Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/15/2004 01:30 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 377-STATE MECHANICAL CODE
CHAIR CON BUNDE announced SB 377 to be up for consideration.
MR. ZACK WARWICK, staff to Senator Therriault, sponsor, said
there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about this bill.
All it does is grant the adoption authority for the
Mechanical Code to the Department of Labor. It does
not change the code from one brand to the other. It
simply grants the adoption authority to the department
since historically there has been no statutory
adoption authority.... In addition, it does not change
the way the plan inspections or building inspections
are done. The Department of Public Safety will still
be doing the plan inspections with regard to fire and
life safety issues. The Department of Labor will still
do all post-building inspections in regards to
mechanical, plumbing and electrical codes. That's
exactly what's been going on for years.
The bill simply recognizes that the mechanical code
and the plumbing code are closely related because
nearly all mechanical contractors are also plumbing
contractors. Given this relationship and regardless of
which code is adopted, it makes more sense to have
these two closely related codes coordinated within one
single agency. It comes down to basically a policy
call by the Legislature...
CHAIR BUNDE asked if he thought it was possible to alleviate
some of the misunderstanding. "What can we do to lower the level
of anxiety this bill seems to have created?"
MR. WARWICK replied that he has received calls from a number of
different industry groups, Associated Builders and Contractors
as well as the International Code Council. The letter from the
Council does not support SB 377, but it was completely unaware
of what the bill really does. It is being put where all family
codes will receive a fair hearing. He added that he didn't think
it was possible to clear up the misconceptions.
MR. JEFF ROBINSON, Cliff's Mechanical, Anchorage, opposed SB
377. His understanding is that the underlying intent of the
legislation is to bring back the Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC)
just to appease a minority group of contractors.
MR. ROBINSON said he is also a member of the American Society of
Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers and out of
all the people he has spoken to, no one supports it.
MS. VICKI STERLING, private consultant in the design community,
opposed SB 377 saying it is a life safety issue, which belongs
in the Department of Public Safety.
MR. CRAIG STEPHENSON, International Code Council, opposed SB
377. He has read the actual bill, which has very generic
language. He is concerned that it is just a way to undo codes
that have been adopted. He urged, "What we need to be doing is
taking a very thoughtful look at how codes are adopted in the
State of Alaska that serves Alaska the best."
MR. ERNIE HETRICK, design professional, opposed SB 377. He
thought all codes should be adopted by the same group so they
can be considered together.
MR. KELLY NICOLEILLO, Department of Public Safety, said he was
available to answer technical questions.
MR. DALE NELSON, President, Alaska Professional Design Council,
said he sent the committee a letter dated April 13 stating its
concerns. He added one more concern - that there is no stated
fiscal impact resulting from changing departments.
MR. JOHN KNABE, Training Director, UA Local 375, Plumbers and
Pipefitters Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee, said he is
also chair of the City of Fairbanks Plumbers Examining Board and
that all members support SB 377.
We feel it is a good compromise and will address the
current situation we have of having two different
codes that aren't in harmony with each other,
published by two separate organizations and adopted
and administered by two separate state departments.
This fragmented approach is problematic and
responsible for a great amount of frustration and cost
to the necessary training and certification in our
industries. We have a very good working relationship
with the State Department of Labor. SB 377 will
benefit the public and our industry by insuring
coordination of the plumbing and mechanical codes.
MR. JIM LAHTI, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 375, said it
trains and maintains a significant workforce to the standards of
the Uniform Plumbing Code. "To help maintain consistency, it's
only logical that both the mechanical and the plumbing codes
should fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor."
MR. RODNEY BROWN, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 375, supported
SB 377.
MR. RANDY BAYER supported SB 377.
I believe to have both the mechanical code and the
plumbing code under the Department of Labor would
facilitate the enforcement and oversight that this
code provides for the citizens of the State of Alaska.
MR. DAVID PEET, Fairbanks resident, supported SB 377.
It just seems to me that these two codes are related
to our industry and if they are, they should fall
under the jurisdiction of one department.
MR. DENNIS MICHAEL, President and owner, American Mechanical,
thought SB 377 would give the public a better quality product.
There really is no inspection on the jobsite because
the Department of Labor has no authority to look at
mechanical systems when they are already on the job
site looking at plumbing systems....
MR. DAYN COOPER, Chandler Plumbing and Heating, supported SB 377
for the reasons already stated.
MR. MARK ANDERSON, Construction Manager, Chandler Plumbing and
Heating, supported SB 377 for all the previously stated reasons.
MR. BILL SAGER, Executive Director, Mechanical Contractors of
Fairbanks, said his members unanimously support SB 377. "We feel
that since our members have to work under both codes, it just
makes sense for them to be administered out of one department."
MR. CHUCK DEERDON, Ketchikan Building Inspector, said he also is
representing the State Homebuilder's Association. The
Homebuilder's Association opposed SB 377.
One of the reasons is that the IMC, which a lot of
municipalities have adopted, includes the
International Mechanical Code as part and parcel of
that. From the city perspective, the interlocking of
the International Fire Code, the International
Building Code and the International Mechanical Code
are pretty important and they go to the State Fire
Marshall's office for review. I think the system isn't
broken, but I think it could be improved and if you
don't mind, I'd like to offer a suggestion. That would
be that the Governor's Office could possibly get the
State Fire Marshall's Office, which is on the same
level as the Department of Labor, and get a letter of
understanding [so]...one of the state plumbing
inspectors can go out and also do mechanical
inspections. The State Fire Marshall's Office can
still do the plan review including the life safety
issues and then we can tailor the codes to encompass
the training for the mechanical and plumbing
contractors. But, at this point, I don't think that
the issue of the Fairbanks - and I understand their
issues on the Mechanical Plumber Contractor's Union -
I think they have a valid point that the training
could be done better and that they could possibly mix
the codes so that things could work for them....
CHAIR BUNDE agreed with him.
MR. STEVE SHOWS said he would speak on his own behalf. He said
he has 35 years in the construction industry, 25 years have been
in the State of Alaska regulating construction for municipal,
borough, state and federal government. He opposed SB 377
primarily because it doesn't address the big picture issue,
which is the safety of Alaskans in a built environment.
I think there are things related to this topic that
Alaskans do agree on. Number one, the State of Alaska
does not have an effective construction regulation
environment. It just doesn't exist. I believe it is
evident that our municipal governments, each and every
one of them...they do have an effective way of
administering these regulations without conflicts in a
coordinated manner. So, I think we have a roadmap that
the State of Alaska may look to to see how can we get
out of this quagmire, move forward as a team, because,
trust me, building a major building takes a team; it
takes qualified licensed individuals on the job doing
the work. It takes a knowledgeable set of people
reviewing plans and all the nuances and intricacies
those plans have to provide the safety that codes
require. Codes need to be reviewed and adopted by
impartial technically proficient individuals - as many
of them as you can find working together. Beyond that,
as Reagan said, trust, but verify....
So, I leave you with that thought that things are
working well in the plan review area of coordinated
technically adopted codes in public safety. There is
no effective field inspection by the Department of
Labor and I can tell you that for a fact. If a non-
union contractor gets a bid, I may see the state labor
inspector in my town checking up on him. These
partisan interests are understandable. Economic self-
sufficiency is a human drive that's very important,
but we need to understand that and not adopt codes
that limit new technology and material to the
financial benefit of a small group of contractors to
the detriment of the people of the State of Alaska who
look to their legislature and representatives to help
them get the biggest bang for the buck. Life safety is
important. We're probably one of the most seismically
active areas on the world; fire, loss of life is not
something to be swallowed over without the best effort
that we can bring to bear to address it.
CHAIR BUNDE said, "That best effort, then, would be for folks to
forget their turf battles and work together?"
MR. SHOWS replied, "You got it. My personal opinion is to
consolidate these construction regulations in one
department...." [END OF SIDE A]
TAPE 04-32, SIDE B
MR. SHOWS continued:
I've seen the Department of Labor do their best effort
and it falls short and it's one-sided. That's my
personal opinion.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked how much inspection of the mechanical work
is done by the Department of Public Safety (DPS).
MR. SHOWS answered that the DPS reviews plans, but does no field
inspection work that he knows of.
MR. MAX MIELKE, Business Manager, Plumbers and Pipefitters UA
Local 262, said he is also president of the Alaska State Pipe
Trades Association, which represents over 1,000 members who
install mechanical systems every day for mechanical contractors
in Southeast. They all strongly support SB 377. He thought the
issue is basically between the mechanical contractors, the
people who install the mechanical systems and the building
officials.
I want to say one thing in my closing statement. The
IMC is not a consensus code. Only government building
officials are on the review committee when it comes to
the International Code Committee whereas under the
Uniform Mechanical Code, there's a balanced committee
for all industries involved in putting mechanical
contractors and building officials....
CHAIR BUNDE said he wasn't going to move the bill today and a
lot more people wanted to testify. He wanted to go through the
list and have people say yes or no on whether they support SB
377.
MR. ROBERT BUCH, Local 367, supported SB 377.
MR. GARY HILE, Anchorage, supported SB 377.
MR. HARRY DEVASCONCELLES, Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA),
opposed SB 377.
MR. GREG MOORE, NANA/Colt, Anchorage, opposed SB 377.
MR. PAT KNOWLES said he is not a union member and supported SB
377.
MR. FRANK KAPILARI, Knik Plumbing, said he represents the non-
union side of this and supports SB 377.
MR. COLIN MAYNARD, BBFM Engineers, opposed SB 377.
MR. CRAIG HATELY, Local 367, supported SB 377.
MR. STEVE MILLER, Plumbers Local 3673 ATC, supported SB 377.
CHAIR BUNDE thanked everyone for their brevity and said he would
sit on the bill for a while to see if a proper consensus would
arise.
SENATOR SEEKINS said for the record:
I [was] co-chair of the Safety Code Task Force last
summer with Representative Dahlstrom. I've spent
several hundred hours on this matter. I think I'm spun
up about just as much on where the turf war is on any
of it. The one thing that I want to say for
consideration at this point is that under the current
system there is no inspection by the Department of
Public Safety on mechanical applications as they're
applied in the field. Once it's done, it's not
inspected; it's only a plan review. As I understand,
this bill would not eliminate the plan review from
[the Department of] Public Safety. That is a safety
issue that continues in place. But, there is the
matter now that an inspection process would have to
take place from the Department of Labor just as
they're supposed to do. They may not in all cases, but
they're supposed to do it and they're tasked to do it
on the plumbing. So, it appears to me...as I looked at
the review from the Safety Code Task Force that in
order to put in place the mechanism that we came to
some consensus should exist in the overall safety code
system in the State of Alaska, that it's going to take
some time to design it out and work with the different
departments and try to put in place, because of the
autonomy of the cities - Juneau, Anchorage, Fairbanks
- where they have their own department. The code then
applies to pretty much the rest of the state except
that it's a minimum code that those cities have to
meet and if there's any waiver from that, they have to
get approval.
What the co-chair and I said was that it seems logical
that in the long run that we should at least have some
kind of inspection of the mechanical and plumbing on
the same level at the same time and that it seems that
most mechanical contractors are also the plumbing
contractors on the job. So, to have some uniformity
that would be simple, let's just change the
administration of this code from here to here. There
is no, as one person said or alleged, no known
underlying intent from any member of the Legislature
to try to favor one group or the other, but there is
an intent to make sure that we have an efficient
operation that also involves inspection of the
completed work as well as just plan review. We think
that that's best, in the long run, serves the public
interest and the safety of the people in the State of
Alaska....
CHAIR BUNDE reiterated that he would hold the bill and hoped
time would build a consensus.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|