Commission
Foundation Code Modification Review Process
2017 Code
Update Process—6th Edition Florida Building Code
(February 10, 2016)
Proposed Code
modifications to the Florida Building Code will be reviewed by the Commission’s
TACs in meetings conducted in April 2016. The TAC’s recommendations regarding
proposed Code modifications will subsequently be posted to the Commission’s
website for a minimum of 45 days and the public will be provided an opportunity
to comment on the TACs recommendations during this time-frame (second 45-day
review period). The TACs will meet in July to review the public comments, and
provide TAC comments to the Commission regarding whether the submitted comments
address their concerns regarding their recommendations on proposed code
modifications (TAC feedback on public comments to the Commission).
The Commission will
consider the TACs recommendations and comments on public comments during a rule
development workshop conducted during the August 18-19, 2016 Commission meeting,
and conduct a rule adoption hearing on the final version of the Code on June 8,
2017. The TACs will review proposed Glitch amendments after the Code’s
effective date of December 31, 2017, if needed.
The Commission will consider the TACs recommendations on
two (2) consent agendas per topical code area. TAC chairs will pull for
individual consideration all modifications that have received comments that
address the TAC’s concerns. Any Commissioner can pull any modification for
individual consideration.
After the Commission takes action on all of the proposed
code modifications they will move to proceed with rule adoption for Rule 61G20-1.001(1), Florida Building Code, for the purpose
of adopting approved modifications to the Florida Building Code.
The TAC’s recommendations
regarding proposed code modifications for the 2017 Code Update are arranged on
two (2) consent agendas as follows:
TAC’s Recommendations are on Two (2)
Consent Agendas Per TAC (By Code Areas):
1.
“Consent
Agenda 1”:
Approval of consent agenda of TAC’s recommendations regarding proposed
modifications that did not
receive
public comment during the comment period. The Commission votes to approve the
TAC’s recommendations on the modifications as posted incorporating the findings
(A – I). Includes TAC’s recommendations “For Approval”: As Modified (AM), and
As Submitted (AS); and “Against Approval”: No Affirmative Recommendation (NAR,
Without Second, and Withdrawn). Standing motion to approve is in effect, a
second is needed and the Commission votes in favor of the consent agenda.
Commissioners should pull-off any modifications(s) that would prevent them from
offering a second and approving the consent agenda.
2.
“Consent
Agenda 2”:
Approval of consent agenda of TAC’s recommendations regarding proposed modifications
that received public comment
during the comment period. The Commission votes to approve the TAC’s
recommendations on the modifications as posted incorporating the findings (A –
I). Includes TAC’s recommendations “For Approval”: As Modified (AM), and As
Submitted (AS); “Against Approval”: No Affirmative Recommendation (NAR, Without
Second, and Withdrawn). Standing motion to approve is in effect, a second is
needed and the Commission votes in favor of the consent agenda. Commissioners
should pull of any modifications(s)* that would prevent them from offering a
second and approving the consent agenda.
* TAC chairs will
pull all modifications that their TAC commented favorably regarding the public
comment (defined as 75% or greater in support that the comment addresses TAC
concerns and the TAC supports the public comment relative to their original
recommendation). Modifications that the TAC commented on favorably are listed
by TAC on a separate document (matrix). The Commission will consider all pulled
modifications individually. Each individually considered modification requires
a second to the standing motion to approve.
Commission
Will Move to Adopt Four (4) Standing Motions to Approve (p. 3):
1. “Consent Agenda #1”: TAC’s
recommendations regarding proposed modifications that did not receive public comment
during the comment period.
2. “Consent Agenda #2”: TAC’s
recommendations regarding proposed modifications that received public comment during the comment
period.
3. “Pulled Modifications”: Modifications pulled-off
of the consent agenda(s) by a Commissioner for individual consideration.
4.
“Correlation
and Florida Specifics Integration”: Staff’s recommendations regarding correlation issues and
integration of Florida Specific amendments for the 2017 Code Update.
TAC chairs will pull off any
amendments that the TAC’s provided a favorable comment on that would change the
TAC’s original recommendation on the amendment (comments considered during the
TAC’s public comment review process).
Any Commissioner may pull any amendment
for individual consideration based on public comment(s) (submitted in writing
or verbally). Standing motion to approve is in effect. Second to discuss and
vote for each modification considered individually. If no second offered,
motion dies for lack of second (modification is deemed not approved).
2. Approval of the two (1
- 2) consent agendas as amended by the Commission (minus any modifications
pulled for individual consideration). Standing motion to approve is in effect.
Second offered and then a vote.
1. Motion to approve the consent agenda(s) of
the modifications that did not receive public comments as recommended by the
Technical Advisory Committee’s (TAC’s), and amended by the FBC, based on the
following findings:
A.
The
modification is needed in order to accommodate the specific needs of this
state; and
B.
The
modification has a reasonable and substantial connection to the health, safety,
and welfare of the general public; and
C.
The
modification strengthens or improves the Florida Building Code, or in the case
of innovation or new technology, will provide equivalent or better products or
methods or systems of construction; and
D.
The
modification does not discriminate against materials, products, methods, or
systems of construction of demonstrated capabilities; and
E.
The
modification does not degrade the effectiveness of the Florida Building Code;
and
F.
The
modification has the following fiscal impact:
1. The fiscal impact of enforcement imposed upon local
government is as indicated by the proponent.
2. The fiscal impact of compliance imposed upon building and
property owners is as indicated by the proponent.
3. The fiscal impact of compliance imposed upon industry is as
indicated by the proponent.
4. The fiscal
impact of compliance imposed upon small business is as indicated by the
proponent (no impact or as specified by the proponent).
G. The modification’s benefits noted with
regard to fiscal impact and efficacy outweigh the costs imposed.
H. The modification does not diminish
requirements related to wind resistance or prevention of water intrusion
contained in the Code or its referenced standards and criteria.
I. Florida specific amendments that
expire with the updated code and are resubmitted as amendments to the updated
Code have addressed whether:
1. The provisions contained in the
proposed amendment are addressed in the applicable international code.
2. The amendment demonstrates by
evidence or data that the geographical jurisdiction of Florida exhibits a need
to strengthen the foundation code beyond the needs or regional variations addressed
by the foundation code, and why the proposed amendment applies to this state.
3. The proposed amendment was submitted
or attempted to be included in the foundation codes to avoid resubmission to
the Florida Building Code amendment process.
2.
Motion to approve the consent agenda(s) of the modifications that received
public comment(s) as recommended by the Technical Advisory Committee’s (TAC’s),
and amended by the FBC, based on the above findings (A – I).
3. Motion to approve each
amendment pulled off of the consent agendas of TAC recommendations for
individual consideration, based on the above findings (A – I).
4. Motion to approve
consent agenda of Staff’s recommendations regarding correlation issues and
integration of carried forward Florida Specific amendments for the 2017 Code
Update.
FBC Code Modification Review
Process—2017 Code Update Review And Consideration Process
*
Facilitator will serve as the moderator, and assist with
adopted process and groundrules.
*
One person speaks at a time.
*
Limit your comment and be concise.
*
Chair may limit comments to a maximum of three-minutes (3)
per person, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.
*
Do not read lengthy prepared statements; Summarize and
submit complete text of comment for the record.
*
Offer new points and/or state agreement with previous
speakers; Please do not repeat what has been stated.
*
Chair/Facilitator may terminate a comment if it is
repeating previous comments, and not simply stating agreement or offering new
points.
*
The FBC wants to hear all view points to ensure all
perspectives are considered, and not repeats of the same views.
*
Facilitator will introduce consent agenda(s) of
modifications by Code area.
*
Public will speak to any modifications they wish the
Commission to consider individually.
*
Standing motion to approve will be in effect.
*
Commissioner(s) will decide which, if any, modifications to
pull for individual consideration.
*
Clarifying questions by FBC members only.
*
FBC will vote in favor of the Standing Motion(s) to Approve
(found on previous page) as and/or if amended prior to considering proposed
modifications.
* Once a motion (second
to the standing motion) is on the floor, discussion is limited to FBC members
except as allowed by the Chair.
Modifications
Pulled for Individual Consideration
*
Standing motion(s) to approve will be in effect, a second
is required in order to vote for the modification(s)—By Commission rule only
motions to approve may be considered.
*
All modifications not voted for on a consent agenda must be
voted on individually.
*
Any modification considered individually that does not
receive a second is deemed denied due to failure to receive a second.
* Motions require a 75%
favorable vote for approval; those with less than a 75% favorable vote, are
deemed denied.