Florida Building Commission
Building
Code System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee
January 31, 2012
Trade Winds Island
Grand Hotel
5500 Gulf
Boulevard—St. Pete Beach, Florida 33706—1.727.367.6461
|
Building
Code System Assessment Meeting Objectives |
|
Ø
To
Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda and October Summary Report) Ø
To
Review Building Code System Assessment Adopted Recommendations Ø
To
Review and Adopt Criteria for Prioritizing Implementation of Recommendations Ø
To
Discuss Scope and Logistics Regarding Implementation of Consensus
Recommendations Ø
To
Conduct Prioritization Ranking Exercise of Consensus Recommendations Ø
To
Consider Public Comment Ø
To
Adopt Prioritization Implementation Recommendations for Submittal to the
Commission regarding Consensus Recommendations for Enhancements to the
Florida Building Code System Ø To Identify Needed Next Steps |
|
Meeting
Agenda—Tuesday, January 31, 2012 |
||
|
All Agenda
Times—Including Adjournment—Are Approximate and Subject to Change |
||
|
1:00 |
PM |
Welcome and Opening |
|
|
PM |
Agenda Review and Approval |
|
|
PM |
Review and Approval of October 10,
2011 Facilitator’s Summary Report
|
|
|
PM |
Review of Commission’s Adopted
Consensus Recommendations |
|
|
PM |
Review and Adoption of
Prioritization Ranking Criteria for Implementation |
|
|
PM |
Discussion Regarding Scope
and Logistics for Implementation of Consensus Recommendations |
|
|
PM |
Prioritization
Ranking Exercise for Implementation of Consensus Recommendations |
|
|
PM |
General Public Comment |
|
|
PM |
Adoption of
Recommendations for Submittal to the Commission |
|
|
PM |
Review of Project Delivery and Meeting
Schedule, and Next Steps |
|
|
PM |
Adjourn |
Contact Information and Project Webpage
Jeff Blair: jblair@fsu.edu ; http://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/bcsa.html
Project Membership and Delivery Schedule
Overview
Chairman Rodriguez appointed an ad
hoc committee of Commission members (Building Code System Assessment Ad Hoc
Committee) to review the results of the Building Code System assessment survey
and comments received during a series of public workshops and to develop
consensus recommendations for the Commission regarding any proposed changes to
the Building Code System.
The project will be a facilitated
consensus-building process and will conclude with recommendations for
enhancements to the System submitted to the 2012 Legislature.
|
Ad Hoc Committee Membership |
|
|
Member |
Representation |
|
Dick Browdy (FBC
Chair) |
Home Builders |
|
Hamid
Bahadori |
Fire
Officials and Fire Protection Technologist |
|
Ed Carson |
Contractors,
Manufactured Buildings, Product Approval |
|
Herminio
Gonzalez |
Code
Officials (SE Florida) and Product Evaluation Entities |
|
Dale Greiner |
Code
Officials (Central Florida) and Local Government |
|
Jeff Gross |
Building
Management Industry |
|
Jon Hamrick |
Public
Education and State Agencies |
|
John Scherer |
General
Contractors |
|
Jim Schock |
Code
Officials (NE Florida) |
|
Chris Schulte |
Roofing/Sheet
Metal and AC Contractors |
|
Tim Tolbert |
Code
Officials (NW Florida) |
|
Mark Turner |
Electrical
Contractors and Construction Subcontractors |
|
Building Code System Assessment Project Chronology |
|
|
Date |
Activity |
|
June 25 –
August 30, 2010 |
On-Line
Survey |
|
June 25, 2010
– January 28, 2011 |
On-Line
Survey Extension |
|
October 12,
2010 |
Building Code
System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee Meeting |
|
October 13,
2010 |
Public Comment Opportunity I |
|
December 7,
2010 |
Public Comment Opportunity II |
|
April 5, 2011 |
Building Code
System Assessment Workshop I |
|
June 6, 2011 |
Building Code
System Assessment Workshop II |
|
August 8,
2011 |
Building Code
System Assessment Workshop III |
|
October 10,
2011 |
Building Code
System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee Meeting |
|
October 11,
2011 |
Commission
Adopts Conceptual Recommendations for Submittal to the 2012 Legislature |
|
January 1,
2012 |
Report to
2012 Legislature |
|
January 31,
2012 |
Building Code
System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee Meeting |
|
November/December
2011 |
Criteria for
evaluating recommendations developed |
|
December 2012 |
Commission
adopts specific Building Code System recommendations for Submittal to 2013
Legislature. |
Florida Building Code System Overview
In
1997, the Governor’s Building Codes Study Commission recommended that a single
state-wide building code be developed to produce a more effective system for a
better Built Environment in Florida. It was determined that in order to be
effective, The Building Code System must protect the health, safety and welfare
of the citizens of Florida, and in doing so:
1.
Be simple to use and clearly understood;
2.
Be uniform and consistent in its administration and application;
3.
Be affordable; and
5.
Promote innovation and new technology.
The
Study Commission determined that an effective system must address five key
components: the Code, the Commission, code administration, compliance and
enforcement, and product evaluation and approval.
Florida
Statute, Chapter 553.77(1)(b), requires the Commission to make a continual
study of the Florida Building Code and related laws and on a triennial basis
report findings and recommendations to the Legislature for provisions of law
that should be changed. The Commission conducted the first assessment in 2005,
and during 2010 the Commission again solicited stakeholder input in the form of
an on-line survey (conducted from June 25 – August 30, 2010), and at the
October 2010 meeting the Commission voted to conduct a comprehensive evaluation
of the Building Code System. The Commission decided to conduct an expanded
survey running from June 2010 through January 2011 and to use the results as
one of the inputs for developing a package of recommendations for enhancements
to the key components of the Florida Building Code System. Public input will be
a major component of the assessment process and the Survey in addition to
multiple public comment opportunities will be an important part of the Commission’s
analysis of the Building Code System. The Goals of the 2011 Florida Building
Code System Assessment are to evaluate the System for its successes and
deficiencies, and to identify and select options for improvement. The
Foundations of the Building Code System that will be evaluated are:
|
Foundation I |
The Code and the Code Development
Process |
|
Foundation II |
The Commission |
|
Foundation II |
Local Administration of the Code
(Enforcement) |
|
Foundation IV |
Strengthening Compliance and
Enforcement (Education) |
|
Foundation V |
Product Approval |
To coordinate the project the Chair
appointed an ad hoc committee of Commission members
to review
the results of the Building Code
System Assessment Surveys (I and II) as well as comments received during
a series of workshops, and to
develop recommendations for the Commission regarding any proposed
changes to the Building Code
System. This is a facilitated consensus-building process and the Ad Hoc
met for the first time at
the October 2010 Commission meeting, and the Commission will consider the
Ad Hoc’s recommendations at
the December 2011 meeting for inclusion in the Report to the 2012
Legislature. The goal of the project is to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of the Florida Building
Code System at the ten-year anniversary of the Florida Building
Code.
Procedural Guidelines
Participant’s
Role
ü The Ad Hoc 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(s) 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.
Avoid stereotyping or personal attacks.
ü To the extent possible, offer options to
address other’s concerns, as well as your own.
ü Participate fully in discussions, and
complete meeting assignments as requested.
ü Serve as an accessible liaison, and
represent and communicate with member’s constituent group(s).
Facilitator’s
Role (FCRC Consensus Center @ FSU)
ü Design and facilitate a participatory Ad
Hoc process.
ü Assist the Ad Hoc to build consensus on
a package of recommendations for delivery to the Florida Building Commission.
ü Provide process design and procedural
recommendations to staff and the Ad Hoc.
ü Assist participants to stay focused and
on task.
ü Assure that participants follow ground
rules.
ü Prepare and post agenda packets,
worksheets and 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 may be asked to develop and rank options, and following
discussion
and refinement may be asked to do additional rankings of the option(s) if
requested by members and/or staff. Please be prepared to offer specific
refinements or changes to address your reservations. The following scale will
be utilized for the ranking exercises:
Consensus Process
The Ad Hoc
Committee will seek to develop a package of consensus-based recommendations for
submittal to the Florida Building Commission.
General consensus is a participatory process whereby, on matters of
substance, the members strive for agreements which all of the members can
accept, support, live with or agree not to oppose. In
instances where, after vigorously exploring possible ways to enhance the
members’ support for the final decision on a recommendation, and the Ad Hoc
finds that 100% acceptance or support is not achievable, final decisions will
require at least 75% favorable vote of all members present and voting. This super majority decision rule underscores
the importance of actively developing consensus throughout the process on
substantive issues with the participation of all members and which all can live
with. In instances where the Ad Hoc
finds that even 75% acceptance or support is not achievable, publication of
recommendations will include documentation of the differences and the options
that were considered for which there is more than 50% support from the Ad Hoc.
The Ad Hoc will
develop its recommendations using consensus-building techniques with the assistance
of the facilitator. Techniques such as
brainstorming, ranking and prioritizing approaches will be utilized. Where differences exist that prevent the Ad
Hoc from reaching a final consensus decision (i.e. with support of at least 75%
of the members) on a recommendation, the Ad Hoc will outline the differences in
its documentation.
The Ad Hoc’s
consensus process will be conducted as an open process consistent with
applicable law. Ad Hoc members, staff,
and facilitator will be the only participants seated at the table. Only Ad Hoc
members may participate in discussions and vote on proposals and
recommendations. The facilitator, or a Ad Hoc member through the facilitator,
may request specific clarification from a member of the public in order to assist
the Ad Hoc in understanding an issue. Observers/members of the
public are welcome to speak during the public comment period provided at each
meeting, and all comments submitted on the public comment forms provided in the
agenda packets will be included in the facilitator’ summary reports.
Facilitator
will work with staff and Ad Hoc members to design agendas and worksheets that
will be both efficient and effective.
The staff will help the Ad Hoc with information and meeting logistics.
To enhance the
possibility of constructive discussions as members educate themselves on the
issues and engage in consensus-building, members agree to refrain from public
statements that may prejudge the outcome of the Ad Hoc’s consensus process. In discussing the Ad Hoc process with the
media, members agree to be careful to present only their own views and not the
views or statements of other participants. In addition, in order to provide
balance to the Ad Hoc process, members agree to represent and consult with
their stakeholder interest groups.
Building Code System Assessment Project
Consensus Recommendations
The Building Code System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee evaluated the
package of consensus recommendations developed by stakeholder and determined
they should be evaluated further in the context of fiscal, economic/financial, technical,
and life-safety criteria before they were recommended to the Legislature for
implementation. Based on the Ad Hoc’s
analysis of the consensus recommendations developed by stakeholders from an
on-line survey and a series of three stakeholder workshops, the Commission
voted unanimously to adopt the recommendations in concept (October 10, 2011).
The Commission determined that the recommendations should be evaluated in the
context of fiscal, economic/financial, technical, and life-safety
criteria, with recommendations meeting the criteria evaluated and developed in
consultation with stakeholders during 2012, for consideration by the Commission
for implementation and/or submittal to the 2013 Legislature. Following are the
Commission’s adopted conceptual recommendations for enhancements to the Florida
Building Code System:
Commission’s Adopted Conceptual Recommendations
Foundation I Recommendations—The
Code
a.) Establish an interagency coordination
workgroup to ensure there is effective coordination and communication between
state regulatory agencies and local jurisdictions.
b.) Develop insurance credits/incentives
for building better/stronger than code (e.g. hurricane resistant, fire and etc
provisions).
c.) Develop an effective communication
vehicle/process connected with a comprehensive database that ensures local
jurisdictions receive regular updates regarding the Florida Building Code
System.
d.) Evaluate current requirements in coastal
areas and mandate connectors that will withstand salt-air corrosion.
e.) Have the Florida Building Code
available on-line and fully searchable. This would be a part of the updated,
revised, fully searchable, user-friendly, and comprehensive BCIS.
f.) Establish a joint FBC workgroup with
the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) and relevant stakeholders (e.g.,
BOAF) to develop SOPs and MOUs for use by local Emergency Operation Centers
(EOC).
g.)
Workgroup/process to ensure that the ISO recognizes the Florida Building
Code for equivalent points for BSEGS (provide equal credits to the I-codes).
h.) Workgroup to evaluate expanding
interpretation authorities for Accessibility Code to non-binding opinions.
i.) Workgroup to evaluate coastal high
hazard zone building construction provisions. (Evaluation of all coastal areas
construction provisions was intended, broad generic definition if CHZ, not just
the state law CHZ).
j.) Develop a cross-reference table
regarding state agency regulations that impact construction.
k.) Agricultural exemptions should be
clarified (i.e., show horse arenas).
l.) Convene the Florida Accessibility
Code Workgroup, Florida Energy Code Workgroup, Flood Standards Workgroup, Code
Amendment Process (and other relevant topical workgroups) prior to each
triennial code update to develop recommendations to the Commission regarding
their respective topical areas.
m.) Develop recommendations for how
Florida can more effectively participate in the I-Code process and successfully
get needed Florida specific requirements into the I-Codes (reducing variations
between the FBC and the I-Codes).
n.) Conduct a comprehensive review and
evaluation of all exemptions in the Code (i.e., statutory, I-Codes, etc.).
Foundation II Recommendations—The
Commission
a.) Provide a link from the Florida
Building Code to all relevant local technical amendments.
b.) Continue to use the Commission’s
workgroup process to deal with special topical issues, and to eliminate
conflicts between the codes (e.g. FFPC and FBC).
c.) Provide notice to all building
codes/construction related professional associations regarding updates, issues
and notifications.
d.) Ensure the Commission has a
dedicated, secure and adequate funding source to properly meet their mission
and mandates. The dedicated funding source can only be used for Commission
functions and Florida Building Code System related activities.
Foundation III Recommendations—Local
Administration
a.) Utilize local BOAF chapters to find
out from clients in their region where code interpretations are uniform, and
then work out consensus on interpretations.
b.) Require local technical amendments
to be approved by the Florida Building Commission prior to adoption.
Foundation IV Recommendations—Strengthening
Compliance and Enforcement
a.) Investigate
development of an associate degree program with Universities/Colleges for
building officials.
b.) Create and maintain a comprehensive
searchable data-base containing all Commission/Code related items and automatically
communicate/transmit all relevant updates and changes to all jurisdictions
(i.e., FBC policy decisions, statutory changes, declaratory statements, binding
interpretations, product approval issues, code updates, etc.). This would be an
updated, revised, fully searchable, user-friendly, linked, and comprehensive
BCIS. The Florida Building Code and all relevant standards and documents should
be available on the BCIS (fully searchable).
{Note: There
were many suggestions regarding enhancing the BCIS/FBC website and the need to
communicate more effectively and frequently with local jurisdictions,
associations and stakeholders.
c.) Convene workgroup to evaluate and
make recommendations on the current education system.
d.) Recommend that DBPR and the licensing
board evaluate whether to require all building code related professions to have
mandatory “laws and rules” continuing education requirements for inclusion in
the licensing boards rules and/or statutes.
e.) Recommend that DBPR and the
licensing board evaluate whether to
develop approved core classes required and accepted by the various boards for
inclusion in the licensing boards rules and/or statutes (i.e., Fire Safety Inspector, BCAIB, CILB,
ECILB, Architect's Board, and Engineer's Board).
f.) Recommend that DBPR and the
licensing board evaluate whether
all Building Code System trainers should have minimum qualifications, and whether
to develop criteria to ensure training materials are accurate and trainers are
properly qualified for inclusion in the licensing boards rules and/or statutes.
g.) Recommend that DBPR and the
licensing board evaluate whether
to use the Commission’s education approval process as an interface between
licensing boards so approved courses are approved across the relevant professions,
for inclusion in the licensing boards rules and/or statutes.
h.) Recommend that DBPR and the
licensing board evaluate whether
to use the Commission’s evaluation model for course accreditation (enhance
consistency and cross discipline course approvals), for inclusion in the
licensing boards rules and/or statutes.
i.) Recommend that the State Fire Marshal’s Office, DBPR and
individual licensing boards evaluate whether to approve/accredit and require
joint training for fire and building officials (consistency of interpretation
and enforcement of fire provisions, for inclusion in the
licensing boards rules and/or statutes.
j.) Recommend that DBPR and the
individual licensing boars evaluate whether
to mandate a continuing education process for code officials requiring them to
keep current in the codes and administrative practices, requiring CEUs on the
Florida Building Code, and increase the number of CEUs required for all
licensees (building officials, plans examiners, inspectors, etc.), for
inclusion in the licensing boards rules and/or statutes.
Foundation V Recommendations—Product
Approval
a.) Develop a faster, user-friendly,
comprehensive, integrated and fully searchable product approval
data-base and submittal system. The
Product Approval data-base should be part of the comprehensive BCIS.
b.) Establish a statewide requirement
for how product approval documentation should be submitted to Building
Departments, with a standard form and the minimum documents required for
submittal.
Prioritization Ranking Exercise
Prioritization
Ranking Exercise for Consensus Recommendations
During the meeting members will be asked
to evaluate consensus recommendations in terms of priority. In determining
priorities members will be asked to prioritize recommendations using a four-point
prioritization scale as follows:
|
Prioritization
Ranking Scale for Implementing Consensus Recommendations |
|
|
4 |
Highest Level of Priority—Urgent |
|
3 |
High Level of Priority |
|
2 |
Moderate Level of Priority |
|
1 |
Low Level of Priority |
Members will be
asked to utilize the following criteria for prioritizing implementation of
consensus recommendations:
|
Criteria
for Prioritizing Implementation of Consensus Recommendations |
|
|
Criteria |
Explanation |
|
Urgent |
Is
it essential to implement the recommendation? Will things get worse if the recommendation
is not implemented? |
|
Feasible |
Is
it likely that the joint action will be implemented, and successful in
achieving the goal of the recommendation? |
|
Resources |
Are
there resources available, or likely to become available for implementing the
recommendation? Is the recommendation cost effective? |
|
Support |
Does
the recommendation enjoy broad support across stakeholder sectors? |
|
Relevance |
Is
the recommendation within the Commission’s statutory charge and mission? |
Acceptability
Ranking Scale Template
Q
|
|
4=acceptable |
3= minor reservations |
2=major reservations |
1= not acceptable |
|
Initial Ranking 01/31/12 |
|
|
|
|
Committee Comments and Reservations
(01/31/12):
|
Consensus
Recommendations Implementation Prioritization Exercise |
||||||
|
Rank the
priority for implementing each consensus recommendation in terms of the
criteria. Prioritize each recommendation on its own merit and not in relation
to one another. |
||||||
|
Consensus
Recommendation |
Rank |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
Raw Score |
|
Foundation
I—The Code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.)
Interagency coordination workgroup between state regulatory agencies and
local jurisdictions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b.) Insurance
credits/incentives for building better/stronger than code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
c.) Ensure
local jurisdictions receive regular updates (establish process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
d.) Salt-air
corrosion requirements for connectors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e.) FBC
available on-line and fully searchable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
f.) Joint
workgroup to develop SOPs and MOUs for use by local Emergency Operation
Centers (EOC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
g.) Workgroup
to ensure that the ISO recognizes the FBC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
h.) Workgroup
on non-binding opinions for FACBC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i.) Coastal
HHZ building construction provisions workgroup |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
j.)
Cross-reference table regarding state agency regulations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
k.) Clarify
agricultural exemptions (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
l.) Convene
topical workgroups for Code Updates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
m.) FBC
I-Code participation evaluation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n.) Evaluate
all exemptions in the Code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foundation
II—The Commission |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.) Link all
local technical amendments to FBC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b.) Use
workgroup process to address special topical issues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
c.) Notify
stakeholders on updates, issues and notifications |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
d.) Develop
secure dedicated funding source for Commission |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foundation
III—Local Administration |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.) With BOAF
ensure code interpretations are consistent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b.) Require FBC
approval of local technical amendments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consensus
Recommendations Implementation Prioritization Exercise |
||||||
|
Rank
the priority for implementing each consensus recommendation in terms of the
criteria. Prioritize each recommendation on its own merit and not in relation
to one another. |
||||||
|
Consensus Recommendation |
Rank |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
Raw Score |
|
Foundation IV—Compliance
and Enforcement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.)
AA program for building officials |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b.)
Comprehensive searchable FBC
System data-base |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
c.)
Workgroup to evaluate current
education system |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
d.)
DBPR/licensing boards
evaluate laws and rules CE req’s. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e.)
DBPR/licensing boards
evaluate core course requirement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
f.)
DBPR/licensing boards
evaluate trainer qualifications |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
g.)
DBPR/licensing boards
evaluate using FBC education approval process |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
h.)
DBPR/licensing boards
evaluate using FBC evaluation model for course accreditation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i.)
DBPR/licensing boards/DSFM
evaluate whether to approve/accredit and require joint training |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
j.)
DBPR/licensing boards
evaluate mandatory Code CEU requirements for code officials |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foundation V—Product
Approval |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.)
Enhance Product Approval data-base (part of BCIS) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b.)
Statewide requirement for
how product approval documentation should be submitted to building
departments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida Building Code System Overview Continued
The Florida
Building Code System is Comprised of Five Essential Components. A Summary of
Each Follows:
I. The Florida Building Code and the Code
Development Process. Historically the promulgation of codes and standards was
the responsibility of local jurisdictions. It was determined that Florida’s
system is “ a patchwork of codes and regulations developed, amended,
administered and enforced differently by more than 400 local jurisdictions and
state agencies with building code responsibilities”. A critical component for
an effective building code system was to develop and implement a single
state-wide code.
The
purpose of developing s single state-wide building code was to:
1.
Serve as a comprehensive regulatory document to guide decisions aimed at
protecting the health, safety and welfare of all of Florida’s citizens.
2.
Provide uniform standards and requirements through the adoption by reference of
applicable national codes and providing exceptions when necessary.
3.
Establish the standards and requirements through performance-based and
prescriptive based criteria where applicable.
4.
Permit and promote innovation and new technology.
5.
Require adequate maintenance of buildings and structures, specifically related
to code compliance, throughout the State.
6.
Eliminate restrictive, obsolete, conflicting and unnecessary construction
regulations that tend to increase construction costs unnecessarily or that
restrict the use of innovation and new technology.
The
new Florida Building Code is a state-wide code implemented in 2001 and updated
every three years. The Florida Building Commission developed the Florida
Building Code from 1999 through 2001, and is responsible for maintaining the
Code through annual interim amendments and a triennial foundation code update.
II. The Commission. The
Commission is an appointed representative stakeholder body that develops,
amends and updates the Code. The Commission is comprised of members
representing each of the key interests in the building code system. The
Commission meets every six weeks and in addition to their code development
responsibilities, regularly consider petitions for declaratory statements,
accessibility waiver requests, the approval of products and entities, and the
approval of education courses and course accreditors. The Commission also
monitors the building code system and reports to the Legislature annually with
their recommendations for changes to statute and law.
III. Local Administration of the Code.
The Study Commission
recommended, and subsequent legislation maintained, that the Code shall be
administered and enforced by local government building and fire officials. The
Commission has certain authorities in this respect such as the number and type
of required inspections. However, the Commission’s main responsibility remains
amending the Code, hearing appeals of local building officials decisions, and
issuing binding interpretations of any provisions of the Florida Building Code.
IV. Strengthening Compliance and Enforcement.
Compliance and
enforcement of the Code is a critical component of the system with the
Commission’s emphasis in this regard is on education and training. The Study
Commission determined that in order to have an effective system a clear
delineation of each participant’s role and accountability for performance must
be effected. There should be a formal process to obtain credentials for design,
construction, and enforcement professionals with accountability for
performance. Opportunities for education and training were seen as necessary
for each participant to fulfill their role competently. Although many of the
Commission’s functions related to education were recently assigned to a
legislatively created Education Council, education remains a cornerstone of the
building code system. The Commission remains focused on the approval of course accreditors and the
courses developed/recommended by approved accreditors.
V. Product Evaluation and Approval. In
order to promote innovation and new technologies a product and evaluation
system was determined to be the fifth cornerstone of an effective Building Code
System. The product approval process should have specific criteria and strong steps
to determine that a product or system is appropriately tested and complies with
the Code. Quality control should be performed by independent agencies and
testing laboratories which meet stated criteria and are periodically inspected.
A quality assurance program was also deemed essential. The Commission adopted a
Product Approval System by rule and currently approves products for state
approval and product approval entities. Local product approval remains under
the purview of the local building official as a part of the building permit
approval process.
Additional Key Building Code System
Programs
A. Building
Code Information System. The Building Code Information
System (BCIS) was developed in early 2000 to implement the new
responsibilities, business practices, and automated systems required by the
Florida Building Code. The BCIS is a multi-functional database that
provides building professionals, the general public, local governments, and
manufacturers with single-point access to the Florida Building Code,
Manufactured Building Program, Product Approval System, Prototype Program,
local code amendments, declaratory statements, nonbinding opinions, and
the interested party list.
Since its initial deployment,
significant new functionality has been added to the BCIS in response to new
legislation and to accommodate the changing needs of the Commission and DCA.
The amount of information now available via the BCIS has more than
doubled in the last four years; the number and type of users has correspondingly
increased as new needs are addressed. The web site has become more
complex and more difficult to locate needed information. As a result, the
Department is in the process of updating the BCIS to address the overall
accessibility of information contained within the BCIS.
B. Manufactured Buildings Program.
Chapter 553, Part I, FS, known as the
Manufactured Buildings Act of 1979, governs the design, plans review,
construction and inspection of all buildings (excluding mobile homes)
manufactured in a facility to ensure compliance with the Florida Building
Code. Rule Chapter 9B-1 FAC was
subsequently adopted by the Commission to adequately govern the program and to
ensure that manufacturers and independent Third Party Inspection Agencies
maintain performance standards.
Inspections agencies qualified under this program and serving as agents
for the State, provide construction plan reviews and in-plant inspections. All manufacturers and Third Party Agencies
are monitored at least once per year to ensure quality assurance and adequate
code enforcement. Manufactured Buildings
approved under this program are exempted from local code enforcement agency
plan review except for provisions of the code relating to erection, assembly or
construction at the site.
C. Prototype Buildings Program. Chapter 553.77(5) F.S., Rule 9B-74 Prototype Plan Review and Approval
program. The plans review program was developed by the Florida Building
Commission to address public and private entities such as buildings and
structures that could be replicated throughout the state. This program is
conducted by an Administrator delegated by the Commission, this Administrator
has qualifications to review plan compliance with the Florida Building Code and
certified per the requirements of Chapter 468,F.S. The program Administrator
contracts with qualified plans examiners to review Prototype plans for Code
compliance with the Florida Building Code and Florida Fire Prevention Code,
these plans examiners are certified in Chapter 468 or 633 F.S., or both
Chapters 468 and 633, F.S. The prototype plans are reviewed for completeness in
a timely manner compliant with Chapter 120 F.S.. Each approved Prototype plan
is issued an identification tracking number, this number is used to track
replicated plans to local governments. The Administrator regularly attends the
Florida Building Commission and reports on the progress of the Prototype
Buildings Program.
D. Alternative Plans Review and
Inspections—Private Provider System for Plans Review and Inspection Functions.
§553.791, Florida
Statutes, was created in 2002 to allow property owners to utilize the services
of a private interest to perform plan review and/or inspection services in lieu
of, but subject to review by the local permitting authority. The legislation creating the process also
directed the Commission to review the system and report the results to the
legislature which was accomplished in the Commission's 03-04 report. In
addition, the Commission as a result of a consensus stakeholder process
convened in 2004, proposed, additional refinements to the system in the
Commission’s 04-05 report. In 2005 the Florida Legislature adopted a package of
refinement to the system which were signed into law in the summer of 2005.
E. Interaction and Coordination Between the
Florida Building Code and Other State Based Building Construction Regulations.
The Florida Building
Commission is committed to coordinating with other State agencies charged with
implementing and enforcing their respective State based building construction
regulations. The Commission only has authority to amend the Florida Building
Code and respective rules, and other state agencies have similar authority for
their respective rules and regulations. The Commission has worked closely with
other state agencies to ensure consistency and coordination between the various
codes and rules.
F. Enforcement
of Other State Based Building Construction Regulations at the Local Level.
Enforcement of state
agency regulations occurs primarily at the local level under the jurisdiction
of the respective agency’s local officials. Regulations should be clear and
consistent across the State, and coordination is required between the Florida
Building Code’s and other agency’s requirements.
Public Comment Form
The Florida Building Commission and the
Building Code System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee encourage written comments—All
written comments will be included in the meeting summary report.
Name:
Organization:
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 Ad Hoc.
Any personal
attacks or derogatory language will be discarded.
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.