4.13 Codes & Standards Committee Report for January 2025
January was a very busy month for the committee. We worked extensively with Steve Mickley to finalize our code modification submissions to the ICC Group B cycle, which ended on January 10. We then worked with ICC staff to refine and extend those proposals in preparation for the first round of ICC committee hearings in April. The final versions are all included in this month's Board meeting folder on Basecamp as the nine pdf files produced by the ICC. These modifications, if adopted, would appear in the 2027 model codes.
All of this work was in parallel with partner organization meetings coordinated through NADRA's own Codes Committee, where we got a lot of good ideas and set the groundwork for future support for our proposals at the ICC hearings. Those NADRA-hosted meetings included discussions of the final recommendations for Group A modifications that have already gone through committee hearings and are now set for final action at the April ICC meeting. We will be submitting a comment through NADRA to amend one rejected modification regarding the measurement of stair tread nosing in an effort to get it favorably reconsidered in April.
Also underway during January was our effort to get support from the Code Development Committee of the Building Officials Association of Florida in advance of submitting code modifications to the Florida Building Commission. These modifications, if endorsed by the Commission, would be reflected in the 2026 update to the Florida Building Code. However, based on the reception I got from the BOAF committee, there is no support among building officials for the current exemptions for residential design by unregistered design professionals, let alone any code modification that would reinforce them. One person on the committee alleged that unregistered designers don't have E&O insurance and said one of the purposes of a building official was to protect the public from unqualified actors. I countered both by describing the E&O insurance options available--including through AIBD--and that it was the state's regulation of professions that had already settled public policy. Even my proposed modification to allow digital plans submission where permitted by the local building official was rejected, although it is the actual practice in most Florida jurisdictions. We will, nevertheless, submit the proposed modifications directly to the Commission later this week.
The last item to report is the continuing saga with the Broward County (Florida) Board of Rules and Appeals (BORA) . As you will recall, the Broward County Circuit Court granted BORA's motion to dismiss my complaint back in November. The judge concluded that I lacked standing to bring the lawsuit since I had not yet gone through two administrative processes--potential actions that I had argued were not genuinely available due to the fact that the independent Broward County body needed to hear the challenge did not exist and BORA had already declared their conclusion. I accepted the Court's judgment and prepared the first administrative appeal documents: a challenge to the manner in which the amendments were adopted, which is described in s. 553.73(4)(f), Florida Statutes. This challenge goes first to BORA, and then (on appeal) to the Florida Building Commission, which must use a state administrative hearing officer to conduct the adjudication.
Before I could file the challenge with BORA, attorney Charles Kramer, BORA's legal counsel, filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice on January 27 seeking final order from the judge that would preclude any further action on the complaint at the judicial and administrative levels. The judge has not yet ruled on BORA's motion, but indicated he would soon do so during the case management conference held on February 3. The irony of BORA's current motion is that they originally argued that I needed to go through the administrative processes, but now argue that I should not be allowed to do so because they have already determined the outcome.
I will close by stating my overall conclusion regarding the regulation of building designers: increasing code complexity, the proliferation of new materials and construction methods, higher workloads imposed on a shrinking number of qualified building safety employees, and the almost unbridled ability of building officials to impose "policies" combine to create a very unfavorable environment for unregistered design professionals nationwide, with Florida at the leading edge. I am convinced that nothing short of a formal residential designer credential recognized in state statutes and the building code will stop the rapid move by building officials to requiring only registered design professional to prepare construction documents, regardless of any exemptions that may exist in state statutes.
All of this work was in parallel with partner organization meetings coordinated through NADRA's own Codes Committee, where we got a lot of good ideas and set the groundwork for future support for our proposals at the ICC hearings. Those NADRA-hosted meetings included discussions of the final recommendations for Group A modifications that have already gone through committee hearings and are now set for final action at the April ICC meeting. We will be submitting a comment through NADRA to amend one rejected modification regarding the measurement of stair tread nosing in an effort to get it favorably reconsidered in April.
Also underway during January was our effort to get support from the Code Development Committee of the Building Officials Association of Florida in advance of submitting code modifications to the Florida Building Commission. These modifications, if endorsed by the Commission, would be reflected in the 2026 update to the Florida Building Code. However, based on the reception I got from the BOAF committee, there is no support among building officials for the current exemptions for residential design by unregistered design professionals, let alone any code modification that would reinforce them. One person on the committee alleged that unregistered designers don't have E&O insurance and said one of the purposes of a building official was to protect the public from unqualified actors. I countered both by describing the E&O insurance options available--including through AIBD--and that it was the state's regulation of professions that had already settled public policy. Even my proposed modification to allow digital plans submission where permitted by the local building official was rejected, although it is the actual practice in most Florida jurisdictions. We will, nevertheless, submit the proposed modifications directly to the Commission later this week.
The last item to report is the continuing saga with the Broward County (Florida) Board of Rules and Appeals (BORA) . As you will recall, the Broward County Circuit Court granted BORA's motion to dismiss my complaint back in November. The judge concluded that I lacked standing to bring the lawsuit since I had not yet gone through two administrative processes--potential actions that I had argued were not genuinely available due to the fact that the independent Broward County body needed to hear the challenge did not exist and BORA had already declared their conclusion. I accepted the Court's judgment and prepared the first administrative appeal documents: a challenge to the manner in which the amendments were adopted, which is described in s. 553.73(4)(f), Florida Statutes. This challenge goes first to BORA, and then (on appeal) to the Florida Building Commission, which must use a state administrative hearing officer to conduct the adjudication.
Before I could file the challenge with BORA, attorney Charles Kramer, BORA's legal counsel, filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice on January 27 seeking final order from the judge that would preclude any further action on the complaint at the judicial and administrative levels. The judge has not yet ruled on BORA's motion, but indicated he would soon do so during the case management conference held on February 3. The irony of BORA's current motion is that they originally argued that I needed to go through the administrative processes, but now argue that I should not be allowed to do so because they have already determined the outcome.
I will close by stating my overall conclusion regarding the regulation of building designers: increasing code complexity, the proliferation of new materials and construction methods, higher workloads imposed on a shrinking number of qualified building safety employees, and the almost unbridled ability of building officials to impose "policies" combine to create a very unfavorable environment for unregistered design professionals nationwide, with Florida at the leading edge. I am convinced that nothing short of a formal residential designer credential recognized in state statutes and the building code will stop the rapid move by building officials to requiring only registered design professional to prepare construction documents, regardless of any exemptions that may exist in state statutes.