WIND MITIGATION WORKGROUP
Crowne Plaza Melbourne Oceanfront Hotel;
2605 North A1A Highway
ü To Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda)
ü To Identify and Evaluate Wind Mitigation Retrofits Options—Provisions for the 2007 Florida Building Code—Rule 9B-3.0475
ü To Identify and Evaluate Gravel Roof Criteria and Options for 2007 Florida Building Code
ü
To Discuss and Evaluate Level of Acceptability
of Proposed Options
ü To Consider Public Comment
ü To Adopt Package of Recommendations for Submittal to the Commission
ü To Review Delivery Schedule for Implementation of Recommendations
All Agenda Times—Including Public Comment
and Adjournment—Are Subject to Change
8:00 Welcome and Opening
Agenda Review and Approval
Discuss
Wind Mitigation
Retrofits Provisions for 2007 Florida Building Code
Review and Discuss Gable End Bracing
Provisions
Review and Discuss Other Wind Mitigation
Retrofit Provisions—If Any
Evaluate and Decide on Recommendation to
the Commission
Review
Roof Gravel Criteria Proposal for 2007 Florida Building Code
Evaluate and Decide on Recommendation to the Commission
General Public Comment
xxxxxxxxxxSupporting DocumentationAdoption of Package of Recommendations for Submittal to Commission
Review
of Wind Mitigation Workgroup Delivery and Meeting Schedule
Adjourn—Prior
to Commission Plenary Session
Contact Information: Jeff Blair; 850.644.6320; jblair@mailer.fsu.edu; http://consenus.fsu.edu
Project Webpage: http://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/wmw.html
Wind
Mitigation Workgroup Member
Representation Member
Commission/Roofing Chris
Schulte
Commission/Contractor Matt
Carlton
FRSA/Roofing Billy Cone
FRSA/Roofing Burt
Logan
Insurance Tim
Reinhold
Insurance Eric
Stafford
FHBA Richard
Reynolds
Building
Officials Bill
Dumbaugh
Building Officials Jim
Schock
Meeting Schedule
Meeting II January 28, 2008 Jacksonville
Meeting III March
19, 2008 Tampa
Meeting IV April
18, 2008 Tampa
Meeting V May
6, 2008 Melbourne
Overview (Wind Mitigation Retrofits—Rule 9B-3.0475)
At the June 2007 meeting the Commission conducted a
rule development workshop on wind mitigation retrofits in order to implement
the 2007 legislative direction regarding developing mitigation techniques for
the retrofit of existing site-built residential buildings. In addition, at the
request of stakeholders the Commission conducted a facilitated workshop in
Tampa on August 8, 2007 and participants provided recommendations for the
Commission’s consideration regarding the legislative directive. At the August
2007 meeting the Commission conducted a rule adoption hearing and voted to
adopt the first edition of prescriptive techniques for required hurricane
mitigation retrofit of homes by deck nailing, secondary water barriers
installation, and roof to wall connections enhancement when a roof is replaced
and voluntary gable end bracing in time for the Legislature’s mandated
implementation date of October 1, 2007. The Commission also voted to support
the Florida Roofing and Sheet Metal Association’s request that the Legislature
delay implementation of the mitigation requirements. The Commission recommended
that the Florida Legislature delay the implementation date to October 1, 2008
allowing adoption of the rule through the Commission’s Glitch Amendments to the
2007 Florida Building Code process. The reason(s) for the recommended delay
included the issues identified by stakeholders during the rule adoption hearing
(i.e., licensure issues, permitting issues, liability issues, inspection and
enforcement issues, structural efficacy issues regarding the roof-to-wall
requirements, and the need to conduct a comprehensive review and development of
recommendations working with all interested stakeholders). In order to comply with the 2007 Legislature’s direction
for an October 1, 2007 implementation date, at the August 2007 Commission meeting the Commission adopted Rule
9B-3.0475, Wind Mitigation retrofits. However, during the rule development
process the public identified numerous concerns with some of the Rule’s
requirement including the roof to wall connection provisions, and as a result
the Commission acknowledged that
the current draft needs enhancements and the Commission committed to working
with stakeholders during the Glitch Code process to consider enhancements to
the Rule. As a result Chairman Rodriguez
appointed a Wind Mitigation Workgroup to develop recommendations to the
Commission on the wind mitigation provisions for implementation during the
glitch code amendment process.
WIND MITIGATION WORKGROUP PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
PARTICIPANTS’ ROLE
ü The Workgroup 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 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 Represent and communicate with member’s constituent group(s).
FACILITATOR’S ROLE
ü Design and facilitate a participatory task force process.
ü Assist participants to stay focused and on task.
ü Assure that participants follow ground rules.
ü Prepare agenda packets and provide meeting summary reports.
GUIDELINES FOR BRAINSTORMING
ü Speak when recognized by the Facilitator.
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 Participants raises hand to speak. Facilitator will call on participants in turn.
ü Facilitator 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 a issue an opportunity to do so before others on the list who have already spoken on the issue.
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: