Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/05/2018 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB323 | |
| SB64 | |
| Presentation: State Residential Building Codes | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 323 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 279 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 280 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 5, 2018
3:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sam Kito, Chair
Representative Adam Wool, Vice Chair
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Chris Birch
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Bryce Edgmon (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 323
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Pharmacy;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act adopting the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act;
relating to environmental real property covenants and notices of
activity and use limitation at contaminated sites to ensure the
protection of human health, safety, and welfare, and the
environment; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS SB 64(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION: STATE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODES
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 278
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Certified
Real Estate Appraisers; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 279
"An Act extending the termination date of the Real Estate
Commission; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 280
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Marital
and Family Therapy; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 323
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND: BOARD OF PHARMACY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SULLIVAN-LEONARD
02/02/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/18 (H) L&C, FIN
02/05/18 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: SB 64
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM ENVIROMENTAL COVENANTS ACT
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE
02/17/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/17 (S) CRA, L&C
02/28/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/28/17 (S) Heard & Held
02/28/17 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/07/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/07/17 (S) Moved SB 64 Out of Committee
03/07/17 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/08/17 (S) CRA RPT 2DP 2NR
03/08/17 (S) DP: BISHOP, HOFFMAN
03/08/17 (S) NR: MACKINNON, STEDMAN
03/14/17 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/14/17 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/16/17 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/16/17 (S) Moved SB 64 Out of Committee
03/16/17 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/20/17 (S) L&C RPT 1DP 3NR
03/20/17 (S) NR: COSTELLO, HUGHES, GARDNER
03/20/17 (S) DP: STEVENS
03/27/17 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/27/17 (S) VERSION: SB 64
03/29/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/17 (H) CRA, L&C
04/11/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/11/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/11/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/13/17 (H) CRA RPT 4DP 1NR
04/13/17 (H) DP: WESTLAKE, TALERICO, FANSLER, PARISH
04/13/17 (H) NR: RAUSCHER
04/13/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/13/17 (H) Moved SB 64 Out of Committee
04/13/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/17/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/17/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/17 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/05/18 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE COLLEEN SULLIVAN-LEONARD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 323 as prime sponsor.
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Legislative Agencies and Offices
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented audit findings and
recommendations and answered questions during the discussion of
HB 323.
LEIF HOLM, Chair
Board of Pharmacy
Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing
(DCBPL)
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
(DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 323.
RICHARD HOLT, Vice Chair
Board of Pharmacy
Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing
(DCBPL)
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
(DCCED)
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 323.
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 64 as prime sponsor.
KRISTEN RYAN, Director
Spill Prevention and Response
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
64.
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 64.
JIM DUNLAP, President
Alaska State Home Building Association (ASHBA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced the presentation on State
Residential Building Codes.
JESS HALL, Vice President
Alaska State Home Building Association (ASHBA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented State Residential Building Codes.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:15:47 PM
CHAIR SAM KITO called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:15 p.m. Representatives
Josephson, Wool, Birch, Knopp, Sullivan-Leonard, and Kito were
present at the call to order. Representative Stutes arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 323-EXTEND: BOARD OF PHARMACY
[Contains discussion of SB 37]
[Contains discussion of HB 9]
3:16:58 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 323, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Board of Pharmacy; and providing for an effective date."
3:17:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COLLEEN SULLIVAN-LEONARD, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 323 as prime sponsor. She paraphrased
the sponsor statement, which reads as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
House Bill 323 extends the termination date for the
Board of Pharmacy to June 30, 2022. Pursuant to
A.S.?08.03.010( c)(16), this Board is scheduled to
sunset on June 30th, 2018 if the legislature does not
pass legislation extending it.
Legislative Audit reviewed the Board's operations and
determined that it is in the best interest of the
state to extend this Board considering recent
statutory changes that expand the Board's
responsibilities in relation to the controlled
substance prescription database. Therefore,
recommendation is made to extend this Board for 4
years or through June 30, 2022.
The Board of Pharmacy is composed of 7 members; 5
licensed pharmacists actively engaged in the practice
of pharmacy in the State for a period of 3 years
immediately preceding their appointments and 2 members
of the public.
The Board also regulates admission into the practice
of pharmacy, establishes and enforces compliance with
professional standards and adopts regulations. It
also establishes and maintains a controlled substance
prescription database and establishes standards for
the independent administration by a pharmacist of
vaccines, related emergency medications and opioid
overdose drugs.
The Board also oversees licensing for pharmacists,
pharmacy interns, pharmacy technicians, pharmacies,
wholesale drug distributors located inside the state,
licenses drug rooms located inside institutional
facilities and also registers pharmacies located
outside of the State if a pharmacy ships, mails or
delivers prescription drugs to consumers of that
state.
These regulations control various aspects of the
field, including but not limited to controlling and
regulating the practice of pharmacy in Alaska.
A.S.?08.80.005 mandates that effective control and
regulation is necessary to promote, preserve and
protect the public's health, safety and
welfare.
3:21:08 PM
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Legislative Agencies and Offices, reported August 2017 sunset
audit findings related to HB 323. She stated the board was
licensing effectively and was conducting its meetings in
accordance with the laws. She underlined the board was also
amending regulations to improve the industry. She informed the
board had 3,747 active licenses in March 2017 for a 33 percent
increase in licensees since the previous audit in 2009. The
board had a surplus of just over [$]275 thousand and management
within DCBPL had communicated that it would be performing a fee
analysis at the end of 2017. She explained the division
recommended only a 4-year extension in recognition of recent
statutory changes that expand the board's responsibilities in
relation to the controlled substance prescription database
(CSPD).
MS. CURTIS described the 2008 bill [Senate Bill 196]
establishing the database. She paraphrased the audit document,
entitled "A Sunset Review of the Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development, Board of Pharmacy (board)"
[included in committee packet], which reads as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
The statute requires each dispenser submit to the
board, by electronic means, information regarding each
prescription dispensed for a controlled substance. The
database electronically collects information from in-
state and out-of-state pharmacies as well as other
dispensers of controlled substance prescriptions.
The database allows pharmacists and practitioners to
review prescription history prior to prescribing or
dispensing a controlled substance. The database is
also to be used to:
• monitor prescribing practices and patterns of
prescribing or dispensing;
• identify practitioners who prescribe controlled
substances in an unprofessional or unlawful
manner;
• identify individuals who may be abusing
controlled substances; and
• identify individuals who present forgeries or
otherwise false or altered prescriptions to a
pharmacy.
3:23:40 PM
MS. CURTIS identified that there were many problems with the
2008 statute, including that it did not provide the ability to
identify all dispensers that must submit information so DCBPL
staff could not monitor completeness or identify which specific
dispensers were not submitting the required information. She
added that regulations required monthly reporting of
information; however, monthly reporting was not effective for
monitoring prescription practices.
MS. CURTIS presented that the second issue with the 2008
legislation was that there was no requirement that a dispenser
or practitioner check the database prior to dispensing,
prescribing, or administering medication. She added that
according to DCBPL staff, information in the database was not
analyzed by the board and forwarded to practitioners or
pharmacists because the Department of Law advised that the law
did not allow the agency or board to provide unsolicited
reports.
MS. CURTIS described how the law had been changed so that
currently pharmacists who dispense and practitioners who
prescribe, administer, or dispense controlled substances are
required to register with the database and the board must notify
the applicable occupational boards when practitioners register
with the database, thereby allowing a check for completeness and
the ability to identify noncompliance. She underlined failure
to register is grounds for disciplinary action and dispensers
are required to report weekly and this requirement was
subsequently changed to report daily.
MS. CURTIS stated that access to the database was expanded to
include dispensers, dispenser delegates, and other persons or
entities with a valid business need and the board was authorized
to provide unsolicited notification to a pharmacist or
practitioner if a patient has received one or more prescriptions
for controlled substances inconsistent with generally recognized
standards of safe practice. She added unsolicited reports may
also be issued to a practitioner's licensing board and new
performance measures must be reported to the legislature
annually including measures regarding the impact of the
database. She stated dispensers and practitioners are now
required to check the database prior to dispensing, prescribing,
or administering medication, with specific exclusions.
MS. CURTIS said the audit states that with the changes, the
board was empowered to serve the public interest; however, DCBPL
does not believe this board should be proactively analyzing the
database as it is not traditionally the role of an occupational
board. She added that DCCED had stated additional resources
would be needed if the legislature intends for the board to
analyze the data.
3:26:30 PM
MS. CURTIS presented the two recommendations. She said the
first recommendation was that DCBPL's chief investigator should
work with the director to improve the timeliness of
investigations, and the second was that DCBPL's director should
improve procedures to ensure required licensure documentation is
appropriately obtained and retained.
MS. CURTIS informed the Office of the Governor agreed with the
4-year extension but had not commented on the database concerns;
the department agreed with both recommendations and had
indicated it had implemented new procedures to ensure timeliness
of investigations and did state that additional resources would
be required; and the board chair had agreed with both
recommendations.
3:29:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked when the previous audit had been
carried out.
MS. CURTIS answered the previous audit had been carried out in
2009. She pointed to a timeline in the audit document. She
added there are new reporting requirements on the status of the
database.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP surmised it would be four years before the
next report on the database.
MS. CURTIS answered it would probably be in 2021.
3:30:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH remarked pharmacies do not have a way to be
compensated for their expertise and said he thought that in
other places pharmacies could be paid for some level of medical
support services. He asked whether it would be appropriate to
solicit the board for recommendations for advancement of the
pharmacy profession.
MS. CURTIS answered the type of audit was unique in that the 11
criteria used were set out in statute. She added unless there
are specific complaints heard at a board meeting or news
article, other issues would not be addressed in the audit.
3:33:53 PM
LEIF HOLM, Chair, Board of Pharmacy, Division of Corporations,
Business and Professional Licensing (DCBPL), Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), testified
in support of HB 323. He testified the board concurred with the
4-year board extension as it was understood that the board's
duties were expanding further.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he supported the bill proposal but had
concerns regarding pharmacists receiving compensation for their
expertise. He asked where the board chairman would turn to
remedy the situation for pharmacists in the state.
MR. HOLM answered it was a complicated question and underlined
the board tries to stay away from matters of financial interest.
He emphasized he does not speak as a board member when speaking
to PBMs and auditing practices. He said he knows there is an
active push for pharmacies to get provider status at the federal
level to receive payment for their services. He stated the
interest of the board is patient safety.
3:37:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP spoke to the board's database
responsibilities and asked how the board could maintain the
database with no part- or full-time employees.
MR. HOLM answered it had not been working well, and the board
has not had the time or manpower. He added the board had been
actively pursuing a bill to license out-of-state wholesalers in
the state and had attached an executive administrator position
but had not been able to get the bill passed. He added that
with Senate Bill 74, the board was allowed to hire an
administrator for the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program
(PDMP) as well as a board assistant, but he surmised that the
position would be solely focused on the PDMP.
3:39:10 PM
CHAIR KITO spoke to concerns about implementing the PDMP and
asked for Mr. Holm's thoughts regarding how the legislature
could assist the board.
MR. HOLM testified that since the board hired someone to work on
the PDMP progress was being made.
3:41:05 PM
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 323.
3:41:18 PM
RICHARD HOLT, Vice Chair, Board of Pharmacy, Division of
Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing (DCBPL),
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
(DCCED), testified in support of HB 323. He said he concurred
with what Mr. Holm had stated in his testimony regarding the
legislative audit. He mentioned other legislation would aid the
board in its duties, such as SB 37 and HB 9.
CHAIR KITO held over HB 323.
SB 64-UNIFORM ENVIROMENTAL COVENANTS ACT
3:43:02 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 64, "An Act adopting the Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act; relating to environmental real property covenants
and notices of activity and use limitation at contaminated sites
to ensure the protection of human health, safety, and welfare,
and the environment; and providing for an effective date."
3:43:05 PM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB
64 as prime sponsor. He paraphrased the sponsor statement,
which reads as follows [original punctuation provided]:
A primary interest of this office is to streamline and
remove obstacles that inhibit business, commerce or
the transfer of property without reducing expectations
for public health, safety and a healthy environment.
SB 64 achieves that.
In 2003, the Uniform Law Commissioners created a
Uniform Environmental Covenants Act to overcome
inadequate common law rules. An environmental covenant
allows for the sale of property with use limitations
to mitigate risk. Alaska is one of only seven states
that does not have an environmental covenant law.
SB 64 protects the buyer and seller of contaminated
property while allowing the fullest and best use of
the property until the contamination reaches safe
levels. The bill creates a legal mechanism to safely
transfer contaminated property through an
environmental covenant.
SENATOR MICCICHE gave an example of a family in his
district who had struggled with the issue for 20 years. He
mentioned the historic case of Love Canal in New York
State. He continued to read from the sponsor statement,
which reads as follows [original punctuation provided]:
A covenant provides transparency throughout the life
of the property and provides assurances to buyers and
sellers that risks will be safely managed. Other
states have found that covenants help communities
transform blighted property into marketable assets.
A simple process for amending or removing covenants is
included in the legislation. A covenant would not
supplant or impose current contamination removal
standards, which will continue to be managed as they
are currently. The act would not affect the liability
of the principally-responsible parties, but would
provide a method for minimizing exposure to third
parties.
3:46:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON quoted the covenants "would exist until
the contamination reaches safe levels" and asked whether
remediation would continue through the duration of the covenant
or would be discontinued.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered it depends on the contamination. The
proposed bill would allow property to be transferred while
highlighting that contamination exists and would allow for
amending and removing covenants when there is no longer
contamination on the site.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said Senator Micciche had indicated the
covenant was voluntary and read from page 4, lines 8 through 11
of SB 64, as follows:
(c) In addition to other conditions for the
department's approval of an environmental covenant,
the department may require a specified person who has
an interest in the real property that is the subject
of the environmental covenant to sign the
environmental covenant.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSPEHSON asked, "What if they won't, and they
have an interest in the real property?"
3:48:48 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE deferred to Kristen Ryan from the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) for an answer.
CHAIR KITO announced the department would be brought forward for
invited testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON mentioned Love Canal and he said it
struck him that would be an example of public notice of harm
being caused. He said there was a lot of notice at the time,
but he did not see a lot of notice for the next-door neighbor.
He asked whether the sponsor was amenable to adding that to the
proposed bill.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered he was looking for the best outcome
for Alaskans and would be amenable to improvements.
3:50:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referenced the site in Soldotna, Alaska,
and asked whether "a little bit of contamination is a
prohibition to sell any or all" of a property.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that currently the landowners can use
institutional controls through DEC because there is knowledge of
contamination on that site, but the law does not currently allow
for the protection of the buyer and the seller. He stated that
currently a scenario in which a buyer is unaware of
contamination on a site is possible, whereas the proposed bill
would prevent that.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether there was anything in SB 64
that would require the environmental covenant to "go away" once
the land is deemed to be clean.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered the proposed bill would not change how
the DEC does business but would help future buyers to know about
contaminated property before purchase.
3:53:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked about the sale of commercial and
industrial sites such as those on the North Slope in the event
of a costly clean-up.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered it had been considered and the only
opposition to the proposed bill was from the federal government
which happens to control 51 percent of the active contaminated
sites in Alaska. The proposed bill would allow the state to put
land use restrictions on federal property.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked what would happen to a depleted field
during the transfer with regard to the clean-up responsibility.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that would be part of an agreement
between buyer and seller and added the proposed bill would not
displace responsibility. He mentioned the Soldotna, Alaska,
land and stated the clean-up would be something the owners could
not afford, but he opined it was a great location for a resort
and the cost of clean-up would be a minor proportion of the
planned investment for the entire site. He said clean-up could
be part of a side agreement in the sale.
3:57:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referenced language in the bill
stating, "The department may maintain a registry that contains
all environmental covenants." He said he assumed the covenant
would run with the deed, but he thought a website containing
information on those properties could be required.
SENATOR MICCICHE deferred to Kristen Ryan, Division Director.
3:58:14 PM
KRISTEN RYAN, Director, Spill Prevention and Response,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), gave a brief
overview of the proposed bill. She described the process of
managing contaminated sites. She gave the example of a site
which was currently a Subway restaurant, but which previously
had been a gas station. When the gas station was removed, the
gas had leaked, and the contamination was deemed to be safe with
institutional controls, meaning the information was entered into
a database containing the restrictions placed on the property.
She said the buyer was not aware of the contamination as they
were unaware of the existence of the database and the
information was not included in the deed, which created a larger
problem of spreading contamination. She gave examples of
situations in which the department would allow contamination to
stay on properties with institutional controls. She stated any
neighbors would have to be informed of contaminated areas;
however, the department did not have a mandate. She remarked
the legislation had been proposed over 10 years previously for
the transfer of industrial properties with potential
contamination.
4:03:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked about the industrial application and
where the responsibilities lie for a depleted site.
MS. RYAN answered currently industrial sites on the North Slope
have a lease agreement which states the land will be returned to
its original state as part of the lease arrangement with
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether, if a seller could not afford
to remediate the contamination but a buyer could, the
responsibility would transfer.
MS. RYAN answered SB 64 would not change the current legal
process, and the person who caused the contamination is
responsible.
4:06:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated his concern that the proposed
bill would stop the current process for remediation and would
simply ease the transfer of property, with notice of
contamination, from one person to another. He said he thought
regulators would "just throw in the towel."
4:07:28 PM
MS. RYAN answered the proposed bill would not change the current
environmental regulation paradigm, just provide a thorough
communication tool for future owners.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked for an explanation of the "Notice
of activity and use limitation." [page 9, line 25, of SB 64].
He said it links itself to the environment response project
which is part of Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) but "allows the owner to
move from one to the other."
MS. RYAN answered the entire section is to accommodate the
federal government. She added the state is not allowed to put a
covenant on federal property. She indicated over the years
states have inherited a lot of contaminated federal land and
some had developed the specific tool of putting a notice of use
restriction, which is the equivalent of a covenant, on federal
property. She added native corporations in particular have
inherited a lot of contaminated federal lands through trades and
that language is important to ensure communication of
contamination was clear.
4:10:51 PM
CHAIR KITO asked Ms. Ryan to speak to the letters received from
the Department of Defense (DoD) and whether DoD is comfortable
with the language assuaging their concerns.
MS. RYAN answered it had been an ongoing conversation with DoD
and they are uncomfortable with the state giving the federal
government restrictions. She stated DoD was compliant with
similar language in the state of Colorado. She added DoD was
nervous about the state having enforcement authority on federal
property, but they do recognize the need for it.
4:12:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked about the current monetary threshold
for a Superfund site.
MS. RYAN answered that getting a site listed as a Superfund site
is a process, and there is no dollar amount restriction. She
added there were only two listed in state history and it is not
something the state feels is a good process as it has negative
connotations. She stated the state has robust contaminated site
lands regulations, so historically the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has let the state take lead on those sites. She
remarked the problem with getting a site listed is that it takes
the state out of the driver's seat and puts EPA in it. She
underlined that a Superfund listing would still require the
state to contribute financially.
4:14:46 PM
CHAIR KITO said he thought it would require an Act of Congress
to list a Superfund site.
4:15:06 PM
CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on SB 64. Upon ascertaining
there was no one available to testify, he closed public
testimony.
4:15:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the chair would consider
an amendment.
CHAIR KITO replied an amendment could be offered.
4:16:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved Amendment 1, adding language as
follows:
"Public Comment. Before the commissioner signs an
environmental covenant, the department shall provide
an opportunity for public comment on the environmental
covenant."
SENATOR MICCICHE asked for the page and line in which
Representative Josephson thought the language would be
appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered Legislative Legal and Research
Services recommended page 3, following line 4, and said he
thought the amendment would become new section 46.04.303.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered the covenant would be a property
owner's voluntary decision on whether to place a covenant on
their own property and he was not sure of the value of placing a
requirement of public comment on the decision.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON replied that the bill says that
registry is optionally required at the department's discretion.
He said that in Anchorage he gets public notice for buildings or
widened sidewalks being built around his home. He mentioned
that those whom he had invited to comment on the proposed bill,
such as Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), had expressed
concerns with notice and had recommended ecology law journals
such as Ecology Law Quarterly and a Boston College article.
4:19:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON read from "The Uniform Environmental
Covenants ActAn Environmental Justice Perspective," Andrea
Ruiz-Esquide, Ecology Law Quarterly, Volume 31, page 1025, 2004
edition, which read as follows:
Early, ongoing, and meaningful public participation is
the hallmark of sound public policy and decision
making. The community most directly impacted by a
problem or project is inherently qualified to
participate in the decision-making process.
Mechanisms must be established to ensure their full
participation, including training and support for
community groups, technical assistance grants,
community advisory groups, and others.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said it struck him that "these are
significant covenants that interrupt the normal common law" and
he thought notice is reasonable.
4:20:44 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE pointed out page 5 of SB64, starting at line 8,
and read from Section 46.04.315, which reads as follows:
Notice of environmental covenant. (a) A copy of the
environmental covenant shall be provided by the
persons and in the manner required by the department
to
(1) each person that signed the environmental
covenant;
(2) each person holding a recorded interest in
the real property subject to the environmental
covenant;
(3) each person in possession of the real
property subject to the environmental covenant;
(4) each municipality or other unit of local
government in which real property subject to the
environmental covenant is located; and
(5) any other person the department requires.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he wondered if "may" should be changed to
"shall" and "be included in the database," to meet
Representative Josephson's objective.
4:22:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated he thought Senator Micciche was
referring to page 11, line 29, in the section entitled,
"Registry." He deferred to the director for confirmation that
the proposed language would make some improvement.
MS. RYAN answered the department had every intent to maintain
that database and underlined the database was well used by
everyone in the state who was researching contamination, so the
department had no issue with changing it into a mandate. She
remarked the other changes that Representative Josephson was
recommending were more problematic. She said she believed the
material Representative Josephson was reading pertained to
Superfunds and she did not know whether the proposed bill was
the right vehicle for that concern.
4:24:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON withdrew Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2,
turning "may" to "shall" on line 29 of page 11."
CHAIR KITO objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:25:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked Ms. Ryan about the effects
of the mandate.
MS. RYAN answered the department continued to maintain the
database and that what the bill corrects is that it references
that database from the deeds so an individual who doesn't know
of the database would get notified. She emphasized changing the
language to "shall" would not change how the division operates.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD surmised that Conceptual
Amendment 2 was not necessary.
MS. RYAN reiterated the mandate would not change what the
department does.
CHAIR KITO asked Jennifer Currie of the Department of Law to
speak to the Conceptual Amendment.
4:27:09 PM
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Environmental Section, Department of Law, testified there was no
change except that it requires the department to maintain the
registry.
CHAIR KITO stated at present the statute did not have
environmental covenants identified so they would not have to be
registered. He read from page 11, line 11, of SB 64 as follows:
Registry. (a) The department may maintain a registry
that contains all environmental covenants and notices
of activity and use limitation and any amendment or
termination of those instruments.
CHAIR KITO asked whether, if "may" was changed to "shall", the
department would be required to include all environmental
covenants in the database.
MS. CURRIE answered that with "shall" they are required to
include environmental covenants, and with "may" the department
can include them.
CHAIR KITO stated he saw the benefit of changing "may" into
"shall", at least as regards the environmental covenant piece.
4:29:05 PM
CHAIR KITO withdrew his objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
4:29:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to report SB 64 as amended out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS SB 64(L&C) was
moved from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
4:30:13 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:30 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.
^Presentation: State Residential Building Codes
Presentation: State Residential Building Codes
4:33:31 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the next order of business would be a
presentation entitled, "State Residential Building Codes" by Mr.
Jim Dunlap of the Alaska Home Building Association.
CHAIR KITO stated there had been a presentation the previous
year regarding state residential building codes and that he had
requested the presentation with the aim of determining whether
the committee had an interest in drafting related legislation.
4:34:31 PM
JIM DUNLAP, President, Alaska State Home Building Association
(ASHBA), said he and his association would like to introduce
legislation for a state residential building code. He turned
the presentation over to Jess Hall.
4:35:40 PM
JESS HALL, Vice President, Alaska State Home Building
Association (ASHBA), read from prepared testimony, which reads
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
We want to be transparent in our efforts to advocate
for the introduction of legislation that adopts a
state residential building code. Alaska currently
does not have a state residential code, but the state
does have a variety of building codes adopted across
multiple state agencies for different kinds of
construction.
Here's what we're asking you today: Please consider
introducing a bill this session that will establish a
state residential building code. We have had many
internal conversations amongst ourselves on what this
bill should [look] like, and we have appreciated the
chance to share those thoughts with Chairman Kito and
his office.
Now we want to expand the conversation to legislators
and the public. A bill is a good way to put something
on the table and let the discussion and the questions
begin.
We expect that there will be questions from you, from
your constituents, from municipal governments, state
agencies, and certainly industry stakeholders.
While we are not an industry that advocates for the
growth of government and more regulations, we are a
trade association that promotes best practices in
residential construction and consumer protection.
We sincerely believe a residential building code can
be adopted in a manner that improves the quality of
housing for consumers without being onerous and
creating burdensome costs.
A state residential building code will improve the
quality of construction and housing stock across the
entire state.
On January 23rd - just a couple weeks ago - AHFC
released the 2018 State Housing Assessment. It
includes a lot of good information about the need to
improve the quality of construction of housing,
especially in the way of energy efficiency and the
benefits that result.
Here is what we would like the initial bill to say:
1. We want to identify the residential code within
the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. AHFC has
been a fantastic partner with our industry for
many years, and we have [a] good working and
trusting relationship. AHFC already requires
inspections and code compliance for homes to
qualify for financing, so they are already
familiar with codes and how they can work and
benefit everyone.
2. We [do] NOT want to see enforcement measures and
penalties at this time. Alaska isn't ready for
mandatory code compliance in every village and
town. We simply want to see a code identified
that can be a uniform template for housing
construction.
3. We believe the International Residential Code, or
IRC, is the code that is most universally
understood and applicable for our industry and
for housing in Alaska.
We believe a bill with these basic items is a good way
to start the conversation.
I don't want to take more of your time, but I am happy
to try and answer questions. Please know that there
are people here in the room from our organization who
are experts in building codes, and we will be here in
the Capital all day tomorrow to talk to legislators
individually and try to answer any questions you have.
4:39:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked why the bill was being sought and to
whom it would apply. He remarked other municipalities and
organized boroughs had adopted codes.
MR. HALL mentioned Palmer was the one city with a code in the
Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Valley. He said most building in the
Mat-Su Valley did not have a code to follow, with the exception
of those financed by Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC).
He highlighted that most traditional financers such as Federal
National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation do not require building to code. He said it is a
consumer problem involving, for example, owner-builders who want
to build their own home but don't follow code. He pointed out a
person who buys the house later would assume the house was built
to code. He said he felt building should be carried out
according to a code consistent across the state and Alaska State
Homebuilding Association (ASHBA) wants a consistent code all
builders can use for safety and energy efficiency.
4:43:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said she did not understand how the code
would improve the stock or number of houses.
MR. DUNLAP answered that any building that AHFC finances follows
the International Residential Code (IRC) already and it is the
minimum code in residential construction. He reiterated that
the state of Alaska does not have a residential construction
code. He pointed out there are 14 municipalities and the
proposed code would not impact them. AHFC is financing about 95
percent of rural Alaska. He spoke to loopholes that arise when
there are variable codes, wherein workers travel around the
state and work with different codes, creating a problem in the
workmanship. He underlined the proposed law would simply create
uniform residential code requirements, adding that 37 other
states already have statewide codes.
4:46:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether a certain certification
would be required to comply with the codes.
MR. DUNLAP answered that in certain municipal areas a builder
must have a residential endorsement, but that was a separate
standard. He added AHFC requirements are already a standard for
the state and the code would simply stipulate it statewide. He
added that with the uniformity everyone in the state would learn
to build in the same way.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said she thought it did not sound like the
proposed bill would put any particular hardship on rural Alaska
where certain items are not accessible.
MR. HALL answered a lot of the housing built in the bush is
financed by AFHC and many of the housing agencies work through
AFHC, so about 90 percent of housing is built to IRC standards.
He reiterated the code would give home buyers more confidence
that the house they buy is safe.
4:48:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated his concern about putting a law into
place without enforcement or penalties.
MR. HALL answered the organization is aware of the budgetary
constraints the state is under and therefore wants to start with
a code and then address enforcement issues. He illustrated that
most places hire certified IRC inspectors but in very remote
areas it costs much more. He suggested some other technique
such as photography or video could be employed during the
building process and signed off by the inspector to bring down
costs. He said those details need to be worked out by AFHC, but
the code is the first step.
4:53:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether uncodified law would
suffice or whether IRC would be adopted for a template as a
starting point.
MR. HALL answered in the affirmative and noted enforcement
policies would be added later. He reiterated AFHC already has
the code in place, but it was not statewide. He added the
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or rural development
financing require the IRC inspection as well. He restated that
conventional financing or people who build their own house do
not have inspections.
4:54:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether different codes between city
governments would be in conflict if IRC were introduced as the
standard.
MR. DUNLAP answered that when there is an existing code,
amendments to the code are required to make it equal to or
greater than the existing code. He opined a statewide code
would be cost effective and would ensure safety for the
consumer.
CHAIR KITO asked the committee whether there was interest in
drafting a bill.
5:00:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated he would like to know more about the
mandate for city governments that have not adopted a code. He
expressed a desire for more detailed information from the
organization regarding what the legislation should contain.
5:02:41 PM
CHAIR KITO replied that without a bill before the committee the
committee was not building a record on the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated he would support a draft. He
surmised that "nothing would pass this year" but a draft would
be a building block for the next year. He said he also thought
the committee had a member who was an expert and should take
advantage of that.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP suggested whatever the committee worked on
"would die at the end of the session."
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he would like to learn more and would
like to see the housing authority put forward a proposal from
which to work, but he was not prepared to move forward as a
committee member.
CHAIR KITO commented that a draft must exist in order to move
forward.
5:05:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked whether a subcommittee
could be called to work on the issue.
CHAIR KITO answered that without a document to submit to a
subcommittee he did not see how that was possible.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD suggested the committee could
use a draft mirroring what Anchorage uses.
CHAIR KITO reiterated that he did not think an idea could be
submitted to a subcommittee without a draft.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES declared she was not opposed to a draft as
a working document and supported working on the document with
the understanding "it was very unlikely anything would happen
this year."
5:07:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved that the House Labor and Commerce
Committee authorize the chair to draft a bill establishing a
statewide residential building code.
5:07:41 PM
CHAIR KITO objected for the purpose of discussion. He clarified
that the vote on the motion did not give consent to the building
code, only to the drafting of the bill.
CHAIR KITO removed his objection. There being no further
objection, it was so ordered.
5:08:07 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:08 p.m.