Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/11/2010 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB318 | |
| HB202 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 202-RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
9:16:40 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 202, "An Act relating to state and municipal
building code requirements for fire sprinkler systems in certain
residential buildings."
9:16:52 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ moved to adopt CSHB 202, Version 26-LS0776/R,
Cook, 3/9/10, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version R was before the committee.
9:17:39 AM
ROB EARL, Staff, Representative Bob Herron, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Herron, informed the committee that proposed Version R is the
same version as the companion legislation in the Senate Labor
and Commerce Standing Committee. Mr. Earl explained that the
original legislation specified that municipalities couldn't, for
any reason, mandate sprinklers in any single- or double-family
residences. Version R, however, requires municipalities go
through a public process prior to mandating sprinklers in
single- and double-family residences. Also, Version R allows
the mandate to specify such a requirement in a certain type of
neighborhood or construction. He further explained that Version
R requires that prior to a municipality mandating sprinkler
systems in new construction of residential buildings with one-
or two-family dwellings, the municipality must: perform a cost-
benefit analysis; publish a summary of the ordinance and the
cost-benefit analysis and notice the time and place of each
scheduled public hearing at least 30 days prior to the first
public hearing; and hold three public hearings within a 60-day
period.
9:19:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to how the requirements of HB
202 compare to existing processes. She inquired as to why only
fire sprinkler systems are being targeted.
CO-CHAIR HERRON explained that Version R merely extends the
discussion that will happen in the community, and some would say
it's a more transparent process.
MR. EARL added that there is a lengthy building code adoption
process. With regard to why have a mandate just for fire
sprinklers, Mr. Earl pointed out that it could be an expensive
process that would add to the price of homes. Therefore, the
sponsor feels it's important to spotlight the code regarding
sprinklers and provide more public review. Although the code
adoption process does go through an extensive public review, the
sprinkler mandate would be included with all the other codes and
thus this legislation would make it more transparent.
9:23:09 AM
DAVID SQUIRES, Fire Marshall, City of Seward, began by
specifying that his concerns are related to the language on page
1, lines 7-14 and page 2, lines 1-5. He highlighted that the
state already has a process for adopting building, fire, and
residential codes. He then reminded the committee that these
codes are at the municipal level and the state doesn't enforce
or enact these codes. This legislation proposes to require the
municipality to enact an ordinance if they want to have
sprinklers in their area. He directed attention to the language
on page 1, line 8, and pointed out that sprinkler systems have
been utilized in lieu of other requirements, such as water
systems. He then informed the committee that DEC doesn't allow
private wells within 1,000 feet of a municipal well. If the
municipality doesn't extend that water system, the residential
homeowner has to do so. The aforementioned is a higher expense
than a sprinkler system would be.
MR. SQUIRES related that the sprinkler system requirement has
been used to reduce construction costs in the City of Seward,
where municipal water systems aren't available. The
aforementioned hasn't impacted the rest of the community, he
said. He explained that without the ordinance, the tax base of
the rest of the community will be impacted because of the need
to purchase additional tankers to haul water to residences.
Furthermore, another building will have to be
constructed/acquired in order to house the additional equipment.
Thereby, HB 202 would increase the cost of residential
construction in the City of Seward and would increase the tax
rate to everyone living in the area. He noted that the
committee packet should include a letter from the manager and
mayor of the City of Seward, both of whom also oppose HB 202.
He highlighted that the letter relates the view that HB 202 is
an infraction on the City of Seward's rights as a home rule city
and doesn't listen to the residents of Seward.
9:27:23 AM
PAUL MICHELSOHN, Homebuilder, Anchorage Homebuilders
Association, Alaska State Homebuilders Association, National
Association of Homebuilders, informed the committee that he has
served on the following code related organizations: the
International Code Council (ICC), the Fire and Life Safety
Committee, and the International Residential Code (IRC) Building
and Energy Committee. He related that he currently sits and has
sat on the Building Board for the Municipality of Anchorage,
which deciphers and approves codes in the Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA), for 17 years and has been chairman three times.
He further related that he sits on the NHBCCS Committee, which
is an oversight and review committee that watches how codes are
introduced and challenges codes at the ICC level. He noted that
he has sat on the aforementioned committee for about 14 years.
Mr. Michelsohn pointed out that in the MOA there is a process,
albeit a flawed process or one that's not exercised. In
Anchorage, the 2009 edition of the IRC is being worked on. The
aforementioned addition is the code that included the fire
sprinkler requirement in the body of the code rather than the
appendix of the code. The process in Anchorage is one in which
the building official, an appointed official, elects a committee
to review the codes and makes suggestions regarding amendments,
deletions, and additions to the building official. The building
official, referred to as an authority of jurisdiction (AOJ), has
the final say. Mr. Michelsohn noted that the AOJ doesn't
necessarily have to be a building official. From the AOJ, the
[code] goes to the building board in Anchorage for review. He
noted that in the many years he has served, he didn't recall the
code ever failing at that level. The code is then forwarded to
the city attorney at which point the code is publicized once for
a meeting of the assembly. At the six MOA Assembly meetings on
the code, he related that he has never seen a public individual
testify. The system doesn't have the public input necessary for
this [proposed fire sprinkler] code. Therefore, this
legislation has been introduced, he opined, because the
[proposed fire sprinkler] code is the single most [significant]
code change ever introduced that will have a monetary impact on
the consumer. Mr. Michelsohn highlighted that the legislation
says that "this requirement is only necessary if a jurisdiction
mandates all new construction". If a jurisdiction believes it's
necessary to protect a historic building or region, the
jurisdiction can negotiate with the builder regarding the
possibility of utilizing a sprinkler system. He opined that
this battle has been going on for many years. The builders of
the state want to be more proactive and thus are requesting the
legislature's support for HB 202.
9:32:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if some jurisdictions have already
passed codes requiring all new buildings have sprinkler systems,
or is the desire to preemptively address jurisdictions of the
possibility that jurisdictions might pass such codes.
MR. MICHELSOHN answered that no Alaska jurisdictions have
adopted the code [requiring all new buildings have sprinkler
systems], although Anchorage is reviewing the 2009 code that
includes the fire sprinkler requirement. He related that the
building official and fire marshall of Ketchikan tried to slip
in this mandatory fire sprinkler requirement for all buildings,
and it remains up for question whether they will try to
introduce the aforementioned requirement. In further response
to Representative Gardner, Mr. Michelsohn explained that the IRC
code book addresses one- and two-family dwellings while
triplexes and above are addressed by the International Building
Code. He further explained that all jurisdictions that adopt
the ICC edition of the IRC are faced with amending or adopting
the code in its entirety. He related that several jurisdictions
and states have banned [the proposed mandatory fire sprinkler
system requirement].
9:36:41 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced his intent to move HB 202 from
committee next week.
9:36:53 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ, drawing from her experience on the Juneau
Assembly, related her understanding that IBC changes come up
regularly and are reviewed by local individuals every three
years. The changes, she related, are complex and in many cases
have substantial financial impacts.
9:37:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if Mr. Michelsohn is familiar with
studies that show the effectiveness of sprinkler systems and the
level of benefit they provide.
MR. MICHELSOHN informed the committee that the National
Association of Homebuilders disagrees with the statistics that
have been presented [regarding the effectiveness of sprinkler
systems] as they don't believe they're as accurate as they've
been portrayed. In response to Representative Keller, Mr.
Michelsohn said that he would make himself available at the next
hearing on HB 202. He noted that he isn't paid to testify.
9:39:53 AM
JEFF TUCKER, President, Alaska Fire Chiefs Association, related
the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association's opposition to CSHB 202,
Version R. He told the committee that there has already been
testimony in opposition on the companion legislation, CSSB 129,
from the cities of Kenai, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Seward,
Sitka and the Fairbanks North Star and Mat-Su Boroughs as well
as resolutions from the Alaska Municipal League and the Kodiak
Island Borough supporting the ability of Alaska communities to
adopt code and ordinances at a local level. Mr. Tucker
emphasized that the state doesn't place these extraordinary
burdens required by Version R on communities for any other
ordinance adoption process. Therefore, he questioned why the
state feels such is necessary when a community is trying to
determine how best to provide life safety services to its
residents. He opined that there are already robust procedures
in place when municipalities adopt building codes. These
procedures involve community members, building officials,
contractors, fire officials, homeowners, architects, engineers,
and others who can best determine the needs of the local
community. He referred to a document entitled "Municipal Code
Adoption Processes", which took the comparison between CSSB 129,
proposed in the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee,
and added the minimum ordinance adoption requirements per AS
29.25.020. The comparison illustrates the importance local
communities place on the code adoption process and the extra
steps that are already in place for the appointment of standing
committees, multiple public hearings, and a review process that
may last from several months to over two years prior to code
adoption. Mr. Tucker opined that the aforementioned process
already provides a transparent process that allows involvement
from members of the community. Additionally, he opined that
there is no state need met by requiring local communities to add
requirements and expense to their existing process. "No other
ordinance adoption process has a requirement mandated by the
state to do a cost benefit analysis," he highlighted. Although
the cost of a residential sprinkler system, which has been
estimated to be $3,000, has been cited as the reason HB 202 is
necessary, he pointed out that in Alaska there are already many
tax credits and other incentives to help offset the costs for
the installation of residential sprinklers. In fact, under AS
29.45.030 2 percent of the assessed value of the structure is
exempt from taxation if the structure contains a fire protection
system. Therefore, for a $250,000 home, $5,000 of the value of
the home is exempt from taxation for as long as the property
owners own the home. He then informed the committee that on
January 27, 2010, Kevin Temple, owner of Interior Appraisals,
gave a presentation to the Interior Alaska Homebuilders
Association regarding appraisers. The presentation spoke about
the credit appraisers were giving to residential sprinkler
systems in Alaska. In fact, he related that he recently
performed an appraisal of an approximately 1,400 square foot
home with a residential fire sprinkler system for which he gave
a $3,000 credit. Mr. Tucker then related the following from the
Alaska Division of Insurance: "The three largest insurers in
the State of Alaska: State Farm, AllState, and USAA, all gave
credit for residential sprinklers ranging from 8 to 10 percent
for full coverage systems and State Farm and USAA gave from 5 to
8 percent for a partial system." In conclusion, Mr. Tucker
opined:
If the sponsors of this legislation are truly
interested in achieving their stated goal of
protecting the homeowners from the cost of
installation of residential fire sprinklers, we should
be here discussing legislation on how we could do more
to place incentives in place and offset even further
the cost involved in the installation of residential
sprinklers. The proponents of this legislation stated
it is needed to protect the interest of homeowners; we
feel it is the local communities who are best able to
determine the needs of residents not the state. Local
communities have working code adoption processes that
have served them and their residents well for many,
many years. CSHB 202 does not improve the local code
adoption process, it only places unfunded and
unnecessary requirements on local communities. Again,
the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association stands opposed to
the adoption of CSHB 202.
9:45:56 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON inquired as to why Anchorage isn't one of the
communities in opposition to this legislation.
MR. TUCKER clarified that when fire chiefs from the various
communities speak they are speaking on behalf of the community
in which they serve. The City of Anchorage has decided that
there is no opposition to this legislation, which is a decision
the local community can make. The aforementioned makes the
already stated point that a local community can best determine
its needs, particularly in terms of the IRC. He reiterated that
the state shouldn't mandate [fire sprinkler systems].
9:47:34 AM
DAVID OWENS, Inspector, Owens Inspection, informed the committee
that he has been a building inspector for 27 years. He then
stated his support for HB 202 as he doesn't believe it's
unreasonable to allow the public more input. He related his
understanding that the current state regulation for
municipalities is five-day notice and one hearing, which some
local jurisdictions follow. He then turned to the 2008 version
of the National Electrical Code, which was done over a holiday
period with short public notice and one public hearing. The
aforementioned caused a lot of his clients to call him regarding
their concerns about the process. In conclusion, Mr. Owens
stated his support of allowing public notice and analysis of the
costs of such a significant change [as mandating fire sprinkler
systems in one- and two-family dwellings].
9:49:45 AM
ERIC MOHRMANN, Fire Chief, Capital City Fire & Rescue, City &
Borough of Juneau, began by emphasizing that the City & Borough
of Juneau already has a robust code adoption process. The
committee that is designated to review the codes every three
years is comprised of private individuals: a civil, mechanical,
and electrical engineer, an architect, and a contractor. This
committee meets with the building official and the fire
official. In over two-and-a-half years of publicized public
meetings the code is reviewed line-by-line and recommendations
are developed. The local jurisdictions, which are deferred, are
allowed to modify the code provisions so long as they are at
least as stringent as those adopted by the State Fire Marshall's
Office. The code provisions can exceed the specifications of
the State Fire Marshall, which is why they're deferred. Over
the two-and-a-half year process, public input is taken in each
meeting and the minutes are made public. The compiled
recommendations are taken to the Public Works and Facilities
Committee (PWFC) of the Assembly. The aforementioned committee,
which is comprised of elected assembly members, listens to the
recommendations and discusses them in detail. These meetings,
he noted, are also publicized and open for public testimony and
the minutes are available to the public. After several meetings
with the PWFC, their work goes to the assembly for a minimum of
two readings. The first meeting is an introductory meeting
during which all the information is made available to the
public. The second meeting that occurs 30 days later is a
meeting that allows public testimony on the information or
discussion on particular matters. At this point, the assembly
can vote on the matter or send it back to the committee. The
aforementioned process is followed by the City & Borough of
Juneau as well as other similar jurisdictions. Therefore, he
said he was surprised to hear the earlier testimony
characterizing the Anchorage process as flawed. If that's the
case, Anchorage should fix it, he opined. Juneau's process, he
opined, works very well. Mr. Mohrmann related that Juneau
considers code provisions, fire and building code provisions,
which far exceed the cost of installation of residential
sprinkler systems. However, none of those code provisions are
scrutinized or made to stand up to a cost benefit analysis or
the three public meetings. He noted that Juneau already exceeds
the three public meetings, which is also the case with most
jurisdictions. Mr. Mohrmann said that he's not sure what a cost
benefit analysis is as it isn't specified in the legislation.
He then turned to the issue regarding whether this [proposed
code] would apply to all residents or to selected residents. He
questioned whether selectively applying the code is even legal.
In conclusion, Mr. Mohrmann related that the City & Borough of
Juneau feels that its existing process is very rigorous and
additional burdens aren't necessary to address this topic.
9:55:03 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the committee will likely address
concerns about the cost benefit analysis next week. Therefore,
he charged Mr. Mohrmann to provide any recommendations he saw
fit. He then inquired as to why Mr. Mohrmann would be opposed
to lengthening the public process if that benefits residents.
MR. MOHRMANN clarified that he isn't opposed to a full and open
public hearing process. He further clarified that the open
public hearings the City & Borough of Juneau holds as a deferred
jurisdiction far exceed what's specified in the legislation.
9:56:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if Mr. Mohrmann could provide the
list of questions he stated in his testimony.
MR. MOHRMANN agreed to do so.
9:57:30 AM
JESS HALL, Homebuilder, told the committee that he has been a
homebuilder for 35 years and has spent much time talking with
customers regarding costs and safety features. He then recalled
building a home for a young couple in the Mat-Su Valley.
Originally, he built the couple a small starter home, but after
having kids he built them a larger home. After discussing with
the couple, of which the husband was a firefighter, what
features they desired in the home, the couple said they wanted
to install a sprinkler system. However, the couple decided not
to install the sprinkler system but rather do other upgrades.
Later the bid for the sprinkler system came in at $6,000-$8,000.
Mr. Hall said due to all other code requirements he would tend
to agree with this firefighter who didn't feel the need to
install sprinklers in his home. However, he pointed out that
outside of Palmer, there is no building code and thus residents
can build whatever and not meet the safety codes. He reviewed a
recent change for safety that didn't add that much cost to the
homeowner and contrasted that to the costly mandate of fire
sprinklers that may also require the installation of pressure
tanks because the home uses a well. He opined that the people
who build homes need to decide if they want fire sprinklers.
Furthermore, there are other systems, such as misters, that are
lower cost than fire sprinkler systems. In conclusion, Mr. Hall
opined that HB 202 makes sense.
10:02:40 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that Representative Keller is
considering an amendment to the cost benefit analysis provision
of HB 202. He reiterated his intent to move HB 202 from
committee next week.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS HB 202 version R (same as CSSB 129 M).PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 SB 129 |
| CS SB129 - AFCA Letter.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 SB 129 |
| HB 202 LTRS of Support I.PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Plumbers Union LTR against.PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 - AFCA Comments on Side by Side Comparison.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 - Municipal Code Adoption Processes.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 - Summary of Adoption Process.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 Letters Against.PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| CS HB 202 (version R) Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB202-DPS-FLS-03-08-10.pdf |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |
| HB 202 - ISO RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER FACT SHEET B.doc |
HCRA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 202 |