Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-10-2009CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING CITY HALL ANNEX 111 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY March 10, 2009 5:00 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the Meeting to Order at 5:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem Bob Hoog Council Member Buzz Petsos Mayor Rocky Randels Council Member Shannon Roberts Council Member Betty Walsh Others Present: City Manager Bennett Boucher City Attorney Anthony Garganese City Clerk Susan Stills Mayor Randels reported that the City Attomey was in transit at the time of Roll Call. 1. The Improved Management and Safety of the City of Cape Canaveral, including a Fact -Finding Review of the City Manager's Investigative Findings Related to the City's Building Official. Mayor Randels asked the Council how they desired to proceed. Ms. Roberts suggested having the City Manager review how he reached his findings and then to have Mr. Todd Morley respond. [Attomey Garganese arrived at this time.] Mr. Petsos stated that the Council needed to review procedures and policies related in issuing the Certificate of Occupancy [CO] and life safety. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he would like to hear from the two Departments and then to proceed with how the issue evolved and the sequence of events. Ms. Walsh stated that she too desired to address the life/safety issues and the controls and procedures. Mayor Randels recounted how two issues were found related to life/safety at some recently constructed business buildings. The City Manager in his concern for public safety reviewed the issues with the Building Official which led to this meeting. Mayor Randels asked the City Attorney if there were any instructions to the Council. Attorney Garganese stated that there were the life/safety issues before the Council, the management processes related to the Certificate of Occupancy, and several recent incidents which were within the City Council's investigatory powers to uncover the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 2 of 20 breakdown in protocol and to repair the problems that currently exist and those going forward relative to management processes and protocol. Ms. Roberts added addressing Human Resources processes too as they relate to this incident with regard to documentation, sequencing of events, and sequencing of signatures and dates. Mayor Randels referred to the City Charter and how City procedures were outlined. He explained that the City Council sets City policy and directs their action through the City Manager; however, the City Council does not get involved in the day -today City operations. Mayor Randels explained further the City Council's role was strictly related to policy but hiring and firing of personnel was left with the City Manager. Mayor Randels read the City Charter, ARTICLE III, Division 1. related to the _City Manager's duties. In summary, the City Manager works for the City Council and the City Council works for the electorate. The City Manager is in charge of the hiring, firing, the review, and the performance evaluations of all of his Staff. Mr. Boucher read his findings into the record. [Findings attached.] Ms. Roberts asked if Mr. Boucher planned to address each item, for example, the Country Inn and Suites issue first. Mr. Boucher affirmed. Mayor Randels pointed out that the City Manager forwarded a letter to the City Attorney on December 31, 2008 related to this issue prior to the City Council's awareness of it. However, this is typical to an Investigation. Mr. Boucher clarified that he, Attorney Gary Glassman and Mr. Morley reviewed all of the allegations with Mr. Morley on December 11, 2008 and he waited for a response from Mr. Morley. Mr. Morley responded on December 17, 2008 based on the interview held on December 11th. Mr. Boucher affirmed that up to that time, the City Council was not privy to this information. The City Manager issued his findings on December 31, 2008. Mr. Boucher stated that there were some other issues; however, he preferred to address each issue one at a time. Attorney Garganese reminded that there was a life/safety issue relating to an uninstalled smoke control system. He stated that the City Manager received a copy of a report which indicated that a smoke control system or some other fire protection was required. Attorney Garganese stated that the issue before the Council was why the Certificate of Occupancy [CO] was issued when these Fire Code requirements were not met; therefore, the issue before the Council was what can the City do to correct that problem and what can the City do to keep that problem from happening again. Ms. Roberts stated, in fairness to the process, that she would like to hear Mr. Morley's response related to the Country Inn and Suites and any comments on the findings Mr. Boucher received today. Mr. Todd Morley addressed the City Council and the audience stating that he would IL present a narrative of the events with accompanying documents. Mr. Morley returned to the inception of the Country Inn and Suites project, beginning with the architectural City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 3 of 20 drawings. Mr. Morley pointed to the First Floor and Lobby area of the Country Inn and Suites. He indicated the upstairs and stairs leading to it. Mr. Morley then identified six guests rooms and two corridors. He stated that there were six guest rooms not located within the corridor. Mr. Morley clarified that the Third Floor of the hotel was not open to the lobby area; the central lobby area was only open to two stories. Mr. Morley identified the Plans Review Transmittal Sheet (July 2004) and stated that the Plan Review 1 was completed August 2004 and there were many items to address, but an atrium/smoke-control device was not part of them. Mr. Morley replied to Mayor Randels that he performed the Plan Review. Mr. Morley indicated that the FAX sheet was sent in August of 2004 with the Fire and Building Department reviews. Mr. Morley indicated the Fire Department review 4 whiGh did not make mention of a smoke control system or smoke doors on this review. Mayor Randels asked if this was the plans review. Mr. Morley proceeded to the Second Review due to him receiving some revised plans. When this happens, the contractor returns with a new submittal of revised plans. In this January 20, 2005 document indicates that the Fire Department Plans Examiner had additional questions. This person was a different Plans Examiner regarding the latest Plans Submittal. Mr. Morley noted No. 9 in which he wrote, "a smoke catch was indicated on Sheets A 1.1 through A1.4 but there was nothing on the mechanical plans showing any associate duct work for the system." Mayor Randels clarified that discussion was centered on Page 3 of the Country Inn and Suites documents from Mr. Morley. Mayor Randels asked if the "smoke catch" was the item in question. Mr. Morley responded that the smoke catch was related to the item in question. Mr. Morley stated that this was the first reference to a smoke control system. He explained how the smoke catch was a voluminous indentation in the ceiling, basically placed above the ceiling. It is the highest place the smoke can reach. Being the highest place that smoke can reach, this would be the place to install the duct work if one were to exhaust the smoke from the room. The Fire Department Plans Examiner asked why would there be a smoke catch without duct work to pump the smoke outdoors. That would be a smoke control system. The Architect answered that no duct work was required because no smoke control system was required. The Architect chose to leave the smoke catch. The Architect further clarified that this lobby area does not need a smoke control system because it is not an atrium. Note that Code requires atriums to have a smoke control system; however, if the space is not defined as an atrium, it does not need a smoke control system. Mr. Morley stated that this became complex issue because of the Second Floor corridors being unprotected from smoke rated doors. There was no easy way to achieve this because of the unique configuration of the Second Floor guest rooms both inside and outside the corridors. When a complex issue such as this arises, the Building Official is authorized to rely on the Certification of the Architect in accordance with Florida Building Code City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 4 of 20 Section 104.5.2. The Building and Fire Department approved the issue and issued the permit as it stood. On October 29, 2004 the Building Permit was issued and construction began. Mr. Morley referred to the 2001 Florida Building Code, JFBC] definition of an atrium. Mr. Morley clarified that this space failed to meet the definition of an atrium under the 2001 FBC. Mr. Morley clarified that the hotel was permitted under the 2001 Florida Building Code. Mr. Morley clarified further that the Building Codes lag, saying how the 2004 Florida Building Code did not become law until March 1, 2006. Mr. Morley presented the definition of an atrium from the 2001 Florida Building Code, "a space intended for occupancy within a building extending vertically through the building and closed at the top." Mr. Boucher asked Mr. Morley if he used the full-body of the Code which more clearly defined what an atrium was not. Mr. Boucher would address his point when the Fire Representative spoke. Mr. Morley stated that he also referred to the 2000 International Construction Code [ICC], which is the parent document of the FBC, which provided a more helpful definition specifying the number of floor levels the opening could go through. By specifying that the opening goes through two or more floor levels it was stating that the minimum levels was three. The ICC code stated that the definition of an atrium was, "an opening through two or more floor levels..." Floor levels did not include balconies within assembly groups or Mezzanines which comply with Section 5.5. This definition states that you must penetrate through two or more floor levels, which is a six-inch thick concrete slab. He explained that going through two floors means going through three stories, for example, going through two doors means going through three rooms. Mr. Morley clarified for Mayor Randels that the ICC Code was the parent document to the FBC. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog inquired how often the ICC changes but Mr. Morley was not certain. Mr. Petsos ascertained that the City used the FBC although Mr. Morley had spoken of the ICC in the past relative to the Property Maintenance Code. Mr. Morley clarified that his discussion was related to the International Property Maintenance Code standards. Mr. Morley stated that Florida Legislature mandates that the State adopt the Florida Building Code which is a carbon copy of the ICC with some Florida specific changes. Mayor Randels clarified that a key point was whether this was an atrium. Mr. Morley replied that all his decision was based on was that this was not an atrium. Mr. Petsos asked if Mr. Morley had worked with the Fire Department to ascertain if there was a life/safety issue. Mr. Morley stated that he talked with the Fire Department throughout the project. Mr. Petsos stated that he could see where Mr. Morley had spoken with the Architect, Mr. Weber, but not with the Fire Department. Mr. Morley City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 5 of 20 explained a lot of the conversations were not records in document form. He stated that 95 percent of this was verbal and 5 percent in document. Mr. Morley identified an article for his research which stated, "if you have an atrium of more than two stories, the atrium shall be provided with smoke -control systems." Mr. Morley stated that there were only two stories, since it only goes through one floor. Mayor Randels noted that the article was from Fire Protection Engineering Magazine. Mr. Morley stated that smoke -control shall not be required for a two-story atrium and he underlined the applicable parts. Mr. Morley noted significant changes have occurred regarding atriums since the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC, another Code Book outside of the ICC) the most notable change was that the UBC defined an atrium as an opening between two or more "floor levels." However, in developing the IBC the Code Officials tried to clarify the application of atriums, the IBC defines an atrium as an opening connecting two or more stories, this definition refines the UBC definition by changing the "floor level" to "stories," and calling it a "connection." rather than an "opening through" a floor level. Assistant Fire Chief John Cunningham asked Mr. Morley if all exceptions must be met. Mr. Morley affirmed. Mr. Morley noted some feedback from the Building Official's Chat Room. Mr. Morley stated that 404.4, Exceptions, "no smoke control was required for a two-story atrium." Mr. Morley stated, "Section 707.27 does not require a shaft enclosure, why do you have to bring up the word atrium at all." "You cannot make them design it as an atrium, if it is three or more stories, so they can either design it as an atrium or a shaft." Mr. Morley said that he added this response to clarify that this space was not an atrium, but a shaft. Mayor Randels re -stated that this was a key point, "Was it an atrium or not." Mr. Morley stated that he still believed that it was not an atrium, but a shaft enclosure. A shaft enclosure was permitted to connect two stories without a smoke control system, provided it was not open to any hotel corridors cross connecting. In other words, the two hotel room corridors would have to be closed off to prevent the migration of smoke by the use of smoke proof doors. The Architect offered to install smoke doors in the corridors. At a job site meeting with the Architect, Mr. Morley explained that adding those smoke control doors would not solve the problem of the other doors located outside the corridor. He would need to address this very unique and complex challenge before the CO was issued. Mayor Randels questioned the definition of a shaft. Mr. Morley stated that any enclosed area that extended through two floors was considered a shaft. Under the 2001, FBC, 705.2.2: "All openings through a floor and penetrating through a floor shall be protected by a shaft enclosure." There were Exceptions, specifically Number 2, "A shaft enclosure was not required for a floor opening which meets all six of these conditions: 1) is not part of a required means of egress, 2) it is not concealed within the building construction, 3) does not connect more than two stories, 4) does not connect with a City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 6 of 20 stairway or escalator serving other floors, 5) is not open to any corridors in group (I and R) occupancies, or to corridors and non -sprinkler floors in other occupancies. This is a Residential occupancy by the Building Code. Is it open to those corridors? Yes, it is right now. Why is it open to those corridors? The Architect offered to close it off; however, Mr. Morley told him that he still has six (6) unprotected rooms. Mr. Morley referred to the 2004, FBC, which went into effect during the construction of the hotel and changed the definition of an Atrium. Under this new Code a new hotel atrium, like the one at Country Inn and Suites would be considered an atrium. This caused the issue of smoke control to re -surface. Mr. Morley stated that he could not, however, retro -apply this change of Code to the hotel. Mr. Morley referred to the 2004 FBC, definition of an Atrium, "An opening connecting two or more stories..." The difference was two or more stories, in the previous 2001 FBC it said, "through a building," and ICC said, "through two or more floor levels." Under the 2004 Code, stories was brought up for the first time, and this space under the 2004 Code would be an atrium and there would definitely be a smoke control system. However, they were permitted under a previous Code. Mr. Morley presented the first Temporary Certificate of Occupancy [TCO] application which was applied for and approved on May 2, 2006. Mayor Randels read that the Fire Department approved it contingent upon two outstanding issues. Mr. Morley replied that they had until July 11"'. Mayor Randels asked what the two issues were. Mr. Morley stated that there were some things that he had not finished. He focused on the last one which read: "provide mechanical engineer's affidavit regarding the deletion of the smoke control system at the Second Floor of the lobby." This was since the issue was raised. Mayor asked why he went to the Engineer and not the Fire Department. Mr. Morley stated that the Fire Department also wanted that document, which was agreed upon by all parties. The second TCO application was dated July 10, 2006. Having not yet completed all the conditions of the first TCO, the contractor requested and was granted a second TCO. Mr. Morley ascertained that both he and Dennis Clements Building Inspector signed the second TCO; however, it was not signed by the Fire Department. Mr. Boucher asked to return to the first TCO pointing out that Dennis Clements sent an E-mail to Architect, Neil Weber and called out the FBC Section 414 on Atriums. saying Section 414.4, Smoke Control Systems, and Section 414.5 , Enclosure of Atriums, "it appeared that the smoke control system is not per Code." Mr. Boucher pointed out that Dennis Clements, on May 22, 2006, called out to the Architect the Code Sections that Mr. Morley said did not apply. Mr. Weber's response was, "Dennis thanks for help in getting this project finished off. I appreciate both you and Todd's patience in this process. I will review this issue again and we can resolve the best way to finish it off. Mr. Boucher stated that Dennis Clements, who is a licensed Plans Reviewer made that call of which Mr. Morley was copied. Mr. Morley contended City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 7 of 20 that by definition the area in discussion was not an atrium; therefore, you could not cite Section 414. Mr. Boucher asked what the miscommunication was. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that the major point was if this is an atrium or not. Ms. Roberts stated another major point was if the 2001 Florida Building Code was in effect during construction, this, too, was significant to the Building Official's decision. Mr. Morley read from a document which read, "provide Affidavit regarding the deletion of the smoke control system at the Second Floor lobby." This is the document that was attached to the second TCO. Mr. Morley stated that they were told at that time that they would not get a third. Mr. Morley clarified that the mechanical engineers did not respond to a request for drawings and told him that this was an architectural issue. Mr. Morley stated he was correct. This new wording placed the responsibility for the Affidavit on the Architect. Several discussions among the Architect, the Building and Fire Department personnel followed. The discussions encompassed the atrium versus not an atrium issue as well as smoke created corridor doors. Mr. Morley stated that smoke created doors on the corridors would not suffice because the configuration was such that a few guest rooms on the second story were not in the corridors. ArK In other words, these guest rooms would not be protected from smoke even If there were smoke doors at the entrance to the corridors. The Architect stood firm on the reading of the 2001 definition of Atrium and Mr. Morley agreed. It was not an Atrium according to the 2001 FBC. As for the corridor doors, the Architect agreed that smoke doors in the corridors would not provide smoke protection in the guest rooms located outside the corridors near the elevators. He referenced the Fire Codes regarding relaxed conditions that are afforded to occupancies under the sprinkler. This being a Fire Code issue, Mr. Morley forwarded the correspondence with attachments. Mayor Randels referred to the Affidavit needed related to a deletion. Mr. Morley replied that this was wording agreed upon by Staff because there was an initial draft of plans which came through with duct work. However, a new set of plans came through and Inspector Tim Reeves was looking for said duct work. Mr. Morley stated he forwarded the Architect's rationale to Assistant Fire Chief John Cunningham on the morning of September 11, 2006; however, he was on vacation. The same day the Fire Department Inspector Jeff Roberts signed off with authorization from the Assistant Fire Chief. Mr. Morley stated that there were discussions between August 28th and September 11th. Mr. Morley related on Mr. Weber's reply that the building was only open one floor with reason to be closed off and as for the smoke issue the building was only open one floor there should be no reason that it is closed off with the building fully under sprinkler. The Architect checked with others who had used the same construction which performed in other locations. Mr. Morley informed that Mr. R.W. Paul was the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 8 of 20 contractor and he had indicated to Mr. Weber that the Fire Department had accepted the arrangement which Mr. Weber thought was accepted due to the fully sprinkled arrangement. He could, if requested, send photos of similar jobs. Assistant Chief Cunningham affirmed for Mayor Randels that Inspector Roberts had his authorization to sign -off on the CO. Mr. Morley stated that on September 11, 2006, before the final TCO expired, they applied for a final CO application. Mr. Morley stated further that it contained from Jeff Roberts, Fire Inspector and Dennis Clements, Building Inspector, a note by Inspector Roberts next to his signature "as directed by J.C. (John Cunningham). Having been assured that the Fire Department was satisfied that the atrium, smoke doors issue was resolved, relying on the Architect's Affidavit, the forthcoming attachment, Mr. Morley signed the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Boucher stated that he could not place the document in time and informed that he found the original application; but, there were no signatures on it. Mr. Morley replied that it was probable that they were waiting for the signature of the owner to be Faxed to the Building Department. Mr. Morley admitted that the recordkeeping was sloppy. Mr. Boucher emphasized that there were no signatures on the Application, perhaps on the CO, but not on the original application making the point that this was the legal document. Mr. Boucher emphasized further that the procedures call for signatures. With regard to the Building Official accepting an Affidavit from the Architect, Mr. Morley referred to the 2001 FBC which authorizes the Building Official to rely on the Architect's opinion when an issue is hazardous or complex. Section 104.5.2 states, "whenever a permit is issued in reliance upon an Affidavit, or whenever the work to be covered by a permit under conditions which when, in the opinion of the Building Official, are hazardous or complex; this was a complex issue with these doors. The Building Official shall require the Architect or Engineer who signed the Affidavit or prepared the drawings or computations shall supervise such work." Mr. Morley stated that he did. Mr. Petsos asked if Chief Cunningham was available on July 28th. Assistant Chief Cunningham affirmed that he saw the CO after the fact. He explained that he received a telephone call from Inspector Roberts seeking a CO for Country Inn and Suites which he authorized Inspector Roberts to sign based on the fact that everything on the list was addressed. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked if his conversation with Inspector Roberts in any way relieved the Fire Department of the responsibility of physically checking the project. Assistant Chief Cunningham replied no. Mr. Morley stated that the Architect supervised the work and provided documentation of his inspections, and filed an Affidavit that the work was performed in conformity with the approved Plans. It was performed in conformity with the Plans that were issued with the Permit. Due to the complexity of the issue, Mr. Morley stated that it was appropriate for him to rely on the Architect's Affidavit. Mr. Boucher requested to view the Affidavit that Mr. Morley received from the Architect. Mr. Morley searched for the Affidavit in his files; however, it was not scanned. Mr. Boucher informed that he did not have an Affidavit in City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 9 of 20 the documents that Mr. Morley submitted on December 17th. Mr. Morley stated that he would present the Affidavit as soon as it was found. Mr. Morley noted Mr. Weber's most recent correspondence. Mr. Morley read Mr. Weber's letter into the record. Mr. Boucher stated that he had not yet released the letter from Mr. Weber. Mr. Morley then recapped his actions. He stated that there was a Building Code issue about the definition of Atrium and he was convinced that this is not an Atrium based on the definition and his research; and not being an Atrium a smoke -control system was not required. Then what happens to the shaft enclosure issue, he addressed that from a Fire Code issue. This is a Fire Code issue. Mr. Morley stated that Mr. Weber's Affidavit indicated that and he accepted that Affidavit as permitted by the Building Code. Attorney Garganese questioned if that Affidavit was sworn to stating that the definition of an Affidavit was a written document sworn to under oath and under penalty of perjury. Mr. Morley stated that an Affidavit from an Architect or Engineer was a written statement that he has signed and does require notarization. Attorney Garganese stated how one of the purposes of the Meeting was to identify problems in the process. Mr. Morley presented the Affidavit dated May 10, 2006 from the Architect, Neil Weber. Mayor Randels stated that a Seal from an Architect was traditionally accepted in lieu of notarization; however, the process was subject to change. Attorney Garganese explained that Florida Law requires the Owner or Architect to submit an Affidavit. If they do that, they do that in the Form of an Affidavit which was Sworn to under Penalty of Perjury and notarized. Mr. Morley clarified that Mr. Weber signed off that the project has been built in compliance with the approved Plans and that the approved Plans did not show a smoke -control system or smoke rated corridor doors. He certified and built to those Plans as they were approved. Ms. Roberts reminded of the 2001 FBC which was in effect at the time of construction. Mayor Randels clarified, for the audience, that the City Council would not receive questions at this time as the Meeting was related to Fact -Finding. Mr. Boucher asked why Mr. Morley did not receive a response from the Architect related to the September 11, 2006 CO. Attorney Garganese also asked for clarification on a pending Code Enforcement issue. Assistant Chief Cunningham responded that the Fire Department was pursuing a Code Enforcement issue; however, this issue had nothing to do with Todd Morley's separation from the City. Assistant Chief Cunningham explained that Mr. Brian Foster, of Global Fire Engineering, was asked to look at the Country Inn and Suites; however, the Fire Department issue was strictly related to the Fire Code not the Building Code. Mr. Morley referred to an attachment from Mr. Weber from the State of Illinois where such an issue has been addressed. Assistant Chief Cunningham pointed out that this City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 10 of 20 was the State of Illinois, not Florida and was not part of Florida Fire Code. Mr. Morley asked if the National Fire Protection Act was a nationwide document. Assistant Chief Cunningham affirmed that it was and that the Fire Department enforces it. Mr. Morley presented the concept of a "mini -Atrium" from the Illinois Code. In conclusion, Mr. Morley stated that Mr. Weber's logic relied on the type of construction being a two-story hotel, constructed according to its definition. Assistant Chief Cunningham pointed out that Mr. Weber's logic, however, was relative to a document dated October 1, 2008. Mayor Randels brought up that things were being brought up after the fact. Mr. Boucher stated that Mr. Morley was also presenting new information. Mr. Boucher requested to hear from Mr. Brian Foster of Global Fire Engineering who delved into the specifics of the Code's text. Mayor Randels asked if there were any questions from the City Council at this time. Ms. Roberts expressed that Mr. Morley did to the best of his ability and with the City's current processes. Ms. Roberts used this as an example of how City processes could be improved. She pointed out that both Mr. Morley and Mr. Boucher had the City's best interests of life/ safety in mind. Positive intent was shown on Mr. Boucher's part and that would be expected of any City employee. Mayor Randels stated that a definition of Atrium was an open point. Ms. Walsh asked when Mr. Boucher became aware that there was an issue regarding the Atrium. Mr. Boucher replied that when he did his fact-finding investigation he found that there was lack of communication between the Building Official and the Fire CW Department. Mr. Petsos reminded that a major percentage of the communication was verbal versus what was documented. Chief Cunningham stated that the Fire and Building Departments communicated often. Chief Cunningham informed that no communication was strictly verbal; it was followed-up with written communication. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog clarified that there was a Building Code and a Fire Code and at times they were in conflict. He stated that Mr. Foster would present the Fire Code. Mayor Randels called for a recess to those who needed to take a break. Mr. Brian Foster, Fire Marshall with Global Fire Engineering, expressed that there were codes which required an atrium; however, some did not. At the time the Codes are written, not everyone arrives at the same conclusion, and a lot is left to interpretation. The 2001 FBC definition of an Atrium is very broad. He affirmed that it met the definition of an Atrium by Fire Code standards. Mr. Foster stated that a Code requirement was ignored. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed that although he appreciated Mr. Foster's professionalism, he took exception to him saying that the issue was being ignored. Mr. Foster explained that there was nothing to mitigate a mandatory Code requirement. He stated that this building should have had some type of smoke detection system regardless if it being considered an atrium or not. There was a question of sprinklers. Mr. Foster replied that Building and Fire Codes were built on a multi -tiered system, for example, suppression, fire -wall, smoke partitions, and smoke management. Sprinklers City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 11 of 20 were not 100 percent effective in controlling fires. He noted that the Architect accepted a "smoke catch" system. Mayor Randels asked how the six (6) unprotected rooms would egress in an emergency. Mr. Foster replied that there was no way of exiting the windows, so a person would be forced to exit through the door. Mr. Foster stated this building was less safe than if it had met the Fire Code. Mayor Randels returned to the definition of life/safety. Mr. Foster clarified that life/ safety in the Codes was defined as the minimum level of construction that was permitted. Mr. Foster stated, in the State of Florida, based on the Fire Prevention Code and ignoring the Building Code for a moment, you might have to have a smoke evacuation system, corridor doors, and an engineered analysis of smoke conditions and what would be required to maintain tenable conditions, meaning a person walking out safely. The building in his professional opinion was not Code compliant under the Fire Prevention Code. Chief Sargeant replied to Ms. Roberts that several things were learned from this job. He stated that TCO's were issued in an effort to assist the developer; however, the City needs to address how TCO's are applied in the overall process. Chief Sargeant pointed out that TCO's are issued expeditiously, but he makes every attempt to review the plans. Chief Sargeant stated that the original set of Plans called for a "smoke catch." He stated that his review was based on the Fire Code. He cautioned on issuing a temporary CO. Mr. Petsos asked if the Fire Department noted his concern about the smoke control system. Chief Sargeant stated that Inspector Roberts was told that all was taken care of and he responded to Mayor Pro Tem Hoog that the Fire Department was still responsible. When it was brought to his attention, the Fire Department began working to rectify their Department's issue. The City Manager and the City Attorney were working on the Atrium issue. Chief Sargeant stated that his Staff was directed not to sign -off on a CO until they physically perform an inspection. In hindsight, perhaps they should have had more Inspectors. In conclusion, the Fire Department did not have the right to close the building. The bottom line was "what can we do to ensure that the City was protected from the liability." Attorney Garganese questioned saying, "if there was a conflict between the Fire and Building Department Codes, which one prevailed?" Chief Sargeant replied, "the more stringent of the two Codes as related to life/ safety." Chief Sargeant replied that an interpretation would be requested from the two Departments' regulating Boards, the Fire Marshall and the Building Officials Association of Florida. Mr. Petsos questioned if the most stringent Code prevailed, and the Fire Department wanted a smoke control system, why would they have City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 12 of 20 accepted an Affidavit deleting it? Assistant Chief Cunningham replied that the Fire Department would then have documentation for supporting purposes. Ms. Roberts referred to the final CO, relating from Inspector Roberts' response that all things were in compliance. Chief Sargeant related that Mr. Morley thought that the Fire Department was agreeable with what Mr. Weber sent by E-mail; however, they did not see the E-mail. Mr. Boucher stated that Mr. Morley went on-site for a physical inspection; however, he did not take the punch list items with him. Ms Roberts stated she was seeking some evidence of a documentation requirement or documents and signatures required for the final CO. Ms. Roberts also stated she was specifically seeking some evidence of a quality -checking document. She, again, referred to the needs for a Forms alignment system. Chief Sargeant affirmed that there was room for improvement. Chief Sargeant clarified that he sought the help of Chief Foster to address a Fire Department issue. He also recommended interdepartmental Staff meetings as a corrective action. Mr. Petsos inquired about Mr. Weber's response. Chief Cunningham answered that he contacted Mr. Weber and after a review with Mr. Foster they would contact him with their findings. They would await his rebuttal as to whether this was applicable to the Country Inn and Suites. Assistant Chief Cunningham stated that Mr. Weber forwarded the Codes which support Mr. Weber's view. Ms. Walsh referred to a letter from Inspector Jeff Roberts dated August 5, 2008 to Mr. Bud Birch referencing the smoke control system and the Atrium. Assistant Chief Cunningham replied that he instructed Inspector Roberts to write the letter related to Code violations as a prerequisite to them coming into compliance. Mayor Randels stated that a lot of good points were brought out; however, there was an employee out of work and a City Manager who believed that he acted in the City's best interest. Ms. Roberts brought up the two other aspects of the Meeting, for example, the management and safety of the City. Mayor Randels asked if enough questions were answered in order to ascertain if procedures were followed. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that the City Manager was both right and wrong. He pointed out that there was a difference of opinion between the Fire and Building Codes. He stated that one Code was contrary to the other and both subject to interpretation. Mr. Petsos stated that there were lines of communication between both Departments. Mr. Boucher stated that two (2) TCO's were issued and no effort was made to get all parties together to review the outstanding life/safety issue. Mr. Boucher pointed out that the tools were available; however, they were not used and he emphasized that whatever originated from the Department must be correct. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked who was present on a final CO. Mr. Morley replied the Building Official, the Fire Department, and Public Works. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 13 of 20 Assistant Chief Cunningham stated that the Fire Department did not have as much correspondence between them and Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber had approached the issue from a Building Code, not a Fire Code, aspect and if there was more communication it would have been caught early on. Assistant Chief Cunningham stated that much was assumed in the course of the project. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog said that Mr. Weber mentioned smoke doors and other issues. Mr. Morley stated that adding the doors would not fix the problem. Assistant Chief Cunningham stated that the corridors were unprotected and a smoke - control system would permit egress from those rooms in the event of a fire. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that those rooms should have an access on the back side. Mr. Foster stated that the exit out of the room was essentially out to a balcony. However, for the occupancy load in that room, if all other condition were okay, it would still be accepted. Assistant Chief Cunningham emphasized that the corridors were all protected. The area had a sprinkler, but it did not meet the required corridor protection. Assistant Chief Cunningham explained how smoke protection would permit egress from those rooms. Mayor Pro Tem stated that the building should have been designed with exits on the back side. Mr. Foster reiterated that the construction was the minimum allowable construction. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog concluded that there were mistakes on both the Fire Department and Building Department side. Assistant Chief Cunningham replied to Mr. Petsos that the smoke control system would be both a Fire and Building Department inspection due to the mechanical aspect. Ms. Roberts returned to the citywide management challenges and pointed out the need for overall checks and balances. She stated that there were opportunities for improvement to include forms management and sequencing of signatures under the City Manager's purview. Ms. Walsh recommended a third -party review of the City's management processes. Mayor Randels returned to the life/safety issue and addressed corrective action; however, he questioned if it should be punitive. Mayor Randels stated that the situation did not warrant the action that was taken and he was not sure that the Building Official's resigning was the proper course of action. Mr. Boucher requested to review another life/ safety issue at 204 Adams Avenue. He issued a one-page summary sheet related to this matter. Mr. Boucher read his Summary into the record. [Summary Attached] He questioned why Mr. Morley did not share this information with the Fire Department. A resident asked if those in the audience would be heard after City Council's discussion in order to make comments on the proceedings. He stated that he could not remain at the meeting but would like to know how the Council planned to proceed. Ms. Roberts asked if the gentleman desired to be heard on a specific topic or generally. He stated IL that he desired to speak in a general nature. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 14 of 20 Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that the Council would probably not complete this discussion at this time. The resident asked, again, if there would be another meeting. Ms. Roberts expressed to the Council the importance of hearing the audience members and desired to know if the rest of the Council wanted to schedule another meeting. Ms. Walsh pointed out the need to obtain a third -party investigation based on the life/safety issues. Ms. Roberts added that the life/safety issue was just one aspect of the discussion and she asked how many in the audience desired to be heard. A number of people raised their hands. The Council Members decided that the life/safety issues were a priority and they would be addressed prior to hearing from the audience. The Chair recessed the Meeting at 8:00 P.M. and reconvened at 8.12 P.M. Mayor Randels announced that the Council would hear these other life/safety items and would meet for another hour and one-half prior to hearing from the audience. Ms. Roberts stated that the Council needed to look at the balance of the issues as well. Mr. Morley addressed Manatee Condominiums at 204 Adams Avenue. He affirmed that there was a mistake related to the number of units. Mr. Morley stated that this was a voluntary CO. He affirmed that there were 12 not 10 units as written. Mr. Morley stated that at Manatee Condos, he did not require a comprehensive set of plans at the beginning, but a written scope of the work to detail the project in a narrative format. The lesson, Mr. Morley stated that he subsequently learned was the Fire Department had the need for a complete set of plans at the beginning on what might even be considered a repair, even if the Building Department only requires shop drawings. This has been corrected. Mr. Boucher pointed out that a similar plan arrived one day prior, on April 26, 2005, which was appraised significantly higher and of which Plans were required as well as a Fire Department inspection. Mr. Morley replied that Victorian Condominiums was a 32 - unit building of which 16 units required repairs. Mr. Boucher noted that Bob Haley, former Plans Examiner, required sealed plans from Victorian Condominiums. These were two similar projects treated differently. Mr. Morley explained that in 2004 the City Council waived the permit fees for hurricane related damage. As Building Official, he was charged with interpreting what constituted hurricane damage. His interpretation was, "what is reasonably necessary to make the building whole again." Mr. Morley affirmed that Victorian Condos did receive a permit for re -roof work, Permit 558, this was reasonable to make the roof whole again. Mr. Morley stated that Victorian Condos then re -submitted for interior water damage restoration. They submitted a complete set of plans. However, Mr. Boucher refuted that Mr. Haley sent them a Plan Review punch list item requesting sealed Plans by a registered Architect. Mr. Boucher stated that he was attempting to ascertain why the two projects did not follow the same path. Mr. Morley City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 15 of 20 stated that it was evident on the Victorian that architectural work was intended in addition to the proposed electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work more than simply making the building whole again. Mr. Boucher pointed out that the Notice of Commencement that was filed read hurricane damage. Mr. Morley stated that they were attempting to get a free permit for the roof. Without the benefit of having the Plans in front of him, Mr. Morley recalled that the Plans called for the following: the creation of new exterior structural openings for sliding glass doors and windows; a re -configuration of interior spaces, removing walls and building new walls in different locations; the installation of new railings on second floor sliding glass doors; the replacement of existing railings. There were also several changes required by the City: the construction of fire rated corridor walls, the construction of fire rated unit separation walls, a two-hour fire rated construction for the electrical room, fire dampered electrical exhaust systems, and separated dryer ducts. By contrast, Manatee received two free permits; one for a roof structure replacement and another for electrical mechanical, and plumbing work. The roof structure was originally going to be a re -roof permit; however, after investigation of the structural members they were far too rotted and damaged and a roof re -placement was found necessary. The Plans called for a new truss roof. Mr. Boucher asked if these Plans were submitted to the Fire Department as a Standard Operating Procedure. Mr. Morley replied that a lesson was learned in the course of conducting business which required that the Fire Department now reviews all plans. Assistant Chief Cunningham replied that they desired to see new roofing Plans for structural purposes. Mr. Morley assured that he understood now that the Fire Department needed to see roofing Plans. Mr. Morley recalled again that there were no architectural changes, the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing Plans called for no change of configuration, there were no unit separation walls, no fire separation wall changes, they were left intact, and as a point of fact they were concrete block separation walls. Interior wall configuration walls were left intact. There was no unrelated remodeling. Much of the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing were necessary due to the roof structure replacement. This was a case in which the owner was attempting to restore the building to whole again. Railing work was not eligible for the fee waived permit program. Throughout the year following the 2004 hurricanes, there were several permits known for hurricane damage and Mr. Morley had to determine what was necessary to restore to whole again and what was excessive. In the case of Victorian versus Manatee condos. Mr. Morley had to draw the line; there was a big difference in the two permits. Mr. Boucher noted the change of use on Manatee Condos from apartment to condominium and the Fire Department was not involved in that change of use. Mr. Morley explained that Victorian condos involved permits fees. However, he did not have to complete paperwork with a free permit. Mr. Morley stated that, if he knew then City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 16 of 20 what he knows now, he would have done a full set of plans on Manatee Condos. Simple replacement work did not require full Plans. Mr. Boucher read Florida Statutes 553.79, Permits, Applications, Issuance, and Inspections, Subparagraph (2), more specifically paragraph (6). Mr. Morley referred to the FBC as adopted by the Florida Building Commission which spoke about Plans being submitted and reviewed in accordance with, "it says that Plans shall be drawn in sufficient clarity to describe the work." Mr. Morley stated that he could show many times when replacement work was performed with a narrative. Mr. Boucher pointed out that Mr. Morley was the only person participating on this project. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that Dennis Clements made inspections on the property as well as Tim Reeves, Fire Inspector, was also involved on this project. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog reiterated that there were others involved on this project. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked why Mr. Boucher had a problem with Mr. Morley being the only one associated with this project. Mr. Morley asked if there was a law which required more than one on Staff to review a project. The Building Official for Indialantic informed that one person performing all of the work was not an exception in his Town. Mr. Boucher asked why one permit received the rigors of full Staff review and the other received only Mr. Morley's review. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked, again, why Mr. Boucher was focusing on this one permit. Mr. Boucher stated that he assessed that two permits were not treated the same which was inconsistent. Mr. Boucher stated that he was seeking consistency. Mr. Morley stated that a form of ownership change occurred, not a change of use. Mayor Randels clarified that this was found after the fact. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he could also bring up old facts related to Mr. Boucher. Ms. Joyce Hamilton stated that a similar thing occurred at Beach Club Apartments in which the Fire Department did not receive the required plans in the past; however, now, a fire suppression system was required. Chief Sargeant stated that Florida Statutes 553 required that the Fire Department review all plans in an effort to install fire alarms. Chief Sargeant explained that the Fire Department decided to review all plans including upgrades when people were purchasing apartment buildings and converting them into condominiums. For some reason Beach Club was done in a piece meal fashion. Chief Sargeant stated that they do not delay permits. He stated that a Plans Review helped to identify problems. Chief Sargeant stated that every aspect of a permit goes through the Building Department. Attorney Garganese questioned the Departmental meeting and asked if any of the change in protocol were memorialized in writing. Chief Sargeant replied no. Mr. Morley asserted that the number of units was an obvious error of which he did not IL intentionally make saying that this was a clerical oversight. Ms. Roberts stated the need to "Avoid Verbal Orders" and she reminded of the need for documentation, using the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 17 of 20 meeting which took place to make changes. Ms. Roberts stated, again, how the City needs a better management system. She brought out that there were management issues, and documentation and processing issues not an issue against one employee. Ms. Roberts stated that the problem was a city wide problem. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog drew the conclusion that mistakes were inadvertently and unintentionally made between both the Building and the Fire Department. He stated that on the building side of the equation, the Building Official has the highest authority next to the Architect. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that, in the long term, the City would be better off knowing that clearer parameters were set in place. In conclusion, Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that perhaps the City Manager acted hastily. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog asked Mr. Morley how discretionary Code issues were resolved. Mr. Morley replied that he was the person to make building related decisions as the highest credentialed authority on behalf of the City. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog pointed out that Mr. Morley was therefore placing his job on the line by reason of his decisions. Mayor Randels asked for consensus on hearing from the audience and then how Council would proceed. Mr. Petsos requested that Council needed to determine the two life/safety issues. Ms. Roberts desired to include the management processes along with the life/safety issues. She also requested to hear from the audience. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog expressed that he did not desire, however, to hear repetitive comments. Mayor Randels called for any beneficial remarks from the audience related to the management process. Mr. George Coleman, West Melbourne, Building Official and President of the Building Officials Association, Brevard County, stated, on behalf of that group, that in Mr. Morley's position he brought his work circumstances to the Board for deliberation prior to his decision-making. Mr. Leo Nicholas suggested using the Florida League of Cities as a resource for City's Management issue and the life/safety issues. Mr. Danny Ringdahl stated that he had the privilege of building and developing in the City of Cape Canaveral. Mr. Ringdahl pointed out that there was enough guilt that could be applied all around and everyone makes mistakes. Mr. Ringdahl stated that Mr. Morley was well-educated and experienced; he was objective and used prudent judgment. He expressed the hope that a calm demeanor would prevail. Mr. Ringdahl stated, in conclusion, that losing Mr. Morley would be a tragic loss for the City. Mayor Randels addressed the management improvement method. Mr. Petsos agreed with Mr. Nicholas on using the Florida League of Cities. Mr. Boucher stated that the League may offer management evaluation services at no cost. Mayor Randels, however, stated his preference to pay for and obtain quality assistance. Ms. Walsh stated that in dealing with the life/safety issue, experienced persons with Building and City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 18 of 20 Fire Code expertise were needed to review those processes. Ms. Walsh also stated that she agreed with Ms. Roberts on the management procedures and the City could leverage with the Florida League of Cities for that service, and also the League might have people with expertise in the Building and Fire codes. Mayor Randels referred to the City's Policies Manual, questioning if the discipline met the infraction; nevertheless, the City Manager had the final say in Personnel actions. There was a provision under Suspension Without Pay and Involuntary Dismissal. Mayor Randels read the Personnel provision: "If the employee is suspended for more than three (3) days or is involuntarily dismissed, the employee shall have the right to a public, evidentiary hearing before an impartial hearing officer on the issue of whether the City had a legitimate reason for the adverse personnel action. The City Manager shall select the impartial hearing officer. The hearing shall take place within thirty (30) days following the action. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence used in administrative proceedings in Florida. The hearing Officer shall have the duty of deciding whether the City had a legitimate reason for the action, as opposed to an improper motive or an arbitrary or capricious motive. The hearing officer shall be empowered by the City to set aside or modify the adverse personnel action and shall do so if it is found that the action was for an improper motive or for a reason that was arbitrary or capricious. If, however, it is found that the action was for a legitimate reason related to the legitimate functions of the City, the action shall be confirmed. Mayor Randels stated that the City Manager could seek an unbiased party to address the action. Ms. Roberts expressed her concern with the City Manager, as Todd's supervisor, appointing the Hearing Officer saying that there was a Conflict of Interest there. She expressed further concern with working with an 11 -year-old policy document. Ms. Roberts stated the process would not be fair for Mr. Boucher to select the Hearing Officer. She asked Mr. Boucher for his viewpoint. Mr. Boucher stated that although Mr. Morley was not eligible for that provision, he would not interfere with an open impartial Hearing by a qualified mediator or arbitrator. He stated that another management professional, such as another City Manager, would be sought to review the case. Ms. Roberts asked if Mr. Boucher had any different thoughts based on tonight's meeting. Mr. Boucher stated that there was additional information given during this discussion that he needed to review. Mayor Randels recommended that the City Manager review any new findings, audience remarks, and evaluate City Council's concerns within the next week. Mayor Randels suggested planning for another meeting; if within a week they could not come to some conclusion. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 19 of 20 Mr. Boucher responded that he would take the Council's direction under advisement. He stated that there was new information and he had no problem meeting with Mr. Morley to discuss the issues that arose during this meeting. Mayor Randels clarified that once the City was made aware of life/safety issues, it must be addressed or it becomes negligence. Mayor Randels requested that the City Manager seek assistance from someone who has experienced a similar problem. He noted that the Fire Department was taking steps to resolve the Fire related issues. Chief Sargeant expressed how addressing the problem, however, was not the Fire Department working on its own. He emphasized the need for all the Departments to work as a team. Chief Sargeant recommended that the City include the Fire Department in their plans for a management improvement system. Mayor Randels noted that during this economic lull would be a good time to address improving the City's management systems. In conclusion, Ms. Roberts recounted the following the Points of Order: 1) Mr. Boucher would take the time to reflect over the findings that the Council discussed during this meeting. Mayor Randels affirmed. Mayor Randels stated 2) as: the City Manager would take one week for review and after that week, he would report to the Council on his progress. Ms. Roberts asked if the Council planned to schedule another Special Meeting at their Tuesday, March 17th Regular Meeting. Mayor Randels affirmed and stated that the City Manager could come to the Council on Tuesday night's meeting with any ideas, options, or suggestions for Council's approval or decline. Ms. Roberts pointed out that Mr. Morley had been out of employment for several weeks at this point and she desired to understand Mr. Boucher's intention of Mr. Morley's employment at the Tuesday night City Council Meeting. Mr. Boucher stated that he needed to review what was said although he did not have a problem meeting with Mr. Morley to review the issues. However, he still had an issue with Mr. Morley conducting his personal business on City time. Mayor Randels recommended that the City Manager bring any unresolved issues forward. Mr. Petsos recommended as a parallel course, if Mr. Boucher still had unresolved issues, seeking an independent review. In conclusion, Mayor Randels stated that within the next week the Council expected to hear Mr. Boucher's decision and any plans, if this needed to go to the next step. Attorney Garganese asked if the Council were seeking an independent review of Building and Fire Department procedures. Mr. Petsos clarified that the review in discussion was of the City Manager's findings. Ms. Walsh asked if the Council planned to move forward with an independent review of the Building and Fire Code process. Mr. Petsos stated that the City Manager was directed to seek that Independent review of Building and Fire Code policies. He requested to hear a daily status report from the City Manager on City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Special Meeting March 10, 2009 Page 20 of 20 obtaining someone to review those policies. Mayor Randels thanked everyone for attending the meeting. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the Meeting at 9:15 P.M. �d Rocky Randels, MAYOR Susan 8tills, CM -C, CITY CLERK Mayor Randels and Council; It has come to my attention that Todd Morley your Building Official has been forced to resign. While I cannot respond to all of the issues, I was extremely surprised to find out that the issue relating to the Country Inn & Suites is part of the process. Specifically the decisions related to the main entry of the hotel. We thought that this issue had been resolved when the Building Inspector and the Fire Department both signed off on the building at the time of the issuing of the final Certificate of Occupancy on 11 September 2006. Todd Morley has been an extremely professional Building Official. It has been a pleasure dealing with him and his department in the process of getting our building completed in your community. From the first time we submitted documents to the City of Cape Canaveral for review, Todd has been thorough and professional. His system of check lists for issuing building permits not only is a benefit to the City but also to me as an applicant. These check list included involvement of the Fire Department. All issues are clearly defined for complete discussion. I would be good if all building officials would follow such a system. In the course of this process the discussion of the entrance area of the building was discussion numerous times relative to the building codes. I would suspect that Todd's files would reflect this. If you need any documentation from me, please let me know. AW I will attempt to itemize in simple terms the process that Todd and I have taken to analyze this issue. Specifically as it relates to the entrance area, Todd and I together determined that; 1. The stair is not a required exit (See Addendum #1 of our construction documents) 2. The building is fully sprinklered. 3. The two story space is not an atrium by definition under the Florida Building Code 2001 since it does not extend through the building. 4. It should be noted that the definition in the International Building Code 2000 (which a basis for the development of the Florida Code) defines an atrium as an opening through two or more floors. This circumstance is an opening through only one floor. This definition also supports the original interpretation determined by both my office and Todd. 5. Since it is not a required exit or an atrium there is no smoke control system required. 6. It is important to note that the Florida Building Code 2004 changes the definition of this type of space and by that definition is an atrium. This is NOT the code under which this building has been built. 7. The stair is considered a shaft enclosure. A shaft enclosure can be open from the first floor to the second (as described in section 707.2 exceptions 2.1) as this stair is designed. The question of whether the open stair can Ln or must be separated from the corridors was further analyzed by studying the Life Safety Code. 1 met on site with Cape Canaveral officials to evaluate the situation. The life safety code does not require the corridors to be separated by doors. This fact is further backed up by the "Statue, Rule or Standard Policy Interpretation" as attached to this correspondence. This document clearly describes this exact condition as it applies to this hotel. This is a condition that is done on many hotels throughout Florida and the United States. The final construction documents reflect this analysis. The building was constructed according to the final documents approved by the building officials and fire department for construction. I provided the City of Cape Canaveral with an affidavit indicating that the building has been constructed according to the final construction documents. The purpose of this discussion is not to provide a code evaluation for you and the council but rather to show the process that Todd. The fire department and I followed to show that we all clearly understood the issue, implemented a careful and thoughtful analysis through the building code and life safety code, and made reasoned decisions. The City Manager's Investigation Report Regarding Todd Morley's Job Performance (dated 13 February 2009) contains a statement that says, "Notwithstanding the fact that the fire department's concerns were not adequately addressed in accordance with their jurisdictional authority over fire code inspection matters, Mr. Morley issued the final certificate of occupancy on September 11, 2006." This statement is totally incorrect from my point of view. The process throughout the development of plans, review of final construction documents, and inspections during the construction process clearly show that the building department, fire department, the contractor and my office were all involved in the discussion of the central stair and the issues pertaining to it. The final Certificate of Occupancy issued by Mr. Morley was issued 11 September 2006 only after the application for the certificate was signed by the building department AND the Fire Department. The fire department's signature is, "Jeff Roberts (as directed by JC)". I assume that JC means John Cunningham. It is apparent at that time that the fire department was comfortable with the design and construction of the project. If it was not, perhaps the issue of why they would sign off on the project if they continued to have concerns should be looked into. How can the fire department sign off on the project for the issue of a certificate of occupancy and then have anyone claim later that the building does not meet life safety standards? Todd did not issue a final Certificate of Occupancy until the Fire Department had signed off on their concerns. It is extremely troubling that this issue has been opened up after this all inclusive process has been followed and all parties have signed off on the final application of Certificate of Occupancy. It might be based on something person. :1 As I indicated in the beginning Todd is a great representative of the City of Cape Canaveral. He deals with people professionally. And he is good at his job. The system of check lists he has implemented should be done by all building officials. It has been a pleasure to deal with Todd and his department on this project. The Country Inn & Suites is a safe building. Todd Morley has conducted a complete and through process which has included the Building Department, Fire Department and the owner. Decisions have been made by all based on an honest reading of the building codes and life safety codes and an extensive discussion of all issues. The final Certificated of Occupancy was issued only after both the Fire Department and the Building Inspection Department signed off on the application. The decisions have been totally supported by third party evaluations (see attached). It could be said that if Mr. Morley had not issued a Final Certificate of Occupancy after all parties had signed, he would then be criticized for his job performance. The fact that this subject is being opened two years and five months later appears to be more a personal issue than a code issue. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Neil Weber. AIA Weber Architects & Planners 2280 Watertown Road Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 (952)476-4434 nw@vveberarchitects.com