Any news on Wind Mitigation from OIR Meeting today?
The room was packed. The meeting lasted till 1:00PM. There were more questions than answers. No much actually got accomplished other than recognizing that there is much more work to do with the form and the wind mitigation program.
Click on the link below to find out what went down. 2 hours and 45 min of audio to listen to. Have fun !
The audio for the workshop is on our website (Part 1 and Part 2) . We appreciate all the comments and suggestions in regards to the upcoming revisions. Thank you.
Government Analyst I
Office of Insurance Regulation
Property & Casualty Product Review
(850) 413-2616 (Phone)
(850) 922-3865 (Fax)
Thanks for posting the link, Fred.
At 2:52 in the second file, Steve Taylor identified himself as president of FL ASHI and said he had permission to speak on behalf of InterNACHI members…thought that was interesting.
Steve has made numerous trips to Tallahassee this year to speak for our profession on licensing and wind mits. He has been a NACHI member for a long time. I meet him at the first meeting we had in Orlando back in 2003. Like many of us he doesn’t play the association game.
Well ARA is on the ball. I hope they pay attention to the recommendations they made. It would be a start to at least some sanity and would help to eliminate confusion.
The discusssion is still open and anyone wanting to make a comment on the meeting can do so by sending an e-mail to Steve Frederickson see below. Please copy Ms Walden in as well.
Comments may be made to Mr. Fredrickson as noted below and please copy me as well :
Stephen C. Fredrickson, Esquire
Assistant General Counsel
Office of Insurance Regulation
I am kind of afraid to listen. I have an Erie feeling that it will just get me fired up and that my comments will not matter and I will lose sleep because I will just be thinking about it over and over when I try to go to sleep. I know that is a real crappy attitude but it is how I feel.
I will likely listen even though I know it will cause me mental grief.
Does anyone who was there or that has listened think there is anything in particular that special attention should be payed to or commented on?
They seem to want to simplify Items 1&2 even going back to the 07/07 form on Item 2. The date is also an issue since it is hard for us to get exact application dates on permits in some jurisdictions or BD. Item 3 will address partcular size and types of nails, ie. ring shanks etc. Still going to be difficult in some cases to identify.
Item 5 they want to define define 10% of building permiter. Item 6 was discussed to take out all together. If i heard correctly Item 7 as well, which I finfd hard to believe or mabe I heard it wrong. Item 8–well who the hell is going to define whethere you have it or not unless you see it go down… and BZ Dept inspecting properly was discussed. Item 9 had a lot of discussion reagrding the OH garage doors and their impact protection vs wind resistance, I thought was great dialoge by Jack Stump of Secure Enterprise. Of couse the signiture page was discussed.
Thsi is going to be an ever changing form with new codes coming down with ASCE-7-10 and the new wind speed maps coming down in the next year or so and this was discussed as well. Overall I thought it was pretty good and worth lsiting to if Wind Mit is your gig. Nothing worth lsing sleep over (wink) ! ( sorry in advace for the typos but momma calling me for dinner)
thanks Fred for the info I am goning to cut dinner up now also.
Here is more information sent to me by Ms Walden. These are the handouts that were passed around before the 9/22/10 meeting along with a nice power point presentation by ARA. This explains what went down a lot better than my explaination (-:
As I understand and submitted above they are still taking comments until Friday October 1, 2010 on this subject. You can send those to Mr Fredrickson at the e-mail address I inserted in a previous post and Ms Walden asked that you copy her in as well.
The handouts and presentation from the rule workshop is available at the following link : http://www.floir.com/Mit_Workshop.aspx
Thanks again Fred.
I don’t know how to say this except to just SAY it.
InterNACHI has gotten quit a reputation for being vocal - which is a good thing - if its vocallizing relevent issues.
PLEASE respond to this link only if your comment relates to the OIR 1802.
At this time - Thats all this piticular person is working on.
Something to think about:
I have the following concerns with form:
Signature Section of the form:
- Requires home inspectors licensed under FS 468.8314 to obtain 3 hours of wind mitigation train and pass a proficiency exam to be able to sign form. The form does not require any of the other licensed professionals to obtain any wind mitigation training and pass a proficiency exam to be able to sign off on the form.(contractors are only required to have wind mitigation class as part of CEs- with no proficiency exam) This requirement for licensed home inspectors places an additional requirement on licensed home inspectors that is not required for the other licensed professionals. This puts the licensed home inspector at a disadvantage and likely violates FS 501.204- Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices.
- The form also allows contractors licensed under FS 489.11 and engineers licensed under FS 471.015 (both small business owners) to utilize unlicensed employees to conduct wind mitigation inspections on behalf of the licensed contractor or licensed engineer. The other licensed professionals (also small business owners) must hire employees that are also licensed professionals to conduct wind mitigation inspections for their companies. This provision clearly provides a distinct market advantage to licensed contractors and engineers in that they can hire less qualified individuals to conduct wind mitigation inspections on their behalf for a much lower salary or wage compared to the other authorized licensed individuals (business owners) that must hire licensed professionals at a much higher salary or wage to conduct wind mitigation inspections for their companies. This provision likely violates FS 501.204- Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
501.204 Unlawful acts and practices.
(1) Unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
(2) It is the intent of the Legislature that, in construing subsection (1), due consideration and great weight shall be given to the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to s. 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 45(a)(1) as of July 1, 2006.
History.—s. 1, ch. 73-124; s. 1, ch. 83-117; s. 4, ch. 85-63; s. 2, ch. 90-190; s. 3, ch. 93-38; s. 2, ch. 2001-39; s. 23, ch. 2001-214; s. 2, ch. 2006-196.
It appears that the form OIR B1 1802 as well as FS 627.711 would be in conflict or violation of FS 501.204- Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices.
I realize that the OIR and the 1802 form are just following the statute. However, if the statute violates the unfair trade practices provision in FS 501.204, does that give the OIR license to violate the statute in the rule making process? Following that same logic,- if a car passes me on I-10 doing 110mph, does that now allow me to also do 110?
I would like to see the coalition further explore this issue and develop an agenda to combat what is obviously an unfair trade practice sanctioned by FS-627.711 and the OIR.
Contractors currently require training on Wind Mitigation with CEs and have for some time.
Contractors also have experience(supposedly) with managing employees already;
A general contractor usually is responsible for the supplying of all material, labor, equipment, (engineering vehicles and tools) and services necessary for the construction of the project. To do this it is common for the general contractor to subcontract part of the work to other persons and companies that specialize in these types of work. These are called subcontractors.
I submit by definition contractors usually already hire subcontractors. I believe if you want to compete with a Contractor or Engineer get their license.
I have to deal with handymen trying to compete with licensed contractors all the time. Handymen do take much work that can be done by contractors also. Does it make it right? Yes and No.
On a further note many do not understand that there are several types of contractors in FL.
Tier 1 is GC, BC and RC, state or county
Tier 2 is HVAC, Plumb, electrical and roofing
Tier 3 is others flooring, drywall, painting and specialty.
To say someone is a licensed contractor in Fl does not really say much. The general public does not understand this.
BTW there is a business test included contract management in most of their tests. This is not part of the HI test.
My point is if you want to do what they do, go get their license.
no disrespect intended- but all irrelevant. The law- as written- provides an unfair market advantage to two groups of individuals over other groups of individuals- period.
I am not trying to insult you or any others here but below is my response.
No, the only people who should be doing inspections about HOW a building is built are those who are allowed to build a building.
Now Home Inspectors are allowed to do inspections that were previously only done by people whose license are 10 times harder to obtain and maintain and usually take a good portion of ones lifetime to obtain.
Again, irrelevant to my post regarding unfair trade practice.