03/15/2002 03:20 PM House L&C

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

pdf txt

ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE March 15, 2002 3:20 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair Representative Kevin Meyer Representative Pete Kott Representative Norman Rokeberg Representative Harry Crawford Representative Joe Hayes MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 244(RLS) "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Examiners in Optometry; and relating to optometrists." - MOVED CSSB 244(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 399 "An Act relating to the Uniform Mechanical Code and other safety codes; annulling certain regulations adopted by the Department of Community and Economic Development relating to the mechanical code that applies to certain construction contractors and mechanical administrators; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 436 "An Act relating to construction, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire safety, and other safety codes adopted by state agencies and municipalities." - HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 437 "An Act adopting a version of the Uniform Mechanical Code for the state and providing for adoption of future versions of the code; and relating to the building code adopted by the state and to other safety codes." - HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 244 SHORT TITLE:OPTOMETRISTS: SUNSET AND LICENSING SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF LEG BUDGET & AUDIT Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/16/02 1962 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS

01/16/02 1962 (S) L&C

01/31/02 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211

01/31/02 (S) Heard & Held

01/31/02 (S) Committee DAVIS, LEMAN, 532 LEMAN; WARD 203 UNAN CONSENT SAME TITLE REFERRALS BILL: HB SHORT TITLE:UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF ADMIN REGULATION REVIEW Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action REFERRALS MINUTE(L&C) BILL: HB SHORT TITLE:MECHANICAL CODE SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HARRIS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action REFERRALS MINUTE(L&C) BILL: HB SHORT TITLE:UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HARRIS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action REFERRALS MINUTE(L&C) WITNESS REGISTER HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 121 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB JOHN KNABE, Chair City of Fairbanks Plumbers Examining Board; Director of Training for Plumbers and Pipefitters, UA Local 375 Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 437. LARRY GILFILLAN Anchorage, Alaska 99517 POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with the IMC. COLIN MAYNARD, BBFM Engineers Anchorage, Alaska 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee not to pass 399, ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 02-35, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. Representatives Murkowski, Halcro, Meyer, and Crawford were present at the call to order. Representatives Kott, Rokeberg, and Hayes arrived as the meeting was in progress. SB Number 0020 CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 244(RLS), "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Examiners in Optometry; and relating to optometrists." Number 0090 HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB HB HB CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would be to continue hearing testimony on the legislation relating to the mechanical code: 399, the Fairbanks Plumbers Examining Board consists of five members who are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. These members serve without compensation. The board is charged with conducting examinations for the purpose of determining the knowledge and competency of mechanical work and issuing certificates of qualification. Approximately 60 contractors are certified to perform mechanical work in the City of Fairbanks. He specified that examinations are on the Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC) and continue to be. Mr. Knabe mentioned that at the May 2, 2001, meeting of the City of Fairbanks Plumbers Examining Board a motion to support adoption of the UMC in lieu of the International Mechanical Code (IMC) carried unanimously. MR. KNABE turned to his perspective as the Director of Training for the Plumbers & Pipefitters. He highlighted that the City of Fairbanks Plumbers & Pipefitters Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee has been training on the UMC since statehood. It's estimated that the [Plumbers & Pipefitters] trust fund will have to spend an additionally $50,000 for retraining on the IMC. However, this figure doesn't include the lost time for everyone impacted. Mr. Knabe concluded: "I am very disappointed at the arrogance and lack of respect for the democratic process by some who support the International Codes." Number 1131 LARRY GILFILLAN testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that he began his career in plumbing in 1970 and in noted that he has taught service technicians under the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) and the UMC since he started in this trade. He explained that when [new] heating and plumbing fixtures are available on the market, the UPC and UMC make changes and training is available. He noted that Anchorage has an International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) which meets monthly in order to keep everyone abreast of the code changes and reasons why these codes exist. Mr. Gilfillan highlighted that he uses his UPC and UMC books and the two illustrated training manuals to train his service technicians as well as to help explain the codes to his customers. These code books are easy to read and are complete. The service trade most often uses venting codes, gas piping codes, and local amendments to the code. Therefore, when retrofitting systems, [the plumber] must bring systems up to present code and explain why these codes must be followed for safety. Mr. Gilfillan pointed out that in the past it was difficult to compete with companies that didn't follow the codes or obtain permits. However, that seems to be less difficult now because the public is more aware and better informed about issues of public safety. "Allowing a less restrictive code, a less definable code, because it takes more time and books to research a specific issue, is a giant leap backwards for the State of Alaska and its people," he said. He predicted that this change in code will impact the plumbing and heating contract business now and in the future. Mr. Gilfillan expressed concern that the plumbing and heating trade will be overrun with contractors who will work with a less restrictive code and take no responsibility for their actions. He predicted that many like himself will be out of business. For example, the IMC allows the use of unvented room heaters by reference to the International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) section 301.3, while those are specifically prohibited under section 916.3 of the safety under the IMC]. Number 1341 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested clarification with regard to the use of [unvented room heaters] under the IMC and the UMC. MR. GILFILLAN explained that on the market there are unvented heaters that rely on "still switches" to provide safety for the occupants of the home. Those "still malfunction. Therefore, Mr. Gilfillan said he believes that codes requiring vented heaters with the appropriate combustion air and size vents are safer and more restrictive. Although it's more expensive to run a vent for these heaters, it's much safer for the public. Mr. Gilfillan questioned whether unvented room heaters would be listed and tested. He predicted that such would fail under a less restrictive code. In further response to Representative Rokeberg, Mr. Gilfillan specified that he was present about half a day for the Municipality of Anchorage's code review. Number 1430 COLIN MAYNARD, BBFM Engineers, testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that he has served on the Anchorage Building Board and has been involved in the municipality's structural footed (ph) options since 1988. With regard to the claims that the IMC is a new code by an untried agency, he pointed out that the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) is one of the organizations involved in writing the IMC. The ICBO has been in existence since 1927. He highlighted that the [ICBO] has written the Uniform Codes up to this point. Two other agencies have been writing codes since the early '90s. In fact, the chapters in the 1994 [International] code were rearranged so that all three organizations would be in alignment. The State Fire Marshal should have introduced technical legislation in order to avoid this problem with the name change, which is essentially the case, he said. The ICBO wrote the Uniform Code and the International Code. MR. MAYNARD turned to 399, Number 1562 MR. MAYNARD, in response to Representative Rokeberg, explained that under the NFPA 5000 a seven-story, 100,000 square foot building could be built from wood. Furthermore, the NFPA 5000 specified that if one-hour separation walls were constructed, the building could be larger. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to whether the problems revolving around training and those in the field were considered during the Municipality of Anchorage's recent adoption of the IMC. MR. MAYNARD noted that he was on the structural code committee and for [the structural code] there was no other option [than the IMC]. However, he said he understood that there had been discussion with regard to going to the UMC or the IMC in the mechanical committee and the plumbing committee. Since the state had already adopted the UPC, the UPC was adopted. The mechanical committee ultimately went with the IMC because it's linked to all the other codes that [could be] adopted. Mr. Maynard stated that the mechanical system under one code or the other isn't much different. The basic difference between the codes is that one, [the UMC] is very proscriptive, whereas the IMC offers various [choices], which may be better and cheaper in the long run. With regard to safety, it depends upon the provision as to whether the IMC or the UMC are safer. He noted that IAPMO was involved in the development of the IMC and thus he said he couldn't believe it [was involved] in producing a code that wouldn't work. Number 1691 TOM McGEE testified via teleconference. He began by informing the committee that he has been a general contractor who has specialized in the design and construction of commercial buildings in Alaska for 30 years. Mr. McGee provided the following testimony: Unlike most contractors that build whatever designs by whatever codes the part of the project they bid on, we design the buildings to suit our clients' needs and budgets. We have found that most often the buildings designed under the IBC [International Building Code] allow us to take advantage of safety features, such as sprinklers, that are already a part of our design to lessen the cost to our customers. One example is a 20,000 square foot warehouse office building recently designed for a relatively small lot that must be placed within 10 feet of the property line. IBC has a no additional cost to do so, UBC [Uniform Building Code] adds $45,000 to a $1.4 million job. UBC also requires $8,000 for fire-rated occupancy separation, while IBC requires none at the end because of sprinklers and other safety features designed into the building. HB cost to the people of Alaska. Many companies will not be able to build new facilities because they will be too expensive. Over 50 percent of the projects we price are never built, and price is a major issue. If your purpose behind these bills is to object to the method of adoption of the new code, please do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Deal with the adoption issue; do not prescribe a specific code and preclude what is, by most opinions, the best code for Alaska simply because you do not like the means of adoption of that code. Thousands of hours have gone into the review process statewide and the consensus is that International body of codes is ultimately the best body of codes available to the state and is consistent with the codes adopted by most of the nation. Thirty-seven states, either in whole or in part, have adopted the IBC. Why [has] ... HB proprietary codes. Mr. McCool pointed out that IAPMO and ANSI are pieces of a code that don't receive input from [DPS] and haven't been coordinated with the IBC. The "Uniform Building Code" ceased in 1997 when it was published. Mr. McCool explained that about 20 years ago building codes became more complex and thus the development of associated codes that coordinated with a basic building code began. The UBC published under the ICBO started the name [Uniform Building Code]. This building code includes references to ANSI and the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM). Every three years, these model codes went through a cycle in which the fire, plumbing, and mechanical code coordinated by cross referencing the building code. This was referred to as the UBC or family of codes. For example, when determining the type of ventilation required in a boiler room, the building code drives the requirement and the mechanical and fire codes cross reference that requirement. In 1997 when the last building code, the UBC, was published, the ICBO group that formerly published the UBC started the IBC, which is a family of codes and uses the same terms and formats as the UBC. However, IAPMO is publishing the UMC and UPC, which don't have the input and coordination with the model code groups. In summary, Mr. McCool expressed the need to place the code in a single place whether by statute or regulation and have the regulations for architects, plumbers, and mechanical administrators in another place that refers to a single code. Number 2140 PAT KROCHINA, Architect, Krochina Architects, testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that he has been practicing in Anchorage since 1977. He noted that he has been involved with the code since 1982, and during that time he has represented the American Institute of Architects (AIA). The [AIA's] goal has been to develop a consolidated code book and a more simplified process [for construction]. He said consolidating the codes is quite the process because it becomes a turf war between the various entities. Mr. Krochina explained that in 1992 the ICBO decided to consolidate with the three major code groups in the country. With that consolidation the additional [codes], such as the fire code, the mechanical code, et cetera, were brought in. Although the UMC decided to pull out of that process in 1994, the [consolidation efforts] continued. Therefore, [the International Codes] aren't new. Furthermore, Mr. Krochina said that he has volunteered his time and every committee he has been involved with has been open to [hearing from all interested parties] such as the trades, architects and engineers, the construction industry, the building industry, vendors, building officials, et cetera. Mr. Krochina highlighted that this code has been worked on for over three years with numerous public hearings. There have been ten code review committees that have [met] for 2,500 hours. Mr. Krochina stressed that this process has been an open and fair process. Number 1980 RON WATTS, Alaska Professional Design Council, testified via teleconference. The council is made up of 10 professional organizations with approximately 1,500 members. He noted he has local, state, and national level. Mr. Watts provided the following testimony: Now out of all this controversy we're hearing over the mechanical code, there is a win-win situation. As far as we're concerned, if the legislature just went back and took the proprietary language out of these bills - in fact it should be done out of all statutes - and go to the functional code descriptions, we would not be in the predicament that we're in today. And if we continue down this road we're going to be back next year and the following year and the year after. MR. WATTS turned to the legislation before the committee. He predicted that these pieces of legislation will merely compound the code adoption process and the problems it involves. "We don't feel that this is the best solution to try to resolve this mechanical code issue or the other code issues that this is going to consist of or entail," he said. Mr. Watts echoed earlier testimony with regard to how the Uniform Code was specified in statute. He specified that there were 15 different uniform codes that were used in the Western United States and Alaska. Consequently, the general reference to the Uniform Code was placed in statute as a matter of course. He said he didn't believe it was the intent of the legislature to [refer to the "Uniform Code"] in order to eliminate the consideration of any other code. Furthermore, there are basically only three remnants of the Uniform Code. The simple solution to to return to the general code reference language. MR. WATTS focused on 437 contains a code could be adopted. If the building code can be adopted generically, then why can't it be done throughout all the codes, he questioned. Number 1767 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether Mr. Watts believes that the state should have a consistent uniform code. MR. WATTS echoed earlier testimony regarding the effort to consolidate the codes that fell through due to turf issues. He indicated agreement with the need for consolidation with an umbrella organization under which all the local jurisdictions would fall. Mr. Watts opined that all references to the International Code and the Uniform Code, the IAPMO, the ICBO, and the ICC should be eliminated. However, he related his belief that there should be a nationally recognized building, plumbing, and electrical codes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern that if there isn't a stipulated code or if the state defers to an agency to select the code, there [won't] be conformity throughout the state. He asked if Mr. Watts agreed with a standard building code throughout the state. MR. WATTS replied yes. Having these pieces of legislation illustrates the problem within the state departments, that is the fragmentation with departments adopting different codes or portions of a code. Number 1627 ROBERT BUCH, Member, UA Local 367, testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that he has over 20 years of construction and building heating ventilating and air conditioning experience. He also informed the committee that he is also a certified plumber in the State of Alaska and the MOA. Mr. Buch provided the following testimony: In looking into what has occurred regarding the code accepting discussions we find: Number one, that some of a body of codes has been accepted by a portion of the state regulatory agency. And two, the adoption is incomplete [and] has caused confusion and possible liability. If we are to undertake significant code adoption, then all involved should have access through due process. Up until recently, the agenda to promote these changes has not been conducted to convention. Use shifts involving the standards for building construction in the State of Alaska require careful consideration by all concerned with public processes, not by one-sided committees with an established agenda. I witnessed one example at the building board's meeting October 18th last year in Anchorage where unanimous support for the Uniform Mechanical Code was ignored and the other code was promoted. What good did it do to have a committee? Currently, the Municipality of Anchorage has at least seven major construction projects finished or near completion ... using the International Codes as design basis. This means implementation of these codes took place prior to acceptance through regulations, which implies a liability as discussed in a letter from the Associated General Contractors of Alaska .... On page 2 [of the AGC letter], he asks: "What happens to buildings constructed under a code illegally accepted? Who is responsible for retrofitting such buildings to make them code compliant? Because of the implementation of this code, does the legal liability accrue to innocent parties involved in the construction process?" ... There's some 500 businesses in the State of Alaska that ... are involved with the construction industry. This is not a union-nonunion issue, this is an industry issue. We're concerned with the health and safety issues. And I'd also like to refer you to a comparison between 2000 Uniform Code and the 2000 International [Code] .... On page 4 it states in conclusion, "As indicated above there are several major differences between the 2000 UMC and the 2000 IMC. Those code users currently using the 1997 UMC ... will find it a relatively smooth transition to the 2000 UMC in comparison to adopting the IMC. It is clear from comparing the size of the two books that the UMC [2000] is significantly more prescriptive in its approach, a philosophy that has been utilized in the development of the Uniform codes. This philosophy is evident in the fact that the 2000 UMC reproduces important standards in the code for ease of use while the IMC only references them. Jurisdictions considering adoption of one or the other document need to examine these differences and consider their impact on the health and safety of the communities that they serve." The requirements of references alone become expensive and excessive in number. Now, I think it's rather presumptive to say that these codes are going to be adopted. They're only adopted in 15 states nationwide. And the International Code is not international, it's only accepted in the United States. Whereas the other code is an actual international code. Thank you for your time. Number 1424 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he understood Mr. Buch's testimony to be that only 15 states have adopted the International Codes. MR. BUCH replied yes. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO pointed out that he has a document dated January 17, 2002, that specifies that 37 states have adopted the IMC and 21 of those states have adopted five or more of the books. Representative Halcro surmised that [a state] doesn't have to adopt all eight books of the International Code. He asked if that is correct. MR. BUCH explained that it would depend upon the agencies in the state. He pointed out that the other states also [must take] into consideration municipal areas as well. Number 1368 JIM FERGUSSON testified via teleconference. He noted that he has over 30 years of experience in the industry. Mr. Fergusson characterized the situation in which a code is adopted and then found to be illegal as a train wreck. He highlighted what happened with asbestos in this country. Mr. Fergusson expressed the need to look into the future with regard to solving this problem. Therefore, he recommended that the legislature adopt both codes for one year [to be used] at the designer's discretion. Such a situation would determine whether the State Fire Marshal's actions were legal or illegal. Furthermore, it would provide the industry with the time to review the code and answer the questions. Mr. Fergusson recalled an earlier question with regard to whether the legislature or the industry should study the code. After listening to everyone, Mr. Fergusson said he didn't believe that the legislature is knowledgeable enough to answer the question nor does the legislature have the time. Therefore, he recommended that the legislature combine all eight departments in order that the one combined entity would handle the code. "Let the professionals figure out which code to adopt," he suggested. Number 1193 HENRY KIM, HDK Company, testified via teleconference in support of the International Codes. The International Codes were developed in order to consolidate three national code bodies. That consolidation resulted in a simple, model building code that encompasses building, mechanical, and fire [codes]. These codes are complimentary and present some new technology and opportunities to use engineering methods to solve installation problems rather than a prescriptive installation matrix. In regard to the impact of switching to a new mechanical code, Mr. Kim related his belief that learning the nuances of a new code is part of professional development and continuing education. During his more than 27 years experience with the codes, Mr. Kim said that he regularly has to spend a considerable amount of his time training with regard to new code editions that occur every three years. "To me, it's kind of inconceivable that we could have a consolidated set of building codes and then have one offshoot where the mechanical portion does not mesh at all with the other editions that have been published," he said. Mr. Kim expressed his disappointment at being present today because he felt that the process was proper. "We're passing up an opportunity to embrace a set of codes that do function well together and present the design team with the opportunity to have a consolidated design effort and use the best technology that's available," he remarked. Number 1044 JOE GELDHOF, Mechanical Contractors of Alaska, first addressed CSHB legislature's law-making power. Mr. Geldhof stressed the need for the legislature to protect its law-making powers under the Alaska Constitution. The CS for CSHB a long-range solution. Number 0780 CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether the problem would get better or become more complicated if this issue was put on hold for a while. MR. GELDHOF said that not dealing with the issue will result in difficulties. He said that the better solution is to 437 all the questions brought by Mr. Cattanach, everyone will be better served. The "do nothing" option is unpleasant. Mr. Geldhof suggested that passage of CSHB 437. Number 0301 MR. WATTS indicated agreement that MOA has approved projects under the International Code prior to the assembly's adoption. Mr. Watts explained that with the assistance of the architectural, engineering, and construction community approving projects with an alternate means of design and construction is permissible under the codes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to whether there is a question about the legal ability to do the aforementioned under the existing codes. MR. WATTS said that it's a provision under the existing adopted codes. MR. GELDHOF reiterated the need for the legislature to protect its law-making powers by acting on HB Number 0059 WILLIAM RUSSELL, President, Local ICBO Chapter, testified via teleconference. Mr. Russell said that the Uniform Codes are good codes. To say that the International Codes are any less safe is an incorrect statement, he said. With regard to the ANSI standards, Mr. Russell said it would, in a sense, create a proprietary code with which he disagrees. TAPE 02-36, SIDE A MR. RUSSELL said that voting in the ANSI process has created problems. Furthermore, no current code meets the ANSI process. Mr. Russell informed the committee that local amendments, which address specific concerns in local jurisdictions, are commonly done for the Uniform Codes and that will continue with the International Codes. The residential code seems to be the largest area of concern. He related that the International Residential Code (IRC) is designed to be a very prescriptive and all-encompassing document. He said he feels that the IRC would address the concerns brought forth by the industry. In response to Representative Rokeberg, Mr. Russell confirmed that there is an International Building Code and an International Residential Building Code. He explained that his testimony illustrates that within the family of International Codes, there are documents that could address specific concerns. In further response to Representative Rokeberg, Mr. Russell confirmed that before the International Codes came on the scene there was just the UBC that related to residential construction. Number 0231 STEVE SHUTTLEWORTH, Building Official, City of Fairbanks, testified via teleconference. Mr. Shuttleworth noted that the committee should have copies of a letter dated February 27, Shuttleworth turned to HB felt it best to leave the [code adoption] to the professionals in the field. MR. GUANELI addressed the Division of Occupational Licensing's situation. He acknowledged that the division's definitional provisions in statute reference the Uniform Codes. Therefore, the question is whether the division is going to test on what actually has to be applied in the field or is the division going to test on an outdated [code] that isn't in the law. The Department of Law advised the Division of Occupational Licensing to test on what people actually have to apply in the field. From a legal standpoint, if the testing were on a code that wasn't applied in the field and someone failed the test, that individual would probably have a good lawsuit against the state. He said that he would hate to have to defend the state in such a lawsuit. The division followed the Department of Law's advice. During the ARR hearings, there was testimony that there was confusion with regard to which code the test would be based. Therefore, the Department of Law further recommended that the Division of Occupational Licensing adopt regulations that clarify that when there is reference to the UMC, it means any mechanical code adopted by DPS and applied in the field. The division followed that advice as well. Therefore, doesn't make a lot of sense. Mr. Guaneli suggested that the statutes should be "code neutral" and left to the professionals. Specific problems should be addressed in the regulatory process, and to the extent those aren't, those problems can be addressed in the legislature rather than dealing with a thousand or so pages of codes and hundreds of pages of amendments to those codes. Number 2083 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES turned to Mr. Guaneli's advice to leave this issue to the experts and pointed out that the list [of experts] that DPS contacted didn't include the plumbers who implement the code. He questioned how the plumbers could be left out of the process. He said if all the players had been at the table originally, then this problem wouldn't have developed. MR. GUANELI replied, "I'm not sure that I can really disagree with you about if there were other people who need to be at the table, and perhaps it could've been done differently." However, the process DPS followed was far more extensive than the usual process. With regard to comments from plumbers and union members about [concerns] with purchasing new books and unfamiliarity with the new code, Mr. Guaneli wasn't certain that those [concerns would've been allayed] had those groups been at the table. Although Mr. Guaneli agreed that DPS could've been more inclusive in the process leading up to the normal public process, he wasn't convinced it wouldn't have led to the same situation. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, with regard to Mr. Guaneli's suggestion to [make the statutes] code neutral, asked if such action would actually grant a significant amount of the legislature's power to the bureaucracy. MR. GUANELI said he thinks that has been the policy choice of the legislature for a number of years. Currently, there are no restrictions on DPS's authority to adopt regulations. He highlighted that he hasn't heard anyone suggest that DPS has abused that authority, other than the current complaints. Mr. Guaneli said he wasn't sure that every three years the legislature wants to go through the prospect of a 150-page bill versus relying on the experts in the field. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG highlighted that it's been the policy of this committee to make "half that step" by statutorily placing the code outside the legislature and letting the departments adopt the various editions on a cyclical basis. However, there has always been the stipulation with regard to the code that was adopted, save DPS. He stressed that DPS's code-neutral language caused this problem in the first place and thus he wasn't sure why there would be the suggestion to go the route of code- neutral language. Number 2257 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if the lawsuit brought by the Alaska Mechanical Contractors is still in progress. MR. GUANELI replied yes. He informed the committee that there was a motion for a preliminary injunction, which was denied. Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment, which means that no facts are in dispute and thus it's a purely legal matter. The judge has scheduled a hearing for May 9th. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if the Department of Law is worried that if the legislature passes HB that if the language in the division's regulation that specifies that the UMC is the code in effect in the state is eliminated, then the division is left with the message that it was wrong in passing the IMC. However, there is no indication as to what the division should be doing. She agreed with Mr. Guaneli that such would leave the division to wait for a lawsuit. Ms. Reardon suggested that if the committee feels that the division shouldn't have adopted the regulation, although it liked the public policy, then [there should be legislation] that specifies that the division should test on the code specified by DPS. If the committee didn't like the public policy and it does believe that testing should continue on the UMC, then she requested that there be amendments to the division's statutes so that is clear. CHAIR MURKOWSKI surmised then that the adoption of the two committee substitutes [for 399. confirmed that his marked up version of HB to specify the Uniform Code or the International Code. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that isn't the case. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he was mistaken then. He expressed the need to make the right decision, which he viewed as going to the more prescriptive and safer code. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that his marked up version of HB 399 code to use. Representative Rokeberg said, "You have to separate all the family of codes from what we've been talking about in terms of the mechanical code." Adopting a building code is different, he stressed. Representative Rokeberg pointed out that the same people, the ICBO, who drafted the UBC recently drafted the IBC. However, there is no building code by IAPMO and the Uniform [organization]. This situation helped drive DPS to adopt the [IBC]. Although the ICBO who drafted the IBC has implemented things to make the code more flexible, Representative Rokeberg said he doesn't believe it aggregates the public safety issues. He related that in the [last] 25 years in the United States there hasn't been a death in a building with fire sprinklers. He recalled his career building high-rise buildings in Anchorage when every three years the building code would change and the inside fire protection mechanisms and rules [would change] even when the buildings had sprinkler systems and safe layouts. Representative Rokeberg stressed the need to clean up this mess with the codes by consolidating the codes and deciding whether to go code neutral or specify a code. He mentioned that perhaps consideration should be given with regard to whether there should be a transitional training period for the testing. "This is the greatest thing in the world to have a national building code and some consistency, and that's what the International Codes are doing for the first time," he stressed. Therefore, he viewed [the International Codes] as a great step forward, although he recognized the need to be sensitive to those in the field who have to change. He said that the power to select the final code shouldn't be given away to the bureaucracy because it's a public policy [that the legislature should decide]. CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if Representative Rokeberg viewed passage of his marked up version of HB overturn that and return to the UMC would require another piece of legislation. Representative Rokeberg informed the committee that two-and-a-half years ago the Senate Finance Committee agreed [with the adoption of the International Code] because the BRU [Budget Review Unit] request specified that the International Code was going to be adopted. Furthermore, Anchorage has functioned a year-and-a-half [under the International Code] as has Fairbanks, with the exception of the UPC. Therefore, Representative Rokeberg said that the legislature should step forward and make sure that those in the business are comfortable enough to go forward and learn new things while recognizing the need to be fair to them with regard to training. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER mentioned the possibility of moving [the marked up version of HB mechanical administrator to choose which exam to take. MS. REARDON clarified that those currently holding mechanical administrator licenses don't have to retest, they merely renew their license every two years. However, continuing education is required to renew the license. Therefore, Ms. Reardon recommended that continuing education be required on the International Code. The new applicants would have to pass the test. With regard to the concern that new applicants may have difficulty passing the International Code test because the journeymen plumbing experience was performed under the Uniform Code, Ms. Reardon informed the committee that there is only a small sample, one test from December. Of the eight people who took the test in December, only one failed. If there are similar passage rate results from today's test, Ms. Reardon said she would say that the passage rate under the International Code is better than under the Uniform Code. Therefore, there may not be a need to offer a transition for the test. Ms. Reardon noted that the same company that provided the Uniform Code test provided the International Code test, and therefore she assumed that both were equally difficult. Number 0653 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the problem with allowing a new applicant to elect under which code to be tested. MS. REARDON said she supposed it would be feasible. However, she questioned why testing on the Uniform Code would be allowed when, once the applicant passed the code, the applicant would be required to work with the International Code. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "Because they spent all this time learning the Uniform Code and that's what they should be tested on if they spent several years and thousands of hours learning that." He indicated that this ability to choose under which code to be tested could be done during the transitional period. MS. REARDON commented, "If you think that's good public policy, I'll do it." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG highlighted that one of the biggest complaints was that there wasn't sufficient training and transition timing. MS. REARDON recalled that the aforementioned complaint is from those who already have a license, not from new applicants. CHAIR MURKOWSKI shared Ms. Reardon's recollection. MS. REARDON mentioned that this complaint was also expressed by those who train those in the field. Number 0509 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee rescind its action in adopting 399. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that his marked up version of HB 399 delete Sections 5 and 6. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt the following conceptual amendment to CSSB 244(RLS) 02/20/02 2265 (S) PASSED Y17 N1 E2 02/20/02 2267 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 02/20/02 2267 (S) VERSION: CSSB 244(RLS) 02/20/02 2259 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR W/CS 2/20 02/20/02 2259 (S) FN1: (CED) 02/22/02 2356 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - 02/22/02 2356 (H) L&C, FIN 03/15/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 399 02/11/02 2204 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - 02/11/02 2204 (H) L&C 03/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 03/01/02 (H) Heard & Held 03/15/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 436 02/15/02 2286 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - 02/15/02 2286 (H) L&C 02/15/02 2286 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE 03/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 03/01/02 (H) Heard & Held 03/15/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 437 02/15/02 2286 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - 02/15/02 2286 (H) L&C 02/15/02 2286 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE 03/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 03/01/02 (H) Heard & Held 03/15/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17 Detail/22?Root=SB244'>SB 244 to the committee on behalf 244. 1978 Burgess Avenue href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399, HB 436, and 2527 Douglas 510 L Street, Suite Number 200 name='HB436' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB436'>HB 436. 6131 Tuttle Place 610 W. 54th Avenue 8005 Schoon Street 101 W. Benson Boulevard 901 W. 29th Avenue 3501 Denali Street 6352 Citadel Lane 610 W. 54th Avenue 16860 Old Seward Highway 2564 Loussac Drive name='HB399' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>CSHB 399, oot=HB437'>CSHB 437, and consider CSHB 436 as a long- 800 Cushman Street 601 College Road 5700 E Tudor Road of HB the Joint Committee on Administrative Regulation Review. 244-OPTOMETRISTS: SUNSET AND MISCELLANEOUS 2?Root=SB244'>SB 244 to the committee on behalf of the etail/22?Root=SB244'>SB 244 extends the termination date 2001, by the Legislative Audit Division, which lays out the 2006, the standard for an extension. Auditors found that the SB 244 you're taking href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB244'>SB 244 would href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB244'>SB 244. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB244'>CSSB 244(RLS) out of href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB244'>CSSB 244(RLS) was 399-UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE 436-MECHANICAL CODE 437-UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE 22?Root=HB399'>HB 399, HB 436, and HB 437. She noted href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB436'>HB 436 and HB 437. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>CSHB 399, Version 22- HB HB 436, and HB 437. Mr. Knabe informed the committee that 1975 he established a nonunion plumbing shop. Mr. Gilfillan 2000 UMC. This is only one of many examples [of compromised switches" 1940 and 1950. The International Code has been worked on since 2?Root=HB436'>HB 436, which he characterized as a very href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB436'>HB 436 is passed, 5000 codes. He said that the NFPA 5000 is an untested building 100,000 square feet to be built with separation walls. Mr. l/Detail/22?Root=HB436'>HB 436 because it's a method to from HB HB 437, and the statutes. 436 excludes the use of IBC at great href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399 been /Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB436'>HB 436. The code proposed /Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399 gives them this accept any liability 12th. Mr. Cattanach informed the committee that this code 399, HB 436, and HB 437 shouldn't be passed with reference to 30 years of experience in the code and building process at the HB 399 is ?Root=HB436'>HB 436 and pointed out that it includes a HB 437 /Detail/22?Root=HB436'>HB 436. He pointed out that HB paragraph that specifies that a generic building 399, Version C, which basically deals with the /Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB436'>HB 436 attempts to take a name='HB437' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB437'>CSHB 437, href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB437'>HB 437 would basically 399, consider moving out CSHB 437, and consider CSHB 436 as pass CSHB and study [the issue]. If a year or two is taken to answer ill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>CSHB 399 would result in those 15th without the proper authority. Therefore, MOA's mayor has Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>CSHB 399 as well as consider 437. 2002, from Mayor Thompson as well as city resolution 3753. Mr. /22?Root=HB399'>CSHB 399 and related his understanding href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB269'>SB 269. That language ail/22?Root=HB436'>HB 436. Although this bill doesn't href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB436'>HB 436. The ail/22?Root=HB437'>HB 437. He acknowledged that HB 437 1997 UBC. Therefore, the next logical decision was with regard same family," he 2?Root=HB437'>HB 437 and related his understanding that 437 makes sense. With regard to HB 436, Mr. Guaneli HB 399 ill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399 it might weaken the HB 399 would tail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399], he said that when the href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399] has href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399 were to is/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399 would mean that the 399 as her worst-case scenario. She explained ail/22?Root=HB436'>HB 436 and HB 437] wouldn't help the href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399 is passed, the ll/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399 is passed with [the tail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399, Version A. This marked up of HB In response to Chair Murkowski, Representative Rokeberg href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399 solves the href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399 does have In href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399 isn't too far 399 would aggregate the legislature's ability uses code-neutral language, but doesn't determine which ail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399 as a band-aid. 399 ratifies the status quo. Therefore, action to ?Root=HB399'>HB 399] and placing the other two bills in 399 could be amended to include language allowing the Root=HB399'>CSHB 399, Version 22-LS1461\C, Bannister, was HB would delete the word "Uniform" throughout the bill and ll/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399, Version 22-LS1461\A: name='HB399' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB399'>HB 399 is Root=HB399'>HB 399 [as Version C]. "If this fails, the s"> id="docLink">Open document in new windowX ght:100%;min-height:600px" id="docFrame"> width="105" height="107" alt="The Seal of the State of Alaska"> eg.gov/basis/btmf_login.asp?session=33">track bills, locate and contact your legislators, and access committee information. Questions? Try our help wizard or call 907-465-4648.

SMS Bill Tracking

Text a bill number (ex: HB1) to 559-245-2529 to enroll in text alerts. You will receive an enrollment confirmation and instructions on how to stop receiving the alerts.

Mobile Apps

03/15/2002 03:20 PM House L&C

SMS Bill Tracking

WHO REPRESENTS ME??

Quick Links

Legislative Links

senate

house