06/01/1970 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e ., 188 I e I -I e I e '[ Council Chambers Eugene, Oregon June 1, 1970 I . ,. .1 Oregon was called to ,order ,by .President, 1970, in the CouncilChamber, with the Purdy, Mohr and Williams. Mayor Adjour:ned meeting of .the Common Council of the city of Eugene, McDonald ~ in the absence. of the Mayor, at 7: 30 p.m. cDn June 1, following ,Councilmen present: Mrs. Hayward; Messrs. McDonald, Anderson, Mr. .Gr:ibskov and Mrs. Beal were absent. Electrical Code, Proposed Revision - T?e city of Eugene is operating under the 1965 National Elec- trical Code with State and City amendments. This code is the standard of the National Fire Protec- tion Association for electric wiring and apparat~s and is approved by the U. S. Standards Institute published by the National Fire Protection Association. Differing, updating proposals have been sub- mitted by the Eugene Electrical Board and'its Code Committee and by the Eugene City Staff. Their difference is in philosophy regarding the purpose of the Code. The Electrical Board believes the National Electrical Code does not meet the safety neeqs of our City, that capacity for.expanded use should be built into each installation, and t~at local amendments are proper. Thestaff.be- lieves that the National Electrical Code provides adequate safety protection, that it is improper to require additional expansion capaci~y,and ~ha~ public interes~ ia served by avoiding ,local amendments.' In preparing its proposal, the Electrical Board studied electrical codes of a number of cities and states. Four goals were uppermQ~tin ~onsideration, .these being si~plicity; consume~ protection, safety and cost. The staff proposal, supported by the Director of PW, Building Superintendent, City Fire Marshall and City Manager recommends the NEC 1968 edition be adopted without substantive local amendments. Amendments suggested are concerned wi~h fees, relationship of Electrical Board to staff, Board tenure and effective date. Both proposals are subject to state laws and administrative regulations, about.which the City has no ,choice. II 'I I , In a series of meetings between the Electrical Board Code Committee and staff, the bas'ic disagree- ments .,couLd Qot be resolved.. The ,City Council appointed a subcommittee with Mr. .Teague as ehairman which held meetings with.staff and the Electrical Board Committee. The Subcommittee,could not come to a decision-regarding the two proposals, and requested a public hearing before the Council. An additional problem has arisen concerning examining journeymen and supervisors for Eugene licenses. As the _result .of a .City Attorney ruling, the city must issue licenses to those applying who hold a State license. 'The elec~rical bOard feels this is not a qesirable Practice. II I I I , , Mr. James Mitchem, member of the Electrical Board, said the City has .had an electrical code since 1931, and that it is nece&sary to do so to maintain a margin of safety. He.said the amendments proposed would not unreasonably increase cost of construction for low-cost hou~ing. Mr. Mitchem said that the Board, appointed by the Mayo~.was advisory to the Council, and that one of its functions,was to update the code. He said the NEC was not instituted as a design manual, but as a basis for cities to build codes to fit their needs. He said continued use of electricity might require higher standards than those required in the past. Mr; Carroll "Colvin gave a commentary on a ~t1qJ. shown qy th~ ELectrical Board to demonstrat.e the dif- ferences . between non';metalHc sneathed cable arid a conduit system. The movie demonstrated the fi,re hazard po.ssi.ble from non-metallic sheathed cable. I I II II Ii I I I I \i I I I I I II II I, 1\ J j I I I ! , Ii I' 11 Mr. Tom Crosby of the Building Trades Council said they were in support of "a good, adequate code "in Eugene. Mr. Bill Young, City Inspector, said he had mixed feelings about "the two proposals. He said the National Co.de was a bare minimum under ordinary circumstances. II I I Mr. Dave Campbell, local chairman "of the National Electrical CContractors, said that contractors in his association are very much b,e~ind the code now in effect" ancj. fel,t. this code grew with .the city. .. . ., . , Mr. Emerson Hamilton, Chairman of the Cascade Division of National Electrical :~eontractors, said he was convinced the,Building Depar~ment was sincere in its efforts to up-date the code, but he said that the cOntractors~ alsos were sincere.in their efforts, and that they,were not satisfied with a reasonable level of safety, but wanted a positive level of safety. He suggested some aesthetic features could be left out of low:cost housing, in favor.of safer wiring. Mr. Dave Hoffman, of McPheeters Electric, said that he could see that uniformity in codes would be desirable, but, he expbained ~ha~ each city had cj.ifferent ,uses of electricity, and the averages in one. city are n'ot ,the same as those :Cn another. . . II 1\ I I I I - ' The City Manager said bQth the committee and the city staff ~fe1t,that the 1968 edition of the NEC should be used, and tnat there was disagreement whether or not to amend beyond the State require- ments, which cities must ~ollow. The staff has proposecj. an increase in the fee schedule from 10% to 15% per unit with the bas.e charge remaining t.he same. . "This would establish a double permit fee for work done prior to obtaining a permit. ' The Staff has also proposed that the Electricai Inspec- tor be created as an ex-officio member and as secretary of the Electrical Board. 6/1/70 - 1 i! I II II II ....