One North University Drive, Suite 3500-B, Plantation, Florida 33324

BROWARD COUNTY Board of Rules & Appeals One North University Drive, Suite 3500-B, Plantation, Florida 33324 Phone (954) 765-4500 Fax: (954) 765-4504 h t t p : / / w w w . b r o w a r d . o r g / c o d e a p p e a l s . h t m ______

BOARD OF RULES AND APPEALS June 10, 2010 Meeting Minutes Call to order: Chair Steve Kastner called a published meeting of the Broward County Board of Rules and Appeals to order at 7:04 p.m.

Roll Call Ron Burr John Famularo Steve Kastner – Chair Allan Kozich Dave Rice Jay Shechter – Vice Chair John Sims John R. Smith David Tringo Abbas Zackria Hank Zibman Don Zimmer

The presence of a quorum was established.

Approval of Minutes The Chair asked for a motion to approve the minutes for March 11, 2010. Mr. Zimmer moved to approve the May 13, 2010 board meeting minutes. Mr. Zibman seconded the motion.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF 12 to 0.

CONSENT AGENDA 1. Certifications

The Chair asked for a MOTION. Mr. Zibman moved to approve and Mr. Tringo seconded the MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF 12 to 0. REGULAR AGENDA

2. Appeal #10-05 – 50 S.E. 20th Avenue, Deerfield Beach

Board member Ron Burr excused himself due to a conflict of interest.

Bill Dumbaugh, Chief Structural Code Compliance Officer addressed the Board. He explained that there is a swimming pool slide that was installed on an existing swimming pool at the Comfort Inn at Oceanside. The contractor was cited for doing work without a permit. His application was denied based on the definition of plunge pool (code section 424.1.9.2.1.3.1) Section 424.1.9 is titled “water recreation attractions that specialize in pools.” Sub-section 429.1.9.2 is titled “waterslides,” which they think applies to a water slide and a water attraction or specialized pool. Chapter 4 is used for special occupancies. Many of the structures in Chapter 4 are governed by outside agencies. 424, which are swimming pools, are governed by an outside agency, the Department of Health. The Florida Building Commission cannot change that code and they cannot interpret it without going to the Department of Health. Mr. Dumbaugh continued to say that he contacted the Department of Health, and spoke with Patricia Riley, who is familiar with the situation. He referred to her reply on page 15 of the agenda packet. Mr. Dumbaugh directed the Board to the appeal, wherein the Appellant requested that the pool be grandfathered in to coincide with the installation date of the swimming pool slide. Section 105.3.2 states that the date the permit is applied for is the date of the code in effect. Staff recommends denial of the appeal.

Under the desired results, the Appellant stated, “grant permit to complete final modifications specified and approved by the Department of Health. Mr. Dumbaugh referenced his conversation with Ms. Riley; she said that by installing a slide on a conventional swimming pool, the pool is still classified as a swimming pool, not a plunge pool. The definition of a swimming pool slide is a slide designed by a manufacturer discharged over the sidewall of a swimming pool (engineering report on page 6). Although the Florida Building Commission cannot weigh in on this, Rick Dixon, the Executive Director with the Department of Community Affairs has also been in contact with the Department of Health and agrees with our understanding of this issue. One of the Department of Health requirements is that if this slide is approved, they have to have to have a lifeguard on duty anytime it is being used. Based on that, the Staff recommends approval of that portion of the appeal.

Appellant, Mr. Marty Lamia, with Crane Atlantis Engineering addressed the Board on behalf of the Comfort Inn Oceanside. We originally obtained that the slide was safe and does comply with the current code. We ran into a conflict with the code, a supplement that was in the new code, with a definition of a plunge pool versus the swimming pool as was just described. We are simply trying to complete the requirements of the Health Department in the final phase in order to comply with the code. We are in a dilemma; we cannot get the permit in order to comply with the entire requirement. It has been a safe attraction at the hotel for over five (5) years, and has a significant effect in these difficult times on the economy, of the hotel. Mr. Lamia noted that, from an engineer’s standpoint, the pool does comply with the structural or windload requirements of the current code. Mr. Lamia respectfully requested that the Board allow the slide to be considered as a slide going into a swimming pool, which is designed for the manufacturer’s

BOARD MINUTES – JUNE 10, 2010 PAGE 2 OF 6 specifications. He again requested that the Board grant his appeal in order for them to obtain the permit to comply with the Health Department regulations.

AMENDED PAGE 3

Mr. Waguih Messiha, Building Official of Deerfield Beach addressed the Board.

Mr. Messiha told the Board he had asked the hotel to stop the utilization of the pool until they got the proper permits. He noted there is not a problem with the structural design; it complies. The problem is the slide, which is higher than the water’s edge. It is closer to the concrete edge of the pool where accidents can happen. Mr. Messiha went on to explain that the code requires a slide to be flush with the water edge of the pool, and the same elevation as the water line. The code says any slides going into a pool, lake or canal constitutes the body of water itself as a plunge pool. Accordingly, this pool is a pool, and at the same time, the slide end is a plunge pool and should comply with the code. It should touch the water.

The Chair opened the meeting for discussion. Mr. Zimmer noted that the applicant is asking for three (3) different requests. The State agreed with Bill Dumbaugh that this is a swimming pool with a slide on it. They did not change the design of the pool. It was a swimming pool before the slide was there. Discussion continued concerning the definition of a plunge pool versus a swimming pool.

Mr. Kozich made a MOTION to approve the appeal with the exception of applying a prior version of the building code to coincide with the installation date. Mr. Zimmer seconded the Motion.

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 7 – 4.

Positive Votes: Negative votes: Steve Kastner John Famularo Allan Kozich Jay Shechter Dave Rice John Sims David Tringo John Smith Abbas Zackria Hank Zibman Don Zimmer

3. Appeal #10-06 – 460 S. Carol Parkway, Margate

Mr. DiPietro stated that the Appellant voluntarily deferred this appeal to a later date.

4. Proposed Formal Interpretation #23 Section 109.13 Clean-up of Site

Rusty Carroll, Chief Structural Code Compliance Officer addressed the Board. This item was requested by Mr. Flett, a board member and drafted by the Board of Rules and Appeal staff based on Mr. Flett’s recommendation. The code requires that you clean up the construction site at the end of a job. Section 109.1.13 “Upon completion of proposed workers should leave the site clear of rubbish, debris, construction sheds, or materials of construction. It is standard procedure,

BOARD MINUTES – JUNE 10, 2010 PAGE 3 OF 6 based on the number of roofers he contacted that when the job is complete (a tile re-roof), that you leave the owner about twenty (20) field and five (5) hip and ridge tiles because of the dye lot. It is the same as floor tile; leave some extra tile in case a tile breaks. In the City of Coral Springs, call in roofing, there is a little stack of tile sitting next to the house. The City issues a correction notice to the roofer, which he believes to be $80.00, a re-inspection fee, and back to the job. It should not be the roofing contractor’s responsibility to pick up this material and put it inside the house. This is what the interpretation says. The City also has a City Ordinance, where hypothetically, if you did not tag the roofer with the building code, you could actually cite the homeowner.

Tom Schubert, Building Official for the City of Coral Springs addressed the Board. Mr. Schubert said he was against the pr0oposed formal interpretation. He believes that the code section is well written and practical, as is. There should not be an exception for material type. It is common for the contractors to leave construction materials on the job, at the homeowner’s request. Mr. Schubert thinks it is a good idea to leave tiles at the job, but says they should be left inside.

Bob Hannon, Chief Structural Inspector for the City of Coral Springs discussed one of the issues regarding the dye lots. If the roof is six (6) months to a year old, the tiles are not going to match because they have been out in the sun. The issue relates to the materials are being left outside, and that is in violation of the City Ordinance. Mr. Hannon said this is in violation to the building code that was in Section 306 of the South Florida Building Code in 1993, and remained there until 1999. Mr. Hannon discussed high velocity requirements, and requested to the Board of Rules and Appeals that it be put back in the code because all these tiles were being left outside. We are going into the hurricane season, and we are looking to make an exception that you can leave possibly twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) pieces of material outside during a storm. Before we do a final roof inspection, we get an up-lift test that says all the tiles are properly secured to that structure and they should meet 140 mile an hour winds. Yet we are going to make an exception for one trade. If the roofer wants to leave the tiles, he has to ask the homeowner to open the garage door or shed, and stack them inside. Then we will take a ladder, put the plans out and get the homeowner a final inspection. Mr. Hannon said he would like the homeowner to have extra tiles, but cannot support the tiles being left outside all year round.

Discussion concluded and no Motion was made. The Chair directed that this item be referred to the Roofing Committee for their recommendations.

5. Fiscal Year 2011 Budget (October 1, 2010 – September 30, 2011) Continuation from May 13, 2010 Meeting

The Director, Jim DiPietro addressed the Board concerning the revenue issue, touching on the high points from the agenda back-up material. The Director discussed the fact that we do have a revenue problem, which necessitates bringing this item back to the agenda this month. He then proceeded to walk the Board through the actual figures of nineteen (19) years of municipal fees.

The average of nineteen (19) years of revenue listed is over a million dollars per year. With our 70% rate increase, the first change since 1987, the new average should be over $1,800,000 per year. However, if we take out the rate increase, the amount of money we are taking in this year is

BOARD MINUTES – JUNE 10, 2010 PAGE 4 OF 6 about $680,000 based upon the old rate structure, $1,160,000 with the new. That is how dramatically the revenue has fallen off.

Mr. DiPietro noted that our reserves at the end of next year, even when applying the recommended budget cuts, would be down to about $68,000 by his estimation and less than that by the projections of the budget office.

 The first recommendation, the most prominent feature of the cuts, is twenty-four (24) furlough days, two days per month.

 The second recommendation is that the Chairman and Director be given joint authority to take action with the Budget Office between now and our next meeting. The reason for that is that the County Administrator must present her budget to the County Commission by July 15th. The Budget Office, therefore, has to wrap up our budget by the end of June. If they disagree with our revenue estimates, I would like to have the ability to take action.

 The third recommendation is that we are going to continue to monitor our revenues and expenses very carefully and target the November meeting for major Board review. The reason is the summer months are our highest months of revenue. We will have a lot more information in November and complete data for fiscal year 2010.

Regarding the furlough program Mr. DiPietro stated that the concept is we follow the County’s program, whether it is five (5) days or ten (10) days. I would not recommend that we close the office for more than ten to twelve days. I will ask you to approve the implementation program later. Mr. DiPietro discussed, in more detail, the implementation of furlough days. We need to reduce our expenses and watch our revenues. As things stand now, there is nothing else to cut back on, in my opinion, other than hours. The best way to do that is across the board, from top to bottom. Twenty-four (24) days furlough is a 9.2308% cut. It would preserve the base pay on paper, and if the money comes in, the staff will just resume their current salaries.

Discussion continued relating to the budget and the proposed furlough days; Mr. DiPietro answered all questions that were posed by the Board.

Mr. Tringo asked when this has to be implemented. Jim answered that it would start in October to coincide with the fiscal year.

Mr. Zackria asked if we have anything in our Charter that says we have to have a balanced budget. Mr. DiPietro answered that there is something in the Charter that says monies collected are dedicated to the Board of Rules and Appeals; the Budget Office has stated that the County will not subsidize our operation. The County is $50 million short. Mr. Zackria stated that it seems in its general fund for fiscal year 2011 recommendations are $1.6 million in expenses and the revenue projections are at $1.2 million. We are about 25% lower in terms of revenue; that is a big gap. Mr. DiPietro stated that he agrees but, for the short term, fiscal year 2011, we will have a fund balance of about $68,000 and we would review the latest projections no later than November 2010.

BOARD MINUTES – JUNE 10, 2010 PAGE 5 OF 6 Mr. Zibman made a MOTION that the Board authorize the Chairman to work with the Director on the budget, before the budget is submitted, and is granted the authority to speak for the Board. Mr. Tringo seconded the MOTION.

The MOTION passed unanimously.

Mr. Kozich made a MOTION that we recommend paragraphs one and three, the revised and reduced budget as recommended by the Administrator, with the understanding that the Director will work closely with the Chairman. Mr. Tringo seconded the MOTION.

The MOTION passed unanimously.

Adjournment There being no further business to go before the board, Mr. Kozich moved to adjourn, and was seconded by Mr. Tringo. The meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m.

______Steve Kastner - Chair

BOARD MINUTES – JUNE 10, 2010 PAGE 6 OF 6