FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

WELCOME

Chairman Rodriguez welcomed the Commission and gallery to the May 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 Carson moved approval of the meeting agenda. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

REVIEW AND APPROVE MARCH 18 & 19 MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S REPORTS JANUARY 29 AND 30, 2008 MEETING MINUTES

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

Commissioner Carson stated the conditional approval for 7791-R1, Skyline Building Systems, Inc. was omitted from the January minutes in the Evaluation by Test Report for Compliance Method

Commissioner Bassett stated there was an editorial error from the March minutes. He explained in the 4^th paragraph of the Chairman’s Issues and Recommendations in the 8^th line “ASHRAE” should have been “ask for”.

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval of the minutes and Facilitator’s Report from the March Commission and the minutes from the January Commission meeting. Commissioner McCombs 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 following appointments of Oscar Calleja and Roy Crawford to the Regional AC Efficiency Workgroup. He stated Bob Andrews had manifested he would not be able to participate due to schedule conflicts. He then stated Lance Olsen was appointed to the Soffit Systems Workgroup.

Chairman Rodriguez next addressed the Resolution of Support for funding the Community Building Code Administration Grant Act. He stated Commissioner Wiggins had requested staff to prepare the Resolution He stated the resolution was for the Commission to consider regarding its support for a resolution for support of funding the Community Building Code Administration Grant Act of 2007 HR4461/S2458. (Please see Resolution Florida Building Commission). He explained the Act would empower local building departments to apply for a financial grant to support enforcement of the building codes. He stated Commissioner Wiggins was not able to attend the meeting because he was out of state, but has discussed the resolution with staff and if any commissioners had any questions they could speak to staff for clarification. He asked if anyone had any questions regarding the resolution.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval to adopt the resolution for Commission support. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Rodriguez expressed thanks to Commissioner Wiggins on behalf of the Commission.

Chairman Rodriguez then addressed the Code Administration Assessment Project Report and TAC Recommendations. He stated during the March 2008 Commission Meeting the Code Administrative TAC completed their recommendations regarding options for how the Commission might serve to enhance the interpretation and enforcement needs of local jurisdictions.

Mr. Blair thanked the Code Administration TAC and staff for helping with the project and making sure the TAC had the opportunity to review a series of options that were proposed as a result of the survey conducted online. He stated he had reported to the Commission numerous times on the project and the report had been emailed to the commissioners for their review prior to the meeting and hard copies were distributed to the commissioners as well. Mr. Blair stated the recommendations found on page 2 of the document were something the Commission might consider at some point. He stated the recommendations should be reviewed by the Commission and he suggested they be discussed and researched by staff in terms of ability to be implemented as there were costs associated with the recommendations. He then stated there would be no formal action at the meeting, just review of the recommendations. (Please see Code Administration Assessment Interpretation and Enforcement Needs of Local Jurisdiction/Code Administration TAC Recommendations to Florida Building Commission)

Chairman Rodriguez asked what the next step would be.

Mr. Blair suggested if the Commission felt the recommendations were good ideas it should ask Ms. Jones and staff to research what the economic impact would be and report back to the Commission at some future meeting relative to feasibility based on the restricting budgets. He then stated since a report has been prepared, if there were interest, the Commission could say if it would like those explored or not.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if anyone wanted to make a motion for DCA staff to explore the recommendations to determine if any could be done financially.

Commissioner Vann moved approval for staff to research the recommendations to determine cost and feasibility. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

REVIEW AND UPDATE OF COMMISSION WORKPLAN

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

Mr. Dixon stated 4 new items were identified on the workplan plus one from the Mitigation Workgroup meeting. He referenced #26, Investigate Regional Energy Efficiency Ratings for Hot and Humid Climates, stating a federal law which passed before Christmas authorized the Department of Energy to develop regional standards for air conditioner efficiencies sold and manufactured in the United States. He further stated one of the issues on the workplan for the last year and a half was the issue of humidity control in the hot and humid climate and in Florida specifically. He continued by stating the concern expressed by the air conditioning contracting industry is the newer equipment with the higher efficiencies implemented in 2006 by the Department of Energy may not be removing enough moisture in all houses, particularly if the systems are oversized. He stated the task requires a quick turnaround so the State of Florida could have some input with the Department of Energy when it considers what regions different standards would be established for. He then stated it is a very long process the Department of Energy would go through to establish standards and testing criteria, etc. He stated this is one approach to address the indoor humidity control problem the Commission conducted a workshop for on February 2007. He further stated meetings had begun and would run through mid-June enabling the committee to report back to the Commission by the June meeting.

Mr. Dixon next addressed item #27, Develop Rule for Cost Effectiveness Test. He stated the test would be to evaluate whether energy efficiency standards enhancement were cost effective to the consumer. He further stated the item was in HB697 which just passed this legislative session. He continued by stating the Commission would be required to adopt by rule the criteria for determining cost effectiveness of increased efficiency requirements in the future. He concluded by stating the bill had not been signed yet, but this task was placed on the workplan as a contingency since the Governor was fully expected to sign the bill.

Mr. Dixon then addressed item #28, Develop Legislative Requirements for Carbon Monoxide Detector Requirements. He stated the item was based on commissioner conversations during the last conference call regarding carbon monoxide detectors. He stated Mr. Richmond had reported that response to his inquiries about developing better targeted criteria for how carbon monoxide detectors have to be installed in different types of occupancies was the Legislature was not inclined to take that up this year. He continued by stating if the Commission wanted to it could establish some recommendations for better standards for other occupancies over the coming year and report to the Legislature next year. He concluded by stating the item was a contingency item based on commissioner conversations and if the Commission wants to pursue the item a schedule will be developed.

Mr. Dixon then addressed item #29, Develop Design Criteria for Energy Efficient Pool Systems. He stated the item was based on staff discussions with the pool industry during session, specifically relative to the governor’s mandate to increase efficiency requirements for appliances. He further stated pool pumps, which currently have no energy efficiency standards’ had been identified as one of the primary energy users in the state. He continued by stating that in discussions with the Florida Pool Industry Association during the legislative session, the industry raised the possibility of developing design criteria for swimming pools because the pumping systems may not be appropriately sized to reduce energy consumption and still maintain good pool quality.

Mr. Dixon next addressed a fifth item which was based on the commitment of the Florida Roofing Sheet Metal Association, during the negotiations at the Mitigation Workgroup regarding gravel roof systems. He stated the 2007 Legislature mandated the Commission evaluate the impacts of eliminating gravel roof systems in the state of Florida consistent with their elimination in the 2006 International Building Code, which was used as the basis for the 2007 Florida Building Code, prior to the prohibition going into effect. He then stated the Mitigation Workgroup addressed the issue, a literature search was done by the University of Florida and the end result would be presented to the Commission in the glitch code amendments for consideration. He continued by stating part of the discussion with the industry was whether there was any way to enhance the performance of the gravel roof system in the hurricane prone regions. He further stated the workgroup committed to addressing the issue and proving that particular system. He concluded by stating the item was also added as a contingency item if the Commission wanted to address it in the future.

Mr. Dixon then stated the Legislature had decided it would try to maintain the operations of many different programs in the state, for which there were insufficient funds in the coming year to fund adequately, by taking money from the trust funds across the state, including the Commission’s trust fund. He continued by stating it maintains what the Legislature determined to be essential public programs and public policies and hoped it would be a temporary thing. He then stated that according to staff estimates the Commission could get through this year okay but if the recession goes further there would be pain next year. He stated what would need to be done to keep the Commission’s responsibilities and activities afloat and moving forward toward the 2010 Code, which is the target of many of the projects, is to adjust the way workgroup and TAC meetings are conducted and how some of the work can be done jointly between the two types of committees. He explained doing that would reduce the cost impacts and still get the work done. He further stated staff is still evaluating the funding impacts and the Department of Community Affairs has committed to staff it will do what it can to ensure the right cash flow to keep the Commission meeting and to keep the activities going. He concluded by stating the Commission would discuss this further at the next meeting. He stated the Commission would have to look at these tasks and what might have to be done to prioritize them at the June Commission meeting after staff knows more about the budget.

Commissioner Bassett offered comment relative to item #29. He stated he analyzed what was put in the code to address the death in the hotel in Key West and it would not have prevented that death. He further stated the Commission needs to do what the medical community was asking for in their code and make that what is in the Building Code. He asked if the Commission would have to wait until next year for the Legislature to meet to make that correction or could something be done during the glitch cycle.

Mr. Dixon responded the plan has been to ensure the Building Code coordinates with different state agency regulations. He stated the Department of Building and Professional Regulations regulates hotels and motels. He further stated in the 2007 bill the indication for hotels and motels was the carbon monoxide detector was to be placed at the point of the carbon monoxide generation i.e. where the boiler was located. He then stated staff had been waiting for the DBPR to finish their regulations so they could be included in the Building Code. He continued by stating the DBPR regulations have been planned to be integrated into the 2007 Code during the glitch cycle. He concluded by stating depending on their status of completion of that regulation, the Commission would have to decide whether to move forward during the glitch cycle with something that reflects what is currently in law or to wait and see if the regulation is finished and put in exactly as written avoiding slight differences which might cause problems for implementation.

Commissioner Bassett stated what they have, and nothing more, is a letter which was issued to the hotels stating there is a requirement for carbon monoxide sensors in the boiler room and it will be checked at the next inspection to ensure the detectors are there as required. He then stated his concern was what is in the Building Code would not work to prevent as many deaths as believed. He further stated a big glitch is that the DBPR investigates and regulates only those boilers which are considered boilers above 400,000 BTU input. He stated a hot water heater, as current sizing goes, is 399, 499 and 599 and people are putting in multiple 399 boilers so they do not trigger the boiler room inspection. He continued by stating an application for permit at present would miss out on the existing rules as it would have been required to put something in per the Building Code if applying for a permit after October. He explained there is a gap where they do not have to do anything and the Building Code does not have the requirements to surround the boiler room with carbon monoxide site sensors which would’ve been required and it would have prevented that death in Key West. He concluded by stating his concern was if nothing is done and the Commission waits for the Legislature to react next year then a time line would be set up in the time frame for Commission meetings dictated by the Legislature then it would be 3 or 4 years. He stated the Commission needs to take care of it in the glitch cycle if possible and not wait on DBPR because they are not doing anything.

Mr. Dixon stated the hotel/motel requirement would be changed during glitch cycle. He then stated his understanding was more than just boilers were being discussed though. He continued by stating sleeping room placement options in other types of occupancies besides the hotel/motel would have to wait but the hotel/motel would be addressed in the glitch cycle.

Commissioner Bassett stated all occupancies need to be addressed not just hotels and motels.

Mr. Dixon stated he did not know if the Commission had the authority to do that, but an answer would be brought to the Commission at the June meeting.

Pete Quintela, Building Code Compliance

Mr. Quintela stated 3 years ago, when this began, he had a proposal for this which was preempted due to state law coming into place. He further stated the Building Code Compliance requested a smoke detector near all sleeping areas and was told state law would preempt the request. He then stated he hoped state law would cover it. He emphasized Commissioner Bassett’s comments relative to the need for action on this and the glitch cycle would be the way to do it, but it cannot be forgotten.

Mr. Dixon stated there are rules that are written into law about what the glitch amendments can and cannot address. He then stated because the law addressed the boilers the Commission can not change the requirement. He further stated staff would look into it and give the Commission a better answer.

Commissioner Bassett stated what was actually addressed for the Building Code was any fuel burning device. He then stated in his opinion the Commission can address all of the issues, it just needs to know where to put them and if the location of the carbon monoxide sensors to a place they would be beneficial and not wasted.

Mr. Dixon stated the location of those sensors was also written into law. He further stated he was not sure how to change that without changing the law.

Commissioner Bassett asked if that meant the Commission had to wait until Legislature acts before it can start saving lives.

Mr. Dixon stated that was the way Florida law works.

Mr. Blair clarified Mr. Dixon had indicated staff would look into it and give the Commission a definitive report at the next meeting.

Chairman Rodriguez asked for a motion to approve the updated workplan.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the updated workplan. Commissioner McCombs 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 Mary Katherine Smith for consideration of the Accessibility Waiver Applications.

Ms. Smith stated Mr. Mellick had to leave unexpectedly upon news of a death in his family. Ms. Smith then 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 Deferral:

#1 Chiquita Animal Hospital

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the application was recommended for deferred at the request of the applicant. She stated there was correspondence from the property owner which states his intent to comply, but has not received any hard copy estimates of the cost to date and would like some additional time to obtain those.

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

#4 South County Water Reclamation Facility

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the application was recommended for deferral at the request of the applicant.

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

#9 JADAM

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the applicant did not submit sufficient information pertaining to the cost. She stated the council unanimously recommended deferral for additional information.

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

#14 Renovation of Fire Station #48

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated additional information was needed pertaining to whether the applicant intended to design and construct the facility using Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards or Chapter 11 of the Code. She stated the council unanimously recommended deferral for additional information.

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

Recommendation for Approval with No Conditions:

#2 “The Ranch” Polo Pavilion

#5 Congo River

#6 Rosarian Academy Gymnasium and Classroom

#7 Vizcaya Village Phase II Restoration

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the application should have been approved by the local building official. She then stated in as much as the applicant had requested the waiver at the request of the building official, the council unanimously recommended approval based on the automatic provisions of Chapter 11 of the Florida Building Code as historic.

#10 Victor Distributing Company

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the application should have been approved by the local building official. She then stated in as much as the applicant had requested the waiver at the request of the building official, by a vote of 6 to 1, the Council recommended approval based on the automatic exemption of five or less persons and not open to the public.

#11 Pahokee High School Stadium and Concessions

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of Florida Statute 553.512 as unnecessary. She further stated the granting of the waiver of the Florida specific requirements does not relieve the applicant from the provisions of Title II of the ADA.

#13 Villages of Homestead

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the application should have been approved by the local building official. She then stated in as much as the applicant had requested the waiver at the request of the building official, the council unanimously recommended approval based on the automatic exemption of five or less persons and not open to the public.

#15 Middle School “EE” North Port

Commissioner Bassett stated he should declare his company has a contract with the Palm Beach County School Board therefore there’s a possible conflict with item #11.

Commissioner Hamrick stated the Pahokee High School was not in Palm Beach County but Okeechobee County.

Commissioner Vann moved approval of the council’s recommendation for approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Norkunas stated he was personally offended by application #13. He then stated this was not by the Villages of Homestead, but AT & T, who is known to have a few dollars. He continued by stating the analysis states “According to the applicant they maintain it is not feasible for individuals with immobility, sight or hearing impairments to do the technical job. He then stated he would suggest this statement would be a statement form the past. He further stated Neil Mellick happens to be an exceptional building official and he’s blind. He continued by stating if someone were to say you will review building plans by someone who cannot see, people would’ve said no that would be wrong. He then stated the remark about hearing was ridiculous. He then stated it mentioned 553.509 that vertical accessibility in mechanical rooms and so forth. He stated what was being discussed was just the ability to get into the building. He stated in Chapter 11, Section 11-4.1.3 it discusses areas used only by employees as work areas and he read from the Florida Building Code “Areas that are used only as work areas shall be designed and constructed so that individuals with disabilities can approach, enter and exit the areas.” He then stated the Code does not require that any of the areas used only as work areas be constructed to prevent maneuvering in the work area or be constructed or equipped to be accessible. He concluded by stating with the attitude from AT&T he would ask any of the commissioners who have seen TV recently the Olympic is now voting to decide whether to exclude someone with no legs from being able to compete in races. He stated he would suggest to anyone on the Commission, if he told them he had someone with no legs who wanted to compete in the sprints, would say “Bill, you are a little ridiculous. He then stated the system devises as time goes on remembering the ADA was designed for the future so that over time all places can be designed to be accessible he would hope the Commission would vote no on the item.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 18 in favor, 2 opposed (Norkunas, Franco). Motion passed.

Recommendation for Approval with Conditions:

#3 Cobb Theater at the Dolphin Mall

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the applicant was previously granted a waiver for this five theater movie complex, but during the construction theater 5 was reduced from 125 seats to 96 seats. She stated the council unanimously recommended approval of the change in theater 5 based on provisions of Florida Statute 553.512 as unreasonable with the condition that plans are submitted to DCA staff to verify the line of sight is less than 33 degrees.

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

#8 City of Weston Library Park

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to all tiers of seating in two or three shelters in a passive park. She stated the council unanimously recommended the waiver be granted based on the provisions of Florida Statute 553.512 as unreasonable with the condition that on the larger three tier seating shelter, the applicant add an additional accessible seating location with its required companion seat. She continued by stating plans must be sent to DCA staff to verify compliance. Further, the granting of the waiver does not relieve the applicant from the provisions of Title II of the ADA.

Commissioner Gross stated the City of Weston is one of his clients and he would need to abstain from the vote.

Commissioner Vann moved approval of the council’s recommendation to grant waiver. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Commissioner Gross abstained. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#12 Bruce and Michelle Hazin

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the applicant is requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility to the 1,110 square foot second floor of a residential building converted to a non-residential use. She further stated the applicant is not sure of the future tenant and the owners want to proceed, the Council unanimously recommended the waiver be granted with the condition that on the second floor, there will be no more than 5 persons and not open to the public. She then stated if the future tenant is unable to comply with this condition, then a new waiver must be requested. She noted the plans need to be submitted to DCA staff to verify the condition and ensure the second floor restroom will be accessible.

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

Chairman Rodriguez asked the Commission for approval to send a condolence card to Mr. Mellick for his loss.

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND ENTITY APPROVAL

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

Commissioner Carson stated there was a consent agenda with 14 entities for approval and moved approval of those entities. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

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

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

Mr. Blair presented the following products to be considered individually:

8363-R1 Armor Screen Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for a conditional approval with the condition of removal of the layouts where the pneumatic device touches the glazing.

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

10295 Sun Optics

Mr. Blair stated this product was recommended for denial. He stated the product was deferred from March 2008 - Did not revise deferral 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 Schulte entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

9316-R3

Mr. Blair stated the application was withdrawn. No Commission action necessary.

1844-R3 PGT Industries

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended approval.

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

10288-R1 PGT Industries

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

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

10289-R1 Response Lucas Turner

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

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

5300-R2 PHILIPS PRODUCTS INC.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition of revise evaluation report for 5300-R2 to include the HVHZ testing.

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

9630-R1 Alenco

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval with the conditions of: Analysis of anchors should revise NDS standard year to agree with application's 2004 FBC. Evaluator should re-evaluate analysis of anchors at meeting rails condition of less that 4 anchors on jambs.

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

10388 Kawneer Company, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval with the condition the applicant provide equivalency of standards for testing standards not adopted on FBC or correct if application had a typo.

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

10419 BiltBest Windows and Patio Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral with conditions of: Applicant shall provide installation instructions with a diagram as required for windows on Rule 9B-72.

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

10511 Enterprises Doco

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition to include on limits of use: Not to be used within HVHZ for small missile requirements.

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

10512 Enterprises Doco

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition to include on limits of use: Not to be used within HVHZ for small missile requirements.

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

10513 Enterprises Doco

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition to include on limits of use: Not to be used within HVHZ for small missile requirements.

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

10514 Enterprises Doco

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with condition of: 1. to include on limits of use: "Not to be used within HVHZ for small missile requirements". 2. Analysis of anchors should revise NDS standard year to agree with application's 2007 FBC. 3. The laminated lite to be shown against the integral stop.

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

10515 Enterprises Doco

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with condition to include on limits of use: Not to be used within HVHZ for small missile requirements.

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

8432-R1 Alutech United, Inc.

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

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

9166-R1 Wayne-Dalton Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with condition: provide attachment of vertical bar and its anchors to door for 18' wide door.

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

10167 West Tampa Glass Company

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with condition: provide equivalency of standard to 2007 FBC adopted standard or correct if a typo.

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

10306 Storm Smart Industries

Mr. Blair stated the recommendation was for approval.

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

9731 Winco Window Company

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with condition remove reference to Uvecol NOA on 9731.2

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

10535 Durable Woods Products USA, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with condition not to be used within HVHZ or conduct testing as required for HVHZ.

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

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

DECLARATORY STATEMENTS:

Mr. Richmond stated Peter Kelegian would no longer be with the Department for the best of reasons, to be identified by Mr. Kelegian if he chooses to do so. He then stated given the current status of the department he was unsure if the position would be filled or attempt to use existing resources. He concluded by stating it had been an absolute pleasure working with Mr. Kelegian and expressed thanks for his work dealing with the very complicated issues surrounding Accessibility.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Mr. Kelegian and wished him luck in the future.

Binding Interpretations: Reports Only

Petition 35:Section 2002.3.3 of the 2004 Florida Building Code

No discussion on interpretation.

Petition 36: Section 1025 of the 2004 Florida Building Code

Mr. Richmond stated there had been some contact with the school board involved. He then stated it apparently is relative to a public educational facility. He continued by stating the school board feels it does not appropriately address certain issues within Chapter 423, the Special Occupancy section. He further stated there may well be an appeal of that petition coming to the Commission for a determination and did not want to go any further into it at present. He concluded by stating the Department of Education may well have some comments on that particular interpretation, as well.

Declaratory Statements:

Recommended Order of Dismissal

DCA08-DEC-001 by Karen Kalman

Mr. Richmond stated the declaratory statement was filed on behalf of Ms. Kalman relating to a binding interpretation, as well. He then stated although it was a petition for declaratory statement and not a direct appeal there were some time frame issues for the appeal. He further stated the parties had resolved the case by mutual agreement and have sought to withdraw their petition. He continued by stating given the fact the Commission had appointed a hearing officer, staff brought it before the Commission with a recommended order of dismissal. He concluded by stating unless there were any questions or concerns he would recommend a motion for an order of dismissal be entered on the case.

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

Commissioner Goodloe stated regarding Petition 36 a declaratory statement from the petitioner on the same question citing the appropriate section of the Fire Code. He then stated while there is no disagreement with the binding interpretation, the citation was improper and as a result of that once a declaratory statement is issued on the Fire Code question there will appear to be a conflict. He further stated it aligns itself with DOE’s concern if the question was from 423, not 1025, it would’ve referred it to the Florida Fire Prevention Code and then the Commission’s answer would be consistent for both codes.

Mr. Richmond stated at this point some discussion with the school board was based on their mistaken belief the Commission had the power or authority to stop the binding interpretation from being entered. He then stated that was not the case and the interpretation had been entered and noticed at this point. He further stated the school board has been advised if they have issue with the binding interpretation they would need to appeal it as well as advise DOE they could potentially seek a declaratory statement on the issue form the Commission, as well, since they were not a party to the binding interpretation case. He concluded by stating staff would certainly coordinate with Commissioner Goodloe’s office in terms of resolution. He stated the Commission is charged with coming to consistent answers regarding both the Building Code and the Fire Code, so it is something that could be done at the state level.

Second Hearings:

DCA07-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 Carson moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

First Hearings:

DCA08-DEC-085 by Walter A. Tillit, Jr., P.E. of TilTeco, Inc.

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

Chuck Anderson, AHMA

Mr. Anderson apologized for missing the TAC meeting. He stated he had a building officials education seminar which conflicted. He then stated he did not agree with the TAC’s position to bring this back before the Commission. He further stated Mr. Tillit had originally filed for a declaratory statement in December and the petitioner deserves an answer and the petition should move forward. He continued by stating what he would like the commissioners to consider would be a slight modification to restrict this to concrete, masonry and CMU materials. He stated previously he had made an argument about the factor of safety when testing a full scale model is different than a factory design when pencil and paper calculation. He then stated while the argument is still there, in doing some further research he ran across some things which actually support Mr. Tillit’s argument. He thought it was right to present those items to the Commission and it has to do with the types of materials the anchors are in. He stated when there are brittle materials; there is a lot of science out there which says the factor of safety probably should be higher. He stated the factor safety of 4 is generally the factor of safety suggested for brittle materials, but for other materials it is a lot lower; 2 is a very common number to see. He stated the logic for that rule is, briefly, a brittle material could be loaded up to 99.9% of its ultimate strength and there would be no way to know how close to the line it was and about to fail. He then stated if there is a non-brittle material and it is being tested, elongation can be seen and things are visibly happening so there is an opportunity to see failure but brittle failures are not known until at a point when it is too late. He concluded by stating masonry, concrete and CMU type applications is what he believed Mr. Tillit was aiming with this because that is where the concern was. He stated he offered a modification to limit it to that would be very applicable here. He then stated AAMA has a certification program, which doesn’t apply to the issue, but he is offering it as a Good Samaritan, as he is not bias and it does not affect his members directly.

Commissioner Kim stated he appreciated Mr. Andersons’ comment but he believed the answer to #2, which states “shall be evaluated to material standards as referenced in the Florida Building Code and and/or in accordance with acceptable engineering practices” covers it.

Mr. Anderson stated he agreed the way he interprets it, but he believed it does leave a little bit of leeway out there and if it was limited to the brittle materials then it would be tied up very nicely.

Commissioner Kim stated there might be other types of materials and it would be left up to the design professionals to use their judgment to limit what the standard of practice is.

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Kim if his recommendation was to go with the recommendation as written.

Commissioner Kim responded yes.

Mr. Anderson stated with the recent changes to the BCIS he was not certain of the implications, but through the test report method he was not sure if the recent changes presented by Mr. Berman at the last meeting may actually take care of this now and a P.E. has to sign off on all of that stuff going through the test report method now so actually the need for a disposition on the declaratory statement might be erased by now.

Joe Belcher, representing Florida Concrete and Products Association

Mr. Belcher offered support of Commissioner Kim’s statement. He stated

They believed the declaratory statement does cover the issue and would prefer not to have specific products pointed out.

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

DCA08-DEC-002 by Scott Hampton, PE

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.

Jamie Gascon, Miami-Dade County

Mr. Gascon stated he wanted to echo one of the comments he had made at the Structural TAC which was an identical question that was asked before to the BOAF for an informal interpretation. He then stated the answer that came back was completely opposite than what was before the Commission for this declaratory statement. He further stated if the minutes of the TAC were reviewed the TAC was kind of divided and although it came before the Commission with a favorable recommendation there was some kind of split in the decision for the declaratory statement. He concluded by stating he would ask the Commission consider the declaratory statement closely because it would be conflicting with what BOAF has recommended.

Joe Belcher, representing the International Hurricane Protection Association

Mr. Belcher stated the association supports what the TAC has recommended to the Commission although high velocity hurricanes don’t ???? and they say in their standards if you cannot break the glass the nationally adopted standards that have been adopted into the Building Code do not say that and do not require that. He stated it was very clear. He further stated the BOAF interpretations were informal interpretations and he was involved in one of the first ones, which kind of set the tone, regarding whether shutters could be placed inside the window. He stated in that case the value was not to break the glass. He stated when looking at the Building Code versus the Residential Code it does say glazing protected if they adopt the standards. He then stated the question becomes what does that mean. He asked does the standard address breakage and the answer is it does not. He stated it allows for deflection which could contact or it may not. He stated when looking at what the residential code states, and the association believes both codes should state, the glaze opening shall be protected. He stated the ASCE’s? intent in protecting these openings is to prevent internal pressure within the buildings not to keep water out or anything else of that nature. He continued by stating in Florida there was specifically approved wood structural panels 7/16 of an inch. He further stated when those were tested in every single test; the 2x 4 went straight through the panel but the panel only had a 4 inch hole in it so the building could not be pressurized. He concluded by stating the intent of the Building Code, other than in HVHZ regions, is to prevent internal pressurization of the building.

Commissioner Kim echoed Mr. Belcher’s comments. He stated this is for non HVHZ regions and anyone that has been dealing with the ASTM standards from its genesis knows the standard allows the missile to penetrate, to break the glass as long as it provides internal pressurization in the ????SE7. He then stated there was some language that was incorporated into the 2006 Supplement in the Florida Building Code. He stated the language, as Mr. Belcher pointed out, is slightly different than the Residential Code. He further stated those updates are causing the confusion and the intent is to try to fix the specific wording in the Florida Building Code in the glitch cycle to get rid of the confusion, which he believed BOAF would be in support of.

Chuck Anderson, AHMA

Mr. Anderson stated the ASTM document defined two kinds of shutter systems, porous and non-porous, and the intent was very clear when a porous shutter system was present structural integrity of the building would be maintained either the glass did not break or the shutter sealed well enough it prevented air from blowing in. He then stated the way testing was done was to shoot missile straight at them and shutters are not there to seal the opening so during any kind of pressure testing air can go in. He further stated if a shutter is spaced 18 inches off of the window air can go around it so if the window breaks the shutter may as well not be on there because all that will be prevented from going through the opening is big stuff. He concluded by stating unless some sort of porous shutter over the opening is maintained the glass should not be allowed to break. He stated he did not believe it was an issue of high velocity or non-high velocity, but a plain common sense thing.

Commissioner Greiner asked if the ASTM test standard allowed glass to break.

Mr. Anderson answered it allows it to break for a non-porous shutter assembly.

Commissioner Kim stated he appreciated Mr. Andersons’s comment but it might have caused some confusion. He then stated the ASTM standard for porous shutters, shutters with holes in them, are required to be separated from the glass so the glass doesn’t break. He further stated non-porous shutters versus non-porous shutters such as metal panels, accordions; roll downs are allowed to be installed right up the glass and the missile could even penetrate them as long as the hole is smaller than 3 inches and does not cause internal pressurization. He concluded by stating he believed what Mr. Anderson was trying to say was the non-porous shutters allow the glass to break.

Dick Wilhelm, representing the Fenestration Manufacturers Association

Mr. Wilhelm stated they would like to say thank you very much and it definitely supports that position.

Mr. Anderson stated he believed Commissioner Kim summed it up very well and for the rest of you the definition is 90% of the access of the opening is blocked which is where the line is drawn for the porous and non-porous.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve resulted in 19 in favor, 1 opposed (Gonzalez). Motion carried.

DCA08-DEC-071 by G. David Rogers, Ex. Vice President, FPGA

DCA08-DEC-083 by Steven M. Sincere, PE

DCA08-DEC-085 by Robert A. Walz, PE, Walz Engineering, LLC

Mr. Richmond stated the three petitions had all been withdrawn.

DCA08-DEC-086 by Ruben Fabian Arroyo, Arroyo Enterprises, 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.

Joe Herman, Arroyo Enterprises

Mr. Herman asked, relative to the 2007 Residential Code, if a sunroom does not need to be shuttered, but the existing openings do need to be in place though. He stated under Section R4403.16, which is the in the HVHZ, Impact Test for Windborne Debris, it states “All parts or systems of a building structure or structures envelope such as but not limited to exterior walls, roofs, outside doors, skylights, glazing, and glass blocks shall meet impact test criteria or be protected with an external protection device that meets the impact test criteria. Test procedures to determine resistance to windborne debris of wall cladding, outside doors, skylights, glazing, glass blocks, shutters and any other external protection devices shall be performed in accordance with the section.” He continued reading Under Exception H it states “Buildings and structures for marinas, cabanas, swimming pools, solariums, and greenhouses.” He then stated sunrooms as defined by Florida Building Code does include solariums……..

[ Audio missing from the remaining comments of Mr. Herman through the rest of DCA-08-086 and a portion of the opening remarks from Mr. Richmond on DCA08-DEC-087: ]

Mr. Madani

Mr. Herman

Mr. Madani

Mr. Herman

Mr. Richmond…

Commissioner Greiner

Commissioner Hamrick 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-087 by Joseph Hermann, Arroyo Enterprises, 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 McCombs 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-108 by Fred Dudley, Holland & Knight, LLP

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

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

DCA08-DEC-112 by Lee Arsenault, the Vintage 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 Bassett moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion resulted in 18 in favor, 2 opposed (McCombs, Browdy). Motion carried.

DCA08-DEC-091 by Mark Desaceway, P.E.

Mr. Richmond stated to keep the Commission actions consistent with the agenda. He stated the petition had been withdrawn.

RECESS

Wednesday May 7, 2008

The meeting of the Florida Building Commission was called to order by Chairman Raul Rodriguez at 8:30a.m. on Wednesday, May 7, 2008, at the Crowne Plaza Melbourne Oceanfront Hotel, Melbourne, Florida 33612.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

Raul L. Rodriguez, AIA, Chairman Jeffrey Gross

Nicholas D’Andrea, Vice Chairman Paul D. Kidwell

Richard Browdy Do Y. Kim

Gary Griffin Dale Greiner

James Goodloe Matthew Carlton

Herminio Gonzalez Craig Parrino, Adjunct Member

Hamid Bahadori

Michael McCombs COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:

Randall J. Vann Angel Franco

Nanette Dean GeorgeWiggins

Steven C. Bassett Christ Sanidas

Jon Hamrick Doug Murdock, Adjunct Member

Joseph “Ed” Carson

OTHERS PRESENT:

Rick Dixon, FBC Executive Director

Ila Jones, DCA Prog. Administrator

Jim Richmond, DCA Legal Advisor

Jeff Blair, FCRC

Mo Madani, Technical Svcs. Manager

WELCOME

Chairman Rodriguez welcomed the commissioners, staff and public to day two of the May meeting of the Florida Building Commission.

CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Accessibility TAC

Commissioner Gross presented the report of the Accessibility TAC. (See Accessibility TAC Minutes May 5, 2008).

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

Energy TAC

Commissioner Greiner presented the report of the Energy TAC. (See Energy TAC Minutes May 5, 2008).

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

Mechanical TAC

Commissioner Bassett presented the report of the Mechanical TAC. (See Mechanical TAC Meeting Minutes May 5, 2008).

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

Structural TAC

Commissioner Kim presented the report of the Structural TAC. (See Structural TAC Meeting Minutes May 5, 2008).

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Carson 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 May 6, 2008).

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

Advanced Florida Building Code (Frontage Increase), 285.0, Accreditor JDB Code Services, Inc.

Advanced Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits, 280.0, Accreditor JDB Code Services, Inc.

Dealing with HB 7057 and Roof Tile Hip and Ridge Issues, 278.0 Accreditor JDB Code Services, Inc.

Florida Buildng Code Mitigation Guidelines, 294.0, Accreditor JDB Code Services, Inc.

FRSA/TRI Concrete and Clay Tile Installation Manual 4th Edition, 281.0, Accreditor JDB Code Services, Inc.

Advanced Florida Building Code: Entrapment Protection for Suction Inlets (2004 code), 293.0 Accreditor JDB Code Services, Inc.

Advanced Florida Building Code: Entrapment Protection for Suction Inlets (2007 code), 283.0, Accreditor, BCIC LLC.

Advanced-Module: Private Provider Inspections, 286.0, Accreditor BCIC LLC

Florida Advanced Building Code, 276.0, Accreditor BCIC LLC

Advanced Fair Housing Act OR The Seven Deadly Sins of the FHA, 292.0, Accreditor BCIC LLC

Advanced Building Code Course: A Review of Selected 2006 and 2007 Changes To The 2004 Florida Building Code, 295.0, Accreditor BCIC LLC

Advanced Code Module Course for Electricians, 300.0, Accreditor BCIC LLC

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

Commissioner Browdy stated the following four courses were updated administratively on the POC’s consent agenda:

2004 Florida Building Code Structural 87.1, Accreditor BCIC LLC

2004 Florida Building Code Structural 188.1, Accreditor BCIC LLC

Advanced Administration 77.2, Accreditor BCIC LLC

2007 Florida Building Code, Chapters 5 & 6, the Building Officials of Florida 210.10, Accreditor BCIC LLC

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

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Carson 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 May 5, 2008).

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

Mitigation Workgroup

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Wind Mitigation Workgroup met after the March Commission meeting and again on April 18^th to receive an update on gravel roof research and to consider proposed mitigation technique code amendments. He then directed the Commission to Mr. Blair for an update on the Mitigation Workgroup.

Mr. Blair presented the reports of the Wind Mitigation Workgroup. (See Wind Mitigation Workgroup Meeting Minutes May 6, 2008).

Chairman Rodriguez asked Mr. Blair if a motion was needed to adopt the recommendations made by the workgroup.

Mr. Blair stated at present a motion was needed to approve the report as the recommendations would be heard in the glitch cycle.

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

LEGISLATIVE REPORT

Mr. Richmond first thanked the commissioners for their participation in the conference calls. He apologized for some difficulties in getting the paperwork to all of the commissioners, which he has tried to do that to maximize the commissioners’ time and it does assist him in going through the process and was certainly appreciated by the primary benefactor in the Legislature. He thanked Senator Constantine for his continued support of the Commission. He then stated he did not believe anyone in attendance who had been involved in the Legislative process could deny the vigor with which Senator Constantine pursues the Commission’s interests and watches out for the Building Commission and the Building Code. He further stated he is a great benefit to the Commission who has provided outstanding representation on the Commission’s behalf before the Florida Legislature and the Senate specifically to date.

Mr. Richmond addressed the budget issue. He stated the General Appropriations Act is HB 5001, Implementing Bill, which contains numerous bits of changes to Florida Statutes to implement the General Appropriations Act is HB 5003. He continued by stating in the General Appropriations Act, HB 5001, the Commission was provided with as full budget authority as could be anticipated for the current year with approximately $3.5 million dollars of authority to spend funds. He stated unfortunately, later in the Act specifically Section 69, $3.8 million dollars was swept from the Commission’s operating trust fund into another trust fund, the Grants and Donations Trust Fund. He further stated at the very least the action cleaned the trust fund out and may have thrown the fund into a negative balance, but that being reviewed. He stated either way it starts the Commission off at ground zero and requires the Commission to rely on collections next year to fund its operations. He continued by stating Section 32 of HB 5003 amends the collection procedure for permit surcharges and specifically directs those funds, at least to the extent they can cover them, to 3 particular items which are also appropriated out of the Grants and Donations Trust Fund, the recipient of the sweep of the operating trust fund that holds the money dedicated to the Code and the Commission’s efforts. He listed the 3 items as: Civil Legal Assistance (receiving $1 million), Front porch Florida (receiving $1.75 million), and Regional Planning Council’s efforts (receiving $2 million 420 thousand) out of the Grants and Donations Trust Fund, as it was obviously more than was transferred from the operating trust fund. He stated getting beyond all of the mechanics what has been discussed internally and all of the alternatives are currently being explored. He further stated he believed at the very least some correspondence should be directed and communication to the Governor’s office regarding the circumstance, which he believed was recognized during the last conference call. He further stated the inconsistency of acts and laws being passed providing the Commission with additional authority and work to be performed and at the same time eliminating the fiscal ability to perform that work. He stated he thought the content of communication would probably be most appropriately directed to Section 69 of HB 5001, the fund sweep. He continued by stating what it looks from both legal and policy perspectives is if just the fund sweep act was eliminated what the final result would be, as the implementing act would still be there. He then stated his preliminary take is the stream of permit sir charges would be divvied up among those three items and as well all other things which were funded out of the operating trust fund. He further stated if the Commission can maintain the operating trust fund balance it would allow us to continue with substantially full activities as planned. He stated he was not very optimistic about the possibility although the Governor does have the authority to line item veto appropriations; there have been some press releases stating he was impressed by the process by which Legislature trimmed almost 8 billion dollars from the state budget for the current year. He further stated it was a tremendous task, but created general ill will and bad spirits in the Legislature. He then requested a motion to authorize the chair to execute the appropriate communication to the governor regarding appropriations in an effort to preserve the Commission’s ability to perform a full slate of functions.

Commissioner Vann moved approval of counsel’s recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he believed there were several points to be made including two which are very important: 1) whatever communication the Commission decides to send should be first clear on what the Commission lost. 2) the work ahead of the Commission and how that the action can affect the work. He suggested to Mr. Richmond discussing this with Senator Constantine might be helpful since he had been a champion to the Building Commission and he knows the intricacies of the politics. He further stated even if the Commission knew that no one was going to listen it would be important to bring those two points up so it is clear to the governor that the Commission knows how much it lost and some of the consequences of the loss to the citizens of Florida.

Commissioner Greiner stated it would be important to point out the inconsistency of taking the funding away and then requesting the Commission to do additional work.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

HB 697

Mr. Richmond stated HB 697 ultimately passed in Legislature despite some last minute efforts to add on some pool language which would have undone the Commission’s decision regarding the entrapment issue. He further stated the language was not added and did not make it through the Legislature with any other bills despite last minute efforts to do so. He stated an issue arose relative to tower cranes but it was ultimately stripped off. He explained the issue would have restricted the local governments’ ability to regulate installation of tower cranes. He stated Miami, Dade and Broward counties had been extremely involved with the issue. He further stated it had made it onto HB 697 in the House but was stripped off in the Senate. He then stated an amendment was filed to add it back on in the House but the amendment was ultimately withdrawn. He stated a second engrossed version was available online that should contain all of the elements of the bill. He stated the bill became more of an Energy/Code Bill therefore a couple of items at the front of the bill relate to covenants and restrictions of the Homeowners Association and the insulation of energy conserving devices, such as solar panels. He further stated there were items pertaining to growth management and comp planning in a code’s bill. He stated it was an all too scary connection between functions of the Department of Community Affairs, but the staff on the growth management side was aware it was in there and did not find it objectionable.

He then stated the following items most pertained to the Commission’s work. He stated a licensing issue was dealt with as it pertained to standing seam hybrid thermal roofs, authorizing a roofing contractor to install those items. He explained it was more particularly a licensing issue, but this may be a system that will be seen more in the future. He stated another licensing issue interacting with the Roofing Mitigation Rule specifically authorized roofing contractors to perform the required roof deck attachments any repair or replacement of wood sheathing or fascia as needed during roof repair or replacement. He addressed the package of recommendations clarifying the role of the department and the Commission with regard to manufactured buildings, proposed by the department and approved by the Commission last October or November.

Mr. Richmond stated an issue that arose during one of the conference calls could be found in Section 9 of the bill relating to a definition of temporary as it relates to buildings which are exempted from the Building Code and the buildings are identified by but not designated as permanent structures on an approved development order. He further stated it ties in the determination to a local government entity for review and approval. He stated Section 10 is where the ultimate version of language pertaining to the International Energy Conservation Code appears. He then stated this was something there was significant wrangling about. He stated the section that made it into a bill requires the Commission to look at IECC as a foundation code; however the IECC shall be modified by the Commission to maintain the efficiencies of the Florida Energy Efficiency Code for building construction, as adopted and amended, pursuant to 553.901. He continued by stating this was treated in the Energy Bill, got into the House Energy Bill, and restricted the Commission’s ability with regard to modifying the IECC to maintaining the overall efficiencies of the Florida Energy Efficiency Code. He then stated there had been concern that it would prevent the Commission from getting into the nuts and bolts of it to make sure that it was a true equivalent and give the IECC more or less an unfair advantage over the Florida Energy Efficiency Code. He further stated as long as two codes are moving along on two separate tracks they should be required to maintain parody, otherwise the efforts to achieve enhancements called for later in the Energy Bill would just be, at the very least, minimized. He stated the language also appears in 7135, the result of considerable negotiation. He concluded by stating he believed the result is something the Commission can work with to do what it has to do. He stated Mr. Dixon had reviewed it and although it is not the exact language staff wanted it is significantly better than what was there and it is something it can work with.

Mr. Richmond stated the Commission was granted the authority to adopt an updated version of the National Electrical Code if the Commission finds the delay of implementing the updated edition causes undo hardship to stakeholders or otherwise threatens public health, safety, and welfare. He further stated that was in addition to the Commission’s authority under the glitch amendment process. He noted Commissioner McCombs had raised the issue the Commission may not want to look at the 2008 Electrical Code through the glitch process because of some increased cost issues. He explained it was strictly discretionary as the entire section is let off by the Commission may approve amendments it needs to address. He then stated since it is not mandatory it is a tool which can be used in the future or not use as it sees fit.

Mr. Richmond stated the last issue in the first section is cell tower language which was tweaked to ensure it was not a general exemption from the Code. He further stated it was recognition of the special provisions and the referenced standards contained in the Code.

Mr. Richmond stated the next section was relative to the membership of the Commission, which was identified and treated. He stated there are identifications of groups related to most of the seats and those groups are encouraged to recommend a list of candidates for consideration. He further stated this was another example of legislatively encouraging the organizations to do what they are already doing. He continued by stating this ultimately makes no substantive change to the method of selection, i.e. the governor is free to select whomever he wants, subject to the qualifications expressly identified in the statute, which is typically licensing and active engagement in the profession. He stated two additional members are added the swimming pool contractor and a representative of the Green Building industry. He explained this was done to preserve the independent chair and an odd number of commissioners in the event the Commission ever faced the circumstance of a tie vote. He stated staff was aware this could be a potential budget issue, especially given the current circumstances the Commission is in. He concluded by stating there were some amendments to the exact nature of the chairmanship, since all appointments are for terms of 4 years, except that of the chair who should serve at the pleasure of the governor.

Mr. Richmond stated authorization of the Commission to use communications media technology, i.e. conference call, video conferences if the infrastructure is in place for conducting meetings of the Commission and any meetings held in conjunction with the meetings of the Commission. He then stated this was something the Commission could make use of to limit impact of any meetings on the budget issues. He continued by stating the next section of the bill relates to meetings of the Commission shall be conducted so as to encourage participation by interested persons in attendance and requires, at a minimum, the Commission shall provide one opportunity for potentially interested members of the public in attendance at a meeting to comment on each proposed action of the Commission before a final vote is taken on any motion. He then stated it reflects the Commission’s current practice and would impose negligible if any impact on the Commission’s proceedings.

Mr. Richmond stated a section of the bill does authorize the Commission to implement its recommendations on energy delivered pursuant to Subsection 2 of Section 48 of last year’s bill by amending the Florida Energy Code for building construction. He added staff was currently going through the process.

Mr. Richmond stated the next section of the bill pertains to the Commission’s recommendation resulting from its last meeting that is may render declaratory statements regarding provisions of the Accessibility Code, not attributable to the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.

Mr. Richmond stated the next section of the bill was something contained in the Commission’s report. He stated it basically requires construction regulations for secure mental health treatment facilities to be enforced by the Department of Children and Family Services in conjunction with AHCA.

Mr. Richmond stated a new addition to the statute was some compromised language which was injected late in the process, involving Senator Bennett, and pertains to the private provider system. He then stated the language came up as a proposed amendment which would require local governments to waive their fees when a private provider was being utilized. He further stated the language that came out indicates that local governments shall include consideration for refunding fees due to reduced services based on services provided by a private provider and not by the local government. He continued by stating this was developed in conjunction with the Commission’s activity years ago, but he did not believe it was ever explicitly a product of the Commission; however it was one of the things that was discussed by staff with that particular workgroup. He stated fees were not the issue, but the matter of timing and the local governments were to receive full fees, as indicated from interest parties included in the workgroups. He then stated he believed there to be some backsliding from that at present and staff will watch and see where it goes. He further stated it creates some difficulty specifically with some of the language that has been placed in with regard to fees in the past as well as the audit authority of local governments. He stated if the local governments were authorized to waive fees if a private provider is in place any audits performed would have to be subsidized by their other permit fees. He then stated subsidy of that nature is expressly prohibited by some restrictive language with regard to fees. He state he had given input relative to this to Senator Constantine and although it was not pushed very much this year he believed the change was a harbinger of proposals to come.

Mr. Richmond stated the next section pertained to IAPMO, the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. He then stated within 553.842 the Commission was directed to review the list of evaluation entities currently existing in law and in its annual report either recommend amendments to the list or report on criteria to adopt by rule allowing the Commission to approve evaluation entities. He continued by stating the Commission has discretionary authority to prescribe a process and criteria to approve evaluation entities in 9B-72, the rule pertaining to product approval. He further stated the rule, with regard to evaluation entities, currently refers only to the statutory list and there is no process for additional evaluation entities to be approved by the Commission. He stated that resulted in staff advising the entities to go to the Legislature for approval and they did. He stated there were concerns which had been addressed. He stated the primary concern from industry was the loss of the International Code Council’s evaluation service prior to the next update of the code, which meant someone would be needed short term to handle the overflow. He then stated the concern of staff and the Commission was the particular association identified did not have much of a track record on products outside of plumbing and mechanical products and the products referred to them would’ve been structural. He concluded by stating the result was the entity is authorized to conduct evaluations until October 1, 2009. If the association does not obtain approval by the Commission or creates a process for approving evaluation entities or fails to become recognized in law as an approved evaluation entity by that point they will cease to be an approved evaluation entity and any approval based on their evaluation would become void as of January 1, 2010. He concluded this gives the Commission a fall back, at least, and puts any manufacturer intending to use the association on notice to make sure it is confident in the association’s ability to perform the job and perform it well, other wise it would be just delaying the problem for a year.

Mr. Richmond stated the next section related to changes related to the Mitigation Rule and it reflects what the Commission has done with the Mitigation Rule including the 15% limitation discussed with the workgroup which does require more than one method or material for secondary water barrier, which is reflective of what the Commission has done with the rule.

Mr. Richmond stated the next section related to carbon monoxide requirements and the different requirements being recognized for hospitals, in-patient hospice facilities, or nursing home facilities. He stated the logic offered for that was extremely convincing for the Florida Legislature was each of these occupancies or facilities are subject to 24 hour active observation by personnel and the optional requirement would hopefully warn someone who was observing that there was difficulty, at the least. He then stated it was forwarded by both industry and more so the Agency for Healthcare Administration and Skip Gregory.

Mr. Richmond stated the next section was essentially the energy provisions. He stated the Building Code was directed to promote the use of cost effective energy conservation, energy demands management and renewable energy technologies. He then stated the schedule of proposed increases in thermal efficiency standards is to improve 20% by 2010, which is 20% over what the Commission adopted October 31, 2007. He clarified the current 15% would be counted towards the initial 20%. He stated 30% over that threshold (an additional 10%) would be required by the 2013 code, an additional 10% by the 2016 code and additional 10% by the 2019 code for a total of 50%. He continued by stating the Commission was directed to identify alternatives for compliance in performance options including but not limited to solar water heating energy efficient appliances, energy efficient windows, doors and skylights, low solar absorption roofs, enhanced ceiling and wall insulation, reduced leak duct systems, programmable thermostats, energy efficient lighting systems and any other items identified by the Commission. He further stated the Commission has been required to adopt by rule and implement a cost effectiveness test for proposed increases in energy efficiency. He stated cost effectiveness had always been a threshold for amendments to the Energy Code. He then stated the goal for the Commission is to establish in rule a set of criteria that can be relied upon by all industry and interested parties as being the threshold by which the Commission will judge potential amendments in the future. He continued by stating the rule is to ensure energy efficiency increases result in a positive net financial impact. He stated the initial draft referred to average consumers in a couple of places and one of the huge concerns was defining what an average consumer was, especially in the commercial context where there is a tremendous number of options for both compliance and the range from “mom and pop” businesses to multinational corporations. He then stated there was a repeal of language specifically citing the International Code provisions which in turn recite the provisions of ASCE7 of 2001, basically codified in 553.731 in error. He stated there was some language added to ensure this did not otherwise change what had been put into 553.373 that we are not to change the code to diminish code provisions relating to wind resistance or water intrusion. He then stated Section 24 of the bill does repeal the application of the Code Plus by Citizens Insurance. He stated it was actually passed first in an insurance bill which was supported and championed by the sponsor of the initial legislation. He then stated the ultimate result was if different code provisions need to apply then 2500 feet of the coast or any other area of the state there is a process to amend the code in such a manner as to reflect specific conditions in the state of Florida. He offered editorial comments stating whether different code provisions should apply depending on who you may or may not get insurance from in the future does not seem to jive with the higher concept of construction regulations. He continued by stating whether different code provisions should apply should be based on the conditions in the construction, not external factors such as who would insure the structure.

Mr. Richmond stated the section relative to the issue of the local ownership or operation of an asphalt plan did not relate to the Commission.

Mr. Richmond stated another section addresses the display of flags at condominiums.

Mr. Richmond stated the last section required submission of the rule relating to cost effectiveness to the Legislature and that the Commission provide for an effective date of the rule by July 1, 2009. He said the bill allows the Legislature to review the rule but does not mandate a sign off for it. He then stated that concludes HB 697 and covers the bulk of HB 7135, which was the ultimate energy bill that passed.

Chairman Rodriguez stated it was a busy time for Mr. Richmond. He referred to the issue of conference calls and recognized the commissioners’ willingness to devote their time to those calls. He stated it helps the commissioners to stay in touch with Mr. Richmond and provides them an opportunity to provide feedback which allows Mr. Richmond to work with strong support of the Commission. He then stated from the past the last Commission meeting to the closing of the Legislature the Commission always gave the chair authority to interact with Mr. Richmond or whoever was lobbying. He continued by stating he felt better knowing the commissioners were participating in that process, as from the last meeting to the closing all of the commissioners had the ability to weigh in on the issues and he expressed appreciation for their participation. He then stated he was disappointed in the Code Plus action. He stated he believed the Legislature gave that to the Commission to work on, which was not directly in line with the Commission’s program, but the work the Commission did was important only to be received by Legislature and put to the side. He clarified for those observing the process it was an interesting thing that the Citizen rates would be kept as they are, but there was a situation where the situation could be improved with the coastal constructions so the citizens of Florida are less likely to be impacted, not only in terms of life safety, but also in terms of the cost involved to repair those buildings when something happens. He stated the Legislature are the elected officials and they call the shots. He further stated relative to the budget issues, the Commission has authorized the chairman to direct some comments to the governor and he would do his best to get that done and done right. He continued by stating he was pleased the independent chair survived for the future. He stated the Commission had the support of the Miami Herald, which was welcome because the Miami Herald has not always been on the side of the Commission. He explained when staff went to see them over the August revolt of the panhandle issues, the editorial staff, for the first time, realized how many people participate in the consensus building effort. He stated that editorial board thought it was a miracle anything got done with 23 members. He then stated he believed that to be a tribute to the commissioners, staff and facilitators who help the Commission see the way. He further stated he was not surprised to see support of the Commission’s decision to keep the membership what it was and not make it any larger. He continued by stating he, personally, did not have any problem with the addition of two more members. He then stated maybe when they sit here they will see how difficult it is to arrive at consensus. He further stated it was much easier to lobby a senator or representative than to arrive at consensus with colleagues. He stated the green initiative is kind of the new ADA, something society has finally come around to accepting that it is important, although it is another unfunded mandate.

Chairman Rodriguez expressed appreciation to Mr. Richmond because it was a very active session certainly for Commission related items. He also wanted to thank Senator Constantine for the work he did on behalf of the Commission. He lastly thanked the public at large in attendance. He stated he believed it was a perfect system: members of the public can come to the meetings, can advocate their positions which are heard by a technical group, the Commission discusses it openly and comes down one side or the other and then the member of the public can still go to the Legislature. He then stated formally he did not begrudge anyone for going to the Legislature, but he believed there had to be some willingness to accept the will of the Commission most of the time or else it would just be a royal waste of time for a lot of people who at the meetings as volunteers. He further stated the Commission is comforted when the industry and the public supports the Commission actions, dismayed when they don’t, but he thought it should be clear the Commission is not running a popularity contest because the members are not elected. He stated the commissioners voted their conscience, each one has a bit of knowledge they bring to the meetings. He again offered thanks to everyone involved

Mr. Richmond stated there was one additional comment. He was remiss in not bringing it up when he addressed Senator Constantine. He then stated the Commission had some tremendous interaction with a new face in the House of Representatives who actually wound up sponsoring the bill which passed. He stated Representative Aubuchon is our representative from southwest Florida who is a homebuilder who builds his homes to meet IBHS safe building criteria. He stated Representative Aubuchon was a very patient and judicious individual, willing to listen to all sides and accept positions that may not be popular with some of the folks who helped put him in office. He concluded by stating the Commission could look forward to working with Senator Aubuchon again, especially on Code issues, and possibly as a house sponsor for the Commission’s Legislative actions.

Chairman Rodriguez stated if Mr. Richmond could draft something for Representative Aubuchon, as well, and invite him to come to a meeting. He stated Senator Constantine had come repeatedly and wanted the invitation extended to Representative Aubuchon. He then stated he believed it important for the Commission, in general, to have the elected representatives become more familiar with what the Commission does whether good, bad, or indifferent and the care it takes.

Mr. Richmond stated the meeting in August will be in Naples which is in Representative Aubuchon’s district.

Chairman Rodriguez stated that was wonderful. He asked Mr. Richmond to help him draft the letter and then get the letter out.

Mr. Richmond stated an item which was raised by Commissioner Gross.

He had the opportunity to look at the citators, the elevators for provision that extended the date for compliance did not pass. He then stated a motion to accept the report would be appropriate.

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

RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-13, ENERGY CODE

Transcribed as follows

Chairman Rodriguez: You might recall that at the March 08 meeting the

Commission conducted 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 require 85 points for the residential performance method, instead of the current 100 points required and to make no changes to the prescriptive method. Jim will serve as the hearing officer. Jim will you please open the rule adoption hearing?

Mr. Richmond: The rule adoption hearing pertaining to Rule 9B-13 as noticed in Florida Administrative Weekly is hereby opened.

Rodriguez: Thank you. Okay Jeff is going to conduct the, facilitate the rule

adoption hearing so members of the public…go ahead, Jeff.

Jeff Blair: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I’m going to do is, for the record,

the Energy TAC met and has made or prepared a matrix of a list of comments on the comments that were received from the public for the Commission’s consideration. So what I’ll do is review the proposed comments as well as the TAC’s recommendation, ask if anybody from the public would like to make a comment after the specific one, come back to the Commission to determine if the Commission wants to take action on that particular one and then we’ll go back and go through these on at a time. I guess, in addition, Jim, other comments can be received as folks would like to submit them. Correct. So, the first comment is regarding Section 13-101.5 and the underlined is the proposed code change regarding exempt buildings for heating and cooling mechanical systems and the TAC’s comment was their recommendation was not to support this proposed change. Anybody in the public wish to speak on this particular comment?

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association: This comment will apply to

several of the comments made to with the code changes: I recognize under 553 and 901 the Commission has the authority outside of the Building Code Review process to make changes to the Energy Code. I think the industry has tried to participate in the process that has been established for code changes. I think using 553 and 901 instead of the normal code change process for the purpose of developing codes is not consistent with the policies established by the Commission and it does not contain the TAC review 45 day approval provisions. Again I recognize you have the authority to do it. I am asking you not to do it. Make code changes, code changes in the normal code change process. We are looking at this being done as part of the Governor’s Executive Order last year that he asked the 15% increase in efficiency be in place by January 1, 2009. This rule would have the effect of moving that up to October. The state of the construction economy, I don’t need to tell anybody here right now is not good in Florida. Three months can make a lot of difference. You don’t have to do this as part of the glitch cycle. It can be done using the 553/901 rule with an effective date of January. You can do the code changes as part of the normal code change process. The change Commission Bassett recommended at your last meeting from a residential perspective reducing the efficiency of 100 to .85 to get the 15 percent gets you to the point you need to be at relative, residentially, to the Governor’s Executive Order that can go into effect January 1. Put the code changes in the regular code change cycle. Thank you.

Dave Olmstead, PGT Industries: I just want to echo what Jack said. I’m

afraid we’re moving a little too fast here and it’s going to get awfully confusing. Thank you.

Rodriguez: Thank you very much.

Joe Belcher, Florida Concrete Products Association: I would like to again

support what Mr. Glenn is recommending. I see that we’re going too fast on a lot of things and when these things happen, when we try to cram this information, it just gets to be, we wind up with too many glitches required because we rush to meet some kind of deadline that imposes pressure on ourselves. In my opinion every code change, every code change, I mean every code change needs to go through the TACs and go through the two 45-day comment periods. If we move away from that I think we have a bigger error. Okay?

Rodriguez: Thank you.

Belcher: Thank you.

Kari Hebrank: I, too echo the previous speakers and I think when you look at the...

Blair: Could you state your name for the record? Sorry.

Hebrank: I’m Kari Hebrank, representing Florida Building Materials Association. If you look at the 15%, if we roll that into the 2007 Code now what essentially you’re doing is you’re putting 15% on an industry in addition to the additional 20% that is required by HB 7135 and HB 697 which requires 20% based on the 2007 Code for by 2010. So we’ll basically have 15% right now, plus that additional 20% so for industry we are already having serious heartburn with the 15%. You add another 20% on top of that and again given the economic state of construction right now we think that you would be putting a great burden on a lot of the industries and we would ask that, again, you hold off the January 1 deadline then that 15% is not rolled into the 2007 Code and would be worked toward the additional 20% that’s what we’d need to do

Richmond: Kari, just in response, the 15% is credited toward the 20%. That’s why we need to be sure to include, although it is a citation in both HB 7135 and HB 697, it is that version of the 2007 Code adopted October 31 of last year. So anything we do now will be credited against that initial 20%. 35% by 2010 I don’t think is even considered as remotely feasible. 20% is ambitious and we’ll seek to do that. But, it is only an additional 5% from the point that this package would get us to.

Hebrank: Can you put that in writing?

Richmond: It is in writing. I mean that’s the 2007 Code as adopted. October 31, 2007 is the day we filed that edition. These are additional enhancements over and above the October 2007 version. So, I mean that’s why it was written that way.

Rodriguez: Kari if you need to get the word back to your constituency maybe

Jim can help you find the language.

Hebrank: Okay. Well, I mean I know what he’s saying about the October but

think we still have some concerns about trying to do this by October. In addition…

Rodriguez: Kari, it’s just to clear the record.

Hebrank: Right, right. Okay.

Blair: Anyone else like to comment?

Ernie McFerrin, Hillsborough County School Board: My name is Ernie

McFerrin, representing Hillsborough County School Board. We realize and appreciate the revisions in the Energy Code. However, you need to know I represent one of 57 school districts and we area all having the same situation of

significant budget cuts here recently and also the classroom reduction mandate a couple of years ago cost us a lot of money to increase classrooms to reduce classroom sizes and we are having to make, like other districts, cuts in personnel and services within in our district. My secretary is one of the, she’s been really…We’d like to comply with the energy revisions but we’ve been very successful with the 2004. We will comply with the Code. We will just have to make adjustments like everybody else. The purpose of me saying anything let me go on the record, as this is giving us heartburn to comply with the Governor’s mandates. We’re energy conscious. We are the only district that’s going to be using solar to dehumidify in place of electricity. That will be saving us about $10,000.00 per year per school. That’s using solar hot water in place of electric heating and also on that version we are reducing our ventilation and maintaining and reducing our energy consumption by a significant amount. That’s been recently included in the 2007 is permission to reduce ventilation. So, I appreciate you listening to one district complain a little about having more restrictions added to our district.

Rodriguez: Thank you very much for coming.

Blair: Thank you. Okay commissioners on this particular one if you don’t take

any action, which is the recommendation of the TAC, it’s also, I should have mentioned, the analysis indicates that this was something that would have to be done by law and not by rule anyway. So, if there’s no Commission action on this one we will move on to the next comment.

Commissioner Richard Browdy: I think the discussion we heard with regard to the energy efficiency was only part of the issue with the October 1^st implementation. I think industry was also saying there are other issues including being technically prepared to comply by October 1^st, not just the issue with respect to the energy efficiency with other issues. I don’t know if it is in order to make a motion to delay the implementation date to January 1^st or not, but if it is appropriate at this rule hearing then this commissioner would propose that.

Commissioner Paul Kidwell: Second.

Rodriguez: There’s a motion and a second. Jim, can we do this? Delay implementation until January 1.

Richmond: I would probably recommend that we, since this has been over-

arching motion as opposed to directed at this particular issue, probably ask for if anyone else wants to comment on that.

Blair: On Commissioner Browdy’s motion you mean?

Richmond: Yes.

Blair: I guess if that motion is entertained and carries will we just not go through the rest of the list or would we still go through it? What would you recommend?

Richmond: I’d probably still, unless it is made as part of the motion, I would

recommend going through it. It’s just a matter of what the effective date of these changes would be.

Blair: So, would it make sense, I’m only asking, if it would make sense to get the commission’s view on all of these issues and then see if the desire is to delay the entire package. What would be the preference in terms of ways to proceeding? That might be one way of doing it.

Browdy: I certainly have no objection and the industry has no objection to the

changes. It’s just a matter of being prepared for them on a timing issue. I agree is somewhat of an overarching motion given the rule discussion right now, but I think it is appropriate because think that is a very relevant concern for technicians and people who are required to comply with the Code.

Blair: Would you like to make that motion first then?

Browdy: I would unless…

Blair: Was there a second to that?

Rodriguez: There was a second on the motion earlier.

Blair: So discussion on that motion? First we need to find out if there were

additional public comments just on that motion. I know we’ve already heard it the support but feel free to say it again if you’d like regarding the motion which is to delay the implementation to January 1^st.

Hebrank: We would support that motion to delay action on any of these different proposals that industry agrees with or if the Commission wants to move forward I would ask you to still go through these recommendations.

Blair: We’re going to.

Hebrank: Some of them are code changes that we’d probably object to.

Blair: Anybody else wish to speak on the overarching motion?

Belcher: Ditto.

Olmstead: Ditto.

Glenn: Ditto.

Blair: Let the record reflect a consistent opinion. Okay, so we have a motion

and a second, which is to delay the implementation date and whatever changes are made.

Rodriguez: There’s discussion by Bassett and Greiner.

Blair: I was going to ride the motion out. Now let’s have our discussion.

Commissioner Steven C. Bassett: I agree and support the delay of the

implementation, but I would also like to offer a friendly amendment that we are sure to include in the preamble that this is 15% of the required 20% by 2010, so that it’s in writing that that’s what it is and they are not going to add the 20 later.

Browdy: Absolutely no objection.

Rodriguez: Okay. What about the second?

Kidwell: No objection.

Blair: Okay so the motion is amended.

Rodriguez: Let’s do Griffin and then Greiner.

Commissioner Gary Griffin: I think there are two issues here. One is the

Governor’s direction and we have, and I do support, by the way, delaying it as long as our counsel says within the requirements that the Governor set on us but one is the….Audio break...lost some of Commissioner Griffin’s comments…Energy TAC and Jim Richmond informed us that we had to consider these because the rule was opened up. I think these need to be considered as a separate issue because they are code changes even though apparently legally they can happen. They are a separate issue from what the Governor intended. I guess just the fact the rule was opened up opened up this process.

Rodriguez: Yes, Rick, please.

Rick Dixon: For clarification, commissioner. The Governor, in his executiveorder, directed the Commission to do one thing and the Department of Community Affairs to do another. He said 15% to the Commission on Energy Code, 15% to the Department which administers the Appliance Efficiency Standards which are typically implemented through the Florida Building Code. So, the Department presented to the Commission recommendations for changes to try to get that 15% he had directed for them and I think some of those things could be identified as code changes specifically those that address appliance efficiencies or equipment efficiencies are the request of the department to meet their responsibility to the Governor’s Executive Order.

Griffin: I just close by saying I support the motion. I hope the process that we

can change the workplan so the process will mirror what we’ve done in the past with code changes.

Rodriguez: At least you know where it came from now.

Commissioner Dale Greiner: I think what Gary’s saying is that if we delay this

as the motion intends then it seems to me that we would have sufficient time to do code change process through the TAC mirroring exactly what we do normally and that would be more beneficial to those that are concerned about these particular code changes and if that works I don’t have a problem with that. My only concern is once we do this and we make these changes then in January 2009 they take effect is that a supplement to the code, the 2007 code, which we stopped doing? So, I mean, how do we take care of that Energy issue that we’re putting into to place for 2009?

Dixon: I think, Commissioner, by doing the delayed implementation you’ll

effectively have two editions of the Florida Energy Code requirements going into effect three months apart which is part of why staff had recommended you approve it in your workplan to begin with trying to make this coincide with the Building Code change on October 1 to avoid having something with changes going into effect October 1 and then immediately in January 1 the following three months later something else going into effect.

Rodriguez: Commissioner Bassett?

Bassett: Mr. Chairman, what we initially passed would have very little effect

whether it went into effect on October or January because it just meant at one point in time your resulting grade had to be lower. So it would not affect anything in the Energy Code. A lot of these changes that we are talking about were recommended by the TAC to go into the code cycle and it had to do with you built the house under the prescriptive method and changing what the prescriptive method entailed. But if we don’t address those now and go into a normal cycle several months from now then I think...It took us three hours and we couldn’t agree on anything when we had the first TAC meeting trying to decide what to change in the base prescriptive method. I think we will end up in that same lengthy process again and it’s something that should not be rushed through even though it’s hard for people to understand that you don’t have to build it according to prescriptive method, it just is hard for an industry to think that they’re the only ones that have to get better to meet the Energy Code. So I think we will be better off if we simply went and said there is no prescriptive method of building even if you do it under the prescriptive method you still have to run the calculation and score the 85 then that’s the least heartburn for anybody, industry or builders or consumers. It is any way you can come up with to make that energy reduction and score the 85 would suffice and any air conditioning contractor almost has the program, can run the program and most of them will do it for free as part of their doing the design for the air conditioning system on a house. So I don’t see that there’s any tremendous hardship anywhere and I think we should go on as we have decided, maybe stepping back to what my initial proposal was and that was all houses had to be done by the Method A and the Method B simply tells you what the standard is.

Blair: For now though I think what we should do is focus on the motion which is to whatever the Commission decides to do regarding the energy recommendations which we’ll go through in a minute. But the motion on hand is to delay the implementation date to 1/1/09 for whatever is approved as well as in the preamble making a notation that his is 15% of the total 20% required by the 2010.

Greiner: If that’s the motion and our intent is to implement in January of 2009

and that gives us enough time to run a normal code change process through the TAC I see no benefit to go through these today.

Rodriguez: I agree.

Greiner: And I would ask to amend the motion and say if we are going to do that we change the workplan, we set up the normal process and we make sure that happens by January 1^st.

Blair: Maybe it would be, we could just take a vote on the motion then we can

discuss how to proceed on a separate motion.

Greiner: Well, my issue is that taking the time to run through these now and

then running through them later at the TAC under the normal code change process is double doing it and it’s convoluted enough.

Rodriguez: Rick needs to chime in.

Dixon: Commissioners you can probably meet that deadline if you don’t print a code book. But remember after the adoption you have to do a publication and get it out on the street for the public to know what’s coming. And 45 day, 45 day if you think back to the process we did last year we started at January the cut off date. We held TAC meetings 45 days later in March we held Commission action on the TAC recommendations 45 days later in May, we finished up in June and then after that it has time to be filed with the Secretary of State, time delay and then we published the book and put in on the street.

Inaudible question and could not determine speaker

Dixon: That book. But if you stop this process and start over again I don’t think you would meet the January 1 date and have publication on the street ready for the people to use.

Rodriguez: Commissioner Bassett?

Bassett: Mr. Chairman I think maybe a compromise might be that of we go as

we have with the 85 score and state that the prescriptive building still would have to score the 85% and then utilize the process…

Blair: Let me, excuse me…

Bassett: I know what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to get so we can vote on

this current motion and I think what I’m saying has to do with being able to vote on it if I come up with some alternatives.

Blair: Okay. The issue, though, is that what we should do is dispose of the

motion and then if you want to discuss how we should implement it…

Rodriguez: But, the question…I support Bassett on this one because there are some people who are having some difficulty in supporting the motion over the objection of staff because it’s a, call them mechanical problems we would have relative to the 45. One of the things that is clear here is when we get these mandates, with all due respect to the Governor and Legislature, they may not be, why would they be, intimately familiar with the processes we have to follow so then it puts us in this hurry up mode and then we get hurt on that score, but why don’t you finish that up because it’s important that we consider all of that before we vote on whether or not we delay the Code. That’s a big vote.

Bassett: Right. The point I’m trying to make is if we accept the 85, I realize we can’t keep going and going to 65 and down. At some point in time we have to change the prescriptive method that sets the score so what I’m suggesting is we go with we have passed last time, the 85 score, and then set up the process to look at the base prescriptive method to get that additional 5%, to get to 20 by the time we reach 2010 and we have time to do that. But what I have seen in the Energy TAC is we’re going to have lengthy, lengthy debates and I’m not sure we’re going to be able to arrive at anything in time for January just due to what it took us at the last TAC meeting we held on this and we ended up with the compromise of how to arrive at it without a whole lot of heartburn to everyone out in industry.

Rodriguez: So you support the motion with a caveat.

Bassett: I support the delay with the caveat that we stay with what we have or go to everyone has to use Method A and Method B was only for a way to set the goal. And go forward. That can be done by January 1, 2009 real easy.

Rodriguez: Okay.

Blair: So what we have is 2 discussions: One is actually on the policy and the other is when the policy is implemented. We still have to separate the discussions and decide if you want to first vote on the actual policy, which is what we were doing previously, then we can do that and then come back to when to implement it or you decide you want to implement whatever you do at a later date. But we do have to somehow organize the discussion or we else we are going to be all over the place and we’re not going to get anywhere. So, whatever the pleasure is of the Commission. Do you want to first debate the policy and if so we can do so and then if you want to go back to the date based on that, that’s fine, let’s just decide what we are doing, so we are not doing contradictory things. Steve, did you want to speak?

Bassett: Yes, I’d like to make a motion to table the discussion on the current

motion until we have decided how we want to address the process.

Blair: Okay. Is there a second to that motion?

Goodloe: Second.

Blair: There’s been a motion and a second to table. Any discussion on the

tabling?

Rodriguez: All in favor please say I.

(Vote resulted in 14 for, 6 against (Carson, Kidwell, Griffin, McCombs, Norkunas, Browdy). Motion failed.

Rodriguez: Now we’re still on your motion Commissioner Browdy.

Browdy: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think the overriding issue is the issue of timing

and timing is so incredibly significant because it allows us, like Larry said, to move through the processes which distinguish the Commission from a politically mandated group of individuals who are just responding in a mechanical way to an unrealistic goal. So, please, if you can, with the amended motion by Commissioner Bassett, please consider voting on the timing issue then we can sit back and parse all of the other issues individually, but the most significant thing right now is giving industry and code enforcement people adequate time to address the issues. It doesn’t do any good to have a book published with code information in it if it’s not enforceable and it’s not accurate because we precipitously ran to meet a mandate that is unrealistic and violates our processes.

Rodriguez: Commissioner Browdy, I hear you loud and clear but what if we

cannot print the code by January 1. You would still, I mean we would have a problem because we’re delaying it until January 1 but we wouldn’t have a book by January 1.

Browdy: I think the most important thing is having the code accurate, not when it’s printed.

Rodriguez: I agree, but it would come into effect and you don’t have it.

Browdy: Well you wouldn’t have a printed book, but it would still be available

online, would it not?

Rodriguez: Would it be? I don’t know. Let’s hear from staff.

Dixon: Not in the publication form like it is currently, because that is the part that takes time. It is not the printing so much as it is the time to lay the things out, get all of the checks done, editing done and make sure that everything was done faithfully. We have had a lot of problems making sure things have happened correctly.

Browdy: I hear you, and then maybe we should delay it until March1st.

Rodriguez: This is not without, you know, that’s the point. Go ahead…

Commissioner Nick D’ Andrea: Mr. Chairman as a building official I’d like to

ask a question: What do I enforce on October the 1^st with respect to the Energy Code. Are we going to have an Energy Code available October 1^st with the rest of the Building Code as Chapter 13 and if so, what’s going to be in it? And then what do I do on January 1^st? I’m going to get some more information to enforce after that? I’d like to know what one’s supposed to do on October 1^st.

Rodriguez: Thank you Commissioner Bassett?

Bassett: As it currently stands according to our last action, unless we turn

around, what you would enforce on October 1^st, if we delayed it, would be a score of 100 or less on the Energy Code calculation on and on January 1^st you would judge it on a score of 85 or less. That would be the only difference. But if we go in and make a bunch of changes then it becomes more difficult.

Rodriguez: Anybody else? Yes, Commissioner Griffin?

Griffin: I’m going to say this one more time, although, Rick just to clarify does it have to do with whether we debate this or review the items today. Would that help you meet your timeline to get the code printed?

Dixon: Yes.

Griffin: Can we vote on Commissioner Browdy’s motion and if it’s accepted then review these today and then continue on on the timeline?

Blair: That was the plan, yes.

Dixon: That was my understanding, yes. It’s just to change the implementation time but still the provisions you adopt today would move forward.

Rodriguez: Any further….Yes, Commissioner Kidwell?

Kidwell: In following that, through the chair, Rick, in following that procedure

would then would these be rule changes or would they be code amendments?

Dixon: Well, they’re both because the code is adopted by rule as a reference,

so it’s…

Kidwell: You know what I’m getting at. Is this more in line with what we

normally do with code changes or would we still be going through this process where we are actually amending this rule? And maybe I’m not asking the question correctly, but…

Dixon: Right. Let me just try to clarify. The way this process has been run you have done the same thing that you normally do except for the 45 day waiting periods. The original proposals went through the TAC. They had their comments on them presented at the last meeting. What you voted on last meeting was compiled and put out to the public between these two meetings. The comments on that publication were taken back through the TAC for them to make comments/recommendations on. So the only thing that really is different is the timing of the 45 day initial and the 45 day between TAC and Commission.

Rodriguez: Jack, you know the rules, but I’ll make an exception with you.

Glenn: I’m asking you to.

Rodriguez: Alright. Speak up.

Glenn: We are not talking about printing the entire code. We’re talking about

Chapter 13 and what appears at the moment to be 10 or 12 changes. Now I realize that October 1^st we’d have an Energy Code. I’ve got a copy of it. I just bought it from the Commission. So, we’ve got a code to go in effect October 1^st. The difference is the action you take today relative to whatever changes may be done and how they are presented. In the past it’s been done via supplement, errata sheet. For those few changes I don’t think the industry or the enforcement community would have a problem with a supplement until such time as a full document can be printed. The 2007 Florida Energy Code exists right now in print. We’re talking about just the changes that you approve either at this meeting or in future meetings. So, it’s not like having to reprint the entire code. It can be done very simply with a supplement of 6, 8, 10 changes.

Rodriguez: So, Jack, let me get this straight. You are not in favor of delaying

the implementation of the Code.

Glenn: That is incorrect. I’m in favor of delaying to January. I was speaking to the comment Rick made regarding printing. I realize whatever changes you approve would not be in the standard code format, but I have a copy of the Code that Commissioner D’Andrea was concerned about what he enforced. I’ve got the 2007 Energy Efficiency Code right now. If you make additional changes to it, it may not be abound document in its entirety, but it could be a supplement or errata issue for the few changes you will probably make.

Rodriguez: I hear you, but you’re still in favor of the delay until January 1.

Glenn: Yes sir.

Rodriguez: Okay. Rick?

Dixon: Commissioners you can certainly do that, but I know you guys don’t deal with this on a day to day basis. You come to meetings six weeks apart and six months down the road you’ve forgotten what was done six months before, but let me recount some history for you. Your decision to get away from supplements every year was based on industry input and complaints about the code changing and not having a stable document and having to integrate this and that into an existing document. You can certainly change the policy you voted on and do another supplement if that’s what you want to do, but allow me to express that it gets to be really disingenuous when industry comes in at the last minute and pushes and pushes and pushes for you to do things a certain way and then you respond setting a policy that reflects what they want you to do and then they turn around and come back and say well, wait a minute, make an exception this one time for us in this instance.

Glenn: Mr. Chair, if I may. I can’t let that go. The industry came to the

Commission and asked for the 45 day/45 day process…

Rodriguez: Sit down, so we can hear you.

Glenn: As I said in my opening remarks you have the authority under 553.901 to deviate from the process that the industry and the Commission agreed on and that’s the 45 day/45 day process. You are currently doing that with this rule. I am asking you, the industry is asking you to pose these changes with the process for code change that you have approved and industry has agreed on.

Rodriguez: Take it easy, Joe. We made one exception, a big one.

Dixon: Commissioners the plan was put together that had been going since

September of last year. Why is it that you come here now at the end and ask for this when you did not object to it back from September?

Glenn: Because of Commissioner Bassett’s change made at the last meeting

we went away thinking that all we were going to do was drop to .85 and leave the code alone and instead of 100 points to qualify you looked at your report and if it was 85 you were there. Then we get this: a full set of 13, 14, 15 whatever it is additional rule changes to accomplish what he did by reducing it from 100 to .85.

Dixon: Mr. Chairman, if I can clarify what has been added. The Department and the Commission work together. The Department tries to support the Commission. Hopefully the Commission tries to support the Department, but the Appliance Efficiency Standards that have been proposed were requested by the Department so it could meet its mandate by the Governor, 15% efficiency on appliances. Other things that were presented here were glitches identified by staff trying to wrap up as much as we can through one process instead of having to go through two different processes to fix glitches. Now some of those could be moved over into the glitch cycle process to fix those things and then you wouldn’t have as many issues to go through here on this, but…

Glenn: Mr. Chairman I recognize that the appliance standards are part of these changes and have no problem with that. I recognize the Governor issued an executive order and the Department is trying to respond to it, but in the glitch side there are changes in there that go beyond just appliance standards. There are changes to the Code itself.

Rodriguez: Thank you, Jack. I appreciate it.

Glenn: Yes sir.

Blair: So we do have a motion on the floor and a second on the floor regarding the delay of the implementation date to January 1, 2009 and indicating in the preamble that this is 15 of the 20% required by 2010. Is there any further discussion on the actual motion?

Rodriguez: Okay, those in favor raise your hands.

(Vote resulted in 14 for, 6 against (Greiner, Gonzalez, Norkunas, Dean, McCombs, D’Andrea). Motion failed.

Rodriguez: Okay, we’re back to reviewing the list, I guess.

Blair: Yes.

Rodriguez: Okay, let’s do that.

Blair: Okay, whatever you say. Alright…

Bassett: Mr. Chairman, I think what we need is a discussion on what the

process would be, not going through these individually right now, because I think if we decide on a process it may change the outcome and…

Rodriguez: Okay. Do you have a motion or a proposal to make on that, on the process before we go through these?

Bassett: My motion would be that we stick with the 85% to pass requirement for all construction, that the Method B is used for setting the baseline only and that all items that are on this list be submitted for a standard code revision cycle of the 45 days/45 days and that the implementation of the Energy Code changes of the 85% be delayed until January 1^st.

Commission Chris Schulte: Second.

Rodriguez: Discussion on that?

Blair: Okay, just so I make sure to have this. I want to make sure we accurately capture the motion. If I understand correctly and correct me when I’m wrong, is you’d like to propose 85% for all construction types, Method B would be for baseline only, and this change would go into effect 1/1/08 and that any other proposals regarding the Energy Code would go through a normal building code style code amendment process. Is that correct?

Rodriguez: Rick?

Dixon: Clarification, commissioner. Are you saying that Method B cannot be

used for demonstrating compliance with the code? Or are you saying that Method B needs to have the efficiency levels changed to get to the 15%?

Bassett: No, I’m saying right now you would have to run the Method A

calculation on any building and score 85% or score 85 out of 100.

Blair: 85 points, right?

Bassett: 85 points. And that we use the standard code revision cycle to come up with any changes we wanted to make to the baseline so that you could build according to Method B, but not until that goes through the code revision cycle.

Dixon: So you could still use Method B in other words you’re saying.

Bassett: In essence no. You can’t use Method B because you have to do the

calculation of Method A to score 85%.

Dixon: I just want to be clear on this. Method A only allowed until such time as you get the…

Bassett: The prescriptive methods changed according to what would be during a normal code revision cycle process.

Greiner: I don’t think I’d go along with that because that’s going to allow remodels to be done…

Rodriguez: I’m sorry. That does not allow?

Greiner: That doesn’t allow remodels to be done..

Rodriguez: Remodelings.

Greiner: Via Method B, which is easier.

Rodriguez: They could not hear you, could you repeat that?

Greiner: I’m not sure I can go along with that because that restricts the ability to do remodels to Method A as opposed to Method B.

Bassett: I have done remodels before. I’ve always had to go in and use the

whole house to get the average and bring up the addition to meet the Energy Code. I must say that I must be on the right track because I have ever before in the history of serving here had so much support from Mr. Glenn.

Rodriguez: It may be short lived. Don’t rejoice.

Commissioner Do Kim: Mr. Chairman, if I can ask Mr. Bassett a question to be sure I understand his motion correctly. Is your motion stating we wait until January 1^st and we take the proposed changes through the standard 45 day/45 day review cycle and limit the approvals to .85? In essence, in my mind’s eyes, is what I was supporting with Commissioner Browdy’s proposal. But maybe you are getting a little bit more detailed, but if that’s the case then I can support that.

Blair: There is a little bit of difference between the two.

Bassett: What my intent was we have an interim possibility of using the existing code without changing or making a hardship on anybody by just changing the scoring required. Going through the process of changing the baseline we would also have to change the scoring to bring it up and it would probably go back to 100 once we made whatever adjustments were necessary in the baseline building for the prescriptive method. It may be a small hardship for a 3-6 month time frame, but it is the simplest way to understand, I believe and the easiest way to have industry accept the process.

Blair: Okay, let me just explain one thing here. What Commissioner Bassett is proposing is that the current Energy Code would be used as is until January 1, 2009. On January 1, 2009 it would go from 85 points to pass for all construction types. Any other changes including developing a prescriptive method that would allow you to use Method B would then have to go through an additional code change process, but what happens on 1/1/09 is you have to achieve 85 points for all construction types. Correct, Steve?

Bassett: Yes.

Blair: So that’s the difference and that is all his proposal is. Right now the Code stays as it is until 1/1/09. On 1/1/09 it becomes 85 points to comply for all construction types and then any other changes that would be needed to bring Method B, the prescriptive method, into use would require going through a normal code change process with TAC review, etc.

Greiner: It should be the 2010 process.

Blair: That is correct. Part of the regular code process, code update.

Rodriguez: Okay, Rick, go ahead.

Dixon: One further clarification commissioner. That applies to commercial and residential?

Bassett: Yes.

Rodriguez: Jim, you have anything to say.

Richmond: No.

Philip Fairey, Executive Director of the Florida Solar Energy Center and a member of the Energy TAC: There’s a little bit of confusion here between what the code calls Method B and what the code calls the baseline home. The baseline home is described by a table that’s about 6 pages long in the code. That is the same table that is used by the IECC and their description of the standard design home. Method B is a very short simple compliance methodology that is designed to meet Mr. Bassett’s 85 criteria as it was originally proposed and as it was acted on in the TAC’s recommendations that are in this packet. Now the TAC has essentially agreed to a Method B that appears to be amenable to all the parties who participated in that process. It is not a baseline. It is simply a small, simplified prescriptive way that you can comply with the code without going through all of the calculation methods that are required by Method A. Method A is actually what uses the baseline. Now what Mr. Bassett has proposed is ingenious in many respects because if you do not change the baseline that means that anyone can understand what 85 is going to mean right this minute, without having to create new software or anything else. Also if you continue down this pathway it is going to give you a very simple way to meet the 20% rule: all you’re going to have to do is change that score form 85 to 80 and you’re going to be there. And so there’s a little bit of confusion about baseline versus Method B and Method B is actually created by using the software to evaluate a number of different alternatives that could meet the code and that has been done and the TAC has made a recommendation or comment, for the lack of a better term on that.

Rodriguez: So, with that clarification you still support Bassett, right. I just want to make sure for the rest of us.

Blair: What would that would include, what’s being proposed is one of the

comments here which is basically adding onto Commissioner Bassett’s, this is the E.P.I. for the U.65 SHGC of .35 16 WFA and requiring a programmable thermostat on the HV system. Is that correct?

Fairey: Yes, that’s correct. And that would meet the 85 score under worse case conditions on a population weighted basis throughout the state of Florida.

Rodriguez: Bassett. Now you have to be gracious besides ingenious.

Bassett: I would like to ask a clarifying question. If you were to run the Method A program on the prescriptive method B. Would that come up with a score of 85 or 100?

Fairey: It would come up with a score of 85 or less everywhere in the state of

Florida.

Bassett: You mean right now?

Fairey: As it was…

Bassett: I’m not saying change any of those…

Fairey: In the 2007 Code or what the TAC recommended to the Commission?

Bassett: In the 2007 Code right now?

Fairey: In the existing 2007 Code you would come up with a score of 100.

Bassett: Okay. That’s the point trying to be made here is if we wanted the

prescriptive method to be 85 we’d have to make some of these changes which industry is asking us not to do.

Blair: Well, it’d be one packet of changes here which was discussed.

Bassett: I understand that and I’ve gone through the many hours of discussion in the TAC meetings with industry and the heartburn they have with those few changes.

Fairey: I’d like to respectfully disagree. The heartburn was over changing the

baseline not over Method B, but changing the baseline and what was going to become the new baseline caused 99% of the heartburn. I was at those same meetings with Mr. Bassett.

Bassett: Except Monday.

Fairey: Except Monday.

Rodriguez: Jack Glenn, I invite you to give us some clarification on your

heartburn.

Blair: I guess regarding this Method B that was discussed yesterday works from your perspective.

Rodriguez: We are close to consensus, keep that in mind.

Glenn: I get my January 1; you minimize the changes to the code with that one package, that’s the only one you approve. I’ve talked to the window people who had the biggest problem with that SGC problem and they can live with it and if they can give me windows, I’m happy.

Rodriguez: Thank you and I know you don’t mean that personally. You mean it in the larger “we.

Blair: So, what we’re hearing is by adopting Commissioner Bassett’s proposal with an amendment to include this one proposal that we would have both methods available for the 85 points and satisfy at least some of the folks that we heard. I think you have another comment here.

Greiner: That would work and I propose that amendment.

Rodriguez: I’ve been trying to get Glenn to be the spokesperson for you all

because I think we are close to consensus. Do you really need to…

Hebrank: Well, my concern is we have always supported you know multiple

paths and I’m not sure if this…I know Commissioner Bassett’s trying to help us get there by a simpler approach but I don’t know does that totally eliminate the ability to prescriptive and Method B?

Blair: It would, in essence. But what’s being proposed as an amendment would allow it to be used and still comply and not apparently impact in an adverse manner.

Rodriguez: Did you understand the answer? I don’t think so, right?

Hebrank: No. Would Method B still be allowed?

Rodriguez: Let Bassett explain it.

Bassett: I am willing to modify my motion to include the three changes that were discussed: the programmable thermostat, the window glazing and I forget exactly which else. It would then allow B to be used because it would give a score of 85.

Hebrank: That works.

Rodriguez: Thank you for the clarification.

Blair: So the motion has now been amended.

Rodriguez: We have to state the three because the third one he couldn’t

remember.

Blair: So we have 85 points for all construction types, an implementation date of 1/1/09, and we also have a new Method B proposal which is the U.65 SHGC .35 which gets you an EPA 85 at 16 wall to floor area and requiring a programmable thermostat on the HVAC system that would give you the Method B methodology.

Greiner: I think that’s window to floor area.

Blair: Isn’t that what I said?

Greiner: You said wall to floor.

Blair: I’m sorry.

Greiner: Wall to floor area and it was a programmable thermostat.

Rodriguez: We got that, we just need to hear one more, but if there is a clarification…

Dick Wilhelm, Windows Manufacturers Association: I would say since my

industry is one of the most affected here on that particular issue I wanted to say we are very supportive of the motion.

Rodriguez: Thank you very much, Dick. We appreciate it. Rick?

Dixon: I don’t want to complicate this but let me make sure we understand

because this was not clear after the last meeting’s vote. For residential there will be prescriptive and performance path for demonstrating compliance. For commercial there would be a performance only.

Rodriguez: Is that correct Bassett?

Bassett: I think if they want to do it by prescriptive method with that small of a

window, the floor area, I don’t think there would be a problem, so I would be happy to have it apply to both.

Dixon: I don’t think the same parameters can apply to both commercial and

residential occupancies.

Bassett: Okay we’ll make it commercial is Method A only and residential is

Method A or Method B with those changes.

Fairey: I want to address the commercial performance methodology. That

would work for homebuilding analysis for new buildings which require for totally occupied when they were built. That would completely fall apart for shell buildings. It would be very, very difficult to qualify commercial buildings through the commercial building methodology B when a shell building when you have to score 85 because a shell building complies without lighting systems, heating and air conditioning systems and a number of other things. So trying to score an 85 on a building that doesn’t have all of its components would be very problematic for the commercial code.

Greiner: Then to go on with what Commissioner Bassett says you could say

that Method A can be used for commercial and you have the option to use Method B, which would allow you to take care of shell buildings. And you could use Method B or Method A for residential.

Dixon: Commissioners if you could accept the package of building efficiency

component efficiencies that the Department presented to you for commercial buildings you would get the prescriptive methodology to the 15% as well as the performance to maintain parity just like you’re doing with the residential.

Rodriguez: Is that a different package?

Dixon: Yes, those are different proposals.

Rodriguez: Do you want to include that?

Bassett: I don’t want to include that because that opens the whole thing back up for discussion and the whole reason we are trying to do this is to go forward without spending 6 hours here debating that issue.

Blair: Is your motion then that for commercial keeping with the 85 points that

you can only use Method A and for residential you have the option of Method A and the revised Method B we just discussed.

Bassett: We can include Method B for shell in commercial buildings.

Dixon: Alright, Mr. Chairman we need to assume then that you’re keeping the

85 for those prescriptive packages to pass, also. Same as what you are doing for residential?

Bassett: What we’re saying is the prescriptive changes we made for Method B meets the 85 score if you were to run the computer program.

Blair: So it’s 85 point all the way around?

Bassett: Yes.

Rodriguez: Okay. I think we have lift off. Let’s call the question. All in favor of Commissioner Bassett’s motion please raise your hand.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Rodriguez: How long have you been on the Commission?

Bassett: About 10 and ½ years.

Rodriguez: This is a big day for you and we thank you.

Bassett: It’s not easy.

Blair: Mr. Chairman I believe there’s a fire in Mr. Bassett’s pocket.

Bassett: Actually, it’s been 2 ½ years since I ran out of appointment.

Rodriguez: Well, don’t say that. Alright, next?

Blair: Well based on the motion, the next motion is to notice proposed change and proceed with rule adoption. Is that correct, Jim?

Bassett: So moved.

Blair: Hold on, hold I want to make sure we don’t jump….

Rodriguez: There is a motion. Is there a second?

D’Andrea: Second

Rodriguez: Discussion? Hearing none…

Blair: Are you guys okay? No, we’re not…

Richmond: A point of clarification would be whether we want to hold a hearing on the notice of proposed change or just file the rule following the publication of the notice.

Bassett: My motion was to file the rule.

Rodriguez: Okay, we have uh…okay, Gary?

Griffin: Quick question. Will the rest of these discussion items be automatically carried forward into the code change process?

Dixon: Well only those that affect the Method B commercial.

Blair: So you can submit any one you want or anyone could submit them…

Griffin: Okay, so they will have to be resubmitted?

Rodriguez: Yes.

Blair: Because we are going to go through the whole cycle…

Rodriguez: we’re going to go through the process.

Griffin: Okay.

Rodriguez: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor please say I.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-3.050, AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Rule Adoption Hearing on Rule9B-3.050 being conducted was the next step in the rule amendment process to obtain the procedures for code development regarding the new statutory glitch process, amending the form for submittal and eliminating the 45 day cooling off periods. He then stated the rule development hearing provides additional opportunity for public comment on the issue.

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

Joe Belcher

Mr. Belcher stated he wanted to repeat his earlier statement that the Commission should do no code change without the two 45 day periods. He then stated he believed there were too many problems when items do not have proper review and input.

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

Mr. Glenn echoed Mr. Belcher’s comments.

Dave Ohlmstead

Mr. Ohlmstead echoed Mr. Belcher’s comments.

Mr. Richmond stated the process for glitch changes is a fairly restrictive list of issues that can be addressed following only the Chapter 120 issues, which primarily deal with conflict between the Florida building Code, Fire Prevention Code, internal conflict resulting from an update and if HB 697 is signed, updating the Energy Code off cycle to reflect NEC. He then stated it was a process created with participation of industry and unanimously recommended by the Commission. He further stated although it does not involve the 45 day/45 day process, he believed it was a tool the industry would have wished it had during the last update cycle to deal with these glitch issues which ultimately wound up in Legislature with the claim the Commission was shutting down construction. He concluded by stating he understood the generality of code changes needs to be subjected to the review provided by the 45 day processes and input thereby generated, however with restricted issues if there was a complaint about the process he wondered why it is put into a wall with one hundred percent consensus and currently amended it with the same consensus and the process exist.

Kari Hebrank, Florida Building Materials Association

Ms. Hebrank stated her industry supported the change.

Mr. Richmond closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Kidwell asked who the person or committee was that actually makes the determination that an amendment falls within the criteria listed.

Mr. Richmond stated the Commission in full would make that determination. He then stated staff anticipated going forward with a recommendation so the issues are at least clear

Commissioner Kidwell asked if it would come to the Commission and then to the TACs who would figure it out and make a recommendation to the Commission.

Mr. Richmond responded stating he believed the TACs would get the first look at the amendments. He stated they could make that a recommendation, as well, but those issues were really more process than technical in nature.

Mr. Blair stated there were many things that could be done, updates…

Commissioner Kidwell stated he was concerned that something may get tagged as one thing but historically within the TACs different members may not agree that an item is a glitch. He wanted to clarify that would still be determined procedurally in the TAC, the 45 day would just be eliminated.

Mr. Richmond responded stating that was correct.

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval of rule adoption for Rule 9B-3.050, Amendments to the Florida Building Code. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-3.053, ALTERNATIVE PLANS REVIEW AND INSPECTION FORMS

Chairman Rodriguez stated the rule development effort was being conducted in order to conform the private provider from adopting in rule in the form posted on the Building Code Information System, BCIS. He then stated the rule adoption hearing is for members of the public to provide any comments on the preferred version of the private provider forms

Mr. Richmond opened the Rule Development Workshop on Rule 9B-3.053 as noticed in Florida Administrative Weekly.

No Public Comment

Mr. Richmond stated with no public comment there was no option but to either withdraw from rule-making or proceed with rule-making by filing the rule.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of rule adoption for Rule 9B-3.050, Alternative Plans Review and Inspection Forms, Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion. Vote

NOTICE OF CHANGE FOR RULE 9B-70.002, COMMISSION APPROVAL AND ACCREDITATION OF ADVANCED BUILDING CODE TRAINING COURSE (Notice Appeared in FAW, April 11, 2008)

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the December 2007 meeting the Commission voted to commence rule development on 9B-70, the Education Rule. He then stated at the January 2008 meeting the Commission conducted a rule development workshop on Rule 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 date upon which the revisions of the code take effect and the accreditors may accredit advance courses to the forthcoming code version to meet the deadline requirements updating advanced courses. He continued by stating at the March 2008 meeting the Commission conducted a rule adoption hearing and the Commission adopted the Education POC’s recommendation for changes to the rule. He concluded by stating the changes have been noticed and since no additional hearing was requested by the May 1, 2008 deadline the rule will be filed for adoption and conformance with Chapter 120 requirements.

Commissioner Browdy stated the particular effort to this notice of change to

the rule was at the request of the Education POC to broaden the credentials for those individuals who choose to be accreditors. He then stated it was an effort to recruit more accreditors and the language is similar to the experience that is an alternative in licensure rule. He concluded by requesting the Commission to vote positively on the notice of change.

Commissioner McCombs moved to proceed with rule adoption.

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

COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES

Commissioner Norkunas stated he had a concern he wanted to express to the Commission. He the stated he wanted to preface his remark by saying it is important for the Commission to understand whence things happen at the Commission meetings he communicates via email to lists of persons with disabilities and organizations representing them throughout the state of Florida. He continued by stating he communicates through these emails from the first day of the Commission meeting after the waiver council meeting is conducted. He stated he sends an update out to about 400 people and when he gets comments back those are the comments he brings to the Commission. He then stated it was important his fellow commissioners know it is not Bill Norkunas sitting there just saying what he thinks, he offers comments for a consensus from the constituency he represents, as it was amazingly difficult for some people to get to the meetings. He stated he had one person come before and it took 2 or 3 assistants. He continued by stating, with those thoughts in mind, his comment was during a conference call the commissioners recently had and he did not understand the Energy issue and he asked the chairman if he had to vote. He stated the chairman reminded him, after checking with council, unless there was an economic impact he would have to vote. He stated the chairman told him to listen to his fellow commissioners because they were here because of their knowledge on a particular subject and they can be relied on for their advice and guidance. He stated he was discouraged because he cannot get his fellow commissioners to rely on his guidance on accessibility issues. He continued by stating he read to the Commission the previous day where Chapter 11 specifically states in that one waiver that was granted that accessibility has to be made to that particular building. He stated one other commissioner listened and for the rest of the commissioners it went in one ear and out the other. He further stated it gets very frustrating to do this because when he listens to the other commissioners they do not listen to him. He then stated maybe he was not that great of a communicator, but he found it was getting to be discouraging. He stated the Commission is an oversight board, as he has said before the Commission is like a board of directors. He stated he had used a comparison to Enron when people asked the board of directors why they did not pay attention. He further stated the Commission seems to rubberstamp everything that comes out of the Advisory Council and when someone sits on the Commission who attended those meetings and reads statutes and codes to the Commission and the Commission still does not listen his constituency and himself have a real problem with that. He stated he did not know how to remedy it and he wished there was a better way he could communicate that to the Commission.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the council is a unique group because the chairman is not a member of the Commission. He then stated when a chairman of a TAC comes before the Commission and makes a recommendation on behalf of the TAC it weighs a lot because the commissioners individually attach a lot of authority to one of their own, who happens to chair a TAC. He further stated he was not trying to make Commissioner Norkunas feel good as he knows he feels strongly about the issues, but it is not an exact comparable. He stated the Council does come up with recommendations and they have a consent agenda which is usually heard and passed with minimum questioning. He then stated items which are individually brought up with recommendations favorable or unfavorable, but the favorable ones tend to have conditions which would be the time to participate. He conclude by stating it is a very difficult issue and like every other advocate who comes before the Commission sometimes it is not going to go that advocate’s way. He then stated though it may be difficult to accept there are other advocates who feel just as bad when their advocacy position is not adopted.

Commissioner Vann offered comments relative to Commissioner Norkunas’ comments. He stated he was new to the Accessibility TAC and he puts a lot of merit on the TACs consensus as opposed to the individual members that sit on the TAC. He then stated he would defer to the Commission members advice and decision if it is a close vote on the TAC, but when there is a unanimous vote from the TAC or 9-2, for example, on an issue his tendency is to follow the TAC and not follow an individual dissenter of the TAC. He further stated it is never a personal issue, but a consensus. He continued by stating he has been impressed with the consensus of the Commission and that consensus begins at the TAC. He concluded by stating he looks around the room at the people who know a lot more about the subjects he does not know much about, but he does put a tremendous amount of faith in the TAC and will rarely go against the TAC. He stated on occasion if industry felt very strongly about something and there had been a close vote at the TAC, he may side with industry, perhaps, but as a TAC member and a Commission member he puts very much faith in the TAC and he could only suggest that as a solution to that dilemma.

Commissioner Norkunas stated the issue was not a TAC issue, but a Waiver Council issue and there is not a Florida Building Commissioner as the chairman. He offered a quick history citing vertical accessibility Kathleen Butler, an Assistant Attorney General wrote the famous opinion that says it applies that no matter what you do you have to have vertical accessibility and where this has evolved was movie theaters which would be nuts to require elevators for every single row and then for second floor vertical accessibility. He then stated he wanted his fellow commissioners to know this had greatly expanded and is becoming a business for those who appear before the Waiver Council, but it is starting to step outside the bounds of vertical accessibility. He stated there was a current case before the Florida Board of Appeals which says it has to be a Florida specific issue. He continued by stating what is starting to be seen as in the item he brought to the Commission’s attention the previous day were things the applicant does not want to spend a few bucks on, such as few steps going into the building, not a second floor or a movie theater. He stated people are finding if they come before the Florida Building Commission and they hire the right person they will get favorable decisions and do not have to construct access and that is where this is coming from.

Mr. Richmond apologized for stepping out but there was a phone call he had to make regarding one more issue, which was the issue of Roofing Mitigation. He then stated one challenge was left, the petitioner Mr. Muldrow. He further stated the Roofing and Sheet Metal Association has resolved their case and the file should be closed very shortly. He continued by stating there had been some recent activity in the case. He explained the issue basically boils down to the Commission and the committee that reviewed it selected to use a term re-roofing in one place in the rule pertaining to secondary water barrier. He stated a concern had been raised that the term re-roof had been defined in the Florida Building Code adopted by a separate rule to apply to roof-overs and if a secondary water barrier was required in a roofing job a roof-over could not be done because the shingles would have to be ripped off to get the secondary water barrier down. He then stated he believed importing a definition from the Building Code into the rule for Roofing Mitigation to basically say the rule then prohibits a practice that is specifically permitted by the Code is essentially an absurd result, which certainly would not affect the intent of the Commission, which on the record is to apply the rule to roof replacements as indicated in the statute. He stated currently pending have to amend on the basis of amending the petition for some final order in the case. He continued by stating there was a hearing scheduled for May 22^nd and he wanted to let the Commission know that legal interpretation he has had on the rule, as it is not appropriately before the Commission for its interpretation at present, because there had been no declaratory statement filed, no request for binding interpretation appealed. He concluded by stating he would recommend Commission had any concerns with the legal interpretation or questions regarding the interpretation he encouraged them to ask them then. He stated if anyone’s personal opinions deviate from the interpretation he asked them to resolve those deviations that could be resolved.

Commissioner Bassett stated he brought up an issue last week, but was told it was more of a TAC issue and it would go before the TAC. He then stated the Accessibility TAC did not discuss the issue of how Florida Amendments show up in the Accessibility chapter so it was really obvious which ones of the federal are exceeded by the state i.e. when the Commission states accessibility to every level is required it is not that obvious and what has happened in one area in particular was mezzanines. He continued by stating it was not obvious if the Florida law trumps the exception and he asked the TAC to review that and they did not. He stated he wanted to make sure the issue got on the next meeting’s agenda.

Mr. Blair asked for clarification it was the Accessibility TAC not the Accessibility Waiver Council.

Commissioner Bassett stated it was the TAC. He then offered comments relative to Commissioner Norkunas’ comments. He stated the Accessibility Council is made up of his peers more than the Mechanical TAC, for example, is made of his peers i.e. engineers. He further stated there had been times when the TAC went against what he thought was right and he did not say anything, but there were also times when they went against what he thought was right and he brought it before the Commission and the Commission did not particularly support him on the issue and went with the recommendation of the TAC. He continued by stating it was not just Commissioner Norkunas who has the feeling occasionally his opinion is not listened to and it is something all of the commissioners have to work with. He further stated he was glad when some things do go his way and a compromise is reached where everyone ends up in agreement. He concluded by stating he sympathizes and stated he tries to support the necessary things of the Accessibility laws as much as he can, and although he may not always be on the winning side. He stated Commissioner Norkunas should not stop, but keep trying.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

Jim Schock, City of Jacksonville

Mr. Schock offered comments relative to the remaining rule challenge. He stated in the Wind Mitigation Workgroup “re-roof and replacement when reroofing” was struck and added the words “roof covering is removed and replaced”, which should resolve that issue.

Mr. Richmond asked if the document Mr. Schock was referring to is what was being integrated into the Code in the future.

Mr. Schock responded stating that was correct.

Mr. Blair asked for clarification regarding the Wind Mitigation Rule struck roof covering.

Mr. Schock stated in the Wind Mitigation Workshop in Section 611.7.2 the words “roofing replacement when reroofing” and added the words “roof covering is removed and replaced”. He then stated it was done specifically for that issue with recovering.

Cam Fentris, Florida Roofing, Sheet Metal,and Air Conditioning Contractors.

Ms. Fentris offered comments relative to the statements from Mr. Schock. She stated industry had initially pointed the changes Mr. Schock stated to Mr. Muldrow and it was not satisfactory therefore she expected he would want to go ahead to hearing anyway.

She then stated she had clarification on Mr. Richmond’s legislative report.

She stated the standing seam hybrid roof language passed in HB 697 and HB 7135

is not a licensing issue, has nothing to do with licensing. She then stated it has to do with a solar thermal incentive program, which means to qualify for a rebate. She further stated it was a product issue only and it was their understanding the intent was the change was to say a standing seam hybrid roof installed by a roofing contractor would qualify for a rebate. She then stated the statement alone in law does nothing to change the scope of work and whatever component of the work would require any other kind of a license would still have to meet the scope and licensing requirements.

Mr. Blair stated Commissioner Browdy requested a budget update at the next Commission meeting.

ADJOURN

Chairman Rodriguez adjourned the Florida Building Commission meeting at 10:55a.m.