BOARD MEETING
OF THE
PLENARY SESSION MINUTES
December 9
& 10, 2008
PENDING APPROVAL
The meeting of the Florida Building Commission
was called to order by Chairman Raul
Rodriguez
at 3:38 p.m., Tuesday, December 9, 2008 at the Embassy Suites Hotel,
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Raul L. Rodriguez, AIA, Chairman
Richard
Browdy, Vice-Chairman
Jeffrey
Gross
Angel
Franco
Jeff
Stone
James
Goodloe
James
K. Shock
Herminio
Gonzalez
Robert
G. Boyer
Hamid
Bahadori
Drew
W. Smith
Chris
Schulte
Mark
Turner
Randall
J. Vann
Scott
Mollan
Jon
Hamrick
Anthony
M. Grippa
Kenneth
L. Gregory
Joseph “Ed” Carson
Raphael R. Palacios
Paul
D. Kidwell
Tim
Tolbert
Matt
Carlton
Craig
Parrino, Adjunct Member
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
William
Norkunas
Dale
Greiner
Doug
Murdock, Adjunct Member
OTHERS PRESENT:
Rick
Dixon, FBC Executive Director
Ila
Jones, DCA Prog. Administrator
Jim
Richmond, DCA Legal Advisor
Jeff
Blair, FCRC
Mo
Madani, Technical Svcs. Manager
WELCOME
Chairman Rodriguez welcomed the Commission, staff
and the public to
REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA
Mr.
Blair conducted a review of the meeting agenda as presented in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the meeting agenda.
Commissioner Gross entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
REVIEW AND APPROVE OCTOBER 14 & 15,
2008 MEETING MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S SUMMARY REPORT
Chairman Rodriguez called for approval of the minutes and
the facilitator’s reports from the October Commission meeting.
Commissioner Carson stated he was informed a declaratory
statement had been incorrectly recorded in the minutes.
John Wiggins,
Underwriter’s Laboratories
Mr. Wiggins stated DCA08-DEC-204 by Robert Jamieson had
been recorded incorrectly.
Commissioner Vann moved approval of the minutes and Facilitator’s
Report from the October Commission meeting. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Chairman Rodriguez first addressed appointments to the
Florida Building Commission.
Chairman
Rodriguez announced the reappointments of Commissioner Randy Vann as the
Plumbing Contractor Representative and Commissioner Jon Hamrick as the Public
Education Representative. He thanked
them for their continued service on the Commission.
Chairman
Rodriguez then introduced and welcomed the following new members of the
Commission.
Bob Boyer – has
been appointed to represent the
Municipal or Charter Government. He will
be succeeding George Wiggins.
Anthony Grippa – has been appointed as the Insurance Industry Representative. He will
be succeeding Do Kim.
Raphael Palacios – has been appointed as the
Mechanical or Electrical Engineer Representative. He will be succeeding Steven Bassett.
James Shock – has
been appointed as a Code Official. He
will be replacing Christ Sanidas.
Ken Gregory – has
been appointed as a Swimming Pool Contractor.
He will be the first Swimming Pool Industry Representative to the
Building Commission.
Drew Smith –
has been appointed as a Green Building Industry Representative. He will be the
first Green Building Industry Representative to the Building Commission.
Chairman
Rodriguez then expressed recognition of the following Commissioners who were
rotating off of the Commission board Steve
Bassett, Do Kim and George Wiggins. He thanked each of them for their years of
service and presented each with a plaque reflecting their service.
Mr.
Wiggins stated it had been his pleasure over the last 9-plus years to serve on
the Commission. He stated there had been
a number of ups and downs during those years. He then stated the greatest
accomplishment was having the greatest building code in the
Special Recognition:
Chairman Rodriguez announced special recognition to Neil
Mellick, Chairman of the
Accessibility Council, for his years of service. He thanked him for his hard work and
presented him with a plaque.
Chairman Rodriguez then announced the appointment of
Commissioner Browdy to the position of Vice-Chairman of the Building
Commission. He stated Commissioner
Browdy was the longest standing member of the Commission.
Chairman Rodriguez announced the following TAC appointments:
Accessibility TAC
Julia Kates was appointed to replace J.R. Harding on
the Accessibility TAC.
Code Administration
TAC
Commissioner Gonzalez was appointed to replace George Wiggins
as chair.
Commissioner Carlton was appointed to replace
Commissioner Carson.
Commissioner Boyer was appointed as a new member to the
TAC.
Energy TAC
Commissioner
Drew Smith was appointed to replace Richard Reynolds
on the Energy TAC.
Mechanical TAC
Commissioner
Palacios was appointed to replace Steve Bassett on
the Mechanical TAC. Gary Griffin was
appointed as chair of the Mechanical TAC.
Structural TAC
Commissioner Kidwell was appointed to replace Do Kim as
chair of the Structural TAC. Commissioner
Shock was appointed to replace George Wiggins on the Structural TAC. Do Kim will continue to serve on the Structural
TAC.
Special Occupancy
Doug Melvin was appointed to the Special Occupancy TAC. He represents DBPR, Division of Hotels and Restaurants,
Bureau of Elevators.
Education POC
Commissioner Grippa was appointed to replace Steve
Bassett on the Education POC.
Code Assembly Ad
Hoc
Chairman Rodriguez stated the name of the committee has
been changed from Code Processes Ad Hoc committee. Commissioner Bahadori was appointed to the
committee. He then stated the members of
the Code Assembly Ad Hoc were as follows: Chairman Rodriguez will serve as
chair of the TAC with Commissioners Bahadori, Carson, Franco, Goodloe, Greiner,
Gross, and Schulte.
Hurricane Research
Advisory Committee:
Jim Schock was appointed to replace George Wiggins, Jamie
Gascon was appointed to replace Nick D’Andrea. Richard Reynolds was appointed
to the HRAC.
Chairman Rodriguez then announced the following workgroup
appointments:
Flood Standards Workgroup:
Commissioner
Rodriguez stated at the October meeting, the Commission created a Flood
Standards Workgroup, charged with developing recommendations for integrating
the IBC Flood Damage Resistance into the Florida Building Code. He then stated the following members were
appointed to the workgroup: Gene Chalecki: DEP; Steve Pizzillo: BOAF; Tim
Reinhold: IBHS; Jack Glenn: FHBA; and Nick D’Andrea: Flood Plain Managers
Association.
Commissioner
Rodriguez then announced the new appointments to the
Flood Standards Workgroup as follows: Bob Boyer was appointed to replace George
Wiggins as the local government representative. Miles Anderson was appointed as
the representative for the Florida Division of Emergency Management. Commissioner
Tolbert was appointed as a building official representative from NW Florida. Commissioner
Schock was appointed as a building official representative from northeast
Soffit System
Workgroup:
Chairman Rodriguez stated at the request of the Vinyl
Siding Institute Dave Johnston was added to the Soffit System workgroup and
Matthew Dobson was added as an alternate.
2010
Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission had convened a workgroup
to develop recommendations on the various energy related issues in the
Commission’s Workplan. He further stated the goal is to ensure compliance with
the 20% increase in thermal efficiency standards required for the 2010 Code
Update.
Chairman Rodriguez stated the following appointments
were made: Commissioner Greiner,
representing building officials; Commissioner Smith, Homebuilders
representative; Phillip Fairey, Florida Solar Energy Center; Rob Vickers,
Florida Energy and Climate Commission; Paul Savage, legal representative; Commissioner
Stone wood products industry representative; Jeff Householder, Gas Industry
representative, Commissioner Gross, building owners and management
industry; Larry Maxwell, architect
representative, Donnie Pittman, building officials, Bob Cochell, air
conditioning contractors and Steve Bassett representing Florida Energy Society
or ASHRAE.
Carbon Monoxide
Workgroup
Chairman
Rodriguez stated the Carbon Monoxide Detector Workgroup was appointed between
meetings to allow them to develop legislative recommendations in time for the
Commission’s Report to the 2009 Legislature.
Chairman
Rodriguez stated the following commissioners had been appointed to the
workgroup: Commissioners Bahadori, Boyer,
2010
Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission’s
Accessibility TAC recommended and the Commission approved convening a workgroup
to evaluate and develop recommendations regarding the integration of the
Florida Accessibility Law into the new ADAAG that is being adopted by the US
Department of Justice. He then stated the Commission will convene the workgroup
during 2009 and will adopt recommendations to the Governor and Legislature in
the 2010 Report to the Legislature.
Chairman
Rodriguez stated the following appointments were made to the workgroup: Commissioner Gross, representing BOMA, Commissioner Norkunas,
representative for persons with disabilities, Commissioner Vann, plumbing
industry representative, Commissioner Franco, architectural representative, Commissioner
Gregory, Agency for healthcare Administration; and Commissioner Schock,
building officials. He then stated in
addition the following members were appointed as follows: Bemmie Eustace, consultant;
Sharon Mignardi, plans examiner; Barbara Page, Advocacy Center for Persons with
Disabilities; Julia Kates, Florida DOE, Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation; Michael Elliott, Division
of Blind Services; Phillip Wisely, Department of State and Historic Buildings; Steve
Watson, Department of Environmental Protection, Parks and Recreation; Bob
Vincent, Department of health and Swimming Pools; Jack Humburg, PVA; Pam Darworth, Council for
Florida Council of Handicap Organizations; Larry Schneider, Florida AIA; Soy Williams, ADA consultant; Neil Mellick, building
officials; and Ben Ritter, Tampa PVA. He stated an additional six will be made
at a future date.
Chairman Rodriguez reported there would be a teleconference
meeting on December 15, 2008 starting at 10:00 AM for the purpose of conducting
a Rule Development Workshop on Rule 9B-72, Product Approval, to amend Rule
9B-72 to recognize the Equivalency of Standards between ASTM E 1300-02 and ASTM
E 1300-04, and a process for manufactures to demonstrate through
self-affirmation, once a Code Edition changes, that their product(s) comply
with the relevant standard(s) in the updated Code version. He stated the Structural
TAC will have recommendations on both issues. He further stated the
teleconference would be a formal Commission meeting and a quorum would be
required therefore the commissioners were urged to plan on joining the call. He
stated staff would be sending an e-mail with contact information.
REVIEW
PRIORITIZATION EXERCISE RESULTS
Mr.
Blair presented the results of the workplan prioritization exercise. (See Workplan
Prioritization Exercise Results, Conducted October 15, 2008.)
REVIEW AND UPDATE OF COMMISSION
WORKPLAN
Mr. Dixon conducted a review of the updated Commission
workplan. (See Updated Commission
Workplan December 2008).
Commissioner Carlton moved approval of the updated
workplan. Commissioner Franco entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
CONSIDER ACCESSIBILITY WAIVER APPLICATIONS
Chairman
Rodriguez directed the Commission to Mr. Mellick for consideration of the Accessibility
Waiver Applications.
Mr.
Mellick presented the waiver applications for consideration. Recommended approvals were presented in consent
agenda format with conditional approvals, deferrals and denials being
considered individually.
#3
AMC Theatre at
Mr. Mellick stated the application had been withdrawn by
applicant.
No
action necessary.
Recommendation for Approval with No
Conditions:
#2
Mr.
Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in
each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of F.S.
553.512 as unreasonable.
#4
Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Station 10
Mr.
Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in
each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended
approval in favor of the provisions of the Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards (UFAS).
#5
Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Station 67
Mr.
Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in
each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended
approval in favor of the provisions of
the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS).
#6
Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Station 40
Mr.
Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in
each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended
approval in favor of the provisions of
the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS).
#7
Roads Montisorri, LLC
Mr.
Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in
each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended
approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 related to
20% disproportionate cost.
#13
Mr.
Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in
each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended
approval based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 related to
disproportionate cost as well as its historic designation.
#9
Mr.
Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in
each Commissioner’s files. He stated the
applicant was requesting to use the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Building
Element D for Children’s Use for a day care center. No waiver is necessary and could have been
approved by the local building official under the equivalent facilitation
provisions. He further stated in as much
as the applicant has requested this waiver, at the request of the building
official, the Council unanimously recommended approval in favor of the above
referenced guidelines as equivalent for children.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation for approval of the
consent agenda for items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 9. Commissioner Kidwell entered
a second to the motion. Vote to approve
the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Recommendation for Approval with
Conditions:
#
8 Cobb theaters at
Mr.
Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in
each Commissioner’s files. He stated the
applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to all
rows of seats in an existing movie theater complex undergoing renovations. He then stated the Council recommended
approval by a vote of 5 to 0 (as one member was out of the room) based on the
provisions of F.S. 553.512 as unreasonable with the condition that plans be
submitted to DCA staff to verify the dimensions of the accessible seating
locations.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered
a second to the motion. Vote to approve
the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Mr.
Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in
each Commissioner’s files. He stated the
applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to the
second and third levels of a three story historic hotel. He then stated this case was heard last
meeting where the request related to the hotel restaurant was granted a waiver
and the issues related to the second and third floors were dismissed without
prejudice for the applicant to address concerns of the Council. He further stated the Council unanimously
recommended approval with condition based on the provisions of F.S. 553.512 as
unreasonable due to technical infeasibility of the existing elevator shaft as
well as its historic designation. He
stated the Council’s condition was for the applicant to send to DCA staff
whether or not widening the existing elevator door is feasible and provide cost
to determine if within the 20% provisions.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation to grant waiver.
Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion
was unanimous. Motion carried.
#14
Brandt Information Services, Inc.
Mr.
Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in
each Commissioner’s files. He stated the
applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to the
basement and second floor of an existing office building undergoing a $55,000
alteration. He further stated the
building official’s review and recommendation form was missing which would
indicate any permitted construction activity during the past three years. He then stated the Council unanimously
recommended deferring the case for the applicant to provide the building
official’s statement. He continued by
stating, however, if the applicant could provide the evidence prior to today’s
meeting for the chair’s review, the Council unanimously agreed it would allow
the recommendation to be changed to approved based on the provisions of F.S.
553.512 related to 20% disproportionate cost.
He stated the evidence was presented and verified; therefore, the
recommendation was for approval.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered
a second to the motion. Vote to approve
the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Deferral:
#10
Strike Industries
Mr.
Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in
each Commissioner’s files. He stated the applicant is requesting a waiver from
providing vertical accessibility to a mezzanine being converted from storage to
offices. The project cost was estimated
at $70,000. He then stated the applicant
was not in attendance. He further stated
the Council unanimously recommended to defer to allow the applicant to provide
additional information to include but not be limited to, breakdown of all cost
(even those specific to accessibility), cost estimates for platform lifts,
floor plan layout and specific use of office space. He stated it was also recommended that the
applicant be in attendance to address concerns of the Council.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
#12
Trademark Cinemas, Coral Square 8
Mr.
Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in
each Commissioner’s files. He stated the applicant is requesting a waiver from
providing vertical accessibility to all rows of seats in an 8 screen theater
complex being altered from sloped floors to stadium seating. He then stated as the plans were lacking in
detail, the Council unanimously recommended deferring this case for the
applicant to provide more information, to include but not be limited to,
detailed seating layouts showing total number of seats, accessible and
companion seating locations, dimensional plans, and elevations showing line of
sights for each theater house type.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Denial:
#11
Ravallo Resort and Convention Center
Mr.
Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in
each Commissioner’s files. He stated the
applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility in 489
sunken living areas in non-accessible guest rooms of a new $160,000,000
facility. He then stated the Council
unanimously recommended denial based on lack of hardship to allow the
installation of barriers in a new facility.
Benjamin Muscente, Fire Protection Engineer and Code
Consultant
Mr.
Muscente stated the Council’s recommendation to deny the waiver was both
respected and understood. He then stated
their interpretation of the Code was since the required number of accessible
rooms dispersed to each type of room and to each floor of the building and the
number of accessible rooms with sunken living rooms has been met that it was
unnecessary for all of the non-accessible rooms to provide vertical
accessibility. He clarified the
applicant was not claiming hardship, but was unnecessary. He further stated the
Florida Statute for vertical accessibility is a direct amendment to the
Chairman
Rodriguez asked if Mr. Muscente had the actual count of the number of rooms.
Mr.
Muscente responded he believed the number was 38, but did not have it in front
of him. He then stated there was one
accessible room with the sunken living room per floor throughout the building.
Mr.
Mellick stated the same arguments were presented at the council meeting. He stated he disagreed stating the Code is
very clear indicating
Mr.
Muscente stated he did agree this was unique to
Mr.
Mellick stated the bathrooms are not at different levels but within the unit
and are not required to be accessible. The Code only requires a certain number rooms
whose restrooms need to be accessible.
He restated the Code clearly states all levels must be accessible.
Commissioner
Tolbert asked why there was not a recommendation from the local review board.
Mr.
Muscente stated the applicant had met with the local building department who
did not seem to believe this would be a problem, but did indicate the applicant
would need a waiver. He then stated due
to time constraints to have this approved on the agenda, there was no time to
get a copy of their interpretation.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to
approve the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Mr.
Mellick then thanked the Commission for his opportunity to serve on the Council
for the last six years, the last five as the chair. He stated it had been a great honor to serve
with the individuals he had served with and with the Commission. He then stated he remembered six years ago
the adversarial position the Council and the Commission had. He further stated he had seen that change
over the years and was thankful in working together the attempt to keep emotion
out of the issues and look at the facts only until finally a decision was based
on those facts. He thanked the
Commission for its support of the Council stating even though there has not
always been agreement he felt the outcome of those discussions had been the
right decisions in all the issues.
Mr.
Mellick then announced the Council had voted for its new chairman. He introduced Jack Humburg and stated he has
been a member of the Council and would represent it well.
CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND
ENTITY APPROVAL
Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to
Commissioner Carson for presentation of entity approvals.
Commissioner Carson stated there was a consent agenda
with 9 entities for approval. He then
moved approval of those entities. Commissioner
Vann entered a second to the motion.
Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Mr. Blair stated there was a consent agenda for all those issues that
were posted with the same result from all four compliance methods either for
approval, conditional approval or deferral. These were the ones without comment
or there was no change to the recommendation as proposed presented. He stated if no commissioner wished to pull
any if the products for individual consideration he asked for a motion to
approve the consent agenda for all four compliance methods for approval,
conditional approval and deferral.
Commissioner Carson stated he needed to have 11453 and
11454 from Prestige Iron Doors, LLC. pulled from the consent agenda.
Commissioner Carson entered a motion to approve the
consent agenda as amended for all four compliance methods for approvals,
conditional approvals and deferrals.
Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner Carson stated the engineer for 11453 and 11454
has asked the Commission to remove the products from the approval list and move
them to the deferral list. He explained
since the meeting the engineer has had some questions arise regarding some
hardware. He stated the engineer was
looking for some clarification on both items.
Commissioner Carson moved deferral of products 11453 and
11454. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the
motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Mr. Blair
presented the following products for consideration individually:
11570
Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional
approval stating the installation
drawings shall indicate pressure as certified.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
11571
11573
11619
Mr.
Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating
the installation drawings shall indicate pressure as certified.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
599-R4
Nu-Vue Industries Inc.
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the
condition the applicant include NDS 2005 on application under Testing
Standards.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
2047-R3 Nu-Vue Industries Inc.
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the
condition the applicant include NDS 2005 on application under Testing
Standards.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
11089
Flesher Windows, Inc.
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating installation
instructions shall include only configurations certified; Provide test reports
to verify glazing as tested.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
11483
Therma-Tru Corporation
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the
condition the applicant provide
sidelites glass configuration as tested.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
9757-R1
JHRG LLC
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the applicant remove
note #4 on drawings related to glass separation. Provide test report for zipper running
perpendicular to load.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
10082-R1
Graham Architectural Products
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the
condition the applicant specify PVB interlayer type as tested for product
10082.1. Identify silicone and gaskets
on glazing detail as tested.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
10084-R1Graham
Architectural Products
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating
applicant specify PVB
interlayer type as tested for product 10082.1.
Identify silicone and gaskets on glazing detail as tested.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
10124
–R1 GAF Materials Corporation
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the
condition the Correct Section 5.3.3 of evaluation report read "For
buildings falling outside the constraints in 5.3.1 or 5.3.2,
calculations…" and modify installation instructions to allow use of
approved underlayments per FBC 1507.2.3 and/or 1507.2.4 beneath their asphalt
shingles.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
11408
TEEM
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the
condition the applicant revise application and drawings for the three glazing
conditions. Revise evaluation to
substantiate the testing for the three conditions.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
11565
JHRG LLC
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating applicant remove
note #4 on drawings related to glass separation. Provide test report for zipper running
perpendicular to load.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
11620
Silverline Building Products Corporation
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the
condition the applicant indicate for product 11620.6 the type of PVB as tested.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
11148
R.M. Lucas Co.
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
11274
Adurel International
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
819-R1
United Steel Products Company
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the
condition product 819.9 indicate on conditions of use "Not for use in HVHZ"
or provide sufficient resistance for compliance with HVHZ.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
822-R1
United Steel Products Company
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating indicate
as deleted Product 822.291. For products
822.10 and 822.292 indicate on conditions of use "Not for use in
HVHZ" or provide sufficient resistance for compliance with HVHZ. Remove Product 822.291.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
11561
Solatube International, Inc
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
11095
Solatube International Inc.
Mr.
Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
CONSIDER LEGAL ISSUES AND PETITIONS
FOR DECLARATORY STATEMENT: BINDING INTERPRETATIONS: REPORTS ONLY
DECLARATORY STATEMENTS:
Legal Issues:
Chairman
Rodriguez stated as a result of the Legislation in 2007 the Commission adopted
individual rules on pool bonding, mitigation retrofits and carbon monoxide
detectors. He then stated requirements
of which had subsequently been adopted to the 2007 edition of the Florida
Building Code. He further stated the
rules would have to be repealed since the requirements were now in the
Code.
He
then requested a motion to initiate rulemaking to repeal Rule 9B-3.047(7),
electrical bonding of pool decks; Rule 9B-3.047(5), wind mitigation retrofits;
Rule 9B-3.047(2), carbon monoxide detectors and to conduct rule-making
workshops at the February 2009 Commission meeting.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the motion as stated. Commissioner Carlton entered a
second to the motion. Vote to approve
the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Mr. Richmond stated a Rule Challenge had been received on
the Building Code on the subject of the interior designers’ issue, which had
been debated at some length and was scheduled on the agenda again during the
Code adoption hearing. He then stated he
wanted to defer all discussion of the challenge until the hearing. He further stated at that time the Commission
would discuss potential approaches for resolving
Binding Interpretations:
Declaratory Statements:
Second
Hearings:
DCA08-DEC-168 by Leonard
Terry, President, Omnicrete
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carlton moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-193 by Richard Mihalich
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carlton moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Franco entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC- 201 by Michael Schultz,
P.E., Buckeye
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Gross moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-204 by Robert Jamieson, Underwriters
Laboratories
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files. He stated the
minutes reflected the Commission approved the TAC recommendation, which
included a statement that appears in the middle of page 3, in conclusion 3 of
the draft order that the petitioner was responsible to validate both that the
standard and the certificate complies with the test standard in the Code and
complies with the full structural scope of the Code. He then stated the petitioner has indicated
that the Commission amended its action to eliminate the second statement, but
it was still in the draft on the table.
He further stated if the petitioner was correct the second statement
needed to be stricken.
Mr.
Blair stated his report did indicate that the Commission did amend its action.
Mr.
Richmond stated the report did not reflect the substance.
John Wiggins, Underwriters Laboratories
Mr.
Wiggins stated at the last Commission meeting there was a unanimous vote to put
a “.” after the word code and delete “the full structural scope of the code.” He then stated Underwriters Laboratories
tests to standards not codes, which was his testimony at that point. He further stated the Commission did vote to
eliminate that part, but it was not reflected in the minute, which had been
corrected earlier in the December meeting.
Mr.
Richmond stated if the amendment was to be integrated into the draft a motion
would be needed that reflected the amendment by placing the “.” after code and
striking “as complies with the full structural scope of the code.”
Commissioner
Gross moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-205 by Neil Mellick, City of
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files. He asked the Commission
to review conclusion #5 as well. He then
stated the petitioner had asked and there was a TAC recommendation to the
extent that manufacturers were responsible for designing rooftop mechanical
equipment for wind resistance although the Commission was authorized to conclude
that the equipment must be designed without the authority to assign that
responsibility to anyone in particular.
He stated paragraph 5 does reflect it is required and may envision that
manufacturers would design it that way, but the Commission cannot, as a matter
of law, say that it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to design that
equipment.
Chairman
Rodriguez asked what was needed.
Mr.
Richmond stated a motion was needed to approve the draft with any potential
modifications the Commission may desire if there was no public comment.
Commissioner
Palacios stated (inaudible - possibly too far from
microphone)
Chairman
Rodriguez asked what Commissioner Palacios’ suggestion would be.
Commissioner
Palacios stated (inaudible)
Mr.
Richmond stated the record of this declaratory statement was somewhat
long. He explained it came up when the
requirement was first imposed through the International Code Council. He stated it was not something
Commissioner
Palacios asked (inaudible)
Mr. Richmond stated it does present a difficulty. He then stated the discussion at the TAC was
that a structure could be required to be built around it unless it could be
demonstrated to comply. He restated this
was not something industry has not had ample opportunity to comply with and if
they have chosen not to then the risk would have to be evaluated. He stated he believed the Commission would be
prevented from amending the Code to limit the application of the hurricane
related requirement in
Ron Regeiro, City of
Mr.
Regueiro stated this had been brought before the Commission because they became
aware of this issue after the cooling tower declaratory statements were
issued. He stated the language used to
give the declaratory statement regarding the cooling towers was very broad in
range. He continued by stating even
though the request was specific to cooling towers the language used was
applicable to all mechanical appliances.
He further stated after they began applying the requirement the hope
was, by bringing it to the attention of everyone, the appliance manufacturers
would be forced to address the issue, which is a clear code requirement and has
been in the code since 2001. He then stated
he had been dealing with appliance manufacturers since he began bringing the issue
up within his department and basically the response has been “We’re not going
to jump through all of these hoops just to satisfy the city of West Palm
Beach. He then stated none had disagreed
with the wording of the code or the fact it is in fact a requirement. He concluded by stating he believed the
problem to be the lack of uniform enforcement of the requirements and if it begins
to hit the industry in the pocketbook they would do what was necessary to
address the code requirement.
Audio missing…lost comments:
Commissioner Franco
Commissioner Gonzalez
Chairman Rodriguez
Commissioner
Franco asked for clarification as to whether Commissioner Gonzalez’s comments
meant the equipment itself is outside the building, it must comply with NOA.
Chairman
Rodriguez clarified Commissioner Palacios’ comments by stating they are all
over the place and they do not meet the standard.
Commissioner
Palacios stated he had a problem currently with a municipal building…40 ton units on the roof…(still only partially audible)
Commissioner
Hamrick stated he was a little confused because since 1996 Florida schools have
been required to build enhanced hurricane protection areas in which everything
on the roof is required to meet the wind load requirements including the air
conditioning systems. He further stated
the units could be hardened or something could be built around them, as the
declaratory statement states.
Mr.
Blair stated for clarification that the Commission was interpreting the
existing code. He further stated if the Commission did not like the code and
amendment would be necessary to change it.
He then stated the Commission was only to correctly interpret what the
code states.
Mr.
Regueiro stated since the issuance of the declaratory statements regarding the
cooling towers, his department had been enforcing it as a code requirement in
its jurisdiction. He then stated it had
caused a lot of consternation and he and received phone calls from every major
appliance manufacturer imaginable trying to get what his department’s take on
it was i.e. what it was looking for. He
further stated there was not a lot of guidance in particular on how the
manufacturers should comply with the requirement. He then stated it was not subject to the
product approval requirements because it was not listed under 9B-72 as a
structural component because it was defined as such. He stated his department had basically given
some options on how the manufacturers could demonstrate compliance for the
appliances themselves outside of even building a structure around it. He further stated the manufacturers were told
they could either test the appliance and show it would withstand the
anticipated wind pressures based on the exposure category and the location of
the installation or a structural analysis, a rational analysis, of the
construction of the appliance could be done and if the structural engineer
would do calculations and certify the appliance would withstand the anticipated
wind pressures. He stated so far most of
the appliance manufacturers have taken that approach within the city of
Jamie Gascon,
Mr.
Gascon stated his comments were along the same lines as Mr. Regueiro.
Chairman
Rodriguez asked if getting a rational analysis from an engineer was how it was
working in
Mr.
Gascon stated when the system as a unit had not been approved.
Commissioner
Kidwell moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion.
Vote to approve the resulted in 22 in favor, 1 opposed (Palacios). Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-208 by Luke Ismert of Schier
Products
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-209
by Tom Hardiman of the Modular Building Institute
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the committee
recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-216 by Vincent Vaulman, CCE,
Regional Manager, Madsen, Kneppers & Associates, Inc.
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-236 by W. Vincent of
Construction Specialties, Inc.
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-237 by W. Vincent of
Construction Specialties, Inc.
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-238 by W. Vincent of
Construction Specialties, Inc.
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-239 by W. Vincent of
Construction Specialties, Inc.
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-257 by Chris
Birchfield of No-Burn Se, Inc.
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-258 by David E. Sands of
Bamboo Technologies
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files. He then highlighted that what is basically conclude by
the order was the bamboo material identified by the petitioner really are
materials as opposed to products as defined within the rule so state approval
by 9B-72 is not applicable.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-268 by Sandra Gump of Fomo
Products, Inc.
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-275 by Ken Norton of Power
Design, Inc.
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
First Hearings:
DCA08-DEC-194 by Dan Arlington, St.
Johns County Building Department Addendum
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Kari Hebrank,
Ms.
Hebrank stated they had originally worked with Dr. Stone and Eric Stafford,
working on behalf of IBHS, on the issue of Exposure C initially on Exposure C
and what that means when near an inland body of water. She then stated it was their understanding
that the 20% applied to the uplift load just on the roof sheathing,
roof-to-wall connections, and not on the entire foundation. She further stated if the declaratory statement
stayed as is the cost of housing would increase significantly. She stated it goes counter to what the
discussions were and what had been worked out.
She continued by stating in thinking they would be moving to some parts
of the state even to Exposure category D.
She then asked for the Commission’s support to reverse the declaratory
statement and put back what was initially intended. She stated the TAC struggled with it going
between yes and no answers. She asked
the Commission to keep in mind the original 20% on the roof-to-wall connections
and the roof sheathing would be an additional expense on the housing cost.
Jack
Mr.
Glenn stated he is a member of the Structural TAC and was on the side voting
against the recommendation which was 6-4.
He then stated same recollection as Ms. Hebrank on the discussions that
occurred on the issue of how to recraft the definition of Exposure C, which had
been a contention since the first code, as to how the exposure categories were
classified. He further stated there was
discussion of component-??-load increases and
uplift load increases. He continued by
stating the discussion at the time of the code adoption was their main concern
of increasing the uplift load on the material of the roof itself. He stated it was not intended to increase the
entire main wind force resisting system thus creating load paths to ground. He
concluded by stating his recollection was the 20% was only to be applied to the
roof sheathing and the roof-to-wall connection and not increase the design
loads on the trusses, wall or foundation.
C.W. Mc Comber, APA
Mr.
Mc Comber stated he was also a member of the Structural TAC. He then stated his recollection was this was
originally voted on about 1 ½ years ago and was the same recollection of Mr.
Glenn and the opinion of Ms. Hebrank. He further stated the recollection was a
compromise instead of having Exposure D, Exposure C would be accepted with the
two provisions of the roof-to-wall connection 20% increase and the roof
sheathing uplift attachment 20% increase, not the entire load path.
Chairman
Rodriguez asked Do Kim, who had chaired the TAC, to offer some guidance from
the TAC.
Do Kim, TAC chairman
Mr.
Kim stated the code change was submitted by Eric Stafford of IBHS during the
2007Florida Building Code update cycle.
He then stated when the declaratory statement initially came forward two
meetings ago Eric Stafford and Dr. Stone were present. He continued by stating the language was left
somewhat up to interpretation. He
further stated since both the proponent and the stakeholder were present who
really worked on the issue. He further
stated the testimony previously given is accurate. He explained he had asked Eric Stafford and
Dr. Stone their intent for the code change.
He stated their answer was for the intent to be reflected accurately in
the declaratory statement. He concluded
by stating the TAC went by what the proponents intended their code change to
mean.
Mr.
Madani stated while the language was consistent with public comment opinion on
the subject, there was a change to the modification at the end which has
confused the subject. He then stated the
text was reviewed by the committee at the last meeting and there was a debate
regarding which way to go. He stated if
there was still more discussion needed maybe it needs more work.
Commissioner
Stone stated he was the proponent of the change approved for the
modification. He then stated Exposure D
was inserted into
Chairman
Rodriguez asked Commissioner Stone if he wanted to put his suggestion in the
form of a motion.
Commissioner
Stone moved approval to send the declaratory statement back to the TAC. Commissioner Hamrick entered a second to the
motion.
Mr.
Glenn stated he wanted to point out one other issue: the declaratory statement
had received a 6-4 vote. He then stated
if it had been discussed as a code modification it would have required
75%. He further stated it was obvious
there was some confusion, even with the TAC members, enough confusion that 75%
could not be reached for the modification, but 60% was reached for the
declaratory statement. He encouraged the
Commission to support Commissioner Stone’s motion.
Vote
to approve the motion was unanimous.
Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-207 by Anthony Apfelbeck,
Fire Marshal/Building Official, City of
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Jack
Mr.
Glenn stated the Commission would be receiving a report from its Carbon
Monoxide Workgroup with recommendations for some legislative action. He then stated there was a great deal of
discussion regarding what constitutes new construction or existing
construction, at what level do the detectors have to be installed, and at what
point they have to be hardwired. He
further stated he would recommend deferral of the declaratory statement pending
resolution and clarification by the Legislature of their intent. He continued by stating a letter had been
presented to the workgroup from the sponsor of the bill. He stated his intent was not necessarily
Legislative intent, but his intentions were certainly clear by that letter,
which indicated he did not mean for these provisions to be applied to anything
but new construction; not additions or alterations, which are included in the
rule in the form of level 3. He stated he believed it would benefit the
Commission to not take an action on this declaratory statement until the
Legislature has been asked for clarification on its intent as the applicability
of carbon monoxide detectors, rather than come out with a position at this
point which the representative will probably clarify on his own since he wrote
the letter. He stated it could possibly
save some future embarrassment for the Commission over the issue. He stated since the representative’s intention
was written he believed he would clarify it with a bill in the upcoming year,
especially if it is asked for in the Commission’s Legislative Report. He then stated the declaratory statement was
one of general purpose with no project identified; therefore there should be no
impact to a project which is ongoing. He
further stated the second reading would be in February subject to some form of
challenge, he would assume. He stated
the Legislature would be taking action on it almost immediately following the
meeting in February, therefore no need to rush.
He restated his recommendation to delay action and wait for
clarification the Commission was asking for from the Legislature.
Jeff Householder, Natural Gas Propane Industries
Mr.
Householder stated he was in agreement with Mr. Glenn. He continued by stating if the Commission
decided to move forward with the declaratory statement he would propose a
series of modifications to the language which would remove the level 3
alterations and any application of the standard to an existing building until
such time as the Legislature has the opportunity to review it and clarify its
intent. He then stated the Natural Gas
and Propane Industries are not opposed to an expansion of CO alarm
applications. He further stated if the
Legislature moves in that direction the industry would be happy to support
that. He concluded by stating at this
point they do not believe at this point the Commission has specific authority
to move into the existing building arena.
Fred Dudley, representing himself
Mr.
Dudley stated he was not here to address the merits of the issues as that is
not his area of expertise. He continued
by stating he had filed a number of declaratory statements, some with the
Commission. He stated his concern was
any declaratory statement asking for a statement of general applicability. He then stated the declaratory statement does
not contain a particular set of facts affecting to only the petitioner. He further stated if the Commission answers
the declaratory statement a code interpretation would be made, in his
opinion. He stated the Commission was
not going through the formal interpretation process, which the petitioner could
do if they chose to. He then stated if the
Commission feels the areas need clarification it has specific rule-making
authority in the statute 553.885(2). He
concluded by stating the Commission can make changes to the existing rule
anyway it sees fit. He encouraged the
Commission to look at the issues and go that route. He stated this was the
wrong way to go and it does provide fair notice to people who are potentially
adversely impacted by this and the statement would be one of general
applicability which is essentially a non-rule policy.
Commissioner
Franco asked if the declaratory statements refer to specific cases.
Mr.
Richmond stated the requirement was for interpretation of specific facts and
circumstances which should be provided in the petition. He then stated in this case, the petitioner
did set out some particulars and circumstances.
He continued by stating in this particular case there were special circumstance
in that a building official, who is bound by his license to enforce the
provisions of the building code and the rule, was asking how he should enforce
the code. He concluded by stating the
Commission had not faced a potential challenge that it was inappropriate
rule-making. He stated he did not see
the declaratory statement as one of general applicability beyond stating what
the rule means what it says.
Commissioner
Stone moved approval to table the declaratory statement, recommending Mr. Richmond
investigate and give his legal opinion on general applicability and he would also
like to hear input from the author of the Legislation. Commissioner Hamrick entered a second to the
motion.
Mr.
Richmond stated the intent of the sponsor of one of the house bills that
affected this was not reflective of Legislative intent, anymore than one
commissioner’s belief or interpretation would be the belief or interpretation
of the Commissions.
Commissioner
Stone stated he would like to just hear a legal opinion from Mr. Richmond.
Mr.
Blair asked for clarification the motion was to table the declaratory statement
until the next meeting pending legal’s determination it was properly before the
Commission.
Commissioner
Stone responded yes.
Commissioner
Grippa asked… (inaudible)
Mr.
Blair responded he could table the motion until the next meeting as it would be
an appropriate action.
Chairman
Rodriguez stated the motion was a deferral for legal clarification.
Vote
to approve the motion to defer was unanimous.
Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-289 by Glen Lathers,
Hillsborough County Public Schools
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-239 by W. Vincent of
Construction Specialists, Inc.
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files. He then stated if
the question is overbroad and not described by parameters, the Commission
should not go to the second question.
Commissioner
Vann moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Gross entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-329 by Brad Weatherholtz,
FRSA, Inc.
Withdrawn
by applicant.
DCA08-DEC-330 by Brad Weatherholtz,
FRSA, Inc.
Withdrawn
by applicant.
DCA08-DEC-331 by Brad Weatherholtz,
FRSA, Inc.
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory statement
and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each Commissioner’s
files.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-337 by Roger Sanders, Nova
Engineering and Environmental, LLC.
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Bill Dunbaugh, original workgroup member
Mr.
Dunbaugh stated in short the question was asking if private providers can
provide their services on repairs. He
continued by stating in the original workgroup repairs were never discussed
because it was the general intent it was not included. He then stated the workgroup had worked very
hard and there was a lot of give and take on both sides to get down to what was
included, which were alterations, renovations and additions, but not repairs.
He further stated if the Commission agreed with the TACs recommendation it
would be far exceeding the intent of the original workgroup.
Commissioner
Browdy stated it appeared the answer was somewhat discretionary, “The private providers may include
inspections required for alterations.” He then stated it seemed to him the
implication was the building official
may use the private provider statute at his discretion from a code jurisdiction
point of view. He further stated he was
not sure if that was the TACs intent to give that discretion to the building
official, but he would not have any objection giving it to them. He continued by stating the discretion of the
building official, to a great extent, is what originally motivated the usage of
the private provider statute.
Mr.
Richmond stated that was not included in the declaratory statement. He then stated it may have been a portion of
the recommendation from the workgroup that the discretion rests with the
building official, but it has subsequently been amended by the Legislature. He further stated the ability to utilize
private providers is squarely placed within the discretion of the contractor or
fee owner of the property, which is expressly stated throughout the statutory
scheme.
Mr.
Blair stated the TAC discussed that in great detail and decided the contractors
should have the ability to do that as long as the fee owner was notified by
law.
Roger Sanders, NOVA Engineering, Building Official
and Code Consultant
Mr. Sanders stated his company was approached by various
clients which requested additional services.
He explained not all local jurisdictions provide Saturday or Sunday
inspections or after-hours inspections, though some do. He then stated as a requirement in the permit
that contractors have to get a final inspection. He continued by stating this puts them in
between the owners of the structures aren’t there when the local jurisdiction
wants to do a final inspection without taking an entire day off from work, if
both people have to work. He stated many
jurisdictions were offering services such as when they were providing 3 gallon
flush toilets, because many would go out at night and do the inspections
because it was the only time it could be done.
He concluded by stating NOVA Engineering was offering the same type of
services and just wants the clarification that it is not precluded by
statute. He stated if those services are
not offered by the local jurisdiction and they are not impinged upon by a local
jurisdiction preventing the private provider from providing those services at
the owner’s behest and at the contractor’s request.
Commissioner Shock stated there was a section in the private
provider law that allows the building official discretion to require both plan
review and inspections on any particular permit. He then stated he believed if
it were a stand-alone permit they may have the ability to do that, but if it
was an associated permit to a building permit then there would still be the issue
of the building official having to make that call, whether the jurisdiction
would allow it to be broken up individually or require the whole thing to be
done together.
Chairman
Rodriguez asked Mr. Shock if he supported the declaratory statement.
Commissioner
Shock answered yes, provided it refers only to stand-alone permits.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion.
Commissioner
Browdy asked if there should be an amendment to the statement qualifying it
only for stand-alone permits or voting on it as is.
Commissioner
Shock stated he would like the motion to be for stand-alone permits.
Commissioner
Kidwell asked Commissioner Shock for clarification of what was meant by a
stand-alone permit.
Commissioner
Shock stated a permit not associated with a building permit. He explained for a new house there would be
associated electrical, associated mechanical permits and a stand-alone permit
would be for the change out of something such as a new air conditioner.
Mr.
Blair stated for example a mechanical contractor pulls a permit to change out
an air conditioner on an existing house.
Mr.
Richmond stated he believed this to be fully in compliance with the petitioners
intent but if there was a larger project such as a renovation which included an
air conditioner change out, if the contractor or property owner attempted to
use a private provider just for the air conditioning alone a building official
could say no. He further stated that
discretion is fully provided for in the statute. He stated the official could say all or
nothing, but if the entire scope of the permit was to be covered by the private
provider services he believed it would be within the four corners of the
statute.
Vote
to approve the motion resulted in 22 in favor, 1 opposed (Tolbert). Motion carried.
DCA08-DEC-339 by Jose Sanchez,
Fenestration Testing Laboratory, Inc.
Mr.
Richmond explained the issues presented in the petition for declaratory
statement and the committee’s recommendations as they appeared in each
Commissioner’s files.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Electrical TAC
Commissioner
Carson presented the report of the Electrical TAC. (See Electrical
TAC Minutes December 9, 2008).
Commissioner
Kidwell moved approval to accept the report.
Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Fire TAC
Commissioner Goodloe presented the report of the Energy
TAC. (See Fire TAC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2008).
Commissioner Bahadori moved approval to accept the
report. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Mechanical TAC
Mr. Blair presented the report of the Mechanical
TAC. (See Mechanical TAC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2008).
Commissioner Kidwell moved approval to accept the report.
Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Roofing TAC
Commissioner
Schulte presented the report of the Roofing TAC. (See Roofing
TAC Meeting Minutes December 9, 2008).
Actions:
Commissioner
Schulte moved approval for the Commission to establish a Green Roof Workgroup
to discuss guidelines regarding standards, wind loads and product approvals
associated with the growing interest in green roofs. Commissioner Vann entered a second to the
motion.
Mr. Dixon stated green roofs are an energy issue and
there is an Energy Workgroup. He asked
if it was appropriate to put the issue together with the other issues put
together under the Energy Workgroup with proper representation.
Commissioner Schulte stated it was obviously related to
energy, but the more it was discussed the more roofing issues came up such as
warranties, the manufacturer underneath the products, uplifts, or whether
product approvals were required for the systems. He then stated there was a lot of roofing
technical issues and the concern was those may get lost in the Energy Code.
Mr. Dixon stated whichever group the issue is put with
would have adequate representation from all parties. He then stated it could be
placed as a separate workgroup. He
explained the difficulty begins to be how many more meetings could be worked in
this year.
Commissioner Schulte stated he understood, but there were
so many unanswered questions at the TAC meeting it was obvious it needed to be
reviewed. He then stated whichever way
it was done the TAC just wanted to make sure a group was put together.
Chairman Rodriguez asked if it could be done within the
Roofing TAC.
Commissioner
Schulte stated he thought it could be done within the TAC, but with more
representation.
Chairman Rodriguez stated Mr. Dixon would work it into
the workplan. He then stated he believed it was a good idea, because although
the green roof idea had become very popular it was also fraught with problems, particularly
with
Commissioner Stone stated ASTM had recently formed a new
committee on sustainability. He then
stated there was a task group that just developed or was developing a standard
and he would provide that for the workgroup.
Vote to approve the motion to form a green roof workgroup
was unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner Vann moved approval to accept the report.
Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Structural TAC
Mr.
Blair presented the report of the Structural TAC. (See Structural
TAC Meeting Minutes December 8, 2008).
Mr. Blair stated the TAC developed a recommendation to
the Commission to expand glitch code criteria to include recognizing
equivalency of standards within the code, such as design standards, which would
be a Legislative change.
Commissioner Carson moved approval to accept the report.
Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Education POC
Chairman
Browdy presented the report of the Education POC. (See Education
POC Meeting Minutes December 8, 2008).
Actions:
Commissioner
Browdy moved approval of the committee recommendation to initiate rulemaking
for Rule 9B-70.002 by scheduling a rule development workshop at the February
Commission meeting to adopt the POC approved changes. Commissioner Carson entered a second to
the motion. Vote to approve the motion
was unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner
Browdy presented the following 7 courses for approval:
325.0,
Commissioner
Vann moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
328.0,
Commissioner
Vann moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
329.0,
Commissioner
Gonzalez moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
330.0,
Commissioner
Gonzalez moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
331.0,
Commissioner
Gonzalez moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
332.0,
Commissioner
Gonzalez moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Stone? entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
333.0, Advanced
Commissioner
Gonzalez moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
335.0,
Advanced 2007 FBC Significant Code Changes, (BCIC LLC)
Commissioner
Gonzalez moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Administratively
approved courses:
322.0
Internet-Advanced FBC Course-Significant Changes to 2007 FBC, Building and
the 2007 FBC Residential
313.1 2007 FBC Significant Code Changes
334.0 Advanced 2007 FBC Significant Code Changes
Commissioner
Gonzalez moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner
Gonzalez moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Kidwell entered a
second to the motion. Vote to approve
the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Product Approval/Prototype
Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC
Commissioner Carson presented the report of the Product
Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC. (See Product
Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC Meeting Minutes
December 8, 2009.)
Actions:
Commissioner Carson stated the POC recommended the
Commission support the Department’s initiatives to request Legislative
authority for the following:
1.
Contract the
manufactured building administrator’s responsibility to a third party.
2.
Manufacturers
pay the vendor directly for plans review and inspection services via the BCIS.
3.
Department will
establish plans review and inspection fees.
4.
The POC will
retain oversight over the program.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner
Carson stated the POC recommended:
(a) IAPMO be
included in the law as an approved evaluation entity.
(b) Change the
law 553.842 Product Evaluation and
Approval to read as follows:
(a) Evaluation
entities that meet the criteria for approval adopted by the commission by rule.
The commission shall specifically approve the, the International Association
of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials Evaluation Service, the International
Code Council Evaluation Services, the Miami-Dade County Building Code
Compliance Office Product Control and National Evaluation Service, the
international Conference of Building Officials Evaluation Services, the
Building Officials and Code Administrators International Evaluation Services,
the Southern Building Code Congress International Evaluation Services.
Architects and engineers licensed in this state are also approved to conduct
product evaluations as provided in subsection (5).
Commissioner Carson moved approval of the committee
recommendation. Commissioner Schulte
entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner Carson stated the POC recommended the Commission
dismiss the complaint due to lack of substantive material necessary to conduct
an investigation regarding FL5343 by Michael J. Wolfe of Advanced Shelter
Solutions.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Commissioner Carson stated the committee recommended the
Commission dismiss the complaint to FL7350 and FL9328 by Steve Sincere, PE. due
to the fact the Florida Board of Engineers voted to dismiss the case.
Commissioner
Carson stated Ted Berman, Product Approval Administrator, informed the
committee of the findings of his investigation of FL8843. He then stated based on those findings the
issue in question was outside the scope of the Rule 9B-72 and lacked
substantive material evidence. He stated
the POC recommended the Commission dismiss the investigation.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the
motion.
Commissioner
Vann asked if it was the Colleen Simon case.
Commissioner
Carson stated it was.
Vote
to approve the motion was unanimous.
Motion carried.
Commissioner Kidwell moved approval to accept the report.
Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Bedroom Definition Workgroup
Mr.
Blair presented the report of the Bedroom Definition Workgroup. (See Universal
Bedroom Definition Workgroup, Meeting II, October 15, 2008.)
Commissioner
Browdy commented the group liked the concept involved, but there was some
discussion regarding the sizes being used to qualify what a room was , 70
square feet, for example, was inappropriate sizing. He explained there were some closets that are
70 square feet. He stated that would be
reevaluated, but conceptually the group came to a consensus that this was a new
and more appropriate way to evaluate the sizing of septic tanks.
Mr.
Blair stated the proposal would next be submitted the Technical Review and Advisory
Panel and the Department of Health would evaluate the 50 gallon per room and
the 70 square foot criteria, as well, to ensure they are the best numbers.
Chairman
Rodriguez asked if any Commission action were necessary.
Commissioner
Gonzalez moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Kidwell entered a
second to the motion. Vote to approve
the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
CO Detector Workgroup
Mr.
Blair presented the report of the CO Detector Workgroup. (See CO
Detector Workgroup Meeting Minutes December 8, 2008.)
Mr.
Blair stated the workgroup unanimously recommended the Commission adopt the following
recommendations to the 2009 Florida Legislature regarding CO Detectors:
1.
Clarify the
responsibilities of the Division of State Fire Marshal (DSFM) and the
Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) under Chapter 509.211
F.S.
2.
Clarify the
scope of what was intended by the term: “new construction”.
3.
Provide
legislative authority for the Commission to review and determine the
appropriate location(s) for CO detectors.
4.
Clarify that the
requirement applies to all fuel sources that emit carbon monoxide and not only
fossil fuels.
Commissioner
Goodloe moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell
entered a second to the motion.
Commissioner
Browdy asked if workgroup was stating all single family homes will now have to
have a CO detector.
Mr.
Blair answered no. He further stated the
workgroup was seeking clarification from the Legislature and authority to
evaluate this further.
Commissioner
Browdy stated it was confusing because the workgroup was recommending locations
for the CO detectors but not recommending the CO detectors.
Mr.
Blair stated the workgroup was seeking Legislative authority to determine what
the appropriate locations would be for the CO detectors.
Chairman
Rodriguez stated he understood Commissioner Browdy’s point because when
permission was being asked for the location it was because the intention would
be to locate them.
Mr.
Dixon offered clarification stating what was left out of the CO Workgroup
report was what the current law uses as a trigger for the requirement of CO
detectors, i.e. a fuel burning source that would create CO. He then stated the presence of an enclosed
garage in a single family home also triggers CO detectors.
Commissioner
Browdy asked if there was a requirement for them provided there is some type of
fossil fuel in the home.
Mr.
Dixon stated the current wording indicates fossil fuel but the workgroup was
recommending the law be changed to include other fuels which when burned would
create CO.
Commissioner
Browdy stated he thought before the Commission approved the recommendations it
should understand all of the caveats that go with it. He then asked if the recommendations listed
were the only current recommendations.
Mr.
Blair answered yes. He then stated once
the workgroup receives authority it would meet again and work on all of the
different issues coming up. He further
stated it was an effort to seek some clarification so the workgroup would know
clearly what was intended by the Legislature then the Commission could work to
clarify the rule to be consistent with that as well as determine if there were
other cases where CO should be determined and what might be.
Commissioner
Browdy stated he believed it inappropriate to make a recommendation to change
the recommendation of the workgroup. He
then stated he would like to see some clarification of the wording to clearly
understand it was predicated on existing requirements under the rule, if that
is possible, if that was the intent of the workgroup.
Jack
Mr.
Glenn stated he was in attendance at the workgroup meeting. He then stated he believed the location issue
was raised by Commissioner Bassett who had made a point of the fact a CO
detector located 10 feet outside of the sleeping room may not be
sufficient. He further stated one case
Commissioner Bassett had cited was a hotel in which the boiler room was actually
next to a sleeping room and CO seeped through the wall and the detector outside
the room would not have made any difference.
He continued it was the location of the detector not the occupancy. He
stated the occupancy location was already in law as to what the applicability
is for occupancy. He gave an example of
some discussion of recommending the adoption of NFPA-720, a nationally
recognized standard. He further stated the
standard includes how and where the detectors should be physically located within
the facility, which was the location the recommendation was addressing.
Mr.
Blair stated the review of the statute by the workgroup and some of the issues
brought forward made it clear there were some enforcement issues that need to
be resolved. He then stated that issue
was addressed by recommendation one, which is between the State Fire Marshall
and DBPR. He continued by stating the second
issue was the word “new construction”
and the interpretation of “new
construction” triggers the law and however it is interpreted has a vast
consequence; which was why the workgroup wanted clarification if it referred to
additions, alterations or new buildings.
He stated the third issue was the Commission does not currently have the
authority to look at all options and make the decision regarding possible
locations of the detectors. He then
stated the fourth issue was the law says fossil fuels, but there were clearly
other sources of fuel types which were not classified as fossil fuels, but emit
CO when burned; therefore clarification was needed regarding whatever else
could be used.
Mr.
Blair asked Commissioner Browdy if he had clarified the issues for him.
Commissioner
Browdy answered yes, he had.
Vote
to approve the motion was unanimous.
Motion carried.
Hurricane Research Advisory Committee
Mr.
Dixon presented the report of the Hurricane Advisory Committee. (See Hurricane Advisory Committee Meeting
Minutes, December 8, 2008.)
Commissioner
Carson moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Kidwell entered a
second to the motion. Vote to approve
the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Soffit Work Group
Mr.
Blair presented the report of the Soffit Work Group. (See
Soffit Systems Workgroup, Meeting II, November 12, 2008.)
Commissioner
Browdy moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Carson entered a
second to the motion. Vote to approve
the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
Chairman
Rodriguez stated copies of the Florida Building Code were available for the new
commissioners.
Commissioner
Carson asked if the Code was available on CD as well.
Mr.
Dixon stated if any existing commissioners would like the CD, please see staff.
RECESS
Chairman
Rodriguez called for the Commission to recess at 6:08 p.m.
The meeting of
the Florida Building Commission was called to order by Chairman Raul Rodriguez at 8:27 a.m. on Wednesday, December 10,
2008 at the Embassy Suites Hotel,
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Kenneth
L. Gregory
Raul L. Rodriguez, AIA, Chairman Joseph “Ed” Carson
Richard
Browdy, Vice-Chairman
Raphael R. Palacios
Jeff
Gross Paul D. Kidwell
Angel
Franco Tim
Tolbert
Jeff
Stone Matthew
James
Goodloe Craig
Parrino, Adjunct Member
James
K. Shock
Herminio
Gonzalez
Robert
G. Boyer COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
Hamid
Bahador William Norkunas
Drew
W. Smith Dale
Greiner
Randall
J. Vann Doug Murdock, Adjunct Member
Chris
Schulte
Mark
Turner
Randall
J. Vann OTHERS PRESENT:
Scott
Mollan
Rick Dixon, FBC Executive
Director
Jon
Hamrick
Ila Jones, DCA Prog.
Administrator
Anthony
M. Grippa Jim
Jeff Blair,
FCRC
Mo Madani, Technical. Svcs. Manager
WELCOME
Chairman Rodriguez welcomed Commissioners, staff, and
members of the public to day two of the December 2008 plenary session of the
Florida Building Commission. He stated the Commission would focus on December’s
substantive issues including current rule development initiatives including
adoption of Glitch Amendments, and adoption of issues for inclusion in the
Commission’s Report to the 2009 Legislature. He then stated there were blue Public Meeting Evaluation Forms were provided at
the speakers’ table for those who wish to provide written feedback to the
Commission. He further stated Completed
Comment Forms would be included in Facilitator’s Summary reports.
Mr.
Dixon stated Commissioners who had been with the Commission for a long time
know Maxine Moore, recently retired, gave Commissioners warning when the
cut-off date was going to expire for the early registration at the meeting
location hotels. He then stated Ms. Moore would no longer be with the
Commission and the position had not been filled to date. He directed the
Commissioners to the inside of the agenda packet where there was an updated meeting
schedule with hotel location information and the cutoff dates for
registration. He further stated the
staff recommendation for the commissioners would be to reserve your room for
the next Commission meeting when you get home from the one just held.
Commissioner
Gross asked if the rate could be included with the meeting location information
because sometimes hotel employees were not aware of the rate or could not find
the Building Commission.
Mr.
REPORT ON ACCESSIBILITY DESIGN
CHARETTE FOR HOTEL SLEEPING ROOM RENOVATIONS
Chairman Rodriguez thanked all of the participants who
worked on the hotel design charette. He
stated the individuals who work in the hotel industry came from all parts of
the
Commissioner Browdy explained a charette is an intense
design competition to solve an architectural problem within a limited amount of
time. He further explained the subject
task of the hotel charette was a redesign and renovation of four different existing
hotel suites into four finished hotel suites that improved the overall living
space, increased accessibility and approached compliance with the Florida
Accessibility Code for building construction.
He stated to accomplish the task staff worked off and on for over
eighteen months to assemble the most talented individual professionals who
would agree to participate at their own expense and to give their intellectual
work product to the citizens of the state of
Commissioner
Browdy then stated the participants were divided into four teams and each team
leader was asked to select one of four designs at random for their individual
team’s task. He explained each team had
individuals from different disciplines enabling each team to be well suited for
the design task. The teams consisted of
23 participants from throughout the
Commissioner Gross presented a slide presentation of the Accessibility
Design Charette, offering comments and explanations during the presentation. He stated the amount of people there at the
level held was amazing and everyone worked together very well and the product
was very good. He then stated there so
many people to thank such Commissioner Browdy for narrating and keeping the
teams on task, Ila Jones and Mo Madani for providing the staff and the resources
needed, Rick Dixon for dealing with some difficult phone calls over some
controversy at the end of the planning, Mary Katherine Smith for calling
everyone to make sure they were showing up and special thanks to Bruce Ketchum
for putting the program and the problems together.
Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioners Browdy and
Gross, Mary Katherine Smith and everyone involved who participated in the
charette.
RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-70,
EDUCATION
Chairman
Rodriguez stated at the September 15, 2008 Teleconference meeting the
Commission voted to initiate rule development for Rule 9B-70, to develop
amendments for on-line forms for the Education Program; specifically the
accreditor, course, and training program on-line application forms. He then
stated at the October meeting the Commission conducted a rule development
workshop adopting the Education POC’s recommendations, and voting to publish a
notice of change, integrating and noticing the approved changes, and conducting
a rule adoption hearing at the December 2008 meeting. He further stated the
December provided an additional opportunity for public comment before the
Commission votes to proceed with rule adoption by filing the rule.
Mr.
Richmond opened the rule adoption hearing.
He then stated at the last meeting the POC recommended a series of
changes which were all approved by the Commission. He then stated unfortunately all of the
changes did not fit within the scope of the notice for that proceeding. He continued by stating he had the
opportunity to discuss that with Commissioner Browdy, the POC chair, and the
administrator. He then stated the
options were to have an additional workshop at the December meeting to include
all of those changes limited to the scope or limit the scope of the December
hearing to just the elements related to the forms. He further stated the decision was to move
forward with rule-making, have the hearing, adopt the changes relative to the
forms and then adopt the changes through another additional proceeding to be
conducted at a later date. He concluded
by stating the discussion at the December hearing should be limited strictly to
the changes to the online forms and the associated text within the rule.
No
public comment.
Mr.
Richmond closed the rule adoption hearing.
Commissioner
Browdy moved approval to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9B-70, Education
by filing the rule for adoption with the Secretary of State. Commissioner
Kidwell entered a second to the motion.
Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE
9B-3.047,
Chairman
Rodriguez stated the Commission voted unanimously
during a June 9, 2008 teleconference meeting to make the effective date of the
2007 Florida Building Code and Florida Energy Code December 31, 2008. He then stated in addition, the Glitch
amendment deadline was extended to July 15, 2008, with a rule development
workshop conducted at the October 2008 meeting. He continued by stating the
October workshop was an opportunity for members of the public to provide input
to the Commission prior to Commission action on the proposed Glitch amendments.
He stated at the October Rule Development Workshop the Commission reviewed the
TAC’s comments/recommendations on proposed Glitch Amendments to the 2007
Florida Building Code, and following extensive public comment voted unanimously
to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9B-3.047, Florida Building Code, Glitch
Amendments, integrating and noticing the approved amendments; and, authorizing
DCA staff to make any editorial fixes required to implement the Commission’s
substantive decisions on Glitch Code amendments (i.e., formatting, section
number correlations and removal of text such as seismic and snow load language,
etc.). He further stated the December meeting
provided an additional opportunity for public comment before the Commission
votes to conclude rule development by filing the rule for adoption if no
changes were made. He stated if changes
were made a notice of change would need to be published integrating a notice in
the approved changes and proceeding with rule adoption. Chairman Rodriguez then reminded the
Commission in order for a proposed code change to be accepted as a glitch it
must fall within one of the following criteria:
1) Conflict
with the updated code
2) Conflict between the updated code and the Florida Fire
Prevention Code
3) Omissions of previously adopted
4) Unintended results from the integration of previously adopted
5) Changes to Federal or state law
6) Updates to the NEC if the delay of implementing the updated
edition causes undue hardship to stakeholders or otherwise threatens the public
safety, health and welfare. He further
stated, in addition, the TAC may not have meant to diminish criteria related to
wind resistance or prevention of water intrusion nor would the Commission.
Mr.
Richmond opened the rule adoption hearing.
Mr. Blair stated the Commissioners had received a matrix
of comments received via email in advance of the meeting for review. He then stated members of the public would be
asked if there were any portion they would like to speak on. He then stated if any changes were made the
Commission would have to do a Notice Of Proposed Change as the rule
proceeds.
Fred Dudley
Mr. Dudley stated on the behalf of the Interior Design
Professionals a challenge to the rule had been filed based on the other rules
regarding the vote the Commission required.
He stated he had discussed with Mr. Dixon the terms of a possible
settlement for the Commissions’ consideration.
He then stated he believed we could move beyond this point and then
discuss it. He restated for the record a
challenge to the rule had been filed and there were a number of concerns and
legal issues raised in the rule challenge. He further stated the challenge had been
assigned to an administrative law judge, who both he and Mr. Richmond have had
discussions with. He stated there was a
hearing scheduled for December 22, 2008 because the law requires a hearing be
set within 30 days unless the parties waive the hearing.
Mr. Richmond stated the change being referred to was 3176
which pertains to adding explicit recognition of interior designers into a
section in the Administrative Chapter, Chapter 1, which currently recognizes
landscape architects, architects and engineers.
Jack
Mr.
Glenn stated, for informational purpose, as recently as late December 9,
2008 he had had discussions
with FSEC over the changes to the test version of the Energy Gauge software that
they were instructed to make after the October Building Commission
meeting. He then stated as of that point
the Energy Gauge beta test software still did not contain the changes that
reflect the action of the Commission for the next code update. He further stated it was impossible for users
to do any testing to determine whether Energy Gauge were working appropriately
or if there were problems. He concluded
by stating the adoption of the Energy Gauge was part of the rule and there was
a real concern that there was no working software. He stated there was a black box out there
which no checking if the black box was functioning to meet the new code.
Mr.
Madani stated staff had been in communication with FSEC from the
start. He then stated it was
his understanding the changes had been made, but staff would work to confirm
that. He explained staff first thought the problem was more of a downloading
problem or the link was not working. He
further stated to his understanding the link was working currently.
Mr.
Glenn stated he was only going by email from Phillip Fairey he had
received December 9th stating
the changes had not been made. He then
stated one of his members who had been discussing the issue with Mr. Fairey had
just sent him an email which stated another draft of the Energy Gauge software
was not going to be released. He further
stated there would be no opportunity to review the changes made in the beta
test version before the new versions of the Energy Gauge were for sale,
therefore there would be no opportunity for testing of the software by anyone
to confirm compliance with the rule.
Jamie Gascon,
Mr.
Gascon stated he wanted to bring up an issue identified under the
definition of boiler under
the Florida Building Code. He then
stated in the 2004 version of the Code it was defined as “that greater than a
200, 000 BTU unit, and in the 2007 it was printed it would be defined as a unit
greater than 400,000 BTU. He continued
by stating the matter did come up before the Mechanical TAC and he understood
it did not correlate or reference back to a particular code change submittal,
but if it went through in that fashion there would be conflict between
nationally recognized standards and the Code.
He further stated if it went forward a glitch would be created instead
of fixing a glitch in that process.
Commissioner
Goodloe stated under Chapter 554, under the Fire Marshal’s
Office, the law specifically
states 400,000 BTU as the minimum, however most standards do recognize 200,000
BTU. He then stated in some
jurisdictions, such as
Mr. Madani stated he believed Commissioner Goodloe was
correct. He stated he had reviewed
Statute 554.109 and it does state 400,000.
He then stated when Mr. Bassett proposed that the code change be
consistent with Florida Law, which was what the Code was based on from the
start.
Mr.
Richmond closed the rule adoption hearing.
Mr. Blair stated the Commission had received and reviewed
comments submitted on the internet and heard public comment. He then stated the Commission had to decide
if there were any comments which required action.
Commissioner Smith stated he had a concern with the new
software not being available to try. He
asked what could be done relative to requesting another version or how the
software could be evaluated prior to its release to be assured it would be up
and running. He then stated he believed
it only fair that the Commission should not release something that does not
work.
Mr. Richmond stated the Commission was required to file
the software with the Joint Administrative Procedure Committee. He then stated if it was not functioning
there would be a comment from the committee.
He further stated the rule was actually subject to a change resulting
from the last Commission meeting and was adopted by reference in Rule 9B- 13,
the results of that rulemaking just being integrated into the Code through the
proceeding. He stated it was a little
complex procedurally, but a fully functioning version of the software to file
with the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee which could certainly be
brought back for review by the Commission at the February meeting.
Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Gascon the difference
between the enforcement on a 200,000 BTU gas heater as opposed to a 400,000 BTU. He asked what the additional requirements whereas
it was designated a boiler.
Mr. Gascon responded stating it was his understanding the
category of boiler would actually require an actual inspection whereas a water
heater falling below 200,000 BTU could be just a simple change out.
Commissioner Gregory asked if this was inspection for
replacing the heater or was it new installation. He stated he knew most swimming pool
contractors routinely put in 250,000BTU, 300,000 BTU, 350,000 BTU and 400,000
BTU. He then stated he had not heard the boiler destination yet.
Mr. Gascon stated it was his understanding it mainly
becomes a safety issue for inspections.
He explained there was greater concern when discussing the sizes.
Mr. Madani stated the Florida Building Code primarily
deal with new construction. He then
stated regardless of the size if there was new construction there is a permit
and an inspection, regardless of the size. He stated the boiler size was more
like a maintenance certification issue and the Florida Building Code does not
deal with maintenance.
John Wiggins, Underwriters
Laboratories
Mr.
Wiggins stated if a boiler was tested at up to 400,000 BTU the CSA- ANSI
standards would apply. He then stated if
it were a boiler above 400,000 BTU the UL795 standard would be used.
Mr. Richmond stated there were two rule challenges filed
9B-3.047 which is covered under 085913RP.
He then stated the interior designers have asked to be incorporated into
the provision of the Code which requires the design professional to sign and
seal their work. He continued by stating
in legal substance it accomplishes no more than recognition of what the law
is. He stated it does have a greater
practical impact in the field in that some building departments look at the
list and if the name of the design professional is not identified the building
department does not accept the paperwork from that design professional with in
the form of permit applications. He then
stated he did not think the language supported that in legal principal, but
when a permit is denied, a permit is denied.
He stated the specifics that have been discussed were 1) the Commission
to vote during the hearing to identify the issue as a glitch, a glitch to be
integrated into the Code through the cycle that is currently anticipated for
the National Electrrical Code. He then
stated the Commission had voted and the Electrical TAC was proceeding down a
course anticipated to implement the next edition of the NEC, effective July 1,
2009. He explained essentially a written
settlement agreement would be created which called for the proposal to be
adopted through an additional cycle pursuant to the Commissions’ authority
under 553.73(7), with implementation by July 1, 2009. He then stated in accordance with the
proposal the petitioners in the case would not oppose, but would cooperate with
the proposed legislative change recognizing the Commission’s long standing
practice of a 75% majority of the Commission itself being required to amend the
Code; together with cooperation in resolving comments by the Joint
Administrative Procedures Committee. He
referred to one procedural ground of the challenge which was something JAPC had
raised regarding a new change in the law which took effect July 1, 2008, after
the period of time in which proposals were accepted, but obviously before the
rule was adopted. He stated the procedural ground was the financial or fiscal
impact or the effect of the rule on small business.
Mr.
Richmond continued by stating fiscal impact is identified on the form the
Commission receives does not explicitly refer to small business. He further stated he believed that form
should be amended in the future to cover that because Chapter 120 now requires
a statement of estimated regulatory costs for every rule that affects small
business. He stated it had not been fully
fleshed out or defined and believed there was still work to be done. He stated the real benefit of the settlement
for the Commission is not being the test case.
He then stated if there is a hearing there is a chance of succeeding and
defending the challenge; however there is the possibility there won’t be
success. He stated because of the
complexity of the processes the Commission goes through it could quite possibly
wind up in an appeals court no matter
which side was successful at the administrative hearing before DOA and that
would tie the Code up for about 18-20 months; in which time the Commission
could not undertake additional rulemaking regarding the Florida Building
Code. He stated that plus the ability
to, in the near future, resolve the matter of the 75% provided sufficient
impetus to resolve the issue in the terms described.
Mr. Dudley stated he was in agreement with Mr. Richmond
with regard to his client’s willingness not to oppose the statutory change the
Commission had been urged to do with regard to the 75% vote requirement. He then stated the rule challenge was not
directed at any one of the existing glitch amendments that have been adopted,
but addresses the one that did not adopt by the required 75%. He then stated
the challenge prevents the rule from going into effect, not only until the
administrative challenge has concluded, which could be within the next thirty
days, but also any appellate proceeding that might take place. He then stated the interior designers had
hoped the Commission would vote again to change this. He further stated in talking about the legal
issues and the attempt to settle what his client had said was if there were
going to be no more changes to the rule at the hearing December 8th
then there’ll be no time delay in publishing notices of those changes. He then stated they were prepared to back off
asking it be changed at the December 8, 2008 meeting and let the rule go
forward. He stated if the Commission
then approves the settlement, which was a separate vote and a separate issue,
the challenge would be withdrawn. He
concluded by stating the compromise his client was making that say was to not
press forward again with their proposed amendment as to the rule at the present
unless there were changes which were voted on.
Chairman Rodriguez stated that at the risk of making a
mistake, he wanted to present the proposal in layman’s language. He then stated there was no doubt the law of
the land was there are three designers: architects, engineers and interior
designers. He continued by stating the issue
was the words interior designer do not appear in the Code and the experience
seems to be by not having the designation in the Code some building officials
do not accept them as one of three designers.
He stated the change the Commission did not adopt, by a narrow margin,
was that it was not a glitch. He further
stated the Commission regularly decides what is and is not a glitch and there
was always some argument either way. He
then stated the interior designers felt that important enough that they hired
Mr. Dudley to represent them. He
continued by stating what the Commission was faced with was a compromise, which
is the Commission’s business to come to consensus. He stated the compromise was the interior
designers would let this rule pass and the Commission would then take care of
it with the first opportunity possible. He
stated the challenge would have delayed the rule, which was not in the best
interest of everyone, particularly the interior designers, and there was a
challenge to the 75% vote requirement.
Chairman
Rodriguez explained the reason he chose to speak regarding the issue was
because if there was no 75% majority it would have been a simple majority and
therefore an easier vote, but the vote that failed them meeting the glitch was
a 75% vote. He further stated the reason
he was upset about the challenge of the 75% vote was because he believed it to
be the essence of consensus building. He
stated if there is a win by a simple majority vote it is just a little bit
better than going to the Legislature this year than losing next year, which is
what happened before there was a Commission.
He continued by stating after 9 ½ years of experience with the Commission
the most important thing is the experience of the Commissioners sitting around
the table relying on each other’s expertise in the different areas. He further stated the Commission does not
leave the room until everyone has had an opportunity to be heard and unless
they are putting down an opponent they have as much time as they need to
advance and advocate their cause. He
stated then at the end of the day the Commission has to come to a 75% majority
which is the beauty of it. He stated
winning a war by one vote does not seem worth it, but if 75% of the group can
be convinced this was the right way to move that is an investment. He concluded by stating although his
statements were from his heart he also knows how the game is played and he can
appreciate that as well, because somehow it works. He stated the checks and balances of the
system make it all work beautifully.
Mr. Dudley stated as a matter of public policy he personally
supports the extraordinary vote of the Commission. He then stated he had sat through enough
Commission meetings and listened to enough of the issues to know that is an
important public policy statement. He
then clarified their only legal challenge was to the authority of the
Commission to have that criteria as a rule as opposed to having it in the
statute; which was why he suggested it go in the statute. He stated this particular vote had been 72 ½
% and at the scheme of things this was a relatively small issue. He stated there could be a major issue that
barely fails the 75% and someone else could challenge the Commission and
win. He again urged the Commission to
seek Legislative authority for the 75% because it is good public policy.
Mr. Blair stated he wanted to offer clarification on some
things for the new Commissioners to make sure they understood how the process
was working. He continued by stating
some of the Commissioners may not have participated in rule-making before and
may not be aware of how the process was working. He explained the Commission was adopting the
Building Code and the Glitch Code through Rule Adoption 9B-3.047. He stated there was a rule development
workshop at the last Commission meeting and some changes were made, stating
this was a rule adoption hearing. He
stated at present there were no changes to the rule so if the rule was adopted
as it is currently adopted there is no need to do a Notice Of Proposed Change,
which would delay the Code and the implementation date the Commission set forth
as March 1, 2009. He continued by
stating at the last meeting the issue of the National Electrical Code came up
and there was some discussion of whether it should be adopted at that time or
not and the Commission voted to do a separate rulemaking with an implementation
date of July 9th; therefore it was taken out of the fold. He stated the proposal before the Commission would
not delay the rule because it would be done as a separate glitch rule as the National
Electrical Code was done, with the implementation date of July 1, 2009. He restated it would not count against any
changes being made in the rule adoption.
Mr. Richmond stated the Chapter 120 process is very
complex. He then stated there were a
great number of attorneys who make a very good living doing nothing but that
process.
Commissioner Carson asked if the new glitch amendment was
specific to the one item and not to anything else.
Mr. Richmond responded yes.
Commissioner Gregory asked if this would open up the
Commission for someone who had lost a close vote in the past and come back to
file a challenge.
Mr. Richmond responded no. He stated there would be no admission of
fault which would not open it up. He
then stated that option was available.
He stated as long as rules are in affect they are subject to challenges,
either a proposed rule or an adopted rule. He further stated by avoiding
changing the Code it keeps from opening the window to challenge the Code for an
additional period of time while a notice of proposed change is pending.
Chairman Rodriguez asked for the text of the motion
needed.
Mr. Richmond stated the motion should be to authorize the
chairman to execute a written settlement agreement involving case # 085914 and
#085913. He then stated the terms of the
settlement agreement would be that amendment #3176 was reflected in the records
of the Commission submitted by Mr. Dudley, most recently as a modification to
an initial amendment submitted is approved as a glitch modification under the
criteria identified in Chapter 553.73(7); however it would not be adopted
during the current rulemaking, but it would be adopted with an effective date
of July 1, 2009; each side would be responsible for its own attorney fees and
costs; the petitioner would dismiss the rule challenges with prejudice and
additionally withdraw their comment regarding a lower cost regulatory
alternative.
Mr. Dudley asked if the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Rodriguez responded stating it was closed. He then stated the Commission would next be
voting on the public hearing. He further
stated in the next hearing the Commission would be voting on the Commission
recommendations to the 2009 Legislature; the super majority issue could be
dealt with at that point.
Commissioner Smith moved approval of the motion as
stated. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion resulted in 21 in
favor, 1 opposed (Kidwell). Motion
carried.
Mr.
Dudley stated for the record they would be withdrawing the request of December
2, 2008 for a lower regulatory cost alternative. He then stated that request would have
potentially required a couple more hours of the Commission’s time in answering
the request.
Chairman Rodriguez stated motion needed to proceed with
rule adoption for Rule 9B-3.047, Florida Building Code, Glitch Amendments, by
filing the Rule for adoption with the Secretary of State and, authorizing
DCA staff to make any additional editorial fixes required to implement the
Commission’s substantive decisions on Glitch Code amendments (i.e., formatting,
section number correlations and removal of text such as seismic and snow load
language, etc.).
Commissioner Bahadori stated he was not sure if the
editorial modification 2825 would amend Section 513 of the Mechanical Code and
adds carbon monoxide in that section which presently deals with smoke control
systems. He further stated he believed
it inappropriate to add it in that section as it has nothing to do with smoke
control. He stated he believed it could
be corrected editorially in a new section for carbon monoxide, which would
refer back to 909.13. He stated it was not a substantive change, but should not
be contained in the smoke control section because it doesn’t belong there, has
nothing to do with some control and no one would ever look for it there.
Mr. Richmond stated it could be evaluated and
discussed. He explained any change the
Commission is authorized, even through rule adoption process, to do what is
referred to as technical or editorial changes which were usually limited to
spelling, punctuation, etc. He then
stated he would hesitate to go beyond those usual those types of changes.
Chairman Rodriguez stated what Commissioner Bahadori was
stating was that there was change to the substantive decisions by the
Commission. He further stated it was
editorial, not as a comma or semicolon, but editorial as it was inserted in the
wrong place.
Mr. Blair stated Commissioner Bahadori could suggest it
be corrected as long as it met the editorial requirements only if met the
requirements for an editorial change. He
then stated it was important not to make a change that would require a notice
of proposed change which would mean the Code would definitely not meet the
deadline set.
Commissioner Bahadori stated his intent was not to delay
the implementation of the Code, but just for clarification of the modification
Mr. Madani stated he would review the modification but if
it would taking a section out and doing more than just renumbering a section it
would be considered a change.
Chairman Rodriguez stated staff was not being asked to do
that review at immediately. He stated
Commissioner Bahadori, who happens to be an expert on the issue, was stating in
his opinion it was in the wrong place because it does not change the
substantive decisions the Commission has made. He stated it just needs to be
inserted in the right place and he brought it to staff’s attention to correct
because no one would look for it in that section.
Chairman Rodriguez re-read the motion needed was to
proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9B-3.047, Florida Building Code, Glitch
Amendments, by filing the Rule for adoption with the Secretary of State and,
authorizing DCA staff to make any editorial fixes required to implement the
Commission’s substantive decisions on glitch Code amendments .
Commissioner Gregory moved approval the motion as
stated. Commissioner Carson entered a
second to the motion.
Commissioner Smith asked if it would be the proper place
to put some caveat in regarding the verification the energy software was fully
functional and operational.
Chairman Rodriguez responded the program would not pass
with JAPC unless it works. He then
stated he did not think it needed to be in the motion.
Mr. Richmond stated the caveat is imposed by law.
Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
CONSIDER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
AND ANNUAL REPORT TO THE 2009 LEGISLATURE
Chairman
Rodriguez stated the final Report will have the
Commission’s recommendations related to Legislative assignments as well as
Commission initiatives. He then stated
the plan is for the Chair to review and approve the final draft of the Report
to the 2009 Legislature to ensure completeness and accuracy, and approve the
Report for submittal to the Legislature. He further stated he would request a motion to
approve the summary of issues and recommendations for inclusion in the 2009
report to the Legislature with the understanding the final report would be
updated after the Commission meeting and approved by the Chair prior to the
submittal to the 2009 Legislature. He
stated the reason this was necessary was because the Commission did not meet
again in time for all commissioners to review the final report before it was
due to the Legislature.
Mr. Blair conducted a review of the summary report. (Please see the Facilitator’s Summary Report of Issues for Inclusion in the 2009 Report
to the
Ms. Jones stated the Commission has two types of opinion,
binding and non-binding. She then stated
that for the binding opinion the Commission has direct Legislative authority
for the requestor to pay $250.00 fee directly to BOAF. She explained for the
non-binding opinion, which had been in effect several years longer than the
binding opinion, there was a contract with the Building Officials of Florida
that the Commission pay them $125.00 for each non-binding opinion. She then stated, unfortunately, the funding
source would no longer be available after the current fiscal year; therefore to
continue to process non-binding opinions staff requests the Commission to seek Legislative
authority to pay the vendor directly, whoever the vendor may be, the fee for
non-binding opinions.
Commissioner Carson moved approval to request Legislative
authority for the Commission to charge a fee for issuing non-binding
interpretations to be included in the Legislative Report. Commissioner Gregory entered a second to the
motion. Vote to approve the motion was
unanimous. Motion carried.
Mr.
Dixon stated the statute currently does require a 75% majority vote of the TAC
on making code change recommendations to the Commission. He then stated what was missing was the
comparable 75% vote requirement of the Commission to approve amendments.
Commissioner Carson moved approval to seek statutory clarification that the Commission is authorized to
require a 75% voting threshold requirement for all substantive Commission
decisions. Commissioner Gregory entered
a second to the motion.
Chairman Rodriguez stated Mr. Dixon’s comment was so much
on point he believed it should be included in the request so the Legislature recognizes
the authority is there for the TACs and the Commission requests the same for
the Commission who currently self-imposes the requirement.
Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.
Kari Hebrank
Ms.
Hebrank asked the Commission to include in the report the authority to
handle updating reference
standards through the glitch code process.
She then stated sometimes when the ICC is updated a situation occurs
where there is a three year period before we are on the same cycle an update
based on new updated standard based on the latest technology but then it is not
necessarily available to the industry.
Mr. Blair stated that request had already been
approved. He stated the Commission voted
to expand glitch code criteria to include recognizing equivalency of standards
in the Building Code, not just design standards. He asked if that would cover her
request.
Ms. Hebrank she stated it would. She then stated she had not heard it in the
actual report.
Chairman Rodriguez stated a motion was needed to approve the summary of issues and recommendations for
inclusion in the 2009 report to the Legislature with the understanding the
final report would be updated after the Commission meeting and to charge the
chair with reviewing and approving the report prior to the submittal to the
2009 Legislature.
Commissioner
Carson moved approval of the motion as stated. Commissioner Kidwell entered a
second to the motion. Vote to approve
the motion was unanimous. Motion
carried.
COMMISSION
MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES
Commissioner Stone asked if any materials provided to the
Commissioners for a Commission agenda item would be promptly posted at the
Commission website so the public knows exactly what the Commissioners
have. He further stated there was a
great report and he did not believe it was provided by staff and he had wished
the general public had access to it.
Chairman Rodriguez stated he thought it was a good point.
Commissioner Carson stated the Electrical TAC and the CO
Detector workgroup met at the same time the day before. He stated there had been some concern among
the Electrical TAC members due to the scheduling conflict. He stated he hoped in the future staff could
try to avoid conflicting those committee meeting so those individuals on the
Electrical TAC or interested stakeholders could participate.
Commissioner Gregory thanked the Governor and the
Commission for giving the swimming pool industry a seat at the table. He then stated it had been a long
struggle. He stated he had two
points: 1) the issue of suction and
entrapment has been an ongoing struggle an entrapment which never seems to go
away. He continued by stating most of
those tragic accidents occur in existing swimming pools and there is nothing in
the Code that addresses those pools. He
further stated he would take on the task of working with a workgroup to find
the solution to clarify what signifies the new Code being applied to a pool; i.e.
if an individual re-plasters the interior finish of the pool and changes the
drain cover because it has deteriorated then it has to be replaced with one
that complies with the new A12 Cover Standard.
He asked if that individual should stop there or should they further and
figure the velocity and size of the pipes and was there liability. He then stated the contractors needed some clarification
of what signifies compliance with the Code.
He further stated
Mr. Blair stated the task is already on the workplan as
something which needs to be worked on.
He further stated Commissioner Gregory’s assistance would be most
appreciated in that work.
Commissioner Gregory stated the 64E Health Code and the
Florida Building Code seem to be at odds, either the Commission just modified
or the Health Code was going through a modification process and the two are
always out of step on the issues. He
then stated he did not know how the Commission could get involved in smoothing
that out. He further stated the process
of reviewing 64E is not as precise and organized as the Commission’s
process. He stated however the
Commission could help with the issue would be appreciated as the industry needs
some help with that.
Mr. Dixon stated one of the Commission’s policies has
been to try to work directly with the other agencies and staff reaches out to
those agencies trying to get involved in rulemaking and ensure consistency and
compliance. He then stated success
depends largely on the other agencies’ cooperation. He continued by stating that by and large
cooperation has been very good, with the Department of Health and certainly all
other agencies where overlap occurs. He further stated this program is one the
Commission has historically had difficulty with. He explained their view is the law that requires
coordination of the agencies provides them an out; which is the advice of their
legal counsel. He concluded by stating
the best the Commission can do is remain proactive; for example Mr. Madani has
sent staff to their rule proceedings to comment on the parts of their rule
which overlap with the Building Code.
Commissioner Gregory stated he would pledge himself to
work on that endeavor however he could.
GENERAL PUBLIC
COMMENT
Jack
Mr. Glenn stated his comments referred to Commissioner
Gregory’s comments on the inter-agency issue.
He stated he attended the Code Administration and Special Occupancy TAC
meetings in
Mr. Glenn then stated he still understood JAPC will have
a working copy of the Energy Gauge software as part of the 9B-313 rule which
adopts the Energy Gauge; however the Commission has taken action in the past to
eliminate the manual calculation method.
He stated by FSEC not making the software available for testing, which
is not being done; it can be bought, but not tested until it has been
bought. He then stated without a hand
calculation method, the Commission once again relies on
Mr. Dixon stated with regard to the agency vetting of
their proposed regulations through the Commission; one of the criteria he had
tried to impress upon the agencies was that they have very special and focused
stakeholder groups they interact with in their regulation and the agencies must
ensure their proposed Code changes have been fully vetted with those stakeholder
groups before they bring them to the Code amendment process. He stated there
had been an instance last Code change AHCA had a proposal which was opposed by
part the hospital industry and there was an intervention, partially legislative,
into the Commission’s rulemaking because AHCA had not fully gotten consensus with
all of the stakeholder groups on that proposal.
He continued by stating AHCA went back and found a resolution with the
group and also removed the offending proposal.
Mr. Dixon stated the Commission statutes cannot supersede
the other agency’s authorities and rules as established by the laws they administer. He then stated back in 1998-2000 when the
Florida Building Code Law was put into effect staff tried to write into the
agencies’ statutes certain requirements that the building construction related
regulations administered through their facility licensing regulation, would
have to be put into the Building Code.
He further stated some of those agencies directives to coordinate with
the Commission in the development of the Florida Building Code are more clear
and straightforward than others. He
stated because those requirements are written into their laws, they were the
administrating agency and they are able to interpret how that interaction would
occur. He concluded by stating Mr.
Glenn’s point was well made.
(missing
audio/track change)
Mr. Dixon (continued…after track)…directive
to the Commission in July of 2007. He
then stated the Commission had already completed the Florida Building Code and
had updated the Florida Energy Code as a part of that process. He stated the
Commission was in the final stages of adopting the 2007 Code when it received
the new directive to increase energy efficiency requirements into by 15%. He stated because of that directive the time scheduled
originally to provide for the normal public review of the computer program was
taken up by revising the Energy Code again.
He continued by stating that the Commission wound up operating under somewhat
different constraints than it did in the past and than it will in the
future.
Mr. Glenn stated he had mentioned DOH and AHCA, which he
believed to be the source of the problem. He further stated it would be really
nice if the agency could operate as the Department of Education has. He commended Commissioner Hamrick for making
sure the construction criteria has always been submitted to the Commission as
part of their rule adoption. He also
stated the Department of Education should also be commended for its cooperation
in working with the Commission; which he believed to be a direct result of
Commissioner Hamrick serving on the Commission.
He then stated he had talked with a proponent from AHCA on the changes
because he had commented in almost all of the proponent’s changes indicating
they did not meet the criteria glitch and should be in the more normal code
cycle. He stated the proponent’s
response was “Well it’s a lot easier and
a lot less time consuming for me to do it in the glitch cycle than it is to
have to go through the code process.” He then stated he had written the
comments, as an individual who has been involved in the process, not
representing any homebuilders, who really have no interest in AHCA regulations
specifically. He restated there was a
tremendous difference between DOH and AHCA’s approach to the building code than
there was with the Department of Education.
Mr. Dixon stated he agreed Commissioner Hamrick had been
very, very helpful and forthcoming. He then stated the difference between the
Department of Education and the other agencies was the DOE once had a building
code that was abolished when the Florida Building Code went into effect and the DOE was directed by law to adopt their
requirements through the Florida Building Code. He further stated the other agencies are
facility licensing entities. He
continued by stating the law states any component of the licensing regulations,
which are building construction related have to be in the Florida Building
Code.
Commissioner Hamrick stated as chair of the Special Occupancy
TAC, having to deal with all of the other agencies, part of the issue
especially with AHCA was federal government comes out with standards which are
opposite or do not fall in line with the Building Code. He further stated AHCA has to have a way to
adopt those standards. He explained they
were trying to bring such changes into the code when it is an off-cycle period. He then stated the Legislative proposal to
allow updated design standards or code standards to be included in the glitch
cycle would be very helpful to the process.
Chairman Rodriguez asked if that could take care of it.
Commissioner Hamrick stated yes, it would take care of
the issues due to the glitch amendment and with these state agencies. He stated regarding the Department of Health
welcome to the group and stated they have just as much problems as everyone
else. He then stated the DOH had not
been as active as some of the other agencies
Chairman Rodriguez stated it would help everybody if the
Commission could help straighten it up.
Commissioner Hamrick stated the problem was the DOH had
not been as proactive as other state agencies in updating the rule therefore
they are way behind.
Roland Temple, AZS
Consultants
Mr. Temple stated he had a couple of questions related to
Mr. Glenn’s comments on the Energy Gauge program. He then stated AZS had put in a couple of the
modifications FlaRes to help ensure the results were achieved. He further stated as raters FlaRes was their
major tool. He further stated he knew it had to go to JAPC, but he did not know
who would look at the program before it goes to see if changes have been
incorporated and the intended results are there. He then asked if it was possible to work out
something from what Mr. Glenn stated FSEC does not plan to put out a beta we
could get a “free copy” to test since we have to be up and ready to use the
software.
Mr. Dixon stated the straight answer would be there is a different
process this time and there may not be the same opportunity as there was in the
past to do beta testing. He then stated
it is a good practice; however it is not required anywhere. He explained it was something that was done
in the past to try to ensure, as with any computer software, there were fewer
bugs when it hit the street; although all software has some sort of bug. He
further stated staff has done and will continue to do the best job possible in verifying that
those elements voted on by the Commission are in the software, but that was the
best they could do.
Mr. Temple asked if it was going to be possible to get a
test copy or just wait until it comes out, start using it and see what happens.
Mr. Dixon stated he believed it was like the Building
Code: wait until it comes out, then when you buy it, look at it and see if it
has problems.
Jim Westfall, YKKAP,
Fenestration and Door Manufacturers
Mr. Westfall stated during the next code change cycle,
2010, he would ask the Commission to pay extra attention to items such as
Chapter 17. He then stated he believed
those items were rushed through and some simple, common sense issues were overlooked,
for example: curtain walls were listed under garage doors. He further stated there were issues with
labeling walls and doors. He stated he
was not speaking from the past so he felt he was speaking somewhat
blindly. He continued by stating the
labels appeared to be inserted with the idea that all products were pre-glazed
when they enter
Chairman Rodriguez thanked Mr. Temple for his
comments. He then stated
the Commission tries to
bring industry into it for review and as far as the local building official they
will always be the interpreters. He
further stated the stated the clearer the Commission could make it in the Code
the less there is for a different interpretation.
Mr. Dixon stated the Commission has a Window Workgroup
which will convene before the proposals for the 2010 Code are due. He then stated if Mr. Westfall would give him
his card he would make sure he would be involved in the process where he could
raise his issues to try to work them out through that workgroup.
Dick Wilhelm, Fenestration Manufacturers Association
& Window & Door Manufacturers Association
Mr. Wilhelm stated he wanted to extend an opportunity to
Mr. Temple to join the workgroup. He
then stated he and Mr. Dixon had discussed during the next amendment cycle
bringing the Code where it needs to be on labeling or window issues, whether it
be commercial or residential; thus taking care of some of the confusion.
John O’Connor, Vice
President of the Building Officials Association of
Mr. O’Connor stated he wanted to welcome all of the new
commissioners and reintroduce themselves to the existing commissioners and
staff. He then stated as a group with a
vested interest in the Building Code, having to understand it and administer
it. He further stated the building officials
want to be a part of the process to every extent possible. He stated the officials contact information
could be found at the school website BOAF.net
He asked the Commission to rely on the building officials for any questions the
Commission might have and ‘help’ would assist in getting the individual needed.
Chairman Rodriguez thanked Mr. O’Connor his efforts and
for coming before the Commission to once again offer his services.
Chairman Rodriguez stated, as a reminder to the veteran Commissioners,
to remain in the room following the meeting for the Code Assembly Ad Hoc
meeting; which would deal with the publication of the 2010 code books. He stated Mr. Madani would demonstrate how to
put them together. He further stated he wanted to take the time to thank
everyone for one more year of volunteer work, not only the Commission members
and staff, but also to the public who come to the meetings time after time to
contribute. He stated he had often
thought the building officials could get together and do this themselves, but
it was quite an interesting process to bring in industry, the private sector
and all of the different stakeholder groups that are affected. He offered his thanks and wished everyone happy
holidays with their families and a prosperous new year.
ADJOURN
Chairman
Rodriguez adjourned the Florida Building Commission meeting at 10:10a.m.