6000 West Osceola
Parkway
Kissimmee, FL 34746
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
8:30 AM
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Dick Browdy,
Chairman Jeffrey
Gross
Hamid Bahadori Robert
Hamberger
Steve Bassett Brian
Langille
James Batts Beth
Meyer
Bob Boyer Darrell
Phillips
Donald Brown Bradley
W. Schiffer
Jay Carlson Frederick
Schilling
David Compton Jim
Schock
Nan Dean Drew
Smith
Kevin Flanagan Jeff
Stone
Charles Frank Brian
Swope
David Gilson Tim
Tolbert
COMMISSIONER NOT
PRESENT:
Oscar Calleja
OTHERS PRESENT:
.
Jim Richmond Chris
Burgwald
Mo Madani April
Hammonds
Jim
Hammers
MEETING
FACILITATION:
The meeting was
facilitated by Jeff Blair from the FCRC Consensus Center at Florida State
University. Information at: http://consensus.fsu.edu/
FBC
Plenary Session
April
17, 2014
Page
2
Welcome:
Time: 8:30 am
Chairman Browdy welcomed
Commissioners, staff, and members of the public to Kissimmee and the April 17,
2014 plenary session of the Florida Building Commission. He stated that in addition to considering regular procedural
issues including product and entity approvals, applications for accreditor and
course approvals, petitions for declaratory statements, accessibility waivers,
and recommendations from our various committees, the primary focus of the April
meeting is to receive an update on the Education Rule, to receive an update on
legislation of interest to the Commission, and to review and approve the
summary of issues for inclusion in the Commission’s Annual Report (FY
2013-2014).
Chairman Browdy advised members
of the public to sign the attendance sheet on the speaker’s table in the center
of the room. In addition, we have a sign-up sheet for general public comment. He
stated as always, we will provide an opportunity for public comment on each of
the Commission’s substantive discussion topics (actions that are not procedural
or ministerial in content). Chairman
Browdy stated that if a member of the public would like to comment on a
specific substantive Commission agenda item, please come to the speaker’s table
when the issue is up for consideration so we know you want to speak. He advised that public input is welcome, but
should be offered before there is a formal motion on the floor. Chairman Browdy
asked that all participants and the audience please remember to keep all electronic devices turned off or in a silent
mode. Thank you for your cooperation.
Chairman Browdy stated that there
were also buff colored “Public Comment
Forms” on the speakers’ table that can be used to provide written
comments. All written comments will be included in the Facilitator’s Summary Report.
Please give your completed “Public
Comment Forms” to Jeff Blair. He
advised there are some of the licensing boards located within the Department of
Business and Professional Regulation have adopted rules regarding continuing
education credits for attending Florida Building Commission meetings and/or
Technical Advisory Committee meetings. If your board participates you may
sign-in on the kiosk laptop provided in the meeting room.
FBC Plenary Session
February
21, 2014
Page
3
Roll
Call:
Chairman Browdy performed roll
call, a quorum was met with twenty four members present.
Chairman Browdy requested that Jeff Blair cover the agenda items
for the meeting today.
Jeff Blair welcomed participants to
the February Plenary Session and introduced the agenda as follows:
Chairman Browdy requested a motion to approve the April
17, 2014 agenda as presented. A motion
was entered by Commissioner Schiffer and seconded by Commissioner Schilling,
the motion passed unanimously.
FBC
Plenary Session
April
17, 2014
Page
4
Approval of the February 21, 2014
Facilitator’s Summary Report and Meeting Minutes:
Chairman Browdy requested a motion
to approve the February 21, 2014 Facilitator’s Summary Report and Meeting
Minutes as presented/posted.
Commissioner Schilling entered a Motion to approve the February 21, 2014
Facilitator’s Summary Report and Meeting Minutes as presented. Commissioner Schiffer seconded the
Motion. The Motion passed unanimously.
Chairman’s
Discussion Issues and Recommendations:
Appointments:
Chairman Browdy advised that the
Governor has appointed David Gilson of New Port Richey as the Technical
Projects Coordinator for Pinellas Schools.
He stated that Mr. Gilson succeeds Herminio Gonzalez and is appointed
for a term beginning March 27, 2014, and ending January 6, 2017. Chairman Browdy welcomed David.
Chairman Browdy acknowledged
Hermino Gonzalez for his twelve years of outstanding service to the State of
Florida and The Florida Building Commission.
He stated Mr. Gonzalez served from July 9, 2002 until March 27, 2014. Chairman Browdy said that in addition to
Commissioner Gonzalez chairing the Code Administration TAC, he served on the
Product Approval POC, and served on many special issue work groups while
serving on the Commission. Chairman
Browdy advised that the Commission will be formally acknowledging Mr. Gonzalez
years of service to the State of Florida and the Commission. He stated we will be preparing a resolution
for the Commission’s approval at the next meeting.
Chairman Browdy also acknowledged
the re-appointment of Commissioner Bassett by the Governor with term beginning
March 27, 2014 and ending December 8, 2017.
Chairman Browdy welcomed Commissioner Bassett back.
Continuing
Education Credits for Commissioners:
Chairman Browdy advised the
Commissioners that they are eligible for four CEU credits depending on the
licenses they hold with DBPR. He told
the Commissioners that they will need to sign in using the kiosk laptop provided
in the meeting room to ensure you receive your CEUs.
FBC
Plenary Session
April
17, 2014
Page
5
Remaining
Legislative Conference Call Meeting Date Reminders:
Chairman Browdy advised the
Commission that there are two remaining legislative update conference calls to
be held April 28, 2014 and May 12, 2014.
He stated that staff will notify the Commissioners prior to these calls.
Chairman Browdy told the
Commission that the current status of the legislative activity will be
discussed later in this meeting.
Workplan
Prioritization Exercise and Effectiveness Assessment Survey:
Chairman Browdy explained annually the Commission’s Work Plan Prioritization Exercise
to prioritize key Work Plan Tasks, and an Effectiveness Assessment Survey to
gauge the Commission’s assessment of how we function on 7 key metrics. Since we
have had 18 new commissioners appointed since 2012 with 1 vacancy now, which
leaves only 7 Commissioners with more than 2 years of experience. As a result we
have decided to defer these exercises until next year.
Accessibility
Waiver Applications:
Chairman Browdy advised the
Commission will now consider this month’s requests for accessibility waivers. April Hammonds will serve as
legal counsel and present the Accessibility Advisory Council’s recommendations.
Chairman Browdy then asked April to present the
Councils’ recommendations
regarding waiver requests.
April Hammonds presented the
following waivers and Council’s recommendations:
Fred
Schweitz, To Your Health Spa, 995 South Highway
27/441, Ocala – Council
recommended denial based on the plans submitted by the applicant as the
equipment is different on each floor and since this is new construction, they
would be able to include the needed equipment to meet the accessibility code.
Commissioner Schiffer entered
motion to accept the Council recommendation to deny, Commissioner Bassett
seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.
Alpha
Delta Pi Sorority, 537 West Jefferson Street, Tallahassee - Council recommended granting based on disproportionate cost.
Commissioner Bassett entered motion to
accept Council recommendation to grant waiver, Commissioner Meyer seconded the
motion, the motion passed unanimously.
FBC
Plenary Session
April
17, 2014
Page
6
Accessibility
Waiver Applications (cont.):
High
Reach 2 Office and Maintenance Facility, 260 Hickman Drive, Sanford – Council recommended granting on
the condition that the lift complies with the Florida Building Code.
Commissioner Schilling entered a motion
to take a closer look at the drawing and deny the waiver. Commissioner Schiffer entered second. The motion failed with three votes in favor
and twenty one votes against.
Jim Richmond provided information
regarding staff analysis, stating the lift should be permissible in the absence
of a waiver. He stated the waiver is
being sought due to the insistence of the building official that the lift does
not provide vertical accessibility. He
said his other concern was that the Accessibility Council took up this issue with
the applicant present on the call and given what the applicant was advised by
staff and the Council, he would ask rather than denial, that it be deferred
back to the Council with the concerns raised at this meeting. He further stated this would allow for
further discussion and allow the applicant to be present for the call.
There was further discussion among the
Commissioners.
Chairman Browdy asked if there was an alternative
motion.
Commissioner Gross entered a motion to
defer back to the Accessibility Council for further evaluation. Commissioner Meyer seconded the motion. The motion passed twenty three in favor and
one opposed.
Stark
Building, 202-204 Centre Street, Fernandina Beach – Council recommended granting
waiver based on historical nature of the building.
Commissioner Tolbert entered a motion to
accept Council recommendation to grant waiver.
Commissioner Boyer seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.
Miami
Real Estate LLC, 355 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach – Council recommended granting
waiver based on technical infeasibility.
Commissioner Flanagan entered
motion to accept Council recommendation to grant waiver. Commissioner Meyer seconded the motion, the
motion passed unanimously.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page
7
Applications
for Product Entity Approval:
Product
Approval
Entity
Approval
Chairman Browdy requested
Commissioner Stone report on the POC’s recommendations for entity approvals and
the consent agenda for products recommended for approval. He stated the
presentation will start with the consent agenda followed by entity approval
applications, and conclude with discussion items. Chairman Browdy stated
Commissioner Stone will now present the applications on the consent agenda and
entity approval applications.
Commissioner Stone advised the
Product Approval Oversight Committee met on Thursday, April 3, 2014 via
conference call with a quorum present.
He stated the POC reviewed and recommended approval on consent nineteen
product approval entities.
Commissioner Stone entered a
motion for approval of the entire list of product approval entities. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Compton, the motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Stone advised the POC
reviewed and approved by consent 107 product applications.
Commissioner Stone entered a
motion for approval of the consent
list of product applications. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Carlson, the motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Stone then referred
the twenty three discussion items to be introduced by Jeff Blair.
Jeff Blair introduced the
following 23 products for approval by the Commission:
4613-R3 - Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.
4622-R5 - Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC;
Commissioner Smith seconded the motion passed unanimously.
7841-R1 - Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC;
Commissioner Dean seconded the motion passed unanimously.
8804-R3 - Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC;
Commissioner Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page
8
Applications
for Product Entity Approval (cont):
Product
Approval
Entity
Approval
12546-R3
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC;
Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion passed unanimously.
15905-R2
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC;
Commissioner Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.
1638-R2
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner Batts
seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16406-R1 - Commissioner
Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.
1675-R1
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16779
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to approve as recommended
by the POC; Commissioner
Batts seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16807
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Batts seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16849
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Batts seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16881
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16883
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16888
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Batts seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16891 - Commissioner
Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page
9
Applications
for Product Entity Approval (cont.):
Product
Approval
Entity
Approval
16896
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Carlson seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16897
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16899
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Carlson seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16900
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Carlson seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16901
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Compton seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16687
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Carlson seconded the motion passed unanimously.
16806
- Commissioner
Stone entered motion to approve as recommended by the POC; Commissioner
Batts seconded the motion passed unanimously.
Applications
for Accreditor and Course Approval:
Chairman Browdy requested that
Commissioner Dean present the Education POC’s recommendations regarding
applications for accreditor and course approval.
Commissioner Dean provided the
following Advanced Course from the POC for Commission action:
642.0
– Commissioner
Dean entered a motion to approve as recommended by the POC, Commissioner Stone
seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.
.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page
10
Applications
for Accreditor and Course Approval (cont.):
Commissioner Dean provided the
following Self Affirmed Courses from the POC for Commission action:
316.1
- Commissioner
Dean entered a motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC,
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously
499.0
- Commissioner
Dean entered a motion to defer as recommended by the POC, Commissioner Stone
seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously
500.0
- Commissioner
Dean entered a motion to conditionally approve as recommended by the POC,
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously
Petitions
for Declaratory Statement: Legal
Report
Chairman Browdy asked April
Hammonds, Legal Counsel for the Commission if there were any other legal issues
or legislative issues in addition to the declaratory statement requests.
Ms. Hammonds stated there were no
legal issues to discuss.
Chairman Browdy requested that
Ms. Hammonds present the declaratory statements.
DS
2014 - 023 by Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm
Ms. Hammonds stated the legal
report was listed on the screen with the answer. Ms. Hammonds stated this is a situation where
Storm Stoppers states that their product is a plywood alternative for Hurricane
wind resistance situations. She stated
that with the Commission’s permission, she would like to go through the
questions and the proposed answers and then provide the comment sent by Mr.
Rick Schiffer.
Ms. Hammonds stated in this
instance there were several what were labeled in the petition as
interpretations; however, she believed they were actually questions.
Ms. Hammonds began with number
one.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page
11
Petitions
for Declaratory Statement (cont.):
Glenn
T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of Williams Law Firm (cont.)
Interpretation No.1
A. Does
the Storm Stoppers product as described fall within the scope of the Florida
Building Code, Existing Building?
Answer: Answer is not possible. No specific project/level of work was
provided, and there are no specific facts and circumstances provided.
B. If the answer is yes, then what are the
specific Code provisions from the 2010 Florida Building Code,
Existing Building, that apply?
Answer: See answer to question A.
Interpretation No.2
A. What are the specific statutes, Code
provisions and laws that give the Florida Building Commission jurisdiction or
legal authority to regulate or approve any product for use on an Existing
Building AFTER the building has been constructed and received a certificate of
occupancy, when such product is not used or incorporated into the permanent
structure, nor attached with permanent anchors that penetrate into the
structure of the building's frame?
Answer: Answer is not possible. Question is too general.
B. Are wood structural panels
(i.e. plywood) as-described in the Florida Building Code, Residential, exempt
from having to comply with Florida Statutes Section 553.842(5)?
Answer: Answer is not possible. This question does not apply to the
Petitioner’s product.
C. If, in the opinion of the Florida Building
Commission, wood structural panels (i.e, plywood) are exempt from Florida Statutes Section 553.842 (5),
then would Storm Stoppers be
entitled to receive
the same exempt treatment as wood structural panels assuming the Storm Stopper product is equal to if not better than wood structural
panels, for the temporary or emergency protection of window or doors from wind
and rain?
Answer: Answer is not possible. This question does not apply to the
Petitioner’s product; and there are no specific facts and circumstances
provided.
D. What is the Florida product approval number
for wood structural panels (i.e.
plywood) showing that product was approved by the Florida Building
Commission?
Answer: Answer is not possible.
This question does not apply to the Petitioner’s product.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page
12
Petitions
for Declaratory Statement (cont.):
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
E. Since the Storm Stoppers product is equal to
if not better than wood structural panels Identified in Section 1609.1.2 of the
Florida Building Code, Residential, is Storm Stoppers entitled to receive the
same treatment as wood structural panels and not apply for a product approval
number?
Answer: Answer is not possible. This question
does not apply to the Petitioner’s product.
F. Is Keddo Enterprises and Florida Building Commission recognized groups like the IHPA, FLASH, FEMA and the IBHS permitted to advertise or market wood
structural panels (i.e. plywood) for "Wind-borne Debris Protection,
"as a "Shutter" and for "Hurricane Protection" in Florida (even though plywood does not have a Florida product approval number)?
Answer: Answer is not possible. This question
does not apply to the Petitioner’s product.
G. Is the Florida Building Commission violating Section 553.842(5) in their promotion of Table 1609.1.2 in the
Florida Building Code, Residential, by advertising wood
structural panels (i.e. plywood) as "Wind-Borne Debris Protection" (at a time when plywood does not have a Florida product approval number and has not been shown
to pass the ASTM Large Missile Impact Test and the Cyclic Pressure
Differential Tests)?
Answer: Answer is not possible. This
question does not apply to the Petitioner’s product.
H. Can Keddo Enterprises, Including home improvement stores, advertise, sell, offer, market or distribute plywood for
wind-borne debris protection or hurricane protection, since plywood is actually sold by home improvement stores throughout Florida for
that purpose both long before and during an approaching, hurricane?
Answer: Answer is not possible. This question does not apply to the
Petitioner’s product, and it is not
allowed to comment on the conduct of another in a declaratory statement
petition.
FBC Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page
13
Petitions
for Declaratory Statement (cont.):
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
I. Additionally, major home improvement stores
advertise or sell plywood in Florida as a Shutter, hurricane protection or as protection from wind-borne debris both long before and as a hurricane is
approaching. For example, the home improvement chain Lowe's has a YouTube video
showing how to board up windows with plywood (which consumers can purchase from Lowes). See video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jCUrYY3lEk&feature=share&list=PLA3F904701785FEB8
Can Keddo Enterprises create a similar video
advertising or marketing plywood as a "shutter," "hurricane protection" or as
"protection from wind-borne debris", without violating Florida Statutes Section 553.842(5)?
Answer: Answer is not possible. This question does not apply to the
Petitioner’s product, and it is not allowed to comment on the conduct of
another in a declaratory statement petition.
Interpretation 3:
Does the Storm Stoppers product fall outside the scope of Rule
61G20-3.001, State Product
Approval Program?
Answer:
The answer is “Yes”. The product in
question is a proposed alternative to the Wood Structural Panels (prescriptive
specification method for protection of opening) as specified in Section R
301.2.1.2, Exception, of the Florida Building Code “FBC”, Residential. As per Section 104.11 of the Florida
Building Code, Building, an alternative method of construction to that
prescribed in the FBC is subject to review and approval by the local building
official, when such alternative is substantiated to be equivalent of that
prescribed in the FBC in quality, strength, effectiveness, durability and
safety. Therefore, the Florida Building
Commission has no authority to approve said alternate as part of the State
Product Approval Program.
Ms. Hammonds advised during the process of the Committee
Meetings, Mr. Schiffer was on the line and he submitted a subsequent public
comment. She said that he stated he was
slightly confused by the answer and requested some clarification, Ms. Hammonds
stated that Mr. Schiffer thought the Commission would have authority to approve
or deny and did not understand why it would not be subject to product
approval. She advised that staff
proposed a clarification that she presented.
Ms. Hammonds stated she also had an additional public comment from Mr.
Schiffer and would present this after the clarification.
FBC Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page
14
Petitions
for Declaratory Statement (cont.):
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
Ms. Hammonds
presented the following clarification.
Revised answer for further
clarification:
Answer:
The answer is “Yes”. The product in
question is a structural protection system (product) which is proposed to be
used as an alternative to the Wood Structural Panels (prescriptive
specification method for protection of opening) as specified in Section R
301.2.1.2, Exception, of the Florida Building Code “FBC”, Residential. As per
Section 104.11 of the Florida Building Code, Building, an alternative method of
construction to that prescribed in the FBC is subject to review and approval by
the local building official, when such alternative is substantiated to be
equivalent of that prescribed in the FBC in quality, strength, effectiveness,
durability and safety. For the product in question,
local approval must be in accordance with Section 553.8425, Local Product
Approval, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Florida
Building Commission has no authority to approve said alternate as part of the
State Product Approval Program.
Ms. Hammonds then read an e-mail
as a public comment received from Mr. Schiffer since he could not be in
attendance at the meeting today. Ms.
Hammonds read the following e-mail:
I would encourage the commission
to watch the installation video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YTbd-BeFDc)
produced by the petitioner, in which it appears that: (1) a portion of the 3M
dual lock fasteners that are part of the Storm Stoppers product is permanently
affixed to the structure, contrary to assertions about permanence made in Interpretation
#3; (2) the product is intended to be used in a manner consistent with shutters
and/or impact protective systems, which are specifically identified in Rule
61G20-3.001, as subject to the Product Approval Program; (3) the product is not
intended to be used in a "wood structural panel" context consistent
with definitions in Chapter 2, Section R202 of the Florida Building Code such
as cap plate, facing, spline, or structural insulated panel. This
video may also aide the commission in responding to Interpretation #1.
In the event that the Commission
still considers the Storm Stoppers product "not subject" to the
Product Approval Program, I would hope that the answer be worded so that it
clearly explains the applicable standards for local approval of a product
intended to protect windows from hurricanes, windstorms, and wind-borne debris.
FBC Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 15
Petitions for Declaratory Statement
(cont.):
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
Commissioner Bassett advised he did not understand why this is
being discussed as it does not meet the requirements for a request for declaratory
statement, that there were insufficient facts and circumstances. Commissioner
Bassett stated it looks like the Commission is trying to set code by answering
the questions on the petition.
April Hammonds advised Commissioner Bassett that there was one
question that could be addressed thus the reason this petition was brought
before the Commission. She further stated that all petitions have to be brought
before the Commission and that only the one question is actually being answered
based on the facts provided.
Commissioner Bassett stated that he was not able to view the big
screen as it was not even, and could not hear the conversation due to the sound
issues in the room.
Jeff Blair advised the Commission that they should be viewing the
legal report to see the questions and answers to the petitions.
Commissioner Bassett stated that would require changing from
screen to screen to view.
April Hammonds advised the Commission that the material is
available for all Commissioners to review prior to the meeting as required by
law.
Chairman Browdy advised the petitioner was present to provide
public comment.
Petitioner introduced himself as Glenn
Williams, Attorney for Keddo Enterprises which has a product called Storm
Stoppers, which is the subject matter of the petition that he filed with the
Florida Building Commission in March. He
advised if you look on the agenda you will see his name with initials behind
Esq., he stated he was not sure if everyone knew what the BCS initials stood
for, he stated that it stood for Board Certified Specialist and Board Certified
by the Florida Bar as a specialists in construction law. Mr. Williams stated that he comes with
significant experience in construction law and as part of his experience in
construction law, he knows that the public as well as himself, appreciates
everyone on the Commission as they do a fantastic job for the public. He said the time and effort spent by the
Commissions on making the construction resulting product better for Floridians
is appreciated.
FBC Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 16
Petitions for Declaratory Statement
(cont.):
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
Mr. Williams stated he did want to go
over a couple of items because he thought there is some misunderstanding, what
he saw going through the process of the Committee approval of staff analysis he
asked if just his questions only were presented, he did not see anybody getting
copies of his actual petition. He
further stated when he submitted the petition afterwards, he was called by
staff and asked to submit specific questions that ask for a yes or no answer
and so afterwards, he submitted specific questions, there was a list of twelve
of them. Mr. Williams said he was also
invited to answer his questions to the extent of what he wanted to answer, and
he did provide those answers, he did not see anywhere in the staff analysis
where they gave his proposed answers that had specific citations to statutes
and the Florida Building Code. He wanted
to suggest that his petition be reviewed as well as his follow-up question
statements before Committee makes a final decision as to the petition.
Mr. Williams stated he would like to
explain a couple of things. He advised
that Storm Stoppers product is approved in other states for the purpose of
hurricane window protection. He further
stated they are now in Florida and they have to deal with the Florida Building
Code as well as Florida Statutes that deal with wind borne debris
protection. He said in that respect he
wanted to make sure that everyone is clear, that when he reads the Florida
Building Codes all three of them whether it is the building code itself, the
residential code or the existing building code, they are all talking about
construction project. Mr. Williams
stated you must have something under construction. He said this product is not applied for the
purpose of being a construction product, it is limited to the sole purpose of
what is wood structure panel is defined in the residential code, which is an
alternate to shutters, the Florida Building Code Residential provides a way to
take plywood or similar products and wood structure panels by the way are
defined in the Florida Residential to include a “composite panel” which his
client product is a composite product, to take plywood for example to screw or
drill holes in it and bolt it over a window as an alternate to expensive metal
or other types of shutters that are on the market. He stated it is for the purpose of being
approved under residential when you are building a new home within the wind
borne debris region which we all know is primarily South Florida and one mile
inland of the coastline for the rest of Florida. Mr. Williams said that is not what his
client’s product does, that is not the purpose of the product. He said he is sitting there telling the
Commission that the raw product of a Storm Stopper is just like plywood,
meaning it’s in panels, it comes just like plywood, you can cut it up, you can
drill holes in it, you can drill it in the wall and you can treat it just like
plywood. He further stated that with
respect to the exception to the Florida Building Code, Residential as it
relates to wood structural panels, his client’s product is a wood structural
panel as it is “composite panel”.
FBC Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 17
Petitions for Declaratory Statement
(cont.):
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
Mr. Williams stated his petition says,
because the case law in Florida says this, is that if the product is like
another product out there that has been approved or is an exception to the
Code, that the Commission has an obligation to treat that product the
same. He advised that this is all that
they are asking the Commission to do is to treat the product the same. Mr. Williams said before they go spending a
lot of money on testing, they realize in Florida there is an exception in the
Florida Building Code that deals with wood structural panels and they are
exempt from all of the testing requirements for state approval and if there is
an exemption in the Florida Building Code with respect to plywood, then the
same exemption should apply to his client’s product. He stated if it is not then he feels like the
only avenue he can go as a lawyer is to go to Court. Mr. Williams stated he did not want to do
that, he offered more information if needed to show the product is as good as
or if not better than plywood for the purpose of being “a wood structural
panel”. He further stated that only
applies with respect to construction, with respect to the 3M dual lock fasteners,
which is how the product is applied in other states, is that the fasteners are
commercial grade basically like a Velcro but a commercial grade high end
Velcro. He said you can cut the product
in any shape you want and put it over the frame of any window and then have the
product applied to that window and attached to the 3M dual lock fasteners. Mr. Williams said in that scenario when you
look at the codes administrative codes that the Commission deals with, it
specifically says in there, that in order for a product to go through the
product approval program, it has to involve the structure’s frame and the
structure’s envelope, the building envelope.
He said this product does neither, he said when you use a 3M dual lock
fastener it does neither, so how is this product applied, it is applied to
existing buildings that are NOT undergoing any construction whatsoever. Mr. Williams questioned if it is not
undergoing any construction whatsoever, why does it need any building approval,
he said they are not drilling the product through the wall or structural frame
or impacting the building’s envelope, so the product with the 3M dual lock fasteners
is his opinion are outside of the jurisdiction of the Florida Building
Commission, because it is outside of the Florida Building Code.
Mr. Williams advised that they were just
looking for answers to those questions, that they proposed and again he suggest
that the Commission read his petition and see his proposed answers. He wanted to make another point that in the
only answer that being proposed by staff, is calling this product an alternate
to plywood or alternate to wood structure panels. Mr. Williams stated if it is an alternate to
wood structure panels or plywood, then you need to treat it the same as
plywood, you cannot say plywood is exempt from the code but not this product,
if it is substantially equivalent. Mr.
Williams stated in his research, he said he has not found a product approval
number for plywood or has he seen the Florida Building Commission take plywood
and take it through testing requirements that metal shutters are put through,
but you are
FBC Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 18
Petitions for Declaratory Statement
(cont.):
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
telling my client we must do that. Mr. Williams stated legally they do not have
to meet these requirements.
Chairman Browdy advised Mr. Williams he
would allow a few more minutes and then he would like the Commissioners time to
address him or ask him questions.
April Hammonds asked prior to going back
to the Commission, she would like to speak to some procedural issues that will
need to be addressed.
Mr. Williams stated as it relates to
some of his questions in the petition, he understands that the staff did not
want to answer as it did not relate to their product. He stated if their product is an alternate to
wood structural panels, then he feels the questions should be answered. He further stated that is what the answer
says to interpretation number 3 is that they are submitting as an alternate to
wood structure panels, so this language was used and this is a phrase used in
the
Florida Building Code and he feels his client should get answers to their
questions. He said specifically if the
Commission is not going to answer or proposes to answer one out of twelve questions,
then he would submit that interpretation number two C it is specifically
related to his client’s product. He
stated it reads “would storm stoppers be entitled to receive the same exempt
treatment as wood structural panels assuming the storm stoppers product is
equal to or not better than wood structural panels”. Mr. Williams stated he would defy wood
structural panels elsewhere or right above that as plywood, so he thinks that
should be answered because it does apply to his client’s product and it is part
of a proper petition per declaratory statement.
He said the next one is interpretation two item E, he stated it asked is
the storm stoppers product entitled to receive the same treatment as wood
structural panels and not apply for product approval number, and again you have
to treat products similar products the same, you cannot treat them differently,
and if you are going to treat them differently, he believes his only advice to
his client is to pursue this legally.
Mr. Williams then thanked the Commission for their time.
Chairman Browdy stated he would like to
get all public comment before coming back to the Commission; however, he did
acknowledge Ms. Hammonds and allowed her to address the procedural issues.
Ms. Hammonds advised that whenever these
declaratory statements go before any committee or POC or the Commission, they
are hot linked to the agenda so that everyone has access to the entire
petition. She stated the questions Mr.
Williams would like answered being an experienced attorney as he stated
certainly could have framed the question in such a way they could be answered
and when these issues came up during the committee meetings, she did not recall
any presence from the petitioner.
FBC Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 19
Petitions for Declaratory Statement
(cont.):
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
Chairman Browdy acknowledged the next
public speaker and asked that he identify himself for the record.
Tom Johnston identified himself and that
he is with Town and Country Industries.
He stated that he would like to add, first thing would be 3M does state
that dual fasteners do have a load bearing capacity, be it very small. He said that if they are applied to the
window of the structure then they are transmitting load to the window which is
attached to the house. Mr. Johnston said
he would like to clear a few misconceptions one is the IHBA in this petition
that they market and advertise plywood, he said IHBA does not market, advertise
or promote any product. He stated they
do reference the fact that this is prescriptive document or it is in the
Florida Building Code as a legal means of securing a structure from rapid
internal pressurization, he further stated somewhere along the lines we skipped
the fact that IBHS and ARA, tested somewhere upwards of a hundred samples of
OSB and plywood for both impact and cyclic loading so this product has been
tested probably more than any other product and that was all done before it
went into the Building Code. Mr.
Johnston said lastly in the petition, he did not know where this would fall, but
it comes under the heading of the manufacturer Keddo, LLC also states the
product Storm Stoppers is not a construction product and the bullet points
below that, they state that it is not advertised, marketed or sold as
hurricane, windstorm, or impact protection from wind borne debris during
hurricanes or windstorms, followed by cannot be considered a shutter or impact
protective device. Mr. Johnston stated
Storm Stoppers clearly do not pass all of the required standards such as cyclic
pressure differential test and goes on, but yet in the documents or if you go
to the Storm Stoppers website homepage states “first and only temporary
hurricane window protection product that installs without penetrating anchors”
followed by “Storm Stoppers are a great alternative to heavy plywood panels for
temporary protection during storms, hurricanes & typhoons”, so one minute
it is not an opening protection product and the next minute it is, he said he
was somewhat confused. Mr. Johnston
stated they have not been able to validate any product approvals for this
product in any state, he said there is some old information on websites and
things and a test report that is expired, at this point and time he believes
this is an admitted hurricane protection device because it states so on the
website. He further stated if it is a
proposed alternative as long as it has to comply with the same standards that
the wood structural panels had to do impact and cyclic, if it goes through the
local or statewide product approval process and pass the standards, they would
support, if not, they stand strongly against this product being put out for
public use.
FBC Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 20
Petitions for Declaratory Statement
(cont.):
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
Ms. Hammonds asked to clarify the confusion;
she stated the way this issue was brought to the forefront was that apparently
this product is being advertised as a hurricane resistant product without a
product approval or testing, this came up during the Committee meeting, there
was comment made that this product could be approved at the local level
provided there is testing and this has not been done.
Chairman Browdy asked for any further
public comment regarding this matter.
Joe Belcher, International Hurricane
Protection Association, he stated he wanted to clarify what the gentleman said
about what the Florida Building Code had to do with this product, not drilling
holes and it is not construction etc. etc.
He said chapter one in the Florida Building Code unlike the National
Code does require a permit for all installations of all hurricane protection
products.
John Smith, President and Owner of Storm
Stoppers, stated he wanted to correct a couple of misstatements, but he needs
assistance of Google, you can use you IPad and IPhones. He asked each person type in getting ready
for a hurricane in Google, he asked that everyone complete this now.
Chairman Browdy, stated this is a public
meeting, not a trial or public debate.
He stated this is his opportunity to present his side of the story and
then the Commission will respond and hopefully make a decision.
Mr. Smith stated fair enough, he stated
he heard three things that he disagreed with.
He said April Hammonds made a statement similar to plexi,
I think she meant plexiglass which is made by a
company called Alto Glass which is an acrylic, Storm Stoppers is made of
corrugated plastic and has nothing to do with plexiglass
and it is glas by the way not two s’s in it. He further stated that Storm Stoppers made of
corrugated plastic base component is polypropylene which is corrugated plastic,
secondly, they would like to disclaim that Storm Stoppers do not fasten with Velcro
fasteners, it is like calling aluminum steel and steel aluminum they are both
metal but you would never confuse the two.
Mr. Smith stated third he had listened to his colleague say that the
IHPA does not market or advertise plywood, he stated where he grew up, when
someone says something and there are facts to prove them wrong, they would call
that person a liar. He stated he did not
want to say that, he said maybe he just mis-spoke, he
stated the IHPA website that they do not know is up, if your type in getting
ready for a hurricane on Google which the Commission did not want to do, and go
to page four there is a whole section about hurricane protection products. He further stated Mr. Johnston does not know
this site is up, because if he did he would take it down as it makes him sound
like a liar. Mr. Smith stated
FBC Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 21
Petitions for Declaratory Statement
(cont.):
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
that it says why not plywood, it does
not meet the new building code, it is illegal and then he goes on as a last
resort to tell you how to put it up. He
further stated that he just heard and the
group just heard a member of IHPA their
competitor state that his organization does not market plywood. He said that millions of people can go online
and see this. Mr. Smith said that if Mr.
Johnston says one thing that is untrue, and he thinks he is responsible to know
what is untrue, what else is he saying that is untrue.
Chairman Browdy asked if there
was any further public comment.
Dick Wilhelm, with FMA/WDMA representing a majority window and door manufacturers. He stated they spend hundreds of millions of
dollars every year meeting the requirements of the Florida Building Code as
well as the ICC in testing their products for public safety. Mr. Wilhelm stated if this company wants to
spend the money for testing like his company does, then they would be happy to
support the product.
Jack Glenn, representing himself stated
just as a reminder to the Commissioner Members who may or may not be aware the
Florida Building Code is based on a requirement out of the base code, the
International Building Code. He further
stated the plywood systems there were tested and their tested with the panels
attached to the structure not to the window.
Chairman Browdy, advised Mr. Williams
that he was going back to the Commission.
He stated you are representing the parties for the petition; he would
appreciate him staying at the speakers table to address any questions or
concerns of the Commissioners.
Commissioner Stone stated that the POC
considered this and recommendation was to support of the staff analysis. He stated that he found the product to be of
interest, but the product approval POC does the statutory capability of really
looking at the equivalency of the two systems of wood structural panels and
this system here. Commissioner Stone
stated he felt the Structural TAC may need to take a look at this. He further stated in making this statements
as Jack Glenn said this came from the base code, one of the legacy codes, the
standard building code. He said he was a
proponent of the code change that inserted wood structural panels into the code
as a hurricane protective device, he said this was back in around 1995 or 1996
and testing was performed by APA, the Engineered Wood Association and he
believed Virginia Tech. and Washington State University including the impact
resistance and to be able to handle the wind loads both positive and negative. Commissioner Stone said he cannot remember if
there was cyclic testing but he does know there was extensive testing
completed. He said he is not sure if
this is try and amend the code now or address the declaratory statement, he
feels this would be an
FBC Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 22
Petitions for Declaratory Statement
(cont.):
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
amendment to the code. He further stated the intent of the Florida
Building Commission is to look at new technology, and he feels this is
something they should look at, however, this is not the proper form to look at
the product. Commissioner Stone said he
still feels the structural TAC should review this.
Commissioner Compton said as part of the
petition Storm Stoppers makes a statement that their product is equal to if not
better than wood structural panels. Mr.
Compton, said plywood or wood structural panels have very specific structural
properties that are easily referenced.
He asked if there is any information on the Storm Stoppers product
structural properties.
Mr. Williams stated first of all it has
been tested for the large missile impact test.
He said the video is online at the website that was cited in the
original petition, it is called the plywood alternative.com and you can view on
the website that it was tested for large missile impact and did pass. He said with respect to the particular issue,
it has not gone through cyclic pressure testing at this time, but he wanted to
point out about of the confusion going on, is that there is two things on, one
is how the product is currently applied with 3M dual lock fasteners and the
other issue is that the raw product the actual panels are just like plywood,
you can drill holes in them, you can bolt them to the wall, all they are asking
for in the petition, if they go through the process and do this, and then get
this expensive testing done, will they get the same exception that wood
structural panels get. He stated in
their investigation they discovered that wood structural panels do not have a
product approval number and that they did not have to go through the testing
requirements.
Chairman Browdy advised that this was
explained that Commissioner Stone did answer the questions on testing for the
plywood panels. He asked Mr. Williams
to stay on the question asked by Commissioner Compton.
Commissioner Compton re-stated the
question as it still stands; plywood or wood structural panels have very
specific structural properties that are easily referenced. He asked if there is any information on the
Storm Stoppers product structural properties.
Do they have properties available to analyze to see if they have equal
strength as plywood?
Mr. Williams stated it could go through
the same testing that wood structural panels did.
Commissioner Compton stated this was not
his question; his question is do you have structural properties for the Storm
Stopper Product right now.
Mr. Williams stated he is not aware of
it right now, but will ask the manufacturer.
FBC Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 23
Petitions for Declaratory Statement
(cont.):
Chairman Browdy asked if there were any
further questions from the Commissioners.
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
There being none, he asked Mr. Williams
to provide his closing summary in a few minutes and then he will entertain a
motion on the declaratory statement.
Mr. Williams stated he said that he
thought he got in what he wanted to say and that there was a little confusion
over this product. He further stated the product came just like plywood in
panel sheets, and if you use the fastening system in the Florida Building Code
Residential Code, their question is before they go through the expense of
testing that the prior pubic spoke about, they want to know if they will get
the same exempt treatment as wood panels.
Mr. Williams stated he had gone through the code and there is no product
approval for wood structural panels, it is an exemption to the Code and it is
State wide code and so if there is a statewide exception for wood structural
panels, if they are an alternate to wood structural panels then they should get
a state wide exception that is the same as wood structural panels. He stated all he is saying is treat them the
same as plywood, plywood does not have a product approval number that has been
approved through the Florida Building Commission and they should get the same
treatment as plywood and they believe the law says that as well.
Chairman Browdy entertained a motion on
the declaratory statement for purposes of discussion. He then recognized Commissioner Tolbert.
Commissioner Tolbert stated he believed
treating the product the same as wood; this would require a code modification
as the wood structural panel is a prescriptive method in the code.
Commissioner Compton referred back to
his question to the petitioner, plywood or wood structural panels have very
specific structural properties that are easily referenced and he feels at this
point he does not believe this product is equal to plywood because there are no
structural properties provided by the manufacture or Mr. Williams supporting
the fact that this product is equal to or stronger than plywood. He further stated he cannot see it can be
considered equivalent when they cannot provide structural properties for the
product itself.
Commissioner Schock stated he agreed
with what Joe Belcher said the code in Chapter One of the Building Code does
specifically require permits for and installation instructions for structural
panels and when used for storm protection.
He further stated there does seem to be some evidence that there is
possibly literature indicating that this is a storm protection method, and
whether there is or not, the public will perceive it that way to be placed over
their windows. Commissioner Schock said
that plywood is specific in the Code as a prescriptive method and he
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 24
Petitions for Declaratory Statement
(cont.):
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
thinks this group has an opportunity to
go to the ICC and do the same thing to try and get it in the Code and deal with
it that way as he does see this as an alternative method where they have to
provide the local officials with the proper information to go forward.
Chairman Browdy asked for any further
comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Stone stated in accordance
with the Program Oversight Committee, he made a motion to approve the staff
interpretations and answers to the questions, the declaratory statement as
voiced by legal counsel. Commissioner
Carlson seconded the motion.
Commissioners Bassett said that he is
stilled questioning whether the Commission should be discussing this issue at
all, he stated it does not seem to him that it does not meet the requirement of
a declaratory statement; he feels the recommendation of the staff and the
Commission Attorney. He further stated
this should not be discussed further as it does not meet the requirement of a declaratory
statement.
Ms. Hammonds advised she had a question
regarding the motion on the floor, specifically, did the motion include the
additional clarification language that was included in red about the product is
a structural protection system which is proposed to be used as those are the
additional words and at the end for the product in question, local approval
must be in accordance with 553.8425 local product approval F.S. She stated those were some clarification of
statements and is posted on the screen for reference.
Jeff Blair asked if Commissioner Stone’s
intent in the motion was to include the revised language as provided by
legal. Commissioner Stone stated yes
that was correct.
Chairman Browdy asked if there was any
further comment.
Mo Madani stated he would like to
clarify the language where it says the product in question is a structural
protection system is to add impact structural impact protection system before
protection. He stated this is clearly an
impact protection system. He asked for
one more additional clarification after language where it says that this
product has to demonstrate the equivalency using quality strength effectiveness
and safety is to add through applicable testing standards as referenced in
section1909.1.2 of the Code.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 25
Petitions for Declaratory Statement
(cont.):
Glenn T. Williams, Esq., B.C.S. of
Williams Law Firm (cont.)
Chairman Browdy stated this amendment
must be included in motion, he asked if Commissioner Stone wanted amendment
included and Commissioner Carlson as second, both stated yes.
The motion passed twenty two in favor
with two in opposition.
DS
2014 – 024 by Warren W. Schaefer, P.E. of W.W. Schaefer Engineering &
Consulting, P.A
Ms. Hammonds read the petition from Mr.
Warren W. Schaefer with response.
Chairman Browdy requested discussion if
any from the Commission.
Commissioner Stone stated Product
Approval POC had much discussion on this issue and voted to unanimously endorse
the staff findings, but noted that the POC agreed to further study the language
and interpretation of the rule with distinct possibility of initiation of
rulemaking to modify the language of the rule.
Commissioner Stone then entered a motion to accept the recommended
findings and noticing the study.
Commissioner Compton, seconded the motion, the motion passed
unanimously.
DS
2014 - 032 by Ryan Holland of Evolution Pools & Construction Services
Inc.
Ms. Hammonds read the petition from Mr.
Ryan Holland with response.
Commissioner Batts entered a motion to
accept the response from staff and recommended approval by the Swimming Pool
TAC. Commissioner Boyer seconded the motion;
the motion passed 20 votes in favor and three votes against.
DS
2014-035 by Scott E. Rudacille, Esq. of Blalock
Walters. P.A.
Ms. Hammonds read the petition from Mr.
Scott E. Rudacille with response.
Commissioner Compton entered a motion to
accept the response from staff and recommended approval by the Structural TAC
and Special Occupancy TAC which was unanimous.
Commissioner Stone requested a
definition of what a declaratory statement is and when it should be responded
to. Ms. Hammonds provided the definition
for the Commission.
Commissioner Schock seconded the motion,
the motion passed unanimously.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 26
Petitions for Declaratory Statement
(cont.):
DS
2014 – 037 by Wayne R Thorne, Building Official of Longboat Key Building
Department
Ms. Hammonds read the petition from Mr.
Wayne R. Thorne with response with one change recommended by the Structural TAC
and Special Occupancy TAC. Questions one, two, and three were read with
response. Ms. Hammonds advised question
four was read and response was given with differences in TAC recommended
answers.
Commissioner Compton entered a motion to
accept the response from staff, legal and recommended approval by the
Structural TAC and Special Occupancy TAC which was unanimous for questions one,
two, three and five. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Schock, the motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Schock entered a motion to
accept Structural TAC recommendation to change wording to repair for question
number four. Commissioner Compton
seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.
Update on Adoption of 5th Edition of the Florida Building
Code:
Chairman Browdy stated at the August 22-23,
2013 meeting the Commission voted to make the effective date of the 2013
Florida Building Code midnight December 31, 2014, and to name the Updated Code:
Florida Building Code Fifth Edition
(2014). The selection of this date was to meet the statutory requirement
to coordinate with the updated version of the Florida Fire Prevention Code,
which was being developed with an effective date of midnight December 31, 2014.
The Commission is also statutorily required to have the Florida Building Code
published for six months after adoption before it becomes effective. As a
result the effective date of the Florida
Building Code Fifth Edition (2014) is dependent on when the Florida Fire Prevention Code 2013 is
adopted.
Chairman Browdy requested that
Commissioner Frank to bring the Commission up on the current timing.
Commissioner Frank stated that the 2013
Fire Prevention Code has held two workshops and will be holding hearings
starting next month and they are on track for adoption of December 31, 2013.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 27
Update on Adoption of 5th Edition of the Florida Building
Code (cont.):
Chairman Browdy stated based on this
report it appears that the earliest the Commission could conduct a rule
adoption hearing on the 5th Edition
Florida Building Code (2014) would be at the August meeting. He
said this would mean that the earliest effective date of the Florida Building
Code would be March of 2015, and possibly later depending on final adoption of
the Code and providing the six month publication requirement prior to the
effective date.
Chairman Browdy recommend that
the Commission wait until the June meeting to take formal action on changing
the effective date for the 5th Edition
Florida Building Code (2014) so we have a clearer idea of a
realistic effective date based on the adoption of the Florida Fire Prevention Code 2013 as well as when the Commission
could subsequently conduct a rule adoption hearing. He further stated this informational only and
there is no action needed from the Commission.
Legislative
Report:
Chairman Browdy stated that Jim
Richmond would provide the Commission with an update on the status of HB 593,
SB 1106, SB 1044 and The House Energy Sub Committee.
Mr. Richmond stated that the
House now has a bill number which is HB 7147, he said this is simple one that
bill is ready for floor action adding a twenty seventh Commissioner to the
Commission, the one modification in the early edition, there was a specialized
appointment process involving the Commissioner of Agriculture and the
Governor’s Office that has been changed to essentially track the rest of the
seats with the Commission where there will be a recommendations from the
Commissioner of Agriculture which the Governor is free to accept or not.
Jim said the primary areas of activity
last week and this week was HB 593 and SB 1106 which are companion bills. He described the Bills with the big
difference is HB 593 was amended to stripped of physical impact, there were
some amendments that were being considered to the bill, but were withdrawn as
it had already gone through the Appropriations Committee and they did not want
it re-referred. He stated right now it
has committee stops and is ready for floor vote in the House, but has not been
calendared. Jim advised that SB 1106
however, was in Senate Regulated Industries last week and did receive some
amendments with substantial impact on the Commission and the program in
Tallahassee, first relating to waivers of building code provisions on public
swimming pools. He stated a couple of years ago the Department of Health was
essentially removed from the building permitting process for public swimming
pools, that being left to the local building departments. Jim said that they also had a process in
place to waive the requirements for the building code and had statutory
authority for that, now that they do not have any participation in the process,
it really kind of by operation removed their authority to waive the building
code. He advised a provision came out
basically directing that the Commission
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 28
Legislative
Report (cont.):
waive those elements or have the
authority to waive and create a program to do so. Jim said in concert with the Swimming Pool
TAC who would take up proposed waivers prior to their consideration by the
Commission. He said a discussion with
the Department of Health, they were handling approximately one hundred twenty
waiver applications per year in a six hour meeting every two months at twenty
waivers each meeting. Jim stated that
would be a considerable work load for the Swimming Pool TAC, he could only hope
it would not add to the Commission’s workload, however, it would add to the
agenda. He said it would require twenty
more orders to be drafted after each meeting; twenty applications reviewed and
submitted, this would require an additional technical person as well as a
Senior Attorney. Jim said this would be
an additional item to be added to the BCIS to allow online application, which
would be consistent with how business is done today. He said that information is what troubled the
House and actually they did not put that in the bill primarily because it had
been through the
Appropriations Committee and if
there were revisions, the bill would have to be re-referred back to the
Appropriations Committee, so functionally it would kill the bill. Jim said it is something out there and
probably will need to be encountered in some form or fashion in the future,
however, it certainly would be an impact that we could not avoid in the
Department.
Jim continued with the additions,
there has been a clarification to when roof mounted mechanical equipment needs
to be brought up to the current code. He
said in speaking with Mo that language did not have any substantial impact; it
is really just a clarification. Jim said
that there is a 30 x 30 tent exemption from the Fire Code that was added that
is just an exemption from the Fire Code which was discussed on the last
teleconference call. He further advised
that the $250,000 for the Future Builders of America which was discussed at the
last meeting was actually removed from the House Bill, but remains in the
Senate Bill. He said one thing that has
also been added a kind of administrative law issue, back in the initiation of
the Building Code there was a special exception, State Agencies in general are
given authority to waive their rules and grant variances, like the Department
of Health used to do with public pools and building permits. He said they still do waivers in areas as it
pertains to their operational permits since it is still in their rules. Jim said the Building Commission specifically
was accepted out as we do not enforce the building code we adopt the building
code, it is enforced by the local governments.
He said at the time we were told that they don’t waive or vary the Code,
they grant alternates and equivalences.
Jim said in Chapter 120, there was exception crafted where the
Commission is not to waive the Building Code, now at the same time in 553, Part
II we do consider accessibility waivers at each meeting, however, the opinion was
at that time and remains at this time it is separate and distinct from the
Building Code. He said first and
foremost all of the Florida specific requirements that are waived can be traced
to the Florida Statutory requirements, they are simply adopted through the
Building Code but in addition to that statutorily, the Accessibility Code still
has a separate and distinct existence.
Jim said it is adopted and then it is ultimately adopted into the
Building Code. He said there are a
couple of reason for that and in addition we have always treated it a non-120
waiver, this means when we make a decision on a waiver and
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 29
Legislative
Report (cont.):
an order goes out, any appeal
from that goes to the District Court of Appeal.
He stated that if it were not done in the former fashion any appeal
would be to the Division of Administrative Hearings which is a trial essentially
with disputed issues of fact. Jim
advised we have created a substantial work load at least conceivably. He said an interested party actually felt
that or was concerned that the 120 prohibition of waivers and variances in the
Building Code created some difficulty for the accessibility waiver problem and
decided to fix the problem that he perceived but no-one else in the department
thought it was a problem, they added that in with the swimming pools language
to say the Commission can waive the Accessibility Code. Jim said it is basically a solution to a
problem and actually could create a good bit of litigation, so there have been
comments on that as well.
Jim said the problems remain and
apparently intentionally so with the swimming pool permitting process, that
does not directly impact the Commission, but may create a deal of issues if
passed, it will in essence, it will be impossible to submit a complete
application for an operational permit for a public pool because they are
requiring the final sign off by the building department as part of the
application package, however you cannot get a building permit until you have an
application for an operational permit.
Jim said they seem to think an incomplete application will be fine and
accepted universally, but we will have to wait and see.
Jim said there are confirmations
for the slate on Monday, before the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee which
he believes will complete and have everyone seated at the table at this meeting
confirmed for the first time in a long time.
Chairman Browdy
stated he was curious on the House version of the Future Builders of America
funding, they took out the $250,000 that was in there and the Senate version
has it in. He asked Commissioner Brown what
happens when you try to reconcile a bill where you have one that has nothing
and one that has the whole listing or is it split, where is the comprise.
Commissioner
Brown stated that there used to be a conference process if there it is a bill
that rises to a level where leadership calls for a conference. He asked if it is in the budget or in a bill,
the answer was bill. Commissioner Brown
said that it has to be in the Appropriation Bill as well and that bill goes
through a step process, the chairman of each committee in the house and senate,
attempt to make reconciliation after the conference committee completes the
work, it can be bumped up to the presiding officers. He said a decision will probably be made
ultimately by the presiding officers.
Chairman Browdy
asked if there were any further comments for the Legislative Report. There were no additional comments.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 30
Rule 61G20-6.002 Commission Approval and
Accreditation of Advanced Building Code Training Courses
Chairman Browdy stated at the
August 23, 2013 meeting the Commission approved the Education POC’s proposed
language changes to paragraphs (e), (g), (h), and (i),
contained in Rule 61G20-6.002, F.A.C. He
further stated at the October 18, 2013 meeting the Commission conducted a rule
development workshop to receive public comment and to consider the Commission’s
Education Program Oversight Committee (POC) recommendations for proceeding with
the Rule. The POC recommended that the Commission conduct a supplemental rule
development workshop providing time for the POC to work with stakeholders on
proposed rule changes to address issues pertaining to approving courses that
are based on Commission approved changes to the Code that are not yet formally been
adopted by rule. Chairman Browdy said that at the December 13, 2013 meeting the
commission conducted the supplemental rule development workshop and voted to
amend Rule 61G20-6.002, Education, to adopt the Education POC’s recommendations
for revisions to the Education Rule and to proceed with rule adoption for Rule
61G20-6.002, the Commission Approval and Accreditation of Advanced Building
Code Training Courses, conducting a rule adoption hearing only if requested. He
stated there were comments received recommending some minor revisions to the
Rule text and the Education POC now has some recommendations for those changes.
Chairman Browdy requested that Commissioner Dean provide the POC’s
recommendations.
Commissioner Dean stated that
there were some minor changes and she asked if April Hammonds would be
discussing.
Ms. Hammonds stated she would be
glad to address the commission for her.
She stated specifically there were a couple of places throughout the
rule where the words law or administrative rules were not added behind the word
code which was intended to be carried through the entire rule. She further stated it technically could be
conceived to be a technical change, which authority had been given by the Education
POC to complete. Ms. Hammonds advised
since it was actual wording rather than just a name of a form or technical
number, they did want to bring it before the POC to ensure they had an
opportunity to vote on the change in language adding it through the rule where
it was needed. She stated the POC voted
unanimously to add the language where it was needed in the Rule and she would
ask that the Commission do the same.
Commissioner Dean entered a motion
that the Commission adopt the changes.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 31
Recommendation of Approval of Summary of Issues and
Recommendations for Inclusions in the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Annual
Report:
Chairman Browdy stated each year
the Commission reviews a Draft Summary of Issues and Recommendations for inclusion
in the Commission’s Fiscal Year Annual Report the April meeting and a draft
Report to the Legislature for approval at the June meeting. He stated Jeff will
review the issues and recommendations for inclusion in the Commission’s Fiscal
Year 2013-2014 Annual Report with the Commission
Jeff Blair
provided a quick overview of each of the areas that typically included in the
report and highlight some of the issues from the past Fiscal Year and then Jim
will review of the actual recommendations.
Jeff in the
overview that the Commission received eighteen new members and has only seven
members that have been there for a period of time and that the Commission has
reached a stable point in its evolution and is primarily concerned with
maintenance and working with stakeholders to continue to enhance the building
code systems. This would be a piece
reported to the Legislature.
Jeff stated of
interest in terms of the Commissions procedures and processes is the focus, the
Commission did vote to change focus from funding primarily storm damage
investigations and research to broader scope to other code related areas, this
will be reported to the Legislature as well as the shift of funding to a
broader scope.
Jeff sated that another
area is research and science based hurricane and code protections, the prior
comment would also relate to that.
Jeff said
another area of interest is that the Commission did vote to expand the funding
of important research for projects including issues such as accessibility,
swimming pool safety, plumbing, wind lift of aged roofs, testing of aluminum
screen enclosures, mechanical code issues and some energy code issues. He further stated those projects are being administered
and overseen by the University of Florida.
Jeff stated next
is the code update, the key reporting back to the Legislature is the 2013 code
update process, which is the 5th Edition of the Florida Building
Code started in 2012 and concluded in 2013 and at this time at least we know further,
the effective date still remains December 31, 2014 that could change in the
June meeting and can report what the Commission decides from that meeting. He advised some key code enhancements will be
reported, typically the report would be what the Commission has done related to
that. Jeff said an import piece is that the
Commission voted to integrate the 2013 update and the 2013 glitch into a single
rule development initiative, this was a nice enhancement, and eliminates the
need for the supplement and as a result there is a fully integrated set of nine
volumes that comprise the 5th Edition.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 32
Recommendation of Approval of Summary of Issues and
Recommendations for Inclusions in the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Annual
Report (cont.):
Jeff advised
that he had reported on some Energy things, but there was one during the development
of the 5th Edition of the Building Code, the Commission did
incorporate the IECCS foundation code while maintaining the Florida specifics
efficiencies, and as a result they appealed Rule 61G20 Thermal Efficiency
Standards as it was no longer needed with the new format. He stated the Commission certified to the
Department of Energy that the Energy Conservation meets or exceeds these
residential provisions as well as commercial provisions.
Jeff for
Accessibility, the main point, the Commission’s updated code is ready and
looking for certification from the Department of Justice and is still under
review as was last reported last year and that remains the case, nothing new
reporting. He said in addition, the
Commission adopted the fee of $250.00 per application by Administrative Rule
for Accessibility Code waivers per Statutory Assignment that is completed.
Jeff stated for
Product Approval, during the reporting period the Commission voted to charge
DBPR staff with assuming the administration of the Product Approval System,
that was a big change, and they were to devise a payment screen to correlate
with approved changes in the Administrative Rule. He advised as well the Commission did
implement the statutory changes to the product approval system that were
assigned from the previous year based on the scope and product approval by the
Commission and as a result products submitted for approval by method three
evaluation will now be approved by DBPR and they are using the ten day business
date process to expedite the approval and the Commission did complete all of
the Legislative assignments relative to the Product Approval System.
Jeff said the
last piece was Education, reported in basically revised the Education Rule to
clarify the deadline, twenty three days prior to the next Commission Meeting
for course submission and accreditation, the definition of self-affirmed
course, the process self-affirmed course reverting to a revised course, when
courses can be submitted, accredited and approved and specifically when the
Building code is approved vs adopted and the process for course revision
relation to law and rule changes vs Building Code changes.
Jeff advised
these are the highlights. Jim will now
go over the recommendations.
Jim Richmond
stated one feature of this report is typically recommendations to the
Legislature for statutory changes. He
said the currently pending one that results from the last report relates to the
interpretation of the Accessibility Code and the entirety the Accessibility
Code rather than being restricted only to Florida specific provisions and that
is in both the House and Senate Bills referred to and moving forward. He said that should be checked off the list
legislatively this year. He advised that
we really have not discussed any firm legislative recommendation or none have
really surfaced during deliberations with the exception of the discussion of
binding
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 33
Recommendation of Approval of Summary of Issues and
Recommendations for Inclusions in the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Annual
Report (cont.):
interpretation,
and we did not arrive at a result on this issue, he said right now the statute
does not reflect the process at least last occurred and at some point it
probably will need to be reviewed and modification made, we may want to
consider making a general recommendation just to that effect in the report, the
stakeholder need to review and come up with a means to address these matters,
as of now the contractor in this circumstance is happy with the system and
legal is not happy with the results of what has gone on with it.
Jim stated this
is the only issue he has, but is open to hear from the Commission.
Chairman Browdy
opened the floor to the Commission to offer input on Legislative issues. There were no further comments. He advised that there will be a draft report
in advance of the June meeting for the Commissions review.
Committee Reports and Recommendations:
Chairman Browdy asked Committee Chairmen,
to confine their TAC/POC reports to a brief summary of key issues and
recommendations, emphasizing any issues requiring an action from the Commission.
Please frame any needed Commission action in the form of a motion. There is no need to read the TAC/POC minutes
since the complete minutes will be linked to the committees’ subsequent meeting
agendas for approval by the respective committees.
Accessibility
Technical Advisory Committee
Commission Gross provided a brief
summary of the Accessibility Council meeting April 9, 2014 held via
teleconference.
Commissioner Gross entered a
motion to approve the Council report.
Commissioner Boyer seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.
Education
Program Oversight Committee
Commissioner Dean provided a b brief
summary of the POC meeting of April 10, 2014 held via teleconference.
Commissioner Dean entered a
motion to approve the POC report, Commissioner Stone seconded the motion, the
motion passed unanimously.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 34
Committee
Reports and Recommendations (cont.):
Energy
Technical Advisory Committee
Commissioner Smith provided a
brief summary of the Accessibility Council meeting April 9, 2014 held via
teleconference.
Commissioner Smith entered a motion to
approve the TAC report. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Boyer, the motion passed unanimously.
Fire
Technical Advisory Committee
Commissioner Bahadori provided a brief
summary of the Fire TAC meeting April 9, 2014 held via teleconference.
Commissioner Bahadori entered a motion
to approve the TAC report. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Schock, the motion passed unanimously.
Mechanical
Technical Advisory Committee
Commissioner
Bassett provided a brief summary of the TAC meeting held April 8, 2014 via
teleconference.
Commissioner
Bassett entered a motion to approve the TAC report and any recommendations; the
motion was seconded by Commissioner Dean, the motion passed unanimously.
Product
Approval Program Oversight Committee
Commissioner Stone provided a brief summary of the TAC meeting held April 3, 2014 via
teleconference.
Commissioner
Stone entered a motion to approve the POC report and any recommendations,
Commissioner Compton seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.
Roofing
Technical Advisory Committee
Commissioner Swope provided a brief
summary of the TAC meeting held April 3, 2014 via teleconference.
Commissioner Swope entered a motion to
approve the TAC report and any recommendations; the motion was seconded by
Commissioner Batts, the motion passed unanimously.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 35
Committee
Reports and Recommendations (cont.):
Special
Occupancy Technical Advisory Committee
Commissioner Phillips provided a brief
summary of the TAC meeting held April 6, 2014 via teleconference.
Commissioner Phillips entered a motion
to approve the TAC report and any recommendations; the motion was seconded by
Commissioner Batts, the motion passed unanimously.
Structural
Technical Advisory Committee
Commissioner Schock provided a brief
summary of the TAC meeting held April 9, 2014 via teleconference.
Commissioner Schock entered a motion to
approve the TAC report and any recommendations; the motion was seconded by
Commissioner Compton, the motion passed unanimously.
Swimming
Pool Technical Advisory Committee
Commissioner Tolbert provided a brief
summary of the TAC meeting held April 4, 2014 via teleconference.
Commissioner Tolbert entered a motion to
approve the TAC report and any recommendations; the motion was seconded by
Commissioner Batts, the motion passed unanimously.
General Public Comment:
Chairman Browdy opened the floor to
public comment.
Joe Belcher, JDB Code Services, stated he
was looking for guidance on mod 5087 that related to reporting in the Energy
Code, this mod was unanimously approved by both the TAC and the Commission and
under public comment, he stated he missed EN4 that deletes the reporting
requirement. He is looking for guidance
as to when he would or should need to request a change. He also wanted to update a standard ACI530
which was not available during the process, however, is available to the 2013
edition. He said he would like guidance at
what point he could ask for these changes.
Chairman Browdy asked for any comments. Jim Richmond advised if Mr. Belcher would
like to discuss his questions with staff, they would be glad to work with. Mr. Richmond advised that no-one is prepared
to answer his questions today.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 36
General Public Comment (cont.):
Jack Glenn, asked for clarification, he
stated he participated on all of the conference calls and there were a number
of interim reports on research projects on the calls, he stated a number of
them referenced Phase II on the work and he had a concern that the scope of the
research project was written such that we get answer. He stated that in a couple of instances there
would be no information forthcoming from this phase of research and would
require a second phase. He stated that
the Commission should have some feel of the total cost of the research is and
whether the a project needs to be phased before contracts lag. He stated he is concerned that some of the
research money was spent and the cycle will end up with no tangible results but
will cause the Commission to enter into more research to get answers.
Chairman Browdy asked Mo Madani to
provide a comment on the schedule on the research work and progress in that
area.
Mr. Madani stated the research projects
are ongoing and the committees received the interim reports on all of the
projects. He stated some of the projects
had to be split into two phases due to timing and the need for the
research. Mo said phase one to be
completed in this fiscal year, phase two next fiscal year after the final
report. He said during the final report
to be presented June, and there will be more input on the findings. Mo advised Mr. Glenn, if there is phase two
it is set to allow the research to be completed.
Chairman Browdy advised Mr. Madani in
response to Mr. Glenn’s question, he would reporting and funding cost to be
made available during the Chair meetings in June and whether there will be a
second phase.
Mark Zehnal,
FRSA, stated he would like to suggest that the TAC meetings start considering a
10 am time frame due to callers calling in from the west coast. He stated this is just a consideration. FRTRI roof tile manual, the 5th
Edition, he stated they just received another push off on code until March 2015
and that would manual would go into effect and they are still waiting on the
equivalency of standards and what he has heard from legal, now it has been put
off again and they are looking for a time frame as they are getting reports
from local government and contractors, that they are not able to use the 4th
Edition, this is because it does not go along with the ASC710 the tables that
are in there for uplift values are in the new manual and this is the reason for
the push. He stated they are requesting
update.
Jim Richmond advised unfortunately at
this point we cannot give a time frame, it is completely unpredictable and
impossible to estimate what road blocks and hurdles will surface. Jim said that we will have to fight through
them as quickly as possible.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 37
General Public Comment (cont.):
April Hammonds stated she would say the
same as what Mr. Richmond has explained.
She stated there has been another roadblock with JAPC that was not
anticipated. She said they cannot
predicate what the Judicial Administrative Procedures Committee is going to do
or the what the Department of State will require.
Mr. Zehnal was
to know if FRSA could assist with the process.
Chairman Browdy advised that this
process is insulated and it is somewhat trying, every time we are in process of
trying to schedule the effective date of a new code. He advised there will be an update at the
June meeting.
Martin Parone
stated he wanted to thank the Chairman for allowing him to provide the
Commission with what we use at Tech Carpenter, flash safety training
seminars. He stated he has been giving
them for the last year and one half throughout Florida. He advised the letter in the front page is
reason he wanted a moment with the Commission.
Mr. Parone stated as the Commission could see
in the letter, that he is the Certified Technical Representative with Carpenter
Electric, technical division. He said
Tech is a company that is twenty one years old that provides a strong unique three
step comprehensive programs to commercial, industrial, government, health,
educational, technology buildings, and the company does this all over the
world. Mr. Parone
stated since he was certified in July of 2012 he has visited over 250 of the
aforementioned businesses throughout the South Florida area and discovered
something that is quite disturbing, more like 99% of the buildings he goes into
to do what he does, he has noticed that they do not have official art flash
labels on their electrical equipment and according to NFPA and National
Electrical Code, this is important, so he wanted to say that he hopes the
Commission will review the handout and address the requirements in the future,
so that electrical contractors and engineers will begin commissioning the flash
coordination in new buildings prior to giving them the certificate of
occupancy.
Chairman Browdy asked if there was any
comment on enforcement on this issue.
There was none at this time.
Jamie Gascon,
Miami-Dade County, he stated he would like to make two points under public
comment. He stated the first point
relates to the process that was followed at the last Product Approval Committee
meeting. He said that there was a manner
in which comments are made or received by the POC, this specifically has to do
with certification and evaluation by an approved evaluation entity method. He further stated these are the products that
are reviewed by staff and within ten days of being validated are switched over
to the approved status. Mr. Gascon said this last go round there were a number of
comments that were made, however, there was almost no opportunity to make
comments or discuss those that comments were filed. He stated the perception was in essence that
the process that which are heard before the POC
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 38
General Public Comment (cont.):
somewhat changed along the way, so there
were people lined up to speak that apparently did not get the opportunity to
speak or voice the comments that had been filed. Mr. Gascon
suggested if the processes are going to be changed or the manner or format of
these meetings, the fact that they are teleconference, it is somewhat difficult
to convey and put these points across, so with changes as a public member, he
would like to be notified in advanced of the changed process.
Mr. Gascon
stated his second point is that he is trying to be proactive in the process, is
that some of the products that are being submitted for approval that are based
on test reports that are being shared, in other words the manufacturer will
have testing and allows another manufacturer to use their testing to get the
product approval. He said what is going
to happen to that product approval if the manufacturer ceases to allow the
other manufacturer to use the test. Mr. Gascon advised in the status of product approval that used
it under those circumstances. He said he
does not believe it is covered under the rule.
He said that if someone ceases to allow someone else to use the product,
it is something that should have an effect on the others product that received
product approval. Mr. Gascon stated it should be proactive and not reactive when
this occurs, as company’s surface and then disappear, this is something that
will happen.
April Hammonds, Esq,
addressed Mr. Gascon’s concerns, she stated that he
was correct about a process attempting to be changed, she stated it was the
public and a few members of the POC that were attempting to change the
process. Ms. Hammonds stated she has
been with the Commission for two years and has attended every Product Approval
POC, she said this ten day of administrative approval of products by DBPR is
not a new process, there have been some things added in but it is not new. April stated it was always given for
informational purposes to the POC to review ahead of time, there were public
comments, none of that has changed. She
said what was going to be changed this time, it was recommended that every
single product that had a comment be pulled off of the agenda and discussed,
and that actually what the statute says which she read in to the record, the
only way it should be pulled off for a full review is for good cause. April further said what constitutes good
cause, she said that the spreadsheet as well as everyone else, there were long
lists of full public comments, she said that we are required by law to have
those out at a minimum of seven days prior to the meeting. She said they are often out earlier than
that, and it is incumbent upon every Commissioner and every TAC member and
every POC member to review the materials in a timely fashion and with their
expertise, if they see something of grave concern, as legal standard is of good
cause, must be substantiated by competent and substantial evidence, then that
is something that should be brought before the full Commission, otherwise it is
simply a ratification and that had been the process for two years. April stated there were some people that
wanted to make public comment on declaratory statements where public comment
had already been called for. She advised
they will see a change to the upcoming agendas to match some of the other
committee agendas which identify which state general comment like we do in
plenary sessions, which will be the same for TAC and POC. She stated further that when it is regarding
other TAC business, it says something to the
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 39
General Public Comment (cont.):
effect of “identifying other TAC
business or POC business for the future coming months” this issue came up with
other meetings. She asked that it not be
said the process has been changed when this was done by the public.
Jamie Gascon
stated he had only been doing this for twelve years and has seen the process
evolve at the beginning to the level of professionalism that was achieved until
recently. He stated he felt the
Commission had taken great effort to allow the public to speak and have their
opinions heard. Jamie said he had
nothing to say at the meetings, but he did sense that the public was shunned
and several comments that were lined up to be said but were not heard. He stated they try to follow the rules and
they appreciate the opportunity the public is given to make any comments they
feel necessary.
Dwight Wilkes, with Key Tech, stated he
needed direction or clarification on an issue.
He stated over the last year and more recently Commissioner Stone and
last year Commissioner Schock mentioned items that they would like to bring
before the product approval rule in a workshop during development hearing. He stated most recently Commissioner Stone
talked about 3.009 (4) on the validation wanting to be discussed and he thought
it was in for the June meeting and not too long ago there was the use of the
role form machines was discussed and staff had recommended a lot of these items
be held until the next 2014-2015 development, he asked when would these come
before the Commission so that he can know in a timely manner as he has clients
that will be flying in to speak during the public comment as to the need for
these items to be brought before the rule development.
April Hammonds stated the date she
believes the annual rule proposal goes in at the end of the fiscal year and
beginning of the new fiscal year whereby we are required to submit all of the
rules that we want to take a look at.
She stated the soonest that we would be discussing some of rules given
that you have to do notice of development, would be the August meeting once the
rule plan together with the Rules Attorney, the Judicial Administrative
Procedures Committee and the Department of State, these are new requirements,
you have to tell them the rules you are planning to work on without
deviation. We are hopeful the rule plan
will be complete in July.
Dwight Wilkes asked if that would be in
Jeff’s report or where would it be located.
Jim Richmond advised he did not believe the
plan is not published anywhere. Jim
stated the role form roofing came up, but he was not aware of any firm
recommendations for amendment to the rule.
He said that we do have to coordinate all of the rule proceedings and
there is significant program enhancement on product approval and you can only
have a rule open once for rule making, so we have to have everything
coordinated. Jim stated notice is
required and is out 14 days prior to the meetings and realistically we know
when there is going to be a rule proceeding meeting before, that is probably
the best as far as notification at this time.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 40
Commission Comments (cont.):
Mo Madani stated an explanation that our
intention is to start discussion on the subjects by the June meetings. He said before start a rule we need to know
exactly what we are trying to change what we are trying to make in the rule. We will start discussion of issues at the
June meeting.
Commissioner Brown stated he would like
to clarify to his prior statement on the bill process. He clarified stating member bills and
committee bills are handled differently than appropriation bills. He stated that appropriation bills always
have a conference committee toward the end of the process where the House and
Senate version are reconciled by a committee of members from both houses. He said member bills and committee bills do
not normally take the same process, so if you have a bill in one house and one
in another house that are not identical then each chamber has to make a
decision on which or if they want either of the bills to pass for a bill to go
to the Governor it has to pass both chambers in an identical format, so if there
are inconsistent provisions then the House and Senate that would have to reconciled
one way or another and one bill pass both chambers. He said a member bill or committee bill can
have funding provisions in it, that funding provision must also be incorporated
into the appropriations bill in order for the funding to have the intended
effect. Commissioner Brown stated he
hope this would clarify the question.
Chairman Browdy asked if there is a
reconciliation that comes up with some number for this specific Future Builders
Bill, would that then automatically go into the appropriations bill because it
was passed by both Houses.
Commissioner Brown stated that it would
not be automatic, but if it is in a bill and the bill passes, it is always
generally provided for in the appropriations bill.
Chairman Browdy thanked Commissioner
Brown for the clarification.
Commissioner Brown voiced his concern to
the comments that were made at the beginning of the meeting regarding the sound
in the room; he said he had difficulty understanding the meeting due to the
echo in the room.
Commissioner Schock
voiced same opinion on the sound in the room.
He stated he understood that questions were coming up again on threshold
inspections on renovations of threshold buildings. Commissioner Schock
provided the Commission with history on this issue with the Professional
Engineers Board regarding this issue. He
advised that several years ago he brought this before the Commission and asked
for a possible Structural Work group to look at the issue and provide
recommendations, however, the workgroup was incomplete on the issue due to an
illness of a member and declaratory statements were decided on. He feels that this has fallen through the cracks
and is asking for the Chairman to allow this process to continue.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 41
Commission Comments (cont.):
Chairman Browdy stated he had received
some communication with regards to this issue from a contractor and he does
feel it fell through the cracks and does not have any issue with him making
contact with the Board of Professional Engineers to bring back in the work
group.
Jim Richmond stated the work group was
discontinued due to decision of use of declaratory statement as the questions
could not be answered in a workgroup format.
He said they could amend the code if necessary, request amendments to
the statutes or we can do an interpretation through a declaratory
statement. Jim said that he thought
Commissioner Schock was trying to revive the effort
to obtain petitions for declaratory statements.
Commission Schock
stated that was correct, the idea was the declaratory statement was the best
way to go.
Chairman Browdy stated the decision was
the best venue was a declaratory statement rather than making changes to 553
that would require threshold inspectors to be engaged in any substantial
renovation to a threshold building.
Mo Madani stated actually that was what
was elected and the process of a declaratory statement is being prepared and
the Commission should see it soon.
Chairman Browdy asked that this be
brought to the point to allow a decision in the form of a declaratory statement
on the record to give guidance to the public.
Commissioner Schock
responded stating that he is looking forward to the declaratory statement. He stated there are a lot of unanswered
questions on this subject. He further
stated this may require several declaratory statements to get interpretations
on specific areas.
Chairman Browdy asked that Mr. Madani
update Commissioner Schock when there is information
received regarding declaratory statements on this issue.
Commissioner Stone asked how the staff
is handling innovative products and he thinks some Committee of the Commission
should look at that and revisit and determine how we can address these
products. He said that he thinks the
product that we are trying to promote this morning was probably a good product,
but the declaratory statement was not the appropriate venue. He continued and addressed the statements
made by Mr. Gascon saying that of the 119 products
that were reviewed by the POC for approval by the department staff, 28 received
public comments, he said they did not allow any testimony at the POC meeting,
he felt bad about that issue and that they did a disservice to the Commission
and the citizens of Florida not allowing public comment. He was ready to go through all and
address. He stated he was a champion of
the ten day process,
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 42
Commission Comments (cont.):
and this would allow for review of DBPR
approvals and we did not do that this time and he apologized to the Commission.
Commissioner Bassett requested that
since there are so many new Commissioners, that the staff could do a seating
chart because he cannot see the name plates on his side of the room and has a
hard time reading them on the other side of the room and it would be advantage.
Chairman Browdy stated the angels of the
name plates placement was for his benefit during the meeting. He stated there is a seating chart and we can
distribute to the Commissioners or we can use name badges.
Mo Madani said he wanted to clarify to
Mr. Gascon and Commissioner Stone, he said if you
look at the received comments on the products of ten days, those comments were
addressed and received a response from the manufacturer, so when we have a
public comment, they are sent to the manufacturer and engineers and they were
provided with comment. He said also
staff does review both comments and provide staff comments, so the comments
were addressed; the question being asked is that do we want to go through each
one or ask the Committee just to pull any of these that need to be discussed.
Commissioner Tolbert stated he had a
question on rule development for hearing for 61G-20, when would the Commission
have this hearing. He stated this is the
Education Rule.
April Hammonds stated that the rule is
ready to go for notice of proposed rulemaking which is the final stage that is
ready to go as soon as the approval was received from the POC and Commission
today. April advised that will be
published in the Florida Administrative Register and then the clock start
running in the appropriate process and this is where the variables come in.
Commissioner Tolbert asked if this will
be ready for June.
April Hammonds stated she could not
provide a date as you have to allow 21 days for request for hearing. She said if there is a request for hearing
the time clock changes to 45 days after the final hearing. April stated this is no specific time, if the
Judicial Administrative Procedures Committee steps in ad stops stating issues
need to be resolved, that can delay. She
did say it is about to be published by the Rules Attorney which will put it in
the last stage and we can hope it goes through.
Commissioner Tolbert asked if it has
gone through JAPC.
April Hammonds stated that it will go
through JAPC at every stage.
FBC
Plenary Session
April 17, 2014
Page 43
Commission Comments (cont.):
Chairman Browdy asked for any further
comments from the Commission. There was
none.
Adjournment:
There was a motion to adjourn with a
second, the motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Browdy adjourned the meeting at
11:42 am.