MEETING

OF THE

FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

 

PLENARY SESSION MINUTES

JUNE 9, 2009

 

                                    APPROVED AUGUST 11, 2009

 

The meeting of the Florida Building Commission was called to order by Chairman Raul Rodriguez at 9:17a.m., Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at the Embassy Suites Hotel, Tampa, Florida.


 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

Raul L. Rodriguez, AIA, Chairman

Richard Browdy, Vice-Chairman

Jeffrey Gross

Angel Franco

Jeff Stone

James Goodloe

James K. Shock

Herminio Gonzalez

Robert G. Boyer

Drew W. Smith

Chris Schulte

Mark Turner

Randall J. Vann

Scott Mollan

Jon Hamrick

William Norkunas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kenneth L. Gregory

Joseph “Ed” Carson

Raphael R. Palacios

Paul D. Kidwell

Tim Tolbert

Dale Greiner

 

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:

Anthony M. Grippa

Hamid Bahadori

Doug Murdock, Adjunct Member

Craig Parrino, Adjunct Member

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

Rick Dixon, FBC Executive Director

Ila Jones, DCA Prog. Administrator

Jim Richmond, DCA Legal Advisor

Jeff Blair, FCRC Consensus Solutions

Mo Madani, Technical Svcs. Manager

                                                           


WELCOME

 

Chairman Rodriguez welcomed the Commission, staff and the public to Tampa for the June 2009 plenary session.  He stated there would not be a split plenary session for the June meeting, in order to provide additional time for key workgroup meetings.  He then stated the primary focus of the meeting was to conduct current rule development initiatives.  He stated the Commission would conduct three rule adoption hearings including the glitch code amendments and a cost effectiveness test for amending the Florida Energy Code. He then stated there would be two rule development workshops.  He thanked the stakeholders for their efforts at the Legislature on behalf of the Commission.  He also thanked DCA staff whose efforts helped minimize the negative impacts of staffing and funding.  He continued by stating the Commission budget did take a 10% cut and 2 staff positions were lost.  He stated although spending authority was reduced by 10% there remain insufficient funds to support the budget for fiscal year 2009-2010.  He further stated the reason was due to declining receipts from the building permit surcharge fund.  He stated the issue would be discussed further during the meeting.

 

Chairman Rodriguez explained if anyone wished to address the Commission on any of the issues being considered, they should sign the attendance sheet and as always, the Commission would provide an opportunity for public comment on each of the Commission’s substantive discussion topics.  He stated if anyone wanted to comment on a specific substantive Commission agenda item, they should go to the speaker’s table so the Commission knows they wish to speak. He concluded by stating public input was welcome, and should be offered before there is a formal motion on the floor.  He further stated there was an evaluation form available at the speaker’s table and welcomed anyone who would like to fill those out to do so.  He stated doing so would provide the Commission information on what it was doing right and what could be improved upon.

           

            COMMISSIONER SELF INTRODUCTIONS

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission would continue today with self introductions.  He further stated there had been a very active turnover of Commission appointments.  He stated the process of introductions began with Commissioner Gross.  He then stated the Commissioners who sat on the Commission for longer introduced themselves at the last Commission meeting.  He further stated those Commissioners who were recently appointed would do their introductions at this meeting. 

            Commissioner Boyer stated he represented the municipal county charter government in Florida.  He then stated he was employed by the Palm Beach County Building Department as a Codes and Products Training Coordinator this month.  He explained his position changes frequently with the economy.  He stated he had worked with Palm beach County for 24 years and had been involved with the Florida Building Code since it was in the development process.  He further stated he was a past president of the Building Officials Association of Florida and of the Building Officials Association of Palm Beach County.  He then stated he currently held standard licensing in inspection and plans review for all disciplines, a 102 license and a code administrator license.  He further stated he had served on many different committees, workgroups and TACs both within the state and nationally as well as the International Code Council and the Southern Building Code.   Commissioner Boyer stated he began in the field in the early 60’s growing up in an industrial town where he worked in heavy industrial for a few years before starting a side business and getting into residential work. He stated when he decided to relocate to Florida he made a total career change.  He worked 16 hours each day when he worked up north.  He then stated there was hope for anyone involved in the construction industry.  He stated the town he left in the mid-80s with a 29% unemployment rate had bumper stickers saying “last one out”, but the town had since bounced back. He further stated he had been married for 42 years, had served in the Army for a couple of years and there was not much more to tell.  He concluded by stating he was a friend to all and would work with everyone he could to do what was necessary to get to the Commission’s goals.

Commissioner Gregory stated he was president and part owner in Holland Commercial Pools in Orlando and stated he had been in the pool business for over 30 years.  He then stated he was like most pool contractors as he did not choose the career but sort of wound up in it.  He continued by stating after flying airplanes around the world a few years in the Air Force, he realized his education in electrical engineering had passed him by so he went back to school.  He stated while he was in school he worked for a friend of his cleaning pools.  He stated then after he graduated from UNLV he had made more money that year cleaning swimming pools than he could make working with ??, so he stayed with the pool business.  Commissioner Gregory continued by stating he had served on many national and local boards, the Florida Swimming Pool Association, and the APSP.  He stated he got involved with the Florida Building Commission back in 2002 when he was appointed to the Plumbing TAC and for the last seven years he had seen the tumultuous changeover in the industry.  He further stated he was proud to say the industry stuck in there and finally retained a seat for a swimming pool contractor on the Florida Building Commission.  He then stated he was honored when the United Pools Association and the Florida Pool Association and others supported his appointment.  He concluded by stating he was here to serve and hoped to bring that perspective to the Commission.

Commissioner Mollan stated he represented the mechanical contractors for the Florida Building Commission and was also a member of the Mechanical TAC.  He then stated he was born in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, about 40 miles outside of Chicago on October 21, 1957.  He further stated he spent the next 20 years in the Chicago area before moving to Atlanta, Georgia to escape the wonderful winters of Chicago.  He stated he started working in the air conditioning trade as a helper and over the next five years he worked in various projects both in and out of town.  He then stated in 1983 he moved to South Florida where he continued working in the air conditioning field becoming a state licensed air conditioning contractor in 1989.  He further stated in 1984 he started the air conditioning division at Advanced Roofing qualifying them as an air conditioning contractor.  He continued by stating the division had grown from one helper and himself to over 20 employees maintaining a fully functional service department as well as completing all roof related air conditioning work for Advanced Roofing.  He stated he had been married to his wife, Janet, for 22 years and they have one 14 year old daughter.  He further stated Janet works as an administrative assistant for the Broward County School Board and Megan recently graduated St. Andrews Catholic School and will be attending Cardinal Gibbons High School in the fall.  He then stated his family has lived in Coral Springs for over 20 years and they enjoy many outdoor activities.  He further stated in his spare time he coaches his daughter’s volleyball team.  He stated he was glad to have the opportunity to tell a little bit about himself and looked forward to working with the Commissioners in the future.

            Commissioner Palacios stated… inaudible first 30 seconds of his introductionthen came to the United States, went to Enwood Elementary School in Winter Haven.  He stated he moved to Miami and attended Ponce Junior High School, and graduated in 1967 from Coral Gables High School.  He further stated in 1971 he received a bachelor’s degree in engineering from the University of South Florida.  He stated he worked with First Mechanical Contractor from 1971 until 1983 when he opened his own company.  He continued by stating he was both a licensed mechanical contractor and a professional engineer.  He stated he was a past president of the local ASHRAE chapter and of the local Mechanical Contractors of America chapter.  He then stated from 1996-2002 he was with the Construction Industry Licensing Board and was chairman the last year.  He further stated he had been actively involved in the democracy movement and his wife was a human rights activist.   

            Commissioner Schock stated he had been appointed to the Commission to fill the remaining term of Christ Sanidas as a building official representative.  He further stated his term ends in January 2011 at which time he would be reappointed.  He continued by stating after high school he received an associate degree in architecture from the Pennsylvania Institute of Technology after he which he served in the in the Army Corp. of Engineers.  He stated after being honorably discharged from service he began work at United Engineers of Philadelphia and simultaneously began attending school at Drexler University.   He further stated he graduated from Drexler with a degree in Civil Engineering with a Structural major and an Environmental minor.  He then stated he left United Engineers 9 years later as a design supervisor where he had worked on projects of all types (anything from railroad design to the structural design of power plants).  He continued by stating when he left United Engineers he went IU Conversion systems as its structural engineer.  He stated he became registered as a structural engineer in several states including Florida.  He then stated he came to Florida to construct a facility for which he was the engineer of record.  He further stated he always felt the very best engineers who he gained experience from were the ones who had a combination of both field and office experience, which was a goal he wanted to achieve.  He then stated he spent the next 14 years in construction acting as construction manager on some projects and quality assurance inspector on others.  He continued by stating the projects included such things as N.A.S. Hospital, Jacksonville, N.A.S. Hospital, Portsmith, Plating Shop in Jacksonville, War Gaming Facility, Carlisle, PA, Post Tension Parking Structures in Virginia and Washington and the Naval Air School in Pensacola. 

            Commissioner Schock stated based on his design and construction experience he began work for the City of Jacksonville Building Department 13 years ago and had managed the division for the past 11 years.  He then stated at its peak there were 130 clerks, inspectors and plans examiners.  He continued by stating while he was a new Commissioner he was not new to the Commission.  He stated he had served on the Fire TAC almost since its inception, as well as the Private Provider Workgroups 1 & 2, Termite Workgroup, Window Labeling Workgroup, Hotel Accessibility Charette, Bedroom Definition Workgroup, Roofing Mitigation Workgroup, Soffitt Workgroup, Accessibility Rewrite Workgroup, Floodplain Workgroup, and the Green Building Group.  He further stated he had been recently appointed to the Structural TAC and the Hurricane Research Advisory Committee.  He continued by stating he was also certified as an inspector and plans examiner of all trades, a certified building official, and an ICC master code professional.  He stated he was a professional engineer, and a special inspector on threshold buildings.  He further stated he was the immediate past president of the First Coast Chapter BOAF and the past chairman of the St. Johns County Board of Appeals, for whom he was a continuing education provider for the Board of Engineers. He concluded by stating he had been in construction his whole life and he could not think of a better way to serve the public.  He stated he appreciated the friends he had met at the Commission and the people in the audience who show up every time.

Commissioner Stone stated he represented the building materials industry.  He then stated he started his professional career in northern Illinois in civil engineering where he worked for two consulting firms and eventually for the city of Aurora Engineering Department from 1965-1969.  He further stated he moved to Florida around Thanksgiving of 1969 and he went into the construction property maintenance and janitorial business with a friend and qualified for the ??? County Class B Builders License.  He then stated in 1976 he decided to become a City Manager, to that end he and several friends lobbied the University of South Florida to establish a Masters of Public Administration Degree.   He further stated in anticipation of the MPA degree he enrolled in the Master of Political Science program and within one year he was able to transfer his credits to the newly established MPA program.  He stated he graduated with honors in the initial class in 1979.    He continued by stating on the advice of friends to gain government in order to be prepared to be a City Manager he turned over his business to his partner and went to work for the City of St. Pete Beach as a building inspector in 1977.  He stated in a short time he was promoted to building official, planner, public works director and labor negotiator.  He further stated he became the Assistant City Manager although he was still director of licensing, inspection and planning. He then stated upon the departure of the city manager in 1986 he was promoted to city manager and remained city manager until he resigned in 1994 to venture into other realms including the possibility of attending a professorship at a university.  He continued by stating while at St. Pete Beach he continually strived to upgrade service delivery and continually tried to employ the theories he learned in college.  He stated, for example, he designed, obtained grants and oversaw the development of the vegetated dunes system along the gulf front.  He further stated the vegetated dune system resulted in a significant reduction of annual sand removal expenses and strengthened the communities’ resistance to storms and improved the environment.  He continued by stating interestingly he was forced to organize the volunteer effort of concerned citizens to actually plant and water the dunes because there was not enough money for the matching funds.  He then stated he had recommended and oversaw three cost savings conversions to privatizations while at St. Pete Beach which included the contracting of a garbage service, parks maintenance, and janitorial services. 

Commissioner Stone further stated he had organized a city effort to fund and develop and a regional reclaim water utility which services the communities of South Pasadena, St. Pete Beach and Terra Verde.  He then stated he had also instituted changes to the city’s administrative processes in an effort to improve communication and decision making with the administration, between the administrations and between the Commission and their boards. He stated he had established performance budgeting and it was the first time a small local government in the Pinellas County area had performance budgeting.  He then stated he instituted the use of the one page memo for communication.  He continued by stating he restricted staff and the decision making processes with the Commission and the elected boards.  He further stated he expected staff to provide unbiased information on good or bad issues and prohibited them from lobbying for positions which were beneficial to them or their limited constituencies.  He then stated he demanded staff provide useful, concise background information on issues that provided proper options and more options for consideration. 

Commissioner Stone stated when he was assistant city manager he considered being a full time professor since he had been teaching administration at USF since 1991.  He further stated a fellow graduate who was a member of the St. Pete police department and he enrolled in a pirate USF doctoral program in public administration.  He continued by stating fortunately they were able to take most courses at USF but in 1985 they were required to spend two fulltime semesters at FSU to serve a residency.  He stated while his friend was able to live on campus while taking a sabbatical, he had to commute between St. Pete Beach and Tallahassee in order to continue working nearly fulltime in order to support his family, typically leaving Sunday nights for Tallahassee attending classes Monday through Wednesday.  He then stated he would return to St. Pete Beach on Wednesday nights to review plans, issue building permits, and perform other administrative functions Thursday through Sunday.  He further stated his professors at FSU did not know he was commuting and when he took his comprehensive exams if they had known they would have prohibited him to continue. He stated he was working on his dissertation for about five years when the department threatened to kick him out of the program so in 1991 he closeted himself away in Hollywood for 10 days and wrote over 300 pages of a dissertation which went through one minor edit.  He stated in 1992 he was awarded his Ph.D. in public administration. 

Commissioner Stone stated his dissertation was on public controversies, primarily on the application of sound business practices in government.  He further stated he despised the bureaucratic behavior and poor decision making of typical governmental entities, which his dissertation addressed.  He then stated his professors encouraged him to rewrite the dissertation for popular consumption but before he could find time to do so the award winning book “Reinventing Government” hit the bookshelves and his opportunity was lost.  He continued by stating following his resignation from St. Pete Beach in 1994 he was contacted by the Southern Building Code Congress to write its 1994 commentary to the standard code.  He stated he had been very active in the SBCCI since the early 1980s serving as chair of one of the original windload committees.  He further stated he typed the original ??? to comply standard for single family dwellings and the initial draft of  SBCCI’s ???-10?.  He then stated within a few months of his departure from the city he was also contacted by the American Paper and Forest Association and by the DuPont Dumoors Company to represent their issues in hurricane resistive issues in code development.  He further stated he was also contacted by a national public management consulting firm to assist them in performing operation reviews and service studies of local governments from Florida to North Carolina.  He then stated in 1996 the APFA asked him to become full time to represent them in the southeast and internationally in codes and standards.  He further stated he worked with APFA until 2009 when he volunteered for a reduction in force.  He continued by stating since February 2009 he has had his own business and continued to represent APFA as a contractor in the standards development activities of ASTM’s E6 on sustainability and ASHRAE’s program committee 189.1, developing a standard for a High Performance Green Building.  He further stated his work with the Commission was strictly voluntary.  He concluded by stating he had been married to his junior high sweetheart for over 45 years and they have three lovely workaholic daughters and six loving grandchildren.  He then stated his wife was often called St. Linda and his code officials stated it was a comparison between her and himself. 

            Commissioner Smith stated he was representing the Green Building Industry on the Building Commission.  He then stated he was the president of Two Trails?, a green building consulting company based out of Sarasota.  He further stated he was a 1978 transplant from Troy, NY where he was born and raised and had been involved in the construction business his entire life.  He continued by stating he began his career very young in the building industry working with his dad who was also in construction.  He stated he also worked summers with his grandfather in the plumbing trade, starting when he was age 5.  He further stated he plumbed his first house with his grandfather at age 10.  He then stated he had architectural drafting and design all four years of high school, including designing a weight training room for the school his senior class year.  He continued by stating he received a drafting scholarship and continued with his college career.  He stated he received a B.A. in Architectural Design and as well as an MBA.  He further stated throughout college he worked for builders as a draftsman and also a superintendent.  He then stated while still in college he was given the opportunity to take his general contracting exam and he passed.  He continued by stating within 6 months he decided building homes would be more fun than just drawing them.  He stated at age 21 he built his first model home in the Pasco County Parade of Homes winning two awards, which started his career in the construction business off and running.  He further stated for the next 7 years he built homes and did major renovations on buildings, commercial and residential, throughout the Tampa Bay region.  He then stated in 1990 he was elected president of the Pasco County Builders Association, as the youngest builder to ever hold that title.  He continued by stating at that point he decided a change from field to office was needed and he went to work, still in the construction industry, as vice president of purchasing for a local custom home builder.  He stated during his career he had the opportunity to build homes to the American Lung Association Health House Standards and during that process he realized building a home to healthy standards was also going to become a very energy efficient home by virtue of the rigorous construction methods that were required. 

            Commissioner Smith he stated it was an eventful time in his life when he met and married his love and inspiration, his wife Debbie.  He further stated during that time he and other likeminded individuals got together and got involved in a new concept for the building industry, thus forming the Green Building Coalition in 2000, which he became the founding president its first two years.  He then stated over the next two years he developed, with the help of his wife, a company that took building to the next level and offered ongoing maintenance programs for “greening up” existing homes as well as maintaining the homes being built green to the same level of standards.  He continued by stating at that time the birth of Two Trails happened and has since evolved into one of the largest green building consulting firms in the state working on all levels and types of certifications.  He stated they worked with both the Florida Green Building Coalition programs as well as lead in NAHP programs.  He then stated through the past several years he had many opportunities to serve in many capacities in the Florida Building Industry including:  Director on the National Association of Home Builders, Florida Home Builders State Director, Vice-Chairman of the Florida Home Builders Association Green Building Council, Board of Directors of the Florida Green Energy Council, Trustee with the Florida Home Builders Association Foundation, and he was just nominated as 2008’s Builder of the Year in the Sarasota Building Industry Association, chairman of Manatee Sarasota Home Builders Association Green Council, chairman of the USGBC Myakka River Branch Lead for Homes Committee, and Lead AP on the board of directors for 7 years for the Green Building Coalition and he assisted several county and local governmental implementations of their green building ordinances.  He stated it had always been his passion to have a positive effect on people and the environment and he believed green building and being a part of the Florida Building Commission was his way of fulfilling that goal.

            Commissioner Tolbert stated he was 48 years old and had been in the building industry all of his life, his dad was a general contractor.  He then stated he graduated Milton High School in 1980 and attended Pensacola Junior College in 1984 and went to work as a construction superintendent.  He further stated in 1994 he was hired by Santa Rosa County as a building inspector, promoted to plans examiner in 1997, promoted to building safety coordinator in 2000, and promoted to the building official position in 2003.  He stated Hurricane Ivan hit in 2004 and it was trial by fire.  He then stated he had been married to his lovely wife Kelly for 17 years and they have three children Ned, Coy and Neely Kay?? He concluded by stating he appreciated serving on the Florida Building Commission.

            Commissioner Turner stated he was on the Florida Building Commission representing the electrical contractors of Florida.  He then stated he was born in Detroit, Michigan in 1958 and moved to steel country of Glen Park, Indiana when he was 5 years old, which was where he grew up.  He continued by stating he enlisted in the US Army in 1977 and was honorably discharged after four years of service.  He stated during his enlistment he met his best friend and his wife of 31 years, with whom he has two children.  He then stated he started his first business as a general contractor while he was still in the US Army in Denver, Colorado.  He further stated in 1974 his wife wanted to move back home to Holley Nevar, Florida and when they moved he began a small contracting company, which he sold in 1987 so he could attend college fulltime.  He stated in 1991 he graduated from the University of West Florida with a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and an Industrial Technology degree.  He further stated while attending college and after he graduated he worked as a co-op engineer for Gulf Power as a distribution engineer and began his present company in August of 1992. He continued by stating currently his most important job was to pray for work and pray for payment for the work that is done.  He stated he has served as the president of northwest Florida Electrical Contractors and Association and the Board of Appeals of Santa Rosa County, under Commissioner Tolbert.  He stated he attends the local IAEE.  He then stated his hobbies include gardening, playing guitar, and riding his motorcycle wherever he can.  He further stated he played guitar for the praise and worship team of his church and he rides his motorcycle with a group they call the Broken Chain Freedom Riders.  He stated the group rides to jails and prisons telling inmates there was always hope in every circumstance of life they find themselves.  He further stated weekly he participates as a mentor for 24-30 boys most of which do not have active father figures in their lives and the goal of the mentoring program was to teach them skills which would give them a chance in growing up to be productive men in society.  He concluded by stating he was honored to serve on the Commission and it was his desire to play an active and productive role. 

            REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

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

 

            (audio break…)

 

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

 

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

 

REVIEW AND APPROVE APRIL 20, 2009 AND APRIL 27, 2009 TELECONFERENCE MEETING REPORTS, AND APRIL 7, 2009 MEETING MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S REPORT

 

Chairman Rodriguez called for approval of the minutes from the April 20, 2009 and April 27, 2009 teleconference reports and the April 7, 2009 meeting minutes and facilitator’s report.

 

Commissioner Carson stated correction of his company name

 

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

           

            CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

            (return of audio…)

 

            …working at the right hand of Mr. Madani.  He asked if Mr. Madani would like to say a couple of things about Betty. 

           

            Mr. Madani stated Betty had been his right arm and his left one too.  He further stated she had been very dedicated and committed the work she has done, helping the Commission through the entire process of the development of the Florida Building Code putting together binders for the Commission meeting, which were so numerous once a truck had to be rented to get them to the Commission meeting.  He then stated one thing about Betty was she never says no and always supported everyone and always takes on more than she can handle.  He stated he would miss her and the Commission will miss her. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated all of the Commission would miss Betty, but wished her well in her retirement.  He then stated because of budget restrictions he was happy to say there would not be a plaque, which he did not feel should necessarily be given to someone like her, taking the hearts of those who work with her instead of a plaque.

 

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

 

Flood Resistance Standards Workgroup

           

Phillip Wisely representing historic buildings and Tom Allen representing BOAF have both been appointed to the Flood Resistance Standard Workgroup.

 

Energy TAC

 

Brent Caldwell was appointed to replace Don Kitner on the Energy TAC.

 

Plumbing TAC

 

            Jim Bickford was appointed to the Plumbing TAC.

 

            Accessibility TAC and Accessibility Code Workgroup

 

            Catherine Powell was appointed to the Accessibility TAC succeeding Pam Darworth

 

            Chairman Rodriguez then addressed the impact the so-called Chinese Gypsum board was having on the industry.  He stated it was safe to say not all Chinese board was contaminated but all of the contaminated drywall discovered to date has its origins in China.  He continued by stating the Commission was now formally involved along with DCA in Florida’s action plan for addressing the issue.  He then stated testing has to be completed and the causes fully identified but the Commission has been asked to evaluate the gypsum board standard and to make changes needed to prevent the problem from happening again, possibly through code amendments on the 2010 code update process.  He further stated DCA was currently in discussions with relevant state agencies including the Department of Health, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Division of the State Fire Marshall and the Department of Environmental Protection.   He continued by stating what was known to date was sulphuric acids appear to be causing corrosion of copper including the copper coils in HVHZ air handlers.  He stated in some cases the copper coils have had to be replaced three times in a year, which was pretty aggressive.  He then stated there were health and safety concerns including respiratory problems, concerns with electrical wiring, gas plumbing and low voltage wiring such as fire alarms.  He continued by stating ASTM was currently reviewing the materials standard which currently does not address sulphur content in gypsum.  He further stated other agencies were evaluating the issue and conducting tests with no definitive conclusions to date.  He then stated once the problem chemical compounds were identified and quantified the materials standards can be adjusted to resolve the problem.  He concluded by stating this was in the news and people may ask what the Commission was doing about it and the answer would be once the problems were precisely identified the Commission will be asked to revise the standard.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez then stated one of the most important issues the Commission would be addressing at the June meeting would be the streamlining of Commission proceedings and adjusting fees.  He then stated everyone was aware of the economic situation which has resulted in a declining state budget as well as reduced permit surcharge receipts during the past year.  He further stated the Commission had made changes to its processes to adapt to a reduced budget and would likely need to continue operating in this mode for at least the coming year.  He continued by stating the Commission meetings had been moved from 3 day meetings every 6 weeks to 2 day meetings every 8 weeks and most of the TACs and POCs were meeting by teleconferences when the complexity of the issues being addressed allowed it.  He then stated further adjustments will be necessary as the coming fiscal year of 2009-2010.  He stated there was a move in the Legislature to reduce the Commission’s budget by 50% including more than a 50% reduction in staff.  He continued by stating the Commission survived the Legislative budget cutting plan and on behalf of the Commission he thanked the industry groups who lobby Legislators on behalf of the Commission.   He stated he did not want to leave any organizations or parties out of the appreciations but would like to thank the building owners and managers industry as well as the home builders industry for their support, as well as other construction groups who were helpful.  He then thanked DCA, who came up with a budget plan supported by the Senate which ultimately prevailed in the Legislature and provided the Commission the opportunity to maintain what was considered a viable level of service to the industry and to the public.  He further stated it was a very important point to understand that a budget developed by DCA was based on increasing the fee structure which was something no one liked to ever do, much less during hard times.  He stated the Commission had to increase fees in order to provide funding for the Commission operations.  He continued by stating the Legislature agreed to provide the spending authority in the budget, but did not provide funds from the general state taxes.  He then stated Ila Jones would explain the budget challenge more thoroughly later in the meeting, but the bottom line was building construction was down so the regular revenue sources would not provide enough cash to match the spending authority and as a result the Commission would have to make additional adjustments.  He further stated recognizing there would be even less resources than last year meant the Commission would have to adjust its processes again and the fee structure.  He continued by stating at the April meeting a committee of Commissioners were appointed to evaluate Commission processes not only for streamlining opportunities but also for ways the Commission could maintain its traditional services with less funding.  He then stated the Product Approval POC discussed product approval fees adjustments as well and DCA has initiated modifying other fees which Ms. Jones would describe.  He further stated the Commission’s Processes Review Ad Hoc Committee discussed modifying the code development process to continue to be responsive and timely while working with reduced resources.  He concluded by stating the Commission was aware any changes it made would have an impact on industry as it would impact code officials.   He further stated he wanted to be clear before any final decisions would be made much less implemented there would be ample opportunities provided for stakeholder interests to provide their comments either through the rule workshops or hearings or through comment opportunities provided during separate agenda items.  He then stated as a result of reduced Commission meetings and decreased funding some of his concerns moving forward were:  1) maintaining timely product approvals 2) maintaining timely code interpretation for industry and code officials and 3) maintaining the Florida Building Codes consistency with national codes and standards. He stated he would look forward to hearing the committee reports and their recommendations.   

 

            Chairman Rodriguez then stated Ila Jones would explain the budget issues. He stated the Commission would then discuss each specific issue under agenda items including discussing product approval fees during product approval rule development workshop.  

 

            Ila Jones

           

            Ms. Jones stated the 2009 Legislature did appropriate $3 million to fund the Florida Building Commission activities for the fiscal year 2009-2010.  She further stated there was an immediate $350,000.00 reduction compared to the funding the Commission received last fiscal year.  She explained  2.2 positions comparable to $95,000.00 had been deleted, OPS reduced by $125,000.00, and another category used to fund a BOAF contract in another appropriation category was reduced for $142,000.00 which came up to a reduction of about $350,000.00 for this year’s budget.  She then stated she had provided the Commission with a Cash Analysis for the 2009/2010 budget.   She then presented the report of the Cash Analysis 2009/2010 budget.  (See Cash Analysis for the 2009/2010 budget)

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked if $800,000.00 would have to be raised through Product Approval. 

 

            Ms. Jones responded stating $800,000.00 was the hole that has to be collected.  She further stated it was the $800,000.00 needed for the Commission’s budget and it did not include the fees needed to cover the administrators funding.

 

            Commissioner Norkunas stated he was aware of the staff positions that were cut, but he wondered if there could be a sense of the Commission for raises for the staff.  He further stated he knew budgeting was tough but at the end of the day it costs more to do everything. He asked the Commission to make a request because of the quality of the staff a raise would be in order.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission could make the request.  He then stated he believed it would sound familiar because a lot of the Commissioners run their own businesses and a lot of people were happy at present to have just retained their jobs.  He further stated he knew of many businesses, not only his firm, but plenty of businesses were down to 4 day weeks with 80% pay.  He continued by stating the feeling was it had taken a long time to assemble the team and the team did not want to lose members.  He concluded by stating the Commission would be happy to go on record supporting the quality of work the staff had been performing. 

 

            Ms. Jones stated she appreciated the comment and the intent, but at present staff was happy to have a job and money has to be appropriated through the Legislature.

 

            REVIEW AND UPDATE OF COMMISSION WORKPLAN

 

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

 

            Mr. Dixon stated he would only be addressing changes or additions to the workplan.  He stated task 49 was added and noted there was a significant incident management activity at the state led by the Department of Health on Chinese Drywall that will be transitioned fairly quickly to other agencies as soon as the health related factors were determined.  He stated Chinese Drywall was causing significant problems for homes.  He then stated the definitive problem was the effect of sulfur gases and possibly other acidic compounds on copper in mechanical systems and on copper wiring which raised concerns about potential fire hazards.  He continued by stating there were concerns about significant building related issues and respective health issues.  He further stated the Commission was the agency within the state government to look to for a determination for what would be done about the copper corrosion related problems.  He stated the Commission had been put on the workplan for the incident management team along with other state agencies assigned by the governor’s office.

 

Mr. Dixon stated the second task added to the workplan was an expansion of an existing Energy Workgroup task.   He further stated the heart of that the task was to establish a plan for how to achieve energy efficiency improvements for the Florida Building Code as required in statute and added by HB7135.

 

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

 

CONSIDER ACCESSIBILITY WAIVER APPLICATIONS

 

Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Leslie Anderson-Adams for consideration of the Accessibility Waiver Applications. 

 

Commissioner Norkunas stated  Rule 9B-7.003 stated a Commissioner could remove applications from the consent agenda and  he requested  #’s 4 and 7 be removed and considered at the end.

 

Ms. Adams stated due to the lack of a quorum the council made individual recommendations to the Commission as provided in Rule 9B-7.003(4).

 

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

 

Recommendation for Approval with No Conditions:

 

#2 United Way of the Big Bend

                                                 

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 applicant’s demonstration that provision of vertical accessibility would create an economic hardship as specified in Section 553.512(1).  She further stated the council noted due to the unique characteristics of the lot on which the building was situated each floor already had an accessible entrance at ground level.

 

#3 The Palms Hotel and Spa

 

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 applicant’s demonstration that the provision of full vertical accessibility to the existing front entrance would create an unreasonable hardship in that it would threaten or destroy the historic significance of the building.  She further stated a new alternate entrance would be provided at the site of the building and the existing lift at the front entrance would remain in place.  She then stated it was also noted the new accessible site entrance would provide a safer and more pedestrian friendly way to enter the building which did not involve crossing the steeply sloped driveway of the front entrance.

 

#8 Island Water Sports

 

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 to the extent a waiver was actually necessary in that the applicant demonstrated vertical accessibility would create an unnecessary hardship because the sole use of the mezzanine would be as a storage space which falls into the category of exemption to vertical accessibility as provided in Section 553.509(2).

 

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation for approval of the consent agenda for items 2, 3, and 8. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Recommendation for Approval with Conditions:

 

# 5 New England Coast Middle School

 

Mr. 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 applicant’s demonstration that provision of vertical accessibility to all rows of the retractable bleacher system was technically infeasible and would create an unreasonable hardship.  She further stated the recommendation was based on the condition that the accessible seats would not be located on the ends of any of the rows and a companion seat would be provided next to each accessible seat.  

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

 

Deferrals

 

#1 Muvico Theaters Cocowalk

 

Ms. Adams stated the application was requested for deferral by the applicant.  She further stated the Council recommended the consideration of the waiver request be deferred until August 2009.

 

#9 Dick Brown Park

 

Ms. Adams stated no one was present to represent the owner/applicant and the email of diagrams was difficult, if not impossible, to be opened and could not be shared with council members. She further stated some information was unavailable regarding the location of the accessible seats and the total number of seats.  She then stated for those reasons the council recommended the application be deferred until August to allow the applicant time to get more information.

 

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

 

#6 The Urbana Retail Tenant Building

 

Ms. Adams stated there were individuals who wished to speak regarding the applicant. 

 

Larry Schneider, AIA 

 

Mr. Schneider stated he was an architect accessibility consultant brought on board for the project at the 11th hour.  He stated the waiver before the Commission was a brand new one story office building.  He then stated if an “L” was laid down at the intersection of a street, the parking would be on the top of that building, as well as in the back.  He continued by stating the waiver request was based on the issue of vertical accessibility to all levels.  He stated under 553.512 a waiver was allowed to be granted based on the determination of unnecessary, unreasonable or extreme hardship.  He then stated, in his opinion, the applicant inadvertently asked for a hardship license and under new construction there was no hardship.  He further stated the request for the waiver was under unreasonable and unnecessary, not as a hardship.  He continued by stating as the requirement vertical accessibility indicates shall be provided to all levels above and below the occupyable grade level for the building structure or facility. He stated this was a proposed one story retail building which has its parking located on the grade and on the roof.  He then stated the site constraints to make this a viable project required the rooftop parking, which makes it an interesting anomaly.  He further stated in his time dealing with the Commission this was the first time he’d ever seen an application like this come before the Commission with a waiver request.  He continued by stating all of the accessible parking required for the site was 3 spaces and all 3 were on grade and all are open to the air.  He stated there were eight accessible on grade of which 3 were on grade and 5 street side parking therefore there was adequate grade level parking.  He then stated all accessible parking was on grade and the accessible parking was located directly by the building. 

 

Mr. Schneider then stated when looking at the requirements of the Florida Accessibility Code and the ADA the thing he was looking at was an accessible route.  He further stated an accessible route was required to connect accessible elements of the building and accessible parking spaces.  He then stated federal law in Florida requires the same for both of these types of conditions and he believed their client has compliance under those requirements.  He further stated under the access board Technical Bulletin #6 which asks “Must accessible parking spaces be provided in each parking lot or on each level of parking garages?”  He then stated the answer posted was “no.” He then stated basically all accessible parking was provided in one area or on one level. He further stated if considering the structure of a normal parking garage the accessible parking was usually provided on the first floor on grade because of the height issues.  He continued by stating the accessible parking did not need to be both on grade and on the roof because it was all allowed to be on the first floor.  He stated the site was in Jacksonville Beach and on the site plan there was 2nd Avenue North on the right and 3rd Street North on the bottom left i.e. at an intersection.  He further stated there were 10 tenant bays in a very small parking center. He then stated the shaded areas were where the parking areas were and in the center there was a dark area with a line in there which basically was the ramp going up to the building.  He continued by stating at the bottom of the screen the 5 accessible parking spaces were visible on the street.  He then referenced the first floor plan where the 3 accessible spaces were in the upper right hand corner and above those were the additional parking spaces.  He continued by stating there was a path of travel from the accessible parking spaces between the buildings.  He noted the center off to the left there was a corridor that goes through the building to the front providing total access.  He then stated access was being provided, accessibility complied with, and all possible elements within the structure were going to be compliant and accessible therefore the question comes down to the 2nd floor and the Florida specific.  He then referenced a view of the roof, which was parking.  He showed the 2 sets of stairs providing access down and above the center was the ramp going up to the parking.  He concluded by stating the parking was located in 3 areas: rooftop, on grade, and street side parking.

 

Mr. Richmond asked if the original application indicated financial hardship.

 

Mr. Schneider responded stating yes, but that was not what his client should have been applying for.  He stated the council had recommended denial based on a hardship.

 

Mr. Richmond asked if the council had heard his argument.

 

Mr. Schneider responded stating no, there had been no discussion regarding unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

Mr. Richmond stated he believed as a matter of deference to the council it should be sent back to them to see this argument and make a recommendation on the particular items.

 

Commissioner Greiner stated with due respect to the council he moved approval for deferral to send it back to the council.

 

Commissioner Smith entered a second to the motion.

 

Commissioner Browdy stated he thought it should be noted there were only three members of the council present.  He further stated while he would not object to sending it back to the council, if there were only 3 members present in August he would hope it could move forward and allow the Commission to move expeditiously on it given the fact 3 members do not make a quorum.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated he agreed with Commissioner Browdy but one of the reasons to send it back would be to allow the council the benefit of Mr. Schneider’s testimony. 

 

Mr. Richmond stated the council was structured to move forward in its rules in the absence of a quorum, unlike the Commission itself they can make collective individual recommendations so the projects do not get stalled by that requirement. 

 

Mr. Schneider stated he appreciated those comments and those were one of the reasons his client decided to bring it forward to the Commission since there was no quorum at the council. 

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

#4 Fire Rescue Station #64

 

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council members present recommended a waiver be granted for Florida Building Code Accessibility requirements as to the second floor fire fighters’ dormitories and restrooms to the extent that such requirements conflict with Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). She further stated the recommendation was based on the applicants demonstration that compliance with Florida Standards as adopted in the Florida Building Code would create an unnecessary hardship because Florida’s requirements are inconsistent with and preclude the city from designing the building in compliance with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. 28CFR Section 35.151 allows public entities, Title 2 entities, to choose between compliance with either UFAS or ADAG standards to the extent that Florida adoption of ADAG standards into the Florida Building Code conflicts UFAS and becomes a Florida specific requirement the Building Commission can waive upon a showing of hardship. 

 

#7 Winter Haven Fire Safety Complex

 

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the 2 of the council members recommended a waiver be granted of the accessibility requirements to the 2nd floor firefighters’ dormitories and restrooms for the reasons previously explained in  #4 Fire Rescue Station 64.  She then stated the other council member recommended the application be deferred until the August 2009 Commission meetings to allow further research of the interplay between UFAS and the Florida Building Code requirements.  She further stated all council members agreed it would be helpful to obtain additional information.

 

Commissioner Norkunas moved approval of denial of both #4 and #7. Commissioner Hamrick entered a second to the motion. 

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked Ms. Adams what the recommendation from the three members of the council had been on these.   

 

Ms. Adams responded stating for #4 Fires Station 64, the recommendation was to grant the waiver and for #7, Winter Haven Fire Safety Complex, two recommended granting the waiver ad the third recommended deferring until August 2009.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked the rationale for granting the waivers.

 

Ms. Adams stated to the extent Florida specific Accessibility requirements prevent the public entities from designing the building in compliance with UFAS they are Florida specific requirements that can be waived.  She further stated UFAS contained an exemption provision for areas of a building which houses employees who meet specific physical abilities to perform their job. 

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked Commissioner Norkunas if he wanted to state the reasons he recommended denial.

 

Commissioner Norkunas stated when decisions like these are made he sends out emails to 1,200-1,800 people on mailing lists which he had developed for people with disabilities and organizations around the state over the last 19 years.  He further stated the comments the Commission would hear come from scores of people who share the opinion these waivers should be denied.  He then stated he notice how full the audience was at the meeting and he had not seen it so full since there was discussion of changing the wind velocity zones in the panhandle. He further stated when those individuals come forward and speak on issues such as interior design or the swimming pool issues they make an impact. He continued by stating when dealing with individuals who have ambulatory disabilities it was difficult to fill a room with individuals simply because of the difficulty in travel.  He stated if the room could be filled with 15-25 individuals in wheelchairs speaking their turn it may have more of an impact on the Commission than his voice.  

 

Commissioner Norkunas stated before the firefighters put their first foot in the door it has to be designed and inspected.  He further stated an inspector with a disability would not be able to get up to the second floor.  He then stated they had a very prestigious chairman of the Waiver Council, Neil Mellick, who is legally blind.  He continued by stating if he were going to tell a group of people he would be designing a home and take his detailed architectural plans to a blind man for review he wondered what the response would be.  He further stated Mr. Mellick’s handicap did not have any effect on his ability to do his job and be one of the most effective building officials in the state of Florida.  He then stated another element which Rule 9B-7003 speaks to “the denial of a waiver should be applicable only to the project tin the request and no waiver shall stand as precedent for any other project or projects.”

He stated when he brought the argument to the waiver council their argument was they had heard the case before.  He further stated when he brought them new information and there was a difference between the first fire station and the other which was no unanimous.  He continued by stating no one there believed those with disabilities can be firefighters, but they could assist or support the firefighters and others who visited and used the facilities.  He further stated no one he works with or argues for was maintaining they wanted equality with the firefighters, in fact that want equality of a building.   He then stated when new fire stations were built in Ft. Lauderdale the old ones did not get used.  He asked what was later done with those buildings: sell them, donate them, used for other city or county functions. He stated if there were no elevator there they would become unusable.  He further stated the core argument was the two standards and contrary to what council mentioned there were no exceptions in UFAS.  He then stated he believed counsel may have meant was UFAs has a section 4.1.4(5) dealing with fire stations and states ”the application of the Code should apply to all areas of the fire station intended for use by the public or which may result in the employment physical handicapped people…   He further stated there was no exception there or the exception was really the fact there won’t be folks with physical disabilities.  He continued by stating he had tried to raise his voice many times on similar issues and he was just not as effective as he wished he was.  He then stated he had brought each commissioner a letter written by the assistant attorney general.  He then read several points from the letter (Please see letter dated March 24, 1999 signed by the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division and updated on July 25, 2008.)   He concluded by stating the project was a $3,500,000.00 project and the other was multi-million dollars and it would be a small percentage to put the elevator in and on the day the fire fighters no longer use the building it could be used for other facilities.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked if anyone was there on behalf of the applicants.

 

No one was present for applicants.

 

Commissioner Hamrick stated he was sitting in the Council’s meeting when this came up.  He further stated as Commissioner Norkunas read from the letter he began to think of all the people who could not visit a fire house.  He then stated he was not sure how a fire house worked and had probably never been in one.  He knew children often toured fire houses and this would automatically deny access to a child who had physical disabilities access to the second floor and the ability to tour the fire house.  He stated he also thought of dignitaries who may come to opening ceremonies, open houses where public was invited and were the firefighters families invited to see where dad works.  He then stated it would be denying public access to a Title 2 entity where access was supposed to be provided to all Title 2 entities.   

 

Commissioner Franco stated he was in support of Commissioner Norkunas’ motion.  He further stated he believed all new buildings no matter what its uses should have access.  He then stated he wanted to point out fire fighting was a dangerous, intense profession with a great risk of the fire fighter getting hurt.  He further stated if an injured fire fighter required crutches, braces or wheelchair during recovery even he would not have access to the 2nd floor and other members of his squad. 

 

Robert Fine

 

Mr. Fine stated he was speaking as a member of the public. He then stated he was not speaking in any disagreement with Commissioner Norkunas but when people apply for waivers they were told if they were approved the first day they were not required to come the second day. He further stated he comes because it was his job and he knows how the process works, but if people come unrepresented, as those fire stations did, they don’t know they could have left yesterday with recommendations for granting and then get a note in a few days stating they were denied by the Commission which could raise potential due process issues.  He then stated people need to be told by staff, who acts in the best of intentions because they are small businesses and there are costs to stay over.  He further stated if the people aren’t here and they get denied there could be some potential due process issues if that was what staff routinely tells people. He then stated if it were deferred or denied without prejudice until the next meeting then the applicant represent and not just be blindsided with a denial and they did not know they were supposed to be present.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated he did not know who was telling people if they get yes answers they just come up because that was not the record.  He further stated most of the motions at the Commission were in support of the council and this was not.

 

Mr. Fine stated if it weren’t so much a normal course of business where it was said virtually every time and the representatives would know they had a hearing on the 2nd day and things had a real likelihood of changes those individuals would probably be at the meeting speaking for themselves.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated the recommendations were made to the Commission and the Commission made the decision and any assumption otherwise would be unwise.

 

Commissioner Carson asked if the applicants were represented yesterday.

 

Ms. Adams responded stating there was a representative from the Fire Rescue Station #64, but not for the Winter Haven Fire Safety Complex.

 

Commissioner Norkunas stated he spent an inordinate amount of time after the meeting with the representative from Fire Rescue Station #64 and he was unaware of the letters from the Department of Justice, because he stated it might have made a change.  He then stated the representative was informed.  He further stated he presented the same argument to the representative and recommended he attend the Commission meeting.

 

Commissioner Greiner stated the situation had been looked at for some time.  He further stated there had been a lot of fire stations approved and there had been a lot of fire stations built with and without elevators.  He then stated in the interest of trying to determine what the real answer was he recommended it be deferred and send it back to the Council to let them research it and get all of the necessary data to make an intelligent decision.  He stated there was obviously something in use that could go both ways and an answer which was more definitive than what has been done.

 

Commissioner Carson asked for an explanation of the last sentence on the overhead screen.  He further stated he agreed with Commissioner Greiner because based on that sentence it would appear a deferral would be in order. 

 

Commissioner Goodloe stated he was in support for deferral and sending it back to the Council because he had lived in fire stations as a fire fighter and can understand the arguments on both sides of the issue.  He further stated there was a lot of information which would lead him to vote to deny.

 

Commissioner Browdy stated he had wanted to hear from Commissioner Goodloe and certainly respected his opinion.  He further stated he realized the Commission never set precedent but fire stations were all typically viewed in one light and he was afraid if the decision were made precipitously it may not have the weight it deserved.  He then stated he would also support a deferral in concurrence with Commissioner Greiner and Commissioner Goodloe.

 

Mr. Richmond stated there were basically two procedural mechanisms which could be utilized to achieve a deferral at this point.  He then stated the maker of the motion and the second of the motion could withdraw the motion or accept a friendly amendment of deferral or he could table the motion until the next Commission meeting with direction to have further input from the Council at that meeting.

 

Commissioner Greiner asked if the Commission could vote on the current motion and not accept it and then make a new motion for deferral.

 

Mr. Blair stated a substitute motion could also be made simultaneously.  He further stated it would be more complicated but it could be done.

 

Commissioner Norkunas stated he would reluctantly accept the amendment to his motion as long as the record indicated he had requested denial of the waivers. He then stated sitting around the room were some of the smartest people there were in their various fields and he had stated many times when he did not know an answer the chairman had stated he must vote.  He stated to make his decision to vote when he was not sure of the answer he looked to the commissioner in that particular field of expertise for guidance.  He then stated he felt the issue should be voted on by the Commission because the principal criteria required to be appointed to the Accessibility Council was to have a disability.  He continued by stating it would be sent back to individuals who struggled with it the first time because they were not engineers or fire fighters.  He then stated maybe another friendly amendment was in order.

 

Mr. Richmond stated that was the reason he had suggested tabling the current motion so it would keep the posture of denying the waiver which keeps it evident to the potential applicants.

 

Commissioner Norkunas stated that was fine.

 

Commissioner Stone moved approval to table the motion to deny until the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.

 

Commissioner Norkunas stated he had thought about making his motion with an exception, i.e. the applicant could go ahead and do what it would like except in the areas of the fire fighters, with the condition when it stopped being a fire station an elevator would be required.  He then stated that could be 20 years down the road and no one would remember this and when they eventually left the building the people would come back before the Commission looking for a waiver and stating it was built 20 years ago and would then cost them $100,000.00.  He further stated he had found no way to offer that in a motion.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated he believed Commissioner Norkunas was right and unless he heard compelling testimony at the next meeting he was convinced by the evidence he had presented that it would be wise to consider the different individuals mentioned who might require the access and it was true with the scope of the project it would be a small addition.  He then stated in an abundance of caution what Commissioner Norkunas graciously accepted was tabling his motion and it gives the Commission an opportunity to hear more information and hopefully have the full Council.  He further stated if the applicants felt the same they would either come or not and pursue it before a full council.

 

Commissioner Greiner stated this would allow testimony in August with respect to pros and cons.  He asked if it would allow Council to discuss it in their meeting and provide information to the Commission.  

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Commissioner Norkunas thanked the chairman stating his words were always comforting.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated it would be two months but at that time not only would the Commission have all of the information it needed but also the information the Council might need for future applications. 

 

Commissioner Franco stated someone had stated the applicant may remove their request.  He then stated if they did remove their request he believed the Commission should still discuss the fire station issue. 

 

Commissioner Rodriguez stated the common wisdom today would be to avoid two-story fire stations where the property allows.  He further stated that was a 2nd year design problem for his school because of the circulation issues that had to be resolved.  He stated fire stations continue to be a very interesting design assignment although they were usually not huge projects.

 

Commissioner Franco stated the fire stations he had designed were required to be accessible.

 

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND ENTITY APPROVAL

 

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

 

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

 

            CER-1497 Intertek Testing Services NA Inc. - ETL/Warnock Hersey

 

            CER-1508 Window and Door Manufacturers Association

 

            CER-1840 FM Approvals – CER

 

            CER-6750 Architectural Testing, Inc.

 

            TST-1509 Intertek Testing Services NA Ltd.

 

            TST-1987 RADCO, Inc.

 

            TST-1999 Construction Testing Corporation

 

            TST-2542 Terrapin Testing, Inc.

 

            TS-T8039 Quest Consulting and Testing, Inc.

 

            QUA-3096 CI Professional Services, Inc.

           

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

 

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

 

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

           

Mr. Blair presented the following products for consideration individually:

 

            11484-R1 Pella Corporation

 

            Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needed to remove listing of products and provide a single certificate for the product on application. 

 

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

 

12459 Pella Corporation

 

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needed to remove listing of products and provide a single certificate for the product on application.

 

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

 

12599 Pella Corporation

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

 

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

 

12602 Pella Corporation

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

 

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

 

12017 USA Shutter Company LLC

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial.

 

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

 

12523 United Steel Products Company

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was withdrawn by the applicant.

 

822-R2 United Steel Products Company

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

 

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

 

9362-R2 Flesher Windows, Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needed to remove note from product of .1 and the use of IG glass on application to match the certification.

 

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

 

10791-R1 Traco Windows and Doors, Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

 

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

 

12422 Traco Windows and Doors, Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needed to indicate yes for use outside the HVHZ.

 

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

 

12423 Traco Windows and Doors, Inc.

12424 Traco Windows and Doors, Inc.

12429 Traco Windows and Doors, Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needed to indicate "Yes" for use outside HVHZ.

 

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

 

12497 Loewen Windows

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needed to indicate on limits of use:  For use within HVHZ product shall not be used above 30 ft. height.

 

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

 

3848-R3 Bell-View, Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval stating the applicant needed to indicate for products 3848.1 and 3848.2 remove note indicating "glass thickness may vary according to ASTM E1300 glass chart requirements" or indicate not for use within HVHZ.

 

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

 

5368-R1 Neogard Division of Jones Blair

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needed to provide QA Agency contract.

 

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

 

5889-R1 Shwinco Industries Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to provide installation drawings with the mullion material as tested and evaluated.

 

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

 

8947-R1 Palram Americas, Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant to indicate on Installation Drawings Note 6.1:  This panel is not to be exposed or permanently attached to structure.

 

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

 

11656 Graham Architectural Products

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needed to revise glazing detail and bill of materials to indicate sealant type as tested.

 

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

 

12455 Applied Solar, Inc.

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant 1.Upload drawings to the evaluation outlining the dimensions. 2. Provide calculations as an uplift system through RAS 127. 3. Provide evidence of testing to ASTM E-108.    

 

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

 

12450 Lookout Shutters Incorporated

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needed to provide test reports to Administrator to verify that product was tested in accordance with evaluation.

 

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

 

12469 Centurion Security Screen Co, LTD

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant revise the evaluation report to provide proper testing laboratory name.

 

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

 

12516 Speyer Door and Window, Inc.

 

 Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant revise evaluation reports for to provide proper subcategory.

 

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

 

12109 Four Seasons Solar Products LLC

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended conditional approval stating the applicant to revise application to indicate “This product may be used in HVHZ provided the requirements of Section 1609.1.2 and 2413 of the 2007 FBC are met.”

 

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

 

10495 –R1 Automatic Stamping, LLC

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

 

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

 

            6223-R1

 

            Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral as requested by applicant.

           

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

 

7809-R2

 

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral as requested by the applicant.

 

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

 

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR ACCREDITOR AND COURSE APPROVAL

 

Accreditor Approvals

 

There were no applications for Accreditor to be approved.

 

Course Approvals

 

Commissioner Browdy stated there were four courses being submitted

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

 

Advanced Course For Pool Contractors – The 2007 Florida Building Code, BCIS  Course #359.0

 

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

 

2007 Florida Accessibility Code For Building Construction – Advanced, BCIS Course #356

 

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

 

Advanced Code Module Course For Electricians, BCIS Course #349

 

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

 

Advanced Code Module Course For Electricians – Online, BCIS Course #350

 

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

 

Commissioner Browdy then stated the following courses were administratively approved:

 

Advanced FBC Enforcement and Education, BCIS Course #169.1

Advanced FBC Enforcement and Education, BCIS Course #170.1

Advanced FBC: Florida Building Commission, BCIS Course #179.1

Advanced FBC: Florida Building Commission, BCIS Course #178.1

Advanced FBC Permits and Applications, BCIS Course #172.1

Advanced FBC Permits and Applications, BCIS Course #173.1

Advanced Florida Building Code, BCIS Course #175.1

Advanced Florida Building Code, BCIS Course #176.1

 

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

 

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

DECLARATORY STATEMENTS:

 

            Legal Issues:

           

Binding Interpretations:

 

Declaratory Statements:

 

            Second Hearings:

           

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Commissioner Hamrick stated what was on the screen and the printed versions appear different under item 7, Conclusion of Law.

 

Mr. Richmond stated there was an “of” instead of an “or”.

 

Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote to approve the motion.

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.    

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked if Commissioner Schock should recuse himself since he was the applicant on one of the declaratory statements. 

 

Mr. Richmond responded stating although it would not have a direct impact on his financial interests, he probably should as a matter of clean record. 

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Commissioner Schock abstained.  Motion carried.

 

First Hearings:

 

DCA09-DEC-069 by Michael Huddy of Barrier Technology Corporation

 

Withdrawn.  No Commission action necessary.

 

 

DCA09-DEC-115 by Mary Mead

DCA09-DEC-119 by Emil Veksenfeld

 

Dismissed for failure to meet necessary requirements.  No action Commission action necessary.

 

DCA09-DEC-121 by Robert Dunn of Collier County Building Department

 

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

 

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

 

DCA09-DEC-129 by Rodger England of Bermuda Roof Co., Inc.

 

Deferred.  No Commission action necessary.

 

DCA09-DEC-130 by James Schock P.E. of Building Inspection Division of City of Jacksonville

 

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

 

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

 

DCA09-DEC-138 by Nick D’Andrea, City of Tampa

 

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

 

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

 

DCA09-DEC-139 by David G. Karins, P.E. of Karins Engineering Group, Inc.

 

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

 

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

 

SECTION 553.73(10)(d), F.S., Review of FBC/FFPC Local Interpretation Conflict Requested by Bill R. Moore of Waldrop Group Regarding Bonita Springs Project

 

Deferred until August.

 

CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

Code AdministrationTAC

 

Commissioner Gonzalez presented the report of the Code Administration TAC.  (See Code Administration TAC Minutes May 26, 2009).

 

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

 

Commission Process Review Ad Hoc

 

Chairman Rodriguez presented the report of the Commission Process Review Ad Hoc.  (See Commission Process Review Ad Hoc Report)

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated he had the privilege of chairing the committee with14 of the commissioners in attendance and everyone participated.   

 

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Mr. Madani for the making an excellent power point presentation without prejudice presenting to the committee several options. 

 

Chairman Rodriguez presented the report of the Commission Process Review Ad Hoc.  (See Commission Process Review Ad Hoc Report)

 

Chairman Rodriguez then presented  the following recommendations from the committee:

 

1.      To adopt the 2009 I Code as a foundation for the 2010 Florida Building Code with an effective date of 12/31/2011

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated this was the quickest way to do this under the

current system.

 

 

2.      To implement a mandated process to remove unnecessary and maintain needed Florida specific amendments for the 2013 Code update process

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated if anyone was concerned the Commission was

not trying to sunset any of this.  He further stated since the Florida Building Code first used as a template the IBC there had been subsequent editions of the IBC which have actually incorporated some of Florida’s recommendations or had come out with similar language which accomplishes the same thing.  He stated there had been testimony from Commissioner Gregory regarding some coming action on swimming pools which were actually coming from Florida.  He continued by stating there was a 2 way process and once the 2009 I Code was adopted and had published the 2010 Florida Building Code with an effective date of 2011 the Commission should further streamline the process to remove the no longer necessary language from the base code because the base code had already reacted to it.

 

3.      The Commission recommends to the 2010 Florida Legislature that the statutory requirement for the Commission wait six months after publication of the latest I Code edition before selecting it as a foundation code for the Florida Building Code be eliminated.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated Jack Glenn had spoken very well stating to the

Commission this requirement was a construction coalition requirement at the time that the Commission first adopted or changed from the base code or changed from the standard building code to the IBC in an abundance of caution so they would have enough time.  He then stated now that two cycles had passed it might be unnecessary to wait 6 months for the Commission to begin the adoption of that as the base code from there.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated there were also comments on code printing and publication recommendations.  He then stated the Ad Hoc Committee voted unanimously for the 2010code update process it would continue to publish a fully integrated Florida Building Code with the Florida specific amendments integrated into the 2009 I Codes.  He continued by stating one of the things anticipated was as the Building Code and the IBC come together in enough of these previous redrafting was not required.  He stated as an educated guess there would always have to be Florida specific requirements but if it comes time that it becomes a manageable amount a supplement could possibly be published.  He then stated people would then by the I Codes and the Florida supplement but the committee did not see that happening for 2010 code update process.  He further stated the Commission would continue to publish a fully integrated Florida Building Code which requires a tremendous amount of work on the part of staff who was now under pressure with less people to work on it.  He stated there was also less pressure from the Commission’s own commitment to try to review and weed out the language which was no longer applicable so the Florida specific language was reduced if it had already been covered in the I Codes.  He concluded by stating although the future may bring an I Code with a supplement until then the Commission needed to have it fully integrated or else the supplement could be larger than the actual Code.

 

Commissioner Greiner stated he believed the chairman had covered it adequately.

 

Commissioner Browdy stated he was not able to attend the meeting.  He then stated he only had one concern.  He further stated while he understood the need to expedite the adoption of the latest I code edition, but he was somewhat reticent to not include some recommendation to the Legislature that there still be some time set that the new Code can be vetted in the public domain prior to the adoption.  He stated he would be satisfied with a recommendation to the Legislature that it include some time frame with ample opportunity and not a situation when there was only 30 days to vet a new code.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated he understood Commissioner Browdy’s concern.  He then stated this would be for the 2013 code cycle.  He stated the assumption was the more the I Code was used as the base code and the more we see the IBC and the Florida Building Code becoming closer there will still be the need for Florida specific requirements and at least a supplement would be needed.  He then stated through the next cycle, which was just entered, the Commission would gain confidence and maybe not even need a waiting period, but that remains to be seen.

 

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

 

Mr. O’Connor congratulated the Commission on its processes and believed it was headed in the right direction in things BOAF has advocated all along.   He stated BOAF was in agreement 100% with the first three points.  He then stated on the 4th point they would also like to see it get down to a manageable supplement as opposed to a fully printed document.  He further stated BOAFs Code Development Committee would be working the rest of the year on those provisions in the Code which may need to be sunsetted or culled out because they were no longer applicable because of the upgrades in the IBC.  He concluded by stating BOAF stands with the Commission as a partner in meeting the Commission goals.

 

Chuck Anderson, AHMA

 

Mr. Anderson stated he would be brief and not repeat everything he stated in the committee.  He then asked if the minutes could reflect that the intent was that the version of the code that would be marked up, the underline strikethrough for submittals would be, in fact, the IC 2009, IBC, IRC, the whole series.

 

Mr. Dixon stated the Commission needed to look into that further.  He then stated 2 meetings ago, the predecessor committee to the one that met at this Commission meeting had produced a different outcome.  He further stated they needed to be reconciled.

 

Mr. Anderson stated his concern was a lot of things were out of place in formatting.  He further stated there would be much to wrestle with a lot of changes if working off the FBC 2007 and would automatically be fixed if it works from the ICC 2009.

 

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

 

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

 

Education POC

           

Commissioner Browdy presented the report of the Education POC.  (See Education POC Meeting Minutes June 5, 2009).

 

            Mr. Richmond stated it was not a matter of prevailing.  He explained licensees go the practice acts to determine what the requirements were for their licensees.  He stated what remained in Section 553 to be cleaned up was the requirement the Commission and DCA keep a core course available because now that it was not a licensing requirement there would be little, if any, demand for that course.  He further stated it would not require but he did not think it presented a real hardship on licensees.  He stated HB425 had a delayed effective date that won’t cover the soonest deadline of relicensure which was in August so those individuals would have to comply. 

 

            Commission Browdy then continued his presentation of the report of the POC

           

Commissioner Browdy moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. 

 

            Commissioner Norkunas stated he was a meeting attendee, but his name did not appear on the minutes.

 

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

 

Fire TAC

 

            Commissioner Goodloe presented the report of the Fire TAC.  (See Fire TAC Meeting Minutes March 26, 2009).

 

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

 

            Commissioner Gross stated he was also present for the meeting and it was not reflected in the minutes.

 

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

 

Flood Resistant Standards Workgroup

 

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Flood Resistant Standards Workgroup.  (See Flood Resistant Standards Workgroup Report).

 

Mr. Blair stated the task of the workgroup was to have over three meetings and make recommendations to the Commission on whether to integrate the flood standards into the Code and if so what they should be.  He further stated the group had met three times and completed their task.  He further stated they had been asked by the Department of Emergency Management to meet one additional time to review the model ordinance which will not be something the Commission has to approve.  He then stated a motion to accept the report was necessary.  He further stated the Commission would be asked to adopt the recommendations following the Structural TACs recommendations.  He stated the Commission would be asked to approve the 10 recommendations on page 6 of the report at the next meeting.  He further stated the actual technical code language which was attached to the report the commissioners received by email.  He explained that language would come through in the code amendment process after the TAC had reviewed it.  He then reviewed the 10 policy recommendations.   (See Flood Resistant Standards Workgroup Meeting Minutes Report).

 

Commissioner Browdy moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion. 

 

            Commissioner Greiner asked if the committee was taxed with writing the Code language.

 

            Mr. Blair stated a consultant had put it together but the workgroup had spent two meetings reviewing it in great detail.  He further stated the specific code language recommendations for all of the codes were included in the review.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked who the consultant was.   

 

            Mr. Blair responded stating her name was Rebecca Quinn, from Virginia, hired for a 3 year period by the Department of Emergency Management.  He stated she would be doing the model ordinance.  He further stated she would also be presenting the actual code amendments to the Structural TAC during the amendment process and following through the process all the way to 2010.

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

Florida Energy Code Workgroup

 

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Education POC.  (See Florida Energy Code Workgroup Report).

 

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

 

Plumbing TAC

 

Commissioner Vann presented the report of the Plumbing TAC.  (See Plumbing TAC Meeting Minutes May 26, 2009).

 

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

 

Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC

 

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

 

            Actions:         

 

Commissioner Carson stated there were three action items.  He then stated one of the actions would be covered during the Product Approval Rule 9B-72.090.

 

Commissioner Carson stated the other two items were as follows:

 

Commissioner Carson stated he recommended the administrator deny affirmation of FL2983-R3 to the 2007 Code due to lack of an active QA contract. 

FL12980-R3.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

            Commissioner Carson moved approval the Commission open 9B-72 to allow for establishing criteria for approving IAPMO as an evaluation entity utilizing the following criteria as the basis for approving evaluation entities. He further stated the criteria would include meeting certification agencies meeting ISO 65 are deemed approved evaluation entities.  He then stated in the interest of time he recommended the rulemaking be conducted via telephone conference.

 

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

 

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

 

Soffit Systems Workgroup

 

Mr. Blair presented (Please see Soffit Systems Workgroup Report) 

 

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

 

Swimming Pool Subcommittee to the Plumbing TAC

 

Commissioner Gregory presented the report of the Swimming Pool Subcommittee.  (See Swimming Pool Subcommittee Meeting Minutes June 8, 2009).

 

Commissioner Gregory stated there were two significant attendees Allan Cooper, President of FSPA and Jim Manning, President of United Swimming Pool Association.  He further stated their attendance signified a united front of all swimming pool contractors across the state who were very much working together.

 

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Mr. Cooper and Mr. Manning for their participation as the Commission seeks consensus.

 

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

 

Swimming Pool Subgroup to the Energy Code Workgroup

 

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Swimming Pool Subgroup. (See Swimming Pool Subgroup to the Energy Code Workgroup Report.)

 

Mr. Blair stated the workgroup met June 8, 2009 for an organizational meeting.  He then stated several issues were identified on swimming pool efficiencies which they will be making recommendations back to the Energy Code Workgroup. He further stated this was part of the overall task to meet the Legislative statutory requirements for increasing energy efficiencies in the building code.  He then stated the group would be looking at pool pump standards, pool plumbing system design, performance and prescription, pads for pools, credits for alternative  energy sources for pool lighting and heating, solar PV, and a variety of other issues were identified by members.  He further stated there would be a full report on this within the next week or two.  He stated the group would continue meeting to make recommendations to complete the tasks assigned to them by the Energy Code Workgroup.

 

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


            LEGISLATIVE REPORT

 

Mr. Richmond expressed his thanks to all of the interest groups who were represented at the Commission table for the unanimous support the Commission received on the budget issue.  He then stated if it had gone through the Commission would probably not be sitting there.  He further stated it made a big impact and hopefully the Commission can build on and not face a similar effort in years to come.  He continued by stating substantively very little legislation passed that impacts the Commission.  He stated SB2100 died on the floor at the Commission level and the target changed around a few times by the end of the session.  He further stated Senator Bennett tried to amend it onto a few other bills at all times keeping the Commission recommendations as they were offered to him.  He continued by stating Senator Bennett was a strong advocate for the Commission’s positions this year.  He then stated he knew some of the Commissions’ positions gave some of the interest groups pause but Senator Bennett was willing to listen to the Commission’s position on everything.  He stated he hoped it was the beginning of a strong working relationship with Senator Bennett on the issues.  He stated HB made it to the Senate but was never considered.  He then stated one element which impacts many individuals, though it may not impact the work of the Commission, was the permitting extension concept.  He further stated some language eventually wound up in SB360, growth management package, which was brought to his attention somewhat late. He then stated SB360 more heavily impacted the other side of his office and he needed to review it when he gets back to Tallahassee to read the language because it was less than crystal in terms of its impact on permitting. He then stated he did what he could in terms of circulating clarifications and explanations his office developed to the commissioners when it sent them out to officials around the state.  He stated he heard on the morning news the first mention of the possibility for special session and in these budget times it was always a possibility.  He then stated he did not believe any legislators really wanted to go back to Tallahassee.  He further stated many times the Commission views their activities as being at odds with the Commission’s when everyone in government was currently facing pretty tremendous challenges, as are business leaders.   

 

Commissioner Greiner stated it was important to note the Commission had finally reached a plateau where the Legislature actually listens to the Building Commission’s report and pays attention to it, which was evidenced in the last session.  He further stated he attributed a lot of that to Mr. Richmond being up there and dealing with those people.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated he appreciated his comments.  He further stated the Commission was fortunate to have Mr. Richmond there fulltime during session and the Department backing, as well.  

 

Commissioner Palacios stated there had been discussion of postponing the enforcement of 301.12 of the Mechanical Bill.  He asked what happened to that.

 

Mr. Richmond stated it was being considered in the general building code bill or was being proposed for inclusion but the text never actually made it into a bill.  He then stated it was certainly being bounced around and considered but it died with the rest of those concepts.  He further stated in the next item on the meeting agenda that issue would be discussed.

 

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Mr. Richmond for his incredible help and representation. 

 

CONSIDER BROWARD COUNTY BORA MEMO REGARDING AC EQUIPMENT WIND RESISTANCE

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Broward County Board of Rules and Appeals has requested the Commission address issues regarding the Mechanical Code requirement for mechanical equipment exposed wind to be designed for wind resistance.  He then stated as Commissioner Palacios had brought up to the Commission there was no equipment that complies with that. He continued by stating the Commission had issued a declaratory statement addressing the issue and verifying this provision of the Code applied.  He stated in their memo BORA stated they had contacted manufacturers to find none of them who had equipment which complied with the provisions of the Code.  He further stated the building departments did not appear to be enforcing the provision.   He stated the Commission was being asked to address both the issue of compliance and enforcement.

 

            Jim DiPietro, Admininstrator and Director of the Board of Rules and Appeals

 

            Mr. DiPietro stated BORA had offered in writing 59 manufacturers a free service stating every time compliance with the windload was demonstrated they would distribute to every building official in Broward County now or in the future at no charge.  He further stated in brief if any company can meet the windload requirement of the declaratory statement BORA would notify Broward County and review the calculations and would notify every building official at no charge.  He then stated the good news was there was currently dialogue between BORA and 6 companies, but as of yesterday there had been no compliance.  He continued by stating he was not there to belabor the point, but to try to help in any way we can and participate by being proactive.  He further stated the moment someone comes in with compliance he would send a note to Mr. Dixon immediately along with the Broward officials. 

 

            Mr. Dixon stated staff would work with the Broward County Board of Rules and Appeals, the Dade County Code Compliance Office, Pinellas County Code Compliance Board, Palm Beach board and all of the other major boards in the large jurisdictions of the state to evaluate the issue and bring back a plan of action.  He then stated at a minimum the state of Florida needed to sit down with the trade organizations who represent the manufacturers of this equipment and find out what was necessary to and where the state of Florida might take some action to assist them along.

 

            Commissioner Hamrick stated he was confused because public education requires HVHZ in enhanced hurricane protection areas to be protected from windloads and have been doing so since 1996.  He further stated he thought the units were compliant and he was hearing that there were none which comply with the windload requirements

 

            Mr. Dixon stated that in his understanding there were different ways to protect the equipment such as by shielding it or making sure the equipment itself can comply.  He then stated in many instances shielding was what has been provided on buildings.  He further stated there were also some manufacturers of cooling towers who have designed their equipment to comply with windload requirements of the Code.  He continued by stating Mr. Madani was on the ASCE 7 wind committee and the next version of that standard would have a much better presentation with clear cut information for what manufacturers would do to demonstrate compliance.  He stated at present there was uncertainty of what manufacturers have to do to demonstrate compliance and as far as the manufacturers go, they were just not certifying their equipment to meet the windload standards.  He then stated the required attachment of equipment to the roof with stands, etc was clear in the code and was being complied with.  He further stated the problem with the equipment itself is whether the four point connections of the equipment to the stands were being attached adequately.  He then stated those connections may not be strong enough to withstand the wind pressure so the fasteners pull right through the sheet metal boxes.  He continued by stating the building departments and Commission did not know because manufacturers have not passed on any information indicating whether their equipment had been evaluated. 

 

            Mr. Richmond offered clarification stating compliance with the declaratory statement was not the issue.  He further stated the Code states what it states and has stated it since the International Code was adopted some eight years ago and the code language was fairly explicit. 

 

            Commissioner Palacios stated as a contractor a problem he had were plans getting approved showing equipment on the roof and the equipment on the roof was not in compliance with the code. He continued by stating then jobs go out for bid and then there was a contract to install something which was not code compliant.  He further stated he had received a protocol from Dade County and part of the study was crafted by DCA.  He continued by stating he had sent that protocol to John Melrose who did calculations for a curb manufacturer in Broward County and he stated there was a 1.9 factor in there, which he did not know anything about, but he stated it made it difficult for anything to comply.  He then stated the industry was not complying, maybe on smaller residential units but not on commercial units.  He stated cooling towers were complying but not air conditioners.    

 

            Mr. Madani stated for clarification the 1.9 comes from ASCE705 which is the wind standards for buildings adopted by the Code.

 

            Commissioner Hamrick stated the Commission might want to look into a program Department of Emergency Management has which provides air generators to special needs shelters.  He further stated all of those generators have been tested for wind load requirements as units themselves. 

 

            Mr. Dixon stated staff would work with the other boards and come back to the Commission with a plan to approve. 

 

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

 

RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-70.002 EDUCATION

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated that at the recommendation of the Education POC the Commission had voted to conduct a rule development workshop for the purpose of implementing amendments to the Education Rule.  He continued by stating the purpose of the rule development initiative was to implement the recommendations of the program administrator with regard to the rules of operation concerning the review and approval of accreditors and courses seeking accreditation.  He further stated the initiative would also correct outdated Internet references including expiration dates of registered training providers and accreditors.  He then stated the Commission conducted a rule development workshop at the April 2009 Commission meeting and voted to proceed with rule adoption by conducting a rule adoption hearing at the June Commission meeting.  He then stated the hearing provided additional opportunity for public comment before the Commission votes to file the rule for adoption.

 

Mr. Richmond opened the hearing.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked if Commissioner Browdy needed to present any additional recommendations from the Education POC.

 

            Commissioner Browdy stated his POC reports additional possible recommendations that could be before the POC and there were none.  He further stated there was no additional public comment regarding the rule and the POC still recommended proceeding with rule adoption.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez called for public comment. 

 

            No public comment.

 

            Mr. Richmond closed the hearing.

 

            Commissioner Browdy moved approval to proceed with rule adoption of Rule 9B-70.002 and authorization for the Secretary of the department to sign off on the certification package.  Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-3.047 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE/2008 NEC, INTERIOR DESIGN AND CONFLICTS WITH LAW

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission conducted a rule development workshop in October 2008 for the purpose of considering amendments to Rule 9B-3.047 glitch amendments.  He further stated the Commission considered whether to adopt the NEC 2008 as a glitch amendment.  He continued by stating the criteria provided in Chapter 553.73(7) Florida Statutes considering glitch amendments specifies the Commission may consider updates to the NEC or delay implementing the updated edition causes due to undue hardship to stakeholders or otherwise threatens the public health, safety and welfare.   He then stated the Commission considered testimony from both sides then voted to defer on deciding whether or not to consider adoption of the 2008 NEC as a glitch amendment in the 2008 glitch process.

 

Chairman Rodriguez further stated the Commission also voted to set a schedule for a separate rulemaking to implement the Commission’s actions relative to adopting the 2008 NEC by July 1, 2009.  He continued stating the NEC was reviewed by the Electrical TAC and the TAC provided recommendations regarding adopting the 2008 NEC into the Florida Building Code and proceeding with rulemaking. He then stated the TAC recommended the Commission adopt the 2008 NEC in whole and conduct a rule development workshop at the April 2009 Commission meeting where the commission then voted to proceed with rule development to adopt the 2008 NEC, the Interior Designers’ settlement agreement and corrections with conflict of law by conducting a rule development workshop at the April 2009 Commission meeting.  He continued by stating the Commission conducted the workshop at the April meeting and voted to proceed with rule adoption by conducting a rule adoption hearing at the June Commission meeting.  He then stated the hearing provided additional opportunity for public comment before the Commission votes to file for rule adoption. 

 

Mr. Dixon opened the hearing.

 

Mr. Blair stated the Commissioners each had a draft of the rule as it was adopted at the April 2009 Commission meeting (Please see RDW-3.047 Proposed).  He then stated in addition there was Comments 2, which staff requested that the Commission adopt all of staff’s recommendations, excluding 611.7.1 which was a comment from another party and therefore not a part of staff’s recommendations.  He also stated there was Comments 3 which were from the Department of Health regarding the revised Swimming Pool which had already been promulgated.  He stated staff requested the Commission approval to correlate what was currently the rule in the Building Code as required by law.    He further stated there was a handout from staff regarding Chapter 13, Energy Efficiency, which were editorial and correlation issues revising Table 613.8.1, Appendix 13D, revising the form, Chapter 11, Energy Efficiency, correcting the Chapter, Table 111.13.8.1 which was based on the correction of a referenced standard of that table, Appendix GD, which was to add existing buildings.  He continued by stating once all of public comment had been heard, the Commission needed to include all of the editorial changes.  He then stated Comments 1 all relate to the interior designer issue.  He stated there were 414 comments submitted electronically, 189 in support and 225 against, including a large number of architects and interior designers.  He continued by stating there was an additional hand-out from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association with comments there for the Commission’s consideration.  He concluded by stating the motion required should include the draft, the handout from staff, staff’s comments, the Department of Health’s comments and anything else that may require the Commission’s consideration.

Chairman Rodriguez called for public comment.   He asked each speaker to identify themselves and their representation, as well as the specific component of the draft rule they wished to address.  He then stated if speakers were in agreement with other speakers please state such and add only new points to avoid repeating the same comments.

 

Fred Dudley, Representing Holland & Knight

 

Mr. Dudley stated he was a certified construction attorney and stated the appearance would be his 3rd appearance before the Commission on behalf of their clients, the Interior Designers of Florida and Shelley Siegel.  He then stated he understood there were new Commission members who had not previously had the opportunity to vote on the rule and wanted to give a brief history.  He continued by stating in October 2008 during the glitch cycle the Commission voted in favor of a Code modification by their client with a vote of 16-2 or 72 ½ percent, which under the current rule was not enough votes for the modification to become part of the Code.  He then stated in November 2008 their client challenged both the proposed rule and the existing rule on voting requirements.  He stated in December 2008 the Commission by a vote, with one descent, the Commission approved a settlement agreement.  He then stated the chairman signed the settlement agreement and as a result both rule challenges were dismissed.    He further stated he had given each Commissioner a packet containing copies of both petitions.  He stated he also provided a copy of the settlement agreement approved by the Commission, which provides for the Commission adopting the particular Code amendment contained in the rule.

 

Mr. Dudley stated he had looked at both the transcripts from the April meeting and a number of comments the Commission had received prior to the June meeting were enough to note that there was a lot of misinformation.  He further stated he hoped to set the record straight in support of the rule.  He then stated the last four pages of the handout the Commissioners received were the statutes and the rules governing interior designers and architects, Chapter 481 of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Board of Architecture and Interior Design.  Mr. Dudley continued by stating the issue of interior designers aligning and sealing plans was settled over 20 years ago by the Florida Legislature.  He stated there might people who wanted to revisit that issue, but it was an issue that only the legislature could readdress. He then read from highlighted points in handout.  (Please see 2008 Florida Statutes, 481.221(3) (5) (7).)  He then stated the law was very clear relative to the scope of this particular license indicating interior designers cannot do architectural drawings, which would be grounds for disciplinary action by their board.  He then read from the Board of Rules, also included in the handout.  (Please see Florida Administrative Code ,Chapter 61G1-16, Seals and Plans, 61G1-16.001, 61G1-16.002, 61G1-16.003 and 61G1-16.004.)

Mr. Dudley further stated the Commission would have no jurisdiction over the regulation of any of these professions.  He continued by stating the requirement for using seals and signatures by interior designers and by architects and engineers in Chapter 471 is regulated by the Florida Legislature and their respective boards.  He then stated by supporting the rule which included the change in the submittal documents in the administration section of the code, 106.1, the Commission’s original proposed base code document referred to design professionals.  He stated when Florida adopted its first Code it inserted “architects and engineers” in lieu of “design professionals”.  He continued by stating some years later, landscape architects came and requested a change that was made by adding them because they are licensed design professionals for the scope of their work.  He stated the interior design issue was the same and that adding them as a reference in two places within 106 would ensure the code administrator receiving the plans would know plans submitted by the interior designers must be signed and sealed.  He further stated the administrator would also know the interior designers were allowed to submit plans within their scope of practice which were signed and sealed.  He noted while some building code administrators, in Jacksonville, for example, have recognized this fact others still do not.  He stated it was a way to say the within the Code Chapter 481 did not have to be referenced, but if it was it would clearly show that interior designers were authorized to sign and seal plans.  He further stated the interior designers were asking for the same status as the other three design professionals, to be identified in the Code itself.  

 

Mr. Dudley continued by stating the building Code stated in 106.1 the documents submitted by the architects and interior designers must be prepared in accordance with Chapter 481, which would not allow them to go beyond the scope of their practice.  He stated a statute could not change rule; therefore the adoption of the rule would not be changing the law.  He urged the Commission to adopt the rule as proposed and reiterated the Commission had voted at the December meeting with one descending vote to approve the settlement agreement.  He further stated the settlement agreement was not done in some back room, as some had suggested, but was discussed thoroughly at the October 2008, December 2008 and April 2009 meeting.  He stated if any Commissioner had questions please ask. 

 

Mr. Dudley then stated he had asked members of the public who support the rule to defer to him in the interest of saving time.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked for a show of hands for those individuals who supported Mr. Dudley’s comments.  He then stated the record should show 21 individuals indicated their support by show of hands.

 

Steve Jernigan, President, AIA of Florida

 

Mr. Jernigan stated he represented approximately 4,000 members of the organization.  He then stated he was a Florida licensed architect and interior designer.  He further stated the AIA had testified at the April workshop to discuss the changing of 106.1, adding interior designers to the list of design professionals allowed to sign and seal construction documents for building permit submission.  He stated at the workshop in April he was informed a settlement agreement between the Commission and the Interior Designers Association adding the language he referred to had already been entered into.  He continued by stating in the opinion of the AIA’s legal counsel the action was contrary to the requirements of the Florida Administrative Code.  He stated the AIA expressed its concern regarding the action at the April meeting.  He then stated since he was not an attorney he would not argue the legal issues involved.  Mr. Jernigan continued by stating the AIA was in agreement with Mr. Dudley regarding the fact it was the Legislature who defined what the practices of interior designers and architects are, not the Florida Building Commission.  He continued by stating in AIA’s opinion the change to 106.1 attempts to redefine the practices of interior designers.  He stated as a result of the action taken at the April Board meeting and in anticipation of today’s hearing the AIA had filed a petition seeking an administrative determination of the invalidity of proposed Rule 9B-3.047 of the Florida Administrative Code.  He continued by stating the petition had been filed in a timely manner and was self-explanatory as to AIA’s issues with the intent of the settlement agreement and the manner in which it was implemented. 

 

Mr. Jernigan stated the intent of Chapter 481 of Florida statutes was clear on limitations placed on the practice of architecture and interior design.  He further stated they were drafted by the legislature and amended with the cooperation of both architectural and interior design professionals.  He then stated a change to 106 of the Florida Building Code has the intent of changing Chapter 481, which is not the role of the building code or the building commission.  He further stated it would be misleading and confusing to the public and the building officials.  He concluded by stating on behalf of AIA he requested the Commission reject the settlement agreement and the resultant changes to 106.1.

 

Richard Logan, 1st Vice President, President-elect, AIA of Florida

 

Mr. Logan stated he was a Florida licensed architect and a principal employee of an architectural firm in West Palm Beach, Florida. He then stated Mr. Dudley had made a good argument for AIA’s case because at the crux of the situation lies in the exact wording of what is written in 106.1.  He read from 106.1 Submittal Documents: “Construction documents special inspection and structural observation programs and other data shall be submitted in one or more sets with each application for a permit.  The construction documents shall be prepared by a design professional where required by statutes.” He then stated FBC 106.1 does not merely list registered design professionals in the state of Florida, but indicates which design professionals were statutorily required to submit signed and sealed construction documents for a building permit.  He continued by stating interior designers were not allowed to prepare, submit, or sign and seal construction documents for a building permit.  He further stated only architects and engineers have that responsibility.  He continued by stating the mere fact that licensed interior designers in the state of Florida have the right to own and use a seal does not in and of itself gives the licensee the authority to submit construction documents for a building permit. 

 

Mr. Jernigan further stated under Certification of Partnerships, Limited Liability Companies and Corporations 481.219(4) reads “All final construction documents and instruments of service which includes drawings, specifications, plans reports and other papers or documents involving the practice of architecture which are prepared or approved for use of the corporation or liability company and filed for public record within the state shall bear the signature and seal of the licensee who approved them and the date on which they were sealed.” He then stated in the same section under what interior designers can sign and seal the words “all final construction documents and instruments of service” are missing.  He continued by stating by specific reference architects have the ability to submit final construction documents and interior designers do not which 106.1 relates to.  He stated the same applied to the paragraph Mr. Dudley referred to, 481.221.  He read from 481.221(2) “All final construction documents and instruments of service which include drawings, plans, specifications, or reports prepared or issued by the registered architect and being filed for public record shall bear the seal the signature and seal…” He then stated 481.221(3) does not state all final construction documents but states “each interior designer must obtain a seal as prescribed by the board and all drawings, plans, specifications or reports issued by the registered interior designer and being filed for public record…” He stated public record does not specify for the use of a building permit and could be some other form of public record.  He then read under 481.203(8) “interior design specifically excludes the design of or responsibility of architecture and engineering work.”  He stated the paragraph further goes on to define what architectural and engineering work was and interior designers are excluded from practicing.  He then stated it included, but was not limited to, “the construction of structural, mechanical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, ventilating, electrical, or vertical transportation systems or construction which materially effects life safety systems pertaining to fire safety protection such as fire rated separations between interior spaces, fire rated vertical shafts of multiple story structures, fire rated protection of structural elements, smoke evacuation compartmentalization, emergency ingress or egress systems and emergency fire alarm systems.” He asked what scope of work was possibly left which an interior designer could submit for a building permit.  He then referenced 481.2131(1) which states “interior design documents prepared by a registered interior designer shall contain a statement that the document is not an architectural or engineering study, drawing, specification, or design and is not to be used for construction of any load bearing columns, load bearing framing or walls of structures or the issuance of any building permit except as otherwise provided by law.” 

 

Mr. Logan stated AIA believed the facts were clear showing 106.1 deals with construction documents, registered design professionals able to submit them for a building permit and it is clear 481 does not allow interior designers to submit either the construction documents or for a building permit.  He then stated the Commission may approve technical amendments to the Florida Building Code once each year for statewide application upon a finding delaying the application of the amendment would be contrary to the health, safety and welfare of the public, or the amendment provides an economic advantage to the consumer and the amendment has a reasonable and substantial connection with the health, safety and welfare of the general public.  He further stated the proposed amendment does not meet the criteria and would mislead and compromise the health, safety and welfare of the general public.  He continued by stating the Florida Building Commission was prohibited from inserting into the Code any language in conflict with the laws or statutes under the rules of 9B-3.004 the Commission shall abide by Roberts Rules of Order which states “Votes that are null and void even if unanimous no motion is in order that conflicts with the laws of the nation or state or with the assembly’s constitution or by-laws. If such a motion is adopted even by a unanimous vote it is null and void.”  He then stated at the April meeting a more prudent course of action would have been for FBC 106.1 to be revised to strike the listing of any of the design professionals and leave it up to the statutes to define.  He further stated based on the above arguments that action would not serve the public interest; the current content of FBC 106.1 aids the public and the building officials in identifying which responsible professionals are allowed to take part in the permitting process and it should not be revised. He concluded by requesting the Commission vote against the proposed rule 9B-3.047 and rescind all previous actions including the settlement agreement.  

 

Mickey Jacob, Representing FAIA

 

Mr. Jacob stated he was the managing principal at Urban Studio Architects, Tampa, an architecture and interior design firm.  He then stated he was also the regional director of AIA Florida Caribbean region and served currently on the national board of directors of the AIA, who he was representing.  He first stated the interior design profession is a respected profession and provides a valuable service to the citizens of the state of Florida.  He then stated when an architect submits plans for construction documents to obtain a building permit he is responsible for those plans to comply with the entire provisions of the building code, not specific provisions of the building code.  He further stated if the provision was allowed to go through the interior designers would be allowed to submit for a building permit, but they would only have to comply with parts of the code because statutes of the state of Florida strictly outline what they are allowed to do and what drawings they can do based on their licensing requirements and their education requirements.  He continued by stating if the provision goes through it would be a disservice to the citizens of Florida who entrust their health, safety and welfare to the requirements of the building code and all of its provisions.  He stated when a project is submitted by an architect to the building code official, the jurisdiction reviews the plans for compliance with the entire Florida Building Code.  He then stated if the Commission allows the measure to be passed the building code official would not only be responsible to review for compliance with the Florida Building Code but he would also have to determine whether it’s submission is allowed by the statutes of the State of Florida, based on the practice requirements of those statutes.  He then said in effect it would take responsibilities away from the Board of Architecture and Interior Design and the Commission would become the governing body of the practice of interior design in the state of Florida.  He concluded by urging the Commission to reconsider the measure and strike it from the Commissions’ consideration. 

 

Michael Lingerfelt, Vice-President  of Legislative Affairs for AIA Florida Region

 

Mr. Lingerfelt stated he was a licensed architect who has practiced for over 16 years for the Walt Disney Corporation designing structures.  He then stated he had three points: 1) the process enacted by the Commission at the April 2009 meeting was flawed  2) the content of the rule change was beyond the scope and authority of the Commission because it is a legislative issue 3) the architects of the state recommend the Commission reconsider and vote to deny the petition.

 

John Mennick, National Electrical Manufacturers’ Association

 

Mr. Mennick stated his comments were relative to the proposal to accept an exemption to the residential pool for GFCI protection.  He then stated he did not attend the April meeting and his rebuttals were based on what went on there according to the meeting minutes.  He further stated it struck him that most of what was said at the meeting in the testimony given did not ring true with the Code and the reasoning behind the GFCI requirement.  He stated he was not sure if there was a true understanding of how GFCI protection of pool motors had reached where it’s at in the 2008 code.  He stated several statements such as “swimming pool pump motor shall be equipped with GFCI” and “it was all new language”.  He then stated those were not correct statements.  He stated the language regarding GFCI protection goes back several code cycles.  He then stated in 1999 NEC there was provisions GFCI protection for all pump motors except single family units.  He further stated the code panel at that time felt single family units would be maintained better than commercial units such as those in apartment complexes.  He stated that has since been proven wrong.  He continued by stating the 2002 Code required GFCI but only for receptacle connected, not hard wired, pool pump motors everywhere i.e. the single family unit exemption was taken out.  He stated the 2005 Code followed suit, but was only for receptacles.  He then stated the 2008 Code language currently states GFCI would be required for all 15/20 amps 125volt and 240volt receptacles whether by direct connection or plug-in cord.  He continued by stating everything was covered and it did not add any residential exemptions back in.  He continued by stating it came about by Proposal 1785 and 1790 in the Report on Proposals which was a report available from NAPA as public record.  He stated he furnished the commissioners with copies of comment 1776 and 1775.  He further stated comment 1775 was the main issue by which the Code Panel 17 accepted this particular proposal into the 2008 Code. 

 

Mr. Mennick stated he believed what was really important was the substantiation of the panel itself who accepted the proposal.  He stated it read as part of the panel’s consideration of the product the panel reviewed a compilation of data from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission National Information and Clearinghouse which was assembled by a task group from the panel.  He stated supporting material at the NFPA which had to do with injuries on pool pumps where it felt GFCI was necessary.  He further stated the report had come from U.S. Consumer Products.  He then stated 1785 was submitted by Brian Myers, an IBW electrician, who stated “receptacle fed pump motors already required to be GFCI protected, hardwired present the same hazard due to the highly corrosive atmosphere.”  He further stated the issue was not whether GFCI was put on pumps, but that they were only put on receptacle connected when there was no difference since both present the same hazard with the pump in a corrosive atmosphere. He continued by stating it came back and there was no new information, but there was a lot of new information from the ROP and the ROC of the 2008 cycle which is a report on proposals and a report on comments has all of this information.  He stated a lot of the information was discussed at the TAC meeting in February of 2009. 

 

Mr. Mennick stated another man said he was “opposed because the equipment it was designed to protect was never designed to run on 240GFCI.”  He then stated that was not true 120/240 and 240GFCIs were first developed over 20 years ago and were used mainly for spas and hot tubs, especially UL listed packaged spas and hot tubs which came with GFCI’s in the units.  He further stated he included a diagram on the back of the paper given to the commissioners with instructions on how to hook up a one pole or two pole GFCI and how they work.  He also stated the same man stated “the cost would be around $200.00 for a GFCI, which was not true and the cost was nowhere near that amount.”  He then stated the same man stated “everything associated by the pool, fed by a GFCI protected circuit; most brands of manufacturers of breakers do not even make the device.”  He stated the comment was not true because Square D, Eaton Corporation (better known as Cutler Hammer), Siemens, and General Electric all produce both one and two pole GFCIs, which are also produced in what is called GFCI three-phase, not circuit breakers, but protected devices.  He further stated Siemens makes both products with 50-60 amps and General Electric makes 15-50 amps, for example, but all manufacturers have their own one and two pole breakers.  He further stated the same man stated “equipment being used on pools was listed for the purpose and does not say a ground fault was required.”  He stated this was not true.  He stated first “listed for the purpose” was not in the code, it was not a statement used in Article 680 whatsoever.  He further stated 680 covers the item in the NEC and “listed for the purpose” is not even in that section.  He then stated the only two items in the Code which have special listings: pool transformers which have to be listed as a swimming pool transformer because they are a shielded transformer.  He then stated junction boxes also have to be listed as a pool junction box for proper bonding.  He continued by stating the same man also stated “in his 21 years of experience no one had even tingled on a swimming pool.”  He then stated tingle voltage was a well documented fact and the Code panel continues each year and each cycle to look at new ways to prevent tingle voltage on pools, therefore he would doubt that comment.  He further stated he had in his possession a facility assessment and controlled evaluation report on a lifeguard who was electrocuted in New Jersey on energized pool motor pump housing.  He stated there have been deaths and there have been shocks from pool motors and pool motor hookups without GFCI protection.  

 

Mr. Mennick stated another gentleman stated “he had been building pools for 29 years and he could get a double pole for $120.00 whereas a single pole was $12.00.”  He suggested the gentleman buy the $12.00 because he could not find a pool pump that can’t be wired at 120volt or 240 volt either one as they are both dual voltage motors.  He stated there was no energy savings either way because electricity is paid for by watts, not voltage, hooking up either a 120 or 240 is immaterial, but if he could buy a GFCI for $12.00 he would.  He further stated he looked up the cost of pool pump motors and found Hayward Flo-Pump, Hayward Power Pump, Superclean Filter Assemblies, Stay-Rite Dynaglass Pumps, Gandy Pumps, Pan Air Pumps all state in their literature state that (reading from Stay-Rite Dynaglass Pumps “ground fault circuit interrupter tripping indicates an electrical problem, if GFCI trips and will not reset have a qualified electrician inspect it.”  He then read from Gandy pumps “must be installed in accordance with NEC, electrical safety codes and OSHA.”  He stated OSHA recognizes the NEC as its bible for electrical installations.  He read from Pan Air Pumps: “always install a suitable GFCI at the power source.”  He continued by stating when reading any of the literature relative to power pumps GFCI is recommended.  He further stated the manufacturers themselves not only recommend it, in some cases they state it must be put on. 

 

Mr. Mennick stated there was other testimony stating agreement with the other testimony but he would have to ask some of the people how they would agree or disagree because he did not believe they were qualified to do so.  He further stated it was a technical issue and some of the individuals were not licensed electricians and some are not experts on electrical products, therefore he was not sure how they could enter their testimony.  He stated there was a 2 page document given to the Electrical TAC which was true. He then stated what was not true was if pools were bonded there would be no problem.  He continued by stating bonding or grounding a pool or using GFCI is like apples and oranges.  He stated they were totally separate from each other and not related.  He then stated when talking about bonding it is creating an exponential plane which reduces voltage gradiance in the pool area.  He further stated GFCI is installed to determine a faulty current going to metal and to find some way to take the low levels of current, as much as 10 milliamps and not more than 20 milliamps, it will freeze the muscles of someone to the object and they cannot move , called the let go threshold level.  GFCI trips at 6 milliamps, which is just below the threshold.  He then stated what is being attempted in this country with GFCI is to prevent people from being electrocuted or suffocating on the low levels types of false to ground.  He continued by stating it has been said GFCI has over-sensitivity.  He stated there was no oversensitivity or under sensitivity, but an adding machine with a residual donut where the wires pass through it, which measures current out and current back and if there was a differential of more than 6milliamps it trips.  He then stated when it does trip the current has to go somewhere; it has to go to ground somewhere, therefore there is a fault out there when it trips.  He continued by stating refrigerators were not required to be protected by GFCI because of nuisance tripping.  He stated that comment was not true because the Code panel changed it in 2008 by taking out exceptions in 2010.8a for both garages and basements and there were a lot of freezers in garages, which the panel was aware of.

 

Chairman Rodriguez apologized for interrupting Mr. Mennick.  He then asked him if he had a lot more to go.  He explained the Commission always errs on the side of excess because it is important everyone has a chance to be heard.  He then stated Mr. Mennick was being forced into the rebuttal outside of the forum because he was unable to make the TAC meeting.  He stated there was a system for which these kinds of discussions take place first in the TAC, then through the chairs of those TACs as information comes to the Commission in the form of a report. He then asked Mr. Mennick to wrap up his comments. 

 

Mr. Mennick stated he would wrap up his comments by expressing his surprise at the vote because the Commission voted to overturn the decision of the TAC.  He then stated it had not been an issue in the neighboring states.  He further stated if there was no problem in its neighboring states he wondered why there were so many problems in Florida.  He continued by stating it appeared the Commission went against its electrical expert, who was appointed by the committee.  He then stated those individuals hired by the Commission are the experts and it would seem those individuals would be the ones to address technical issues such as this.  He further stated the TAC voted to move forward. He concluded by stating the National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association was surprised at the exemption applied for and voted on by the Commission.  He concluded by asking the Commission to reverse the exemption and come back and take a good look at the material he had submitted to the commissioners, hear more testimony and reconsider their vote on the issue and provide the citizens of Florida with the protection they need for their pools, which would be GFCI pumps on their pool pump motors.

 

Vivian Salaga, AIA

 

Ms. Salaga stated she was a registered architect in the state of Florida and had been practicing for over 25 years.  She then stated she was there representing the public at large and the architects’ at large regarding the issue of the appropriateness of the signing and sealing.  She stated she concurred with testimony given previously by the national, state and local components of the AIA.  She urged the Commission’s reconsideration and denial of the changing of the wording for the requirements for signing and sealing of documents. 

 

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

 

Mr. O’Connor stated BOAF supported both groups who were representing design professionals. He further stated BOAF supported every professional’s right to practice under the scope and limitations requirements of their practice act.  He then stated the issue may be another example of having gone too far in the Code and put too many words in.  He continued by stating if the Code stopped after the words design professional, everyone would be a lot better off.  He stated from a practical standpoint adding one more title into the Code would not be making it better or easier to ferret it out.  He further stated it would take the building officials’ knowing and understanding of what the statute says for effective change to happen as far as recognizing what a professional can and cannot do.  He then stated an Option C could be to take everyone back out and go back to just design professionals, which he felt was a much more sane solution.  He further stated the problem with quoting statute is its subject to change every year.  He concluded by stating BOAF recommended if all titles were going to be left in go ahead and add one more because it won’t make any difference, but they would prefer to see all the titles be taken out going back to design professionals as defined in statute.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission wanted to do that but since it is within the glitch cycle, it would have to wait until the next code cycle.

 

            Leonard Devine

 

Mr. Devine stated he was there regarding the GFCI on the pool pump.  He further stated he would be opposed to taking that requirement away from the National Electric Code.   He then stated although he was a member of the Electrical TAC, he was speaking as an individual representing the general public.  He continued by stating the GFI on pumps more than likely if installed and inspected when they are brand new do not have a serious problem, but after some years pumps are changed out by electricians, pool maintenance people or by the homeowner.  He stated he wanted to inform the Commission of four times in his life, working as an electrician in the field, that show how the Code solves problems over the years: 1) He stated he was working at a bank standing in front of a transformer working on a panel, with the cover open.  He then stated since then a requirement was put into the Code under 110.26 in two different sections; first the clearance required in front of it and the requirement that if there is electric equipment which extends more than 6 inches in front of a panel the panels have to be standing off so the technician would not be reaching over them. 2) He stated he was working on a ballast in a ceiling and he cut the neutral to 270 volt lighting.  He then stated a Code change required the use of a little 29 cent connector or an independent switch to turn off a light allowing a ballast to be changed without a shock.  Most electricians over the years would do them live because they wanted to avoid shutting down a whole office, which was a hazard.  3) He stated he was doing maintenance on a swimming pool junction box which was 110 volt lighting, which requires GFI protection, and unknown to him the homeowner had already tried it and failed.  He further stated it was raining, he bent down to the pool deck box within the deck of poured concrete, and he reached down and touched the metal cover and received a severe shock.  4) He stated he was working on a pool pump and he did not know the homeowner had tried to fix it.  He then stated it had been raining and he knelt down to work on the pump and the minute he had his knees on the ground in the shrubbery around him he was shocked severely.  He continued by stating if GFI had been installed on that pump the pump would not have even been energized because the GFI would have prevented it from being energized and the problem would have been diagnosed differently than from the way he had tried to do it. 

 

Brad Weatherholz, Florida Roofing and Sheet Metal Association

 

Mr. Weatherholz stated he was speaking on RDW 3.047 proposal as a proposal for 611.7.2 of the existing building code requesting a change to the secondary water barrier.  He further stated the FRSA opposed the submission.  He then stated it was heavily discussed in the Wind Mitigation Workgroup and was already agreed upon by the Roofing TAC.  He continued by stating he did not believe it had not been reviewed or discussed by the Roofing TAC.  He requested the Commission not approve the change in this part of the rule. 

 

Larry Dickie, Treasurer of Tampa AIA Board

 

Mr. Dickie stated he was representing the board who supported all of the comments made from AIA and AIA members.

 

            Larry Brown, Master Electrician, Electrical Contractor

            Mr. Brown stated he had been wiring pools for Mid-Florida Contractors in Orlando for 21 years.  He then stated he had testified at the last Commission meeting.   He continued by stating he went back and did a little more research and found he had not done the wiring in just 5,000 pools, but in over 8,000 pools.  He then stated with all due deference to Mr. Mennick he was not at the meeting and he would recommend the Commission disregard a lot of his comments.  He further stated there were many inconsistencies in the micromanaging things he told the Commission, but did not want to get into those.  He stated he wanted to talk about what he knew and out of 8,000 pools for one reason or other they had been hardwired to the pump with a 2 pole GFI breaker.  He then stated in every case in less than 3 months the nuisance tripped and within 6 months the GFI breaker was removed because it could no longer be a viable pump with that breaker on it.  He further stated they never found the problem as it was only 5 milliamps, which could be an ant or a rainstorm.  He then stated without the GFI the regular breaker would fry the ant in milliseconds and continue running.   He continued by stating the scenario was the pool contractor makes 8 or 9 trips during warranty for a nuisance trip, which would be passed on to the homeowner.  He noted he was present as an electrical contractor opposing a code which if adopted would make him a lot more money, but he was there for the consumers.  He then stated $125.00 was a fair estimate for the cost of the breaker, but the price of all the service calls will be three times that amount.  He continued by stating he was the man who wired 8,000 pools and he and his crews continue to wire pools every day.  He stated they have found the GFI does not work.  He further stated he could only vouch for central Florida because he had never wired pools in any other state, but he did not have any concern for those other states maybe Florida has special conditions which cause the problem.  He continued by stating the customer was either going to go and get a non-GFI breaker that makes the pump work after its a few months old or they would not have a pump.  He then stated another situation regards all of the transient people in Florida who may be here for six months and then gone for six months.  He further stated when they are gone they have a pool company taking care of their pool but if they check the pool on Wednesday and something trips the GFI on Thursday, so when the company returns the following Wednesday there is no filtration, no chlorination i.e. a green pool which is unsafe, unhealthy and perfect for a child to fall in and never see them again.  He concluded by stating Florida does have specific problems regarding these scenarios.  He even tested one in his own home 7 years ago to satisfy his curiosity.   He stated after he testified at the April meeting he went home and put the GFI back on it to satisfy his own curiosity.  He then stated it would run for a week, two days, maybe three days and then it would trip and no one could argue they won’t trip because they will definitely trip.  He continued by stating Florida has conditions that will make the GFI breaker trip.  He then stated the question becomes what the homeowner will do regarding it.  He further stated the owner of the pool company he is employed with will not be warrantying the pump against nuisance trips, after the 3rd trip.  He continued by stating the homeowner would then have to go and do something about it and they will go to Home Depot and buy a non-GFI breaker because they are going to trip.  He stated he did not have a single case where they did not trip during the warranty period.  He then stated his companies warranty period was one year and none of the GFI breakers were in for more than 6 months and he would really like to see some data on people injured.  He further stated there were a million pools in Florida if this were a problem people would be dropping like flies every day.  He concluded by stating everyone in the room and the government were working toward more energy efficiency, trying to be green Florida.  He stated if this change goes through Florida will be known as green Florida, because of all the green pools.

 

            Art Stencil

           

Mr. Stencil stated he was a licensed engineer and a registered commercial pool contractor.  He then stated he was speaking on the GFI circuit requirement for pool pumps, specifically for commercial pools.  He stated he does a lot of commercial pools in the state of Florida and he was concerned if the GFI breakers are adopted they would become part of commercial pools.  He then stated with nuisance trips the pumps would shut down which would cause a certain sanitation issue with the health department.  He continued by stating the caretaker of the pool could reset the switch but they may not be there until three days later and the Health Department shuts the pool down. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated this was for residential pools only.

 

            Mr. Stencil stated his understanding from the NEC was it was for all pool pumps.

 

            Mr. Blair clarified the Commission’s current recommendation has an exemption for single family exemption, which is what is being argued against.

 

            Rodney McCall, Pent Air Water Pool Products

           

Mr. McCall stated his company is the world’s largest manufacturer of swimming pool products.  He then stated he could not legally state whether he was in support or against the code.  He explained where there is a National Code they could only recommend the customers or states follow the codes.  He continued by stating there was some misinformation given out earlier.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated this was not the forum for this because there was a TAC meeting earlier; recommendations were made and brought forward to the Commission.  He then stated he was trying to be lenient with the time but people were still coming up.  He asked those wishing to speak to let the Commission know what side they were on, but not to try to readdress the merits of the issue in this forum was difficult for the Commission.

            Mr. McCall stated he had just wanted to make sure the Commission was getting the correct information.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated he appreciated that.

 

            Mr. McCall asked if he could continue.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez responded if he could be brief.  He reiterated the forum for this was the TAC meeting.

 

            Mr. McCall stated it was mentioned that swimming pool pumps were available in 120 and 240 volt, but they were only available in those voltages up to 1 ½ horsepower.  He then stated the manual states the pump needed to be grounded and bonded but it did not state in the manual the pump be GFI protected.  

 

            Carl Shelsol

           

Mr. Shelsol stated he was a licensed commercial spa and pool builder as well as an electrical contractor.  He then stated he was not in support of the GFI with Florida’s special circumstances the breaker would not work properly.

 

            Mr. Dixon closed the public hearing.

 

            Mr. Blair stated the referenced document included the action the Commission took at the rule development workshop at the last meeting as is, staff’s request to approve the Comments and Comments 2 (only staff comments, editorial in nature, not the comment provided on 611.7.1, staff’s request for approval of Comment 3 (Department of Health’s Swimming Pool Rule) as was recently revised and promulgated to correlate with the building code as required by law, and staff was requiring approval of the language read into the record on the handout given to the commissioners from which he read previously from Chapter 13 appendixes and revisions all which were editorial in nature.  He then stated if there were no changes the motion would be to proceed with rule adoption to adopt the rule with the changes proposed by staff and the comments from the Department of Health without an additional rule adoption hearing to file the rule.

 

            Commissioner Schock asked if the issues could be taken separately.

 

            Mr. Blair stated it would be the Commission’s choice.  He then explained the commissioners have the rule draft, the recommendations from staff for the editorial changes and the comments from the Department of Health rule which could be taken separately or together as a package, whatever the Commission preferred.

            Commissioner Schock moved approval to vote on the issues separately.  Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

            Mr. Blair stated Comment 2, not including the comment on 611.7.1 which was not from staff, which were editorial changes to the code as written in Comment 2 attached to the commissioners’ computers.

 

            Commissioner Schock asked which comment.

 

            Mr. Blair stated it was all of the comments staff provided on comment 2, editorial in nature. He asked if it were necessary to go through every comment.

            Commissioner Schock stated it was not necessary.

 

            Commissioner Browdy moved approval of staff’s recommendations on comment 2.  Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

            Commissioner Kidwell asked under the revision in Section 1605.3.1.1 the word reduction needs to be removed from the cross out.  He then stated it should say “provided the load reduction”, and it was stated incorrectly, an editorial correction.

 

            Mr. Madani stated Commissioner Kidwell was correct.

 

            Commissioner Schulte stated the FRSA comment on 611.7.1.

 

            Mr. Blair asked if the issue could be taken separately because it was not part of the current motion.

 

            Commissioner Schulte responded yes.

 

            Mr. Madani stated the original proposal which was in the first documents included 611.7.1.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked for clarification the items which were not included in the motion.

 

            Mr. Blair stated the items not included were the draft rule, which includes the NEC, and the Department of Health and any other comments.  He then stated what was included were the editorial changes to Chapter 4, Chapter 7, Chapter 13 Energy, Chapter 16 Structural, as revised by Commissioner Kidwell, some editorial changes to the Building and Residential Codes which were mostly editorial issues, but does not include 611.7.1, which was not  a staff comment.  He stated for clarification the motion included only those comments forwarded by staff as the editorial changes he reviewed.  

 

            Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried. 

 

            Mr. Blair stated a motion was needed to approve comment 3, which integrates the Department of Health Rule into the Building Code as promulgated revised rule.

 

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

 

            Mr. Blair stated a motion was necessary to approve the editorial comments for staff’s recommendations for Chapter 13, Energy, revising standards which were incorrectly identified in the table and the words “existing building” to appendix 13D, changing the Chapter from subchapter 3 to Chapter 43, changing Table in 11 to 13 A.1.  eliminating the same standard one for residential and one for building for energy efficiencies,  having appendix GD revised to indicate it is new construction, additions or existing buildings which was all completely editorial in nature.

 

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

 

            Mr. Blair stated the Commission had adopted three additional documents into the rule and the draft rule to consider.  He then stated the Commission had heard comments on some of the components therein.  He further stated if any commissioner had any issues regarding the NEC, the submittal documents or the FRSA issue they should bring them forward.  He continued by stating the Commission would then decide if there were any changes to the text of the rule which was approved at the last meeting. 

 

            Commissioner Schulte stated FRSA had stated its opinion on a change the Commission made at the last meeting.  He then stated he believed they were correct with the proposed change.  He further stated he did not like to go back and change votes, because he did vote in favor of the change at the meeting but he believed FRSA’s proposal to be right.  He stated by eliminating the asphalt impregnated ASTMD-226 Type 1 or Type 2 does allow for  lesser underlayments to be utilized for secondary water barriers .  He further stated he had been thinking synthetics, but synthetics were in there and he would be in favor of putting the language back in as a minimum requirement. 

 

            Commissioner Schulte moved approval of placing language that had been removed by the change made at the April meeting back into the Code.  Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion.  Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.

 

            Mr. Blair stated the Commission was back at the original document it approved from the April meeting.  He asked if there were any other changes any commissioner wished to consider. 

 

            Commissioner Schock stated he would like to restate his position from the last meeting regarding the pump GFIs.  He further stated he still believed it was not a Florida specific requirement and would like to see the exemption for one and two family eliminated.

 

            Commissioner Boyer entered a second to the motion.

 

            Commissioner Gregory stated the reason it was Florida specific was because we live in the lightning capital of the world.  He then stated a 6/10 microvolt is extended to the ground plane each time lightning strikes within ½ a mile of the pool pump and light GFIs and pool pumps are prevalent to that.  He further stated Panel 17 was made up of manufacturers and manufacturers’ representatives.  He explained pool pumps have always been a danger and now something more can be put on them to protect the public.  He then presented a pool pump and stated once wires were hooked to the pump it was not something a consumer would be fooling with.  He continued by stating the only electrocution can occur with one of the pumps is if one of the stater lines, coated with an epoxy material, inside the metal casing and if the casing deteriorates and one of the wires could short on the casing which would mean 220 volts there and if the casing is touched while touching metal there would be a problem.  He stated each one of the pumps have a lug in the back with a copper wire required by the Electric Code and required by Florida law, which while the wire is connected no one will get hurt.  He continued by stating after some time the pump gets changed and the wire does not get connected there could be a problem there, but the Code is not part of maintenance.  The Code says if it is installed correctly it was safe.  He further stated there were so many people who do not live in Florida full time and he could not tell how many pools that have turned green because it only takes 3 or 4 days of a lot of rain and there could be a problem with potential great cost for the homeowner and a great deal of cost to the industry.  He then stated like the equal potential bonding was almost $5,000.00 per pool but it had to be dealt with for six or seven months to get it out of the Code.  He further stated the reason Georgia does not do it was because its pool industry was not as active as the industry in Florida, which has the strongest pool code in the nation.  He continued by stating he could not control what happened in California but this provision was not protecting any safety. He posed had there been any evidence presented showing people being harmed daily.  He stated he did not think so because if there was he would be the first one to include the provision.   He concluded by stating the provision does nothing to improve safety and it increases the cost of construction.

 

            Commissioner Greiner stated he understood what Commissioner Gregory had stated.  He then stated he would submit this was not the forum for that was the TAC, who had considered and voted on it 9-1 not to do the exemption.  He further stated the change was researched and discussed at length at the NEC code change process and reinstates a portion of the 1999 Code that addressed GFCIs and other thin dwellings and further clarified the language in 2007 NEC that pertains to corded plugs.  He concluded by stating the TAC voted against the provision and the Commission voted to reverse the TAC’s decision, something the Commission does not usually do.  He then stated his concern was if the mantra “Florida specific” was being used to make the change in his opinion the Commission would be stepping out of bounds.  He further stated the Commission has to be very careful with the use of Florida specific as it goes against the process of the Code to eliminate the Florida specific items.  He stated the item was an NEC item and Florida was no different than anyone else in the nation and the Commission rarely ever changes anything in the NEC.

 

            Commissioner Carson stated Commissioner Greiner was correct and after lengthy discussions at two different meetings the TAC did vote 9-1 against the change.   He then stated he did not have any technical expertise in pool pumps.  He further stated he felt like leaving the Code alone and move forward because there were reasons those provisions were in there.  He restated he did not have the expertise like the other gentlemen who have spoken but the Commission was trying to get away from the Florida specifics and he was not sure if the specifics he had heard regarding this provision rise to that level, in his opinion.

 

            Mr. Blair stated the motion on the floor was to remove the exemption for one and two family dwellings GFCI requirement for pool pump motors.  He explained originally there was no exception, but at the last meeting the Commission voted one in.  He then stated the current motion would remove the current exemption and the language would remain how it currently reads in the NEC intact. 

 

            Commissioner Kidwell asked if changing the wording now would cause a delay in the implementation of the rule, i.e. re-notice it.

 

            Mr. Richmond stated a notice of proposed change would be necessary with regard to the changes that have been approved because this was a glitch cycle under the particular provision 553.  He then stated once the Commission approves the package they could be relied upon by local building officials in the field. 

            Vote to approve the motion resulted in 16 in favor, 6 opposed (Mollan, Vann, Norkunas, Hamrick, Gregory, and Rodriguez).  Motion failed.

            Commissioner Gregory stated he pledged to his fellow commissioners the industry would vigorously pursue this to change the NEC comment and get it out during the next code cycle.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Gregory for his comments.  He stated the Commission was trying to fall in line and some of the information will go back to that.

 

Mr. Blair stated if any other commissioner had any additional changes they wanted to propose.  He stated if they did not the next motion would be to adopt the entire package and how to proceed.

 

Commissioner Kidwell stated he wanted to propose a change, but he also wanted to ask if there would be a final vote on the rule after the hearing was closed.

Chairman Rodriguez stated Mr. Richmond was about to state the motion on which the Commission would be voting.

 

Mr. Richmond stated as of the past Thursday a challenge had been filed to the rule.  He then stated challenges were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings and then a copy was forwarded to staff.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked who filed the challenge.

 

Mr. Richmond responded it was the Florida Chapter of AIA.  He further stated items were raised in the challenge he believed should be the subject of a motion.  He then stated the Commission had approved certain changes to the package approved and certain additions.  He then stated the motion needed would be to proceed with rule adoption of Rule 9B-3.047 Florida Building Code integrating the changes and additions that had been approved at the June 2009 Commission meeting, concluding the package was a whole and has an indeterminate impact on small business and regulated industry and state industries in general.  He further stated there was requirement of something called a statement of estimated regulatory costs which can be triggered by the impact on small business.  He then stated given the size of permutations and the Commission’s inability to even identify those people who might seek a building permit in the coming year or two. He continued by stating those figures were impossible to come up with out of thin air.  He then stated there was no evidence submitted regarding numbers, no information provided to the Commission in that regard and given that he believed all of that information was indeterminate.   He continued by stating the statement of estimated regulatory costs be proposed reflecting that and forwarded on to the Small Business Regulatory Advisory Council as well as several other entities. He then stated the motion would also allow the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs to sign off on any certification package paperwork as a result of the Commission’s approval of the rule.  He further stated the last issue would be to publish the notice of change and proceed with adoption with no further hearing unless the Commission preferred to hear the entire rule again in August.

 

Commissioner Franco stated he thought the Commission was going to be voting on each of the items separately specifically the issue with the interior designers and the architects.  He then stated he would like to get a clarification on the rule adoption. 

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated he could if he brought up the issue.

 

Commissioner Franco stated he would like to bring it up.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked if Commissioner Franco would like to make a motion.

 

Commissioner Franco stated he would like to make a motion but would need some assistance from Mr. Richmond with the wording.  He then stated when the Commission discussed the inclusion of the words interior designer it happened through some kind of agreement the Commission reached and he misunderstood what it meant when he voted.  He further stated he thought it meant the Commission would be voting again on the issue during the next meeting, but it ended up coming into the rule adoption and was integrated.  He concluded by stating he would like to have the vote again to determine if the words interior designer were included or not. 

 

Mr. Richmond stated pursuant to the Commission’s actions at the last meeting it had been integrated into the package.  He then stated if the commissioner wanted to remove it he could make that in the form of a motion to strike the proposed change to 106.1 and it would be subject to second and ¾ majority.

 

Commissioner Franco asked if that were to be changed could it be changed so that all of the words, architects, engineers, and interior designers be removed.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated it was a good point but did not know if it could be done in a glitch or if it could just be left designers instead of stipulating each one of them.

 

Commissioner Franco stated if this body was to say leaving out the words interior designer was a glitch he would have to say having included architects, engineers and landscape architects was the glitch.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated Mr. O’Connor had offered his comments on what he felt would help because adding interior designers does not really help or hurt.

 

Mr. Richmond stated he would echo those comments.  He then stated what had been requested of the Commission was to add some substance some informational reference which cannot conflict with statute, it defers to statute.  He further stated the biggest problem with that proposed approach was Florida AIA has actually stated it would be unacceptable to them because they want to leave architects in.  He further stated he envisioned the interior designers being opposed to that as well because it was contradictory to the settlement agreement executed by the Commission and the interior designers with their previous rule challenge.  He continued by stating from a code standpoint there is some difficulty as to whether or not it would qualify as a glitch or a means to address a glitch or not, which would be an issue unto itself.  He then stated from a legal standpoint it would put the Commission adverse to everyone.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated he believed if a straw poll were taken he believed the Commission would agree with Mr. O’Connor that it should say design professionals and call it a day.  He further stated one of the four, architects, engineers, landscape architects or interior designers, was left out and then came to the Commission asking to be included.  He then stated he remembered looking at Commissioner Greiner’s expression of pain because he was one of the first who stated they should all be out.   He continued by stating publicly the Commission has stated if it went into the next cycle it would favor the same.

 

Commissioner Greiner stated he had the verbiage. 

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked him to read it and then cousel can determine what impact it might make. 

 

Commissioner Greiner stated in the second paragraph it should read “If the design professional is legally registered under the laws of the state, provided for in Florida Statutes, then he or she should affix their official seal to set drawings and specifications of accompanying data as required by Florida Statute. 

 

Mr. Richmond stated what was wrong with the verbiage was the Commission had signed a settlement agreement not three or four months ago pursuant to a vote by the Commission with only one descending vote to maintain the current structure and add interior designer. 

 

Commissioner Kidwell stated he believed he was the descending vote but at the end of the day there was another challenge having placed the Commission in a position where people may come against it.  He then stated there was no right or wrong answer here and the Commission should be in the position where it does not have a dog in the fight.  He continued by stating the names should be taken out and put back where they are supposed t be and let the Board of Professional Engineers and Architects fight it out.  He stated he agreed with Commissioner Greiner’s wording and he would make a motion to substitute his wording in lieu of the wording currently shown.

 

Commissioner Franco stated the wording would be the motion he would like to make. 

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked Commissioner Kidwell if it were okay to give Commissioner Franco the motion and he take the second.

 

Commissioner Kidwell responded yes.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked Commissioner Greiner to read the wording of the motion again.

 

Commissioner Greiner stated if the design professional is legally registered under the laws of this state as provided for in Florida statutes then he or she shall affix his or her official seal to said drawings, specifications, and accompanying data as required by Florida Statutes.

 

Mr. Blair stated there was a thumbs-up from Mr. Dudley regarding the motion.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked if his noble profession of architecture could make an equally generous statement on behalf of his profession.  He then stated he believed interior designers were natural allies and what both professions were after was that a good design be practiced in the state of Florida.

 

Commissioner Greiner stated it simply puts everything back to the statutes where it belongs because it does not belong in the Code.  He then stated the statutes are pretty specific about who can seal what. 

 

Mr. Jernigan asked if instead of Commissioner Greiner’s motion adopt the exact language currently found in ICC which was very similar.  He stated he did not have the language in front of him.  He asked if it would have to go through re-noticing proposed rulemaking.

 

Mr. Richmond stated a notice of proposed change would be necessary.

Mr. Madani stated the ICC language read “The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statute of the jurisdiction where the project is to be constructed.”

 

Commissioner Franco accepted the language. 

 

Commissioner Kidwell accepted the language.

Mr. Dudley stated if he understood Commissioner Greiner’s wording of the motion the difference was to defer to the statutes, specifically as done with 471, engineers and 481, architects, interior designers and landscape architects.  He further stated he believed it important to specifically reference those two chapters.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission tries to be close to ICC on all matters and the only reason to deviate would be compelling reason for Florida and this would be one, to be able to refer to its own statutes. 

 

Mr. Jernigan asked if he understood the difference would be adding this reference to the statutes.

 

Mr. Schneider asked if the issue was what the ICC currently states in the 2006 version.   He asked if that was what Mr. Madani had read. 

 

Mr. Madani stated he had read from 2009.

 

Mr. Dudley asked for the motion to be restated.

 

Commissioner Greiner restated the motion was to defer to the following language “the construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project was being constructed.”

 

Mr. Dudley stated if it said “licensed pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapters 471 and 480.”

 

Commissioner Greiner stated the Commission was the Florida jurisdiction.

 

Commissioner Franco stated he would not support that in the motion.

 

Mr. Dudley stated they were asking that every building code administrator be directed to those two chapters.

 

Commissioner Palacios stated he believed that wording might say to Palm Beach County if the jurisdiction it was being built in…

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission was trying to clear it up so these problems do not occur.  He then stated some jurisdictions apply and some do not.

 

Mr. Madani stated they normally take out the reference to the jurisdiction and were required by Florida Statutes.

Mr. Dudley stated if these two statues were not referred to some building code administrators would not know where to be directed to.  He further stated he thought it appropriate the Code direct them to the proper statute.

 

Commissioner Franco stated he would be confused as to how a building official would not know where to find the information within the Florida Statutes.

Mr. Dudley stated that was why the Commission was here and has been here for 6 months because there were building code administrators officials who do not understand that interior designers were included in 481.

 

Commissioner Kidwell stated if referencing Florida Statutes 471 and 481 would make this go away he would support that as the second.

 

Commissioner Franco supported the motion to include reference of statutes 471 and 481.

 

Mr. Blair stated the motion was to go with the 2009 ICC language and to reference the statutes in Florida as 471 and 481. 

 

Commissioner Stone asked for clarification where it said local jurisdiction or local statute it would say Chapters 471 and 481.

 

Chairman Rodriguez responded that was correct.

 

Commissioner Stone asked if the 2nd paragraph under the exception would all be deleted.

Mr. Blair responded it would be deleted because the ICC codes will be used.

 

Commissioner Palacios stated contractors are not allowed to sign and seal plans, but can pull permits under a certain dollar value.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated it was in a different section.

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried. 

 

Mr. Madani requested the architects and interior designers stop sending him emails now that it is all over. 

 

Mr. Blair stated a motion was necessary to proceed with rule adoption integrating the changes and additions made by the Commission concluding passage as a whole has an indeterminate impact on small business and regulated industries, providing authority for the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs to sign off on the certifications and to notice proposed changes and proceed with rule adoption without an additional hearing. 

 

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

 

Commissioner Gross stated he found a typo in 105.15, 4th line. 

 

Mr. Blair asked if the Commission would like to add authority for staff to make editorial corrections.

 

Commissioner Franco supported adding the authority for staff to make editorial changes.  Commissioner Kidwell supported adding authority for staff to make editorial changes.

 

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.  Motion carried.

 

RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-13.0071 COST

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

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated Section 109HB7153 directs the Commission to develop a rule for determining cost effectiveness of energy conservation measures to be considered for inclusion in the Florida Energy Code.  He then stated the rule must be completed and applied to the updated provisions of the 2010 Florida Building Code.  He further stated the Commission was working with stakeholders via the Energy Code Workgroup to develop cost effectiveness test criteria to be applied to justification for increased residential building energy efficiency requirements to conclude in time to make the adoptive rule effective for inclusion in the 2010 Code update process.   He continued by stating at the February 2009 Commission meeting the Commission voted to initiate rulemaking to develop a rule for cost effectiveness of energy conservation measures to be considered for inclusion in the Florida Energy Code by conducting a rule development workshop at the April 2009 Commission meeting.  He stated the Energy Workgroup met on March 5th, March 27th, and March 30th of 2009 and has recommendations for the Commission’s consideration.  He then stated the Commission conducted a rule development workshop at the April 2009 meeting and voted to proceed with rule adoption by conducting a hearing at the June meeting.  He concluded by stating the hearing provided an additional opportunity for public comment before the Commission votes to file the rule for adoption. 

 

            Mr. Richmond opened the hearing.

 

            Commissioner Greiner stated the Commission would recall as the rule was set up at the last Commission meeting there were a couple of questions that had come from the TAC and the Commission with respect to certain areas where specific numbers were not clear.  He then stated those areas were used as a placeholder.  He further stated the four items Mr. Blair would be presenting were what the workgroup settled on after research and testimony and would provide for insertion into the rule.  He continued by stating there were also some items from Florida Solar which had to do with items that were changed and editorial items which straightened things out, 2 comments.

 

            Mr. Blair stated the Commission would be considering approval of the draft rule as posted with addition of the comments provided from FSEC which were basically what the workgroup agreed to providing additional detail as Commissioner Greiner had mentioned.  He further stated in addition the final four recommendations from the workgroup which fill in those generic placeholders were as follows:  1) Define the definition of consumer for both residential and commercial as a class of economic system participant which makes no distinction between the owner of the building and the utility rate payer, 2) for commercial the mortgage interest rate would be the greater of the most recent 5 year average and 10 year average, 3) simple interest rate for a fixed rate 30 year mortgage is computed from the primary mortgage market survey (PMMS) as reported by Freddie Mack plus a 2% increase that would be for commercial, 4) the commercial down payment would be 20% and the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) on investments for commercial a value equal to 7%.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez called for public comment. 

 

            No public comment.

 

            Mr. Richmond closed the hearing.

 

            Mr. Blair stated a motion was necessary to proceed with rule adoption integrating the changes and additions approved as comments, allow the Secretary of DCA to sign off on certification, proceed with notice of proposed changes and proceed with rule adoption without an additional hearing. 

 

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

 

RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON RULE 9B-72.090, PRODUCT APPROVAL, FEES

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the October 2008 meeting the Commission voted in favor of a policy requiring all programs to be self supporting.  He continued by stating in the past the Commission had subsidized to develop and revise the BCIS for product approval.  He then stated the Commission agreed the true cost of implementing programs changes would have to be reflected in the fees charged for the programs.  He further stated the Commission has spent approximately $1 million dollars for changes to the BCIS to implement product approval changes desired by stakeholders.  He stated in the past building permit fees that support the Commission were used to fund the costs, however, there was no longer any reserve of the fees to subsidize the program.  He then stated the Commission was operating with a significantly reduced budget.  He continued by stating in order to balance the Commission’s budget it needed $800,000.00 from product approval.  He stated the Commission currently had more spending authority than funds.  He explained building permit surcharge fees continue to decline and codes and standards recently took a 10% cost cut and lost 2 staff positions.  He then stated thanks to the Commission’s stakeholders support of the Legislature in minimizing those impacts.  He further stated as a result of the declining funds the Commission needed to revise the fee schedule for product approval to make them self-supporting and to repay some of the development costs funded by the Commission.  He continued by stating the Product Approval POC had evaluated the issue and has recommendations for the Commission.  He stated the workshop was an opportunity for additional public comment before the Commission votes to proceed with rule adoption.

 

            Mr. Richmond opened the hearing.

 

            Ms. Jones presented a Power Point presentation on fees.  (Please see Product Approval Fees Part 1 Revenue/Expenses, Part 2 Distribution/ Part 3 Fees.)

 

            Commissioner Palacios asked how the vendors were selected and if there many bids for the position.

 

            Ms. Jones stated it was a bid process.  She then stated it was the second time it had been bid on and there were 2 responses.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked how many responses there were the first time.

            Ms. Jones responded there were 2 that time as well.

            Commissioner Gross stated there was red everywhere except for 2 options within the first column and 1 option in the second column.  He asked if those items were the only ones without a shortfall.

 

            Ms. Jones responded yes.

 

            Commissioner Gross asked if the Commission did not want a shortfall one of those options would have to be chosen.

 

            Ms. Jones responded yes.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked for clarification which options the Commission would have to choose from to avoid a shortfall.

 

            Ms. Jones responded Option 1 (FBC 75% or FBC 60%) or Option 2 (FBC 75%).    

            Commissioner Stone stated he assumed this was without major changes to the way the Commission does business.  He asked if it was basically operating very similarly to the way it had been.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated that was not correct the Commission would not be operating the way it currently operated.  He then stated it had already been stated there was a reduction in the Commission’s funding and were reduced by 2 positions beyond the 2 that were retired.  He continued by stating the issue was whether the Commission continued to provide the service or not. 

 

            Commissioner Stone stated he disagreed.  He further stated he had not seen a decision package on which he could make a rational decision.

 

            Mr. Blair stated the process was to get clarifying questions only, hear the POC’s recommendations, public comment and then come back for Commission discussion.

 

            Commissioner Palacios asked what the POC recommendations were.

 

            Mr. Blair stated the POC recommendations would be discussed after clarifying questions.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated he wanted to respect Commissioner Stone’s ability to disagree but asked if there was any other answer to the question he had asked regarding if the was business as usual for the Commission.

 

            Commissioner Stone stated he could wait for the discussion part because he believed it would be more involved.  He further stated he resisted the statement that the Commission had to do something.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated he just wanted to make sure his question was addressed.

 

            Commissioner Stone stated it would be.

 

            Mr. Blair stated the Product Approval POC met and voted on recommendations to the Commission regarding Product Approval fees and adjustments.  He further stated the POC recommended Option 4 including fee adjustments for products requiring further review and inspection with no fees or adjustments for the vendor. The POC voted 5-1 with Commissioner Carson voting against the recommendation. 

 

            Dave Olmstead, PGT Industries

           

Mr. Olmstead stated his company had been involved with the Product Approval process since the very beginning and believed it to be a viable value added process.  He then stated from his own experiences it has benefited the public, the playing field was more level, and the public was getting better products.  He further stated they would be amenable to an increase in the cost of product approvals however the Commission works it out.  He concluded above all they do not want to see the system fall apart therefore they will go along with whatever the Commission comes up with.

 

            Dick Wilhelm, FMA, WDMA

           

Mr. Wilhelm stated he represented FMA, WDMA, the majority of door and window manufacturers and also the majority of people who use the method in Product Approval which brings in a good amount of money.  He then stated he had hoped to hear from the gentleman appointed by the Governor representing manufacturers before he made his comments, but would have to do it in reverse.  He continued by stating they very much supported his recommendation of Option 4, and also pledged working with the Commission to solve the problem.  He further stated he would like to see all of the options available to help solve the problem without putting an undue burden and expense on manufacturers because, like the Commission, they were suffering as well.

 

            Randy Shackleford, Simpson’s Strong Tie?

           

Mr. Shackleford stated they were presented yesterday with the information just presented in the Product Approval fees presentation.  He referenced the second page regarding the cost of the Product Approvals’ system last year to DCA was $310,000.00 or 12% of the cost of the Florida Building Commission, $348,000.00.  He then stated the amount said to be necessary was $800,000.00 and he did not understand why fees would be needed that would make up over twice the amount of the cost of the system.  He continued by stating he understood the necessity for programs to be self supporting and was in agreement with that.  He stated the manufacturers were happy with the product approval system and they receive very good service from the DCA and staff, as well as the product approval administrator.  He reiterated he did not see the need to increase fees for over twice the amount of the cost of the system.  He stated they gave testimony at the POC meeting regarding their support of Option 2 understanding some fees were not being charged currently and recommended by the committee, plus maybe a $50.00 across the board fee.  He concluded by stating times were hard for manufacturers and at 66% some of the costs would be too much.

 

            Mr. Dixon stated the numbers were on the handout clearly showing the program has only paid its own way once in its lifetime.  He further stated over time there had been a tremendous investment of funds collected from another source.  He then stated it was not unfair at some point to ask for some of the investment back and they were not asking for all of it back.  He continued by stating there was hopefully just a one year low point in the cycle where it is necessary for the product approval program to pay a  little bit of the investment back.  He reiterated they were not asking for all of the investment. 

 

            Ms. Jones stated for clarification the Commission had spent basically 3 million dollars, which included the BCIS ($725,000.00) and operating expenses ($2,400,000.00).   She then stated she believed Mr. Shackelford may have misunderstood what she had said or maybe she was not clear enough.  She further stated this included the information system, operating expenses, which was what the Commission covers because the $300.00 fee has gone to the other part of administrative activities to fund the approval or review of the applications.

 

            Mr. Blair stated $300,000.00 was not the full cost of the program, but one small part of it. 

            Ms. Jones stated under the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 the BCIS was $50,000.00, FBC operating expenses was $310,000.00, and the administrator was $749,000.00 making the actual total operating cost of the program was 1.1 million dollars.

 

            Ted Berman

           

Mr. Berman stated he wanted to speak because some of the members of the Commission were not there at the beginning of the process and there was a question from a commissioner he wanted to expand on.  He then stated the program had been out for bids twice.  He further stated the first time it went out the competing bid was over $600.00 per review.  He continued by stating at that time the group he was with bid to maintain at that time a fee of $300.00 approved by the Commission and the competing bid was more than double their bid.  He stated when that contract was up for review it was bid on a separate group and he believed the opposing bidder had the same bid.  He then stated they had provided a reduction in the bid by providing a $25.00 reimbursement to the department, which they had been providing.   He further stated the department requested them to assume some of the responsibilities of a position that became vacant and they had done so voluntarily in order to cooperate with the department.

 

            Mr. Shackleford stated in the budget presented earlier there was projected revenue from product approval of $800,000.00.  He asked if it included the expense of the administrator.  He stated the Commission wanted to clear $800,000.00 where the $300,000.00 are clear expenses listed do not include the other $750,000.00 which makes up the 1.1 million.  He concluded by stating if it was not included in the income it should not be included in the expenses.

 

            Ms. Jones stated the budget discussed earlier basically shows what the Commission has with product approval taking all of the fee increases the Commission plans to do the Commission has an $800,000.00 hole that has to be filled to be able to fund its activities this year.  She then stated, as Mr. Dixon said, the Commission has funded this program more than 3 million dollars over the last 6 or 7 fiscal years.  She further stated therefore the Commission was looking to that program to collect enough money to fund the Commission’s activities.  She then stated if they do not look there they will look for corresponding cuts in activities for the fiscal year. 

 

            Mr. Richmond closed the hearing.

 

            Commissioner Palacios asked how realistic it would be to do Option 4.  He stated it would be very nice to say it was going to be cut but it’s pie in the sky basically.  He then stated if the program had been mismanaged for all of these years to a huge deficit he did not believe the current economy should be the place they try to recapture it. 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the program had not been mismanaged.  He then stated building activity had been so high the Commission had been able to subsidize the Product Approval.  He then stated living in Dade County Commissioner Palacios should know what product approval meant to Dade County.  He continued by stating there was a war over not diminishing the standards and through a lot of hard work from everyone, including Miami-Dade County and Broward County, a system was created and it worked.  He then stated the problem was it cost money to run the system and when the Commission was in a position to subsidize it, the Commission was doing so, and if the Legislature had not taken away the Commission’s funding it would still be doing it.  He further stated the only reason the Commission got the $400-500,000.00 back was because they could not find a way to spend it after they took it away from the Commission.  He stated it was a one year thing and either raise more money or reduce the service and the Commission does not want to reduce the service.   He then stated the Commission was not only cutting staff, but was now only meeting every 8 weeks for 2 days instead of 3.  He continued by stating that was less efficient to the public because the Commission cannot hear the product approval applications and the Commission cannot hear the Accessibility Waivers or Declaratory statements as often as it did.  He concluded by stating there were reductions and if the Commission could not cover the $800,000.00 there will be more reductions.

 

            Commissioner Palacios stated he could understand raising the fees to cover the deficit of product approval.  He further stated he was in support of product approval.  He then stated he thought it unrealistic to come now this year and say in this screwed up economy is now when the Commission will revamp product approval.  He continued by stating when materials were being sold left and right would’ve been the time to get them to pay for it.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated he did not disagree.  He then stated when this was reviewed with staff it was discussed how this was the wrong time to be raising fees, but the only other option was reduce services.  He further stated there was not the same activity in building permits as there used to be.  He stated he did not feel bad that the Commission subsidized the program, but he did feel bad the Legislature took over the money the Commission had saved precisely for moments like this. 

 

            Commissioner Palacios stated he was not opposed to raising the fees just not the windfall.

 

            Commissioner Schock asked if there had been any kind of comparison done to other processes like Miami-Dade or the ICC.

 

            Ms. Jones stated she had not done checked on that.

 

            Commissioner Schock asked if anyone knew the cost of product approval through Miami-Dade.

 

            Mr. Madani stated it was very simple math.  He then stated in ICC $11,000-15,000.00 or in Miami-Dade $5,000-6,000.00 to be approved.

 

            Commissioner Schulte stated in looking at the cash analysis of revenue and expenses he saw the largest expense was OPS contracts ($1.393 million).  He asked what was rolled into that number because that was a huge cost.

 

            Ms. Jones stated the number included research contracts, facilitator’s contracts, and audio contracts, for example.  She then stated other than staff and expenses most of the work done through the Commission were funded by the OCS through contractual services.

 

            Commissioner Schulte stated he did not know if that was something that needed to be looked at.  He then stated if that number could be lowered maybe it could lower the requirements and revenue on the other side. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the issue has been it was less expensive to hire a consultant than to have someone on staff.  He then stated for years, since the Bush years, there have had to be staff reductions.  He further stated the money from the permits was used to hire consultants and not increase staff, which the Commission was not allowed to do anyway, in order to get the services.

 

            Commissioner Schulte stated he understood.  He asked when discussing research did it mean projects like the UF projects.

 

            Ms. Jones responded yes, the University of Florida, University of Central Florida, for example.

 

            Mr. Dixon stated for any special project the Commission has consultants hired to help develop the technical background. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated what Commissioner Schulte was asking specifically which were those projected for the next fiscal year which the Commission would have to fund. 

 

            Ms. Jones stated the Commission was entering into contracts with the University of Florida, for hurricane research and the University of Central Florida, energy research.  Chairman Rodriguez asked if that was being done because of a mandate.

 

            Ms. Jones stated the energy research was requested from Legislature.

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission would be hard pressed to rescind that contract because the Legislature was requiring the Commission develop these.

            Ms. Jones continued by stating there was a manufactured buildings contract monitoring contract found in the statute and the rule that third party agencies and manufacturers are monitored.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked if that paid for itself.

 

            Ms. Jones responded yes, manufactured buildings does pay for itself.  She stated as a side note it had been one of the programs subsidized product approval these past years.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked if either of those could be cut.

 

            Ms. Jones responded she did not believe so.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated because one pays for itself and the other was mandated by the Legislature.

 

            Ms. Jones stated also because these are the issues the Commission will be looking at for the 2010 Code.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked what else.

 

            Ms. Jones stated there was also audio, minutes, and BCIS.

            Commissioner Smith asked if it was out of line to ask for a breakdown of these expenses.

 

            Ms. Jones stated it was not.

 

            Commissioner Smith stated he thought it would help some of them understand on a line item basis where these expenses are going.

 

            Commissioner Stone stated he sat quietly and cautiously to let the line out and see how many fish could be caught.  He then stated he was always amazed that in hard economic times only government thinks of increasing costs rather than decreasing.  He further stated he knew associations all over the country such as AFNPA who has reduced their force by 40% still trying to provide a service to their members. He continued by stating the Florida Homebuilders Association was going through the same thing.  He stated only government thinks they can always increase even in times of hard economics.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated with all due respect he believed his statement to be a generalization.  He then stated he knew Commissioner Stone had been in government and he knew he had experience but he just joined the Commission and he would need to be a little more familiar with what the history had been under the Bush and Christ administration in terms of cutting back.  He continued by stating it was not because the Commission was fat and not willing to make 40% reductions.  He stated the Commission had been kept lean over the years while it had been given unfunded mandates.

 

            Commissioner Stone stated he was fully cognicent of that. He then stated his point was there were different ways of skinning the cat.  He further stated he was not sure if the commissioners had been given enough information to make that decision.  He continued by stating, for example, what always happens to him in government entities was the bureaucratic remark “we’re going to have to close the parks, shut a fire station, you can’t have as many Commission meetings…”  He restated that was a bureaucratic remark.  He then stated there were various ways of doing and performing functions.  He further stated there were also functions that were discretionary and those need to be looked at.  He continued by stating the decision package the commissioners were given was not adequate to make that decision.  He stated the commissioners need to know what the itemized cost, the operations the Commission was doing and the options for doing those operations.  He then stated, for example, the Commission has had teleconference meetings and those are very cost efficient.  He stated he was a member of ASHRAE and they have very detailed teleconferences using go to meeting that’s 2 days long and they get much done for a very low cost.  He continued by stating the Commission has to think of different ways of operating.  He then stated he believed what Mr. Berman was doing was fantastic, but the question would be is everything Mr. Berman is doing have to be done.  He further stated can’t the Commission recognize every building product that has an ICC approval.  He asked why that cost can’t be eliminated.  He stated there other issues out there that need to be looked at and he did not see the Commission was looking at them.  He further stated as a tax payer he did not believe the Commission was effective with its money and he believed the pencil could be sharpened and be better which was why he made the motion for Option 4.  He stated he did not see any reason for increasing fees.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated he thought it was valid to ask for more information.  He then stated he would ask the commissioner to not paint the Commission or the Department which has been supporting the Commission with the same brush of your personal experiences in government. He further asked if he knew how many generalizations were in this world regarding architects, interior designers, engineers, lawyers i.e. everyone.  He stated he refused to accept those generalizations because they were not required and he had just joined the Commission.  He suggested if he asked his questions and the answers were not satisfactory then fine.

            Commissioner Stone stated his experience with government.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated he should not rely on his experience with government to cast dispurgeons on what this staff had done. 

            Commissioner Stone stated he had done operations review from Florida to North Carolina. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated that was not what he was doing now.

 

Commissioner Stone stated he had studied this field and was his field of expertise.  He further stated there were generalities in government and he did not want to see it in the Commission and was trying to prevent that.  He then stated he did not know if it was occurring in the Commission.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked him to give the Commission the benefit of doubt.

 

Commissioner Stone stated he found the decision packet to be inadequate and he would not accept it at the City of St. Pete Beach not even from one of his Masters students in Budgeting at USF.  He then stated he wanted to know the options so the Commission can see what kind of changes to make in the operation of the Commission.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated he had no objection to that at all.

 

Mr. Richmond stated one of the things that needed to be recognized was the Commission’s fairly limited authority in this realm. He then stated he worked with staff and one of the few things the Commission actually has the authority to do is look at fees, which was what the Commission had been asked to look at and do everything as quickly as possible.  He further stated the solutions need to be short term otherwise at the rate the expenses were going out and the monies coming in the Commission will run out of money.  He stated it was a practical reality, but it was not bureaucracy or anything along those lines.  He restated fees were actually something the Commission could look at and very little else.

 

Ms. Jones stated one item discussed earlier and she provided the projected revenue and disbursements to the commissioners.  (Please see Cash Analysis Housing and Community Development Operating Trust Fund – Codes.)

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated the point Commissioner Palacios made and discussed was the Commission needed to know where and how much is spent on product approval.  He then stated the case has already been made of the years of subsidizing the program and that the monies saved had been taken away. He stated moving forward he asked how much it cost to run the program the way it is now.

 

Ms. Jones stated for the year 2008-2009 it cost $11 million.

Chairman Rodriguez stated by increasing the fees in Option 1, with 2 sub options relative to how much of the fee was given to the consultant.

 

Ms. Jones stated at this point if the fee is $300.00 per application the Commission gets $25.00 or 12%.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated what was being proposed would be a 60/40 rate. 

 

Ms. Jones stated that was one of the options.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked from that option, which was one of the options under Option 1, would the Commission be able to pay for the product approval system the way it is being conducted now. 

 

Ms. Jones stated the Commission’s portion would be covered.  She then stated the administrator’s portion would be $548,000.00 and would have to be discussed with the administrator.  She further stated the amount was along the lines of what he had collected the last two years.

 

Chairman Rodriguez asked how much the Commission would have to charge to have product approval pay for itself the way it is currently being run.  He stated then the Commission can discuss how it can be run differently.

 

Commissioner Stone stated it was discussed previously and he had a question on it.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated there might be a way to run it differently but what is the amount it would take to run it the same way in the future.

 

            Commissioner Stone stated some administrative questions came up during the POC which need to be addressed.

 

            Ms. Jones stated she understood what he was asking her and she was trying to answer him as clearly as possible.  She then stated if looking at the options there were basically three options that would allow the Commission to receive the amount of money it needs to function and the rest would depend on either negotiating with a vendor or if the vendor decided they did not want that amount the contract would have to be re-bid.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the options as written indicate in order to not be in the red the Commission has to negotiate 60/40 or 75/25.

 

            Ms. Jones stated 72/25 or 60/40 with Option 1 and 75/25 under Option 2.

            Chairman Rodriguez stated if the contractor would negotiate with us on that basis would it cover the cost of the product approval system the way it is being run at present.

 

            Ms. Jones stated the only one that would cover the cost of the product approval system being run now would be Option 1 either 75/25 or 60/40 because those are over 1 million dollars.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked if those did cover the program.

 

            Ms. Jones stated those would cover the entire program.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated Commissioner Palacios concern was the Commission not charge more than what it takes to run the program then how it could be run different or more efficient could be discussed.  He then asked with those two options by increasing the fee to $300.00 if the Commission could pay for the product approval system.

 

            Ms. Jones stated the fee would be increased from $300.00 to $500.00.

            Commissioner Palacios stated looking at the bar chart and the Commission’s cost last year he asked how much did it cost to run the program.

            Ms. Jones stated 1.1 million dollars.

 

            Commissioner Palacios asked how much the revenues were.

 

            Ms. Jones stated the revenues for product approval were $812,000.00.

 

            Commissioner Palacios asked if anyone had a calculator and asked what 1.1 divided by .8 equals.  He stated it was a shortfall and whatever the percent for that shortfall was that should be the increase necessary to actually cover the cost of the program. 

 

            Commissioner Greiner stated the Commission has a program which does not pay for itself so the original number the Commission got and used was incorrect.  He then stated now the fee has to be raised up so it will pay for itself.  He further stated if the Commission went with the 60/40 under Option 1 with the fee increases it would take care of it. 

 

            Commissioner Palacios stated currently the department gets less than 10% of the money it collects.  He then stated from a $350.00 fee it gets $25.00. He further stated it was currently a 90/10 split and someone is going to make it a 60/40 split the subcontractors were not going to be happy.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated if it could not be negotiated the Commission would have the option of going out.

 

            Commissioner Palacios asked if it was going to be possible to cut this expense in half. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the profit was being cut.

 

            Commissioner Palacios stated it should be put out for bids.

 

            Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Palacios to clarify he supports an option that would determine what the cost of the system is and whatever that cost is the fee would be adjusted accordingly in order to make it neutral.

 

            Commissioner Palacios stated that was correct. He stated it should be put out for bids.

 

            Mr. Blair asked if he meant the fee would be adjusted to balance out revenues and expense.

 

            Commissioner Palacios stated that was correct.

 

            Ms. Jones recommended if the Commission would consider Option 2 with 75/25 split that would give the Commission $831,000.00 and the administrator $277,000.00 with a few dollars being negotiable.  She stated this would be back shortly anyway because it is the last year of the contract for the administrator so it will have to be bid returning to the Commission in December 2009.  She further stated in order to get it bid out and have administrator in place for July 1, 2010.  She then stated it could possibly be a short term solution.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked how much the administrator received right now per review.

 

            Ms. Jones stated it depends on the different fees.  She then stated, for example, a new application the administrator gets $275.00 per application. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked how much the administrator would get if the Commission went with Option 2.

 

            Ms. Jones stated this year for new applications there were approximately 3,000 applications $277,000.00 divided by 3,000.

 

            Mr. Blair stated the administrator would get $75.00 and the Commission would get $325.00.

            Commissioner Palacios stated it was impossible.  He further stated the Commission would not get for $75.00 what it was getting for $300.00 before.  He then stated the administrator could be squeezed, but not that hard.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked if it should be increased beyond the $400.00, which Ms. Jones had proposed.

 

            Commissioner Palacios stated look at the split.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated he agreed with Commissioner Palacios, but the Commission had to get to the crux of the matter on product approval only and then the budget could be reviewed.  He asked if the Commission was paying $275.00 per review, in order to cover the cost of the program as it currently operates, it would have to be increased to $500.00.

 

            Ms. Jones stated to get the Commission where it needed to go and the administrator where he needed to go she would say $500.00.  She then stated if looking at the Commission and reducing the administrator then it could go to $400.00.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated Commissioner Palacios’ concern was the reduction would be too severe. 

 

            Ms. Jones stated with that in mind she would say $500.00. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated there would definitely be a reduction on the per review.

 

            Commissioner Palacios stated the numbers did not make any sense. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated he knew which was why he was trying to do it per review so it can be understood.

 

            Commissioner Palacios stated if it costs $1.1 million and the Commission was charging $800,000.00 if it was divided all the way down only $300,000.00 needed to be charged.  He then stated if raising it from $350.00 it would have to be to $450.00 that is if the administrator was not cut anything.  He then stated if the administrator could be cut down 10% and then only raise the fees 25% the difference would be made up and the program balanced out. 

 

            Ms. Jones stated the $800,000.00 was what the Commission needed in order to function for the next fiscal year.  She then stated the $800,000.00 did not include the cost of the administrator.  She further stated there were two issues: 1) to get to the point the Commission gets the $800,000.00 and 2) to determine what the Commission wanted to pay the administrator to get to the total fee.  She continued by stating if the Commission chose Option 1 the 60/40 would get the Commission $822,000.00 and $548,000.00 for the administrator, which was in line with what he had collected for the last couple of fiscal years. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated because the cost of the administrator was separate to the cost to the Commission there was a disconnect.  He then stated what the Commission was trying to deal with was how to raise the fee from $300.00 to $500.00 and where it goes.  He further stated how it appears to Commissioner Palacios and others is the Commission was overcharging product approval in order to fund other programs, but that was not happening.  

 

            Commissioner Vann stated he believed it to be way, way too complicated.  He then stated all the Commission was dealing with was a shortfall.  He then stated there was an $800,000.00 shortfall.  He then stated he believed the Commission should be looking at an average of the last 4-5 years to come up with accurate numbers, not just 2008-2009, which appeared to be an anomaly.  He further stated to get a true perspective it should be looking at 2004-2005 and run some averages.  He continued by stating the reality was finding out where the shortfall was and then make some of it up through the administrator and some of it up through the additional fees and try to make everybody happy as much as possible. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated that made a lot of sense.  He then stated the question now was more of a procedural question.  He further stated if the fees were going to be raised the Commission was running out time to catch that cycle.  He stated if not the easiest thing to do would be to put it off for eight weeks and have Ms. Jones come back with clear figures of what it costs and how much the Commission has to charge, forget all of the options.  He continued by stating if the Commission and the industry was not supportive then the services have to be reduced.  He then stated he believed the Commission needed some help on the timing issue and how much of a window of opportunity was there before it remains at $300.00 and the Commission would have to just reduce services. 

 

            Commissioner Palacios asked if anyone had talked with the administrator about reducing their fees before it goes out to bid again.

 

            Ms. Jones stated she was waiting to find out what the Commission wanted to do because that would depend on how to deal with the administrator.  

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated he believed that was fair. He then stated how much the Commission has to spend and then negotiate.  He asked what the threshold of pain was.  He stated $1.00 over $300.00 would be painful because people were doing worse therefore it was counterintuitive.  He then stated the Commission was placed in the situation because its money was taken away for moments like this, so the Commission recovers, the economy recovers, the permits recover and then the Commission makes it up.

            Commissioner Palacios stated he believed the Commission needed to know its costs before determining what to charge.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated everything was negotiable except the honor of the revolution.  He asked how much can the Commission or the industry can bear.  He then stated everyone was in agreement the service as it runs currently was first class.  He further stated it took a long time to get where it is and everyone is on board.  He continued by stating the Commission was giving a very good service because it subsidized it for a number of years.  He stated the money from which it subsidized has been removed and a determination of what was acceptable to charge to keep the service the way it is.  He further stated if the Commission decided otherwise it can go back and negotiate less service.

 

            Commissioner Stone stated one of his concerns was if the administrator’s revenue he would become quicker in the way he makes decisions.  He further stated what has been excellent about Mr. Berman was his working with the clients.  He then stated he did not want to cut too much or put too much pressure.  He continued by stating a couple of issues came up at the POC meeting: 1) were there certain limits of size of an application that if it gets too big it costs too much and that person would be subsidized by everyone else and 2) there was a decision made where an applicant was denied.  He then stated Mr. Berman had worked with the applicant and there should be a limit as to when a decision was made. He further stated the POC made a recommendation and the Commission accepted it.  He stated the quality of service must always be kept in line.  He continued by stating he had talked about the revenue but the quality of service was a key issue. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated he appreciated the comments.  He further stated those were some of Commission Palacios’ concerns as well, when some of the projections were made of cutting the fee of the service provider.

 

            Commissioner Gregory stated he believed the users of the system were not able to sell their product unless they receive a product approval so it behooves them to pay the fee because they cannot sell a product unless they do.  He then stated he was in favor of the first option and negotiating with the administrator to drop his fee.  He further stated as a contractor the margins he made a year ago were not there.  He then stated by doing a combination of increasing the fees and lowering the costs he believed the Commission could get there.  He further stated the Commission needed to know what it is costing them and would need a cushion there because there was no way of knowing how many product approvals there would be in the upcoming year. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated that was correct it was a projection.

            Commissioner Greiner asked if the Commission was in a position, with the contract coming up in October, if it could put something in force now, such as option 1, as suggested by Commissioner Gregory, with the stipulation it would be renegotiated in October when it was reviewed again.  He then stated at that time there would be more information and the Commission would still have the advantage of the higher fees. 

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated that was why he needed to know what the window of opportunity was in terms of changing the fee because the fee cannot be changed every day.

 

            Mr. Richmond stated the fee can be changed anytime the Commission decides it can tolerate additional rule making as established in rule.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked how long it would take.

 

            Mr. Richmond stated the current discussion would be considered the rule development workshop and in August the rule adoption hearing would be held.  He then stated assuming there were no changes the rule could be filed 21 days later.

            Chairman Rodriguez asked what the answer was.

 

            Mr. Richmond stated the best case scenario would mean a 90 day period considering times necessary for Commission meetings.  He then stated the best case scenario would be approximately 45 days if teleconference meetings were utilized. 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated the $300.00 would be in effect for at least 90 days. 

            Mr. Richmond stated it could not even take effect until September.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez asked how many days that would mean.

 

            Mr. Dixon stated he was reading the comments left by Commissioner Carson who had to leave but wanted his comments in the record.  He read “1) Commission policies and programs must pay for themselves.  2)  the initial $300.00 number was picked out of the air because no one knew what it would cost to run the program.  He then stated there was a range of proposals made from $600.00 and down to select as a starting point and the rule does require reevaluation every year. 3) there were marketing benefits to the manufacturers and there were benefits to the manufacturers of not having to go to each individual jurisdiction to have their product approved.  He stated his point was there was a tremendous savings to the manufacturers by coming to the state, which was a voluntary process, and not having to expend funds by sending someone into every jurisdiction to have their product approved. He also wanted to point out if there were fewer meetings there would be less frequent product approvals.  He stated TAC meetings which are not complicated issues were being done by teleconference.  He then stated product approvals themselves have been done by teleconferences.”

 

            Commissioner Gregory moved approval to accept Option 1 with the 60/40 split and negotiate with the administrator for a lower fee.  Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion.

 

            Commissioner Palacios asked for how long it would be effective.

 

            Mr. Dixon responded stating the rule states it was to be reevaluated annually.  He then stated if the economy picks up and gets better it would be next year.

 

            Commissioner Palacios asked if it would be effective 90 days from now and effective until.

 

            Chairman Rodriguez stated Mr. Richmond had stated it would be September. He then stated the Commission could change it before then if it wanted to deal with the process before then.  He continued by stating realistically if the Commission adopted it now it would take until the end of October.  He stated if the Commission wanted to change it after 3 months it could.

 

            Vote to approve the motion resulted in 16 in favor, 2 opposed (Smith, Stone).   Motion carried. 

 

            Mr. Blair stated a motion was necessary to adopt the recommendations and publish them and to proceed with rule adoption of Rule 9B-72.090 Product Approval Fees by conducting a rule adoption hearing at the next Commission meeting. 

            Commissioner Gregory moved approval of the motion as stated.

 

Commissioner Boyer entered a second.  Vote to approve the motion resulted in 17 in favor, 1 opposed (Stone?) Motion carried.

 

COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES

 

Commissioner Stone stated he was really concerned the Commission was adopting the I Codes and trying to go toward the I Codes yet the Commission was not actively participating in the code change process of the ICC.  He asked if it were very expensive.

           

Chairman Rodriguez stated he was not exactly correct. 

 

Mr. Dixon stated the Commission had taken up this subject at one time.  He then said staff had requested that items which were Florida specific be taken actively to the ICC process to try to get them into the I Codes.  He further stated the Commission, at that time, declined to spend any of its resources, staffing or funding to do so, but agreed they would like to work with BOAF and have BOAF be the advocate for Florida changes. 

 

Commissioner Stone stated he did not disagree with those comments.  He then stated his point was when he attends the Code hearings he did not see many code officials there.  He further stated the code officials make the decisions and he believed the Commission should encourage local governments whenever possible to send code officials to those meetings because the Commission did not have the input it used to have.

 

Chairman Rodriguez stated Commissioner Stone was absolutely right, but, for example, testimony was heard earlier from Commissioner Gregory on how the Florida Pool Group was affecting the ICC.  He then stated it was not just building officials.  He further stated more building officials from Florida should go to the ICC and participate, but there should also be individuals from the industry so it was retro and not just being handed down to the Commission.

 

Mr. Blair stated the Commission did also voted for a letter of support, as requested by BOAF, to local jurisdictions who participate in the process.

 

Mr. Blair stated the Accessibility Code Workgroup meeting scheduled for 1:00pm would take place at 4:00pm.

 

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

 

No public comment.

 

ADJOURN

 

3:35 p.m. adjourned.