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—
Correlation between the two codes is not necessary.  However, continue to utilize Florida Statutory provisions as the tool to resolve conflicts.

 

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—
Establish line of demarcations for application and enforcement.  This will require delineations of those sections/provisions from both codes to be used for application and enforcement.  Also, to make enforcement possible by the appropriate enforcement agency, integration of specific subjects/section into the base documents will be necessary.

 

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—
Adopt the FFPC into the FBC and vice versa and permit enforcement by both fire and building officials.

 

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

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:

 

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