MyFloridaCode.com

TRH,

Wow!  I really didn't mean for my  comment to spark military/government
industry bashing.  I must have fallen asleep at my "desk" during those times
I was being paid to just sit around and "read" or waiting for something to
happen because I sure don't remember those times.  Yes, reading and staying
current is part of any profession if you really want to be a "professional."
But, is that all that was done in these professions?  No.  Despite some
folks' perceptions, the military actually do work when they are not off
"fighting the war."  

 

That being said, I think you misunderstood my input and its application.  I
was not trying to say that this would solve the issue of having multiple
levels of jurisdiction each with their own set of "rules" and
interpretations thereof.  I think something could be done to make this
better but I also don't think you will completely get rid of it nor would
you really want to.  Even in the military, and specifically the flying
world, you had this.  Individual units had their "localisms" that had to be
there because of the local setup and environment but then there were other
rules that applied at other levels.  If I took off from Florida and flew to,
let's say Egypt, I transited numerous control areas and countries each with
their own set of rules that I had to know, understand, and comply with.
Some of these rules have very serious consequences (like being shot down) if
not followed precisely.  Yes, there are international flying rules but then
each country has its own as well.  

 

I'm a firm believer that most (not all) rules we live under in the building
industry are there for a good reason and thus should be understood and
followed.  However, in some circumstances these rules may not apply or may
apply in a slightly different manner than originally intended.  That's where
the local interpretation and local "isms" come in.  I agree that the local
"isms" seem to be a bit out of hand and something needs to be done to get
the issue back in check.  However, I really don't think anyone wants to be
strictly mandated to one overarching "code" with no capability to tailor it
to the local conditions. 

 

My suggestion below was geared toward the idea of at least simplifying the
information flow so one could go to one location for a given jurisdiction
(maybe eventually this could be consolidated to one website) and view all
the changes, interpretations, "isms", etc that have been issued and need to
be complied with.  I was not providing my suggestion as a replacement to the
suggestions already give but as an addition to them.  I don't understand how
you can say that better information flow is "not economically feasible."
You stated that you some of your designs have been in the works for 6-9
months before they are submitted.  Can I assume that during that time you
would like to know about the "isms" as they occur instead of finding out one
came out six months ago when you were early in the design process?  If so,
then  my idea is exactly what you need.  Let's assume the building under
design is going to be permitted in the county.  If the county is required to
post their changes, interpretations, "isms", etc in some formal way
(notebook, online, etc) on a real time basis then I would think a weekly
check of this posting would be helpful to the designer to find out if
anything has been issued that affects the design.

 

I was certainly not suggesting that one be required to sit around and read
stuff that has nothing to do with their job.  However, all of us, whether we
be designer, architect, contractor, sub-contractor, building official, etc,
are paid to keep up with the changes no matter how many or few.  This is one
of the main reasons I hire a designer/architect/engineer when I need plans.
I expect that they are fully up to speed with not only the printed code but
also the localisms for each jurisdiction such that my plans will go through
the first time.  I realize the complexity of this task grows along with the
size and complexity of the project but so does the costs for the services
and rightfully so.

 

Ken

 

 

 

From: Hernacki Engineering [mailto:hecs at bellsouth.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:44 AM
To: 'Ken Rodgers'; codetalk at myfloridacode.com
Subject: RE: [Florida Code Talk] FW: 2009 Replacement Pages to the 2007

 

Ken,

 

I do not think you offer a proper solution.  Having come out of government
aerospace industry they spent a lot of money for me to sit around and read
stuff that had no affect on my work output.  But the DOD and NASA were
reimbursing us to sit and read and stay current.  Both brothers and a lot of
friends are in the military and they are happy with a life style of sitting
around and waiting for the next thing to happen when state side.  In
commercial industry it is not economically feasible to have something like
you proposed.

 

I believe that Tom R and Chandler K are more correct.  We can not be
designing to one set of books only to find a change to the books after we
submitted.  Some of the custom houses and buildings we design have been on
the table for 6 to 9 months before the 1st submittal to the building
department.  By that time we could have had one set of glitch amendments
approved and maybe 2 or 3 building official ism's that have occurred.  It is
not the glitch that is frustrating but the ism's that bite.  

 

I have the 2007 CD code version.  My CD/hard disk copy just had the update
installed.  Would you believe my update still says Method C for energy
conservation (chapter 11) is stilled allowed and the form "C" is in the
electronic version.  But the Method C was removed and we can only do method
A or B.  Now how can I design when I have to take my ICC electronic copy and
go back to the DCA websites copy to confirm if the section has been changed
or not.

 

One city wants residential sanitary risers.  Another city wants no
residential risers. Another city wants record condition riser sketches only.
3 cities and 3 standards and only one design firm.  All done as changes to
chapter 1.

 

I can not make any money if I have to read every municipality's' ism's and
apply them.  Only one city in my practice area is nice enough to send out
advance interpretations of code changes and ism's.  So I know what to expect
for that city.  Other communities wait till after submittal.  One city is
using changes to the 2004 FBC but have not codified them to the 2007 FBC.
They have no web published changes and have never submitted to DCA but we
are required to know about the cities subtle changes.

 

Just had one plan reviewer tell me a house addition over 1 mile from the
Intracoastal water way, in a 100% developed 60 year old neighborhood, is
located in a wind zone C area but the cities own wind map shows the house in
a zone B.  This is another hang-up that I have to write a politically
correct response to the plans reviewer telling him he is wrong.

 

I am in favor of getting all Building Officials using one code book, no
ism's, that only is allowed to have glitch amendments submitted half-way
through the code cycle and moving the code cycle farther apart to 5 year
cycles.  I know ASCE is looking hard at going to 5 year code cycles to
reduce cost and the changes that they see in the 3 year cycles move the
"state of the art".  But really does not increase the safety of design
beyond 1% in my humble opinion.  In some cases they 3 years later go back to
the original due to the "state of the art" lost some basics along the way
and reduced the safety of a building through to much optimization.

 

TRH

Hernacki Engineering & Construction Services Inc.

  _____  

From: codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com
[mailto:codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com] On Behalf Of Ken Rodgers
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:45 AM
To: codetalk at myfloridacode.com
Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] FW: 2009 Replacement Pages to the 2007

 

When I was a pilot in the USAF (we all have previous lives don't we?) we had
what was called a Flight Crew Information File (FCIF).  Basically, the way
it worked was that before you stepped out the door to go fly you had to read
and sign off on all the latest FCIFs.  You had a signoff card where you
wrote each FCIF number and then your initials next to each one to show that
you had read and complied with each FCIF.  We had a binder with all the
FCIFs posted.  Heaven help you if you were caught out flying without your
FCIF card signed off up to date.  Things in this book could be either Air
Force wide (or even DoD wide) or could be local stuff.  Anytime a pubs
change came out it was listed in the FCIF.  Signing off the FCIF for it
meant that you had received, posted, and would comply with these changes.
It was a simple but very effective system for providing one stop shopping
for information distribution and retrieval.  

 

I'm sure someone could come up with something like this that would help out
our industry.  I'm fairly new to this world so maybe there is and I just
don't know about it.  The only way I seem to hear about new info like this
coming out is either through this forum or word of mouth.  I'm sure most of
this info is on the web but seems like you have to go to multiple sites to
get the entire picture.  When I was in the military, if it wasn't in the
published regulation, published change, or FCIF it didn't exist.  As for the
code changes, isn't there a way to have it published and then have a "comply
with no later than" date that would give some buffer in there for the
reasons stated?

 

Ken

ArtisanBilt Construction, Inc

 

From: codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com
[mailto:codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com] On Behalf Of WR290 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:45 AM
To: chandlerknowles at att.net; glenmast at comcast.net; rharrell1 at cfl.rr.com;
boafdiscussion at boaf.net; codetalk at myfloridacode.com
Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] FW: 2009 Replacement Pages to the 2007
FBCareavailabl...

 

Hi Guys:

 

I would think this can be changed by legislature, Get hold of your reps and
have them put in a bill to stop this nonsense... If they can't get the
Codebook right, then revert back to the old edition until , the new one is
correct... I am absolutely for it , as probably is every designer, GC, Plan
Reviewer,  and BO out there. 

 

Tom Ricci

BT Builders Inc

954-214-4448

 

 

In a message dated 12/1/2009 11:37:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
chandlerknowles at att.net writes:

Yes indeed!

 

Sometimes it seems some sort of game to submit plans, wait days or weeks for
them, only to find through rejection that there is a change in an unknown or
obscure Code that requires changes and resubmission.  That statement applies
to policies of individual inspection departments too.

 

Chandler Knowles, Designer-Builder

Pensacola

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Glen <mailto:glenmast at comcast.net>  Mast 

To: Rob Harrell <mailto:rharrell1 at cfl.rr.com>  ; BOAF
<mailto:boafdiscussion at boaf.net>  Discussion Group ; CodeTalk
<mailto:codetalk at myfloridacode.com>  

Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:19 PM

Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] FW: 2009 Replacement Pages to the 2007
FBCareavailable for review

 

I'm thinking of talking to my state represenative about sponsoring a bill
that says that code changes including supplements can not go into effect
until thirty days AFTER they are available in both written and electronic
versions.  This business of not having the codes in a decent format until 60
to 90 days after they go into effect is ridiculous!  Make that 90 to 180
days for the CD versions!  I know it's bad for the building department
personnel but it's even worse for us designers as we are often working on
jobs 2 to 3 months prior to permitting.

 

Anyone else with me?

 

glen mast

MAST DRAFTING and DESIGN

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Rob <mailto:rharrell1 at cfl.rr.com>  Harrell 

To: BOAF Discussion Group <mailto:boafdiscussion at boaf.net>  ; CodeTalk
<mailto:codetalk at myfloridacode.com>  

Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:25 PM

Subject: [Florida Code Talk] FW: 2009 Replacement Pages to the 2007 FBC
areavailable for review

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Florida Building Code [mailto:codes at floridabuilding.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:20 PM
Subject: 2009 Replacement Pages to the 2007 FBC are available for review

To All Interested Parties:

 

This is to advise you know, that the 2009 Replacement Pages (Errata) to the
2007 Florida Building Code are now available for review.  Please use the
following link to view the documents:

 

 
<http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/Free_Resources/Florida_Codes/2007_Flor
ida_Errata/FL_07_Errata_main.html>
http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/Free_Resources/Florida_Codes/2007_Flori
da_Errata/FL_07_Errata_main.html 

 

 

Thank you,

Florida Department of Community Affairs

Building Codes and Standards Office


  _____  


_______________________________________________
CodeTalk mailing list
CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
Unsubscribe by sending an email to codetalk-unsubscribe at myfloridacode.com
or
Unsubscribe or change your options at:
http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk


  _____  


_______________________________________________
CodeTalk mailing list
CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
Unsubscribe by sending an email to codetalk-unsubscribe at myfloridacode.com
or
Unsubscribe or change your options at:
http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk



_______________________________________________
CodeTalk mailing list
CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
Unsubscribe by sending an email to codetalk-unsubscribe at myfloridacode.com
or
Unsubscribe or change your options at:
http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20091202/d0817080/attachment.html