Florida
Building Commission
Code Coordination and Implementation Workgroup
June 18, 2015—Meeting III
IFAS—Plant
Science Research and Education Unit
2556 West
Highway 318—Citra, Florida 32113
|
Meeting
Objectives |
|
Ø
To Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda
and Facilitator’s Summary Report/Meeting Minutes) Ø To Review List of Options to Address Issues Regarding the Florida Building Code Development Process Ø To Discuss and Evaluate Level of Acceptability of Proposed Options Ø To Consider Public Comment ü To Identify Needed Next Steps: Information, Assignments, and Agenda Items for Next Meeting |
|
Meeting Agenda—Thursday, June 18, 2015 |
|||
|
All Agenda Times—Including
Adjournment—Are Approximate and Subject to Change |
|||
|
12:30 PM |
A.) |
Welcome and Introductions |
Browdy |
|
|
B.) |
Agenda Review and Approval (June 18, 2015) |
Blair |
|
|
C.) |
Review and Approval of Facilitator’s Summary
Report and Meeting Minutes (April
13, 2015)
|
Blair |
|
|
D.) |
Review of Key Issues for Evaluation Regarding
the Florida Building Code Development Process |
Blair/ CCIW |
|
|
E.) |
Identification, Discussion and Evaluation of
Options in |
CCIW/Blair |
|
~2:30
PM |
|
Break |
|
|
|
E.) |
Identification, Discussion and Evaluation of
Options in |
CCIW |
|
|
F.) |
General Public Comment |
Blair |
|
|
G.) |
Next Steps: Agenda Items, Needed Information,
Assignments, Date
and Location |
Blair |
|
~5:00 PM |
H.) |
Adjourn |
|
Contact Information
Jeff Blair; 850.644.6320; jblair@fsu.edu ; http://consensus.fsu.edu/Code-Coordination/
Project
Webpage
http://www.floridabuilding.org/fbc/workgroups/Code_Coordination/Code_Coordination_WG.html
|
Meeting Dates
and Locations—2015 |
||
|
I. |
January 30, 2015 |
Tallahassee |
|
II. |
April 13, 2015 |
Citra, IFAS Plant Science Research and Education |
|
III. |
June 18, 2015 |
Citra, IFAS Plant Science Research and Education |
|
IV. |
August 17, 2015 |
TBD |
|
V. |
October 13, 2015 |
TBD |
|
Workgroup Membership |
|
|
Member |
Affiliation |
|
1. Dick Browdy |
Florida Building Commission (FBC) |
|
2. Tom
Allen (ex officio) |
ICC Code
Process |
|
3. Steve Bassett |
Building Professionals: Mechanical Contractors |
|
4. Jay Carlson |
Building
Professionals: General Contractors |
|
5. David Compton |
Design
Professionals: Engineers |
|
6. Kevin Flanagan |
Building
Professionals: Electrical
Contractors |
|
7. Charles
Frank |
Division of
State Fire Marshal |
|
8. Darrell Phillips |
Education Facility
Professionals: Public Education |
|
9. Brad Schiffer |
Design
Professionals: Architects |
|
10.
Jim Schock |
Building Officials |
|
11.
Drew Smith |
Building
Professionals: Home Builders |
|
12.
Steve Strawn |
Building
Product Manufacturers |
|
13.
Brian Swope |
Building
Professionals: Roofing and Sheet Metal Contractors |
|
14.
George Wiggins |
Building
Officials of Florida (BOAF) |
|
DBPR Staff |
|
|
April Hammonds |
FBC Legal
Counsel |
|
Mo Madani |
Technical
Manager |
|
Jim Richmond |
Executive
Director |
|
Facilitator |
|
|
Jeff Blair |
FCRC Consensus
Center at Florida State University |
Overview
Code
Coordination and Implementation Workgroup
Chairman Browdy recommended
the convening of the Workgroup noting that with the delays experienced in
adopting the Florida Building Code Fifth
Edition (2014) it was apparent that there are regulatory requirements that
constrain the Commission in being able to complete a code update in the most
efficacious manner possible. Some of the statutory constraints include the
requirement to coordinate with the adoption of
the updated version of the Florida Fire
Prevention Code, and the requirement to have the Florida Building Code
published for 6 months after publication before it becomes effective. Other constraints include duplicative procedural requirements between
the rulemaking requirements of Chapter 120, F.S and the code development
requirements mandated by Section 553.73, F.S. Other considerations are the
schedule for the IBC code updates, the NEC code schedule, and the schedule for
other important reference documents that must be finalized before incorporation
by reference into the Florida Building Code Rule. There are also other built-in
time constraints that serve to delay the implementation of a code update cycle.
The Commission should review all of the critical path milestones in the code
development process and determine what should be done to make the process as
efficient as possible.
In order to address the issue the Chair recommended that the Commission
convene a Code Coordination and Implementation
Workgroup to review and evaluate all of the regulatory requirements
currently impacting the code development process (code update process), and to
propose a legislative path for a more efficacious process and timetable for the
implementation of the Florida Building Code update process. At the October 2014
meeting the Commission voted unanimously to convene a Code Coordination and Implementation Workgroup to review and evaluate all of the regulatory requirements currently
impacting the code development process (code update process), and to propose a
legislative path to a more efficacious timetable for the implementation of the
Florida Building Code update process.
Workgroup Scope and Timetable for Delivery
The scope of the Code
Coordination and Implementation Workgroup is
as follows:
The initial scope of the Code
Coordination and Implementation Workgroup will
be to review and evaluate all of the regulatory
requirements currently impacting the code development process (code update
process), and to propose a legislative path to a more efficacious timetable for
the implementation of the Florida Building Code update process going forward.
It is expected that any recommendations for statutory changes, once approved by
the full Commission, will be delivered to the 2016 Florida Legislature.
Workgroup Procedural Guidelines
Participants’ Role
ü The Workgroup process is an opportunity to explore possibilities. Offering or exploring an idea does not necessarily imply support for it.
ü Listen to understand. Seek a shared understanding even if you don’t agree.
ü Be focused and concise—balance participation & minimize repetition. Share the airtime.
ü Look to the facilitator to be recognized. Please raise your hand to speak.
ü Speak one person at a time. Please don’t interrupt each other.
ü Focus on issues, not personalities. “Using insult instead of argument is the sign of a small mind.”
ü Avoid stereotyping or personal attacks. “Mud thrown is ground lost.”
ü To the extent possible, offer options to address other’s concerns, as well as your own.
ü Represent and communicate with member’s constituent group(s).
ü Refrain from using electronic devices during the meetings; Keep electronic devices turned off or silent.
Facilitators’ Role
(Jeff A. Blair—FCRC Consensus Center at FSU)
ü Design and facilitate a participatory Workgroup process.
ü Assist participants to stay focused and on task.
ü Assure that participants follow ground rules.
ü Prepare agenda packets and provide meeting summary reports.
Guidelines for Brainstorming
ü Speak when recognized by the Facilitator(s).
ü Offer one idea per person without explanation.
ü No comments, criticism, or discussion of other's ideas.
ü Listen respectively to other's ideas and opinions.
ü Seek understanding and not agreement at this point in the discussion.
The Name Stacking Process
ü Determines the speaking order.
ü Participant raises hand to speak. Facilitator(s) will call on participants in turn.
ü Facilitator(s) may interrupt the stack (change the speaking order) in order to promote discussion on a specific issue or, to balance participation and allow those who have not spoken on an issue an opportunity to do so before others on the list who have already spoken on the issue.
Acceptability
Ranking Scale
During the meetings, members will be asked to develop and rank options, and following discussions and refinements, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options if requested by members and staff. Please be prepared to offer specific refinements or changes to address your reservations. The following scale will be utilized for the ranking exercises:
Key Issues for Workgroup Evaluation
I. Code Printing/Publication
Publishing a fully integrated Florida Building Code (Florida specific amendments integrated into the adopted I-Codes version), or publishing Florida specific amendments as a supplement.
II. Errata
Authority to issue errata and publication of the same.
A clear definition of what constitutes an errata.
III. Code Amendment
Process
Triennial Update
Including
a review of the 3-year update cycle
Annual Amendments
Glitch Amendments
IV. Florida Specific
Amendments
Statutory requirements for
what is carried forward and how they are reviewed by TACs and Commission.
V. Statutory Timeline Requirements
·
Selection of
I-Codes version for FBC Update (timelines and requirements).
·
Selection of
NEC version for FBC Update (timelines and requirements).
·
Incorporation
of FFPC (timelines and requirements).
·
TAC review
and public comment (timelines and requirements).
·
Glitch
amendment (timelines and requirements).
·
Chapter 120
rule adoption process (timelines and requirements).
·
The Florida
Building Code shall take effect no sooner than 6 months after publication of
the updated code (timelines and requirements).
Recommendations
from Commission Process Review Ad Hoc Committee (2009)
Committee recommended that the Commission recommend to the Florida Legislature eliminating the statutory requirement for the Commission to wait six months after publication of the latest I-Code Edition before selecting the same as the foundation code for the Florida Building Code for future Code Editions.
VI. Adoption of
Standards and Codes by Reference
National Electrical Code (NEC)
Florida Fire Prevention Code (FCPC)
All other relevant standards and codes
adopted by reference
VII. Commission Participation With the ICC Code Development Process
Referred to the Workgroup by the Commission at their December 12, 2014
meeting.
(Note: An ICC Participation Workgroup process was conducted by the Commission in 2004, and the Commission made a policy decision not to participate in the ICC, instead relying on BOAF participation).
A discussion of whether the Commission
should participate in the I-Code development process (FBC I-Code participation
evaluation) was also considered during the Building
Code System Assessment Process (BCSA)
that delivered recommendations to the Commission in December of 2012.
Other
Related Topics Suggested by Members With Related Previous Commission Actions
Local
Technical Amendments
The issue is that local technical amendments are sometimes adopted by local jurisdictions without a demonstrated need, and the resultant impact to the consistency of state-wide implementation of the Florida Building Code (including interpretation and enforcement of the Code).
Building Code System Uniform Implementation
Evaluation Workgroup (2013)
The Commission recommended and the
Legislature implemented statutory clarification that local technical amendments
should be clearly defined in Chapter 553, F.S., and local technical amendments
should only be enacted when they fully comply with the provisions in Section
553.73 (4)(b)(1.-10.), F.S. governing adoption of local technical amendments. A definition of the term “local technical amendment” was added by
the Legislature as Chapter 553.71 (6), F.S., as follows: “Local Technical Amendment” means an
action by a local governing authority that results in a technical change to the
Florida Building Code and its local enforcement.
Consistency
in Code Interpretation
The issue is the need for a consistent and uniform implementation (interpretation and enforcement) of the Florida Building Code state-wide.
Building Code System Uniform Implementation
Evaluation Workgroup (2013)
1) The Florida Building Commission
developed the Florida Building Code to be implemented uniformly throughout the
State with the exception of the HVHZ; (2) The Commission through its
established processes continually addresses current relevant issues and model
code updates; (3) The Florida Building Commission’s Building Code System Uniform
Implementation Evaluation Workgroup has determined that there are
significant disparities within the State in Code enforcement, permitting
requirements and associated fees; (4) All regulatory agencies and licensees
engaged in the process of implementing the Florida Building Code are required
to implement the Florida Building Code and it's
associated processes; (5) Local technical amendments should be clearly defined
in Chapter 553, F.S., and local technical amendments should only be enacted
when they fully comply with the provisions in Section 553.73 (4)(b)(1.-10.),
F.S. governing adoption of local technical amendments; (6) the Building Code
System should be continuously monitored and evaluated for enhancements to the
System relative to achieving the goal of uniform implementation and
interpretation of the Code while preserving the Code’s foundations of local
administration and enforcement.
ISO
Ratings (ISO’s Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS))
The issue is that some jurisdictions are not able to achieve the highest ISO ratings since the adopted edition of the Florida Building Code does not generally incorporate the latest I-Code edition as the foundation code for the FBC.
Building
Code System Assessment Process (2011)
Recommended convening a workgroup/process to ensure that the ISO recognizes the Florida Building Code for equivalent points for BSEGS (provide equal credits to the I-codes).
Status: The recommendation was referred to the Building Code System Uniform Implementation Evaluation Workgroup (2013). The Workgroup did not take formal action on the issue, lacking participation from the insurance industry.
Issues and Options Identification
Worksheet
Issues
Identification Exercise—Meeting Notes
Think about the Florida Building Code development process, what are the key issues (including critical path timeframes) regarding the code development process that must be evaluated in order to streamline and make the process as fair and efficient as possible? (What issues need to be addressed in order to clarify and/or enhance the Florida Building Code Development Process).
Please use the following space to jot down your thoughts.
Prioritization
Ranking Exercise
Members may be asked to rank the issues for discussion order purposes.
Ranking Scale:
5 Highest
Level of Priority; Urgent
4 High
Priority
3 Moderate
Level of Priority
2 Low
Level of Priority
1 Lowest Possible Priority; Group Should not Pursue
Options
Identification Exercise—Meeting Notes
Please use the space below to write down possible options to address the key issues identified earlier regarding the Florida Building Code Development Process.
Please use the following space to jot down your thoughts.
During the meetings, members may be asked to develop and rank options, and following discussions and refinements, may be asked to do a second ranking of the options as refined. Please be prepared to offer specific refinements or changes to address your reservations. In general, 4s and 3s are in favor of an action and 2s and 1s are opposed. Once rated, action(s) with a 75% or greater number of 4s and 3s in proportion to 2s and 1s shall be considered consensus decisions. The following scale will be utilized for acceptability ranking exercises:
Public Comment Form
The Florida Building Commission and the Code Coordination and Implementation
Workgroup encourage written comments—All written
comments will be included in the meeting summary report.
Name:
Organization/Representation:
Meeting Date:
Please
make your comment(s) as specific as possible, and offer suggestions to address
your concerns.
Please
limit comment(s) to topics within the scope of the Workgroup, and refrain from
any personal attacks or derogatory language.
The
facilitator may, at his discretion, limit public comment to a maximum of
three-minutes (3) per person, depending on the number of individuals wishing to
speak.
Comment:
Please
give completed form(s) to the Facilitator for inclusion in the meeting summary
report.