FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

WELCOME

Chairman Rodriguez welcomed Secretary Tom Pelham of the Department of Community Affairs, the Commission and gallery to the October 2007 plenary session of the Florida Building Commission.

RECOGNITION OF RETIRING COMMISSIONERS

Chairman Rodriguez stated he was delighted the Governor had reappointed Commissioner Browdy to the Commission. He then stated Commissioner Browdy had done great work for the Commission chairing the Education POC, has had an important role in the Code Administration TAC and he had also been an advocate for Accessibility. He offered thanks to Commissioner Browdy for his dedication and years of service to the Commission.

Chairman Rodriguez then announced two new appointments to the Commission. He introduced Angel (Kiko) Franco, who would be serving in the architect’s position. He stated Commissioner Franco had graduated from the University Of Puerto Rico School Of Architecture and is currently the principal in A. T. Franco and Associates in Ft. Lauderdale. He then stated Commissioner Franco would be replacing Peter Tagliarini, who had served the Commission since November of 2003. He welcomed Commissioner Franco and thanked Mr. Tagliarini for his years of service.

Chairman Rodriguez then introduced Matthew Carlton, who had been appointed to serve in the general contractor’s position. He stated Commissioner Carlton was a graduate of the University of Florida’s Rinker School of Construction and he is the owner of Carlton Construction and Development in Green Cove Springs Florida. He then stated Commissioner Carlton would be filling the position vacated by Steve Corn, who had previously been honored. He welcomed Commissioner Carlton and thanked Mr. Corn again for his service.

He then directed the Commission to Mr. Blair for a review of the Commission meeting agenda.

REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

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

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

REVIEW AND APPROVE AUGUST 21, 2007 MEETING MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S REPORTS

Chairman Rodriguez called for approval of the minutes and the facilitator’s reports from the August 2007 Commission meeting.

Mr. Richmond requested a correction to the minutes regarding Rule 9B-3.0475. He stated the minutes reflected it had been before the Commission as a Workshop and not as a Rule Adoption Hearing. He explained the importance of the correction as the minutes were used as the summary of hearing filed with the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the August Commission meeting minutes as amended. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chairman Rodriguez first addressed appointments to workgroups. He stated on Monday, October 1, 2007 the Commission convened the Green Building Forum. He then stated in order to provide input into the Green Building Workshop, the Green Building workgroup will work with the Florida Solar Energy Center to develop recommendations for a model efficiency ordinance for residential development and for developing and implementing a public awareness campaign that promotes energy efficiency and the benefits of building green. He continued by stating the group would meet again on October 31^st in Gainesville and on November 28^th in West Palm Beach. He then stated the following people had agreed to serve on the Green Building Workgroup: Dale Greiner from the Florida Building Commission, Rob Vickers from the Florida Energy Commission, a pending appointment from the Department of Community Affairs, Jim Shock from BOAF, Michael Olsen from the Florida Energy Office of DEP, Bob Sissum from the Florida Home Builders Association, Shannon Staud from the Association of Counties, Jeff Allebach, from the League of Cities, Rob Vieira from the Florida Solar Energy Center, expecting someone from the United States Department of Energy, Tammy Torres from MySafeFloridaHome, Linda Burnette from the Water Management Districts, Paul Radauskas from the local government, Thomas Ankersen from legal, Colleen Kettles from the Florida Solar Energy Research and Education Foundation and Tom Geriak as a product manufacturer. He thanked those individuals for their service.

Chairman Rodriguez then addressed the Wind Mitigation Workgroup. He stated at the August meeting the Commission adopted Rule 9B-3.0475 Wind Mitigation Retrofits to comply with the 2007 Legislative Direction and the October 1, 2007 deadline. He then stated during the workshop and hearing it was clear that some of the rule provisions, specifically the roof to wall connections, received significant public comment in the form of concerns. He stated he was appointing a workgroup to review the requirements and make recommendations to the Commission for any enhancements that might be implemented. He then stated the workgroup would consist of the following individuals: Chris Schulte, from the Florida Building Commission on Roofing, Billy Cone from FRSA Roofing, Jim Carducci from FRSA Roofing, Tim Reinhold from insurance, Eric Stafford from insurance, Richard Reynolds from FHBA, Bill Dunbaugh from the Building Officials Association and Jim Shock from the Building Officials. He thanked those individuals for their service.

Chairman Rodriguez next addressed the special sessions update. He stated a special session had been scheduled for October 3^rd through October 18^th which was explicitly limited to the state’s budget. He then stated a Commission conference call had been scheduled for Monday, October 15, 2007 at 10:00am. He stated the Commission would receive an update from Mr. Richmond if required. He then stated the Commissioners would receive notification later if the conference call would be taking place.

GOVENOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Chairman Rodriguez introduced Secretary Tom Pelham, who would be addressing the Commission on the Governor’s Executive Order on Climate Change and Directive for the Florida Energy Code.

Secretary Pelham expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to speak before the Commission and offered his thanks to each of the members for their public service, great leadership shown in improving building and construction practices in Florida, and for the good working relationship the Department of Community Affairs has enjoyed with the Commission over the years. He then stated Governor Crist has committed his administration to charting a new direction in energy policy for Florida which led to the Governor’s Climate Change Conference in Miami in July where he signed three Executive Orders. He stated in Executive Order 07-127, the Governor made two statements that require immediate attention. He stated the first was Global Climate Change, one of the most important issues facing the state of Florida this century, and second immediate actions are available and required to reduce emission of greenhouse gases within Florida. He explained the order directs the Department and the Commission to work together to revise the Florida Energy Code for Building Construction to increase the energy performance of new construction in Florida by at least 15%. He stated the order also instructs the Department to initiate rule making on the Florida Appliance Efficiency Standards, with the goal of increasing those efficiency standards for appliances by 15%. He further stated the Governor has asked these tasks be accomplished by 2009. He stated the Department has moved quickly to accomplish the mission. He noted the Codes and Standards staff has already initiated rulemaking for the Appliance Efficiency Standards, notice of the proposed rule development was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on August 24, 2007 and a rule development workshop will be held on October 18, 2007.

Secretary Pelham stated the Department’s Division of Housing and Community Development has contracted with the Florida Solar Energy Center, which is located at the University of Central Florida. He explained the purpose of the contract is to recommend ways in which the Department and the Commission can implement the directive contained in the Governor’s executive order and in some recent legislation. He stated the contract outlines the following four tasks to be completed by the center: 1) Develop a model energy efficiency ordinance for residential development, 2) Evaluate existing and model building codes and standards for cost effective energy efficiency measures in homes and commercial buildings, 3) Identify what energy efficiency improvements can be expected by higher appliance standards, as well as the potential costs of implementing and enforcing those standards and 4) Evaluate and enhance the existing website where citizens can learn more about Green Building practices, including ways in which customers themselves can calculate how much they might be able to save by using more energy efficiency practices. He then stated, with the exception of the final item, the website assessment, these tasks should be completed by December of this year and a report is due to the Legislature by March 1, 2008.

Secretary Pelham stated, regarding construction standards, the Commission was in the final stages of adopting the 2007 edition of the Florida Building Code, which will take effect in October 2008. He stated he understood during the new Code’s development the Commission went through an extensive process to evaluate the Energy Code component and took action to maintain its high standards. He then stated the Governor was now asking the Commission to do more. He continued by stating once the report is received from the Florida Solar Energy Center there will be an opportunity to amend the Energy Code by using the annual glitch amendment process to adopt changes designed to improve energy efficiency of new construction by 15%. He further stated this would allow for maintaining a single unified edition of the Florida Building Code and meet the deadlines set in the Governor’s Executive Order. He concluded by stating the Department recognizes the difficulty of these tasks but it is confident, given the leadership the Commission has shown in the past when dealing with tough issues and given the technical expertise available to the Commission, that working together these goals can be achieved in the timely manner the Governor has requested. He stated the Governor’s appreciation for the Commission’s efforts and the Department would look forward to working with the Commission to achieve the goals in an appropriate and responsible manner.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Secretary Pelham for his update. He then asked the Commission if there were any questions or comments for Secretary Pelham.

Commissioner Browdy stated occasionally the Legislature intervenes in the goals and missions and the schedule of the Florida Building Commission. He added that intervention challenges the processes that enable the Commission to adequately set the Building Code. He asked what the Commission should do when certain challenges given to the Commission by the Legislature either abbreviate the processes or compromise the Commission’s ability to do its job. He asked should the Commission move forward with the process heading towards the date even though the process would be less than perfect or not as perfect as the Commission would like, or should the Commission not come forward with the product. He stated it had been a real concern for the constituency he represents, the Florida Home Builders.

Secretary Pelham stated he would not presume to tell the Commission to ignore something the Legislature has directed. He then stated at this point, the Commission should proceed on the basis the Legislature will not do anything to countermand the Governor’s request. He continued by stating until such time, the Department hopes the Commission would agree to proceed in an orderly manner to try to achieve the Governor’s directives. He then stated at such time should the Legislature indicate or dictate a different course, it would be dealt with at that time. He expressed appreciation for the concern expressed by Commissioner Browdy.

Commissioner Bassett stated he wasn’t sure if the Governor knew how much the Energy Code had been improved with the current Building Code changes which are going into effect in 2007. He asked if the Commission was to increase the increase already made by another 15% or is that amount included in the 15% the Governor has directed the Commission to accomplish.

Secretary Pelham stated he assumed his request to increase efficiency by 15% meant 15% over the Code that existed at the time. He stated it was his understanding the new amendments had not yet been adopted.

Commissioner Bassett stated the new amendments were adopted last meeting and will go into effect next October. He then stated the Code in effect at this point is the 2004 Building Code with updates.

Secretary Pelham stated the Governor issued his Executive Order in July, which would have been before the Commission amended the Code. He then stated it would seem to be appropriate to consider the improvements that have been made since the Executive Order was issued in July.

Commissioner Greiner asked if the necessary adjustments in the workplan had been made to deal with these items in the glitch cycle.

Mr. Dixon stated the workplan had been updated for both the Legislative tasks and for the Governor’s Executive Orders. The Commission approved the Legislative workplan tasks immediately after session and the Governor’s executive order tasks at the August meeting. He added there were some revised dates he would be going over when reviewing the workplan.

Chairman Rodriguez requested from Secretary Pelham a copy of his notes to be entered into the record. He then expressed appreciation to the Secretary for taking the time to address the Commission and also expressed how grateful the Commission is for the support it has been given by the Department. He stated when he first became Chairman of the Commission he stated immediately he had no staff to contribute to its effort. He then stated there were several promises made and the one that has been beyond his expectations has been the quality and the effort the staff puts forward.

REVIEW AND UPDATE OF COMMISSION WORKPLAN

Mr. Dixon conducted a review of the updated Commission workplan. (See Updated Commission Workplan October 2007)

Mr. Dixon stated the one new task staff would like the Commission to approve, looks forward to the 2010 Building Code. Staff would like to have an open discussion about how to meet the current criteria of law, which mandates the Commission start with a new edition of national model codes and work from that to develop the Florida Building Code. He stated staff feels there are two different approaches to reach the same end goal. He stated the Commission has followed one of those approaches the past two times and it is extremely labor intensive and more susceptible to errors in assembly and printing of the Code. He stated staff feels there is a better way of getting to the goal.

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

CONSIDER ACCESSIBILITY WAIVER APPLICATIONS

Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Mary Katherine Smith for consideration of the Accessibility Waiver Applications.

#1 Charlotte County Cultural Center

Ms. Smith stated the application was withdrawn by the applicant.

No Commission action necessary.

#2 College of Business – Office Depot Center - FAU

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the Council recommended approval provided the fourth tier had moveable seats instead of fixed locations to facilitate people having a wider choice.

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

#3 Chiquita Animal Hospital

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the Council recommended approval provided the applicant submits an affidavit stipulating there would be fewer than five persons who would be employed on the second level.

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

Commissioner Norkunas stated at the last meeting he had brought to the Commission rationale on the disproportionality requirements under Americans with Disabilities Act. He then stated the Accessibility TAC would be having a discussion in the future about that 20%, which had been previously deferred. He stated the basis of his comments in this case were on disproportionality. He further stated in reviewing Accessibility Waivers from the last two years he is finding an uncomfortable situation occurring. He explained the Waiver Council deals with Florida State Law and not Federal Law. He noted where a waiver could be obtained under state law there may be still be a requirement for vertical accessibility under federal law. He stated he was not aware of anyone at all who had received a waiver from the Waiver Council and went back and spent 20-30,000 dollars because it was a federal requirement. He further stated he was looking into this because the attorneys he has spoken with are uncertain whether a federal judge would ever order vertical accessibility if there was a waiver approved by the Florida Building Commission, where it’s Code has been certified. He explained what has happened is the Waiver Council has become the de facto entity for providing ongoing vertical accessibility such that if a building is denied or approved through a waiver ten years from now it becomes the second floor of a school or another place of public accommodation where no access is given. He stated the ADA is specifically geared to the future and the law says over time all places of public accommodation will become accessible. He concluded by stating the Commission gives great weight to its TACs as it should, but it is not a rubber stamp entity. He noted those who are committed deeply to the issues have to vote with their conscience. He added his intent will be to cast a vote against any waiver application where in his opinion it is not disproportionate. He stated in the case of the Chiquita Animal Hospital with six veterinarians and the kind of money he spends on pet care, he does not believe it is disproportionate. He stated he was sad to not be part of the system, but the right thing to do would be to cast a negative vote.

Vote to approve the motion resulted 16 in favor, 3 opposed (Bassett, Norkunas, Franco). Motion carried.

# 4 Mondrian Condo Hotel

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the Council recommended approval provided sufficient signage is provided to indicate appropriate parking areas.

Commissioner Gross moved approval of the Council’s recommendation. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Goodloe asked if the only access to the front door is via the vehicle.

Ms. Smith stated no, there is a sidewalk but it does not meet the slope requirements and there is not sufficient room for them to construct a sidewalk that would actually be no greater than one and twelve. She stated if someone had a power chair she did not believe that would be a problem.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

# 5 Harvest Village Unit #62

Ms. Smith explained there was insufficient information submitted specifically with respect to the claim of disproportionate costs. The Council recommended it be deferred to obtain the lacking data that was required.

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

# 7 New World Symphony

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the Council recommended approval provided assisted listening devices are made available, specifically those that would be geared toward being able to pick up music as opposed to the spoken word.

Commissioner McCombs 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.

# 6 Flagler County Fairgrounds Arena Ticket Building

Ms. Smith explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. She stated the problem involved is the building is a Title II facility and as such is not subject to the exemption that is provided for very small buildings of this nature. She stated upon this the Council recommended denial.

(Motion, 2^nd, vote, motion status)

Dana Smith, Architect, DJ Designers

Mr. Smith stated he was representing Flagler County. He explained the project is a very small project, a press box at rodeo arena, being used only twice each year by less than five people. He stated the applicant respectfully requests the waiver be granted based on the disproportionality of costs. He acknowledged Commissioner Norkunas’ objections to that reasoning. He continued by stating as stewards of the public money, which is taxpayer’s money, there should be as much cognizance in spending it as well as in not spending it. He reiterated the building is very small and a wheelchair lift cannot be installed because it is too high, and the cost of an elevator would be more than half the cost of the lift. He concluded by stating if the waiver is not granted the project will probably not go forward.

Commissioner Gross moved approval of the Council’s recommendation for denial. Commissioner Greiner 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 presented the POC recommendations for entity approval in the form of a motion as follows:

TST 3160 Timberco Inc dba TECO Product Testing Laboratory

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

QUA 1743 Underwriters Laboratory Inc - Product Quality Assurance

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

QUA 6927 Quality Systems Management Inc - Product Quality Assurance

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

VAL 6970 Timberco Inc dba TECO - Product Validation Entity

Commissioner D’Andrea 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 then presented the products for approval as they appeared in the matrix provided to each Commissioner. Recommended approvals were presented in consent agenda format with conditional approvals, deferrals, and denials being considered individually. (See Florida Building Commission Product Approval Applications)

Certification Method

Recommended for Approval

Product #’s: 158-R2; 498-R3; 1876-R2; 3690-R2; 3810-R2; 3816-R3; 3818-R2; 4352-R1; 4904; 5552; 6210-R2; 6334-R2; 7112; 8745-R1; 9007; 9008; 9347-R1; 9351-R1; 9362; 9387; 9389; 9408; 9410; 9420; 9426; 9427; 9430; 9432; 9451; 9456; 9457; 9459; 9461; 9479; 9488; 9489; 9491; 9492; 9493; 9494; 9495; 9496; 9497; 9502; 9503; 9505; 9506; 9510; 9511; 9513; 9518; 9520; 9529; 9530; 9531; 9532; 9533; 9536; 9537; 9538; 9544; 9545; 9546; 9548; 9549; 9550; 9552; 9553; 9563; 9565; 9566; 9567; 9569; 9578; 9581; 9583; 9587; 9588; 9591; 9597; 9599; 9606; 9608; 9609; 9610; 9617; 9618; 9624; 9626; 9628; 9630; 9631; 9632; 9633; 9636; 9642; 9644; 9647; 9648; 9651; 9657; 9661; 9662; 9663; 9664; 9665;

Commissioner Browdy moved approval for the consent agenda. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommended for Conditional Approval

2624-R2 JELD-WEN

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating for product 2624.4 the installation instructions are illegible.

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.

3942-R2 JELD-WEN

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating for products 3942.10, .11, and .12, DP exceeds Certification. For Products 3942.21, there are no Installation Instructions.

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

8007 Resiver Patio Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to provide equivalency of standards for impact testing standards to comply with current adopted standards. Indicate where the frame and fin tested. Provide certification of PVC extrusion. Analysis of anchors other than tested shall be validated by FL PE.

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

9038-R1, 9039-R1Kolbe Vinyl Windows

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to provide details and thickness of clip. Provide material specification for required aluminum reinforcing.

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

9040-R1, 9041-R1 Kolbe Vinyl Windows

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

9044-R1 Kolbe Vinyl Windows

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to provide details and thickness of clip. Glazing sealant not specified in any of the drawings details. Verify if the sealant needs to contact the laminate/interlayer.

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

9046-R1 Kolbe Vinyl Windows

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to provide details and thickness of clip. Verify if the sealant needs to contact the laminate/interlayer.

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

9528 Entreprises Doco

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

9057 Winco Window Company

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating the installation instructions do not indicate attachment to structure.

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

9355 Windsor Windows and Doors

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating on 9355.1, .2, .3 and .6 installation instructions pressure exceeded certification. Indicate door hardware as tested.

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

9418, 9421 BiltBest Windows and Patio Doors

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to specify PVB laminate tested.

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

9397; 9399; 9401; 9407 Hurricane Safety Systems

9595; 9615 Stock Building Supply

9670 Pella Corporation

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating an independent FL PE will be looking to validate analysis of anchors.

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

9402 Hurricane Safety Systems

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval stating ASTM E1886/E1996 tested year is not adopted. Provide equivalency of standards with presently adopted. Independent FL PE to validate analysis of anchors.

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

9403 Hurricane Safety Systems

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

9521; 9524; 9525; 9527 Entreprises Doco

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to provide calculations of bearing stress of anchor on PVC. Provide material specification for required aluminum reinforcing. Glazing sealant not specified in any of the drawing details. Verify if sealant needs to contact the laminate/interlayer.

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

9526 Entreprises Doco

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to provide calculations of bearing stress of anchor on PVC. Provide material specification for required aluminum reinforcing. Verify if sealant needs to contact the laminate/interlayer.

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

9437 Ace Coating Company, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to Indicate "No" for HVHZ unless tested in accordance with federal specification TTC-555B as required by Sect. 1523.6.2.1.1 FBC.

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

9442 Kolbe Vinyl Windows

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the design pressure and installation instructions on 9442.4 exceed certification.

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

9455 Moss Supply Company

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to indicate certification of PVC extrusion.

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

9472 Kolbe Vinyl Windows

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to remove testing standards AAMA 101/I.S.2-97 and AAMA 101/I.S.2-NAFS-02. These are not on certificate.

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

9504 Custom Window Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to provide calculations for jamb, head and meeting rail anchors. Indicate on elevation anchor spacing.

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

9556 Atlas Window Systems Inc.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to indicate source of EPDM Atlas Glazing Bead and its testing or certification.

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

9562 Pella Corporation

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to provide hardware as tested.

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

9616 Flesher Windows, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to provide calculations for 9616.1 of anchors at sill including eccentricity and shim space. For 9616.2 provide calculations of anchors at jamb including eccentricity. Provide for both models bearing stress of anchors.

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

9668 Simpson Door Company

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the ASTM E1886/E1996 versions are not adopted. Provide equivalency of standards with presently adopted. Independent FL PE to validate analysis of anchors.

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

9671 Flesher Windows, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval stating the applicant needs to provide analysis of anchors at meeting rails. FL PE to validate anchor analysis.

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

Recommended for Deferral

9385 Kensington Windows Inc

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating ASTM F842-04 is not FBC adopted. DP is exceeded. See Certification. Installation Instructions are not for Model/Number on Application.

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

9571 Lifestyle Exterior Products, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the installation instructions contain rational analysis other than tested units. These drawings need to have the FL PE identified and signed and seal the drawings. Validation of drawings shall be by independent FL PE. Installation drawings contain assemblies not certified. Remove from test report general notes related to use within HVHZ. Test report shall be presented in an orderly way with all pages facing same orientation and removing repeated pages. FL PE to sign and seal the test report.

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

9672 Impact Technologies, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating the installation instructions partially illegible.

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

Recommended for Denial

8827 DKS Steel Door & Frames Systems,Inc

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial stating the applicant is not the manufacturer. Certification does not indicate load rating or missile level. Testing of foam fill has not been provided. Attachment to structure spacing of anchors has not been provided. For the different anchor and substrate analysis validation by a FL PE is required.

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

9120 BEVEL KING DOOR AND GLASS CO. INC.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial stating the certification agency indicated that product is not certified. The application was deferred from August 2007 meeting and did not comply with the conditions of: needs 3 specimen tested per TAS202; report only shows one.

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

Incomplete Applications

Product #’s: 7696-R1; 9376

No Commission action necessary.

Evaluation by Architect or Engineer

Recommended for Approval

Product #’s: 1850-R2; 1899-R2; 4057-R2; 5099-R1; 6480-R1; 6566-R1; 7288-R2; 7989-R2; 8071; 8134; 8200-R2; 8324; 8523-R1; 8695-R1; 8814; 8845-R1; 9093; 9100; 9166; 9255-R1; 9349; 9367; 9372; 9388; 9406; 9431; 9444; 9463; 9465; 9470; 9482; 9484; 9490; 9498; 9516; 9517; 9539; 9540; 9541; 9542; 9543; 9555; 9557; 9561; 9564; 9579; 9601; 9603; 9604; 9607; 9612; 9620; 9622; 9623; 9625; 9627; 9629; 9649; 9650; 9659; 9660.

Jaime Gascon, Miami-Dade County

Mr. Gascon requested 1850-R1, 6561-R1, 7288-R2, and 8200-R2 be pulled from the consent agenda to be considered individually.

Wendell Hainey, Engineer…

Mr. Hainey stated he thought 9575 and 9576 had been moved to conditional approval.

Mr. Blair stated he was correct and those have been to moved to the Conditional Approvals.

Commissioner Kim stated he would be abstaining from the vote for 9564 and 9612.

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

1850-R2 American Shutter Systems Association, Inc.

6566-R1 American Shutter Systems Association, Inc.

7288-R2 American Shutter Systems Association, Inc.

Mr. Gascon stated the reason he had asked this item to be considered by the full Commission is the fact that 1850-R2 is being submitted for product approval under the auspice of an association as it is known in Dade County. He further stated the product is for use specifically in the HVHZ and Dade County feels the action being taken on this particular product was based on discussions of a declaratory statement at the POC. He explained the discussion at the POC under a declaratory statement presented for first hearing basically moves forward or goes toward the allowance of an association to obtain an approval to allow its members to manufacture the product. He continued by stating it is a very vague line which does not necessarily address the situation, in his opinion.

Mr. Gascon then stated the Commission was about to take action on a group of products based on a decision made at the POC regarding a declaratory statement which had not been finalized at that point. He reiterated the matter at hand was the issuing of an approval to an association in this regard, which is contrary to the process that is followed in the HVHZ hurricane zone which requires each manufacturer to have its own product approvals. He then stated if the system was developed to approve products or a list of those products that have been approved it would have this required traceability back to the actual individuals who are manufacturing the product. He then offered the analogy “approving a steel mill to manufacture cars” would be the same thing the Commission would be doing if an association is being approved. He concluded by stating the association has a list of manufacturers of the product who are going to have authority to manufacture the product based on approving the “steel mill”. He asked the Commission to consider these three products as HVHZ approved products which have been submitted for use that this does not move forward.

Mr. Richmond stated the declaratory statement would be coming up for review in future discussions. He stated since each one of these applications has an “R’ attached to it, he assumed they are all revisions of previously approved applications. He then stated for the associational question, were it decided the association could not seek approval, the Commission would have to take an affirmative step to revoke those. He explained revisions do not implicate that question, the initial application did. He requested the Commission not consider the declaratory statement at this point, with the revisions appropriately considered based on the merits of the revisions that are being made. He concluded by stating if the Commission determines the associational approval was not correct, it would have to go back and seek to withdraw those approvals through revocation process.

Mr. Blair asked for clarification if the Commission should go ahead and take action on these products

Mr. Richmond stated the Commission could take action on these three because procedurally these are almost unrelated to the declaratory statement. He explained the declaratory statement would relate to how the initial approval worked.

Chairman Rodriguez asked for further clarification if the Commission decided the associations should not get the approval it would have to revoke these.

Mr. Richmond stated yes they would have to revoke the approvals on which the revisions were based, the initial actions. He explained revisions were really limited in scope to those items seeking to be revised in the application. He stated the association was the initial applicant on each of these so they are not amending it to change it from one of the field fabricators to the association. He stated they were just trying to change the technical terms within the approval they have already gotten. He explained the Commission would not be able to deny this revision on the basis of an issue in the initial application.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if the Commission wanted to revoke them when it would be appropriate to do so.

Mr. Richmond stated it would be appropriate any time the Commission determined grounds to do so. He explained it would have to go through a process of sending an administrative complaint and then they could request formal or informal proceedings.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if the Commission could not revoke them because all that is being considered at this point are the amendments.

Mr. Richmond stated all the Commission could do is vote to proceed with revocation.

Mr. Gascon stated within that revision is the “for use in the HVHZ,” specifically in Miami Dade County. He stated by approving the revision today, the Commission would be diminishing the local provisions for product approval and it would now be issued under the auspice of an association rather than a manufacturer. He then stated should it turn out to be a revocation these products all have the potential to be installed in Miami Dade County and would then need to be removed.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he thought that point was clear. He then asked Mr. Richmond if the Commissioners could vote against the revisions.

Mr. Richmond stated the Commissioners could vote against the revisions but the grounds need to be within the revisions themselves. He then stated to his knowledge the product approval system is the statewide uniform application with no differing standards for the procedural action of approving products. He explained there would certainly be different technical standards for those products needing to meet the HVHZ requirements.

Mr. Gascons stated he wanted to point out a previous approval (#8827) which was read here in the record and got conditional approval or denial, because the applicant was not the manufacturer.

Joe Belcher, representing American Shutter Systems, Association, Inc.

Mr. Belcher stated these products were tested and evaluated using Miami-Dade TAS standards 201, 202 and 203. He further stated the law states this can be done and does not require an applicant to go before Miami-Dade NOA to have a product approved for use in a HVHZ as long as the product is tested by those standards properly. He reiterated those steps were done. He then stated the products were deferred at the previous POC meeting because of this association question issue. He then stated that question was answered adequately at this POC meeting and the POC was satisfied sufficiently to vote to approve the declaratory statement and then approve to take these products off deferral. He added if the Commission actually decides in the future the POC’s recommendation is not the way it wants to go, it would have to go back and review all approved under the association model.

Commissioner Gonzalez stated he was the dissenting vote at the POC meeting and he would be voting against the approval of these products before the Commission. He then stated he did not know if the applicant was willing to accept the conditional approval that these products would not be used in Miami-Dade County for the next 6-8 weeks until the Commission meets again. He added this would be the first hearing for the declaratory statement, not the second or final. He concluded by stating if the applicant would do that, he would support it.

Commissioner Carson stated the issue had been raging for at least the last six meetings and he felt at the POC meeting there was a conclusion on the declaratory statement. He further stated he was not here to determine how the Commission would handle the declaratory statement, but the POC felt fairly well about the issue after all of these meetings. He noted it appeared to comply with the rule and Mr. Richmond had approved it, which was why the decision was made.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the POC recommendation. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Franco stated he had a problem voting for something he did not understand. He asked Mr. Richmond to explain what the Commission was voting for.

Mr. Richmond explained the Commission would be voting on a revision to a previously approved application. He stated there is a process whereby revisions can be submitted at any time to an already approved application. He further stated the association had already gone through the process and received an approval from the Commission. He then stated what the applicant was now seeking was a revision on the approval to add Miami-Dade County in the HVHZ by meeting the standards that apply in that zone, adding the evaluation or test reports if necessary. He reiterated the applicant is basically trying to modify the terms in an approval they have already gotten.

Commissioner Franco asked if it were really just reducing Miami-Dade County criteria.

Mr. Richmond stated it would actually be to allow use in the entire state including Miami-Dade and Broward as opposed to the present approval where they have not demonstrated compliance to the specific standards for Miami-Dade and Broward.

Commissioner Franco asked if this revision states this product was not manufactured by a company and would it be a blanket approval granted to an association.

Mr. Richmond stated that was correct, which is an issue that would be discussed in the upcoming declaratory statement. He reiterated at this point all that is before the Commission is a revision to an approval already given by the Commission.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 16 for and 4 opposed (Gonzalez, Franco, Norkunas and Bassett). Motion passed.

8200-R2 American Shutter Systems Association, Inc.

Mr. Gascon stated if it was not a product for use in HVHZ he would withdraw his request to consider it separately.

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

9564 South Florida Metal Supply, Inc.

Commissioner Kim abstained. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

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

9612 METECNO-MORIN

Commissioner Kim abstained. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

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

9575 and 9576 Entreprises Doco

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval, stating the applicant needs to verify certification of the extrusion. Verify attachments. Verify capacity of anchors.

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

Recommended for Conditional Approval

4097-R2; 4229-R2; 4230-R2 Kalwall Corp.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval, stating the applicant must remove note related to 0.7 pressure reduction indicated on "Other" Limits of use.

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

6380 Eagle Window and Door, Inc

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval, stating the applicant needs to specify material for Part # 17 and include on bill of materials.

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

7651-R2 Custom Hurricane Products Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval, stating the applicant remove spans larger than tested. Storm bars anchors are for permanent installations not for removal after each use. Provide analysis of storm bar connections.

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

8920-R1 Custom Hurricane Products Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval, stating the product was not tested with grommets. Provide testing with grommets.

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

8663 Modern Metal Systems Incorporated

9229 Mid Florida Metal Roofing Supply/Supplies, Inc.

9409 ASI Building Products

9428 NBHandy

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval, stating the applicants need to indicate on evaluation report 2:12 slope for use within HVHZ. The 1.5" Nail Strip perimeter and corner conditions have exposed fasteners. TAS-100 was not tested for the enhanced condition.

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

9254 TRIAD CORRUGATED METALS

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval, stating the applicant needs to indicate on evaluation report 2:12 slope for use within HVHZ. The 1.5" Nail Strip perimeter and corner conditions have exposed fasteners. TAS-100 was not tested for the enhanced condition. The 5-V Crimp perimeter and corner conditions have exposed fasteners. TAS-100 was not tested for the enhanced condition.

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

9436 MarlynMetals, Incorporated

9443 Union Corrugating

9468 SunSky Metal,LLC

9573 Crowther Roofing and Sheet Metal

9580 Metalforming Inc

9586 Comfort Enclosures

9590 Prestige Aluminum

9594 Mullets Aluminum

9619 LYNN METAL COMPANY, INC

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval, stating the applicants need to indicate on evaluation report 2:12 slope for use within HVHZ.

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

9485 Petrat Steel Technology, Inc

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating the 5-V Crimp perimeter and corner conditions have exposed fasteners. TAS-100 was not tested for the enhanced condition.

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

9169 BAKER METAL WORKS & SUPPLY, INC.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating Product 9169.1 referred to Roofing TAC for determination. Conditions are: Remove TAS 125 and HVHZ sections of the FBC from evaluation report. Indicate that product may be installed only with components tested.

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

9323; 9325 United Shutter Systems Association

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating the applicant needs to remove from General Note #4 "or equal" describing polycarbonate brand. Provide evaluation report of anchors by United Storm Shutter Assoc. or remove their use.

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

9390 Builders Hardware Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating the applicant needs to provide testing or certification of fiberglass, foam core and polyfiber.

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

9449 United States Aluminum Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating the applicant needs to show compatibility and adhesion of sealant with glass and glazing material.

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

9450 IVIV Group USA Corp

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating the applicant needs to provide anchor analysis including anchor eccentricity.

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

9507 Graham Architectural Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating the applicant needs to provide anchor analysis including anchor eccentricity. Lock manufacturers are not identified. The note 1, referencing lock item # 13 is missing.

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

9509 Graham Architectural Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating the applicant needs to provide anchor analysis including anchor eccentricity. Max panel size is not identified. Manufacturer of interlayer is not identified for single laminated glass and insulated glazing detail has not been provided. Anchor type, size, edge dist and embedment are not identified.

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

9512 Graham Architectural Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating the applicant needs to provide anchor analysis including anchor eccentricity. Manufacturer of interlayer is not identified for single laminated glass & insulated glass. Glazing details are missing such as glass bite, silicone and air gap. Anchor type, size, edge distance and embedment are not identified.

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

9514 Graham Architectural Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating the applicant needs to provide anchor analysis including anchor eccentricity. Glazing details are missing. Manufacturer of interlayer is not identified. Anchor type, size, edge distance and embedment are not identified.

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

9515 Graham Architectural Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating the applicant needs to provide anchor analysis including anchor eccentricity. Exterior or interior orientation has not been specified. Glazing details are missing. Manufacturer of interlayer is not identified. Confirm that the both the receptor jamb and the single jamb were tested. Anchor type, size, edge dist and embedment are not identified. OC spacing between double row anchors have not been specified. Clarify if Muntin are true muntins or surface applied; see drawings sheet 1 of 4. Thermal breaks are required to comply with chapter 26 since they are exposed.

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

9641; 9643 VEKA Inc.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval,

stating the applicant needs to provide anchor analysis including anchor eccentricity.

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

9605 Guardian Building Products Distribution, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating the applicant needs to remove product 9605.1 that is a repeat and has a file that does not load.

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

9646 IVIV Group USA Corp

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating the applicant needs to verify compliance of anchors with Aluminum Design Manual.

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

9655; 9658; 9666; 9667 Donovan Advanced Hurricane Protection, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval,

stating the applicant needs to indicate on installation plan loads to supporting structures and indicate that their supporting capacity shall be investigated.

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

9656 Miller Glass and Glazing, Inc

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval,

stating the evaluation report needs to indicate maximum span tested laminate and missile level of tests. Show compatibility of structural adhesive with qualified coating finish. Dry glazed EPDM properties or ASTM compliance not provided. Glass bite has not been specified. Glazing A (0.09") & B (0.060") are not identified to distinguished for LMI or SMI. Verify that the head receptor was tested at the 1/2" separation called out in section 1/2 of drawings.

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

Recommended for Deferral

9024 Agriboard Industries

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval (deferral ???)

stating the applicant should upload completed test with attachments test be included and the test is to be reviewed for completeness by the administrator.

Missing question?

Mr. Blair stated that was correct. He explained 9024 was deferred to the Structural TAC for further review, consideration and for a recommendation from the Structural TAC.

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

9379 Palisades Atlantic Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral, stating there are no details for edge conditions. There are no anchors details for corner conditions. Used rational analysis when there are code required testing standards.

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

Recommended for Denial

8842 ATAS International, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial, stating the metal panels were not tested in accordance with Sect. 1504.3.2 FBC as required by the 2004 FBC.

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

8884 Platinum Advanced Technologies, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial, stating this was a conditional approval from August 2007 meeting. The applicant did not comply with: The Installation Instructions do not indicate the attachment to the structure. Drawings should also be made legible. Was a Conditional Approval from June 2007 with conditions of: Indicate "No" for use within HVHZ unless the plastic materials are tested in accordance with HVHZ requirements. Installation instructions do not load. ASTM E72 is not an adopted testing standard. Change to Evaluation Report by FL PE.

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

9175 Westshore Glass Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial, stating this was deferred from August 2007 meeting. The applicant did not consent or revise the conditions of deferral: Missing hardcopy of evaluation report signed and sealed by evaluator. There is no specification of materials (frame, glass, gaskets, anchors, etc.). Attachment of product to structure is not detailed. Details of glazing are missing (Bite, D.L.O.).

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

9574 Leslie Industries

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for denial, stating the certificate of Independence has to be signed by evaluator. There is no evidence of testing for ASTM E330. One third increase in allowable stresses is not allowed for metal decks. Metal panels need to be tested in accordance with UL 580 or ASTM E1592; TAS125, TAS100 and exposure requirements for HVHZ.

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

Incomplete Applications

7696-R1 Kane Manufacturing Corporation

9611 Vi Win Tech

9613 Vi Win Tech

9654 Vi Win Tech

No Commission action necessary.

Evaluation by Test Report

Recommended for Approval

Product #’s: 8789; 8799; 8806; 9277; 9434; 9435; 9500; 9635; 9637; 9639.

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

Recommended for Conditional Approval

9195 Hanson Roof Tile

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval, stating the applicant needs to remove note on Limits of Use Other: "(B) Roof tiles may be used in both high velocity hurricane zones (HVHZ) and in non high velocity hurricane zones." Product has not been tested to all HVHZ requirements.

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

9487 Tarco Specialty Products

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval, stating the applicant needs to indicate "No" for HVHZ. Indicate allowable pressure as tested with 2:1 factor of safety. Indicate components only as tested.

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

9522; 9523; 9535; 9558; 9582 YKK AP America

Mr. Blair stated these products were recommended for conditional approval, stating the applicant needs to provide anchor analysis including anchor eccentricity.

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

Incomplete Applications

8442-R1 JHRG LLC

9203 Donovan Advanced Hurricane Protection, Inc.

9273 Donovan Advanced Hurricane Protection, Inc.

9621 W.P. Hickman Systems, Inc.

No Commission action necessary.

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

DECLARATORY STATEMENTS:

Binding Interpretations:

Mr. Richmond stated there have been no actions on binding interpretations since the last Commission meeting.

Declaratory Statements:

Second Hearings:

DCA07-DEC-115 by Kelly Carman, PE, Leo A Daly

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

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the previous action. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Bassett stated it was his understanding that declaratory statements apply to a specific project and the results apply to the two entities involved in the declaratory statement. He stated in this declaratory statement it seems very general indicating Jacksonville, Florida. He further stated in the back where the results are sent to the person who applied, but in this one the results are listed as being sent to Mo Madani and not sending it to the jurisdiction that is affected.

Mr. Richmond explained declaratory statements apply only to the person asking the questions and they also serve as precedents statewide. He stated before there was only a question and an answer and the only people copies were sent to were the involved parties. He further stated if the regulating party has not made staff aware they would like to participate an automatic copy would not be sent to them.

Commissioner Bassett stated that was one of the reasons he asked. He explained he thought the petitioner was supposed to make this statement of who it applies to in his request. He further stated some would be received that are just a general question and do not apply to anyone.

Mr. Richmond stated if questions are overly general they should be dismissed. He further stated particular facts and circumstances are to be included for each one with enough information to allow an answer of the question.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA07-DEC-116 by Jeffrey K. Hulsberg, PE Hulsberg Engineering, 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.

Mr. Richmond stated one change was made for legal purposes. He explained in the second question the petitioner asked whether exposure category D applied only to the first building on the shoreline next to the water as described within the petition and within this order the petitioner was not proposing a home immediately adjacent to the water, therefore the question cannot be answered because it is not within the scope of facts and circumstances presented by the petitioner.

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

DCA07-DEC-141 by John Leedy, PE, Leedy Elecetric Corp.

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

Commissioner Bassett stated this one seems to be one that would require a binding interpretation not a declaratory statement because no project was identified. He asked what decides if a declaratory statement or a binding interpretation is appropriate.

Mr. Richmond explained binding interpretations are appropriate when someone seeks to overturn a building official’s decision and declaratory statements are applied to govern the prospect of the future activities of the petitioner.

Commissioner Bassett asked if they do not have to list a specific project. He stated he knows of declaratory statements that were dismissed in the past for not proposing a specific project.

Mr. Richmond stated that has always been one of the criteria, but it is not the one determinant of criteria. He explained specific facts and circumstances are needed from which to enter a valid interpretation of the Building Code. He added it was a case by case determination.

Commissioner Bassett asked what the case was. He stated it seemed to him the Commission would be doing an interpretation.

Mr. Richmond stated, as cited in the petition and the order, the proposed project is valued at $35,000 and involves service size of 600amps at 180volts. He continued by stating if any facts are not there that would be needed to answer the question it would be valid to dismiss it. He then stated staff and the TAC felt there was a sufficient amount of facts in which to apply the law and come up with a determination.

Commissioner Carson stated he noticed Florida was misspelled at the top of the page and it is was also misspelled on the next declaratory statement.

Commissioner Kidwell stated there was also a misspelling of the word declaratory.

Mr. Richmond stated the declaratory statements were prepared by externs from his office who were unable to travel to this meeting. He then stated he would typically ask for the right to make editorial changes.

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

DCA07-DEC-145 by Jody L. Barrows, JLB Drafting

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

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

DCA07-DEC-146 by Jody L. Barrows, JLB Drafting

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

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

First Hearings:

DCA07-DEC-085 by Walter A Tillit, Jr. PE, TilTeco Inc

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

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

DCA07-DEC-135 by Emil Veksenfeld, PE

Mr. Richmond stated the petitioner failed to provide additional information and the petition was subject to dismissal.

DCA07-DEC-150 by Jose Saumell, Principal, MSA Architects, Inc.

Mr. Richmond stated the petition has been deferred to the local board of rules and appeals.

DCA07-DEC-159 by William G. Graney, Jr., PE, KTD Consulting Engineers

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

DCA07-DEC-163 by Wilton Lee, President, Lee Electrical Technolgies, Inc.

Mr. Richmond stated the petition was deferred for a binding interpretation by the appellant mechanism.

DCA07-DEC-164 by Paul L. Osley, PE, Chastain-Skillman, Inc.

Mr. Richmond stated this petition pertains to the 2007 Building Code which has not been published yet.

DCA07-DEC-171 by Arlene Z. Stewart, Icynene

Mr. Richmond stated the petition had been withdrawn.

DCA07-DEC-172 by Robert Cochell, Gulf Coast Air Systems, 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 Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

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

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

Robert S. Fine, Esquire, representing the City of Hollywood, Florida

Mr. Fine stated he would be representing the city of Hollywood relative to this declaratory statement. He further stated with him were Cameron Benson, Hollywood’s city manager, Gil Martinez, director of Hollywood CRA, Alan Fallick, acting city attorney, Bernard Zyscovich, project architect, and Christy Brush, coastal consultant. He then stated the petition was considered by staff which issued a report with which the city is mostly in agreement, but it was in disagreement with the Structural TAC’s recommendation. He continued by stating Section 3109 of the Florida Building Code prohibits space which is located below the lowest structural member and above the flood elevation level and is fully enclosed in accordance with the provisions of 3109. He stated the question presented was whether they are allowed or permitted to have commercial uses. He further stated it was helpful to re-characterize the question into the following three questions: 1) Are occupancy types that do not fall within the definition of habitable structure in Section 3109 allowed in the space below the lowest horizontal structural member? 2) Are the uses that have historically been considered as not being within the definition of habitable structure by the DEP also not habitable structure under the Florida Building Code? 3) are the regulations and standards in Section 3109, which contain the exact same language that has been in the Florida Statutes in Chapter 161 and the Florida Administrative Code in 62B-33, language that is the exact same language which is now 3109 of the Florida Building Code and placed in the Building Code 2002; is it subject to numerous existing and consistent interpretations of DEP in regard to these questions and their answers? He stated if they are then the answer to the declaratory statement runs counter to the conclusions that were formed by the TAC at the TAC meeting. He stated again the provisions being discussed are in 3109 of the Building Code but they still exist in Chapter 161 in Florida Statutes and in 62B-33 of the Florida Administrative Code.

Bernard Zyscovich, Project Architect

Mr. Zyscovich stated he was the project architect and mostly the master planner in the city of Hollywood. He describer the project as a mixture of private and public. He explained the land is owned by the City of Hollywood and the developer would like to build a hotel on the property. He stated everything was in place to move forward in terms of design and approvals from the city. He then stated the question proposed in the declaratory statement specifically relates to the area seaward of the coastal line and the uses the petitioner wishes to have below the lowest structural member within a building that would entirely comply with the best of the petitioners’ knowledge to 3109. He further stated the petitioner has met with staff related specifically to the uses of the space, because the actual structural and other Building Code issues are in their best belief would be met. He concluded by stating the issue is the petitioner wishes to have uses there which are consistent with 2 miles of existing Hollywood Beach uses, specifically on the broadwalk, which is a pedestrian way. He explained the pedestrian broadwalk is historic and there are two miles of restaurants, cafes, shops, etc which are right along the edge of the water, seaward of the coastal line which were approved in the past. He explained the gap between these other businesses is the site for the project and the petitioner would also like to have the uses they have requested, which would comply with the existing Building Code issues in effect and also with Chapter 3109.

Mr. Fine stated before the petition was filed there were meetings with staff, as well as with representatives of DEP, with the petitioner and their consultants in Tallahassee as to the coastal requirements. He stated the staff report recounts the results of those meetings with Gene Chalecki of DEP. He stated Christy Brush was also at those meetings and she would recount conclusions of those meetings.

Christy Brush, Coastal Consultant

Ms. Brush stated she had been working with the DEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems for the past nine years, when it had sole jurisdiction over the language now in 3109 implementing the structural criteria and addressing habitable structures and uses. She stated she had been working with DEP and the local building officials since the implementation of the Florida Building Code to also secure permits for projects and to address issues of this nature. She then stated prior to the implementation of the Florida Building Code she worked with the DEP Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems on well over 100 projects that were similar in nature to the project being discussed before the Commission. She explained there is a habitable structure, the hotel, which has both habitable uses and non-habitable uses.

Ms. Brush continued by stating many of the projects that were permitted previously with the DEP contained uses on lobby and on other levels below the 100 year storm elevation and below the lowest horizontal structure member which would include such things as retail and concession areas, gyms and other recreational spaces, restrooms, cabanas, bars, lounges and other seating areas. She further stated those were the types of uses in floors that were previously allowed by the state. She reiterated the language was exactly transferred over from chapter 161 of the Florida Statutes and 62B-33 of the Florida Administrative Code to Section 3109 of the Building Code. She then stated when DCA staff met with them and the DEP representative at the end of August, the DEP confirmed her experience for those many years during which DEP would authorize those projects with uses as she mentioned and they did not have concerns. She stated given the question in the original petitions with the uses that were being proposed and the statement was made by the DEP in that meeting basically indicated they would not object to this plan were it still imposed under its jurisdiction. She then stated in previous discussions she has personally met with DEP, they had relayed to her there was really no intent on their part, since they were the ones who actually drafted this section of the Code or transferred it over to the Building Code, to change any practical applications of that section of the Code. She continued by stating they had received, on a few projects that have been processed both through DEP for their environmental coastal construction permit as well as the local building officials, advisory comments that certain habitable spaces are sited correctly above and other non-habitable uses being accepted below the 100 year storm elevation.

Mr. Fine stated they were at this meeting because the building official wanted to make sure he was doing the right thing. He explained he was new in the city and it is a complex project. He added prior to 2002 building officials did not really deal with coastal issues under DEP jurisdiction and this was one of those things that got moved over to the Building Commission and Code. He stated the project was designed in accordance with what has been historically approved by the State under the exact same regulatory language that was before the Commission in section 3109 and based on the meetings with DEP and DCA staff. He further stated historically the DEP has considered everything below lowest horizontal structural member as expendable, which means if a storm came in and a big wave rolls it away, it would not be a risk to life safety and the habitable. He stated how it is defined in 3109 is tantamount to a tent, and allow the types of use of structures one might have under a tent at the beach such as light retail such as sundries, t-shirts, restaurant seating areas, but not main restaurant or the cooking areas, as those areas have to be above the lowest horizontal structural member. He added the structures below were built with breakaway walls that would resist wind, but would break away if big waves were to come in and this would allow water to pass under the buildings and not cause excessive damage to the coastline. He stated essentially the project seeks to have breakaway walls. He continued by stating this was consistent with how these other projects have been approved up until now. He reiterated while they respect the decision of the Structural TAC, they disagree with it.

Mr. Fine further stated in essence the TAC’s decision changes the requirements now in the Code from the way it has been historically and consistently interpreted up until this point. He then stated the purpose of a declaratory statement is to make a statement of what the interpretation is of the current Code, not to change the Code or what the ongoing interpretations are. He continued by stating the Commission, now that the provisions have been put into the Code, has the ability to make such changes when they deem it appropriate, but those changes need to be a part of the Code amendment process and not part of the declaratory statement process. He concluded by respectfully requesting the Commission issue a declaratory statement holding that light retail, restaurant seating areas and other similar uses that have been consistently interpreted by DEP to be allowed to exist below the lowest horizontal structural member to continue to be allowed until such time as the Commission amends the coastal provision if it ever sees fit to do so, which at this point has not happened.

Mr. Richmond stated he was not in attendance at the TAC meeting and apologized for that. He further stated this puts a different perspective than staff approached the meeting with. He explained staff had also met with DEP prior to the meeting and there was additional discussion after the TAC meeting to potentially withdraw this. He stated a legitimate point has been made. He explained there is a certain amount of reliance that individuals are allowed to place on interpretations of a Rule. He then stated this particular one is different because of DEP interpreting their formal rule and the Commission has not interpreted this rule since the Code took effect. He stated he was uncertain how DEP’s rulings might bind the Commission. He further stated he was not in the position to advise the Commission at this point as he was not sure of what those interpretations were. He concluded by stating to the extent the Commission would want to move the TAC recommendation, he would ask the opportunity to at least research that issue and defer resolution of this first reading until the next meeting so he could at least advise the Commission the inherent risks are with that action.

Commissioner Gross stated 3109.2, which had not been mentioned, defines habitable as residences, hotels and restaurants, but there was no definition of non-habitable. He asked if it was safe to assume non-habitable means everything else.

Mr. Richmond stated that would be a valid interpretation, when one is there certain others are rationally inferred from that one.

Commissioner D’Andrea stated after reviewing this issue, in his mind there was a simple answer to the question. He then stated the definition of habitable structure basically, in his mind, says two things, 1) a structure primarily designed for human occupancy and 2) and are potential locations for shelter from storms. He stated the important part for him is determining if this area is going to be used as a potential location for shelter from storms. He stated he believed the reason this was part of the definition is because they want this habitable structure to be raised efficiently so the areas where the humans are occupying it is above any dangerous areas, which is why they are requiring bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member which is similar to the velocity zones in the FEMA requirements. He continued by stating it appeared to him the declaratory statement should state the lowest member should be set at or above the elevation. He stated he did not believe they could say “all occupancy classifications except s and u shall be prohibited” because it does not really speak to that, only to the fact that the space cannot be used as an area that will keep people safe from a potential storm. He stated he would have an inclination to vote for the approval of the declaratory statement as long as it was clearly stated that this area is not to be used as a potential location for shelter from storms because he does not see where otherwise where it meets the definition of habitable structure.

Mr. Madani stated the staffs original recommendation after working with DEP could be placed on the screen, if the Commission would like to view it.

Commissioner Bassett stated in case someone does a public records search he wanted to declare he was involved in the design team that won the possibility to build the facility, but he had not been involved with the project in over one and a half years since he changed employers.

Commissioner Kim stated the Structural TAC discussed this declaratory statement for slightly more than one hour at the meeting. He further stated on the technical issues it was very clear cut. He then stated the motion was by Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association, and the last sentence was added because one of the Structural TAC members insisted it give some kind of direction on occupancy. He continued by stating the original motion did not have the last sentence and he would not have a problem eliminating the last section. He added a general scoping comment stating if this was not a commercial building or hotel and it was a residential building, would the Commission allow a potential home owner to say they were going to use that space as potential retail space or in the living room, they were not going to live there? He concluded by stating the members of the Structural TAC know the intent of the technical department was very clear cut.

Commissioner Franco stated regarding the space below the elevation of the lowest structure it was his understanding that it was to allow for those spaces to be made with breakaway walls which would collapse at certain velocity. He asked if the engineers and architects would be able to prove it would comply with the wind velocity required for those spaces while at the same time those same walls would be able to collapse during a flood.

Mr. Fine stated the Code actually requires the walls to withstand the wind loads, but there is a different impact because there is mass not just the air when water hits the wall. He explained the calculations which are submitted to the building department would require proof that wind load requirements were met in the Building Code yet when the water of a certain caliber of storm hit those same walls would collapse and wash away. He stated relative to the TAC’s proposed answer on the issue of the elevation of the lowest structural horizontal member the petitioner has no objection. He restated their concern was with what the uses are or the occupancies under that. He also restated for many years up until today the DEP and the local building officials have allowed the uses proposed by the petitioner, therefore the request is not for something which has not been done. He stated what the TAC has done by limiting the use to the s and u categories is a substantive change since the building was designed in accordance with those done before and the meetings with the agencies. He again stated if the Commission deems it necessary to make a change it should do so in the Code amendment process. He stated people were not going to be hanging out in those spaces during a storm because there cannot be a protective environment if the walls were designed to wash away in this environment. He repeated the request of the petitioner was to issue a declaratory statement for the way things have been done in the past for those limited uses.

Commissioner Kidwell stated he agreed with Commissioner Kim regarding the last sentence relating to the types of uses added at the last minute and he would also not object to its removal. He stated in general though he had been working in the industry for a long time and has been involved with coastal structures for fourteen years. He further stated the definitions being given by counsel and others were totally opposite of what he was familiar within the coastal communities in the state of Florida over the last fourteen years. He continued by stating even if it were a residential building, sliding glass doors are not even permitted in those lower areas. He explained they do not want the potential of occupying areas below where there are breakaway walls, which sometimes are masonry walls. He stated it was based on a pressure. He stated he could explain for hours what was wrong with the argument. He further stated he would not vote to approve the declaratory statement. He continued by stating it would be utter stupidity to create an area where people would go even in a small no-name storm. He noted breakaway walls had fallen within a 15-30 minute period in Pinellas County in a no-name storm, which had wind velocities of 70mph. He stated he would not want people communing in a restaurant area or looking in shops when a storm outside brings a wind gust velocity off the ocean which could knock down one of those breakaway walls and crush someone. He concluded by stating this was a danger to health and human habitation and he would not support it.

Commissioner Greiner asked if the Structural TAC had the benefit of the testimony given.

Commissioner Kim stated the TAC had heard the arguments from both sides as it was discussed for over an hour.

Commissioner Greiner asked if Commissioner Kim had an objection with staff’s recommendation.

Commissioner Kim stated the Structural TAC felt the staff’s recommendation was inadequate and it was not what the committee wanted to support.

Commissioner Browdy stated he was more concerned with the jurisdictional issue regarding this particular request than the technical issue relating to the structure. He further stated the Commission had not been engaged over the years with issues relating to occupancies as it had been more geared to technical issues relating to structures.

Commissioner Browdy entered a motion to table the declaratory statement until counsel ~~has~~ had time to speak with members of DEP, the FDEP and other issues relating to the jurisdictional part of this to allow counsel time to make a full and complete recommendation to the Commission. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Kidwell stated the jurisdictional issue came up frequently during the TAC’s discussion and there was a question to that. He stated he believed DEP has jurisdictional control over this and the answer that was changed dealt specifically with 3109 and was basically a repeated statement of what 3109 stated. He further stated he was in agreement with motion to table the declaratory statement.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA07-DEC-180 by Michael Gong, PhD, TW Buildex.

Mr. Richmond stated the petition was deferred for further information.

DCA07-DEC-181 by Joseph D. Belcher, JDB Code Services

Mr. Richmond asked for clarification if Mr. Belcher submitted the petition on behalf of the International Hurricane Protection Association.

Mr. Belcher stated that was correct.

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.

Jaime Gascon, Miami Dade County

Mr. Gascon stated he wanted to bring to light the precedence this would set on the manner in which product approval is handled in the state of Florida. He continued by stating it had been granted for non-HVHZ and he has always been an advocate for protecting the HVHZ primarily. He further stated this declaratory statement would open the doors for dozens of existing associations that are out there in this same category of product and in others to simply come to the state and obtain their proprietary system approval and allow all of their fabricators, who are basically their list of customers, to fabricate or manufacture the product which would be contrary to how associations were set up in the HVHZ. He then stated Miami-Dade does approve associations to operate within the scope that each fabricator would be identified along the lines to each obtain their approval whether it be NOA or state approval. He continued stating each fabricator would be designated to label the product with their name, to have traceable quality assurance to that manufacturing location and not to an association which exists in some cases just on paper because both the entity of the association and the entity that would be distributing materials are running out of the same office. He then stated the associations that have come before the Commission have been within that group, legitimate and above standard in the quality of what they do. He further stated he fears this will allow the substandard entities to come in and benefit from the action the Commission would be taking on this declaratory statement and the system would be degraded with no traceability. He stated he tried to make the argument before the POC that a document being submitted for permit, the building official is not going to have before him the information to identify who made the product. He continued by stating BCIS will say it is the association who holds the approval but he would not have information before him that the entity who is potentially building the product is in fact going to be approved. He stated if the declaratory statement ties or includes a list, as has been discussed in many previous meetings, of the manufacturers who are actually going to make the product and it can be verified by the administrator that they are on a quality assurance program it would be a step forward, but that is not what this language is going to require. He offered a suggestion for the questions that have been asked that the following answer be provided “yes, provided the association is the manufacturer of the product being issued approval under Rule 9B-72, which by the previous definition they would be the manufacturer, and that the association provides an assembled or a knock down version of a manufactured product to its fabricators or installers. He concluded by stating if in fact that association entity applicant that is submitting their application to the BCIS in fact manufactures the product there should be no reason to object to issuing them an approval.

Siegrfried Valentin, AAMA

Mr. Valentin stated he wanted to offer full support the position of Miami-Dade County.

Chuck Anderson, AAMA

Mr. Anderson stated Mr. Gascons made all the right points. He added another thing to consider is it is not that burdensome for the individual fabricators to have to obtain their own application. He explained there is not a lot asked of them other than filling out an application and sending in a $300.00 fee. He continued by stating if Mr. Gascons’ suggestions were followed, the way the program would work is the applicants would still be allowed to utilize community testing, which would be the expensive part, having to get a QC entity to come in and make sure they were building it as it was tested, which is a key point. He concluded by urging the Commission to follow the suggestions from Miami Dade County.

Joseph D. Belcher, JDB Code Services, representing IHPA

Mr. Belcher stated IHPA recommends the Commission follow the recommendation of the POC. He then stated some of the things being suggested to the Commission as alternates in IHPA’s opinion are contradictory to what the Rule would allow.

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

Commissioner Gonzalez stated he would not be supporting the motion. He stated he did not believe the Rule addressed associations, which is the reason for the predicament. He stated if the Commission wants to follow some sort of pattern or procedure we should use the system which has already been established and is working very well in south Florida.

Commissioner Franco stated it seemed to him the Commission was being asked to approve the use of a product that is supposed to protect us from hurricanes and there is no particular need for the manufacturer to get an approval because it is being done under some sort of an agreement that the Commission is going to approve associations’ specifications. He stated he could not support an association being given a blanket approval without a specific part of it being approved by each one of the manufacturers that belong to that association which is what will protect the public.

Mr. Richmond stated he could see all interested parties are tied to the association label and the association label approval. He stated an association is just a corporation like any other corporation which is a business entity who has put together an application that requires quality assurance by a Commission approved quality assurance agency throughout the entire scope of the application as submitted from start to finish. He then stated in that sense it was no different than any other product application the Commission receives. He continued by stating if the argument could move away from how the Commission differentiates as he raised at the POC, it never approved the people working on the floor assembling these products, it approves the companies who own the facilities, which in many cases they may or may not own it, the facilities are not approved. He stated if the Commission wanted to define the product approval system as it does the manufactured building system where the actual facilities are where the process takes place are subject to approval and review it, could do that, but it hasn’t.

Commissioner Franco stated it appears like as long as one company goes out and obtains product approval for that particular manufacturing process any other company can go out and manufacture the product to the specifications of the first company has obtained without it being tested and it would be approved because there was already a corporation who has that product approval. He asked if that was the intent of the declaratory statement.

Mr. Richmond stated if the products are produced under the quality assurance by the Commission approved quality assurance entity identified on the application it would be permitted under the Rule.

Commissioner Franco asked if this meant if he had some type of corporation, say PGT, and he showed up with the NOA and stated his window does this it would be approved.

Mr. Richmond stated if the entity is manufacturing windows in accordance with that document yes. He then stated the corporation would be subject to action by PGT, but that would not be product approval. He reiterated the focus of the Commission was whether the products being installed in buildings comply with the Code.

Commissioner Carson stated this issue was brought about by a letter and had been in discussion for the six months. He further stated it all boils down to QA and who is and who is not responsible and what the traceability is. He then stated the POC came to a conclusion and with respect to his fellow commissioner, who was the only descending vote against the recommendation, he stated would be supporting the motion.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 17 for and 4 opposed (Gonzalez, Sanidas, Franco, Bassett). Motion carried.

CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Accessibility TAC

Commissioner Gross presented the report of the Accessibility TAC. (See Accessibility TAC Minutes October 2, 2007).

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

Energy TAC

Commissioner Greiner presented the report of the Energy TAC. (See Energy TAC Minutes October 2, 2007)

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

Fire TAC

Commissioner D’Andrea presented the report of the Energy TAC. (See Fire TAC Minutes October 2, 2007)

Commissioner Gonzalez moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Carson 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 Minutes October 2, 2007)

Commissioner D’Andrea moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Sanidas 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 October 1, 2007)

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

Education POC

Chairman Browdy presented the report of the Education POC. (See Education POC Meeting Minutes October 1, 2007)

Commission actions required:

1) The accreditor application of Michael Rinaldi. The POC recommended the application be deferred for more information.

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

2) The following course is recommended for approval by the POC:

Advanced 2004 Accessibility with Fair Housing Guidelines, BCIS 252.0 and the provider is JC Code and Construction Consultants, Inc.

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

3) The following courses were administratively updated and were on the consent agenda and updated with the 2006 Code Supplement:

2004 Florida Building Commission Building Structural Summary, 133.1

2004 Florida Building Code, Advanced Building 160.1

Online Advanced Building Structural Summary 250.0

Advanced Accessibility Code for Building Construction 249.0

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

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

Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC

Commissioner Carson presented the report of the Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC. (See Product Approval/Prototype Buildings/Manufactured Buildings POC Meeting Minutes October 2, 2007)

Commission actions required:

1) The POC requests and recommends the Commission authorize DCA to

pursue selling the copyright for BCIS website screens developed by Information Systems of Florida to other states to include the Manufactured Building Program Module and the Product Approval Module.

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

2) The POC requests and recommends the Commission authorize staff to send a letter to product manufacturers notifying them that they are required to keep their products’ certificates updated and must ensure all are updated by December 31, 2007.

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

3) The POC has a recommendation which would be taken up at the rule adoption hearing with respect to the schedule of penalties discussed previously

Mr. Blair stated that would be entered into public comment when we get to the rule adoption.

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

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

HURRICANE RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION AND DECISION ON COASTAL CODE PLUS PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Chairman Rodriguez stated there was a meeting of the Hurricane Research Advisory Committee on September 30, 2007. He stated Mr. Dixon would report on that meeting. He stated the Commission would then discuss and come to a decision on Coastal Code plus Performance Criteria. He stated as directed by the Legislature during the January 2007 special session, the Commission voted unanimously in February 2007 to fund research for developing insurance qualifying criteria for buildings built within 2,500 feet of the coast after 2009. He stressed this was not a Code change, but a request from the Legislature that the Commission provide its advice and counsel, which is very important in this case because it is qualifying criteria for buildings for insurance. He stated this is public money insuring these very high risk 2,500 feet off the coast buildings. He further stated ARA and UF, the Commissions contractor, has been directed to do this research and once the Commission hears what the recommendations were the Commission may consider increasing the performance criteria that has been put forth as it may warrant a higher standard.

Mr. Dixon stated the Hurricane Research Advisory Committee met September 30, 2007 to consider a report from ARA regarding a preliminary work in support of setting the code plus criteria. He stated the reason for the meeting was to identify storm characteristics for the contractor to use in determining recommendations for wind pressure criteria, wind speed criteria or windborne debris criteria. He stated this was only for new buildings, built after 2009 for buildings and built within 2,500 feet of the coast, which for most of the state it would mean high rise buildings, mid rise buildings and not necessarily single family residential buildings. He continued by stating the criteria the committee settled on was a storm that would be expected to occur every 250 years. He stated the researcher also developed information on a 500 year storm, a stronger storm which happens less frequently. He referenced a chart which showed the impact on the pressures based on the wind speeds relative to each one of those performance criteria. He then stated the committee settled on a recommendation that would use a 250 year storm event and Exposure C throughout the 2,500 foot zone except within 600 feet of the coast, which would increase the roof components pressure by 20%. He noted there had been concern regarding the need for simplicity and clarity in the recommendation so when it is used by the insurance company, making the determination of whether or not the criteria had been met, it would be less complicated. He further stated there had been some discussion on using a single exposure class criteria and avoiding the complication based on distance from the ocean as a subpart of the 2,500 foot zone. He stated there was also discussion on what the real impact of this would be. He referenced the same chart and noted the 250 year return period roughly item #4 was a combination of C and D so the overall impact would be around 7% combined with 21% somewhere the estimate was a 7-10% increase in design pressure requirements for those buildings within the 2,500 foot zone of the coast.

Chairman Rodriguez asked if there were any clarifying questions for Mr. Dixon.

Commissioner Greiner stated he had attended the committee meeting, sitting in for Commissioner D’Andrea. He stated he wanted to make it clear his comments were his own and not Commissioner D’Andrea’s. He then stated going through the process his major concern was what the Commission is trying to provide for the Legislature is for insurance purposes and has nothing to do with the Building Code. He further stated the Commissioners have to get out of the Building Code frame of mind and ask what is it trying to accomplish with respect to insurance companies and how those companies will deal with these types of structures that will be built within 2,500 feet of the coast. He continued by stating after looking at all the design pressure information the committee came up with a figure of only a 7% statewide increase for someone who is going to build something of that nature in an incredibly susceptible and vulnerable area and then the public will insure it. He continued by stating if the Commission will be providing the Legislature with some information which will put the insurance companies in the position of insuring something of that nature it should be looking at 500 year storms. He explained when looking at maps that determine potential risks from a 500 year storm, Florida is almost one color from the number of lines through it, which means is would not be a matter of “if” but “when” Florida will be hit.

Commissioner Griener moved approval of using line #6, which is the 500 year storm “C” with no reduction and an 18% average increase. Commissioner D’Andrea entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Browdy stated he understood the issue relating to the not a request to not specific change of the Building Code but a request from the Legislature to give advice to the insurance industry and the Florida Building Commission is being used, even by reference, as a technical expert in this particular field. He further stated they would be relying on the information generated by the Commission. He continued by stating not withstanding the results it was a very qualified group the chair put together on the committee including Dr. Tim Reinhold, Commissioner Kim, Craig Parrino, and Dave Olmstead. He stated it was a very eclectic group of people who came up with the recommendation to use the 250 year criteria as opposed to the 500 year criteria. He further stated, as he understood from technical advisories from Florida Homebuilders the recommendation only achieved a 7% increase was because there was a compromise in the exposures between “B” and “C” when you move back from 1,500 feet to 2,500 feet. He stated there was also a credit being taken because in the initial criteria Franklin County was 32% less and Duvall County was 18% less. He continued by stating all of those factors were taken into consideration when the committee developed the recommendations. He then stated more important to him than the technical issues is the Commission has always been on record as having a process. He reminded the Commission of his question to the Secretary regarding what happens when Legislative mandates violate those processes. He asked does the Commission compromise its processes to meet a time deadline. He added the Secretary basically had no response. He stated in this case he was more interested in the process. He further stated although he respects the individuals on the committee and Commissioner Greiner’s recommendation he would urge the Commission to send this back to the committee to allow the committee to revisit its recommendation. He stated if the Commission chose to vote it would be voting on something almost 100% different than the committee’s recommendation. He reiterated he was not speaking against Commissioner Greiner’s recommendation as much as he was asking it be deferred for further consideration until the group can revisit it.

Commissioner D’Andrea stated he shared Commissioner Greiner’s comments and concerns. He further stated he believed the Commission should review this. He continued by stating he thought the committee did a good job and he understood its recommendation, but he does support Commissioner Greiner’s motion because he feels the same way, without going back and reiterating his comments. He did restate he would want to see #6 as the way to go.

Commissioner Bassett stated he was not quite sure of what the Legislature has asked the Commission to do other than recommend something to the Legislature. He asked if it meant if the buildings were not designed to these criteria will they not be insured.

Chairman Rodriguez explained this applies to buildings built after 2009 which means at least there may be someone who would insure them, but most likely not Citizens. He stated the Commission was assigned the task of giving the Legislature a recommendation and it will. He then stated if the Commission decides to send it back to the committee it was acceptable, or if it preferred to vote for the TAC’s recommendation it was also acceptable. He reiterated the point that the buildings would be in a high risk, very vulnerable area. He explained recently Citizens has been allowed to write commercial insurance policies, as well as residential. He further stated the Commission’s recommendation, if passed by the Legislature, will result in Citizens assuming a large part of that market. He then stated maybe the more stringent it is; maybe the more opportunity there would be for the private sector to compete for that market. He added if it were made not so tough maybe it would only be Citizens.

Commissioner Bassett stated he was still not quite clear on the task.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission is to recommend what the qualifying criteria should be for insuring buildings built after 2009 that are 2,500 feet from the coast.

Commissioner Bassett stated his concern was if a standard was being set that might cause someone to not have insurance why not just change the Code up to that.

Chairman Rodriquez stated the Commission is not at that point. He explained it could go to that point later, but at this point the Commission has been asked by the Legislature to recommend qualifying criteria.

Commissioner Bassett stated he was not comfortable recommending something to the Legislature not to einsure someone.

Mr. Dixon offered clarification stating where to go for insurance, whether it is Citizens or someone else is voluntary. He stated this criteria is for the public funded insurance company, Citizens. He stated private insurance companies can charge whatever rate they want and adhere to whatever criteria they select, but not less than the Florida Building Code. He stated when the Legislature expanded the property insurance, it essentially expanded the risks the public assumes by guaranteeing payment, with the revenues of the state. He continued by stating it went beyond surcharges on auto insurance and homeowner insurance or whatever other insurance that can be bought in the state of Florida, if Citizens should run short of cash. He added no one knows exactly what it means at this point as it has not been defined, but it says the taxpayers of Florida are on the hook He then stated the legislators realized the risks they had put taxpayers in and it asked what they could do to mitigate that risk. He stated one consideration was those people living in the highest risk areas of the state need to be building to a substantially higher standard than the minimum building code so the risks taken on by the public through Citizens insurance would be reduced. He explained the assignment of the Legislature was to develop code plus criteria which would be used by Citizens for insurance qualifying criteria. He reiterated this is not the Building Code.

Commissioner Sanidas stated a couple of years ago some of the commissioners were approached about making the criteria less restrictive on some structures. He further stated the agreement they came to was to make the criteria more restrictive and it would lower some of the insurance rates. He then stated if an individual builds on the coast the necessary criteria will have to be met, but he did not believe the Code needed to be changed for that purpose.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Code would not be changed.

Commissioner Sanidas then stated this would be the first step toward changing it.

Commissioner Kidwell stated he agreed with Commissioner Greiner’s motion and would support it. He stated as an engineer looking at 7% on the average increases is really insignificant. He explained he designs coastal houses on a daily basis and the small increase is applied anyway just in case. He stated he was familiar with the fortified program by the Institute of Business and Home Safety which is kind of supported by private industry. He expressed an interest in hearing Dr. Reinhold’s comments relating to fortified in relation to the 7% increase or where the fortified building program percentage increase would relate to the numbers shown in the chart.

Dr. Tim Reinhold, Institute for Business and Home Safety

Dr. Reinhold stated the Institute for Business and Home Safety adopted a 20 mile per hour increase over the local design wind speeds using the current maps out there. He further stated they anticipate that ASCE 7 may well go to the new revised maps that have been produced. He explained that was part of what was reflected in the kinds of numbers included on the chart. He stated if a single number was pulled from a single column there would be a lot of nuances built into that. He then stated the modification that was done to the ARA proposal to bring up the loads in the coastal areas up by 20% for the first 600-700 feet probably puts it closer to line #4 with about 18-40%. He concluded by stating he believed the proposal on the floor would achieve about the same level. He added his recommendation would be to go back and have ARA rerun their numbers with the recommendation from the Hurricane Advisory Research Committee meeting because it is different than any of the lines shown on chart.

Commissioner Bassett stated his family had been associated closely with the insurance industry for over 30 years and he would guarantee if Citizens is not going to insure the people neither is the private industry because Citizens was brought in because private industry was not insuring. He then stated what is really being said is unless you design in accordance with these criteria you will not be insured.

Mr. Dixon stated he wanted to bring the Commission back to the initial reason for the meeting. He explained within the time frame given to develop recommendations to the Legislature as directed, the Commission was at the point in the project it has to select a performance goal or it will not meet the deadline of the project. He then stated it would be his recommendation to not go back to the committee, but select one of the options given to complete this project so the Commission can meet the statutory obligation. He further stated he thought the Secretary made a good point that staff has repeatedly told you over the years, do not ignore what the Legislature tells you to do.

Commissioner Browdy stated he certainly did not want to ignore the Governor or the Legislature, but the Commission has been asked to give a recommendation, maybe not a decision, and maybe not change the Building Code. He restated the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation, which would be a product of the Commission. He then stated the Commission has a quality assurance program which includes the best advice from technical people that is available. He continued by stating if the advice coming from the committee is not what the Commissioners want to hear then it should be sent back stating it was unacceptable. He stated the plenary session was an inappropriate place to debate the technical merits of the recommendation. He stated the experts were there and delivered a recommendation and the Commission should either support the recommendation of the Hurricane Advisory Committee or ask them to change their recommendation if there is reason to believe the recommendation is faulty. He further stated to just turn it around seems to violate the Commission’s processes and it is being used by individuals to accomplish their goals with the credibility of the Florida Building Commission. He concluded by stating he did not believe that credibility could be given if the processes have been abbreviated or compromised and if the Hurricane Advisory Committee’s recommendation is changed, the processes have been compromised.

Mr. Blair restated the motion is to use from the ARA design load matrix to use line 6 as the recommendation with the 500 year return, exposure “C” and no reduction (of current code wind speeds).

Vote for the motion resulted in 18 for and 3 opposed (Carlton, Dean, Browdy). Motion carried.

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

DISCUSSION AND DECISION ON GREEN BUILDING WEBSITE

Chairman Rodriguez stated another one of the Commission’s assignments

from the Legislature was to develop recommendations for developing and implementing a public awareness campaign that promotes energy efficiency and the benefits of building green. He further stated the Commission had contracted with the Florida Solar Energy Center to assist the Commission with this and other energy related tasks. He then stated the Green Building Workgroup will be working with the FSEC by providing stakeholder input into the recommendations. He continued by stating the Green Building Workgroup Forum was convened on Monday, October 1, 2007 as the first step in the process. He explained the project scope describes that the public awareness campaign shall include website, trade show, print media and television strategies. He stated the FSEC scope includes providing technical support by identifying strategies for using print advertising, press releases and television advertising and a website to promote voluntary utilization of energy efficiency and green building practices and to present recommendations to the Commission at the December 2007 meeting for approval. He further stated the campaign shall focus on the benefits of promoting energy efficiency to the purchasers of new homes, the various green ratings and labels available, and the promotion of various energy efficient products throughout existing trade shows. He then stated at this time the Commission must review the consultants recommendations regarding the website component of the public awareness campaign and approve implementation of phase one in order to comply with a January 2008 Legislative deadline for implementation.

Sherri Shields, Assistant Director of Information and Publication Service, Florida Solar Energy Center

Ms. Shields stated they have evaluated the existing web resources on energy efficiency and green building practices and one of the tasks it is to have a comprehensive consumer oriented site for Florida citizens. She stated the presentation she was about to show involved what the consumer needs, what is available now and what the solution is.

Ms. Shields began her presentation stating the consumer need is information. She further stated the information need to be accessible, found in one place, rather than using a search engine and having the information found in several places. She continued by stating the information needs to be easy to understand in layman’s terms but also provided the information so it can be expanded for those who would like to do additional research, such as case studies, to find the information they need. She then stated the information should enable them to make intelligent choices such as the cost verses the benefits for them. She stated she would spare the Commission from listing the sites that had been researched from a national perspective down to Florida specific, as some of those were in the report she had submitted.

Ms. Shields then discussed tools which are being considered to enhance the site. She first discussed a savings calculator by GE which can calculate, for example, how much energy could be saved in switching from incandescent light bulbs to CFLs. She mentioned another being considered was a more elaborate calculator made by Nova Scotia Power which takes into account even appliance information and Christmas lighting. She then stated on a National Level, Energy Star offers the user to make comparisons of his house to other homes across the United States. She continued by stating another tool, made by Lawrence Berkley Labs Home Energy Saver which gets more specific in entering the square footage of the home, the year it was built, and what the orientation of the house is.

Ms. Shields then addressed what some of the other states are doing. She stated New Jersey has its Clean Energy Program, which contains a section specifically for residential. She stated New Jersey had done a good job of putting all the resources at the consumer’s fingertips for home energy analysis having links for all home utilities at the site. She further stated a frequently asked question was provided. She then stated another state which was researched was California and it’s “What’s Your Power” site. She stated it has a great tool which can locate rebates and services available. She continued by stating if a consumer put in their zip code it will return search results by category with the number of results for each. She then referenced the audits button which, if clicked, gives detailed information on the different utilities, what they are specifically offering and how to immediately contact them. She continued by referencing another tool, a resource data base which can be viewed by title and various sources.

Ms. Shields stated the solution is to give a comprehensive Florida Specific Energy Information site that will contain information on energy strategies for both new and existing homes, rebate incentive information, links to partner organization, but also any other relevant websites, comprehensive lists of energy efficiency tips, and some calculation tools. She further stated the intention to do that through myfloridaenergy.info, looking specifically at Florida, which would be a great tool. She then stated they were given very specific guidelines as far as deliverables and phase one completion by January 1, 2008 and asked the Commission to approve moving forward with the recommendations.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the motion would be to adopt the FSEC’s recommendations for Green Building website strategies divided into two phases as indicated in the report.

Commissioner Greiner moved. Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion.

Mr. Dixon stated the Legislation puts a January 1 date on the PA campaign however staff concurs there is no way the campaign can be developed and fully implemented by January 1. He then stated the plan would be to approach the task in two phases, to get as much done as possible by January 1 as a demonstration to the Legislature the Commission is moving forward, and then complete those items in the time after January 1, but prior to the Legislative session.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

UPDATE ON CODE ADMINISTRATION ASSESSMENT PROJECT

Mr. Blair stated the project had been going on for some time in terms of trying to survey the needs of local governments relative to code administration and also relative to the Commission’s role in that regard. He further stated a survey had been done of building officials in the state of Florida which received 63 responses from the Florida Keys to Southeast and Southwest Florida, Central , East central, West, Northeast in the Florida Panhandle, basically the spectrum of the state. He stated some of the questions were “How well is local administration to building code functioning? And those surveyed were asked to gauge that on a 1- 5 scale, 5 being the highest. He stated for that question the result was an average of 4.1. He then stated he would assume the view of the local officials would be the system is working reasonably well. He further stated some of the comments on what is working well included the fact there is a statewide code with local enforcement of that code. He continued by stating another comment was on the outreach and education which has occurred in the development the Florida Building Code. A much higher knowledge of the Code has been gained by everyone in the business, including trades people, contractors, architects and engineers. He then stated some of the comment about what is not liked were too many code changes, the role of DBPR, political interference, ICC control, private provider systems, product approval system, the quality of training and education and the oversight relative to that, shortage of personnel and funding issues faced by them, the lack of communication regarding Commission decisions and the correlation issue and overlaps between the Florida Building Code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code. He stated some of the issues which might be faced in the future are continual code change and lack of transition training on those changes, education training and public communication, political interference, budget cuts, unfunded mandates, lack of staff, DVP licensing issues, private provider conflicts, conflicts between the Building Code and Fire Code in existing buildings. He then stated comments made regarding ways to enhance the system included more emphasis on training and education and outreach, consensus process should be used in every regard, be more consistent with the ICC codes with only Florida Specific as absolutely necessary and even a suggestion that an agency basically oversee the whole building administration.

Mr. Blair stated another question was “How well has the Florida Building Commission done regarding insuring there is a uniform effective enforcement of the Code?” He stated the results averaged 3.3, which was not a very good ranking. He continued referencing another question which asked “What do you think the role of the Commission is?” He stated responses to that question included developing, adopting and educating statewide code, training and education, assistance to local jurisdictions, eliminating inconsistencies between the I codes and the Building Code. He stated responses to “what could the Commission do to help?” included continue to provide interpretations, clarifications, declaratory statements, some suggestions of overseeing building departments, consistency with few changes to the Code and communication outreach. He continued by stating responses to “What authority does the Commission have relative to the local administration?” included just as it currently does, appeals and declaratory statements, uniform statewide code and assisting local jurisdictions.

Mr. Blair reviewed the scale of questions and the results of each as presented in each Commissioner’s files.

Mr. Blair stated the main thing to consider is the survey was a constructive way to get a sense of how local building officials see their role and the Commission’s role and the needs regarding the local administration of the Building Code. He further stated one of the key aspects of the whole Building Code system because the Commission develops and implements the Code and the local officials enforce it.

Commissioner Norkunas stated page 15 reads “For the nine code categories previously evaluated please rank them in order of priority of enforcement.” He stated he was trying to compare it to the Fire Protection Requirements and states if Fire Protection is not important he would be shocked. He asked Mr. Blair to explain the full point and the relationship between Accessibility and Fire Protection as a priority.

Chairman Rodriguez stated these were just the results of a poll. He explained it would be difficult to explain other people’s answers.

Commissioner Norkunas stated he was aware of that, but on the Accessibility Code does it mean that 14 people do not hold it as a priority or does it mean that only 7 hold it as a priority.

Mr. Blair stated he understood Commissioner Norkunas’ question. He explained this question was requested by BOAF to determine how the nine key areas listed would they be ranked one against the other. He further stated some additional rationale would need to be providedto interpret it, but in general these numbers mean on a scale of 1 (most important) and 9 (least important Accessibility ranks at 4. He noted that other categories including the Building Requirements of the Code, and the Energy Code requirements also ranked at 4. He then stated what was meant with those ratings is they are all almost the same priority because they fall right in the middle of the spectrum. He concluded by stating there is no real ability to differentiate the relative importance of all of the categories because they all fall into the middle of the continuum from 1-9.

Commissioner Norkunas stated he was still not clear but would ask again at another time.

Mr. Blair stated the purpose of the project is to take the information gathered and ask the Code Administration TAC to review it and actually set up a process of discussion to develop recommendations for the Commission for anything they might want to consider for changes. He noted this was the first step of the process. He further stated his recommendation would be to convene the process in January and not before then, to allow the Commission to better focus on the issue.

UPDATE ON GREEN BUILDINGS FORUM

Mr. Blair stated the Green Buildings Forum was held on October 1, 2007. He further stated the goal of the forum was to provide information to the group on several topics including the Florida Green Building Coalition, the Walk Upon Water Conservation group from St John’s River Water Management District, Florida Water Star Program, Model Green Ordinance presented by Sarasota County, Florida Solar Energy Center presentation on existing web-based resources and disaster resistant homes by Tim Reinhold. He then stated, afterward participants and the public were asked to provide input the workgroup could use in evaluating 2 issues; 1) What are the key issues, what are some options and what are some potential resources in existence or are needed to develop a model energy efficiency ordinance for residential development, and; 2) Suggestions for developing a public awareness campaign that promotes energy efficiency and the benefits of building green. He stated a lot of input was given which the Commission will see in a detailed report later. He noted the workgroup would meet again in Gainesville on October 31and in West Palm Beach November 28 and most likely will meet again in early January but no date has been given yet.

GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Mr. Richmond stated he would limit his report due to anticipated appointments in the future. He encouraged the new members to call his office if there were any questions. He explained his office serves as the attorney for the Commission and will advise the individual commissioners on trying to avoid any criminal or even civil prosecution He explained criminal sanctions and appearances before the Commission on Ethics are a potential outcome if the commissioners are not cautious.

Mr. Richmond then stated Government in the Sunshine is very simple. He then stated it becomes difficult when people try to evade its plain and sweeping meaning. He explained it means commissioners do not talk to another commissioner or a committee member about issues which are reasonably anticipated to come before the Commission or the committee outside of a duly noticed meeting. He further stated that talk cannot occur in writing through emails, telephone conversations, or in person conversations. He stated it could also not occur through staff because that would basically be a conversation using a different medium.

Mr. Richmond further stated in terms of general ethical responsibilities of public officers, he would refer the commissioners to the Commission on Ethics website, which is ethics.state.fl.us. He then stated under their publications page there is an outstanding manual that breaks the laws down into particular headings. He further stated those that would apply to commissioners are the public officer provisions and those that would apply to “reporting individuals.” He then stated he believed the commissioners receive a financial disclosure in their appointment packages and by filing one of those forms the criteria for a reporting individual was met. He stated this implicates the recent lobbying related gift ban. He explained anyone who is a registered lobbyist or employs a registered lobbyist can no longer give the commissioners anything, not even a cup of coffee, which would potentially be violative. He continued by stating there is a reasonable duty to inquire or basically ask whether they are a lobbyist or employs a lobbyist. He explained unintentional violations of this are all too simple and the law has been fairly well criticized for that. He stated there are certain circumstances where a government lobbyist marries a private interest lobbyist and suddenly wedding gifts become an issue. He added if any questions were to arise, please call his office, his direct line is (850) 922-1675. He added if it was a question needing immediate information press “0” and it will direct the call to another attorney in the office who is familiar with the ethical issues and Sunshine Law issues. He also noted he would address the issue again with overheads and handouts once all appointments have been made.

COMMISSIONER BROWDY – LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVES AND COMMISSION PROCESSES

Commissioner Browdy stated he had asked for a spot on the agenda specifically with the issues he addressed both with the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs and during the Hurricane Research Advisory Committee‘s report. He stated the position of the construction industry, in his personal opinion, is the Commission needs to ensure its processes are not abbreviated, not withstanding time demands from the Legislature. He further stated he knows each commissioner does a wonderful job representing the constituency he or she represents and he believes the Commission does a very credible job. He stated the Commission continues to produce better products than ever before. He then stated he was very fortunate to have been a part of the Commission for almost 20 years and he has seen the products develop into one of the best products in the United States and one of those reasons is its processes. He urged the Commissioners to stay true to those processes and not compromise that.

Chairman Rodriguez stated having served eight years on the Commission he could say Commissioner Browdy has always been consistent on that issue and it does not matter where the issue comes from he has always championed reliance on the processes and not taking any abbreviated course.

RULE ADOPTION HEARINGS

SUPPLEMENTAL RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-7.0042, FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE

Vice Chairman D’Andrea stated the rule hearing was being conducted to consider curb ramps with references from the Code. He further stated staff had requested the hearing because of the requirement for consistency between the law and the rule. He then stated Mr. Richmond would serve as the hearing officer and Mr. Blair will facilitate the Commission discussions and serve as the moderator for the public comment portions of the hearing.

Mr. Richmond opened the rule adoption hearing. He stated that at the previous meeting the Commission actually approved this to move forward in the adoption process. He explained that after a review of the rule text in concert with the statutory text affecting some substantive concerns were raised. He stated the rule was set for a supplemental rule adoption hearing to bolster the record and possibly affect a change of the rule.

Mr. Dixon stated the proposed rule change would make a change to the Accessibility Code that would create a conflict with the Accessibility law. He explained the criterion is actually written into law and also it modified a document that is adopted by law by reference. He further stated there cannot be conflict between the law and the rule. He then stated the recommendation of staff is this proposed amendment to the Code be withdrawn.

Mr. Richmond opened the supplemental rule adoption hearing.

Larry Schneider, AIA Florida

Mr. Schneider stated he thought the issue is that the conflict is in the statute, not the rule or the Code. He further stated the section being discussed is s.553.504(5), F.S. He explained the statute states “all curb ramps” and then in subpart b states “not withstanding the requirements of references of 4.3.3 and 4.8.3 of ADAAG. He continued by stating the issue is the statute wording says “curb ramps” and the Code section referenced under part b is 4.8.3 Section 4.8 is “ramps” and section 4.7 is “curb ramps”. He stated the intent of the correction staff recommended was if the statute talks about curbed ramps they are what it should be discussing. He stated AIA believes the conflict was within the statute and maybe the correction would be to get the statute language on “curb ramps” to harmonize with the subject of code section 4.8.3. and the reference to 4.8.3, should really be to section 4.7.3. He reiterated from AIA’s perspective it was not the rule but the statute that is the problem.

Mr. Richmond closed the hearing. He then stated the staff had deemed it appropriate to take the change out this rule proceeding and were the statute to change, the Commission could certainly affect that statute if it chose to do so.

Mr. Blair asked for clarification that the change be removed from the rule revision and that the Commission proceed with Rule Adoption for the balance of the rule.

Mr. Richmond stated that was correct.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Browdy stated it would seem appropriate then in the next communication to the Legislature, to affect the statutory part to create the harmony being sought between the rule and the statute. He reiterated he would make the comment when there is communication with the Legislature or ask the Legislature to correct the statutory issue.

Mr. Dixon stated he believed this issue needs to be discussed and evaluated to determine if AIA of Florida is correct. He further stated that if what is proposed was done, the only curb ramp on the required means of egress that would have to have the extra width would be at the curb. He continued by stating any ramps on a required means of egress could be more narrow than the curb ramp. He reiterated the issue needs to be discussed and the Commission needs to determine what the correct answer is. He stated there is a difference in the law and that needs to be cleared up, but it is not clear cut to whether to take what has been suggested out of law.

Commissioner Browdy asked if this issue was discussed in the TAC and if there were a recommendation. He asked what created the need for the rule change.

Mr. Richmond explained the rule change was worked out at the Accessibility TAC over a long period of time. He stated Mr. Schneider accurately described the difficulty. He then further stated 4.8.3 deals with ramps in general as opposed to curb ramps, therefore there appears to be some lack of clarity in the statute.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

SUPPLEMENTAL RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-72. PRODUCT APPROVAL

Mr. Richmond stated the particular issue raised here, the disciplinary sanctions, will be imposed against validators found to be in violation of the rules and statutes of the Commission. He stated there were also concerns raised by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee concerning; the forms for validation, penalties matrices, provisions not to allow more than one certification agency per application, specific installation instruction requirements for windows to make the installation instruction uniform, and require technical validation for installation engineered by manufacturer’s engineers. He then stated he would like to add, based on comment, a delayed effective date of January 1, 2008 to give time to get the system up and running to accommodate these changes. He further stated staff has developed the matrix for penalties, which was reviewed by the Product Approval Oversight Committee and the POC forwarded it with its recommendation to incorporate that into the rule.

Mr. Richmond opened the supplemental rule adoption hearing.

Commissioner Greiner asked how this will be enforced if one of the validators gets fined.

Mr. Richmond stated the Administrative Procedures Act governs these proceedings. He explained this means an administrative complaint would be filed and then served to the validator. He stated the validator would have the opportunity to request a proceeding which would be to the Division of Administrative Hearings in event of disputed issues of material fact. He stated the circuit court would then issue any fine.

Commissioner Schulte asked staff if the penalty matrix was modified as discussed in the POC.

Mr. Madani stated the matrix was modified.

Mr. Richmond closed the hearing.

Mr. Blair asked for clarification, would the correct motion be to adopt the schedule of penalties for validators and proceed with rule adoption for Rule 9B-72.

Mr. Richmond stated that would be the correct motion. He also noted the list he read from was previously approved changes to which this would be added.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval to adopt the schedule of penalties for validators and proceed with rule adoption for rule 9B-72. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES

Commissioner Greiner stated some of the Building Officials in the Lake County area are going through the ISO process again after five years. He explained ISO is the organization that rates the building departments as well as the fire departments. He further stated it had been noted to him that ISO has a span of three years for their base code while the Building Commission has a base code of 2003. He asked if staff could talk to ISO or review this to determine of there were some way that can be adjusted. He explained no one would be able to get any credit on that line because it is one year off.

Mr. Dixon stated staff could not affect the policies at ISO but it can talk with them to ask if there were some accommodation as the state of Florida does try to keep as close as possible to the latest edition. He then stated staff could report back to the Commission with its findings.

Commissioner Greiner stated he just wanted some contact at the Commission level to ISO because Florida Code is above and beyond ICC because it takes it as a base and adds to it.

Chairman D’Andrea stated staff would do that and report back to the Commission on what they find.

Commissioner Greiner asked about the effective date of the Re-Roof Mitigation Operation and Legislation. He stated he believed the effective date to be October 1, 2007 and as he understood its that rule has been challenged. He asked if a challenge puts the October 1, 2007 deadline in limbo until the rule challenge has been addressed.

Mr. Richmond stated limbo is a good description of where that puts the effective date. He explained the challenge is inherently flawed for legal reasons. He stated the Division of Administrative Hearings accepted it as a challenge to an adopted rule because it did not fall into any other window to challenge. He explained an existing rule is not defined within Chapter 120; however one would assume it was one that had been adopted. He further stated the rule had not been adopted because it has not been able to be filed with the Department of State because the challenge was accepted. He stated the rule cannot be filed with the Department of State when there is a pending administrative determination. He continued by stating it is an existing rule challenge to a rule that is not in existence. He stated he had been trying to get a hearing with the administrative judge for the last two weeks and she had not been amenable to having such a hearing. He concluded by stating the law as written requires the Commission to adopt the rules by October 1, 2007 and it has developed those. He stated the only thing preventing them from filing the rules is the administrative glitch. He added the exact affect of the enforceability of those rules is something that needs to be reviewed by the attorneys who represent permitting authorities.

Commissioner Greiner stated his concern is the Legislature told the Commission to make a rule, which it has done, but it is still not in effect, therefore the October 1, 2007 effective date is not in place.

Mr. Dixon stated the Commission’s role according to law was to develop techniques for implementing the mitigation requirements and then adopt a rule including both the requirements and the techniques. He then stated, does that mean that since the Legislature established the requirements in law all that is left not specified is the techniques, or, does because the law says both the techniques and requirements are to be adopted in the rule mean there are no requirements because the rule is not complete. He then stated what staff has been advising all along is that it was our understanding the Legislature intended that retrofits be required. He concluded by stating it is staff’s understanding the techniques may not be enforceable at this time, but the provisions that retrofits have to be done still stand in law

Commissioner Greiner stated it would be up to the local legal people, but that is not the only issue. He asked if there was any chance of getting this in the special session.

Mr. Richmond stated he was aware people were trying to get this into special session since Personal Injury Protection has been added and it is no longer just budget but thus far he has not seen any inclination to include this issue.

Commissioner Greiner stated the additional issue with the requirement has to do with site-built single family residences or structures and he was not sure if that was going to be uniformly enforced around the state because of dual dwellings and town houses. He stated he would assume the Commission could not make a call on that, but would have to address it in a declaratory statement.

Mr. Richmond stated that was correct.

Commissioner Schulte asked if the building departments should be enforcing this mitigation right now or not. He stated from what Mr. Dixon stated the law is in place but the techniques are not.

Mr. Richmond stated the building departments should consult with their attorneys and reach a conclusion independently.

Commissioner Schulte stated as a roofing contractor, representing the roofing industry, as of October 1, 2007 should the service be provided with the expectation that is defective or should he consult his attorney.

Mr. Richmond stated if he consulted a local government attorney they would probably tell you they could not give you an opinion.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Robert Brown City of West Palm Beach

Mr. Brown stated he missed the public comment section on the second hearing of the DCA07-DEC-146. He stated they did not really have a problem with what was proposed with the declaratory statement. He stated however this was on manufactured buildings which are used temporarily for office occupancy and they only have to comply with the Accessibility requirements. He stated their question is what the definition of temporary is. He continued by stating the only definition they could find states 180 days, which is in Chapter 1 and in Chapter 31. He stated they felt unless temporary was defined it would be left open to developers and owners saying yes it is temporary but it winds up there for two years.

Mr. Richmond stated in explaining the declaratory statement these buildings are exempt from the Code so the definition of temporary within the code does not apply to them. He stated temporary appears in the statute so the rules of statutory construction apply to that. He further stated what they might find is temporary means not permanent with no set number of days.

Mr. Brown stated the building the Commission meeting was in is not permanent, nothing is.

Mr. Richmond explained reasonable limitations have to be applied to that. He then stated there is a temporary provision in Chapter 1013 pertaining to relocatable schools with various and sundry guides to what the conclusion is. He stated in coming to the conclusion it was very specifically worded that application of the Code requirements is inappropriate. He then stated if a local government determines what they believe to be temporary and adopts an ordinance for that, no matter what the period of time is it would be subject to review and dispute at the local level. He clarified they would then be enforcing that ordinance and not the Code.

Larry Schneider, AIA FL

Mr. Schneider requested the comments he makes at the Commission meetings reflect that they are representing opinions and comments of AIA of Florida and not his personally. He stated he would clarify if the comments were his personally.

REVIEW COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS AND ISSUES FOR DECEMBER 10,11, and 12 MEETING

Mr. Blair stated the next Commission meeting is December 10, 11, and 12, 2007. He stated the Product Approval POC, Structural TAC, Accessibility TAC and the Education POC, with an additional time slot of 2-3 hours to be held prior to the Education POC for an accreditors meeting. He stated the other committees meetings would be scheduled based on declaratory statements or other committee assignments.

SUMMARY REVIEW OF MEETING WORK PRODUCTS

Mr. Blair conducted a brief review of the work products included, normal procedural issues of adopting declaratory statements, product approvals, updated workplan, supplemental rule hearing on Rule 9B—7.0042 and on Rule 9B-72, various TAC and POC reports and recommendations, Hurricane Research Advisory Committee report and recommendations, Coastal Code Plus Criteria, Green House Building website Phase I, Code Administration Assessment Project, Green Building Forum, Commissioner’s issues and public comment.

ADJOURN

Commissioner D’Andrea adjourned the Florida Building Commission meeting at 1:30pm.