FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION

JOINT FIRE TAC AND FIRE CODE ADVISORY COUNCIL

Agenda


Wednesday, December 6

Embassy Suites Hotel
3705 Spectrum Blvd, 33612;
813-977-7066

Meeting Objectives

•  To Review and Adopt Meeting Procedures and Guidelines

•  To Review Meeting Scope

•  To Review Identified Conflicts Between the Codes

•  To Propose Conflicts for Evaluation by the Joint Fire TAC

•  To Evaluate, Rank, and Refine Proposed Options for Resolving Conflicts

•  To Consider Public Comment

•  To Adopt Recommendations for Submittal to the Commission

•  To Identify Any Needed Next Steps

 

Meeting Agenda—Wednesday, December 6, 2006

1:00 Welcome and Introductions (J. Blair)

1:05 Agenda Review and Approval (J. Blair)

1:10 Meeting Decision-Making Procedures and Meeting Guidelines (J. Blair)

1:15 Overview of Meeting Scope

1:20 Review and Discussion of Member Identified Code(s) Conflict(s)

2:00 Issues Identification and Initial Evaluation of Options to Resolve Conflicts

2:30 Evaluation of Options—Ranking and Refinement of Options to Resolve Conflicts

4:30 General Public Comment

4:40 Consensus Testing and Agreement on Recommendations for Commission Submittal

4:50 Overview of Next Steps and Delivery Schedule

5:00 Adjourn

 

Contact Information: Jeff Blair; 850.644.6320; jblair@mailer.fsu.edu ; http://consenus.fsu.edu

 

Fire TAC (FBC): Tony Apfelbeck, Hamid Bahadori, Joe Belcher, Nick D'Andrea,

Jim Goodloe, Dale Greiner, Jeff Gross, Joe Holland, Michael Kravit, Brad Schiffer,

Jim Schock, and Peter Schwab.

 

Fire Code Advisory Council (DSFM): Anthony C. Apfelbeck, Marguerite Atkins,

Raymond Cicero, Jeff Collins, Claudio Grande, Jon Hamrick, Michelle Humphries,

Bradley Schiffer, Richard A. Seidel, and Andrew Valente.
COMMISSION WORKGROUP

PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES

 

MEMBER'S ROLE

 

FACILITATOR'S ROLE

 

GUIDELINES FOR BRAINSTORMING

 

THE NAME STACKING PROCESS

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 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


MEETING PROCESS

 

During the meeting, members will be asked to develop and rank options to resolve identified Code(s) conflicts, and following discussions and refinements, will be asked to do additional rankings of the option as refined, if requested by a member. 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

 

 

MEETING OPTIONS REVIEW PROCESS OVERVIEW

 

The following process will be used for the Meeting:

 

•  Overview of member identified conflicts/options,

•  Identification of new conflicts/option(s) (if any),

•  General discussion of the conflicts and options,

•  Public comment,

•  Acceptability ranking of options,

•  Identification of member's reservations regarding ranked options,

•  Second ranking if any member(s) wishes to change their ranking based on the discussion(s),

•  Consensus testing on package of recommendations for submittal to the Commission.

 

Option —

 

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Initial Ranking

12/06

 

 

 

 

Revised

 

 

 

 

 

Member's Comments and Reservations (December 2006):

 

 

Option —

 

4=acceptable

3= minor reservations

2=major reservations

1= not acceptable

Initial Ranking

12/06

 

 

 

 

Revised

 

 

 

 

 

Member's Comments and Reservations (December 2006):