Cam Fentriss, FRSA LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
It was an uphill battle, but we won a big victory in the 2017 legislative session that ended May 5, 2017. The victory is passage of HB 1021 by Representative Bryan Avila, Republican from Hialeah, that contains changes to how Florida updates the Florida Building Code. If approved by Governor Scott, this legislation will be a big improvement.
The overall change in HB 1021 is that, every three years, Florida will no longer be forced to throw out the entire Florida Building Code (FBC) and start from scratch with the International Building Code (IBC) and subtract irrelevant provisions (such as snow or earthquake provisions) and re-insert Florida-specific provisions into the current version of the IBC. Not only is that a tedious and absurd way to update a building code, it is also a recipe for disaster because all the extra busy work required on a strict timeline makes it almost certain that something important will fall through the cracks.
Thanks to HB 1021, when updating the code every three years, Florida will now be able to preserve the Florida Building Code as the foundation and will be required to review the most current updates of the IBC, the International Fuel Gas Code, the International Existing Building Code, the International Plumbing Code, the International Residential Code, and the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). With respect to the IECC, when reviewing and considering updates, Florida is required to maintain the efficiencies of the Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction (this is not new – current law requires this). Florida will be required to adopt any updates or code changes to maintain eligibility for federal funding and discounts from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The changes are very sensible and favorable for Florida’s consumers, building officials and inspectors, contractors, and design professionals. Why? Because this method preserves the structure of the Florida Building Code and allows for concentration on changes that strengthen protection and benefit Florida, rather than a complete uprooting of the code and time wasted on looking at provisions that are useless or cannot work in Florida. But some do not agree with what I just said and instead argue that Florida cannot figure out codes all by itself and without starting with the IBC every three years, the sky will fall. Who are these naysayers?
Mostly (if not entirely), these are interest groups that are making more money off the current convoluted way of doing business. They may continue to make just as much money (they may even make more), but they do not want to take that risk. And let me be clear, the opposition is about money – not about good codes – as HB 1021 does nothing to reduce codes. It only reduces the International Code Council stranglehold. Here are the loudest naysayers:
Naysayer: International Code Council (ICC), the owner (and I do mean proprietary owner) of the IBC which is one of its important sources of revenue. The IBC is more of a one-size-fits-all model code than a superior code. It is called a “model code” which is by definition a model, not necessarily better than anything else. It is something that should be used as a pattern rather than what must actually be adopted as is. And if the IBC were a true model code and ICC were a true model code agency, then there would be no objection or concern with Florida’s use of provisions developed through their model code process. Instead, ICC has lobbied and worked hard to force Florida to be chained to the entire IBC, even going so far as trying to get Florida to adopt a mere separate supplement of Florida provisions (you know – like something detached that’s easy to push aside or eject or toss out the car window
as you go down the road of life). Why? Because the ICC sells its code – it’s a money maker. Profit margins are best if you can create and sell one big code, rather than a bunch of different ones sold to smaller markets.
Naysayer: Floridians for Safe Communities, a hastily formed group trying to look like a large and powerful coalition (just like the hand shadow figure on a wall that appears so much larger). Interestingly, the coalition members of this group just happen to be those who oppose the Florida Building Code in favor of Florida’s use of a national code, some only for the convenience of their members that work in multiple states (this has nothing to do with a strong code, by the way). This group’s chairman is Craig Fugate, former head of FEMA, who says that Florida has to continue using the convoluted way of updating codes. Mr. Fugate left Florida somewhere around the time we started to have a statewide code and was well absent when the IBC was created and adopted and the ICC and others lobbied to push Florida to lean toward the IBC. I am not at all convinced that Mr. Fugate even knows much of substance about what is and is not in the Florida Building Code but I suppose the coalition thought his name recognition would be a good substitute for an actual argument in favor of the IBC.
So how are these naysayers trying to make their case? By using some thin arguments and some arrogant arguments. First, they say that HB 1021 will move the Florida Building Code “steadily away from continuity with national, model codes.” They do not explain why – or even if – that is a bad thing, they just say it like it is a certainty and it is bad. Neither is true. For example, so far, the national, model codes have done a poor job of addressing problems with high wind. Florida does a much better job. Another example
is that Florida has routinely adopted certain national codes and will continue to do that – we do not need ICC or IBC to figure that out.
Second, they argue that HB 1021 will “[c]ompromise conformity across cities and counties leaving residents with unequal levels of protection.” That statement is ridiculous because, as you all know by actual experience, if a city or county is not going to conform, it doesn’t matter what code is adopted in Florida – that local government is just not going to conform. Lack of conformity has to do with inspector or administrator perception or stubbornness, neither of which is controlled by whatever code is used at the state
level for development of updated code provisions.
Third, they claim that HB 1021 will “[o]verburden the Florida Building Commission that lacks the resources to approximate the national, model code development process.” Please read that statement carefully. After it slaps the Florida Building Commission in the face, it says that the goal is to “approximate” the national code “development process” – process – not science, not innovation, and simply just not good code provisions for any given terrain or weather prone area. The State of Florida does a good job of funding the Florida Building Commission which does a great job of considering code improvements AND spearheading or underwriting studies needed to improve design and construction as it is needed in Florida. The Florida Building Commission is made up of experts and representatives from a wide variety of areas that are involved with and affected by building codes. The ICC is not. Floridians for Safe Communities proves only its ignorance and arrogance by making that statement.
Fourth, they argue that HB 1021 will “[i]ntroduce costly uncertainty and a lack of confidence that will drive down ratings by agencies, insurers, and catastrophe modelers.” Seriously, the only response to this assertion is that the ICC introduces enough “costly uncertainty” and “lack of confidence” all by itself such that it is highly unlikely Florida could do even worse than the ICC’s bizarre and sufficiently political results when it sets out to have itself first and foremost declared superior, regardless of what is ultimately adopted in the IBC and related codes.
Finally, a representative for this coalition decides to sidestep history and be overly dramatic by claiming the legislation “would forever undermine [the] legacy” created by Florida’s having “forged the most admirable building code system in the nation.” This most admirable building code system in the nation was forged before the IBC was adopted. And, since the IBC came into being, much of what makes our code admirable is what we adopt in addition to or in lieu of what is in the IBC. In truth, the only way to undermine the legacy of Florida’s work in creating the most admirable code system in the nation is by gravitating robot-like toward the IBC, rather than intelligently building on the foundation of the Florida Building Code – as allowed by HB 1021.
This battle required strength and resolve by the Florida Legislature, and we have at least four legislators to thank for their dedication: Representative Bryan Avila who sponsored HB 1021 that passed, Representative Stan McClain (R-Ocala) who sponsored the original House bill, HB 901, to make these changes, Senator Tom Lee (R-Brandon) who filed SB 7000, the bill that pushed all this forward, and who fought hard every step of the way (he also wrote a great letter to the editor in response to Floridians for Safe Communities), and Senator Keith Perry (R-Gainesville) who, through his bill SB 1312, really worked this issue at the end of the session to get it to the finish line. Thank you.
Anna Cam Fentriss is an attorney licensed in Florida since 1988 representing clients with legislative and state agency interests. Cam has represented FRSA since 1993, is an Honorary Member of FRSA, recipient of the FRSA President’s Award and the Campanella Award in 2010. She is a member of the Florida Building Commission Special Occupancy Technical Advisory Committee, President of Building A Safer Florida Inc. and past Construction Coalition Chair (1995-1997).
Previous Article