Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/28/2003 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 28, 2003
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 260
"An Act relating to immunity for free health care services
provided by certain health care providers; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 260(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 269
"An Act establishing the Safety Code Task Force; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 272
"An Act relating to motor vehicle dealers."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 260
SHORT TITLE:IMMUNITY FOR PROVIDING FREE HEALTH CARE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)SEATON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/11/03 0935 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/11/03 0935 (H) L&C, JUD
04/23/03 1081 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GARA
04/24/03 1111 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ANDERSON
04/28/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 269
SHORT TITLE:SAFETY CODE TASK FORCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DAHLSTROM
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/15/03 0985 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/15/03 0985 (H) L&C, FIN
04/28/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 260.
LINDA FINK, Assistant Director
Alaska State Hospital & Nursing Home Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 260.
HEDRIC HANSON, Obstetrician /Gynecologist
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 260.
MICHAEL HAUGEN, Executive Director
Alaska Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. (APS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in strong support of HB 260.
STEPHEN CONN, Special Projects Coordinator
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of a form of
legislation, but not the current draft of HB 260.
ZACH WARWICK, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As staff to the sponsor of the companion
legislation to HB 260, he answered questions.
SAM KITO, III
Alaska Professional Design Council
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 269.
JOHN BITNEY
Alaska State Homebuilders Association
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that although the Alaska
Homebuilders Association is comfortable with the status quo, it
does support HB 269.
DAVID OWENS, Owner
Owens Inspection Services
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 269.
JAMES BAISDEN, Kenai Fire Marshall
Kenai Fire Department
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 269.
CHARLES DEARDEN, Building Official
City of Ketchikan
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 269.
GARY POWELL, Director State Fire Marshall
Division of Fire Prevention
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern with the make-up of the
safety code task force created under HB 269.
STEVE SHUTTLEWORTH, Building Official
City of Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern with the lack of a code
building official on the task force proposed in HB 269.
BILL SAGER
Mechanical Contractors of Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 269.
ERIC MOHRMANN, Fire Chief
Chena/Goldstream Fire and Rescue
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 269, testified that
there should be representation from the fire department and the
building official [profession].
DENNIS MICHEL, American Mechanical Contracting Firm
President, Mechanical Contractors
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 269, testified that
the mechanical contractors have agreed to this [task force] as a
manner of resolving this issue.
KEN AKERLY, Alaska Fire Standards Council
Department of Public Safety
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 269, testified that
there should be representation from the fire department and the
building official [professions].
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-42, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. Representatives
Anderson, Lynn, Dahlstrom, Gatto, Crawford, and Guttenberg were
present at the call to order.
HB 260-IMMUNITY FOR PROVIDING FREE HEALTH CARE
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 260, "An Act relating to immunity for free
health care services provided by certain health care providers;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 0053
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as
the sponsor of HB 260. He explained that the purpose of HB 260
is to encourage licensed health care professionals to provide
free services through clinics, health fairs, et cetera. These
services would encourage better health care services and the
prevention and treatment of illness. Currently, Alaska faces a
[shortage] of physicians and these physicians are also aging,
which is also the case of other health care professionals. This
legislation allows a physician to participate [volunteer
services] in a free clinic without having to purchase expensive
malpractice insurance. The aforementioned would be especially
important for those retired physicians who can't afford to
maintain malpractice insurance in order to provide free services
in the community. The services can only be provided under the
following requirements: the health care provider has a current
state license; the services provided are within the scope of the
provider's licenses; the services are provided at clinics,
municipal- or state- or U.S.-owned facilities, or a nonprofit
facility; and the services were provided free of charge.
Representative Seaton related his belief that HB 260 is good for
the people of Alaska because this legislation would allow
Alaskans who would not otherwise be able to access health care
to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said this sounds great. However,
physicians and health care providers make mistakes. He asked to
whom will patients harmed by these physicians and health care
providers with blanket immunity turn. He related that he was
told this legislation is similar to the situation in which
[military personnel] who are harmed in treatment provided [by
military health care professionals] can't sue those health care
professionals. Although the government would still be liable in
the aforementioned situation, this legislation would leave
someone harmed by these volunteer doctors providing free
services without any recourse.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said this legislation doesn't exclude
gross negligence, for which the doctor providing free services
would be liable.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD inquired as to the remedy if the harm
isn't at the level of gross negligence.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that "what we're talking about"
are acts of omission in which a free clinic wouldn't perform
such things as a CAT scan or X-Ray. Representative Seaton
remarked, "I think that what we're looking at is a difference
between no health care and good health care, but without the
liability for the doctor."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented, "Somewhere, somebody ought to
be liable."
Number 0587
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN turned to the definition of "health care
provider" and pointed out that the definition doesn't include a
nurse practitioner, although it does include an advanced nurse
practitioner and a practical nurse.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON deferred to witnesses.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN related his understanding that a practical
nurse performs the more mundane activities while the registered
nurse is under the direct supervision of a doctor, and a nurse
practitioner can do certain things above the level of a regular
nurse and advanced nurse. He asked if a category was left out.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he wasn't opposed to including a
category if it was left out. He reiterated that the purpose of
HB 260 is to encourage health care workers to volunteer
services.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to the definition of a
naturopath.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON deferred to witnesses on-line.
Number 0709
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the clinic would be liable if
a retired physician working for free omits a procedure or
performs an untimely test that causes harm.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON informed the committee that the medical
definition of gross negligence refers to "not adhering to
standard procedures in a situation as identified by a
professional." "If we get into the situation where somebody is
providing treatment that is either outside of their specialty or
what their license covers, or outside of standard practice, then
we are getting into the other factor," he said.
Number 0822
LINDA FINK, Assistant Director, Alaska State Hospital and
Nursing Home Association (ASHNHA), announced ASHNHA's support of
HB 260. At this time, workforce development is one of the
critical concerns in the health care field. Therefore, ASHNHA
strongly supports anything that can be done to retain people in
the professions and increase the workforce. Ms. Fink informed
the committee that she learned from information from the
American Hospital Association (AMA) that malpractice insurance
for hospitals has increased 158 percent over the last two years.
Therefore, she supported not [requiring] liability on the
retired [health care professional] who probably doesn't have an
income.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON informed the committee that under HB 260
facilities aren't granted immunity. Therefore, this legislation
provides for personal immunity for people with licenses and not
facilities.
Number 0905
CHAIR ANDERSON noted that he agreed with the merits of HB 260.
However, he expressed concern with regard to Section 3, which
provides immunity for a multitude of health care providers who
aren't physicians. Although 43 states have limited liability,
he pointed out that [those states have limited liability] for
retired physicians not for health care providers. Therefore, he
surmised that this legislation deals with all practitioners in
the [health care] field.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON informed the committee that Alaska is one
of only seven states that doesn't have limited liability for
health care providers. He explained that the Legislative Legal
and Research Services Division recommended expanding the
definition of "health care provider" so that the extent of
health care providers would be apparent. He acknowledged that
the expansion of the definition does cause some problems because
the legislation only covers those health care providers
currently licensed in the state.
CHAIR ANDERSON surmised then that physicians who retire keep
their license, and in order to [come under HB 260], the health
care provider would have to have an active license in order to
be exempt from liability.
MS. FINK replied yes, and specified that the individual would
have to qualify.
Number 1082
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if a facility is liable when a
health care provider does something that doesn't rise to the
level of gross negligence, reckless, or intentional misconduct.
MS. FINK answered that she didn't know. However, she did inform
the committee that facilities do provide a lot of charity care
and other free services, but she didn't know how that related to
the facility's liability.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to what retired means.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that this legislation merely
means that the [health care provider] retired or not is
providing services for free.
Number 1195
HEDRIC HANSON, Obstetrician/Gynecologist, informed the committee
that he has practiced in this state since 1972. He also
informed the committee that he is 61 years old. Dr. Hanson
opined that the health of our community is a major problem in
this country. The health of the community cannot be optimized
unless everyone is taken care of, which isn't the case today.
Although he said he didn't know the solution, he related that
there is a vast untapped resource [retired physicians] in this
state. He stated that the number of retired physicians will
increase in the next decade. He related his belief that [many
retired physicians] would volunteer in the community if there
wasn't the need for malpractice insurance. The question is will
[the legislature] tap into this wealth of knowledge.
DR. HANSON remarked that when laws to protect the physician have
been passed in other states it has been a win-win situation for
the physicians and the patients. He suggested that it works
because perhaps it returns to the once-practiced standards in
medicine. With regard to the concerns expressed about injuries,
Dr. Hanson related that there have been very few suits of free
clinics in which physicians volunteer. He highlighted that the
[care being discussed] isn't hi-tech surgery, diagnostic
procedures, or invasive testing rather it's basic, primary care
and [often to older patients]. Dr. Hanson emphasized that a
retired physician can't afford malpractice insurance.
Furthermore, the free clinic can't afford malpractice insurance
either. He reiterated that the [legislature] will have to
decide whether it wants to tap into this resource. He explained
that he wants to be able to help the community and he didn't
particularly want to perform missionary work in another country.
He also explained that the reason the other health care
providers are included in this is because the physicians can't
do it alone. He concluded by emphasizing that this proposal has
worked in other communities and states.
Number 1474
CHAIR ANDERSON directed attention to page 2 of the legislation
where the definition of "health care services" doesn't delineate
or distinguish the type of treatment. The definition seems to
be fairly open. Furthermore, he recalled that Dr. Hanson had
targeted retired physicians. However, the first criteria that
one would have to meet in order to receive immunity for
providing free health care services is to be licensed in Alaska.
He asked if retired physicians would still be licensed or would
renewal be required.
DR. HANSON related his understanding that one would have to
renew his/her license, pay for the license fee, and meet the
requirements for re-licensing, which is the continuing medical
education.
Number 1592
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if this [immunity] would include work
[free services] in an abortion clinic.
DR. HANSON answered that he didn't know. However, he related
that the free clinics that he knows about were started by
churches and state grants. Providing free clinics is a
[nationwide] movement that hasn't had a specific agenda like the
abortion issue. He related his doubt that one would
economically be able to run a free abortion clinic.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN clarified that his question was targeted at
volunteering services at a preexisting clinic.
DR. HANSON reiterated that he didn't know. He noted that the
models he has seen haven't addressed that. [The models he has
reviewed] address health maintenance, screening, and care that
wouldn't be [classified] as an intervention as would an
abortion. Dr. Hanson again highlighted Alaska's older
population who can't access physicians because there aren't
enough physicians to take care of them or the Medicare
reimbursements are so low that no physicians will take Medicare
patients, or the patient has no insurance at all.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if, under this legislation, a health
care provider could perform an abortion on their own at a clinic
and escape any liability.
DR. HANSON answered that he didn't know.
Number 1755
MICHAEL HAUGEN, Executive Director, Alaska Physicians &
Surgeons, Inc. (APS), informed the committee that APS represents
approximately 170 physicians. He specified that he was
testifying in strong support of HB 260. Mr. Haugen echoed Dr.
Hanson's comments regarding the access crisis that is of
particular concern for the elderly population in the state. For
example, a little over a year ago Anchorage had 28 practicing
interns that took care of the elderly population. However,
eight of those interns have been lost and two more are expected
to leave. Mr. Haugen mentioned that Alaska has experienced
difficulty attracting and keeping high-quality physicians.
Therefore, he viewed this legislation as [part of the solution
that would help] retired physicians who want to stay in the
state and help the community. He indicated that the
aforementioned is the impetus for APS supporting HB 260.
Number 1854
STEPHEN CONN, Special Projects Coordinator, Alaska Public
Interest Research Group (AkPIRG), expressed concern with regard
to the breadth of the legislation, specifically given the time
frame of the legislative process. Mr. Conn said he didn't
believe that anyone would want to deny Dr. Hanson the right to
continue serving people in this state. However, he noted that
he didn't view HB 260 as legislation that would encourage those
already quitting practices because they aren't paid in an
effective and efficient manner to become volunteers. Mr. Conn
specified concern with the breadth of the term "health care
provider." He related his assumption that the state license
[requirement] would apply to all those listed under the
definition of health care provider. However, the level of
licensing and regulation of each category is an issue, he said.
Mr. Conn also specified concern with the breadth of the term
nonprofit facility. He questioned whether the [nonprofit]
facility is being held to a level of screening and whether there
are adequate resources for the physicians. Apparently, the
facility could be sued, but he questioned whether the facility
would be obliged to carry [insurance] coverage or resources
should there be a problem. If the health care providers are
immune and the facility lacks the resources to deal with the
immediate needs resulting from a civil liability, everyone would
bear those costs because those costs would be thrust back on the
market. Therefore, Mr. Conn recommended meeting Mr. Hanson's
request without using it as blanket immunity for any number of
categories [of health care providers] with various levels of
regulations and working at various unknown facilities. The net
result of the aforementioned would be unintended consequences.
Mr. Conn concluded by specifying that he is in support of a form
of legislation, but not HB 260 as it is currently drafted. In
regard to the earlier issue of civil liability surrounding gross
or intentional negligence, Mr. Conn characterized that as a
lesser issue because it's fairly well defined.
Number 2035
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD referred to page 2, line 6, of HB 260.
He asked if the "limiting liability" language in the other 43
states that have enacted legislation limiting liability for
retired physicians refers to blanket immunity up to gross
negligence. He also asked if the 43 other states include the
list of health care providers that [HB 260 specifies].
MR. CONN responded that he didn't know, and remarked that those
are important questions. As was stated by the sponsor, the
legislative intent is limiting liability for retired physicians.
MR. HAUGEN informed the committee that in these 43 other states,
the liability extended to physicians comes in two forms: either
it provides a blanket exemption and indemnifies a physician like
a state employee, or, like Oregon, changes the liability
standard to gross negligence. He noted his belief that the
language of HB 260 is modeled on North Dakota's [provisions].
He highlighted that the list of health care providers that are
immunized varies greatly throughout the 43 states. He related
his belief that the intent of HB 260 was to be as broad as
possible in order to encourage as much citizen participation as
possible.
Number 2159
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the committee packet
contains a listing of all the states and what that state
provides [in the area of volunteer health care providers and
civil immunity laws]. The listing is from the National
Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). The committee packet
also includes Public Law 105-19-June 18, 1997, which is the
federal Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. He explained that the
purpose of the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 is to promote
interested social service programs and beneficiaries and
taxpayers to sustain the availability of programs and nonprofit
organizations, et cetera [that provide] health [services]. This
Act preempts the laws in any state to the extent that such laws
are inconsistent with the Act, except the Act shall not preempt
any state providing additional protection from liability related
to volunteers or to any categories of volunteers in the
performances or services of the nonprofit organization or
governmental agency. Therefore, this is a model law and without
any state law, the federal law is in place.
CHAIR ANDERSON related his view that Alaska would have the most
expansive legislation with regard to [the definition of health
care provider].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that Legislative Legal and Research
Services wanted to narrow the legislation by specifying [the
definition of health care provider]. He informed the committee
that most of [the 43 states doing this] refer to health care
providers or professionals, which includes "all of the people
that are licensed that have anything to do with health care."
Number 2305
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD recalled Mr. Haugen's testimony
regarding the indemnification of the volunteers [that occurs in
some of the 43 states doing this], and inquired as to who
indemnifies them when someone is damaged and there is no
malpractice insurance in place.
MR. HAUGEN related his belief that the state passing the
legislation would indeminify [the volunteer health care
provider].
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD surmised that Mr. Haugen would prefer
that no one be liable if someone was damaged [by a volunteer
health care provider].
MR. HAUGEN replied no and pointed out that the legislation
includes a liability standard of gross negligence. Mr. Haugen
reiterated that [the legislature] must determine whether
encouraging providers to provide health care when they otherwise
would not, to meet a very large need, is worth reducing the
liability exposure to the provider. He noted that many states
and the federal government have decided it's worth it.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if Mr. Haugen felt that the state
indemnifying the provider isn't workable.
MR. HAUGEN responded that the legislature] can debate that.
TAPE 03-42, SIDE B
CHAIR ANDERSON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
Number 2350
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1,
which read:
Page 2, line 27, following "dentist,":
Insert "dental hygienist,"
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO informed the committee that when he goes to
the dentist, he almost always sees the dental hygienist.
Therefore, he expressed the need to include dental hygienists in
the list of health care providers.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG informed the committee that there is a
legitimate and licensed definition of dental hygienist, and
therefore it is covered in statute.
CHAIR ANDERSON, upon determining there were no objections,
announced that Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 2283
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved that the committee adopt
Amendment 2, which read:
Page 2, line 21:
Delete "and"
Page 2, line 22, following "the services":
Insert "; and
(5) provider
(A) obtains informed consent from the
person receiving the health care services as described
under AS 09.55.556, except in the case of an
emergency; and
(B) provides the person receiving the
health care services written notice of the immunity
provided under this section"
CHAIR ANDERSON objected for the purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM clarified that AS 09.55.556 says the
following:
Sec. 09.55.556. Informed consent. (a) A health
care provider is liable for failure to obtain the
informed consent of a patient if the claimant
establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that
the provider has failed to inform the patient of the
common risks and reasonable alternatives to the
proposed treatment or procedure, and that but for that
failure the claimant would not have consented to the
proposed treatment or procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM explained that the above is a common
sense understanding that the provider is providing the
information to the patient receiving the care and everyone is
signing off on it.
CHAIR ANDERSON removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the informed consent notifies
the patient that there is no liability.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that he has no objection to
[Amendment 2].
There being no further objection, Amendment 2 is adopted.
Number 2200
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3, which read:
Nothing in this bill shall remove civil liability from
any health care provider that performs or participates
in the performance of an elective abortion.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected and remarked, "It's just the
whole larger issue of liability for everybody, not just
separating one out."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if Representative Guttenberg would be
more comfortable with the language "any elected procedure."
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG explained that the issue is the
liability question.
CHAIR ANDERSON related his understanding that Representative
Lynn's amendment is getting at a physician who retires and
maintains his/her medical license, goes to a clinic that
performs abortions, and offers to work for free. In the
aforementioned situation, the physician wouldn't have to have
liability insurance. He said he understood Representative Lynn
to mean that he didn't want it to be easy for a physician to
retire and not have liability insurance for malpractice and
perform [abortions].
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN agreed with Chair Anderson's understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he believes [Conceptual Amendment
3] is discrimination and isn't fair and equal treatment. With
regard to using the language "any elected procedure,"
Representative Crawford pointed out that could refer to having
one's teeth cleaned. Therefore, he said he didn't see how there
could be a law that discriminates against one form of health
care, when that health care is legal under the constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO related his belief that having one's teeth
cleaned is a medical procedure, which is why it's performed by a
licensed individual. He suggested that perhaps any elected
procedure shouldn't be covered when the intent is to simply
release the physician when doing free work. Perhaps the free
work could be limited to free and essential or free and
necessary [services]. Therefore, procedures such as teeth
whitening, plastic surgery, and removing tattoos wouldn't be
covered.
Number 1975
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said that the definition of "elective"
would be troubling for a lot of people. Comparing an elective
teeth cleaning to an elective abortion is troubling. He posed a
situation in which someone has an accident and there is a life
and death situation [between the mother and her unborn child],
and questioned whether the decision of whether one or both die
would be considered elective.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN clarified that [Conceptual Amendment 3]
doesn't go to the abortion issue itself rather it addresses the
liability issue.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that the purpose of HB 260 is
to provide legal voluntary health care. If attempts are made to
allow certain procedures and disallow others, he said he
believes it will probably [thwart this attempt to provide free]
needed medical care.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if Representative Seaton was saying that
the language on page 3, line 1, "to treat or prevent illness or
injury", doesn't include abortion.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied, "Right."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN disagreed.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO clarified that any female can go to a
physician and say that it stresses her or would injure her to
have a baby in which case a mental illness would be associated
with the delivery of the baby. Representative Gatto opined that
ignoring it would mean that it's covered, and therefore he
supported Conceptual Amendment 3.
Number 1811
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Gatto,
Lynn, and Anderson voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 3.
Representatives Guttenberg and Crawford voted against it.
Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD highlighted his belief that it's
important to recognize that [this legislation] issues blanket
immunity up to the point of gross negligence. Some states
indemnify the volunteer health care providers. He said he would
hate to see people [unable to seek damages] when they have been
injured by these health care providers. He noted that he was
leery about providing blanket immunity. Therefore, he noted
that he would be in favor of putting the state in charge of
indemnifying these volunteer health care providers.
CHAIR ANDERSON recalled Mr. Conn's point that the licensure for
the various health care providers varies. Furthermore, there is
some ambiguity with regard to the liability of a nonprofit
facility. Chair Anderson pointed out that the committee has
reviewed this legislation per the purview of this committee.
Therefore, he said he believes the legislation could be
forwarded to the next committee of referral, the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, where the more definitive aspects could be
reviewed.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed out that indemnifying these
volunteer health care providers could cost the state millions.
Further, he questioned whether the state would have to carry the
insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD posed a situation in which an indigent
is harmed, and indicated that the state, as the last resort,
would be responsible for this person.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated that he totally supports the concept
of HB 260 as it has been amended.
Number 1611
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that he, too, liked HB 260
conceptually. However, he was also interested in Representative
Crawford's suggestion to explore some blanket indemnification.
Some of the definitions of health care providers are broad, and
therefore defining health care providers is smart. Still he
noted his concerned with the liability of the legislation as
well as the license requirements.
CHAIR ANDERSON offered to contact Rick Urion, Director, Division
of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce & Economic
Development, and request an interpretive and opinion letter
regarding licensure to be submitted to the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he hates to send legislation with
problems to the next committee of referral. He emphasized his
concern with providing blanket immunity.
Number 1493
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 260, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected. Representative Guttenberg
requested a list of physicians and their licensing requirements.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Gatto,
Rokeberg, Lynn, and Anderson voted in favor of reporting HB 260,
as amended, out of committee. Representatives Guttenberg and
Crawford voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 260(L&C) was
reported out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee
by a vote of 5-2.
HB 269-SAFETY CODE TASK FORCE
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 269, "An Act establishing the Safety Code Task
Force; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1389
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, speaking as the sponsor HB 269,
explained that that this legislation establishes the Safety Code
Task Force. Representative Dahlstrom provided the following
testimony:
There are five primary safety codes dealing with
construction in Alaska, which are under the
jurisdiction of two different departments. The fire,
building, and mechanical codes are under the
jurisdiction of the fire marshal at the Department of
Public Safety. The plumbing and electrical codes are
governed by the Department of Labor. Each department
is responsible for adopting a family of codes to bring
uniformity and consistency to the construction
industry. However, the current delegation of
authority to the respective departments has caused a
set of conflicts and discrepancies.
The mission of the Safety Code Task Force is to
suggest options for consolidation of our code
administration function. The task force will be
charged with presenting recommendations to the
legislature by the first day of the second regular
session of the Twenty-Third Alaska State Legislature.
As part of the task force, we're proposing an advisory
panel that will be appointed by the governor,
representing the Division of Occupational Licensing,
the Division of Fire Prevention, the Department of
Labor & Workforce Development. The purpose of this
group is to advise the task force on the effects of
any changes in code adoption to their respective
agencies. However, it is not my intent to limit the
size and scope of the advisory to just these persons.
To ensure the broadest representation of stakeholders,
I would like to see all interested parties participate
in a panel, and so therefore I would like to see this
task force more forward without amendments; ... all
interested parties do have the opportunity to
participate.
The Safety Code Task Force will consist of nine
members, representing parties affected by the adoption
of safety codes in this state. The make-up of the
task force is as follows: an appointee of the Senate
President, which would be a Co-Chairman appointee of
the Speaker of the House, which would also be a Co-
Chairman appointee of the governor. The following
members are to be appointed jointly by the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House, and they
include: a representative from the construction
design community; a representative from the
construction engineering community; a representative
for general contractors; a representative for
mechanical contractors; a representative for
electrical contractors; a representative for plumbing
contractors. I urge positive consideration of House
Bill 269, Mr. Chair, and there are others here who are
available to testify and answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that these types of issues
have been before this committee on numerous occasions. In the
past, this committee has taken the policy of these code
adoptions being done on a periodic basis in the department
rather than the legislature. He noted that there has been
correspondence regarding the lack of representation from "the
fire plan check, fire department, and fire prevention-type
area." He asked if any consideration has been given to
including representation from the municipal building department,
which is responsible for code enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM agreed that the fire industry should be
represented, and therefore her intent was that the official
representing the public safety interest would be from the [fire
industry].
[The gavel had been passed to Representative Lynn.]
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if it would be safe to assume that
the governor's appointment for that division would hopefully be
the fire marshal.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM replied that she wouldn't want to
assume what the governor would do. She related her
understanding that the fire marshal's responsibility is to
enforce the code once it has been decided.
Number 1146
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he wondered if there would be interest
in combining the mechanical construction and the plumbing
construction member under one member. He informed the committee
that California adopted the existing Uniform Building Code while
Oregon adopted the International [Building] Code.
Representative Gatto pointed out that California has more
seismic concerns than Oregon, and therefore he was interested in
California's use of the Uniform Building Code. For example,
under the International Building Code if there was a seismic
shift that caused the sprinkler line to break, there wouldn't be
any sprinklers. However, under the Uniform Building Code there
would have to be a source of water to operate the sprinklers.
The aforementioned illustrates a major difference between the
codes, and therefore he noted that he is leaning toward the
Uniform Building Code.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM noted that she is aware that the two
codes have major differences. She deferred to others present
who are more versed in the codes.
Number 0980
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG informed the committee that the state
has a Seismic Hazards Safety Commission to recommend code
changes that are necessary to accommodate those things unique to
the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the Seismic Hazards Safety
Commission is part of this proposed task force.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that the governor hasn't
appointed the individuals to fill the positions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that currently there are
state codes that are adopted. However, there is conflict within
the statutes. Therefore, he said he understood the purpose of
the proposed task force is to conform the statutes and overcome
some of the problems and turf wars that have occurred. For
instance, there have always been problems with the adoption of
the plumbing code because those living north of Palmer have
problems with their hot water tanks. Therefore, the provisions
of local amendments are real. One of the problems is that the
Division of Occupational Licensing is such that there isn't
knowledge of which code is in certain areas due to the conflict
of law. Representative Rokeberg related his belief that the
representative from the construction engineering community
should be someone who specializes in seismic issues.
Number 0828
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM turned attention to the fiscal note.
She highlighted that the recommendations from this task force
are due on the first day of the second session of the Twenty-
Third Alaska State Legislature. Therefore, this task force
isn't long term and the costs are relatively small, $20,700.
The costs arise from the three meetings in 2004 for which three
days were budgeted for each meeting as well as travel costs of
the task force members and one legislative staff. She specified
that the fiscal note doesn't include travel funds for the
advisory panel of state employees because any costs for their
travel will be absorbed within existing executive branch
budgets. The cost of the meetings is as follows: Anchorage
meeting - $7,000; two Fairbanks meetings - $12,000.
Furthermore, $700 is estimated for costs to teleconference
meetings and print the task force report. There is also a
supply budget of $1,000.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD expressed disappointment that the list
of members of the task force doesn't include any members of the
actual workforce, such as labor.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM surmised then that Representative
Crawford would want to include language specifying that there
would be a representative from the labor community.
Number 0666
ZACH WARWICK, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that Senator Therriault is the sponsor of
the companion legislation, SB 180. In response to
Representative Crawford, Mr. Warwick related that this issue has
been considered a union/nonunion issue. He said that although
the members from the mechanical construction industry, the
electrical construction industry, and the plumbing construction
industry aren't necessarily going to be labor representatives,
he opined that the task force is well-balanced. He informed the
committee that three people [from the groups to be represented]
have almost taken a stance on the code they prefer, and three
people are nonpartisan [type people].
[The gavel was returned to Chair Anderson.]
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if these people have already been
appointed.
MR. WARWICK replied no, but people in specified industries have
come out for or against each individual code. He noted that
lists of those interested in participating in this task force
are being compiled. However, it could get out of hand and the
task force could reach a membership of say 40 people.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that he took exception with regard
to whether this is a union/nonunion issue. He recalled that
last year mechanical and plumbing contractors as well as union
contractors supported the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, he
didn't believe it's a fair characterization. He reiterated the
need for the task force to have some representation of the
people who actually perform the work. The current list of
membership could completely leave out those who do the work.
MR. WARWICK opined that this membership of the task force is an
equal, sort of bipartisan community that deals with the codes on
a daily basis.
CHAIR ANDERSON surmised that Mr. Warwick is saying that the
representatives from the mechanical construction industry, the
electrical construction industry, and the plumbing construction
industry could include labor.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if the language could be changed such
that it specified the need for a balance between labor and
management of these industries.
MR. WARWICK said he didn't know how to word that.
Number 0376
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that the [sponsors] have probably
heard from several people who want to submit their names because
this is a powerful position. Therefore, he asked if [the
sponsors] have been able to take notice of people who might have
a financial interest by supporting one side or another. For
instance building code officials have the International Code
Council (ICC) as its parent company which makes and sells books
dealing with the code. Therefore, there would be a direct
financial interest.
MR. WARWICK said that the above is something that the task force
would consider.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG questioned why labor would be left out
if the [sponsor] considers this a labor [nonlabor] issue.
Without involving labor, a group that is seen as part of the
problem wouldn't be part of the solution.
MR. WARWICK clarified, "I don't see this as a union/nonunion
issue" but rather an administration issue.
CHAIR ANDERSON remarked that he didn't believe the
representatives listed on page 2, lines 1-3, excludes unions.
However, he agreed with Representative Crawford that it would've
been nice to specify that labor would be represented and thus
the legislation may need to be tightened a bit.
MR. WARWICK related his belief that union representatives
wouldn't be left out of this issue.
Number 0143
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he understood Mr. Warwick to mean
that this isn't a union versus nonunion issue and asked if that
is correct.
MR. WARWICK clarified that he doesn't believe that this is a
nonunion versus union issue.
Number 0024
SAM KITO, III, Alaska Professional Design Council (APDC),
explained that the APDC includes members of the design
community, such as architects, engineers, land surveyors, and
landscape architects. The APDC works for the benefit of all the
design professionals in public and private service. He noted
appreciation of Representative Dahlstrom proposing the task
force because it has long been needed.
TAPE 03-43, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. KITO related APDC's support of HB 260. However, APDC wants
to ensure that there is balance on the task force membership.
One area of concern is the member representing the electrical
construction industry. He explained that both sets of codes
refer to essentially the same electrical code, and therefore
APDC suggested that the electrical construction industry member
be an advisory member. Furthermore, APDC recommends that a
building official be a voting member of the task force. The
building officials that work for the municipalities of
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau enforce the codes adopted by
their respective Assembly. [These building officials] are
members of ICC as much as they were members of the International
Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) when that organization
existed. Building officials provide a unique perspective
because they have to deal with the codes every day. The APDC
doesn't believe that building officials have a financial
interest because they are municipal employees. Mr. Kito
directed attention to page 2, lines 5-6, and suggested that the
language "one family of codes" be changed to refer to a
"consistent set of codes" because in Oregon there is a situation
in which components of two different codes have been adopted and
are working together.
Number 0209
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the language "consistent set of
codes" would allow for components from the ICC and components
from the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical
Officials (IAPMO) to be adopted.
MR. KITO explained, for example, if the plumbing and the
mechanical code don't work together when designing a building to
one standard, [changing the language to allow components from
different codes to be adopted would help] avoid such situations.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked, "But you could get a hybrid, as
long as everything worked."
MR. KITO replied yes, if there are two sets of codes, which is
the case in Oregon and currently in Alaska. He explained that
in Alaska there are some components of the mechanical plumbing
code that are the Uniform Code while the fire code uses the
International Code, and those are working together.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Kito's suggestion to change
the language on page 2, lines 5-6, should include a methodology
for adopting local amendments.
MR. KITO said he couldn't speak to that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested that Mr. Kito could pose the
above question to the APDC.
Number 0418
JOHN BITNEY, Alaska State Homebuilders Association, informed the
committee that he has a bit of a background with HB 260, in
terms of representing the association this year and representing
the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) for the seven
years prior. Mr. Bitney recalled Representative Dahlstrom's
comments that there are two agencies that deal with building
codes, which is correct. However, as a subset to the building
code, there is a residential code that applies to homebuilding.
This residential code is de facto under AHFC, as a sort of
"third" agency. This "third" agency exists because no state
residential building code has been adopted. Therefore, AHFC
statutes require a home to be inspected to ICBO construction
standards. Mr. Bitney explained that because the fire marshal
has adopted the International Building Code as the code in order
for AHFC to conform with the rest of state law and policy, AHFC
has received an opinion from the Department of Law. This
opinion specifies that ICBO inspectors, as provided under state
law, inspect to the International Residential Code. Although
this isn't the best situation under which to work, the Alaska
Homebuilders Association is comfortable with the status quo. If
the legislature wants to address which code should be adopted,
the association is supportive of a task force. "We do support
the bill," he said. Mr. Bitney related that the Alaska
Homebuilders Association would like to participate on this task
force, however the association isn't requesting a seat on the
task force. He related his understanding that [members of the
Alaska Homebuilders Association] could vie for four potential
seats and the association is willing to do that. Mr. Bitney
highlighted the importance of this task force working and the
need to avoid stacking the task force in any way.
Number 0727
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if Mr. Bitney believes the group
proposed in the legislation can do the job to everyone's
satisfaction.
MR. BITNEY answered that it would depend upon the individuals
appointed; it comes down to making good selections.
Number 0798
DAVID OWENS, Owner, Owens Inspection Services, testified in
support of HB 269. However, he noted his agreement with Mr.
Bitney regarding the importance of having a balanced [task force
with representation] from all areas of concern. He expressed
the need for a certified building inspector or someone from the
building inspection industry to be part of the [task force].
Number 0850
JAMES BAISDEN, Kenai Fire Marshall, Kenai Fire Department,
testified in opposition to HB 269. He said he didn't believe
the current system is broken. The only reason to have this task
force is to [placate] those who would rather see the adoption of
the Uniform Building Code. With regard to the sponsor statement
that says there are five primary codes, Mr. Baisden said that
there are really two codes: the International Code group and the
Uniform Code group. He mentioned that he has done some research
on the Internet and gleaned that about 40 states have either in
whole or in part adopted the International Building Code. With
regard to the concerns surrounding seismic issues, Mr. Baisden
said that both codes address seismic issues in a similar fashion
by referencing the National Fire Protection Association Codes.
Mr. Baisden recalled testimony regarding California's use of the
Uniform Fire Code, and related his understanding that California
still uses the 1997 Uniform Building Code because there is no
[current] Uniform Building Code to adopt. He related his belief
that the 2000 [International Building Code] works well to
protect the citizens of Alaska. With regard to the make-up of
the task force, he echoed earlier testimony regarding the fact
that it doesn't include a representative from the building
officials or the fire code officials, which he believes is
deliberate because there is no desire to hear from these
officials. He noted his disagreement with the earlier
suggestion to change language [on page 2, line 6] such that it
wouldn't refer to a "family of codes." He, as a code official,
said that such a change would make it harder to enforce the
codes. He then turned to the earlier mention of local
amendments. Currently, the state fire marshal is appointed by
the governor and that individual is a good representative when
it comes to adopting these codes. Furthermore, deferred
jurisdiction can be used so that the city can take on the code
enforcement process. Lastly, there has been no discussion with
regard to the costs related to training the code enforcement
[officials] to become recertified in these codes.
Number 1035
CHARLES DEARDEN, Building Official, City of Ketchikan, announced
that after talking with the mayor, the fire chief, city council
members, architects, engineers, and local builders, "we" are
opposed to HB 269. Basically, this is viewed as the NFPA 5000
against the [International Building Code]. Furthermore, he
believes that it's loaded toward the unions and thus IAPMO is
probably pressing for this legislation. He expressed the hope
that the task force wouldn't be weighted in favor of either
union or nonunion entities. He echoed Mr. Braisden's comments
regarding the expense to be retrained and be recertification.
Mr. Dearden indicated that "we" are comfortable with the
International Building Code. He pointed out that there are
really no uniform building codes available. He concluded by
reiterating his opposition to HB 269.
MR. DEARDEN related his belief that the state fire marshal, who
is the building official for the state, should head this
(indisc.) and perhaps bring the workforce development into the
department of building safety. He suggested that there could be
a building task force run by that entity.
Number 1169
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that currently the statutes
are in conflict because the International Building Code has been
adopted, although the mechanical and plumbing codes are still on
the books. He inquired as to how Mr. Dearden, as a building
official, enforces the building code when that conflict exists.
MR. DEARDEN informed the committee that [Ketchikan] is still
under the 1997 code and will be going to the 2000 code. He
noted that he accepts the 2000 International Building Codes or
the 1997 Uniform Building Codes. Basically, [Ketchikan] is
following the state fire marshal's adopted codes so that there
isn't any disparity between architects, engineers, and builders.
If the NFPA 5000 is adopted, then [Ketchikan] will have to
follow that. He said it would be appropriate for a state
building inspector to be the head of this [task force].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised then that [Ketchikan] is
working toward the adoption of the International family of
codes.
MR. DEARDEN replied yes, [Ketchikan] is going to adopt the 2000
[International family of codes]. Basically, the fire department
would take over from the state the requirements of looking at
the schools, hospitals, and libraries. The state fire marshal
would give the [city] responsibility, which would eliminate a
portion of the state's budget, to do this. In order for this
transfer of responsibility to occur, the city must adopt the
state codes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised then that currently if there is
a state project, the state fire marshal would assert authority
over the local building official.
MR. DEARDEN replied yes, adding that he didn't mind because the
goal of life and safety is the same. The [state fire marshal]
would perform the plan review for life and safety, while [the
building official] would perform the reviews for the electrical,
mechanical, and plumbing. Mr. Dearden said, "Since we're going
to become deferred - which now I ... don't know if we're going
to want to go through this process if we're not going to be able
to adopt the same codes, the same codes that I've been certified
for." He informed the committee that he is a certified
International Building Code inspector, plan examiner, IRC
welding inspector, and has passed the first part of the IRC
building inspector test. To change all the aforementioned would
be a hardship on the community.
MR. DEARDEN, in further response to Representative Rokeberg,
confirmed that the mechanical code is the odd code out, although
there are other codes that can be adopted. Mr. Dearden
commented that there isn't a huge difference other than the
International codes are engineer oriented while the Uniform
codes utilize certain criteria that has been established over
the years.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to whether the state fire
marshal is working against the International codes, and
therefore the engineer and design community may have to design
one way under one set of codes for the state and another way
under another set of codes for [the Ketchikan jurisdiction]
until the change is made.
MR. DEARDEN explained that currently the 2000 [International
Building Codes] have been adopted and are enforced, although the
city is under the 1997 [Uniform Building Code].
Number 1431
GARY POWELL, Director State Fire Marshall, Division of Fire
Prevention, Department of Public Safety, began by mentioning
that it's not unusual for the fire service to have a slightly
different opinion than the state fire marshal, and therefore he
noted that he is speaking on behalf of the Department of Public
Safety. Mr. Powell provided the following testimony:
We understand the complexity of the issue that's
before the committee. And we do not necessarily
oppose the concept of a balanced task force. However,
we feel that there are a number of disciplines that
have no representative as it is currently written.
Most notable among those missing is a representative
from the fire safety community. Not only does the
fire code play a crucial role in the construction of a
building it also becomes a primary governing code
throughout the life of the building. The fire code
provides a means for protecting occupants, the
structure, the contents, and the first responders in
case of an emergency. Currently, fire safety
representation is limited to a single, nonvoting,
advisory member. Further, there is no representation
for industry, and more specifically the oil and gas
industry. The future codes adopted in this state will
play a crucial role in the development of oil and gas
production and transportation infrastructure such as
the TAPS [Trans-Alaska Pipeline System] strategic
reconfiguration (indisc.) point and Alpine expansion
projects. There's no representation for building
owners; the individual that owns the building after
construction should have a voice in how the building
is constructed and how it's maintained after
occupancy. Building officials also deserve a seat at
the table. They're the ones responsible for the
safety of construction and ease of their
jurisdictions. Last, but certainly not least, the
general public has a vested interest in the adoption
of building and trade codes; they are and will be
effected each and every day by the recommendations of
the task force.
This issue is not unique to Alaska, the same struggle
is waged in most western states since the
discontinuation of the publication of the Uniform
Building Code in 1997. And we all knew the Uniform
Building Code ..., were it not for that
discontinuation of the publication we'd probably not
be here today. However, I feel we must rise to the
challenge put before us and adopt a set of building
and safety codes that are in the best interest of the
state as a whole. The Oregon example was raised
briefly as well as the California example. For the
record, the Oregon package of codes is the
International Building Code, International Fire Code,
International Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code,
International Electrical Code, International Fuel Gas
Code, and International Residential Code. Ironically,
this is the precise mixture of codes we have in Alaska
at this time, with the exception of the residential
code is not adopted on a statewide basis, but
(indisc.) by local jurisdictions. The balance of the
Oregon code review committee was three engineers,
three municipal code officials, two fire
representatives, one mechanical contractor, one
architect, and one building contractor. Also, I feel
I might want to respond to the seismic requirements.
I'm certainly not an engineer, but I've heard that the
International Code seismic requirements are more
stringent because they're more (indisc.) and have had
the most recent review. As it pertains to the
sprinkler's license, those requirements are governed
by NFPA 13 regardless of which code you adopt .... I
really would find it hard to believe that they have
(indisc.) susceptibility in one code and not the
other.
Number 1643
STEVE SHUTTLEWORTH, Building Official, City of Fairbanks, said
that since the committee has a copy of the letter from the Mayor
of the City of Fairbanks, he wouldn't take the time to read it.
Mr. Shuttleworth clarified, "We really have great contractors in
the Fairbanks area ..., we just simply disagree on one subject.
But we don't disagree on our responsibilities when we come to
work every day and that is that the building department does the
plan review for code compliance ... and the contractors build
it." Although Mr. Shuttleworth didn't comment on the seismic
issues, he eluded to the fact that in that area a little
information is dangerous. Mr. Shuttleworth left the committee
with the following analogy:
Imagine that the same legislative branch was tasked
with trying to solve aviation safety in the Bush and
the legislature, through their well-meaning efforts,
appointed various people. ... But they left out a
certified and professional pilot. That's exactly what
this Senate Bill has done. We are supportive of the
... concept, but regardless of what code you end up
adopting in the Twenty-Third Legislature ... I will
come to work that next day. And I will be looking
only one thing and that's code review compliance ...
it will not be to become the lowest bidder, it will
not be to ... buy merchandise pumps or pipes or
anything else. It will just simply be code review.
... To leave off folks that do that on a
professional, daily basis, and consider that you have
a balanced ... task force ... is naïve and I would
just hope that the committee would consider all the
input today.
Number 1759
BILL SAGER, Mechanical Contractors of Fairbanks, informed the
committee that the Mechanical Contractors of Fairbanks represent
10 local contractors. He announced that the Mechanical
Contractors of Fairbanks are in favor of HB 269, which seems to
be a good compromise. With regard to appointing a building
official to the task force, Mr. Sager suggested that
consideration might be given to appointing a building official
to the governor's advisory panel.
Number 1807
ERIC MOHRMANN, Fire Chief, Chena/Goldstream Fire and Rescue,
began by informing the committee that he has also been the
deputy fire marshal for the City of Fairbanks for 20 years
during which he enforced the Uniform Fire Code and its
predecessor. Twelve years ago the ICC started working toward
standardizing codes across the nation. Through a great deal of
effort over a number of years, the three independent model code
organizations merged into the ICC and developed the
International [family of] codes. The separate codes within the
International [family of] codes are integrated with each other,
which is important with regard to construction and design. He
explained that the purpose behind this merger was to have a
usable code nationwide that doesn't have conflicts built in.
With regard to the adoption of new codes, the state fire
marshal's office has done public hearings. He mentioned that
local amendments are important as well. If these [codes] are to
be reviewed again, he suggested that fire department and
building official representation would be crucial on this task
force. A great deal of the code deals with seismic issues and
life and safety issues, which primarily revolve around the
reaction of a building and the persons within the building to
fires. In response to Chair Anderson, Mr. Mohrmann specified
that representation from both the fire department and the
building official [professions] should be on the voting
committee.
Number 1956
DENNIS MICHEL, American Mechanical Contracting Firm; President,
Mechanical Contractors, mentioned that this probably isn't the
best forum for this debate on code issues. Contractors
represent those who perform the work and who have a real vested
interest. Mr. Michel said, "When you're starting to look at
redesigning these panels and starting to load it with fire
officials and ... building officials that dilutes representation
potentially from the labor force that makes a living off of
installing these systems." The labor force, because of their
five years of apprenticeship program, has a vested interest in
the development of a stable set of codes. Therefore, the
mechanical contractors have agreed to this [task force] as a
manner of resolving this issue.
Number 2012
KEN AKERLY, Alaska Fire Standards Council, Department of Public
Safety, informed the committee that he represents that Alaska
State Firefighters Association on the council. The Alaska State
Firefighters Association feels strongly that there should be
adequate fire service representation on the task force, as a
voting member. Mr. Akerly noted that he still uses both the
International Building Code and the Uniform Building Code. Both
codes uses NFPA 13 to govern sprinkler systems. Therefore, he
said he feels that the International family of codes is a good
code; everything should be uniform. However, he agreed with
earlier statements that the ICC is making money off of the
codes, which is true of all the codes. Regardless of the code
used, Mr. Akerly indicated that the task force can't provide
building safety to the citizens and emergency responders without
having adequate fire service representation on the task force.
CHAIR ANDERSON highlighted the testimony regarding the need to
include representation from the fire industry, the building
administration profession, and labor, and announced that HB 269
would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|