Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/05/2003 01:35 PM Senate CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 5, 2003
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Chair
Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 38
"An Act relating to construction, plumbing, mechanical,
electrical, fire safety, and other safety codes adopted by state
agencies and municipalities; and providing for an effective
date."
HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2(MLV) am
Relating to the extension of the Alaska Railroad to Fort Greely
to serve the anti-ballistic missile launch facility.
MOVED SCS CSHCR 2 (CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 38 - See Community and Regional Affairs minutes dated 2/26/03
HCR 2 - See Community and Regional Affairs minutes dated 2/26/03
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor SB 38
HENRY KIN
VECO Alaska Engineering Advisor
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 38
COLIN MAYNARD
Representative for BP Engineers
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 38
CHRIS MILLER
Chief Mechanical Engineer for Design Alaska
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 38
VERNON BOYLES
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 38
JIM LAITI
Business Agent for Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Local 375
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 38
RICHARD RUTLAND
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 38
BILL SAGER
Executive Director of the Mechanical Contractors of Fairbanks
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 38
Dennis Michel
President of American Mechanical
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 38
Steve Shuttleworth
Building Official with the City of Fairbanks
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 38
Eugene Rutland
Executive Director of the Mechanical Contractors of Alaska
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 38
Thomas Marsh
Fairbanks architect with Jantz Associates
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 38
William Bruu
ICBO inspector from in the Mat Su Valley
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 38
Greg Moore
Nana Colt Engineering representative
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SB 38
Joseph W. Geldhof
Attorney at Law
th
229 4 St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 38
Robert Buch
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 38
Mary Jackson
Staff to Senator Wagoner
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HCR 2
General Pat Gamble
President of the Alaska Railroad Corporation
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 2
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-5-6, SIDE A
CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER called the Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Present
were Senators Gary Stevens, Taylor, Elton and Chair Wagoner.
The first order of business was SB 38.
SB 38-ADOPTION OF SAFETY CODES
CHAIR WAGONER advised members the committee substitute (CS) \I
2/25/03 Banister version was adopted as the working document
during the 2/26/03 meeting. He asked Senator Therriault to come
forward.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, bill sponsor, thanked the Chair for
giving the public time to review the committee substitute (CS).
He is now better able to understand why the Legislature didn't
deal with this complex issue last year. Some of the concerns
expressed regarding the CS are due in part to misunderstanding.
Following are responses to questions and comments raised in a
recent email:
· What is the purpose of moving the mechanical code from the
Department of Public Safety to the Department of Labor?
Answer: Mechanical codes were grouped with plumbing and
electrical codes because those "trade codes" currently
require individuals certified to perform certain job
functions to undergo continuing training.
· What about a conflict created by created by two different
departments under two different statutes adopting two
different safety codes? For example, the elevator code
versus the sprinkler code. One code prohibits any pipes
that convey liquids in elevator shafts while the other
code requires shafts to be sprinkled. Answer: This is part
of the problem they are dealing with and part of the
problem that was created when the Fire Marshal caused us
to move the mechanical code to the International in the
Department of Public Safety but, a sub category of the
mechanical code is the plumbing Code in the Department of
Labor and is under the Uniform Code.
· This bill specifies a proprietary code rather than
allowing code officials to determine what is best. Outside
groups are telling code officials which code they want,
which is rather like the fox guarding the hen house.
Answer: This bill does not mandate that the Uniform Code
be adopted; it allows the Department of Labor to adopt a
mechanical code without specifying which one.
· Page 2 line 31 of the \I version CS references the
"Uniform Building Code" as adopted by the Department of
Public Safety. This reference is existing statute and is
part of the inconsistencies they are trying to clarify.
New text is underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
· Page 3, line 25. Why delay the effective date for three
years after adoption? Code groups usually revise their
codes on a three year cycle. When code officials adopt a
new code it takes two years to complete and approve. If
three additional years are added, this is into another
code cycle. Answer: This is a misunderstanding of
application. There is only a delay in effective date when
switching from one code group to another such as from the
Uniform Code book to International Code book. Simply
updating a set of currently used codes would require no
delay.
· Page 4, line 14. Why is the effective date of the
mechanical code not delayed for three years? Answer:
Because they propose to take the authority to adopt a code
away from the Department of Public and give it to the
Department of Labor and DOL would need to be able to adopt
a code right away. If they switch to a completely
different set of codes at a later date, there would be a
delay, but whatever set they adopt initially could be
updated with no delay.
SENATOR ELTON apologized for interrupting the testimony to ask
if the three year delay would apply if the code moves to the
Department of Labor and the DOL adopts the Uniform Code instead
of the International Code.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said, "Not initially, but thereafter if they
move to go from one set of codes to another there would be the
delay."
SENATOR ELTON asked, "If you have identified a problem with
switching back and forth between codes, why don't you address it
when you first switch? ...The same problems you're trying to
avoid by having a three year delay accrue the first time they're
switched also."
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied the switch from the Uniform Code to
the International Code caused problems associated with training.
The Department of Labor must be able to take quick action to
have something in place and yet take care of the initial problem
of people not being properly trained and prepared to switch from
one code to another.
SENATOR ELTON remarked the Fire Marshal adopted the
International Code plan several years ago.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he did, but the switch was challenged in
court and the initial decision is currently under appeal. If
that court case is lost, there may be a return to the Uniform
Code.
The preceding were the issues that were brought to his
attention. Some were based on misunderstanding the way the bill
references existing statutes and proposed new statutes. He hoped
the committee would hear from individuals in the business
community regarding the steps proposed in the bill or areas that
were not anticipated. He asked for support in making the correct
policy calls. The fact that The Division of Occupational
Licensing recently reported problems with the education
requirements, and the ongoing turf battle between the
departments of public safety and labor, and the turf wars that
exist between the people that write and sell the different codes
shouldn't drive the decisions or policies, but it points up the
need to adopt a system to address the immediate confusion as
well as a system for the future. As a department proposes to
move from one set of codes to another, there needs to be time
for individuals who use the codes to educate themselves and
their workforce.
CHAIR WAGONER asked members if they had questions.
SENATOR ELTON asked if there was a period of time between when
the Fire Marshal said he was going to adopt the International
Mechanical Code and September 2002.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said there was some time, but part of the
confusion arose because of the feeling that the action was
illegal and it was subsequently challenged in court.
SENATOR ELTON asked if there has been some training in the
International Code since the Fire Marshal made the decision to
switch.
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied some people retrained, but as a
result of the court challenge, some did not get the training
they should have gotten.
SENATOR ELTON referred to the recommendation from the Alaska
Professional Design Council that a public private work group be
formed to address the whole system of code adoption and
enforcement. He assumed the work group would also determine
where each of the codes should be housed. This is a compelling
recommendation and he asked whether the sponsor had considered
that approach.
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied he did after reading the
recommendation, but he isn't ready to form such a group as yet.
If legislators can't come to agreement, then a working group
might be in order.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what happens if the court decides the Fire
Marshal did not have the authority to switch to the
International Code and the Legislature takes no action.
SENATOR THERRIAULT thought codes would return the Uniform Code.
That would solve the continuing education problem, but not all
the problems would be addressed. For instance, jurisdictional
issues would remain.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked whether he had considered simply addressing
the jurisdictional problem.
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied that is part of the proposal.
There were no further questions from the committee.
CHAIR WAGONER called the following individuals to testify:
ROBERT BUSH didn't have a copy of the CS and deferred his
testimony.
GARY POWELL, State Fire Marshal, advised he was available to
answer questions.
HENRY KIN, VECO Alaska Engineering Advisor, emphasized the
mechanical code is an integral part of the building code family.
The International Building Code, International Fire Code and the
International Mechanical Code are well integrated and it is
critical they are administered together. It's difficult to do a
proper building design when one agency is administering and
reviewing two of the three parts while the third part is in a
separate agency. The DOL has no means to provide plan review
services, which is critical. Construction plans are reviewed for
compliance with the applicable codes before construction is
started. Typically DOL doesn't enter the picture until it's time
for construction extensions. Without knowing whether the initial
design has been reviewed and accepted as compliant with the
applicable code, a developer could be at risk by starting
construction.
He noted continuing education is applicable to everyone. Anyone
in business and providing a service would have difficulty
maintaining proficiency without continuing education. It's just
the cost of doing business.
He recommended forming a task force or work group composed of
interested stakeholders.
CHAIR WAGONER asked everyone to limit his or her remarks to
three minutes. He then asked Mr. Maynard to proceed.
COLIN MAYNARD, representative for BP Engineers, explained the
Fire Marshal's decision to switch to the International Code was
not whimsical. The Uniform Building Code and the International
Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) no longer exist. They
joined with two other building code organizations and formed the
International Code Council. These are the same people that have
been writing codes for the State of Alaska for the last 50
years. Three years ago the Fire Marshal had no choice but to
switch to the International Code because there was no other
building code available. That has changed for 2003 and a task
force could compare the two separate families.
If the court decides the Fire Marshal acted outside his
authority he thought they would return to the 1997 Uniform
Building Code, which is no longer published or maintained. This
would be an ICBO code.
The plumbing code is not a subset of the mechanical code. They
are two separate codes that are somewhat related but the
mechanical code is much more related to the building and fire
code than to the plumbing code.
CHRIS MILLER, Chief Mechanical Engineer for Design Alaska, said
his firm was reviewing the codes with the State Fire Marshall
before the September 2001 adoption and has been working with the
new codes for 18 months.
The City of Fairbanks, Anchorage and federal military facilities
all adopt different codes and architects and engineers must stay
current with each jurisdiction. Because they must submit plans
that follow current codes, they attend classes to stay familiar
with changes. Code changes tend to be improvements, which is
good for clients.
He would like to see all state construction codes adopted under
a process similar to the Department of Public Safety. The
Department of Labor, which has adopted the electrical and
plumbing codes typically don't review or amend those codes; they
simply adopt them as is. His firm doesn't have a particular
preference for either the Uniform or the International Codes but
mixing and matching is difficult and may create gaps that drop
issues. He recommended all code adoption forces be housed under
one department, but the enforcement, inspection and testing
could stay in the departments they are in now.
He opined when changing from one major code group to another,
the proposed delay may be warranted.
VERNON BOYLES, 50 year Fairbanks resident, testified he holds
mechanical administrator license number 25, which is up for
renewal every two years. To qualify for renewal, he must attend
two eight-hour educational classes that pertain to mechanical
and plumbing disciplines. In order to receive credit, the
Division of Occupational Licensing must approve the classes. He
completed two approved courses for his upcoming license renewal
only to find out the division now only accepts programs
pertaining to International Code requirements. He asked, "How
much more time and money must I spend to achieve eligibility?"
He urged the committee to adopt SB 38.
JIM LAITI, Business Agent for Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Local
375, testified in support of CSSB 38, which would move the
mechanical codes under the authority of the Department of Labor.
RICHARD RUTLAND, a mechanical administrator representing
himself, testified in support of CSSB 38. It would allow the
department that has the authority for inspection to have the
authority for adoption as well.
BILL SAGER, Executive Director of the Mechanical Contractors of
Fairbanks, said he submitted an outline to the Division of
Occupational Licensing for a continuing education course for
both the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Mechanical Code. The
courses were completed and certificates issued and now there is
some problem honoring the courses. This change is expensive for
a great number of individuals. "Simply moving the administration
of the Uniform Code to the Department of Labor won't solve all
the problems, but it will at least take one department out of
the mix and perhaps simplify the process a little bit."
DENNIS MICHEL, President of American Mechanical, reminded
members that while legislators, building officials and
mechanical administrators are trying to sort this out; the
workingman is at the heart of the issue. To have one agency
setting a code as it chooses, another that is responsible for
licensing and a third that is responsible for examining the work
and checking the qualifications of the journeyman is asking for
confusion. Because the Department of Labor works with the
journeyman on a day-to-day basis, he thought moving the
authority into the Department of Labor would be beneficial.
2:15
STEVE SHUTTLEWORTH, Building Official with the City of
Fairbanks, advised they would like to go on record reaffirming
the city's strong opposition to SB 38. The reasons are outlined
in Mayor Thompson's letter dated February 18, 2003. The city is
frustrated that mechanical contractors must deal with three and
four agencies and feels the situation needs to be resolved.
However, SB 38 isn't the solution because it allows "the fox to
guard the hen house." The Department of Labor is not the
appropriate department to vest the regulation, adoption and
implementation of the mechanical code. It makes no sense to
postpone the effective date of any code for three years after
its adoption as required by Article 14. This puts municipalities
six years behind the current code.
They have sent a clear position to two separate administrations.
They believe in home rule authority and one family code. SB 38
clearly demonstrates building departments and fire departments
have not been contacted to find out how they administer their
program. He urged members to stay away from such special
interest legislation.
He added the city has yet to receive a response to their letter
of February 18, 2003, which is also a source of frustration.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked whether he had reviewed the committee
substitute and whether his comments were directed to that
document.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH replied his comments were directed to the CS
and apologized if he hadn't made that clear.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Shuttleworth to clarify what he
meant by special interest legislation.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH replied there is a strong labor interest in
maintaining the International Association of Plumbing and
Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) based code, which has been used in
Fairbanks. The Uniform Building Code no longer exists; it's now
with the ICC, which is basically "a different game plan by
default...it's the only one that's out there." When you try to
put two codes together that weren't meant to be together it
becomes difficult to administer at the local level. This is a
labor issue and labor issues shouldn't be used as an economic
tool to determine what code is adopted.
EUGENE RUTLAND, Executive Director of the Mechanical Contractors
of Alaska, testified in support of SB 38. He represents
contractor/business men and he disagrees that this is a labor-
based issue. Most mechanical contractors and mechanical
administrators perform work and have licenses for both plumbing
and mechanical work. As long as the same family of codes was
adopted by the state, the fact that two different departments
did the adoption caused no problems. However, two different
departments have adopted codes from two different families and
problems have already surfaced. Previous testimony indicates
there isn't much difference between the code families and
someone proficient in one should have no difficulty becoming
proficient in the other. The Fire Marshal has said he cannot use
the Uniform Mechanical Code in his adoption of the International
Building Codes because "it just doesn't work." The codes are
similar and can accommodate each other or they don't work
together; it can't work both ways.
It makes sense for the Department of Labor to adopt the
mechanical code. It's the only department involved in field
inspections of mechanical systems and mechanical contractor
operations. The argument that the mechanical code is necessary
to the Department of Public Safety overlooks the fact that the
fuel gas code, which is in the plumbing code, is adopted and
administered by the Department of Labor and is certainly a fire
concern.
SENATOR STEVENS asked whether passage of SB 38 would made
administering the laws more difficult at the local level.
MR. RUTLAND replied he didn't think it would make any difference
to municipalities doing plan reviews.
SENATOR TAYLOR referred to testimony indicating there were
inherent problems with unions and their involvement with the
Department of Labor and Mr. Rutland testimony that he represents
business people. There have been a number of arguments over
codes in the last 18 years and he assumes some of the previous
comments come from those conflicts. He asked whether there is a
code that is favored or disfavored by employers or union members
that figures into the current disagreement.
MR. RUTLAND said all the people he represents are mechanical
administrators and they would naturally favor the Uniform Codes.
By statute they have been trained and licensed under that code
and are therefore more comfortable with it.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the preference was based on experience
and familiarity rather than a union or non-union question.
MR. RUTLAND agreed that was the case.
THOMAS MARSH, a Fairbanks architect with Jantz Associates, said
he is also the President of the local ICBO chapter, a group of
architects, engineers and builders who are involved in staying
educated on current code requirements. They also participate in
the adoption of new codes every three years.
He supports the position paper of the Alaska Professional Design
Council (APDC) and Mr. Shuttleworth's comments. Item number two
of the APDC letter that states a solution is to not move the
Mechanical Code to the Department of Labor, but move all
adoptions, plan reviews and inspections to a single department.
Fairbanks, Anchorage and Juneau have adopted this type of
system. Item number three refers to education and the
difficulties associated with staying current. The International
Building Code in the International family of codes was the
result of efforts to build a national consensus code. The
difficulty in adopting from two different code families is that
one family references and cross references the other and
frequently there are holes not covered by one or the other.
The Fire Marshal's adoption process includes a public hearing
process so engineers, architects, contractors, and laborers can
give input regarding what changes should be made to the codes.
He then cautioned members against accepting a three year delay
in the adoption process. The public hearings and the amendment
process already provide a delay period.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked which department should have the authority
for adoption plan reviews and inspections.
MR. MARSH had no particular recommendation, but he does support
forming a task force because no one department, as currently set
up, is appropriate.
There was no further teleconference testimony.
CHAIR WAGONER asked Mr. Bruu to come forward to testify.
WILLIAM BRUU, ICBO inspector from in the Mat Su Valley,
testified in opposition to SB 38. Specifically he disagreed with
Section 4, [page 2] line 30 through page 3, lines 1-4.
As a building inspector, he must be familiar with both Uniform
and International Codes because the date of construction
determines which code was followed. The difference between the
Uniform Mechanical Code and the International Mechanical Code is
almost insignificant. "There are provisions in those two codes
that are literally work for word." He must stay current with
both of the codes all of the time and as the codes change he
must educate himself.
He supports the idea of placing all the building codes and any
aspect of the building codes under one agency. When he performs
plans review he must apply the codes and the State Fire Marshal
and municipalities do the same thing. In its present form, this
legislation is an attack on home rule because it tells
municipalities they can't adopt a code they may want. About 10
years ago the three original code writing agencies decided to
consolidate. They were under pressure from the design and
engineering community to put together a code whereby a
California designer could design a building using national codes
and that same building could be built in Mississippi without a
lot of changes. The design and engineering industry in Alaska
wants the same thing.
SENATOR ELTON thanked him for clarifying the similarities in
language and for addressing the local preemption concerns then
pointed out the language on page 3, lines 1-4 concerning the
four dwelling units is not the sponsor's language, it's existing
law.
SENATOR TAYLOR had the same point with regard to Section 4.
MR. BRUU read Section 4 subparagraph (A) and said it speaks
specifically to Alaska Housing and what they finance because it
refers to fewer than four dwelling units. Single family homes
are a major part of the industry as far as mechanical systems
are concerned. By statute, the State Fire Marshal's jurisdiction
is limited to four dwelling units and above.
SENATOR TAYLOR advised him this was existing law.
MR. BRUU replied subparagraph (B) proposes changes and he
opposes those changes. He had no suggestions on subparagraph
(A).
CHAIR WAGONER asked if there was further testimony.
GREG MOORE, Nana Colt Engineering representative, testified in
opposition to SB 38. He has been involved in code adoption while
working with the federal government, state government and now
with the oil and gas business. Although the language in the bill
is a bit unclear, the assumption is that moving the
International Mechanical Code from the Department of Public
Safety to the Department of Labor will result in the adoption of
the Uniform Mechanical Code. When a city or state has model
building codes that are in different families there is code
segregation, which means the codes "don't talk easily."
Currently there is considerable disruption as engineers and
design professionals work to interpret the different codes. The
difficulties would increase with the proposed change. Some
people have said the plumbing code is a subset of the mechanical
code, but the mechanical code is a subset of the building code.
Design professionals start with the building code then move in
and out of the various other codes as the project progresses.
Much of the testimony has centered on the difficulties
mechanical administrators have because they are regulated by two
different entities. Alaska Statute requires them to follow the
Uniform Codes and the superior court ruled the International
Code is law. He urged members to address the training issue and
not change codes to fix a training problem. Changing authority
won't change a training problem. The State Fire Marshal has said
his office is more than happy to assist mechanical
administrators in training on the International Codes. If there
are still problems, change the statute to align with the present
code basis, which is the International Code.
The Fire Marshal's office provides plan review services to help
planning and engineering firms. If the mechanical code were
moved to a different entity, to which office would he as an
engineer direct his plans for review? Currently there is no plan
review team in the Department of Labor so the electrical and
plumbing codes aren't specifically reviewed. If the mechanical
code, which is such an integral part of safe building design, is
moved as proposed, it too would be in that gray area and would
have no plan review. The plan review process provided by the
State Fire Marshal is valid.
Currently the International Codes contain 208 cross references
between the building code the mechanical code and the fire code.
Those 208 references and Appendix L, which deals with the
hydrocarbon processing facilities on the North Slope, would
require amendment if the legislation passes in its present form.
He said his firm has set aside funds for him to help the
committee members in this process.
CHAIR WAGONER asked if there were any questions.
SENATOR ELTON asked Mr. Moore to address the Appendix L issue in
writing and provide that information to committee members.
He noted there might be need for a fiscal note if plan review is
required of the Mechanical Code.
MR. JOE GELDHOF, Legal Counsel for the Mechanical Contractors of
Alaska, stated he would try to clarify the issue and would
therefore limit his testimony to what the issue was not about.
This is not about the adoption of a fire code or a
building code. It is high-centered on the issue of
whether or not the State of Alaska had legal authority
to adopt a mechanical code. It is the position of the
mechanical contractors that the four places in statute
where it says you must use the Uniform Mechanical
Code, mean something and short of a legislative
enactment that says we're going to ditch that and go
to the International Code, or we're going to give some
administrative body the ability to adopt whatever
mechanical code they desire, there is a legal problem.
I would say it is a legitimate issue and there is a
very good chance the supreme court will decide whether
they are going to say, 'Yeah they're places in there
that are just old and.... they mean nothing, the
administration can do whatever they want.' Or 'No, the
right way to do this if you want a new mechanical code
is to come back and deal with the Legislature and let
them fix it.' Now, the big challenge for you all in
any of these things, particularly with the mechanical
code is to, if you can see a way of removing yourself
from having to listen to the endless testimony from
all sides about the arcane nature and whether it is
labor or management or good or bad or whether you
supported the design professionals who you refer to
that tend not to do the work or the municipalities and
all that stuff. And, I think there is some real
legitimacy in the President's approach to - and I have
to say, I wouldn't wish this task on my enemies much
less my friendly commissioner of labor. You need to
get the decision on which code will be used in here
out of your legislative hands with appropriate
guidelines and get it to an administrative body that
will do a legitimate, credible job of making it work
for everybody in Alaska. That's your task and I - it's
all balled up not in this endless fighting between
lawyers and constituent groups. But, if I can answer
any questions you have I'll try but, the general
approach contained in the committee substitute of
getting the arcane adoption of any code and especially
this one out of your legislative hands and into
administrative hands - with guidelines - on how you
want this to work is sound and is commendable.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for verification that he supported the
committee substitute.
MR. GELDHOF replied it is a better approach than any that have
been presented to date.
SENATOR TAYLOR agreed the ultimate solution has to be one state
entity making the decisions on all codes. He asked Mr. Geldhof
whether he had specific guidelines to recommend or were they
already in the bill.
MR. GELDHOF described the legislation as logical because it
reduces the number or agencies that deal with the issue. There
is logic in placing the mechanical code provisions with the
agency that is dealing with plumbing and electrical, but the
real fight is whether it is the Uniform Code or the
International Code. Make it work for all the people, not just
the lawyers and design professionals.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked whether he intended the guidelines would
come from a task force.
MR. GELDHOF advised the members to "use brute force analysis and
throw it down and rope it up." Another task force would probably
provide additional coverage of what has been heard many times
before.
CHAIR WAGONER noted there was one more person to testify on
line.
ROBERT BUCH agreed with much of the testimony previously given.
"We're addressing an issue that is coming before us nationally
and I believe we're on the cutting edge of making the decision.
It certainly would behoove all of us to make that decision right
the first time." He supported passing CSSB 38.
There was no further testimony.
SENATOR THERRIAULT stated he values the opinions on both sides of the
issue. He said,
I have worked with the different fire
departments, building officials on different
areas, so to have then either love or hate my
bill is bothersome to me because I value their
opinion. ....One gentleman said adopting from two
codes creates holes. We currently have a system
where you've got the mechanical under the
International and the plumbing sections under the
Uniform. The next gentleman said although he
opposes the bill, 'You wouldn't run a railroad
this way' with different codes calling for
different things and the difficulty getting the
codes to cross reference each other.
There's some debate over the three year delay and
whether it's justified. That's just a number, I
think maybe three years when you're going from
one set of codes to a completely different set of
codes, probably three years is too long. I will
leave that up to your judgment on what a shorter
date that would allow for transition period, what
date would make sense.
No need to rush to decide where to put the code,
but you can see that having this split in
departments has lead to a lot of this year after
year agitation that's brought this issue to the
Legislature multiple times. One gentleman said
this runs counter to the Governor's attempt to do
things to help Alaskan businesses. What we heard
from a number of mechanical contractors, largely
out of Fairbanks, who said the current system is
a problem. It's a problem for them as business
owners.
Finally, with reference to a request that we
consider a task force, I think Mr. Geldhof's
comments say that perhaps it's just to the point
where the decision maker needs to make a
decision. I think we are perhaps at that point.
If, as the decision making body, we can't get
there, perhaps the default should be a task force
of some kind. But, I'm not so sure that, after a
length of time, we won't basically have the same
issues before us.
SENATOR THERRIAULT advised the bill is not a perfect work product and
he looked forward to working closely with the committee to get to a
point whereby a policy decision could be made.
He has no preference for either the Uniform Code or the International
Code. New language that references a mechanical code on pages 2 and 3
does not specify a particular family while language on page 2, lines
4-5 deletes reference to the specific "Uniform Mechanical Code." He
agreed with Mr. Geldhof; legislators should excise themselves from
the process of adopting one specific code or another.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked whether the "Uniform Mechanical Code" was a
copyrighted document.
SENATOR THERRIAULT thought Mr. Geldhof could better answer the
question.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted Mr. Geldhof nodded his head.
SENATOR THERRIAULT then said, "You would think so, but that's not
what the court found." The language in Section 4 refers to the
"Uniform Building Code" not a uniform building code. The latter could
be interpreted to be International but the former could not. He
admitted he was perplexed by the lower court decision and that's why
he thought the supreme court might reverse the opinion.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked the sponsor whether legislators should get out
of the process. He thought they should, but wasn't sure with whom
they could place the authority. He wanted to work with the sponsor to
resolve that and the delay issue.
TAPE 2 SIDE A
3:10 p.m.
SENATOR ELTON was disappointed no one testified on which code makes
the most sense for the people that live in the home or work in the
building. This is an important component if legislators make the
decision. His second observation was that this administrative hassle
could be solved if the Legislature was specifically directed to do
so. "We have new commissioners, we have a new Chief Executive and it
seems to me that it's a failure of the process that we're at this
point and maybe we ought to give the new people an opportunity to
pick up that phone."
SENATOR THERRIAULT said conversations he has had with the
commissioners lead him to believe the tension between the departments
has continued into the new Administration. The division between the
two departments is set in statute. If it makes sense to put it all
under one entity, the Legislature would have to make that change.
SENATOR ELTON commented this Governor has not been hesitant to use
Executive Orders.
SENATOR LINCOLN thanked the Chair for holding the bill to work out
more of the details. There is only one other committee of referral so
it makes sense to continue to work on it in this committee.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted the bill moves to Labor and Commerce next
and if it picks up a fiscal note, it would go the Finance Committee.
CHAIR WAGONER held CSSB 38 \I version in committee.
HCR 2-EXTEND ALASKA RAILROAD TO FT. GREELY
CHAIR WAGONER asked Mary Jackson to introduce HCR 2.
MARY JACKSON, staff to Senator Wagoner, advised her explanation
was directed to \Q version of HCR 2. The revisions were made at
the request of the department and increase the viability of the
railroad line by recognizing economic factors other than just
the missile base. The first resolution remained the same, the
second added the Stryker Brigade, the third was new to reference
the Pogo Mine, the forth was new to recognize the agricultural
industry, the fifth was slightly revised, the sixth seventh and
eighth were unchanged. The title was changed to reflect the
changes and to include Delta Junction.
In response to the Chair's question regarding whether the
resolution indicated authorization for the project, the answer
is no. Statutes are clear that the railroad must get legislative
approval for any extension of their lines. The resolution is
straightforward and asks the railroad to look into extending
their lines. If they determine it is feasible, they would return
to the Legislature for action.
CHAIR WAGONER asked for questions.
SENATOR LINCOLN expressed appreciation for Ms. Jackson's review
because she had concerns with the first draft. She noted she had
not heard from the railroad regarding the CS, but previous
correspondence indicated that additional maintenance and
operation expense is a concern. She thought that was still a
valid concern.
CHAIR WAGONER asked for a motion to adopt the CS \Q version as
the working document.
SENATOR ELTON made a motion to adopt the \Q Utermohle 3/3/03
version as the working document. There being no objection it was
so ordered.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she had some question about the railroad
support.
MS. JACKSON advised the fiscal note was prepared by the railroad
and in it they noted there would be additional costs.
SENATOR LINCOLN interpreted the analysis section to mean the
fiscal impact is a concern. She expressed a desire to hear from
the railroad.
CHAIR WAGONER said he has spoken with the railroad and because
the fiscal note is zero he won't hold the resolution. The only
way there would be a fiscal note is if the Governor directs the
Legislature to proceed.
When the railroad is spending $32,000 per mile for operation and
maintenance, a line extension of 70 miles would nearly wipe out
their annual profit.
GENERAL PAT GAMBLE, President of the Alaska Railroad
Corporation, testified the railroad views the resolution as a
homework assignment. As Senator Lincoln says, they would begin
to study what is feasible and available in the near and long
term to be able to generate the revenue that would pay the
railroad operation and maintenance. If the Governor signs the
resolution, thereby tasking the railroad, they would begin the
process. To this point, they have had no in depth discussions
with businesses or the military regarding what the revenues
might be or how they might develop over time.
The generic route has been surveyed several times, but the next
step would be to determine the corridor itself. This is not a
right of way issue, it's just determining through which 500 feet
the route would be surveyed. This would allow them to identify
the number of bridges and the type of construction that would be
needed. With that information they could project the capital
costs for the 70 or 80 mile corridor.
The railroad is ready and willing to undertake the task if it
comes from the Governor.
SENATOR ELTON directed his attention to the last "WHEREAS" and
asked if the language was somewhat misleading because they don't
know whether or not the extension is consistent with the long-
term goals of the railroad.
GENERAL GAMBLE said the railroad's long-term goals, as stated in
their mission statement, are the community and economic
development responsibilities. This is consistent with their
mission.
There was no further testimony.
CHAIR WAGONER asked for a motion to move the resolution.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS made a motion to move SCS CSHCR 2 (CRA) \Q
version from committee with individual recommendations and zero
fiscal note.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR WAGONER adjourned the meeting at 3:30 pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|