Originally Posted By: jburkeson This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Chances are when HB 315 is signed into law most people who are currently performing mold testing will be put out of business.
Furthermore, when all of the current mold inspectors are forced out of business, the average consumer will no longer have a cost effective option to determine if there is an elevated mold presence in their home.
Mold testing will only be performed by industrial hygienists who will most likely charge $3000 for testing that was once available for $300. Only the very wealthy will be able to afford this type of testing in the future.
The net sum of all of this legislation is that it frees the home builders from having to worry about mold related claims, in that if you refuse to pay thousands of dollars for testing you must not have a mold problem.
Is this the kind of government we want, does this solve the problem? Comments welcome.
-- Joseph Burkeson, RPI (Hooperette)
?Anyone who has proclaimed violence his method inexorably must choose lying as his principle.?
~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Originally Posted By: jmertins This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
It is sad that all this may come down to the actions and ideologies of a man who is so hell bent of “ridding the state of Florida of Nachi”
I find it very hard to accept, nor do I understand completely how that mold bill language was able to piggyback onto HB315. It changes the effect of the bill completely and goes into a area that it does not belong.
I explain to my customers that I am simply the data collector. What we find/ determine is simply the beginning steps in how to battle the problem that is occurring. After results are provided and we find we have a elevated condition, I defer to the the next step. A Professional Remediation Evaluation. It is just as if we are finding HVAC, Electrical, Plumbing, Roofing or Structural issues..we defer to those experts.
Will it hurt my business ...Yes! Is this the type of Government I want ...NO!
Originally Posted By: rzimmerman1 This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I also posted this uner the licensing thread.
Question
Line 285 of the bill (sorry, could not copy and paste the lines) says
An employee of a licensee who performs mold assessment while directly supervised by the mold assessor.
Does this leave a hole to operate in.
Directly supervise could imply that the employee can go and collect the data while following guidelines set by the assessor. It does not say the licensee must be onsite. So could someone work under a licensed lab and still conduct testing
This is how the Radon testing is conducted by many. You go, do, collect while following a set procedure. The licensee is the mother company, which could be out of state. The licensee receives the data, creates the report and provides the client the information.
valued quote from James Bushart
"An association of members will stick together and be there for each other, whether they are directly affected or not."
Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Since my college work had nothing to do with allergenic sciences I will no longer be doing mold if this gets signed. I hope all are writing Gov. Bush, explaining these circumstances and are requesting his veto!
Originally Posted By: gbeaumont This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi to all,
Interestingly I spent the day today with a group of mold remediation guys at a mold seminar, all of whom were unaware of how HB315 would affect them, needless to say they are not a happy bunch tonight, and colectively will be lobbying to kill this bill.
Originally Posted By: jburkeson This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
gporter wrote:
When I was at the ITA conference in Miami Saturday there were several home/mold inspectors who were unaware.
Sometimes ignorance is bliss, imagine... all of the angst saved from not having known about HB 315 and all of its incarnations, some people are blessed.
-- Joseph Burkeson, RPI (Hooperette)
?Anyone who has proclaimed violence his method inexorably must choose lying as his principle.?
~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Originally Posted By: mark finnerty This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Gary V.F. writes
“I see where this bill effects those in mold inspection, but home inspectors and remediators should not be highly effected as I read it”
The problem this bill presents to those in the mold remediation business is that the bill is loaded with exemptions that give an unfair advantage to contractors and housekeepers by not requiring proper training or insurance.
Originally Posted By: Gary Van Florcke This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The mold remediators under the new statute must be certified by a non-profit organization with a focus on mold remediation that meets each of the following criteria:
*Requires that a person has to at least have a High School Diploma and at minimum 2 years verifiable experience in a field related to mold remediation.
*Requires that a person has completed training related to mold and mold remediation.
*Requires the person to pass an examination testing knowledge related to mold and mold remediation
*Or has completed a course by a community college or University that offers mold remediation training or education.
Where is the difficulty in meeting these requirements
Originally Posted By: mark finnerty This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mr. Van Florcke perhaps you should reread my post regarding mold remediators.
I do not have a problem with the requirements for people doing mold remediation. I have for quite some time felt that responsible regulation is needed.
The objection that I and many others have regarding the mold remediation sections of this bill, is the fact that so many groups of people are exempt from the regulation.
My comments above deal specifically with the exemptions for licensed contractors, and the fact that the section regarding "contracting mold remediation does not require that contractors have the same insurance that non-contractors have. This means that a GC has lower overhead and can therefore be more competitive that a non-contracting mold remediator.
As I said before, I am not opposed to responsible regulation. I do feel that any law that is loaded with exemptions for groups of people who have no training in the field of mold or building sciences cannot be considered responsible regulation.
Originally Posted By: Gary Van Florcke This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mr Finnerty said
My comments above deal specifically with the exemptions for licensed contractors, and the fact that the section regarding "contracting mold remediation does not require that contractors have the same insurance that non-contractors have. This means that a GC has lower overhead and can therefore be more competitive that a non-contracting mold remediator.
Are you saying contractors can carry less insurance than remediators, I didn't read that.
Also Mr Finnerty, you are aware that even with this passage remediators can not now nor in the past, could they do a complete remediation for payment as they can not pull a permit in the State of Florida unless they are a Licensed Contractor. So unless you are a contractor this whole thing is moot I guess.
Originally Posted By: mark finnerty This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
“Are you saying contractors can carry less insurance than remediators, I didn’t read that.”
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If you feel that is not correct please provide for me the language of the bill that requires a contracting mold remediator to carry pollution insurance of $1,000,000.
"Also Mr Finnerty, you are aware that even with this passage remediators can not now nor in the past, could they do a complete remediation for payment as they can not pull a permit in the State of Florida unless they are a Licensed Contractor. So unless you are a contractor this whole thing is moot I guess."
That seems to be a common argument that I have heard from people who have tried to quiet my efforts. It is also inconsequential to this discussion.
You seem to be avoiding the key issue that I have raised. The bill is loaded with exemptions for groups of people who have no training or experience in the field of mold assessment or remediation.
If mold is important enough to warrant regulation to protect the public then any responsible regulation would include all parties who come into contact with contaminated building materials.
This law as written will protect the public from many unscrupulous contractors, however, it does nothing to protect the public from incompetence and ignorance that is perpetuated by people who know nothing about the proper assessment of microbial contamination.