FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

WELCOME

Chairman Rodriguez welcomed the Commission, staff and the public to Gainesville for the April 2009 plenary session. He stated there would not be a split plenary session for the April meeting, providing additional time for key workgroup meetings. He then stated the primary focus of the meeting was to conduct several rule development initiatives including a cost effectiveness test for amending the Florida Energy Code. He explained if anyone wished to address the Commission on any of the issues presented they should sign the attendance sheet and as always, the Commission would provide an opportunity for public comment on each of the substantive discussion topics. He stated if anyone wanted to comment on a specific substantive Commission agenda item, they should go to the speaker’s table so they can be recognized. He concluded by stating public input was welcome, and should be offered before there is a formal motion on the floor. He further stated there was an evaluation form available at the speaker’s table and welcomed anyone who would like to fill those out to do so. He stated doing so would provide the Commission information on what it was doing right and what could be improved upon.

UF WELCOME AND INVITATION TO HURRICANE TEST LABORATORY

Chairman Rodriguez introduced Dr. Forest Masters, a professor of Civil and Coastal Engineering at the University of Florida. He stated Dr. Masters was at the meeting to invite the Commission to view the current University of Florida Research projects conducted at the UF Hurricane Test Lab. He explained the work is relevant to the Florida Building Commission and the Florida Building Code.

Dr. Forest Masters, University of Florida, Civil and Coastal Engineer

Dr. Masters welcomed the commissioners to the University of Florida. He stated the University of Florida currently has 54,000 students. He further stated with the community college the total student enrollment in Gainesville was approximately 70,000-80,000 students. He then stated the University was very busy having a number of different research programs from health sciences to civil engineering. He stated the civil engineering program had approximately 1,000 students, doing about $30,000 of research at any given moment. He explained the program’s particular focus was on hurricanes specific to the built environment with quite a few faculty members working on different aspects of the research. He stated Ron Cook, current chair of the ASCE 7 Wind Effects Committee, is involved with the Wind and Structural Engineering along with Kurt Gurley, David Prevatt and himself. He then stated there were also a number of surge modeling and coastal impact representatives inside the department including Bob Dean, with the National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Masters stated the University of Florida had been researching hurricanes for a very long time. He further stated during the 50’s and 60’s it was not uncommon to hear a loud noise if near the Gainesville airport which was a similar hurricane simulation device used at present. He explained there was a little shed with a 1,300 hp airplane engine and when the engine was used in a rain rack different hurricane conditions were reproduced to test windows and shutters. He stated the research focus was multi-disciplinary as structural engineers who do a lot of building science work had bound related meteorology to accompany the work. He then stated whatever needed to be done was done. He explained there were a number of different issues being focused on particularly components on cladding for structures, some mainly force resisting system as well as other ancillary issues such as landscaping, hardening materials; i.e., issues which would lead to a timely recovery. He then stated there were a number of different projects underway at present, a number of which were being sponsored by the Florida Building Commission.

Dr. Masters stated the secret of their success was working closely with industry, having approximately 40 industry partners, of which were represented at the Commissioner meeting. He then stated there was a diverse array of stakeholders including product manufacturers, homebuilders, insurance representatives, engineers, architects, test labs and code officials involved in the projects. He stated the industry partners help to find a problem statement and the test lab applies as much theory as possible to find a solution. He further stated the work was based in field research, for example the Florida Coastal Monitoring Program, which deploys portable weather towers in the path of land falling hurricanes allowing the windload information to be captured and then recreated on different structures. He then stated water ingresses are also being studied using a new sensor which captures rain as well as wind. He explained the SFC and NSF were both sponsors of a program which uses high pressure air flow actuations, actually recreating wind tunnel time histories pressure on structural systems. He further stated soffit systems were being reviewed and the same windload used to develop ASCE 7 can then be applied to an actual physical specimen. He stated the primary and secondary roof covers were also being studied relative to flow simulations of which a full scale model was being constructed at present at the test lab.

Dr. Masters stated most people have heard of the UF Hurricane Simulator which was both engineering and art. He further stated the simulator has a 2,800hp engine which can create wind speeds of up to 125mph for about 35lb of pressure per square foot which was all operated by a computer. He explained a typical configuration would be a house mock-up with removable wall sections. He stated a large project working closely with the fenestration industry and other groups studying water ingress in residential construction. He then stated those types of projects were the kind that were conducted daily at the laboratory. He concluded by stating he hoped the commissioners would take part in the tour of the test laboratory and again welcomed them to the University of Florida.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Dr. Masters and stated the commissioners looked forward to touring the test lab after the meeting.

COMMISSIONER SELF INTRODUCTIONS

Chairman Rodriguez stated the commissioner self-introductions began at the last meeting. He stated since there have been so many new appointments to the Commission the introductions were an effort to know about each other. He then introduced Commissioner Browdy, one of the senior commissioners relative to time served, to begin the introductions.

Commissioner Browdy stated on July 18^th of 2009 Browdy and Browdy will celebrate its 34^th year in the residential construction business. He then stated the small firm specializes in custom residential and light commercial construction. He further stated the firm constructs high end custom homes in the north Florida area primarily using the design build delivery system collaborating with a number of registered design professionals and typically work with clients to reconcile the design goals within whatever budgetary restraints the client should have. He explained most of the firm’s homeowners owned the site before engaging Browdy and Browdy He further stated the custom homes built by the firm range from 4,500 square feet to homes in excess of 12,000 square feet with contract prices ranging from $1,000,000.00 to $5,000,000. He stated most, if not all of the work is on a negotiated, or fee, basis. He further stated there were only six full-time employees of the company, 3 being certified building contractors. He continued by stating their business model over the last 34 years has been to focus on revenue volume rather than unit volume, which allows the firm’s fixed expenses to remain relatively low while maintaining a high degree of oversight on each individual project under construction.

Commissioner Browdy stated his involvement with the Florida Building Commission began in June 1998 with his appointment to the Board of Building Codes and Standards, the predecessor to the Florida Building Commission. He further stated he was appointed by Governor Bob Martinez to fill the unexpired term of a south Florida contractor, Lenny Miller. He then stated he was the designated representative for the residential construction industry by the Florida Homebuilders Association. He continued by stating the Board of Building Codes and Standards met once a month usually in a small conference room in the Orlando airport. He stated by his recollection there were less than ten board members at that time, the majority of which were building officials and registered design professionals. He further stated the Board of Building Codes and Standards had two staff members who attended the meetings, Mary Katherine-Smith and attorney Gordon Black. He explained the legislative authority of the Board was more limited then and dealt primarily with the threshold inspector rule and granted waivers under Florida Statutes 553 to the Florida Disabilities Implementation Act, which was a standalone code at that time. He continued by stating in June 1992 he was reappointed by Governor Lawton Chiles whose administration was responsible for convening the Building Code Study Commission which recommended to the Legislature to create the Florida Building Commission. He then stated he was reappointed by Governor Chiles in June 1995 by the end of his term and the Florida Building Commission was created by Governor Jeb Bush, who appointed him to the Florida Building Commission in July 1999. He stated he was reappointed by Governor Bush in 2003 and in August 2007 he was reappointed by Governor Charlie Christ. He further stated he had held numerous positions in his 21 years service and had benefited professionally from the extraordinary people with whom he had the privilege to serve. He continued by stating the most memorable achievement during his tenure was his participation in the creation of the Florida Building Code, which was an incredible process in consensus building to be a part of. He stated he had been honored to have been the only residential contractor to represent the Florida Homebuilders. He then stated while many times his position of advocacy was at odds with the majority of his colleagues he was also treated with respect and given a fair opportunity to express that position. He then stated he looked forward to working with each member of the Commission as it moves forward through the many challenges faced in these difficult times.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Browdy for his years of service and echoed his comments relative to voting his conscience and how it had earned the respect of everyone, not only the Commissioners but also from the audience and his organization.

Commissioner Carson stated he was born in Miami Beach, Florida and he is married with three children. He then stated he attended the University of Florida and received a degree in building construction. He further stated he earned his state certification general contractor’s license in 1981. He stated he worked in south Florida for another general contractor for five years after his graduation from college. He then stated in 1987 he started Carson Construction, Inc. He stated the company is a light commercial contracting business. He continued by stating over the years he had built everything from room additions to condominiums to churches and office buildings. He then stated currently his company specializes in rehab and recycling commercial buildings, especially local historic structures. He stated in 1995 he started another business, Carson Lovell, Inc. with a friend. He further stated anyone interested could go to carsonlovellinc.com on the internet to learn more about the company. He stated the company was started in order to have a little retirement money and at present the company has roughly 150,000 square feet of buildings which it owns and manages.

Commissioner Carson stated his civic responsibilities included being past board Chairman of the YMCA of Northwest Florida and is a current board member and recipient of the distinguished leadership award from the YMCA of the USA. He stated he was also a past board Chairman of the Florida Spring Fest, a past president of Pensacola Sertoma and district Sertoma of the year recipient. He continued by stating he was a past board Chairman and current board member of Ronald McDonald Children’s charities of Northwest Florida. He stated he was the current capital campaign chair and the developer of a $5,000,000, 25,000 square foot Ronald McDonald house which will be built adjacent to the women’s and children’s hospital in Pensacola. He further stated he was the current president of the Rotary Club of Pace, the current Chairman of the Downtown Advisory Board, a current member of the Hancock City Bank Board of Directors.

Commissioner Carson stated he was appointed by Governor Jeb Bush to the Florida Building Commission in 2000 and was nearing the completion of his third term. He further stated he had served on a variety of committees and chaired the Product Approval Manufactured Buildings POC for five or six years. He stated he had also served as the Electrical TAC for the past several months. He continued by stating it had been an honor to serve with the distinguished panel in the past and he appreciated getting to know everyone.

Commissioner Carson stated his hobbies included hunting, fishing, golf, cooking barbeque, competing in chili cook offs and drinking red wine.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Carson for all of his hard work particularly the Product Approval beast he had somehow been able to tame to help the staff.

Commissioner Goodloe stated his fire service career began in 1977 in the city of Clearwater where he was born. He further stated he rose from the ranks of the firefighters who rode on the backs of the trucks to fire marshall. He then stated he retired in 1998 and moved to Tallahassee assuming responsibility for the Bureau of Fire Prevention. He continued by stating he came into Tallahassee at the time the Building Code was coming out of the box which involved him in the development of the Florida Fire Prevention Code from its inception and working with the Florida Building Commission to align those two documents and quite a bit of progress had been made.

Commissioner Goodloe stated he has been married to his lovely wife Brenda for 23 years and they have two children. He stated he had spent 4 ½ years active duty in the Navy and retired from the Navy reserves in 1993. He stated his wife had volunteered for the Ronald McDonald House for a couple of years in Tallahassee before she started back to work. He stated it was a very good charity. He then stated he had attended St. Petersburg College and completed his Bachelor’s degree at Eckerd College. He further stated he was a licensed residential contractor but had been inactive for some time. He stated his dad had been in construction most of his life.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Goodloe for bringing his professional point of view to the Commission. He stated it was an interesting thing on the Commission there was a representative from the insurance industry. He further stated it was important for everyone to know the balance created within the Commission and the person who created the body kept fairness in mind.

Commissioner Carlton stated he was born in Green Cove Springs, Florida. He further stated he graduated from the University of Florida with a degree in building construction. He continued by stating he was married with two young sons. He then stated after he graduated from college he went to work for a general contractor in Jacksonville, starting in estimating and working on commercial construction projects all over the southeast. He stated he founded his company, Carlton Construction, Inc. in 2005. He further stated his company is a small general contractor specializing in custom residential construction and some light commercial construction. He continued by stating his staff consists of two superintendents and an office manager. He stated he also managed a finance business in Green Cove Springs, as well.

Commissioner Carlton stated he served on the Northeast Florida Builders Association Board of Directors and the Chairman of the Clay County Builders Council. He further stated he had been a Florida Building Commissioner for 1 ½ years but unfortunately would not be seeking reappointment. He stated the economic situation impose a hardship of him being away from his office very much. He concluded by stating it had been a pleasure serving with all of the commissioners and staff. He further stated he appreciated the opportunity he was given to serve on the Commission and he had learned a lot.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he hoped Commissioner Carlton would return when things turn around if there is still a Commission. He stated he appreciated Commissioner Carlton’s getting through the learning curve quickly and would want him back as a commissioner. He further stated everyone understands the hardships so when things come back and his business was roaring come back to the Commission.

Commissioner Franco stated he was the architect representative on the Commission. He then stated he was born in Puerto Rico and grew up on his grandfather’s farm in the mountains. He continued by stating he was always inclined toward drawings, loved mathematics and physics and working with his hands. He further stated he chose architecture because he thought it would allow him to do all those things and be in a career where no one would force him to retire. He stated he received his architectural training, undergraduate and master’s degrees in the Tropicana School of Architecture at the University or Puerto Rico, the only school of architecture in the Caribbean at that time. He continued by stating he finished his credits in 1977 and sat for his registration as an architect which he passed on his first try.

Commissioner Franco stated in early 1978 he moved to Florida, a virtually unknown place to him. He further stated he started working in Ft. Lauderdale with a young firm, which had close ties to a big planning firm. He continued by stating he began to travel around South America, California, the Caribbean and more. He then stated during those years he remembered dealing with all sorts of codes in Florida, primarily the counties he worked in which included Dade, Palm Beach, Broward and Monroe. He continued by stating it was pretty grueling and frustrating. He further stated in those days the architects were drawing by hand which was unbelievably time consuming, but the only way ideas could be communicated. He stated when computers came along, although it was a panacea for many, he was unfortunately working in an office which was not that progressive.

Commissioner Franco stated in 1988 he started his own company and decided to pursue the technological freedom the new medium promised. He further stated he had been blessed with an exciting career and opportunities that allowed him to participate in projects throughout many states of the nation. He continued by stating he had also gone outside the borders to the Bahamas, Europe, Central America, South America, Australia and even Africa. He stated with computers he had been able to take his office with him in his bag. He then stated his company has had some interesting building types, mostly low density and specialty driven residential, hospitals and some schools, all theme based buildings.

Commissioner Franco stated through all those years of travelling he had not found a more organized effort from all the components of an industry, with the assistance of government to provide guidance to itself which results in benefits to the citizens, better safety to users, and quality service to everyone regardless of physical limitations, enhancements of energy resources, protection against the ravages of weather and many other measurable advantages for all those who reside in the state of Florida. He further stated all of those benefits were provided by the creation and continuance of the Florida Building Code. He continued by stating he was glad to see the Commission integrates technology for everyday use, as it makes it a lot easier for him to practice.

Commissioner Franco stated architects carried a substantial responsibility toward their fellow citizens due to their firsthand control of the built environment. He then stated Florida and other states had the innate duty to society to participate in all the demanding concerns for the daily lives that relate to those aspects correlating to that of the Florida Building Code. He further stated with the Florida Building Commission the contribution of many talented professionals, stakeholders, activists, workers and the public, in general, can be counted on. He stated he looked forward to working with the Commission to improve the environment and energy resources. He further stated he was humbled by the offer from Governor Christ to allow him to join the Commission and its exciting challenges. He concluded by stating he was proud to be part of its unique process.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Franco for his comments.

Commissioner Greiner stated he was originally from California. He then stated he had started in construction in 1961, literally working in construction his whole life. He continued by stating he had completed a 5 year apprenticeship as a plumber in California, working in the industry and operating his own plumbing business for 15 years. He further stated he moved to Saudi Arabia in 1978 and spent several years there doing much of the same things dealing with codes and inspections and plans reviews. He stated he operated an inspection operation and conformance specification stuff in the northern area, just short of Kuwait, both onshore and offshore. He further stated he had dealt with literally every type of construction possible, from houses to offshore rigs, oil refineries and commercial buildings. He continued by stating while he was in Saudi Arabia he met a tremendous amount of people who were in love with Florida. He stated he ended up coming to Florida in 1984, worked on the Threshold Law, worked in Seminole County for some time, was the building official for the city of Tavares for 4 ½ years, moved to Lake County in 1997 and had been the building official for Lake County since that time. He then stated to date he has 48 years of experience in all disciplines and is licensed by the state of Florida for inspections and plan review for all four disciplines and was also licensed as a building code administrator on a national basis. He further stated of his 48 years of experience 30 plus years have been in the administrative end, i.e. inspection, interpretation and enforcement of codes.

Commissioner Greiner stated he was married and had two children who lived in California and three grandchildren. He then stated he was appointed to the Building Commission in 2002, chaired the Plumbing group, is a member of the Fire TAC and currently chairs the Energy TAC. He further stated he was a member of the International Energy Conservation Code development committee for the ICC. He concluded by stating he was humbled by being a member of the Commission and was amazed at the things the Commission can get done working with industry. He stated it had been gratifying to work with all of these individuals and hoped to continue to do so.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Greiner for his comments.

Commissioner Hamrick stated he was a registered architect with over 40 years of experience in the building industry which was equally split with 20 years in the private sector and 20 years in the public sector. He continued by stating in the private sector he was a partner in a firm in south Florida which not only designed buildings, but also constructed most of what was designed in the firm. He stated in the public sector he worked for the Department of Education. He then stated he was also a building official for the Department of Education and the school districts within the state of Florida. He further stated he represented the Department of Education throughout the state in several different organizations and at the International Code Congress. He stated he was a past member of the Florida Advisory Council. He continued by stating as an Education member he represented both private and public schools. He stated on the public side he represents the 67 school districts in the state of Florida, four laboratory schools connected to universities, 28 community colleges, 11 universities, the Florida School of the Deaf and Blind, and the Blind Services of Public Broadcasting. He then stated on the private side he represented the charter schools, and the private schools, colleges and universities. He continued by stating at the Department of Education he dealt with buildings and only buildings, not educational programs or students. He stated he worked for the Office of Educational Facilities, which develops rules which affect facilities, distributes construction funds, approves district planning needs, provides technical assistance to any matter relating to facilities, and provides training on facility issues, maintenance and operations. He further stated the office does code interpretations and he had a plan review service for permitting and also conducts research projects, some of which were recognized internationally. He then stated the DOE was involved in statewide organizations who deal with educational facilities, state fire codes, growth management, the health department, and emergency management. He further stated any issue that affects a facility is dealt with by the Department of Education.

Commissioner Hamrick stated he brings to the Commission the understanding of all aspects of educational facilities from the conception of need to the program planning, design, permitting, inspection during construction, and what goes on with a building after a certificate of occupancy has been issued. He further stated this included the continued use of buildings, annual inspections, operations and maintenance issues, building upgrades and the disposal of unused property or replacement of buildings. He then stated the DOE deals with permanent structures, lease facilities and temporary structures. He continued by stating the program constructs about 3 billion dollars of schools each year. He further stated the maintenance and operation cost is approximately 2 ½ billion; i.e., a 5 ½ billion dollar program plus another 3 billion dollars to pay off the debt services which occurred in public education. He then stated he dealt with buildings constructed from 1852 to some just opening even today. He stated a school which was destroyed during Hurricane Charlie was reconstructed and reopened because it was an historic structure. He then stated the Department of Education in the public sector has over 500 million square feet of schools in its inventory. He continued by stating he touched all types of different occupancies beyond educational including semi-occupancies, business, storage, mercantile, residential, institutional, daycare, utility and recreational facilities. He further stated he served a population of students, staff, teachers and administrators of over 4 million people.

Commissioner Hamrick stated on the Building Commission he serves on the Education POC and the Roofing TAC; in addition he chairs the Special Occupancy TAC. He further stated, for the new members, much was not heard about the Special Occupancy TAC because they meet very seldom, but they were the ones who dealt with the state rules that were incorporated into the Florida Building Code, particularly the ones housed in Chapter 4, which includes the rules for hospitals, healthcare facilities, public education, public swimming pools, public food services and elevators. He continued by stating those rules of the Agency for Healthcare Administration, Department of Education, the Department of Health and the Department of Business and Professional Regulation Bureaus of Elevator Safety.

Commissioner Hamrick then stated on a personal note he had been married for 30 years and had 1 child and 2 grandchildren who live in Tampa.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Hamrick for his comments.

Commissioner Kidwell stated his stakeholder group was the structural engineers and reports to the Board of Professional Engineers regarding issues affecting the group. He then stated he was born and raised in Tampa. He continued by stating he received his degree in Civil Engineering at the University of South Florida. He further stated he had been in private practice for approximately 16 years doing all types of projects, but mainly civil, structural, industrial, commercial, and residential. He stated he had his own engineering practice for approximately 11 years and was registered as a professional engineer in the state of Florida as well as a few other states. He further stated he was a certified general contractor and a licensed threshold inspector. He continued by stating he had construction companies and worked in the construction industry. He stated he had been a member of the Florida Building Commission for over 7 years and currently chairs the Structural TAC and is also a member of the Product Approval POC.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Kidwell for his comments.

Commissioner Schulte stated he was born in Cincinnati, Ohio and was raised all over the mid-west before his family moved to Jacksonville in 1977. He then stated he graduated from Flagler College in 1986. He continued by stating he worked in a machine shop and was a carpenter for a number of years during and for a couple of years after college. He stated he married his high school sweetheart in 1988 and they have three children, two daughters and a son. He further stated his oldest daughter starting her first year at UCF in the summer. He stated in 1989 he moved to south Florida and was hired by a company named Latite Roofing and Sheet Metal Company in Pompano Beach. He then stated the company had grown over the years and a branch was opened in Ft. Myers. He further stated he was currently the C.O.O. and partner in the firm. He continued by stating he became a state certified roofing contractor in 1988. He stated he was appointed to the Commission by Governor Bush in 2003 as a roofing representative. He further stated he chaired the Roofing TAC and currently is a member of the Product Approval POC. He then stated he represented the roofers during the storms of 2004 and 2005. He stated, personally, he enjoyed golfing, fishing, hunting, but especially coaching his children in the city leagues of soccer, football, baseball, and softball for the last 10-11 years. He advised the new commissioners to keep their ears open and ask good questions because there were a lot of intelligent people here. He further stated he was not only referring to the members, but also the members of the audience. He concluded by stating he had learned a lot since he had been on the Commission. He echoed Commissioner Browdy’s comments to vote your conscience.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Schulte for his comments.

Commissioner Vann stated he was born in Green Bay, Wisconsin. He stated he attended the University of Wisconsin for 2 years and then enlisted in the Army for 3 years. He then stated after the Army he began his career as a plumbing apprentice. He continued by stating he was the president of R.J. Vann Mechanical. He further stated at R.J. Vann there were approximately 140 employees, men and women, who do primarily commercial work in plumbing, fire protection and air conditioning. He stated plumbing accounted for approximately 60% of the commercial work which was done in schools, hospitals, hotels, high risers, nursing homes, and warehouses. He continued by stating 20% of his company’s work is HVHZ and 20% fire protection. He then stated he had been in business for 34 years and had no plans of retirement. He stated he liked working with and being around young people. He then stated in 1975 he became a Plumbing Contractor, in 1986 a Fire Sprinkler Contractor, in, and in 1997 a HVAC Contractor. He stated his company was the only one who offered plumbing, fire protection and HVAC, which puts his company at an advantage in many cases having all three trades on a particular project. He further stated often his was given the opportunity to go back and group all three together for a package which almost gives them a second look.

Commissioner Vann stated he was on the Commission because in earlier years he was in Lee County there was an inspector there with a very strong personality who ran roughshod over the industry and over his employers. He continued by stating his personality was so strong the building official could not really control him. He further stated it was his way or the highway to get a building passed. He then stated that inspector lit a fire in him and impetus to fight for the “little guy”. He stated he was asked by the local building official if he would consider an appointment on the Florida Building Commission and he did. He continued by stating he was currently in his second term under Governor Christ, having been appointed by Governor Bush on 1994. He further stated he chaired the Plumbing TAC, which he believed to be 11 of the finest industry minds in Florida. He then stated he was pleased Ken Gregory would be handling pool issues in the Plumbing TAC because those issues dominated the TACs. He then stated the Plumbing TAC as a group deals with plumbing issues, septic tanks, water supplies, back flows, LP and natural gas issues, pool issues. He continued by stating he was more of a listening commissioner than a vocal commissioner, but on the rare occasion he does speak when he gets passionate over certain issues, primarily plumbing issues of life safety and health issues. He further stated it had been the advent of the Plumbing Code with licensing and inspections which has to almost complete elimination of cholera, dysentery, typhoid and other bacteria borne pathogens in the water systems and waste disposal systems. He continued by stating contrary to how plumbers were depicted on television, the plumbing contractors do such things as provide the nitrous oxide lines in hospitals and dentistry lines to dental chairs, in addition to safe drinking water and sewage disposal. He further stated the industry had taken a bit of a bum rap, but he stated he was proud to represent the interests of the plumbing industry and the plumbing contractors and suppliers of the state.

Commissioner Vann stated he raises and shows Paso Fino horses as a hobby. He stated he currently serves on the Board of Directors for the South Florida Marine Institute, which deals with troubled teenagers.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Vann for his comments.

Commissioner Norkunas stated he represented those with disabilities. He then stated when the Florida Building Commission was created the intent was to have its members reflect the composition of the stakeholders impacted by the Building Code, which includes contractors, subcontractors, design professionals and local building enforcement personnel. He further stated another group affected daily is persons with disabilities as the built environment can enhance or impair the quality of their lives. He continued by stating he represents the group and his mission was to make sure they have a face and a voice when deliberating on issues addressed by the Commission. He then stated he had polio as a child, but never let the disability adversely affect his life. He stated his mother tells a story of him at 13 as a boy scout who was very proud to be a boy scout. He stated he was scheduled to go to summer camp, but was wearing two long leg braces which were made of iron. He continued by stating when he arrived at camp they would not let him go because he had to walk back to the camp. He stated when his mother saw the look on his face, she appealed to the scoutmaster and he let him go. He further stated he carried his pack and it took him four hours to get back into the woods, although the last hour others came to help him he would not accept their help because he wanted to do it himself. He then stated as a result the boy scouts changed their national policy and opened up scouting for those with disabilities.

Commissioner Norkunas stated in 1988, he received a phone call from Senator Kennedy as one of his sons had lost his leg to bone cancer. He continued by stating he was asked to go to Washington to work on something called the Americans with Disabilities Act. He further stated he was proud to be invited in 1990 to the south lawn of the White House when President Bush signed it into law. He then stated Governor Lawton Chiles appointed him to the state’s Human Rights Advocacy Committee, which enabled him, under Florida Law, to go into Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) and was principally charged with looking out for children with mental disabilities. He further stated he found if he went in the afternoon between 2-4pm they were always taking naps. He then stated Florida Law allowed him to look at their medical records and he found they were being chemically restrained, which he made a big deal of by going to the Miami Herald and the policy was changed in the state. He further stated those kids could no longer be shot up and put away for the afternoon while the staff had time.

Commissioner Norkunas stated in 1996 he was asked to carry the Olympic torch, representing the disabled, when it came through Ft. Lauderdale. He then stated in 1998 the United States Congress rewrote the IRS rule called the Reform and Restructuring Act. He continued by stating he was 1 out of 80,000 applicants selected by Robert Rubin, Treasury Secretary, to help reorganize the IRS. He continued by stating in 2006 he was selected by the White House and traveled with President Bush to Turkey to the NATO summit where he spoke to ministers of tourism over there regarding access to their places, the mosques and he was honored to have done that. He stated he found the accommodations in Turkey were pretty good: when he could not get up steps to a mosque; people would come over and physically carry him up, or a pregnant lady on a bus got up and offered him her seat; and while traveling by public transportation he missed the stop for the Hagia Sophia and someone on the bus with an understanding of English went to the driver and told him the bus was public now and the driver turned around and took him back to the stop. He stated he was not sure if that would have happened in the United States.

Commissioner Norkunas stated he appeared before the Supreme Court twice, once with Casey Martin, the golfer, when he won his appeal to be able to have some reasonable accommodations and once in February when a group of activists, including himself, crawled up the stairs in 11 degree weather to demonstrate to the Supreme Court some of the things they were doing for those with disabilities to get the public’s attention. He continued by stating Congress estimates 17 percent of the population has disabilities, with 17 million people in the state of Florida there would be 2.9 million with disabilities. He then stated Congress begins the Americans with Disabilities Act by stating “that it is done because there are those who are least able to help themselves.” He further stated he hoped his voice could be raised to do this. He then stated as he said to Governor Bush when he appointed him to the Florida Building Commission he would want to use education rather than the federal courts. He further stated he had kept his promise over all of these years. He concluded by stating he does disability advocacy every waking moment, when most are asleep, he would be on the internet working with the Japanese, writing a Japanese with Disabilities Act, and Australians, writing an Australians with Disabilities Act.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Norkunas for his comments.

Chairman Rodriguez stated his life had been very humbling because it had been a life of privilege, starting with his birth in Havana. He continued by stating Havana was tri-cultural, three streams, African, European, mostly Spanish, but not exclusive, and North American. He then stated paradise offered a reality check when in 1952 he was struck with polio. He further stated he was privileged again to be the first foreign child to be allowed into the United States for treatment. He then stated he was sent to a bilingual school to ensure he could speak English. He continued by stating the 1959 revolution came and it was the first time he realized privilege was not life-long as he saw his parents lose it. He then stated he moved to Miami for what he thought would be a short stay and to perfect the English language. He stated from 1966-1970 he went through the School of Architecture at the University of Miami, which was a department under the School of Engineering. He further stated since then he always related architecture to engineering and did not see the engineers as enemies, but as dear friends and colleagues. He stated he was lucky enough to be practicing for 10 years in what was the strongest A & E firm in Miami, certainly one of the strongest in the state. He stated right after school he took the licensing boards and passed. He then stated after he was made an associate in the firm he married his kindergarten sweetheart and built a two bedroom house which was a commitment to green before green was popular. He continued by stating shortly after moving into the house, they had their first and only son.

Chairman Rodriguez stated in 1980 he and his wife were curious enough to see what had become of paradise in Havana. He continued by stating what they remembered as children was painfully there, but there. He then stated he decided to leave the big firm with its comforts, status and privilege to do great buildings to start over in his own firm along with Tony Quiroga. He further stated since they were no spring chickens at 35 and 46, they were intent to go after the most complex projects. He continued by stating their firm had been fortunate to do work for the State of Florida, FSU, FIU, FAU, almost every project within their reach and also to have been working for a long time at Miami International Airport. He further stated at the municipal level they had done the city hall at Homestead and were currently working on Museum Park Miami and one of the buildings which will be on that park, the Miami Science Museum. He then stated they had tried to balance the public sector with the sector private buildings and have had the privilege for working for corporations like Del Monte and others.

Chairman Rodriguez stated 1985 was probably the hardest part of his life when his family lost his father and brother to murder. He further stated they navigated the criminal justice system of the country. He then stated in 1990, after barely recovering from the initial impact of that tragedy, he and his wife decided to take their son back to Cuba when he was about as old as they were when they left. He further stated a writer followed them and wrote a book about Cuba called The Exile. He stated he would encourage the commissioners to read the book if they care at all to barely understand what has been going on in Miami for the last 50 years. He then stated in 1999 there was a little controversy in Miami-Dade County primarily related to the business of unifying and coming out with a state building code. He continued by stating it was a county official who said to us, and Commissioner Browdy would remember, even if the Commission were to adopt the South Florida Building Code in toto, he would not support it because he did not trust the State of Florida. He stated it was a difficult beginning for the Chairman from Miami to have an official from Miami who makes that statement. He further stated he remembered telling Commissioner Browdy he would be on the job for a very, very short time although he had asked the appointment secretary how long this was for as he wished, serving at the pleasure of the Governor, which meant as long as the Governor wished.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he was thankful to Governor Bush and stated it was a position that was hard to leave because as one gets involved in the process of consensus building which involves hard work from the staff and volunteers had been seeing for the last ten years. He then stated his son had studied architecture, which meant he would be signing up for Commissioner Vann’s nonretirement future. He further stated his mother had recently retired at 80, but he promised to give up the chair long before that.

REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

Mr. Blair thanked the commissioners for sharing a little bit about themselves. He stated it was informative and really appreciated it.

Mr. Blair then conducted a review of the meeting agenda as presented in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the meeting agenda. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Schulte stated he heard Mr. Blair mention an amendment to the committee reports. He further stated there was a Roofing TAC meeting on February 24^th and he did not know if it needed to be added.

Mr. Blair asked if he would have a report to give.

Commissioner Schulte stated he would later on.

Commissioner Carson and Commissioner Greiner accepted the amended agenda.

Vote to approve the motion as amended was unanimous. Motion carried.

REVIEW AND APPROVE FEBRUARY 3, 2009 MEETING MINUTES, MARCH 16, 2009 TELECONFERENCE REPORT AND MARCH 30, 2009 TELECONFERENCE REPORT

Chairman Rodriguez called for approval of the minutes from the February 2009 Commission meeting and the teleconference reports from the March 16 and 30, 2009.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the minutes and Facilitator’s Report from the October Commission meeting. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chairman Rodriguez first announced the following appointments to the TACs and workgroups:

Commission Process Review Ad Hoc

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Code Assembly Ad Hoc was being reconstituted and renamed. He further stated the Ad Hoc was being given an immediate task to review and make recommendations on the code development process and the declaratory statement process. He continued by stating the goal was to make those processes as streamlined and economical as possible. He then stated following commissioners were appointed to the Process Review Ad Hoc: Commissioner Bahadori, Commissioner Browdy, Commission Carson, Commissioner Franco, Commissioner Goodloe, Commissioner Greiner, Commissioner Gross, Commissioner Schulte, Commissioner Tolbert, Commissioner Turner and Chairman Rodriguez will chair the committee.

Energy Code Workgroup

Tom Larson was appointed to the Energy Code Workgroup representing energy advocates. Bill Kent was appointed to represent the swimming pool industry.

Green and Energy Efficient Roofs Subcommittee of the Energy Code Workrgroup

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the December 2008 the Commission agreed to convene a Green and Energy Roof Subcommittee to evaluate issues regarding green and energy efficient roofs in the Code. He then stated the following appointments had been made the committee: Jim DiPietro, Larry Maxwell, Craig Parrino, Lorraine Ross, Commissioner Schulte, Commissioner Smith, Jeff Sun, Bob Volin, and Brad Weatherholtz.

Pool Efficiency Subcommittee of the Energy Code Workgroup

Chairman Rodriguez stated the workgroup was to provide recommendations to the larger workgroup regarding the pool equipment efficiencies including pool pumps, heaters, efficiencies and hydronic system standards. He further stated the committee would be facilitated using the Commission’s normal workgroup process. He then stated the following appointments had been made to the committee: Steve Bassett, Tony Carusso, Kevin Fennel, Commissioner Gregory, Commissioner Greiner, Dan Johnson, Bill Kent, Dino Muggeo, Gordon Shephardson, Jeff Sonne and Rob Vierra.

Energy TAC

Commissioner Palacios has been appointed to the Energy TAC.

Flood Standards Workgroup

Tom Lanese was appointed to replace Nick D’Andrea as representative for the Florida Flood Plain Managers Association, who resigned due to travel issues.

Steve Pazzillo was removed from the workgroup because he no longer works as a building official.

Product Approval POC

Commissioner Tolbert has been appointed to the Product Approval POC.

Septic Tank Sizing Workgroup

Chairman Rodriguez stated Septic Tank Sizing Workgroup is a name which better reflects the scope of the workgroup. He then stated it has been renamed the Universal Bedroom Definition Workgroup to the Septic Tank Sizing Workgroup.

Swimming Pool Subcommittee to the Plumbing TAC

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the request of Commissioner Gregory the Commission appointed a Swimming Pool Subcommittee to the Plumbing TAC. He then stated the following appointments had been made to the committee: Tom Allen, Tony Caruso, Joe Crum, Bill Dunbaugh, Commissioner Greiner, Dan Johnson, Todd Koontz, George Pellington, Gordon Shephardson and Commissioner Gregory will chair the committee.

Window Wall Workgroup

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Window Wall Workgroup has been renamed Window Wall Workgroup with the expanded scope of evaluating and developing recommendations regarding window wall interface.

Accessibility Advisory Council

Chairman Rodriguez stated Chapter 553.775(3) (g) provides the Commission may appoint a designee to serve on the council in a non-voting capacity. He then stated Commissioner Norkunas will serve as the Commission’s designee to the Accessibility Advisory Council.

Chairman Rodriguez then addressed the Budget Committee Report. He stated the Budget Committee met immediately preceding the plenary session in an effort to deal with diminishing revenues. He continued by stating some of the recommendations were to reduce some of the workplan tasks or delay them. He continued by stating all workgroup meetings will be held in Tallahassee to due to travel issues for staff and state agencies and employees. He further stated for a state employee to have a travel allowance it has to be mission critical and would have to be approved by the director of the department. He then stated when possible TAC and POC meetings where possible via teleconference calls.

Chairman Rodriguez stated another issue that emerged was the difficulty for staff and even the department to argue in favor of their own futures. He continued by stating it was easier for the Commission and those in the audience to strongly support the work the Commission does and let the Legislature know. He stated the Commission has requested Jim Richmond, Rick Dixon, and Ila Jones to guide the Commission in the process as it needs to be in the forefront because the commissioners are volunteers and part of the process. He continued by stating the individuals the Commission represents cannot sit by and allow staff to be in the uncomfortable position of possibly being seen as arguing on behalf of their own existence. He stated the issue is the work the Commission has done is in the light of safety of Floridians and it needs to be able to get involved. He then stated he had asked Ms. Jones to develop a couple of scenarios of projected income and what that would mean in terms of staff reductions and reductions of meetings. He continued by stating some who were regulars at the meetings would remember during the code development process the Commission met every month and now meets roughly every month and a half. He stated when some of the budget cuts come in he does not know how many times the Commission would be meeting because a lot of the meetings rely on staff’s assistance. He concluded by stating he could not stress enough how important it is for the survival of the work the Commission does, not the individual commissioners, but the work the Commission does on behalf of the citizens of Florida. He stated frankly the way the projections are and the depletion of the funds the Commission had reassigned to other programs it would be a very drastic reduction in services.

Chairman Rodriguez next addressed the evaluation of the equivalence of the 2008 Energy Code to ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for commercial buildings and to the IECC 2009 for residential buildings and to be able to report to the governor’s office. He stated the federal stimulus bill provides funding for state energy programs, but only for those states that can certify their energy codes as equal to or more stringent than the 2009 International Energy Conservation Codes for residential buildings and ASHRAE-90.1-2007 for commercial buildings. He further stated the bill also wants states whose governors can certify that qualifying codes will be enforced an in effect for 90% of the new or renovated existing buildings within 8 years. He continued by stating other qualifying criteria regarding utility regulation programs also apply which for Florida will be handled by its Public Service Commission not the Florida Building Commission. He stated the Building Commission was asked by Governor Christ’s office to issue a letter of verifying that Florida complies with the qualifying conditions for the Federal Energy Funds via the letter. He further stated staff conducted an analysis and prepared a letter to the Governor for his signature and it was submitted on behalf of the Commission to meet the Governor’s deadline of March 15, 2009. He stated the commissioners should have copied of the letter. He continued by stating the report was that Florida’s Energy Code updated to implement Governor Christ’s executive order 2007-197 and implement it into the 2007 Florida Building Code which went into effect March 1, 2009 is more stringent than ASHRAE-90.1-2007 for commercial buildings and equivalent to the 2009 IECC for residential buildings. He continued stating the report further stated Florida’s Energy Code is a statewide uniform and mandatory code and the schedule for increasing energy efficiency requirements required by Florida 20% by 2010, 30% by 2013 and 40% by 2016 will far exceed the standards set by the Stimulus Bill within the 8 year time horizon of the bill.

REVIEW AND UPDATE OF COMMISSION WORKPLAN

Mr. Dixon conducted a review of the updated Commission workplan. (See Updated Commission Workplan April 2009).

Mr. Dixon stated there have been some reductions in tasks recommended in this update to the workplan. He continued by stating under heading 2010 FBC Update there were three tasks recommended for delay due to the resource constraints and the need to focus on more core areas:

1) Develop Criteria for Use of Gravel Roof Systems

Mr. Dixon stated the Legislature had directed the Commission to study whether gravel roof systems should be eliminated from Florida before adopting the 2007 Code. He then stated when that task was done during the process for that task the roofing industry committed to looking at developing better criteria than that adopted by the Commission in the interim, but there were no resources currently available to pursue the task.

2) Evaluate Rainwater Collection and Reuse

Mr. Dixon stated the task was recommended by the Plumbing TAC as part of the glitch amendment process

3) Evaluate in-home waste water recycling in coordination with the Department of Health.

Mr. Dixon stated this was another water conservation green technology task.

Mr. Dixon stated those three tasks have been recommended for delay until the Commission has more resources, more time, and more staff.

Mr. Dixon stated the task to evaluate the equivalence of the Florida Energy Code Requirements to the IECC 2009 and ASHRAE-90.1-2007 was a directed task by the Governor’s Office. He continued by stating staff responded to them with the information the Chairman referred to. He then stated the Governor’s Office developed a letter from that recommendation that went to the US Department of Energy, March 15, 2009

Mr. Dixon stated there was one additional new long ranging task which comes

about every 3 or 4 years. He continued by stating there was a federal law which requires states to compare their energy codes to ASHRAE 90.1 for commercial buildings and the IECC for residential buildings to evaluate the equivalence to those national model standards in building codes. He then stated the Department of Energy has determined that the 2004 edition, the predecessor edition of ASHRAE 90.1 is now the standard in the country the states must compare their energy codes to and certify equivalence to. He further stated the task has been added and would be worked on between now and June with a report to the Department of Energy to be submitted in June.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the updated workplan. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Dixon stated the Chairman appointed a committee to review the code change process and would also address the declaratory statement process. He further stated there had been comments at the Legislature regarding how long it takes the Commission to get through the process established by law to update the code, get declaratory statements, etc. He continued by stating the committee was appointed to determine if those processes could be streamlined in any way. He further stated he wanted the commissioners to review an initial draft he prepared of the 2010 code process (Please see Draft Schedule for Development of 2010 FBC 4/7/09). He stated the plan was just to give people an idea of where the Commission will be going over the next 3 years in developing the 2010 Code. He continued by stating ths draft would probably change following the committee meeting, but the draft was based on experience developing the 2007 Code, applying the timelines, additional reviews, etc which were incorporated into that process. He stated it shows a best and worst case scenario for how long it will take to get the 2010 Code developed and put into place.

Mr. Dixon then stated the points he wanted the commissioners to focus on were that the ICC advised the Commission that the last of the volumes of the 2009 I code, the residential code, would be on the street by April 2, 2009. He then stated the law states the Commission may select new editions of the model code or foundation code 6 months after those codes were made available to the public. He further stated under the Commission’s meeting schedule, that selection would take place at the December 2009 meeting. Using the same schedule used for the 2007 code development, proposed modifications to the I codes would be due by March 2010. He continued by stating the Commission would go through the development and adoption process, culminating in a Rule Adoption. Then following the rule adoptions for November of 2010, the printed codes would be available online by February 2011 and the printed codes available to the public by April of 2011. He then stated the law does require a 6 month delay time between the adoption of the new edition to the Building Code before it can go into effect. He stated in the 2007 cycle the Commission decided at industry’s request to provide an additional 3 months to what the law requires. Therefore, the projected implementation date for the 2010 Building Code would be December 31, 2011, coinciding with the latest date the Florida Fire Prevention Code Update can take effect according to DFS.

Mr. Dixon stated each commissioner should also take note that a Glitch Amendment process is scheduled to take place before the 2010 takes effect, just like it was done for the 2007 Code. He continued by stating this is an attempt to weed out all of the errors, publication problems, etc. which typically come with the publication and printing of the new Code prior to it taking effect. He further stated the Glitch Amendment process would start in February 2011 and would conclude by December 2011. As part of the Glitch process the updated 2011 NEC would be reviewed and adopted so it would go into effect the same time as the 2010 Florida Building Code. He stated the NEC and NFPA code development cycles were one year behind the International Code development cycle,.. He further stated that would be put into effect the same time as the rest of the Building Code; rather than having a separate glitch cycle after the first glitch amendment to just adopt the NEC. He concluded by stating this was just a draft plan and it will change. The target was to have the 2010 Code go into effect no later than December 31, 2011 to coincide with latest date the updated Florida Fire Prevention Code can take effect.

REVIEW ANNUAL COMMISSION EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT SURVEY RESULTS-COLLABORATION-RESPONSIBILITY-AND PROJECTS

Chairman Rodriguez stated those of been with the Commission for a while at the end of each year and Effectiveness Assessment Survey is conducted to gauge the Commission’s perspective on a variety of issues. He further stated over the years the survey had been the basis for many enhancements to the Commission procedures. He then directed the Commission to Mr. Blair for an overview of the results.

Mr. Blair conducted a review of the survey results. (Please see Florida Building Commission 2009 Effectiveness Survey Results.)

Chairman Rodriguez stated he wanted to highlight the comment Mr. Blair had made regarding consensus building role and collaboration. He further stated although it was not his comment it is the cornerstone of the Commission providing a forum for stakeholders from industry, professions, and building officials to bring technical issues for vetting in an open process where consensus can be achieved. He then stated the Commission accomplishes that task on a consistent basis which is a real important accomplishment.

Mr. Blair then referred to the blue handout which discussed collaboration and the role collaboration plays and how for the process to work it takes the staff, the Commission, stakeholders, and the facilitators. He stated everyone involved is a part of this and it requires a team effort and to work well everyone has to participate and do their part of the job. He reiterated it was collaboration between staff, members, facilitators, consultants, affected stakeholder interest groups. He then stated there was a 75% level of support which was a high threshold to achieve, instead of having to achieve 50% there has to be collaboration between everyone, which is compromising, but it is a consensus process to work to achieve consensus. He stated staff and facilitators have to do their part to ensure meetings were planned and objectives were clear, and that materials needed were available. He then stated members of not just the Commission but of all committees and subcommittees have to prepare for the meetings by reviewing the materials, studying the issues, talking with stakeholders and be prepared at the meeting by completing any assignments assigned to you. He concluded by stating it was a group effort that requires collaboration, cooperation, planning, commitment, time and resources which are the collective responsibilities of all involved to make the meetings, the Commission, the workgroups, the TACs and POCs, all work well.

CONSIDER ACCESSIBILITY WAIVER APPLICATIONS

Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Mr. Humburg for consideration of the Accessibility Waiver Applications.

Mr. Humburg presented the waiver applications for consideration. Recommended approvals were presented in consent agenda format with conditional approvals, deferrals and denials being considered individually.

Recommendation for Approval with No Conditions:

#1 Florida International University, School of International and Public Affairs

Mr. Humburg explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval based on unnecessary hardship, in that it is technically unfeasible to provide access to all levels.

#2 Visual and Performing Arts Teaching Facility, University of South Florida

#3 Palm Beach County Fire Rescue Station No. 32

Mr. Humburg explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval because the fire station has been designed in accordance with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) which allow areas not open to the public, and in which persons with physical disabilities cannot perform the physical duties required, to be constructed without vertical accessibility. The second floor of the fire station will be occupied only by fire fighters, and the ground floor is accessible. This project was previously granted a waiver in January of 2008, but the station has not yet been built and the waiver expired after 1 year.

#4 South Florida Community College Auditorium Renovation

Mr. Humburg explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval unnecessary hardship, in that it is technically unfeasible to provide access to all levels and to the box seats.

#8 Jupiter High School

#9 Royal Palm Beach High School

#10 La Prima Casa Montessori

Mr. Humburg explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval based on disproportionate cost.

#11 Orange County Orlando Magic Recreation Center South Econ Site

#12 Orange County Orlando Magic Recreation Center Golden Rod Site

#13 Orange County Orlando Magic Recreation Center Dr. Phillips Site

#14 Orange County Orlando Magic Recreation Center Meadow Woods Site

#15 Orange County Orlando Magic Recreation Center Meadow Woods Site

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation for approval of the consent agenda for items 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommendation for Approval with Conditions:

# 5 Southside Saddle Club

Mr. Humburg explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council recommends granting the waiver on the condition that an appropriately sized concrete wheelchair pad will be installed beside the bleacher within one year because there is currently no place to put a wheelchair near the bleacher except on the grass or the sidewalk.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#6 Remington College – Tampa Campus

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation to grant waiver. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#7 Henrosa Hotel

Mr. Humburg explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council recommended approving the waiver on the condition that the hotel establishes a policy of giving notice to the public that the hotel does not meet all accessibility criteria, including provision of the elevator dimensions and access limitations.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND ENTITY APPROVAL

Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Commissioner Carson for presentation of entity approvals.

Commissioner stated the following entities were recommended for approval by the POC:

TST 2613 Stork - Twin City Testing Wisconsin

TST 2609 Architectural Testing,Inc.

TST 3892 Hurricane Test Laboratory, LLC – Georgia

TST 4317 Testing Evaluation Laboratories, Inc.

VAL 1616 Intertek - ETL/Warnock Hersey

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Carson stated the following entity was recommended for denial:

TST 7227 Mid America Testing Laboratory, Inc.

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair stated there was a consent agenda for all those issues that were posted with the same result from all four compliance methods either for approval, conditional approval or deferral. These were the ones without comment or there was no change to the recommendation as proposed presented. He stated if no commissioner wished to pull any if the products for individual consideration he asked for a motion to approve the consent agenda for all four compliance methods for approval, conditional approval and deferral.

Commissioner Browdy entered a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended for all four compliance methods for approvals, conditional approvals and deferrals. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair presented the following products for consideration individually:

11740 Overhead Door Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide specification of impact glass or remove notes on impact glass available.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12017 USA Shutter Company LLC

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide details of storm bars as tested. Remove mullion details or provide test of mullion impact.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12106 Four Seasons Solar Products LLC

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the applicant to provide a completed application.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12163 Four Seasons Solar Products LLC

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the applicant to provide a completed application.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12214 YKK AP America

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide anchor calculations to administrator.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12215 YKK AP America

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide anchor calculations to administrator.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12216 YKK AP America

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide anchor calculations to administrator.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12217 YKK AP America

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide anchor calculations to administrator.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12109 Four Seasons Solar Products LLC

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the applicant to provide completed application.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

993-R3 Kinro, Inc

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

2864-R2Kinro, Inc

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

6796-R1 Atlas Roofing

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation.

Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

9671-R1 Flesher Windows, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to remove 135 degree configuration. Add corner detail. Add proper glazing sealant detail as tested.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

10039-R1 Flesher Windows, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant remove reference to Dow Corning on Sheet 3. Provide correct interlayer as tested from revised test report.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

10142 TRADESMAN LLC

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide testing in accordance with TAS 110 or indicate "No" for use within HVHZ.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

10982 Resin Technology Company / Division of Henry Company

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide testing in accordance with TAS 110 or indicate "No" for use within HVHZ.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12051 Kinro, Inc

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the design pressure to be limited to certified rating.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

5500-R2 Elite Aluminum Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to indicate "No" for use within HVHZ.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8215-R1 High Velocity Hurricane Protection Systems

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to indicate "No" for use within HVHZ.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

9449-R1 United States Aluminum Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to remove from evaluation reports tables with sizes larger than tested. Indicate "No" for use within HVHZ.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

10083-R1 Graham Architectural Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to indicate within HVHZ not to be used above 30 ft height.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

10384 Alukon GMBH & Co. KG

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to obtain a Quality Assurance Agency Contract.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

11217 CAOBA Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide Test Reports and revise Evaluation Reports indicating the glazing configurations as tested; impact of raised panels; measurement of deflection of mullions and its attachments. Revise installation drawings to indicate anchors as on calculations; hardware as tested and reinforcements as tested.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

11340 Hurricane Fabric .com

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide deflection tables indicating glazing separation. Remove notes on aluminum extrusions. Provide Tensile Strength, Flexural Modulus, Elongation at Break, and if reinforced, the type and percentage of reinforcement of clip material.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

11565 JHRG LLC

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12092 Eurocraft Industries Inc

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12126 Vistawall Group

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12131 Vistawall Group

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to revise Note 4 to indicate glazing as detailed on the evaluation report and installation drawings.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12133 Vistawall Group

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide complete set of installation drawings. Drawings shall include Bill of Materials identifying panel wall components.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12191 Megamet Industries, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide section detail view of the louver insert.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12197 Metals USA Building Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to revise category/sub-category to Structural Component/Structural Wall.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12205 YKK AP America

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide test reports indicating mullion tested span. Limit span to tested values.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12219 YKK AP America

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide test reports indicating mullion tested span. Limit span to tested values.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12317 Gammans Skylight Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to indicate on limits of use not to be used above 30 Ft height.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

1421-R2 Wayne-Dalton Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

7170-R2 Amarr Garage Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide strength of tested material. Indicate "No" for use within HVHZ.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

11135 Diamond Door Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to indicate "No" for use within HVHZ. Provide lock hardware as tested.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

11728 Merchant & Evans, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to for Product 11728.2 indicate "No" for use within HVHZ.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

12086 Al's Sheetmetal Industry LLC

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to indicate "No" for use within HVHZ. Provide tests indicating weathering performance required in building code.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

11448 Stanek Vinyl Windows

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Dennis Lowman?, Town & Country Industries

Mr. Lowman asked if he could make comments on products already approved. He explained he missed the comment cycle and then tried to get into the conference call, but missed that too.

FL11176 and FL11183

Mr. Lowman stated the installation drawings evaluation report and installation analysis are missing structural components He stated the submittal did not show any descriptions or specifications for the J or F channel which is an integral part of the soffit system. He further stated the calculations show for spans greater than the tested ten inch sample as an ASTM-E330 and TAS 202 and 203 require the longest spans to be tested on it.

FL11184

Mr. Lowman stated the J and F channel were not substantiated or specified and they are structural components of the soffit system.

FL11191

Mr. Lowman stated the installation drawings specified no J or F channel. He further stated spans greater than the ten inch, in violation of the ASTM 330 and TAS 202 ad 203. He then stated they were HVHZ, but on the upload installation drawings there was no reference to the different type of installation required to meet the Miami-Dade requirement. He stated since a Miami-Dade approval was used it was not referenced in the approval or installation drawings nor do they reference a different type of installation.

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR ACCREDITOR AND COURSE APPROVAL

Accreditor Approvals

There were no applications for Accreditor to be approved.

Course Approvals

Commissioner Browdy stated there were four courses being submitted

for consideration by the Florida Building Commission that have been reviewed by the Education POC:

Advanced Module Fla. Building Code Building 2007 Edition With 2009 Revisions, BCIS Course #345.0

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Preserving the Use of Gravel Roof Systems BCIS Course #343.0

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Advanced 2007 Florida Building Code: Chapter 1 – Administration, BCIS Course #344.0

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Florida Building Code Electrical Advanced Module, BCIS Course # 348.0

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Browdy then stated there was one course, Florida Building Code Advanced Training: Residential (BCIS # 220.1) which was administratively approved.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CONSIDER LEGAL ISSUES AND PETITIONS FOR DECLARATORY STATEMENT: BINDING INTERPRETATIONS: REPORTS ONLY

DECLARATORY STATEMENTS:

Legal Issues:

Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Mr. Richmond for an overview of legal issues.

Mr. Richmond stated since the teleconference call there had been comments made regarding the bill. He then stated there had not been movement since the conference call. He further stated there had been only one committee related meeting of the Senate Regulated Industries Committee and it was not considered at that meeting. He stated it should be on the agenda for the next week, although those agendas were not available for review or distribution. He concluded by stating he wanted to open it for the opportunity for questions or discussion.

Commissioner Carson first stated he was speaking for himself, not the Product Approval POC. He then stated he was not very familiar with Section 19 at the time of the conference call. He expressed concern regarding four items in the section:

1) The certification method would now be getting a special treatment.

2) It was unclear how the public was going to have time to comment within the 10 day window.

3) BCIS would need some upgrades.

(Commissioner Carson said he had four items, but only named those 3)

Mr. Richmond stated it was developed in response to some language industry proposed and initially appeared in Senate Bill 2100; wherein certified products would be deemed approved for use in the state of Florida without any consideration whatsoever by the Commission or the committee. He further stated numerous opportunities had been opened and flexibility to address any number of issues, but would ultimately require ratification through the POC. He then stated the public comment on the front end was not fully anticipated. He continued by stating any documents would be made available and receive public comment. He stated upon staff’s review the certified products have been almost of negligible concern in terms of the paperwork that had been submitted and the amount of work needed to conform that paperwork to the rule. He then stated he believed there was sufficient flexibility in the BCIS in order to be able to address this as well. He further stated it was a moving target and something to be utilized to as a potential Commission advantage without any concurrent decrease to the protections afforded to Floridians.

Commissioner Carson stated he believed the Commission had something it had worked real hard on, which seems to be working. He continued by stating he did not get a lot of complaints about this. He reiterated his concern that if the Commission began giving one particular method a special treatment he was not sure what the outcome would be.

Commissioner Kidwell stated he agreed with Commissioner Carson’s comments relative to giving one method special treatment and the potential issues it could cause.

Petition for Investigation of Product Approval:

DCA08-BC-360 by Power Steel

Mr. Richmond stated the disposition of petition/complaint by Power Steel versus Cast Crete. He continued by stating he had emailed the commissioners and had handed out a paper copy of what he would offer to dispose of that petition. He further stated in the last discussion he may have referred to the disposition being accomplished by an order. He then stated a written disposition had not been done in the past with any sort of variety pertaining to Product Approval complaints. He further stated, upon review he realized no formal petitions had been filed therefore he felt something in writing was appropriate, but he did not believe an order was the appropriate method and would submit the memorandum dated April 7, 2009 as a reflection of the Commission’s discussion from the last meeting. He continued by stating the primary rationale was being offered to deny the request to begin an investigation:

1) The petition and information filed by Power Steel failed to account for the tolerances explicitly allowed in the Code with references documents for concrete coverage.

2) The provisions relating to welding in the petition were not applicable to welding wires such as the stirrups used in this product.

3) The identification of Craig Parrino as the Quality Assurance Entity was appropriate under the Commission’s rule and the application thereof.

Mr. Richmond asked for a motion to approve the memorandum and have it explicitly provide a mechanism for modification, deletion or any other changes.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the motion as stated. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Grippa stated he had gone through the minutes and the Commission had voted not to investigate the product. He asked if that was correct.

Chairman Rodriquez responded stating it was correct.

Commissioner Grippa stated it looked like a lot of investigation had been done. He further stated he was on the side for an investigation. He then stated the whole premise of the issue was really more of a civil matter between two parties. He asked if that were correct.

Mr. Richmond responded stating he had taken away from the discussions it was more of the technical aspects. He stated he wanted this process and review was in case his recollection was wrong. He then stated it the memorandum did not reflect the will of the Commission all of the ground rules he would be happy to change them.

Commissioner Grippa stated he believed there was some contradiction and he wanted to make sure the record reflects the contradiction. He then stated he was reading the minutes which seemed to indicate the Commission did not believe it was in its power, but were just two competitors squabbling. He further stated the Commission was opining, without any sort of public notice, that Mr. Parrino was the appropriately identified quality assurance representative. He then stated he did not recall that and would not know how to vote on that. He further stated he would know how to vote on half of the issues because it was not talked about as a group, but it was voted not to do an investigation. He then stated as a notice requirement, if nothing else, as a technicality, he would ask it be noticed for the public and have it reconsidered at the next meeting. He stated it could then be discussed whether or not an investigation should be done based on the comments at the last meeting. He continued by stating the Commission could decide then if it should be opining, since it decided not to investigate, whether something was appropriate or not appropriate. He reiterated at a minimum he would raise the issue of the public notice requirement.

Commissioner Kidwell stated he wanted to correct a possible mistake he made during the last discussion on the issue. He continued by stating he had looked at the report a bit further and he believed he answered someone’s question related to how a horizontal measurement was taken. He further stated he believed he had answered the dimension was taken from the face of the wire to the face of the concrete, which was a misstatement. He then stated it should be taken from the face of the rebar to the face of the concrete. He stated he wanted to make sure it was corrected for the record. He then stated Mr. Parrino had been identified as Cast Crete’s quality assurance entity, but it was corrected in the memorandum to representative. He concluded by stating he had no issues with the memorandum.

Commissioner Greiner stated he had made the motion because he felt it encapsulated exactly what the Commission had done.

Mr. Richmond stated the matter had been on the agenda which was duly noticed under the Power Steel name and associated case number at that time. He further stated he believed the matter was duly noticed. He then stated to the extent the minutes reflected a discussion of competitors he did not feel that the fact the complainant was something the Commission should consider, that complaints should be taken from any corridor from if they were valid and demonstrated a problem, which was why the discussion was not reflected in the memorandum. He stated he believed to set it in the right posture the motion should be temporarily withdrawn and seconded to ask for public comment on the matter.

Commissioner Greiner stated he was in agreement with temporarily withdrawing the motion.

Commissioner Kidwell stated he was in agreement to temporarily withdrawing the motion.

Public Comment

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the memorandum as submitted. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Gregory asked Commissioner Kidwell, as chair of the Structural TAC, if the TAC was comfortable that the distance of the rebar to the edge of the concrete was the issue and the bonding or welded wire was in place simply to hold the rebar in place while the concrete was pouring and that the wire was not a conduit for corrosion to go the rebar.

Commissioner Kidwell responded he could not speak for the TAC because it was not considered at the TAC. He stated what Commissioner Gregory had stated was correct in my impression personally.

Mr. Richmond stated the foundation of the memorandum was the petition submitted by Power Steel did not demonstrate a variance from the standard, in accounting for the tolerances. He further stated staff did not want to ask any particular, or the Commission in general, to get into reverse engineering it, so no specific engineering finds were made finding the product complied only finding the petition failed to persuasively demonstrate it did not comply.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 19 in favor, 4 opposed (Grippa, Norkunas, Boyer and Stone). Motion carried.

Binding Interpretations:

No binding interpretations.

Declaratory Statements:

Second Hearings:

DCA08-DEC-194 by Dan Arlington, St. Johns County Building Department

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA08-DEC-357 by Fred S. Cardwell, P.E.

Mr. Richmond stated the petition was withdrawn by the applicant. He then stated consistent with the Commission’s treatment of the declaratory statements in the past he asked for a motion to accept the withdrawal.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the withdrawal. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

First Hearings:

DCA08-DEC-207 by Anthony Apfelback, Fire Marshall/Building Official, City of Altamonte Springs

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Vann moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA08-DEC-344 by Alvin Scolnik, National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association Amendment

Mr. Richmond stated the petition was withdrawn by applicant prior to consideration.

No Commission action necessary.

DCA08-DEC-345 by James Reed, Southwest Progressive Enterprises, Inc.

Mr. Richmond stated the petition failed to comply with the requirements for a declaratory statement, therefore could be administratively dismissed.

No Commission action necessary.

DCA09-DEC-009 by Thomas H. Ford of Bhamani, Ford

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Gregory moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA09-DEC-025 by Brad Weatherholtz, Florida Roofing and Sheet Metal Association

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Vann moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA09-DEC-045 by Brad Weatherholtz, Florida Roofing and Sheet Metal Association

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Vann moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA09-DEC-051 by David Hodges, Fine Tooth Comb Investigations

DCA09-DEC-055 by David Hodges, Fine Tooth Comb Investigations

DCA09-DEC-056 by David Hodges, Fine Tooth Comb Investigations

Mr. Richmond stated at the request of the petitioner.

No Commission action necessary.

DCA09-DEC-053 by James R. Schock, City of Jacksonville

DCA09-DEC-062 by Dan Arlington, St. Johns County

Mr. Richmond stated the TAC recommended the matters in the declaratory statements be consolidated for the purpose of resolution, reflecting the facts and circumstances in each petition, although the ultimate questions and answers were the same. He then explained the issues presented in the petitions for declaratory statements and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Vann moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Code AdministrationTAC

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Code Administration TAC. (See Code Administration TAC Minutes April 6, 2009).

Commissioner Carson moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Energy TAC

Commissioner Greiner presented the report of the Energy TAC. (See Energy TAC Meeting Minutes April 6, 2009).

Commissioner Gregory moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mechanical TAC

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Mechanical TAC. (See Mechanical TAC Meeting Minutes March 23, 2009).

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Structural TAC

Commissioner presented the report of the Structural TAC. (See Structural TAC Meeting Minutes April 6, 2009).

Commissioner Carson moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Education POC

Chairman Browdy presented the report of the Education POC. (See Education POC Meeting Minutes March 30, 2009).

Commissioner Browdy moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC

Commissioner Carson presented the report of the Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC. (See Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC Meeting Minutes April 2, 2009.)

Commissioner Carson stated there was probably more call-in participation for the Product Approval Committee than any other committee. He continued by stating with that many people and that many opportunities for outside chatter, fax machines, and conversations he found it to be very chaotic. He further stated he realized there were budget issues but he would ask in the future, if at all possible, he believed it would be a lot better if the POC could meet in person.

Chairman Rodriguez stated if more teleconferences were going to be used, there should be rules of engagement.

Mr. Blair stated there were rules of engagement.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he knew there were rules of engagement and the Commission was reminded any time there had to be a teleconference. He then stated everyone would like to participate and would like to do it in person but if budget does not permit common courtesy should be used i.e. music playing if someone has put the call on hold.

Commissioner Kidwell stated he agreed with Commissioner Carson’s comments. He further stated with the number of items on the agenda placing phone off and on hold, waiting to be recognized, and losing the administrator two or three times during integral parts of the conversation the call was a disaster. He then stated he had participated in a number of teleconference meetings and in certain instances or forums it works well. He reiterated in that particular forum or at least this particular meeting it was horrible and it was no one in particular’s fault, just the nature of the beast. He restated, as Commissioner Carson said, if that meeting could be held in person it would be better. He stated he did not feel the stakeholders were well represented in that forum waiting to be recognized and getting their comments stated in a timely fashion, whereas seeing and hearing them in the room was much more effective.

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Schulte stated he agreed with Commissioner Carson’s and Commissioner Kidwell’s comments, being on the POC a lot of input was required. He stated he missed this particular meeting because, like everyone else, he has a business and got caught up in a phone call or someone walked in and when he looked at the time it was too late to participate. He then stated he knew it was his responsibility but asked if it was possible to send an email out 15 minutes before the meeting. He further stated although a reminder was sent out 3 or 4 days in advance when caught up in business

Chairman Rodriguez stated he understood getting caught up in business and how it would be helpful to have not only have advance notice but short notice.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Florida Accessibility Code Workgroup Report

Mr. Blair presented (Please see Florida Accessibility Code Workgroup Report from February 2 and April 6, 2009.)

Commissioner Carson moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Roofing TAC

Commissioner Schulte presented the report of the Roofing TAC. (See Roofing TAC Meeting Minutes February 24, 2008).

Commissioner Greiner moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Florida Energy Code Workgroup Report

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Florida Energy Code Workgroup. He stated the workgroup had met 3 different times including March 27, 2009. He continued by stating the workgroup had developed consensus recommendations on the cost effectiveness test recommendations for amendments to the Florida Energy Code which would be submitted during the rule development workshop. He then stated the workgroup would continue to work on the other sub tasks which were part of the process i.e. replacement of air conditioning equipment with humidity and moisture control problems, energy efficient pool pumps, and specific building options to achieve energy efficient improvements. He stated the workgroup would next meet on May 30, 2009.

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Flood Resistant Standards Workgroup

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Flood Resistant Standards Workgroup. He stated the workgroup met on March 25, 2009 and will meet next on April 29, 2009 in Tallahassee. He further stated there was a great deal of progress at the first meeting and had already developed some preliminary consensus recommendations on the key threshold issues including large scale agreement on incorporating the Flood Resistant Standards into the Code and using IBC provisions as the base as well as ASCE 24 and limiting the Code to buildings and structures .

Commissioner Carson moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Soffitt Systems Workgroup Report

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Soffit Systems Workgroup. He stated the workgroup last met on February 4, 2009 in Melbourne. He continued by stating the workgroup had developed a preliminary package of recommendations for soffit systems within the Florida Building Code. He further stated consensus had been reached on the draft recommendations regarding packaging and how it should be labeled, what information should be on the packaging and also that there should be some labeling requirements in the Code. He then stated these recommendations would be further developed and coming forward during the Code cycle process, but there was a consensus on the package of recommendations. He concluded by stating the workgroup would meet next on April 8, 2009 and would be hearing research reports to get into the performance aspects, which was the second phase of the task.

Commissioner Carson moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON RULE 9B-70.002 EDUCATION

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the December 2008 Commission meeting at the recommendation of the Education POC, the Commission voted to conduct a workshop for the purpose of implementing amendments to the Education Rule. He continued by stating the purpose of the rule development initiative was to implement the recommendations of the program administrator regarding the rules of operation according to regarding review and approval of accreditors and courses seeking accreditation. He further stated the initiative would also correct some outdated internet references including expiration dates of registered training, providers and accreditors. He then stated the workshop provides an opportunity for public comment before the Commission votes to proceed with rule adoption.

Mr. Richmond opened the hearing.

No public comment.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Commissioner Browdy if there were additional changes.

Commissioner Browdy responded there were none. He stated, as Chairman Rodriguez mentioned, most of the changes to the rule were primarily dealing with ministerial issues and technical issues as related to communication of the accreditors and training providers through the BCIS system. He then stated there was also a change to accreditors and certain credentials for accessibility issues which were much more appropriate than the original rule was stated. “The Education POC had reviewed this on numerous occasions and had solicited information through the POC process and was very pleased with the rule in its present position and would like to see it move forward.

Mr. Richmond closed the hearing.

Commissioner Carson moved approval to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9B-70.002 by conducting a rule adoption hearing. Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON RULE 9B-3.047 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE/2008 NEC, INTERIOR DESIGNERS AND CONFLICTS WITH LAW

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the October 2008 rule development workshop conducted for the purpose of considering amendments to Rule 9B-3.047 glitch amendments. He continued by stating the Commission considered whether to adopt the 2008 NEC code as a glitch amendment. He further stated the criteria provided in Chapter 553.7.3(7) F.S. for considering glitch amendments specified the Commission may consider updates to the NEC if delay of implementing the updated edition causes undue hardship on stakeholders or otherwise threaten the public safety, health and welfare. He further stated the Commission considered testimony from both sides and deferred action on deciding whether to consider adoption of the 2008 NEC as a glitch amendment in the 2008 glitch process and to set a schedule for separate rule making to implement the Commission’s actions relative to adopting the 2008 NEC by July 1, 2009. He then stated the NEC had been reviewed by the Electrical TAC and the TAC provided recommendations regarding adopting 2008 NEC into the Florida Building Code and proceeding with rulemaking. He stated the TAC recommended the Commission adopt the 2008 NEC in whole and conduct a rule development workshop at the April 2009 Commission meeting. He then stated the Commission voted to proceed with the rule development to adopt the 2008 NEC, the Interior Designers settlements agreement and corrections of conflict with law by conducting a rule development workshop at the April 2009 Commission meeting. He concluded by stating the workshop provides an opportunity to provide public comment before the Commission votes to proceed with rule adoption.

Mr. Richmond opened the hearing.

Chairman Rodriguez stated members of the public who wished to speak on the proposed changes to Rule 9B-3.047 Florida Building Code/2008 NEC, Interior Designers and Conflicts with Law should come forward to the speakers table. He continued by stating when it was an individual’s turn they should go to the speaker’s table, and state their name and representation for the record, as well as the specific component of the draft rule they wish to address. He then stated if there was agreement with others, please add new points and avoid repeating the same comments. He stated the Commission was interested in hearing a full range of views and if there was agreement with anything previously stated, but preferred not to have the same idea repeated without new points added. He then thanked the public for their cooperation.

Jeff Clarkson, Florida Bonded Pools, Jacksonville, Florida

Mr. Clarkson stated he was a second generation pool builder with 20 plus years of experience. He continued by stating he was also the president of United Pool Spa Association with approximately 100 members represented in the state of Florida. He then stated according to the NEC article 680.22B 2008 edition ”swimming pool pump motors shall be equipped with GFCI protection.” He further stated this was all new language in the 2008 edition and GFCI protection dedicated to the pump or pumps has never been required before. He stated the language was redundant and should be stricken before implementation of the 2008 NEC. He then stated there was currently a GFCI on convenience outlets and there was a grounding bond which features every potential conductor on the entire swimming pool and surrounding area. He then stated the current arrangement had worked well for more years than anyone could remember. He stated there was no new information indicating that pool pumps need additional protection. He then stated the current arrangement gives adequate protection and there was no data to indicate otherwise. He further stated the language would unnecessarily add cost to the construction of swimming pools and spas without any safety benefit. He concluded by asking the Commission to remove the language before the NEC becomes Florida Building Code.

Larry Brown, Mid Florida Pools, Orlando

Mr. Brown stated he was a past Chairman for The Safe Kids Committee on Drowning Prevention. He stated they were also opposed to 680.22B because the equipment it was designed to protect was never designed to run on 240V GFI, the nuisance trips were unavoidable. He then stated for the past 21 years he had been wiring between 300-600 swimming pools each year. He stated he was a master electrician and a state certified electrical contractor and has personally overseen the wiring of over 12,000 swimming pools. He continued by stating 7 years ago he decided to put a GFI 2 poll breaker on the pump just to see how it worked. He further stated it did not work and there were nuisance trips within one month and nuisance trips with the underwater lights all the time, which could either be fixed or not, but the pump was different. He stated the Florida Building Code requires everything associated with a pool be fed by a GFI protected circuit and most brands of manufacturers of breakers do not even make the device. He then stated the discussion of cost was stated as around $200.00, but if there was a house with a different brand that does not make the device then a different service panel in addition to the existing one would be necessary which could be between $600-$900. He further stated within 2-3 months if there was a 240V pump hooked to it they would not be getting service and if they went away and it tripped the pool would be green. He stated the equipment being used on pools was UL listed for the purpose and does not say that ground fault protection was required. He then stated the requirement was new and coming through the back door. He further stated small businesses such as himself and many others cannot afford to fight big corporations trying to sell big ticket items. He then stated when having to buy one of the devices homeowners would go to hardware store, see the price difference ($12.00 or $200.00) and buy the one that is not GFI protected to save money. He reiterated it was an unnecessary device. He concluded by stating and in all of his years of experience with IAEI, Drowning Prevention Task Force, and wiring and servicing all of these pools for 21 years, had never had anyone even tingled on a swimming pool. He then added it would not improve Florida’s safety record.

Tony Caruso, president, TC Water Features

Mr. Caruso stated he had been building pools in central Florida for 29 years. He stated he concurred with Mr. Brown’s and his associate’s concerns. He then stated his intention was to build a very safe product, which they do. He further stated his concern was the additional cost it would add to the construction of a swimming pool. He explained he recently bought a 220V, double poll, GFCI breaker which went from $12.00 for a 120V to $120.00 for a double poll. He stated it would be adding an expense in a time when added expenses to a swimming pool which was already a luxury item. He then stated a subpanel change out if a breaker was not available would be a major additional expense as well. He concluded by stating he would hope the Commission would consider removing the 680.22B from the language.

Jennifer Hatfield, Florida Swimming Pool Association

Ms. Hatfield stated she would not repeat the comments stated previously. She continued by stating she did present a 2 page document to the TAC on the issues, as well, which she could provide to the Commission. She then stated she echoed their support for the comments stated previously and would ask the Commission to not adopt Section 680.22.B of the 2008 NEC.

Allan Cooper, president, FSPA

Mr. Cooper stated he concurred with remarks already made.

Steve Jernigan, president, Florida Association of the American Institute of Architects

Mr. Jernigan offered comments on the interior design issue. (Please see letter from Mr. Jernigan to Chairman Rodriguez dated April 6, 2009.)

Amy Shrader, Gray Robinson, law firm

Ms. Shrader stated she had submitted copies of a document she prepared to the commissioners. (Please see Amy Shrader written comments.)

Commissioner Browdy asked Mr. Richmond if the Commission was in the proper posture to entertain the rule hearing

Mr. Richmond stated the case and settlement were considered at public meetings, we are at present in another public meeting and would have a subsequent rule adoption hearing assuming it goes forward after hearing all testimonies and considering all of the issues. He then stated he believed the Commission to be in proper posture as it had done everything in compliance with the Sunshine Law and Chapter 11.

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

Mr. Glenn stated he was the only person during the code development process who wrote comments on the 6 or 7 changes made by the interior designers group. He then stated he believed the settlement was a result of those code changes being rejected. He further stated at the time he submitted the comments which basically stated while the code change may have merit it was inappropriate to do it as part of the glitch as it did not meet the criteria of the glitch. He continued by stating he still did not think the changes were glitch changes. He further stated he believed the discussion that ensued at the Commission at the time of adoption was since architects and engineers were cited in the definition as an example it would probably be more appropriate to remove them than add interior designers. He then stated the list could continue to grow based on the definition of a registered design professional. He stated the Building Code would be better served if the definition were to make reference to the applicable statutory regulations as opposed to trying to single out trades or the professions by name. He concluded by stating the list could go far beyond architects and engineers and now interior designers when it should really only be a reference back to duly licensed in accordance with Florida Statute.

Doug Harvey, Building Officials Association of Florida

Mr. Harvey stated he supported to Mr. Glenn’s comments.

Lorraine Ross, Intek Consulting

Ms. Ross stated she wanted to introduce a new topic. She then stated there was a change made earlier, an acceptance on the nail diameter which creates conflicts within the Code. She then stated over the last week as people were actually trying to enforce the Code an additional conflict was found. She further stated it was contained within Section 611.7.2 on Secondary Water Barriers. She then stated she had given Mr. Madani approximately 50 of these to so the commissioners would have it available to them in writing. She stated Commissioner Schulte was also familiar with the issue. She continued by stating there was a situation relative to secondary water barriers and if anyone recalled there was a lot of word-smithing going on during the code development process at that time. She then stated the situation was that the charging paragraph allows any underlayment that can be used, depending upon the final roof covering, but in the subparagraph it stated only ASTM-D226 can be used. She continued by stating she had received many phone calls, as well, as Mr. Madani, from distributers roofing contractors, and manufacturers. She then stated she also received and phone call from Ronny Spooner, the Code official in Tallahassee, asking why only ASTM- D226 was being allowed in the Code. She then stated she had one page which was very simple indicating what the change might be. She further stated in the reasoning statement reminded ourselves that enhanced fastening was what was being searched for underlayment systems never in a position to limit it to a particular type of underlayment. She then asked the Commission for its consideration and to add this to the list of items being considered under this particular rulemaking hearing.

Shelley Siegel, Interior Designs Association Foundation

Ms. Siegel stated she was a practicing interior designer in Lake Worth. She then stated she had been at the Commission meetings before and was in support of the change. She continued by stating Interior Designers had been licensed for 20 years beginning with the title act, then a practice act and there had been a lot of education and evolution since then. She further stated she wanted to bring to the Commission’s attention a statement she had given to the Commission previously which was a declaratory statement issued by the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior design on April 28, 1999 entitled “Interior Design are authorized to submit signed and sealed drawings” and within the text it states “Sections 481.203 and 481.2131 prohibit interior designers from designing load bearing structures, mechanical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, ventilation, electrical, or vertical transportation systems and any fire safety system that materially affect life safety systems. Plans and specifications that cover only interior design can be sealed by the licensed interior designer and those particular plans dealing with only interior design do not have to be signed and sealed by an architect and engineer. Any of these plans that are submitted to the building officials are subject to normal review for compliance with codes and zoning ordinances.” She then stated by passing the change the interior designers become accountable. She further stated the interior designers were not asking to do whatever it is they want to do, but what was afforded by chapter 481, F.S. and not to do the other things listed in that section. She continued by stating for the commissioners having problems with the life safety issues, as health care designers working with nursing homes and assisted living facilities, the life safety issue is looked at even when picking materials because the materials were not just pretty colors and nice patterns because they are there to protect the residents and to protect the visitors to those facilities. She reiterated it was not fire sprinklers, fire partitions or anything else which might be considered life safety systems that was the focus, just those products, goods and materials being put into the projects as affecting life safety. She then stated she personally sits on NFPA 101 Life Safety Codes which was looking at furniture and content and how that is affecting. She further stated she did not need to remind the Commission of the settlement agreement that was signed by the association’s legal counsel and the Commission Chairman when the rule was challenged. She stated she believed the problem was the association came before the Commission 10, 15, maybe 20 years too late to be considered as a glitch. She asked the Commission to support the interior designers as they are educated, affect the public and were not asking to do anything they were not afforded to do by chapter 481.

Aida Bao-Garciga, Miami International Airport

Ms. Garciga stated she was the chief of contracts and interiors for the Miami airport. She then stated she wanted to let the Commission know how the designers were being affected in that there were qualified interior designers who were required to pull permits for everything done including furniture panel systems or mountable walls to enclose rooms or anything else. She further stated those things were the things allowed to us by the Board of Architectural and Interior Design to do. She continued by stating there was an in-house staff of engineers or architects, when required for a specific project, who would do the plans where they were required. She stated there were other simple projects which the interior designers need to sign and seal for permitting. She then stated the Building Department for Miami Dade came to her and said this was what needed to be done to be accepted in order for us to accept the signing and sealing of the interior design plans. She reiterated that the interior designers do not want to do anything that was not a part of what was required by the Board of Architecture and Interior Design.

Judy Hartgrove

Ms. Hartgrove stated she supported comments made by Ms. Siegel and Ms. Garcia.

Rick Logan, 1st vice-president/ president elect, AIA of Florida

Mr. Logan stated although the words of the settlement agreement were being used from the local, but their legal counsel stated the settlement agreement was not possible prior to the workshop. He then stated just the act of being able to sign and seal drawing does not mean the drawings were permitable as chapter 481, F.S. has to be followed to know what was permitable under the statute. He further stated relative to previous comments, mountable walls have the capability to affect means of egress, life safety and fire safety and were not allowed under the interior designers scope of work. He stated when looking at the paragraphs each one of the designers’ documents had to state the very end of it stated “or the issuance of a building permit.” He then stated he did not know how a building official could accept documents from an interior designer for permitting purposes when it has that statement at the very end.

Mr. Richmond stated for clarification, the settlement agreement the Commission voted to execute was accomplished through a rulemaking proceeding, a Chapter 120 proceeding. He then stated at the point the Commission entered that agreement there was an alternative to do an immediate notice of change to incorporate those same changes into the Building Code. He continued by stating the attorney for the interior designers at that time made the argument that it did meet the glitch criteria of unintended consequences for the Florida specific amendments. He then stated in order to delay of implementation of those changes the interior designers agreed to forgo the immediate implementation of the change in favor of this anticipated cycle. He continued by stating anything was feasible but the Commission had voted to incorporate that change into the Code at this time.

Commissioner Greiner stated there were some comments from the Energy TAC regarding items that needed to be changed within the Florida Residential and the Florida Commercial software. He further stated those items were reiterated by the Solar Industry and explained to the TAC, who recommended the Commission move forward with those. He explained the items were basically dealing with “bug” fixes that are automatically found in when beginning to use the software and the only people who can fix those were the people who created the software and those people need the Commission’s permission to do so.

Mr. Blair asked if there was also a revision of form 1100B.

Commissioner Greiner responded there was.

Mr. Blair stated staff had also proposed some recommendations which needed to be entered into the record. He further stated those recommendations included: 1) revise Section 106.1, submittal documents to add interior designers as written before; 2) clarify the intent in the application of Section 105.15 in accordance with the Commission’s action on declaratory statement DCA09-DEC-053; 3) in Chapter 27 remove Section 2705, economicial bonding and adopt by reference the NEC and update to the 2008 edition; 4) revise business Section 611.7.1 to be consistent with declaratory statement DCA09-DEC-009 to change the minimum diameter of 8D common nails; 5) remove Section E 3304 economicial bonding and adopt by reference the 2008 NEC for residential.

Mr. Glenn stated in addition to the “bug” changes in the software, he believed the discussion in the Energy TAC also included 3 or 4 changes in the actual text of the document. He asked Commissioner Greiner if there were text changes in addition to the bug fix in the software.

Commissioner Greiner stated one was the issue of clarifying the treatment of small additions with respect to 1100B, which had to be modified so it would work the way it was supposed to work. He then deferred to Mr. Blair for the other changes.

Mr. Blair stated it was revising the 1100B form for small additions and then the minor fixes needed to correct the form including scope and criteria, date of issue, changes needed to reflect Code criteria for additions of 600 square feet or less on the form.

Ms. Shrader stated when Mr. Richmond when discussed the settlement agreement none of us was privy to was it done under the context of a 120.54 rulemaking proceeding where parties were given the opportunity to participate in and comment upon the proposed rule change.

Mr. Richmond responded it was. He further stated it was the same document he emailed to her firm some six weeks ago.

Ms. Shrader stated they did not have the text. She further stated she was curious as to why we’re in a workshop posture if the Commission was not now willing to hear other people’s viewpoints and to take those into consideration in determining whether or not the rule amendment.

Mr. Richmond stated other peoples’ viewpoints on adopting the rule amendment were being taken, which was the purpose of the proceeding.

Ms. Shrader stated she would presume so. She then stated they were just advised of a settlement agreement whereas the Commission had already agreed to adopt it as a proposed rule and from their understanding of everything they have reviewed it was not something the Commission was allowed to do prior to receiving public input on the rule.

Mr. Richmond stated the settlement agreement was executed in a public meeting. He further stated he took strong exception to her characterization of “just having been advised” when he personally provided that to Mr. Huey in the Gray Robinson law firm some six weeks ago.

Ms. Shrader stated she did not mean disrespect in any way. She then stated when they received the notice it stated there was no proposed rule language. She further stated having received it in that form they did not know how it ended up and what the exact proposed rule language was which would allow them to comment on the proposed changes that would go into the rule.

Mr. Richmond stated, as she should be aware, notices of rule development do not require proposed rule language. He further stated in this case the only rule language that would ever be published would be that updating the Florida Building Code reference because all Rule 9B-3.047 does was adopt the Code by reference. He then stated the exact language would not be published however the proposal had been circulated at least previously and would be prior to the rule adoption. He reiterated a copy was provided, as well as appearing on the DOA internet website.

Ms. Shrader stated she appreciated that. She further stated they had just wanted to receive the actual language of the rule and would look forward to receiving it soon.

Commissioner Carson stated he wanted to be clear on what the Commission had agreed to at the last meeting. He further stated maybe he missed the boat on this, but what he was hearing from Mr. Richmond was when the Commission agreed to the settlement agreement it was going to make the change and not just reconsider it. He asked if that were correct.

Mr. Richmond stated the settlement agreement as read into the record does require adoption of the change proposed by the interior designers’ attorney through the system in the last glitch code change cycle.

Commissioner Carson stated he was not sure if he would’ve agreed to that at the time.

Mr. Richmond stated it also relates an effective date of July 1. He apologized for the lack of clarity but it was pretty clearly expressed in the agreement itself that was circulated in advance.

Commissioner Greiner stated he thought he was not hearing exactly correct. He then stated if the Commission went into a settlement agreement in which the Commission agreed to put the language into the Code does it stop the Commission from making changes to it during the workshop.

Mr. Richmond stated if agreed to by the petitioner in the challenge case the Commission could make any changes.

Commissioner Greiner stated if any changes were offered during the workshop the petitioner the Commission made the agreement with would have to agree to them.

Mr. Richmond stated that was correct.

Commissioner Greiner stated he was not sure the Commission should have made the settlement agreement.

Commissioner Kidwell stated the record should reflect he had voted against this at the time. He further stated he would continue to vote against it

Commissioner Grippa stated for the commissioners who were appointed after October it would be good to look at the language. He further stated the preliminary text of the proposed rule development was not available. He asked if staff could provide that. He then stated what the Commission was considering sounded like something he had never heard i.e. that a body could enter into an agreement that binds the Commission to adopt a rule. He asked what would happen if the Commission voted down the rule i.e. would it be in violation of the …

Mr. Blair interrupted Commissioner Grippa to inform him if he clicked on comment 1 the full language was there. He apologized for the interruption he wanted to make sure he knew the language was available.

Commissioner Grippa stated it looked like the rule encompasses a number of different items. He then asked if the Commission voted it down.

Mr. Richmond stated the rule challenges that were in existence could be reinstated and potentially the Commission could be subject to liability for attorney’s fees and costs for pursuing that rule challenge. He then stated to put this into context he was not in support of the change initially as he believed a number of other commissioners felt the same. He further stated the Commission did vote on a settlement agreement and approved the settlement agreement. He continued by stating he believed the Commission had an obligation to live up to its commitment.

Commissioner Grippa stated no matter how he may opine on the merits of the document before the Commission or the policy being adopted he asked if it was legal for a body to settle a case and then require a possibly changing body to adopt a rule.

Mr. Richmond responded he believed it was.

Mr. Dixon stated he wanted to make sure the commissioners were clear on what the code was saying. He continued by stating the particular section that applies does not authorize anything. He further stated the point of the section was to command architects, engineers, and landscape architects that they shall sign and seal documents that are submitted for permitting.

Commissioner Kidwell stated he would lean more to Mr. Glenn’s comments that the issue was addressed in chapter 481 and chapter 471 and has no reason to be in this Code.

Commissioner Greiner stated he supported Commissioner Kidwell’s comments that this does not belong in the Code because they are statutes. He then stated the statutes cover the items that were there. He then stated the arguing about something that should not even be in the Code. He further stated the only thing left for the Commission to do was to go with the settlement agreement and change the Code in the next cycle.

Commissioner Franco stated he believed he also voted against the settlement because he did not believe it was a glitch. He asked Mr. Richmond if it the rule changes the statute because the statute seems to state that it cannot be used for the issuance of any building permit, but the Commission was now saying the Code would allow it.

Mr. Richmond stated the Code cannot change the statute. He then stated the language was paraphrased pretty accurately by Mr. Dixon. He continued by stating the only addition was it required them to get signed and sealed documents as required by Florida statute. He further stated it was a simple reference with no substantive impact whatsoever. He concluded by stating the testimony before was the failure to have interior designers within this section of the Code, especially in light of the Commission’s recognition of landscape architects, it was being applied by certain building officials to believe documents that were authorized to be signed and sealed by interior designers can not be accepted, even though they were statutorily authorized. He then stated the Commission may well want to consider in the next development of the Florida Building Code going with the ICC resolution for the issues which was an outright deference to Florida licensing statutes. He concluded by stating for the time being it does not change statutory rights or obligations engineers, architects, interior designers or landscape architects and it simply recognizes that license.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if the ICC mentioned it anywhere or just deferred it to statute which was what Commissioner Greiner was discussing.

Mr. Richmond responded it did not.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he believed it was an important point.

Commissioner Gregory stated he just wanted to reserve time to discuss the electrical issues. He then stated his first meeting as a new commissioner was when the settlement agreement began. He asked for clarification, his understanding was the designers came and asked for a glitch amendment and it was ruled it was not a glitch, then the design professionals protested stating it was an illegal vote by the Commission. He asked if that was correct, if he heard correctly.

Chairman Rodriguez responded he was correct.

Commissioner Gregory stated then the agreement the Commission would

rehear this in lieu of the design professionals holding up the rest of the state with the 2007 Code.

Mr. Richmond stated the Commission agreed to adopt the proposal and the

Interior designers withdrew the rule challenge based on the Commission’s promise to adopt the proposal in the next Code cycle to take effect by July 1, 2009.

Commissioner Schulte stated he agreed with the issue Ms. Ross brought up with 611.7.2 as it was an oversight and was not supposed to limit the underlayments to ASTM D226. He asked what the recourse was and if change could be made.

Mr. Blair responded the change could be made. He explained if the Commission agrees to the rule as is with the addition of staff recommendations, which were read into the record, the Energy TAC’s recommendations which went into the record and also supporting the correction to 611.7.2, he could make a motion to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 3.047 Florida Building Code/2008 NEC, Interior Designers and Conflicts with Law by noticing for adoption and integrating any changes including the Energy TAC’s recommendations, staff’s recommendations and 611.7.2 regarding secondary water barriers. He then stated the motion would cover all of the different items heard during the hearing.

Commissioner Carson asked if the Commission would be voting on one piece at a time.

Mr. Blair stated the items could be voted separately. He then recommended starting with the set of recommendations from the Energy TAC.

Commissioner Carson moved approval to include the Energy TAC’s recommendations in the rule. Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Carson moved approval to include staff’s recommendation and the secondary water barrier in the rule.

Mr. Blair stated the Commission voted to include the various recommendations from staff which were read into the record and the Energy TAC’s recommendations. He asked what the Commission wanted to discuss before having a motion to move the entire rule forward.

Commissioner Carson stated he was not there to pass judgment on the pool pump GFCI. He further stated he was the Chairman of the Electrical TAC when the discussion took place. He further stated he believed it was the only item pulled out and discussed and he felt fairly certain the vote was 9-1 to move forward without making the change. He stated he wanted the Commission to be aware of that.

Commissioner Goodloe stated on the Electrical issue he had heard several comments in opposition to the change. He asked if anyone had any positive impacts the change would bring.

Commissioner Carson stated he believed Commissioner Goodloe only heard from the pool people. He then stated it was his recollection the meeting with all of those involved with code enforcement did not support the change and there was also a good amount of testimony from people who were involved with Square D and breaker panels and such who seemed to think it was a good idea.

Commissioner Gregory stated he had attended those Electrical TAC meetings and the only proponent of the pool pump GFCI requirement came from the Electrical Manufacturer’s Association. He then stated he had asked the association if they had any empirical data where there were any injuries whatsoever do to this. He further stated he had done some research himself and had not found any injuries related to this. He further stated when the pump motor was properly grounded and bonding required there is physically absolutely no way for someone to be electrocuted with a pool pump. He continued by stating the manufacturer responded to his statement saying it may be true, but when the pump motors were replaced several times there were instances where the ground strap was not replaced, therefore exposing the homeowner to undue risk. He concluded by stating he believed this body had a long case of what if’s which has cost industries a lot of money. He stated he did not know about the other industries, but it was very hard to find someone who would want to buy a pool currently, finding someone to finance it was even more difficult and adding additional costs was not helpful. He then stated his industry has to convince people they were not building something that would kill their children in their back yard. He concluded by stating the manufacturer bring up and trying to sell a product through rule adoption he believed was something the Commission should reject. He stated in other parts of the country, and in Texas where he had built pools, a license was not even required to build a pool. He stated the NEC code may work somewhere else, i.e. one size fits all, but Florida leads the nation building very safe swimming pools. He stated manufacturers want to sell products and the GFCI would not increase any life safety since no one had ever been electrocuted by a pool pump. He asked the Commission to reject the continual pounding of what if by supporting the rejection of the product.

Commissioner Franco asked if the Commission would be voting on the three items separately or as a package.

Commissioner Gregory moved approval to exclude the requirement under the NEC which requires a residential pool pump to have one of the GFCI. Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion.

Mr. Richmond stated the NEC was added as a base document for the Florida Building Code. He further stated there had to be a Florida specific need to make a modification.

Commissioner Gregory stated the specific Florida need was that Florida has in place a bonding requirement that has been on equipment since he had been building pools. He further stated not all states have such requirement on the pool equipment as Florida does. He stated requiring the GFCI would be redundant and not necessary.

Mr. Richmond stated there was a requirement in Florida Statute that when a base code was modified a Florida specific need had to be identified. He further stated it had to be particularized to the state, being redundant could be redundant in other states. He then stated absentee ownership was a great percentage of pool ownership.

Commissioner Gregory stated as Mr. Brown had pointed out there were a great number of Florida residents who were not here several months out of the year, and having a false trip would cause great undue expense for residents as well. He then stated from the Legislature there was not a lot of support for code regulations which would increase cost for residents in Florida. He further stated he believed the Commission could take a stand, although small, and say it was not going to pass a code just to pass a code and increase the cost of construction without having a corresponding increase in safety.

Mr. Dixon asked Commissioner Gregory for clarification if the argument presented by the public regarding absentee ownership and pools being left untended and pumps being shut off would creating an unhealthy situation would be the Florida reason for excluding Florida from the GFCI requirment.

Commissioner Gregory responded that was correct and if he had to state it just like that he would do so.

Commissioner Carson asked if changing the NEC would change the schedule at all for implementation.

Mr. Richmond responded stating no. He stated the results of the workshop would be taken and a draft a package of code language would be prepared for the commissioners at the next meeting which would actually be the rule adoption hearing. He then stated changes after the next meeting and forward could cause delays in implementation depending on what the issues were.

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Gregory for clarification if his motion was only for Residential Code.

Commissioner Gregory responded that was correct.

Commissioner Schock stated he was in opposition. He further stated he believed the Commission needed to provide the NEC as it stands. He further stated if it was good enough for the rest of the country it should be good enough for Florida.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 18 in favor, 5 opposed (Greiner, Boyer, Schock, Stone, and Goodloe). Motion carried.

Mr. Madani asked for clarification if the code change was limited to residential 1 or 2 family dwellings. He further stated there was the NEC and the one for 1 or 2 family dwellings.

Mr. Blair responded stating it was for the 1 or 2 family dwellings.

Mr. Blair stated the Commission had taken action on Energy TAC’s recommendations, the secondary water barrier and staff’s recommendations including the removing the requirement from just the Residential Code.

Mr. Glenn asked for clarification on what the Commission just limited to 1 or 2 family dwellings.

Mr. Blair responded stating it was the pool bonding issue of GFCI.

Mr. Glenn stated not all pools were built under the Residential Code. He further stated some residential pools were built under the Building Code.

Commissioner Grippa stated the Commission had voted on 3 items separately and then the 4^th one separately. He asked if the architectural/interior designer issue could be separate so if a commissioner wanted to vote against that but vote for the whole package they would be afforded that.

Chairman Rodriguez responded that was fine.

Commissioner Kidwell stated he was going to make the same comment.

Commissioner Gregory stated for clarification the Code was quite clear with its definition of residential swimming pools opposed to a commercial pool.

Mr. Blair stated a motion was needed to proceed with rule adoption of Rule 9B-3.047 Florida Building Code noticing for adoption and integrating the adopted changes and conducting a rule adoption hearing.

Chairman Rodriguez stated Commissioner Grippa had asked since the other issues had voted on separately if the interior design issue could be voted on separately, as well.

Mr. Blair apologized stating it was part of the package and it could be taken out.

Commissioner Grippa moved approval to delete the interior design issue from 2007 revision section 106.1.

Mr. Richmond asked if it was the commissioner’s intent to implement the settlement agreement or to negate it.

Commissioner Grippa stated he never voted on it.

Mr. Richmond stated the settlement agreement was to add interior designers up to that section.

Commissioner Grippa stated he thought for posture he was not taking up the settlement agreement with his motion, but voting as a commissioner on the rule adoption. He then stated he did not believe interior design should be added.

Commissioner Kidwell stated he understood Commissioner Grippa’s position and he was in agreement. He asked Mr. Richmond if it would be better if voting for this to vote against it. He asked would it be better to make a motion to make the change and then vote against it or do as Commissioner Grippa’s motion stated.

Mr. Blair responded stating the change was voted for by the Commission unanimously when it voted for the staff’s recommendations. He then stated if a commissioner wanted to take one out separately and vote again that could be done. He stated the commissioner voted against it or propose a new motion.

Commissioner Franco asked for clarification of the motion.

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Kidwell what his motion was.

Commissioner Kidwell responded he did not have a motion on the table. He stated he was asking if the motion on the table was the appropriate one.

Commissioner Grippa asked if the issue was already voted on. He asked if the commissioners were aware they had already voted on this as part of the staff recommendation.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Commission to let him try, being a non lawyer, to explain it to him, but he could not speak for counsel. He then stated the interior designers came and asked to be included. He further stated although Commissioner Grippa did not vote it was not because he had been prevented from voting he had not been appointed. He then stated as indicated from Commissioner Greiner’s comments there were some people around the table who believe none of the names belong in the Code just as they were not in the IBC. He continued by stating however there were 3 names, architects, engineers, and landscape architects, listed and the Commission voted, previous to Commissioner Grippa’s appointment, to add the interior designers. He further stated the Commission had done so because it believed there was no harm since all it changed was that the interior designers would now be required to sign and seal whatever they submitted, and they would not be dealing with life safety issues.

Chairman Rodriguez stated his strong suggestion to the Commission, and he hoped he would be heard since he had been a part of the Commission for some time now, which was Commissioner Greiner’s suggestion that if the Commission wanted to somehow change this, it should be done in the next Code cycle. He further stated the Commission might consider the International Code language which omits all of them except through reference of what was in the statute. He further stated the reason the Commission voted in favor of it the first time was because it didn’t feel it was doing any harm or foul and it wasn’t doing damage or ruining architects careers. He stated it was just putting the interior designers next to the landscape architects, engineers and architects with the respect that having them mentioned in the Code that they would have to sign and seal their drawings. He reiterated that was all that happened. He concluded by stating there was a whole battle before the Commission that really did not belong before the Commission because it was not its fight. He restated his strong recommendation was to let the settlement agreement stand or it will have to go and argue which might delay the Code. He continued by stating when the Commission was ready to handle the next edition of the Code he would believe the majority of the commissioners would agree everyone should be taken out and go with the IBC. He reiterated his comments were not legalese, but his comments alone and the commissioners could do whatever they wanted.

Commissioner Grippa stated he respected the Chairman knowing he was a well respected architect who has put his personal business behind him acting on behalf of the Commission for what he believes was in the Commission’s best interest. He stated his question was related to Mr. Blair’s remark not that the Commission voted on the settlement agreement but that the Commission had adopted staff’s recommendation before. He asked if procedurally that would have to be undone to do so and was it part of the staff’s recommendation.

Mr. Richmond stated the Commission had to vote to approve it as part of a package. He further stated he also did not realize it was voted on as part of the package. He then stated a motion to reconsider that would be necessary to take it out.

Commissioner Grippa stated to the commissioners for clarification it had been voted on earlier as part of a package.

Mr. Blair stated everything staff put in here had the interior designers, the declaratory statements, and the NEC issue with revisions. He then stated if the Commission wanted to remove the interior designer issue a motion to reconsider would be necessary to take that one individually.

Commissioner Grippa moved approval to reconsider the interior design issue. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion resulted in 17 in favor, 5 opposed (Vann, Boyer, Carlton, Gregory and Franco). Motion carried..

Commissioner Grippa stated he had a couple more questions for council because the last thing he wanted to do was hold up the Building Code. He asked Mr. Richmond if the agreement that was entered into was approved by a court of law or administrative hearing officer.

Mr. Richmond responded stating it served as a basis for two rule challenges at the Division of Administrative Hearings. He stated it was also approved by vote of the Commission.

Commissioner Grippa asked if a DOAH judge signed it.

Mr. Richmond responded stating he did not sign it, but used it as a basis to close his file on the matter as was done in standard cases.

Commissioner Grippa asked if there was a copy of that settlement agreement.

Mr. Richmond stated he did not have one available on his laptop at present.

Commissioner Grippa asked how the Commission could vote until the settlement agreement could be reviewed. He asked if there were an opportunity to continue the item or would it put it too far behind.

Mr. Richmond stated it would put the Commission in the posture if it wanted to add it a notice of change would be necessary in June. He stated he had read the settlement agreement and had participated in extracting? He then stated it required adoption of the language as posted on the screen to take effect July 1, 2008.

Commissioner Grippa stated there were a couple of things that were cause for those delays: 1) he did not know how it was ultimately decided or adjudicated or whether it was a signed or unsigned agreement and if both parties signed it who signed it. He then stated it may be the agreement, while intended to be a in good faith agreement could actually have no bearing in law on the Commission. He stated he was trying to figure out how it could.

Chairman Rodriguez stated, again not as the lawyer, the Commission voted to enter into the settlement agreement, it was signed and it was used by the judge to clear his file and the petitioner removed the challenge to the rule. He then stated he suggested if the Commission tries to undo that, when there was no harm and no foul, only asking the interior designers sign and seal their drawings, along with the architects, engineers and landscape architects, the timetable would be jeopardized. He further stated it would not be worth it because the Commission could always come back and in the next Code cycle and take all of them out and just use by reference to the statute.

Commissioner Schulte stated Mr. Blair read a motion 30 minutes previous that he would like to make which included moving forward with the rule development inclusive of staff’s comments, Ms. Ross’ comments, the electrical issue and including the interior design issue.

Mr. Blair clarified Commissioner Schulte’s motion was to move approval to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9B-3.047 including integrating staff’s recommendations as revised with the issue raised by Commissioner Gregory, the Energy TAC’s comments, and the issue on secondary water barriers and 611.7.2

Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Franco stated he believed the issues should be voted on separately not as a package.

Chairman Rodriguez stated if he wanted to vote the issues separately he could vote against the motion.

Commissioner Gregory stated as stated by the Chairman it does not change anything and the Commission needed to move forward.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 16 in favor, 6 opposed (Hamrick, Kidwell, Grippa, Franco, Gross and Norkunas). Motion failed.

Commissioner Franco moved to vote on the issues separately, not as a package. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion resulted in 19 in favor, 4 opposed (Schulte, Rodriguez, Gregory, Gross) Motion carried.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the Energy TAC’s comments. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Greiner entered a motion to approve the issue of 611.7.2, secondary water barriers. Commissioner Boyer entered a second. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Staff recommendations regarding Interior Designers

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of staff recommendations regarding interior designers in section106.1. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Vann stated before the vote was taken he wanted to caution the new commissioners that the Commission had already voted on and passed this issue. He then stated there had been a lot had been thrown into the mix and a lot of confusion. He just asked the commissioners to remember it had already been passed once.

Commissioner Greiner stated he wanted to add that Commissioner Vann was correct. He further stated the situation, right or wrong, was one the Commission got itself into. He continued by stating he could make a perfectly good argument regarding why the Commission should never have signed that agreement. He then stated the Commission did, however, sign the agreement which leaves the Commission stuck in the normal process to alleviate the problem and the normal process would be used to correct it. He further stated if the Commission went back on what it had already done it would be unacceptable. He concluded by reminding the Commission what was written in the agreement would not hurt anyone and the reason he took the argument with it being in the Code was because it does not belong in there but in statute where it already was.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 17 in favor, 6 opposed (Hamrick, Grippa, Norkunas, Kidwell, Franco and Gross). Motion failed.

Commissioner Greiner stated the Commission was arguing over something that was not going to make any difference in the Code. He further stated the Commission was in a position where it needed to move forward and if it does not approve this it would be in the position of possibly delaying the Code. He then stated he was happy to blame it all on the interior designers but that’s not what this was about. He then stated this was about procedure and the Commission needed to get through it to get it done right.

Commissioner Greiner then requested a re-vote. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.

Mr. Blair explained only one of the 6 who were opposed could request a motion to reconsider.

Mr. Richmond stated delay and avoidance of delay was what got the Commission in the position in the first place. He continued by stating the Commission was enjoying the benefits of the delay at present considering the 2007 Code was already in effect, a situation which would not be in existence but for the settlement agreement. He then stated delay was not such a big issue but the budget was a pretty big issue. He continued by stating there was a settlement agreement, the Commission voted to resolve the case whereas basically it was conceivably in reach of settling that agreement which could cost the Commission attorney’s fees in the long run. He then stated he wanted the Commission to be aware it was pretty protracted rulemaking with the interior designers having appeared before the Commission on numerous occasions and never once did it receive a single objection from AIA. He further stated here was an opportunity to object when the Commission considered the settlement agreement and there was no objection or intervention. He stated AIA would likely have regress from this action as well. He then stated they could challenge the rule and then ultimately resolve their fight.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval to reconsider motion.

Mr. Blair stated Commissioner Greiner could not make the motion. He then stated only the individuals on the prevailing side could move to reconsider.

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval to reconsider. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion resulted in 22 in favor, 1 opposed (Franco). Motion carried.

Commissioner Grippa stated this was one of his original concerns. He then stated he would probably vote in favor. He continued by stating not having the settlement available for review was a problem because how could an individual vote in good conscience without all of the information, but he stated he trusted what the Chairman had said.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he appreciated that. He further stated he realized it would have been very helpful to have the settlement agreement. He then stated what was being heard from the commissioners who did vote, whether for or against, was it was voted because it was deemed not harmful at its face value because it was asking the interior designers to join the rest of the group who has to sign and seal. He then stated no additional powers were given to the interior designers only the additional responsibility. He further stated the Commission also did it because knowing there was no harm, no foul did not want to jeopardize the time table to adopt the Code.

Larry Schneider, partially representing AIA of Florida

Mr. Schneider stated he believed if the Commission recalled what the vote was and what was heard was no crime, no foul. He apologized for disagreeing with the chair. He continued by stating what was told to the Commission was their challenge would hold back the Code and the issue was to get the Code approved and not defer it.

Chairman Rodriguez stated, for the record, the no harm, no foul was based on the fact of having the interior designers next to the other 3 did not give them any additional superpowers.

Mr. Schneider stated in talking with some of the commissioners it was their understanding the challenge was to hold back the Code and not to hold back the Code.

Chairman Rodriguez stated part of the motivation to vote was not to hold back the Code. He further stated the no harm, no foul was with respect to the interior designers getting any special consideration other than the fact they were being placed next to the 3 others.

Mr. Schneider stated he understood.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval to approve Section 106.1 as written by staff. Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion resulted in 16 in favor, 5 opposed (Hamrick, Grippa, Norkunas, Franco and Gross.) Motion carried.

Commissioner Gregory moved approval of clarifying the intent of DCA09-DEC-053. Commissioner Boyer entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Gregory moved approval of the recommendations regarding Section 2705 and pool bonding using the correct version for the commercial codes. Commissioner Boyer entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion resulted in 21 in favor, 1 opposed (Schock). Motion carried.

Commissioner Gregory moved approval of 611.7.1 per declaratory statement. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Gregory moved approval for moving Section E3304 for the and adopting by reference the 2008 NEC for the residential code. Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9B-3.047, noticing and integrating any approved changes and conducting a rule adoption hearing at the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON RULE 9B-13.0071 COST

EFFECTIVENESS OF AMENDMENTS TO ENERGY CODE (ENERGY CODE WORKGROUP CET RECOMMENDATIONS

Chairman Rodriguez stated in Section 109, HB 7152 directs the Commission to develop a rule for determining cost effectiveness of energy conservation measures to be considered for inclusion in the Florida Energy Code. He then stated the rule must be applied to the update of the Energy provisions to the 2010 Florida Building Code. He continued by stating the Commission was working with stakeholders via the Energy Code workgroup to develop cost effectiveness desk criteria to be applied to justification for increased residential building energy efficiency requirements and would conclude rulemaking in time for the adopted rule to be effective for inclusion in the 2010 Code update process. He then stated at the February 2009 Commission meeting the Commission voted to initiate rulemaking to develop a rule to determine cost effectiveness of energy conservation measures to be considered for inclusion in the Florida Energy Code by conducting a rule development workshop at the April 2009 Commission meeting. He further stated the Energy Code Workgroup met on March 5^th and March 27^th 2009 and has recommendations for the Commission’s consideration. He then stated the workshop provided an opportunity for public comment before the Commission votes to proceed with rule adoption.

Mr. Richmond opened the hearing.

Commissioner Greiner stated the Energy Code Workgroup put together by the Chairman was a group of highly qualified individuals who put these processes together with respect to the effectiveness test and the workgroup had exclusively worked on the task.

Mr. Blair stated this was unanimously approved by the Energy Code Workgroup and was reviewed and unanimously approved by the Energy TAC.

Commissioner Gross stated when the workgroup was initially started it was only considering residential cost effectiveness. He then stated his shareholder, BOMA, wrote a letter and said they wanted commercial to be considered. He continued by stating the staff and the Energy Workgroup considered it and BOMA went and testified before the workgroup which was read into the record. He further stated changes can be made, this being a very good example, when something was headed one way and went another. He offered his support for the workgroup.

Mr. Blair continued his presentation of the energy code workgroup recommendations. (Please see Florida Building Commission, Florida Energy Code Workgroup Recommendations Regarding Cost Effectiveness Test For Amendments To The Florida Energy Code, unanimously adopted march 27, 2009.)

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the workgroup’s recommendations. Commissioner Gross entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Gross moved approval to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9B-13.0071 Cost Effectiveness of Amendments to Energy Code. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES

Commissioner Gregory thanked the Commission, especially the chairman, for the support of the swimming pool industry. He further stated it had come a long way and bestowing the honor of a subcommittee to the industry does a great justice and he assured the Commission the industry would respond and be a positive force at both the Commission and in the state.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Gregory for his comments and also for agreeing to serve as the chair of the committee.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

No public comment.

ADJOURN

1:25 p.m. adjourned.