WELCOME

Chairman Rodriguez welcomed the Commission and gallery to the March 2008 plenary session of the Florida Building Commission.

REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

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

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

REVIEW AND APPROVE JANUARY 29 AND 30, 2008 MEETING MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S REPORTS

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

Commissioner Carson asked where the minutes could have been found prior to the meeting so he could review them.

Mr. Blair stated the minutes are usually posted online. He then stated he could speak specifically to the facilitator’s report, which he noted the Commissioners had received electronically as well as being posted on the website.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the minutes were posted online.

Commissioner Carson stated he did not believe the minutes were posted online prior to the meeting.

Mr. Dixon stated the minutes are posted online at the time the servers are set up to bring to the meeting which is usually the week before. He then stated sometimes it is difficult to find, but if any Commissioner has difficulty locating the minutes they should send an email to him and he would email the minutes directly to them.

Commissioner Carson stated the reason he asked was due to the large amount of products that are listed for approval and he had not had the opportunity to review them prior to the meetings. He stated he would like the opportunity to do so.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Commissioner Carson if he wanted to wait until the next day of the meeting to approve the minutes. He then stated he did not believe it was critical and Commissioner Carson could look them over in the evening prior to the next day’s meeting.

Commissioner Carson stated he was not sure he had the information with him to compare and he apologized for that.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if he wanted to wait until the next meeting and approve the minutes of both the January and March meetings at the May meeting.

Commissioner Carson stated he did not know if anyone else had the chance to look the minutes over.

Mr. Blair asked if any other Commissioners had any views or opinions concerning whether to approve the minutes as indicated on the agenda.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the minutes were okay but if Commissioner Carson wanted to delay the approval it would not present a problem.

Commissioner Carson stated he would be happy to do it in May.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the vote to approve the January minutes would be deferred until the May meeting so Commissioner Carson would have a chance to review them. He then stated anyone having a problem accessing the minutes should contact Mr. Dixon by email.

Commissioner Carson asked if it were fair to say a week prior to the next meeting the minutes would be available online for review.

Chairman Rodriguez responded when the servers are set up for the meeting, usually one week in advance, and the minutes would be posted.

Mr. Blair asked the Commission for a motion to approve the facilitator’s summary report pending any corrections to it.

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval of the Facilitator’s Report from the January Commission meeting. Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chairman Rodriguez announced the appointments would not be addressed because volunteers were still needed on some of the task forces.

Chairman Rodriguez addressed the Report to the Legislature. He stated the 2008 Report to the Legislature was updated to reflect actions taken by the Commission at the January 2008 meeting. He then stated the department reviewed the report, the chairman reviewed and approved it and it was conveyed to the Legislature. He stated the Commission would see what results come from that report.

Chairman Rodriguez then addressed Sigfried Valentine’s retirement. He stated everyone who had been a part of the process knows he is with AAMA Southeast and as such he has participated in countless committees, including the Product Approval Validation, Window Labeling, Window Wall, Garage Door and Shutters Labeling Workgroups. Chairman Rodriguez then stated Mr. Valentine’s participation alone would have earned him the Commission’s respect, but stated he also collaborated with the Hurricane Research Advisory Committee and has been instrumental insuring the Code’s Window Performance Standards were enhanced. Chairman Rodriguez continued by stating Sigi had provided proactive leadership in working with the window industry and for that the Commission was most grateful. He stated Mr. Valentine’s leadership led to the advancement of the Products Performance Standards and ultimately the enhanced performance of the window itself. He continued stating Sigi’s good corporate citizenship has been a model to all industries and demonstrates the industry can work with stakeholders, something that was previously always in question. Chairman Rodriguez continued by stating in developing a Code like the Florida Building Code, people who are proactive are needed on the state-of-the-art product and systems and Sigi is one of those people. Chairman Rodriguez, on behalf of the Commission, wished Mr. Valentine the best in retirement, but extended a standing invitation to come to the Building Commission meetings and contribute. He concluded by stating Chuck Anderson would be taking over at AAMA Southeast and the Commission is confident he will follow in Sigi’s footsteps. He thanked Mr. Valentine for being a light that all of the Commissioners have appreciated.

Chairman Rodriguez next addressed the 2009 Commission meeting locations. He explained the state was undergoing budget cuts across the board and the Commission’s budget had also been impacted since permits were down. He stated as a result of the budget cuts the Commission’s meetings in 2009 will likely all be held in the Orlando or Tampa at hotels willing to negotiate affordable rates. He stated last year the Department asked for an increase and was turned down. He then stated this year, given the current economic climate, the Department chose not to ASHRAE increase. He concluded by stating, as the increase does not come and the rates go higher, the Commission would have to adjust to hotels that will take the group and meet accessibility requirements. Chairman Rodriguez stated it was a challenge and he extended appreciation to Ila Jones for her efforts in coordinating the meeting locations.

Commissioner Greiner asked if the Commission also had to entertain the Green Building Initiative for hotels hosting the Commission meeting.

Mr. Dixon responded stating that all meeting hotels have to be registered with the state as green lodging establishments.

Chairman Rodriguez stated green, accessible and under a hundred bucks.

Commissioner Greiner stated it would be difficult.

Chairman Rodriguez stated it would be very difficult. He then stated the budget increase was turned down last year and revenues were down. He further stated any good ideas would be accepted and Ila would look into them.

Chairman Rodriguez then announced Governor Christ had designated week of May 5-May 11, 2008 as Building Safety Week. He noted he would not read the entire proclamation, but suffice it to say the Governor refers to the Florida Building Codes. He then stated if any Commissioner wanted a copy of the proclamation it is available. He thanked Governor Christ for recognizing the importance of building safety.

REVIEW AND UPDATE OF COMMISSION WORKPLAN

Mr. Dixon conducted a review of the updated Commission workplan. (See Updated Commission Workplan March 2008)

Mr. Dixon stated there were only three new items adjusted in the workplan. He stated there was a rule to revise so the procedures would be in place for the glitch amendment cycle. He explained the procedures were authorized under law and need to be followed up with the administrative rule proceedings, which would start at the March commission meeting with a schedule for completion before the glitch cycle.

Mr. Dixon then stated item #24 was the next new item. He stated part of the report from the Hurricane Research Advisory Committee put together after the 2004 hurricanes was the identification of issues, which needed further research and development for the Code to respond in providing better criteria and better requirements. He then stated the performance of soffits was one of those items. He explained there were preliminary items taken through the Code to require soffit systems to comply with the same wind pressure as is calculated for the wall adjacent to them. He stated what needed to be done was to move forward with research to evaluate the water intrusion problem and to establish better techniques and better requirements for those systems. Mr. Dixon then stated some of the manufacturers came to the Commission and requested the Commission investigate the possibility of labeling requirements for soffit systems. He further stated some of the manufacturers have systems, which have been evaluated and have some level of approval and there is a concern that the competitors were leveraging off of their approvals in other jurisdictions, which would also be a part of the study.

Mr. Dixon stated an issue raised by Commissioner Browdy at the last Commission meeting was how to get a consistent definition of what constitutes a bedroom so it could be applied to both on-site septic systems sizing requirements of the Department of Health and the local health departments, as well as to the Code. He stated the chief of the Department of Health, the bureau regulates on-site sewage system sizing and was also interested in trying to get the issue of what constitutes a bedroom resolved. He then stated there were definitions or criteria, at least, within the Code that could help create some consistency there. He further stated a joint process between the Department of Health and the Florida Building Commission would be established to work on the resolution. He stated from the Commission an Ad Hoc Committee will be formed, i.e. a committee of commissioners only, and the Department of Health will appoint people from both staff at DOH, which also has an Advisory Counsel and also some local health department officials.

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

CONSIDER ACCESSIBILITY WAIVER APPLICATIONS

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

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

Recommendation for Approval With no Conditions:

#3 Boca Raton High School Stadium Bleachers

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 Florida Statute 553.512 as unnecessary.

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

#4 City of Hialeah Fire Station #6

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council recommended (by a 4-1 vote) approval based in favor of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards design.

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

Commissioner Bassett stated on previous agendas the applicants had been highlighted and linked for review. He then stated he was uncomfortable voting on something he could not look at. He asked if there were a way the applications could be accessed.

[Staff assisted Commissioners with accessing the accessibility waiver applications.]

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#5 The New Hotel

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 Florida Statutes 553.512 as unreasonable due to technical infeasibility.

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

#9 Midtown Miami North Block Building, Samuel Art Gallery

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 automatic provisions of Florida Statutes related to five or less persons and not open to the public.

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

Recommendation for Approval with Conditions:

#2 200 Brickell

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council unanimously recommended the waiver be granted with the condition the applicant provide adequate signage and training to ensure users and non-users of the parking spaces are informed of the requirements as it is very unique in its location.

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

Commissioner Norkunas stated he would be voting against the waiver. He explained it was a tough decision for the Advisory Council. He stated there were no good answers but he maintained there was no authority outside of Florida Specific issues. He then stated there was a beam put in the wrong place and though nothing could really be done once it is over, and that he believed it would be setting a bad precedent showing if someone makes a mistake just go to the waiver council and then the Building Commission for an accessibility waiver. He reiterated he did not believe it was the way to go.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 19 in favor, 1 opposed (Norkunas). Motion carried.

#6 Florida Legal Services, Inc.

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council unanimously recommended the waiver be granted based on the provisions of Florida Statute 553.512 related to 20% disproportionate cost with the condition adequate signage be provided to direct the public to the correct parking and entrances to the facility. He then stated by granting the waiver of the Florida specific requirements it does not relieve the applicant from the provisions of Title Two of the ADA.

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

#8 Nickelodeon Hotel Suites, 4D Theater

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council unanimously recommended the waiver be granted based on the provisions in Florida Statue 553.512 as unnecessary with the condition the revised plans must be submitted to DCA staff increasing the walkway or path of travel in front of the accessible seats from 18 inches to 36 inches.

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

#10 Eden Roc Hotel

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council unanimously recommended the waiver be granted based on the provisions of Florida Statute 553.512 as extreme hardship due to structural restrictions. He stated the applicant could also construct in compliance with provisions of 11-4.1.6(3) specific technical provisions for alterations of the existing buildings and facilities specifically (a) ramps.

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

Recommendation for Deferral:

# 7 “The Ranch” Polo Pavilion

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He then stated the applicant was not present and the Council had several questions to some of the existing conditions not on the application submittal. He stated the Council unanimously recommended the case be deferred to a later meeting for the applicant to provide information to include but not be limited to access to the upper level balcony, access to the other accessible facilities and dispersing of seating based on admission price, line of sight and features.

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

#1 Chiquita Animal Hospital

Mr. Mellick explained the case was originally heard at the October 2007 Council and Commission meetings and approved based on the provisions related to 5 persons or less and not open to the public. He stated at the December Commission meeting, DCA staff was advised by the local building officials it would be more than 5 persons on the second floor. He then stated the building officials’ recommendation form was omitted from the package on the first meeting. He further stated based on those facts, the council recommended a motion to reconsider an action previously taken and schedule the case to a future meeting. He stated the recommendation was affirmed by the Commission in the form of an order. He stated the applicant was in attendance at the Council meeting with a local deputy-building official and after much discussion and at the request of the applicant the Council unanimously recommended deferral for the applicant to provide additional information to justify a hardship for the waiver request.

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

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 new system in place for presenting entity approvals and he thought the Commission would be pleased with the new method of reporting those. Commissioner Carson then presented the POC recommendations for entity approval in a consent agenda:

TST 2609 Architectural Testing, Inc. – California

TST 3892 Hurricane Test Laboratory, LLC – Georgia

VAL 1620 Window and Door Manufacturers Association

VAL 7331 American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA)

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

CER 7243 NSF International

Commissioner Carson then presented the POC recommendation denial because the accreditation is outside the scope for products included in Product Approval Rule 9B-72.

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

Mr. Blair stated the product approvals would also be presented differently for the first time. He explained an agenda was posted on the website, an opportunity for public comment was provided, public comments were made, and the administrator posted the recommendations at least one week before the Commission meeting. He further explained the consent agenda for approval would be as posted and as recommended approval by the POC and the ones different from those would be considered individually. He stated he had been asked to do the product approvals by the four compliance methods and would start with the certification method. He then stated a motion would be needed to approve the agenda, but before that was done he would ask if any product needed to be removed and considered separately. Mr. Blair stated he would like to consider consent agendas for all four types and then go back to consider those pulled for individual consideration.

Certification Method

Recommended for Approval

See Product Approval Program Oversight Committee Final Summary Report, March 2008.

Mr. Berman requested product 10356 Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies be removed from the consent agenda.

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval for the consent agenda as amended with the removal of product 10356. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Evaluation by Architect or Engineer

Recommended for Approval

See Product Approval Program Oversight Committee Final Summary Report, March 2008.

Commissioner Kim requested product #10353 Hexaport International, Ltd.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval for the consent agenda as amended with the removal of product 10353. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Evaluation by Test Report

Recommended for Approval

See Product Approval Program Oversight Committee Final Summary Report, March 2008.

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

Evaluation by Evaluation Entity

Recommended for Approval

See Product Approval Program Oversight Committee Final Summary Report, March 2008.

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

Products Considered Individually

10356 Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies

Mr. Berman stated he would like the Commission to consider having a recommendation of conditional approval so the applicant could change the subcategory from exterior door components to exterior door assemblies. He then stated the applicant had sent him an email accepting the recommendation.

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

10353 Hexaport International, Ltd.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous (Commissioner Kim abstained). Motion carried.

1852-R3 Elite Aluminum Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial. He stated the product had been deferred Jan 2008 - Requested by applicant to complete testing - Deferred from the December 2007 meeting with conditions of: Indicate grade of aluminum. Provide anchor detail thru extrusion. Remove all other than the two lite wide, and non-impact configuration. Did not comply with conditions of deferral.

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

1258-R3 Rosenlew RKW Finland LTD

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for a conditional approval. Applicant requested deferral to March 2008 meeting to complete renewed certifications. - Deferred from December 2007 meeting. Applicant did not revise conditions of: For Products FL1258.1 and .2, NOA’s have expired. Provide new certification.

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

10106 Elite Storm Systems

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant requested to revise some dimensions to item #s 2 and 3.

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

10349 Southern Metals Products,LLC

Mr. Blair stated this product was one that received public comment, submitted electronically. Mr. Blair stated the original recommendation from the administrator was for approval. He then stated the POC had made a recommendation for conditional approval stating with condition of: Applicant to present equivalency of standards to present testing requirements.

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

10306 Storm Smart Industries

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the product was originally recommended for approval but following a series of public comments and discussion at the POC meeting the new recommendation from the POC was for deferral. He stated it was recommended the product be deferred with the conditions of reevaluate application in accordance with the tested values and provides authorization for the use of the test reports.

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

10348 Storm Watch

Mr. Blair stated the product was originally recommended for approval. He then stated public comments had been received electronically and discussion was held at the POC meeting. He stated the new recommendation from the POC was for conditional approval. There is agreement with public comments and upon additional review the conditions should be: Needs to show horizontal and vertical reactions at the head and sill required of the supporting structure to support the membrane barrier. (Catenary). Confirm that prying action was considered in anchor calculations for details on sheet 2 of 5. Provide testing and detail of stitch condition and adjacent joining of panels or remove. Remove notes expressing use of equivalent anchors.

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

10295 Sunoptics Prismatic Skylights

Mr. Blair stated the product was originally recommended for approval but following comments submitted electronically and discussion at the POC meeting the POC Recommend Deferral - Installation drawings were provided from a drawing that is a part of the test report and has the stamp of the test lab. The anchors on the installation drawings do not reflect spacing on the text of the test report or the added anchors on "Appendix A" of the test report. Recommend deferral with conditions of: Test laboratory should provide drawing with installation as tested and installation drawing shall be same as tested.

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

10307 Wasco Products, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was originally recommended for conditional approval but after public comments were submitted electronically and discussion was had by the POC. He then stated the new recommendation was for conditional approval with conditions: Provide analysis of glazing in accordance with ASTM E1300. Provide installation drawings indicating framing as tested.

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

Mr. Blair expressed appreciation for DCA staff and for the administrator for revising the process for presentation of product and entity approvals.

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

DECLARATORY STATEMENTS:

Mr. Richmond stated there was a general legal issue, which Mr. Kelegian would address.

Mr. Kelegian stated an amended notice of administrative appeal was filed with the First District Court of Appeals by William Norkunas naming the Florida Building Commission and Wendy’s International as appealers. He then stated the appeal was of a final order of the Building Commission granting an accessibility waiver to Wendy’s International. He further stated currently the Department was gathering the records for transmittal, as required by rule, first to DCA. He concluded there was not much more to discuss on the issue.

Declaratory Statements:

Second Hearings:

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

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

Mr. Fine stated to save time, the Chairman could determine if a motion to approve was made and if not he stated he would then make a presentation.

Mr. Blair clarified if the Commission affirms the previous action, the applicant would be satisfied, but if there were no affirmation he would make a statement.

Mr. Fine stated that was correct.

Commissioner D’ Andrea moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion resulted in 16 in favor and 2 opposed (Kidwell, Kim). Motion carried.

DCA07-DEC-290 by George Coleman, Building Official, City of West Melbourne/Intervener David Hudson, AIA, Artech Design Group, Inc.

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

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

DCA08-DEC-004 by Karen Wallen Oliver, Wallen Service Corp.

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

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

First Hearings:

DCA08-DEC-002 by Scott Hampton, PE

Deferred

DCA08-DEC-047 by Abe Sacks, Chairman Structa Wire Corp.

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 D’ Andrea asked…(inaudible)

Joe? (inaudible)

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

DCA08-DEC-059 by Dwight E. Homes, FAIA, Homes Hepner & Associates Architects

Withdraw by the proponent.

DCA08-DEC-062 by Fred Dudley, Holland & Knight, LLP

Mr. Richmond stated the representative for the petitioner was present and

would address the Commission.

Fred Dudley stated the petitioner withdraws the petition.

DCA07-DEC-085 by Walter A. Tillet, Jr. P.E. of TilTeco, Inc.

Mr. Richmond stated the committee ran out of time and was unable to give

The petition the attention it needed, therefore the committee deferred the petition to the next meeting to consider the petition in full.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if a motion were necessary for deferral.

Mr. Richmond stated given the time frame on the petition, he would prefer a motion.

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

Mr. Dixon stated he had handed out materials, which were comments, received

through the information system on the proposed changes to the Florida Energy Code, as well as comments submitted at “little a” workshop, if the commissioners wished to review those comments prior to the”big W” workshop (Rule Development Workshop) scheduled for the next day of the Commission meeting.

RECESS

Wednesday March 19, 2008

The meeting of the Florida Building Commission was called to order by Chairman Raul Rodriguez at 8:30a.m. on Wednesday, March 19, 2008, at the Embassy Suites Hotel, Tampa, Florida 33612.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

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

Nicholas D’Andrea, Vice Chairman Do Y. Kim

Richard Browdy Dale Greiner

Gary Griffin Matthew Carlton

James Goodloe Craig Parrino, Adjunct Member

George Wiggins

Herminio Gonzalez COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:

Hamid Bahadori Angel Franco Michael McCombs Christ Sanidas

Randall J. Vann Jeffrey Gross

Chris Schulte Doug Murdock, Adjunct Member

Nanette Dean

William Norkunas OTHERS PRESENT:

Steven C. Bassett Rick Dixon, FBC Executive Director

Jon Hamrick Ila Jones, DCA Prog. Administrator

Joseph “Ed” Carson Jim Richmond, DCA Legal Advisor

Jeff Blair, FCRC

Mo Madani, Technical Svcs. Manager

Chairman Rodriguez welcomed the commissioners, staff and public to day two of the March meeting of the Florida Building Commission. He stated there was a public meeting evaluation form if anyone would like to evaluate the meeting or would like to provide written comments to the Commission the blue evaluation would be completed and returned to Mr. Blair.

Chairman Rodriguez then addressed the following appointments: Jim Goulde would be joining the Window Wall Workgroup. He stated at the request of staff and stakeholders, a Soffit Labeling Workgroup will be convened. He explained the workgroup would be working with affected stakeholders’ interests through a facilitated session and process. He then stated Matthew Dobson and Dave Johnston, one will be a member alternate and the other will be an alternate at their discretion. He continued by listing the members of the workgroup, which includes Joe Breeze, Alan Hoyning, Neil Sexton, Joe Belcher, Paul Grudowska, Rich Papa, Commissioner Kim, Bob Boyer, Wendell Handley, Jamie Gascon, Tim Reinhold, Rusty Carroll, and Jim Shock. He thanked all of the individuals and stated the Soffit Labeling Workgroup would be scheduled. He then stated a Regional AC Efficiency Workgroup being appointed. He stated the US Department of Energy has the authority to establish regional AC efficiency standards. He further stated the workgroup would be making recommendations regarding regional standards for hot, humid climates. He further stated the Florida Building Commission and DCA would be forwarding those recommendations to the US DOE. He listed the following as members of the workgroup: Commissioner Greiner, Commission Griffin, Philip Ferry, Bob Cochell, Bob Andrews, Pete Quintella and Ron Bailey. He thanked those individuals. He stated, at the urging of Commissioner Browdy a joint workgroup with the Department of Health would be convened to review and develop recommendations on sizing of septic tanks, a Septic System Sizing Workgroup will be appointed. He then stated the workgroup would include Commissioner Browdy, Commissioner Carlton, Commissioner Vann, Commissioner Goodloe, Commissioner Greiner, Jim Shock and Joe Crum. He concluded by stating Mr. Blair would be facilitating those four workgroups.

CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Accessibility TAC

Chairman Rodriguez stated before the Accessibility TAC report, Mr. Blair would provide an update on the Accessibility Code Interpretation Workshop, which was held in connection with the Accessibility TAC meeting.

Mr. Blair presented a report from the Accessibility Code Interpretation Workshop. (Please see Review of Pursuing Code Interpretations, Florida Building Commission, Accessibility TAC minutes, March 17, 2008.)

Commissioner Norkunas presented the report of the Accessibility TAC. (See Accessibility TAC Minutes March 17, 2008).

Commissioner Norkunas stated the committee unanimously voted to seek authority from the Commission to issue declaratory statements and for the DCA staff to be permitted to provide technical assistance and if the Commission accepted the recommendation, to have them included in the 2008 Legislative package. He then stated he was not sure if one motion could cover all of those recommendations or if he should separate them into more than one motion. He further stated the most important one was to issue declaratory statements

Mr. Blair suggested for at least one motion should incorporate the recommendations into the Legislative package.

Commissioner Norkunas stated he would prefer to do all of those recommendations in one motion because the consensus in the TAC was for all in one motion. He then restated, in the form of a motion, the TAC unanimously voted to seek authority from the Commission to issue declaratory statements, for DCA staff to be permitted to provide technical assistance and if the Commission accepted the recommendations include them in the 2008 Legislative package. He stated if the motion was seconded he could provide any further input in discussion.

Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. He then asked, for clarification, was the recommendation strictly for declaratory statements or did it include binding or non-binding interpretations, as well.

Commissioner Norkunas responded stating the TAC discussed the recommendation in depth and determined in those discussions it would be specifically for declaratory statements.

Mr. Blair stated there had been some discussion if the recommendation should be limited to the Florida specific aspects of the Accessibility Code, but it was not in the motion.

Commissioner Norkunas requested he amend his motion to include limitation to Florida specific.

Commissioner Greiner accepted the amendment to the motion.

Commissioner Bassett stated he had been discussing various clients of his for ages and finds a tremendous misunderstanding and much of it is caused by the way Florida ADA is written, the white being the federal and the gray being the Florida, and there is not anything to distinguish the Florida changes. He then stated if the Commission was going to ask for authority it should also ask for the authority to make is clear, possibly another kind of shading to indicate what doesn’t apply if the Florida specific section takes precedent. He further stated he has had those discussions and he has told his clients the white giveth and the gray taketh away, but they do not understand it because a lot of it is with mezzanines, i.e. when is accessibility required to mezzanines. He stated federal has a big exemption and then Florida changes it slightly but there is nothing is indicated and no one understands it including code officials. He stated some of the needs of the declaratory statements come about as a result of the difficulty in understanding. He then offered a friendly amendment for the Commission to also ask to change the way it is worded or delineated, not necessarily change the substance.

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Norkunas if he would accept the amendment.

Commissioner Norkunas stated his initial reaction was to take Commissioner Bassett’s comments back to the Accessibility TAC for consideration, rather than expanding the motion on his own and then them forward at the next Commission meeting.

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Norkunas if he wanted to keep his motion as it was.

Commissioner Norkunas responded he would.

Commissioner Bassett stated the only problem with that was the next meeting will be after the Legislature has adjourned and it would not occur this session.

Mr. Blair suggested the Commission take action on the current motion and then discuss Commissioner Bassett’s amendment as a separate motion.

Mr. Dixon stated what Commissioner Bassett was requesting was more of a document development concern than a specific authority of the Legislature within the law. He then stated it was clear within the law the sections being altered by the vertical accessibility requirements and it was a matter of how the book is printed and identify how for persons which sections are affected by the Florida specifics that need to be done. He further stated perhaps going back to the TAC to figure out how to do that would be the easiest

Commissioner Bassett stated he did not mind doing it that way, he just did not know if the Commission had that authority since the Legislature passed it initially.

Mr. Dixon stated he would say yes because the background shading was done back in 1993 was just an administrative action by the department.

Commissioner Bassett asked if the TAC could be directed to address the issue.

Chairman Rodriguez stated after the current motion was voted on, he could make it a separate motion.

Voter to approve the motion to seek authority from the Commission to issue declaratory statements limited to the Florida specific aspects of the Accessibility Code, for DCA staff to be permitted to provide technical assistance and if the Commission accepted the recommendations include them in the 2008 Legislative package was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Bassett moved the Accessibility TAC be asked to address the way the Florida ADA is presented in the written form in an attempt to make it more clear which should lead to less misunderstanding. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Bassett stating it would be helpful to all.

Commissioner Wiggins 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 the Commission was notified that Commissioner Gross, the chairman of the Accessibility TAC, had not been feeling well and has gone in for a check up. He then stated substantive issues were not to be discussed but he would appreciate it if the commissioners would contact him by email with well wishes for a quick recovery and return.

Code Administration TAC

Chairman Rodriguez stated Commissioner Wiggins was another of the Commission members who had been down and he was glad to see him back. He asked Commissioner Wiggins if he wanted to present the report or he’d like Mr. Blair to present.

Commissioner Wiggins stated he was not able to attend the meeting, but Mr. Blair and Commissioner D’ Andrea conducted the meeting. He stated it was his understanding Mr. Blair has the Assessment Report and would report on it, as well.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he was glad Commissioner Wiggins was feeling better.

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Code Administration TAC. (See Code Administration TAC Minutes March 18, 2008).

Mr. Blair stated the primary focus of the Code Administration and sole focus of the Code Administration TAC meeting was to continue the project that had been in play which regards the Code Administration needs of local governments’ assessment project. He then stated the Commission may recall the reports made regarding the project over the last several months started with an assessment survey with a series of options identified. He explained the TAC has been evaluating a range of options looking at three key areas: 1) Communication and outreach, 2) Education and training and 3) Uniform and effective enforcement of the Code. He stated the idea was from a building official’s perspective how the Building Commission can help local governments in their endeavor to ensure a uniform, effective, enforcement of the Florida Building Code. He then stated the TAC had been evaluating options identified from the survey, which was done strictly by building officials, as well as other options proposed by either audience members and/or the Code Administration TAC members. He continued by stating the evaluation was done at the January meeting and concluded in the March meeting. He stated there was a range of options, which he would not be presenting at the meeting because the report needed some analysis and organization. He further stated at the May meeting there would be a report on the recommendations from the Code Administration TAC regarding its views of the various options for the three areas just described. He stated the TAC had evaluated a range of the issues and there was consensus, primarily in areas of better ways to inform people, make them more clear and available i.e. keeping the public and the building officials aware of Commission actions, decisions, Code changes and things along those lines. He concluded by stating he would be giving a full report at the May Commission meeting.

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

Energy TAC

Commissioner Greiner presented the report of the Code Administration TAC. (See Energy TAC Minutes March17, 2008).

Commissioner D’ Andrea 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 D’Andrea presented the report of the Fire TAC. (See Fire TAC Meeting Minutes March 18, 2008).

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

Commissioner Goodloe clarified the Commission would seek a Legislative change.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Structural TAC

Commissioner Kim presented the report of the Structural TAC. (See Structural TAC Meeting Minutes March 18, 2008).

Commissioner Kim asked staff to allow three hours for the next Structural TAC meeting.

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.

Education POC

Chairman Browdy presented the report of the Education POC. (See Education POC Meeting Minutes March 18, 2008).

Commissioner Browdy stated he was not sure if the language required a vote now or during the rule making of 9B-70.

Mr. Richmond stated the language reviewed should be contained in a comment during rule making.

Commissioner Browdy then stated the following courses were recommended for approval by the POC:

The Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction Advanced Module-Internet, BCIS 272, Accreditor BCIC LLC.

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

SREF Continuing Education Course, 201.1, Accreditor BCIC LLC

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

Commissioner Hamrick stated he would be abstaining from the vote.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. (Hamrick abstained). Motion carried.

Advanced Building Structural Summary Internet, 269.0, Accreditor BCIC LLC

2004 FL Building Code: Plumbing Fuel Gas Summary, 274.0, BCIC LLC

Internet Advanced Accessibility Compliance – the Good, the Bad, the Ugly – or Why Did I Do That?, 271.0, BCIC LLC

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

Commissioner Norkunas stated he wanted to raise his voice on the $200,000

loss of funding in Education. He stated he hoped all the commissioners read the Education comments. He then stated a loss of funding is dramatic and if Education is impacted it is the worst place to be impacted. He further stated if there was anything he could do or other commissioners could do to kelp support the loss of that funding, he would hope it would be done.

Commissioner Hamrick moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Carlton 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 March 17, 2008).

Commissioner Carson directed the Commission to page 2 of the minutes of the meeting for additional clarification of the new validation deadline policy.

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

Hurricane Research Advisory Committee/ Window Wall Workgroup

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Hurricane Research Advisory Committee and

the Window Workgroup met jointly after the January Commission meeting to receive research project updates and to prioritize research projects for funding. He directed the Commission to Mr. Blair for an update.

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Hurricane Research Advisory Committee. He stated the joint committee workgroup met and the primary focus or objectives were: 1) review the University of Florida National Science Foundation Research Project in Window performance and get an update from that, 2) consider and develop recommendations for allocation of the remainder of the research funding for the fiscal year 2007/2008, and 3) research contract to work which was supporting code development for new construction and mitigation of existing buildings.

Mr. Blair stated University of Florida Professor Forest Masters was there and presented an update to the Commission on current research focus and he basically reported progress was being made on the hurricane simulator and wall research, which is a device to test the window wall joints, the component and how it works and doesn’t work together. He further stated a task force was put together to provide oversight for the research. He then stated there were two existing grants, one from the National Science Foundation and the other from the State of Florida’s Department of Community Affairs, RCMP funds. He continued by stating the principal research thrusts described by Professor Masters were: origin, path and mechanisms of water intrusion, validation of water intrusion tests and water installation specifications and innovation of new mitigation technologies for fenestration and mitigation of existing window wall systems. He stated the task force, not the committee; working with Professor Masters on the project had done some prioritization of tasks, which they ranked a series of issues. He then stated he would not go into what they were but Static Pulsating Dynamic Testing was the one ranked at the top. He further stated there was discussion on work supporting code development for new construction and mitigation of existing buildings and the committee considered a research-funding plan for the remaining funds in the 2007/2008 fiscal year for research concerning reduction of wind driven rain intrusion through residential fenestration window wall systems.

Mr. Blair stated there was a proposal submitted by Professor Masters and the three topics were: 1) evaluation of fenestration installation techniques, 2) evaluation of secondary water protection options and 3) quantification of tile missile impacts. He then stated of the joint committee, all 17 members unanimously voted to recommend distributing the remaining resources based on the prioritization of those topics. He further stated the workgroup also unanimously recommended a Soffit Labeling Workgroup be convened. He stated the committee identified future research needs in wall penetration for water intrusion and one of the things indicated was a need for research on secondary water barrier performance standards for the mitigation rule. He further stated some performance standards were needed for what is or constitutes a secondary water barrier and the committee requested even with preliminary results from any research should be provided to help inform the rule requirements and provide clarity on what would should qualify as a secondary water barrier.

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

LEGISLATIVE REPORT

Mr. Richmond stated a lot had gone on since the last telephone conference call and actually a lot has gone on since the TACs convened for the meeting. He then stated it was an especially busy week and unfortunately he had been at the Commission meeting, but staff had been keeping an eye on the bills and trying to keep them in the appropriate posture.

Mr. Richmond stated the two bills with the most direct impact are bills SB 560 by Senator Constantine and HB697 by Representative Aubuchan. He explained there were some differences between the bills but ultimately these are the ones that impact membership of the Commission specifically by adding a swimming pool commissioner. He continued by stating in their current format they would also eliminate the Governor’s chair, basically replacing that seat with the swimming pool contractor. He further stated the current language is “encourage identified organizations to recommend to the Governor’s office a list of qualified people”. He stated that small piece is a significant improvement because the prior versions of the bill had the appointments coming from a designated appointment list of three persons and restricted the Governor’s ability to appoint those people. He then stated similar items even with the changes have been opposed by the Governor’s office in the past under prior administration. He further stated the issue is still being reviewed and discussed and he stated the piece on “encourage to recommend” language does address the concerns discussed during the teleconference call on this particular issue. He stated the elimination of the chair would certainly be a concern for the Commission, as well as the Governor’s office and the restriction of the Governor’s discretion in selecting someone who would lead this organization. He then stated the bill had moved through and where it would wind up is yet to be determined. He reiterated it was not the first time this effort had been put through and may well not be the last. He also stated at the last committee stop there was an addition of three or four more organization names to the list. He explained that is what ultimately ends up killing the effort from a practical prospective i.e. once one organization is identified everyone wants to be identified and before long there is a list that is impractical to say the least. He stated any changes would only take place prospectively.

Commissioner Wiggins asked which bill contained that effort.

Mr. Richmond responded it was in both bills at present. He added the bill also contains the energy goals, 50% improvement by the year 2019 edition of the Building Code and now contains an element regarding condominiums and energy efficient features such as clotheslines and solar panels, things that really do not impact the Commission. He stated the piece coming out of HB697 re-referring issues to the technical advisory committees has been removed from the bill. He explained interest groups had expressed concern they were not always given an opportunity for public comment on issues ultimately voted on by the Commission and significant changes were sometimes made. He stated as a result of that concern there is a provision being placed currently in the bills that requires public comment prior to final action. He then stated both bills currently contain the International Energy Conservation Code. He further stated he had met with stakeholders and the sponsors and will continue to try to work on something that would really eliminate the conflict within the Senate Bill where it tells us to increase the efficiency of the Florida Energy Efficiency Code and at the same time adopting the IECC is the foundation code for the Florida Building Code. He stated an interesting note came up in House committee and Representative Buker, sponsor of one of the swimming pool bills and was currently making its way through the process, strongly encouraging the use of all international codes and that particular issue was on the side of many of the construction interests pursuing that change, but the swimming pool provisions would be contrary to their interests. He then stated he did not believe that was the last the Commission would hear from Representative Buker supporting the International Codes.

Mr. Richmond stated he wanted to thank Broward County for being the only group to stand up in support of the Commission’s action on the International Energy Conservation Code through their lobbyist Larry Smith. He encouraged any other organizations or people who are interested in becoming involved in those organizations in support of the Commission’s position to contact their legislators.

Commissioner Wiggins asked if that bill has language that adopts the International Energy Code.

Mr. Richmond responded both of those bills have that language, but the energy goals of the 50% increase over 11 or 12 years is currently limited to the Senate Bill. He stated it is going through the process on both sides and in the energy packages, as well.

Commissioner Wiggins asked how that sits with the special requirements of the Florida Energy Code i.e. is that something that would you’d have to go in there and amend separately.

Mr. Dixon responded yes stating there would have to be some significant amendments to the IECC to make it equivalent to the Florida Energy Code.

Chairman Rodriguez inquired about eliminating the Governor’s chair position.

Mr. Richmond explained the swimming pool industry wants a seat on the Commission and has wanted one for some time. He stated the difficulty becomes adding one seat makes an even number, which becomes impractical and difficult to administer at times. He then stated the resolution has been to replace the Governor’s chair with a swimming pool contractor.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he understands the need for an odd number on the Commission. He asked where that resolution came from, who participated in the resolution.

Mr. Richmond stated he believed that to be the sponsor’s issue.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if he meant Senator Constantine.

Mr. Richmond responded yes.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he was just curious.

Mr. Richmond stated most of the other issues would just be reports although the Energy packets do need to be discussed. SB 1580 and HB 963 were the swimming pool bills that pertain to the Federal Act passed the past December. He then stated SB 1580 was currently in committee in Tallahassee with an amendment that limits in effect two pools with a single main drain and HB 963 by Representative Buker was still pending its first committee stop and had not been scheduled. He further stated staff had hoped to meet with the sponsors as well as the proponents for the bill last week in conjunction with the swimming pool industry but it did not work out. He stated, however, the amendment to the Senate Bill by Senator Rich indicates the pool industries efforts had been fairly successful and the impact of this bill would be restricted only to that which is seen as necessary coming from the Federal Act. He further stated he would continue to work on that and have more to report on in the next couple of weeks. He stated he did review the legislation the previous night in response to the inquiry regarding the barriers and the impact on what the Commission has done with the barriers. He further stated as far as he could see in the bill language it would have no impact on the Commission’s barrier requirement currently in the Code. He added there were always kind of a differentiation between a Code barrier and a statutory barrier pool safety requirement for which one of the options is a barrier. He stated a code barrier might not meet the statutory obligation, but under the Code if a non-compliant barrier is used then on e of the other options must be used to comply with the statute anyway. He stated it could be confusing, but he ensured then Commission the Code currently complies with statute and he did not see any changes forthcoming in these bills on that particular issue.

Commissioner Greiner stated he was not too concerned about the barrier issue, but he believed there was a draft interpretation out on the CSPC website that he might want to look at. He stated his concern with those two bills was they do not reverse what the Commission did with pool issues with respect to ANSE-7.

Mr. Richmond stated that is where staff is trying to head to and ultimately he would love to see these bills just deferred to the Building Code. He further stated he believed the Commission action complied with the Federal Act with regard to new pools. He then stated there were a couple of complicating matters in that the Federal Act also applies to existing commercial pools across the board and can apply to existing residential pools potentially. He stated those were really beyond the reach of the Code and additionally the Federal Act refers to construction requirements and enforcement thereof required by statute. Mr. Richmond then stated there was the potential interpretation the Legislature has to speak on a particular standard but that does not necessarily mean they will select a different one.

Commissioner Greiner stated based on the Federal Bill there was some potential with respect to existing residential pools and the Commission could probably look at something to deal with that with respect to the existing Building Code and possibly work it into that level system.

Commissioner Wiggins asked for clarification if the legislative proposal a proposal that would place in Florida Statute requirements that would allow Florida to qualify for the Federal Swimming Pool Act grant legislation.

Mr. Richmond responded yes that was the intent of the proposal.

Commissioner Wiggins expressed concern there may be barrier requirements that would be put in statute when what was in place is compliant. He then stated he also serves on the International Code Governmental Relations Committee and would be meeting in May in Washington. He further stated he had talked with the committee members about the proposal and the concerns in Florida and if it should be brought to light that a statute which is different than the Building Code they are ready, willing and able to offer support with that. He also stated the committee believes Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be more than happy to attach an amendment to her federal bill that would allow it in any state to be enacted by the state Building Code and not necessarily require it to be put in statute. He concluded by stating he reported all of that information to determine if the Commission would entertain a motion should it be born to light that in fact is a current federal requirement and does require a placement of a Code requirement in statute that could be taken to the International Code Governmental Relations Committee that the Florida Building Commission would support an amendment to the Federal Legislation that would prevent having it to be statutes, but would allow it being in a state’s Building Code.

Mr. Richmond asked Commissioner Wiggins when the committee would be meeting.

Commissioner Wiggins stated it would be in May, but the committee would immediately act and would get with Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s office and they feel she would be ready, willing and able to adopt such an amendment if necessary, as early as next week.

Mr. Richmond stated if time permits his suggestion would be to draft a resolution to that affect, signed by the chair, and bring it back to the May meeting or it could be conceivably be taken up at a teleconference if he could get something drafted between now and then. He further stated by the 21^st he could clearly do so and that could be an issue for one of those as well, if it would be acceptable to the Chairman, the Commission, and the proponent.

Chairman Rodriguez stated it would be acceptable. He asked Commissioner Wiggins if he could help with the draft.

Commissioner Wiggins stated he would help put that together.

Mr. Richmond stated SB 2530 and HB 1191 pertain generally to Green Building construction and potentially provides a resolution he had suggested to the issue of even numbers of commissioners with the swimming pool seat in that it proposes a Florida Board Member of the US Green Building Council, the Green Building Initiative or a lead accredited professional to serve as an additional Commissioner. He explained if a swimming pool contractor and a Green commissioner were added then there would still be an odd number. He stated the difficulty with that was, of course, a fiscal impact of travel and accommodating any additional commissioners. He stated also interestingly that bill creates a Florida Green Building Council and really doesn’t delegate it any responsibility, other than to meet. He explained that was beyond the scope of the Commission’s realm and was more a Department of Community Affairs issue because it is housed within the department.

Mr. Richmond stated SB 1202 and HB 711 pertain to Accessible parking. He further stated on the House side it was in House Infrastructure Committee on Thursday morning. He then stated those bills have not moved and SB 1202 has not been calendared its first committee.

Mr. Richmond stated there were numerous bills floating out there on Energy. He then stated in the Senate he believed the intent is that SB 1544 by Senator Saunders would be the primary energy package, containing both the objectives for the Energy Code and some appliance standard enhancements, which were intended at the onset to dovetail with the Building Code. He stated those bills were moving. He then stated there were several other examples including HB 1383 by Representative Randolph which has the long list of appliances including basically home electronics and things along those lines.

Mr. Richmond continued by stating staff was working on those to ensure credit against the 50% and would not be penalized moving forward on the current initiative i.e. this improvement would be counted toward the 50% ultimately. He stated that had been staff’s primary issue there and also serving as mostly a resource for a lot of the appliance efficiency standards in an effort to get that resolved. He then stated one of the initial proposals discussed would limit pool heaters in Florida to solar pool heaters and although that was an admirable goal, there were concerns of the difficulty in suddenly imposing that and essentially eliminating pools on a shaded lot.

Commissioner Carson asked if there were going to be any more conference calls and if so asked if the schedule was available.

Mr. Richmond responded stating the conference calls had already been noticed for Monday mornings at 10:00am on April 7^th, April 21^st, and April 28^th, 2008. He explained the reason for the short turn around on the last one was on April 28^th would be going into the final week of the session and oftentimes issues spring up at the end and need more immediate attention.

Mr. Blair stated the conference calls were listed prominently in the January meeting‘s Facilitator’s Report.

Mr. Richmond stated one other issue he had not listed out was staff was working with Pasco County on was three local bills filed currently addressing substantive issues in Paso County. He further stated Representative Legg has filed a bill that would require the Commission to review and adopt Code provisions to address subsidence by October 1, 2008 basically using the Wind Mitigation Bill as a model. He then stated staff had been working with them to redirect the effort to a local technical amendment. He stated the outcome of the current process would be something applicable conceivably statewide unless some reason could be found to geographically limit its application to particular areas of the state. Mr. Richmond concluded by stating the October 1, 2008, date on an issue such as this, in his opinion, the input he has received was not like the Wind Mitigation where there is at least some very strong framework for research and data out there from which we can draw to pull into code provision this is something we’d be looking at kind of as an issue of first impression. He stated he believed the issue to be one that should be redirected to the local technical amendment and the processes that already exist.

Commissioner Bassett stated Mr. Richmond could report to the committees in place that as long as he is on the Commission there was at least one lead Accredited Professional on the Commission.

DISCUSSION OF CORE COURSE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLORIDA

BUILDING CODE

Chairman Rodriguez stated Commissioner Browdy had already covered this very well, along with Ila’s email to the commissioners.

RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON RULE 9B-13, ENERGY CODE

Verbatim transcription requested and presented as follows:

Chairman Rodriguez: At the March 2008 meeting the Commission

voted to conduct a rule development workshop on Rule 9B-13, Energy Code for the purpose of amending the Energy Code to implement provisions to comply with the Governor’s 15% efficiency increase for the Florida Energy Code. The Commission voted to increase the required energy efficiency of the new buildings by 15% by reducing the energy budget that must be met to comply with the Code. This approach allows consumers to decide how to stay within budget rather than the state deciding which energy conservation measures they will have to use. The Commission voted to implement the following enhancements to the Florida Energy Code. On residential buildings the Energy budget will be calculated based on tighter air ducts, higher efficiency windows with solar heat gain coefficients of .30 and a 15% glass to floor area ratio. In commercial buildings the use of current ASHRAE design guidelines for small offices, small mercantile and school buildings, and to establish the energy budgets that must be met for compliance. We also want to establish minimum glaze efficiency ratings and implement ASHRAE 90.1-2007 for other commercial occupancy buildings. So Jim will serve as a hearing officer and Jeff will facilitate the discussions and serve as moderator for the public comment portions of the hearing. So Jim will you please open the rule adoption hearing.

Mr. Richmond: Rule Development Workshop on Rule 9B-13 pertaining to the

Florida Energy Code for building construction as noticed in Florida Administrative Weekly is hereby opened.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you, Jim. Before we call on members of the

public, I’d like to call on Rick Dixon and he has some comments. Please, Rick.

Mr. Dixon: Commissioners let me start off by reviewing what DCA

recommended. I think it will make more sense in context of the comments that I’ll relay and we have opportunity for the public to submit comments after I run through these. I think I can highlight what the major issues were and then we can get into more detail in a moment. The DCA recommendation was to get the Governor’s directed 15% improvement in the efficiency requirements for buildings in two ways: 1) addressing the residential buildings, and 2) the commercial buildings. In residential buildings the recommendation was that the baseline performance levels which are used to calculate the energy budget buildings must comply with, would be amended to move from what is considered standard duct tightness currently in the calculation for baseline to tight ducts; to move from .4 solar heat gain coefficient energy efficiency rating for windows to .30, and; to move from an 18% glass to floor area ratio to 15% glass to floor area ratio. Those combined would have the total effect on standard simple houses of 15% improvement. You can see that the percent of improvement is different, based on where in the state, but the weighted average of the state would be right at 15% for that approach. There was another approach suggested, there were comments at the TAC regarding that and I’ll present that in just a moment. In regard to commercial buildings the recommendation was to move from the 2004 edition of ASHRAE 90.1, which is the engineering design standard that Florida has historically adopted to establish energy efficiency standards for commercial buildings to the 2007 edition. The estimated impact ranges from 6% increase in efficiency requirement to 9.3% again dependant on what climate region of the state. The recommendation also included that the Energy Code would integrate ASHRAE current design guides for small office, small mercantile and schools. Those design guidelines target a 30% increase in efficiency requirements for buildings but that was based on the 1999 edition of the ASHRAE 90.1 standard so the impact as determined by our contractor results in about 15%, from 13-17% depending where in the state you are. With that package of improvements we think we can get close to the Governor’s directed 15% for Energy Code improvements. Let me address further recommendations these are based on discussions with DCA, with the Governor’s office and approval last week and initiation. The Florida Energy Code currently establishes minimum efficiency requirements for many different appliances and air conditioning equipment. The ones that are in dark shading are products that are currently covered. Changing to the 2007 edition of ASHRAE 90.1 would implement some changes to the efficiencies of those products already covered. The products that we need to look at specifically though are those that do not have background shading on this chart. Added to the code would be efficiency requirements for computer room air conditioners, residential dehumidifiers that are hardwired, not plug in, residential furnace fans, water heating systems that are smaller systems or instantaneous type systems that are not currently covered in the Code and pools and spas. One of the devices in all of the bills Jim mentioned is a pool pump. We currently control or cover in the Code pool heaters, heat pumps, and gas heaters for pools and spas but there are no requirements for pool pumps. This is the starting recommendation for efficiency levels for pool pumps. We had conversations with certain pool pump manufacturers who expressed an interest in working with us to establish standards for Florida. Also the industry association’s representative indicated the same. I would point out that we are certainly open to those conversations and finding out what the perspectives are and what can be done within the industry in a short time frame. This particular standard is a standard that has been in place for several years in the state of California so we know these products exist. They are on the market. I’m not sure about the development of future products that some of the discussions with manufacturers of pool pumps had indicated. And of course, if you are going to have a two-speed pump you will need something that will control its operation. Spas have a standby power loss and the amount of power required to keep the tub up to its idling temperature should be limited. We currently have no criteria within the Building Code specific to walk in freezer type of storage facility and these are insulation levels and equipment efficiency criteria that could be applied to those. Other systems that have been considered in the Code are fluorescent lamp ballast and metal halide lamp fixture ballast. The efficiencies would just be registered in the Code. The other major item that was considered and recommended is already covered by the Code and that is the wattage for exit signs. My understanding is, from the persons who recommended this 5 watt standard that was integrated into the Code in 2006, is those are LED level watt powers for exit signs and the standard is 5 watt per face. Those are the recommendations from DCA. Let me jump briefly to some of the comments and I’m sure, hopefully at least, the persons who made these comments are here. Let me summarize by stating there were some comments in your package on the recommendations from DCA. Some submitted through the BCIS to DCA to bring to you, some at the workshop at the TAC meeting Monday. But I would summarize the major ones in this way: The most discussion and emphasis was on the Homebuilder’s request that the Commission delay its actions until after Legislative session. The window manufacturers expressed concerns with the .3 solar heat gain coefficient and .4 U value that would be established as performance baselines, not as mandatory requirements, but as the levels that would determine the energy budget. The chairman of the Energy TAC had discussions with that industry and I believe there is a resolution to their concern. The metal building products industry association expressed concern with the levels of insulation that would be required by ASHRAE 90.1 for metal wall systems and an AC refrigerant line insulation manufacturer expressed that current national standards require, or at least one of those national standards, would require more insulation on air conditioner refrigerant lines than the Florida Code currently requires and recommended that be upgraded. And then there was a comment submitted, not a public comment Monday, but a submitted comment clarifying the reference of ACCA Manual S with regards to selecting air conditioning equipment once the sizing has been determined by the AHCA Manual J. I believe there was a declaratory statement regarding that issue and the conclusion of the committee was that the AHCA Manual S is allowed but not required. Mr. Chairman those are the summaries of the comments. I believe it would be appropriate for the public comment to begin.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Rick. Okay, so we will now have

the members of the public that wish to speak on proposed changes to Rule 9B-13, Energy Code come forward. I see Jack Glenn has been standing for a while, waiting patiently. Welcome, Jack.

Jack Glenn: Morning, Mr. Chairman and members. I would just like to

reiterate what I basically said to the Energy TAC on Monday. Jim made it pretty clear this morning in his Legislative report that there are a vast number of bills dealing with energy and I think it exceeds energy alone is over 6 now. Building Code there are 4. There are several other vehicles that contain energy requirements that are not specifically energy bills. Your next meeting is May 5^th, 6th and 7^th, I believe, which is the Monday following the conclusion of the Legislative Session. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that the Legislature is going to do something with mandates on energy conservation just because of the emphasis that has been put on energy from all directions this past year, including the Governor’s executive orders. The charge to the Commission was by January 1, 2009 your rule proposal would propose to have the rule be developed and handled through the glitch cycle and actually move it to October 1, 2009. I will tell you that whatever you do, the construction industry can’t stand it, but if you do something as far as the cost associated with increased energy efficiency. If you do something and the Legislature does something different in their mandates then we are not talking about the 15% the Governor has asked for. We are talking about 15% and up to possibly another 15% by January 1^st based on Legislative mandate. They may or may not be one in the same. I would just ask you to delay any action on this rule development until the direction the Legislature is going is determined so that the 15% that they are looking for and the 15% the Governor is looking for can possibly be the same 15%. The industry right now could not take a hit of 30% increase in energy efficiency in this down economic time. It would mean delaying the rule development workshop for 6 weeks and possibly the effective date of the rule from October to January 1, which is what is mandated by the Governor.

Chairman Rodriguez: Jack since you are a long time participant in this,

wouldn’t it make sense in this for the Commission to take a position. I know with the optimistic thought that the Legislature might follow the Commission since this is the body that really has the people including you.

Mr. Glenn: I will be honest with you, Mr. Chairman; I believe the Legislature

right now is more apt to take the lead of the Florida Energy Commission or the Governor’s Action Team on Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Their reports have been in for some time and are a part of those bills that are being developed. I think that, while I agree with you in my mind is the best place to go, they don’t listen to me very much, so

Chairman Rodriguez: I can’t believe that. You wouldn’t be here if they didn’t listen to you, Jack.

Mr. Glenn: My voice is through you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Rodriguez: Oh sure, thank you. Under the pool or outside the pool? (Joking/laughter)

Mr. Glenn: Again, I just ask for consideration and ask that you set aside the

October 1 date. I realize that would then put the energy changes outside the glitch, but you obviously have rule-making authority in Chapter 3901 that develop rules on the Energy Code. That 3 month delay would afford the time for the Commission to have a more delivered due process not only based on your current recommendations but also those of the Legislature.

Chairman Rodriguez: I appreciate it. You are very eloquent. I think

everybody understands. Rick, please.

Mr. Dixon: Commissioners, for further information, as you know the

Legislature directed the Commission to evaluate the cost effective options for increasing energy efficiency requirements of the Energy Code during last session and that work was done by a contractor. The results of that project have been integrated into DCA’s recommendation to the Commission. We also participated in the Florida Energy Commission processes last year and were successful at getting into the Energy Commission’s recommendations that any action on energy efficiency for the Building Code be deferred to the Florida Building Commission’s report to the Florida Legislature. Your report to the Legislature the same efficiency levels that you approved the last meeting were recorded and recommended. I would also state, Mr. Chairman, that the way this process was designed with understanding of the uncertainties of the Legislative Session, a rule adoption hearing will be held after the Session so any changes that may be directed by the Legislature can be integrated into this rule amendment process without further delay.

Chairman Rodriguez: I think it’s been clear that we believe the elected

officials are the last word. Nobody has ever challenged that. It’s just that I think it’s our…

[There was a lapse in the track change on audio CD that excluded the rest of Chairman Rodriguez’ comments and an additional four other individuals’ comments. The notes that follow are merely a representation of the speakers and a small portion of their comments: (in order):]

Dick Wilhelm: …representing FMA?

Commissioner Greiner: discussed background…

Mr. Dixon: …part of the trade off with U…vinyl windows/do not stand up to

wind pressure design…multiple issues….optimize…

Ivan Oyola, Jr.: representing SHGC Window manufacturers………governor

called to increase energy efficiency by 15% and we’d really appreciate the spirit of cooperation and consensus that the Technical Advisory Committee to hear our comments and really applaud the efforts that are being performed.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you, Ivan and we appreciate your efforts, as well.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak, please approach.

Mike Nau: Good morning, I’m Mike Nau from PGT Industries. I support

FMA’s proposal for the .65. I did take some issue to the .3 solar heat gain and the reason being is that there are some spectrally selective or some glass types that have higher visibility. They are high performing glass but they fall into maybe a .32 or .33 range and so our original proposal was to go with a .35, which would ultimately include glasses that are high, performing and again provide additional day lighting. I guess that’s all I have to speak on that comment.

Chairman Rodriguez: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this issue?

Mike Nau: I would like to add something.

Chairman Rodriguez: Yes?

Mr. Nau: First and foremost and before the proposal that’s being made, Mr.

Bassett made some comments about offering 85% rule, just going 85% baseline and that seemed to make the most economical sense. There are three regions of Florida. Up north, for instance, a builder may decide to change the heating system, in South Florida he may decide to throw a couple of bucks on to better glass. The whole idea is that you’re gaining your 15% efficiency and you’re allowing the builders the freedom to determine economically what suits them best for that region. You’re actually still considering Florida as the three region or three zones that are currently in the Code.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you very much.

Mr. Nau: Thank you.

Chuck Anderson: Mr. Chairman, Chuck Anderson, with AAMA. Just real

briefly, to me in all of the proposals and all of the numbers that are being batted around I would kind of like everyone to keep their eye on Climate Zone 1, which is Dade, Broward and Monroe Counties and Puerto Rico, Guam and Hawaii. There is a lot of science out there that suggests that monkeying with that U factor and trying to pull that down below 1.2 gets you very nearly zero payback and very nearly zero increase in energy performance. So whatever we do I think there’s a good opportunity there to leave that alone and leave it at the U factor of 1.2 for Climate Zone 1. Thanks.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you, Chuck, very much. Anyone else that

wishes to speak on this one?

Bob Cochell: I’m Bob Cochell. I’m on the Energy TAC and I am representing

the Florida Air Conditioning Contractors this morning. Whatever we do on the windows and envelope directly impacts the air conditioning. Since I doubt that none of you live without it, we need to address what changes all envelope and interior, say lighting, economies have on air conditioning. Much of the Code work and most of the ICC work is done by people who live in a hot, dry climate or a cold, dry climate. We live in a hot, humid climate. The air conditioning load has two components: 1) is the sensible heat, what we can feel, what is sensed on the thermostat and 2) is the humidity. As we tighten up on the envelope and on interior loads that takes the sensible heat down, but the latent heat, the humidity, still remains. That changes the selection of the equipment because the equipment today just happens to mirror what percent is sensible heat ratio is to the total, which is .70. 70% of the heat that an air conditioner typically takes out of the house is the heat sensible. When we change the envelope, particularly the windows, that is the greatest source of heat gain to the structure, residential, and then we take the dynamic from that load from a .7 to say a .55 or .50. There are very few machines that can operate in that realm. Typically they are the most expensive. And I am speaking from the largest manufacturers, Tran, Carrier and Lenox, communication with them and they typically have one product offering per those manufacturers that can achieve these 55 or lower sensible heat ratios. So when we tighten up on the windows we are going to have to go to the very best products in order to achieve humidity control and comfort. That’s what people are buying comfort, not cooling, because we can take the temperature down with inexpensive units, but can’t do both quite readily. The consequences if we do not have units that meet the load is that the relative humidity is going to rise and if the relative humidity rises above 60% on a number of days, you’re going to be out the parameters, 55% relative humidity or lower, many more days than you would be typically for today with today’s systems, etc. If that happens you are going to get organic growth and that’s where we are going. You can mitigate that with reheat, however, reheat is reusing energy and the whole object of this is to minimize energy. Where can we go? The DOE has given us authority for regional AC standards and I recommend that we look into that option, but also we need to know as we tighten up on these buildings and make them very tight, we are going to have an impact on the air conditioning industry, which has a vested interest to each one of us. I also recommend that whatever venue we need to get it done, we need to have almost a crash course of reeducation of the air conditioning people statewide and how to deal with the new type buildings that we are going to be putting forward as we change the Code.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you very much, we appreciate it very much, Bob.

Mike Moore: New Point Venture and I represent the steel framing alliance

and I would ask the chair if I can pass out an updated comment I think would make things much more clear.

Chairman Rodriguez: Sure.

Mr. Moore: I am sorry I don’t have enough copies for everyone.

Chairman Rodriguez: We can share.

Mr. Moore: So, basically, as this comment is going out, the main reason the

steel framing alliance wanted to be represented today was because some of these changes that have gone on in ASHRAE 90.1 2007 we believe are punitive towards steel and not toward other manufacturers or other building assemblies, specifically the U factor that’s being required for steel frame walls above grade. You’ll notice in this table, 400 C, of the Florida Building Code, the U factor for steel is basically being cut in half and that is a tremendous change. You never see a jump that big typically in building standards for any assembly and also one thing I’d like to point out is that U factors below that required for wood framed assemblies. If you think about there’s really no reason this should be. The U factor is saying what thermal standard any wall assembly should perform to. Traditionally this table has kind of incorporated other benefits of materials and hasn’t required steel in the past to perform to the same thermal performance level of wood framed assemblies. That change is made in the 2007 version of 90.1 and not only is it required to be equivalent; the requirement is beyond that, in requiring steel framed assemblies to perform better than wood framed assemblies in above grade walls. This is seen in a U 0.089. We also see 7.5 R value in continuous installation being added to the R-13 requirement for steal that I have circled under the residential requirements and that is far and above what IECC has recently recognized with being equivalent with an R-13 wood framed assembly, which is basically your 0.089 U factor. And to get exact equivalents if you are going to add continuous insulation to a steel framed assembly using a parallel path calculation method, you’re looking at an R-13 plus 3 and this was recently recognized by the IECC committee and will likely be passed and put in the 2009 version of the IECC that’s set to come out. So I would suggest that while the 15% goal is laudable and we appreciate how you guys have gone about it by updating to national standards, we ask you to recognize that this is overly punitive for steel and if a change is to be made on the U factor and the R value for above grade wall assemblies that thermal equivalents with a wood framed assemble should be the target and not over performance of what is standard out there right now. So we would ask your consideration of that request.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you. Commissioner Greiner, please.

Commissioner Greiner: Do you remember what change that was at the IECC level.

Mr. Moore: I can get that number for you.

Commissioner Greiner: Give me the EC number, would you please?

Mr. Moore: I can get that number for you.

Chairman Rodriguez: Any other questions?

Mr. Dixon: Lorraine listen, please. Perhaps someone else or maybe you can

tell us what the thickness is of the installation used in conventional EIFS systems. Is it a 1 inch or ½ inch?

Lorraine Ross: 1 inch.

Mr. Dixon: That is where the number came from. Whatever the conventional

insulation level that’s used.

Mr. Moore: Well you can’t get to a 7.5 typically in a 1 inch unless it was an

extreme version of a poly-iso. You can get to an R5 perhaps in a 1 inch with the typical materials, but you would not hit the 7.5. You can certainly reach R3 in 1 inch.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you. Any other questions?

Ms. Ross: Lorraine Ross, with Intec consulting. Today I’m representing the

American Chemical Counsel, Polyiso Insulation Manufacturers Association, Center for the Polyurethane Industry and Extruded Polystyrene Manufacturers Association. My comments are limited, Mr. Chairman and members, to the Commercial Code. They have all to do with the upgrade of AHSRAE 90.1 to the 2007 version. Our group is fully in support of what has been done and proposed here for the commercial building sector. We feel that it’s very important in these days of high energy costs that there is a recognition that these standards need to be changed. For example in the building envelope section of the building roofs and walls it is the first upgrade since 1989 that ASHRAE has undertaken, which is pretty astounding when you think back on it. The other aspect of this is that as far as cost savings are concerned, energy savings as well as cost effectiveness, ASHRAE is a consensus process and in that process any of these proposals have to be put through the grinder of showing what the energy savings are as well as showing that they are cost effective. So this is maybe a unique situation where ASHRAE itself imposes on these proposals that kind of burden to show that there are cost effective changes and these changes that are contained within the Florida Energy Code proposal today for commercial buildings have met that test. I would like to point out that as to the precious speaker from the steel framing alliance there was a very big reason why there are different energy requirements and insulation requirements for steel frame buildings and that is because steel is a very conductor of energy and it is shown that you need to have that type of insulation. As far as products available to meet that 7.5 continuous insulation, those products are available. One of my manufacturers’ trade associations, Polyiso Industry, can provide and has been providing those products. So it is commercially available and not an issue. And lastly a thing I just want to say, and it sounds kind of weird, and of course the insulation guys I represent, they have a dog in the fight, they’re going to be selling more insulation, no doubt, but I also want to point out the American Chemistry Counsel, by all accounts, really is the largest consumer of energy within the commercial sector. They have massive chemical plants and they have been using and consuming an unbelievable amount of energy on a daily basis. On the other hand they also recognize that they are in the process of, in the business of providing products that are energy efficient, even beyond insulation things like light bulbs and materials for solar and wind energy so they kind of have a dual function here. In that they are using a lot of energy but they are also using products that save energy. So my bottom line is that we support wholeheartedly, all of these groups, the use of AHSRAE 90.1 2007 version, as proposed in the Florida Energy Code update.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you, Lorraine. Anyone else?

Kari Hebrank: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I come before

you today representing both the Florida Building Materials Association and the Florida Swimming Pool Association. First, on behalf of the Florida Building Materials Association, I’d like to echo the comments of Jack Glenn and that is that we need to take a deep breath and maybe wait and see what the Legislature comes out with because they are looking at energy efficiency standards for all types of products, including pool products, and increasing the efficiency standards to as high as 50% by the year 2019. So, again, there are different proposals working their way through the system and I believe we need to wait and see what they come out with and then take a shot at this following the Session. On the issue of the window standards you are looking at, the U factor and the solar heat gain coefficient, I would like to echo the gentleman from PGT, in that, we, too, have concerns about the .30. Keep in mind if you go to a higher level you’re requiring a higher tinted window that will then increase your need for interior lighting. So sometimes you make these energy changes and yet you are causing an energy draw somewhere else. So, we would prefer the .35. SO again I ask you to reconsider that standard in going to the .30. Now, I’m going to switch hats. On the issue of swimming pools, on the issue of pool pumps, the state of California standard that Rick mentioned has been in place for several years. I would have to respectfully disagree. Title 20 that deals with portable electric spas is not finalized as yet and is not being enforced in California because they haven’t been able to verify the testing procedure that works. We’ve actually been working with the California Energy Commission and their Swimming Pool Association and the National Association to work on that particular issue. Likewise, Title 24 in the California Standards is also still being finalized. Title 24 deals with pool pumps. Again, we are working with California on these standards and we are also working with the Department of Energy on some National Energy Efficiency Standards. We have one manufacturer that makes a very energy efficient product, but interestingly, he can’t get an energy star rating because they don’t do that for pool products, swimming pool products, so again that’s something else we are working on. If our manufacturers do make energy efficient products, at some point, they, too, can get the energy star label. Presently it’s unclear if these California standards are even achievable. Additionally, with regard to pool pumps and pool controls, there’s not enough product on the market currently to meet the demand if these provisions were to be put in place by October. I just don’t think we can achieve the desired result that you are looking for. Pentair, one of our members, does make a variable speed pump. He is one of the only manufacturers that do so at this point in time. We are also working with Representative Randolph, in the House of Representatives. He has a legislation that deals with appliance efficiency standards for everything from DVDs to camcorders down to swimming pool equipment and pool heaters, pool pumps. We believe that his timeline is a bit more realistic. He has a time frame of July 1, 2010 and, again we are trying to base what we do on some of the national standards because for product manufacturers it’s a lot more difficult when you are trying to tool products for different standards all across the country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you, Kari.

Mr. Blair: Who’s next? No, actually we’ve already heard form you, Mike.

Just so you understand this is not a code hearing. This is a rule development workshop and we don’t do point-counterpoint.

Mr. Moore: That’s fine, but there was a request from a committee member for

some information I was responding to.

Commissioner Greiner: I requested that change number.

Mr. Blair: Okay, that’s fine.

Mr. Moore: The number was EC-50.

Commissioner Greiner: EC-50, thanks.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you very much.

Commissioner Greiner: I had a question for Kari, if I might.

Chairman Rodriguez: Kari, could you come back. There is a question from

Commissioner Greiner, please.

Commissioner Greiner: Is the pool industry actively pursuing the variable

speed pumps and have they tried any that you know about?

Ms. Hebrank: Yes, they actually are. They have seen that that does increase

energy efficiency. We just don’t have enough manufacturers working on those products yet.

Commissioner Greiner: Do we actually have some running in Florida somewhere?

Ms. Hebrank: Pentair does make a variable speed pump.

Commissioner Greiner: And you know they’ve been installed in pools?

Ms. Hebrank: As far as I know, yes.

Commissioner Bassett: My question is when you use a variable speed

pool pump? I see no need to have a variable speed pool pump in my pool. What would be the conditions you’d use a lower or a higher speed?

Ms. Hebrank: Yes, I mean I think it just depends on when you want the

higher activity in the circulation and I can get somebody who is a lot more technical to find that out. Again, they are just developing them and there are not that many on the market yet.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you, Kari. Is there anybody else? Arlene?

Arlene Stewart: Arlene Stewart, representing myself, because I have a lot of

people on both the different sides off this discussion and I’ve been struggling quite a bit with what’s the right thing to do here. So, I have to applaud this Commission for the job that’s being undertaken. And, I guess if I have to make a comment about anything, I can’t say enough how important it is, I think, to actually see the report that DCA has requested with the details of how these recommendations came about in order to have in the rule hearing because as all of these interests bring out all of these concerns, I think it is going to be exceptionally important for ya’ll to really know, okay, if you need to back down on something how are you going to make it up without having unintended consequences. I know that we, you know, as Rick said, there’s been an executive summary sent out, there’s a list of certain provisions that we saw an input on that it has this much effect. However, because we do work on a performance base, we are always fighting against the law of diminishing returns on any given provision. If you back down on one provision then another provision might have a bigger impact and, as Mr. Cochell said, there may be unintended consequences. And, we know from our meeting on Monday that a summary has been submitted, but not all of the data is actually due for another couple of months. And I think that’s going to be extremely important as you make your decision. And, I would request that you actually have that because as many of you know I have been following a lot of these forums from the Energy Commission, here, the Governor’s Counsel for Sustainability, the Century Commission and I’m hearing a lot of different comments. You know, there was a point about the International Conservation Code being less stringent than our current Code and I’ve heard three or four different reasons for that. It has not been the same consistent reason or the same consistent number that there’s a difference in. One report says it’s air infiltration and I haven’t been able to find a quantitative point about that air infiltration, just language. Another one says it’s the window performance values, another says it’s the window area. There is a lot of information out here and I think it’s really important you get all of this out on the table, get the final report from DCA’s contractor and really take a look at all of this and how they all interface. Thank you.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Arlene. Is there anyone else

from the public? If not I’m going to close this part of the hearing to the public.

Mr. Dixon: Just a clarification for commissioners. It is important to remember

the efficiency levels that are selected are not absolute minimums or maximums. They are not what people have to install, what we were discussing. What they are used for is to establish an energy budget for the overall building. Once that budget is established then the owner, the designer can select which particular energy conservation options are most cost effective for them or most marketable, depending on your perspective, and utilize those to come up or just to meet the energy budget. So we are not setting absolute minimums. We are setting performance levels that have to be matched either directly or with a trade off using some other energy efficient measure.

Chairman Rodriguez: That’s a very good reminder. Thank you. Okay, so we

are now going to open it for commissioners and Commissioner Bassett is leading the way.

Commissioner Bassett: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to expand upon what Rick just

said and go a little bit further. We met for almost three hours. It really took a bite out of the happy hour. But during that time frame and what is buried in the report that we accepted from the TAC was that several straw polls were taken and it seemed to be that there was a lot of problem with people getting a handle on what we were changing really wasn’t built very much. And the consensus was that maybe 2% of the buildings were built by the prescriptive measure and that 98% were built by the performance measure. And so at the end we had one straw vote that was unanimous. It was the only unanimous.

Chairman Rodriguez: 8-0, I think.

Commissioner Bassett: 8-0. And that had to do with simply changing the

requirement that you have to score 85 or less on the calculation and then you passed. And that changes nothing we get away from all the well you’re hitting me, or you’re not hitting them, and this sort of thing. And eliminate the prescriptive method of building and just say you have to run the performance calculation and hit 85% and that, to me, would take away all of the disagreement because all we’ve heard today is someone saying don’t hit me here, don’t hit me there and if we simply go to 85% or 85 score, like I suggested at the last meeting, that would solve the whole issue. And we could go on with it and whatever the Legislature did wouldn’t really affect us. Thank you.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you very much. Any other commissioner? Commissioner Greiner.

Commissioner Greiner: I’ll tell you what Commissioner Bassett is requesting

is probably a good idea. My only concern with that is that it doesn’t give us the opportunity to deal with these other sections of the Code and portions that create the performance method. It just glosses over and does the whole thing. If we actually adjust these items and create a situation where in the performance based approach you have to look at these other items. In other words your windows are U factor .65 and SHGC a .30 then you have to look at the insulation and you have to look at the other. It doesn’t mean you have to use those windows. You could put in different windows, but you have to look at the insulation, you have to look at the attic, you have to look at the duct work, you have to do these other things that are more important. So I would go with the .65 and .30 across the board as a more efficient way to deal with the 15%.

Chairman Rodriguez If there is no more. I guess there is. I’m sorry, Commissioner Browdy?

Commissioner Browdy: I think the Commission is once again challenged to

make a decision meet an arbitrary deadline of October 1, 2008 and it’s very understandable that DCA is urging the Commission to comply with the time mandates. But I think we have a situation here where the industry requires additional time to see if the proposed requirements are technically achievable at a reasonable cost and still meet the Commission’s statutory responsibility to fiscal impact. Prior to end of this meeting we’ll hear a report about what’s going in the housing industry. It really isn’t pretty out there. In addition to this dilemma we’re very aware that the Legislature, even as we speak, is discussing its priorities with regard to energy efficient building products. So if we move forward to achieve this time mandate we may be forced to backtrack because there’s no product available and because of the Legislature’s efforts to once again promulgate building codes or promulgate mandates and requirements that may or may not be achievable. We may be burdened with more than 15% requirement that is not only unachievable but also could conceivable bring permitting in construction to a halt, the little bit that there is in the residential sector. So I would urge the Commission to rethink this and consider a delay until after the session which would probably be prior to our next meeting in May. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you, Commissioner Browdy. Commissioner Greiner, please.

Commissioner Greiner: In recognition to that, I believe that we need to have

something in place. Once the Legislature does what it’s doing we can make an adjustment to this, because we have another hearing after the Legislature is done. I think it would be more important for us to have something in place that would put us in that position, as opposed to scrambling. I would make a motion that we stay with the .65 and the .30 and the other changes that the staff has provided.

Chairman Rodriguez: Is there a second?

Commissioner Vann: Second.

Chairman Rodriguez: Commissioner Wiggins, please.

Commissioner Wiggins: I just need further clarification on Commissioner

Bassett’s proposal as to what the difference is between the two. Is there a proposal by which both methods could be applied that you’d have the choice of using 85 points or complying with the .30 U factor or heat gain? I mean, it seems to me I don’t understand what…

Mr. Dixon: Let me try to field that. Commissioners there are two options or

two ways of getting to the same end. Both get you to 15%, but they use the same calculation engine so you can’t apply both at the same time. You’d have to do one option or the other option. You’d need to do with what’s currently determined by the energy calculations and apply 85 instead of 100 point compliance criteria or adjust the calculation to maintain 100 point criteria and achieve 15%, which is what the DCA recommendation was.

Commissioner Bassett: Mr. Chairman, I think there’s also a monetary

difference between the two. One, it’s a simple statement, you have to meet 85 and the other is you got to print new pages, we have to pay for the program to be revised to include the new numbers in the calculation and then all the people in Florida that use the new calculation would have to buy the new program. So I think there’s a monetary consideration beyond what it has to do with just building the building.

Chairman Rodriguez: Okay, thank you. Any further discussion? If not, we

have a motion to proceed with rule adoption.

Mr. Blair: First we need to take the action, that’s for the second motion.

Chairman Rodriguez: Okay, let’s take the action first.

Mr. Blair: The current motion is to go with across the board U value of .65

and a SHGC of .30 with all the other changes proposed. Correct Commissioner Greiner?

Chairman Rodriguez: That’s Commissioner Greiner’s motion. All in favor please say I.

Mr. Blair: Let’s get a hand count.

Chairman Rodriguez: All in favor please raise your hands.

Mr. Blair: 7 in favor and 13 opposed (Norkunas, Dean, Schulte, Vann,

McCombs, Gonzalez, D’andrea, Browdy, Kim, Kidwell, Carson, Hamrick, Bassett) obviously fails.

Chairman Rodriguez: Motion fails. Commissioner Bassett?

Commissioner Bassett: I’d like to make a motion that we simply require a

score of 85 on energy calculations to pass in the future.

Chairman Rodriguez: Is there a second?

Commissioner Kidwell: Second.

Mr. Blair: And that would do away with all of the other changes, correct?

Commissioner Bassett: That’s correct.

Mr. Dixon: Clarification. The prescriptive methodology is still a package. It’s

just an option. Is that your understanding, Commissioner Bassett?

Commissioner Bassett: No, the prescriptive method would still have to run

the performance calculation to get the 85%.

Mr. Blair: So, you are doing away with the prescriptive methodology?

Commissioner Bassett: Doing away with the prescriptive method. It would

have to be by performance.

Mr. Blair: So, just so everybody knows. Rick you might want to say

something. It’s just a major shift that’s all. So that we understand the motion it’s to simply use the performance method with the requirement of an 85% score on energy calculations and to eliminate the prescriptive methodology. Is that accurate?

Commissioner Bassett: That’s correct.

Chairman Rodriguez: Is there a second?

Mr. Blair: We did have a second.

Chairman Rodriguez: Yes, Commissioner Kidwell.

Commissioner Wiggins: You would still have to have some kind of

prescriptive method for small room additions and things like that. I mean unless you are going to require somebody to go back and reexamine the entire building, there would have to be some and whether it’s the values that DCA introduced perhaps that’s the method to accomplish that. So, I agree with the motion but I think there still needs to be a prescriptive method for remodeling work, for small room additions, and things like that. Is that not correct, Mo or Rick?

Mo Madani: Yes, it is needed and there already done for the 15%. Am I correct?

Mr. Dixon: To try to bring together what Commissioner Bassett said and what

you’re asking about. The performance method is an 85 point passing. Then a prescriptive package can be identified that meets that 85% for additions and small…

Commissioner Greiner: Can I propose an amendment to the motion that we

use 85 passing score for the performance method and .65 U factor and .30 SHGC for the prescriptive method.

Chairman Rodriguez: Bassett, do you accept that amendment?

Commissioner Bassett: I’m thinking about that for a second.

Chairman Rodriguez: Okay, no penalty for thinking.

Commissioner Bassett: My concern is that what the window people have

told us is that no one would be able to do that. I would much rather simply state…

Chairman Rodriguez: I thought they said no one would be able to do that in the short term.

Mr. Blair: This is the revised numbers they said they could do.

Commissioner Bassett: But I…It might be easier simply to say that small

additions or remodels could be done with the prescriptive numbers we have now because in effect they wouldn’t have that big of an effect on energy. And we could come up with a say 2,000 square foot addition or something like that. But you can do an addition with the performance method calculations. A lot of times you have to go pick up the rest of the house to include it in it, but I have done additions with the performance method.

Mr. Dixon: Commissioners if you just preserve the concept of the prescriptive

method for the small addition, etc, we can make the numbers work based on the 85% pass/fail on the performance. I propose that people can comment on it at the hearing.

Commissioner Greiner: Let me revise my amendment then to say 85 total

score on performance and current prescriptive method remains the same, as opposed to wiping out the prescriptive method.

Commissioner Bassett: I would go along with that because right now only 2%

of the houses go with the prescriptive method and I believe they are generally smaller residences.

Mr. Blair: So you are going to accept that as a friendly amendment?

Commissioner Bassett: I would accept that.

Mr. Blair: So the revised motion is that there be an 85 score on the

performance and the current prescriptive methodology package remain as is.

Chairman Rodriguez: Bassett and Kidwell?

Mr. Blair: So you are accepting that as the new motion? Because it was

considered friendly we did not have to do a substitute or anything else. Did you want to take comments?

Chairman Rodriguez: I thought we closed the public hearing.

Mr. Blair: Okay.

Chairman Rodriguez: I’m always ready to hear people.

Mr. Blair: So, you accepted it, right?

Commissioner Bassett: Yes.

Mr. Blair: We’ve got a revised motion is on the floor for further discussion.

Chairman Rodriguez: If not, all in favor please raise your hand.

Mr. Blair: 11 for, if I am seeing correctly. Let me ask you to do it one more

time. I apologize. I’m going to put my glasses on this time. Those who are in favor raise your hands, please. {Mr. Blair counted 14 in favor} And those opposed, please raise your hands. {Mr. Blair counted 5 opposed.}

Chairman Rodriguez: Does that add up?

Mr. Blair: No, it doesn’t. There should be 20 members here. {Mr. Blair

counted all members present and totaled 20}. Okay, I came up with 14 to 5 which equals 19, so either 1 person did not vote or I missed it, so I will ask you to do it one more time. All in favor raise your hands and hold them up and don’t put them back down. {Mr. Blair counted 15 in favor} So it is 15 in favor, 5 opposed (McCombs, Vann, Browdy, Carlton, Carson). That still does not pass.

Chairman Rodriguez: Okay.

Mr. Blair: So, we need some other…Wait a minute, am I wrong? Out of 20

members, 15-5 is 75% exactly, it does pass.

Commissioner Bassett: Jeff, I’m glad you have a cheat sheet. (joking)

Chairman Rodriguez: No, he didn’t do that, he was thinking. We let you

think. He can think. (joking/laughter)

Mr. Blair: 15 of 20 passes, 14-6 would’ve failed. It’s been a long time since

we’ve had a vote like that, I don’t remember how this works.

[After proceeding to and completing the Rule Adoption Hearing on Rule 9B-70, Education, the Commission returned to Rule 9B-13 as follows]

Mr. Richmond: To clarify. I guess there was some concern that we didn’t

vote to proceed with rule adoption on the Energy issue. I think by voting for that package of changes, the only significance of the changes is through rule amendments, so unless there is an objection I would certainly take that motion as direction to proceed rule adoption and notice for a rule adoption hearing at the next meeting of the Florida Building Commission.

Chairman Rodriguez: Commissioner Browdy?

Commissioner Browdy: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think there was a debate

regarding the performance standard in the 85%. There really was no discussion regarding the comments that were made by a number of people including myself with regard to delaying action on it for 30-45 days and that vote really would’ve been, or that action would’ve been confirmed up or down by whether or not to proceed with the rule adoption. So, I think it’s appropriate to have a vote.

Chairman Rodriguez: Okay, I agree with you. So, could you make a motion

to proceed with rule adoption?

Commissioner Browdy: No. I really wouldn’t want to do that.

Chairman Rodriguez: Almost got you, Browdy, almost got you.

Commissioner Browdy: I’m sorry.

Commissioner Bassett: I move we proceed with rule adoption.

Chairman Rodriguez: Is there a motion and a second?

Commissioner Greiner: Second.

Chairman Rodriguez: We will have some discussion, right, Browdy?

Commissioner Browdy: I think I’ve made my comments clear. I think the

session’s going to be over the beginning of May and you’ve heard from the last hour and a half worth of comments we don’t have unanimity of opinion. There’s some issues relating to the Energy Code and I think it is a legitimate discussion or choice right now to delay action on this until after May 1^st, or until the next Commission meeting. And I would hope the members of the Commission would consider that. Thank you.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Commissioner Browdy. Anyone

else? Yes, Commissioner Kim?

Commissioner Kim: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mainly a question to staff: If

we delay to the next meeting that would push back implementation from…

Chairman Rodriguez: Rick, I need you here for a minute. Rick.

Commissioner Kim has a question of staff.

Chairman Rodriguez: Go ahead, I’m sorry, Commissioner Kim.

Commissioner Kim: Rick, if we voted to delay it until the next meeting will that

just postpone implementation from October to January 1^st?

Mr. Blair: So you are clear. We discussed the motion passed for the

package to move forward. I think it was perhaps implicit, but perhaps not, we did not actually ask for a motion to proceed with rule adoption 9B-13 Energy Code. So that’s on the table as a motion and a second to proceed with rule adoption. And Commissioner Browdy is suggesting he would prefer not to proceed with rule adoption. And Commissioner Kim wants to know the effect of waiting. If we don’t proceed with rule adoption and we start it at the next meeting then how will that impact the delivery and delay of the schedule and I think the answer would be it would bring it from October to January at a minimum.

Mr. Dixon: I think it could be longer than that depending on what the changes are. That’s the major concern. When we put this plan together that you all approved in the workplan, we knew we would have a hearing after the Legislative Session so that we could take action if there was any direction to come out of the Legislature at all. You know the Speaker of the House has indicated that he’s not inclined to take forward the Governor’s energy proposals this year. So we don’t know if there will be anything or not.

Chairman Rodriguez: Commissioner Bassett you wanted to say something?

Commissioner Bassett: Rick just stated my comment.

Chairman Rodriguez: Okay, all in favor of the motion…Oh, sorry, there was more comment.

Commisioner McCombs: I would just like to echo the concerns of the public

and Commissioner Browdy’s comments also.

Chairman Rodriguez: Yes, Commissioner.

Commissioner Gonzalez: Is the 50% based on the 2004 Code or the

proposed 2007 Code? I’ve never got that clear.

Chairman Rodriguez: Go ahead, Rick.

Mr. Dixon: There was very little change between the 2004 with the 2006

supplement and the 2007 Code. So in effect, it’s the 2007.

Chairman Rodriguez: See, in my opinion, for whatever it’s worth, is that it is

our duty to send forth to the Legislature what we believe to be good public policy and then they are the elected officials by the citizens of Florida to enact the Legislature. If we do not do this now then we are denying them that opinion for them to then deliberate. So, I heard from Jack, clearly, just in case you know it, that they are likely not to listen, but our obligation is to recommend like all professionals on this table are used to. We make recommendations and owners decide. That’s our life so anyway, having said that. If there are no other comments I will just have the vote. All in favor please raise your hands.

Mr. Blair: 15 in favor, 4 opposed (McCombs, Browdy, Carlton, Browdy) and

one commissioner out of the room. Motion passes.

Chairman Rodriguez: Thank you very much.

RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-70, EDUCATION

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the December 2007 meeting the Commission voted to commence rule development on Rule 9B-70, the Education Rule. He then stated in January the Commission conducted a rule adoption hearing on 9B-70 and considered recommendations from the Education POC. He further stated the Commission voted that all advanced courses should be updated no later than the enforcement date of the code in effect and that accreditors may accredit advanced courses to the forthcoming code version to meet the deadline requirements regarding updating advanced courses. He continued by stating the rule adoption hearing is to provide an additional opportunity for public input before the Commission proceeds with rule adoption and the revisions to the rule.

Mr. Richmond stated Rule Adoption Hearing on Rule 9B-70 Education as noticed in Florida Administrative Weekly is hereby opened.

Commissioner Browdy stated there was an additional recommendation, which deals with the approval of course accreditors. He then stated the Education POC hoped this particular recommendation would enhance the chances of attracting additional course accreditors in terms of the requirements for course accreditors. He further stated what the POC proposes was for applications for individuals seeking to be accreditors not only be judged on their academic requirements but also equivalent types of requirements as determined by experience in the field, demonstrated expertise or proficiency under this provision. He stated the POC has proposed to qualify that by saying a) the demonstrated expertise or proficiency would be a four year college degree or graduate degree in the field for which approval was sought, b) a letter verifying work experience in the field in which approval is sought from a person who supervised the applicant or c) a letter verifying employment the specific position of the applicant in a field for which approval is sought. He continued stating the POC hoped this additional enhancement to the rule would increase the number of individuals who qualify to be accreditors thus enhancing the opportunity for more people to participate in the accreditation. He concluded by stating those were the POCs final additional comments to the rule.

No public comment.

Mr. Richmond closed the hearing.

Mr. Richmond stated there was one recommended change therefore a motion would be needed to proceed with rule adoption integrating the recommended change into a notice of change. He further stated the standard procedure would be to notice the change with the possibility of an additional hearing at the next meeting.

Commissioner Kidwell moved to proceed with rule adoption integrating the recommended change into a notice of change. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON RULE 9B-3.050, AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA BUILDING CODE

Chairman Rodriguez stated the rule development workshop on Rule 9B-3.050 is being conducted to amend the procedures for the code development processes regarding the new statutory glitch process amending the form for submittal and eliminating the 45 day cooling off period. He further stated the rule development workshop provides an opportunity for public comment on this issue.

Mr. Richmond stated Rule Development Workshop on Rule 9B-3.050 as noticed in Florida Administrative Weekly is hereby opened.

No public comment.

Mr. Richmond closed the workshop.

Commissioner D’ Andrea moved approval to proceed with rule making. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON RULE 9B-3.053, ALTERNATIVE PLANS REVIEW AND INSPECTION FORMS

Chairman Rodriguez stated the rule development effort was being conducted to correct a discrepancy between the private provided form adopted in the rule and the one posted on the BCIS. He further stated the rule development provides an opportunity for the members of the public to provide comments on the preferred version of the private provider form.

Richmond stated Rule Development Workshop on Rule 9B-3.053 as noticed in Florida Administrative Weekly is hereby opened.

No Public Comment.

Mr. Richmond closed the hearing.

Commissioner Gonzalez asked for clarification with what was being done with the forms of 2003

Mr. Richmond responded stating the Commission went through a workshop process, but he did not know if the adoption phase occurred. He further stated the joint administrative procedures committee had some comments on that particular rule that the Commission basically went back and forth for a period of time trying to resolve which really exceed comfortable time limits. He clarified what this action would do is move into rule what the Commission did previously and what has been on the Commission website to be utilized as the form and integrating a resolution to the joint administrative procedures committee comments pertaining to identification of the location of the forms on the website. He concluded by stating this was something the Commission had seen before and was currently going through the administrative hoops to ensure it is appropriately adopted and accepted by the Department of State.

Commissioner Greiner does all of that mean the forms have not actually been changed.

Mr. Richmond stated the forms were being changed as a matter of record with the Department of State and the Commission would not be doing any further changes to the forms otherwise approved by the Commission in the past.

Commissioner D’ Andrea moved to proceed with rulemaking. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-7.042, ACCESSIBILITY CODE

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the January 2008 meeting the Commission voted to conduct a rule adoption hearing on Rule 9B-7.042, the Accessibility Code Rule for the purpose of correcting the accessible route width. He further stated the hearing provides the members of the public an opportunity to give public comment on any proposed revisions to the rule.

Mr. Richmond stated the Rule Development Workshop on Rule 9B-7.042 as noticed in Florida Administrative Weekly is hereby opened. He then explained there was one other procedural glitch on the notice the language the Commission did consider during the last rule making proceeding was also underlined. He stated for some reason, perhaps a formatting glitch, the underlined language does not appear currently in the adopted provisions of the rule even though it went through rule making. He reiterated he thought it was a formatting glitch so it was reformatted to have paragraphs 1 and 2, with 2 actually reflecting the actions of the Commission.

No Public Comment.

Mr. Richmond closed the hearing.

Commissioner Norkunas stated there appeared to be a typo of one word in the last sentence of 2B it appears the word should be “The” instead of “There”

Mr. Richmond stated he believed the typo could be covered as a technical change, but in the event it could not he would recommend reopening the public comment portion and take that comment as part of the hearing so it could still be corrected.

Mr. Blair asked Mr. Richmond if he wanted Commissioner Norkunas to make the comment during public comment.

Mr. Richmond responded he believed he did that by reference. He reiterated it should be a technical change.

Mr. Richmond closed the hearing.

Commissioner D’ Andrea moved to proceed with rule adoption. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

PRESENTATION ON STATE OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY

Chairman Rodriguez stated there would be a presentation on the state of the construction industry sector of the economy. He then stated Commissioner Browdy had requested an opportunity to provide the Commission with an overview.

Commissioner Browdy stated as many members are painfully aware of the fact, the housing market has had an incredible affect on the economy. He further stated the deterioration of the housing market has had catastrophic effects to those that were never anticipated such as Bear Stearns almost bankrupt when stock dropped down to $2.00 per share. He then stated most of the larger institutions and lenders have reacted albeit a little later and some sooner than others to a declination in the housing market. He stated he asked Jack Glenn of the Homebuilders Association to bring the Commission the latest information on the state of the industry, what the implications are for the state of Florida and what it could mean. He concluded he believed as the Commission moves forward in its deliberations over issues related to code issues and the importance of code changes the Commission entertains and how critical it is for the Commission to make even sharper decisions than it has in the past when it influences the cost of housing in the future.

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilder’s Association stated it was a pleasure to share the insights of the housing market as it currently stands. He then stated everyone has read about the negative news and stated there was no good news in the housing these days, especially related to housing and real estate. He further stated though the market was tough right now but he was confidant things will improve.

Mr. Glenn then conducted a power point presentation: “Overview of Florida’s Housing Market” which included the following information:

Mr. Glenn stated if there were one word to describe how the market got to the

current status it was demand. He then stated between January 1, 2003 and June of 2005 the fed lowered the interest rate a total of 13 time and the federal funds rate dropped from 6 ½ % to 1%, a huge and almost unprecedented decline. He further stated those actions coupled with the flight by the stock market spurring housing demand was the beginning of the housing bubble. He continued by stating easy credit, new financial innovation, and exotic forms of financing, speculative buying and to some degree mortgage fraud led to the current trouble.

Mr. Glenn stated David Seiders, Chief Economist for the National Homebuilders Association stated he believed nationally 2008 will be the year the housing industry reaches bottom. He then stated the Homebuilders Association agrees with that, but believes it will be very late in the year 2008. He continued by stating Mr. Seiders based his assumptions on the following things: 1) the economy avoids recession; 2) congress passes key reforms to address the sub prime lending crisis; and 3) Central Bank remains steady to step in if needed to keep the economy moving forward.

Mr. Glenn stated by market analysis recently Raymond James reported single

family home sales declined 30% year over year in November for 17 of the 18 Florida metropolitan areas posting. He then stated virtually all of the major markets continue to exhibit acute weakness: Tampa/St. Petersburg fell 30%, Orlando 35%, Miami 59% and Jacksonville 35%. He further stated the industry is in the 37^th consecutive month where statewide sales have declined by 10% or more year over year. He stated state median sale prices have dropped from $239,800.00 to $215,000.00. He then stated of the major 18 markets 17 had price declines and many showed significantly year over year price declines.

Mr. Glenn then referenced a power point slide indicating how the market

fared in the full principal markets in the state. He compared the bubble that occurred on the positive side in 2006 and the current status of the housing market of today, which is no housing market. He stated increased regulatory costs are a major contributor, impact fees or hidden tax, new home construction now at record levels, and for Florida impact fees have increased by 149% from 2003 to 2007 making Florida the second highest state, behind California, in the nation for impact fees. He explained impact fees are imposed for a variety of local government services, the most common being schools and roads, but impact fees are also found for water services, libraries, recreation, law enforcement and much, much more. He stated many local governments have imposed multiple impact fees meaning the buyer pays numerous impact fees when they purchase a new home, such as Collier County who now has impact fees of over $40,000.00 on a single family dwelling. He further stated land costs and impact fees in Naples and before a shovel is put in the ground $40,000.00 plus in impact fees and unbelievable land costs. He continued by stating the last year there has been an avalanche of impact fees taxation, in many cases fees have doubled, new fees imposed and dozens and dozens of proposed new fees waiting in the pipeline. He stated a quick glimpse of the impact fee activity of 2007 revealed doubled fees in Deltona, in Deland created a brand new road impact fee and doubled its water and sewer, Lee County tripled its road impact to $9,000.00. Lake County significantly increased its impact for schools to $9,000.00 and transportation impact fee is in the pipeline, Tampa doubled its impact school impact fee and Flagler County significantly increased water and wastewater impact fees. He concluded by stating in addition to impact fees Florida is beginning to experience the effect of the 2005 Growth Management Act, particularly stricter road and school concurrency rules be added in the cost of building a home.

Mr. Glenn stated new costly regulations are being proposed almost every day. He then stated the state is considering changes in the septic system requirements that will conservatively add $12-20,000.00 per septic tank in the cost of a new home for the onsite drainage. He further stated the septic tank of years gone by is gone. He stated the proposal is effectively a miniature sewage treatment plant on every individual lot.

Mr. Glenn stated taxes and fees combine for already existing challenge of high property tax. He then stated taxes and property insurance do not bode well for Florida’s housing and real estate market. He stated the new economic stimulus package proposed by the Florida Business Community shared with Representative Samson, the Chairman of the Budget and Policy Committee, recently, has the ability to jump start Florida’s economy. He explained the package proposes increased spending for roads, schools, alternate water supply and calls for a release in the cap on Sadowski trust funds, who is the state’s premiere funding source for affordable housing He further stated releasing the cap on trust funds will help more Florida families achieve home ownership. He then stated the Fed has once again poised for lower interest rates and aids buyers moving from the sidelines into the buying field.

Mr. Glenn stated Congress recently took action to help prevent additional foreclosures by developing programs to aid sub prime adjustable mortgage rate borrowers. He then stated recent news from the US Treasury Secretary Hank Polson indicates the administration is considering extending this program to include prime borrowers as well.

Mr. Glenn stated the Florida Homebuilders Association and its 21,000 corporate members are doing their part as well by working to sell of existing inventory, offering attractive incentives and price reductions to help move the stock. He continued by stating as an association the Homebuilders are working with the Florida Legislature and the Governor’s office on focused plans to simulate the housing industry FHBA’s 2008 Legislative priorities are currently focused to resolve some of the market conditions in dealing with specifically encouraging additional reforms to property tax and insurance. He further stated the first steps are now being seen but much more needs to be done in working to reduce impact fees and preserve America’s dream of home ownership, supporting less restrictive concurrency requirements to ensure development can move forward, supporting scientifically proven and earth friendly sewage disposal systems that will not prevent families from realizing home ownership and trying to save new home buyers money on their property insurance through credit for hurricane mitigation.

Mr. Glenn stated while things are tough there are still many bright spots. He

then stated the 800 plus who move into Florida every day prove Florida continues to be a state that attracts workers and new residents. He continued by stating from October 2006 to October 2007 Florida added 111,000 new non-agricultural jobs, an annual growth rate of 1.4 which was higher than the nation’s growth rate. He further stated at 4.2% in October 2007 Florida’s unemployment rate was the lowest among the 10 most populous states and has remained below the national average since mid-2002. He stated Florida is one of only nine states forecast by Moody’s report for employment growth in 2008. He stated more than 82 million baby boomers (Americans born between 1946 and 1964) will start leaving the work force and begin retiring in 2010, and actually have started now. He stated the leading edge of the boomer retirement is just beginning and the fact Florida is a prime location for retirement bodes well for housing, in fact a PBS special aired last year reported one baby boomer will retire every 8 seconds for the next 20 years. He then stated baby boomers will look for a place to retire and Florida is certainly one of the states vying for their residency. He concluded by stating Florida had always been a cynical market but he expressed confidence that recovery is just around the corner.

COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES

Commissioner Bassett stated at the last meeting there were so many motions that were amended once, twice, three times that it was hard to follow what was actually voted on. He requested the minutes reflect the actual motion where it reflects the vote in the minutes to avoid searching back through all amended motions to determine what was actually voted on. He stated he believed it would make it help the public a little bit. He then stated he feels like a gentleman on death row, never knowing if he would be at the next Commission meeting since there will definitely be a replacement for him whenever the Governor makes the appointment. He stated if he didn’t get the chance he wanted to say he has really enjoyed the 10 years he has spent with the Commission and he looked forward to seeing what happens in the future.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission would remember him for his initiatives, his professionalism, and even for keeping the Commission clear on grammar. He thanked Commissioner Bassett for his service and expressed hope he would stay involved whatever the Governor decides to do.

Commissioner Carson asked if the item on the agenda regarding license fee surcharges was discussed.

Mr. Blair stated it was covered during the Education POC.

Commissioner Carson asked what the current disposition of the commissioners as license holders and CEU credits for being on the Commission and attending the Commission meetings.

Mr. Madani stated up to 7 hours of CEU was available as some boards give credit for attending the Commission meetings.

Chairman Rodriguez stated Larry Schneider revealed to him AIA is giving some credits but he has not tried it. He then stated he had been asking for that for a long time because all of the commissioners need to do that since they spend a lot of time on Commission issues

Commissioner Carson stated as a general contractor 2008 is the year CEUs have to be in place and he was wondering what the status is.

Commissioner Browdy stated the experience has been the commissioners receive 4 hours credit.

Commissioner Carson asked how it was transmitted to the licensing board.

Commissioner Browdy stated DCA submits license #s of those commissioners who are participating in the Commission and it is credited by DBPR.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Ila if the commissioners were to submit that information to her.

Ms. Jones responded she already submits those for each commissioner.

Commissioner Schulte asked what the status of Hurricane Mitigation Rule was. He had heard it was filed, but wanted to confirm with staff.

Mr. Richmond responded stating the rule was filed Monday, March 17th at 10:30 am. He stated he just received the certification and approval Friday unfortunately too late to get it down to the Department of State on Friday but it was filed Monday morning.

Commissioner Schulte asked if Building Departments could enforce the rule before the 21days.

Mr. Richmond stated statutorily the rule does not affect for 21 days following it’s filing with the Department of State. He then stated there is a recognized exception in the Florida Administrative Procedures Act which contains some provision for enforcing rules that are in process which is typically applied to state agencies enforcing their own rules and whether it applies to local governments or not is really a judgment call the officials would need to make because they would be the ones on the line.

Commissioner Griffin stated although he knows the Commission finished the workplan item for Green Buildings and Energy Efficiency, he wanted to mention ASHRAE is developing a Standard 189.1 for high performance Green Buildings. He then stated he was probably premature to bring it up but when he heard the Legislature is talking about bringing a seat he thought it was worthwhile to mention because it will be a standard from his understanding that will be written in code language which is something Lead and US Green Building Council has not managed to do. He continued by stating it was unclear if this would be incorporated into the Lead and US Green Building Standards or if it will stand alone but he did believe the Commission should consider as it has used the ASHRAE standards for the energy efficiency very successfully and he believed this would bring the Commission the opportunity to rather than just having awareness to actually perhaps incorporate something into the Code. He further stated there is an intention to bring this standard to ICC so it might come in via that path. He concluded by stating it should be available by the end of the year whether it is adopted or it will be early next year when it’s actually adopted as a standard and published and he wanted to make sure the Commission kept that on the radar because it has finished with the workplan item.

Commissioner Greiner stated in the code change process and the way the whole thing works theoretically the Florida specific items are supposed to be eliminated which will eventually get into the base code or get absorbed some other way. He then stated he believed some people on the Commission are concerned that the Florida specific items are not being ferreted out as well as they should be because it is left up to people to do code a amendment to take that out because it is not necessary or needed. He asked if there was some mechanism by which the Commission could have staff set up some kind of review process by the TACs for those particular categories for the code plumbing, electrical, building, structural to go through those and highlight those specific items and have the TACs review them and determine if they are needed any longer and if they are not the TAC could make an amendment to get rid of it.

Mr. Dixon stated the law requires that when a new edition of the foundation code is selected, if there has been a change from the previous edition of the foundation code that affects a Florida specific amendment the Florida amendment has to be reviewed. He then stated if there was no change to the foundation code between the two editions that impacts a Florida specific requirement it rolls into the Code. He explained what the Commission did in the last process was those which staff identified as having overlap were sent back to the TAC to review to determine if they agree with staff and if so whether to keep or eliminate the Florida Specific requirement. He concluded by stating that had been the process and would be the process used I the future.

Mr. Madani stated he believed Commissioner Greiner is touching on an issue

of the Code, in general, with regard to dramatically transfer a Florida specific requirement into the foundation code without a test. He further stated this was evidenced from a number of issues he dealt with where something old and done for a certain reason was carried into a new code without checking if it was really needed or not. He stated with so many regulation in that code it is sometimes complexing. He then stated he believed the Commission should create a mechanism by which those Florida specific requirements can be reviewed and checked heavily or just taken out and ask an interest group to come and propose them if they feel they are needed.

Commissioner Greiner asked to add to that as he could think back a few years and theoretically the Building Commission was supposed to be putting in Florida specific items that were technically needed because of the difference in Florida and he suspected a lot things got in there just because the Commission had the ability to do it and put it in there.

Mr. Richmond stated in response the law has been evolving on this issue over the course of the years and it stands right now Florida does roll Florida specific amendments forward to the extent they have not been addressed by the Code so a process in which they were all pulled out and relied on one person to put them back is not a process to be entertained. He further stated the default value is a previously adopted Florida specific requirement will roll forward. He then stated the process for review and how whether the foundation codes have addressed the particular issue is something that can be explored.

Commissioner Greiner asked if the review process can be enhanced somehow.

Mr. Dixon stated there is a workgroup that will be set up to look at the 2010 code development process. He then stated once the Commission finishes up some of its other work that committee will start developing its recommendations and enhancing the review process could be worked out through that.

Mr. Blair stated the exact thing Mr. Madani is suggesting transfers from the Code TAC to that workgroup as one of the three items were identified from the code administration process.

Commissioner Browdy asked it was possible for ICC to give the Commission an inventory of the Florida specific amendments so they are available on a hard document allowing the commissioners to look at the codes and consider vetting the amendments.

Mr. Madani stated those amendments are available and isolated on the website. He explained when the integration is done with the foundation code, the Florida specific amendments are isolated and published separate and then ICC is asked to integrate them into the foundation.

Commissioner Vann asked if those amendments were easily discernable or is it something that has to be dug out. He stated he specifically knew of some in the Plumbing and Pool area that do not even meet the current code. He then stated he agreed with Commissioner Greiner and the others that we have incorporated some bad information into the code and currently there seems no way to correct it and he believed it needed to be addressed.

Mr. Madani stated the amendments are available and very clear in concise documents with strike and delete showing what has actually been done for easy review.

Commissioner Norkunas stated his comment was a direct appeal to the Chairman concerning the Accessibility TAC. He then stated the chairman of the Accessibility TAC has always seemed the healthiest member of our TAC and when we see something happening to him it scares the rest of the TAC. He further stated in his absence there was no vice chairman and the staff liaison stepped forward and chaired the TAC. He stated the Chairman always talks about process and prior to the Commission he meets extensively with staff. He asked the Chairman to pay attention tot the Accessibility TAC and it would seem appropriate to appoint an interim or temporary chair who is familiar with the issues should there be a situation like that develop in the future.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he would ask the staff to look into the rule. He further stated he was under the impression the chairman could designate a vice chairman, but if not he would be happy to do so.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

Ralph Hughes, Tampa

Mr. Hughes appeared before the Commission with prepared comments (See Presentation, Florida Building Commission, Embassy Suites Hotel, 3705 Spectrum Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33612, March 19, 2008 by Ralph Hughes.)

Mr. Hughes stated, after his prepared comments, he would like to make one additional comment and that was the state legislature, as stated earlier, may enact Legislation that would change the composition of the Florida Building Commission by eliminating the Governor- appointed Chairman and replacing the seat with a representative of the swimming pool industry . He stated if that happens that will be the beginning of the end a Florida Building Commission.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Mr. Hughes for his comments.

Shelly Siegel, Interior Design Associations Foundation

Ms. Siegel stated one of the things she knows as an educator and designer for about 35 years is that the Commission and the codes impact what is done by interior designers. She then stated she is proud of is the interior design organizations that make up IDAF have suddenly realized and she has started a dialogue with several commissioners and was happy to know it was understood what designers do, what the Commission does and how we do that together. She stated IDAF was very proud to be part of the team and she would like to keep the dialogue open. She stated she was very, very impressed with the Commission and has written those comments on the evaluation form. She further stated she had sat on many councils, boards and code development committees and she had never seen any run as well as this one and she offered congratulations for that. She stated she was proud to be representing the interior designers in the state of Florida and looked forward to being more involved. She then stated she had given each of the commissioners some information about IDAF and if anyone had any questions she was available for that.

Chairman Rodriguez clarified the spelling of Ms. Siegel’s last name and then thanked her for her comments.

ADJOURN

Chairman Rodriguez adjourned the Florida Building Commission meeting at 11:20a.m.

Attachment 1

Product Approval Program Oversight Committee Final Summary Report, March 2008

ID	Manufacturer	Category	Subcategory	TBA	POC	FBC	Comments	Stat.
Certification Method - FBC Voted Approval
239-R11	PGT Industries	Windows	Single Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
242-R7	PGT Industries	Windows	Horizontal Slider	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
243-R6	PGT Industries	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
251-R9	PGT Industries	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
539-R5	JELD-WEN	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
1743-R2	Reward Wall Systems, Inc.	Structural Components	Insulation Form Systems	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
2023-R3	Georgia-Pacific Wood Products LLC	Structural Components	Engineered Lumber	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
2453	Exclusive Wood Doors	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
2859-R1	Construction Specialties, Inc.	Panel Walls	Wall Louver	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
3294-R2	Quality Engineered Products	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
4091-R2	Custom Window Systems, Inc.	Windows	Single Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
4334-R3	Masonite International	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
4904-R2	Masonite International	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
5165-R1	Simonton Windows	Windows	Double Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
5246-R1	Simonton Windows	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
6431-R2	Pella Corporation	Windows	Single Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval
6500-R1	Hy-Lite Products Inc.	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Editorial Change
6793-R1	DORMA Architectural Hardware	Exterior Doors	Exterior Door Components	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
8228-R2	Masonite International	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
8299-R2	PHILIPS PRODUCTS INC.	Windows	Single Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
8959-R1	Masonite International	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
10102	Marvin Windows and Doors	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval
10129	Peerless Products, Inc.	Windows	Casement	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10160-R1	Simonton Windows	Windows	Horizontal Slider	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
10165	Peetz Windows and Doors, Inc.	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10168	E.S. Windows, Inc.	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10169	E.S. Windows, Inc.	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10171	Marvin Windows and Doors	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10172	Marvin Windows and Doors	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10173	Peetz Windows and Doors, Inc.	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10174	Peetz Windows and Doors, Inc.	Windows	Casement	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10175	Peetz Windows and Doors, Inc.	Windows	Double Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10176	Peetz Windows and Doors, Inc.	Windows	Mullions	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10178	E.S. Windows, Inc.	Windows	Mullions	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10181	Nan Ya Plastics Corporation USA	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10182	Kawneer Company, Inc.	Windows	Casement	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10185	Nan Ya Plastics Corporation USA	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10189	Traco Windows and Doors, Inc.	Windows	Mullions	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10190	Traco Windows and Doors, Inc.	Windows	Single Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10205	Traco Windows and Doors, Inc.	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10206	Architectural Openings Inc.	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10207	Architectural Openings Inc.	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10208	Window Craftsmen Inc.	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10218	Cox Designer Windows, Inc.	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10235	Ruskin Company	Panel Walls	Wall Louver	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10254	Florida Shutters, Inc.	Shutters	Colonial	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10255	Florida Shutters, Inc.	Shutters	Bahama	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10263	Custom Window Systems, Inc.	Windows	Horizontal Slider	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10268	BEVEL KING DOOR AND GLASS CO. INC.	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10269	Custom Window Systems, Inc.	Windows	Horizontal Slider	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10270	Custom Window Systems, Inc.	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10272	Custom Window Systems, Inc.	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10274	Custom Window Systems, Inc.	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10277	Petersen Aluminum Corporation	Roofing	Metal Roofing	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10281	Blocksom & Co.	Roofing	Roofing Accessories that are an Integral Part of the Roofing System	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10287	PGT Industries	Windows	Single Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10288	PGT Industries	Windows	Double Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10289	PGT Industries	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10290	The Murus Company	Structural Components	Structural Wall	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10294	Dominion Building Products	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10296	JELD-WEN	Windows	Casement	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10297	JELD-WEN	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10298	JELD-WEN	Windows	Double Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10299	Windsor Windows and Doors	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10300	Magnolia Window & Door	Windows	Single Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10302	Windsor Windows and Doors	Windows	Double Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10303	Magnolia Window & Door	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10309	Georgia-Pacific Wood Products South LLC	Structural Components	Engineered Lumber	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10317	Wayne-Dalton Corp.	Windows	Products Introduced as a Result of New Technology	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10324	Hartman Windows and Doors LLC.	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10326	Hartman Windows and Doors LLC.	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10327	Hartman Windows and Doors LLC.	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10328	Hartman Windows and Doors LLC.	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10330	Hartman Windows and Doors LLC.	Windows	Mullions	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10331	Alenco	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10332	Alenco	Windows	Horizontal Slider	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10333	Inteplast Group	Shutters	Storm Panels	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10335	JELD-WEN	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10338	JELD-WEN	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10344	Crest Metal Doors, Inc.	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10346	Pella Corporation	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10350	MI Windows and Doors	Windows	Single Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10351	Alenco	Windows	Single Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10354	Pella Corporation	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10361	YKK AP America Residential	Windows	Casement	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10366	Vi Win Tech	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10367	Vi Win Tech	Windows	Single Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10368	Vi Win Tech	Windows	Single Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10372	THERMOPLAST	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10377	ACCU-WELD LLC	Windows	Double Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
Evaluation by Engineer/ Architect -FBC Voted Approval
1654-R2	POLYGLASS USA	Roofing	Modified Bitumen Roof System	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
6871-R1	T.M. Window and Door, LLC.	Windows	Single Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
6881-R1	T.M. Window and Door, LLC.	Windows	Casement	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
8246	Douglas Metal Roofing	Panel Walls	Siding	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
8566-R1	Eagle Window and Door, Inc	Windows	Mullions	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
9231-R1	Dunbarton Corporation	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
9274-R1	Sika Sarnafil, Inc.	Roofing	Single Ply Roof Systems	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
9895	Sentrigard Metal Roofing Systems-NBHandy COMP	Roofing	Metal Roofing	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10104	Merchant & Evans, Inc.	Panel Walls	Soffits	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10209	Classic Products, Inc.	Roofing	Metal Roofing	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10219	Bonneville Windows and Doors	Windows	Casement	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10227	St. Cloud Window, Inc.	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10228	St. Cloud Window, Inc.	Windows	Double Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10230	Wincore Window Company, LLC	Windows	Double Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10232	Onity Inc.	Exterior Doors	Exterior Door Components	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10233	Onity Inc.	Exterior Doors	Exterior Door Components	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10236	Brannen Millwork Company	Windows	Mullions	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10237	Kane Manufacturing Corporation	Shutters	Storm Panels	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10238	Kane Manufacturing Corporation	Shutters	Storm Panels	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10239	Eagle Window and Door, Inc	Windows	Double Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10240	Metalforming Inc	Roofing	Metal Roofing	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10241	Southern Custom Woodworks	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10243	Schuco, USA L.P.	Windows	Horizontal Slider	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10246	Simpson Strong-Tie Co.	Structural Components	Wood Connectors	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10260	ProVia Door, Inc.	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10264	Firestone Building Products Company, LLC.	Roofing	Single Ply Roof Systems	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10271	Custom Window Systems, Inc.	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10273	Custom Window Systems, Inc.	Exterior Doors	Sliding Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10284	Firestone Building Products Company, LLC.	Roofing	Single Ply Roof Systems	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10285	Kawneer Company, Inc.	Panel Walls	Curtain Walls	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10291	POLYGLASS USA	Roofing	Cements-Adhesives-Coatings	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10292	Tapco,Inc	Shutters	Storm Panels	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10293	Wincore Window Company, LLC	Windows	Fixed	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10319	Coastal Metal Roofing, Inc	Roofing	Metal Roofing	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10340	Clear Strength USA LLC	Shutters	Storm Panels	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10353	Hexaport International, Ltd.	Panel Walls	Curtain Walls	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10355	The Hurricane Window and Door Factory	Windows	Double Hung	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10358	West Tampa Glass Company	Panel Walls	Curtain Walls	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10369	West Tampa Glass Company	Panel Walls	Curtain Walls	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10374	The Hurricane Window and Door Factory	Windows	Casement	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10375	The Hurricane Window and Door Factory	Windows	Awning	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
Evaluation by Engineer/ Architect - FBC Voted Denial
1852-R3	Elite Aluminum Corporation	Windows	Horizontal Slider	y	y	y	Recommend Denial - Deferred Jan 2008 - Requested by applicant to complete testing - Deferred from Dec 2007 meeting with conditions of: Indicate grade of aluminum. Provide anchor detail thru extrusion. Remove all other than the two lite wide, and non-imp	Deferred
Evaluation by Test Report - FBC Voted Approval
9732	NORTHERN ELASTOMERIC INC	Roofing	Underlayments	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10092	NORTHERN ELASTOMERIC INC	Roofing	Underlayments	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10137	Four Seasons Solar Products LLC	Exterior Doors	Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10162	Aerosmith Fastening Systems	Structural Components	Wood Connectors	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
10345	Soprema, Inc.	Roofing	Modified Bitumen Roof System	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
Evaluation by Evaluation Entity - FBC Voted Approval
2197-R2	MiTek Industries, Inc.	Structural Components	Truss Plates	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
4432-R2	Simpson Strong-Tie Co.	Panel Walls	Products Introduced as a Result of New Technology	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
10101	ITW TACC	Structural Components	Products Introduced as a Result of New Technology	a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
Certification Method - FBC Voted Conditional Approval
1258-R3	Rosenlew RKW Finland LTD	Roofing	Underlayments	y	c	c	Recommend Conditional Approval - Applicant requested deferral to March 2008 meeting to complete renewed certifications. - Deferred from December 2007 meeting. Applicant did not revise conditions of: For Products FL1258.1 and .2, there are references to	Deferred
10356	Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies	Exterior Doors	Exterior Door Components	a	a	c	Recommend Conditional Approval - Change Subcategory to Swinging Exterior Door Assemblies	New
Evaluation by Engineer/ Architect - Applications With Public Comments
10106	Elite Storm Systems	Shutters	Storm Panels	a	c	c	Recommend Conditional Approval - Applicant requests to revise some dimensions to item #s 2 and 3..	New

10349	Southern Metals Products,LLC	Shutters	Accordion	a	c	c	Recommend Conditional Approval - With condition of: Applicant to present equivalency of standards to present testing requirements.	New
10349	Public Comment Jaime Gascon						Testing referenced is over 14 years old. Needs to update testing if for use in the HVHZ. If a more recent test can not be provided, indicate ‘NO’ for use in the HVHZ.
10349	Response by Administrator						Public comment submitted is not a building code or Rule 9B-72 requirement. Original recommendation for approval should remain.

10306	Storm Smart Industries	Shutters	Products Introduced as a Result of New Technology	a			~~Recommend Approval~~	New
10306	Public Comment akitahank@verizon.net						We feel that FL10306 does not meet Tas203 requirements for a design pressure of 90PSF @ 192” Cyclical testing is a critical component in the determination of whether a property and or life saving device will withstand the stress (fatigue) of an entire epi
10306							FL 10306 has listed in their Product Eval report two testing reports 1) Fenestration Lab 5451 Report #2 File # 07-508 and 2) Fenestration Lab # 4750 Report #4 File# 05-422 yet neither of these reports are listed on the FBC's Application Detail for FL# 103
10306	Public Comment Albert Ries						FL 10306 has listed in their Product Eval report two testing reports 1) Fenestration Lab 5451 Report #2 File # 07-508 and 2) Fenestration Lab # 4750 Report #4 File# 05-422 yet neither of these reports are listed on the FBC's Application Detail for FL# 103
10306	Response by Administrator and Vote by FBC			d	d	d	Recommend Deferral - The evaluation report refers to test reports not attached to application. There are public comments related to the test reports referrenced on evaluation report. One comment refers to the ownership of the test report. Another comme	New

10348	StormWatch	Shutters	Products Introduced as a Result of New Technology	a			~~Recommend Approval~~	New
10348	Public Comment Jaime Gascon						1. Needs to show horizontal and vertical reactions at the head and sill required of the supporting structure to support the membrane barrier. (Catenary) 2. Confirm that prying action was considered in anchor calculations for details on sheet 2 of 5. 3. D
10348	Response by Administrator and Vote by FBC			d	c	c	Recommend Conditional Approval - There is agreement with public comments and upon additional review the conditions should be: Needs to show horizontal and vertical reactions at the head and sill required of the supporting structure to support the membra	New
Evaluation by Test Report - Applications With Public Comments
10295	Sunoptics Prismatic Skylights	Sky Lights	Skylight	a			~~Recommend Approval~~	New
10295	Public Comment Roger LeBrun						Concern: After reviewing the attachments, the test report indicates the unit tested used a greater number of mounting fasteners than the installation instructions indicate are necessary. Citation: Apparent violation of Question #8 on the Administrative
10295	Public Comment Carey Thornton						The above product indicates changes to the product were made per page Appendix A, Alteration Addendum. These changes were made due to a failure under negative pressure. The "action taken" per the test report was that "fifteen #10 X 3/4" hex washer head se
10295	Response by Administrator and Vote by FBC			d	d	d	Recommend Deferral - Installation drawings were provided from a drawing that is a part of the test report and has the stamp of the test lab. The anchors on the installation drawings do not reflect spacing on the text of the test report or the added ancho	New

10307	Wasco Products, Inc.	Sky Lights	Skylight	a			~~Recommend Approval~~	New
10307	Public Comment Roger LeBrun						Concerns: 1. Did not see evidence of compliance with ASTM E1300 for the glazing. 2. The test report shows the unit tested included intermediate rafters, but the installation details provided do not mention the assembly of a unit containing these elem
10307	Response by Administrator and Recommendation by POC			d	c	c	Recommend Conditional Approval - Conditions of approval shall be: Provide analysis of glazing in accordance with ASTM E1300. Provide installation drawings indicating framing as tested.	New
Entities Application -FBC Voted Approval
TST 2609	Architectural Testing, Inc. - California	Product Testing Laboratory		a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
TST 3892	Hurricane Test Laboratory, LLC - Georgia	Product Testing Laboratory		a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
VAL 1620	Window and Door Manufacturers Association	Product Validation Entity		a	a	a	Recommend Approval	Revision
VAL 7331	American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA)	Product Validation Entity		a	a	a	Recommend Approval	New
Entities Application -FBC Voted Denial
CER 7243	NSF International	Product Certification Agency		y	y	y	Recommend Denial - Accreditation is outside the scope for products included in Product Approval Rule 9B-72.	New