Florida Roofing March 2024

UV-resistant. Single-step. Direct-to-deck application.

Peel & Seal® provides a complete waterproofing barrier to the elements.

Self-adhering and easy-to-use low-slope and flashing membrane.

Peel & Seal® is the original, self-stick roll roofing specifically designed for low-slope roofing applications, as well as a durable flashing membrane for exterior penetrations. Designed to be left exposed to the elements, count on Peel & Seal® to provide a long lasting, durable, and maintenance-free surface.

• Aggressively adheres direct to the surface

• Designed to be left exposed to the elements

• Ideal for hundreds of waterproofing applications

• 10-year warranty

Count on Peel & Seal® for ease of installation and increased savings!

FRSA Affiliate News

Roofing Community Unites at Tampa Bay Sporting Clays

In the heart of Tampa Bay, the West Coast Roofing Contractors Association’s (WCRCA) 7th Annual Sporting Clays Event unfolded as a resounding success last month. The picturesque Tampa Bay Sporting Clays venue set the stage for an exceptional day of camaraderie, competition and community engagement, bringing together 155 shooters from the roofing industry and beyond.

Roofers’ Big Hearts Shine Through

The event underscored the generosity and compassion inherent in the roofing industry. As the roofers assembled, it was evident that their commitment extended beyond professional endeavors. The collective spirit of giving back to the community and supporting local businesses became a focal point, creating an atmosphere of unity and a shared purpose.

Honoring Heroes: Veterans, Gold Star Families and First Responders

A heart-felt aspect of the event was the sponsorship of 20 veterans, four Gold Star Family members and four First Responders, emphasizing the industry’s dedication to acknowledging and supporting those who have made significant sacrifices. The outing not only provided these individuals with a day of recreation but also served as a heartfelt tribute to their service.

Behind the Scenes: Dedicated Volunteers Make It Happen

Eight dedicated volunteers worked tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure the seamless execution of the event. Their commitment and hard work played a pivotal role in the day’s success, embodying the roofing community’s collaborative and supportive ethos.

Generous Support from Sponsors

The overwhelming support from sponsors was a testament to the industry’s collective commitment. Over 25 businesses and organizations contributed generously to the event, showcasing a shared dedication to positively impacting the community. Their financial contributions culminated in an impressive $5,000 raised for the Black Dagger Military Hunt Club.

Commemorative Challenge Coins: A Symbol of Unity

Each shooter was presented with a commemorative challenge coin as a lasting token of the event. These coins serve as tangible reminders of the collective effort made by the roofing industry to support a worthy cause and unite in creating a meaningful difference in the lives of those who have served our country.

Looking Ahead: Anticipation for the 8th Annual Event

The success of the 7th Annual Sporting Clays Event has set the stage for an even brighter future. Plans are already in motion for the 8th annual event in 2025, with aspirations to surpass this year’s achievements and continue the tradition of positively impacting the community. The legacy of this remarkable charity event will undoubtedly serve as an enduring source of inspiration for the roofing industry, fostering a spirit of collaboration and compassion for years to come.

FRSA has 12 Affiliate chapters throughout Florida with membership open to contractors, manufacturers and suppliers in the industry. For more information on Affiliate locations, please visit www.floridaroof.com/affiliate-council/.

Roofing Day in Tallahassee

Lisa Pate, FRSA Executive Director

In mid-January, FRSA held the second annual Roofing Day in Tallahassee, where a small group of members visited the Capitol to speak with legislators. The event mirrored NRCA’s successful Roofing Day in D.C. Spearheaded by Governmental Affairs Committee Chairs, Ralph Davis, Streamline Roofing & Construction Inc., Tallahassee and Tammy Hall, CFS Roofing Services LLC, Ft. Myers and organized by FRSA Legislative Counsel, Chris Dawson, the group held several successful meetings over the two-day event.

With the legislative session only a week in, some of the topics we addressed were just being presented to members of the legislature and were new to our group as well. Chris was able to schedule meetings with several key legislators who focused on business, education, building codes, workers’ comp and contractor fraud. A large number of bills contained language attempting to limit the control Homeowners Associations (HOAs) held over homeowners, including various types of hurricane protection and materials currently not allowed by many HOAs.

In order to cover as many meetings as possible, attendees broke into two groups. Meetings were held with Representatives John Snyder, Bobby Payne, Dan Daley, Griff Griffitts, Vicki Lopez, Adam Botana, Wyman Duggan, Linda Chaney and David Smith. Senators included Ana Maria Rodriguez, Ed Hooper, Blaise Ingoglia and Jay Collins. The team also had dinner with Senator Keith Perry, FRSA member and industry supporter.

Top legislative priorities for the team included: HB 917 Career and Technical Education, SB 604 Citizens Property Insurance, SB 802 Condominium Windstorm Pilot Program, SB 1200 Enforcement of the Florida Building Code, SB 600 Hurricane Protections for Homeowners’ Associations, HB 939 Consumer Protection, SB 1658, PEO Workers’ Compensation Gap and Residential Property Insurance Roof Inspections, HB 49 Employment and Curfew of Minors and SB 1778 Escrow Accounts for Improvements to Residential Real Property.

During several meetings, the team asked that roofing contractors be added to those allowed to perform roof inspections via amendments to HB 1611 and SB 1622. Both bills are omnibus insurance bills moving through the legislative process.

The final meeting was with Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis where the team addressed property insurance issues and contractor fraud prevention.

All of the meetings were very productive and the team had the opportunity to provide additional language for consideration on some bills.

Chris was able to keep us on task, focused and on time – no small feat. Special thanks to our sponsors Eagle Roofing Products and the Southwest Roofing Florida Roofing Contractors Association (SWFRCA) for underwriting the expense!

(Here and top of page) Roofing Day attendees meet with CFO Patronis: property insurance, workers' comp and contractor fraud were discussed as issues of concern to the industry.

Roofing Day attendees meet with Rep. Griff Griffitts.

Meeting with Rep. Linda Cheney

A Lego replica of the Historic Capitol on display inside the current Capitol

Senator Vicki Lopez Senator Ed Hooper

Chris Dawson discusses current legislation with Senator Ana Maria Rodriguez.

Ralph Davis, Tibor Torok and FRSA President Les Sims, CPRC talk strategies.

The team from Roofing Day 2024

L-R: John Campbell, Lisa Pate, Senator Ed Hooper, Matt Criswell, Tammy Hall, John Caron, Tristan Starbird and Jacob Piazza

L-R: Tibor Torok, Debbie Guidry, Les Sims, CPRC, Rep. Wyman Duggan, Ralph Davis and Tristan Starbird

L-R: Matt Criswell, Jacob Piazza, Tammy Hall, Senator Ana Maria Rodriguez, Lisa Pate, John Campbell, Tristan Starbird and John Caron

Recent Case Urges Caution with DBE Requirements

If you are familiar with the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), you know it is intended to level the playing field for small businesses owned by those who are economically and socially disadvantaged. The program was created to address past discrimination in contracts for federally assisted transit, highway and airport projects.

However, as a recent case illustrates, when companies take advantage of the system, courts will not hesitate to prosecute.

Details of the Case

The defendants – a painting subcontractor and its owner – were involved in two federally funded contracts to perform repairs to Philadelphia’s Amtrak 30th Street Station and Girard Point Bridge. Both projects had DBE requirements, so the defendants planned to purchase their painting supplies from DBE-certified Markias, Inc. However, Markias did not actually provide the materials but instead acted as

a “pass-through.” They acquired the materials from non-DBE suppliers and added a fee of 2.25 percent to the cost. Upon receiving the materials, the defendants provided one check to the paint suppliers and another to Markias for its pass-through services. Believing that the defendants had used DBE-certified suppliers, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) awarded DBE credits to the defendants for the total cost of the paint supplies.

Once the facts were uncovered, a federal grand jury charged the defendants with federal wire fraud and they were convicted.

The Case on Appeal

After that ruling, the defendants appealed the decision and argued that the property aspect of wire fraud had not been proven and that PennDOT’s losses were miscalculated.

The Third Circuit reviewed the details and determined that the wire fraud statute was, in fact, applicable because PennDOT's funds satisfied the property element. The court determined that the defendants schemed to obtain millions of PennDOT funding by misrepresenting the DBE qualification.

Interestingly, the appeals court agreed with the defendants’ assertion that the district court miscalculated PennDOT’s losses and that dollar amount influenced the defendants’ sentencing. The district court had reasoned that the defendants’ profits were equal to PennDOT’s losses. However, the appeals court ruled that approach to be inaccurate. It stated that the defendants’ profits were not entirely fraudulent since they had committed to DBE-certified services for only some of their work. Therefore, the loss calculation was remanded to the district court to be reexamined.

What This Ruling Means for Contractors

Working with DBE-certified companies can benefit all parties and this DOT program is definitely worth supporting. However, contractors must use caution and ensure they do not get caught up in fraudulent deals between customers and DBE pass-throughs. If you are trying to satisfy a DBE requirement, make certain the people you are doing business with are

actually DBE-certified and are not acting only as passthroughs for other companies. Violating the terms of this program can lead to criminal conviction and law enforcement agencies, including the DOT, FBI and U.S. Attorney’s offices, take fraudulent DBE activity quite seriously.

For more information on DBE, please visit www.floridaroof.com/dbe.

The information contained in this article is for general educational information only. This information does not constitute legal advice, is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as legal advice for your specific factual pattern or situation.

Trent Cotney is a partner and Construction Practice Group Leader at the law firm of Adams and Reese LLP and FRSA General Counsel. You can contact him at 813-227-5501 or trent.cotney@arlaw.com.

Free Legal Helpline for FRSA Members

Adams and Reese LLP is a full-service law firm dedicated to serving the roofing industry. FRSA members can contact Trent Cotney to discuss and identify legal issues and to ask general questions through access to specialized counsel. They offer free advice (up to 15 minutes) for members. If additional legal work is required, members will receive discounted rates. This is a pro bono benefit provided to FRSA members only. Contact Trent at 813-227-5501.

What’s Wrong with These Pictures?

John Kenney, CPRC, CEO, Cotney Consulting Group

AIA Billing Guide for Roofing Contractors

Managing finances is as crucial as the physical work in roofing and construction and learning how to manage AIA Billing is part of the process. It refers to a standardized payment application method for progress payments in construction. Central to this process are two fundamental forms: G-702, Application and Certificate for Payment and G-703, Continuation Sheet. These documents are pivotal in delineating the work completed and streamlining the payment process between subcontractors, general contractors (GCs) and project owners. This system facilitates clarity and ensures that all parties are on the same page regarding payment stages.

Adopting AIA billing practices in construction comes with numerous benefits. These forms, developed through the collective inputs of contractors, engineers, accountants, lawyers and other industry experts, simplify and standardize various aspects of billing. This standardization is vital in reducing billing errors, ensuring compliance with contractual terms and facilitating faster payments. Furthermore, familiarity with AIA billing opens doors to larger projects from major GCs and government entities, significantly expanding business opportunities for roofing contractors.

Despite its myriad advantages, transitioning to AIA billing can be daunting, particularly for those new to the process. The terminology and detailed requirements of AIA forms may initially seem overwhelming. In addition, these forms are designed with a slight bias in favor of project owners, necessitating a careful and thorough review by contractors. However, understanding and navigating these challenges is a crucial step toward harnessing the full benefits of AIA billing.

A Practical Guide to Completing Forms

Completing AIA forms can be a meticulous process that requires attention to detail. Before filling out these forms, gather all relevant information, including the original contract’s details, the schedule of values (SOV), any approved change orders, retainage details and information about stored materials. This preparation ensures that the forms are completed accurately and comprehensively, leaving no room for error or misinterpretation.

Detailed Form Breakdown

The G-702 form acts as a summary document for payment requests and is divided into three main sections: Project Details, Application for Payment and Signatures. Each section requires accurate information from basic contract details to calculation of

the requested payment amount.

Similarly, the G-703 form or Continuation Sheet complements the G-702 by detailing individual line items of work and their respective values. This form is divided into Application Information and a Table of Work and Values. Each column in this table, from the work description to the balance to finish, plays a vital role in documenting the progress and value of the work completed. A thorough, accurate understanding of how to complete these sections is fundamental for effective billing.

Post-submission Process

Once the AIA billing forms are submitted, they undergo a review process by the GC or project owner. This phase may involve approvals, revisions or requests for additional documentation. Understanding this workflow is critical to ensuring a smooth billing process. Roofing contractors should be prepared for potential revisions and have supporting documentation to justify their billing claims. This proactive approach can significantly reduce the turnaround time for payment approvals and foster a sense of trust and reliability with GCs and project owners.

The Role of Change Orders in AIA Billing

Change orders are an inevitable part of construction projects, including roofing. They can significantly affect the project’s scope, cost and timeline. Managing change orders is crucial because they must be accurately documented and incorporated into the billing process. Understanding how to process change orders through AIA documents ensures that all changes are accounted for, prevents disputes and ensures contractors are compensated for all work performed.

Retainage and Its Impact on Cash Flow

Retainage, a portion of the contract sum withheld until project completion, is a common practice in construction contracts to ensure contractor performance. AIA billing documents include provisions for retainage, allowing for its calculation and management throughout the project. Roofing contractors must know how

retainage affects their cash flow and how to negotiate favorable yet fair terms for all parties involved.

Leveraging Technology for AIA Billing Efficiency

Advancements in technology have introduced software solutions specifically designed to simplify the AIA billing process. These tools can automate the creation of G-702 and G-703 forms, track real-time changes and ensure accuracy in billing submissions. Roofing contractors can significantly reduce administrative burdens, minimize errors and improve billing efficiency by adopting such technologies.

Best Practices for a Smooth AIA Billing Process

Early Engagement: Engage with the general contractor or project owner early on to understand their specific billing requirements and timelines.

Regular Updates: Update the SOV and progress regularly and keep them transparent to avoid surprises or disputes at billing times.

Documentation: Maintain meticulous records of all work performed, change orders and communications related to billing to support your payment applications. Training: Invest in training for your team to ensure they understand AIA billing processes, software and best practices.

Navigating Disputes and Delays in Payment

Despite the structured approach of AIA billing, disputes and delays can still occur. Roofing contractors should be prepared to address these challenges in a professional manner. This includes understanding the dispute resolution mechanisms provided within the AIA contract documents and maintaining open lines of communication with all project stakeholders. Knowing

when to escalate an issue and how to leverage mediation or arbitration can save relationships and projects.

Mastering the intricacies of AIA billing is not just a financial imperative for roofing contractors; it is a gateway to enhanced opportunities and smoother project collaborations. Embracing AIA billing practices brings about a fundamental change that offers benefits such as reduced errors, compliance assurance, faster payments and access to larger projects. While the transition may seem daunting initially, navigating through the detailed AIA forms and adopting best practices ensures a seamless billing process. As roofing contractors, the rewards of efficiency, credibility and expanded business opportunities await.

John Kenney, CPRC has over 50 years of experience in the roofing industry. He started his career by working as a roofing apprentice at a family business in the Northeast and worked his way up to operating multiple Top 100 Roofing Contractors. As CEO, John is intimately familiar with all aspects of roofing production, estimating and operations. During his tenure in the industry, John ran business units associated with delivering excellent workmanship and unparalleled customer service while ensuring his company’s strong net profits before joining Cotney Consulting Group. If you would like any further information on this or another subject, you can contact John at jkenney@cotneyconsulting.com.

Industry Updates

Gulfeagle Leadership Promotions

Gulfeagle Supply announces changes in leadership as they continue to expand. Miriam Mata will be taking on an expanded leadership role as National Operations and Training Manager includes operations training, implementing Gulfeagle best practices nationally and supporting future greenfield and acquisition onboarding. Miriam will lead her team of Branch Training Specialists, ensuring all new and existing branches have the training and support necessary to continue Gulfeagle's nationwide growth.

Mike Bily will be moving into a Branch Training Specialist role. Mike brings tremendous value to the organization with 14 years of experience as Branch Manager, Regional Operations Manager and most recently, Regional Manager.

Holcim Building Envelope Names Pagano

Senior Vice President

Holcim Building Envelope has named Lauren Pagano as Senior Vice President of the Adhesives, Coatings and Sealants (ACS) business unit, which encompasses Gaco and a portfolio of recognized brands for commercial, industrial and residential applications. Pagano will provide leadership for the business unit, including responsibility for strategy, marketing,

sales, operations and technology, supply chain, customer service and planning.

“As our business grows, we continue to focus on bringing innovative and sustainable building solutions to the market and we are pleased to have Lauren assume the important role of spearheading the strategic direction of the ACS business,” said Jamie Gentoso, President, Holcim Building Envelope and Global Head, Holcim Solutions & Products. “There are many opportunities to expand in our current markets and beyond and we believe Lauren is uniquely qualified to lead this strategic business to new heights.”

Lauren most recently served as Global Business Director at Trinseo, with previous executive roles at Worthington Industries, H.B. Fuller and James Hardie Building Products. As an accomplished commercial leader, she brings a broad array of experience from across various facets of the building materials industry to her new role.

UF Takes First Place as The Roofing Alliance Announces Student Competition Winners

During the International Roofing Expo in February, NRCA held a presentation for the Student Competition. The five finalist teams gave oral presentations as the final step of the 10th Anniversary Roofing Alliance Construction Management Student Competition. This year, the teams were tasked with submitting a qualified bid package for the Formula 1 Paddock Building, Las Vegas. The oral presentation scores were combined with the teams’ written proposal scores to determine the winning team.

Top Three Construction Management Schools

■ First place: University of Florida

■ Second place: Colorado State University

■ Third place: TIE – Auburn University, Bradley University

Best Individual Presenters:

■ Nick Hanson, University of Florida

■ John Falavolito, Texas A&M University

Are Shingles Getting Nailed Unfairly?

Mike Silvers, CPRC, Owner, Silvers Systems Inc. and FRSA Director of Technical Services

Are you wondering if this is a misprint? Did he mean to say, "nailed improperly" instead of "unfairly." No, "getting nailed" refers to the recent negative narrative that asphalt shingles have had to endure, one that questions their resilience and longevity. This has been especially true after hurricanes. My answer to the question would be, “Yes, they are being attacked unfairly,” and I’d like to add some observations and thoughts to explain my position – with a few caveats.

Rest assured, my objective here isn’t to promote one roof covering type over others. As a contractor, I took the following part of our license definition literally: “Roofing contractor means a contractor whose services are unlimited in the roofing trade and who has the experience, knowledge and skill to install, maintain, repair, alter, extend or design, if not prohibited by law and use materials and items used in the installation, maintenance, extension and alteration of all kinds of roofing.” (Florida Statues 489.105.) Over the course of my career, I have installed and overseen the installation of steep-slope roof systems including metal, tile, asphalt shingles, slate, wood shakes and shingles as well as most types of low-slope roof systems. I can see the value and aesthetic appeal in all of these systems.

Is There a Perfect Roof Type?

I’m often asked: "What is the best roof system?" My response is that there isn’t one perfect roof for all situations but there is a perfect roof for a particular building and the customer's circumstances. When

selecting a roof type, each building presents many factors (slope, location, height, sheathing, etc.) that need to be considered. For many property owners, cost and return on investment are definitely considerations. I will admit that I have an affinity for asphalt roof systems. Many decades of experience with asphalt shingles taught me that using high-quality asphalt, reinforced with multiple layers and properly surfaced, will provide increasingly better performance than "entry level" products. Clearly, there is a cost at which the benefits of these improvements will result in a diminishing return on investment. In the broadest terms, however, additional thickness and more layers are typically better.

Shingle Misconceptions

One statement I hear regularly is that asphalt shingles will only last 15 years in Florida. To me, this statement is almost laughable. My family started roofing in the Tampa Bay area in 1961. So, during my years in the industry, I’ve been able to continually observe many properly installed roof systems and make note of their performance. About 10 years ago, we removed some very thick organic two-tab shingles on four buildings with 14:12 mansards that my father installed. They were over 40 years old. Not so much as a tab was missing and granule loss was minimal. Back in their day, these shingles were a premium heavyweight product. At that time, we differentiated quality of shingles by weight per square (225# or 260# per 100 sq. ft.). It was a simple and effective method until

someone figured out that a little sand or other cheap material could be thrown in the mix to increase weight without adding cost. The industry eventually moved away from using weight as a standard. This was about the same time that fiberglass replaced organic paper as shingle reinforcement, which substantially reduced the weight of typical shingles. Manufacturers were reluctant to market the weight of shingles that weighed less than 200# per square. Without weight as a way to distinguish better quality, the industry turned to the length of warranty to indicate good, better and best. Manufacturer warranties for 20, 30, 40 and even 50 years helped to serve that function. The length of the warranty, however, was easily manipulated and wasn’t the most accurate way to indicate expected performance. Eventually, most shingle warranties on all but the lowest cost shingles became limited lifetime warranties. This left contractors and consumers with few ways to demonstrate or understand what represents a better, more effective asphalt shingle product.

The roof on our house was installed in early 1997 (see picture on previous page taken in early 2024) with a high-quality asphalt shingle with a minimum of four layers when installed. It was very well installed with what, in my opinion, were the best materials available at the time. It is 27 years old and is – and will continue to be –in serviceable condition for many more years to come. When I tell someone how old it is they are usually quite surprised and may question my powers of recollection. When I reassure them that my memory is perfectly fine, they often follow up with a question similar to this: "How can I get a better shingle like yours?" In answering, I have two options. I can tell them about my specific product by name, even though I know there are other manufacturers that also offer similarly high-performing products. Since I represent FRSA, I don’t want to do that for obvious reasons. Or, I could tell them to just spend more money and hopefully they will get a better product. That is a suggestion that understandably is not usually very well received.

So how can we explain, without using a manufacturers trade name or literature, good, better and best? It is extremely frustrating to try to explain a product’s ability to provide better performance when there are few ways to quantify this. Most of these products (good, better or best) offer the same wind resistance rating and the same length of warranty. The need to clearly demonstrate improved material performance is a mission that should be embraced by manufacturers. Hopefully, a standard can be established that demonstrates a better level of performance. If there isn’t a way to demonstrate better expected performance, then all shingles will continue to be judged by the failures of the lowest quality products.

Hip and Ridge Failures

A major area of concern reported after all recent hurricanes continues to be hip and ridge failures. These

failures are observed on all steep-slope roof types. When FEMA makes wind mitigation observations and there is any amount of visible damage, then it is considered a failure. Most of these failures seldom lead to water intrusion but they often lead to an insurance claim made by a concerned homeowner. Even though the roof damage could easily be repaired, the insurer will approve the installation of tarps. On a shingle roof these tarps are most often held in place by screws or nails driven through furring strips often over the entire roof. This creates hundreds of holes that makes properly repairing the roof unfeasible, leading to the unnecessary cost of a full roof replacement.

Hip and ridge shingles do not currently have a test method to demonstrate wind resistance, thereby leaving a gap in how to address these failures. The FEMA Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) report on Hurricane Ian – parts of which are included below – specifically suggests in Recommendation FL-10-a “that a test standard specifically for hip and ridge should be developed and that as an alternative to testing, a prescriptive solution that includes the use of an appropriate adhesive should be developed and included in the IBC, IRC and FBC.” FRSA’s Codes Subcommittee will look for ways to address this issue during the 2026 code development cycle. Our approach may include testing or other research and proposing specific code changes based on what we discover.

Included below are excerpts from both the FEMA and Roofing Industry Council on Weather Issues (RICOWI) reports. I was a member of both observation teams and feel strongly that there is a lot to be learned from these reports I have added bold typeface in many places for emphasis. A review of these reports will help demonstrate the depth of the problem. The negative narrative concerning asphalt shingle performance will continue until the industry addresses varying levels of performance, the availability of betterperforming products and, in particular, improves hip and ridge shingles.

FEMA Mitigation Assessment Team Report

Hurricane Ian in Florida Building Performance

Observations, Recommendations and Technical Guidance FEMA P-2342/December 2023

Note: Excerpts Only

Executive Summary – Wind

Wind-related structural damage to pre-FBC buildings was isolated to a few areas. However, failure of building envelope components was observed to some degree at all sites visited. The most common building envelope damage observed was roof covering failure, although the extent of damage varied significantly across all structures in the areas visited by the MAT.

4. Wind-Related Observations

This chapter describes the MAT wind-related observations of the performance of building envelope and structural systems of newer residential buildings. The performance of recent roof replacements on older residential buildings was also analyzed. Buildings that were built after March 2012 (effective date of the 2010 FBC) and roof replacements that were done after June 2015 (effective date of the 5th Edition, 2014 FBC) were given priority for observation. The MAT did not observe structural damage of the main wind force resisting systems (MWFRSs) due to wind for any postFBC buildings in the areas visited. However, failures of building envelope components were observed to some degree at all sites visited. Roof covering failure was the most common building envelope damage observed by the MAT. However, the degree of damage to each structure varied significantly.

4.2.4. Roof Coverings

This section highlights the performance of roof coverings and underlayment methods on post-FBC houses observed by the MAT in addition to the performance of recent roof replacements on older houses. Common Roof Coverings provides a general description of the performance of the common roof covering types in the areas where Hurricane Ian’s estimated wind speeds were the highest. Data Analysis of the Performance of Newer Roof Coverings provides an analysis of damage frequency of roof coverings installed in accordance with the 5th Edition, 2014 FBC and later editions compared to those installed prior to the 5th Edition, 2014 FBC.

Common Roof Coverings

Asphalt shingles and metal panels were, by far, the most common types of roof coverings encountered in the areas assessed by the MAT. Although roof covering damage was widespread at all sites visited by the MAT, the degree of roof covering damage varied across the sites. The most common damage observed by the MAT for all roof coverings was displacement of hip and ridge roof coverings.

Asphalt Shingle Roof Coverings

The MAT observed widespread damage to asphalt shingle roofs on both newer and older construction for all sites visited. However, the degree of damage varied considerably. Generally, newer asphalt shingle roofs significantly outperformed older asphalt shingle roof coverings (see Data Analysis of the Performance of Newer Roof Coverings). Figure 4-12 shows a house with an asphalt shingle roof in Placida, Fla. Permit data extracted using a desktop analysis

Built in 1987.

Asphalt shingle roof. Roof age unknown.

Asphalt shingle roof replacement. December 2020.

Figure 4-12.

Asphalt shingle roof replacement. March 2010.

FEMA MAT Figure 4-13: NOAA imagery of asphalt shingle damage on houses adjacent to the house shown in Figure 4-12 (EWS = 128 mph) (Placida)

FEMA MAT Figure 4-12: A house with an asphalt shingle roof that was replaced in December 2020 with no damage (EWS = 128 mph; DWS = 155 mph) (Placida)

indicated an asphalt shingle roof replacement was performed in December 2020. As observed at the site visit and corroborated by the homeowner, the roof covering did not sustain any damage. However, the homeowner did report interior water damage due to water intrusion through the soffits. Figure 4-13 shows considerable asphalt shingle damage to older roof coverings on adjacent houses. The houses on this street with metal panel roofs did not have any damage that could be observed by the MAT during the site visits or from NOAA imagery.

Data Analysis of the Performance of Newer Roof Coverings

In addition to evaluating the overall performance of new construction in the path of Hurricane Ian, the MAT performed a data analysis of the performance of newer roof coverings on older buildings as well as new buildings. Given the availability of online permit data, the MAT used a desktop analysis to identify specific locations where roofs had recently been replaced. With the parcel data, reroofing permit data and NOAA post-Hurricane Ian storm imagery (www.floridaroof.com/noaa-post-ian-satellite), the MAT targeted locations within the impacted area where there were clusters of new construction, recent reroofs and older roofs. The clusters included buildings on the same street or adjacent streets. The wind speeds the buildings were exposed to and the

exposure categories were similar within each cluster. The goal was to evaluate the performance of newer roof coverings compared to older roof coverings and determine, to the extent possible, the level of water intrusion that occurred through failed or damaged roof coverings. As previously indicated, based on initial damage surveys and other reports, there was less evidence of water intrusion damage from wind-driven rain than was observed in previous storms. However, as previously stated, Hurricane Ian was a far less than a design-level wind speed event.

Summary of All Clusters Table 4-3 (page 20) summarizes the roof covering performance for all targeted clusters visited by the MAT. Damage percentages for asphalt shingle and metal panel roofs are also indicated in the table.

As previously stated, the MAT observed widespread roof covering damage throughout the sites visited. The predominant types of roof coverings observed in the impacted area were asphalt shingles and metal panels. Although roof covering damage was widespread, based on the desktop analysis using NOAA imagery and site visits, roof covering damage did not appear as extensive on each building as has been observed in recent major storms, such as Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Michael. However, considering the required design wind speeds for new roof coverings in the areas impacted by Hurricane Ian compared to the estimated wind speeds in

FEMA MAT Figure 4-1: Summary of Roof Covering Damage in a Cluster 1; Port Charlotte (EWS = 127 mph)

FEMA MAT Figure 4-2: Summary of Roof Covering Damage in a Cluster 2; Port Charlotte (EWS = 128 mph)

Hurricane Ian, there was more wind damage to roof coverings observed than anticipated. While the data and observations show newer roof coverings generally performed better than older roof coverings, several relevant points should also be considered in this analysis Changes to both material and installation requirements have been improved in recent FBC code development cycles that have led to and will lead to better wind uplift performance. Additionally, through innovation and market forces, some manufacturers have made improvements to their products in this regard in ways that may not be readily apparent using current testing methods. Lastly, these observations do not take into account likely significant differences in the quality of installation methods. The most prevalent type of damage observed after Hurricane Ian, was damage to hips and ridges, which was observed on both newer and older roofs. While some homeowners indicated their homes had experienced water intrusion through the roof, the majority stated that water intrusion was more typically through soffits and sliding glass

doors. Discussions with homeowners and a desktop analysis performed after the site visits also revealed that many roof coverings were being replaced on roofs with minor to no discernible damage. Although the MAT visited a house with the tile roof, the MAT could not identify any damage to the roof on the NOAA imagery or from the site visit. However, a permit was pulled in March 2023 for a tile replacement for “storm-related repair/replacement.” Another example of this is the house shown in Figure 4-45 (page 21), which was built in 2002 and replaced with asphalt shingles in February 2019. Using NOAA imagery and observations during the site visit, the MAT only saw minor hip shingle damage. However, a permit was issued in November 2022 for a complete asphalt shingle roof replacement.

6.1. Overview of Conclusions and Recommendations

The conclusions in the sections that follow are drawn from the MAT observations discussed in previous chapters. Each conclusion sets up a list of specific recommendations. The recommendations are presented as guidance to the many stakeholders listed in the introduction to this chapter and those who are involved with the design, construction and maintenance of the built environment in the state, as well as other regions impacted by hurricanes. The entities involved in the reconstruction and mitigation efforts should consider these recommendations in conjunction with their existing priorities and resources when determining how they can or will be implemented.

6.3.

Wind-Related Building Codes, Standard and Regulations Conclusions and Recommendations

FEMA MAT Figure 4-3: Summary of Roof Covering Damage Observed by the MAT in All Clusters Impacted by Hurricane Ian

FEMA MAT Figure 4-37: a house with an asphalt shingle roof; built 1998 and reroofed August 2020 (minor hip shingle damage) (EWS = 128 mph) (Port Charlotte)

Conclusion FL-10

Hip and ridge roof coverings for many residential buildings appeared to have inadequate resistance to wind loads. Failure of hip and ridge roof coverings on asphalt shingle and metal panel roof coverings was widespread and the most common roof covering failure observed by the MAT. While some asphalt shingle manufacturers test hip and ridge shingles to a modified version of ASTM D3161, the IBC, IRC and FBC do not specifically require testing of hip and ridge asphalt shingles or metal panel roof coverings.

Recommendation FL-10a

FEMA should consider submitting code change proposals or supporting code change proposals from other stakeholders such as IBHS, Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA), National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) and other groups aligned to the IBC, IRC and the FBC to require testing of hip and ridge roof coverings for asphalt shingle roof coverings. The IBC, IRC and the FBC require asphalt shingles to be tested for wind loads in accordance with ASTM D7158 or ASTM D3161. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 2375, Outline of Investigation for Hip and Ridge Shingles (2016), provides a methodology to use a modified version of ASTM D3161 to test hip and ridge shingles for wind resistance. As an alternative to testing, a prescriptive solution that includes the use of an appropriate adhesive should be developed and included in the IBC, IRC and FBC.

Recommendation FL-10b

FEMA should consider submitting code change proposals or supporting code change proposals from other stakeholders such as IBHS, Metal Construction Association (MCA), NRCA and other aligned groups to the IBC, IRC and the FBC to require testing of hip and ridge roof coverings for metal panel roof coverings. The ANSI/MCA FTS-1, Test Method for Wind Load Resistance of Flashings Used with Metal Roof Systems (2019), specifies wind load resistance testing of hip covers on metal panel roof systems in addition to other edge/flashing metal.

Recommendation FL-10c

FEMA should consider submitting code change proposals or supporting code change proposals from other stakeholders such as IBHS, ARMA, NRCA and other aligned groups to the IBC, IRC and the FBC to require a minimum of 6 inches overlap of the roof

underlayment to hip and ridges that do not have ventilation components. Wrapping underlayment over hips and ridges that don’t have ventilation components will improve the roof’s resistance to water intrusion in the event the hip and ridge coverings are damaged or blown off.

conclusion FL-28

Asphalt shingle roof coverings for many residential buildings appeared to have inadequate resistance to wind loads. The amount of damage varied widely at each site visited. Data analysis of roof covering performance in the discrete clusters assessed by the MAT found that 90 percent of the asphalt shingle roofs older than seven years sustained visible damage. Given that Hurricane Ian wind speeds were far less than design-level wind speeds, this is significant. The Florida Building Commission should consider funding more research in collaboration with academia and industry groups such as ARMA, NRCA and IBHS, to determine why asphalt shingle damage, particularly on aged asphalt shingle roofs, is often observed to be widespread. Such research should, at a minimum, include consideration of developing a new or revised test method for wind resistance of asphalt shingles to provide improved resistance to wind loads and study of potential installation, workmanship and manufacturing issues; the effects of aging; potential effects related to transportation and delivery of the product to the site; and the lack of thorough “in-progress” inspections. A similar recommendation was made in both the Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Michael MAT reports.

conclusion FL-29

Roof coverings that had minor damage that likely could be repaired were often being replaced. Through interviews with homeowners, interviews

FEMA MAT Figure 4-45: a house built in 2002 with an asphalt shingle roof replacement in 2019, with minor hip shingle damage, a "storm-related" roof replacement permit was issued post Hurricane Ian (EWS = 128 mph) (Port Charlotte)

with contractors and roof permit data, the MAT learned that many roof coverings that appeared to have minor damage (hip and ridge damage was commonly observed) were being replaced instead of repaired. To better identify minor roof covering damage that could be repaired, the roofing industry (NRCA, ARMA, MCA, Roof Tile Institute, Florida Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors Association), insurance industry, IBHS and other stakeholders should develop guidelines, training programs and informational tests for building owners and homeowners. Complete roof replacements for roofs that have minor repairable damage are unnecessary and has negative long-term environmental impacts. Replacing roofs is particularly problematic when there is only minor damage to roof coverings that have been recently replaced. The repair of roof

Hurricane Ian RICOWI (Roofing Industry Committee on Weather Issues, Inc.) Storm Investigation Program

Note: Excerpts Only

Hurricane Ian Executive Summary

All types of newer roofs (post-2006 construction) performed better than older roofs. Most dramatic was the improvement in tile roofs, where serious damage occurred during Hurricane Charley (2004). Damage to newer tile roofs consisted primarily of hip and ridge tile loss, with most roofs remaining water resistant.

Field Investigation Initial Findings

RICOWI’s review of NOAA flyover photos located several roofs that sustained damage. The teams investigated these roofs and noted that significant roof damage did exist but was not pervasive. However, there was extensive minor damage that may or may not have resulted in leaks.

Building Code Effects

A key goal of RICOWI post-hurricane investigations is to provide data that can improve the sustainability of roof systems wherever

coverings with minor damage is significantly more cost effective and less wasteful than a complete roof replacement. Furthermore, replacing roofs that only need minor repairs ties up expertise and resources that are already in limited supply after a disaster and results both in longer wait times for home and building owners that truly need roofs to be replaced and lengthier community recovery periods. While many factors, such as age, color, material availability, location of the damage on the roof, etc., will affect whether a particular roof is a candidate for repair versus replacement, key stakeholders should develop guidance, training and information to help address this important issue.

RICOWI Figure 3: This photo shows the subdivision immediately east of that shown in Figure 2. There was more damage here to units that were built between 1998 and 2004. Other sections were completed after 2004.

RICOWI Figure 2: This photo shows some debris but little or no roof damage. This sec-tion was developed from 2004 to 2016 with units around the cul-de-sacs built last.

installed. This has resulted in improved products, system design, installation methods and building code requirements. Even though it is challenging to sort out the effects of each of these investigations, the data in this report show the improved performance of roofs installed since 2004. Anecdotal evidence of the likely effects of building codes is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 on page 22). On this and the following page are some photos from the RICOWI report.

RICOWI Photo 128: Some damage on high roof

RICOWI Photo 129: Two areas of damage in the field of this roof

RICOWI Photo 130: Small amount of hip and ridge damage

RICOWI Photo 131: Hip and ridge damage

RICOWI Photo 132: Some field of roof damage

RICOWI Photo 133: Solar array undamaged

RICOWI Photo 134: Older asphalt shingles

RICOWI Photo 135: Unusual damage location on hip and eave

RICOWI Photo 136: Hip and ridge damage that appears to have spread

RICOWI Photo 137: Shingle detachment on a roof constructed in 2022, exposed to 110 mph windspeed

RICOWI Photo 138: Note that the shingles were still bonded together, exhibiting low loss of sealant strip adhesion; inadequate nailing may have contributed to detachment

RICOWI Photo 139: Debris pile

RICOWI Photo 140: Hip shingles were inadequately adhered

Asphalt Shingles

Street Survey: Asphalt Shingle Roofs in 130 mph wind zone near Mayflower and Carnation, Cape Coral, Fla.

severely damaged asphalt shingle roofs on this street section

Percent of severely damaged asphalt shingle roofs on this street section not severely damaged but with some damage (five responses)

Underlayment

The second line of defense required by code on all roofs has kept many buildings dry. The improvements in underlayment installation made a difference in Hurricane lan. This storm clearly demonstrated the importance of proper underlayment installation (see photos 156-159).

RICOWI Photo 156: Detached deck and metal roof

RICOWI Photo 157: Source of debris

RICOWI Photo 158: Edge metal damage resulting in loss of panels

HIGH-YIELD ROOF TILE ADHESIVES ARE FOR SMART INVESTORS

APOC Polyset RTA-1, recently added to the APOC family, offers a moisture resistant formulation, unlike others, based in closed cell technology helping prevent mold in inclement weather climates. APOC Polyset RTA-1 is approved for use in the most stringent high-wind regions of the world, provides the highest yield on the market, and a dispensing unit that is preferred by contractors.

RICOWI believes there is an essential link between product research, performance and the model building codes. The model code groups are moving more toward “objective based codes” versus “prescriptive codes.” Performance requirements are generally perceived to be requirements stated in a way that allows flexibility in the choice of solutions to satisfy the requirements and are based upon explicitly stated objectives. In addition, there is a general feeling that the right type of data, following a windstorm event, have not been gathered. There is no question that all roofing products and systems of all roofing manufacturers are going to have to meet more rigorous specifications and will be subject to tougher scrutiny of building departments such as seen in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties (FL). Industry involvement in follow-up of severe weather events is imperative.

Through RICOWI’s efforts, codes are improved, buildings are safer; property losses will be reduced and industry is provided clear insight as to needed direction. The reports generated by investigation teams are also utilized to help educate various segments of the

building industry and provide a valuable resource to federal, state and local disaster response and preparedness programs.

conclusion

Looking at the FEMA and RICOWI reports, I believe that a primary message is that while there has been important progress in encouraging and requiring better roofing materials and installation methods that has led to better performance in the field, there is still plenty of room for improvement in multiple areas. At the same time, we can see that asphalt roof shingles are not the singular issue that some industry voices seem to want to make them. Hip and ridge failures were an issue on all types of roof systems, whether asphalt shingles, metal or tile, and perhaps the biggest return on investment in the coming code cycle will be to focus on improvements in that area. At the same time, asphalt shingle manufacturers and representatives can do more to educate the industry and consumers on the value of high quality products by developing objective standards that measure good, better and best. In closing, our goal is to maintain the availability of all proven roof systems. It’s particularly important to keep affordable products available. But when one considers the larger picture including the availability and affordability of property insurance in Florida and the desire to allow us to stay in our homes and use other buildings after hurricanes, then advancements in wind resistance and longevity of roof systems is imperative.

Mike Silvers, CPRC, is owner of Silvers Systems Inc. and is consulting with FRSA as Director of Technical Services. Mike is an FRSA Past President, Life Member and Campanella Award recipient and brings over 50 years of industry knowledge and experience to FRSA’s team.

Appendix C: RICOWI Storm Investigation Program

RICOWI Photo 159: Inadequate fastening

It’s

ProVia barrel tile metal roofing

Wind Uplift Translated into Test Methods

Riku Ylipelkonen, Owner, Standard Building Advisors and FRSA Technical Advisor

As building code revisions are being implemented in Florida, the number of comments on wind uplift testing seems to be increasing. With more attention focused on the performance requirements of roofing materials, there is a desire for product testing to correlate better with the actual behavior during a wind event. Wind uplift behavior and test standard development, has been a long understood and applied behavior. A considerable amount of empirical wind tunnel testing applied to the ASCE 7-22 design standard was conducted in the 1970s. Even back then, we were learning how wind events affect buildings and their components. The development of wind uplift testing in the years following have used the latest technology, new materials and new installation methods to maximize the correlation between cost-effective test standard results and actual behavior of tested roof components in wind events.

Air is a predictable fluid. We have extensive scientific data and an understanding of air as it speeds up, turns, carries moisture and all the other variables considered in a hurricane. As this understanding has developed, vacuum chamber testing has evolved to mimic wind performance for non-permeable sheets like steep-slope underlayments and low-slope roofing assemblies. When wind creates air movement, air moving from one place to another will create a vacuum in the space the air left, causing new air to move into its place. With current steep-slope underlayment layers, low-slope single-ply membranes, liquid-applied coatings and built-up roofs, there is a consistent layer of material creating a membrane that will not allow air to pass through it. This is handy for waterproofing, but also a consideration for wind uplift. Since the material doesn’t allow air to flow through it, the air on top of

Contribute to the FRSA Educational and Research Foundation and make it a banner year for industry scholarships.

the membrane that moves out of its original position must now be replaced by air next to it on top of the membrane. If you think of air as these moving cube units, the void left behind creates a vacuum because air wants to always be in all available cubes. The faster the air cubes move, the stronger the vacuum force is that wants air to move into the vacated space. This is how vacuum cleaners work. Vacuum cleaners have a spinning motor that sucks air from the vacuum cleaning head. This resulting low pressure picks up lightweight dust and dirt and hurls it through a filter to capture the dirt and let the air cycle back into place. The same thing happens to these waterproofing membranes during a wind event. Since the air can’t get through the membrane, the moving wind creates a vacuum above the roof that wants to suck the membrane off the roof. The main reason the membrane doesn’t get sucked into the moving air stream is the resistance of the application method to release the membrane into the moving air stream. Having described all this, the design of the vacuum chamber test method makes sense for air impermeable membrane assemblies. However, this kind of test isn’t applicable when you have roof assemblies that allow air to pass through the assembly, like shingles or tile.

When you have a completed shingle or tile roof, you can’t really apply a vacuum chamber test apparatus to this roof because the tiles and shingles do not form a seal preventing air movement. Air gaps occur not only between courses of shingles and tile because of the stacking shapes of shingles and tile themselves, but the entire roof assembly allows air between the gaps of shingle pieces and interlocks of the tiles. Because of this, mechanical testing is more reproducible and consistent to predict the performance of shingle and tile roof components. This is why the lap sealant on shingles is critical to performance of shingle roofs and tile attachment methods become the critical test method for tile uplift performance. Tile uplift test methods have been developed to mimic the air pressure exerted on the specific exposed area of the individual tile. Developmental testing showed that tiles will pivot at the top of the tile by the lugs or top corner of the underside surface of the tile when wind uplift forces are applied. Since we know the size of the tile, we can use mathematical formulas to interpret a mechanical uplift force from a single point on a tile from the wind uplift forces created during a wind event. The location of the mechanical pull is dependent on the size of the tile and the test is performed on a single tile because each component must perform to the tested level to consider the entire assembly at the same performance level. Variables like weight of the tile and slope of the

Corporate Character

Mitch Levin, CEO, Corporate Finance Solutions

A Wall Street Journal cartoon from 1969 showed an executive saying to his stockholders: “Even though your company faced spiraling labor costs, exorbitant interest rates and unconscionable government interference... management was able to show a profit that, in all modesty, can only be described as excessive through a combination of deceptive marketing practices, false advertising and price fixing, to show a profit which, in all modesty, can only be called excessive.”

A corporation with a highly personable president would not be a good fit for an arrogant dictator. As a result, the majority of management employees in most organizations or divisions tend to match the boss’s characteristics. Over time, the company takes on that personality. Since you are likely to be that leader, your people will behave more like you over time. That is usually great.

You have the power to shape the character of your organization and how people perceive it. Your identity. Consider the personalities of the members of your firm’s management team and how those personalities align with how you want the company to be regarded by others. Your image. Then determine which corporate qualities are important to you, your organization and its many stakeholders. Ensure that every member of your company’s management team is aware of those qualities and why you believe they are vital.

Clarify how you want the outside world to perceive your company and its character when employing new management. Make sure any new hires are as near to that character as possible.

Imagine a company with high personnel turnover and poor levels of corporate loyalty. This leads to trouble staffing up for expansion, especially during high activity periods. To address this issue, make your company the employer of choice in your market area.

Begin apprentice training and craft accreditation programs. Implement a project-specific bonus program for all field personnel who worked on jobs that exceeded profit targets. Publish an employee newsletter on your website and make sure that all field employees are aware of it. Interview numerous employees about their work environment and how you could improve it on a regular basis. Although you may pay more compensation, including bonuses, project execution and profits should improve. Your ability to staff those growth projects becomes a competitive advantage.

Ask some of your customers about your company’s personality in a survey or hire an outside expert to conduct a survey like this once or twice a year. Employ a similar surveying strategy with your suppliers. In addition, encourage your employees to fill out a

questionnaire about their impressions of your company as a place to work and its market reputation.

Combine the findings of all the surveys to create a description of your company’s corporate personality. Then consider what modifications you would want to make to your character perception. If your company’s management team recognizes how important that perception is to their stakeholders, they may work collaboratively to change it.

You may not only improve the nature of your firm, you can also choose what it should be and then attain that goal. The end outcome should be appealing to your company’s consumers, employees, suppliers and shareholders.

FrM

Mitch Levin, CEO, Corporate Finance Solutions, specializing in mergers and acquisitions, succession planning, strategic planning and financing. For more information, visit www.cofinsol.com or call 888-885-5656.

Wind Uplift, continued from page 30

roof are factored in because they affect the performance of the roof. Of note, the uplift resistance the tile experiences from the interlocked tile next to it is not considered because if the test tile is experiencing an uplift force during a wind event, so is the tile next to it and they are not able to keep other tiles in place when they are themselves being displaced.

Considering all this, the current test methods in place have been under development for as long, or longer, than the building codes themselves. They are acceptable methods of testing roof materials and have a high degree of certainty to predict the performance of roofing materials on the roof. Are there better methods possible? Of course. But we don’t use micrometers to measure our roofs because tape measures get the job done in a cost-effective and timely manner.

FrM

Riku Ylipelkonen, Owner, Standard Building Advisors has been in the roofing industry for 15 years working for Polyfoam Products. When Polyfoam Products was acquired by 3M and the name changed to ICP Building Solutions Group. Riku worked at ICP as Technical Services Manager until March of 2023, when he left to begin his own company. Riku is an engineer and is working as a consultant with FRSA. He is a member on FRSA’s Codes Committee, Codes Subcommittee, Tile Committee and on the FRSA-TRI Manual Rewrite Committee. Riku is also a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

From Broken Windshields to Roofs: A Story of Innovation

Murat Ozcan, CEO, Leadax Americas

Have you ever wondered about the fate of your broken windshield? Sure, the glass gets recycled, but what about that resilient film sandwiched between the laminated glass panels? It turns out that that film –polyvinyl butyral (PVB) – often finds itself in landfills, contributing to the staggering 1.5 million tons of waste generated yearly from 14 million broken windshields in the U.S. alone.

Leadax has set out to revolutionize the flashing world by introducing a flashing material crafted entirely from recycled PVB, the unsung hero of your broken windshield. This journey into sustainability stems from their belief that waste can be transformed into something valuable and long-lasting, ushering in a new era for the roofing industry.

Now, why does the automotive industry heavily rely on PVB in windshields? Let’s break it down:

■ Safety first: PVB makes windshields shatterproof, absorbing impact and preventing accidents.

■ Security blanket: It resists impact from hammers or glass cutters – a testament to its durability.

■ UV blocking superpower: This material acts as a superhero, blocking out 99 percent of harmful ultraviolet rays.

But here’s the real revelation – PVB, in its natural form, isn’t just an automotive superhero; it’s also a roofing rock star. Durable, high impact-resistant, UVresistant, PVB stands as one of the greatest roofing products of our time.

The roofing industry, particularly in the building envelope, contributes significantly to the staggering 600 million tons of construction materials sent to

landfills each year in the U.S., according to an EPA study. Roofing materials are replaced five to six times over the lifetime of a building, contributing up to 120 million tons of landfill construction and demolition waste.

In response, Leadax transforms the unusable plastic waste of PVB, the foil found inside recycled windshields, into highly engineered flashing materials. Leadax flashing materials are fully recyclable, eliminating single-use roofing waste and putting an end to landfill generation.

These flashings also emerge as an excellent alternative to lead, copper and metal flashing products and are tough, flexible, resistant to UV, sustainable, non-toxic and lightweight. Compared to lead, they are easier to mold, faster to install, more cost-effective and are up to 90 percent more sustainable than traditional oil-driven alternatives.

There is also a self-adhesive version that proves extremely resistant to long-term high temperatures, heavy rain and high winds. No prefabrication or welding required – just cut, shape and install right on the roof.

Approximately 600,000 tons of carbon emissions are saved by each Leadax factory, marking a significant step towards a more sustainable and equitable future. They believe that business can be a force for good and are on a mission to create a world where you don’t have to choose between speed, quality, design and protecting the planet: building a better future for the roofing industry and the environment.

FrM

Murat Ozcan is CEO, Leadax Americas. For more information, visit www.leadax.com.

SAVE TIME AND BE MORE EFFICIENT

33 Fully stocked locations throughout Florida to service your building material needs.

Homestead, FL 33032 (786) 829-2761

Ocala, FL 34470 (352) 210-6246

Jacksonville, FL 32209 (904) 503-9400

Tallahassee, FL 32304 (850) 574-7600

Odessa, FL 33556 (813) 749-5354

Orlando, FL 32804 (407) 291-7244

Tampa, FL 33619 (813) 740-8790

Fort Myers, FL 33916 (239) 935-5077

Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 (954) 969-8000

Miami FL, 33142 (305) 635-7177

Orlando, FL 32809 (407) 367-6246

Ocala, FL 34474 (352) 622-3933

Melbourne, FL 32904 (321) 369-7892

Ormond Beach, FL 32174 (386) 301-4471

Palmetto, FL 34221 (941) 722-6800

Leesburg, FL 34748 (352) 818-6120

Orlando, FL 32804 (407) 859-9997

Winter Haven, FL 33880 (863) 293-1555

St. Petersburg, FL 33716 (727) 565-4630

Sarasota, FL 34243 (941) 203-6320

Fort Pierce, FL 34982 (772) 466-3461

Stuart, FL 34997 (772) 223-8881

Vero Beach, FL 32960 (772) 778-0549

Orlando, FL 32810 (321) 442-0061

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315 (954) 525-1158

Riviera Beach, FL 33407 (561) 863-9899

Clearwater, FL 33762 (727) 573-6075

North Port, FL 34289 (941) 732-1029

Panama City, FL 32405 (850) 763-0851

Ruskin, FL 33570 (813) 729-5977

Fort Myers, FL 33912 (813) 918-0379

St. Augustine, FL 32095 (678) 358-7623

Port St. Lucie, FL 34986 (772) 216-3111

Beacon's network of branches work together in every market to support customers with

• Optimized Dispatch

• Consistent System Pricing

• Centralized Purchasing for correct inventory levels

• Rapid Response