Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07021981SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD MEETING - JULY '~ ,'~9 81~.. THE SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY ED PALUCH, ViCE CHAIRMAN AT 1:30 P.M. PRESENT: ED PALUCH, JIM HARRIS, DAVID HINES, GREG PALMERs_ HUS.~~¥D 170~' LA'NGLOIS _a~S~_NT: ~__rf4. AR_m 9C'-"~M'JC:'?-R , CHAIRMAN ARTHUR MAYER, BUILDING OFFICIAL OPENED THE MBETING WITH A DISCUSSION OF THE COLLAPSED ROOF AT SETON HALL, ST. WILLIAMS MISSION. HE STATED THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WAS NOTIFIED ON JUNE 10, 1981 AT 2:45 P.M. THAT THE ROOF HAD COLLAPSED ON THE MODULE BUILDING AT ST. WILLIAMS MISSION. SINCE THAT TIME THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL MEETINGS WiTH THE ARCHITECT, CONTRACTOR AND EVERYONE ELgE IN- VOLVED. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO REPAIR THE BUILDING AND WHHTCTHE COST WOULD BE. AT THIS TIME THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN WISHES TO DETERMINE WHY IT COLLAPSED AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE. MR. ARTHUR MAYER INDICATED THAT EVERYONE PRESENT HAD A COPY OF THE BLUE PRINTS AND ON THE BLUE PRINTS IT CALLS FOR TWO 2X8 TOP CORDS, TWO 2X8 BOTTOM CORDS, FOUR 5/8 SHEETS OF PLYWOOD, EXTERIOR GRADE AND GLUED. DOWN AT THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER AT THE GABLE, IT CALLS FOR 1/2" LAG BOLTS, 48" ON THE CENTER, TOP AND BOTTOM. WHEN THE BUILDING WAS INSPECTED AFTER THE COLLAPSE TWO 2X6 TOP CORDS, TWO 2X6 AND FOUR 1/2" PIECES OF PLYWOOD. WAS FOUND. ON THE LAGING, IT CALLED FOR 1/2" LAG BOLTS, 48" ON'CENTER, TOP AND BOTTOM AND THEY WERE FOUND IN VARIOUS DIMENSIONS ON THE BOTTOM UP TO 75" AND ABSOLUTELY NONE ON THE TOP. MR. EDWARD PALUCH, CHAIRMAN, SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD, STATED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO DECISION MADE AT THIS MEETING AND THAT ALL FACTS HAD TO BE HEARD AND iT WOULD BE DECIDED WHEN ANOTHER MEETING WOULD BE HELD. HE FELT THIS WOULD GIVE ENOUGH TIME FOR EVERYONE TO ANALYZE THE FACTS AND TO LOOK OVER THE SITE. MAYOR FLOOD REPORTED THAT HE HAD AN ENGINEER DO A VISUAL WALK THROUGH OF THE MODULE BUiLDiNG AND IN~¥ORDER FOR HIM TO DO A PROPER STRUCTURAL INSPECTION HE WOULD HAVE TO DO A LITTLE MORE DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING. THE FRONT, REAR WALLS AND ONE EN~WALL TO THE EAST WAS LEANING 6 TO 8 INCHES, SOME OF THE INSIDE PANELING WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED TO DETERMINE IF THE SHOE HAD BEEN PULLED OUT, IF THE STUDDING WAS PROPER ALL ACCORDING TO CODE. SOME OF THE SKIRTING WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED TO GET UNDERNEATH TO SEE IF MR. aRTHUR MAYER, INDICATED THAT THE BUILDING WaS BUILT PRIOR TO H~S COMING TO THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN AND THAT HE HAD GONE THROUGH THE FILES TO LOCATE THE BLUE PRINTS AND THAT THEY WJ~E STAMPED BY MR. JOHN SCHLITT, THE ARCHITECT. MR. JOHN SCHLITT, ARCHITECT REPORTED THAT HE WAS THE ARCHITECT AND HELPED THE PARISH WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE MODULE BUILDING FROM THE MANUFACTURER. FATHER O'HARA ASKED MR. SCHLITT TO FIND A MODULE BUILDING TO BE USED AS A TEMPORARY SOCIAL HALL BEING MR. SCHLITT HAD DONE THIS TYPE OF SERVICE BEFORE FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD. MR. SCHLITT INDICATED THAT RAINBOW CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, BARTOW, FLORIDA WAS TO MANUFACTURE THE MODULE BUILDING. AFTER THE BUILDING WAS PUT TOGETHER HE WENT TO RAINBOW CONSTRUCTION COMPAY TO INSPECT THE MODULE BUILDING BEFORE SHIPMENT. HE iNDICATED THAT THE MODULE BUILDING HAD TWO COLUMNS UNDER THE BEAM, THEY WERE NOT BOLTED TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY WERE IN POSITION TO BE SHIPPED OUT. THE BUILDING DID NOT HAVE ANY PLYWOOD ON THE IN- SIDE, THE CONDUIT WAS IN PLACE WiTH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CONDUIT THAT CONNECTS THE TWO HALVES TOGETHER. - I - SEBA~..TI~N CONSTRUCTION BOARD ~4EETZNG - JULY 2, 1981 THE CEILING WAS NOT IN BEACUSE IT WAS TO HAVE A DROPPED CEILING. ALL .THE ELECTRICAL WAS PREPARED ;~ND.--~HE~KED OUT ON THE SITE. WHEN THE BUILDING WAS DELIVERED, FOUNDATION PUT IN AND ANCHORAGE PROVIDED, M~. MUMM ASKED MR. SCHLITT TO CHECK THESE ITEFIS FOR HIM, WHICH HE DID. MR. SCHLITT AAgO INDICATED THAT WHEN HE WENT TO RAINBOW CONSTRUCTION TO TO INSPECT THE MODULE BUILDING, HE SAW n CENTER BEAM AND JOISTS, AT WHICH TI~E.~~~~ LATTERAL BRACING FROM THE WALL TO BEAM BE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHIPPING AMD FOR EXTRA STABILITY. ON MAY 17, 1976, THE BUILDING WAS DELI]FERED AND ALL ITEMS EXPOSED WERE INSPECTED. THERE WERE TWO DIAGONALS PUT IN JUST TO GIVE DIAGONAL SUPPORT FROM THE JOIST TO' THE BE~ DURING TRANSPORT AND TO GIVE A~DITIONAL LATERAL SUPPORT.~?.-~MR. SCHLITT STATED THAT HE COULD SEE THE BOTTOM PART OF THE BEAM BUT HE COULD NOT SEE IF IT WAS 1/2" OR 5/8". MADELINE SHITH, ST WILLIAMS CHURCH, WAS CURIOUS TO KNOW IF THE BF29C~ HAD NOT BEEN PL~ED UNDER THE BEAM IF THE BUILDING WOULD HAVE TOTALLY' COLLAPSED. MR. PALUCH STATED THAT THIS COULD NOT BE ANSWERED. SHE ALSO WANTED TO KNOW IF MR. SCHLITZ'COULD REALLY SEE THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION LOOKING AT IT THROUGH AN OPEN TRUCK. HR; SCHLI~T STATED THAT HE SAW IT BEING BUTTED BUT THERE WAS NO OVERLAPPING THAT HE SAW. MR. SCHLITT EXPLAINED THAT .MR. STUMP HAD ~AKEN HIM INTO THE' MANUFACTURING PLANT WHERE THE BUILDING'~AS BEING ERECTED AND THERE WERE TWO SEPARATED BUILDINGS THAT WERE BUTTED TOGETHER. THEY WERE BUTTED TOGETHER AT THE TIME BUT THEY WERE NOT BOLTED TOGETHER. THEY HAD TWO COLUMNS SUPPORTING AND THIS ZS THE.WAY THE BUILDING WAS TR2~NSPORTED. THE BUILDING WAS INTACT RE;~DY FOR TRANSPORTING EXCEPT FOR THE INTERIOR PANELiNG WHEN HE iNSPECTED IT. MADELINE SMITH, INDICATED THAT MR. SCHLITT REALLY WASN'T CHECKING THE BUILDING ACCORDING TO BUILDING SPECIFICATIONS. HR. SCHLITT STATED THAT HE DOES ALOFT OF PRE ENGINEERED"'.BUILDINGS, NOT ONLY ~40DULE BUILDINGS BUT STEEL BUILDINGS ALSO AND THAT HE IS REPONSIBLE TO KNOW W~ETHER OR NOT THE BASIC FOUNDATIONS ARE CORRECT ~VD TO SEE THAT THE CONDUIT AND TH~ ELECTRiCaL ITEMS ARE TO COD~. THE BUILDING MANUFACTURER IS STATE REGULATED AND THEY DO HAVE THEIR OWN IN- SPECTORS FOR THE SPECIFIC ITEMS. MADELINE SMITH ~ENTIONED THAT THEY SHOULD BE 'LOOE~N~ FOR THE ~~i~!~Ot~i? THE BUILDING. MR. SCHLITT EXPLAINED THAT EACH COMPANY HAS A GROUP OF INSPECTORS THAT INSPECT AND CER- TIFY THEIR BUILDINGS AS PRE-ENGINEERED BUILDINGS. ATTORNEY STEVEN H. GRAY, OCALA, FLORIDA, REPRESENTING SOUTHERNCCOHS~CT~ON. HE STATED THAT PRIOR TO MAKING ANY STATEMENTS TO THE BOARD, HE WOULD LIKE ~ STATEMENT FROM ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT AS TO WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE BEARING IS AND WHAT.7.T~E.UINTEN- TIONAL ACTIONS ARE. MR. ED PALUCH, CHAIRMAN, EXPLAINED THAT THE BOARD MEETING WAS C~D TO SEE WHO WAS AT FAULT FOR THE COLLAPSE OF THE ST. WILLI~ BUILDING. AS FAR Ag PENALTZES, NE FELT THE BOARD ;9~D NOT HAVE TO MANY POWERS, OTHER THAN THAT CONTROL WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS ITSELF. ATTORNEY GRAY INDICATED THAT THERE~5%S NOT A COPY OF THE STRUCTURAL REPORT FROM HILL, WERNER AND CARTER. -2- SEBA~.,,T~N~ CONSTRUCTION B~.ARD MEETING - JULY 2, 1981 ATTORNEY GRAY SUGGESTED THAT THE REPORT BE REVIEWED AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THERE WAS AVCONTINUED DELAY IN ALLOWING THE OWNERS, REPRESENTATIVES OF' THE MANUFACTURERS OR ANY OTHER AGENCIES TO BE ON THE JOB SITE AND TO POSSIBLY ERECT OR REPAIR THE BUILDING AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION. ATTORNEY GRAY STATED THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL TO WORK OUT A REPAIR .OF THE SITUATION WITHOUT ADMITTING LIABILITIES BEg~EN THE VARIOUS' PARTIES INVOLVED. HE ASKED THAT THIS SITUATION BE MOVED FORWARD TO CLEAR UP AND TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. MR. HUGH STUI4P, PRESIDENT, SOUTHE~STRUCTURES COMPANY, INDICATED THAT THE NAME OF SOUTHERN STRUCTURE WAS CHANGED FROM THE STUMP CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. MR. STUMP GAVE A BRIEF EXPLAiNATION OF THE BUS~NESS'S HISTORY. HE STATED THAT THEY ARE LICENSED BUILDING CONTRACTORS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND IN FOUR OTHER STATES AND TH~.YTHEY SPECiALi'ZE IN CONTRACTING MODULE BUILDINGS FOR COMMER- CIAL PURPOSES ONLY. HE EXPLAINED THE MODULE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS OF .TODAY ~ERSES 1976 WHEN THE BUILDING AT ST WILLIAM,~S WAS BUILT. EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 19'80, FLORIDA STATUTES 553, C~APTER 4 WAS ENACTED, IT WAS CALLED THE' FLORIDA MANUFACTURING BUILDING ACT. THIS ACT PROVIDED, THAT ANY CLOSED SYSTEM STRUCTURE, HANUFACTURED IN FLORIDA., SOLD IN FLORIDA OR INSTALLED IN FLORIDA MUST FIRST HAVE ITS PLANS APPROVED BY AN ENGINEERING FIRM BEFORE IT CAN BE MANUFACTURED. THESE PLANS THEN MUST BE FORWARED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, TALLAHASSEE, SO THAT THE PLANS CAN BE 'REVIEWED AGAIN IN ORDER FOR APPROVAL TO BE ISSUED TO THE MANUFACTURER OF THE BUILDING. ONCE THE BUILDING IS BUILT, A THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR WHICH IS NORMALLY AN ENGINEERING FIRM, WOULD INSPECT THE UNIT DURING MANUFACTURINGi/"GTHIS WAS NOT DONE IN 1976, IN 1976 THE SYSTEm WAS, IF A MODULE BUILDING = WAS'TO BE BUILT OFF SITE THEN A SET OF PLANS WAS TO BE FI!~ED. WITH OFFICIAL AND SOME ARRANGEMENTS HAD TO BE MADE FOR THE BUILDING TO BE INSPECTED DURING FABRICATION BEFORE IT WAS CLOSED UP. THE SYSTEM WAS TO HAVE A LOCAL PROFESSIONAL IN THE AREA OF THE MANUFACTURER INSPECT THE BUILDING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ACCORDING TO CODE. IN THIS INSTANCE, THE LOCAL BUILDING OFFICAL REQUESTED THE ARCHITECT TO MAKE THE INSPECTioN WHICH HE DID. THE MANUFACTURER OF THE BUILDING WAS RAINBOW CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, BARTOW, FLORiDA WHO iS NDT IN BUSINESS ANY LONGER. ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PURCHASED FRDM.';'RA~NB~W CONSTRUCTION COMPANY A NUMBER 'OF BUILDINGS DURING 1974-1976. AT THE PRESENT TIME ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ~A~ THET~NH~HCTURING_¥BUSIB~SS BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT GET PEOPLE TO BUILD THE BUILDINGS IN THE QUANTITY AND IN THE TiME THEY NEEDED THEM. NOW ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OWNS ANOTHER BUSINESS KNOWN AS SOUTHERN STRUCTURES MANUFACTURING COMPANY THAT MANUFACTURES BUILDINGS. MR. STUMP ASKED THE BOARD IF THEY HAD BEEN INSIDE THE COLLAPSED BUILDING. THE BOARD REPLIED THAT THEY HAD. MR. STUMP STATED THAT HE WAS INFORMED OF THE ACCIDENT ON JUNE 10, t981 BY MR, JOHN $CHLITT AND THAT HE WAS ON THE SITE WITHIN FOUR HOURS WITH SOME OF HIS EMPLOYEES. THEY FOUND THE BEA~S CLOSE TO THE FLOOR. THE BUILDING OFFICAL ALLOWED THBM TO JACK UP THE BEAMS TO RELIEVE THE STRESS ON THE RAFTERS AND THEY?~OFED.?THE.-3~AH ABOUT 6 INCHES. MR. STUMP ALgO iNDICATED THAT HE HA~ MADE ARRANGEMENTS THE NEXT DAY TO HAVE. THE BUILDING COVERED TO PROTECT ANY WATER THAT MIGHT GO INTO THE BUILDING. HIS EMPLOYEES WERE TOLD NOT TO TOUCH THE BUILDING. SINCE THAT TI, HE MR. STUMPS REPORTED THAT HE HAD BEEN TO THE BUILDING TWICE. HE SUGGESTED TO MR. SCHLITT THAT HE EMPLOY AN INDEPENDENT ENGINEER WHO ,~~ IN MODULE CONSTRUCTION AND WHO WOULD BE APPROVED AS A THIRD PARTY INSPECTION AGENCY FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA. ~ MR. DWIGHT ELLENWOOD, CHIEF OF THE MODULE DIVISION, FLORIDADEI~~OF~=cOM~B~Tir~ ~- AFFAIRS INSPECTED THE BUILDING IN THE PRESENCE OF ARTHUR MAYER, BUILDING OFFICIAL. HE STATED THAT THE BUILDING WAS REP~RIRABLE AND HE SUGGESTED SPECIFIC i~EANS AND METHODS FOR THE REPAIR. 3--- SEBASTIAN CONSTRHCTiON BOARD MEETING - JULY 2, 1981 MR. PALUCH QUESTIONED WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION STRUCTURALLY OF THE BUILDING. MR. STUMP INDICATED THAT THE ARCHITECT, BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR ALL INSPECTED THE BUILDING AND ALL OVER LOOKED THE DEFECTS. MR. STUMP INDICATED THAT ~INEOW--BUIL~gER~.WASCNOTii~iCERT~FSED~?BUiLDER TO HIS KNOWLEDGE. MR. STUMP REPORTED THAT HE SAW THE BUILDING WHEN iT WAS IN TWO HALVES, ALONG WITH THE ARCHITECT. IT WAS THEN TRANSPORTED TO THE SiTE BY A CONTRACTING OUTFIT. MR. STUMP INDICATED THAT HiS CREW PUT THE FOOTING IN AND SET THE UNIT SIDE BY SIDE AND BOLTED IT TOGETHER. NO ONE SAW THE JOIST BEAM BUTTED WHEN THE HALVES WERE PUT TOGETHER. MR. JIM HARRIS, REPORTED THAT IN THE REPORT HE READ THAT THE BOLTS WERE MORE THAN 48" APART. MR. STUMP AGAIN STATED THAT THE BEAM FAILED BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE WORKMANSHIP iN THE FABRICATION OF THE BEAM AND THAT BOTH BEAMS WERE FABRICATED IDENTICALLY. THEY FAILED TO TURN THEM END FOR END AND BOTH DEFECTS ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE EACH OTHER. ARTHUR MAYER INDICATED THAT HE STOPPED MR. STUMP FROM COVERING THE BUILDING BECAUSE WITH HEAVY RAINS AND.WATER ACCUMULATING ON THE TOP OF THE COVERING IT WOULD BE TO MUCH PRESSURE FOR THE BUILDING TO WITHSTAND. MR. STUMP READ THE ENGINEERS REPORT ON THE REPAIRS NECESSARY AND THE PROCEDURES THAT WERE TO BE FOLLOWED. IT WAS ONCE AGAIN CLARIFIED THAT MR. SCHLITT WAS NOT EMPLOYED BY MR. STUMP, HE WAS A REPRESENTATIVE OR AGENT OF HIS OWN AND THAT HE iNSPECTED THE BUILDING AFTER iT WAS BUILT AND THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AS TO WHEN THE BUILDING WAS BEING CONSTRUCTED SO~'~'TH~T AN INSPCECTION COULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT THAT TIME.' MR. SCHLITT RECOMMENDED THAT THE DIOCESE AND THE PARISH HIRE A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO PROVIDE THE DETAIL DRAWINGS AND ALL INFORMATION NECESSARY TO PUT THE BUILDING IN A&i CONDITION. MR. JIM HARRIS STATED THAT HE WANTED IT TO BE ON RECORD THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING TODAY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AND THAT MR. STUMP HAS ASSUMED ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COLLAPSED BUILDING. MOTION BY MR. JIM~',-HARRIS THAT THE MEETING HE ADJOURNED. MOTION DIED LACK OF A SECOND. ATTORNEY GRAY STATED THAT MR. STUMP HAD ONLY ASSUMED SOME OF THE RESPONDIBILITY OF THE COLLAPSED ROOF AND THAT HE WANTED THE SITUATION CLEARED UP. HE ALSO INDICATED THAT' THE EVENTUAL DETERMINATION AND RELATIVE RESPONSIBILITY IS A CIVIL MATTER AND THAT HE FELT IT WASN'T EVEN WiTHINiTHE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OR ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED THAT COULD CLEAR THIS MATTER UP. THE CONSTRHCTION BOARD MEMBERS LEFT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS TO INSPECT THE COLLAPSED THE BUILDING. THE CONSTRUCTION BOARD RETURNED ~0 THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 4:00 P.M. AND STATED THAT AFTER LOOKING AT THE FAILED BEAM THEY HAD COME TO A CONCLUSION. - 4 - SEBASTIAN CONSTRUCTION BOARD ~4EETING ..... - JULY 2 ~ 1981 MOTION BY JIM HARRIS, SECONDED BY ED PALUCH, THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY FROM THE FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED TODAY FROM LOOKING AT THE DAMAGED BEAM, RHINBOW BUILDERS, THE MANUFACTURER, MR. STUMP, CONTRACTOR AND MR. JOHN SCHLITT, ARCHITECT WILL BEHELD RESPONSIBLE. CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED 4:10 P.M. -5-