No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Electrical Advisory Board - 03/21/1994 - Special v City of Corpus _ _ = Chnsti MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING W1_ OF THE ELECTRICAL ADVISORY BOARD MARCH 21, 1994 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Lippincott, Chairman W. B. Truax, Vice-Chairman Eloy Salazar Phillip Benavides Jeanne McMahon Michael Dodson Salvatore Vetrano BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Ashok Nadkarni Curtis Proske STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: John Hudson, Chief Electrical Inspector Romeo Bazan, Chief Permit Officer Olga Carrion, Clerk Typist II Chairman, Mr. Lippincott, called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. , in the Committee room on the first floor of City Hall. The first item of business was the approval and correction of the minutes of February 17, 1994. No action was taken. The next item of business as the review of applicants for the scheduled Electrical Examinations. Mr. Hudson, Chief Electrical Inspector briefly reviewed the list of applicants for examinations. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. £94-1. The appellant was Arthur C. Parker, representing Little Rock Electrical Contractors, requesting (a) the Boards concurrence on an alternate method of construction in accordance with City Electrical Code Section 102.7. The request was to recognize a locally manufactured wireway in lieu of a nationally code labeled product; (b) requesting the board to grant a favorable interpretation of Permit Fee Schedule, Section C201.5.11 regarding refund of fees. Mr. Arthur C. Parker, of Little Rock Electrical Contractors stated that they had already been before the board and had requested concurrence for an alternate method of construction for a 40 foot wireway adding that the 10 foot wireway was on the job site at the time that they had requested concurrence. He explained that he thought that the board had granted a concurrence, not being aware that an individual request for each wireway was necessary. SCANNED P.O. Box 9277 • Corpus Christi, Texas 78469-9277 • (512) 880-3000 ►Mr S ri City of Electrical Advisory Board Corpus March 21, 1994 Christi Page 2 Mr. Hudson clarified that during the first appeal only the 40 foot wireway was addressed and because both wireways had been manufactured the inspector assumed that if the board had approved the 40 foot wireway they had also approved the 10 foot wireway. Chairman Lippincott stated that he believed the reason for the board's approval of the 40 foot wireway was because there was not one manufactured. Mr. Hudson responded that there were several reasons in particular the size and the length of the wireway. Mr. Parker stated that he had the same information the board had required for the 40 foot wireway for the 10 foot wireway. Ms. McMahon inquired whether the inspector had seen the second wireway and whether he had issued a red tag. Mr. Hudson stated that the inspector had seen the wireway and had taken for granted that it was approved since it was manufactured by the same manufacturer. Mr. Lippincott clarified that it was his understanding that because of the size of the wireway one could not be bought from a manufacture that had a UL listing. Mr. Parker stated that the 10 foot. wireway was of the same construction only shorter, that the size was not available and he could not find one without it being manufactured. Mr. Calvin Self, with Industrial Electric stated that it would be a lot cheaper for them to go to a sheet metal shop and have a box made. He added that the closest place to buy a box made in any shape or form with a U.L. listed approved was San Antonio. Mr. Parker stated they had called a local company and the only thing they had available was 12x12 and they were needing a 20x20. A discussion on the availability and cost of U.L. labeled and tested wireway was held. It was concluded that obtaining an approved wireway was possible, but was a lengthy, custom and expensive process. After a discussion a motion was made by Ms. McMahon, seconded by Mr. Sal Vetrano to grant a concurrence to the request for a alternate method of construction in accordance with City Electrical Code Section 102.7 to recognize a locally manufactured wireway in lieu of a nationally code labeled product for this one project for an additional 10 foot section contingent upon the submitted of an engineer sealed drawings. ri City of Electrical Advisory Board Corpus March 21, 1994 Christi Page 3 The motion passed with Board members Sal Vetrano, Jeanne McMahon, W.B. Truax, Phillip Benavides, Michael Dodson, and Michael Lippincott voting for. Board member Eloy Salazar voted against. Mr. Hudson stated that he had contacted Sally Parris, assistant City Attorney for guidance, but she was not available. He added that she had drafted a memo to Lorenzo Gonzalez pertaining to the interpretation of Electrical Code Section C201.5.11 Permit Pee Schedule, Refunds, which was not final. Mr. Parker stated that they had hired an electrician to work for them unaware that he could obtain a permit, since Little Rock Electrical Contractors didn't have a contract with the individual so they stopped the permit and a 75% refund was issued. When the second permit was obtained they had a contract with the individual, but he defaulted his contract and the permit was then cancelled with a 75% refund issued. A third permit was then issued under W.D. Goodwin an employee of Little Rock Electrical Contractors which remains in force. He added that they had received two refunds in the amount of $2815. The cost of each permit was $3753. Mr. Parker expressed the opinion that since he had not obtained the permits himself he was entitled to a full refund. Mr. Bazan Chief Permit Officer, stated that Mr. Graves the Master of Record had obtained the first permit and had requested a refund . He added that he accepted Mr. Graves request because he had stated that he was unable to perform his duties as master electrician of record. The permit had been issued for Wal-Mart to Little Rock Electric on an application signed by Mr.Parker. He added that the refund was made to Little Rock Electric based on an invalid application. Mr. Bazan referred to a drafted memo by Sally Parris, Assistant Legal Attorney regarding an internal dispute between the contractors. Mr. Parker asked if it was fair to everyone he would accept a refund of 100% on the first permit and the City could keep the other. Mr. Dodson stated that under contract law the contract between Mr. Graves and Little Rock was breached and that Ms. Parris's interpretation of an internal dispute between contractors is private. He added that the City should not get into deciding internal disputes. Mr. Parker agreed he had made a mistake but stated that the City had also made a mistake by issuing a permit to him and that he was entitled to a full refund. Mr. Hudson stated that he felt the board could not rule either way until an official letter from the legal department was received. After a discussion a motion was made by Mike Dodson, seconded by Sal Vetrano to table action until the next meeting, and receive from the legal department a final interpretation. The motion passed unanimously. V City of Electrical Advisory Board Corpus March 21, 1994 Christi Page 4 Worm Mr. Lippincott stated that a board committee had reviewed Ms. Parris draft of Code Amendments and was recommending some minor changes. Ms. McMahon made a motion seconded by Eloy Salazar that they place for consideration the proposed amendments to the administrative section of the Electrical Code on next months agenda for further review and action. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. INSPECTION DIVISION 2 LO ENZO GONZALE P.E. BUILDING OFFICIAL LG:oc