By Ray Stern
By Ray Stern
By New Times
By Amy Silverman
By Stephen Lemons
By Stephen Lemons
By Monica Alonzo
By Chris Parker
Phoenix has long been considered a developer's paradise. But a proposal making its way quickly through City Hall would make life hell, say homebuilders, architects and other members of the development community.
As early as next month, Phoenix could become the first major city in the country to adopt a new set of building codes that critics call untested and costly.
Currently, Phoenix – like many communities throughout the United States and in Arizona – uses the International Building Code, a set of guidelines covering plumbing, electricity and other elements in the building process. The IBC has been around in varying forms for decades.
Last year, the National Fire Protection Association – which, for decades, has written fire safety codes used in Phoenix and around the country – came up with its own building code, the NFPA 5000. Phoenix City Councilman Dave Siebert (his day job is with the local plumbers union) and the Phoenix firefighters union are pushing hard for the NFPA 5000.
Trying to understand the intricacies of building codes is, as Billy Shields, vice president of the Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona, puts it, "like eating sawdust."
And pulling together the differences between these two codes is something even the city of Phoenix has been unwilling to do. To some extent it's a moving target, because if the NFPA 5000 code is adopted, it will be greatly amended, as most codes are. But generally speaking, the NFPA 5000 code is considered more safety-conscious – and also more expensive for builders. For example, one provision would make stairways safer in case of a fire or other emergency.
The political subplot here is easy to understand: It's a power play between developers and unions. And right now, this reality show has a national audience, as the building community watches to see what happens here in Phoenix.
Rick Doell, a deputy director of Phoenix's Development Services Department, says, "It's turning into a really emotional issue rather than a technically based issue."
Of NFPA 5000's critics, he adds, "They're acting like I've turned myself over to the Taliban or something."
With a mayoral and council election looming in the fall, city officials are scurrying to get the NFPA 5000 code passed by the council before summer. But the truth is that this has been a done deal since 1997, when the Phoenix City Council voted to adopt only building codes created through an "open, voluntary consensus process." City attorneys say NFPA 5000 is the only code that fits that definition. That's why Shields, who says he's not actively lobbying anyone on NFPA 5000, can afford to be coy.
"This is not our Waterloo," he says. "We're not throwing all our eggs in this one. Do we support the NFPA code? Yeah. Will it destroy us if it doesn't pass? No."
And it's why the IBC folks in Washington, D.C., have been tearing around Phoenix, making last-ditch attempts to stop the process. They've tried to cover all the turf – hiring both former Fife Symington blowhard turned public relations guy Chuck Coughlin and mild-mannered, left-leaning development attorney Grady Gammage to make their case.
So far, Coughlin, Gammage and the many industry people testifying in city hearings on the matter have been unable even to convince the city to make a side-by-side comparison of the IBC and NFPA 5000 codes, they say. Dan Demland, a local architect and former Phoenix City Council candidate, says he applied the NFPA 5000 code to a fictional project – a supermarket – and his costs increased 70 percent.
"Going to this code is going to be a very, very bad thing," he says. Of city officials, he adds, "Frankly, they don't really care about the evidence. Their attitude is that the process means everything."
The crux of the difference between the codes is ultimately in who gets to write them. Simply put, the IBC is written by building officials, with input from the public. A group of 600 officials gets a final vote. The NFPA 5000 incorporates a wide group of interested parties, including union officials and members of the development community, although a much smaller group gets a final vote.
So why wouldn't developers like the latter code, which literally invites them to the table? It's easier for them to work the building officials and let them do their dirty work, while keeping the unions out entirely, explains Mike Coletto, a lobbyist for the firefighters.
"The Homebuilders Association meets with the building inspectors every day. They bump and grind all day long. After a while you can get your way with them," Coletto says.
"It's the Saddam Hussein democracy vote," Coughlin says of the NFPA 5000 process. Sara Yerkes, vice president of public policy for the International Code Council, which publishes the IBC, says building officials write her organization's codes for a reason: "Only those with no vested financial interests should be allowed to vote."
NFPA vice president Gary Keith counters that interests are balanced in his process, with a two-thirds vote required to move forward.
The most vocal – in fact, many say the only – NFPA 5000 opponent on the Phoenix City Council is Councilwoman Peggy Neely, who asked an intern to work full-time analyzing the building codes. But Neely's assistant, Perry Baker, says what Neely learned is that the decision was finalized years ago, even before the NFPA 5000 was completed.