BOARD MEETING

OF THE

FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

 

PLENARY SESSION MINUTES

December 9 & 10, 2008

 

                                            PENDING APPROVAL

 

The meeting of the Florida Building Commission was called to order by Chairman Raul Rodriguez at 3:38 p.m., Tuesday, December 9, 2008 at the Embassy Suites Hotel, Tampa, Florida.


 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

Raul L. Rodriguez, AIA, Chairman

Richard Browdy, Vice-Chairman

Jeffrey Gross

Angel Franco

Jeff Stone

James Goodloe

James K. Shock

Herminio Gonzalez

Robert G. Boyer

Hamid Bahadori

Drew W. Smith

Chris Schulte

Mark Turner

Randall J. Vann

Scott Mollan

Jon Hamrick

Anthony M. Grippa

 

 

 

 

 

Kenneth L. Gregory

Joseph “Ed” Carson

Raphael R. Palacios

Paul D. Kidwell

Tim Tolbert

Matt Carlton

Craig Parrino, Adjunct Member

 

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:

William Norkunas

Dale Greiner

Doug Murdock, Adjunct Member

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

Rick Dixon, FBC Executive Director

Ila Jones, DCA Prog. Administrator

Jim Richmond, DCA Legal Advisor

Jeff Blair, FCRC

Mo Madani, Technical Svcs. Manager

                                                                       

 

 


 

 

WELCOME

Chairman Rodriguez welcomed the Commission, staff and the public to Tampa and day one of the December 2008 plenary session. He stated the primary focus of the December 2008 meeting was to conduct a rule adoption hearing on Commission adopted Glitch Amendments and adopt a summary of issues and recommendations for inclusion in the Commission’s 2009 Report to the Florida Legislature. He explained if anyone wished to address the Commission on any of the issues before the Commission, they should sign-in on the appropriate sheet(s). He further stated the Commission would provide an opportunity for public comment on each of the Commission’s substantive discussion topics. He then stated if anyone wanted to comment on a specific substantive Commission agenda item, they should come to the speaker’s table so the Commission would know they wish to speak. He concluded by stating public input is welcome, but should be offered before there is a formal motion on the floor.

            REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

 

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

 

            Commissioner Carson moved approval of the meeting agenda.  Commissioner Gross entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

REVIEW AND APPROVE OCTOBER 14 & 15, 2008 MEETING MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S SUMMARY REPORT

 

            Chairman Rodriguez called for approval of the minutes and the facilitator’s reports from the October Commission meeting.

 

            Commissioner Carson stated he was informed a declaratory statement had been incorrectly recorded in the minutes.

 

            John Wiggins, Underwriter’s Laboratories           

 

            Mr. Wiggins stated DCA08-DEC-204 by Robert Jamieson had been recorded incorrectly.

           

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

           

            CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

            Chairman Rodriguez first addressed appointments to the Florida Building Commission.

 

Chairman Rodriguez announced the reappointments of Commissioner Randy Vann as the Plumbing Contractor Representative and Commissioner Jon Hamrick as the Public Education Representative.  He thanked them for their continued service on the Commission.

 

Chairman Rodriguez then introduced and welcomed the following new members of the Commission. 

 

            Bob Boyer – has been appointed to represent the Municipal or Charter Government.  He will be succeeding George Wiggins.

 

Anthony Grippa – has been appointed as the Insurance Industry Representative. He will be succeeding Do Kim.

 

Raphael Palacios – has been appointed as the Mechanical or Electrical Engineer Representative.  He will be succeeding Steven Bassett.

 

            James Shock – has been appointed as a Code Official.  He will be replacing Christ Sanidas.

 

            Ken Gregory – has been appointed as a Swimming Pool Contractor.  He will be the first Swimming Pool Industry Representative to the Building Commission.

 

            Drew Smith – has been appointed as a Green Building Industry Representative. He will be the first Green Building Industry Representative to the Building Commission.

 

Chairman Rodriguez then expressed recognition of the following Commissioners who were rotating off of the Commission board Steve Bassett, Do Kim and George  Wiggins.  He thanked each of them for their years of service and presented each with a plaque reflecting their service.  

 

Mr. Wiggins stated it had been his pleasure over the last 9-plus years to serve on the Commission.  He stated there had been a number of ups and downs during those years. He then stated the greatest accomplishment was having the greatest building code in the United States.  He further stated it is the only uniform building code.  He stated he has served and will continue to serve with the International Code Council Governmental Affairs Committee, representing the Commission in Washington.  He stated the Commission is fortunate to have the greatest chairman.  He then stated there was a lot of work ahead in dealing with issues the Commission faces.  He continued stating the greatest staff is available to assist the Commissioners in any way they can. He added there were some great building officials working with the Commission.  He suggested the new Commissioners rely on those building officials heavily since they are the ones dealing with the nitty, gritty day to day stuff with the Florida Building Code.  He expressed his thanks for the years of service.  He further stated he had enjoyed it very much, but will gladly turn it over to his fellow coworkers and professionals on the Commission. 

 

Special Recognition:

 

            Chairman Rodriguez announced special recognition to Neil Mellick, Chairman of the Accessibility Council, for his years of service.  He thanked him for his hard work and presented him with a plaque.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez then announced the appointment of Commissioner Browdy to the position of Vice-Chairman of the Building Commission.  He stated Commissioner Browdy was the longest standing member of the Commission.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez announced the following TAC appointments:

 

            Accessibility TAC

 

            Julia Kates was appointed to replace J.R. Harding on the Accessibility TAC.

 

            Code Administration TAC

 

            Commissioner Gonzalez was appointed to replace George Wiggins as chair. 

            Commissioner Carlton was appointed to replace Commissioner Carson.

            Commissioner Boyer was appointed as a new member to the TAC.

 

            Energy TAC

            Commissioner Drew Smith was appointed to replace Richard Reynolds on the Energy TAC.

            Mechanical TAC

            Commissioner Palacios was appointed to replace Steve Bassett on the Mechanical TAC.  Gary Griffin was appointed as chair of the Mechanical TAC.

           

Structural TAC

 

            Commissioner Kidwell was appointed to replace Do Kim as chair of the Structural TAC.  Commissioner Shock was appointed to replace George Wiggins on the Structural TAC.  Do Kim will continue to serve on the Structural TAC.

           

            Special Occupancy

            Doug Melvin was appointed to the Special Occupancy TAC.  He represents DBPR, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Bureau of Elevators.

            Education POC

 

            Commissioner Grippa was appointed to replace Steve Bassett on the Education POC.

            Code Assembly Ad Hoc

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the name of the committee has been changed from Code Processes Ad Hoc committee.  Commissioner Bahadori was appointed to the committee.  He then stated the members of the Code Assembly Ad Hoc were as follows: Chairman Rodriguez will serve as chair of the TAC with Commissioners Bahadori, Carson, Franco, Goodloe, Greiner, Gross, and Schulte.

 

            Hurricane Research Advisory Committee:

 

            Jim Schock was appointed to replace George Wiggins, Jamie Gascon was appointed to replace Nick D’Andrea. Richard Reynolds was appointed to the HRAC.

           

            Chairman Rodriguez then announced the following workgroup appointments:

 

Flood Standards Workgroup:

 

Commissioner Rodriguez stated at the October meeting, the Commission created a Flood Standards Workgroup, charged with developing recommendations for integrating the IBC Flood Damage Resistance into the Florida Building Code.  He then stated the following members were appointed to the workgroup: Gene Chalecki: DEP; Steve Pizzillo: BOAF; Tim Reinhold: IBHS; Jack Glenn: FHBA; and Nick D’Andrea: Flood Plain Managers Association.

            Commissioner Rodriguez then announced the new appointments to the Flood Standards Workgroup as follows: Bob Boyer was appointed to replace George Wiggins as the local government representative. Miles Anderson was appointed as the representative for the Florida Division of Emergency Management. Commissioner Tolbert was appointed as a building official representative from NW Florida. Commissioner Schock was appointed as a building official representative from northeast Florida. Eddie Fernandez was appointed to represent the Miami-Dade Code Compliance Office. Bud Plisich was appointed representing FEMA Region IV.

            Soffit System Workgroup:

           

            Chairman Rodriguez stated at the request of the Vinyl Siding Institute Dave Johnston was added to the Soffit System workgroup and Matthew Dobson was added as an alternate.

 

2010 Florida Energy Workgroup  

           

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission had convened a workgroup to develop recommendations on the various energy related issues in the Commission’s Workplan. He further stated the goal is to ensure compliance with the 20% increase in thermal efficiency standards required for the 2010 Code Update.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the following appointments were made:  Commissioner Greiner, representing building officials; Commissioner Smith, Homebuilders representative; Phillip Fairey, Florida Solar Energy Center; Rob Vickers, Florida Energy and Climate Commission; Paul Savage, legal representative; Commissioner Stone wood products industry representative; Jeff Householder, Gas Industry representative, Commissioner Gross, building owners and management industry;  Larry Maxwell, architect representative, Donnie Pittman, building officials, Bob Cochell, air conditioning contractors and Steve Bassett representing Florida Energy Society or ASHRAE.

 

            Carbon Monoxide Workgroup

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Carbon Monoxide Detector Workgroup was appointed between meetings to allow them to develop legislative recommendations in time for the Commission’s Report to the 2009 Legislature.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the following commissioners had been appointed to the workgroup: Commissioners Bahadori, Boyer, Carlton, Carson, Goodloe, Greiner, Gross, and Turner. He then stated in addition to the commissioners Jeff Householder and Steve Bassett were also appointed to the workgroup.

 

            2010 Florida Accessibility Code Workgroup

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission’s Accessibility TAC recommended and the Commission approved convening a workgroup to evaluate and develop recommendations regarding the integration of the Florida Accessibility Law into the new ADAAG that is being adopted by the US Department of Justice. He then stated the Commission will convene the workgroup during 2009 and will adopt recommendations to the Governor and Legislature in the 2010 Report to the Legislature.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the following appointments were made to the workgroup: Commissioner Gross, representing BOMA, Commissioner Norkunas, representative for persons with disabilities, Commissioner Vann, plumbing industry representative, Commissioner Franco, architectural representative, Commissioner Gregory, Agency for healthcare Administration; and Commissioner Schock, building officials.  He then stated in addition the following members were appointed as follows: Bemmie Eustace, consultant; Sharon Mignardi, plans examiner; Barbara Page, Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities; Julia Kates, Florida DOE, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation;  Michael Elliott, Division of Blind Services; Phillip Wisely, Department of State and Historic Buildings; Steve Watson, Department of Environmental Protection, Parks and Recreation; Bob Vincent, Department of health and Swimming Pools;  Jack Humburg, PVA; Pam Darworth, Council for Florida Council of Handicap Organizations; Larry Schneider, Florida AIA;  Soy Williams, ADA consultant; Neil Mellick, building officials; and Ben Ritter, Tampa PVA. He stated an additional six will be made at a future date.

            Chairman Rodriguez reported there would be a teleconference meeting on December 15, 2008 starting at 10:00 AM for the purpose of conducting a Rule Development Workshop on Rule 9B-72, Product Approval, to amend Rule 9B-72 to recognize the Equivalency of Standards between ASTM E 1300-02 and ASTM E 1300-04, and a process for manufactures to demonstrate through self-affirmation, once a Code Edition changes, that their product(s) comply with the relevant standard(s) in the updated Code version. He stated the Structural TAC will have recommendations on both issues. He further stated the teleconference would be a formal Commission meeting and a quorum would be required therefore the commissioners were urged to plan on joining the call. He stated staff would be sending an e-mail with contact information.

            REVIEW PRIORITIZATION EXERCISE RESULTS

 

Mr. Blair presented the results of the workplan prioritization exercise.  (See Workplan Prioritization Exercise Results, Conducted October 15, 2008.)

 

REVIEW AND UPDATE OF COMMISSION WORKPLAN

 

            Mr. Dixon conducted a review of the updated Commission workplan. (See Updated Commission Workplan December 2008).

 

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

           

CONSIDER ACCESSIBILITY WAIVER APPLICATIONS

 

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

 

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

 

#3 AMC Theatre at Tyrone Square

 

            Mr. Mellick stated the application had been withdrawn by applicant.

           

No action necessary.

 

Recommendation for Approval with No Conditions:

 

#2 Brevard County High School CCCAuditorium

 

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 as unreasonable.

 

#4 Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Station 10

 

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval in favor of the provisions of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS).

 

#5 Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Station 67

 

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval in favor of the provisions of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS).

 

 

 

 

 

#6 Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Station 40

 

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval in favor of the provisions of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS).

 

#7 Roads Montisorri, LLC

 

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 related to 20% disproportionate cost.

 

#13 Stonehenge, LLC

 

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 related to disproportionate cost as well as its historic designation.

 

#9 Chesterbrook Academy

 

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the applicant was requesting to use the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Building Element D for Children’s Use for a day care center.  No waiver is necessary and could have been approved by the local building official under the equivalent facilitation provisions.  He further stated in as much as the applicant has requested this waiver, at the request of the building official, the Council unanimously recommended approval in favor of the above referenced guidelines as equivalent for children.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation for approval of the consent agenda for items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 9. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Recommendation for Approval with Conditions:

 

# 8 Cobb theaters at Old Hyde Park Village

 

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to all rows of seats in an existing movie theater complex undergoing renovations.  He then stated the Council recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 0 (as one member was out of the room) based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 as unreasonable with the condition that plans be submitted to DCA staff to verify the dimensions of the accessible seating locations.

 

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

 

#1 800 Ocean Drive

 

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to the second and third levels of a three story historic hotel.  He then stated this case was heard last meeting where the request related to the hotel restaurant was granted a waiver and the issues related to the second and third floors were dismissed without prejudice for the applicant to address concerns of the Council.  He further stated the Council unanimously recommended approval with condition based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 as unreasonable due to technical infeasibility of the existing elevator shaft as well as its historic designation.  He stated the Council’s condition was for the applicant to send to DCA staff whether or not widening the existing elevator door is feasible and provide cost to determine if within the 20% provisions.

 

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

 

#14 Brandt Information Services, Inc.

 

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to the basement and second floor of an existing office building undergoing a $55,000 alteration.  He further stated the building official’s review and recommendation form was missing which would indicate any permitted construction activity during the past three years.  He then stated the Council unanimously recommended deferring the case for the applicant to provide the building official’s statement.  He continued by stating, however, if the applicant could provide the evidence prior to today’s meeting for the chair’s review, the Council unanimously agreed it would allow the recommendation to be changed to approved based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 related to 20% disproportionate cost.  He stated the evidence was presented and verified; therefore, the recommendation was for approval.

           

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

 

Deferral:

 

#10 Strike Industries

 

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files.   He stated the applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to a mezzanine being converted from storage to offices.  The project cost was estimated at $70,000.  He then stated the applicant was not in attendance.  He further stated the Council unanimously recommended to defer to allow the applicant to provide additional information to include but not be limited to, breakdown of all cost (even those specific to accessibility), cost estimates for platform lifts, floor plan layout and specific use of office space.   He stated it was also recommended that the applicant be in attendance to address concerns of the Council.

 

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

 

#12 Trademark Cinemas, Coral Square 8

 

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files.   He stated the applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to all rows of seats in an 8 screen theater complex being altered from sloped floors to stadium seating.  He then stated as the plans were lacking in detail, the Council unanimously recommended deferring this case for the applicant to provide more information, to include but not be limited to, detailed seating layouts showing total number of seats, accessible and companion seating locations, dimensional plans, and elevations showing line of sights for each theater house type.

 

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

 

Denial:

 

#11 Ravallo Resort and Convention Center

 

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files.   He stated the applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility in 489 sunken living areas in non-accessible guest rooms of a new $160,000,000 facility.  He then stated the Council unanimously recommended denial based on lack of hardship to allow the installation of barriers in a new facility.  

 

Benjamin Muscente, Fire Protection Engineer and Code Consultant

 

Mr. Muscente stated the Council’s recommendation to deny the waiver was both respected and understood.  He then stated their interpretation of the Code was since the required number of accessible rooms dispersed to each type of room and to each floor of the building and the number of accessible rooms with sunken living rooms has been met that it was unnecessary for all of the non-accessible rooms to provide vertical accessibility.  He clarified the applicant was not claiming hardship, but was unnecessary. He further stated the Florida Statute for vertical accessibility is a direct amendment to the ADA standard requirement for elevators. He further stated the ADA has exceptions which would allow certain building types to not provide an elevator which would further allow the upper floors to not be accessible.  He then stated the Florida Statute specifically is provided under those exceptions under those requirements, which basically state regardless if an elevator is required in those buildings vertical accessibility is required to each level. He further stated they view the problem as the terminology in both the ADA standards and the Florida Statute both using the term level, which is not defined in either the statutes, ADA or the Florida Building Code. He concluded by stating their view was the term level was the term level was intended to floor level since changes of levels throughout the floors are addressed in the accessible route provision, which are more specific.  He then pointed out although it does not provide any clout because written interpretations are not provided, he had contacted to accessibility hotlines, the ADA and the ADAAG, and both confirmed and agreed with the interpretation the term level was meant to address floor level since the accessible route provisions address changes throughout the floor.  He concluded by stating since the Florida Statutes use the same language the applicant would request the application for waiver be approved based on the unnecessary fact that all of the non-accessible rooms do not need to provide vertical accessibility since other accessible rooms of the same type are provided throughout the building on each floor.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked if Mr. Muscente had the actual count of the number of rooms.

 

Mr. Muscente responded he believed the number was 38, but did not have it in front of him.  He then stated there was one accessible room with the sunken living room per floor throughout the building.

 

Mr. Mellick stated the same arguments were presented at the council meeting.  He stated he disagreed stating the Code is very clear indicating Florida does not require an elevator but it does require all levels to be accessible, not withstanding wither with a lift or ramp or any other means.  He then stated the Council discussed the many cases seen with restaurants and elevation changes or stages with all different levels on the same floor.  He then stated history has shown the cases seen before the Commission.  He further stated the Council has dealt with the issues related to people in the rooms, creating a barrier to an individual who may be in a wheelchair visiting someone in a room which is limited to those other rooms.  He restated Florida has a more restrictive requirement not withstanding what had been found in talking with other ADA consultants and has been specific to all levels which has been interpreted through case history that levels are within the same floor.

 

Mr. Muscente stated he did agree this was unique to Florida.  He stated if it was being built anywhere else under federal regulations it would be permitted.  He further stated he did not believe the term level is defined in the Code and he did not believe it is definitive terminology, but subjective.  He then stated as far as the physical barrier, with respect if that logic were used the barriers between the bathrooms the rooms would have to be removed, as they are barriers themselves yet fully permitted in the Code. 

 

Mr. Mellick stated the bathrooms are not at different levels but within the unit and are not required to be accessible. The Code only requires a certain number rooms whose restrooms need to be accessible.  He restated the Code clearly states all levels must be accessible.

 

Commissioner Tolbert asked why there was not a recommendation from the local review board.

 

Mr. Muscente stated the applicant had met with the local building department who did not seem to believe this would be a problem, but did indicate the applicant would need a waiver.  He then stated due to time constraints to have this approved on the agenda, there was no time to get a copy of their interpretation.

 

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

 

Mr. Mellick then thanked the Commission for his opportunity to serve on the Council for the last six years, the last five as the chair.  He stated it had been a great honor to serve with the individuals he had served with and with the Commission.  He then stated he remembered six years ago the adversarial position the Council and the Commission had.  He further stated he had seen that change over the years and was thankful in working together the attempt to keep emotion out of the issues and look at the facts only until finally a decision was based on those facts.  He thanked the Commission for its support of the Council stating even though there has not always been agreement he felt the outcome of those discussions had been the right decisions in all the issues. 

 

Mr. Mellick then announced the Council had voted for its new chairman.  He introduced Jack Humburg and stated he has been a member of the Council and would represent it well.

 

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND ENTITY APPROVAL

 

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

 

            Commissioner Carson stated there was a consent agenda with 9 entities for approval.  He then moved approval of those entities.  Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

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

 

            Commissioner Carson stated he needed to have 11453 and 11454 from Prestige Iron Doors, LLC. pulled from the consent agenda.

 

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

 

            Commissioner Carson stated the engineer for 11453 and 11454 has asked the Commission to remove the products from the approval list and move them to the deferral list.  He explained since the meeting the engineer has had some questions arise regarding some hardware.  He stated the engineer was looking for some clarification on both items.

 

            Commissioner Carson moved deferral of products 11453 and 11454. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

 

            Mr. Blair presented the following products for consideration individually:

 

            11570 Windsor Windows and Doors

 

            Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating   the installation drawings shall indicate pressure as certified.

 

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

 

11571 Windsor Windows and Doors

11573 Windsor Windows and Doors

11619 Windsor Windows and Doors

 

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the installation drawings shall indicate pressure as certified.

 

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

 

599-R4  Nu-Vue Industries Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant include NDS 2005 on application under Testing Standards.

 

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

 

            2047-R3 Nu-Vue Industries Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant include NDS 2005 on application under Testing Standards.

 

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

 

 

 

 

11089 Flesher Windows, Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating installation instructions shall include only configurations certified; Provide test reports to verify glazing as tested.

 

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

 

11483 Therma-Tru Corporation

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant provide sidelites glass configuration as tested.

 

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

 

9757-R1 JHRG LLC

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the applicant remove note #4 on drawings related to glass separation.  Provide test report for zipper running perpendicular to load.

 

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

 

10082-R1 Graham Architectural Products

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant specify PVB interlayer type as tested for product 10082.1.  Identify silicone and gaskets on glazing detail as tested.

 

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

 

10084-R1Graham Architectural Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating

 

applicant specify PVB interlayer type as tested for product 10082.1.  Identify silicone and gaskets on glazing detail as tested.

 

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

 

10124 –R1 GAF Materials Corporation

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the Correct Section 5.3.3 of evaluation report read "For buildings falling outside the constraints in 5.3.1 or 5.3.2, calculations…" and modify installation instructions to allow use of approved underlayments per FBC 1507.2.3 and/or 1507.2.4 beneath their asphalt shingles.

 

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

 

11408 TEEM USA, LLC

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant revise application and drawings for the three glazing conditions.  Revise evaluation to substantiate the testing for the three conditions.

 

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

 

11565 JHRG LLC

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating applicant remove note #4 on drawings related to glass separation.  Provide test report for zipper running perpendicular to load.

 

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

 

11620 Silverline Building Products Corporation

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant indicate for product 11620.6 the type of PVB as tested.

 

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

 

11148 R.M. Lucas Co.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

 

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

 

11274 Adurel International

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

 

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

 

819-R1 United Steel Products Company

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition product 819.9 indicate on conditions of use "Not for use in HVHZ" or provide sufficient resistance for compliance with HVHZ.

 

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

 

822-R1 United Steel Products Company

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating indicate as deleted Product 822.291.  For products 822.10 and 822.292 indicate on conditions of use "Not for use in HVHZ" or provide sufficient resistance for compliance with HVHZ.  Remove Product 822.291. 

 

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

 

 

11561 Solatube International, Inc

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

 

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

 

11095 Solatube International Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

 

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

 

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

DECLARATORY STATEMENTS:

 

            Legal Issues:

           

Chairman Rodriguez stated as a result of the Legislation in 2007 the Commission adopted individual rules on pool bonding, mitigation retrofits and carbon monoxide detectors.  He then stated requirements of which had subsequently been adopted to the 2007 edition of the Florida Building Code.  He further stated the rules would have to be repealed since the requirements were now in the Code. 

 

He then requested a motion to initiate rulemaking to repeal Rule 9B-3.047(7), electrical bonding of pool decks; Rule 9B-3.047(5), wind mitigation retrofits; Rule 9B-3.047(2), carbon monoxide detectors and to conduct rule-making workshops at the February 2009 Commission meeting.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the motion as stated. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

            Mr. Richmond stated a Rule Challenge had been received on the Building Code on the subject of the interior designers’ issue, which had been debated at some length and was scheduled on the agenda again during the Code adoption hearing.  He then stated he wanted to defer all discussion of the challenge until the hearing.  He further stated at that time the Commission would discuss potential approaches for resolving

 

Binding Interpretations:

 

Declaratory Statements:

 

            Second Hearings:

           

            DCA08-DEC-168 by Leonard Terry, President, Omnicrete

 

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

 

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

 

DCA08-DEC-193 by Richard Mihalich

 

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

 

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

 

DCA08-DEC- 201 by Michael Schultz, P.E., Buckeye

 

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

 

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

 

DCA08-DEC-204 by Robert Jamieson, Underwriters Laboratories

 

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.  He stated the minutes reflected the Commission approved the TAC recommendation, which included a statement that appears in the middle of page 3, in conclusion 3 of the draft order that the petitioner was responsible to validate both that the standard and the certificate complies with the test standard in the Code and complies with the full structural scope of the Code.  He then stated the petitioner has indicated that the Commission amended its action to eliminate the second statement, but it was still in the draft on the table.  He further stated if the petitioner was correct the second statement needed to be stricken.

 

Mr. Blair stated his report did indicate that the Commission did amend its action.

 

Mr. Richmond stated the report did not reflect the substance.

 

John Wiggins, Underwriters Laboratories

 

Mr. Wiggins stated at the last Commission meeting there was a unanimous vote to put a “.” after the word code and delete “the full structural scope of the code.”  He then stated Underwriters Laboratories tests to standards not codes, which was his testimony at that point.  He further stated the Commission did vote to eliminate that part, but it was not reflected in the minute, which had been corrected earlier in the December meeting.

 

Mr. Richmond stated if the amendment was to be integrated into the draft a motion would be needed that reflected the amendment by placing the “.” after code and striking “as complies with the full structural scope of the code.”

 

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

 

DCA08-DEC-205 by Neil Mellick, City of West Palm Beach, Construction Services Department

 

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.  He asked the Commission to review conclusion #5 as well.  He then stated the petitioner had asked and there was a TAC recommendation to the extent that manufacturers were responsible for designing rooftop mechanical equipment for wind resistance although the Commission was authorized to conclude that the equipment must be designed without the authority to assign that responsibility to anyone in particular.  He stated paragraph 5 does reflect it is required and may envision that manufacturers would design it that way, but the Commission cannot, as a matter of law, say that it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to design that equipment.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked what was needed.

 

Mr. Richmond stated a motion was needed to approve the draft with any potential modifications the Commission may desire if there was no public comment.

 

Commissioner Palacios stated (inaudible - possibly too far from microphone)

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked what Commissioner Palacios’ suggestion would be.

 

Commissioner Palacios stated (inaudible)

 

Mr. Richmond stated the record of this declaratory statement was somewhat long.  He explained it came up when the requirement was first imposed through the International Code Council.  He stated it was not something Florida created on its own. He further stated it had been a requirement since 2001.  He then stated it does present some difficulty, but the TAC felt it had been around long enough and there’s no way those folks would eventually comply unless it begins to be enforced.  He stated the Commission at first acknowledged and allowed some leeway for a period extending until then 2004 edition took effect, perhaps through some type of technical bulletin or other document.  He then stated it was a black and white document within the Mechanical Code

 

Commissioner Palacios asked (inaudible)

 

            Mr. Richmond stated it does present a difficulty.  He then stated the discussion at the TAC was that a structure could be required to be built around it unless it could be demonstrated to comply.  He restated this was not something industry has not had ample opportunity to comply with and if they have chosen not to then the risk would have to be evaluated.  He stated he believed the Commission would be prevented from amending the Code to limit the application of the hurricane related requirement in Florida.

 

Ron Regeiro, City of West Palm Beach

 

Mr. Regueiro stated this had been brought before the Commission because they became aware of this issue after the cooling tower declaratory statements were issued.  He stated the language used to give the declaratory statement regarding the cooling towers was very broad in range.  He continued by stating even though the request was specific to cooling towers the language used was applicable to all mechanical appliances.  He further stated after they began applying the requirement the hope was, by bringing it to the attention of everyone, the appliance manufacturers would be forced to address the issue, which is a clear code requirement and has been in the code since 2001.  He then stated he had been dealing with appliance manufacturers since he began bringing the issue up within his department and basically the response has been “We’re not going to jump through all of these hoops just to satisfy the city of West Palm Beach.  He then stated none had disagreed with the wording of the code or the fact it is in fact a requirement.  He concluded by stating he believed the problem to be the lack of uniform enforcement of the requirements and if it begins to hit the industry in the pocketbook they would do what was necessary to address the code requirement.

 

Audio missing…lost comments:

 

Commissioner Franco

Commissioner Gonzalez

Chairman Rodriguez

 

Commissioner Franco asked for clarification as to whether Commissioner Gonzalez’s comments meant the equipment itself is outside the building, it must comply with NOA.

 

Chairman Rodriguez clarified Commissioner Palacios’ comments by stating they are all over the place and they do not meet the standard.

 

Commissioner Palacios stated he had a problem currently with a municipal building…40 ton units on the roof…(still only partially audible)

 

Commissioner Hamrick stated he was a little confused because since 1996 Florida schools have been required to build enhanced hurricane protection areas in which everything on the roof is required to meet the wind load requirements including the air conditioning systems.  He further stated the units could be hardened or something could be built around them, as the declaratory statement states.

 

Mr. Blair stated for clarification that the Commission was interpreting the existing code. He further stated if the Commission did not like the code and amendment would be necessary to change it.  He then stated the Commission was only to correctly interpret what the code states.

 

Mr. Regueiro stated since the issuance of the declaratory statements regarding the cooling towers, his department had been enforcing it as a code requirement in its jurisdiction.  He then stated it had caused a lot of consternation and he and received phone calls from every major appliance manufacturer imaginable trying to get what his department’s take on it was i.e. what it was looking for.  He further stated there was not a lot of guidance in particular on how the manufacturers should comply with the requirement.  He then stated it was not subject to the product approval requirements because it was not listed under 9B-72 as a structural component because it was defined as such.  He stated his department had basically given some options on how the manufacturers could demonstrate compliance for the appliances themselves outside of even building a structure around it.  He further stated the manufacturers were told they could either test the appliance and show it would withstand the anticipated wind pressures based on the exposure category and the location of the installation or a structural analysis, a rational analysis, of the construction of the appliance could be done and if the structural engineer would do calculations and certify the appliance would withstand the anticipated wind pressures.  He stated so far most of the appliance manufacturers have taken that approach within the city of West Palm Beach and reports have been produced and given the department reports from structural engineers on a limited basis from some manufacturers stating their appliances will withstand the anticipated wind pressures.

 

Jamie Gascon, Miami-Dade County

 

Mr. Gascon stated his comments were along the same lines as Mr. Regueiro.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked if getting a rational analysis from an engineer was how it was working in Dade County.

 

Mr. Gascon stated when the system as a unit had not been approved.

 

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval of the committee recommendation.  Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the resulted in 22 in favor, 1 opposed (Palacios).  Motion carried.          

 

DCA08-DEC-208 by Luke Ismert of Schier Products

 

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

 

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

 

            DCA08-DEC-209 by Tom Hardiman of the Modular Building Institute

 

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

 

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

 

DCA08-DEC-216 by Vincent Vaulman, CCE, Regional Manager, Madsen, Kneppers & Associates, Inc.

 

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

 

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

 

DCA08-DEC-236 by W. Vincent of Construction Specialties, Inc.

 

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

 

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

 

DCA08-DEC-237 by W. Vincent of Construction Specialties, Inc.

 

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

 

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

           

 

DCA08-DEC-238 by W. Vincent of Construction Specialties, Inc.

 

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

 

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

 

 

DCA08-DEC-239 by W. Vincent of Construction Specialties, Inc.

 

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

 

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

 

            DCA08-DEC-257 by Chris Birchfield of No-Burn Se, Inc.

 

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

 

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

 

DCA08-DEC-258 by David E. Sands of Bamboo Technologies

 

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files. He then highlighted that what is basically conclude by the order was the bamboo material identified by the petitioner really are materials as opposed to products as defined within the rule so state approval by 9B-72 is not applicable. 

 

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

 

DCA08-DEC-268 by Sandra Gump of Fomo Products, Inc.

 

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

 

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

 

 

DCA08-DEC-275 by Ken Norton of Power Design, Inc.

 

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

 

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

 

First Hearings:

 

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

 

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

 

Kari Hebrank, Florida Building Material Association

 

Ms. Hebrank stated they had originally worked with Dr. Stone and Eric Stafford, working on behalf of IBHS, on the issue of Exposure C initially on Exposure C and what that means when near an inland body of water.  She then stated it was their understanding that the 20% applied to the uplift load just on the roof sheathing, roof-to-wall connections, and not on the entire foundation.  She further stated if the declaratory statement stayed as is the cost of housing would increase significantly.  She stated it goes counter to what the discussions were and what had been worked out.  She continued by stating in thinking they would be moving to some parts of the state even to Exposure category D.  She then asked for the Commission’s support to reverse the declaratory statement and put back what was initially intended.  She stated the TAC struggled with it going between yes and no answers.  She asked the Commission to keep in mind the original 20% on the roof-to-wall connections and the roof sheathing would be an additional expense on the housing cost. 

 

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

 

Mr. Glenn stated he is a member of the Structural TAC and was on the side voting against the recommendation which was 6-4.  He then stated same recollection as Ms. Hebrank on the discussions that occurred on the issue of how to recraft the definition of Exposure C, which had been a contention since the first code, as to how the exposure categories were classified.  He further stated there was discussion of component-??-load increases and uplift load increases.  He continued by stating the discussion at the time of the code adoption was their main concern of increasing the uplift load on the material of the roof itself.  He stated it was not intended to increase the entire main wind force resisting system thus creating load paths to ground. He concluded by stating his recollection was the 20% was only to be applied to the roof sheathing and the roof-to-wall connection and not increase the design loads on the trusses, wall or foundation.

 

C.W. Mc Comber, APA

 

Mr. Mc Comber stated he was also a member of the Structural TAC.  He then stated his recollection was this was originally voted on about 1 ½ years ago and was the same recollection of Mr. Glenn and the opinion of Ms. Hebrank. He further stated the recollection was a compromise instead of having Exposure D, Exposure C would be accepted with the two provisions of the roof-to-wall connection 20% increase and the roof sheathing uplift attachment 20% increase, not the entire load path. 

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked Do Kim, who had chaired the TAC, to offer some guidance from the TAC.

 

Do Kim, TAC chairman

 

Mr. Kim stated the code change was submitted by Eric Stafford of IBHS during the 2007Florida Building Code update cycle.  He then stated when the declaratory statement initially came forward two meetings ago Eric Stafford and Dr. Stone were present.  He continued by stating the language was left somewhat up to interpretation.  He further stated since both the proponent and the stakeholder were present who really worked on the issue.  He further stated the testimony previously given is accurate.  He explained he had asked Eric Stafford and Dr. Stone their intent for the code change.  He stated their answer was for the intent to be reflected accurately in the declaratory statement.  He concluded by stating the TAC went by what the proponents intended their code change to mean.

 

Mr. Madani stated while the language was consistent with public comment opinion on the subject, there was a change to the modification at the end which has confused the subject.  He then stated the text was reviewed by the committee at the last meeting and there was a debate regarding which way to go.  He stated if there was still more discussion needed maybe it needs more work.

 

Commissioner Stone stated he was the proponent of the change approved for the modification.  He then stated Exposure D was inserted into Florida when ASCE-7 did not recognize Exposure D in those coastal hurricane prone areas.  He continued by stating the Wood Industry does recognize that research shows Exposure D does exist and the new ASCE-7 will address it.  He further stated there would be all kinds of changes with loads going either up or down.  He explained what he tried to do was a compromise until the new ASCE-7 is adopted.  He stated he had indicated the difference was in uplift forces it had to be reduced and he had been referring to connections. He then stated he had submitted both oral and written testimony.  He further stated he had said in his oral testimony the use of ring shank nails, which are required in Florida, will take care of the 20% load.  He then stated his other testimony referred to connections between the roof and wall assemblies and he stated if strength was going to be increased it should be done at the bottom as well.  He clarified he was talking about a fastener and not the full main force resisting system.  He offered his apologies for missing the TAC meeting yesterday, explaining he had to make a phone call to respond to an email in Washington.  He suggested the declaratory statement be taken back to the Structural TAC for more work.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked Commissioner Stone if he wanted to put his suggestion in the form of a motion.

 

Commissioner Stone moved approval to send the declaratory statement back to the TAC.  Commissioner Hamrick entered a second to the motion.

 

Mr. Glenn stated he wanted to point out one other issue: the declaratory statement had received a 6-4 vote.  He then stated if it had been discussed as a code modification it would have required 75%.  He further stated it was obvious there was some confusion, even with the TAC members, enough confusion that 75% could not be reached for the modification, but 60% was reached for the declaratory statement.  He encouraged the Commission to support Commissioner Stone’s motion. 

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

DCA08-DEC-207 by Anthony Apfelbeck, Fire Marshal/Building Official, City of Altamonte Springs

 

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

 

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

 

Mr. Glenn stated the Commission would be receiving a report from its Carbon Monoxide Workgroup with recommendations for some legislative action.  He then stated there was a great deal of discussion regarding what constitutes new construction or existing construction, at what level do the detectors have to be installed, and at what point they have to be hardwired.  He further stated he would recommend deferral of the declaratory statement pending resolution and clarification by the Legislature of their intent.  He continued by stating a letter had been presented to the workgroup from the sponsor of the bill.  He stated his intent was not necessarily Legislative intent, but his intentions were certainly clear by that letter, which indicated he did not mean for these provisions to be applied to anything but new construction; not additions or alterations, which are included in the rule in the form of level 3. He stated he believed it would benefit the Commission to not take an action on this declaratory statement until the Legislature has been asked for clarification on its intent as the applicability of carbon monoxide detectors, rather than come out with a position at this point which the representative will probably clarify on his own since he wrote the letter.  He stated it could possibly save some future embarrassment for the Commission over the issue.  He stated since the representative’s intention was written he believed he would clarify it with a bill in the upcoming year, especially if it is asked for in the Commission’s Legislative Report.  He then stated the declaratory statement was one of general purpose with no project identified; therefore there should be no impact to a project which is ongoing.  He further stated the second reading would be in February subject to some form of challenge, he would assume.  He stated the Legislature would be taking action on it almost immediately following the meeting in February, therefore no need to rush.  He restated his recommendation to delay action and wait for clarification the Commission was asking for from the Legislature.

 

Jeff Householder, Natural Gas Propane Industries

 

Mr. Householder stated he was in agreement with Mr. Glenn.  He continued by stating if the Commission decided to move forward with the declaratory statement he would propose a series of modifications to the language which would remove the level 3 alterations and any application of the standard to an existing building until such time as the Legislature has the opportunity to review it and clarify its intent.  He then stated the Natural Gas and Propane Industries are not opposed to an expansion of CO alarm applications.  He further stated if the Legislature moves in that direction the industry would be happy to support that.  He concluded by stating at this point they do not believe at this point the Commission has specific authority to move into the existing building arena.

 

Fred Dudley, representing himself

 

Mr. Dudley stated he was not here to address the merits of the issues as that is not his area of expertise.  He continued by stating he had filed a number of declaratory statements, some with the Commission.  He stated his concern was any declaratory statement asking for a statement of general applicability.  He then stated the declaratory statement does not contain a particular set of facts affecting to only the petitioner.  He further stated if the Commission answers the declaratory statement a code interpretation would be made, in his opinion.  He stated the Commission was not going through the formal interpretation process, which the petitioner could do if they chose to.  He then stated if the Commission feels the areas need clarification it has specific rule-making authority in the statute 553.885(2).  He concluded by stating the Commission can make changes to the existing rule anyway it sees fit.  He encouraged the Commission to look at the issues and go that route. He stated this was the wrong way to go and it does provide fair notice to people who are potentially adversely impacted by this and the statement would be one of general applicability which is essentially a non-rule policy.

 

Commissioner Franco asked if the declaratory statements refer to specific cases.

 

Mr. Richmond stated the requirement was for interpretation of specific facts and circumstances which should be provided in the petition.  He then stated in this case, the petitioner did set out some particulars and circumstances.  He continued by stating in this particular case there were special circumstance in that a building official, who is bound by his license to enforce the provisions of the building code and the rule, was asking how he should enforce the code.  He concluded by stating the Commission had not faced a potential challenge that it was inappropriate rule-making.  He stated he did not see the declaratory statement as one of general applicability beyond stating what the rule means what it says.   

 

Commissioner Stone moved approval to table the declaratory statement, recommending Mr. Richmond investigate and give his legal opinion on general applicability and he would also like to hear input from the author of the Legislation.  Commissioner Hamrick entered a second to the motion.

 

Mr. Richmond stated the intent of the sponsor of one of the house bills that affected this was not reflective of Legislative intent, anymore than one commissioner’s belief or interpretation would be the belief or interpretation of the Commissions.                          

 

Commissioner Stone stated he would like to just hear a legal opinion from Mr. Richmond.

 

Mr. Blair asked for clarification the motion was to table the declaratory statement until the next meeting pending legal’s determination it was properly before the Commission.

 

Commissioner Stone responded yes.

 

Commissioner Grippa asked… (inaudible)

 

Mr. Blair responded he could table the motion until the next meeting as it would be an appropriate action.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated the motion was a deferral for legal clarification.

 

Vote to approve the motion to defer was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

DCA08-DEC-289 by Glen Lathers, Hillsborough County Public Schools

 

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

 

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

 

DCA08-DEC-239 by W. Vincent of Construction Specialists, Inc.

 

Mr. Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.  He then stated if the question is overbroad and not described by parameters, the Commission should not go to the second question.

 

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

 

DCA08-DEC-329 by Brad Weatherholtz, FRSA, Inc.

 

Withdrawn by applicant.

 

DCA08-DEC-330 by Brad Weatherholtz, FRSA, Inc.

 

Withdrawn by applicant.

 

DCA08-DEC-331 by Brad Weatherholtz, FRSA, Inc.

 

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

 

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

 

DCA08-DEC-337 by Roger Sanders, Nova Engineering and Environmental, LLC.

 

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

 

Bill Dunbaugh, original workgroup member

 

Mr. Dunbaugh stated in short the question was asking if private providers can provide their services on repairs.  He continued by stating in the original workgroup repairs were never discussed because it was the general intent it was not included.  He then stated the workgroup had worked very hard and there was a lot of give and take on both sides to get down to what was included, which were alterations, renovations and additions, but not repairs. He further stated if the Commission agreed with the TACs recommendation it would be far exceeding the intent of the original workgroup.

 

Commissioner Browdy stated it appeared the answer was somewhat discretionary, “The private providers may include inspections required for alterations.”  He then stated it seemed to him the implication  was the building official may use the private provider statute at his discretion from a code jurisdiction point of view.  He further stated he was not sure if that was the TACs intent to give that discretion to the building official, but he would not have any objection giving it to them.  He continued by stating the discretion of the building official, to a great extent, is what originally motivated the usage of the private provider statute.

 

Mr. Richmond stated that was not included in the declaratory statement.  He then stated it may have been a portion of the recommendation from the workgroup that the discretion rests with the building official, but it has subsequently been amended by the Legislature.  He further stated the ability to utilize private providers is squarely placed within the discretion of the contractor or fee owner of the property, which is expressly stated throughout the statutory scheme.

 

Mr. Blair stated the TAC discussed that in great detail and decided the contractors should have the ability to do that as long as the fee owner was notified by law. 

 

Roger Sanders, NOVA Engineering, Building Official and Code Consultant

 

            Mr. Sanders stated his company was approached by various clients which requested additional services.  He explained not all local jurisdictions provide Saturday or Sunday inspections or after-hours inspections, though some do.  He then stated as a requirement in the permit that contractors have to get a final inspection.  He continued by stating this puts them in between the owners of the structures aren’t there when the local jurisdiction wants to do a final inspection without taking an entire day off from work, if both people have to work.  He stated many jurisdictions were offering services such as when they were providing 3 gallon flush toilets, because many would go out at night and do the inspections because it was the only time it could be done.  He concluded by stating NOVA Engineering was offering the same type of services and just wants the clarification that it is not precluded by statute.  He stated if those services are not offered by the local jurisdiction and they are not impinged upon by a local jurisdiction preventing the private provider from providing those services at the owner’s behest and at the contractor’s request.

 

            Commissioner Shock stated there was a section in the private provider law that allows the building official discretion to require both plan review and inspections on any particular permit. He then stated he believed if it were a stand-alone permit they may have the ability to do that, but if it was an associated permit to a building permit then there would still be the issue of the building official having to make that call, whether the jurisdiction would allow it to be broken up individually or require the whole thing to be done together.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked Mr. Shock if he supported the declaratory statement.

 

Commissioner Shock answered yes, provided it refers only to stand-alone permits.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.

 

Commissioner Browdy asked if there should be an amendment to the statement qualifying it only for stand-alone permits or voting on it as is.

 

Commissioner Shock stated he would like the motion to be for stand-alone permits.

 

Commissioner Kidwell asked Commissioner Shock for clarification of what was meant by a stand-alone permit.

 

Commissioner Shock stated a permit not associated with a building permit.  He explained for a new house there would be associated electrical, associated mechanical permits and a stand-alone permit would be for the change out of something such as a new air conditioner.

 

Mr. Blair stated for example a mechanical contractor pulls a permit to change out an air conditioner on an existing house.

 

Mr. Richmond stated he believed this to be fully in compliance with the petitioners intent but if there was a larger project such as a renovation which included an air conditioner change out, if the contractor or property owner attempted to use a private provider just for the air conditioning alone a building official could say no.  He further stated that discretion is fully provided for in the statute.  He stated the official could say all or nothing, but if the entire scope of the permit was to be covered by the private provider services he believed it would be within the four corners of the statute.

 

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 22 in favor, 1 opposed (Tolbert).  Motion carried.

 

DCA08-DEC-339 by Jose Sanchez, Fenestration Testing Laboratory, Inc.

 

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

 

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

 

CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

Electrical TAC

 

Commissioner Carson presented the report of the Electrical TAC.  (See Electrical TAC Minutes December 9, 2008).

 

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

 

Fire TAC

 

            Commissioner Goodloe presented the report of the Energy TAC.  (See Fire TAC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2008).

 

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

 

 

Mechanical TAC

 

            Mr. Blair presented the report of the Mechanical TAC.  (See Mechanical TAC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2008).

 

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

 

Roofing TAC

 

Commissioner Schulte presented the report of the Roofing TAC.  (See Roofing TAC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2008).

 

            Actions:         

 

Commissioner Schulte moved approval for the Commission to establish a Green Roof Workgroup to discuss guidelines regarding standards, wind loads and product approvals associated with the growing interest in green roofs.  Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion.

 

            Mr. Dixon stated green roofs are an energy issue and there is an Energy Workgroup.   He asked if it was appropriate to put the issue together with the other issues put together under the Energy Workgroup with proper representation.

 

            Commissioner Schulte stated it was obviously related to energy, but the more it was discussed the more roofing issues came up such as warranties, the manufacturer underneath the products, uplifts, or whether product approvals were required for the systems.  He then stated there was a lot of roofing technical issues and the concern was those may get lost in the Energy Code.

 

            Mr. Dixon stated whichever group the issue is put with would have adequate representation from all parties. He then stated it could be placed as a separate workgroup.  He explained the difficulty begins to be how many more meetings could be worked in this year.

 

            Commissioner Schulte stated he understood, but there were so many unanswered questions at the TAC meeting it was obvious it needed to be reviewed.  He then stated whichever way it was done the TAC just wanted to make sure a group was put together.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked if it could be done within the Roofing TAC.

 

Commissioner Schulte stated he thought it could be done within the TAC, but with more representation.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated Mr. Dixon would work it into the workplan. He then stated he believed it was a good idea, because although the green roof idea had become very popular it was also fraught with problems, particularly with Florida weather.

 

            Commissioner Stone stated ASTM had recently formed a new committee on sustainability.  He then stated there was a task group that just developed or was developing a standard and he would provide that for the workgroup.

 

            Vote to approve the motion to form a green roof workgroup was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

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

 

Structural TAC

 

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Structural TAC.  (See Structural TAC Meeting Minutes December 8, 2008).

 

            Mr. Blair stated the TAC developed a recommendation to the Commission to expand glitch code criteria to include recognizing equivalency of standards within the code, such as design standards, which would be a Legislative change.

 

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

 

Education POC

 

Chairman Browdy presented the report of the Education POC.  (See Education POC Meeting Minutes December 8, 2008).

 

Actions:

 

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the committee recommendation to initiate rulemaking for Rule 9B-70.002 by scheduling a rule development workshop at the February Commission meeting to adopt the POC approved changes.  Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Browdy presented the following 7 courses for approval:

 

325.0, Florida Building Code Advanced 2007-Floors (RedVector.com, Inc.)

 

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

 

328.0, Florida Building Code Advanced 2007: Accessible Elements & Spaces, Part 1, (RedVector.com, Inc.)

 

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

 

329.0, Florida Building Code Advanced 2007: Accessible Elements & Spaces, Part 2, (RedVector.com, Inc.)

 

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

 

330.0, Florida Building Code Advanced 2007: Accessible Elements & Spaces, Part 3, (RedVector.com, Inc.)

 

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

 

331.0, Florida Building Code Advanced 2007: Fixtures, Faucets and Fixture Fittings, (RedVector.com, Inc.)

 

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

 

332.0, Florida Building Code 2007 Advanced Training: Indoor Environmental Quality, (EcoDecor).

 

Commissioner Gonzalez moved approval of the committee recommendation.  Commissioner Stone? entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

333.0, Advanced Florida Building Code: Site Requirements, (BCIC)

 

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

 

335.0, Advanced 2007 FBC Significant Code Changes, (BCIC LLC)

 

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

 

Administratively approved courses:

 

            322.0 Internet-Advanced FBC Course-Significant Changes to 2007 FBC, Building and the 2007 FBC Residential

 

313.1 2007 FBC Significant Code Changes 

 

334.0 Advanced 2007 FBC Significant Code Changes

 

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

 

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

 

Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC

 

            Commissioner Carson presented the report of the Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC.  (See Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC Meeting Minutes December 8, 2009.)

 

            Actions:

 

            Commissioner Carson stated the POC recommended the Commission support the Department’s initiatives to request Legislative authority for the following:

 

1.      Contract the manufactured building administrator’s responsibility to a third party.

2.      Manufacturers pay the vendor directly for plans review and inspection services via the BCIS.

3.      Department will establish plans review and inspection fees.

4.      The POC will retain oversight over the program.

           

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

 

            Commissioner Carson stated the POC recommended:

 (a) IAPMO be included in the law as an approved evaluation entity.

(b) Change the law 553.842 Product Evaluation and Approval to read as follows:

(a) Evaluation entities that meet the criteria for approval adopted by the commission by rule. The commission shall specifically approve the, the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials Evaluation Service, the International Code Council Evaluation Services, the Miami-Dade County Building Code Compliance Office Product Control and National Evaluation Service, the international Conference of Building Officials Evaluation Services, the Building Officials and Code Administrators International Evaluation Services, the Southern Building Code Congress International Evaluation Services. Architects and engineers licensed in this state are also approved to conduct product evaluations as provided in subsection (5).

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

 

            Commissioner Carson stated recommended the Commission approve staff request for specific authority for the manufacturer entities to pay the product approval administrator directly via the BCIS.

 

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

 

            Commissioner Carson stated the POC recommended the Commission dismiss the complaint due to lack of substantive material necessary to conduct an investigation regarding FL5343 by Michael J. Wolfe of Advanced Shelter Solutions.

 

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

 

            Commissioner Carson stated the committee recommended the Commission dismiss the complaint to FL7350 and FL9328 by Steve Sincere, PE. due to the fact the Florida Board of Engineers voted to dismiss the case.

 

Commissioner Carson stated Ted Berman, Product Approval Administrator, informed the committee of the findings of his investigation of FL8843.  He then stated based on those findings the issue in question was outside the scope of the Rule 9B-72 and lacked substantive material evidence.  He stated the POC recommended the Commission dismiss the investigation.

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.

 

Commissioner Vann asked if it was the Colleen Simon case.

 

Commissioner Carson stated it was.

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

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

 

Bedroom Definition Workgroup

 

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Bedroom Definition Workgroup.  (See Universal Bedroom Definition Workgroup, Meeting II, October 15, 2008.)

 

Commissioner Browdy commented the group liked the concept involved, but there was some discussion regarding the sizes being used to qualify what a room was , 70 square feet, for example, was inappropriate sizing.  He explained there were some closets that are 70 square feet.  He stated that would be reevaluated, but conceptually the group came to a consensus that this was a new and more appropriate way to evaluate the sizing of septic tanks.

 

Mr. Blair stated the proposal would next be submitted the Technical Review and Advisory Panel and the Department of Health would evaluate the 50 gallon per room and the 70 square foot criteria, as well, to ensure they are the best numbers.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked if any Commission action were necessary.

 

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

 

CO Detector Workgroup

 

Mr. Blair presented the report of the CO Detector Workgroup.  (See CO Detector Workgroup Meeting Minutes December 8, 2008.)

 

Mr. Blair stated the workgroup unanimously recommended the Commission adopt the following recommendations to the 2009 Florida Legislature regarding CO Detectors:

 

1.      Clarify the responsibilities of the Division of State Fire Marshal (DSFM) and the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) under Chapter 509.211 F.S.

2.      Clarify the scope of what was intended by the term: “new construction”.

3.      Provide legislative authority for the Commission to review and determine the appropriate location(s) for CO detectors.

4.      Clarify that the requirement applies to all fuel sources that emit carbon monoxide and not only fossil fuels.

 

Commissioner Goodloe moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. 

 

Commissioner Browdy asked if workgroup was stating all single family homes will now have to have a CO detector.

 

Mr. Blair answered no.  He further stated the workgroup was seeking clarification from the Legislature and authority to evaluate this further.

 

Commissioner Browdy stated it was confusing because the workgroup was recommending locations for the CO detectors but not recommending the CO detectors.

 

Mr. Blair stated the workgroup was seeking Legislative authority to determine what the appropriate locations would be for the CO detectors.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated he understood Commissioner Browdy’s point because when permission was being asked for the location it was because the intention would be to locate them.

 

Mr. Dixon offered clarification stating what was left out of the CO Workgroup report was what the current law uses as a trigger for the requirement of CO detectors, i.e. a fuel burning source that would create CO.  He then stated the presence of an enclosed garage in a single family home also triggers CO detectors. 

 

Commissioner Browdy asked if there was a requirement for them provided there is some type of fossil fuel in the home. 

 

Mr. Dixon stated the current wording indicates fossil fuel but the workgroup was recommending the law be changed to include other fuels which when burned would create CO.

 

Commissioner Browdy stated he thought before the Commission approved the recommendations it should understand all of the caveats that go with it.  He then asked if the recommendations listed were the only current recommendations.

 

Mr. Blair answered yes.  He then stated once the workgroup receives authority it would meet again and work on all of the different issues coming up.  He further stated it was an effort to seek some clarification so the workgroup would know clearly what was intended by the Legislature then the Commission could work to clarify the rule to be consistent with that as well as determine if there were other cases where CO should be determined and what might be.

 

Commissioner Browdy stated he believed it inappropriate to make a recommendation to change the recommendation of the workgroup.  He then stated he would like to see some clarification of the wording to clearly understand it was predicated on existing requirements under the rule, if that is possible, if that was the intent of the workgroup.

 

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

 

Mr. Glenn stated he was in attendance at the workgroup meeting.  He then stated he believed the location issue was raised by Commissioner Bassett who had made a point of the fact a CO detector located 10 feet outside of the sleeping room may not be sufficient.  He further stated one case Commissioner Bassett had cited was a hotel in which the boiler room was actually next to a sleeping room and CO seeped through the wall and the detector outside the room would not have made any difference.  He continued it was the location of the detector not the occupancy. He stated the occupancy location was already in law as to what the applicability is for occupancy.  He gave an example of some discussion of recommending the adoption of NFPA-720, a nationally recognized standard.  He further stated the standard includes how and where the detectors should be physically located within the facility, which was the location the recommendation was addressing.

 

Mr. Blair stated the review of the statute by the workgroup and some of the issues brought forward made it clear there were some enforcement issues that need to be resolved.  He then stated that issue was addressed by recommendation one, which is between the State Fire Marshall and DBPR.  He continued by stating the second issue was the word “new construction” and the interpretation of “new construction” triggers the law and however it is interpreted has a vast consequence; which was why the workgroup wanted clarification if it referred to additions, alterations or new buildings.  He stated the third issue was the Commission does not currently have the authority to look at all options and make the decision regarding possible locations of the detectors.  He then stated the fourth issue was the law says fossil fuels, but there were clearly other sources of fuel types which were not classified as fossil fuels, but emit CO when burned; therefore clarification was needed regarding whatever else could be used.

 

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Browdy if he had clarified the issues for him.

 

Commissioner Browdy answered yes, he had.

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

 

Hurricane Research Advisory Committee

 

Mr. Dixon presented the report of the Hurricane Advisory Committee. (See Hurricane Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, December 8, 2008.)

 

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

 

Soffit Work Group

 

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Soffit Work Group.  (See Soffit Systems Workgroup, Meeting II, November 12, 2008.)

 

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

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated copies of the Florida Building Code were available for the new commissioners.  

 

Commissioner Carson asked if the Code was available on CD as well.

 

Mr. Dixon stated if any existing commissioners would like the CD, please see staff.

 

RECESS

 

Chairman Rodriguez called for the Commission to recess at 6:08 p.m.


 

The meeting of the Florida Building Commission was called to order by Chairman Raul Rodriguez at 8:27 a.m. on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 at the Embassy Suites Hotel, Tampa, Florida.


 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:                         Kenneth L. Gregory

Raul L. Rodriguez, AIA, Chairman                     Joseph “Ed” Carson

Richard Browdy, Vice-Chairman                       Raphael R. Palacios

Jeff Gross                                                               Paul D. Kidwell

Angel Franco                                                     Tim Tolbert

Jeff Stone                                                               Matthew Carlton

James Goodloe                                                 Craig Parrino, Adjunct Member           

James K. Shock                                                              

Herminio Gonzalez                                                                                 

Robert G. Boyer                                                COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:

Hamid Bahador                                                    William Norkunas                                           

Drew W. Smith                                                      Dale Greiner                                   

Randall J. Vann                                                Doug Murdock, Adjunct Member

Chris Schulte                                                               

Mark Turner                                                                                                                          

Randall J. Vann                                                 OTHERS PRESENT:

Scott Mollan                                                      Rick Dixon, FBC Executive Director

Jon Hamrick                                                      Ila Jones, DCA Prog. Administrator        

Anthony M. Grippa                                            Jim Richmond, DCA Legal Advisor

                                                                              Jeff Blair, FCRC

                                                                         Mo Madani, Technical. Svcs. Manager   

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                                             

 

 

                                                                                                                                                           

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                               

            WELCOME                                      

 

            Chairman Rodriguez welcomed Commissioners, staff, and members of the public to day two of the December 2008 plenary session of the Florida Building Commission. He stated the Commission would focus on December’s substantive issues including current rule development initiatives including adoption of Glitch Amendments, and adoption of issues for inclusion in the Commission’s Report to the 2009 Legislature.  He then stated there were blue Public Meeting Evaluation Forms were provided at the speakers’ table for those who wish to provide written feedback to the Commission.  He further stated Completed Comment Forms would be included in Facilitator’s Summary reports.

 

Mr. Dixon stated Commissioners who had been with the Commission for a long time know Maxine Moore, recently retired, gave Commissioners warning when the cut-off date was going to expire for the early registration at the meeting location hotels. He then stated Ms. Moore would no longer be with the Commission and the position had not been filled to date. He directed the Commissioners to the inside of the agenda packet where there was an updated meeting schedule with hotel location information and the cutoff dates for registration.  He further stated the staff recommendation for the commissioners would be to reserve your room for the next Commission meeting when you get home from the one just held.

 

Commissioner Gross asked if the rate could be included with the meeting location information because sometimes hotel employees were not aware of the rate or could not find the Building Commission.

 

Mr. Dixon answered that could be done.  He then stated the rate for the February meeting in Melbourne would be $106.00.

           

REPORT ON ACCESSIBILITY DESIGN CHARETTE FOR HOTEL SLEEPING ROOM RENOVATIONS

 

            Chairman Rodriguez thanked all of the participants who worked on the hotel design charette.  He stated the individuals who work in the hotel industry came from all parts of the United States to be a part of the project.  He recognized both Commissioner Browdy and Commissioner Gross for coordinating the project.  He also thanked Bruce Ketchum and Mary-Katherine Smith.  He then stated it was a special effort from both the staff and commissioners.

 

            Commissioner Browdy explained a charette is an intense design competition to solve an architectural problem within a limited amount of time.  He further explained the subject task of the hotel charette was a redesign and renovation of four different existing hotel suites into four finished hotel suites that improved the overall living space, increased accessibility and approached compliance with the Florida Accessibility Code for building construction.   He stated to accomplish the task staff worked off and on for over eighteen months to assemble the most talented individual professionals who would agree to participate at their own expense and to give their intellectual work product to the citizens of the state of Florida. 

 

Commissioner Browdy then stated the participants were divided into four teams and each team leader was asked to select one of four designs at random for their individual team’s task.  He explained each team had individuals from different disciplines enabling each team to be well suited for the design task.  The teams consisted of 23 participants from throughout the United States including 12 architects, 3 building officials, 4 persons with disabilities, 3 interior designers, and 1 attorney/architect.  He stated the audience of the hotel charette was also well attended by all disciplines and interested parties.  He then stated after the purpose of a charette was explained including the purpose, approach and compliance method, workplan and the teams, the event progressed having 3 hours to address the problems evaluate the alternatives agree on a design solution, and articulate the solution into the architectural drawings.  He further stated at the end of the design time each lead member was given the opportunity to present their solution to the task and other teams and members of the audience were allowed to ask questions and challenge the other team’s solutions.  He stated there were drawings posted on the wall of the room for the commissioners’ review.  He further stated the drawings were the solutions and the work product of some very, very talented people who gave of their time and talent to create equal access for people with disabilities and benefit all of the citizens of the state of Florida.  He concluded by stating the Commission and the public at large should commend the staff, the TAC and the TAC chair Commissioner Gross for their most worthwhile effort.  He encouraged everyone to look at the extraordinary product.  He stated he believed we would be better off as we approach understanding individuals with disabilities and what their needs are as a result of the hotel charette.   

 

            Commissioner Gross presented a slide presentation of the Accessibility Design Charette, offering comments and explanations during the presentation.  He stated the amount of people there at the level held was amazing and everyone worked together very well and the product was very good.  He then stated there so many people to thank such Commissioner Browdy for narrating and keeping the teams on task, Ila Jones and Mo Madani for providing the staff and the resources needed, Rick Dixon for dealing with some difficult phone calls over some controversy at the end of the planning, Mary Katherine Smith for calling everyone to make sure they were showing up and special thanks to Bruce Ketchum for putting the program and the problems together.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioners Browdy and Gross, Mary Katherine Smith and everyone involved who participated in the charette.

RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-70, EDUCATION

           

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the September 15, 2008 Teleconference meeting the Commission voted to initiate rule development for Rule 9B-70, to develop amendments for on-line forms for the Education Program; specifically the accreditor, course, and training program on-line application forms. He then stated at the October meeting the Commission conducted a rule development workshop adopting the Education POC’s recommendations, and voting to publish a notice of change, integrating and noticing the approved changes, and conducting a rule adoption hearing at the December 2008 meeting. He further stated the December provided an additional opportunity for public comment before the Commission votes to proceed with rule adoption by filing the rule.

           

            Mr. Richmond opened the rule adoption hearing.  He then stated at the last meeting the POC recommended a series of changes which were all approved by the Commission.  He then stated unfortunately all of the changes did not fit within the scope of the notice for that proceeding.  He continued by stating he had the opportunity to discuss that with Commissioner Browdy, the POC chair, and the administrator.  He then stated the options were to have an additional workshop at the December meeting to include all of those changes limited to the scope or limit the scope of the December hearing to just the elements related to the forms.  He further stated the decision was to move forward with rule-making, have the hearing, adopt the changes relative to the forms and then adopt the changes through another additional proceeding to be conducted at a later date.  He concluded by stating the discussion at the December hearing should be limited strictly to the changes to the online forms and the associated text within the rule.

 

            No public comment.

 

            Mr. Richmond closed the rule adoption hearing.

 

            Commissioner Browdy moved approval to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9B-70, Education by filing the rule for adoption with the Secretary of State. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.    

 

RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-3.047, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, GLITCH AMENDMENTS      

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission voted unanimously during a June 9, 2008 teleconference meeting to make the effective date of the 2007 Florida Building Code and Florida Energy Code December 31, 2008.  He then stated in addition, the Glitch amendment deadline was extended to July 15, 2008, with a rule development workshop conducted at the October 2008 meeting. He continued by stating the October workshop was an opportunity for members of the public to provide input to the Commission prior to Commission action on the proposed Glitch amendments. He stated at the October Rule Development Workshop the Commission reviewed the TAC’s comments/recommendations on proposed Glitch Amendments to the 2007 Florida Building Code, and following extensive public comment voted unanimously to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9B-3.047, Florida Building Code, Glitch Amendments, integrating and noticing the approved amendments; and, authorizing DCA staff to make any editorial fixes required to implement the Commission’s substantive decisions on Glitch Code amendments (i.e., formatting, section number correlations and removal of text such as seismic and snow load language, etc.).  He further stated the December meeting provided an additional opportunity for public comment before the Commission votes to conclude rule development by filing the rule for adoption if no changes were made.  He stated if changes were made a notice of change would need to be published integrating a notice in the approved changes and proceeding with rule adoption.  Chairman Rodriguez then reminded the Commission in order for a proposed code change to be accepted as a glitch it must fall within one of the following criteria:

1) Conflict with the updated code

2) Conflict between the updated code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code

3) Omissions of previously adopted Florida specific amendments, if such an omission was not supported by specific recommendation of a TAC or a particular Commission action,

4) Unintended results from the integration of previously adopted Florida specific amendments with the model code

5) Changes to Federal or state law

6) Updates to the NEC if the delay of implementing the updated edition causes undue hardship to stakeholders or otherwise threatens the public safety, health and welfare.  He further stated, in addition, the TAC may not have meant to diminish criteria related to wind resistance or prevention of water intrusion nor would the Commission.  

            Mr. Richmond opened the rule adoption hearing.

 

            Mr. Blair stated the Commissioners had received a matrix of comments received via email in advance of the meeting for review.  He then stated members of the public would be asked if there were any portion they would like to speak on.  He then stated if any changes were made the Commission would have to do a Notice Of Proposed Change as the rule proceeds. 

            Fred Dudley

 

            Mr. Dudley stated on the behalf of the Interior Design Professionals a challenge to the rule had been filed based on the other rules regarding the vote the Commission required.  He stated he had discussed with Mr. Dixon the terms of a possible settlement for the Commissions’ consideration.  He then stated he believed we could move beyond this point and then discuss it.  He restated for the record a challenge to the rule had been filed and there were a number of concerns and legal issues raised in the rule challenge.  He further stated the challenge had been assigned to an administrative law judge, who both he and Mr. Richmond have had discussions with.  He stated there was a hearing scheduled for December 22, 2008 because the law requires a hearing be set within 30 days unless the parties waive the hearing. 

 

            Mr. Richmond stated the change being referred to was 3176 which pertains to adding explicit recognition of interior designers into a section in the Administrative Chapter, Chapter 1, which currently recognizes landscape architects, architects and engineers. 

 

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

 

Mr. Glenn stated, for informational purpose, as recently as late December 9,

2008 he had had discussions with FSEC over the changes to the test version of the Energy Gauge software that they were instructed to make after the October Building Commission meeting.  He then stated as of that point the Energy Gauge beta test software still did not contain the changes that reflect the action of the Commission for the next code update.  He further stated it was impossible for users to do any testing to determine whether Energy Gauge were working appropriately or if there were problems.  He concluded by stating the adoption of the Energy Gauge was part of the rule and there was a real concern that there was no working software.  He stated there was a black box out there which no checking if the black box was functioning to meet the new code.

 

Mr. Madani stated staff had been in communication with FSEC from the

start. He then stated it was his understanding the changes had been made, but staff would work to confirm that. He explained staff first thought the problem was more of a downloading problem or the link was not working.  He further stated to his understanding the link was working currently. 

 

Mr. Glenn stated he was only going by email from Phillip Fairey he had

received December 9th stating the changes had not been made.  He then stated one of his members who had been discussing the issue with Mr. Fairey had just sent him an email which stated another draft of the Energy Gauge software was not going to be released.  He further stated there would be no opportunity to review the changes made in the beta test version before the new versions of the Energy Gauge were for sale, therefore there would be no opportunity for testing of the software by anyone to confirm compliance with the rule.

 

Jamie Gascon, Miami-Dade County

 

Mr. Gascon stated he wanted to bring up an issue identified under the

definition of boiler under the Florida Building Code.  He then stated in the 2004 version of the Code it was defined as “that greater than a 200, 000 BTU unit, and in the 2007 it was printed it would be defined as a unit greater than 400,000 BTU.  He continued by stating the matter did come up before the Mechanical TAC and he understood it did not correlate or reference back to a particular code change submittal, but if it went through in that fashion there would be conflict between nationally recognized standards and the Code.  He further stated if it went forward a glitch would be created instead of fixing a glitch in that process.

 

Commissioner Goodloe stated under Chapter 554, under the Fire Marshal’s

Office, the law specifically states 400,000 BTU as the minimum, however most standards do recognize 200,000 BTU.  He then stated in some jurisdictions, such as South Florida, they do enforce a boiler standard on 200,000-400,000 BTU.  He further stated Chapter 554 could be where the 400,000 was coming from.

 

            Mr. Madani stated he believed Commissioner Goodloe was correct.  He stated he had reviewed Statute 554.109 and it does state 400,000.  He then stated when Mr. Bassett proposed that the code change be consistent with Florida Law, which was what the Code was based on from the start. 

 

            Mr. Richmond closed the rule adoption hearing.

           

            Mr. Blair stated the Commission had received and reviewed comments submitted on the internet and heard public comment.  He then stated the Commission had to decide if there were any comments which required action.

 

            Commissioner Smith stated he had a concern with the new software not being available to try.  He asked what could be done relative to requesting another version or how the software could be evaluated prior to its release to be assured it would be up and running.  He then stated he believed it only fair that the Commission should not release something that does not work.

 

            Mr. Richmond stated the Commission was required to file the software with the Joint Administrative Procedure Committee.  He then stated if it was not functioning there would be a comment from the committee.  He further stated the rule was actually subject to a change resulting from the last Commission meeting and was adopted by reference in Rule 9B- 13, the results of that rulemaking just being integrated into the Code through the proceeding.  He stated it was a little complex procedurally, but a fully functioning version of the software to file with the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee which could certainly be brought back for review by the Commission at the February meeting. 

 

            Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Gascon the difference between the enforcement on a 200,000 BTU gas heater as opposed to a 400,000 BTU.  He asked what the additional requirements whereas it was designated a boiler.

 

            Mr. Gascon responded stating it was his understanding the category of boiler would actually require an actual inspection whereas a water heater falling below 200,000 BTU could be just a simple change out.

 

            Commissioner Gregory asked if this was inspection for replacing the heater or was it new installation.  He stated he knew most swimming pool contractors routinely put in 250,000BTU, 300,000 BTU, 350,000 BTU and 400,000 BTU. He then stated he had not heard the boiler destination yet.

 

            Mr. Gascon stated it was his understanding it mainly becomes a safety issue for inspections.  He explained there was greater concern when discussing the sizes.

 

            Mr. Madani stated the Florida Building Code primarily deal with new construction.  He then stated regardless of the size if there was new construction there is a permit and an inspection, regardless of the size. He stated the boiler size was more like a maintenance certification issue and the Florida Building Code does not deal with maintenance.

 

            John Wiggins, Underwriters Laboratories

 

Mr. Wiggins stated if a boiler was tested at up to 400,000 BTU the CSA- ANSI standards would apply.  He then stated if it were a boiler above 400,000 BTU the UL795 standard would be used.

 

            Mr. Richmond stated there were two rule challenges filed 9B-3.047 which is covered under 085913RP.  He then stated the interior designers have asked to be incorporated into the provision of the Code which requires the design professional to sign and seal their work.  He continued by stating in legal substance it accomplishes no more than recognition of what the law is.  He stated it does have a greater practical impact in the field in that some building departments look at the list and if the name of the design professional is not identified the building department does not accept the paperwork from that design professional with in the form of permit applications.  He then stated he did not think the language supported that in legal principal, but when a permit is denied, a permit is denied.  He stated the specifics that have been discussed were 1) the Commission to vote during the hearing to identify the issue as a glitch, a glitch to be integrated into the Code through the cycle that is currently anticipated for the National Electrrical Code.  He then stated the Commission had voted and the Electrical TAC was proceeding down a course anticipated to implement the next edition of the NEC, effective July 1, 2009.  He explained essentially a written settlement agreement would be created which called for the proposal to be adopted through an additional cycle pursuant to the Commissions’ authority under 553.73(7), with implementation by July 1, 2009.  He then stated in accordance with the proposal the petitioners in the case would not oppose, but would cooperate with the proposed legislative change recognizing the Commission’s long standing practice of a 75% majority of the Commission itself being required to amend the Code; together with cooperation in resolving comments by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee.  He referred to one procedural ground of the challenge which was something JAPC had raised regarding a new change in the law which took effect July 1, 2008, after the period of time in which proposals were accepted, but obviously before the rule was adopted. He stated the procedural ground was the financial or fiscal impact or the effect of the rule on small business. 

 

Mr. Richmond continued by stating fiscal impact is identified on the form the Commission receives does not explicitly refer to small business.  He further stated he believed that form should be amended in the future to cover that because Chapter 120 now requires a statement of estimated regulatory costs for every rule that affects small business.  He stated it had not been fully fleshed out or defined and believed there was still work to be done.  He stated the real benefit of the settlement for the Commission is not being the test case.  He then stated if there is a hearing there is a chance of succeeding and defending the challenge; however there is the possibility there won’t be success.  He stated because of the complexity of the processes the Commission goes through it could quite possibly  wind up in an appeals court no matter which side was successful at the administrative hearing before DOA and that would tie the Code up for about 18-20 months; in which time the Commission could not undertake additional rulemaking regarding the Florida Building Code.  He stated that plus the ability to, in the near future, resolve the matter of the 75% provided sufficient impetus to resolve the issue in the terms described.

 

            Mr. Dudley stated he was in agreement with Mr. Richmond with regard to his client’s willingness not to oppose the statutory change the Commission had been urged to do with regard to the 75% vote requirement.  He then stated the rule challenge was not directed at any one of the existing glitch amendments that have been adopted, but addresses the one that did not adopt by the required 75%. He then stated the challenge prevents the rule from going into effect, not only until the administrative challenge has concluded, which could be within the next thirty days, but also any appellate proceeding that might take place.  He then stated the interior designers had hoped the Commission would vote again to change this.  He further stated in talking about the legal issues and the attempt to settle what his client had said was if there were going to be no more changes to the rule at the hearing December 8th then there’ll be no time delay in publishing notices of those changes.  He then stated they were prepared to back off asking it be changed at the December 8, 2008 meeting and let the rule go forward.  He stated if the Commission then approves the settlement, which was a separate vote and a separate issue, the challenge would be withdrawn.  He concluded by stating the compromise his client was making that say was to not press forward again with their proposed amendment as to the rule at the present unless there were changes which were voted on.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated that at the risk of making a mistake, he wanted to present the proposal in layman’s language.  He then stated there was no doubt the law of the land was there are three designers: architects, engineers and interior designers.  He continued by stating the issue was the words interior designer do not appear in the Code and the experience seems to be by not having the designation in the Code some building officials do not accept them as one of three designers.  He stated the change the Commission did not adopt, by a narrow margin, was that it was not a glitch.  He further stated the Commission regularly decides what is and is not a glitch and there was always some argument either way.  He then stated the interior designers felt that important enough that they hired Mr. Dudley to represent them.  He continued by stating what the Commission was faced with was a compromise, which is the Commission’s business to come to consensus.  He stated the compromise was the interior designers would let this rule pass and the Commission would then take care of it with the first opportunity possible.  He stated the challenge would have delayed the rule, which was not in the best interest of everyone, particularly the interior designers, and there was a challenge to the 75% vote requirement.   

 

Chairman Rodriguez explained the reason he chose to speak regarding the issue was because if there was no 75% majority it would have been a simple majority and therefore an easier vote, but the vote that failed them meeting the glitch was a 75% vote.  He further stated the reason he was upset about the challenge of the 75% vote was because he believed it to be the essence of consensus building.  He stated if there is a win by a simple majority vote it is just a little bit better than going to the Legislature this year than losing next year, which is what happened before there was a Commission.  He continued by stating after 9 ½ years of experience with the Commission the most important thing is the experience of the Commissioners sitting around the table relying on each other’s expertise in the different areas.  He further stated the Commission does not leave the room until everyone has had an opportunity to be heard and unless they are putting down an opponent they have as much time as they need to advance and advocate their cause.   He stated then at the end of the day the Commission has to come to a 75% majority which is the beauty of it.  He stated winning a war by one vote does not seem worth it, but if 75% of the group can be convinced this was the right way to move that is an investment.  He concluded by stating although his statements were from his heart he also knows how the game is played and he can appreciate that as well, because somehow it works.  He stated the checks and balances of the system make it all work beautifully. 

 

            Mr. Dudley stated as a matter of public policy he personally supports the extraordinary vote of the Commission.  He then stated he had sat through enough Commission meetings and listened to enough of the issues to know that is an important public policy statement.  He then clarified their only legal challenge was to the authority of the Commission to have that criteria as a rule as opposed to having it in the statute; which was why he suggested it go in the statute.  He stated this particular vote had been 72 ½ % and at the scheme of things this was a relatively small issue.  He stated there could be a major issue that barely fails the 75% and someone else could challenge the Commission and win.  He again urged the Commission to seek Legislative authority for the 75% because it is good public policy.

 

            Mr. Blair stated he wanted to offer clarification on some things for the new Commissioners to make sure they understood how the process was working.  He continued by stating some of the Commissioners may not have participated in rule-making before and may not be aware of how the process was working.  He explained the Commission was adopting the Building Code and the Glitch Code through Rule Adoption 9B-3.047.  He stated there was a rule development workshop at the last Commission meeting and some changes were made, stating this was a rule adoption hearing.  He stated at present there were no changes to the rule so if the rule was adopted as it is currently adopted there is no need to do a Notice Of Proposed Change, which would delay the Code and the implementation date the Commission set forth as March 1, 2009.  He continued by stating at the last meeting the issue of the National Electrical Code came up and there was some discussion of whether it should be adopted at that time or not and the Commission voted to do a separate rulemaking with an implementation date of July 9th; therefore it was taken out of the fold.  He stated the proposal before the Commission would not delay the rule because it would be done as a separate glitch rule as the National Electrical Code was done, with the implementation date of July 1, 2009.  He restated it would not count against any changes being made in the rule adoption.

 

            Mr. Richmond stated the Chapter 120 process is very complex.  He then stated there were a great number of attorneys who make a very good living doing nothing but that process. 

 

            Commissioner Carson asked if the new glitch amendment was specific to the one item and not to anything else.

 

            Mr. Richmond responded yes.

 

            Commissioner Gregory asked if this would open up the Commission for someone who had lost a close vote in the past and come back to file a challenge.

            Mr. Richmond responded no.  He stated there would be no admission of fault which would not open it up.  He then stated that option was available.  He stated as long as rules are in affect they are subject to challenges, either a proposed rule or an adopted rule. He further stated by avoiding changing the Code it keeps from opening the window to challenge the Code for an additional period of time while a notice of proposed change is pending.  

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked for the text of the motion needed.

 

            Mr. Richmond stated the motion should be to authorize the chairman to execute a written settlement agreement involving case # 085914 and #085913.  He then stated the terms of the settlement agreement would be that amendment #3176 was reflected in the records of the Commission submitted by Mr. Dudley, most recently as a modification to an initial amendment submitted is approved as a glitch modification under the criteria identified in Chapter 553.73(7); however it would not be adopted during the current rulemaking, but it would be adopted with an effective date of July 1, 2009; each side would be responsible for its own attorney fees and costs; the petitioner would dismiss the rule challenges with prejudice and additionally withdraw their comment regarding a lower cost regulatory alternative. 

 

            Mr. Dudley asked if the public hearing was closed. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez responded stating it was closed.  He then stated the Commission would next be voting on the public hearing.  He further stated in the next hearing the Commission would be voting on the Commission recommendations to the 2009 Legislature; the super majority issue could be dealt with at that point.

 

            Commissioner Smith moved approval of the motion as stated. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion resulted in 21 in favor, 1 opposed (Kidwell).  Motion carried.

           

Mr. Dudley stated for the record they would be withdrawing the request of December 2, 2008 for a lower regulatory cost alternative.  He then stated that request would have potentially required a couple more hours of the Commission’s time in answering the request. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated motion needed to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9B-3.047, Florida Building Code, Glitch Amendments, by filing the Rule for adoption with the Secretary of State and, authorizing DCA staff to make any additional editorial fixes required to implement the Commission’s substantive decisions on Glitch Code amendments (i.e., formatting, section number correlations and removal of text such as seismic and snow load language, etc.).

 

            Commissioner Bahadori stated he was not sure if the editorial modification 2825 would amend Section 513 of the Mechanical Code and adds carbon monoxide in that section which presently deals with smoke control systems.  He further stated he believed it inappropriate to add it in that section as it has nothing to do with smoke control.  He stated he believed it could be corrected editorially in a new section for carbon monoxide, which would refer back to 909.13. He stated it was not a substantive change, but should not be contained in the smoke control section because it doesn’t belong there, has nothing to do with some control and no one would ever look for it there. 

 

            Mr. Richmond stated it could be evaluated and discussed.  He explained any change the Commission is authorized, even through rule adoption process, to do what is referred to as technical or editorial changes which were usually limited to spelling, punctuation, etc.  He then stated he would hesitate to go beyond those usual those types of changes.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated what Commissioner Bahadori was stating was that there was change to the substantive decisions by the Commission.  He further stated it was editorial, not as a comma or semicolon, but editorial as it was inserted in the wrong place. 

 

            Mr. Blair stated Commissioner Bahadori could suggest it be corrected as long as it met the editorial requirements only if met the requirements for an editorial change.  He then stated it was important not to make a change that would require a notice of proposed change which would mean the Code would definitely not meet the deadline set. 

 

            Commissioner Bahadori stated his intent was not to delay the implementation of the Code, but just for clarification of the modification

 

            Mr. Madani stated he would review the modification but if it would taking a section out and doing more than just renumbering a section it would be considered a change. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated staff was not being asked to do that review at immediately.  He stated Commissioner Bahadori, who happens to be an expert on the issue, was stating in his opinion it was in the wrong place because it does not change the substantive decisions the Commission has made. He stated it just needs to be inserted in the right place and he brought it to staff’s attention to correct because no one would look for it in that section. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez re-read the motion needed was to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9B-3.047, Florida Building Code, Glitch Amendments, by filing the Rule for adoption with the Secretary of State and, authorizing DCA staff to make any editorial fixes required to implement the Commission’s substantive decisions on glitch Code amendments .

 

            Commissioner Gregory moved approval the motion as stated.  Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion.

 

            Commissioner Smith asked if it would be the proper place to put some caveat in regarding the verification the energy software was fully functional and operational.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez responded the program would not pass with JAPC unless it works.  He then stated he did not think it needed to be in the motion.

 

            Mr. Richmond stated the caveat is imposed by law.

 

            Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

CONSIDER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND ANNUAL REPORT TO THE 2009 LEGISLATURE

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the final Report will have the Commission’s recommendations related to Legislative assignments as well as Commission initiatives.  He then stated the plan is for the Chair to review and approve the final draft of the Report to the 2009 Legislature to ensure completeness and accuracy, and approve the Report for submittal to the Legislature.  He further stated he would request a motion to approve the summary of issues and recommendations for inclusion in the 2009 report to the Legislature with the understanding the final report would be updated after the Commission meeting and approved by the Chair prior to the submittal to the 2009 Legislature.  He stated the reason this was necessary was because the Commission did not meet again in time for all commissioners to review the final report before it was due to the Legislature.

            Mr. Blair conducted a review of the summary report.  (Please see the Facilitator’s Summary Report of Issues for Inclusion in the 2009 Report to the Florida Legislature, December 10, 2008.)

 

            Ms. Jones stated the Commission has two types of opinion, binding and non-binding.  She then stated that for the binding opinion the Commission has direct Legislative authority for the requestor to pay $250.00 fee directly to BOAF. She explained for the non-binding opinion, which had been in effect several years longer than the binding opinion, there was a contract with the Building Officials of Florida that the Commission pay them $125.00 for each non-binding opinion.  She then stated, unfortunately, the funding source would no longer be available after the current fiscal year; therefore to continue to process non-binding opinions staff requests the Commission to seek Legislative authority to pay the vendor directly, whoever the vendor may be, the fee for non-binding opinions. 

 

            Commissioner Carson moved approval to request Legislative authority for the Commission to charge a fee for issuing non-binding interpretations to be included in the Legislative Report.  Commissioner Gregory entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Mr. Dixon stated the statute currently does require a 75% majority vote of the TAC on making code change recommendations to the Commission.  He then stated what was missing was the comparable 75% vote requirement of the Commission to approve amendments.

             

            Commissioner Carson moved approval to seek statutory clarification that the Commission is authorized to require a 75% voting threshold requirement for all substantive Commission decisions. Commissioner Gregory entered a second to the motion.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated Mr. Dixon’s comment was so much on point he believed it should be included in the request so the Legislature recognizes the authority is there for the TACs and the Commission requests the same for the Commission who currently self-imposes the requirement.

 

            Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

            Kari Hebrank

 

Ms. Hebrank asked the Commission to include in the report the authority to

handle updating reference standards through the glitch code process.  She then stated sometimes when the ICC is updated a situation occurs where there is a three year period before we are on the same cycle an update based on new updated standard based on the latest technology but then it is not necessarily available to the industry.

 

            Mr. Blair stated that request had already been approved.  He stated the Commission voted to expand glitch code criteria to include recognizing equivalency of standards in the Building Code, not just design standards.  He asked if that would cover her request. 

 

            Ms. Hebrank she stated it would.  She then stated she had not heard it in the actual report. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated a motion was needed to approve the summary of issues and recommendations for inclusion in the 2009 report to the Legislature with the understanding the final report would be updated after the Commission meeting and to charge the chair with reviewing and approving the report prior to the submittal to the 2009 Legislature.

           

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

 

 

            COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES

 

            Commissioner Stone asked if any materials provided to the Commissioners for a Commission agenda item would be promptly posted at the Commission website so the public knows exactly what the Commissioners have.  He further stated there was a great report and he did not believe it was provided by staff and he had wished the general public had access to it. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated he thought it was a good point.

 

            Commissioner Carson stated the Electrical TAC and the CO Detector workgroup met at the same time the day before.  He stated there had been some concern among the Electrical TAC members due to the scheduling conflict.  He stated he hoped in the future staff could try to avoid conflicting those committee meeting so those individuals on the Electrical TAC or interested stakeholders could participate.

 

            Commissioner Gregory thanked the Governor and the Commission for giving the swimming pool industry a seat at the table.   He then stated it had been a long struggle.  He stated he had two points:  1) the issue of suction and entrapment has been an ongoing struggle an entrapment which never seems to go away.  He continued by stating most of those tragic accidents occur in existing swimming pools and there is nothing in the Code that addresses those pools.  He further stated he would take on the task of working with a workgroup to find the solution to clarify what signifies the new Code being applied to a pool; i.e. if an individual re-plasters the interior finish of the pool and changes the drain cover because it has deteriorated then it has to be replaced with one that complies with the new A12 Cover Standard.  He asked if that individual should stop there or should they further and figure the velocity and size of the pipes and was there liability.  He then stated the contractors needed some clarification of what signifies compliance with the Code.  He further stated Volusia County has been trying to figure it out.

 

            Mr. Blair stated the task is already on the workplan as something which needs to be worked on.  He further stated Commissioner Gregory’s assistance would be most appreciated in that work.

 

            Commissioner Gregory stated the 64E Health Code and the Florida Building Code seem to be at odds, either the Commission just modified or the Health Code was going through a modification process and the two are always out of step on the issues.  He then stated he did not know how the Commission could get involved in smoothing that out.  He further stated the process of reviewing 64E is not as precise and organized as the Commission’s process.  He stated however the Commission could help with the issue would be appreciated as the industry needs some help with that.

 

            Mr. Dixon stated one of the Commission’s policies has been to try to work directly with the other agencies and staff reaches out to those agencies trying to get involved in rulemaking and ensure consistency and compliance.  He then stated success depends largely on the other agencies’ cooperation.  He continued by stating that by and large cooperation has been very good, with the Department of Health and certainly all other agencies where overlap occurs. He further stated this program is one the Commission has historically had difficulty with.  He explained their view is the law that requires coordination of the agencies provides them an out; which is the advice of their legal counsel.  He concluded by stating the best the Commission can do is remain proactive; for example Mr. Madani has sent staff to their rule proceedings to comment on the parts of their rule which overlap with the Building Code. 

 

            Commissioner Gregory stated he would pledge himself to work on that endeavor however he could.

 

            GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

 

            Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

 

            Mr. Glenn stated his comments referred to Commissioner Gregory’s comments on the inter-agency issue.  He stated he attended the Code Administration and Special Occupancy TAC meetings in Tallahassee, specifically the Special Occupancy TAC, which is basically the state’s regulatory agencies.  He then stated he had commented on a number of changes to the Code submitted by AHCA.  He further stated it was pointed out to him the reason the changes were being submitted was because they had already adopted their rule. He stated he was under the impression the law that created the unified Code required those state agencies to incorporate their construction standards within the Building Code and he was very surprised to see them still have rule-making authority.  He then asked the Commission to consider providing some clarification of that provision in its comments to the Legislature.  He stated even though it does not affect the homebuilding industry it was a real problem after having undergone the extensive vetting of Code changes and the agency can literally go out and do what it wants within in its own rule, sometimes even having different regulations to construction standards within the state.  He further stated in the case of AHCA it was a very complex system for approval of those occupancies which they have licensure authority over such as hospitals, nursing homes and like.   He stated it just adds to the confusion when they have a rule in place that precedes vetting of those changes before the Commission regulating construction. 

 

            Mr. Glenn then stated he still understood JAPC will have a working copy of the Energy Gauge software as part of the 9B-313 rule which adopts the Energy Gauge; however the Commission has taken action in the past to eliminate the manual calculation method.  He stated by FSEC not making the software available for testing, which is not being done; it can be bought, but not tested until it has been bought.  He then stated without a hand calculation method, the Commission once again relies on Florida Solar Energy Center’s black box to put out the right answer with no third party oversight or review, especially by the users.  He further stated in the past years a beta version of the program in its final form and interested parties were basically allowed to test the software and there was a mechanism by doing a manual calculation the computer result was the correct result.  He stated without the manual form in place there is nothing other than the assurance from FSEC that the black box indeed does output the correct information, although the black box cannot be obtained unless it was paid for; which he described as a real concern for him.

 

            Mr. Dixon stated with regard to the agency vetting of their proposed regulations through the Commission; one of the criteria he had tried to impress upon the agencies was that they have very special and focused stakeholder groups they interact with in their regulation and the agencies must ensure their proposed Code changes have been fully vetted with those stakeholder groups before they bring them to the Code amendment process. He stated there had been an instance last Code change AHCA had a proposal which was opposed by part the hospital industry and there was an intervention, partially legislative, into the Commission’s rulemaking because AHCA had not fully gotten consensus with all of the stakeholder groups on that proposal.  He continued by stating AHCA went back and found a resolution with the group and also removed the offending proposal.

 

            Mr. Dixon stated the Commission statutes cannot supersede the other agency’s authorities and rules as established by the laws they administer.  He then stated back in 1998-2000 when the Florida Building Code Law was put into effect staff tried to write into the agencies’ statutes certain requirements that the building construction related regulations administered through their facility licensing regulation, would have to be put into the Building Code.  He further stated some of those agencies directives to coordinate with the Commission in the development of the Florida Building Code are more clear and straightforward than others.  He stated because those requirements are written into their laws, they were the administrating agency and they are able to interpret how that interaction would occur.  He concluded by stating Mr. Glenn’s point was well made.

 

(missing audio/track change)

 

            Mr. Dixon (continued…after track)…directive to the Commission in July of 2007.  He then stated the Commission had already completed the Florida Building Code and had updated the Florida Energy Code as a part of that process. He stated the Commission was in the final stages of adopting the 2007 Code when it received the new directive to increase energy efficiency requirements into by 15%.  He stated because of that directive the time scheduled originally to provide for the normal public review of the computer program was taken up by revising the Energy Code again.  He continued by stating that the Commission wound up operating under somewhat different constraints than it did in the past and than it will in the future. 

 

            Mr. Glenn stated he had mentioned DOH and AHCA, which he believed to be the source of the problem. He further stated it would be really nice if the agency could operate as the Department of Education has.  He commended Commissioner Hamrick for making sure the construction criteria has always been submitted to the Commission as part of their rule adoption.  He also stated the Department of Education should also be commended for its cooperation in working with the Commission; which he believed to be a direct result of Commissioner Hamrick serving on the Commission.  He then stated he had talked with a proponent from AHCA on the changes because he had commented in almost all of the proponent’s changes indicating they did not meet the criteria glitch and should be in the more normal code cycle.  He stated the proponent’s response was “Well it’s a lot easier and a lot less time consuming for me to do it in the glitch cycle than it is to have to go through the code process.” He then stated he had written the comments, as an individual who has been involved in the process, not representing any homebuilders, who really have no interest in AHCA regulations specifically.  He restated there was a tremendous difference between DOH and AHCA’s approach to the building code than there was with the Department of Education.

 

            Mr. Dixon stated he agreed Commissioner Hamrick had been very, very helpful and forthcoming. He then stated the difference between the Department of Education and the other agencies was the DOE once had a building code that was abolished when the Florida Building Code went into effect  and the DOE was directed by law to adopt their requirements through the Florida Building Code.   He further stated the other agencies are facility licensing entities.  He continued by stating the law states any component of the licensing regulations, which are building construction related have to be in the Florida Building Code. 

            Commissioner Hamrick stated as chair of the Special Occupancy TAC, having to deal with all of the other agencies, part of the issue especially with AHCA was federal government comes out with standards which are opposite or do not fall in line with the Building Code.  He further stated AHCA has to have a way to adopt those standards.  He explained they were trying to bring such changes into the code when it is an off-cycle period.  He then stated the Legislative proposal to allow updated design standards or code standards to be included in the glitch cycle would be very helpful to the process.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked if that could take care of it.

 

            Commissioner Hamrick stated yes, it would take care of the issues due to the glitch amendment and with these state agencies.  He stated regarding the Department of Health welcome to the group and stated they have just as much problems as everyone else.  He then stated the DOH had not been as active as some of the other agencies 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated it would help everybody if the Commission could help straighten it up.  

 

            Commissioner Hamrick stated the problem was the DOH had not been as proactive as other state agencies in updating the rule therefore they are way behind.  

 

            Roland Temple, AZS Consultants

 

            Mr. Temple stated he had a couple of questions related to Mr. Glenn’s comments on the Energy Gauge program.  He then stated AZS had put in a couple of the modifications FlaRes to help ensure the results were achieved.  He further stated as raters FlaRes was their major tool. He further stated he knew it had to go to JAPC, but he did not know who would look at the program before it goes to see if changes have been incorporated and the intended results are there.  He then asked if it was possible to work out something from what Mr. Glenn stated FSEC does not plan to put out a beta we could get a “free copy” to test since we have to be up and ready to use the software. 

 

            Mr. Dixon stated the straight answer would be there is a different process this time and there may not be the same opportunity as there was in the past to do beta testing.  He then stated it is a good practice; however it is not required anywhere.  He explained it was something that was done in the past to try to ensure, as with any computer software, there were fewer bugs when it hit the street; although all software has some sort of bug. He further stated staff has done and will continue to  do the best job possible in verifying that those elements voted on by the Commission are in the software, but that was the best they could do.

 

            Mr. Temple asked if it was going to be possible to get a test copy or just wait until it comes out, start using it and see what happens.

 

            Mr. Dixon stated he believed it was like the Building Code: wait until it comes out, then when you buy it, look at it and see if it has problems.

 

            Jim Westfall, YKKAP, Fenestration and Door Manufacturers

 

            Mr. Westfall stated during the next code change cycle, 2010, he would ask the Commission to pay extra attention to items such as Chapter 17.  He then stated he believed those items were rushed through and some simple, common sense issues were overlooked, for example: curtain walls were listed under garage doors.  He further stated there were issues with labeling walls and doors.  He stated he was not speaking from the past so he felt he was speaking somewhat blindly.  He continued by stating the labels appeared to be inserted with the idea that all products were pre-glazed when they enter Florida.  He then stated many installers order things unglazed and glaze them in place.  He expressed concern if the installers were labeling them where the liability would lie if they were glazed incorrectly.  He stated it was vague or not addressed in the Code and in his opinion; there was no need to leave those areas gray when they could be clearly outlined or addressed to make the process simple.  He further stated there would be no repeated issues, for example the glitch amendments.  He did state one of the glitch amendments did address labels in Chapter 17.  He then stated if there was a little more foresight; such as the upcoming kick off of the 2010 cycle, to make sure manufacturers were involved in addressing some of the issues to minimize the gray areas and potential for risk.  He stated some of the comments he had received stated it was ultimately up to the local building official.  He continued by stating, with locations around the state, often times the local official will default to the state code and if the state code were gray then a never-ending cycle of what was right or wrong begins; which also brings into play past experiences.  He further stated if someone had a bad experience with a product, not directly with the manufacturer, but because of a local installer; sometimes when there is a grudge for some reason the bias carried over.  He explained it was not just them, but other manufacturers and it would be appreciated if those things could be made simple clear cut rather than try to deal with things through the glitch code process and a case by case process.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez thanked Mr. Temple for his comments.  He then stated

the Commission tries to bring industry into it for review and as far as the local building official they will always be the interpreters.  He further stated the stated the clearer the Commission could make it in the Code the less there is for a different interpretation. 

 

            Mr. Dixon stated the Commission has a Window Workgroup which will convene before the proposals for the 2010 Code are due.  He then stated if Mr. Westfall would give him his card he would make sure he would be involved in the process where he could raise his issues to try to work them out through that workgroup.

 

Dick Wilhelm, Fenestration Manufacturers Association & Window & Door Manufacturers Association              

 

            Mr. Wilhelm stated he wanted to extend an opportunity to Mr. Temple to join the workgroup.  He then stated he and Mr. Dixon had discussed during the next amendment cycle bringing the Code where it needs to be on labeling or window issues, whether it be commercial or residential; thus taking care of some of the confusion.

 

            John O’Connor, Vice President of the Building Officials Association of Florida

 

            Mr. O’Connor stated he wanted to welcome all of the new commissioners and reintroduce themselves to the existing commissioners and staff.  He then stated as a group with a vested interest in the Building Code, having to understand it and administer it.  He further stated the building officials want to be a part of the process to every extent possible.  He stated the officials contact information could be found at the school website BOAF.net He asked the Commission to rely on the building officials for any questions the Commission might have and ‘help’ would assist in getting the individual needed.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez thanked Mr. O’Connor his efforts and for coming before the Commission to once again offer his services. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated, as a reminder to the veteran Commissioners, to remain in the room following the meeting for the Code Assembly Ad Hoc meeting; which would deal with the publication of the 2010 code books.  He stated Mr. Madani would demonstrate how to put them together. He further stated he wanted to take the time to thank everyone for one more year of volunteer work, not only the Commission members and staff, but also to the public who come to the meetings time after time to contribute.  He stated he had often thought the building officials could get together and do this themselves, but it was quite an interesting process to bring in industry, the private sector and all of the different stakeholder groups that are affected.  He offered his thanks and wished everyone happy holidays with their families and a prosperous new year. 

           

            ADJOURN

 

Chairman Rodriguez adjourned the Florida Building Commission meeting at 10:10a.m.