AGENDA
FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION
JOINT FIRE TAC AND FIRE CODE ADVISORY COUNCIL
Monday, October 9, 2006
Embassy Suites Hotel
3705 Spectrum Blvd,
Tampa, Florida 33612
813-977-7066
Meeting Objectives
To Review and Adopt Meeting Procedures and Guidelines
To Review Meeting Scope
To Discuss Staff Identified Options
To Propose Options for Evaluation
To Evaluate, Rank, and Refine Proposed Options
To Consider Public Comment
To Adopt Recommendations for Submittal to the Commission
To Identify Any Needed Next Steps
Meeting Agenda
1:00 Welcome and Introductions (J. Blair)
1:05 Agenda Review and Approval (J. Blair)
1:10 Meeting Decision-Making Procedures and Meeting Guidelines (J. Blair)
1:15 Overview of Meeting Scope
1:20 Review and Discussion of Staff Identified Options
2:00 Options Identification and Initial Evaluation of Options
2:30 Evaluation of Options—Ranking and Refinement of Options
4:30 General Public Comment
4:40 Consensus Testing and Agreement on Recommendations for Commission Submittal
4:50 Overview of Next Steps and Delivery Schedule
5:00 Adjourn
Contact Information: Jeff Blair; 850.644.6320; jblair@mailer.fsu.edu ; http://consenus.fsu.edu
Fire TAC: Tony Apfelbeck, Hamid Bahadori, Joe Belcher, Nick D'Andrea,
Jim Goodloe, Dale Greiner, Jeff Gross, Michael Kravit, Brad Schiffer, Jim Schock,
Peter Schwab, Walter Smith.
Fire Code Advisory Council: Anthony C. Apfelbeck , Marguerite Atkins, Belinda Chukes, Raymond Cicero, Jeff Collins, Claudio Grande, Jon Hamrick, Michelle Humphries, Bradley Schiffer, Richard A. Seidel, and Andrew Valente.
MEETING PROCESS
During the meeting, 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. A four-point ranking scale will be used, and in general, 4's and 3's indicate support and 2's and 1's indicate opposition to the option. A 75% threshold of 4's and 3's will be required for an affirmative recommendation to the Commission. The following scale will be utilized for the ranking exercise(s):
Acceptability Ranking Scale |
4 = acceptable, I agree |
3 = acceptable, I agree with minor reservations |
2 = not acceptable, I don't agree unless major reservations addressed |
1 = not acceptable |
MEETING OPTIONS REVIEW PROCESS OVERVIEW
The following process will be used for the Meeting:
Overview of staff identified options,
Identification of new option(s) (if any),
General discussion of the issues and options,
Acceptability ranking of options,
Identification of Member's reservations of ranked options,
Public comment,
Consensus testing on package of recommendations for submittal to the Commission.
Option—
|
4=acceptable |
3= minor reservations |
2=major reservations |
1= not acceptable |
Initial Ranking 10/9/06 |
|
|
|
|
Revised
|
|
|
|
|
Member's Comments and Reservations (October 2006):
Option —
|
4=acceptable |
3= minor reservations |
2=major reservations |
1= not acceptable |
Initial Ranking 10/9/06 |
|
|
|
|
Revised
|
|
|
|
|
Member's Comments and Reservations (October 2006):
OPTIONS EVALUATION WORKSHEET
Option 1— Continue to review both the FBC and the FFPC for the purpose of correlating and harmonizing the specific requirements of both codes so that both documents are consistent.
|
4=acceptable |
3= minor reservations |
2=major reservations |
1= not acceptable |
Initial Ranking 10/9/06 |
|
|
|
|
Revised
|
|
|
|
|
Member's Comments and Reservations (October 2006):
Option 2—
|
4=acceptable |
3= minor reservations |
2=major reservations |
1= not acceptable |
Initial Ranking 10/9/06 |
|
|
|
|
Revised
|
|
|
|
|
Member's Comments and Reservations (October 2006):
Option 3—
|
4=acceptable |
3= minor reservations |
2=major reservations |
1= not acceptable |
Initial Ranking 10/9/06 |
|
|
|
|
Revised
|
|
|
|
|
Member's Comments and Reservations (October 2006):
Option 4—
|
4=acceptable |
3= minor reservations |
2=major reservations |
1= not acceptable |
Initial Ranking 10/9/06 |
|
|
|
|
Revised
|
|
|
|
|
Member's Comments and Reservations (October 2006):
COMMISSION WORKGROUP
PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
MEMBER'S ROLE
FACILITATOR'S ROLE
GUIDELINES FOR BRAINSTORMING
THE NAME STACKING PROCESS
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:
Acceptability Ranking Scale |
4 = acceptable, I agree |
3 = acceptable, I agree with minor reservations |
2 = not acceptable, I don't agree unless major reservations addressed |
1 = not acceptable |