FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION
CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS REVIEW WORKGROUP — MEETING IV
Tampa, Florida
Embassy Suites Hotel
3705 Spectrum Blvd, 33612
813-977-7066
Meeting Objectives
To Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda and Report)
To Review Project Scope for Phase III
To Identify and Discuss Issues for Phase III
To Review Staff Identified Options
To Identify Additional Options for Evaluation
To Conduct a Preliminary Evaluation of Options for Acceptability (If time permits)
To Consider Public Comment
To Discuss Next Steps and Agenda for November 2, 2006 Meeting
All Agenda Times—Including Public Comment and Adjournment—Are Subject to Change
Meeting Agenda
9:00 Welcome and Introductions
9:05 Agenda Review and Approval
9:10 Approval of August 21, 2006 Facilitator's Summary Report
9:15 Review of Phase III Project Scope
9:30 Identification and Discussion of Issues
Education and training, timelines between adoption and implementation, integrating the ICC codes updates and Florida specific amendments into the FBC update, code formatting issues.
10:00 Identification of Staff Proposed Options
10:30 Identification of Additional Options for Evaluation
10:40 Preliminary Evaluation and Discussion of Options by Issue in Turn
11:40 General Public Comment
11:50 Overview of Next Steps, Agenda Items for November 2, 2006 Meeting
12:00 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 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.
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.
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 |
CODE AMENDMMENT PROCESS OPTIONS EVALUATION WORKSHEET
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 |
WORKGROUP OPTIONS REVIEW PROCESS OVERVIEW
The following process will be used for Meeting IV:
Overview and Discussion of Issues for evaluation,
Overview of staff proposed options,
Identification of new option(s) (if any),
Acceptability ranking of options,
Public comment,
Consensus testing on package of recommendations for submittal to the Commission (for November 2, 2006 meeting).
|
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— Adopt the model code base documents and the Florida Specific changes as two separate documents. This option would consist of adopting the base model code documents by reference and a code supplement which delineates Florida Specific changes.
|
4=acceptable |
3= minor reservations |
2=major reservations |
1= not acceptable |
Initial Ranking 10/9/06 |
|
|
|
|
Revised
|
|
|
|
|
Member's Comments and Reservations (October 2006):
|
4=acceptable |
3= minor reservations |
2=major reservations |
1= not acceptable |
Initial Ranking 10/9/06 |
|
|
|
|
Revised
|
|
|
|
|
Member's Comments and Reservations (October 2006):
|
4=acceptable |
3= minor reservations |
2=major reservations |
1= not acceptable |
Initial Ranking 10/9/06 |
|
|
|
|
Revised
|
|
|
|
|
Member's Comments and Reservations (October 2006):
|
4=acceptable |
3= minor reservations |
2=major reservations |
1= not acceptable |
Initial Ranking 10/9/06 |
|
|
|
|
Revised
|
|
|
|
|
Member's Comments and Reservations (October 2006):
|
4=acceptable |
3= minor reservations |
2=major reservations |
1= not acceptable |
Initial Ranking 10/9/06 |
|
|
|
|
Revised
|
|
|
|
|
Member's Comments and Reservations (October 2006):