FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

WELCOME

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

REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

Mr. Blair suggested prior to reviewing the agenda, public comment from Jack Glenn should be heard.

Jack Glenn, Florida Home Builders Association

Mr. Glenn stated as a result of what he perceived as a misunderstanding of instructions from a combination of the TAC meetings he was left with confusion concerning the Rule Adoption Hearing scheduled for the second day of the meeting and whether the glitch changes would be heard. He then stated he was under the impression from a number of different meetings that the Commission would take up the glitch changes in total at the August meeting. He requested the Rule Adoption Hearing scheduled for day two of the June meeting be cancelled.

Chairman Rodriguez stated for the record it was a Rule Development Workshop on 9B-3.047 that was scheduled for day two of the June meeting.

Mr. Glenn stated he was trying to get the terms correct. He requested the Rule Development Workshop scheduled for the next day be cancelled and held in its entirety at the August Commission meeting followed by the Rule Adoption Hearing at the October meeting which would maintain the Commission’s revised Code effective date of December 31, 2008. He stated this would eliminate the confusion that occurred as a result of the TAC meetings on when the Rule Development Workshop would actually be held.

Mr. Blair recommended this be discussed prior to the agenda review because it would have an impact on the agenda.

Chairman Rodriguez stated for clarification, the Commission would not have been able to take up all of the items on the agenda for day two, because all of the TACs have not met.

Mr. Glenn stated part of the reason for his misunderstanding was four of the TACs had met, but the balance would meet at the August meeting which meant including only half of the committees with the comment period still open, leaving the potential for more comments to be received on those changes heard at the TAC meetings already held.

Commissioner Browdy moved for the second part of the plenary session be dispensed and delay the work on the Rule Development Workshop until the next Commission meeting scheduled in August in Naples.

Chairman Rodriguez stated for further clarification there was going to be a Rule Development Workshop in Naples anyway, so now it would be in its entirety.

Commissioner Browdy stated there was also an Ad Hoc Committee meeting on Commission Meeting Processes and Budget constraints scheduled for the next day, as well. He stated it would seem appropriate that Ad Hoc Committee meeting also be rescheduled until the August meeting and amended the motion to reflect that.

Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Wiggins expressed concern for the individuals who had traveled and scheduled to be at the meeting. He stated at the last Code Administration TAC meeting it was duly noted to the individuals present that there would be a discussion at the next plenary session of those modifications. He then stated he was open to not meeting the next day but noted in the interest of fairness to those who have come and those TACs who did meet and noticed meetings as scheduled he expressed his concern.

Mr. Glenn stated his confusion over the development workshop and the adoption hearing was the fact the agenda for the next day showed it being an adoption hearing.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the understanding is most of the individuals who attended those TAC meetings are also part of the request to cancel the second day of the plenary session and hold it all together in August. He then stated it was a good point, because if word did not get out and someone was present in the room for the scheduled meeting they would wonder what happened.

Commissioner Greiner stated with respect to Commissioner Wiggins’ remarks he understood the position, but felt the Commission would be better off handling all of those development issues in August.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the point would be to have them all together whenever they would be scheduled.

Commissioner Greiner stated he believed it would be a better operation. He then stated there were some obvious communication issues. He further stated he believed there would be a better show in August than the few people who came in for the June meeting.

Commissioner Bassett stated there were such a large number of glitch amendments he believed it would be to the Commission’s advantage to get rid of some of them now. He further stated there was a possibility since the Mechanical TAC addressed all of its items it would not have to meet next month unless someone came up with something different. He stated he did not see why, since some have been met with and decisions were made those could not be addressed at the June meeting. He continued by stating it would give people the chance to comment on what was decided at the meeting scheduled for the next day and get rid of some of them so there would not be such a long list in August.

Commissioner Browdy stated because the comment period continues to be open, since the process was lengthened by extending the adoption date to December 31, the Code continues to be vulnerable as long as the glitch process is open. He then stated he believed the Commission would be much better off to address all of the comments at one time, because he believed the comments are interdependent on one another and one can influence the other. He reiterated as long as the comment period is open it would probably be in everyone’s best interest, aside from the issue Commissioner Wiggins raised regarding notification for process purposes, to do it all at one time which would be at the next meeting which would be in August.

Commissioner Wiggins asked if there were individuals present at the meeting who traveled to attend the workshop that the Commission could hear from. He stated he had no problem with deferring the whole thing, but wondered if the audience should be asked if there were individuals who wished to speak on the issue.

Chairman Rodriguez asked the audience if any individuals who had traveled to the meeting intending to offer comments at the workshop would like to be heard.

Comments from the gallery indicated a preference to defer until the August meeting.

Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote on the motion to hold the Rule Development Workshop in total at the August meeting.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 13 in favor, 2 opposed (Norkunas, Bassett). Motion carried.

Commissioner Browdy stated his motion also included deferring the Ad Hoc Committee on Commission Meeting Processes until that time.

Chairman Rodriguez stated that was correct.

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

Mr. Blair recommended the Workplan Prioritization Exercise not be held the next day and defer it to the August meeting since it would be the only item left on the agenda for the next day.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the meeting agenda as modified. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

REVIEW AND APPROVE MAY 6 & 7, 2008 MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S REPORT

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

Commissioner Schulte stated the minutes from May 7^th did not indicate he was present.

Chairman Rodriguez stated it would be noted.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the minutes and Facilitator’s Report from the May Commission meeting. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Governor had made the following 7 appointments to the Commission to be effective on July 1, 2008:

1) Jeffrey Gross was reappointed to represent the Building Management Industry for a term beginning on July 1 and ending November 21, 2011. He stated Commissioner Gross has been serving since May 2003 and thanked Commissioner Gross for agreeing to serve and welcomed him back.

2) Donald Mayo was appointed to represent the Code officials for a term beginning July 1, 2008 and ending January 12, 2011; He succeeds Christ Sanidas who has served since November 1999.

3) Scott Mollan was appointed to represent the Mechanical contractors for a term beginning July 1, 2008 and ending February 3, 2011; He succeeds Gary Griffin who has served since June 2005.

4) Nicholas Nicholson was appointed to represent Mechanical Engineers for a term beginning July 1, 2008 and ending December 8, 2009; He succeeds Steven Bassett who has served since August 1997 on his second tour of duty. He stated he would personally miss Commissioner Bassett who always kept the Commission on track and ensured everything was in proper English and Parliamentarianly correct. He also noted Commissioner Bassett’s willingness to attend functions on behalf of the Commission, which is difficult for the Chairman to be everywhere, and Commissioner Bassett was very gracious regarding doing those. He stated he hoped Commissioner Bassett would attend some future Commission meetings.

5) Jeff Stone was appointed to represent the Building Product Manufacturers for a term beginning July 1, 2008 and ending July 27, 20011; He succeeds Nanette Dean who has served since September 2005.

6) John “Tim” Tolbert was appointed to represent the Code Officials for a term beginning on July 1, 2008 and ending on January 15, 2011; He succeeds Nicholas D’Andrea who has served since May 1992. He stated Mr. Tolbert would have some very big shoes to fill. He further stated Commissioner D’Andrea is an institution and would be missed for his good advice and his always-cheerful personality, which has picked the Commission up when it has been tired. He then stated Commissioner D’Andrea had served as the Commission’s vice chairman and never spared any effort on behalf of the Commission and would be properly recognized at an upcoming meeting.

7) Mark Turner was appointed to represent the Electrical Contractors for a term beginning July 1, 2008 and ending on January 30, 2011; He succeeds Michael McCombs who has served since November 1999. He stated he was only with the Commission 3-4 months before Commissioner McCombs. He thanked him for his dedicated service and hoped he would stay close to the Commission.

He concluded by stating the Commission would be welcoming the new commissioners at the next meeting. He then thanked all of the commissioners who were rotating off for their years of dedicated service and extended a standing invitation to join the Commission at future meetings, as Craig Parrino does, to help the Commission out.

Chairman Rodriguez next addressed appointments to TACs and Workgroups. He stated Dutch Hussleton would be serving on the Humidity and Moisture Control Workgroup. He then stated there was a new Commission Processes Ad Hoc Committee of commissioners to discuss Commission processes, budget issues and later to discuss the 2010 Code Development process. He stated the appointments include Commissioners Browdy, Carson, Franco, Goodloe, Greiner, Gross, Schulte and Chairman Rodriguez would chair the TAC. He thanked each of the commissioners for agreeing to help on Commission Processes as staff needs a bit of help on theses issues. He stated it would be good for staff, giving them the ability to advertise the Ad Hoc Committee meetings and be able to discuss issues with a group of commissioners rather than just the chair.

Chairman Rodriguez next addressed the Effective date of Florida Building Code 2007 and the Florida Energy Code. He stated the Commission voted unanimously in June to make the effective date of the 2007 Building Code and Florida Energy Code December 31, 2008. He stated in addition the glitch amendment deadline was extended to July 15, 2008. He then stated proposed glitch amendments will be reviewed at the June and August Commission meetings.

Chairman Rodriguez recognized Maxine Moore. He stated he did not know of any Commissioners who had not at some point spoken with Maxine. He welcomed Ms. Moore to the meeting stating prior to this meeting maybe not all of the commissioners have had the opportunity to meet her. He stated Ms. Moore has been working for the state for 35 years. He then stated she had been through her drop program and would be moving on to do other exciting work. He further stated he had invited her to South Florida where they need good hardworking people for the next 35 years. He continued by stating Ms. Moore had handled the Commission’s logistics and travel arrangements for many years and has always provided professional and cheerful assistance. He concluded by stating Ms. Moore would be missed and thanked her for her years of service and certainly for the years the Commission has had the benefit of her taking care of their travel expenses.

Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Mr. Blair who would review the Commission’s meetings, discussions and public input processes with the Commission.

Mr. Blair presented a review of the Commission’s processes as it relates to building consensus and getting input into the process. (Please see FBC Discussion & Public Input Processes)

REVIEW AND UPDATE OF COMMISSION WORKPLAN

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

Mr. Dixon stated the first task schedule is as was just discussed and he did not feel the need to discuss it any further at that time. He stated the same timeline would be maintained for implementation of the Florida Building Code consistent with the implementation date for the Florida Fire Prevention Code of December 31, 2008.

Mr. Dixon then addressed item #5 regarding the Code Administration Needs of local governments. He stated at the August meeting staff would present a report on the cost impacts and potentials for addressing the issues identified by the building officials through that assessment process.

Mr. Dixon next addressed task #6 relative to wastewater recycling. He explained the task is a joint project with involvement of the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Protection. He stated the Department of Health submitted submit glitch code change amendments to conform Appendix A of the Plumbing Code and the Residential Code, regarding capture and recycling or reuse of gray water in buildings and within homes, to the DOH rule.

Mr. Dixon addressed task #26 regarding Humidity Control in the Hot and Humid Climates. He stated the workgroup has met twice: it determined at the first meeting there was not an interest in pursuing the Department of Energy adjusting energy efficiency ratings for air conditioning equipment as a means of addressing humidity control problems in Florida’s climate. He stated the workgroup would continue to meet to look at other potential code changes that would have an impact on the humidity control issue and make recommendations for the 2010 Code.

Mr. Dixon then addressed task #30 relative to the new law recently signed by the Governor from (HB697) which requires the Commission to evaluate adding new product evaluation entities to the law or to establish criteria and adopt those by rule and report back to the Legislature in 2009. He stated the schedule date of completion of that would be in December 2008.

Mr. Dixon next addressed task #31, Develop Improvements for Gravel Roof Systems. He stated one of the assignments from the 2007 Legislature was the Commission had to evaluate the impact and effects of eliminating gravel roof type systems in Florida and determine whether the elimination by the foundation code, the International Building Code, was warranted and should be adopted into the Florida Building Code. He then stated the outcome of the project was a recommendation from the workgroup that the systems not be outlawed but the criteria of the high velocity hurricane zone be applied throughout the state, thereby allowing the use of gravel roof systems. He further stated as a part of the project the Roofing Industry Association indicated it would pursue the improvements to gravel roof systems to make them perform better in the high wind environments. He concluded by stating the target for the task was for the 2010 Code, which means 1 ½ years away before any submittal for proposed changes in December 2009.

Mr. Dixon stated there was a request at the Plumbing committee meeting by a proponent for a glitch amendment that the Commission begin looking into how the new federal standards and the new industry standards for reducing entrapment in pools could be applied to existing pools. The deadline for submittal of proposals would be 12/09.

Commissioner Browdy stated Mr. Dixon does an incredible job organizing the workplan. He stated it would be helpful, he believed, as the Commission continues discussing its agenda, if the Commission knew how each of the individual tasks are determined i.e. governor directed, by the Legislature, or a public request and when those tasks first came in. He stated this would allow the Commission to get a better handle on what its special projects are and what projects are part of the Commission’s original mission. He continued by stating if that could be incorporated into the workplan so as the commissioners look at it they can get an idea of why the tasks are being done and at whose request and when the request came in. He concluded by stating it would give the Commission a better idea of its critical path toward achieving whatever the goals may be.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he believed that to be a great idea. He further stated seeing original services compared to special projects with the date the tasks entered the workplan provides the Commission to see how long the process takes to make it through.

Mr. Dixon stated he could add the information requested for the tasks that are not already outlined in the workplan as Legislative tasks. He then stated part of the package the commissioners receive at each meeting, right after the workplan items, is a delineation of which one of the task is required by Legislature and in which bill it was required by. He further stated, currently the 2006 Legislature and 2007 Legislature had the most assignments to the Commission. He stated there were a couple assigned in 2008 that have been added to the workplan but were not printed out before the meeting.

Commissioner Browdy stated it would be interesting to know how many tasks the Commission has ahead of it that have not even been started, how many have been started and not finished, how many have been accomplished and been done away with. He then stated it would give the Commission some sense of understanding on how it approaches its mission and bring closure to the tasks. He further stated it would give the commissioners a sense of accomplishment to see what it has done.

Mr. Dixon stated staff would certainly do that.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the updated workplan. Commissioner Wiggins 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 Leslie Anderson-Adams for consideration of the Accessibility Waiver Applications.

Ms. Adams stated Mr. Melick had to leave do to a work related conflict. Ms. Adams 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 Approval with No Conditions:

# 2 South County Water Reclamation Facility

Ms. Adams explained the petitioners’ request for waivers as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council unanimously recommended approval, but the final order should note “the project appears to fall within the exemption from vertical accessibility as provided in Section 553.509.1(c) Florida Statutes for rooms that are not open to the public and house no more than five occupants and therefore a waiver is not really needed. Further, this does not exempt the applicant from the provisions of Title 2 of the Americans with Disability Act.”

# 4 Clearwater Fire station 48

Ms. Adams explained the petitioners’ request for waivers as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council unanimously recommended approval as the project is designed to Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards therefore it is exempt from compliance with vertical accessibility because UFAS allows work areas that are not open to the public and where employees with physical disabilities cannot perform the job to be constructed without vertical access. She further stated the final order should state this exemption applies and therefore a waiver is not really necessary and it should also note it does not exempt the applicant from provisions of Title 2 of the ADA.

#10 No Name Java

Ms. Adams explained the petitioners’ request for waivers as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council unanimously recommended the Commission enter a final order stating this is a change of use under Chapter 8 of the Florida Building Code, but is not an alteration that triggers the need for compliance with the requirements of Chapter 11 on accessibility. She then stated no waiver was required since compliance was not required in the first place.

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

Eden Rock Hotel

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated a final order had been entered in May, but the applicant contacted department staff regarding the final order because the final order addressed what the council believed were the only issues identified by the applicant at the May meeting. She explained the applicant asks the final order also address the remainder of the forty rooms that have interior level changes such as sunken rooms, as these rooms also suffer from the same room dimensions with respect to ramping. She stated the council unanimously recommended the Commission take a motion to amend the action previously taken, table the issue until it has been considered by the council and re-refer the issue back to the council for a recommendation at the August meeting.

Commissioner Hamrick moved approval of the council’s recommendation to amend an action previously taken. Commissioner Kim entered a second for the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Hamrick moved the council’s recommendation the issue be tabled and re-referred back to the council for a recommendation at the August meeting. Commissioner Kim entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#6 Law Offices of Kanner and Pintaluga

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council unanimously recommended the waiver be granted based on demonstrated economic hardship.

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

Recommendation for Approval with Conditions:

#5 Palm Beach Gardens CRS

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council unanimously recommended the waiver be granted with conditions: 1) in the computer lab, the applicant move the location of the first computer table which seats ten students so all computer stations at that table will have at least five feet of clearance to accommodate wheelchairs and scooters, 2) in the auditorium, gymnasium and stadium move the companion seats that are currently shown to the outside ends of the rows in any locations where the accessible seat is currently shown at the end of the row and the revised plans should be sent to DCA staff for review.

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

#7 Kamukura

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council had a split vote of 4 in favor, 1 opposed for the recommendation to grant the waiver with the recommendation the applicant provide DCA staff with proof of the building’s historic designation.

Commissioner Hamrick moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Norkunas stated he had a zero success rate in 3 ½ years, but he was going to try again. He then stated he had sent out 1100 notices to disabled individuals and organizations and received 75 responses. He then stated 61 of the responses asked him to speak regarding this applicant and the other 14 respondents stated he should not waste his time. He stated this was an offensive issue to a lot of individuals with disabilities. He asked the commissioners to open the case before them. He stated it is not a vertical accessibility issue but an issue of providing an accessible entrance to a building. He further stated there could not be anything more fundamental than opening a business that would allow accessibility for individuals in wheelchairs. He continued by stating the building is a 2 story building where the 2^nd floor is apartments and approximately 400 square feet of commercial space. He then stated the owner of the building wanted to make some money so he opened up the space and someone came and wanted to put in a small restaurant in the space, where there was no restaurant before. He explained this was a conversion to a restaurant except it is probably in a zero lot line building and an accessible entrance can not be put in. He reiterated the issue was not vertical accessibility. He referenced item 5, a comment made by the city of Miami Beach Chief Accessibility Inspector Gladys Salas that states it is not feasible to build an ADA entrance to the business. He then stated the answer would be to not open that business at that location. He added a place of public accommodation should not be opened if it has restrictions or denial of access to individuals with disabilities. He further stated the other issue is whether it is historic. He directed the commissioners’ attention to the Florida Building Code Chapter 11, Section 11-4.1.7(3) historic preservation where it states, “even if a building is ruled an historic preservation the minimum requirement is at least one accessible entrance, if not the front then the back is acceptable”. He stated the Commission should deny the waiver and the owner should understand and the City of Miami Beach should understand that businesses cannot be permitted to open that do not have full inclusion.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Commissioner Norkunas if he was at the Accessibility Council when the case was discussed.

Commissioner Norkunas responded yes.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if there were no other entrances that are accessible.

Commissioner Norkunas stated of all of the POCs and TACs he sits in on, this one is the most difficult because they do not take public input. He stated he likes the Education POC because it has the most public comment, everyone talks and things get resolved. He then stated it was a matter of listening and if they talked about those things he did not remember.

Chairman Rodriguez stated so there may be another entrance that is accessible.

Commissioner Norkunas stated there may be but the issue is if the Commission grants the waiver the applicant will go back down and say they have a vertical accessibility because of a step in front and they will be allowed to open the business. He said someone wordsmithed this, it is not vertical accessibility. He explained vertical accessibility is when there is one story and now there is a something planned for the second floor.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he understood.

Commissioner Norkunas stated this issue is inaccessibility through the front door as it says on the first page.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he heard Commissioner Norkunas’ concerns. He clarified he was asking because he was not there himself. He then stated from what he has heard and from Commissioner Norkunas’ comments if it is an historic property and another means of access is provided it can be done. He further stated the hardship in this case is its location right on the property line. He asked Commissioner Norkunas if he was on the council and if there was another accessible entrance would he still object.

Commissioner Norkunas responded if the applicant could provide another accessible entrance that would be fine. He stated Chapter 11 speaks to that.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if that could be made a “subject to”.

Commissioner Norkunas responded or a “condition of”. He then stated he was trying to learn as much as he could, but was afraid he would not be listened to…

Chairman Rodriguez stated this was the full Commission who will vote on the council’s recommendation that states there has to be a submission to prove it is a designated historic structure. He then stated another condition would be added, to have a secondary…

Commissioner Norkunas stated at minimum if the building be ruled historic it should comply with Chapter 11 – 4.1.7(3) (b) where at least one accessible entrance needs to be provided. He further stated it states “if it is determined that no entrance used by the public can comply then access at any entrance not used by the general public.”

Chairman Rodriguez stated that would be a condition.

Ms. Adams stated Ms. Smith informed her that was discussed at the meeting and there is no other entrance for the public.

Commissioner Bassett stated many times drawings are submitted to show what the facility is and why it is not feasible and he did not know why there were no drawings for this building.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Ms. Smith if there were drawings at the council meeting.

Commissioner Gonzalez stated he was in agreement with Commissioner Norkunas. He stated he would not be voting in favor of granting the waiver. He further stated he has a very high regard for the building officials and when they say they are not approving the waiver and are recommending not approving it. He then stated the applicant has not shown the Commission any additional information that makes him comfortable enough to approve it. He reiterated he would be voting against the waiver.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if there was anyone present from the applicant’s side that would like to speak.

Commissioner Greiner stated he would assume the Commission was making the presumption if the applicant was being asked to provide historical information and at the same time the applicant should also provide some drawings, which show how the requirement is met.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the applicant could come up with a designation report, which sometimes has and sometimes does not have drawings.

Commissioner Greiner stated it does not stop the Commission from asking for drawings to make sure that is the only accessible exit.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the dilemma was the importance to know if it was historic property, which is something that could trigger other alternatives. He then stated if plans are reviewed and found there was no way to develop an accessible entrance to the front entrance. He further stated the applicant could be questioned on providing an entrance elsewhere, which has not bee provided, but could be made a condition. He concluded by stating there were no plans for review and no designation report. He stated Commissioners Norkunas, Gonzalez and some other commissioners were stating there was a problem with the application.

Commissioner Greiner stated he was not sure if that wasn’t what the committee asked for in the first place.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the applicant just asked for the designation report, proof of the fact it is a historic property.

Commissioner Greiner stated if it does in fact do that it sets the applicants in another category.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the category would still require an entrance other than the main entrance.

Ms. Adams stated she thought she heard a question regarding what the local building official’s recommendation was. She then stated the building official’s recommendation was to grant the waiver because it is on a zero lot line opening directly onto a five foot wide city sidewalk and the applicant has no control over that area and could not install an entrance ramp even if he wanted to.

Commissioner Greiner stated the applicant does have control over the internal section of the building and the width of the doorway.

Chairman Rodriguez stated it could be between two other historical buildings and only accessible from the front, but the Commission does not know that without the plans.

Commissioner Wiggins asked for further clarification relative to the steps up to the main floor. He asked if it was two steps.

Ms. Adams stated according to the applicant it is 8 inches.

Commissioner Wiggins clarified it was one 8 inch riser.

Ms. Adams stated that was correct.

Commissioner Wiggins stated he was not sure how other jurisdictions would do it but for Commissioner Norkunas’ sake if they wanted to build a restaurant that does not have accessibility it would not be permitted in his jurisdiction. He asked what the past use of that space was.

Ms. Adams responded she did not know as she did not have any information regarding that.

Commissioner Wiggins stated any time there is an occupancy change basic accessibility requirements into the space must be met. He then stated if it was a historic building there would be another set of criteria to review for the historic building. He further stated even if it was historic and the use or occupancy is changing at a minimum accessibility would be required.

Commissioner Norkunas stated he was advised denying the waiver may be unfair to the applicant and wondered if it could be sent back to the council.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if he would like to make that a motion.

Commissioner Norkunas moved item #7 Kamakura be referred back to the waiver council to contain the concern of at least this commissioner.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if an addition to the motion could be made requesting the council look at the plans of the building to determine if there is at least one accessible entrance.

Commissioner Norkunas accepted the amendment to the motion.

Commissioner Bahadori entered a second for the motion.

Commissioner Hamrick stated there was a motion on the table to approve council’s recommendation. He then withdrew his motion.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the motion was to refer back to the Accessibility Council to look into what they had already requested of applicant i.e. the designation report or proof it is a historic structure and review the plans to determine if there was another way to provide an accessible entrance other than through the front door.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Bassett requested staff send a rather detailed description of the Commission’s discussion so the proponent knows what to bring to the next meeting.

Chairman Rodriguez responded he had tried to frame that into the motion, at least the designation report, plans of the existing building and attempt to show if there is a way to provide at least one entrance that can be accessible since the front one cannot.

Commissioner Bassett stated it needed to be communicated to the proponent as well.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the council would get the motion.

#8 Kiddie Academy

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council unanimously recommended the waiver be granted with the following conditions: Sinks: 2 will be located in the children’s bathrooms, 2 outside the children’s bathrooms for supervised hand washing and the applicants will follow ADA guidelines for the height range for children’s toilets.

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

Ms. Adams stated due to the way she worded the proposed waiver and the way the motion was made may confuse the local building officials. She was asked to recommend that the Commission reconsider the wording on the final order for Kiddie Academy to state “sinks will be located as shown on diagram.”

Commissioner Greiner moved to reconsider the wording of the final order. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second for the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Mr. Richmond if the motion to approve Leslie’s comments would be sufficient.

Mr. Richmond stated the Commission would need to approve the motion to reconsider and then a motion to approve the wording of the final order.

Commissioner Greiner asked Ms. Adams to remind the Commission what it approved versus what she wanted it to approve.

Ms. Adams stated the waiver application was to locate 2 of the sinks in the children’s bathroom within the stalls and 2 outside of the toilet stalls in the common bathroom areas so the teachers can supervise the children washing their hands. She then stated the applicant had submitted a diagram showing the proposed bathroom configuration and the Council supposedly considered.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he thought it previously said something like “to Code”.

Commissioner Greiner stated then the diagram is what the council approved.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval to approve the waiver as the council had approved it, which was to the diagram. Commission McCombs entered a second to the motion.

Ms. Adams stated the toilet heights would remain as discussed previously.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Deferral:

#9 Hollywood Theaters

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council unanimously recommended for deferral until August to enable the applicant to provide floor plans, seating diagrams showing dispersion and lines of sight for each of the five theater types within the complex.

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

Recommended for Denial:

#1 Chiquita Animal Hospital

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council unanimously recommended the waiver application be denied. She then stated, as a reminder for the Commission, a final order was entered in November 2007 granting the waiver. She continued by stating in December 2007 the local building official contacted the department staff stating she had recommended against a waiver, but her recommendations were omitted from the application. She stated the council recommended the Commission take a motion to amend the action previously taken, refer it back to the council to consider the building official’s recommendation. She then stated the case was subsequently deferred in January, March and May to allow the applicant to obtain bids on a platform lift which the local building official thought was feasible and not as expensive as installing an elevator. She further stated the applicant appeared before the council on June 23, 2008 and presented bids he had obtained only for elevators and none for platform lifts. She concluded by stating the council recommended the Commission amend the action previously taken and enter a new final order denying the waiver because the applicant has failed to demonstrate any form of hardship that would result from compliance and based on the representations of the local building official the project does not qualify for the five persons or fewer exemptions contained in 553.509(1) (c) Florida Statutes.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if the Commission would be able to follow the council’s recommendation with just one motion or would two separate motions be required since there is an amendment of action previously taken.

Mr. Richmond stated he believed one motion to amend action previously taken, consistent with the council’s recommendation, would be sufficient.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the council’s recommendation to amend the action previously taken. Commissioner McCombs entered a second for the motion.

Commissioner Greiner asked if that was a motion to amend the action or a motion to reconsider.

Mr. Richmond responded stating the Commission was actually prohibited by Robert’s Rules from having motions to reconsider at subsequent meetings. He stated the motion was to amend the action previously taken.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#3 JADAM

Ms. Adams explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the council unanimously recommended the application for waiver be denied. She then stated it had been deferred from the May meeting to allow the applicant to provide additional information demonstrating hardship. She stated the applicant did not appear at the council meeting June 23,2008 and did not send the information to department staff therefore no hardship has been demonstrated.

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

Commissioner Norkunas stated when he goes into the Education POC there are microphones and everyone can be heard clearly, but when in the Accessibility Waiver Council there are only recorder microphones He stated when people appear before the waiver council their backs are to the audience and without microphones it is very difficult to hear. He requested microphones be put in the Waiver Council meetings. He stated it would make it much easier to follow what is going on.

Chairman Rodriguez stated staff would look into that. He then expressed agreement if any committee deserved to have microphones it would be the Accessibility Council for obvious reasons.

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND ENTITY APPROVAL

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

Commissioner Kim stated the POC unanimously recommended approval for CER 1523 Keystone Certifications.

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

Commissioner Kim stated there was a consent agenda of more entities for approval and asked for a motion to approve the POC recommendation.

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval of the POC recommendation. 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 Kim requested products FL6278-R1, FL6282-R1, FL10494-R1, 10762, 5704-R1 and 10778 be removed from the consent agenda. He stated all of those products were from the engineering category.

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

Product #’s FL6278-R1, FL6282-R1, FL10494-R1, 10762, 5704-R1 and 10778

Commissioner McCombs moved approval Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried. (Commissioner Kim abstained.)

Mr. Blair presented the following products for individual consideration:

5179-R1

Mr. Blair stated the product was withdrawn by the applicant.

No Commission action necessary.

10539 Chongqing Mexin Messon Doors Industry Co., Ltd

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition: the applicant provides hardware as tested.

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

5257-R1 Performance Roof Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the applicant needs to provide quality assurance from an approved QA entity.

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

84321-R1 Alutech United, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition: Amend evaluation report to clarify evaluation of mullions.

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

10553 Alutech United, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition: Amend evaluation report to clarify evaluation of mullions.

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

10666 Storm Protection Products, LLC

Mr. Blair stated this product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition: Correct anchors penetration and/or edge distances to correlate with tested/evaluated values and anchor’s manufacturer’s recommendations.

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

10751 Aluma Trim, Inc

Mr. Blair stated this product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition: Revise evaluation to comply with components and cladding loads.

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

10495 Automatic Stamping, LLC

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral with the conditions: Provide a test report for ASTM E8 by an approved testing lab of the specimens tested, or change application method. Provide revised test report including the corrections discussed on comment and response.

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

10567 Branstrator Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral with the condition: Provide additional testing to comply as a "structural wall" or change category/subcategory to comply with tests presented.

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

10754 Branstrator Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral with the condition: Provide testing to comply as a roof deck. Provide testing to comply with plastic requirements for HVHZ.

Commissioner Schulte moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner McCombs 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:

Binding Interpretations: Reports Only

There were no binding interpretations.

Declaratory Statements:

Second Hearings:

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

Mr. Richmond stated the commissioners may find the first one familiar as it has been bounced around a few times, which resulted not having enough time to get a hardcopy for the commissioners’ review. He stated if the Commission would like to defer the matter until August it would be understandable as it has been somewhat of a contentious issue. He further stated he would want to make sure the commissioners had the opportunity to have a paper copy. He then stated it was available in the system and if the Commission preferred to move forward that would also be understandable.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if the commissioners would like to defer or continue by reading it in the system.

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 Kim stated upon reading the final order he saw material different conclusions based on what was approved at the first hearing. He then stated he was not sure how this occurred but the conclusions are completely different than what was approved by the Commission at the first hearing.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if Mr. Richmond knew what had happened.

Mr. Richmond stated he did not. He explained he drafted the order from the notes he had.

Mr. Madani stated the legal report is attached under second hearing where the commissioners will see the action on it.

Commissioner Kim asked if the staff recommendations from the TAC meeting were available including what was submitted and discussed at the first hearing. He stated item #7 was materially different than what was approved.

Mr. Madani stated he would be glad to pull those for review, if the Commission would like to take this DEC statement at the end.

Commissioner Bassett stated he was also confused. He asked if this was supposed to be DCA07-DEC-085.

Chairman Rodriguez stated that was correct.

Commissioner Bassett stated when you click on DCA07-DEC-085 what appears is a definition for sunrooms.

Commissioner Greiner moved to defer DCA07-DEC-085 until the August meeting due to the apparent confusion. Commissioner McCombs entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

??? from Public…

Mr. ??? asked if the deferral meant back to the TAC or back to the Commission.

Chairman Rodriguez clarified it was deferred back to the TAC.

Chairman Rodriguez then stated for the record he was wrong about the deferral back to the TAC. He stated Mr. Madani would explain.

Mr. Madani stated DCA07-DEC-085 went to the TAC and the TAC has a recommendation. He then stated the DEC statement would come back to the Commission to confirm what is in the order and what was in the TAC recommendation are consistent.

Commissioner Kim stated he did not have a problem with that as long as staff provides the actual language that was approved at the first hearing so it can be double-checked.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if that was possible.

Mr. Madani responded stating he would work with Commissioner Kim.

Chairman Rodriguez requested the language from both the first and the second hearings because there appears to be a discrepancy.

Mr. Madani stated he would work with Commissioner Kim to make sure the language is consistent.

Chairman Rodriguez reiterated it would not need to go back to the TAC, but would come back to the Commission with those two items for the commissioners’ review.

Mr. Madani stated that was correct.

DCA08-DEC-002 by Scott Hampton, PE – Comment on DCA08-DEC-002

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

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

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.

Commissioner McCombs 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-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 Greiner 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-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 Greiner moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner McCombs 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 Greiner moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion resulted in 11 in favor, 2 opposed (McCombs, Browdy). Motion carried.

First Hearings:

DCA08-DEC-119 by Dick Wilhelm, Fenestration Manufacturers Association

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.

Dick Wilhelm, Fenestration Manufacturers Association and Windows and Doors Manufacturers Association

Mr. Wilhem stated he and Mr. McFee were the petitioners and stated Mr. Mc Fie would be making would present their comments.

John McFee, Windows and Doors Manufacturing Association

Mr. McFee stated he would like staff to write up the recommendation on the declaratory statement formally. He further stated he would work with staff to clarify some of the issues and determine if there were any other comments in the future. He thanked the Commission for its time on the issue.

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

DCA08-DEC-124 by Chris Sheppard, System Components Corporation

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 Greiner entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Schulte stated Mr. Madani had expressed concerns about the answer because it did not reference back to the Code book Code sections. He asked Mr. Richmond if, in his opinion, the Commission should reference the appropriate sections where it stipulates the requirements for the underlayments.

Mr. Richmond stated if it is possible it would be advisable. He then stated he typically tries to include the applicable Code sections in the orders to make them as comprehensive as possible. He continued by stating staff tries to do that regardless of the general recommendation of the TAC unless directed otherwise.

Commissioner Schulte stated the petitioner referenced two different sections both of which were the high velocity and there would probably be four or five other sections where the underlayments are referenced in addition to those two sections

Mr. Madani stated when staff tries to provide facts to support findings if the Code will be used because this is a mitigation rule saying it has to be ASTM D 226 for now. He stated there has to be a base and the only way that can really be done is to rely on the Code or rely on some documentation. He asked if a code section could be used in the code as the base.

Commissioner Schulte stated the concern at the TAC level was it was dealing with a rule that was outside of the Code and the Code was referenced when talking about the rule. He then stated until the rule is brought into the Code it is outside the code.

Mr. Madani stated in the rule it does say “as approved by whom”. He then asked if it was okay if the Commission feels it is okay to go with ASTM D 226 without any reference to any documents.

Mr. Richmond stated he had a better feel for the context. He then stated he believed the Code should generally refer to the Code and generally refer to the sections that support the conclusion that would support essentially its application within the different context as interpreting both to be consistent.

Lorraine Ross, Intec Consulting

Ms. Ross stated at the Roofing TAC there was quite a bit of discussion regarding the issue. She then stated it boiled down to a product approval question of how a person shows they are meeting the underlayment requirements of the Florida Building Code. She further stated when read in that context the answer is “yes” not “no”. She reiterated the answer was “yes” and that was what was agreed to and that’s what her notes show in order to get approval for underlayments show compliance with ASTM D 226 or equivalent. She stated she believed that to be an adequate answer for the petitioner until the mitigation rules are folded into the Code, as Commissioner Schulte pointed out. She stated by stating the Hurricane Mitigation Task Group identified early on that one of the deficiencies of the Legislation was no standards are provided, which is what the gentleman is caught in during this time period. She concluded by stating her notes indicated in order to gain approval compliance must be shown to ASTM D 226 or equivalent.

Chairman Rodriguez asked who drafted the declaratory statement.

Mr. Madani stated staff drafted the recommendation as provided by the committee.

Commissioner Schulte stated that was correct. He then stated the reason the answer was no was because only two sections of the Code were referenced knowing there were multiple sections. He then made a friendly amendment stating he was not sure if the question could be answered with a yes or no. He stated based on Florida compliance of Code Section 1518 Residential Code the answer is it is based on multiple sections of the Code and those sections can be referenced.

Mr. Madani stated he would work with Commissioner Schulte to include the sections that are applicable in the Code as the base for ASTM D 226.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Mr. Richmond if that could be done or would another first hearing be necessary.

Mr. Richmond stated he believed it could be done but there is little functional difference he asked if it ASTM D 226 or is it ASTM D 226 or its equivalents.

Ms. Ross stated in every section of the Code Chapter 15, including HVHZ, as well as Chapter 9 in the Residential Code and felt underlayments are being discussed and equivalence it is only ASTM D 226 or equivalent. She stated there are synthetics. She stated in the Florida Product Approval System currently there are approved underlayments that are synthetic which meet the requirements of ASTM D 226. She stated he was asking for performance guidelines and the guidelines are there.

Commissioner Schulte stated the manufacturer manufactures a synthetic product and the language in the mitigation rule right now indicates 30lb felt. Even though both products meet the same ASTM standards, the rule specifically says 30lb felt and the petitioner is trying to determine if it meets ASTM, does it comply with the rule regardless of the name of the product.

Ms. Ross stated that was correct and the case has been going on in Florida since the Product Approval System has been in place because synthetics are not addressed specifically anywhere, but they have approval because they show they meet the performance requirements of ASTM D 226 therefore they are equivalent.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Commissioner Schulte what the first reading statement draft should look like so it can be approved in first reading.

Commissioner Schulte stated if it was a friendly amendment underlayment referenced in 201.2 item (c) of Rule 9B-3.047 shall be ASTM D 226 or equivalent as referenced in Sections…

Mr. Madani stated it can be stated “as applicable by the Code” and staff will find those sections.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if he had the sections.

Mr. Madani stated he could get the sections.

Commissioner Schulte stated he did not have the sections with him.

Ms. Ross stated there are probably about 12 sections.

Mr. Richmond stated he believed one clarification could cover this by citing Chapter 15 of the Building Volume and Chapter 9 in the Residential Volume, as Mr. Ross stated. He then stated the other thing is there appears to be an additional standard. He stated ASTM D 226 was mentioned and asked if there was also a 2626 that needs to be there.

Mr. Madani asked if “or equivalent” would cover that.

Ms. Ross stated 2626 is in the HVHZ. She then stated she liked the idea of Chapter 15 of the Building Code and Chapter 9 of the Residential Code. She stated there Chapter 44 of the Residential Code should also be included since that is where all of the HVHZ stuff is located.

Commissioner Schulte asked for clarification if it did say “or equivalent”.

Joe??? stated it did? (response inaudible)

Commissioner McCombs accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner Greiner accepted the friendly amendment.

Final motion was to approve committee recommendation with an amendment to recite Chapter 15 of the Building Code and Chapters 9 and 44 of the Residential Code.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA08-DEC-142 by Jerry Sparks, Hillsborough County Florida Addendum

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

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

DCA08-DEC-147 by John Berry, AIA, Cole + Russell Architects Addendum

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

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

Commissioner Bassett stated he initially meant to give this comment when discussing the rule workshop, but it seemed a good place to do it since the glitch portion has been postponed until August. He then stated he was very concerned with the way the carbon monoxide detectors have been placed. He continued by stating he understood it was done because Legislature directed it, but he felt the Commission should make every effort in its report to the Legislature to ask them to give the Commission permission to change it immediately to something else. He further stated the reason for his comment was due to his heavy involvement with the death in Key West on December 27, 2006 at the hotel where Mr. Lueders died from carbon monoxide. He explained the way the monitors had to be placed in a facility would not have prevented his death. He stated the death still would have occurred because the carbon monoxide never got out into the hallway where the carbon monoxide was being monitored. He continued by stating the Legislative approved exemption for hospitals was the correct way to monitor for carbon monoxide which is to rim the room where the source would be with the detectors whether it is a corridor, a sleeping room or not and have the monitors at those locations. He concluded by urging the Commission to report to the Legislature it should be changed before there is another death.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA08-DEC-150 by James Paula, St. Johns County Board of Commissioners

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

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

CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Accessibility TAC

Commissioner Gross stated the Accessibility TAC had no quorum therefore no report.

Commissioner Norkunas stated as the representative for the disabled he appealed to the Commission to somehow set up some conference calls or something. He then stated it was a critical meeting that needed to be held and it could not be held. He asked if there was something the Chairman and the Accessibility TAC chairman, Commissioner Gross, could work out if there are physical reasons individuals cannot attend the meeting a conference call could be attempted. He further stated he believed the conference calls the Commission has are effective. He stated he could hear everyone speak up and talk. He concluded by stating it cannot continue this way; there either needs to be more members or some kind of help.

Commissioner Gross stated he understood Commissioner Norkunas and shares the frustration because there was a lot of work scheduled for that meeting and it only required one more member to continue. He then stated staff was going to notify all of the members they can designate the alternates except for the Commission members and if just one had a delegate the meeting could have been held. He further stated if members should miss three meetings and do not provide delegates they will be reported to the Commission chairman.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he thought the Commission had approved alternates so if a member could not attend they could send an alternate to cast their vote.

Commissioner Bassett stated before the agenda on the computer gets in final format, staff might want to correct the spelling for “quorum”.

Commission Greiner asked for clarification if commissioners could not have alternates, but a commissioner could be an alternate.

Mr. Richmond responded yes.

Commissioner Greiner stated of there were commissioners available they might be able to help out in the Accessibility TAC.

Mr. Dixon stated for clarification the persons who are not going to intend to be present at the meeting have to notify staff beforehand and the designation must be by the person who is not going to be present.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the individuals could be reached by cell phone as long as they are willing to designate someone who is available so the meeting could be held. He then stated please let him know when there are individuals who have missed more than three meetings without notice, as they would be replaced.

Code Administration TAC

Commissioner Wiggins presented the report of the Code Administration TAC. (See Code Administration TAC Meeting Minutes June 24, 2008).

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

Electrical TAC

Commissioner McCombs presented the report of the Electrical TAC. (See Electrical TAC Meeting Minutes June 23, 2008).

Mr. Dixon stated the Electrical TAC is scheduled to meet anyway in August because there was a request from the State Fire Marshall office to have a joint Electrical TAC and Fire Code Advisory Council meeting to address newer requirements for the State Fire Marshall under that Legislation

Mr. McCombs stated that answered his question.

Mr. Glenn stated if the written report of the Electrical TAC could be put back on the overhead, there would be a typo on HB697 not HB679 and the Commission’s approval should reflect the appropriate bill.

Terry Baker, Broward Board of Rules and Appeals

Mr. Baker stated at the TAC meeting there was some very good discussion. He then stated the vote of 6-4 was disappointing, but at the same time every member of the TAC was present with one alternate to fill in for the one who was not there. He further stated it was an excellent turnout with staff being there, as well, and he thanked everyone for their participation.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner McCombs 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 Meeting Minutes June 23, 2008).

Commissioner Gonzalez moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Wiggins 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 June 23, 2008).

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the TAC’s recommendation.

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

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

Plumbing TAC

Mr. Dixon presented the report of the Plumbing TAC. (See Plumbing TAC Meeting Minutes June 23, 2008).

Commissioner Greiner asked if both of those additional tasks were something the Commission working on towards the 2010 Code.

Mr. Dixon responded yes.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the committee recommendation to have the swimming pool subcommittee work on pool entrapment and also to endorse working with the Department of Health relative to code provisions for the use of rainwater and for storing the water into cisterns.

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

Roofing TAC

Commissioner Schulte presented the report of the Roofing TAC. (See Roofing TAC Meeting Minutes June 23, 2008).

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

Special Occupancy TAC

Commissioner Hamrick presented the report of the Roofing TAC. (See Special Occupancy TAC Meeting Minutes June 18, 2008).

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Browdy 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 June 24, 2008).

Commissioner Bahadori moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Wiggins 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 June 24, 2008).

Commission Actions:

Commissioner Browdy stated the POC recommended charging the POC with developing recommendations regarding whether the four-hour administrative core course should remain a CE licensing requirement, and whether the course should only be available on-line or also instructor led.

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

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

313.0 Advanced 2007 FBC Significant Code Changes

312.0 Advanced 2007 Roofing Course

309.0 Advanced 23 Hour (SREF) Course

306.0 Advanced FBC Course: Significant Changes to the 2007 FBC and

2007 Residential Code

314.0 Advanced Module Course

307 Advanced FBC Entrapment Protection

Commissioner Hamrick requested 309 be pulled from the other courses.

Courses #313.0, 312.0, 306.0, 314.0, 314.0, and 307.

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

Course #309

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

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

310.0 Advanced Course Residential

305.0 Advanced 2004 Building Structural Summary

308.0 2004 Florida Building Code Mechanical Energy Summary

297.0 Advanced 2004 Florida Building Code Building Structural Summary

298.0 Advanced 2004 Florida Building Structural

263.1Home Study FBC Advanced Course Residential

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

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

Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC

Commissioner Kim presented the report of the Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC. (See Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC Meeting Minutes June 23, 2008).

Commission Actions:

Commissioner Kim stated the committee unanimously recommended the following applications for revocation:

FL4487

FL6269

FL7109

FL7198

FL5985

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

Commissioner Kim stated the committee recommended the Commission open Rule 9B-72.090 for Self-Affirmation, Rule 9B-72.180 which is the Equivalency for Standards between ASTM E 1300-02 and ASTM E 1300-04.

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

Mr. Richmond stated for clarification those should be two separate rule proceedings to the extent possible. He then stated the Equivalency of Standards issue as well being referred to the Structural TAC for review to determine that the two standards being considered are equivalent.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Kim stated the committee recommended the commentators identify themselves to the administrator for the record relative to public comments to product approvals. He then stated it was consistent with what had been requested for public comments.

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

Commissioner Kim stated the committee recommended the Product Approval Administrator be allowed to use either of two auditing firms: Mermelstein Hidalgo LLP or Rodriguez, Trueba & Co., PA.

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

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

Bedroom Definition Workgroup

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Universal Bedroom Definition Workgroup met after the May Commission meeting to evaluate possible options regarding a universal definition for “bedroom” in the Building Code and the Department of Health Rules for the sizing of septic tanks.

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Bedroom Definition Workgroup. (See Universal Bedroom Definition Workgroup, First Meeting Minutes May 7, 2008).

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

Commissioner Greiner stated the TRAP Committee met either two or three weeks ago. He asked if anything had been heard.

Mr. Blair responded not yet.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Regional AC Efficiency Workgroup Report/Humidity AND Moisture Control

Mr. Blair presented the report of the Regional AC Efficiency Workgroup (See Regional AC Efficiency Workgroup Meeting Minutes June 9, 2008) and the report of Humidity and Moisture Control (See Humidity and Moisture Control Report June 13, 2008).

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

BUDGET REPORT AND DISCUSSION

Mr. Dixon presented the Budget Report (See Proposed Plan for Distribution of the Operating Trust Fund Cash Related to Codes and Standards.)

Mr. Dixon stated there is an anticipated cash shortfall based on the projections for revenue collections throughout the year. He then stated the Commission starts off better than anticipated. He explained that the Legislature directed certain monies be taken from the operating trust fund and transferred to three other programs that are not contributing to the fund. He further explained the way the department would accomplish that directive does not give those programs all of the money up front. He stated all programs would get 50% of what they were appropriated by the Legislature to start with. He explained there must be money in the bank in order to encumber salaries, meeting spaces, contractors, etc. He stated this way the Department ensures funds are available for continuing the Commission’s operations. He then stated the balance of the 50% which goes to those outside programs and to the Commission will be prorated based on collections throughout the year. He explained if there is a shortfall in the trust fund everyone shares in the pain and the Commission would not take the full hit.

Mr. Dixon then discussed projections of the Commission’s share of the fee collections deposited into the trust fund in the coming year. He stated the Commission would start with cash carry-over from the prior year and then add the anticipated collections for quarters 1, 2 and 3 to get the total it can encumber against. He then stated there would be a release from the Department of Revenue in the final quarter, but it comes at the end of June, which is 2 weeks before the fiscal year ends so we wouldn’t encumber those funds, and in order to avoid any shortfall. Mr. Dixon stated that there is an estimated shortfall of roughly $500,000 between the appropriated spending authority and cash plus revenue intake. He then stated the figure was much better than anticipated. He thanked the Department for finding an additional revenue source of approximately $900,000 which reduced the anticipated cash shortfall from the originally estimate of $1,500,000. He continued by stating if collections come in better than the conservative estimates for all quarters there would not be a shortfall at all. He stated as the year progresses conservative assumptions need to be made to the point of the 3^rd or 4^th quarter and then could perhaps the Commission can

encumber more monies than anticipated.

He concluded by stating the bottom line is the Commission is in better shape than anticipated at the end of the Legislative Session. He stated the Department has worked out a way to allow cash to be in the bank to continue operations and has identified some other revenue that will be designated for Commission use to continue its operations for the coming year. He stated the following year would be a bigger problem if the economy does not improve, construction specifically, so more revenue is generated by permit surcharges. At the end of the current year the Department has no more flexibility on where to find resources for the Commission to operate. He then stated at the end of the year the Commission will be out of cash unless there is a significant increase in building permit surcharges or other fees the Commission collects. He further stated it is anticipated every program funded out of the trust fund will not get its full appropriated budget this year and the entire trust fund will be spent out by the end of the year. He stated the Department will try to be conservative as the year progresses by trying to limit the expenses of the Commission meetings, and additional outside workgroup meetings and do the best it can to get to the end of the current year at least.

Commissioner Browdy asked what the appropriations for 2007-2008 year were.

Mr. Dixon stated they were roughly $4,000,000. He explained it was a continuation budget with no approvals for increase for the current year.

Commissioner Browdy asked if that was the full amount utilized and spent in

2007-2008.

Mr. Dixon stated that was correct.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Mr. Dixon and Ila Jones and asked them to keep the Commission updated.

COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES

Commissioner Bassett stated there was a ribbon cutting Lake Worth which the Governor was invited to attend, but could not make it, nor could Secretary Pelham, so it was passed to DCA to get a member of the Building Commission to attend. He then stated since he was the only lead AP on the Building Commission he was asked to attend and did. He explained it turned out to be a vine cutting ceremony because it was a green building. He stated in his career he has been diligent in doing energy conservation designs and he was totally blown away by what the building did. He then stated it was called the Eco-center if anyone would like to go online to see it. He stated the rain water is collected and used for flushing the toilets; the gray water from the building is collected and treated to use to water the plants and it is very energy efficient with a gold lead rating, which is next to the top level of ratings that stand for Leadership in Environmental Energy Design. He concluded by stating it was awe-inspiring and he enjoyed being able to do that.

Chairman Rodriguez asked where Eco-center was.

Commissioner Bassett responded stating it was in Lake Worth, in the downtown area and is open to the public.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Jack Glenn

Mr. Glenn stated he was speaking as an individual and was not expressing the position of the Homebuilders Association. He then stated he attended the Special Occupancy TAC meeting in Tallahassee and had asked a question there and the answer left him somewhat concerned. He continued by stating while state agencies being the Department of Education and Department of Health have both worked diligently with the Commission updating their Building Code requirements through the Code process, he was very much concerned to find a number of changes relative to the construction of commercial pools, specific construction requirements that were submitted as glitch changes to be considered by the Commission at the next meeting. He stated those changes had already been adopted by rule. He asked staff how this had occurred and the answer he got was “There is a disagreement with the legal offices and the Department of Health and the Department of Community Affairs over their specific authorities relative to construction of commercial swimming pools.” He further stated he thought the Commission, as a whole, should be aware that the Department of Health continues to promulgate construction requirements within their rule for commercial pools without consideration of the Building Commission and then bring their approved changes back in the next available code cycle for consideration in the Building Code. He then stated he did not think it mattered whether the Commission considered the changes or not since because they have rule authority and will require them by rule. He stated he believed the question to the executive branch, the Governor’s office, should be forwarded to resolve the conflict. He stated the Department of Education and AHCA have been cooperative, in his opinion, in bringing their changes to the Commission relative to construction requirements for institutional facilities and educational facilities that are publicly funded and he believed the Health Department should do the same thing.

Mr. Richmond stated he did not know that he would raise it to the level of a conflict between the legal office and the Department of Health. He then stated the only opinion he had rendered was the authority in that particular area is a mess. He further stated if the commissioners would like to look at the statute it is contained in 514.021 where “the Department of Health is specifically authorized to adopt rules pertaining to sanitation and safety standards which shall include but not be limited to matters relating to structure appurtenances, operation source of water supply…” He stated structure appurtenances are something that they could cross the line to what the Commission typically regulates and the very next paragraph states “The department may not establish by rule any regulation governing the design, alteration, modification or repair of a public swimming pool...” He further stated there is almost internal conflict in the statute that they have resolved in favor of their independence of the Building Code as they do not like the timing issues and things along those lines. He concluded by stating it is something that could be clarified for the benefit of those who design and construct public pools because on many occasions there have been inconsistent provisions in the Department of Health’s rule and the Florida Building Code. He stated Mr. Madani has done a lot of the work of getting the Commission’s provision’s consistent with their rule because they have not submitted them as Code changes on many occasions.

Commissioner Norkunas stated the issue has risen as an issue with the accessibility issue with the Department of Health and swimming pools. He then stated he had encountered many new hotels with swimming pools built that have fully accessible restrooms and before they are allowed to operate their pools the Department of Health requires them to put a urinal in the single user water closet and the urinal is put between the sink and the toilet, which stops the transfer space and then wheelchairs cannot use them. He further stated it was foolish since the urinal is not needed there, but the hotels are told they cannot open unless the Department of Health gives them permission and the Department of Health will not give them permission unless now an inaccessible toilet is made.

Mr. Glenn stated his remarks were not directed at anything from legal staff at DCA. He then stated his remarks were a request to the Commission in development of their Legislative report for next year to ask them to resolve the conflict. He further stated as Commissioner Norkunas has pointed out it does cause problems with Accessibility. He stated it was also a problem for some of his builders who happen to build pools who go into the Building Department and have followed the Building Code and they find out three months ago the Department of Health changed the construction criteria and in attempting to get the final inspection and approval from DOH for use of the public pool and find they cannot because it was not built to the rule, but it was built to the Code. He concluded by stating it was clearly a conflict only with structural or construction criteria.

Commissioner Browdy asked if it was possible for the Chairman on behalf of the Commission to ask the Attorney General to give the Commission an opinion on this rather than to try to throw it to the Legislature and then have the Legislature try to decipher the conflict. He asked if an AG opinion would be quicker.

Mr. Dixon stated staff would recommend it be addressed through the Governor’s office and agency. He further stated given that both are Governor’s agencies, they prefer it be handled this way rather than go around to the Attorney General, as a first step at least.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if that could be done before the next meeting.

Mr. Richmond responded staff could certainly try. He stated the comment made by Mr. Glenn is even better than that. He then stated DOH has already rendered their interpretation and they are and will be pursuing that even if an attorney general’s opinion is given. He further stated unless the Commission is actually able to clarify the law and resolve the conflict, as opposed to just getting it clarified by an attorney general, he believes the problem will continue. He stated the Commission should probably lean toward a Legislative correction.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Mr. Richmond if he agreed with Mr. Dixon that the two agencies was the first step.

Mr. Richmond stated that was correct for anything involving the interaction of two agencies.

Chairman Rodriguez asked when the correct time would be to go to the Legislature.

Mr. Richmond responded stating during the next Legislative report.

Chairman Rodriguez stated it would be added to the agenda for the next report.

Commissioner Browdy asked if it was being suggested that an agency to agency discussion implies some compromise. He then asked if this was more of an issue of right or wrong.

Mr. Richmond stated he did not believe it was a matter of compromise in any sense, just a matter of actually being able to resolve it short of any difficulty or at the very least just advising the executive office of the Governor that there is this kind of divergent viewpoint in two of his agencies.

Commissioner Browdy asked if the Governor was an attorney once.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if it is going to go to the Legislature wouldn’t it help if the Governor were made aware of it.

Mr. Dixon stated that was absolutely correct. He then stated the Governor frowns upon two of his agencies taking actions against one another without trying to work it out first and involving the Governor’s office.

Commissioner Hamrick stated to make a point the issue goes beyond just a pool and the Florida Building Commission. He stated it also involves the Department of Education and the Department of Health and in working with the Department of Health they found it is the local authority that is enforcing this.

Chairman Rodriguez suggested to staff it would be good if the Commission could take the lead on this.

Chairman Rodriguez stated Commissioner Sanidas had served the Commission for 8 years, Commissioner Griffin for 3+years, Commissioner Bassett for 11+years, Commissioner Dean for 3+years, Commissioner McCombs for 8+years and Commissioner D’Andrea for 16 years. He further stated together those commissioners had offered the Commission a total of 50 years of service and stated they all deserved a round of applause.

Commissioner McCombs stated last year when the Commission discussed carbon monoxide detectors it was told and then told the public the details would be worked out in the glitch cycle, but of course the Legislature took that away from the Commission. He asked if there was any way possible to include in the next Legislative Report that there other residences and other structures in the state of Florida that need protections just like the things they put in there. He further stated it would be great to relay that to the Legislature as it has fallen short in what it has asked the Commission to do and it would be great if it could be corrected. He then stated he knew it was not a fast fix but in the upcoming weeks it begins to be enforced.

Chairman Rodriguez stated for a life safety issue the Commission appreciated it.

Commissioner McCombs then stated it had been a great honor to serve with all of the commissioners and the stakeholders. He stated he had really enjoyed it.

Commissioner Rodriguez stated it had been a privilege to serve with Commissioner McCombs.

ADJOURN