Florida House Business & Professions Subcommittee meeting packet, September 18, 2019

Summary

The meeting packet of the Business & Professions Subcommittee of the Florida House of Representatives Commerce Committee for Wednesday, September 18, 2019, in Webster Hall (212 Knott), with Jose Oliva as Speaker and Heather Fitzenhagen as Chair. The agenda lists an overview of the Hurricane Michael report, a panel discussion on tiny homes in Florida and an overview of bills passed in the 2019 Session, with a DBPR update on HB 447, HB 763, HB 827 and HB 977. The packet includes the University of Florida's Hurricane Michael damage assessment report for the Florida Building Commission, which the packet states is required to study the effectiveness of the Florida Building Code. It closes with Department of Business & Professional Regulation slides on continuing education rule changes.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Captured: 2026-09-30
Source site: www.flhouse.gov

Archived web capture. Preserved source — captured from www.flhouse.gov; archived 2026-09-30.

Full text

Business & Professions Subcommittee
.. .

Wednesday, September 18, 2019
12:30 AM - 2:30 PM
Webster Hall (212 Knott)

Meeting Packet

Jose Oliva Heather Fitzenhagen
Speaker Chair
The Florida House of Representatives
Commerce Committee
Business & Professions Subcommittee

Jose Oliva Heather Fitzenhagen
Speaker Chair

AGENDA

Wednesday, September 18, 2018
Webster Hall (212 Knott)
12:30 PM - 2:30 PM

I. Call to Order & Roll Call

11. Welcoming Remarks

Ill. Overview of Hurricane Michael Report

IV. Panel Discussion on Tiny Homes in Florida

V. Overview of bills passed Session

VI. Adjournment

303 House Office Building, 402 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
(850) 717-4873 Fax: (850) 413-0419
Committee Meeting Notice
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Business & Professions Subcommittee

Start Date and Time: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 12:30 pm
End Date and Time: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 02:30 pm
Location: Webster Hall (212 Knott)
Duration: 2.00 hrs

Update from DBPR on implementation of bills passed in the 2019 Session:
-HB 447 Construction
-HB 763 Registered Contractor Licensing
-HB 827 Engineering
-HB 977 Public Accountancy

Overview of Hurricane Michael Report by the Florida Building Commission and the University of Florida

Panel Discussion on Tiny Homes in Florida

NOTICE FINALIZED on 09/11/2019 4:02PM by Rigas.Amanda

09/11/2019 4:02:54PM Leagis ® Page 1 of 1
Hurricane Michael Report
University of Florida Hurricane Michael Damage Assessment Report
For the Florida Building Commission

Florida law requires the Florida Building Commission to study the
provisions of the Florida Building Code to determine their effectiveness. As a
result, the Commission has done a hurricane damage assessment report after each
hurricane that hit Florida as a category three or greater. According to DBPR, after
receiving a hurricane damage assessment report the Commission reviews the
report's recommendations, studies any reported premature failure of building
materials, and encourages stakeholders and interested parties to submit changes to
the Building Code in order to help mitigate reported damages.

Hurricane Michael hit Florida as a category five hurricane on October 10,
2018. DBPR contracted with the University of Florida to complete a damage
assessment report for Hurricane Michael. University of Florida Professor, Dr.
David Prevatt, completed the report and submitted it to the Department in June
2019.
Acknowledgements

StEER
STRUCTURAL
EXTREME EVENTS
RECONNAISSANCE

ASSURANT ®
UNIVERSITY of
FLORIDA
2
Biosketch Dr. David 0. Prevatt
• MS (1997) and PhD (1998) Civil Eng. Clemson University
• Studies of wind uplift testing for commercial roofing systems
• Structural Engineer with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.
Boston, MA (1998-2004)
• Forensic engineer
• Building Envelope Systems, roofing, fenestration, walls and
plaza waterproofing
• PE (Structural), registered in Massachusetts
• Assistant Professor, Clemson University
• Directed Wind Load Test Facility
• Conducted wind tunnel & full scale tests on houses
• Assistant Professor (2004-2007)
& Associate Professor, (2007-present) University of Florida
• Structural Research experimental & analytical modeling
• Retrofitting residential construction for wind uplift resistance
• Tornado Damage Surveys (Alabama, Oklahoma & Texas)
• Hurricane Damage Survey (Southeast US and Caribbean)

UF
UN I VERSIT'I
FLORIDA
of
3
Topics
• Damage Surveys Following Hurricanes, UF & the FBC
• Hurricane Michael in Historical Perspective
• Peak Wind Speeds
• Storm Surge Inundation Heights
• Dispelling Myths about the Damage
• Field Reconnaissance
• Methodology
• Observations
• Selected Case Studies of Residential House Damage
• Storm ·surge Effects
• Key Facts
• Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL)
• Interior Damage -Homeowner Interviews
• Homeowner Expectations
• Interior Damage vs. Building Performance
• Key Takeaways and Closing Thoughts

4
State of Florida's Commitment
~ ~
- -
111&1 .....
~=lulii.i
- :1 - ~

Cennhsi

The University of Florida shall execute an initial triage assessment of
residential property damage resulting from a Category Ill, IV, or V
hurricane.
If authorized by the program manager, the Contractor will perform a
formal survey and damage assessment of buildings damaged by a
Category Ill, IV, or V hurricane.
The formal survey and damage assessment will result in a final
report presented to the Florida Building Commission for its
consideration and approval.

• sustained wind speeds over land > 110 mph
• storm surge in excess of 9 ft

UF
UN I VERS I TY of

FLORIDA
5
~

.,
8
oli \\, 111 ' \'II
""'•y •net '""•st/9a11
d 'Oi ca'"g
"'"'~~. ,. ",,,.;;:',, .............. •, ,,..
~ eu\\d'"g"
. o&!t'ag" o'\1 ' ..... ~029
fi~1 I ' - ~
~ . a\\ol' o ~u'"
-'c•"" ''"'a
a -
'J: P Of ""1cane llfatthe.., 2016 9o,y ///
d 11\~es''~ '( 10'11 ·""
sur<ei al\ . c•""s '" f
al\d'IJ~u''' :/,,°:,"; 0.,,.,,,,,.,,. 8u,1ne,, "'1d P,
"'°~~
Of
v,#' " -~'fo"r:fo "'.g\l~\\01'
"""""' """
BuiltJng
'll<o Man11go,
&a,.,.,ds
Ta11a1ias Alo,,,oes~..,,
°''"'°"•I F!olltJi.11 "
0
So""' ""° ,o .~d v,01•••'0~•' .... ,1or;daJl:J99
,e\)•'"..... p"'Pllr•d1>y-
a,f\~(\\O f{/1,~e<
f\on4• oe: v 1c0(a((\ :.:o@fO!J oo·'&
"'"° ,11~6&CP6e4i arlt
~.:~~""··· ·ee\

~~
1t•l>""~.o,&
'?.l,ll.)(\ °""' '"~•ror
'Wu O. Prevatt Pt, 0 .• PE (M,\
~.,. Pr(Jf• ...,, (S/"""""'•1
I
.,. ··
...
Gunoy, Pho. 11
• \~._p-) '8' love,r.ga,Or
911tic,.,,..)
1 """'1
t./o U,06- 17
• Ju11ezo11
{9!,)

f
-:he, Pt,.o
.,o: 'ea'Che,
"'o<'"
<(>' ...~,~
"""'.a. l,.
'OtJi. Pt>.D.
c,c,<>~' •Jltant
'°"'-1(,,., _.......~~(,p
• b"'(>
,.('ob
-~''i'
8
1f'°'~·\
<fi\\'io °"'"°'(C""1eg!._,,._,,.,,, lm/\,e"">'I
"~,
"'>-,!~,,.
"•,,,,4',,
6.q,
'l·

~e,~... ~<>""' ' "'30 ~ · \)~,..o<S'\i)~ \<.\\)0>' <:·'h.•4, ··~
•'*\e»e'\d'
~b" ·-t1."' ,,e<l . ou\f''ef\
o-v<t' •
11 i.r,,.,,,,._°""'leo 0,.,,.
,,..,lo 'Vs 'o_/'}~/'•,,.,,,
.,,'i~"c..~,.,,:,/''~
...(',,:,. c.' ' ~..,< ..,.,,.
~e(el.,

•"' k, Aiyasa E~ew. Ham,o Y0gt,O<.<b,
~~·o....
? '"-« o,&
o,a, '-,y'll''>
. , ,'>-~~·()_
...#' ~._~\~\ .., ~(~ , . <>"'
~ '"·-~,~ ~- '~.S~..~~, .,,.;,,,,.lie
~...<>-1.~~·~,,,~~..
- -. --·~ l ..:.
, ,\~<>"' (>.,,-.,,<> ""(<-:. ,.,•'- od~~"'°""'
, ...(><( b i,~...'i .,~~ "'•,/ " .,.,.
~. ."~ ,,~e.~ ~c:"
~ec. . -~
,:·. ---------- •'l:>4, ~...""'"lo
..,.0
~'I, ,.,.••••
~,,., -s-.,.. ...,
.{,>".!>' •
..,.,...,
'••
~~..t6..1-"•
,.9°')._
\ ,c.i-'\l .,_,,...."'" ' "' 9 . .,....,
,':"',.,::,.,(,, ...,..,
,,.,~ ('t
"':,.,;,,"'"
A..p'i.,1:1' !I.
......

'
'ct.:
~·,--., ~
0 'I,
~- "'-~ ,,,
r-s-,~- ~
-t•.,.,

L "" ~,,,"":;.+°
~<,,
,,,.,,•,p 't,..~"li ,.._,
"'i-,..~ b
,Si 1.·J•
~.c-·. ,~
-;

"'u,
-o, ,. ·O
,~~l,d"~~i .,~4.:
o"' .;'~ ,.«"'o>.,.'II',, ,<fl'.
J.
..;,-~' ~.-#·.,.+'°' . ,1r•'"' /u,.-:_;~~...._~"
,,.:," .~.,,,,,.c,. t,,.~o ·.. t§.'lt. (~~q,~'<IIJ,°'"1~"4.- ~
"~' ~~·""' ~~ I,~. ....~:\,?-~ -Ii
'9e.q,

t
...,"" ...-::,,, q,,'t\,
"l.~ "'11. "• 'o.,_ "'lb
o:'t,... "'"°e._ ~~..., ,.,e<b
19
·o,., 9
~,.,.,
'\ .....
v..._,q,,,"1.,-%.. ~..... "•'I:,.._
,!,''" .-.5'_.. . (f"'~' _..J> ,.~tis ~;;,.o~tiC..j"°'5'4, o."' "'a..:,
.~.. • ..-·~~1,-'~.-:f'""' c..t'.f>.,. Go,..; e.~,"-1t ""· •-vq, "'"'·
..... '"•- ••4 "{,,.
........,~,,....,",-.
o· ,v •'
t,•-.:~,~''~J.C~ ,,$-; , ~~"" ... "I."? '~'t>~•... ~. ,· -t•..,
...-'"
't~ ,q.#' ..&',:, ~"'~" '
"'"" 9-~~ '"°o~ • fl'~fl'
"'6,,'%: ..,.,".,,.,.
~•'o,'".
~ " ....~, ..
~,,
(.
~''-•
":c-~"
Q~,<\\'>~
r;.,-~;,
_.~.....-.
~
~~~.::;.(!)' \ ,ti~'\.,)'\.'o
~·
":\,,,,;

~
~~o~..~,r.-
"""
HURRICANE MICHAEL (2018)
• Landfall on October 1Qth, 2018 near
Mexico Beach, FL

• Category 5, 155 mph maximum sustained
wind speeds at landfall, exceeding design
over a large swath

• Storm surge of 15-21 ft (NAVD88)
centered on Mexico Beach

• 59 fatalities, and over 2.7 million
electrical customers lost power

• 55,000 buildings damaged & 3,823
buildings destroyed

• StEER Field Assessment Structural Teams
(FAST) deployed 48 hours after landfall
Was Hurricane Michael Unique?
Hurricanes within 150 miles Mexico Beach, FL 1926-2019

Name

UNNAMED
UNNAMED 1
UNNAMED 1
UNNAMED 2
FLOSSY 1
ALMA 1
AGNES 1
ELOISE 3
KATE 2
ERIN 1
OPAL 3
EARL 1
DENNIS 3
HERMINE 1
MICHAEL 5
3-sec Gust wind speed contours (35t

(Applied Research Assoc.)

KMGM(JJf

KGZH(-f

Legend
+ FMCPTower / 140
...
•
ASOS
NDBC
,/ SGOF1(88,.

Peak Gust (mph) ,I
----------· Storm Track J . 42039(-1
0 60 90

Hurricane Michael (201 8): Preliminary Peak Wind Gust (mph)
Estimated 3-second gust wind speeds (mph) at 1Om above ground over flat open terrain from ARA model fit to surface level observations using storm track and central
pressure data from NHC through Intermediate Advisory Number 22A and observations through 0600 UTC on 10/12/2018. The values of peak gust winds in mph
are shown after station names; Values are not adjusted for station height 0( terrain; "." means station failed befO(e the arrival of the peak wind. ~ ARA
Storm Surge

~
~0

Surge Inundation (ft AGL)
• 2-4 ft

4-6 ft 0

• 6-9 ft

• 9-14 ft

UF
UNIVERSITY of
FLORIDA
Source: NHC Hurricane Michael Report
'It's all gone': Tiny Florida beach town
nearly swept away by Hurricane Michael
__, Washington Post

Michael demolished nearly every Mexico Beach !tome and
business in its path, including the Mexico Beach Police
Department.
,._, ABC News
DEVASTATION IN RESIDENCES IN MEXICO BEACH, FEW SURVIVORS IN THE
AREAS WITH HIGHEST INUNDATION. (SOURCE: NEW YORK TIMES)
Mexico Beach, FL
t'-

-1
I
Legend 1
-, '~- ',Z j
I '· '-
- - Creeks , '1'
'l
C:::J Parcels
[:~=--J City Limits
,L_J Water
1 Gu110,,~

1111 General Commerical 'PT&-t,eo

1111 Public Institutional Mexico Beach FL Demographics Profile
~ Preservation Mexico
Statistic Florida
11111 Residental - General Beach
Population 1,341 19,934,451
___... Residental - Low Density
Median Age 57,9 41.6 I,
_ Tourist Commerical Married (15 yrs & older) 73% 54% i
1111 Tourist Mixed Use Families w/Kids under 18 12% 38%
Speak English 96% 72%
1111 Tourist Residental Speak Spanish 0% 21%

W.E N

https://www.areavibes .com/mexico+beach-fl/demographics/
http://www.city-data .com/city/Mexico-Beach-Florida _html

17
StEER Data Collection Strategy

UAV to capture Structure-
from- Motion models

"'
Summa ., of Field Reconnaissance
\7 "' :r=
I ..,,, I I I 7 7 -
' , \
~ \
V"'(' \
('o \\ Chattah ee

-::>A ' ~
'o~ ~o
·~ \%
' ~
-<_.,. \
'O -

' ton Beach
;'(':

''A' ~('C'o • Two multi-day periods:
',, -::>~
', 0 • 12-15 October 2019
\
',, ~.....' • 1-6 November 2019
'
',~~ ~
Dataset includes:
Legend ~~.,-...
,~
3-second Gllst Wind Speeds (ARA model
• 759 buildings
', • 3,000 photographs
----· ASCE 7-10 700 ~r Design Wind Speeds
• 3 - 30 point clouds of
ost-Hurricane Assessments
specific neighborhoods
• NoDamage
• 135 miles Street View
• Minor
imagery routes
o Moderate
o Severe
4 8 32
• Destroyed Miles
Map of door-to-door assessments relative to estimated peak gust wind
speeds (ARA) and design wind speeds (ASCE 7-10) 100 mph= 44 .7 mis
CASE 5: MEXICO BEACH. FOUR STORIES ON
PILES
-

YEAR 2013
Wave height 21.2 ft
Wind speed observed 140 mph
Design wind speed 134 mph
CASE 9: MEXICO BEACH. ELEVATED TWO-
STORY HOUSE REMODELED IN 2000.
Wind Damage

YEAR
Wave height 21.2 ft
Wind speed observed 140 mph Gu lf County
Veterans Me(!lrial..
Q

Design wind speed 134 mph Mexico Beach SaintJoeBeach Q
light, 21
CASE STUDY 10: MEXICO BEACH. WOOD
FRAME TWO STORY HOUSE. YEAR 1993.
-

YEAR 1993 ~- q

Wave height .. .
f ~ .r;,.,tp • • . ..I'
.... ~
• • <l •
•
q
s
.,::o
~
.•
q
.,::,·
q
~:$' 4'
~
s
~""'
~

.,,,
,if
~,.,
.f q-
Wind speed observed 130 mph Mexico Beach C11i ·e, .,
r.\ •
.,
~
ct;
q
• ....: • "' ,f '
Mexico Beach -..... : -l'
Design wind speed 134 mph
22
Storm Surge

Height to eave: 7 ft 8 in.

UF
UN I Vl:RS I TY of

FLORIDA 23
Key Facts on Storm Surge Damage

• The first-floor elevation of a structure relative to the
surge inundation height is the largest determinant of
extent of damage.

• A key factor in explaining the reported surge damage
was the CCCL. (See next slide.)

• Note: that the entire coastline was not completely
gone as has often been reported.

26
Storm Surge Damage

Pre-FBC Post-FBC Surgelnundation(ft)
FFE (ft) FFE (ft) I
1 - 3.6

0 Oft 0 Oft 3.6 -6.2

0 0 - 2 ft 0 0 - 2 ft 6.2 - 8.8

0 2 - 4 ft @ 2 - 4 ft !___ 8.8 -11.4

0
••
4 - 6 ft

6 - 8 ft
•• 4 - 6 ft
6 - 8 ft
c
-
11 .4-14

CCCL

•
8 - 10ft

10-12ft
•• 8 - 10 ft

10-12ft
0 0.05 0.1
Miles
Storm Surge Damage

..
Pre-FBC Surge Damage Post-FBC Surge Damag
No Damage
Minor
•• No Damage
Minor
Moderate 0 Moderate
/::;. Severe 0 Severe

..
/::;. Very Severe
Partial Collapse
Collapse
0
••
Very Severe
Partial Collapse
Collapse
N

A
0 0.1 0.2
I Miles - CCCL
Interior Damage - Interview of Homeowners
Area of Interest: Cedar's Crossing, Panama City, FL

Why Cedar's Crossing neighborhood?

• 181 homes in the neighborhood (Pre-FBC: 91, Post-FBC: 90)
• UAV imagery of Cedar's Crossing was available to the research team.
• Widespread cladding and roof cover damage observed by research team

Source: https://web .fulcrumapp.com 29
Future Retrofits
----
• Participants generally thought that their homes held up well in the face of Hurricane
Michael, yet still would consider making future improvements to their homes to protect
against hurricanes.

>
Q)
+-'
Q)
3.9
a. 4 3.7
E
+-' 0
c u
QJ II
E
Q)
LO..
Q)
Q)
I...
Q)
I...
-
Q)
3
t:l.O t:l.O Q)
ro ro i....
'+-- -~ t:l.O
o -c ro
-Q) - >
> Q)
Q) +-'
2
_J Q)
a.
E
0
u
II
M 1
Home hold up well Consider future retrofits

UF Note: 1-5 represents level of agreement, where 1 indicates complete disagreement and
5 indicates complete agreement.
30
UN I VERSITY of
FLORIDA
---
Interior Survey Results & Summary

1. 90o/o of participants' homes suffered from severe damage based on Quality
Control damage ratings. It is possible that these homeowners had higher
motivation to answer because of this.

2. Water leak damage route:

Through Windows were broken Clothes, carpet, electronics
~ windows by strong wind with in the bedroom were
~

debris damaged by water

Where
I
the water .- Through
kitchen I--
--.J Rains enter through _____.
Electric wires above the
gas stove were damaged
kitchen vent
leak? vent

~ 1 Tree(s) fall crush roof,
and causes a
large hole
I
I
--.J
I Entire floor was damaged
by water

, _. Through roof

I Roof sh ingles and Water leaks through roof
~
underlayment were 1-- --. and causes damage to
ripped off by strong belongings
wind

UF
UN IV ERSITY of
FLORIDA
31
Interior Survey: Results & Summary
---
3. Participants recognized that major damage could stem from minor construction flaws:

HM77: "90% of water that entered our house was because the soffitlfascia was hastily and
poorly installed. .... Speed during construction vs professionalism cost us $40k in damage
vs. $50 worth of nails or staples. "

4. Most of participants are satisfied with the performance of their houses in hurricane
Michael despite significant damage. They attributed their loss to Category 5 wind
speed. All participants believed their house needed to be retrofitted to become
more hurricane resistant.

UF
UN I VERS I TY of

FLORIDA
32
Representative Building Performance
(partial survey - additional analysis pending funding approval for Phase II to continue)

StEER damage observations for 182 homes in the Mexico Beach, FL area
100 r:::: • I e I • I • I • I • I • I I

•
• D Post-2001

80 • • •
D Pre-2002

-cf2. , •

-ro
0
60
• • ••
•
•
•
•
•

•
Average
•
0::: II I • • / Single
• •
Q)
• 'I
O')

E 40 - e
• • •
Building

0
ro

20
•
•

•
•

•
-.....
• I
•

•
•

•

•
•
•
•• •
. I ..•
..•
•

.,:1 ' ••
'
. ..
• I •'
... i •
• • • I ,,..
•• • •
.,
-·
• I • •• I •

••• • •
• •
OI 1-11 W 1 - 11 - 1111111-1 1-11 - 1-11 - I - Ill e ! 1-111-1 I I ll I I

Roof Roof Roof Wall Wall Wall Fenestration Large
Structure Substrate Cover Structure Substrate Claddinq Doors

. Area of Damaged or Missing Components (lQQOI)
Damage Rat10 = 10
Total Area of Components
Key Takeaway #1 :
Disaster= fx(Hazard, Exposure, Vulnerability)

Significant structural damage in Mexico Beach was
overwhelmingly experienced by an aged building stock
that pre-dated modern building codes in Florida.
Modern homes overall performed well.
Key Takeaway #1 :
Disaster = fx(Hazard, Exposure, Vulnerability)
Significant structural damage in Mexico Beach was
overwhelmingly experienced by an aged building stock
that pre-dated modern building codes in Florida.
Modern homes overall performed well.

Key Takeaway #2:
Impacts to the building go far beyond observable
structural damage. Homes that performed well
structurally often have interior damage that make them
unlivable and sometimes unrepairable due to roof
cover loss and water ingress.
Key Takeaway #3:
Disasters like Hurricane Michael are not natural. They
produce natural hazard effects, but the disaster
conditions build up over several decades of building
structures that cannot survive the intensity.

Enforce and continually improve
the Florida Building Code
CLOSING THOUGHTS

- o A growing Florida state population needs buildings
c Will there be more frequent and/or more intense hurricanes?
c Are current construction approaches appropriate for the future?
c Are we ready (are we preparing) for the future now?

o Future Florida Communities - will be built today
· Communities need reliable standards and design solutions today for
them to select and plan for the benefits they desire for tomorrow
· A good solution ensures survival of one house, a great one ensures a
community will thrive, and an excellent solution ensures the survival of
all structures and infrastructure in our state.

UF
UN I Vl:. R S I TY of

FLORIDA 37
Thank You!
Key Takeaway #1 :
Disaster= fx(Hazard, Exposure, Vulnerability)
Significant structural damage in Mexico Beach was overwhelmingly
experienced by an aged building stock that pre-dated modern building codes in
Florida. Modern homes overall performed well.

Key Takeaway #2:
Impacts to the building go far beyond observable structural damage. Homes that
performed well structurally often had interior damage that made them unlivable
and sometimes unrepairable due to roof cover loss and water ingress.
Fortify your roof!

Key Takeaway #3:
Disasters like Hurricane Michael are not natural. They produce natural hazard
effects, but the disaster conditions build up over several decades of building
structures that cannot survive the intensity.
Enforce and improve the Florida Building Code
Final Report:

Survey and Investigation of Buildings Damaged by Category-Ill, IV & V
Hurricanes in FY 2018-2019 - Hurricane Michael
Project#: P0091032

Submitted to:

Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Mo Madani, Program Manager
Building Codes and Standards
1940 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Prepared by:

David 0. Prevatt, Ph.D., PE (MA) Report No. 01-19
Principal Investigator
Associate Professor (Structures)
10 June 2019

David B. Roueche , Ph.D.
Assistant Professor (Auburn University)

Research Assistants:
Alina Gautam Acharya, Rodrigo Castillo, Xinyang Wu, Oscar Lafontaine
(University of Florida)
Brandon Rittelmeyer, Charner Blue, Brett Davis, Meredith Goergen, Kevin Ambrose
(Auburn University)

Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment
Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering
University of Florida
365 Weil Hall
P.O. Box 116580
Gainesville, FL 32611-6580
DISCLAIMER

The material presented in this research report has been prepared in accordance
with recognized engineering principles. This report should not be used without first
securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any given application . The
publication of the material contained herein does not represent or warrant on the part of
the University of Florida or any other person named herein, that this information is suitable
for any general or particular use or promises freedom from infringement of any patent or
patents. Anyone making use of this information assumes all liability for such use.

Page ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On October, 10 2018, Hurricane Michael made landfall just south of Panama City, FL
with the National Hurricane Center reporting a minimum pressure 919 MB and maximum
sustained winds of 150 mph. Surface observations near the eyewall measured peak wind
gusts of at least 130 mph at 10 m height, but gusts may have been higher as several
observation stations were damaged and stopped reporting. Regardless of its place in
history, Hurricane Michael caused catastrophic damage from high winds over a wide
swath that stretched across much of the FL panhandle and inland into southeastern GA
and beyond. Best estimates of the hurricane wind field indicate that design wind speeds
for many structures were exceeded for a sizable region near Mexico Beach and further
inland. Heavy storm surge inundated regions from Tyndall Air Force base down through
Mexico Beach (8-12 ft. storm surge inundation reported), Port St. Joe, Apalachicola, and
the barrier islands.

The University of Florida in coordination with several other groups mounted a
coordinated response to identify the major damage caused, assess the intensity of the
wind speeds, and storm surge that created the damage. The effort involved field
assessment by door-to-door inspections of structures, use of unmanned aerial vehicles,
vehicle-mounted panoramic cameras, and comparing with existing geolocated
photographs of conditions before the event. The extent of the assessments included
Panama City Beach, Panama City and surrounding communities, Mexico Beach, Port St.
Joe, Apalachicola, a few routes out to barrier islands in the region, and the inland
communities of Blountstown and Marianna.

In general, FAT-1 observed widespread wind- and surge-induced damage from
Panama City Beach down to Apalachicola, with extensive joint wind- and surge-induced
damage in Mexico Beach.

Structural Wind Damage: Structural wind damage was widely observed in Panama
City but highly variable, with adjacent buildings often exhibiting highly disparate levels of
damage. In Panama City Beach, and inland areas such as Marianna and Blountstown,
structural damage was more isolated but roof cover and wall cladding damage was still
frequently observed. In coastal regions, including Mexico Beach and Port St. Joe, multiple
buildings were destroyed by the high winds but destruction was still not uniform.

Storm Surge Damage: Storm surge was most prevalent from Mexico Beach down
into to the Big Bend, including Apalachicola. Structural surge-induced damage was mostly
confined to an approximately 1-mile stretch of Mexico Beach and portions of Port St. Joe.
Washout of roads and coastal features was documented in multiple areas.

Structural damage was predominately experience by older (pre-2002) structures,
while newer structures generally experienced no more than roof cover and wall cladding
loss. However, roof cover and wall cladding damage was still commonly observed even

Page iii
in newer structures. Failures were frequently observed in both engineered and non-
engineered buildings.

Page iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................ iii

1 Hurricane Michael ........................................................................................... 1

2 Overview and Scope of Work ........................................................................2

2.1 Task A: Data processing and information extraction .. .. .................................. 2
2.2 Task B: Augment Data using County Appraiser Database ............................ 3
2.3 Task C: Interior Damage Data Collection .... .. ................ .... ............................. 3

3 Tasks for interim report: ................................................................................4

4 Resources for Damage Assesment ............................................................... 8

4.1 Door-to-Door Assessments .... ... .... ..... ... .... ....... ................................. .. .. ... ... ... 8
4.2 Aerial lmagery ... ................. ........ .... ....... .......... .. .. ............ ....... .......... ... .. ... ..... .9
4.3 UAV Data ................................................................. ... .. .. .. ...... .. ................... 10
4.4 Applied StreetView Imaging ........ .... .................................................. ........... 12

5 Data Enrichment and Quality Control Process .......................................... 13

5.1 Aerial Imagery for Accurate Geo-Location ............. .......... .. ....... ................... 14
5.2 Property Appraisal Website ... ........ .. .... ... ... ..... ... ................. .......... ...... ......... 14
5.3 Damage Assessment Information ........................... .. ...... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ............. 15
5.4 Fenestration Area Calculation ........... .. .... .. ........................... .. .... .. ............. ... 16
5.5 Estimation of Damage Percentages .... ...... .. ............ .. .................. .... ...... .. .. .. . 16
5.6 Damage Rating ... .. .. ................................... ... ... ............. .... .. ... ........ .............. 17

6 Summary of Hurricane Michael DataSET .................................................... 20

6.1 General Overview with Respect to Wind Hazards ........ .. ... ...... .... ............ .. .. 20
6.2 Detailed Assessments in Wind-Only Regions .............. .. .... .. ... ........ .... .... .... .22
6.3 General Overview with Respect to Storm Surge Hazard ... .................. .. ...... 23

7 Analysis of Building Performance .............................................................. 26

7.1 Broad Overview of Wind Performance .... .. .. ...... ... .. ......... .. ...... ...... ............... 26

Page v
7.2 Detailed Assessment of Wind Performance ...................... ...... ........... ... ....... 28
7.3 Surge Performance ...................................................................................... 32

8 Homeowner lnterviews .................................................................................36

,8.1 Methodology ..... .. ..... ............. .. ..... ... .. ... ................................................ ... .. ... 36
8.1.1 Recruitment .... .. ............... ... .. .. ... ................................. .... ... ... ................ 36
8.1.2 Institutional Review Board ...... ............... .... ......................................... .. 37
8.1.3 Survey Protocol ............... .. ........................................ ... ... .. ................... 38
8.2 Results ......................................................................................................... 38
8.2.1 Participants ... .... .. ........... .. .................................................... ................. 38
8.2.2 Evacuation Behavior ...... ...... .... .... .. ...................................................... .40
8.2.3 Risk Perceptions ....... .. .... .............. .... .. ........... .................................... .. .42
8.2.4 Preparation ................... .. .. ..... ....... ................... ...... .. ....... .............. ........ 43
8.2.5 Interior Home Damage ........................................................................ .44
8.2.6 Exterior Home Damage ...... ...... ............................................................ 50
8.2.7 Structural retrofits ................................................................................. 51

9 Conclusions from Data Analysis Portion ................................................... 52

10 Recommendation ..........................................................................................53

11 References .................................................................................................... 54

Appendix A. Personalized recruitment letter and postcard ......... ... ..................... 55
Appendix 8. Copy of approval letter ................................................................... 60
Appendix C. Copy of survey ..... ........... .................................... ........................... 62
Appendix D. Original Survey Data ..................... ... ... .. ....... .................................. 90

Page vi
List of Tables

Table 1. Data enrichment and quality control process for building out post-hurricane
datasets .. ............... ............. ... .......... ... ...... .. ........... ............ ...... .... ......... .... ..... .... .. ... 13

Table 2. Quantitative guidelines for assigning overall wind damage rating .................. .. 18

Table 3. Qualitative guidelines for assigning overall surge damage rating .............. .... .. 19

Table 4. Summary of buildings by type/use in the Hurricane Michael dataset. .............. 20

Table 5. Summary of neighborhoods in the Hurricane Michael dataset for which the full
DEQC protocol has been completed ................................. .............. ............. .... ...... 22

Page vii
List of Figures

Figure 1. Estimated 3s peak wind gust by ARA (assumes open terrain and 10 meter
height) .................. ......... ... ... .. ................ ......... .... ...... .. ......... ... .... ..... ... ...... ....... ... ...... .4

Figure 2. Data Points Distribution ........ ... ...... ... .... ...................... ....... ..... .. .... ... .... ... .. ... .... .6

Figure 3: Map Showing the damaged structure ... ............. ...... .. ........ .... ....... ... ... .. ........ ... .7

Figure 4. Overview of the structural data capture strategy following Hurricane Michael. .8

Figure 5. (Top Left) Single UAV photograph from the Cedar's Crossing dataset; (Top
Right) Densified 30 point cloud of half of the Cedar's Crossing dataset, constructed
from 392 photographs, resulting in a 2.5 cm (1 inch) ground sample distance ;
(Bottom) Roof slope measured using the 30 densified point cloud of Cedar's
Crossing . ......................................... .. ... ... ............. ...... ......... .... .. ..... ...... ............. .. ... 11

Figure 6. StreetView imagery of homes damaged by Hurricane Michael in Panama City,
FL .. .. ............... .... .. .......... .... ... ......... .. ....... .. .. ......... ...... ... .............. .. ... ...... .. ...... .. .... .. 12

Figure 7. Typical damage assessment useful information from property appraisal website
.. .. .. ... .. ................ .. ............................ ............... ......................... .... ... ........ ... .......... ... 14

Figure 8. Example of estimated area of roof cover damage ..... .. .......... ..... ........ .. .. .... ... . 17

Figure 9. Definition of the convention used in defining the front, back, left and right of each
structure. An arbitrary front wall was designated by the investigator, and its
orientation measured clockwise from north. The remaining wall surfaces were
defined based on an observer facing the front wall. .............. ... .. .. ..... ... ........ .... .. ... .. 17

Figure 10. Map of all assessment locations in regions affected by Hurricane Michael with
respect to the 700 year design wind speeds (ASCE 7-10) and the estimated peak 3-
second gusts (open terrain, 10 m height) from the ARA windfield model (Vickery et
al. 2018) .. .. ....... .. .... ........ ..,.. .......... ............ ............. ......... .............. ... ............ ....... .... 21

Figure 11 . Violin plots depicting the distribution of (left) peak estimated wind speeds and
(right) ratio of peak estimated wind speeds to ASCE 7-10 design wind speeds
(Category II structures) experienced by buildings in the dataset. Blue dots represent

Page viii
individual buildings. The shapes around the plots illustrate the distribution of the data
using kernel density functions. The black horizontal lines depict the mean ............ 21

Figure 12. Distribution of wall cladding materials in the detailed assessments that have
been completed to date (N = 171 ).......................................................................... 23

Figure 13. Distribution of roof cover materials in the detailed assessments that have been
completed to date (N = 171 )................ .... ............................................................... 23

Figure 14. Violin plots depicting the distribution of (left) storm surge inundation above
ground level as estimated by the CERA tool; and (right) storm surge inundation height
minus the first floor elevation height. Blue dots represent individual buildings in the
dataset. The shapes around the plots illustrate the distribution of the data using
kernel density functions. The black horizontal lines depict the mean ...................... 24

Figure 15. Definition of the storm surge inundation above ground level provided through
CERA (Dietrich et al. 2013) ....................................... .. ........................................... 25

Figure 16. Assessment locations and first floor elevations in Mexico Beach, FL for pre-
and post-FBC buildings with respect to the Coastal Construction Control Line ...... 25

Figure 17. Distribution of wind damage ratings for all buildings, stratified by peak gust
wind speed. Within each wind speed bin, the left bar is pre-FBC and the right bar is
post-FBC, and indicates average damage rating. Grey circle markers represent the
wind damage rating of each individual building in the dataset. ............................... 27

Figure 18. Distribution of wind damage ratings for single-family residences , stratified by
peak gust wind speed. Within each wind speed bin, the left bar is pre-FBC and the
right bar is post-FBC, and indicates average damage rating. Grey circle markers
represent the wind damage rating of each individual building in the dataset. ......... 27

Figure 19. Distribution of wind damage ratings for non-single-family residences , stratified
by peak gust wind speed. Within each wind speed bin, the left bar is pre-FBC and
the right bar is post-FBC, and indicates average damage rating. Grey circle markers
represent the wind damage rating of each individual building in the dataset. ......... 28

Page ix
Figure 20. Percent of pre- and post-FBC homes experiencing no or very minor roof
damage, roof cover damage, roof sheathing damage, or roof structure damage ... 30

Figure 21. Percent of pre- and post-FBC homes experiencing no wall damage, wall
cladding damage, wall sheathing damage, or wall structure damage ..................... 30

Figure 22. Damage to a 2016 home in the Magnolia Hills subdivision in Panama City, FL.
The estimated peak gust wind speed here was 57 mis, with an ASCE 7-10 design
wind speed of 59 mis .............................................................................................. 31

Figure 23. Wall cladding damage percentage by material type for homes experiencing
peak gusts of approximately 57 mis (Magnolia Hills, Brendwoods, and Cedar's
Crossing Neighborhoods). Bars depict the mean percentage. FCB = fiber cement
board .......................................................................................... ............................ 31

Figure 24. Wall cladding damage percentage by material type for homes experiencing
peak gusts of approximately 68 mis (Gulf Aire and Beacon Hill neighborhoods). Bars
depict the mean percentage. FCB =fiber cement board ........................................ 32

Figure 25. Surge damage assessments in Mexico Beach for pre- and post-FBC homes
relative to the CCCL , and the estimated maximum wave heights relative to NAVD88.
Triangles indicate pre-FBC buildings, and circles post-FBC .............. .. .... ............... 33

Figure 26. Performance of a pre-FBC home (Year Built = 1997) on Mexico Beach
(Latitude: 29.950607, Longitude: -85.426983). CERA estimated the maximum surge
inundation above ground level was 1.27 m (4.2 ft) while the first floor elevation was
estimated at 3.5 m. The bottom image shows the home surrounded by other homes
with slabs swept clean. Green rectangles indicate the outlines of where homes used
to be ................................................................ ...... .................................................. 34

Figure 27. Surge damage ratings by first floor elevation (m) for pre- and post-FBC
buildings. Note that surge inundation varied significantly between the buildings
represented here .................................................................................................... 35

Figure 28. The percentage of people who participate this survey .................................. 37

Figure 29. Participants information ..... ... .......... .............................................................. 39

Page x
Figure 30. Participants evacuation decision before or during Hurricane Michael. ......... .40

Figure 31. Reasons for evacuating among those who evacuated before or during
Hurricane Michael ................................................................................................... 41

Figure 32. Reasons for not evacuating among those who did not evacuate before or
during Hurricane Michael .................................................... .......... .... ....... ...... .... ... ..41

Figure 33. Reported perceived risk as a result of Hurricane Michael. ........................... .42

Figure 34. Preparation measures taken before Hurricane Michael. ... .... ...... ......... ........ .43

Figure 35. Frequency of reported interior damage across all participants ............ ........ .44

Figure 36. Reported estimated repair cost across all damage types ...... .. ... ......... ........ .45

Figure 37. Where the water came in as a result of Hurricane Michael for those reporting
water leak damage ......................................................................................... ...... .. 46

Figure 38. What the belongings damage in as a result of Hurricane Michael for those
reporting water leak damage ................. ................ ..................... ........ ................. .. .46

Figure 39. Whether the water leak damage has been repaired ............................... .... ..4 7

Figure 40. Among those who repaired the water leak damage, who did the repairs ..... .4 7

Figure 41. Location in the home where the wind damage occurred .............................. .49

Figure 42 . Whether the wind damage has been repaired ............ ............................... ... 49

Figure 43. Frequency of reported exterior damage across all participants .................... 50

Figure 44. Views on whether the home held up well with respect to Hurricane Michael
and whether participants would consider future retrofits .......... ................. .. ............ 51

Page xi
1 Hurricane Michael

Hurricane Michael was a design level event for storm surge and damaging extreme
wind speeds in the Florida Panhandle. The hurricane particularly affected Mexico Beach
and Panama City and nearby coastal towns as well as interior areas, such as Blountstown
and Marianna FL located north of the 1-10 Interstate highway. Many hundreds of houses,
businesses were damaged or destroyed, some swept away by up to 19 ft. storm surge,
others by inland flooding and yet others were broken apart by as building components of
structures failed in high winds. The peak wind speeds exceeded the design wind speed
for many areas of the Panhandle, which ranged from 130 to 145 mph.

Page 1
2 OVERVIEW AND SCOPE OF WORK

The University of Florida conducted two damage surveys immediately following the
landfall of the hurricane and that data was presented to the Florida Building Commission
in December 2018. It revealed widely variable structural performance of buildings. The
surveys also suggested that the age of buildings might play a part in the extent of the
damage to individual structures. In some cases, it appeared that the age of the structures
appears to have greatest influence on whether it was just damage or destroyed. However,
additional analysis is required· to be able to establish conclusive trends. We propose this
follow-up study to tie back to meta-data on structures obtainable from the relevant State
Building Appraisers' websites to link the construction materials, building code and other
parameters to wind loading, storm surge and damage observed.

2.1 Task A: Data processing and information extraction

• Detailed post-processing, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) of the
collected data, currently stored in the Fulcrum.com database. Information on
specific houses will be augmented with data extracted from UAV imagery
(collected by UF) and other available sources.

• Where feasible we will utilize remote data collection sources, such as the
NOAA and NICB aerial imagery in combination with StreetView imagery
(collected by StEER and others) to expand the damage assessment database.

• The database will be formatted to query the damage down to the building
component level of damage (i.e., percentage of roof cover damage %,
percentage of sheathing damage etc.)

• During our data collection, we will identify the relative popularity and
performance of various exterior building roofing and siding systems used on
residential construction, including vinyl siding and vinyl soffits.

• We anticipate collecting large enough sample sets of each material or system
to enable statistically robust analysis to be conducted (e.g ., > 10 - 20 samples
of a given product type within a local area and similar wind speed and terrain
conditions) as well as a few individual case studies where appropriate.

Page 2
2.2 Task B: Augment Data using County Appraiser Database
We will augment the database with building attribute data from the county
attribute and permitting data and local terrain classifications to parse out the
influence of building code changes on observed damage, and failure rates in
code-compliant buildings .

2.3 Task C: Interior Damage Data Collection

• Where appropriate, the Contractor will set up and interview homeowners'
resident in the specific areas of our surveys to estimate the extent of interior
damage suffered and the costs for repairing them. Our experience from the
previous Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Matthew leads us to expect a low
response rate to this solicitation yet UF feels th is is an important aspect of
hurricane damage that ought to be quantified.

• We will contact homeowners by mailings (postcards and flyers), and by in-
person in one or two site visits to the areas, if necessary. We will query
homeowners regarding mitigation actions they took ahead of the storm ,
evacuation actions, and the interior and exterior damage to their houses.

Page 3
3 TASKS FOR INTERIM REPORT:

Following our Preliminary Damage Survey, in which the University of Florida
conducted two damage surveys immediately following the landfall of the hurricane, we
presented that information to the Florida Building Commission in December 2018. As
seen in Figure 1, projected maximum wind gusts along the Florida coastline varied from
40 mph to 140 mph , although the National Hurricane Center reported wind speeds as
high as 155 mph . At any given point however, the maximum wind speed and direction
from which it occurs is a function of the distance to the hurricane eyewall, the local terrain
surrounding the point, and the presence of any convective features within the hurricane
wind field. The hurricane gradually weakened as it traveled across land, but was still a
Category 3 as the eye passed from Florida to Georgia, with measured sustained wind
speeds reaching 115 mph. Although it quickly deteriorated in a matter of hours , tropical
storm-level winds were experienced by the Carolinas, as well as in Northern Georgia .

.. w
KA"<-

PRELIMINARYi~., t '!l

z
g

---- Storm Track
0 12 .~ 25 ~ ,, 100
M...

Hurricane Michael (2018): Preliminary Peak W ind Gust (mph)
Es~i.,;, 3-seeoncl o;uM ·•Yid '9ff(ls (mphJ ;at IOITI aDOYt grOU'ld ov., 11111 open 111unn ll'Om ARA mocltl tl IO MJrtacti ltv.i observallOns IIWIQ Sll)tm l'adl ana eenlt'111
prttsw, ~tifromNHC !tlrou;hlntfflNdcaNActv!SOI) NUtnMl'22AMl<loblefV1bQn1 ttwoughO&OOUTCon 10/12/2018 Th1valuffofp41ak!J1$'-1ndsl'lmph
¥9 s.tio,,,n ,tt.r s.t.Mton n;trHs· V.lliJes ¥tn!M qlsWd ror stwon Mi,ghl Of 1e,r1in: ••• m.MIS sta uor, fit.fed belor1lh11111/v,I of the pukWW'ld
The mil0$ have bffn oroduced for !Pie ~IIOM! IMtMe ol S!Wldvos M'ld TechnoloQy under Coi,trad NB731000-1-001113 Mapsar, subjeci.tochanQI . Created on. 10/171201! .
AAA
Figure 1. Estimated 3s peak wind gust by ARA (assumes open terrain and 1O meter
height) (Prevatt et al. 2018)

Page4
Our surveys revealed widely variable structural performance of buildings. The surveys
also suggested that the age of buildings may play a part in the extent of the damage to
individual structures. In some cases, it appeared that the age of the structures appears
to have greatest influence on whether it was just damage or completely destroyed.
However, additional analysis is required to be able to establish conclusive trends. This
report summarizes the progress in the proposed follow-up study which ties back to meta-
data on structures obtainable from the relevant State Building Appraisers' websites and
links the construction materials, building code and other parameters to wind loading,
storm surge and damage observed.

Currently we are proceeding with the data enrichment and quality control process. We
surveyed approximately 800 locations that exhibited some damage levels from Hurricane
Michael extending from Panama City through the Big Bend Area to the east, including
Apalachicola. The data set contains the majority of locations from Panama City (45%),
while 40% are located in Mexico Beach. About 4% of the remaining locations are in
outlying areas of Port St. Joe, Blountstown and Mariana, Figure 2.

Page 5
Figure 2. Data Points Distribution

In order to verify our data sets, the research team did quality control on the data
sets using the existing server data Fulcrum app (https://www.fulcrumapp .com). (Note that
this data has been publicly available since immediately after the event at:
https://web.fulcrumapp.com/communities/nsf-rapid.

Each available record includes Meta data on the location surveyed (i.e. address,
GPS coordinates, etc.), as well as photographs of the damage to the structure that we
observed. Following our field work in some of the records we added the Before-Storm
condition photographs taken from publicly available sources, such as Google Maps,
Figure 3

Page 6
f-- ~ C (i) https:/ eb.fulcrumapp.comJcOfTIT'lunities/nsf-rapid?_ga::ir2.199618924.337001988.1653174738-1182283346.1552572961

IOIClllll NSF Structural Extreme Events Reconna issance (StEER) Network """""" .!1 101 o...,

!,
1
uu,~

(Alt;t.w,,

l
r Cl.I
Figure 3: Map Showing the damaged structure

After addressing the quality control issues, the dataset created from the damage
survey combined with information from the Property Appraiser's publicly available
Dataset, to augment categories such as the building age, exterior building envelope
materials, building permit information and other pertinent information that is available

Page 7
4 RESOURCES FOR DAMAGE ASSESMENT

Detailed information of the methodology and resources used for performing
damage assessment can be found in Roueche et al. (2018). The following summarizes
the major tools and their uses deployed during the field reconnaissance efforts. Figure 4
illustrates the synthesis of the various reconnaissance tools for a given area. The
overlapping assessment methodologies improve the quality and depth of the datasets
generated from post-hurricane deployments.

Figure 4. Overview of the structural data capture strategy following Hurricane
Michael.

4.1 Door-to-Door Assessments
Door-to-door assessments were conducted using the Fulcrum app through a Fulcrum
Community account provided to the team by Spatial Networks, Inc. The Fulcrum app
enabled the deployment of a customized, geo located assessment form created by the
co-Pl that focused on documenting key attributes of the building including number of
stories, roof shape and slope, first floor elevation, structural load path, roof and wall
construction materials, opening types and sizes, and damage experienced during the
hurricane. The Fulcrum app was used in tandem with the associated web platform,

Page 8
enabling reconnaissance teams to move quickly and efficiently in the field, while data
librarians ingested the raw field data synced to the web platform, and enriched it using
data aggregation and extraction techniques described later in this document. Following
the field deployments, each Fulcrum record (associated with a single building) typically
contained multiple photographs of the target building, a precise geolocation of the
building, field notes of key performance or damage factors observed by the investigator,
and an overall assessment of wind and (if present) surge damage.

4.2 Aerial Imagery
Aerial imagery provided information from before and after the hurricane event which
helped to identify building locations and damage extents. Aerial imagery from the
following sources were primarily used in the study:
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration post-Michael imagery
acquired by the Remote Sensing Division. Much of the imagery was captured
within two days of landfall , providing a rich dataset of the post-hurricane
damage state prior to cleanup. The approximate ground sample distance for
each pixel in the imagery is -25 cm.
• Pictometry Eagleview was contracted to provide access to pre- and post-
hu rricane imagery, including both oblique and nadir viewing angles, for nearly
the entire affected areas. Using the Eagleview ConnectExplorer web platform ,
homes could be viewed using the oblique views from the north, south, east,
and west. A nadir (perpendicular to the ground) vantage point was also
available.
• Midwest Aerials graciously provided access to a dataset of high-resolution
images captured from a low-flying aircraft in the Mexico Beach , FL region. The
imagery was stitched into a continuous orthomosaics and used to document
damage in Mexico Beach, FL.

Page 9
4.3 UAV Data
A variety of UAVs were used in the assessments, including a OJI Mavic Pro, OJI
Phantom 4, and OJI Matrice. The OJI Phantom 4 and OJI Matrice UAVs were loaned to
the research team by the University of Washington Natural Hazards Engineering
Research Infrastructure RAPID Experimental Facility. The UAVs were primarily used to
capture a dense grid of overlapping photographs in the same neighborhoods where 020
assessments were conducted. Photographs overlapped between 75% and 80%, and
were captured at camera angles between 60° and 80° to ensure both top and side
surfaces of buildings were visible in the imagery. The commercial software PIX4Dmapper
was then used to construct orthomosaics and a 30 densified point cloud from the UAV
imagery utilizing advanced photogrammetry techniques. Processing was done in the
cloud, which allowed for rapid sharing of the final datasets, as well as access to the raw
imagery from which the 30 models were built.
The densified 30 point clouds were used to corroborate damage observations from
the field, extend assessments to views of the building not visible in the 020 assessments
(e.g., roof, back walls) , and measure key building parameters such as roof slope, as
shown in Figure 5.

Page 10
Line
~·~ I
Name
Line

Oescnpt1on

No descript ion
,·
Tags

Color •

Measurements

20 length 3.69m

3D length 4.14 m

Mm elevation -31 .31 m

Ma)( elevation -29.44 m

Elevation
difference
1.87m

Slope 26.ss·

Slope as
percentage 0

GENERATE ELEVATION PROFILE 8

Figure 5. (Top Left) Single UAV photograph from the Cedar's Crossing dataset; (Top
Right) Oensified 30 point cloud of half of the Cedar's Crossing dataset, constructed
from 392 photographs , resulting in a 2.5 cm (1 inch) ground sample distance;
(Bottom) Roof slope measured using the 30 densified point cloud of Cedar's
Crossing.

Page 11
4.4 Applied StreetView Imaging
APPLIED StreetView Imaging is a vehicle-mounted panoramic camera capable of
capturing the entire external view of a scene in high-resolution every five meters from a
moving vehicle. The research team used StreetView imaging to rapidly capture post-
hurricane conditions over large areas, filling in gaps between 020 assessments. In
general, at least three sides of a given building were visible in the StreetView imagery if
the vehicle it was mounted on pass by the building. The resulting dataset significantly
expanded the breadth of the survey effort .

. .....................
.:..;
...: .,::..··. ...,t······
..·· : : ·:,..
.: ..,. .i .:· ··.
...· .:i .::i .:I'·" :.,~':
\._ __ l ! : -
c ~

Figure 6. StreetView imagery of homes damaged by Hurricane Michael in Panama
City, FL.

Page 12
5 Data Enrichment and Quality Control Process

The raw data collected by the reconnaissance teams primarily consisted of the
photographs and basic damage ratings . This raw database was built out using a robust
data enrichment and quality control (DEQC) process that aggregated the various data
sources together to extract key information from the raw data and associate it with public
records to ensure a complete, quality-controlled database is available for further data
analysis . Each record in the final database will have up to 99 fields associated with,
described in the sections below. The quality assessment and quality control stages are
composed of five stages shown in Table 1 . These quality control stages are completed
by following the described methodology in the next sections.

Table 1. Data enrichment and quality control process for building out post-hurricane
datasets

DEQC Tasks
Stage

1 Verify the location of the record.

2 Validate or fill out the minimum fields that can be considered a complete record in
accordance with the StEER data standards. These fields are marked as QC Stage
1 in Table 1.

3 Verify, update, or add missing information in the app for parameters that should be
available through photographs, or supplementary data sources for the majority of
records, e.g ., damage ratios, building attributes.

4 Verify, update or add information that was not captured in the field and may not be
available or applicable for all buildings, e.g., roof sheathing fastener type, roof-to-
wall connection type. Typically these fields are noted as Field Priorities, and can
generally be evaluated more readily in damaged buildings than undamaged
buildings. Trained investigators are often needed to identify these fields in
undamaged buildings while on-site .

5 Final QC validation and checks in preparation for cu ration on DesignSafe. Check
for blank fields , inconsistencies (e.g. , Gulf vs GULF County), etc.

Page 13
5.1 Aerial Imagery for Accurate Geo-Location
Fulcrum provides geo-tagged locations for each record point, set as the user's location
when the record was created by default. To confirm these locations, aerial imagery taken
before and after Hurricane Michael was used for completing the first quality control stage
by confirming the exact location of the record observed. Aerial imagery allows to see roof
shape or the surroundings of a record which helps to identify the precise location. Google
Street view pre-hurricane imagery was also used to verify the location.

5.2 Property Appraisal Website
Once the location of the record is confirmed, county property appraisal websites are
used to obtain available information for most buildings. These websites can provide
information regarding building type, exterior wall constituents, roof cover type,
construction year, main wind force resisting system type, etc. Building sketches provides
plan view dimensions and porch locations in residential homes which are useful for
estimating fenestrations areas.

~EUJ IUOtUD ... ~
ws~~Kil1CT 14876 -601 · 000
,.._v,,u.Of'l'.A.12.-cs-nu FnCou,c,;,,__. (o..tna.S5)
u,no
I J.•iii.L
20ll ~ M"'-9<1 R.otu

'
i..g.llnl~n
l'OL9Wor'o,ng:!-
1-....v.i-

~~-v-
............
btr•,-tuniv.i...

~ · •t••h<'lr.M)Y• "'•
NM ( M,.,t,.... ) V.ol- '
,._..,-'-
U ,UI
~ll .SJt

"'"'
uao.111
1100,1'7 TM ~ a l ~ n ...,_., q .. ..,., becondeft,..:l f o r • - - I P " . _ . . . baadN<ript;.,,t.ouWbe.....,..:I ,......,
11 00,167 ..c.,_d _ _

AI.L-t
""'
".luol(Mwbe,)V.0..0"~ ThK•thoVIOlll_......,ltydlt~~-b'..:1-- n.v....... .__,__
~ ...:ino~
k• c+:rec !al91nelui

LI.L
T§27
Figure 7. Typical damage assessment useful information from property appraisal
website

To facilitate the matching process, a statewide Florida parcel database provided through
the Florida Geographic Database Library was spatially joined with the post-hurricane
database using spatial join techniques in Matlab. Attributes pulled from the statewide

Page 14
parcel database included the year built, effective year built, property use code, and
physical address. The property use code and physical address were used to validate the
location and address of the post-hurricane database. Once validated, the year built and
effective year built were automatically matched to the corresponding homes in the post-
hurricane database.

5.3 Damage Assessment Information
Building locations and characteristics are already known at this stage which complete
most of the fields for quality control 1 and 2. Damage information fields are now completed
by using the pictures collected during the field surveys. These pictures generally include
all the elevation views for the observed building as well as close-up pictures of observed
exterior or interior damage. Aerial imagery is also used to observe roof damage.
CoNNECT Explorer Pictometry has images from before and after Hurricane Michael. The
densified 30 point clouds processed in PIX4Dmapper Cloud and associated high-
resolution imagery was also used to complete any missing information of a record. The
fields that are completed for damage assessment include the following:
• Walls
o Identify foundation and connection roof to wall connection types information
(for most homes this is not visible)
o Identify wall structure type
o Identify wall substrate
o Identify wall cladding
o Identify soffit type
o Calculate fenestration areas in each wall (described in next section)
o Identify the presence of garage doors
o Estimate damage percentages for each wall component, including soffit
and fascia

• Roof
o Measure roof slope
o Identify roof shape
o Identify roof structure system
o Identify roof substrate
o Identify roof cover
o Identify if there has been damage to the roof structure, substrate or
cladding

Page 15
o Identify if there is any perceivable secondary water barrier
o Measure overhang length
o Estimate damage percentages for each roof component

5.4 Fenestration Area Calculation
Openings through the building envelope can enhance wind loads acting on the
building significantly. Recognizing the importance of fenestration to the wind resistance
of the building , the research team included detailed assessments of the fenestration
types , sizes, protection and damage as best as possible within the constraints of the
available data . This included detailing the percentage of each wall elevation (front, back,
left, right) that was comprised offenestration, whether any wind protection measures were
installed or present for each wall elevation , and what proportion of the fenestration in a
given wall was breached. The area of fenestration was estimated visually for most
buildings, but initial visual estimates were confirmed using CONNECTExplorer, the 30
point clouds, and relative area techniques in order to calibrate the visual estimations and
improve the overall accuracy of the estimates.
In addition to the fenestration ratios and protection fields , a separate set of fields within
the assessment form focused on large openings such as garage doors and roll-up doors.
The research team documented the type and location of each large opening of this type
on the building.

5.5 Estimation of Damage Percentages
Damage ratios for walls , roof, fascia, fenestration, and foundation damage area are
estimated based on the observed damage in record pictures or other images resources.
Damage ratios are established by estimating the area of the observed damage in a house
component or cladding and relating these to their total area. Figure 8 shows an example
of an estimation of roof cover damage using CONNECTExplorer. For the case of walls ,
damage is related to their direction ; front, back, left, right. Front wall direction is
established by measuring a clockwise angle from the north up to the principal entrance
of the building as illustrated in Figure 9.

Page 16
Figure 8. Example of estimated area of roof cover damage

Figure 9. Definition of the convention used in defining the front, back, left and right
of each structure. An arbitrary front wall was designated by the investigator, and its
orientation measured clockwise from north. The remaining wall surfaces were defined
based on an observer facing the front wall.

5.6 Damage Rating
Once the damage percentages are assigned to each building fields, an overall
damage rating is assigned to that record . For residential houses , the damage rating is

Page 17
based on Vickery et al. (2006) goes from O to 4 and depends on observed damage to
roof, walls, windows, roof substrate, roof structure and wall structure.

Table 2. Quantitative guidelines for assigning overall wind damage rating

Damage Damage Roof/Wall Window/ door Roof Roof Wall
State Description cover failures substrate structure structure
failure failure failure[ 11

0 No visible 0% No No No No
damage

1 Minor > 2% and~ 1 No No No
damage 15%

2 Moderate > 15% and< >1and~the 1 to 3 No No
damage 50% larger of 3 and panels
20%

3 Severe >50% > the larger of > 3 and~ ~ 15% No
Damage 3and20% 25%
and~50%

4 Destruction > 50% >50% >25% > 15% Yes

Notes:
[1) Wall structure refers to walls in living area only. The ground floor of elevated structures often have breakaway
walls that can be easily damaged by storm surge. This damage should be ignored in assigning the overall damage
rating.
[2) A building is considered to be in the damage state if any of the shaded damage indicators in the corresponding
row occurs

Page 18
For storm surge, the damage states are mostly qualitative, based on Friedland (2007),
and are defined as follows :

Table 3. Qualitative guidelines for assigning overall surge damage rating.
Damage Damage Level Damage Description
State

0 None or Very No floodwater impacts.
Minor Damage

1 Minor Damage Breakaway walls or appurtenant structures damaged or removed
WITHOUT physical damage to remaining structure. No flood impacts
the building

2 Moderate Some wall cladding damage from flood-borne debris. Breakaway walls
Damage or appurtenant structures damaged or removed WITH physical
damaged to remaining structures.

3 Severe Damage Removal of cladding from "wash through" of surge without wall
structural damage.

4 Very Severe Failure of wall frame , repairable structural damage to any portion of
Damage building , or< 25% of building plan area unrepairable.

5 Partial Collapse Building shifted off foundation , overall structure racking , > 25% of
structure unrepairable.

6 Collapse Total structural failure (no intact structure).

Page 19
6 SUMMARY OF HURRICANE MICHAEL DATASET

The following summarize the dataset of buildings assessed by the research team
following Hurricane Michael as it currently stands. The level of detail built into the
database exceeds what was considered in the original scope of work, and has therefore
taken more time than initially thought. At the time of this report, 30% of the swarth of
building damage data enrichment process was completed.

6.1 General Overview with Respect to Wind Hazards
The current dataset consists of a variety of building types, summarized in Table 4,
with a total of 749 buildings. Basic information, including the precise location, the year
built, building type, wind damage rating, and surge damage rating (if present) are defined
for all buildings in the dataset.

Table 4. Summary of buildings by type/use in the Hurricane Michael dataset.
Building Type Count % Post-FBC
Single Family Residence 585 38%
Multi-Family Residence 24 13%
Condominium 3 33%
Mobile/Manufactured Home 5 20%
Other (e.g. church, warehouse, 232 6%
motel, shopping center)
Total 749 33%

The full post-Michael dataset spans a range of wind speeds, as shown in Figure 11 .
Wind speed estimates shown in are taken from the ARA wind field (Vickery et al. 2018),
which was derived by conditioning a numerical hurricane wind field model to the available
surface observations. Wind speeds are standardi;zed to represent 3-second gust
averaging time, open terrain, and 10 m above ground level. No adjustments have been
made as yet in the current study to adjust the wind speeds for height or terrain. Assuming
the ARA wind speeds provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the true wind speeds, a
significant portion of the impacted region experienced wind speeds that exceeded the

Page 20
ultimate ASCE 7-10 design wind speeds (for a Category II building with return period of
700 years), as shown in Figure 10. This is reflected in the dataset of the current study, as
approximately 50% of the assessed structures are estimated to have experienced peak
wind speeds exceeding design levels, as shown in Figure 11.

ui'80
E .Q 1.25
1ii
-g 70 er:
Q) "O
a. Q)
Q)
CJ) 60 Cl.
"O CJ)
c "O
~ 50 c
..:.::
ro ~ 0.75
~ 40

post-FBC pre-FBC
post-FBC pre-FBC

Figure 11 . Violin plots depicting the distribution of (left) peak estimated wind speeds
and (right) ratio of peak estimated wind speeds to ASCE 7-10 design wind speeds

Page 21
(Category II structures) experienced by buildings in the dataset. Blue dots represent
individual buildings. The shapes around the plots illustrate the distribution of the data
using kernel density functions. The black horizontal lines depict the mean.

6.2 Detailed Assessments in Wind-Only Regions
A total of 171 buildings out of the complete dataset, all residential buildings, have
so far undergone the full Data Enrichment and Quality Control protocol described in
Section 5. These 171 buildings are strategically located primarily in five neighborhoods -
Magnolia Hills, Brentwoods, Cedar's Crossing Gulf Aire, and Beacon Hill.

Table 5. Summary of neighborhoods in the Hurricane Michael dataset for which the
full DEQC protocol has been completed.
Neighborhood Number of % Post- Estimated Peak ASCE 7-10 (700 yr)
Homes FBC Gust Wind Speed Design Wind
Speed

Magnolia Hills 21 100% 57 mis 59 mis

Brentwoods 15 100% 57 mis 59 mis

Cedar's 47 72% 57 mis 60 mis
Crossing

Gulf Aire 58 12% 68 mis 59 mis

Beacon Hill 14 100% 68 mis 59 mis

Figure 12 and Figure 13 provide the distribution of wall cladding and roof cover
materials in the detailed dataset by construction era. Brick and brick in combination with
vinyl are the most common wall cladding materials in post-FBC homes, while fiber cement
boards are also popular. In pre-FBC homes, full vinyl cladding was common along with
stucco finishes .
For roofs, laminate shingles dominate the covering material for both pre- and post-
FBC homes in the dataset, with 3-tab shingles and metal roofs capturing much of the
remaining market share. Tile roof systems were rarely encountered throughout the study
region.

Page 22
Pre-2002 Homes (N=66) Post-2001 Homes (N=95)
9% 7%

49%

I- Brick Vinyl c::::J Brick/Vinyl Combo - Fiber-Cement Board - Stucco c::::J Other !

Figure 12. Distribution of wall cladding materials in the detailed assessments that
have been completed to date (N = 171 ).

Pre-2002 Homes (N=73) Post-2001 Homes (N=102)
5% 8%

56%
85%

I- Shingles (3-tab) c:::::J Shingles (Laminated) C=:J Clay Tiles - Corrugated Metal - Standing Seam Metal J

Figure 13. Distribution of roof cover materials in the detailed assessments that have
been completed to date (N = 171 ).

6.3 General Overview with Respect to Storm Surge Hazard
The Hurricane Michael dataset contains 225 buildings that experienced non-zero
storm surge inundation (Figure 14) according to estimates by the Coastal Emergency
Risks Assessment (CERA) tool (Dietrich et al. 2013). Only 80 of the 225 buildings were

Page 23
seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL). The effect of the CCCL can
be clearly seen in a map of the first floor elevations estimated by the research team shown
in Figure 16. The first floor elevations are estimated as the height of the first floor of living
space from ground level, and have an approximate uncertainty of+/- 0.2 m. Many of the
estimates were obtained using the Pictometry CONNECTExplorer platform with pre-
Michael imagery due to the homes being completely washed away by Hurricane Michael.
Many homes impacted by storm surge in Mexico Beach were inland of the CCCL and
were constructed on slab-on-grade foundations. Some pre-FBC homes seaward of the
CCCL were also constructed on slab-on-grade foundations. Post-FBC homes seaward of
the CCCL were generally elevated 2.5- 3.7 m (8-12 ft} above ground level.

E 3
"O
§ 2.5
e
CJ
Q) 2
>
0
.0
<C 1.5
c
0
'
~
"O
1 c
0
c
::J ~
-o -2.5
E 0.5 c
::,
Q)
Cl £
J o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ql
e>
post-FBC pre-FBC ~ -5
post-FBC pre-FBC

Figure 14. Violin plots depicting the distribution of (left) storm surge inundation above
ground level as estimated by the CERA tool; and (right) storm surge inundation height
minus the first floor elevation height. Blue dots represent individual buildings in the
dataset. The shapes around the plots illustrate the distribution of the data using kernel
density functions. The black horizontal lines depict the mean.

Page 24
Total Possible Inundation =(Tide Leve l + Storm Surge + Wave Setup) - Elevation

Storm Surge =14 ft

- - - - - -f - - - - - -
Sea Level

Total Possible Inundation for the House= (+2ft + 14ft + 6ft} - 12ft

Figure 15. Definition of the storm surge inundation above ground level provided
through CERA (Dietrich et al. 2013).

Pre-FBC Post-FBC
FFE (ft) FFE (ft)
0 O ft 0 O ft

0 0 - 2 ft 0
0 2 -4 ft

0 4-6 ft
••
•• 6 - 8 ft 6 - 8 ft

•
8 - 10 ft
10 -12 ft
•• 8 - 10 ft
10 - 12
0 0.1
- - CCCL

Figure 16. Assessment locations and first floor elevations in Mexico Beach, FL for
pre- and post-FBC buildings with respect to the Coastal Construction Control Line.

Page 25
7 ANALYSIS OF BUILDING PERFORMANCE

The analysis of the post-Michael building performance database is organized in the
following way. First, a broad overview of building performance is presented for buildings
experiencing primarily wind hazards, and separately for buildings experiencing wind and
storm surge. Performance is assessed with respect to year built, specifically with respect
to whether the buildings were constructed before or after the statewide Florida Building
Code was adopted in 2002. Second, following the broad overview, the current dataset of
171 homes for which the full DEQC protocol has been performed are analyzed, with
performance again delimited by year built, whether pre-Florida Building Code (pre-FBC,
i.e., pre-2002) or post-Florida Building Code (post-FBC, i.e. , post-2001 ).

7.1 Broad Overview of Wind Performance
The following figures (Figure 17, Figure 18, and Figure 19) provide an overview of pre-
and post-FBC wind performance stratified by peak gust wind speed for all buildings
combined, single-family residences, and non-single-family residences respectively.
Regardless of building type and peak wind speed, post-FBC buildings perform better or,
in one case (single-family residences that experienced < 55 mis gust wind speeds),
nominally the same as pre-FBC buildings . However, an interesting trend demonstrated in
the data is the non-progressive nature of the wind speed to damage relationship .
Generally, it is expected that wind damage increases with wind speed, all else being
equal. In this case, design wind speeds for the majority of the study region are nearly the
same, negating that possible factor. It is unexpected then to see the average wind
damage rating actually decrease for homes that experienced the highest wind speeds,
relative to those that experienced the lowest or middle tier wind speed range. Further
research into this trend is warranted, potentially with detailed review of permit records
where available. It is possible that newer homes in the coastal areas that experienced
higher wind speeds were more likely to invest in code-plus construction. The famous
Sand Palace home is one example (Pino 2019), as well as the Habitat for Humanity

Page 26
homes in Mexico Beach, FL that performed well 1. These homes may be representative
of a general trend of code-plus construction in certain areas.
c::] pre-FBC
c::]post-FBC

.
1111
Destroyed
""'
.,:,,. ..,
.. ..
Severe '"·\ 111::

Moderate
.,.:, •.. t'A

Minor

No Damage rn <55 m/s
EJo -Li
55-65 mis
,,.
65-75 mis

Figure 17. Distribution of wind damage ratings for all buildings, stratified by peak
gust wind speed. Within each wind speed bin, the left bar is pre-FBC and the right bar
is post-FBC, and indicates average damage rating. Grey circle markers represent the
wind damage rating of each individual building in the dataset.

c::] pre-FBC
c::Jpost-FBC
Destroyed
,,. ~

Severe ~· =
~· ..,.. ,:,

Moderate
... • '* .~
Minor

No Damage
<55 mi s
-
rn [1
55-65 mis
' ..
65-75 mis

Figure 18. Distribution of wind damage ratings for single-family residences,
stratified by peak gust wind speed. Within each wind speed bin, the left bar is pre-
FBC and the right bar is post-FBC, and indicates average damage rating. Grey circle
markers represent the wind damage rating of each individual building in the dataset.

1
https://www.wash ingtonpost.com/politics/pa nhandle-houses-intact-after-m ichael-were-often-saved-by-low-cost-
reinforcem ents/2018/ 10/17/d3ca97c0-d152-11 e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0 story.html?utm term=.200aa16d45af

Page 27
c:::Jpre-FBC
c:::Jpost-FBC
Destroyed ~-
Severe
...
Moderate

Minor -..
No Damage
<55 m/s 55-65 m/s
CJ
65-75 mi s

Figure 19. Distribution of wind damage ratings for non-sin·gle-family residences ,
stratified by peak gust wind speed. Within each wind speed bin , the left bar is pre-
FBC and the right bar is post-FBC, and indicates average damage rating. Grey circle
markers represent the wind damage rating of each individual building in the dataset.

7.2 Detailed Assessment of Wind Performance
The following summarizes the performance of the pre- and post-FBC homes in the
dataset of 171 homes for which the full DEQC protocol has been completed. Figure 20
and Figure 21 provide the relative distribution of roof and wall failures in pre- and post-
FBC buildings. Roof cover damage occurred to the majority of pre- and post-FBC homes.
If no secondary water barrier was present, this data also indicates that interior damage
due to rainwater ingress was likely a significant driver of economic losses, as has been
the case in past hurricane events. The research team did not directly observe any
secondary water barriers in the inland study regions, so we do not expect that was
commonly installed.
Roof sheathing and roof structure failures were rare in post-FBC homes, even though
wind speeds were close to or exceeded design for many of the homes. Such failures
occurred in about 1 in 5 pre-FBC homes.
The same trends observed in roof damage mostly hold true in wall damage as well.
Cladding damage was frequently observed in both pre- and post-FBC homes. Sheathing
and structural wall failures were rare in post-FBC homes but occurred in about 1 in 5 pre-
FBC homes. Overall, the analysis confirms that structural failures are no longer a major
concern in homes built to modern building codes. However, much improvement is still

Page 28
needed in cladding systems. Damage to these systems and the ensuing rainwater ingress
will continue to drive economic losses and inhibit recovery without renewed research,
policies, and industry buy-in aimed at improving the rate of failures.
The lone structural roof failure in a post-FBC home occurred to a home built in 2016
located in the Magnolia Hills subdivision. As shown in Figure 22, the home experienced
the collapse inward of the garage door, collapse of approximately 5-10% of the roof
structure, removal of -15% wood roof decking, and -45% of the roof cover. Nearly 70%
of the brick and vinyl wall cladding was lost. The research team was unable to access the
roof structure to determine specifics of the load path, but building permit records can be
pursued for further analysis.
Figure 23 and Figure 24 provide more detailed assessments of wall cladding material
by material type. The assessments are separated by wind speed, since the Gulf Aire and
Beacon Hill subdivisions experienced significantly higher wind speeds than the inland
neighborhoods in Panama City. In the Panama City neighborhoods, vinyl siding was the
most frequently observed and damaged cladding system in post-FBC homes. Even
considering only homes constructed in the past three years (N = 18), on average 30% of
the vinyl siding cladding failed , with failure rates as high as 60% in four of the eighteen
homes, and no visible failures in five of the eighteen homes. In the coastal neighborhoods
in the detailed dataset, damage was on average the highest in pre-FBC vinyl siding
systems, with minor failures observed in most other cladding systems. Post-FBC vinyl
cladding systems performed well, albeit over a small sample size (N=3).

Page 29
100
- Pre-2002 Homes {N=65)
90 - Post-2001 Homes (N=94) _,

80
I
l
70
rn
Q)
E 60
0
J:
0 50
cQ)
t'. 40
Q)
Cl.
30

20 J
10

0
No Damage Roof Cover (>5%) Roof Sheathing Roof Structure
Damage Description

Figure 20. Percent of pre- and post-FBC homes experiencing no or very minor roof
damage, roof cover damage, roof sheathing damage, or roof structure damage.

100
- Pre-2002 Homes (N=66)
90 - Post-2001 Homes {N=95) -
I
80
I
(J)
70
Q)
E 60
0

-
I
0
c:
Q)
50

~ 40
Q)
Cl..
30

0
No Damage Wall Cladding Wall Sheathing Wall Structure
Damage Description

Figure 21. Percent of pre- and post-FBC homes experiencing no wall damage , wall
cladding damage, wall sheathing damage, or wall structure damage.

Page 30
Figure 22. Damage to a 2016 home in the Magnolia Hills subdivision in Panama City,
FL. The estimated peak gust wind speed here was 57 mis, with an ASCE 7-10 design
wind speed of 59 mis.

100
[=1 Pre-2002 Homes
<l)
90 [=1 Post-2001 Homes
0)
ro
E 80
ro
Cl 70
0)
c:
"'O
"'O
ro
0
60
50
·-•
ro
-
s 40
.....c:0 30
<l)
••
••
,._
(.)
<l)
20 ••
a..
10

0
Brick
•
Vinyl
-
••
Brick/Vinyl FCB Stucco
•
Other

Page 31
100 •
[==:] Pre-2002 Homes
Q)
90 [==:] Post-2001 Homes
CJ)
cu
E 80
cu
Cl
CJ)
70 •
c
"O
"O
60 •
cu
0 50
ro
--
s 40
0
c
Q)
30
••
••
•
••
,._
(.)
20
Q)
a..
10 •
0 •
Brick Vinyl Brick/Vinyl FCB Stucco Other

Fenestration damage was observed in about 1 in 5 homes. Thirty homes were
observed with failed garage doors out of the 136 homes in the detailed dataset in which
a garage door was observed (22%). We observed that forty homes in the dataset of 171
homes (23%) experienced some degree of fenestration damage , whether to windows or
doors. Soffit damage was observed in approximately 30% of the homes, and fascia
damage in approximately 45% of the homes.

7.3 Surge Performance
Surge performance was driven by the first floor elevation of the structure relative to
the surge inundation height. Figure 16 showed the first floor elevation of the homes in the
assessment database, while Figure 25 shows the storm surge rating assigned to these
homes by the team in Mexico Beach. A key factor in explaining the reported surge
damage was the CCCL. For a portion of the Bay and Gulf County coastlines, the CCCL
follows US-98. However, as shown in Figure 25, the CCCL follows the contour of the
coastline and there are a large number of buildings inland of the CCCL that were built
slab on grade, particularly for pre-FBC homes, but were exposed to significant storm

Page 32
surge inundation. Nearly all of these homes failed due to storm surge impacts, particularly
the further west along the coastline. It is important to note however, as Figure 25 shows,
the entire coastline was not completely gone as has often been reported. There were
examples of pre- and post-FBC homes on the coast that avoided complete collapse due
to storm surge, although the overall structural performance was often compromised by
the wind impacts. An example is shown in Figure 26 for a pre-2002 building built in 1997.
The research team documented several examples of this nature, both in pre- and post-
FBC homes. Additional research should implement more accurate or precise surge
estimates into the damage analysis, as well as extract permitting data to fully explore the
factors responsible for the building performance.

Post· FBC Surge Damage CERA Max Wave He ight (NAVD88
• No Damage 2.00 ft
• Minor 2.01 · 4.00 ft
Q Moderate 4.01 · 8.00 ft
O Severe 6.01 - 8.00 ft
Q Very Severe 8.01 · 10.00 ft
Very Severe Partial Collapse 10.01 • 12.00 ft
Partial Collapse • Collapse - 12.01 • 14.00 ft
Coll apse
0 0.1

Figure 25. Surge damage assessments in Mexico Beach for pre- and post-FBC
homes relative to the CCCL, and the estimated maximum wave heights relative to
NAVD88. Triangles indicate pre-FBC buildings, and circles post-FBC.

Page 33
Figure 26. Performance of a pre-FBC home (Year Built= 1997) on Mexico Beach
(Latitude: 29.950607 , Longitude : -85.426983). CERA estimated the maximum surge
inundation above ground level was 1.27 m (4.2 ft) while the first floor elevation was
estimated at 3.5 m. The bottom image shows the home surrounded by other homes
with slabs swept clean . Green rectangles indicate the outlines of where homes used
to be.

Page 34
Figure 27 plots the distribution of surge damage by first floor elevation. The surge
damage is not conditioned on the surge inundation in this plot. Overall, post-FBC
buildings still performed better even for nominally equivalent first floor elevations. The
exception was the highest first floor elevation bin (3-3.5 m), but the number of data
points there is small (N = 6). Permit data should be explored to more precisely examine
the details of the structural load paths in these homes as customized construction (i.e.,
code plus construction), is potentially more likely in such coastal areas and year built
may not be as accurate of a delineator between design and construction quality.

c::::::J pre-FBC
Partial Collapse • .... c. • c::::::J post-FBC

Very Severe

Severe
....
Severe

Moderate

Minor
..., .
NoDamage '--.........-..Ja..&:....&-~ ~~ ~ ~ ---"' - -~ ~L --Ja~ ...._~ ~-'-...:...1-LL--'-___J
<0.5 m 0.5-2.5 m 2.5-3 m 3-3.5 m

Figure 27 . Surge damage ratings by first floor elevation (m) for pre- and post-FBC
buildings. Note that surge inundation varied significantly between the buildings
represented here.

Page 35
8 HOMEOWNER INTERVIEWS

We conducted the online surveys in the area of Cedar's crossing, located in Panama
City. This method allows us to know the damage to the interior of the home, and also the
economic losses due to the water leaks, storm surge, and wind. The perception and
behavior of Florida residents towards Hurricane Michael was also learned.

8.1 Methodology

8. 1. 1 Recruitment

Participants were selected from the Cedar's crossing , Panama City which were
identified with visible damage from onsite survey assessment. A personalized letter was
sent to each of the residents of the Cedar's Crossing area to about 180 houses on May
28, 2019. Follow-up postcards were sent out to all the participants on June 3, 2019
resulting in a total of 10 completed surveys until now. The information about the study
and also the sign-up instructions along with the link of the survey were provided to the
participants. See Appendix A for a copy of the letter, sign-up instruction and postcard.

Page 36
Response rate
Response
6%

Not
response
94%

Figure 28. The percentage of people who participate this survey

8.1.2 Institutional Review Board

Before conducting any survey related to human subject, the Institutional Review Board
(IRS) at the Investigator's institution must approve the Research and all the survey
questions. The IRS protects the welfare and rights of each participant by reviews these
type of research . The description of the research project, survey protocol, and the
recruitment materials were submitted to the University of Florida IRS on May 8, 2019 and
the approval was granted on May 24 , 2019. See Appendix B for a copy of the approval
letter.

Page 37
8. 1. 3 Survey Protocol

Following a brief description of the study and obtaining informed consent form,
participants were able to enter their unique participant ID. They were asked the questions
regarding the evacuation behavior which includes whether they evacuated or not and also
why didn't they evacuate. This is followed by the questions related to Risk perception ,
Preparation and Interior home damage. Participants were also asked about the exterior
home damage which includes whether they faced the damage to soffit, vinyl siding and
fascia. They were also asked about the structural retrofits and some demographics
questions. The participants were able to enter their email address for the compensation
purposes by clicking the link given at the end of the survey. The survey for compensation
purposes is linked with the main survey as per IRB requirement. See Appendix C for a
copy of survey.

8.2 Results

8. 2. 1 Participants

The participants reported their age between 24 and 72. Among the total participants
until now, 30% are female whereas 70% are male. Participant reported having household
income of below $50k (20%), $50k-$100k (50%) followed by $100-$150 (10%) and prefer
not to answer (20%). The participants moved to their house ranging from the year 2002-
2018. They reported that their houses were built ranging from 1986-2009. All the
participants reported living in their own house. All participants reported that there are no
adults over 65 in their house. Most of the participants don't have a child under age 5 in
their house. They reported having 4 year degree (40%), 2 year degree (20%) and followed
by high school diploma(10%), some college(10%) , doctorate degree(10%) and prefer not
to answer by (10%) each. Finally, most of the participants have full time (70%)
employment status, followed by retired (20%) and part-time (10%).

Page 38
Participants age Household income
Older
than 65 Under
10% 24
20%

$100K-
$1SOK
10%

70%

Participants Gender Greater House age
than 30
years
10%

Figure 29. Participants information

Page 39
8.2.2 Evacuation Behavior

As shown in table below, most of the people did not evacuate during the Hurricane
Michael (60%) and (40%) did evacuate. The reasons for evacuating includes: living in
evacuation zone (22%), taking care of pets (22%), feeling risks (22%), could afford
evacuating expense (22%). Other evacuation reasons involve: military instruction , taking
care of his handicap daughter. The main reasons for people who wasn 't evacuating were
not living evacuation zone (50%), taking care of their house (50%).

Evacuation Decision

Figure 30. Participants evacuation decision before or during Hurricane Michael

Page 40
Reasons for Evacuating

Evacuation zone

Somewhere to go

Pets

Afford

At risk

Other reason

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 31. Reasons for evacuating among those who evacuated before or during
Hurricane Michael

Reasons for Not Evacuating

Not evacation zone
\
Nowhere to go

Pets

Take care home

Disabled

Not afford to

Other reasons

Wi sh I had

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 32. Reasons for not evacuating among those who did not evacuate before or
during Hurricane Michael

Page 41
8.2.3 Risk Perceptions

The participants thought that their home would be severely damaged or destroyed
because of hurricane or its aftermath (Mean=35% (M), Standard Deviation=28 (SD)).
They also reported that the damage would be covered by insurance (M=83%, SD= 15%).
They thought that they would never be able to return to their current home as a result of
hurricane or aftermath (M=24%, SD=26%). They thought that the chances that they would
be injured by the hurricane or aftermath (M=16%, SD=30%). They believed that the
chances someone close to them would be injured by the hurricane or its aftermath
(M=19%, SD= 27%).

% that will happen in future
120%

100%

80%

Chance(%) 60%

40%

20%

0%
Severe
damaged
/destroyed
insurance
I •I
Never
return
You
seriously
injured
Someone
seriously
injured

Figure 33. Reported perceived risk as a result of Hurricane Michael

*Note: The next questions ask you to give the percent chance that something will
happen. Use a 'O' to indicate the event will not happen and a '100' to indicate it will
be certain to happen. Before Hurricane Michael hit, what did you think was the
percent chance

Page 42
8.2.4 Preparation

The participants reported that the they will learn about the risks from hurricanes and
how to prepare for them (60%), move vehicle to a new location (60%) , put together an
emergency kit (80%), identify shelter location (30%), copy important documents (30%),
make my home more hurricane proof (30%), have flood insurance (30%) and (20%)
specify other preparation as Generator/Gas.

Preparation Measures Taken

Learn

Move vehicles

Emergence kit

Emergence plan

Shelte r locations

Copy documents

Boats

Hurricane proof

Flood Insurance

Other

0% 10% 20% 30"1o 40"/o 50% 60"/o 70"/o 80% 90"1o 100%

Figure 34. Preparation measures taken before Hurricane Michael

Page 43
8.2.5 Interior Home Damage

Most of the participants faced the water leakage damage (90%). They reported that
they had storm surge damage (10%), wind damage (50%) following with other interior
damage (10%). The highest estimated costs is for water leakage repair (n=9 ,M=$32 ,000) ,
for storm surge (N=1 , M=$32000) and for Wind (N=1 ,M=$32000)

Interior Damage
100%
*-
v, 90"A,
.....
c
l'tJ 80%
Cl.
-~ 70"A,
t:
l'tJ
Cl. 60"A,
ro 50%
"'0"'
.... 40"A,
u
l'tJ
> 30%
u
c
Cl) 20%
:::,
C"
....
Cl) lO"A,
LL
0% II II
water leakage Storm surge Wind Other

Figure 35. Frequency of reported interior damage across all participants

Page 44
Estimated cost across all damage types
38000

37000

36000

35000

34000

33000

32000

31000

30000

29000
Water leaks Storm surge Wind

Figure 36. Reported estimated repair cost across all damage types

8.2. 5. 1 Water Leaks

The participants reported that the water leakage occurred in the various areas of the
room. Most of the participants had the damage to their roof, windows and damage to their
belongings. They thought that the water leakage occurred due to the wind , rain, debris
etc.

Page 45
Water leak:where did the damage occur?

roof -

Kitchen vent •

Room windows

ceiling -

0% lO"A. 20'Yo 30'Yo 40% SO"A. 60% 70"A. 80% 90% 100%
Frequency(%) among those who experienced water leak damage

Figure 37. Where the water came in as a result of Hurricane Michael for those
reporting water leak damage.

Water leak:Belongings damage

Clothing ,furnit ure,
carpet

Ceiling paint -

Electric

No belongings
damage

0% l O"A. 20% 30"A. 40"A. SO"A, 60"A. 70"A. 80"A. 90'Yo 100%

Figure 38. What the belongings damage in as a result of Hurricane Michael for those
reporting water leak damage.

Page 46
Water leak:damage
repaired?

Figure 39. Whether the water leak damage has been repaired

Water leak:who repaired damage?

Me or someone
else live with

A friend ,cowor er·
or family member

A professional
comtractor
•
Other •

0% 10% 20"A, 30% 40"A, SO"A. 60"A. 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 40. Among those who repaired the water leak damage, who did the repairs

Page 47
8.2.5.2 Storm Surge

Among the 7 participants until now, only 1 participant had storm surge damage. The
participant reported that the height of the water reach in his/her main living area is 3ft.
He/she reported that the water damage occurred in the living room , bedrooms, bathrooms
and kitchen. He/she reported that only minor items needed replacements. He/she
repaired the damage costs for about $32000.

Page 48
8.2.5.3 Wind -

About (71.2%) participants had faced the damage due to the wind. The location of the
wind damage, extent of the damage, damage to the belongings and the reasons for the
wind damage were responded by the participants which is shown in the following table
11 and table 12.

Wind : where did the damage occur?

Rear/front elevation

shed, debris -

shingles -

everywhere -

0% lO"A, 20% 30% 40"A, 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 41. Location in the home where the wind damage occurred

Wind : damage repaired?

Figure 42. Whether the wind damage has been repaired

Page 49
8.2.5.4 Other Reasons for Interior Da_mage

Among 10 participants until now, one participant had no interior damage. He/she
reported damage in the garage roof, porch yard and minor damage to his/her belongings.
He/she thought damage occurred by wind and tree debris. He/she reported that the repair
cost is $25000.

8. 2. 6 Exterior Home Damage

The participants reported that they had the fascia damage (80% ), soffit damage (70%)
and the vinyl siding damage (20%).

Exterior damage
100%

90",(,

80",(,

70"/o

60"/o

50%

40"/o

30%

20",(,

10%

0%
Fascia damage Soffit damage Vinyl siding damage

Figure 43. Frequency of reported exterior damage across all participants

Page 50
8.2. 7 Structural retrofits

Among 10 participants, neither of them did the hurricane retrofit after the hurricane.
The participants (Mean-3. 7) agree that their house performed well during the hurricane
Michael, whereas the participants (Mean-3.9) neither agree nor disagreed that performed
well during Hurricane Michael. All the participants agree to do structural retrofits in future .

Home and Future Retrofits
5
QI
....
(1)

QO
ro
~
(1)
.....
2 4
..... Cl.
c:: E
(1) 0
E u
<lJ II
-
.... 1./'l
(1)

QO (1)

.: ~ 3
0 ~
ni .!!?
> "O
~~
(1)
.....
~ 2
E
0
u
II
c
1
Home hold up well (onside r future retrofits

Figure 44. Views on whether the home held up well with respect to Hurricane Michael
and whether participants would consider future retrofits

Page 51
9 CONCLUSIONS FROM DATA ANALYSIS PORTION

1) Based on overall damage ratings, post-FBC buildings performed better than pre-
FBC buildings, but the improved performance was primarily seen in areas that
experienced the highest wind speeds (65-75 m/s). For wind speeds below 65 mis,
performance was nominally the same, likely due to the prevalence of cladding and
roof cover damage in both pre- and post-FBC buildings.
2) In single-family homes, roof and wall structure damage was observed in less than
2% of post-FBC homes, contrasted with almost 20% of pre-FBC homes . Roof and
wall sheathing damage rates were similar in post- and pre-FBC homes.
3) Wall cladding performance was mixed. Vinyl siding consistently experienced the
highest damage rates, regardless of location. However, in post-FBC homes that
experienced the highest wind speeds in our dataset, vinyl siding damage was
minimal , albeit for a small sample size (N=3).
4) Roof cover performance was also mixed at best for both pre- and post-FBC homes,
regardless of the observed wind speed magnitude. More than 60% of post-FBC,
and more than 70% of pre-FBC homes experienced at least 5% roof cover loss.
Metals roofs experienced at least 50% loss in 11 % of homes. Asphalt shingle roofs
experienced at least 50% loss in 15% of the homes in our dataset.
5) Devastation was not complete in Mexico Beach as is often reported. A number of
pre- and post-FBC homes were still standing, primarily a function of the first floor
elevation relative to the local storm surge and wave height. Several good case
studies are likely present in these homes, but building permit records would be
needed to obtain the complete perspective on the structural systems used and
their relative performance.

Page 52
10 RECOMMENDATION

1) Re-evaluate code requirements for roofing products and installation. Roof cover
loss continues to be the most common failure, driving economic losses from
ensuing rainwater ingress , and was frequently observed even in post-2016 homes
experiencing below design-level winds .

2) Continue to investigate the high wind performance of permeable cladding systems,
including soffit systems, relative to current product approval requirements.

3) Investigate the placement of the coastal construction control line in Mexico
Beach. Poor siting and elevation in Mexico Beach led to the extent of the disaster
experienced there during Hurricane Michael. The CCCL is located with
consideration of the upland or landward extent of the damaging effects of a 100-
year storm event. With potential impacts of climate change , the 100-year storm
impacts may change , requiring subsequent changes to the CCCL.

Page 53
11 REFERENCES

Dietrich, J., Dawson, C., Proft, J., Howard, M., Wells, G., Fleming, J., Luettich, R., Westerink, J.,
Cobell, Z., and Vitse, M. (2013). "Real-time forecasting and visualization of hurricane
waves and storm surge using SWAN+ ADCIRC and FigureGen." Computational
challenges in the geosciences, Springer, 49-70.
Pino, J. D. (2019). "The Story of a Survivor." Structure Magazine , March 2019.
Prevatt, D. 0 ., Roueche, D. B., and Smith, D. (2018). "StEER: Structural Extreme Event
Reconnaissance Network - Hurricane Michael."
Vickery, P. J., and Levitan, M. (2018). "NIST/ARA Hurricane Michael Rapid Response Windfield
Estimate." <https://www.desiqnsafe-ci.org/recon-portal/>. (12/28 , 2018).
Vickery, P. J., Skerlj, P. F., Lin, J., Twisdale, L. A. , Young, M. A., and Lavelle, F. M. (2006).
"HAZUS-MH Hurricane Model Methodology. II: Damage and Loss Estimation." Natural
Hazards Review, 7(2), 94-103.

Page 54
Appendix A.Personalized recruitment letter and postcard

UFlr:tORiDA
Herbert \>\'ertheun College o, Engineering 3o5 \ · H all
Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and En,ironmen PO Box 116.SSO
G.l!llesville, FL 32611-6.580
352-294- 98 Phone
352-39_.J394 Fax
w,v·w .e'Ssie.ufLed u

May 22. 2019

Jack and Allen
2902 CEDARS XING
PA.~AMA CITI'. FL 3 405-6388

Subiecr: ln\iitation to Participate in Online SU1Vev Evaluating Interior Damage and\\ ater
Leakage During Hwricane Michael for Cedar' s Crosslng Residents

Dear Scon and Courtne ' Frazier or CtuTent Resident

My name is Dr. David 0 . Prevatt and I am an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the
University of Florida. As part of a follow-on study. I would like to invite you to participate in a
survey seeking to determine the. extent of~rater leaks and interior damage caused by Hwricane
Michael to your home. and your experience with hwricane retrofits. As a recognized wind
engineer. I ha"lt-e studied the effects ofhunicanes winds on low-rise buildings for many years.

My research team and I spent several days follo"'1ing Hwricane Michael to make damage
observations in Panama City. including Cedar·s Crossing. Toe Cedar's Crossing subdivision is a
major focus for us because most of the houses were built recently and so their perfoonance helps
us to understand the effectiveness of the building code. Your assistance is most valued

~ ! ~
Figure 1: Post Hw1icane Michael Damage to Residenrial Houses in Cedar 's Crossing, Panama Ciry, FL

Our full report is available at: https:ddoi.oreil0.l 7603/DS2G41.M. In addition. the damage
observations can be viewed here: https:/ ;•,eb.fulcrumapp.com communiti nsf-rapid.,.

The Foundarionfor The Gator ·1,larion

Page 55
During the online survey. you will be asked about your perspectives and decisions regarding
Hwricane Michael and its aftennath, specifically related to performance of your house. You will
also be asked demographic questions. The survey should take no more than _o - 30 minutes. You
will be compensated $20 USD for your participation via an Amazon gift card.

To participate in the online survey. you must in.elude your Participant ID HlIOOl_Sign-up
instructions are pn)\ided in the anached document. The study is liDlited to the first 180
participants_so please sign-up now. Survey data collection will end on ~lay 31, 2019.

lf you have any questions about this study_you should feel free to ask them by contacting me.
the Principal Investigator. Dr. David 0 . Prevatt Associate Professor. Civil and Coastal
Engineering_dprev@:e.ufledu, 352- 94-7798. lf you have questions later. desire additional
information. or wish to withdraw your participation, please contact Dr. David 0 . Prevan by mail.
phone or e-mail in accordance with the contact information listed above.

lf you ha, e questions pertaining to your rights a!". a research participant or to report objectiom to
this study_you should contact the Institutional Review Board at the Univer!".ity of Florida.
Email: myirbtech-l@lists.ufl.edu" Phone: (352) 273-9600 or (35 ) 392--0433.

Da ·id 0 . Prevan_Ph.D .. PE_FASCE. F_SEI
Associate Professor of Civil and Coastal Engineering

Page 56
E\"AIXATING INITRIOR DA.i\IAGE AND WATER LI.AKAGE DURING
HL"RRICAI\"£ l\IlCBAEL FOR CI.DAR'S CROSSING RESIDE.1'fIS
Online swwy sign-up Instructions
Step 1:
• Open your internet (web) browser (Google Chrome, Internet Explorer Mozilla Firefox.
Opera, Saflri, etc.) using your computen1aptop/mobile device.

•
·e
Type the web link (https:/ fl .qualtrics.comfjfclformlSV 9ntxloVG4gcgOMB) into the
address bar of your web browser as shown below and press 'Enter''.

Ne"' Tab x +
C :: ,u > 1/ fl ualtri .confl''=1fou- .'SV_' ,9.pr, ,i'8 5 • v

Step 2:
• After that you will see the front 'welcome" page (as shown below) with provided
information that you need to know in order to participate in swvey:

• • \ \.fw.ol * II e

L:nh-crsity of Florida

The Foundation for n,e Gator Nation
An &iu.al Opport".m.1rv Jr~t'lhmon

Page 57
• Please, read consent document provided on the ·welcome" page carefully:
>
* 0 .

• If you consent to participate in this study. please. press the fonvard button at the bottom of
the page to sign this document on the ne:>..'t page:

, r1CJfll.s H .I r ~ h P iil lp .Ul1 n

Press ttl fer;wa d 1Dutt0

Step 3:
•
• Follow the instructions on each page and press the forward button at the bottom of each
page to access the next page.

The Foundarionfor nie Gator lilanon
Eqll.!I OpPOm...inn,• ir6h ·ion

Page 58
Page 59
Appendix B. Copy of approval letter

Insbtutiona Review Boar
IVERSITY of FLORID

DATE: 5/24/2019
TO: David F'r'ev tt
365 4!-11 Ha I
G I svllle , Ronda 32611
F:RO Ira Flschle , Ph .D., Pro essor €me tus
Char IRB-02

IRS.I' : IR.8201901290
T E: Underst11nd ng wate Lea . age and lntelior O ma.g e to Single-FamUy HOm4!_S 1n Florida
Ourtng the landfall of tl'le 2018 HUITICll e M1

Yo nave receivl!-d IM approval to conduct e a'bove- 1sted rl!_Searcl'I proj;ect. Approval of this
project w .s ,g ra ed on 5/24/2019 by IRB-02. This study Is a provl!-d as e emp because It
poSl!s m n mal rts and Is approved u er the fo llo ~Ing exempt catt":gory/ca egortes :

2. Re:searcl'I that dud4!_S o IV n eractlons nvolv ng educa anal tests
(cog I ve, diagnostic, ap rude, ac:hie'Yl!-ml!-nt), su ey proced ures,
tervtew procedu res, or observation o p b le M av,or (Including
visua l or auditory recording ) at least one o f 3 criteria are m et : (I) t l'le
fo rmation obtll ned Is recol'ded by the nvl!_Sllgator sucl'I a mann er
that the Identity o f the human subjects caMot readily be ascerta lned,
d rectly or througl'I Ide ti ers I n ed to the subjects; ( I) any disclosur e
of the uman subjects' respons4!_S outside the research could not
reasonably place the subjects at rtsk of er minal or dvU llablllty or be
damaging to the sub)ects' llnanda stand ng , em ployabllty, educational
advancement, or reputation ; OR ( U) the lnformatlon obt:a ned s
recorded by the Investigator In such a manner that the Identity of
h man subj ects ca n read IV M ascerta ned, d rectly or through
ktentifll!-rs II k.ed to the sub)ects, and an IRS conducts a lmlted rev ew
t o make the determination req Ired by 45 CFR 46.1 l l(a)(7) (wl'llch
relate to th4!-re being adequate provisio ns for protecting privacy and
ma ntaln ng confldentiaUty) AND the research is not subject to subpa rt
0.

Special notes to Investigator ( f appl cable):
In the myJRB system, Exempt app oved studl4!_S ,Ill not have an approval stamp on the
consents, flyers, emails, etc. owever, the documents reviewed are the o es that should
be used. So, under ATiACHME you should fmd the docume t th.a t h.a been revtewed

Page 60
and approved. I yo need to modify ti'le document( s) 1n any n er, n you'd need to
s bmlt to our o Ice or n!!V ew nd approval prior to Implementation.

Prln d pa:I Investigator ResponcSlb lltl es:

e Pl is responsl le or t e conduct of e study . l mporta t respons bill es
described a the above I Ind de :

• Using curre tty a pro ed consent om, to enroll subjects (If appli cable)
• Renewing our ·study ~fore e pl atlo
• Obta Ing a pnwa for revisions before Im lementatlon
• Reporting Ad,..erse Events
• Rete tlon of ~ r c h Records
• Obta n ng a prova to cond ct: research at ti'le VA
• Notify Ing other partl es a bout this p oj Cl's ap ro1111I status

Should the na re of the study ci'lange or o need to revise the protocol n an er please
contact this o ce prior to, impleme tanon .

tudy Te-am :

Alina Gautam Acharya Other
Rodrigo Ca.ni llo Perez Study Coordinator

The Foundation for Thie Gator .'\Tarion
.,\n llqu (Jn,0111:11,ity 1..-..tioo
C"""'9d<!n · 'it; '•-«-= Th~ .,., - " " ~ · •r,CI\Jd.tr19 ,.,,,. .:tltdCl'lmmu. "' ((Ir t'./1e Jale ~ a( I'll" """'1'ed '«IOlt!Jtl(•)• ..,.., ""'"
c.or1tdu1 1'e94/Jy w,, iieyttl or CD'l\~ta·a.· lfifan'T'\d',(J(l1' Ar'ly otht!f' d\'~nbutrc:11,. cop~·.vtg.. or &.!idc.b.ur-e ~ m:tJt ~~· !f t>-Ots .:tre
nof '1lt! U " t f ~· ~t~ ttie.t.le' natll'\t !.~ xt"IIJ~" ~'ftd derm-, tr1~ ~ e i.mrn~d! ~' !i. ~ul:."d .:ttt6:, to a,r,t\!tc.,,tr
..nli:Jrrn.fDOn t.> Sttbfa!d' ti, ~er-4' .:tm:J' st~te '11-'.S .:tnd coui:4 '"elouft "' ~cm.:tl /t'.;;tbo1• ¥, , - ~ and m.-p.nsol"'~t- Thi.:tnA: ~ou.

Page 61
Appendix C. Copy of survey

Final- Hurricane Michael Questionnaire

University of Florida

Tha you or your interest in lhis important stl.lldy. Your name and home addre-ss were
obtained through public rec:ads fran the Florida De,partment ot Re enue as ·ng in the Cedar's
Crossing Subdivision. Panama City, FL The purpose o · js researdi is to better understand the
impact or Hurricane Michael and · s aftermath on single-family strudl.Jres in Florida. Your
part:icipalion is completefy volu tary. Your personaly .identif1a1ble in ormalion wJll only se for
compensation purposes and will not be anached o any r,esponse.

On e next page. you will see a brief consent arm. which you should read before participating
in the survey.

INFORMED CONSENT
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

Understanding Water Lukage and Interior Damage to S ngle-Famlly Homes In Florida
during the landfaD of the 2018 Hurricane Michael

Please read this consent document carefully. If you con. .nt to participate In this study,
plu,se say "yes" to this document on page 2.

Who Is doing this study
Th·s study is being conducted by Or. David 0 . Preva . al the University of Florida in Gaine-sville,
FL The study is funded by lhe Florida Department or Business and Pro e-ssional RegulatioR

Purpose of the reseill'Ch study
The purpose of this study is to learn how Florida single-tamily re ·dential struct res were
affeded by water leakage caused during the landral ot the 20 8 Humcane Michael. T e
re-searctiers h ad prelliously coUe-cted exterlior damage observations rom houses located ·
Cedar's Crossings bdivision and they will use yo r responses collected in lhis study to
determine the effects of age, building code and materials on the extent of water ,l eaks and

Page 1 of 26

Page 62
interior damage.

What you wlll be asked to do In the study
You wil l be asked to describe your nowtedge and opinions regarding hurricanes and the risk
they pose o your family and your property.

lime required
20.JO min

Compensation
I retlll'll for your participation in this researdl, you ·11 receive via Amazon git card, worth
$20.00. If you would r .e to be considered for $20 gift card.. you will need to e ter your e-mail
address in a separate lin at the end or the survey.

Risks and Benefits
This research as been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of lhe University of
Florida. To lhe best of their abiity, lhey have d8U!ml .ed that e interview quesoons i nvolve ,no
invasion ,of privacy and no ethicaly objectionable or stresstul subjeas. There are no direct
benefits to you for participating in the study other than lhe gift card.

Confichmtlality
Your identity will be ept confidential o the extent provided I~ law. Once you complete the
survey, you will be redirected o another link ,in which you w il ave the o pportunity ro provide
the best e-mail address to send you the gift card. As soon as, yo receive your gift card, this
in ormalion is destroyed. · either your name nor your address I appear i any report from this
study.

Voluntary participation
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. T1here is ,n o penalty tor not participating,
or or stopping your survey .at any time after it as begoo.

Who to contact If )'OU haw questions about the study
Dr. Da~d 0 . Pntvan
Associa e Professor,
Engineering School of Suslainable Infrastructure and Environm8' t
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611·2250
Phone: 352·294-n98

Who to contact about your rights as a research participant In the study
IRB02 Office
Box.112250
University of Florida
Gainesville . Fl 32611 -2250

Page 2 of 26

Page 63
Phone 352.392.0433

Consent
By answering "yes' below. I ad<nowledge that I have read the above oooditions
volll taril)' agree to participate in this survey I give my permission or the researchers to
quote my responses anonymously.

Yes ·(1)

No (2)

Page 3 ot 26

Page 64
I order to participate, you need to enter your valid participant ID. The Participant 10# can be
found in the letter that you received in the mail, and should look something like this:

U,--@. (M: a.1~ t 'e'f, ~""'11 tll le Mili:r.d iiboul Wl'tif" p a " ~I\ el ,I.lid *C1 IOOI (C!&(d
H,,rr"""oM1<.'-I d ""' th,. t11« 1oolly r<l - toPfflOlt1M1X•fJf)'(IW boo,. Y.. •.O
•1.w, he ~ clnno f: ph,t: que:M1DIH 'Tlc cy .__.. le nl) mare tts.. lO - 10 --*-• Yoa
wtU bo <OIII-- $20 l."SD for your JJ,111,qporuxi ,,,. "11 IIJJ! ~ , m l ~ - ..,u abo
bf! ~ , d - " ' ,.m,. b .a nnr tQ u.• ,
An,b, 1PN };1.-

To paru~ us 1he oo~ er mUll uKlade you,ffu@iaUll>liiiff~ . - - - -
iimt:ntc:1iiiNn...,.. pru...-illl,i,d ill ... aftadiMidi ..__ _ L 1lie W • Lm1tnli:i. En1 110
p111X.1pas ,o f'IIHIP DOW Swrey • 1~ collettlCG will md iWf' Ht,

ou ~ . e b,,)6J ~ '°
) 'CIW hf/Mt~ a lt:liCV~ pwt:1t-,.. « ro repon ot,ectt0at 10
th.a ...t, yo u J.c.1d coul-1 th~ ln.111Mtaml R.et.•,rw Bu.d Ill e-\ ,-., atf'lor•
EmaoJ PD'.ld>!c<a:ITiamulJ..tv Pbonc (J5Z)273 .. (J5Z) Jl>2 JJ

Dmd O Pm-... PhD P F .ASCE. F SE!
Anoe iel'rolnoorufC" - . ! - ' c - . 1 ~

Ca you pllease conflffll your participan 10?

Page 4 ot 26

Page 65
03 W y did you evacuate? (p:lease clleck all that apply)

.Because I live in an evacuation zone (1)

..Beca e I had somewhere to go (2)

Baca e I had pals I could take wi me (3)

e I could afford to (4)

.Baca e .I relt a. risk (5)

I evacuated 0( another reason (please specify) (6)

0.splsy Tlai3 Quesoc,n:
If lllr71y dd ;ou evacu-als? (~-ase ch«:* an that apply), Because I i\"ve .11 an evaci.•aoon zone !s
DIS;Nayed

04 How many times did you evacuate?

Page 6 ot 26

Page 66
Page 67
05 The next questioAS ask you lo give the perce t chance that some ·ng · 1happen. Use a '0'
to indlcate the event wil not appen and a '100' to indicate it will be certain to happen. Before
Hurricane Michael hit, what did yot.1 thin was e perce t chance that
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% your home ·wouk:I be S1Mtrely damaged or
deslroyed because of the h rricane or its
alterma ? O
% sure tha any damages 'WOad be covered
by insurance? ()
% you would never be ab4e to return to your
curren1 home as a resu ot the hurricane or its
alterma ? O
% you wouk:I be seriously in red by the
humcane or its a1terma , ? ()
% someone close to you would be seriously
injured ~ the hurricane or its a1termath? ()

Page 7 ot 26

Page 68
Q6 There are many things that people mig t do lo pt"epare for natural disasters, like urricanes.
Please chedc al those tha you were able to do before Hurricane Michael.

eam about Che risks from hurricanes and how to prepare for them (1)

e vehicles to a safe location {2)

!JI together a n emergency ·t (e.g., food, medical supplies. flashl ig t) (3)

velop arid pt"actice an emergency plan ,(4)

- Identify shelter locations in the even of an evacuation (5)

Copy inl)ortant documents (e,g., birth certificates, driver's licenses) (6)

.Get a ,row boat or inflatable. ra ,(7)

e my home more hurricane proof (e.g ., install umcane s er:s. sand bags) (8 )

ve flood insurance (9)

Other (iplease specify) (1 0) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

07 How uch do you Chink these aclions M l 1protect you from future hurricanes and lheir
aftermath?

Notat all (1)

Just a little ,(2)

Somewtia. ,(3)

Mostly (4 }

Completely (5)

Page 8 ot26

Page 69
Page 70
QB Do you ihink hurricanes during Mure hurricane seasons will be

less i tense than the ones in the 2018 season (1)

aboul the same intensity (2)

more inlense than the ones in the 20 8 season (3)

09 Do you ihink hurricanes during f ill

~pen less frequently ihan the ones in the 2018 season fl)

~pen · about the same frequency (2)

~pen more frequently ·· an ihe ones in the 2018 season (3)

Q1 o,Did your home experience an lnmrior damage from ihe following due to Hurricane
Michael and its aftermath? (please check alll that apply)

Water lea (1)

Storm surge or flood (2)

Wild ·(3)

{please~) (4 ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Page9 of 26

Page 71
Display Tho Ou.soon:
H Dio your home axpBfllH1C9 any lflter,or damage from lh6 folloMng due lo Humc:ane J.6cha<II aoo
1.s.._. = WatlK Lea.Ir

a 1 Consider the water leak damage to your home_In your own words . please desaibe the
following:

Where did the water l&alc damage occt1r? (1)

W a 1.vas the e,xtent ot lhe d amage to your home? (2)

W a was the extent ot lhe damage to your belongings? (3)

W y do you in the water leak ocarred? (4)

Display Th<s Quest.on.
II Dio )'(l(}r llome expenencs any ..,,tenor damage from lh6 iblb>ffi19 due IJo HurraJ.'19 Mimael aoo
ts.._. = WahPr Les.Ir

0 12 Has the damage been re.paired?

Ye,s (1)

No (2)

o,sp1ay Tha Oouoon:
If Has lflfl Glamaqs been reoall'ad? = Yes

Q 3 Approximately, how ell did - cost to repair (SUSD)?

0.&pay This Qunoon:
It Ha& tt,e damage been repaired? = Yss

Page 10 at 26

Page 72
a 4 W ho did the repairs? (check all that apply)

or someone else I live with ( 1)

A friend, coworker, neighbof or family member (2)

A professional contractor (3)

Other (please specify) (4) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

lli.solay This Quesl.bn:
II Has the damaae been reaatrod? =No

0 15 hat didn't you repair the damage? (oheck al that apply)

Too expensive to do .repairs ( )

It takes too much time to do repairs (2)

I or someone else I ive with do not have the expertise to do f epairs C3)

Repairs 'IMII h appen ,in the future (4 }

,Other (please specify) (5) _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _

Page 1 of 26

Page 73
o.spiay Tms Ouest.'Cll'I:
ti Did your home B.lPBflSf\CEI arty N1tenor damage from lhs following due lo Humcane Mlc.llael and
,ts... = Storm surge or flood

a
0 16
Approximately how igh did Ille water reach in your ma·n IMOQ area (feet)?

0..spla;• Ttns Quesoon.
If Did )'Cl'.Jr l'lom& elf:P90&(1Ce arry 111terior oamage from the followmg due lo Humr;arie Michael and
it.s.. = Sb-m e or ftood

0 1 7 Consider the watar damage ro your home, I your own •N ords, pl1tase. describe lhe
following:

W ere did the water damage occur? (1)

Wha: was the exten ol lhe damage to you- om&? (2)

Wha was the exten ol lh.e damage to your beJongiogs? (3)

W y do you in the water damage ,occurred? (4)

Display Tf,.is Quest.on:

If Dio )'IX}r home axperie.'!Ce any 1111ef10< damage from lt>e folkMwrg o·ue lo Humcane Midi~ ano
Ifs = Sb-m e or ,'food

0 18 Has Ille damage been repaired?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Page 12 ot .26

Page 74
O.spla y This Qu&SI.IOn.
If Has tt,e daf"'liJQP ooen re tted? =Yes

0 19 Approximately, how m ch dld it cost to repair ($USO)?

0.splay Thi.s OuestJon.
If H11s lhe da':'lBge been fe()BttSd? =Yes

020 Who did the repairs? (check all that apply)

.Me or someone else I live wilh ,(1)

A friend, oo'M>ri<er, eighbor or family member (2 )

A professional coolrador (3)

..other (<please specify) (4) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

o..spi.ry rm OuesOOt!.
If h'as the da. bPen ,apar,red? =No

Q2 1 Why have you nol 1repaired lhe damage? (check all that apply)

Xoo expensive to do repairs (1 )

takes oo mucti lime to do repairs (2)

°' someone else I live with do not have the expertise to do repairs (3)
pairs wil appen in the future ,(4 )

Other (please specify) (5) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Page 13 ot 26

Page 75
O,splay Th•s OuestJOn:

II Did your home e,.pe<ience any lfller-JOr d<1mag11 from the following due lo Humc.ane l.f/.cl!aal and
11s... =Wind

Q22 Consider the wind damage to your ome. In your OIM1 words, please. describe the
following:

Where did the wind damage occur? •( 1 )

What was the extent ot the d amage to your home? (2 )

W a was the extent ot the d amage to y our be'Jongings? (3)

W y do you in the wind damage oa:urnd? (4)

o,spi.ay Th.is Qu9aoon:
ff Did your ho,..,. sxper,e,nc;11 any ~.,lernr oamag• from J:ne fo#owmg d1.•e to Hurnc.ane IJiclteel ano
its .. = Wm

Q23 Has Ille damage been rapaired?

Yes (1)

No (2)

Dis.p/.a.y Thd OuestJOn:
IF Has th,9 d.amaqe been rooatred"J = Yes

024 Approximately, hoN uch did it cost to repair ($USO)?

Disr;,J.Jy ThJS OuestJOn.
If Has the damage been reoaired'? = Yes

Page 14 ot 26

Page 76
025 Who did the repairs? (check all that apply)

or someone else ,J liwi with (1}

A friend. cowork.e r, neighbor or lamily member (2)

professional contractor (3)

Other ~please specify) (4) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

D1salay This Clue.st.on:
If Has lhe damaqe b£l6il rapalYtlC'? =No

026 Why didn't you repair the damage? ,(check all that awly)

Too expensive o do repairs ( }

-JI takes oo much lime to do repairs (21

or someoll8 el$e I with do oot hawi the expertise to do repairs (3)

pairs I appen ,in the fut re (4)

h.e r (p lease specify) (5) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Page 15 ot .26

Page 77
Display Th1s Quesl!on.

H Did your home experience any inlenor damage from the lollo¥tmg oua lo Hume.ans Michael aoo
ifs ._. = Other {please 8fJ9Cily)

027 Consider the other dama.g e l.o y.our honle" In your own words., please describe the
following:

Where did the other damage occur? (11)

What was the extent ot the d amage t.o your home? (2)

Wha was the extent ot the damage to your belongings? {3)

Why do you thin the ()(her damage occurred? (4)

0.spla y This Ouesl!on.
If Dia your homli etperience any ,ntertN oamag8 from tiie fol#o.,,-1o119 due lo Hvmcane '.fichael aoo
its = Other f 9Bse ectv

028 Has Ille damage been ~paired?

Yes (1)

N.o {2)

Dtspla y Tiu Oussoon:
If Has the damaoe bmtn reparr19d? = Yes

029 Approximately, how m ch dld it cost to repair ($USO)?

Display This Quest.>0n.
H Has lhe damage bee.rt repatr9d? =Yes

P-age 16 ot 26

Page 78
030 Who did the repairs? (check all that apply)

or someone else I live with { 1)

friend . cowork.e r, neighbor or family member (2)

professional contractor (3)

OthM (please specify) (4) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Display Tt11s Ou~sl,on:

If Has /he dama e been re rrad? =No

031 Why didn't you repair the damage? (Check a l Iha ~ ly)

Too expensive to do repairs (1)

It takes too much time to do re:pairs (2)

f or someone else I live w.ith do ,not have the elq)&rtise to do repairs (3)

pairs I happen in the future (4)

er (p lea s e ~) (5) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Page 17 of 26

Page 79
032 Did you have any fascia damage as shown in lhe figure?

Yes (5)

No (6)

Page 18 of 26

Page 80
Yes (1)

No {2)

Page 19 at 26

Page 81
Yes (6)

No {7)

035 Ha e any major hl.nicane retrofits (post-construction modifications) been made to ~ r
home tha you ma·y know of?

Yes {1)

No (2)

0.spla y This Quest.tin.

If .1.411,.-9 att:1 ma,or humc.ane 1'91roTlrs (posl-conwvctJoo modificat,ons} ~ r!'Nlde liO >«'' home thaL
= Ye.s

Page 20 ot .26

Page 82
036 Please list the improvements y04/ve made since owning the home (or mOlling in), and
indicate whether the worlc was done throug local permitting and inspection.

Was the wortc done hroug local pe.rmitting
B
and inspection?

lmprovemenl (1) Yes (1) No ,(2)

1 ( 1)

2 (2)

3 (3)

4 (4)

5 (5

Page 21 of 26

Page 83
037 How m dl do you agree or disagree with lhe following statements?

In one or
two
sentences,
Agree or Disagree please
explain
your
answer.

In one or
two
3:nei er
sentences,
1:comp tely 2:disagr-ee agree oor 4=agree 5:completely
please
disagree (1) (2) disagree (4) agree {5)
explain
(3)
your
answer. (1)

My home
held up
very 'W'811 ·n
the face.at
Hurricane
Michael
and its
attennath
(1)

I would
consider
doing
structural
retrofits to
protect
agai nst
future
hurricanes
(2)

Page 22 of 26

Page 84
038 In what y&ar Wtlt'e you born?

• 1918 (1 ) ... 2002 (85)

039 Whal is your gender?

Male ( 1}

Female (2)

Other (3)

Prefer not to answer <(4}

Page 23 of .26

Page 85
040 What is your annual household income?

Less than $10,000 (1)

$10.000 • $19,999 (2)

520.000 • $29,999 (3 )

$30.000 • $39.999 (4)

$40,000 • $49,999 (5)

$50,000 • $59,999 (6 )

$60,000 • $69,999 (7)

$70.000 • $79.999 (8)

$80,000 • $89,999 (9)

$90,000 • $99,999 (10)

$100 000 • $149,999 (11)

Mon! than $150,000 (1 2)

Prefer nol to answer ( 13)

041 In What year dld you move into your home?

~ 191,a (1) ... 2019 (1 02)

042 When was your home buit?

~ 1918 (1) ... 2019 (1 02)

Page 24 of 26

Page 86
043 Do you own or rent your home?

Own (1)

Re nt (2)

Other (?lease Sl)80ify) (3) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Prefer not to answer (4)

044 How many adults over the .age or 65 ive in your home?

• 0(1) ... 10 (31 )

045 How many children under ihe age of 5 live in your home?

• 0 ,(1) ... 10(32)

046 Whal is your highe-sl level of education?

Less than lgh school (1)

Hjgh school gradua e {2)

Some college (3)

2 year degre-e (4)

4 year degree (5)

Professional degree (6)

Doctorate (7)

Prefer not to answer (8)

Page 25 of 26

Page 87
04 7 What is your current employment status?

Employed tull time ( 1)

Employed part time (2)

Unemployed looking tor work (3)

Unemployed not looking for 'WOfk (4 )

Retired (5)

Studen (6)

Disabled (7)

Prefer 001 to answer (8)

048 Comments?

049 aid< oo the link below to enter your e-mail addI8Ss or ltte compensation.

https.J/ufl .guallrics .comljfeJformlSV elrqRimqMfYVaPH

Page 26 ot 26

Page 88
Compensation purposes

01 In order to receive your $20 Amazon gift card, please enter your email address .

Page 89
Appendix D.Original Survey Data

Participant ID Q1 02_1 Q2_2 Q2_3 Q2_4 02_5 Q2_6 02_7
HM326 No 4
H 14 No 4
HM192 yes
H 40 No 1 • thin it
HMS YES
HM36 0 • Did not w a
H 416 NO 1 3 4 6
H 472 YES
H uo 0 1
H 77 YES 4

02_8 03_1 03_2 03_3 03_4 03_5 03_6 Q4
8
8
• 6=Millitaty

1 3 5

8
We ave a
· ha dicapp

H UO

H 77 4

Participant ID 05_1 05_2 05_3 05_4 05_5 06_1 06_2 06_3
HM326 80 80 0 20 20 1 3
0 80 5 2 0 2 3
H 50 70 20 0 30 1 2
H 20 100 0 0 0 1 2
H 75 60 80 90 90 3
HM362 30 100 20 20 30 1 2 3
HM416 15 100 0 1 0 3
H 472 15 80 0 5 5 1 2 3
H uo 10 69 5 0 0 2 3
5 92 92 21 10 1 3

Participant ID 06_4 06_5 06_6 06_7 06_8 06_9 06_10 07
HM326 3
H 14 3

Page 90
H 192 8 5
HM40 s 6 8 4
H 6 3
H - lo-Genera 3
H s 9 4
H 8 9 e to flee to 4
H 6 4
H s 9 4

Q8 Q9 Q10_1 Q10_2 Q10_3 Q1_0_4 Qll_t Q11_2
2 2 l 3 - Sky ight le Roof, 5 of i
H 3 3 l 3 - Rooms ea Crac ·ng in
H 2 l 3 - via bedroo,carpet darT
H 2 2 - ior damage -
HMS 2 2 l 2 3 - A tree fell i damaged,
2 l - Ceili g
3 3 1 3
2 2 l
0 2 l - Living roorr $153,000 ir
HM77 3 3 1 - north side of ouse wh
blew the ra 30% of roo

Q11_3 Qll_4 Q12 Q13 Q14_1 Q1_4_2 Q14_3 Q14_4
severe, clo1 ·ndan dd 0
minimal Wind spee. 0
Mattress, c Rain enteH YES 1 2 3

one, eve!'(thing impc YES 32000 1 3
HM362 ONE Loss of roo YES 300 1
Tot:al loss i1-
Inside was Th e ·ndd YES 150 3
YES 153000 3
YES 40000 3

Q15_1 Q15_2 Q15_3 Q15_4 Q15_5 Q16 Q17_1 Q17_2
4
4 -

HM40
H 8 3 living room everything
H 362
HM416
H 472
H 20

Page 91
HMn

Participant ID Q17_3 Q17_4 Q18 Q19 020_1 020_2 020_3 020_4
HM326
HM114
HM 92
HM40
H 8 only minor falling r ee: yes 32000 1 - 3 -
H 362
HM416
H 472
H uo
H n

021_1 021_2 021_3 021_4 021_5 022_1 022_2 022_3
I
Mostly to r severe, s.an severe, s.an
14 Rooms nea Crac ng in inimaJ
92 house exte severe to ti bathroom I
HM40
H 8 every.v er, shingles rip landscapin1
HM362
Lifted up Basically a T otal loss.

Participant ID 022_4 023 024 025_1 025_2 025_3 025_4 026_1
H 326 ve ocity an,
H 14 Wi dspeec o 4
H 92 Because a cYES 1 2 3-
H
H a l SSmph IYES 32000 1- 3-
HM362
H Global war NO
H
H
H

Participant ID 026_2 026_3 026_4 026_5 027_1 027_2 027_3 027_4
HM326 4 -
HM 14
H 92

Page 92
HM40 Garage roo Exterior da M i nor Wind & tre
HMS
HM362
HM416 4 .
HM472
HM120
HMn

Participant ID Q28 Q29 030_1 030_2 030_3 030_4 031_1 031_2
HM326
HM114
H 192
HM40 YES 25000 1. 3 .
H 8
H 362
HM416
472
120
n
Participant ID 031_3 031_4 031_5 032 033 Q34 Q35 Q36_1
H 326 Yes Yes 0
H 14 Yes Yes 0
H 92 No Yes 0
H No No 0
H ES YES NO
H No No 0
HM416 ES NO YES
H 472 YES YES 0
H 20 YES YES YES
H YES YES 0

Participant ID Q36_2 Q36_3 Q36_4 036_5 Q37_1 037_2 038 Q39
H 326 3=nej her a 4=agree; b, 1959 M ale
H 14 3 - ouse 5=1wa n 1978 Female
92 4=AII S=House 1995 M al e
4= ome v. 3=No comr 196 Female
4=My 4=1am alw. 1989 M ale
H 5=M inoer cwinodws c< 196 ae
H 2= o e 5=Would rc 1995 Female
H 4=W e had 3=1don' 1947 M ale
H 4=1 4= 1will tal 1968 M ale
HMn 4::t never 4=1 1964 M ale

Participant ID Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q44 Q45 Q46 Q47
H 326 SOk-60 2011 997 o YTl 0 0 2 year degr Employed
H 14 lOk-20 2006 2006 own 0 O Hig SC 00 Employed I

Page 93
HM192 Prefer not • 2017 1997 own 0 O some collei Employed I
HM40 lOOK-150 2002 1998 OWN 0 0 4 year degr Employed t
HMS 70k-80 2017 2002 own 0 1 4 year degr Em ployed I
HM362 prefer not 2006 , 2005 own 0 O prefer not Employed I
HM416 90K-10 2014 2009 ow 0 O 2 year degr Employed t
H 4n 20K-30 19' 2018 1986 ow 2 O Doctorate Retired
HM120 80k-90 2016 998 own 0 0 4 year degr Employed f
HMn SOk-60 2008 2007 own 0 0 4 year degr Re ir ed

Participant ID Q48 049
HM326
H 14
HM 92
H 40
HMS
HM362
HM416
H 4n
HM120 anks for putti g you tim e into collecting data
H n Good survey. I doub the speedy repairs I've Sttn int e neighborhood will stand up to a o
as fa.st as possible (ma ing mo ey) vs. qua rJty work_The county inspector did a ery fast loo!

Page 94
Page 95 ,
Appendix Q of the Building Code
APPENDIX Q RESERVED TINY HOUSES

SECTION AQlOl GENERAL
AQlOl.1 Scope. This appendix shall be applicable to tiny houses used as single dwelling units. Tiny houses
shall com-ply with this code except as otherwise stated in this appendix.

SECTION AQ102 DEFINITIONS
A0102.1 General. The following words and terms shall. for the purposes of this appendix. have the meanings
shown herein. Refer to Chapter 2 of this code for general definitions.
EGRESS ROOF ACCESS WINDOW. A skylight or roof window designed and installed to satisfy the
emergency escape and rescue opening requirements of Section R310.2.
LANDING PLATFORM. A landing provided as the top step of a stairway accessing a loft.
LOFT. A floor level located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the main floor, open to the main floor on
one or more sides with a ceiling height of less than 6 feet 8 inches (2032mm) and used as a living or sleeping
space.
TINY HOUSE. A dwelling that is 400 square feet (37 m2) or less in floor area excluding lofts.

SECTION AQ103 CEILING HEIGHT
A0103.1 Minimum ceiling height. Habitable space and hallways in tiny houses shall have a ceiling height
of not less than 6 feet 8 inches (2032 mm). Bathrooms, toilet rooms and kitchens shall have a ceiling height
of not less than 6 feet 4 inches (1930 mm). Obstructions including. but not limited to. beams. girders. ducts
and lighting, shall not extend below these minimum ceiling heights.
Exception: Ceiling heights in lofts are permitted to be less than 6 feet 8 inches (2032 mm).
SECTION AQ104 LOFTS
A0104.1 Minimum loft area and dimensions. Lofts used as a sleeping or living space shall meet the
minimum area and dimension requirements of Sections AQ104.1.1 through AQ104.1.3.
A0104.1.1 Minimum area. Lofts shall have a floor area of not less than 35 square feet (3.25 m2).
A0104.1.2 Minimum dimensions. Lofts shall be not less than 5 feet (1524 mm) in any horizontal
dimension.
A0104.1.3 Height effect on loft area. Portions of a loft with a sloped ceiling measuring less than 3
feet (914 mm) from the finished floor to the finished ceiling shall not be considered as contributing to
the minimum required area for the loft.
Exception: Under gable roofs with a minimum slope of 6 units vertical in 12 units horizontal
(50-percent slope). portions of a loft with a sloped ceiling measuring less than 16 inches (406
mm) from the finished floor to the finished ceiling shall not be considered as contributing to
the minimum required area for the loft.
A0104.2 Loft access. The access to and primary egress from lofts shall be of any type described in Sections
AQ104.2.l through A0104.2.4.
A0104.2.1 Stairways. Stairways accessing lofts shall comply with this code or with Sections
AQ104.2.l.1 through AQ104.2.l.5.
A0104.2.1.1 Width. Stairways accessing a loft shall not be less than 17 inches (432 mm) in clear
width at or above the handrail. The width below the handrail shall be not less than 20 inches (508 mm).
A0104.2.1.2 Headroom. The headroom in stairways accessing a loft shall be not less than 6 feet 2
inches(l 880 mm). as measured vertically, from a sloped line connecting the tread or landing platform
nosings in the middle of their width.
A0104.2.1.3 Treads and risers. Risers for stairs accessing a loft shall be not less than 7 inches (178
mm) and not more than 12 inches (305 mm) in height. Tread depth and riser height shall be calculated in
accordance with one of the following formulas:
1. The tread depth shall be 20 inches (508 mm) minus four-thirds of the riser height.
2. The riser height shall be 15 inches (381 mm) minus three-fourths of the tread depth.
AQ104.2.1.4 Landing platforms. The top tread and riser of stairways accessing lofts shall be
constructed as a landing platform where the loft ceiling height is less than 6 feet 2 inches (1880 mm)
where the stairway meets the loft. The landing platform shall be 18 inches to 22 inches (457 to 559
mm) in depth measured from the nosing of the landing platform to the edge of the loft, and 16 to 18
inches (406 to 457 mm) in height measured from the landing platform to the loft floor.
AQ104.2.1.5 Handrails. Handrails shall comply with Section R3 l 1.7.8.
AQ104.2.1.6 Stairway guards. Guards at open sides of stairways shall comply with Section R3 l 2.1.
A0104.2.2 Ladders. Ladders accessing lofts shall comply with Sections A0104.2.l and AQ104.2.2.
A0104.2.2.1 Size and capacity. Ladders accessing lofts shall have a rung width of not less than 12
inches(305 mm). and IO-inch (254 mm) to 14-inch (356 mm)spacing between rungs. Ladders shall be
capable of supporting a 200-pound (75 kg) load on any rung. Rung spacing shall be uniform within
3/8 inch (9.5 mm).
AQ104.2.2.2 Incline. Ladders shall be installed at 70 to 80 degrees from horizontal.
A0104.2.3 Alternating tread devices. Alternating tread devices accessing lofts shall comply with Sections
R3 l 1.7 .11.1 and R3 l 1.7 .11.2. The clear width at and below the handrails shall be not less than 20 inches
(508mm).
AQ104.2.4 Ships ladders. Ships ladders accessing lofts shall comply with Sections R311.7.l 2. l and
R3 l l .7.12.2. The clear width at and below handrails shall be not less than 20 inches (508 mm).
A0104.2.5 Loft Guards. Loft guards shall be located along the open side of lofts. Loft guards shall be not
less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height or one-half of the clear height to the ceiling. whichever is less.

SECTION AQ105 EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENINGS
AQ105.1 General. Tiny houses shall meet the requirements of Section R3 l O for emergency escape and
rescue openings.
Exception: Egress roof access windows in lofts used as sleeping rooms shall be deemed to meet the
requirements of Section R310 where installed such that the bottom of the opening is not more than 44 inches
(1118 mm) above the loft floor. provided the egress roof access window complies with the minimum
opening area requirements of Section R310.2.1.
=1
:::,
'<
I
0
3
CD
"'U
I»
:::,
CD
Tiny Houses

The popularity of smaller than typical houses (tiny houses) has gained in popularity over the
past decade. According to the International Code Council, a tiny house is a house that is 400
square feet or less, excluding lofts. Unlike a typical house, a tiny house can be built on a
foundation or a trailer with wheels, which is referred to as a tiny house on wheels (THOW).
Some have argued that tiny houses have many advantages. These may include:
• Tiny houses require fewer resources to build than typical houses and, therefore, may cost
less to build than a typical house.
• Tiny houses use less energy, and, therefore, may have smaller utility bills.
• Tiny houses may use a substantially smaller portion of a lot than a typical house and,
therefore, may be a solution to affordable housing shortages.

Issues relating to tiny houses
Since tiny houses are still relatively new, there are barriers to building tiny houses that do not
exist for typical houses. Issues specific to tiny houses include:
Zoning
• Zoning requirements such as minimum square footage and plot size can act as a
deterrence to tiny house development.
• THOWs are considered to be utility trailers and may not be used as a permanent
residence. This can result in THOWs being unable to connect to utilities anywhere other
than an RV park or mobile home park that allows THOWs.
Building Code
• The Florida Building Code does not prohibit tiny houses. However, there are provisions
of the Code such as ceiling heights, sleeping loft dimensions, loft access, and emergency
exits that inadvertently prohibit certain types of tiny houses. The Building Commission
adopted an appendix to address these provisions. However, local governments must
individually adopt the appendix in order for it to be effective in local areas around the
state.
High wind events and hurricanes
• Tiny houses are relatively new and it is not clear how well they will hold up to a major
hurricane. Although Tallahassee's tiny home community did not suffer any damage from
Hurricane Michael. Specifically with THOWs, questions have been presented about
whether such tiny houses will hold up during a hurricane; will the occupant take their
house with them when they evacuate; how easy will this be to accomplish, especially if
the person is elderly, on a fixed income, or is renting the THOW.
Panel Discussion on Tiny Homes in Florida

Tiny Homes Panelist:

• Missy Daniels
Director of Growth Management
Alachua County

• Reese Goad
City Manager
City of Tallahassee

• Andrew Bennett
Owner
Core Housing Solutions

• Brett Hiltbrand
Licensed Building Contractor, CEO
Cornerstone Tiny Homes

• Barbara Reilly
CEO
Bildsworth International

• Keith Dantin, P .E.
Vice President
Dantin Consulting, LLC

• Craig Huffman, RA
Principal
Huffman Associates/Studio for Architecture
CIJ

(/)
c
3
3Q)
-,
co"
Cl)
Business & Professions Subcommittee

SB 180 (ch. 2019-6, L.O.F.) - Lost or Abandoned Personal Property
By: Stargel and others
Tied Bills: None
Companion Bills: HB 423
Committee(s) of Reference: Commerce and Tourism; Rules
Category: Business and Professional Regulation

The bill allows the owners or operators of theme parks, entertainment complexes, zoos, museums,
aquariums, public food service establishments and public lodging establishments to choose an alternate
collection, storage and disposition process for lost or abandoned tangible personal property as long as
certain procedures are instituted:
• Abandoned property must be delivered to the owner or operator of the premises, the owner or
operator of the premises must take charge of the property and the owner or operator of the
premises must record the date it was found;
• Abandoned property must be made available to be claimed by the owner within 30 days after it
is found, or a longer period of time as deemed appropriate by the owner or operator of the
premises.
If the owners and operators of such facilities elect to use the alternate process, then the requirements
contained in ss. 705.1015-106, F.S., do not apply.

The bill prohibits the owner or operator from selling lost or abandoned property, but allows the owner
or operator to either dispose of the property or donate it to a charitable institution for sale or disposal
as the charitable institution deems appropriate. The owner or operator must continue to allow the
rightful owner of the property to reclaim the property at any time before disposal or donation.

The bill also requires a charitable institution to make reasonable efforts to ensure that personal data is
deleted from donated electronic devices, if such device is not secured by a password or other personal
identification technology.

The bill became law on April 8, 2019, chapter 2019-6, Laws of Florida, and becomes effective
July 1, 2019.

46
HB 445 -Trademark Classifications
By: Diamond
Tied Bills: None
Companion Bills: SB 198
Committee(s} of Reference: Business & Professions Subcommittee; Civil Justice Subcommittee;
Commerce Committee
Category: Business and Professional Regulation; Civil Justice; Government Operations

The bill updates Florida's classification of goods and services ·used for trademark and service mark
registrations with the Florida Department of State. The changes conform with the Nice International
Classification of Goods and Services, 111h edition, version 2018, as administered by the World
Intellectual Property Organization, and used by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Subject to the Governor's veto powers, the effective date of this bill is July 1, 2019.

CS/CS/HB 447 - Construction
By: Commerce Committee; Business & Professions Subcommittee; Diamond and others
Tied Bills: None
Companion Bills: CS/SB 902
Committee(s) of Reference: Business & Professions Subcommittee; Local, Federal & Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee; Commerce Committee
Category: Business and Professional Regulation; Civil Justice; Courts; Fees; Government Operations;
Local Government; Real Property

The bill:
• allows local governments to send written notice to an owner and a contractor that a building
permit is about to expire;
• allows local governments to close a building permit 6 years after the issuance of the permit,
even in the absence of a final inspection, if the local government determines that no apparent
safety hazards exist;
• provides that the work to close an expired permit can be completed in accordance with the
Building Code in effect when the building department received the permit application if the
work has already been substantially completed;
• excludes a property owner, working under the owner-builder exemption, from the requirement
that the owner reside on the property for a year in order to qualify for the exemption, in certain
situations;
• provides that local governments may only charge a person one search fee based on a request to
identify the building permits for units or sub-units assigned to one parcel of property;
• prohibits local governments from penalizing a purchaser of property solely because a previous
owner failed to close a building permit;

47
• prohibits local governments from denying a contractor a permit solely because the contractor
has expired building permits;
• prohibits local governments from carrying forward a budget balance greater than its average
cost for enforcing the Building Code for the preceding four fiscal years;
• prohibits local governments from charging surcharges or other similar fees not directly related
to enforcing the Building Code;
• allows the Florida Building Commission to adopt provisions to the Building Code every 3 years
without individually determining that each provision is needed to accommodate the specific
heeds of the state;
• provides that a contractor who takes over a job from a previous contractor is not liable for any
defects in the work performed by the previous contractor, and
• provides that serving a notice of claim alleging a construction defect does not effect the time-
period available to file an action related to the construction defect.
Subject to the Governor's veto powers, the effective date of this bill is July 1, 2019.

HB 763 - Registered Contractor Licensing
By: Watson, B.
Tied Bills: None
Companion Bills: SB 604
Committee(s) of Reference: Business & Professions Subcommittee; Government Operations &
Technology Appropriations Subcommittee; Commerce Committee
Category: Administrative Procedure; Business and Professional Regulation; Economic Development;
Government Operations; Local Government

The bill reopens a currently expired provision that allows locally registered electrical, alarm system, and
electrical specialty contractors who meet certain requirements to use their local registration to qualify
for a statewide certification if such contractor submits an application to the Electrical Contractors'
Licensing Board by November 1, 2021.

Subject to the Governor's veto powers, the effective date of this bill is July 1, 2019.

48
CS/CS/HB 827 - Engineering
By: Commerce Committee; Business & Professions Subcommittee; Toledo
Tied Bills: None
Companion Bills: CS/CS/CS/SB 616, CS/CS/CS/HB 905
Committee(s) of Reference: Business & Professions Subcommittee; Commerce Committee
Category: Business and Professional Regulation; Consumer Protection; Local Government;
Transportation

The bill amends provisions related to the licensure and regulation of professional engineers under the
Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), and engineering contracting requirements
under the Department of Transportation (DOT).

Regarding the licensure and regulation of professional engineers under DBPR, the bill:
• removes the requirement that engineers obtain a separate license (certificate of authorization)
for their engineering firm;
• allows a licensed engineer to qualify an engineering firm without paying a separate licensing fee;
• provides an additional pathway for licensure as a professional engineer after receiving an
engineering technology degree;
• requires applicants for licensure as a professional engineer to submit proof of being 18 years of
age or older;
• allows the Board of Professional Engineers to extend certain deadlines for granting or denying a
license after an applicant fails to appear before the board;
• requires a temporary "registration" instead of a temporary "certificate" for out-of-state
engineering businesses;
• requires successor engineers to assume full responsibility when relying on the work, findings, or
recommendations of an engineer who previously sealed such documents, and releases the
original engineer from liability for prior work assumed by the successor engineer;
• clarifies the types of structural projects that require a special inspection on a threshold building,
and
• revises provisions related to alternate plans review by private providers.
The bill removes the requirement that all delinquent status licensees, licensed by DBPR or a board in
accordance with ch. 455, F.S., must apply with a complete application for reinstatement. Instead, the bill
requires boards to adopt by rule a process for reinstating a void license.

Regarding engineering contract requirements under DOT, the bill prohibits entities from performing
both design services and construction engineering and inspection services on projects that are wholly or
partially funded by DOT and administered by a local governmental entity.

Subject to the Governor's veto powers, the effective date of this bill is October 1, 2019.

49
CS/HB 977 - Public Accountancy
By: Business & Professions Subcommittee; Stevenson
Tied Bills: None
Companion Bills: CS/SB 1252
Committee(s) of Reference: Business & Professions Subcommittee; Commerce Committee
Category: Administrative Procedure; Business and Professional Regulation; Professional Regulation

The bill amends the practice act for certified public accountants (CPA) licensed by the Department of
Business and Professional Regulation by
• limiting the amount of Continuing Professional Education (CPE) that an inactive CPA must
complete in order to reactivate their license to a maximum of 120 hours, a reduction from the
current maximum of 280 hours;
• adding performing attestation engagements in accordance with the Statements on Standards
for Attestation Engagements in the practice of accountancy, which aligns Florida with the
national standard;
• making it a first degree misdemeanor for an unlicensed person to perform such attestation
engagements, and
• reducing the percentage of CPE total hours that must be devoted to accounting-related and
auditing-related subjects, to 10 percent, from 25 percent.
Subject to the Governor's veto powers, the effective date of this bill is July 1, 2019.

CS/CS/HB 1247 - Construction Bonds
By: Civil Justice Subcommittee; Business & Professions Subcommittee; Perez
Tied Bills: None
Companion Bills: CS/CS/SB 1200
Committee(s) of Reference: Business & Professions Subcommittee; Civil Justice Subcommittee;
Commerce Committee
Category: Business and Professional Regulation; Civil Justice; Courts

The bill amends the requirements for a notice of nonpayment that subcontractors, laborers, and
material suppliers are required to provide to a contractor and the surety bond insurer in order to
receive payment from a construction payment bond.

The bill:
• provides that a notice of nonpayment must be made under oath and include the nature of the
labor or services performed and to be performed, the materials furnished and to be furnished,
the amount paid on the account, and the amount due and the amount to become due;

50
• provides that a subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who files a fraudulent notice of
nonpayment loses his or her rights under the bond, but clarifies that a minor mistake in the
notice or a good faith dispute as to the amount due is not fraudulent;
• provides that the negligent inclusion or omission of any information in the notice of
nonpayment that has not prejudiced the contractor or surety bond insurer does not defeat an
otherwise valid bond claim;
• amends the notice of nonpayment service requirements with respect to rental equipment for
private construction projects to match the requirements for public construction projects, and
• provides that contractors are entitled to attorney's fees for obtaining a judgment against an
insurer for failing to make a payment under a bond issued on or after October 1, 2019.
Subject to the Governor's veto powers, the effective date of this bill is October 1, 2019.

51
Department ,of Business
& Professional Regulation

HB 447-Construction

House Business and Professions Subcommittee
September 18, 2019

GW Harrell
Director, Division of Professions
Florida Building Code, 7th Edition (2020),
Update Process

• Section 553.73(7), F.S., governs the triennial update process for the
Florida Building Code.

• HB 447's change to Section 553.73(7), F.S., has an effective date of
July 1, 2020. Therefore, the change will not impact the triennial
update process for the Florida Building Code, 7th Edition (2020).

• Currently, the triennial update process for the Florida Building Code is
a two step process and is subject to the rulemaking requirements of
Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

do~r
londa
. De rtment of Business
& Woressional Regulation 2
Florida Building Code, 7th Edition (2020),
Update Process (Cont'd)
• The first step requires the Florida Building Commission to review all
changes to certain model codes for possible inclusion in the next
edition of the Florida Building Code. In order to approve a change
from the model codes the Commission is required to make a finding
that the change is ,,necessary to accommodate a specific need of this
state. (Completed October 2018)

• The second step allows members of the public to submit proposed
code modifications for possible inclusion in the next edition of the
Florida Building Code. (Completed August 2019)

do~r
londa
De rtment of Business 3
& ~fess1onal Regulation
Florida Building Code, 7th Edition (2020),
Update Process (Cont'd)
• Commission staff is now in the process of developing a draft Florida
Building Code, 7th Edition (2020), to begin the last steps of the
Chapter 120, F.S., rulemaking process.

- The public will have an opportunity to comment on the draft Florida Building
Code, 7th Edition (2020), at the Commission's February 2020 and April 2020
meetings. The final draft of the Florida Building Code, 7th Edition (2020) , should
be available for public review by mid-June 2020.

• The tentative effective date for the Florida Building Code, 7th Edition
(2020), is December 31, 2020.

do r
londa

~
De artment of Business
& IProfessional Regulation 4
HB 447's Changes to the Florida Building
Code's Triennial Update Process
• HB 447 added the following language to the end of section
553.73(7) (a), F.S.,

- Every 3 years, the commission may approve updates to the Florida Building Code
without a finding that the updates are needed in order to accommodate the
specific needs of this state.

• Therefore, during future Florida Building Code triennial update
processes, the Commission will have the discretion to approve any
change from certain model codes without a finding that the change
is necessary to accommodate the specific needs of this state.

do fi:> r
londa
De rtment of Business
& lforessional Regulation 5
HB 447's Impact on the Florida Building Code

• Section 553.73(7), F.S., has two significant safeguards which restrict the
Commission's discretion and work to ensure the Florida Building Code
remains strong:

- Section 553.73(7) (a), F.S., requires the Commission to approve any change from the
model codes necessary to maintain federal funding and discounts from the National
Flood Insurance Program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

- Section 553.73(7) (f), F.S., prohibits the Commission from approving any change to the
Florida Building Code that would reduce the wind and water intrusion requirements of
the Florida Building Code.

do ~r
londa
De rtment of Business 6
& ~fessional Regulation
HB 447 Implementation
• The Commission will be holding rule workshops for Fla. Admin. Code R.
61 G20-2.002, to implement HB 447's change to section 553.73(7), F.S., and
discuss other possible changes to the Florida Building Code's triennial update
process.

- The rule workshops are currently scheduled for October 15, 2019, and December 10, 2019.

- Anyone interested in proposing changes to the Florida Building Code's triennial update
process should submit comments to staff for inclusion in the October workshop's agenda.

- Any changes made to the Florida Building Code's triennial update process will be
applicable to the triennial update process for the Florida Building Code, gth Edition (2023),
and other future editions of the Florida Building Code.

do ~ r
londa
De rtment of Business
& ~fessional Regulation 7
Department of Business
& Professional Regulation
www.myfloridalicense.com

Contact Information
Gabe Peters
Legislative Affairs Director
850-487-4827

8
Department of Business
& Professional Regulation

The Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board

House Business and Professions Subcommittee
September 18, 2019

Jeff Kelly
Deputy Director, Division of Professions
Grandfathering

• Grandfathering allows a currently registered contractor to apply for
and receive a statewide certified contractor's license in their same
category of Ii censure without sitting for the state contractor's
examination if the contractor meets the criteria set forth in Section
489 .514, Florida Statutes.

• A certified contractor can work anywhere within the State of Florida.

• A registered contractor can only work in the counties or municipalities
where they hold a local license.

do r
londa

~
De artment of Business
& ifrofessional Regulation
2
History of Grandfathering
489 Part II, F.S.
Statutory History

489.514 Certification for registered contractors; grandfathering provisions

• 1st 1999: Implemented grandfathering provision - no end date

• 2nd 2000: Amended statute to add an end date of November 1, 2004

• 3rd 2013: Re-opened grandfathering with an end date of November l, 2015

• 4th 2019: Re-opened grandfathering July 1, 2019 with an end date of November
1, 2021

do~r
londa
De rtment of Business 3
& ~fessional Regulation
Implementation HB 763
(Effective July 1, 2019)
• The Department of Business and Professional Regulation posted the paper application online which
includes active, inactive and additional business applications.

• The Department of Business and Professional Regulation made electronic applications available
through the Versa Online portal.

• Information regarding grandfathering was posted as a Hot Topic on the Electrical Contractors'
Licensing Board homepage.

• New frequently asked questions were added to the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board
homepage and to the Department's Ask Us system.

• A bulk email was sent to all current registered contractors making them aware of the
grandfathering opportunity and explaining how to apply.

• The Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board will continue to review local examinations not specified
in the current statute for determination of "substantial similarity" to the certified exam.

dt) ~r
londa
De rtment of Business 4
& Wofessional Regulation
Statistics as of September 12, 2019

Applications
Received
---~
Applications O
Denied
·-·---~

Licenses Issued 1 1 45

Registered 1466 Active
Licensees Eligible 318 Inactive
for Grandfathering

do~r
londa
De rtment of Business 5
& ~fessional Regulation
Statistics Compared to 2013

-Grandfathering 2013 Grandfathering 2019
Month Applications Month Applications
Received Received
July 2013 62
------·---
_______ J IJuly 2019 ~-
98
August 2013 149 August 2019 78
September 2013 114 _J September 2019 18
-
October 2013 105 October 2019 N/A
November 2013 52 ~---- ] j November 2019 ~ N/A
December 2013 39 December 2019 N/A

do~r
londa
De rtment of Business
& ~fessional Regulation 6
Department of Business
& Professional Regulation
www.myfloridalicense.com

Contact Information
Gabe Peters
Legislative Affairs Director
850-487-4827

7
Department of Business
& Professiona:1Regulation

HB 977 - Public Accountancy

House Business and Professions Subcommittee
September 18, 2019

Tim Page
Deputy Secretary, Division of Professions
Board of Accountancy Overview

• In Florida, public accountancy is regulated by the Board of
Accountancy.

~ 35,570 CPAs ~ 5, 716 Firms

• The Board consists of 9 members appointed by the Governor
- 7 are licensed CPAs in Florida and have practiced in Florida for at least 5 years
- 2 are laypersons who are not and never have been CPAs
- Each serves a 4 year term. No person shall serve more than 2 consecutive terms

do ~r
londa
· De rtment of Business 2
& ~fessional Regulation
Board of Accountancy Overview, continued
• The Board (with the help of the CPA division)

• Promulgates rules • Taking disciplinary actions
• Establishes fees • Issues letters of guidance
• Determines which educational • Sets CPE* requirements and
institutions are accredited audits CPA compliance
• Qualifies applicants for:
O
Examination 0
Licensure 0
Licensure by Endorsement

*Florida CPAs must complete continuing professional education (CPE) courses within the
limits for each applicable 2-year period. These 2 year periods end in odd or even years
on July 1. These 2-year periods are sometimes referred to as "re-establishment periods."

dofi:)r
londa
De artment of Business
& IProfessional Regulation 3
HB 977
Signed by Governor Desantis on June 7, 2019
- Effective: July l, 2019

• Amends FS 473.302(8)( d)
- Expands the definition of "practicing public accounting" to include attestation
engagements*

• Amends FS 473.312 (1 )(b)
- Lowers the Accounting & Auditing CPE requirements in a given re-establishment
period from (20} to (8} hours

*An attestation engagement is an agreement with a client where an independent 3rd
party CPA investigates and reports on the client's specific subject matter, prepared in
accordance with the Statements on Standards for Attestation Engagements.

do~r
londa
De artment of Business
& IProfessional Regulation 4
HB 97, continued

• Amends FS 473.313 (2)
- For reactivation of inactive or delinquent licenses, the bill imposes a maximum
requirement of (120) CPE to include at least (30) in Accounting & Auditing, (8)
hours in Florida Board approved ethics and -no more than (30) CPE in Behavioral
subjects. This lowered the requirement in most reactivation situations.

• Amends FS 473.322 (l)(c)
- Prohibitions now include performing attestation engagements by an unlicensed
person.

do ~r
londa
De artment of Business
& iProfessional Regulation 5
Board Approvals

• The board determined the change in the CPE requirements would be
in effect by July 1, 2019, for the renewal period ending June 30, 2020.

• The board determined the 120 hour limit and other changes be in
effect by July 1, 2019.

do ~r
londa
De rtment of Business 6
& ~fessional Regulation
Status Report on Rule Making Process
Effective September 10, 2019

ifrJliW.v. Notice

•
Date Sent to
Rule Title iiim OFARR 1
Published
iiill"Ueli In FAR 2
@lf"f"lr
Continuing
08/20/19 09/05/1 9
Professional 07/12/19 08/08/19 08/12/19
Vol.45/173
Education.
Inactive or
-
Delinquent Florida
02/06/l 9(RD) 02/12/19 08/20/19
CPAs Who Desire 07/12/19 08/08/19
08/12/19 (RN) Vol.45/162
to Become Active
Licensees.

Disciplinary
Guidelines;
Ra nge of
08/ 20/19 09/05/19
Penalties; 07/12/19 08/08/19 08/12/1 9
Vol.45/173
Aggravating and
Mitigating
Circumstances.

1 Office of Fiscal Accountability and Regulatory Reform
2 Florida Administrative Register
3 Florida Department of State

do~r
londa
~ De rtment of Business
& Woressional Regulation 7
Form Changes Completed 7/1 /2019
• The CPE Reporting Form

• Application for Licensure by Endorsement

• Reactivation Application

• Revised Instructions for the CPE reporting form and applications

do~r
londa
De artment of Business 8
& iProfessional Regulation
Outreach Efforts

~ Notified National Association of State Boards of Accountancy June 13

~ Notified Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants June 24

~ Email Blast to Florida Licensees June 26

~ CPA Division Website Banner and FAQs modified July 23

do~r
londa
De rtment of Business 9
& ~fessional Regulation
Conclusion
• The timing of the implementation of the changes resulting with HB 977
coincided well with the July 1 cut off dates for CPE requirements.

• The industry has responded favorably to the lighter requirements.

• The rule making process should be finalized in October or November,
2019.

do~r
londa
De rtment ofBusiness 10
& ~fessional Regulation
Department ,of Business
& Professional·Regulation
www.myfloridalicense.com

Contact Information
Gabe Peters
Legislative Affairs Director
850-487-4827

File and source

File: 2019-09-18-3010-business-professions-subcommittee-meeting-packets-fn-b_b768a2dd31bb8bd7.pdf
Size: 45,817,640 bytes
SHA-256: 78d43d4f28c62ddc363003c89268b44ad347fb8f5a8b7cdfc663516f6afd0548
Our copy: 2019-09-18-3010-business-professions-subcommittee-meeting-packets-fn-b_b768a2dd31bb8bd7.pdf
Original: www.flhouse.gov