Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Codes Boards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and tradespeople urge council to delay plan to combine trades boards, cite code and exam concerns
Summary
Public commenters opposed item 28 — a proposal to combine local trade boards — and asked the council to pull the ordinance for a work session, arguing that plumbing exams and code choices (UPC vs. IPC/International) affect public safety.
Public commenters and licensed tradespeople urged the St. Joseph City Council to delay consideration of a proposed ordinance that would combine several trade boards into a single trades board of appeals.
At the public microphone, Mike Beal of 13 Summerhill Drive, St. Joseph told the council he was speaking against item 28 and asked the council to pull the item and hold a work session so trades, examiners and staff could address technical questions. “I wanted to come and speak against number 28 there, combining the boards… I’d like to ask to pull it and maybe we can have a work session on it,” he said, raising concerns about which trade would administer credentialing exams and whether members from one trade would be asked to grade another trade’s practical exam.
Master plumber Josh McQueen, who identified himself as having worked in St. Joseph for more than 20 years and as a former plumbing board member, echoed those concerns and emphasized public safety tied to the plumbing exam and code choice. “We use the UPC code… we do give a practical exam in the plumbing board, and it’s a very good exam,” McQueen said. He warned the International Plumbing Code (IPC) could be less protective in some plumbing-safety areas.
Background and context: The ordinance on first reading would amend chapter 2 to add a combined trades board of appeals, consolidating four trade boards to increase consistency in appeals processes. The clerk read the first-reading language; council did not vote to adopt at this meeting. Several first-reading items, including this one, were only introduced for later consideration.
Outcome and next steps: Speakers asked the council for a work session to examine technical questions. Council did not take final action on item 28 at this meeting; item 28 remains in first-reading status.
