02/14/2011 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB114 | |
| HB130 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 14, 2011
3:17 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Vice Chair
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Bob Miller
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 114
"An Act relating to an opt-out charitable giving program offered
by an electric or telephone cooperative."
- MOVED CSHB 114(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 130
"An Act relating to municipal building code requirements for
fire sprinkler systems in certain residential buildings; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 130(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 114
SHORT TITLE: OPT-OUT CHARITABLE GIVING PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMPSON
01/21/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/11 (H) L&C, JUD
02/07/11 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/07/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/07/11 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/14/11 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 130
SHORT TITLE: RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE
01/28/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/11 (H) CRA, L&C
02/08/11 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/08/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/08/11 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/09/11 (H) CRA RPT 6DP
02/09/11 (H) DP: AUSTERMAN, CISSNA, DICK, FOSTER,
GARDNER, MUNOZ
02/14/11 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JANE PIERSON, Staff
Representative Steve Thompson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 114.
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and answered questions
during the discussion of HB 114.
ROB EARL, Staff
Representative Bob Herron
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 130 on behalf of
Representative Bob Herron and the sponsor, the House Labor &
Commerce Committee.
ERROL CHAMPION, Secretary
Alaska Association of Realtors, Southeast Chapter
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 130.
ALAN WILSON, Director; Legislative Committee Co-Chair
Alaska State Home Building Association (ASHBA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 130.
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 130.
AMY KRIER, Owner/Broker
Advantage Alaska Realty
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 130.
GLENDA FEEKAN, Owner, RE/MAX of the Peninsula;
Member, Alaska Association of Realtors
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 130.
JEFF TUCKER, President
Alaska Fire Chiefs Association (AFCA)
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 130.
PAUL MICHELSOHN, Co-Chair, Legislature Committee
Alaska Home Building Association (ASHBA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 130.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:17:52 PM
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:17 p.m. Representatives Olson,
Johnson, Saddler, Seaton, Thompson, Holmes, and Miller were
present at the call to order.
HB 114-OPT-OUT CHARITABLE GIVING PROGRAM
3:18:14 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 114, "An Act relating to an opt-out charitable
giving program offered by an electric or telephone cooperative."
3:18:36 PM
JANE PIERSON, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, recapped HB 114,
which was previously heard by the committee. She explained that
HB 114 would create an opt-out charitable giving program. The
program would "roundup" to the next dollar on an electric
cooperative billing. The fractional amount would be distributed
to organizations and individuals in need of charitable
donations. Individuals or organizations would apply by
application. Most cooperatives establish a separate "501 (c)
(3)" organization to oversee these monies. One issue that arose
at an earlier hearing on HB 114 was the necessity of placing
some restrictions on the opt-out charitable giving program.
3:19:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled, 27-LS0424\A.4, Kane, 2/11/11, as follows:
Page 3, lines 13 - 14:
Delete "charitable donations and for no other
purpose"
Insert "the relief of poverty, distress, or other
conditions of general public concern but not for
religious organizations, political organizations,
organized labor unions, or unorganized labor unions,
or for any political purpose"
CHAIR OLSON objected for purpose of discussion.
3:19:56 PM
MS. PIERSON explained that proposed Amendment 2 would "place
some sideboards" on what the charitable funds uses. She said
the funds could be used for the relief of poverty, distress, or
other conditions of general public concern but not for religious
organizations, political organizations, organized labor unions,
or unorganized labor unions, or for any political purpose. In
response to Representative Johnson, she answered that she did
not have a definitive answer since the term "charitable" has
many definitions. She offered to work on a definition for
consideration at the next committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would also like "general public
concern" defined but his concern was not significant enough to
impede the progress of HB 114. However, he thought the term was
too general.
3:21:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for the definition of an
"unorganized labor union."
MS. PIERSON said she was uncertain but she thought some labor
organizations have programs and this language would extend to
these programs.
3:22:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON described a scenario in which house
repairs were being donated. He asked whether employees of
companies would be prevented from using the funds or working on
a house if the employees were part of organized labor.
MS. PIERSON offered her belief that the intent of the bill would
be for the, the person who needs the repairs done, the
recipient, to hire anyone he/she chose to do the repairs. She
indicated this could include any member of organized or
unorganized labor since the labor organization would not be
receiving the funds. Instead, the individual or nonprofit
organization would be receiving the charity, she stated.
3:23:23 PM
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law (DOL), revisited the question as whether an
individual recipient could contract with an organized labor
union or an unorganized labor union to repair the roof. He
agreed with Ms. Pierson, that the intent would be for the
recipient of the donation is the focus of this language. He
offered his belief that some restrictions would be placed on
paying labor directly but a carpenter who happened to be part of
a labor union would not likely have any restriction.
3:24:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, lines 13-14 of HB 114,
and said he thought the language referred to the purpose of the
charitable funds and not who receives the funds. He read:
"...the relief of poverty, distress, or other conditions of
general public concern but not for religious organizations,
political organizations, organization labor unions, or
unorganized labor unions, or for any political purpose." He
asked for further clarification.
MR. SNIFFEN referred to an earlier question on whether the term
"general public concern" could be defined. He offered to work
on this definition. The language was derived from AS 45.68,
which relates to charitable solicitation in Alaska. The statute
defines a charitable organization to mean an organization that
is formed for the relief of poverty, distress, or other
conditions of general public concern. He recalled other
statutes use that phrase. Unfortunately, the phrase is not
defined in any of those other statutes either. He said, "It's
kind of a moving target and we'll see if we can do better."
MR. SNIFFIN turned to the specific question as to whether
Amendment 2 would refer to the purpose of the donation or the
individual. He said he was uncertain whether it matters too
much, but he understood the concern. He related a scenario in
which GVEA wanted make a donation to the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) for the purpose of
opposing an attempt to de-unionize a particular shop. The GVEA
would be restricted from doing so as long as the purpose of the
grant is not to benefit the labor, political or religious
organization. This language would allow that to happen but he
suggested that there may be a way to focus on the purpose rather
than on the individual.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that he was having difficulty with
the "purpose" and the "recipient" on the "same line". He was
uncertain how that would work.
3:27:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled Mr. Sniffen used the term
"unorganized labor organizations" several times but the specific
language in Amendment 2 uses the term "unorganized labor
unions." He asked whether the committee should consider
altering the language.
MR. SNIFFEN related his understanding that union suggests an
organized entity. He offered his belief it might make more
sense to say "organized labor unions" or "other unorganized
labor organization" would perhaps resolve that issue. He
suggested that clarification could be worked on in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, as well.
3:28:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to an organization such as the
Associated General Contractors (AGC), which is not a union but
is an organized labor association. He reiterated such an
organization is not really a union but it is an organization.
He commented that he struggles with the meaning of that phrase.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related a scenario in which AGC needed to
replace 20 roofs that blew off in a wind storm. He asked
whether AGC could replace the roofs under the charitable giving
program in HB 114.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that AGC is a contractor's association so
it would not likely fit the definition of a labor organization.
He identified the AGC as an affiliation of entities that have
labor organization interests. The purpose and intent of HB 114
is to allow donations for charitable giving projects for
projects such as replacing a roof on a disabled person's home.
He remarked that would not be prohibited to have the donation go
through a labor organization of some kind so long as the grant
was not to the labor organization. He offered his belief that
the funds would have to be earmarked for a specific purpose. He
related that it may make more sense to put parameters on the
definition in order to better focus on the purpose of the fund.
Then if the funds are channeled to entities it would likely be
fine so long as the purpose of the donation was met. He offered
to continue to work to improve the language.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he thought the funds should be
remitted directly to the recipient rather than to the person
receiving the repair. He reiterated that he would prefer the
process to be structured so any charitable funds would be paid
to the recipient and the person would then hire the repair
person to do the work.
MR. SNIFFEN said he did not disagree. He offered his belief
that they both have same idea.
3:32:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER remarked that he reviewed the list of
examples of recipients and thought one solution might be to
insert language, such as nonprofit businesses. He recalled the
sponsor's staff mentioning the difficulty in inserting
"charitable organization" since it may have "tentacles" but all
of the examples on the list seemed to be individual or nonprofit
organizations.
MS. PIERSON said she thought that was a good idea and offered to
work with Mr. Sniffen on specific language to address his
concern.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER referred to line 4 of proposed Amendment
2, and suggested the committee may wish to delete "unorganized
labor unions" and replace it with "other labor organizations."
MR. SNIFFEN said he thought that change makes sense. He also
thought a similar restriction to non-profit organizations was
previously considered. He said he thought the language in
Amendment to that imposes restrictions to "not for religious
organizations and political organizations" helps to clarify who
is eligible since religious organizations and political
organizations are also nonprofit organizations. He offered his
belief that the committee has given the sponsor good direction
to move forward to address the concerns.
3:35:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether proposed Amendment 2 should
be adopted or if it still needs tinkering. She said it seemed
like committee is interested in moving the bill along.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he was not opposed to moving the
bill with this amendment included since the committee is
building a public record. He said would be uncomfortable
sending this bill out without adopting Amendment 1, even though
the language was imperfect.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he was unsure which entities are
being discussed under "other labor organizations" that are not
"labor unions," especially as it pertains to rural Alaska. He
was uncertain whether the language may capture entities the
committee may not want included in the charitable giving
provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked the sponsor to clarify whether
deleting the language after "labor unions" and using "or
unorganized labor unions" would serve the sponsor's purpose and
may also address Representative Seaton's concern.
MS. PIERSON answered yes.
3:38:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to conceptually amend
Amendment 2, on line 4, of HB 114, after "organized labor
unions" to delete "or unorganized labor unions."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON considered the suggested language change
in the conceptual amendment to Amendment 2 as "a friendly
amendment."
MR. SNIFFEN agreed that he could not come up with a solid clear
example of an unorganized labor union either. He said he did
not think the conceptual amendment to Amendment 2 would detract
from the intent of the sponsors, although he left it up to the
sponsors to decide.
3:39:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to the conceptual
amendment to Amendment 2. There being no further objection, the
conceptual amendment to Amendment 2 was adopted.
CHAIR OLSON lifted his objection. There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended was adopted.
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 114.
3:41:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3, on page 3, line 2, to delete "but does not" and
insert "by an amount not to". He explained the bill would then
read: "program that rounds the monthly bill of a member to the
next whole dollar amount by an amount not to exceed 99 cents a
month."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that it was "a grammar thing"
since the subject is "a program that" "rounds the monthly bill"
"but does not exceed." He suspected a monthly bill would exceed
99 cents a month.
3:42:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER explained that Conceptual Amendment 3
would also have to add "up" to read, "rounds up" instead of
"rounds". He restated the bill would then read: "program that
"rounds up" the monthly bill of a member to the next whole
dollar amount by an amount not to exceed 99 cents a month." He
then restated Conceptual Amendment 3, after "member" insert "up"
then delete "but does not" and insert "by an amount not to".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 3
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON acknowledged Conceptual Amendment 3 as a
"friendly amendment."
3:44:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report HB 114, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
114(L&C) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
3:44:45 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:44 p.m. to 3:48 p.m.
HB 130-RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
3:48:41 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 130, "An Act relating to municipal building code
requirements for fire sprinkler systems in certain residential
buildings; and providing for an effective date."
3:49:06 PM
ROB EARL, Staff, Representative Bob Herron, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Bob Herron, stated that
HB 130 was sponsored by the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee. He explained the main purpose of HB 130 is to expand
the public process necessary for a municipality if it wishes to
consider mandating fire sprinklers in all new construction
projects. The parties affected tend to fall into two groups,
with homebuilders and realtors who are concerned about the cost
associated with a blanket mandate for fire sprinkler systems and
the Fire Chiefs' Association, who rightfully promote expanded
installation of fire sprinklers in residential homes to provide
for additional safety. After multiple hearings on these issues,
a compromise between these two groups has been reached and is
incorporated in HB 130. He said he is not aware of any
opposition to the bill. The bill is neither "pro" nor "anti"
fire sprinkler systems. The proposed legislation does not
prohibit Alaskans from installing fire sprinkler systems in
their homes.
MR. EARL highlighted that HB 130 includes language, "a
municipality may not adopt an ordinance to require a sprinkler
system in all new residential buildings with one or two dwelling
units" unless the municipality performs additional public
noticing. At least 30 days prior to the hearing for the
ordinance a municipality must publish a summary of the ordinance
and notice of the time and place of each public hearing, and a
municipality must schedule at least three public hearings to be
held within a 60 to 180 day time period. The sponsor stresses
that any decisions on fire sprinklers should be decided at local
level. The question is whether the requirement, with potential
financial costs associated with installing fire sprinkler
systems, should have a more robust public hearing process. The
sponsor thinks the additional public hearing process is
necessary.
3:51:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON acknowledged that this bill would apply
to all new single family dwellings. He asked whether HB 130
would apply to retrofitting existing residences and if so, would
the noticing requirements be the same.
MR. EARL offered his belief that such a change could be made
without additional notice since a municipality could require an
area to have fire sprinklers. Under the bill, a municipality
could not require fire sprinklers for new residences unless it
submitted to the three requirements just listed.
CHAIR OLSON reiterated that there is not any known opposition to
HB 130.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed concern that if new
construction requires additional noticing that an ordinance
requiring retrofitting should also require additional public
notices since it would be more expensive to install fire systems
in existing homes, which could be onerous to homeowners. He
said he did not want to "throw a wrench in it" but noted this
aspect is worth considering.
MR. EARL said he had no comments.
3:53:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER said he liked the intention of HB 130. He
pointed out that he has a number of constituents with dry cabins
and it would be impossible for them to install fire sprinklers.
He related his understanding that HB 130 would defer to the
local municipality. He wondered if anyone had any thoughts on
that issue.
MR. EARL answered that he raised a good point, which is the
reason for the expanded public process. Alaska is unique.
People live in dry cabins. He offered his belief that this bill
takes that into consideration.
3:54:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to page 2 of HB 130, to the
publishing requirement in subparagraphs (A) and (B) and asked
for the specific publication requirements.
MR. EARL answered that the bill does not impose as specific
requirement for the scope of the publications necessary to meet
this provision. He reviewed the current statutory requirements
and stated that under AS 29.25.020, a municipality must
introduce the ordinance in writing, that a public hearing may be
required by majority vote, and at least five days prior to a
public hearing a summary of the ordinance must be published with
the time and place of the hearing. Thus, the time and place is
not specified in current statute, he said.
3:56:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out if the intent is to be
certain the public is adequately informed that it seemed
important to be certain adequate public noticing occurs.
3:57:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON recalled from his experience as a former
mayor that upcoming matters were published in the newspaper, but
his agency discovered some "wiggle room" that allowed it to
publish notices on the Internet. He reported that this action
saved advertising monies and that the newspaper notices advised
the public of the upcoming meeting and to check online for the
specific agenda.
CHAIR OLSON recalled similar testimony on the fire sprinkler
issue last year.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES recalled discussing publication issues but
she not certain which bill. She offered her belief that the
requirements vary between municipalities.
3:59:07 PM
ERROL CHAMPION, Secretary, Alaska Association of Realtors,
Southeast Chapter, thanked the committee. He related that he
testified last year on a similar bill which did not pass. He
said HB 130 is important to realtors in terms of the sale of
homes and to keep the prices of homes down. He urged members to
adopt HB 130.
4:00:10 PM
ALAN WILSON, Director; Legislative Committee Co-Chair, Alaska
State Home Building Association (ASHBA), stated that he is a
local builder. He offered that the Alaska State Home Building
Association supports HB 130. He offered to address an earlier
question with respect to fire sprinkler requirements for new or
existing construction. The main reason ASHBA is before the
legislature is to address revisions to the overall building
codes. Sprinkler systems were previously in the building code
appendix, but the soon to be adopted revised building code will
place sprinkler systems into the body of the code. The concern
is that when various code agencies review the codes during the
adoption process, the agencies may overlook how adopting the
revised code will change the local requirements for fire
sprinklers. Typically, code agency reviews address local
requirements by amendment to address vapor barriers, insulation
values and similar things. He related ASHBA's concern that
"that would be overlooked, the codes would be adopted and one
day you'd wake up and you'd have a mandatory sprinkler
requirement." He offered his belief that in terms of existing
construction everyone is more tuned in to the cost factor
associated with retrofitting the property. In response to Chair
Olson, he agreed that the extended hearing process especially if
sprinkler systems are mentioned would address the retrofitting
sprinkler issue.
4:02:13 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), stated that she is primarily acting as an observer today.
She offered that the AML is not opposed to bill and is happy
with the bill as it is currently written.
CHAIR OLSON asked whether public noticing requirements would
vary by political subdivision.
MS. WASSERMAN answered many municipalities already comply with
the notice requirements in HB 130. She offered her belief that
very few municipalities would be affected by changes in HB 130
and municipalities will be "ready and willing" to comply.
4:03:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to page 2, line 8 of HB 130,
which requires that a summary of the ordinance be published 30
days prior to the first scheduled public hearing for the
ordinance. She asked whether the term "publish" to some extent
may be determined by municipal code and may differ between
municipalities.
MS. WASSERMAN answered yes. She recalled that she previously
lived in Pelican and in that community it meant publish in three
places, which could be on the wall at city hall, on the
boardwalk, in front of the bar, or any place the city thought
the notice would most likely be seen. She offered her belief
that in most large communities an ordinance states which papers,
radio, or other media would satisfy the public notice
requirement. She offered that most communities have a pretty
good record in terms of public noticing.
4:04:41 PM
AMY KRIER, Owner/Broker, Advantage Alaska Realty, explained that
the requirement for single family homes to have sprinkler
systems would increase the already high cost of new construction
in the Interior and would prohibit many families from being able
to afford a new home. She reported that rent is extremely high
and any increase in the cost of building duplexes would be
passed on to renters and may result in fewer duplexes being
built. She pointed out that maintaining a sprinkler system,
which would likely require inspections could be costly.
Additionally, there may not be enough inspectors to perform
inspections for single family homes or duplexes. Further,
inspections would be necessary and would add to the sales cost,
especially if the system needed repairs. She related her
understanding that the code change was developed to apply to
densely populated, urban multi-family housing. Alaska has a lot
of rural homes not connected to public water systems and
maintaining a pressurized system in a home with a well or
holding tank isn't very practical. It could require the
homeowner to purchase a generator since well pumps are not
functional during power outages. Alaska has "dry" cabins as
previously mentioned and the risk of freezing pipes could also
cause serious water damage and related mold issues. She
expressed concern that requiring fire sprinkler systems in homes
could result in more insurance claims and higher premiums. She
also shared concerns about retrofitting with regard to home
remodels. The cost of retrofitting could be astronomical, she
said.
4:07:37 PM
MS. KRIER opined that the cost and potential downsides outweigh
the benefits for single family homes and duplexes. She asserted
that she agreed with the expanded public notice outlined in HB
130. She suggested that a cost benefit analysis should be made
available and public input should be considered before a
municipality is allowed to adopt a requirement for installation
of mandatory fire sprinkler systems in single family residential
homes or in duplexes.
4:07:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked in terms of her experience as a
real estate broker, whether a bank would treat the financing in
a scenario during sales, and if it would affect a homeowner's
financing if the person did not retrofit his/her home. He asked
whether the bank could require retrofitting as a condition of a
sale.
MS. KRIER answered she did not think an inspection would be
required for a refinancing, but it could "come into play" if an
inspection was required, if the code included upgrades requiring
fire sprinklers, and the lender wanted a copy of the inspection
report. She offered her belief it is possible in those
circumstance that the issue of fire sprinklers could arise and
financing would be denied.
4:09:11 PM
GLENDA FEEKAN, Owner, RE/MAX of the Peninsula; Member, Alaska
Association of Realtors, stated she strongly urges members to
support HB 130. She explained that realtors support affordable
housing. She offered her belief that mandatory fire sprinklers
for single family homes and duplexes would cause considerable
costs for construction, maintenance, resale, and insurance. She
asked members to keep in mind that current homeowners do not
upkeep the batteries in their smoke alarms so she has no idea
what they would do to maintain sprinkler systems. She stressed
that affected people should be advised of the incredible burden
associated with sprinkler systems before a governing body adopts
a new rule. She stated that citizens should not be subject to
this mandate without notification. She offered that HB 130 is a
great bill since it is proactive in response to a national
movement to require fire sprinkler systems, which would be very
detrimental to Alaskans.
4:10:36 PM
JEFF TUCKER, President, Alaska Fire Chiefs Association (AFCA),
stated that the issues in HB 130 have been worked on for the
past two years in the legislature. He said the AFCA does not
oppose the bill and encourages adoption of HB 130 in its current
form. He concluded, "We'd like to see it passed in its current
format."
4:11:50 PM
PAUL MICHELSOHN, Co-Chair, Legislature Committee, Alaska Home
Building Association (ASHBA), stated that he appreciated the
committee introducing HB 130. He said he has worked on this
issue for five years with the National Association of Home
Builders. He stressed he is in total support of HB 130. He
related his understanding that the legislature ran out of time
last year. He urged members to pass the bill out today.
CHAIR OLSON commended the work that last year's sponsor did on
this bill.
4:13:13 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 130.
4:13:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 2, line 18 of HB 130, to
the effective date of the bill of July 1, 2011. He offered his
belief the effective date would not allow time for regulations
to be promulgated, although he did not think it would be
necessary for municipalities to do so.
MR. EARL said he did not have any comment on the effective date.
4:14:23 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:14 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.
4:15:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the committee should
consider amending HB 130 to remove the effective date of the
bill. He related his understanding that some confusion exists
on how the effective date might affect municipalities. He asked
for any other committee discussion on the effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her belief that the effective date
is not critical since the bill would become effective 90 days
after the governor signed the bill. She commented if the bill
were to languish until the next legislature session that someone
would need to amend HB 130 to address the effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that the effective date in also
in the title of the bill.
4:17:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to delete proposed Section 3 and the appropriate
language in the title to reflect removal of the effective date.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
4:18:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON expressed his initial concern with HB
130 since it appeared the bill created an imposition on
residents. He related his subsequent understanding that HB 130
actually provides consumer protection since it offers some
protection against the requirement for mandatory fire sprinkler
systems. He offered his support for HB 130.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON moved to report HB 130, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
130(L&C) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
4:19:43 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB130 Fiscal Note-DPS-FLS-02-05-11.pdf |
HL&C 2/14/2011 3:15:00 PM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Supporting Documents - Letter Alaska HBA 2-1-2011.pdf |
HL&C 2/14/2011 3:15:00 PM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Supporting Documents - Letter AK Assoc of Realtors 2-4-2011.pdf |
HL&C 2/14/2011 3:15:00 PM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Supporting Documents - Summary of HB 130 Effects.pdf |
HL&C 2/14/2011 3:15:00 PM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Supporting Documents Letter AFCA 2-14-2011.pdf |
HL&C 2/14/2011 3:15:00 PM |
HB 130 |