MEETING

OF THE

FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

PLENARY SESSION MINUTES

AUGUST 9, 2011

APPROVED OCTOBER 11,2011

The meeting of the Florida Building Commission was called to order by Chairman Raul Rodriguez at 9:00a.m., Tuesday, August 9, 2011, at the Rosen Centre Hotel, Orlando, Florida.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

Raul L. Rodriguez, AIA, Chairman

Richard S. Browdy, Vice-Chairman

Jeffrey Gross

Angel ”Kiko” Franco

Jeff Stone

James R. Schock

Herminio F. Gonzalez

Robert G. Boyer

Hamid R. Bahadori

Drew M. Smith

Christopher P. Schulte

Mark C. Turner

Randall J. Vann

Scott Mollan

Jonathon D. Hamrick

Kenneth L. Gregory

Joseph “Ed” Carson

Raphael R. Palacios

Nicholas W. Nicholson

Dale T. Greiner

John J. Scherer

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:

John “Tim” Tolbert

Donald A. Dawkins

OTHERS PRESENT:

Rick Dixon, FBC Executive Director

Jim Richmond, DCA Legal Advisor

Jeff Blair, FCRC Consensus Solutions

Mo Madani, Technical Svcs. Manager

WELCOME

Chairman Rodriguez welcomed the Commission, staff and the public to Orlando and the August 2011 plenary session of the Florida Building Commission. He explained that the primary focus of the August meeting, in addition to deciding on regular procedural issues including product and entity approvals, applications for accreditor and course approvals, petitions for declaratory statements, accessibility waivers, and recommendations from the various committees, was to conduct a final Rule Adoption Hearing on the 2010 Florida Building Code, and a rule adoption hearing on the 2012 Florida Accessibility Code.

Chairman Rodriguez stated if anyone wished to address the Commission on any of the issues before the Commission they should sign-in on the appropriate sheet(s). He then stated, as always, the Commission would provide an opportunity for public comment on each of the Commission’s substantive discussion topics. He further stated if one wants to comment on a specific substantive Commission agenda item, they should come to the speaker’s table at the appropriate time so the Commission knows they wish to speak. He concluded by stating public input was welcome, and should be offered before there was a formal motion on the floor.

Chairman Rodriguez then conducted a roll-call of the Commission members.

REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

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

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the meeting agenda as amended. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion as amended was unanimous. Motion carried.

REVIEW AND APPROVE JUNE 7, 2011 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S REPORT AND JULY 11, 2011 TELECONFERENCE MEETING SUMMARY REPORT

Chairman Rodriguez called for approval of the minutes and Facilitator’s Report from the June 7, 2011 and the July 11, 2011 Teleconference Meeting Summary Report.

Commissioner Schock stated on the agenda there was an error for date of conference call July 11. He further stated it was listed as 2001 and should have been 2011.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the minutes and Facilitator’s Report from the June 7, 2011 and the July 11, 2011 Teleconference Meeting Summary Report. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Appointments to TACs and Workgroups

Chairman Rodriguez stated Secretary Buzzett had appointed Robert Gerwe to serve on the Accessibility Advisory Council as a representative for the State Association for Centers for Independent Living. He further stated as is customary with Advisory Council members, Robert Gerwe was also appointed to the Accessibility TAC.

UPDATE OF THE COMMISSION WORKPLAN

There were no substantive changes or updates to the Commission’s workplan. No action necessary.

CONSIDER ACCESSIBILITY WAIVER APPLICATIONS

Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Jim Richmond for consideration of the Accessibility Waiver Applications.

Recommended for Deferral:

#4 Ocean Breeze

Mr. Richmond stated the Council recommended deferral to allow the applicant to get supplemental information based on a new perspective on how to calculate disproportionate cost for consideration at the October meeting.

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

Mr. Richmond stated the remainder of the applicants was recommended for approval. He further stated he had grouped the applicants by the rationale behind the recommendation for approval.

Recommendation for Approval:

Disproportionate Cost:

#1 Wareing Enterprises LLC

#2 Kalex Construction & Development

#11 Liquor Lofts

#12 Dmitri’s Artisan Sandwiches

Mr. Richmond explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council unanimously recommended approval due to disproportionate cost.

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

Technical Infeasibility:

#3 The Gallery

#5 Engineering Building II

#6 Barry University Health and Sports Center Bleacher Renovation

#7 Science Classroom Complex, FIU

Mr. Richmond explained each petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council unanimously recommended approval due to disproportionate cost.

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

Vertical Accessibility Unnecessary:

#8 Chi Omega Sorority House, FSU

#9 Amnesia

#10 Madewell

Mr. Richmond explained each petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the Council unanimously recommended approval due to disproportionate cost.

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

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND ENTITY APPROVAL

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

Commissioner Carson stated the following 29 entities were recommended for approval by the POC:

CER1497 Intertek Testing Services NA Inc.- ETL/Warnock Hersey

CER1498 American Architectural Manufacturers Association

CER1523 Keystone Certifications, Inc.

CER1663 PSI/Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory

CER1739 Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

CER2512 APA The Engineered Wood Association

CER8824 NTA Inc

QUA1673 Intertek Testing Services NA Inc.- ETL/Warnock Hersey

QUA1680 PFS Corporation

QUA1789 National Accreditation and Management Institute

QUA1988 PSI/Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory

QUA1990 RADCO, INC.

QUA2521 APA - The Engineered Wood Association

QUA3096 CI Professional Services

QUA7309 Smith Emery Laboratories

QUA7318 Lenard Gabert and Associates

TST1509 Intertek Testing Services NA Ltd.

TST1555 American Test Lab, North

TST1577 Certified Testing Laboratories

TST1654 Farabaugh Engineering and Testing, Inc.

TST1679 PFS Corporation

TST1740 Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

TST1987 RADCO, INC.

TST2513 APA The Engineered Wood Association

TST3478 NTA, Inc.

TST4205 Progressive Engineering, Inc.

TST5328 Force Engineering & Testing, Inc.

TST6049 Trinity|ERD - South Carolina

TST7195 Hurricane Test Laboratory, LLC - TEXAS

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

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

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

Mr. Blair presented the following products for consideration individually:

13854 Panda Windows and Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial because at the time of evaluation and application the test was not performed at a testing facility accredited by an approved accreditation body.

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

11447-R2 Stanek Vinyl Windows

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant correct evaluation report and/or installation instructions to indicate the same anchor layout.

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

11448-R2 Stanek Vinyl Windows

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant correct the evaluation report and/or installation instructions to indicate the same anchor layout.

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

7359-R3 Kawneer Company, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant provide testing of dry-glazing gaskets and provide specification of glazing spacer as tested.

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

14640 Windoor Incorporated

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant change product category to Window subcategory Fixed.

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

14677 American Fiber Cement Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval with the condition the applicant indicate a substrate with19/32" CD exposure plywood.

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

14448 G.A.P. Roofing

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral with the conditions

the applicant change application method to evaluation by Florida PE and split the application into two products, one tested to ASTM D6757 to be limited to use outside HVHZ and a second product tested to ASTM D226 Type II to be used inside and outside HVHZ.

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

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR ACCREDITOR AND COURSE APPROVAL

Accreditor Approvals:

Commissioner Browdy stated there were no accreditor approvals.

Course Approvals:

2007 Florida Accessibility Code, BCIS Course Number #354.0

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

2007 Florida Accessibility Code For Building Construction – Advanced, BCIS Course#355.0

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

Advanced Residential Energy Code Compliance: Methods, Tools, and Verification, BCIS Course#473.0

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

Advanced Understanding of Florida Statute 553 part IV BCIS Course#475.0

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

Administratively Approved Courses:

2007 Florida Accessibility Code For Building Construction – Advanced Edition, BCIS Course#356.1

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

Landscape Irrigation and the Florida Advanced Building Code, BCIS Course#45.1

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

Self Affirmed Courses:

2007 Advanced Code: Building Structural Summary, BCIS Course#323.2

2007 Advanced Code: Building Structural Summary (Internet), BCIS Course# 324.2

Advanced Code CE 2009 Supplement to 2007 FBC, BCIS Course#363.1

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner Carson 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:

#13 Sherbrooke Apartments, Inc.

Mr. Richmond stated the Commission took action on this accessibility waiver petition at the last meeting. He then stated after discussions with the applicant and a review of all of the records it was determined a motion to amend an action previously taken was necessary to allow the applicant to appear before the Commission and the advisory Council in October. He further stated there was some supplemental information the applicant would like to bring forward. He explained the applicant was under the good faith belief the application would be brought forward at the August meeting not the June meeting and therefore were not present. He continued by stating the easiest challenge for someone to make was having not been given the opportunity to be heard and the Commission has always made the effort to afford individuals that opportunity. He then stated a motion would be necessary to amend an action previously taken and to table action until after it was referred back to the Council to allow the supplemental information to be heard and hear a recommendation from the Council to the Commission in October.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval to amend an action previously taken and to table action until after it was referred back to the Council to allow the supplemental information to be heard and hear a recommendation from the Council to the Commission in October. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Richmond stated previously there had been an appeal from StormWatch on the L/30 fabric storm protection product declaratory statement entered by the Commission. He then stated the appeal was dismissed due to inaction by the applicant.

Binding Interpretations:

None

Revocations:

None

Declaratory Statements:

Second Hearings:

None

First Hearings:

None

CONSIDER OTHER LEGAL ISSUES

Mr. Richmond stated there was a series of news paper articles relative to hunting camps in theEverglades damaged by the wild fires. He continued by stating there had been some Legislative interest relative to the means to allow reconstruction of those to the condition had been in. He further stated there were issues with the Building Code and its application and enforcement. He then stated there had been conversations with Senator Bennett as well as other Representatives relative to the issue. He stated it was a fairly minor exemption and there was an exemption from the Energy Code contained in statute which may be something to move forward with as a model. He would expect there would be something from the Legislative Session in that regard.

CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Building Code System Assessment Workshop III

Jeff Blair presented the reports from Workshop III. (See Building Code System Assessment Summary Report, August 8, 2011.)

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

Education POC

Commissioner Browdy presented the report of the Education POC. (See Education POC Teleconference Meeting Minutes July 27, 2011.)

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

Product Approval POC

Commissioner Carson presented the report of the Product Approval POC. (See Product Approval/Manufactured Buildings POC Teleconference Meeting Minutes July 28, 2011.)

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

RULE ADOPTION HEARING RULE 9N-1, 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE

Chairman Rodriguez stated the August Rule Adoption Hearing was convened to formally implement the Commission’s policy decision to move the 2010 Code implementation date to March 15, 2012 and to receive public comment on the revised implementation date. He then stated DCA Staff had recommended the implementation date be moved to provide additional time to review the Code while it is being published. He further stated although the Rule was open and the public can comment on any aspect of the 2010 Code, the Commission was encouraged not to make additional changes to the adopted Code, with the exception of the implementation date change discussed during the July Teleconference meeting. He continued by stating the Code development process had been lengthy and ample opportunity had been provided to all parties to express their views on proposed modifications and fixes to any glitches the approved modifications may have made. He stated special efforts were taken to have sufficient reviews by the TACs including the additional TAC review opportunity that provided the TACs' "comments" on its initial recommendations. He then stated the Commission should respect the analysis and advice of their technical committees which had much more in-depth discussion of the impacts of the Code modifications than the full Commission could have during the August Rule Adoption Hearing, and leave the Code as adopted by the Commission at the June meeting. He further stated if there was any significant "policy" issues that need discussion the Commission could entertain those but should be mindful of whether an issue is "policy" versus "technical" and defer to the TACs' final advice regarding proposed modifications to the Code.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission conducted a rule development workshop on Rule 9N-1, Florida Building Code, for the purpose of deciding on proposed Code modifications at the December 7-8, 2010 meeting (deciding on TAC recommendations regarding proposed modifications to the Florida Building Code), conducted a rule adoption hearing at the February 1, 2011 meeting for the purpose of considering public comment on the draft 2010 Florida Building Code, and conducted an

additional rule adoption hearing at the June 7, 2011 meeting to consider Glitch amendments to the Commission’s approved Code modifications. He then stated the August 9, 2011 hearing provided another opportunity for public comment before the Commission concluded rulemaking on the 2010 Florida Building Code. He continued by stating once the rule adoption hearing was opened and public comment concluded the Commission would consider whether to make any changes to the Commission’s draft 2010 Florida Building Code including the proposed revised implementation date.

Chairman Rodriguez opened the hearing.

Mr. Blair briefly reviewed the process before hearing comments from the public.

Tom Allen, BOAF, President

Mr. Allen stated in reviewing Chapter One for the model administrative code it was discovered a couple of statutory updates had been overlooked. He referred to a handout distributed to the commissioners relative to Section105.3.1.2. He stated in 2009 the statute for the threshold for engineering changed the dollar value from $50,000.00 to $125,000.00. He then stated in 2007 the Commissions considered a declaratory statement dealing with the electrical threshold of over 240volts requires engineer design. He continued by stating BOAF’s recommendation with language to incorporate those two points into Chapter of the Building Code.

Mr. Allen continued by stating there was also an update in 150.8, Notice of Commencement, Chapter 1. He stated in 2007 the statute changed the font size from 18 to 14 point

Doug Harvey, BOAF

Mr. Harvey stated, for clarification, the point was raised to BOAF, in the Florida Building Code, Building Volume, Section 424.2.1.2, there was a reference to the Webster’s 9^th New Collegiate Dictionary as revised for terms otherwise not defined. He then stated in the Residential Code, Section R4101.1.2 there was a reference to Webster’s 3^rd New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged. He asked staff if it was appropriate to have two different dictionaries referenced or should it be combined and made one reference.

Jamie Gascon, Miami-Dade County

Mr. Gascon stated there were two editorial issues from the 2010 Florida Building Code. He then stated the first occurred in the test protocols TAS105 in an equation that appears in Section 9.2 in which the denominator of the equation needs to reference the square root of the end number of pulls in the characteristics resistance factors equation. He continued by stating the second issue was the removal of the 1 1/3 stress increase which appears throughout the code. He further stated the changes were pulled from the 2004 edition of the code and for some reason have been carried forward to these particular sections: Building Code: Section 2319.17.2.1.3 and Section 2319.17.2.1.5 Residential Code: Section 4409.6.17.2.1.3 and Section 4409.6.17.2.1.5. He stated the language carried forward and should be stricken is “except that a load duration factor for wind loads shall not 1.33.” He then stated the standards; NDS for example, show an increase up to 1.6 and removal of the language he quoted would uniformly accept the 1.6 called out in the NDS standard.

Arlene Stewart, ALS Consulting, Inc.

John Keefer, E3 Building Sciences

Ms. Stewart stated she and Mr. Keefer together were representing the Building Energy Assessment Professionals. She further stated the association was comprised predominantly of local small businesses. She continued by stating she was the secretary of the association and Mr. Keefer was the president. She then stated they had a prepared statement which she then read as follows: “In June the Commission voted on an issue that resulted in the reversal of the mandatory duct testing requirement. We understand the recommendation was made by DCA staff to correct what was seen as a legitimate glitch that needed to be addressed. We also understand that the reversal of the mandatory duct testing may have been an unintended consequence of the vote by the Commission to address the glitch. While the resulting reversal is inconsistent with the opinion of the majority of our membership who responded to a survey conducted by our association, we look forward to working with the Commission and staff to address the concerns of our membership as we continue to seek to improve the building code.

Amanda Higdon, Intercode Incorporated.

Ms. Higdon stated on this particular issue she was also representing the Air Movement Control Association, aka AMCA. She then stated the issue came up at the request of staff. She stated they had originally submitted modification 4403 which was approved. She continued by stating later someone pointed out some of the wording used was actually hurricane prone with the approved language in the modification and in fact more keeping with the fact of Florida terminology it should be windborne debris region. She further stated that was for clarification before confusion with enforcement issues. She concluded by stating the organizations she represents would be fine with staff’s recommendation of ‘windborne debris’ instead of ‘hurricane prone’.

Randall Shackelford, Simpson Strong Tie

Mr. Shackelford stated his support of Mr. Gascon’s amendment and comments that what was in the code does currently conflict with the professional standards.

Mo Madani, Commission Staff

Mr. Madani stated his comment was to raise the issue of moving implementation date of the code to March 15, 2012.

Jack Glenn, President, Florida Homebuilders Association

Mr. Glenn thanked Ms. Higdon for her correction. He stated, as a reminder to the Commission, changing from ‘hurricane prone’ to ‘windborne debris’ does have a major effect on the code in which it would move the requirement from the entire state except the coastal areas. He then stated he liked it but he was not sure if that was nit a significant code change.

Chairman Rodriguez closed the hearing.

Mr. Blair briefly reviewed comments heard from the public.

Commissioner Schock stated he was in agreement with the comments brought forth by Tom Allen relative to the Section 1 requirements. He then asked, because the exemptions for engineering were found in statute, if the declaratory provision of the 240 volt can apply with the other exemptions being in statute

Mr. Richmond responded stating he believed the change in statute regarding the dollar value falls within the categories. He then stated he did not believe, at present, the Commission should even discuss adding a statement regarding a declaratory statement in the code. He further stated he did not believe if fit any of the criteria chosen to apply in terms of the statutorily recognized glitch changes. He continued by stating declaratory statements interpret words on the page and there was no need to add it because if the other laws had not changed it would still be valid. He stated he believed the Commission should restrict itself to the change in dollar threshold and not to the statement relative to the declaratory statement.

Commissioner Schock moved approval to amend the request by striking declaratory statement language and move approval of the particular item.

Mr. Dixon asked Commissioner Schock for clarification if he was referring to the dollar amount of $125,000.00 and 240 volts.

Commissioner Schock responded that was correct. He then stated he thought the statute previously stated $125,000.00 “and” a, b, c.

Mr. Madani stated he had the language in front of him.

Mr. Richmond stated he thought Mr. Dixon requested the language of the existing section of the code on the overhead for review.

Mr. Blair stated the proposal was on the document in front of the commissioners.

Mr. Dixon stated the document was different from what Commissioner Schock had stated.

Commissioner Schock stated the document was correct because it stated “and”. He then stated during his research he read it had one time said “or”.

Mr. Blair asked for clarification Commissioner Schock was requesting the word “and” be used instead of the word “or”.

Commissioner Schock responded stating yes, as it was written on the document and only strike the declaratory statement information.

Mr. Blair asked for clarification Commissioner Schock was only referring to the first note on the document.

Mr. Richmond stated his concern was the Commission was on a restricted timetable. He then stated the only statutory change put in place was increasing the threshold. He further stated his recommendation would be to go into the code, strikethrough the current threshold and insert the new threshold and not adopt a whole series of new language at this point. He stated it was a very simple change to the new threshold adopted by Legislature and statute.

Mr. Blair asked Mr. Richmond for clarification that his recommendation was to change only the dollar value to $125,000.00.

Mr. Richmond responded stating without seeing the existing section of the code He stated essentially, if what has been changed in the statute was the $50,000.00 to $125,000.00, it should be as simple as substituting $125,000.00 for the $50,000.00.

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Schock if that was his motion.

Commissioner Schock responded stating what has been presented by BOAF was almost verbatim from Section 471. He then stated the way the code was currently written the $50,000.00 was incorporated into different sections. He further stated he thought, to avoid confusion, it should be made the same as 471.

Mr. Richmond stated Commissioner Schock’s proposal would be fine if it was during a full code change cycle. He continued by stating staff had not had the opportunity to analyze the integration of the proposed change. He further stated he had not seen the change recommended before the Commission meeting. He stated if the change to statute the Commission was seeking to address was that restricted the change should be kept that restricted. He further stated the language may be better but the Commission was not there to review all of the language in the code and make it better. He stated the Commission was there to address the changes in statute unless the whole process was going to be reopened.

Mr. Blair asked Mr. Richmond for the motion he would recommend.

Mr. Richmond stated the motion should be to change the threshold to reflect the what change in the statute had been adopted.

Commissioner Schock asked if staff could make some editorial changes because the way it was currently worded the $50,000.00 appeared in several places, therefore the $125,000.00 would have to be inserted in different locations.

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Schock if his motion would be to change globally the dollar amount to $125,000.00.

Commissioner Schock responded stating he thought it would get the Commission as close as possible at present the way it sounded.

Mr. Blair restated Commissioner Schock’s motion was to revise the value to $125,000.00 wherever appropriate within the document.

Commissioner Hamrick entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Carson asked for clarification numbers 2 and 3 of document were not included in the motion.

Mr. Blair responded those numbers were not included.

Chairman Rodriguez called the question.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Greiner asked if the change in the font size in 105.8, Notice of Commencement from 18 to 14 had been verified. He further stated he believed that change had been made and if so it would only be an editorial change.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval for staff review to verify 14 was the correct number and the change be made on an editorial basis. Commissioner Boyer entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Schock asked if Mr. Gascon’s proposal to strike the line relative to the 1 1/3 increase was an editorial issue.

Mr. Madani responded stating it would make the code consistent as the change had been made in other areas.

Commissioner Schock stated he believed one of the Commission’s motions at a previous meeting was to allow staff to make editorial changes therefore there was no need for a motion.

Mr. Dixon stated those changes were considered correlation issues.

Mr. Richmond stated to keep the record clear; especially since there was a comment relative to the issue during public comment he preferred a motion. He then stated the motion would be to eliminate the 1 1/3 stress increase in 2319.17.2.1.3, 2319.17.2.1.5, 4409.6.17.2.1.3, and 4409.6.17.2.1.5.

Commissioner Schock moved approval for staff to make the editorial changes necessary in 2319.17.2.1.3, 2319.17.2.1.5, 4409.6.17.2.1.3, and 4409.6.17.2.1.5 by eliminating the 1 1/3 stress increase. Commissioner Smith entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Madani asked if the editorial change in TAS105 should be included in the motion.

Mr. Blair stated a new motion would be appropriate relative to TAS105.

Commissioner Schock moved approval for staff to make the editorial change of correcting the denominator in the equation in Section 9.2 of TAS105 to the square root of N. Commissioner Scherer entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Schock moved approval to change the implementation date of the 2010 Florida Building Code to March 15, 2012. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair asked if any other commissioners had comments or issues to bring forward.

Commissioner Hamrick stated he was concerned the Commission was bringing a 2010 Code edition with an implementation date of March 15, 2012. He asked staff what the implication would be if the code were changed to the 2012 Code, as opposed to the 2010 Code. He asked if it could be done without going through a bunch of hearings again and what the financial impact would be, if any.

Mr. Dixon stated part of the history was the law stated the codes were to be 3 year editions. He continued by stating keeping the code as 2010 keeps the tradition of 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010 with the next code being 2013. He then stated he wasn’t sure if the edition date may have some legal implications on process but as far as the implications in the real world, the year designation for the code just mattered for how people keep up with the editions.

Mr. Richmond stated the process may be the easiest part. He then stated he had not had the chance to review although he could perhaps anticipate some issues with the contract with ICC if it specified the 2010 code for publication purposes and whether or not the artwork had been performed necessary to do the covers for the books. He continued by stating he would give a delayed date and he did not believe there were any legal impediments relative to that. He further stated the only issue was a reference to the particular editions of the code relative to energy enhancements which was repealed last session. He stated for transition purposes it may be simpler to take the issue up at the next edition than be concerned about any unanticipated consequences.

Mr. Madani stated he believed it was too late because every communication which had been made to the outside world has to do with the 2010 Code, including all publications put together referencing the 2010 Code, and it would take a lot of work to change it to 2012.

Commissioner Hamrick stated he would follow legal Council’s advice.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he will follow legal counsel’s advice, but he believed the issue should be considered the next cycle. He then stated it puts the Commission in a bad light and creates confusion when the implementation date is not of the same year of the code edition. He continued by stating the reviews were conducted every three years therefore the Commission was always catching up because time was always allowed to be educated on the new code.

Chairman Rodriguez stated a motion was necessary to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9N-1, adopting the 2010 Florida Building Code and approved modifications thereto with an effective date of March 15, 2012, filing the rule for adoption, and authorizing the Chair to sign-off on any required rule certification(s).

Commissioner Nicholson moved approval of the motion as stated. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

RULE WORKSHOP ON RULE 9N-4 (FORMERLY 9B-7), 2012 FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Rule Adoption Hearing on Rule 9N-4, Florida Accessibility Code, was for the purpose of formally adopting the 2012 Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction. He then stated the Commission’s Accessibility Code Workgroup worked with stakeholders over a two year period to develop consensus recommendations for updating the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction by integrating Florida Specific Requirements into the US Department of Justice’s updated ADA Standards for Accessibility Design (finalized September 2010). He further stated the Legislature adopted the Commission’s recommendations for conforming parts of state law with the federal standards as well as enhancements to Florida Specific Requirements. He continued by stating the Commission conducted a rule development workshop at the June 7, 2011 meeting, and subsequently there was a request for a rule adoption hearing. He stated the August 9, 2011 hearing provided an additional opportunity for public comment before the Commission concluded rulemaking on the 2012 Florida Accessibility Code.

Chairman Rodriguez opened the hearing.

Larry Schneider, AIA

Mr. Schneider stated he wanted the Commission to be aware of an item brought to staff’s attention. He then stated the issue specifically related to the applicability of the Florida Accessibility Code adopting CFR49, part 57, which deals with DOT transportation issues. He continued by stating there were four specific items that relate to the issue including: Accessible Routes (Section 206.3), Detectable Warnings on Curb Ramps (Section 406.8), Bus Boarding Areas (Section 810.2.2) and Rail Station Platforms (Section 810.5.3). He further stated with the adoption of the DOT standards the four items need to be noted accordingly in the Florida Accessibility Code as related to DOT items. He stated support for the language recommended to address the issue.

Mr. Schneider stated he wanted the Commission to be aware of another item that should be coming around due to the way the code has been written. He continued by stating in the modifications to vertical accessibility unfortunately in the agreements to resolve the issues with the stadiums and movie theaters, the area on press boxes (Section 206.2.7) was forgotten. He then stated press boxes have been reviewed by the federal standards developers and have been granted the non-requirement for vertical accessibility. He stated any entity needing that waiver would have to come before the Commission to do so.

Mr. Schneider stated Accessible Routes (Section 206.2.2.4) was another area overlooked on the issue of vertical accessibility and tracking what was done in the 203 Section.

Mr. Dixon asked Mr. Schneider for clarification whether he was referring to statutory changes coming up in the next year.

Mr. Schneider responded stating a group would be looking at the specific issue as it relates to the press boxes. He stated the intent, when adding exceptions to Florida vertical accessibility, was also to include the press box issue because the federal government, the Department of Justice, has exempted out press boxes based on square footage. He further stated they were looking to get the exception into law since a lot of the waivers did come in for press boxes. He then stated the issue could be resolved under Title II, which has changed allowing the non requirement for vertical accessibility to press boxes based upon the size of the press box.

Mr. Dixon thanked Mr. Schneider for the clarification. He then stated Mr. Schneider’s comments meant the code could change if the law changes but it was not something which required consideration from the Commission at present.

Mr. Dixon stated the proposed language added in would be as follows: for transportation facilities would be as follows, “subject to the Department of Transportation regulation 49CFR37.21” He then stated Section 21 was the applicability or scoping section for that rule which defines when private or public entities are subject to the rule. He continued by stating the clarification was inherent to where the requirements came from. He further stated there was one area staff would recommend just eliminating the criteria which had been added to the code in Section 810.2.2. He stated the statement originally added did not modify the ADAAG at all it basically states public entities were responsible to try to enforce requirements to the best of their ability in what they could control. He then stated since the code does that already there is a redundancy and he did not see that there was a need to add the language from the Federal Rule into the code at all. He concluded by stating staff recommended removing the last sentence in 810.2.2 and inserting the language “subject to the Department of Transportation Regulation 49CFR37.21 to 810.5.3, 2406.8 and 206.3.

Mr. Schneider stated support of the modification and clarification for the sections listed.

Mr. Dixon stated the 4 drawings distributed to commissioners were identified by the workgroup as either change to drawings currently in the base document or additional drawings. He then stated the 2 additional drawings were for the Florida Specific compartment, previously called toilet stall, in new construction and to a curb cut requirement for detectable warnings, which has changed in the federal standard for those facilities subject to the Department of Transportation regulations. He continued by stating staff recommended the Commission approve those drawings as submitted by the commenter with minor modifications to the line thicknesses, etc.

Mr. Schneider stated the drawings were not submitted by his organization.

Mr. Dixon stated he would submit the drawings from staff.

Mr. Schneider stated AIA did not concur with Figures 502.2 or 503.2 i.e. the parking drawings. He then stated the Florida Accessibility Code specifically states the accessible parking spaces shall be outlined in blue with a white stripe as the space and the blue stripe within the space, which was not indicated on the drawings. He further stated what the drawings were telling him the center line on the dimension was potentially just a blue stripe, which was not the way anyone has been marking the accessible parking spaces. He stated AIA concurred with the dimensioning because the code does say to measure to the center line of the stripes with 144 inches for the outline, then the blue line and then the striping. He stated a blue stripe, which was part of the law, was missing.

Mr. Dixon stated the line was deliberately left off because a number of things in all of the drawings were not put in with the intent the designer has to go the text to determine what the rules are that apply to the generic drawings. He then stated there were 2 points: 1) the main point was in the very beginning of the base document the DOJ, the Accessibility Board and the DOT stated the drawings and advisories have no regulatory affect, only the text could be relied on and the Accessibility Code does the same. He stated the drawings were there to demonstrate things but did not include all of the information. He continued by stating if every toilet compartment configuration possible was included in the code it would fill up an entire book. He further stated there was a second commentary book which provided some additional drawings. He continued by stating, for instance, the toilet compartment door swinging into a toilet compartment or into a single station toilet room was not in the base document, but if the rules were followed it would be just as valid. He stated part of the rationale for not including the blue lines was the Commission, to his knowledge, had not interpreted where the blue and other color lines established by the local government, should be placed. He further stated there was maybe an informal interpretation and what people have been doing conventionally, but to his knowledge, there was a Commission interpretation on how that requirement of law was to be implemented. He concluded by stating staff did not feel it appropriate to draw space marking one way or another and somehow endorse them. He stated it was consistent as many drawings within the code do not include everything for a particular feature.

Mr. Schneider stated there was no objection to the idea of the drawing. He then stated if looking at drawing 502.1 it was only showing the dimension between the striping. He further stated at a minimum it should be noted somewhere that a blue stripe was to be somewhere on the parking spot. He then stated the comment the Commission never reviewed or accepted any kind of drawings was not true. He stated the Accessibility Council spent over 8 months on parking space drawings, which was posted on the website, and it was forwarded to the Commission and the Accessibility TAC, understanding the minutes and the drawings were accepted, determined the Commission did approve a set of drawings. He continued by stating it was then determined the Commission actually did not approve the drawings and then they were pulled.

Mr. Blair stated, relative to the way approvals, reports and motions go, if an approval of a report does not approve anything within the report it was only an acceptance of the report. He then stated anything approved within the report has to be approved by a separate motion.

Ms. Stewart stated the issue was such an important one. She then stated since her father had become disabled there was a constant fight with spaces between parking spaces for accessibility purposes. She continued by stating she had not realized the issue had become so important to her. She stated she was in support of Mr. Schneider’s comments. She further stated the Commission could not get it wrong for the users who were dealing with wheelchairs and vans to know there was a space with blue and white lines, because without knowing that it becomes almost impossible to move people around.

Bemmie Eustace, Interplan, Inc.

Ms. Eustace stated from a design standpoint it was not how the code was used. She then stated people would go and look at the diagram, sometimes seeing the text, sometimes not. She continued by stating for consistency purposes it was important one message was heard. She further stated if the stripes could be added to drawing it would clarify a huge amount and she would recommend the Commission consider that.

Mr. Blair asked for clarification if Ms. Eustace was speaking in support of Mr. Schneider’s comments.

Ms. Eustace responded she was in support of Mr. Schneider’s comments.

Mr. Dixon stated the appropriate way to resolve the issue would be to issue a declaratory statement after the code is in effect and implement it in a drawing. He then stated the point of the .2 and .3 drawings was to change the dimensions currently in the ADAAG which do not match Florida’s 12-foot wide parking space. He continued by stating the drawings currently indicate an 8-foot parking space for a car and 11-foot for a van. He further stated the drawings in the code have to be changed because they were erroneous and misleading.

Chairman Rodriguez closed the hearing.

Commissioner Greiner asked, after hearing the comments from both sides, if it would not be easier to indicate on the drawings provided by staff that they were “not all inclusive and please see the text”. He stated if the drawings were going to be included it would not hurt to have a disclaimer included as well indicating the drawings as “not all inclusive”.

Commissioner Carson stated the drawings were important. He continued by stating he could not say how many times he was down to a final inspection and an inspector could be at the site with tape measure out, using the drawing. He then stated he did not know what the proper process should be but he believed the drawings need to be absolutely as clear as possible. He stated he believed the section indicates to refer to Figure 502.3 after it verbally spells out the drawing.

Commissioner Nicholson stated he was in agreement with Commissioner Carson’s comments. He then stated he used the drawings all of the time. He continued by stating he understood if the colors could not be included in the drawings at present, but a note stating the coloring of the striping was not included or some statement

Commissioner Franco stated he was also in agreement with the Commissioner Carson’s comments. He then stated the drawings were what he used all of the time and were referred to by the text therefore they have to be correct. He further stated, as Mr. Schneider stated, the drawings need more detail or do not need to be included.

Commissioner Schulte stated relative to Figure 406.8 on the bottom right corner there was an x=w and a y=24inches. He asked Mr. Dixon, for clarification, if the w was referenced somewhere in the document.

Mr. Blair responded stating x was the horizontal axis and y the vertical axis.

Commissioner Schulte stated he could see the x and the y, but did not see the w.

Mr. Dixon stated in 406.8 the text reads detectable warnings, the text indicates the detectable warnings shall extend the full width the curb ramp.

Commissioner Gross stated in Figure 604.8.1.6 there may be some confusion because the door could now swing into the clear space of the fixtures as long as there was a 30 x 48 inch space for the wheelchair. He continued by stating if it was a compartment stall wall the space could be 6 inches less. He suggested for clarification perhaps a dotted line could be drawn showing the door swinging in.

Mr. Dixon stated that as clarified by DOJ, the compartment minimum size still applies. He then stated his point was that it was not simple to give a fairly correct visual representation of the compartment without being exactly dimensionally correct. He continued by stating there were so many different variations and combinations of what someone might design, the individual would have to review the written requirements to determine which requirements apply to a particular configuration and then apply those requirements to get the dimensioning correct. He further stated he believed trying to represent all of the requirements in a single drawing would make the drawing overly complex. He further stated that the drawings did not include everything that needed consideration and do not represent every possible configuration. He stated the generic approach to picturing a compartment would assist in letting people know the need to look more closely at written requirements and not just at the picture irrespective whether people like to do the simple thing or not. He then stated otherwise an appropriate approach may be to try to expand on the Department of Justice commentary or documents which try to provide more options or cases.

Commissioner Gross stated he agreed with Mr. Dixon’s comments but he referred back to Commissioner Carson’s comment relative to being on the job site and an inspector looking at the book indicating the job was not like the drawing.

Mr. Blair stated there was discussion regarding adding comments to the drawings relative to not being the only methodology or the only option, there was additional text which needed to be reviewed, nor could the drawings be relied on entirely. He then stated language along those lines would be sufficient to resolve the current issue. He continued by stating during the next code development process there could be more focus on the revision of drawings, as that would not be an option at present. He stated his recommendation would be to agree on some generic language to address the fact there was additional text which must be followed, the drawings were representative, and if the drawings were to be adopted a motion would be necessary for that affect.

Commissioner Gross stated he believed Commissioner Greiner had a motion on the floor.

Commissioner Greiner stated he had a motion to indicate the drawings were not “all inclusive” and the text was mandatory.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Commissioner Greiner if he could amend his motion to include the drawings, subject to

Commissioner Carson stated he felt very strongly regarding the stalls, the dimensions not on the drawing, and it was not clear the dimension being depicted. He asked if the plans could be shown without any dimension on it. He stated with that an individual would have to go back to the text to find out.

Commissioner Greiner stated he would accept Commissioner Carson’s comments as a friendly amendment.

Mr. Blair stated the motion was to approve the drawings and remove the dimensions from 502.2 and 502.3 indicating in the text they were not “all inclusive” and must be reviewed in conjunction with the drawings.

Commissioner Greiner accepted friendly amendment

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Gross moved approval of correcting 206.3, 406.8 and 810.5.3 by adding: subject to DOT regulation 49CFR37.21 and to revise 810.2.2 by striking the last sentence. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Stone stated unless the “w” was defined somewhere else the drawing should indicate it means “width”.

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Stone if he wanted to make a motion to reconsider.

Commissioner Stone moved approval to reconsider the previous motion. Commissioner Schock entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the previous motion with the amendment to include w= width. Commissioner Nicholson entered a second to the motion.

Chairman Rodriguez restated the motion was to approve was to approve the drawings, include w=width in drawing 406.8, and remove the dimensions from 502.2 and 502.3 and for drawing 604.8.1.6 indicate in the text they were not “all inclusive” and must be reviewed in conjunction with the drawings.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Browdy moved to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9N-4, Florida Accessibility Code for the purpose of adopting the 2012 Edition of the Florida Accessibility Code with an effective date of March 15, 2012, by integrating and noticing the adopted changes, filing the rule for adoption, and authorizing the Chair to sign-off on any required rule certification(s). Commissioner Stone entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

NEXT STEPS FOR ADOPTION AND PUBLICATION OF THE CODES AND INTERIM AUTHORIZATION FOR SECRETARY BUZZET TO SIGN CONTRACTS ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission concluded rule adoption on the 2010 Florida Building Code and will publish a notice of change for the March 15, 2012 implementation date and other adopted modifications and once the required timelines are met will file the Rule for adoption with the Department of State. He then stated the ICC is developing the nine (9) volumes of the 2010 Code and will work with DCA staff on the publishing schedule. He further stated he and staff are recommending the Commission authorize DCA Secretary Buzzett to sign the contract with the ICC in order to ensure the publication schedule can be met.

Commissioner Carson moved approval to authorize Secretary Buzzett to sign a contract with the ICC for the publication and sale of the 2010 Florida Building Code Commissioner Schock entered a second to the motion. Vote approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES

Commissioner Schock stated during the past month he was requested by the Board of Professional Engineers to attend one of its rulemaking sessions. He continued by stating at the meeting he was asked to bring back to the Commission an issue for discussion purposes. He then stated the Board was experiencing some issues with compliance working with the requirement for threshold inspections of renovations that were structural on threshold buildings. He further stated the issue, according to the Board’s attorney, was because the threshold requirements were in 553 the feeling was the Commission should provide some guidance relative to what level or what time threshold inspections should be required on renovations of threshold type buildings. He then asked the Commission to consider providing either a workgroup or direct the Structural TAC to weigh into the issue and come up with some recommendations.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the issue would be discussed with staff and it would probably be best considered by the Structural TAC.

Commissioner Carson stated it had been some time since there had been a budget meeting. He asked if one could be scheduled.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he agreed it would be a good idea and staff had informed him Ms. Jones had one planned for the next meeting.

Commissioner Carson stated there was discussion with Citizens Insurance from four months ago with regard to the aluminum wiring. He continued by stating it appeared nothing had happened and the local legislators were now digging into it. He stated he would like to request a letter be sent to Citizens Insurance to ask a couple of questions including: the status of the Commission’s recommendations with regard to the wiring and devices discussed four months previous. He then stated there was a rumor that Citizens was trying to review the recommendations themselves and he would like to include an offer the Commission would be willing to provide assistance through the Electrical TAC should they need it. He further stated he would like to know their time schedule. He concluded by stating it was a little troubling to him as it seemed, in his opinion, Citizens was arbitrarily ignoring the Code and the Commission’s recommendations to them.

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Carson if he would like to make his request a motion.

Commissioner Carson moved approval to authorize the Chair to send a letter to Citizens Insurance Company requesting an update on the aluminum wiring issue, including how the Commission’s recommendations are being implemented and the schedule/timelines for addressing insuring homes with aluminum wiring. Commissioner Turner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Smith stated he had a question and concern regarding the Energy Code Software Approval Manual Workgroup. He stated the question had been coming up as to how the group was selected. He then stated the concern was multiple votes on that committee were from one of the addressed software companies and not from multiple software companies or disciplines. He stated he believed it was a conflict of interests and felt it should be mentioned.

Mr. Madani stated staff put the workgroup together and to the best of their knowledge included all of the impacted individuals or entities. He then stated if there was anyone that should be added to the group, staff would like to hear the recommendation. He continued by stating staff had tried to come up with a consensus group which included individuals from other software entities other than FSEC. He further stated their intention was to come up with accurate criteria which would serve everyone.

Commissioner Smith asked for clarification the group was not a closed.

Mr. Madani stated the group was not closed and any input was welcome. He then stated staff wanted to get the task completed and wanted to get something out allowing anyone with an interest the opportunity to have their tools(?) approved.

Commissioner Schulte asked if there had been any updates to the mitigation inspection form. He stated he believed the Department of Financial Services was working on the form. He further stated there had been a couple of articles in the Sun Sentinel bringing that subject up.

Mr. Dixon stated Mr. Madani and Mr. Glenn had been working on the issue.

Mr. Madani stated there was a hearing, some changes were made and the updated form was about to be issued. He then stated the Department of Financial Services had received some consulting from a different group on the subject and there were a lot of improvements on the form.

Commissioner Schulte stated his understanding was the Commission; actually a workgroup was put together, to be involved with the review after their second revision of the form. He asked if the Commission was still in the loop.

Mr. Madani responded by stating when the Commission approached the Department they indicated they were trying to complete the task and had only a small window to do so. He stated in the future the Commission could come in and help with necessary reviews.

Mr. Dixon stated he believed the attitude changed from before the legislative session to after session as a result of pressures the Department was responding to from the Legislature.

Mr. Glenn stated the form was being changed significantly. He then stated the final draft, as a result of the last rule hearing, was on the street and the Department was currently soliciting additional comments with hopes of having the new rule in place by the end of September. He further stated he had an electronic copy of the final draft and if anyone would like to see it email him and he would send it to them.

Mr. Dixon asked Mr. Glenn to send it staff and staff would send it to the commissioners.

Mr. Glenn restated there were significant changes including the removal of two complete categories.

Commissioner Gross thanked the Commission for its work on the Accessibility Code. He stated the passing of the Accessibility Code meant it would be in compliance with the Federal Regulations the same day they go into effect. He then stated it was a historic event and could not have happened without commissioners’ efforts in workgroups and staff‘s efforts. He continued by stating it had been a long process, beginning even before the Federal Rule was completed. He further stated last time it took 5 years to complete and was 5 years later than when the Federal Regulations came out the first time. Ttherefore, having them on the same date was unbelievable. He stated with all the criticism the Commission takes for time and the way things happen, it was truly a fabulous achievement. He then stated Florida may be one of the first states in the country to have a code out the same day as the federal code.

Mr. Blair stated special appreciation should be offered to Mr. Dixon for his vision in thinking years ahead on the issue.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Commissioner Gross for his leadership in Accessibility issues.

Commissioner Turner stated his comments were for informational purposes regarding Commissioner Carson’s comments pertaining to aluminum wiring. He continued by stating he had talked with Christine from Citizens and his understanding was the decision Citizens made in their response to homes with aluminum wiring was strongly influenced by an article written by a Dr. Aronstein, from New York. He then stated he contacted Dr. Aronstein to get a copy of the document and the document was written in the 1970’s. He continued by stating Dr. Aronstein had revised the article a bit and had some questions regarding some of the products which were UL listed and approved to be used by the NEC. He stated Dr. Aronstein stated the situation was puzzling because Florida had responded in a very radical way compared to the other parts of the country. He further stated he had spoken with building officials in New York, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Kentucky. He stated all of those states except Kentucky were accepting 2 of the products that were listed in the Electrical TAC. He continued by stating the states were backing away from the other 2 products at present because Dr. Aronstein’s findings and relooking at how the products were UL approved. He stated the situation was confusing because it seems, on the surface, Florida was responding in a way no other states was responding including not only the Citizens but other insurance carriers in the state were treating the Commission in a different manner than other states were being treated. He then stated, in his opinion, it was an excuse to get out of insuring an older home.

Commissioner Gonzalez expressed concern with the implementation date being March 15, 2012, the code needed to be available to the Commission by September 15, 2011, which was only 6 weeks away. He asked if the code was not available on September 15^th what happens to the implementation date based on the action taken at the meeting. He then asked if code books would be available for the commissioners at the October meeting.

Mr. Madani stated the Code was available on the website in the form of a supplement with the foundation codes. He then stated the changes made at the August meeting would be on the system the following week as part of the supplement. He continued by stating relative to the availability and the commissioners having a copy by October he was not certain. He further stated staff was working very hard to have them available for the Commission as soon as possible but he did not have any specific dates other than the publication date which was done through the ICC.

Commissioner Gonzalez asked if the Commission, under the Sunshine Law, was allowed to accept friend requests on Facebook or Twitter.

Mr. Richmond responded stating the problem with the Sunshine Law was it was never centered on how communication occurs. He stated any form of communication was conceivably covered by the Sunshine Law, albeit electronic, in person, etc, the key becomes the content of the communication. He then stated accepting a friend request on Facebook or Twitter would be a far more imposing option because there was no control of what other people happen to tweet. He explained if a commissioner subscribed a feed from a fellow commissioner and that commissioner happened to tweet or post on facebook business which was to occur at a future meeting it would be a violation of the Sunshine Law.

Recognition of Retiring Commissioners and staff

Chairman Rodriguez stated one of the true privileges of being a commissioner was to recognize the efforts of the others. He further stated the real proof of a team was the contributions of those on that team. He then stated there were three individuals the Commission recognizes for their work with the Commission:

Bruce Ketchum

Chairman Rodriguez stated if an original individual can be found in the staff, and there were several, one of those was Bruce Ketchum. He then stated Mr. Ketchum had been with the Commission since the very beginning and had worked with the state building codes for many years. He continued by stating Mr. Ketchum was trained as an architect and had worked in firms in south Florida before choosing his career in the public sector. He further stated prior to becoming involved in the public sector he ran his own business as a commercial and residential energy auditor. He stated he had also worked for the City of Lake Worth Utilities Company as an Energy Conservation Programs Manager. He then stated when Mr. Ketchum went to work with the state he became a code specialist supporting first the Board of Building Codes, the Florida Building Commission and DCA staff. He continued by stating for the Commission he had been the lead staff for several technical advisory committees. He stated he would be retiring from the state, effective at the end of October, but not from practice. He then thanked Mr. Ketchum for his endless work.

Mr. Ketchum thanked the Chairman, commissioners and all of the individuals he’s known for years. He expressed his appreciation for having been a part of the Commission sharing it was a very important part of his life. He stated has felt a part of a family having been together since going on a bus in developing to this point. He further stated it had been a lot of fun, a great journey and it was a bittersweet goodbye.

Jim Goodloe

Chairman Rodriguez stated Jim Goodloe was appointed in June 2005 to the Commission and has served six years on the Commission. He then stated Mr. Goodloe had been the Commission’s link to fire services even prior to his appointment to the Commission. He continued by stating until recently upon his retirement from the state Mr. Goodloe was the Chief of the Fire Prevention Bureau in the State Fire Marshall’s office. He further stated as a leader in that department he was responsible for developing and maintaining the Florida Fire prevention Code. He then stated his dual role as Commission member and lead for the Fire Prevention Code provided for effective coordination of the two codes, which had been a struggle for some time. He continued by stating Mr. Goodloe’s interest and commitment into coordinating the building code and fire codes were a huge part of the Commission’s success in reaching that goal. He concluded by stating the construction industry, the Commission, the fire services industry and both government and private sectors have all benefited from Mr. Goodloe’s contributions, all done in his own quiet, modest way.

Mr. Goodloe thanked the chairman, fellow commissioners and staff. He stated it had been a very exciting six years with the Commission and he had learned a lot from everyone. He further stated he had worked with many stakeholders and had become close friends with many individuals who had learned from and had also helped him in his own career. He thanked everyone for allowing him to be a part of such a great team.

Randy Vann

Chairman Rodriguez stated Randy Vann was appointed to the Commission in 2005. He then stated aside from everything else he was a businessman and his business provides plumbing, mechanical and fire protection system services, as well, providing him a broad background to bring to the Commission deliberations. He continued by stating Mr. Vann had been the Commission’s plumbing contractor representative and had served through much of the code development process. He stated he had been the Chair of the Plumbing TAC and a solid member of the Code Administration and Accessibility TACs, as well as other special project committees. He then stated Mr. Vann’s experience and knowledge on the Commission will be missed and his role as a consensus builder would always be remembered.

Mr. Vann thanked the Chairman and thanked everyone in the room. He stated he can look around the room and see a plethora of knowledge. He continued by stating he was so proud to have been a part of the consensus building process. He further stated he believed Florida had the best building codes in the United States. He stated he was so proud to have been a part of the Commission and every commissioner truly deserves a round of applause for the work they do creating a safe building code for the people of the state of Florida and the buildings.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

Ms. Stewart thanked the Commission and staff for bringing up the question of appreciated Commissioner Smith’s question regarding the energy code workgroup

composite. She stated she had concerns because she erroneously looked at the composite of the workgroup and concluded a secret company had more than one vote. She thanked Mr. Madani for clearing that up. She then stated she had forward to DCA staff recommendations for additional members for the workgroup but it seemed to have gone into cyberspace. She further stated one of the individuals was a woman and the other a minority. She continued by stating she would be happy to resubmit those recommendations to staff for consideration.

Tom Johnson, President, International Hurricane Protection Association

Mr. Johnson stated in 2010 during the fourth quarter the IHPA appeared before the Commission asking for some support for Legislation to limit some activities which were going on in the state relating to fraudulent or misleading products being represented as products being covered under the product approval rule. He then stated he wanted to come before the Commission representing IHPA to thank the Commission for its support in the issue. He continued by stating HB849 went into effect on July 1, 2011 with legislation going through untouched and unchanged. He further stated he could assure the Commission a fairly large and growing file of documents sitting in the Attorney General’s office and immediate changes have been seen due to that legislation.

Mr. Schneider, representing himself, stated he would like the Commission to consider meetings of the Accessibility Advisory Council. He then stated he was aware fully aware of the budgetary issues that have hit the state and the Commission. He continued by stating when dealing with waivers before the Accessibility Council there was a major difference when done with a webinar versus live and able to interface with people. He further stated having had the opportunity to attend both venues there was a better relationship and dialogue when it was done live with people versus a webinar. He stated they would like to recommend the consideration of talking with Accessibility Council members and maybe past waivers applicants to determine how both parties feel dealing with either the live or webinar process. He then stated he gives credit to Mr. Blair at the last meeting there were 12 waivers, which would normally be a 4 hour process, which he handled in 65 minutes.

Mr. Glenn thanked the commissioners for the process now completed and going into effect march 15, 2012. He stated he was very happy with outcome as far as maintaining a code cycle that will provide a document that will be without additional errata’s and pages coming out in the future. He complimented the Commission on the change in the process including the glitch within the rule adoption hearing process for the base code.

Mr. Allen stated on behalf of himself and the members of BOAF, he applauds the Commission for their efforts. He then stated without the Commission it could not have been put together. He continued by stating there might not always be agreement in what each was doing but there was always the effort to work together to accomplish the completion of the process. He stated he also wanted to thank DCA staff for all of their hard work and being involved in the process.

Ms. Stewart, representing Building Energy Assessment Professionals, also applauded the Commission and its efforts.

Jim Bell, ASSABLOY

Mr. Bell stated a quality assurance program was necessary when putting products up for approval. He then stated it was recently asked if there was a quality assurance inspection and what the inspection consists of. He then stated there was a question of responsibility. He continued by stating there was a quality assurance program and asked if it was the responsibility of the QA agency to report to the Commission quality assurance visits to manufacturers and actually doing those quality assurance inspections. He then asked when reporting the inspection what needed to be part of that inspection i.e. when an inspector visits a facility what were they supposed to be looking at. He stated they were not working on all of the products approved for approval when there is an inspection. He then stated there were a lot of questions regarding quality assurance, which has always been out there but not a lot of definitions of what quality assurance was.

Commissioner Carson stated he believed ISO still does most of the protocols.

Mr. Madani stated the issue was being addressed through enhancements of the system. He then stated there was specific language in the rule which states an inspection has to take place every 12 months. He continued by stating the system itself, the BCIS, does not really have any components in it for product approval which gives information regarding inspection. He stated after the completion of the enhancement there would be a component of the system to do just that. He then stated staff’s intention was to meet with the quality assurance entity to determine the best way to handle the issue and hear feedback.

Joe Hetzel, Thomas Associates

Mr. Hetzel stated for the past 15 years he had represented Door and Access Systems’ Manufacturers Association and he will continue to do so. He then stated he was also representing the American Association of Automatic Door Openers. He commended the Commission for all of the cooperation it has shown through the years he looked forward to working with the Commission representing DASMA and AAADO. He further stated he would like to commend Mr. Madani for his excellent cooperation over the years and his prompt responses to all of the crazy questions he had proposed to him.

ADJOURN

11:08 a.m. adjourned.