FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

 

TERMITE WORKGROUP

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO THE FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

 

JUNE 20, 2007

 

Gainesville, Florida

 

 

Meeting Design & Facilitation By

 

 

Report By Jeff A. Blair

Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium

Florida State University

 

 

jblair@fsu.edu

http:// consensus.fsu.edu

 

This document is available in alternate formats upon request to Dept. of Community Affairs, Codes & Standards, 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd., Tallahassee, FL 32399, (850) 487-1824.


TERMITE WORKGROUP SHORT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JUNE 20, 2007

 

 

Overview

Chairman Rodriguez announced the appointment of a termite workgroup to consider proposals for enhancing the Code’s termite provisions. The Workgroup process was conducted as a facilitated stakeholder consensus-building process. The Workgroup’s Phase I scope was to review the Code’s termite related provisions and develop recommendations for possible modifications for the 2007 Code Update. The Workgroup’s Phase II scope was to review referred modifications considered by the Structural TAC during the TAC’s March 2007  review of proposed Code modifications.

 

Workgroup Membership

The following members were appointed to serve on the Termite Workgroup:

Steve Dwinell, Jack Glenn, Roland Holt, Phil Koehler, David Lewis, Mike Moore, Doug Murdock, D.R. Sapp, Jim Schock, Jeff Stone, and George Wiggins.

 

Summary of Workgroup’s Key Decisions June 20, 2007

Opening and Meeting Attendance

The meeting started at 9:05 AM, and the following Workgroup members were present:

Steve Dwinell, Jack Glenn, Roland Holt, Phil Koehler, Mike Moore, D.R. Sapp, Jim Schock, and

Jeff Stone.

 

DCA Staff Present

Rick Dixon, Mo Madani, and Betty Stevens.

Meeting Facilitation

The meeting was facilitated by Jeff Blair from the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium at Florida State University. Information at: http://consensus.fsu.edu/

Project Webpage

Information on the project, including agenda packets, meeting reports, and related documents may be found in downloadable formats at the project webpage below:

http://consensus.fsu.edu/FBC/tw.html

 

Meeting Objectives

The Workgroup voted unanimously, 8 - 0 in favor, to approve the agenda as presented including the following objectives:

 

ü      To Review Scope of Meeting and Issues for Consideration

ü      To Review Meeting Scope

ü      To Review Relevant Documents

ü      To Identify and Discuss Proposed Option(s)

ü      To Evaluate Option(s) for Acceptability

ü      To Consider Public Comment

ü      To Adopt Package of Recommendations for Submittal to TAC and Commission

ü      To Discuss Next Steps and Recommendations Delivery Schedule

 

Approval of May 18, 2006 Facilitator’s Summary Report

The Workgroup voted unanimously, 8 - 0 in favor, to approve the May 18, 2006 Report as presented.

 

Work Group’s Decision-Making Procedures and Meeting Guidelines

Jeff Blair reviewed the Workgroup’s decision-making procedures found on page 3 of the agenda packet.

 

Issue Identification and Meeting Scope

Jeff Blair explained that the scope and purpose of the Workgroup during Phase II was to consider two issues referred by the Structural TAC from the March 2007 TAC review process for proposed modifications for the 2007 Code Update process. The first issue was to consider options for addressing the potential for termite entry though the annular space created from sleeved pipes penetrating foundations, identified in “modification 2009” proposed to amend Chapter 1816.2.

The second issue was to review a proposal regarding Termite Resistant Materials proposed to amend R320.

 

Options Identification and Initial Evaluation of Options

Results are found beginning on page 3 of the full Report.

 

Evaluation of Options—Ranking and Refinement of Options Overview

The Workgroup, working with plumbers and pipe manufactures, achieved consensus on a proposed modification to Chapter 1818.2. In addition, Commissioner Vann, the Commission’s plumbing contractor representative attended and participated in the discussions.

 

Regarding the proposed modification to R320, Termite Resistant Materials, the Workgroup voted against a proposal submitted during their May 2006 meeting. The Structural TAC subsequently voted against a revised modification submitted during the March 2007 Code Update review process. During the June 2007 meeting the Workgroup reviewed but did not make an affirmative recommendation(s) on the various options proposed to address the TAC’s concerns.

Complete results are found beginning on page 3 of the full Report.

 

 

Consensus Testing and Agreement on Recommendations for Commission Submittal

The Workgroup voted unanimously, 8 - 0 in favor, to recommend that the Commission accept the following Code proposal as a comment to the TAC’s recommendation on Modification 2009 regarding pipe sleeving in Chapter 1816.2:

 

When protective sleeving is used, the nominal thickness of the sleeving shall be 0.025”, and shall be sized appropriately relative to the pipe’s size, and shall be sealed within the slab using a non-corrosive mechanical clamping device to eliminate the annular space between the pipe and pipe sleeve.


ATTACHMENT 1

TERMITE WORKGROUP

June 20, 2007—Gainesville, Florida

Meeting Evaluation Results

Average rank using a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 means totally disagree and 10 means totally agree.

 

1.         Please assess the overall meeting.

9.4       The background information was very useful.

8.6       The agenda packet was very useful.

9.6       The objectives for the meeting were stated at the outset.

9.0       Overall, the objectives of the meeting were fully achieved.

9.4       Overview of Workgroup Meeting Scope.

9.6       Identification, Evaluation, Refinement, and Acceptability Ranking of Options.

9.1       Adoption of Package of Recommendations for Submittal to TAC and Commission.

 

2.         Please tell us how well the Facilitator helped the participants engage in the meeting.

9.0       The members followed the direction of the Facilitator.

9.6       The Facilitator made sure the concerns of all members were heard.

9.0       The Facilitator helped us arrange our time well.

9.8       Participant input was documented accurately.

 

3.         What is your level of satisfaction with the meeting?

8.9       Overall, I am very satisfied with the meeting.

9.1       I was very satisfied with the services provided by the Facilitator.

8.8       I am satisfied with the outcome of the meeting.

 

4.      What progress did you make?

8.8       I know what the next steps following this meeting will be.

8.8       I know who is responsible for the next steps.

 

5.   Member’s Written Evaluation Comments.

·        Great job Jeff.

·        Good work.