Here is how it went.

Those in favor of the proposal to remove the language from the 2006 IRC stated their case (a maximum of 2 minutes each was allowed). I presented facts from our survey of members among other data. Those who opposed the change stated their case (again, 2 minutes each). Each speaker then had 1 minute to rebut the testimony of the other side (both for and against). There may have been a re-rebuttal (I’ve lost track by now). After 5-10 minutes of discussion by the committee, they voted 7 to 4 against our proposed language to return the code to its 2003 version – but its not over yet. The assembly can choose to have the issue considered by the entire group (around 150 – it varies) upon motion. A motion was made and seconded and the assembly voted in favor of the language we proposed. What does this mean? We get another opportunity to argue our case in front of the full assembly.

The pre-cast initiative has a similar result via a different path. The language proposed but the pre-cast industry would allow the prescriptive use of compacted gravel as a footing under pre-cast, and other wall types (which included CIP or RCF construction). Several individuals representing various constituencies argued for, then against the proposal. The committee made a motion to disapprove the proposal but the motion failed. A second motion was made to approve the proposal as submitted and it also failed, thus the provision will not be included – for the time being. The most persuasive argument against approval dealt with the fact that this type of foundation literally turns to mush during a seismic event. Since areas of high seismic activity were not excluded, the proposal was defeated. Expect to see it again in future code hearings with restrictions in high seismic areas. What does this mean for the RCF industry? I think we should consider the development of systems and details for use of RCF’s that do not require footings when placed on compacted gravel.

So it went.