Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/29/2010 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB202 | |
| HB419 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 419 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 202-RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
3:35:10 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first 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." [Before the committee was CSHB
202(CRA).]
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, Alaska State Legislature, explained
that HB 202 would provide a longer public process before a
municipality could require mandatory fire sprinklers for one- or
two-family homes. He related that HB 202 is in response to a
national movement to require fire sprinkler systems in one- and
two-family dwellings. This bill would require a more robust
public process be followed before sprinklers could be mandated
in new home construction. The CSHB 202(CRA) requires that
before a municipality could mandate sprinkler systems in all new
construction of residential buildings with one- or two-family
units it must first publish a summary of the ordinance at least
30 days prior to the first public hearing to notice the time and
place of each scheduled public hearing. Additionally, the
municipality must hold three public hearings within a 60 to 180
day period. This bill recognizes there may be instances in
Alaska in which mandating fire sprinklers for one- and two-
family dwellings is considered necessary. In those instances,
HB 202 would not prohibit the mandate of the fire sprinklers.
This bill would continue to allow elected officials in
municipalities and cities explore a mandate on fire sprinklers.
3:36:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related her understanding that this
bill would only apply to one- and two-family dwellings. She
asked whether larger dwellings are covered by other regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered that the State Fire Marshal's
regulations cover larger dwellings. In further response to
Representative T. Wilson, he responded that the decision on fire
sprinkler requirements is made by the State Fire Marshal
depending on a permit application submitted by the builder.
3:37:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed concern that the state would
mandate what is required in our own home. He understood the
need for enhanced safety, but due to the location of his home,
it is not likely that the electrical pump would work in the case
of a fire. He asked whether fire sprinklers would need to be
installed when a homeowner remodels his/her kitchen.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON replied that the decision on sprinkling
requirements for homes is a local decision. The bill would
require the necessity for a longer public process. Currently, a
municipality could hold hearings and have an accelerated process
to mandate sprinkler systems in residential homes. This bill
would extend the process to ensure that the public process is
not less than 60 days and no longer than 180 days. In working
with all the stakeholders, this timeframe was found to be
reasonable timeframe and represents a compromise from the
language in the original bill. He stated that the stakeholders
were not opposed to involving the public in the decision-making
process.
3:40:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to whether municipalities
presently have the authority to require sprinkler systems.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON responded that it depends on which
national or international code is adopted. Typically, the fire
chief would work with the respective assembly or governmental
authority, such as a borough. Thus, a municipality may have the
authority and the process may already be in place. This bill
would simply ensure that the public process is extended.
3:41:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related that large areas of Alaska fall in
unorganized boroughs. He asked whether this bill would affect
them.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered yes. For example, the City of
Bethel is a second class city and HB 202 would allow the
opportunity for a community process if Bethel chose to do so.
He said this is not likely to happen in his community since the
fire chief is satisfied with the Fire Marshal's authority to
only mandate fire sprinklers in four-plex apartments and larger.
In other areas, the local government would work with the fire
chief and could require mandated fire sprinklers.
3:42:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked how the public comment period in the
bill would apply to people who want to build homes in a region
like Lime Village or in the Yukon River area.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered that the "assembly" for
communities in the unorganized borough would the legislature.
3:43:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN restated his question. He asked how the
bill would affect people who reside in unorganized boroughs.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related that the matter would be the
legislature's responsibility.
3:44:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, in response to Representative T. Wilson,
agreed HB 202 pertains to the public comment period. In further
response, he related that this state is filled with independent
people. He explained the trend in the Lower 48 to require
residential sprinklers in single family homes. In Alaska, many
people have "pushed back" against mandated sprinklers in single
family homes. Thus, the homebuilders and fire chiefs have
crafted a compromise to allow a local decision-making process,
which provides a 60-180 day public comment period.
3:46:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related that her community of North
Pole does not have building codes. She assumed that this bill
would apply only to cities.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON agreed. He explained that many people
desire a longer process. Thus, HB 202 would give the matter a
higher presence and visibility in the community. It would allow
people who would be affected by mandated sprinkler systems to
become informed and have an opportunity to participate in the
process.
3:47:43 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML) introduced herself.
3:48:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked how HB 202 would affect people in
unorganized areas such as in Squentna, near the Yentna River,
since this bill would impose a state requirement.
MS. WASSERMAN related that the state does not mandate fire
sprinklers be installed in one- and two-family residences so
Squentna would not have a government entity mandating
installation of fire sprinklers. The bill would only mandate
the need for an extra hearing to be held when a municipality
decided to adopt a building code that requires fire sprinklers.
This bill would not affect most homeowners, she stated. She did
not believe that most municipalities will require mandated
sprinklers be installed throughout a new home during
construction. She explained some people expressed concern that
a municipality might require new homes to be equipped with fire
sprinklers throughout the home. The municipalities have
expressed an interest in having local control over the decisions
on building codes in their respective jurisdictions.
3:51:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referred to a letter in members' packets
from the Alaska State Home Building Association (ASHBA) [dated
March 25, 2010] that read, "Mandating fire sprinklers systems in
the construction of all new 1 and 2 family dwellings could raise
significant issues that most Alaskans are currently unaware of."
He asked whether any part of this bill would mandate a state
requirement for fire sprinklers.
MS. WASSERMAN answered no. In further response to
Representative Neuman, she explained that nothing in HB 202
would mandate sprinkler systems for one- and two-family
residences.
3:52:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether HB 202 is necessary.
MS. WASSERMAN related that the stakeholders agreed to the bill.
The AML's contention is that the building codes should be under
municipal authority and the state should not mandate which code
a municipality should adopt. The AML is opposed to mandates,
but is willing to allow "local control" over building codes.
She related this issue has been discussed for two years and "we
thought it was time to put it to rest."
3:53:27 PM
PAUL MICHELSOHN, Alaska State Home Building Association (ASHBA),
stated that he serves on several organizations, including the
national code review for the National Association of Home
Builders, which is the codes and standards committee. He has
participated in three code cycles for the International Code
Council (ICC), the organization that writes the codes. He
related that he has also participated in six code reviews for
the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA). He stated that HB 202 is a
compromise on 18-24 months of work. He has also worked on this
issue nationally for over ten years. The Alaska State Home
Building Association (ASHBA) believes that HB 202 provides the
key to inform the public and educate them on the cost and
problem with the installation of fire sprinklers systems for
one- and two-family dwellings, prior to any mandate. The
Municipality of Anchorage, the Alaska State Homebuilding
Association, the Alaska Association of Realtors, Inc., and
various local home builders' associations have worked on this
issue. This bill remains the number one priority of the Alaska
State Home Building Association (ASHBA). He strongly supported
the committee pass the bill out of committee without any
amendments and to bring the bill before the body for a vote.
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 202.
3:56:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referred to the sponsor statement. He
asked whether a municipality that follows the rules and holds
public meetings could mandate fire sprinkler systems on one- and
two-family residences, even if the public is opposed to them.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON stated that Representative Neuman has
identified the reason for the bill. There is the "fear" that a
government could overrun its neighbors and mandate something the
community does not want. He thinks this bill would help his
constituents since it requires a six-month opportunity to hold
discussions in the community.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his belief that a municipality
could mandate sprinklers by following the hearing rules outlined
in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related the advantage of having decisions
made by local assemblies and to provide an opportunity for
redress. He further related that he has observed politicians
being "thrown out" for decisions made contrary to the public's
wishes.
CHAIR OLSON related that he also has observed his community
"swap out" half the city council over a land-use issue. He said
he thinks the political process works and leadership tends to
follow the public input.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON agreed. Prior committee testimony
expressed concern that an aggressive bureaucracy for an assembly
could push through "anything." Everyone who testified believed
that a thorough process would educate people on the issue under
consideration. The stakeholder thought it was important to
place the requirement for an extended public process in state
statute. He restated that the testimony supported the Alaska
legislature mandate a longer process on this important issue
which will affect homeowners.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his belief that some
municipalities previously have made decisions prior to any
assembly action. He related he has personally observed
adversarial actions in local government in his district, noting
that the planning committee has the authority to adopt
regulations. He expressed concern that the planning committee
could impose these restrictions. He asked if HB 202 passed, if
it would allow communities that do not currently have a
requirement for sprinkler systems to adopt code changes to
mandate sprinkler systems for one- and two-family homes. He
expressed concern that this bill will set up a process for
imposition of sprinkler systems.
4:04:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered that a municipality could
currently adopt the code with very little input to mandate
sprinkler systems. This bill would require municipality who has
adopted a code requiring mandated sprinkler systems to go
through yet another public process and hold additional hearings.
He said, "You answered your own question. This does help my
constituents, and your friends and neighbors, and your
constituents."
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN does not understand why it is necessary to
pass the bill. He asked, "If it could already do this why are
we even here talking about this today."
4:05:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether municipalities could require
sprinkler systems without passage of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered yes. He explained that currently
a bureaucrat could recommend an assembly adopt a mandate for
sprinkler systems and an assembly may adopt the requirement for
mandated sprinkler systems through a relatively short process.
This bill would require a longer process to educate people on
the pros and cons of a mandated fire sprinkler system. He
encouraged an affirmative vote since it extends the public
process to be certain people are informed.
4:07:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related that currently a municipality
could impose sprinkler systems on one- or two-family homes.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related his understanding that this bill
would add another layer of protection for a community since it
requires the governmental body to hold a series of meetings to
inform the public.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered yes.
4:08:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES referred to page 1, line 5, to paragraph
"(62) AS 29.35.144 (sprinkler fire protection systems)." She
asked for clarification to be certain the statute citation for
the paragraph is the correct citation.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON replied that any conforming amendments are
fine.
4:09:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related he has a "libertarian streak." He
said he does not think we need to pass a new law. He hoped that
a municipality would hold the additional meeting without passage
of this bill. He stated that he did not vote for the mandatory
seatbelt law, yet he uses his seatbelts. He considered putting
sprinklers in his home, but he does not trust government and
does not see the necessity for the bill.
4:10:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT moved to report CSHB 202(CRA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 202(CRA) was
reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
4:11:04 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:11 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.