FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

WELCOME

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

Chairman Rodriguez then asked the Commission to remember two valuable individuals who had recently passed, Wendell Haney and Ralph Hughes. He then asked for a moment of silence on their behalf.

REVIEW AND APPROVE AGENDA

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

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

REVIEW AND APPROVE JUNE 24 & 25 MEETING MINUTES AND FACILITATOR’S SUMMARY REPORT AND THE SEPTEMBER 15 TELECONFERENCE MEETING FACILITATOR’S REPORT

Chairman Rodriguez called for approval of the minutes and the facilitator’s reports from the June Commission meeting and the facilitator’s report from the September 15 teleconference meeting.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the minutes and Facilitator’s Report from the June Commission and the facilitator’s report from the September 15 teleconference meeting. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

CHAIR’S DISCUSSION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chairman Rodriguez announced the following appointments to the Florida Building Commission:

He first announced Jeff Gross’ reappointment to the Commission and welcomed him back to continue his service on the Commission.

He then introduced and welcomed the following new members of the Commission. He asked each to briefly tell the Commission about themselves:

Scott Mollan - has been appointed to represent the Mechanical Contractors for a term beginning July 1, 2008 and ending February 3, 2011. He will be succeeding Gary Griffin.

Commissioner Mollan stated he is a licensed air conditioning contractor in the state of Florida for over 20 years. He then stated he currently is employed with Advanced Roofing, managing the air conditioning division, for the last 14 years. He stated he was very pleased to be a member of the Commission.

Jeff Stone - has been appointed to represent the Building Product Manufacturer’s for a term beginning July 1, 2008 and ending July 27, 2011. He will be succeeding Nanette Dean.

Commissioner Stone stated he is the southeastern regional manager for American Forest and Paper Association and a retired local governmental official. He then stated he covers eight states in the southeast and also represents the food industry internationally in codes and standards. He stated he was honored to be a part of the Commission body.

Tim Tolbert - has been appointed to represent the Code Officials for a term beginning July 1, 2008 and ending January 15, 2011. He will be succeeding Nick D’Andrea.

Commissioner Tolbert stated he is the Building Official for Santa Rosa County. He stated he was honored to be selected for the position.

Mark Turner has been appointed to represent the Electrical Contractors for a term beginning July 1, 2008 and ending January 30, 2011. He will be succeeding Michael McCombs.

Commissioner Turner stated he is a certified electrical contractor and owns and operates his business of 17 years. He then stated he is a resident of Santa Rosa County. He stated he appreciated the honor of serving on the Commission.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the Commission was notified by the Governor’s office that Steve Bassett is willing to continue to serve until another appointment is made. He thanked Commissioner Bassett for his continued service. He then stated the person appointed by the governor for the position held by Christ Sanidas has retired, therefore there is one open position the Governor is trying to fill. He further stated the Commission is fortunate to have all of the new Commissioners. He stated the process of assimilation for the new Commissioners can begin while waiting for the couple more appointments that need to be made.

Chairman Rodriguez then expressed recognition of the following Commissioners who were rotating off of the Commission board: Peter Tagliarini, Michael McCombs, and Gary Griffin. He thanked each of them for their years of service and presented each with a plaque reflecting their service. Chairman Rodriguez stated Nan Dean and Nick D’Andrea were not in attendance and they will be recognized at a future meeting.

Chairman Rodriguez announced the following TAC appointments: Commissioner Goodloe will be serving as chair of the Fire TAC. He stated the previous chair, Nick D’Andrea, was rotating off the Commission. He further stated the Commission is happy to have a veteran as the chair. Commissioner Tolbert, although new to the Commission will be serving on the Code Administration TAC. Commissioner will be serving as chair of the Electrical TAC, replacing Mike McCombs who is rotating off the Commission. Commissioner Mollan will be serving on the Mechanical TAC replacing Mike McCombs. Commissioner Turner will be serving on the Electrical TAC, replacing Mike McCombs. Commissioner Stone will be serving on the Product Approval POC, replacing Nan Dean who rotated off the Commission.

Chairman Rodriguez then announced the following workgroup appointments: Anthony Gaudio has been appointed to the Universal bedroom Definition workgroup. Rich Papa is no longer on the Soffit System Workgroup since he has left the industry. C.W. Mc Comber has been appointed to the Soffit workgroup. Jimmy Buchner has been appointed to the Soffit System Workgroup, replacing Wendell Haney. Sigi Valentine is no longer on the Window and Window/Wall Workgroup since he has retired.

Chairman Rodriguez directed the Commission to Mr. Blair for an explanation on the processes for the new Commissioners’ understanding.

Mr. Blair conducted a review of the revised Commission and public input process and the teleconference process. (Please see Florida Building Commission Public Input on Commission Discussion Process.)

Commissioner Vann moved approval of the Public Input process. Commissioner Franco entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair then conducted a review of the teleconference process. (See FBC Teleconference Process)

Commissioner Bassett stated having participated in several teleconference calls he suggested the Chairman or whoever is running the meeting needs to have either an open email or an IM connection going so the people who want to talk have a means to let him know. He then stated it is extremely difficult to try to interrupt or get in especially for someone shy or new to the process and does not know how to do it.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he would echo that comment. He then stated Mr. Blair had been carrying the burden of the process of teleconferencing. He further stated the Commissioners have seen how difficult it can be because someone can just come in at anytime they like since it is a noticed meeting. He explained all the commissioners hear is a click and Mr. Blair has to keep asking people to identify themselves. He stated some of this is growing pains, but it is also common courtesy. He then stated he will rely on staff to determine how it can be improved on because they are together in Tallahassee when these calls occur. He then thanked everyone who has participated, especially the commissioners since the teleconference call is a regular meeting a quorum is needed to take action. He also thanked the public for their time and participation as the calls can be lengthy. He thanked Commissioner Bassett for any suggestions since he has participated in most of the calls if not all of them. He stated, as the new members to the Commission will find, it is an important item since the Commission might be meeting less due to budget shortfalls. He further stated teleconferencing is an option the Commission has to avoid falling too far behind on the important work it does. He thanked everyone again for their participation and staff will continue to make improvements in the process.

Commissioner Norkunas stated, regarding the quorum, he was on one call when his cell phone died. He asked if there is a lengthy meeting and one or more of the Commissioners drop out whether it affects the quorum.

Mr. Richmond stated if there is a quorum at the beginning of a meeting the quorum remains unless there is a suggestion at some point that there is lack of a quorum. He then stated if that occurs and no one suggests lack of a quorum the meeting moves forward.

Commissioner Vann asked Commissioner Bassett if he was referring to a chat room.

Commissioner Bassett responded he did not think it could be a chat room. He stated he was trying to think of a way a participant could notify the chair, other than verbally, that they would like to make a comment on the topic under discussion. He stated he thought initially an email but he knew sometimes those connections are slow. He then stated he thought of instant messenger where someone could quickly notify the chair they would like to address the issue with their name, making an ongoing list of those who would like to speak.

Chairman Rodriguez stated Mr. Dixon had indicated staff will be looking into it for future calls. He then stated the fact of the matter is people are participating and it is helping the Commission with the deficit of funds and not meeting as often.

Commissioner Carson moved approval of the teleconference process. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the request of the Division of Emergency Management a Flood Standards Workgroup will be appointed. He stated the workgroup would be charged with developing recommendations for integrating the ICC Flood Damage Resistant Provisions into the Florida Building Code. He then stated FEMA was providing funding to support the workgroup and has worked with ICC the past 10 years on flood standards for buildings that would satisfy the needs of the National Flood Insurance Program. He stated FEMA is now satisfied with the standards of the ICC. He further stated when the 2001 Building Code was developed a decision was made primarily for administrative reasons to eliminate flood standards from the foundation model code and continue the practice of building standards being adopted through the flood plane management ordinances of communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. He further stated, in addition, the state is requesting the policy be reviewed to resolve any identified administrative issues and the ICC Flood Standards be retained in the 2010 Florida Building Code. He stated the Commission would be working with DEM to select workgroup members and appointments would be announced as they are finalized. He then announced the following appointments which have already been finalized: Gene Chalecky, DEP, Steve Pizzillo, BOAF, Commissioner Wiggins, local government, Tim Reinhold, IBHS, Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association and Nick D’Andrea, Flood Plane Managers Association.

Chairman Rodriguez then addressed the budget reduction. He stated as a result of reduction in the State’s budget, due to the downward trend in the economy, the Commission’s budget has also been reduced. He stated the Commission will have to prioritize projects with a reduced budget in mind. He then stated some of the actions the Commission has already been forced to take include: 1) reducing the number of Commission meetings in 2009 from a six week schedule to an eight week schedule, reducing the meeting total from 7 to 6 in 2009, 2) arranging Commission meetings in central locations to reduce travel costs and selecting hotels with cost-effective meeting spaces and rooms, 3) reducing the number of workgroup meetings and scheduling the workgroup meetings in conjunction with the Commission meetings to save on travel expense; some external meetings are being funded from grants and contracts, 4) conducting teleconference calls when feasible, 5) staff travel reduced primarily to Commission and its committee meetings, 6) organizations who request staff to give presentations at their meetings are required to pay their travel expenses.

Chairman Rodriguez stated it was likely there would be additional budget cuts and the Commission will have to implement additional cost savings measures as a result. He stated staff has promised to keep the Commission informed. He asked the Commissioners to be understanding with staff regarding the scheduling of meetings to optimize the limited resources. He stated in the future the Commission would no longer be able to subsidize the cost of revising the BCIS for Product Approval, Education and other programs. He then stated the true cost of implementing programs will have to be reflected in the fees charged for the programs. He further stated the Commission had spent approximately one million dollars for changes to the BCIS to implement changes to Product Approval desired by stakeholders. He stated in the past building permit fees were used to fund these costs. He explained there was no longer any reserve of these fees to subsidize the program. He further stated the Commission was operating at a significantly reduced budget. He stated the Manufactured Building Program is an example of a program that supports all of its costs, including BCIS changes, and this model will need to be replicated for all programs. He then stated the result of the current budget and funding crisis is that permit surcharge fees supporting the Commission’s work should be reserved for core Commission functions like code development. He concluded by stating he and staff are recommending the Commission adopt a policy requiring programs to be self-supporting and any changes requiring addidtional money to be reflected in the fees charged for the programs like Product Approval and Education.

Chairman Rodriguez then asked for a motion for approval to adopt a Commission policy requiring Commission programs to be self-supporting and that all costs and fees will be adjusted to reflect the true cost of administering the system.

Commissioner Schulte moved approval of the motion as stated. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Richmond stated the word policy has always raised antennas especially when mixed with the word requiring. He then stated, although phrased in a manner which is perfectly appropriate, it is really a philosophy statement. He further stated it could only be implemented through the adoption of fees by rule at a later date.

Commissioner Stone stated in his review of the website he did not find any budget or cost figures. He asked what the Commission has to do in this process. He then asked if this was something the DCA does and then tells the Commission. He stated he was just trying to determine where the Commission is on the process as a whole.

Mr. Dixon responded stating the issue is costs for operating programs like the Product Approval program. He then stated most of the Product Approval System is done over the internet so when there are changes to the program rule there are also changes to the online information system. He further stated the Building Code Information System has a module specific to Product Approval, a module specific to Manufactured Buildings, a module specific to Education, etc. He stated it is modification of those modules to reflect new requirements that causes the cost of the program.

Commissioner Stone asked whether the Commission makes decisions on financial issues, or rather reviews a report from staff on financial issues.

Mr. Dixon responded that if a decision is made to change a rule that requires changing the BCIS, a decision has been made to incur costs. He then stated the DCA contracts with a programming contractor that manages the system and develops the changes for the system. He further stated, based on the cost negotiated for that contract and the number of hours it takes to implement the change to rule would determine the total cost.

Commissioner Stone asked if the Commission is given reports on this information periodically.

Mr. Dixon responded yes.

Chairman Rodriguez stated with the current budget and funding crisis the surcharges are going to be reserved to support the work of core Commission functions like code development. He explained the dollars will be prioritized there. He then stated all of the other programs will have to follow suit like the example just discussed and pay for themselves. He stated the commissioners do get reports. He also stated Ila Jones keeps the Commission straight on finances.

Mr. Blair stated there was also a Commission Budget Committee made up of Commissioners who meet periodically with DCA staff to review and report back to the Commission.

Chairman Rodriguez added that although it is a committee any Commissioner is welcome to attend and they are usually held in conjunction with Commission meetings.

Commissioner Carson stated he was going to bring up the Budget Committee and follow asked whether it would be meeting any time soon.

Mr. Blair recommended the issue be brought up separately and to return to the motion on the floor.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the answer is there are plans for a meeting, but no set date at this point.

Commissioner Norkunas asked for clarification of the motion. He stated it seems like the Commission is supporting the fact the budget was cut. He then stated he felt it integral to have the Florida Building Commission meet.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the dollars the Commission gets from the permit surcharge are going to be primarily directed towards code development, which is the main function of the Commission. He then stated the Commission believes it can get by with that. He explained the Commission has to require its programs to be self supporting of all costs. He referred to the example given of the Manufactured Building Program which supports all of its costs including the BCIS changes. He then stated all the motion is saying is that, as a body, the Commission understands, facing these budget reductions, it needs to be very cautious of the fact that programs need to pay for themselves.

Mr. Blair stated the motion is really specific. He then stated the Chairman had read a lot of information but the motion is simply stating the Commission will adopt a policy (strategy) that requires any change to the program to have an adjustment in fees and costs to accommodate that change because there is no longer money to subsidize the development of a system people want. He stated it would have no impact on the core function. He summarized by stating this was informing people how it will be and they should be aware of that when bringing requests to the Commission.

Chairman Rodriguez restated the motion to adopt a Commission strategy requiring that Commission programs shall be self-supporting for all costs and fees which would be adjusted to reflect the true cost of administering the program.

Commissioner Stone stated he tried to be prepared for the meeting. He asked if this discussion was on the website or in the materials sent to the Commissioners.

Mr. Dixon stated these items were found in the Chair’s Discussion Issues and recommendations. He then stated he did not know if documents were provided for those.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 20 in favor, 1 opposed (Stone). Motion carried.

Keri Hebrank

Ms. Hebrank stated she did not know if that were a final action, but the law was changed to allow for public comment before the Commission could take final action on anything. She expressed concern with the Commission looking at programs and setting fees and costs, not wanting it done on the back of the Product Manufacturers. She further stated that there was an oversight to ensure it is an actual cost and does not become a revenue generator again funded by Product Manufacturers.

Mr. Blair stated it would all be done through rule development.

Mr. Dixon stated there was a formal process the Commission has to go through that ensures public input and clarity on the information such as why fees are being charged at a certain level. He then stated the intent of the motion is to say the Commission has one or two programs it has been subsidizing out of other sources and what needs to be done, now that those funds have gone down, is to find another way to continue funding the programs. He explained when there is something like a computer program change such as the BCIS change it needs to be figured into the rule amendment and adjust fees accordingly to make sure those changes are funded.

Ms. Hebrank stated she was aware other agencies do the same for many programs where the fees are the actual cost of the program, but she wanted to make sure there was oversight, public input and fine tuning.

REVIEW AND UPDATE OF COMMISSION WORKPLAN

Mr. Dixon stated Commissioner Browdy had requested at the last meeting that the workplan layout be changed to include additional information. Specifically, the stage of completion of tasks, the origination of the task and why it is on the workplan.

Mr. Dixon then conducted a review of the updated Commission workplan including explanation of the new layout of the form. (See Updated Commission Workplan October 2008)

Mr. Dixon informed Commissioners that once the workplan is approved it becomes part of the Facilitator’s Report and is available to read when the Facilitator’s report gets posted.

He then stated there were two new tasks on the workplan: 1) the annual Report to the Legislature which is normally turned into them by February or early March; and 2) the evaluation and adoption of Flood Standards in the FBC. He stated the DEM and the DCA review the policy established with the original building code that would leave flood plane standards for construction out of the Code.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the updated workplan. Commissioner Carlton 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 Mr. Mellick for consideration of the Accessibility Waiver Applications.

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

#1 Eden ROC

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated there was a recommendation to amend an action previously taken.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion resulted 20 in favor, 1 opposed (Norkunas). Motion carried.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Mr. Mellick to repeat the council’s recommendation.

Mr. Mellick stated the Council unanimously recommended to grant the waiver for providing vertical accessibility to all but one of the 40 units and balconies and to require one of the most eastern rooms be fully accessible. He then stated that would be the amendment to the original order. He stated the first order basically was to not waive the ramp, but reduce the 72 inches at the bottom of the ramp to 48 inches to allow access. He then stated even though it was part of the discussion at the council it did not specifically include all 40 rooms. He explained there were more rooms than 40, but the 40 are the ones who have elevation changes within the rooms as well as the balconies. He stated the recommendation was to give a percentage of and at least one fully accessible room with that feature.

Commissioner Browdy asked the reason the council granted this was a determination of hardship.

Mr. Mellick responded yes. He stated the hardship was unreasonable and technically infeasible to try to make all of those rooms accessible.

Commissioner Norkunas stated he had been deluged in his email from the constituents he represents in the state of Florida regarding Eden Roc. He then stated the crux of the information coming to him was the way the application was written. He further stated it looks like the applicant is looking for waiver s from some accessible elements. He stated the request indicated it was a 25 million dollar project. He then stated when people see what is in front of them and they read they do not want to do something in this 25 million dollar project versus a $2,500.00 alteration or a $25,000.00 alteration he gets a lot of contacts. He then stated he voted no on this request because he was unable to have a sound basis to help the people he represents if they thought he was in agreement with all of these things. He thanked the chairman, Neil Mellick for meeting with him, taking time out of his busy schedule to sit down to explain some things to him that he did not understand, which will help him explain to his constituents. He then stated the way he understood it this is a basically a case of vertical accessibility, to his fellow commissioners. He stated it was really an accessible issue explaining they were doing a remodel and there were a number of rooms with changes in elevation almost similar to a movie theater or a stadium. He then stated the city of Miami stated there were some changes in elevation here and wanted to do these things because of the Florida Vertical Accessibility Law. He concluded by saying personally he would have supported it and he did not believe it was harmful to the disabled community

Chairman Rodriguez stated for the record there was one step which left an accessibility problem. He then stated the council recommended at least one of the rooms be made accessible so people with disabilities can still stay in the eastern most room, which is the beachside.

Commissioner Norkunas stated that was correct. He then stated it was not until page 3 or 4 which states they are making all required rooms accessible.

Martin R. Dickes??

Mr. Dickes? stated, for clarification, there were actually 40 with the step down and 100 with the balcony issue of the step down. He then stated it was not reflected in the application but the one eastern –most room as fully accessible and also 3 other rooms with balconies for full accessibility.

Mr. Mellick stated that was in the original order and believed that is where the confusion is because the balconies were a separate issue and had already been dealt with, but the 40 rooms were left off which is why it was back before the Commission.

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

#21Primrose School

Mr. Mellick stated the application had been withdrawn by the applicant.

No action necessary.

#10 Muvico

Mr. Mellick stated the application had been deferred by the applicant.

No action necessary.

Recommendation for Approval with No Conditions:

Consent Agenda:

#3 Cobb Theater

#4 Hollywood Theater

#5 Max Levels

#8 Shops at Midtown

#9 Interior Remodeling

#16 Wellington High School

#17 Brevard CHS Football Stadium

#20 Stockton Myra

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the council’s recommendation for approval of the consent agenda for items 3, 4, 5, 8, 16, 17 and 20. Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Recommendation for Approval with Conditions:

# 6 Duval Public High School

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of Florida Statute 553.512 as unreasonable with the condition accessible seating locations in the baseball bleachers are recessed with the bleachers and there was clarification added into the plans that the Coral rooms have elevated platforms that were not part of the plan. He stated the applicant indicated they were portable and would get a portable lift or ramp, which council requested be on the application and the plans should be submitted to DCA staff to verify compliance.

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

#7 800 Ocean Drive

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval of vertical accessibility to the first floor restaurant based on the provisions of Florida statute 553.512 as unreasonable. He then stated at the request of the applicant the council unanimously recommended dismissing, without prejudice, the request for waiver of the second and third floor rooms, which will come back as a separate request.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the council’s recommendation to grant waiver. Commissioner Gonzalez entered a second to the motion.

Robert Fine, representing applicant

Mr. Fine stated the dismissal would normally be a deferral but there were two items and Mr. Richmond had preferred for ease of advertising orders since they were coming back at the next meeting it was easier to just do a dismissal, which in actuality is a deferral.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

#11 FIU Stadium

submitted to DCA staff to verify compliance.

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

#12 FIU College of Nursing

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

#13 Sun Coast High School

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

#14 Lake Shore Reserve at Grand Lakes

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council voted 5-1 recommended approval based on the provisions of Florida statute 553.512 as unreasonable with the condition the applicant comply with Chapter 11, 9 for transient lodging to ensure the required number of accessible townhouses were provided and plans be submitted to DCA staff to verify compliance.

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

#18 Brevard CHS Gymnasium

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the council unanimously recommended approval based on the provisions of Florida statute 553.512 as unreasonable with the condition the applicant move the two accessible seating locations in on both sides of the bleachers and on both sides of the gymnasium and to provide the required accessible companion seat at the end rows and corrected plans need to be submitted to DCA staff to verify compliance.

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

Deferral:

#15 AMC Theater

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the applicant was not in attendance, the house plans were very vague not indicating clearly the location of accessible seats or companion seats. He then stated the council unanimously recommended deferral until the applicant could provide better detailed plans.

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

#19 Broward CHA Auditorium

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated the plans were very weak and the council unanimously recommended deferral until the applicant can provide additional details to include, but not limited to, dimensions, floor slope, length of slopes, sight lines and elevations.

Mr. Browdy asked if applicant was present.

Mr. Mellick stated the applicant was not present.

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

Denial:

#2 Kamakura

Mr. Mellick explained the petitioner’s request for waiver as it was described in each Commissioner’s files. He stated this was deferred from the last meeting where the Commission had requested the applicant to provide historic preservation and additional details. He then stated the applicant had not done as requested and was not in attendance. He stated the council unanimously recommended denial based on lack of hardship.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the council’s recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Norkunas stated he had brought to the Commission a couple of times some things were coming up for vertical accessibility that should not be coming up. He then stated he went down to the building before coming to the meeting. (Commissioner Norkunas presented some pictures overhead screens some pictures so the Commission could see what vertical accessibility the applicant requested waived.) He showed and described to the Commission a simple step to get in the door. He stated they wanted to open a coffee shop and it is a step, not vertical accessibility. He then showed and discussed the rest of the strip shops and at the very end there is a dry cleaners and good or bad they put a little kind of ramp in there. He reiterated some of the things coming before the Commission to be waived for vertical accessibility are nothing more than people just not wanting to make it accessible and that is why they come to the Commission.

Commissioner Wiggins stated he had a procedural question. He stated earlier the Commission adopted rules and discussion process and he was not certain if they applied to Accessibility but where it states only motions to approve are considered.

Mr. Blair stated the Commission processes for Product Approval, Declaratory Statements and Accessibility Waivers are different.

Commissioner Wiggins asked these did not go by these rules.

Mr. Blair responded that was correct which is why they only require 50%.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Mellick stated he had received a promotion in his city, moving into city administration. He then stated as such he had to withdraw from some of the boards and committees he was involved in, which was rather extensive. He stated this would be his last Commission meeting and it was very difficult for him to say that, but it was part of the agreement he had with his employer.

Chairman Rodriguez stated Mr. Mellick would be missed, but if it is a promotion the Commission is happy for him. He stated he hoped he would stay in touch.

Mr. Mellick stated he would and would still stay involved.

CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCT AND ENTITY APPROVAL

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

Commissioner Carson stated there was a consent agenda with 9 entities for approval. Commissioner Browdy moved approval of those entities. Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

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

Commissioner Kim stated he needed to have 7561-R1, 11291, 11353, and 11356 pulled from the consent agenda.

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

Commissioner Kim requested 7561-R1, 11291, 11353, and 11356 be pulled from the consent agenda. He explained he needed to abstain from these.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of the entities. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Commissioner Kim abstained. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair presented the following products for consideration individually:

10875 M W Manufacturers Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral stating testing laboratory, evaluating engineer and certification agency explain the testing conditions and rationale for not having anchors on sill.

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

3947-R2 KML Windows, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated this product was recommended for conditional approval that the applicant references ASTM E 1300-02 when it should be the 2004 edition.

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

5436-R1 Besam AES

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval.

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

7458-R1 Sun Metals Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for conditional approval. For product 7458.1 structural silicone sealant brand needs to be called out as tested. For Product 7458.2 the gasket needs to indicate conformance with Sect. 2411.3.4 for dry glazed systems for use in the HVHZ. Because of the absence of the evaluator, a new evaluation will be required.

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

7822-R1 Sun Metals Systems, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval with the condition Revise Model and description on application to correlate with files uploaded for both products.

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

10423 Westshore Glass Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral with conditions 1. Provide glazing sealant as tested. 2. Provide analysis of anchors at concentrated load at mullion. 3. Provide to administrator test reports to confirm product glazing and dimensions were as tested.

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

10830 Westshore Glass Corp.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for deferral with conditions 1. Provide glazing sealant as tested. 2. Provide to administrator test reports to confirm product glazing and dimensions were as tested.

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

10869 Westshore Glass Corp.

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

11013 TSG Industries, Inc.

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval with the conditions 1. Provide mock-up drawings that are legible. 2. Provide on application equivalency of testing standard compliant with 2004 FBC.

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

11057 EFCO Corporation

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval with the condition the applicant to provide glazing sealant on glass as tested.

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

11131 Hendee Enterprises

Mr. Blair stated the product was recommended for approval with the condition 1. Change Category to Exterior Doors. 2. Change installation drawings to indicate door or entryways openings instead of windows and indicate not for use as a shutter within HVHZ.

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

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

DECLARATORY STATEMENTS:

Legal Issues:

Mr. Richmond stated the first item to discuss was the revocation of some product approvals. He then stated in the spring the Commission specifically directed staff to begin revocation proceedings with regard to 8 or 9 products. He further stated those cases were filed, but unfortunately only four were able to receive service. He stated he would discuss those four first and then discuss disposition of the remaining products.

DCA08-BC-168 Enviro Guard, LLC.

Mr. Richmond stated service of the effective date was received on July 7, 2008. He then stated there had been neither contact from them nor any request for a hearing date. He stated the information on file with the department shows they did in fact receive approval from the Commission, however Architectural Testing, Inc. no longer serves as their quality assurance entity and no additional information has been presented regarding an alternative quality assurance entity. He further stated there had not been any response by the Department for information relating to the investigation of this matter and on that basis he would recommend, by motion and second to this effect, the Commission revoke the approval issued to EnviroGuard with regard to FL 3946.

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

DCA08-BC-187 Cleveland Steel Specialty Company

Mr. Richmond stated service of the effective date was received on July 7, 2008.

He stated there has been no communication although they received notification the matter would be brought before the Commission at the October meeting. He then stated they had not requested a hearing nor were they present. He further stated the information on file is they were approved and received FL 1453-R1. He stated staff was informed PFS no longer serves as the quality assurance entity as identified in their application and no alternative quality assurance entity has been identified. He then stated they had failed to respond to requests for information by the department which constitutes violation of rules and statutes identified in the petition. He recommended a motion to revoke FL 1453-R1.

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

DCA08-BC-188 JV Metals, LLC.

Mr. Richmond stated was served with the petition on July 5, 2008. He then stated the Commission had approved their product assigning FL 5985. He further stated staff had been notified Keystone Certifications no longer serves as the quality assurance entity for the product and no other approved quality assurance entity has been identified. He stated JV metals has not responded to requests for information from staff and has not in any way communicated with the department and is not present. He recommended a motion to revoke FL 5985.

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

DCA08-BC-191 Hurricant, LLC

Mr. Richmond stated they were approved on application and assigned FL 4487. He then stated staff had been advised the National Accreditation and Management Institute was no longer the quality assurance entity and no other approved quality assurance entity has been identified. He further stated they have not responded to any requests of information from staff or have they requested a hearing and were not present. He recommended motion to revoke FL4487.

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

DCA08-BC-192 Hurricane Defense Outlet, Inc.

Mr. Richmond stated they were served in July. He then stated the information on file showed they applied for Commission approval and were assigned FL 1798. He further stated the National Accreditation and Management Institute no longer served as the quality assurance entity and no other approved quality assurance entity had been identified. He stated the Department is tempted to investigate. He then stated the Hurricane Outlet, Inc. has failed to provide any information relevant to the investigation and that activity constitutes a violation of statute which is outlined in the petition. He recommended motion to revoke FL 7198.

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

Mr. Richmond stated four additional cases were filed:

DCA08-BC-186 BG Machine and Metal Fab, Inc.

DCA08-BC-189 Midway metal Roofing and more

DCA08-BC-184 Florida Precast Specialty Products, LLC.

DCA08-BC-190 Aeromed Systems Inc.

Mr. Richmond stated staff attempted to serve all four cases by certified mail to one or more addresses. Mr. Richmond stated there were two options because the law does allow some type of notification that action is being taken and if there is refusal to pick up the mail, the mail is returned as undeliverable. He stated the alternative if the Commission wishes to proceed is to publish notification in the newspaper in the same area as last known address for four consecutive weeks. He further stated that comes along with a considerable cost and currently the Commission’s budget is strapped. He stated the Commission also faces in this particular circumstance a mitigating factor that as of March 1, 2009 all of these approvals will essentially be expired because the Commission would have moved to a new Code and those people will have not asked for a revision or self certified or if they have staff, would have a better address on them and can move forward at that time.

Mr. Richmond stated his recommendation, in light of those circumstances, would be to allow them to lapse. He then stated if public notice is required the Commission would gain about 3 weeks which he did not think would justify the expense the Commission would incur in publishing the notice.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Mr. Richmond if the Commission followed his recommendation did the Commission have to do anything since they would be lapsing in March.

Mr. Richmond responded no Commission action would be required and they would just lapse.

Commissioner Browdy stated he had a reservation if the Commission knows a product is out of compliance and it does not take deliberate speed to revoke the approval and the product is subsequently used after the Commission has that knowledge particularly after a meeting on the public record. He asked if there were any obligation on the part o the Commission as a result of the product being used subsequent to the delay.

Mr. Richmond stated it does get a little tricky. He explained the use of the product itself does not necessarily violate the Code or the Rule if the product was actually manufactured while the manufacturer was still under a quality assurance program. He then stated each one of these individuals was essentially and is essentially out of business in the state of Florida at this point. He stated if they had an active business address it would be easy enough to have them served. He further stated these companies have essentially gone under. He then stated he did not believe the Commission had an active concern about new products being manufactured without quality assurance because they are not manufacturing. He stated there may have been some products that were manufactured between the time that their quality assurance entity lapsed and now, but the extent to which the revocation goes is questionable. He further stated he believed the Commission did not have any further obligation beyond what it had already done.

Chairman Rodriguez asked how staff found out.

Mr. Richmond stated the quality assurance entities notify the Commission when they are no longer providing that service for a company. He then stated Mr. Berman actually attempted to contact them for updated information, which probably resolves more of these issues than ever even appear before the Commission.

Mr. Madani stated normally the certification agency or the entity who was providing the quality assurance will notify staff through the system that they are no longer providing that service for the company.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Commissioner Browdy if he was satisfied with the legal recommendation.

Commissioner Browdy responded he wasn’t. He stated he wasn’t certain if a “notice of intent to revoke” could be sent to the building department because the Commission knows and can put on notice to someone else that these products are in the process of being revoked. He then stated the Commission would follow Mr. Richmond’s lead. He added he believed once in the public arena if the Commission stated it was not taking action as quickly as it should because it had no money it doesn’t…

Chairman Rodriguez asked if an email could be sent to the building departments alerting them about such products, as the commissioner suggested.

Mr. Richmond responded yes an email could be sent to everyone letting them know all items are at least suspect at this point. He stated he did not believe that would be problematic at all.

Mr. Madani asked if on the system if the products could be put in an archive.

Chairman Rodriguez stated he believed an email with the notice would be sufficient.

Commissioner Browdy stated he was fine with that as long as the Commission took some action indicating the products would no longer be approved.

Commissioner Franco stated if all of the products approved are on a list at the website could a note be attached there indicating they were no longer approved.

Chairman Rodriguez stated it was not that they were not approved. He stated it is an interesting, tricky situation, as counsel had said. He then stated the products are still approved they just don’t have quality assurance anymore which leaves tem subject to nonrenewal.

Mr. Berman stated staff has the ability of putting the comment on the application such as “Revocation proceedings”.

Commissioner Franco stated he agreed with Mr. Berman’s comment because if staff is trying to contact the entities and notify them they are being revoked because they no longer fill the quality assurance requirement can’t the word be added.

Mr. Richmond stated the Commission can work with staff to generate something for the website that would not get the Commission in trouble and pair that with the mass email capability. He then stated using both routes and crafting the language for the website which basically states quality assurance has been called into question and if anyone knows how to contact the people, to please notify the Commission so they know where to find them. He further stated it shows the Commission acknowledges the problem and allows them to discover the problem, but make it a constructive effort to proceed, as well.

Chairman Rodriguez stated that sounded better than not doing anything until March, which it cannot afford to do.

Mr. Blair asked if a motion were necessary.

Mr. Richmond responded it was not.

Binding Interpretations:

Petition 45

Mr. Richmond stated the building officials has issued on August 25^th, report number 45, binding opinion to Jeffrey Scott, regarding Section101.2 of the Residential Code. He then stated the general response appears that Section 508.4 only applies to construction types 1 and 4 for not counting the parking story as a story. He then stated this information only appears online and if anyone has any questions they may want to talk with Mr. Fuchs about it or the local building official. He concluded by stating it no Commission has been brought to the Commission regarding the determination.

Declaratory Statements:

See the Facilitator’s Report, Attachment 4 for explanation of the issues.

Second Hearings:

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

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

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

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

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

Dick Wilhem

Mr. Wilhelm stated he would like to make a motion to withdraw.

Mr. Richmond stated on second hearings Commission action is required to withdraw.

Commissioner Greiner stated in previous meetings wasn’t there discussion regarding the problems with someone asking for a declaratory statement and it goes through the process and ten withdraw it at the Commission level because they do not like the answer.

Mr. Madani stated this was a special case. He stated through the glitch code change process it seems the Structural TAC has made a change in the Code that would have a bearing on this declaratory statement. He explained issuing the declaratory statement could confuse the subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Hearings:

DCA08-DEC-168 by Leonard Terry, President, Omnicrete

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

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

DCA08-DEC-193 by Richard Milhalich

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

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

DCA08-DEC-194 by Dan Arlington, St. Johns County Building Department

Mr. Richmond stated the petition had been deferred.

DCA08-DEC-201 by Michael Schultz, P.E., Buckeye

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

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

DCA08-DEC-204 by Robert Jamieson, Underwriters Laboratories

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.

John Wiggins, Underwriters Laboratories

Mr. Wiggins stated they were satisfied with the answer of question one until the last few words. He then stated the answer read “The product’s certificate complies with the testing standard referenced in the Code.” He stated there was no problem with that comment as they test to test standards listed in the Florida Code. He stated but then the answer went on to say “the full structural scope of the Code.” He explained they do not test to the Florida Building Code. He stated if someone was going to use a product certificate mark and use it different than the test standard or if the Florida Building Code has different requirements for that type of product then it needs to go through the evaluation method and not the certificate method. He requested those last few words be removed and they would verify that it complies with the test standard referenced in the Code.

Commissioner Greiner asked if Mr. Wiggins wanted the Commission to remove “and the full structural scope of the Code” and put a “.” right after the word code.

Mr. Wiggins responded yes stating it is necessary to test to the test standards in the Code, not the test requirements within the Code, because they are different than what is in the test standard.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the committee recommendation with the change. Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous.

DCA08-DEC-205 by Neil Mellick, City of West Palm Beach, Construction Services

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

DCA08-DEC-207 by Anthony Apfelbeck, Fire Marshall/Building Official, City of Altamonte Springs

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.

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

Mr. Glenn stated he took exception to a number of the answers given. He then stated the Legislation that was mandated which developed the rule for carbon monoxide detectors was clearly intended for new construction. He then stated the discussion before the TAC stemmed, to some degree; around the fact there was no definition of new construction. He argued there was a scope and definition in the existing Building Code for existing buildings which could be the basis for new construction. He stated if it was not an existing building it was new construction. He further stated the “scope of the existing Building Code shall apply to repair, alteration, change of occupancy, additions and relocations of existing buildings”. He then read the definition of an existing building “A building or structure or portion of a building or structure which was previously legally occupied or used for its intended purpose to extend the carbon monoxide installation requirements to additions, equipment change outs” goes well beyond the Legislative intent and is probably contrary to some other policies that have been established by the State. He stated the Florida Climate Change Energy Efficiency Action Team have encouraged, based on the carbon credits issue, the changeover from electric to gas powered appliances. He then stated this interpretation would discourage that provision simply because it would be much cheaper to replace an electric range with an electric range or a furnace with a furnace than to add the additional cost of having to hardwire carbon monoxide detectors in an existing building. He stated, having been present during the deliberations in both the House and the Senate, clearly the intent was to apply only to new construction, permitted after the date of the bill.

Mr. Glenn stated in this interpretation a number of the answers given goes back to houses or buildings that could have been built 40 years ago and because they are trying to make a change to the building that would improve its overall efficiency or usability would now have to add the additional cost of carbon monoxide detectors. He then stated testimony given in the meeting by a representative of Honeywell indicated that carbon monoxide detectors have a life expectancy of 3-5 years, which is further compounded by the fact every 3-5 years those detectors would have to be changed. He stated until such time as it’s been incorporated into the Code, the Commission should narrowly interpret this provision and only restrict it to buildings being built as new construction.

Keri Hebrank stated she had worked on the initial legislation, as well. She then stated initially the bill did include all buildings and the Legislature decided they did not want to include it in existing buildings and instead only apply it to new construction.

Jeff Householder, Florida Natural Gas Association and the Florida Propane Association.

Mr. Householder stated they appreciated the opportunity to speak on this subject before the Commission. He then stated he was in agreement with Mr. Glenn’s comments. He stated the belief it exceeds the scope of the existing statute and probably exceeds the scope of the Department or the Commission’s ability to interpret the statute in this rule. He continued by stating the gas industry had long supported the installation of carbon monoxide alarm devices. He stated they certainly have supported the devices with respect to the new construction language in 553.885. He also stated they had no problem with the hardwired requirements which made it to the Commission rule. He then stated where they take exception was the concern of the application that this declaratory statement seems to make expanding the application of the alarm requirements into existing buildings. He further stated, as Mr. Richmond had indicated this declaratory statement would apply to additions, existing buildings to which an addition is attached, a level 3 alteration in an existing building, a change of occupancy in an existing building, and a change-out of an electrical appliance to a gas appliance in an existing building. He stated he believed all of those would run afoul with the statutory enabling legislation.

Mr. Householder stated there was no problem with installing these devices. He further stated if the Commission was interested in adjusting the statute to go down the existing building trail his industry would be happy to go with it and assist in crafting the language which would make that possible. He continued by stating they believed there may be other participants in the Legislation who were around in 2007 and may not feel quite as expansive as his industry feels about it. He stated his industry was okay with the application of the devices in certain types of existing buildings, certain changes of occupancy, and in additions and Level 3 alterations. He further stated they had no problem applying them and no problem hardwiring them in those particular instances.

Mr. Householder stated the concern of his industry occurs when singling out gas change-out, which is taking out an electrical appliance and replacing it with a gas appliance and requiring a hardwired carbon monoxide detector in an existing building. He further stated it was a pretty tricky thing to deal with. He then stated he believed the Commission, in this particular instance, faces three fundamental issues: 1) the statute and the rule both applying in their view to new construction. He stated, based on their participation in Legislative process, they believe the Legislature did not intend to require the carbon monoxide detector alarms in existing buildings. He continued by stating there was every opportunity during the Legislative session and Legislature chose the language in the statute intentionally and with no malice or forethought. He stated his industry does not believe the Commission has the unilateral authority to expand the statutory scope of 553.885 to include existing buildings. He stated they believed it was the intent of the Legislature in 553.775 to enable the Commission to interpret the Building Code, not the statute. He further stated the interpretation of the statute is the purview of the court system and not the Commission. He then stated the Commission has a level of rule-interpretive authority under Chapter 120, but he does not believe it extends to a re-write of Florida Statutes. He concluded by stating the biggest concern was this is a fundamental change in public policy and he does not believe it is appropriate to be handled through a declaratory statement process. He stated there should be a fuller vetting of this issue before there is any substantive change.

Mr. Householder stated the fundamental issue is how cost prohibitive it is to install hardwired carbon monoxide detectors in existing residential buildings. He then stated some very unscientific surveying of electricians around the state had been done and found costs from $300.00 to $1500.00 to install those devices in a existing buildings depending on the number of bedrooms and the complexity of the layout of the house. He stated after adding that on to the top of changing to gas there would be no electric to gas conversions. He further stated it would be a virtual end to the conversion process for the gas industry. He stated his industry currently does significant economic impacts on the industry as tens of thousands are done each year. He stated it effectively eliminates a consumer fuel choice. He then stated it has some unintended effects on some state policies. The Florida Energy Efficiency Conservation Act currently depends on conversions of electric appliances to gas to meet certain electric demand reduction goals. He continued by stating both the Governor and Legislature have both instituted various carbon emission reduction requirements. He further stated these particular conversions apply to those emission reductions. 3) They do not believe there have been no real economic impact assessment and no full vetting of the issues for this declaratory statement. He explained an attempt to try to participate in the August teleconference call where the TAC approved this recommendation. He stated it was a tricky process to participate in and clearly do not believe the interest of the industry was represented. He then stated this was the first time they had gotten the opportunity to be heard by the Commission.

Mr. Householder stated there were a couple of recommendations the industry would like the Commission to consider: 1) Establish a carbon monoxide workgroup to provide input on the report the Commission will deliver to the 2009 Legislature. He stated with the appointment of the workgroup hopefully recommendation can be provided by December that makes sense enough to clear up some of the applicability issues in the statute. 2) The Commission should return the declaratory statement to the TAC for further consideration. He then stated alternately the Commission should modify the TAC recommendation to apply it solely to new construction 3) The Commission should consider the workgroup’s recommendations and hopefully move forward with the recommendation to the Legislature that provides some additional clarity on the application requirements of these alarm products in existing buildings.

Commissioner Greiner stated he had some fundamental problems with this declaratory statement. He stated he had read and believed he understood the rule. He then stated he could make the leap if an addition is being put on an existing structure it is new construction. He stated what he didn’t get was going back through the whole structure and putting in carbon monoxide detectors. He stated he also had a fundamental problem with getting from what it says in the rule to the existing Building Code. He stated he agreed carbon monoxide detectors are necessary, but felt like the Commission was getting into the same area it was in with pools regarding how to take care of all the existing stuff. He further stated this was not addressed in the rule as he understood it and he did not believe the Commission cold do that with this declaratory statement.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval to send the declaratory statement back to the TAC with clarification from the Commission’s attorney. Commissioner Bahadori entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Wiggins stated several issues had come to light and he was in total agreement with Commissioner Greiner, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Householder and Ms. Hebrank. He then stated the results of this declaratory statement are it would cause many consequences, none least of which would hurt energy issues in the state. He further stated this is what happens when the Legislature puts a Building Code requirement directly into the law, then directs the Building Commission to adopt the rule. He continued by stating this separate rule which is Rule 9B-3.042 is not the Building Code rule. He stated the basic question was what the definition of new construction is. He then stated he was not sure the Commission could take the leap that goes into the Florida Building Code because it is a separate rule in response to a statutory requirement of the Legislature putting a Building Code in the law and then requiring the Commission implement that rule. He stated the rule should be amended or deleted and put into the Florida Building Code and dealt with as the Mechanical TAC decided in the form of a workgroup to do that properly. He then stated he believed another outcropping of this problem there should be a recommendation to the Legislature out of this to mix this type of problem and future problems created by this. He stated when the TAC had the teleconference all of this had not come to light and perhaps that was not the right approach. He concluded by stating it should go back to the TAC, but if it is changed here the answer to question 1 should be changed.

Commissioner Bassett stated Commissioner Wiggins made his exact motion therefore he moved the previous question.

Mr. Richmond stated several statements had been made concerning the Legislature proceedings. He asked anyone who claims this was extensively debated to bring a record of it because there was a lot of commentary in the early phase from affected folks, but it was not hashed out in any meetings and was not subject to debate or argument or flushing out on the floor of the Legislature. He stated it is standard for Legislature to work things out this way. He further stated it is not that simple and the language that made its way into the statute isn’t open to interpretation as it refers to every building for new construction for which a permit is pulled on or after July 1, 2008. He stated if that phrase were interpreted to mean only new buildings it could adversely affect a lot of other things in the Code in application of some other things. He concluded by stating ultimately the Commission is charged with being consistent. He then stated it would not really advocate for a particular result, however there is ambiguity in the statute subject to interpretation and the appropriate method for determination is via declaratory statements.

Chairman Rodriguez called for a vote.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Goodloe stated part of Commissioner Greiner’s comments regarded the workgroup that came out of the TAC this morning. He asked when that issue would come up.

Mr. Blair stated it would come up in that TAC’s report and they will make their recommendation.

DCA08-DEC-208 by Luke Ismert of Schier Products

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

DCA08-DEC-209 by Tom Hardiman of the Modular Building Institute

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

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

DCA08-DEC-210 by Joseph Valencia of Zyscovich Architects

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

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

DCA08-DEC-212 by Jason Padgett, Millwork Information and Training

Mr. Richmond stated the petition was inadequate and will be dismissed. He then stated if the petitioner wanted to supplement his response he could petition in the future.

DCA08-DEC-216 by Vincent Vaulman, CCE, Regional Manager, Madsen, Kneppers

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

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval of the declaratory statement with an amendment relative to question 3 to remove 2nd set of parentheses. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA08-DEC-236 by W. Vincent of Construction Specialists, 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 Wiggins moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA08-DEC-237 by W. Vincent of Construction Specialists, 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 Vann moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA08-DEC-238 by W. Vincent of Construction Specialists, 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.

Dwight Wilkes, St Johns County Building Department

Mr. Wilkes asked if a specific address was given for the declaratory statement or was it required to be site specific.

Mr. Madani stated the question was specific to a product, louvers.

Mr. Wilkes stated he had been very active with ICC and NSSA in the design of a new standard just approved for the construction of tornado or hurricane proof structures. He further stated in this case a louver would have to be tested to a higher standard than what is current based in the ICC standard. He then stated the questions being asked lead him to believe because these structures are being permitted currently in St. Johns County based on either FEMA or ICC/NSSA standard. He stated in some of those case louvers would have to meet a higher impact rating because of the design purpose of that structure. He continued by stating he did not want there to be a mislead question.

Mr. Madani stated the committee answered the question within the scope of the Code. He stated the standards Mr. Wilkes referred to are new and not yet referenced in the Code. He further stated if an applicant was trying to meet those standards

Mr. Wilkes stated he understood. He then expressed concern that if someone was trying to permit a structure in St. Johns County, the building official may not require the louvers be tested with a 15lb 2x4 travelling at 100mph because of this declaratory statement from the Florida Building Commission. He stated his primary concern was misrepresentation. He asked if there were any way something could be added for clarification that it would not apply to a tornado or hurricane resistant structure.

Commissioner Greiner stated he was confused. He asked Mr. Wilkes if St. Johns County was asking more than the Florida Building Code.

Mr. Wilkes answered yes.

Commissioner Greiner stated the answer would be the declaratory statement applies to the Florida Building Code but in St. Johns County there are local amendments which require a local technical amendment.

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

DCA08-DEC-239 by W. Vincent of Construction Specialists, 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 Vann moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Gross entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA08-DEC-255 by Joseph R. Hetzel of Door & Access Systems Manufacturers Association International (DASMA)

Withdrawn by the petitioner.

DCA08-DEC-257 by Chris Birchfield of No-Burn SE 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 Carlton moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Vann entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA08-DEC-258 by David E. Sands of Bamboo Technologies

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

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

DCA08-DEC-266 by Timothy Graboski of Ridged Systems LLC.

Withdrawn by petitioner

DCA08-DEC-267 by Glen lathers of Hillsborough County Public Schools

Dismissed.

DCA08-DEC-268 by Sandra Gump of Fomo Products, 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 Browdy moved approval of the committee recommendation. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

DCA08-DEC-275 by Ken Norton of Power Design, 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 stated this situation is different than the one the Commission just sent back. He then stated in this situation the Commission had no choice. He further stated, while not in agreement with some of the answers, certainly some ability to determine the source and adjacent areas to that source. He then stated the Commission did not have the ability to do so based on the rule, which places the Commission on the other side…making code.

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

Commissioner Wiggins asked if the Commission could charge an administrative fee for declaratory statements or would it require rule.

Mr. Richmond responded it would probably require an exception to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, which the Commission probably would not get. He then stated the Commission would have better luck, although it still might not get something for non-binding opinions which are….He stated “Declaratory statements are reviewed as being responsive to the public’s right to petition their government to explain their rules and statutes.

RECESS

5:55pm adjourn.

The meeting of the Florida Building Commission was called to order by Chairman Raul Rodriguez at 8:36 a.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 at the Embassy Suites Hotel, Tampa, Florida.

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

Raul L. Rodriguez, AIA, Chairman

Richard Browdy

Angel Franco Jeff Gross

James Goodloe Dale Greiner

George Wiggins Matthew Carlton

Herminio Gonzalez Craig Parrino, Adjunct Member

Hamid Bahador

Randall J. Vann

Chris Schulte COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:

Jeff Stone William Norkunas

Tim Tolbert Doug Murdock, Adjunct Member

Scott Mollan

Mark Turner OTHERS PRESENT:

Steven C. Bassett Rick Dixon, FBC Executive Director

Jon Hamrick Ila Jones, DCA Prog. Administrator

Joseph “Ed” Carson Jim Richmond, DCA Legal Advisor

Do Y. Kim Jeff Blair, FCRC

Paul D. Kidwell Mo Madani, Technical Svcs. Manager

WELCOME

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

CONSIDER COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Accessibility TAC

Commissioner Gross presented the report of the Accessibility TAC. (See Accessibility TAC Minutes October 13, 2008).

Commissioner Gross moved approval of a workgroup to study the integration of the Florida Accessibility Code with the proposed new ADAAG. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Gross moved approval to have possible Legislation to clarify the conflict of interests’ participation with TAC members.

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

Code Administration TAC

Commissioner Wiggins presented the report of the Code Administration TAC. (See Code Administration TAC Minutes October 8, 2008).

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

Electrical TAC

Commissioner Carson presented the report of the Electrical TAC. (See Electrical TAC Meeting Minutes October 14, 2008).

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

Energy TAC

Commissioner Greiner presented the report of the Energy TAC. (See Energy TAC Meeting Minutes October 12, 2008).

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

Fire TAC

Commissioner Goodloe presented the report of the Energy TAC. (See Fire TAC Meeting Minutes October 12, 2008).

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

Mechanical TAC

Commissioner Bassett presented the report of the Mechanical TAC. (See Mechanical TAC Meeting Minutes August 12^th Teleconference call and October 13, 2008).

Commissioner Bassett moved approval to form a workgroup to study the carbon monoxide issues and report back at the December meeting for inclusion in the report to the Legislature 2009. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Gross moved approval to accept the reports from both the August and October meetings. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Chairman Rodriguez stated the request for a workgroup had been answered. He stated a preliminary list of names of those who may be on the workgroup include Commissioners Goodloe, Greiner, Wiggins, Bassett, Bahadori, Carlton, Gross, Carson, Turner, Greg Lyons, and Jeff Householder.

Commissioner Greiner asked when the workgroup meeting would be held.

Mr. Blair stated he believed it was being planned to coordinate with the December Commission meeting, but no date or place were decided at this point.

Commissioner Bassett stated he had volunteered to be the receptor of any comments or suggestions intended to be brought at the meeting.

Chairman Rodriguez stated it was a great idea and would help the members be better prepared before the meeting even begins

Mr. Dixon stated any commissioners or anyone else who has any comments for Commissioner Bassett should send those to staff, as commissioners and committee members should not be communicating on any substantive issues.

Commissioner Greiner asked what the task of the workgroup would be.

Plumbing TAC

Commissioner Vann presented the report of the Plumbing TAC. (See Plumbing TAC Meeting Minutes August 12 and October 12, 2008).

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

Roofing TAC

Commissioner Schulte presented the report of the Plumbing TAC. (See Roofing TAC Meeting Minutes August 17, 2008).

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

Special Occupancy TAC

Commissioner Hamrick presented the report of the Special Occupancy TAC. (See Special Occupancy TAC Meeting Minutes August 12, 2008).

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

Structural TAC

Commissioner Kim presented the report of the Structural TAC. (See Structural TAC Meeting Minutes October 13, 2008).

Commissioner Kim moved approval to accept the report. Commissioner Kidwell 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 2008).

321 Advanced 2007 Florida Building Code: Administrative Responsibilities (Internet Course)

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

284 Roof Tile Installation Recommendations Based on the FRSA/TRI Concrete & Clay Tile Installation

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

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

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 August 17^th and October 6^th Teleconference call.)

FL8207

Commissioner Carson stated the committee recommended a motion to begin revocation proceedings.

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

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

FL8843

L. Colleen Simon

Ms. Simon stated she had come prepared to give a presentation, not really sure what the Commission’s procedures would be. She then stated she was informed there was a POC recommendation for investigation and now she would not need to give the presentation.

Mr. Madani stated the presentation was made before the POC and the POC felt that was sufficient.

Mr. Blair stated that would be worked out during the investigation.

Mr. Madani stated staff has a copy of presentation for anyone who wished to review it.

Commissioner Carson stated the motion was to begin an investigation because of a complaint from someone.

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

Ms. Simon thanked the Commission for its work.

Commissioner Carson moved approval to accept the report for both August and October meetings.. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Browdy stated he had indicated during his report the Education POC was discussing eliminating the core course. He asked if it was sufficient with the approval of the report.

Mr. Richmond stated it would be sufficient for now and prior to the December meeting for final approval of a package, which it would be slipped in the packet today which all will be prepared for the December Commission meeting

Commissioner Browdy asked if there were any need for a separate motion to eliminate the core.

Hurricane Research Advisory Committee

Rick Dixon presented the report of the Hurricane Research Advisory Committee. (See Hurricane Research Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes October 2008).

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

RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP ON RULE 9B-70, EDUCATION

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the September 15, 2008 teleconference meeting the Commission voted for initiation for development of Rule 9B-70 to develop amendments for online forms for the education program specifically the accreditor course and training program online application forms. He then stated the Rule Development Workshop provides an opportunity for public comment on the issue.

Mr. Richmond opened the rule development workshop.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Commissioner Browdy to present the POC’s recommendations.

Commissioner Browdy stated he would present the recommendations as recorded. He then stated the Education POC considered and recommended changes to Rule 9B-70.002 of the Florida Administrative Code. He stated the primary reason for change was related to the upcoming launch of the BCIS system and the updated forms for accreditors, provider and course approvals. He explained the changes were mostly technical in nature regarding preparation for a change in the form numbers to reflect new form numbers, preparation for a change in the form names to ensure there is no confusion between the old and new versions of the forms and the provisions for inserting the effective date into the new forms. He then stated, in addition, a number of general clarifying changes were being suggested and proposed to make the Rule more user friendly for the benefit of the accreditors, the providers and the public who access the education data system. He then stated changes such as corrections to a reference in the existing rule, changes to ensure consistency to prevent reader confusion, corrections to clarify intent of requirements, clarifications the Commission may suspend rather than revoke deficient accreditor qualifications until such time as the accreditor is in compliance. He stated specificity was added to the course auditing provision to make it clear the course instruction must be to the current or approved version of the Florida Building Code. He also stated modifications to the course audit provision to apply auditing to approved courses rather than in submitted courses and specified auditing would be of a minimum of 2% of the approved courses and the audited courses cannot be limited to one provider or courses reviewed by a specific accreditor.

Commissioner Browdy then stated several other changes were proposed to better structure the Rule: accreditor requirements for accessibility course review was moved to a more appropriate section in the Rule, requirements for training providers registration was grouped into a separate section, and placed before the course application requirements were also restructured, and more appropriate segregation of the Commission duties as to accreditation, course development and auditing courses. He concluded by stating the POC recommended restructuring the actual Rule, but there was very little substance to any of the changes recommended. He stated the POC was very pleased with the Rule and only seeks to enhance the Rule and make it more user friendly.

Chairman Rodriguez called for public comment.

No public comment.

Mr. Richmond closed the rule development workshop.

Commissioner Browdy moved to proceed with rule adoption to 9B-70.002 of the Florida Administrative Code with the changes to the Code as recommended by the POC, and discussed in the rule development workshop and hold a rule adoption hearing at the December 2008 Commission meeting.

Commissioner Franco entered a second to the motion.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

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

Chairman Rodriguez stated at the March 2008 meeting the

Commission conducted a rule development workshop on Rule 9B-13 for the purpose of amending the Energy Code to implement provisions necessary to comply with the Governor’s 15% efficiency increase for the Florida Energy Code. He then stated at the meeting the Commission voted to require 85 points for demonstrating compliance by the residential and commercial performance methods instead of the current 100 points required with no changes to the prescriptive methods. He continued by stating in May 2008 the Commission conducted a rule adoption hearing and voted to adopt additional clarifying provisions to publish a notice of change integrating the approved changes and to file the rule for adoption without an additional hearing. He then stated on June 9^,2008 the Commission conducted a specially called teleconference meeting and voted to extend the deadline for proposing glitch amendments until July 15, 2008 and to delay the implementation date for the adopted changes to be effective on December 31, 2008. He further stated staff had compiled the provisions proposed to implement the Commission’s Energy Code amendments and has identified several issues which need evaluation. He stated, therefore, at staff’s request, the Commission is conducting a supplementary rule adoption hearing rescheduled from the August 2008 meeting due to Hurricane Fay. He stated the purpose of the hearing was to have a TAC and public review of the comprehensive package of the Commission Energy Code amendments and complete rule making for Rule 9B-13, Energy Code. He stated on Sunday, October 12, 2008, the Energy TAC conducted a review of the Commission’s code amendments regarding renovations and equipment change-outs in existing buildings and Method B requirements for commercial buildings. He further stated the Energy TAC has recommendations for the Commission’s consideration. He noted the Energy Code is complex especially for those who do not use it on a regular basis and the Commission’s actions can sometimes lead to unintended consequences for those who must comply and enforce the Code. He then stated, as a result of the Energy Code’s complexity, staff recommends the Commission carefully consider the Energy TAC’s consensus recommendations and implement code amendments that are efficient, consistent, understandable and enforceable for the full spectrum of Energy Code users.

Mr. Richmond opened the rule adoption hearing.

Chairman Rodriguez asked Mr. Blair to explain the process before public

comment was heard.

Mr. Blair stated the commissioners and members of the public had tracking

charts for the Energy TAC. He then stated the proposed comments to the rule would be taken as proposed changes to the Rule as a consent agenda to approve the TAC recommendations in total. He asked if any member of the public wanted to recommend the Commission pull any of the amendments for individual consideration. He stated if commissioner agreed he could pull off what was recommended from the public or the member of the public could also recommend an amendment be pulled for individual consideration. He then stated a motion would be taken to adopt the consent agenda for the Energy TAC’s recommendations on comments and action for rule change to the Energy Rule as either submitted or as revised. He then stated any amendments pulled for individual consideration would be taken one at a time for review and determination of those. He stated public comment would be heard for any of those amendments pulled. He concluded by stating at the end a motion would be taken to continue with adoption of Rule 9B-13 Energy Code by publication of notice of change integrating in the notice the approved changes adopted at the supplemental hearing, and filing the rule without any additional hearing.

Mr. Blair asked if any members of the public had any amendments they would like to be considered individually as opposed to being part of the consent agenda.

Arlene Stewart, ACS Consulting

Ms. Stewart requested 3217 be considered individually.

Joe Nebbia, Steel Framing Alliance

Mr. Nebbia requested 3110 be considered individually.

Steve Munnell, Florida Roofing and Sheet Metal Association

Mr. Munnell requested 3148 be considered individually.

Commissioner Greiner stated he was in agreement with 3217 for individual

consideration.

Commissioner Bassett stated he would like to request 3338 and 3080 be

considered individually.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the consent agenda of the Energy

TAC recommendations for amendments to the Energy Rule as revised. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

3080

Commissioner Bassett stated there was considerable discussion and the two

he asked to be pulled are coordinated. He stated the discussion was a workgroup should be formed to study the issue which mainly involves existing residential. He then stated the discussion was especially in the current market this is where most of the energy savings would come. He further stated the Commission should look at the Energy Code and how it should apply to existing buildings especially residences. He concluded by stating there was considerable discussion regarding putting too much on the contractor trying to get a unit exchange. He stated a lot of the units were installed way before sizing requirements were in place and duct work leakage requirements were in place. He stated a workgroup could build consensus on what it should be so it would not be onerous to the contractor or to the homeowner.

Mr. Blair stated he understood what Commissioner Bassett was referring to in

3338 and asked if it was the same as 3080.

Commissioner Bassett responded he was not sure since he could not find the amendment.

Commissioner Greiner stated 3080, as submitted, received unanimous

approval at the TAC meeting.

Mr. Blair stated Commissioner Bassett’s comments would apply appropriately

to 3338, but was not sure if they would apply to 3080. He then stated he could not be certain without the full document in front of him.

Mr. Madani clarified the issue being discussed by Commissioner Bassett was

in 3338. He stated some other modification from 3338 went to 3080, but the major issue was in 3338.

Mr. Blair asked if only 3338 needed to be approved.

Mr. Madani responded yes. He stated he believed it would resolve the issue.

Commissioner Bassett moved approval 3080. Commissioner Greiner entered

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

3338

Mr. Blair stated Commissioner Bassett’s proposal to not take any action came from a long discussion at the TAC, several hours, where general support was received for the concept with the thought it needed more discussion and work.

Commissioner Basset stated he would like a workgroup formed to study how an improvement could be in the energy consumption of the existing residential building market without being onerous to any of the parties concerned, reach a consensus and then bring it back to the Commission for the Code change.

Mr. Blair asked if anyone from the public would like to address 3338.

Arlene Stewart, ACS Consulting

Ms. Stewart stated she supports Commissioner Bassett’s request for the workshop. She then stated the workgroup would address larger issues the TAC did not approve. She further stated the modification was approved as modified by the TAC. She requested the Commission move the modification affirmatively and approve the modification as modified.

Paul Savage, law firm of Greenburg & Traurig

Mr. Savage stated he echoed Ms. Stewart’s comments. He stated there was some consensus built on the item and it was presented to the Commission to be approved as modified. He then stated there was consensus on one small issue which should either remain on the consent agenda or be voted upon favorably. He further stated after two hours of work the TAC was able to get consensus on at least one small part. He concluded by stating he would be in favor of the adoption of proposed modification 3338 as modified and approved by the TAC. He asked if there were a motion or some other way procedurally to allow for a work group to work on the larger issues upon which consensus was not reached. He stated he believed with additional time there could be consensus. He then stated the workgroup was requested to deal with those larger issues.

Commissioner Greiner stated issues that come in 3338 were substantive. He further stated the issues deal with the type of equipment, how the equipment is handled, and the actual testing of ductwork in the existing houses. He then stated the issues were not something that should be ruled upon in a 15 minute meeting. He stated he was in agreement with Commissioner Bassett and believed a workgroup, similar to the carbon monoxide workgroup, would work to determine the outcome of the particular items. He reiterated the items were “big ticket” items, the existing housing and existing duct work and how it affects the citizens in the public, which is a very big issue. He then stated he could support 3338 as modified for the one item, but cautioned the Commission there were a lot of items in this particular change which need to be discussed.

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Greiner if he would move approval to adopt the one item the Energy TAC reached consensus.

Commissioner Greiner responded he would, with reservations.

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

Commissioner Bassett cautioned the Commission to be very careful on the wording of the motion. He stated there was one item addressed and modified and the rest were not. He then stated if it states 3338 as modified all of the other things that showed up would be included.

Mr. Blair restated motion was to approve 3338, the one consensus item the Energy TAC reached agreement on. He further stated nothing else would be approved except that one issue.

Commissioner Bassett stated he was not sure the TAC really had time to consider it. He further stated he did not think it was something that should have been considered in that short amount of time. He stated the meeting was interrupted due to a lot of music from the next room making it an 8 hour meeting with a 2 hour break in the middle and everyone was tired. He further stated he did not believe the one item should come up now, but the whole thing be discussed in total.

Commissioner Greiner stated he was in agreement with Commissioner Bassett. He then withdrew his motion.

Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to withdraw the motion.

Commissioner Greiner entered a motion to make 3338 a N.A.R. and still have the meeting.

Mr. Blair asked for clarification the motion was for the purpose of a negative roll call.

Vote to approve the motion failed. Motion did not pass.

Commissioner Bassett moved approval of a workgroup. Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Stone asked when workgroups were formed how it was

determined who would be on the workgroup.

Mr. Dixon stated staff tries to ensure all stakeholder groups are represented

proportionately. He then stated if the issue is regulatory staff tries to ensure there are more public interest representatives on a workgroup than the commercial interest representatives.

Mr. Savage stated he had comments to put on the record regarding the

refusal of the Commission to adopt proposed modification 3338, as modified, and recommended for favorable approval by the TAC.

Mr. Blair stated he could make the comments after the vote.

Commissioner Bassett stated he did want to suggest the workgroup include

the proponent of the modification.

Vote to approve the workgroup was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Savage stated this was a very good idea for compelling

reasons of public policy and for trying to obtain significant energy savings that are available from the existing housing stock which are available to be had by quality installation of change out HVAC systems in existing housing. He continued by stating another reason to be in support of the proposed modification was a legal reason having to do with the underlying authorizing statute which creates the Florida Energy Code, which is substantially cut and paste, and repeated in the first paragraph of the scope paragraph now codified in 1100. He then stated essentially the language is very clear stating the Florida Energy Code applies to the replacement of the existing systems, principally HVAC systems. He further stated they believed there was a fatal legal inconsistency in the Code against the authorizing statute because of an exception to meet the Class 3 renovation exception, which everyone knows of in the definitional section, having worked with on it for years. He then stated the problem is it is believed the statute is very clear that is the application of the Florida Energy Code to the change-out of existing systems and has nothing whatsoever to do with the renovation. He further stated the piece unable to reach agreement on, modification 3338, had to do with striking what they believe to be an unlawful extension for those properties that do not meet the renovation exception. He stated they believe if this body should adopt Rule 9B-13 as the Energy Code without this change it would be adopting a rule that would in effect conflict with the authorizing statute. He then stated there was a lot to do on the issue and the workgroup is the right way to go. He stated nothing should be done without the full stakeholder who was pointed out by TAC members, consumers, contractors, and all of the peoples involved in the industry. He concluded by urging the Commission to adopt the proposed modification 3338, as modified, which was a very small change. He further stated the change corrects the legal problem, principally contravening. He stated Mr. Richmond would confirm it is not permitted to contravene the authorizing statute. He stated he would urge the reconsideration of adoption of proposal 3338 with the very small strikeout agreed upon.

Mr. Richmond confirmed contravening, modifying, enabling and enlarging a statute in rule was inappropriate. He stated in this case the statutes are fairly clear in their direction that the Commission maintain the Energy Code. He then stated while it is true renovations and such are subject to the Code, what is happening in this case is maintaining the Code. He further stated there is agreement what the law is, but disagreement to what the resulting analysis would yield. He continued by stating he believed the Code was supported by the law as written, which would include the exception complained of by the speaker. He concluded by stating, all references aside, it was purely a procedural matter and the Commission is justified with regardless which direction it goes.

Commissioner Greiner stated the small change the Energy TAC did was something that was in part and parcel to a rather large change with a lot of very substantive information in it and is necessary to be done and the workgroup is vital to doing that. He asked counsel if the Commission voted on that, would it have voted prior to the public being able to make a comment.

Mr. Blair recommended a motion to reconsider for the purpose of including the comment.

Commissioner Greiner stated he wanted to make sure the Commission understood he is still in favor of not doing this because it is too substantive and there were too many things going on with duct work, equipment and everything else. He then stated the Commission is maintaining the Code and doing what it is supposed to be doing, as counsel stated,

Commissioner Greiner moved to reconsider for the purpose of turning it down. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Blair asked Mr. Savage if he had any more comments. He explained his comments would be considered before the Commission’s final vote.

Mr. Savage stated he had a procedural question. He asked if the Commission was now discussing whether to adopt the proposed modification 3338 or the availability of the workgroup.

Mr. Blair explained the workgroup was a separate motion and was already approved. He stated the vote the Commission would next take would be to reconsider the one item the TAC recommended approval on that he was a proponent of.

Jack Glenn, Florida Homebuilders Association

Mr. Glenn stated he was a member of the audience present during the TAC’s lengthy deliberations at the meeting. He then stated he thought what was before the Commission was a modification that was identified as being very substantive. He continued by stating the TAC in a consensus process felt the bulk of that modification did need to be revisited. He then stated the one section that was approved as modified by the TAC was important and it did achieve consensus. He encouraged the Commission to support the modification as revised, fixing a problem in the short term with the Code going into effect in March. He then stated the workgroup can work on the balance of the problem, which could be an onerous one and will take a lot of work. He restated his encouragement to fix the one problem where a consensus was achieved.

Commissioner Bassett stated he thought it would be beneficial for the new commissioners and others to know what is being discussed. He further stated when it was passed there had been no discussion of the idea of a workgroup. He stated it was thought the document would be taken piece by piece, taking comments and making comments, and making changes in every part of it. He then stated the item in question was (paraphrasing) if a replacement air conditioning unit that is less than 588 square feet per ton, an Energy Code calculation would be necessary to verify the right size. He stated he had been a mechanical engineer designing air conditioning systems for many, many years. He explained what started the initial requirement of the size of the air conditioning unit had nothing to do with the energy consumed because there is energy that comes into the house and there is a piece of equipment that spends energy to take it out in 5 minutes or 20 minutes. He stated the reason the oversize was a problem was because if it was taken out in 5 minutes there was not enough air passing through to get most of the moisture out of the house which left very high humidity and created mold problems. He explained if AC less than 588 square foot per ton need to do energy calculation to determine correct AC humidity in the house affected. He stated it was not an energy requirement. He then stated the Commission would do a greater service to the consumer if they were told they had to close the ventilated attic and stop the humidity from coming into the house. He further stated once that was done there was no longer a problem with size. He then stated he replaced his air conditioning unit and it exceeds the 588 requirement and he would have had to have done an energy calculation. He stated he would’ve done it and it would have passed and gone in as something that wasn’t necessary. He further stated he also closed his attic ventilation at the same time and he ended up using less energy than he did before. He then stated he would lower the humidity in the house by 20%, raised the thermostat 2 degrees the unit still operates on some August days at 100% of the time during the day, the temperature still rises a little bit in the house. He stated the unit is not oversized because the temperature does rise on occasion. He concluded by stating it was not a good number to use as a requirement.

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Bassett if he was recommending the Commission vote in favor or not in favor.

Commissioner Bassett stated he would keep it with the workgroup to determine the requirement and what recommendation should be made. He reiterated this was passed before the workgroup was voted on and the TAC was trying to finish the meeting at 8pm.

Commissioner Browdy stated he respected the technical opinion of Commissioner Bassett, but he believed the process to be very important. He then stated the Florida Building Commission and its associated TACs have very bright, committed people who spend an awful lot of time, both volunteer and professional, devoting their efforts and talents to the TACs and workgroups. He stated it would appear after a great deal of deliberation, notwithstanding the fact it was prior to the time it was decided to form a workgroup, they arrived at a consensus. He further stated in the Commission business when a group so diverse can achieve consensus on something it is no small task. He then stated as a result of the consensus, so the effort is not wasted, and at the same time enhancing any future discussion of the issue with a workgroup in the future, he would vote against the motion. He stated he supported the proponent who wants to approve the modification as modified and agreed on by the TAC consensus

Commissioner Wiggins asked Arlene, Paul or Jack to look at the modification and explain what the revised section of the modification which gained consensus. He asked if it gained consensus why it should not be passed.

Mr. Madani stated the modification was available and directed the Commission to click on it to review it. He explained the only thing approved was highlighted in yellow which was the sizing requirement for replacement of an existing unit. He then stated if an existing air conditioning unit was being replaced sizing is required. He further stated there was a size limitation indicating if the air conditioning system is not less than 600 square feet of air conditioning space per square ton. He stated it there was a limit to how far one can go with the size.

Mr. Blair stated one item was reviewed and reached full consensus.

Commissioner Wiggins asked if it wouldn’t be prudent to pass it as modified, if everyone agreed to that.

Mr. Blair stated that was what Commissioner Browdy had recommended.

Commissioner Greiner stated he had made the motion with reservations. He explained his reservations were due to many changes in the document and whether or not they could affect the change being discussed. He then stated he believed it was more appropriate for a workgroup environment than just picking out one item in the multitude of changes and making that one change.

Commissioner Bassett stated the item was the first one looked at a possible change, not one item. He then stated at no certain time after it was determined to go the route of a workgroup did anyone suggest the one item should be passed and bring it forward. He then stated the workgroup discussion centered on the whole thing going to a workgroup and not bringing one little piece back.

Mr. Glenn stated the changes were mostly a series of glitch changes proposed by staff that occur as a part of the attempt to the make the Florida Residential Volume of the Code free standing. He then stated Ann Stanton and other members of the staff did laymen’s work in the last code cycle in creating Chapter 11 in the Residential Code by stripping out the provisions for 1 and 2 family dwellings from Chapter 13 of the Building Code, so the Residential volume would be a free standing document. He further stated when looking at the tracking chart the bulk of the changes were from staff identified glitches such as oversights during last year’s attempt to make a free standing residential energy code within the document. He then stated a great number of changes were discussed, he felt very confident this change would have no impact on those items because they were literally bringing additional language back from Chapter 13 that was missed in last year’s cycle in an effort to make Chapter 11 in the Residential volume a free standing energy code for 1 and 2 family dwelling construction. He then stated in March of this year there will be, for the first time in Florida, a regulatory document that addresses the construction of 1 and 2 family dwellings in townhouses that is contained within one cover. He concluded by stating he did not think the issue really conflicts with anything else that had been done to Chapter 11 proposed by staff. He stated he believed it important. He also stated for the last year he had been a member of the Governor’s Energy Supply and Demand technical workgroup as part of the Governor’s action team on climate change and energy. He stated none of the things identified as priority items in the climate change issue were retrofit to existing housing. He reported they all conceded unanimously that the Florida Building Commission had done an excellent job with new construction and making efficiency. He further stated if the state wants to improve efficiency in the housing market it has got to address the existing housing. He stated this change goes a long way to at least require change-out equipment to be sized properly. He stated for years the industry had oversized air conditioning equipment and, as Commissioner Bassett stated, was one of the reasons for the humidity problems in housing. He stated this was the first step toward getting replacement equipment sized properly. He then stated it was a very narrow change and he agreed the balance should be subject to a workgroup, but this one provision was important for the whole energy conservation climate change movement.

Pete Quintana, Building Code Compliance

Mr. Quintana stated it was not that long ago that the Commission put together a group to deal with humidity control and the sizing of equipment. He then stated there were three different occasions that kept coming back for research. He stated Mr. Blair had created the evaluation chart to rank the issues in order of importance. He explained this was one of the issues that was very important from that group. He stated technically this was just a continuation of that process as no solution was found without a final result from that group. He further stated based on the results of that group there was no Code written. He concluded by stating energy was being wasted at the present time to make it real brief a 2 ½ ton unit was installed 15 years ago…

(Audio out during Mr. Quintana’s statements)

…plans and review and since it was not an exact replacement it turns out to be 4 tons. He then stated the problem was the duct system is still 2 ½ tons. He stated now there is the power of a 4 ton air handler pushing all of that air up there and if there was leakage before it will be magnified by the replacement. He stated the issue is very important and he was looking forward to working on it.

Mr. Savage stated the quality installation of replacement HVAC systems is a subject that is coming towards us whether it is by way of the workgroup, the Governor’s Climate Change Task Force, duct testing or any other quality installation that was just enacted and adopted by ICC proceedings, and when we get that code we may work on it. He stated there is a lot involved such as proper sizing, duct testing, and other quality installation procedures that need to be talked about in great detail and he agreed it should not be rushed and should involve all stakeholders. He stated he wanted to point out one small change basically gets rid of an exemption for

sizing that he believed was not supported by law and the sizing requirement is something all agreed on in this particular situation; if it is oversized a manual J or other analysis and if the quality installation has 8 issues that can be pried apart, the easy one, which was able to gain consensus is the exception which lets people off the hook for the sizing is part one and this was the least controversial and consensus was reached. He reiterated he did not see any problem with getting the one small change in and then the other eight items and to the extent and he couldn’t imagine how but if this change somehow created an impact on another related code section it can be explored in the workgroup. He stated he believed it is a noncontroversial change with consensus and it should be adopted as modified.

Mr. Blair stated a motion was needed to approve the recommended change either for the purpose of approving it or defeating it.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval of modification 3338, as modified by the TAC. Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Bassett asked if the motion was worded that way it would include all of the ones who had not been reviewed and discussed.

Mr. Blair clarified the motion is to approve only the portion approved by the TAC.

Vote resulted in 13 in favor, 7 opposed (Bassett, Hamrick, Kim, Greiner, Franco, Tolbert, Tolbert). Motion failed.

Mr. Savage asked if he understood correctly regarding the workgroup.

Mr. Blair stated the workgroup would go forward as it was a separate motion already approved.

3217

Ms. Stewart asked the Commission to overturn the TAC’s ruling because she believed it got caught in the competition of the wedding and the committee was not able to fully comprehend what is meant. She stated in the last code cycle a new energy calculation program was adopted. She further stated the program gives further flexibility for adopting additional energy efficiency measures including performance measures. She then stated the computer program allows for a variable for whole house testing however currently there is no print out that will allow the building official, the inspector, the code enforcement to actually check the house was indeed built to the advanced performance. She concluded by stating the way it currently stands is there is a gaming point with the possibility to input an improved air-tightness of the house and never actually prove it. She stated her request would be for a printout notification from the computer program so when the house is tested the code official has an easy way to check if it was indeed done.

Dwight Wilkes, St. Johns County Building Department

Mr. Wilkes stated that they were in support of 3217.

Commissioner Bassett stated his only concern was the printout for the energy code is done before the permit is issued. He then stated he does not see how a house could be tested before the permit is issued. He stated he agreed some kind of form generated to give the building official at the end that states it was built that way, but that would require redoing the calculations again and he did not know how many people would do that for free and how many would charge for it.

Ms. Stewart stated this mechanism currently exists for duct testing. She stated it was a meet or exceed point therefore the only way it would need to be recalculated would be if the building failed. She then stated if the building did fail it would no longer be in compliance and would need to be recalculated to show compliance or something needs to change. She stated this is merely a reporting double-check method.

Commissioner Greiner stated he believed Ms. Stewart had a point, but does not know if it was well understood at the TAC. He stated the point there is a loophole in the software and if the printout is done the loophole would be closed. He then stated there could be certainty it was done in accordance with the requirements. He further stated Ms. Stewart was alluding to was that people can tell you they will do one thing and either not do it or do something else. He stated there were certain areas in the software where this was allowed and it will give the public something it did not ask for.

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Greiner, as TAC chairman, his recommendation.

Commissioner Greiner stated his recommendation is to approve as submitted.

Mr. Blair asked if that was a motion.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval as amended. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Bassett stated he had a procedural question. He asked if this means that will tell the code official before he C.O.s the house to look for this test then he would support it.

Ms. Stewart responded that would happen.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Richmond closed the rule adoption hearing.

Chairman Rodriguez stated a motion was needed to proceed with rule adoption 9B-13, the Energy Code Rule, by publication of a notice of change, integrating and noticing the approved changes and filing the rule without an additional hearing.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval to proceed with rule adoption 9B-13, the Energy Code Rule, by publication of a notice of change, integrating and noticing the approved changes and filing the rule without an additional hearing. Commissioner Greiner entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

BROWARD COUNTY BOARD OF RULES AND APPEALS RESOLUTION 08-01 REGARDING 2008 NEC

Chairman Rodriguez introduced Jim DePietro who would present the board’s resolution. He stated would be he wanted to add the Commission should reserve any discussion and action regarding the resolution until the rule development workshop for Rule 9B-3.047 is presented. He then stated if there were any questions they could be directed to Mr. DePietro after his presentation of the resolution.

Jim DePietro

Mr. DePietro stated the resolution was recommended by unanimous vote and the state law allows this. He then stated he offered support to the staff by requesting comments be deferred to the rule adoption hearing. He stated the only thing not discussed were the modification numbers 2984 and 2985 which should be discussed in the hearing.

RULE ADOPTION HEARING ON RULE 9B-3.047, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, GLITCH AMENDMENTS: NOTICE PROCESS

Chairman Rodriguez stated the purpose of the rule development workshop is

to review the TAC’s comments and recommendations on proposed glitch amendments to the 2007 Florida Building Code. He then stated the Commission voted unanimously during the June 9, 2008 teleconference meeting to make the effective date of the 2007 Florida Building Code and the Florida Energy code December 31, 2008. He further stated in addition glitch amendments deadline was extended to July 15, 2008 and the Commission will conduct a rule adoption hearing at the October meeting. He stated the workshop provides an opportunity for members of the public to provide input to the Commission prior to the Commission action on the proposed glitch amendments.

Mr. Richmond opened the rule development workshop on rule 9B-3.047 of the

Florida Administrative Code. He then stated for informational purposes for the new commissioners Rule 9B-3.047 is the provision of Florida Administrative Code that adopts the Florida Building Code by reference.

Mr. Blair conducted a review of the process used by the Commission for

adopting proposed Glitch Code Amendments. (Please see Facilitator’s Report).

Mr. Blair stated this would be the first time the Commission has ever done a glitch process. He further stated although the Commission had called its annual amendment process the glitch but it was just the word. He explained there was no correlation to what had been done in the past. He stated the process was a new process, a new Statute 553.73(7), which establishes in law those criteria for which the Commission may consider amendments during this cycle. (Please see Glitch Amendments in accordance with the statutory requirements provided in Chapter 553.73(7) F.S.).

CODE ADMINISTRATION TAC

Consent Agenda: TAC’s Comments/Recommendations on Proposed Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Browdy entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who meet the glitch criteria and the proposed glitch fix. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Consent Agenda: Amendments not Qualifying as Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Browdy entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who did not meet the glitch criteria. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Amendments for Individual Consideration

3176

Fred Dudley, Holland and Knight, representing Interior Designers Associations Foundation

Shelley Siegel, Chairman, Interior Designers Associations Foundation

Mr. Dudley thanked the Commission and the Code Administration TAC. He stated he had attended the Code Administrations last TAC meeting where by majority vote the committee reconsidered its previous vote that 3176 was not a glitch. He then stated by majority vote the Code Administration TAC agreed with the modification, but it unfortunately did not meet the 75% threshold, therefore it was before the Commission as a “no-recommendation.” He stated the model code used the phrase “design professional” with regard to the submittal of plans and drawings under Section 106.1 which allowed the adopting states the flexibility to identify their own licensed design professionals. He further stated initially the Florida specific amendment to 106.1 included only architects under Chapter 481 and engineers under Chapter 471. He then stated several years later landscape architects were also added. He stated this section is the one that requires those specified design professionals to seal the drawings and plans that are given to the building department. He then stated it was pretty important to have all of the design professionals which the law requires sign and seal their drawings, which is the case with interior designers. He stated interior design professionals are regulated under the same chapter, under the same part, 1 of 481, and by the same board as architects. He continued by stating the interior design professionals have specific requirements to sign and seal their drawings under 418.2.2.1(3) and 481.2.1.3.1(1). He then stated they believed the proposed modification was really a glitch under 7d, which was the unintended result from the integration of a previously adopted Florida specific amendment with the model code. He stated in addition to the statute they believe it is good common sense. He then stated it was not a change in the law, but a way for a building official who may not be familiar with the law governing interior designers to see right into the Building Code that they are a group that is licensed and required by state law to seal their drawings and their plans. He stated there had been several jurisdictions which had rejected the sealed plans from interior designers acting within the scope of their license. He further stated this modification would hopefully avoid that problem by putting the requirements of 481 part 1, as they are for architects, in the Code as well for interior designers. He concluded by asking the Commission to consider this a glitch and approve it as a modification to the Code.

Commissioner Carson moved the modification does meet glitch requirements.

Commissioner Browdy entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Gross asked for clarification the vote was to just determine if it met glitch criteria. He asked if it does meet glitch criteria then it can be discussed.

Mr. Blair responded that was correct.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 16 in favor, 6 opposed (Kidwell, Franco, Wiggins, Bahadori, Greiner, Hamrick). Motion failed.

STRUCTURAL TAC

Consent Agenda: TAC’s Comments/Recommendations on Proposed Glitch Amendments

Mr. Madani requested 3153 be pulled from the consent agenda.

Mr. Blair stated a motion was needed to approve the consent agenda.

Commissioner Schulte asked where the tracking chart could be found as he was having difficulty finding the Structural.

Mr. Madani stated the tracking chart could be found under October 8, 2008 TAC in a folder which has them all in it.

Commissioner asked if 3148 was on the consent agenda.

Mr. Blair responded it was on the consent agenda.

Commissioner Schulte requested 3148 be pulled from the consent agenda.

Mr. Blair stated a motion was needed to approve the consent agenda and the actions taken or recommendations revised.

Commissioner Kidwell entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who meet the glitch criteria and the proposed glitch fix as revised. Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

3153

Mr. Madani stated he had distributed a handout of a drawing of a standard regarding how a gable end is priced. He explained an error in the diagram was discovered and the glitch would be to correct the diagram. He further stated this item is voluntary, not required.

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval of the proposal as revised.

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

3148

Steve Munnell, FRSA

Mr. Munnell stated they basically do not have a problem with the modification itself, but with an amendment which was added to the modification. He further stated the amendment deals with using a 2 part urethane based closed cell foam plastic as one of the options which could be used as a secondary water barrier for the roof system. He then stated when the original mitigation rule came out it did not include that option. He stated the rewrite of the mitigation which took place earlier this year also did not include the amendment as an option. He continued by stating the Wind Mitigation workgroup that met back in March or April to take the mitigation rule and integrate it into the Code also had the option of whether to include the amendment and elected not to include it. He then stated it had never gone to the Roofing TAC and it was not structural since it is a secondary water barrier. He stated it had been included in 3148 which is part of the voluntary gable end retrofitting section of the Code. He further stated it was put on during the Structural TAC. He concluded by stating if it was going to be brought up again, it should have been brought up in the Roofing TAC because it really has nothing to do with this particular structural modification which is a structural modification dealing with gable end bracing.

Mr. Belcher stated the amendment actually did go to the Roofing TAC. He

further stated the Structural TAC was informed the Roofing TAC recommendation on this particular comment was to disapprove the comment, approve the change, but not the comment. He then stated it was then sent back to the Roofing TAC where it failed again. He offered his apology to Commissioner Schulte, chairman of the Roofing TAC; because he did not believe it was a roofing issue and should have never been proposed the way it was proposed initially as part of the Mitigation Rule for a reroof. He then stated IBHS originally submitted it and that was the only place available since no one really knew that DCA staff and Richard Reynolds were developing this new Chapter 16 to be a voluntary retrofit chapter. He stated that is why it got moved to Chapter 16 in 3148. He stated there were a number of concerns expressed by the Roofing TAC and he had tried to address them in the change. He stated the product had already been approved by Building a Safer Home Program in Florida, My Safe Florida Home, and the IBHS 4 to 5 Program. He then stated until it had been approved by those programs no one had heard of it other than industry people. He continued by stating numerous people are coming forward with these products and although it is a voluntary section of the Code a standard needs to be set so the building departments can judge them and call for a permit if they wanted to do that in their jurisdiction.

(Mr. Belcher had brought a video, but the video did not play…He described

the video as showing a mock roof buildup, with a fire hose over 1000 gallons of water with no underlayment, no shingle, just sprayed it and let it cure one hour, which usually cures 24 hours, and there was no leakage through.)

Mr. Glenn stated he would equate what is there currently anecdotally to the

gypsy parking lot pavers that come in and apply a mix of 90% water and some black paint and call it resurfacing and are gone. He stated that is what is happening now with the number of applicators who are out there who have no standards are doing just that and there is no guarantee on what you are getting. He then stated in the TAC he had supported this adoption because it is voluntary but it does put something in place that is recognizable as a reasonable standard to show the material being applied will serve its purpose.

Dwight Wilkes, St Johns County Building Department

Mr. Wilkes stated he felt somewhat guilty because at the Wind Mitigation

workshop he brought this up as an alternative based on the reason the Wind Mitigation buildings built around the state of Florida such as the one in St. Johns County run by the University of Florida features this product. He then stated they cut away wall and roof sections and the product is featured as a way to add strength to roof sheathing and to mitigate water damage. He stated he had done a calculation on a number of plywood sheets that would roughly be used on an 1800 square foot house and if you sealed along the trusses at the joints it would roughly eliminate an opening just in the 1/8 crack required between expansion on joints of sheathing roughly 32 square feet of opening. He thought this was substantial and brought it to the wind mitigation group workgroup as a way of doing it and there was some discussion as to who will be able to crawl up there and install this and who will be able to inspect it. He further stated he thought this amendment had died until it came back in the form of this modification. He concluded by stating he supported it for the same reasons Mr. Belcher and Mr. Glenn have indicated. He stated the ability to inspect and make sure the product installed is the product that is featured and allows someone who is not looking to reroof, but just mitigate structurally the ability to do something to assist their existing older homes.

Mr. Munnell stated the issues the Roofing TAC had with this deal with sealing

from the bottom up rather than the top down. He stated under the mitigation there several options one of which is a peel and stick which can be applied to the entire roof from the top down and achieve the same thing. He then stated with coming up through the roof, according to the folks in his organization, could lead to some premature rotting of the actual deck because moisture actually gets trapped. He stated there were also some issues from the shingle manufacturers that it might void warranties because the heat and everything is deflected back up with the roof no longer breathing. He further stated, as Mr. Belcher pointed out, it was not approved by the Roofing TAC, not approved by the Wind Mitigation workgroup, and it should never have been in the Structural TAC.

Mr. Belcher stated he wished Mr. Munnell had not characterized this as trying

to go to another TAC to get it through. He further stated they had no idea Chapter 16 for retrofits was being developed otherwise it would’ve been there to begin with. He then stated Mr. Munnell spoke of waterproofing from the top down and they agree with that. He stated they were not talking about a situation of a reroof. He clarified they were talking about something that could be used if those blue tarps have to be on a house when the storm comes, and the roofing materials leave during the winds, this material will prevent the water from leaking. He stated the video show 1000 gallons of water sprayed at 400psi from a fire truck directly on this stuff and it does not go through. He further stated this stuff is too expensive for a reroof. He stated if a reroof was being done there will be two layers of felt paper, peel and stick, hot mopping and it would still be cheaper than this plastic. He then stated what they are saying is the stuff was tested at 2 ½ to 3 lbs per cubic foot and now that My Safe Florida Home and IBHS have accepted it there are people trying to put it on 1.25 and 1.5lbs. He continued by stating there were actually insulation guys out there selling spray foam insulation under the roof and saying not only is it good insulation but it’s a secondary water barrier and the product is known to absorb water. He stated their goal is to try to develop a way these things can be judged in the Code. He concluded by stating he could not emphasize enough that it is a voluntary section of the Code, not a requirement by any means and roofers would not be doing the work.

Commissioner Schulte stated while he understood the benefits of this being a

voluntary product as it was stated previously in the Mitigation workgroup this product was denied and over in Roofing when this modification came through it was sent to the Structural TAC with the intent of having the structural elements of this entire verbiage checked over. He further stated when it was forwarded it included the comment that it did not agree with the comment that was forwarded with this proposal. He then stated there were a lot of technical reasons why the Roofing and Mitigation TAC came to the decision they did. He stated his biggest concern was even though it is voluntary and he understands it could be done without doing a reroof its closed cell foam being sprayed on the bottom side of the deck. He then offered for example: “Mrs. Jones, John Q. Public have sprayed this stuff and it will not leak through now. The roof develops a leak, as all roofs will at some point in time, which is why they have reroofs. At the same time that water is being encapsulated above this product, sheathing is going bad, trusses are going bad. He stated his concern was a life safety issue of Mrs. Jones living under a structure where a leak is not detectable and the structural elements above are being lost, the roof could come down.” He stated he is trying to protect the public which is why he has had this stance on the product.

Mr. Blair stated what was needed was a motion to approve either for the

purpose of approving it or voting it down.

Commissioner Schulte moved approval of 3148 with the exception of the

comment with the closed cell foam product. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Kidwell asked for clarification of the motion.

Commissioner Schulte clarified the Structural TAC had passed 3148 with the inclusion of the comment which includes this closed cell foam verbiage that came from Mr. Belcher. He stated he would approve 3148 without that comment.

Commissioner Wiggins asked if this had to be opened back to the public to new issues raised during the discussion. He then stated he did not think the water sitting in the roof was addressed by the proponent.

Mr. Blair stated both of these were presented previously and he is proposing to approve it without the comment. He asked what would be different.

Commissioner Wiggins stated from his understanding this would not approve the spray foam addressed in the comment, because this motion is without the comment.

Mr. Blair responded it was without the comment.

Commissioner Wiggins stated there was a new issue raised over the concern about the product creating water resting on the roof and rotting out the roof. He further stated he did not know if that had been addressed previously or by the proponent during the discussion.

Mr. Belcher stated there is a misunderstanding of how this product works. He explained it is a thin bead sprayed right into the joint between sheets which expands to the other side of the underlayment and fills it. He then stated there was nowhere for water lay in there. He stated they are not talking about spraying under the whole roof deck, which the Commission and the legislature had already approved for insulation systems. He stated the same concerns from the roofing industry when those were approved that the deck was going to rot which has not turned out to be the case. He further stated that was not going to happen on the life safety issue either. He concluded by stating there would not be any ponding of water in the joint because it will be full of foam plastic.

Brad Weatherhouse, FRSA

Mr. Weatherhouse suggested this item be put in the foam section of the Code instead of in the gable wind bracing of the Wind Mitigation retrofit.

Jamie Gascon, Miami-Dade

Mr. Gascon stated there was also an issue discussed at the TAC regarding

the specific performance characteristics of the foam being specified here. He then stated he wanted to make sure if the comment is discounted the other criteria relative it fire remains.

Commissioner Greiner asked if the installation was sprayed underneath in the

crack of the sheathing. He then asked if it is crack of the sheathing is over the truss how does it get in the crease.

Mr. Belcher stated each side of the juncture of the truss and the sheath is

sprayed and each side of the joint. .

Commissioner Greiner stated if each side of the truss is sprayed then the joint

Commissioner Schulte is concerned about is not getting filled with this stuff.

Mr. Belcher asked if that joint would get filled anyway when nailing the sheathing to the truss.

Commissioner Schulte responded yes.

Mr. Blair reminded the Commission there was a motion on the table to

Approve the modification without the comment.

Commissioner Gonzalez stated it appears as the item was discussed in the

Structural TAC extensively and came back with a recommendation and now it was before the Commission with a change to the recommendation. He asked for comments from the TAC chair relative to what the change will do to the recommendation of the TAC.

Commissioner Kim stated the Structural TAC reviewed the video and

discussed it at some length. He stated from the Structural TAC’s perspective this item is not a structural item per say, not like adhesive strengths or uplift holding strengths. He then stated the new section of the title was Secondary Water Barrier and based on that the proponents comments that the product is being applied throughout the state currently without an y regards to standards of the foam or the performance of the foam the Structural TAC unanimously approved it.

Mr. Blair asked if there was further discussion on the motion.

Commissioner Wiggins asked what would be the procedure to amend it to

approve the criteria in the comment.

Mr. Blair responded stating the maker of the motion could accept a friendly

amendment. He asked Commissioner Schulte if he would consider a friendly amendment.

Commissioner Schulte responded no.

Mr. Blair stated there were two choices: 1) Propose it as a separate amendment and vote on that or 2) Wait until this motion is voted up or down and if it is voted down an alternate motion can be proposed.

Commissioner Schulte reiterated to the Commission although it went to the

Structural TAC, as Commissioner Kim stated the item was not extensively debated to a great level. He then stated it was debated numerous times to a great degree in the Mitigation and Roofing level. He explained the Roofing sent it over to Structural for the gable end bracing items with the codicil that it did not support the comment. He stated it had been debated to a great degree in other TACs and workgroups.

Commissioner Bassett asked, since he was having trouble with his computer

link, if someone could explain what the Commission would be voting on without the comment.

Mr. Madani stated for this modification it doesn’t have the subject being

addressed at present.

Commissioner Wiggins offered amendment to motion to add the criteria to the

comment. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.

Mr. Blair asked if there were any discussion on the amendment, which is adding the criteria. He explained the Commission would vote on the amendment and then go back to the original motion either as opposed or amended.

Commissioner Kidwell asked for clarification the comment being discussed is the one added at the Structural TAC meeting and if that is the only additional criteria.

Mr. Blair responded there is 1) adding the criteria from comment or 2) the original proposal.

Mr. Glenn stated the modification being discussed has to do with mitigation of existing housing from high wind. He commented the criteria for that foam plastic is necessary to support the insurance credits that have been given for having installed that criteria. He further stated without some credibility of the material the insurance companies may or may not recognize that as an appropriate mitigation technique being installed. He then stated it is a technique available not just at the time of reroofing but at anytime.

Mr. Belcher stated he did not understand how that could be done. He stated the section creates the secondary water barrier section and he doesn’t understand how the criteria can be there unless it applies to two part cell foam plastic. He then stated if they can figure out how to do that, great, but he did not see how it could be done and have the section make sense.

Mr. Blair asked if there was any further discussion.

Commissioner Schulte stated he had a motion on floor to eliminate the comments that were sent to the Commission. He then stated the only other way to approve it would be what Mr. Belcher was just saying which was as it was amended and sent to the Commission. He further stated he did not know how the criteria could be held without the balance of the information.

Mr. Blair asked Commissioner Schulte if he was speaking against approving the amendment, which adds the criteria.

Commissioner Schulte stated he was just offering clarification there were only two choices 1) amended as sent from Structural TAC or 2) the motion he has on the floor to approve without the comment.

Vote to approve the motion of just the criteria resulted in 3 in favor, 18 opposed. Motion failed.

Mr. Blair then called the question on the original motion which was to approve the amendment without the comment.

Vote to approve the motion resulted in 15 in favor, 6 opposed (Stone, Bahadori, Gonzalez, Wiggins, Kidwell, and Browdy). Motion failed.

Mr. Blair stated the amendment did not pass at all.

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval of the TAC’s original recommendation. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion.

Mr. Blair stated the Commission would be voting on the TAC’s original recommendation which is to approve what Mr. Belcher requested, just as it was.

Commissioner Kim stated he thought the first vote taken was on that amendment which was comment 1.

Mr. Blair stated the amendment was just the criteria and this vote will be for the original motion of the TAC.

Vote resulted in 14 in favor. 7 opposed. (Turner, Stone, Schulte, Tidwell, Greiner,?,?). Motion failed.

Mr. Blair stated the action was not approved.

Commissioner Bassett stated he was not exactly sure what action the Commission took. He then stated the original amendment was to install all of this strengthening for the gables. He asked if that was correct. He asked what the motion made by Commissioner Schulte was approving. He asked was it just to install the strength criteria for the gable. He then stated now the gables are not going to be strengthened and will just get blown away.

Mr. Blair stated the only answer he can give the Commission procedurally voted down three different methods 1) the amendment as originally proposed, 2) the amendment with criteria proposed and 3) the amendment as it was written from Mr. Belcher’s perspective from the action of the TAC.

Commissioner Bassett stated he believed for the sake of the public the gable strengthening needs to get into the Code somehow. He then stated it should be discussed more. He further stated he did not believe everyone understood what they were saying they weren’t going to do.

Mr. Blair stated the only way to reopen the discussion would be if one of the seven people who voted against the last motion would have to offer a motion to reconsider and then the Commission could discuss it.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval to reconsider. Commissioner Bassett entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Bassett stated he proposed the Commission go back and approve the original modification without comments. He then stated the Commission needed to understand this would be putting in the criteria of how to strengthen a gable to the house irrespective of what is thought of water seal or not, this will strengthen the house.

Commissioner Greiner entered a second the motion.

Commissioner Franco stated he was in agreement of Commissioner Bassett’s comments that the gables need to be strengthened and if the secondary water barrier has to be given up to do that, it would be worthwhile.

Commissioner Kidwell stated the Commission should keep in mind it is a voluntary segment. He then stated people can do it or not do it. He stated there were many ways to strengthen a gable end. He further stated this was not going to leave people wondering around in a quandary about how to strengthen their gable in because it is a voluntary section of the Code.

Mr. Madani stated, for informational purposes, not approving the original modification will create a big problem for the Code as there are a large number of modifications related to this concept addressed in Chapter 16. He further stated if the modification was not approved as is then a Chapter will be created with missing information. He recommended the Commission approve the original modification if hoping to see Chapter 16 developed.

Mr. Glenn stated Mr. Madani made an earlier point that another comment was submitted with by Richard Reynolds which include a revised drawing. He then stated he believed the revised drawing should be included. He further stated the modification could pass without Joe’s comment, but with Richard Reynold’s drawing.

Mr. Blair clarified Mr. Glenn’s recommendation would be to approve 3148 as proposed adding the comment already approved earlier into this modification.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of a friendly amendment to add that drawing with that comment.

Commissioner Bassett accepted the friendly amendment.

Mr. Blair stated there is a motion to accept 3148 as originally approved.

Vote to approve the motion resulted 19 in favor, 1 opposed (Kidwell).

Consent Agenda: Amendments not Qualifying as Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Greiner entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who do not meet the glitch criteria. Commissioner Gross entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Roofing TAC

Consent Agenda: TAC’s Comments/Recommendations on Proposed Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Greiner entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who meet the glitch criteria and the proposed glitch fix. Commissioner Gross entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Consent Agenda: Amendments not Qualifying as Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Vann entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who did not meet the glitch criteria. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Fire TAC

Consent Agenda: TAC’s Comments/Recommendations on Proposed Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Greiner entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who meet the glitch criteria and the proposed glitch fix. Commissioner Gross entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Wiggins and Commissioner Goodloe entered a second to the motion.

Consent Agenda: Amendments not Qualifying as Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Vann entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who did not meet the glitch criteria. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Special Occupancy TAC

Consent Agenda: TAC’s Comments/Recommendations on Proposed Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Vann entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who meet the glitch criteria and the proposed glitch fix. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Consent Agenda: Amendments not Qualifying as Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Vann entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who did not meet the glitch criteria. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Plumbing TAC

Consent Agenda: TAC’s Comments/Recommendations on Proposed Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Vann entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who meet the glitch criteria and the proposed glitch fix.. Commissioner Schulte entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Consent Agenda: Amendments not Qualifying as Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Vann entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who did not meet the glitch criteria. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Consent agenda

Mechanical TAC

Consent Agenda: TAC’s Comments/Recommendations on Proposed Glitch Amendments

Mr. Madani requested 3025 and 2897 be pulled from the consent agenda.

Commissioner Greiner stated he was in agreement with Mr. Madani’s request.

Commissioner Kidwell entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments that meet the glitch criteria and the proposed glitch fix as revised. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

3025 and 2897

Mr. Glenn asked if Mr. Madani pulled these because there would now be a workgroup for carbon monoxide.

Mr. Madani stated he discovered the language used in the two modifications was not consistent with the rule. He then stated it seemed the text was pulled from an older draft of the rule. He stated was trying to maintain consistence with the rule as adopted. He explained these had to do with a sentence which was added.

Mr. Glenn stated if a carbon monoxide workgroup is going to be established to deal with the carbon monoxide rule he would recommend not approving any carbon monoxide language at this point subject to the workgroup.

Mr. Madani stated although one modification is in residential and the other is in commercial the fix for both is the same. He explained where it states “If a building having a fossil fuel burning heater” under Section R313.4 states “if a building which a permit for new construction issued on or after 07/01/08”. He stated that sentence was not there and needed to be put back in the Rule to be consistent with the Rule.

Mr. Glenn stated he believed the appropriate language to be “a permit for new construction is issued.” He stated “any permit” would be too inclusive. He explained he could have to pull a permit for new construction for a driveway and have to put carbon monoxide detectors in the house.

Depesh Pareck, representing FNGA

Mr Pareck stated based on the comment the Florida statute and the new rule it does read “for new construction issued after 01/01/08” therefore the language needs to be changed to what the statute and the rule states.

Mr. Glenn stated he believed since the effective date of the Code is 3/1/08 it would be okay to leave out the 7/1/08 language of the Code since it has already passed.

Commissioner Greiner stated he agrees with Mr. Madani’s modifications and Mr. Glenn’s recommendation to remove 07/08. He then stated any change the Commission should mimic the statute and the rule.

Commissioner Greiner moved approval of the modifications as read by Mr. Madani including the removal of 07/08 for new construction.

Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Wiggins asked for clarification what was being inserted is exact language the language for both the residential and building code modification.

Commissioner Greiner responded yes.

Mr. Blair asked Mr. Madani if he had the language proposed in the motion.

Mr. Madani responded the language would read “every building for which a permit for new construction is issued .” he then stated the 07/01/08 date would be removed.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Consent Agenda: Amendments not Qualifying as Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Gonzalez entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who did not meet the glitch criteria. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Consent agenda

Accessibility TAC

Consent Agenda: TAC’s Comments/Recommendations on Proposed Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Wiggins entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who meet the glitch criteria and the proposed glitch fix as revised. Commissioner Gonzalez entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Electrical TAC

Consent Agenda: TAC’s Comments/Recommendations on Proposed Glitch Amendments

Commissioner Greiner entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments who meet the glitch criteria and the proposed glitch fix as revised. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Consent Agenda: Amendments not Qualifying as Glitch Amendments

Mr. Glenn stated in general regarding 2008 NEC there would be a lot of comments including the Broward County Resolution regardless of which direction the Commission decided to go relative to the issue. He stated if the Commission favors adoption of NEC 2008 something that has not been reviewed at the TAC would be deleting Article 80 from NEC 2008. He explained it includes the administrative provisions from NFP and conflicts with Chapter 1. He stated If the NEC 2008 is adopted in total without any of the conditions, Article 80 should be deleted to avoid administrative conflict with administrative chapter of the Building Code.

Commissioner Wiggins asked if the Commission would be dealing separately with the modification in the Electrical TAC that adopts NEC 2008.

Mr. Blair answered it would be automatically be considered individually because there was no recommendation either way.

????

Mr. ??? stated he did not have access to the consent agenda from either side and wanted to know the status of 2984 and 2985.

Mr. Blair answered stating those would be considered individually since the NEC issue did not get a recommendation from TAC whether it meets glitch or not.

Commissioner Gonzalez entered a motion to approve the consent agenda for

amendments that did not meet the glitch criteria. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Consent agenda

Amendments for Individual Consideration

2984

Alan Manche, Square D Company

Mr. Manche stated based on the criteria as he understood them, there either had to threaten public safety or be a hardship on stakeholders to be considered a glitch. He then stated he would like the Commission to consider the safety issues at hand and what the hardships were. He then stated he realized the discussion often revolved around residential side of this, the Broward County issue revolves around the AFCI issue. He asked the commissioners to think about this in a broader context well beyond the residential side of this. He stated GFCI protection in commercial buildings, where we work every day, where kids go to school every day now have requirements with GFCI protections around sinks, laboratories, things which do not exist in the current code. He continued stating there were also the tamper resistant and the AFCI issues, all having burned counts and body counts associated with them, Article 780 Homeland Security Article for hardening the electrical system for homeland security issues is in the 2008 NEC which creates safety and security for the state, egress of electrical rooms where panic hardware requirements were placed on electrical rooms for egress of electrical workers, which is purely a safety issue. He then stated as a matter of fact the issue was driven from 2 deaths in the state of Florida because they could not get out of the door with burnt hands and could not turn the door handle, emergency systems with healthcare systems with particular requirements included to enhance the safety of the electrical systems.

Mr. Manche stated the hardship considerations included ISO ratings and modifications not being current would impact current ISO ratings which would increase insurance rates across the board to every resident, bringing industry to the state, NFPA 79, other standards tying to the National Code. He then stated he has been involved with industry trying to move into states trying to use the latest codes and cannot get it tied to the current edition of the NEC. He further stated the largest automotive producer in the world hesitates when going into a state if the state was on an older version of the NEC and equipment could not be brought in and it took some resolution work to make that happen. He stated Article 511 reduces some of the hardship in garages

Dwight Wilkes, St. Johns County Building Department, past President Florida Chapter IAEI

Mr. Wilkes echoed Mr. Mache’s comments and stated he believed those were undo hardships.

Jamie Gascon, Miami Dade County

Mr. Gascon stated he was in support as a glitch for safety reasons.

Mr. Glenn stated he realized the glitch cycle includes a provision from the Legislature to adopt the NEC, however the size of the document must be considered when subjecting it to the glitch process. He then stated it did not get a normal review of code. He further stated the Commission probably has the authority to open specifically a rule at any time to consider the NEC under the language. He stated he had spoken with Mr. Richmond briefly and believed it statutorily in line to do so. He then asked the Commission to consider delaying action on this, have a special rule hearing, subject it to the TAC for consideration and public comment with the actual review process and then to the Commission with actual recommendations. He stated this would give everyone the opportunity to comment on the multitude of changes contained within the NEC. He further stated he believed this could be done timely keeping 2008 NEC adoption fairly consistent with the March 1 effective date if this were stripped out of the rule on just the NEC and have the TAC input, since it had not reviewed this document for substance.

Kevin Doughten??, Levitan Manufaturing??

Mr. Doughten stated this does meet glitch criteria based on safety. He then stated the Consumer Products Safety Council did a 10 year study and of 20,000 kids, seven per day, were treated in emergency rooms due to tampering with electrical receptacles. He further stated every day this gets postponed seven more will be treated in emergency rooms for tampering with electrical receptacles.

Randy Seiffer, NFPA

Mr. Seiffer stated he was in agreement this meets both the hardship and safety issues. He then stated there were roughly 70,000 electrical fires in the United States each year and approximately half of those were contributed to arching as an ignition factor. He further stated last year fires in the united States actually dropped 5.2% but deaths increased 5.7%. He stated 84% of all civilian deaths in the United States occur in the home, over 2,800 last year.

Jim DiPietro, Broward County Board of Rules and Appeals

Mr. DiPietro stated this meets glitch because state law says there is a right to adopt. He then stated if there can be hearings and then a vote that would make this effective if it were to pass by July 1, he would be in agreement with the speakers. He then stated there was nothing to fear from transparency and wished to have it in effect no later than July 1 and would also support delegating to staff exercising out the administrative sections that might be in conflict. He reiterated any process that would get this to July 1, he would support as a matter of public safety.

Mike McCombs Electrical TAC

Mr. McCombs stated the Electrical TAC did not look at this Code. He further stated the Electrical TAC does need to review the Code. He then stated he had spoken to Mr. Richmond many times regarding it did not meet the criteria for the glitch and have been going on that basis from the day the Code was accepted by the NEC and put into print. He stated this does not need to be a glitch because it is a major code change. He then stated Mr. Richmond stated after January 1^st it can be brought up again and then it would follow the regular process as with any other major code change and still be real close to the July 1st implementation date that the Broward County Resolution has set forth for everyone to review. He stated he would definitely support as close to the July 1^st date for acceptance by the Commission but it does need to start immediate review by the TAC at the next meeting and then go through the normal steps as the TAC is charged to do. He then stated the date could still be met, which is only eighteen months behind and the same date the 2005 was completed. He stated at that time there was no other way to complete the process. He then stated the Legislature has given the Commission the authority to do it sooner and hopefully when the 2011 comes out the Commission can be ready for it and if it feels like it needs to be accepted sooner they can do so at that time. He concluded by stating for now it needs to go through the regular process which would include review and hopefully an implementation date of July 1, 2009.

Commissioner Browdy moved approval to defer action on the 2008 NEC as a glitch amendment and set a schedule of rulemaking to implement the 2008 NEC as may be necessarily modified by the TAC and the Commission for an implementation no later than July 1, 2009. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion.

Mr. Richmond offered clarification stating the language can read “no later than” however it should still be the goal. He then stated it would be subject to the chapter 120 rule adoption process, including the hang-ups which could be visited in that. He stated this can be adopted with that goal in mind, because it is feasible, but it is not full proof

Commissioner Wiggins asked what prevents the Commission moving forward with the rule development sooner. He stated since it is October was there anything stating then Commission could not start in December to ensure perhaps adopting sooner than July.

Mr. Richmond stated in order to implement that would have Rule 9B-3.047 would have to be opened and in order to open it, the current proceeding need to be closed out and it won’t be closed out until after the December meetings. He then stated the first notice cannot even be published until after this process is fully concluded and the rule is filed with the Department of State.

Commissioner Carson stated the Electrical TAC is not opposed to adopting the Code, the dissention is the process and when it would be implemented. He stated he believed Commissioner Browdy’s motion would get everyone together on it. He reiterated no one from the Electrical TAC spoke against the adoption, there was just a concern regarding time and process.

Mr. Seiffer asked his arguments were held to whether or not this met glitch criteria and he assumed the Commission was going to make a decision it if was a glitch or not a glitch. He then stated he assumed it was considered a glitch more discussion would determine if it had merits to move forward. He stated he had comments relative to moving forward or not moving forward, which he assumed would be voted up or down and the motion on the floor would be appropriate at that time.

Mr. Blair stated Mr. Seiffer could make comments if he’d like, but the motion would say the Commission does not take action on this at this point, but take a separate rule-making which would still work toward an implementation date of July 1, 2009. He stated the motion has traction and support.

Mr. Seiffer asked if there was a motion on the floor regarding if it was a glitch or not, no consensus on the Commission to make that decision.

Mr. Blair stated the motion states the Commission is deferring action on this modification and initiate a second rule making which means they have determined with that second rule making it would be taken up right away and voted on.

Mr. Richmond stated inherent in the current motion is this has not been demonstrated to be a glitch at this point. He then stated through the process identified in Commissioner Browdy’s motion it could be demonstrated to be a glitch at future proceedings by the statutory definition the Commission is working under.

Mr. Blair stated a rule development process would commence as soon as this rule is closed.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Dixon offered explanation of why the timing is the way it is. He stated the Legislature just this session gave the Commission the authority to consider updates of the NEC as a glitch. He then stated had the Commission had that authority a year ago, a review process would have been scheduled starting the winter of last year, the TAC would have had the opportunity for review, and then a proposal to adopt would have been submitted in time for the glitch amendments. He further stated the Commission was behind the curve because the original goal had been to implement the Code by October 1^st so there was not time to do the review after obtaining the new authority. He stated the schedule for the 2010 code development that will start next year does includes the time and process for the TAC to review the code in time for the glitch amendments.

Mr. Richmond closed the rule development workshop.

Mr. Richmond stated the appropriate motion needed would be to proceed with rulemaking by publishing a notice of rule adoption for a hearing at the December meeting.

Mr. Blair asked if we could add to motion authorizing DCA staff to make any editorial fixes required to implement the Commission’s substantive decisions on glitch code amendments such as formatting, section number correlation, removal of text, etc.

Commissioner Browdy responded yes.

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

Commissioner Wiggins stated he forgot to bring up an item earlier. He stated he was on the successful side of one of the modifications relative to the interior designer. He then moved to reconsider 3176.

Commissioner Carlton entered a second to the motion

Commissioner Browdy asked if that were a 9-7 vote.

Mr. Blair stated there would need to be separate motions to accomplish that. He said the first would be a motion to reconsider the action on proceeding with rule adoption and then a motion to reconsider the action on that particular proposed amendment.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval to reconsider action on proceeding with rule adoption. Commissioner Kidwell entered second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval to reconsider action on 3176. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion. Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

Mr. Richmond reopened the rule development workshop for 9B-3.047 for purposes of discussion of the identified modification.

3176

Commissioner Wiggins asked if at this point a vote to determine whether it meets glitch criteria.

Mr. Blair responded yes. He stated it was not voted previously as meeting the glitch criteria. He asked Commissioner Wiggins to explain why it would meet glitch criteria.

Commissioner Wiggins stated he wanted to reconsider his vote that it meets glitch criteria so the main modification can be voted on.

Commissioner Wiggins moved approval that modification 3176 meets glitch criteria. Commissioner Carson entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Greiner stated he did not see this as a glitch item, but as a licensing issue which is already covered in the statute and has nothing to do with the Code.

Mr. Dudley stated, for the record, it has everything to do with the Code. He referenced 1601.1 and stated of the four licensed professions that are required to sign and seal their plans, interior designers are the only ones who have been left out of 106. He then stated this does not empower them to do anything they can do or not do right now. He explained what it does do is show the building official who is only looking at the Code and not looking at the statute which trumps the Code that they are included. He stated it is not a licensing issue at all.

Commissioner Greiner stated again it as already covered in statute.

Commissioner Bassett stated if this passes there are other areas affected in the Code which should be brought up to it. He stated would be the Energy Code where the disciplines are affected by the Energy Code and whether they have to sign or not. He then stated having gone through the Energy Code calculation many times to find the lighting has been changed by the interior designer, not knowing what the Energy Code requirements are. He stated their signature there also so they acknowledge what the Energy Code.

Mr. Blair stated so basically do the correlation throughout the Code.

Mr. Dudley stated it only pertained to Chapter 1 on Code Administration, no others.

Vote to approve the motion 3176 meets the glitch criteria resulted in 11 in favor, 10 opposed (Turner, Stone, Tolbert, Schulte, Bahadori, Franco, Browdy, Bassett, Greiner, Carlton?). Motion failed.

Mr. Richmond closed the workshop on Rule 9B-3.047.

Mr. Blair stated a motion was needed to approve proceeding with rule adoption 9B-3.047 Florida Building Code Glitch Amendments noticing the approved amendments and authorizing DCA staff to make any editorial fixes required to implement the Commission’s substantive decisions on glitch code amendments such as formatting, section number correlation, removal of text, etc.

Commissioner Kidwell moved approval of the motion as stated. Commissioner Wiggins entered a second to the motion. Motion carried.

Mr. Dixon stated that based on the action and recommendation of the Structural TAC and the Commission action from the June meeting, staff asks the Commission to authorize the initiation of rulemaking to change 9B-72 to recognize the equivalency of ASTME 1302 to ASTME 1304 conditioned as provided in the recommendation of the Structural TAC.

Commissioner Gross moved approval of the motion as stated. Commissioner Kidwell entered a second to the motion.

Commissioner Gonzalez requested clarification, as discussed at the TAC meeting was this only being opened for those specific reasons.

Mr. Dixon responded that was correct, it is conditioned upon the recommendation of the TAC.

Vote to approve the motion was unanimous. Motion carried.

WORKPLAN PRIORITIZATION EXERCISE

Chairman Rodriguez stated Mr. Blair would lead the Commission in a workplan prioritization exercise and the Commission’s rankings will be one of the inputs deciding priorities. He then stated staff would work with the Commission to ensure Commission priorities as well as the legislative assignments and resources. He continued by stating would make recommendations made on mandated tasks, efficiency of resource use, and Commission prioritization results.

Mr. Blair conducted a review of the workplan prioritization exercise. (Please see FBS FY 2008-2009 Workplan Prioritization.)

Commissioner Greiner asked how the carbon monoxide detection and the mechanical workgroups just added in be incorporated into the workplan schedule.

Mr. Blair responded for example number 28 on page 2 is carbon monoxide detection recommendations and he believed the carbon monoxide workgroup could be handled within that item. He instructed the commissioners to add a box for the mechanical workgroup and label it 39 in the Energy issues.

Commissioner Stone asked if any of the items have a cost impacts and are there any cost estimates to indicate what the fiscal impact to the Commission would be for those items.

Mr. Dixon asked Commissioner Stone if he meant for the meetings or the outcome of the recommendations.

Commissioner Stone responded for him it was difficult to rank something without knowing what the fiscal impact will be on the state of Florida.

Mr. Dixon clarified Commissioner Stone was talking about the process itself.

Commissioner Stone stated if he knew one task was $500,000.00 and another task was $25,000.00, knowing the fiscal impact of those items may influence his decision of rank. He stated he used to teach finance at the university in Tampa and one of the things he taught his students for years was they could not make a rational decision without knowing what the fiscal impact would be on their jurisdiction..

Mr. Blair stated for this exercise the ranking should be placed based on what items the commissioners think the priorities should be and the cost impact would be incorporated into staff’s recommendations once they look at the items and what resources there were and how they could be distributed. He stated basically the commissioners focus on the relative importance of the tasks.

Commissioner Stone stated so the answer is there are no fiscal impacts developed so far.

Mr. Dixon responded that was correct. He then stated the plan for this year was presented at earlier meetings and includes planning meetings during Commission meetings to avoid outside meetings, calls would be absorbed in the travels of commissioners on committees coming to these meetings.

Commissioner Stone stated he heard there was a budget committee and is it safe to assume these issues will be looked at by the budget committee.

Mr. Blair responded that is always done.

(See Facilitator’s report)

Commissioner Kidwell asked why the commissioners could not just fill the forms out and turn them into Mr. Blair. He stated it seemed a waste of time to complete it as a group. He then stated he meant no offense as the information is critical, but he had already completed his form.

Mr. Blair stated that was acceptable to him as long as the commissioners complete the forms and turn them in before the meeting is over.

COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS AND ISSUES

Commissioner Bassett stated at the very beginning of the code book, just before Chapter 1 it says acknowledgements. He read “The Florida Building Code is produced through the efforts and contributions of building designers, contractors, product manufacturers, regulators and other interested parties who participate in the Florida Building Commission consensus building process, commission staff and the participants in the national model code development process He stated he believed it was terrible the it does not recognize all of the hard work of my fellow commissioners and the time they put into do this. He further stated it should say Commission members, as well. He then stated he believed it was implied, but he believed all of the ladies and gentlemen who have participated in the process over the last several years deserve to be recognized.

Commissioner Carlton supported Commissioner Bassett’s comments regarding the call-in teleconference calls He agreed it would be a great idea if there were a way to recognize who was on the call via some internet connection.

Chairman Rodriguez stated staff has been asked to look into that request.

Commissioner Carlton stated in the new member orientation if there were a way staff could combine the two different websites, DCA and The Building Commission.org, if that’s possible where there’s only one website to go for the Commission’s information. He futher stated he felt it would be a benefit for not only the commissioners but for those people trying to find out what was going on.

Mr. Madani stated they would take a look at it to see if it was possible.

Commissioner Wiggins stated the reason he brought back up 3176 was not so much to pass the modification, but to bring it back to discuss the need for a major revision to the Code section that does not even delineate various design professionals by name because it is covered in the licensing statute of the respective professions. He further stated the language should only be very generic language. He then stated if nothing transpired with this, at the very least an amendment should be made the next code change cycle generally.

Mr. Blair stated Commissioner Greiner had done that.

Commissioner Wiggins stated it still would not have dealt with the issue. He then stated he believed all the designers should be done away with and have a very generic section like that found in the I codes which has some language that lets building officials know to look to the statutes if they have questions regarding the various type of licensed designers identified by the statutes to avoid getting into naming one or two specific design professionals.

GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT

Joe Belcher

Mr. Belcher first offered his thanks to the Chairman and the commissioners for the excellent work they do on the code changes. He stated it was a very, very difficult process and the people who do not do this have no idea how it gets done. He also complimented and thanked the staff for the work they do for no one has any idea how much work is involved. He thanked the facilitator and stated if it had not been for him at the TAC meetings he has no idea how anyone could have kept up with the tracking charts. He stated he had no idea how he did it, but he was the one who kept the ship floating. He then offered constructive criticism on the tracking charts. He stated they were downloaded from the websites the Friday before the meeting and Mr. Bigelow sent one out to the Structural TAC. He stated when they arrived at the meeting there was a totally different tracking chart. He then stated he understood people trying to make it flow more easily and look better, but as a consultant he goes through those charts and makes all of his notes there. He stated in the meetings things get going pretty fast, consent agendas and you are trying to find numbers but can’t because you are looking at a whole new sheet of paper. He concluded by stating it causes a lot of confusion and he would really like to see a tracking chart late in the game, do not change the format again just before the meeting to avoid the confusion.

Chairman Rodriguez thanked Mr. Belcher and the rest of the gallery. He stated they were an integral part of the process.

Commissioner Kidwell stated he sat next to Mr. Blair at the Structural TAC meeting and he was lost and kept leaning over to Mr. Blair asking where the modifications were and with twenty pages in front of him he still knew exactly where they all were. He then stated he was certain there were many of these things we could not be able to get through without Mr. Blair’s help. He stated it is easy to criticize him and he admitted to having done so himself. He offered his thanks and appreciation to Mr. Blair, as well.

Kari Hebrank

Ms. Hebrank asked that when prioritizing workplan to include issue of adding additional product evaluation entities to the list. She also stated they would like to see the International Association of Mechanical and Plumbing Officials added as a product evaluation entity. She further stated many suppliers have been using them, they do product evaluations for companies nationwide. She stated they would like it statutorily added, but however the Commission decides to proceed with that they would like them equally recognized. She then stated the Legislation had some drop dates in there so there are some product manufacturers who are out there on the hooks.

Mr. Blair stated it was on the list to be ranked.

Ms. Hebrank stated she was just making a pitch to rank that one pretty high.

Mr. Madani stated for informational purposes the tracking charts were the work of the staff. He stated they work hard to put together the modifications and make them available as soon as possible. He then stated staff also tries to accommodate those things that come the last minute. He stated they are trying to give the commissioners the latest and if you refer to the emails they always read receive an updated email telling what has been changed and here is the latest tracking chart to make sure everything is before the committee. He then stated the tracking chart taken to the meetings is always consistent with what is on the system which staff has asked you to download to ensure you have the information far in advance. He stated for those individuals downloading the tracking charts early in the process and not paying attention to those emails late in the process is maybe what is causing the confusion. He further stated staff could wait until the last minute to give the whole tracking chart but then you come to him and say no I need them early, I need to see them. He reiterated there was a lot of work staff puts into this and tries to accommodate everyone.

Mr. Blair stated he wanted to take a moment to appreciate the staff for the excellent work they did preparing these charts especially for the plenary session. He further stated it was incredible work they did and it made my job smoother.

Commissioner Bassett stated one additional workgroup was necessary to determine how to get the Legislature to listen to the Commission’s report and do something with it when they get it.

Chairman Rodriguez stated that was a good idea. He stated allegedly DCA staff is trying to do that, but the commissioner could make an individual effort.

ADJOURN

Chairman Rodriguez adjourned the Florida Building Commission meeting at 11:10a.m.