City of Lawrence

Building Code Board of Appeals Meeting

April 9, 2015 Minutes

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Dan Wethington, Sean Reardon, Dennis Odgers, Kevin Markley
MEMBERS ABSENT:	Micah Kimball
STAFF PRESENT:	Development Services Lee Queen-Building Inspector, Janet Smalter- Plans Examiner, Adrian Jones-Senior Plans Examiner
PUBLIC PRESENT:	Bobbie Flory, Kelly Drake, Tim Stultz

Meeting called to order 11:04 a.m.

The Board reviewed minutes from the April 9, 2015 meeting. Corrections were made to the spelling of Board Member names. Kevin Markley moved to approve minutes as amended, seconded by Sean Reardon. Motion passed 4-0.

Board members received correspondence from the Lawrence Home Builders Association. Kelly Drake explained the attached chart and that the point of the letter was to lay out neighboring communities that have currently adopted the energy code. Bobbie Flory stated the municipalities on the chart are not currently considering IECC 2015 code adoption. HERS is required in Gardner, Leawood and Shawnee, KS with a maximum allowed score of 85.

Drake commented that these jurisdictions have all gutted the IECC prescribed insulation requirements. In general, the municipalities require R-13 wall insulation, and they do not require slab edge and basement wall insulation. Many cities do not require energy efficient lighting. Drake stated that Lawrence operates on a different level than the rest. The municipalities that follow the HERS and air exchange levels use a HERS rating of 85 and <5 ACH for building tightness. Markley asked, if testing is not required, how would we know what to compare to determine a house insulation value? Markley asked for an explanation of the inspection process. Drake responded, using an example of a home he recently built. Drake explained a slab-on-grade home can be difficult to construct to meet the current HERS rating (effective July 1, 2015 the HERS rating shall be 70), and it may cost $5,000-$6,000 to achieve a rating of 63. The IECC 2015 code requires a HERS rating of 54 or less. Drake believes this will increase cost $3,500- $4,000 and will only save the consumer approximately $13 per month in utility costs. He questioned the economic sense of this code requirement. Reardon replied that he is familiar with the commercial energy codes. He explained that although there are things he does not like about the energy code, he is required to follow the code. He stated the ROI (return of investment) is not the intent of the energy code; the goal is to cut energy use. He feels that the requirement of updating codes is a burden for all occupations involved, but that it is what needs to be done. He agrees that 50% of the energy used in a house is caused by the occupants and not a result of the construction methods.

Public comment continued with discussion of concerns that the code requirements for HERS may increase housing costs significantly, causing the housing market in Lawrence to drop. Flory remarked that we are a region leader in building energy efficient homes, and that it is not reasonable to reduce the HERS rating to 54 in a noncompetitive market. Adding costs makes a difference to entry level home affordability.

Adrian Jones pointed out that other municipalities are hesitant to adopt the IECC codes due to the learning curve of training the contractors, experts that are required, purchase and use of required software, plan review and inspections. It takes the initiative and backing of the governing body to change. Both the City of Lawrence and the LHBA decided to move forward with the 2012 energy code adoption and HERS rating. The IECC is provided to create a more efficient home and to reduce the use of oversized equipment. The Board remarked they are looking at what is in the best interest for Lawrence when reviewing the adoption of the 2015 IECC.

Dan Wethington questioned if we are losing our housing market to other areas like Olathe and Lenexa due to energy requirement costs. Drake responded yes, when a consumer is given a price for a moderate slab-on-grade home, they feel they can get a bigger home with a basement in other areas for a comparable price. Wethington stated that the housing market was higher in Lawrence than Olathe when he moved here in 1989, and the higher cost was not a reflection of the energy code adopted in 2012. He stated energy is not the only reason for increased costs. There was public comment that land development and holding costs are part of the rising expense.

Markley asked how many consumers are interested in energy efficient homes. Drake responded they all want it, but do not want to pay the costs. Flory stated the LHBA has tried to educate the realtors to use the HERS score as a type of MPG calculator for the consumer. Builders like it as well, and see it as a competitive edge to exceed the minimum standard. Staff stated the 90%-95% of builders prefer to use the HERS rating for new single family residences. The prescriptive method is easier for construction of smaller residences.

Wethington requested input from the Mechanical Review Board before making a decision on the IECC codes and HERS rating. A meeting with members of the Mechanical Review Board will be requested. The Board acknowledged that the mechanical equipment is not the only factor of HERS rating.

There was further discussion about the HERS value of 70. The Board stated that in order to keep pace with a constantly changing building industry, the Board should evaluate a lower value. Markley asked, if the current rating works, is a change necessary? Flory stated the LHBA requests the threshold to remain at 70.

Tim Stultz provided examples of energy savings utility bills for a commercial apartment complex with an estimated 74 HERS rating. Stultz stated cost incurred for a 54 HERS rating will increase the rent more than any potential savings.

The Board thanked the public for their comments. Flory asked if the Board needed any additional information. Reardon suggested a list providing the top five reasons it is difficult to meet the prescriptive requirements.

Additional review of the 2015 IRC continued. Lee Queen reviewed some items noted in the Significant Changes to the IRC 2015 handbook. Section N1101.14 PERMANENT ENERGY CERTIFICATE. The requirement is for a permit certificate to be displayed in the vicinity of the mechanical system. Queen suggested that this be amended to a standard location, the door of the electrical panel. Staff will request the Plumbing Board to review N1103.5 HEATED WATER CIRCULATION AND TEMPERATURE MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS for comment. Discussion on energy efficiency lighting covered the request to review specific lighting fixtures (ceiling fans, candelabras) with multiple bulbs as one bulb count. Board requests a clarification of the 50% -75% amendment and consideration of changing the percentage. Reardon requested a review of the location of the outlet requirement in the garage for the door opener. He stated that a garage door opener option is wall-mounted verses ceiling-mounted. Staff will request the Electrical Board to review and propose an amendment.

Staff will review the existing code amendments for the Board to review and approve.

Final item for discussion - the attendance of Board members. Micah Kimball has been absent from three meetings in a row, and Wethington feels strongly that his dismissal from the Board be considered. Staff will discuss the motion with the Building Official and City Manager’s office and report back to the Board. Wethington requests a recommendation for the replacement, and would prefer an MEP engineer to be selected.

The agenda for the next meeting will include: public comment; Staff review of IRC proposed changes and topics for discussion; review of Mechanical and Electrical Board comments; and proceeding with IBC review.

The next meeting is scheduled for May 14, 2015 11:00a.m.

Sean Reardon motioned to adjourn, Seconded by Kevin Markley. Motion passed 4-0. Meeting adjourned 12:20 p.m.