Mike Silvers, CPRC, Owner, Silvers Systems Inc., and FRSA Technical Director
Florida is currently updating the Florida Building Code (FBC), something we do every three years. The process has been in progress since May 2018, when the FBC Staff posted on the Commission website an analysis of the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) changes. This was followed in June 2018 by FBC Technical Advisory Committee's (TAC) review of those changes to determine which changes should be included in the 2020 7th Edition of the FBC.
This is the first code renewal cycle that has taken place since the FBC was made the base code for Florida by the State Legislature. Some groups opposed this change. They worked against the change when it was being adopted by the legislature. The same groups did not accept defeat at the legislative level and continued opposition to the new process, making their views known as the update moved forward. They even filed a lawsuit against the Commission over the adoption process and eventually lost (again).
The issue is how previously made changes to the IBC should be considered and incorporated into the FBC. The opponents want Florida to give preference to the IBC changes by automatically incorporating them in the FBC. They seem to be afraid that if Florida uses the FBC as the base code, then Florida will actually have its own code, rather than drift toward the IBC.
Members of these groups had the opportunity to submit their individual code modifications, which represented another chance to have the IBC changes incorporated into the new FBC. Their rationale for making the changes was merely that “it’s in the IBC.” Modifications made to the FBC have always required that the proponent of the change meet a number of different criteria, among those criteria have been a Florida-specific need for the change, the fiscal impact of the change and that the modification does not diminish requirements related to prevention of water intrusion. Most of these criteria have been requirements for adopting new provisions of the FBC since its inception.
During the first round of TAC reviews, many of these modifications didn’t receive an affirmative recommendation to the Commission. In other words, they did not receive the TAC’s support.
During the 45-day public comment period following the posting of the previous TAC's review, the proponents had the opportunity to recommend changes and add any needed information to support their modifications. The comments made were typically along the lines of “I support this modification.” These comments did little to offer additional information but did give the proponents the opportunity to make their case at the next TAC meeting.
During the second round of TAC meetings, when the modifications had another opportunity to receive an affirmative recommendation, many of the modifications were reviewed again. Some of those for which additional information was provided received an affirmative recommendation. Others, where the proponents’ explanation remained that “it’s in the IBC” did not.
In the interim, the legislature passed HB 447, which the Governor signed into law, stating that it allows “the Florida Building Commission to adopt provisions to the Building Code every three years without individually determining that each provision is needed to accommodate the specific needs of the state.” The legislative change will not take effect until July 1, 2020 which is after the final rule hearing adoption process for the 2020 FBC is complete. It is not clear how much this legislative change will impact the FBC renewal cycles in the future, but it is clear by the implementation date that it is not intended to impact this cycle.
On August 13, the Commission met in Stuart to consider TAC recommendations. During the meeting, a letter from the group opposing changes was sent to the Commission Chairman. The letter suggested that their modifications were not given a fair and effective review. It also requested that:
■ The Commission bypass the legislature’s implementation date by updating the rule to take place immediately.
■ The scheduled February 4 and April 7, 2020 workshops include an opportunity to discuss adjustments to avoid any unintentional disconnects in the Code and to address the correlation with the I-Codes (IBC) within the proposed 2020 Florida code.
■ The Commission encouraged the affected associations (proponents) be allowed to pull any code modifications and address the Commission as to why the request is being made.
■ In addition to the two scheduled workshops planned for February and April 2020, recommendation for a separate workshop to specifically review and make recommendations for the implementation of the subsequent code modification cycle (8th Edition) was suggested.
The groups associated with the request include: Building Officials Association of Florida; American Institute of Architects Florida; National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the International Code Council. FRSA regularly works with these groups when we are able to find common ground, but in this case we strongly disagree. Each group has its own reasons to prefer the IBC, but they haven’t demonstrated why it would be good for Floridians.
If this request is granted it would be unfair to all the stakeholders, TAC members and Commissioners who have volunteered their time and money to further the current process.
The proponents of the IBC modifications mistakenly assumed that if the International Code Council (ICC) made the proposed changes, then they should automatically be adopted by the TACs and the Florida Building Commission. This was clearly not the intention of the legislature when they adopted the FBC as the base code for future FBC editions, nor has this ever been the intention of the legislature. If it were the legislature’s intention, we would simply live under the IBC and not have a Florida Building Code (remember why Florida has a statewide code – because the national or regional base codes were not strong enough for our environmental conditions).
The change in HB 447 does not remove the criteria for considering modifications for inclusion in the FBC. The IBC proponents should expect to make their case for adoption of their modifications as proponents always have. They should:
■ Show why their modifications are needed.
■ Demonstrate what the cost impacts are and why any additional costs are justified.
■ Demonstrate why adoption won’t weaken the FBC.
The Florida Building Commission and the Technical Advisory Committees are composed of unpaid volunteers who are interested stakeholders (and Florida citizens) from local government, design professionals and contractors as well as industry, public and insurance representatives. In contrast, the voting members of the International Code Council are comprised only of local government representatives (building officials) from all over the country. These representatives are heavily lobbied by some who are making changes just for the sake of change, or because someone has found a way to get their product required in the ICC, or to obtain a competitive advantage.
Changing the FBC adoption process in order to eliminate the work required for proper submission of code modifications would be extremely shortsighted. The modification process is straightforward: outline your change in writing; present the rationale; make the case. Then back it up with facts and convince the TACs and Commission to adopt them. The bottom line is the letter writers and their representatives failed to do so and want everyone else to accommodate their lack of preparation.
The Florida Building Code was created due to demonstrated weaknesses in the existing base codes. The process has served the citizens of Florida well, as demonstrated both by our insurance industry ratings, and by first-hand observations of buildings built in compliance with the FBC following subsequent hurricanes. How well the two codes match should be of little concern. Our goal should be a clear, consistent, teachable and enforceable building code for Florida.
Mike Silvers, CPRC is owner of Silver Systems Inc. and is consulting with FRSA as Director of Technical Services. Mike is an FRSA Past President, Life Member and Campanella Award recipient and brings over 40 years of industry knowledge and experience to FRSA’s team.
Previous Article
Next Article