Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/18/2010 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB202 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 202-RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
8:11:22 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the only 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."
CO-CHAIR HERRON reviewed from whom the committee received
written testimony.
8:12:23 AM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Alaska Municipal League (AML), referring to a
letter from AML she submitted to the committee, summarized that
it relates that AML's issue with HB 202 is that local
municipalities should be in control of the codes they choose to
adopt or not adopt.
8:13:08 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON read a portion of the last paragraph of AML's
letter, as follows: "We appreciate attempts by some legislators
to take some of the most onerous language out of this bill, but
our first choice is to have this bill die in committee." He
then inquired as to what portion of HB 202 AML considers the
most onerous.
MS. WASSERMAN recalled that the legislation began with
[provisions specifying] that municipalities couldn't choose to
adopt a sprinkler code. Then a cost-benefit analysis was added
to the legislation as well as extra hearings. She reminded the
committee that municipalities already have an ordinance
requiring two hearings, and thus requiring an additional hearing
for sprinklers but not other codes is silly. Furthermore, the
cost-benefit analysis is an unfunded mandate for the
municipality. Moreover, she said she didn't know what's
expected for the cost-benefit analysis and thus it's difficult
to determine how much time and effort would be required.
8:14:41 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON related his understanding that AML's first
choice is for HB 202 to die. Therefore, he surmised that
deletion of the cost-benefit analysis would be AML's second
choice.
MS. WASSERMAN replied yes.
8:15:31 AM
EARL CHAMPION, Associate Broker, Coldwell Banker;, Association
of Realtors, provided the following testimony:
Several years ago, I had the honor of serving three
terms on the Juneau Assembly and over that nine-year
period our body voted to adopt the most recent
[Uniform Building Code] UBC codes and incorporate that
into our building codes. Frankly, those revisions
were adopted usually in one motion and with minimum
review by the committee or the members. That has been
used and will continue to be used by every local
governing body in Alaska as it considers this latest
revision to the UBC. But, this latest revision has a
major code change that affects every homeowner in
Alaska; that will be the requirement to require all
new construction or remodeling of single-family homes
and duplexes to have automated sprinkler systems
installed. The cost for complying to this new code
will be borne entirely by the homeowner no one else.
Initial costs are estimated to be between $10,000 and
$20,000, depending upon the home's location. In
remote areas it could get much higher. The sprinkler
system must be maintained and inspected annually by a
certified technician. Currently, there are certified
system testers only available in our major Alaskan
cities. Remote residents will face additional charges
because they'll have to fly-in and bring in
inspectors. If a homeowner fails to get an annual
inspection, his insurance will be void, he'll be in
violation of the covenants in his home mortgage and
the investor will obtain insurance and add that cost
back to him. Every local government ... is challenged
to provide affordable housing opportunities for its
residents. How does adding $20,000 or more to home
construction costs improve the affordability of a
home? If this bill is not adopted, there will become
other issues. At what point in the home remodeling
will there be a requirement to install an automated
sprinkler system throughout the home. Many homes in
Alaska are on wells, which do not have the flow
capacity to meet minimum standards for residential
sprinkler systems. This means there will be an
additional requirement to install an all-weather
outside storage tank complete with circulating pumps
to prevent freeze-up. And what about homes that are
not on an electrical grid? And the system will also
require an automated notification system, which adds
even more expense to the homeowners. I could go on
with other illustrations of this onerous burden that
will be mandated if this bill is not adopted. I ask
you to adopt it this morning; show your unanimous
support and let's do what's right for the homeowners
in the State of Alaska.
8:18:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if, during Mr. Champion's time with
the Juneau Assembly, he could recall any assembly member delving
into codes during the code adoption process.
MR. CHAMPION remarked that he doubted that any assembly members
in Juneau even read the code. The assembly members relied upon
staff to point out issues. In fact, the code was sometimes
adopted on the consent agenda and thus wasn't even discussed.
8:21:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS opined that unless an assembly member is
in the construction profession, they typically don't have any
interest or expertise in the codes unless numbers of the general
public come forward and relate displeasure with the codes.
MR. CHAMPION stated his agreement.
8:22:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS pointed out that once provisions are in
the code, it's difficult to take them out. Therefore, he
expressed the need to address problematic code provisions prior
to the adoption of the code. Although Representative Harris
related his understanding of AML's concerns regarding local
control, he emphasized that this is a large statewide issue the
costs of which the general public needs to understand.
Therefore, requiring more time for the general public to review
such changes and weigh in on them is appropriate.
8:24:52 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ recalled seeing statistics that related that the
percentage of median income families in Juneau is about 70
percent. She inquired as to what percentage of homes on the
market are accessible to those median income families.
MR. CHAMPION said that the average price of homes selling now is
slightly over $300,000. He estimated that 50-60 percent of the
[median income families in Juneau] would qualify for homes
priced slightly over $300,000.
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ related her understanding that this sprinkler
system provision would add about $20,000 to the purchase price
for a new first-time homebuyer.
MR. CHAMPION responded that at a minimum, the additional cost
for the sprinkler system would be $20,000. He reminded the
committee of the need for an alarm system with the sprinkler
systems. Although he indicated that it's anyone's guess for a
retrofit, he said it would be extremely expensive. Furthermore,
it's unclear when exactly one performing a remodel would be
required to install a sprinkler system.
8:26:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if someone is actively seeking to
encourage municipalities to mandate sprinkler systems in private
homes.
MR. CHAMPION related his understanding that the Alaska Fire
Chiefs Association and probably insurance companies would be
interested [in the adoption of this sprinkler system code].
Although he said he hasn't had anyone personally lobby him
regarding this topic, it must have been included in the UBC with
support from some sectors. He related his belief that the
firefighters and inspectors throughout the country are
supportive of the sprinkler system code requirement.
8:29:14 AM
PHILLIP OATES, Manager, City of Seward, related opposition to HB
202. He further related that the City of Seward's position is
consistent with that of AML. This legislation, he opined, will
infringe on the City of Seward's authority as a home rule city.
Mr. Oates said that the City of Seward tries to find the best
fire protection and balance it with cost and other
considerations. This legislation would make the [code adoption]
process more difficult. He noted that Seward's city council
holds extensive work sessions regarding the building and fire
codes during which they're considered in great detail prior to
adopting them. Mr. Oates said that the city isn't mandating
anything, rather it's trying to maintain the authority at the
local level to do what's best for all customers.
8:30:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remarked that Mr. Oates' written
testimony raises a host of questions for her. She then
disagreed with the statement in Mr. Oates' written testimony
that says HB 202 limits the ability of the municipality to
consider different fire protection options. The legislation, on
the other hand, establishes some requirements regarding how an
area considers fire protection options.
MR. OATES said that perhaps it would be better said that HB 202
places unnecessary boundaries on the [code adoption] process.
8:31:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER then directed attention to the statement
in Mr. Oates' written testimony that relates HB 202 will drive
up costs for fire protection in Seward because it would be
necessary to acquire a vehicle capable of transporting water
supplies. She asked if the aforementioned means that the fire
department wouldn't transport water to a call from a home with a
sprinkler system.
MR. OATES noted that Seward has mutual aid agreements with other
fire departments on which it can call. However, there is a
limitation in capacity within the city, and thus when one puts
in an application for the construction of a building, the
available water sources and other means of fighting fires are
considered. Mr. Oates expressed the need for flexibility to
consider all available means for protection. In further
response to Representative Gardner, Mr. Oates confirmed that the
fire department does bring water on a fire call. However, HB
202 would mean that less water is necessary in all instances.
If the city doesn't have the ability to make decisions to
provide adequate fire protection, the city would need a fuller
suite of fire protection capacities.
8:32:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER directed attention to the statement in
Mr. Oates' written testimony that relates the City of Seward has
used sprinkler requirements as a way to reduce costs to the
developer. If the developer is required to install sprinklers,
the cost of which is added to the cost of the buyer of the
property, wouldn't it be a wash for the developer, she asked.
MR. OATES responded that it's difficult to answer. However, he
pointed out that the city may have to have a local water source
for those homes without a water source. Again, as a home rule
city, the City of Seward wants to maintain the freedom to adopt
the codes and administrative processes it views as best for the
residents of Seward.
8:34:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if Mr. Oates' believes HB 202 is
that onerous to municipalities and cities that it takes away its
home rule authority.
MR. OATES commented that adding administrative requirements to
an already cumbersome administrative process is something [the
cities and municipalities] would resist. Mr. Oates agreed with
Ms. Wasserman's comment that the cost-benefit analysis should be
deleted and that the city would like to maintain the freedom to
make decisions at the local level.
8:35:32 AM
WALLY SMITH, President, Alaska State Homebuilding Association,
began by emphasizing that the Alaska State Homebuilding
Association doesn't oppose the use of sprinkler systems in one-
and two-family homes. He then reminded the committee that HB
202 only extends the public notice period and requires more open
scrutiny prior to a community mandating residential fire
sprinklers in one- and two-family homes. The legislation, in no
way, takes away any control from local governments to establish
their own standards. Mr. Smith related that he spoke with local
appraisers and bankers regarding how much [credit] would be
received for sprinklers, to which he was told very little
[credit] would be given. If the appraisers don't place much
value on the system, the bankers won't include that in the loan.
Consequently, the homeowner would have to pay for the [fire
sprinkler system].
8:38:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if Mr. Smith spoke with insurance
companies regarding the impact of [requiring fire sprinkler
systems] on homeowners.
MR. SMITH replied yes. He mentioned that he is a member of the
Interior Alaska Building Association, which has been working
very closely with the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association to get them
on the same side of the table as builders and homeowners with
regard to the problems mentioned regarding appraisers and
bankers. With regard to his interaction with insurance agents,
Mr. Smith related that he received mixed results ranging from
possible insurance premium reductions to discussions regarding
water mitigation from sprinklers.
8:40:17 AM
DALE BAGLEY related that he is a member of a local builders
association and the owner of a real estate company. Mr. Bagley
opined that now isn't the time to make construction of a new
house more expensive. Furthermore, he didn't want the
residential fire sprinkler system movement to cause existing
homes to be retrofitted. He said he didn't believe insurance
rates would decrease because accidental discharge could cause
damage to the home. In fact, a private school in the area has
had many issues with retrofitting a required sprinkler system.
He reviewed the commercial retrofit and the problems with the
situation, including the need to put glycol in the pipes in the
attic in order to prebent freezing. If one sprinkler goes off,
all the glycol, $15,000 worth, will drain. These issues are
similar to what residential homeowners would face with fire
sprinklers. Furthermore, sprinkler systems require a
pressurized tank and annual inspections. He identified it as
one more issue during a closing that will require inspection.
From a real estate and building perspective, Mr. Bagley opposed
HB 202. Drawing from his experience as a former mayor, assembly
member, council member, and current city council member, he
related that he has seen many issues pass without involvement of
the industry. Therefore, the more public hearings and
information that's provided for the public the better.
8:43:43 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the intent of the co-chairs is to
take action on HB 202 at this meeting.
8:44:01 AM
JEFF FEID, Loss Mitigation Administrator, State Farm, related
State Farm's opposition to HB 202. He then highlighted that
development of the international codes is truly a consensus
process in which homebuilders are present when the codes are
developed through the International Code Council (ICC). He
related that he was the chairman of the International
Residential Code (IRC) Committee that deliberated over the issue
of fire sprinklers when it was being considered for
incorporation into the code. There was also a homebuilder
representative from Alaska as well as many experts from around
the country and Canada who were involved in the [code adoption
process], including researchers, scientists, homebuilders, code
officials, and insurers. Upon the conclusion of the
deliberations, the consensus was to include fire sprinklers in
the 2009 edition of the residential code. Therefore, the
hearing process already includes a lot of deliberation. To
establish another road block for additional hearings isn't
appropriate.
MR. FEID informed the committee that Scottsdale, Arizona, has
had a fire sprinkler ordinance for over 20 years. In the first
15 years of their sprinkler ordinance, no one died in a home
with sprinklers. During the same timeframe, 13 people died in
homes without sprinklers. Furthermore, less damage was realized
in homes with fire sprinkler systems. The average fire loss in
a sprinkler home incident was $2,166 whereas fires in homes
without sprinklers resulted in $45,000 in damage, which he
characterized as a significant difference. Moreover, the amount
of water used to stop a fire in a home with fire sprinklers was
significantly less than in a home without fire sprinklers. In
Scottsdale, the cost to install sprinklers in a home is about
$.80 per square foot. A national study by the National Fire
Protection Research Foundation found the national average cost
for installing sprinkler systems to be $1.61.
8:47:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT remarked that although she appreciates
the information from Arizona, she questioned how many people in
Arizona utilize a well or experience 90-days of freezing
weather. She informed the committee that some residents of the
Anchorage Hillside utilize well and septic systems, and
therefore the cost to install a fire sprinkler system and a
bladder to keep water from freezing is more expensive than in
Arizona. She asked if Mr. Feid could use a location that's more
akin to Alaska's climate.
MR. FEID explained that he used Scottsdale, Arizona, as an
example because it has had the sprinkler ordinance in place for
some time, and therefore provides enough data. He maintained
that installing a sprinkler system with a tank and a small pump
in a single-family home is doable. Mr. Feid related that State
Farm offers a discount for sprinklers.
8:48:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the amount of discount
given to the homeowner with a sprinkler system.
MR. FEID responded that State Farm offers a 5 percent discount
for a partial sprinkler system and a 10 percent discount for a
full sprinkler system. The discount is off the base premium.
In further response, Mr. Feid said that there are too many
variables to specify the premium of a particular home.
8:49:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if State Farm insures the sprinkler
system if the pipes freeze, explode, and create water damage
throughout the home due to a frozen pipe, frozen system, or
malfunction that's due to temperature or water pressure, or
fluctuation in electrical current. She further asked whether
the system would be replaced and the homeowner would continue to
be insured.
MR. FEID confirmed that accidental discharge of water is a
covered peril. He mentioned that the committee packet may
include a letter from Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO)
regarding how it handles accidental water damage. Accidental
water damage from a sprinkler system is handled in a fashion
similar to accidental water damage from a plumbing system.
8:50:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed the need to have information
regarding how sprinkler systems work in rural areas with severe
climates.
MR. FEID related that there's a similar study from Prince
George's County, Maryland. However, he noted that the
aforementioned area is more urban than rural.
8:52:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS noted his appreciation of Mr. Feid's
testimony. He likened the situation with sprinklers to that of
health care in which Congress is charged with listening to the
concerns of the public. He acknowledged that the insurance
industry and the fire departments have valid concerns. However,
he opined that [the committee] is cautiously guarding against
the heavy arm of government without good due process. This
requirement will add costs to new home construction. He further
opined that the legislation provides the public with the
opportunity to express their concerns to elected officials and
gain a better understanding. If the aforementioned is denied,
the public is angered.
MR. FEID reminded the committee of other large building code
requirements that cost as much, if not more than sprinkler
systems, such as reinforcement for wind, snow load, and seismic.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS interjected that in Alaska water isn't
that easy.
8:57:39 AM
JIM BYRON, President, Southern Southeast Alaska Building
Industry Association; Member, Alaska State Home Building
Association, related support for HB 202 as it simply extends the
public process in order to make it more aware. The cost-benefit
analysis, he opined, is the most important part of HB 202 and
shouldn't be deleted. Such an analysis is important in terms of
knowing the cost, particularly in rural areas. He recalled
installing a residential fire sprinkler system that cost in
excess of $25,000. He recalled that the committee heard
testimony from a fire chief from Ketchikan, however, he was not
speaking on behalf of the City of Ketchikan.
8:59:52 AM
KEVIN CROSS, Director & Treasurer, Anchorage Board of Realtors;
Liaison, Alaska Board of Realtors, began by informing the
committee that prior to entering the real estate industry he had
spent 14 years in the fire protection industry. He noted that
he has three engineering degrees in fire protection systems as
well as a National Institute for Certification in Engineering
Technologies (NICET) II in water-based hydraulics and sprinklers
as well as low voltage supervisory alarm sprinkler systems, and
chemical fire protection systems. As a contractor, homeowner,
and realtor, Mr. Cross opined that the sprinkler code should be
approached cautiously and thus is why he supports HB 202.
Drawing from his experience as a cost estimator for projects, he
related that for those on a public water system in the Anchorage
or Mat-Su Valley area to install a sprinkler system costs about
$4 square foot. However, he noted that it varies depending upon
the architecture. The largest problem is that houses aren't
designed with a sprinkler system in mind. He related that the
mandate for sprinkler systems arose from high density housing in
Phoenix, Arizona, and California. Alaska, however, is much
colder and thus there are more freeze ups of sprinkler systems
in Alaska, particularly in residential systems. He pointed out
that since most attics in Alaska aren't heated, a glycol system
has to be utilized and maintained. He further related that
homeowners who utilize a well or septic system and live on a
road system should expect a cost of about $7 a square foot.
Those in rural Alaska should expect a cost of about $10-$12 per
square foot to install a sprinkler system. He attributed the
additional costs to the need to install a tank and a pump, hire
an electrician to wire the pump, and install and maintain an
alarm system. Furthermore, there will likely be annual
inspection costs of $250-$500. Drawing upon his experience, he
related that the maintenance record for sprinkler systems is
highly scrutinized prior to paying out for water damage.
Therefore, Mr. Cross opined that public input is very important.
9:03:49 AM
DAVID HULL, Fire Chief, North Tongass Volunteer Fire Department,
related his opposition to HB 202. He opined that the local
communities have a good system to determine what is best for the
local communities. The requirements in HB 202 place additional
burdens on the communities; there is no good reason to single
out one issue for this process. Mr. Hull said that the state
shouldn't hinder a community's ability to make decisions.
9:04:59 AM
ANDY RAUWOLF, Member, Southeast Alaska Building Industry
Association; Member, Board of Directors, National Association of
Homebuilders (NAHM), informed the committee that NAHB was very
involved with the code process on a national level and was
adamantly opposed to the entire process throughout. Mr. Rauwolf
contended that [mandating sprinkler systems] is an undue burden
to homeowners. Smoke alarms that are functioning and working in
homes are 97 percent effective in saving lives. If the issue is
about saving lives over property, then smoke alarms are the
direction to go and wired-in functioning fire alarm systems that
can't be disarmed should be mandatory in every home. He opined
that the loss of life in new construction is minimal because the
building codes address fire issues when a home is constructed.
There is already a fair amount of fire protection built into new
homes, including fire caulking, fire walls, 20-minute fire
doors, and 1-hour fire doors. Mr. Rauwolf characterized this
[sprinkler system mandate] as more of a property loss issue than
a life saving issue. He, too, opined that Alaska is
significantly different than Scottsdale, Arizona. With regard
to the State Farm underwriter's comments, Mr. Rauwolf related
his understanding from the State Farm underwriter in Ketchikan
that [installation of sprinkler systems] would definitely raise
the cost of homeowner's insurance because of the potential water
damage issues. He noted that last year there were six failures
of sprinkler systems that weren't related to fires. In
conclusion, Mr. Rauwolf reiterated that [mandatory sprinkler
systems] is more directed toward property loss than life saving
issues. This is a significant issue that shouldn't be rammed
down the public's throat without the public having additional
time to listen to all the facts.
9:10:15 AM
GARY HALE, Fire Marshall, Central Emergency Services, related
opposition to HB 202. He characterized the legislation as an
unwanted limitation and adopting process that is being placed on
local officials. There are already public hearings [on codes]
that can address this type of business. Mr. Hale informed the
committee that he has been in the fire service business for 35
years. He opined that the problem is that smoke detectors
aren't making the cut, and therefore an alternative [fire
suppressor] must be utilized. He noted that the City of
Soldotna will soon adopt the 2009 IRC, but eliminating the
sprinkler mandate because of opposition from the public and the
homebuilder's association. Mr. Hale told the committee of the
eight-year-old Habitat for Humanity house that has never had a
false alarm. He described the system, noting that it doesn't
utilize glycol. Mr. Hale opined that the sprinkler systems can
work, but additional lives won't be saved if more mandates are
made.
9:13:17 AM
DOUG SCHRAGE, Immediate Past President, Alaska Fire Chiefs
Association, stated that although much of the debate has been
about the merits of sprinkler systems, the legislation is about
the process. The Alaska Fire Chiefs Association has no
objection to more open public process or opportunities for
input. However, the concern is that most fire departments lack
the resources and expertise to perform a credible cost-benefit
analysis that would stand up to a well-funded anti-sprinkler
system media campaign. For example, it seems impossible to
quantify the value of the lives saved or lost. Mr. Schrage
opined that had similar requirements been made when the
automobile industry installed air bags and seat belts into
vehicles, he wasn't sure those measures would've ever been
taken. The [Alaska Fire Chiefs Association] knows of no
specific initiative in Alaska to mandate sprinklers. Alaska has
among the highest per capita fire fatality rates in the nation.
Most of the fatalities occur in residences and 25 percent of the
deaths are children. These fatalities occur with the existing
smoke alarm requirements.
9:15:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA, referring to the death statistics, asked
if the statistics specify the location, whether it was in rural
or urban Alaska.
MR. SCHRAGE said that although he didn't have the specific
statistics, he would say the deaths are distributed according to
the population. Therefore, Anchorage, with the highest
population in the state, would have the highest amount of fire
fatalities. In further response, Mr. Schrage said he isn't
certain the state collects information regarding whether the
burned house was a new or old home. However, he highlighted
that if communities were to adopt the residential code, which
includes the sprinkler mandate, it would only apply to new
construction.
9:18:12 AM
JIM HILL, Fire Chief, City of Ketchikan, stated that the issue
isn't about [the merits of] sprinklers, rather it's the state
dictating to cities how to run programs. Mr. Hill then related
opposition to HB 202. He cautioned members to obtain
confirmation regarding the information that has been offered
regarding deaths from fires. For instance, with regard to the
statistic that smoke alarms are 97 percent effective, the
National Fire Protection Association relates that 37 percent of
people who die in home fires die in structures with working and
operational smoke detectors. For the benefits of sprinklers,
Mr. Hill referred members to the following web site:
www.sitnews.us.
9:20:38 AM
ART CLARK, Immediate Past President, Alaska Association of
Realtors, related support for HB 202. Drawing upon the
testimony he has heard at four hearings on this subject, Mr.
Clark opined that the depth of information and the complexity of
it indicates the need for more process. There is good
information on both sides of this matter, and the public needs a
full and complete hearing when making a decision on sprinklers.
9:21:38 AM
MIKE TILLY, Fire Chief, City of Kenai, related opposition to HB
202. He then echoed Mr. Schrage's testimony in that HB 202 is
about the process not sprinklers, which statistics have proven
work. This legislation extends the process the community must
follow and increases the amount of money that the community will
have to expend to even consider adopting the proposed code. He
acknowledged that HB 202 may not fit in rural areas, and pointed
out that the residential [building] code doesn't apply in those
areas. The [residential building code] only applies to deferred
home rule communities, such as Kenai. In communities such as
Kenai there is a process in place regarding the consideration of
ordinances and that process works.
9:23:36 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
9:24:43 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ moved to adopt CSHB 202, Version 26-LS0776\R,
Cook, 3/9/10, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected.
9:25:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved Conceptual Amendment 1, which would
remove all the language referring to a "cost-benefit analysis".
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected.
9:26:07 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON surmised that the cost-benefit analysis language
to which Conceptual Amendment 1 refers is located on page 2,
lines 6-8, and lines 12-13.
9:27:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the language "prepare a cost-
benefit analysis" in Version R provides room for the hearing
officers in each of the communities to decide whether it applies
in each situation.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER reminded the committee of the testimony
from AML regarding that it doesn't understand how detailed the
cost-benefit analysis has to be. The lack of understanding, she
opined, opens the door for much argument regarding what is
meant. She further opined that it's good governance to specify
what's the benefit and cost of [ordinances], which already
happens. She questioned the meaning of the language ["cost-
benefit analysis"] and stated her belief that it's not necessary
to tell local governments. The provision is undefined enough
that it could be problematic.
9:29:19 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ related her agreement that the language is broad
enough that it leaves it open to interpretation. However, she
recalled testimony questioning how one would perform a cost-
benefit analysis of a person's life. Therefore, she suggested
that perhaps the language could simply refer to a "cost
analysis" rather than a "cost-benefit analysis."
9:30:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that he objected because he
doesn't view this as a dictate to local officials but rather as
a protection of the right of Alaskans to make the cost-benefit
analysis of their family. Representative Keller referred to HB
202 as transparent legislation, including the cost of the house.
To eliminate the cost-benefit analysis presumes a lot, he
opined.
9:31:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS expressed concern in regard to the lack of
definition of the terms of "cost-benefit analysis." He said he
doesn't have a problem mandating more exposure for the public,
in terms of the ability to debate the matter. However, the
cost-benefit analysis seems to create a situation in which the
big hand of government is dictating to the smaller governments,
which creates a cost. The open-endedness is of concern in terms
of cost, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER remarked that Representative Harris makes
really good points. He specified that he had no problem
deleting the term "benefit" and tying the "cost" to the house,
which is a simple and inexpensive number to obtain.
9:35:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that the question of cost will
arise during the three public hearings required in paragraph
(3), even without the cost-benefit analysis requirement.
Therefore, she said she's not opposed to [Conceptual Amendment
1] and even to Representative Keller's amendment that only
deletes the "benefit" language. She noted her agreement with
Representative Harris regarding the open-endedness of the term
"cost-benefit analysis" and the possible expense of it to the
municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said that he takes issue with the
assumption that the issue will arise during the public hearing
process. He opined that it's not necessarily true that the cost
of the zoning or code of the local community would be clear in
the process. Therefore, he reiterated that he is open to
eliminating the "benefit" language of the cost-benefit analysis,
but maintained that there needs to be some statement regarding
the impact on the cost of the house.
9:37:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER emphasized that she expects her local
assembly to perform a cost-benefit analysis on whatever it does,
but she remains concerned with the unfunded mandate and the
potential lawsuit regarding the type of cost-benefit analysis to
be performed.
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ called for the question.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER maintained his objection.
9:38:44 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna, Gardner,
Harris, and Millett voted in favor of the adoption of Conceptual
Amendment 1. Representatives Keller, Herron, and Munoz voted
against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted by a
vote of 4-3.
9:39:28 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ related that she still supports the idea of a
"cost analysis."
CO-CHAIR HERRON expressed his desire to have a new committee
substitute (CS) prepared in order to avoid any ambiguity. He
then requested that Co-Chair Munoz prepare an amendment to the
new CS in order to address the [removal of the "benefit"
language].
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER interjected that it would merely require
[reinserting the language deleted by Conceptual Amendment 1]
without the word "benefit".
9:40:44 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ suggested an amendment, which would reinsert the
language deleted in Conceptual Amendment 1 without the word
"benefit" but include the language "of sprinkler systems".
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her understanding that "cost-
benefit analysis" is a term of art and thus is well known.
However, a "cost analysis" might not be as well known and would
require a bit more care in building an amendment. This would be
a situation in which input from Legislative Legal Services would
be helpful.
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ disagreed and opined that the term "cost-benefit
analysis" is more open to interpretation while requiring a "cost
analysis of sprinkler systems" could review the impact of
sprinklers per square foot. She related that the term "cost-
benefit analysis" reviews a wide range of issues, including
health and safety and other issues that aren't defined in this
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA announced that she would obtain analysis
from Legislative Legal Services if, in fact, Co-Chair Munoz's
amendment is adopted.
9:43:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS explained that he objected to Co-Chair
Munoz's suggested amendment, but supported Conceptual Amendment
1 because he believes when the governing bodies review the
building codes, the cost will be one of the major factors of the
decision. He said he couldn't believe the cost wouldn't be
brought forward by any assembly member or member of the general
public. He emphasized that the following two issues are being
addressed: the cost of installing sprinklers in a new home and
the potential of extending the requirement to include existing
homes and then there is the safety issue. He opined that folks
will weigh the safety benefits against the cost of installing it
in a new home. He then questioned whether installing a
sprinkler systems is relevant to do in all areas of the state.
There are rural areas, that is areas on wells, in urban areas of
the state, he pointed out.
9:46:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that those who aren't present
are those who already own a home or who don't anticipate owning
a home. He questioned why he would advocate against an
ordinance that would protect lives, but as a homeowner he would
want to be able to make the choice regarding whether to install
sprinklers. Therefore, he opined that the [cost analysis] is
important to include in the legislation because there are
individuals who wouldn't typically be present to advocate when
ordinances are being considered.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he didn't see any reason to clutter
the legislation with things that shouldn't be included. He
reiterated that it seems obvious and straightforward that people
will want to [know the cost], particularly since it will
increase the value of the home and thus increase the property
tax.
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ pointed out that if a cost analysis is required,
then it becomes part of the record before the governing body
when determining whether to include [the sprinkler system
requirement] in the building code. She opined that it's
appropriate to have information available equally to all members
as the matter is considered.
9:50:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS highlighted that cost per square foot is
variable on many factors.
9:51:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT pointed out that on page 2, line 5 the
term "shall" is used in reference to preparing a cost-benefit
analysis. The aforementioned is a mandate. She echoed earlier
mentioned concerns regarding the lack of specificity regarding
the cost-benefit analysis. She also was sure that property
taxes will increase if the term "shall" remains.
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ related her belief as follows: "That part has
been removed." Therefore, the committee needs to determine
whether to have just an analysis of the sprinkler system rather
than a full-blown cost-benefit analysis.
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that a hearing would be scheduled for
Tuesday in order for the committee to take action on an amended
CS for HB 202.
9:52:35 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ moved to adopt Amendment 2, such that all the
language on page 2, lines 6-8, and lines 12-13 is reinserted and
the term "cost-benefit analysis" is replaced with "cost analysis
of sprinkler systems".
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected.
9:53:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that the term "shall" is in the
existing language and remains so, even with the adoption of
Amendment 2.
9:54:13 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
9:54:56 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON noted his agreement with Representative Keller.
9:55:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT related her understanding then that the
adoption of Amendment 2 would result in the following. First,
on page 2, lines 6-8, the language would read as follows:
"prepare a cost analysis of the proposed ordinance as it may
apply to the residential buildings to which the proposed
ordinance or ordinance amendment will apply to sprinkler
systems". Second, on page 2, lines 12-13, the language would
read as follows: "a summary of the ordinance or ordinance
amendment and a cost analysis of the sprinkler systems".
9:56:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if there's a difference between the
sprinkler system in the box versus the installation of the
sprinkler system.
9:56:33 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ pointed out that the language says "apply to
residential buildings" and thus it would refer to the sprinkler
system as it's applied to residential construction.
9:56:44 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ withdrew Amendment 2 and announced that she would
work on language to satisfy the intent of the committee.
[HB 202 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|