FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS REVIEW WORKGROUP — MEETING III

Don Shula Hotel;
6842 Main Street;
Miami Lakes, FL 33314,
1- 800-247-4852

Meeting Objectives

•  To Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda and Report)

•  To Review Issues and Options Worksheet

•  To Review Consensus Recommendations from Worksheet

•  To Identify Any Additional Options for Evaluation

•  To Evaluate Options for Acceptability

•  To Consider Public Comment

•  To Adopt Package of Recommendations for Submittal to the Commission

•  To Discuss Next Steps and Recommendations Delivery Schedule

All Agenda Times—Including Public Comment and Adjournment—Are Subject to Change

Meeting Agenda

3:00 Welcome and Introductions

3:05 Agenda Review and Approval

3:10 Approval of July 12, 2006 Facilitator's Summary Report

3:15 Review of Issues and Options Worksheet and Consensus Recommendations

3:25 Identification of Additional Options (If Any) for Evaluation

3:35 Evaluation and Discussion of Options by Issue in Turn

4:35 General Public Comment

4:45 Consensus Testing and Agreement on Recommendations for Commission Submittal

4:55 Overview of Next Steps and Recommendations Delivery Schedule

5:00 Adjourn

Contact Information: Jeff Blair; 850.644.6320; jblair@mailer.fsu.edu ; http://consenus.fsu.edu

Project Webpage: http://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/cprwg.html

CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS WORKGROUP OVERVIEW

Code Amendment Process Review Workgroup tasked with a short-term (Phase 1) scope and a long-term (Phase II) scope. The scope of the Workgroup in the short-term is to make a recommendation regarding the 2007 Code Update schedule. The long-term focus of the Workgroup will be to deliver recommendations to the Commission regarding proposed enhancements to the annual interim amendment and triennial code update processes.

Workgroup Members:

Hamid Bahadori, Jeff Burton, Nick D'Andrea, Jack Glenn, Jim Goodloe, Dale Greiner, Gary Griffin, Jon Hamrick, Kari Hebrank, and Randy Vann.

Triennial Code Update Process

Florida Statute, Chapter 553.73(6), requires the Commission to update the Florida Building Code every 3 years; by selecting the most current version of the International Family of Codes; the commission may modify any portion of the foundation codes only as needed to accommodate the specific needs of this state, maintaining Florida-specific amendments previously adopted by the commission and not addressed by the updated foundation code.

Expedited Amendment Process

(f) Upon the conclusion of a triennial update to the Florida Building Code, notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection or subsection (3), the commission may address issues identified in this paragraph by amending the code pursuant only to the rule adoption procedures contained in chapter 120. Following the approval of any amendments to the Florida Building Code by the commission and publication of the amendments on the commission's website, authorities having jurisdiction to enforce the Florida Building Code may enforce the amendments. The commission may approve amendments that are needed to address:

1. Conflicts within the updated code;

2. Conflicts between the updated code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code adopted pursuant to CH. 633;

3. The omission of previously adopted Florida-specific amendments to the updated code if such omission is not supported by a specific recommendation of a technical advisory committee or particular action by the commission; or

4. Unintended results from the integration of previously adopted Florida-specific amendments with the model code.

Annual Interim Amendment Process

Florida Statute, Chapter 553.73(7), provides that the Commission may approve technical amendments to the Florida Building Code once each year for statewide or regional application upon a finding that the

amendment: there is a Florida specific need; has connection to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public; strengthens or improves the Code; does not discriminate against materials, products, methods, or systems of construction of demonstrated capabilities; does not degrade the effectiveness of the Code; and, includes a fiscal impact statement which documents the costs and benefits of the proposed

amendment, and shall include the impact to local government relative to enforcement, the impact to

property and building owners, as well as to industry, relative to the cost of compliance.

CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS REVIEW WORKGROUP

PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES

MEMBER'S ROLE

• The Workgroup's meeting process is an opportunity to explore possibilities. Offering or exploring an idea does not necessarily imply support for it.
• Listen to understand. Seek a shared understanding even if you don't agree.
• Be focused and concise—balance participation & minimize repetition. Share the airtime.
• Look to the Facilitator to be recognized. Please raise your hand to speak.
• Speak one person at a time. Please don't interrupt each other.
• Focus on issues, not personalities. Avoid stereotyping or personal attacks.
• To the extent possible, offer options to address other's concerns, as well as your own.
• Represent and communicate with member's constituent group.

FACILITATOR'S ROLE

• Design and facilitate a participatory meeting process.
• Provide consensus-building and conflict resolution guidance.
• Assure that participants follow ground rules—Assist participants to stay on task.
• Facilitate public participation and input.
• Prepare agenda packets and provide meeting summary reports.

GUIDELINES FOR BRAINSTORMING

• Speak when recognized by the Facilitator.
• Offer one idea per person without explanation.
• No comments, criticism, or discussion of other's ideas.
• Listen respectively to other's ideas and opinions.
• Seek understanding and not agreement at this point in the process.

THE NAME STACKING PROCESS

• Determines the speaking order.
• Members raises hand to speak. Facilitator will call on participants in turn.
• Facilitator 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 a 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 as refined. Members should be prepared to offer specific refinements to address their reservations. The following scale will be utilized for the ranking exercises: