FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

6000 West Osceola Parkway

Kissimmee, FL  34746

Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

8:30 AM

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

 

Dick Browdy, Chairman                                             Jeffrey Gross

Hamid Bahadori                                                         Robert Hamberger

Steve Bassett                                                              Brian Langille

James Batts                                                                 Beth Meyer

Bob Boyer                                                                   Darrell Phillips

Donald Brown                                                                        Bradley W. Schiffer

Jay Carlson                                                                  Frederick Schilling

David Compton                                                          Jim Schock

Nan Dean                                                                    Drew Smith

Kevin Flanagan                                                           Jeff Stone

Charles Frank                                                              Brian Swope

David Gilson                                                               Tim Tolbert

 

COMMISSIONER NOT PRESENT:

 

Oscar Calleja                                                              

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

.

Jim Richmond                                                             Chris Burgwald

Mo Madani                                                                 April Hammonds

Jim Hammers

 

 

MEETING FACILITATION:

 

The meeting was facilitated by Jeff Blair from the FCRC Consensus Center at Florida State University.  Information at: http://consensus.fsu.edu/

 

 

 


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 2

 

Welcome:

 

Time:  8:30 am

 

Chairman Browdy welcomed Commissioners, staff, and members of the public to Kissimmee and the April 17, 2014 plenary session of the Florida Building Commission.  He stated that in  addition to considering regular procedural issues including product and entity approvals, applications for accreditor and course approvals, petitions for declaratory statements, accessibility waivers, and recommendations from our various committees, the primary focus of the April meeting is to receive an update on the Education Rule, to receive an update on legislation of interest to the Commission, and to review and approve the summary of issues for inclusion in the Commission’s Annual Report (FY 2013-2014).

 

Chairman Browdy advised members of the public to sign the attendance sheet on the speaker’s table in the center of the room. In addition, we have a sign-up sheet for general public comment. He stated as always, we will provide an opportunity for public comment on each of the Commission’s substantive discussion topics (actions that are not procedural or ministerial in content).  Chairman Browdy stated that if a member of the public would like to comment on a specific substantive Commission agenda item, please come to the speaker’s table when the issue is up for consideration so we know you want to speak.  He advised that public input is welcome, but should be offered before there is a formal motion on the floor. Chairman Browdy asked that all participants and the audience please remember to keep all electronic devices turned off or in a silent mode. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

Chairman Browdy stated that there were also buff colored “Public Comment Forms” on the speakers’ table that can be used to provide written comments. All written comments will be included in the Facilitator’s Summary Report. Please give your completed “Public Comment Forms” to Jeff Blair.   He advised there are some of the licensing boards located within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation have adopted rules regarding continuing education credits for attending Florida Building Commission meetings and/or Technical Advisory Committee meetings. If your board participates you may sign-in on the kiosk laptop provided in the meeting room.
FBC Plenary Session

February 21, 2014

Page 3

 

Roll Call:

 

Chairman Browdy performed roll call, a quorum was met with twenty four members present.

 

Chairman Browdy requested that Jeff Blair cover the agenda items for the meeting today.

 

Jeff Blair welcomed participants to the February Plenary Session and introduced the agenda as follows:

 

 

Chairman Browdy requested a motion to approve the April 17, 2014 agenda as presented.  A motion was entered by Commissioner Schiffer and seconded by Commissioner Schilling, the motion passed unanimously.

 


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 4

 

 

Approval of the February 21, 2014 Facilitator’s Summary Report and Meeting Minutes:

 

Chairman Browdy requested a motion to approve the February 21, 2014 Facilitator’s Summary Report and Meeting Minutes as presented/posted.  Commissioner Schilling entered a Motion to approve the February 21, 2014 Facilitator’s Summary Report and Meeting Minutes as presented.  Commissioner Schiffer seconded the Motion.  The Motion passed unanimously.

 

Chairman’s Discussion Issues and Recommendations:

 

Appointments:

 

Chairman Browdy advised that the Governor has appointed David Gilson of New Port Richey as the Technical Projects Coordinator for Pinellas Schools.  He stated that Mr. Gilson succeeds Herminio Gonzalez and is appointed for a term beginning March 27, 2014, and ending January 6, 2017.  Chairman Browdy welcomed David.

 

Chairman Browdy acknowledged Hermino Gonzalez for his twelve years of outstanding service to the State of Florida and The Florida Building Commission.  He stated Mr. Gonzalez served from July 9, 2002 until March 27, 2014.  Chairman Browdy said that in addition to Commissioner Gonzalez chairing the Code Administration TAC, he served on the Product Approval POC, and served on many special issue work groups while serving on the Commission.  Chairman Browdy advised that the Commission will be formally acknowledging Mr. Gonzalez years of service to the State of Florida and the Commission.  He stated we will be preparing a resolution for the Commission’s approval at the next meeting.

 

Chairman Browdy also acknowledged the re-appointment of Commissioner Bassett by the Governor with term beginning March 27, 2014 and ending December 8, 2017.  Chairman Browdy welcomed Commissioner Bassett back.

 

Continuing Education Credits for Commissioners:

 

Chairman Browdy advised the Commissioners that they are eligible for four CEU credits depending on the licenses they hold with DBPR.  He told the Commissioners that they will need to sign in using the kiosk laptop provided in the meeting room to ensure you receive your CEUs.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 5

 

Remaining Legislative Conference Call Meeting Date Reminders:

 

Chairman Browdy advised the Commission that there are two remaining legislative update conference calls to be held April 28, 2014 and May 12, 2014.  He stated that staff will notify the Commissioners prior to these calls.

 

Chairman Browdy told the Commission that the current status of the legislative activity will be discussed later in this meeting.

 

Workplan Prioritization Exercise and Effectiveness Assessment Survey:

 

Chairman Browdy explained annually the Commission’s Work Plan Prioritization Exercise to prioritize key Work Plan Tasks, and an Effectiveness Assessment Survey to gauge the Commission’s assessment of how we function on 7 key metrics. Since we have had 18 new commissioners appointed since 2012 with 1 vacancy now, which leaves only 7 Commissioners with more than 2 years of experience. As a result we have decided to defer these exercises until next year.

 

Accessibility Waiver Applications:

 

Chairman Browdy advised the Commission will now consider this month’s requests for accessibility waivers. April Hammonds will serve as legal counsel and present the Accessibility Advisory Council’s recommendations. Chairman Browdy then asked April to present the

Councils’ recommendations regarding waiver requests.

 

April Hammonds presented the following waivers and Council’s recommendations:

 

Fred Schweitz, To Your Health Spa, 995 South Highway 27/441, OcalaCouncil recommended denial based on the plans submitted by the applicant as the equipment is different on each floor and since this is new construction, they would be able to include the needed equipment to meet the accessibility code.

 

Commissioner Schiffer entered motion to accept the Council recommendation to deny, Commissioner Bassett seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Alpha Delta Pi Sorority, 537 West Jefferson Street, Tallahassee - Council recommended granting based on disproportionate cost.

 

Commissioner Bassett entered motion to accept Council recommendation to grant waiver, Commissioner Meyer seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 6

 

Accessibility Waiver Applications (cont.):

 

High Reach 2 Office and Maintenance Facility, 260 Hickman Drive, SanfordCouncil recommended granting on the condition that the lift complies with the Florida Building Code.

 

Commissioner Schilling entered a motion to take a closer look at the drawing and deny the waiver.  Commissioner Schiffer entered second.  The motion failed with three votes in favor and twenty one votes against.

 

Jim Richmond provided information regarding staff analysis, stating the lift should be permissible in the absence of a waiver.  He stated the waiver is being sought due to the insistence of the building official that the lift does not provide vertical accessibility.  He said his other concern was that the Accessibility Council took up this issue with the applicant present on the call and given what the applicant was advised by staff and the Council, he would ask rather than denial, that it be deferred back to the Council with the concerns raised at this meeting.  He further stated this would allow for further discussion and allow the applicant to be present for the call.

 

There was further discussion among the Commissioners.

 

Chairman Browdy asked if there was an alternative motion.

 

Commissioner Gross entered a motion to defer back to the Accessibility Council for further evaluation.  Commissioner Meyer seconded the motion.  The motion passed twenty three in favor and one opposed.

 

Stark Building, 202-204 Centre Street, Fernandina BeachCouncil recommended granting waiver based on historical nature of the building.

 

Commissioner Tolbert entered a motion to accept Council recommendation to grant waiver.  Commissioner Boyer seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Miami Real Estate LLC, 355 Washington Avenue, Miami BeachCouncil recommended granting waiver based on technical infeasibility.

 

Commissioner Flanagan entered motion to accept Council recommendation to grant waiver.  Commissioner Meyer seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously. 


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 7

 

Applications for Product Entity Approval:

 

Product Approval

Entity Approval

 

Chairman Browdy requested Commissioner Stone report on the POC’s recommendations for entity approvals and the consent agenda for products recommended for approval. He stated the presentation will start with the consent agenda followed by entity approval applications, and conclude with discussion items. Chairman Browdy stated Commissioner Stone will now present the applications on the consent agenda and entity approval applications.

 

Commissioner Stone advised the Product Approval Oversight Committee met on Thursday, April 3, 2014 via conference call with a quorum present.  He stated the POC reviewed and recommended approval on consent nineteen product approval entities.

 

Commissioner Stone entered a motion for approval of the entire list of product approval entities.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Compton, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Commissioner Stone advised the POC reviewed and approved by consent 107 product applications.

 

Commissioner Stone entered a motion for approval of the consent list of product applications.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Carlson, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Commissioner Stone then referred the twenty three discussion items to be introduced by Jeff Blair.

 

Jeff Blair introduced the following 23 products for approval by the Commission:

 

4613-R3 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

4622-R5 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Smith seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

7841-R1 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Dean seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

8804-R3 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 8

 

Applications for Product Entity Approval (cont):

 

Product Approval

Entity Approval

 

12546-R3 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

15905-R2 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

1638-R2 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Batts seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16406-R1 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

1675-R1 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16779 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to  approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Batts seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16807 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Batts seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16849 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Batts seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16881 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16883 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16888 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Batts seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16891 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 9

 

Applications for Product Entity Approval (cont.):

 

Product Approval

Entity Approval

 

16896 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16897 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16899 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16900 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16901 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16687 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

16806 - Commissioner Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Batts seconded the motion passed unanimously.

 

Applications for Accreditor and Course Approval:

 

Chairman Browdy requested that Commissioner Dean present the Education POC’s recommendations regarding applications for accreditor and course approval.

 

Commissioner Dean provided the following Advanced Course from the POC for Commission action:

 

642.0 – Commissioner Dean entered a motion to approve as recommended by the POC, Commissioner Stone seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.

.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 10

 

Applications for Accreditor and Course Approval (cont.):

 

Commissioner Dean provided the following Self Affirmed Courses from the POC for Commission action:

 

316.1 - Commissioner Dean entered a motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC, Commissioner Stone seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously

 

499.0 - Commissioner Dean entered a motion to defer as recommended by the POC, Commissioner Stone seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously

 

500.0 - Commissioner Dean entered a motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC, Commissioner Stone seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement: Legal Report

 

Chairman Browdy asked April Hammonds, Legal Counsel for the Commission if there were any other legal issues or legislative issues in addition to the declaratory statement requests.

 

Ms. Hammonds stated there were no legal issues to discuss.

 

Chairman Browdy requested that Ms. Hammonds present the declaratory statements.

 

 

DS 2014 - 023 by Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm

 

Ms. Hammonds stated the legal report was listed on the screen with the answer.  Ms. Hammonds stated this is a situation where Storm Stoppers states that their product is a plywood alternative for Hurricane wind resistance situations.  She stated that with the Commission’s permission, she would like to go through the questions and the proposed answers and then provide the comment sent by Mr. Rick Schiffer. 

 

Ms. Hammonds stated in this instance there were several what were labeled in the petition as interpretations; however, she believed they were actually questions.

 

Ms. Hammonds began with number one.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 11

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

Interpretation No.1

A.  Does the Storm Stoppers product as described fall within the scope of the Florida Building Code, Existing Building?

Answer:  Answer is not possible.  No specific project/level of work was provided, and there are no specific facts and circumstances provided.

B.  If the answer is yes, then what are the specific Code provisions from the 2010 Florida Building Code, Existing Building, that apply?

Answer:  See answer to question A.

Interpretation No.2

A.  What are the specific statutes, Code provisions and laws that give the Florida Building Commission jurisdiction or legal authority to regulate or approve any product for use on an Existing Building AFTER the building has been constructed and received a certificate of occupancy, when such product is not used or incorporated into the permanent structure, nor attached with permanent anchors that penetrate into the structure of the building's frame?

Answer:  Answer is not possible.  Question is too general.

B.  Are wood structural panels (i.e. plywood) as-described in the Florida Building Code, Residential, exempt from having to comply with Florida Statutes Section 553.842(5)?

Answer:  Answer is not possible.  This question does not apply to the Petitioner’s product.

C.  If, in the opinion of the Florida Building Commission, wood structural panels (i.e, plywood) are exempt from Florida Statutes Section 553.842 (5), then would Storm Stoppers be entitled to receive the same exempt treatment as wood structural panels assuming the Storm Stopper product is equal to if not better than wood structural panels, for the temporary or emergency protection of window or doors from wind and rain?

Answer:  Answer is not possible.  This question does not apply to the Petitioner’s product; and there are no specific facts and circumstances provided.

D.  What is the Florida product approval number for wood structural panels (i.e. plywood) showing that product was approved by the Florida Building Commission?

Answer:  Answer is not possible.  This question does not apply to the Petitioner’s product.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 12

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

E.  Since the Storm Stoppers product is equal to if not better than wood structural panels Identified in Section 1609.1.2 of the Florida Building Code, Residential, is Storm Stoppers entitled to receive the same treatment as wood structural panels and not apply for a product approval number?

Answer:  Answer is not possible.  This question does not apply to the Petitioner’s product.

F.  Is Keddo Enterprises and Florida Building Commission recognized groups like the IHPA, FLASH, FEMA and the IBHS permitted to advertise or market wood structural panels (i.e. plywood) for "Wind-borne Debris Protection, "as a "Shutter" and for "Hurricane Protection" in Florida (even though plywood does not have a Florida product approval number)?

Answer:  Answer is not possible.  This question does not apply to the Petitioner’s product.

G.  Is the Florida Building Commission violating Section 553.842(5) in their promotion of Table 1609.1.2 in the Florida Building Code, Residential, by advertising wood structural panels (i.e. plywood) as "Wind-Borne Debris Protection" (at a time when plywood does not have a Florida product approval number and has not been shown to pass the ASTM Large Missile Impact Test and the Cyclic Pressure Differential Tests)?

Answer:  Answer is not possible.  This question does not apply to the Petitioner’s product.

 

H.  Can Keddo Enterprises, Including home improvement stores, advertise, sell, offer, market or distribute plywood for wind-borne debris protection or hurricane protection, since plywood is actually sold by home improvement stores throughout Florida for that purpose both long before and during an approaching, hurricane?

Answer:  Answer is not possible.  This question does not apply to the Petitioner’s product, and  it is not allowed to comment on the conduct of another in a declaratory statement petition.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 13

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

I.  Additionally, major home improvement stores advertise or sell plywood in Florida as a Shutter, hurricane protection or as protection from wind-borne debris both long before and as a hurricane is approaching. For example, the home improvement chain Lowe's has a YouTube video showing how to board up windows with plywood (which consumers can purchase from Lowes). See video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jCUrYY3lEk&feature=share&list=PLA3F904701785FEB8

 

Can Keddo Enterprises create a similar video advertising or marketing plywood as a "shutter," "hurricane protection" or as "protection from wind-borne debris", without violating Florida Statutes Section 553.842(5)?

 

Answer:  Answer is not possible.  This question does not apply to the Petitioner’s product, and it is not allowed to comment on the conduct of another in a declaratory statement petition.

 

Interpretation 3:

Does the Storm Stoppers product fall outside the scope of Rule 61G20-3.001, State Product

Approval Program?

Answer: The answer is “Yes”.  The product in question is a proposed alternative to the Wood Structural Panels (prescriptive specification method for protection of opening) as specified in Section R 301.2.1.2, Exception, of the Florida Building Code “FBC”, Residential.   As per Section 104.11 of the Florida Building Code, Building, an alternative method of construction to that prescribed in the FBC is subject to review and approval by the local building official, when such alternative is substantiated to be equivalent of that prescribed in the FBC in quality, strength, effectiveness, durability and safety.  Therefore, the Florida Building Commission has no authority to approve said alternate as part of the State Product Approval Program.

Ms. Hammonds advised during the process of the Committee Meetings, Mr. Schiffer was on the line and he submitted a subsequent public comment.  She said that he stated he was slightly confused by the answer and requested some clarification, Ms. Hammonds stated that Mr. Schiffer thought the Commission would have authority to approve or deny and did not understand why it would not be subject to product approval.  She advised that staff proposed a clarification that she presented.  Ms. Hammonds stated she also had an additional public comment from Mr. Schiffer and would present this after the clarification.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 14

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

Ms. Hammonds presented the following clarification.

Revised answer for further clarification:

 

Answer: The answer is “Yes”.  The product in question is a structural protection system (product) which is proposed to be used as an alternative to the Wood Structural Panels (prescriptive specification method for protection of opening) as specified in Section R 301.2.1.2, Exception, of the Florida Building Code “FBC”, Residential.   As per Section 104.11 of the Florida Building Code, Building, an alternative method of construction to that prescribed in the FBC is subject to review and approval by the local building official, when such alternative is substantiated to be equivalent of that prescribed in the FBC in quality, strength, effectiveness, durability and safety.   For the product in question, local approval must be in accordance with Section 553.8425, Local Product Approval, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Florida Building Commission has no authority to approve said alternate as part of the State Product Approval Program.

 

Ms. Hammonds then read an e-mail as a public comment received from Mr. Schiffer since he could not be in attendance at the meeting today.  Ms. Hammonds read the following e-mail:

 

I would encourage the commission to watch the installation video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YTbd-BeFDc) produced by the petitioner, in which it appears that: (1) a portion of the 3M dual lock fasteners that are part of the Storm Stoppers product is permanently affixed to the structure, contrary to assertions about permanence made in Interpretation #3; (2) the product is intended to be used in a manner consistent with shutters and/or impact protective systems, which are specifically identified in Rule 61G20-3.001, as subject to the Product Approval Program; (3) the product is not intended to be used in a "wood structural panel" context consistent with definitions in Chapter 2, Section R202 of the Florida Building Code such as cap plate, facing, spline, or structural insulated panel. This video may also aide the commission in responding to Interpretation #1.

 

In the event that the Commission still considers the Storm Stoppers product "not subject" to the Product Approval Program, I would hope that the answer be worded so that it clearly explains the applicable standards for local approval of a product intended to protect windows from hurricanes, windstorms, and wind-borne debris.

 

 


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 15

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

Commissioner Bassett advised he did not understand why this is being discussed as it does not meet the requirements for a request for declaratory statement, that there were insufficient facts and circumstances. Commissioner Bassett stated it looks like the Commission is trying to set code by answering the questions on the petition.

 

April Hammonds advised Commissioner Bassett that there was one question that could be addressed thus the reason this petition was brought before the Commission.  She further stated that all petitions have to be brought before the Commission and that only the one question is actually being answered based on the facts provided. 

 

Commissioner Bassett stated that he was not able to view the big screen as it was not even, and could not hear the conversation due to the sound issues in the room. 

 

Jeff Blair advised the Commission that they should be viewing the legal report to see the questions and answers to the petitions.

 

Commissioner Bassett stated that would require changing from screen to screen to view.

 

April Hammonds advised the Commission that the material is available for all Commissioners to review prior to the meeting as required by law.

 

Chairman Browdy advised the petitioner was present to provide public comment.

 

Petitioner introduced himself as Glenn Williams, Attorney for Keddo Enterprises which has a product called Storm Stoppers, which is the subject matter of the petition that he filed with the Florida Building Commission in March.  He advised if you look on the agenda you will see his name with initials behind Esq., he stated he was not sure if everyone knew what the BCS initials stood for, he stated that it stood for Board Certified Specialist and Board Certified by the Florida Bar as a specialists in construction law.  Mr. Williams stated that he comes with significant experience in construction law and as part of his experience in construction law, he knows that the public as well as himself, appreciates everyone on the Commission as they do a fantastic job for the public.  He said the time and effort spent by the Commissions on making the construction resulting product better for Floridians is appreciated.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 16

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

Mr. Williams stated he did want to go over a couple of items because he thought there is some misunderstanding, what he saw going through the process of the Committee approval of staff analysis he asked if just his questions only were presented, he did not see anybody getting copies of his actual petition.  He further stated when he submitted the petition afterwards, he was called by staff and asked to submit specific questions that ask for a yes or no answer and so afterwards, he submitted specific questions, there was a list of twelve of them.  Mr. Williams said he was also invited to answer his questions to the extent of what he wanted to answer, and he did provide those answers, he did not see anywhere in the staff analysis where they gave his proposed answers that had specific citations to statutes and the Florida Building Code.  He wanted to suggest that his petition be reviewed as well as his follow-up question statements before Committee makes a final decision as to the petition. 

 

Mr. Williams stated he would like to explain a couple of things.  He advised that Storm Stoppers product is approved in other states for the purpose of hurricane window protection.  He further stated they are now in Florida and they have to deal with the Florida Building Code as well as Florida Statutes that deal with wind borne debris protection.  He said in that respect he wanted to make sure that everyone is clear, that when he reads the Florida Building Codes all three of them whether it is the building code itself, the residential code or the existing building code, they are all talking about construction project.  Mr. Williams stated you must have something under construction.  He said this product is not applied for the purpose of being a construction product, it is limited to the sole purpose of what is wood structure panel is defined in the residential code, which is an alternate to shutters, the Florida Building Code Residential provides a way to take plywood or similar products and wood structure panels by the way are defined in the Florida Residential to include a “composite panel” which his client product is a composite product, to take plywood for example to screw or drill holes in it and bolt it over a window as an alternate to expensive metal or other types of shutters that are on the market.  He stated it is for the purpose of being approved under residential when you are building a new home within the wind borne debris region which we all know is primarily South Florida and one mile inland of the coastline for the rest of Florida.  Mr. Williams said that is not what his client’s product does, that is not the purpose of the product.  He said he is sitting there telling the Commission that the raw product of a Storm Stopper is just like plywood, meaning it’s in panels, it comes just like plywood, you can cut it up, you can drill holes in it, you can drill it in the wall and you can treat it just like plywood.  He further stated that with respect to the exception to the Florida Building Code, Residential as it relates to wood structural panels, his client’s product is a wood structural panel as it is “composite panel”. 


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 17

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

Mr. Williams stated his petition says, because the case law in Florida says this, is that if the product is like another product out there that has been approved or is an exception to the Code, that the Commission has an obligation to treat that product the same.  He advised that this is all that they are asking the Commission to do is to treat the product the same.  Mr. Williams said before they go spending a lot of money on testing, they realize in Florida there is an exception in the Florida Building Code that deals with wood structural panels and they are exempt from all of the testing requirements for state approval and if there is an exemption in the Florida Building Code with respect to plywood, then the same exemption should apply to his client’s product.  He stated if it is not then he feels like the only avenue he can go as a lawyer is to go to Court.  Mr. Williams stated he did not want to do that, he offered more information if needed to show the product is as good as or if not better than plywood for the purpose of being “a wood structural panel”.  He further stated that only applies with respect to construction, with respect to the 3M dual lock fasteners, which is how the product is applied in other states, is that the fasteners are commercial grade basically like a Velcro but a commercial grade high end Velcro.  He said you can cut the product in any shape you want and put it over the frame of any window and then have the product applied to that window and attached to the 3M dual lock fasteners.  Mr. Williams said in that scenario when you look at the codes administrative codes that the Commission deals with, it specifically says in there, that in order for a product to go through the product approval program, it has to involve the structure’s frame and the structure’s envelope, the building envelope.  He said this product does neither, he said when you use a 3M dual lock fastener it does neither, so how is this product applied, it is applied to existing buildings that are NOT undergoing any construction whatsoever.  Mr. Williams questioned if it is not undergoing any construction whatsoever, why does it need any building approval, he said they are not drilling the product through the wall or structural frame or impacting the building’s envelope, so the product with the 3M dual lock fasteners is his opinion are outside of the jurisdiction of the Florida Building Commission, because it is outside of the Florida Building Code.

 

Mr. Williams advised that they were just looking for answers to those questions, that they proposed and again he suggest that the Commission read his petition and see his proposed answers.  He wanted to make another point that in the only answer that being proposed by staff, is calling this product an alternate to plywood or alternate to wood structure panels.  Mr. Williams stated if it is an alternate to wood structure panels or plywood, then you need to treat it the same as plywood, you cannot say plywood is exempt from the code but not this product, if it is substantially equivalent.  Mr. Williams stated in his research, he said he has not found a product approval number for plywood or has he seen the Florida Building Commission take plywood and take it through testing requirements that metal shutters are put through, but you are


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 18

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

telling my client we must do that.  Mr. Williams stated legally they do not have to meet these requirements.

 

Chairman Browdy advised Mr. Williams he would allow a few more minutes and then he would like the Commissioners time to address him or ask him questions.

 

April Hammonds asked prior to going back to the Commission, she would like to speak to some procedural issues that will need to be addressed.

 

Mr. Williams stated as it relates to some of his questions in the petition, he understands that the staff did not want to answer as it did not relate to their product.  He stated if their product is an alternate to wood structural panels, then he feels the questions should be answered.  He further stated that is what the answer says to interpretation number 3 is that they are submitting as an alternate to wood structure panels, so this language was used and this is a phrase used in the
Florida Building Code and he feels his client should get answers to their questions.  He said specifically if the Commission is not going to answer or proposes to answer one out of twelve questions, then he would submit that interpretation number two C it is specifically related to his client’s product.  He stated it reads “would storm stoppers be entitled to receive the same exempt treatment as wood structural panels assuming the storm stoppers product is equal to or not better than wood structural panels”.  Mr. Williams stated he would defy wood structural panels elsewhere or right above that as plywood, so he thinks that should be answered because it does apply to his client’s product and it is part of a proper petition per declaratory statement.  He said the next one is interpretation two item E, he stated it asked is the storm stoppers product entitled to receive the same treatment as wood structural panels and not apply for product approval number, and again you have to treat products similar products the same, you cannot treat them differently, and if you are going to treat them differently, he believes his only advice to his client is to pursue this legally.  Mr. Williams then thanked the Commission for their time.

 

Chairman Browdy stated he would like to get all public comment before coming back to the Commission; however, he did acknowledge Ms. Hammonds and allowed her to address the procedural issues.

 

Ms. Hammonds advised that whenever these declaratory statements go before any committee or POC or the Commission, they are hot linked to the agenda so that everyone has access to the entire petition.  She stated the questions Mr. Williams would like answered being an experienced attorney as he stated certainly could have framed the question in such a way they could be answered and when these issues came up during the committee meetings, she did not recall any presence from the petitioner.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 19

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

Chairman Browdy acknowledged the next public speaker and asked that he identify himself for the record.

 

Tom Johnston identified himself and that he is with Town and Country Industries.  He stated that he would like to add, first thing would be 3M does state that dual fasteners do have a load bearing capacity, be it very small.  He said that if they are applied to the window of the structure then they are transmitting load to the window which is attached to the house.  Mr. Johnston said he would like to clear a few misconceptions one is the IHBA in this petition that they market and advertise plywood, he said IHBA does not market, advertise or promote any product.  He stated they do reference the fact that this is prescriptive document or it is in the Florida Building Code as a legal means of securing a structure from rapid internal pressurization, he further stated somewhere along the lines we skipped the fact that IBHS and ARA, tested somewhere upwards of a hundred samples of OSB and plywood for both impact and cyclic loading so this product has been tested probably more than any other product and that was all done before it went into the Building Code.  Mr. Johnston said lastly in the petition, he did not know where this would fall, but it comes under the heading of the manufacturer Keddo, LLC also states the product Storm Stoppers is not a construction product and the bullet points below that, they state that it is not advertised, marketed or sold as hurricane, windstorm, or impact protection from wind borne debris during hurricanes or windstorms, followed by cannot be considered a shutter or impact protective device.  Mr. Johnston stated Storm Stoppers clearly do not pass all of the required standards such as cyclic pressure differential test and goes on, but yet in the documents or if you go to the Storm Stoppers website homepage states “first and only temporary hurricane window protection product that installs without penetrating anchors” followed by “Storm Stoppers are a great alternative to heavy plywood panels for temporary protection during storms, hurricanes & typhoons”, so one minute it is not an opening protection product and the next minute it is, he said he was somewhat confused.  Mr. Johnston stated they have not been able to validate any product approvals for this product in any state, he said there is some old information on websites and things and a test report that is expired, at this point and time he believes this is an admitted hurricane protection device because it states so on the website.  He further stated if it is a proposed alternative as long as it has to comply with the same standards that the wood structural panels had to do impact and cyclic, if it goes through the local or statewide product approval process and pass the standards, they would support, if not, they stand strongly against this product being put out for public use.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 20

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

Ms. Hammonds asked to clarify the confusion; she stated the way this issue was brought to the forefront was that apparently this product is being advertised as a hurricane resistant product without a product approval or testing, this came up during the Committee meeting, there was comment made that this product could be approved at the local level provided there is testing and this has not been done.

 

Chairman Browdy asked for any further public comment regarding this matter.

 

Joe Belcher, International Hurricane Protection Association, he stated he wanted to clarify what the gentleman said about what the Florida Building Code had to do with this product, not drilling holes and it is not construction etc. etc.  He said chapter one in the Florida Building Code unlike the National Code does require a permit for all installations of all hurricane protection products.

 

John Smith, President and Owner of Storm Stoppers, stated he wanted to correct a couple of misstatements, but he needs assistance of Google, you can use you IPad and IPhones.  He asked each person type in getting ready for a hurricane in Google, he asked that everyone complete this now. 

 

Chairman Browdy, stated this is a public meeting, not a trial or public debate.  He stated this is his opportunity to present his side of the story and then the Commission will respond and hopefully make a decision.

 

Mr. Smith stated fair enough, he stated he heard three things that he disagreed with.  He said April Hammonds made a statement similar to plexi, I think she meant plexiglass which is made by a company called Alto Glass which is an acrylic, Storm Stoppers is made of corrugated plastic and has nothing to do with plexiglass and it is glas by the way not two s’s in it.  He further stated that Storm Stoppers made of corrugated plastic base component is polypropylene which is corrugated plastic, secondly, they would like to disclaim that Storm Stoppers do not fasten with Velcro fasteners, it is like calling aluminum steel and steel aluminum they are both metal but you would never confuse the two.  Mr. Smith stated third he had listened to his colleague say that the IHPA does not market or advertise plywood, he stated where he grew up, when someone says something and there are facts to prove them wrong, they would call that person a liar.  He stated he did not want to say that, he said maybe he just mis-spoke, he stated the IHPA website that they do not know is up, if your type in getting ready for a hurricane on Google which the Commission did not want to do, and go to page four there is a whole section about hurricane protection products.  He further stated Mr. Johnston does not know this site is up, because if he did he would take it down as it makes him sound like a liar.  Mr. Smith stated


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 21

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

that it says why not plywood, it does not meet the new building code, it is illegal and then he goes on as a last resort to tell you how to put it up.  He further stated that he just heard and the

group just heard a member of IHPA their competitor state that his organization does not market plywood.  He said that millions of people can go online and see this.  Mr. Smith said that if Mr. Johnston says one thing that is untrue, and he thinks he is responsible to know what is untrue, what else is he saying that is untrue.

 

Chairman Browdy asked if there was any further public comment.

 

Dick Wilhelm, with FMA/WDMA  representing a majority window and door manufacturers.  He stated they spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year meeting the requirements of the Florida Building Code as well as the ICC in testing their products for public safety.  Mr. Wilhelm stated if this company wants to spend the money for testing like his company does, then they would be happy to support the product.

 

Jack Glenn, representing himself stated just as a reminder to the Commissioner Members who may or may not be aware the Florida Building Code is based on a requirement out of the base code, the International Building Code.  He further stated the plywood systems there were tested and their tested with the panels attached to the structure not to the window.

 

Chairman Browdy, advised Mr. Williams that he was going back to the Commission.  He stated you are representing the parties for the petition; he would appreciate him staying at the speakers table to address any questions or concerns of the Commissioners. 

 

Commissioner Stone stated that the POC considered this and recommendation was to support of the staff analysis.  He stated that he found the product to be of interest, but the product approval POC does the statutory capability of really looking at the equivalency of the two systems of wood structural panels and this system here.  Commissioner Stone stated he felt the Structural TAC may need to take a look at this.  He further stated in making this statements as Jack Glenn said this came from the base code, one of the legacy codes, the standard building code.  He said he was a proponent of the code change that inserted wood structural panels into the code as a hurricane protective device, he said this was back in around 1995 or 1996 and testing was performed by APA, the Engineered Wood Association and he believed Virginia Tech. and Washington State University including the impact resistance and to be able to handle the wind loads both positive and negative.  Commissioner Stone said he cannot remember if there was cyclic testing but he does know there was extensive testing completed.  He said he is not sure if this is try and amend the code now or address the declaratory statement, he feels this would be an


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 22

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

amendment to the code.  He further stated the intent of the Florida Building Commission is to look at new technology, and he feels this is something they should look at, however, this is not the proper form to look at the product.  Commissioner Stone said he still feels the structural TAC should review this.

 

Commissioner Compton said as part of the petition Storm Stoppers makes a statement that their product is equal to if not better than wood structural panels.  Mr. Compton, said plywood or wood structural panels have very specific structural properties that are easily referenced.  He asked if there is any information on the Storm Stoppers product structural properties.

 

Mr. Williams stated first of all it has been tested for the large missile impact test.  He said the video is online at the website that was cited in the original petition, it is called the plywood alternative.com and you can view on the website that it was tested for large missile impact and did pass.  He said with respect to the particular issue, it has not gone through cyclic pressure testing at this time, but he wanted to point out about of the confusion going on, is that there is two things on, one is how the product is currently applied with 3M dual lock fasteners and the other issue is that the raw product the actual panels are just like plywood, you can drill holes in them, you can bolt them to the wall, all they are asking for in the petition, if they go through the process and do this, and then get this expensive testing done, will they get the same exception that wood structural panels get.  He stated in their investigation they discovered that wood structural panels do not have a product approval number and that they did not have to go through the testing requirements.

 

Chairman Browdy advised that this was explained that Commissioner Stone did answer the questions on testing for the plywood panels.   He asked Mr. Williams to stay on the question asked by Commissioner Compton.

 

Commissioner Compton re-stated the question as it still stands; plywood or wood structural panels have very specific structural properties that are easily referenced.  He asked if there is any information on the Storm Stoppers product structural properties.  Do they have properties available to analyze to see if they have equal strength as plywood?

 

Mr. Williams stated it could go through the same testing that wood structural panels did.

 

Commissioner Compton stated this was not his question; his question is do you have structural properties for the Storm Stopper Product right now.

 

Mr. Williams stated he is not aware of it right now, but will ask the manufacturer.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 23

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Chairman Browdy asked if there were any further questions from the Commissioners.

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

There being none, he asked Mr. Williams to provide his closing summary in a few minutes and then he will entertain a motion on the declaratory statement.

 

Mr. Williams stated he said that he thought he got in what he wanted to say and that there was a little confusion over this product. He further stated the product came just like plywood in panel sheets, and if you use the fastening system in the Florida Building Code Residential Code, their question is before they go through the expense of testing that the prior pubic spoke about, they want to know if they will get the same exempt treatment as wood panels.  Mr. Williams stated he had gone through the code and there is no product approval for wood structural panels, it is an exemption to the Code and it is State wide code and so if there is a statewide exception for wood structural panels, if they are an alternate to wood structural panels then they should get a state wide exception that is the same as wood structural panels.  He stated all he is saying is treat them the same as plywood, plywood does not have a product approval number that has been approved through the Florida Building Commission and they should get the same treatment as plywood and they believe the law says that as well.

 

Chairman Browdy entertained a motion on the declaratory statement for purposes of discussion.  He then recognized Commissioner Tolbert.

 

Commissioner Tolbert stated he believed treating the product the same as wood; this would require a code modification as the wood structural panel is a prescriptive method in the code.

 

Commissioner Compton referred back to his question to the petitioner, plywood or wood structural panels have very specific structural properties that are easily referenced and he feels at this point he does not believe this product is equal to plywood because there are no structural properties provided by the manufacture or Mr. Williams supporting the fact that this product is equal to or stronger than plywood.  He further stated he cannot see it can be considered equivalent when they cannot provide structural properties for the product itself. 

 

Commissioner Schock stated he agreed with what Joe Belcher said the code in Chapter One of the Building Code does specifically require permits for and installation instructions for structural panels and when used for storm protection.  He further stated there does seem to be some evidence that there is possibly literature indicating that this is a storm protection method, and whether there is or not, the public will perceive it that way to be placed over their windows.  Commissioner Schock said that plywood is specific in the Code as a prescriptive method and he


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 24

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

thinks this group has an opportunity to go to the ICC and do the same thing to try and get it in the Code and deal with it that way as he does see this as an alternative method where they have to provide the local officials with the proper information to go forward.

 

Chairman Browdy asked for any further comments from the Commission.

 

Commissioner Stone stated in accordance with the Program Oversight Committee, he made a motion to approve the staff interpretations and answers to the questions, the declaratory statement as voiced by legal counsel.  Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. 

 

Commissioners Bassett said that he is stilled questioning whether the Commission should be discussing this issue at all, he stated it does not seem to him that it does not meet the requirement of a declaratory statement; he feels the recommendation of the staff and the Commission Attorney.  He further stated this should not be discussed further as it does not meet the requirement of a declaratory statement.

 

Ms. Hammonds advised she had a question regarding the motion on the floor, specifically, did the motion include the additional clarification language that was included in red about the product is a structural protection system which is proposed to be used as those are the additional words and at the end for the product in question, local approval must be in accordance with 553.8425 local product approval F.S.  She stated those were some clarification of statements and is posted on the screen for reference.

 

Jeff Blair asked if Commissioner Stone’s intent in the motion was to include the revised language as provided by legal.  Commissioner Stone stated yes that was correct.

 

Chairman Browdy asked if there was any further comment.

 

Mo Madani stated he would like to clarify the language where it says the product in question is a structural protection system is to add impact structural impact protection system before protection.  He stated this is clearly an impact protection system.  He asked for one more additional clarification after language where it says that this product has to demonstrate the equivalency using quality strength effectiveness and safety is to add through applicable testing standards as referenced in section1909.1.2 of the Code.

 


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 25

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)

 

Chairman Browdy stated this amendment must be included in motion, he asked if Commissioner Stone wanted amendment included and Commissioner Carlson as second, both stated yes.

 

The motion passed twenty two in favor with two in opposition.

 

DS 2014 – 024 by Warren W. Schaefer, P.E. of W.W. Schaefer Engineering & Consulting, P.A

 

Ms. Hammonds read the petition from Mr. Warren W. Schaefer with response.

 

Chairman Browdy requested discussion if any from the Commission.

 

Commissioner Stone stated Product Approval POC had much discussion on this issue and voted to unanimously endorse the staff findings, but noted that the POC agreed to further study the language and interpretation of the rule with distinct possibility of initiation of rulemaking to modify the language of the rule.  Commissioner Stone then entered a motion to accept the recommended findings and noticing the study.  Commissioner Compton, seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.

 

DS 2014 - 032 by Ryan Holland of Evolution Pools & Construction Services Inc.

 

Ms. Hammonds read the petition from Mr. Ryan Holland with response.

 

Commissioner Batts entered a motion to accept the response from staff and recommended approval by the Swimming Pool TAC.  Commissioner Boyer seconded the motion; the motion passed 20 votes in favor and three votes against.

 

DS 2014-035 by Scott E. Rudacille, Esq. of Blalock Walters. P.A.

 

Ms. Hammonds read the petition from Mr. Scott E. Rudacille with response.

 

Commissioner Compton entered a motion to accept the response from staff and recommended approval by the Structural TAC and Special Occupancy TAC which was unanimous.

 

Commissioner Stone requested a definition of what a declaratory statement is and when it should be responded to.  Ms. Hammonds provided the definition for the Commission.

 

Commissioner Schock seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 26

 

Petitions for Declaratory Statement (cont.):

 

DS 2014 – 037 by Wayne R Thorne, Building Official of Longboat Key Building Department

 

Ms. Hammonds read the petition from Mr. Wayne R. Thorne with response with one change recommended by the Structural TAC and Special Occupancy TAC. Questions one, two, and three were read with response.  Ms. Hammonds advised question four was read and response was given with differences in TAC recommended answers.

 

Commissioner Compton entered a motion to accept the response from staff, legal and recommended approval by the Structural TAC and Special Occupancy TAC which was unanimous for questions one, two, three and five.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Schock, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Commissioner Schock entered a motion to accept Structural TAC recommendation to change wording to repair for question number four.  Commissioner Compton seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Update on Adoption of 5th Edition of the Florida Building Code:

                                                            

Chairman Browdy stated at the August 22-23, 2013 meeting the Commission voted to make the effective date of the 2013 Florida Building Code midnight December 31, 2014, and to name the Updated Code: Florida Building Code Fifth Edition (2014). The selection of this date was to meet the statutory requirement to coordinate with the updated version of the Florida Fire Prevention Code, which was being developed with an effective date of midnight December 31, 2014. The Commission is also statutorily required to have the Florida Building Code published for six months after adoption before it becomes effective. As a result the effective date of the Florida Building Code Fifth Edition (2014) is dependent on when the Florida Fire Prevention Code 2013 is adopted.

 

Chairman Browdy requested that Commissioner Frank to bring the Commission up on the current timing. 

 

Commissioner Frank stated that the 2013 Fire Prevention Code has held two workshops and will be holding hearings starting next month and they are on track for adoption of December 31, 2013.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 27

 

Update on Adoption of 5th Edition of the Florida Building Code (cont.):

 

Chairman Browdy stated based on this report it appears that the earliest the Commission could conduct a rule adoption hearing on the 5th Edition Florida Building Code (2014) would be at the August meeting. He said this would mean that the earliest effective date of the Florida Building Code would be March of 2015, and possibly later depending on final adoption of the Code and providing the six month publication requirement prior to the effective date.

 

Chairman Browdy recommend that the Commission wait until the June meeting to take formal action on changing the effective date for the 5th Edition Florida Building Code (2014) so we have a clearer idea of a realistic effective date based on the adoption of the Florida Fire Prevention Code 2013 as well as when the Commission could subsequently conduct a rule adoption hearing.  He further stated this informational only and there is no action needed from the Commission.

 

Legislative Report:

 

Chairman Browdy stated that Jim Richmond would provide the Commission with an update on the status of HB 593, SB 1106, SB 1044 and The House Energy Sub Committee.

 

Mr. Richmond stated that the House now has a bill number which is HB 7147, he said this is simple one that bill is ready for floor action adding a twenty seventh Commissioner to the Commission, the one modification in the early edition, there was a specialized appointment process involving the Commissioner of Agriculture and the Governor’s Office that has been changed to essentially track the rest of the seats with the Commission where there will be a recommendations from the Commissioner of Agriculture which the Governor is free to accept or not.

 

Jim said the primary areas of activity last week and this week was HB 593 and SB 1106 which are companion bills.  He described the Bills with the big difference is HB 593 was amended to stripped of physical impact, there were some amendments that were being considered to the bill, but were withdrawn as it had already gone through the Appropriations Committee and they did not want it re-referred.  He stated right now it has committee stops and is ready for floor vote in the House, but has not been calendared.  Jim advised that SB 1106 however, was in Senate Regulated Industries last week and did receive some amendments with substantial impact on the Commission and the program in Tallahassee, first relating to waivers of building code provisions on public swimming pools. He stated a couple of years ago the Department of Health was essentially removed from the building permitting process for public swimming pools, that being left to the local building departments.  Jim said that they also had a process in place to waive the requirements for the building code and had statutory authority for that, now that they do not have any participation in the process, it really kind of by operation removed their authority to waive the building code.  He advised a provision came out basically directing that the Commission


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 28

 

Legislative Report (cont.):

 

waive those elements or have the authority to waive and create a program to do so.  Jim said in concert with the Swimming Pool TAC who would take up proposed waivers prior to their consideration by the Commission.  He said a discussion with the Department of Health, they were handling approximately one hundred twenty waiver applications per year in a six hour meeting every two months at twenty waivers each meeting.  Jim stated that would be a considerable work load for the Swimming Pool TAC, he could only hope it would not add to the Commission’s workload, however, it would add to the agenda.  He said it would require twenty more orders to be drafted after each meeting; twenty applications reviewed and submitted, this would require an additional technical person as well as a Senior Attorney.  Jim said this would be an additional item to be added to the BCIS to allow online application, which would be consistent with how business is done today.  He said that information is what troubled the House and actually they did not put that in the bill primarily because it had been through the

Appropriations Committee and if there were revisions, the bill would have to be re-referred back to the Appropriations Committee, so functionally it would kill the bill.  Jim said it is something out there and probably will need to be encountered in some form or fashion in the future, however, it certainly would be an impact that we could not avoid in the Department.

 

Jim continued with the additions, there has been a clarification to when roof mounted mechanical equipment needs to be brought up to the current code.  He said in speaking with Mo that language did not have any substantial impact; it is really just a clarification.  Jim said that there is a 30 x 30 tent exemption from the Fire Code that was added that is just an exemption from the Fire Code which was discussed on the last teleconference call.  He further advised that the $250,000 for the Future Builders of America which was discussed at the last meeting was actually removed from the House Bill, but remains in the Senate Bill.  He said one thing that has also been added a kind of administrative law issue, back in the initiation of the Building Code there was a special exception, State Agencies in general are given authority to waive their rules and grant variances, like the Department of Health used to do with public pools and building permits.  He said they still do waivers in areas as it pertains to their operational permits since it is still in their rules.  Jim said the Building Commission specifically was accepted out as we do not enforce the building code we adopt the building code, it is enforced by the local governments.  He said at the time we were told that they don’t waive or vary the Code, they grant alternates and equivalences.  Jim said in Chapter 120, there was exception crafted where the Commission is not to waive the Building Code, now at the same time in 553, Part II we do consider accessibility waivers at each meeting, however, the opinion was at that time and remains at this time it is separate and distinct from the Building Code.  He said first and foremost all of the Florida specific requirements that are waived can be traced to the Florida Statutory requirements, they are simply adopted through the Building Code but in addition to that statutorily, the Accessibility Code still has a separate and distinct existence.   Jim said it is adopted and then it is ultimately adopted into the Building Code.  He said there are a couple of reason for that and in addition we have always treated it a non-120 waiver, this means when we make a decision on a waiver and


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 29

 

Legislative Report (cont.):

 

an order goes out, any appeal from that goes to the District Court of Appeal.  He stated that if it were not done in the former fashion any appeal would be to the Division of Administrative Hearings which is a trial essentially with disputed issues of fact.  Jim advised we have created a substantial work load at least conceivably.  He said an interested party actually felt that or was concerned that the 120 prohibition of waivers and variances in the Building Code created some difficulty for the accessibility waiver problem and decided to fix the problem that he perceived but no-one else in the department thought it was a problem, they added that in with the swimming pools language to say the Commission can waive the Accessibility Code.  Jim said it is basically a solution to a problem and actually could create a good bit of litigation, so there have been comments on that as well.

 

Jim said the problems remain and apparently intentionally so with the swimming pool permitting process, that does not directly impact the Commission, but may create a deal of issues if passed, it will in essence, it will be impossible to submit a complete application for an operational permit for a public pool because they are requiring the final sign off by the building department as part of the application package, however you cannot get a building permit until you have an application for an operational permit.  Jim said they seem to think an incomplete application will be fine and accepted universally, but we will have to wait and see.

 

Jim said there are confirmations for the slate on Monday, before the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee which he believes will complete and have everyone seated at the table at this meeting confirmed for the first time in a long time.

 

Chairman Browdy stated he was curious on the House version of the Future Builders of America funding, they took out the $250,000 that was in there and the Senate version has it in.  He asked Commissioner Brown what happens when you try to reconcile a bill where you have one that has nothing and one that has the whole listing or is it split, where is the comprise. 

 

Commissioner Brown stated that there used to be a conference process if there it is a bill that rises to a level where leadership calls for a conference.  He asked if it is in the budget or in a bill, the answer was bill.  Commissioner Brown said that it has to be in the Appropriation Bill as well and that bill goes through a step process, the chairman of each committee in the house and senate, attempt to make reconciliation after the conference committee completes the work, it can be bumped up to the presiding officers.  He said a decision will probably be made ultimately by the presiding officers.

 

Chairman Browdy asked if there were any further comments for the Legislative Report.  There were no additional comments.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 30

 

Rule 61G20-6.002 Commission Approval and Accreditation of Advanced Building Code Training Courses

 

Chairman Browdy stated at the August 23, 2013 meeting the Commission approved the Education POC’s proposed language changes to paragraphs (e), (g), (h), and (i), contained in Rule 61G20-6.002, F.A.C.  He further stated at the October 18, 2013 meeting the Commission conducted a rule development workshop to receive public comment and to consider the Commission’s Education Program Oversight Committee (POC) recommendations for proceeding with the Rule. The POC recommended that the Commission conduct a supplemental rule development workshop providing time for the POC to work with stakeholders on proposed rule changes to address issues pertaining to approving courses that are based on Commission approved changes to the Code that are not yet formally been adopted by rule. Chairman Browdy said that at the December 13, 2013 meeting the commission conducted the supplemental rule development workshop and voted to amend Rule 61G20-6.002, Education, to adopt the Education POC’s recommendations for revisions to the Education Rule and to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 61G20-6.002, the Commission Approval and Accreditation of Advanced Building Code Training Courses, conducting a rule adoption hearing only if requested. He stated there were comments received recommending some minor revisions to the Rule text and the Education POC now has some recommendations for those changes. Chairman Browdy requested that Commissioner Dean provide the POC’s recommendations.

 

Commissioner Dean stated that there were some minor changes and she asked if April Hammonds would be discussing.

 

Ms. Hammonds stated she would be glad to address the commission for her.  She stated specifically there were a couple of places throughout the rule where the words law or administrative rules were not added behind the word code which was intended to be carried through the entire rule.  She further stated it technically could be conceived to be a technical change, which authority had been given by the Education POC to complete.  Ms. Hammonds advised since it was actual wording rather than just a name of a form or technical number, they did want to bring it before the POC to ensure they had an opportunity to vote on the change in language adding it through the rule where it was needed.  She stated the POC voted unanimously to add the language where it was needed in the Rule and she would ask that the Commission do the same.

 

Commissioner Dean entered a motion that the Commission adopt the changes.  Commissioner Stone seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 31

 

Recommendation of Approval of Summary of Issues and Recommendations for Inclusions in the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Annual Report:

 

Chairman Browdy stated each year the Commission reviews a Draft Summary of Issues and Recommendations for inclusion in the Commission’s Fiscal Year Annual Report the April meeting and a draft Report to the Legislature for approval at the June meeting. He stated Jeff will review the issues and recommendations for inclusion in the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Annual Report with the Commission

 

Jeff Blair provided a quick overview of each of the areas that typically included in the report and highlight some of the issues from the past Fiscal Year and then Jim will review of the actual recommendations. 

 

Jeff in the overview that the Commission received eighteen new members and has only seven members that have been there for a period of time and that the Commission has reached a stable point in its evolution and is primarily concerned with maintenance and working with stakeholders to continue to enhance the building code systems.  This would be a piece reported to the Legislature.

 

Jeff stated of interest in terms of the Commissions procedures and processes is the focus, the Commission did vote to change focus from funding primarily storm damage investigations and research to broader scope to other code related areas, this will be reported to the Legislature as well as the shift of funding to a broader scope.  

 

Jeff sated that another area is research and science based hurricane and code protections, the prior comment would also relate to that.

 

Jeff said another area of interest is that the Commission did vote to expand the funding of important research for projects including issues such as accessibility, swimming pool safety, plumbing, wind lift of aged roofs, testing of aluminum screen enclosures, mechanical code issues and some energy code issues.  He further stated those projects are being administered and overseen by the University of Florida.

 

Jeff stated next is the code update, the key reporting back to the Legislature is the 2013 code update process, which is the 5th Edition of the Florida Building Code started in 2012 and concluded in 2013 and at this time at least we know further, the effective date still remains December 31, 2014 that could change in the June meeting and can report what the Commission decides from that meeting.  He advised some key code enhancements will be reported, typically the report would be what the Commission has done related to that.  Jeff said an import piece is that the Commission voted to integrate the 2013 update and the 2013 glitch into a single rule development initiative, this was a nice enhancement, and eliminates the need for the supplement and as a result there is a fully integrated set of nine volumes that comprise the 5th Edition.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 32

 

Recommendation of Approval of Summary of Issues and Recommendations for Inclusions in the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Annual Report (cont.):

 

Jeff advised that he had reported on some Energy things, but there was one during the development of the 5th Edition of the Building Code, the Commission did incorporate the IECCS foundation code while maintaining the Florida specifics efficiencies, and as a result they appealed Rule 61G20 Thermal Efficiency Standards as it was no longer needed with the new format.  He stated the Commission certified to the Department of Energy that the Energy Conservation meets or exceeds these residential provisions as well as commercial provisions. 

 

Jeff for Accessibility, the main point, the Commission’s updated code is ready and looking for certification from the Department of Justice and is still under review as was last reported last year and that remains the case, nothing new reporting.  He said in addition, the Commission adopted the fee of $250.00 per application by Administrative Rule for Accessibility Code waivers per Statutory Assignment that is completed.

 

Jeff stated for Product Approval, during the reporting period the Commission voted to charge DBPR staff with assuming the administration of the Product Approval System, that was a big change, and they were to devise a payment screen to correlate with approved changes in the Administrative Rule.  He advised as well the Commission did implement the statutory changes to the product approval system that were assigned from the previous year based on the scope and product approval by the Commission and as a result products submitted for approval by method three evaluation will now be approved by DBPR and they are using the ten day business date process to expedite the approval and the Commission did complete all of the Legislative assignments relative to the Product Approval System. 

 

Jeff said the last piece was Education, reported in basically revised the Education Rule to clarify the deadline, twenty three days prior to the next Commission Meeting for course submission and accreditation, the definition of self-affirmed course, the process self-affirmed course reverting to a revised course, when courses can be submitted, accredited and approved and specifically when the Building code is approved vs adopted and the process for course revision relation to law and rule changes vs Building Code changes.

 

Jeff advised these are the highlights.  Jim will now go over the recommendations.

 

Jim Richmond stated one feature of this report is typically recommendations to the Legislature for statutory changes.  He said the currently pending one that results from the last report relates to the interpretation of the Accessibility Code and the entirety the Accessibility Code rather than being restricted only to Florida specific provisions and that is in both the House and Senate Bills referred to and moving forward.  He said that should be checked off the list legislatively this year.  He advised that we really have not discussed any firm legislative recommendation or none have really surfaced during deliberations with the exception of the discussion of binding


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 33

 

Recommendation of Approval of Summary of Issues and Recommendations for Inclusions in the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Annual Report (cont.):

 

interpretation, and we did not arrive at a result on this issue, he said right now the statute does not reflect the process at least last occurred and at some point it probably will need to be reviewed and modification made, we may want to consider making a general recommendation just to that effect in the report, the stakeholder need to review and come up with a means to address these matters, as of now the contractor in this circumstance is happy with the system and legal is not happy with the results of what has gone on with it.

 

Jim stated this is the only issue he has, but is open to hear from the Commission.

 

Chairman Browdy opened the floor to the Commission to offer input on Legislative issues.  There were no further comments.  He advised that there will be a draft report in advance of the June meeting for the Commissions review. 

 

Committee Reports and Recommendations:

 

Chairman Browdy asked Committee Chairmen, to confine their TAC/POC reports to a brief summary of key issues and recommendations, emphasizing any issues requiring an action from the Commission. Please frame any needed Commission action in the form of a motion.  There is no need to read the TAC/POC minutes since the complete minutes will be linked to the committees’ subsequent meeting agendas for approval by the respective committees.

 

Accessibility Technical Advisory Committee

 

Commission Gross provided a brief summary of the Accessibility Council meeting April 9, 2014 held via teleconference.

 

Commissioner Gross entered a motion to approve the Council report.  Commissioner Boyer seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Education Program Oversight Committee

 

Commissioner Dean provided a b brief summary of the POC meeting of April 10, 2014 held via teleconference.

 

Commissioner Dean entered a motion to approve the POC report, Commissioner Stone seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.

 


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 34

 

Committee Reports and Recommendations (cont.):

 

Energy Technical Advisory Committee

 

Commissioner Smith provided a brief summary of the Accessibility Council meeting April 9, 2014 held via teleconference.

 

Commissioner Smith entered a motion to approve the TAC report.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Boyer, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Fire Technical Advisory Committee

 

Commissioner Bahadori provided a brief summary of the Fire TAC meeting April 9, 2014 held via teleconference.

 

Commissioner Bahadori entered a motion to approve the TAC report.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Schock, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Mechanical Technical Advisory Committee

 

Commissioner Bassett provided a brief summary of the TAC meeting held April 8, 2014 via teleconference.

 

Commissioner Bassett entered a motion to approve the TAC report and any recommendations; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Dean, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Product Approval Program Oversight Committee

 

Commissioner Stone provided a brief summary of the TAC meeting held April 3, 2014 via teleconference.

 

Commissioner Stone entered a motion to approve the POC report and any recommendations, Commissioner Compton seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Roofing Technical Advisory Committee

 

Commissioner Swope provided a brief summary of the TAC meeting held April 3, 2014 via teleconference.

 

Commissioner Swope entered a motion to approve the TAC report and any recommendations; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Batts, the motion passed unanimously.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 35

 

Committee Reports and Recommendations (cont.):

 

Special Occupancy Technical Advisory Committee

 

Commissioner Phillips provided a brief summary of the TAC meeting held April 6, 2014 via teleconference.

 

Commissioner Phillips entered a motion to approve the TAC report and any recommendations; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Batts, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Structural Technical Advisory Committee

 

Commissioner Schock provided a brief summary of the TAC meeting held April 9, 2014 via teleconference.

 

Commissioner Schock entered a motion to approve the TAC report and any recommendations; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Compton, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Swimming Pool Technical Advisory Committee

 

Commissioner Tolbert provided a brief summary of the TAC meeting held April 4, 2014 via teleconference.

 

Commissioner Tolbert entered a motion to approve the TAC report and any recommendations; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Batts, the motion passed unanimously.

 

General Public Comment:

 

Chairman Browdy opened the floor to public comment.

 

Joe Belcher, JDB Code Services, stated he was looking for guidance on mod 5087 that related to reporting in the Energy Code, this mod was unanimously approved by both the TAC and the Commission and under public comment, he stated he missed EN4 that deletes the reporting requirement.  He is looking for guidance as to when he would or should need to request a change.  He also wanted to update a standard ACI530 which was not available during the process, however, is available to the 2013 edition.  He said he would like guidance at what point he could ask for these changes.

 

Chairman Browdy asked for any comments.  Jim Richmond advised if Mr. Belcher would like to discuss his questions with staff, they would be glad to work with.  Mr. Richmond advised that no-one is prepared to answer his questions today.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 36

 

General Public Comment (cont.):

 

Jack Glenn, asked for clarification, he stated he participated on all of the conference calls and there were a number of interim reports on research projects on the calls, he stated a number of them referenced Phase II on the work and he had a concern that the scope of the research project was written such that we get answer.  He stated that in a couple of instances there would be no information forthcoming from this phase of research and would require a second phase.  He stated that the Commission should have some feel of the total cost of the research is and whether the a project needs to be phased before contracts lag.  He stated he is concerned that some of the research money was spent and the cycle will end up with no tangible results but will cause the Commission to enter into more research to get answers.

 

Chairman Browdy asked Mo Madani to provide a comment on the schedule on the research work and progress in that area.

 

Mr. Madani stated the research projects are ongoing and the committees received the interim reports on all of the projects.  He stated some of the projects had to be split into two phases due to timing and the need for the research.  Mo said phase one to be completed in this fiscal year, phase two next fiscal year after the final report.  He said during the final report to be presented June, and there will be more input on the findings.  Mo advised Mr. Glenn, if there is phase two it is set to allow the research to be completed.

 

Chairman Browdy advised Mr. Madani in response to Mr. Glenn’s question, he would reporting and funding cost to be made available during the Chair meetings in June and whether there will be a second phase.

 

Mark Zehnal, FRSA, stated he would like to suggest that the TAC meetings start considering a 10 am time frame due to callers calling in from the west coast.  He stated this is just a consideration.  FRTRI roof tile manual, the 5th Edition, he stated they just received another push off on code until March 2015 and that would manual would go into effect and they are still waiting on the equivalency of standards and what he has heard from legal, now it has been put off again and they are looking for a time frame as they are getting reports from local government and contractors, that they are not able to use the 4th Edition, this is because it does not go along with the ASC710 the tables that are in there for uplift values are in the new manual and this is the reason for the push.  He stated they are requesting update.

 

Jim Richmond advised unfortunately at this point we cannot give a time frame, it is completely unpredictable and impossible to estimate what road blocks and hurdles will surface.  Jim said that we will have to fight through them as quickly as possible.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 37

 

General Public Comment (cont.):

 

April Hammonds stated she would say the same as what Mr. Richmond has explained.  She stated there has been another roadblock with JAPC that was not anticipated.  She said they cannot predicate what the Judicial Administrative Procedures Committee is going to do or the what the Department of State will require.

 

Mr. Zehnal was to know if FRSA could assist with the process.

 

Chairman Browdy advised that this process is insulated and it is somewhat trying, every time we are in process of trying to schedule the effective date of a new code.  He advised there will be an update at the June meeting.

 

Martin Parone stated he wanted to thank the Chairman for allowing him to provide the Commission with what we use at Tech Carpenter, flash safety training seminars.  He stated he has been giving them for the last year and one half throughout Florida.  He advised the letter in the front page is reason he wanted a moment with the Commission.  Mr. Parone stated as the Commission could see in the letter, that he is the Certified Technical Representative with Carpenter Electric, technical division.  He said Tech is a company that is twenty one years old that provides a strong unique three step comprehensive programs to commercial, industrial, government, health, educational, technology buildings, and the company does this all over the world.  Mr. Parone stated since he was certified in July of 2012 he has visited over 250 of the aforementioned businesses throughout the South Florida area and discovered something that is quite disturbing, more like 99% of the buildings he goes into to do what he does, he has noticed that they do not have official art flash labels on their electrical equipment and according to NFPA and National Electrical Code, this is important, so he wanted to say that he hopes the Commission will review the handout and address the requirements in the future, so that electrical contractors and engineers will begin commissioning the flash coordination in new buildings prior to giving them the certificate of occupancy.

 

Chairman Browdy asked if there was any comment on enforcement on this issue.  There was none at this time.

 

Jamie Gascon, Miami-Dade County, he stated he would like to make two points under public comment.  He stated the first point relates to the process that was followed at the last Product Approval Committee meeting.  He said that there was a manner in which comments are made or received by the POC, this specifically has to do with certification and evaluation by an approved evaluation entity method.  He further stated these are the products that are reviewed by staff and within ten days of being validated are switched over to the approved status.   Mr. Gascon said this last go round there were a number of comments that were made, however, there was almost no opportunity to make comments or discuss those that comments were filed.  He stated the perception was in essence that the process that which are heard before the POC

FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 38

 

General Public Comment (cont.):

 

somewhat changed along the way, so there were people lined up to speak that apparently did not get the opportunity to speak or voice the comments that had been filed.  Mr. Gascon suggested if the processes are going to be changed or the manner or format of these meetings, the fact that they are teleconference, it is somewhat difficult to convey and put these points across, so with changes as a public member, he would like to be notified in advanced of the changed process.

 

Mr. Gascon stated his second point is that he is trying to be proactive in the process, is that some of the products that are being submitted for approval that are based on test reports that are being shared, in other words the manufacturer will have testing and allows another manufacturer to use their testing to get the product approval.  He said what is going to happen to that product approval if the manufacturer ceases to allow the other manufacturer to use the test.  Mr. Gascon advised in the status of product approval that used it under those circumstances.  He said he does not believe it is covered under the rule.  He said that if someone ceases to allow someone else to use the product, it is something that should have an effect on the others product that received product approval.  Mr. Gascon stated it should be proactive and not reactive when this occurs, as company’s surface and then disappear, this is something that will happen.

 

April Hammonds, Esq, addressed Mr. Gascon’s concerns, she stated that he was correct about a process attempting to be changed, she stated it was the public and a few members of the POC that were attempting to change the process.  Ms. Hammonds stated she has been with the Commission for two years and has attended every Product Approval POC, she said this ten day of administrative approval of products by DBPR is not a new process, there have been some things added in but it is not new.  April stated it was always given for informational purposes to the POC to review ahead of time, there were public comments, none of that has changed.  She said what was going to be changed this time, it was recommended that every single product that had a comment be pulled off of the agenda and discussed, and that actually what the statute says which she read in to the record, the only way it should be pulled off for a full review is for good cause.  April further said what constitutes good cause, she said that the spreadsheet as well as everyone else, there were long lists of full public comments, she said that we are required by law to have those out at a minimum of seven days prior to the meeting.  She said they are often out earlier than that, and it is incumbent upon every Commissioner and every TAC member and every POC member to review the materials in a timely fashion and with their expertise, if they see something of grave concern, as legal standard is of good cause, must be substantiated by competent and substantial evidence, then that is something that should be brought before the full Commission, otherwise it is simply a ratification and that had been the process for two years.  April stated there were some people that wanted to make public comment on declaratory statements where public comment had already been called for.  She advised they will see a change to the upcoming agendas to match some of the other committee agendas which identify which state general comment like we do in plenary sessions, which will be the same for TAC and POC.  She stated further that when it is regarding other TAC business, it says something to the


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 39

 

General Public Comment (cont.):

 

effect of “identifying other TAC business or POC business for the future coming months” this issue came up with other meetings.  She asked that it not be said the process has been changed when this was done by the public.

 

Jamie Gascon stated he had only been doing this for twelve years and has seen the process evolve at the beginning to the level of professionalism that was achieved until recently.  He stated he felt the Commission had taken great effort to allow the public to speak and have their opinions heard.  Jamie said he had nothing to say at the meetings, but he did sense that the public was shunned and several comments that were lined up to be said but were not heard.  He stated they try to follow the rules and they appreciate the opportunity the public is given to make any comments they feel necessary.

 

Dwight Wilkes, with Key Tech, stated he needed direction or clarification on an issue.  He stated over the last year and more recently Commissioner Stone and last year Commissioner Schock mentioned items that they would like to bring before the product approval rule in a workshop during development hearing.  He stated most recently Commissioner Stone talked about 3.009 (4) on the validation wanting to be discussed and he thought it was in for the June meeting and not too long ago there was the use of the role form machines was discussed and staff had recommended a lot of these items be held until the next 2014-2015 development, he asked when would these come before the Commission so that he can know in a timely manner as he has clients that will be flying in to speak during the public comment as to the need for these items to be brought before the rule development.

 

April Hammonds stated the date she believes the annual rule proposal goes in at the end of the fiscal year and beginning of the new fiscal year whereby we are required to submit all of the rules that we want to take a look at.  She stated the soonest that we would be discussing some of rules given that you have to do notice of development, would be the August meeting once the rule plan together with the Rules Attorney, the Judicial Administrative Procedures Committee and the Department of State, these are new requirements, you have to tell them the rules you are planning to work on without deviation.  We are hopeful the rule plan will be complete in July.

 

Dwight Wilkes asked if that would be in Jeff’s report or where would it be located.

 

Jim Richmond advised he did not believe the plan is not published anywhere.  Jim stated the role form roofing came up, but he was not aware of any firm recommendations for amendment to the rule.  He said that we do have to coordinate all of the rule proceedings and there is significant program enhancement on product approval and you can only have a rule open once for rule making, so we have to have everything coordinated.  Jim stated notice is required and is out 14 days prior to the meetings and realistically we know when there is going to be a rule proceeding meeting before, that is probably the best as far as notification at this time.

FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 40

 

Commission Comments (cont.):

 

Mo Madani stated an explanation that our intention is to start discussion on the subjects by the June meetings.  He said before start a rule we need to know exactly what we are trying to change what we are trying to make in the rule.  We will start discussion of issues at the June meeting.

 

Commissioner Brown stated he would like to clarify to his prior statement on the bill process.  He clarified stating member bills and committee bills are handled differently than appropriation bills.  He stated that appropriation bills always have a conference committee toward the end of the process where the House and Senate version are reconciled by a committee of members from both houses.  He said member bills and committee bills do not normally take the same process, so if you have a bill in one house and one in another house that are not identical then each chamber has to make a decision on which or if they want either of the bills to pass for a bill to go to the Governor it has to pass both chambers in an identical format, so if there are inconsistent provisions then the House and Senate that would have to reconciled one way or another and one bill pass both chambers.  He said a member bill or committee bill can have funding provisions in it, that funding provision must also be incorporated into the appropriations bill in order for the funding to have the intended effect.  Commissioner Brown stated he hope this would clarify the question.

 

Chairman Browdy asked if there is a reconciliation that comes up with some number for this specific Future Builders Bill, would that then automatically go into the appropriations bill because it was passed by both Houses.

 

Commissioner Brown stated that it would not be automatic, but if it is in a bill and the bill passes, it is always generally provided for in the appropriations bill.

 

Chairman Browdy thanked Commissioner Brown for the clarification.

 

Commissioner Brown voiced his concern to the comments that were made at the beginning of the meeting regarding the sound in the room; he said he had difficulty understanding the meeting due to the echo in the room.

 

Commissioner Schock voiced same opinion on the sound in the room.  He stated he understood that questions were coming up again on threshold inspections on renovations of threshold buildings.  Commissioner Schock provided the Commission with history on this issue with the Professional Engineers Board regarding this issue.  He advised that several years ago he brought this before the Commission and asked for a possible Structural Work group to look at the issue and provide recommendations, however, the workgroup was incomplete on the issue due to an illness of a member and declaratory statements were decided on.  He feels that this has fallen through the cracks and is asking for the Chairman to allow this process to continue.


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 41

 

Commission Comments (cont.):

 

Chairman Browdy stated he had received some communication with regards to this issue from a contractor and he does feel it fell through the cracks and does not have any issue with him making contact with the Board of Professional Engineers to bring back in the work group.

 

Jim Richmond stated the work group was discontinued due to decision of use of declaratory statement as the questions could not be answered in a workgroup format.  He said they could amend the code if necessary, request amendments to the statutes or we can do an interpretation through a declaratory statement.  Jim said that he thought Commissioner Schock was trying to revive the effort to obtain petitions for declaratory statements.

 

Commission Schock stated that was correct, the idea was the declaratory statement was the best way to go.

 

Chairman Browdy stated the decision was the best venue was a declaratory statement rather than making changes to 553 that would require threshold inspectors to be engaged in any substantial renovation to a threshold building.

 

Mo Madani stated actually that was what was elected and the process of a declaratory statement is being prepared and the Commission should see it soon.

 

Chairman Browdy asked that this be brought to the point to allow a decision in the form of a declaratory statement on the record to give guidance to the public.

 

Commissioner Schock responded stating that he is looking forward to the declaratory statement.  He stated there are a lot of unanswered questions on this subject.  He further stated this may require several declaratory statements to get interpretations on specific areas.

 

Chairman Browdy asked that Mr. Madani update Commissioner Schock when there is information received regarding declaratory statements on this issue.

 

Commissioner Stone asked how the staff is handling innovative products and he thinks some Committee of the Commission should look at that and revisit and determine how we can address these products.  He said that he thinks the product that we are trying to promote this morning was probably a good product, but the declaratory statement was not the appropriate venue.  He continued and addressed the statements made by Mr. Gascon saying that of the 119 products that were reviewed by the POC for approval by the department staff, 28 received public comments, he said they did not allow any testimony at the POC meeting, he felt bad about that issue and that they did a disservice to the Commission and the citizens of Florida not allowing public comment.  He was ready to go through all and address.  He stated he was a champion of the ten day process,


FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 42

 

Commission Comments (cont.):

 

and this would allow for review of DBPR approvals and we did not do that this time and he apologized to the Commission.

 

Commissioner Bassett requested that since there are so many new Commissioners, that the staff could do a seating chart because he cannot see the name plates on his side of the room and has a hard time reading them on the other side of the room and it would be advantage.

 

Chairman Browdy stated the angels of the name plates placement was for his benefit during the meeting.  He stated there is a seating chart and we can distribute to the Commissioners or we can use name badges.

 

Mo Madani said he wanted to clarify to Mr. Gascon and Commissioner Stone, he said if you look at the received comments on the products of ten days, those comments were addressed and received a response from the manufacturer, so when we have a public comment, they are sent to the manufacturer and engineers and they were provided with comment.  He said also staff does review both comments and provide staff comments, so the comments were addressed; the question being asked is that do we want to go through each one or ask the Committee just to pull any of these that need to be discussed.

 

Commissioner Tolbert stated he had a question on rule development for hearing for 61G-20, when would the Commission have this hearing.  He stated this is the Education Rule.

 

April Hammonds stated that the rule is ready to go for notice of proposed rulemaking which is the final stage that is ready to go as soon as the approval was received from the POC and Commission today.  April advised that will be published in the Florida Administrative Register and then the clock start running in the appropriate process and this is where the variables come in.

 

Commissioner Tolbert asked if this will be ready for June.

 

April Hammonds stated she could not provide a date as you have to allow 21 days for request for hearing.  She said if there is a request for hearing the time clock changes to 45 days after the final hearing.  April stated this is no specific time, if the Judicial Administrative Procedures Committee steps in ad stops stating issues need to be resolved, that can delay.  She did say it is about to be published by the Rules Attorney which will put it in the last stage and we can hope it goes through.

 

Commissioner Tolbert asked if it has gone through JAPC.

 

April Hammonds stated that it will go through JAPC at every stage.

FBC Plenary Session

April 17, 2014

Page 43

 

Commission Comments (cont.):

 

Chairman Browdy asked for any further comments from the Commission.  There was none.

 

Adjournment:

 

There was a motion to adjourn with a second, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Chairman Browdy adjourned the meeting at 11:42 am.