Florida Building Commission

Education POC Minutes

October 2006

 

POC Members Present: Dick Browdy (Chair), Jon Hamrick, Steve Bassett, Pete Tagliarini

      POC Member(s) Absent: Herminio Gonzalez

 

Meeting Attendees:

Bill Norkunas                                                 Carrie Almodovar

Frank ONeill                                                   Sharon Mignardi

Bernice Ryder – Smit                                     Med Kopczynski

Don Fuchs                                                       Rhonda Koning

Bob McCormack                                            Jim Belcher

Larry Schneider                                              Michael Ashworth

Ila Jones

 

 

1. Review and Approval of October 2006 Agenda           

 

The Chair moved agenda item six to agenda item three and vice versa.

Motion: Jon Hamrick

2nd:  Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously As Amended

 

 

2. Review and Approval of August 2006 Minutes

                                                                                       

Commissioner Tagliarini identified one instance where his name was misspelled, specifically to change first name from Steve to Pete. The August Minutes were approved.

Motion:   Jon Hamrick

2nd:   Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously With Name Change

 

 

 

3. Discuss relevant issues, which will include proposed subject areas for potential advanced code courses that emanated from the Building Code Education and Outreach Council meeting, held on September 27, 2006, in Tallahassee, Florida.

 

Commissioner Bill Norkunas stated that as a member of the Education and Outreach Council, he is frustrated at the absence of ADA educational issues being addressed by the Council. He was told that the Council is only advisory in nature, but he thinks more can be done. He stated that accessibility issues are extremely important, as reflected by the number of lawsuits that have been heard in Federal courts. He said that maybe the legislature needs to be approached so stronger language can be crafted to give either the Council or the Education POC the power to do something about the education of accessibility requirements. Commissioner Norkunas wants consistency across the state of Florida with the application of Chapter 11 regarding accessibility. In short, he wants to see the same accessibility standards and interpretations from Pensacola to Key West.

 

Commissioner Bassett said that he agreed with Commissioner Norkunas. He said that many building officials don’t understand ADA requirements, including Broward County officials (where he lives/works), who he said were very inconsistent with the application of ADA requirements. Commissioner Bassett suggested that the Building Commission recommend to the legislature that all construction industry license holders in the State of Florida be required to take an ADA type of course.

 

Commissioner Tagliarini also agreed with both Commissioners Bassett and Norkunas. He stated that there are many gray areas, inconsistencies, and disjointed interpretations when applying ADA requirements. He stated that we definitely need some sort of required ADA related training course.

 

Commissioner Hamrick stated license holders with the Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board are required to take an ADA related course.

 

Larry Schneider suggested that the credentials of course instructors who teach accessibility courses also need to be scrutinized.

 

Commissioner Bassett stated that instructors who teach asbestos courses must be qualified to do so (since 1989). He also suggested that instructors who teach accessibility courses should be similarly qualified, meaning their credentials should be checked against some criteria. Commissioner Bassett suggested that a recommendation be made to the Commission stating that construction industry license holders must take a core course based on parts of Chapter 11 as they relate to the building code. He also stated that instructor qualifications be evaluated.

 

Jim Richmond, FBC General Counsel, stated that this issue is more likely to be seriously addressed by the industry when permits are turned down due to ADA non-compliance. He also said that the new language being considered (requiring ADA education requirements) would mean a change in the law.

 

Commissioner Norkunas suggested that one course be developed for ADA requirements for all licensees and that issues emanating from federal lawsuits should be included as part of the course.

 

Commissioner Hamrick stated that one course developed for ADA requirements would be inefficient for all license holders. He gave an example in that electricians would only need to know about switch placements, as they relate to ADA requirements, not needing the rest of a 1-2 hour ADA related course.

 

The Chair suggested that maybe the rule development workshop to be held during the Commission meeting for 9B-70 would be an excellent forum for this discussion.

There were two motions that resulted from the discussion.

 

Motion: To recommend to the Commission to integrate into rule an alternative required core course regarding Chapter 11 issues.

Motion: Steve Bassett

2nd: Pete Tagliarini

Approved – Three

Opposed – One

 

Motion: To request that the Florida Building Commission include in their report to the legislature what the Education POC perceives to be needed education regarding ADA and accessibility issues.

Motion: Steve Bassett

2nd: Jon Hamrick

Approved Unanimously

4. Discuss the presentation given by the Education Administrator to training providers who were attending the Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB) meeting in Orlando, Florida, on September 13, 2006.

 

The Education Administrator stated the he gave a presentation to training providers who attended a Construction Industry Licensing Board meeting in Orlando, Fla., on September 13, 2006. The following are the major areas that the Administrator stated that he covered:

  • Explanation of the broad overview of the advanced course accreditation process, using a flowchart
  • Explanation of the specific steps of the FBC accreditation process, using a flowchart
  • Explanation of the roles and responsibilities of the Building Code Education and Outreach Council
  • How to register on the BCIS as a training provider
  • Course development information, that included:
    • The total # of courses listed on the BCIS, and how many of those courses were bought, and how many were developed
    • A strong reminder that the FBC/DCA is not now in the course development business---the burden now rests with the training providers to develop courses
    • A reminder that course materials need to be in a PDF format, in order to be uploaded into the BCIS
    • A list of the elements that make up a course syllabus and training materials (Newly adopted POC language)
    • A reminder that at least 50% of the actual training materials content must be code related (Newly adopted POC language)
  • Explanation of the 60 day course materials updating language, with a reminder that the 2006 Supplement will be available very soon (Newly adopted POC language)
  • Directions on the BCIS as to where to find the 2006 Supplement
  • Directions on the BCIS as to how to find an accreditor
  • Explanation of the language regarding submittal of courses no later than 23 calendar days prior to the next Commission meeting, for inclusion on POC agenda (Newly adopted POC language)
  • Explanation of the administrative approval process
  • Explanation (and BCIS directions) regarding how to apply for a new course as a provider
  • Explanation (and BCIS directions) regarding how to buy a course online, as a provider.

No comments were made about the report.

 

 

 

  1. Providers that develop advanced courses, and/or updates any courses or parts of DCA approved courses, has the courses appropriately accredited, and sells to other providers:
    1. Does the advanced course need to be reaccredited?
    2. Can the accreditor/provider accredit a course that was originally developed and/or updated by the accreditor/provider and subsequently sold?

 

An advanced course only needs to be accredited if it’s a new course, one that has been updated, or one in which the delivery method has changed, such as instructor –led to an internet course. The General Counsel also stated that an accreditor should not accredit a course that he/she developed and/or updated and subsequently sold as he/she would have a vested interest in said course. No action was taken.

 

5. Discuss a recent proposed change to the language in 9B-70, which was approved by the Education POC, which in summary stated that “at least 50% of the content of all training materials was to be code related”. The CILB does not think the intent of this language fulfills their licensure requirement of a one hour advanced course.

 

Sharon Mignardi stated that the BCIS is not set up to make comments about a course, such as to the percentage of code related content. She further stated it would be more efficient if the FBC better align with how boards approve courses because as it is now, it could take up to five months to approve a course (FBC taking approximately 2 months and the boards taking approximately 3 months).

 

The Chair stated that the Commission intent behind the 50% language was to determine if the course qualifies for Commission approval and sees no need to change the language. No action was taken.

 

 

6. Discuss the issue(s) of course updating---to include the update of advanced and technical core courses using the 2006 Supplement (which is now available on the Building Code Information System) 

 

The Chair noted the letter to the POC and no discussion ensued.

 

 

7. Review Pending “Accreditor” Applications for Recommendation to the Commission

(None Pending)

 

 

8.     Education Administrator Activity Report

The Education Administrator reported to the POC what activities he performed between August 28 and October 6, 2006. The following are the areas that were reported on:

  • Phone calls handled
  • Emails handled
  • Correspondence written and sent
  • Presentations made
  • Meetings attended
  • Other miscellaneous activities

No comments were made or offered about the reports contents.

 

 

 

9.     Identify future POC member discussion items.

 

A.) The Chair stated that the AIA wants approval for a video streaming internet based course, which is located on the AIA website. The course was accredited as an instructor led course, but not as an internet based course. The course is a two hour accessibility course with Larry Schneider as the instructor. The Chair stated that in the AIA Handbook, licensees have 180 days to make a course up (license requirements), if needed. The course in question is currently being accredited.

 

B.) The Chair stated that there needs to be a methodology to handle complaints about courses or the accreditation process. This would be oversight related. Med Kopczynski stated that the basic issues that would be addressed as complaints under current rule language would be that a course was advertised incorrectly, or a course was updated or accredited incorrectly.

 

The Chair suggested that a letter be sent to the provider explaining that a complaint had been lodged about a course and that they could contact an accreditor to check it out. The idea here is to have the course checked, but not in a punitive fashion.

 

Commissioner Bassett suggested that the POC direct all course complaints to the approving board, so they can investigate. It was recommended by the POC to forward all complaints to the boards.

 

C.) The Chair stated that the 60 day rule, which states that all advanced courses should be accredited by 60 days after rule adoption, has become an issue. The idea is to have all courses updated before the code becomes effective on December 8, 2006. The code was adopted on September 8, 2006.

 

Commissioner Bassett suggested that 90-120 days should be allowed for updating on the 3 year cycle of code adoption.

 

Larry Schneider suggested that the 60 days for updating should start at the code effective date which is December 8, 2006. His reasoning is based on the fact that the code can be challenged after implementation. The General Counsel then stated that actually, the code can be challenged at any time.

 

D.) Med Kopczynski stated that there may be a need to put in place a process that can be used to address a stalemate (resulting from differing code interpretations) that could occur between accreditors, providers, and commissioners. His reasoning is that a stalemate could result in a course being placed in limbo for an unnecessary lengthy period of time.

 

10. Summary and Review of Meeting Work Products/Action Items, Assignments, and Next Steps

 

 

 

Adjourn

Motion: Jon Hamrick

2nd: Steve Bassett

Approved Unanimously

 

 

 

Recommended Commission Actions

 

The following courses were “conditionally approved” during the July POC meeting, based on the specific change of taking the word “core” out of the title. The courses then had the “conditional approval” rescinded at the August POC meeting, to be re-submitted for approval. The two courses in question are:

 

4 Hour Advanced Administrative Core Code

Provider: Contractor’s Institute

Accreditor: Tanenbaum Construction, Inc.

BCIS # - 123

The course was not resubmitted for approval, so no action was required---thus no action was taken.

 

4 Hour Advanced Administrative Core Code (Internet)

Provider: Contractor’s Institute

Accreditor: Tanenbaum Construction, Inc.

BCIS # - 124

The course was not resubmitted for approval, so no action was required---thus no action was taken.

 

 

 

The following courses, under the ‘Accredited, Pending FBC Approval” status, were approved by the POC.

 

Fla. Building Code Advanced Training: Residential

Provider: FBC/DCA

Accreditor: JDB Code Services, Inc.

BCIS # 198

Motion: Course approved based on the FBC accreditation process that only verifies the accuracy of the Florida Building Code related content

Motion: Jon Hamrick

2nd: Pete Tagliarini

Approved Unanimously

                                                                                

 

Fla. Building Code Advanced Training: Plumbing

Provider: FBC/DCA

Accreditor: JDB Code Services, Inc.

BCIS # 197

Commissioner Hamrick stated that a reference was made that for children’s environments, go to the State of Florida requirements for educational facilities. He said that those requirements only apply to Public Educational Facilities, not to children’s environments in general.

Motion: To approve, subject to change and based on the FBC accreditation process that only verifies the accuracy of the Florida Building Code related content

Motion: Jon Hamrick

2nd: Pete Tagliarini

Approved Unanimously

 

 

Advanced 2004 FBC Occupancy Egress Construction Type

Provider: Donna Kirby, FASID

Accreditor: BCIC LLC

BCIS # 199

Commissioner Hamrick said that where measurement travel distance was referenced, that it should be changed showing that most rooms are traversed moving around the perimeter of the room vs. moving diagonally to the door. Also, regarding egress capacity, he stated that a reference needs to be made regarding Section 423 in that public education facilities have more restrictive requirements.

Motion: To approve, subject to clarifications and changes and based on the FBC accreditation process that only verifies the accuracy of the Florida Building Code related content

Motion: Jon Hamrick

2nd: Pete Tagliarini

Approved Unanimously

 

 

 

Note: This document is available in alternate formats upon request to the Department of Community Affairs, Codes and Standards, 255 Shumard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee, Fl. 32399, (850) 487 – 1824.