FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION
BUILDING CODE SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
AD HOC COMMITTEE
October
12, 2010
Hilton University of Florida
1714 S.W. 34th Street—Gainesville, Florida 32607—1.352.371.3600
Meeting Objectives
ü To Approve Regular Procedural Topics
(Agenda)
ü To Hear an Overview of Ad Hoc Charge and
Scope
ü To Review Building Code System
Assessment Survey Results
ü To Propose Building Code System
Revisions as Options for Evaluation
ü To Evaluate, Rank, and Refine Proposed
Options
ü To Adopt Recommendations for Submittal
to the Commission for Revisions to the Florida Building Code System
ü To Consider Public Comment
ü To Identify Needed Next Steps
All
Agenda Times—Including Public Comment and Adjournment—Are Subject to Change
Meeting Agenda—Tuesday, October
12, 2010
2:00 Welcome
and Opening
Agenda Review and Approval
Building
Code System Ad Hoc Committee Scope Overview
Overview
of Assessment Survey Results
Identification of Options and
Related Issues for Possible Revisions to Building Code System
Accessment Ranking of Proposed
Options
General Public Comment
Adoption of Recommendations for
Submittal to the Commission
Review of Workgroup Delivery
and Meeting Schedule and Next Steps
Adjourn
Contact Information and Project Webpage
Jeff Blair: jblair@fsu.edu ; http://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/bcsa.html
OVERVIEW,
PROJECT SCOPE, AND MEMBERS
BCSA AD HOC MEMBERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION
Overview
Triennial Report to the
Legislature. 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 this year (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 Commission meeting consider and develop a package of
recommendations for enhancements to the Florida Building Code System (the Code,
the Commission, local administration, compliance and enforcement, and product
evaluation and approval).
The
Chair appointed an ad hoc committee of Commission
members to review the results of the Building Code System assessment survey and
develop recommendations for the Commission regarding any proposed changes to
the Building Code System. This will be a facilitated consensus-building process
and the Ad Hoc will meet at the October 2010 Commission meeting, and the Commission
will consider the Ad Hoc’s recommendations at the December 2010 meeting for
inclusion in the Report to the 2011 Legislature.
Members
and Representation
Raul Rodriguez
(Chair) Architects
Dick Browdy Home
Builders
Ed Carson Contractors,
Manufactured Buildings, Product Approval
Herminio Gonzalez Code Officials (SE
Florida) and Product Evaluation Entities
Jim Goodloe State
Insurance and Fire Officials
Dale Greiner Code
Officials (Central Florida) and Local Government
Jeff Gross Building
Management Industry
Jon Hamrick Public
Education and State Agencies
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
Randy Vann Plumbing
Contractors and Construction Subcontractors
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.
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.
Ad Hoc Committee Process Overview
A
Survey was conducted to solicit public input on the Building Code System. The
survey was designed to solicit input on the five key components of the Building
Code System: the Code, the Commission, administration of the Code, compliance
and enforcement (education), and product approval. In addition, comments were
solicited for four key Building Code System programs: the Building Code
Information System, the Manufactured Buildings Program, the Prototype Buildings
Program, and the Private Provider System. Finally, comments were solicited for
two additional aspects of the System: interaction and coordination between the
Florida Building Code, and other state based building construction regulations
and enforcement of other state based building construction regulations at the
local level. The survey ran from June 25, 2010 through August 30, 2010, and
there were 85 respondents to the survey. The survey responses were compiled and
shared without any attribution to individual survey respondents. The survey results will also serve as a
component of the input for the Building Code System Assessment Ad Hoc
Committee’s recommendations.
AD HOC PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
PARTICIPANTS’ 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).
FACILITATORS’ 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 will be asked to develop and rank options, and following
discussions
and refinements, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options if
requested by members and staff. Please be prepared to offer specific
refinements or changes to address your reservations. The following scale will
be utilized for the ranking exercises:
WORKGROUP’S
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.