FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

WELCOME

Chairman Rodriguez welcomed the Commission and gallery to the December 2007 plenary session of the Florida Building Commission.

REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

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

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the meeting agenda. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

REVIEW AND APPROVE OCTOBER 3, 2007 MEETING MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S REPORTS

Chairman Rodriguez called for approval of the minutes and the facilitator’s reports from the October 2007 Commission meeting.

Commissioner Wiggins stated he brought a written correction request from Mr. Windell Peters, AGL Resources, Inc., representing Florida City Gas. He stated he had given staff the correction.

Mr. Richmond read the correction as submitted by Mr. Peters “The rule should apply to all dwelling units regulated by the Florida Residential Code”. The correction could be found beginning on page 32 and ending on page 33 from the minutes.

Commissioner Norkunas stated in his comments regarding Chiquita Animal Hospital he had used the word “disproportionate” and he had meant to use the word “hardship”.

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval of the October Commission meeting minutes as amended. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chairman Rodriguez first addressed Commission appointments. He stated Kiko Franco would be serving on the Accessibility TAC, replacing Peter Tagliarini. Chuck Goldsmith was appointed to the Roofing TAC, replacing Jeff Burton. Bob Boyer was appointed to the Roofing TAC, replacing Morris Swope. He then stated at the request of the Florida Department of Financial Services CFO, Alex Sink, Yvonne Gsteiger has been appointed to the Green Building Workgroup as the My Safe Florida Home representative. She will be replacing Tammy Torres. He stated there would be a Window Wall Workgroup, which basically joins the Window Workgroup and the Wall Workgroup. He further stated Jeff Stone and Jim Gulde were appointed to the Workgroup. He explained the workgroup would be tasked with developing consensus recommendations for enhancing the water intrusion functioning of the window and wall connection. He stated the Workgroup members were Robert Amarusso, Chuck Anderson, Bob Boyer, Rusty Carroll, Jaime Gascon, Dale Greiner, Jim Gulde, John Hill, C.W. McCumber, John McFee, Dave Olmstead, Craig Parrino, Roger Sanders, Jim Shock, Jeff Stone, Steve Strawn, Sigil Valentine and Dwight Wilkes. He then thanked those who have served and those who have been appointed for their service. He added over the years the survey has been the basis for many enhancements to the Commission.

Chairman Rodriguez next addressed the Annual 2007 Effectiveness Assessment Survey. He explained each year the Commission conducts an effectiveness assessment survey to gauge the Commission’s perspective on a variety of issues. He further stated over the years the survey input has been the basis for many service enhancements to the Commission procedures. He then directed the Commission to Mr. Blair for a review on the results of the survey up to date and to provide the Commission with an update on the project.

Mr. Blair discussed the survey and its purpose. (See Florida Building Commission—2007 Effectiveness Assessment Survey Results –as presented December 12, 2007) He encouraged and requested that all commissioners complete the survey prior to the next Commission meeting. He stated he would send a link to the Commissioners with deadlines.

Chairman Rodriguez acknowledged on behalf of the Commission the passing of Herbert Saffir. He stated Mr. Saffir was a hurricane research pioneer and co-inventor of the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. He explained the scale has become second nature to Florida as the Richter scale is to California. He further stated Mr. Saffir was a Strawn advocate for developing the Florida Building Codes and participated very closely in the development of both the South Florida Building Code and the Florida Building Code. He stated he would remember Mr. Saffir as a compassionate advocate, great engineer, and also a very rational, courteous human being who will be missed. He stated condolences would be sent to Mrs. Saffir on behalf of the Commission

REVIEW AND UPDATE OF COMMISSION WORKPLAN

Mr. Dixon conducted a review of the updated Commission workplan. (See Updated Commission Workplan December 2007).

Mr. Dixon stated changes were highlighted although the only major changes were decision dates being moved from December to the January 30, 2008 meeting for several of the workplan items.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the updated workplan. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CONSIDER ACCESSIBILITY WAIVER APPLICATIONS

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

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

Recommendation for Approval With no Conditions:

# 2 Devereaux House

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council recommended approval based on the automatic exemption of 5 persons or less and not open to the public, even though approval from the Florida-specific requirements does not need those from the requirements of Title 2 of the ADA.

# 6 Palm Beach City Fire Rescue

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

#9 Florida Association of Counties, Inc.

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council recommended approval based on provisions of Florida Statute 553.512 related to 20% disproportionality to the cost. He clarified though if approved from the Florida-specific requirements it does not relieve the applicant from the requirements of Title 2 of the ADA.

#10 North Port High School

#12 78 Spanish Street Renovation

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council recommended approval based on the historic character and extreme hardship.

#14 Epic Theatres 14

#18 Pasco County Fire Simulator

#19 Kempe Office Plaza

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the consent agenda of the Council’s recommendations for approval for items 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18 and 19. Commissioner McCombs entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Bassett declared a conflict with application #6, as Palm Beach County is a client of his firm.

Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote on the motion. Vote to approve Council’s recommendations for items 2, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18 and 19 was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Rodriguez then called for a vote on the motion to approve Item #6. Vote to approve the Council’s recommendation was unanimous. (Commissioner Bassett abstained). Motion carried.

Recommendation for Approval with Conditions:

#3 Wendy’s International

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council recommended the waiver be granted based on provisions 508.503 barrier removal which is readily achievable. He added the recommendation was also based on the facts of the settlement agreement as well as Florida Building Code Sections 11-4.1.8 paragraph 1. He clarified though if approved from the Florida-specific requirements it does not relieve the applicant from the ADA provisions.

Commissioner McCombs moved approval of the Council’s recommendation. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Norkunas stated that earlier in the year he had offered some guidance to the Commission on a previous disability item. He stated 18 of the Commissioners did not listen to him. He then stated at the meeting following his recommendation, he presented the declaratory statement supporting his original position. He noted the comment received was the declaratory statement should have been presented up front. He stated it would be unwise for the Commission to approve this waiver. He stated statute 553.512 reads “waivers cannot be issued that violate federal accessibility laws”. He referenced page 4 of the application which states “the Florida Building Commission may grant waivers of Florida-specific”. He then stated this application has nothing to do with vertical accessibility. He stated this was a door issue. He stated his heart empathizes with petitioner because there is a federal lawsuit involved, but the waiver cannot be granted. He further stated if the Commission grants the waiver it opens up the entire state to all of the law suits believing the Commission can waive other things besides vertical accessibility. He stated the Commission would be overwhelmed. He reiterated in this particular case he would hope the Commission would not grant the waiver.

Mr. Kelegian stated the sensitivity is relative to the nature of the provision being waived. He explained the Council’s recommendation waives an element of the Federal Accessibility Guidelines that has been adopted into Florida Law by Florida Statute. He stated it was the kind of Florida provision that has not been historically addressed in a waiver context. He stated the provisions Commissioner Norkunas referenced refer to the enviability or sanctity of certain Federal Accessibility Laws. He further stated statutes 553.502, 553.503 and 553.512 specifically reference federal law in a certain way which has made the Commission historically reticent about waiving provisions of federal law adopted by Florida Statutes. He stated Commissioner Norkunas mentioned 553.512, the one which provides for the Commissions power of waiver as long as the waiver does not violate federal accessibility laws and regulations. He stated statute 553.503 is the provision of Florida Law adopting the guidelines into Florida Law which states “the guidelines shall establish the minimum standards for accessibility to buildings to facilities built or altered within the state.” He then stated statute 553.502 is the intent provision which references the guidelines. He concluded by stating it is an area of law which has historically remained somewhat unclear to staff. He stated although he was relatively new to the Building Commission Mr. Dixon could shed some light on the how this issue has been dealt with in the past between the Commission and the Department of Justice.

Mr. Dixon explained that he was the staff person for the state who dealt directly with the Department of Justice and the certification of the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction from 1993-1997 when certification was achieved based on certain amendments negotiated with the Department of Justice to both the Code and the law. He stated the Department of Justice, when asked about the waiver provision in Florida Law responded waiver of Florida Law does not violate the Federal ADA. Mr. Dixon then stated the Department of Justice further indicated a state can waive its own law and that waiver has nothing to do with waiving Federal Law because the state has no law to enforce Federal Law. He continued stating when implementing the 1993 version of the Florida Accessibility Code, the Board of Building Codes and Standards, the Commission’s predecessor body, established a policy that avoided waiving requirements of the Florida Accessibility Code derived from the Federal ADAAG. Mr. Dixon further stated the purpose for that was to avoid the possibility of parties believing that a waiver of the Florida Code was also a waiver of Federal Law, thereby opening the possibility of lawsuit under Federal law in the future. He clarified it as a policy under Florida Law not a requirement at least in the eyes of the Department of Justice.

Mr. Mellick stated the Council views itself as fact-finding. He explained this case was unique. He stated other cases have been turned away when specific to Federal Law, not Florida Law. He continued stating there was a Federal Court settlement agreement which allowed for the waiver and a building official who had not accepted the agreement. He stated a conflict between the statute and the settlement agreement stands. He then stated it was the determination of “readily achievable” in this case that the Council became involved. He further stated the Council’s awareness of the case being out of the norm and deliberated on that point for a while trying to understand if it was in the Council’s authority to grant a waiver. He added the Council qualified in its recommendation the point of allowing a waiver to Florida-specific law does not relieve the applicant of Federal restrictions.

Commissioner Browdy asked what the Council had recommended.

Mr. Mellick stated the Council unanimously approved recommendation.

Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote to approve the motion. Vote to approve the motion resulted in 21 for, 1 against (Norkunas). Motion carried.

#4 Sea World Orlando Shamu Theater Seat Addition

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council recommended the waiver be granted based on the provisions of Florida Statute 553.512 as unnecessary with the condition the accessible seat located on the end cap be moved in one seat and the companion seat be moved to the outside end cap.

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

#7 Matrix Employee Leasing, Inc.

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council recommended the waiver be granted based on provisions of Florida Statute 553.512 related to 20% disproportionality to the cost, with the condition plans be submitted to DCA staff to delineate the amenities on the second floor and to verify they were also on the first floor.

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

#15 Epic Theatres Stadium, Clermont

#16 Epic Theatres Stadium 16, St. Johns County

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waivers as described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council recommended the waivers be granted based on provisions in Statute 553.512 as unnecessary with the condition plans be modified and sent to DCA staff to verify 17 seats are removed from theatres 6 & 11. He explained this would reduce the accessible seats from 5 to 4 to meet the requirements for the 4 companion seats.

Commissioner McCombs moved approval of the Council’s recommendation. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Greiner asked which items were being discussed.

Mr. Mellick clarified the items were 15 & 16.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#17 Gold’s Gym Northside

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council recommended the waiver be granted based on provisions 553.512 based on 20% disproportionality of cost with the condition the applicant submit to DCA staff new plans to delineate the amenities on the 2^nd floor be duplicated on the 1^st floor.

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

#20 Marriott’s Crystal Shores on Marco Island

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waivers as described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council recommended the waiver be granted based on provisions of Statute 553.512 as unnecessary until the construction of the phase 2 structure. He further stated if phase 2 construction is not completed the Council asked that the waiver be conditional for three years. He stated if construction of phase 2 is not completed in three years another means of accessibility shall be provided to the waterslide.

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

Recommendation for Deferral:

#5 Riverview High School

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council recommended the waiver be deferred for the applicant to provide additional information to include but not be limited to additional accessible seating, information locations, existing count of accessible seats and the clarification of the accessibility to the 2^nd floor classrooms.

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

#8 FL-TLHO Office Building Remodel

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council recommended the waiver be deferred for the applicant to provide additional information to include but not be limited to bids for the platform lift, clarification of the cost for the breakdown on maintenance versus the alterations, a building officials statement of the cost of construction of the last three years and a floor plan to verify the usage of the floor spaces with both having the needed amenities.

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

#11 Target Store T-816

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

#13 Towncenter 12

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council recommended the waiver be deferred for the applicant to provide additional information to include but not be limited to new drawings to show the individual accessible seat locations in plan view and to provide additional plans for line of sight

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

Recommendation for Denial:

#1 Harvest Village Unit 62

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council had recommended the waiver be deferred from the previous Commission meeting. He then stated the Council has recommended the waiver now be denied for lack of hardship.

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

Addition:

Chiquita Animal Hospital

Mr. Mellick stated the case was an addition to the agenda. He explained it was heard at the last Council and Commission meetings. He stated it was approved based on the automatic provisions related to 5 or less persons and not open to the public. He then stated since then DCA staff has had contact with the local building official, who expressed a concern stating the limitation of 5 persons or less would not probably be the case. He further stated the building officials original recommendation form was omitted from the packets received by the Council and Commission last month and presented to DCA staff. He stated based on those facts the Council recommended the Commission reconsider action previously taken and schedule the case to be reheard at the next Council meeting with notification to the applicant and the building official.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if a motion was necessary to reconsider.

Mr. Richmond stated for the record what was needed was a motion to amend an action previously taken because motions to reconsider are prohibited at subsequent meetings. He then stated the motion could be scheduled for the next meeting or taken today and tabled until the next meeting, if the Commission approves. He clarified the motion would be either ”to approve the Council’s recommendation and take it up at the January meeting for further action with notice to the applicant” or make a motion to amend and then a motion to table the motion to amend.

Chairman Rodriguez suggested a motion to accept the Council’s recommendation would be better.

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

Chairman Rodriguez announced to the Commission Mr. Mellick had been appointed by President Bush to serve as a public member of the United States Access Board, a leading federal agency on accessibility for persons with disabilities and accessible design. He continued by stating under the landmark Americans with Disabilities Acts and other laws the Access Board develops and maintains design criteria for the building environment, transportation, telecommunication products and information technology. He then stated Mr. Mellick would be sworn in as a member of the Access Board at its next meeting. He stated the board is structured to function as a coordinating body among federal agencies to directly represent the public. He noted half of the members are representatives from most of the federal departments and the other half is comprised of members of the public, such as Mr. Mellick, appointed by the president for four year terms. He offered congratulations to Mr. Mellick.

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND ENTITY APPROVAL

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

Commissioner Carson presented the POC recommendations for entity approval in the form of a motion as follows:

CER 1773 National Accreditation & Management Institute

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

CER 3718 CSA International

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

CER 3916 Quality Auditing Institute Ltd

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval of the POC recommendation.

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

CER 1663 PSI/Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

TST 2411 ETC Laboratories

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

TST 4671 Atlantic & Caribbean Roof Consulting, LLC

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

TST 6049 Trinity ERD - South Carolina

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

TST 1691 Hurricane Engineering and Testing, Inc.

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

VAL 7023 Fenestration Testing Lab

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

3367-R1, 3652-R1 Ingersoll-Rand

Mr. Blair called for a motion to amend an action previously taken.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation to amend an action previously taken. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair called for a motion to recommend the applicant be notified again of the deficiency.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation to notify the applicant again of the deficiency. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

8218 Hurricane Armor, LLC

Mr. Blair called for a motion to amend an action previously taken.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation to amend an action previously taken. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair called for a motion to approve revocation proceedings.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation to begin revocation proceedings. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

6855 Hurricane Armor, LLC

Mr. Blair called for a motion to amend an action previously taken.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation to amend an action previously taken. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair called for a motion to begin revocation proceedings.

1876-R2 Exclusive Wood Doors

Withdrawn by the applicant. No Commission action necessary.

9428 NBHandy

8663 Modern Metal Systems Incorporated

9254 TRIAD CORRUGATED METALS

Mr. Blair called for a motion to amend an action previously taken.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation to amend an action previously taken. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair called for a motion to approve the products must comply with the slope requirements, but not the TS 100 additional tests.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation products must comply with the slope requirements, but not the TS 100 additional requirements. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

9485 Petrat Steel Technology, Inc

Mr. Blair called for a motion to amend an action previously taken.

Mr. Blair called for a motion to approve product 9485.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation for approval of product 9485. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

9255-R1 ASI Building Products

Mr. Blair called for a motion to amend an action previously taken.

Mr. Blair called for a motion to approve product 9255-R1.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation for

approval of product 9255-R1. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the

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

9507, 9509, 9512, 9514, 9515 Graham Architectural Products

Mr. Blair called for a motion to amend an action previously taken.

Mr. Blair called for a motion to deny products 9507, 9509, 9512, 9514, and 9515.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation for denial of products 9507, 9509, 9512, 9514, 9515. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

9024 Agriboard Industries

Mr. Blair called for a motion to amend an action previously taken.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation to amend an action previously taken. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion.

Mr. Blair called for a vote to approve product 9024.

Commissioner Gonzalez stated he was against the approval of the product and requested the record reflect such. He stated 33% of the Structural TAC voted against the product and 20% of the POC voted against the product approval. He stated in Florida Building Code Section 23.15.1.11 states “each component must undergo a moisture test” and product 9024 did not. He explained only the assembled product was tested, not the individual components. He then stated the product was a wood panel made of OSB, which has not shown to hold up well in moisture conditions.

Fred Dudley, Holland Law Firm, representing Agriboard Industries

Mr. Dudley stated the product has gone before the POC four times. He then stated in October it was sent to the Structural TAC on the question of the MOE and whether or not each separate component of the product, which is a set panel, had to be tested. He further stated the position of Miami-Dade was because OSB is the cladding used in the exterior of the panels, the OSB should be tested. In October 6-3 vote from Structural TAC sent back to POC for approval stating the component did not need to be tested separately. He noted at the POC it received one descending vote (Gonzalez). He stated the product has passed every single test requested specifically with regard to Section 125 23.15. He stated the client was asked prior to his retainer by them, whether or not they would submit to Dade County’s checklist 0475 and agreed. He stated the product was tested according to Miami Dade standards and passed. He then stated Mr. Berman, of Berman and Associates, also recommended approval of this product including for use in the HVHZ, which was the issue before the Commission. He further stated no one on the POC was able to tell him, including Commissioner Gonzalez, what additional test could be given which the client was requested to do so and did not comply. He concluded by stating the product had been tested for everything requested by the POC and has passed them all.

Jaime Gascon, Miami-Dade County

Mr. Gascon stated the product is a composite type product which has come before the Commission a number of times with issues which needed to be addressed in order to conform to the HVHZ requirements. He then stated it is specifically comprised of a strand board in the interior and exterior face of the panel as well as a compressed straw material as a core and a laminated beam like construction along the entire perimeter. He further stated of these three composites two need to undergo the moisture cycling test outlined in the HVHZ. He stated it was debated and explained at great length at the POC and at the Structural TAC at which votes were cast and the results presented. He stated an engineer will have to go back and design certain aspects or elements of the panel to construct a structure. He then stated without the values of the components for this system it would not be possible. He further stated an approval would be out there for use in the HVHZ and not have been proven to meet requirements of HVHZ. He stated tests have been performed for product as part of a system and have had successful results. He restated the objection of Miami-Dade would be the components not passing the test individually, specifically the modulus of elasticity or MOE. He explained the OSB facing needs to be subject to the moisture cycle, isolated from the system to prove it meets the modulus of elasticity requirement which is included in the HVHZ checklist.

Mr. Dudley stated the OSB is the subject of a performance standard PS-2 approved by the United States Department of Commerce. He then stated as he read the Rule it is prescriptively deemed approved as a separate component.

Wendell Haney, Engineer RW Building Construction

Mr. Haney stated he represents the evaluating engineer for the product. He then stated for use of the product there would not be any other testing or any other calculation as far as it being a component and cladding element for an engineer to be able to use the product. He further stated the product tested as Dade County requires had fastener values determined before and after the wet/dry cycle therefore an engineer could use those values to determine now to attach other cladding elements to windows and doors. He concluded by stating the OSB sheathing on the product had been tested to the PS-2 standard which is listed at the beginning of Section 23.15 and the entire panel was tested as required in 23.15.1.1.11 where it states “all structural panels shall be tested.”

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

Mr. Glenn stated he is a member of the Structural TAC and the maker of the motion for approval. He further stated his motion reflected his belief the individual components did not have to be tested, but the assembly as a whole. He concluded by stating the motion was approved without individual components requiring test outside the assembly receiving a 6-3 vote and reported favorably.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the POC recommendation for

approval of product 9024. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Browdy stated he did not understand the objection of Miami-Dade. He asked if the product is being used as an assembly and the assembly has passed the performance standards required, why it would be necessary to test the components if the components would not be used individually, but only as part of an assembly.

Mr. Gascon stated a nailer board would be placed along the perimeter of some type of footing which had been laid down with a key slot and the panel straddles that key. He then stated the panel is then fastened through the face on either side and into the key which runs along the length of the perimeter of the building or the wall that is going to be put up. He further stated any uplift, racking or structural wind loads would be dependent on the fasteners ability to withstand those forces through the OSB panel and further into the perimeter laminated veneered lumber that comprises the system. He then stated if a window or door would be placed in the structure some perimeter framing would be required or laminated veneered lumber along the opening where window would be fastened or anchored just into the LVL, therefore it would not be dependent on the OSB in that application. He stated if vinyl siding it would be anchored into OSB facing and it would be just the properties of the OSB which would come into question in that particular application. He concluded by stating for those reasons it should be each of those two components making up the system into holding its modulus of elasticity and modulus of rupture properties as a structural member.

Mr. Dudley stated for clarification the product had passed the withdrawal test through the OSB, therefore cladding on the outside had passed the required testing protocols for nail withdrawal.

Commissioner Kim stated the Structural TAC discussed the product at length and a variety of questions were allowed that went beyond the question which was deferred from the POC to the Structural TAC. He echoed Commissioner Browdy’s comments stating it was a system manufactured as a system from the factory. He stated the OSB structural panels are not sold separately. He stated therefore all testing done had been done as a system fastening and capacity of the wet/dry cycle had been incorporated into the product. He further stated the vote of 6-3 is reflective of the TAC’s recommendation.

Chairman Rodriguez called the question.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 17 for, 3 opposed (Basset, Gonzalez, Sanidas). Motion carried.

Commissioner Sanidas stated with a proper caveat on the approval that the entire system be used, not individual members of the assembly.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the motion was for use of the assembly, as stated by Mr. Glenn.

9323, 9325 United Shutter Systems Association

Mr. Blair called for a motion to amend an action previously taken.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation to amend an action previously taken. Commissioner McCombs entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair called for a motion to extend the conditional approval deadline for both products to December 14, 2007.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation to extend the conditional approval deadline for products 9323 and 9325 to December 14, 2007. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair then presented the products for approval as they appeared in the matrix provided to each Commissioner. Recommended approvals were presented in consent agenda format with conditional approvals, deferrals, and denials being considered individually. (See Florida Building Commission Product Approval Applications)

Certification Method

Recommended for Approval

Product #’s: 228-R4; 934-R2; 251-R8; 953-R7; 280-R1; 320-R2; 330-R3; 331-R4; 451-R3; 565-R2; 567-R1; 568-R1; 569-R2; 570-R1; 571-R1; 574-R1; 576-R2; 578-R1; 644-R3; 735-R2; 741-R2; 1008-R2; 1026-R1; 1045-R2; 1085-R2; 1094-R2; 1154-R2; 1164-R2; 1175-R2; 1182-R3; 1250-R3; 1255-R1; 1363-R3; 1424-R2; 1529; 1544-R2; 1587-R2; 1601-R4; 1608-R2; 1825-R3; 2023-R2; 2033-R1; 2121-R1; 2160-R1; 2198-R2; 2647-R3; 2722-R2; 2920-R2; 3020-R1; 3130-R3; 3453-R2; 3522-R2; 3942-R3; 4205-R2; 4330-R1; 4435-R3; 4437-R3; 4438-R4; 4439-R3; 4602-R1; 4943-R1; 5012-R1; 5027-R1; 5357-R1; 5388-R2; 5787-R1; 5823-R2; 5855-R3; 5856-R2; 5859-R2; 5873-R2; 5886-R1; 5938-R1; 5969-R1; 6144-R1; 6183-R1; 6185-R2; 6192; 6496-R1; 6542-R1; 6573-R1; 6683-R1; 6870-R1; 6876-R1; 6890-R1; 6892-R1; 6917-R1; 7058-R1; 7060-R2; 7063-R1; 7067-R1; 7072-R2; 7237-R1; 7494-R1; 7556; 7708-R1; 7804-R1; 7896-R1; 8094-R1; 8139-R1; 8208-R2; 8456-R1; 8457-R1; 8458-R1; 8467-R1; 8604; 8786-R1; 9207-R1; 9209-R1; 9316-R1; 9385; 9413; 9423; 9424; 9425; 9676; 9677; 9678; 9679; 9680; 9684; 9686; 9690; 9706; 9711; 9721; 9722; 9733; 9740; 9745; 9746; 9753; 9755; 9761; 9768; 9779; 9787; 9788; 9789; 9791; 9797; 9798; 9805; 9806; 9815; 9816; 9817; 9818; 9830; 9835; 9836; 9842; 9846; 9856; 9877; 9878; 9879; 9880; 9881; 9882; 9883; 9885; 9887; 9888; 9889; 9892; 9893; 9894; 9920; 9934; 9939; 9940; 9941; 9943; 9954; 9956; 9976; 9987; 9992; 9993; 9998; 10005; 10014; 10015; 10017; 10019; 10022; 10026; 10028.

Commissioner Carson moved approval for the consent agenda. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Conditional Approval

4732-R1 Marvin Windows and Doors

5470-R1 Windoor Incorporated

6479-R1 Custom Window Systems, Inc.

7066-R2 Custom Window Systems, Inc.

7857-R2 Custom Window Systems, Inc.

9502-R1 Custom Window Systems, Inc.

9518-R1 Custom Window Systems, Inc.

9520-R1 Custom Window Systems, Inc.

9598 Therma-Tru Corporation

9673 Shwinco Industries Inc.

10031 JELD-WEN

10032 JELD-WEN

10033 JELD-WEN

10035 JELD-WEN

Mr. Blair stated these 14 products were recommended for conditional approval stating an independent Florida Professional Engineer is needed to validate anchor analysis.

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

9833; 9861; 9862; 9863 Kensington Windows Inc

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating independent FL PE to validate anchor analysis.

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

153-R2 Custom Window Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating certification agency to indicate tested configurations. Independent Florida Professional Engineer to validate anchor analysis.

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

539-R4 JELD-WEN

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating for product 539.27, there is no verifiable evidence of testing for Impact resistance. Remove expired NOAs.

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

1241-R2 Custom Window Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating under Installation Instructions DP exceeds certified values. For Product 1241.2, Under Limits of Use, DP exceeds Certified DP.

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

1322-R2 Siplast / Icopal

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating ASTM C578 Standard Year is not FBC adopted. Provide Equivalency of Product Standards.

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

1616-R4 Versico Incorporated

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating for mechanically attached, indicate "No" for HVHZ unless tested to TAS 117 or Certification Agency to upload equivalency of standard.

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

2725-R2 Peerless Products, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating Standard Years are not FBC adopted for ASTM E1886/1996. Provide equivalency of standards.

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

4571-R1 Lincoln Wood Products, Inc. / Timeline Vinyl Products, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating under 4571.2, there is no AAMA Certification Agency Certificate uploaded for H-R30 32 X 96.

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

5569-R1 Petersen Aluminum Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating various Standard Years are not FBC adopted. Provide Equivalence of Product Standards. DP values should be shown as negative values only, as shown on NOA’s.

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

8299-R1 PHILIPS PRODUCTS INC.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating for Product 8299.5, under Installation Instructions, DP is exceeded.

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

8844 Window Craftsmen Inc.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating independent FL PE to validate anchor analysis. Remove series 70 from the installation drawings.

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

9112 Siplast / Icopal

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to provide UL Follow-UP Service certificate.

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

9486 Architectural Openings Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating independent FL PE to validate application. Application indicates Category Exterior Doors, Subcategory Exterior Doors Components. The drawings show windows. What is the use of this product?

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

9571 Lifestyle Exterior Products, Inc

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating drawings show installation other than tested; Remove. History: Deferred from October 2007 meeting. Complied with conditions: Installation Instructions contain rational analysis other than tested units. These drawings need to have the FL PE identified and signed and seal the drawings. Validation of drawings shall be by independent FL PE. Installation drawings contain assemblies not certified. Remove from test report general notes related to use within HVHZ. Test report shall be presented in an orderly way with all pages facing same orientation and removing repeated pages. FL PE to sign and seal the test report.

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

9682 GAF Materials Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating NOA is not a Standard. Specify other Standards. There is no verifiable evidence of testing for Impact Resistance or for DP of +570 psf. Certification Agency to verify Installation Instructions.

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

9747 Gorell Enterprises Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating Standard Years are not FBC adopted. Provide Equivalence of Product Standards.

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

9752 Burke Industries

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to indicate on application the actual testing standards. It was indicated certifications or other not applicable documents. The ICC report is not a certification. It may be used as installation instructions with the other certifications. The UL certificate does not identify the model name. Vacgroof is not certified, remove. Provide the UL follow-up services certificate. The FM Certificate does not provide information of the testing standards.

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

9756 Central States Manufacturing Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating Category is Panel Walls. Certification Agency Certificate and Installation Instructions are for Roofing.

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

9759 Decra Roofing Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating remove installation instructions and replace with NOA.

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

9792 Atlas Roofing Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating Certification Agency Certificate does not certify TAS 100 or ASTM D3462. Remove. Combine the two lines into one product. Indicate "No" for HVHZ. Product has not been tested and installation instructions do not comply with HVHZ requirements. Indicate "No" for impact resistance. Has not been tested for impact.

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

9837 Kolbe and Kolbe Millwork

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating for impact models indicate the brand of laminate as tested. Installation instructions by manufacturer’s design licensed professional shall indicate if units were tested for all anchor conditions. If analysis was performed, independent FL PE shall validate anchor analysis.

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

9884 PHILIPS PRODUCTS INC.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating for Product 9884.1, DP on Application, exceeds Certification and Installation Instructions DP. For Product 9884.3, Size on Application and Installation Instructions exceeds Certification Size.

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

9906 Kolbe and Kolbe Millwork

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating for impact models indicate the brand of laminate as tested. Provide analysis of anchors for 1/2" shim space. Installation instructions by manufacturer’s design licensed professional shall indicate if units were tested for all anchor conditions. If analysis was performed, independent FL PE shall validate anchor analysis. Remove Note 9 from the drawings.

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

9915 Peerless Products, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating ASTM E1886 Standard year is not FBC adopted. Provide Equivalence of Product Standard.

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

9932 Pella Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating for Product 9932.5, DP exceeds Certification Agency Certificate.

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

9994, 9996 Energy Saving Products of Florida

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating On Installation Instructions, Cross Sections are not uploaded. Independent FL PE to validate analysis of anchors.

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

10009 Georgia-Pacific Wood Products South LLC

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating Certification cannot refer to the website of applicant for values. Installation instructions contain rational analysis. Independent FL PE to validate rational analysis.

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

10018 General Aluminum Company

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating there is no verifiable evidence of testing to ASTM E1886/1996 or AAMA 506-06. There is no verifiable evidence of testing for Impact Resistance.

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

10034 JELD-WEN

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating for Product 10034.1, AAMA/NWWDA 101/I.S. 2-97 is certified. Add to Standard List. DP exceeds amount Certified. Installation instructions indicate more than one anchoring method. If you change anchors other than tested, this would require analysis. Florida Board of Professional Engineers requires that rational analysis be validated by a FL PE.

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

Recommended for Deferral

149-R2 Custom Window Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating installation instructions indicate pressures larger than certified. Certification agency to indicate tested configurations. Independent FL PE to validate anchor analysis.

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

157-R2 Custom Window Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating installation instructions indicate pressures larger than certified. Installation instructions indicate more than one anchoring method. Certification agency to indicate tested configurations. Independent FL PE to validate anchor analysis.

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

1258-R3 Rosenlew RKW Finland LTD

Mr. Blair stated the products were recommended for deferral stating for Products FL1258.1 and .2, NOA’s have expired. Provide new certification.

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

1259-R2 JPS Elastomerics Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating NOA’s is not in the name of Applicant.

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

2030-R2 Dryvit Systems, Inc

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the applicant needs to remove product 2030.4 that has an expired NOA. Applicant requested deferral.

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

6642-R1 Lincoln Wood Products, Inc. / Timeline Vinyl Products, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating under Product 6642.1, Limits of Use, Other, for (F-LC65 37 X 73) and (F-LC50 77 X 77), there is no verifiable evidence of testing for Impact Resistance. Remove. Under Product 6642.2, For (FW-R45 48 X 96), (F-R30 86 X 96), and (F-C50 72 X 72), there is no verifiable evidence of testing for Impact Resistance. Remove. For Products 6642.3 thru 6642.14, make similar corrections as products 6642.1 and .2 above.

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

6852 Master Machines, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the Certification Agency Certificate does not download. Certification Agency to certify Installation Instructions

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

9441 Dominion Building Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the Certification Agency certificates do not identify the Certification Agency or describe the product. There is no follow-up certificate. The missile level is not indicated. The installation instructions have several details that are from other manufacturers.

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

9674 Shwinco Industries Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating Certificates and installation instructions are uploaded into products models not corresponding to product. FL PE to validate analysis of anchors.

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

Recommended for Denial

9672 Impact Technologies, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial stating the application was deferred on the October 2007 meeting. Did not consent or revise condition of: Installation Instructions partially illegible.

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

Incomplete Applications

186-R1 Weck Glaswerk GmbH (Glass Masonry, Inc.)

Withdrawn by applicant

Product #’s:1478-R1; 4103-R2; 4734-R1; 4765-R1; 6079-R2

Incomplete. No Commission action necessary.

Evaluation by Architect or Engineer

Recommended for Approval

Product #’s: 419-R2; 603-R2; 812-R2; 2291-R3; 4952-R1; 5039-R1; 5351-R2; 6102-R4; 6252-R1; 6362-R1; 6480-R2; 6968-R1; 7652-R1; 8063-R1; 8391-R1; 8621-R1; 8695-R2; 8713-R1; 8831; 9094; 9225-R1; 9295-R1; 9296-R1; 9298-R1; 9299-R1; 9301-R1; 9302-R1; 9304-R1; 9379; 9462; 9579-R1; 9611; 9621; 9685; 9693; 9694; 9712; 9714; 9718; 9751; 9757; 9770; 9772; 9802; 9804; 9810; 9827; 9828; 9832; 9838; 9843; 9857; 9859; 9860; 9864; 9869; 9870; 9871; 9872; 9873; 9876; 9900; 9901; 9903; 9908; 9909; 9911; 9917; 9918; 9919; 9921; 9924; 9926; 9927; 9930; 9942; 9945; 9946; 9947; 9952; 9953; 9955; 9959; 9962; 9964; 9965; 9966; 9967; 9968; 9975; 9977; 9980; 9981; 9982; 9983; 9986; 9999; 10008; 10013.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Conditional Approval

1852-R3 Elite Aluminum Corporation

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant must indicate grade of aluminum. Provide anchor detail thru extrusion. Remove all other than the two lite wide, and non-impact configuration.

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

6114-R1 Silverline Building Products Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant must provide calculations of anchors for 6114.1.

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

7343-R1 NBI Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant must provide physical properties of fabric material.

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

7858-R1 Custom Window Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the Evaluation report does not indicate source of PVC or laminate and their certification. Bill of materials is not legible.

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

9469 EFCO Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the application is missing hardcopy of evaluation report signed and sealed by evaluator. Certificate of Independence does not refer to this product. Product not impacted on fixed glass. Indicate "No" for impact. Correct typo on evaluation report indicating overload of 150.

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

9473; 9474; 9475; 9477 EFCO Corporation

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the application is missing hardcopy of evaluation report signed and sealed by evaluator. Certificate of Independence does not refer to this product.

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

9476 EFCO Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the application is missing hardcopy of evaluation report signed and sealed by evaluator. Certificate of Independence does not refer to this product. Correct typo in evaluation report where it says "single fixed" window, should say single hung window.

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

9478 EFCO Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating the application is missing hardcopy of evaluation report signed and sealed by evaluator. Evaluation reports do not indicate location of testing facility. Certificate of Independence does not refer to this product.

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

9654 Vi Win Tech

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating the applicant must remove blank line 9654.1.

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

9669 Eagle Window and Door, Inc

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating the applicant must provide certification of laminate. Provide grade of wood.

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

9692 Mesker Door, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating Section 1405.12.1 is not applicable to HVHZ. Indicate "No" for HVHZ or provide calculations of anchors in accordance with material specifications. Application indicates "Yes" for impact. Door 3 is not impact rated therefore it should be separated. Provide testing for plastic requirements for core insulation. "T" anchor is shown, but there are no details of use or evaluation of component. Remove. On limits of use indicate the water infiltration limits.

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

9773 Platinum Advanced Technologies, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating Product 9773.1 has not been tested for impact, indicate "No" or N/A.

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

9781 Berridge Manufacturing Co.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating the application is missing hardcopy of evaluation report signed and sealed by evaluator.

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

9820; 9822 Sun Metals Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval

stating the applicant must provide analysis of anchors at jamb on lock side.

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

9834 Alside Window Company

9852 NuAir Windows and Doors

9886 Gentek Building Products

9890 Revere Building Products

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval

stating the applicants must provide analysis of anchors including eccentricity.

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

9847 NuAir Windows and Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

Stating the applicant must remove glass configurations not tested. Provide anchor calculations for pressures with the eccentricity indicated. For HVHZ use of ASTM E1300 for glass sizing is not allowed. Use tested values.

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

9848 NuAir Windows and Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating a test report with a size of 52" X 75" is indicated at a DP of +/- 45 and +/- 60 how where the pressures above 60 psf derived? Provide anchor calculations with the eccentricity indicated. Provide test reports.

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

9849 NuAir Windows and Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating tests report with a size of 110" X 62" is indicated at a DP of +/- 45 and +/- 60 and 73" X 87" is indicated at a DP of +/- 60. How were the pressures above 60 psf derived? Provide anchor calculations with the eccentricity indicated. Provide test reports.

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

9850 NuAir Windows and Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating a test report shows size and glass as varies. Explain. Provide anchor calculations. Provide test reports.

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

9853 NuAir Windows and Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

Stating there is no evidence of mullions being impacted. Missile level is not indicated. Provide installation instructions for each model on its model line. For mullions non-impacted indicate "No" for HVHZ and indicate not for use in Wind Zone 4.

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

9904 NuAir Windows and Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating the applicant must remove references to ASCE 7 that are not adopted. Provide anchor calculations for pressures with the eccentricity indicated.

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

9905 NuAir Windows and Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating the applicant must remove references to ASCE 7 that are not adopted. Provide anchor calculations for pressures with the eccentricity indicated.

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

9925 Creative Design Doors, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating the applicant must remove references to Miami-Dade County Notice of Acceptance (NOA). This is not a NOA. Installation instructions do not indicate anchor sizes, penetration edge distance or shim tolerance.

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

9970 YKK AP America

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating the application is missing hardcopy of evaluation report signed and sealed by evaluator.

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

9974 ODL/Western Reflections

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating the applicant must provide physical properties of plastic material.

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

9989 Weatherguard Building Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating the applicant must remove from application evaluation report for anchors. This is not an approved evaluation report. Remove from application anchors indicated as "United Shutter Systems Association".

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

10016 Georgia Palm Beach Alum. Window Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval

stating the window was not tested to requirements of Sect. 1714.5.2.1

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

Recommended for Deferral

8363-R1 Armor Screen Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the storm

bars have not been evaluated. Product tested with anchors at 6-1/2" cc and installed with anchors 12" to 18" cc. Drawings should indicate all installation details, not a reference to another application. Pneumatic device not impacted and deflection measured when impacted; provide deflection of pneumatic device and its bearing load on glazing under pressure and impact, or remove.

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

Incomplete Applications

8442-R2; 9279

No Commission action necessary.

Evaluation by Test Report

Recommended for Approval

Product #’s: 3664-R2; 7390-R1; 9777; 9840; 9841; 9845; 9913; 9960; 9969; 9997.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Conditional Approval

7997 Advanced Coatings Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the installation instructions should indicate to be used on galvanized metal only with attachment as tested.

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

9910 Branstrator Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the installation instructions or test reports do not indicate spans and loads. Installation instructions do not indicate attachment to structure.

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

9922 Urban Industries, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant must indicate "No" for HVHZ because not tested in accordance with Sect. 2315.1.11. Provide properties and testing of polystyrene.

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

9958 Diamond Door Products

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the test reports were not sealed by FL PE. Provide anchor analysis for 9958.2.

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

9973 EFCO Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant must remove 9973.1, .2, .3, .4, .6, .7, .8, and .9. Their testing was performed at a non-accredited and not approved facility.

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

10025 Tuff Shed, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the product not tested for impact. For use within HVHZ indicate on limits of use "Maximum area of shed to be 720 sf".

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

10029 Tuff Shed, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the product not tested for impact. For use within HVHZ indicate on limits of use "Maximum area of shed to be 720 sf".

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

Recommendation for Denial

9896, 9897 YKK AP America Residential

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating testing was performed at a non-accredited and not approved facility.

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

Incomplete Applications

9090; 9716; 9734; 9735; 9737; 9742; 9743; 9744; 9971; 10030.

No Commission action necessary.

Evaluation by Evaluation Entity

Product #s 889-R3; 1511-R2; 3901-R2; 5930-R1; 9445; 9589; 10002; 10007.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommendation for Conditional Approval

9480 Pro-Tech Products, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant must change method to Certification and provide on Installation the NOA also.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Incomplete Applications

9765

No Commission action necessary.

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

DECLARATORY STATEMENTS:

Chairman Rodriguez stated staff requested the Commission to vote to

conduct another rule adoption hearing on the recently adopted revisions to the Product Approval Rule 9B-72 without conducting another rule development workshop. He then stated there had been some rule development and the Commission voted to adopt the final rule at the October 2007 Commission meeting. He explained in order to comply with procedural timelines for rule development the Commission should conduct another rule adoption hearing. He stated the goal would be to adopt the rule as previously adopted without change and not to discuss any additional changes at this point. He explained all aspects of the rule changes were thoroughly evaluated by the Commission workgroups and the POC and the revisions need to be adopted into the Rule without any additional changes. He stated another goal was to ensure BCIS enhancements are up and running by January as planned.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval to conduct a rule adoption hearing on Rule 9B-72 Product Approval Rule at the January meeting without a rule development workshop. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Rodriguez stated an approval was needed from the Commission

for the chairman to use the state of Florida seal for the Code. He explained ICC was seeking formal approval to use the state of Florida seal for publication of the 2007 Building Code. He then stated the Commission could accomplish this by authorizing the chair to allow the use of the seal on behalf of the Commission.

Commissioner Bassett moved approval to authorize the Chairman to authorize the use of the state of Florida seal on behalf of the Commission. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Jim Richmond for an update of Legislative issues.

Mr. Richmond stated at this point he would touch on the highlights with a more detailed version to be heard at the January meeting. He stated on a significant note Representative Hayes had filed a bill which was also filed last year at the end of session and then tabled. He explained the practical impact of the bill would be the only amendments the Commission could make to the Code would be those that strengthened it from the perspective of wind, thus eliminating all other aspects. He then stated he did not believe it to be the intent of the bill but he had not had the opportunity to discuss the matter with Representative Hayes directly. He stated he had spoken with Representative Hayes’ staff and expressed the same concerns he had last year and will look forward to meeting with him in the next few weeks and possibly as early as Thursday if he was able to get something set up that quick for Tallahassee Committee week.

Mr. Richmond stated Senator Constantine had filed some bills related to the Building Code and staff continues to work with his staff, He further that vehicle should be available once the Commission approves its package for this year.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if it would be fair to say the Commission has

never adopted anything that has weakened the Florida Building Code with respect to wind.

Commissioner Greiner stated statute already does not allow anything with

respect to wind to be weakened.

Mr. Dixon stated the initial Florida Building Code did in fact reduce wind

design pressures in certain areas of the state of Florida. He clarified in some areas it was increased, but in others it was decreased.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if the initial Building Code lowered any

standards by the way the Commission recommended it did not lower anything, but it was the way the Legislature approved it.

Mr. Dixon stated that was correct but the engineering standard which the

Florida Building Code is based on did reduce the wind pressures in certain areas such as the central part of the state compared to what had been required previously.

Mr. Blair stated the reduction was based on science and the best information

available.

Mr. Dixon clarified it was based on science and standards.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if it could be conveyed to the maker in the

interests of fairness don’t tell the Commission not to do things it does not do.

Mr. Richmond stated energy promises to be a very hot topic this year with

several workgroups and Commissions and task forces and action teams taking their shots at recommendations, of which several have varying implications. He further stated those groups are looking for a final action in the very near future. He then stated Senator Constantine sits on the Florida Energy Commission and he will want to work with the Building Commission on those recommendations as an implementation of those recommendations. He further stated he believed other groups would want to work with the Commission as well. He stated the big key would be coordination. He concluded by stating he would answer any questions, but by the next meeting he will prepare some type of roster of the various bills out there affecting the Commission and include it in each commissioner’s packets.

Chairman Rodriguez next addressed the Rule Challenge to Rule 9B-3.0475, the Wind Mitigation Retrofit Rule.

Mr. Richmond stated there were two challenges for Rule 9B-3.0475 after it

had been filed with the Department of State. He noted those two challenges have been set for hearing for February 2, 2008. He then stated staff had the opportunity one week prior to sit down with the challengers William Muldrow, the individual, and the Florida Roofing and Sheet Metal Association. He further stated a variety of items were discussed which they seek the Commission to implement through a settlement to the rule challenge proceeding, at which time they would dismiss the rule challenge as they proceeded with their legislative option in the coming session.

Mr. Dixon stated an overview FRSA complained the roof to wall connection

mitigation measure was problematic, involving a number of licensing problems, as well as practical application problems and building department enforcement problems. He stated one of the proposals was if determined the roof wall connections cannot be enhanced within 15% essentially to comply with new code requirements, not individual points, but if the entire connection cannot be achieved by within 15% then nothing has to be done. He then stated staff believed there is middle ground. There is probably some level the contractor could be told he has to do, but then if determined that it cannot be done for 15%, nothing is required. This is a point for discussion. He further stated the roof and wall connection mitigation measure was the primary issue as other issues were not major or outstanding in the challenge.

Mr. Richmond stated the direction staff has taken is basically allowing the

relief the statute was passed by the Legislature would conceivably allow staff to put into the rule some of the items and specifically perhaps the roof and wall connection mitigation measure may have been done through declaratory statement or other means. He stated putting it into the rule would mean greater comfort. He then stated he wanted to bring it before the Commission to determine if there were any objections to a conceptual approach. He explained one of the mechanisms could be to defer it to the workgroup for additional technical input before coming to the full Commission. He reiterated the need to determine if the Commission had any outright objections from approaching it from that perspective, i.e., going to four corners of the law to provide whatever relief to industry it can and to the homeowner in terms of expense.

Commissioner Gonzalez asked if the Commission would continue to enforce

the Rule until February 2008.

Mr. Richmond explained the Rule is in effect at present because it was not

challenged as a proposed rule, but as an adopted rule. He stated there is no stay.

Mr. Dixon stated staff would like direction on the issue. He stated there

were two options: 1) move forward to the rule challenge hearings of the administrative law process, or 2) try to settle with a settlement agreement. He then stated staff recommendation would be to find some settlement to the challenges. He stated if no settlement is reached, then the challenge would go through the law processes.

Chairman Rodriguez asked which way would allow some relief to the problem.

Mr. Richmond explained the quickest and most assured way to resolve the issue is by settlement. He further stated anytime something is submitted to an administrative law judge it is with a great amount of uncertainty as to what the end product will be. He then stated in settlement mode there is some control as to settlement and outcome in concert with the other parties.

Chairman Rodriguez asked what was needed from the Commission to proceed on that basis.

Mr. Dixon stated if the Commission agreed with staff recommendation, the mitigation work group, which is working on refinements to the current rule requirements, would be asked to find a mutually agreeable requirement that would settle the challenge and then refer it back to the TAC and then to the Commission at the January meeting.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of staff’s recommendation to defer to the mitigation workgroup to find a mutually agreeable requirement. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.

Mr. Blair stated the workgroup would be meeting the next day and its focus would be to work on the challenge.

Chairman Rodriguez stressed the major hardship placed on the homeowners and industry.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Binding Interpretations:

Mr. Richmond stated since the last meeting the contractor and building officials association had entered a binding interpretation essentially finding a project was not subject to Florida Building Code. He stated one of the attorneys for one of the interested parties was present at meeting if there were any substantive questions, but the period of time for an appeal has expired or will soon expire.

Commissioner Norkunas stated the binding interpretation says “Does the Florida Building Code Chapter 10, 2004 Edition apply to a gangway to a vessel from a dock built in 1984 and modified in 1998?” He then stated the answer states “No, the Florida Building Code 2004 Edition was not enforced.” He further stated Chapter 11 was enforced in 1998 and if the ramp were part of an accessible route it would apply.

Commissioner Greiner stated he did not believe that was the question.

Mr. Richmond stated the question was specifically limited to Chapter 10 because the issues were related to Chapter 11 and accessibility issues are not subject to the binding interpretation process. He explained the petitioner specifically limited his issues to non-accessibility issues.

Commissioner Norkunas stated Chapter 10 starts in 10.10.1 “Other than ramps that are part of an accessible route providing access in accordance with sections 11.4.7 through 11.4.8 shall apply to Chapter 10.”

Commissioner D’Andrea stated he was one of the members of the code interpretation committee who dealt with the issue and it was dealt with for a long time. He then stated the bottom line is the question which was asked was answered. He further stated the question did not ask about accessibility paths. He read the question “Does the Florida Building Code Chapter 10 2004 Edition apply to this dock built in 1984 and modified in 1998?” He stated the answer was no because the Code was not in effect at the time of construction. He further stated if the petitioner had asked about accessibility it would have been answered, but it was not asked.

Robert S. Fine, Attorney

Mr. Fine stated he was the attorney for the interested parties and he stated he was in agreement with comments made by Commissioner D’Andrea. He then stated something happened during the process the Commission should note. He explained a third party challenged the decision of the building official regarding his client’s property. He stated through the binding interpretation process there was no real way to intervene as the property owner. He noted when someone wants to challenge a building official’s decision on someone’s property; the property owner is not in the process or able to be a party. He added it was a fundamental and possible constitutional flaw which should be reviewed. He continued stating even if it would be notifying the owner his requirement to respond within the same time the building official does, if they choose to, because at the moment the property owner does not have the ability to get on the website aside from being able to comment as a member of the general public. He requested a review as the process goes forward to find a way to remedy the flaw.

Declaratory Statements:

Second Hearings:

DCA07-DEC-085 by Walter A. Tillit, Jr., PE, TilTeco Inc.

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

Chairman Rodriguez asked what action was needed by the Commission.

Mr. Blair answered if the Commission agreed the action would normally be to affirm a previous action on the petition.

Chuck Anderson, AAMA

Mr. Anderson stated he did not speak against the petition at the last meeting due to some confusion at microphone, but knew he would have the opportunity at this meeting to speak. He then stated his comments were distributed in a handout to the commissioners. (Please see Response to FBC request for DEC statement #DCAA07-DEC-085). After presenting his argument he stated the Commission has three options 1) answer the question with a “no” and it would be the final hearing on petition, 2) answer the question with a “yes” making this the second and final hearing on the petition or 3) send it back to the Structural TAC and have them review the petition. He stated he would be most appreciative of the “no” vote but if it could not be done, he would urge the Commission to send it back to the TAC.

Mr. Blair clarified Mr. Anderson’s request as either reverse the Commission’s decision or send it back to the TAC.

Dave Olmstead, PGT

Mr. Olmstead stated he was on the Structural TAC that voted on the petition. He further stated after doing some research he found many times designs are used which are signed and sealed by licensed engineers and architects. He then stated the declaratory statement is approved because the factors of safety are not usually used and calculations are usually based on testing. He stated his concern was the Commission was overriding a signed and sealed document by a licensed engineer or architect and he was not sure the Commission could do that. He then stated in his opinion the declaratory statement should go back to the Structural TAC and be presented to the Engineering Board for an opinion, because the signed and sealed engineering which exists today has always worked. He further stated he was not aware of any fastener failures in all of the storms in 2004 or 2005. He also stated another part of the problem would be all new product applications would be at an extreme disadvantage to all existing product applications because of more extreme fastening schedules which he was not sure as a necessary. He reiterated the declaratory statement should go back to the TAC.

Dick Wilhem. FMA and WDMA

Mr. Wilhem offered support for Mr. Olmstead’s comments. He stated if the Commission votes “yes” he would request the assurance it reflects only Method 1B.

Lorraine Ross, AAMA

Ms. Ross reminded the Commission this issue of safety factor was brought up in the 2007 development process for the Code and roofing assemblies were addressed. She stated the Code indicated one safety factor cannot just be added. She explained some tests are available which contain the safety factor contained within them. She stated voting yes could be allowing for situations where the safety factor is applied twice. Ms. Ross urged the Commission to vote no on the declaratory statement request.

Jaime Gascon, Miami Dade County

Mr. Gascon stated the declaratory statement had a lot of deliberation at Structural TAC. He noted he had stepped in to help the petitioner with his question. He then stated the Method 1B was treated somewhat unfairly and inconsistent with the other three methods. He explained the other three methods have the involvement of a professional that required the verification calculation be performed, whereas the test method does not. He stated the petitioner was asked specifically if there were some examples of products that may have made it through the approval processes where the deficiency existed. He then stated he did not recall if some of that material was provided as evidence, but the potential is there. He further stated the whole declaratory statement is to address the fact when submitting or filing anything for approval under that method this should be an issue that is checked to treat all four levels of compliance as equal. He concluded by stating continuing to send the declaratory statement back will just clutter the system in trying to get an answer and keep these four levels consistent for approval.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if Mr. Gascon was in favor of moving forward as issued.

Mr. Gascon stated he was.

Mr. Richmond asked Mr. Gascon if he had read the draft order.

Mr. Gascon stated he had.

Mr. Richmond then asked if Mr. Gascons was comfortable that it reflects his intent and the Structural TAC;s intent.

Mr. Gascons stated as outlined in Section 6 of the petition yes.

Mr. Anderson stated he wanted to make sure no one misinterprets the application of the higher factor of safety. He stated it is in no way going to make the window perform any better in the event there is an event that the window sees that is well beyond the design of that. He then stated if he took a window rated at 50lbs it does not matter how it is anchored, either as currently done or if it were anchored with 5 times the amount of fasteners when the load on that product is increased to above one and a half times that the window is going to fail. He reiterated the screws are never going to see a load that will cause them to fail. He stated windows typically fail because things start to move and rotate, not because the frames pull out. He then stated a very common window in Florida is the single hung aluminum nail fan installation. He explained if visualizing a positive pressure load trying to push that window into the opening the sash would bow in and when the sash bows in the top member gets shorter and starts to pull away from the frame. He stated the frame would start to bow out; therefore the engagement between the frame and the sash is typically a prime failure mode.

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

Mr. Glenn stated the Structural TAC had a declaratory statement which was

kind of tied in with 085 and as a result of some of the testimony given there as a member he would like to revisit 085 if possible, as he is hesitant to remain with his original vote based on some additional information.

Greg Mann, Allpoint Screw

Mr. Mann stated he had spoken with Walter Tillit when he was writing the

declaratory statement. He stated, with all due respect to AAMA, it was not solely a window issue. He stated he believed Mr. Tillit was concerned about a product approval that would exceed what a manufacturer recommended for their anchor. He then stated Allpoint has a NOA and a solid set anchor and if there is a product approval out there that exerts more force on his anchor than he has published then his question to the Commission is who will hold the liability? He stated he would certainly say the engineer exceeded what he said the anchor could do.

Commissioner Bassett moved approval to send the declaratory statement

back to Structural TAC. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Kim stated he appreciated all comments submitted, but to be very straightforward and to the point, the industry was in full support and dropped the ball. He further stated although he brought up the fact of what was being asked by this declaratory statement and being overwhelmingly in support it took another month and a half to realize what the implications were. He then stated when an actual sample a level of safety is used that is on the standards as Mr. Anderson had shown. He stated with this declaratory statement what is done around the country and throughout the world would be obsolete and not applicable in the state of Florida, creating a severely more conservative requirement as opposed to the rest of the world. He offered his support of sending the declaratory statement back to the Structural TAC.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA07-DEC-159 by Willliam G. Graney, Jr., PE, KTD Consulting Engineers

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

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA07-DEC-172 by Robert Cochell, Gulf Coast Air Systems, Inc.

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

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

DCA07-DEC-181 by Joseph D. Belcher. JDB Code Services, Inc.

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

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion.

Jaime Gascon, Miami Dade County

Mr. Gascon expressed grave concern on how approvals will be enforced that make it into the counties under this option. He asked how inspectors were going to match permit documents to the product if it is allowed to be manufactured by entities or fabricators not listed on the BCIS website. He stated under the Product Approval Rule, there is no allowance to go and search or reference other websites, and the websites are not linked for that matter. He asked if the fabricator is not listed on the BCIS website it would be almost impossible to inspect other than rely on a sticker placed on the product. He also noted since the Product Approval Rule does not allow for linking to other website manufacturers or quality assurance websites, if the response to the declaratory statement could indicate if the association option is chosen for approval it provide the list of approved fabricators as authorized or approved by the quality assurance agency and as the list changes, the list or revision could be modified so that all inspectors and building officials would be up to date on who could actually fabricate and authenticate whatever marks placed on the final and installed product.

Sigil Valentine, AAMA

Mr. Valentine offered supported Mr. Gascon’s statements.

Mr. Dudley stated Agriboard Industries was in support of staff’s recommendation.

Mr. Belcher supported Mr. Dudley’s comments.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 18 for, 4 opposed (Gonzalez, Browdy, Bassett, Franco). Motion carried.

First Hearings:

DCA07-DEC-179 by Alan Fallik, Interim City Attorney, City of Hollywood, FL

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

Robert S. Fine, Representing the City of Hollywood

Mr. Fine stated the hearing commenced at the last Commission meeting, but was tabled to allow staff to look into some issues to be discussed at this meeting. He requested comments from the last meeting be incorporated in this meeting’s records, as it is a continuation of the hearing. He stated when the hearing came to the Commission at its last meeting the project architect, Bernhard Dskovitch, and coastal consultant, Christy Brush, presented the position to the Structural TAC. He stated they received a recommendation they did not expect and was not very helpful to their project. He further stated they had been surprised at the result because they felt the project was not materially different from numerous other projects that they had been involved in or were aware of and could not understand why things had drastically changed. He stated his firm had a long history of coastal permitting for major projects in the state. He stated the City of Hollywood decided to retain him as the petition moved forward. He then stated it was explained to him the TAC recommended a declaratory statement that would only allow “s” and “u” uses in the area of a building that was seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line and below the lowest horizontal structural member of the building. He then stated this interpretation was contrary to what DEP and DNR before it had consistently allowed as evidenced by a number of permits DEP and DNR had previously issued. He further stated after research he found the statutes and regulations governing the relevant aspects of coastal construction had not changed at all. He then stated the only difference was in 2002, with the coming of the Florida Building Code, the Legislature moved enforcement of these coastal provisions to local building officials by way of inserting regulatory language into the Florida Building Code, but that regulatory language was no different than the language DEP was administering and enforcing between coastal permits. He explained the only difference was who issues the permits and who conducts inspections. He stated he brought the language to Jim Richmond and told him he believed because the code language was the same as DEP’s language we were entitled to rely on DEP’s interpretation. He stated Mr. Richmond felt there might be merit to the argument but needed more time to research the issue and the Commission was asked to table the discussion.

Mr. Fine stated since the last meeting his colleagues and himself had researched and found as a matter of law they are entitled to use the past consistent history of DEP permitting to determine what uses could be allowed seaward of the CCCL and below the lowest horizontal member. He clarified it did not mean the Commission could never change how the regulations are interpreted, but such a change would likely have to be accomplished during a code amendment cycle. He stated they were requesting a declaratory statement, an interpretation of the Code as it exists when the petition is filed. He further stated a declaratory statement is not a vehicle to change the Code or change the existing substantive interpretation of the Code. He continued by stating the basis in the law which allows his client to rely on the past is consistent with the history of permitting at DEP. The basis in the law that states his client is allowed to rely on the past consistent history of DEP permitting is Administrative Starry Disisis. He explained this was the administrative law equivalent to the Starry Disis which exists in courts where courts are required to look at prior precedent. He continued stating the law for the most part discourages revolutionary changes, favoring much more evolutionary slower changes when changes are necessary. He explained the reason for that is to allow the public agencies reasonable and fair notice of the law.

Mr. Fine stated their petition was based on what DEP has consistently done for many years and DEP is an agency who has great and specialized knowledge in this area, meaning coastal construction permitting in particular seaward of the CCCL. He then stated through staff each commissioner should have received a binder electronically which contain the following items: the original petition, the Commission staff report and analysis, a memorandum analyzing the legal issue of whether we should be able to rely on and use the precedent established by DEP’s long consistent history in permitting analogus projects, a memorandum analyzing DEP’s history of permitting such projects and finally copies of 13 permits issued by DEP to evidence the consistence in permitting allowing uses in the zone. He further stated the materials submitted to the commissioners have also been shown and reviewed by Gene Cheleki of the DEP. He noted Mr. Cheleki does not take issue with what is being presented to the Commission. He stated they and Mr. Cheleki agree with the new staff report with one exception. He stated the permits provided indicate the uses that DEP did not consider habitable and routinely authorized to be constructed seaward of the CCCL in the zone. He described those uses as lobbies, cabanas, bathrooms, recreational spaces such as gyms and card rooms, commercial spaces including offices, retail shops, spas, etc., snacks, pool bars and grills, notably with portable cooking equipment but not with permanent kitchens, dining and banquet meeting rooms not with permanent kitchens, service back of house functions such as security, laundry, utility closets, mechanical plumbing rooms and similar uses. He offered important notes relative to a couple of these uses: 1) Kitchens: the regulations on the face say they do not allow for restaurants. He stated in this context DEP determined certain aspects of restaurants could be in the zone that is below the designed storm elevation but not kitchens and permanent kitchen equipment. He noted equipment such as ranges was noted to fall into the habitable area classification and prohibited portable cooking equipment such as portable grills and heating devices, food preparation counters, sinks and some refrigeration type equipment were not considered to be habitable kitchen use and as such a number of those permits have examples where those types of equipment were permitted allowing seating areas, and portable cooking and service equipment within the zone. He reiterated full kitchens are precluded and his client is not asking they be allowed. He continued stating in some projects the kitchens are landward of the CCCL or on a floor above the dining area and the food is brought to patrons sitting in area within the zone. He offered an analogy of people sitting on a pool deck seaward of the CCCL and below designed storm elevation having hamburgers and drinks served to them. He noted the uses were commercial uses which are not occupied during major storm conditions. 2) Living units: He stated the key factor for living units to be considered habitable was overnight stay or presence of a full kitchen, such as standard hotel rooms or condominiums are considered habitable, not allowed in the zone, but a cabana with an efficiency kitchen having a microwave, refrigerator and maybe a sink are allowed in the zone. He then stated there were 13 permits before the commissioners but he would not go through each individually unless asked to do so.

Mr. Fine restated his client seeks a declaratory statement that will allow the project to contain certain uses in the zones seaward of the CCCL and below the lowest horizontal structural member based on consistent DEP permitting practices including but not limited to retail shops, snacks, pool bars and grill with portable cooking equipment, dining areas where the permanent kitchen serving is located outside of the zone, service back of house facilities, cabanas and bathrooms and recreational spaces such as gym spaces and card rooms. He stated he would like the Commission to be aware the circumstances in which DEP has granted these permits are not unlimited and as such there is some relevant information the Commission might want to include in it’s finding of facts: 1) The permits for the uses we are citing for the declaratory statement were issued by DEP for larger well-engineered commercial structures such as hotels, mixed use projects, large condominiums, certainly not smaller family homes, duplexes or small marginal waterfront structures. 2) The application of the situation statewide is fairly limited. He noted in most areas of the state the FEMA elevation and the design storm elevation are very close leaving no room to create and build in the zone which has been discussed. He stated the big differential between the two elevations occur in Miami-Dade, Broward and to some extent in Collier Counties. He further stated some of the reasons for the difference in elevation are the beach renourishment projects which have happened over the years and in some cases the actual coast has been pushed out several hundred yards but there has never been a real alignment of the CCCL to accommodate that.

Mr. Fine stated again his client and Mr. Cheleki agree with the staff report with one exception. He stated for this one exception he has an agreement from DEP. He read from an email exchange from Ms. Brush to Mr. Cheleki on December 7, 2007, “Hi Gene! Robert Fine and I just reviewed the language in the staff recommendation again relative to the space below the hundred year storm elevation not being used for ‘living, eating, sleeping, or cooking’. As we discussed we plan to differentiate between single family residential structures to which these restrictions would apply and large engineered structures for which complete prohibition of these uses is a bit broad based on the departments permitting history. Would you be comfortable with our making a request at the hearing to 1) strike reference to a prohibition on eating (outside the context of single family) as bar and dining areas were typically approved by the department in large engineered structures. 2) clarify while permanent cooking would be prohibited; portable cooking equipment was historically authorized by the department. Thanks for your feedback, Regards, Christy” He then read from the email response from Mr. Cheleki to Ms. Brush on December 7:”I’m okay with your suggested changes.”

Mr. Fine stated he would be asking Mr. Cheleki some questions to help illustrate what has been done:

Gene Cheleki, Department of Environmental Protection

Mr. Cheleki stated some of those seated on the Commission may recognize me from the late 1990’s and early 2000’s when he was charged with putting up the Coastal Construction Control Line Building Code regulations into the new Florida Building Code. He then stated since that time the Department of Environmental Protection continues to issue environmental permits forward of the seaward CCCL. He noted their focus is environmental. He further stated since 2002 the DEP does not review Building Code issues as identified in 3109 of the Florida Building Code. He stated during the same time period staff has moved from engineering to environmental specialists. He then stated the 2004-2005 season has certainly been an eye opener for most citizens. He stated the DCA High Hazard Coastal Committee charged and requested the Department of Environmental Protection evaluate the CCCL programs specific to building setbacks and environmental protection to the beach. He stated the study process is going on at present and does not include the Building Code aspects. He further stated the Department recognizes the Building Commission has full duty and charge in that arena. He concluded by stating another aspect of the High Hazard Coastal Committee was for the agency to restudy CCCLs throughout the Florida panhandle and that process is also underway.

The following were questions from Mr. Fine directed to and answered by Mr. Cheleki:

Mr Fine:” Have you seen the permits, Gene, and the memos we put together for our presentations today that have been uploaded?”

Mr. Cheleki: “Yes, I have.”

Mr. Fine: “And is that information accurate?”

Mr. Cheleki: “That information is accurate with one observation. I believe the very first four permits were within that booklet or were permits that were issued after 2002 and so with regard to space usage those four do not have real bearing here. The others do.”

Mr. Cheleki: “The clarification was all four of those projects where I noted were after 2002 were all begun before the implementation of the Florida Building Code 2002. I’m sorry”

Mr. Fine:”Now to be clear the permits that we are all talking about they were for adoption only on larger commercial uses and multi-residential projects. They are not applicable to smaller like single family or duplex structures along the water.”

Mr. Cheleki:”That’s correct.”

Mr. Fine:”And in your experience there are only limited areas in the state with enough deviation between the design storm elevation and the FEMA elevation to allow construction in the area we are talking about, this zone, between the lowest horizontal structural member and the design storm elevation?”

Mr. Cheleki:”I would say this issue primarily has arisen in South Florida primarily in Dade to a lesser extent in Broward.”

Mr. Fine:”And the email exchange I just read a moment ago that was an accurate email exchange between you and Christy?”

Mr. Cheleki:”That’s correct.”

Mr. Fine:”And finally, the uses we are asking for that I presented to the Commission today are those consistent with the uses that have been consistently and historically approved by DEP?”

Mr. Cheleki::”The agency has authorized such usage. They undoubtedly date back to at least the mid-1980’s when the Governor and cabinet was the head of the Department of Natural Resources and would have been the acting party on the issuance of those permits.”

Mr. Fine restated his clients’ agreement with staff’s recommendation with minor exceptions as follows: 1) where the answer is “no, 3109 does not address or prohibit the use of such space for commercial purposes with the exception the space may not be used for living, eating, sleeping or cooking (hotels and restaurants subject to the permit requirements of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection)” He stated the petitioner requests “eating” be struck and cooking would be in permanently installed kitchen facilities. He then requested after subject 2 the addition of “and consistent with.” He then stated their request would be for the declaratory statement response to be “No, Section 3109 does not address or prohibit the use of such space for commercial purposes with the exception that the space may not be used for living, sleeping, or cooking in permanently installed kitchen facilities, i.e. residences, hotels hotels, restaurants subject to and consistent with the permit requirements of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.”

Mr. Richmond stated the initial staff recommendation was utilized or based upon the use in 3109 the term habitable structure and utilizing the definition of habitable space in Chapter 2 is how the list was arrived at.

Mr. Madani explained when researching the request staff worked with Mr. Cheleki at DEP and came up with the language which was recommended to the Structural TAC to be consistent with what is in the Code. He stated he believed the only change being presented is with regard to portable equipment and the use of that equipment in the spaces. He then stated he did not believe that to be part of the Code, as it does not regulate portable equipment therefore it would not be a Code related issue. He further stated since it is not a Code related issue he was not sure how it could be included in the response to the declaratory statement.

Chairman Rodriguez asked about the striking of “eating”.

Mr. Madani stated it comes from the term habitable.

Commissioner Kim asked staff which TAC the recommendation came from.

Mr. Madani statted there were two recommendations, the first recommendation was from the committee action of the Structural TAC.

Commissioner Kim stated he knew the declaratory statement was discussed two meetings ago and asked what happened to the recommendation from the TAC from that meeting.

Mr. Madani stated it came before the Commission and the Commission tabled the declaratory statement to hear from DEP.

Commissioner Kim asked where the other recommendation came from.

Mr. Madani stated the second recommendation is from staff to the TAC.

Commissioner Kim asked which TAC.

Mr. Madani stated the Structural TAC.

Commissioner Kim asked when the Structural TAC reviewed the recommendation from staff.

Mr. Madani stated the Structural TAC reviewed it at the October meeting. He then stated the TAC did not agree with the staff recommendation.

Commissioner Kim stated the Structural TAC had its own recommendation.

Mr. Blair stated both recommendations were there, the Structural TAC’s answer is different than the one the petitioner is requesting in following staff’s recommendation as just revised.

Commissioner Kim asked if this was not taken up as a first hearing back in October.

Mr. Blair clarified it was tabled.

Commissioner Kim asked of the recommendation on the screen was from the Structural TAC. He stated he was confused.

Mr. Richmond stated the Structural TAC reviewed it at the October meeting and recommended essentially all occupancy classifications except s and u shall be prohibited in this space. He stated he believed it to be completely inconsistent with the historical application of this language and beyond anything the general public could be put on notice by integration of this language into the Code. He noted that goes to the legal issue of DEP‘s historical application of this. He further stated the exact same language was applied to allow the rough equivalent of what falls outside the definition of habitable space in the Florida Building Code with the exception of the “eating” issue and cooking on portable equipment. He then stated to the extent hat notice is issue when it was integrated and termed habitable or common use of the term habitable would support staff’s conclusion. He concluded by stating the history of DEP could conceivably support the conclusion offered by the petitioner.

Commissioner Kim stated the TAC Strawnly disagreed with the staff’s recommendation.

Chairman Rodriguez asked why this was not sent back to the TAC.

Mr. Richmond stated legal issue at that point.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if the declaratory statement was tabled and then research was conducted as the Commission had asked why it did not go back to the TAC for review.

Mr. Richmond stated it came back to the Commission because it was not a structural or technical issue at that point, but a legal issue. He then stated in order to enforce what the TAC recommended it would take a substantial change to the Florida Building Code.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he understood, but he believed it would have been beneficial to the TAC to hear from staff on the legal issue so it could be reconsidered. He then stated there was now a recommendation before the Commission with a legal champion but with no technical champion. He stated the Commission is in the business of listening to its TACs, even though a rubber stamp is not guaranteed.

Mr. Richmond stated it could be deferred back to the TAC at this point. He explained the short answer the reason it did not go back to the TAC was because the Commission’s actions as to table it for further consideration by the Commission and not the Structural TAC.

Commissioner Bassett stated he was once involved with the team when the project was awarded but he no longer works for the firm so there were no monetary gains. He then stated he thought another case similar to the one in question where the Code became our product but they did not refer to what was being done before.

Mr. Richmond stated he did not remember the case, but there is a difference to an extent because it involves a variance. He then stated by integration of any provisions into the Florida Building Code a wonderful exemption from Chapter 120 is picked up which says there are no variances in the Building Code only equivalents and alternatives which is what is different in this case.

Commissioner Bassett asked if they both asking for variance.

Mr. Richmond stated as opposed the current declaratory statement simply asks what the Code will allow.

Mr. Blair asked if any commissioner wanted to make a motion on how to proceed.

Commissioner Kidwell moved deferral back to the Structural TAC. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Rodriguez suggested counsel be invited to that TAC so both technical and legal realms can be discussed.

DCA07-DEC-255 by Joseph R. Hetzel, PE, DASMA

Mr. Richmond stated this petition had been withdrawn.

DCA07-DEC-269 by Emil Veksenfeld, PE

Mr. Richmond stated the petition has been deferred to obtain additional information from the petitioner.

DCA07-DEC-182 by Mark S. Speckin of SPX Cooling Technologies

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

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

Commissioner Bassett stated he would abstain from the vote due to conflict of interest.

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

DCA07-DEC-183 by Mark S. Speckin of SPX Cooling Technologies

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

Commissioner Basset stated he would be abstaining from vote due to conflict of interest.

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

DCA07-DEC-194 by Gary Swartz, E-Z-Taping Systems, Inc.

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

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

DCA07-DEC-252 by James DiPietro, Broward County Board of Rules and Appeals

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

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP RULE 9B-70, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE EDUCATION SYSTEM

Mr. Richmond stated a rule development workshop on Rule 9B-70 has been noticed. He stated it is specifically adoption and some language generated on the discipline of creditors within the system.

Mr. Richmond opened the rule development workshop. He then stated as noticed in Administrative Weekly the workshop was limited to discipline of accreditors and revocation of their approval as accreditors. He stated at the POC meeting the POC recommended the rule proceeding be expanded to include at least a further discussion of the 120 day time frame for updating the Building Code courses. He explained the only way to accomplish that recommendation would be to hold an additional workshop at the January 2008 meeting. He stated public comment could be taken, but his recommendation would be consistent with the POC’s request to hold another workshop in January.

Commissioner Bassett moved approval of the POC’s recommendation to hold an additional workshop at the January 2008 meeting to allow expansion of the rule proceeding to include further discussion of the 120 day time frame for updating the Building Code courses. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RECESS

Wednesday December 12, 2007

The meeting of the Florida Building Commission was called to order by Chairman Raul Rodriguez at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, December 12, 2007, at the Double Tree Hotel, Orlando, Florida.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

Raul L. Rodriguez, AIA, Chairman Paul D. Kidwell

Nicholas D’Andrea, Vice Chairman Do Y. Kim

Richard Browdy Jeffrey Gross

Angel Franco Dale Greiner

Gary Griffin Matthew Carlton

Christ Sanidas Craig Parrino, Adjunct Member

James Goodloe

George Wiggins COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:

Herminio Gonzalez Doug Murdock, Adjunct Member

Hamid Bahadori

Michael McCombs OTHERS PRESENT:

Randall J. Vann Rick Dixon, FBC Executive Director

Chris Schulte Ila Jones, DCA Prog. Administrator

Nanette Dean Jim Richmond, DCA Legal Advisor

William Norkunas Jeff Blair, FCRC

Steven C. Bassett Mo Madani, Technical Svcs. Manager

Jon Hamrick

Joseph “Ed” Carson

Chairman Rodriguez appointed Matt Carlton to the Wind Mitigation Workgroup.

CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Code Administration TAC

Commissioner Wiggins presented the report of the Code Administration TAC. (See Code Administration TAC Minutes December 2007).

Mr. Richmond stated declaratory statements have a lot of in precedent from Chapter 120 Florida Statutes. He then stated the line of precedence indicates when a matter is in active litigation Administrative Agencies should not enter declaratory statements which go to issues involved in the litigation. He further stated those should be left to the courts with other input if asked or requested. He stated it was a matter of deference and one that has been followed i.e. if declaratory statements touch on those issues they have been dismissed on that basis. He then stated binding interpretations were a new process and process completely foreign to Chapter 120 as it was built out of an exception to Chapter 120. He stated there was discussion whether the same line of precedence would apply. He further stated at some stage the Commission may want to request for legislative change so the precedence could be enacted without question. He stated at this point it could be applied since the binding interpretation process is an administrative process whether or not is in Chapter 120. He stated when taking up legislative changes it may be appropriate for discussion if the Commission felt it was an issue that should be taken up in this year’s report. He stated at this point his recommended would be not include the request in this year’s report but apply on a case by case basis. He further stated another means of providing the building official association or contractor of that system with coverage would be to add an addendum to their contract which would say “if it was determined a matter was in active litigation they could essentially withdraw from the field.” He added in that circumstance the official or contractor might want to consider a refund as well which is something that could be done in the future. He concluded by stating there was some legislative ground to go ahead and apply the precedent without a legislative change. He stated at that point, if the court system found it wrong a request could made at that point to the Legislature.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if a motion was necessary.

Mr. Richmond stated if the Commission were comfortable with that approach a motion would give staff direction to move forward and talk with BOAF regarding the contracting issue and whether or not that would be necessary under the current contract.

Commissioner Greiner stated he was in agreement with Mr. Richmond’s comments and recommendation. He added his main concern was that the Commission provides instruction to BOAF to avoid putting them in an advisory position. He stated BOAF should answer the question asked as it comes through on a binding interpretation, but if BOAF were put in an advisory position it would create some liability. He further stated if the Commission provides specific direction for concerning specific items of concern, he would make a motion to approve staff’s recommendation.

Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion.

Mr. Blair clarified motion would be to approve staff’s recommendation to instruct BOAF not to issue binding interpretations for any issue under active litigation and would be using the declaratory statement as the precedent and at this time not pursue a legislative change, but proceed through a directive.

Chairman Rodriguez asked who would advise BOAF the issue was under litigation.

Mr. Richmond stated in the specific manner that has been encountered at this point, the petitioner himself should advise BOAF.

Chairman Rodriguez qualified the Commission is instructing BOAF to refrain from issuing binding interpretations if advised the matter is under litigation

Commissioner Greiner stated he also believed it should be made explicit BOAF with respect to certain items which are requesting binding interpretations on an item that has no relevance to the Florida Building Code.

Commissioner Wiggins stated the issued Commissioner Greiner mentioned had been discussed TAC meeting and told them how to answer that. He also stated BOAF was asked for an additional link or information at the website to call the administrator for clarification on the process on what type of questions. He then stated a series of scenarios regarding questions were reviewed by the TAC which would not be applicable to the responsibility of BOAF legally such as licensing or prior codes for example.

Commissioner Greiner amended motion to include those questions.

Mr. Richmond offered one point of clarification on an issue not discussed in the TAC to make sure it was not interpreted without a discussion. He explained some licensing questions do implicate interpretations of the Florida Building Code because in certain licensing categories violation of the Code is grounds for licensure action. He then stated he would not want to foreclose the possibility of an individual coming to the Commission or through the binding interpretation process stating an interpretation was wrong and should therefore be reversed.

Commissioner Greiner asked if that would not then be an appeal.

Mr. Richmond stated a binding interpretation is an appellant mechanism itself which typically involves an interpretation applied by a local authority having the means to question it.

Mr. Blair offered clarification to the Commission regarding fees charged. He stated it will clearly articulate what is in the purview and what is not in the purview of a binding interpretation. In addition a note would be included to indicate it was recommended the person making the petition would contact the administrator to ensure their question falls within the limitations of the binding interpretation process. He explained if someone does ask a question it goes through the process, whether the answer received indicates it was a licensing issue and belongs to DBPR, the fee would still be charged as the process was started and the fee owed. He asked for clarification of what was trying to be accomplished in the context of the motion.

Commissioner Greiner stated he wanted the Commission’s position to BOAF clarified with respect to contract.

Mr. Madani stated in working with BOAF the information system could be improved to include more information regarding specific questions.

Commissioner Wiggins stated it would be helpful to utilize the website to inform any person posing a question in advance that the question could not be related to an active litigation.

Commissioner Greiner stated he believed Commissioner Wiggins and he are in agreement with Mr. Blair’s comments and they would like staff to put it together for review by the Commission before it is sent to BOAF.

Mr. Richmond stated one option is to take the directive of the TAC with regard to these issues and convert it. He then stated at some point it would need to be adopted to make it binding on the general public. He explained it would have to go back to the TAC, back to the Commission for it’s’ review and then action at the next meeting.

Mr. Blair restated motion would be for approval for Commission to direct BOAF not to issue binding interpretations on any issue under active litigation and they would provide clarification regarding those issues within or not within the purview of the binding interpretation process and provide information posted clearly on both Commission and BOAF websites providing guidance from the TAC.

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

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

Mechanical TAC

Commissioner Bassett presented the report of the Mechanical TAC. (See Mechanical TAC Meeting Minutes December 10, 2007)

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

Structural TAC

Commissioner Kim presented the report of the Structural TAC. (See Structural TAC Meeting Minutes December 10, 2007)

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

Education POC

Chairman Browdy presented the report of the Education POC. (See Education POC Meeting Minutes December 11, 2007)

Commission actions required:

1) Recommendation to deny an application for cause for Mike Grimaldi as an accreditor. Commissioner Browdy stated Mr. Grimaldi’s qualifications did not meet the level of expertise for the areas specified on his application.

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

2) Recommendation for course approval for:

Advanced Training: The Florida Energy Code: Reading & Interpreting 600A Compliance Forms, JC Code & Construction Consultants, Inc,

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

3) The following two courses were recommended for approval by the POC:

Building Structural, BCIS 256, accreditor Bill Dumbaugh.

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Florida Accessibility Code For Building Construction, BCIS 258, accreditor Bill Dumbaugh

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC

Commissioner Carson presented the report of the Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC. (See Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC Meeting Minutes December 10, 2007)

Commission actions required:

1) POC recommendation to support staff recommendation to proceed with

the implementation of a new application review procedure referred to as Option 2. He stated the new procedure would establish one deadline for submitting applications and provides for an opportunity for written public comment in advance of the meeting which can be reviewed by the manufacturer and the interest groups. He then stated under the new procedure only complete applications will be considered, no conditionals. He further stated the committee agreed staff would gradually transition to this procedure but it should be in place by the March 2008 Commission meeting.

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

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Carson. He stated this would save a lot of the Commission’s time and improve its efficiency.

2) POC recommendation to support DCA’s effort to amend Chapter 5.3.1

Sections 553.35 through 553.42 of the Manufactured/Modular Building Program in the upcoming legislative session.

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

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

GOVERNOR’S ACTION TEAM ON CLIMATE AND ENERGY RECOMMENDATIONS

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Energy Commission has been meeting over the past year to review and consider enhancements to Florida’s various energy policies and practices. He stated Mr. Dixon had been monitoring the process and would provide and overview of their recommendations for the Commission.

Mr. Dixon stated there was a lot of interest and activity in the energy conservation area this past year. He then stated it first started with an energy bill in the House which passed the Legislature. He explained the Governor vetoed the bill but retained certain directives to the Florida Building Commission to do studies and maintain the monies which had been appropriated to conduct those studies. He further stated the Governor appointed the Action Team in August for climate and energy. He stated that Commission met several times and decided it really did not have enough time to develop definitive technical recommendations to the Legislature. He referenced items 3 and 7 showing the type of recommendation they came to and how it affects the Building Commission. (See Attachment Government Action Team on Climate and Energy Recommendations.) He stated they decided they would have a facilitated process to address energy conservation and climate change next year and would be hiring a national consultant to run the process. He explained the current energy policies such as the Florida Energy Code and Efficiency Standards and the Building Energy Rating Systems would be a part of the review of how those policies and policy implementation tools would be integrated into an overall energy plan for the state.

UPDATE ON FLORIDA ENERGY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Dixon stated the 2006 Legislature created a Florida Energy Commission, which currently is an entity of the Legislature and not an executive branch entity. He then stated that group has met over the past year addressing at least the energy component of the climate change issue. He explained there had been a committee on climate change which made its specific recommendations as well, but the primary focus was on energy. He further stated the Energy Commission evolution would parallel evolution of the Florida Building Commission. He explained the Commission began as a study commission and then will transform into a permanent commission which is an executive branch agency with joint appointees of Legislature and governor that will oversee energy policies for the state.

Mr. Dixon stated currently the state has multiple agencies with different offices and programs addressing different areas of energy conservation and environmental regulation with little coordination between the agencies. He then stated there was a proposal in the recommendations which would try to create a structure to better ensure coordination, cooperation and the energy code. He referenced recommendations 11, 12& 13 developed based on staff recommendations.

Mr. Dixon then discussed recommendations. (See Attachment Florida Energy Commission Recommendations.)

Mr. Dixon stated those were the recommendations so far. He then stated it appears this year the Governor’s people and the legislative people on the Energy Commission are working more closely together. He further stated it was probable a substantial energy bill will come out of this legislative session assuming other issues do not get in the way.

Commissioner Greiner offered comments as the chair of the Energy TAC; he stated his biggest concern was with the 2019 issue and the 50% reduction of building energy use. He stated in light of the Governor directing a 15% reduction in the 2007 Code, he would think the baseline should be the 2004 Code not the 2007 Code to allow the 15% be incorporated in the overall 50% reduction recommended by the Energy Commission. He then stated he was concerned getting rid of all incandescent bulbs would be a pretty controversial issue since disposal of florescent bulbs is an issue. He further stated there were other things to be considered and the Energy TAC discussed that as it debated that particular item. He then stated he believed there should not only be joint meetings between the FBC and the FEC but there should probably be a representative from the FBC on the FEC.

Mr. Dixon stated Commissioner Greiner was correct. He then stated although it was not in the list of recommendations he discussed one of the recommendations was for a the Department of Environmental Protection to develop and implement a compact fluorescent recycling program to take care of the environmental mercury release issue.

Commissioner Bassett stated FBC needs to integrate its own work. He stated, for example, the Energy Code states there can only be so many watts per square foot of lighting but the National Electric Code states designs must be for much larger amounts. He further stated there should be some integration to have common readings between the Electrical TAC and the Energy TAC to ensure no conflicts. He also stated there should be a recommendation to the Legislature stating if the Building Code is expected to use energy efficient appliances, then there should be assurance the homeowner cannot go out and buy on which uses twice the energy when one fails or needs replacement.

Mr. Dixon stated another major recommendation was deferred to the Buildings Commission’s report to the Legislature regarding appliance efficiency standards. He then stated the State of Florida requires all appliances meet the energy star rating and nothing else could be sold in the state. He explained the item was deferred waiting on the out come of the study the Building Commission had contracted with Florida Solar Energy Center. He further stated Appliance Efficiency Law was the way to get at replacement problems instead of the Building Code Law,

Commissioner Browdy stated if the philosophy was for the Energy Commission to utilize and direct the Florida Building Commission to implement the goals set by the Florida Energy Commission it would seem necessary to reevaluate the requirements for fiscal impact. He then stated those requirements were significantly part of the Commission’s mandate to ensure while it continues to promulgate the best Building Code it can, it must also be concerned with the costs and affordability of housing. He further stated fiscal impact and energy conservation are not always compatible with one another. He stated many of the commissioners were around when it was debated whether it was wise from a cost perspective to put solar panels on the top of a house, not only for aesthetic issues but also for cost recovery. He stated if the Commission has the mandate to implement the requirements and the goals of the Florida Energy Commission it would seem the requirements of the Commission’s mandate would need to be revisited. He stated there would be concerns about housing costs because energy efficiency will be expensive initially and that will have a significant impact on Florida Housing as it moves forward. He then stated in the long term it may be the best for everyone, but in the short term it will be very costly and could put people out of the housing market if the requirements of the Building Code are not watched.

Commissioner Bassett stated the Commission also needs to work in conjunction with the Mechanical TAC because the energy efficiency of the units in a latent capacity may not keep up in more and more homes.

Commissioner D’Andrea stated he was in agreement with the comments given. He then stated from a building official’s perspective it is also important to make sure legislation is not passed that are virtually unenforceable. He further stated to make sure that does not happen someone has to make sure all of the energy efficient bulbs are in fact being placed in the houses and it has to be done in a way it is enforceable. He stated the Roof Mitigation business is a prime example of how things are well meant and well structured to accomplish a certain goal but the implementation and how to effectively enforce it becomes a nightmare in making it actually happen. He then stated he would hate to see that happen with what is being accomplished here.

Commissioner Greiner reiterated if Mr. Dixon could talk with Senator Constantine about the importance of the relationship between the FEC, who is creating the goals, and the FBC, who trying to achieve those goals.

Mr. Dixon stated when testifying at the Commission he advised them two things made this recommendation palatable: 1) Express them as goals not mandates, and 2) Required to be reviewed periodically. He stated if the recommendations were put into law as having to be achieved absolutely it would create a problem, which is not something the Building Commission should necessarily support. He then stated as long as the Energy Commission is recommending goals that can be at certain points in time it is an acceptable statement of policy.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if a motion from the Commission was necessary, for example, to use the 2004 as the benchmark instead of the 2007 Code.

Mr. Dixon stated he believed it should be a recommendation back from the Florida Building Commission.

Commissioner Bassett entered a motion to use the 2004 Building Code as the benchmark instead of the 2007 Code. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he was sure Senator Constantine would be glad to hear the Building Commission wanted to be part of the process

Commissioner Greiner stated as goals are set by the Florida Energy Commission it was very important to have someone there to explain if the goal is achievable in either the base line or over time and how it would be approached in the Building Code. He stated that information would be very beneficial to them.

Mr. Dixon reiterated achieving 50% does include some things not on the shelf at this point, which is the similar to the situation in 1980. He stated things would evolve as the federal government sets new energy efficiency standards for appliances, which is on a ten year cycle. He noted a 30% increase was just implemented for air conditioning and heating equipment, which was implemented in 2006 by the Federal Government. He stated there should be one if not two major step changes in the required efficiency level of appliances which would help achieve the goal within the next 15 years.

Chairman Rodriguez asked what would be the best way to convey this to Senator Constantine, a motion stating the Commission welcomes the opportunity and would be in a position to send a representative or have staff meet with Senator Constantine.

Mr. Dixon stated it would be appropriate for Mr. Richmond and the Department to communicate with Senator Constantine.

Commissioner Greiner entered a motion to approve staff communicating with Senator Constantine expressing the Commission looking forward to working with the Energy Commission helping set and working toward achieving goals for energy efficiency. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

UPDATE ON GREEN BUILDING WORK GROUP

Chairman Rodriguez stated one of the Commission’s assignments from the Legislature was to develop recommendations for implementing a public awareness campaign that promotes energy efficiency and the benefits of building green and recommendations for a model efficiency ordinance for residential development. He then stated on October 1, 2007 a forum was conducted and subsequent to that the workshop has met twice to consider and evaluate a range of options.

Mr. Blair stated at the last workgroup meeting there was a model ordinance which had been a template that was put forward. He explained the template was based on the previous meetings’ brainstorming of what components should be included in a model ordinance. He stated the committee reviewed each of the provisions of the ordinance providing feedback and input using the 4 point ranking scale, ranked the various components, and provided additional guidance to the drafter, the Florida Energy Center, who is putting together the template for review. He stated the last meeting is scheduled for January 16 2008 at which time they will review the ordinance draft and propose any changes to it so the contractor can try to complete it.

Mr. Blair stated in addition the workgroup is working on a public relations campaign and has a pretty detailed multi faceted strategy with a website that links the various programs available, provides information, best management practices. He stated it targets an audience primarily consumers with a very focused plan ensuring the public and others are aware of the benefits of building green and energy conservation, encouraging do that providing them with one location, one source where the information is compiled together. He further stated it pulls together all the various disparate programs that exist state, federal, etc and allows tem to go in a reasonable way and access information.

Mr. Blair referenced an attachment in the commissioner’s files which was also linked at the agenda which included reports from all three meetings as well as the agenda for the next meeting, research documents including a variety of local ordinances in effect and more research papers which provide input to the workgroup to use in making its decisions. (Please see attachment Green Building Workgroup, Report to the Florida Building Commission, November 28, 2007).

Commissioner Bassett stated he was doing his best to try and walk the talk. He stated he drove a Toyota Prius Hybrid to the meeting.

Chairman Rodriguez reiterated there would be a meeting on January 16 and another update at the next Commission meeting.

Mr. Blair stated he believed the goal was to have some recommendations delivered to the Commission at the January meeting.

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION ON COASTAL CODE PLUS PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission, directed by the Legislature during the 2007 special session, voted unanimously during the February 2007 meeting to fund research for developing insurance qualifying criteria for buildings built within 2500 feet of the coast after 2009. He then stated that at the October 2007 meeting the Commission voted to go with a 500 year wind speed return period performance standard. Chairman Rodriguez further stated the criteria would be based upon design exposure category C and no reductions would be allowed. He stated the Commission would be considering staff’s recommendations for the criteria, which was sent by email to the commissioners prior for review prior to the meeting.

Mr. Dixon stated as expressed in the email to Commissioners, the concept was technical details are in the Building Code. The Commission’s recommendation to the Legislature relies on reference to the Building Code for prescriptive techniques and engineering methodologies for design He then stated that allowed three simple concepts, increased wind speed and building elevation and wind-borne debris protection, for the rest of the recommendation. (Please see attachment Coastal Code Plus Criteria Recommendations).

Commissioner Schulte referenced the second page of the report and noted that in the chart with background information for wind speeds, Jefferson, Taylor and Wakulla counties utilized the ASCE 7 2002 standard because it was a higher number, but Dixie, Duval, Franklin and Gulf have similar situations with wind speeds and the lesser wind speed, i.e., the 500 year wind speed, was utilized.

Mr. Dixon stated the recommendation from ARA, who developed the numbers in the chart, was that the wind speeds for those counties be established at the current Florida Building Code requirements. He then stated the wind modeling that is used in developing the 500 year storm wind speeds is the latest modeling being considered by ASCE 7 committee for development of the 2010 edition of the standard. He further stated the current Florida Building Code is based on state of the art modeling back in 1998. Mr. Dixon then stated the highest wind speed, either current Code or new 500 year storm modeling would be kept for those counties noting there was a significant reduction predicted by the new 500 year storm modeling for the Big Bend areas of the state.

Commissioner Greiner asked what happens when ASCE 7 criteria changes.

Mr. Dixon responded that if the committee accepts and adopts into the ASCE 7, the latest modeling, there are significant changes to the wind speed contours in certain areas of the state. He then stated design requirements are based on a one hundred year recurrence interval storm divided by the square root of the load factor. He further stated when comparing the 1998 maps and the 2007 maps the Big Bend area of the state has a significant reduction in wind for the 100 year storms. Mr. Dixon stated going to the 500 year recommendation for insurability moves the required winds speed closer to the current requirement.

Commissioner Greiner stated it was advantageous going to the 500 year and simplifying to 3 items was even better. He further stated the simpler it is for the insurance industry the better.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of staff’s recommendation on the approach. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Wiggins stated he was not sure if this was the same question from Commissioner Schulte, but he noticed the background information chart on the recommended wind speed chart showed 4 counties based on the 500 year have actually gone down from the current. He asked if this was the same question from Commissioner Schulte because ARA determined it would be a lesser wind speed.

Mr. Dixon stated it was the same question. He explained the modeling in the current building code is based on the state of the art in 1998 and the recommendation of the 500 year is based on the current state of the art modeling for what design wind speeds should be. He stated there had been a tremendous amount of improvement in the science and the information available. Mr. Dixon further stated Peter Vickery of ARA has worked with the National Hurricane Research Center in developing models that better reflect how storms change as they come across the coast and translating the wind speeds as measured and reported by NOAA over water and at elevations well above surface level to speeds at ground level after they come across the coast. He then stated he believed that the improved modeling was reflected in the wind speed reductions.

Commissioner Wiggins asked if there would be anything in the law that was enacted that would allow a later Code with a less stringent wind design than the present Code. He then stated it may not apply necessarily to this issue, but it would need to meet that intent.

Mr. Dixon stated that during Special Legislative Session A in 2007, the Legislature directed the wind-borne debris regions of the state be based on the 2006 International Building & Residential Codes and essentially locked in ASCE 7 2002. He then stated the Commission had consistently opposed editions of standards being written into law. He concluded by stating this issue should go back to the Legislature with a request the edition designation be removed from law.

Mr. Richmond stated it is being rolled into a separate section of Florida Statutes. He stated ten months ago this was part of a three step process:1) Building officials do not enforce anything less, 2) Building Commission amend the Code to catch up with step 1 by July 1^st and 3) Limitation on future amendments to the Code. He stated he believed the way it was written would’ve allowed the Commission to still track changes in the foundation Codes without any additional steps, but changes by the Commission to those codes would be under some other criteria. He then stated the only thing he has been able to discern from someone in statutory revision decided this was an oversight that it had not been given a section number in Florida Statute and then gave it one. He stated there was a proposal before the Commission, as well, given Senator Constantine as more or less a placeholder to repeal that section of Florida Statutes.

Commissioner Wiggins asked for clarification if it would not be advisable to at least have a wind speed rating that is no less than the current requirement. He further stated if this is going forth as a recommendation from the Building Commission would it be attacked for submitting something that looks like a 500 year design wind speed that is less than the current wind speed.

Mr. Dixon stated Commissioner Wiggins was correct and noted that in the recommendation shown there would be no reduction. He referenced Taylor County, for example, the 500 year design wind shows 111 miles per hour, but the recommendation would be the 120 mph which is currently in the Florida Building Code.

Commissioner Kim stated this would be true for Jefferson, Taylor and Wakulla counties, but in Dixie, Duvall, Franklin and Gulf it shows wind speed reduction from the current requirements.

Mr. Dixon stated there were two columns in the data table ARA developed and one of those columns was based on the Geoplan Center’s mapping of the counties’ established recorded wind speeds and the other was based on ARA interpolations between wind speed lines on the current maps. He explained this was the reason for the differences.

Commissioner Kim asked if the recommended wind speed design was the center point of the county.

Mr. Dixon stated the recommended wind speeds would be in the coastal area and it would be one wind speed for the entire coastal area of every county. He explained the difference in the numbers shown was due to a visual take off of what the design wind speed was from Code maps versus what the official wind speeds adopted by the local government and recorded by the Geoplan Center.

Mr. Dixon stated the concept was that required wind speed for design would not go below the Code requirement and if the 500 year storm wind speed would result in a higher wind design that would be the one required to qualify for insurance.

Mr. Blair stated one of the recommendations which was adopted already stated no reductions would be allowed and it would also be included in this issue.

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

Mr. Glenn stated he wanted to make sure then Commission realizes two things: 1) This staff recommendation exceeds what the Hurricane Research Advisory recommended, which was a 250 year storm, and 2) Keep in mind with HVHZ requirements including the entire panhandle, northeast Florida, all the way to West Palm Beach and the entire west coast of Florida not only has to provide window protection but will have to provide protection for the entire structure in order to get Citizen’s insurance. He then stated a large number of those county building officials especially in the panhandle came forward over the windborne debris issue and testified they did not have windborne debris breaking windows. He stated he has a house in Brevard and the insurance was cancelled from Allstate Floridian this year and is now with Citizen’s. He then stated if he built that house today he would have to provide window protection and the entire structure would have to be protected from impact. He further stated the majority of the construction throughout that part of the state is wood frame, not masonry. He stated making a wood frame would be a tremendous additional cost. He asked the Commission before it signs the recommendation to keep in mind it may not be a Building Code requirement but with Citizen’s being the only insurance available it may has well be a Building Code requirement. He reiterated this would be a drastic increase in cost of construction in the windborne debris region especially in the northern half of the state.

Chairman Rodriguez clarified this recommendation was not from the Commission, but from one of the consultants to the Commission.

Dick Wilhem, FMA, WDMA

Mr. Wilhem asked for clarification if all products for impact protection would have to be tested to Miami-Dade TS-201,202, 203 for use in these areas.

Mr. Dixon stated this was correct; everything within 2500 feet of the coast would have to meet these standards.

Commissioner Bassett asked for clarification if this pertained just to areas within 2500 feet of the coast.

Chairman Rodriguez stated this was correct. He then stated the point is when a building is built within 2500 square feet of the coast those structures stand a larger risk, therefore a stronger structure might need to be built. He further stated if the public is going to be the only insurance agency available he believed it prudent a higher standard be asked.

Commissioner Bassett stated if an individual can afford to purchase that land they should be able to afford to build a stronger house.

Chairman Rodriguez stated that was correct, it was also the issue of the cost of the land within 2500 feet of the Florida coast.

Mr. Dixon reiterated the recommendation was for property insurance purposes, not for the Building Code. He stated the goal was to reduce the claims that come from a storm and the HVHZ standards of impact resistance provide more property protection than do normal standards used elsewhere in the state.

Chairman Rodriguez restated the motion to approve the adoption of insurance qualification criteria using the 500 year criteria for new buildings after January 2009 built within 2500 feet of the Florida coast.

Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote to approve the motion. Vote to approve the motion resulted in 19 for, 3 opposed (Carson, Browdy, Dean). Motion carried.

DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY DECISIONS ON RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE 2008 LEGISLATURE

Mr. Blair conducted a review of the draft summary of the preliminary decisions on recommendations to the 2008 Legislature. (Please see Facilitator’s Summary of Issues for Inclusion in the 2008 Report to the Florida Legislature).

Commissioner Norkunas stated one of the things the Accessibility TAC had talked about several times was changing the ability to give binding interpretations. He stated he had spoken with Jim Richmond regarding this at Special Session at which time Mr. Richmond reminded him it could not be included because it was specific to one issue. He asked where that might be now.

Mr. Blair asked for clarification whether Commissioner Norkunas would be asking the Legislature to give the Commission authority to issue binding interpretations.

Commissioner Norkunas stated it would be changing one sentence in the statutes which prohibits binding interpretations on access issues. He further stated it had been discussed that it may not be in the best interest of building officials around the state.

Mr. Blair asked if Commissioner Norkunas was recommending the Commission seek Legislative authority to issue binding interpretations on accessibility issues.

Commissioner Norkunas stated he wanted to work through the process. He then stated the Accessibility TAC had discussed it several times and not having the ability to issue binding opinions on accessibility issues is a bottle neck in this state. He then stated it had been discussed and he thought it was going to be brought up as part of Legislative package and he sees it was not.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Commissioner Norkunas if he wanted that ability for the Commission.

Commissioner Norkunas stated the TAC wanted the ability to recommend to the Legislature to change Florida Law to allow issuance of binding interpretations.

Mr. Richmond stated bringing it up at this time is the appropriate time to discuss inclusion in the report. He further stated caution should be used when using the term binding opinion because it implicates the entire building officials’ association process. He stated he thought the discussion at the TAC was more limited in scope to the Commission entering those types of things in some sort of variety as opposed to allowing the contractor, although he could be mistaken.

Mr. Blair explained the process stating the POC has a recommendation which is brought to the Commission then everything that has been recommended gets included in the report to the Legislature.

Commissioner Norkunas stated he would like to, but he was standing out there because he gets counseled often to make sure it goes through the process.

Mr. Blair stated this is the process so it was the proper time to have the discussion.

Commissioner Gross stated the TAC on at least two occasions has brought this forward to the Commission and also discussed having a workshop to get the parties to the table to see what the community interest was. He stated he believed in the workplan a workshop should be scheduled.

Mr. Dixon stated it was not currently in the workplan. He then stated if a workshop was to be held it would need to be at the January Commission meeting or before in an attempt to get all parties together.

Mr. Blair offered clarification stating there should be some discussion, a workshop held at the January meeting, whatever consensus came from the workshop could be recommended to the Commission, and if there were a consensus a recommendation could be made at the January meeting to include that in the report.

Commissioner Norkunas stated if there was time, because the Accessibility TAC did not meet at this Commission meeting.

Mr. Blair stated there would be time if it were held at the January meeting.

Commissioner Gross moved approval to hold a workshop to discuss binding interpretations on Accessibility issues and if there was a consensus a recommendation to the Legislature. Commissioner Norkunas entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Gross stated staff had sent an email looking for participants for the workshop. He encouraged anyone who knows any of the groups that need to attend to please contact them.

Commissioner Bassett offered a comment related the carbon monoxide issue stating the sister agency has started inspecting for the existing hotels and motels for installation of carbon monoxide last July. He stated no rules were passed they just told their inspectors to start inspecting for them.

Mr. Blair stated there were two issues on the table 1) A motion to schedule an Accessibility Workshop to discuss whether the Commission should issue binding interpretations on Accessibility Code and 2) the Overall report. He recommended finishing the discussion on the Accessibility issue and vote before moving on.

Commissioner Greiner asked if the idea was to do binding interpretations or non-binding interpretations.

Commissioner Gross answered the original intention was to go back and allow some organization here at the Building Commission to come up with decisions for a final declaratory statement or a final decision. He explained the problem was there was no place to go when there is a problem. He stated questions, like the one regarding Wendy’s from the Waiver Applications, have no where to go.

Commissioner Browdy stated he believed Commissioner Norkunas was correct philosophically in that the Commission needs to continue to have a venue for the discussions about interpretation of the Accessibility Chapter of the Florida Building Code. He further stated the Accessibility Waiver Council is not sufficient for consumers, users, and practitioners of the Code to understand and appropriately amended motion enforce the Code. He recommended the motion at that time should not be for binding interpretations but for Commission to have the ability to interpret the Code and the ability to articulate that interpretation to users of the Code. He then stated it could be decided at the workshop if it needed to be binding or not, but the important thing is for the Commission to have the ability to issue interpretations binding or non-binding, an ability that has been taken away from the Commission.

Commissioner Gross accepted amendment to motion. Commissioner Norkunas accepted amendment to the motion.

Larry Schneider, AIA

Mr. Schneider stated the issue is Florida Statute 553.575 which was entered about 2 or 3 years ago and eliminated anyone talking about anything about accessibility. He stated he believed the intent from the disabled community and the design community was to allow the Building Official’s Association to do their non-binding, which they have done in the past and for the Commission to be able to also take a look at it. He reiterated it was specifically that section of the statute that needs to be amended.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Wiggins referenced the page with Commission Milestones he asked if there was somewhere in the report it should list the utilization of BOAF for binding interpretations as one of the items which occurred.

Mr. Blair explained that item was detailed in last year’s report.

Commissioner Wiggins asked if it was actually enacted this year.

Mr. Blair stated it was enacted last year and that is why it was not in this year’s report.

Commissioner Schulte referenced the Facilitator’s Summary of Issues 2006, namely the 2002 Legislative assignments; there was a section on wind related recommendations. He stated there was a discussion about wind mitigation retrofits, Rule adoption 9B-3.0475, which basically describes or gives history of that rule development and adoption. He further stated it also includes information about the workgroup and future development of recommendations during the glitch cycle. He stated he would like to see this go further and recommended then Commission consider forwarding proposed language to Legislature regarding the current language in place in law in reference to the wind mitigation retrofit rules. He stated he believed the language could be developed through the Wind Mitigation Workgroup and then be passed upward through the appropriate TAC or TACs and finally to the Commission for forwarding to the Legislature.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if this would be scheduled for January as well.

Commissioner Schulte stated if the timeline worked.

Mr. Blair clarified Commissioner Schulte recommended the Wind Mitigation workgroup be tasked with developing recommendations to address a more effective implementation of the requirements in law and make those recommendations to the Roofing TAC then to the Commission.

Commissioner stated that was correct.

Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Browdy stated he thought Commissioner Schulte was heading in the direction that the group would develop language for inclusion into the report specific to wind mitigation as opposed to just talking about it. He asked if he was looking for the Commission to develop the language for inclusion into the statute so the Legislature does not come up with its own Building Code again.

Commissioner Schulte stated that was correct.

Commissioner Wiggins stated the Wind Mitigation workgroup would meet after lunch. He asked if it could be one of the items discussed at the meeting.

Mr. Blair stated it would be in the scope, whether they get to it or not. He explained the main focus of the meeting would be to make recommendation on Rule Challenge. He stated the workgroup would meet again before the January Commission meeting at which time it would become one of the main focuses, with the longer term focus to be the development language and the actual technical part of it.

Chairman Rodriguez stated it would be great if it could be taken up at the meeting and at least begin discussion

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval to adopt the summary of issues and recommendations. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES

Commissioner Wiggins stated Mr. Blair does a very good job summarizing the meetings and sending out reports. He further stated the report on the minutes is very extensive. He asked and suggests if a very brief, perhaps bulleted summary of actions taken by the Building Commission at each meeting could be sent out to the Commissioners within 7 days after meeting to all commissioners and interested parties. He stated it would be extremely helpful and beneficial to the building officials, the Commission and the public. He believed it would be an excellent communication tool. He reiterated it did not have to be detailed just action points that took place at the most recent Commission meeting.

Mr. Blair stated on of the things he sends out is the Commission milestones which comes out within a day or two and is sent to the commissioners. He explained the Milestones are a list of then key actions the Commission took at that meeting. He asked if that would cover Commissioner Wiggins’ request.

Commissioner Wiggins stated he was looking for something even shorter, one or two pages typed with just bulleted information on actions.

Mr. Blair stated this was only usually a couple of sentences providing a quick overview of the meeting’s key decisions.

Commissioner Wiggins stated he would recommend shortening that and sending out an email. He then stated anything longer than that gets deleted.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he agreed it was a good idea.

Mr. Richmond asked if action items were bulleted would that be the level Commissioner Wiggins was looking for.

Commissioner Wiggins stated that was correct.

Chairman Rodriguez stated if any audience was worthy of this or needed to keep up with this it would be the building officials and anything the Commission can do to help would be important. He then stated he sometimes felt what is done month to month is a closely guarded secret, but this is not a public relation thing, but a necessary thing for people who are out there as the local jurisdictions

Commissioner Norkunas stated he had three issues, the first being accessibility at the hotel hosting the meeting. He explained when he checked in he was given a room with a roll-in shower, room 234, which was not the least bit accessible. He stated he brought it to the attention of the general manager, Bill Worster, who was kind enough to meet with him. He stated Mr. Worster was a knowledgeable hotelier and considering the hotel has undergone an alteration for its 750 rooms, the room was shut down and corrective action would be taken this week. He then stated he was moved to room 1044 which he was told was built to the current Accessibility requirements, but it was not. He explained he could not reach to hang up his clothes, he could not reach the iron and the seat in the accessible bathtub collapsed causing him to fall. He stated had his arms, which used crutches for the first 15 years of his life, not been as Strawn he could have been seriously injured. He further stated when he brought this to the attention of Mr. Worster he immediately destroyed all of the other similar seats and bought the correct ones. He stated it reinforces Chairman Rodriguez’s statement,“It is sometimes difficult to hold the meetings all around the state when accessible places to stay are needed”. Commissioner Norkunas then stated he was not recommending the Commission does not stay at the hotel in the future, in fact it may be a prime place to continue to stay, but he wanted to bring to the Commission’s attention that in the year 2007 this kind of incompliance is still occurring.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Norkunas for his comments. He stated it had an interesting effect. He stated the Commission wants to be able to sponsor hotels that are accessible. He then stated the thing he found interesting was even with all of the limitations when the Commission comes to a place like this, which was thought to be accessible, Commissioner Norkunas’ input is appreciated. He agreed that putting the hotel on a blacklist forever would not be the goal, but it provides an opportunity for the hotel to correct problems with accessibility for possible future meetings for any group.

Commissioner Norkunas then stated the second item was comments regarding the decision made on the Wendy’s case in the Accessibility Waiver Applications. He stated Chairman Rodriguez’ comments to him had been “This is an open forum and all views are welcome.” He stated he has been reminded by counsel now and then that his zeal for advocacy for the disabled cannot conflict with his responsibilities as a Florida Building Commissioner. He stated, for example, he changed his comments in the minutes where he had used the word disproportionate and found the proper word to use was hardship. He stated in stating his comments if they conflict with his judiciary responsibilities he would amend them and he would always abide by Florida Law. Commissioner Norkunas stated he believed the Commission made a serious mistake in granting the waiver to Wendy’s. He continued by stating he had approached Jim Richmond and brought to his attention verbally that Florida Statute 553.512 states the Commission cannot grant waivers that violate Federal Accessibility Laws. He further stated he wished he or Peter Kelegian had weighed in more Strawnly but he still submitted that is an issue. He then stated he believed Mr. Dixon spoke Strawnly and he believed that is what influenced the Commissioners but he would ask Mr. Dixon to provide to him documentation from the Department of Justice that says a state can waive an accessibility waiver requirement if it matches a federal requirement. He stated he had spoken to building official, Clifford Stokes, earlier and asked him what the story on the Wendy’s was. He stated Mr. Stokes said it was an older Wendy’s and the bathrooms were smaller. He further stated Mr. Stokes would not allow them to reduce the fixture count, i.e., if there were two stalls take one out and make the one bigger. He then stated the issue really was that Wendy’s had to spend a few more dollars and move one of the walls.

Commissioner Norkunas explained as it stands now people with wheel chairs cannot use the bathrooms. He then stated he did not believe that to be the intent of the framers or of the Legislation. He continued by stating five states have had their Code certified Texas, Maine, Maryland, Florida and North Carolina. He further stated there was a 6^th which was Washington. He explained when the state of Washington had its code certified it started to waive state law requirements and since then the Department of Justice has removed its certification. He concluded by stating, consistent to his responsibilities as a commissioner, he would like a copy of the waiver when it is issued and he stated his intention, unless he is instructed otherwise, would be to send it to the Department of Justice and to the Attorney General for human rights and mention to them he believed the state of Florida had granted a waiver which is in violation of the ADA.

Commissioner Norkunas then stated his third and final issue was the Accessibility TAC being cancelled. He stated there were valid reasons for it, of course. He further stated he had not found one member of DCA staff who had not been immediately attentive to his concerns. He then stated canceling the meeting from six weeks ago meant that where he serves as a conduit for disability issues he could not present them until the next meeting, which was another six weeks away. He clarified effectively it will be twelve weeks before he could bring those issues before the Accessibility TAC. He asked why it was cancelled. He stated he had talked with some staff and had found when the Advisory Council or Waiver Council was originally set up their costs were reimbursed. He reiterated, as it had been mentioned prior, TAC members do not have their expenses reimbursed. He then stated it was deemed to move a lot of the people who were members from the Advisory Council onto the Accessibility TAC because of their expenses. He further stated it did because there were 20 items which were on the Waiver Council’s agenda and because the education accreditation workshop was held the following day, the Accessibility meeting could not be held. He concluded by stating he wanted his comments heard and for those wiser than himself who could figure out a way. He stated the Waiver Council should be expanded to allow for 14 members and the chairman of the waiver council was not opposed to having 7 alternates, which would mean if there were not enough members the Council could still meet. He further stated he encouraged people to come to the meeting and express their concerns. He stated all the Commission hears was his voice in the corner. He then stated he could not fill the room up though he does try. He referenced a meeting when he gave a presentation and young lady who was blind appeared with a service animal. He explained it took 4 ½ weeks to schedule her. He stated people who are blind cannot just hop in a car and get to the Commission meetings. He reiterated he had hoped the room would be full creating a Strawn visual impact, but instead his voice is heard with their concerns. Commissioner Norkunas stated if somehow in the future Accessibility TAC members could have their costs reimbursed. He added if reflecting on equality why couldn’t other TAC members have their expenses reimbursed. He explained if the Commission was focusing on insurance or swimming pools the room would be full because those individuals have jobs. He noted 70% of individuals with disabilities are unemployed, 80% if women and if a black woman 90%. He concluded by stating to bring their voices to the meetings in support of his was almost impossible.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Norkunas for his comments. He reiterated it is an inclusive process where everyone is welcome. He stated he understood how impressive it would be to fill the room, but Commissioner Norkunas’ comments are just as important because they come from him whether he sits on the corner or anywhere else around the table. He further stated Commissioner Norkunas was an excellent advocate and he should not diminish the importance his voice has to each of the commissioners. He then stated he believed one of the things the Commission does very well is come together from 23 different stakeholder groups and is painfully aware in order to conduct business it has to have a super majority. He continued by stating it was not only the respect the commissioners have for one another, which has been earned by out work, but it is also a practical matter that the commissioners need each other’s support in order to accomplish anything. He then stated his brother, the lawyer, always says “It’s about the money” but as a child he grew up in a country where US people were made fun of because they said “Time is money” and in his country time was not money. He further stated he has learned in his almost 50 years time is more important than money, because more money can always be made, but each of us sitting in the room only has 24 hours in each day. He then stated to be able to run the work of the Commission yes more money would buy more people’s time, but it is just impossible to coordinate for every TAC to meet every six weeks and have staff take care of everything. He further stated when people ask what the Commission does every six weeks he answers this process is not made for impatient people. He added his mom had three children who were all impatient. He stated he was still very impatient but this process is an exercise in patience, but that is not an excuse to delay things. He stated besides these meetings he meets with staff to prepare for these meetings and he was not sure anymore could be done in coordinating since there is only so much time in the schedule and new mandates get handed down from Legislature. He then stated additional money would always help, but additional time is difficult to find. He explained things have to be prioritized. Chairman Rodriguez concluded by stating everyone is welcome to come to the Commission meetings and it is impressive when the room is full. He reiterated the voice of each of the Commissioners is listened to very seriously without the need of any more people.

Commissioner Bassett asked if there was anyway staff, when making arrangements for hotels, could reserve enough spaces for the Commissioners, at least give them a list of names so rooms are available. He explained he could not get into the host hotel because all of the spaces were used up well before the end of the reserve period.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he always gets a reminder to reserve room by within a certain period of time.

Commissioner Bassett stated he tried to reserve it within the time frame they had. He stated he believed more persons outside the Commission were using up the block of rooms and he thought maybe at least 23 rooms could be reserved for the commissioners, at least.

Chairman Rodriguez stated that deals with guarantees.

Mr. Richmond stated one of the biggest problem faced is when the hotels were set up normally typically one year in advance. He stated given the appointment schedule the Commission does not know who the members would be at each meeting. He then stated it would become a matter of guarantees. He further state it was just an assumption the commissioners would cancel their reservation as opposed to making them. He noted his office recently found out if the reservation was not cancelled, and incurred a charge although you did not stay, the state does not reimburse for rooms not stayed in. He added he was not able to get a reservation in the same hotel more than 5 weeks in advance. He stated he believed it was the time of year because of the Christmas holiday.

Commissioner Bassett stated if he had tried to make the reservation after the deadline, he would consider it his fault he could not get a room.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he would speak to Ila and explain the Commission needs a cheap hotel which is 100% accessible, with more meeting rooms than this Commission brings, that guarantees the 23 commissioners and maybe even a special suite for the Chairman. He then stated he heard Commissioner Bassett’s concerns and believed he had probably bothered Ila more than anyone else on the issues of the hotels, but for good reason. He then stated if this was the Florida Building Commission it would be a courtesy to have rooms for the Commissioners.

Commissioner Vann asked if TAC member number is locked in mandating only so many Commissioners per TAC.

Chairman Rodriguez stated yes, it is in the Rule.

Mr. Dixon explained the Commission established rules with the representation type and the total number of TAC members, but it could always be reviewed. He explained what has been done to try to facilitate quorums at all meetings was to authorize each member, other than Commissioners, to have an alternate who they could designate to come to the meeting in their absence.

Chairman Rodriguez asked for clarification if this was just done recently.

Mr. Dixon stated that was correct. He then stated with too many members there are logistical problems, with too few there are quorum problems. He stated eleven was determined to be the optimum number according to the ANSI balance process.

Commissioner Vann stated the reason he asked was he is on two TACS. He explained the Plumbing TAC has very little business and Code Administration does not usually have great time concerns. He then stated he would be available to serve on the Accessibility TAC if there was a desire to have him there.

Mr. Dixon stated that it is by convention not by rule that commissioners are not on more than two TACs. He explained that during busy periods like code amendment time periods most all of the TACs meet and it is virtually impossible to avoid overlaps and conflicting meetings, but staff could look into it for Commissioner Vann

Commissioner Norkunas read from an email Mr. Dixon had sent him when asked about the TAC members. He stated the criteria for Commission TACs state 3 members must be manufacturers or contractors. He commented those three would probably have their expenses paid. He continued by stating 3 members had to be designers or homeowners. He again commented money should be there to pay those people. He then stated 5 members would be government representative (building officials and other special interests). He further stated this was where individuals with disabilities did not fit into any group unless someone belongs there and were sent to the Commission. He explained there were accentuating circumstances to consider getting a broad representation on the TACs from people with disabilities who really want to express what they need on a daily basis.

Chairman Rodriguez stated it was Ted Berman’s birthday. He also stated Jeff Blair’s birthday was on Tuesday.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked the individuals who come to the meetings time after time. He stated it was a thankless job, but it is satisfying to bring people together. He then wished everyone a happy and safe holiday season.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

Mr. Glenn stated both the Florida Building Commission and the Governor’s Action Team on Climate Change and Energy made a component of their recommendations a public education necessity. He then stated he believed it very important the Commission echo that. He explained part of the method by which the Commission achieves those goals over the next 10-12 years is to change the public’s thinking on Energy Conservation. He asked when summarizing the report if something could be put into acknowledging the importance of changing the public’s perception on Energy usage. He stated he believed it would go a long way toward helping both those other committee’s recommendations.

Larry Schneider, AIA FL

Mr. Schneider stated AIA FLwanted to thank all who invest time and energy for the umpteen hours donated to the fun process. He stated as a past chair he had great empathy with the chair. He stated when he had been there previously the patience of all gets tested because people want to see things get done quickly. He had a small recommendation. He asked if an update could be done to the webpage prior to the end of the year asked please update the website regarding upcoming membership lists, meeting dates, minutes, etc. He stated it would be great to start 2008 with a current up-to-date informational website.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Mr. Schneider for his comments. He then stated he always thought updating websites was a chore, but something that indicates the attention being paid by the organization whether it is his website or another’s.

REVIEW COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS AND ISSUES FOR JANUARY 28,29 AND 30 COMMISSION MEETING

Mr. Blair stated the next Commission meeting is January 28, 29 and 30, 2008. He stated there would be meetings of the following committees: Accessibility TAC, Electrical TAC, Education POC, Energy TAC, Fire TAC, Mechanical TAC, Plumbing TAC, Roofing TAC, Structural TAC, Product Approval POC and the Code Administration TAC.

ADJOURN

Chairman Rodriguez adjourned the Florida Building Commission meeting at 10:50am.