Florida Building Commission

Building Code System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee

October 10, 2011

Hilton Daytona Beach Resort

100 North Atlantic Ave—Daytona Beach, Florida 32118—1.386.254.8200

Building Code System Assessment Meeting Objectives

Ø To Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda and Procedural Guidelines)

Ø To Hear an Overview of Ad Hoc Charge and Scope

Ø To Review Building Code System Assessment Options Evaluation Ranking Exercise Results

Ø To Propose Building Code System Options and Issues for Evaluation

Ø To Evaluate, Rank, and Refine Committee Proposed Options

Ø To Consider Public Comment

Ø To Adopt Recommendations for Submittal to the Commission for Enhancements to the Florida Building Code System

Ø To Identify Needed Next Steps

*Meeting Agenda—Monday, October 10, 2011*
All Agenda Times—Including Adjournment—Are Approximate and Subject to Change
2:30	PM	Welcome and Opening
	PM	Agenda Review and Approval
	PM	August 12, 2010 Facilitator’s Summary Report Review and Approval
	PM	Building Code System Assessment Scope Review and Project Update
	PM	Overview of Options Evaluation Ranking Exercise
	PM	Identification of Additional Options for Possible Enhancements to the Florida Building Code System
	PM	Acceptability Ranking of Proposed Options for System Enhancements
	PM	General Public Comment
	PM	Adoption of Recommendations for Submittal to the Commission
	PM	Review of Project Delivery and Meeting Schedule, and Next Steps
	PM	*Adjourn*

Contact Information and Project Webpage

Jeff Blair: jblair@fsu.edu ; http://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/bcsa.html

Project Membership and Delivery Schedule

Overview

Chairman Rodriguez appointed an ad hoc committee of Commission members (Building Code System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee) to review the results of the Building Code System assessment survey and comments received during a series of public workshops and to develop consensus recommendations for the Commission regarding any proposed changes to the Building Code System.

The project will be a facilitated consensus-building process and will conclude with recommendations for enhancements to the System submitted to the 2012 Legislature.

Ad Hoc Committee Membership
Member	Representation
Raul Rodriguez (FBC chair)	Architects
Hamid Bahadori	Fire Officials and Fire Protection Technologist
Dick Browdy (FBC vice-chair)	Home Builders
Ed Carson	Contractors, Manufactured Buildings, Product Approval
Herminio Gonzalez	Code Officials (SE Florida) and Product Evaluation Entities
Dale Greiner	Code Officials (Central Florida) and Local Government
Jeff Gross	Building Management Industry
Jon Hamrick	Public Education and State Agencies
John Scherer	General Contractors
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

Building Code System Assessment Project Chronology
Date	Activity
June 25 – August 30, 2010	On-Line Survey
June 25, 2010 – January 28, 2011	On-Line Survey Extension
October 12, 2010	Building Code System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee Meeting
October 13, 2010	Public Comment Opportunity I
December 7, 2010	Public Comment Opportunity II
April 5, 2011	Building Code System Assessment Workshop I
June 6, 2011	Building Code System Assessment Workshop II
August 8, 2011	Building Code System Assessment Workshop III
October 10, 2011	Building Code System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee Meeting
December 6, 2011	Commission Adopts Recommendations for Submittal to the 2012 Legislature
January 1, 2012	Report to 2012 Legislature

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.

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 during 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 meeting the Commission voted to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Building Code System. The Commission decided to conduct an expanded survey running from June 2010 through January 2011 and to use the results as one of the inputs for developing a package of recommendations for enhancements to the key components of the Florida Building Code System. Public input will be a major component of the assessment process and the Survey in addition to multiple public comment opportunities will be an important part of the Commission’s analysis of the Building Code System. The Goals of the 2011 Florida Building Code System Assessment are to evaluate the System for its successes and deficiencies, and to identify and select options for improvement. The Foundations of the Building Code System that will be evaluated are:

Foundation I	The Code and the Code Development Process
Foundation II	The Commission
Foundation II	Local Administration of the Code (Enforcement)
Foundation IV	Strengthening Compliance and Enforcement (Education)
Foundation V	Product Approval

To coordinate the project the Chair appointed an ad hoc committee of Commission members to review

the results of the Building Code System Assessment Surveys (I and II) as well as comments received during

a series of workshops, and to develop recommendations for the Commission regarding any proposed

changes to the Building Code System. This is a facilitated consensus-building process and the Ad Hoc

met for the first time at the October 2010 Commission meeting, and the Commission will consider the

Ad Hoc’s recommendations at the December 2011 meeting for inclusion in the Report to the 2012

Legislature. The goal of the project is to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the Florida Building

Code System at the ten-year anniversary of the Florida Building Code.
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 Florida 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 2010 through January 2011, and there were 324 respondents to the survey providing over 4,070 individual comments. The survey responses were compiled and shared without any attribution to individual survey respondents. The survey results served as a component of the input for the Building Code System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations.

Summary of Comments From Survey

In reviewing the over 4,070 individual comments submitted by 324 respondents regarding the Florida Building Code System there were divergent stakeholders’/respondents’ comments representing the full range of perspectives on each specific component of the Florida Building Code System ranging from complete support to indifference to neutrality to complete dissatisfaction to no knowledge of or experience with a specific component of the System. The following summary provides an overview of commonly offered stakeholder perspectives that enjoyed a high level of support.

Many respondents appreciate the consensus-building and stakeholder involvement aspects of the process, including the workgroup process for special issue topics. There is broad support for a Florida Building Code with a preference for aligning the FBC with the IBC as closely as possible, with variations for only truly needed Florida specific requirements. There is concern with the quantity and frequency of amending the Code, and a strong desire for the FBC code development cycle to more closely align with the IBC cycle. The FBC and FFPC should be coordinated and correlated as much as possible and conflicts resolved. There is a desire for readily accessible web-based codes and relevant standards and information. Many respondents expressed a desire for an enhanced BCIS/Commission website with an integrated (Florida Building Code, Product Approval, Education and all relevant Commission programs and functions) data-base that is user-friendly, fully searchable, comprehensive, and linked to relevant documents and websites. There is a strong desire for the Commission to regularly and effectively communicate to AHJs, associations and stakeholders regarding Commission policy decisions, code changes, declaratory statements, updates, and all other relevant information. There is concern for political and special interest interference with the consensus process. There is a desire to make the System as user friendly and responsive as possible, and to eliminate any duplication or effort and unnecessary requirements. There is agreement state agency regulations and enforcement should be coordinated and consistent across jurisdictions. Product Approval Program users appreciate the timely review and approval of products and the searchable on-line functionality of the Program. Many respondents’ expressed that there are inadequate resources at the state and local levels to support needed training, education, enforcement and development of the Code and a dedicated, protected and adequate funding source should be secured.

Procedural Guidelines

Participant’s 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).

Facilitator’s 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

discussion 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:

Acceptability Ranking Scale

4= Acceptable,

I agree

3= Minor Reservations,

I agree with minor reservations

2= Major Reservations,

I don’t agree unless major reservations addressed

1= Not Acceptable

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.

Options Evaluation Worksheet

Options Achieving a 75% or Greater Threshold of Participant Support

Following are the options achieving a 75% or greater number of 4’s and 3’s in proportion to 2’s and 1’s as ranked by Workshop III participants. Commissioners should determine whether they support specific options and whether they wish to re-rank specific options. Otherwise, all options achieving a 75% or greater level of support will be conveyed to the Commission as consensus recommendations. Ad Hoc Committee members are encouraged to offer additional options for evaluation during the October meeting. Staff has reviewed the options and provided feedback (in red) regarding the framing and/or conveying of specific options related to licensing boards and state agencies.

Foundation I The Code

Options Achieving ≥ 75% Level of Support

Q Establish an interagency coordination workgroup to ensure there is effective coordination and communication between state regulatory agencies and local jurisdictions. {27 – 0 in support}

Q Require all building code related professions to have mandatory CEU requirements regarding building code related “laws and rules”. {27 – 0 in support}

[Recommendation: If the above option is supported by the Ad Hoc reframe to: Request the DBPR and the licensing boards review the above recommendation regarding requiring mandatory “laws and rules” continuing education for inclusion in licensing board rules and/or statutes.]

Q Develop insurance credits/incentives for building better/stronger than code (e.g. hurricane resistant, fire and etc provisions). {27 – 0 in support}

Q Develop an effective communication vehicle/process connected with a comprehensive database that ensures local jurisdictions receive regular updates regarding the Florida Building Code System. {25 – 0 in support}

Q Evaluate current requirements in coastal areas and mandate connectors that will withstand salt-air corrosion.

{25 – 0 in support}

Q Have the Florida Building Code available on-line and fully searchable. This would be a part of the updated, revised, fully searchable, user-friendly, and comprehensive BCIS. {24 – 0 in support}

Q Establish a joint FBC workgroup with the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) and relevant stakeholders (e.g., BOAF) to develop SOPs and MOUs for use by local Emergency Operation Centers (EOC). {23 - 0 in support}

Q Workgroup/process to ensure that the ISO recognizes the Florida Building Code for equivalent points for BSEGS (provide equal credits to the I-codes). {23 – 0 in support}

Q Workgroup to evaluate expanding interpretation authorities for Accessibility Code to non-binding opinions.

{29 – 1 in support}

Q Workgroup to evaluate coastal high hazard zone building construction provisions. (Evaluation of all coastal areas construction provisions was intended, broad generic definition if CHZ, not just the state law CHZ). {23 – 1 in support}

Q Develop a cross-reference table regarding state agency regulations that impact construction. {27 – 2 in support}

Q Agricultural exemptions should be clarified (i.e., show horse arenas). {22 – 2 in support}

Q Convene the Florida Accessibility Code Workgroup, Florida Energy Code Workgroup, Flood Standards Workgroup, Code Amendment Process (and other relevant topical workgroups) prior to each triennial code update to develop recommendations to the Commission regarding their respective topical areas. {19 – 3 in support}

Q Develop recommendations for how Florida can more effectively participate in the I-Code process and successfully get needed Florida specific requirements into the I-Codes (reducing variations between the FBC and the I-Codes).

{25 – 4 in support}

Q Conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of all exemptions in the Code (i.e., statutory, I-Codes, etc.).

{19 – 4 in support}

Options Achieving Between 51% and 74% Level of Support

Q Have Florida hurricane resistant provisions added to the I-Codes as appendices (reducing variations between the FBC and the I-Codes). {16 – 13 in support; 55%}

Q Consider adopting the International Performance Code into the Florida Building Code. {12 – 11 in support; 52%}

Q Conduct a study regarding building official’s use of alternative methods to identify trends and address issues.

{12 – 11 in support; 52%}

Foundation II The Commission

Options Achieving ≥ 75% Level of Support

Q Provide a link from the Florida Building Code to all relevant local technical amendments. {24 – 0 in support}

Q Continue to use the Commission’s workgroup process to deal with special topical issues, and to eliminate conflicts between the codes (e.g. FFPC and FBC). {23 – 0 in support}

Q Provide notice to all building codes/construction related professional associations regarding updates, issues and notifications. {21 – 0 in support}

Q Ensure the Commission has a dedicated, secure and adequate funding source to properly meet their mission and mandates. The dedicated funding source can only be used for Commission functions and Florida Building Code System related activities. {23 – 1 in support}

Options Achieving Between 51% and 74% Level of Support

Q Develop an effective reporting mechanism allowing local partners to report when local technical amendments are implemented. {14 – 6 in support; 70%}

Foundation III Local Administration

Options Achieving ≥ 75% Level of Support

Q Utilize local BOAF chapters to find out from clients in their region where code interpretations are uniform, and then work out consensus on interpretations. {24 – 0 in support}

Q Require local technical amendments to be approved by the Florida Building Commission prior to adoption.

{21 – 0 in support}

Foundation IV Strengthening Compliance and Enforcement

Options Achieving ≥ 75% Level of Support

Q Investigate development of an associate degree program with Universities/Colleges for building officials.

{24 – 0 in support}

Q Create and maintain a comprehensive searchable data-base containing all Commission/Code related items and automatically communicate/transmit all relevant updates and changes to all jurisdictions (i.e., FBC policy decisions, statutory changes, declaratory statements, binding interpretations, product approval issues, code updates, etc.). This would be an updated, revised, fully searchable, user-friendly, linked, and comprehensive BCIS. The Florida Building Code and all relevant standards and documents should be available on the BCIS (fully searchable).

{Note: There were many suggestions regarding enhancing the BCIS/FBC website and the need to communicate more effectively and frequently with local jurisdictions, associations and stakeholders.

Q Convene workgroup to evaluate and make recommendations on the current education system. {22 – 0 in support}

Q Have the different licensing agencies work closer together to develop core classes required by all and accept each other’s approved courses. Fire Safety Inspector, BCAIB, CILB, ECILB, Architect's Board, Engineer's Board.

{23 – 0 in support}

[Recommendation: If the above option is supported by the Ad Hoc reframe to: Request the DBPR and individual licensing boards review the above recommendation for inclusion in the licensing boards’ rules and/or statutes.]

Q Require that all Building Code System trainers have certain minimum qualifications, and develop criteria to ensure training materials are accurate and trainers are properly qualified. {25 – 1 in support}

Q Use the Commission education approval process as an interface between licensing boards so approved courses are approved across the relevant professions. {22 – 1 in support}

Q Consult with various licensing boards regarding the use of the Commission’s evaluation model for course accreditation (enhance consistency and cross discipline course approvals). {23 – 3 in support}

Q The Florida Building Commission and the State Fire Marshal should approve/accredit and require joint training for fire and building officials (consistency of interpretation and enforcement of fire provisions). {18 – 3 in support}

[Recommendation: If the above option is supported by the Ad Hoc reframe to: Request the State Fire Marshal’s Office, DBPR and individual licensing boards review the above recommendation for inclusion in their rules and/or statutes.]

Q Mandate a continuing education process for code officials requiring them to keep current in the codes and administrative practices. Require CEUs on the Florida Building Code. Increase the number of CEUs required for all licensees (building officials, plans examiners, inspectors, etc.). {18 – 6 in support}

Options Achieving Between 51% and 74% Level of Support

Q Increase the building permit surcharge fee to provide funding for enhanced training and education on the Florida Building Code System for all licensees. {16 – 10 in support; 62%}

Foundation V Product Approval

Options Achieving ≥ 75% Level of Support

Q Develop a faster, user-friendly, comprehensive, integrated and fully searchable product approval

data-base and submittal system. The Product Approval data-base should be part of the comprehensive BCIS.

{29 – 0 in support}

Q Establish a statewide requirement for how product approval documentation should be submitted to Building Departments, with a standard form and the minimum documents required for submittal. {23 – 3 in support}

Workgroups Proposed for Convening by Workshop Participants

Following are workgroups proposed by participants:

Q Continue to use the Commission’s workgroup process to deal with special topical issues, and to eliminate conflicts between the codes (e.g. FFPC and FBC). {23 – 0 in support}

Q Establish an interagency coordination workgroup to ensure there is effective coordination and communication between state regulatory agencies and local jurisdictions. {27 – 0 in support}

Q Workgroup/process to ensure that the ISO recognizes the Florida Building Code for equivalent points for BSEGS (provide equal credits to the I-codes). {23 – 0 in support}

Q Workgroup to evaluate expanding interpretation authorities for Accessibility Code to non-binding opinions.

{29 – 1 in support}

Q Evaluate coastal high hazard zone building construction provisions. (Evaluation of all coastal areas construction provisions was intended, broad generic definition if CHZ, not just the state law CHZ). {23 – 1 in support}

Q Conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of all exemptions in the Code (i.e., statutory, I-Codes, etc.).

{19 – 4 in support}

Q Agricultural exemptions should be clarified (i.e., show horse arenas). {22 – 2 in support}

Q Convene workgroup to evaluate and make recommendations on the current education system. {22 – 0 in support}

Additional Options for Evaluation

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Initial Ranking

10/10/11

Participants Comments and Reservations (10/10/11):

Public Comment Form

The Florida Building Commission and the Building Code System Assessment Ad Hoc Committee encourage written comments—All written comments will be included in the meeting summary report.

Name:

Organization:

Meeting Date:

Please make your comment(s) as specific as possible, and offer suggestions to address your concerns.

Please limit comment(s) to topics within the scope of the Ad Hoc.

Any personal attacks or derogatory language will be discarded.

The facilitator may, at his discretion, limit public comment to a maximum of three-minutes (3) per person, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.

COMMENT:

Please give completed form(s) to the Facilitator for inclusion in the meeting summary report.