Month Day, Year

WELCOME

Chairman Browdy welcomed the Commission, staff and the public to Gainesville and the April 3, 2012 Plenary Session of the Florida Building Commission. He stated the primary focus of the April meeting would be to decide on regular procedural issues including product and entity approvals, applications for accreditor and course approvals, petitions for declaratory statements, accessibility waivers, and recommendations from the Commission’s various committees.

Chairman Browdy stated 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 then stated the Commission would provide an opportunity for public comment on each of the Commission’s substantive discussion topics. He further stated if one wants to comment on a specific substantive Commission agenda item, they should come to the speaker’s table at the appropriate time so the Commission knows they wish to speak. He concluded by stating public input was welcome, and should be offered before there was a formal motion on the floor.

Chairman Browdy stated some of the licensing boards (Board of Architecture and Interior Designers; Building Code Administrator and Inspector Board; Construction Industry Licensing Board; Electrical Contractors Licensing Board, and Board of Professional Engineers) located within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, have adopted rules regarding continuing education credits for attending Florida Building Commission meetings and/or Technical Advisory Committee meetings. He then stated participants whose board participates may sign-in on the laptop located toward the left-rear of the meeting room.

Chairman Browdy then conducted a roll call of the Commission members.

REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

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

Mr. Blair stated there was no Plumbing TAC meeting or report to present and the agenda would need to be approved as amended.

Commissioner Gregory moved approval of the meeting agenda as amended. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion as amended was unanimous. Motion carried.

REVIEW AND APPROVE JANUARY 31, 2012 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S REPORT AND FEBRUARY 27, 2012 AND MARCH 12, 2012 CONFERENCE CALL MEETING REPORTS

Chairman Browdy called for approval of the minutes and Facilitator’s Report from the January 31, 2012 Commission meeting and the minutes from the February 27, 2012 and March 12, 2012 teleconference call meetings.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the minutes and Facilitator’s Report from the January 31, 2012 Commission meeting and the minutes from the February 27, 2012 and March 12, 2012 teleconference call meetings. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Florida Building Commission

Chairman Browdy stated Jim Schock had been reappointed to the Commission. He offered congratulations on behalf of the Commission to Jim who will remain on the Commission representing code officials. He then stated Commissioner Schock had also been recently appointed as building official of Jacksonville, Duval County

Appointments to TACs and Workgroups

Swimming Pool TAC

Chairman Browdy stated recent changes in legislation to Chapter 514, ~~001,~~Florida Statutes have clarified and enhanced the role of the Florida Building Commission with regard to the construction, erection or demolition of public swimming pools. He then stated as a result of the engagement and enhanced role in that particular part of construction he recommended, with the Commission’s approval, the creation of a permanent Swimming Pool TAC. He further stated there had been a Swimming Pool Sub-committee under the Plumbing TAC, but with the legislation and direction the Commission has as a result of the legislation there should be a separate TAC for this purpose.

Commissioner Gregory moved approval to the creation of a Swimming Pool TAC. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Browdy appointed Commissioner Ken Gregory, from the Swimming Pool industry, as chair of the TAC and indicated he would make further appointments when there was a better understanding of the scope of the legislation to create a more formal venue to discuss the enhanced role the Commission has in Swimming Pool construction.

Commissioner Gregory expressed appreciation to the Chairman and the Commission for the support of the Swimming Pool industry.

Building Code System Uniform Implementation Evaluation Workgroup

Chairman Browdy stated the Commission had approved a Building Code System Uniform Implementation Evaluation Workgroup. He then stated he would make the appointments to the workgroup, when the vacant Commission seats had been appointed by the Governor, allowing the Commission to more appropriately address that particular workgroup.

Screen Enclosure Workgroup

Chairman Browdy stated the 2012 Florida Legislature assigned the Florida Building Commission with establishing a workgroup to assist the Commission in developing a rule for implementing an alternative design method for screen enclosures, which allows for the removal of a section of the screen to accommodate high-wind events consistent with the provisions of the Florida Building Code. He then stated the schedule requires the Commission to complete the rule development by January 2, 2013. He further stated the Workgroup would meet for the first time immediately following the April 3, 2012 Plenary Session.

Chairman Browdy made the following appointments to the Screen Enclosures Workgroup:

Thomas Johnston – Screen Enclosure Manufacturing Industry representative Santos Gonzalez - Screen Enclosure Manufacturing Industry representative David Johns – Aluminum Contractors’ Industry representative Dale Desjardins - Aluminum Contractors’ Industry representative Jack Glenn – Florida Homebuilders’ Association representative Peter Coccaro – Florida Swimming Pool Association representative Jamie Gascon – Building Officials’ Association of Florida representative Larry Carnley - Building Officials’ Association of Florida representative Dan Arlington - Building Officials’ Association of Florida representative Jeffrey Stone – Building Products Industry representative Do Kim – Structural Engineering representative

Welcome Jim Richmond as New Commission Director

Chairman Browdy stated on behalf of the Commission he would like to welcome Jim Richmond back to the Commission’s staff in his new role as Commission Director. He then stated Jim would bring his wealth of experience and years of close involvement in the development of the Code and related programs in his role as Director. He further stated in his view with the commitment of Mr. Richmond and Mr. Madani to work collaboratively, the Commission will continue to provide the citizens of the state with the best building code system in the country. He concluded by stating Mr. Richmond would continue working diligently with the Commission and to move the Commission, in his leadership way, to a consensus building process in its oversight of the Florida Building Code System.

Mr. Richmond stated it was amazing to be back working with Mr. Madani, his staff and everyone at Shumard Oaks. He then stated attending the meetings, live or teleconference, watching the process at work was wonderful. He further stated he had not been absent for too long but there were a number of new participants and more to come and he looked forward to working with each and every one in the future.

TELECONFERENCE AND MEETING PARTICIPATION GUIDELINES REVISIONS PROPOSAL

Chairman Browdy stated Mr. Blair would review the proposed revisions to the Commission’s adopted teleconference and meeting participation guidelines. He then stated the revisions were designed to enhance the Commission’s teleconference meetings. He further stated those meetings had been awkward at best sometimes, but the issue was that teleconference meetings would be the way the Commission would be transacting a majority of its business. He concluded by stating as a result it was important the Commission discuss and affirm those guidelines.

Mr. Blair reviewed the proposed revisions to the Commission’s adopted teleconference and meeting participation guidelines designed to enhance the Commission’s teleconference meetings and answered member’s questions. (See Teleconference/Virtual Meeting Participation Guidelines Revisions.)

Commissioner Gregory moved approval to adopt the revised Teleconference and Meeting Participation Guidelines as proposed. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion.

Arlene Stewart, AZS Consulting

Ms. Stewart asked for clarification regarding public comment immediately before a vote. She stated she understood there was some legislation that applies to the issue and sometimes it does not when it comes to text. She then asked for the clarification to be included in the guidelines.

Mr. Richmond stated staff would need to review the issue. He asked Ms. Stewart to send an email to Ms. Adams addressing her concerns then he would be prepared to make comments on the issue in the future.

Mr. Blair stated the legislation was incorporated into the process and amended in the past. He then stated the basic premise was to provide an opportunity for comment, the Commission would review the issue, if the Commission decided something different than what was on the table prior to public comment, then an additional opportunity for public comment was made; but if the issue was largely the same as was already discussed the Commission could take the vote without additional public comment.

Chairman Browdy asked if those were in the rules of the Commission.

Mr. Blair responded yes.

Ms. Stewart stated she had been confused in the past because she wanted to make sure those rules applied to the TAC and not just to the Commission.

Chairman Browdy stated those were the procedural rules of the Commission and would apply to all of its’ processes including TACs and committees.

Mr. Madani stated all TAC meetings were facilitated by staff through conference calls and there was always time for any interest group or public to make comments on an action before it was taken.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

TRAVEL APPROVAL FOR MO MADANI TO ATTEND ICC CODE HEARINGS

IN DALLAS, TEXAS

Chairman Browdy stated Mo Madani would be participating in the 2012 ICC Code Hearings in Dallas, Texas, from April 28 to May 8, 2012. He then stated it was critical for the Commission’s staff to be involved in the development of the Foundation Codes for the Florida Building Code and to represent the Commission’s interests. He further stated it was appropriate and beneficial for the Commission to support Mr. Madani’s attendance by voting to approve his travel costs.

Commissioner Nicholson moved approval of funding for Mr. Madani’s travel expenses to the ICC Code Hearings in Dallas, Texas. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Schock stated he agreed it was important for Mr. Madani to participate in the hearings. He asked if there was any guidance from the Commission for Mr. Madani in order to try to achieve some specific goals relative the Code.

Chairman Browdy responded stating he was not aware if Mr. Madani had been given a specific charge. He stated this was the first time the Commission has sent a representative to the ICC hearings. He then stated Mr. Madani would be there to engage in the process, with no specific directions.

Mr. Madani stated the staff’s presence at the hearings was 2 parts: 1) educational (to be aware of the changes and what to expect in the future) and 2) participation (to be part of the Florida contingence already participating in the process.) He then stated there was no specific mandate or objective at present.

Commissioner Greiner asked if there would be any opening for some type of coordination with BOAF, as the Commission encourages BOAF to push code changes at the ICC hearings.

Mr. Madani stated he would look into that possibility. He then stated BOAF does review all of the changes and do have a proponent they take to the ICC hearings.

Ms. Stewart stated it was mentioned this was the first time staff had been to the ICC hearings. She then stated she remembered Mr. Madani was pivotal in the development of the 2004 Energy Code and ensuring Florida’s path was accepted in the ICC. She further stated a large part of Mr. Madani’s work has that component in the ICC. She concluded by stating those hearings were in Nashville and she was very glad he had been there.

Mr. Madani stated he had been very active in the process at one time, but due to the economy and the lack of funds his participation was discontinued for a bit of time.

Commissioner Schock stated perhaps in the future the Commission would want to do something similar as to what it does each year for the Legislature in a Legislative Report which communicates issues the Commission would like addressed.

Chairman Browdy stated he thought the idea was great as the Commission looks at its agenda, where it stands and how it relates to the timing of the ICC, it was appropriate to have some type of meeting with its delegation or representative who would be attending the ICC.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

APPROVAL TO CONDUCT TELECONFERENCE RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS FOR:

Rule Development Workshop on Rule 9N-3.015, Product Approval Rule

Rule De elopement Workshop on Rule 9B-70.002(3)(a)(e)(f)(g), Education Rule

Rule Development Workshop on 9N-2.002, Florida Building Code

Chairman Browdy stated in order to move forward as expeditiously as possible with the already approved rule development initiatives, staff was recommending the Commission conduct teleconference rule development workshops for Rule 9N-3.015, the Product Approval Rule, Rule 9B-70.002 (3)(a)(e)(f)(g), the Education Rule, and Rule 9N-2.002, the Florida Building Code. He then stated staff would schedule the meetings as soon as all of the necessary Agency reviews were complete.

Commissioner Carson moved approval to conduct teleconference rule development workshops for Rule 9N-3.015, Product Approval Rule and Rule 9B-70.002 (3)(a)(e)(f)(g), Education Rule, and Rule 9N-2.002, Florida Building Code. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

UPDATE OF THE COMMISSION WORKPLAN

Mr. Blair conducted a review of the updated Commission work plan. (See Updated Commission Work Plan April 3, 2012).

Mr. Blair stated the first three tasks, Workplan Task 1 (Report to 2013 Legislature), Workplan Task 2 (Workplan Prioritization Exercise) and Workplan Task 3 (Commission Effectiveness Assessment Survey), would remain at the top, as they were annual tasks.

Mr. Blair stated Workplan Task 4 (2013 Update to the Florida Building Code 2010 Code Update), which had a couple minor changes due to dates and proceeding with rule development.

Mr. Blair stated Workplan Task 6 (Triennial Assessment of the Florida Building Code System for Report to the Florida Legislature) had a change, which shows an implementation-tracking chart reviewed by the Commission.

Mr. Blair stated Workplan Task 7 (Certification of the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction by the US Department of Justice) reflects the package was submitted for certification on the 12^th of March, which was reflected in the Workplan.

Mr. Blair stated Workplan Task 8 (Screen Enclosure Workgroup) was added, including a schedule outlined to achieve the legislative requirement of rule effective date of January 12^th.

Mr. Blair stated for Workplan Task 9 (Amend Rules to Establish Fees) staff has recommended the issue be referred to the Accessibility TAC for evaluation of the Accessibility Waivers fee authority issue. He then stated in terms of whether current legislation requires some sort of shell there has to be some action. He continued by stating staff felt it would be appropriate for the TAC to review the issue and make a recommendation to the Commission on how to proceed.

Commissioner Carson moved approval to defer Workplan Task 9 (Amend Rule to Establish Fees) to the Accessibility TAC for evaluation. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair stated for Workplan Task 10 (Develop Recommendations That Increase Recycling and Composting And The Use Of Recyclable Construction Materials and Construction and Demolition Debris) after analyzing the task, staff has recommended the task be folded into the 2013 Code Update Process.

Commissioner Carson moved approval to complete Workplan Task 10 (Develop Recommendations That Increase Recycling and Composting And The Use Of Recyclable Construction Materials and Construction and Demolition Debris) by folding the Task into 2013 Code Update process.   Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair stated Workplan Task 12 (Threshold Building Inspections For Structural Alterations of Existing Structures) was pending review and clarification; therefore no action was necessary at present.

Mr. Blair stated for Workplan Task 13 (Wind Standards For Asphalt Shingles) staff recommended the task be folded into the 2013 Code Update process

Commissioner Nicholson moved approval to complete Workplan Task 13 (Wind Standards for Asphalt Shingles)) by folding the Task into 2013 Code Update process. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair stated Workplan Task 14 (Hurricane Performance Standards For Hinged Entry Doors) did not require any action because it was within the context of the workgroup process but he thought the Commission should know staff recommended, rather than just proceeding forward, there be teleconference assessment meeting with the workgroup to discuss the scope and hear recommendations, if any.

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

Mr. Glenn stated as a consideration possibly prior to the next meeting relative to a further amendment to the workplan, currently the 2013, or next edition of the Code contains both the rule development process and development of the Code followed by a glitch process then ultimately the printing of the Code. He then stated he had an issue with what he perceived to be a conflict of past process; i.e., some declaratory statements would be heard regarding “interpretations” of the Code which effectively constitute Code changes. He further stated there was no method at present to change the Code without opening the rule back up, which was about to occur for the next Code cycle. He continued by stating he had been under the impression, for the last ten years, the Code could not be amended using a declaratory statement. He stated a declaratory statement would be heard during the plenary session that he did not believe anyone could describe as anything but a Code amendment. He then stated the issue resulted from there having been a couple of Code hearings, a very comprehensive document developed by staff to indicate what the Code would be, and it was to be used for the glitch process. He continued by stating the Code was then printed and some areas have been identified which may need correction. He stated the result was there was no mechanism to correct those areas because the glitch cycle was included in the process before the Code was printed. He then stated his recommendation would be a consideration to finalize the Code in the next cycle before the actual glitch process allowing it to be reviewed by more than staff for potential errors. He further stated he would like some kind of clarification by the end of the current plenary session whether a recommendation can be made to the Code via declaratory statement.

Chairman Browdy stated there were a couple of issues involved 1) the timing and the workplan and 2) a more substantive policy issue as it relates to code amendments being dealt with through the declaratory statement process. He then stated he did not know if the Commission was in posture to give a legal opinion on the issue at present. He further stated he believed Mr. Glenn to be correct in stating as the Commission reviews the 2013 Code process, if not sooner, the issue should be placed on the agenda. He continued by stating one of the workgroups to be established would deal with the Code implementation process. He stated the scoping of the workgroup was broad enough to incorporate, and very appropriately, this significant policy issue. He then stated he hoped the issue would be handled within that body. He further stated with regard to the scheduling it would occur when the Commission amends the workplan at the next Commission meeting.

Mr. Glenn stated his comments were not a request to amend the workplan at the current plenary session but to be considered for the next Commission meeting relative to a possible amendment to the workplan at that time. He then stated he asked the other question because by virtue of Mr. Richmond returning as the executive director, the Commission now has the previous legal counsel and the current legal counsel present, he would ask counsel by memory serves if the process or policy in the past was the Code could not be modified by declaratory statement, but only by reopening the rule. He was hoping with both present and past counsel in attendance there could be an answer to the question as it would impact a couple of the declaratory statements on the agenda for the current plenary session.

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

Mr. Richmond responded to Mr. Glenn’s comments stating he did not believe that theory could be identified as a policy of the Commission but more of a description of the purpose for a declaratory statement, which was for the interpretation of an existing rule, rather than amendment of a rule. He then stated the criteria for amending a rule and the criteria for entering a declaratory statement were significantly different. He further stated what constitutes an amendment and what constitutes an interpretation was a matter of perspective in many cases. He continued by stating interpretations were appropriate when there may be ambiguity in the rule or other circumstances. He stated interpretative elements were often argued to be amendments, although the matter was a determination to be made by the Commission and ultimately those who review the Commission’s decisions, as necessary.

Mr. Madani stated if the history of what the Commission has done with declaratory statements they had been where declaratory statements had clarified certain items in the Code by corrections. He then stated the precedence was declaratory statements were used when an error within the Code justified its use. He then stated he understood the issue Mr. Glenn had presented but the issues had to be considered on a case-by-case basis, how the Code was structured and if the correction was justified or not. He further stated he did not think it could be generalized.

Chairman Browdy called for public comment specifically related to amending the workplan to include the issue on the agenda. He stated he believed the issue was significant enough in the Commission processes to include the scoping of the Ad Hoc committee which was discussed and also to ensure the subject matter was integrated as the Commission moves forward to 2013 Workplan update process.

Public Comment Regarding the Amendment of the Workplan

No one approached for public comment.

CONSIDER ACCESSIBILITY WAIVER APPLICATIONS

Chairman Browdy directed the Commission to Leslie Anderson-Adams, the Commission’s legal counsel, for consideration of the Accessibility Waiver Applications.

Commissioner Schock stated he needed to declare ex parte communication on item #2 Key Auto Company. He then stated his comments were in the application. He further stated he had met with the owner.

#1 The Upside Down Fun House

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the Council recommended denial because the Commission had no authority to waive the Federal ADA requirements for accessible public entrances. She then stated the petitioner, by email, requested the petition be deferred to the next Commission meeting because he would like to address the Commission.

Commissioner Greiner moved to defer the petition to the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Scherer entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Nicholson stated he understood giving the petitioner the opportunity to speak before the Commission, but if the Commission has no authority in the case he believed it was a waste of time.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#2 Key Auto Company

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated a waiver was not necessary because the project consists almost entirely of work that does not fall within the definition of alteration in 206.5 of the 2012 Florida Accessibility Code, thus it does not trigger the requirement that accessibility features be provided. She stated the waiver was referred to the council by the building official therefore the Council recommended approval of the waiver in the extent it was necessary.

Chairman Browdy stated the record should reflect Commission Schock had indicated he had ex parte communication with regard to the said waiver application ~~declaratory statement~~.

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

#3 CHJ Ventures, LLC

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the Council unanimously recommended approval based on the demonstration of disproportionate cost and extreme hardship.

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

Mr. Richmond stated at the Advisory Council meeting the Loews project was erroneously listed and the agenda corrected so the recommendations delivered to the Commission was to omit the Loews project and add the Alan Waserstein. He stated the Loews project was not listed in the Council agenda nor should it be before the Commission today, having been disposed of at the last Commission meeting.

#4 Waserstein

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the petitioner requested deferral to the next Commission meeting. She then stated Council recommended deferral to the next meeting and the applicant had been informed there could be no more deferrals of the petition.

Commissioner Carson asked if a specific date would be included.

Chairman Browdy responded stating that would be the pleasure of the Commission. He stated he believed it was a deferral to the next Council meeting and if there was another request for deferral the petitioner would have to appear before the Commission.

Ms. Adams stated she was not sure of the exact date of the next Council meeting, but it was scheduled for June.

Commissioner Carson stated his question should have been more along the lines of this deferral being the petitioner’s last chance.

Chairman Browdy asked Commissioner Carson if he would like to make that part of the motion.

Commissioner Carson stated he would.

Chairman Browdy stated there was an amendment made to the recommendation, which stated it would be the final deferral on the issue.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the Council’s recommendation as amended for approval. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#5 Selby Gardens

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council recommended to deny the waiver, because the federal requirement of accessible routes cannot be waived by the Commission, and the project does not fall within any of the exemptions to 553.509 on Vertical Accessibilty, Florida Statutes.

Ryan Sollars, Hazeltine Nurseries, Project Manager

Mr. Sollars stated he was representing the Selby’s Children’s Rainforest Garden Project. He stated the project had been in development for approximately four years and Selby is prepared to move forward with several large donors to provide the city of Sarasota with an excellent stimulus project for the community in this tough economy. He then stated the project has currently been submitted to the city of Sarasota Building Department and a small number of revisions had been received to satisfy prior to building permit issuance. He continued by stating one of the items on the list to be resolved was the approval by the Commission for the Canopy Walk and Tree house features in the garden. He stated the garden had been designed to be ADA accessible with the exception of the two playground type features. He then stated the tree house was a climbing physical activity with an overlook at the top of the feature and the destination of the canopy walk was an overlook as well. He further stated provisions had been made for a similar overlook feature, which was accessible by the fountain pond area.

Mr. Sollars continued by stating several constraints exist in the garden and its surroundings. He stated to the north and east there exist garden research buildings, to the west was the historic great lawn designed by landscape architect Eric Smith and to the south was the Hudson Bayou water body. He then stated due diligence was done during the design process, the use of accessible ramps to get up to the features in question were investigated, but found severe limitations due to the lack of space. He continued by stating on the south border of the edge of the project was a 30 foot waterfront setback and the garden was nestled under the two existing banyan trees and one Moreton Bay fig tree to the west of the garden. He stated the location of the trees were critical limiting factors in the design, as well. He then stated the two features in question were playground features and should be acceptable to the Commission since a similar overlook provision had been made. He further stated with the Commission’s approval the project would move forward to its construction goal and break ground on Mother’s Day with project completion near Thanksgiving.

Chairman Browdy stated the recommendation had been for denial due to lack of jurisdiction. He asked if the issue for denial was a result or was it appropriate to not act on the petition. He stated he wanted to determine if the Commission should be in the posture of denying something said to be outside it’s jurisdiction, for the purposes of the record.

Mr. Richmond stated the waiver seeks relief from Florida Vertical Accessibility. He then stated he believed denial of the request because of the fact that Florida Vertical Accessibility does not impose a hardship was an appropriate result. He further stated the order would reference, as well, the fact that it was a matter of Federal Accessibility

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation for denial based on the Commission’s lack of authority to waive the ADA requirements for Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND ENTITY APPROVAL

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

Commissioner Carson stated the following 34 entities were recommended for approval by the POC:

CER 1508 - Window and Door Manufacturers Association

CER 1592 - ~~Window and Door Manufacturers Association~~ Miami-Dade BCCO

CER 6750 - Architectural Testing, Inc.

CER 8526 - CPA-Composite Panel Assoc

CER 9626 - UL LLC

QUA 1591 - Miami-Dade BCCO

QUA 1844 - Architectural Testing, Inc.

QUA 2563 - Southwest Research Institute-Department of Fire Technology

QUA 6252 - Progressive Engineering Inc.

QUA 8223 - CertiWood Technical Centre

QUA 8970 - Applied Testing and Geosciences

QUA 9625 - UL LLC

TST 1558 - Architectural Testing, Inc

TST 1589 - National Certified Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TST 1691 - Hurricane Engineering and Testing, Inc.

TST 1795 - Architectural Testing, Inc. - Minnesota

TST 2561 - Southwest Research Institute-Fire Technology Department

TST 4120 - Architectural Testing Inc. – Wisconsin

TST 4311 - Architectural Testing, Inc. – Florida

TST 4744 - National Certified Testing Laboratories-York

TST 6127 - Ramtech Laboratories, Inc

TST 6679 - Air-Ins Inc.

TST 7110 - Architectural Testing, Inc - Springdale, PA

TST 8139 - Structural Building Components Research Institute

TST 8697 - Architectural Testing, Inc. – Massachusetts

TST 9610 - Element Des Moines

TST 9628 - UL LLC

VAL 1501 - Miami-Dade BCCO

VAL 1616 - Intertek - ETL/Warnock Hersey

VAL 1620 - Window and Door Manufacturers Association

VAL 1623 - Keystone Certifications, Inc.

VAL 4121 - PFS Corporation

VAL 7331 - American Architectural Manufacturers Association

VAL 9627 - UL LLC

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Nicholson 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.

Mr. Blair stated an applicant had withdrawn products 12761 R-2 and 12764 R-2. He then stated the motion for the approval of the consent agenda should be amended to include the removal of those two products.

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

Mr. Blair presented the following products for consideration individually:

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

15069 - Norse Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the conditions the applicant to: 1) Change subcategory to Storm Panels. 2) Indicate the material of the panels as tested. 3) The panels shall have quality assurance audits by the QA Agency and labeled in accordance with labeling requirements for shutters. 4. The limits of use shall indicate not for use within HVHZ, Wind Zone 4 and essential facilities.

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

15257 - International Buildings, LLC

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral with the condition the applicant to address the issue of the product constitutes a building and therefore outside the scope of the Product Approval Rule.

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

2291 R-6 Metals USA Building Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant to provide testing of plastic material in accordance with Section 2612.

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

6336 R-2 Cline Aluminum Doors, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant to provide the insertion of a back plate that will remove the cantilever load conditions on the anchor.

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

10630 R-1 Shoreline Shutters, LC

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with condition the applicant to indicate on the limits of use "For shutter use only".

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

10980 R-1 La Cantina Doors, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with condition the applicant to provide testing or limits of use for water and air infiltration for "Zero Sill" or eliminate the details for "Zero Sill" from application.

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

11217 R-1 CAOBA Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with condition the applicant to: 1) Provide note indicating to that fixed lites that exceed 36" in width shall use approved setting blocks per Sect 2411.3.3.1 and 2) point out Item #24 (Dow 995 Silicone, as tested) on the glazing details on sheet 14 of 18.

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

11602 R-2 InterWrap, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with condition the applicant to revise technical representative name.

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

15216 InterWrap, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with condition the applicant to revise technical representative name.

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

11915 R-2 Atlas Roofing Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with condition the applicant with the condition the applicant to revise Section 5.5 of the Evaluation Report to indicate use on existing decks.

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

12239 R-1 Elite Aluminum Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant to remove from the 2nd page of installation drawings the note indicating "100 Safflex HP".

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

13599 R-1 EFCO Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant to add to the evaluation report the testing of the break material and remove product .9.

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

14904 R-1 Fleetwood Windows and Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant to specify the break material as tested.

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

14907 R-1 Fleetwood Windows and Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant to specify the break material as tested.

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

15000 Therma-Tru Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

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

15125 ETO Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant to provide a note indicating that fixed lites that exceed 36" in width shall use approved setting blocks per Sect 2411.3.3.1

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

15149 Sika Sarnafil, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant to remove the HVHZ report.

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

15214 Malarkey Roofing Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

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

15218 Tag & Stick, LLC.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

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

15255 Trinity Glass International

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant to provide on evaluation report evidence of the required testing for plastics for product .1.

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

12477 R-1 United Roofing

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant to indicate "No" for use within HVHZ for products .2 and .4.

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

2197 R-4 MiTek Industries, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

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

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR ACCREDITOR AND COURSE APPROVAL

Accreditor Approvals:

Commissioner Stone stated there were no accreditor approvals.

Course Deferrals:

Advanced False Alarm Reduction Methods, Course# 497.0

Commissioner Stone moved approval of the POC recommendation for deferral, as the course did not meet the 50% content threshold. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Florida Advanced Building Code, Course# 479.0

Commissioner Stone moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Hamrick asked for clarification. He stated when the course was reviewed in the POC there was a lot of reference to the 2007 Building Code. He asked if the reference had been corrected.

Commissioner Stone stated the item of discussion was supposed to reference the 2010 Florida Building Code, as all course must reflect the newest version of the Code. He then stated the course approval was based on the Florida Building Code accreditation process and only verifies the accuracy of the Florida Building Code as related and was deferred until the course materials were made using the 2010 version.

Chairman Browdy asked if the approval condition was on the correct reference.

Commissioner Hamrick stated he believed the POC had moved for deferral of the item to allow the provider to make corrections and resubmit.

Chairman Browdy asked for clarification the course was recommended for deferral not approval.

Commissioner Stone stated that was correct.

Vote to approve the motion of the POC recommendation for deferral resulted in 17 in favor, 1 opposed (Hamrick). Motion carried.

Course Approvals:

2010 Advanced Building Code, Course #499.0

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

2010 Advanced Building Code (Internet), Course #500.0

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

Advanced Building Code - 2010 Florida Building Code, Building/Structural Summary, Course #501.0

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

Advanced Course: Energy Conservation in Lighting Design, Course #503.0

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

Advanced FBC Course - 2010 Florida Building Code Changes to the Wind Load Provisions of ASCE 7-10, Course #504.0

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

Advanced 2010 FBC Significant Code Changes, Course #508.0

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

Advanced FBC-Water Intrusion Issues With Exterior Walls, Course #507.0

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

Advanced 2010 Florida Building Code: Plumbing Edition, Course #513.0

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

Courses Administratively Approved:

Advanced 2007 FBC Bonding Metal Framing Members, Course #403.1

Commissioner Stone explained the material in the course reflected the 2010 Building Code althought the course title did not indicate such.

Chairman Browdy asked Commissioner Hamrick his opinion on the approval of the course.

Florida Building Code Advanced 2010-Floors, Course #325.1

Florida Building Code Advanced 2010: Fixtures, Faucets and Fixture Fittings, Course #331.1

Private Pools and Spas Advanced Module FBC 2010 With Supplements, Course #248.1

Chairman Browdy stated a motion was necessary to approve the administratively approved courses, with the condition for course #403.1, the title be corrected to reflect the course material.

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

Courses Administratively Approved, Self-affirmed:

Advanced Administrative Course, Course #77.4

Advanced Florida Building Code Principals, Course #421.1

Advanced Florida Accessibility Code For Building Construction, Course #404.1

Commissioner Stone moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Greiner 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:

Appeals:

No appeals.

Binding Interpretations:

No binding interpretations.

Revocations:

No revocations.

Declaratory Statements:

Second Hearings:

No second hearings.

First Hearings:

DS2011-096 by Jeffery Cooper of EPOX-Z Corporation

Ms. Adams 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 declaratory statement. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DS2011-097 by Jeffery Cooper of EPOX-Z Corporation

Ms. Adams 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 declaratory statement. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DS2012-013 by Ralph Koerber of ATCO Rubber Products, Inc.

Withdrawn

DS2012-016 by Kenneth Gregory of Holland/Evolution Pools

Withdrawn

DS2012-017 by Andrew Finlayson

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

Andrew Finlayson

Mr. Finlayson stated he has a severe hearing loss, which was one of the reasons he filed the petition with regard to the Florida Accessibility Code. He then stated, unfortunately, due to the acoustics of the room, the sound system, his hearing loss and the lack of an assisted listening device that was appropriate for him he would be unable to participate in the meeting. He asked for the hearing relative to his particular request be postponed until the next Commission meeting where he could have an appropriate assisted listening device and properly participate.

Chairman Browdy asked if the applicant was requesting the Commission defer action until such time the Commission provides the applicant with an assisted listening device to participate in the hearing.

Mr. Finlayson responded that was correct.

Ms. Adams stated the petition could be deferred. She then stated it should be noted Mr. Finlayson indicated ahead of time that he did not wish to have an assisted listening device for the April Commission meeting. She further stated arrangements could be made for another meeting for a listening device.

Chairman Browdy stated the Commission was taking Mr. Finlayson’s request as a motion to defer until the next meeting, at which time an appropriate assisted listening device would be available for him to participate. He then stated it was his understanding the listening device was offered to Mr. Finlayson for the April meeting but he had not thought it would be required.

Mr. Finlayson thanked the Commission.

Commissioner Hamrick moved approval of deferral of the petition until the next Commission meeting where and appropriate assisted listening device would be provided for Mr. Finlayson. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Carson stated in all of his years on the Commission this was the first time this issue had ever come up. He asked if it was not standard operating procedure for the devices to be available at meetings or was it incumbent on whoever attends the meetings to request it.

Chairman Browdy stated apparently it had not been, in his years, a standard operating procedure to have the devices present. He then stated the Commission had always attempted, when requested, to accommodate members of the public as to their specific needs whether it dealt with signing or any other assisted devices for the impaired and in his years this was the first time the issue had come up.

Commissioner Carson asked if it were a problem to make it a standard procedure.

Chairman Browdy asked staff for their comments relative to the issue.

Mr. Richmond stated it was a matter; of course, all notices of meetings contain language that requires anyone seeking reasonable accommodations should contact staff in advance so it could be set up. He then stated staff would look into the cost and other factors regarding assisted listening devices, as he was not sure how imposing it would be and report back to the Commission with the findings. He emphasized Ms. Adams had offered the device prior to the meeting and Mr. Finlayson felt if he sat close enough to the speakers it would be sufficient but apparently it was not.

Commissioner Greiner stated he was having a problem with the motion on the floor relative to why the Commission would want to defer something it has no jurisdiction on in the first place.

Commissioner Nicholson stated he was in agreement with Commissioner Greiner. He stated he appreciated public comment but the Commission had a number of tasks to handle. He further stated he did not know why the Commission insists on allowing people to speak when it could not help them in any way, shape or form.

Commissioner Schulte stated he was not sure which TAC the petition went through but was curious if the petitioner had the opportunity to participate at that level when the decision was reached.

Mr. Madani stated when staff reviewed the petition it felt the Commission had no authority to consider the petition. He then stated normally recommendations for dismissal were made and the petitions were not referred to the TAC for discussion because there was nothing to discuss. He further stated that is what happened with the declaratory statement in discussion, it was placed on the agenda for dismissal

Commissioner Franco stated he wanted to add his opinion. He then stated if the Commission could do nothing he did not understand why it would listen to anything else.

Commissioner Palacios stated since the petitioner was able to hear the chairman properly perhaps the chair could ask the petitioner if the petition could be dismissed because there was nothing the Commission could do about it and avoid bringing it back to another Commission meeting.

Chairman Browdy stated the petitioner had requested specifically to be able to participate in this particular issue and had requested an assisted listening device.

Chairman Browdy asked Mr. Finlayson, given the fact the Commission has no jurisdiction with respect to his request, if he was still requesting to be heard at the next Commission meeting

Mr. Finlayson responded stating yes.

Vote to approve the deferral of the petition until the next Commission meeting. Vote to approve the motion resulted in 12 in favor, 6 opposed (Scherer, Greiner, Carson, Nicholson, Franco, Smith?). Motion carried.

DS2012-019 by Lorraine Ross

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

Mr. Belcher stated Ms. Ross had asked him to convey her apologies for being unable to attend the Commission meeting and to also ask the Commission for its support for the Energy TAC’s recommendation on this issue.

Mr. Glenn stated, while he recognized the need to make the correction in the Code, this case was one of the ones he mentioned in his earlier comments relative to making a code change via a declaratory statement.

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

DS2012-020 by Lorraine Ross

Ms. Adams stated there were multiple questions within the petition and each would be considered separately:

Question #1a

Ms. Adams explained the issue presented in Question #1a of the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the declaratory statement. Commissioner Scherer entered a second to the motion.

Mr. Belcher stated again Ms. Ross had asked him to request the Commission’s support of the TAC’s recommendation on this issue.

Mr. Belcher stated he was also representing the Mason Industry of Florida, whom the declaratory statement affects. He then stated the association agreed with Ms. Ross on the error and were in agreement with the Energy TAC’s solution.

Mr. Glenn stated the Florida Homebuilders Association supported the fix, but again the issue was using a declaratory statement to correct an error in the Code.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Question #1b

Ms. Adams explained the issue presented in Question #1b of the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

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

Question #2

Ms. Adams explained the issue presented in Question #2 of the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

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

Question #3

Ms. Adams explained the issue presented in Question #3 of the petition for declaratory statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

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

DS2012-021 by Joe Belcher of JDB Code Services, Inc.

Ms. Adams stated there were multiple questions within the petition and each would be considered separately:

Question #1

Ms. Adams explained the issues presented in Question #1 of the petition for declaratory statements and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s files.

Mr. Belcher stated he wanted to make some general comments, which applied overall to the petition.

Chairman Browdy stated that would be appropriate, as he assumed the hypothesis of the declaratory statement carries through to each of the questions dealing with a threshold event.

Mr. Belcher stated that was correct. He then stated a group of experts, the Energy TAC, did meet, review, and unanimously responded in favor on all four questions. He further stated there was a statutory definition for renovation under the ~~Thermal ???~~ Section 553.902, Florida Statutes, which was carried into the Florida Building Code (please note Table 101.4.1 states renovations were defined as exceeding 30% of the assessed value of the structure. He continued by stating if the 30% was not exceeded in a year it was not a renovation. He stated he had more than 35 years experience in codes and the reason definitions were always in the beginning of the Codes or Statutes was to lay out the land for the rest of the provisions that follow. He then stated the definitions should be reviewed first. He further stated Chapter 1 indicates what parts of the rest of the Code apply to the project. He continued by stating the first thing seen in Chapter 1 states for existing buildings it will comply with Table 101.4.1, which contains a row for renovations with a note indicating renovations exceed 30% of the value. He stated adopting a new base code, the new ICC, another section, Section 402.3.6, was also picked up. He then stated Section 402.3.6 states anytime any part of fenestration was replaced it has to meet the current Energy Code. He further stated the association believed there was a conflict and the statutory revisions should be the one that prevails.

Mr. Belcher continued by stating when the Legislature created the Commission it indicated it wanted all legislation that addresses construction included in the Florida Building Code. He stated if it was said every time any part of fenestration was replaced it had to meet the current Energy Code, as a representative to the Aluminum Association of Florida, the contractors had a problem with this, as they would lose business because people would not be able to afford to replace windows. He then stated the International Hurricane Protection Association supports the TAC recommendation and AWP Windows and Doors was one of the agreeing parties. He further stated he was told the cost for replacement of windows in a home approximately 40 years old with jalousie windows would be estimated between $115 and $127 per unit (window). He continued by stating under the new Code, according to AWP Windows and Doors, the cost would be between $250 to $350 per unit. He stated that was a 35-50% increase in cost. He then stated the person who wanted to upgrade their windows was now looking at a job costing 30-50% more and the average person would choose to not do that job. He asked who wins in that situation. He stated the homeowner would get no energy efficiency increases, therefore the consumer loses and the contractor would not get the work, also losing. He then stated what usually happens when there is price increases such as this people decide to do it on the weekends, without permits. He further stated the energy efficiency would still not be gained in addition the structural aspects would be neglected, which are required by the Code; i.e., the window being mounted to meet the wind load provisions and if it happened to be the windborne debris region it may need that protection depending on the amount windows being replaced. He continued by stating the requirements were going to encourage unlicensed, non-permitted activity. He stated he had talked with air conditioning experts and he was told if going into an older home and replace with highly efficient windows and don’t do anything to the insulation or air conditioning system, the result would be an air conditioning unit that does not recycle as often, creating moisture, mildew and mold problems in the house. He then stated there were a number of window and door manufacturers present who have an interest in the issue.

Chairman Browdy asked members of the interest groups and public who supported Mr. Belcher’s position on the issue to stand.

Eric Lacey, Responsible Energy Codes Alliance

Mr. Lacey stated he had appeared before the Commission a few times in the past. He then stated he first wanted to address the Energy TAC recommendation. He continued by stating there was a mix-up on the email address to which email comments were sent, which resulted in the Energy TAC not even seeing comments until the meeting was in progress and the issue was being addressed. He stated a question was raised if there was a legal issue here and the question was directed to Ms. Adams for an opinion and her response was she needed time to consider the issues. He then stated the Energy TAC went ahead and acted on the issue without the recommendation from legal counsel. He further stated he would ask the Commission to take that into consideration. He continued by stating he realized there was a mix-up and his comments were four pages long, which there was no way for them to be read in the 5-10 minutes the TAC had to address the issue. He stated hard copies of the comments he submitted to the Mr. Madani and Ms. Stanton on March 26, 2012 have been handed to the commissioners.

Chairman Browdy stated the predicate of Mr. Lacey’s remarks was there was insufficient time for the TAC to review the data submitted. He asked Mr. Lacey if he was tacitly requesting some type of deferral therein such time as the Energy TAC has the time to review his comments comprehensively, as well as the legal counsel and Commission.

Mr. Lacey responded stating it was one possible remedy at the end of all of this. He stated there was a few different approaches the Commission could take on the issue and one was to delay and defer it back to the Energy TAC. He then stated he thought it would be worthwhile to hear all the arguments to determine what the issues were so if it was referred back the Energy TAC would know the main issues and the legal counsel would know the general legal issues. He further stated in the end it was clearly up to the Commission to determine which path to take. He then presented an overview of the comments he had submitted. (Please see Responsible Energy Code Alliance, March 23, 2012.)

Fred Dudley, Holland and Knight, representing the Responsible Energy Code Alliance

Mr. Dudley stated copies of the RECA letter dated March 23, 2012 had been distributed to the commissioners. He then stated he would like the letter to become part of the record.

Chairman Browdy stated he did not believe any commissioner would have any objection of the letter being entered into record. He asked Mr. Dudley to proceed.

Mr. Dudley stated a declaratory statement was the wrong procedure to use, not just for the reasons already heard, but because Chapter 120 of the Florida Administrative Code, Section .565 and the Rule of the Board of Administration, rule of the governor cabinet that had been adopted which was Rule 28 – 105.001 requires that an agency’s authority to issue a declaratory statement was based on the petitioner’s particular circumstances, which has to do with the Commission’s authority to even issue a declaratory statement. He then stated he understood, and the industry and even his client sympathize with the circumstances in this case. He further stated what Mr. Belcher and his clients have failed to do was present their particular circumstances. He continued by stating there was a long time when Mr. Madani required the address of the project in a declaratory statement. He asked where the project was. He stated there was no project or particular circumstances, which they were asking the Commission to apply to what he considers a code interpretation. He stated he did not believe the Commission had the authority, but if the Commission answered then it has made a statement of general application, applying to everyone, not just Mr. Belcher and his clients i.e. a rule. He then stated the courts have stated a declaratory statement cannot make a rule, which was the first problem.

Mr. Dudley further stated because Mr. Belcher has failed to describe the unique application to a proposed project then an agency having jurisdiction, which he had not seen a sight to any AHJ that has denied or made a ruling on the question. He stated if it had the remedy would be to appeal the authority’s decision, which was an appellant right in statute. He then stated the same rule (Rule 28 -105.00) prohibits the use of a declaratory statement regarding the conduct of others. He further stated in this case the petitioners want the Commission to tell the authorities having jurisdiction that they can or cannot allow. He continued by stating he thought an authority having jurisdiction could properly pose such a question regarding their own actions, but not the petitioners asking the Commission to tell the authority having jurisdiction what they must or must not do, because it was inappropriate. He stated the petition improperly seeks a broad statement of general applicability and if the Commission answers the declaratory statement the way staff has proposed and the TAC has recommended then a rule will have been made without following the guidelines of Chapter 120, the Rulemaking Process. He concluded by reading from the record of case Florida Optometric Association vs. the DBPR, a First Court of District Appeal decision as follows: “Although the line between the two is not always clear it should be remembered that declaratory statements are not to be used as a vehicle for the adoption of broad agency policies, nor should they be used to provide interpretations of statutes, rules or orders which are applicable to an entire class ~~of ??~~. Declaratory statements should only be granted when the petitioner has set forth specific facts and circumstances, which show the question presented relates only to the petitioner, and his particular set of circumstances.” He stated those were the legal arguments and he had given copies of the material to Ms. Adams.

Chairman Browdy asked for clarification if Mr. Dudley was suggesting Mr. Belcher has no standing to request a declaratory statement because his statement was not specific to a site.

Mr. Dudley stated he was saying several things: 1) the Commission lacks authority to issue a declaratory statement because Mr. Belcher has not described the particular circumstances where the Commission’s answer, whatever it might be, would apply just to these petitioners and a particular project.

Chairman Browdy asked if Mr. Dudley had not said that an enforcement agency such as the Building Department might have the authority to request and assuming they have the authority to request then the Commission would have the authority to respond to an enforcement agency.

Mr. Dudley stated because they would have to answer the question in this way “We have been asked to permit this job with these replacement windows and we want to know if we have to apply the 2010 Energy Code or we don’t.”

Chairman Browdy asked for clarification from Mr. Dudley the declaratory statement request from the enforcement agency would also have to be site specific.

Mr. Dudley responded stating yes it would. He stated Chairman Browdy had mentioned “standing” and he was absolutely correct, as the point was they lack standing. He then stated there is an understanding of the unfortunate events that brought the issue before the Commission and Mr. Belcher, on page 2 of his declaratory statement, stated it succinctly: “AWP Windows and Doors and AAF believe that there are conflicts between the Florida Statutes and the 2010 Florida Building Code, Energy Conservation and conflicts within the 2010 Florida Building Code, Energy Conservation (FBC EC). Further we believe that the adoption of 402.3.6 of FBC EC has the unintended consequences of contravening statutory provisions.” He further stated his association did not believe there was a conflict between the Code and the statute, but if the Commission believes there is it would be invalidating its own Code, because as the commissioners know, the Code is a rule and a rule cannot supersede a statute. He continued by stating they did not agree with the interpretation or Mr. Belcher’s conclusion. He stated RECA also did not believe there was a conflict within the Code. He then stated the argument that staff appears to make in its analysis is it never gets to Chapter 4 on residential, which specifically states replacement of a fenestration unit, any unit, in an existing building must meet the current Code. He further stated they argue Chapter 4 cannot be considered because Chapter 1 cannot be passed on applicability. He continued by stating he did not see anything in Chapter 1 that talks about fenestration replacement, but it does talk about HVAC replacement. He concluded by stating his argument was there was no conflict with the statute and hoped the Commission would agree, otherwise invalidating its own Code. He further stated, in addition, he did not think the Commission would want to rule there was a conflict within the Code. He stated, even in court, when faced with statutes that conflict with each other and a court is called upon to construe what was meant their rules of construction essentially are to find an interpretation that gives effect to all statutes. He then stated he urged the Commission to seek a solution and RECA would like to be a part of the solution.

Mr. Dudley further stated it was clear there was a problem, the unintended consequences of what is in the Code was the problem. RECA would like to be part of the solution and believes the two sections of the Code, the provisions of Chapter 1 and Chapter 4, can be reconciled in such a way that they do not conflict. He stated there were a couple of options the Commission could consider: 1) send the declaratory statement back to the Energy TAC, allowing the RECA to present its case there and see if a solution to the problem could be made there. He then stated RECA believes the solution was to work towards a delayed implementation date, which would give the manufacturers with the leftover products a way to dispose of them correctly in the market. He stated he believed that was the solution and if a way to get there can be found that would help everyone 2) and amendment to the Code could be done because he believed it was true glitch that needs to be fixed 3) the petitioner could ask for a formal binding interpretation from BOAF, who has to answer within 21 days and a 30 day appeal to the Commission following the 21 days, which would bring the petition right back to the June meeting. He stated everyone would have an opportunity to be involved including the Commission because there would be some ruling from BOAF, whatever it might be.

Chairman Browdy stated he wanted members of the Commission to ask questions of both sides and then allow more public comment.

Keri Hebrank, AWPA

Ms. Hebrank stated it was important she rebut some of the things that were said.

Chairman Browdy stated he had no problem with that and she would have ample opportunity to do so. He then stated while the material was on the table from both sides the Commission has the opportunity to ask questions.

Ms. Hebrank stated she had points to make that Mr. Belcher did not make.

Chairman Browdy stated he would like to work the process, as he believed it to be fair. He then stated while the topic is as hot as it is he would like the commissioners to ask questions relative to challenge the Commission’s process, the outstanding issues and all other related issues.

Commissioner Carson stated his comments were more directed to staff. He then stated over the years he recalled discussion relative to having a project or site-specific question listed. He asked if staff could answer why it was applied in this case.

Mr. Madani stated the staff used to be specific with regard to the address and the site. He then stated as more was learned about declaratory statements and how declaratory statements were handled staff relied on specific sets of facts and circumstances as it applies to someone asking specific questions about their product. He further stated as long as the information provided was specific to a product and how the Code related to the product. He continued by stating for Product Approval many declaratory statements were received with someone asking questions specific to their product. He stated as long as the information provided was specific to a product. He then stated in this case a ~~product~~ manufacturer was asking specific questions about that product and how the Code would apply to it. He then stated based on his understanding and how declaratory statements were dealt with there were circumstances to handle this one. He further stated when he reviewed the case he asked for additional information from Mr. Belcher and his group to provide more specific information. He concluded by stating to answer Commissioner Carson’s question a site-specific project does not have to be listed.

Chairman Browdy asked if Commissioner Carson had the answer to his question.

Commission Carson responded “no” he did not.

Ms. Adams stated she had received Mr. Dudley’s written arguments just a moment before the meeting started and she had not had the time to research the issue. She then stated if there was indeed a legitimate question of standing it struck her as the type of issue that would soon be rectified and she assumed an amended petition would be seen soon making it a non-issue.

Commissioner Gregory asked how a window was being described as a system rather than a component.

Mr. Lacey stated what was intended was the energy efficiency code section of the Florida Statutes. He then stated unfortunately there were not a lot of specific definitions in the section. He further stated there was a definition for a renovated building but there was not a definition of what the Legislature meant when it used the word “systems” and “components”. He continued by stating in an attempt to figure out what they were thinking he went to an earlier chapter of the same part of the Code, which dealt with manufactured buildings. He stated the definition he found there was on page 3 of the RECA comments and stated “component – any assembly, sub-assembly or combination of parts for use as part of a building which made it structural, electrical, mechanical, fire protection systems and other systems affecting health and safety” and “systems – structural, mechanical, heating, electrical, ventilating elements, materials components or components combined for use in a building.” He then stated it was kind of a standard term to use “component” in reference to windows as building components or thermal envelope components in window systems, etc. He further stated he wished there were more specific definitions in that section of the statute, but in looking to other provisions within the Florida Building Code section of the statute he thought it was very fair.

Commissioner Gregory stated with all due respect to his friend Mr. Dudley, he believed it was a stretch for making a system as a window. He then stated a window would be a component in his opinion.

Mr. Lacey stated the statutes state building systems or components, therefore if it did not fit in the definition of systems it would be ok and it would be regulated in the same way under the same statute. Mr. Lacey stated on page 2, in the applicability section, it stated and to the installation or replacement of the building systems and components.

Ms. Hebrank stated a window was not included in the definition of systems in the 2010 Florida Building Code. She then stated because the Legislature included a definition for systems or components in the Manufactured Buildings section, which was intended for all buildings. She further stated it was huge stretch, being unable to define what the Legislature meant for everything.

Commissioner Tolbert asked what the intent would be of putting the new window requirements for replacement windows i.e. what was the intent of the new requirements.

Mr. Lacey stated he was trying to figure out Commissioner Tolbert’s question, which would allow him to answer correctly.

Commissioner Tolbert asked if energy efficiency was the intent.

Mr. Lacey stated, as he had mentioned, the issue had been in the IECC for a long time. He then stated he could not speak to the intention of the IECC. He continued by stating the idea relative to the issue was anytime a window was replaced it should meet the Federal Standards as a new window being put into a home. He stated a lot of states apply this and have done very well for many years. He then stated when a whole unit of fenestration was taken out it was a rare opportunity to significantly upgrade that part of the home which was typically one of the weaker parts of the thermal envelope even in older buildings.

Commissioner Tolbert stated obviously the existing 2010 Building Code was being referenced in an obvious Level One. He then stated it was hard for him to find in Level One where the intent was to require energy efficiency at all. He restated he could not find it in Alteration, Level 1. He further stated if the Commission were going to the Code it has to go where it was applicable. He stated he could not find in the intent of Level 1 where energy was even mentioned.

Chairman Greiner asked if the Commission were to interpret the statute, as being proposed, replacing the window would have to meet the Energy Code requirements with respects to SHGC and the U-factor. He stated that basically negates the 30% rule. He asked if that was correct.

Mr. Lacey stated the 30% rule still applies. He then stated when a renovation project exceeded 30% then everything being replaced had to be brought up to the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Code. He further stated when there was a short of the 30% only those systems and components have to meet the terms of the Energy Code. He stated he had found an answer to the alteration question when the chairman was ready.

Mr. Lacey stated for a Level 1 alteration compliance with Chapter 6 provisions was required. He then stated when referring to Chapter 6 in the existing Building Code or Energy Conservation it reads, “alterations subject to this chapter shall comply with the requirements of the Florida Building Code Energy Conservation”. He further stated it would defer back to the Energy Conservation Code to determine which one of those components and systems had to comply with.

Commissioner Tolbert stated he disagreed with Mr. Lacey’s comments because Level 1 specifically deals with energy. He then stated if the commissioners looked at that section they would see it was reserved.

Mr. Madani offered clarification of the question.

Chairman Browdy stated, rather than get into specifics on the issue, the Commission should stick to the overall significant policy issue in question.

Ms. Hebrank stated Florida Statute 553.902, the definition section, where renovated building was defined and specifically states “provided the estimated cost of the renovation receives 30% of the assessed value of the structure.” She then stated Section 553.906 follows the definition of renovated building establishes where the thermal efficiency standards for renovated buildings, which defined in the definition section includes the 30% of assessed value. She further stated Chapter 2 of the 2010 FBC Energy Conservation Code defines renovation again referring to the 30% of the assessed value threshold. She continued by stating Table 101.4.1 of the 2010 Code, under renovation, includes footnote D that states “provided the estimated cost exceeds 30% of the assessed value of the structure”. She stated the section includes the Legislative directive from the statutes about the 30%. She then stated as for Section 402.3.6, the replacement fenestration section AWPA would argue if the renovation for a window project exceeds 30% of the assessed value it was then a renovation and the standards have to be met. She further stated if the total did not exceed the 30% it was not a renovation and the standard in Section 402.3.6. She continued by stating the argument to eliminate the authority of the Florida Building Commission to set efficiency standards was not the case. She stated the thermal efficiency standards were set in Section 402.3.6, which apply to renovated buildings that exceed the 30% threshold. She then stated it was important to keep in mind the new window being installed to replace a homeowner’s broken window, which was not a renovation, was still an energy efficient window as of March 14, 2012 then became inefficient on March 15, 2012. She further stated there were concerns if homeowners were required, when simply replacing a broken window or a window with a broken seal in an older home, to go to a higher cost product those individuals could decide to not apply for a permit, maybe choose not to use a licensed contractor or maybe choose to not replace the window without the seal, which would create no energy efficiency. She continued by stating there was also the issue of cost recovery. She stated if there was an older home and a window was being replaced it was now twice the cost of what it would have been on March 14^th. She asked what the cost recovery was for that circumstance.

Ms. Hebrank stated the Code was clear about attempting to do energy efficiency upgrades and she was asking what was the payback for those individuals, especially if they owned a home built in the 50’s or 60’s. She then stated regarding the issue of standing she had a difficult time understanding how a product manufacturer who was being told by one of their retail dealers they would not be selling their product anymore could not have standing when it was their livelihood at stake. She further stated she believed, based on how the declaratory statement was drafted the AWP does have standing. She continued by stating regarding the issue of a Code question or declaratory statement related to an entire class, all of the Commission’s answers the give relating to the Code affects an entire class i.e. contractors, product suppliers, material suppliers and manufacturers and has an impact on the building code enforcement arena, as well. She concluded by stating AWPA asks the Commission approve the Energy TAC’s recommendation to approve the declaratory statement and follow what the statute states relative to the 30% threshold. She stated there was not a conflict since the thermal standards still kick in when it was a full renovation.

Commissioner Greiner stated he would like to hear from the Commission’s attorney because he was concerned if the TAC went ahead, based on the way it has interpreted cases since he had served on the Commission with respect to the application of the Code. He then stated if the TAC made an appropriate decision he was fine with it. He further stated he had asked for something from the attorney at the point in time the declaratory statement was in discussion and Ms. Adams rightfully so did not have time to review the submitted comments and provide information, therefore he would like those comments.

Ms. Adams stated she was comfortable that the Energy TAC’s recommendation does take into consideration the portions of statutes, which were incorporated into the Code. She then stated she was comfortable with the Commission’s proceeding on the TAC’s recommendation if they were inclined to do so.

Commissioner Tolbert stated he wanted to reiterate it was basic code application. He then stated the building code refers to the existing building code and it was determined to be a Level 1 alteration, therefore only what was applicable to Level 1 should be applied, nothing else. He further stated if the intent of the requirement was energy conversation the issue was not addressed. He continued by stating it was addressed at the end of the chapter that was reserved, i.e. there was no requirement in Level 1 alteration for energy conservation. He restated it was basic code application.

Commissioner Gregory stated the issue hits close to the pool industry because it was struggling under a new Energy Code, which added a great deal of cost through all of its construction. He then stated the analysis was simply by asking people to run pumps instead of 8-12 hours per day to run them 4-6 hours per day; the energy savings would be the same with the replacement cost being high. He further stated he was also confused because when an attempt was made to do something about existing swimming pools, which were known to pose a hazard to children, there was kind of a paralysis existing pools built under the past codes were grandfathered in. He continued by stating it seemed like a person with an existing home who wished to repair a window was going to bear an excessive cost and with little or no increase in energy efficiency, other than to meet the criteria of some legislative mandate. He stated he would hope in future discussions his fellow commissioners would educate him.

Commissioner Smith stated, speaking on the energy side, any replacement window was an improvement to the structure. He then stated, as a member of the TAC he would recommend the declaratory statement be referred back to the TAC. He further stated he believed there was some information that was not available at that time which the Energy TAC should be aware of and then re-discuss the declaratory statement.

Commissioner Smith moved approval of the declaratory statement being referred back to the Energy TAC for review of the information provided and re-discussion of the declaratory statement. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion.

Chairman Browdy asked when the next meeting of the Energy TAC was scheduled.

Mr. Madani responded stating the next Energy TAC could be scheduled as soon as possible. He then stated there was no particular timeline but it takes 17 days to schedule a meeting and if the Commission desires so it will be scheduled.

Chairman Browdy asked for clarification the next Commission meeting was in June.

Mr. Madani responded stating that was correct.

Commissioner Schulte suggested the meeting should be in person rather than a conference call because it would be a very difficult conference call.

Chairman Browdy stated he did not disagree with Commissioner Schulte. He then stated it rises to the level of gravitas for the Commission to deal with as a result of policy. He further suggested it would require an in-person meeting. He asked Mr. Madani for the date of the next Commission meeting.

Mr. Madani stated the Commission meeting was scheduled for June 11th-12^th in Daytona.

Chairman Browdy recommended the Energy TAC meeting be held on June 11^th. He then stated the motion was amended to refer the declaratory statement back to the Energy TAC specifically to be held on June 11, 2012 in Daytona.

Commissioner Palacios requested the meeting be scheduled as late as possible on that date before to avoid participants having to travel very early to make the meeting.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Browdy stated he hoped many of the commissioners would attend the meeting, as well. He then stated he hoped the adequacy and sufficiency of the information that was made available to the members of the Commission, which had not been made available would be made available by both parties allowing everyone to be as informed as possible for the meeting.

LEGISLATIVE ISSUES AND UPDATES

Mr. Madani presented an overview of the legislative issues and updates. (See Legislative Issues and Updates)

HB 1263

Mr. Madani stated there were some changes in Section 514.021 and members of the Department of Health were present to provide the Commission with an update.

Patti Anderson, Interim Director for the Department of Environmental Health and the Bureau Chief for Water Programs

Ms. Anderson stated the Public Swimming Pool Program resides within the Bureau of Water Programs and in that capacity she uses her credential as a professional engineer. She then stated HB 1263 was expected to go the governor next week and there was no reason to believe he would not sign it or let it go into law. She further stated this particular bill becomes effective the moment it becomes signed into law; therefore by the end of April, perhaps, there could be a new law. She continued by stating there had been a lot of questions relative to what this particular legislation does to Florida’s public swimming pool program. She stated there had been interpretations it does nothing to take the Department of Health totally out of public swimming pools. She then stated the department believes factually the position was somewhere in the middle. She further stated the department had given the Commission a copy free of strikethroughs and underlines for easier reading in its entirety. She continued by stating it was clear the Department of Health was still in the public swimming pool program. She stated the DOH was still charged with the authority to adopt and enforce rules relating to sanitation and safety, actually setting the standards. She then stated the DOH still had the authority to issue operating permits and some of the specific criteria were still listed in the statutes. She further stated the relationship with the Florida Building Commission was a little uncertain. She continued by stating she was before the Commission to ask their legal staff to work with DOH legal staff for a final consensus of an interpretation of the statute. She stated the department felt it could be done relatively quickly because their attorneys had been working very hard over the last few weeks.

Ms. Anderson then stated they would ask that assistance as part of their new partnership with the Commission to get on the same page legally. She further stated they also request participation to develop the implementation guides. She continued by stating there were 67 county health departments within 67 counties and at least 125 municipalities who all need guidance about what the statute is and what it does. She stated with all due respect to Commissioner Gregory the department would love to have a seat on his TAC and use that mechanism to work in partnership and hopefully meet relatively soon. She then stated a communication plan was needed to get the word out, not just to the local building officials and county health departments but to the industry i.e. contractors, design engineers, equipment manufacturers, etc. She further stated there was a whole industry out there that needed to know and there were many questions, therefore as soon as it can be worked on the department stands ready.

Chairman Browdy asked Ms. Anderson if it was her opinion that the implementation of the new statutory guidelines would significantly change the plans review and construction as it relates to the standards for commercial pools.

Ms. Anderson responded by stating that one legal interpretation is that it was now the authority of the Florida Building Commission through its local building officials and local governments to do the construction plan review and the Department of Health would not be involved. She then stated another legal opinion stated it was permissive in the language that states local building officials can decide if they would do the construction plan review. She further stated the DOH could be out of it but working closely with the Commission because they issue the operating permits or it could be jurisdictionally local building officials can decide if they want to do the construction plan review and if the did not it would be under the authority of the Department of Health.

Commissioner Gregory thanked Ms. Anderson for being at the meeting. He stated he would invite her or a member of her staff to be a part of the Swimming Pool TAC. He then stated, as a practical matter, and from one who has been building pools for thirty years, there were really two plan reviews at present. He then stated the plans were first reviewed by the Department of Health and when the pool was completed the project engineer of record has to do a review and submit a form. He further stated after coming out to review the pool the engineer would contend yes the pool was built to standard to the Building Code itself but also to 64E. He continued by stating after the engineer submitted the form the department would come out for an inspection to issue an initial operating permit and go through their standard list of checks to make sure the system was there. He stated other than them not physically reviewing the plans this eliminate the step and go right to the building departments, the Department of Health would have the final review over the whole project when it does its initial inspection for the operator.

Ms. Anderson stated that was one scenario, still working really closely with the building officials and doing that inspection before issuing an operating permit. She then stated it could be a very practical application of the statutory language.

Commissioner Gregory stated he believed the creation of the Swimming Pool TAC to hear issues about commercial pools would probably improve things with respect to past construction issues, such as the previous year when Miami-Dade rejected a determination made by the Variance Board at the Department of Health. He then stated that was the type of issue that would come before the TAC and their recommendations brought before the Commission. He further stated it would make the process more expeditious not only to the industry but to the consumer, as well.

Chairman Browdy stated he believed the collaborative effort between the agencies needed to commence to determine what roles each has in the public pool permitting process and review process. He then stated he was sure the Commission would join him in directing its legal staff to meet with the legal staff of the Department of Health and appropriately report back to the Commission at the June Commission meeting about the direction it was headed. He further stated he could suggest openly the appointments to the Swimming Pool TAC would be as inclusive as possible to include members of the Department of Health and all of those people associated with the process of design, construction and implementation of public swimming pools. He then thanked Ms. Anderson for her time to come and meet the Commission. He further stated he did not suppose the DOH had any such board like those of the Florida Building Commission in fact the DOH staff moves toward implementation of statutory guidelines and just goes to work. He continued by stating it was a different venue for a collaborative effort for the two agencies to come together.

Ms. Anderson stated the department certainly works on implantation plans on every session. She then stated there were several bills for working on implementation plans, and depending on what the implementation was, the department was working with other agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Protection. She further stated it was not an unknown process but for her, at least, it was the first time to collaborate so closely the Commission and the department was really looking forward to it. She continued by stating the department was there to do efficient and effective government so it should work out just great.

Commissioner Gregory stated he would be prepared to submit to the chair a list of possible appointees both from UPSA and FSPA.

Mr. Madani continued with the overview of Legislative Issues.

2012 Florida Accessibility Code

Mr. Madani stated the Department of Justice mainly delayed the implementation of applying the swimming pool requirements to existing facilities. He then stated Mr. Richmond wanted to speak on the issue.

Mr. Richmond stated he Department of Justice imposed a delay from a federal level. He then stated staff had been exploring the impacts on the enforcement of what the Commission has adopted as an element of the most recent edition of the building code in order to maintain some type of current status with what DOJ does. He further stated staff had been in the process of looking at amending the Accessibility Code Rule with relation to the waiver form and would seek to add consideration of the Swimming Pool Accessibility to a notice of proposed rule development so as further developments occur at the federal level staff can move as expeditiously as possible to stay in sync. He continued by stating that was the recommendation essentially and he would answer any questions or defer to Ms. Adams. He stated an action from the Commission was necessary to approve the consideration of the Department of Justice actions as part of the rule development workshop, which was already approved by the Commission without signaling any definite action at present.

Chairman Browdy stated a motion was needed to include a rule development workshop action as a result of the delay of 60 days on CFR 35.150(b)(1)(b)(2)(2) and 36.304(d)(2)(3) for Sections 242 and 1009 of the 2010 Standard.

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

Commissioner Gross stated this was a huge issue for the Hotel and Lodging Association. He then stated right before the law went into effect the Hotel and Lodging Association wrote a letter to DOJ and asked if every existing pool has to have a permanent existing lift or if it could be portable. He further stated the DOJ response was it had to be permanent and the American Lodging Association wrote a rule challenge because it had never stated that in the past. He continued by stating it could go to a 6-month extension for a full re-hearing of the issue. He asked if this action would cover the 6-month additional hearing.

Chairman Browdy asked Mr. Richmond if he was looking for 60 days in the motion.

Mr. Richmond responded stating the motion was based on 60 days but to allow consideration of further DOJ action, as well. He then stated it was a matter of initiating the state rule-making process to account for the federal action.

Mr. Blair stated a way to frame the motion was to include in the workshop consideration of DOJ actions.

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

Mr. Madani continued with the overview of Legislative Issues.

Energy Guidelines

Mr. Glenn stated in light of the action the Commission took relative to the declaratory statement on the renovation issue, he would recommend staff withhold those guidelines until after the meeting because that specific issue based on the TAC’s recommendation, which at present was an unresolved issue. He reiterated to avoid confusion he suggested the guidelines be withheld until after the final action by the Commission.

Mike Naft(sp), PGT Industries

Mr. Naft stated he concurred with Mr. Glenn’s comments.

Mr. Richmond stated the guidelines were presented for information only, the Commission has taken no action (i.e. approving, rejecting, endorsing) on them therefore there was nothing to defer in relation to that because it was simply an informational document. He then stated there was nothing to actually withhold.

Mr. Glenn stated his only concern was it was now posted on the website as a result and it may add to the confusion of the issue because it takes one side of the other and does not reflect the other. He then stated if anyone downloaded the document they may be proceeding contrary to what the Commission’s final action might be.

Mr. Blair stated the document still indicates “draft” but Mr. Glenn’s point taken.

Mr. Glenn stated the issue was so confusing at present, having the document out there could create further confusion during the next two months.

Mr. Madani stated to resolve the issue he would remove the part that deals with the issue from the document.

CONSIDER OTHER LEGAL ISSUES

No other legal issues were presented.

CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Chairman Browdy requested the TAC/POC chairs to confine their reports to a brief summary of any key recommendations, emphasizing those issues requiring action from the Commission. He then stated if the TAC/POC requires Commission action, he requested the chair to frame the needed action in the form of a motion. He further stated this would ensure the Commission would understand exactly what the TAC/POC’s are recommending and the subsequent action requested of the Commission. He explained the complete reports/minutes would be linked to the committee’s subsequent agendas for approval by the respective committees.

Building Code System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee

Chairman Browdy stated the Building Code Assessment Ad Hoc Committee conducted a prioritization ranking exercise at the January 31, 2012 meeting and recommended the Commission send a letter from the chairman to the DBPR forwarding the recommendations relevant to their authority and purview. He then stated he would also recommend the Commission wait until after the final action of Legislation impacting some of the recommendations before the letter was actually sent. He further stated Mr. Blair would present the details of the meeting and the report of the committee.

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Building Code System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee. (See Building Code System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee, January 31, 2012.)

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the TAC’s recommendations regarding the Building Code Assessment Project. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

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

Education POC

Commissioner Stone presented the report of the Education POC. (See Education POC Teleconference Meeting Minutes March 26, 2012.)

Action 1:

Commissioner Stone entered a motion to include in the Education rule development initiative proposed language regarding subsections (3)(e) and (4)(m) of Rule 61G20-6.002 FAC. Commissioner Franco entered a second to the motion. Motion carried.

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

Energy TAC

Commissioner Greiner presented the report of the Energy TAC. (See Energy TAC Teleconference Meeting Minutes, March 7, 2012 and March 26, 2012).

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

Commissioner Greiner stated, for the record, he would not be in the state for the June 11^th Energy TAC meeting.

Product Approval POC

Commissioner Carson presented the report of the Product Approval POC. (See Product Approval/Manufactured Buildings POC Teleconference Meeting Minutes March 22, 2012.)

Action 1

Commissioner Carson moved approval to approve POC recommendations regarding Product Approval rule language changes for 61G20-3.007 and 61G20-3.013 regarding establishment of revocation criteria. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

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

Roofing TAC

Commissioner Schulte presented the report from the Roofing TAC. (See Roofing Teleconference Meeting Minutes, March 6, 2012.)

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

Special Occupancy TAC

Commissioner Hamrick presented the report from the Special Occupancy TAC. (See Special Occupancy TAC, Teleconference Meeting Minutes, March 22, 2012.)

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

ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE SOFTWARE

Chairman Browdy stated at the December meeting the Commission adopted the Energy Simulation Tool Approval Technical Assistance Manual. He further stated the Manual serves as a “Technical Assistance Manual” for computer tool vendors to use in a self-certification process for demonstrating compliance with the Energy Code performance compliance options for residential and commercial buildings. He then stated for the agenda item the Commission would consider approval of energy simulated calculation tools applications submitted by vendor(s). He further stated vendors seek approval of their software by providing self-certification that the software submitted meets the requirements to demonstrate compliance of the 2010 Florida Energy Code for residential and/or commercial buildings and the procedures of the “Energy Simulation Tool Approval Technical Assistance Manual, TAM-2010-1.0”0. He continued by stating the first application was approved at the January meeting. He stated there was only one application for approval at the April 3, 2012 meeting and the Energy TAC reviewed the application and recommended conditional approval, as Commissioner Greiner reported during the Energy TAC report.

Ms. Stewart stated as a user of the software she applauds the Energy TAC for accepting and approving it and she encouraged the Commission to do the same. She stated it was wonderful to have a choice in Florida. She thanked the Commission for requesting it.

Chairman Browdy requested a motion to conditionally approve the RES check UA by Pacific Northwest Labs software for demonstration of Code compliance, with the following conditions: Conditional on revising duct work requirements and conforming to relevant Energy Code Declaratory Statement decisions from the April 3, 2012 meeting and to charge the Chair to work with staff to prepare and transmit a letter of approval to the vendor.

Mr. Madani stated the Commission took the first action on the declaratory statement with the recommendation of the TAC and there was no disagreement on the issue. He then stated the other had to do with clarifying duct specs within the program and does not change the motion.

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

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ms. Stewart stated the day was an exciting day and she wished to thank everyone present for listening to all of arguments being made and for doing their best in the process. She then stated she did not often have a chance to say it but she really appreciated the work of the Commission today.

Joe Martin, Bennett Engineering Group

Mr. Martin stated his company specializes in aluminum structures. He then stated for the last year he had been very much immersed in Florida Statute 489 and how it relates to engineering structures particular design and certainly in Chapter 20 of the Code. He further stated as a result he had recently submitted a draft of a complete rewrite of Chapter 20. He continued by stating what he did based on what he observed was try to organize it in a way it would be a little easier to follow, interpret, apply and perhaps omit some redundancies. He stated he submitted the document and had not heard anything back from staff yet but did not expect one anytime soon. He then stated he just wanted to let staff know it had been submitted.

Mr. Madani asked Mr. Martin who he submitted his document to.

Mr. Martin responded stating it was submitted by Bennett Engineering Group following the process spelled out on the website.

Mr. Madani asked for clarification if he submitted it through the code modification system.

Mr. Martin responded stating that was correct.

Mr. Madani stated the cycle has not ~~ended~~ started and if it was submitted it would be there when the review of the code changes takes place, if everything went right the review will take place around August or October.

C.W. MaComber, APA

Mr. MaComber asked for clarification from the Commission on modifications the TACS were going to be hearing in the next few months based on state agency recommendations defined in HB 849. He then stated in HB 849, a task signed last year, there were many items, but one of the items was addressing sun-setting Florida specific amendments. He further stated there were a few exceptions to that item, but the one he was concerned with was the exception to state agency regulations. He continued by stating the state agency regulations were basically rolled over every code update cycle and did not have to fall under the same criteria as the Florida specific amendments. He stated his question was if modifications were made to state agency regulations after the original adoption of those state agency regulations in the base Code were those changes subject to the sunset requirements of Florida specific amendments or do those changes roll over every three years also.

Ms. Adams stated this particular issue was a totally new one to her and she did not know what the answer was. She then stated she’d prefer to research the issue and respond later.

Mr. MaComber stated he would put it in writing for her.

Chairman Browdy thanked Mr. MaComber and stated once Ms. Adams has reviewed the issue he would receive a response.

COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES

Commissioner Gross asked if it was possible to get the 2010 Code through the Commission laptops.

Mr. Madani stated his announcement was there Codebooks available for the commissioners to take with them after the meeting. He then stated the cds would be distributed to the commissioners when they were available.

Chairman Browdy

ADJOURN

11:55a.m. adjourned.