM CHAIR.
FRED ANDIS WILL SECOND THE MOTION.
AND DWAYNE, DON'T VOTE ON THIS ONE FOR RIGHT NOW.
AND THEN AFTER THE VOTE, THEN Y'ALL CAN TAKE A VOTE TO ADD DWAYNE AS A PERMANENT MEMBER.
SO, UM, I'M SORRY, IT WAS A MOTION MOTION TO BY HIM AND I SECOND IT.
YEAH, THE MOTION WAS TO ACCEPT, UH, THE PROPOSED CHANGES ON, UH, 1 0 2 6.
I WILL, UH, OPEN THE FLOOR TO A MOTION TO MADAM CHAIR.
I RECOMMENDED DWAYNE NELSON BE ADDED TO THE BOARD.
I SECOND OR LINDA, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
WE THOUGHT YOU WERE, I MEAN, WE ALL UNDERSTOOD THAT DWAYNE WOULD BE ON THERE ANYWAY, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY BECAUSE SOMEHOW HE WAS LISTED AS SUBSTITUTE OR ALTERNATE.
SO THAT, WHAT THAT MEANS IS IF ONE OF YOU IS NOT HERE, HE CAN FILL IN AND VOTE.
BUT IF EVERYBODY'S HERE, HE CANNOT BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED, I GUESS ADD THEM FULL BOARD WHEN YOU GUYS VOTED PEOPLE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE ARE ALL GOOD.
UM, CAN WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM? YES, OF COURSE.
SO THE NEXT ITEM ON CONSIDERATION IS GONNA BE SECTION 1 0 2 0.6.
UH, THIS IS A, AGAIN, A, UM, THAT ONE'S APPROVED.
I JUST MOTION DONE MY MISTAKE.
WE APPROVED 1 0 2 6 ON OUR LIST.
NO, I'M SHOWING THEY'RE GOING OFF OF DIRECTLY IS ALL, WE'RE GOING OFF OF THIS, NOT THE SPREADSHEET, CORRECT? YES.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, SO SOME, SOME CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED TO THE DOCUMENT.
AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH, WE'RE EDITING SOME OF THE SECTIONS AND MAKING SURE IT ALIGNS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
BUT AGAIN, I WOULD FOLLOW ALONG WITH THE, UH, WORD DOC ONLINE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
DANNY, DID YOU GIVE US THE NUMBER THOUGH THAT YOU'RE WORKING FROM? WOULD BE GREAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE, THE NUMBER ON THE SPREADSHEET.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CHALLENGE IS, IS, UM, SO THIS IS WHAT DANNY'S REFERRING TO ON THE SCREEN.
THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW THE POTENTIAL CHANGES.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THE SPREADSHEET IS UP TO DATE.
SO SOME, THEN WE, WE DID OUR HOMEWORK AND WE GET, WE LOOKED AT THESE, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THESE.
IT'S PAGE SIX ON THE SPREADSHEET.
AND I PROMISE WE'LL RECYCLE IF YOU WANNA LEAVE THOSE AFTER THE MEETING.
SO GET YOU TO THE, THE RIGHT SECTION NOW I SEE IT.
WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU ALL ACTUALLY GET TO 1 0 3 0.4, YOU WILL SEE THAT 1 0 3 0.4 IS THE CURRENT NUMBERING SY SYSTEM AND THE IPMC HAS GIVEN US A NEW NUMBER IS 1 0 5 0.7.
AND YOU'LL FIND THAT IN A, IN A LOT OF CASES, UH, THROUGHOUT THE CHANGES FROM THE IPMC.
UH, AND BECAUSE OF THIS BEING A, A FIRST CHANGE FOR IP CHANGE FOR IPMC APPROACH, UH, YOU MIGHT FIND IT A WHOLE LOT EASIER OR WE COLLECTIVELY, WE MIGHT FIND IT A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO KEEP THE CODING NUMBERS THAT WE HAD IN PRIOR, UH, EVENTS.
SO I, I WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FIRST OF ALL, THAT WE WOULD KEEP WHAT IS PROPOSED AS
[00:30:01]
IPMC 1 0 5 0.7 IN OUR CODE AS 1 0 3 0.4.UH, AND YOU'LL FIND THAT IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT PLACES THROUGHOUT THE CHANGES FROM IPMC, OR AT LEAST I THINK YOU WILL IF YOU'VE GONE THROUGH SOME OF THE, THE SAME HOMEWORK THAT I WENT THROUGH.
UH, AND, AND I GUESS WE OUGHT TO GO TO STAFF AS A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT FIRST, BECAUSE, UH, IT WOULD BE EASIER TO STAY WITH WITH OUR CURRENT NUMBERING SYSTEM, UH, AND FIND OUT WHAT DOES IPMC DO FOR FUTURE.
AND I WAS JUST GONNA SEE WHY, WHY DID THEY MAKE A NEW OR CHANGE THE SECTION FOR LIABILITY TO 1 0 5? UH, UH, OUR NUMBERING IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T ADOPT ALL THE MEASURES IN THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
AND SO OUR NUMBERING IS A BIT DIFFERENT FROM THE INTERNATIONAL.
AND SO I DO AGREE WITH DWAYNE'S PROPOSAL THAT WE GO BASED ON THE S-A-P-M-C NUMBERING.
ANY, MAY NEITHER ONE OF YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON THE CHANGING OF THE NUMBERING.
I GUESS I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE IF, WHEN I LOOK AT IT, IT HAS OUR NUMBERING ON IT AND THEN ALSO HAS THE 2024 IPMC, IT, IT WILL HAVE THAT KIND OF SITUATION AS YOU GO ALL THE WAY DOWN.
IN FACT, YOU'LL FIND THAT IN 1 0 4 ALSO, UH, BECAUSE OF THE WAY IPMC IS, IS JUST NUMBERING THEIR STUFF.
UH, BUT WE HAVE, WE HAVE MAINTAINED FOR MANY YEARS OUR NUMBERING SYSTEM.
UH, AND IT JUST MAKES IT EASIER FOR ME WHEN I LOOK AT THINGS COMING TO THE BOARD AS VIOLATIONS OF PARTICULAR CODES.
I GUESS I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I SEE OUR, WE'VE YOU WERE USING OUR SAME NUMBERING SYSTEM, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, WE ARE USING OUR NUMBERING SYSTEM, UH, WHEN WE ARE SHOWING THE NEW 2024 IPMC, WE ARE PUTTING THE SECTION THEY HAVE WITH THEIR NUMBER JUST AS REFERENCE.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, AS DANNY SAID, WHEN WE FINISH EVERYTHING, WE ARE GONNA REVIEW IT FROM TOP ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM AND MAKE SURE THE NUMBERING IS ACCURATE BECAUSE OUR NUMBERS ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE INTERNATIONAL ONE DUE TO ADDING SECTIONS, REMOVING SECTIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT IN THE PAST.
SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE NUMBERING AT THIS MOMENT.
UH, LET'S JUST MAKE SURE WE GET ALL THE LANGUAGE AND THE SECTIONS APPROVED, THEN WE CAN, AGAIN, IF WE HAVE TO RENUMBER ANYTHING, WE WILL DO THAT AT THE END.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, OF WHO YOU WANNA LISTEN TO, HUH? YEAH.
AND AS THEY SAID, IN MY VIEW, ALSO WOULD BE THE VERBIAGE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE NUMBERING SYSTEM.
I SAID IT, IT DOES CREATE SOME CONFUSION BECAUSE INITIALLY I WAS LOOKING AT IT LIKE, WAIT A MINUTE, DO WE WANNA MAKE THOSE CHANGES OR NOT? UH, AND IT WAS JUST A WHOLE LOT EASIER FOR ME TO SAY, I'M GONNA KEEP MY OLD NUMBER SYSTEM.
BUT THAT WAS JUST AN OPINION, NOT WHERE THE PLUG NICKEL FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW.
AND ALSO FROM LEGAL'S PERSPECTIVE, IT'S, UH, WHEN I DRAFT THE ORDINANCE, I'LL BE ENSURING THE NUMBERS ARE GOING IN ORDER.
AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S EASIER TO FOLLOW WHAT I DRAFTED LAST TIME FOR PERSONAL REASONS.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, MANAGER CHAIR, UM, IF STAFF COULD WALK US THROUGH AGAIN, JUST LIKE YOU DID, UH, WITH TELLING US IT'S NUMBER 35, UH, IF YOU COULD JUST TELL US NEWBIES ABOUT THAT WHEN WE'RE GOING THROUGH IT.
UM, SO THE WORD DOC, OR RATHER THE SPREADSHEET THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU, UH, SHOULD HAVE A DATE OF 10 30, RIGHT? THAT'S GONNA BE THE MOST RECENT, UH, DOC I BELIEVE IN FRONT OF YOU.
UM, THIS IS THE ONE WE GOT AT THE LAST MEETING, AND THEN I WAS GIVEN ONE FROM 10 19.
IS THERE ANOTHER VERSION? WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE DATE? THE VERSION WE GOT FROM DOWN HERE? YEAH, BECAUSE THERE WAS A VERSION THAT WAS EMAILED OUT ON MONDAY, AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE DIFFERENT VERSIONS THAT WE HAVE ON THE TABLE THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE WE GOT LAST WEEK.
SO WHICH VERSIONS WERE I ONE? SO, SO WHAT WAS EMAILED TO YOU SHOULD BE WHAT'S POSTED ONLINE.
IT SHOULD BE THE 10 30 VERSION.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY.
AGAIN, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT COPY, I APOLOGIZE, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S POSTED ON OUR ESSAY SPEAK UP PAGE.
AND THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
AND MADAM CHAIR, WE CAN PULL UP THE TABLE THAT'S ONLINE, THAT IS THE UPDATED VERSION FOR A MOMENT WHILE WE ARE PRINTING REPRINTING THE TABLE OUT.
THAT IS THE MOST CURRENT ONE BECAUSE AT THE LAST MEETING THERE WAS A REQUEST TO PUT IT IN NUMERIC ORDER, AND WE
[00:35:01]
DID THAT.AND UNFORTUNATELY WE DIDN'T PROVIDE YOU THAT COPY.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS.
UM, AND WE'RE GETTING THAT REPRINTED, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE CAN PULL THIS UP IF THAT WOULD HELP.
AND THE TABLE IS HERE, BUT EMILY, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO ZOOM IN VERY CLOSELY.
OKAY? RIGHT NOW THERE'S THREE VERSIONS.
SO THERE'S THE ONE THAT'S ONLINE.
'CAUSE THE MOST CURRENT THERE, THERE IS THE 10 19, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO US THIS MORNING.
AND THEN THERE'S THE ONE THAT WE GOT LAST WEEK.
SO FOR PURPOSES OF NOTE TAKING, CAN WE USE THE 10 19 TIP FOR THE NUMBERS FOR, FOR NOW, IF, I MEAN TWO OPTIONS.
OPTION ONE IS WE PAUSE FOR FIVE MINUTES, WE WILL PRINT NEW ONES, GIVE IT TO YOU.
OR WE CAN CONTINUE WITH THE DISCUSSION WHILE WE ARE PRINTING.
IF, IF YOU WANNA TAKE FIVE MINUTE BREAK, WE WILL PRINT.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
OKAY, SO, UH, CHAIR, IT'S YOURS TO START THE MEETING.
IT'S 9:54 AM AND WE ARE COMING BACK.
WE'VE GOT FRESH COPIES HERE AND WE CAN CONTINUE WITH THE ITEM.
UM, AGAIN, SO EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A COPY.
THE LATEST VERSION IS 10 30 ON THE BOTTOM LEFT HAND SIDE.
SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE, UH, ON STARTING WITH SECTION RATHER ROW FOUR, WHICH IS GONNA BE SECTION 1 0 3 0.4 ON THE TABLE.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT IT RIGHT ABOVE HERE.
SO THIS IS GONNA BE A, UM, A REVISION UNDER THE 2024 IPMC.
UM, THERE'S SOME RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE CHANGE THERE AS YOU CAN SEE.
UM, AND I'LL READ JUST FROM THE SENTENCE BASICALLY READS THAT SHALL NOT THEREBY BE RENDERED PERSONALLY LIABLE EITHER CIVILLY OR CRIMINALLY.
AND WE STRUCK OUT CIVILLY AND CRIMINALLY LIABLE PERSONALLY IN THE, UM, EXISTING PMC AND IS HEREBY RELIEVED FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR ALL DAMAGE ACCRUING TO PERSONS, AND THEY STRUCK OUT.
ALL RIGHT, SO IN THIS CASE HERE, WE'RE OKAY WITH THE REVISION.
WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE, UH, THE IPMC AS WRITTEN.
UM, YEAH, I'M READY FOR A MOTION.
I'M, UH, I'D LIKE TO MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT, UH, ONE, OH, I'M SORRY.
I'D LIKE TO MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT 1 0 3 0.4, UM, WITH THE NOTED CHANGES.
SECOND CLAY, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
WE'RE JUST MAKING SURE WE ARE DISTRIBUTING THE EXTRA COPIES TO THE STAFF.
CAN WE ALSO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC GETS THEM AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM? ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
UH, THE NEXT ITEM, AGAIN, IT'S A NEW SECTION, UM, TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE ING OF PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
UH, THE SECTION WOULD FALL UNDER, UM, LIABILITY, UM, 1 0 3 0.4.
UM, CURRENTLY IT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, HOWEVER, IN THE IPMC, THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN REGARDS TO LEGAL DEFENSE, WHICH FALLS UNDER SECTION.
UM, AND SO I, I CAN READ THE SECTION HERE.
BASICALLY IT READS, ANY SUIT OR CRIMINAL COMPLAINT INSTITUTED AGAINST AN ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE BECAUSE OF AN ACT PERFORMED BY THE AD OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE IN THE LAWFUL DISCHARGE OF DUTIES.
AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE OR OTHER LAWS OR ORDINANCES IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CODE SHALL BE DEFENDED BY THE LEGAL REP REPRESENTATIVE OF THE JURISDICTION UNTIL THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
[00:40:01]
ANY SUB SUBORDINATE SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR COSTS IN ANY ACTION SUED OR PROCEEDING THAT IS INSTITUTED IN THE PURSUANT OF THIS PROVISION OF THIS CODE.IT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, UH, TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED OR AS WRITTEN.
I GOT A QUESTION, DANNY, JUST TO VERIFY, BECAUSE THE ONLINE, UH, VERSION OF THIS HAS IT BLUE AND GRAY, WHICH IS MEANS THAT THEY DON'T WANT IT.
AND WE HAVE IT AS JUST SOLID BLUE.
WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY IS WANTING.
THE REASON IT'S SOLID BLUE IS IT'S AN ENTIRE NEW SECTION FOR THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
IT'S NOT SPELLED OUT, IT'S BLUE AND GRAY.
THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE CITY DIDN'T WANT IT, CORRECT? IT WAS NEW, BUT THE CITY DIDN'T WANT IT FROM WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT ORIGINALLY.
AND I, AGAIN, EXCUSE ME, MAY, MAY, MAY, I MAY BE AN ODOR DOC THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT THERE.
I WILL LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
WE'VE CONSULTED WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND I THINK THIS LANGUAGE WE'RE OKAY WITH ACCEPTING THIS LANGUAGE.
UH, BUT TO YOUR POINT, YES, I BELIEVE IT WAS A SECTION THAT ORIGINALLY WE HAD, UH, TABLED FURTHER DISCUSSION.
THIS CAME OUT MONDAY THOUGH, AND TODAY'S WEDNESDAY.
SO MY, MY ISSUE IS THAT IF WE SEND OUT SOMETHING ON MONDAY AND THEN WE HAVE A MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, AND THEN WE SPEND MONDAY AND TUESDAY DOING OUR HOMEWORK, AND IT'S CHANGED BEFORE WE COME TO THE MEETING, IT'S GONNA MAKE IT KIND OF DIFFICULT.
WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THIS ITEM.
AND JUST TO COMMENT NOW, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU.
UM, AGAIN, IT COULD BE WE RECOMMENDED TO REMOVE IT AT SOME POINT.
THEN WHEN WE TALK TO LEGAL, I MEAN WE, IF WE HAVE IT OR WE DON'T HAVE IT, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S CHANGING MUCH.
SO AT THAT POINT WE SAID MAYBE TO KEEP IT, BUT AGAIN, THAT JUST RECOMMENDATION THE BOARD HERE WILL DECIDE WHAT TO DO.
UH, SO IT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU DECIDE TO BASICALLY REMOVE IT OR NOT AT THIS POINT.
BUT AS THE CHAIR SAID, IF THERE IS PUBLIC COMMENTS POSSIBLY TO GO TO THAT BEFORE DISCUSSION, WE HAVE NO COMMENT.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS SAVI RAI FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
I WAS NOT HERE AT THE FIRST MEETING.
UM, SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'M LOOKING AT IT AND I DON'T WANNA CONTRADICT MY COLLEAGUES, BUT, UH, I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PASS THIS BY OUR LITIGATION DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS MYSELF.
AND IF WE COULD, UH, I WOULD ASK THAT WE TABLE IT TO THE NEXT SO THAT I HAVE, UH, MORE TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.
MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS.
UM, IT'S UP HERE IS 1 0 3 0.4 0.1 MM-HMM,
BUT THERE'S NOT IN BLUE OR RED IN THE COLUMN UNDER 2021 S AND PMC, IF, SHOULDN'T THAT BE FILLED IN? UM, AND INSTEAD OF LEFT BLANK FRED, IT'S NEW.
IT'S NOT IN THE WELL THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT OVER HERE IT HAS 1 0 3 0.4 UNDER THE SECTION AND IT'S NOT 1 0 3 0.4.
IF IT'S ACCEPTED, IT'LL BE 1 0 3 0.41.
IT'S NOT IN BLUE HERE AS A PROPOSED AS THIS OTHER STUFF IS PROPOSED.
I'D LIKE TO MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS AS, UH, REQUESTED BY LEGAL.
ANY DISCUSSION? WE'RE STILL IN DISCUSSION.
UH, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY THIS ISN'T IN BLUE ON THIS SIDE WHEN EVERYTHING ELSE'S PROPOSED IS BLUE AND RED.
SO LET ME, LET ME JUST EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT.
UM, ON THE SPREADSHEET YOU HAVE, WE HAD TO USE A SECTION NUMBER.
AND WHAT WE UTILIZED AS BASIS IS THE EXISTING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE THAT WE HAVE.
SO THIS SECTION DOES NOT EXIST IN THE CURRENT ONE, IN THE 2021 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, BUT IT'S A SUBSECTION UNDER 1 0 3 0.4.
SO WE UTILIZE THAT SECTION NUMBER.
IF THIS IS ADDED AT SOME POINT, THEN IT'S GONNA BE 1 0 3 0.4 0.1.
I CAN'T PUT THAT SECTION BECAUSE DOESN'T EXIST IN TODAY'S CODE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? NO, BECAUSE EVERY OTHER PIECE THAT YOU'RE ADDING IN HERE THAT YOU WANT US TO LOOK AT IS EITHER IN BLUE OR RED.
YEAH, I'M, SO IF THIS IS A PROPOSED, THEN IT SHOULD BE IN BLUE.
SO WE SEE SOMETHING OTHER THAN BLANK.
THIS IS PROPOSED THAT'S NOT IN WRITING UNTIL IT'S BLACK.
SO IF I MAY JUST TRY TO HELP, MAYBE CLARIFY.
SO WE LOOKING AT THE SPREADSHEET THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW? CORRECT.
SO THE REASON IN THE SPREADSHEET ITSELF IS NOT IN BLUE BECAUSE THIS SECTION IS TAKEN OUT OF THE IPMC.
IT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE EXISTING IPMC.
NOW, THE REASON YOU SEE IT BLUE ON THE WORKING DOCK IS IT'S AN ENTIRELY NEW SECTION THAT IS UP FOR DISCUSSION WHETHER WE SHOULD ADD IT
[00:45:01]
TO THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.IT HAD I SELECTED OR HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE, IT WOULD'VE INDICATED IT WAS AN ENTIRE NEW SECTION UNDER THE SAPM OR IPMC RATHER.
AND IT'S NOT A NEW SECTION, IT'S AN EXISTING SECTION.
THAT'S WHY THE TEXT IS IN BLACK.
WELL, THAT CONFUSES ME BECAUSE EVERYTHING WE'RE PROPOSING IS EITHER IN BLUE OR RED.
OR GRAY IF WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT IT.
WELL, I THINK THE MATTER ONCE, UH, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO TABLE THIS AND THE ISSUE OF THE COLORING CAN BE ADDRESSED AT THE SAME TIME.
MADAM CHAIR, CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? YES.
ON TABLE, JUST MOTIONING THAT, UH, WE TABLED THIS, UM, CHAIN.
OKAY, SO YOU WANNA VOTE ON THE ITEM? NOT A ROLL CALL.
SORRY, I SHOULDN'T HAVE ASKED FOR A ROLL CALL.
UM, YES, WE CAN DO THAT TO VICE.
UH, ALL IN FAVOR OF TABLING? AYE.
CAN WE CONFIRM WHO SECOND THE MOTION PLEASE? DWAYNE NELSON.
CAN WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM PLEASE? CHAIR? JUST, I HAD ONE QUESTION BEFORE WE MOVE ON.
UM, SO WHEN WE'RE DOING THE, THE, THE SPEAKING, WE HAVE DISCUSSION FROM PUBLIC, THEN WE HAVE THE MOTIONS, AND THEN WE HAVE DISCUSSION FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
IF THE PUBLIC WANTS TO COMMENT, IT SHOULD BE DONE BEFORE A MOTION, UM, LEGALLY SPEAKING.
AND THEN ONCE, ONCE WE HAVE THE MOTION, WE AS A SUBCOMMITTEE CAN DISCUSS IT IN, IN OUR DISCUSSION PERIOD AFTER THE SECOND.
IF WE SECOND AFTER THE SECOND, YES.
ALRIGHT, 1 0 4 0.1, WHICH IS GONNA BE ON ROW SIX.
UH, UNDER GENERAL, THIS IS A REVISION THAT'S COMING OUT OF THE IPMC AS AN UPDATE.
UH, THEY BASICALLY TOOK THE ENTIRE SECTION AND STRUCK IT OUT IN THE 2024 IPMC.
WE'RE PROPOSING THAT, UH, WE KEEP THE S-A-P-M-C AS WRITTEN AND NOT ACCEPT THIS RECOMMENDATION OR NOT ACCEPT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE.
UH, WOULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY? UH, JUST THE, THE CHANGE FROM INCLU, THE WAY THAT S SORRY, I I'M SORRY.
WE WE'RE, WE'RE GOING A LITTLE HELTER SKELTER HERE.
IF WE CAN JUST, YOU KNOW, DO THE MOTION AND THE SECOND AND THEN DO, UH, SUBCOMMITTEE COMMENTS.
I, I WASN'T GONNA MOTION, I WAS JUST GONNA ASK A QUESTION.
UH, I WAS JUST ASKING OF, WELL, WE NEED THE MOTION FIRST BEFORE THE DISCUSSION.
MADAM CHAIR, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR A MEMBER TO ASK STAFF A QUESTION PRIOR TO A MOTION BEING BROUGHT UP SO THAT THEY CAN GET CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF SO THAT THEY KNOW HOW TO VOTE.
UM, MY OPINION, IT SHOULD GO SECTION, PUBLIC COMMENT, MEMBER QUESTIONS, MOTION VOTE, DISCUSSION IF NEEDED BE.
AND SORRY, I, I MAY HAVE BEEN READING THIS BACKWARD ONCE AGAIN, UH,
BUT THAT 20 ON LINE SIX, UH, WHAT YOU'RE, THE S-A-P-M-C IS THE ALL BLACK AREA, AND THEN UNDER THE 2024 IPMC IS ALL STRUCK OUT.
WHAT YOU'RE HOPING TO ADOPT IS IN THE 20.
SO OUR, OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO KEEP THE EXISTING LANGUAGE AS IS.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
NOW DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MADAM CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CHANGES AS NOTED.
YOU WANNA, I BELIEVE YOU ACCEPTS STAFF, STAFF
[00:50:01]
RECOMMENDATION.THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO KEEP THE EXISTING LANGUAGE, UH, FOR THAT I'M GOING WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION.
THE MOTION IS TO KEEP THE EXISTING LANGUAGE OR GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS TO KEEP THE EXISTING LANGUAGE CORRECT.
AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT DWAYNE NELSON SEGMENTS THAT MOTION.
THANK YOU MR. NELSON TO KEEP THE EXISTING LANGUAGE.
JUST TO CLARIFY, FOR THE, FOR THE LIVE EDITS, WE'RE GONNA BE REMOVING THE RED, REMOVING THE STRIKEOUT.
YOU WOULD BE KEEPING THE RED STRIKEOUT.
ALL OF THAT IS PROPOSED BY THE, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO IGNORE WHAT IPMC HAS LISTED ON THAT.
AND WE WILL KEEP THE LANGUAGE THAT IS ON THE, UH, 2021 SA PMC.
SO IT SHOULD SAY, I'M GONNA READ IT.
THE CODE OFFICIALS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE.
THAT'S WHAT THE CITY IS ASKING FOR TO SAY CORRECT.
THE CITY IS CONTINUING ON TO SAY, THIS CODE OFFICIAL SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RENDER INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE AND ADOPT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE APPLICATION OF THIS, OF ITS PROVISION.
SUCH INTERPRETATIONS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SHALL BE, UH, COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE AND SHALL BE PUBLISHED.
SUCH POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SHALL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF WAIVING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY THIS CODE.
THAT IS THE REC, THAT IS THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR WITH A SECOND.
SO WHAT IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN RED, REMOVE, REMOVE THE STRIKEOUT.
WE'RE, WE'RE REMOVING STRIKEOUT, NOT THE WORDS.
MAKE IT BLACK TEXT AND YOU CAN REMOVE THE GRAY AS WELL.
SO YEAH, AFTER THE, AFTER THE MOTION PASSES.
LET'S LEAVE IT ON THE SCREEN FOR NOW SO WE CAN SEE IT.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
THE 4.2 INSPECTIONS NEED TO BE BACK.
AND JUST, UH, TO CLARIFY, STAFF REMOVED THE STRIKE OUT ON TWO SECTIONS BY MISTAKE.
IT SHOULD BE ONLY ON THE 1 0 4 0.1 AT THIS MOMENT UNTIL WE GO THROUGH DISCUSSION AND MOTION ON THE SECOND ONE.
SO IF YOU JUST GO UP AND DO UNDO IT SHOULD GO BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS
SO WE'RE GOOD IN THAT SECTION.
SO MOVING ALONG TO THE NEXT ROW.
UM, IT'S GONNA BE AGAIN, A REVISION IN THE 2024 IPMC, UH, UH, WHICH FALLS UNDER OUR SECTION OF INSPECTIONS.
UH, THE PROPOSED IPMC IS, UM, AS YOU SEE, THEY STRUCK OUT THE ENTIRE SECTION FOR INSPECTIONS.
UH, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE KEEP THE S-A-P-M-C AS WRITTEN.
UH, WHAT THEY'VE DONE HERE, AND AS YOU'LL SEE IN THE NEXT SECTION, WHICH WE'LL TOUCH, BASICALLY THEY'VE REPLACED, UM, INSPECTIONS WITH THE DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE, WHICH WE'RE ALSO GONNA MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO KEEP AS IS AND NOT ACCEPT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE BECAUSE THIS SECTION IS ALREADY COVERED UNDER SECTION 1 0 4 OF THE SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE UNDER THE DEFINITION, OR RATHER THE SUBSECTION GENERAL.
SO, UM, SO AGAIN, OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE NOT TO STRIKE OUT INSPECTIONS TO KEEP AS IS 'CAUSE THESE KIND OF GO HAND IN HAND.
IF WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT WE ACCEPT THE TERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE, IT'S ALREADY COVERED IN A DIFFERENT SECTION AS WELL WITH THE PMC.
SO AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO KINDA LOOK AT 'EM TOGETHER.
UM, BECAUSE AGAIN, IF OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ACCEPT ONE AND DENY THE OTHER ONE.
SO NEVERTHELESS, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT INSPECTION STAYS AS WRITTEN.
UM, AND I'M KINDA GETTING AHEAD ON MYSELF, BUT WE'RE ALSO GONNA BE RECOMMENDING THAT WE DO NOT ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED CHANGES.
BUT AGAIN, FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES, ONLY ONE 4.2 INSPECTIONS.
KEEP, UH, AS IS MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS FRED ANDIS ON ITEM SEVEN, I PROPOSE THAT WE ACCEPT THE 2021
[00:55:01]
S-A-P-M-C VERSION.UH, SO A REMINDER, WE DIDN'T ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, NOR DID WE ASK FOR DISCUSSION BEFORE WE WENT TO A MOTION.
WE SKIPPED TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
SO WERE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE BOARD OF STAFF BEFORE WE WENT TO MOTION? JUST FOR CLARIFICATION? NUMBER ONE, WE DID CHECK WITH PUBLIC.
JUST FYII AM WATCHING THEM AND THEY'RE TELLING ME IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING OR NOT.
THE OTHER THING IS, WE DON'T HAVE TO EVERY SINGLE TIME WAIT FOR THE BOARD TO ASK QUESTIONS.
'CAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, YOU'RE READY TO MAKE MOTION.
SO WE DIDN'T SKIP ANYTHING JUST FOR THE RECORD.
WELL, I, I DO, UH, CONCUR WITH MR. FRANKS BECAUSE THE FACT IS, IS IF YOU JUMP IN AND MAKE A MOTION BEFORE THE CHANCE TO ASK A QUESTION, THEN IT'S IN, IT'S NOT, YOU CAN'T DISCUSS IT AFTER YOU HAVE TO WAIT.
AND SO I I, I WOULD LIKE MAYBE A, A 15TH TO 22ND WAIT BEFORE A MOTION COMES IN, JUST IN CASE SOMEBODY WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING.
BUT I DID CHECK, I TURNED AROUND AND LOOKED, SO, OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? I DON'T THINK THAT WAS ON THE MIC.
CAN WE REPEAT THAT? LET, LET ME HAVE A, LET'S, LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
UH, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO, TO ACCEPT IPMC.
AND YET STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO KEEP THE LANGUAGE AS WAS NO, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR WAS TO KEEP THE 2021.
IN THAT CASE, I AM READY TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
'CAUSE I UNDERSTOOD YOU WANTED TO GO TO IPMC LANGUAGE, NOT 21, UH, S-A-P-M-C.
THE MOTION WAS FOR THE 2021 VERSION, IT WAS SECONDED.
PROCEED IF YOU WOULD CHAIRPERSON.
SO NEXT ITEM IS GONNA BE, UH, ROW NUMBER EIGHT.
WE'RE LOOKING AT AGAIN, A NEW PROPOSED SECTION UNDER THE 2024 IPMC.
UM, THE SECTION THEY'RE PROPOSING TO ADD IS DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE, UM, WHICH THIS SECTION OR THIS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, IS ALREADY, UH, INCLUDED IN THE 2021 S-A-P-M-C, UM, UNDER SECTION 1 0 4 0.1 GENERAL.
SO IT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION NOT TO ACCEPT OR TO KEEP THE S-A-P-M-C AS WRITTEN.
SO IF I COULD JUST PUT A PHRASING RECOMMENDATION, IF WE COULD SAY DENY IPMC CHANGES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CLARIFIES IT FOR EVERYBODY, BUT THOSE ARE THE NOTES I'M KIND OF TRACKING.
UM, THAT WOULD BE DENY IPMC CHANGES, WHICH MEANS REMOVING THE TEXT.
YEAH, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING TAKING OUT, CAN YOU COME UP ON THE MIC PLEASE? AND STATE YOUR NAME? MARK ROSS.
I YOU'RE RECOMMENDING JUST DELETING THIS, NOT, NOT INCLUDING THIS SECTION IN THE S-A-P-M-C? THAT'S CORRECT.
I'M RECOMMENDING THAT WE DO NOT ACCEPT THE 2024 IPMC UH, AMENDMENTS THAT WE LEAVE IT OUT OF THE 2024 S-A-P-M-C.
UH, AND ANY QUESTIONS FROM, OKAY, I I HAVE A QUESTION.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THAT LANGUAGE ALREADY EXISTS WITHIN THE S-A-P-M-C? THAT'S CORRECT.
THE, THE LANGUAGE ITSELF, UH, IS ALMOST VERBATIM.
IT EXISTS IN SECTION 1 0 4 0.1.
GENERAL, UH, OF THE CURRENT, UH, S-A-P-M-C.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL ACCEPT THE MOTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP, AS IS THE VERSION OF 2021 S-A-P-M-C.
IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND THE REQUEST TO REJECT THE IPMC RECOMMENDATIONS.
I WOULD, WOULD PROPOSE THAT BASICALLY, UH, AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF THE, UH, FACT THAT
[01:00:01]
THE VERBIAGE COMING OUT OF IPMC IS NEW VERBIAGE, UH, THAT WE, THE MOTION WOULD BE NOT TO ADOPT IPMC.UH, AND THAT WAY YOU INDEED DO THE SAME THING THAT YOU JUST MOTIONED.
AND THAT WAS KEEP THE LANGUAGE, UH, BUT THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL FROM IPMC TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE AND IT WOULD JUST CLEAR WE ARE REJECTING THAT PROPOSAL AND KEEPING, BASICALLY WE'RE NOT GONNA ADD IT IN BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN GENERAL, UNDER 1 0 4 0.1 IS THE SAME DEFINITION.
JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THAT, BASICALLY YOU'RE SAYING YOU WOULD NOT ADOPT THE I WOULD NOT ADOPT IT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY EXISTING IN 2021 S-A-P-M-C.
THE ONLY, THE ONLY THING THAT'S NOT IN THE CURRENT EXISTING IS THE TECHNICAL OPINION PIECE.
I DON'T SEE THAT IN THE GENERAL 1 0 4 0.1 REFERENCE TO TECHNICAL OPINION.
THAT'S GONNA BE THE NEXT ITEM WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? SO DANNY, WHY IS IT WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE 2024 I IM PMC, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY, THEY STATE THAT THEY MADE A LOT OF FORMATTING CHANGES IN IT AND THEY ADOPTED THE QR CODE, WHICH IS FINE.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHY WE'RE HESITANT TO ACTUALLY START MIMICKING, UH, REALLY THE LAYOUT OF THE IPMC INSTEAD OF STAYING WITH, WITH WHAT WE HAVE WITH THE, THE SANCTION PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT OVERALL? IT'S THE SAME EXACT INFORMATION.
JUST THE WAY THEY FORMATTED THAT.
UH, ONE OF THE THINGS LIKE MR. DWAYNE MENTIONED IS IF WE CAN KEEP THE SAME INFORMATION.
'CAUSE AGAIN, NO CHANGES IN THE VERBIAGE, IT'S JUST THE FORMATTING.
SO WHEN YOU START CHANGING THE FORMATTING, THE NUMBERING GONNA CHANGE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO WE JUST WANTED TO KEEP EVERYTHING AS IS.
THAT'S THE MAIN REASON MY EXPERIENCE IN DOING STANDARDS WORK FOR QUITE A WHILE FOR THE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY, IS THAT IT GETS VERY UNWIELDY IF YOU CONTINUE ON THIS PATH.
IF YOU CONTINUE TO TRY TO STAY WITH YOUR ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND, AND TRYING TO MORPH WHAT THE NEW CHANGES ARE AND INCORPORATE IT, IT JUST BECOMES RATHER DIFFICULT TO, TO, TO KEEP THAT.
IT'S JUST, IT'S A JUGGLING ACT LATER ON.
LEMME GIVE YOU, LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A NEW PERSON, ACTUALLY, NOT A NEW PERSON, AN OLD PERSON COMES INTO, UH, READ THE CODE.
UH, THEY HAVE READ CODE FOR YEARS, AND I'LL USE FRED AS EXAMPLE, AND FRED CAN, CAN OBJECT TO MY EXAMPLE IF HE SO CHOOSES.
BUT FRED, FRED HAS READ THE SAN ANTONIO PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE CODE OVER AND OVER AGAIN MANY TIMES.
UH, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE PRO PRODUCE A BRAND NEW SAN ANTONIO PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE CODE THAT HAS BRAND NEW NUMBERING SYSTEM.
AND YET FRED HAS MEMORIZED THE OLD CODE FROM SAN ANTONIO CODE, UH, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN HE SAYS, WAIT A MINUTE, I DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT ANYMORE BECAUSE IT'S GOT A NEW NUMBER.
UH, AND HE FAILS TO READ DOWN TO, TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH.
UH, THAT'S THE REASON WHY I WOULD WANT TO KEEP THE OLD NUMBERING SYSTEM IS BECAUSE I DO TEND TO REMEMBER SOME OF THOSE THINGS, AND FRED DOES CONTINUE TO REMEMBER SOME OF THOSE THINGS UNDER THE OLD NUMBERING SYSTEM.
SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY I WOULD AGREE TO NOT HAVE NEW NUMBERING SYSTEMS. I, UH, I JUST HAD A COMMENT WITH THAT, MIKE, PLEASE.
YEAH, I HAD A A COMMENT WITH THAT.
SO IT, IT SEEMS THOUGH THAT IT FAVORS THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN USING THE CODE PREVIOUSLY TO PEOPLE THAT MAY BE, UH, ARE USED TO MORE STANDARDIZED CODES FROM OTHER CITIES.
UM, I, YOU KNOW, WE ALL DEAL WITH, WITH REGULATIONS AND, AND INSTRUCTIONS AND WHATNOT, AND SOMETIMES THEY HAVE TO CHANGE.
I MEAN, THAT, THAT WAS MY EXPERIENCE IN THE AIR FORCE WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT SUCKS, BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT.
UM, SO THAT WAS, I, I AGREE WITH JOEL.
IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD WANT TO ALIGN IT WITH THE INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
NOW, I, I MEAN, I'M NOT GONNA MAKE A BUCK THE SYSTEM ON THIS ONE, BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE IT FAVORS THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DOING THE WORK IN SAN ANTONIO VERSUS, YOU KNOW, A POTENTIAL SOMEONE ELSE.
IT, IT WOULD FAVOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG, LONG TIME IN SAN ANTONIO.
UH, BUT YOU ALSO RUN INTO SITUATIONS BECAUSE DALLAS AND HOUSTON'S CODE IS NOWHERE CLOSE TO BEING COMPARABLE TO ANY OTHER CODE.
AND IN HOUSTON, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE THEY USED TO LIVE IN HARRIS, NOT LIVE IN HARRIS COUNTY, ADJACENT TO HARRIS COUNTY, UH, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CODE FROM HOUSTON AND NOW TALKING ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO, UH, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A NONEXISTING CODE FOR THE MOST PART.
UH, AND JUST RECENTLY, UH, HOUSTON HAS DEVELOPED ITS OWN CODE AND THEY INITIALLY STARTED NOT LOOKING AT IPMC CODE AS THEY WERE
[01:05:01]
DOING THE DEVELOPMENT.NOW, THEN THEY'RE BEGINNING TO MOVE TOWARD IT.
UH, BUT EVEN THE HOUSTON POLKS WOULD NOT HAVE ANY STRANGE, UH, ADAPTION TO SAN ANTONIO CODE.
AND, AND I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE PROBABLY THE, THE HIGHEST RATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE IPMC AND WE'RE KIND OF ON THE, THE TOP EDGE AS FAR AS METRO AREAS IN THE COUNTRY.
SO, UM, THAT'S REALLY WHERE I, I'M GONNA DEFER TO Y'ALL THAT, THAT ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO THE WORK.
SO, AND LIKE YOU, THE ARMY AND THE AIR FORCE ASSEMBLY, IN TERMS OF THEIR CODING, THEY TEND TO KEEP THOSE THINGS FOR A LONG, LONG TIME TOO.
AND THEY ARE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE WORLD.
AND MAY, MAY I ADD ONE MORE THING.
UH, REMEMBER IN SAN ANTONIO WE DO OUR OWN PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN EVERYTHING'S SET AND DONE, WE HAVE THE SA PMC.
WE DON'T FOLLOW THE INTERNATIONAL ONE.
SO IF YOU'RE GONNA COMPARE SAN ANTONIO WITH OTHER CITIES, TECHNICALLY YOU ARE USING DIFFERENT CODE.
SO THIS CODE WE ARE USING FOR A LONG TIME, AS LONG AS THE SAME INFORMATION.
IF THERE WAS NEW INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL, I AGREE WITH YOU, WE'RE GONNA NEED TO LOOK AT IT MORE CAREFULLY, AND IF WE NEED TO ADOPT IT, WE SHOULD.
BUT IF IT'S THE SAME INFORMATION, JUST DIFFERENT FORMAT OR DIFFERENT LOCATION IN THE CODE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REALLY CHANGE WHAT WE HAVE.
UH, CHAIR, I BELIEVE THERE IS PUBLIC COMMENT.
OH YEAH, WE WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A MOTION.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR, IS THERE, YES.
ANTONIO GOES FORWARD, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING NOW IS TRYING TO KEEP HOUSING AFFORD AFFORDABLE.
AND THE FURTHER WE DIVERGE FROM THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE MORE DIFFICULT, MORE BUREAUCRACY AS FAR AS HOME BUILDERS CONCERNED.
SO IT IS JUST, I DON'T NEED AN ANSWER, IT'S JUST THERE MAY BE SOME PUSHBACK THERE THAT WE'RE MAKING THIS MORE COMPLICATED THAN WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
I CAN'T ANSWER, UH, THE, THE, THIS IS PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
SO IT'S REALLY NOT NECESSARILY TO BUILD ANYTHING NEW.
SO WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, WE ARE BUILDING NEW STRUCTURES AND WE FOLLOW THE INTERNATIONAL ICC CODES, THE IRC OR THE IBC, SOME OF THESE SECTIONS ARE ACTUALLY SIMILAR OVER THERE.
AND THE DISCUSSION, NOT JUST FROM SAN ANTONIO, FROM OTHER CITIES AS WELL, IS TO REVERT BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS BECAUSE IT'S MORE CLEAR, CONCISE VERSUS TRYING TO, FROM ONE SECTION YOU MAKE FIVE, SIX SECTIONS AND IT SAYS THE SAME THING JUST IN DIFFERENT WAY.
SO, UM, I WORKED WITH ICC FOR A LONG TIME AND WITH THE CODES, NOT DIRECTLY WITH THEM, BUT I WENT TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND SOMETIMES THEY CHANGE SOMETHING, THREE YEARS LATER, THEY GO BACK AND REVERT BACK TO THE OLD CONDITION.
SO IF WE DON'T SEE A MAJOR CHANGE WITH THE LANGUAGE, WE TRY TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE POTENTIALLY THEY MIGHT REVERT BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS.
SO WE DON'T WANNA KEEP BOUNCING.
AND THE FINAL COMMENT, JUST, UH, FOR Y'ALL TO REMEMBER IS THAT INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, THE IPMC IS CREATED, UM, FOR A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES OR, UH, TOWNSHIPS OR COUNTIES THAT DO NOT HAVE A CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OR A LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
AND SO THEY HAVE TO BE MORE TECHNICAL AND MORE PRESCRIP, A PRESCRIPTIVE, WHEREAS SAN ANTONIO, WE HAVE A CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE A LEGAL DEPARTMENT, AND SO WE CAN ADOPT PROVISIONS AS MORE APPLICABLE TO OUR, UH, EXISTING STRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE.
IKA, DO WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HOLD TO NOT HEARING THE COMMENT WHILE THE MOTION'S ON THE FLOOR? OR CAN I, I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
WELL, I STILL WANNA KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION JUST FOR FUTURE KNOWLEDGE.
WHEN, UH, A MOTION'S ON THE TABLE, THEN AT THAT POINT, DISCUSSION IS PURELY FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE.
AND I, I DO WANT TO JUST ADD, UM, SAN ANTONIO IS UNIQUE.
WE HAVE VERY OLD HOUSING IN STOCK AND WE HAVE VERY NEW HOUSING IN STOCK.
AND YOU CANNOT COMPARE SAN ANTONIO TO HOUSTON WHERE WINDSTORM INSPECTIONS ARE DONE, WHERE HURRICANE PREPARATIONS ARE DONE, OR TO MIDDLE AMERICA WHERE THERE'S TORNADOES OR TO WEST TEXAS WITH THEIR DESERT LIKE CONDITIONS.
UM, SO IT WOULD REALLY BE UNFAIR TO TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING UNIFORM WHEN WE'RE NOT UNIFORM.
IF YOU EVEN GO FROM ONE SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO TO ANOTHER, LIKE THE WEST SIDE TO THE NORTH SIDE, IT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
[01:10:01]
I, I DON'T REALLY AGREE WITH ADOPTING A UNIFORM SYSTEM.IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SO THE MOTION IS TO NOT, UH, ACCEPT THE CHANGES AND TO KEEP IT WITH THE CURRENT, UH, 2021 S-A-P-M-C.
OKAY, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
UM, ITEM NUMBER NINE, ROW NINE.
UM, IF WE COULD, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT ITEM NINE AND ITEM 13 AT THE SAME TIME.
HOWEVER, WE DID RECEIVE, UM, AN EXTERNAL AMENDMENT SO CONTINGENT UPON WHAT THE COMMITTEE DECIDES, UM, YOU KNOW, WE MAY WANNA REVIEW THAT AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH I THINK IT'D BE PRACTICAL TO MAKE IT TO DO IT'S RIGHT.
SO, UM, SO THIS SECTION HERE, IT'S A NEW SECTION UNDER THE 2024 IPMC.
UH, IT'S UNDER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
UH, IT BASICALLY READS TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CODE.
THE CODE OFFICIALS AUTHORIZED TO REQUIRE THE OWNER OR OWNER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL OPINION AND REPORT.
UM, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED IN OTHER SECTIONS, THIS SECTION'S ALREADY COVERED IN THE EXISTING S-A-P-M-C, UNDER SECTION 1 0 5 0.3, WHICH IS REQUIRED TESTING.
UM, AND SO OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE NOT TO ACCEPT THE 2024 IPMC LANGUAGE, BASICALLY DENY THE, THE NEW SECTION.
HOWEVER, IF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DECIDES TO, UH, ACCEPT THIS SECTION, THERE IS AN EXTERNAL AMENDMENT PROPOSING THAT THE LANGUAGE CHANGE FROM REQUIRED TO REQUEST.
AND YOU'LL SEE, UM, WHAT'S THERE IN, IN THE SECTION, RIGHT? SO, UH, AGAIN, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE KIND OF MAYBE TACKLE THOSE TWO AT THE SAME TIME.
AGAIN, ULTIMATELY WE'RE SAYING WE DON'T WANNA ACCEPT IT, BUT IF WE DO, OR THE SUBCOMMITTEE RATHER DOES ACCEPT IT, UM, THEN THERE IS AN EXTERNAL AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE TO RECHANGE REQUIRED TO REQUEST, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT.
I, UH, I'M THE VICE CHAIR OF THE BUILDING CODE AND FIRE OR BUILDING RELATED FIRE CODES, UH, UH, PILLS ADVISORY BOARD.
I KNOW THIS IS A COMPLEX PROCESS.
I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING US A, A FEW MINUTES.
UM, I WILL SAY THAT WE SUGGESTED THIS CHANGE FROM REQUIRED TO REQUEST, UH, JUST TO GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO THE CODE OFFICIAL NOT, UH, FOR ANY OTHER REASON, BUT NOT TO ADOPT THIS SECTION.
WE ALSO, UH, KIND OF, UH, SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.
COULD WE NOT JUST KEEP SIMILAR LANGUAGE AND JUST SAY, UM, REQUEST TECHNICAL OPINION SO THAT WAY IT'S CONSISTENT LANGUAGE FROM PREVIOUS, FROM LIKE THE ABOVE OR SO THAT WAY IT KIND OF MIMICS A LITTLE BIT THE, UM, NATIONAL STANDARD.
UM, I'M SORRY, YOUR, YOUR QUESTION IS TO, INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING, UM, ON 1 0 5 0.3 REQUIRED TESTING, COULD IT SAY THEN REQUEST TECHNICAL OPINION, OR IS OPINION IN THE TEST DIFFERENT? LIKE IF YOU HAVE AN OPINION, DOES IT IMPLY THAT THERE WOULD BE TESTING? I AM SORRY.
WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA PULL UP SECTION 1 0 5 0.3, SO WE'LL ALL GET THE SAME THING HERE.
UH, REQUIRED TESTING, ISN'T THAT, OH, OKAY.
WELL MAYBE, ARE WE NOT THERE YET? NO, NO, WE'RE NOT.
YEAH, BUT WE, WE ARE NOT THERE YET, BUT I'M, I'M, I THINK I'M FOLLOWING YOU A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THEY ARE KIND OF CONNECTED.
UM, SO JUST FOR INCLUSION, LIKE INCLUSIVITY OF, UM, LANGUAGE, IT'S JUST IF WE SHOULD MIMIC THIS CONSISTENT LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT, WE FIRST HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ON WHETHER WE WANT TO ADOPT THIS SECTION.
AND THEN THE SECONDARY QUESTION WOULD BE TO, UH, CHANGE THE LANGUAGE.
SO POTENTIALLY IF YEAH, WHEN WE GET TO THAT SECTION, IF YOU WANNA MODIFY IT, WE CAN AT THAT POINT.
I'LL MOTION THAT WE REJECT THE IPMC RECOMMENDATION FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE EDITION INTO THE SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
MRS. THOMAS FRANKS, I SECOND THE REJECTION.
[01:15:02]
ANY DISCUSSION? I'LL, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.AND, UH, MADAM CHAIR, I JUST WANNA CONFIRM, SO IS THIS FOR ROW NINE AND 13? BECAUSE IF IT'S REJECTED AS THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS, IF IT'S REJECTED AND YOU'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT, THEN TECHNICALLY I'M MAYBE PRE PHRASING WHAT THEY SAID, BUT THEY'RE WITHDRAWING THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
SO THE, THE WHAT WE JUST VOTED ON WAS FOR ROW NINE, UM, BUT SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY VOTED ON ROW NINE, ROW 13 IS NO LONGER RELEVANCE.
AND THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION HAS AGREED TO WITHDRAW IT.
WITH THAT MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE ACTUALLY, UH, VOTE ON THE ISSUE OF ITEM 13.
AND WITH THAT, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE NOT ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL IN ITEM OR IN LINE 13.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
UH, IT'S A NEW SECTION AGAIN IN THE 2024 IPMC, UM, IN REFERENCE TO COSTS.
UH, YOU READ THE TECHNICAL OPINION AND THE REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHOUT CHARGE TO JURISDICTION.
UM, AGAIN, THIS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN OUR SECTION OF 1 0 5 0.3 REQUIRED TESTING.
UH, IT READS AGAIN AT THE SAME TIME AT NO EXPENSE OF THE JURISDICTION.
SO THE LANGUAGE IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE 2024 S-A-P-M-C.
UH, SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS NOT TO ACCEPT OR RATHER DENY, UH, THE, UH, NEW SECTION FROM THE IPMC AND KEEP THE, THE S-A-P-M-C AS, AS IS WITHOUT THE SECTION WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND, AND JUST BECAUSE WE'VE MADE THE RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE, I FEEL OBLIGATED TO SPEAK AGAIN, WE SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO NOT A ADOPT THE NEW LANGUAGE, THAT THE OLD LANGUAGE WAS SUFFICIENT AND, AND DID, DID WHAT IT NEEDED TO DO.
I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY, UH, THE I THE IPMC CHANGES FOR, UH, 1 0 4 0.2 0.11.
MIKE, THEY CAN'T HEAR YOU ON THE VIDEO.
I WAS JUST GIVING THEM A THUMB.
KIND OF SOLVED MY QUESTION ABOUT LANGUAGE.
MOTION OF THE FLOOR IS TO NOT ADOPT.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
THE NEXT ITEM WE'RE LOOKING AT IS GONNA BE ITEM NUMBER 11.
UM, IT'S AT THIS POINT WE ALSO WANNA LOOK AT ITEM NUMBER 14.
UM, SO THIS IS A NEW SECTION, UH, UNDER THE SAP IPMC RATHER, EXCUSE ME, UH, THAT'S BEEN ADDED.
UM, IT READS A TECHNICAL OPINION, AND THE REPORT SHALL BE PREPARED BY QUALIFIED ENGINEER SPECIALIST LABORATORY SPECIALTY ORGANIZATION ACCEPTED TO THE CODE OFFICIAL.
THE CODE OFFICIALS AUTHORIZED TO REQUIRE DESIGN SUBMITTALS TO BE PREPARED BY AND BEAR THE STAMP OF A REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.
UM, THERE WAS AN EXTERNAL AMENDMENT SUBMITTED AT THE SAME.
UH, ALONG, UH, THIS FOR THIS SECTION, IF, IF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DECIDES TO, UH, ACCEPT THIS SECTION, UH, THE EXTERNAL RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO, UH, REALLY SEPARATE, UM, AND, AND ADD A SECTION WHICH READS PERSONS LICENSE BY THE STATE OR THE PERSONS OR GROUPS.
UH, SO THEY WOULD BE MODIFYING THE, UM, IPMC AT THIS POINT.
HOWEVER, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO DENY THE, UH, RATHER NOT ACCEPT, UH, THE
[01:20:01]
IPMC, UM, PROPOSED LANGUAGE AND KEEP THE S-A-P-M-C WITHOUT THIS LANGUAGE.AGAIN, IT'S ALREADY SPELLED OUT IN THE EXISTING S-A-P-M-C THAT WE DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR THE CODE OFFICIAL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REQUEST THESE SPECIFIC REPORTS FROM THESE SPECIFIC, UH, DESIGN PROFESSIONALS.
DANNY, WHAT, WHERE IS IT WRITTEN AT? IN CURRENTLY AT WHAT CODE IS IT? YEAH, YOU GOTTA HEAD IT.
UH, IT, IT'S A REFERENCES AT 1 0 4 0.2.
AND THEN AGAIN, IT'S SOMEWHAT IN 1 0 5 0.3 AS WELL.
SO IF YOU READ 1 0 4 0.2, IT READS THE CODE, FISH SHALL MAKE ALL THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, SHALL ACCEPT REPORTS OF INSPECTIONS BY APPROVED AGENCIES AND OR INDIVIDUALS.
DID YOUR, YOU DID YOUR HOMEWORK.
SO, AS FAR AS APPROVED AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS, WHAT ARE THE, THIS SOUNDS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR IN THE WEEDS, BUT, UM, WHAT IS CONSIDERED APPROVED AGENCY OR INDIVIDUAL? IS THAT A, SOMEBODY WITH A PROFESSIONAL LICENSE? IS THAT STATE CERTIFICATION? HOW, WHAT IS THAT CONSIDERED? SO IT, IT, IT CAN BE A LITTLE OF EVERYTHING.
IF, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAVE A STRUCTURE AND WE NEED AN OPINION ABOUT IT, WE CAN GET STRUCTURE ENGINEER AS LONG AS THEY'RE LICENSED BY THE STATE, UH, THEY'RE TECHNICALLY APPROVED TO DO THAT WORK, THEN THAT'S ONE OF THE APPROVED AGENCIES OR INDIVIDUAL COULD BE A FIRM OR COULD BE INDIVIDUAL.
I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF EXAMPLES, BUT I'M JUST USING THIS AS ONE OF THE EXAMPLES.
BUT IF IT'S LIKE, UM, AN ENGINEERING, SO YOU LOOK FOR SOMEBODY THAT HAS A PE OR SOMETHING ELSE, JUST MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE TRULY QUALIFIED.
IT'S NOT JUST SAYING THIS IS SOMEBODY WHO IS AN EXPERT IN THEIR FIELD AND IT'S BEEN DOING IT FOR SO LONG THAT THEY'RE QUALIFIED.
WE DO LOOK AT THEIR QUALIFICATIONS IF WE, AND CREDENTIALS, IF WE SUSPECT SOMETHING, WE DO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND REFERENCES TO KNOW IF THEY DO QUALIFY TO MAKE THAT ASSESSMENT.
WHATEVER ASSESSMENT THEY'RE MAKING.
YEAH, I THINK WE CAN COMBO BE ON THE MOTION FOR 11 AND 14 OR JUST 11.
WE CAN, WE CAN COMBO 'EM, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO NOT ACCEPT THE IPCC RECOMMENDATION ON LINE 11, AND WE ALSO, UH, REJECT THE REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT LINE 14 TO THE, UH, PREPARE QUALIFICATIONS THAT IPMC REQUESTED, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
AND THAT WOULD BE THAT WE NOT ACCEPT THE, THE INFORMATION FROM IPMC, UH, ON ITEM NUMBER 14, AND THEREFORE THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE ISSUE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO IT.
UH, CAN YOU MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BEFORE SECOND? NOPE.
CAN WE HAVE A SECOND? FIRST, THIS IS ERLINDA.
OKAY, NOW YOU CAN MAKE YOUR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT NOW WITH FRIENDLY AMENDMENT
UH, IF WE DON'T ADOPT ITEM 14, THEN THE, THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD BE MOOT.
MADAM CHAIR, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY IF YOU ACCEPT THE MOTION FOR ITEM 11, THEN 14 IS MUTE, NOT BACKWARDS.
NOW, BECAUSE 11, THE MOTION 14 MODIFIES GO WELL.
14 MODIFIES 11 WE'RE REJECTING 11.
THE WE'RE REJECTING 11 AND THEN WE'RE ALSO REJECTING 14 JUST FOR, YOU KNOW, CLEANLINESS.
BUT I THINK DWAYNE SAID IF WE, AND THE HE SAID IT BACKWARDS.
YEAH, HE SAID IT BACK WHEN SHE SAID 14 WITH MOOT 11.
SO CAN WE HAVE YOU REPEAT THE MOTION PLEASE? DEFINITELY.
I, UH, ONCE AGAIN, MOTION THAT WE REJECT THE IPMC REQUESTED CHANGED, UH, TO PREPARE QUALIFICATIONS THAT'S ON LINE 11.
UM, AND THEN ALSO, UH, ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT NUMBER 14 IS, UH, IS, IS MOOT BECAUSE IT WOULD MODIFY SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ALREADY REJECTING ERLINDA.
[01:25:01]
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.ALRIGHT, SO MOVING ALONG TO THE NEXT SECTION.
WE'RE LOOKING AT ROW 12 AND WE'RE GONNA ALSO LOOK AT ROW 15.
UM, THIS IS AGAIN, IS A, UH, UPDATE FOR THE 2024 IPMC IS A NEW SECTION THAT'S BEEN INCLUDED READS CONTENT.
THE, UH, IPMC READS THE TECHNICAL OPINION AND REPORT SHALL ANALYZE THE PROPERTIES OF THE DESIGN OPERATION OR USE OF THE BUILDING OR PREMISES AND THE FACILITIES AND APPLICANTS SITUATED THERE ON TO IDENTIFY A PROPOSED NECESSARY RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, IT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION NOT TO ACCEPT THE 2024 IPMC LANGUAGE.
UH, HOWEVER, IF THE SUB DECIDE TO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS A, AN EXTERNAL AMENDMENT, THAT WE ADD SOME LANGUAGE AT THE TAIL END OF THIS RECOMMENDATION, OR RATHER THIS SECTION THAT READS IF ANY, OR REBUT THE DETERMINATION OF THE CODE OFFICIAL.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, ROLES 12 AND 15, UM, AT THE SAME TIME.
MARK ROSS, UH, WE CONCUR WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND SO IF YOU'RE GONNA REJECT IT, WE WOULD WITHDRAW OUR UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE GONNA LEAVE IT IN, WE SUGGEST YOU KEEP THE LANGUAGE.
ANY QUESTIONS? READY TO HEAR A MOTION? MADAM CHAIR, DUANE NELSON.
I MOVE THAT WE NOT ACCEPT THE, UH, LANGUAGE IN ITEM LINE.
ITEM NUMBER 12 AND LINE ITEM NUMBER 15 FROM THE IPMC OR THE PROPOSED CHANGE EXTERNALLY.
CAN WE SECOND, SECOND, MS. CLAY, ANY DISCUSSION? UH, I HAVE A QUESTION.
PUBLIC COMMENT, WAS THAT FOR BOTH OF THEM OR WAS THAT JUST FOR 12 ON THE PUBLIC'S COMMENT? I BELIEVE IT WAS FOR BOTH.
I THINK YOU COMMENT ON THE 12 AND THE 15.
YEAH, BECAUSE I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT THAT THEY GOT TO SAY SO ON BOTH OF THEM, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU GUYS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
THE NEXT SECTION WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT, OR RATHER ROW IS ROW 16 AND 18.
UH, AGAIN, TOGETHER, UM, THIS IS GONNA BE, UH, A REVISION OR THAT'S PROPOSED REVISION RATHER TO THE, UH, EXISTING, UM, S-A-P-M-C.
UM, CURRENTLY THE WAY OUR S-S-A-P-M-C IS WRITTEN UNDER 1 0 4 0.3 RIGHT OF ENTRY, UH, THE LANGUAGE SIMPLY READS THE CODE OFFICIALS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER THE STRUCTURE OR PREMISES AT REASONABLE TIMES TO INSPECT SUBJECT TO LEGAL RESTRICTIONS.
UM, HOWEVER, IN THE GIMME ONE SECOND HERE, IN THE, UM, THE IPMC, OF COURSE THERE'S, THERE'S MORE LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN STRUCK OUT, WHICH AGAIN, DOESN'T ERASE, DOESN'T EXIST IN OUR S-A-P-M-C AS IS.
SO THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU SEE THAT STRUCK OUT IN RED IS NOT PART OF THE, UM, EXISTING S-A-P-M-C.
SO AGAIN, IT WOULD BE STAFF RECOMMENDATION NOT TO ACCEPT THE, UM, THE PROPOSED CHANGES UNDER THE IPMC, AGAIN, BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IS NOT ALREADY INCLUDED, AND TO KEEP THE S-A-P-M-C AS WRITTEN.
UM, AND THERE'S A SECTION, HOWEVER THE SUBCOMMITTEE DOES DECIDE TO ACCEPT THIS LANGUAGE.
UH, THERE IS AN EXTERNAL RECOMMENDATION OR EXTERNAL AMENDMENT THAT WE MODIFY OR RATHER REVERT BACK TO
SO IT'S KIND OF SAYING ONE OF THE SAME, RIGHT? WE'RE SAYING DON'T ACCEPT IT, KEEP AS IS.
THE EXTERNAL RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE IF YOU DO DECIDE REVERT BACK TO THE S-A-P-M-C.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT 16 AND 18 TOGETHER.
SO CAN I ASK A QUE MARK ROSS, I HAVE A QUESTION.
SO THE LANGUAGE IN BLACK, IF THE COMMITTEE MOVES TO KEEP THE LANGUAGE THE SAME, IT WOULD BE THE LETTER, THE LANGUAGE IN BLACK AND WE CONCUR WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS THE SAME AS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
SO WE, WE SUGGESTED KEEPING THE CURRENT LANGUAGE AND NOT ADDING WHAT, WHAT GOT STRUCK OUT.
I DID HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS ONE FOR, UM, SAVITA.
[01:30:01]
SO BY MAKING IT SO SPECIFIC, JUST ONE LINE, UH, DOES THAT POTENTIALLY OPEN UP THE CITY FOR, UM, ANY KIND OF LEGAL CONCERNS LIKE GETTING SUED BECAUSE YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, UH, YOU KNOW, IN A NON REASONABLE, UH, TIME ACCORDING TO THE, TO THE HOMEOWNER OR, UH, RESIDENT? UH, NO, NOT UNDER, UH, THE SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.AND WE REVIEWED THE LANGUAGE, UH, LAST TIME AND IT WAS MY RECOMMENDATION TO LEAVE IT SIMPLER AND SUBJECT TO LEGAL RESTRICTIONS, COVERS, UH, ANY ARGUMENTS REGARDING REASONABLE MADAM CHAIR? I THINK MY QUESTION IS IN THE SAME VEIN ABOUT, UH, REASONABLE TIMES.
WHAT IS CONSIDERED REASONABLE? UH, REASONABLE HAS BEEN DEFINED, UM, GENERALLY OR LEGALLY AS BUSINESS HOURS.
AND SO, UH, IF BUSINESS HOURS, UH, FOR A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT, SEVEN 30 TO FIVE 30, THEN THOSE WOULD BE THE BUSINESS HOURS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED REASONABLE.
UH, GOING AT MIDNIGHT TO A BUSINESS AS CLEARLY IS NOT OPEN, NOT REASONABLE, UH, TO INSPECT PEOPLE'S HOMES.
WE GO BASED ON COMMERCIAL HOURS AS WELL, BUSINESS HOURS THAT THE CODE OFFICERS ARE WORKING OR ON THE WEEKEND.
SO THE CODE OFFICERS ARE NOT GONNA GO TO A PROPERTY TO CHECK FOR VIOLATIONS, SAY AFTER 7:00 PM OR 8:00 PM ABSENT EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS A STRUCTURE THAT MAY, UH, HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF FALLING DOWN.
THAT WAS THE, THAT LAST POINT WAS THE CLARIFICATION I WAS LOOKING FOR.
UH, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE RED COLORED STRICKEN LANGUAGE, WHICH IS IN THE 2024 IPMC, IT DOES ACTUALLY SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THING AND IT SAYS BASICALLY, UH, YOU CAN ENTER THE PREMISES AT ALL REASONABLE TIMES.
SO IT'S, IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE, THEY JUST EXPANDED THAT, BUT IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
READY FOR A MOTION? MOTION TO REJECT THE, UH, IPMC RECOMMENDED UPDATES TO RIGHT OF ENTRY AND ALSO ANY, UH, AND, AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT WOULD CHANGE, UH, ON LINE 18.
SO, UH, REJECT 16 AND ALSO MAKE 18 MOOT SECOND.
OKAY, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
UM, THE NEXT SECTION HERE IS FROM THE 2024 IPMC.
IT IS A NEW SECTION THAT THEY'VE ADDED UNDER RIGHT OF ENTRY.
UH, THE SECTION IS WARRANTS WHERE THE COURT OFFICIAL HAS FIRST OBTAINED A PROPER INSPECTION WARRANT OR OTHER REMEDY PROVIDED BY LAW TO SECURE ENTRY AND OWNER.
THE OWNER'S AGENT, AUTHORIZED AGENT OCCUPANT OR PERSON HAVING CHARGED CARE OR CONTROL OF THE STRUCTURE OR PREMISES SHALL NOT FAIL OR NEGLECT AFTER PROPER.
A REQUEST IS MADE TO AS HEREIN PROVIDED TO PERMIT ENTRY THEREIN BY THE CODE OFFICIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION PURSUANT TO THIS CODE.
UM, AS, AS WE SPOKE TO EARLIER, I, I THINK THIS SECTION IS IN KIND OF ALREADY COVERED UNDER THE RIGHT OF ENTRY WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT SUBJECT TO LEGAL RESTRICTIONS.
UH, IT'S STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DO NOT ACCEPT THIS NEW SECTION IN THE S-A-P-M-C, AND SO WE WOULD STRIKE THIS OUT OR RATHER NOT INCLUDED, UM, IN THE CURRENT OR RATHER 2024 S-A-P-M-C.
OKAY, THERE'S NO, NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS READY FOR A MOTION? MS. THOMAS FRANKS I MOTION TO DENY, UH, ITEM NUMBER 17 FROM THE IP IPMC AND KEEP OUR SAME WARNING THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
ANY DECLINE OR ANY NOTES? MOTION CARRIES.
WE HAVE ABOUT EIGHT MINUTES LEFT.
[01:35:01]
CAN COVER ONE MORE ITEM AND THEN MAYBE STOP, OR THIS IS A GOOD STOPPING POINT, I'LL DEFER TO YOU.I THINK WE CAN COVER ONE MORE ITEM.
OKAY, SO THE LAST ITEM, UH, FOR THIS SECTION, OR RATHER TODAY WOULD BE ROW 19.
UH, AGAIN, THIS IS GONNA BE A, UM, A REVISION TO THE EXISTING IPMC.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR SECTION OF THE CURRENT EXISTING S-A-P-M-C, IT'S ALMOST VERBATIM, IF YOU WILL, THEY'RE ADDING SOME LANGUAGE AT THE TAIL END OF IT THAT READS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1 0 7.
UM, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE ACCEPT THIS, UH, PROPOSED WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS.
UH, GOING BACK TO YOUR EARLIER CONVERSATION, OUR SECTIONS, OUR NUMBERING LINES UP A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.
SO WE'RE SAYING LET'S ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOWEVER IT'LL BE SECTION 1 0 6.
MS. THOMAS FRANKS, I, UH, MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER 19 WITH THE ADDED LANGUAGE AND CHANGE TO MATCH THE S-A-P-M-C-I.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND USE THIS AS A STOPPING POINTS.
UM, IT IS 10:53 AM AND BY UNANIMOUS CONSENTS ADMINISTRATOR, OH, DO WE NEED AN ADMINISTRATOR? YEP.
IS THERE ANYTHING ADMINISTRATIVE? UH, YEAH, I WANNA GO BACK TO ITEM FIVE.
WHERE YOU HAD, IT WAS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND ON THIS OTHER SHEET IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN IS WHERE YOU HAVE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND YOU HAVE THAT WHOLE PIECE FILLED OUT ON THE ITEM ON THE SECOND PAGE.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO ASK IS HOW COME IT'S NOT DONE LIKE THAT? I AM SORRY, MR. ANDES, CAN YOU JUST REPEAT THAT SECTION? UH, THE QUESTION WHEN I WAS ASKING EARLIER ABOUT ITEM FIVE AND IT WAS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THAT'S THE ONE THAT LEGAL WANTS TO LOOK AT.
AND ON THIS OTHER SIDE OVER HERE WHERE IT SAYS OPPOSED AMENDMENT ON THE SECOND PAGE, IT'S FILLED OUT WITH AN OPPOSED AMENDMENT.
HOW COME IT WASN'T DONE? THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING.
HOW COME IT'S NOT DONE AS THE OPPOSED AMENDMENT? OH, I, I SEE, I GOT YOU.
SO THAT ROW PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS WHERE WE'RE KEEPING OR TRACKING THE EXTERNAL AMENDMENTS.
THIS SECTION OR THIS, UM, SECTION OF LEGAL DEFENSE CAME FROM THE IPMC.
IT WAS NOT AN EXTERNAL AMENDMENT.
SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE UNDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE ONLY THOSE THAT COME FROM, UH, FROM OUTSIDE, IF YOU WILL, FOR THE PUBLIC OR THAT ARE EXTERNAL AMENDMENTS.
ALL RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT WAS, BECAUSE IT SAYS PROPOSED AMENDMENT, I'M THINKING, WELL, WHY WASN'T IT IN THE COLUMN? AND THAT EXPLAINS WHY.
SO I WAS CONFUSED ON THE PART THAT IF IT'S NOT AN OPPOSED AMENDMENT AND I'M LOOKING, I SEE ALL THIS, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS IS SO GOTCHA.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
OKAY, SO IT IS 10:55 AM AND BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT, WE ADJOURN AND EVERYBODY GO VOTE EARLY.